|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Having sung 'humankind' instead of 'all mankind' (but got it wrong out of habit) recently, and struggled through all the Christmas Carols and other hymns which have been changed in the new editions (fortunately not 'God rest ye merry gentlepersons'), I still find myself in fits of giggles and not taking it at all seriously. Was it really necessary to change these very well known phrases, when we all know that 'mankind' means all people, not just men?
Are there really women who are up in arms about the unintended male bias in hymn words (as opposed to intended ones which is a different story)? Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
[Thread title edited for archiving.]
[ 25. August 2005, 04:49: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
That's me. And half the time, I'm not paying enough attention to the printed words to notice the silly changes. This is particularly bad in Chapel and Rejoice and Sing really went in for inclusive language.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
It all depends on how carefully written the inclusivized text is.
The Church of England decided not to inclusivize the BCP - classic texts remain as they were. This seems to me (a strong advocate of inclusive language) the best policy - but if a text can be sensitively recast, that's OK.
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
As for us all knowing that 'mankind' means everybody - well lots of English speakers don't think that and that usage has in fact been ambiguous for centuries!
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
I actually prefer the unreconstructed O hush the noise, ye men of strife and hear the angels sing and I said in my haste, "All men are liars" . ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It was drummed into me a long time ago (at a C of E Junior school) that mankind meant both men and women and that hymns and prayers refering to man or men usually meant women as well so I've never felt left out.
I find some of the newer songs more dodgy with their Statement sung by men followed by (usually simplified) Pale Echo to be sung by the women.
A few months ago we had a song that starts Men of faith, rise up and sing, and the vicar reassured us that men included women; we pointed out that the second verse started Rise up women of the truth. We haven't had that one since.
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!
Many Regards
John
--------------------
"I am still a Methodist, You can never get it's special glow out of your blood" Ellen Wilkinson
Read my ramblings
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind? Nothing and it then means women dont spend a whole service singing about men being saved!
Many Regards
John
There's nothing really wrong with singing about people or humankind. However, people and humankind won't scan or rhyme into hymns which originally had 'mankind'. This disrupts the flow (even if everyone remembers the 'right' words) and, I find, draws more attention to how it's been changed and annoys me far more than non-gender-inclusive language.
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
S
[ 04. June 2005, 20:13: Message edited by: xSx ]
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goodric
Shipmate
# 8001
|
Posted
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-womens ordination, equal pay & conditions etc. but think that this assualt on our language was a step too far.
--------------------
Happy Christmas Everyone You can find me here
Gone to a better place.
Posts: 7160 | From: You all know anyway | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
man mankind doesnt always include women....
i usually think "Man "refers to men.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
It's simply that people are so used to it that it's become accepted.
I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.
And yes, I do sometimes get annoyed when I hear terms like "mankind" or "chairman" (or even "Early Man"). They do feel exclusive. Women have been invisible for long enough. I'd use words like "humanity" or "chair" or "chairwoman" (if the person was female) and "Early Humans".
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, we say, 'for us and our salvation' and I think most of us have got out of the habit of accidentally inserting the word 'men' out of habit.
I also wonder about why we now have to say: 'It is right to give thanks and praise' rather than 'it is right to give Him thanks and praise'. All the other references in Common Worship are to God being 'He', so why change that one?
Although it strikes me as very funny when we have to sing a gender-neutral phrase, and it bugs the choirmaster no end , if these phrases continue to be used then the next generation (the ones who are just being born now) will consider them to be the normal ones, assuming they still go to church and hear hymns sung. (Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I agree with Charles - modern hymns/choruses should be written in inclusive language. They ought to reflect language as it is used today, to say things that need saying today.
Where you have old hymns that have survived (and plenty haven't) because they still something relevant I personally think they should be left alone. There are many examples, some already quoted in this thread, of the clumsy tinkering that has been done to "fix" things. As a result you end up with something awkward that draws attention to itself. An Australian friend told me that one hymn book over there has turned "Dear Lord and Father of Mankind" into "Dear Loving Parent of Us All", which is no improvement in my humble opinion.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I once replaced all the instances of "he" and "his" in a paper that my boss was writing with "she" and "hers", just to see how it looked. I never showed it to him. It looked extremely strange. It felt quite exclusive - as if the default gender that most people were assumed to be was female. But technically it was just as valid and inclusive. There is no real reason why humanity should be considered male by default.
