Must Breeders Dominate Everything?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Yes, this is heterosexism.

Is the answer homosexism?

No.

The answer is radical inclusiveness and non-violent direct action.

Your words are pearls without price.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Yes, this is heterosexism.

Is the answer homosexism?

No.

The answer is radical inclusiveness and non-violent direct action.

I love the term also!!!!

I have read thru the posts on this thread. My own emotional/spirirtual development has gone through phases of outrage and anger at inequality and sometimes desire for a monochromatic gay male sex oriented environment. And such environments exist. I know because sometimes I slither into them when my inner beast needs to prowl There is a sacredness to these environments especially for satyrs!

There are also Sanctuaries where Radical Inclusiveness grows (maintained by Radical Faeries). And these are for the present requiring prtotection and separation from mainstream society. There, radically inclusve love of self and all is abounding and permeating. It uplifts and grounds.

Rev TJ,

Consider coming to the Beltaine Faerie Gathering On Short Mountain May 1 This spring. I'm betting you will feel the entitlements of an affirming society that will breathe life into a suffocated gay spirit. A break from the visqueen wrapping of homophobia in today's society.

[paul]

Whoa, I had a chance to read through this thread yesterday, and this morning I see it took a further turn south, rats.

My impression yesterday was that I had nothing to add, I feel like so many here have already offered so much insight that my own two cents would just be redundant. Still, I'll write asking forgiveness from those who have already made similar points. So, to the original question:

Must Breeders Dominate Everything?

"breeders" (I think Daniel did a good job pointing this out all the way at the beginning of this thread). What's a "breeder?" I think in this case it's a stereotype and consequently derogatory in it's use. I think it also set an emotional tone that has not been easy to escape.

In it's strictest sense, I guess I'm a breeder since I have two kids...but not in the strict sense apparently meant here because, like Steve and U-dog and Vanessa and T-dogg and others (sorry, going by memory) I also fit the TBLG 'label.' Most of the heterosexuals I know wouldn't really qualify as strict breeders, cause I know most of the time they have sex, just like BLGT people, their not doing so because they are wanting to make babies.

I tried substituting the word "heterosexual" for breeder...it does tone it down a little, but mostly, I think TJ is raging against the machine, ranting against the oppressor.

"must dominate everything" Nah. Heterosexuals may be the majoritiy, but they don't "dominate everything" at all. For instance, who profited from all those houses in the 'gay ghetto' sold to heterosexuals? Imagine the gay restaurant with the sign in the window "NO BREEDERS ALLOWED."

If I try to gleen a point to walk away with from TJ's original thread, leaving the inflamatory stuff out, it would be:

"I worked damned hard to accept who I am in a society that gave me little or no help, and in many cases, hindered me. I accept my identity, I don't want it swallowed up or lost...it cost to much."

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by paul

"I worked damned hard to accept who I am in a society that gave me little or no help, and in many cases, hindered me. I accept my identity, I don't want it swallowed up or lost...it cost to much."

Damn right!

I searched through my pockets and found two cents to offer, even though of late I had decided that this wasn't my conversation.

Although I gave a couple of cents worth earlier on this thread about the "breeder" name, I haven't commented on the sense that the good Rev is a separatist.

In reality, who doesn't want to periodically return to a place of familiarity and comfort among people who embody our identity?

Life in general is a pilgrimage - a journey out, with a corresponding return home at which time we commune with and communicate to our family and community. Where can we voice our discontents, if not within our own community? On a pilgrimage, when someone is relegated towards the edge of society because of identity, the return home has to include the familiar and comfortable - otherwise there is no respite from the ordeal of the "going out".

RevTJ is lamenting the loss of the familiar and comfortable - good for him. It's part of finding respite. Do I take umbrage at not being included in the "community" by one who is in dire need of respite - good grief, no.

There is a terrible truth when you are NOT in cultural dominance. You have a hell of a time finding respite.

As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, middle-income, Christian, educated, married male, I have no trouble whatsoever finding my place of respite (even though, most of the time, the last thing I want is to be around people just like me). If I am not in that place at any given point in time, I sure as hell don't have to go far to find it. I can walk out just about any door and find my "people", so to speak.

If you missing one of the markers of social dominance, finding that place gets somewhat tougher. If you're missing two or more, it gets significantly more difficult and frustrating. RevTG is neither straight nor married (I don't know other things about him) and is lamenting the fact that he has difficulty finding the place of respite from a heterosexual, married majority that dominates our culture and that he sees and interacts with daily - many times, if not most times, involuntarily. Dominant culture is inescapable at times - and even here, in his family of choice, discussion and action right now is centered on marriage.

