Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Just makes me think of the song "Cannonball."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
breeder v non breeder
- Thread starter Ozzie
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Probably around 5,000,000,000. Maybe 6.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
I think it's a reactionary thing. I first heard it among my gay friends, who lacked any comeback for the ubiquitous pejoratives from the straight community that they hear every day - dyke, queer, ***, pansy, etc. "Breeders" gave them a word to fight back with, so they used it. IMO, they would have used anything. A pejorative for straight people was simply necessary. If it wasn't "Breeder" it would have been something else. Honky is another example of a reactionary pejorative, created for the sole purpose of allowing a minority to perceptually frame the majority in a similar sense to how they are framed. It's just "taste of your own medicine" ism, reflected in language. It's neither right or wrong, it's simply inevitable.
It definitely doesn't originate with people with no children, but speaking as someone who has no children and doesn't intend to have any, we are a minority of our own, and experience endless pressure from family and friends. I find it extremely rude. It's also awkward, since women with children often can not relate, and assume there's something wrong, broken, unfeminine or angry at play, when it is a very simple question of economics. We can't afford to have kids, so we don't have them. I can't afford a Ferrari either, and nobody judges me for it.
It definitely doesn't originate with people with no children, but speaking as someone who has no children and doesn't intend to have any, we are a minority of our own, and experience endless pressure from family and friends. I find it extremely rude. It's also awkward, since women with children often can not relate, and assume there's something wrong, broken, unfeminine or angry at play, when it is a very simple question of economics. We can't afford to have kids, so we don't have them. I can't afford a Ferrari either, and nobody judges me for it.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Can you be both 'breeder'and 'non-breeder'? We had kids before my first wife died, and my second wife 'did/does not want kids'. So can I revert, and/or swap T shirts?
I had never heard of the term before this thread. Talking of T shirts, I called to a property rented to Americans last week, and the customer absolutely recoiled from me. Later on, she explained that she had been 'chill' towards me because I was wearing a 'wife-beater'!!! She had to explain what that is......... my T-shirt qualified for 'wife-beater'!
How we group up and separate off!
I had never heard of the term before this thread. Talking of T shirts, I called to a property rented to Americans last week, and the customer absolutely recoiled from me. Later on, she explained that she had been 'chill' towards me because I was wearing a 'wife-beater'!!! She had to explain what that is......... my T-shirt qualified for 'wife-beater'!
How we group up and separate off!
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
Why is it OK for reactionary "gay friends" to target children as the criterion for getting one back on the 'straights"? Opponents of gay marriage would have a field day with this on the basis that "natural" love in marriage leads to children in their minds. Not defending opponents of gay marriage as I think marriage should be based on love and not children. But it is understandable that opponents of gay marriage have their stereotypes reinforced by ignorant pejorative reference to themselves as "breeders" by members of the childless out-group.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=breeder
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Nobody's "targeting children". Calm down. The implication of "breeders" is that straight adults tend to procreate willy nilly rather than by clear intent and a conscious choice to start a family. I've got a friend with four kids, and she says three of them were "accidents". You can't have a child "by accident". Unless you're actively trying to conceive, you get pregnant by being irresponsible and careless, and then you choose to have it and raise it. "Accident" doesn't enter into it.
The reason this is an obvious choice for framing the majority in something similar to the way we frame homosexuals with words like "queer" is that making babies by being irresponsible and careless is something gay people physically can not do. When homosexuals have children, it's on purpose. So it's an obvious difference between the two groups. If anything, it indicates a higher attribution of value to children than in the straight community, since it disparages the culture of having kids even when you don't want them or can't afford them.
Alceste
Vagabond
This statement is meaningless. Do you have a rebuttal or don't you?
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
My task here is not rebuttal. After all your assertions are opinion not evidence based. I'm not going to be dragged here by you into a discussion of the relative merits of homosexuals v straights raising children.
Start a new thread on that subject if you want.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
My task here is not rebuttal. After all your assertions are opinion not evidence based. I'm not going to be dragged here by you into a discussion of the relative merits of homosexuals v straights raising children.
Start a new thread on that subject if you want.
As long as you understand that implying that straight adults are careless and irresponsible when it comes to having children is not "targeting children". In fact, it demonstrates that children are valued, as it suggests we shouldn't be having them if we can't take care of them.
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
How do the terms "careless" and "irresponsible" apply to straight couples having children Alceste? Are you asking for a general exception from the implication?
Alceste
Vagabond
Not using birth control is careless and irresponsible, unless you are purposefully trying to conceive a child. Of all the straight couples I know with children, including my own parents, at least one of their children was not planned.
dust1n
Zindīq
/
Oh sorry! I didn't see that part of his comment. I thought you just said that randomly, I was like... say huh?
My bad. :cigar:
Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
/
Oh sorry! I didn't see that part of his comment. I thought you just said that randomly, I was like... say huh?
My bad. :cigar:
Thanks but I don't smoke. *shows forgiveness by licking your face*:ignore:
:run:
Karl R
Active Member
The earliest reference seems to be an essay titled "A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick" written in 1729 by the British author Jonathan Swift.
The essay was meant as derogatory satire toward the Irish, in which Swift suggested the Irish solve their problems of poverty by selling their children to wealthier nations to be used as food.
Looking through the Urban Dictionary, most of the definitions seem to revolve around irresponsible reproduction. The associated terms BNP (breeder, not parent) and PNB (parent, not breeder) would seem to support the general assumption that many people (though not all) who use the term make a distinction made between responsible and irresponsible parents. The original essay appears to make the same distinction (though it clearly has its own bias about what constitutes "responsible" or "irresponsible").
I don't understand the question you're asking. Could you rephrase it?