I get a similar jolt when I read Mousetheif's posts where he refers to God as She. God called 'she' calls to mind a feminine deity far more than God being called 'he' calls to mind a maculine one. I suppose it's just what one gets used to by default.
quote:
originally posted by Chorister:
(Mind you, that's what we were told about going metric, but it is still not fully changed over thirty years later.....)
[tangent]
Pity those of us who learnt 'metric' at school. I'm totally messed up: I can picture the length of centimetres, metres, feet and miles, but not inches or kilometres. I don't know how many feet in a mile, or how many pounds in a stone (12?) but I know my weight in stones and my height in feet and inches. I know long distances in miles but measure short ones in feet. I cook in ounces, but was never taught how many ounces in a pound.
[/tangent]
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
What is wrong with all people or indeed humankind?
The fact that it is horrible amalgam of Latin and Anglo-Saxon roots? (Ok so I live with television which is a bizarre Greek Latin hybrid). What is wrong with humanity? Personally I have no problem with mankind being inclusive. I am of the kin of man (which I hear inclusively).
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow.
But it can't. The omission of men does (potentially) change the meaning. With it, it refers to salvation being for all mankind (or humanity if you must), without it, it is possible to read it as referring to 'us, who are saying this' or 'us, people like us'. This loses the sense of the Greek ημας τoυς ανθρoπoυς. Omitting 'men' (rather than, say, replacing it by humans) makes it more exclusive! Personally, I never had any problem with men here being inclusive, because I've just said us, so it must include me!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
We are told that "God is a spirit, neither male nor female" yet the imagery used is overwhelmingly male. I don't relate at all to God as "She" - to me that's the Goddess from Wicca - both terms are intended to be equally inclusive, but to me they don't feel that way.
The trouble is that we really only have "it" as a non-gender specific alternative and that's not really appropriate for non-inanimate beings.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Re. Chorister and 'It is right' etc at the opening of the eucharistic prayer...
'man' was never used there before the 1970's - it was a Series3 / ASB invention. Common Worship has gone back to the BCP ("It is meet and right so to do") which is itself a pretty accurate translation of what the mediaevel Latin missal said.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Words like "humankind" aren't inclusive. They exclude both men and women.
Is there anyone else out there who would prefer to pray to God as Mother or Father than some genderless globule?
And this is all apart from the fact that the results of replacing of gender-specific words in hymns etc are normally shit.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Re. Chorister and 'It is right' etc at the opening of the eucharistic prayer...
'man' was never used there before the 1970's - it was a Series3 / ASB invention. Common Worship has gone back to the BCP ("It is meet and right so to do") which is itself a pretty accurate translation of what the mediaevel Latin missal said.
I like the Australian "It is right to give our thanks and praise" as it fits the ASB rhythm, without causing an awkward break.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Are there really women who are up in arms about the unintended male bias in hymn words (as opposed to intended ones which is a different story)? Or are most people like me, struggling to keep a straight face (or not struggling) at the latest attempts to wrangle the words to be inclusive and still have the right number of syllables?
I don't see myself as a feminist (proof statement: I've declined to take any feminist theology courses at theology college). Up in arms, no. But do I need inclusive language? Yep. The church went out of its way in my childhood to let me know that my chromosomes made me a second-class citizen in it's eyes and a bogus sort of "separate by equal" in God's eyes. "Mankind" does NOT include me as a woman, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll take the poetic/metric point about songs and hymns, but as far as I'm concerned, any preacher who consistently says "mankind" when they can choose "humankind" instead must certainly be trying to make a point unless he or she is very elderly. I would find it equally objectionable if a preacher/worship leader referred only to God our Mother, Goddess, Sophia and Lady Wisdom.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
Re humankind
quote:
The fact that it is horrible amalgam of Latin and Anglo-Saxon roots? - Carys
A particular bugbear of my own. Whenever I have pointed this out the reaction has always been 'so what ?' Comforting to find that I am not alone, after all ...
