Inclusive language

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To all of a sudden begin to see a slight whenever the longstanding use of a synecdoche like men or mankind is used, is to be looking for a reason to be offended.
Where I am seeing a slight, and being offended, is when people claim that it is a dreadful sin to say that “human beings” are saved by Christ, and that this is a sinful use of inclusive language. When they insist that we must use the word “men” or else we are heretics of some kind, that’s when I get upset.
 
JM (and now that I know you’re female it explains a lot–like I said, I went through the intensive feminist indoctrination starting at age 12 or so, sisterhood is powerful, the men have oppressed us, our bodies/ourselves yadda yadda and probably for even longer than you’ve been exposed to it). . .

JM, what I’d like to ask of you is to step back and to think about things like tradition and history, synedoche, etymology, men, women, and children, and the catechism. . .

without the very ‘new’, very pointed, very ‘anti’ and very angsty and discriminatory ‘worldview’ of radical feminism.

You see, right now, you are looking in a very focused and narrow way through the lens of what you have been conditioned to believe in–a lens that says 'women have been deliberately, systematically denied, repressed, treated badly–and we are going to demand to be treated properly–but not just now. No, we are going to demand that literature be ‘rewritten’ to give us ‘equality’. History be ‘rewritten’ to give us ‘equality’. Job descriptions be ‘rewritten’ to give us ‘equality’. It doesn’t matter that a person living in ancient Greece didn’t ‘believe’ in equality for individual men–let alone women–and we ‘still’ do not give children ‘equal’ status to men and women, do we? No, we are going to insist that because in our society we want ‘equality’ we are going to ‘level the field’. Because 200 years ago there were no women given a doctorate in medicine, we are going to rewrite historical texts first ‘elevate’ women of that time to ‘equality’ of knowledge (IOW, we are going to start saying that the ‘wise’ women did the same things as surgeons or physicians but just didn’t have the degree). Then, we’re going to make them ‘superior’ by saying, look, without a degree they were doing men’s work. In the teeth of male ‘supremacy’. Then, we will ‘retroactively’ accuse the men then of deliberately attempting to keep women out of medicine because the women were ‘better’ and men wanted to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

This is the mindset that is trying to get everyday women like you and me thinking that ‘we’ as women have been oppressed and treated badly and that, by God, we have to do something about it–we have to prove not our equality–and basically in western society our mothers and grandmothers not only voted with men but also worked with men and had equal ‘voices’ etc., so this isn’t a ‘new’ thing–we have to prove our ‘superiority’ by elevating prior generations not to simple equality of soul (which is really the only ‘equality’ that any person shares with another), but to superiority of everything.

Those dumb slogans like "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’, "a woman’s place is in the house–and the senate’, "a woman must be work twice as hard as a man to be thought half as good–fortunately, this is not difficult’–these are not aimed at producing equality but rather in despising, demonizing, and marginalizing men.

Women, wake up! Building yourselves up by tearing down men, by making them the butt of jokes or the ‘evil’ source of every perceived ‘wrong’ in the entire history of humanity–will only keep people further apart, angry, resentful, and incapable of working together.
 
Ah.
Where I am seeing a slight, and being offended, is when people claim that it is a dreadful sin to say that “human beings” are saved by Christ, and that this is a sinful use of inclusive language. When they insist that we must use the word “men” or else we are heretics of some kind, that’s when I get upset.
Well, we have a lot of agreement here. Where we are digressing is that you feel that saying ‘men’ for ‘all human beings’ is discriminatory against women; that you should say, ‘men and women’ (or to put it further, ‘men, women, and children’) or ‘human beings’. But again, and I’m probably a little older than you so maybe that’s part of it–I feel that, linguistically speaking, using ‘men’ or ‘mankind’, especially in reflecting language from the Bible, where (as I pointed out earlier) the teaching of the time was, has been, and remains to use ‘male’ nouns to represent the whole, male and female alike, is perfectly fine.

Mankind means “men and women”. “Womankind” is to me ‘newspeak’; not really ‘wrong’ but mannered and artsy.

Clunky language (human beings is both longer to write and has more syllables than ‘mankind’) is clunky language. It isn’t really ‘better’ than the latter, they both mean the same; it’s just that the rads are trying a ‘wrong’ argument.

