i hate crime too!

July 14, 2006 10:36 AM

A new kind of hate has come to Provincetown. The victims? Not who you'd think. "Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called ``breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend." People call the police over this kind of thing?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus (150 comments total)

hm, second link is broken
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:40 AM on July 14, 2006

Gays have coexisted fairly peacefully alongside other residents in this community on Cape Cod's tip...

Surely this sentence could could have been written better. It reminds me of this onion article.
posted by piratebowling at 10:43 AM on July 14, 2006

People with a rabid persecution complex would... i.e. antigay Christian hate groups.
posted by Artw at 10:43 AM on July 14, 2006

Well, I'd be offended if someone called me a breeder! Not only have I not bred, I'm also vasectomised so I never will! I am so gonna set the ACLU on these hate-filled bigots!

Jesus, I wish people would grow a skin. I don't care what fucking colour it is either, just grow one already.
posted by Decani at 10:44 AM on July 14, 2006

Holiday weekend? of course. But behind this is two facts:
1. Gays have taken over the town both financially and politically and no longer are 2nd class folks. 2. Lesbians have bought many of the restaurants, and gays have too much at stake financially to "disown" the straight tourists. All you need to is visit the day there is the traditional gahy parade and see how many of the spectators are straights and their families.

There is always intolerance in any place but I would say that straights are as safe in P-Town as Gays were years ago when they were congegrating there.

The rest of the nation could learn from that town.,
posted by Postroad at 10:44 AM on July 14, 2006

These are probably the same gay secularists who battled Christmas last year. What else would they have to do in the middle of July?
posted by interrobang at 10:49 AM on July 14, 2006

I read the article this morning. It says more about the Globe than Provincetown. Drunk homosexuals can call me "breeder" all they want. I'm not looking to paint homosexuals in a bad light, so I wouldn't run to tattle to the authorities. Much the same way that we don't hear about every instance of a gay guy getting called "fag."

As for harassing people who signed up supporting the anti-gay legislation, you reap what you sow. The only problm I can think of is that a lot of people who signed it thought that they were supporting a different cause because the signatures were largely collected by a professional, crooked outfit who sized up people and lied if they looked unsympathetic to gay hatred.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:52 AM on July 14, 2006

Why would anyone believe that gays aren't capable of intolerance? After all, aren't they just like everyone else?
posted by rocket88 at 10:52 AM on July 14, 2006

Breeders? Haha...

Not sure how I'd respond to that. Calling the police is not really high on the list, though.
posted by symphonik at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2006

I hate and despise when gay people call heterosexual people--or, to be far more accurate, those perceived as heterosexual--'breeders'. We should know better how much words can hurt. Fire with fire is not an effective technique.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:53 AM on July 14, 2006 [3 favorites]

"Beeder"? Isn't that about as hurtful as "honkey"? Has anybody ever really gone home and wept because somebody crassly pointed out that they were part of the empowered majority?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:56 AM on July 14, 2006

What rocket88 said.

Also, as I'm typing this, the Beeb has a segment on this new phenomena of schoolkids calling things "gay." I think the next segment might be on this horseless carriage thing we've heard so much about.
posted by keswick at 10:57 AM on July 14, 2006

Yeah, I saw this in the Globe today. Going to P-Town can be a bit unsettling for a straight guy like myself, but I've never experienced this sort of issue there. More like friendly but persistant flirtation.

P-Town can get a bit vulger sometimes too, with some really over the top public displays of affection and such. I am kind of bothered by that, I think it's unnecessary regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved.

Above all...How did this make the Globe front page today? It's kind of a busy news week here.
posted by rollbiz at 10:58 AM on July 14, 2006

terrorism war on christmas illegal immigrants rock music
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:01 AM on July 14, 2006

isn't this more of a class problem? i thought it was jamaican workers who were called that, in which case, hurtful.

straights on socioeconomic par don't have to deal with anything like the same insecurity regarding their sexuality that so-called gays do, so i too think they could just grow the fuck up and defend whom they're defending.

lame bostonians.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:01 AM on July 14, 2006

We should know better how much words can hurt.

I'm curious: Why should we ("we" being gays) know that "better" than anyone who's not gay? Are we here to set an example? Are we here to be on a pedestal? Does any other minority that is affected by hatred have a higher calling to be paragons of virtue? Are we immune from rage and irrational impulses?
posted by blucevalo at 11:02 AM on July 14, 2006

Jebus Chrystler Dodge, Decani! Just because I was born without skin doesn't mean I should have to slather on 3,000,000 SPF hatred and shroud myself in shame and intolerance just to get a seat at the parade. We're Here, We're Clear, Get SeeThroughIt!

/Visible Man Power
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:02 AM on July 14, 2006

I hate how the right wingers and the media seem to be a mission to trivialize the genuine complaints of oppressed people with trvial versions of same. Like: this is a hate crime. And so is this. But one member of an oppressed minority calling one member of the lucky majority a name is not a hate crime.
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:02 AM on July 14, 2006

While I consider the term 'breeder' to be sort of goofy, does it really convey the sort of derision that Ann Coulter seems to believe the word 'Jew' does?

If I say some one's given name with contempt in my voice is that a hate crime now?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 11:03 AM on July 14, 2006

No-one explains how "breeder" would be considered "hate language." Below, more accurate headline suggestions for "A New Intolerance Visits Provincetown"


Gay Residents Strongly Object To Locals Not In Support Of Same-Sex Marriage

Scornful Tone Of Voice Used By Gays In P-Town

People Disagree About Gay Marriage In P-Town, Too

Isn't It Like, Ironic, When Gay People Are Mean To Straight People?
posted by desuetude at 11:05 AM on July 14, 2006

Reminds me of the recent story on The Daily Show by Ed Helms, There Goes the Gayborhood.
posted by crunchland at 11:09 AM on July 14, 2006

The vast majority of people are the same at their core, no matter their faith, lifestyle choices, what have you. They don't want anyone to be cruel to them, but don't care if they're cruel to others.

Excessive self-interest is the worst quality we have yet to evolve out of.
posted by SaintCynr at 11:09 AM on July 14, 2006

Did anyone catch Ed Helms on the Daily Show last night interviewing the family man in Castro last night? Damn, that was hilarious and vaguely tangential.
posted by boo_radley at 11:10 AM on July 14, 2006

Heter haters.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:10 AM on July 14, 2006

I think the real "lesson" here -- and I use that term loosely, I admit -- isn't that words hurt. Its the intention behind the words, and in this case the intention is divisiveness.

When someone wants to distance themselves from you, they put the negative focus on you as the other, then it doesn't matter what phrase is used. Breeders, honkeys, gays...heck, even brown-eyes or blue-eyes...whatever it takes to identify that difference between bad you and good me.

So while breeder or honkey may not piss you off here at safe little Mefi, I have a feeling it would if you felt there were a hundred powerful non-honkeys circling around you, calling you just that.
posted by diastematic at 11:12 AM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

What is really annoying is all the homosexuals at my gym. Many will stare impenitently at either me or my package ceaselessly. In the changing rooms either directly or thorough the mirrors. On the machines. It is nonstop.

Its like, if I dont make eye contact with you, stop fucking staring at me.

I thought there were gay bathhouses for this sort of bullshit. But they keep coming to mine!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:15 AM on July 14, 2006

The vast majority of people are the same at their core, no matter their faith, lifestyle choices, what have you. They don't want anyone to be cruel to them, but don't care if they're cruel to others.

Truth.
posted by DWRoelands at 11:16 AM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

And a woman was verbally accosted after signing a petition that opposed same-sex marriage, they said.

The town, which prizes its reputation for openness and tolerance [...]

Wait just a minute now... You're saying that a woman who was "verbally accosted" after signing a petition to deny other people the same rights as her was offended by them, and that this behaviour is in line with the town's values of openness and tolerance?

You are saying, then, that she's upset her intolerance wasn't tolerated by others, and it should have been because the town is supposed to be tolerant of others?

So I guess my question is, where can I find some of the good, good stuff they must smoke down there? Really, that's all I want to know.
posted by splice at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2006

I'm curious: Why should we ("we" being gays) know that "better" than anyone who's not gay? Are we here to set an example? Are we here to be on a pedestal? Does any other minority that is affected by hatred have a higher calling to be paragons of virtue? Are we immune from rage and irrational impulses?


My intent was not to imply that gays are better people, just that most LGBTQABCDEFG people have been on the receiving end of verbal derision enough times to have some perception of how it can hurt. And yes, I'm well aware of the usual trend for the abused/oppressed to become abusers/oppressors.

What is really annoying is all the homosexuals at my gym. Many will stare impenitently at either me or my package ceaselessly. In the changing rooms either directly or thorough the mirrors. On the machines. It is nonstop.