It also raises a question to which someone out there might have an answer. Much of the underlying rationale of 'inclusive language' revolves around the fact that the English word 'man' - which originally meant human being (as opposed to any other species) - has now to double up to mean also 'specifically male human being'. Just as Greek and Latin have separate words for the two concepts, so did English at an earlier stage. So why did 'wer' disappear?
As I have observed elsewhere, altering the words of hymns (as particularly in Rejoice and Sing) causes problems to those many folk sing waht they perhaps fondly suppose to be familiar words at least half from memory.
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I've noticed that priests (both Anglican and RC) always change prayers that say "Men" to "Men and Women" and "Brethren" to "My Brothers and Sisters"
It'd be interesting to get into that mentality which makes them decide to change the texts on the fly in order not to offend anybody. I don't think anybody would be offended if they did forget to say "and Women" because I should think that anybody with half a brain cell would work out that the priest isn't just talking about people of the male gender.
-103
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 103 (One-O-Three):
I don't think anybody would be offended if they did forget to say "and Women"
I used to think the whole inclusive language thing was silly. As 103 says, who could possibly feel excluded and offended?
Lots of people.
And it's extremely difficult for me to get inside their heads because I'm a human being of the male persuasion. Just like I'm a human being of the white persuasion. When you're at the top of the heap those little things that annoy those further down the heap are sometimes hard to comprehend. Doesn't mean they're not real though.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
... Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women. I'm pro-..., equal pay & conditions etc. ...
Well, now. The Person's Case of 1916-1929 finally established that in certain legal words, the male term did actually include the female.
It seems to me that the "male is inclusive" theory was paid mostly lip-service, since in actual fact women were usually excluded.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Except "for us and our salvation" is not the equivalent of "for us men and our salvation" -- the former doesn't say who "we" are. The latter prevents "us" being taken to mean "us Methodists" or "us Orthodox" or "us Elect" or "us Calvinists" which is an unfortunate but very real tendency. I'd far rather say something totally clunky like "for us human beings and for our salvation" than to leave out the noun altogether. I think that is one place where we mess with "what has been handed down" to our peril.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
Your reference to 'men being saved' brings me to a very slight tangent (and possibly DH territory) but I have far more difficulty with the Nicene Creed proclaiming that Jesus came 'for us men and our salvation' when 'men' can be removed without spoiling meaning, scan, rhyme or flow. I know from reading elsewhere on the Ship that some people do find such language exclusive.
Except "for us and our salvation" is not the equivalent of "for us men and our salvation" -- the former doesn't say who "we" are. The latter prevents "us" being taken to mean "us Methodists" or "us Orthodox" or "us Elect" or "us Calvinists" which is an unfortunate but very real tendency. I'd far rather say something totally clunky like "for us human beings and for our salvation" than to leave out the noun altogether. I think that is one place where we mess with "what has been handed down" to our peril.
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out. Or, more usefully, perhaps you can suggest a better translation.
Yes "mankind" used to be inclusive. But today it's not, at least in large parts of the world. And you can't put the genie back in the bottle by screaming "it is so, it is so." If a bunch of women want to proclaim that they are men, that's fine with me. But I don't know many around here who do. And for men like me to tell women that they ought to shut up and accept that a word used one way in all the rest of their life means something contrary in church... no, not going to do that.
I think the most important thing said on this thread was Sine's point that as a white male, it's awefully hard to understand what perfectly "inclusive" language looks like to people who aren't. But sometimes we have to try.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
I am an ardent supporter of inclusive language. I choose not to use language that a)appears to exclude more than half the human race and b)implies that men are the normative form of person, and women derive their personhood from men. I tend not to use gender terms for God, and when I do, I tend to alter between he and she, as well as using metaphors from both genders. I discourage my students from using exclusive language for people and for God. I believe that inclusive language, rather than being a feminist plot, is a prophetic movement in the life of the church, calling us to repent of past injustices and enable women and men to be freed from gender bias and stereotyping.
For the record, I spent my yoof in a BCP church using the Book of Common Praise which is about the most gender exclusive language combination you can get. Frankly, if I can get used to gender inclusive language, anyone can. The change, however, must be accompanied by good teaching. Human nature causes us to reject anything new, so church leadership ought to encourage congregations to be agents of change rather than victims of change. I think, with good leadership, a church can move to gender inclusive language in one year with relatively little reaction.
