Qv2
Kirby Urner
<section topic="Qv2">
Qv2 means Quakers, Version 2.0 -- off the bat controversial as of course
Quakerism has gone through any number of morphs and forks, starting from a
persecuted minority in England, rising to the tops of bank towers and chocolate
companies, and having a hand in the design of USA OS v 1.0 in the form of
Pennsylvania, working closely with NavAm tribal council-casinos etc.
Aside: USA OS is now ready for reloading, given we've done some good work on the
code -- the lingering LAWCAP code pile is nowhere near as intelligent or
sophisticated and deserves some rest in retirement.
One reason I put some distance between myself and the more established NPYM
Friends over this concept of "membership" is I wanted to have my own Quaker
sandbox in which to try out some new concepts. Those feeling leery about my
leadings will have an easier time disassociating from my work as, after all,
"he's not really member". I'm free to pioneer, still using touch stones and
reality checks such as other Friends provide (this Quaker Men's Retreat being a
f'rinstance).
So what's in my sandbox? New mythology, mainly.
I've bought into Karen Armstrong's thesis in 'Battle for God' that a lot of
psychic imbalance, in the west especially, stems from trying to stuff all
thinking through a literalist pipeline, with all semi-metaphorical verities
pushed to the side as "mere kid stuff" of the Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy
variety. Thus even latter day religionists try to perpetuate their dogmas on
the plane of literal truth, in some misbegotten battle against science (id
versus evo), which is likewise overly-mired in what passes for literal on any
given day (devo).[1]
I was predisposed to accept Karen's thesis anyway, because of my long-standing
admiration for "Love's Body" by Norman O. Brown. He targets what he calls
Protestant Literalism as a manifestation of the same imbalance. The rush to
literalize everything is an ego project, because metaphorical truths tend to
filter up through the cracks, oracle style, from the darkness of the unconscious
(some supra-egoic mind, perhaps closer to God?). This threatens the ego, which
wants to be taken as "the authority" when it comes to Truth. Deeper truths,
coming from some trascendent Full Word or Self (Lacan) are rightly perceived as
undermining by control freak egos. Such egos need more training in the art of
letting go.[2]
So our Mens Retreat was focused on some early Quaker mythology about the Lamb's
War (Joe came to this independently, even though it's been a thread I've shared
with Wanderers of late, I group I'm involved with in Portland (see
wwwanderers.org)).
James Nayler was a primary expositor of this dharma, and many Friends became
uncomfortable with where he was going in his Quaker sandbox. He ended up in
prison, with his tongue bored through, and giant B (for Blasphemer) tatooed on
his forehead. He patched it up with George Fox we're told, but still, Nayler is
often held up as an example of what fanaticism will do to a person, and
therefore his Lamb's War mythos often gets relegated to mere footnote status
among Friends. Not so in Qv2.
</section>
<section topic="Qv2 bumper stickers">
This won't be the post wherein I spell out in great detail what I'm up to, but
let's just start with three "invisible bumper stickers". By "invisible" I mean
I don't need to see them published and literally stuck on the bumpers of motor
vehicles. Some might do that, but the teachings merely require a "bumper
sticker format" i.e. we're talking about sharing memes here, not making money
through some e-commerce web site (not that I have anything against e-commerce).
Here are the three:
1) Quakers play Quake.
A reference to a violent first person videogame, wherein a human hero defends
humanity against a devil race, alien predators with no use for humans at all.
The teaching here is we do not eschew metaphorical violence, because our egos
are strong enough to handle such in its proper context. Like Nayler, we're
*not* advocating burning flesh or harming real physical bodies (would only that
Nayler's opponents in the debate have agreed to these same rules). There's more
I could say, but onward...
2) Quakers: Unarmed, and Dangerous.
Same idea. A problem with Quakers of the liberal persuasion, that I have, is
they're too easy to write off as namby pamby good hearted folk, nice,
well-meaning, if irate. They're gentlemen with canes up their asses, or women
with bees in their bonnets.
Not scary enough.
Unlike Masons, liberal Friends have no spooky symbols or secret handshakes to
speak of -- not that I'm advocating any secret handshakes. Part of the Qv2
media campaign (a recruiting drive if you will -- though I only see attenders)
will be to tune in some unsettling imagery that's actually somewhat scary, edgy.
The point is *not* to psych people into killing fellow humans (that's what the
devil *wants* us to do) but to counter Satan in a language Satan well
understands. Hellish imagery is *not* entirely out of bounds. We're into using
psychology and inward weapons, by their very nature, have an edge to them. We
also use carrots ("Ehhh, what's up doc" -- Bug's Bunny voice (Cheney as Elmer
Fudd http://www.flickr.com/photos/asmythie/104002942/ )).
3) Quakers: We've Done Our Homework.
Here, we're celebrating the "some truth in it" stereotype that Quakers have a
higher than average IQ ("smarter than the average yogi"), when it comes to
holding cerebral jobs, often in the education sector, but also in science and
engineering, other professional walks of life. There's resonance with the Royal
Society per Neal Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy (Nayler himself resonates with
Neal's Puritans a lot), which in today's lingo translates into "think tank"
iconography. Qv2 is not without its corporate, button down, think tanky
ambience. We could blend in on K Street (Jack Abramoff even had the right hat).
However, part of the mythos is those corrosive/corrupting language games so
popular in Washington DC are *not* the only games in town. USA-based Friends
(Amigos) are dispersed around the world, like the other peace churches (e.g.
Mennonites, Church of the Brethren) and are free to engage in diplomacy and
recruiting without feeling beholden to WDC's bureaucracies. Like, we don't
*have* to clear it with the State Department before we undertake various vital
Qv2 missions (like, Brother Joe is headed to Guatemala today, whereas I'm a
recent returnee from Sweden, looking ahead to meetings in London and CERN).
</section>
<section topic="Psy War">
I also shared with these men, during a worship discussion period and at other
times, my sense that we have plenty to learn from psy warriors in other
traditions and walks of life (relates to the "done our homework" meme).
I shared a couple examples from the historical literature, focusing on Ed
Lansdale, author of 'In the Midst of Wars' and alluded to earlier.[3]
In one true story, Lansdale is hearing a lot of talk about killing Castro coming
from the White House, and proposes staging the Second Coming instead, a laser
light show that might be conducted from the deck of some stealth cruiser or sub,
somewhere off Cuba's coast. Castro's invisible army would be struck with shock
and awe and retreat to its Catholic roots, forsaking Communism. Victory would
be ours. Of course Lansdale's idea wasn't taken too seriously by the Kennedy
brothers. And only years latter did the Pope actually venture to Cuba. Not
quite the 2nd Coming maybe, but certainly more real, and Castro had to admit:
that Pope had real charisma (not all Jesus freaks do, I think we'd agree).[4]
In the second true story, we have Lansdale ushered into JFK's office in the
company of McNamara, then secretary of defense. The question on the table was
whether Lansdale might want to serve his country by taking Diem out. Diem, you
may recall, started as a young rising-star Catholic, and was groomed to take the
helm in South Vietnam, to counter Ho's popular appeal as some kind of
Jeffersonian Democrat (actually, that was no longer the spin -- he was a
portrayed as a communist domino, threatening to fall). But now that South
Vietnam was indeed falling, the Kennedy brothers wanted to try something new.
But Lansdale said no, which is what got him in such trouble with McNamara in the
car back to the Pentagon. McNamara, hissing mad, couldn't *imagine* how some
lower-down general like Lansdale could say "no" to a USA president.[5]
Anyway, two viginettes from the psywarriors' lore books. Col. Fletcher Prouty is
my source for a lot of the Lansdale stuff, though not all of it.[6]
So what's the teaching here? That psychological warfare is sometimes practiced
as an alternative to violence by military pros, not just Quakers. Given how we
have so many Quakers with military experience (our group had several vets, as
well as COs), it makes sense that we'd explore some commonalities, even as we
differ on so many fronts (the Pentagon is willing to go for its literal guns, if
the more inward approach falters, whereas Quakers revamp and try *yet another*
inward approach, perhaps dying in the process).
These military examples have some relevance to me, especially given Qv2 and its
moves into Lamb's War territory.
</section>
<section topic="Lamb's War">
The final piece of mythology here involves the devils I mentioned (Satan and
company). The old idea, effectively encoded in Milton's 'Paradise Lost' is that
the devils, being fallen angels, are consumed with jealously over God's new
fascination with Humans, pathetic, ignorant ape-like bi-peds on planet earth
clearly unworthy of God's love and affection. Whereas Jesus provided proof
positive of our worthiness, lingering misanthropy (self hatred on the part of
humans) remains an important tool in the devil's tool kit.
If we wipe ourselves out, in one way or another, it'll be because we inwardly
fear and loathe ourselves that much. We'll have been overcome by those who
would delight in our failure, in bringing a whimperous end to the human scenario
aboard Spaceship Earth. So it is these projected aliens, these fallen angels,
whom we fight (some resonance with 'Independence Day' -- the movie).[7] Their
angelic psy weapons are inward and deadly (e.g. hubris, vanity, self hatred).
But so are ours pretty effective (our birthright as humans).
