More Public Discussion: and some of my complaints

Suzanne, as you know there has been a lot of private discussion about these matters. So I will discuss it with you privately.
   -Peter Kirk

I've been away from the blog for a few days.  Do you know whether there have been private discussions?  Of course you don't.  Now that I'm back, I see that Peter Kirk has announced at his own blog that he's on vacation, that he won't be back until September.  This, to me, is important for several reasons.

First, if there's a public discussion here at this blog, I don't want to leave Peter out of a more public conversation that he may have started (even if he announces in public at my blog how he prefers for some things "private discussion").  Second, if there's discussion mentioning him, he should be able to speak for himself.  Third, Peter asked a question of me, which I haven't taken the time to answer as if I've had the time; but I think he deserves an answer before September.  Fourth, related to Peter's question, there's really a larger discussion going on at BBB, that's been stopped now.  Fifth, what happened at BBB is indicative of a larger problem we've already observed with bible-blogging in general, the fact that men and not women continue to dominate the bible "studies" blogger carnivals and the Top 50 listings, where Peter now finds himself comfortably and increasingly near the top.  Sixth, the general bible-blogging problem seems related to male privilege and to sexism and to mysogyny and to gynophobia.

Seventh, several have already noted particular issues for them, very likely because they are women.  For example, Suzanne notes:

"Naturally my comment will stand out as marked, because I am one woman among a large group of male bloggers."

 And Paula remarks:

"Right now, based on this conversation alone, all I can see is that Sue has a legitimate grievance of clear bias against only her discussing gender. If the BBB wants us to believe this isn't so, they can't hide their argument from public view."

And Kristen says:

"I made a couple of suggestions over there. But I'm leaving tomorrow on a trip and will be gone for about a week, so I won't see the results. Catch you when I get back! "

And Judith reads and then comments "over there":

"A nice carnival. Any real reason that all the women bloggers are down at the bottom in a group called ‘Miscellaneous’? As one of that pack, I’m curious…."

She gets an answer and then replies:

"Believe me, I know how much time it takes to put together a good carnival. So thanks very much for your work on this one. As I said, I was just curious how we all landed up in the same category of ‘Oddities’ "

Please observe
the oddities that Judith observes,
the extra work that Kristen must do,
the call for more public discussion that Paula has to make,
and the public markedness.
The markedness is what Suzanne
can't help but experience.

This is the experience of females, not males,
of women, not men,
in bible blogging.

So Peter, as one justifiably hypocritical man to another, asks me:

"Kurk, isn't it the pot calling the kettle black when on this all-male blog you complain about BBB being all-male? The only reason BBB is all-male is that, despite looking, we can't find a woman who wants to join it. But surely what matters in this case is not what body parts we possess but what we have to say.

I have written quite a lot about the phrase sometimes translated "husband of one wife". Last year I busted the myth that it was used of women. Five years ago I wrote a whole series about this phrase.

But there are other interesting topics in Bible translation, so at BBB we don't want every thread diverted into a discussion of gender."

Now, I reply:

"Peter, I am glad you worked to 'bust the myth' that the Greek phrases μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, mias gunaikos andra AND ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, henos andros gune were used exclusively for one sex but not the other.  You did that by blogging individually; and not in a team of bloggers as you're a member of at BBB.  Probably I should have pointed out that I don't blog with anybody else at my blog just as you don't at your Gentle Wisdom blog.  But I do value the comments of women as well as men.  I censor neither and try to allow the voices of all people of all genders to be expressed as the individuals commenting here would like.

Is my observation about the BBB team being all-male a complaint?  If so,

•  then my complaint is that you haven't looked hard enough to include women in your team of BBB bloggers.  
• My complaint is that you want the default and unmarked body parts to be male so then you can say, by male logic, that "surely what matters in this case is not what body parts we possess but what we have to say."  
• My complaint is that you all-male BBB bloggers censor a woman differently than you do a man.  
• My complaint is that you have rules for commenters that you apply rather unevenly and pretend that gender is not in view.  
• My complaint is that you all-men BBB bloggers say, 'Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback' but then you allow trackbacks, if seems, only if we don't use the g-word in our posts.  
• My complaint is not that all-you-males-and-only-males 'don't want every thread diverted into a discussion of gender.'  Rather, my complaint is that you use your maleness as if it's not gender to control who gets to say what and how.  
• My complaint is that you say you only want to 'discuss' such things in private while making rather public statements nonetheless here also at my blog."

