The celebrated Greek virtue of self-control (sophrosyne) has to be defined differently for men and for women, Aristotle maintains. Masculine sophrosyne is rational self-control and resistance to excess, but for the woman sophrosyne means obedience and consists in submitting herself to the control of others."
--Anne Carson, Men in the Off Hours
Law, religion, science, and civilization are structured by the masculine symbolic. The feminine is figured as an absence within the real as well as the imaginary and symbolic orders. Thus, women have been excluded from symbolic order. Becoming a subject involves entry into the symbolic. Thus, the language and the whole symbolic order are masculine, so one can only enter into it as male. As a result, women can only appear as tokens of exchange within this masculine economy. Women’s own representation is by silence, absence, lack, or hysteria. Therefore, when woman is mirrored in the Freudian-Lacan mirror there is only lack and deficiency.
--Jea Suk Oh, "A Study ..."
As women gain more influence in Hollywood, even the term “actress” is disappearing. Just as stewardesses are now called flight attendants, many actresses now prefer to be called actors. The Screen Actors Guild has eliminated the term “actress” in the presentation of its awards, instead using “female actor.” Perhaps, as the term “actress” falls further out of favor, the award-granting organizations will be forced to acknowledge that male and female actors do indeed have the same occupation.
--Kim Elsesser, "And the Gender-Neutral Oscar Goes To...," New York Times
In English speaking countries one can also see that there are far more negative terms for women than there are for men. The semantics of English is also used against women as the metaphors available to describe women are derogatory compared to those that describe men. The use of animal imagery is just one example where the images of women are less positive from that of men. For example a man is a tiger while a woman is a chick (en). Sexism is also said to be engraved in the morphology of the language. The base structure of nouns in English always seems to be the male form. The female form is always a derivative of the male form. Take for example lion the female form is lioness, prince-princess, actor-actress and the list goes on.
--Shaneka Green, "Sexism in the English Language"
Of all of the pairs of words in English that have traditionally had "male" and "female" versions (actor/actress, instructor/instructress, doctor/doctrix, etc.), only ONE pair involves a basic word referring to the female and the variant referring to the male: widow/widower.
--susanhathaway, comment @ "Why Sexist Language Matters"
Sexism is revealed in the English language, as well as most world languages, in many ways. Language studies have concluded that language "discrimination is usually covert and difficult to be noticed without conscious awareness." [4]. Gender analysts warn that the danger of continuing sexist language is that sexist language tends to perpetuate gender stereotypes and reinforce biases against women [37].
--wikipedia writers/ editors, "Sexism: Sexism and Language: Reappropriation and Reclamation"
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
If Your Body's Sexed Female, Which Bible Must You Read?
My post today is getting away from what I've wanted to do this month at this blog by remembering: women's history as it bumps up against (y)our present situation(s). You judge whether today's post is so tangential, or puts the brake on history:
Jay Seidler in comments this month has pressed me to answer for depressing him. (Before you join us in conversation, I urge you to find out for yourself where Jay is coming from. His blogger profile is here, and his blog Roots and Leaves gives flickering glimpses into the very important, extremely hopeful work he does).
Jay's comments follow, and below them my responding starts:
Or, Jay, what if Jesus had not had that "right kind of organ"? What if the body of the Christian Christ had been sexed female? Or even if, not being female but male as the scriptures record, he had nonetheless called God "Mother"? Could there have been better representation of the 12 tribes of Isra-El, of the sons of Jacob (i.e., the boy babies of Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah), by Jesus in his group of the dozen "men" only? Might not the family (and the Jewish scriptures themselves) better have represented their daughterS, namely Dinah? What if the Bible had mentioned Dinah's sisterS and half sisterS, for surely (hopefully) there are other girl babies to name?? Then, so then, what if Jesus had named one of "his" inner circle a female? Yes, what if there were clearer, louder, more certain "evidence to be hopeful in the Christian scriptures that the Church would be a leader in this campaign rather than a brake"?
