…in the beginning, God was no size at all. Because there was no Space. And no age at all, because there was no Time.
God just was.
And perhaps, because she was lonely, God grew.
And when God grew, Time and Space exploded into being.
Stuff at colossal temperatures shot outwards, clumping into clouds of burning
gas and splashes of red hot liquid. Suddenly God was everywhere, because there was everywhere to be.
And God called Time and Space her Universe.
Time passed. Space spread. But still, God was lonely.
(And, with so much Time on her hands, she might even have been a little bored.)
God sighed, and said to the glowing clouds:
“Do you like this Universe I’ve made for you?”
But the clouds said nothing at all.
God said to the splashes of red hot liquid:
“Do you like this Universe I’ve made for you?”
But the splashes of liquid said nothing at all.
God waited.
The glowing clouds shrank into hot shining stars. Each hurtling drop of red hot
liquid cooled, and grew a rocky crust. Some went spinning round the stars,
becoming planets.
“Now this is getting interesting”, said God to herself.
And God said to the stars:
“Do you like the shining light the glowing clouds have lit for you?”
The stars said nothing at all. But God thought perhaps she heard them singing, high and faint, across the Universe.
And she said to the planets:
“Do you like the rocky mountains that have cooled to cover you?”
The planets said nothing at all.
But there was a roaring and rumbling, as the mountains threw out great fountains of molten lava, and clouds of ash, and steam, and sulphurous vapours.
From the mountain clouds, rain fell upon the surface of the planets.
God said to the rain:
“Do you like falling from the clouds that the mountain tops have made
for you? Will you flow into great lakes and seas for me?”
But the rain just rained, and said nothing at all. Except on one planet, where
God thought she heard the rain whisper “yes…yes…yes”.
Although it might have been her imagination.
God loved that planet, where the rain had spoken to her.
And she called it Earth, because she hoped that something interesting would
grow in it.
Earth grew cooler still, and more rain fell from the mountain clouds. Icy comets crashed into Earth, and melted. Soon the mountains were running with rivers flowing into lakes, and seas, and oceans.
God said to Earth:
“Do you like the rivers and lakes, the seas and oceans the skies have
made for you? Do you like being watered by the rain from the mountain
clouds? Will you grow something for me?
Earth said nothing. But when God listened very closely, she could hear a
muffled bubbling.
Hot lava was squeezing up through the rocky crust at the bottom of the oceans, heating the water, and squirting rich minerals into the muddy mixture.
God said to the boiling mud at the bottom of the oceans:
“Do you like these hot rich minerals the Earth has given you?”
The mud said nothing at all.
But God waited patiently. And something happened.
Something moved.
All by itself.
“Come out” coaxed God. “Come and talk to me.”
And though the creature said nothing, it wiggled a little. And divided in two.
“Well,” said God, “this is interesting”.
She watched and waited. Each creature divided into two more, and soon there were hundreds, and thousands, and millions of little creatures swimming around in the mud, feeding on the bubbling minerals, all alike. Or were they?
Not quite. Some were a little different. One had a tail. It divided into two more, each with tails. Now there were hundreds with tails, and some had mouths as well. Some started to chase and eat each other.
The longer God watched, the more kinds of creatures she saw.
God said to the creatures:
“Do you like the rich warm mud that feeds your wiggling bodies? Are
you happy? Does it hurt when someone bites your tail?”
But the creatures said nothing. They went on chasing each other, and dividing into more and more creatures, until there were so many different kinds that God nearly lost count.
And some of them were green.
God especially liked the green ones. They rose to the surface, and basked in the sun, and instead of feeding on minerals on the muddy bottom, they fed on sugar they made themselves out of sunlight and carbon dioxide from the volcano vapours. And best of all, as they made the sugar, they also made oxygen – pure fresh air!
God said to the tiny green plants:
“Do you like the light the sun shines down on you? Are you happy?
Will you make more clean fresh air for me?”
The green plants said nothing at all. But they carried on dividing, and making
more sugar and fresh air. Soon the skies and the foamy seas around the Earth
were filled with oxygen, and all the ocean creatures kept dividing and dividing,
until, from shore to shore, there were billions of them.
God looked closely. She saw that some had little feet. Near the shore where the water was shallow, they used their feet to cling to the rocks. Some grew long tentacles, and caught passing creatures for food. Some had several feet, and walked along the rocks. Some moved by squirting water. Some grew flippers and fins.
God said to the sea shore creatures:
“Do you like the shores the land and sea have made for you? The rock
pools left by the tide where the sun warms the water for you? And all the
different creatures you have to chase and eat? Are you happy?”
