The Main Feminist Issues: Imagine a society where…

1. Women are equally central in society as men are. This involves things such as no more gender-exclusive language; equal amounts of lead roles for female actors as for male actors; and equal proportions of songs by female singers/bands to songs by male singers/bands played on popular radio stations.

2. “female” and our concept of “feminine” are not considered worse or inferior to ”male” or our concept of ”masculine”. It is as cool to be female and to be feminine as it is to be a boy or to be masculine.

3. Being sexually attractive is no longer a prime source of a female’s value.

4. The hyper-sexualisation, reproduction and consumption of the female body is stopped.  

 

 

These are the four main Feminist issues for me, I see them as the four main areas in society that harm women. I will focus on these four main issues in my blogs. I will focus on what they are, on what causes them, and on what has to change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which bible version should I buy?

The bible I currently use is a 1984 NIV (therefore a gender-exclusive translation). I use it because it is a study bible with good-sized font. I have a gender-inclusive NLT (New Living Translation 1996) bible as well, but it is not a study bible, and I don’t enjoy reading it because the font is too small to read easily.

Things I am looking for in my ‘new’ bible: study bible; reasonable sized font; gender-inclusive language; well regarded/accurate translation. It can be big and bulky, I don’t care. My options:

TNIV = I would love to get one of these but apparantly the ones on the market have small font. Even the allegedly “larger-print” version is only about 9-point font and it doesn’t come with study notes.

NLT study bibles = a possibility. I am fairly cautious with their translation (it isn’t regarded as ‘as’ accurate as TNIV or NRSV). However I do find their translation is easy to read.

NRSV study bibles = possibly my current preference. The Harper Collins version has good commentary notes apparantly (not too conservative). It is considered quite an accurate translation of the bible. My only real problem with the NRSV is that I find it not that easy to read. It doesn’t flow nicely like the NIV or the NLT do.

I’ll show some differences between the NIV and the NRSV below, from Luke 18:20 (The Rich Young Ruler): the NRSV translation says, “… you shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder…” (the NIV says, “do not commit adultery, do not murder”). The NRSV says “sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor”; the NIV says “sell everything that you have and give to the poor”. Fairly minor differences in translation, I guess, but it does make the NIV easier to read.

Oh dear: I’ve just found some unnecessary gender-exclusion in the translation of the apparantly gender-inclusive NRSV: Luke 28:29-30: “… there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more…”. It is obviously intended to refer to women as well. And it doesn’t seem fair that leaving brothers behind is considered painful enough to mention but leaving sisters behind is not, so I shall add sisters in. This is what I think the NRSV should have said there, “… there is no one who has left home, wife or husband, sisters or brothers, parents, or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more…” (or alternatively, “… there is no one who has left home or spouse or siblings or parents or children…”).

Is it Feminism’s fault? The need for Gender-Inclusive language in the bible

Below I shall dissect two prefaces for gender-accurate versions of the bible. First I dissect the preface for the NLT 1996 (New Living Translation) which is a perfect example of what gender-accurate bibles should not do in their preface (in the preface they completely excuse past male-oriented translations of the bible, and lay the the modern problem with male-oriented language not with sexist language itself but with Feminism). Then I shall dissect the preface for the NRSV 1989 which is a wonderful and humble example of what gender-accurate bibles should do in their preface.

 

 

THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION 1996 Preface includes:

-         “One challenge we faced was in determining how to translate accurately the ancient biblical text that was originally written in a context where male-oriented language terms were used to refer to humanity generally. We needed to respect the nature of the ancient context while also trying to make the translation clear to a modern audience that tends to read male-oriented language as applying only to males”

Ø     So… 1. the male-oriented language of the past was okay: there was nothing wrong with it. 2. the only reason we have to change the bible’s male-oriented language to gender-accurate language today is because the silly modern audience is too illiterate/dumb to understand male-oriented language nowadays. 3. the reason for the modern audience (read: “modern young females”) not understanding male-oriented language is because of the stupid feminist movement creating problems where there were none before.

