A moment of your time in regard to sexist language

[Lyric]

I realize that all of us are experiencing high emotions as of late, and therefore we might not be speaking as carefully as we usually do. However, there is an alarming amount of sexist language being tossed about, and since I don't believe that most people would say such things purposely, I thought it would be a constructive thing to politely point it out.

The example I'm going to point to specifically is the most common one, which consists of some variation of "_______ needs to grow a pair", "_______ obviously has no balls at all", etc.

To be perfectly forthright--equating testicles with courage is both offensive and untrue. There are better ways to express your outrage at members of both genders, without implying that people who lack testicles are cowards. It might seem like "PC" nitpicking to some people, but to others (like me) it's like a subtle slap in the face that is repeated over and over again every single day. None of us would dare to equate cowardly behavior with race, so why is it considered acceptable to equate it with genitalia?

It is not my intention to start a famous GD "flame war". I am not trying to smother your "free speech". I am simply asking, from one Liberal Dem to another, if you would please try to stop using that sort of phrasing--not because it isn't "PC", but because it's hurtful and degrading to a significant chunk of your fellow Liberals and Democrats here at DU, like me and domestic partner.

Thanks in advance for the respect and consideration.
~Brandy

[Al Federfer]

1. You're joking, right? n/t

[Lyric]

3. No sir, I'm not joking.

Is it difficult to believe that some women might find that sort of phrasing offensive? :shrug:

[Al Federfer]

4. No, it is not difficult to believe that some women find "balls" offensive. n/t

[Skittles]

31. do you not get it?

what is OFFENSIVE is the implication that MALE BODY PARTS are required for COURAGE

[Bill McBlueState]

8. Some men think it's a poor choice of words, too. n/t

[Lyric]

12. Very true. Thank you. n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

6. Probably not joking...probably a gender studies student...

...just learning about how pervasive "sexist language" is in our day-to-day lives. Yea, language matters, but what also matters is not coming off like a lunatic.

My ex- was quite the feminist, and had certainly been exposed to all the arguments relating to this topic, but she always kinda shrugged at it. The most acknowledgment she'd ever give the subject would be throwing in a "man, THAT woman's got some clit" every once in awhile to offset the grow-a-pairs and got-big-balls comments. She'd never really fuss at anyone about it tho. It seems kind of pointless--or even counterproductive.

P.S. - Next time someone calls me a dick, should I launch into a rant about the sexist language they're using?

[Lyric]

10. If it offends you, then of course you should.

And no, I'm not a gender studies student. I'm a political science/sociology student.

The fact that you know a feminist who wasn't offended by this sort of thing is no reason to assume that other people *shouldn't* be offended by it.

I realize that my OP seems preposterous to some because "everybody" does it, but that doesn't mean it isn't harmful. I'm not asking for the moon here. I'm not even asking for 100% total eradication overnight. Just...an effort. A lessening. A small effort that wouldn't cost anyone anything.

[Al Federfer]

13. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. n/t

[Lyric]

14. Why are you so opposed?

How would it harm you? It's no great effort to say "that guy has no guts at all" as opposed to "that guy has no nuts at all". It's not some monumentally difficult change to make. It doesn't hurt you, and it *does* help me (and others), so why the opposition?

[Al Federfer]

15. Some women like the idea of balls. What about them? n/t

[Skittles]

32. wtf?

you are very pitiful at supporting your postion

[tbyg52]

200. I'll pass on them, thank you

and I don't think the point here is what percentage of people do or don't find it offensive. I think the point is that there are perfectly good alternatives that refer to *any* person, not just a person of a particular sex.

[BlackVelvet04]

56. How is it harmful? n/t

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

59. Do you get called a dick a lot? n/t

[TroglodyteScholar]

61. You don't? n/t

[PassingFair]

69. Only when I act like one. nt/

[wicket]

166. HA!

:rofl:

[Dora]

125. It's neither pointless nor counterproductive.

It is, however, a fruitless endeavor when repeated efforts to ask for simple civility and an end to sexism in the language used on this board is met with dismissive and condescending replies like yours.

[TroglodyteScholar]

174. LOL

Boo-hoo. Life is tough.

[graywarrior]

2. Man, I feel like such a boob.

[Al Federfer]

5. lol

[SarahB]

7. My own gender neutral option.

"Gonads"

As in: Does this person have the gonads to do this?

We all have (or had at one point) gonads.

[Hekate]

154. "Spine" is mine, as in "Congressional Dems need to grow a spine--and other body parts."

Says it without saying it.
:hi:

Hekate

[ThePowerofWill]

180. Same here.

I tend to use spine, intestinal fortitude, or guts.

Women can have balls too though. I love AC/DC's "She's Got Balls". :P

[gratuitous]

9. I suppose it would be crass in the extreme

To say, "put on your big girl panties and deal with it"?

There are all sorts of "sexist" phrases that apply exclusively to one or the other of the two generally accepted sexes.

[Lyric]

11. The fact that they exist is not evidence

that we shouldn't try to stop using those terms.

"Everybody does it" is not a good enough reason to continue doing something that hurts other people--especially if it's something as easily and painlessly remedied as this is.

[CTyankee]

58. But of course, that phrase should be paired with "Put on your big boy pants and deal with it."

where applicable, if you are going to use it. Then it would be not condescending to one sex or another.

Why, oh why do we have to keep on explaining this? :banghead:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

16. So, in this lingusitic circus

General McAuliffe at Bastogne should have replied to the German surrender demand "Almonds!" as opposed to the now classic "Nuts!"?

The physiological fact is that testosterone (and its primary source, the testicles) is a source of aggression and generalized male behavior ('roid rage, anyone?) that has, from the most ancient days of animal husbandry, been equated with masculinity. I'm guessing here, but I can only assume the OP has never seen the difference between a stud horse and a gelding (a castrated horse). A stud is/can be mean, cantankerous, hard to control. A gelding will let anything be done to it by anyone, including letting itself be mounted by a horse that still has "a pair."

To say as an insult that a woman has no balls is oxymoronic and a contradiction in terms. It's dumb, and a poor use of language. It makes sense that one wouldn't use the phrase in regard to a woman who, to make things clear, has no testicles in the first place. To use the term in regard to a male is, however, rather colorful English, and certainly not an insult to the "testicularly challenged." It is an insult to the person to whom it is directed, most usually a male.

What the OP is actually doing is asking us to emasculate language (i.e. to castrate) in favor of a more neutered, weak-kneed, watered-down, soggy milque-toast alternative, even, it would appear, where the language is appropriate. This is a sexism of a far ranker degree than suggesting that a cowardly male lacks testicles. It is an attempt to linguistically cleanse males and their masculinity from the language.

As some hoary (no, that's not a gender-based degradation) old sage once put it: "An insult is like a drink. It affects one only if taken." It would appear to me that the OP has a straw in a bottle that wasn't even passed to her.

[Didereaux]

17. LOL that is the most verbose 'she has no balls' ever. I totally AGREE! heheh n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

21. Verbose?

Oh, you wound me! I was going for "clarity." :crazy:

On the other hand, I just re-read and can't believe I spent five minutes of my life throwing that together. I could've been doing something constructive, like hitting myself in the head with a ballpeen hammer.