The sea shore creatures said nothing at all, but went on chasing each other,
eating each other, and producing more and more of each other, until the rock
pools were very crowded.
Some kinds were born who could trap water, and survive high up on rocks that the tides left dry each day. Some kinds were born who could breathe the fresh air the plants had made, and whose feet could carry them over the dry rocks to land.
And meanwhile, the deep sea animals and plants went on growing, with new
kinds appearing all the time. Enormous ammonites with shells and tentacles.
Soaring sea weeds that waved in the sunlit waters.
Plants grew on the land too, and in the forests, the creatures grew tall. Some ate leaves. Some ate each other.
God said to the great land creatures:
“Do you like the forests the plants have sown for you? The sun that
warms your bodies? The cool fresh air the plants have made for you to
breathe?
“Does it hurt when you fight each other? Do you weep when your
friends are eaten?”
And the great creatures roared with pain and anger. But still they said nothing.
Then, one day, a terrible thing happened.
A gigantic rock from Space smashed into Earth. The forest caught fire with the heat of the impact, and black smoke hid the sun. Earth grew cold and dark.
Plants died, because without sunlight, they could make no sugar. Plant-eaters
died, because there were not enough plants to eat. Meat-eaters died, because there were not enough plant-eaters to eat.
God saw the devastation, and she wept.
“Oh my creatures!” she cried, “how can I comfort you?”
But the creatures said nothing at all.
Earth was still. Or almost. Something stirred on the cold ashen floor of the
forest. Small furry creatures, who made their own body heat, and kept warm and snug at night inside their fur.
The furry creatures had survived. Their fur, and their own body heat, had kept them warm. Seeds had survived, and green shoots poked through the blackened soil.
Slowly, the forests grew again. And life was good, with the great angry creatures gone.
God said to the furry creatures, as their babies fed contentedly on their mothers’ milk:
“Do you like the peaceful forest the Space rock left for you? Do you like
the milk your mothers make for you? Do you love your babies?
And, though the animals said nothing, they purred, softly.
The babies grew, and had babies of their own. Most looked like their parents.
But some were a little different. Some were born with hands that were good for climbing. Some with tails that were good for balancing. Some had no tails at all. Some could make loud shrieks to warn each other when danger threatened.
Some learned how to poke tasty ants out of rotten logs with sticks, and they
showed their children how to use the sticks too.
God said to these clever creatures:
“Do you like your forest home? The fruit on the trees? The ants in the
logs? Your families? Do you weep when your children grow and leave
you?”
The clever creatures said nothing, but their eyes shone.
“Well”, thought God, “these are the cleverest creatures in my Universe,
but still no-one has answered my questions”.
And she sighed, and she waited.
And waited.
A baby was born. The baby became a child. The child thought about the tasty ants, and the sticks he licked them from. He thought about his mother, and the sweet milk she gave him. He thought about the trees, and the fruit he ate from them.
And he looked up at the stars in the midnight sky, shining on him from
across the Universe. And he heard them singing.
God said to the child:
“Do you like the shining Universe I’ve made for you? Do you like the
fruit from the trees, and your mother’s milk? Do you like the ants you
poke from the logs with your stick?”
And the child answered
“Yes! Yes! Yes!”
“I do too” said God.
“And I love you most of all, because you love what I love.”
And then God asked the child:
“And do you hurt when you fall, and do you weep when you are lonely?”
“Yes”, said the child.
“I do too,” said God. “And now we can comfort each other.”
And through the child’s ears God heard the stars singing, and through the child’s eyes God saw the shining skies. On the child’s tongue, God tasted the ants, and in the child’s throat, God felt the sweet juice from the fruit trees. In the child’s bones, God suffered the pain of the child’s fall, and in the child’s tears, God wept with grief.
And God was not lonely any more.
God said:
“Dearest child – will you lend me your hands, and your strong young legs
as well? Will you look after my beautiful Earth for me? Will you keep
the rain clean, and the skies clear, and the forests green and bright? And
all the creatures that roam the land and seas, eating each other and being
eaten – even though they do not answer my questions, they are all
precious to me, and they are your brothers and sisters and cousins – will
you love them, as I love you?”
And the child thought in deep silence.
But all he would say was:
“Perhaps….”
© Elizabeth Liddle, 2000
In the orthodox tradition, Logos is often identified with Holy Wisdom, Hagia Sophia, often portrayed as female.
In other traditions, Sophia is identified with the Holy Spirit.
keiths,
You should sit with that.