Ø     This preface denies any inherent wrongness with using male-oriented language (and thus manages to remove any blame for past male-oriented translations of the bible). The preface lays the source of the problem (and blame for the problem) not in past sexism but in the Feminist movement (which has taught modern young women to not understand male-oriented language).

> I am offended by this preface. It assumes that the only problem I personally could have with male-oriented language is not understanding that it was meant to include me also. It assumes I have to be close to stupid to have a problem with male-oriented language. I’ve grown up in Christianity, in the church, and with male-oriented language in the bible. I completely undertand that it impliedly includes women too. But I still think male-oriented language is inherently wrong.

- “we should emphasize, however, that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. We believe that the essential traits of God’s revealed character can only be conveyed through the masculine language expressed in the original texts of Scripture”.

> So we should only see God as ‘male’ but not ‘female’? So God is not genderless?

 

 

NRSV 1989 (New Revised Standard Version)

-         “since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text… masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture”

Ø     this is a wonderful preface about why the bible committee for the NSRV chose to use gender-inclusive language. The committee is humble. It accepts the faults/sexism in it’s previous translation of the bible (RSV). It does not blame ‘modern’ women, or feminism, for suddenly needing to change bible language to be gender-inclusive. Instead, it realizes that the English language has an inherent masculine bias/sexism, which was played out in translations of the bible. The bible should always have been translated in a gender-inclusive way. Translators screwed up by not doing so. They accepted the linguistic sexism/male-bias of the English language. They didn’t change this until the late 1980s.

Ø     As a side note, the NRSV preface says that their bible committee comprised about thirty members “both men and women”. By specifically mentioning this, I know that they saw the need for women to be included in the bible committee, and I appreciate this. This translation (with it’s humble preface that blames past sexist society not modern women for the recent change in gendered language in the bible) is fast becoming my translation of choice for my new planned non-sexist bible purchase.

Would describing God as FEMALE in the bible make the bible FEMINIST?

Mark L. Straus, (discussing the choice to use gender-accurate language in the TNIV translation) on the NIV website wrote: “This kind of gender-related language has nothing to do with Godlanguage. None of these versions introduce feminine language for God or eliminate masculine terms used for God in the Bible. They introduce inclusive language only with reference to human beings and only when the original author intended to include both sexes. These are not “feminist” versions of the Bible.”

Yup: my response:

1.      Apparantly a feminist version of the bible would be so bad. [If the feminist movement hadn’t begun, when would translations of the bible have started using gender-accurate/gender-inclusive language?] Also, definition of feminism = working for a gender-equal world (including gender-equal representation in the world). Where is this out of joint with Christianity?

2.      Apparantly it is okay to continue exclusively portraying God as more ‘male’ than ‘female’, and to do otherwise would be sacrilege. Funny. I always thought God was genderless.

If God is genderless s/he is as much female and mother as s/he is male and father. If so, we are missing an important part of the identity of God when we continue portraying God as exclusively male. It’s funny that these translators (almost all are male) can’t even fathom the thought of portraying God as female occassionally – you know, for a change. They could write God as female in alternative chapters/books in the bible, and God as male in the remaining chapters or books. This would accurately reflect that God is as much female and mother, as s/he is male and father. [But nooooo, say these bible translators, we can't have that... that would be too feminist, that would].

Even the KJV sometimes changed gender-exclusive language to include females

Quoting Mark L. Straus (Ph.D) from the NIV (New International Version) website on the use of gender-accurate language in bible translations:

 “Most Bible versions produced or revised in recent years—including those done by theological conservatives—have adopted this kind of gender-accurate language. Some of these are the New Living Translation (1996), God’s Word (1995), the Contemporary English Version (1995), the Good News Bible (revised 1992), the New Revised Standard Version (1990), and the New Century Version (1987). In fact, the use of such language is nothing new, and all translations of the past have used some inclusive terms for masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek. The King James Version often used the inclusive “children” for masculine generic terms sometimes rendered “sons.” Matthew 5:9 KJV reads:“Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.” The KJV translators correctly recognized that though the Hebrew and Greek terms (banim, huioi) were masculine in form, their meaning in context was generic and inclusive.”

Thank you, Mark Straus. Mark is a self-proclaimed conservative on the issue of women in ministry. [I very strongly disagree with him there, and I shall deal with this issue in a later post]. But Mark accurately views the issue of whether to use gender-accurate language in bible translations as separate from the issue of women in ministry. According to Mark, gender accurate terms should be used (and are used in the NLT) “only with reference to human beings and only when the original author intended [the term] to include both sexes”.

TNIV and LNT bible translations: are they really using gender-inclusive language? (“Son of Man”)

TNIV (Today’s New International Version, 1996): I quote:  ^{Matthew 19:28} Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne…” 

NLT (NEW LIVING TRANSLATION, 1996) uses the same phrase in this same verse.  So for some reason the translators of both the NLT and the TNIV decided that “Son of MAN” was appropriate to describe Jesus, but “Son of HUMANKIND”, “Son of PEOPLE”, or “HUMAN ONE” was not?

“Son of MAN” is supposed to mean ‘Jesus; born human to human parents’. The phrase “son of man” was not intended to have the smallest bit more to do with men per se than with people in general.  Therefore I would like to know the translators reasons for not making the phrase “son of Man” gender-inclusive/gender-appropriate when referring to Jesus.

[Custardy Blog thinks the phrase “Son of Man” would be better translated as “Human One” when referring to Jesus].

Is God Male?

The 1996 NLT is an attempt at making the bible gender-accurate (eg. replacing “men” with “people”). Which is why I was surprised to find that the NLT translators think God is better described as “male/father” than as “female/mother”.

I quote from NLT website (as of October 2008): After they ‘justify’ their reasons for using gender-accurate language within the bible they go on to say;

 “It should be emphasized that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. The translators believe that essential traits of God’s revealed character can be conveyed only through the masculine language expressed in the original texts of Scripture.” 

What these translators mean when they say this:

Basically they are saying that God is better described as “Father” than as “Mother”; and is better described as “He” rather than as “She”. That describing God as “Father” and as “he” best portrays the essential traits of God. They are saying that our understanding of what “he” means and of what “Father” means is closer to who God is than our understanding of what “she” and “mother” mean. They aren’t quite saying that fathers are more like God than mothers. But they are saying that our understanding of fathers and mothers means that we consider fathers to be more like God than mothers. [By not addressing this problem better, and by not even considering translating the bible in a way where 1/2 the time God is described as female; these translators also seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with us thinking fathers/men are more like God than mothers/women are].

Two reasons why these translators believe God is more like “father” than like “mother”:

1. These translators are 94 percent male.

On their website the NLT lists a total of 73 people as being the translators. Of these, I don’t know the gender of 4 (although it is likely that they are male: D. A Carson; Elmer A Martins; R. K. Harrison (deceased); and Terry Eves). Of the remaining 69 translators which I could know the gender of, 65 were men and 4 were women [in addition, 6 of these men are labelled "Senior Translators" but none of the women are]. So the NLT has been translated by a team that is 94 percent male and 6 percent female [and led 100 percent by males]. This is worst than the proportion of elected females in governments globally (88 percent male and 12 percent female).

It makes sense that a large team that is 94 percent male, and headed entirely by men, could decide that the essential traits of God were best portrayed by using male terms.

2. We consider the ideal “Father” to be more like God than the ideal “Mother” because he can be everything an ideal mother is and more:

We consider the ideal father to be everything an ideal mother is and more (eg. loving, forgiving, nurturing, strong, powerful, sense of justice). In contrast we find it hard to fit notions of power, dominance, leadership and strength into our understanding of what the ideal mother should be like. Our idea of the ideal mother is less powerful, and is more restricted/narrow, than our idea of the ideal father. Therefore we consider an ideal father to be more like God than an ideal mother.

Problems with thinking of and describing God solely as “Father” and what bible translations should do to remedy this:

I think this definition of ‘mother’ or of ‘ideal mother’ really lets women down. It also restricts our understanding of God. The idea of ideal mother should fit into our understanding of who God is as much as our idea of the ideal father does.

We need to redefine what traits an ideal mother should have to include traits such as leadership, power, sense of justice and authority.

One way to do this is to translate parts of the bible in a way that makes God female/mother (eg. chapter for chapter alternating in the bible between God as “male” and God as “female”). 

Another way to do this is to casually talk about God sometimes as mother/female in conversations (instead of God always being referred to as ‘male’).

This will do two things:

1. develop and broaden our understanding of ‘God’ and God’s traits (how is our understanding of God different when we see God as mother?) and

2. develop and broaden our understanding of ‘woman/mother’ and her traits.

Which religion is “the” religion? Who will be saved? What is there after death?

DIFFERENT RELIGIONS

There are so many different religions. If I was born into a family involved in any one of those religions, I would probably hold to that belief. I was raised by Christian parents (both of whom converted to Christianity from being agnostics in their 20’s). I am a Christian, and my God under Christianity seems like the ‘only possible true God’. I think that there is one God, but that everyone can experience her/him no matter what their religion (or lack there-of). I think there are many commonground similarities between my God, the Jewish God, and the Muslim God. They are all the same God, arguably.

I want to discuss some of my reasons for choosing to be a Christian on a later post (not including the fact that my parents raised me ‘as a Christian’).

I think “Christianity” is the religion with the most truth in it (although I also think that Christianity is quite flawed). I think all religions have some truth in them (some have more truth and some have less truth).

Christians deal with the issue of other religions (“who will be saved?”) in various ways.

WHO WILL BE SAVED?

I don’t get too concerned over the question of “who will be saved?” because I think everyone, after we die, will get a choice: it won’t be the deciding factor whether we knew Jesus in this life or not. Many people don’t get a chance to know Jesus; or have had a very negative experience of Christianity that put them off; or faced big consequences, such as family ostracism/death, if they so much as explored Christianity. Jesus won’t reject these people on this earth for that, I believe. My God is an all-loving and all-powerful God – so I don’t know how he will decide who he’ll “save” but his decision will be fair and loving.

ETERNAL SUFFERING?

I don’t know how an all-loving God could stand to be happy while some people suffered for eternity ‘down below’. There might be a time of punishment/realisation: followed by a choice (to God or not to God? Although I don’t see how anyone could choose “not”): followed by either New Earth/Heaven or extermination (God will cease to keep the person alive).

This post is entirely my opinion. Many other Christians differ on one or many of my views expressed in this post. I should probably expand this post and divide it into several posts at a later stage.

Feminist Bible – what if God was Female? Rewriting the Bible

I’ve started another blog, Feminist Bible, where I rewrite sexist bible passages in a women-affirming/non-sexist way.

There, I ask: is the bible sexist? (I think so: I ask whether a sexist bible can still be inerrant – without error). [also, from other websites: Was Jesus sexist? Was Jesus racist?]

1 Corinthians 11: “the woman is the image and glory of God” (I switched the word “man” for the word “woman” in this sexist Bible passage).

Genesis 1: The Creation - (where I’ve rewritten the passage to refer to God as a female). In a similar post on my Adam’s Apple blog I’ve tweaked this passage further, this time in a reverse-sexist way, against ‘man’.

Genesis 2-3: The Fall – The first sin of Adam and Eve – again, I’ve switched the words “woman” and “man” here.

Also, check out a Feminist bible story from another website - Lot’s Wife’s Perspective (the lady who was turned into salt by God in the bible). The authors of this website are writing a book called “The Feminist Bible” with pieces like that it in (I can’t wait to read it).

NOT a girly-girl: Girls can be tomboys but boys can’t be sissy’s

Why is it considered bad for boys to be feminine but good for girls to be masculine? 