And of course, you never stare at women.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

Gays have taken over the town both financially and politically and no longer are 2nd class folks. 2. Lesbians have bought many of the restaurants, and gays have too much at stake financially to "disown" the straight tourists.

New wave looms over Cape tradition

"'The condo-ization of Provincetown is hurting it,' said [Mylan] Costa, who lives in North Eastham. 'I think it is becoming another Nantucket. Nantucket's nice. Believe me. It's a nice place. But it's definitely changing the makeup of the town. It's not a funky village anymore. That's gone forever. It's a commercial product now.'"

[Boston Globe | July 6, 2005]

Fear and loathing in Ptown and Hollywood

"Just as this uproar was dying down, Peter Manso’s book Ptown: Art, Sex, and Money on the Outer Cape (Scribner) hit the bookstores. Manso’s contention that the formerly small fishing village and arts colony known as Provincetown is being completely destroyed not only by wealthy gay men and lesbians who have installed themselves as the gatekeepers of the town’s real-estate and tourism industry, but also by hordes of gay and lesbian tourists who have taken over the streets in leather and drag and created a rainbow-beflagged queer paradise, making Ptown hell for heterosexuals created a whirlwind controversy.

...The idea that gay men and lesbians have tremendously disproportionate social, economic, cultural, and political power has been a staple of right-wing propaganda for more than three decades.

... Manso poses as an angry messenger-angel bearing bad tidings: while Provincetown has long been a bastion of decency, diversity, and social democracy, over the past three decades it has become, well, too gay.

...While the most insidious attacks on gay people come toward the end of Manso’s book, he doesn’t waste any time spinning his theme: the invasion of wealthy gay men and lesbians who have literally taken over to promote their own rich-and-famous lifestyles and to make the town a 'gays only' haven.

...This conflation of apparent affluence — signified here by the tell-tale signs of commercial and domestic queerness — resembles traditional attacks on upwardly mobile Jews. Just as Jews have been accused of being vulgar, social-climbing parvenus who mistake wealth for culture Manso’s homosexuals are, by and large, ignorant of good breeding and taste.

...Just as Ovitz blames gay men in Hollywood for all of the evil that has befallen him, Manso condemns the changes in Ptown as the handiwork of a uniform phalanx of ‘gays.’ This presents something of a logistical problem because (as Manso himself notes) Provincetown has a long history of knitting gay men and lesbian into its culture from the 1920s onward — what arts colony and bohemian enclave hasn’t? He acknowledges that today, some gay residents are not at fault. However, he describes them as ‘gay but totally uncomplicated about it, like so many other longtime Ptown year-rounders.’ And he is unmerciful about the other — apparently complicated — homosexuals.

Even after distinguishing between good and bad homosexuals, Manso characterizes all gay men and lesbians as a monolithic group. Terms such as ‘they’ and ‘these people,’ cast as walking clichés, are peppered throughout the book to remind readers of the common enemy. ‘They have a tremendous amount of talent [for fixing up and reselling homes]’ notes one of Manso’s local informants. ‘I mean they can take a shithole and make it beautiful. It’s like they just say, ‘we’ll go in and sprinkle some fairy dust ands make it look fantastic.’

Making matters worse, according to Manso, gay home-ownership has translated into institutional power: gay men and lesbians have taken over building, zoning, and permit committees. ‘‘The gays,’ another person tells Manso, ‘are by now the richest, most powerful people in Provincetown,’ he says, adding, ‘A lot of these people love being on these committees.’ And along with this ‘love’ of power comes arrogance, bullying, and intimidation. ‘Who the fuck do you think you are’ screams a drunken lesbian at two straight men in a local bar, ‘this is my town.’ So there it is, what Manso calls ‘the gay trump card.’

...The fact is, in Manso’s world it doesn’t matter how many wealthy gay people have moved into Provincetown, or how many straight wealthy people, how many drag queens or men and women in leather are on the streets, or how many families with children come to town. Manso’s 'proof' of the gay takeover of Provincetown is almost entirely anecdotal. There is no hard data, no demographic analysis, and not even any hard reporting.

...The changes in Provincetown during this time have not been unique, but have occurred across the map. Some changes in Provincetown have been made by lesbians and gay men — not because they were homosexual, but because they had money. The lie at the center of Peter Manso’s book is that it is homosexuality — not access to money — that is to blame for the changes that have occurred on the Outer Cape. And to blame some of the social and cultural manifestations of homosexuality for these problems is not only inaccurate, but as socially and morally wrong as is anti-Semitism for blaming all Jews for disruptive social change.

The fantasy promoted by Peter Manso’s book is that gay people have too much power, money, and control. They have taken over Provincetown, they want to get rid of straight people in town, they use rainbow flags to intimidate and exclude heterosexuals, they have all the power. Social acceptance — or toleration — of gay people has indeed taken place, and it has been a slow and often painful process for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The attacks on gay money and power in Ptown: Art, Sex, and Money on the Outer Cape are simply one more indication that this new level of social acceptance is nothing more than a thin veneer that can be easily scratched to reveal the fear — often expressed with loathing and disdain — that still lies underneath."

[The Boston Phoenix | July 25 2002]

posted by ericb at 11:27 AM on July 14, 2006

TJH, agreed. The package-staring problem persists. It's a toughie, kind of like what wymmyn go thru with their boobs / butts i'd imagine. The male sex drive is sometimes just a bit much. . . And gay people can be a little too "empowered" and "liberated" into excessive, impolite behavior. I guess just be glad there are no gay gang bangers at your gym.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:27 AM on July 14, 2006

a lot of people who signed it thought that they were supporting a different cause because the signatures were largely collected by a professional, crooked outfit

Thousands may have been frauded by out-of-state, buck-a-signature petition circulators.

Out-of-state, buck-a-signature workers exposed.

Petition fraud caught on camera by FOX25.

Deception by gay marriage foes involves more than stolen signatures.
posted by ericb at 11:32 AM on July 14, 2006

I've seen this sort of thing happen occasionally in the predominantly-queer area where I live, and yeah, it's no less shitty than groups of drunken lads yelling at gay guys or whoever. It's just dumb, unthinking us-versus-them tribalism - I suspect the people going around calling heterosexuals breeders think they're redressing the balance and giving 'them' a taste of their own medicine or something, without giving a thought to the fact that these are not the same people who've given them shit for being gay in the past. That humankind is not split into homogenous 'queer' and 'not queer' groups, all of whom are somehow responsible for the shitty behaviour of one of their number.

On the other hand, if it could be shown that the individuals being harassed had previously verbally harassed queer people, I'd have a lot less sympathy. As with the woman who'd signed an anti-rights petition. As long as it didn't go any further than verbal harassment, she reaped what she sowed, the same as I'd expect someone to be insulted for visibly signing a petition to ban, say, women voting on a mixed-gender high street.
posted by terpsichoria at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2006

What is really annoying is all the homosexuals at my gym.
posted by 2sheets at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2006

Dear Abby,

Everywhere I go, I catch people staring at my perfect, 12-inch pleasure-monkey. Clothes can't hide it, most books aren't big enough to cover it... To make matters worse, it's often erect for hours on end, no matter how many times I use it to bring roomsfull of supermodels to lifealtering multiple orgasm. My question is, can you please print my address in your column? Ta!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:35 AM on July 14, 2006

And of course, you never stare at women.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:22 AM PST on July 14

Oh, you're right! I do it all the time, so my point is rendered ineffective. Nice work.

In fact, I often go into women's locker rooms, women's showers and women's saunas and stare endlessly at their dripping wet body parts. It's just a public locker room, why would anyone mind?
posted by The Jesse Helms at 11:35 AM on July 14, 2006

splice - just what I was thinking. She signs this hate-petition, then tells people "I don't want to divide the community over this issue." And puts a sign on her trolley: "That `love they neighbor' thing? I meant it . . . [signed] God." Meta-hypocrisy! Piss off, lady. Sheesh.
posted by zoinks at 11:36 AM on July 14, 2006

The Jesse Helms: Just wear a shirt with your Mefi nick on the back...the stares will stop. Either that or remove the sock.

Back in the 80s I spoke to the city council about a bill to add sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination bill. In it I mentioned I was a Breeder and quickly realized the Aldermen thought I was in the horse racing industry. I'm glad the term is getting more press.
posted by ?! at 11:37 AM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

I always thought "breeder" was a meta-joke myself.

But yeah, if you want more straight people to support the idea of gay marriage (as I do), "breeder" is prolly a tactical error, among other things.
posted by bardic at 11:41 AM on July 14, 2006

It's just dumb, unthinking us-versus-them tribalism - I suspect the people going around calling heterosexuals breeders think they're redressing the balance and giving 'them' a taste of their own medicine or something, without giving a thought to the fact that these are not the same people who've given them shit for being gay in the past.