Earlier when I used the Latin from the vulgate, you said homo meant both (but was translated as man), vir meant ‘male’ only, etc. But this was from the same passage. Context, context–I can’t stress it enough. It was understood that both homo and vir were the same and referred to men and women. Why on earth are people making such a fuss over a non-issue? Women were not discriminated against by the use of the word ‘mankind’ for both men and women, and it is specious reasoning to try to convince people that this was so. (I do not mean you personally).

If people want to change language, they should be upfront about why they want to change it and not ‘invent’ reasons.
 
Ah.

Well, we have a lot of agreement here. Where we are digressing is that you feel that saying ‘men’ for ‘all human beings’ is discriminatory against women; that you should say, ‘men and women’ (or to put it further, ‘men, women, and children’) or ‘human beings’. But again, and I’m probably a little older than you so maybe that’s part of it–I feel that, linguistically speaking, using ‘men’ or ‘mankind’, especially in reflecting language from the Bible, where (as I pointed out earlier) the teaching of the time was, has been, and remains to use ‘male’ nouns to represent the whole, male and female alike, is perfectly fine.
What I am saying is that, where “men” is used to mean “human beings” it is not a sin to say “human beings.”
Earlier when I used the Latin from the vulgate, you said homo meant both (but was translated as man), vir meant ‘male’ only, etc. But this was from the same passage. Context, context–I can’t stress it enough. It was understood that both homo and vir were the same and referred to men and women.
No. “Vir” can never refer to women. This is why it is so very important to retain the distinction between “homo” (human being") and “vir” (adult male) when making translations of Scripture, etc.
 
Where I am seeing a slight, and being offended, is when people claim that it is a dreadful sin to say that “human beings” are saved by Christ, and that this is a sinful use of inclusive language. When they insist that we must use the word “men” or else we are heretics of some kind, that’s when I get upset.
I can’t argue with that. Doesn’t seem to approach sin or heresy to me either.

I can’t improve on what Tantum ergo has said about this.

Peace.
John
 
JM (and now that I know you’re female it explains a lot–like I said, I went through the intensive feminist indoctrination starting at age 12 or so, sisterhood is powerful, the men have oppressed us, our bodies/ourselves yadda yadda and probably for even longer than you’ve been exposed to it).
Well, like I said before, I am all woman. I don’t have any male career aspirations. I do earn money of my own - my model is the Proverbs 31 woman, who deals with the marketplace and isn’t anybody’s fool, but in the same way that she does it all for her husband and children, so also do I.

When I’m out working in the marketplace, my goal isn’t to become a CEO - it’s to get money and security for my family. My ambition is to raise up children to the Lord, together with all of what that entails (which is nothing less than the preservation and passing on of civilization itself), and to be a good wife to my husband. 🙂

And I think I can do that while being called a “human being.” I have no need of or interest in being called a “man.” I like men - very much, in fact. But I don’t want to be one.
 
I went through the intensive feminist indoctrination starting at age 12 or so, sisterhood is powerful, the men have oppressed us, our bodies/ourselves yadda yadda and probably for even longer than you’ve been exposed to it). . .
Did we march together in the early '70’s???🙂
I have no need of or interest in being called a “man.”
Mayve you’re not reading the posts or you’re just so set in this misconception that the use of the word “men” refers to MEN ONLY, to the exclusion of women. You keep returning to this point. If men, especially in the context of our Creed, MEANS human beings, why, oh why, would you need it changed? If you truly understand the context and **naturally inclusive **usage of the word men, what point is there in using language that is basically redundant?
“For us *human beings *and our salvation…”?
As a survivor in recovery of the feminazi movement, I can assure you that rhetoric has oversensitized you and many others to “see” issues where there are none.
 
Well as a middle aged man, there is not much I will be able to say for the edification of jmcrae. 😃

I can only offer my experience:

I have seen in the Catholic Church, horizontal inclusive language opening the door to vertical inclusive language. In one of the office books in the Eastern Church, when referring to the incarnation of Jesus, it reads that “Jesus became human.”

I have known radical feminist Catholic nuns who began with a fight for inclusive language, and are now participating in new age practices such as eco-spirituality, reiki, enneagram, sohia worship, and mandalas.

I believe that language is a part of Tradition. When the language is revised to meet the political agendas of the world, the door is opened to the prince of the world. The Church is not suppose to conform to the language of the world–we are suppose to transform the world with the language of the Church. Words such as “men” and “mankind” have always been inclusive.

Peace and blessings to you jmcrae,
Mickey
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top