|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Last Dog Watch
Apprentice
# 9637
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
Not so! The Act would only have been needed to remove any possible uncertainty, however improbable.
In criminal matters, for example, it was always the rule of the English courts to contrue a statute in the strictest possible way, and if this let defendants go scot free then that was the responsibility of Parliament.
--------------------
one - two - three - eight
Posts: 15 | From: Davy Jones Locker | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Last Dog Watch posts:
quote:
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)
I'll assume you didn't mean to imply that those who either use or advocate inclusive language are engaging in idol worship, either of a modern fad or anything else.
If that was your implication, then I sincerely hope you didn't read through the last 14 pages of this thread before making this remark, because to dismiss the sense of exclusion and distancing voiced by many on this thread as simply the result of a "modern fad" is uncharitable in the extreme - and I seem to recall some ancient formulations on that subject, as well.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Last Dog Watch
Apprentice
# 9637
|
Posted
Sienna,
What I said was:
quote:
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)
You omitted the smiley which I used to suggest a humourous note for the final comment.
It was not my intention to mock or belittle anyone's feelings, but neither of us invented Christianity.
I don't believe that any linguistic movement of recent foundation is of sufficient weight to ignore the basic tenets of the faith, to which the incarnation of God the Son in Jesus Christ is central.
The Creed uses anthropous (for us men) and then enanthropesanta (and became man), so it is crucial that in translation the words match.
"Man" does double service in English for both "he-person" and "human being". It still does. Greek has two words.
In the same way the English word "priest" stands for hierus as well as presbyter, so that we may talk of Jewish priests and pagan priests but never of Jewish bishops or pagan deacons.
In English we have to represent the original meanings as accurately and as truthfully as the language allows. I believe we ought not bend the language of religion in obedience to late twentieth century political movements.
________
I also note that American English has distinctions of its own, many of which it is neither necessary nor desirable to import to England.
--------------------
one - two - three - eight
Posts: 15 | From: Davy Jones Locker | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
That's not usually the smiley used to denote humor - it's the smiley used for "not worthy" or "praiseworthy," so using it in a comment about idol worship probably conveyed a meaning you didn't intend.
The Greek translation has been discussed repeatedly over the length of the thread, so I'll merely comment that an inclusive word choice like anthropous should be translated with an inclusive word choice. English has more than one word to convey "men + women," several, in fact - human, people, humanity, etc. I'm in agreement that we have to represent the original meaning as clearly as possible - which is why we should use an inclusive word where an inclusive word was used. Had the original Greek used andro, this would be a different discussion.
It is crucial, you maintain, that we follow the "for us men and for our salvation" with parallel language when speaking of the Incarnation. Why? Are you concerned that if we use the word "human" in the first portion and "was made man" in the second, people will not understand that men are human?
But to the more pressing question - what central tenet of the faith does saying "for us humans" instead of "for us men" cause us to ignore? What central tenet of the faith do we abandon when we say that Christ incarnated as fully human?
I rather thought that the idea that Christ came to save all humanity and that He incarnated as fully human were central tenets of the faith.
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
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.
Yes, but, (see my earlier post) while the meaning of English ('man', 'mankind', 'men') had shifted some considerable time ago, the general appreciation of the excluding effect of continuing the same usage now that the meaning had shifted has come much more recently (c1980 in England). The "vast majority of modern English translations" pre-date that. And additionally the purely translational issue got mixed up with much wider questions so that it became difficult to argue for that level of change without some people immediately suspecting a much broader agenda lay behind it. Added to all that there are still some people of both genders who argue that the meaning has not shifted at all, and who are resistant to evidence of usage to the contrary even when it pre-dates the quite recent sensitivity to this issue.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
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. [/QB]
I would say that English statute law recognised as long ago as 1889 that in general usage "man' was not or might not be read as gender inclusive and specifically legislated that it should be read as if it was.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
I believe we ought not bend the language of religion in obedience to late twentieth century political movements.
You're not being asked to bend anything. You're being asked to consider whether there are better ways of translating the original - ways which more faithfully reflect our understanding of our relationship with each other and with God.
So, it seems we have three groupings - Those who think non-inclusive language faithfully reflects a created order in which men hold authority over women.
- Those who believe that non-inclusive language used to faithfully reflect our view of the created order, but no longer does so (see below) and that, therefore, there is a case for trying to introduce more inclusive language into modern hymnody and liturgy.
- Those who believe that, although some traditional language might be seen as non-inclusive it should be retained because it is beautiful, poetic and elegant (granted), and need not interfere with our current understanding that men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
ISTM that there is not much movement between groupings. The only movement I've noticed is that the first group spent a lot of time early on emphasising how liberal they were and how much they respected women and how unnecessary all the nasty, aggressive feminist nonsense was, but finally had to reveal the iron fist beneath the velvet glove and admit that, yes, they did disagree with certain aspects of female emancipation. The disagreement being that, in their view, women are most truly free when under the authority of men. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
Absolutely, Qlib!! You've summarised it beautifully!!
So where do we go from here? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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:
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.
Of course. So you are agreeing with me that the recent drive to inclusive language is political, and that the way we got to the situation that existed before that isn't necessarily political?
Phallo-centrism - this is great, I've only ever heard people use that sort of term in sitcoms The trouble is that Hebrews 11 then changes from "our forerunners in the faith" to "A load of Dead White Men, we're better off without them girls, and church history started in 1950". Of course the language we use needs to evolve, but behaving as if a recent cut on gender issues is the issue by which the previous 5 or 6 centuries of churchmanship should be judged is a bit odd. Not least because of the apparently unquestioned assumption that the PC position in 2005 is normative. It seems blindingly obvious to me that in 2105 we are going to be rewriting all our liturgy again, for reasons which will at that point seem obvious - the individualism underpinning so much of protestantism is one obvious place to start. I just hope that whatever our generation does for God will not be written off as "egocentric', or whatever.
"You would say that because you are a man"
That's really the whole problem, isn't it? You're spot on, I'm a man, it's a common medical condition that usually proves terminal, and one which I think should be welcomed in any inclusive church. I mean, isn't the whole point of the last 14 pages that women want to be accepted in church, as women, on their own terms? So is it logical to respond to anyone disagreeing with one female perception of things with "You're a man, so you cannot be expected to have anything to contribute to the discussion, make way for the enlightened sisters!"?
The inclusive language debate is not just about making room for women, it's also about pushing out the phallo-centrics (the working definition of which is "all men"). There is no room for half the human race in your theology, which is why the drive to impose inclusive language continues to be resisted and will ultimately fail. In attendance terms, it's men who are leaving church the fastest, and in many case they take their families with them.
Qlib's 3 groupings - I guess I identify most with the third one, but my main beef is with the idea that inclusive language has to be imposed on me because it's good for me. In practice, I modulate the way I speak and write depending on the audience - that's just common sense if you want to communicate - but being told what words I am allowed to use in the pulpit is always going to sound to me like something out of 1984.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Melon - I've said all I can say to you on this thread - please join me on the 'French Whiner' thread in Hell, if you wish to continue. Gordon, you'd be more than welcome to join us - as, of course, will any other posters.
--------------------
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 Qlib:
Melon - I've said all I can say to you on this thread
I guess that just goes to show how imposing limits on vocabulary does have a nefarious effect on semantics.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
No, I think it goes to show that there are only a limited number of ways of saying the same thing, over and over and over again. And, if you have any more pathetic, ill-aimed jibes, I suggest you share them in Hell, since the entire purpose of the Hell board is to keep crap like that out of Purgatory.
[ 22. June 2005, 12:32: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
It is, IMHO, a salient and relevant point.
If you cannot express yourself here because of the linguistic rules that apply to purgatory, it rather demonstrates that rules on the use of language can get in the way of self-expression.
OTOH, if you simply don't have anything else to say to me, as your last post suggests, I'm not sure why a change of venue would give you any more content to express. Whatever is worth saying can be said quite clearly in human language without the imposition of artificial "rules" - that has been my point all along.
But I would like to take this opportunity to express my endorsement of your right to use the kind of language usually described as exclusive in hell.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
ISTM that there is not much movement between groupings. The only movement I've noticed is that the first group spent a lot of time early on emphasising how liberal they were and how much they respected women and how unnecessary all the nasty, aggressive feminist nonsense was, but finally had to reveal the iron fist beneath the velvet glove and admit that, yes, they did disagree with certain aspects of female emancipation. The disagreement being that, in their view, women are most truly free when under the authority of men.
Ok, this seems spot on. I agree this arguement seems to have run itself into the ground.
However, claims such as this, from Melon: quote:
There is no room for half the human race in your theology
is simply absurd, and bears no relation to anything anyone has said here.
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Well, it would seem debatable, wouldn't it? You are a man (I think) so you don't feel invisible.
is the specific comment to which my "excluding half the human race" referred. What you seem to be implying is that my opinion on gender issues is either inevitably wrong or simply irrelevant on the basis of my gender. What I'm arguing is that men have just as much right to hold an opinion on the invisibility or otherwise of women as women, and, more to the point, their opinion on the status quo and approbation of any change is essential unless you want to make "lifeboat churches" part of the inclusive status quo. If I've misread that quoted statement, please to tell me exactly how I should interpret it.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
If you cannot express yourself here because of the linguistic rules that apply to purgatory, it rather demonstrates that rules on the use of language can get in the way of self-expression.
Another jibe. I think I have expressed myself clearly more than once. My problem is that we seem to be going round in circles with you making more and more outrageous and outlandish claims and misrepresemtations.
If you cannot understand what is said to you because (perhaps) of the linguistic rules that apply to Purgatory it may demonstrate that rules on the use of language can sometimes inhibit clear and frank communication.
