|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
<double post because of cross post>
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Well, in the UK the slogan for a long time was 'Equality of Opportunity' (is that what you'd call 'appropriateness'?)
It sounds to me like an attempt to recover a "appropriateness" over and against a largely structureless society. But "appropriateness" is meaningless if you can't work out its practical consequences. So it may have had the right intentions, but it tried to deal with the symptoms rather than with the causes.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
In what sense are you using the word "solved" - do the quotation marks change the meaning significantly?
Well, ideas like democracy, human rights, equal wages, universal education, etc. represent a broad "sameness" solution approach to society's ills, which - once implemented perfectly - will basically cure the world's problems. At least that's what I hear the West saying, and it seems to be the basis of a good many arguments here.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
As for stability - I'm not sure that you can use this as a measure of success for social policy since there are so many other factors involved: such as the pace of technological change, for example.
I would consider the "stability" of a social structure as an inherent measure of its success. Never mind whether one judges that structure to be good, bad, or ugly. It's like "survival of the fittest", which is almost circular.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
Just to clarify - I do not actually share Gordon's point of view on this (much), and I'm rather annoyed that Callan is pointing out the little trap I had laid for him... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have some sympathy for Fr Nichols argument, as reported here by Callan, but then I think there's a season for everything and the season for a man telling a woman about her "happiness as Divinely set down in biology" is IMHO not now, if ever. I think there's a bit of that type of talk among women already and I'm more than happy to let them work this out among themselves.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I would have to disagree with you: I think a lot of people are still working hard to try to give everyone a fair go. But I don't understand the distinction between fair and same you go on to make, so I may have misunderstood your point here.
You didn't misunderstand it, you illustrated it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The paradigm for the identification of "fair" and "same" is of course the "one vote for everybody" of representative democracy. Hence I can generalize Churchill: "Sameness is the worst form of fairness except for all those others that have been tried." Sameness is the fall back position after all attempts at appropriateness have been thwarted by individuals trying to "play the system" (whatever system it may be) for their own unfair gain. We live in a time when nearly every social problem has thus been "solved" by some core of "sameness". But is that really fair? And worse, is that really stable?
Sorry IngoB, I still don't understand. What is the difference between "fair" and "same" in this context? It would help me if you could give an example of a social problem that had been "solved" by "sameness" but which was not "fair". (Or a situation which is "fair" but not "same".) If I am illustrating your points for you I'm delighted - always happy to be of use - but I'm afraid I am still confused here.
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
Do y'all mean like this: If everyone is the same, to be treated under law and every other way you can think of the same, then that would automatically stamp out, for example, racial and gender quotas in hiring practice?
Whereas "fair" is in the eye of the administrator and/or receiver, and a kinda subjective thing to measure?
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think I may have spotted a further problem with using Ingo's 'freedom for excellence' argument to justify female subordination.
Just to clarify - I do not actually share Gordon's point of view on this (much), and I'm rather annoyed that Callan is pointing out the little trap I had laid for him...
Ah you philosophical smarty pants always try this sort of thing on. My normal strategy is either to run through the minefield so fast that I am on the other side before the explosions start, or just to shut up and be thought wise*
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Subordination in authority doesn't mean inferiority. And I have never argued that women are subordinate in all things, just in this one area.
As for who supervises PhDs and who cooks ravioli, there is no particular reason that I can think of to link either these specific examples—or a host of others—to one or the other sex. I just don't think the Bible defines roles that tightly.That is just one of the complications associated with extrapolating from the way the church, the household of God operates wrt preaching authority, to the way the rest of society conducts its business.
Now we may feel tempted to make extrapolations from one to the other, but we should acknowledge that this is what we are doing and accord such extrapolations with the weight due to them, ie, less.
*Prov. 17:28 Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Though some might be better advised to follow Abe Lincoln's advice: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool then to speak out and remove all doubt.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Either you've introduced an incredibly subtle and hairsplitting distinction between 'being' and 'nature' into the discussion or you've inadvertently set off one of Ingo's anti-personnel mines.
Your argument seems to want to avoid saying that an inferiority is 'ontological' as that would lead you into somewhere you don't want to go (Arianism, women as intrinsically inferior to men) whilst at the same time having many of the conditions that ontology would otherwise create (church mirroring the created order, the Son being subordinate in His very nature).
Perhaps you should try 'semi-ontologically subordinate'.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
On this occasion however. I would resist the idea of there being an ontological inferiority underlying functional subordination, in the same way that the Son is of one being with the Father, yet submits himself to his Father's will in his very nature.
Either you've introduced an incredibly subtle and hairsplitting distinction between 'being' and 'nature' into the discussion or you've inadvertently set off one of Ingo's anti-personnel mines.
