From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: the b-word
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:25:02 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

steven@cray.com (Steven Levine) makes a whole lot of sense, and
answers my questions.

I said:
  >>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.

Yes.  I'm not sure that what is working for you, and for Arnold, and
for those who think that "breeder" works as an epithet, works for
everyone here.  Whether it "works" for hets is not the issue, of
course.  

 >I remember quite specifically the first time I heard the
 >word "breeder" used in this context, and its significance
 >to me at the time.  [ ... ]   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.

I like Suzanne very much from this.  Of course, the beauty in it all
is that she was right-- and they weren't.

[about the word "breeders"]
 >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.

This, I think, is a good point; very close to what Steve Dyer said.

 >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.

Yes, of course; I was unclear.  I think that for some people the
empowerment doesn't happen-- from this word-- because its lack of
focus means that the insult hits people who ought not to be hit.
Again, I'm not talking about heterosexuals, friendly or otherwise.
I'm talking about the Queers who were hurt, who raised objections to
using "breeder" as an insult.  Not to care means not to listen to
what Ailsa or Donn or Tom said.  

I hope this doesn't sound as though I'm passing judgment on using
the term.  I'm not.  If I come up with a worthy contender I'll offer
it (gleefully), but don't hold your breath.  There are tradeoffs
everywhere.  Expressing anger freely often results in hurting people
who weren't really targets of the anger.

  >>  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.
True.  But also, perhaps, because Ry's take on "breederdom" doesn't
seem to be quite the same as Jess's, say.

  >>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.  
This is that part that I _do_ understand-- in terms of why it's
helpful to have and use an epithet like this.

  >> 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?
No, but my question was really directed at the insulter's side of
the matter:  _Does_ it feel good to yell an epithet at people who
won't think it applies to 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.  
(I know that Steven knows that this information isn't especially for
me.  I'm not enormously fond of insults either, and it may be that
I'm not well tuned in to the benefits of epithet exchanges.)

 >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.
Yes.  And I'm not at all convinced that "breeders" are insecure
enough about their breeding for this to be the insult of choice.
I can (sort of) grasp that this might not matter.

Gee, I almost wish I were going to be around to follow this more.
But (I won't say "alas") we leave for motss.con tomorrow morning.

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.