05.09.05
on balls and uteruses
I think I’ve been in a ‘blog-rut’ lately. Anytime I get into one of these ruts, I find that it’s time to go back to my bread and butter topics. One that I love the most is semantic derogation. Honestly, until a month or two ago after a comment I made over at Kristen and Micah’s blog, I was somehow remembering that I had previously written on this particular topic. The fact that I haven’t is truly a shame.
First of all, for the record I looked it up and the plural form of uterus can be expressed as either ‘uteri’ or ‘uteruses’. So, I’m not wrong in using uteruses rather than the more correct and intelligent sounding uteri.
Here’s my pet peeve: I hate it when people semantically appropriate power to something by inferring that that object or action ‘has balls’ or ‘takes balls’. For example: “My truck kicks ass–it’s got some balls.” Or, “That’s a ballsy move.” Or the negative, “You need to ’sack up’.” Or, “You need to grow a pair.”
The appropriation of power to something by saying that it has balls–in addition to being patently sexist–is just stupid. It’s like saying that I’m cool because I have to wax my back hair. It just doesn’t make sense. Testicles are one of the weakest part of the human anatomy. Perhaps some examples would prove helpful. Here’s one for all you guys out there–and you’ll need to answer honestly here… What part of your anatomy did you cover when you played dodgeball?
Be honest. You covered your package. But, why?
You covered your ‘area’ because if you were to suffer a blow to the genital region you’d be doubled over in pain. Your testicles are tender, weak, and not well protected.
Here’s another sports example: What piece of protective wear is common to most every athlete’s wardrobe? I mean, for crying out loud not even every contact sport player protects their head–but I defy you to find a male professional athlete (excluding, perhaps, golfers and NASCAR drivers) that doesn’t wear a jockstrap. Why? Because your testicals are exceptionally weak organs.
America’s Funniest Home Videos has made millions on the weakness of testicles. I mean, really, what’s funnier than the obligatory muscle bound young father playing tee ball (pun slightly intended) with their son when in the twinkling of an eye a baseball flies into the father’s crotch. The father doubles over in pain, and the camera starts to bounce around a bit (no doubt, because Mom, the one operating the camera, is laughing at her writhing husband).
You get the idea. Testicles are fragile little beings.
Uteruses, on the other hand, are the most powerful muscular organ in the human body. This organ is amazingly flexible and it has the strength required to push something the size of a watermelon out a hole the size of a lemon (if not smaller). Now that’s friggin’ amazing.
But one thing that’s puzzled me is this: why, if testicles are so weak, should people use testicles or balls to give things power? When you think about it, it’s pretty stupid. The only thing I can figure about this is that it’s a case of semantic derogation against women. That is, what is male is good and powerful, while what is female is bad and weak. Being less than male (or minus-male) is bad.
Such a reference is clearly wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. Thus, I posit that humans should no longer use the terms ‘balls’ to relate strength to an object or a person. From now on, humans should use the term ‘uterus’ to offer strength or courage to something. Here are some examples:
“Man that car has got one hell of a uterus.”
“Stop being such a chicken–you need to grow a uterus.”
“That took uterus, man.”
You get the idea.
Shawna Renee said,
May 9, 2005 at 2:10 pm
That has to be one of the absolute funniest (and truest) things I have ever read. And being a woman, I absolutely agree.
Shawna Renee
Audrey said,
May 9, 2005 at 3:12 pm
In our modern society, women are the gendered sex. If you hear about someone named (phonetic spelling) Ter’/ree, what sex do you assign to the subject?
Being the non-gendered class (males, in our case) carries a bunch of advantages. Why does something have balls? Because testes are the source of testosterone, maybe, from which all gender differences flow? But what does that say about the description (often used around here) of something requiring big brass ones?
I’ll note one more thing. The female homologue of the testicle is the ovary. Some of my friends and I occasionally refer to something as requiring real ovaries, but we don’t expect it to catch on anytime soon.
Audrey
Brandon said,
May 9, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Indeed, Audrey! Thanks for the comment. For the record, I’m aware that my substitution of the uterus for the testicle is not meant to be completely homologous (is that a word?) I was merely shooting for the most powerful human organ.
