Post a response:
|
Of course, that's not what I'm doing, i.e. ignoring the criminal justice reality that confronts us by saying that "MAP" is a fairly bad formulation and response to that reality which falls far short of providing a core identity for who we are. I'm working on a piece about the MAP controversy which I will post in its own thread when I completely agree with it. It's a complex subject but, I contend, it's not best dealt with by calling ourselves "MAPs" even if there is a need for jointly confronting the legal regime with shared resources. But that's not an identity, it's a tactic in response to legal oppression, never mind that there are no such viable strategies currently in play. The vogue established by the runaway acronym of LGBTQ+ etc. in which we call all of ourselves by an acronym as if we don't exist as individual categories but as all the same thing - an acronym representing a false equivalence - I fear, will not deliver the combined strength and effectiveness we imagine, just as LGTTQ+ has driven many gays and lesbians away with their subordination to the "Queers" and the "Trans." Like it or not, conflicts of interest are a reality. It's a very difficult subject to unwind. As others have said before me "I don't know what I think until after I've written what I think." That's very much true for me, too. Writing is a good way to break a subject up into its constituent pieces and to turn them over and see where they fit. So, those are my thoughts as I continue to turn them over. |