Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Poetry and the End of Theology
After I posted "Our World Without Ambiguity, or humility" this morning, James K. A. Smith posted "Poetry and the End of Theology."
Smith is asking some dangerous questions again:
Yes, that's right. It's the pre-modern, poetry-despising, anti-female, barbarian-(like-you-and-me)-hating, utterly-objective, father of modernity:
Aristotle.
Smith is asking some dangerous questions again:
But how did a discourse so uncreative become the deputized voice of the Creator? How did a genre so flat and sober and unimaginative become the official mouthpiece of a God who created platypuses and larkspur? Frankly, how did the boring disquisitions of “systematic” theology emerge as the authoritative voice for a people who follow a story-teller like Jesus?And he's making some dangerous comparisons:
The republic of [Christian] theology, like Plato’s city [i.e., The Republic], is built on the exile of the poets whose “fictions” are a dangerous distraction.Smith sums up his own short story succinctly:
theology picked up some very bad habits in modernity.What Smith hasn't yet done is to tell the story of where what he calls "modernity" has picked up its very bad habits from. And yet Smith gives clues:
the language of propositions and syllogismsNow, who invented such logic and refined the true systematic process of scientific knowing that we call "syllogistic reasoning"? Who's the one who worked against "images and metaphors" and "fiction and poetry"? Who's that one who railed against divine "revelation"?
Yes, that's right. It's the pre-modern, poetry-despising, anti-female, barbarian-(like-you-and-me)-hating, utterly-objective, father of modernity:
Aristotle.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Aint I a Womanist Too?
Womanist theology is a response to sexism in black theology and racism in feminist theology. When early black theologians spoke of “the black experience,” they only included the experience of black men and boys. They did not address the unique oppression of black women. Feminist theologians, on the other hand, unwittingly spoke only of white women’s experience, especially of middle- and upper-class white women. They did not include issues of race and economics in their critiques. Many womanists also feel that feminist theology operates in opposition to men and is anathema to the church. Womanist theologians want to maintain their connection to black men and remain faithful to the church traditions from which they come. The term womanist allows black women to affirm their identity as black while also owning a connection with feminism. Employing Alice Walker’s definition of womanist in her 1983 collection of essays In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens, womanist theology makes significant contributions to the fields of black and liberation theologies.
----
above, an excerpt from the Introduction to Making a Way Out of No Way: A Womanist Theology, by Monica A. Coleman.
This evening, Coleman gives the opening lecture - “Ain’t I A Womanist Too?: Third Wave Womanist Religious Thought” - for the Third Wave Womanism Conference at Claremont School of Theology. (HT Rod of Alexandria)
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Euripides & St. Peter: Feminist & Weaker Sexist?
In this post, I want to get us examining (re-examining perhaps) a word that Euripides and then St. Peter used in reference to women. First, however, I would like to look at what readers of Euripides have said about him and his "feminism." And then could we conjecture about Peter's view of women? Finally, shall we compare how the two men use the one word?
Euripides is the Greek playwright. And the Peter I'm interested in is the Jewish disciple of Jesus writing in Greek nearly five hundred years later -- the one who's called Saint Peter.
Of Euripides, much has been written with respect to his views on women. For example, historian F. A. Wright, in his Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle, says this:
Now, has anyone said about St. Peter that he showed “true appreciation of a woman's real qualities” and that he “was keenly aware of the injustices of his day--the brutalities of war, the subjugation of women, the ill treatment of foreigners and illegitimate children”?
Well, maybe.
Suzanne McCarthy posted recently that Peter Leithart is suggesting what she calls “an unusual interpretation” of I Peter 3:7 in Leithart's blog post. The interpretation is that St. Peter is perhaps less sexist than his fellows and his predecessors. In fact, St Peter may even favor women -- promoting them from a more sexist Judaism to a more feminist Christianity.
The phrase so unusually interpreted is ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει. It can be transliterated hos asthenestero skeuei, and it has been often translated as “as weaker vessels.” St. Peter's word that Leithart keys in on is σκεύει / skeuei /. Leithart interprets it as “temple” vessels for the “New [Christian Church, not-old-Jewish Tabernacle] Covenant.” Christian wives, as such “vessels,” are now by St. Peter included in the “service.”
From here, I'd like us to compare how the “feminist” Euripides used the word σκεύει / skeuei / with how the perhaps “weaker-sexist” St. Peter used it.
The main objection in comparing how the two men used the word is their contexts and their time. Euripides writes during a life time of world war nearly 500 years before St. Peter writes during the days of a fairly stable empire. So to overcome the objection, I want to look at an author who is a likely contemporary of Peter. I want to show that Chariton, writing the first-century novel Callirhoe, uses the word in question the way Euripides did some centuries earlier.
Here's from the translation by G. P. Goold:
Now, we can turn to Euripides. In the play, The Suppliant Women, we read the following conversation between two characters. The English translation is by E. P. Coleridge (and we wish Carson had translated this play too); but watch for the Greek word of Euripides, which is reinserted within the brackets below:
In comparing Euripides's (and Chariton's) use of the word σκευῇ /skeue/ with St. Peter's use of it, we are left with questions:
Euripides is the Greek playwright. And the Peter I'm interested in is the Jewish disciple of Jesus writing in Greek nearly five hundred years later -- the one who's called Saint Peter.
Of Euripides, much has been written with respect to his views on women. For example, historian F. A. Wright, in his Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle, says this:
“Euripides and Plato are almost the only [male] authors who show any true appreciation of a woman's real qualities, and to Euripides and Plato, Aristotle, by the whole trend of his [sexist, bigoted] prejudices, was opposed.”Likewise, English professor Louis Markos, in his From Achilles to Christ: Why Christians Should Read the Pagan Classics, says this:
“The 'sentimental' Euripides is a self-conscious artist who cannot ignore his own age to sweep his reader off to a mythic neverland. He was keenly aware of the injustices of his day--the brutalities of war, the subjugation of women, the ill treatment of foreigners and illegitimate children--and he projected these contemporary issues and struggles back into the legendary settings of his tragedies, rather as Arthur Miller's The Crucible projects the dangers of McCarthyism back into the 'legendary' days of Puritan New England. That the plays of Euripides make their points without sinking into polemic or allegory is a tribute to the complex and subtle artistry of their maker. They are a tribute as well to his insight into human nature and his gift for giving dramatic voice to the mental anguish and internal rage of the dispossessed.”In addition, Anne Carson, a Greek classicist and translator of several of Euripides's works, says this of the nature of the playwright:
“He was also concerned with people as people--with what it's like to be a human being in a family, in a fantasy, in a longing, in a mistake.”And Ann Nyland, a Greek classicist and translator of the New Testament, finds the Greek words of Euripides to be helpful in understanding the words of the writers of the gospels, Acts, the epistles, and Revelation -- especially as the words that figure in the often-ignored “case of gender (mis)translation and anything pertaining to women” in much Bible translation.
Now, has anyone said about St. Peter that he showed “true appreciation of a woman's real qualities” and that he “was keenly aware of the injustices of his day--the brutalities of war, the subjugation of women, the ill treatment of foreigners and illegitimate children”?
Well, maybe.
Suzanne McCarthy posted recently that Peter Leithart is suggesting what she calls “an unusual interpretation” of I Peter 3:7 in Leithart's blog post. The interpretation is that St. Peter is perhaps less sexist than his fellows and his predecessors. In fact, St Peter may even favor women -- promoting them from a more sexist Judaism to a more feminist Christianity.
The phrase so unusually interpreted is ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει. It can be transliterated hos asthenestero skeuei, and it has been often translated as “as weaker vessels.” St. Peter's word that Leithart keys in on is σκεύει / skeuei /. Leithart interprets it as “temple” vessels for the “New [Christian Church, not-old-Jewish Tabernacle] Covenant.” Christian wives, as such “vessels,” are now by St. Peter included in the “service.”
From here, I'd like us to compare how the “feminist” Euripides used the word σκεύει / skeuei / with how the perhaps “weaker-sexist” St. Peter used it.
The main objection in comparing how the two men used the word is their contexts and their time. Euripides writes during a life time of world war nearly 500 years before St. Peter writes during the days of a fairly stable empire. So to overcome the objection, I want to look at an author who is a likely contemporary of Peter. I want to show that Chariton, writing the first-century novel Callirhoe, uses the word in question the way Euripides did some centuries earlier.
Here's from the translation by G. P. Goold:
“That is why I [Callirhoe, the beautiful woman protagonist of the novel] have been handed over like a mere chattel [σκεῦος, / skeuos /] to I know not whom...”Elsewhere in the novel written in the first century (when St. Peter wrote his letter), there is this:
“...next, a royal abundance of funeral offerings, first the gold and silver of the dowry, a beautiful array of garments [κάλλος καὶ κόσμος / kallos kai kosmos /] (for Hermocrates had contributed much from the spoils of the war), and the gifts of relatives and friends. Last of all followed the wealth of Chaereas...”What I am trying to show is how the word σκεῦος, / skeuos / relates to women. It has to do with material goods, which Goold translates “mere chattel.” The second quote given is to show the war context and specific examples of the sorts of σκεῦος, / skeuos /, imagined by a novel's author and by his readers.
Now, we can turn to Euripides. In the play, The Suppliant Women, we read the following conversation between two characters. The English translation is by E. P. Coleridge (and we wish Carson had translated this play too); but watch for the Greek word of Euripides, which is reinserted within the brackets below:
Iphis -- Why do you deck yourself in that apparel?
[σκευῇ / skeue / δὲ τῇδε τοῦ χάριν κοσμεῖς / kosmeis / δέμας]
[[UPDATE -- I just found Michael Wodhull's 1888 rendering, a more literal translation of this line above as:
"But on what account Thy person with that habit hast thou graced?"]]Here, the characters of Euripides understand the word σκευῇ /skeue/ to refer to material goods, and in this case to “apparel.” [[or something like a worn “habit.”]]
Evadne -- This robe conveys a strange meaning, father.
Iphis -- You have no look of mourning for your lord.
Evadne -- No, the reason why I am decked in this way is new, perhaps.
Iphis -- Do you then appear before a funeral-pyre?
Evadne -- Yes, for here it is I come to take the prize of victory.
Iphis -- What victory do you mean? I want to learn this from you.
Evadne -- A victory over all women on whom the sun looks down.
In comparing Euripides's (and Chariton's) use of the word σκευῇ /skeue/ with St. Peter's use of it, we are left with questions:
Is St. Peter instructing married men to look at their wives as “weaker vessels” or perhaps as “fragile and feeble material goods”?
And if St. Peter is using the word in the same way other writers have used it, then does this make St. Peter more of a feminist or even some sort of “weaker” sexist?
Or, given the Bible as some "God-inspired" text that surely somehow favors men and women equally and always, should we just stop asking these sorts of questions?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Translating Hélène Cixous
Cixous' translation strategy is consistent and coherent: she provides in English a very close echo of the French text, a persistent shadowing of the French, sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase. This close reading inevitably creates estrangement effects in English....
Only one paragraph seems to depart radically from this system of strict equivalences and coincidences. This is a paragraph where the question of Cixous' Jewish identity is broached in a kind of paroxysm of anguished jubilation. What is the relation between women demonstrating in Iran against the veil and the "Jewish question"?
The careful, restrained linguistic shadowing which prevails elsewhere in the text collapses entirely as the plurality of codes is equally produced in all languages. We are reminded here of Derrida's question: can the process of transfer between texts already written in a plurality of tongues still be called translation? How to translate a text which is already infected by the multiplicity of language (Graham 1985:215)? In this passage, Cixous brings to the surface the tensions among identities through which her text is constructed. The unity of the speaking subject's identity explodes, as does the unity of language.
There is a certain violence in this expression of non-identity, in the dispersion of familiar linguistic traits. The reader of the translation is faced with "stiff or limping English, full of gaps, blocked by untranslated matter" (Willis 1992:107). Exposed to the eye are two texts, one dependent on the other, each language showing itself to fill the gap of the other, supplementing and at the same time revealing the faults and gaps of the original, in a complementary and simultaneous act of completion and deformation. The poles of wholeness and loss are indicated by the orange and the apple, the orange pointing to a mythic completeness, the apple drawing attention to the divisions at the heart of being: apple becomes appel, appeal: how to call, what to call? The speaker draws attention to the shift from orange to apple, claiming in the text: "I am guilty also of voluntary translation" (Cixous 1979:38). Clarice [Lispector], however, is the instrument who will translate the apple into the orange. Vivre l' orange [by Cixous], in Sharon Willis' strong reading, is a text that "exposes its own fault, faultiness, an internal rift, across the figure of the orange being displaced, occupying the place of Iran, of I, of woman, of the body through which the voice passes" (Willis 1992:113). It performs the failure of the journey toward the proper name, toward the security of a linguistic home. The interdependence of the double text echoes the absent origin of the speaker, the displacement of her quest.
Only one paragraph seems to depart radically from this system of strict equivalences and coincidences. This is a paragraph where the question of Cixous' Jewish identity is broached in a kind of paroxysm of anguished jubilation. What is the relation between women demonstrating in Iran against the veil and the "Jewish question"?
La question des juifs. La question des femmes. La question des juifemmes. La questione della donnarance. A questāo das laranjas. The question: Juis-je juive ou fuis-je femme? Jouis-je judia ou suis-je mulher? Joy I donna? ou fruo filha? Fuis-je femme ou est-ce je me ré-juive?
The question of the Jews. The question of women. The question of jewomen. A questāo das laranjudias. Della arancebrea. Am I enjewing myself? Or woe I woman? Win I woman, or wont I jew-ich? Joy I donna? Gioia jew? Or gioi am femme? Fruo. (Cixous 1979)Here we see Cixous writing across languages, moving from jubilation to lament, moving through English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian [and dare we see German and transliterated classical Greek?], between Clarice Lispector and Joyce, in an outburst of ambivalent self-accusation. Here, the absence of any mechanical idea of equivalence between languages reinforces the dynamic of Cixous' writing which is to create meaning in the spaces between words, in the interplay between them.
The careful, restrained linguistic shadowing which prevails elsewhere in the text collapses entirely as the plurality of codes is equally produced in all languages. We are reminded here of Derrida's question: can the process of transfer between texts already written in a plurality of tongues still be called translation? How to translate a text which is already infected by the multiplicity of language (Graham 1985:215)? In this passage, Cixous brings to the surface the tensions among identities through which her text is constructed. The unity of the speaking subject's identity explodes, as does the unity of language.
There is a certain violence in this expression of non-identity, in the dispersion of familiar linguistic traits. The reader of the translation is faced with "stiff or limping English, full of gaps, blocked by untranslated matter" (Willis 1992:107). Exposed to the eye are two texts, one dependent on the other, each language showing itself to fill the gap of the other, supplementing and at the same time revealing the faults and gaps of the original, in a complementary and simultaneous act of completion and deformation. The poles of wholeness and loss are indicated by the orange and the apple, the orange pointing to a mythic completeness, the apple drawing attention to the divisions at the heart of being: apple becomes appel, appeal: how to call, what to call? The speaker draws attention to the shift from orange to apple, claiming in the text: "I am guilty also of voluntary translation" (Cixous 1979:38). Clarice [Lispector], however, is the instrument who will translate the apple into the orange. Vivre l' orange [by Cixous], in Sharon Willis' strong reading, is a text that "exposes its own fault, faultiness, an internal rift, across the figure of the orange being displaced, occupying the place of Iran, of I, of woman, of the body through which the voice passes" (Willis 1992:113). It performs the failure of the journey toward the proper name, toward the security of a linguistic home. The interdependence of the double text echoes the absent origin of the speaker, the displacement of her quest.
--from pages 97 and 98 of Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission by Sherry Simon
Friday, June 5, 2009
Before a Ph.D., I was a feminist
Before I set foot into a Ph.D. class that first semester, I bought all the textbooks assigned for Composition Theory and read one. Truth be told, it wasn't as much that I'm an overachiever (which I am) as it was that I was intimidated by the English studies folks and their vocabularies (their perspectives and ways of seeing things far different from my own as a published and professional and degreed applied linguist for sixteen years).
The book I read was Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. I knew of the author, Robert J. Connors, from his collaborative work with Andrea A. Lunsford on a college handbook for writing, which one of my colleagues and I had drafted ESL student annotations for and were talking with the publisher about. I chose that book to read first because it seemed to give a good overview of the history of composition and rhetoric studies in the USA.
I remember where I was on the playground of the elementary school of one of my daughters. "Damn," I thought (but of course didn't say out loud). "Really? 'Women were definitively excluded from all that rhetoric implied.... The exclusion of women from rhetoric continued long after rhetoric ceased to play any important role in the actual affairs of government.'? Really? 'The church, of course, was increasingly where all meaningful speaking was done, and this Pauline stricture, straight out of Judaic misogyny, was taken as commandment by all later Christian thinkers. The conception of woman as the fountainhead of human sinfulness, as the type of Eve, led to an ever more insistent demand by the church that her role be passive, circumscribed, and private....' Yes, but this has been a contemporary problem in the context of American college composition and rhetoric studies? And does Bob Connors characterize Andrea Lunsford, his colleague, the way he does the American women academics of the nineteenth century who he says, because of the circumscription by male thinkers to the private, flourished in composition rather than in rhetoric where men dominated?" (I didn't know of any of the problems women rhetoricians and other men and women feminists had with Conners book when I read it - nor did I hear about the issues from the professor - and had to discover these in journals of English studies in private in the library, after the course ended.)
If I can remember, I was a feminist when I was five years old. One of my siblings had been sexually abused by a single missionary, a man. The public thing that rankled my father so was that the other missionary had cut back the cuticles of this child until they nearly bled.
This sort of thing was the first incident I remember. When I was in college in the USA, after two of my buddies missionary-kids from two different families took their own lives and their fathers made pronouncements at their funerals, there was more to remember.
Other MKs all grown now have finally spoken out about a third abuser, the cause of their own contemporary sexual dysfunctions, which they remain silent about, for whom would they tell? Who can they tell?
I remember watching with my spouse the self-made documentary of Angela Shelton, on a quest to find and to film all the other Angela Sheltons in America and finding that many of them had been raped or molested by family members, by men, and Angela herself has to film the confrontation with and denial of her own father. The professor of the Ph.D. course, the Rhetoric of Women Writers, that I was in at the time agreed at my request to show the documentary in class, which for me was a way of speaking out for the first time. Speaking out for me has been listening, had been rather numb passive listening. (I credit that professor for my adult human conversion to feminisms, for en-couraging me to research and write a dissertation on sexist rhetorics).
My son home from college interrupted me at work yesterday with his phone call, asking all of the sudden if we could meet somewhere for lunch. I put him off at first, suggesting "tomorrow." We small talked. Then I sensed something, and we finally talked then and there about some private matter of his that was deeply distressing him. Oh, I could have missed him, came so close to missing the depth of his issue, a very private thing indeed.
There are many who tell there stories now in meetings I attend where confidences cannot be broken for reasons of safety. It's hard to listen. Harder not to listen. "I was raped by the father of the children I was babysitting." "I waited until my husband left the house and erected the step ladder and jumped off so as to make sure my pregnant belly would hit first because even though abortion is legal it's a sin he will not tolerate." "Two different pastors both married men have propositioned me and my own father a deacon just tells me I've misread their meanings, of course." "My mother made me serve my little brother, washing his clothes and such, because my father was the head of the home, she said." Yes, I know it's hard to listen. And a blog is no place. Or at least let the abused blog for themselves anonymously if they must. Some of you have heard me say "Why (You Can’t Ask Me Why) I Am A Feminist: Some Frank Thoughts." But there's no reason to be a feminist for feminism's sake. And we all know that. Our personal insecurities run deep. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a Ph.D. in anything to figure that out.
The book I read was Composition-Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. I knew of the author, Robert J. Connors, from his collaborative work with Andrea A. Lunsford on a college handbook for writing, which one of my colleagues and I had drafted ESL student annotations for and were talking with the publisher about. I chose that book to read first because it seemed to give a good overview of the history of composition and rhetoric studies in the USA.
I remember where I was on the playground of the elementary school of one of my daughters. "Damn," I thought (but of course didn't say out loud). "Really? 'Women were definitively excluded from all that rhetoric implied.... The exclusion of women from rhetoric continued long after rhetoric ceased to play any important role in the actual affairs of government.'? Really? 'The church, of course, was increasingly where all meaningful speaking was done, and this Pauline stricture, straight out of Judaic misogyny, was taken as commandment by all later Christian thinkers. The conception of woman as the fountainhead of human sinfulness, as the type of Eve, led to an ever more insistent demand by the church that her role be passive, circumscribed, and private....' Yes, but this has been a contemporary problem in the context of American college composition and rhetoric studies? And does Bob Connors characterize Andrea Lunsford, his colleague, the way he does the American women academics of the nineteenth century who he says, because of the circumscription by male thinkers to the private, flourished in composition rather than in rhetoric where men dominated?" (I didn't know of any of the problems women rhetoricians and other men and women feminists had with Conners book when I read it - nor did I hear about the issues from the professor - and had to discover these in journals of English studies in private in the library, after the course ended.)
If I can remember, I was a feminist when I was five years old. One of my siblings had been sexually abused by a single missionary, a man. The public thing that rankled my father so was that the other missionary had cut back the cuticles of this child until they nearly bled.
This sort of thing was the first incident I remember. When I was in college in the USA, after two of my buddies missionary-kids from two different families took their own lives and their fathers made pronouncements at their funerals, there was more to remember.
Other MKs all grown now have finally spoken out about a third abuser, the cause of their own contemporary sexual dysfunctions, which they remain silent about, for whom would they tell? Who can they tell?
I remember watching with my spouse the self-made documentary of Angela Shelton, on a quest to find and to film all the other Angela Sheltons in America and finding that many of them had been raped or molested by family members, by men, and Angela herself has to film the confrontation with and denial of her own father. The professor of the Ph.D. course, the Rhetoric of Women Writers, that I was in at the time agreed at my request to show the documentary in class, which for me was a way of speaking out for the first time. Speaking out for me has been listening, had been rather numb passive listening. (I credit that professor for my adult human conversion to feminisms, for en-couraging me to research and write a dissertation on sexist rhetorics).
My son home from college interrupted me at work yesterday with his phone call, asking all of the sudden if we could meet somewhere for lunch. I put him off at first, suggesting "tomorrow." We small talked. Then I sensed something, and we finally talked then and there about some private matter of his that was deeply distressing him. Oh, I could have missed him, came so close to missing the depth of his issue, a very private thing indeed.
There are many who tell there stories now in meetings I attend where confidences cannot be broken for reasons of safety. It's hard to listen. Harder not to listen. "I was raped by the father of the children I was babysitting." "I waited until my husband left the house and erected the step ladder and jumped off so as to make sure my pregnant belly would hit first because even though abortion is legal it's a sin he will not tolerate." "Two different pastors both married men have propositioned me and my own father a deacon just tells me I've misread their meanings, of course." "My mother made me serve my little brother, washing his clothes and such, because my father was the head of the home, she said." Yes, I know it's hard to listen. And a blog is no place. Or at least let the abused blog for themselves anonymously if they must. Some of you have heard me say "Why (You Can’t Ask Me Why) I Am A Feminist: Some Frank Thoughts." But there's no reason to be a feminist for feminism's sake. And we all know that. Our personal insecurities run deep. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a Ph.D. in anything to figure that out.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Woman, Black: the Double Whammy of Inequality in Your Neighborhood
"When Black women are beaten, raped, or otherwise exploited we are not understood as victims because our bodies are understood to exist for the purposes of exploitation."
"There are few rushing to her defence because these constructions uphold not only the black white binary but the crushing dominance that patriarchy has established over women."
--Renee at Womanist Musings
gets at a huge problem of in-equal-ity in (y)our neighborhoods,
showing those Nude Photos of Rihanna and Prejean
[asking] Which One Is The Slut?
"There are few rushing to her defence because these constructions uphold not only the black white binary but the crushing dominance that patriarchy has established over women."
--Renee at Womanist Musings
gets at a huge problem of in-equal-ity in (y)our neighborhoods,
showing those Nude Photos of Rihanna and Prejean
[asking] Which One Is The Slut?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Feminisms and You
Three important posts from Sunday on the relevance of feminisms to you.
1. Andrea Sachs at time.com interviews Suzanne Braun Levine.
1. Andrea Sachs at time.com interviews Suzanne Braun Levine.
What do you think about the state of feminism in 2009?2. Renee at her blog Womanist Musings takes on a reader's notion of "reverse racism."
I think feminism is strong and pervasive and vibrant, and I think the fact that the generations are in dialogue over what the agenda should be and who is a real feminist is really not a bad thing. I think that my generation sometimes gets impatient and feels like the battles we won are now being sort of put aside or rethought on different terms. And the other women feel like we don't take their issues seriously enough. But I do believe that the force of independent women of all ages is really changing everything. I have a 22-year-old daughter who cannot really comprehend that when I got married, I was unable to take out a loan without my husband's signature, or that jobs were listed [as] male and female in the paper. It's inconceivable to her. . . .
Do you think that men are more amenable now to the idea of female equality?
Oh, I do. I do. I think men are so much more comfortable working with and for women. You see them all picking their kids up at school, taking them to the playground. When I wrote "Father Courage: What Happens When Men Put Family First," men would tell me that when they took their child to the playground, it would happen that somebody might call the police thinking that they were either kidnapping or molesting the child because they were so unusual. It's night and day now. Of course, women are still doing the most housework and the most caretaking.
Are you still optimistic that [women . . . still doing the most housework and the most caretaking] might change?
I think it's going to change, but . . .
WOC [women of color in 2009] must not only deal with sexism that is aimed at them from men of color and white men, we must deal with racism from white men and women. It is not a matter which group participates in the most oppression, simply because the smallest amount of oppression is unacceptable. . . .3. Suzanne at Suzanne's Bookshelf reviews Carolyn McCulley's mis-characterization of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on marriage.
Simply because white women exist with less social power than white men, does not mean that are unable to wield white privilege to their advantage. Why is it that NOW has never had an African American woman leader? With more and more WOC achieving higher education, do you really believe it is because there were no qualified candidates? Look at the blogosphere, why are there no major feminist blogs written or maintained by WOC? Daily we provide excellent critiques on everything from sexuality, race, class, politics, and gender, yet the majority of the [feminist] traffic ends up at blogs written and maintained by white women. It is purposeful to choose not to read or engage with women of color on the internet.
There has never been a day that WOC have not had to fight for recognition of our worth and our humanity. When we speak out against the exploitation, marginalization, and oppression that we face, we are called angry and summarily silenced. No matter how many polemic blog posts I author regarding the systemic inequality in which we live, the hierarchy of beings will not change unless those who exist with undeserved privilege make a commitment to change. To be silent is to accept that I deserve to be understood as a second class citizen. . . .
Let's look at what Elizabeth Cady Stanton said [in actuality and with a bit more context]. . . .Others are reporting sexism, racism, and distortions of the history of women and men, around us in our world this weekend, here and here.
Can anyone help me out here? Which early feminists were against marriage. . . .
I am aware that Stanton called marriage "slavery" and "legalized prostitution." However, it seems that the extreme of her position was that a woman ought to be able to escape a violent marriage and take her children with her. She deplored the inequity of the wife's legal position in marriage. She depicts the woman who is dragged by the hair across the floor, kicked and pounded in front of the children. Personally, I find much sympathy in her writing.
I am sad that a published author like McCulley would provide such a misleading charaterization of the early feminists.
Friday, March 13, 2009
until we’ve recovered
"Look, despite the mutterings of disgruntled troglodytes or airbrushed, hymenoplastied Palin supporters, women have not achieved anything even close to equity. We still make, on average, seventy-six cents on a man’s dollar, and yet there are people who fight over whether that figure should be two or three cents higher, as if that would make it all dandy, as if close is as good as the cigar."
--Regina Barreca, In Defense of the F Word, 2009
--Regina Barreca, In Defense of the F Word, 2009
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Sexism / Human Rights Violations Watch: from the Blogroll
Melts in Your Mouth by
Quick Hit: In Italy, Feminism Out, Women As Sex Symbols In by
Quick Hits - Feminists, Summers, Agenda, Oh My! by
Facial acid attacks in Pakistan by
Jestina Mukoko arrested by
A sombre trio by
‘True Woman’ movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism by
RHR 2008: Renewing America's Commitment to Human Rights from Velveteen Rabbi by
Quick Hits - Feminists, Summers, Agenda, Oh My! by
Facial acid attacks in Pakistan by
Jestina Mukoko arrested by
A sombre trio by
‘True Woman’ movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism by
RHR 2008: Renewing America's Commitment to Human Rights from Velveteen Rabbi by
Jestina Mukoko arrested by
A sombre trio by
‘True Woman’ movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism by
RHR 2008: Renewing America's Commitment to Human Rights from Velveteen Rabbi by
‘True Woman’ movement seeks counter-revolution to feminism by
RHR 2008: Renewing America's Commitment to Human Rights from Velveteen Rabbi by
Monday, November 24, 2008
The Rocking, Driving, Slamming Women of Saudi Arabia
ROCKING
They cannot perform in public. They cannot pose for album cover photographs. Even their jam sessions are secret, for fear of offending the religious authorities in this ultraconservative kingdom. But the members of Saudi Arabia’s first all-girl rock band, the Accolade, are clearly not afraid of taboos.
