Are there any 'pro female' sayings of physical strength/non-physical beauty?

[V da Mighty Taco]

*Snip*

You know, I was reading your post an thinking carefully about what you said. It was an interesting read, though it does fail to go into the relevance of such attitudes in this day and age imho. However, what ended up really knocking me on my ass is this little gem of yours:

... either way LET"S SEE YOU GRIT THOSE TEETH.

Now, nothing else you said matters. Nothing else anyone else here said matters. You are now officially, by decree of the Queen of the Universe, the most awesome person in this thread. Be proud, my friend, as it is an honor you truly deserve at this point.

Have an excellent day.

 

[solemnwar]

Title, I've been thinking as of late is there any list of pro female sayings/insults like, 'Be a man', 'Man up', 'Grow some balls', like men have - but not based on physical beauty or sexuality? Can we get a complied list?

People have said it before but its simple. Women are not built to be fighters and hunters, their built to be gatherers and breeders. Its only relatively recently that humanity has reached strong enough technology to completely circumvent the need for gender roles. Therefore, most male sayings will be based around our physical strength and reactions, as that is what we are inarguably better at naturally, while women based ones will be based around motherly abilities and your ability to attract a mate, as that was your entire role for the entirety of human history until a century ago.

Feminists cant seem to get it in their head that THEY ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT

Putting aside the fact that you're reifying the evolutionary process and turning it into what basically amounts to intelligent design, you're fixating on the wrong correlation. The important one is, as you also note, the correlation between muscle strength and prowess in physical labour. There is no need to bring sex into the equation - there are plenty of women who could run circles around you in a race, or lift several times the weight you're capable of.

You might as well apply the same argument to a distinction between short men and tall men.
SHORT MEN ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT. Thus, the naturally proper role for short men is/was to stay at home and make sandwiches.

Edit: The point being that what you should be saying is that "WEAK PEOPLE (regardless of sex) ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT."

I'm not saying thats what they should do. Humanity became top of the food chain through intelligence, not brute force. I'm saying I'm sick of stupid feminists saying "I'm as strong as any man!" Their not. Their stronger then some lanky nerd who sits in front of a computer screen all day which means nothing. A women will never run circles around a man who's job is to run in an ovally circle, no matter how much she tries. A women will never beat a male bodybuilder without steroids. Theres a reason sports don't combine genders because to combine genders is the same thing as kick women out of sports.

I'm just sick of feminists saying they are as strong or fast or have the energy of a man.

I have never heard a feminist say this (and I mean a real one, not a fictional one that is most often written by a dude).

What they DO say is that women are EQUAL to men. Like, as people. It has nothing to do with strength or intelligence or w/e, men and women are equal, and should therefore both be accorded the same rights and privileges.

A woman should not be passed over for a promotion or raise because of her gender, but neither should she be given a free pass for abusing someone because she's a woman. That's all they're saying.

 

[solemnwar]

Title, I've been thinking as of late is there any list of pro female sayings/insults like, 'Be a man', 'Man up', 'Grow some balls', like men have - but not based on physical beauty or sexuality? Can we get a complied list?

People have said it before but its simple. Women are not built to be fighters and hunters, their built to be gatherers and breeders. Its only relatively recently that humanity has reached strong enough technology to completely circumvent the need for gender roles. Therefore, most male sayings will be based around our physical strength and reactions, as that is what we are inarguably better at naturally, while women based ones will be based around motherly abilities and your ability to attract a mate, as that was your entire role for the entirety of human history until a century ago.

Feminists cant seem to get it in their head that THEY ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT

Putting aside the fact that you're reifying the evolutionary process and turning it into what basically amounts to intelligent design, you're fixating on the wrong correlation. The important one is, as you also note, the correlation between muscle strength and prowess in physical labour. There is no need to bring sex into the equation - there are plenty of women who could run circles around you in a race, or lift several times the weight you're capable of.

You might as well apply the same argument to a distinction between short men and tall men.
SHORT MEN ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT. Thus, the naturally proper role for short men is/was to stay at home and make sandwiches.

Edit: The point being that what you should be saying is that "WEAK PEOPLE (regardless of sex) ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT."