Oh, dear! I've done it again! "Ballpeen" has simply GOT to go, on both syllables. Sorry.

[sutz12]

33. Just be glad she didn't say "erudite"

:rofl:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

34. That works, too!

:think:

[TahitiNut]

19. Only a dickhead would attempt to deprive our speech of its vital juices.

:silly:

[shimmergal]

23. I would hope

there's a difference between testosterone poisoning and courage, at least in humans.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

24. Yahtzee!

"Testosterone poisoning."

Testosterone equated with poison.

I rest my case.

[CTyankee]

66. Well, we have two confirmed cowards, Cheney and Bush, sending brave

men and WOMEN off to be killed or maimed in a war and I wonder what you would call that? Hmm...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

74. Hypocrites? War criminals? Demons?

Are you somehow suggesting that it's a testosterone issue?

How sexually liberated and egalitarian of you!

[CTyankee]

84. Just remembering Bush prancing around that ship in his pilot uniform with a sock in the crotch.

Just sayin'...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

91. Wow

I look at the guy and I see a bloodthirsty, ignorant murderous, warmongering asshole (I'm assuming I can use that epithet, since it's a co-gendered orifice), and you see a crotch.

Just sayin'...

[CTyankee]

103. Well, I guess he could be just a bloodthirsty, ignorant murderous, warmongering asshole.

But can you explain the sock in his crotch?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

105. Never having been in his crotch

and having, I assure you, no desire to be, no, I can't. For all I know, it was actually Jeff Gannon in there.

[CTyankee]

109. Well, these things are very well orchestrated, as is everything with Bush. Nothing is not

premeditated. The sock in the crotch was meant to reinforce Bush's manliness or what was it you called it? "Generalized male agression"?

Uh, why else do it?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

111. Some of it has to do with the chute harness

Some of it, on the other hand, was probably just for Karl Rove.

This is one kinked-up bunch, as recent news stories indicate.

Nice to see you have a sense of humor!

A lot of what I've written has been missed by the irony-challenged.

[Raejeanowl]

144. This Reminds Me of Alan Alda

Actually, you do, too, GrpCaptMandrake-read a little on your homepage.

But the testosterone poisoning thing: Alda wrote a satirical article for an early issue of Ms. magazine about "testosterone poisoning." Wish I could lay my hands on it again. You would have enjoyed it. As for me, I think I remember wetting myself.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

150. Hmmmmm!

I think I'll take that as a compliment. Alan Alda's a pretty smart, thoroughly nuanced guy.

And you remind me that I really need to update my profile. Old website.

Try www.headonradionetwork.com next time. That's current.

[truebrit71]

215. Alan Alda is a pussy and a sorry excuse for a man...

...

[Raejeanowl]

218. Thanks!

I accept your compliment on his behalf.

[Thothmes]

42. Nuts

Several years ago, I read a story that what General McAuliffe actually said to the German surrender demand was "you're fucking nuts". Don't recall the source. History sometimes sanitizes the words of war.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

43. Well, then, it's even worse!

General McAuliffe was demeaning the precious intimacy of the sexual act, thereby demeaning the German women who might've been told about his response.

So sad!

[Thothmes]

52. Worse

Believe he was refering to their sanity, not their gonads. Don't see the least bit of sexual reference in this man's defiance the German's demand.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

62. And "nuts" as a reference to sanity is a reference to what?

Contemporary explanation of slang reference for insanity as "nuts" follows below:

Connection with the slang "testicle" sense has tended to nudge it toward taboo. "On the N.B.C. network, it is forbidden to call any character a nut; you have to call him a screwball." <"New Yorker," Dec. 23, 1950> "Please eliminate the expression 'nuts to you' from Egbert's speech." (Request from the Hays Office regarding the script of "The Bank Dick," 1940)

[CTyankee]

64. AHA, the castrating woman is once again loose upon the land!

Talk about "hoary"! I haven't heard that one for a good while now. In fact, I guess I never thought I'd come across it on a progressive board like DU.

The McAuliffe quote, BTW, is open to interpretation. His terse message to the Germans could just as well meant "nuts to that" or "you're nuts if you think we will surrender."

Try to cope, Capn. Breathe...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

70. Try to check out the etymology of "Nuts"

Connection with the slang "testicle" sense has tended to nudge it toward taboo. "On the N.B.C. network, it is forbidden to call any character a nut; you have to call him a screwball." <"New Yorker," Dec. 23, 1950> "Please eliminate the expression 'nuts to you' from Egbert's speech." (Request from the Hays Office regarding the script of "The Bank Dick," 1940)

While you fulminate, please note that the OP raises the castration issue via the very phrase complained of, i.e. a person being accused of being without testicles. :banghead: Nice diversionary tactic.

"Pecans" to you! :rofl: Although, technically, a pecan is a drupe and not a nut.

[CTyankee]

80. I love it! Your quoted "sources" from the infamously sexist 1940s and 1950s.

Seems to me that doesn't prove anything with regard to McAuliffe. Try again.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

90. Wishing it didn't doesn't make it so

Those quotes are in the context of the very era when McAuliffe used the word, or did you not know he used the phrase in 1944?

[CTyankee]

110. And that quote has been calld into question in this very thread, my dear. n/t

[Wilber_Stool]

93. Hear, Hear,

Well said.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

98. Thanks.

Good to know others have your back!

[KittyWampus]

186. the stupidity of your rationalization is glaringly obvious. Aggression does NOT= Courage

Aggression not only does not equal strength it intimates a certain level of ignorance and ineptitude.

[slackmaster]

18. I think you could find something more important to bitch about

:D

[Katherine Brengle]

156. Cute. It's soooo not a big deal that the vast majority

of commonly used slang terms for weakness, bad attitude, untrustworthiness, etc are women's genitalia words or words specific to women.

Why the hell would that bother anyone?

So, if I just start equating the word "black" with "weak" and every time I perceive someone as weak, I will say, "Wow, what a blackie." Would that fly here?

[Danger Mouse]

178. But this thread isn't about the use of the term 'pussy'...

it's about balls.

[Katherine Brengle]

197. It's about sexist language.

[Danger Mouse]

209. It's about a term which some people see as sexist, while others do not.

Certain terms I will not use, because to me, they are clearly sexist. Or at least, disgustingly offensive.
This phrase...meh...I really don't see it. I haven't really used it much lately, since I've been mad at nancy pelosi so much, i can't really accuse her of lacking balls, but i can sure call her a sniveling toady or a spineless coward till the cows come home!

[slackmaster]

190. Blackness is associated with evil, secrecy, and subversion

e.g. black magic, black operations, black propaganda.

These associations are so firmly entrenched in the language it would take a lot of effort to remove them.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

194. True

And those references relate not to race, but rather to the primal human fear of darkness; the dangers that lurk for humans who lack the vision to be able to see in the night, as other predators can.

That fear of "black night" is present in every culture, on every continent.

[flying rabbit]

195. Uh oh

You said bitch.
:hide:

[slackmaster]

196. I clearly used it as an transitive verb

:D

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

20. I've said it before and I'll say it again

I will say WHAT I want, HOW I want, WHEN I want, using the words, terms, and definitions I WANT TO USE.

