Must Breeders Dominate Everything?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

How about we put the matter in stark terms?

It's certainly offensive for a straight person to hear themselves referred to as a breeder as much as it is for a gay man to be called a C********R.

Both terms can be- and often are used- in a reductionistic way. That said, there is the matter of 'gay-speak' which only those who are in the club are allowed to speak. The same sort of thing happens when blacks refer to themselves as N*****S. But in this latter case, the word is used to refer to someone of one's own race, not the another race.

To feel alone, separate and apart- to be pushed out of one's family, church or home.....may give rise to the frustration which brings about such language. And while I cannot speak for Revtj, I DO understand why he might have titled this thread with the word in question. It calles to mind distinct, and different, world's of experience.

Is the use of the word nonviolent? Is it funny- as some have endeavored to point out? The answer's are no and yes. My sense is that the matter revolves around who is saying what to whom and under what circumstances.

Awareness may be the key here. And of course, self-awareness may be the hardest thing of all. Sometimes we do not mean to offend, but do so anyway.

Does that make us bad or wrong? I say no. It just makes us human.

Good analysis, Daniel.

I bolded part of your text that leads to a point that has not yet been made on the forum, which I discussed earlier in PM with another forumite. Despite the fact that the term in question (the B word) is reductionist and is offensive and can hurt, it nevertheless does not possess the historical millenia of systematic and even violent socio-political oppression and cruelty that anti-gay terms carry. I think this fact is the crux of Keltic's point. Its use can express anything from exclusivity, to anger, to hurt, to (helpless) rage (distinct from oppressor rage), to weariness at heternormative status quo, and probably more I haven't thought of. It does not and cannot contain all the layers of psycho-socio-emotional-political daggers that certain anti-gay epithets bring with them.

Now, you can think of it as therefore mild (which it is by relative contrast to anti-gay terms) and funny as you have a right to do. But others of us have a right to our feelings of hurt and rejection if it is used in a way that we feel hurtful. It comes down to all of us having a right to own our feelings about what is said to us or around us. I know that for me, hearing the term in certain contexts, especially the scenario Antony described, could make me feel like maybe I'm not all that welcome, which is not a feeling I want to have in the community that I most love and want to be part of.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

H

And if anything, I heard in his words a cry of pain.

In whose words?? (TJ? Nate?? Andy???)

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

The epithet, "breeder", did hurt - but just a little. I'm just too insensitive and thick-skinned for more than that. But, thanks for the compliments - I'm blushing. No, really, I am.

It's just a description of your behavior. You have been staunchly loving and your life embodies justice.




It would take much stronger names than that to really get my dander up. (PM me and I'll tell you what some of those might be.)

Andy

I certainly do not want to know!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

In whose words?? (TJ? Nate?? Andy???)

I have the habit of editing myself....

And did so by inserting Revtj.

[tdogg]

When I first heard the 'b' word, I tossed it around in my brain a little bit, used it a couple times in conversation with another gay person to label straights in general (no one I personally knew). Fun, right? Well, no. The fact that I'm blessed with so very many straight friends and family who are compassionate, supportive and loving to me, coupled with being a pretty nice person generally (most of the time), just didn't make using that word feel very good. Actually, it felt stupid and hollow.

So, used it twice, gave it up. It doesn't do much to me emotionally when I hear it and I kinda get why people might use terms like that. But it isn't worth trying to be cool using a term like that when it just might not sit too right with those who we love and love us back. On the other hand, it certainly doesn't hurt to grow a little tough skin in this world.

A term I hate??? "Friend" As in my stepmom saying "your friend is not welcome in my house." Besides being my 'best friend' she's also my 'lover' but of course, as usual, I opt to be considerate of my stepmom and let her know 'she' isn't going to come to her house unless she's invited. Used that way, the term friend really pisses me off!

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Good analysis, Daniel.

I bolded part of your text that leads to a point that has not yet been made on the forum, which I discussed earlier in PM with another forumite. Despite the fact that the term in question (the B word) is reductionist and is offensive and can hurt, it nevertheless does not possess the historical millenia of systematic and even violent socio-political oppression and cruelty that anti-gay terms carry. I think this fact is the crux of Keltic's point. Its use can express anything from exclusivity, to anger, to hurt, to (helpless) rage (distinct from oppressor rage), to weariness at heternormative status quo, and probably more I haven't thought of. It does not and cannot contain all the layers of psycho-socio-emotional-political daggers that certain anti-gay epithets bring with them.

