Of Christians and Feminists

Dumb bastard like he is, 

he wants to touch ever'thing he likes. 

Just wants to feel it.

“He ain't no cuckoo,” said George.

“He's dumb as hell, but he ain't crazy.

An' I ain't so bright neither,

or I wouldn't be buckin' barley for my fifty and found.

"Now maybe George aint gonna let me tend no rabbits, 

if he fin's out you got killed."

--from Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

Suzanne has a post up today in which she defends and questions a label by which she's been labeled. She writes of herself "in the concrete world of the flesh" and laughs saying, it's "just funny" that the label "radical feminist" lobbed at her doesn't always fit the ways she lives and describes her own self day to day.  She gets us her readers also thinking of descriptions of "of women in the Bible - Lydia, ... Phoebe, Chloe, Junia and so on.... of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah,... Hannah... Bathsheba and Tamar."  Read her descriptions here.

And some years back, Julie Clawson blogged to say, "I am a feminist because I am a Christian."  She was making the point that feminism's history in the United States and in Great Britain has Christian ideals and how many foremothers of various waves of feminism were Christians.  Then Courtney Tarter blogged at the Council on "Biblical" "Manhood" and "Womanhood," to label Clawson a "a wife, mother, egalitarian and emerging church pastor" and to insist that "feminism will not achieve her goals."   Tarter further asserted, "Feminism is not necessary to overcome the lie of oppression."  And then she separated Clawson's "feminism" from their "Christianity" ostensibly shared; and Tarter kicked in her point:   "Feminism is not necessary to overcome the lie of oppression.  The [Christian] gospel is."  (You can read Clawson's and then Tarter's posts here and here.)

This month, I've been blogging against such labels.  Or, rather, I've wanted to say what Suzanne has said.  Real life, real experience, these don't always fit labels well.  Where my body is, who I am, trumps the abstraction of a label.  The abstraction gets so crazy that those who wear the labels for themselves often do much damage.  I have real life friends and blogger friends who wear the label "Christian," and they fight to defend "Christianity" as if this is something Jesus did, or would do.  As if Jesus were a Christian.  He wasn't.  I also have real life friends and blogger friends who wear the label "feminist," and they also fight to defend "feminism," as if the movement had more value than women and men and children.  It doesn't.

So there are these rallies to unify around the label, for example:  "to lightheartedly combat some of the vitriol coming out of the online Christian community by celebrating what we have in common and demonstrating that we can have a sense of humor when it comes to non-essential theological disagreements."  And there are these efforts to consider bridging the divides within the other label, for example:  "the academic-activist feminist divide... [may be partly overcome by] another interesting and overlooked connection between academic and 'popular' feminism."

When I read the Bible, and the sexism therein (and the bits that dogmatists use to maintain their sexism by often quoting and blogging and preaching from these bits), then it makes me appreciate even more what Susanne has said.  And I appreciate the book Shawna Atteberry has written emphasizing not the teachings in Christian Sunday Schools but the lived lives of real people in the Bible as the prism by which to read the dogmatism. And I'm glad for the "Christian-Jewish Conversation" that Rabbi Rachel Barenblat and the Rev. Mary C. Earle have had right here in the state where I live.  My own blogging this month so far some has tried also recognize the real life and thoughtful resistances of so many to the sexism of Adolf Hitler, as he labeled women, Jews, people of faith, and even "feminists."  As in John Steinbeck's novel Of Mice and Men, there's much at stake.  But real life in our real bodies trumps labels.

Alternatives to Sexist, Exclusivist Translations of Luke 2:14

John Hobbins has a post that labels various blogger's translations of Luke 2:14 (i.e. plus or minus "sexist wording" and plus or minus "Calvinist construal"). The labeling is focused on how the translators render the Greek phrase ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.  Hobbins calls the alternatives to sexist translations "non-sexist." And somewhat surprisingly, he calls Suzanne McCarthy's translation "sexist" for her use of the English phrase, "to mankind whom God favours." He labels the word mankind as "male generic language... that politically correct translations like NRSV and TNIV studiously avoid." But, of course, McCarthy and plenty of others (including myself) disagree that the phrase "mankind" is necessarily unkind to or  exclusive of women. 

McCarthy is just as focused (as Hobbins and I are too) on how some translations are unnecessarily exclusivist (which is my term for what Hobbins calls "Calvinist").  His alternative is universalist. McCarthy runs with the term in a post "Universalism in Luke 2:14," where she links to a few conversations on the topic.  And in comments at BBB, she suggests study the translations may be of as much value as the "attempt to seek some definitive translation"; one revision McCarthy's offered to her first translation is this phrase: "to beloved humanity."  I like that! 

(Hobbins and McCarthy have both said kind things about my attempt at translation.  My phrase is a borrowing from David Kovacs translating of Greek:  "in blessed honor to mortals."  John has labeled that non-sexist and universalist.  I'm laughing because John calls what's happened a "a very merry Christmas" since we're agreeing on something this year.  And I chuckle in agreement with Suzanne that "'Mortals' sounds too somber for Christmas."  Then again, still smiling I think maybe it's because we're all mortals -- both men and women -- maybe it's because we are that the tidings of Christmas can be merry - yes, comfort and joy.)

What I want to do in the next post is to call for thinking about other labels.  I'm thinking not only about labels that mark whether a translation (as a product) is sexist or not or exclusivist or not.  But I'm wanting to consider theories and practices for translation (as processes).  These other labels may help us start to get at why there's exclusivism and sexism by translators when there doesn't have to be.  The subsequent post will look again at Willis Barnstone's labels for translation (and will go a bit beyond them). 

Tangled up in blue

We always did feel the same,
We just saw it from a different point of view,
Tangled up in blue.

--Bob Dylan

Blogger friends J.L. and Jay dropped by the last post here to make a couple of great comments.   J.L. says that from some of his friends he's "heard that feminism 'sissifies' men."  And he asks this fantastic question:  "So it is 'pink' to consider women equal?"  Jay adds this wonderful statement:  "Just because someone is bilingual (can speak both pink and blue interchangeably) does not mean they are confused."

(In the post, I was saying how a couple of friends here in Texas were using "blue" for the way men think and talk and "pink" for the way women think and talk - and "feminism" for the problem of men becoming "pink.")

What's funny to me is that we can talk together about "male" language and "female" language and never really examine whether our own conversation is "blue" or "pink."  Our talk is hypocritically immune from any critique while we're questioning - dare I say criticizing? - the talk of others.  Here's the rub:  am I speaking in manly terms (i.e., talking "blue") when talking about how "different" men and women are?

One of my friends says this:  "Men and women have different plumbing AND they have different wiring."  (I'll let you decide whether this friend is a man or a woman, whether the assertions are "blue" or "pink.")  This friend believes that genitalia AND brain functioning constitute a fundamental, inherent, natural set of differences between males and females.  Maybe this is "true" and is "true Truth" too.  (Aristotle certainly set out to prove this sort of Truth.)  The fascinating thing, to me, is how we talk about "difference" and "similarity."

We talk, we categorize.  "feel the same" / "different point of view" / "tangled up in blue" / "blue" / "pink" / "feminism" / "sissified [male]" / "equal [females]" / "man brain" / "woman brain" / "penis" / "vagina"

The conversations, the categories, get all tangled up.  I'm not talking "confused."  Rather, what I mean is that the very labels themselves order our realities as if Mother Nature or Father God were shouting out and yelling down at us.  These things - the very words made real - become threatening.

My eldest daughter, for example, declares she's not a feminist because she's feminine.  And, she quickly adds, "But am equal to any guy when it comes to making money or to intelligence.  In fact, not bragging or anything, but some men are just not as smart as most women." 

I retort that she's just not a first or second wave feminist.  But that she's a fine third-wave feminist!  (As if I have to defend "feminisms.")

We talk (she and I) about Leonard Pitts, Jr.'s daughter.  "So for the record," he announces, "I am a feminist. My daughter is too. She just doesn't know it yet."  But is he a "sissified" sissy, then? we wonder.  What we haven't done yet is read Pitts's debut novel.  The reviews say it's very good. 

And one reviewer says Pitt's first novel, Before I Forget, is actually very "blue" and not necessarily very "pink":

The message manhood: becoming a man; accepting and performing the responsibilities of a man, and teaching our sons what a man does and how a man behaves is refreshing and on point. Oh yeah, it’s that deep. The beauty of the novel is that each of the male characters in the book, not just the Johnson family, displays different levels and aspects, positive and negative, of manhood. I’m kinda stunned at how Pitts was able to accomplish this.

Now, is the reviewer a man or a woman?  Seriously.  Look at his or her language.  Is it more "pink" or "blue" - just judging by the language.  What language!:  "becoming" "accepting" "performing" "refreshing" "deep" "beauty" "displays" "different" "levels" "aspects" "stunned"  One might argue that the words tend to be "pink" more than "blue" even though the novel is about "men" and "males" and "manhood."  (In fact, the reviewer is a man.  Maybe he's just one of those sissyfied sissies.  But I don't think so.)

Black men (now I'm talking about African American males) tend, it seems, to have a particular issue with how they're talked about.  When you add "pink" and "blue" with "black" and "white," the labels get really colorful, don't they?  My wife and I just watched the wonderful Steve Harvey on BET this weekend.  He doesn't hold back with his vulgar hilarious humor, insider jokes in Ebonics!   And he's got so much to say, to his own daughters about his own kind.  There's much wisdom in his book Act Like A Lady, Think Like a Man: What Men Really Think About Love, Relationships, Intimacy, and Commitments.  And he's got a few things to say to young men too, about being "blue."  (One of my blogger-,  Facebook-, reallife friends cracked:  "Isn't he kinda like an Oprah for guyz?")  And yet he actually mentors the boy "in blue" himself.  Here's a video news report on his blog.  Now, I do know people who find Harvey's humor to be racist and his language about men and women to be sexist and stereotypical.  Oprah Winfrey (who is "kinda like an Oprah for girlz?") is, nonetheless, not one who is offended by this (black) man.

