LOVEthroughINTELLECT said:
I don't relate to stereotypes. Period. I am not perfect, of course, so I am sure that there are times when I do subconsciously relate to a category rather than to the real person. And I am sure that there are times that I present myself as a category rather than presenting who I really am. But as much as possible I consciously avoid relating through social constructs such as "Godly man".
My closest friend falls into many sociological categories that I do not. She is older than me and therefore there is a generation difference. She is a woman while I am a man. She is married while I have never been married. She is a parent while I have never had children. Etc., etc. But you can't tell that we have those categories. We know the parts of each other that transcend socioligical categories. We know the parts of each other that defy stereotype and categorization--we know each other as the unique individuals who we are. And we relate to and as the unique individuals who we are. What a beautiful way of relating to people! More intimate relationships such as dating and marriage should not be any different.
This is something that a couple of years ago I posted on a discussion board outside of CF:
Race: Trait, Status, or Identity?
...the thread below about single African-American women has me wanting to make a few points.
Pardon me if I put on my sociologist's cap, but it is my position that we talk too much about "race" when the whole concept is questionable. It could be a
trait. It could be a
status. It could be an
identity. It could be some combination of the three. My position is that it is not a
trait. Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as race. Anthropologists have rejected race as a biological trait. Race is now considered, I believe, by most thinkers to be purely a cultural construct.
It is not a
status either. Being fair skinned may lead to certain stations in society, such as being wealthy, educated, or a citizen, but is not a status itself. Being fair skinned, or any other "color", is purely a biological trait.
Race, it seems to me, is purely an
identity. How one identifies himself is voluntary. People can, however, think of another person in terms of identities even if that person consciously rejects them. I do not think of myself as "white"; I reject that identity. But, based on my being fair skinned and my being of European descent, most people think of me as "white".
Similarly, I am by birth a citizen of the United States of America. That is a
status. But, I do not identity myself as an American. I am just a
person who happens to be a citizen of the U.S. Alas, if I were to travel to another country people would probably say "You are an American". That would be them assigning to me an
identity. They would probably be taking the liberty of assuming that I embrace that identity--and they would be doing it with very little information and, most significantly, without asking me.
To say that if I don't date any women who we call "African-American" because white men don't want anything to do with such women is hogwash. It is assuming that I consider myself to be "white" and that I consider such women to be "black". Or, it is assigning to me an identity in spite of the fact that I reject it. Or, both. In any case, it is wrong.
I have been able to interact with people who fall into many sociological categories different from me without such categories ever being given any thought. It is a beautiful thing for two or more people to be able to relate to each other without categorizing each other. It is so rewarding and fulfilling to be able to relate to everything that makes a person unique; to be able to get to know and appreciate the part of people that defies categorization.
We each have a choice. We can choose to relate to categories, or we can choose to relate to people.
And if we choose to relate to categories, I think we need to be asking people how they identify themselves before we go rushing to judgement about them or their relationships.
.