No, no distinction, so let's see if I've bombed...
quote:
whilst at the same time having many of the conditions that ontology would otherwise create
OK, so are you saying that ontology necessarily excludes functional subordination? Which obviously, I dispute—whether we are speaking of the Godhead or of male and female in their shared humanity.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gordon:
quote:
OK, so are you saying that ontology necessarily excludes functional subordination? Which obviously, I dispute—whether we are speaking of the Godhead or of male and female in their shared humanity.
No I'm not. What I'm saying is that when you are saying something or someone is subordinate by nature that is an inherently ontological claim.
An example. I'm a Purgatory host. In some circumstances I can tell you to drop a subject or to take an argument to hell. That is a functional superiority of sorts but its not ontological. It does not inhere within me. I could cease to be a host or you could become an admin (dread thought!) and when we are arguing like this my hostly status is irrelevant, both of us are only as good as our arguments. In certain circumstances I have authority over you but that authority is detachable from me. It can be laid down as easily as it was taken up. Hence functional, not ontological.
A more drastic example would be Augustine's discussion of slavery in City of God. Augustine remarks that Ham was not a slave through nature but through sin. His point was that slavery was a result of the fall, not a way that human beings are supposed to live. One may contrast this with Aristotle who believed that some people were slaves by nature. Augustine's position is that there are slaves but that they are not ontologically different to their masters, whereas Aristotle argues for a category of persons who are ontologically servile.
Now it seems to me that you are arguing that the subordination of women to men is not akin to the subordination of shipmate to host or even the subordination of slave to master, in an Augustinian sense, but part of the created order. To be a woman is also to be subordinate. To be. Being. Hence an ontological and not a functional subordination.
Apropos of the Trinity, if the subordination of the second person is merely a way of saying that the Father begets and the Son is begotten then functional and therefore, as far as I can see, this is orthodox. If you are saying that the Son is intrinsically inferior because of His nature then you deny the equality of the Trinity and the Holy Catholic Church cries out against your errors. (With apologies to Greyface - I've wanted to do that for a while.)
Does that make sense?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Sorry IngoB, I still don't understand. What is the difference between "fair" and "same" in this context? It would help me if you could give an example of a social problem that had been "solved" by "sameness" but which was not "fair". (Or a situation which is "fair" but not "same".) If I am illustrating your points for you I'm delighted - always happy to be of use - but I'm afraid I am still confused here.
OK, let's take democracy, the paradigm of "fairness is sameness". Mr. X is a chav (in American "trailer trash", I guess?) who has never bothered reading anything but the sport section of the newspaper (not that he reads much, it takes too long) and his TV diet consists of Jerry Springer and female mud wrestling. He has blissfully forgotten all of his school education and lives from cheating social security and the occasional minor crime. He has only left his town to go drinking in the next bigger one. Ms. Y is a journalist, foreign affairs expert, and has travelled the world extensively. She has teritary degrees in English and economics. She reads widely and if she watches TV, it generally is the news or some documentary. Now, in the upcoming democratic election Mr. X and Ms. Y have precisely the same voting power: one vote. They are the same as far as democracy is concerned. But is that fair? Is it appropriate to say that what Mr. X thinks about national policy has the same weight as what Ms. Y thinks? Clearly this is not so (of course, you may feel this irresistible urge to say that it is - but that's just your social conditioning overriding reason ). Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage. So, if we introduced an intelligence and education bias, a Mr. Z might try to restrict access to education to his family and their offspring, thereby skewing the system. So "sameness is fairness" is a resigned position, when you've given up "fairness is appropriateness" because people abuse more appropriate systems. Is that clearer now?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Wow, IngoB, so you would actually restrict people's voting rights based on your assessment of their contribution to society? The next problem you face is how to deal with the people you've disempowered, so that they stay content (or at least passive) in their subjection. Here are your options: draconian punishments, vicious policing, rigged trials and, ultimately, extermination.
And you have the cheek to tell others that their social conditioning is over-riding reason? Maybe, unlike you, we've looked over the edge of the abyss that you'd cheerfully drive us all over, and decided to take another route.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
IngoB said
quote:
OK, let's take democracy, the paradigm of "fairness is sameness". Mr. X is a chav (in American "trailer trash", I guess?) who has never bothered reading anything but the sport section of the newspaper (not that he reads much, it takes too long) and his TV diet consists of Jerry Springer and female mud wrestling. He has blissfully forgotten all of his school education and lives from cheating social security and the occasional minor crime. He has only left his town to go drinking in the next bigger one. Ms. Y is a journalist, foreign affairs expert, and has travelled the world extensively. She has teritary degrees in English and economics. She reads widely and if she watches TV, it generally is the news or some documentary. Now, in the upcoming democratic election Mr. X and Ms. Y have precisely the same voting power: one vote. They are the same as far as democracy is concerned. But is that fair? Is it appropriate to say that what Mr. X thinks about national policy has the same weight as what Ms. Y thinks? Clearly this is not so (of course, you may feel this irresistible urge to say that it is - but that's just your social conditioning overriding reason ). Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage. So, if we introduced an intelligence and education bias, a Mr. Z might try to restrict access to education to his family and their offspring, thereby skewing the system. So "sameness is fairness" is a resigned position, when you've given up "fairness is appropriateness" because people abuse more appropriate systems. Is that clearer now?