I some weak-kneed PC language cop gets the vapors because of something I say then it's their problem, not mine.

Comprendez vous?

[CTyankee]

65. Whoa! Need Prozac much?

Now calm down and breathe. Let the reasoning part of your brain work and keep on breathing...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

88. Up your reasoning.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

[Scout]

95. and how's that approach workin' for ya' in the "winning friends and

influencing people" department?

[datasuspect]

107. if you want a friend

get a dog.

[Ellen Forradalom]

171. Because it's YOUR WORLD

And we just live in it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. Absolutely. Only douchebags use such language. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

25. I have two testicles. They don't make me brave. My spine? All vertebrates have one.

I completely agree with you.

Courage comes from your convictions and beliefs, not your body parts.

[femrap]

26. I applaud your efforts to

enlighten the Lefty male. Alas, as in the 70's, when Women Libbers attempted the same enlightenment, they were faced with a Right Wing, Neanderthal mentality. Sexism is the last 'ism' our culture will overcome.

In our culture (and most others), the worst insult for a male is be called a girl, 'sissy' (from sister), wuss (combination of woman and pussy)....ie 'you throw like a girl.' This patriarchal language is so diffused in our culture, people don't even consider it.

Demeaning women is claimed as a right to free speech. I truly feel sorry for those males who have to oppress women so to feel important and dudely. Sad, huh?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

30. Some of us, not for lack of intelligence, don't see the OP

as "enlightened." Dithering about perceived insults not even tendered directly to the OP is not "enlightened." It's willfully benighted.

I, for one, see her attempt to cleanse language of masculine reference as a far more insidious form of sexism.

As I noted, using the phrase in question in reference to a female is just plain dumb.

On the other hand, this is the epitome of a tempest in a teapot. Even the OP herself makes clear how inconsequential her complaint is via her reference to "like a subtle slap in the face." One wonders just how troubling something is if it's a "subtle" slap in the face. A subtle slap in the face isn't a slap in the face at all, now is it?

To refer to a male as lacking testicles is not insulting a female. It's insulting the male in question as lacking a fundamental element of male-ness. It's a direct reference to what happens to a male when he is deprived of the source of one of the hormones that defines male-ness, to-wit: the androgen testosterone. Males deprived of their testosterone become docile and soft. It's why most harem eunuchs were fat, for heaven's sake. It's also why eunuchs were employed as harem servants. They're "safe," unable to perform as fully functioning males. It has absolutely nothing to do with female-ness, absent a person deliberately attempting to force that definition upon the scenario. I don't know why this is so hard, er, sorry, I mean difficult for some people to comprehend.

It takes a leap of foolish hubris to assume every time someone describes a man as lacking testicles that somehow that person is engaging in rampant, patriarchal mysoginistic sexism. Sounds a heckuva lot more like plain, old-fashioned Freudian penis envy to me, not to mention the infantile egocentricity that's required for a person to be affected by an insult not tendered them (no offense, of course, to infants, God forbid).

Sorry. I just get so very, unutterably tired of this shameless, persistent matriarchal attempt to demean testicles. End the the oppression! Stop the madness!

Editted for clarity and spelling.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Katherine Brengle]

159. "Sorry. I just get so very, unutterably tired of this..." We get tired of bullshit likewh

at you just wrote. Why the fuck should we accept this kind of treatment?

By virtue of your having the almighty penis, you get to live in a world where this shit doesn't touch you until some uppity woman opens her mouth about it.

Telling said uppity women to STFU shows more about your inability to see the world we live in than you think.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

183. And I told any woman on this thread to STFU when, precisely?

Oops for you! I didn't. I engaged in the dialogue for which the board is ostensibly designed. Granted, I did dare to point out where the OP was hopelessly in error, but that apparently doesn't sit well with you. Your perception or lack thereof is not my problem.

Who is giving you "treatment?" This is a discussion. Deal with it.

P.S. That particular "unutterably tired" line was satirically turned, and a jibe at the b/s "patriarchy" language in the post preceding it. Satire: it's a fun thing.

[KittyWampus]

188. you didn't tell anyone to STFU, you do attempt really sad rationalizations for those who equate

testicles to courage.

You seem to think this is justified by testicles = testosterone = aggression = courage.

Got news for you, WOMEN also produce testosterone without said testicles. So that kind of puts the lie to your theory.

And anyone who thinks aggression = courage or fortitude is really confused.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

191. So you admit you were wrong then?

You admit that you leapt out making attacks that weren't even factually correct? Good of you. Thanks.

Had you read more closely, you also would've noted I have made a specific reference to female testosterone production. So much for that angle of your argument.

The anatomy/husbandry/culture lesson for the benighted OP was not by way of what you term "rationalization;" rather it was an attempt to show to her why her argument was a fallacy to begin with, by way of explaining why a male uses that particular personal insult against another male, the gist of which has apparently been entirely lost on several people.

Bottom line? Men and women can and will use the most biting language when deliberately insulting one another, be it man-to-man, woman-to-woman or some combination in between. Insults are not a part of rational discussion. They are verbal weapons-of-last-resort. The use of such language simply cannot be contrived into some sort of sinister jab at an entire group, except in the minds of those who, by dint of inability to reason, wish to make it so.

[truebrit71]

214. Hey Hon, did you forget to fetch me another beer?

I think you did, because if you the time to type you have the time to fetch my almighty penis a nice cold beer...

..oh, and don't forget the NUTS either...

;-)

[ThomCat]

27. It's a total shame

That some people not only like to use sexist language, but insist on getting defensive about it. :(

They are so absolutely perfect that how dare you ask for even basic courtesy if it might interfere with their choice of vocabulary!

There is a basic contradiction here. They seem to imply that language has no real power, so you're getting upset over nothing. But then they're insisting on using specific language because it has powerful meanings. So of course, the final message is "SFTU and leave my prejudices alone."

[spoony]

29. I know! The OP is simply asking people to think for a second

before hitting the "post" button, and be just a BIT considerate of how the language they use will be read by others, and it's been treated like a declaration of PC war.

It's really just about civility.

[greeneyedboy]

41. exactly. the OP is just asking for consideration. no need for high dudgeon, dudes. n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

47. That's the problem:

the inherent subjectivity of the gripe in question. Calling something sexist doesn't make it per se sexist. I can call an elephant a camel all day long, but it won't suffice to make the elephant into a camel, no matter how loudly I do so.

Suggesting, insultingly, that a male lacks testicles is not a comment/slur/pejorative on women. No matter how hard one may protest, it just isn't. It's a comment on the male in question and his lack of male-ness. It has utterly NOTHING to do with a woman, unless it has been directed at one, in which case the person delivering the insult is simply dirt ignorant and stupid.

It's not a matter of group prejudice, at least not when the insult is delivered on an individual basis.

All told, trying to determine the morality of an insult is rather a fool's errand in the first place. They're insults, for heaven's sake! They're not supposed to smack of propriety and the sort of language one might use at high tea.

[Lyric]

57. It's alright Thom dear

I thought if I was polite and not confrontational or overly judgmental about the subject, that I might have a better shot of helping other people understand my point. It's not like it costs anything to simply use a different phrase, right? I thought it seemed very sensible.

