Poor old Laurie Oakes!

He said: “Smith will need balls to tackle the top brass”.

He said this, knowing full well that there are people out there like Dr Ilsa Evans who would rip his balls awf for it if they ‘ad 'alf a chance!

Faced with this real and present danger from ball-ripping feminists, I reckon he had real balls to say such a thing!

"Terminology that privileges a particular gender is discriminatory. And discrimination fertilises the ground from which abuse flourishes."

I'm assuming you're using discrimination in the more modern sense with a negative connotation? Still, word usage is complex as it is in constant flux – not so long ago girls was used indiscriminately of children regardless of gender. But such motherhood statements (see?) are intrinsically problematic as even saying "discrimination fertilises" implies which gender is doing it.

'Girl' may be used to deride but it is so with equal nastiness by teenage females of their peers of both genders.

Without a totally gender neutral lexicon there will always be issues – no eyebrows raised if women 'have girlfriends' but they are if men 'have boyfriends'.

The usage of 'balls' juggles ancient and mediaeval concepts associated with maturation and potency and it will probably be a while before these drop from the language.

It doesn't alter the thrust of your argument, but Laurie Oakes may have merely been trying to amuse himself by working the concept of brass balls into one sentence – a bit like your "penalises women" amused me.

The author has a point about the language but I wonder if she is as bothered by the sexism inherent in the lack of concern for violence against men (by either gender) in society. I wonder if she is as concerned about attacks on masculinity by many feminist writers.

I may be wrong but I got the impression that she might not be, that the focus is on what helps women rather than on what removes sexism from society.

It does not take balls (or any other gender specific growths) to show courage or toughness. Nor for that matter does it take a lack of male appendages to be a good parent.

Having or not having gendered appendages does not make someone a better person, it does not make them more or less responsible to act with responsibility and decency than someone with different bits. It does not make them more or less able to care for and provide for their children or any of a myriad of other gendered assumptions that seem to often be part of the world view of many.

R0bert

I always like to check in on any OLO article that puts a spotlight on women, just to have a giggle at the spectacularly indecent haste with which the forum swings the spotlight straight back to men.

Congratulations, Ludwig, WmT, and OLO's ever dependable (what-about-the-menz obssessive) R0bert. You made it clear to any woman who might venture into this forum with a comment that even remotely agrees with the author, that they face a torrent of defensive derailment from the embedded OLO boys club.

At least five people - probably all women - were smart enough to confine their opinion to clicking on 'Like'. Certainly a much better use of one's time than coming on here.

Killarney,

Same old same old, with her "I'm just gonna drop by here to let you know how intimidated I am/we are (and I'll kick you in the you know what's on the way out the door)."

Why don't you just come out and agree with the author? Lay out your reasons. Nothing's stopping you except your perpetual obsession with confecting a so-called OLO Boy's Club.

Sheeesh!

Me thinks she protesteth too much, this author.

This whole concoction is aimed not at us, but at the author her self. It certainly looks to me that she is trying to convince herself that she is not jealous of those with the balls, & not succeeding in that endeavour either.

I don't know, us old navy blokes told them no good would ever come of putting sheilas on ships, but would they listen. Not bl00dy likely. Now they are bitching when we were proved right.

My mates son was telling us about weapons training, with a new intake of officer cadets, bemoaning our unarmed & witless citizenry of today. "they shove the butt under their arm look at the front sight, pointing the thing almost anywhere. They shut their eyes & jump when the thing goes bang".

"And the girls are even worse" he said.

I wonder if our author knows the origin of the term "son of a gun" Now there was a real reason to have birds on boats.

As constructive as always, Killarney, I hope you do keep posting because I'll make sense of your arguments eventually – though I suspect humour will not be one of them.

Regards, "…they face a torrent of defensive derailment from the embedded OLO boys club."