I'm not saying thats what they should do. Humanity became top of the food chain through intelligence, not brute force. I'm saying I'm sick of stupid feminists saying "I'm as strong as any man!" Their not. Their stronger then some lanky nerd who sits in front of a computer screen all day which means nothing. A women will never run circles around a man who's job is to run in an ovally circle, no matter how much she tries. A women will never beat a male bodybuilder without steroids. Theres a reason sports don't combine genders because to combine genders is the same thing as kick women out of sports.

I'm just sick of feminists saying they are as strong or fast or have the energy of a man.

I have never heard a feminist say this (and I mean a real one, not a fictional one that is most often written by a dude).

What they DO say is that women are EQUAL to men. Like, as people. It has nothing to do with strength or intelligence or w/e, men and women are equal, and should therefore both be accorded the same rights and privileges.

A woman should not be passed over for a promotion or raise because of her gender, but neither should she be given a free pass for abusing someone because she's a woman. That's all they're saying.

I've heard many many feminists say this. Regardless, women get away with abusing men far far more often then men get away with abusing women.

Examples?
Most any time I've heard feminists saying "I'm as strong as a man" (never that actual phrasing, mind, but I guess you could interpret that way) is in a more figurative sense, often "emotionally" strong", although not always. It's more, "don't discount me just because I'm a woman".

Besides, I've seen plenty of matches where a woman has completely floored her male opponent, and it's not because he wasn't training as hard.

As for the latter, that is something that feminists bring up *a lot* (any that are worth their salt, anyways). Part of the patriarchal views that men are stronger and more assertive and woman are not, which of course harms both genders, and is something that feminists strive to correct.

 

[GabeZhul]

(ever wonder why some incests let themselves be eaten after mating? that would be it.)

Just two corrections: First off, insects, not incests. Had to point it out because of the subject, as some might think that inbreeding people are cannibals based on a cursory glance.

As for the more important correction: The "females eat males after mating" thing is actually incredibly rare in nature. It became a widely accepted "fact" because until recently scientific studies on these issues (like the infamous praying mantis mating) were done in the lab inside terrariums. The reason why females were eating males during/after mating was not because it is how they work in nature but because they were in a confined space where the female (who are usually larger) considered the male both prey and competition. In nature the incidence of such behavior is almost unheard of.

 

[Angelblaze]

Title, I've been thinking as of late is there any list of pro female sayings/insults like, 'Be a man', 'Man up', 'Grow some balls', like men have - but not based on physical beauty or sexuality? Can we get a complied list?

People have said it before but its simple. Women are not built to be fighters and hunters, their built to be gatherers and breeders. Its only relatively recently that humanity has reached strong enough technology to completely circumvent the need for gender roles. Therefore, most male sayings will be based around our physical strength and reactions, as that is what we are inarguably better at naturally, while women based ones will be based around motherly abilities and your ability to attract a mate, as that was your entire role for the entirety of human history until a century ago.

Feminists cant seem to get it in their head that THEY ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT

Putting aside the fact that you're reifying the evolutionary process and turning it into what basically amounts to intelligent design, you're fixating on the wrong correlation. The important one is, as you also note, the correlation between muscle strength and prowess in physical labour. There is no need to bring sex into the equation - there are plenty of women who could run circles around you in a race, or lift several times the weight you're capable of.

You might as well apply the same argument to a distinction between short men and tall men.
SHORT MEN ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT. Thus, the naturally proper role for short men is/was to stay at home and make sandwiches.

Edit: The point being that what you should be saying is that "WEAK PEOPLE (regardless of sex) ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT."

I'm not saying thats what they should do. Humanity became top of the food chain through intelligence, not brute force. I'm saying I'm sick of stupid feminists saying "I'm as strong as any man!" Their not. Their stronger then some lanky nerd who sits in front of a computer screen all day which means nothing. A women will never run circles around a man who's job is to run in an ovally circle, no matter how much she tries. A women will never beat a male bodybuilder without steroids. Theres a reason sports don't combine genders because to combine genders is the same thing as kick women out of sports.

I'm just sick of feminists saying they are as strong or fast or have the energy of a man.

I have never heard a feminist say this (and I mean a real one, not a fictional one that is most often written by a dude).

What they DO say is that women are EQUAL to men. Like, as people. It has nothing to do with strength or intelligence or w/e, men and women are equal, and should therefore both be accorded the same rights and privileges.