At least you understood. :hug:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

67. It's not a question of your style or your politeness

It's a question of your comprehension.

For the record, you were most polite, but you were nothing if not judgmental.

You don't seem to understand that when applied to a man, the term of which you complain simply is not applicable in any way, shape, form or fashion to women. Neither is it sexist. It just isn't, and no generalized complaint can make it so.

We're talking here about insults. They're meant to hurt, to wound verbally. It's a technique humans have developed over millenia as a means of expression short of physical violence. It is generally accepted that an attack on a male's virility is the most cutting blow. Hence, the existence of the terminology.

An attack on a man's virility is simply not an attack generally on a female's lack thereof. The latter does not follow from the former.

For the record, I reiterate that using the insult of which you complained against a woman is just dumb. It's devoid of freight. If you see it used in such context, I'd suggest you say to yourself not "Gee, what a sexist," but "Gee, what a moron."

Fun little thread you started!

[TheDoorbellRang]

181. I don't think you would argue that there is a difference between aggression and courage

The expression "He needs to grow a pair" isn't used to admonish a male for not being aggressive; it's used to admonish him for lacking courage. The OP is merely noting that testicles do not equate with courage.

A parallel example: remember the expression "I'm free, white, and 21"? It's not used anymore, because altho it's not saying anything negative (wide-eyed "but I never meant that!" statement here) about non-whites, it's most definitely a cultural statement on which race is most "valued."

[GrpCaptMandrake]

184. The distinction in your analogy being that

the testicles statement is meant as a direct, intensely personal (not a group dynamic) insult.

The "free, white and 21" was not intended as an insult and, as you note, quite often self-referential.

You may have missed it, but the OP did not merely note that testicles do not equate with courage. I could have easily agreed with that. That's simple. She specifically sought to remove certain words, phrases and biting jibes from the language. She directly requested that. It was that demand, and its poorly reasoned support, with which I took issue.

Moreover, I repeatedly noted that to use the insult in question and direct it at a female is nothing short of plain, old-fashioned dumb. Regardless, some folks persisted in trying to read some group-high-dudgeon indignity into the said distinctly personal insult.

Go figure.

:hi:

[Quantess]

28. You are suggesting that we buck the trend of society

and be different. You are suggesting that we ignore popular culture, go against the mainstream, and effectively, mince our words. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying that the majority of people will ignore your suggestion, because the linguistic alternatives are not as flashy, and are just not the same. You're asking people to basically censor themselves.

Instead, it would be more effective to come up with a way to say "has balls" or "panties in a bunch", etc, that does not reference genitalia. Oh, how I wish! I would be pleased with my fellow humans if we got our collective minds out of crotch sniffing and juvenile swagger.

Yeah, right, like that's going to happen. Basically we're all overgrown 12 year olds in the locker room.

[annabanana]

35. sigh. .I am just not "up" for another one of these complaints...

Nor can I "get into it"

[GrpCaptMandrake]

38. Careful there!

That's mighty thin gender ice on which you're skating!

[Danger Mouse]

39. she's obviously a deluded slave of the evil patriarchal overlords.

:crazy:

[Danger Mouse]

36. It's not equating male genatalia with courage...

it's insulting the male in question by questioning their maleness.
I wouldn't say pelosi 'lacks balls' i would say she 'lacks a spine'...if i say a guy has no balls, i mean he's lacking as a man. it has nothing to do with women. at all.

[blueraven95]

136. except...

the alternative to not being male is being female.

Even if you (and I mean you in the general sense, not the specific), do not mean to, questioning the maleness implies that the male is in some way female, in an insulting way, and that is, I believe the problem. It suggest that being courageous, or assertive, or strong is not a female trait in the same way that having balls is not a female trait, and that is offensive to women. It perpetuates this myth that women can not have that kind of personal power, which in turn leads people in general to think poorly of women who exhibit these traits. Recent studies (I don't have the links on hand, but I'll be happy to look for them) have shown that women are seen as weak if they show anger or frustration or emotion at all, but men gain the perception of power if they show any of these emotions. I am not saying that phrases like "grow some balls" necessarily causes these perceptions, but I do believe that they subtly reinforce viewpoints that currently exist. To me, it is similar to hearing teenagers saying something along the lines of "that's gay" - which is implying that straight person is somehow not behaving in a straight manner, and therefore in an incorrect manner, and is clearly unacceptable.

Kurt Vonnegut had a character in Hocus Pocus who wouldn't curse because cursing gives people an excuse to cover their ears and stop listening. My feeling about phrases like this is similar - that is people are free to use language however they want, but that doesn't mean that I have to listen to them. Personally, I feel that people who use these phrases use them because they are either to stupid or lazy to come up with more descriptive, interesting, or perceptive ways to describe what they mean. Having said that, I'm sure I say things which other people find offensive, but I try not to, and having been told that they are offended, I attempt, at least, to understand why they are offended.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

145. Very nicely expressed!

But is there not a flaw in your argument in that a man without cojones is some sort of functional equivalent as a female? For those men who have lost their testicles as a result of cancer, accident or some other reason, isn't this, in itself, a bit sexist? A neutered male is certainly not a female, wouldn't you agree? The insult, as I understand it, isn't that the person isn't female; rather that he isn't fully a male. The insult you're thinking of would be more along the line of "pussy," as has been referenced above.

It is a fact, is it not, that female is the default status of the human being? That physiological "male" only happens when the foetus is bathed in testosterone triggered by the Y chromosome? The insult in question relates to male qua male, not male in relation to female qualities, and that's a difference more or less established in the womb.

History is replete with examples of courageous women (Sojourner Truth, Mother Teresa, most everybody's grandmother). Do we not denegrate their courage by arguing that a simple insult against some male somehow defeats the courage of their lives, their days, their moments, great and small?

I suppose that one might best say that I'm in favor of letting personal insults remain personal, and not looking for a reason to extrapolate them to an entire gender. That, the extrapolation, might be the greatest insult, the most profound sexism, of all.

[blueraven95]

151. I think...

we may be arguing two separate arguments which don't really entirely correlate.

I guess that I am saying that our language affects who we are as a society - that is, what we believe in, how we act, what we find acceptable, etc. I would, of course, love to allow the personal to remain personal. It would be wonderful to not look at the insidious influence phrases like this have. The problem is, the personal, small, everyday language we use probably affects and defines us the most. My point is that if you (again, you in the general sense) spend everyday hearing insults like "grow a set" along with all the other insults which demean personality traits associated with being female, then it is much easier to dismiss women later on. They, for example, make it much harder for women to be taken seriously, or obtain equality in the workforce, or even run for president. No, this statement may not be the problem, in and of itself, but it helps facilitate an environment which fosters the attitude that sexism is okay (even to the point where sexist behavior is not considered sexist).


Part of the problem between our discussion, I believe, is that there is a difference between the definitions of sex (the physical description of a person) and gender (the societal definition of a person). A neutered male is certainly not a female physically, but the personality traits attributed to neutered males are those most traditionally associated with being female, like "soft". Unfortunately, society tends to do all of us a disservice by defining gender as being essentially on a sliding scale, with male at one end and female on the other. Being neutered does not make the male female, but it does make the male closer to being female.