Not really, given the title and that a major section of the article was about testicular language and that your own railing is not insignificant. Besides, the main point of the article seems to have evaded you since you used the epithet 'OLO boys club', let alone "… five people - probably all women - were smart enough to confine their opinion to clicking on 'Like'."

Contrast that with the same phrase if I add one word – "… five people - probably all women - were just smart enough to confine their opinion to clicking on 'Like'."

Why would mine be an insult and yours not?

Still on the positive side, the commonality is that we both have gonads – just not in the same location – and that nothing to do with them will ever meet.

Actually, on the evidence here, it would seem 'Killarney' has a point. There is only one response that even comes close to healthy debate about the subject at hand, while the rest appear to be following an agenda all their own. Giving further weight to Killarney's assertion that women might feel intimidated was the private contact I received from those who wanted to discuss the issue. Such a shame they felt silenced in the forum. I also note that objections to Killarney appeared rapidly, while the revolting misogyny of Hasbeen's comment remains unchecked. As the author, I am disappointed that respectful debate/discussion appears to have been stifled.

Alright Ilsa, by way of serious debate….

What is wrong with a bit of ‘colour’ working its way into our vernacular?

Nothing at all!

It really is drawing a very long bow to extend this sort of thing into the realm of significant sexual inequality.

Crikey, there are just so many words of sexual derivation in our language.

Of course there are. Sex is such a huge part of our lives. What would you expect?

And being a bit cheeky is a pretty fundamental human trait. So when that bright character who first said; “you’ve got balls”, with a meaning other than bearing testicles, lots of people found it humorous and so the saying and derivatives thereof were promulgated.

And so it goes.

All pretty innocent stuff really!

Lisa has written a very good article about this. I mentioned this once before myself in a debate we Were having on OLO opinion on another gender subject.

The fact that men feel obliged to denigrate being female in order to make themselves manly is unnecessary and they should find another way of defining maleness . What about saying, “come on show some guts and stop acting like wimps”, there is no reason what so ever to denigrate women and glorify men’s appendages when trying to make people act with more courage.

Actually a Vagina is much stronger than a man’s balls. A vagina has the strength to push a huge baby out into the world.

Hasbeen
you may be shocked to know that I agree with you about women on Navy ships with men and in the forces with men too. I don’t see why they can’t have the Women’s Army like they did in the old days. There are bound to be sexual problems the way it is now.

This article certainly proves one thing. Women are indeed the
champions, when it comes to knitpicking about trivia!

>>Certainly a much better use of one's time than coming on here.<<

Then why do you do it? The website is called On Line Opinion: opionated people come here to share their opinions. Most people anyway. From what I've seen you come here to tell us how many 'likes' feminist articles have received even though this information is already available to us: absolutely pointless. The closest you come to an expressing an opinion is uncritically agreeing with every word of the articles you comment on - but you never attempt any analysis or critique and just parroting the author's opinions doesn't advance the discussion because we already know what those opinions are.

Let's face it: coming on here to offer your opinions is stupid as well as a waste of time:

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/arguing.jpg

But I have to say that coming on to an opinion to site to not offer an opinion is an even stupider and bigger waste of time. Don't you have better things do with your time? If you feel strongly about gender issues but are scared of WmTrevor's gentle wit or Ludwig's plainly-spoken wisdom then why don't you do something useful about it and petition your local MP(s) to introduce a private member's (no pun intended) bill restricting the use of the word 'balls' to refer to spheroids used to play games and decreeing that the male dangly bits previously known as balls be known only as 'testicles' which has far too many syllables to be popular in the vernacular.

TBC

>>those who wanted to discuss the issue. Such a shame they felt silenced in the forum.<<

Well obviously they didn't want to discuss it that much. Look: show me these people who are doing the silencing. From what I've seen the moderators on this site have an incredibly prudish and old-fashioned view on the use of 'naughty' words but a remarkably liberal attitude to everything else. I'm a pretty broad-minded chap and I've seen some highly offensive comments on this site - which nobody got silenced for. So I can't see the jackbooted heel of the moderators coming down hard on the throat of outspoken feminists. And the users don't have the power to silence other contributors unless they are 133t hax0rs (or something like that). Site admin would cotton on very quickly if that sort of thing was happening and fix it.

