The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Breeders are people too
When the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Act of 2003 in the U.K. law was passed, it was intended as a shield against discrimination of gays, lesbians, and transsexuals in an employment setting. But the language of the Act can't overtly say this, since that would run afoul of the idea that laws must be neutral between citizens. The law was phrased to cover discrimination of every kind--whether by heterosexuals against homosexuals, or vice versa--based on sexual orientation.
And so it came to pass that Mrs. Legg, a mother of three, and a bouncer at a gay nightclub, managed to nail her employer, Dreams in Bournemouth, with a 3,000 Pound settlement for discrimination under the Act when she was canned.
She claimed that the nightclub and the employees there discriminated against her for being heterosexual, calling her, amongst other things, a "breeder" and generally making life difficult for her because she happened to be straight.
Of course I think this Act is bollocks and unnecessary. Businesses that discriminate have little chance of thriving on the market, provided they a) don't get subsidized by the government, and b) are not forced to discriminate by the law itself. There are, unfortunately, plenty of examples of both a) and b).
We might have to wait a little, and this is bad. But passing the Act comes with costs--enforcement costs, costs associated with hiring additional petty bureaucrats, the costs of silly tribunals, and so on--which is money that could have been spent on something else, or not at all and left in the pockets of consumers and entrepreneurs.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on January 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breeders are people too:
What happened to this woman used to be called "reverse discrimination". I guess this somehow made it more acceptable than "real" discrimination.
I hope she wins a big enough settlement to put this place out of business.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 10:07:36 AM
"Businesses that discriminate have little chance of thriving on the market, provided they a) don't get subsidized by the government, and b) are not forced to discriminate by the law itself."
I disagree. Businesses that discriminate will thrive on the market provided that there are enough like-minded people to patronize them. So breeder bars where people hate fags or fag bars where people hate breeders can thrive so long as there are enough bigots around. In the more distant past, a great many businesses have had no trouble succeeding while being quite sexist or racist in their practices. So unless we want to allow people's employment opportunities to be limited by bigots, anti-discrimination laws are good.
Yes, it is possible for people who are not discriminating to be caught up in overreaching laws, but that is no more an argument against them than the fact that sometimes the wrong guy is convicted of a crime is a reason to abandon all laws. We should do the best we can to make sure the law does not overreach, but where real discrimination exists, laws should protect us all, whether we are breeders, fags, or whatever.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-06 10:09:48 AM
Actually, Fact Check, the fact that sometimes the wrong guy is convicted of a crime *is* an argument against that law. We need to know how likely a false-positive is, and compare it to the benefits of having that law. In many cases, having the law will win out, but it is *always* a reason to abandon some law that innocents will get caught in the trap.
The fewer laws we have, the better. That's my bias, I suppose, and I can defend it if you'd like.
I do, however, accept at least this part of your criticism as sufficient: Bigots are a niche market, and some businesses will make money by catering to that niche market. Just like people who like British baked beans could be catered to, if Canada didn't have a stupid law against baked beans where the sauce-to-beans ratio does not meet "Canadian taste standards." (Yeah. Uhm, it's all true, and so so stupid. But back to the real issue at hand).
So I should append my caveats with a third, c) and provided that there isn't a sufficient number of bigots for a company to cater to and be economically viable.
That last condition is a problem for the argument I want to run. But, Fact Check, do you really think the solution is a solution? I tend to think that the cure is worse than the disease. The number of bigoted employers will be limited. The number of people negatively affected by the bigots will be limited. The costs of legislation to attempt to eliminate the bigotry are probably higher than the value of attempting to eliminate it in the first place.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-06 10:23:05 AM
I laughed when I read this post!
I laughed because it struck me silly how all these sexually confused people have chosen to build little walls around each of their little bizarre and odd groups.
It struck me funny how sex seems to be all they have in their lives to the possible exclusion of other richer and deeper prioritites.
And I loved the term "breeder"!