Titus follows Paul who follows Aristotle: Who must the women follow?

The celebrated Greek virtue of self-control (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) has to be defined differently for men and for women, Aristotle maintains. Masculine sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη] is rational self-control and resistance to excess, but for the woman sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη] means obedience and consists in submitting herself to the control of others."

--Anne Carson, Men in the Off Hours

Today, my spouse and I visited a friend's church, where the preacher preached through Titus chapter 2.  "Titus" is the letter addressed to a young man from Crete named Titus written from the older man from Tarsus named Paul.  Titus is Paul's disciple.  Paul claims to be the disciple of Jesus from Nazareth but writes like a disciple of Aristotle from Athens.

Both Aristotle and Paul use the word sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη] differently for men, women, and slaves.

Below is what Aristotle wrote and then what Paul wrote. It's from Aristotle's Politics, translated by Harris Rackham, and from Paul's Titus, translated by the man-only team creating the English Standard Version of the Bible.  I've only inserted Aristotle's and Paul's word (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) into the English texts so you can see it in some similar contexts.  

Note the difference between (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) for men and women; and note the question and the implicit suggestion about slaves (whether males or females) -- Can slaves have (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη])?  No, it seems slaves really cannot have (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]).  

Note also how women (with children and slaves) are described as subject and subservient.  Note also how women are described as prone to chattering and slander (i.e., as having little (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) with respect to talking.)

Here goes:

Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues.... 

First of all then as to slaves the difficulty might be raised, does a slave possess any other excellence, besides his merits as a tool and a servant, more valuable than these, for instance (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]), have the courage, justice and any of the other moral virtues, or has he no excellence beside his bodily service? For either way there is difficulty; if slaves do possess moral virtue, wherein will they differ from freemen? or if they do not, this is strange, as they are human beings and participate in reason. And nearly the same is the question also raised about the woman and the child: have they too virtues, and ought a woman to be (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]), brave and just, and can a child be ([the opposite of] sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) or (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]), or not? This point therefore requires general consideration in relation to natural ruler and subject: is virtue the same for ruler and ruled, or different? If it is proper for both to partake in nobility of character, how could it be proper for the one to rule and the other to be ruled unconditionally? We cannot say that the difference is to be one of degree, for ruling and being ruled differ in kind, and difference of degree is not a difference in kind at all. Whereas if on the contrary it is proper for the one to have moral nobility but not for the other, this is surprising. For if the ruler is not (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) and just, how will he rule well? And if the ruled, how will he obey well?.... 

And therefore both these virtues are characteristic of a good man, even if (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) and justice in a ruler are of a different kind from (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) and justice in a subject; for clearly a good man's virtue, for example his justice, will not be one and the same when he is under government and when he is free, but it will be of different kinds, one fitting him to rule and one to be ruled, just as (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) and courage are different in a man and in a woman (for a man would be thought a coward if he were only as brave as a brave woman, and a woman a chatterer if she were only as modest as a good man; since even the household functions of a man and of a woman are different—his business is to get and hers to keep).

--Aristotle, Politics

¹But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. ²Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]), sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. ³ Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, ⁴and so (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]) the young women to love their husbands and children, ⁵to be (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]), pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. ⁶Likewise, urge the younger men to be (sophrosyne [σωφροσύνη]). ⁷Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, ⁸and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. ⁹ Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, ¹⁰not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

--Paul, "Titus"

trans-apparent HIM

Below I'm demonstrating the much-taken "approach" - but just one approach taken - in order to translate gender.

Suzanne explains that this all-too-common "approach is to infer that grammatical gender reflects an underlying gender which is could be ontological, representative or metaphorical, but, which, in any case, ought to be translated." She illustrates how "using a gendered pronoun [in English translation] can alter the literal meaning of a [Greek] clause, as it appears to do in John 1:3 [where 'the word', the actual antecedent to the English pronoun, is not masculine in any way except by Greek grammatical gender].

'All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.'"

I've added the italics to make clear the correspondences. As we all know, to make "the word" masculine in English (as with the pronoun "him") is very strange. (For background, Suzanne's conveniently posted, The Intrusive Pronoun: An Index.)