They cannot perform in public. They cannot pose for album cover photographs. Even their jam sessions are secret, for fear of offending the religious authorities in this ultraconservative kingdom. But the members of Saudi Arabia’s first all-girl rock band, the Accolade, are clearly not afraid of taboos.
--The AccoLade on MySpace and FaceBook, and their music for download.
DRIVING
A Saudi woman has posted a video of herself driving on YouTube in an effort to urge the Saudi government to expand the rights of women to drive in Saudi Arabia. Wajeha Al-Huwaider has a driver's license, but she is only allowed to drive in rural areas of Saudi Arabia. She said that restriction "paralyzes half the population." She wants authorities to let women drive in Saudi cities.
THE ODDS AGAINST THEM (NOT TO MENTION THE MALE ESTABLISHMENT)
Saudi women are being kept in perpetual childhood so male relatives can exercise "guardianship" over them. . . . Saudi women have to obtain permission from male relatives to work, travel, study, marry or even receive health care. Their access to justice is also severely constrained. . . . The Saudi establishment sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Saudi clerics see the guardianship of women's honour as a key to the country's social and moral order.
ARISTOTLE'S LEGACY
Saudi boys are raised, essentially, to believe that they are the center of the universe. They're fussed over not just by their own mothers, but by all of their father's wives in the harem. As with the breast feeding, much of this intensive communal care can leave a strongly erotic aftertaste in the boy's memory. For example, a common way for the women to stop a baby boy from crying is by caressing and stroking his genitals. Such practices have been credited with contributing to the way that Saudi men tend to view women as mere sex objects, placed on this earth solely to gratify the men's physical appetites.
Meanwhile, girls are taught to understand and accept that their existence has no meaning whatsoever, except as it relates to the men in their family. When a girl is young, her parents are merely ashamed that she wasn't a boy. Her main role is to help care for her brothers. Later, however, the parents will be anxiety-ridden over the possibility that she might bring shame upon her family. Just as a mother will later be called after her son, so are girls called after their father. If Fatima's father is named Abdullah, she will be known as Fatima bint Abdullah, "Fatima, Daughter of Abdullah," until the day she has a son. . . . (page 173)
I explained, too, how Byzantium was basically Greek in culture, so it also shouldn't be a surprise that the most important part of the Byzantine influence on Islamic civilization came from Byzantium's Greek past. This may seem like a bit of mystery at first. But in a second, you'll probably agree that, in fact, you already know roughly what I mean. After all, what do you think of when I say the word "Greek"? Socrates, right? Plato? Aristotle? All those guys. Philosophers and other intellectual pioneers that we've all heard of. Well, they were the ones who influenced Islamic thought. Most important was Aristotle, but the Arabs also took up the work of mathematicians like Euclid, physicians like Galen and Hippocrates, and scientists like Ptolemy. These ancient Greek sages were still being studied in school when the Arabs conquered Byzantine lands in the Middle East. Eventually the Arabs realized they had a treasure trove of knowledge on their hands, and they began to promote further research on it. A leading example of this is the early ninth-century Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. He was once thought to have set up a research facility in Baghdad called "the House of Wisdom," especially to translate works on science and philosophy from Greek into Arabic. (page 37)
DRIVING
A Saudi woman has posted a video of herself driving on YouTube in an effort to urge the Saudi government to expand the rights of women to drive in Saudi Arabia. Wajeha Al-Huwaider has a driver's license, but she is only allowed to drive in rural areas of Saudi Arabia. She said that restriction "paralyzes half the population." She wants authorities to let women drive in Saudi cities.
SLAM-DUNKING
The Jeddah United women's basketball team trickled onto the court, each player wrapped in a black abaya and head scarf. Within minutes, the women had shed their cloaks and were in uniform – white pants and jerseys with their names in red – practicing layups, passes, and foul shots. The team, made up mostly of Saudi students and housewives, is preparing for a local tournament this month. But what the women would really love to do, many said, is compete internationally and represent their country abroad, something Saudi Arabia does not permit.
--"Saudi Arabia's Underground Women's Basketball Scene"
The Jeddah United women's basketball team trickled onto the court, each player wrapped in a black abaya and head scarf. Within minutes, the women had shed their cloaks and were in uniform – white pants and jerseys with their names in red – practicing layups, passes, and foul shots. The team, made up mostly of Saudi students and housewives, is preparing for a local tournament this month. But what the women would really love to do, many said, is compete internationally and represent their country abroad, something Saudi Arabia does not permit.
--"Saudi Arabia's Underground Women's Basketball Scene"
THE ODDS AGAINST THEM (NOT TO MENTION THE MALE ESTABLISHMENT)
Saudi women are being kept in perpetual childhood so male relatives can exercise "guardianship" over them. . . . Saudi women have to obtain permission from male relatives to work, travel, study, marry or even receive health care. Their access to justice is also severely constrained. . . . The Saudi establishment sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive. Saudi clerics see the guardianship of women's honour as a key to the country's social and moral order.
ARISTOTLE'S LEGACY
Saudi boys are raised, essentially, to believe that they are the center of the universe. They're fussed over not just by their own mothers, but by all of their father's wives in the harem. As with the breast feeding, much of this intensive communal care can leave a strongly erotic aftertaste in the boy's memory. For example, a common way for the women to stop a baby boy from crying is by caressing and stroking his genitals. Such practices have been credited with contributing to the way that Saudi men tend to view women as mere sex objects, placed on this earth solely to gratify the men's physical appetites.
Meanwhile, girls are taught to understand and accept that their existence has no meaning whatsoever, except as it relates to the men in their family. When a girl is young, her parents are merely ashamed that she wasn't a boy. Her main role is to help care for her brothers. Later, however, the parents will be anxiety-ridden over the possibility that she might bring shame upon her family. Just as a mother will later be called after her son, so are girls called after their father. If Fatima's father is named Abdullah, she will be known as Fatima bint Abdullah, "Fatima, Daughter of Abdullah," until the day she has a son. . . . (page 173)
I explained, too, how Byzantium was basically Greek in culture, so it also shouldn't be a surprise that the most important part of the Byzantine influence on Islamic civilization came from Byzantium's Greek past. This may seem like a bit of mystery at first. But in a second, you'll probably agree that, in fact, you already know roughly what I mean. After all, what do you think of when I say the word "Greek"? Socrates, right? Plato? Aristotle? All those guys. Philosophers and other intellectual pioneers that we've all heard of. Well, they were the ones who influenced Islamic thought. Most important was Aristotle, but the Arabs also took up the work of mathematicians like Euclid, physicians like Galen and Hippocrates, and scientists like Ptolemy. These ancient Greek sages were still being studied in school when the Arabs conquered Byzantine lands in the Middle East. Eventually the Arabs realized they had a treasure trove of knowledge on their hands, and they began to promote further research on it. A leading example of this is the early ninth-century Abbasid caliph al-Mamun. He was once thought to have set up a research facility in Baghdad called "the House of Wisdom," especially to translate works on science and philosophy from Greek into Arabic. (page 37)
--The Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Saudi Arabia by Colin Wells
Monday, November 3, 2008
Subverting & Reappropriating vs. Sexism
"This one definitely fits into the 'steamy underbelly' category of Biblical literature, which most English translations bowdlerize into sanitized scripture, so use your own judgment on what you’re comfortable with," warns ElShaddai Edwards in his post pointed to a post by N.T. Wrong.
Wrong's judgement is right, as he gets us recognizing the sexism of Hamlet and of Hosea. Shakespeare (or whoever he/ she is) is the one subverting and reappropriating English words by punning in "Hamlet." And Alice A. Keefe, by punning in translation, is subverting and reappropriating English and Hebrew words in the book of Hosea. Wrong gives Shakespeare's pun, Keefe's translating, and his own reworking of the Hebrew/ English for more on all of that.
It's a dirty, sexist word (or two or three) that Wrong is using, is playing with. This goes beyond our comfort level. It gets right to the issues of sexism (or as "right to" as indirect social commentary has to be). What you're comfortable with depends on how sexist you are, I'm afraid. What you're willing to deal with depends on how feminist you are willing to be. (With comments at Wrong's blog, I try to show how the first translators of the bible weren't so comfortable with the erotic language of rape. Some time back I posted on how uncomfortable these Jewish male translators were with Greek male sexism, unless they could blame it on the woman).
Let me end this post with what Ann Friedman said to end one of her posts at feministing.com a while ago. She said:
Wrong's judgement is right, as he gets us recognizing the sexism of Hamlet and of Hosea. Shakespeare (or whoever he/ she is) is the one subverting and reappropriating English words by punning in "Hamlet." And Alice A. Keefe, by punning in translation, is subverting and reappropriating English and Hebrew words in the book of Hosea. Wrong gives Shakespeare's pun, Keefe's translating, and his own reworking of the Hebrew/ English for more on all of that.
It's a dirty, sexist word (or two or three) that Wrong is using, is playing with. This goes beyond our comfort level. It gets right to the issues of sexism (or as "right to" as indirect social commentary has to be). What you're comfortable with depends on how sexist you are, I'm afraid. What you're willing to deal with depends on how feminist you are willing to be. (With comments at Wrong's blog, I try to show how the first translators of the bible weren't so comfortable with the erotic language of rape. Some time back I posted on how uncomfortable these Jewish male translators were with Greek male sexism, unless they could blame it on the woman).
Let me end this post with what Ann Friedman said to end one of her posts at feministing.com a while ago. She said:
I roll my eyes at this campaign [by a library that uses a sexist logo of a woman], but sport a tote bag with the Feministing logo [that's nearly the same]. It's why I rail against people who call powerful women "bitch," but subscribe to a magazine of the same name. It's why I am totally appalled to hear someone utter the word "cunt" as an epithet, but picked up Inga Muscio's book. The same image (or word) in different contexts can flip pretty quickly from subversion/reappropriation to just flat-out sexism.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Can (Black) Men REALLY Be Feminists?
"The black men who contributed to this book overwhelmingly concur that feminism provides benefits in their lives that make them better people. The way they behave now, in private and in public, suggests that they really are feminists. Most of us can gain insights into alternative ways of being through their stories of challenge and change.
As we saw from the narratives of participants in this study, popular notions of masculinity set men against one another and against women, which inevitably leads to conflict and, all too often, violence. Almost any man can identify with the emotionally, spiritually, and even physically crippling effects of that kind of masculinity. Indeed, a system based on male domination is problematic, divisive, and self-destructive for those who seek social justice on behalf of African Americans, and for the good of society as a whole. The experiences these men recount are not entirely confined to African Americans--they occur to men in any patriarchal society, regardless of race, sexuality, or class."
--Aaronette M. White, "Can Black Men Really Be Feminists?"
Ain't I a Feminist?:
African American Men Speak Out
As we saw from the narratives of participants in this study, popular notions of masculinity set men against one another and against women, which inevitably leads to conflict and, all too often, violence. Almost any man can identify with the emotionally, spiritually, and even physically crippling effects of that kind of masculinity. Indeed, a system based on male domination is problematic, divisive, and self-destructive for those who seek social justice on behalf of African Americans, and for the good of society as a whole. The experiences these men recount are not entirely confined to African Americans--they occur to men in any patriarchal society, regardless of race, sexuality, or class."
--Aaronette M. White, "Can Black Men Really Be Feminists?"
Ain't I a Feminist?:
African American Men Speak Out
on Fatherhood, Friendship, Forgiveness, and Freedom, page 192.
(HT Samhita Mukhopadhyay, at feministing.com)
"Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. This was a definition of feminism I offered in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center more than 10 years ago [in 1985]. It was my hope that at that time that it would become a common definition everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy."
--bell hooks, "Feminist Politics: Where We Stand"
Feminism is For Everyone: Passionate Politics, page 1.
"So for the record, I am a feminist. My daughter is, too."
--Leonard Pitts Jr., "Prepare yourselves, readers, for liberal use of the 'F' word"
The Miami Herald
(also linked here)
(HT Samhita Mukhopadhyay, at feministing.com)
"Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. This was a definition of feminism I offered in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center more than 10 years ago [in 1985]. It was my hope that at that time that it would become a common definition everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy."
--bell hooks, "Feminist Politics: Where We Stand"
Feminism is For Everyone: Passionate Politics, page 1.
"So for the record, I am a feminist. My daughter is, too."
--Leonard Pitts Jr., "Prepare yourselves, readers, for liberal use of the 'F' word"
The Miami Herald
Friday, October 24, 2008
Anne Carson and Anne Lamott on Resurrection
Listen to silly Anne Lamott and foolish Anne Carson, wanting hoping desiring so gullibly to keep open the historic and literary possibilities of resurrection, as women see it. The one Anne speaks of Jesus, the other Anne of another Greek-fabled drama, Alcestis in Alcestis by Euripides.
Euripides, of course, is that one of whom the Historian F. A. Wright, in his Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle says: “Euripides and Plato are almost the only [male] authors who show any true appreciation of a woman's real qualities, and to Euripides and Plato, Aristotle, by the whole trend of his [sexist, bigoted] prejudices, was opposed.” But I’m reading the “scholarship” of another “historian” (supposedly) who scoffs, like Aristotle, at true appreciation of a woman’s views. I’m talking about James F. McGrath and his newly published book The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. McGrath is crying for reviews, but not this one here. In his book, again and again (on more than a dozen pages so far), McGrath feels like he has to pooh pooh the inclusion of women as credible witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in the gospel of Mark. Not surprising. His historiography is straight phallogocentrism. What I mean by that is this. Hélène Cixous, in her book Stigmata: escaping texts, translates and quotes “Clarice Lispector, who did not think in terms of phallogocentrism.” Cixous points out that Lispector provides a definition of the term: “We have seen this before; it is the ‘phallocratic system’ . . . this is how she [Lispector] conceives of it: a ‘system of inflexible last judgment, which does not permit even a second of incredulity’” (123). Now the English translation of Cixous’s French translation of Lispector’s Brazilian Portuguese has yielded the term. The three together have made “phal-” from Aristotle’s φαλλικὰ (“ph-a-l-l-ika”); “logo,” from Aristotle’s λόγος (or “l-o-g-os”) which he himself makes (by) his λογική (or “l-o-g-ikē” aka LOGIC); and “centric” from Aristotle’s κεντρική (or “k-e-n-tr-ikē”). McGrath, like father Aristotle, does not permit even a second of incredulity. He redefines “faith” and “history” under the guise of “religion.” Enough of that then.
Here’s Anne Lamott in Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith:
I don't have the right personality for Good Friday, for the crucifixion: I'd like to skip ahead to the resurrection. In fact, I'd like to skip ahead to the resurrection vision of one of the kids in our Sunday school, who drew a picture of the Easter Bunny outside the tomb: everlasting life, and a basket full of chocolates. Now you’re talking.
In Jesus’ real life, the resurrection came two days later, but in our real lives, it can be weeks, years, and you never know for sure that it will come. I don’t have the right personality for the human condition, either. But I believe in the resurrection, in Jesus’, and in ours. The trees, so stark and gray last month, suddenly went up as if in flame, but instead in blossoms and leaves--poof! Like someone opening an umbrella. It’s often hard to find similar dramatic evidence of rebirth and hope in our daily lives. (140).
Here’s Anne Carson in Grief Lessons: Four Plays by Euripides:
What does Alkestis' resurrection mean for the sacrificial contract that Admetos had negotiated with Death? This question is never addressed in the play. Mathematically Death is down one soul; common sense (what the Greeks call Necessity) tells us such a situation can’t last. But Herakles seems a character able to override common sense. He releases Alkestis simply by choosing to do so. As if to say, within every death a life stands waiting to be set free, should anyone have the nerve to do it. As if to say, try looking deep into a house, a marriage, or an idea like Necessity and you will see clear through to the other side. Death, like tragedy, is a game with rules. Why not just break the rules?
Rules broken by Euripides in Alkestis include the rule of closure. What are we to make of the ending? Can we be sure the veiled women is alive? that she is Alkestis? that she will live happily ever after with her husband and children? Critics have doubted all these. There is a kind of nuptial drama staged in the final scene--perhaps a parody of the ancient Greek wedding, which centered upon an unveiling of the bride before the eyes of her husband and some exchange of words between them--that stalls oddly at its peak moment. Here the bride is unveiled to her husband at 971/1121 (or so it seems to me; critics doubt this too) but she will not be permitted to speak for three days due to her death-polluted condition. An eerie silence carries her into the big dark house of her unconventional husband.
I find I want to say less rather than more about Alkestis. Not because there is less in this play but because the surface has a speed and shine that evaporate with exegesis, like some of [Alfred] Hitchcock’s plots. Or a trembling of laughter, terrible if it broke out. (248-49)
Euripides, of course, is that one of whom the Historian F. A. Wright, in his Feminism in Greek Literature from Homer to Aristotle says: “Euripides and Plato are almost the only [male] authors who show any true appreciation of a woman's real qualities, and to Euripides and Plato, Aristotle, by the whole trend of his [sexist, bigoted] prejudices, was opposed.” But I’m reading the “scholarship” of another “historian” (supposedly) who scoffs, like Aristotle, at true appreciation of a woman’s views. I’m talking about James F. McGrath and his newly published book The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. McGrath is crying for reviews, but not this one here. In his book, again and again (on more than a dozen pages so far), McGrath feels like he has to pooh pooh the inclusion of women as credible witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in the gospel of Mark. Not surprising. His historiography is straight phallogocentrism. What I mean by that is this. Hélène Cixous, in her book Stigmata: escaping texts, translates and quotes “Clarice Lispector, who did not think in terms of phallogocentrism.” Cixous points out that Lispector provides a definition of the term: “We have seen this before; it is the ‘phallocratic system’ . . . this is how she [Lispector] conceives of it: a ‘system of inflexible last judgment, which does not permit even a second of incredulity’” (123). Now the English translation of Cixous’s French translation of Lispector’s Brazilian Portuguese has yielded the term. The three together have made “phal-” from Aristotle’s φαλλικὰ (“ph-a-l-l-ika”); “logo,” from Aristotle’s λόγος (or “l-o-g-os”) which he himself makes (by) his λογική (or “l-o-g-ikē” aka LOGIC); and “centric” from Aristotle’s κεντρική (or “k-e-n-tr-ikē”). McGrath, like father Aristotle, does not permit even a second of incredulity. He redefines “faith” and “history” under the guise of “religion.” Enough of that then.
Here’s Anne Lamott in Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith:
I don't have the right personality for Good Friday, for the crucifixion: I'd like to skip ahead to the resurrection. In fact, I'd like to skip ahead to the resurrection vision of one of the kids in our Sunday school, who drew a picture of the Easter Bunny outside the tomb: everlasting life, and a basket full of chocolates. Now you’re talking.
In Jesus’ real life, the resurrection came two days later, but in our real lives, it can be weeks, years, and you never know for sure that it will come. I don’t have the right personality for the human condition, either. But I believe in the resurrection, in Jesus’, and in ours. The trees, so stark and gray last month, suddenly went up as if in flame, but instead in blossoms and leaves--poof! Like someone opening an umbrella. It’s often hard to find similar dramatic evidence of rebirth and hope in our daily lives. (140).
Here’s Anne Carson in Grief Lessons: Four Plays by Euripides:
What does Alkestis' resurrection mean for the sacrificial contract that Admetos had negotiated with Death? This question is never addressed in the play. Mathematically Death is down one soul; common sense (what the Greeks call Necessity) tells us such a situation can’t last. But Herakles seems a character able to override common sense. He releases Alkestis simply by choosing to do so. As if to say, within every death a life stands waiting to be set free, should anyone have the nerve to do it. As if to say, try looking deep into a house, a marriage, or an idea like Necessity and you will see clear through to the other side. Death, like tragedy, is a game with rules. Why not just break the rules?
Rules broken by Euripides in Alkestis include the rule of closure. What are we to make of the ending? Can we be sure the veiled women is alive? that she is Alkestis? that she will live happily ever after with her husband and children? Critics have doubted all these. There is a kind of nuptial drama staged in the final scene--perhaps a parody of the ancient Greek wedding, which centered upon an unveiling of the bride before the eyes of her husband and some exchange of words between them--that stalls oddly at its peak moment. Here the bride is unveiled to her husband at 971/1121 (or so it seems to me; critics doubt this too) but she will not be permitted to speak for three days due to her death-polluted condition. An eerie silence carries her into the big dark house of her unconventional husband.
I find I want to say less rather than more about Alkestis. Not because there is less in this play but because the surface has a speed and shine that evaporate with exegesis, like some of [Alfred] Hitchcock’s plots. Or a trembling of laughter, terrible if it broke out. (248-49)
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Churches of Lesbos
Dear theist (especially Christian theist),
I grew up in Việt Nam singing from Thánh Ca in church. When my Texan parents took my siblings and me "home" to America for visits, we'd sing from the Baptist Hymnal. Did we know anything of Sappho, of her influence on us?
Dear feminist,
I am still fascinated by adult human conversion. The most profound changes have come for me, and for our fathers, when we and they have deeply listened to the other openly with audacious hope. Have the newer hymns of the Church of Agia Paraskevi been forgotten?
So, my friends, can we hear stories, our stories of transformation?
What about hymns and Sappho?
Let's listen: Over Sappho, over Lesbos Greece, over the Christian Church, there's been a clash. It's a loveless gong and a clanging cymbal sounded above the songs directed to the sky. It's a burning and a burying. A silencing of histories and of identities, of persons, like you and me. Shall we remember and respect?
------
Sappho's poem is generally titled the "Hymn to Aphrodite," although it is occasionally listed in some texts as "Ode to Aphrodite." The hymn is a genre that expresses religious emotion and is most often designed to be sung. Sappho's poem almost certainly was performed in this manner. Later hymns, for example those created during the Middle Ages when the creation of hymns became an important expression of religious fervor, were the sole genre of Christian religious expression. In Sappho's time, the hymn was no less fervent. Greeks believed in their gods as fervently as do Christians, who believe in their god and church as an absolute power. Sappho's hymn is analogous to a prayer. She pleads with her goddess, Aphrodite, to intercede on her behalf. She opens the poem with a request for help, moves quickly into recalling past instances when the goddess has helped her, and concludes with an acknowledgement that she and her goddess are united as allies. A careful study of Sappho's "Hymn to Aphrodite" acknowledges its place as a forefather to the later hymns of the Christian church.
http://www.answers.com/topic/hymn-to-aphrodite-poem-3
------
I grew up in Việt Nam singing from Thánh Ca in church. When my Texan parents took my siblings and me "home" to America for visits, we'd sing from the Baptist Hymnal. Did we know anything of Sappho, of her influence on us?
Dear feminist,
I am still fascinated by adult human conversion. The most profound changes have come for me, and for our fathers, when we and they have deeply listened to the other openly with audacious hope. Have the newer hymns of the Church of Agia Paraskevi been forgotten?
So, my friends, can we hear stories, our stories of transformation?
What about hymns and Sappho?
Let's listen: Over Sappho, over Lesbos Greece, over the Christian Church, there's been a clash. It's a loveless gong and a clanging cymbal sounded above the songs directed to the sky. It's a burning and a burying. A silencing of histories and of identities, of persons, like you and me. Shall we remember and respect?
------
Sappho's poem is generally titled the "Hymn to Aphrodite," although it is occasionally listed in some texts as "Ode to Aphrodite." The hymn is a genre that expresses religious emotion and is most often designed to be sung. Sappho's poem almost certainly was performed in this manner. Later hymns, for example those created during the Middle Ages when the creation of hymns became an important expression of religious fervor, were the sole genre of Christian religious expression. In Sappho's time, the hymn was no less fervent. Greeks believed in their gods as fervently as do Christians, who believe in their god and church as an absolute power. Sappho's hymn is analogous to a prayer. She pleads with her goddess, Aphrodite, to intercede on her behalf. She opens the poem with a request for help, moves quickly into recalling past instances when the goddess has helped her, and concludes with an acknowledgement that she and her goddess are united as allies. A careful study of Sappho's "Hymn to Aphrodite" acknowledges its place as a forefather to the later hymns of the Christian church.
http://www.answers.com/topic/hymn-to-aphrodite-poem-3
------
Sappho was a Greek poetess and teacher at a girls school on the
“My sister can’t say she is a Lesbian,” said Dimitris Lambrou. “Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with
http://rashmanly.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/island-home-of-sappho-full-of-lesbians/
------
A hymn is a type of song, usually religious, specifically written for the purpose of praise, adoration or prayer, and typically addressed to a deity/deities, a prominent figure or an epic tale. The word hymn derives from Greek ὕμνος hymnos "a song of praise". . .
Christian Hymnody. Originally modeled on the Psalms and other poetic passages (commonly referred to as "canticles") in the Scriptures, it is generally directed as praise and worship to God. Many refer to Jesus Christ either directly or indirectly.
Since the earliest times, Christianity has sung, "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," both in private devotions and in corporate worship (Matthew 26:30; 1 Cor 14:26; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13; cf. Revelation 5:8-10; Revelation 14:1-5).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymn
------
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Sappho, the Bible, and Feminism
This post is an update of the previous one. Nathan Stitt in a comment there kindly directed me to Mary Barnard's Sappho: A New Translation. So now (in addition to those five wonderful translations of Sappho by Edmonds, Cox, Reynolds, Barnstone, and Carson) you readers here get Barnard, Richmond Lattimore, Jane McIntosh Snyder, Diane Rayor, and Josephine Balmer. I'm putting Barnard last because she does some surprising things--you'll see why her English makes us keep Sappho's hymn going.
Now before I get to that let me also update something one principled feminist has said: "I do think that it is entirely appropriate for feminism to drive scholarship." Suzanne McCarthy goes on to explain, in Bible scholarship, how feminism has made some difference.
There have been other moments in blogging in which feminism and Bible scholarship have seemed like oil and water. I do hear my friends all around and on both sides (as if we must split) saying things like: "if it weren't for those feminists, . . . " and "if it wasn't for all the Bible believing Christians I know . . ."
One of my friends, today, has agreed to let me post some of his comments. I'm going to do this without any comment myself right now (but just want to say that we both feel a strain on our friendship). I do want to get on to the Sappho translations below. So here goes and thanks, my friend who has disagreement with me. He writes today:
Alrighty then. Sappho and more of her wonderful English translators:
upon the black earth is an army of horsemen;
others, of infantry, still others, of ships;
But I say it is what one loves.
It is completely easy to make this
intelligible to everyone; for the woman
who far surpassed all mortals in beauty,
Helen, left her most brave husband
(Jane McIntosh Snyder)
---------------
Some say an army of horsemen, others
say foot-soldiers, still others, a fleet,
is the fairest thing on the dark earth:
I say it is whatever one loves.
Everyone can understand this –
consider that Helen, far surpassing
the beauty of mortals, leaving behind
the best man of all,
(Diane Rayor)
---------------
Some an army of horsemen some an army on foot
and some say a fleet of ships is the loveliest sight
on this dark earth; but I say it is what-
ever you desire:
and it it possible to make this perfectly clear
to all; for the woman who far surpassed all others
in her beauty Helen left her husband --
the best of all men –
(Josephine Balmer)
---------------
To any army wife, in Sardis:
Some say a cavalry corps,
some infantry, some again,
will maintain that the swift oars
of our fleet are the finest
sight on dark earth; but I say
that whatever one loves, is.
This is easily proved: did
not Helen --- she who had scanned
the flower of the world's manhood ---
choose as first among men one
who laid Troy's honor in ruin?
warped to his will, forgetting
love due her own blood, her own
child, she wandered far with him.
So Anactoria, although you
(Mary Barnard)
Now before I get to that let me also update something one principled feminist has said: "I do think that it is entirely appropriate for feminism to drive scholarship." Suzanne McCarthy goes on to explain, in Bible scholarship, how feminism has made some difference.
There have been other moments in blogging in which feminism and Bible scholarship have seemed like oil and water. I do hear my friends all around and on both sides (as if we must split) saying things like: "if it weren't for those feminists, . . . " and "if it wasn't for all the Bible believing Christians I know . . ."
One of my friends, today, has agreed to let me post some of his comments. I'm going to do this without any comment myself right now (but just want to say that we both feel a strain on our friendship). I do want to get on to the Sappho translations below. So here goes and thanks, my friend who has disagreement with me. He writes today:
"Please feel free to quote my e-mail to you, as long as I remain an anonymous (Christian male) voice crying in the wasteland.Certainly, I welcome any reader's comments on this anonymous open letter. Please know that you'll have to use at least a pseudonym because this blog was spammed again today, and I've had to restrict comments to those who will, like a human being, declare some kind of name.
I'm glad we can disagree and be friends. What kind of relationship would we have if we could not negotiate a theoretical difference? I say theoretical because, as you suggest, we will never know with certainty Aristotle's heart, both his struggles and virtues. We know many of his intellectual virtues, and they are justly earned.
Now let me say that I do feel offended by the train on which you are riding, but after eight years in higher education I am almost desensitized to it--people will do what they want to do. Specifically, I resent the postmodern and feminist program of attacking male heroes in all spheres of life in an effort to discredit their great contributions to culture by minimizing their known virtues and genius and by magnifying any probability of vices. This includes the Greeks as well as Hebraic heroes. I welcome and enjoy the unearthing and creation of female heroes, but I do not welcome the slander campaigns against their male counterparts. Would they condemn men that women may be justified? (applying Job 40:8). Are not the labels 'dead white males' and 'sausage party' intended to offend? Do they really value ethos that much? Does ethos discredit logos in their eyes? If they were really cultural relativists, as they say they are, would they judge past persons by their own standards? If they admitted to holding certain transcendent standards, then it would be more intellectually respectful, and we could talk about historical sensitivity.
I would say, if you can make a sound argument for your position, without relying on prejudices in your audience in higher education to justify your appeals and your inferences--which happens too often--then you will have put a more solid dart in the ethos of a sacred cow in Western civilization."
Alrighty then. Sappho and more of her wonderful English translators:
Ο]ἰ μὲν ἰππήων στρότον οἰ δὲ πέσδων
οἰ δὲ νάων φαῖσ᾽ ἐπὶ γᾶν μέλαιναν
ἔ]μμεναι κάλλιστον ἔγω δὲ κῆν᾽
ὄττω τὶς ἔπαται.
πά]γχυ δ᾽ εὔμαρες σύνετον πόησαι
πά]ντι τ[οῦ]τ᾽. ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα
κά]λλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα
[κρίννεν ἄρ]ιστον,
(Sappho, Hymn to Aphrodite III, 1 and 2)
---------------
Some there are who say that the fairest thing seen
on the black earth is an array of horsemen;
some, men marching; some would say ships; but I say
_____she whom one loves best
is the loveliest. Light were the work to make this
plain to all, since she, who surpassed in beauty
all mortality, Helen, once forsaking
_____her lordly husband,
upon the black earth is an army of horsemen;
others, of infantry, still others, of ships;
But I say it is what one loves.
It is completely easy to make this
intelligible to everyone; for the woman
who far surpassed all mortals in beauty,
Helen, left her most brave husband
(Jane McIntosh Snyder)
---------------
Some say an army of horsemen, others
say foot-soldiers, still others, a fleet,
is the fairest thing on the dark earth:
I say it is whatever one loves.
Everyone can understand this –
consider that Helen, far surpassing
the beauty of mortals, leaving behind
the best man of all,
(Diane Rayor)
---------------
Some an army of horsemen some an army on foot
and some say a fleet of ships is the loveliest sight
on this dark earth; but I say it is what-
ever you desire:
and it it possible to make this perfectly clear
to all; for the woman who far surpassed all others
in her beauty Helen left her husband --
the best of all men –
(Josephine Balmer)
---------------
To any army wife, in Sardis:
Some say a cavalry corps,
some infantry, some again,
will maintain that the swift oars
of our fleet are the finest
sight on dark earth; but I say
that whatever one loves, is.
This is easily proved: did
not Helen --- she who had scanned
the flower of the world's manhood ---
choose as first among men one
who laid Troy's honor in ruin?
warped to his will, forgetting
love due her own blood, her own
child, she wandered far with him.
So Anactoria, although you
(Mary Barnard)
Monday, May 26, 2008
Sappho and the Bible
Because there's been this subtle hint of a suggestion that translation scholarship may get tainted somehow if in any way motivated by "feminist presuppositions,"
and because that's already been reiterated rather loudly elsewhere ("Remember that"! like it's the Alamo or something),
I thought we'd best keep talking.
Here below is some of the work of some of the best scholars in the world translating a fragment of Sappho. And how do excellent and honest scholars do without feminist presuppositions when there's "scholarly" sexism and when it's Sappho? They don't do without them, that's how. However, for a few sexist "scholars" of the Bible who just think and argue about translation, a little Greek word becomes, in translation, a big sacred cow. (At stake for these male teachers is whether women today can teach men today in the church and whether Christian wives today get the exclusive role of submitting to their Christian husbands and whether the sacred Bible with its sacred cow Greek words and their sacred cow English translations can really endorse all of that with scholarship untainted by feminism). So with honest and purposeful motivation, with some serious attempt at a little humor, some of us who say sexism sucks also say today in English translation: "Moo!"
The particular Sappho fragment given below is from her Hymn to Aphrodite (whom Willis Barnstone calls Afroditi). I've clipped that in here below also because a certain Bible "scholar" is trying to make some fairly circumscribed assertions about "the Greek word aner" and about how feminist scholars allegedly and "[r]ecently, with no new evidence, but [applying] cultural pressure, . . . have discovered a new meaning, 'person'," which would overturn what "Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known," namely "that aner means 'man' not 'person.'"
If we're not too distracted by the agendas (both A. the sexist "scholarly" claims that feminists are wrecking scholarship not restoring it and B. the unnecessary concession to the sexist "scholars" that scholarship really best does do without feminist work), then you might just enjoy the translations below.
I've bolded a couple of key words under consideration. Look how the respective (honest, feminist) scholars have translated differently. Wonderfully differently!
ἄνδρα, "one," "him," "man," "men / kin," and "husband."
ἀνθρώπων, "mortal," "mortals," "other woman," "mortals," and "everyone."
and because that's already been reiterated rather loudly elsewhere ("Remember that"! like it's the Alamo or something),
I thought we'd best keep talking.
Here below is some of the work of some of the best scholars in the world translating a fragment of Sappho. And how do excellent and honest scholars do without feminist presuppositions when there's "scholarly" sexism and when it's Sappho? They don't do without them, that's how. However, for a few sexist "scholars" of the Bible who just think and argue about translation, a little Greek word becomes, in translation, a big sacred cow. (At stake for these male teachers is whether women today can teach men today in the church and whether Christian wives today get the exclusive role of submitting to their Christian husbands and whether the sacred Bible with its sacred cow Greek words and their sacred cow English translations can really endorse all of that with scholarship untainted by feminism). So with honest and purposeful motivation, with some serious attempt at a little humor, some of us who say sexism sucks also say today in English translation: "Moo!"
The particular Sappho fragment given below is from her Hymn to Aphrodite (whom Willis Barnstone calls Afroditi). I've clipped that in here below also because a certain Bible "scholar" is trying to make some fairly circumscribed assertions about "the Greek word aner" and about how feminist scholars allegedly and "[r]ecently, with no new evidence, but [applying] cultural pressure, . . . have discovered a new meaning, 'person'," which would overturn what "Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known," namely "that aner means 'man' not 'person.'"
If we're not too distracted by the agendas (both A. the sexist "scholarly" claims that feminists are wrecking scholarship not restoring it and B. the unnecessary concession to the sexist "scholars" that scholarship really best does do without feminist work), then you might just enjoy the translations below.
I've bolded a couple of key words under consideration. Look how the respective (honest, feminist) scholars have translated differently. Wonderfully differently!
ἄνδρα, "one," "him," "man," "men / kin," and "husband."
ἀνθρώπων, "mortal," "mortals," "other woman," "mortals," and "everyone."
Ο]ἰ μὲν ἰππήων στρότον οἰ δὲ πέσδων
οἰ δὲ νάων φαῖσ᾽ ἐπὶ γᾶν μέλαιναν
ἔ]μμεναι κάλλιστον ἔγω δὲ κῆν᾽
ὄττω τὶς ἔπαται.
πά]γχυ δ᾽ εὔμαρες σύνετον πόησαι
πά]ντι τ[οῦ]τ᾽. ἀ γὰρ πόλυ περσκόπεισα
κά]λλος ἀνθρώπων Ἐλένα [τὸ]ν ἄνδρα
[κρίννεν ἄρ]ιστον,
(Sappho, Hymn to Aphrodite III, 1 and 2)
---------------
Some say that the fairest thing upon the dark earth is a host of horsemen, and some say a host of foot soldiers, and others again a fleet of ships, but for me it is my beloved. And it is easy to make anyone understand this. When Helen saw the most beautiful of mortals, she chose for best that one,
---------------
A noble fleet, some think these of all on earth
Most beautiful. For me naught else regarding
___Is my beloved.
For thus gazing much on mortal perfectino
And knowing already what life could give her,
___Him chose fair Helen,
---------------
Some say nothing on earth excels in beauty
Fighting men, and call incomparable the lines
Of horse or foot or ships. Let us say rather
Best is what one loves.
This among any who have ever loved
Never wanted proof. Consider Helen: she
Whom in beauty no other woman came near
Left the finest man
---------------
Some say cavalry and others claim
infantry or a fleet of long oars
is the supreme sight on the black earth
I say it is
the one you love. And easily proved.
Did not Helen who far surpassed all
Mortals in beauty desert the best
of men, her kin,
---------------
and some men say an army of ships is the most beautiful thing
on the black earth. But I say it is
___What you love.
Easy to make this understood by all.
For she who overcame everyone
in beauty (Helen)
___Left her fine husband
---------------
update to clarify: aner and andra are (transliterated) variants of the Greek word ἄνδρα
update to link:
Sappho, the Bible, and Feminism
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Since Aristotelians Need Definition & System:
Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. This was a definition of feminism I offered in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center more than 10 years ago [in 1985]. It was my hope that at that time that it would become a common definition everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy. By naming sexism as the problem it went directly to the heart of the matter. Practically, it is a definition which implies that all sexist thinking and action is the problem, whether those who perpetuate it are female or male, child or adult. It is also broad enough to include an understanding of systemic institutionalized sexism. As a definition it is open-ended. To understand feminism it implies one has to necessarily understand sexism.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sweet Wars of Women, for Men Only
There’s implicit sexism in a snippet of Aristotle’s Rhetoric that earlier translators have not brought out. (Despite the protests, we secretly posted on that earlier this week). Are these earlier translating men complicit in the misogyny? I’ll let you be the judge.
So here’s a feminist retranslating (and some quick commentary below that):
ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ νικα̂ν ἡδύ,
ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰς παιδιὰς ἡδείας εἰ̂ναι
τὰς μαχητικὰς καὶ τὰς ἐριστικάς
πολλάκις γὰρ ἐν ταύταισγίγνεται τὸ νικα̂ν̓
καὶ ἀστραγαλίσεις καὶ σφαιρίσεις καὶ κυβείας καὶ πεττείας
“Since victory is pleasantly sweet,
there’s a force even in sweet child’s play
which is also battle-ish and strife-ish.
Many times, in fact, these are birthed in victories
in games with tossed bones, with balls, with dice, and with boards.”
Commentary:
There’s a good bit of Greek “cultural literacy” in this excerpt.
The phrase τὸ νικα̂ν̓, of course, invokes Νική or Nike the goddess “Victory.” The conjoined phrase τὰς μαχητικὰς καὶ τὰς ἐριστικάς calls to mind two other women. First, there’s Ἀνδρομάχη or Andromache, who’s Hector’s wife in Homer’s Illiad and in Euripides’s play named for her. The name is a compound noun meaning a “Man’s [or Husband’s]
Now, I dare say that the child’s play Aristotle is referencing for his students of rhetoric, or speakerism, has nothing to do with girls. After all, his students, such as the conquering Alexander the Great, are all boys. And the games Aristotle mentions are for boys only.
The passage comes along as the teacher is discussing what is pleasant, what is sweet to the taste. This makes for some interesting juxtaposition when he starts calling victory sweet. Aristotle is talking about victory for children. Games are benign enough, and normal for kids. But he makes clear that, for Greek boys, they have to do with the kind of warring, battling, and striving that female deities and that mortal women stir up. In the very next section (not included here), Aristotle gets to the big boy games, the man stuff, where women are never allowed.
Friday, March 28, 2008
How to Avoid Ambiguity, Find Meaning in Life, and Love Your Enemies as Yourself (instead of Killing or Prosecuting them)
Their History
Kenneth Starr’s prosecution failed against Bill Clinton. The investigator hadn’t taken into account ambiguity. A few choice words -- like “I did not have ‘sex’ with that woman” and “private lives” and “that depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” – worked better in the legal hearings than any double-entendre has ever worked for married men who have conveniently used them on women to whom they are not especially committed. So Rush Limbaugh could call the President “Slick Willy.” And John Piper could call out the Scriptures on Limbaugh for that (although few men, much less that particular man of the law named Starr or that particular man of the cloth named Piper, will take the radio man named Limbaugh to task for naming feminists “femi-nazis” as if the singular coined word might disambiguate the meaning of “feminist” and of “Nazi”).
Aristotle avoided ambiguity, and taught his students to do the same. His resulting science of Aristotelianism worked to pigeon-hole everything, and by it he found that nature put some subjects down below others and gave to him, the cold objective logical observer, the high position right at the top with no ambiguity at all. Of course, Aristotle’s own teacher Plato had taught men to be ware of the poets and the sophists, the ones using what Plato coined as “rhetoric.” Slick ambiguous stuff. So: “Avoid Ambiguities! ”
What Aristotle forgot to tell the boys in the Academy was this:
• “How to avoid ambiguity.”
• Learning really depends on some ambiguity. (Kenneth Pike and his friends would come along and call “rhetoric” for learning two different things: “discovery and change.”)
• Absolute avoidance of ambiguity means that you have to kill off all your enemies. (Alexander the Great, Aristotle’s student, tried that; and unfortunately for the Hellene empire some Roman leaders had learned Greek from their mothers and followed Aristotle’s lessons on global conquest and world domination.)
Nathan’s rhetoric succeeded with King David. The prophet used ambiguity. A choice story about the gross domination and abuse of a little lamb and the one who loved it worked better than any congressional hearing. So David ben Jesse heard the story which also, ambiguously, meant discovering meaning for his own life as well and meant changing the enemy in himself by making amends to all of those who he’d violated and by singing a new heart-wrenching song of recovery of joy and spirit (heavy on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the 12 Steps of AA). And Suzanne McCarthy would write a series of posts on this Psalm of the Scriptures by which some of us began to find life meanings for ourselves, learning by ambiguous spiritual-life and love-of-enemy meanings. There are a few Hebrew or Greek or Latin words in Psalm 50 or 51 too; so as much as Aristotle would push for untranslated unambiguous Greek mainly for men only, we’ll look forward to English as well.
Our Time
As a further exercise in avoiding some ambiguity, in finding more meaning in life, and in learning to love, let’s do one more thing. Let’s listen to another choice story by a later son of David. Then you tell me if this is not, even ambiguously, a good feminist thing.
To listen, let’s just briefly reconsider Aristotle and ambiguity. And light. This is important.
Just as Aristotle taught his students to avoid ambiguity, he also told them to avoid choice stories. And he rather unambiguously pigeon-holed what he meant by choice stories: the ones Aesop told and the ones black story teller from Libya told. Why? Aristotle was smart, and smart enough to know that his logic and his observations of nature didn’t require him to get down from his high horse in the ivory tower of the academy. Choice stories that black people tell might be slick and might, therefore, compromise Aristotelian science and its power. So now we look at what Aristotle’s science observed about light: for Aristotle, light absolutely and unambiguously produced the color spectrum; and the addition of two distinct colors of light, namely original yellow light plus original blue light, will total a third, namely original green light. Absolutely logical, absolutely natural, absolutely unambiguous. Few scientists through the centuries following Aristotle have disagreed with him on light. But then comes Albert Einstein, who doesn’t completely disagree, but says “Hey, wait a minute. Let’s contemplate light more.” And Einstein says that light can be contemplated, ambiguously, as particle and/or as wave and/or as field (i.e., in relation to space and time). Then Kenneth Pike comes back into the room with us and says “Won’t you see how even Albert is above Aristotle’s logic here? And remember all those black people whose languages don’t even have or need many numbers at all? Person is above logic; person is above Aristotle’s abstract mathematical additions too. My monolingual demonstrations demonstrate that all the time.” Then Alan Lightman barges in saying “We scientists use Aristotle’s logic; we’re people too. We artists are more interested in choice stories. Yes, I’m an ambiguous person who writes like a scientist and who also writes like an artist. I wrote about that in my essay ‘The Physicist as Novelist’ which is the anchor leg essay in my book The Future of Spacetime in which I include an essay from my famous buddy Stephen William Hawking.” Then C. S. Lewis shouts out: “I was once an Aristotelian until God made me read Samuel Alexander’s Space, Time and Diety. Did you know Aristotle and Albert are just contemplating ‘light’ even though the latter, yes ‘personally’ just like Ken and Alan too, contemplates light ambiguously? So we can contemplate light, and logic and math help some but these don’t always make us avoid ambiguity. But did you all know we can enjoy light too?”
This is where Rabbi Joshua ben David (aka Jesus ben Joseph) steps in and tells a choice story in response to some men who are trying to avoid ambiguity, although they are both men of the cloth and are also morality lawyers. The choice story this time is about a woman contemplating numbers and enjoying light and finding meaning and sharing it with her friends.
And, ambiguously, it’s also a story about you, and about me, (if we have ears to hear). Enjoying requires such careful listening for our exercise in avoiding ambiguity. (The contemplators among us will surmise something technical, like, “Light is a metaphor” or something academic, like, “light is a heuristic—see the Greek scientific root--εὕρῃ καὶ εὑροῦσα?”) Once we’ve learned to love our enemies; once we’ve found the security that enables us to love ourselves; once we’ve begun to learn to love our neighbor like that; once we men have learned not to hoodwink women who are not our wives; once we women have learned that Aristotle’s nature isn’t how it is from the beginning; then we’ll know, much more safely, how to avoid ambiguity. Luke welcomes the Reb’s Aramaic into his own Greek (see his chapter 15, verses 8,9,10); and so I’ve welcomed Dr. Luke’s Greek into my own English. You’ll have to welcome the story for yourself. Listen; change your thinking:
ἢ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα
ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν
οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον
καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν
καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπιμελῶς ἕως οὗ εὕρῃ
καὶ εὑροῦσα
συγκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας λέγουσα
συγχάρητέ μοι
ὅτι εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα
οὕτως
λέγω ὑμῖν
γίνεται χαρὰ
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ
ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ
μετανοοῦντι
“Or there’s this woman with Greek silver coins, ten of them.
Should she lose a coin, even one of them; then what?
Won’t she enjoy turning on the lights then?
And will she even mind sweeping the house then?
And is it any burden at all for her to have to search until she finds it?
And then she, finding it,
calls together the neighbors and friends saying
‘party together with me
because I found the coin I lost.’”
“That’s just like this ambiguity,”
is my statement to each one of you:
“There’s birthed a party
right in front of the angels making God’s announcements
Whenever any single one who’s broken the moral law
begins changing his or her thinking.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)