You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #30: Some of us, not for lack of intelligence, don't see the OP [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
GrpCaptMandrake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-03-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. Some of us, not for lack of intelligence, don't see the OP
Edited on Sat Nov-03-07 02:00 PM by GrpCaptMandrake
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC