"I wish Hillary Clinton would get some balls."
"Barbara Boxer, man, she's got balls."
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Like only people with "balls" can be leaders and effective politicians? Well, if anyone equates ruthlessness with having male genetalia, there is the vexing issue of accounting for the political ruthlessness of eunuchs. And of course there's the problem of accounting for courageous, unintimidated women leaders and politicians. Are people who talk about "balls" as an essential political attributing hermaphroditic traits to Indira Gahdhi? Golda Mier? Emma Goldman? Rosa Luxemburg?
And look at the other side. As someone with balls, I can tell anyone with doubts they're really pretty useless in politics. Intelligence, emphathy, character, patience, boldness, confidence, the ability to calculate risk, a sense of responsibility, a sense of proportion, ideally some humor...all of those things matter. But not balls.
Besides, balls aren't an asset in a fight, they're a liability. In most contact sports, the most important piece of equipment isn't the stick, or the glove, or the shoulder pad. No, it's the cup.
So why do people insist on using "balls" as a surrogate for all those traits I listed upthread, and others? Why can't people come up with something else? And what terms should people use instead?