|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is inclusive language really necessary?
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
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.
Briefly, we know an enormous amount about all these questions. Women have less active genetic material than men, which explains why they show less variance than men on everything from IQ to height (see Alice Heim's deliciously-titled "The mediocrity of women"). Our brains pickle in gender-differentiated hormones from soon after conception onwards, and it would be astounding if this didn't make some sort of difference. What that means in practice is less clear, as cultural factors come into play.
quote:
Anyhow, fascinating though these questions are, they are IMHO a completely fruitless tangent to this thread.
They were not presented as a tangent. All men are innately unable to understand women. Some try, and some of those who try to succeed in overcoming their natural handicaps, and attain... it's no good, I can't think of a non-frivolous end to that sentence, but it's a restatement of unreconstructed feminist rhetoric, and whether or not that's part of what drives moves towards inclusive language (and whether the scientific justification for that rhetoric is hogwash) is therefore extremely relevant. If we're going to take the rhetoric off the table along with the pseudo-science, great!
quote:
I am sorry that you, Melon feel abused by light-hearted and/or ignorant comments about men and ASD [snip] I happen to think there’s a place for light-hearted banter on the topic, though Purg probably isn’t that place.
Not being a victim is probably my most deeply held personal core value, so please don't worry on my account ![[Smile]](smile.gif) What I have been reacting to is the increasing sense that, here and in general, heterosexual men are rapidly becoming the only acceptable target of "humour". Inclusive language is crying out to be parodied (and is parodied in both the British newspapers I get to see on a regular basis and in other media), but on this thread this equates to a vicious attempt to drive women out of the church, but any kind of "joke" about those who hold a different view is just fine. Controlling the targets of humour is part of how oppression works...
[ 24. June 2005, 08:45: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
The question of whether most women’s brains are wired differently from most men’s… is an interesting one. As far as I know, it is not proven whether this difference exists...
Briefly, we know an enormous amount about all these questions. …Our brains pickle in gender-differentiated hormones from soon after conception onwards, and it would be astounding if this didn't make some sort of difference. What that means in practice is less clear ...
Yes, exactly – however much we know, we don’t know enough to answer the questions, which I think is what I said. quote:
All men are innately unable to understand women. Some try, and some of those who try to succeed in overcoming their natural handicaps, and attain... it's no good, I can't think of a non-frivolous end to that sentence, but it's a restatement of unreconstructed feminist rhetoric
The trouble is that, for you, the term ‘feminist rhetoric’ seems to cover “every statement ever made by a woman that I choose to take offence to”. You simply can’t bracket an aside in Hell with serious feminist study and you also - as has been suggested several times before – really ought to be able to take on board that there are different schools of feminist thought. But, no, you’d rather misrepresent and parody, wouldn’t you? It’s so much easier than producing coherent and thoughtful responses. quote:
Inclusive language is crying out to be parodied (and is parodied in both the British newspapers I get to see on a regular basis )
Inclusive language and liberal theology is parodied in Private Eye – and very funny it is, too. But then Private Eye also parodies old-fashioned sexist drivel and patronising nonsense. All positions are funny when taken to extremes. The British press also used to mock Darwin – was he wrong? quote:
Inclusive language …on this thread this equates to a vicious attempt to drive women out of the church, but any kind of "joke" about those who hold a different view is just fine. Controlling the targets of humour is part of how oppression works...
Oh please. Tripe au Melon: Take one complete misrepresentation of what has been said on this thread, add a complaint about a comment made in Hell, top it off with another attempt to claim that it is men who are the real victims of oppression. Serve repeatedly when all your rational points have been demolished, and hope that those presented with this trashy and insubstantial diet will eventually give up and go home.
--------------------
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:
What I have been reacting to is the increasing sense that, here and in general, heterosexual men are rapidly becoming the only acceptable target of "humour".
In general, I agree with you on the danger of this and believe it's something that needs to be pointed out and stood against when it happens. I disagree that it's been happening here. One poster has made a couple of unwise comments and a number of others have protested against these; hardly a feminist conspiracy.
I also disagree that this point is particularly relevant to the inclusive language debate. Inclusive language is about including everyone, not shifting the balance of power from one group to another.
quote:
Inclusive language is crying out to be parodied
I believe that all most of us are arguing is that where 'men and women' is meant a word should be used which clearly means that, rather than a word which means 'men'. Why is this so worthy of parody?
[ 24. June 2005, 09:14: Message edited by: Pob ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Hosting
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Oh please. Tripe au Melon: Take one complete misrepresentation of what has been said on this thread, add a complaint about a comment made in Hell, top it off with another attempt<snip> etc. home.
There's a Hell thread for that sort of thing. This one is in Purgatory.
Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
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.
Fair enough. A very ordinary episode in the history of humanity, reminding me of a number of librarians I have dealt with.