Now, you can think of it as therefore mild (which it is by relative contrast to anti-gay terms) and funny as you have a right to do. But others of us have a right to our feelings of hurt and rejection if it is used in a way that we feel hurtful. It comes down to all of us having a right to own our feelings about what is said to us or around us. I know that for me, hearing the term in certain contexts, especially the scenario Antony described, could make me feel like maybe I'm not all that welcome, which is not a feeling I want to have in the community that I most love and want to be part of.

Do I think that the word is entirely in the spirit of this website? Nope. Have I used it? Yes. I don't like it as a slur for straight people, even, though; even as an offensive word I find it lacking. That said, you touched on the history of the word, and I think that the history of the anti-gay slurs that most bothers me is the history of physical violence. If a word from a friend is offensive, you should say something, because friends don't want to offend you (not REALLY). From a stranger, though, "breeder" does not carry with it the same threat of impending physical violence as "dyke" or "fag".
I'm not a proponent of the word, especially here of all places, but I do have limits on my sympathy for those offended by it (which isn't to say my sympathy is nonexistent).

:-/
::flies off on broom::

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I'm not a proponent of the word, especially here of all places, but I do have limits on my sympathy for those offended by it (which isn't to say my sympathy is nonexistent).

And this, I think, puts the issue of the use of "breeder" in perfect perspective.

I, as a straight person, felt some hurt - but not much. That might warrant some sympathy, but not much.

In the whole scope of things, the use of this word isn't of too much significance - especially when taking into account the depth of the frustration being communicated in the good Rev's initial post.

Might I respectfully suggest that we "zoom out" a little, and focus on Rev's post overall, and the exasperation with conforming to dominant cultural norms that precipitated it in the first place?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Might I respectfully suggest that we "zoom out" a little, and focus on Rev's post overall, and the exasperation with conforming to dominant cultural norms that precipitated it in the first place?

Revtj was addressing an action by Soulforce and his frustration with its message and organization. One thing to do is to disucss the merits of the case.

I already posted that I think inclusion (that is not only familes) should be represented in such an action. While 'familes with children' can and should be part of the message, single gay folk should not be excluded or sidelined. I believe this sends the wrong message in the long run (ie win the battle lose the war).

And there is something else: I hear in Revtj's post that his concerns to Soulforce were/are being ignored (at least on the local level if not the natiional office). If that is the case, I'd like to hear some clarification from someone in the office about it. Considering the 'heat' generated in this thread, I expect that clarification to be (unfortunately) defensive in tone. But hey- we're all adults- let's deal with it.

This sounds like a matter of communication. And as we all know, problems arise when communication is inadequate or interruppted.

So- what's the deal? What really going on?

[Vanessa White]

I first of all, agree with Daniel that I think TJ feels frustrated, that he views a certain expectation to be gay raising children to feel valued. I don't feel that way about those in the community raising children, and even though I acknowledge that is his feelings, that has not been my general experience among my friends who are actively choosing not to raise/have children. However, as a lesbian in a partnership raising children, I felt really good about the Soulforce action directed at churches, and having families with children as the spokespeople for that said action. I never really thought about the fact that some here, and in the general community, would feel excluded by that focus. And, I agree, that Soulforce on an administrative level should acknowledge that in some way, I would think.

However, it brings a question to my mind: does our message always have to be all inclusive? I mean, our focus was/is pretty specific when we conduct the Equality Rides, the riders are by and large in their teens and twenties, the focus is college campuses; couldn't that be perceived as excluding some "older" members of the LGBT community to participate? I don't necessarily know that to be true, but it is a question that I considered. I mean, I feel envious of the riders and wish I were 20 years younger to participate. But isn't it possible for our message to be effective, however varied it is, without it being divisive at the same time? On a real basic level, we cannot afford to let any action create divisiveness within our own community.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Alecto

Do I think that the word is entirely in the spirit of this website? Nope. Have I used it? Yes. I don't like it as a slur for straight people, even, though; even as an offensive word I find it lacking. That said, you touched on the history of the word, and I think that the history of the anti-gay slurs that most bothers me is the history of physical violence. If a word from a friend is offensive, you should say something, because friends don't want to offend you (not REALLY). From a stranger, though, "breeder" does not carry with it the same threat of impending physical violence as "dyke" or "fag".

