And yet, **Hentor **doesn’t raise any specific rebuttals to my very pointed objections.
It’s totally irrelevant that “many guys and girls throw really well, and many don’t.” The phrase is based on the fact that *most *boys throw better than most girls.
Establish that this is not the case (which I’d hazard it still is) then publish an article saying the phrase is outdated.
No one is questioning that most boys have a better throwing technique than most girls. We’re saying that it isn’t anything intrinsic to being a girl that makes someone have that poor technique–it’s simply because they were never taught the right way.
Get it now? The phrase is sexist because it’s not throwing like a girl, it’s throwing like someone who has never been taught how to throw.
There’s no point, because you are not thinking at present. I don’t know why and I don’t care.
Since others might care, though, here you go.
-
a) Nobody has claimed that there is no environmental contribution to the differences between boys’ and girls’ throwing ability.
b) Your reframe of the authors’ words is a good example of how frustrating it can be to write scientifically and watch your words be abused by the lay public. “Unlikely to be completely environmentally caused” means that a hypothesis like the one you were implying earlier in the thread of an environmental (e.g. training) explanation would not stand in the face of this evidence. A massive difference observed at age 3 is just not likely to be explained away by environmental influences.
-
a) The authors are talking about “throwing for velocity and distance” because those are easily operationalized. “Throwing like a girl” is not. If you want to cling to some meaning in the difference between those concepts, have at it, but you’ll have to do so in the face of strong empirical evidence of gender differences in measures of throwing ability that are evident as early as 3 years of age.
b) You assert that girls cease to throw like girls when they’ve been taught otherwise. I agree that some girls do, and that some girls show an innate ability to throw that is better than some boys. You’ll have to provide support for your argument that all girls throw as well as boys when taught to do so, or even that all girls throw in a fashion that is mechanically equivalent to boys when taught to do so. -
A wikipedia reference to women playing baseball is ignorant of the main point. The saying is not that “you throw like all girls,” but that “you throw like a girl.” Nobody is contending that all girls lack the mechanics to throw a ball well, or even that all girls throw in a stereotypically girlish fashion. The empirical evidence shows that a girl (meaning an average girl) throws more poorly than a boy from a point so early in development as to be unlikely caused simply by exposure to gender-based environmental differences.
I honestly don’t care about actual throwing ability. But apparently some people do, and think that 1) Throwing ability is something to be proud of (and lacking it is embarrassing), 2) No girls can throw (so really, why even try involving them in the sport at all?), 3) Girls who can throw are, by definition, either not girls or simply un-feminine, 4) Being compared to a girl is offensive.
I care more about funding for girls’ sports programs, the use of ‘girl’ as a catch-ll insult like ‘fag’ or ‘retard,’ and supporting boys and girls when they take up activities that are stereotypically not linked to their gender (though, again, I’m having trouble finding the female equivalent of ‘Throw like a girl,’ that either disparages girls for doing something as a boy might. ‘Spell like a boy’? ‘Skip like a boy’? Or, alternately, something that praises boys for doing something as well as a girl might – ‘Wow, you cook just like a girl!’ The closest I can come is when people compliment fathers on their childcare abilities).
Gawd, don’t get your panties in a bunch…
Women seem quite capable of slinging the line “You’re such a guy” in a variety of contexts that is clearly intended to be at least mildly insulting. Also, nobody ever looks at someone’s living quarters and says, “Boy this place really needs a man’s touch.”
But yeah, I can’t really think of a good example of an explicit comparison of a man to a woman that really comes across as a compliment.
Hentor, you’ve managed to get completely wooshed by all of my points. So let me break it down again, in small sentences. Try to follow the logic chain, m’kay?
1.) “Throw like a girl” refers to technique. No one says, “Dude, you throw like a girl” to someone who just threw a ball with perfect form. Nor does anyone say, “You throw like a boy” (implied: one who hasn’t been instructed yet)–it’s always and exclusively “girl.”
2.) Girls and boys both throw a ball in bad, inefficient ways before they are taught the correct way.
3.) Once a girl learns the proper technique, while she may not be able to throw the ball as far or as fast as a boy, she no longer throws “like a girl.”
4.) Therefore, the poor technique was never “throwing like a girl,” but rather “throwing like someone who has never been instructed.”
5.) Therefore, to qualify poor technique as being something exclusive and intrinsic to girls is sexist.
Need a diagram, or did you get it that time?
And well put, Cat Fight.
And that’s sexist, too.
Whose post are you replying to? Certainly not mine. I didn’t say it wasn’t sexist. I said nada about technique or innate differences. I simply said the phrase will have currency as long as most boys throw better than most girls.
Where the fuck are you getting the other stuff from?
Read my post again. Get it now?