 Many girls feel a stigma attached to being “too girly” which really irks me. I want to explore why this stigma is there in my next posts. I’ve just realized that when I was four I decided I liked purple better than pink. It wasn’t true, I really did prefer pink but I was trying not to be a girly girl. Being girly was embarrassing. It was uncool. Boys teased me and thought I was silly if I acted girly. Boys are never faced with a similar stigma about being a boy. It is always okay for them to like blue or to like ‘boy’ games. If they are particularly ‘macho’ or boy-like this is fine too. However, boys are taught to strongly resist being more ‘like a girl’, to strongly resist being feminine. When I was young the boys used to say “Eeew! Girl germs!” whenever they accidentally touched a girl. We girls started retaliating with, “Eeew, boy germs!” but we didn’t really mean it. We still thought boys were cool. The boys thought girls were not cool. Being girly was despised.

 

Girls were allowed, even encouraged, to be tomboys. Boys were not allowed to be feminine, to be a ‘sissy’. This is extremely unfair to boys/men who are more feminine, and I know that this has harmed a lot of men who felt they did not fit into the idea of ‘masculine’ as well as they were expected too. My sister is a six-year-old extreme “tomboy” who used to say that she wanted to be a boy. My dad helped her accept being a girl by showing her that “it’s better to be a girl, because girls can do anything, but boys can only do boy stuff”.

 

This restriction against boys being feminine can be very harsh, but it is not reverse sexism. It is an example of how boys and men can be harmed by the sexism against women in society. Boys aren’t allowed to be feminine (but girls can be tomboys) because being feminine/female is seen as worse than being masculine/male. 

 

I shall explain why I think masculine is seen as worse than feminine in later posts.

Calling Women “Girls”

When boys become men we call them ‘men’ or ‘guys’ or ‘blokes’ or ‘dudes’. The most common casual word for ‘men’ is ‘guys’. We don’t have any similar casual word to use for women. So instead we use “girls”. [I have heard one person say the word “gals” serves this purpose: however this word is obviously taken off of the child word “girls” so it is still connecting women with girls. It is also an exclusively American word, we don’t use it where I live.]

Why are women still called “girls” after we grow up?

Females are not supposed to mature. We are more valuable in this society (to men) if we stay young, and sexy/attractive. We are supposed to be a bit sillier, too. Not as intelligent as our husbands, and not as serious. We can (and should) spend a good amount of time making ourselves look “cute” and sexy (for the men). We wear clothes that make us look smaller, we sit “smaller” than men (legs together/crossed), and we generally try to make ourselves look slimmer/littler/petite. Like a girl. So we look good to guys. In contrast, boys are encouraged to “man-up” and become a man quickly, it is good for them to mature. They aren’t supposed to continue looking like boys, if they do they will be effeminate men, who are ‘less’ than real men.  

“Girls” is demeaning to women:

Calling us “girls” makes many women feel patronized, demeaned, belittled infantilized, talked down to and less respected.

Other belittling terms for women include “chick”, “babe”, “baby” (“babe”/”baby” may not always be belittling, but it can be belittling if a man uses it for his girlfriend but she does not use it for him).

 

The sex industry almost always calls it’s female workers “girls” (partly because this is considered ‘sexier’ than ‘woman’). The word “Ladies” is sexy too. Using the word “ladies” would show that the sex worker women are adults, and that they should be respected (not belittled). I think the sex industry likes the term ‘girls’ over ‘ladies’ because it implies a hierarchy where the johns are more important than the women who serve them, they are ‘Kings’ for a while, and their needs are more important than the needs of the women. The sex industry thrives off the need for these men to feel important/valuable. That it has to do this by demeaning/belittling women, however, is very disturbing.

 

Alternatives to the word “Girl”:

1.       The word “lady” used to be used for only upper class white women – and today is still used more for white, well-off women than for non-white or poor women, I think. So using the word “ladies” to refer to all women may be problematic.

2.       The word “woman” may be better. The only ‘problem’ with this word is that it is considered sexless, unsexy, boring, prudish, old, plain, and ugly.  The word “girl” is seen as sexy. It is creepy to me that “girl” is considered sexy when “woman” is not (a ‘woman’ is considered ‘too old’ to be sexy. This is part of the beauty myth). ‘Woman’ should be considered sexy, not ‘girl’. We need to help change this definition of ‘woman’ so that it can include attractive and sexy.