No, could you try again, please?
And I'm neither a chav, nor trailer trash, and I have got a tertiary degree, but you have confused me even more!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas*
Shipmate
# 7147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why do we bother with this obviously inappropriate system? Because every time we deviate from "sameness", someone is going to try to play it to gain unfair advantage.
This is a very functional view of democracy - that it is merely the least worst mechanism for stable governance.
There are other models; two that come to mind are the views that democracy is based upon the need for the consent of the governed (a social contract) and that as such all should particpate; and the second that one person one vote comes not from a belief in the equal ability of all to decide but some sort of equality of worth (we are all created equal/we are all children of God).
In these views democracy (one voter one vote) has a moral imperative associated with it; an inefficient democracy is preferable to an efficient dictatorship with a functioning train system.
So 'sameness' (actually 'equality' might be a better word) is not a default position entered into due to lack of appropriate systems to judge real worth, but an actual desired outcome.
(I hope this isn't too much of a tangent)
[ 21. June 2005, 08:47: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
Hamburger (note beetroot, pineapple, bacon and egg)
Posts: 543 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Spot on, Demas, AFAIAC. The idea that equality = sameness is usually produced by those who just want an Aunt Sally to knock down.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Wow, IngoB, so you would actually restrict people's voting rights based on your assessment of their contribution to society?
Sure, if I knew a way of doing this which cannot (or at least, cannot easily) be abused. Unfortunately, I don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
The next problem you face is how to deal with the people you've disempowered, so that they stay content (or at least passive) in their subjection. Here are your options: draconian punishments, vicious policing, rigged trials and, ultimately, extermination.
Oh, please. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) That's so ... unsophisticated. Clearly, jobs and TV (the modern version of pane et circensis) are more than sufficient to keep the electorate passive. Imagine where these numbers would be if there wasn't such an incredible effort to get people to vote (not that they are impressive as it is).
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
And you have the cheek to tell others that their social conditioning is over-riding reason? Maybe, unlike you, we've looked over the edge of the abyss that you'd cheerfully drive us all over, and decided to take another route.
Oh sure, it's quite rational to give up and go for the "sameness solution" democracy, for the time being I completely agree with Churchill's saying. That doesn't change the fact that democracy is essentially an unfair (in the sense of inappropriate) system. And I'm quite worried that some coming crisis may be too much for democracy to handle, precisely because it's too inappropriate. Unfortunately, then invariably a dictator steps in. And that's the worst...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position. The obvious example is Noam Chomsky, one of the finest minds of his generation, supporting Pol Pot.
Joe Sixpack, to do him justice, can often be induced to vote against his interests but he never makes those sorts of catastrophic mistakes.
So Joe Sixpack's right to cashier his governors needs to be affirmed, lest he find himself governed by an elite of Chomsky's. He may be right and they may be wrong. The fact that their wrongness comes from a greater intellectual sophistication and even moral sensibility does not alter the fact that they can be terribly, terribly wrong.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position....The fact that their wrongness comes from a greater intellectual sophistication and even moral sensibility does not alter the fact that they can be terribly, terribly wrong.
Indeed, classically it is the clever person's apprehension of his (or her) own cleverness and sophistication that leads them astray: "I am very clever, and specialise in detached, abstract, analytical thinking, therefore my conclusions are bound to be correct, especially when compared to an idiot like Joe Sixpack."
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
This is a very functional view of democracy - that it is merely the least worst mechanism for stable governance.
Correct. Except that I'm not 100% convinced of the "least" (although the historical "trial and error" certainly indicates that it's the least worst so far).
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
There are other models; two that come to mind are the views that democracy is based upon the need for the consent of the governed (a social contract) and that as such all should particpate;
Except that there's no a priori reason which requires such a social contract to instate "sameness of all". Most of the contracts in my life are not based on sameness, but on mutual profit of some kind. Indeed, I have even entered by my free will into several contracts which handed over my life to other people, based on my assessment that this is to my advantage. (I have had several operations in hospital.)
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
and the second that one person one vote comes not from a belief in the equal ability of all to decide but some sort of equality of worth (we are all created equal/we are all children of God).
I think a reading the gospel as a straightforward political message is flawed. Render unto Caesar...
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
In these views democracy (one voter one vote) has a moral imperative associated with it; an inefficient democracy is preferable to an efficient dictatorship with a functioning train system.
Which is fine as long as the inefficent democracy is efficient enough to guarantee the well-being of its citizens. I see no guarantee that this always has to be the case. And how come the only alternative is an efficient dictatorship?
