Steven is drawing attention to (and inviting intelligent comments on) a post by Steve Bogner on inclusive language.
“Intelligent comments” — that would exclude me; I’m not good at discussing these things anyway, and I’m especially short on time and neurotransmitters today. So I’m just going to come out and say it (with apologies in advance for the rant):
My personal perspective as a woman, a reader, a mother, and a Christian, is that I hate inclusive language.
I hate it because I feel patronized when it’s in use. I hate it because I feel like its promoters, well-intentioned though they may be, are saying to me, “O woman, you are not smart enough to know when the words ‘men’ and “man” refer to the whole human race and when they refer to males. All those times you thought you were being “included”? Nope, you were being fooled. And your feelings are not strong enough to handle being excluded, even if you didn’t know you were being excluded until we told you. You can never focus on the universal, on what you have in common with men and women; you must always be focused on the particular, on yourself, your femaleness. Your feelings are too delicate to withstand the knowledge that there are males on this earth, and that they did things. The very fact that Jesus was a male is a stumbling block to you, and we must smooth it over. The very fact that He told us to call God Father — ‘Abba’, ‘Daddy’ — was an error; the only-begotten reproduced Son Offspring of God, who comes to make all things new, was a prisoner of His own time. (Jesus was not as enlightened as we moderns, of course.)”
I hate inclusive language because it insists that all the places I thought included me were actually excluding me. It seeks to drive a wedge between me and pretty much everything written before 1970. Inclusive language has robbed our language of the little honors paid to the feminine in the tradition of using the feminine pronoun for ships, countries, and abstractions. Inclusive language is the Mrs Elton in the garden of literature, the tacky boor who wrenches every spotlight towards herself.
I read pretty widely as a child and a teen, and I can remember one time and one time only when I misread the context of the word “man”: it was in a satirical essay by H.L. Mencken, when he abruptly shifted from “man” as “mankind” to “man” as “all males.”
In real life, we can’t have relationships with Its. I can have a relationship with my mother, my friends, my husband, my little boy: they are Shes and Hes. My little boy doesn’t have Parents or Father-Mothers; he has a Mommy and Daddy. The Coneheads have “parental units” because they’re aliens; humans have mothers and fathers. Words such as He, Him, Father invite us to see God as a real Person who seeks a real relationship with us. If we have poor relationships with others, including with our earthly fathers, our Heavenly Father can help us relearn Whom those earthly relationships are supposed to model. We need this intimate, personal vision more than ever in this impersonal age of bureaucracy and broken families.
We should not worry about “placing limits on God.” We should be thanking Him for, in a sense, placing limits on Himself, for the scandal of particularity. God, Who is so beyond us in every way, came to live our grubby daily lives with us, reveals Himself in images drawn from our grubby daily lives, ones that even little children can understand: Seeds. Drinking water. Daddy.
31 comments
Comments are closed.
Inclusive Language
Please see Mr. Bogner’s note on the desirability of inclusive language and democratic election in the Church and comment more intelligibly than I could bring myself to do. The only question I keep bringing to the fore is “Why are…
A big ol’ Amen sister!! (or should I have said “brother”?) I too am another female who is insulted that people are saying we must use inclusive language so as not to “offend” females (implying – who don’t know any better.) Forget the nonsense.
And your use of the phrase “Mrs Elton in the garden of literature” is classic! I’ll have to remember that one.
Granted I can understand why people may be reluctant to call God “father” when they had a poor relationships with their own earthly father but I think that is precisely why they could benefit from calling Him father. God is all that their earthly father was not. It may be a challenge but I think it will help them to heal and forgive. A dear friend of mine comes to mind – she was sexually abused by her father and it affected her view of God as a father. But she was able to work through the pain and now sees God as her loving heavenly “papa” and has forgiven her own earthly father. I don’t think she would have reached that point (or at least not as quickly) if she ignored the issue and called God “mother”.
True, God has no gender, but I agree that the image of God as father makes our relationship with him more personal and the name is reflective of all the attributes that a father SHOULD possess – which God DOES possess.
Inclusive Language
Has been a topic around the parish today. Over at the Sleepy Mommies Peony has this to day: My personal perspective as a woman, a reader, a mother, and a Christian, is that I hate inclusive language. Mr. Riddle posts…
Hear Hear!!!! I posted my comment in Steve Bogner’s box and also on my blog.