If you cannot take part in an argument without setting up Aunt Sallies to knock over, and being overly defensive, it rather indicates that you know you have lost the moral high ground.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
We're only going round in circles because the only position that you are willing to treat with anything other than total contempt is the one that you are proposing, namely that inclusive language is normative. Since it isn't, that does make for rather repetitive exchanges. So are we going to agree to differ, and to respect each other's sincerely-held positions (I think the anglicans call it "embracing difference")?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Since we’ve established that we can cut and paste across from threads, I’m going to respond here to part of Melon’s recent post in Hell quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I was probably involved in training as many female preachers in French-speaking Europe as anyone else during the 90s. My wife was the first "wife of evangelist" in our mission to be trained and accredited on the same basis as her husband, on my insistence. My pro-women-preaching position has got me into hot water on more than one occasion in our mission. <jibe snipped out>
All credit to you and that sounds as though you might be achieving a structural change as opposed to particular and individual tinkering with the system – but what is the structure that you’re seeking to change? What is its bedrock? The details of female non-inclusion rest upon world view that places men at the centre and sees male attributes as ‘the norm’ and female attributes as different (that’s more or less what phallo-centrism means btw). And the point is not that women are not different from men but that we are both different, so neither male nor female should be taken as the norm. The norm should be the qualities we share which make us human, some are seen as more traditionally male and some are seen as more traditionally female but we should celebrate the richness of what each and every one of us has to offer. That's what "embracing difference" really means.
--------------------
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 Qlib:
but what is the structure that you’re seeking to change? What is its bedrock?
You have indeed put your finger on what may be one of the substantive differences between us.
I'm a pragmatist. In the bit of the organisation I ran, women and men did all of the same things, although in practice they ended up doing more of the gender-stereotyped stuff because that's what they wanted to do. So, for example, we all did children's clubs - which was mainly a problem to some men who thought kids' work is for women - but most of the women involved wanted to spend their time doing kid's work rather than, say, open-air preaching, which seems fine to me.
In the (mainly conservative) Bible colleges where I taught, my line was that there were no authority issues involved in witnessing on the street, so theological concerns about women preaching were moot. I admit that this was a little disengenious and something of a cop-out, but, if I'd gone in fighting for women to be recognised as church preachers, I wouldn't have got past the door, and the female students would have ended up doing less, not more. I guess my rational is that you have to start somewhere, and that getting women to preach on the streets might be the thin end of the wedge. (In passing, the scheme worked because many women are far better at street preaching than many men, for a host of reasons I could unpack if anyone is interested).
In one church we attended for a while, the agenda was radically feminist, and I ended up being portrayed as the reactionary. What annoyed me was when, for example, we had to scour the country for a woman who could preach, so that we could say that a woman had preached, despite the fact that only one woman in our church was remotely interested in the issue. For me, that reeks of tokenism, and does nothing to promote genuine equality.
My problem with feminist theology, black theology or any other kind of single-issue theology is that it's surely so much more complicated than a single issue. I have trouble engaging in the details of "who can be a minister" because I have profound reservations about the way the role of a minister is defined in most denominations. From where I'm sitting, the gender of the person doing the wrong job is rather peripheral, it's the job that needs to be redefined.
And it really does seem to me that progress on this sort of issue depends on taking everyone - men and women - along, and that strident feminist rhetoric is a great way to make it harder for men to support change.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Well, you see, I'm a pragmatist, too, but my take is this:
Every battle needs its extremists and its compromisers. Compromisers think that extremists make life unnecessarily difficult; extremists tend to think of compromisers as at best letting the side down and, at worst, unreliable if not actually treacherous.
But I actually think that compromisers play a vital role, doing the kind of things you say you've done. But they usually only do it well when they're aware of the fact that they're compromising. And having heard you say you're alert to the difficulties, I would be content to leave it at that, though I'm not happy about the tactics you've employed, such as IMHO sometimes deliberately misrepresenting the feminist stance. But than that's another thing that compromisers tend to do, because they're trying to justify the moral stance they've taken.
[ 22. June 2005, 14:30: Message edited by: Qlib ]
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
But that analysis assumes that the extreme position is a linear extrapolation or partial expression of the compromised position, whereas I would say that the extreme position is in some ways worse than the status quo, because, ultimately, "doing church" is about consensus. Starting from a position that assumes that half the people in the church are genetically incapable of understanding the arguments, for example, makes any form of consensus impossible, and there isn't a zero-sum solution unless you are happy to have churches without men.
If you want a radical solution, I want to bundle in the way that the domestic/social agenda, inclusing large aspects of church, is dominated by women through an informal but nonetheless coercive system. Negotations tend to go better when both sides put something on the table. Any way forward has to be win-win, so, to move from pragmatism to realpolitik, what do the men win?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
Melon, I'm trying very hard to understand how replacing "man" with "humanity," or a similar substitution, results in:
quote:
The inclusive language debate is not just about making room for women, it's also about pushing out the phallo-centrics (the working definition of which is "all men"). There is no room for half the human race in your theology, which is why the drive to impose inclusive language continues to be resisted and will ultimately fail.
I'm not seeing any of the inclusive language advocates on this thread argue for making language compulsory and instituting the Politically Correct Pulpit Police - in fact, most of us have explicitly denied advocating coercion. What I see is people trying to persuade others to adopt that language by convincing them of its morality.
Help me understand how and why you feel inclusive and/or gender neutral language constitutes a theology with no room for men. Because I don't get it (possibly for the same reason some don't understand why some women feel excluded).
Edited because of cross-post: Can you also explain how exactly you feel women are dominating the church agenda, ultimately resulting in coercion, and what you feel the goal is?
[ 22. June 2005, 15:06: Message edited by: Sienna ]
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
In passing, the scheme worked because many women are far better at street preaching than many men, for a host of reasons I could unpack if anyone is interested.
Please do. I am interested.
It seems to me now, though it didn't at the start of the thread, that your basic objection is a linguistic one, rather than a theological one. I find it disappointing that you are prepared to upset a whole bunch of people for the point of a linguistic issue. Why?
To repeat Qlib's sumary of groupings: quote:
- Those who think non-inclusive language faithfully reflects a created order in which men hold authority over women.
- Those who believe that non-inclusive language used to faithfully reflect our view of the created order, but no longer does so (see below) and that, therefore, there is a case for trying to introduce more inclusive language into modern hymnody and liturgy.
- Those who believe that, although some traditional language might be seen as non-inclusive it should be retained because it is beautiful, poetic and elegant (granted), and need not interfere with our current understanding that men and women are equal in the eyes of God.
My summary: group 1 - sexist: they need a change of heart. Group 2 - realist/modernist: they are trying to relate Christianity to today's world. Group 3 - they are well meaning, but living in the past. They do not realise how many people they may hurt with their love of archaic terminology, or the idea that archaic terminology may no longer be acceptable.
Am I close with that at all?
JtW.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Last Dog Watch:
The Creed uses anthropous (for us men) and then enanthropesanta (and became man),
Had the Greek meant "man" it would have used one of the aner/andros family of words. It does not mean man, it means human.
quote:
so it is crucial that in translation the words match.
The English word "man" does not match.
quote:
"Man" does double service in English for both "he-person" and "human being". It still does. Greek has two words.
It still doesn't. It hasn't in normal speech for centuries. To use that English word in this case is to risk perverting the plain meaning of Scripture for political ends.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[qb]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.
Of course. So you are agreeing with me that the recent drive to inclusive language is political, and that the way we got to the situation that existed before that isn't necessarily political?
Depends on what you mean by "political."
quote:
Phallo-centrism - this is great, I've only ever heard people use that sort of term in sitcoms
I've never heard the word used in a sitcom. French TV must be worse than I thought.
quote:
The trouble is that Hebrews 11 then changes from "our forerunners in the faith" to "A load of Dead White Men, we're better off without them girls, and church history started in 1950".
It would be really great if you wouldn't exaggerate and misrepresent what feminists are saying.
quote:
Of course the language we use needs to evolve, but behaving as if a recent cut on gender issues is the issue by which the previous 5 or 6 centuries of churchmanship should be judged is a bit odd.
Again, this is an exaggeration. No one here has argued that this is the only important issue in liturgy.
quote:
Not least because of the apparently unquestioned assumption that the PC position in 2005 is normative.
Huh? "PC" is pejorative, and you would be wise to eschew its use.
quote:
It seems blindingly obvious to me that in 2105 we are going to be rewriting all our liturgy again, for reasons which will at that point seem obvious - the individualism underpinning so much of protestantism is one obvious place to start. I just hope that whatever our generation does for God will not be written off as "egocentric', or whatever.
I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.
quote:
"You would say that because you are a man"
That's really the whole problem, isn't it? You're spot on, I'm a man, it's a common medical condition that usually proves terminal, and one which I think should be welcomed in any inclusive church. I mean, isn't the whole point of the last 14 pages that women want to be accepted in church, as women, on their own terms? So is it logical to respond to anyone disagreeing with one female perception of things with "You're a man, so you cannot be expected to have anything to contribute to the discussion, make way for the enlightened sisters!"?
Again, this is a misrepresentation of our position. This has happened time and again on this thread, and it's extremely annoying. Why should we respond to what you're actually saying when you can't respond to what we're actually saying?
quote:
The inclusive language debate is not just about making room for women, it's also about pushing out the phallo-centrics (the working definition of which is "all men").
Uh, no. This may be the sitcom definition of phallo-centrics, but it's not the real one.
quote:
There is no room for half the human race in your theology, which is why the drive to impose inclusive language continues to be resisted and will ultimately fail.
Another misrepresentation of our position. But at least you're consistent.
quote:
In attendance terms, it's men who are leaving church the fastest, and in many case they take their families with them.
I doubt very much that men are leaving because of inclusive language. Perhaps you would care to substantiate this claim?
quote:
Qlib's 3 groupings - I guess I identify most with the third one, but my main beef is with the idea that inclusive language has to be imposed on me because it's good for me. In practice, I modulate the way I speak and write depending on the audience - that's just common sense if you want to communicate - but being told what words I am allowed to use in the pulpit is always going to sound to me like something out of 1984.