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It often takes vast intellectual sophisitication to end up at a truly perverse position. The obvious example is Noam Chomsky, one of the finest minds of his generation, supporting Pol Pot.
What precisely does this establish other than that the dictatorship of one person, no matter how "smart", is not a good idea? Clearly I agree with that. If the group of "Joe Sixpacks" on average makes better decisions than the group of "eggheads", then clearly it would be appropriate to assign most political power to the "Joe Sixpacks". (If we knew how to determine this and if we knew how to protect this system from abuse.) I happen to doubt that this is the case, but that's not really what I'm arguing about.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Most of the contracts in my life are not based on sameness, but on mutual profit of some kind. Indeed, I have even entered by my free will into several contracts which handed over my life to other people, based on my assessment that this is to my advantage. (I have had several operations in hospital.)
But this is nonsense. You don’t give the surgeon your life, you merely give him permission to operate on your body, in the hope that this will prove to be to your advantage. What you give him in exchange is your money and you do this either directly or indirectly (through the tax system and/or health insurance)
quote:
Which is fine as long as the inefficent democracy is efficient enough to guarantee the well-being of its citizens. I see no guarantee that this always has to be the case. And how come the only alternative is an efficient dictatorship?.... Clearly I agree with that. If the group of "Joe Sixpacks" on average makes better decisions than the group of "eggheads", then clearly it would be appropriate to assign most political power to the "Joe Sixpacks". (If we knew how to determine this and if we knew how to protect this system from abuse.)
You’re thinking like a scientist and you need to think like a social scientist instead. There are no guarantees of anything in this life. It is accepted that there is a balance to be struck between democracy and efficiency, but that does not, of course, mean that dictatorship (or oligarchies) are necessarily efficient either. And you will never know, on average, which group is going to make the ‘best’ decisions, so you will never have a basis for handing power over to a group. Finally, democracy is the choice because it is the best-known way of protecting systems from abuse.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I admit that I've missed a page or two of distilled wisdom, so sorry if you've been around this 5 times already, but the "democracy or not" discussion seems to me to be a bit of a red herring, because, unlike the societies within which Aristotle and Augustine wrote, no church is in any position to impose anything (with a few exceptions, eg some orthodox churches, but even that is changing fast). Christians vote with their feet, and that, ultimately, is what decides what models of leadership and what use of language is acceptable.
So, on one level, the clear answer to the OP is "No". There is no need for inclusive language. Now if the rejection of inclusive language means that the church ends up close enough to empty to no longer be economically viable, you could argue that inclusive language is worth giving serious consideration. And if the use of inclusive language empties churches, you could argue in the opposite direction. Most of us would agree that there is little point in a church adopting a position that guarantees its extinction, however pure and noble it looks on paper.
What happens in practice is that a possibly implicit negotiation process decides what range of language, leadership models or whatever are acceptable. That process is more than a "add up the ticks" system, it's more like a game theory model, and so there will probably be more than one equilibrium point (we could call them denominations).
But imposing inclusive language is not remotely democratic, and, from the above, I would argue that it just can't work. You can maybe force people to try it, but you can't force anyone to use it. If you insist, people vote with their feet, as has clearly happened to some extent in, say, the Anglican church (changes to liturgy are certainly one reason cited for leaving).
And imposing leaders is even more hopeless. Everyone worked out a long time ago that the congregation hold the leaders hostage by their giving or non-giving - the John Jeffreys saga was a worked example of how grassroots financial clout trumps top-down appointments, for better or worse.
That's why the example on another thread about how female army officers are accepted is completely irrelevant to the church. A soldier doesn't expect to be served by his colonel, liking her is not part of the deal, he doesn't pay her, and doesn't expect to be understood by her. Imagine the military authority model applied to the church, in the aim of making female leadership acceptable, and the image should be sufficiently absurd not to need detailed analysis.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
A soldier doesn't expect to be served by his colonel
Actually, in real life, soldiers do expect some services from the colonel. In peacetime the soldiers expect the officers to make sure they are paid, fed, and housed, to treat them more or less fairly, to enforce discipline and military law, to give orders, to arbitrate in disputes between soldiers in the unit, and to take their side in disputes with people outside their unit. All those things are "services" in a sense. In battle the soldier understands that they may be ordered into harm's way but has a rational expectation that they will not be endangered unneccessarily or maliciously, or in order to win the colonel a VC. Plenty of colonels who broke those unwritten rules have ended up with a bullet in the back from an NCO. Some of them have even won posthumous VCs.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Even we we take all that at face value, do you really think it sounds remotely like the kind of church most people would want to join? Hands up who wants to be part of a church where the unelected priest decides what risks are taken by individual members of the congregation?! At best, it sounds like a cult to me.