Had it been me, I would've come back wearing my Groucho glasses and eyebrows and registered as Gordo the Wonder Dog. But I understand this is not an option open to all, or that all would choose.
Anyway, sorry to hear your story and back to ... well, whatever this thread has become...
--------------------
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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Yes, exactly – however much we know, we don’t know enough to answer the questions, which I think is what I said.
Much as it pains me to appear disagreeable, that isn't what I said, because, if your level of proof is 100%, there is never going to be enough evidence to answer the question. The scientific method doesn't prove anything, it distinguishes between what has been disproved and what has not been disproved yet. The reason large numbers of British children are still at risk from preventable diseases is that the government hasn't proved that vaccines are safe, because, err, it is impossible to do so even in principle.
My point is that there is so much evidence that there are basic psychological differences between men and women that it makes no rational sense to countenance the alternative view for any practical purpose.
Like I said, what we do with that information is an entirely different issue. People naturally stop walking when their knee joints fail, but I'm all in favour of interfering with nature in that case. There is no reason why biology has to dictate much about gender roles. Even if it were proved that women have half the IQ and a third of the spiritual insight of men, that wouldn't necessarily dictate any particular decision about who gets to be a minister (indeed, you might argue that this would help the women to fit in with many of those who currently fill the posts ). And, in any case, all the "scientific" terms that float around psychology are social constructs (IQ is of course a French invention, as you could have guessed from the fact that it is very elegant and of limited practical use).
But all that is not the same at all as saying that "we just don't know" if male and female psychological function is different. One is about recognising that a theory has limited prescriptive application, the other is analagous to putting one's fingers in one's ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you!" We "know" beyond all reasonable doubt that there are differences, we can describe some of them in detail, and any discourse that has to assume otherwise has a major credibility problem. And, of course, your discourse doesn't have to make that assumption, so you could safely abandon the pop science rather than trying to leave the question open.
The reality, as with most of the recent "genetics of behaviour" discoveries, is that the genetically disposed components, while demonstrably present, are at such a low level that it is very hard to extrapolate to anything interesting. Which, I think, should be rather good news for women.
Nonetheless, claiming a biological basis for one's position is the current trendy way to trump all other arguments, which is why it really does matter whether or not men have a genetic disposition that prevents them from decentering, and it really does matter whether or not men process information in a fundamentally different way to women.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
I believe that all most of us are arguing is that where 'men and women' is meant a word should be used which clearly means that, rather than a word which means 'men'. Why is this so worthy of parody?
Any more than any number of other sincerely-held positions that we take the greatest delight in parodying here? Is the "Good Little" that routinely precedes "Evangelical" on these boards "necessary"? Does it help to clarify debate and build bridges? As an evangelical who is neither good nor little, I can't say it bothers me, I just can't work out why seeing the funny side of inclusive language is a cardinal sin.
Anyway, I'll take your statement about what most of us are arguing for at face value, and say that I really don't have a problem with that in principle. All I would say is that making as wide a cross-section of people as possible feel as included as possible is one important task for the church, but that continuity and, especially, ownership of the past is also pretty essential. If you just want inclusiveness, you may as well change the signs and start serving beer and pub lunches. The fact that Christians have used a certain form of words for centuries, know their Bibles through a particular translation and learned the Lord's Prayer a certain way does matter too. I see a lot more on this thread about contemporary relevance than I do about continuity with what went before.
And, whatever the specific edits, it seems crucial to me that we view our efforts as "people of our time" initiatives, just like those of the 16th and 19th century, that will look strange in some ways to those in the 22nd century, and not as the arrival of the church on some enlightened higher plane to which the poor primitive authors of the Book of Common Prayer could never aspire. Maybe everyone posting is taking that humility wrt Christian tradition as read, but I'd be reassured if it was made explicit from time to time.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
[Ignoring tangent - sorry, life's too short]
I must admit to prosecuting my argument with the zeal of a convert. You see, I used to be with those people who thought that the price of inclusive language (bad poetry, bad liturgy, unthinking adherence to –isms) was a pretty high price to pay for equality – and, as I didn’t actually believe that it furthered the cause of equality, I was relieved of the responsibility of deciding whether it was price I should pay. Neat get out. (For me – that’s not to denigrate those who hold this view sincerely).
With the blithe and somewhat myopic courage of youth, I thought feminism (the bit worth having) was finished. I, too, chuntered over 'herstory'. I thought the battle was over, the important fights won. With motherhood came the realisation that this was not so.
But even then I thought that the rhetoric, including the idea that all oppression was one, was ridiculously over-blown. How could the experience of a white, healthy, (reasonably) able-bodied, middle-class, female graduate, UK citizen, compare with the oppression of black people, with the marginalisation of the poor and the disabled?
