(no subject)

[naath]

A thing I am interested in (but not, I think, very good at actually DOING ANYTHING ABOUT; I suck) is in expanding what counts as "normal" in social terms.

A lot of the opposition to ideas of expanding "normal" seem to fret that what I want is to *change* "normal" to be me, not them, and to exclude them. But I don't really want that at all - I want a bigger "normal", not a me-shaped "normal" (if everyone were just like me the world would be a boring place).

I guess expanding "normal" makes it harder for people who conform to the current normal to find like-minded people; because with the narrow normal they get to assume that everyone is "just like me" and that people who aren't will be polite about correcting them (or just let it slide). Whereas in a world where more choices are normal you have to spend more time on working out what option a person has chosen rather than just assuming they are "like me".

I'm not sure how to make it easier for people who are current "normal" to adapt to a new, wider normality that includes them but also many other people.

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

I mean, like that. But also like... say you want a nice, straight, monogamous god-fearing man who wants kids, a house, a dog, a housewife... so 50 years ago (in white middle class culture) this is "normal" so you just have to find a nice man who likes you and the rest is mostly settled.

But these days you have to carefully filter men for all those qualities as well as general nice-ness, liking-you-ness etc. Because being not-those-things is largely acceptable in general society (even if not to you-personally).

I don't really think it ever was that easy; but some people seem to feel that it was and now it isn't.