Uh oh, must be trouble brewing. I agree with everything you’re saying here, keiths.
Especially that last bit about “respecting traditional assumptions”.
If we, collectively, had always respected traditional assumptions, we would still be killing things with sharp sticks and sparking fire with shiny rocks.
It’s beyond dull for a person here and now, here at TSZ, to act as if there is anything that we’re supposed to go along with merely because it’s “shared tradition” rather than because it has any actual value and relation to reality.
I see the value in going along with “please” and “thank you” and “How are you today, Mister Smith?” “Fine, and you?”. Not agreeing to participate in those social exchanges can be genuinely disrespectful to the other person, making them feel as if they aren’t a human worth interacting with.
Likewise, I see the value in agreeing to call each person by their preferred name and preferred gender pronouns. In fact, if I call a woman “she” when she may have been identified as male at birth, I am disrespecting traditional assumptions while I am respecting the person.
(And, failing to respect persons as persons does not have a larger point either, say, setting an example of anti-sexism. But choosing to disrespect an outdated tradition quite likely has a larger point.)
But anyways there’s no disrespect towards the other person in not going along with their arbitrary, meaningless, traditional term for some other thing as opposed to their terms for themselves. Their personal identity should never be tied up in what their tradition has called their god. If they think it’s a “personal” issue to them, too bad; their thinking so does not actually make it so.
I empathize.
We’re human. Metaphors are what we do.
None of us can get them all “right”. What we can do, is try to pay attention.
hotshoe_,
“The anthropologists got it wrong when they named our species Homo sapiens (‘wise man’). In any case it’s an arrogant and bigheaded thing to say, wisdom being one of our least evident features. In reality, we are Pan narrans, the storytelling chimpanzee.”
— Sir Pterry
A lot of Eastern Orthodox been involved in the relevant discussions?
Glen Davidson
Well, I’m not surprised you would, since it’s a misrepresentation of what I actually wrote.
Yes, probably so. Too bad I didn’t write anything that stupid and lame, although that doesn’t stop you from acting as though I did.
And it’s beyond decency of you to act as though I wrote Keith’s misrepresentation.
Yes, and disrespecting the people has a larger point as well. Not a good one, however…
Since you mischaracterized what I wrote rather egregiously, in part by following Keith’s egregious misrepresentation, I’d note that doing such a thing is just about as indecent a thing as can happen on a forum. Not that I ever expected better of an ideologue.
Glen Davidson
ITHINKWESHOULDTAKEAPAGEFROMTHEGREEKSANDWRITEINALLCAPSSOTAKETHATGREGORY
I like this one better:
“…animals too have the basic elements of anima rationalis, and what is uniquely human is another type of ‘soul’, a type that can be referred to as anima irrationalis because it is the ability to make irrational assumptions, to take symbols for real and live in an imagined world.”
– Marcello Barbieri
Bless your heart, there is absolutely no need for you to get so worked up about what I write, whether you think I’m misrepresenting you or not.
I’m not disrespecting you and I can’t harm you, even if I wanted to, which I don’t. You’re over there, somewhere, and I’m over here somewhere …
Unlike the theists who want to burn me as a witch, or execute me for the biblical crime of committing adultery, I don’t have an ideology of harm to anyone. When they respect me and my right to live my life, then I’ll respect them. Until then, I refuse to grant them any undeserved respect except the same (minimum) I grant all humans just for having survived getting born. Which is about the level I grant you, but it should be plenty enough respect for you that you wouldn’t feel any need to shove stupid labels like “egregious” and “indecent” and “ideologue” in my face.
If you don’t see that, I’m sure further discussion will shed no more light for you. Don’t harass me; I’ll be happy to not comment on anything you say in the future to anyone here.
If me being outraged is that important to you, go right ahead on and imagine it.
Oh, did I overreact, just because you wrote a good-sized post writing as if I had written something that I hadn’t, but was a mischaracterization by another who sucks up to power? Gee, I’m so sorry, how could I have reacted badly to something that could only have been avoided by actually reading what I wrote (and that you had to paste in, for God’s sake), which was really vastly different than what you so indecently mischaracterized it as being?
You get away with it because you’re “on the right side,” a typical bourgeois privilege.
Oh I see, you point out that you don’t want to harm me, and can’t, thereby suggesting that I made some sort of remark that you might want to, even though I never wrote anything like that. I just said that it’s about as indecent as anything can be on a forum, which is certainly how I understand it to be.
Yeah, I see that now. Wow, what a non sequitur.