Further, RevTJ came "home" - came to his community to voice his frustration. Why is that a bad thing? Isn't it likely that this community is a place of respite where the good Rev can speak - expel his burgeoning frustrations - and find commonality and familiarity with family?

I may not agree with RevTJ's views on the Soulforce action in question - so be it - but I can surely hear the frustration in his voice, the depths of the alienation he must be feeling, and understand his need to be able to look around and find a place where straight, married people with kids don't dominate the cultural skyline. I can surely hear his plaintive screams and NOT take them personally.

Good grief - if RevTJ can't spew his frustration at "home" - well, where can he? Do we really want him to be "homeless" because we don't want to hear what he has to say?

[paul]

Wow Andy,

You can eat at my table any day. You are living your faith, which is rare.
I am so honored that you are a part of this community.

Paul

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Good grief - if RevTJ can't spew his frustration at "home" - well, where can he? Do we really want him to be "homeless" because we don't want to hear what he has to say?

this group is most willing to commiserate and uplift. I believe you've seen that many times here. but when revtj comes home to tell other members of the family that they don't belong, and he doesn't want to see them, home is no longer a welcoming place for all of the family. In revtj's words of frustration, I heard a desire for people like me to be gone from his sight. if this is "our" home, then I will fight for my place at this table despite his wishes to exclude me and others like me.

[revtj]

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.

Later.
T J

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by revtj

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

Glad to know that. I've doing my a great deal of academic writing these days.

Now. Please tell me how accusing another member of this forum- even if it was in jest- of being a spy was 'academic"? That I don't get.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I said this in an earlier post- and I say again: you are one taking yourself out of the picture. No one else. What gives? Hey....I declared that I was done with this thread...what....two posts ago? You say you believe that the truth emerges from 'thrashing it out'. Ok. I'm happy to do that....here I am....ready when you are. So why are you running for the hills? And why- in God's name- are you pushing aside the kind and gentle words of Andy- who- more than anyone is endeavoring to understand your point of view? Is it because he's straight? And why, I wonder, did you go after Zerbie....hmmmmmm....she's married to a man. Does that disqualify her from the discussion?

Got a problem with straight people? (BTW...Zerbie is Bi.....perhaps you forgot that?)

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.

Oh....so you are the one who knows the true mission and have the answers and we're just not measuring up. Gee. Thanks. (I think I recall asking you what you would do in place of SF's action.....still haven't heard your answer....and guess what....that would fit nicely into an academic framework).

And here's a nice shot across the bow: your insinuation of 'playing games' is pure- and I mean this- pure paranioa. Got any facts to support your assertion? If you do: offer them now. You lead me to think that you have been the one playing games. (Now would be the time for a quick review of some academic concepts counselor: remember the terms Transference and Counter-Transference? Or didn't you get them in your training?)

I think this needs saying: as I read you, you sound and write like someone who doesn't want to be accountable for his words and actions.

Academia can be an Ivory Tower in which to hide. Yes....you can go off sulking another 6 months if you want, dreaming your fearful dreams of spy and 'breeders'.

Lastly: I don't think you have much sense on how you are coming across here (and just so you know- I am fully aware how I am coming across with my bad cop demeanor). There is a disconnect. Your words, original thread title, expression of feelings and subequent assertions have not been academic at all. And the reaction you've received? Neither academic either, but passionate, heartfelt - and from more than a few- downright generous and all-the-stops-out-loving.

Wanna be academic? Then defend in high style why the use of the word 'breeder' is not only correct but justified.

If I were you, I would think twice before taking your toys and going home, for, in fact, the actual truth may be that, while you believe it is your role to teach SF a lesson, you may be, in fact, the student who has not yet inculcated the principles of nonviolence sufficiently enough to give those on this forum and the organization itself the failing grade you think it deserves.

Has the SF forum changed for the worse as you imply? Good question. How about this one? Has your life changed for the better in the last 6 months? And if not, why not? I would- if I were you- take a good hard took in the mirror before I started the great cop-out.

That said....and I mean this...

I sincerely wish you the peace and joy which you seem to deny yourself- and feel yourself denied by others.

[andrewlittle]

May you find the place your looking for.

As for me - I tried - but now I remember you didn't ask me to try to extinguish your bridge fires. I just thought I'd try to be sensitive to your frustrations. I should have probably stayed off the thread like I thought in the first place.