And the NCO-operated bullet in the neck is an example of an informal control mechanism, of the kind that are important in any organisation, and pretty much all there is in some churches. If even army colonels are not above mutinies, it should be abundantly clear that contemporary Christian leadership can't get very far from what the grassroots want unless the leaders have an independent source of income.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
INclusive language, IMO, is necessary, because of how language shapes our understanding of the world. If you have read _1984_, you would be aware of how language was one of the most potent means for controlling the population.
Have you noticed that in the American press, "desecration" of the Koran has turned into "mishandling"? Look back over the past few weeks, and you will see this. The stories start out with the strong, emotional word that implies a willful act intended to be hurtful, then moves into the use of another word that is suggestive of unintentional and ignorant, even innocent activity.
Not talking about something also renders it invisible. And that is what exclusive language does--it makes the women invisible.
A story: I once belonged to a club that owned some property where club activities took place. We had a work day in which various repairs and landscaping took place. A male member of the group took photographs and gave them to me, as the archivist, to put in a scrapbook. The men were doing a lot of the heavy work, like digging and hauling gravel and rocks. The women were painting, planting, taking water to the men at regular intervals, and preparing and cleaning up after a feast. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE WOMAN IN ANY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. So I put a written note about what the women did in the scrapbook. However, since most people will just look at a scrapbook, but will not read it, what is the impression?
In the same way, inclusive language says the women were there then and are here now. Therefore, yes, I do think it is necessary.
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Thank you, HoosierNan, for bringing the thread back to sanity, and what it was originally asking.
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
Why should women feel invisible by the continuance of customs and traditions, and still have to fight for visibility in the 21st century?
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
Who said that? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:
Why should women feel invisible by the continuance of customs and traditions, and still have to fight for visibility in the 21st century?
If indeed inclusive language makes women more visible, which seems highly debatable to me - it surely makes gender less visible. And if what you are calling exclusive language makes them invisible, which seems even more debatable. It's the rhetoric used to justify the use of inclusive language that makes terms traditionally referring to men and women refer uniquely to men.
HoosierThanThou says
quote:
Not talking about something also renders it invisible.
and that, from where I'm sitting, is precisely the problem with imposing inclusive language - it makes having a discussion within the church about gender difficult, if not impossible, unless the "discussion" is actually a restatement of the position held by those who defined the language. The problem with the 1984 analogy is that it's the people arguing for inclusive language who are playing the language-defining role of Big Brother, not the male chauvinists.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Once again the assumption being made is that the status quo is the norm and therefore not political.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
I had no idea that philosophical argument was sexist. Well, well, well.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
No, we're waiting for any evidence that it is political, otherwise we're into "you can't prove that there aren't aliens living in the Nevada desert so it must be true" territory.
Actually, that's an interesting question - do we know how the masses talked about gender in the Middle Ages, and can we therefore say whether, say, the translators of the King James Bible moved the language one way or the other in gender terms?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Why is "we have sinned against you and against our fellow men" apolitical but "we have sinned against you and against our neighbour" an attempt to ram a feminist ideology down the throat of the church?
Either choice is ideological, in the sense that it is informed by certain moral presuppositions.
It reminds me of the old joke. "I'm apolitical. I think that means I want someone else to be right wing for me".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Why is "we have sinned against you and against our fellow men" apolitical but "we have sinned against you and against our neighbour" an attempt to ram a feminist ideology down the throat of the church?
Surely neither is political per se, they are statements that don't obviously lean in any particular direction (and if you are saying that the second is just a less catchy version of the first and means exactly the same thing I would have to agree with you).
It's the process by which the statements are produced and the status that they are given that may be political. Rewriting liturgy to conform to a particular recent trend in academic circles and then claiming that this rewriting is normative is clearly a political process.
I'm still waiting to discover how the way words came to have their semantic fields over the last millenium or so was in any sense guided by any political agenda, or to be shown that there was any disparity between the way the Church and the world in general used gender-related terms, prior to, say, 1950. Qlib and others keep stating this as a fact, so surely there is a thread of evidence somewhere to support it?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
So you think the widespread view that men are superior to women that was widespread from antiquity and first challenged by Mary Wollestoncraft in the late eighteenth century and the widespread use of the men=people/ human beings formulation was the meerest coincidence?
Incidentally why is "neighbour" with its echoes of our Lord's teaching clunkier than "fellow men", particularly when, in fact, we may well also have sinned against members of the 'less important sex'.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Actually, that's an interesting question - do we know how the masses talked about gender in the Middle Ages, and can we therefore say whether, say, the translators of the King James Bible moved the language one way or the other in gender terms?
I don't know if we do know how they talked. But I do know that we do know how they translated the Bible. So we could compare the AV with earlier versions to see if it is more or less gendered.