(I now sing "Dear Father, Lord of humankind" without noticing - and my first solo as a boy soprano was "Dear Lord and Father of mankind")
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensnog
Shipmate
# 8017
|
Posted
As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"
Posts: 507 | From: Silicon Valley | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I can live with the traditional language in almost every case, but the "for us men" really bugs me. I guess it's the just too close combination of those two words, "us" and "men." No amount of rationalization about the history of language can prevent me blushing. And that's not a good thing when I am trying to concentrate during worship.
I also have trouble with that one hymn (used generally at ordinations and mission festivals) that keeps hammering on God, verse after verse, to "Send MEN (of various types and qualifications) where You Yourself will go." The word is used so often and so forcefully that it becomes impossible to overlook.
I tried to get these thoughts across to the folks on the hymnal revision committee where I served (the only woman), but I'm not sure they ever really understood. It's not a "feminist agenda." It's the gut-level emotional problem of blushing in the middle of a worship service.
I did try to get this across once by reminding them that, if we used the English of a thousand years ago in its orginal meaning, it would be perfectly appropriate for me to look at their childhood pictures and tell them what cute little girls they had been. THAT led to a short silence. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The problem with non-inclusive language is that down there at a momentary, sub-concious level when it's used, one does picture what is named. I read about a study where a number of grad students were asked to draw Neanderthal Man; they did indeed draw only men. When I sang "Good Christian Men, Rejoice!" I'd have a quick vision of a bunch of 19th cent. guys singing. I really, really wish that English had some gender neutral pronouns to apply to God or human beings.
I remember reading Ursula K. LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness in which she posits a race of humans who are hermaphrodites. Most of the time they are not either male or female. When they go into a natural period of being sexually active they can go either way but not at their conscious discretion. In her intro she spoke of struggling with the pronouns and finally throwing up her hands and settling on the inclusive masculine. She didn't feel it was a total success and it wasn't. No matter that she tried to keep their personalities as non-stereotypical as possible, I still couldn't help visualizing them as male. Later she wrote a short story about the planet's royal ruler in exile. She called the character the King but used she/her as the pronouns. The dichodomy this caused was much more successful in creating a differently sexed person.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I don't see myself as a feminist (proof statement: I've declined to take any feminist theology courses at theology college). Up in arms, no. But do I need inclusive language? Yep. The church went out of its way in my childhood to let me know that my chromosomes made me a second-class citizen in it's eyes and a bogus sort of "separate by equal" in God's eyes. "Mankind" does NOT include me as a woman, as far as I'm concerned.
Like it or not, you're a feminist. It's not a bad word, nor a bad thing to be. I will never for the life of me understand why any woman who objects to second-class status would demur for a moment at calling herself a feminist.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
Tis all very easy for a quick sharp moan about what seems some trivial word changes to suit the modern day but we need to examine the overall usuage of the word 'mankind'. Bluntly, it is out of date.
If you examine the overall way languages in general work, the almostly uniquely English-language obsession with this issue looks eccentric, and, to be honest, rather ignorant.
Almost all other languages have two or more genders. German little girls are neuter, but I don't think that affects the way little boys relate to them. A person in French is feminine, so you can construct sentences that make "elle" apply to Jesus without a lot of effort, and I was reading a notice yesterday on the wall of my notary in which the female "toute personne" in the first sentence meant that all the following text referred to me in the feminine. I shall not be pressing charges. There are moves to allow nouns describing certain professions to be masculine or feminine, for example, but if you try to cover both gender options in a French sentence, you end up having to put brackets at the end of most nouns and adjectives, and I'm not aware of any way of reading such sentences outloud.
The arguments about "if man means male here it must mean male there" or vice versa are just silly. Many many words have more than one meaning, many many words have a general and a specific meaning, the semantic field of words drifts over time and according to context, and all this is what makes human language interesting, subtle, beautiful. The French equivalent of "not kosher" is "not catholic", but that doesn't mean that when a protestant uses that phrase he is accepting catholicism as the one true religion, even if that's the history of the phrase.