And then I came to where I am now: teaching ‘multi-cultural’ poetry (amongst other things) to students with disabilities. And you know what? I found out that I was wrong, wrong, wrong. There may have been - and still be crap - out there (the world will never be short of bad poetry) but there was also stuff of really high quality: poems with valid, enriching, exciting and important things to say about the human condition. And sharing that stuff with my students made me realise that, yes, in some senses, oppression and marginalisation are the same wherever they’re encountered. That’s not to say that 21st century middle-class white women suffer in the same way as 18th century slaves, but it all springs from the same source: the view that some people matter more than others. And that view has to be challenged wherever it arises. It has to be met by acknowledging, sharing and celebrating the diversity of human experience, using the best talents at our disposal.
So yes, a lot of inclusive stuff is crap. It is essential to make it better; it is necessary to give inclusion all we’ve got. But no, I won’t be taking away anyone’s library ticket to make them comply.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
Qlib: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
At the risk of just repeating what everyone else has already said....It's easy for people to ridicule the idea of changing the word "mankind", which is the very least of our problems (at least its specific meaning is unambiguous). The problem is the cumulative effect of church services full of references to "brothers", "us men", "for all men", "each man" etc. OK, "men" can refer to men and women, but it can also just mean men - and that ambiguity is the real problem. (Is the Men's toilet open to both sexes?)
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
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.
Well, exactly.
This is why I'm so nonplussed by the idea that the English language, as it has evolved through the centuries, is somehow neutral - that it has stayed unalloyed by ideology and doesn't reflect fundamental assumptions about power and status.
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.
As many others have said, it's not about a political agenda, it's about unconsidered stereotype assumptions. And as far as I know, there isn't any particular disparity between the way the Church and the world in general used gender-related terms prior to 1950. They both reflected a view of the world where women's roles were subordinate to men's.
The reality is, our use of English has been shaped by the structures of society over a period of centuries in which women have tended to be excluded and marginalised. The use of the suffixes "-ess", "-ette" and so forth is a very good example. For many professions, the neutral root word is assumed to mean the male; if women are doing the job, a little suffix has traditionally been added (waitress, actress, hostess, manageress, usherette) to make it clear that this is a departure from the norm. If anyone thinks this kind of distinction is necessary, bear in mind that we don't use one for the profession where it is often most significant: doctor.
Likewise, our terms for sovereign reflect an imbalance of power. "King" outranks "Queen", so a queen can't have a king as her consort. And for any Rumpole fans, anyone remember the bit where Henry's wife becomes Mayor - which makes him the Lady Mayoress? As for other titles, "Ms" has been subject to all sorts of scathing commentary, but really, why should I have to declare my marital status in my title when men don't?
My point is that, like it or not, the English language is riddled with historical assumptions about gender roles - it's what you might call structurally sexist. It's perfectly natural given our history, but it's also outdated and needs to be changed now that we understand women's role in society differently. We don't have to rewrite our past, but we shouldn't have to write our present in terminology which is now inappropriate. Is there any reason why the Church should be exempt from this process?
[ 24. June 2005, 12:43: Message edited by: Fibonacci's Number ]
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
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.
As many others have said, it's not about a political agenda, it's about unconsidered stereotype assumptions.
Some suggested edits for that last sentence:
'unconsidered'. Deserves to be replaced with considered. That is, people have thought about it during the time period that Melon suggests.
'stereotype'. Delete this word. Meaningless. Perhaps replace with 'blah' to make the same point.
'assumptions'. Yes, OK. People argue for their position on the basis of certain assumptions.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
'stereotype'. Delete this word. Meaningless. Perhaps replace with 'blah' to make the same point.
I think we see the heart of the problem right here. Do you really believe "stereotype" is a meaningless word? I would submit that you are in the minority there.
--------------------
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 Gordon Cheng:
'unconsidered'. Deserves to be replaced with considered. That is, people have thought about it during the time period that Melon suggests.
I suggest you confine your editing to your own posts, Gordon. 'Unconsidered' is right IMHO because we still take the way language frames our world pretty much for granted. Even those who claim to be conscious of it and are trying to unpick it will, most of the time, use language without making that conscious effort.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Do you really believe "stereotype" is a meaningless word?
Let's say meaningless in context, or needlessly negative. People generalize about each other. It's a natural part of human life, without which we probably wouldn't be able to think. It's possible to generalize about men. It's possible to generalize about women. Whether that's good or bad depends on other stuff, like whether the generalizations are [generally] true, whether we admit of exceptions, and how we make decisions about what a good generalization is and how to weigh the exceptions.
Is it the heart of the problem? Depends if you're approaching the problem as a psychologist, a sociologist, or a theologian. For me, psychological and sociological generalizations will be fitted into my (considered) theological assumptions, and others will then be able to offer comment on whether that is a Procrustean bed within which to cram the data.
--------------------
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
Making generalisations is not the same thing as stereotyping, and stereotyping is not relentlessly negative. Stereotyping helps us navigate the world more efficiently (in the short term). It's when we can't move beyond the use of stereotyping that it becomes counter-productive.