>>As the author, I am disappointed that respectful debate/discussion appears to have been stifled.<<

I respectfully ask that you remember the old adage that things are not always as they appear. As I have just pointed out: nobody is silencing anybody. Everybody - especially the silent lurking likers - is free to contribute to this debate. They are free to offer their opinions, criticise other people's opinions and have their opinions criticised in turn.

I suspect it's that last bit that's causing the problem: the only thing stifling the debate is the unwillingness of some people to make any contribution to the debate. And the only thing I can put that unwillingness down to is an unwillingness of some people to have their opinions criticised: some people can be funny about that. Apparently we're supposed to just nod our heads and agree with whatever these people say - an idea that doesn't sit well with me. If we dare to question or criticise their arguments then we are 'intimidating' and 'silencing' them. You can see how this would make meaningful debate difficult.

I would respectfully suggest that people like that need to grow a pair. Even if it's only a metaphorical pair.

Cheers,

Tony

Ilsa Evans,

You would be mistaken to assume that Killarney's style on here is as pure as the driven snow. She is often aggressive and belligerent and insulting to the men who post here. For someone who seeks to lift women in society, she has a very peculiar way of going about it.
Here's a sample of similar treatment she contributed on a previous thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13565&page=0#235088

Not much room for discussion as you can see.

Btw, it does appear trivial to question something that is a metaphor for potency. What's the big deal? Women and men are strong. They both have their special attributes. I don't think the feminist cohort will be happy until we're a species of androgynous purists.

(I'm a woman)

Why would I be shocked Cherful?

After all it is only common sense, & I can't see any reason why you shouldn't have plenty of that.

It is only the ratbag fringe of feminists, & those either too PC, or scared of the whole feminists/PC movement who could ever have seen any sense of any sort in the whole idea.

However I'm afraid your idea of a women's army won't work. You see health & safety won't allow it. The fact that you are likely to be shot, blown up or both, doesn't matter.

You see the girls have a low lifting restriction. They would never be allowed to lift a can of fuel, too heavy, as would be a box of ammunition. Bit hard to go fight anyone, if your jeep won't go, & you've got nothing to shoot, but that's our equal opportunity defence force.

Ilsa, welcome to OLO.

First time author and almost first time poster.

And one of the relatively few author writers who comes back on their thread and gets involved in the discussion.

Good to see.

Cheers.

Poirot

‘[Killarney] is often aggressive and belligerent and insulting to the men who post here.’

Actually, YOU’RE the one I much prefer to be aggressive and belligerent to. Women who repeatedly turn a blind eye to men's misogynist agendas, while never missing an opportunity to wag their imperious finger at other women for daring to upset men's delicate egos really get up my nose.

And, Ilse, I hope you DO get to view the link Poirot posted. I have a strong feeling you’ll immediately get the argument I made. Unfortunately, it went straight over poor old Poirot’s head.

Yeah Poirot you are clearly a traitor to the cause. You are supposed to always take the woman's side regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Don't you get that this isn't about equality, rather a campaign of deception to try and make any form of masculinity a dirty word while holding a certain narrow form of feminism up as the ideal with which we must comply. You are letting the side down.

Now toe the line of they will be coming for you.

R0bert

Oh really, Killarney,

"Actually YOU'RE the one I much prefer to be aggressive and belligerent to..."

(Quaking in my boots here, but I'll forge ahead :)

In my experience, those who act aggressively and belligerently employ the blather to disguise their lack of substance while garnering a bit of attention.

Anything to say on the subject at hand, or can we all resume normal activities while you recharge your megaphone?

Nice chatting again.

Feminist + testosterone = world domination.

