Breeder and other words we use to hurt our own.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Good point. I suppose I am the kind of girl that hold us to a higher standard? I am just completely floored when somebody who has had to navigate the world as a Queer uses slurs against other Queers (or anyone for that matter). I know that is not a realistic world view, but I can't help it. It stings a bit more when it comes from another Queer.

I know what you are talking about here, SuperFemme.

I was trying to explain to a friend who is a lesbian about my new boyfriend (a few years back) and what trans meant.

She exclaimed, "What? You mean they are a SHIM?!"

It was kinda devastating...and, even after I explained to her how that word is a slur, she never really apologized or tried to get it.

We don't talk anymore.

[Toughy]

I would agree that the sacred mother as practiced by the God of Abraham monotheists is very harmful to girls and women. You must remember the sacred mother is a bastardization of the Goddess. The patriarchy's religion, in order to destroy the matriarchy's religion, stole my Sacred Mother and turned Her into a tool of the patriarchy.......mary, mother of jesus....

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

We also have an OBLIGATION to stop the sexual exploitation of children.....especially girls. The media in Western culture bears the greatest responsibility and obligation to do this.
----------------------

as to breeder........

I have always used it to denote those with children....that includes straight folk and queer folk. Sometimes it certainly has a 'dig' kind of quality to it. Sometimes it's just shorthand for those whose lives do revolve around children.

There is a huge difference between those of us whose lives do not revolve around children and those of us whose lives revolve around children.

-------------------

I do hear what is being said about slinging that word in a hateful way towards someone else. It is entirely inappropriate.

I don't think it's a good thing to sling any word at any human being with hate/meanness/derision behind that word.

I do have say as one who believes in 'question authority', this idea that I need to go read a thread about unacceptable words, so I know how to 'properly speak my mind' smacks of all kinds of censorship.

The numbers of words in any language that can be said with harm are unimaginable. We must be careful how we censor language. Censoring language can be a very slippery slope when it comes to offensive.

Hell my shrink thought is was offensive for me to call myself crazy...........laughin........she asked me not to do that because it offended her............laughin....you can just imagine how that conversation ended.

[apretty]

well some people are going to get it and some people aren't.

[SuperFemme]

Toughy, nobody told anybody to go read a thread about unacceptable words, so you know how to 'properly speak your mind'.

What I did do was start a thread about hurtful language.

In the same vein of do unto others as you would do unto yourself....I am saying that the term breeders hurts me. I am not telling you not to use that word. I am not censoring it. I am telling you why it hurts me.

The choice to use it is yours.

My choice to address you as "She" is not censorship. It is mutual respect. Because that is how I roll, and that is how what you asked.

[Glenn]

[QUOTE=Toughy;128860]I would agree that the sacred mother as practiced by the God of Abraham monotheists is very harmful to girls and women. You must remember the sacred mother is a bastardization of the Goddess. The patriarchy's religion, in order to destroy the matriarchy's religion, stole my Sacred Mother and turned Her into a tool of the patriarchy.......mary, mother of jesus....


Mary Mother Of Jesus is a very real and beautiful *Goddess* who has appeared to many many witnesses throughout time. She has performed many documented mind-blowing miracles, and is also known as The Holy Mother, The Queen of Peace, Queen Of Heaven, etc.

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by Toughy

as to breeder........

I have always used it to denote those with children....that includes straight folk and queer folk. Sometimes it certainly has a 'dig' kind of quality to it. Sometimes it's just shorthand for those whose lives do revolve around children.

There is a huge difference between those of us whose lives do not revolve around children and those of us whose lives revolve around children.

Just to be clear, "breeding" and one's life revolving around children are hardly synonymous. In fact, I think you just utilized a more repugnant use for the term.

In context, you equate the ability to get pregnant with actual parenting, which
1.) invalidates the parenting of non-birth children.
2.) makes the assumption that getting pregnant means choosing also to actively parent.

Neither is logical and I want to think that none of this is what you actually meant. Such is the way of language.

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

Mary Mother Of Jesus is a very real and beautiful *Goddess* who has appeared to thousands of witnesses throughout time as The Holy Mother, and The Queen of Peace.