[ 24. June 2005, 13:09: 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 Qlib:
And sharing that stuff with my students made me realise that, yes, in some senses, oppression and marginalisation are the same wherever they’re encountered. That’s not to say that 21st century middle-class white women suffer in the same way as 18th century slaves, but it all springs from the same source: the view that some people matter more than others. And that view has to be challenged wherever it arises. It has to be met by acknowledging, sharing and celebrating the diversity of human experience, using the best talents at our disposal.
Amen to all that, as long as we recognise that in 2005 women, as individuals and as quasi-political groups, can be the oppressors, that men can be the victims, and that in some domains, it is often that way round.
quote:
So yes, a lot of inclusive stuff is crap. It is essential to make it better; it is necessary to give inclusion all we’ve got.
In that case, couldn't we call it "appropriate language", or maybe just "competent communication"? "Inclusive language" implies that women are otherwise excluded and men are included, and both statements are misleading. Quite apart from the evidence from this thread that some women and some men are to be found either side of the inclusive fence (sic), The reality is that 97% of both men and women are excluded in the most basic sense from church life, and most members of most churches are denied access to the pulpit. There is loads of literature out there about the alienation of men (the male sort) from church, and, while this may not be down to inclusive language in most cases, the "feminisation" of Christianity in the widest sense is often cited as one factor.
In other words, if what we have been calling "inclusive language" is the entry into "making church better for everyone, male and female alike, especially the vast majority of both genders who currently feel that the church has nothing to offer them", and herstory can be consigned to the herstorical archives, sign me up!
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Well I'm going to ignore some trailing coat tails here, pausing only briefly to say that I think the 'herstory' issue is nothing to do with the church. With that one exception, I agree with the sentiments expressed in your final paragraph.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
To call traditional language 'mistranslation' on this particular issue is simply an eccentricity.
"On this particular issue"?
The trouble is, we don't translate "issues", we translate texts. And in the particular instance we were talking about earlier - the use of the word "anthropos" or its relatives to talk about the whole human race in the Creeds and in the New Testament - the traditional English "man" simply is a mistranslation. Quite unarguably.
And Don Carson says so too, so he must be an Evil Feminist as well ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
But of course, an eccentricity that has nothing to do with feminism (at least according to some posters, I read with incredulity)
See above...
quote:
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.
Well, no, we made the change because it was the right thing to do.
Some of us then went on to make other changes because they seemed the right thing to do as well - for example the changing of "king" to "sovereign" (which never made sense to me, if either is offensive they are both equally offensive I think!) or the use of female language about God, or the complete removal of sex-sterotyping language entirely.
This thread would be much more sensible if we were talking about those - though I suspect almost all of us would in fact agree.
quote:
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),
[QUOTE][QB]
I use it because that's the way I grew up speaking
Using "man" and "he" to include women? I don't believe you grew up speaking like that unless you are over a thousand years old. (& even then not "he")
You might have later been talk to write like that in certain formal contexts (though I never was & I supect I'm older than you). And you may have found that was the style used in legal language. But I doubt if you grew up speaking that way.
And I certainly have no trouble believing that you grew up used to those forms being used in special churchy language - along with thee and thou and lots of other bits of slightly old-fashioned English. But I strongly doubt that it was the normal way of speaking in normal conversation in Australia in any of our lifetimes.
quote:
Now some of the arguments for change to inclusive language are wrong and wrong-headed, and some are quite sensible.
Well yes. And at least partly because there is no one thing that is "inclusive language". There are probably 5 or 6 different kinds of thing known by the name "inclusive language" and at least 3 or 4 motives for wanting to use one or more of them.
And a serious & sensible discussion of them wouod require examples - not "All users of inclusive language (TM) are Strident Hysterical Feminazis" but "How would you want to say this in church, or see that translated into English, and why?"
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
pausing only briefly to say that I think the 'herstory' issue is nothing to do with the church.
I got it from the "feminist theology" website I linked to somewhere else.
quote:
Herstory: Women in Herstory (of Church)
is what it says. Googling "church herstory" throws up over 20,000 links, and the first page are all classics. Here is one I found on about page 3:
quote:
Herstory and Heresy:
A Womanist/Feminist Perspective on Jesus
by
Abby Noll
Episcopal Action Briefing,
The Institute on Religon and Democracy
The church's traditional theology and practice are garbage
Dr. Delores Williams declared that the special task of feminist theologians is to be the church's "theological garbage collectors," adding that"someone's got to take out the trash"--"trash" referring to the church's traditional theology and practice.
[snip]
Feminist theology holds an immanent view of God, rejecting God's transcendence and sovereignty.
I don't think the website is particularly positive towards herstory, but are you still going to tell me that this position doesn't exist, and isn't alive and well in some denominational hierarchies? I'm happy to dig through the other 19,000 hits as time permits, and something tells me I could find a few shipmates with whom to share the task.