As a fertile and breedable woman, this struck me funny because I am proud of my fertility and my capacity to carry on the human race. How this can be something to be denigrated serves as an example as to how confused these people really are.
Epsi the Breeder
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-06 10:24:38 AM
Aren't you Epsi the greedy breeder?
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 10:53:37 AM
Greedy Breedy Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-06 10:58:58 AM
Greedy Breedy Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-06 10:59:39 AM
There's no reason why a business like a gay nightclub wouldn't be successful by discriminating - after all, it's catering to a specific market niche and there's no good reason why it shouldn't, either.
I mean - really - bouncer at a gay night club is probably about as good a career choice for a straight woman as being a member of Hamas would be for a Rabbi.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-06 11:23:41 AM
I am not sure if this is a specific problem that only homosexuals have or if it is rather a more generic problem that many on the left have.
Only 3, eh? I wonder what would have if I moved to the Bay area and told people I am a father of 7.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-06 12:16:05 PM
All this talk brings back some funny memories of when my kids were little. If Epsi is a greedy breeder, then I was an angry breeder. Quite a number of people learned that the hard way.
Restaurants were an adventure. It seems that adults can make asses of themselves, but kids must remain silent at all times. When people stared or made comments about my kids my first reaction was to ask them to stop staring and shut up. When that didn't work I'd walk to their tables and ask if they'd like to continue the discussion outside. It seems that baby haters are all talk and no action. I guess that's why they don't have kids.
I never had qualms about assaulting anyone who looked sideways at my kids. Shopping malls were entertaining. I've had a number of young couples with small kids give me the thumbs up for putting some mean old baby haters in their place. It's probably a good thing that most cops are family men.
It's been a few years but I'm still in pretty good shape. I'm almost looking forward to taking grandchildren out for supper.
Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 12:56:57 PM
I think the so-called "baby haters" are jealous of others fecundity. If I could bear kids - as a man - I'd have a platoon. To hell with the baby haters and Malthusians!
Posted by: dewp | 2008-01-06 2:09:01 PM
Baby-haters - what an excellent term to slag leftoids with in battle.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-01-07 9:21:27 AM
From Brent's comment down, excellent and entertaining points all!
Posted by: Hoser | 2008-01-07 7:40:07 PM
Hi I am the lady who sued her employer !!hello from merry ol england !! to clear things up I was called errrr breeder and errr straight up until I lost my job,the dismissal was nothing to do with the comments.It was a separate issue, and they were done for hasrassment not discrimination, oh and I have 4 kids not three , shame the press don't always get things right bye for now Sharon
Posted by: sharon legg | 2008-01-09 9:53:11 AM
"shame the press don't always get things right"
Really??? What a shock!!!
I thought the Enemedia were infallible!
Posted by: obc | 2008-01-09 10:00:49 AM
Shame on the Presstitutes for not checking facts.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-09 10:11:12 AM
My sister and my son, neither of whom have children, recommended I see a movie they'd seen (can't remember the name).
The premise was that young professionals are putting off having babies. But people in lower socio-economic groups were.
Fast forward to the future where the average IQ of Americans had plunged.
I told my sister I consider this an anti-human premise and asked her if she considered herself smarter because she chose not to have children.
“I guess people can take out of it what they want," she harrumphed.
I guess. Fact of the matter is, every child is different and there is no direct relationship between economic condition and intelligence.
If there were, then a person could draw the conclusion that every baby born during the Great Depression is an idiot.
Obviously, that's untrue.
I have heard the term ‘breeder' used many times before. Not everybody is cut out for the responsibility of parenthood or for that matter, responsible behavior of any kind.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-01-09 10:51:26 AM
We are all the descendants of 'breeders'.
Every one us are the successful result of millions of years of people hooking up and reproducing over eons of time regardless of the difficulties of survival our ancestors faced at any particular epoch.
The term 'breeder' is nothing short of a repudiation of the struggles of countless people through the ages who deserve more respect than to be dismissed in such a way.
It's decadence, death oriented, that's what it is.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-01-09 11:00:38 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.