Latest Activity

National Atheist Party and Jessica Mokrzycki are now friends
2 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki joined Adriana's group
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki commented on Sydni Moser's group Vegetarian and Vegan Atheists
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki joined Sydni Moser's group
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki left a comment for Neal
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki posted photos
5 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki updated their profile
6 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki commented on Neal's video
6 hours ago
Neal left a comment for Jessica Mokrzycki
6 hours ago
Neal commented on Jessica Mokrzycki's status
6 hours ago
Bo Fowler posted a status
"Just added a new very short story to my blog. Hope you like it. http://ning.it/11MX1PC"
6 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki posted videos
6 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki posted a status
"My first day here! Wow..what an awesome site...It's like fb for atheists and free thinkers! :)"
7 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki left a comment for Neal
7 hours ago
Jessica Mokrzycki and Neal are now friends
7 hours ago

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Ronald A. Lindsay, the president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, a lawyer and philosopher, whom I really respect, wrote an article at the CFI website asking the freethinking community to voluntarily drop the use of the term "balls" (or "cojones", etc.) to signify "courage". He is not offended by the "vulgarity" of the term at all, but rather suggesting that its usage somehow perpetuates the erroneous concept that men are more courageous than women (after all, we call cowardly people "pussies"). What do you think? Is he exaggerating or is that a good idea? I myself use the term quite frequently, thinking it mostly lost its gender-specific connotation, and that one can say that a woman has "balls", too. But I think he has a point. What do you think?

 

Read his article below:

 

Can We Drop “Balls”?

June 11, 2012

Many people, including many skeptics, atheists, and humanists, use the term “balls” or its myriad equivalents as a metaphor for courage, determination, resolve or similar attributes.  I suggest we should stop using such terms, for a pretty obvious reason: one doesn’t need testicles to be courageous, determined, or resolute.

There has been a fair amount of discussion in the secular/skeptical blogosphere recently about sexism and sexual harassment.  However, maybe I missed it, but I have not seen much discussion about the common use of slang based on male or female anatomy, perhaps because it’s ubiquitous or it’s felt not much can be done about it. Whatever the reason, I think use of these terms merits some discussion, in particular, the common use of “balls.”

Before I go any further, let me hasten to make clear that I’m not asking people to stop using “balls” as a substitute for “courage” because of some prissiness about language. Profanity and slang don’t bother me. I worked as a lawyer for over twenty years. In conversations with my colleagues, every other word was “fuck” or one of its derivatives—and that’s just when we were talking about the weather.

Nor am I suggesting that there be some sort of censorship by secular or skeptical organizations.  We’re not going to throw someone out of a conference just because they lace their conversation with references to “balls,” “nuts,” “cojones,” etc.

But I do think that people who pride themselves on evidence-based reasoning should refrain from the all-too-common use of “balls” as a substitute for “courage” and related terms, as in the sentence, “He doesn’t have the balls to tell Dawkins he’s wrong.” Testosterone is associated with certain behaviors and traits, including aggression (not necessarily a bad thing, by the way), but there is no association with courage, determination, or resolve. Use of “balls” when “courage” will do perpetuates the stereotype that men have more courage or determination than women.

One might argue that “balls” is used so often that it’s lost its gender-specific connotations. I don’t buy that argument—and isn’t that argument similar to what we hear, and reject, from the religious fundies? “Oh, the word ‘God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance has lost any religious significance” or “the cross has become a secular symbol.” We don’t think religious terms lose their significance just because they’re repeated frequently; why should we think slang loses its gender reference just because it’s repeated frequently?

Language is powerful. Language not only expresses our thoughts, it shapes them. “Balls” is in common use, and that’s precisely part of the problem. It’s embedded so much in our language that we don’t notice it, but that simply means our sexism is burrowed in deep.

Am I exaggerating the effects of using “balls” and similar gender-specific slang? I don’t think so. Quick: what do you call someone who has no balls, who is a weak-willed individual? Why, a “pussy” of course.

It’s difficult to break language habits, but not impossible. In a couple of decades, most people stopped using “mankind” when they really meant “humanity,” and I think one can stop using “balls” as a substitute for courage, determination, or resolve with just a bit of effort. (If one feels the need for an anatomy-based metaphor, “backbone” does quite nicely.) Plus, once one drops the sexist slang one will have the immense satisfaction that comes with the realization that one has finally graduated 8th grade.

Tags: language

Views: 154

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nope, because of the origins of the work. When white kids in my neighborhood call each other the "n" word, it doesn't make it right. 

I never heard "crust", is this local Midwest usage? I like the sound of it, though. I just never heard it. Now, it may sound funny to tell someone to go "grow some crust" :-)

Crust takes time to form.

Ah! Makes sense. Some of us were born with crust, though :-)

No he's a cur!

Is "cur" a mongrel dog? Not used in American English, I think.

Yes! The Wiktionary has it as an archaic English word. Though you hear it in Auss from time to time and more so from the older generations.

I'm asking this committee where does Douchebag stand?

Hmm...That's a very tough one, especially since the "douche" phenomenon makes sense only I America; women in other parts of the world do not use douches. Perhaps not in America anymore. It's unhealthy, and unsanitary, doctors advice against it. 

But it's such a good word, though. 

Jason Thibeault has a great rationale for continuing to use "douchebag":

With “douchebag” where appropriate — e.g. people harming women while thinking they’re helping.

I've never heard the word crust or cur but I agree that quite a few bad language often used words like balls or pussies are totally derogatory towards women and in my opinion should be avoided and backbone sounds so much better as well as weak....

Pussy could also be referring to your everyday moggy that sits on your lap.

I once heard this said regarding a Marine Corps fighter pilot: "His balls were solid brass, and he had to put them in the cockpit one at a time." 

RSS

© 2013   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service