And note in passing that the speaker makes sweeping generalisations about feminist theology, singular. Of course not every woman or every feminist who does theology agrees, but there is a commonly held definition of feminist theology. Here is one university offering a course in the subject. It's as well-defined as liberation theology (to which not every Christian interested in liberation subscribes). I can only assume that those who have repeatedly claimed that I'm putting up Aunt Sallies are unaware of recent developments in theological education. Somewhere I have a set of notes on feminist theology from the college where I am studying, feminist theology being presented as an option at the same level as "charismatic theology" and "reformed theology".
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
The point is that feminism and Church History are not necessarily connected but, almost inevitably, historians who care about feminism will want to review what is known of Church History in the light of such ideas. Because, as I've commented before, that is what historians tend to do. Similarly, Church History has also been revisited in relation to new thinking on anti-semitism and inter-faith relations, as hotly commented upon in another thread.
--------------------
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
OK, "not necessarily connected" is fine by me.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Looking at church history with a particular set of questions is fine by me too, it's a well-worn academic route. I'm particularly fond of Bosch's "church history from the perspective of mission", and (in my dreams), I'd love to write a church history from the perpective of evangelists (rather than ministers). Women bring different questions and different experiences to the Bible, and looking at those questions and experiences is enriching for everyone.
Trashing traditional theology wholesale, on the other hand, as suggested in the above quote, is single-issue madness, and it sounds like we are agreeing on this point.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
.. and it sounds like we are agreeing on this point.
Again???!! ![[Eek!]](eek.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
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
Just to add that this afternoon I was demonstrating a big laser printer to our pastor, and the longish document I had to hand was one of my essays from a couple of years back, comparing preaching styles in various local churches. I've just picked up the copy, and, in conclusion about the Catholic church, I seem to have written
quote:
Did it work? Not for me, but then I felt excluded from the outset by the preacher's terms of reference.
Hmm... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Melon posted
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did it work? Not for me, but then I felt excluded from the outset by the preacher's terms of reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm...
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Herstory and Heresy:
A Womanist/Feminist Perspective on Jesus
by
Abby Noll
Episcopal Action Briefing,
The Institute on Religon and Democracy
Hmm... Isn't that interesting?
A "feminist" document, quoted by the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
Melon, are you familiar with your source here? I wouldn't trust them any farther than I could throw them.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
Looking at church history with a particular set of questions is fine by me too, it's a well-worn academic route. I'm particularly fond of Bosch's "church history from the perspective of mission", and (in my dreams), I'd love to write a church history from the perpective of evangelists (rather than ministers). Women bring different questions and different experiences to the Bible, and looking at those questions and experiences is enriching for everyone.
Trashing traditional theology wholesale, on the other hand, as suggested in the above quote, is single-issue madness, and it sounds like we are agreeing on this point.
You can count me into this agreement as well.
It is helpful, I think, to remember that the changes in the ways both society in general and the church regard women are still extremely new. Have there been excesses in feminism? Yes. Are there feminists who say stupid and indefensible, not to mention deeply offensive, things? Of course. But if we threw out every field of study where these things are true there would be none left.
Fibonacci's Number: Brava!
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
in 2005 women, as individuals and as quasi-political groups, can be the oppressors, that men can be the victims, and that in some domains, it is often that way round.
One of the uglier truths about oppression is that people who have been oppressed sometimes become the worst oppressors at their first opportunity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I hate to be picky just as peace is breaking out, and men and women are preparing to climb out of the trenches and play football together, but there are still things that I don't understand. Melon: quote:
In that case, couldn't we call it "appropriate language", or maybe just "competent communication"? "Inclusive language" implies that women are otherwise excluded and men are included, and both statements are misleading.
In what way? Plenty of women have posted here to say they do feel excluded by exclusive language; why invent a new term when there is no need?
quote:
There is loads of literature out there about the alienation of men (the male sort) from church, and, while this may not be down to inclusive language in most cases, the "feminisation" of Christianity in the widest sense is often cited as one factor.
What do you mean by the "feminisation" of Christianity? I've seen it used in various ways, which makes it hard to agree or disagree with your point here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Fibonacci's Number:
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.
As many others have said, it's not about a political agenda, it's about unconsidered stereotype assumptions.
Some suggested edits for that last sentence:
'unconsidered'. Deserves to be replaced with considered. That is, people have thought about it during the time period that Melon suggests.
You mean people have considered it, and decided "yep, women are subordinate, so this kind of exclusive language is quite appropriate"? OK.
quote:
'stereotype'. Delete this word. Meaningless. Perhaps replace with 'blah' to make the same point.
Can't add much to what others have already said. This just seems to be spurious provocation ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
'assumptions'. Yes, OK. People argue for their position on the basis of certain assumptions.