:

I nearly said exactly this in the post above that you quoted. That is precisely what bothers me most about those epithets. Energetically, connotatively, they call upon a history of gruesome violence. The words keep the spirit of that violence alive.

[Zerbie]

When I first saw this project referenced in the general emails from SF, I did not see any indication that only parents were permitted to be involved. I remember looking over it to consider if it was something DH and I might be interested in doing as a couple, but discarded it because of the bad timing, since we were supposed to be in Europe then. Did it change to become a parents-only event?

I think that SF actions are best made to be as inclusive as they can. This reminds me of discussions we had regarding 7 Straight Nights and whether or not LGBT folks would be involved in it and in what capacity (I think we all wound up leaving it entirely up to individuals what capacity of involvement they chose, rather than set "rules," and I think that's as it should be.) I did not get the impression from the newsletter I saw that couples would be excluded from the action.

[Vanessa White]

Zerb: What I understood about the action is that they are taking families with children to meet with the churches, families that have been chosen ahead of time. If the action goes beyond that in scope, I don't understand that to be the case, but I could be reading it wrong.

[tdogg]

I don't feel that every action has to be all inclusive of everyone. It seems as though SF initiates actions to target a specific group, and so uses people fitting into that specific group to reach out to their peers. It could be that SF feels the objective of that particular action is best met in that way. I can understand that. I also see that there are ways for others who might not fit into that particular 'group' to be involved, behind the scenes. Example, for the 7SN where straight couples and college-aged adults were encouraged to be actively involved, there were opportunities for those of us not fitting into those two groups to also be involved, albeit behind the scenes.

At first I did feel excluded in the 7SN action. I wanted to be actively involved and was a little disappointed that I was unable to do that. But then I thought about all the other actions I could get myself involved in, and for various reasons mainly choose not to, so I can't really hold the organization initiating the action responsible for my disappointment when there are other opportunities I do not choose to take. And, it appears that 7SN for the most part met its objectives so the action plan obviously worked. I'm not experienced at organizing large-scale actions, so choose to leave how the action is organized and planned with those who have the knowledge and experience.

That said, I totally understand the frustration of being a 'childless' and at times 'single childless' individual in this world of 'families'. I get tired of those with children getting the consideration at work (and everywhere else). Why does my life count less than someone who opted to get someone pregnant or give birth? Why is my life considered less busy, less of a priority and less worthy? Believe me, I'm just as busy as someone with a child and mate. And, I'm just as important as someone who has opted to procreate. I get the frustration.

My opinion - we are all family. Whether or not we have a partner, have children, have parents. Most of us are family with someone. Even when I was single, I had family issues to deal with. A house, a yard, personal responsibilities, pets. Having no child didn't make me an less significant than the next person.

[NathanATX]

You know what... I'm sometimes guilty of using negative stereotypical words about groups of people I don't like. It's especially easy to do that when you know you're in like-minded company. It's venting.

But that little voice goes off in my head... how would you feel if you were the "fundamentalist" or the "breeder" or the "homophobe" being talked about this way.

Would you feel comfortable "venting" this way in front of the person you're complaining about?

Sometimes the answer is no.

And sometimes I still "vent."




"I'm not saying that I have this all together, that I have it made. But I am well on my way, reaching out for Christ, who has so wondrously reached out for me. Friends, don't get me wrong: By no means do I count myself an expert in all of this, but I've got my eye on the goal, where God is beckoning us onward—to Jesus. I'm off and running, and I'm not turning back." -Philippians 3:12-14 - The Message

[Jamie McDaniel]

For seven years I worked as a single gay man in an engineering firm of about 25. I was out to my co-workers the last 3-4 of those years. Except for one or two, my co-workers were all conservative types. There was no racial diversity and there was only one female engineer during the entire span, and she once complained of sexual harassment to the parent company. I had entered the position during my Southern Baptist years, and really it was because my friend from Sunday School (the president's brother-in-law) worked as an intern there and I had the super-closeted-hots for him. At the time, I think I would have taken less pay to work there and be around him.