And we do know that the AV quite deliberatly used translated into traditional ecclesiatical language in order to support church hierarchy - "priest" rahter than "presbyter" or "elder", "bishop" rather than "overseer", "church" instead of "congreagation", "meeting" or "assembly". This was ordered by the king and was in contrast to some earlier English versions.
It shouldn't be difficult to find out if there was a similar shift back on gender terms. All you'd need would be a copy of Wycliff, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the AV & a Greek New Testament. Well, actually you'd need a Vulgate as well for the original of Wycliff, and an Erasmus or other TR rather than a modern critical Greek version...
Sounds like a fun little project. I'd try it myself if I had the books and the time and I knew enough Latin and Greek... I'd imagine but a long and uninteruppted afternoon in a decent library should be enough to crack the begining of it.
Come to think of it, aren't the BCP Communion readings a pre-AV translation? There might be a clue there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
So you think the widespread view that men are superior to women that was widespread from antiquity and first challenged by Mary Wollestoncraft in the late eighteenth century and the widespread use of the men=people/ human beings formulation was the meerest coincidence?
I'm not sure how you can begin to answer that sort of question historically, maybe you can enlighten me.
On second thoughts, don't worry, it's patent nonsense. "First challenged by Mary Wollestoncraft in the late eighteenth century"?! No-one had ever had the idea before then?! The women preachers of assorted sects dating back to at least the 13th Century never happened?!
What exactly did "superior" mean 2,000 years ago? Weren't women from a rich caste rather superior to men from a poor caste, and wasn't that a far more significant dynamic at the time? To what extent did women in previous times want to change anything (not at all if we accept your Wollestoncraft assertion)? Did they long to be compelled to fight their Lord's battles with pitchforks in order to be equal with the poor menfolk? If they didn't want to change anything, does it make any sense to read 21st Century issues back into history? Wouldn't that be a bit like saying that women not having driving licences was only challenged in the 20th Century?
quote:
Incidentally why is "neighbour" with its echoes of our Lord's teaching clunkier than "fellow men", particularly when, in fact, we may well also have sinned against members of the 'less important sex'.
I can cope with that particular change, although the common meaning of "neighbour" is at least as far from that usage as "fellow men" (you almost need a parable to explain who someone's neighbour is... oh, wait...)
[ 21. June 2005, 15:58: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
It might be a fun project, but I don't think anyone is arguing that patriarchy and non-inclusive language were invented by the authors of KJV.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
So who is doing the politics? I'm hoping that you are not eventually going to say "the whole of violently oppressive male history", but those hopes are fading...
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm still waiting to discover how the way words came to have their semantic fields over the last millenium or so was in any sense guided by any political agenda, or to be shown that there was any disparity between the way the Church and the world in general used gender-related terms, prior to, say, 1950. Qlib and others keep stating this as a fact, so surely there is a thread of evidence somewhere to support it?
I'm pretty sure that there was a disparity between the way colloquial English and formal literary English used much gender-related language for most of modern history.
During the 20th century literary English caught up with the colloquial. And the non-inclusive liturgies deliberatly retain older forms.
Somone using "men" to mean male and female in 1880 was merely copying the usage of the vast majority of writers - though I strongly suspect the disconnect between formal and informal usage was already there, leading to the possibility of a subliminal exclusion of the female from normal humanity.
But anyone using that form by the 1980s was doing it deliberatly. The natural style would by then have been to avoid it except in very formalised legal language. Unless the translators of the NIV and the writers of the ASB were all lawyers, we are justified in wondering why they went out of their way to use old-fashioned language that excludes women.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
"First challenged by Mary Wollestoncraft in the late eighteenth century"?! No-one had ever had the idea before then?! The women preachers of assorted sects dating back to at least the 13th Century never happened?!
No, the point is that they did not, as far as we know, explicitly challenge what later came to be called phallo-centrism. We don't really know much about what they thought on this specific issue. Perhaps, for them it wasn't an issue at all.
There is an argument that the suppression of women increased from the seventeenth through to the nineteenth centuries, as it became more possible for well-off women to lead idle, useless lives. In the middle ages women often ended up running the show domestically while their men were off at the crusades.
[ 21. June 2005, 16:07: Message edited by: Qlib ]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Unless the translators of the NIV and the writers of the ASB were all lawyers, we are justified in wondering why they went out of their way to use old-fashioned language that excludes women.
Oh, I had always thought that they were trying to hit the right balance between novelty and continuity with the form of words that had helped to define the English language and which had been memorised by generations of churchgoers, but your cut on things sounds like a much better basis for a conspiracy theory.
I guess the NEB was far more on-message. I say "I guess" because it was simply appalling to read, which is why the NIV proved so much more popular. But, hey, it was on-message...
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm still waiting to discover how the way words came to have their semantic fields over the last millenium or so was in any sense guided by any political agenda,
An ideology may develop without anyone having a particular political agenda guiding it. No one needs to have sat down and drawn up a plan for making a language sexist for it to become sexist.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
On second thoughts, don't worry, it's patent nonsense. "First challenged by Mary Wollestoncraft in the late eighteenth century"?! No-one had ever had the idea before then?! The women preachers of assorted sects dating back to at least the 13th Century never happened?!
