[HANASHIR:1754] Re: Politically Incorrect

[eblank <eblank...>]

I have to admit I agree with Joel.  While many of you have made valid
points about not changing the Hebrew or English in certain situations, I've
been somewhat troubled by the stridency of this discussion.  I hope I'm not
sorry I sent this. Emily

----------
> From: Joel Siegel <siegeljd (at) earthlink(dot)net>
> To: hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org
> Subject: [HANASHIR:1749] Re: Politically Incorrect
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 8:30 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 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