Anyhow, after I came out, my work as an activist was known. But one time when sitting around the conference table with my boss and the company president, the discussion centered on employee vacation time. My boss pointed to the calendar and said something like, "Smith definitely needs to be off this week because he's taking his family on vacation and we need to make sure we have someone covering for him. We all know how vacation is important to families." Anyhow, as a single person, it felt like the balance had just tipped a bit, so I chimed in with, "Vacation is equally important to single people and I think we need to be mindful of that." That apparently triggered something because my boss responded with, "You know you're going to have to stop with this discrimination thing." We kind of awkwardly chuckled it off, but my tolerance for their good-ol-boy ways was growing thin (and cutie-pie had since left, so there wasn't that anymore to keep me around).

Anyways, now that I am not single, I hope I never lose touch with that feeling I felt back then sitting around that conference table.

I'm not directly on the American Family Outing planning team, but as the web person for Soulforce, I'll be assisting them. I am sure they would appreciate you initiating this conversation, rev tj. If you are raising this point now, I know people outside of Soulforce will once it really gets rolling.

The AFO action is not limited to gay and lesbian couples with children, it also includes single LGBT's along with one or more of their parents. Granted, the spotlight is on same-gender couples with children. But I think there is a need for that. In trying to think of LGBT's on network television, I don't think there is good visualization of families with children.

At the same time, though, I don't want Soulforce to ever make the same mistake that the conservative churches made in viewing the singles department as the "kindergarten" to the "first-grade" newly-wed class to "second-grade" married with children.

I will close this rambling post of mine with this. In 2003 when Soulforce was conducting the blessings of same-gender couples outside Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, Rev. Jimmy Creech may have felt the balance shift, so he reminded everyone assembled that, "Singleness is a holy state."

[revtj]

To feel alone, separate and apart- to be pushed out of one's family, church or home.....may give rise to the frustration which brings about such language. And while I cannot speak for Revtj, I DO understand why he might have titled this thread with the word in question. It calles to mind distinct, and different, world's of experience.

Precisely. Gay people using the word 'family' to exclude me is as offensive as me using the term "breeder' to dis parents.

I received a note from Jeff Lutes letting me know that an expanded definition of the signifier "family" will be in all future press releases. See, our ranting on this forum is worthwhile. And may I say again, God, how I love Soulforce! Thanks, Jeff for the work and attention.

Another issue has emerged however. I sent out a request for families to Soulforce Georgia folks and I received a note of concern from the Megafamily Project Leader here. She asks if young children might not be harmed by exposure to a potentially hostile UN-welcome at one of these churches?

On the whole I just want Soulforce to do some deeper thought and conversation before settling on national actions. I feel about this one the way I did, as a pacifist, the military action against don't ask don't tell. I respect that it is an action packed with meaning for many LGBT people and their allies and I support it, but I just can't participate because it goes against my conscience.

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.

Here I stand for I can do no other...

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by revtj

Precisely. Gay people using the word 'family' to exclude me is as offensive as me using the term "breeder' to dis parents.

I received a note from Jeff Lutes letting me know that an expanded definition of the signifier "family" will be in all future press releases. See, our ranting on this forum is worthwhile. And may I say again, God, how I love Soulforce! Thanks, Jeff for the work and attention.

Another issue has emerged however. I sent out a request for families to Soulforce Georgia folks and I received a note of concern from the Megafamily Project Leader here. She asks if young children might not be harmed by exposure to a potentially hostile UN-welcome at one of these churches?

On the whole I just want Soulforce to do some deeper thought and conversation before settling on national actions. I feel about this one the way I did, as a pacifist, the military action against don't ask don't tell. I respect that it is an action packed with meaning for many LGBT people and their allies and I support it, but I just can't participate because it goes against my conscience.

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.

Here I stand for I can do no other...

I still find myself unsatisfied with this response.

First, I'm sure that Soulforce puts lots of deep thought and conversation into National Actions...not to mention the years of experience they have.