I am very grateful to you for saying what I want to say, but if I said it, they would say, “You just say that because you’re a man“–which is to say, a villain in this world. I think part of the reason for it is precisely to cut you off from anything written before 1970. Orwell makes much the same point in 1984 about Newspeak: nothing written before 1960 (the presumed time of the Revolution) would be understandable without a translation, and moreover a translation that would change to meaning of the original text. If we are cut off from participation in the living traditions of our culture, then we are plastic in the hands of those who control the media of communication, the most important medium being language itself. You are absolutely right to connect this deracination with bureaucracy and broken families: they are all part of the same phenomenon.
another girly girl in favor of NON inclusive language.
neo-fems are yucky.
I’m not girlie at all, but I detest inclusive language. Historically, of course, it’s ludicrous, implying that the world past and present must be viewed through the lens of modern prejudices. From a literary point of view, it flattens and smudges language to be so nervous about how people will feel about your pronouns. Psychologically it’s extremely depressing – the world is not nearly as interesting when it’s blind to sex differences. Altogether it dulls the ear and darkens the mind.
Peony, you reaffirm my faith in real women.
Ahhh, it’s sooo nice to read Mr. Luse’s laudations again. O, Happy Day.
Another voter for being true to self and our intrinsic natures. God is God. Woman is woman. Man is man. Inclusive language imposes a nature which is NOT intrinsic. It’s like eliminating all the reds, blues, greens, yellows, purples,whites, and blacks, and calling them all colors so they don’t feel different..than mixing them all together…and we end up with a very b-o-r-i-n-g: gray. I say, “Viva la difference!” In it is Truth.
Preach it, sister, preach it.
As the wife of a lovely man, and the mother of a lovely son, it gets my hackles up because to me it seems not just that we want to “include” women, but that there is something WRONG with being a MAN.
And just how STUPID do these inclusiveness freaks think we are???? Teach people what the words MEAN. Don’t dumb it down.
Well observed and argued. Thank you.
Lady Thatcher, when challenged on the subject, used to say that “in language as in life, man embraces woman.” There’s too much merry wit in that formulation to appeal to the flinty-eyed avatars of political correctness, of course, but what a narrow vision of inclusiveness they entertain, where the essence of every relationship is power and a battle over the imposition of will.
Thanks again for your clarity and insight.
Grace and peace.
Allow me to add my voice to the cheers: a fine fulmination against modern folly.
“Inclusive language is the Mrs Elton in the garden of literature, the tacky boor who wrenches every spotlight towards herself.”
Brilliant–nothing short of brilliant. It summarizes the problem in one apt sentence.
The problem with inclusive language is the problem with virtually all the other liturgical innovations that have plagued the Latin rite since 1970: it turns the focus from God to us. How it contributes to “the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful [by that same He]” is not apparent.
It does do a perfect job of bowing before and appeasing man, though.
What they said. A breath of fresh air. Thank you.
Three things about “inclusive” language no one adverts to but I think hold the key to why the enterprise is bogus through and through. First, a thought experiment: Pretend that the English language used “woman” instead of “man” for the generic term for the human race. The feminist argument about the alleged exclusionary nature of English would simply switch to complaining that the generic term “woman” is sexist since it does not give females their own special word, ie the word “woman” is forced into double-duty while males (in this thought experiment) get their own special word, “man.” Not fair!
Second, English speakers are now effectively divided into two camps, the goodie inclusivisers (who are sensitive to the tender feelings of those who are said to be linguistically invisible in standard English), and the baddie exclusivisers who dare to linguistically offend women in the daily act of speaking and writing English. Ironically, by stigmatizing standard English speakers, the folks driving the “inclusive language” bus are as divisive and exclusivizing as they come.
Third, these sensitive womyn should take a vacation in countries where the native languages do not have the generic term for the human race (the purported dream scenario), like Egypt, Turkey, or Greece, to check out how females are treated. What a wake up call that would be. The point is, bad behavior toward women is the problem, not the very syntax of Shakespeare’s mother tongue. Ladies, and oh-so-sympathetic gentlemen, there is no causal connection.
Did you ever notice that the inclusiviers only focused on some words and not others? For example, I can remember friends in the construction industry responding to some inclusive reconstruction of something by saying ” Oh, just go fall down a personhole!” All the cool things have to be inclusive, like Chairman becomes Chairperson, but a manhole is still just a manhole.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, I refuse to call it “inclusive language” because that begs the question. By using the term you are “admitting” that gendered language is “exclusive”. A better/more accurate term is “gender-free” which has the advantage of being both accurate and lacking value judgment.
wow! y’all make me feel so dumm. i always thought gender neutral language was because some women needed to get even for guys attitudes to their cars (or trucks)which are always “she”. guess i’ll go out and clean the windows on ol’ Betsey so’s you can see the flag in the back window.