Remember, in the Narnia movie it's Santa Claus who arms the sons of Adam and
daughters of Eve -- an angel on our side (plus the Ice Queen is just doing her
job, as I more fully spell out in my blog).[8]
Per my virtual Quakerism (Qv2), and per many allied mythologies, our job is to
prove worthy of God's love and to glorify God, to show that our design is indeed
miraculous and intelligent, well adapted to our planetary context. Yes, it's
been an uphill battle, gaining these higher levels intelligence, age by age,
civilization by civilization, very costly. But after lo these many millions of
years, we're not about to give up all of a sudden, right when we're starting to
really get a handle on God's laws (our science is finally becoming strong
enough, even equal to the tasks at hand, such as feeding the hungry, and
providing shelter to all of our global university students).
We aim to be stars, true celebrities, against the backdrop of eternity, friends
of the angels, not rivals. And we're able to love them more because we no
longer feel so threatened by their awesomely superior (if alien) intelligence.
In the end, we aim to win even the devils over -- understanding that, in the
meantime, they prefer to fight us, just to see what we're made of.
True, we're not on at the top of the totem pole, on scale of intelligent life
forms, but we're definitely a planet-savvy species to be reckoned with,
handiwork of high worth. And we plan to stick around for millenia to come.
Even today, folks are working on a 'Clock of the Long Now' to help meter our
long-running story.[9] Ambient video for airports, is what I'm working on
(Brian Eno has already done the music). A & B modules.[10] More competent
geometry cartoons.[11]
And now, Qv2.
</section>
<sig>
Kirby
</sig>
<notes>
[1] http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/aphiloview2.html
[2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0520071069/102-8834637-6402554
[3] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0823213145/qid=1142271363/
[4] http://www.historyhouse.com/in_history/castro/
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Lansdale
[6] http://www.prouty.org/
[7] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/
[8] http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-about-narnia.html
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
[10] http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2005/12/incomprehensible.html
[11] http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/boosting-bandwidth.html
</notes>
</post>
chris....@gmail.com
Kirby Urner wrote:
> Remember, in the Narnia movie it's Santa Claus who arms the sons of Adam and
> daughters of Eve . . .
I find myself wondering how Quakers reproduce, because aside from
ex-nun Karen Armstrong, I'm not seein' many of the daughters
hereabouts. . .
(I know: it's viral! Such a shame, really.)
Christine
Engineer
Kirby Urner wrote:
>Qv2 means Quakers, Version 2.0
>I wanted to have my own Quaker sandbox in which to try out
>some new concepts.
Are folks who like the concept but who you find to be anoying and
who in turn find you to be annoying allowed to participate?
If not, there is always the BSD...Linux...GNU/Hurd model.
Kirby Urner
Maybe the daughters will do something around daughters. I too wouldn't want an
all male denomination here.
Kirby
Kirby Urner
>Are folks who like the concept but who you find to be anoying and
>who in turn find you to be annoying allowed to participate?
Yes. They may even get *more* annoyed as they get more into it. Fine with me.
Just don't call me "antichrist" cuzza my anti-charisma -- "troll" would suffice.
>If not, there is always the BSD...Linux...GNU/Hurd model.
>
Quakers don't like being herded, we already know. So my Qv2 is definitely
"viral" in the sense of self-propagating and open source. I'm into recruiting
among the military.
Kirby
chris....@gmail.com
But there doesn't seem to be room in your mythology for women. Whether
there's room in this newsgroup remains to be revealed <g>.
In my mythology, there was a time not so long ago when we weren't so
separate, when we began to see each other and sometimes, even,
understand.
Or appreciate, at least.
That's enough.
Christine
Timothy Travis
On 3/16/06 2:25 PM, in article ocpj12l9csq9d229f...@4ax.com,
"Kirby Urner" <ur...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
What does it say about ourselves and the "other" sex when we divide
ourselves into institutions that say "No Men Allowed" or "No Women Allowed."
Just a query...
What are we doing to remove the causes of war and to bring about the
conditions of peace? Where there are hatred, division, and strife, how are
we instruments of reconciliation and love?
Advices and Queries: Peace
Faith and Practice/Book of Discipline
North Pacific Yearly Meeting
The Religious Society of Friends
http://npym.org/NPYM/org_info/f_&_p/index.html
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
Timothy Travis
On 3/16/06 8:43 PM, in article
1142570604.0...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"chris....@gmail.com" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
Began to see that the other is actually us?
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
It seems as if the first step down the road to
violence is taken when I dehumanize a person. That
violence might stay within my thoughts or find its way
into the outer world and become expressed verbally,
psychologically, structurally or physically. As soon
as I rob a fellow human being of his or her humanity
by sticking a dehumanizing label on them, I begin the
process that can have, as an end result, torture,
injury and death
Terry Fox
Kirby Urner
>But there doesn't seem to be room in your mythology for women. Whether
>there's room in this newsgroup remains to be revealed <g>.
>
I couldn't fit all my Qv2 thinking in the one post. I was just back from a Mens
Retreat, and so was pregnant with guy memes (smile).
Here's a blog post where I add a different spin:
http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2006/01/mlk-day.html
Kirby
Kirby Urner
>What does it say about ourselves and the "other" sex when we divide
>ourselves into institutions that say "No Men Allowed" or "No Women Allowed."
>
How about "Safe for Women-Only" and "Safe for Men-Only" meaning we have space
for both permutations, as well as Co-Ed, Same-Sex, who knows and whatever. The
goal is inclusivity, not exclusivity.
Kirby
Kirby Urner
>Here's a blog post where I add a different spin:
>http://mybizmo.blogspot.com/2006/01/mlk-day.html
>
>Kirby
PS: note the Quakeress depicted on the cover of said tome, sans burka or
bonett. (smile)
chris....@gmail.com
That's a quandary, isn't it? Getting to inclusivity through
exclusivity? It's sort of like getting to peace through war.
I understand the value of groups of the same age, gender, whatever. I
see how girls, if not boys, benefit from same-sex education in
secondary school. I see men blossoming from have a group of supportive
males in men's groups--friends in a sense we women understand--and
daring to feel and express emotions other than anger.
Or just having a good time; that's huge. I can't remember the last time
I heard a group of men laughing with abandon. So you really ought to
share that with us sometimes!
On the other hand, we probably don't make the best decisions when our
friends and advisors are limited to the people who think the most like
us.
Mixed groups don't always work. I've been in several women's
spirituality groups and one "coed" group. The coed group was a
disaster. All the men wanted to define spirituality, discuss its
philosophic underpinnings, dissect it, develop strategies. Meanwhile,
the women stared at them thinking, hey: it just IS. It informs us, it's
in everything we do, it's all around us. So we wanted to share our
experiences.
We were too disappointed and frustrated to get to the point of learning
from each other.
I am concerned though that in going from denying gender differences to
again considering them foundational, we are losing the precious ground
in the middle.
I have no answers. But I wonder if the lack of women in this NG, apart
from reflecting generic Usenet demographics, isn't owing to the
dominant male metaphors, worldview, and style of discourse.
This is especially the case in discussing war and contentious political
topics.
My bias: women tend not to "get" war. All the reasoning and research,
all the intellectual debate and justification, simply pales next to the
gut feeling that none of us will be safe until all of us are safe. And
the way to make our children safe is by keeping all children healthy,
loving and educating them, and making a world in which they can do good
and honorable work to support THEIR families.
The idea is to make people think it would be really stupid (not to
mention unnecessary) to strap a bomb on (or drop it from a safe
distance) and blow up a bunch of people when you could be having them
over for dinner and exchanging cookies, fermented beverages, and
stories.
I worry that dividing us--men and women, cognitive and affective
learners, Team A and Team B, makes us default to the relational term
"versus."
Christine
Timothy Travis
On 3/17/06 9:58 AM, in article g3ul12hq801m1uk5i...@4ax.com,
"Kirby Urner" <ur...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
If some space in the Society is not safe for women or for men, why is that?
Isn't the better approach to change that condition than to go on with
divisions that re enforce and actually foster division?
So let's revise the query: what does it say about the Society (or society,
in general) that we divide ourselves into institutions based on the idea
that the sexes are not safe with one another?
jenny...@googlemail.com
> I have no answers. But I wonder if the lack of women in this NG, apart
> from reflecting generic Usenet demographics, isn't owing to the
> dominant male metaphors, worldview, and style of discourse.
>
> This is especially the case in discussing war and contentious political
> topics.
>
When need requires, men can empathise and women can analyse, but maybe
the problem with mixed groups is that one is seen as "male discourse"
and the other as "female discourse" and everyone leaves the "other way"
to the "experts," whereas in single sex groups, whether of men or
women, it's more O.K. for anyone to do either. I've had experience of
both men-only and women-only groups (I was educated in a boys-only
school) and have found that in that respect they tend to resemble each
other more than they do mixed groups.
> My bias: women tend not to "get" war. All the reasoning and research,
> all the intellectual debate and justification, simply pales next to the
> gut feeling that none of us will be safe until all of us are safe. And
> the way to make our children safe is by keeping all children healthy,
> loving and educating them, and making a world in which they can do good
> and honorable work to support THEIR families.
>
Ah, yes, war... As I remember, it was supposed to go something like
this: if you needed somebody to respect you, you picked a fight with
him. If he stood up to you then you had to respect him too, and even
more so if you won. At least that's the way it was with John Wayne and
Lee Marvin. I never did understand the rules either, which was tricky.
