U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2017, 10:12 AM
 
5,923 posts, read 3,194,439 times
Reputation: 3240

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterchef1 View Post
I have heard the term "breeder" before but only by gays, they use it as a term for straight people, and I do not think it's offensive.
Wouldn't that be a little outdated these days. Many gay people have children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2017, 10:57 AM
 
12,438 posts, read 9,435,294 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
We have many regular participants on this board who run the gamut of having/currently raising children to having adult children to non-parents. I'd like to see what people think of the term breeder. Its used by many non-parents in their arguments against having children. "I have better things to do than to breed spawn." or "There's enough breeders in this world already!"

My take?

I find the term offensive. I also find the people who use the term, especially women, to be quite hypocritical. Many of these non-parent females call themselves feminists yet will insult women who choose to become mothers. I don't see how they can square their disdain for mothers with their positions on feminism.

Thoughts?
A breeder is someone who breeds non-human animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 11:01 AM
 
12,438 posts, read 9,435,294 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228 View Post
When I hear the word "breeder" I think of an unmarried woman on welfare with lots of children, usually by different fathers. Or any of the Duggar women. :-)
I was thinking that too, but we have the term "welfare queen" for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 09:11 PM
 
Location: interior Alaska
4,064 posts, read 3,064,337 times
Reputation: 12219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
People who are childfree (whether by choice or not) constantly have to deal with uninvited intrusions into their personal decisions, I think it is a reflection of that. Do I personally like the word? No. Do I understand it's usage? Yes.
Same. I wouldn't use it, and I wish others would refrain as well. That said, the word (as used by "childfree" advocates) is pushback against the notion that there's something heroic or unique about producing children, and that anyone who does not do so is somehow lesser. While conscientious and responsible parents (and that necessitates being conscientious about the world around them, not just their own child, IMO) are worth their weight in gold...making babies just isn't a particularly remarkable thing to do, objectively. I can see where if folks are looking down on a person without children for not having children, that person could get fed up and be inclined to snap back, like, "Congrats, you did what every other animal does, what an accomplishment. Now get off my back."

But I'm especially unimpressed by people who have like three kids using it to insult people who have like six kids (or whatever). A lot of times they'll throw in a bunch of "welfare queens" crap, as though taxpayers aren't also subsidizing most other children less overtly. Glass houses and all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
7,716 posts, read 2,442,209 times
Reputation: 10661
Quote:
Originally Posted by emeraldmist View Post
If people who are environmentally conscious, are willing and able to educate their children, and so on, don't have children, who will be left? The offspring of irresponsible parents, that's who. I'm not surprised the government feels like it wants to step in and basically parent the kids, if their biological parents are unwilling or unable to do a decent job of it. They're already proposing public boarding schools in some areas. I'd much rather the people who don't relish nurturing children were given hefty incentives to stay child-free, whereas those who wanted to dedicate their life to parenting would be able to do so, without the stigma of contributing to over-population. It would be a win-win. But of course, that's been proposed in the past, and the results were... not so great. I'll leave it at that.

And as far as the post you quoted, the one about the squishy babies to love and take care of us in our old age... If someone has children for those reasons, yeah, that could be classed as selfish and narcissistic. Those are so far from my reality, though! And I resent random people making the assumption that my husband and I chose to have children because we were lonely or wanted someone to love us or whatever. Like someone else said, we would have gotten a Pomeranian in that case!!
It's always a dilemma, when the best and least environmentally harmful of us, have lesser numbers of children or none at all. They say that has been happening in this country for the last half-century. It's contributed to the expanded majorities in the red states, that are collectively very pleased by the environmental assault that the current regime is proposing to wreak on us. They think that means more jobs and income for them. And their thinking doesn't extend very much beyond that short-term interest.

But even the most concerned and active environmentalists add more to the world's decline, than they prevent, just by their existence as modern humans. Whatever we may do to clean up our act, the bottom line depends on how much we reduce our overall population and how soon we can shut down all the nuclear power plants and clean up their deadly waste products. If our societies around the world fall apart, those plants will explode and kill every living thing, in a very short time. There's 448 of them now and more are planned. If there's a need for such ticking time-bombs, to supply enough energy, it's mainly because of the exploding population.

We have to fix this now, because if or when our governments are crumbling, it will be too late. At that time, there will be no means to decommission them, no outside power sources, no skilled personnel available to do it. Look at what's happening in so many places, right now. How can we ignore such a strong possibility as this? There will be no post-apocalyptic, Mad Max type scenarios. Those promoting nuclear fission as a power source, keep telling us that if the plants with the best systems are properly maintained, they pose little danger. And that's just the problem. They leave out the outcome, where such maintenance is beyond the capacity of a world in chaos.

Last edited by Steve McDonald; 04-09-2017 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 10:38 PM
 
16,244 posts, read 3,372,460 times
Reputation: 4684
I find the term"breeder" offensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2017, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Northern NJ
7,572 posts, read 7,529,726 times
Reputation: 10817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
It's always a dilemma, when the best and least environmentally harmful of us, have lesser numbers of children or none at all. They say that has been happening in this country for the last half-century. It's contributed to the expanded majorities in the red states, that are collectively very pleased by the environmental assault that the current regime is proposing to wreak on us. They think that means more jobs and income for them. And their thinking doesn't extend very much beyond that short-term interest.

But even the most concerned and active environmentalists add more to the world's decline, than they prevent, just by their existence as modern humans. Whatever we may do to clean up our act, the bottom line depends on how much we reduce our overall population and how soon we can shut down all the nuclear power plants and clean up their deadly waste products. If our societies around the world fall apart, those plants will explode and kill every living thing, in a very short time. There's 448 of them now and more are planned. If there's a need for such ticking time-bombs, to supply enough energy, it's mainly because of the exploding population.

We have to fix this now, because if or when our governments are crumbling, it will be too late. At that time, there will be no means to decommission them, no outside power sources, no skilled personnel available to do it. Look at what's happening in so many places, right now. How can we ignore such a strong possibility as this? There will be no post-apocalyptic, Mad Max type scenarios. Those promoting nuclear fission as a power source, keep telling us that if the plants with the best systems are properly maintained, they pose little danger. And that's just the problem. They leave out the outcome, where such maintenance is beyond the capacity of a world in chaos.


Honestly, under this scenario, who the heck cares at that point? Obviously we are worthless as a species if it gets to that, and the wipeout that will accompany the failures of all the nuclear plants is a perfect way to end it all and start over from the bacterial level. Maybe the next version of mankind will emphasize Reason more and not fall into the destruction of mysticism, collectivism, and savage tyrannies.


Meanwhile, we should expand nuclear power plants and use up all the fossil fuels to create a magnificent and technologically advanced world while we are here. It is irrational to plan for Armageddon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2017, 06:32 PM
 
6 posts, read 2,454 times
Reputation: 20
No the term breeder is not offensive since it's used for animals
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2017, 07:05 PM
 
1,475 posts, read 475,803 times
Reputation: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popeyes13 View Post
No the term breeder is not offensive since it's used for animals
This is why I find it to be hurtful. Not only is the term an attempt to objectify parents, but to devalue kids as animals. I think I can take a few hurling insults if someone is hurting. It's a different matter when it involves my children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2017, 05:24 AM
 
28,201 posts, read 20,042,356 times
Reputation: 16547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassy Fae View Post
This is why I find it to be hurtful. Not only is the term an attempt to objectify parents, but to devalue kids as animals. I think I can take a few hurling insults if someone is hurting. It's a different matter when it involves my children.
What's amusing is the non-parents who use this term in the manner you describe, not realizing that these are the people who will be running the world in the next 30 years or so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top