The size debate: standards of beauty

Dp

LarryC wrote:

rosenhane:

I don't think they mean it that way. It's just that the language itself houses many misogynistic ideas such that it's impossible NOT to be misogynistic sometimes, just because of how the language is structured. For instance, there is no gender neutral third person pronoun in English.

They might or might not beg to differ. It depends upon whether you mean the plural (which is gender neutral), the singular inanimate (which also is), or the singular animate (which isn't).

LouZiffer makes a great point here. Its post suggests that the trend is not as prevalent in English as it is in other languages.

Just being objective.

I don't agree with Larry's assessment of English from a structural standpoint, but he's absolutely correct that the way Americans (I would expand that to all English speakers, but barely lack the authority to generalize for my own country) speak is rife with patriarchal cues and codes - like the above example of using language more suited to owning property as shorthand for gaining a person's affection.

The idiomatic side of it is more patently obvious about it. For a time, I didn't really understand why "throwing like a girl" was supposed to be bad. Some of the most accurate throwers I knew were girls, and I couldn't find any allegorical reference for the idiom.

English does have that structurally, though I think it's much less so than languages derived from the Italic portion of the Indo-European family. As larger societal structures developed, patriarchy seems to have come along for the ride for the most part. In those societies there is now millennia of patriarchy if you look back. It's no wonder our language and idiomatic structures still contain it.

LarryC wrote:

The idiomatic side of it is more patently obvious about it. For a time, I didn't really understand why "throwing like a girl" was supposed to be bad. Some of the most accurate throwers I knew were girls, and I couldn't find any allegorical reference for the idiom.

It's straight-up misogyny.

I'm not sure that's really fair -- remember, it's mostly kids using the term, and few girls are taught to throw well, where most boys are. It would be more accurate to say "throwing like someone who doesn't know how", but what 10 year old kid would think or say that?

It's not misogyny, I don't think. Rather, it's stereotyped gender roles. If all kids knew how to throw, it would never occur to a kid to say anything like that.

Malor wrote:

It's not misogyny, I don't think. Rather, it's stereotyped gender roles. If all kids knew how to throw, it would never occur to a kid to say anything like that.

Tomato, tomato.

Stereotyped gender roles are just misogyny-through-negligence.

I think its the follow through of the thought that shows its roots. It is more like saying that you throw like someone who plays with dolls instead of practices throwing. Its a gender stereotype just like "you throw like a wuss or wussy". Except in that case, your aren't refering to a female necessarily. You are refering to someone who doesn't fit your stereotypical ideal of a male.

It's funny. I also tried thinking of other terms that kids might say which are gender neutral, and kept running across ones that at least imply lack of manliness. Some examples:

Q-Stone throws like a sissy. (Compares Q-Stone to a word derived from sister.)
Q-Stone ran away like a p***y. (Compares Q-Stone to female anatomy.)
Q-Stone is a giant wuss. (By definition implies a lack of manliness on Q-Stone's part.)

I struggled with that when I was doing rehab for my arm. I settled on "wimp" eventually.

wordsmythe wrote:

I struggled with that when I was doing rehab for my arm. I settled on "wimp" eventually.

I'd go with throw like a Met myself, but that might be a bit regional

LouZiffer wrote:

It's funny. I also tried thinking of other terms that kids might say which are gender neutral, and kept running across ones that at least imply lack of manliness. Some examples:

Q-Stone throws like a sissy. (Compares Q-Stone to a word derived from sister.)
Q-Stone ran away like a p***y. (Compares Q-Stone to female anatomy.)
Q-Stone is a giant wuss. (By definition implies a lack of manliness on Q-Stone's part.)

How about we all just agree on "You throw like a Q-Stone."?

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

It's funny. I also tried thinking of other terms that kids might say which are gender neutral, and kept running across ones that at least imply lack of manliness. Some examples:

Q-Stone throws like a sissy. (Compares Q-Stone to a word derived from sister.)
Q-Stone ran away like a p***y. (Compares Q-Stone to female anatomy.)
Q-Stone is a giant wuss. (By definition implies a lack of manliness on Q-Stone's part.)

How about we all just agree on "You throw like a Q-Stone."?

Racist.

:p

Totes!

Quintin's a race? Does that mean there's more than one of him?

muttonchop wrote:

Quintin's a race? Does that mean there's more than one of him?

There are two of him.

This one and this one.

I suppose that counts as a race.

muttonchop wrote:

Quintin's a race? Does that mean there's more than one of him?

I dunno. I just assume he's one of "them", because otherwise he's one of "us", and that's frightening.

[size=1]Just kidding, Stone *brohug*[/size]

rosenhane wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The more people who think Ashley Judd is fat or ugly ups my chances of getting her, right? RIGHT!?

Farscry wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The more people who think Ashley Judd is fat or ugly ups my chances of getting her, right? RIGHT!?

Not if I get her first!

Seriously though, bravo to the good write-up on her part.

Why is it perfectly OK to treat a woman like property?

I don't know if I'm supposed to reply with "LOL, I like your sarcasm" or "congrats, you're a dick!"

Allow me to elucidate upon my original observation: I admire intelligent people, and since I am a heterosexual male who has great appreciation for individuals of the opposite sex who combine intelligence and beauty, I would gladly make the effort to win the affections of Ashley Judd were she single and interested in finding a partner, as she appears to have many qualities that appeal to me.

That better?

An it were possible, even I would exert no small amount of effort to secure her more delicate feelings towards my person. Such a finely made, well-bred young woman cannot fail to elicit anything else from any true gentleman.

There are plenty of misogynistic phrases but "get her" is not one of them. Women will say "get him" just as much. It may be treating people as property but it's definitely not limited to women.

Can we get back to the real tragedy here? My poor joke left bloodied in the road!

LarryC wrote:

An it were possible, even I would exert no small amount of effort to secure her more delicate feelings towards my person. Such a finely made, well-bred young woman cannot fail to elicit anything else from any true gentleman.

That can't be unintentional in a conversation about treating women like property! : D

No, no, you guys are complaining about the wrong metaphor. These words aren't about property, they describe livestock.

Farscry wrote:

Allow me to elucidate upon my original observation: I admire intelligent people, and since I am a heterosexual male who has great appreciation for individuals of the opposite sex who combine intelligence and beauty, I would gladly make the effort to win the affections of Ashley Judd were she single and interested in finding a partner, as she appears to have many qualities that appeal to me.

That better? :P

Too bad she's a UK homer:

IMAGE(http://blog.chron.com/jeromesolomon/files/legacy/Ashley_Judd_Kentucky_Jersey.jpg)

The irony, it burns.

We can be rivals...the important thing is she was on Star Trek!