What I don't understand is why men would want to defend an insult of men - I would think that men would be the first people to request that this insult be used in moderation, as it directly insults men, where, at least in my opinion, it is only an indirect insult to women. on edit: In fact, upon rereading the OP, there is no mention of this phrase being insulting to women, specifically, but that it is insulting in general.

[2rth2pwr]

157. Hell, if you can't take an insult you need to grow a pair.

(You is being used in a generic form, not aimed at you specifically)

Why would men ask that that insult be used in moderation? It is offensive because it is a particularly effective cut at someone.

Maybe, the people upset here could put their energy in to getting rid of all insults, because they are designed to hurt people.

[Hoof Hearted]

173. My husband was born without the cells necessary in his testicles to produce testosterone

as a result, he "has" azoospermia.

His testicles are extremely small.

He is without a doubt one of the most noble and courageous persons I have ever known.

It is offensive, not only to me, but to him, to equate testicle ownership and/or testicle size with courage - period.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

187. That's a shame.

It sounds from your glowing description as though he's a decent enough human being, however, that he would not ever be likely to have that particular personal insult hurled at him."

The OP sought to turn personal insults into an issue relating to group dynamics. The reasoning was faulty and flawed and has engendered the bulk of this delightfully silly little thread whether the refutations be my appeals to common sense or the coarser refutations based on a reduction of the OP to the absurd, as well as the shocked, horrified, uber-anguished objections in support of the OP.

[Danger Mouse]

147. uhhh...maybe you see it that way.

if i imply someone isn't fully a man, it has nothing to do with him being in some way 'female'
it has to do with him being in some way less of a man, and less of a person.
a man without balls isn't a female. he's just a man without balls.
it still has nothing to do with females, unless you decide to interpret it that way, in which case it is your problem.

[Norwood]

37. I couldnt resist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdBoYCoP6EE

[WillyT]

40. Rules ? In A Knife Fight ???

:evilgrin:

[DemGa]

44. I agree with the OP completely

I've always felt that way about that type of expression, and cringe a bit when I hear it. It's just strange to me to hear this said, especially in relation to women -- very awkward sounding.

Glad the OP brought it up.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

48. It has no place being used against a woman

That's just stupid. Oxymoronic.

After all, when "Nancy Pelosi is a rotten, stinking political coward" is available, what need have I of referring to her genitals?

Unfortunately, the OP appeared to be declaiming on a far broader spectrum.

[CTyankee]

77. OK, Capn. Let's look at it this way.

I remember the days when women first tried to enter the military academies. The arguments against them were usually a comparison of male strength and aggression and women's less strong and less aggressive selves. At the root of this is, of course, testosterone! Women in my generation heard this constantly, in more diffused ways: "women can't..." , "women won't...", women shouldn't..., etc, etc, etc.

Can you really blame us for picking up the stench of this argument in the very language used in our daily speech? Language that was used specifically to keep women out of positions of power and economic viability. Go back and do research on the reasons men denied women access to higher education, the vote, and in the ranks of our armed forces. It's there if you have an open mind and willingness to learn some new ideas you may have never thought of.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

87. You assume facts not in evidence

i.e. that these ideas would be "new" to me.

You also assume that I'm not sensitive to equality issues. You're wrong on both counts.

What I have taken issue with in this interesting little thread is the notion that one may transpose an insult levied at an individual onto generalized humbrage at it on behalf of an entire gender. An insult directed at a single man's virility cannot, no matter how hard one might try, be converted into some sort of creeping sexism meant to wound ALL people without male reproductive organs. There's a pretty wide gulf between "Mister, you ain't got no ballz," and "Lady, I said that man over yonder ain't got no ballz, but that actually means you're a lesser species of human because of it, just fer good measure."

As the parents of three daughters, I can assure you that my wife and I reinforce to them on an almost daily basis that they can do/be almost anything they want in their lives, so long as they're willing to work hard, never give up and hang on with dogged determination to to be the best. You might also be interested to know that they've been taught that because they are female, they may have to work even harder, be even better, smarter and yes, meaner, just to draw even, simply because this is a sexist culture. We walk the walk.

Finally, you should know that my lovely, take-no-bullshit wife was looking over my shoulder as I read the OP earlier today. Her response? "Why, Bob, that's dumber in the head than a hog is in the ass." We're hillbillies. We talk like that, sorta like the day my teenager told a boy "touch me again and I'll nut you like a pig in Spring." Trust me, the girls she was with weren't concerned that she'd implied they didn't have testicles. They were actually rather proud of her, as were her mother and I. And the little redneck boy in question never attempted to lay a finger on her again.

[CTyankee]

106. I have no quarrel with your wife or daughters. I have 2 daughters and 3 granddaughters.

I am a native, 3rd generation Texan, thank you very much, no stranger to plain talk even tho I am now, and will I hope ever to be a New Englander because I love the history of the place I live in.

OK, you didn't, in your post, refute what I had to say about the arguments used against women in the military academy. I am old enough to remember them, and I remember them well. If testosterone was not part of the prejudice used to try to keep women out of West Point, Annapolis, etc. then you let ME know what I am missing here.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

128. I didn't realize I was called upon to refute what I don't agree with

Seemed rather a pointless exercise to me.

As far as I've ever known, it doesn't take a lot of muscle mass to squeeze a trigger and blow some poor bastard away. Neither does it take testosterone to pilot a plane at forty thousand feet and rain inidiscriminate death on peasant villages. I'm not aware of menstruation being a bar to sitting in a submarine and targetting a missile on a collection of mud huts where, perchance, a far less liberated woman might be trying to give birth.

None of that has anything to do with the inherent fallacy of the OP in trying to translate a very personal, singularly effective insult against a male into some sort of insidiously latent manifestation of disgust for an entire half of our species. It just doesn't pass the "smell" test.

Bigotry, not testosterone, was the cause of the resistance to change at the military academies. It hid behind bullshit biological arguments the way southern preachers used the Bible to justify Jim Crow. There was also an element of masculine fear in the resistance. Men didn't want women "intruding" on their space; a space in which they felt free to fart and scratch themselves indiscriminately. A good example of this would be Sammy Alito's arguments against admitting women to Princeton (over which he perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committe, b-t-w).

If you want to make arguments against testosterone, why not argue that it shortens mens' lives after middle age; that one of its chemical cousins causes baldness; that it bears a quantifiable relationship to heart attacks in men; that it's responsible for the worst part of female menses (the shedding of the uterine lining)? Of course, just to be fair, too much estrogen in women or men is responsible for an increased risk of a clotting accident such as deep-vein thrombosis, especially among smokers, male and female alike.

[CTyankee]

130. Not pointless to me because the implications were very clear.

My point were that those arguments WERE used and there must have been a reason for that. You may dismiss them, as I do, but it is what it is. And that is my whole point...

[GrpCaptMandrake]

131. They were used because of bigotry, pure and simple

What's so hard to fathom?

And thus, I must ask what the whole point IS? You say "it is what it is," but I guess I'm still waiting for the definition of what "is" is.

Meanwhile, there's still no decent defense of the OP's entirely faulty, seventh-grade assertion. Can you defend her taking specific insults particularly pointed and trying to extrapolate them into a sexist conspiracy?

There is, after all, such a thing as hyper-sensitivity.

[Kurovski]

45. It's not the testicles, it's the testosterone.

For a long time testosterone has been equated with aggression.

I can't recall using the expression "grow a pair" for quite some time, but it doesn't mean I won't in the future.

I heard it used three times this week alone. On Realtime, The Daily Show, and by a stand-up. It's not going away.

If I knew you personally and knew you found it offensive, out of courtesy I would refrain from using the term/expression when in your presence.

But we are on an open forum with many different people. And many different things are offensive to those many different people. There are some basics that people agree upon, and obviously behavior and attitude will indicate whether a person intends to purposefully offend another person, but generally speaking...you will not win this one in an open forum.

Some forms of taking offense are very personal, and no open forum can satisfy everyone in that regard.

The fact is that when the organs of generation are altered in animals both male and female, their behaviour is also altered. They are more passive, overall.

[TAZller]

46. I feel for your pain...

I suspect you might be feeling a bit dejected because you were asking for a bit of consideration from the group to no avail. You might even be feeling the group has just confirmed the group is inconsiderate AND sexist. You might consider in some situations even if you reveal a sensitivity, a perfectly valid answer is "you're being too sensitive" and maybe even in this case a bit silly.

Truth is, in this specific example you are basically saying: "When you throw about insults, can you please be...well...less insulting". Commenting on someones figurative ballessness is a jibe...and a jibe is an even more effective jibe if it can attack the target on more levels than one (including sexist overtones for example)... Now I am not advocating the use of insults as an effective means of communication but I really do think you are fighting a loosing battle trying to change a figure of speach that is supposed to be insulting to something less offending.

If I was trying to be insensitive I might say you need to grow a pair, knowing that knife digs even deaper on you...but instead I suggest in this case you might just try some thicker skin....or.... be a duck.

[Kurovski]

49. Indeed. The DU rules tell one that they will require a "thick skin." (nt)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

50. Rule should probably be edited

to read "a hide like an alligator," considering some of the flame wars that go down around here.

[Kurovski]

51. True enough. (nt)

[sutz12]

55. Ogden Nash

I shoot the hippopotamus
with bullets made of platinum
because if I use leaden ones
his hide is sure to flatten 'em.

:)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

71. Beautiful! n/t

[cgrindley]

53. But testosterone = aggression

the metaphor is, strictly speaking, quite true.

PS grow a pair.

[stirlingsliver]

54. Thank You Thank You Thank You

Thank you for saying this.

It has always irked me -- really, really irked me -- that some folks equate bravery, courage, and honor with having two male glands.

Thank you again.

[jgraz]

63. .

[GrpCaptMandrake]

76. Yep!

The language police is cruising the block again.

Love that picture and caption. It never fails to give me a giggle.

[jgraz]

82. The only thing I can do is laugh at this

The Senate is about to confirm an Attorney General who doesn't know what torture is and who believes the the President is above the law. And some people think our biggest problem is the words we use to decry the Democrats' latest capitulation. :banghead:

[CTyankee]

85. Yep, this guy would say that. What is this photo, circa 1958?

Those were the days. You know, when "everybody knew their place...those were the days."

[GrpCaptMandrake]

89. Aren't you using a stereoype to make that assertion?

The photo could've been taken last year.

You're offering a judgment based upon appearances.

That's not very open-minded, is it?

[CTyankee]

100. It would be interesting to find out , wouldn't it?

Cheers!

[jgraz]

92. Are you trying to police the pictures we use as well?

Seriously, THIS is a priority? Really?

[CTyankee]

102. Nope. Just sayin' as I see it (or is that not allowed?) . n/t

[Danger Mouse]

120. ...

:wow:

[abq e streeter]

115. glad you got the balls to post this-right with you jgraz

amazing what trivial bs some people are worried about.

[Danger Mouse]

121. so, what do you think is sillier...the douchebag thread or this one?

[jgraz]

202. Sorry, I don't have the balls to decide

Or maybe I'm just too much of a douchebag...

[FreedomRain]

68. Thx

for bringing this up. Never thought about that before.

[Quantess]

86. Well then you're obviously new to DU!

Welcome.:)

[yurbud]

72. when you make up an equally potent, visceral phrase to replace it, I will be happy to oblige

[yurbud]

75. in the meantime, grow up. you embarrass yourself when you make a stink about issues like this.

[NorthernSpy]

73. sorry, but none of that stuff bothers me...

It's just that there are so many other, more relevant things to be hypersensitive about, IMO...

:shrug:

[renie408]

79. Doesn't bother me either. But then, I have a set. n/t

[renie408]

78. Hey, could you just make a list of all the phrases you find offensive

so we can all make sure to not use any of them?? Gosh, maybe we should all do that. We should all make lists of everything that offends us so that we can go through life comfortable and happy.

Or, hey, we could just grow the fuck up.

[Danger Mouse]

148. You are not allowed to say anything that may offend anyone, ever.

As much as i hate it when conservative idiot fuckwads whine about 'thought police' it's shit like this thread that gives those knuckledragging idiots ammunition.

[Snarkturian Clone]

177. bingo NT

[Danger Mouse]

179. in fact, one of em was whining up a storm on the radio last week about Al Sharpton...

not that i have any use for Al Sharpton...but he goes on and on about the thought police in our society.
it makes me want to bash my head against a wall, because it's purely moronic. if you don't want al sharpton up your ass, don't say stupid and racist shit.
god forbid that assclown john tobin ever stumble across some of the threads on GD. he'd never shut up about it.

[renie408]

205. I agree. This kind of thing drives me crazy. n/t

[2rth2pwr]

161. I find it horribly offensive that "nuts" is commonly used to describe

a person who is acting crazy or dangerously. I would hope that people would see the inherent sexism in that usage.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

189. You're right

It equates insanity with testosterone, much as a hysterectomy (the neutering of a female, to be precise) was thought to relieve female hysteria. Both are fallacious, sexist attempts to equate mental stability with sexual function on a group basis.

[2rth2pwr]

199. I forgot the sarcasm smilie

[GoneOffShore]

81. I nominate this thread for a Duzy!

n/t

[Danger Mouse]

112. seconded!

[renie408]

83. I am sorry, I just can't leave this alone. With the shit going on in this world, this silly crap

is what you find to write about?? Hey, man, the United States of America is TORTURING people.

[jgraz]

94. As long as we torture people equally, without regard to gender, I guess it's OK

:eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

113. we only torture men! i call sexism!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

119. Well, we torture children, too

Does that help?

:sarcasm:

[Danger Mouse]

124. slightly.

:P

[Katherine Brengle]

160. "Girls, just pitch in for the greater good and we'll get to your silly little woman problems

later (ie, never)."

There's a fresh approach.

[Pastiche423]

96. This post

along w/every other exact post that I have read and read and read here, reminds me of a song (Before your time)...

Come back when you grow up girl
You're still living in a paper doll world

For cripe's sake! Our country is fucked. Our planet is fucked. And you're worried about people using a term that has been around for eons.

Get a fucking grip!

Priorities
Priorities
Priorities

Btw, I am an older woman. And although I do not anatomically have "them", I do have balls!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

99. This sort of topic is recreational

During the week, it's a steady littany of death, destruction, misery and despair, and by dint of occupation, I have to deal with it all.

Seeing a little gem like this thread on a Saturday is actually a bit of a relief.

[Pastiche423]

101. It may be a bit of a relief to you

but I am sick and tired of it. Hell I was tired of the topic after only reading a dozen or so of them in the past year.

You want a bit of relief? Go to the lounge.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

104. Nah, it's way to friendly in there!

:toast:

I don't start these loopy threads, I just counter-punch.

[Pastiche423]

108. Gotcha

:hippie:

[Danger Mouse]

114. god, you're such a douchebag.

:hide:
:pals:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

117. Oh, go grow a pair!

:toast:

[Danger Mouse]

122. you misogynist!

:cry:

[GrpCaptMandrake]

129. Well, damn!

Now my wife's gonna whip my ass! She never knowed I was one o' them!

:scared:

[Pastiche423]

127. Isn't douchebag sexist?

I said that ^ w/an almost straight face.

[renie408]

132. Oddly, my sixteen year old son and I had this conversation the other day.

It is his cutdown du jour. I asked him if he understood what it was, which he did. Then I asked him if he thought it was sexist and he said, NO, because a douchebag is a THING without gender. Just because women primarily use it, didn't make it sexist.

I thought this was pretty smart.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

149. He IS pretty smart

if that's any indication.

Means he's actually thinking about the language, beyond some knee-jerk, highly emotionalized response.

We engage our kids here in much the same fashion: talk, discuss, explore, explain.

Sorta like when we had to explain to our son that just because his sister hit him first, that it didn't allow him to hit her back. That's a tough row to hoe with a little boy who's just been kicked in the shin. We had to explain to him that males in this society are simply not allowed to strike females . . . EVER, even if, as he put it "she hit me first." It was a great opportunity to introduce him to principles of non-violence.

This is a screwball culture. What's seems utterly logical to a child is the antithesis of reason in the adult world. Then again, here in WV, where every second call to 9-1-1 is for some redneck asshole punching his wife/girlfriend, it seems only rational to take every opportunity to counter the prevailing cultural norm.

[Danger Mouse]

116. It's now official: GrpCaptMandrake wins the thread.

Now let's pack up and go home, people.

[CTyankee]

118. Screw that, buddy! n/t

[Danger Mouse]

123. but i don't want to screw that

:cry:

[CTyankee]

126. Aw, well screw it anyway! (Sorry to make you cry) n/t

[jgraz]

143. Isn't telling someone to "screw that" inherently sexist?

After all, you technically need a phallus to actively "screw" something. You really should try to be more sensitive in your speech.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

133. Naughty, naughty!

Sexually demeaning reference!

-5 on the style points!

[Captain_Nemo]

134. Try using an alternate.Gloria Steinem came up with an alternate to "chick flick" - "Prick flick."

[abq e streeter]

135. as a sensitive progressive man, I suppose I should be highly offended

but I think that's pretty damn funny. Macho, violent "guy movies" bore the hell out of me as much as any "chick flick" does.

[Captain_Nemo]

201. I'm glad you have a sense of humor. :-)

[Sparkly]

137. I know what you mean.

It's not really about language, but about deeper levels of sexism that (obviously) a lot of people aren't comfortable thinking about.

You wrote: "To be perfectly forthright--equating testicles with courage is both offensive and untrue." That's the crux of it. And what's the opposite of courageous and "having balls?" Why, being a "pussy," of course!

It's very ingrained, unfortunately. And a lot of people don't like thinking about cracks in their own liberalism, or places where their consciousnesses remain as yet unraised. So when you ask them to consider their language, it's resisted vehemently -- because thinking about language also means thinking about what you're saying. That's the harder part to confront, I think.

It's probably harder to get other people to change their language (and thinking) than to use different language ourselves. "Brass ovaries" is an example. It's still silly that it's about reproductive organs, but oh well... Small steps, I guess.

Anyway, I think your points are good ones. :hi:

[dweller]

139. absolutely true

Courage does not imply lack of fear, but the ability to strive forward despite of it.

All the OP has asked is for a change of consciousness in the demeaning language tossed around carelessly here, and it is almost amusing to see the pompous attitudes that resist. For there lies the fear, deep in the psyche, of the inability to succeed in changing one's self.

dp

[TAZller]

155. Absolutely Untrue...

All the poster was asking was for a change of consciousness in the demeaning INSULTS being thrown about...the only example provided was an insult. That is just silly... Insults are....insulting....who possibly is going to choose to use an insult and censor because one might be, well, insulted. The path in the gutter was already chosen. Pure sillyness to ask them to clean it up while they are there. Brainless panties in a bunch sillyness <implied sexist undertone intended>!

Sexist language is insulting. Insults are...insulting. Sexist insults are...insulting+1. Got it. They are friggin insults. If I was to say that one has no balls my goal is already to demean another. If it happens to be further demeaning because its read as a comment that one is lesser because they lack manliness, then even more power to the insult.

[Sparkly]

176. I think you missed something...

The phrases at issue are more often used to refer to some third person -- such as politicians. "____ has BALLS!" Or "____ needs to grow a pair!" Not always an insult, and usually not directed to another DUer.

[TAZller]

203. You're right....

I did miss that, because a form in which ascribing having balls to a third party as a compliment was not in the OP.

But even amongst a conversation of the nuances of specific language, if you made this extension of what was said, we are still talking about balls here. Not exactly the height of conversational discourse or agreement to begin with.

I think we can agree when used as an insult, whether directly or indirectly it is meant to be insulting....to make a point that one or all is insulted by the insulting nature of the insult....sillyness!

In the case of a party commenting on a second party for their abundance of the "proper" genitalia....it is likely ineffective compared to a more direct compliment...but insulting to a third party lacking such genitalia, insecure of their own true non-genitilia based qualities to a degree that allows them to be offended by the implication that the absence of said genitalia is devaluing their own person and the poster should take this into account when they are making their low-browed compliment....sillyness.... But.... she has balls for asking....

[defendandprotect]

138. Excellent observation . . . . testicles don't equate with courage . . ..

any more than having a vagina equates with courage ---

So -- either let's have our share of telling them to stop being "cuntless" ---
or let's stop the stupidity re "balls."

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Elidor]

140. If I were a guest in your home, this would be a reasonable request

But this is not your home. Your delicate sensibilities do not trump my freedom of expression in the rest of the world. In fact, I find this line of reasoning - "Oh, not because it isn't PC!" - as offensive as you do talk of lacking balls. I will not comply with your request, now or ever.

[Raejeanowl]

142. I Am A Woman With "Balls"

And I was a feminist before you were born. Deal with it.

[lutefisk]

146. Then you know how it hurts when they get kicked, right?

:kick: :crazy: :crazy:




:hi:

[Raejeanowl]

164. Yeah!

Especially when it lands right between the quotation marks.

:hi: yourself!

[noamnety]

152. Can't say I'm surprised by the response

which seems characterized by a bunch of people deliberately trying to use offensive language for no purpose now other than to flaunt that they can offend people here as much as they like, because they get enjoyment out of it and can get away with it.

Your OP was more than reasonable, I know you know that.