But let's give most English Bible translators a break. They commonly require absolute "faithfulness" to the original text. (Never mind that they require a merely apparent faithfulness to the Greek. Never mind their faux faithfulness. Never mind their faithfulness to gender in grammar alone - masculine grammatical gender - that defies ontology, representation, and metaphor. Never mind that theirs is a faithfulness in translation that does not allow the writer, John, wordplay later in his text -- as in John 1 verse 14 here, in which the writer gives "the word" its "flesh," which is, of course, female flesh in John's Greek, grammar femaleness that is: σὰρξ, "the masculine word became feminine flesh; ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο." Never mind the wordplay.)

Below my illustration of this typical but absolutely "faithful" approach is a demonstration by the translation of Mark 4:13-20. This is one passage that Bible translators must get absolutely right. After all, it is the absolutely exact explanation of a wordplayful parable of the absolute Teacher. If our translation falls by the wayside, then we absolutely miss "him the word" indeed.

Please note that I'm also adding another absolute "faithfulness" in the common approach to translation of the Greek: transliteration of the words. Therefore: I give here not only (A) a very faithful "translation" of the masculine gender of the pronoun but I also provide (B) a very very faithful "translation" of the sounds of Greek using TRANSLITERATION OF GREEK SOUNDS IN CAPITAL ENGLISH LETTERS [with translator explanations in brackets]. The reader, then, gets (C) absolutely faithful "transparency" to the Greek language of Mark. The translation is a faithful (A) trans-lation of the Greek male pronoun; a fixed (B) trans-literation of the Greek male sounds; and the trans-apparent rigidly Greek language of JE-SUS.

(We'll just ignore the fact that Mark does not so faithfully "translate" or "transcribe" the grammatical gender of pronouns and the true sounds of the speaker's spoken Hebrew Aramaic. I boast here: "I am doing a better job in translation of Mark's Greek than Mark does in translation of the Jewish Joshua's Aramaic"! Please read the sarcasm here. Please know that I'm not disrespecting "THE WORD" but rather am poking fun at TECHNICAL BIBLE "TRANS-LATION" APPROACHES. Here goes.)

-------

¹³And HE [implied pronoun] said TO HIM AND TO HIM [figuratively, "to them"],

Do YOU MEN have no IDEA [from "eido"] what the meaning is of this PARA-BOWLED story [technically = "parable" with one and only one main meaning]?

And how then will YOU MEN GYKNOW [from "knowledge"=gnosko] all PARA-BLEs?

¹⁴ The SPERMER [lit. "sower of seed"] SPERMS the LOGOS [lit. "word"].

¹⁵And in the first place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the PARA-ODOS [in contrast to "Exodos"; lit. "those alongside the way"], where the LOGOS is SPERMED;

but when THESE MEN have ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVED [lit. "hear"; fig. "get it in the ear"],

then SATAN [note: "we all know who HE is"] comes EU-THEOS [rhymes in Greek with 'good god'; lit. "immediately"],

and HE ERECTS [lit. "lifts up"] the LOGOS that was SPERMED in the KARDIA [fig. "hearts"] of HIM AND HIM.

¹⁶And in the second place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the EPI-PETER [lit. "on the rock"] SPERMED; who, when HE and HE have ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVED the LOGOS, receive HIM EU-THEOS with CHARA [lit. "joy"];

¹⁷And HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are the possessed by a root in HIMSELF AND HIMSELF,

and HE AND HE [fig. "they"] so endures but for a PROS--> KAIROS [fig. "a time"]:

afterward, when affliction or persecution has that GENESIS of HIM AND HIM [fig. "them"] for the sake of the LOGOS,

then EU-THEOS immediately HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SKANDALIZED.

¹⁸And in the third place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SPERMED among thorns; such ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVE the LOGOS,

¹⁹And the cares of this AGE [αἰῶνος], and the deceitfulness of riches, and the EPI-THUMOS [lit. "desires on" fig "lusts"] of other things together enter in, choke the LOGOS, and have unfruitful GENESIS.