There always were unspoken conventions to limit the damage, and if you
didn't respect them, whether through ignorance or arrogance, you were
in big trouble. Have you ever read Konrad Lorentz's essay "On
Aggression"?
Modern warfare is so much "win by whatever means" mentality makes
things a lot worse. BTW, Kirby, even though psywar is supposedly
non-lethal, I don't think it's any better. Hard enough to respect an
enemy that subjects you to "Shock and Awe," but how much harder when
they zap you with a tazer or play "Barney the Dinosaur" at full volume
(see "The Men who Stare at Goats" - it would be ludicrous if it were
not so scary)?
Lacking that natural understanding of the conventions, I finally
learned something from Aikido that proved invaluable: when you have to
fight you are as responsible for your opponent's welfare as you are for
your own. Even when they're coming at you with a baseball bat.
> The idea is to make people think it would be really stupid (not to
> mention unnecessary) to strap a bomb on (or drop it from a safe
> distance) and blow up a bunch of people when you could be having them
> over for dinner and exchanging cookies, fermented beverages, and
> stories.
>
Yes. The sad thing is, the suicide bomber is fighting by the same creed
as I do: treat your enemy as you would yourself.
--
War, at first, is the hope that one will be better off; next, the
expectation that the other fellow will be worse off;
then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the
surprise at everyone's being worse off. -Karl Kraus
chris....@gmail.com
jenn...@jenniferbrien.wanadoo.co.uk wrote:
> chris....@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
> Ah, yes, war... As I remember, it was supposed to go something like
> this: if you needed somebody to respect you, you picked a fight with
> him. If he stood up to you then you had to respect him too, and even
> more so if you won. At least that's the way it was with John Wayne and
> Lee Marvin. I never did understand the rules either, which was tricky.
> There always were unspoken conventions to limit the damage, and if you
> didn't respect them, whether through ignorance or arrogance, you were
> in big trouble. Have you ever read Konrad Lorentz's essay "On
> Aggression"?
No. But I just heard about "Tripping the Prom Queen," Susan Barash's
look at female competition, which is the "nice girl" (or boy) word for
aggression, at least sometimes...
Her view is not a pretty one. Seems we undermine each other in the
service of getting men, advancing our children, and securing our
bosses' attention. And we do it sneakily, with smiles on our faces.
According to Barash, that is.
Makes the Western code seem, well, DIGNIFIED.
> Modern warfare is so much "win by whatever means" mentality makes
> things a lot worse. BTW, Kirby, even though psywar is supposedly
> non-lethal, I don't think it's any better. Hard enough to respect an
> enemy that subjects you to "Shock and Awe," but how much harder when
> they zap you with a tazer or play "Barney the Dinosaur" at full volume
> (see "The Men who Stare at Goats" - it would be ludicrous if it were
> not so scary)?
>
> Lacking that natural understanding of the conventions, I finally
> learned something from Aikido that proved invaluable: when you have to
> fight you are as responsible for your opponent's welfare as you are for
> your own. Even when they're coming at you with a baseball bat.
How successful are you at applying that elsewhere?
>
> > The idea is to make people think it would be really stupid (not to
> > mention unnecessary) to strap a bomb on (or drop it from a safe
> > distance) and blow up a bunch of people when you could be having them
> > over for dinner and exchanging cookies, fermented beverages, and
> > stories.
> >
> Yes. The sad thing is, the suicide bomber is fighting by the same creed
> as I do: treat your enemy as you would yourself.
Perhaps a creedal revision is in order. During bad days, I ask my kids
to treat me as they would a stranger--a guest at our table--and NOT as
they've been treating this family member. . .
Chris
Yowie
news:1142625562.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> I am concerned though that in going from denying gender differences to
> again considering them foundational, we are losing the precious ground
> in the middle.
>
> I have no answers. But I wonder if the lack of women in this NG, apart
> from reflecting generic Usenet demographics, isn't owing to the
> dominant male metaphors, worldview, and style of discourse.
I'm a female poster here, if that helps. I just haven't posted much over the
last month or so because nothing in particular has attracted my attention
enoguh to make me want to reply.... until now. :-)
The politics of gender is an interesting one, but one we as human beings can
never examine without our own biases in place. I just have to assume the
differences we now find so frustrating and mind-boggling used to have some
evolutionary purpose to keep the species going, and that current western
society is far removed from the lifestyle to which our biology dictates. If
one starts think about how other social animals work, which generally
involves a few 'dominant' males with a harem of females, the different
'natures' of men and momen start to make a bit of sense.
We were never designed to live in nuclear families, it is highly unlikely
that biology meant for us to form monogamous pairs shut off from each other
in the classic nuclear family of today. Indeed, I would postulate that our
biology is more suited to the model of a few dominant males that went out to
hunt, and a 'harem' of women and the resulting children left behind in the
caves. The women kept the tribe as a cohesive unit, communally cared for the
children, but didn't much need the men around all the time. They relied on
the men for defence and the provision of large game meat, and of course,
reproduction, but otherwise spent most of their time seperate from the men,
and could bond and communicate with each other whslt foraging for
plant-based food. The men, on the other hand, being a mainly hunting party,
had to have a leader who was good at what he did, and would be obeyed
without question otherwise a hunting party would be anarchy. He had to
structure his 'army' so that the hunting (and any fighting) worked well,
and, as such, beign the dominat male, got 'breeding rights'. Younger males
could try to upsurp him by battling with him, thus ensuring only the
fittest, strongest and smartest were made leader, and indeed, sired the
children. This is pretty mucht he way it works for chimps, gorillas, and
other 'higher' apes, I can't see why it doesn't apply to us as well.
of course, we don't use this model of society
any more, and our biology often betrays us.
The differences between 'male behaviour' and 'female behaviour' makes far
more sense, IMHO, taken from that point of view, rather than trying to look
at our biology through the lense of 'modern' society.
YMMV.
Yowie
jendow....@gmail.com
roles. Here's an interesting twist:
Chinese folklore offers stories of a strong man plowing fields and a
beautiful woman at home caring for children and managing their few
animals (pigs and birds). Big game isn't part of the stories, so
there's no image of a hunter. The Chinese character for man comes from
two characters for strength + field, so even within the writing, "man"
is all about being the plow.
In the old Chinese hierarchy, there were four ways to make money. From
most to least respect these were:
1. Farm,
2. Mechanics,
3. Government, and
4. Merchant.
[Ed. note: sorry, Teacher was in the list, but I forget what number.]
Only wealthy workers in categories 3 & 4 could afford to have multiple
wives (the same is true today). Old Chinese customs are very much
against divorce; once a man arranged to be with with a woman, she was
his alone. If she went with someone else she might be beheaded... or
she might be forgiven if her consort agreed to pay the husband a lot of
money.
Both then and now, farmers and mechanics are lucky to get one wife,
especially now that ultrasound technology makes it possible to
determine the sex of a fetus during the first trimester. A lot of the
old structure still remains in place today. By law men can marry only
once, but for a lot of money they can "rent" a second, third, fourth...
more... wife for as long as they like. Rather than divorce the nth
wife, the man simply stops paying. If any of the wives commits
adultery, her second "friend" is required by law to pay her primary
"friend" / husband... depending on the relationship.
In both the old ways and the modern version, the idea of
one-man-one-woman is firmly cemented among those who work for a living.
No where in the folklore is there any mystique of men providing
protection. Chinese men provide strength of body or mind, converted
into money. Even in modern arrangements among the wealthy, there is
still a lot of seriously-taken lip service paid to monogomy. Children
born to an nth wife probably won't ever be registered with the
government, and thus "don't exist".
In spite of all this, as China still uses the extended family, within a
household it is the oldest mother (grandmother, greatgrandmother) who
runs the house and all the details within. Often she owns the house,
the land, and perhaps the family business... although in some parts of
China women's power is being undermined by laws stipulating that only
men can own property. Heaven forbid if a wealthy man have a fragment of
a thought of selecting a (first or nth) wife his mother doesn't like.
The examples of "male behaviour" and "female behaviour" that you give
do make sense, but more so in light of European history where large
game and dwelling caves existed. Yet you point to this behaviour as
biological. But if it were biological, then would Chinese folklore also
include tales of men protecting women from wild pigs and travelling
"barbarians" (aka: gypsies)? The folklore from these regions is very
different. The common ground seems to me that on both sides of the
world, men want to wander and don't want women to wander, while women
want security.
Jen
Vancouver MM, Taipei resident
chris....@gmail.com
Yowie wrote:
> <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142625562.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > I am concerned though that in going from denying gender differences to
> > again considering them foundational, we are losing the precious ground
> > in the middle.
> >
> > I have no answers. But I wonder if the lack of women in this NG, apart
> > from reflecting generic Usenet demographics, isn't owing to the
> > dominant male metaphors, worldview, and style of discourse.
>
> I'm a female poster here, if that helps. I just haven't posted much over the
> last month or so because nothing in particular has attracted my attention
> enoguh to make me want to reply.... until now. :-)
>
> The politics of gender is an interesting one, but one we as human beings can
> never examine without our own biases in place.
So the trick it to put the biases aside--or to try on different ones,
to give a nod to gaming.
Let's call it point-of-view for awhile. Seems less divisive<g>.
(the following is a condensed version)
> differences we now find so frustrating and mind-boggling used to have some
> evolutionary purpose to keep the species going, and that current western
> society is far removed from the lifestyle to which our biology dictates.
> I would postulate that our
> biology is more suited to the model of a few dominant males that went out to
> hunt, and a 'harem' of women and the resulting children left behind in the
> caves.
> The men, on the other hand, being a mainly hunting party,
> had to have a leader who was good at what he did, and would be obeyed
> without question otherwise a hunting party would be anarchy. He had to
> structure his 'army' so that the hunting (and any fighting) worked well,
> and, as such, beign the dominat male, got 'breeding rights'. Younger males
> could try to upsurp him by battling with him, thus ensuring only the
> fittest, strongest and smartest were made leader, and indeed, sired the
> children. This is pretty mucht he way it works for chimps, gorillas, and
> other 'higher' apes, I can't see why it doesn't apply to us as well.
> of course, we don't use this model of society
> any more, and our biology often betrays us.
It's a fascinating conundrum. I think recent genetic research has show
that there's much illusion in the breeding alpha male concept. There's
a lot of DNA diversity in primate offspring: seems that "unsanctioned"
breeding is widespread and, my guess, helps keep the group viable
through the wonders (and maybe pleasures) of hybrid vigor.
So what is this illusion all about? Does it come from looking at things
through the glass of life as we know and understand it?
Or is illusion a necessary glue for social organization?
I keep thinking about the political and social structures in which I
live: workplace, various communities, even home, and I wonder about our
eagerness to hand over authority and power to someone. It's usually
some "big guy," however you define "big." (Or "guy," for that matter.)
However the leader gets there, we need to ascribe his position to
heightened merit. And we're back then to creating illusions.
What I love about the community of f/Friends is how hard we strive to
change the lens.
>
> The differences between 'male behaviour' and 'female behaviour' makes far
> more sense, IMHO, taken from that point of view, rather than trying to look
> at our biology through the lense of 'modern' society.
>
> YMMV.
I don't think it varies all that much. I'm just growing cynical about
spending more time on the whys than on trying to find better ways to
behave and interact now, perhaps despite the reasons why.
Thank you much for the discussion! You helped me make a little less
fuzzy, at least in my own mind, something that's been nudging me.
Christine
chris....@gmail.com
Timothy Travis wrote:
> On 3/17/06 9:58 AM, in article g3ul12hq801m1uk5i...@4ax.com,
> "Kirby Urner" <ur...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> > Timothy Travis <qsp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> What does it say about ourselves and the "other" sex when we divide
> >> ourselves into institutions that say "No Men Allowed" or "No Women Allowed."
> >>
> >
> > How about "Safe for Women-Only" and "Safe for Men-Only" meaning we have space
> > for both permutations, as well as Co-Ed, Same-Sex, who knows and whatever.
> > The
> > goal is inclusivity, not exclusivity.
>
> If some space in the Society is not safe for women or for men, why is that?
> Isn't the better approach to change that condition than to go on with
> divisions that re enforce and actually foster division?
>
> So let's revise the query: what does it say about the Society (or society,
> in general) that we divide ourselves into institutions based on the idea
> that the sexes are not safe with one another?
The question seems to call for clarifying what we mean by "safe." When
we speak of same sex groups, especially voluntary ones, are we really
(or sometimes) talking about heightened comfort? The ease of almost
instant intimacy that comes from a core set of shared experiences and
viewpoints?
In some mixed groups, especially those with power differences among
participants, the first struggle may be just to be visible and heard.
That seems to be about acknowledgment and respect--components of
safety, surely, but perhaps easier "targets" for change.
Christine
Engineer
Yowie wrote:
Excellent post!
A few thoughts:
If (and I believe we did) evolved as a species with a few dominant
males that went out to hunt and larger group females and children
left behind in the caves, then we also evolved as a species with
groups of non-dominant (usually young adult) males living without
females or children. This is a common pattern in nature.
Anyone who thinks that there are no biological differences between
boys and girls should try working for a major toy manufacturer.
Anyone who thinks that girls are smarter/dumber than boys need to
do more research; males dominate the ends of the spectrum - more
males than females on the genius end and on the idiot end, but no
overall differences in average intelligence.
Engineer
chris....@gmail.com wrote:
>It's a fascinating conundrum. I think recent genetic research has show
>that there's much illusion in the breeding alpha male concept. There's
>a lot of DNA diversity in primate offspring: seems that "unsanctioned"
>breeding is widespread and, my guess, helps keep the group viable
>through the wonders (and maybe pleasures) of hybrid vigor.
This is common among mammals that have that form of organization.
You can tell what kind of organization a species has by looking at
size. Mammals with true monogamy have males and females that are
the same size, while mammals where a few males have all the females
and a bunch of males have none have males that are much larger than
the females.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Yowie" <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:48j62mF...@individual.net...
Because we are a separate creative division from the Apes.
God made men in His own image, He didn't make Apes so.
Genesis 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth."
Jeff...
Timothy Travis
On 3/25/06 8:03 AM, in article
1143302619....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
"chris....@gmail.com" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Timothy Travis wrote:
>> On 3/17/06 9:58 AM, in article g3ul12hq801m1uk5i...@4ax.com,
>> "Kirby Urner" <ur...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Timothy Travis <qsp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does it say about ourselves and the "other" sex when we divide
>>>> ourselves into institutions that say "No Men Allowed" or "No Women
>>>> Allowed."
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about "Safe for Women-Only" and "Safe for Men-Only" meaning we have
>>> space
>>> for both permutations, as well as Co-Ed, Same-Sex, who knows and whatever.
>>> The
>>> goal is inclusivity, not exclusivity.
>>
>> If some space in the Society is not safe for women or for men, why is that?
>> Isn't the better approach to change that condition than to go on with
>> divisions that re enforce and actually foster division?
>>
>> So let's revise the query: what does it say about the Society (or society,
>> in general) that we divide ourselves into institutions based on the idea
>> that the sexes are not safe with one another?
>
> The question seems to call for clarifying what we mean by "safe." When
> we speak of same sex groups, especially voluntary ones, are we really
> (or sometimes) talking about heightened comfort?
I think it could well be. The use of of the term "safe" is not mine. It is
a term used here, by another, to justify same sex division in the Society,
and often used, in my experience, by those who would justify such divisions.
(it is also quite hurtful when it is used to bar everyone of one sex or
another from some activity).
I think that it's an accurate term, sometimes, when people do not step
forward to take one Friend or the other by the hand and struggle with them
about thinking errors about themselves and others that are causing them to
act in a hurtful, oppressive or exploitive manner toward another or others.
> instant intimacy that comes from a core set of shared experiences and
> viewpoints?
I think that this is very true, although I would also add "shared
expectations" and "shared conditioning" to the mix. Both women and men, in
my experience, often think they have more in common with all people of their
own sex than they do with some people of the other sex. I think that people
of both sexes often have illusions about who they (and others) are based on
what they think are these commonalities based on sex.
>
> In some mixed groups, especially those with power differences among
> participants, the first struggle may be just to be visible and heard.
I think that the first struggle may well be to reform the power
relationships (which means, of course, transforming people's image of
themselves and others as well as structures in which they operate) so that
it is not a struggle to be visible and be heard (if being heard is what one
wants). I think this means that men and women alike have to (be encouraged
and supported in efforts to ) abandon the roles and behaviors they have been
conditioned to assume in dealing with one another. Changing the definition
of fatherhood, for example, also means changing the definition of
motherhood. That's as tough for some women as it is for some men, but the
fact is that there are a lot of people who are very unhappy because they
cannot be what they think they are supposed to be and they cannot get the
"other" to be what s/he is supposed to be.
None of this is going to happen in group divided by sex. It's also not
going to happen just by "banning" same sex groups/activities and forcing
everyone together. It's a social (and economic and political and spiritual)
revolution that's been going on for a while, now, and that isn't going to
stop.
But within the Society it is incumbent upon us to prevent those behaviors
that are manifestations of the struggle for transformation that all are
going through (some at different rates than others) from forcing ourselves
or others back into separation, away from unity, from equality.
Friends often congratulate themselves about what great pioneers Quakers were
in the struggle for equality between men and women but the history of the
Men's and Women's meetings is one of setting up separate spheres, based on
stereotypes about people of one sex or the other and pretty much limiting
participation to those separate spheres. Quaker women certainly played and
play more active roles than women, generally, in the societies they have
inhabited. It is a fact that ministry was held to be an appropriate role
for both men and women (although more men than women actually played that
role). It is a fact, though, that illusions and thinking errors that men
and women hold (and operate on) regarding their own sex and the other are
still causing disharmony and suffering, are still holding us all back.
There can be absolutely no doubt that the growing presence of women in the
world of business and politics has led to a transformation of both, a
transformation that is far from complete although even to the extent it has
happened is obvious and obviously a change for the better. It is also true
that in those walks that were formerly dominated by women (elementary
teaching, nursing, some areas of the law, child care--both in the home and
outside it) the fact that men are more present than before has also led to
changes that have been beneficial.
> That seems to be about acknowledgment and respect--components of
> safety, surely, but perhaps easier "targets" for change.
Acknowledgement, though, of what? Respect of what?