Is it "dumb," or is it human nature? Tribalism (not to mention thoughtless behavior) isn't exactly a rare feature among Homo sapiens, whatever their sexual orientation or makeup.
posted by blucevalo at 11:42 AM on July 14, 2006

Surprise, gay people are normal. True acceptance is realizing we too are assholes, just like you all. :)
posted by taursir at 11:44 AM on July 14, 2006

TJH, again, good point. Because privacy is actually very important to people, and these homosexuals are ruining their own agenda by not seriously criticizing each other for inappropriate violations of privacy that they should be responsible for. there's a limit, and they should know that.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 11:45 AM on July 14, 2006

Retort: Breeder spawn!
posted by Kickstart70 at 11:46 AM on July 14, 2006

I guess at our next 'Gay Agenda Annual Conference' we 'gays' will have to set down a new rule of not using the term 'breeder' when in P-town. Geesh what a handful of gays say can ruin it for us all!
posted by ericb at 11:46 AM on July 14, 2006

Some of these gays are gettin' mighty upitty, don't ya' think?
posted by ericb at 11:47 AM on July 14, 2006

ericb - yeah, heard of that sort of thing for petitions in various places. The FPP article makes it seem that the church this lady attends is pushing for the amendment, quotes the preacher there as saying the signers knew what they were getting into. So it seems she may not have been so ignorant. (Of what she was signing. Beyond that...)
posted by zoinks at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2006

Oh yeah? Well, your mother is a breeder.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:49 AM on July 14, 2006

"Breeder" is a pretty gay insult.
posted by ibmcginty at 11:50 AM on July 14, 2006

oops - referring to the linked articles above re: petition fraud, of course.
posted by zoinks at 11:51 AM on July 14, 2006

zoinks -- yeah, most people know what their signing. The fraud has occurred to inflate the number of signatures. Know Thy Kneighbor tracks who is signing the petitions, etc. here in Massachusetts, as well as in Florida and other regions.
posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on July 14, 2006

Much the same way that we don't hear about every instance of a gay guy getting called "fag."

Bingo. Should we be running to the police each time? Do we? No. These are people who are unhappy that Ptown is majority gay, and want it to change.
posted by amberglow at 11:52 AM on July 14, 2006

Kneighbor

Typo ...but, hey, one I like KTK!
posted by ericb at 11:52 AM on July 14, 2006

A new kind of hate has come to Provincetown.

This would be a great tag line for the next Jaws movie.
posted by Flashman at 11:56 AM on July 14, 2006

Um, The Jesse... ever think that maybe you go to a gay gym? Just throwing out ideas.

Actually, a gay person calling a straighty "breeder" or a black dude calling a white dude "honky" is just as much a hate crime as a straight white guy calling someone a "fag" or a "nigger." The whole point of hate crimes laws is that they exist for everybody -- something that many detractors of such laws fail to realize. David Neiwert's Death on the Fourth of July explains it all rather nicely.

As for the role-reversal aspect of all this, I give you this quote:

``Hate language is usually the early-warning signal that could lead to hate-motivated violence," Town Manager Keith Bergman said. ``And before that happens, we try to nip it in the bud."

Find me a rural sheriff who's this sensitive to hate speech and how they hurt communities, and I'll be impressed.
posted by hifiparasol at 11:59 AM on July 14, 2006

Have some gay guys in my gym. Doesn’t bother me if they look, staring is easily remedied with a look back or a frown, unless they’re aggressive assholes. And that can be met with aggression, personal or through complaints, etc. My own experiance has been that if I’m lifting or something I get zoned out for a bit because of fatigue and just stare off into space. Sometimes I’m staring at where someone happens to be, could be the same thing. Or absentmindedly just looking at an attractive (in my case female) individual. You don’t realize you’re being rude and need to be shaken out of it. But I myself don’t ogle people and I find it rude when others do. I did have a guy grab my ass in a bar (not in a gay bar) so I spearfingered his throat (enough to make him cough not collapse his trachea). I don’t think such a response from a woman would have been unjustified.
But this ‘breeder’ thing, I mean one can react in a similar manner when called ‘queer’ or some such. That is - with sexual celibration: “Yeah! I get all the pussy I can! Wooo!”
(reverse polarity for male homosexuals of course).

Devoid of some Malthusian perjorative, I don’t see the insult.
/your sexual proclivity sucks!
//or doesn’t if you’re vanilla, etc.

So prejudice of any kind sucks, but a person that signs a petition to ban same sex marriage IS a bigot and deserves social ostricism. At least as much as interpersonal rudeness does.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:01 PM on July 14, 2006

/mr_crash_davis’ retort is aces tho’
posted by Smedleyman at 12:03 PM on July 14, 2006

Jaws XXX - The Breeder Eater
A new kind of hate has come to Provincetown... Just when you thought it was safe to go back to the gym!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:04 PM on July 14, 2006

Homophobia is gay
posted by SweetJesus at 12:07 PM on July 14, 2006

But did they call the kids Crotchfruit?!
posted by shoepal at 12:08 PM on July 14, 2006

There is a proven solution to be used whenever Americans are unjustly attacked and humilated on American soil. That solution is generally called the The United States Marine Corps. If these secular gays are attacking Americans on the Fourth of July! then really we have no choice but to send in a task force.
posted by nixerman at 12:11 PM on July 14, 2006

We're here, we breed, get used to it!

Or watch the human race die out in a generation!
posted by languagehat at 12:13 PM on July 14, 2006

...Making matters worse, according to Manso, gay home-ownership has translated into institutional power: gay men and lesbians have taken over building, zoning, and permit committees...
posted by ericb

I knew there was a hidden gay agenda! Gay building permits--how insidious can they get??? Next they'll want a say in solid waste management or dog licensing. This threat has to be stopped before they take over the water treatment plant!
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:14 PM on July 14, 2006

I have a feeling it would if you felt there were a hundred powerful non-honkeys circling around you

I may never be in another band, but if I am I hope it's called hundred powerful non-honkeys
posted by illovich at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2006

I don't understand why anyone who's not hardcore childfree would be pissed off at being called a breeder.
posted by booksandlibretti at 12:20 PM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

Man if you sent the Marines into P-Town all you'd end up with is the awesomest party ever.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:24 PM on July 14, 2006 [1 favorite]

God, this is further proof the gays really need some better hate speech. The best we've got is "breeder"? "Breeder"? Do you know how many slurs there are for homosexuals? I've heard "tacostuffer", "comedumpster", and "baby basket", but naught else with which to insult our straight bretheren!

We're even stuck with second-class insults!
posted by Anonymous at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2006

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who signed that vile petition, particularly once the deceitful tactics being used to gather signatures came to light. Suck it up -- chickens come home to roost eventually. I'm with splice:

You are saying, then, that she's upset her intolerance wasn't tolerated by others, and it should have been because the town is supposed to be tolerant of others?

So I guess my question is, where can I find some of the good, good stuff they must smoke down there? Really, that's all I want to know.

And somehow I don't think calling someone a breeder is anywhere near as offensive as calling someone a fag, queer, etc... hell, I'm straight and even my straight friends call each other breeders!
posted by bitter-girl.com at 12:28 PM on July 14, 2006

Divine_Wino: "Man if you sent the Marines into P-Town all you'd end up with is the awesomest party ever."

Hooah!-ah!-ah!-ah! Oh... yeah!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:31 PM on July 14, 2006

That solution is generally called the The United States Marine Corps.

I think the Navy would be better in this instance.
posted by ryoshu at 12:33 PM on July 14, 2006

Even I won't do Seamen jokes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:35 PM on July 14, 2006

Never mind too that a lot of gay couples are also pretty keen to "breed".
posted by Flashman at 12:38 PM on July 14, 2006

terrorism war on christmas illegal immigrants rock music

That's a wicked awesome band name.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:42 PM on July 14, 2006

Do people call the police for stuff like that? Dude, people call the police to look for a cute deputy.

So, yes, they really do. People call the police over ridiculous crap all the time.
posted by drstein at 12:48 PM on July 14, 2006

"Man if you sent the Marines into P-Town all you'd end up with is the awesomest party ever."

A few years ago I was in New Orleans for the annual Labor Day celebration, Southern Decadence. There happened to be a VFW Convention in town that same weekend. Both events had competing parades on Sunday. At one point the two converged, passing each other in separate directions on Decatur Street. What a hoot! Drag queens were climbing onto military vehicles while participants in both processions whooped it up. Granted, on more than one occasion some of the drivers of the Humvees and Jeeps slowly and discreetly rolled their windows up.
posted by ericb at 12:56 PM on July 14, 2006

Even I won't do Seamen jokes.