I am having a little difficulty reconciling "thrashing out" ideas with people you "cherish", however. Oh well.

Originally Posted by revtj

This place just isn't what it used to be. I am accustomed to academic discourse. I believe the truth emerges from controversy and that ideas should be thrashed out and people cherished.

I do not fit in here. Please excuse me. I knew it 6 months ago but I didn't want to believe it.

I also feel compelled to say that I DO believe there are a number of people in the SF forum nowadays who are playing a game and do not truly understand, support and believe in the mission statement of Soulforce. I hope they learn new sympathies here but I am looking for a different kind of conversation.

Later.
T J

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

As for me - I tried - but now I remember you didn't ask me to try to extinguish your bridge fires. I just thought I'd try to be sensitive to your frustrations. I should have probably stayed off the thread like I thought in the first place.

Me too, Andy, me too.
We both tried to make friends with TJ past the point when we probably should have clued in that it was going to be a waste of our time.

I've been telling myself the same thing all day today, that I shouldn't have made that last (before this one) post on this thread.

It seems clear that only one participant in this conversation was 'playing a game,' and that he will not be back.

Glad that's over.

On to far worthier conversations.

[Vanessa White]

I know that may sound a bit naive, but I really try to see all sides of an issue when I can. Usually, that means reading, re-reading, and re-reading again a thread so that I can make an informed response. For now, this is what I do know:

That I feel sadness that Tj seems not able to get what he wants and needs here at SF and its forums; that its mission does not seem to be consistent with some of the persons that visit here. I know that I also feel sadness at his not being here, because I have been positively impacted in the past by his words in a meaningful way.

I also feel frustrated that this thread never seemed to bring much resolution, for him or for the rest of us, so insistent in our need to understand, and to be understood. I know that with hundreds of members here, there are hundreds of various perspectives on any given issue or topic, but it seems that many of us strive to understand, offer support, and at the same time, challenge one another to look beyond the service and do the really hard work of self-realization, self-responsibility, and ultimately, I hope, self-love. Sometimes, oftentimes, the journey to that is difficult, infuriating, and downright sucks. But I know us to be there at those times also. I actually look forward to those moments of being able to rely on my SF friends here to redirect me, to assist me in my process. I am disappointed that this feels unresolved to me, but TJ if you do come back to read at any time, know that I wish you nothing but goodness, and do hope that you can come back again and find what you need.

Peace and prayers, Vanessa

[revtj]

I regret starting this thread and I take responsibility for things careening totally out of control.

I believe if we'd all had the same conversation face-to-face or by phone it would've turned out a lot more satisfying to everyone. At the very least, I would think everyone would have been able to hear that I meant "breeder" like David Sedaris not Rush Limbaugh. I have an often too-sarcastic sense of humor.

The reason I want to duck out is I don't know of any way to back up and clarify meanings, and I think I may have provoked a few of you past the point of hearing me. I think this issue was too prickly (sensitive, charged and volatile) to handle the way I approached it. For that I apologize.

I am still devoted to SF & its mission but I think I will use the forums for the dissemination of information only in the future. If any of you -- ANY of you!-- are ever in Atlanta, I would truly love to meet you and get to know you better.

[Jamie McDaniel]

I was going to send this as a private message, but decided to post it to the thread instead.

------

Dear revtj,

I just wanted to send you a note after talking with Kara. I hadn't checked on your thread in a few days and so I missed that the conversation had, as Paul wrote, "taken a turn south."

I think Kara, having resigned over the Right to Serve action (and reinstated several months later, praise Jesus), particularly feels a connection with others in Soulforce whenever they occupy the dissenting position. Plus she truly "gets" how singles are often ignored or given just an afterthought. It sounds like you two had a good phone conversation.

Though I knew the issues you raised in the thread would be, as you said "prickly," I never was offended by your posts in the way that some were. I'm trying to understand why that is. I've wondered is it because I think we need to be more tender towards our own who we know have their hearts in the right place (as Andy expressed in his excellent post)? Or is it because I don't have children and am just not seeing it from the angle that Keltic63, tymejumper, and a few others did who have children?

Your thread brought up many issues that are worthy of discussion, like the danger of "playing to the right." I certainly agree that is something progressives need to be mindful of.

Regarding the Right to Serve campaign, I remember Daniel questioning the logic behind Soulforce, with all its nonviolence values, knocking on the door of the United States military. I felt he expressed my frustrations well with that statement.