Yowie
news:1143301597.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, the Chinese have been civilised way longer than Europeans, but if we
are to believe the theories of evolution and the 'out of Africa' theory,
then at one point, the people who are now the Chinese must also once been
hunters & gatherers. The folklore simply might not go that far back.
I can offer no other rational explanation as to why 'male' and 'female'
behaviour is so different in this regard, and seems to be fairly consistant
across our various cultures today.
Yowie
Yowie
message news:9bgVf.24278$5B4....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Because we are a separate creative division from the Apes.
> God made men in His own image, He didn't make Apes so.
>
> Genesis 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
> the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
> every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
> him; male and female created he them.
> 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over
> the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
> thing that moveth upon the earth."
Long time, no see! How have you been Jeff? Good I hope.
I take it by the above quote you believe that the world was created as per
Genesis.
Assuming you do believe the Genesis story, I was wondering, how do you
reconcile the story of creation in Genesis 1 with the story of creation in
Genesis 2? They are different.
Again, not trying to be a smarty-pants, I genuinely want to know. It always
troubled me.
Yowie
jendow....@gmail.com
shows the Agricultural Revolution started in Southeast Asia and the
Middle East only 500 years apart (the west was first). Since different
plants were being used in each place, some mountains stood between the
two locations and the Silk Road was under developed about 8000 years
ago, experts are skeptical about the idea of Asia getting the idea from
the west. Early Asia had pigs, not big game. This never needed to be a
hunter's culture. But I'm not sure we were hunters of big game back
then either, at least not until we invented arrows, and I forget when
that happened.
Asian people who still live without agriculture ~ they mostly gather
since there isn't game to hunt ~ still show more equality in their
society. A modern woman in Mongolia suffering protein shortage can kill
just as effectively as a man, and the men know it. Ditto for tribes in
the south. The lack of protein here is still a contentious issue for
westerners who want to tell Asians what kinds of protein sources are
okay to eat.
An overview of western history (often misnamed "world history", but it
is the history of everywhere except Asia, Africa and Oceana) shows that
after agriculture came storage, division of labor, the need to protect
what's stored, and upper & lower classes. This is probably the
beginning of our military states, divisions between men and women, and
other social inequalities. The same overview of history shows simply
that the seat of western power migrated as land eroded and new
technology became available. From the Middle East our seat of power
travelled through Turkey, to Greece, to Italy, to Spain-France-Germany,
to England, to America. That's highly simplified; at some point
Austro-Hungry provided our leadership. Westerners who agree with the
Chinese that our history is only as old as America are playing into a
Chinese game.
China was blessed with rich land with borders contained by sea,
mountains and the frozen north, so their incentive to migrate was low.
Instead, they stayed in one place, became the most powerful nation in
the world (the whole planet) and exerted racial cleansing programs a
few thousand years ago. So, while the people who are now "Chinese"
(Asian, since what we call Chinese is the dominant race among many)
ultimately have the same origin as we do, they show different 'male'
and 'female' behaviour because their sense of being arises from
completely different history than what we learn in schools.
There are consistencies among "diverse" western cultures (such as Greek
and American) because these share the same origin of civilization. The
Asian origin was independent. Biological similarities remain, but few
cultural ones exist... except where there was cultural
cross-pollination along the Silk Road. For example, Cinderella is
originally Chinese, but the Chinese story is far more complex and it
has a different ending than the European simplified "original".
Where western biological theories are at a disadvantage is
(a) considering that the whole world is western (ie: doesn't include
Asia, Oceana, Africa and modern Middle East), and
(b) doing studies only on western people.
Two Ravens
> But I'm not sure we were hunters of big game back then either, at least
> not until we invented arrows, and I forget when that happened.
So-called big game was alledgedly hunted with spears and fire, (driving
Mammoth's off cliffs being the classic example given), before the discovery
of bows and arrows, so one could consider a short spear as being an arrow,
but it was the development of rope/string that made possible the use of the
bow and arrow.
--
Two Ravens
"...hit the squirrel.."
Engineer
jendow....@gmail.com wrote:
>Have the Chinese really been civilized longer than westerners? Research
>shows the Agricultural Revolution started in Southeast Asia and the
>Middle East only 500 years apart (the west was first). Since different
>plants were being used in each place, some mountains stood between the
>two locations and the Silk Road was under developed about 8000 years
>ago, experts are skeptical about the idea of Asia getting the idea from
>the west.
>There are consistencies among "diverse" western cultures (such as Greek
>and American) because these share the same origin of civilization. The
>Asian origin was independent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Early_civilizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia
http://www.ancienteastasia.org/special/sandaichronology.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_millennium_BC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiligang_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangshao_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemudu_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiabang_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daxi_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongshan_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawenkou_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liangzhu_jade_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshan_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture
chris....@gmail.com
> On 3/25/06 8:03 AM, in article
> 1143302619....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
> "chris....@gmail.com" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (is safety) instant intimacy that comes from a core set of shared experiences and
> > viewpoints?
>
> I think that this is very true, although I would also add "shared
> expectations" and "shared conditioning" to the mix. Both women and men, in
> my experience, often think they have more in common with all people of their
> own sex than they do with some people of the other sex. I think that people
> of both sexes often have illusions about who they (and others) are based on
> what they think are these commonalities based on sex.
Yes. And the only thing all members of same (whatever) groups assuredly
have in common is that they are NOT the other (whatever). So the groups
are based on exclusion, and we're back to struggling to know when
exclusion does disservice to people in either or both groups.
> There can be absolutely no doubt that the growing presence of women in the
> world of business and politics has led to a transformation of both, a
> transformation that is far from complete although even to the extent it has
> happened is obvious and obviously a change for the better. It is also true
> that in those walks that were formerly dominated by women (elementary
> teaching, nursing, some areas of the law, child care--both in the home and
> outside it) the fact that men are more present than before has also led to
> changes that have been beneficial.
One person's absolute surety is another's doubt. I'll have to wait for
more history before I'm certain that the transformations you speak of
are, overall, a change for the better. A lot of baggage goes along with
it, including the necessity for two full or almost full incomes to
support an "average" middle-class life, and the continuing preference
for the needs of the workplace over the needs of the community, family,
and individual. I haven't the knowledge or insight to weigh the good
against the bad.
As to areas "formerly dominated by women," I'm not sure the change has
been that great. In primary and secondary education, the percentage of
women teachers has ranged between 70-80% and now is hovering around 75
%. Perhaps there are more women in leadership roles, though: that could
be a significant difference, but not perhaps the one you suggest.
I think the biggest changes are in professional areas formerly
dominated by men: medicine, for example. Presently, more than half of
medical students are women. I'm not so sure that change has altered the
environment yet, however. At lease one study showed that women have not
"feminized" medicine, at least in the US, but have become more like men
in their work behaviors in order to survive.
What are the beneficial changes that are obvious to you but not to me?
>
>
> > That seems to be about acknowledgment and respect--components of
> > safety, surely, but perhaps easier "targets" for change.
>
> Acknowledgement, though, of what? Respect of what?
Ah, words! I apologize for using them carelessly, tossing of "sounds
good but doesn't mean much" terminology.
I think what I mean is acknowledging that another person's experience,
perspective, knowledge and understandings are as worthy of
consideration as our own. That's the hard part, especially when we have
won lessons hard and are so sure we are right.
As for respect, that's easier, and related to the first. What
Unitarians would call "the inherent worth and dignity of all" and
Friends might call "that of God in everyone." But this has to be more
than a mantra or an intellectual posture: you have to feel it true.
In my experience, we often find ourselves called to or tolerated at
tables where our "job" is seen as facilitating and endorsing the
agendas others bring. We are there to receive information and then act
on it according to the lights of others. To do this often requires us
to leave important parts of ourselves behind, maybe the best parts of
ourselves.
In situations where we hold the power, the habit of those expectations
is strong and the pattern obstinate.
So we have shed no light at all on safety, have we <g>? I keep thinking
about techniques we use with kids: asking one kid to cut the pie and
letting the other kid pick the first piece as a way to stack the deck
in favor of fairness.
Maybe in mixed meetings, the group that DOESN'T set the agenda gets to
set the terms of interaction and exchange.
Christine
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
> message news:9bgVf.24278$5B4....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
>> Because we are a separate creative division from the Apes.
>> God made men in His own image, He didn't make Apes so.
>>
>> Genesis 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
>> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
>> the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
>> over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
>> him; male and female created he them.
>> 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
>> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over
>> the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
>> thing that moveth upon the earth."
>
> Long time, no see! How have you been Jeff?
OK. Thank you Vicky.
How are you?
>Good I hope.
Hope so.
> I take it by the above quote you believe that the world was created as per
> Genesis.
"In the beginning.......God created the heavens and the earth....."
> Assuming you do believe the Genesis story, I was wondering, how do you
> reconcile the story of creation in Genesis 1 with the story of creation in
> Genesis 2? They are different.
In what way?
Jeff...
chris....@gmail.com
> By law men can marry only
> once, but for a lot of money they can "rent" a second, third, fourth...
> more... wife for as long as they like.
I wonder if that isn't a worthy idea to revisit, with modifications, in
a culture with so many worthy "available" women and a dearth of similar
men in their approximate age cohort.
Of course, the modification would have to stipulate that
"rent-a-wives" would be in that same age cohort as the renter. . .<g>
> The common ground seems to me that on both sides of the
> world, men want to wander and don't want women to wander, while women
> want security.
But to make it more complex, that rule seems to apply better in the
reproductive years than it does after. And these days, the "after"
story is almost as long as the "before."
The western stories end with marriage for women and a homecoming to
replace their own "fathers" for men. Both honor the biolgoical
imperative to reproduce and create genetic diversity.
What about the rest of the story? How many Western (because that's the
only culture I know anything about) relationships come under stress
when the women grow restless to spread their wings and the men begin to
appreciate more the comforts of home and security?
So far, we seem to be caught in a second-half story in which men
revisit their heroic myths by forming armchair allegiances with "teams"
in conflict, while women pursue "freedom"--willingly or not--cut loose
from their families and society.
I like to imagine a golden age in which the second half men and women
nurture, build, restore, protect, inspire, and create safer spaces for
everyone's progeny.
Christine
jenny...@googlemail.com
chris....@gmail.com wrote:
> jendow....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The common ground seems to me that on both sides of the
> > world, men want to wander and don't want women to wander, while women
> > want security.
>
> But to make it more complex, that rule seems to apply better in the
> reproductive years than it does after. And these days, the "after"
> story is almost as long as the "before."
>
> The western stories end with marriage for women and a homecoming to
> replace their own "fathers" for men. Both honor the biolgoical
> imperative to reproduce and create genetic diversity.
>
> What about the rest of the story? How many Western (because that's the
> only culture I know anything about) relationships come under stress
> when the women grow restless to spread their wings and the men begin to
> appreciate more the comforts of home and security?
>
> So far, we seem to be caught in a second-half story in which men
> revisit their heroic myths by forming armchair allegiances with "teams"
> in conflict, while women pursue "freedom"--willingly or not--cut loose
> from their families and society.
>
> I like to imagine a golden age in which the second half men and women
> nurture, build, restore, protect, inspire, and create safer spaces for
> everyone's progeny.
>
first half was something of a disappointment, because there was never
any question of being able to honour the biological imperative. In
mythological terms I'm heading straight from Virgin to Crone by way of
a second puberty. Interesting times!
What I see from this perspective is a whole lot of fear and insecurity.
Everyone's looking out for their own progeny, and they don't really
trust anyone else to help. Maybe that's part of the biological
imperative too, though I expect there are sociological reasons why it
has become more pronounced in recent years. Ho may its just that I'm
in a very conservative (rural Northern Ireland) situation. I'n reminded
of one of the reasons why people here used to fear the fairy folk - it
was said that they stole children.
Jenny Brien
who would like nothing better than to be a fairy godmother.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Yowie" <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:48lt9eF...@individual.net...
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote in
> message news:9bgVf.24278$5B4....@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
>> Because we are a separate creative division from the Apes.
>> God made men in His own image, He didn't make Apes so.
>>
>> Genesis 1: 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
>> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
>> the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and
>> over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
>> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
>> him; male and female created he them.
>> 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
>> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over
>> the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
>> thing that moveth upon the earth."
>
> Long time, no see! How have you been Jeff?
OK. Thank you Vicky.
How are you?
>Good I hope.
Hope so thanks.
chris....@gmail.com
jenn...@jenniferbrien.wanadoo.co.uk wrote:
> I'll be 50 in a few months time, so I'm starting the second half. The
> first half was something of a disappointment, because there was never
> any question of being able to honour the biological imperative. In
> mythological terms I'm heading straight from Virgin to Crone by way of
> a second puberty. Interesting times!
I don't think you have to actually be having children to be caught in
hormonal undertow during those years. The ability to focus narrowly and
at the same time be constantly distracted by ultimately irrelevant
concerns plays out in the centrality of a partner or work as well.
Congratulations on the second puberty! It's much better than the first,
IMO.
> What I see from this perspective is a whole lot of fear and insecurity.
> Everyone's looking out for their own progeny, and they don't really
> trust anyone else to help. Maybe that's part of the biological
> imperative too, though I expect there are sociological reasons why it
> has become more pronounced in recent years.
I think it's a mixed bag. Some people don't trust others to help. But
for those of us who do, little may be available.
Ho may its just that I'm
> in a very conservative (rural Northern Ireland) situation. I'n reminded
> of one of the reasons why people here used to fear the fairy folk - it
> was said that they stole children.
And didn't we long to be stolen by them, at least in the US where, I
suspect, they have been Disney-tized and cleansed of all their more
alarming properties?!
>
> Jenny Brien
> who would like nothing better than to be a fairy godmother.
It's a wonderful calling. I suspect you can just go ahead and be one.
Christine
Yowie
Apologies for not getting back to this sooner, Real LIfe decided to
interfere (first I got a bad case of the 'flu, and then my son turned 2 and
we had *lots* of parties. So much fun!)
In Genesis 1, the order of creation is:
God created the heavens & earth. Earth was formless and dark and covered in
water.
Then light came into the world
Then He made water above and water below the expanse, and called the one
above 'sky'
Then He made the land masses seperate from the water
Then plants
Then the sun, moon and stars
Then the water animals and birds
Then the land animals
Then Adam (Eve hadn't been made yet)
In Genesis 2, the order is
Heaven & earth
Then Water
Then Man (ie, Adam)
Then the trees and food bearing plants
Then the beasts of the ground & birds of the air (made from dust, like Adam)
to help Adam
And then Eve
See? The order is different.
Tehre are several conclusions I can reach:
1) If one version is right, the other must be wrong
2) Both versions are wrong
3) Neither version is a literal account of 'how it happened', but rather two
similar creation myths to explain the presence of life (including us) on
earth in a spiritual perspective, and were never meant to be taken as *the
literal scientific truth*
Yowie
Yowie
> Jenny Brien
> who would like nothing better than to be a fairy godmother.
My husband's mother passed away a long time before our son was born, and he
never knew his father, so effectively our son only has one set of biological
grandparents - my parents. But he's got at least *4* adoptive grandmothers
who adopted him all on their own volition and spoil him stupid (as
grandparents are supposed to do). 3 of them we met over the internet, and
the fourth is the mother of one of my husband's friends.
Kids need grandparents, whether they be biological or not. Its important for
them to be around people of different ages, hear the stories of different
times. Lots of kids don't get to see their biological grandparents enough
(or ever, in the case of my son's paternal grandparents), and its not that
hard to 'adopt' a family that is grandmother-less. And, as a 'new' Mum,
having an older woman around who you trust and your kid trusts and is
willing to look after the youngen' even just for a few minutes so I can have
a *hot* coffee in peace, or go to the toilet by myself, or do the grocery
shopping without having to deal with a toddler who wants to touch / play /
eat everythign he sees and will have tantrums if he's nto allowed, is about
the best thing anyone can do for me.
I'd encourage you to 'get out there' and find a family or two that needs the
presence of a grandmotherly type in their lives. It will be very rewarding
for you, and a true blessing for the family that *needs* the extra support.
I still mutter about the madness that is the nuclear family - it takes more
than just a Mum & Dad to raise a child, and I have the deepest admiration
and respect for those who are single parents. Those guys really need, nay
*deserve* a break.
Yowie
Diane
<yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> See? The order is different.
>
> Tehre are several conclusions I can reach:
>
> 1) If one version is right, the other must be wrong
> 2) Both versions are wrong
> 3) Neither version is a literal account of 'how it happened', but rather two
> similar creation myths to explain the presence of life (including us) on
> earth in a spiritual perspective, and were never meant to be taken as *the
> literal scientific truth*
HI Yowie,
There are also a few translation issues re the whole ADAM = Man thing :-)
The original herbrew text uses the word adam to refer to the being in
Genesis 1.27 and the being in 2.6.
This word more properly means human being not "man-male". In Gen 2 in
particular its a play on words, "adam from adamah" = "earthling from the
earth" or "human from the humus" was how my "old Testament" lecturer
explained it to us. The generic word "adam" for human being is used in many
other places in the OT - sometimes to refer to groups of women, so is
clearly gender neutral, although it does appear to become the name of the
earthling first created (as in 3.21) it is later tradition that turned it
into a name.
In Gen 1 you have the earthling created in two forms, male and female
("zakar" and 'nekeva") who are the pinnacle of creation, the last things
created
In Gen 2 you have the earthling created alone and before every other
creature. None of the other creatures were suitable "helpmates" for the
human so god "took a rib" - the hebrew word translated as "rib" actually
refers to a whole side of an animal - the jewish interpretation has always
been that the earthling was cleaved into two. The words used for "man and
woman" after this point are the words "ish" and "ishah" So the earthling
from the earth 'adam' becomes "man' and "woman" - ish and ishah.
And it is generally believed by scholars that Gen 2 is an earlier story -
and that Gen 1 was a "Priestly" hymn to creation used in the Temple (it has
a chorus, "evening came, morning came.... God saw that it was good..." etc)
diane
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Diane" <dmb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C0611392.60ED%dmb...@yahoo.co.uk...
> On 10/4/06 12:51 pm, in article 49uv5jF...@individual.net, "Yowie"
> <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> See? The order is different.
>>
>> Tehre are several conclusions I can reach:
>>
>> 1) If one version is right, the other must be wrong
>> 2) Both versions are wrong
>> 3) Neither version is a literal account of 'how it happened', but rather
>> two
>> similar creation myths to explain the presence of life (including us) on
>> earth in a spiritual perspective, and were never meant to be taken as
>> *the
>> literal scientific truth*
>
> HI Yowie,
>
> There are also a few translation issues re the whole ADAM = Man thing :-)
>
> The original herbrew text uses the word adam to refer to the being in
> Genesis 1.27 and the being in 2.6.
>
> This word more properly means human being not "man-male".
Not true, the primary meaning is Man-Mankind, then-Adam-first Man.
Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary
Hebrew Word : <da
Transliteration: 'adam
Phonetic Pronunciation: aw-dawm'
Vines Words: Man
Usage Notes:
1) man, mankind
1a) man, human being
1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
1c) Adam, first man
1d) city in Jordan valley
Jeff...
S McFarlane
>
>>
>> There are also a few translation issues re the whole ADAM = Man thing :-)
>>
>> The original herbrew text uses the word adam to refer to the being in
>> Genesis 1.27 and the being in 2.6.
>>
>> This word more properly means human being not "man-male".
>
> Not true, the primary meaning is Man-Mankind, then-Adam-first Man.
> Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary
> Hebrew Word : <da
> Transliteration: 'adam
> Phonetic Pronunciation: aw-dawm'
> Vines Words: Man
> Usage Notes:
> 1) man, mankind
> 1a) man, human being
> 1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
> 1c) Adam, first man
> 1d) city in Jordan valley
This seems to be a little less than clear cut. It looks to me like the
Hebrew usage is very similiar to English usage, in that the word 'man' is
often used to indicate the species as a whole (not to mention the word
'mankind', which is almost exclusively used in this sense), but nevertheless
has very obvious gender-specific connotations. Perhaps this is indicative
of a male-dominated society, as certainly the English-speaking world was
during the period in which the language was forming.
This sort of usage is also common in German: Mann is clearly a male person,
but man is not. man is used in the same way as 'one' is used in more formal
English: 'How does one say 'man' in German?' -> 'Wie sagt man 'Mann' auf
Englisch?'
All three languages have ways to precisely specify gender, if that is the
intent. But, I think, these more general usages of clearly masculine words
used to express the idea of people in a non-gender specific way reflect the
gender roles that predominated at the time such usages were being set in
each of the languages.
Scott
Diane
"S McFarlane" <noth...@nospam.net> wrote:
No - your argument would only hold if we were talking about the hebrew work
"ish" which means a specifically male human being. If 'ish were used as a
generic to mean any human then it would be equivalent to the way "man" has
been used in English.
'adam is a generic word for human beings, sometimes it is used of groups of
women, sometimes of groups of men, sometimes of individuals. But it means
human being. English does have words for "human" as distinct from "male-man"
and those should be used.
English translations have confused the meaning of the original text by using
the same word to translate 'adam and 'ish. They should not both be
translated by the same word in any language, they are different words in
hebrew with different meanings, they should be translated as different words
in whatever language they are being translated into. Not to do this is to
distort the meaning of the text into the meaning implied by the use of the
word chosen.
While every translation is an interpretation, because there are usually
decisions to be made about what exactly is implied, this is a pretty clear
cut case of a different word being used in hebrew ('adam) for generic human
beings from the very specific word used for males.('ish).
You will find that modern translations try to be faithful to the original
hebrew text by not using the word "man" for 'adam. - almost all of them use
a generic such as "humankind" when translating 'adam in genesis 1 -
although most of them cop out when it comes to genesis 2 and revert to "man"
for the same word, while noting that the word in 2:7 is a play on adam from
'adamah - they still say "man from the ground" not "earthling from the
earth" or "human from the humus". They do this to reconcile it with 2:22-3
where the word suddenly changes from 'adam in v 22 to 'ish in v23.
Personally I don't think trying to iron out contradictions in this way is
either faithful to the original text or fair to readers who only have access
to the translation. What they have access to is what a translator believed
the text SHOULD have said, not what it does.
diane
chris....@gmail.com
Diane wrote:
>
> Personally I don't think trying to iron out contradictions in this way is
> either faithful to the original text or fair to readers who only have access
> to the translation. What they have access to is what a translator believed
> the text SHOULD have said, not what it does.
And then there's the problem of the "editors," who not only decide what
to include but shape the content to suit their own beliefs and
agendas--or the agendas of those for whom they work.
Christine
Timothy Travis
On 4/12/06 6:56 AM, in article
1144850165....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com,
"chris....@gmail.com" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote:
This is why reading the Bible as classic Quakerism did (See Barclay and
others) remains a sound practice.
It is interesting that the era that the idea that the Bible should be read
as fact originated--the enlightenment--is the same era that saw the birth of
Quakerism (and deism and Calvinism) as a movement. Quakerism holds on to an
older idea of how to read the Bible (whereas deism lays down the Bible to
study natural "law" as revealed by the workings of the Creation and
contemporary Calvinism has developed into "literal reading," in the main).
Reading it as Jeff does is a practice no older than three hundred and fifty
or four hundred years, whereas reading it as Quakers (and others) do is far
older and, I believe, far closer to the way that Isaiah and Paul did.
Parsing scripture for language nuance that provides insight into the
metaphors and myths that it uses (and for, perhaps, insight into which era's
thought is represented in which parts of which books--especially in the Old
Testament) to impart truth is a good practice. Don't forget, the Creation
story was added to what has become scripture way, way down the historical
line. It's not an ancient tale passed through an oral tradition that was
finally written down. In fact, it's two non-ancient versions of the tale
merged together and both are far more recent than most people would suspect.
If God dictated Genesis then He dictated two different scripts on two
different occasions and then, presumably, He called upon someone else (or
someone elses) to hear the final version which was a combination of the two,
leaving contradictory details in the draft that went to press.
It's a metaphor, not a feature story.
Parsing scripture to get an accurate translation of what "God actually said"
is as doomed to misunderstanding and being misled as treating the book as
literal fact, to begin with. It's like shining a dirt clod. It's like
putting a bow on a pig.
jenny...@googlemail.com
Take for example the Nicean Creed:
"Who for us MEN and for our salvation"
I hope the authors did not intend that to sound as it does to me.
Diane
1144854940.8...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"jenn...@jenniferbrien.wanadoo.co.uk" <jenny...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Again, the original greek uses (IIRC) "anthropoi" which is human beings, not
"andres" = men. ("tous anthropous" - us people / humans)
Way back at the start of the sufferage movement Elizabeth Cady
Stanton(1815-1902) realised what a powerful impact these mistranslations had
on the role and position of women, she studied the texts in their original
language and published "The Women's Bible" with rather more accurate
translations from the Hebrew and Greek.
Over a hundred years later we're still fighting the same battles to get some
people to actually consider the *original* texts not a bad translation of
them.
Diane
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> 'adam is a generic word for human beings, sometimes it is used of groups
> of
> women,
Where in the Bible?
I can only find 'Adam' the man.
Jeff..
Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionary
Hebrew Word : <da
Transliteration: 'adam
Phonetic Pronunciation: aw-dawm'
Vines Words: Man
Usage Notes:
1) man, mankind
1a) man, human being
1b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
1c) Adam, first man
1d) city in Jordan valley.
chris....@gmail.com
That's not really surprising, is it? Women, the poor, so many people
are just invisible, especially when you aren't looking for them.
Christine
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144890659.9...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No they aren't Christine, not in the Bible.
They are very much in veiw.
>especially when you aren't looking for them.
That is a redicules statement.
I can show you so many passages regarding 'woman and the poor' it would fill
this page, but none of where the word 'Adam' has 'sometimes' been used for
'a group of women' Sorry!
Jeff...
Diane
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <nospa...@add.com> wrote:
>
> "Diane" <dmb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:C06299F4.60F4%dmb...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>> 'adam is a generic word for human beings, sometimes it is used of groups
>> of
>> women,
>
> Where in the Bible?
> I can only find 'Adam' the man.
That's because you are looking for the English word adam, and relying on
translations - try reading it in Hebrew :-)
Numbers 31:35 refers to 32,000 persons / humans and clarifies it as "women
who had not know man" - the word it uses for person is the same root word
as "adam", plural form, not the singular 'adam' of course. In numbers 31
women are referred to as 'adam six times.
diane
chris....@gmail.com
Yes, I know that. And the poor and women are especially visible, even
central, for Jesus. I'm not so sure everyone else really got the
messages, though.
However, women and the poor are mainly there to be acted upon or to
move the plot along or as exemplars for some principle or other.
The Bible is a story about men struggling--and often failing-- to
become both human AND godly. The individuals and forms of most of those
struggles are decidedly masculine. We don't really know about Sarah's
struggles, for example, only about her obedience, whereas Lot's wife
(who doesn't even have a name) we know for her disobedience.
> >especially when you aren't looking for them.
>
> That is a redicules statement.
> I can show you so many passages regarding 'woman and the poor' it would fill
> this page, but none of where the word 'Adam' has 'sometimes' been used for
> 'a group of women' Sorry!
It may well be a ridiculous statement. I make those all the time <g>.
I'm not convinced this is one of those, though.
According to my reading of this dialog, you are looking to prove the
man-ness of Adam in all its uses, while Diane is looking to prove the
inclusiveness of Adam.