Ah, but in P-town everyone does, since one of the oldest local banks which is in the center of town on Commercial Street is the 'Seamans Savings Bank.' Granted, few make deposits, most are seeking withdrawals.
posted by ericb at 1:00 PM on July 14, 2006

Seamen's Savings Bank was incorporated April 14, 1851.
posted by ericb at 1:02 PM on July 14, 2006

This seems like a pretty minor trend to me, the kind of thing that local law enforcement should deal with, but not the kind of thing for the press to bother reporting on. That said, I find some of the responses here to be far too flippant about it. Yes, this is very much the same as calling a white person honkey and no, neither carries with it the same automatically problematic overtones as some other racial slurs. In this case, the key is context. These are not slurs direct at heterosexuals in rural Alabama, they are slurs directed at heterosexuals in a context where homosexuals are a large and powerful group. That makes "breeder" a meaningful slur based on the specific context. Indeed, I would venture that it is unlikely that we would see this sort of behavior if it weren't for the specific context of Provincetown. I've never been called a honkey in a room full of white people, only when I was the only white kid on the school bus. In that context, it can be just as hurtful and just as threatening as the reverse situation would be.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:06 PM on July 14, 2006

Many will stare impenitently at either me or my package ceaselessly. In the changing rooms either directly or thorough the mirrors. On the machines. It is nonstop.

Its like, if I dont make eye contact with you, stop fucking staring at me.

Wait. So gay men are...men?

I love my neighborhood, The Castro, for the same reason my boyfriend is occasionally uncomfortable here. I get to be invisible.
posted by birdie birdington at 1:07 PM on July 14, 2006

I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who signed that vile petition, particularly once the deceitful tactics being used to gather signatures came to light. Suck it up -- chickens come home to roost eventually.

Isn't that the contradiction? I have sympathy for whoever signed it and was deceived into thinking it was something other than what it actually is.
posted by rollbiz at 1:08 PM on July 14, 2006

Oh, you're right! I do it all the time, so my point is rendered ineffective. Nice work.

In fact, I often go into women's locker rooms, women's showers and women's saunas and stare endlessly at their dripping wet body parts. It's just a public locker room, why would anyone mind?

My point is, you stare at women--probably in a subtle manner sometimes, and an unsubtle manner other times. Ergo, you have zero right to complain when people do it to you.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:12 PM on July 14, 2006

This threat has to be stopped before they take over the water treatment plant!

I say let 'em have it. Evian^® for all households!
posted by ericb at 1:22 PM on July 14, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: So... according to that logic, since people do stare at him while naked in the locker room, women would have no right to complain if he walks into the lady's locker room and ogles them? Unless they've never looked at anyone else either? Meh. I made fun of this earlier, but I can't say your argument stands up to scrutiny, either. So to speak.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:25 PM on July 14, 2006

Have you *seen* his argument, Flo?
posted by dame at 1:30 PM on July 14, 2006

Not yet. Nor have I seen it flow.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:31 PM on July 14, 2006

Actually, a gay person calling a straighty "breeder" or a black dude calling a white dude "honky" is just as much a hate crime as a straight white guy calling someone a "fag" or a "nigger." The whole point of hate crimes laws is that they exist for everybody -- something that many detractors of such laws fail to realize. David Neiwert's Death on the Fourth of July explains it all rather nicely.

Whoa. I'm a big fan of Mr. Neiwert's writing. But calling someone a name is not a "hate crime." In fact, it's not a crime of any sort. (Unless you're sneering "breeder! breeder!" while pummeling them with a baseball bat, refusing to rent them an apartment, threatening their property or families, or playing Cher really loudly while singing along.)
posted by desuetude at 1:32 PM on July 14, 2006

Surprise, gay people are normal. True acceptance is realizing we too are assholes, just like you all. :)

Don't be so normal dammit! Gay people used to be so cool and interesting. Now they're no different than Tom and Barb SUV, the fatso's who live down the street and vote straight Republican. How Boring.
posted by Skygazer at 1:41 PM on July 14, 2006

Yvonne Cabral is the woman profiled in the Boston Globe article

I wonder what, if any, was her relationship with Reggie Cabral (who died in 1996). Cabral was the owner of the P-town watering hole the Atlantic House (aka A-House) -- one of the oldest gay bars in the country. He and his wife, Mira, were embraced and cherished by many in P-town (John Waters: "When Reggie Cabral died, that was a big thing for me. His wife, Mira, who I was fascinated by, died too.")

Out on the Cape

"The ‘A-House’ was a gabled Greek Revival mansion down a narrow alley off Commercial Street. Originally, it had been a stagecoach stop and inn where, it is said, Thoreau stayed while on his famous walking tour of the Cape in 1849. Yet Reggie was anything but a Yankee. Indeed, he was an odd combination of hubris and originality, a fisherman’s son with little formal education who had, on his own, discovered art, which he came to love as much as he loved the artists. After buying the A-House in 1950, he opened the doors of his club to such young and rising painters as Mark Rothko and Claes Oldenburg, with the result that he assembled the core of an important collection.

Reggie was smart. He not only traded drinks for paintings and sculpture, but also collected literary memorabilia, amassing a considerable collection of original material by Eugene O’Neill, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Susan Glaspell, as well as manuscripts and first editions of Tennessee Williams and Norman Mailer, both A-House customers.

‘History,’ Reggie told the local weekly, the Provincetown Advocate, ‘is only as good as the material you have to work with. Everybody had a story about O’Neill and his friends, and the stories were simply not true. Everybody told them, not because they cared, but because they wanted to grab on to the glory.’

In the summer of 1976, Reggie decided the A-House had to ‘go gay.’ The A-House had always been ‘mixed,’ but now Reggie set up a two-tiered price list and hiked the drink prices for women fourfold. A gin and tonic suddenly cost $12, not $3, and soon he had an exclusively gay nightspot."

posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on July 14, 2006

The Jesse Helms writes "In fact, I often go into women's locker rooms, women's showers and women's saunas and stare endlessly at their dripping wet body parts. It's just a public locker room, why would anyone mind?"

Personally I think all change facilities should be either co-ed or private. This half assed, 50% excluded "privacy" is stupid.

bardic writes "I always thought 'breeder' was a meta-joke myself."

RAH's characters in his books written in the 70s occasionally use the term. I think it has been around for a long time.

Kickstart70 writes "Retort: Breeder spawn!"
Great, there goes that keyboard. Well, actually, only a piece of paper towel was harmed, I wield a Model M. Still it was inconvenient
posted by Mitheral at 1:42 PM on July 14, 2006

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?
posted by thefreek at 1:44 PM on July 14, 2006

“A new kind of hate has come to Provincetown.”
In a world....where “gay” is ok...and “breeders” can only build gay buildings, treat gay waste and walk gay dogs...comes one man, one MARINE to...(etc. w/ snappy action montage of breeders pummeled with ball bats, losing apartments, getting Cher really loudly played at them with karaoke)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:47 PM on July 14, 2006

He made the bar exclusively gay by raising the price of drinks? Must be a P-town thing.
posted by bardic at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2006

If a lesbian conceives a baby through artificial insemination, can she be called a "breeder"?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 1:53 PM on July 14, 2006

That would be a "halfbreeder."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:55 PM on July 14, 2006

drstein writes "Dude, people call the police to look for a cute deputy"

I had a guy call the cops on me because he felt my dog house was too big. The cops pushed it onto by-law and me and the by-law officer had a good laugh when he came by to investigate.
posted by Mitheral at 1:57 PM on July 14, 2006

He made the bar exclusively gay by raising the price of drinks? Must be a P-town thing.

BTW -- the passage on Cabral is an excerpt from Peter Manso's controversial book, ' Ptown: Art, Sex, and Money on the Outer Cape' which the Boston Phoenix took issue (above).

Consider the source of the claim that raising drink prices allow one to transform a 'mixed bar' into a 'gay bar' overnight.
posted by ericb at 1:59 PM on July 14, 2006

Now the whole Cher connection finally makes sense, IRFH.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:00 PM on July 14, 2006

A fixture in P-town is Cher (Randy Roberts) in fishnets, buzzing down Commercial Street on a motor scooter.
posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on July 14, 2006

Motor scooters. Now there's an abomination!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:08 PM on July 14, 2006

fishnets--now there's an abomination! ; >

(especially with the wrong shoes!)
posted by amberglow at 2:35 PM on July 14, 2006

Wearing white after labor day is simply beastly too!!
posted by Skygazer at 2:43 PM on July 14, 2006

P-Town is changing. Of course. All things change. Gays have disposable incomes and buy up and transform traditional small places into very large non-traditional looking places. The Portugeese fisherman sell their homes for huge profits and move to Truro and live there. But then land scarce, the wealthy buy and tear down older homes and build large ones (McMansions) in many spots in America (Denver, for example). Gays scornful of straights? Gosh, straights were never this way about gays.
PS: breeders provide babies for lesbians to adopt so breeders have an important role to play. Be kind to your breeder.
posted by Postroad at 2:53 PM on July 14, 2006

Also, isn't it illegal for gay clubs to charge more for breeders?

