Comments on: Pink golf balls? Nice try, but … no.

By: femininity and feminization « Devastating Yet Inconsequential

femininity and feminization « Devastating Yet Inconsequential — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:20:43 +0000

[...] me about this, in her abrupt way, and I told her that, in my opinion, femininity is basically a tool that the patriarchy uses to oppress women. As best I can recall, she found my argument ridiculous. She asked me something like, [...]

By: Artemis

Artemis — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 06:48:18 +0000

Sorry to be late to the post based on my comment. I was on vacation in a blissful state of life-without-computer.

As to said comment and Twisty’s post, what “the author of the question really meant” was based on what J had been saying. I understood her position to be about reclaiming femininity, or some such. In other words, my question was rhetorical in response to J’s position.

In more other words, it ain’t me trying to reclaim or redefine something I never had (or believed in) in the first place. When I play a sport (and I’ve played a whole, whole lot) what I care about is whether the equipment works, not how it makes me look to the patriarchy (I tend to get sweaty, bloody, and dirty â€“ rugby â€“ plus my sweats are baggy and torn in the wrong places and not butt-squeezingly tight; no amount of pink can save me).

The patriarchy would have us believe all kinds of nonsense, including that pink golf balls are a sign of “girl power” TM (economic class having nothing whatsoever to do with it, of course, this is America afterall, but that’s another topic, sorry).

As many others have alluded to here, when men will happily play golf/tennis/baseball/football/basketball/cricket/rugby/handball/water polo/ping pong/jacks (jacks?) with pink balls and build a house with a pink hammer, then we’ll know something has actually changed. In the meantime, it’s more of the same BS. Most of us get that, but I was wondering where pink sports equipment fits in J’s femininity argument.

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:51:53 +0000

Question for the Constructivist:
Does you daughter know that the only difference between a boy and a girl is what lies between their legs? I just ask because when I was 3 years old, and baffled about why certain activities were promoted towards either girls or boys, I asked my mother, a doctor, to define boys and girls, and she gave a purely anatomical description. From then on, I concluded for myself that the difference between the sexes was negligible and I could do anything I wanted. Admittedly, I was a bit of an egocentric and stubborn child who did not wish to be like her peers. I just thought I should mention this because it was one of my earliest memories of asking questions.

Despite my rebelliousness, I also went through a “girly” phase between the ages of 5 and 7, but I think it was more out of curiousity than conformity. With a good feminist mother like yourself, I am confident your daughter will grow out of it – she is just testing the waters.

By: The Constructivist

The Constructivist — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:39:12 +0000

Hey, there, don’t be a Paula Creamer hater. You probably upset her so much she lost the LPGA’s first major of 2007. Actually, I don’t care that much about PC’s tacky fashion sense, but I have to admit I never thought my own 3-year-old daughter would love pink. Figure she’ll grow out of it on her own w/o too much prodding. Same with the “gotta wear a skirt” thing and the “I want ponytails down to the ground” thing, both of which I blame on Pretty Cure (although the fashion/hairstyle choices of the older girls at her yochien probably play a role). So far I’m limiting myself with messing with her head, like when she screams when she sees pants (which for the first 3 years of her life she pretty much wore every day), “I like to be a girl! I don’t want to be a boy!” I simply ask, “Isn’t mama wearing pants? Isn’t she a girl?” Fun times.

By: courses » Comment on Pink golf balls? Nice try, but â€¦ no. by courses Â» Pink …

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:16:48 +0000

[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt… does not exist in a vacuum; you canâ€™t, as a woman or as a feminist or as anyone else, erase eons of accumulated symbolism and cultural narrative by simply lurching to your feet and proclaiming, â€œpink golf balls are empowerful!â€ â€¦ [â€¦ … [...]

By: courses » Pink golf balls? Nice try, but â€¦ no.

courses » Pink golf balls? Nice try, but â€¦ no. — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 18:34:37 +0000

[...] mulligan wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt… does not exist in a vacuum; you canâ€™t, as a woman or as a feminist or as anyone else, erase eons of accumulated symbolism and cultural narrative by simply lurching to your feet and proclaiming, â€œpink golf balls are empowerful!â€ … [...]

By: Andrew B.

Andrew B. — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:25:53 +0000

Thank you all for the opinions, back to lurking.

By: thebewilderness

thebewilderness — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:48:27 +0000

Andrew said:
whether it be seeing a four sided object and calling it a square or seeing a blue sky and thinking itâ€™s warm out.

I don’t think you can get around our tendency to categorize. What I think children need is a healthy dose of doubt to prevent galloping assumptions.

By: Scratchy888

Scratchy888 — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 01:02:23 +0000

This is what I want to attack in the education system; I canâ€™t change the world but this is an area that I believe can result in at least some good.

The contemporary education subtly reinforces gender norms by discriminating against female teachers who adopt a conventionally “male” form of disciplinary approach. They are unable to keep order unless they revert to being good nurturing females. Of course all of this is “child centred” and market driven.

By: Miller

Miller — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:33:58 +0000

I’d paint myself pink a la Blue Man Group if it meant I could ward of unwanted male advances. Somehow they seem to get past their fear of the pink then.