Jay, I'm now depressed with you, losing hope again. Until I look at the Greek text of matthew, mark, luke, and john even saying things perhaps that Christians, as we have had the Church, rarely or never say. Jesus was not a Christian nor a member of any Christ-ian Church. To call him Christ is a good bit different -- says the Jew Willis Barnstone -- than to call him what the "New Covenant" calls him, even in Greek. I'm playing with words, and wordplay again.
So we might critique the historical record, the historiography. Jesus won't even listen to some women, uses their race (calls them Jewish names "dogs" and insinuates they're illegitimate or not God's children, not even children). Mark's history (7:27) and Matthew's historiography (15:27) make this fairly clear. And the twelve sons of David, the boys of Isra-El whom Jesus had chosen, they got it too (in both texts). So there's not just "a brake" but the whole vehicle gets shifted into reverse by its central character (i.e., Jesus). Where is the hope in that?!
Fortunately, with some hope, the texts let "her" speak, give voice to females. The two women (Mark's and also Matthew's) find faith, find hope, find love. They have agency and participation in that hope that none of the twelve boys of Jesus's race and in his class so easily had. I'm not saying the disciples of Jesus with circumcised penises didn't ever resist Jesus or cry out to him for what they felt (quite apart from Jesus and his own project) was what they themselves individually wanted. The texts do suggest these men were as whiny as we might stereotype any Syrophonician Greek woman or any Canaanite "bitch" to be. (Yes, I know, Jesus didn't say "bitch." The Jesus Seminar, of course, think that Jesus didn't say κυνάρια [koon-aria] and didn't throw the phrase τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν [tois koon-ariois balein] at the women at all. The Jesus Seminar vote the bold sayings black, saying "Matthew has reproduced this story from Mark and has revised it slightly in the process. However, the dialogue attributed to Jesus was probably the storyteller's creation." However, The Jesus Seminar, and the rest of us reading and listening, do hear the voices of two different individuals with bodies sexed female. And they own the racist, sexist words. The move forward. They won't, even though doubtful men are telling this history, these females won't let Jesus or the scriptures put the brake on them.
We might read Jesus's (alleged, doubted, doubtful?) responses. We might read that the females, by their rhetoric in Mark's and Matthew's Greek perhaps in their own Greek mother tongue, have hope and get exactly what they want.
And today, we might read women reading the scriptures. Okay, let's call them, like you do, "the Christian scriptures." We might read the hope Wil Gafney gives them:
Jay Seidler in comments this month has pressed me to answer for depressing him. (Before you join us in conversation, I urge you to find out for yourself where Jay is coming from. His blogger profile is here, and his blog Roots and Leaves gives flickering glimpses into the very important, extremely hopeful work he does).
Jay's comments follow, and below them my responding starts:
This is really a depressing list. Can you not give any hope for the situation around 50 AD.
Since you seem to have more hope than I in the writings of these messengers of the early church, could you share some reasons you find to have this hope. I am afraid I have pushed the interpretation of some of these writings too far in effort to support my egalitarian view. I have no apology for my view, but I am a bit concerned about my integrity concerning the interpretation of these writings.
Thanks again. Perhaps if we can truly see a redemptive hermeneutic as W. Webb proposes there is hope. The question remain in my mind, is Paul taking steps forward when he refers to women as his co-workers or is he sliding back when he advises that a woman submit to their head as the church submits to Christ. At least Paul had female co-workers. Jesus certainly broke some barriers in his actions towards women, but he didn't select a women to be one of his twelve. If Peter wrote the letters attributed to him that instructs wives to refer to their husband as lord, had he gone forward from his Pentecost message or was his view just inconsistent like so many complementarians who claim that women can prophecy in the church but must still be retained under one who has the right kind of organ. I just would like to see that if we can find evidence to be hopeful in the Christian scriptures that the Church would be a leader in this campaign rather than a brake.(now the start of my responding to Jay's third comment above:)
Or, Jay, what if Jesus had not had that "right kind of organ"? What if the body of the Christian Christ had been sexed female? Or even if, not being female but male as the scriptures record, he had nonetheless called God "Mother"? Could there have been better representation of the 12 tribes of Isra-El, of the sons of Jacob (i.e., the boy babies of Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah), by Jesus in his group of the dozen "men" only? Might not the family (and the Jewish scriptures themselves) better have represented their daughterS, namely Dinah? What if the Bible had mentioned Dinah's sisterS and half sisterS, for surely (hopefully) there are other girl babies to name?? Then, so then, what if Jesus had named one of "his" inner circle a female? Yes, what if there were clearer, louder, more certain "evidence to be hopeful in the Christian scriptures that the Church would be a leader in this campaign rather than a brake"?
