Occam's Racecar ([info]nebulawindphone) wrote,
@ 2009-05-27 09:54:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Well, I'm pissed (though not surprised) about the ruling in CA.

And then I started reading the post-mortem lefty blog chatter, and now I'm pissed twice. MetaFilter is usually on the sane end of that particular spectrum, but today there were people joking about going out and burning a church down. Lots of big-brained-rational-atheist chest-thumping about the inferiority of those people — Christians, the poor, the uneducated, country-dwellers, and even (quietly) people of color. A few rounds with that old bag of bullshit about how they're out-breeding us and something must be done.

There's a line between anger and hatred, and I think it's ridiculous that people are so eager to leap across that line in the name of equality.

First off, it's bad tactics. The only way to win a conflict like this is to respect your opponents. Sure, some of the supporters of Prop 8 are dumb, crazy or hopelessly set in their ways, but if all its supporters were like that, we'd have been fine. The problem is that many of them are smart, sane and flexible. They're wrong, of course, but you can be wrong without being crazy — I do it on a daily basis (rimshot) — and if we treat them like subhumans, we're going to lose.

More importantly, though, it's hypocritical. Either you believe in equality or you don't. If you do, then you've got no place calling anyone inferior. If you don't, then I'm gonna do my best to keep your innate dignity and value as a human being in mind while I tell you to go fuck yourself.

(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 02:51 pm UTC (link)
Lots of big-brained-rational-atheist chest-thumping about the inferiority of those people — Christians, the poor, the uneducated, country-dwellers, and even (quietly) people of color. A few rounds with that old bag of bullshit about how they're out-breeding us and something must be done.

I've come to the conclusion that every time I hear someone complain about group X outbreeding "us" anything that follows is going to racist or classist. And this argument comes up from people who claim to be better than that all the time.

So yeah, I totally agree with you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]elissa_carey
2009-05-27 03:11 pm UTC (link)
Doubly agreed, and I'll further say that even saying something like "outbreeding us" is already incredibly racist even without any further comment on it. It speaks to a very horrible latent stream of thought that's dismissive and makes sweeping generalizations, and tends to lie at the root of continued difficulty in not just race relations, but gender & class as well. "They" are doing something more than "us" -- oh noes! Implied threat! *sigh* It's sickening.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hkitsune
2009-05-27 04:22 pm UTC (link)
However, one of the things that drives me crazy (that I don't understand even as a half-member of the community) is that some subgroups insist upon calling heterosexuals "breeders" and if that's not classist or discriminatory, I don't know what is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]unzeugmatic
2009-05-27 04:55 pm UTC (link)
Way back in 1974 when the world was not what it is today in ways I try not to forget so that I can keep things like Prop 8 in long-term perspective it was the common and universal and accepted norm to wholly diminish and insult gay people simply by using names for us which were, by definition, insults because any name for "gay" was an insult in itself. Really. There was no such thing in the culture as a neutral term for gay -- except perhaps something clinical like "homosexual" and while that wasn't necessarily intended as an insult it still had negative connotations when used to describe people. ("Gay" itself was an attempt to rectify this, but it hadn't fully taken hold by 1974 beyond certain activist organizations, and once it did take hold it developed negative connotations that led to subsequent generations rejecting it in favor of "queer" which I believe hasn't taken on the same connotations mostly because it doesn't mean "homosexual".) I remember this very subject coming up in a conversation back then (which I can pinpoint to my freshman year of college which why I can date it), about the imbalance here, about how there aren't words to describe heterosexuals that are insults just in their descriptiveness of orientation. It was in that conversation that I first heard the word "breeder" -- as in "Oh, there is a word like this -- breeder".

