A
Augustine
Guest
Really? Do you know Latin? So what did Pilate mean when he referred to Christ in “ecce homo”?
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
This seems sexist, that adding the recognition of the existence of women makes English to be “poor.” That it can only be “rich” if only men are considered to exist.
Sexism is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church.
I think that adding the feminine contribution makes us all richer - not poorer.
I am a Woe, Man - big trouble, where ever I go.
J
jmcrae
Guest
“Behold the Human One” is probably the best translation into modern English.Really? Do you know Latin? So what did Pilate mean when he referred to Christ in “ecce homo”?
A
Augustine
Guest
Are you serious? That’s perhaps its silliest rendition I’ve ever seen. It is actually the worst translation one could imagine. Even someone who is ignorant about Latin must recognize that nobody speaks like that in English.
Homo means man, there may be other synonyms, like vir, that may have its own emphasis, but nobody translates like you suggested, not even the most hardcore liturgical revisionist would.
A
Augustine
Guest
Just take that chip off your shoulder. Nobody with a couple of neurons thinks that the mankind is made up exclusively by men. The English language recognizes that. Just step up to the language of Shakespeare instead of trying to put it down. Either this or stop trying to control the horse.
A
adrift
Guest
This has led to the nasty habit of calling an unborn child “it” instead of the correct reference of he. This has dumbed down society.
E
edwest2
Guest
You cannot present modern, 1970s on, feminism as exactly the same as the feminism you describe. It was divisive. You don’t call the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” Which women’s rights issue did that address?Salonika, yours is one of the few intelligent responses in this thread.
The OP specifically stated that she was not referring to inclusive language when speaking about God, and everyone rushes to castigate her for (a) inclusive language when referring to God; and (b) feminism.
A) IMHO, just because some women don’t mind being referred to by masculine words, don’t you think it’s a little bit prideful to feel that everyone should feel the same way? Maybe you (generic “you”) don’t mind it, but I do - and I am certainly extraordinarily far from being the only one.
B) Furthermore, this is for all rabid anti-feminists:
Throughout history, in nearly every civilization, women have been considered inferior to men. Now, while I admit that some radical ends of feminism has bred terrible things such as abortion, let me list a few good things that feminism has accomplished:
Need I go on?
- a woman’s right to vote (in the U.S., not until 1920, and it took a Constitutional amendment.)
- a woman’s right to attend the college of her choice (In 1879, the “Harvard Annex” for women’s instruction by Harvard faculty began operations. This was 243 after Harvard’s founding.)
- a woman’s right to attend any college (In the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century less than 20% of all college degrees were earned by women.)
- a woman’s right to any education (In the 18th Century, it was often assumed by both educational philosophers and conduct book writers, who wrote what one might think of as early self-help books, that women were incapable of rational or abstract thought; too susceptible to sensibility and too fragile to be able to think clearly. Female reformers of the time, such as Catharine Macaulay, maintained that women were indeed capable of rational thought and deserved to be educated.)
- a woman’s right to be employed in certain fields (At the beginning of the 20th Century about 5% of the doctors in the U.S. were women. As of 1998, 23% of all doctors were women, and today, women make up more than 50% of the medical student population.)
- a woman’s right to work at all (During WWII - 1941-1945, women worked because all the men were at war. Afterwards, however, the hard work, loyalty and patriotism of these women were repaid by no guarantee of employment status as much of the industrial economy rushed to rehire men.)
- a woman’s right to be paid the same salary as a man for the same work done (Both during and after WWII, women rarely earned as much in the occupations that became female-dominated - such as cashiers, tellers, and low-level loan officers - as their male colleagues had before.)
- a woman’s right to hold public office (No more than 2 women served in the Senate at any time until 1994, and fewer than a dozen were Congressional Representatives until 1955.)
- a woman’s right to own property (Old English Common Law transferred property held by a wife at the time of a marriage to her husband. French married women suffered from restrictions on their legal capacity which were removed only in 1965.)
- a woman’s right to serve in the military (In the U.S., not until 1948.)
- a woman’s right to enter into legal contracts
- a woman’s right to have marital rights
- a woman’s right to have parental rights
How about a little history?
The wife was the purchased property of her husband, and was, like a slave, acquired only for his benefit. A woman could not exercise any civil or public office. She could not be a witness, surety, tutor, or curator; she could not adopt or be adopted, or make a will or contract. A daughter might be disinherited by a general clause; a son had to be disinheirted by name. Furthermore, women could not obtain Roman citizenship, which provided exemption from scourging and crucifixion, gave the right to appeal before Caesar, and provided legal immunity from jurisdictions outside Rome.
- In the Mosaic law, women’s rights were minimized in favor of male authority. Divorce was a privilege of the husband only, except for extreme cases; the vow of a woman might be disallowed by her father or husband. Daughters could inherit only in the absence of sons, and then they must marry in their tribe (endogamy).
- Women had it worse in ancient Rome where, by law, she was completely dependent on her male relatives. If married, she and her property passed into the power of her husband; if unmarried, she was under the perpetual tutelage of her father during his life, and after his death, control passed to her nearest blood relations. If there were no close blood relations, the extended family would be responsible for her upkeep.