Jay, I'm now depressed with you, losing hope again. Until I look at the Greek text of matthew, mark, luke, and john even saying things perhaps that Christians, as we have had the Church, rarely or never say. Jesus was not a Christian nor a member of any Christ-ian Church. To call him Christ is a good bit different -- says the Jew Willis Barnstone -- than to call him what the "New Covenant" calls him, even in Greek. I'm playing with words, and wordplay again.
So we might critique the historical record, the historiography. Jesus won't even listen to some women, uses their race (calls them Jewish names "dogs" and insinuates they're illegitimate or not God's children, not even children). Mark's history (7:27) and Matthew's historiography (15:27) make this fairly clear. And the twelve sons of David, the boys of Isra-El whom Jesus had chosen, they got it too (in both texts). So there's not just "a brake" but the whole vehicle gets shifted into reverse by its central character (i.e., Jesus). Where is the hope in that?!
Fortunately, with some hope, the texts let "her" speak, give voice to females. The two women (Mark's and also Matthew's) find faith, find hope, find love. They have agency and participation in that hope that none of the twelve boys of Jesus's race and in his class so easily had. I'm not saying the disciples of Jesus with circumcised penises didn't ever resist Jesus or cry out to him for what they felt (quite apart from Jesus and his own project) was what they themselves individually wanted. The texts do suggest these men were as whiny as we might stereotype any Syrophonician Greek woman or any Canaanite "bitch" to be. (Yes, I know, Jesus didn't say "bitch." The Jesus Seminar, of course, think that Jesus didn't say κυνάρια [koon-aria] and didn't throw the phrase τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν [tois koon-ariois balein] at the women at all. The Jesus Seminar vote the bold sayings black, saying "Matthew has reproduced this story from Mark and has revised it slightly in the process. However, the dialogue attributed to Jesus was probably the storyteller's creation." However, The Jesus Seminar, and the rest of us reading and listening, do hear the voices of two different individuals with bodies sexed female. And they own the racist, sexist words. The move forward. They won't, even though doubtful men are telling this history, these females won't let Jesus or the scriptures put the brake on them.
We might read Jesus's (alleged, doubted, doubtful?) responses. We might read that the females, by their rhetoric in Mark's and Matthew's Greek perhaps in their own Greek mother tongue, have hope and get exactly what they want.
And today, we might read women reading the scriptures. Okay, let's call them, like you do, "the Christian scriptures." We might read the hope Wil Gafney gives them:
The only reproductive organ that God possesses in the text is a womb (Job 38:29). God's womb is also present in the text through the tender love and nurture that emanates from the divine womb. The verb r-ch-m, unfortunately regularly translated "compassion," is the emotion that emanates from the recham, or womb. This is the love that God has for God's people throughout the scriptures of Israel:Or if we see them as historically "the scriptures of Israel," we might read the hope Rachel Barenblat gives them (and how God represents Himself in them):
Part of what I love here is that while it may seem transgressive to consider God in these terms, it's actually not. Granted, kabbalah goes some pretty interesting places when it comes to conceptualizing the multifaceted nature of the divine, but even in mainstream Jewish tradition there's a connection between God and the womb. One of our most common names for God is ha-rachaman, "The Merciful" or "The Compassionate" -- and rachaman shares a root with rechem, "womb." When we speak of el maleh rachamim ("God, filled with compassion") we're talking about a God whose mercy flows forth from the divine womb. We may be using masculine language, but the implications of that language are strongly female. I see this as a kind of gender-bending consciousness-raiser which is so built-in to our liturgy that most of the time we forget it's even there. God (masculine word) is the One in whose womb (feminine concept) all creation is nurtured.
