English, gender and God

Not sexist. Duh.If you tell me that Walt Disney's body is cryogenically frozen, which you absolutely believe to be true, does that make you a liar? No, it doesn't. Liars are people who knowingly promulgate untruths. Sexists are people who knowingly promulgate sexisim. Everyone agrees that to be guilty of an immoral elocutionary act, you have to know that the act is immoral. Just like any other immoral or offensive act. Paul was in fact rejecting another person's view of god's gender, not advancing his own. Why would it be? The description wasn't of Paul's unique usage but rather usage in general. Albert Einstein had a penis. I don't think even Paul believes this to be true for god. What's the relevance here? We're not talking about what Paul thinks about god, but what is appropriate for Paul to say about others who think differently about god.

Back up and read again - that's not what happened. Paul told us that the use of "she" was ridiculous (by rolling his eyes). So, who is he to tell us we're wrong?Or have you forgotten what started this whole thing?

You haven't proved that "he" in the language is truly neuter. At least not to my satisfaction. I don't believe that human beings can concieve of intelligent beings who are ungendered, at least in some broad metaphorical sense. Even if they say they do, I don't think they truly are. Careful with that - that's the kind of thinking that leads to the fallacy of false alternatives. In fact that's exactly what you've done - you've equated "god is not female" with "god is male". It is possible - however hard to imagine - that god has no gendered qualities. So they both could be wrong.Paul rejected "God is female" with his eye-roll. He didn't support "God is male" with that action. Are you so dense you can't see my implicature? I said Einstein had a penis. What pronoun do you use when you refer to persons with penises?Also, another question - when somebody really, really goads you into answering a very specific question with one obvious answer, a question they refuse to answer themselves, doesn't it look like a trap to you?So, given that we're on opposing sides, what would make you think any of us were so stupid as to walk right into whatever trap you were planning to spring on us? If it's so important, answer your own damn question. The sexism is in his refusal to grant a difference of opinion about god's gender anything more than a summary dismissal via eye-rolling.It's not sexist to disagree. It's sexist to act like an ass about it.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-14-2003]

It's pretty easy to arrive at that conclusion when you consistently defend his pronoun use, dispite than being not at all relevant to the issue. Yeah, to jump to the conclusion that Paul, while he might be otherwise a great guy, for some reason feels it's ok to disparage an identification of supreme cosmic authority with a female rather than male gender. When people do this we usually call it sexist, because it is.So, Paul's comment was sexist. Therefore the question is, is Paul sexist? Or did he just use sexist language without thinking about its implications? Actually the question is "which one of those does Schraf think?" I think she's given her answer. Clearly she wasn't at all "surprised" by Paul's response - her comments have suggested that she encounters it all the time, as have I - but that doesn't mean such a response should escape without comment.Einstien's gender is not germaine. That's the third time I've personally answered the question so your repeated claims that no one is answering is beginning to look a little hollow. We're not giving you the answer you clearly want, because we're not idiots.

Actually it's a sexist habit that I'm not proud of, but habits are hard to change since they're not deliberate.I have an understanding that, while "he" and "man" may have a neuter usage on the surface, they rarely communicate a neuter meaning - listeners to those words rarely find them inclusive to women at first glance. Therefore I find their usage in neuter situations inappropriate. Sometimes, however, I'm typing so fast it's a pain to go back and fix my own usage. Not much of an excuse but there it is. But isn't it reasonable to expect him to at the very least entertain beliefs different than his own? Instead of rejecting them without argument? Or, as Schraf did, articulate the possibility that his beliefs are not concious choices but simply habits ingrained in language?

The most I can say for myself is that I don't use those terms in speech, only in print. Which is probably worse than the other way around, come to think of it - but I guess it just goes to show that one's speech and one's writing are different dialects.As you say, they're used as encompassing terms - but I can't imagine that a group of women, listening to a speaker (usually male) talk about "The Great Men of Science" or whatever, would feel all too terribly included.

I think we need to step back and make clear what would constitute sexism.For instance, if you referred to god as female, and I responded with something like "You're an idiot, of course god is male because only males should be in authority", you would agree that is sexist, right? No matter how earnestly I might hold that belief?Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that Paul's conception of a male god, which obviously he holds to the point of ridicule of opposing positions, amounts to a continuation of a legacy of sexism. No matter how much he may believe that god's gender is male, it's simply the result of ingrained male-centeredness in his religious traditions.Schraf and Mr. P may disagree; I admit it's an extreme position. But I just thought I'd lay my cards out on the table. Now, do you see why I don't think Einstein's gender is germaine? It's one thing to know the gender of a person (especially by their own report). It's quite another to infer their gender from their actions and qualities. It would be sexist if I assumed Einstein (in the absence of any other information about him) was male simply because he was a great scientist. I think that's what Paul is doing with god - assuming masculinity not from god's own words but from god's actions and position of authority.So I guess the question is not "What pronoun would I use for Mr. Einstein?" but rather "why would I use that pronoun?" If I'm inferring gender from evidence that has nothing to do with gender (beyond our stereotypes), that's sexism.