If you want to speak to God in a formally neutral language, go for XML or some other syntax created by non-linguists. But don't expect to write poetry. God chose to reveal himself to us in human language.
And, finally, I've still yet to hear anyone interested in inclusive language condemn the word "midwife", or the clear sex discrimination in UK employment law that it labels, which does seem to suggest that this quest for equality is something of a one-way street.
[ 05. June 2005, 06:23: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Worse than classic texts are modern songs written in gender exclusive language - no excuse for that today. As an example of easy recasting, most places seem to sing 'now I am your child' in the song 'Father God I wonder' (rather than the original 'now I am your son').
You're right. When the Bible says that we are all sons of God, it means that we all benefit from what at the time were uniquely male inheritance rights. That's a radically liberating message for women, and we can't have that. By reverting to "child", we emasculate (sic) the whole thrust of that dangerous feminist Paul's argument in Galatians 3:26, thus undermining the most famous feminist proof-text in the Bible, Gal 3:28, and assert our conviction that the blessing is reserved for men. The natural order of things is restored!
Oh, wait, that wasn't your point, was it?
Maybe we should rewrite ancient history to be consistent with our linguistic hang-ups?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Yes, it matters. And why do you think the bias is unintentional?
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Like it or not, you're a feminist. It's not a bad word, nor a bad thing to be. I will never for the life of me understand why any woman who objects to second-class status would demur for a moment at calling herself a feminist.
"Feminist" has something of a negative image in many women's eyes. They see it as a man-hating, dungarees-wearing, humourless, chip-on-the-shoulder, cropped-haired, militant, probably lesbian stereotype. To be a feminist (in their eyes) means that you go to extremes, and you never shave your legs or wear makeup on principle. Remember the days of "fat is a feminist issue"?
I mentioned some months ago on another thread one example of a friend who said she didn't like feminists or regard herself as a feminist and didn't want to. We were talking in the office at the time. She was wearing a trouser suit, she had short hair, she'd driven a car to get to work, she was nearly 30 and not married, she had the vote, and the two of us had recently had lunch in a pub together. All of these were privileges that "feminists" in the past had won for her.
And yet even now some women can't be bothered and regard things like further education, or being interested in science, or sport or computers, and so on, as "unfeminine". Most of the women I've met don't like "Ms" and regard it as feminist. "What's wrong with being Mrs or Miss?" Because it defines you in terms of the man. There's only one title for men (Mr). Why not have an equivalent?
There have been centuries of women not being able to express themselves fully either intellectually or creatively (there aren't exactly a lot of female painters or composers and look at how the first female authors had to disguise themselves as men) - even in this day and age I think there is still a subconscious perception that women expect not to achieve their full potential or to reach the top. It's not really womanly/ladylike/proper.
And this sort of thing is why we need inclusive language, because there's still a subconscious perception that men are the dominant species, and we need some visible reminders that actually, this doesn't have to be the case. You can change conscious attitudes to some extent, but changing subconscious perceptions is a lot harder.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
Would that be like writing hymns that identify "Israel" as some sort of master race to which all Christians belong? The last line of one liturgy we sing in our church is "and to Israel the glory", where Israel is obviously supposed to mean us.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
As was brought to my attention once a long time ago in a Survivor's Workshop (I was bullied into attending due to my history of domestic violence), many women who have been abused by a male figure in authority (father, husband/spouse, et.c.) often has difficulty relating to a masculine image of God. Which hasn't bothered me, but I've spent over half my life dealing with it, so... YMMV.
A lawyer/blogger acquaintance of mine used 'em' as a gender-neutral English pronoun in her informal writing to preserve anonymity, and I adopted it in my own ranting about school because it works. I doubt the Church in any of its myriad forms would take it on anytime soon, but it's something to keep in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
To be a feminist (in their eyes) means that you go to extremes, and you never shave your legs or wear makeup on principle.
HEY! I resemble that remark! Or maybe I'm just lazy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
But most of my post was about more general linguistic principles which apply as much to English as to any other language. I'm lefthanded, so should I burst a blood vessel every time someone used the word "sinister"? Just about every English word referring to "left" has negative connotations. Most English idioms including "French" or "Dutch" are derogatory, and often obscene, so should the French in England take out a class action?