I always have to kiss the doorman to get the better rate.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 3:00 PM on July 14, 2006

Breeder retort 2: Pixie!
Breeder retort 3: I'm the real Deal!
If they're in the pool at the time you could do a Canonball on 'em.
posted by DenOfSizer at 3:13 PM on July 14, 2006

...Reggie set up a two-tiered price list and hiked the drink prices for women fourfold. A gin and tonic suddenly cost $12, not $3, and soon he had an exclusively gay nightspot.

That's simple sexism, nothing more. He is discriminating against women, be they straight, lesbian, or transexual. Misogynistic fool.
posted by nlindstrom at 3:21 PM on July 14, 2006

...Reggie set up a two-tiered price list and hiked the drink prices for women fourfold. A gin and tonic suddenly cost $12, not $3, and soon he had an exclusively gay nightspot. That's simple sexism, nothing more. He is discriminating against women, be they straight, lesbian, or transexual. Misogynistic fool.

I seriously question the veracity of Peter Manso's points regarding Cabral and the A-House. Many have taken issue with the polarizing claims he made in his book about P-town (as above).

Regarding the history of the A-House, I'll take their word for it:

"What is now called the Atlantic House or A-House, as it is well known, was built by Provincetown's first Postmaster, Daniel Pease, in 1798. Pease operated the building as a tavern until his death from Cholera in 1834.

The Atlantic House was then purchased by Benjamin Allstrum, who renamed it the Allstrum House. It served as the last stage coach stop of the Orleans to Provincetown route until the arrival of the train in 1873.

When Allstrum died in 1871, Frank Potter Smith, a Portuguese sailor who had arrived in town on a boat at the age of 18, bought the Allstrum House and renamed it the Atlantic House - the name has stuck for good.

The A-House was the hangout for several of America's most noted writers in the 1920's. Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams are counted in that list. A nude photo of Tennessee Williams strolling on Provincetown beaches hangs in the bar.

In 1950 Reginald (Reggie) Cabral and Mr. and Mrs. Frank J. Hurst bought the A-House. Soon Reggie, who worked as manager, took over full ownership and the establishment became what is today the most popular watering hole in Provincetown.

Some would say that the A-House is the oldest Gay Bar in the country with its appeal to alternate life stylists from the early 1900's, but the A-House became truly 'gay friendly' back in the early 50's and from then on it's history has been such. Holding weekly theme parties in the big room (disco) and hosting a cast of regular characters in the 'Little Bar.'"

posted by ericb at 3:30 PM on July 14, 2006

... and guess who stays at the A-House? ; >
posted by amberglow at 3:34 PM on July 14, 2006

... and guess who stays at the A-House? ; >

And a first-hand report from Andy Towle from his July 4th. visit to P-town:

"And yes, that other alleged power couple Reichen Lehmkuhl and Lance Bass were continually spotted around town. I saw them twice (as did others) at the Atlantic House (A-House) bar. A stroke of serendipity placed them next to me in a line for the men's room where Reichen introduced me to Lance. We had a brief conversation, but I can't confirm or deny the status of their relationship (which some, in the comments to this post, say was a bit rocky). What I can say was that everytime I saw Lance he was well-tucked under the shadowy mask of a baseball cap, and Reichen was extremely polite."

posted by ericb at 3:40 PM on July 14, 2006

So now pointing out that someone is a bigot (because they signed an anti marriage petition) is an alleged crime? Boy, that's some twisted logic. It's OK to be a bigot but it's not OK to object to being the victim of bigotry.

If being called a bigot or a "breeder" is the worst thing that ever happens to someone, they should count their blessings. I'm sure every gay person in America has been called a lot worse than that.

As for the claims that gay folks spread manure on someone's lawn, if that's the case then kick their butts for property damage -- just like for any other case involving damage to property.

And really, gays have so few places in America that they can really call their own. If you don't like gays, then don't go to P-town. Geesh.


...and yes, what's Lance doing at the A-house???
posted by bim at 3:41 PM on July 14, 2006

(from the A-house link)
“Its reporters expose celebrities they believe are in the closet and are hypocritical for not publicly revealing their sexual orientation.”

Y’know, I’ve heard (pure conjecture) that Kevin Spacy is gay. I think he has excellent reasons for keeping his personal life out of the press (e.g. wants the focus to remain on the roles). And his statement that he doesn’t talk about who he sleeps with (because he’s a gentleman) is an excellent one. Any enlightened individual isn’t concerned with a given actor’s sexuality and if he needs to keep up some sort of facade for the popcorn chewers so he or she can do business, so be it. There are far worse distortions in Hollywood for the sake of the business. I like kissing my wife. I like kissing my wife in public. Some other guy doesn’t want to do that, that’s ok by me. I’m not going to call him a closet heterosexual. Guy wants to kiss his male partner in public - or not - I’m ok with that too. This is mostly childishness and I’ve always suspected that some of those mores and contrasts are preserved for the sake of titillation. (Is he gay? Isn’t he? Who’s sleeping with who now?)
posted by Smedleyman at 3:57 PM on July 14, 2006

I like kissing my wife. I like kissing my wife in public.

Out of respect I will refrain from the obvious joke. I SAID. I'll refrain from. The obvious. Joke...

...Must... refrain...from...joke...uhhhhhh

[passes out from the stress]
posted by tkchrist at 5:02 PM on July 14, 2006

>> People call the police over this kind of thing?
>
> People with a rabid persecution complex would... i.e. antigay Christian hate groups.

To me, as an asbesdos-skinned straight, "breeder" seems so harmless. But then "fruit" is pretty harmless too; likewise "hymie," likewise "darkie." I say let those groups whose hysterically exquisite sensibilities have led us to our present morbid fear of vivid language be the ones that lead us back in the direction of stoicism.
posted by jfuller at 5:45 PM on July 14, 2006

"I like kissing my wife. I like kissing my wife in public. Some other guy doesn’t want to do that, that’s ok by me."

What if some other guy does want to kiss your wife in public?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:49 PM on July 14, 2006

"I don't understand why anyone who's not hardcore childfree would be pissed off at being called a breeder."

I think it's disingenuous to pretend that breeder, used to describe hetersexuals by gays or to describe people with children by the childfree, is not intended to be an insult, however mild.

My sense is that when used by gays it's less insulting than when used by the childfree because when used by the childfree there is much more an implicit condemnation of lifestyle and therefore also much more an implicit dehumanization (a reduction of a person to merely the personified behavior of a simple biological function). The gay use of breeder does have a whiff of this, but not nearly so much as the childfree use.

Neither case is comparable to the slurs used against the relatively powerless minorities of gays and the childfree; and many people agree that notions such as racism and sexism and, by extension, hate crimes all rely on a widescale power imbalance. In this context, slurs can have greatly different levels of implicit harm depending upon whether they reflect a larger level of social injustice. I do find such arguments mostly persusasive and thus I cannot endorse the claim that breeder is hate speech.

That said, I do believe, however, that its use is at the very least intentionally insulting, and more greatly so when used by the childfree. Also, while the ultimate context remains, I think, national societies, the use of such terms are arguably more serious in the context of subcultures where there are power imbalances and the so-called "breeders" are the minority.

It's a variously hurtful term and should be disavowed. But it's use is not a hate crime.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:46 PM on July 14, 2006

I know what Cabral is feeling. A few years ago, my neighborhood (beautiful, safe, and quiet) had it's property values drop dramatically due to a nearby JMZ station. While we were all generally happy for the lowered rents in the short term, soon enough a sizable subsection of minorities started moving in. After a long bout of prayer, I signed a petition to raise property taxes to restore the neighborhood, and then, when I ran into a "newcomer" at the Food Emporium, he called me a racist! Even appealing to the bible didn't help! Really, just further proof of why they shouldn't be in the neighborhood to begin with.

Seriously, though, Cabral is a bigot, and Hines just called her on it. If you stumble out of the bar at 2:00 am after eleven shots, and somebody calls you a drunk, is that a hate crime? What is Hines were straight, but just vehement about gay rights?

Also, the whole point of a petition is that you give up the right to the privacy of your opinions when you sign your name next to them. If the list of those names can't be published by third parties, then maybe, just maybe, petitions are bullshit.