By way of turnaround, let me ask you:What pronoun would you use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

To expand the topic, Rrhain - is it your assertion that English has no sexual bias? Or that no language whatsoever could be sexually biased?I'd like to bring up Japanese. Now, I'm no speaker of japanese, native or not, but it's been my understanding (perhaps erroneous) that women who speak japanese are expected to speak it differently than men. In particular, I understand it to be the case that the language women are supposed to use is more similar to the language men use when speaking to people percived to be of higher social station, as opposed to the language men use when speaking to equals.I find this to be a sexist construction; the idea that women must address (particularly) men as though they are of higher social station than they.Also it's my understanding that sexism persists to a great degree in Japanese society, so it seems reasonable to infer that the sexism in their society and the sexism in their language are related.Thoughts? Corrections? I'm no linguist but I do have an interest in language.Also, Rrhain, what pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. George Elliot?

As do you, probably, for the countless times you've referred to Paul as an "idiot", "careless", etc.Or perhaps he/she without sin should throw the first of these stones?

But that's not the point. The point is, you need specific information about George Elliot/Mary Evans gender beyond the use of titles to determine which one to use. No matter how much you believe George Elliot is male or female, it's up to Mary Evans to determine what to use. No matter how many people referred at the time to the author of George Elliot's articles as "Mr.", no matter how sure they were that George Elliot was a man, they were wrong. And they were misled because of an era of sexism that wouldn't have tolerated or accepted the views of a female reporter.Remember, the question isn't "what gender is Einstein", the question is "is it appropriate to infer God's gender without access to God's genitalia?" As per your own arguments, apparently not. No matter how many times the Bible refers to god as "He", it's sexist to assume that reference means god is male.

To the contrary, George Elliot was the author of a great many articles of an expository nature, including a series on the horrors of mental institutions of the time.Of course, George Elliot was simply the pen name of Mary Anne Evans. I hardly think a pen name counts as a "persona", however. A persona connotes a well-developed fictitious person used to confuse or conceal identity. A pen name is by no means sufficiently well-developed. Sometimes a pen name is turned into a persona, but they're not the same thing.When I change my name I don't adopt a new persona. My friend Scott who chooses to use his middle name rather than his first name (Micheal) hasn't adopted a persona. Both "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same individual in different circumstances. I'm not. An object has names that refer to it. "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to the same woman.This is a very strange argument, coming from a Platonist. Or don't you think there's a specific individual that "George Elliot" and "Mary Anne Evans" refer to? The answer is "she", now that we know the true gender status of Mary Anne Evans. Now, it's one thing to take the newspaper's word that one of its writers is a man. We can hardly go around looking up the skirts of every person we meet. It's another assume maleness simply because one is a writer, or a scientist, or a god. I'm sorry, do you have access to Jesus's writings? I guess I don't. I'd like to see your copy of the "Autobiography of Jesus" or whatever you have that makes you so sure what statements were and weren't said by Jesus. Why? Didn't you just argue that "he" doesn't always mean the referent is male? You're a slippery fellow to pin down. I just can't figure out what you think.

George Elliot is dead. What a funny question. I dunno, why does a word have to mean anything? In every instance of the use of the word "persona" I'm familiar with - including it's use by people with personas - the it refers to fictitious people with fictitious backgrounds, personal narratives, etc - in every way, alternate, well-developed people. Pen names don't have that. Hrm, why would I write something if I didn't think it was true? Now who's playing games? I don't recall saying that. George Elliot is a woman. Why would I assume something that isn't true? Yes, I'm unwilling to look at the point of view of somebody who's wrong. Paul's view of the inerrant bible may be just another symptom of ingrained sexism.I mean, the statement "Men are better than women" can hardly be considered sexist by your logic if we assume that women really are inferior to men. But why assume such a thing? Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary?You can be sexist without knowing it. It may not make you a sexist, personally, but your comments are still sexist, no matter how much you believe them to be accurate. Honestly, that might be true. My willingness to really discuss evaporated about 100 posts ago. My interest in playing games has only risen as you continue to play games yourself.

I think that's probably a good idea at this juncture.It was fun, tho.

Does it? That appears to be the question. I'd say it has two meanings - the dictionary definition of "miserly", and a definition most people seem to ascribe to it that has racist connotations.As usage is the final arbiter of language, it must have those two definitions, as both of those definitions are in use.