Need I remind anyone that there are countries in the world today where women still have fewer rights than a man?
- In the East, up until 1500s, women were generally treated almost as untouchable and had very few rights. They were subjected to highly degrading practises like purdah (living separately from men or in seclusion); sati, the killing of the wife on the dead husband’s funeral pyre; and child marriage*, when girls of between 5 and 10 years old were married off, without their consent or knowledge.
- I believe it’s common knowledge that child marriages still occur today worldwide.
- In the British Isles, women’s rights varied by location and time period. However, as late as 1910, female heirs were still excluded from succession to real estate, except in the absence of a male heir. Also, a husband could obtain a divorce for the adultery of his wife, while a wife could obtain it only for her husband’s adultery if coupled with some other cause, such as cruelty or desertion.
So much for feminism being so terrible…
Women - do you really want to go back to being the property of your husband?
Men - try suggesting this to your wives tonight, then PM me in the morning to let me know upon whose couch you slept.
You cannot say “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” (Gloria Steinem) and appeal to some sort of fairness between the sexes or establishing healthy families. The emphasis became divorce, divorce, divorce and abortion, abortion, abortion.
The emphasis became destroying the functional family. The radical feminists hated men. It was anti-Biblical. Get it?
Peace,
Ed
H
HannahLisa
Guest
Actually, if you call an unborn child “he” people will start assuming that you know the baby’s gender and that he or she is a boy. There’s no good way to get around the issue besides finding out the gender at the earliest opportunity and referring to the baby correctly from then on.
C
Christy_Beth
Guest
Calling an unborn baby as “he”? What do you consider the alternative? When I was pregnant with my daughter, I refered to her as “junior.” That, of course, caused people to ask, “what if it’s a girl?” My reply, "well, then it’s junette.
J
jmcrae
Guest
This is true. We no longer live in Shakespearean times, and in any case, the Shakespearean term for any child, born or not, is, in fact “it.”
As for me, I’m glad those days are over.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t think anyone in this thread wants 1970s-style feminism.
E
e61iuser
Guest
The intent of the meaning? Or just plain censorship?
From merriam-webster.com
**censor **
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cen·sored; cen·sor·ing Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ
Date:
1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
A
adrift
Guest
This is true. We no longer live in Shakespearean times, and in any case, the Shakespearean term for any child, born or not, is, in fact “it.”
As for me, I’m glad those days are over.
Why would you bring up what was done in Shakespearean time? It is true that people now know the sex of the child they are expecting. It is inexcusable to ever call a human an it.
G
GemmaRose
Guest
Wherever in my post do you find me presenting modern feminism as being the same as feminism???
My post was addressed to all those who hear the word feminism and start frothing at the mouth, to show that not all feminism is or was a bad thing.
Even today’s feminism - which unfortunately advocates such things as abortion, ABC, divorce, etc. - also has its place in the many parts of the world where women and girls are still treated as chattel, where a woman cannot even drive, cannot walk in public without a male relative, are subjected to genital mutilation.
All these things that feminism still fights against are also anti-Biblical. Do you get it?
Peace to you also.
J
jmcrae
Guest
So, it’s “censorship” for a woman to want to restore it to the original meaning of both male and female, but somehow, because you were born male by no effort or merit of your own, you were born with the right to change everything to be male-only?
That you, as a male, can set yourself up as the “image and likeness” of all of humanity, and that everything must refer to you, the male alone, as humanity’s representative?
Who is “trying to control the horse,” now?
J
jmcrae
Guest
I was responding to this post:
Just take that chip off your shoulder. Nobody with a couple of neurons thinks that the mankind is made up exclusively by men. The English language recognizes that. Just step up to the language of Shakespeare instead of trying to put it down. Either this or stop trying to control the horse.
E
edwest2
Guest
Nope - you asked women if they wanted to go back to being treated as the property of a man. I was very clear that Modern Feminism is about Hating Men and Destroying the Family, especially in the Western World.
Peace,
Ed
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I make it a general practice not to answer stupid questions.GemmaRose,
Are you a “woperson”?
However, I would ask you to take a few minutes, close your eyes, and imagine this:
Imagine that, for your entire life (assuming you have been male and Catholic your entire life), all you have heard in prayers and during Mass: “Sisters” or “For us and for all women…” or “Take this, all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all women…”
Imagine further that if you complained about the apparent inequality of the language, people would say, “There’s no need to be upset! “Sisters,” women” mean everyone, male and female!"
I am 1000% percent positive that if this was the case, every male Catholic in the world would stage a demonstration in Vatican Square for inclusive language.
May God bless you too, Augustine.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I agree - the outcry from the men would be deafening. They would not sit meekly back and accept that women can control the language and make everything to be all about themselves, as if men did not exist at all.
I don’t see anything that says men were born with the right to write and speak women out of existence, either - Augustine speaks of women as “trying to control the horse” - well, show me where Augustine, as the male, was born with the right to “control the horse,” merely because he was born male.
E
estesbob
Guest
So why is it only now that this bothers some women ? my mom doesnt care. My wife doesnt care. My daughters dont care St Edith Stein didnt care. St Theresa didnt care, St Brigit didnt care? St Monica didnt care? Why did it take women 2,000 years to realize the language was sexist?
- Status