Obviously my choice of language isn't conveying my meaning accurately.
How about we scrap "unconscious stereotype assumptions" and substitute "conscious or subconscious gender-role stereotyping"? (Feel free to substitute "prejudices" for "stereotyping".)
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The trouble is, we don't translate "issues", we translate texts. And in the particular instance we were talking about earlier - the use of the word "anthropos" or its relatives to talk about the whole human race in the Creeds and in the New Testament - the traditional English "man" simply is a mistranslation. Quite unarguably.
You are misunderstanding and oversimplifying a complex linguistic issue. Firstly, here is the Liddell-Scott dictionary entry for anthropos. Depending on the context, this word can mean "a male adult" or "a generic human being". Note also that if used with a female definite article, the word can mean "woman".
I emphasise the importance of literary context in establishing the precise meaning of the original Greek. A word means what it does in the context of the sentence in which it is used.
As far as the meaning in English goes, it is undoubtedly true that older English sometimes used "man" or the plural "men" with the semantic sense of generic adult human being(s). However, it is also true that this linguistic usage is now deemed incorrect by certain groups and the New RSV.
In my opinion, although this linguistic usage is now less popular, it is far from dying out, especially in more formal writing and speaking. I hear it regularly on the TV and in films, for example.
In more colloquial speech, the word "guy" has now taken on some of the meaning occupied by "man", especially when the semantic reference is not specifically to male adults. I have frequently heard the plural term "guys" applied to a mixed group of males and females, and even occasionally to a group of females alone.
Linguistically speaking, things have moved somewhat since the Supremes sang about My Guy.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
You are misunderstanding and oversimplifying a complex linguistic issue. Firstly, here is the Liddell-Scott dictionary entry for anthropos. Depending on the context, this word can mean "a male adult" or "a generic human being". Note also that if used with a female definite article, the word can mean "woman".
[ahem]
That's why I wrote: "the use of the word "anthropos" or its relatives to talk about the whole human race"
Obviusly if it is being used in some other way we translate it appropriately
[fixed code]
[ 24. June 2005, 21:16: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
but are you still going to tell me that this position doesn't exist, and isn't alive and well in some denominational hierarchies?
No but we are going to tell you that this position isn't neccessary for the attitudes to inclusive language that most of us here have.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's why I wrote: "the use of the word "anthropos" or its relatives to talk about the whole human race"
Obviusly if it is being used in some other way we translate it appropriately
You've missed my point. There's no argument from me about what the Greek means. The argument is about the best way to render the Greek into English, and in particular, whether the English words "man" and "men" are allowed to carry the semantic sense of humanity generally and generic human beings.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
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.
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.
There's a good case for arguing that ALL theology is written from the perspective of a persecuted miority - certainly the Jews saw themselves as called by God despite being a marginalised middle eastern group; the early Christians saw themselves mainly as poor (as Paul said in 1 Corinthians) yet redeemed.
The gospel IS divisive as proclaimed by Him who said He had come, not to bring peace, but a sword.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The gospel IS divisive as proclaimed by Him who said He had come, not to bring peace, but a sword.
Do you really think the sword He spoke of was for the division of people along gender or racial lines?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I always took it to mean along cultural lines. But Jesus did always enjoy breaching cultural taboos by talking to women and giving them equality of status. That must have been pretty shocking at the time.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The gospel IS divisive as proclaimed by Him who said He had come, not to bring peace, but a sword.
Do you really think the sword He spoke of was for the division of people along gender or racial lines?
No, but divisive between the 'poor' who are blessed, and the powerful. It just so happens that white peoples have been more powerful than black peoples and men more so than women.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fibonacci's Number
Shipmate
# 2183
|
Posted
The gospel's divisive in many ways, but particularly when it challenges power structures and "the way we've always done things round here". It's divisive in the very fact that it includes people who have traditionally been excluded. In that context, it divides the powerful into those who are threatened by that change and those who embrace it.
This seems to be exactly the way that inclusive language is "divisive". So Leo's parallel seems pretty apt. (If I've understood correctly.)
--------------------
We can't do anything about the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves.
Banksy,
Banging Your Head Against a Brick Wall
Posts: 267 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I hate to be picky just as peace is breaking out, and men and women are preparing to climb out of the trenches and play football together
or netball if the girls prefer!
quote:
but there are still things that I don't understand. Melon: quote:
In that case, couldn't we call it "appropriate language", or maybe just "competent communication"? "Inclusive language" implies that women are otherwise excluded and men are included, and both statements are misleading.
In what way? Plenty of women have posted here to say they do feel excluded by exclusive language; why invent a new term when there is no need?
Because if "inclusive" assumes that women are currently excluded and men are currently included, it is dangerously misleading. As I said above, exclusion from church is currently running at about 97% for women and 98% for men on the most obvious measure (ie who ever goes through the door) and the picture among those inside is pretty mixed too.