It was funnier than you can imagine. It was empowering. Seriously. I was still a kid and newly out and the notion that I had this ability to assert my power of naming like this with a mocking response to homo-as-insult was a key moment for me. If every word to describe us is a cultural insult, well then let's have a word we can use to mock the whole notion. Breeder. It's so nasty. So ugly. And yet -- bat eyelash -- it's nothing more than descriptive (feign innocence). It was not the use of the word -- who would use it seriously, or so I would have thought -- but its existence that mattered. It was saying we don't have to accept this notion that what we simply are is an insult. Because oh yeah, you're a ... a ... breeder! So there. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

Of course there have been people over the years who have taken or used this word as a serious attempt to insult people rather than a funny attempt to rebut the notion of gay or queer or homo as insult -- but serious attempts to insult people are always a problem and that's the issue I would be more willing to consider valid. Still, even in these circumstances there there's an element of conscious absurdity to the insult, since of course breeding or not breeding is not at all what defines sexual orientation and there's not a soul who doesn't know this (which is your hint that there's something going on here that is neither classist nor discriminatory). I tend to think the anger that would lead to the use of this insult is justified anger, even if I'm not keen on the notion of attempted insult.

I don't know if this helps you understand this usage at all, but I reject your analysis of this usage as classist or discriminatory.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 06:16 pm UTC (link)
Well, I personally haven't ever offended by the use of the term "breeder" (it's only been directed at me affectionately) but it is an insult, playful or not, that relies on defining the "other" as dangerously over-breeding, which does fall into a category of insult that, as I said above, will always be gross.

It's not something I feel a need to seek out and call out for its nastiness because I am coming from a position of privilege because of my straightness, but I do think that when insulting a straight person who deserves insult, it should be for something they've done or said (like vote for prop 8, say) and not for the fact that they're popping babies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]unzeugmatic
2009-05-27 06:58 pm UTC (link)
but it is an insult, playful or not, that relies on defining the "other" as dangerously over-breeding,

I don't agree. The "dangerous" and "over" parts are not in the insult itself. If I say that I have bought a bull for breeding purposes, am I saying that I have bought a bull to dangerously overbreed? As I say, it's kind of stupid to use "breeding" as the defining characteristic of sexual orientation anyway, and yes it's an insult and that in my book is not good when used as such particularly in a serious fashion, but you don't need to make anything up that's not there -- the stupid simplicity of the claim is kind of the point.

I was thinking at first that you may have missed my point that it's not what brand of insult a particular straight person merits, but about empowering gay people who live in the world where a basic description of their orientation is in itself an insult. But you yourself point out that you haven't actually been offended by the word when it's used around you and you recognize its playfulness in those cases -- I think the playfulness is inherent in the absurdity of the insult itself. So I do think that in practice you see and recognize why people would use this on-purpose ugly word, and why it has its place as a word of humor (which is what I was originally trying to explain).

It's not really the popping babies part that's the point -- it's the sweeping description of "straight people", defining them by their sexual acts. And yes, yes, I know that this is invalid in any number of ways and levels. But taking someone in particular to task for something specific they've done or said is, I believe, something entirely different.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 07:07 pm UTC (link)
If I say that I have bought a bull for breeding purposes, am I saying that I have bought a bull to dangerously overbreed?

There are *plenty* of things that are not offensive when we talk about animals that are offensive when we talk about human beings. That's why I don't like it when friends refer to women as "females" and why I don't mind talking about rape being "natural" if we're talking about wolves but I do if we're talking about lacrosse teams.

But the insult still relies on the "outbreeding us" panic, regardless of its original source. But I think the salient reason it's not problematic as it would be if we were talking about say Arabs (I live in Israel and this is said a lot by people who should know better) or fundamentalists, is that heterosexual people have all the structural power, so it might be rude, but it doesn't really hurt anyone.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sorenlundi
2009-05-27 07:27 pm UTC (link)
But the insult still relies on the "outbreeding us" panic, regardless of its original source.