For the umpteenth time, no one here has argued in favor of imposing inclusive language or compelling its use. Please read what's posted instead of what you expect to see.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Well, it would seem debatable, wouldn't it? You are a man (I think) so you don't feel invisible.
is the specific comment to which my "excluding half the human race" referred. What you seem to be implying is that my opinion on gender issues is either inevitably wrong or simply irrelevant on the basis of my gender. What I'm arguing is that men have just as much right to hold an opinion on the invisibility or otherwise of women as women, and, more to the point, their opinion on the status quo and approbation of any change is essential unless you want to make "lifeboat churches" part of the inclusive status quo. If I've misread that quoted statement, please to tell me exactly how I should interpret it.
Can't remember who made that quote melon, but it wasn't me. FWIW I am a man, but I can understand how that limits my understanding of certain issues (just as being white restricts my awareness of racism). There are actually quite a few of us who are prepared to listen to women in this area, and whose views on inclusive language have changed as a result.
--------------------
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
Quite a lot of men feel invisible. Most of them a lot of the time I suspect.
The difference I suppose is that being male isn't felt to be the main cause of being overlooked or ignored or despised or forgotten so maleness as such isn't an issue for them in that context.
--------------------
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
But you're right, ken: one of the things about the traditional male-female division of roles is that it is taken for granted that men will be strong, competent, emotionally robust etc., etc. And being taken for granted is a kind of invisibility. Also, in a way, being the 'norm' is invisible, because people tend to comment more on what is different.
I daresay there are man-hating feminists (not sure that I've ever actually encountered one) but the feminism I believe in is about freeing people up to be who they are. Which is what I also believe the Christian faith is about. Funny that.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But you're right, ken: one of the things about the traditional male-female division of roles is that it is taken for granted that men will be strong, competent, emotionally robust etc., etc. And being taken for granted is a kind of invisibility. Also, in a way, being the 'norm' is invisible, because people tend to comment more on what is different.
Men are also traditionally supposed to make money and acquire power, so not doing those things may make some men feel invisible.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Men are also traditionally supposed to make money and acquire power
Very few people get those things. Power and wealth are gained by a tiny minority of men and and even smaller minority of women.
--------------------
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
Which is what I was getting at in saying that wealth, class, caste or whatever is at least as important a dynamic as gender. Rich women are more visible than poor men. Contrary to what has been implied above, feminist theology and black theology are not hyperbolic inventions - if only that were the case! You can do university-level courses in both in many places.
Skim the feminist theology link. I'm really sorry, but I stopped reading when I got to "herstory", and I reckon that's the reaction of most men and many women (does the "his" in "history" have anything to do with gender? Is "this" phallocentric too?) Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
Now you are going to tell me that this is not what all proponents of inclusive language are motivated by this sort of man-hating madness. OK, I'm willing in principle to accept that, it's just that in fourteen pages of this thread I don't recall anyone arguing for inclusive language distancing themselves from this sort of, um, herstrionics. For that matter, I don't think anyone has distanced themself from Nicodemia's statement that men as a group are unable to decentre. So I'm currently working on the basis that female theology and "all men as subliminal aspergers sufferers" is the shared understanding from which inclusive language flows, but I'm very willing to be corrected on this point.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
I'm going to wade through the last few hundred posts before responding to this line by line, but I just have to ask about
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
For the umpteenth time, no one here has argued in favor of imposing inclusive language or compelling its use. Please read what's posted instead of what you expect to see.
I'm genuinely confused now. If what everyone has been saying all along is that the use or non-use of inclusive language is a matter for the individual, that it isn't something on which churches should have a policy, that deciding not to use inclusive language from a pulpit should incur no sanctions, that those training ministers should present inclusive language as one of a number of equally valid options, and that no-one is going to promote broad-brush negative stereotypes about those who, for whatever reason, prefer to use traditional forms of expression, I apologise unreservedly, and would like to indicate my complete and total agreement with the proposal. Although, in that case, I can't actually parse the question in the OP.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Melon said:
quote:
For that matter, I don't think anyone has distanced themself from Nicodemia's statement that men as a group are unable to decentre.
quote:
And, from my experience, some men cannot multi-task.
Italics mine.
What I actually said, Melon, if you would read it closely, is I said that SOME men are unable to multi-task. And I also said "in my experience". That means, I didn't make the sweeping statement you have ascribed to me
And its true, I know several men who say "don't hassle me, I can only think of one thing at a time"!
Now this is purg, so I will just sign myself off
Nicodemia - the shrill, rhetoric-using feminist Old Age Pensioner
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Which is what I was getting at in saying that wealth, class, caste or whatever is at least as important a dynamic as gender.
All forms of oppression should be combated, yes, so we need to work on descriptions/ metaphors of God such as 'Lord' and 'King' as well. quote:
I stopped reading when I got to "herstory", and I reckon that's the reaction of most men and many women (does the "his" in "history" have anything to do with gender? Is "this" phallocentric too?) Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
But here again you cheerfully display your wilful ignorance. Feminist history ('herstory' is just a convenient shorthand) is not about re-writing history but throwing light into the shadows. It's produced some fascinating new material about the lives of ordinary men, women and children. And, yes, it's also about looking at old material from a new perspective. That's what historians do, in case you hadn't noticed, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in modern historians studying, for example, ancient Rome, except when new material comes to light. quote:
For that matter, I don't think anyone has distanced themself from Nicodemia's statement that men as a group are unable to decentre.