I was recently at a Mass where every opportunity was taken not to use the male pronoun or even the title of Father. Such wonderful things as “For us and our salvation He came down from heaven.” “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s church.” And “Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours loving God, for ever and ever.”
I hate seeing the liturgy defaced in this way. In the Doxology (the last example above), there is a huge clash between the liturgical action being performed and what is actually being said. The Doxology is to glorify God and give him the highest honor. And yet the “inclusive” words used merely are “pulling the punch”, refusing to use the title “Almighty Father” and substituting the generic Hallmark Card term “loving God.” The effect is in fact to insult God who revealed himself as Father at the very moment he is supposed to be glorified. I find it to be just nauseating, and supremely arrogant. To be blunt, it feels to me like giving God the finger right at the conclusion of the Eucharistic prayer. Giving thanks, indeed.
“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s church.”
When they say “for our good and the good of all his Church…” doesn’t the “his” refer to the priest and “his” congregation? They do this a lot in Albany.
Pansy, if the “his” in the congregation’s response were really referring to the priest, wouldn’t it have to say: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of your name, for our good and the good of all your Church?” That would be so jarring that even inclusivists might notice something.
One other point about the Doxology. It is intrinsically a Trinitarian formula. The flow of Eucharistic Prayer II in the final sentence before the Doxology and through the Doxology itself is “May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ. Through Him, with Him, in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours Almighty Father, for ever and ever.” So the Doxology mentions Jesus (“Him”), the Holy Spirit, and the Father. To change “Almighty Father” to “loving God” is to shatter the whole Trinitarian flow, and ruin the whole point which is to give glory and honor to each person of the Trinity. Changing that is to throw an inclusivist monkey wrench into the liturgical gears, and all for what?
Pansy, in that part of the Eucharistic Prayer, the congregation is addressing the priest but talking about what we pray God does. Rendered Power-point style:
May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your (you= the priest) hands
So the “inclusivistas” are just trying to sidestep the “His,” which refers to God.
Right on, Peony. Ever notice, too, that the inclusivistas (very good!) don’t *ever* complain that Satan is described with the masculine pronoun? On some unconscious, unadmitted level, they probably know that carping about not using “she” for the Evil One would expose the absurdity of the whole Inclusive Language Project.
+J.M.J+
As for the manhole covers, I once read a “non-sexist dictionary which suggested using the term “utility hole cover” instead.
I don’t know, it just doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily….
In Jesu et Maria,
I am thrilled to see that I am not the only one has a problem with the silly inclusive language debate. The Mommies said it just right. We need to treat each other like God made us.
Amen!
Betty at 5:40 pm, not known to be up after 12:00 AM
Thank you for saying so well what I have been thinking, particularly lately. I am a liturgical musician and newer hymnals (Gather, Glory and Praise) have taken to using “gender neutral” language, even when referring to God. When I cantor now I have to pay close attention to the “sanitized” versions to make sure I don’t use male pronouns when referring to God. How utterly ridiculous.
“Gender neutral” is not only wrong, it is a big pain in the hindquarters.
1. Ruthann — oooo, what a hassle. I particularly hate the gelded version of the Toolan “I am the Bread of Life” that’s been making the rounds. “Unless the Father beckons (“beckons” replaces “draw him”) — ugh! (and so much for the drawing power of the Father’s grace.) At least they didn’t try to slip “Parent” in there to replace “Father.”
I cannot imagine the mindset that would seek to improve upon the words spoken by the Incarnate Word Himself.
Welcome CaNN readers!
Thanks for the welcome. I am a CANN reader. The Anglican Church has recently been devestated by Laodician inclusivity in language as well. The Nicene creed is no longer a personal afirmation but a group one which removes a major part of prepardness for recipt of Holy Sacrament, and Barbara Harris (in Mass) replaced Father, Son, Holy Spirit with Creator, Sanctifier, Redeemer, which is not intrinsically wrong but replaces who God IS with what God DOES. It all adds up to a liturgy that replaces liturgical 80 proof whisky with liturgical soft, white, fluffy sugared bread in lukewarm milk. I’m glad I grew up in the old, unenlightened age that I did (and I am not quite 40 yet, wow!).
I also linked here from CANN. I was raised Catholic and now attend an Episcopal Church, and I just have to laugh at the ‘inclusivistas.’ At our church, the only alteration to be codified is “Blessed be God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.//And blessed be God’s Kingdom, now and forever. Amen.” This one doesn’t hurt me as much as some individual congregants who privately mangle prayers according to their own lights. (The worst of all is “Godself,” IMHO.)