What Qlib said. The occasional female preacher, or even warrior in the case of Joan of Arc, does not constitute a settled belief that women are equal to men. It does demonstrate that women of ability demonstrated that they were at least as able as men. One may consider them proto-feminists but the origin of feminism, AFAIK, can be found at the time of the French Revolution.
quote:
What exactly did "superior" mean 2,000 years ago? Weren't women from a rich caste rather superior to men from a poor caste, and wasn't that a far more significant dynamic at the time?
I'm thinking about the sort of assertion that Augustine made about God not creating Eve as an equal partner because if He had he'd have made a man. Or Aquinas remarking that women were, effectively, defective men. The kind of settled assumption that men were of a higher order of creation than women. The fact that some women were reasonably high in the pecking order does not alter the fact that prior to the industrial era women qua women were considered inferior to men. In the reign of the Emperor Claudius the Imperial freedmen were rich and powerful - more so, often than their alleged social superiors - but a historial who alleged on that account that the Romans regarded their freedmen as the equals of their senators would be laughed at.
quote:
To what extent did women in previous times want to change anything (not at all if we accept your Wollestoncraft assertion)? Did they long to be compelled to fight their Lord's battles with pitchforks in order to be equal with the poor menfolk? If they didn't want to change anything, does it make any sense to read 21st Century issues back into history? Wouldn't that be a bit like saying that women not having driving licences was only challenged in the 20th Century?
That's hardly the point. The fact that there wasn't a feminist movement in the fourteenth century is hardly a reason to dismiss feminist concerns now. When women protest about being rendered invisible, it seems hardly apposite to reply: "well, it was good enough for you in the fourteenth century, why complain now".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
In English usage the idea that 'men', 'man', 'mankind', etc. could without question be read as including women was already on its last legs over a hundred years ago. That is why Interpretation Acts were passed to make it expressly clear that in English statutes those words should be read as including women for the purpose of interpreting the law. Further examples of this occur in various secular texts, often humorously or satirically intended including, e.g. A P Herbert's 'Misleading Case' Fardell v. Potts published in Punch in 1935.
The awareness that such language was positively *ex*clusive became *generally* current in England (and in liturgical writing in England) in, roughly, the early 1980s.
It seems to me to be unarguable these days that in ordinary English usage you must not use 'brothers', 'brethren', men', 'mankind' etc. if you intend your meaning to include female people as well. For many people your language is simply misleading. (In the same way as the BCPs 'indifferent' can no longer be used in a contemporary text to mean 'impartial'. It is still technically one of the meanings of 'indifferent', but no longer what most people naturally understand.)
In biblical translation a very good case is made that in Hebrew 'adam' should be translated human and not specifically male human (for which 'ish' is used) and similarly in Greek with 'anthropos' and 'andros'.
With other texts there is more scope for argument, but I for one could not get too hung up about sons being heirs when Paul is quite happy for children to be heirs in Corinthians, and if there is good reason for sticking with sons I think one needs, these days, to bend over backwards to make it clear that it is the status of sonship (as understood in Paul's culture) which is at issue and that status is open to both men and women
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Melon said
quote:
quote:
posted by Nicodemia
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
Well, quite a lot of us have said we felt invisible!
quote:
quote:
[b]If indeed inclusive language makes women more visible, which seems highly debatable to me - it surely makes gender less visible. And if what you are calling exclusive language makes them invisible, which seems even more debatable.
Well, it would seem debatable, wouldn't it? You are a man (I think) so you don't feel invisible.
Like HoosierNan said, when something is not talked about, it becomes invisible. If you don't talk about women, or, to be more specific, if you leave their gender out of humns, liturgy, etc. then they become invisible. To keep singing about "sons of God", and saying "for us men and for our salvation" makes women invisible.
Originall posted by Callan
quote:
originally posted by Nicodemia
quote:
I'm tired of all these clever clogs turning the thread into a philsophyfest, and thinking those of us who feel invisible won't notice!
I had no idea that philosophical argument was sexist. Well, well, well.
Philosophical argument isn't sexist, unless those taking part are trying, consciously or unconsciously, to get off the subject and keep women feeling invisible!
Posted by Callan
quote:
That's hardly the point. The fact that there wasn't a feminist movement in the fourteenth century is hardly a reason to dismiss feminist concerns now. When women protest about being rendered invisible, it seems hardly apposite to reply: "well, it was good enough for you in the fourteenth century, why complain now".
Thank you, Callan
[Scroll lock! - C.]
[ 21. June 2005, 17:08: Message edited by: Callan ]
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I guess the NEB was far more on-message. I say "I guess" because it was simply appalling to read, which is why the NIV proved so much more popular. But, hey, it was on-message...
