From: steven@cray.com (Steven Levine)
Subject: Re: the b-word
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:15:40 CDT

In article <1992Jul21.151209.834@panix.com>
 mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes, regarding the
 discussion about the use of "breeder":

>I've lost track of what's being discussed here.  

I think this is because some have lost the track of who the word
is for.  I am of the opinion that using "breeder" in the manner
under discussion is for the benefit of the people using the
word, not for its presumed (and, in most cases, theoretical)
target.  Arnold Zwicky's wonderful post about "breeder" and
"cocksucker" touched on this, and then got lost in the flurry.

I remember quite specifically the first time I heard the
word "breeder" used in this context, and its significance
to me at the time.  This was during my first year in college,
when blinding insights and earth-shaking conclusions about
being gay struck me on a daily basis (including deciding that I was
comfortable using the word "gay" to describe myself --  my stubborn
discomfort with the word is astonishing to me these 18 years
later).  

At that time, I had some friends -- older, sophisticated gay
and lesbian folk from the classes ahead of me -- whom I
respected and admired and whose perspectives and attitudes
helped me a great deal.  The example that comes to mind:
That was the year I came out to my parents, and I was a little
upset about their immediate (though, in retrospect,
understandable) reaction.  When I discussed this with my
friend Suzanne she said (with that sneer of a smile I still
recollect), "Oh, they're going through the 'it's a phase'
phase."  This single comment, and the attitude behind it,
wholly dissipated my distress and, in a larger sense, reinforced
my sense of the rightness of what I knew to be true.

One day a group of us were discussing the terrible words the
world had for us, and somebody said that there was no
corresponding hate-filled word to describe heterosexuals.  
"But there is," somebody replied, "we call them 'breeders.'"
This was very funny to us -- mostly because of the absurdity.
Of course it is not an accurate term to describe "those
who would call us faggots and dykes."  Of course it is not something
you could say to devastate a group of gay-bashing youth coming
at you with baseball bats. 

More than funny, it was empowering to consider that we
could use a word to mean "somebody who fucks heterosexually,"
and to mean it in a nasty sense.  The premise it addresses is
that "fucking heterosexually" is a "normal" thing to
do.  How could it be an insult the way "cocksucker" or "dyke"
can be in some contexts?   But it was because we, through
our community, had the power to make it so.  This, at the
time, was a revelation to me:  I did not have to accept the
self-image that I was a "fucking faggot."  Within a very
limited world (our community, the "us" spoken of in previous
posts), my friends and I had the power to turn the tables, should
we choose to do so.  It seems so basic and so obvious now.
Then it was not.

The best part is that it doesn't matter at all if we ever
call anyone a "breeder."   I, for one, can't imagine a situation
where I would.  But there the word is, ready to provide a focus
for our anger. 

Mara again:

>...  But I am interested in the
>question of whether the insult reaches its target.

The empowerment comes from not caring whether it does or not.

> Steve Dyer's
>comment-- that the strength of the insult comes from the manifest
>pejorative in a term designating what is normally greatly admired--
>is very perceptive.  But I'm still not sure that it's clear who is
>meant when the word is applied.

Maybe because it's not a "who" but a cultural phenomenon.

>Do celibate priests consider themselves breeders?

Does anybody?  I don't think so, not in the sense of feeling
they can be reduced to this one aspect of their lives.  Again,
the point is that gays and lesbians can understand that we
also cannot be reduced.  

> Pro-natalists
>that they are, they certainly ought to.  But if you yell out at
>them, "!@#$ !@#$ Breeders!" as you pass them on the street, will
>they understand?

No, but it might feel good.  What's the point of any insult
except to make the insulter feel better?  Has anyone ever
come to a greater understanding of their shortcomings by
having an insult hurled at them?

By the way, I am not advocating insulting people.  That we
sometimes feel better when we do is not something I deny,
but it is not my preferred style.  

>But why?  If I have use for an insult-- any insult-- I want it to
>have sufficient focus to "work" as an insult.  If it seems to
>designate people to whom I'm not referring, and doesn't seem to
>designate people to whom I want to refer, what good is it?

I find that the insults that work best are those specifically
tailored to the insecurities of the insultees, especially
if they involve bogus though sort-of-logical conclusions based
on past specific actions.

--
Steven Levine
steven@cray.com