More Difference in Translating

There are many identifiable differences in translating by some of the traditional (masculinist) methods and by the marginalized (feminist rhetorical) methods. In the dissertation, I've had to list a slew of these differences because our scholarship and our culture in the Western academic world blindly favors the traditional (masculinist) methods.

With no illustration below, here's just one contrast:

traditional translation

The translator’s gender is unmarked. And yet because unmarked, the male gender is default especially because no woman has to date published a translation of Aristotle’s treatise on Rhetoric. More than that the translators’ methods have been exclusively and exclusionarily masculinist and Aristotelian, employing opposition, dichotomy, and cerebration.

marginalized translating

The translator may be female or male but employs (intentionally or otherwise) feminist, rhetorical critical methodologies for the translating. “Preference [is] for relation over opposition, plurality over dichotomy, embodiment over cerebration: Montaigne’s begins to sound like a feminist project. Which is not to say that Montaigne was a feminist.” (Mairs 75)