Here’s hoping that either ovaries or uterus will catch on over ‘balls’ someday.
*Christopher said,
May 9, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Great post Brandon. And yes, “homologous” is a word not used often, but when used, mostly used too much.
meg said,
May 9, 2005 at 4:52 pm
“I defy you to find a professional athlete that doesn’t wear a jockstrap.”
uuuhhhmmm…how ’bout the starting line up for the WNBA?
Love the point you made here and I do intend to compliment my fellow SEMINarians (yet another gender loaded word) about their clear appropriation of a uterus when challenging a professor in class.
Brandon said,
May 9, 2005 at 4:56 pm
I stand corrected, Meg.
I will edit the post to reflect professional athletes who are women.
Kirala said,
May 9, 2005 at 8:13 pm
I’ve always said “guts”. Seems pretty non-gender-specific to me. But then, I suppose the uterus could be loosely considered to be “guts”.
danny said,
May 9, 2005 at 9:00 pm
I’ve been using “ballsy” a bit differently. I usually think about it as a way of being too aggressive and too vulnerable. So, yes, it can take a lot of balls to do something, but that’s a negative attribute. It’s not a matter of being powerful as much as a matter of being foolish and over the top.
Also, “balls” is a slang term, while “uteri” is more technical. If we want uterus to catch on, we need to make it sound cool. If we could call it a “pail” or something like that, it’d be just the dog’s bullocks.
Brandon said,
May 9, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Yes, balls is slang. But that’s not the point, Dan. The point is balls is only cool because of the misogynist tendencies of society to bend language so that it derogates women. We don’t need to change or euphemize the uterus.
You may use ballsy in a different sense than most, but the fact remains that in the parlence of our times ballsy means courageous…regardless of your intent, most often your use of ballsy will not be interpreted as you intend for it to be.
tyana said,
May 10, 2005 at 12:33 am
well stated, i must say. although i’m with danny that it has to be something catchy for it to take hold. spread the word, my brother!
The Gutless Pacifist said,
May 10, 2005 at 5:32 am
Testicle vs Uterus
Brandon writes on how Testicles are fragile little beings and the uterus is powerful….
connexions said,
May 10, 2005 at 6:19 am
Never mind the…
Bad Christian ponders the weakness of testicles
Kristen said,
May 10, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Brandon, I just want you to know that this blog entry has won you my loyal friendship forever. I mean, you had the McCarty loyal friendship before, but this just sealed it to last through the ends of time, four horsemen of the apocalypse and all. Thanks.
Random Ravings said,
May 10, 2005 at 12:33 pm
That took uterus…
“Man that car has got one hell of a uterus.”
“Stop being such a chicken–you need to grow a uterus.”
“That took uterus, man.”Read the whole post here - its brilliant.
dave said,
May 10, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Great stuff Brandon…
Nathan said,
May 10, 2005 at 5:21 pm
The sayings where something “has balls” is different than what you are arguing. If the saying was “My truck IS balls”, then you’re argument would be correct. But saying something “HAS balls” means that it has a large source of power (i.e. testosterone). So a truck “with balls” would have a powerful engine.
Female athletes (mostly from the USSR) used to inject testosterone in the 1970s and 80s to gain an advantage, and also some additional body hair. So it does generally help (strength-wise) to have testosterone, which is made in balls. The common sayings are correct then.
So I think the new saying should be more like: “strong as a uterus” or “He bounced back like a uterus after the surgery.”
Brandon said,
May 10, 2005 at 5:38 pm
I think you’re a bit off base, Nathan. Colloquially, saying something has balls gives it power, strength, chutspa, anything positive, really.
The common sayings are not correct in the sense that they derogate women. And, they’re not correct in the sense that they don’t mention anything about testosterone. They say balls. That’s all.
Regardless of the strength the balls produce via testosterone…that strength pales in comparison to the strength of a woman’s uterus has. Women already are stronger than men in a multitude (though society has dictated what kinds of strength are sufficient for a person to qualify as ’strong’) of ways.