You should spend more time on the Hell thread, then.
quote:
So I'm currently working on the basis that female theology and "all men as subliminal aspergers sufferers" is the shared understanding from which inclusive language flows, but I'm very willing to be corrected on this point.
Except that, quite obviously you aren't, because you repeat the same hate-filled garbage again and again and again. By your own admission (above) when you come to something that might challenge your view of life you 'stop reading'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
Now you are going to tell me that this is not what all proponents of inclusive language are motivated by this sort of man-hating madness. OK, I'm willing in principle to accept that, it's just that in fourteen pages of this thread I don't recall anyone arguing for inclusive language distancing themselves from this sort of, um, herstrionics.
You probably won't have found anyone arguing for inclusive language but distancing themselves from black-pudding worship, either. That's because in the course of this discussion no-one until now has tried to suggest that one implies the other.
However, for the record, I would like to distance myself from any kind of man-hating, woman-hating, small-furry-creature-from-Alpha-Centauri-hating, racist, sizeist, faithist, ageist or level-of-education-attainedist nonsense, and I think inclusive language is a good idea.
Now, can you find an example of anyone in the last 14 pages arguing for a rewriting of history and doctrine? ISTM that most proponents of inclusive language are arguing the opposite - that inclusive language most faithfully represents the gospel, on the grounds that all of us, male and female alike, are equal inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, and that exclusive language distorts that doctrine to make it appear that men are higher in the created order and the order of salvation than are women.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm genuinely confused now. If what everyone has been saying all along is that the use or non-use of inclusive language is a matter for the individual, that it isn't something on which churches should have a policy, that deciding not to use inclusive language from a pulpit should incur no sanctions, that those training ministers should present inclusive language as one of a number of equally valid options, and that no-one is going to promote broad-brush negative stereotypes about those who, for whatever reason, prefer to use traditional forms of expression, I apologise unreservedly, and would like to indicate my complete and total agreement with the proposal. Although, in that case, I can't actually parse the question in the OP.
The question in the OP is "Is inclusive language really necessary?"(my italics). We are being asked to express an opinion on this. How difficult is that to understand? We are not voting on a measure to make it compulsory or introduce public stoning for those who disagree. It is about the promotion of an idea. Hopefully ideas can be promoted without traducing, denigrating and wilfully misrepresenting those who oppose them, although the tactics employed by you on this thread would suggest otherwise.
Which explains why you're so scared. Does the word 'transference' mean anything to you?
[ 23. June 2005, 09:47: 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
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
I'm genuinely confused now.
Then let’s use an analogous idea that might be easier to understand:
Should people be barred from saying that crop circles are messages from the Tralls of the planet Zog to David Icke, who is the supreme ruler of the universe? I suspect that a large majority would say “no, we wouldn’t want a legal ban on free speech of this sort, even though we think the idea is bonkers.”
Do we think that our churches should teach that crop circles are messages… etc etc? In this case I suspect that a large majority would say, “No, we don’t think our churches should be teaching this.”
It’s possible to oppose an idea without wanting espousal of the idea banned.
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib (in Hell):
quote:
Originally posted by Melon (in Hell):
...I thought I was asking whether you really think that feminist theology and herstory is a balanced and inclusive way to approach the Bible...
.. I think the feminist persepctive can and should inform all aspects of life, inclusing history and theology, but not the exclusion of all other perspectives....
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
In my experience, when inclusive language is used no one notices. It doesn't disrupt things or cause ripples, the service just flows. However, once you've got used to inclusivity, exclusive language anywhere comes as a shock to the system.
Back in the 80s (which is where I thought this debate belonged) I was a keen young curate, and seized with the importance of inclusive language. I sang "She who would valiant be" and changed "men" to "people" or "neighbour" when I addressed the congregation. No one noticed at all. One day I was tired and forgot to chnage the words I was using. Several little old ladies, who'd spent all their lives using "men" to mean "everyone", commented afterwards they'd noticed that change back and had felt shut out by it.
--------------------
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 Melon:
Which is what I was getting at in saying that wealth, class, caste or whatever is at least as important a dynamic as gender. Rich women are more visible than poor men.
Yes. Obviously. Why does that mean we should continue to marginalise women by deliberatly producing new texts in obsolete dialects of English that will be heard to say things we don't mean? (Unless we do mean them of course - as Gordon seems to)
quote:
Rewriting history and doctrine on the explicit basis of a single issue is the explicit aim, and it's divisive, short-sighted and just plain wrong.
It is certainly wrong. So what? Who is doing it?
quote:
Now you are going to tell me that this is not what all proponents of inclusive language are motivated by this sort of man-hating madness.
No, I'm going to tell you that it is so obviously NOT the only, or even the main, motivation for inclusive language that I have real trouble believing that you are deluded enough to think that it is.