As a straight male who sometimes finds myself in gay bars with my friends, I've developed a great strategy for dealing with the occasional gay man hitting on me. I say "Sorry, I'm straight." Astoundingly, the come-ons stop after that. I'm sincere about the "sorry" though. I walked into their meat-market when I wasn't for sale, and the purpose of the gay bar, like with a breeder bar, is to try to get laid. They shouldn't be having to walk on eggshells. I also find myself greatly flattered after the experience.

I've been called "cracker" honky" "cracker-ass honky" and "breeder" before, and none of them hurt, because I wasn't insecure enough to think that immutable pieces of my existence were enough to preclude me from my right to go where I want and do what I please. Gays and other minorities, however, have had that same idea hammered into them since birth, and so should be afforded a little leeway.

But the point is, when you put your name next to a decree to deny people unlike yourself basic human rights, you're a bigot, and can be called as such. You can complain, of course, but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:10 PM on July 14, 2006

BTW -- a few reported/alleged instances of gays insulting straights as 'breeders' (over the 4th. of July weekend) does not constitute a trend.

Assholes come in all colors, shapes, sizes, creeds and sexual orientations.

That someone was called a 'bigot' for being called on signing a petition (that seeks to write discrimination into the constitution of the Commenwealth of Massachusetts) hardly rises to the level of the slinging of hateful terms like 'nigger,' 'spic' or 'faggot.'

If, however, I were to witness first-hand any of my gay brethren insulting or demeaning anyone else -- whether straight, Jamaican, etc. -- I'd call him on it. Such is unacceptable behavior.
posted by ericb at 8:27 PM on July 14, 2006

*Commonwealth*
posted by ericb at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2006

languagehat : "Or watch the human race die out in a generation!"

Three words for you:

Artificial. Insemination.

nlindstrom : "That's simple sexism, nothing more. He is discriminating against women, be they straight, lesbian, or transexual. Misogynistic fool."

I dunno if that's so simply and necessarily misogynist. After all, if it is, then by the same logic you have to say that Japan is an intensely misandrist country, which discriminates against men, because they charge men more to enter most nightclubs.

Sure, what he's doing may be sexist, and it may be misogynist, but declaring a male/female price difference to be ipso facto "simple sexism" is a bit overreaching.
posted by Bugbread at 8:53 PM on July 14, 2006

"What if some other guy does want to kiss your wife in public?"
posted by mr_crash_davis
Zidane!
posted by Smedleyman at 9:55 PM on July 14, 2006

I'm a straight woman living in the Castro, too. I think the "breeder" thing is funny. Typical use: "Breeders," muttering. Pause. "Oh, sorry, Claudia." Me: "I'm not a breeder!" "Well, you're straight." Me: "Yeah, but I'm not breeding." (Frankly, my lesbian friends are breeding a hell of a lot more than I am. I stick to being a foster parent -- taking care of the already-bred.)

Actually, sometimes I think "breeders" when I see certain types -- to me it doesn't mean having children as much as it refers to a certain type -- the self-satisfied stroller crowd, with no or virtually no gay friends.

Desuetude -- your post is hilarious. And now from reading this string I will always think of Cher with a baseball bat when the Jaws music starts ...
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:57 PM on July 14, 2006

Since breeding is not exclusive to straight people, I propose that the gay putdown of choice (for presumed male homophobes) should be gynophile. Confuse 'em — make 'em dust off the old Funk & Wagnalls. Sweet lexical revenge!
posted by rob511 at 10:12 PM on July 14, 2006

it's no less shitty than groups of drunken lads yelling at gay guys or whoever.

Seriously. If I had a nickel for every time I (straight man) was called a fag by a group of men, I would probably have $1.85 or so.

It's pretty scary when there's 6-7 of them in a car, and I'm on foot.

I find it bizarrely amusing to hear conservatives talk about "hate speech." I went to Stanford in the early '90s, and the right-wingers were up in arms about "fighting words." Seriously. Apparently the tide turns depending on who's in power. But what's new there?
posted by mrgrimm at 10:28 PM on July 14, 2006

But calling someone a name is not a "hate crime." In fact, it's not a crime of any sort.

Desuetude, my point was that laws don't distinguish whether the perpetrator of an act is a minority or not. As you point out, though, there are circumstances under which invectives can be used to determine intent. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy.
posted by hifiparasol at 10:39 PM on July 14, 2006

Seriously. If I had a nickel for every time I (straight man) was called a fag by a group of men, I would probably have $1.85 or so.

which is not even enough for a pack of fags.

sorry
posted by jonmc at 6:21 AM on July 15, 2006

There is a definite gay backlash on Cape Cod.

I'm no homophobe, and I'm not saying all gays on the Cape are like that, but when I lived there - for six years in the ninties - I was exposed to many instances of harrassment by gays.

It sort of blew me away, because when I lived in downtown Denver, the feelings were so much different. Much more mellow. Much more "familial."
posted by rougy at 12:02 PM on July 15, 2006

Those church people deserve whatever shouts they get--they're all still actively trying to hurt us and are still wrong and hateful. They operate in public, and so do we.

... Over two years have passed now since same sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, and data from all of 2004 and the first 11 months of 2005 are now available. Emergent trends in Massachusetts amount to a stark indictment of those dire claims about samesex marriage cited earlier in this article. ...
posted by amberglow at 2:46 PM on July 15, 2006

I am all about the solutions to these things, people. The new 2006 positive TK is all about solutions.

People need to stop worrying about what people SAY. What are we children? Calling the cops because some dude called you a word? What fucking pussies. Er. Oops. That was the old negative TK.

So. Solutions. Here is what I do every morning. I look in mirror and I say this "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

Say it with me world. "Sticks and stones..."

I usually finish with a lifted eyebrow and yell a positive affirmation like:

"Fly like a butterfly. Sting like a bee. GO DICK BUTKUS!" Then do a little 1-2-3 boxing combo flourish as I shuffle away to the kitchen for my coffee.

Your mileage may vary.
posted by tkchrist at 4:09 PM on July 15, 2006

"Those church people deserve whatever shouts they get--they're all still actively trying to hurt us and are still wrong and hateful. They operate in public, and so do we."

That's a convenient rationalization which exactly parallels the rationalization of homophobes: they are doing wrong, thus they deserve the wrong done to them. It's hard for me to parse your sentence and see "whatever shouts they get" as anything other than inclusive of hateful speech and yet you condemn them as "hateful" without qualification.

You demonstrate this reasoning repeatedly with regard to all groups that you deem your enemies. You repeatedly disavow generosity or attempts at understanding your enemies and use the language or retributive morality ("deserve") which is undisputably the language of your enemies. You self-evidently think of yourself as fair and reasonable.

Your reactions are human and comprehensible. Homophobes are very often hateful and irrational and even violent. Gays are violently persecuted the world over and they're persecuted by narrow-minded bigots who transform their self-indulgent hate and fear into supposedly reasonable arguments and democratic initiatives. Being really pissed-off and intolerant of them, unforgiving of them, is understandable.

I feel the same way. Given the opportunity, I'd gladly, even eagerly, take the baseball bat from the hands of a gay basher and beat him to death with it. I mean that, it's not hyperbole. I'd shoot Ann Coulter between the eyes and smile while I did it. I'd torture Fred Phelps and his family.

And although I obviously have limited moral self-control when it comes to these issues, these people, and my own capacity for violence, I don't for a moment delude myself into believing that I'd be morally correct in doing these things. I don't delude myself into believing that these feelings and ideas are right and justified. I fear and self-criticize these things almost every day.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:51 PM on July 15, 2006

Good lord, E.B. Everything is a matter of degree.

Telling someone that they are a bigot -- when they are -- hardly rises to the degree of violent gay bashing (it's polar opposite). How about a little differentiation, huh?

What you are suggesting is that it's wrong for gay folks to put up any kind of defense to an ongoing assault on their (gays) very existence. Sorry but that's not going to happen. At least not from me. Those days are over.

If folks want to exercise their civil liberties to spread their homophobic beliefs, that's their right (to the extent that they are non-violent). But they best be prepared for a return volley. If you can't stand the heat, then get the hell out of the kitchen.

And as for indiscriminate comments about breeders, while that may be a bit tacky, it hardly rises to the level of hate speech. It just not practicle to try to legislate every little utterance that falls from peoples' lips. Geesh.
posted by bim at 6:13 PM on July 15, 2006

Case in point, I just ran across a lovely news article with this excerpt about an elected official from Kentucky (a state in which I once resided):

This week, Roeding mixed himself up in the University of Louisville's decision to offer health benefits to domestic partners, and in so doing the senator came across as a bigot unfit for further public service.

"I find this very repulsive,' Roeding said of U of L's plans, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. And he continued: "I don't want to entice any of those people into our state. Those are the wrong kind of people.'

Well golly. That hurts my feelings. I doubt that a polite request to stop from a "gay american" will do much good.
posted by bim at 6:31 PM on July 15, 2006

Good lord, E.B. Everything is a matter of degree.

