Day Without A Gay
 

http://i33.tinypic.com/rv8xtk.png
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/pa...+Without+a+Gay

I can't/shouldn't take off work that day, but I will pledge to deactivate my facebook profile for the day to prove the point.

that will show him, the man, that is

Don't be a dick.

is this a really NEW way to call in for the day? because if so i am sooo in...i love gay people! i guess i will call my gay friends, make sure they are calling in too, and we will hang out all day...

can next week have support a redhead day? or single mother day? this is a trend i think i can grow to love...

I'm going to call in gay to being a house-girlfriend.

Live-in, you take care of the dog. You do the dishes. You do the job searching. You do the laundry. I can't, I'm calling in gay today.

If the goal is to show what it would be like if you discriminated against gays and they moved away and stopped giving you their economic impact, encouraging "straight allies" to participate in the walkout as well seems like a cheap way to overstate your impact. I don't know many straight people who would move away because there was some subtle anti-gay feeling in their company/town/whatever.

I don't see where they're being encouraged to participate.... in fact, I would prefer if straight people didn't.

There are times when the differences need to be underscored and I think this is one of them.

Go to work, breeders. We got this.

I was looking at this in the event description:

Thanks, I was looking at the official website which downplayed it more.

I still think the breeders should go to work.

Overuse kills irony. Could we drop the "breeders" references? It's now tiresome to the point of being counterproductive. Thanx.

First of all, I generally keep you on ignore because you add nothing to the entertainment value of my GreekChat experience.

Moreover, I think you're a shrill, self-righteous wench.

Never would I monitor specific words to make YOU or any other BREEDER feel better.

If my words make you tired, take a nap. Otherwise ignore them.

Oh no - I don't keep you entertained? Well, feel free to entertain yourself by looking up the words "tired" and "tiresome" so you can appreciate the difference. If your goal is to offend the straight community, then I'm sorry I misinterpreted your purpose. I had thought you were making a point about pejorative language - I didn't realize that you in fact have a giant chip on your shoulder. My mistake.

Don't flatter yourself. Your words don't make me feel better, or worse. I simply hate for language to be used in an attempt to belittle any group. If anyone is self-righteous here, I'm pretty sure it's you.

Please, please, do put me on ignore.

To be honest, the term "breeder" bothers me as well. Not all straight people have children. Not all straight people even want children.

Here here!

In childfree lingo, the term "breeder" is used as the opposite of "parent," as in "someone who just pops out sprog because it's what you do and then doesn't actually bother to raise or discipline them, lets them run wild in the grocery store, etc."

People actually get offeneded by the word "breeder"? I thought it is something that people take as a joke.

Awwww... straight privilege. How adorable. :)

I'm happy that no matter whether you want or can have them or not, you have the right to be a family and have all the rights and privileges which come with it.

Now you can either continue the tangent with your offense at the term breeder or you can get to the root of the inequality with me.

This is an instance where minorities can use slurs aimed at the majority but the other way around would be called bigotry, bashing, or an -ism. ;)

People will be offended by anything that lumps "good white folks" with "bad white folks."

Oh but no see, didn't you know that Jesus Hussein Obama emancipated us? We can't say "breeder" any more because we're all free and equal now.

I completely hear what you're saying and agree with you on one level, buddy. This is about heterosexual privilege.

On another level, it's about tolerance on both sides even if your perceived intolerance generally can't translate to discrimination on the part of homosexuals against heterosexuals.

Since you are also a member of another minority group, you can appreciate how using perceived slurs has little utility unless you are just breeding (:p) hostility and intolerance on either side.

It's like black people celebrating a momentous occasion, such as the election of the first black president, and wanting a voice for the cause but doing so under the guise of "putting those h_nkies in their place" or "pissing off those salty cr_ckas."

That's not so bad. ;)

You're now a member of the majority. Congrats and welcome!! Now the world doesn't need a "day with a gay." You and I should just take a vacation and frolic in an open field with puppies.

Sure, it is. But this thread is about a "Day Without a Gay" and I don't want the attentiont to shift too much.

Okay, I won't.

Breeders isn't so bad either.

Or counterreproductive.

LOL - you are right. I'm sorry . . . :o I did run it throught the spell-check - I will correct it.

Wasn't that a joke? counter reproductive?

As an avowed heterosexual who fully intends on having children, I have no problem with the term "breeder," and always thought it was tongue-in-cheek. It's not a slur, for goodness sake!

I also saw it as an opposite to the use of the word "straight" to describe heterosexuals, because that implies there's something crooked about homosexuals.

That's just me. Maybe I'm not that deep.

How 'bout that? *gold star*

Conversely, think about the claiming of the word "queer" by a marginalized community in rejection of (or in addition to) the word "gay."

^^^Nope, you're not the only one.

ETA: That was directed at Munchkin.

Hey, I'm not offended by the term breeder. I figure that when gay people use it to refer to straight people it's usually tongue-in-cheek. At least, I assumed that it was in this case. I was just clarifying what I think of when someone uses the word.

And Sen, I don't claim any straight privilege over the right to be a parent, a good or bad one. Once we stop making it so freaking hard for homosexuals to have children (by whatever means) I'm sure there will be plenty of awful gay parents out there, also.

:p

Wow, definitely took the "breeders" comment as a joke.. and laughed. One of my gay friends says it all the time and I've never been bothered by it. And if that's considered some kind of slur toward heterosexuals, this country is definitely starting to take things way too seriously.

Rock on, non-breeders!

So it's like a tit for tat kind of thing.

And, for the record, some heteros not being offended by "breeder" isn't enough to sink the Titanic if we're simply talking about what may be embedded in our daily language. "Breeder" is only as tongue-in-cheek as the context and the people who receive it. I think it's funny coming from Senusret but in a different context and from someone else I might be like "whoa, bitch."

Yes, marginalized groups have that right. I am also familiar with "queer studies" but I have had homosexual colleagues express that they don't want hetero colleagues using "queer" in most contexts. To which I respond with "OKAY, I will respect." As a member of the majority, I can't tell the minority how to self-identify but I can comment on what is embedded in the language if it is directed at the majority.

Context matters.

One part of increased tolerance is beginning to take things more seriously, for better or for worse.

Categorical distinctions are conducive to inequality in our language and behaviors. That can include the use of "breeder" and "nonbreeder," depending on the context.

Okay...Day Without a Gay.

And...START!!!

Part of me wants to go along with the term "breeder" as an actual descriptor (as in, currently we don't have the physical capability for a same-sex couple to conceive together without scientific assistance, whereas the overwhelming majority of opposite-sex couples have that potential, at least to the extent that we can recognize it as a substantive difference) . . . but doesn't that sort of play into the homophobic or anti-homosexual rights movement's (illogical) arguments regarding not applying identical rights for those couples because they don't have identical familial capabilities?

I'm all for "taking back" the word "queer" and I think any group has the general right to self-identify any way they want - trust me, we've had to run research to find out whether a certain area preferred the term "black" or "African-American" from an old, white attorney - but this seems like an awkward way to fight that battle.

This is very stream-of-consciousness, and I'm not sure why, but there it is. Am I completely off base or overthinking this?

I wouldn't feel comfortable, as part of the majority, using that term. "Gay" and "lesbian" are just fine with me.

I think one thinks about this stuff more in academia, even if you're not directly dealing with "queer studies," or even the social sciences, than the non-academic world. Everyone's so damned sensitive in colleges.