Language doesn't define the world, it provides a loose set of labels through which we can refer to the world. You can be sexist using scrupulously PC vocab and grammar, and you can be inclusive without ever using female pronouns to refer to people in general.
And, while inclusive language might be a harmless distraction in some areas, it's downright ridiculous when applied to anything biblical, as I think my Galatians 3 example shows. In this context, "Sons and daughters of God" means "First and second class citizens of God" - the whole point is that God adopts each of us as his sons, which is why there is no longer male of female in Christ Jesus. If you make Paul talk PC, you make him/her talk gibberish, and sexist PC gibberish at that.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
"Man" includes both male and female not "because everybody knows that's what we mean," but because, according to Taxanomic Classification, we belong to the family "Hominidae" (Man), the genus "Homo" (human) and the species "Sapiens" (wise - ya gotta laugh.)
The sex of the specimen does not affect it's classification. Ergo, male or female, we're all homos. I mean men.
Corpus
--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Almost all other languages have two or more genders.
So what? English nouns don't have gender, so all your stuff about languages that do is irrelevant to what we say in English.
If, like many anglophones, you think that English is either the only language in the world or clearly the superior one, and that where it came from is uninteresting and unimportant, then I suppose you might have a point of sorts.
I simply think English is what we're talking about here, not other languages. It is irrelevant that in some other languages nouns have gender, just as it is irrelevant that in some other languages nouns have declensions. To bring in gender as it exists in French or German and insist that it somehow matters is like saying it somehow bears on Japanese that there are definite and indefinite articles in English--the Japanese only have to care about this if they want to speak English.
quote:
English does have genders in some cases. Battleships are female, for example (and I managed to type that with a straight face). The Church is female (another case of linguistic discrimination which, strangely, no-one wants to fight, despite the incredibly culture-bound understanding of marriage roles that underpins it).
No, battleships and the church are not female, as they would have to have a sex to be female. Neither are they feminine, as they have no gender; English nouns do not have gender. It has been a convention to refer to a ship and to the church as "she," just as it used to be conventional in the US to give hurricanes women's names. None of these conventions give ships, the church or hurricanes gender. They are properly referred to by the word "it," which has no gender.
It is frequently ridiculous and sometimes even wrong to impose inclusive language on texts which arose out of sexist societies; wrong when such an imposition obscures the meaning of the text or gives the effect of rewriting history. But for the reasons Ariel so eloquently laid out, we need our language today to be inclusive.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, it matters. And why do you think the bias is unintentional?
I agree with this absolutely. "Mankind" means "humanity" (which is a much less awkward word than "human kind") because for centuries men were the "normal adult people".
In my lifetime, I've been told by the church that I had to be a "son of God" and absolutely could not be a "daughter of God". I've been told that I was created in God's image because I was created in man's image and man was created in God's image. I've been told that God never calls women to teach his word to people in general but only to other women and children (i.e. the "not grown up" and the "not quite grown, not quite responsible" people).
In my lifetime, I've been told by the secular world that they couldn't waste resources teaching me advanced maths and science in school because I was a girl. I've been told by an office manager to "Smile. That's what women are for."
The word and concept of "mankind" actually excluded women in important ways and that's why the language needs to change.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Seeker963 ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
Fine. But "For us men" means the women aren't included. I guess its all a mattter of who you want to keep out.
John Holding And Jugular
quote:
As my Suffragette Grandmother (may she rest in peace) was fond of saying, "If I'm included in men, man, or mankind becuase 'everyone knows those terms include women, too', then I'm also included in statements about how only men can be priests or ministers!"
Gloria x3
quote:
Would you allow church language that specified one race, yet supposedly included all???
Just try saying "for us whites and for our salvation" and see where it gets you!
Well, for some of us, it feels that exclusive!
(And no, I don't mind the fine old hymns, but as for modern songs that are male-orientated, I could happily lynch the lyricists ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) )
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
To bring in gender as it exists in French or German and insist that it somehow matters is like saying it somehow bears on Japanese that there are definite and indefinite articles in English--the Japanese only have to care about this if they want to speak English.
