jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (03/04/86)
Just a quick point about using the term breeder to refer to
heterosexuals - there are a number of people who would love to have
children, are even desperate to do so, and can't. I suspect that to
call an infertile person a "breeder" to their face would inflict
unnecessary emotional pain, which while I would doubt that anyone in
this group would *want* to do that, might do so unintentionally. (Not
unlike all those thoughtless relatives who demand to know if "something's
in the oven" and other crude questions which are none of their business).
--
jcpatilla
..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp
Look for beauty in all things; let the fountains of delight refresh your heart.on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (03/08/86)
In article <701@osiris.UUCP> jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) writes: > Just a quick point about using the term breeder to refer to >heterosexuals - there are a number of people who would love to have >children, are even desperate to do so, and can't. I suspect that to >call an infertile person a "breeder" to their face would inflict >unnecessary emotional pain, which while I would doubt that anyone in >this group would *want* to do that, might do so unintentionally. (Not >unlike all those thoughtless relatives who demand to know if "something's >in the oven" and other crude questions which are none of their business). >jcpatilla >..{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!jcp You are now in the running for the " Miss Manners award for the terminally self effacing ". :-) Lets get real about name calling. Any cultural group is bound to develop unkind tags for another cultural group that is significantly different, and the level of unkindness or sarcasm is bound to rise depending on the level of hostility between the groups. I feel no guilt in the matter of refering to heterosexuals as breeders ofr more generically as the breding population. However I also don't use it outside of Gay cultural settings. On the other hand one has only to walk down the streets of any city in America displaying affection to another man (like holding hands) and I guarantee that an un- pleasant and perhaps violent reaction complete with several varietys of nasty names will be forthcoming. I thought that the scene in "Color Purple" where a female character is busted for saying "hell" to a white woman is a good example of double standards for oppressed minoritys. At least Blacks are seen as a minority, gays are denied the right to sue for equality because the radical religious right denies that we are anything other than an undesirable phenomenon. Isn't it interesting that white (occasinally) breeding nuclear family Amerika mouths the ideal of the golden rule....[ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you] but when it is discovered that they are doing someone dirty the focus changes to "Turn the other cheek ". It seems to me that the charter to stop the name calling is best served by going to the root of the bigotry against Gay people and that my dear is known as "the ball is in THEIR (You know the great grey they) court" When all the names are dropped we are all just people, fat skinny black white yellow silly wise strange and dull. Whats a few adjectives amongst friends right? LUX .. on Owen Rowley hplabs!hpda!on
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/09/86)
AMEN, Owen! I could scarcely stop laughing at Jody's example of
the childless couple damaged by being called "breeders"--it shows
just how ludicrous this discussion has become. The keyword, as
Owen points out, is context. A minority of a minority might choose
to use this word entre eux to refer to straight society--so what?
Who is anyone to judge them on their intentions?
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
{bbncca,bbnccv,harvard}!spdcc!dyerlaura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (03/09/86)
In article <1356@hpda.UUCP> on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) writes: > >Lets get real about name calling. Any cultural group is bound to develop >unkind tags for another cultural group that is significantly different, and >the level of unkindness or sarcasm is bound to rise depending on the level >of hostility between the groups. I feel no guilt in the matter of refering >to heterosexuals as breeders ofr more generically as the breding population. > >When all the names are dropped we are all just people, fat skinny black white >yellow silly wise strange and dull. Whats a few adjectives amongst friends >right? Name calling may be inevitable in the general sense, but on the level of *personal responsibility* you have to make a personal choice either to call other people names or not to. What use does name calling serve? Well, it lets you let off steam. It is nice to be able to let off steam. But there are people who believe in a powerful creature who will send them to Hell if some of the evil that is in the world rubs off and sticks to them. The strain that they must be under is incredible. But I still don't think that this gives them the right to call other people ``faggot''. Calling people names hurts them. Before you go off and do it, make sure that you really want to hurt them. If they call you ``faggot'' in the street and you want to call them ``breeder'' back -- well, you are excellerating the argument, but that is your choice. But to tar hetorosexual humanity at large is to hurt those people who aren't enlightened enough to forgive you and let it pass -- which is an awful lot of people. Another sub-group of people you may be hurting, who may interest you more than heterosexual humanity at large is those people who grapple with the question ``Am I Gay?'' Great, they reason -- if I am Gay I am a faggot and if I am not I am a breeder. Shit. Am I involved in a war I never asked for? And what about all those other aspects of my life that I thought were so important. I mean I am an [engineer/author/artist/construction worker] and a [republican/democrat/libertarian/socialist/anarchist]. And I am an [atheist/agnostic/humanist/christian/jew/buddhist/pagan/themelite]. Are all of these aspects of me suppposed to take a back seat to my sexuality? I don't know about you, but I really like the science fiction of John Varley. In Varley's future world, cloning and like techniques have been perfected, and you can make an X chromosone out of a Y and vice versa. So people can be either male or female as they choose -- and they typically choose to be both, changing all the time. (As you may have gathered from this, they are also more or less immmortal.) And nobody gives a shit whether you are male or female heterosexual or homosexual. And gender roles have become blurred. I really like this world. I don't know how to get there. (in Varley's universe the Earth was also invaded and the survivors who live on the other planets build this society over a thousand years. The hard core prejudiced jerks were all at home and were killed in the invasion.) I think that name calling is a step in the wrong direction, though. -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa