tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post4719293165580325976..comments2023-06-08T07:32:39.725-05:00Comments on Aristotle's Feminist Subject: S-U-B-M-I-T, find out what it means to herJ. K. Gaylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-48509232662385676182011-08-19T12:41:36.264-05:002011-08-19T12:41:36.264-05:00Jim,
Real life is catching up on me so I have sta...Jim,<br /><br />Real life is catching up on me so I have started an article on implicit attitude bias, but have not read enough to respond. <br /><br />I know that there are various paradigms for why we are attached to beliefs and values that do not make sense. I am familiar with the Just World/blame the victim framework for one. In fact, I find myself also holding this belief. I am on both ends of that one. I get blamed as a victim, and I blame others. Humbling, really. <br /><br />I look forward to reading more on IA. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13050325763708171253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-10423072530851137462011-08-16T15:13:46.904-05:002011-08-16T15:13:46.904-05:00Galye, Kristen, Suzanne --
Thanks for your patien...Galye, Kristen, Suzanne --<br /><br />Thanks for your patience. Heavy workload. Housekeeping –<br /><br />Implicit Attitude Test - @ https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ <br /><br />Slightly renamed since I acted as a beta and guinea pig. Sorry for any confusions about the link to the test. <br /><br />Please know I felt hesitant to post what little I did about implicit attitudes trumping cognitive theology. Or implicit attitudes trumping cognitive stuff in general. I wrote what I feel (Aristotle: say what you mean, mean what you say). I felt reluctant to write as I did for a reason. Because implicit attitude stuff could become a reverse discrimination against cognitive labors (cognitive here means well-reasoned) – like the cognitive labors of Galye, Kristen, Suzanne. That would be a demonic result. Please know that I do not want to discourage any of your efforts. Please know. <br /><br />My general sense is a Freeman Dyson-esque sense of ‘infinite in all directions.’ This means we need infinitely more and more work in well reasoned (cognitive for now) theology, textual analysis, and all other forms of well reasoned criticisms of gender bias. More, not less. We also need infinitely more work understanding non-cognitive and deep implicit attitude bias. More work in all directions. My two-cents. <br /><br />For those of you laboring in well reasoned efforts against gender bias – remember Anthony and Cady Stanton dying before seeing passage almost verbatim of their well reasoned words. Remember, and keep working. When I wrote earlier about a willingness to die, then the deaths of Anthony and Stanton too are examples. They died before seeing their fruits! Better, they gave their lives. I don’t like that. But, they did not give up! <br /><br />Kristen, the interplays between implicit bias (that deep and very nasty bias) and cognitive theology which claims an egalitarian perspective – the interplays are hoary. Yes, I do agree that you are probably experiencing bias from a deeper level than the cognitive level. A mess. Even from allies who embrace egalitarianism. They can suffer deeper bias. Unawares! See more below. The combinations of interplays between our cognitive theology and our deeper, nasty, implicit bias are beyond me. I’m lucky to sort out a half dozen different kinds of bias all at once inside a single case (gender, race, age, ethnic – all in one case). <br /><br />I’m worthless at the macro and large scale sort of stuff that Gayle and Suzanne do.<br /><br />Galye, Kristen, Suzanne – dig this. I tested as almost bias-free on the Implicit Attitude Test. This portends good things for me as a caseworker. I must enter cases with an open mind. I must. I cannot afford to ruin the case of a client (it’s not about me) because my bias (pro or con gender bias) in advocacy blinds me to particulars of cases. I did disagree in my beta-test feedback (sorta like peer review) with the authors of the test – the test must be wrong about my own results as nearly bias-free. And the test back then needed tweaking to incorporate detecting gender bias. But here’s the kicker – pretend I’m nearly bias-free as the test said (I can’t really accept this), then I can still be gender-biased in my daily life by incorporating and repeating gender-bias memes in my daily work and conversation – at a cognitive advocacy or conversational level! <br /><br />I can still spread the gender-bias memes. <br /><br />My deeper freedom from implicit bias cannot justify or excuse me from criticism for propagating gender-bias at a conversational level. What a mess. Alas!<br /><br />That’s why I need the ongoing lifelong criticism of Gayle, Suzanne, Kristen – at the cognitive level. Keep shooting those arrows. <br /><br /><br />See?<br /><br /><br />JimJim / Random Arrowhttp://randomarrow.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-69655868158570114912011-08-15T11:55:58.677-05:002011-08-15T11:55:58.677-05:00Kristen, yes! And yes! I know that feeling. I’...Kristen, yes! And yes! I know that feeling. I’ll get you a link. Please be patient. Some work to do. The link soon, since my old link has changed or is broken. ~ JimJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-40137024598708431892011-08-15T11:52:28.756-05:002011-08-15T11:52:28.756-05:00Suzanne, Gayle thank you.
Thank you for investi...Suzanne, Gayle thank you. <br /><br />Thank you for investing the time, patience, and kindness to air out and correct these human foibles and to keep these conversations going. <br /><br />Please know that I’d rather take the hits of random arrows and random tent pegs (from Suzanne, Gayle, or from anyone else) that are the results of labors of love of people trying to correct systematic bias (gender, race, age, ethnic, so on). <br /><br />Suzanne, I’ll take your arrows any time as you keep up your work of exposing and correcting systematic bias. Mine, here. Or of bias elsewhere. A hard, nearly-impossible, and largely thankless task. <br /><br />Same with Gayle. <br /><br />Please know that I long for the nourishment, correction, and the rough-and-tumble of these kinds of academic-like and heartfelt conversations (Suzanne’s blog, and Gayle’s) because this level of conversation is rare in my daily work with poor and low income clients. <br /><br />I need the corrections to my bias (implicit and systematic) from your patient work. <br /><br />I’d like (at a later time) to seek further thoughts on the differences between exposing and correcting implicit biases (see e.g., Implicit Attitude Test) in contrast to systematic ones – a huge, huge problem for me. I confess. Later. Not now. <br /><br />Suzanne, please keep shooting your arrows! (ouch!) <br /><br /><br />JimJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-43369306885951508332011-08-15T11:39:49.506-05:002011-08-15T11:39:49.506-05:00Jim said:
"... cognitive theology is taken a...Jim said:<br /><br />"... cognitive theology is taken as the basis to trump irrational and deep bias (see the Implicit Attitude Test)"<br /><br />This is very helpful. It was with great confusion, after I myself embraced egalitarian interpretations with joy, that I discovered that others who heard this "good news" that women were free in Christ just as much a men, did not welcome it as good news or embrace it as I did.<br /><br />It was much easier for me to understand people who were not persuaded by the gospel itself, than that those who had embraced the gospel would not embrace its full extension to women. I still don't really understand it. But "implicit attitude" is probably the reason. Where do you take this test? Is it available online?Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-59914441260675435172011-08-15T08:24:37.922-05:002011-08-15T08:24:37.922-05:00I will not even try to make a comment on BBB since...<i>I will not even try to make a comment on BBB since I was censored. I guess they want a boys only club.</i><br /><br />Jay,<br />I'm very sorry to hear that you also were censored! My experience, and experience as recent as yesterday, is that Wayne Leman at BBB is quite fair and attempts to be as true as possible to the published BBB commenting guidelines. Usually, an email to Wayne takes care of many things. Failing that, <a href="http://betterbetterbibles.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">please do feel free always to post BBB related things at BBBB</a>.<br /><br />Jim,<br />Thank you for emailing me privately. Your comment posted most recently here went automatically to spam. Sometimes blogger will send long comments to spam. The solution, until I see your email or your auto-moderated comment, is to try to break up your comment into a string of shorter comments.<br /><br />Sue,<br />It seems that Jim may have emailed you too. Thank you for your kindness, as always, and for your clarification to him and to the rest of us.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-55117710145648670932011-08-15T02:20:21.031-05:002011-08-15T02:20:21.031-05:00I need to clarify something here. When I wrote &qu...I need to clarify something here. When I wrote "I am going to be ill if I have to read one more time (as I just did) the comment about sacrificial love on the part of the husband being a rationale for the submission of the wife." I was thinking of a comment made elsewhere, but I wasn't allowed to comment on it at the time. My comment was NOT intended as a response to Jim above. <br /><br />Talk about random arrows, this was a random tent peg. Sorry about that.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13050325763708171253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-29182703239705340422011-08-14T23:30:24.317-05:002011-08-14T23:30:24.317-05:00Suzanne? Are you saying that you just read (“as I...Suzanne? Are you saying that you just read (“as I just did”) the offensive comment over on that other blog where you cannot post? <br /><br />Or are you saying that you just read the offensive post right here at this blog, that is, you just read my own post here (which is just before your post)? - and you found my post offensive? <br /><br />The aim of my post about willingness to die is not about willingness to die as a justification for complimentarian hierarchy. If my post here is the offensive one – and if that’s the conclusion you drew from it. The point of my post is that authentic willingness to die (to roles, and physically) means the cessation of making hierarchical demands of submission. That kind of willingness to die to claims of hierarchical submission is never finished lifelong because the systematic presence of hierarchical claims is embedded in our social structures. <br /><br />The temptation to make claims of submission in marriage (male or female) based on hierarchy is not eliminated because of word play using terminological tumblers of cognitive theology – claiming the verbal formulae of complimentarianism or of egalitarianism. I’m equally suspicious of cognitive theology (as a Quaker) no matter the cognitive content whenever cognitive theology is taken as the basis to trump irrational and deep bias (see the Implicit Attitude Test) – in other words, claiming an egalitarian theology can by used to mask deeper gender bias under the surface of a high sounding non-biased cognitive theology. That’s why my focus on attitude – the willingness to die. And to roles. <br /><br />I do feel that a cognitive theology-teaching of egalitarianism is better than other teachings. <br /><br />But as a caseworker getting restraining orders for battered women, it’s not an academic luxury for me to play word games with abusing men who know to speak all the right words before judges. I must look under the surface of words – at implicit attitudes. And at real behavior. <br /><br />There are no verbal formulae free from ab-use. <br /><br />Perhaps your comment responded to some post on another forum? If not, does this help any? If this does not help, then how might I correct my words? What’s a better set of words here? Or maybe you feel there is something more sinister beyond my words? How to correct this? <br /><br /><br /><br />JimJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07674489078935633842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-32047965329363363722011-08-14T11:18:48.329-05:002011-08-14T11:18:48.329-05:00Thank you thank you thank you for your comments! ...Thank you thank you thank you for your comments! You've each inspired me to consider how classical Greek scholars have translated this particular word in the Eph 5. context. (And at the end, I tell <a href="http://speakeristic.blogspot.com/2011/08/classics-greek-scholars-translate.html" rel="nofollow">a real life story of mine, as a parable.</a>)J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-32156082874074681562011-08-14T07:55:42.345-05:002011-08-14T07:55:42.345-05:00I am not a Greek scholar either, but the submissio...I am not a Greek scholar either, but the submission in verse 21 and 24 is parsed passive at biblos and blb and I know they got that right. Its the only way a wife submitting to her husband in EVERYTHING (verse 24) makes any sense at all because it is physically and emotionally impossible for any wife to "fulfill" Eph 5:24 volitionally.<br /><br />I checked with a Classics Greek Prof and he acknowledged that the passive could be accurate there which sealed the case for me.Gemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02778796852665760660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-46203821234859798262011-08-13T23:22:23.098-05:002011-08-13T23:22:23.098-05:00I am not a Greek scholar, but isn't there a di...I am not a Greek scholar, but isn't there a difference between the active voice that is translated "to bring [someone] into submission" and the middle voice that is translated "submit yourself to [someone]"? And does Paul not use that middle voice in Ephesians 5? Does it not mean a voluntary act of the person who submits, as opposed to the forceful act of the active voice? That is what I have been taught.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-72107605325900446432011-08-13T22:36:35.483-05:002011-08-13T22:36:35.483-05:00I am going to be ill if I have to read one more ti...I am going to be ill if I have to read one more time (as I just did) the comment about sacrificial love on the part of the husband being a rationale for the submission of the wife. It is as if wives did not risk their life, and give their own life to give birth for the most part of recorded history. Women died in childbirth and men in war, and to make it out as if men sacrifice more of their life's blood than women is utter nonsense. <br /><br />So, yes, I can make that comment here but not over there. However, I am permitted to list historic evidence over there. <br /><br />The evidence suggests that submission can be cruel and violent one way coercion, or rape - or it can be mutual. Who knows.Suzannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13050325763708171253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-22890493038844541002011-08-13T14:11:25.348-05:002011-08-13T14:11:25.348-05:00... and what to do with this too - "He might ...... and what to do with this too - "He might make the two into one new man ..."<br /><br />God, help. Is there any way forward?<br /><br />JimJim / Random Arrowhttp://randomarrow.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-67149151663952302812011-08-13T14:08:46.512-05:002011-08-13T14:08:46.512-05:00I’m an amateur.
I don’t know how to interpret E...I’m an amateur. <br /><br />I don’t know how to interpret Ephesians. <br /><br />My feelings – <br /><br />Don’t talk about submission either way unless you’re willing to die. Mutually. Die to roles. Die physically. If needed. Anyone not willing to die isn’t qualified to – talk - about submission. One willing to die can still only talk for one’s self. “He cannot speak for her” (Gayle, your cite of that to me is still doing its job). I love the Bible story about Jael. Tent-peg Queen. I don’t want a whole herd of these raving females with tent pegs flying around hunting me. There are better ways to die. <br /><br />Let the text speak for itself: <br /><br />“ ... by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit ... “(Eph 2:15-18). <br /><br />What to do with the – “He” – here? <br /><br /><br />JimJim / Random Arrowhttp://randomarrow.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-11338369815549281552011-08-13T12:33:32.647-05:002011-08-13T12:33:32.647-05:00JK,
For Paul, at least in the entire context of E...JK,<br /><br />For Paul, at least in the entire context of Ephesians 5, mutual submission is the rule because Christ's death on the cross can partly be understood as a matter of self-giving. I say partly, because it is entirely that way, it will only serve to endorse oppression.Rodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14847912389789698622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-42464343755887801682011-08-13T08:46:14.623-05:002011-08-13T08:46:14.623-05:00I will not even try to make a comment on BBB since...I will not even try to make a comment on BBB since I was censored. I guess they want a boys only club.<br /><br />Perhaps Paul had the same thought in mind with women and slaves. Probably slaves and the women especially those attracted to the cult of Dionysus were interested in the more equal Christian cult that Paul seems to be promoting as in Gal. It is hard to really know Paul's mind as his writings seem a bit contradictory. <br /><br />I think in the end common sense though tells us that mutual respect is the only humane development.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12509596389764649667noreply@blogger.com