Second, I still don't see how a particular focus for an action means that they are excluding a particular way of being not part of the action.

I'll give you an example. I'm running a site hatecrimesbill.org. I am reporting on LGBT Hate Crimes. I am doing it because this is the focus of the Right and the sticking point for the Bill. Should I be reporting on hate crimes based on disability, race, religion, gender, etc.? I'm vulnerable to criticism for sure.

Thirdly, why do you need external validation in the first place. You are valuable and nothing outside of that is needed.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

Until me and my 2 cats are as valuable to gay marketing and spin, I will continue to be offended by the term 'family' being lifted up by the machine as some kind of benchmark for worthiness.

My dear Revtj- you've asked Soulforce to do it's part in looking deeper into its motives and actions and- to its credit- it has responded. Now. If light of the above, I ask you to do the same.

Forgive me my friend, but your words above strike this reader as though you are content to sit at home with the lights out while complaining that it is dark. What gives my friend?

You don't have to answer to me, but I encourage you to ask yourself why you seem so despondent and unforgiving- isn't that what happens when one says "I will continue to be offended..."? That's like saying I'm going to keep throwing myself down that flight of stairs. Getting to the bottom is going to hurt- every time.

Yes. Life can be absolutely shitty at times. I know how that is- PM me and I'll tell you.

I encourage you to think about this being offended business. It can only lead to more and more unhappiness. And you deserve better.

My brother in Christ: was is going on in your life right now? Is it simply this issue that's got you going, or are your frustrations leaking out into it? Only you can say. But I wrap my virutal arms around you and send you much much love.

[revtj]

I meant no harm. I'm prone to strong wording and commited to comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Sure, there is a lot going on in my life right now. But this is my offering.

I do not find that Soulforce carefully analyzes all of its actions and I do not share any blind faith that they will always get it right. Dissent and listening to other voices is essential, and that is exactly what Jeff demonstrated in re-thinking the press release and the definition of family. I am proud to have contributed that to this action from my dark house of complaining!

FAMILY is not my golden calf, and it is not really a biblical ideal in the way the far right uses it. Yet I see the gay community always responding to THEIR charges and their values as if we are begging to be accepted by them. If it is neither biblical nor advancing of our equality why are we doing it?

In theory it's called assimilation and at its worst it's tap dancing and eating watermelon, letting the master make a nigger out of you for his entertainment. The era of Karl Rove has almost completely pushed progressives into this mindset and behavior. It has demanded strong language and sensible actions of which we have seen very, very little. Love me or not, I see the logic and structure of this particular Soulforce action as imitation, a pathetic attempt to flatter, not a demonstration of our right to be free and equal.

Nonetheless, I just sent a check for $100. The lights are on and I am home! I challenge you all to do the same.

What I would like to see us do is simply act in favor of [gay] life, LGBT people standing up for equality without pasting one of their buzz words on it, like "family." That's what I'm advocating for...liberation not imitation.

Please receive this message in the love of justice it is born of...

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by revtj

[SIZE="2"]
FAMILY is not my golden calf, and it is not really a biblical ideal in the way the far right uses it. Yet I see the gay community always responding to THEIR charges and their values as if we are begging to be accepted by them. If it is neither biblical nor advancing of our equality why are we doing it?

Our lives as LGBT people take on the same shapes and forms as the straight culture around us. Some of us find partners. Some of us include children. Some of us choose to be single.

The church and civil systems that support straight relationships are not extended to LGBT people.

We're simply asking for equality. I want to be able to go to church and get married. I want to be ordained. I want to go downtown Chicago and get a marriage license. I want all the protections that these systems provide like being able to visit my beloved in the hospital without questions, provide health insurance to him without being taxed for it, provide an inheritance without half of it being taxed away.

In theory it's called assimilation and at its worst it's tap dancing and eating watermelon...I see the logic and structure of this particular Soulforce action as imitation, a pathetic attempt to flatter, not a demonstration of our right to be free and equal.

Obviously I could not disagree with you more. LGBT life takes on many of the shapes and forms of our straight neighbors. We simply want equality where our life mirrors the straight culture around us.

And with all my disagreement, I do embrace your statement:

Simply act in favor of [gay] life