Also the God of Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel

I received a fascinating tutorial letter (9 pages) in today's mail from UNISA (Faculty of Theology and Biblical Religions).

It says in part:

"Dear Student

The Faculty of Theology wants to encourgage all students and lecturers to use inclusive language. This tutorial letter gives a brief outline of the grounds for our decision, as well as guidelines on how it can be implemented.

Inclusive language is the opposite language of sexist (exclusive) language. Sexist language is characterised by the use of exclusively male forms of language when referring to women as well as men (for example words such as manpower, the use of only male pronouns, et cetera.) It is also characterised by the use of stereotyped and condescending terms when referring to women and their role in society (for example referring to women as the weaker sex) (Adey et al. 1989.226)

There are various reasons for regarding sexist language as unacceptable, and why we wish to encourage the use of inclusive language. We mention only the two which we consider to be the most important.

(1) The language we use when we write or converse does not only conform to grammatical and/or orthographic conventions. Our language reflects the social reality of our context. For this reason there is a continual interplay between our use of language and the social structures in which we exist. Thus sexist language reflects and confirms sexist social structures (in the same way that racist language confirms racist structures.) These sexist structures are increasingly being experienced as oppressive and humiliating by both women and men. Consequently there are at least two reasons for using inclusive language:

(a) The use of inclusive language is one way in which we can oppose humiliating and oppressive social structures.

(b) If we wish to communicate effectively when we write or speak, we should avoid using language that is offensive to a large part of our audience or reading public (adey et al. 1989:226).

(2) Sexist language rests on assumptions which in some cases are no longer valid, for example the assumption that man can be used to indicate both females and males (as in the word manpower). In the past two decades much research has been done on the meaning of man when used in this way. According to one of the current dictionary meanings, the word man is still supposed to refer to people of both sexes. The research indicates indisputably, however, that at a deeper level of understanding the word evokes only the image of an adult male person (Miller and Swift 1989:11-44, especially 163-165 where all the reports are mentioned; also Adey et al. 1989:226-227). Even people who still use man in the broader sense are often not consistent in the meaning they attach to the word and, almost unconsciously, they attach the newer, more exclusive meaning to it: "Writers who persist in using man in its old sense often slip unconsciously from the general meaning to the limited one. The switch, unfortunately, is rarely discernible to their readers who have no way of telling that generalizations about human beings have become generalizations about males" (Miller & Swift 1989:15). We acknowledge the reality that the use of words has a certain history, and that in the past man was correctly used to indicate both female and male people. The meanings of words are, however, not determined by history to such an extent that they can never change again. In the society in which we live the meaning of man has already changed. We therefore have to eliminate this and other sexist usages in the interest of better communication."

The guidelines are limited to the use of male pronouns, nouns, et cetera when referring to people. We are not going to provide specific guidelines pertaining to the "gender" of God. This should not be taken to mean that we feel that the use of male pronouns for God is not problematic. The case for the use of inclusive language should encourage all of us to think deeply about the images and metaphors when we speak about God. In this regard we want to draw your attention to the many female images used with reference to God in the Bible. So for example, God is described as a woman giving birth (Is 42:14;46:3-4); and as a mother (Is 49:15; Dt 32:11-12). Jesus compared himself to a hen with chickens (Matt 23:37). We are of the opinion, though, that the "gender" of God is a very sensitive issue which should rather be taken up at department level and/or by individual students/lecturers. The same applies to specifically male biblical metaphors, for example Psalm 8, where the metaphor used is that of a king with his foot on the neck of his defeated enemy. We do not wish to "edit out" these metaphors with their specific historical and cultural connotations. Lecturers and students will have to decide for themselves how to deal with such metaphors."

This part has me wondering:

"Another source of sexism in language is the use of terms to refer to women. "Girls" and "ladies" are generally found unacceptable , unless one is in truth referring to juvenille females or the consorts of lords, and condesending, patronising and/or demaning nomenclature should be avoided"

I never would have thought that referring to women as ladies could be considered offensive.

A couple of pages of guidlines and:

"A final point we wish to reaise in this regard concerns the matter of our "fathers" in the faith, the heroes of the Christian faith. Generally we refer to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. he was, of course, also the God of Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel. The heros of the Christian faith, the "cloud of witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1, include women as well as men. This is another area therefore we should guard against sexistic stereotypes."

 

Someone must have threatened to sue them over the use of such language. Seems like a tardy case of CYA.