I'm very happy with including the concerns of women alongside the concerns of any number of other groups, including those of white heterosexual men, but if it's a one-way "women are oppressed, men are oppressors" issue I'm afraid I'm not interested. Of course the words "inclusive" and "language" can be used in sentences that don't assume the gender of who is to be included, but that isn't how the term has been used in this thread, or, I would suggest, how it is used in general.
In the dying stages of this thread, we've suddenly started to say that, for example, the link between herstory-style feminism and inclusive language is "not necessary" rather than "total bollocks". If that had been stated a few times at the outset, rather than repeatedly denying that any possible link could ever exist in the mind of any rational person, the thread might be a few pages shorter. Plenty of men react badly to herstory as told by wimmin. Of course not everyone proposing inclusive language has also signed up for that agenda, but being repeatedly told that one never drives the other is just not credible. Here is another page to admire - it's less rabid than some, but the bits about inclusive language are clearly inextricably linked to the bullet points containing the word "feminist'. And, as a man, I can't see how I can view that agenda as anything other than alienating. Everyone is welcome, but the terms are to be set by feminist theology and feminist everything else. It's a manifesto for an "Inclusive Divide", or maybe women giving men a taste of their own medicine, but certainly not a "why can't we all be friends?" sort of consensus.
quote:
What do you mean by the "feminisation" of Christianity? I've seen it used in various ways, which makes it hard to agree or disagree with your point here.
The way that traditionally female characteristics are valued, while traditionally male ones are often despised, the way the whole system typically relies on sitting around talking rather than doing something (one of the best articles I have ever read about getting men to "share" was by a pastor who had decided to conduct his ministry in the passenger seat of combine harvesters or underneath truck gearboxes), the way Sunday morning now clobbers a lot of other interesting male activities, and the way that, whatever the pronouns, what happens on a Sunday morning seems to have remarkably little to do with the rest of life (which, I would suggest, is more of a problem for men than for women as men typically place less value on "sharing" as an end in itself, especially with a female-majority audience). Whatever you think of Promise Keepers (and I'm not especially a fan myself), it is hard to deny that the movement has struck a chord for a lot of people.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
As far as I know, inclusive language is inclusive of everybody, therefore it relates to feminism, just as 'herstory' relates to feminism, but to say that 'herstory' is behind the drive to inclusive language is confusing causes with effects IMHO.
The reason why there is a particular difficulty to inclusive language and feminism is because the English language has a built-in assumption that maleness is the 'norm'. Therefore making language inclusive of femaleness involve a certain amount of linguistic awkwardness, of which 'herstory' is ,as far as I'm aware a fairly tongue-in-cheek example. Many people can see the argument for 'Why', but the 'How' of it is difficult and off-putting, which is one reason why many people think it's better not to go down that road.
In proof of the idea that 'inclusion' is about including everybody, may I just quote this from the FEFC's 1996 "Inclusive Learning Report" (aka "The Tomlinson report")
“By inclusive learning we mean the greatest degree of match or fit between how learners learn best, what they need and want to learn, and what is required from the sector, a college and teachers for successful learning to take place."
So we could say that inclusive worship is about getting a match/fit between how people want and need to worship coupled with our understanding of what is necessary to worship - which will differ from church to church, will it?
--------------------
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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
.......Meanwhile, in celebration of our greater awareness of inclusiveness, our choir has decided to rename the book which we sing out of on Sundays. It is henceforward to be known as the 'It book'...... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
In proof of the idea that 'inclusion' is about including everybody, may I just quote this
You may quote it, and it is interesting and encouraging, but it doesn't prove anything. We seem to have a basic disagreement about how the semantic field of words is defined.
IMO, the dictionary or "official" definitions are of limited interest. If everyone now thinks that "loose" means the same as "lose", and that "disinterested" means the same as "uninterested", that's what most people mean by the words, and it's perverse to insist on reading them as if people are using them to mean what they "should" mean.
Some uses of "inclusive language" are clearly and closely linked to classic feminist rhetoric, and none of the hits I get for "church herstory" display any hint that the use of "herstory" is ironic (in fact, dare I say that they display no hint of any form of humour?). Most of them are the herstory of specific congregations.
The position now being described by you and others seems reasonable and nuanced. What I've been trying to say all along is that a lot of people of both genders are put off by extreme positions of people using the same words. And it seems to me that the reasonable, nuanced people really need to distance themselves from the nutters if they don't want to be confused with them.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
.......Meanwhile, in celebration of our greater awareness of inclusiveness, our choir has decided to rename the book which we sing out of on Sundays. It is henceforward to be known as the 'It book'......
If this isn't a joke, I rest my case! Oh, and I want to be taken for burial in a hist.