It becomes relevant when people start talking about what is normative or about how language functions.
The whole inclusive language thing seems to be built on a postmodernist approach to language (for which, ironically, we can thank a francophone), which appears to have been swallowed whole by large sections of the English-speaking church without explicit discussion of its assumptions. For a postmodernist, language is crucial because there are only discourses and because there is no truth outside of a particular discourse. I don't accept those assumptions, I don't think they are compatible with the historical Christian incarnational approach to culture, and I certainly don't see why someone from another discourse should tell Christians how to use language - that's wrong, in even within postmodernist terms of reference.
Traditional English ways of referring to gender follow other languages, notably the ones on which it draws. There is nothing natural about inclusive language, it's a deliberate attempt to redesign language for possibly dubious ideological reasons, so it is entirely reasonable to take a step back from that project and see what it looks like in the wider scheme of human language.
And, apart from looking eccentric, it also looks doomed to failure. As the Académie Française keeps discovering to its annoyance, language is defined by how common people use it, not by how an intellectual elite (in which I would include people who write liturgies) try to manipulate it. If you've ever heard a group of young kids use "ESN" (educationally subnormal) as a playground taunt instead of "stupid", you'll recognise that people are going to find a way to say what they want to say in spite of - and often with the unwitting help of - the PC lobby.
And, as a point of fact, the word used in Japanese to express regret has been front-page news in British papers on several occasions in the recent past.
quote:
No, battleships and the church are not female, as they would have to have a sex to be female. Neither are they feminine, as they have no gender; English nouns do not have gender. It has been a convention to refer to a ship and to the church as "she," just as it used to be conventional in the US to give hurricanes women's names. None of these conventions give ships, the church or hurricanes gender.
What is a language other than a series of conventions? Everything you say above applies to "mankind" too - "mankind" has to be an "it", because it is plural, even before we discuss whether or not it includes women. The problem with "mankind" is that it includes the string M A N, as does "manager" (which is also attacked on PC grounds although the M A N in this case has absolutely nothing to do with gender) and "Manchester". If mankind is self-evidently male, the British counties of Essex and Sussex are self-evidently about S E X. The argument really does seem to be on that level (see other posts above on the origin of the word "man").
quote:
They are properly referred to by the word "it," which has no gender.
So how come God has to be "she", not "it" in inclusive language, yet the church always remains "she", not "it", or "he"? I'm sorry, but the postmodernist rhetoric of power means that PC reasoning always points in the same predictable direction.
quote:
It is frequently ridiculous and sometimes even wrong to impose inclusive language on texts which arose out of sexist societies; wrong when such an imposition obscures the meaning of the text or gives the effect of rewriting history. But for the reasons Ariel so eloquently laid out, we need our language today to be inclusive.
Fine, as long as we recognise that anything referring directly or indirectly to the Bible is going to have to be an exception, as Charles Read's ill-judged example of "sexist" new songs demonstrates perfectly.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
wesleyswig
Shipmate
# 5436
|
Posted
(median tangent)
I must admit I am always worried and not that happy to sing with my usual gusto about things proclaiming Israel as the promised people and to Israel Glory.
Just like I was rather bemused and not htat happy singing a hymn to the tune of Deustchland Uber Alles the weekend after Auswitch liberation.
Maybe I have been to ideologicaly raised, I just honestly think we need to seriously examine what we say and do in the modern day context. The race issue is a very pertanent one as in places like South Africa, Nazi germany taught religious doctrine which upheld one race over another. Therefore we can all see what happens.
This isnt true "liberal hankee squeezing" instead it is a realisation of the world around us and that if anyone new came through the door one sunday and saw us all singing
1) That all men/ mankind were saved
2) To Israel be the glory
They are going to be scared and worried with good reason!
Many Regards
John
--------------------
"I am still a Methodist, You can never get it's special glow out of your blood" Ellen Wilkinson
Read my ramblings
Posts: 878 | From: Chained to my desk.... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wesleyswig:
This isnt true "liberal hankee squeezing" instead it is a realisation of the world around us and that if anyone new came through the door one sunday and saw us all singing
1) That all men/ mankind were saved
2) To Israel be the glory
They are going to be scared and worried with good reason!