A woman should not be passed over for a promotion or raise because of her gender, but neither should she be given a free pass for abusing someone because she's a woman. That's all they're saying.

I've heard many many feminists say this. Regardless, women get away with abusing men far far more often then men get away with abusing women.

Examples?
Most any time I've heard feminists saying "I'm as strong as a man" (never that actual phrasing, mind, but I guess you could interpret that way) is in a more figurative sense, often "emotionally" strong", although not always. It's more, "don't discount me just because I'm a woman".

Besides, I've seen plenty of matches where a woman has completely floored her male opponent, and it's not because he wasn't training as hard.

As for the latter, that is something that feminists bring up *a lot* (any that are worth their salt, anyways). Part of the patriarchal views that men are stronger and more assertive and woman are not, which of course harms both genders, and is something that feminists strive to correct.

Wasn't on the internet. They say it to my face. One actually challenged me to a fight and I floored her in one punch to the stomach and I am not fit in any way. Was quite funny. Regardless I treat women as equals until they say their a feminist, because nearly all the time, they just want to be protected and coddled like a child. If thats not the case, then I'm not sure why they keep protesting for it. The strongest women emotionally I ever seem to meet have said their not feminists.

A strong person doesn't need more protection then a normal person.

"I treat women as equals until they say their a feminist, because nearly all the time, they just want to be protected and coddled like a child."

I'm sure you've met 80 to 90 percent of all the feminists in the world and can therefore speak for all of them.

Plus, I'm sure you just meet feminists who randomly run up to you in the street all the time, screaming into your face. I wonder where you live. Nice job also just entirely derailing the thread to suit your own purposes.

" The strongest women emotionally I ever seem to meet have said their not feminists. "

1. Emotional strength is purely up to opinion of what is 'strong', something you've already misconstrued enough in this thread.
2. Just because someone says that aren't a feminist doesn't mean they don't hold pro-feminist beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for the...meh total of maybe 2 pro-female sayings guys. Stand back and let the derailer have this one.

 

[Lieju]

Does "don't get your panties in a bunch" count?

Well, no, because it's the opposite.
'Panties' being feminine (I'm not sure if the word CAN be used for male underwear?) so the implication is when you get your panties in a bunch, which is negative, you're acting like a woman.

I'm really amazed people can't figure out the fact that "grows some balls" refers to the fact that the testes produce testosterone which in turn will "put some hair on your chest" which is a sign of manliness. "Grows some balls" just basically means "grow up" i.e. go through puberty.

Except that if it's a general saying referring to 'growing up', it's assosiating growing up with becoming a man.
Not a woman.

When you're telling a woman to 'grow some balls' you're telling them to act like a man, because masculinity is valued more than femininity.

If it wasn't, you'd tell people to 'grow some breasts'.
Try telling that to men, see if they take it to mean they should act like adults.

 

[Nomad]

I'm not saying thats what they should do. Humanity became top of the food chain through intelligence, not brute force. I'm saying I'm sick of stupid feminists saying "I'm as strong as any man!" Their not. Their stronger then some lanky nerd who sits in front of a computer screen all day which means nothing. A women will never run circles around a man who's job is to run in an ovally circle, no matter how much she tries. A women will never beat a male bodybuilder without steroids. Theres a reason sports don't combine genders because to combine genders is the same thing as kick women out of sports.

I'm just sick of feminists saying they are as strong or fast or have the energy of a man.

There is only one person in the entire world who is able to say "I'm as strong as any man", so naturally, neither "feminists" or "non-feminists" (stupid or otherwise) in general can say this. If you interpret the statement to be "I'm as strong as any [random] man", then it becomes a matter of probability: it depends on who the random man selected is. Any person (feminist or otherwise) could be correct with that statement, and any person could be wrong.

You're mixing data levels. You're citing the collective level to explain the individual level, by saying that "women in general are weaker than men in general, hence any given woman can not claim to be as strong as any given man". This does not hold. Zhou Lulu [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Lulu] (female) has a higher weightlifting record than Oscar Figueroa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Figueroa_(weightlifter)] (man), for instance. I am also willing to bet that she can lift more than either you or me. There is no rationale that explains Zhou Lulu being grouped with all the weaker people in her gender; she should rather be grouped with all the other strong people regardless of gender.