I'm not invested in either "side." My suspicion is that when the Bible
said "man," translation issues or not, it probably meant males, at
least most of the time, owing to cultural beliefs of the time (which we
need no longer apply as they are not critical to the core message).
Anyway, I think we see what we look for. Research about teachers and
witnesses supports that belief, as does my own experience. I believe is
as true with our Bible witness as any other--maybe more so, because we
look through the glass of 2,000 years of scholarship, handed-down
beliefs, and endorsements of particular readings.
Christine
S McFarlane
I don't think the male-bias is as strong in Hebrew as in the case of English
or German (keeping in mind that I don't know ancient Hebrew and can only go
by very secondary sources), but it nevertheless seems to be present. This
should really be no surprise, since ancient Jewish society was decidedly
male-dominated.
'adam' does seem to have a strong masculine connotation to it. If for no
other reason than that the same word happens to be the name of the first
'iysh', as distinct from the first 'ishshah', whose proper name also gives
us clues as to how the ancient Jews regarded gender roles. There are many
instances in Genesis 2 where the meaning is obviously 'man', but the Hebrew
word used is 'adam'. Gen 2:7-8 is somewhat ambiguous (though I believe it's
sufficiently clear that 'adam' = 'man' here). However, beginning with Gen
2:15 up to the first occurence of 'iysh' in 2:23, 'ha-adam' refers to one
_man_, not simply one person. If there were any doubts about 2:15 - 22's
use of 'adam' as 'man', then Gen 2:25 is beyond such doubts. Here, my
English translation has the phrase 'the man and his wife..." This is a
rendering of the words 'ha-adam' and 'ishshah', both of which occur in 2:25.
I don't think the use of 'adam' in the context of the Genesis story is much
less ambiguous than English usage of 'man' when 'humankind' is what's meant
(and therefore, the English translations are not so much more ambiguous than
the original Hebrew.) On the other hand, I don't believe that a native
English speaker is confused by this usage any more than a Hebrew speaker had
difficulty sorting out the various uses of 'adam'. It is clear that the
Hebrew writers meant 'humankind' in many instances in both versions of the
creation story. It seems equally clear that many Hebrew speakers would not
find it to be purely coincidental and without meaning that this same word
happens to represent the first 'iysh'.
It's also interesting that the word 'iysh' is not exclusively used to
connotate a masculine person. It apparently also has somewhat rare uses
when it is not gender-specific (though the undercurrent of gender is clear.)
(e.g. Ex 21:12 [iysh] cf. Gen 9:6 [adam])
> While every translation is an interpretation, because there are usually
> decisions to be made about what exactly is implied, this is a pretty
> clear
> cut case of a different word being used in hebrew ('adam) for generic
> human
> beings from the very specific word used for males.('ish).
But translation is very tricky work, especially when it is literature that
is being translated. Fine, if we're translating a technical document we can
focus exclusively on semantics. But in something like the Hebrew bible this
is not enough. There are many nuances in play in any work of literature
that give it much of their flavor, and incorporating these nuances into a
new language while accurately conveying the semantic content is always very
difficult, if not impossible.
IMO, the use of 'man' for 'adam' - referring to 'humankind' - is not
obviously a bad choice in translating Genesis 1-3. To say so completely
ignores the likelihood that 'adam' did have masculine connotations in the
minds of the native audience, something that doesn't seem obviously false on
the surface of it. My very limited knowledge of Hebrew doesn't allow me to
take a firm stand on this. However, if there was such a connotation, then
using a more generic term (i.e. humankind, people, etc) would be a worse
translation, IMO, because it would completely obliverate this subtlety in
the original language. Some would argue that it is a subtlety that should
be obliverated. But that would be saying that a translator should also make
value judgements instead of simply rendering the text as faithfully as
possible, something I strongly disagree with.
>
> You will find that modern translations try to be faithful to the original
> hebrew text by not using the word "man" for 'adam. - almost all of them
> use
> a generic such as "humankind" when translating 'adam in genesis 1 -
> although most of them cop out when it comes to genesis 2 and revert to
> "man"
> for the same word, while noting that the word in 2:7 is a play on adam
> from
> 'adamah - they still say "man from the ground" not "earthling from the
> earth" or "human from the humus". They do this to reconcile it with
> 2:22-3
> where the word suddenly changes from 'adam in v 22 to 'ish in v23.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by modern. The NASB (1995 edition) I
use does not use any of these generic terms in rendering 'adam' in Gen 1-3.
In all cases, it uses either 'man' or 'Adam' as a proper noun. Looking at
Gen 1:26 (possibly the most clear-cut case for 'adam' as mankind), there are
many recent translations that also retain the traditional rendering.
>
> Personally I don't think trying to iron out contradictions in this way is
> either faithful to the original text or fair to readers who only have
> access
> to the translation. What they have access to is what a translator
> believed
> the text SHOULD have said, not what it does.
I don't personally see this as an attempt by translators to alter the
original message. In most cases, it is sufficiently clear to the reader
when the English is using 'man' to refer to 'mankind'. There are people who
object to such gender-bias in the English language in general, but that does
not alter the fact that most native speakers of English are capable of
understanding when 'man' means 'male person' and when it means 'humankind'.
In other words, the offensive gender-bias in the translation does not imply
that the translators have done a bad job of conveying the semantical content
of the original. It only means that they have done so in a way that will
offend some readers. If, in fact, the original text also contains
gender-bias, then it would be the translator who opts for more neutral
language who has wrote what they thought _should_ be written as opposed to
what was!
Scott
Diane
"S McFarlane" <noth...@nospam.net> wrote:
> If, in fact, the original text also contains
> gender-bias, then it would be the translator who opts for more neutral
> language who has wrote what they thought _should_ be written as opposed to
> what was!
You arguments are generally well made - but mine is a very simply one.
If the original Hebrew (or Greek) uses two different words then it implies
two different meanings - otherwise the writers would have used the same
word.
No matter how nuanced the difference is - to be faithful to the original
text translators should endeavour to use two different words to translate
them. How that is then interpreted is, of course, wide open. Using the
generic english term "man" to translate both 'adam and 'ish is preventing
the difference (or not) between them even being discussed by people who do
not have access to the original Hebrew.
Discussions of whether or not the Hebrew word adam contains the same gender
bias as the generic "man" is a second order discussion. Before that can
take place people need access to the fact that two different words are used
and where they are different. Translations should aid discussion of what
the text might actually mean, not add to the confusion.
Diane
Timothy Travis
On 4/14/06 12:41 AM, in article C06510BA.6113%dmb...@yahoo.co.uk, "Diane"
<dmb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Translations should aid discussion of what
> the text might actually mean, not add to the confusion.
Translation is very often an editorial process. Sometimes, too, it is a
process of down right authorship. Political, social and moral control is
often established by translation.
If something--say women--is lost in the translation then something, too--say
male supremacy--is gained.
It is often understood that control of the definition of the terms
determines the outcome of debate. It is less often understood that control
of the translation is a form of controlling the definition of the the terms.
That is why some people maintain that no translation of any work can escape
equivocation and misunderstanding, including the Bible, and according to
many who follow Islam why the Koran cannot be read in any language but
Arabic.
They might have a point...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
<chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144941917.6...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not invested in either "side." My suspicion is that when the Bible
> said "man," translation issues or not, it probably meant males, at
> least most of the time, owing to cultural beliefs of the time (which we
> need no longer apply as they are not critical to the core message).
On the contrary, we must apply them, as they in most cases are 'critical' to
what the Bible teaches between the man and the woman as God has ordained
both in the Old and NT.
> Anyway, I think we see what we look for. Research about teachers and
> witnesses supports that belief, as does my own experience. I believe is
> as true with our Bible witness as any other--maybe more so, because we
> look through the glass of 2,000 years of scholarship, handed-down
> beliefs, and endorsements of particular readings.
Which for faithful Christians, the NT teachings and practises are paramount.
Jude 1: 3 "Dearly loved friends, I had been planning to write you some
thoughts about the salvation God has given us, but now I find I must write
of something else instead, urging you to stoutly defend the truth that God
gave once for all to his people to keep without change through the years."
(TLB)
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"S McFarlane" <noth...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ke6dnY0p4Oh-i6LZ...@comcast.com...
>
>'adam' does seem to have a strong masculine connotation to it. If for no
>other reason than that the same word happens to be the name of the first
>'iysh', as distinct from the first 'ishshah', whose proper name also gives
>us clues as to how the ancient Jews regarded gender roles. There are many
>instances in Genesis 2 where the meaning is obviously 'man', but the Hebrew
>word used is 'adam'. Gen 2:7-8 is somewhat ambiguous (though I believe
>it's sufficiently clear that 'adam' = 'man' here).
Of course it is, as 'plain as a pike-staff' even to a ten year old.
All this frenzied 'debate' over just one word, which when all has been said
and done, has been a mere bloated intellectual exercise to nowhere.
Jeff...
Hebrew Strong's Number: 121
Hebrew Word: <da
Transliteration: 'Adam
Phonetic Pronunciation: aw-dawm'
Root: the same as <H120>, Greek <G76> Adam
Cross Reference: TWOT - 25a
Part of Speech: n pr m
English Words used in KJV:
Adam 9
[Total Count: 9]
1) first man
2) city in Jordan valley