No, the NEB is less "inclusive" than the NIV. Its also in many ways more stilted & formal. But it is a generation older as well - the NEB NT translation started in 1947 & came out in 1961, and the work on the NIV was mostly done n the 1970s.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Welcome BroJames - good to have you on board. I'm not sure if you've posted in a lively and creative debate, or one on its last legs collapsing under the weight of numerous tangents. Either way, I hope you enjoy the Ship and have fun on all it has to offer.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
That is why Interpretation Acts were passed to make it expressly clear that in English statutes those words should be read as including women for the purpose of interpreting the law.
A good point! If it was obvious that male language includes female, ther would be no reason to pass an act of parliament.
quote:
It seems to me to be unarguable these days that in ordinary English usage you must not use 'brothers', 'brethren', men', 'mankind' etc. if you intend your meaning to include female people as well. For many people your language is simply misleading.
I don't get too hung up about "mankind" myself - it's literally true of women and well as men, we are all the chldren of men, and it works as a loan translation of the semitic idiom. But "man" or "men" to refer to women is simply bad translation.
quote:
In biblical translation a very good case is made that in Hebrew 'adam' should be translated human and not specifically male human (for which 'ish' is used) and similarly in Greek with 'anthropos' and 'andros'.
A better case than for dropping "brethren" I think. At least that is a literal translation of a Greek idiom - even if Peter or Paul meant "brothers and sisters" they seem to have said just "brothers".
But "anthropos" as "man" is simply wrong. It is a bad translation. You would need a positive political reason to mistranslate that way - as Gordon Cheng has admitted to having on this thread.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But "anthropos" as "man" is simply wrong. It is a bad translation.
This view is out of kilter with the vast majority of modern English translations. That's OK, it's allowed to be, but it needs to be seen in that perspective.
(PS Callan, I noted the earlier response on ontology and function, but I see you're on a few days shore leave and that discussion has zapped on considerably, so perhaps another day, another thread? Much as I feel rather chuffed to be sort of de facto described as a clever clogs by Nicodemia. She probably didn't mean me but. )
[ 21. June 2005, 21:25: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Last Dog Watch
Apprentice
# 9637
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
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
There is a further objection. "... for us men and for our salvation ..." leads on to "... and was made man ..."
Christ redeemed the human race by Himself becoming a member of it. Take out the first reference to "man" and you rob the Creed of an important part of its meaning.
--------------------
one - two - three - eight
Posts: 15 | From: Davy Jones Locker | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
There is a further objection. "... for us men and for our salvation ..." leads on to "... and was made man ..."
Christ redeemed the human race by Himself becoming a member of it. Take out the first reference to "man" and you rob the Creed of an important part of its meaning.
If this is the only argument for saying "men" and "man," then both words should be replaced. We don't need "men" and "man" to talk about the incarnation. As I noted earlier in this thread, the inclusive-language version of the creed we use in my parish says "became truly human."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Last Dog Watch
Apprentice
# 9637
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In English usage the idea that 'men', 'man', 'mankind', etc. could without question be read as including women was already on its last legs over a hundred years ago. That is why Interpretation Acts were passed to make it expressly clear that in English statutes those words should be read as including women for the purpose of interpreting the law ...
I think it was the Interpretation of Statutes Act 1889 which decreed that the meaning of man was to embrace woman unless a contrary intention on the part of Parliament was manifest.
So in statute law, the meaning of "man" is presumed to be gender-inclusive. That was also the default meaning of the word in ordinary English until recently.
--------------------
one - two - three - eight
Posts: 15 | From: Davy Jones Locker | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
ken already ably countered that argument:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If it was obvious that male language includes female, ther would be no reason to pass an act of parliament.
The idea that "men" includes "women" was by this point a legal fiction.
[ 22. June 2005, 00:01: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Last Dog Watch
Apprentice
# 9637
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
There is a further objection. "... for us men and for our salvation ..." leads on to "... and was made man ..."
Christ redeemed the human race by Himself becoming a member of it. Take out the first reference to "man" and you rob the Creed of an important part of its meaning.
If this is the only argument for saying "men" and "man," then both words should be replaced. We don't need "men" and "man" to talk about the incarnation. As I noted earlier in this thread, the inclusive-language version of the creed we use in my parish says "became truly human."
It is the closest representation in English of a creed prepared in Greek, which has also had extensive liturgical use in Latin as well its several centuries in English.
Such usage of the word "man" helps to define its English meaning, not the other way around. How can anyone interpret the word "blessed" without reference to the beatitudes?
I shall respect this ancient formulation of the Mystery of the Incarnation rather than bow to a modern fad (as one might to a golden calf, perhaps): ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
one - two - three - eight
Posts: 15 | From: Davy Jones Locker | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
