[HANASHIR:1751] Re: Politically Incorrect

[Adrian A. Durlester <durleste...>]

Joel:

Eloquently put.

But in the process of gender-neutralizing the text, you rob those of us who
have an attachment to the text as is. It's one thing to have a
gender-neutral liturgy for those who choose to use it-but to cram it down
everyone's throat is hardly egalitarian.

Reform means choice.

While it is unfair to generalize, my personal experiences have led me to
believe that there is a McCarthy-esque quality to a lot of what's going on
out there in the name of sensitivity.

Adrian



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org [mailto:owner-hanashir (at) 
shamash(dot)org]On
Behalf Of Joel Siegel
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 7:30 PM
To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org
Subject: [HANASHIR:1749] Re: Politically Incorrect




Adrian A. Durlester wrote:

> I find that one fact often gets overlooked in the debate about gender
> sensitive and politically correct language changes relative to Jewish
> liturgy:
>
> We talk about changing the English. But we forget that the English is just
a
> translation of the Hebrew. So, in effect, we are changing the Hebrew.
>
> Adrian

And well we should.

There are communities and individuals that are working on the project of
making
Jewish *Hebrew* liturgy more gender-inclusive and/or gender neutral.  It's a
much larger project than doing it in English.  Part of it is the grammatical
constraints of Hebrew, since most parts of speech are gendered.  To make it
more difficult, rhyming and scanning of text gets altered when gender gets
altered.

Neither English nor Hebrew have good gender-neutral language that also
conveys
a *personal* connotation.  (I can't bring myself to refer to God as "It",
although I have little problem referring to Her as "She.")

It's amazing how locked we are into male language, the while giving lip
service
to the idea that God isn't a boy, or a man, or indeed has any gender at all.
I
work with young children at the synagogue where I teach.  When talking about
God I very casually use feminine pronouns, not making any big deal about it,
but rather just throwing them in the same way one would throw in masculine
pronouns.  Almost without fail somebody -- and these are kindergarteners and
first-graders -- will catch it and loudly ask "SHE?!!!"  This provides a
good
opening for talking about what the students believe about God and gender.
Using the feminine pronoun at least gets them thinking, in ways they haven't
before.

So, I object to a mindless use of masculine pronouns, without considering
the
effect on the psyche of doing so.  I object to (IMHO) the cop out of saying
that "Oh, well, it's just because that's the "general" pronoun."  That's
true
as far as it goes, but I believe the reasons the male is "general" is rooted
in
(dare I say it without being labeled PC?) male supremacy.

FWIW, I also object to the term "politically correct" to describe projects
such
as these, and the people who participate in them.  It's become convenient
and
common to use it, but the term has frequently been used to bash those who
strive to change our consciousness in our use of language.  It's become a
term
of ridicule and mockery.

At least in the context of education, Atlantic Monthly called it "a
threatening
wall of fire sweeping through American higher education."  (March 1991, p.
51.)
Newsweek wondered if it is "the new enlightenment on campus or the new
McCarthyism?"  (24 December 1990, p. 48.) It's come to mean those campus
thought police, those New McCarthyists who are out to kill all speech and
debate, toss the Western Canon, and generally destroy standards, if not
civilization as a whole, replacing it with multiculturalism, touchy-feely
women's studies and ethnic studies courses, cultural relativism,
subjectivism,
and assorted similar "evils."  Examples of this line of thinking are Allan
Bloom's Closing of the American Mind (1987), Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal
Education (1991), Charles Sykes?s Profscam (1988), and Roger Kimball?s
Tenured
Radicals (1990), as well as an assortment of magazine articles, including
the
two I cited above.

I don't find attempts to make the Hebrew liturgy gender inclusive to be PC
at
all.  I find it, in fact, the only way that I can practice a serious Jewish
spirituality without constantly being interrupted by the male-ness of it
all.
(Understanding Hebrew can be a curse as well as a blessing.)

If you don't think that male God-imagery is problematic, consider that Torah
teaches that humans are (excuse me, "Man is") created in the image of God.
If
that image is constantly cast in masculine terms (as my kindergarteners and
first graders graphically illustrate), which 47% of the world's population
carries God's image, and which 53% does not?  Is there not an irony to
B'reishit 1:27 "Va-yivra Elohim et ha-adam b'tzalmo b'tzelem Elohim bara ot
zachar un'kevah bara otam" ("And God created man in His image, in the image
of
God He created them, *male and female* *He* created them")?


Joel