Somehow now, I'm brought back to Jay's wonderful comment:  "Just because someone is bilingual (can speak both pink and blue interchangeably) does not mean they are confused."  I like that alot.  Jay's statement is getting at something very personal:  our languageS, our voiceS, and our listening to one another with clarity.  When we're talking about other people, and if we can talk about ourselves too, the gendered labels can actually help.  Help, that is, if we don't get tangled up in blue.

(Now, a quick parenthetical thing:  When Bob Dylan sings Tangled Up in Blue, he's not meaning "blue" is "equal" to "male."  He's not even meaning "blue" is equal to "xanh."  He means "blue" is an emotion, a feeling, a profound "sadness" in this case in a relationship.  And none of us English speakers hearing his song "confuses" these categories.  It is fun to listen to the song, knowing Dylan's a "man" singing about a "woman."  It'd be crazy for us Vietnamese speakers to get tangled up in grue/ bleen "xanh".)

that problem called Feminism

We had dinner with another couple last night when the topic of my dissertation came up.  My wife has come up with the very clever (very simple if not at all simplistic) 2-word summary of the project: "Aristotle exposed"; but she decided also to drop the f-bomb, that one (complicated) word:  "feminisms."

"Ah," replied the other woman, looking at her husband.  "Feminism sorta resonates with women.  But it's really a problem at the end of the day.  It's making men become feminized in this country."

"Men," added the man, looking at his wife, "are 'blue' in the way they speak and listen.  Women are 'pink.'  But the feminist movement has caused everyone to have to listen and to talk 'pink.'"

As casually and as quickly as and as gently as she was able, my wife tried to shift the conversation.  Now we were talking about the other couples' visit to Pakistan.  They appreciated many things there.  They noted the good, the bad, and the ugly.  We all puzzled over the on-going practices of purdah, vani (young-girl marriages), watta satta, and honor killings.

At the end of the day, I couldn't decide whether our conversation had been "blue" or "pink."  Blame the confusion on that problem called "feminism."

Sarah Palin is a Jew, a Feminist, and the Head of ...

Okay, let's clarify.

Sarah Palin

. . . is someone who "a few weeks ago, . . . sat in her Alaska church as her minister glowingly introduced the head of Jews for Jesus, a group of mostly evangelical Christians who aim to convert Jews to Christianity";

. . . is one of the members of "Feminists for Life";

. . . is the head of Alaska
and "a woman [who] should ‘submit graciously’ to [her husband Todd's] servant leadership"
but should not be "the head of the household,"
according to a spokes-man for the Southern Baptist Convention of churches (the head of its Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and his own home) who says,
"The only restrictions [on Palin and all women that] we find in Scripture are that, for whatever reason, women are not to be in charge of a marriage and women are not to be in charge of a church."

the feminist label, by Belacqua Jones ghostwritten by Case Wagenvoord to George W. Bush

from "Labels that Safeguard America":

So the oligarchy has rolled out the two labels that stand the best chance of neutralizing them both: race (with its implication of black militancy) and gender (with its implication of bra-burning feminists). These labels are precious jewels guaranteed to divert America’s attention from a crumbling economy, the upward flow of capital and foreign enterprises that are trashing America both at home and overseas.

The most powerful labels are those grounded in illusion. The use of “race” overlooks the fact that race is a false category that has no basis in reality. To imply great differences between individuals on the basis of insignificant morphological differences is pure fantasy, which is why it works so well.

The misuse of feminism is grounded in the belief that feminism refers to gender, i.e., all feminists are females. The assumption is flawed. Unless someone can prove that Margaret Thatcher was a leading feminist, the relation between feminism and females remains a fiction.

Feminism is the belief in the emancipation of all subgroups denied their full humanity by a dominant, white male elite. Any woman who emulates the values of this elite is not a feminist.

A true feminist candidate would step up to the podium and declare, “The reason missiles appeal to males is that they are so phallic. This is why men willingly throw billions of dollars at their creation and upkeep. The sight of a massive hard on pointing towards the heavens sends waves of pleasure coursing through their bodies. Tragically, the money they spend on their toys is inexcusable in a country where twenty-five percent of rural children live in poverty and 3.1millions households suffer from hunger. Sorry men, but when I take office the Pentagon goes to the end of the line when the money is handed out. They get whatever is left over once hunger and poverty are eliminated, and our infrastructure has been repaired.”

Where the male elite exploits and conquers, the feminist nurtures and comforts; where the male elite destroys, the feminist builds; where the male elite seeks peace through power and intimidation, the feminist seeks peace through dialog. The woman who advocates power and destruction is not a feminist. This is what makes the label so effective against HillBill.

Rest assured that there will never be a feminist president as long as the white, male oligarchy frames the issues. Nor will America ever see a black president as long as there is a race card to be played.