While calling a straight person a breeder probably makes reference to the "outbreeding us" panic as applied to other groups, it is not actually saying the same thing at all, since the concept of "outbreeding us" relies on the assumption that the offspring will be in the same catagory as the parents, and that is just not how homosexuality and heterosexuality work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 07:42 pm UTC (link)
Well, I don't even think that's how fundamentalism works either, but for different reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sorenlundi
2009-05-27 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Well, I don't think so either, but it seems like the people who were talking about fundamentalists "outbreeding us" do, whereas just about anyone who would call a straight person a breeder knows that it is not only possible for two straight people to have a gay baby, but that seems to be where most gay babies come from. I agree that the "they are out breeding us" argument is always bigoted, what I'm dissagreeing with is the idea that the term "breeder" is actually making that argument. There's an element of irony in the word that I always thought was pretty obvious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 09:15 pm UTC (link)
I think that on most practical levels, I don't disagree with you. Like I said upthread, the few times I've been called a breeder it's been a tease from a friend, so I didn't care, and as you said, it's not as if gay people have power over straight people such that it would matter much in situations where it is said meanly.

But I don't think it's always tongue in cheek. I remember reading the following advice column a few years ago and being pretty appalled at the rudeness: http://tomatonation.com/?p=1035

(The advice seeker says of her boyfriend's mother: "This coming from someone who removed herself from individual personal growth at the ripe old age of 15!")

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sorenlundi
2009-05-27 10:32 pm UTC (link)
Ok, so when I said the word contains "an element of irony" I didn't mean that it does not also contain real derission. But even when it is used hatefully, there is always an element of irony in saying "Ha, ha, you enjoy privileges that I do not."

The page you linked to seems to be about a straight person with no children calling another straight person who had children early a breeder, which is an entirely different usage and not what I was talking about at all. She is making fun of her for having children early, not for being a heterosexual. Confused in Colorado is indeed being classist, and is exibiting the same fear of being overtaken as someone making an "they are outbreeding us" argument.

When a queer person makes fun of a straight person by calling them a breeder it is not the same thing at all, because that straight people will always "outbreed" queer people is immediately obvious. Queerness in this instance does not map onto racial, cultural or class catagories and it is obvious that it does not.

I haven't actually called anyone a breeder since high school, but I think there's something you're missing, and I'm not sure if I can express it any better than I already have.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-28 01:54 pm UTC (link)
The page you linked to seems to be about a straight person with no children calling another straight person who had children early a breeder, which is an entirely different usage and not what I was talking about at all.

I don't think it's an entirely different usage, I mean, it's pretty clear where this couple picked up their terminology (from their leftist circle)from the letter. The fact they they use the term in a different context without thinking it strange would seem to indicate that the irony isn't as obvious as you say.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]sorenlundi
2009-05-28 06:19 pm UTC (link)
No, what I said was that I'd thought it was pretty obvious, as in "I thought it was pretty obvious but apearently not, or else this conversation wouldn't have gone on and on and on."

I'm not trying to say the one is in no way related to the other, but I still maintain that there is a fundamental difference in calling someone a breeder because they are straight and calling someone a breeder because they have "too many" children. They mean different things. If I make fun of someone for working at McDonald's, that is classist. If I make fun of someone for having a job at all, it cannot be seperated from the fact that having a job is generally considered what people are supposed to do.

And if I have to worry about being a bad influence on the straights now, I'll never get anything done.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]unzeugmatic
2009-05-27 07:28 pm UTC (link)
There are *plenty* of things that are not offensive when we talk about animals that are offensive when we talk about human beings.

Oh gosh, yes, of course. That's very specifically what makes the term "breeder" an ugly word -- what I have been saying is an on-purpose ugly word. It was the "over" and "dangerously" part I was taking issue with, since it's insulting (absurdly so) enough even without that.

I actually hadn't heard the "outbreeding us" thing that Dan referenced here in any context and I was kind of stunned to read that people had actually said such a thing. That definitely set off my creep-o-meter although I do understand the particular type and level of frustration that would cause any number of icky things to come out right now. (I almost said the particular "breed of frustration" but maybe that wouldn't have been funny.) I was responding to the "breeder" thing in particular, which I took as a side point -- a pet peeve of the respondent in a way -- as a separate thing.

But yes yes, I'm in whole agreement about the wrongness of the "overbreeding" thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 07:37 pm UTC (link)
(I almost said the particular "breed of frustration" but maybe that wouldn't have been funny.)

Well I am enormous fan of puns and wordplay, so I would have smirked. ;)

I hope I didn't come off as lecture-y or anything, and I apologize if I did, I think our positions in practice are very similar-- not big users of the word in seriousness, not big offense takers either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]unzeugmatic
2009-05-27 07:40 pm UTC (link)
Actually I was thinking that we/I had muddled two topics here. Dan brought up the "overbreeding" weirdness, and you were looking at my discussion in that context. But somebody brought up the "breeder as insult" as what I took to be a different point and was responding only to that. So our points were coming from different
foundations.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nebulawindphone
2009-05-27 08:42 pm UTC (link)
I actually hadn't heard the "outbreeding us" thing that Dan referenced here in any context and I was kind of stunned to read that people had actually said such a thing.

I hear it ... well, not often, but often enough to be noticeable, mostly from atheists with a persecution complex. I get the sense that there's some real anger about sex ed and reproductive rights that's turned into a paranoid fantasy about drowning in fundamentalist babies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:47 am UTC (link)
Which is one of the things that is so much fun for me, if any of my gay friends every jokingly called me a breeder, I could get all puffed up with faux outrage and go "Nuh-uh!" (I'm voluntarily childless, had my tubes tied, and so am therefore most emphatically a non-breeder.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sorenlundi
2009-05-27 06:05 pm UTC (link)
Except that queers don't have the power to discriminate against heterosexuals. Except maybe in terms of whom we invite to our dinner parties.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]poettrees
2009-05-27 06:18 pm UTC (link)
Right, yes this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:44 am UTC (link)
There was a gay or lesbian stand-up comedi(an/enne), and I wish for the life of me I could remember who right now, who had a perfect take on it: until such time as gay marriage is legal and accepted, queer folks should refuse to work weddings. It'd put a serious dent in the industry, you know. The line from it that came to mind was "Mama, that queen won't finish my wedding dress! *pouty stamp*"

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]guidosan
2009-05-27 04:01 pm UTC (link)
Here here! Did I mention that your intelligent rants are hot?

(Reply to this)


[info]flamingjune07
2009-05-27 04:19 pm UTC (link)
I stopped reading Metafilter a while ago -- it is way, way too easy to provoke racist, classist, and (especially) misogynist drek on that site. I mean, there's got to be at least a handful of comment threads every month about e.g. how every man should ask for a paternity test on any babies a woman 'claims' is his, since the system is set up such that women are just pinning babies on dudes all the time to wheedle money out of them, or something.

But yeah, that and also the general atmosphere you're complaining about seems characteristic of "big-brained-rational-atheist chest-thumping," and it makes me nervous

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nebulawindphone
2009-05-27 08:07 pm UTC (link)
It's gotten better on some issues and worse on others, I think. The widespread misogyny has really cleared up. There was a series of really vicious fights over it a while back, and some of the worst offenders either got some empathy knocked into them or took their balls and went home — which, either way, made it a much nicer place to be. But on some things — religion and trans issues are the two that I notice the most — it's still a total clusterfuck.

Mostly I sick around because of a few dozen music nerds who hang out there, and the science and current events talk, which is just way better informed than anything I've found anywhere else online. When it starts sliding from news into Culture Wars shit, I try to tune out, because otherwise it gets me all pissy and ruins my day.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]hkitsune
2009-05-27 04:21 pm UTC (link)
Fwiw I've heard a lot of altogether *stupid* arguments on both sides--from "our rights are protected in the Constitution" (they're not) to "it's not fair". That being said, if you're going to make a legal case, at least know which *AMENDMENTS* entitle you to not be discriminated against, for fuck's sake.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nebulawindphone
2009-05-27 08:21 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I think there's some serious letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law issues here. Most of us who don't go to law school, we learn a lot about the ideals [our civics teachers claim were] behind the constitution, but not much about how constitutional law actually works.