Well a) it does look rather old-fashioned and b) it comes across as patriarchal which are two reasons why people don't go to church as often as they used to.
I've chanted quite a few such psalms during Vespers in my time but I never thought the references to Israel ever had much to do with us, to be honest. I took them more as a purely historical thing and a product of the time when they were written. "Israel" has a different set of associations for us in the 21st century than it did in the Victorian age or eras previous to that; today there is no way to think of "Israel" without thinking of Palestine and the Middle East question somewhere along the line.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
today there is no way to think of "Israel" without thinking of Palestine and the Middle East question somewhere along the line.
There may be no way for you to do that, and in this case I share your concern, but who gets to speak for "everyone" on these matters? Depending where you do your survey, I think you will find that there are as many "everyone"s who feel alienated by the rewriting of classic hymns as "everyone"s who feel alienated by the original versions (and a lot of people who just don't care either way but wish the Church could spent its time on something more useful).
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
I was irritated in our service this morning when we sang "At the name of Jesus" from Common Praise. It appeared untouched by the editorial committee, so I sang verse 5 (at my usual fortissimo) "Name him, Brothers, name him", from memory, only to find a lot of people singing "Name him, Christians, name him". ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) . This feels extremely PC motivated and for no other reason, as they left the next line (with love strong as death) alone. This doesn't fit the metre and can be changed to "with love as strong as death", which would indicate some intelligent thought in the editorial process.
The whole inclusive / exclusive language area is a minefield where anyone (male / female, straight / gay, white / non-white) can find words to be offended by, if they look hard enough. Sometimes you don't have to look very hard, sometimes you have to look very hard indeed, but those determined to be offended will indeed do so.
PS. My view of equality is in my sig....
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goodric:
Sadly all the unnecessary product of whinging feminists and their sympathisers. Most people knew that man, men, mankind etc. included women.
By most people you mean most of your kind of people, right? For many who don't sing hymns and read the older translations of the Bible on a regular basis, or who havent had an background where reading shakespeare and other classic literature was a joy "man" means "male human".
And since when is language changing an assault? Languages change, and English changes more than most.
[Edited to add]
Oh, how copuld I have missed that? It's the old changing language as a minefield line! This is a pet hate of mine but as this is a Purg thread I will restrain myslef and just ask one question:
Learning new words to a song? How hard is it? Really, if you consider the cost of learning a few new words to a song against the benefit of not pissing people off by careless use of language, how can anyone come to the conclusion that not changing the words is the best option?
[ 05. June 2005, 12:33: Message edited by: Lurker McLurker™ ]
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
Coming from an extremely patriarchal church background I genuinely think this is hugely important. I felt myself excluded from the church because the use of exclusive language permitted the exclusion of women. One leads to another. In more healthy churches it's probably harder to see but if one looks to the loony fringe one sees the inevitable consequences of what centuries of exclusive language have been.
My own particular bugbear is an organisation (which may or may not have been renamed since) that existed in the church I was brought up in called the Womans Foreign Missionary Association. This is the inevitable consequence of exclusive language. It allows things to be reduced. It allows institutional sexism (and in this case racism). This organisation was set up to allow the women to organise mission work because the men were busy with the church at home. I have never managed to work out whether it's more sexist than racist or vice versa.
Words matter, words inform beliefs whether conscious or unconscious. They can be powerful things. They need to be used with care.
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
At the risk of offending (at least) two women for whom I have an enormous respect, to wit Ariel and Ruth, may I share my own experience? When I first ordained I was massively into inclusive languange. I loudly sang "She who would valiant be" and changed the words at carol services so that the congregation had no idea what was coming next. Bit by bit I left that position, mainly because of female colleagues who took the line: "Language isn't everything. Let's get on with real equality". I think I've done my bit to rise to that challenge (although I take Sine's point - when you're a white male you may not notice a lot of prejudice at work).
However, as a teacher, I do get frustrated with teenage gilrs who stridently proclai: "I'm not a feminist". When I ask them if they don't want a vote, or university education, they normally start changing their line and become Vicki Pollard: "Yeah but, No but".
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