 

What if we prefer humiliating and oppressive social structures (like grad school, for instance)?

 

What about when my drill sargent called us ladies? I'm gonna sue!!!
Oh! Wait. Sue is a ladies name, oh gosh now I really blew it. I can't call the girls ladies, ooops I mean women.



Kevin

 

>> (b) If we wish to communicate effectively when we write or
>> speak, we should avoid using language that is offensive to a
>> large part of our audience or reading public (Adey et al.
>> 1989:226).

Depends on your goals, doesn't it? If you want to pick a fight with someone, offensive language might be highly effective. I suppose theologians wouldn't want to pick a fight, but they might want to shock people out of their complacency. (I'd have expected a reference to Jesus rather than to "Adey et al.")

>> "Girls" and "ladies" are generally found unacceptable,
>> unless one is in truth referring to juvenille females or the
>> consorts of lords, and condesending, patronising and/or
>> demaning nomenclature should be avoided"
>
> I never would have thought that referring to women as ladies
> could be considered offensive.

It can. If you say "Feminists want more rights for ladies" when you mean "for women", I promise you feminists will be offended. "Women" is the feminine of "men." But these theologians are overstating the case. "Ladies" is the feminine of "gentlemen" as well as of "lords".

>> Generally we refer to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac
>> and Jacob. He was, of course, also the God of Sarah, Rebecca
>> and Rachel.

They left out a wife. "[...] increasingly prayer books are providing alternative versions of the Amidah that include the Matriarchs in this format: 'Praised are You Lord our God and God of our ancestors, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah.'"
-- http://www.bethjudea.org/HVL/February_Word_Column.htm
In the prayer book used in my local synagogue (and I'm sure in many Reform Jewish synagogues nationwide), that's the only version.

 

I wouldn't call "ladies" (as a form of address) sexist, exactly, but it has never sounded quite right to me (except in "Ladies and gentlemen..."). It's something I almost never hear a woman use to address other women ("Come on, ladies, let's go!"), while "gentlemen" is more regularly used among men, so it's one of those words that highlights "otherness."


Cheers,

 

As a man who has had the pleasure of spending his entire adult working life in a field that is dominated by smart, ambitious, educated, assertive and sometimes outspoken women, I'd like to think that I've had an idea or two driven into my thick male skull. (You can see the process at work already, can't you?) Here's my take on this subject:
1. "girl" is a term that suggests a subservient distinction in the area of age. A girl is a child. A man in an adult. Adults rule the world, right? If you call a woman a girl you are suggesting a hierarchical relationship.
2. "lady" is a term that suggests either a certain prescribed type of behavior or it suggests a certain social class. It suggests that you treat "ladies" differently than other females. Definitely not PC. All "people" should be treated equally.
This has been a public service announcement.
(the author accepts no liability in cases or situations where cultural evolution has progressed at a different rate or direction)

Jack

 

Shouldn't it be Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Keturah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah?

Tony

 

UI&U has a non-sexist language policy. It's not all that hard to be inclusive in one's language. It would be nice to have more neutral pronouns, though.

I agree with the notion that "girls" and "ladies" are perjorative. As an Air Force ROTC instructor, about 25-30% of my cadet corps was made up of women. I'd have to correct both male and female cadets about the use of those two words. It was important to have them realize that men and women were equal, and that language should be used to support that idea.

It's not very hard, and it serves a good purpose.

 

Anthony Pina wrote:

> Shouldn't it be Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Keturah, Isaac,
> Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Leah, Zilpah and Bilhah?

Touché! There's just so much good material in Genesis, isn't there?

Rich Douglas wrote:

> It's not all that hard to be inclusive in one's language. It
> would be nice to have more neutral pronouns, though.

You have it easy in English. I did my Master's at a bilingual university (University of Ottawa), and they went through horrible contortions to be gender-inclusive in French. A sign in the Registrar's Office read in English "Present your student card", and in French "Presenter votre carte d’étudiant ou d’étudiante."

 

Dear Tom:

Hey Tom,

I have never considered this before. I use the address often, and although I have never had a comment about it, I wonder if you aren't right. Can you say more about this? Do you mean that it highlights "otherness" in an exclusive way, or in a non-complementary way, somehow? I have been used to thinking of it as a kind of dignified address...

Chris

 

"In the prayer book used in my local synagogue (and I'm sure in many Reform Jewish synagogues nationwide), that's the only version."