And that you say you think it is makes me wonder what your hidden agenda could be. At least Gordon was explicit about his - he thinks that the subordination or women to men is a divine principle of creation, and such an important one that it ias worth mistranslation the Bible in order to reinforce it in church teaching. What's yours?
quote:
OK, I'm willing in principle to accept that
so willing that you have been ranting on about it for nearly a week on 3 different threads?
quote:
, it's just that in fourteen pages of this thread I don't recall anyone arguing for inclusive language distancing themselves from this sort of, um, herstrionics.
Why should we? It's not part of our position, and many - probably most - of us would be likely to find it irrelevant or needlessly confusing. And no-one here even brough it up. Except you.
quote:
For that matter, I don't think anyone has distanced themself from Nicodemia's statement that men as a group are unable to decentre.
Well, I did. And at least two others did, om the other thread you moved the argument to.
(Assuming I know what you mean by the neologism "decentre" that is)
quote:
So I'm currently working on the basis that female theology and "all men as subliminal aspergers sufferers" is the shared understanding from which inclusive language flows, but I'm very willing to be corrected on this point.
I doubt you are willing to be corrected because I doubt that you believe it. Its such obvious bollocks tht I think you are just bringing it up for the sake of prolonging an argument.
But, as I like a good argument, lets break your proposition into its two unrelated parts:
"female theology" is neither here nor there. No-one on this thread has been arguing for it, or even talking about it except you. Plenty of people are quite happy with inclusive language in church who have had no contact with it at all, or who would find it absurd or irrelevant or unChristian if they did.
The use of inclusive language in the production of new texts or translations in the churches is not dependent on any specifically feminist view of theology (though you'd expect feminist theologians to support it). Its really just an application to our church life of the normal, ordinary English we speak every day; illuminated by an intention to treat all our neighbours as equal in God's sight and potentially members of God's people.
"all men as subliminal aspergers sufferers" is something quite different, much less serious, and much more dangerous. One or two posters here have made stupid small-minded comments along those lines - and others have puleld them up on it.
But its not part of feminist theology at all. Most feminist theologians would recognise it for the nonsense it is. It comes out of the pop-psychology mass media, from sources like Cosmopolitian and Glamour magazine (the women's mass market equivalent of men's magazines full of pictures of naked women), it comes from programmes like Women's Hour on the BBC (which used to be good once upon a time) and for all I know Big Brother. It is related to the currently fashionable popularisations of "evolutionary psychology" (which in its mass-market version often knows little about psychology and even less about evolution). It isn't usually taken very seriously, its a kind of socially acceptable joke. Little more than an anti-male equivalent to the "women drivers" or "essex girls" jokes men use to put down women.
Its one of the current guises of traditional gender stereotypes. And a good dose of real feminism - or even plain ordinary inclusive language - would go a long way towards getting rid of it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
In my experience, when inclusive language is used no one notices.
How would you know if somebody else notices? If inclusive language mangles one of my favourite hymns, I notice, and I wince. More than one person has said that already on this thread alone. Perhaps you didn't notice.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Which is what I was getting at in saying that wealth, class, caste or whatever is at least as important a dynamic as gender.
All forms of oppression should be combated, yes, so we need to work on descriptions/ metaphors of God such as 'Lord' and 'King' as well.
Wait a minute -- isn't God our sovereign?
I mean okay earthly kingly/queenly types can be abusive and so forth, but we can't therefore dissolve all that sort of language in the scriptures and make God out to be our fellow-citizen and equal. God is our Sovereign and Overseer (trying to get gender-neutral terms here). God may be our Gospodin or our Godspodna, but She's not our komrad.
When "inclusive language" actually works to destroy an important scriptural point, it has gone WAY too far.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
In my experience, when inclusive language is used no one notices.
How would you know if somebody else notices? If inclusive language mangles one of my favourite hymns, I notice, and I wince. More than one person has said that already on this thread alone. Perhaps you didn't notice.
Point taken, which is why I prefaced that with "In my experience". I should have added "if done well" - I was one of those who said earlier that I can't stand mangling good old hymns. It may be illogical of me, but I think old texts should be left alone. It's the new texts I'm concerned about.
The sort of thing I was thinking of was when I was in theological college back in the early 80s. One week, as a radical experiment, we had a week when all services in chapel used inclusive language. Plenty of people turned up expecting something quite shocking, and came away saying: "I didn't notice anything different". Certainly not conclusive evidence, but I offer it as a bit of my experience that has shaped my thinking.
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
isn't God our sovereign?
I dunno - isn't that just a metaphor? God(de) is the ultimate reality, the ground of our being, the still small voice, the creator of the universe, our Father, our Mother, our lover, our Friend and Counsellor, our Judge. We can use metaphors, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be used by them.
Before you ask, though, I would have to say that I would baulk at calling Jesus the Princess of Peace. Queen Liz the First knew herself to be a Prince and that's good enough for me. When you add -ess to a word, you don't just feminise it, you weaken it, undermine it, trivialise and sideline it. The language thing is difficult and there are no easy answers - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking.
