Naturally physically inferior, is what I meant to say, if I didn’t specify. But as has been discussed to death in this thread, it’s inaccurate–the differences in throwing style between boys and girls are explained by training, not nature.
Whereas developmentally disabled people are… developmentally disabled.
See the difference?
This is one of the most unintentionally hilarious threads I’ve read in a while.
It started somewhere around “the evolutionary purpose for the term ‘throw like a girl’”. Good times, guys. Good times.
Naturally inferior at throwing yes.
Well, you see, it all comes down to sex. Men “throw” and women “catch.” This is why gay men (the ones who get fucked up the ass, because everyone knows it’s not gay if you’re the one doing the fucking) also are bad at sports.
No, naturally most grown women can produce less *power *than grown men. Their *technique *will be as good if similarly trained. And, as everyone has agreed, “throw like a girl” is about technique, not power. What are you, retarded?
I know, I made that argument repeatedly. 
I understand the difference completely. But I think it’s less clear cut than you are asserting: people who are being stupid should know better, but don’t. But for people who are developmentally disabled just don’t know better.
Yeah, but wouldn’t “You’re retarded” equal “I can’t believe that you are willfully this stupid–there must be some explanation for it in terms of diminished cognitive capacity”?
That’s still the closest thing I’ve seen to a real answer to my question, though, thanks.
What are you retarded that you need to oversimplify something that’s already pretty simple?
Also that’s assuming that people who have a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance are for some reason choosing to be stupid.
They are naturally inferior at throwing. Why aren’t there any female pitchers in Major League Baseball?
The phrase, “throw like a girl,” actually refers to a specific throwing style, though, not really brute strength. Throwing like a girl means that thing where somebody tries to throw just from the elbow with a straight ahead forearm motion like they’re swatting at a fly or shaking out a paint brush, and they end up firing the ball straight into the ground…you know…like how little girls throw.
Which, as I said above, is exactly what the insult is about: it’s insulting because it’s implying that the boy has been socialized as a girl, and thus does not know “essential” masculine skills like how to throw a baseball. The basis of the insult is not gender inferiority, but gender roles, and the inadvisability of transgressing them. It’s not nominally insulting to girls as a group, because the intent isn’t to disparage girls, it’s to enforce the social barriers between girls and boys. In the context of this insult, a girl shouldn’t be insulted by the comment because a girl shouldn’t want to be good at throwing a baseball. Of course, a girl who does want to throw a baseball should be insulted by it, as should a boy who has no interest in throwing a baseball. The rigid enforcement of gender roles can be harmful to anyone who does not fit into that stereotype, boys no less than girls. As such, I don’t see this particular comment as sexist, although clearly, it can be objected to on other grounds.
Since this is a discussion online, you’re applying more logic than people use in the real world. It can mean “you’re being willfully stupid,” but I think most of the time it just means “you’re being stupid.”
Er, isn’t what you described – stereotyping people based on their sex – pretty much sexism? Maybe I’m missing something.
But yes, overall, the idea that girls do this and boys do that, and that the worst thing in the world is to be like the other gender (more for boys than girls, it seems – What is the male equivalent to ‘Throw like a girl?’ What is the female equivalent to ‘be a man?’) isn’t doing anyone any favors, and most certainly gets communicated to children however much we’d like them to all have a sense of humor.
Though really, ‘Retarded’ is probably much closer to ‘Gay’ or ‘That’s so gay.’ In that Dan Savage uses both.
It’s a pretty commonplace insult just to say or imply that a woman looks like a man. Should men be insulted by jokes about Ann Coulter’s Adam’s apple?
Well, I was thinking of sexism as the idea that one gender is inferior to the other. You’re right, it’s sexism in that it relies on gender as a determinative trait, but it’s not discriminatory towards a specific gender. It’s not about putting down girls, it’s about putting down anyone who transgresses against gender expectations, and as such, can be equally harmful to people of either gender.
You’re the one oversimplifying matters–you’re trying to shoehorn in the fact that adult men are, on average, stronger than adult women, which clearly has no bearing on a discussion of throwing *technique *in pre-pubescent children.
Welcome to the previous fifty posts on the thread. So glad you could join us.
This is exactly why “throw like a girl” is sexist–because it’s not throwing like a girl, it’s throwing like someone who hasn’t been trained how to throw.
It doesn’t imply “that the boy has been socialized as a girl,” it says that he has the physical capacity of a girl. If we assume that boys and girls have the same innate ability (or lack thereof), the phrase “throw like a girl” ceases to make sense, any more than “throw like someone with brown eyes,” because there is no way that girls throw. Ones who haven’t been trained throw poorly, and ones that have been trained throw well. *That *is why it’s sexist: it relates ability to gender instead of training.
Well, I tend to use it for stuff that is not just stupid, but so beyond stupid that I can’t believe that anyone with an average mental capacity could possibly come up with it. Which is, unfortunately, a lot of things.
Doesn’t fit the same way. “Throw like a girl” says that boys are supposed to throw well by nature, girls throw poorly by nature, and throwing poorly is bad. Adam’s apples, on the otherhand, are a male secondary sex characteristic, which is naturally occuring in males and less pronounced in females. It’s not a learned trait that’s being mistakenly identified as gender-based and ascribed a value.
Any joke or insult predicated on the premise that a woman looks like a man assumes that men are ugly and that it’s bad to look like them.
See how easy and lame it is to get offended by stuff like that.
Of course it’s worth noting - if posts on this board are any guide - that TG people hate “Ann Coulter looks like a man” jokes.
Yes, anyone can be taught how to throw a ball. That’s the point: who is trained in this skill, and who is not trained in this skill? Traditionally, this has been determined by gender: all boys learn how to throw a ball, and all girls do not. If a boy was never taught this skill, he would “throw like a girl” - that is, like someone who had never been trained in how to properly throw a ball. The implication of the insult is plainly that the boy has not been engaging in traditionally aceptable masculine pastimes, such as playing ball, and therefore, must have been engaging in traditionally feminine pastimes.
And yes, that is the fallacy of the excluded middle you see up there, but that is a logical error in the insult, not in my parsing of the insult.
It has nothing to do with men being ugly–it has to do with women being supposed to exhibit the secondary sex characteristics of their gender.
Of course, that’s not to say it’s *not *sexist, it’s just sexist in a different way.
Yes, but traditionally that happened because women were thought to be naturally no good at physical activities like sports. It all cycles back to the mistaken belief that the skill involved is intrinsic to boys but not to girls.