²⁰And in the fourth place:

HE AND HE [fig. "they"] are SPERMED on good GYNESIS GYN GEN [fig. "ground" as in "geo" graphy and "geo" "LOGY"];

such as ACOUSTICALLY RECEIVE the LOGOS, and receive [implied Greek "HIM" grammatically - not "it"], and PARA-bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

------

Hmmm. Maybe Μάρκος and יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎, (Mark and Joshua, aka Jesus) were taking an-Other approach to translating gendered pronouns and gendered sounds and interlated language transparencies.

par elle, et elle a habité parmi nous, et nous avons contemplé sa gloire

Suzanne's Bookshelf offers "one example" of a Greek text that "demonstrates the enormous fallacy and extremely limited scope of any discussion of pronoun gender in translation."

The one example illustrates how,

English readers are cut off from the diverse ways that this passage could be read at the time it was written. We are cut off from how this passage is read in other modern European languages. The English translations are also committed to an interpretation which is foreign to a Jewish understanding of the text.

Read more in the post, "All things were made by her ..."

Do You Blog in "Himglish" or "Femalese"?

Jean Edelstein has a new book coming out entitled Himglish and Femalese. The author is describing the differences between male and female English - the work is reminiscent of You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by linguist Deborah Tannen and “Yup.” “Nope.” “Maybe.” A Woman’s Guide to Getting More Out of the Language of Men by therapist / counselors Stephen James and David Thomas.

So do you think Edelstein is a man or a woman? And might this writer write more in Himglish or in Femalese? Do you email, txt, or twitter in one of these gendered languages? And which do you identify more with as you read my blog and blog yourself?

Look, listen, from Jean Hannah Edelstein on the differences between women and men writing in love in her post, "Lost in translation: Men and women speak different languages, and now, with text, e-mail and twitter, our wires get utterly crossed." Hear - here are some examples, so as not to get your wires too crossed, in which "Jonathon" is the man writing "Himglish" and "Alice" is the woman writing "Femalese" [and the portion I've put the brackets around is Edelstein herself explaining "What she / he really means"]:

Femalese E-mail

To Jonathan Himglish From Alice Femalese

Hi Jonathan, It was lovely to meet you at the party on Friday. Did you have a good time? I did. What an amazing DJ! Anyway, work has been so busy this week, I am really looking forward to taking it easy this weekend, although I’d quite like to catch a film or something. What have you got planned? Alice x

[What she really means Will you go out with me this weekend? Please note I have signed this e-mail with an “x”, indicating my romantic interest (you will only get more kisses once we are properly dating).]

Himglish E-mail

To Alice Femalese From Jonathan Himglish

Hi Alice, Great to meet you too. Yes, I think I’ll also be laying low this weekend. I also enjoy films — maybe I’ll see that new one with Seth Rogen in it. Jonathan x

[What he really means I am rather oblivious and have terrible taste in films.]

Femalese post-date tweet

Alicefemalese Just had the most amazing night with a new friend.

[What she really means I just went on a really hot date and am totally smitten.

What he thinks she means I went out with this guy tonight, but I don’t fancy him. I guess we can be friends, though.]

Himglish text message

Thanks for a great night! I hope I can see you again soon. J

[Her reaction “Great night”? What does he mean by “great”? What a dull adjective. Wouldn’t he say “lovely’ or “amazing” if he really liked me? And he didn’t sign with a kiss. I’m sure he signed one of his previous texts with a kiss. Does this mean he doesn’t fancy me? I don’t think he does. This is awful. I’d better call my best friend and discuss this terrible development with her for at least three hours.]

What I learned about gender

Just when I'd finished blogging for the year, just when I knew I wouldn't learn another thing, I read "What I learned about gender while excavating at Tell Qarqur (Part Three)" at Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

Warning:

It's learned (and difficult) comment by a very well-read John F. Hobbins, co-pastor of a Waldensian Church with Paola Benecchi.

If you dare, you'll watch gender constructed right before your very eyes: one "imp" becomes "a woman" and the other becomes a different kind of man. Ancient Hebrew poetry becomes English. The "gender-blind" domains of "three K’s (Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche: children, the kitchen, and church)" give way "to a reasonable hermeneutics of suspicion" by which "what passes for feminism in our world is ideological cover for market forces, or little more than impotent and reactionary resistance thereto." Karl Marx and Adam Smith become strange bedfellows. Hobbins himself becomes a qualified disciple of Luce Irigaray. Jewish culture and Christian culture are re-imagined as "positively gendered" with "families characterized by all manner of strains and stresses, but also, by mutuality in the giving and receiving of honor and respect."

And if you stay with it, you'll get a positively gendered invocation. Watch it, should you (and I) change.