Yeah, we're doing this too. We added the matriarchs during the amidah. God, however, remains stubbornly male in the Hebrew.

When we start praying to a FEMALE God, I'll start thinking we mean it.

Nosborne, JD

 

"Otherness" is a great way to put it. When I went into the Air Force in 1977 (at the ripe old age of 18), I was struck by two routine examples of "otherness." Because the Air Force was dominated by white males, one would often hear "others" having their "otherness" specifically referred to. We'd hear things like "the black sergeant in Personnel."

One that was really weird was referring to women as "WAF captain" or "WAF sergeant." The WAF (Women's Air Force) was eliminated long before, with women being augmented into the Regular Air Force. But the need for some people to distinguish between "captains" and "WAF captains" persisted into the early '80's. It's mostly gone, but I remember hearing references to "female sergeants" and "female majors" up until I retired in 1996. I never understood the need to make those distinctions, and I think it undermined the need for inclusiveness in any military organization.

 

Considering the whole French language is based on gender, why would they even try? I thought the whole stupid exercise was an Anglo thing.

 

carte d’étudiant ou d’étudiante

If you search the Web for carte d’étudiant ou d’étudiante, you'll see that all the instances are in French Canada, none in France. There are countries where such issues are not regarded at all; my wife, who is from Mexico, habitually says things like "We're boyfriends" meaning "We're boyfriend and girlfriend."

As you say, Dennis, every noun in French (and Spanish, and other modern Romance languages) is either masculine or feminine. I haven't heard of any attempt to monkey with the gender of inanimate objects; the problem is apparently only with use of the masculine to refer to female persons.

To me, it almost beggars belief that a female student would feel "left out" by having her student card called une carte d’étudiant. But what do I know?

 

German language is similar. Everything is based on gender. Der, Die, Das; ein, eine, einen; mein, meine, minen, etc... Spanish as well... It is an Anglo thing by and large I think.


Kevin

 

Good question!

Not necessarily--I think most uses of the word are benign and spoken with the best of intentions, and that in fact this sort of thing may be expected in certain contexts. (I should mention here that I sometimes use "lady" myself, usually with tongue firmly planted in cheek, so I wouldn't put it on the same level as, say, a racial slur.) But what intrigues me about the word is that it almost always points in one direction--a man calls a woman a lady, but a woman is far less likely to. Is this a concession made during a time when women had less autonomy--a way of specifically saying "I'm well-bred enough to respect women by choice"? Or does it imply that men should treat women differently than they treat other men, or differently than women treat other women? I don't think it's a cruel word at all (at least not in the way it's generally used), just an awkward one that does imply a sort of outsider status.

It also seems to have lost much of its original meaning. e.g., today we could say "The lady is a cannibalistic axe murderer" without sounding as if we're using the word incorrectly.


Cheers,

 

The most common use of the word "ladies" these days seems to be in sports. From CNN today: "Ladies face off in NCAA Final Four."

 

I was thinking of this in the Sporting sense: There is the Jazz and the "Lady Jazz", along with many others.

When I played basketball, we always said "Let's go ladies", "Watch the clock ladies", etc. Sexist, I think not.

Personally, I am beginning to get sick of hearing how everybody is feeling discriminated against, and how everything from wording to slogans, etc. are offensive - I think there are some real discrimination issues out there, and they sometimes get clouded by some reaching or CYA attempts. Whatever makes everybody happy, but the original post does seem like a CYA - I smell a lawsuit, or maybe a potential lawsuit.

But while saying that I also have heard at work, sweetie and darling, and one gentleman even said "Krissy-poo" - I guess that is the line with me

 

Spanish appears to have a much healthier approach to gender within its language. For instance, a women can wear a dress (masculine- el vestido "dress"), while men wear a shirt (feminine -la camisa "shirt"). Numerous examples exist throughout the language.

Those of us who are more faint of heart attempt to side-step the issue completely by pluralization, thereby converting the gender-based "he" and "she" to the neuter "they" and "them". Unfortunately, this often leads to the all-too-common grammatical mistake of singular-plural disagreement, as in the following:

"When A TEACHER attempts a new classroom innovation, THEY often encounter opposition".

Whenever I receive student papers with sentences like that, it makes me cringe (especially since nearly all of my students are teachers).

Tony Pina
CSU San Bernardino
(In addition to Instructional Technology, I have taught a fair number of college Spanish classes)