As I enter my third trimester of pregnancy, this language amazes me. If God is the wombful One, then I with my womb and its inhabitant am somehow partaking in a flicker of God's experience as the nurturer of humanity.
Friday, March 5, 2010
If Your Body's Sexed Female, How You Should Fare in the Marketplace, How Fair?
2010 AD:
------>
Women are now 50% of the workforce [in the USA, one of the world's oldest democracies to include females in voting]. On average [nonetheless] women earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. Just one year (!) out of college, women already earn less than their male colleagues earn, even when they work in the same field with the same degree. At ages 66 and older women are twice (!) as likely as men to be poor. It has taken 40 years (!) to begin to close the wage gap by a meager 12 cents.
What is really alarming is just how much the wage gap widens the older women get. One year after graduation, women average 80% of the salary their male counterparts are earning. Ten years later they are earning 69% of the salary of their male counterparts. Even when researchers control for all the known factors that can affect earnings (hours, occupation, parenthood, etc.) their research shows that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. Over time, this unexplained portion of the pay gap grows larger and larger.
The AAUW has an interactive map HERE where you can hover over any state and find out the wage gap stats closer to home. It is sad to view these stats. Among college grads, women in Texas are earning 70% of what their male counterparts are earning. In my home state Michigan, it is even worse: 68%.
Last year, President Obama began to work on this problem by signing into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The second part of this legislation has been stalled in the Senate, but it will finally receive its hearing. On March 11, the Senate will hold a hearing on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is an update of the 46-year old Equal Pay Act. If you want to read more about this legislation or if you want to send your senators a letter to support this legislation, go HERE (AAUW website page). They have set up the website so that it is very easy to create and send your message, either via email or on letterhead. It took me two minutes.
I will come back to this topic again since April 20th is Equal Pay Day. And HERE are some pay equity ideas for action for that day if you want to make the problem more visible around your local area.
All stats are taken from AAUW.
----
above is an excerpt from ,
------>
Women are now 50% of the workforce [in the USA, one of the world's oldest democracies to include females in voting]. On average [nonetheless] women earn 77 cents to every dollar earned by men. Just one year (!) out of college, women already earn less than their male colleagues earn, even when they work in the same field with the same degree. At ages 66 and older women are twice (!) as likely as men to be poor. It has taken 40 years (!) to begin to close the wage gap by a meager 12 cents.
What is really alarming is just how much the wage gap widens the older women get. One year after graduation, women average 80% of the salary their male counterparts are earning. Ten years later they are earning 69% of the salary of their male counterparts. Even when researchers control for all the known factors that can affect earnings (hours, occupation, parenthood, etc.) their research shows that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. Over time, this unexplained portion of the pay gap grows larger and larger.
The AAUW has an interactive map HERE where you can hover over any state and find out the wage gap stats closer to home. It is sad to view these stats. Among college grads, women in Texas are earning 70% of what their male counterparts are earning. In my home state Michigan, it is even worse: 68%.
Last year, President Obama began to work on this problem by signing into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The second part of this legislation has been stalled in the Senate, but it will finally receive its hearing. On March 11, the Senate will hold a hearing on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is an update of the 46-year old Equal Pay Act. If you want to read more about this legislation or if you want to send your senators a letter to support this legislation, go HERE (AAUW website page). They have set up the website so that it is very easy to create and send your message, either via email or on letterhead. It took me two minutes.
I will come back to this topic again since April 20th is Equal Pay Day. And HERE are some pay equity ideas for action for that day if you want to make the problem more visible around your local area.
All stats are taken from AAUW.
----
above is an excerpt from ,
Women Yesterday and Today 1: The Wage Gap
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)