You can assert all you like, in whatever size sentences you like, but as of now, you continue to simply pull shit out of your ass. If you can draw a diagram that provides some support for your position beyond your own say-so, go ahead. Otherwise, you’re just looking way out of your depth at this point.
aldiboronti, you said “Establish that this is not the case (which I’d hazard it still is) then publish an article saying the phrase is outdated.” Which would suggest to any reasonable person that you *don’t *think the phrase is outdated. Go back, read again what I posted, and read my post #108 directed at Hentor.
All I’m seeing here is “lah lah lah I can’t hear you.” Please phrase your responses as specific rebuttals to specific points I made, or admit you’ve been arguing the wrong points the whole time.
You’re a fucking moron. You admitted yourself that the phrase wasn’t outdated by conceding in your post that most boys probably do throw better than most girls. It will become outdated when that isn’t true. That doesn’t speak to the phrase’s sexism or anything else.
No other word will do - you’re a retard if you can’t understand my initial post.
Hentor, I’m beginning to understand the frustration you must be feeling in debating with this idiot, who misinterprets everything and seems lacking in the most basic comprehension skills.
Hey, Shot from Guns, follow your own “logic chain”, you’ll find it inexorably leads you to your asshole.
That only makes sense if the phrase means that most boys throw better than most girls, which is doesn’t. See the argument chain I previously referred you to that you either missed, skimmed, or didn’t understand.
By your reasoning, I can say that anyone who goes to prison is “acting Black,” because African-Americans are disproportionately represented in the prison population. :rolleyes:
ETA: If you think my logic sucks, I invite you to join Hendar to raising a rebuttal to any specific thing I said in post #108.
Let’s see if you can follow this, one step at a time.
- The initial quote said that the phrase was outdated because many boys and girls throw well, many boys and girls throw badly.
Follow me so far? We’re talking about their interpretation of the phrase and the fact which they believes makes it outdated.
- I answered this by saying that this did not outdate the phrase. If they had found that most or an equal number of girls threw better or as well then clearly the phrase would be outdated, would make no sense at all.
Still following me? I’m addressing their reasoning, my own beliefs or interpretation of the phrase does not enter into it. I’m pointing out a flaw in their argument.
I fear I’m making this too complicated for you but do try hard.
Here’s the easy version.
You throw like a girl.
Argument: That phrase is outdated because many boys throw badly, many girls throw well.
Refutation: Irrelevant. If most or an equal number of girls threw better or as well as boys then they could well claim the phrase was outdated.
If you still can’t see that my beliefs or interpretations of the phrase don’t come into this at all then I give up.
There’s a Dope-worthy essay about ‘throwing like a girl’ (from more of a mechanic than semantic p.o.v.) at The Atlantic.
Some excerpts
(Apologies again for helping hijack this thread. Because ‘retarded’ really does deserve its own debate.)
Well, Cat Fight, that doesn’t help much, since it’s simply more opinion, but it does raise a point that I think argues in favor of my position, or against the “training equalizes things” argument.
In baseball, it is advantageous to bat from the opposite side of the plate of the handedness of the pitcher. For example, it is to the batter’s advantage to bat left-handed if he or she is facing a right-handed pitcher.
Given that hitting is a crucial part of the career of a major leaguer, they should all be switch hitters, right? If it’s just a matter of practice and training, it stands to reason, all players, except perhaps pitchers, would practice and train to become switch hitters.
However, only about 12 to 13% of MLB players are switch hitters, clearly a minority.
Furthermore, even among switch hitters, it is rare for them to perform equally well from both sides of the plate.
To me, this argues that there are innate conditions that make it hard for players to learn, even through practice, to perform something like hitting from the other side of the plate as well as other people do, despite the fact that there are in fact some people who can do it.
(Relatedly, left-handed pitchers are often prized, yet to my knowledge there are no pitchers who pitch left and right handed. If they could simply train and practice and achieve this, why would they not?)
No, I got your point pages ago.
What it boils down to is that acting like calling someone a retard or telling them they throw like a girl is insulting to anyone but the person being insulted is stupid. You guys are picking at symptoms. Little kids are mean to each other, they are abusive and territorial and are always trying to establish a hierarchical pecking order among peer groups. Focusing on the content of the insult rather than the simple fact that they are just being mean is stupid.
Uuuummmbbeeer That’s sexist!!!
Are they not taught proper technique due to some sexist conspiracy or because they aren’t as interested in throwing a ball as boys, in general? Boys like playing baseball and girls like playing with dolls. This isn’t some conspiracy. Maybe it’s cultural, but so what? What does that prove?
Which in general includes the vast majority of girls, for whatever reason.
I’ll admit it’s sexist, but I also say it doesn’t matter that it’s sexist. It’s sexist to not admit that boys throw better than girls by and large as well. So what? There ARE differences in genders, some physiological, some cultural, but so what? The end result is the same.
If it’s not throwing like a girl, little kids will find some other way to be mean to each other.