While you’re probably technically right, colloquially using uterus instead of balls–well, that’s just dead uterus on.
giveawayboy said,
May 11, 2005 at 4:28 am
I always say something takes ‘balls or ovaries’. I always matched ovaries with testicles in this analogy. And I see each as very important. Both have creative and therefore assertive power. Since I don’t know slang for ovaries I just say ovaries, but saying something takes ‘testicles and ovaries’ sounds too clinical. Well, any slang terms for ovaries, send them to me. That way I can update.
Audrey said,
May 11, 2005 at 10:54 am
Giveawayboy,
To the best of my knowledge (which is pretty good), there isn’t a slang term for ovaries. Given that they are entirely internal organs, it makes sense that there wouldn’t be a slang term for them. What’s the slang term for the vermiform appendix? Oh yeah, appendix …
Audrey
Kyle said,
May 11, 2005 at 8:22 pm
While I agree that the terminology of “balls” as currently used does derogate women, I’d argue that you are certainly wrong in your attack of the term based on the weakness of testicles. My reason for saying so is based on the literary device of synechdoche, a form of metaphor in which the whole is substituted by the part, usually a part that either is a major element or a distinguishing element (e.g., people who work on a boat are called *hands* on deck, the vehicle with the big ladder that comes to douse my smoking house is a fire *engine*, etc.). The usage of the term implies some amount of extreme strength or daring, attributes that are commonly applied primarily to men. One distinguishing element that men have but women don’t are testicles, so while I admit the usage is sexist, what is going on is a synechdochic use of the term “balls.” No one actually literally means that the balls themselves are strong, but that the kind of person who has balls (i.e., men) by nature has proclivities toward strength.
Nicole said,
May 12, 2005 at 11:49 am
This is neither intelligent, nor insightful, but I would like to point out that I have seen trucks that do indeed “have balls.” There is an attachment that one can purchase for a trailer hitch that is steel sculpted into the shape of a scrotum with testicles. Ewwww
http://www.bumpernuts.com/
Aurora said,
May 14, 2005 at 11:15 pm
I use ‘nads, as both sexes have gonads.
daniel said,
May 23, 2005 at 11:51 am
Audrey — there are many slang terms for completetely internal organs: ticker, noodle, etc.
But, this is getting a little tedious, I think.
Great article, and great insight!
Gerry Mander said,
July 15, 2005 at 5:48 pm
This is perhaps the dumbest article I have ever read. Different races and sexes have throughout history adopted language that was derogatory or once oppressed them as their own. Black people for example adopted “nigger” as their own and it is now routine to hear them say for example “What up ma’ nigga?”. Women have adopted “bitch” as their own as well. What this successfully does is turn language that was once disempowering into a form of empowerment. So knowing this, why might men adopt “balls” as language of strength? Maybe it’s because the vulnerability of this one body part has been and is routinely used as a means of disempowering men. And it is anything but a form of misogyny. If anything, those who oppose male-empowering language are misandrists.
Boooyah!
Big_Furry_Balls said,
July 16, 2005 at 6:59 pm
“The common sayings are not correct in the sense that they derogate women. And, they’re not correct in the sense that they don’t mention anything about testosterone. They say balls. That’s all.”
The common sayings have nothing to do with correctness; the common sayings are a matter of OPINION. What’s funny is that one of the points of this article was to criticize semantics, though; your ridiculous and unnecessary comment about “balls vs. testosterone” is laughable. If there were no balls, there would not be such a magnitude of testosterone.
“Regardless of the strength the balls produce via testosterone…that strength pales in comparison to the strength of a woman’s uterus has. Women already are stronger than men in a multitude (though society has dictated what kinds of strength are sufficient for a person to qualify as ’strong’) of ways.”
The strength a uterus has? Is that why there are as many women as men if not more who have problems with fertility? Your next comment is the epitome of pretentious nonsense. It is society that claims (which was conceived by the Feminist movement) that women are stronger in a multitude of ways… not the other way around. The scientific FACTS show that there is no evidence that proves that women have higher pain thresholds than men. The FACT that men cannot bear children does not prove that women are stronger. Reason: No man has ever given childbirth; therefore, nobody knows how men would handle it. Physically, men are stronger in athletics and other forms of physical activity. Other forms of strength whether it is psychological, mental, or emotional is strictly individual.