Wow. Really?

[Diva]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Why IS it that people continue to use this word? I am sad that we would devalue WOMEN in a Queer Community.

This is just me ~ but coming from many years as an educator, I believe people call other people names in an attempt to make the recipients feel "less than", because the name~caller feels less than.....and in order to make themselves feel elevated somehow, or they're ignorant and/or just flat-out scared, they use the slurs....and this is true for any group of people, I feel.

There's a lot of insecurity out there.

And maybe ~ in regards to this particular thread ~ just MAYbe there is some deep-down desire to have a child. Just a SWAG there....

Just my 2 cents....

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by June

Mr. Bent? Will you clarify your "Wow, really?" comment please? Because it looks to me like it was unecessarily derisive. It appeared that Popcorn was expressing a personal opinion in response to Toughy's post with regards to how they feel/think about St. Mary.

June (Asking a question as a moderator)

I think my comment, which was expressing surprise (we can do that here, yes?), speaks for itself.

Should I clarify further based upon the original post, or the now edited version which has changed "thousands" (to which I was expressing said surprise) to "many, many" (considerable less quantifiable)?

Or should I ask, more precisely, for clarity on the relevance of someone expressing their Judeo-Christian beliefs in a thread discussing the hurtfulness of the term "breeders?"

[blush]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Human beings of any culture have every right and should vehemently stop the practice of mutilating girl's genitalia. Actually we have an OBLIGATION to stop this.

I'm using your post, Toughy, because it was the latest one about this subject. It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

[Mister Bent]

Originally Posted by June

Yeah, I think it might have been a good first step to ask what the context was, if you were sincerely interested.

Sure, I can do that in the future, especially when the post itself seems out of context to the thread.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm using your post, Toughy, because it was the latest one about this subject. It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

I vote genital mutilation thread because I would LOVE to see a discussion on this.

[blush]

Originally Posted by June

I have always wondered why that was as well, Blush. I did not have it done to my son. It was scheduled, but when I was alone with him for the first time, examining all his amazing awesomeness, I canceled it, I felt like he was made that way for a reason. I think there are a lot of religious and cultural things going on, that probably aren't appropriate for *this* thread (I'm not saying don't, I am saying, I think it's a BIG topic in my opinion). I know my doctor tried to tell me it was for hygiene purposes and my Grandma (bless her heart) was horrified and said it would encourage him to "play with himself" because, I guess, circumcised boys don't masturbate?

They don't. I've asked.

I agree. This isn't the place for this convo.

I wonder if I invoke Linus, if he will do his magic and create a new thread?

Goof tells me we have to watch "Monk" now.

[Soon]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm using your post, Toughy, because it was the latest one about this subject. It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumsion is not analogous--both in intent, cultural justifications, the physical procedure or the consequences. I am not proposing that male circumcision is without its issues or is immune from criticism. I just don't believe that the two procedures can be fairly compared.

Link:
FGM involves the cutting off of entire portions of the female anatomy. For boys, the removal of the foreskin is more about removing an “extra” piece of skin than removing a center of pleasure. Removing the clitoris, which occurs in many FGM rituals, is done to help ensure that girls do not derive any pleasure from their sexuality, thus encouraging them to remain pure. The male equivalent of FGM would be the removal of the tip of the penis up to and including the removal of the penis and scrotum.

ETA: I am not cool with the description of the *extra piece of skin" portion of the description; however, a clitoridectomy (and other parts that can be cut during FGM--the labia--as well as sewn up--vagina) just does not equate to the act of removing the foreskin of males.

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by June

I have always wondered why that was as well, Blush. I did not have it done to my son. It was scheduled, but when I was alone with him for the first time, examining all his amazing awesomeness, I canceled it, I felt like he was made that way for a reason. I think there are a lot of religious and cultural things going on, that probably aren't appropriate for *this* thread (I'm not saying don't, I am saying, I think it's a BIG topic in my opinion). I know my doctor tried to tell me it was for hygiene purposes and my Grandma (bless her heart) was horrified and said it would encourage him to "play with himself" because, I guess, circumcised boys don't masturbate?

i could attest to the same being true for un-circumcised females. i have the carpal tunnel syndrome to prove it.