Telling someone that they are a bigot -- when they are -- hardly rises to the degree of violent gay bashing (it's polar opposite). How about a little differentiation, huh?

What you are suggesting is that it's wrong for gay folks to put up any kind of defense to an ongoing assault on their (gays) very existence. Sorry but that's not going to happen. At least not from me. Those days are over.

Exactly. And yet again, go insult someone else. It's tiresome and you're mistaken again. Equating calling a bigot a bigot with actual bashing is abhorrent and proves you really haven't been the target of well-funded and organized campaigns (many successful) to take away your own rights. Nor have you ever been bashed, as many if not most of us have. Go disgust someone else.
posted by amberglow at 6:38 PM on July 15, 2006

... "When you’re discriminated against and you’re declared a second-class citizen and you run into someone who you know thinks you’re a second-class citizen, well, you’re bound to lose your temper," said Hines. "But believe me, she was just as verbal as I was," he said, adding that she responded with profanity. ... The Cabral/Hines incident sparked debate because, while many see Hines’ actions as inappropriate, they, along with Hines, say Cabral committed a hate incident by signing the petition. The Anti-Defamation League considers the distribution and circulation of hate propaganda and information a hate incident when the action seeks to make a group of people feel uncomfortable. But many Catholics in the area say that is exactly what is happening to them, as their disapproval of homosexuality is based on their faith.
But Hines and others don’t buy that argument.
"I’d call it a hate initiative," said Hines. "I don’t think the majority should vote on the rights of the minority. It’s just flat wrong. Gays are being too silent on the issue, especially here in Provincetown." ...
posted by amberglow at 6:53 PM on July 15, 2006

and from that article too: ... But Andrews did say that most of the talk has been around Cabral, especially since Cabral’s company, Provincetown Trolley Inc., has done "honeymoon" rides for same-sex couples.

"There’s a hypocrisy there," ...
posted by amberglow at 6:55 PM on July 15, 2006

E.B., are you talking about the "breeder" comment, or the "bigot" comment?
posted by Bugbread at 7:30 PM on July 15, 2006

E.B., are you talking about the 'breeder' comment, or the 'bigot' comment?"

Neither, directly. My comment is in response to the sentence I quote. If amberglow meant "those church people deserve the accusation of 'bigot', then he ought to have written that.

"Telling someone that they are a bigot -- when they are -- hardly rises to the degree of violent gay bashing (it's polar opposite). How about a little differentiation, huh?"

What amberglow actually wrote "those church people deserve whatever shouts they get" is not at all the same as saying that they deserve to be called "bigots". He choose to say "whatever shouts they get", I didn't put those words in his mouth. I certainly did not make the equation you say that I did.

"Exactly. And yet again, go insult someone else. It's tiresome and you're mistaken again. Equating calling a bigot a bigot with actual bashing is abhorrent and proves you really haven't been the target of well-funded and organized campaigns (many successful) to take away your own rights. Nor have you ever been bashed, as many if not most of us have. Go disgust someone else."

I wasn't equating calling a bigot with actual bashing. Not in any degree. Perhaps you could muster up some good faith and re-read what I wrote. And while you're at it, re-read what you wrote. If you didn't intend to imply "they deserve whatever the get", then you ought not have written something which so strongly gives the impression that you're saying "they deserve whatever they get" by way of explicitly saying "they deserve whatever names they are called". This isn't that fucking complicated.

So I'm not mistaken. Be responsible for what you write for a change.

And which part disgusts you? That I'm criticizing you for being a hypocrite? Well, of course that would disgust you.

It doesn't really matter whether or not I've been bashed or whether you have. In your comment you took the position that "they deserve it" for all values of "it" as long as it is a "shout". Here, let me quote you again: "Those church people deserve whatever shouts they get." That would include any hateful speech, no matter how extreme. Also, you condemned them for being hateful, and you condemned their speech.

I went out of my way to be generous about your anger and vindictiveness, and even pointed out that I share those feelings. Your response is to disengenously—or perhaps downright dishonestly—claim that all you were doing was calling them bigots and claiming that you were justified in doing so, which is not the case and was not at all the quote of yours to which I responding. Your response is to claim that I am calling you a bigot for calling them bigots, also quite obviously untrue.

The way you respond to me is validating my suspicion that you are incapable of taking any sort of criticism without building a paranoid fantasy of being persecuted by evil to explain it. You characterize my comment as an "insult". No, it was criticism. I'm wondering how long it's going to be before you start accusing me of being a theist homophobe.

I have singled you out for criticism for a combination of two reasons. The first part is because we are on the same ideological side. My criticisms should mean something to you because you should not find it so easy to dismiss them as being partisan. The second part is the combination of the facts that you are extremely proflic on this site, you regularly make strong and generalized accusations of wrongdoing, I've never seen you alter your positions on any of these matters in the years that I've read you, you are unusually badly lacking in self-criticism, and you quite obviously keep yourself in a comfort zone where few of your beliefs are ever challenged. Also, phrases like "those church people" come of your tongue so regularly and comfortably. Your MetaFilter contribution quotient is over 12, far and away higher than anyone else and particularly so in the context of mefi longtimers. You have a responsibility if you are so often going to tell the rest of us what you think is true about the world. It's a responsibility you're neglecting and for that you deserve a great deal more criticism than you've been getting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:01 PM on July 15, 2006

Ethereal Bligh : "Neither, directly. My comment is in response to the sentence I quote. If amberglow meant 'those church people deserve the accusation of "bigot", then he ought to have written that."

Well, from what I gather, the "breeder" comment was directed at someone who may or may not have been from a church, and the "bigot" comment was directed at a person from a church, so "those church people" would appear to be directed at the bigot comment, and I can't see that there's anything so horrible about calling a person who exhibits bigotry a bigot.

Ethereal Bligh : "I didn't put those words in his mouth. I certainly did not make the equation you say that I did."

Yes, but it may have been a slip of the tongue. If he was thinking of the "bigot" comment, and comments like it, then it's fair to say that they deserve it. If he really meant "they deserve whatever shouts they get", then you could also parse it to mean "they deserve it if someone shouts 'You guys are awesome! Put those fags in their places!'". I'm relatively certain amberglow doesn't think that the church folks deserve to be shouted with praise, so interpreting "they deserve whatever they get" literally is foolish. So we're left with guessing what he meant. I'm assuming he meant "they deserve to be called bigots, homophobes, assholes, etc.", which I agree they deserve. You assume he meant "they deserve to be called bigots, breeders, cumdumpsters, etc.", which I don't agree they deserve. Either way, this is all based on us assuming what he meant, because language is vague, his statement is more vague, and we can be almost certain that he did not mean it literally.

Ethereal Bligh : "I'm wondering how long it's going to be before you start accusing me of being a theist homophobe."

EB, you write a lot on MeFi. And you read a lot on MeFi. Amberglow writes a lot on MeFi. He reads a lot on MeFi. With the amount of stuff that you've written and that amberglow has read, I think it should be pretty obvious that, whatever amberglow may think of you, he certainly isn't going to ever think you're a theist homophobe.
posted by Bugbread at 8:32 PM on July 15, 2006

"and I can't see that there's anything so horrible about calling a person who exhibits bigotry a bigot."

Me, neither.

"Either way, this is all based on us assuming what he meant, because language is vague, his statement is more vague, and we can be almost certain that he did not mean it literally."

Point taken. But I think your point about him not intending it to be a positive "shout" is pushing things. Reading him as saying that they deserve whatever insults anyone can dish up is far more reasonable than "whatever" meaning literally anything is. And I also read him with his previous comments in mind which are heavily loaded with "they deserve it" and "let's take off the gloves with these bastards" sentiments.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 PM on July 15, 2006

Somebody once said I had a smelly bum. I cried for months. The only time I cried more is when someone called me a jive-ass nigger. I mean what? I'm not even black! How unfair was that? Omg let me tell you I cried and cried. I'm still crying, actually.

Still, at least they didn't call me gay. That would have been truly unbearable and I would have had to sue.
posted by Decani at 8:54 PM on July 15, 2006

EB: Yeah, the "positive shout" was pushing things, but it was intended to be an extreme example of the fact that, from my perspective, so are you. Sure, my example was pushing things way further, but that was just to make the point clear.

I guess what it comes down to is that I have a hard time imagining amberglow saying that folks should call the church folks cumdumpsters or vaginal spelunkers. There are things that bug me about amberglow's method of debate, and times where I think he's being unfair, but I've never gotten the impression that he's that extreme or unfair. Insulting people's religion? Sure, that's de rigeur on MeFi. Insulting their political affiliation? Likewise. Insulting their tastes in music? Pretty normal on MeFi but I can't see amberglow doing it. But insulting someone's sexual preference? I just can't see it.