Your argument becomes even stranger when you add in capacity to the equation, in saying that "a woman will never be as strong as a man with equal training". Not only is this factually incorrect, as you're disregarding genetics (a man with bad genes will never reach the level of a woman with good genes, regardless of their respective levels of training); you're also assuming that everyone is operating at peak capacity. In reality, this is not so. Very few, if any, people are. Capacity therefore becomes something of a non-issue, because any given women is likely to be as capable as any given man to achieve the level required for the task specified, which is different from the limit of human capacity.

The gist of my point is this:
Why separate humanity (in terms of physical prowess) according to sex? Why not separate humanity by a more relevant categorisation, such as according to fitness? Athletes are stronger than non-athletes. This should be much harder to argue against, and also much more relevant. And even if you have to use biology as a basis for categorisation, why pick sex? Why not pick genes instead? People with tall, muscular body types who lack hereditary diseases are stronger than people with short, skinny body types who have hereditary diseases. Again - much harder to argue against, and also much more relevant. These patterns also hold regardless of sex(an athletic woman is stronger than a non-athletic man), but the reverse is not true; a separation according to sex does not hold if you do not adjust for fitness.

 

[halisme]

I consider grow a pair gender neutral as it could refer to balls or ovaries.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

How about "Get the sand out of your vagina."?

nvm I'll just crawl back into my hole for another two years.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Feminists cant seem to get it in their head that THEY ARE WEAKER, SLOWER AND LOWER IN STAMINA NATURALLY AND THIS IS INARGUABLE FACT

Actually, from the point of view of history, this is incorrect. While the vast majority of the world's major, stable cultures did indeed have strictly defined gender roles, once those cultures began to become severely traumatized, those roles began to disappear proportionally. This brings up two rather solid points: 1) Gender roles are societal and enforced through society, and 2) In absence of societal restrictions there is no real difference in gender, meaning these distinctions are not inherently genetic.

Two major examples of this spring to mind: The Trung rebellion of 40 a.d. in Vietnam and Medieval Europe during the Black Plague. Both saw severe trauma to the societies themselves, and the subsequent breakdown of common social orders left them with no option but to discard traditional gender roles. Thus, we see that these things that are often taken as fact are actually societal luxuries, enjoyed only by stable and functioning civilizations.

Weaker? Slower? Less Stamina? well, on average, but I imagine Marita Koch could beat you in a race, however long. The question then becomes less about genetics and more about the constructs and concepts that are inherent to societies, and what role they may play. No matter what we view, our pre-formed ideologies help to determine how we view.

I've spent quite a bit of time teaching women, and I can say that the external influence on their behavior is not light. I admit I do not fully understand it myself, but there are often barriers that women place on themselves, or allow society to place on them.

 

[geK0]

Lets invent some!

........Grow a pair (of ovaries)?
........Woman up!
........okay this is actually kind of hard because I truly suck at writing
There are plenty of feminists here who are more creative than myself, I'd like to see some better ones. I'll edit one in when I think of something.
This is more of a problem than I realized. If somebody comes up with something catchy I'll start using it in regular conversation : D (where are you @Vault101 ?)

-snip-

The gist of my point is this:
Why separate humanity (in terms of physical prowess) according to sex? Why not separate humanity by a more relevant categorisation, such as according to fitness? Athletes are stronger than non-athletes. This should be much harder to argue against, and also much more relevant. And even if you have to use biology as a basis for categorisation, why pick sex? Why not pick genes instead? People with tall, muscular body types who lack hereditary diseases are stronger than people with short, skinny body types who have hereditary diseases. Again - much harder to argue against, and also much more relevant. These patterns also hold regardless of sex(an athletic woman is stronger than a non-athletic man), but the reverse is not true; a separation according to sex does not hold if you do not adjust for fitness.

Woah there, that last paragraph is starting to sound an awful lot like eugenics, that's quite the touchy area ethically speaking : S
But yea, you have no idea how many times I've tried to explain the concept of a simple bell curve to people when they argue "all women are weaker than men, it's biology, derr".

 

[Raggedstar]

I think the Game Grumps wanted "pussy up" (as opposed to "man up") to be a thing. Does that count? Because other than that, I got nothing.

 

[Ryotknife]

Not really, no, the manly virtues are placed in opposition to the lesser virtues for women.

Hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned?

Usually the misquote has "fury", and it's not really pro-female.

Wrath sounds more pithy truthfully. I think the quote sounds badass personally. Kinda like "you mess with the bull you get the horns" only more old fashioned and doomsday-ey.

 

[cleric of the order]

(ever wonder why some incests let themselves be eaten after mating? that would be it.)

Just two corrections: First off, insects, not incests. Had to point it out because of the subject, as some might think that inbreeding people are cannibals based on a cursory glance.

As for the more important correction: The "females eat males after mating" thing is actually incredibly rare in nature. It became a widely accepted "fact" because until recently scientific studies on these issues (like the infamous praying mantis mating) were done in the lab inside terrariums. The reason why females were eating males during/after mating was not because it is how they work in nature but because they were in a confined space where the female (who are usually larger) considered the male both prey and competition. In nature the incidence of such behavior is almost unheard of.

Well that's interesting, I like hope I remembered to say, I'm not very well versed in biology and anthropology. Hell I'd say I dislike those two fields the most (excluding the fields of linguistic anthropology and archeology). But even then I'd argue the compulsion to feed is still for the survival of the offspring by reducing competition. Either way thanks for catching my error, I wouldn't.....wait incests. oh god.
I can't stop laughing.

 

[NateA42]

I'm really amazed people can't figure out the fact that "grows some balls" refers to the fact that the testes produce testosterone which in turn will "put some hair on your chest" which is a sign of manliness. "Grows some balls" just basically means "grow up" i.e. go through puberty.

Except that if it's a general saying referring to 'growing up', it's assosiating growing up with becoming a man.
Not a woman.

When you're telling a woman to 'grow some balls' you're telling them to act like a man, because masculinity is valued more than femininity.

If it wasn't, you'd tell people to 'grow some breasts'.
Try telling that to men, see if they take it to mean they should act like adults.[/quote]

I wasn't saying that for it to be feminine, I was just responding tot the second question.

 

[NateA42]

[On a side note, how did the gender that pushes living, human beings - limbs, head and all - out of their sexual organs NOT get the 'physically durable' note from society?]

I'm really amazed people can't figure out the fact that "grows some balls" refers to the fact that the testes produce testosterone which in turn will "put some hair on your chest" which is a sign of manliness. "Grows some balls" just basically means "grow up" i.e. go through puberty.[/quote]

interesting, I have often heard grow a pair and I have put some thinking into it.
Why grow a pair, not grow a dick, the symbol of dudeness, I figure it's for the sake of reproduction as the balls house the sperm and are often associated with the full translation for puberty to adulthood, I.e. "waiting for his balls to drop.".
It seems to outline the need for creation, to beget something and with the extension to grow a pair (ovaries are included) it seems the phase in of and itself means, be able to contribute something meaningful in the primal nature of the phrase.

[edit]That was something, woo, I lost this post once and now I've stayed up much later then I wanted retyping it, I'm sorry if it's a bit incomprehensible, I am tired. let's leave it at that[edit][/quote]

I have always figured it was grows some balls" as opposed to "grow a dick" due to the fact that under normal circumstances the penis reaches it's fully size around the 3rd grade, puberty is after that. Then again we are all over thinking it.

 

[ForumSafari]

[On a side note, how did the gender that pushes living, human beings - limbs, head and all - out of their sexual organs NOT get the 'physically durable' note from society?]

Because on every occasion except that one very specific time women have a lower tolerance for pain, slower clotting wounds and are generally not durable. People often look at women giving birth after a specially spiked level of natural painkillers and conflate it with general hardiness.

Besides which women died a fair amount from childbirth and still suffer lasting damage from it.

I'm saying I'm sick of stupid feminists saying "I'm as strong as any man!" Their not. Their stronger then some lanky nerd who sits in front of a computer screen all day which means nothing.

Eh, you'd be surprised. In terms of raw physical strength (which as people have mentioned is generally not what is meant) most men can overpower most women. Yes, that means some random schlub can probably overpower most trained women.

In terms of emotional strength I'd disagree with the other Escapists here; I've seen too many women crying over mundane shit to think they're generally as strong. Unfortunately they could be but they're not in practice, they're trained to get sympathy and thus get others to solve their problems.