[ 27. June 2005, 13:23: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
We seem to have a basic disagreement about how the semantic field of words is defined... IMO, the dictionary or "official" definitions are of limited interest. If everyone now thinks that "loose" means the same as "lose", and that "disinterested" means the same as "uninterested", that's what most people mean by the words, and it's perverse to insist on reading them as if people are using them to mean what they "should" mean.
ISTM that you're the one being perverse. Admittedly dictionary definitions sometimes need to be treated with caustion, particularly in English, where, becasue of the breadth of vocabulary available, words often have 'flavours' that affect their meaning.
As regards how you read certain words where the usage appears to be changing - well, when I see the word "uninterested", I might wonder whether the writer meant "disinterested" - it's usally easy enough to tell from the context. As a teacher, I still mark pupils' work accordingly, explaining the difference where necessary.
You see, the trouble with your approach - which appears to be to ignore the dictionary and go by 'common' usage - is that you can then argue over what is common usage or "what most people mean". Again and again on this thread you have made contentious statements along the lines of: "When feminists say X of course they really mean Y". That's why dictionaries are still useful - because they're relatively objective.
--------------------
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
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Melon:
...none of the hits I get for "church herstory" display any hint that the use of "herstory" is ironic (in fact, dare I say that they display no hint of any form of humour?).
Maybe it's the word 'church' that's the problem. Wikipedia has, as part of its definition: “Herstory …. The term originates as a pun on the word history, replacing "his" story with "her" story. ….It should also be noted that this term, when used by the overwhelming majority of feminists is meant in jest rather than from an actual desire to change the standard spelling of the word.” (My emphasis.) But, of course, who would bother to check with a dictionary when we have Melon to tell us - What words mean
- What people who use those words mean
And in the Google Top 10, we have: - Herstory … the place for grrrls online
- Women of Achievement and Herstory from undelete.org
"The Oldest and Largest Herstory Site on the Internet - and we're proud of it!" Includes the slogan: “MARCH IS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH!” (My emphasis) - A lesbian site that has a link to “Other Queer sites”
No sign of any humour there, no sir.
--------------------
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
If you type in "herstory" without "church", you get a different set of results. Do I need to unpack this explanation? If you do "church herstory", you get, in order,
http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/herstory.htm
http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/conclave/
http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/hist2.htm
http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/hist.htm
http://www.axesandalleys.com/Index/aa002/birdseye1.html
http://www.quixote.org/cso/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=15
http://www.shenpres.org/HerStoryFiles/herstory.html
http://www.eewc.com/Update/Summer2001.htm
and
http://www.soromundi.org/herstory.html
Which of these would you say was the most rib-tickling? (The "Soromundi Lesbian Chorus of Eugene" made me smile, but probably not for the right reasons).
The origins of words are terribly interesting I'm sure, but not an infallible guide to common usage. "Incredible" and "fantastic" both used to mean something like "implausible", but if someone tells me that Star Wars III was fantastic and incredible, they are probably not doubting the existence of the film or the cinema, or even of the plot.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
What exactly is your point Melon? because even after reading all of this, I still don't get it!
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
My point in today's posts, which I really didn't expect to be controversial, is that "inclusive language" ranges from stuff that most people could agree on at once to stuff that many people would consider to be bonkers (see Chorister's last post for an example which we surely all agree merits that term), that it is promoted by groups ranging from mainstream to the far side of schismatic, and that, for many churchgoers, the acceptability of inclusive language depends partly on whether there is clear water between the bonkers schismatic and the mainstream consensual types.
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
You see, the trouble with your approach - which appears to be to ignore the dictionary and go by 'common' usage - is that you can then argue over what is common usage or "what most people mean".
The problem with yours is that the vast majority of people never look up the vast majority of words that they use, so, unless you are proposing a very very strong version of Chomsky's LAD hypothesis, where the lexis is hardwired (and presumably synched with a central dictionary), they must operate by looking at common usage. Also, isn't insisting on the officially defined usage of words rather kyriarchical? (I learned this word from one of the links above.)
[ 27. June 2005, 14:44: Message edited by: Melon ]
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
Fair comment.
I think that Choristers post was tongue in cheek though wasn't it? I surely hope so!
I don't think many people would argue for inclusive language to go that far, but you are correct in that there is a wide range of views ranging from the perfectly reasonable to the completely bonkers.
I think that QLib has tried to point out though (on several occasions) that feminism - like all civil rights movements, does not have a central core school of thought, but a wide range of ideas, and so when you say "Feminist Rhetoric says X" you are misrepresenting it in the same way that Malcom X's views were not representative of Martin Luther King's views, although they had the same overview, which is that change needed to happen.
How much change needs to happen, seems to me to be the question here, but I do believe that it does.
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Tongue in cheek, yes. But also borne out of frustration at getting used to our new inclusive hymnbook. Or herbook. Or something.....
(Choristers usually get used to something different eventually - they just enjoy having a good moan about it on the way )
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