My signature sums up my thoughts fairly well.

[Katherine Brengle]

153. Thank you.

I doubt this will do any good, but some of us are on your side.

[Atman]

158. Women don't seem to think it's the same thing if you call someone a dick

I've been down this thread before. It was absolutely comical. The respondents said using "dick" as a pejorative was totally different, because it just means that someone is an idiot or acting in an offensive manor. They couldn't see that there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE. It's okay to call people a "dick" because, you know, uh...I don't know. But never, ever, ever call someone a bitch, or say they have "balls" because that's demeaning to women.

Women can be total dicks, too, you know.

.

[Katherine Brengle]

162. When men are systematically oppressed by women for centuries

and that oppression is written into law, and the dogma of the church, and every facet of civilization, and masculine parts and words are used almost exclusively as derogatory epithets, then you'll have an argument.

Of course, I agree it is classless to use this language you have described, and make an effort not to do so myself, but it is still not equivalent.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beerboy]

163. Oh for fucks sake!

Cry me a river and grow a pair.
Your point is valid though, people should have to look over their shoulder to see if anyone is recording their conversations. If someone is offending minorities, then they should be thrown into prison.

[Truthiness Inspector]

165. K & R

I have never, nor has anyone, personally witnessed a pair of testicles (or ovaries either) being responsible for bravery or strength. Have you ever read a headline, "Pair of Giant, Hairy, Brass Balls Holds Up Bank, Escapes"?

It's a stupid expression.

Big note: Don't ever allow anyone to make you feel degraded by this expression. I don't. I don't need physical testicles to have "balls" as they say. There are many men who have have "balls" and no guts.

Just don't buy into it. But I do understand your frustration.

[THUNDER HANDS]

169. well, i suppose one could say "guts" or "spine"

but guts might be offensive to people with gastric bypass surgery and spine might be offensive to invertibrates.

;)

[2rth2pwr]

167. or congresspersons. nt

[GrpCaptMandrake]

192. Or, more particularly,

people with spinal cord injuries.

The point, which seems to go zooming over so many peoples' heads, is that the issue the OP complained of manifests her attempt to transform a personal linguistic transaction into a group dynamic. It just can't make the trip. Too far to travel.

[Quantess]

170. Who wants balls anyway?

They sound like a lot of trouble. Like when getting into cold water, or falling off a bike seat, or having to restrain them when you go running. Mostly, they just kinda flop around, don't they? One always hangs lower. And they get sweaty. They are vulnerable and floppy the same way breasts are.

Since everyone is having this hearty discussion about "balls", I just thought I'd chime in.

Good grief, I can't believe people are still discussing this. 168+ comments about whether to say "balls". :crazy:

My vote is to say "balls" less, and to say "douche" more. As in, Glenn Beck is such a douche. Try saying it, it's great!

[Ellen Forradalom]

172. I sometimes substitute 'tits' for 'balls' in that expression

then when I get the inevitable quizzical look, explain that some of the most courageous people I've known have been women.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

193. And that makes perfect sense!

Or "ovaries," as they're the direct polar opposite of the gonad in question in the OP.

Since we're talking about personal insults here, it rather stands to reason that, in order to be effective, the language would be colorful, sharp, biting and abrasive. Otherwise, it's just a piss-poor insult and doesn't get the job done.

[2rth2pwr]

198. Yes, but are you implying that big tits

are better than small tits?

[Vinca]

175. Testosterone is associated with strength and it's found more in

those with balls than boobs. Must we tiptoe around on eggshells???

[AngryAmish]

182. What is wrong with being sexy?

<>

[treestar]

185. Oh, I can't get riled up about stuff like that

The English language can be so colorful. It's hard not to use it. I never take that kind of language as meant to imply women can't be courageous. It's just a way of expressing yourself.

[Raejeanowl]

204. I Can't, Either

I've been through this particular war. It won't happen, any more than you can strip the language of associations of all that is sinister, foreboding, evil and bad to black or darkness.

At some point you just have to look at the real progress, gather up your radicalized good intentions, and either pick a worthwhile project or go home.

[ourbluenation]

206. i have big balls...

in my own mind.

in reality though, i have one ovary, having lost the other to a wayward cyst.

sign me,

the one ovaried gal from california with a set of big 'ol invisible cojones.

[2rth2pwr]

207. Personally, I think the spanish form "huevos" is gender

nuetral. Why don't you start a committee to promote the usage of "huevos" instead of balls?

[TAZller]

208. Apologies...

By participating in this thread it has been brought to my consciousness that my signature line "Say NO to Bush!" could be read sexist or misogynistic and hence offensive. Therefore I believe an explaination is in order. I believe Bush and bush (as in female genitialia, and over+grown pubic hair) is icky...because I am gay, a democrat, and neat. It is the poly-meanings here. You see I don't like B/bush. I do not like bush (or Bush for heavens sake) on my men. I do not like bush on a hen. I say, cut down on the B/bush and I like it when B/bush is cut down....although I do like most bushes, in the sense of those growing in dirt. Don't cut down those. But we should strive to leave Bush in the dust. I don't like dirty bushes (we should all cut down on those). And even thinking of a "dirty" Bush... Blech!

I do believe refering to someone as either/or a B/bush is insulting... As in "you're such a B/bush..." but if I chose to say that, it would say more about my democraticness/gayness then my sexist...ness. I just wanted to make clear that even if you are a "bush" or have a full grown bush (between your legs not under you window), I may not want to sleep with you-although I have slept under a bush outside a window once-that doesn't make you bad. Just in case you read my signature line... and thought "but I have/am/like/ bush(es) so he believes me inadequate...how rude" that isn't because I am sexist it is just because i am a gay, neat, democrat. Of course if you are, or you like Bush, you are icky and inadequate without regard to your posession or lack or fullness of bushiness and probably on the wrong board. Although being a Bush supporter I cannot support, being a bush supporter I just find confusing, unless it is in the tree hugging sense... That I get.... Hope that clears it up and removes all possibility for offense.

[Kurovski]

211. Welcome to DU!

It looks like we have another striking writer out looking for something to pass the time. :D :hi:

Thank you for the clarity and entertainment, You sexist-homo-anal-obsessive wordsmith.

[Kurovski]

216. Forgot to add a wink to the last sentence...

just to be sure! ;-)

[Blashyrkh]

210. Suggestion noted and ignored. Guilt trips are a method of emorional blackmail, not change.

[SoCalDem]

212. Generalities aimed at specifics.

Speech patterns and word usage tends to be general, but the people at whom the words are aimed, are specific, so sometimes they don;t exactly fit:)

No matter how many more women there are in politics now, than there have been historically, the terminology is still male, so when a woman pol enters the arena with the men, she will often have to endure the same slings and arrows, even if they don't technically apply to her :)

Look at all the words that have changed though.
Polite speech is easier to change than insulting or berating words. They tend to linger..

:)

[truebrit71]

213. Well that took balls eh? I you weren't such a boob maybe no-one would get their tits in a ringer...

...over this incredibly serious issue...

[Mutineer]

217. Just what we need at DU: more offended parties

and more politically correct double-speak. Is this honestly the biggest issue we are facing as a group? No.

[Kingshakabobo]

219. .