[ 23. June 2005, 16:52: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
isn't God our sovereign?
I dunno - isn't that just a metaphor?
Well it is a metaphor, to be sure. But JUST a metaphor? No, it says something about the relationship between us and God: something heirarchical (if you'll excuse the expression).
You can switch metaphors if it makes you happy, but you can't entirely throw out an entire line of revealed truth about God just because "it's just a metaphor" (everything we know and believe about God is in the form of metaphors) and particularly not because that particular truth makes you uneasy. Say God is above us (a metaphor) or our sovereign (another metaphor) or however you like to say it. But She is not our equal. She is superior to us (yet another metaphor). You can't dismiss that truth without injuring our knowledge of God.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
PS I wouldn't stoop to accusing you of wanting to emasculate Jesus.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Say God is above us (a metaphor) or our sovereign (another metaphor) or however you like to say it. But She is not our equal. She is superior to us (yet another metaphor).
Well, yes, up to a point - above us but also with us, transcendent and immanent. But, perhaps because I live in a country with a monarchy, albeit a constiutional one, and much as I admire the Queen personally etc., etc., for me the word 'sovereign' has all sorts of unfortunate connotations that I don't want tangled up with God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Just a little comment on this:
quote:
originally posted by ken
At least Gordon was explicit about his - he thinks that the subordination or women to men is a divine principle of creation, and such an important one that it ias worth mistranslation the Bible in order to reinforce it in church teaching.
Close, but no cigar. If I really believed it was a mistranslation I'd drop it out of my way of speaking like I'd drop an anonymous package handed to me by a friendly man in a balaclava.
To call traditional language 'mistranslation' on this particular issue is simply an eccentricity. A tolerable eccentricity, like wearing deerstalker hats or smoking corn-cob pipes or indulging in philately; yes, even an eccentricity that has been made compulsory in some now slightly old-fashioned university departments. But of course, an eccentricity that has nothing to do with feminism (at least according to some posters, I read with incredulity), we just made the change because, well, we felt like it or something, and now, no other way of doing things makes any sense to anybody.
So while I do happen to believe that traditional language reflects a biblical way of thinking in some instances (and in others, I might add, reflects nothing much at all except force of habit), I use it because that's the way I grew up speaking and because I'm not yet persuaded by the arguments that I've heard that it's compulsory or even useful for me to change. So I don't.
Now some of the arguments for change to inclusive language are wrong and wrong-headed, and some are quite sensible. They are just not enough, in my case (or in the case of many other men and women of my acquaintance, or even in the case of most post-1970 English Bible translations) to bring about change. That's it. It's no big deal, and if someone threatened to take away my library card if I didn't change my way of speaking and writing, I suppose I might, as losing the library card could be quite inconvenient.
--------------------
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
I'm sure your library card is quite safe, Gordon.
--------------------
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
|
|
HoosierNan
Shipmate
# 91
|
Posted
On library cards and invisibility:
When my husband and I moved into the city limits of Muncie, Indiana, after our honeymoon, we thought it would be nice to get a library card for the local public library. (I had library privledges at the University in town, as a student,but they had little in the way of escapist trashy novels . . . .)
So we went to the neighborhood branch, and husband got his card with his name on it. Then I stepped up, and the clerk put "Mrs. [husband's name]" on the card. I said that I wanted the card to have my name, Nancy, not his name with a Mrs. She said that it was policy to put the cards that way for married women. I asked for her supervisor. Supervisor said the same. I asked what would happen if I were a child--it would have my name, she said. I asked what would happen if I were single--it would have my name, she said. "But because I'm married, it has his name, not mine?" "That's right," she said.
Husband and I tore up the two cards and left them on the floor, and walked out. We made do with the University library for the next four years.
Posts: 795 | From: Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
The question of whether most women’s brains are wired differently from most men’s, and whether that difference may mean that women tend to be better at multi-tasking when compared with the male tendency to be better at focusing, is an interesting one. As far as I know, it is not proven whether this difference exists or, if it does, whether/ if/ how it relates to the phenomenon of Autistic Spectrum Disorders and/or Neurological Diversity. I think it is an established fact that the majority of people with ASD are male, and there may be a variety of reasons for this, including the possibility that men with ASD characteristics can be very successful in certain environments (so evolution favours the male with ‘mild’ ASD, but not the female) but the ASD/ND field is expending so fast that ISTM talk about what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘different’ is vanishing down the plughole.
Anyhow, fascinating though these questions are, they are IMHO a completely fruitless tangent to this thread (and the Hell thread). If anyone feels qualified to address these issues, maybe they should start another thread.
I am sorry that you, Melon feel abused by light-hearted and/or ignorant comments about men and ASD, but that is also, I believe, irrelevant to this thread. Sexist abuse is to be deplored from whatever quarter it comes. However, sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish between sexism and honest attempts to explore how far male-female differences are biologically as opposed to socially determined. I happen to think there’s a place for light-hearted banter on the topic, though Purg probably isn’t that place.
Can we agree to abandon the tangent(s) of brain-wiring and ASD/ND, please?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
