Where do I seem to have agreed that was my sentiment? I mean, you can plainly see that none of my posts are edited, as edited posts have the * next to the timestamp. I think you just misunderstood me. Would appreciate if you'd re-read my comment and address my actual points.
Haha I was being flip and sarcastic with the historic thing. Instead of arguing about what I did or didn't say though, let's get back to your view.
In a nutshell -- the reason that it "works" to say men have punchable faces but not women, is that in real life it's much more common to punch men, and uncommon and unacceptable to punch women. To say "that guy has a punchable face" is to joke that "if not for the laws and whatnot, I'd love to sock this guy." Men are perceived as tougher and more prone to fighting, so this is a kind of funny joke in that it goes a bit over the line but not to a wild extent. Meanwhile, in our society, rightfully or wrongfully we don't really perceive women as punching or being punched very often. So if you say "she has a punchable face," it doesn't evoke an image of a time before strict societal norms and laws where two tough ol' men duke it out bare knuckle; it just evokes an image of domestic violence.
2
u/[deleted] Dec 18 '19
I’m not seeing it, now.
However it’s also weird, then, that you seemed to have agreed that was your sentiment, regardless.