So when you say he should have explicitly said that he was referring to bigotry, it seems like a massive misreading of him, and being excessively picky. Don't get me wrong, I'm a picky person, and I like accuracy, but it comes off that your disagreement with his statement was unreasonable. It would be as if I took your statement:

Ethereal Bligh : "That's a convenient rationalization which exactly parallels the rationalization of homophobes: they are doing wrong, thus they deserve the wrong done to them."

...to mean "That's a convenient rationalization which exactly parallels the rationalization of homophobes: homophobes are doing wrong, thus homophobes deserve the wrong done to them."

Clearly, you didn't mean that homophobes rationalize that what homophobes do is wrong. Sure, a pronoun is meant to refer to the nearest preceding noun, but it's clear that you actually meant to refer to either "homosexuals" or a generalized "the other" with the word "them". If I were to launch into you regarding that, and insist that you chose those words, and that if you meant "homosexuals" instead of "homophobes", you should have said that, instead of using the word "them", I would be being unreasonable. To me, that's what it feels like your argument against amberglow is like.
posted by Bugbread at 9:04 PM on July 15, 2006

E.B. said -- What amberglow actually wrote "those church people deserve whatever shouts they get" is not at all the same as saying that they deserve to be called "bigots". He choose to say "whatever shouts they get", I didn't put those words in his mouth. I certainly did not make the equation you say that I did.

Whew. There's an awful lot of "hair splitting" going on here. Some so called "church people" have some awful rotten things to say about queer folk. I really don't believe that gays should be held to a higher standard when responding to this stuff. Sorry, but I'm going to fight fire with fire. If that means well intentioned liberals think less of me because of it, so be it. Until you've been on the receiving end of epithets and physical harm, you might not appreciate the need for a strong response. I'm not about to be a martyr.

E.B. said -- And I also read him with his previous comments in mind which are heavily loaded with "they deserve it" and "let's take off the gloves with these bastards" sentiments.

I agree 100% with Amberglow's sentiments. If someone attacks my gay ass, I'm going to do my best to kick theirs back. People tend to take the path of least resistance. I'm not going to be it.

...and let's forget all this baloney about quotients and who joined before who. It's meaningless drivel IMHO.
posted by bim at 9:11 PM on July 15, 2006

bim : "I really don't believe that gays should be held to a higher standard when responding to this stuff."

This is an argument I've never really gotten. To be really clear, I think calling a bigot a bigot is behaving at a higher standard. So if some Hispanic guy calls you a faggot, and you call them an asshole, you are behaving better than them. If some Hispanic guy calls you a faggot, and you call them a spic, then you're behaving the same, and that's what I have a problem with. If you think action X is in itself bad, why would it be OK to do it to someone just because they did it first?

Somehow, people (I think including you, but I'm not sure) misinterpret this with "not fighting back". I don't see that. For example, I don't think punching people is bad. I think punching people for no reason is bad. So if a guy punches Bob for no reason, I have no problem with Bob punching the guy back. Bob doesn't have to be a martyr, that's not what the "don't do bad thing X" doctrine is about.

I don't think killing is bad. I think killing in most cases is bad. Killing someone to take their money, for example. But not killing someone in self defense. So if someone tries to kill me to take my money, I don't think fighting back is bad.

Ok, what about insulting someone's racial background? I'm sure if I think for a while, I could think about a case where it isn't bad. But none pop to mind. So if a black person calls my wife a chink, does that mean that I think she should call them a nigger in response? You know, "fighting back" and "not being a martyr"? No. She wouldn't be doing the neutral or positive version of the bad thing, she'd be doing the same damn bad. She'd be adding to the problem, not reducing it.

So should gays be held to a "higher standard" when responding to "this stuff"? Well, yeah, in the sense that everyone should be held to a "higher standard" then bad things, otherwise they're just being bad. "Person X is an asshole, so why shouldn't I be one too?" --Because the whole problem is people being assholes, we sure as hell don't need more. Does that mean that any type of counterattack or defense is bad? No way. If shouting epithets at people is your preferred method of self-defense, tell the person shouting "queer" at you "Go fuck yourself". Call them a "dumb fucking ignorant shit for brains". But don't call them a "breeder" or a "womb fucker" or whathaveyou. At that point, you're not just fighting back, but you're joining the asshole side. You're joining the yakuza to spite the cosa nostra.
posted by Bugbread at 9:28 PM on July 15, 2006

Oh, and there was that time someone called me "short baldy guy". That hurt a lot, especially since I am only 5'8" tall and I have hair that makes Moby look like Jerry Garcia. Oh why, oh why are people so very cruel?
posted by Decani at 1:03 AM on July 16, 2006

bugbread -- I know you mean well but I think that you are overanalyzing the situation. I don't have time for all this when someone throws an open tin can with a jagged lid at me. I didn't have much time for fine distinctions either when I was once whacked in the head with an egg by local yahoos. I don't think that the recent victims of gay bashing in NYC had time to worry about semantics either when under siege. So folks will have to forgive gay folks if our responses are less than charitable when attacked.

BTW, are you of the gay persuasion? You might see things in more simple terms if you were.
posted by bim at 4:26 AM on July 16, 2006

"BTW, are you of the gay persuasion? You might see things in more simple terms if you were."

That doesn't make those "simple terms" correct. And I don't think it's fair of you to implicitly claim that all gays must believe and feel as you do. I think I can speak for my best friend, who is gay, and say that he doesn't believe and feel as you do.

Note, though, the subtleties of this. Earlier I pointed out that I do, actually, feel as strongly as you, if not more strongly. I feel that homophobic violence should be reponded to with violence. That's what I want to do. But I don't try to rationally argue that it's morally right to do so. I also don't claim that my actions will necessarily reflect my words or my intellectual or moral values in this case. If and when the moment comes, I'm content to be wrong as I whack the homophobe in the head with a baseball bat, and I won't try to defend my actions. I won't spin elaborate (or simple) justifications to the judge afterwards.

This is a very important point to me because I believe that the natural human need to self-justify and rationalize every gut instinct and behavior (no matter how similar to the behavior of others which one has previously condemned while claiming that "this is different") is both a huge part of the problem of why so many injustices exist and seem to me to be particularly abhorrent failures to take moral responsibility for one's self and one's actions. "They deserve it" and "I was justified" are huge parts of why the world is the way it is and for so many people absurdly are used to attempt to portray themselves as virtuous and pure as the undriven snow. It's asking too much of ourselves and others to be morally perfect. It's not asking too much to expect us to be more honest with ourselves about ourselves.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:52 AM on July 16, 2006

I'll take that as a "no."

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I can tell that you are a good hearted person but we may never see eye to eye on this.

But thank you for your kind words early on in defense of queer folk. :)
posted by bim at 6:04 AM on July 16, 2006

bim writes "I don't have time for all this when someone throws an open tin can with a jagged lid at me. I didn't have much time for fine distinctions either when I was once whacked in the head with an egg by local yahoos. I don't think that the recent victims of gay bashing in NYC had time to worry about semantics either when under siege. So folks will have to forgive gay folks if our responses are less than charitable when attacked."

I dunno. It just doesn't work for me. If some black guy shouts an epithet at me, or throws a tin can at me, I'm not going to call him a nigger. Not because I have the time to make fine distinctions, or because I'm charitable, but because it would never occur to me to shout "nigger" at him. Because I don't like the word, don't use the word, and shouting it wouldn't bring me satisfaction. I guess my whole issue is that if someone's reflex reaction to a bigot is to call them a breeder or cumdumpster, then that person has their own problems with bigotry that are just being kept concealed most of the time. Avoiding using bigoted statements, for most folks, doesn't require time, fine distinctions, semantics, or charitableness, it just require that one not normally think of other races/genders/sexual preferences with bigotry.

bim writes "BTW, are you of the gay persuasion? You might see things in more simple terms if you were."
bim writes "...I'll take that as a 'no.' "

Er, that wasn't me, that was EB. But, no, I'm not gay.
posted by Bugbread at 10:17 AM on July 16, 2006

Um...I think that the question above BB has devolved far from the original question which is what I've been discussing. It's too far gone to untangle so we might as well move on. Take care.
posted by bim at 11:08 AM on July 16, 2006

Provincetown residents slam the Boston Globe for its article on the town's "new intolerance."
posted by ericb at 4:03 PM on July 20, 2006

"Many say claims that P’town is intolerant are overenthusiastically blown."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:08 PM on July 20, 2006

Oops! Misquote. I retract that. Enthusiastically!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:09 PM on July 20, 2006

Flo : >

you're just bursting with wessonality
posted by amberglow at 2:28 PM on July 22, 2006