Imaginary Thomas Jefferson and Imaginary James Madison, who I like to have political debates in my head with when I'm feeling patriotic, totally agree that gay marriage should be legal. As for what the actual historical guys thought — much less what the current interpretation of the California state constitution says — I'm just clueless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:42 am UTC (link)
You have way cooler imaginary friends than most religious folk do. I mean, TJ had way more style than JC. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]speicus
2009-05-27 05:23 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, the twitterstorm seems really whiny and impotent to me. Like people care more about being indignant and offended than actually doing anything about it. It's also funny to hear California getting the dismissive blanket insults usually reserved for Texas and "the South."

And when I say "hey 2010 people" everyone thinks I'm talking about the scifi novel/movie. [headdesk]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nebulawindphone
2009-05-27 08:36 pm UTC (link)
I dunno. I get the sense of impotence. The tail end of 2001 was like that for me — one long losing game of tug-of-war, where everyone I could see was pulling as hard as they could in the right direction and we were all still getting dragged through the mud. I don't feel nearly so hopeless about this one, but if other people who are more involved with it do, I can't fault 'em for venting.

But it's, yeah, the blanket insults, and the attitude that goes along with them: "I didn't get what I want, and it's because of Them." Bleh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]speicus
2009-05-27 09:31 pm UTC (link)
I guess I don't get the sense of impotence this time. This isn't 2001. Sure, I feel impotent about a lot of things (if only Obama actually was a socialist!), but this is not one of them. Here we have a very good chance of turning things around, possibly quite rapidly. Time is not on the side of the bigots.

The people making the most obnoxious comments generally aren't the ones who are really involved. It's generally people who don't live in CA displaying an inordinate amount of glee regarding how fucked CA is right now. HAR HAR HURF DURF

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nebulawindphone
2009-05-27 09:43 pm UTC (link)
Personally, I feel like you do — give it five or ten years. But then I've got the luxury of taking that attitude, because I'm not likely to want to marry a man in California in the next five or ten years anyway. I'd figured the hurfing and durfing was coming from people more personally affected by the case — and now that you mention it, I have no idea if that's true or not, since I don't really know where most of the folks on Metafilter live.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]speicus
2009-05-27 10:06 pm UTC (link)
It's true, I also approach it from a position of luxury/privilege myself. And I'm very sympathetic to those whom this personally affects -- I wouldn't accuse them of hurfing/durfing.

But most of the people I've heard complaining/gloating don't fall into that category. This is more culled from facebook/twitter updates for me than metafilter (I stayed away from that thread).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]i_am_aquaman
2009-05-27 06:33 pm UTC (link)
I never thought I'd say this, but here it goes: "Man, why can't California be more open-minded and progressive, like Iowa."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mrvoid
2009-05-27 07:29 pm UTC (link)
I am told that Iowa integrated schools 100 years before Brown v. Board of Education, was the first state in which a woman could practice law, and was one of the first in which a woman could own property.

Despite what the day-to-day life of Iowa* might be like, they seem to be pretty routinely ahead of the curve on civil rights.

---
*Corn.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:38 am UTC (link)
*And pigs. Believe me, I grew up in Iowa (until I was 8 and moved to KS where life was all about wheat and cows instead). One of my first SVO sentences was "I mell piggies."

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:39 am UTC (link)
Dude, I totally want to metaquote this now, but I realize that's mostly for OPs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]quaryn_dk
2009-05-29 09:37 am UTC (link)
If you don't, then I'm gonna do my best to keep your innate dignity and value as a human being in mind while I tell you to go fuck yourself.

Ah, didn't realize you were also a UU. ;)

(Reply to this)

(38 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…