Ha Killarney. What is she like:-)

Back to the topic...

'Raising children within a paradigm that holds the female as inferior, even something to be despised (Man up! What are you? ####y?), is going to inevitably have consequences. And one of those consequences is violence against women.'

This my inferior, misogynistic mind just cannot comprehend. I understand the language betrays (rather than causes IMO) an attitude of society, though I would argue it can also reflect a long gone culture. I mean even when I was a kid I had no idea what curds and whey were, or what a nigga was. I didn't end up wanting to eat the former or catch the latter.

There is also the issue of separation between the genders that is commonplace in every playground where girls don't want to be 'smelly', 'dirty' boys etc, that I think is natural part of the growing up.

And generally, in general, girls cant throw as far as boys. Deal with it man. So in an athletic context, I think that's fair enough. Men cant have babies.

But my main trouble is that from reading lots and lots of wholesome feminist commentary, its almost as if every time in society a woman experiences violence, she does so solely because she is female, and as a result of men's 'attitude to women' or misogyny.

When men experience violence, it has nothing to do with his gender.

Now for this to stand, one of these two possibilities I can muster.

a) Women are special, so the Patriarchy was right; women should be protected from experiencing any violence, and men should not.

b) When men experience violence, it is necessarily an expression of misandry.

There's no opportunistic crime, no people with anger management issues, no random acts of violence. Each and every time a woman is hit, it's because the man hates women, or society in general hates women. I call BS!

BTW: some people with gut problems would be offended by someone having to have 'guts' to do something courageous.

Correction to my last post:

That should have read:

< And one of the relatively few ARTICLE writers who comes back on their thread and gets involved in the discussion. >

Ilsa, you wrote in your last post:

<< There is only one response that even comes close to healthy debate about the subject at hand, >>

However, my previous post, written in the interests of healthy debate has gone unanswered.

Please come back and debate this subject. Thanks.

With regards to the hyperbolic 'torrent of defensive derailment', I wonder how often Killarney takes the time to write to people telling them just how much she agress with them. I know for a fact that the customer relations departments of most companies are snowed under responding to all those customers writing in just to say how much they're enjoying their purchase.

As we said last time; We're all ears! As Poirot said, 'Why don't you just come out and agree with the author? Lay out your reasons.'

As Tony said,

Everybody - especially the silent lurking likers - is free to contribute to this debate. They are free to offer their opinions, criticise other people's opinions and have their opinions criticised in turn.

... If we dare to question or criticise their arguments then we are 'intimidating' and 'silencing' them. You can see how this would make meaningful debate difficult.

But, as Stan often says at the end of South Park, I've learned something today...

When a woman experiences violence, she experiences it as a woman, and it is necessarily the result of the perpetrator's misogyny and the sexism in society. This is different to when a man experiences violence, which has nothing to do with gender, and he probably had it coming anyway as he is responsible for other violence perpetrated by others of his gender. Hence the saying 'violence against women', ie violence against the innocent; Any discussion of physical strength is as sexist as the use of the term ballsy, and feminism rails against paternalistic patriarchy, so the only explanation is women are universally pure and innocent!

It's one powerful movement that can unilaterally assign motive to each and every individual act of violence.

Most importantly, according to the author, the use of 'balls' has a 'direct' relationship with Laurie Oaks using the word 'balls'.

"They are directly related. It's that simple."

Every time Laurie uses the word balls, a woman gets immediately bashed.

The apprehension of violence encapsulated in language is far from being one-sided… On Monday's Pop Asia a tweeter, Julie, wrote "My mum called U-KISS girls because of their dance moves, but I think it's cool!"

This goes to my earlier point that language changes and whilst this is an example of the problem expressed by older women it does indicate a perceptual and conceptual change with younger females.

I don't know whether this young woman was brave enough to tell her mother off for using denigrating and sexist language against males (the context demonstrably was not a compliment) – but if she did, that would have taken gonads.