Though I am very excited about Soulforce's American Family Outing and the historic meetings of gay families with some of the most widely known pastors, I'm trying to better understand your frustration with it. And I think I grasped your view a bit more when you wrote:

Originally Posted by revtj

Here's the thing. I wouldn't want to go to these damn mega-moneyworshipping church-corporations if I was straight with 15 kids or gay with a testube baby.

That sentence struck me in the same way that Daniel's "knocking on the door of the military" statement did.

I have a gay friend who has been attending a mega-church here in Lexington. When an ex-gay shared his testimony from the stage (surprise, surprise, eh?) my friend was hurt and started talking with some of the associate pastors about his concern. He asked me to go with him to one meeting he had set up and I did. After the service, we talked for probably an hour with the associate pastor and I told her plainly that I would never go to her church because I'm simply past the point of giving the time and energy God has granted me to a church that doesn't affirm my marriage. Truth told, though, I wouldn't go to her church if they did treat Chris and I like everyone else. They have all the problems of an evangelical mega-church (well, all the problems except for growth, it seems) and it was quite apparent in the service when they were all sharing their experience from having just returned from Jerusalem and India (the poor spiritually blind and bankrupt people that those foreigners are of course. )

Something later got me thinking, however, about the way I've negatively used the word "mega-church" (perhaps similar to the way the word "conservative" comes out of my mouth... with just a bit of contempt.) I thought about Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey's church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ. It is a mega-church with 10,000 members according to the UCC website. Since I soooo appreciate Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it has got me questioning whether my negative view of the word "mega-church" is really founded on solid ground.

Anyway, I guess I'm just wondering if this thread has to be like a movie with a disappointing ending, where everyone loved the colorful and passionate characters and the premise, but damn those writers who screwed the script up and couldn't deliver a satisfying last hour!!

If there is to be a quality sequel, I would suggest the title of this little film be reworked slightly. It would help with the ratings. I know Kara has said she can't participate because every time a new post is added it bumps the thread title to the top again.

Jamie

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by Jamie McDaniel

Though I knew the issues you raised in the thread would be, as you said "prickly," I never was offended by your posts in the way that some were. I'm trying to understand why that is. I've wondered is it because I think we need to be more tender towards our own who we know have their hearts in the right place (as Andy expressed in his excellent post)? Or is it because I don't have children and am just not seeing it from the angle that Keltic63, tymejumper, and a few others did who have children?Jamie

I think I can explain why others were somewhat offened by TJ statements. I certainly can explain why I was offended.

I feel that the term 'breeder' is just as aweful a word as the 'N' word. I felt and still feel that some people in the gay community treat others as they have been treated, by heterosexuals and non-supportive people. They have a tendancy to judge on looks alone, such as seeing someone who has children and calling them a 'breeder' and assuming they are straight. If they are thought to be gay, they have 'somehow' betrayed the gay community by having children as this is what heterosexuals do, pro-create.

I think the majority of people felt that we were again being labled and not only by the heterosexual community but now by people in the gay community as well, and I personally felt that the 'traitor' lable was being pinned smack onto me for having children.

I realize there are many gay and lesbians that do not have children, but those of us that DO have them don't expect any extras for it, we just want respect and understanding. How easy do people think it is to be gay and have kids? You are accused all the time of being child molestors, an abuser, a druggie and/or a danger to children. We raise our children to standup for all humans, see love as between two individuals, and fight for equality into the next generation.

It is true, if we are shown to heteros as raising well adjusted and polite young people, don't you think that they will have to realize that we are not the monsters they try to make us out as? If our kids turn out straight, then obviously it is genetics not environment that makes us gay? That we don't recruit because if we did, all of our kids turn would turn out gay?

Perhaps TJ did not phrase himself well when he wrote his post, lord help me I am not always the most lucid or well written, but I got the distinct feeling that he wished to put up a sign in whatever he called 'gay venues' that stated "no breeders or children allowed" Kinda reminded me of the "no negros allowed" signs.

I also get the feeling that TJ may be feeling less important because he does not have kids or does not wish to have them and perhaps thinks he is getting pushed aside by those of us that do? We need all types of gay people to show we come in all kinds of ways, just like the straights do. We DO need you TJ to be who you are, you are important all by yourself you know.

There is a place for us all in the community, but I feel we won't make any real strides in equality until we all learn we ALL count and that the lables HAVE to stop. Are we not really all just human in the end?