Tits. (an analysis of a colloquialism)

**This post isn't actually about Tits.

Today in my teenage angst, a male friend of mine uttered this statement: "If it has tits or tires, it'll give you trouble and cost you money but for the ones that are worth it, you won't care." Can we all identify the offensive and oppressive elements of this statement? Yes? Okay. Now can we identify the part of the statement that might allow the speaker to see it as an entirely non-oppressive statement?

When I questioned him about his use of these words and the compilation of them into this statement, he tried to hug me exclaiming, "I said for the ones that are worth it!!!" Sorry, friend, this doesn't make it better.

I have several problems to present.

Let's start with the word 'Tits'. I've never liked this word. It's like the word dick. It sounds vulgar and its usage is almost always unnecessary. I think people like to use these words because they're seeming less abrasive than 'nipple' or 'penis'; the actual anatomical elements to which they are referring. The word 'Tits' stems from the word 'tits' (pronounced 'teets'), which refer to the mammalian body parts that produce milk for the purpose of nourishing offspring. Since all female mammals have tits, the evolution of its usage into a word only referring to women - often negatively - makes sense. From a patriarchal standpoint anyhow. But let's remind ourselves that human males also have tits. They're just not life-giving tits. So when one refers to something that has tits, are they referring to all female mammals and human males, or do they really mean someone with breasts? Because this distinction needs to be made.

Then, if one who uses this word actually means a person with breasts, why is the assumption that the one with breasts will give you trouble and cost you money. Perhaps the one without breasts will give the one with breasts trouble and cost the one with breasts money. These statements are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, why is the one with breasts, compared to a thing with tires? I think this is the biggest problem. Because it assumes an(other) exclusivity of the male relationship with vehicles and with women. Males also have relationships with vehicles and other men. Females too have relationships with vehicles as well as other men and women. Beyond all of this, it reduces the one with breasts to the level of inanimate. I don't know where this idea came from; that the mode of transportation should be considered on the same level as a human. I obviously understand that people highly value their modes of transportation but the idea that the owners of those vehicles are actually putting them ahead of other human relationships, I see to be entirely false.

The point is, that for the complexity of male/female relationships to stop being seen through a patriarchal lens, we need to stop using oppressive statements like this one. I want the discomfort that arises from the presentation of a statement like this, to be understood. Because I'm thinking about it critically. And I'm not sure the user always is. This friend is an incredible husband and a very loving father. He's not the problem. Our twisting of the English language is the problem. When we use colloquialisms like 'tit' we infer things that we were never meant to communicate. We were never meant to demean or belittle someone because of their anatomical differences. This goes so far beyond breasts, people. But I think this is a good place to start.