[blush]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Female Genital Mutilation and Male Circumsion is not analogous--both in intent, cultural justifications, the physical procedure or the consequences. I am not proposing that male circumcision is without its issues or is immune from criticism. I just don't believe that the two procedures can be fairly compared.

Link:
FGM involves the cutting off of entire portions of the female anatomy. For boys, the removal of the foreskin is more about removing an “extra” piece of skin than removing a center of pleasure. Removing the clitoris, which occurs in many FGM rituals, is done to help ensure that girls do not derive any pleasure from their sexuality, thus encouraging them to remain pure. The male equivalent of FGM would be the removal of the tip of the penis up to and including the removal of the penis and scrotum.

ETA: I am not cool with the description of the *extra piece of skin" portion of the description; however, a clitoridectomy (and other parts that can be cut during FGM--the labia--as well as sewn up--vagina) just does not equate to the act of removing the foreskin of males.

My comment wasn't to compare the two as a hierarchy. Obviously, the female version is worse. Both are forms of mutilations, though. If we get another thread going, I hope you'll come in and continue this discussion.

[Nat]

Genital Mutilation Thread here!

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by blush

I'm using your post, Toughy, because it was the latest one about this subject. It's interesting to me that we stand united (myself included) about genital mutilation in girls, but we don't seem to be as horrified by foreskin removal in boy infants?

I have not read any post past this one.

I focus on girls and women for a reason. Yes, I am against snipping off part of a boy/man penis.......for any reason. I don't think that practice of Judaism (and taken up others), rises to the horrific consequences of mutilating a girl's clitoris and entrance to the vagina.

It is a red herring to bring up snipping off the foreskin and leaving the penis a functional pleasurable sexual organ. It does not relate in any way, shape or form, nor has any connection with rendering a girl/women unable to experience sexual pleasure.

edited to add: and that mutilation continues her role as the vessel for the next generation, while ending her ability to have any pleasure from the act of procreation.

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

Toughy, nobody told anybody to go read a thread about unacceptable words, so you know how to 'properly speak your mind'.

What I did do was start a thread about hurtful language.

In the same vein of do unto others as you would do unto yourself....I am saying that the term breeders hurts me. I am not telling you not to use that word. I am not censoring it. I am telling you why it hurts me.

The choice to use it is yours.

My choice to address you as "She" is not censorship. It is mutual respect. Because that is how I roll, and that is how what you asked.

I love you darlin..............that does not mean we cannot disagree. We have a bond that will not be broken.

I will always always question authority. I worry that when we censor words, we censor thought. I am so fucking wrong because I call part of my family breeders.............really???????............Adel e.......ya can't tell me that. They are breeders in the sense they produce the next generation. My family will produce some queers.........we have for generations past. We breed queers. It's a damn good thing. I hope we continue to breed queers. My family breed me.

Do you see my point? I will do my best to not use that word around you. I hear it is hurtful to you and others. I will not stop using that term in reference to mi familia. I want mi familia to breed more who question authority, who do the right thing in spite of the consequences. I want mi familia to breed folks who see the equality in all of us.

Maybe it's because I am from farm and ranch folks and folks who appreciate genetics...........breeding is not a negative term..........it is a term to connotate the products of conception brought to life. It's a term used to promote the best of the species.

[Toughy]

this is really another thought in relation to the above post.

Homo sapiens are primates. We are animals. We breed. It is the idea that homo sapiens are somehow above other primates and non-primates that is the epitome of arrogance.

Us white folk have viewed other homo sapiens as less than human. We have used the term 'stud' to mean a male (not white or poor) who looks like a breeder of good strong healthy stock. Yet parts of the butch/femme/queer community embrace 'stud' as an identity.

Are we to remove 'stud' from our white vocabulary? If we do remove 'stud' because of offense to white folk?.........what does that say to black culture who view stud in some kind of equivocalness to butch.

I am lost in this conversation. I don't know who to offend and who not to offend.

[Martina]

The idea behind the term "breeder" is to denigrate women for producing, or overproducing, offspring.