You accused Nathan of being off base?
“While you’re probably technically right, colloquially using uterus instead of balls–well, that’s just dead uterus on.”
Maybe you should stop being so petty, and grow a pair. Better yet, stop posing as a man. Your post is so feminine, it’s laughable.
Big_Furry_Balls said,
July 17, 2005 at 9:33 pm
“Brandon, I just want you to know that this blog entry has won you my loyal friendship forever. I mean, you had the McCarty loyal friendship before, but this just sealed it to last through the ends of time, four horsemen of the apocalypse and all. Thanks.”
Is that all it takes to win your firendship forever? Geez, I can’t decide which is smaller; your mentality or your self-esteem.
Brandon said,
July 17, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Okay, Mr. Big_Furry_Balls, or whomever the fuck you think you are. It’s one thing to criticize ideas around here, even with your pitiful excuse for mental capacities.
It’s entirely another to start belittling human beings. (Of course, I’d be guilty of the same if you had, in fact, qualified as a human being…fortunately, you’ve proven that not a problem.) And when you point that low intellect, shit for brains, mouth at my friends…well, that’s just out of bounds.
Big_Furry_Balls said,
July 17, 2005 at 10:38 pm
LOL A pitiful excuse for mental capacities? You couldn’t reason your way through a wet paper bag.
You make moronic assertions based solely on opinion and societal bullshit, failed to classify any of your views on scientific data, and I’m the one with pitiful mental capacities? Maybe it’s time you wake the hell up and step outside the little box you live in.
Ummmmm criticizing someone for showing lack of good reasonaing and self-esttem (which is common) is not belittling. We all have a our strong points and weak points; some of which we can control, others we cannot. Self-esteem, self respect, and stupid rationale is a choice! Since those types of weaknesses are a choice, they are open season for criticism. However, since you have allowed yourself to conform with the “let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings with the truth bullshit”, you are as weak as they come. Now that this has been established, qualifying a human being is something that is still beyond your abilities.
)
BTW, I don’t give a rat’s ass who your friends are. My intellect is higher than all of yours (the evidence is in the stupidity of your posts). Who’s the real shit for brains, buddy boy?
finnegan said,
July 26, 2005 at 6:51 am
Although there are any number of female professional athletes who don’t wear jock-straps, I’d venture to say there are a few butch ones regard themselves as “hung like dougnuts”.
This here’s a provocative entry, and I’m glad I happened upon it.
My recent dream, which I’ll be posting later today, testifies to your testy testes theory.
[libcat] said,
December 3, 2005 at 7:31 pm
homologous, ‘Having the same relation, proportion, relative position, etc.; corresponding’ is from Greek words meaning ’same’ and ‘ratio, proportion, analogy’. In biology it specifically means ‘Having the same relation to an original or fundamental type; corresponding in type of structure (but not necessarily in function); said of parts or organs in different animals or plants, or of different parts or organs in the same animal or plant.’ (OED)
(via lj:vacheestfachee)
John said,
December 9, 2005 at 6:51 am
Well let’s see - the gonads would be testes and ovaries, respectively - no uterus involved. Last I checked ovaries weren’t any better off as far as structural integrity, although they are hidden which only goes to support the trditional expression about someone who is daring. Balls secrete things that make you faster and stronger. Ovaries secrete things that make you fatter and bitchier. This isn’t that hard. =)
stephhhhhhhhhh said,
August 14, 2006 at 5:27 pm
please dont curse! its not required!
Lizzie said,
September 29, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I agree with Stephhhhhhh. The cussing isn’t required for intelligent conversation.
Kaz Trypuc - Check this out! said,
January 6, 2007 at 4:46 am
[…] Check this out! mood: aggravated music: NPR hourly newscast This post is incredible. It really made me rethink my language. Thanks go out to my friend Eric for the tip. […]