Yes, your hatred of Xians (“Why I Hate Christians: Reason #12483”) inspires us all. Not to good, but what of that…?.
Uh-huh, nothing egregious about your repetition of a ridiculous misrepresentation, and your ideologic contempt for the “other.”
No, I’m not likely to be enlightened by anyone of your intolerance and extended commentaries based upon misrepresentations. I have read things a tad better than your unexamined acceptance of the claims of the powerful and privileged.
Whom have I ever harassed? If you know of no one, don’t tell me not to do what I am not known to do. You throw out nasty and baseless suggestions.
Works for me.
Glen Davidson
Indeed.
hotshoe said:
Quite a narrative you have going on there. It puts an interesting light on some of the commentary.
No, it wasn’t “shocking” at all, although the “shock” value and the “outrage” some imagine on my part apparently serves some identity/social/political narratives here.
I pointed out (after Gregory mentioned it) that it seemed to me that if EL was all about getting those theists from ID to come here, and if EL was an atheist, calling god “she” all the time seemed to me to be just an unnecessary political poke in the eye of the very people she was trying to get to come here to participate – considering most of them refer to god as “he” and that the term has – to some – some significant meaning. She as admitted as much, so it’s not like my observation was incorrect.
Sometimes when you pull a thread, all you get is a piece of string. Other times, part of the garment rips off and you see some of what’s underneath. It’s pretty fascinating stuff.
I don’t recall saying that. Could you link to it please?
Oh, honey, you have no clue.
Mung, I apologize to you unreservedly, To be honest, I don’t know why I got away with that at the time and I can’t edit it now. Okay by me if it gets guano’d but I’m sad that you’ve already seen it. I think you and I have been getting along pretty well and I should have restrained myself from being provocative towards you.
On the other hand, you were being needlessly provocative towards Allan Miller, and you also got away with it, so maybe our karma is in balance and it’s only Allan who has come out being owed.
Accepted. Unreservedly.
Glen:
And:
And:
And:
I recommend a bit of self-examination, Glen.
I bet you do.
Not because you have any reason or useful knowledge, of course.
Glen Davidson
Except that wasn’t supposed to be poking “those theists from ID” in the eye. Naive I may have been, but it simply did not occur to me that “theists from ID” would find it offensive. As I said, I guess my default use of “she” for persons of unknown or undetermined gender is a small political act, but I’ve been doing it for so long that it’s pretty well unconscious, and certainly not aimed at “those theists from ID”, as you can see from the story above, which was written in 2000.
In fact, I think I only had one negative comment about the pronoun since I wrote and circulated despite posting it on CF. A lot more about the idea of a God who didn’t know what was going to happen next, or who presided over evolution.
It’s not as though, as I keep saying, that theists, even conservative Christian theists, aren’t familiar with the idea of regarding the Godhead as female, and, as I said, there are whole theological traditions, within Christianity, of the Motherhood of God, many ancient.
So generally, my use of “she” as default, wasn’t supposed to be a “poke in the eye” to any specific group, but a small gesture, now ingrained in my idiolect, against the “default male” use of language that is one of the many small ways in which girls and women are systematically disempowered.
And for a “theist from ID” to take offense at using “she” for the putative designer, seems very odd. In fact, I don’t even know if anyone has – what I’m seeing is people worrying about others taking offence. Has anyone personally found it offensive?
Anyway, I will state, here and now, that no offense is intended. But I will also say, in case anyone is, that they might consider how they would feel if they lived in a world in which the default terms for a human being, or a being with human properties, were those specific to the half of the human species to which they do not belong.
Elizabeth:
Even if they have found it offensive, it’s time to drop the absurd double standard. There’s no more reason to tiptoe around someone’s religious beliefs — especially on a site called The Skeptical Zone — than there is to tiptoe around their political or scientific beliefs.
Glen obviously isn’t worried about offending members of “the yapping bourgeoisie.” Why then is he so afraid that we might offend theists by referring to God — quelle horreur — as “she”?
And the idea that only the bourgeois are affected by “default male” language is to profoundly misunderstand a reality that affects half the human species.
What a captivating narrative! Identifying this God as a female was a smart choice — it fits with the attentive, maternal attitude it, she, has.
What double standard, the fact that bourgeois freedom prevails? Yes, I suppose it is a double standard for the bourgeoisie to whine about anything at all, given that they pretty much have everything their way.
Oh I see, your misrepresentations are what matter. I didn’t say, tiptoe around their beliefs, you misrepresented me as saying that.
How could I offend them? They get their way, and trample the weak regardless.
Have I ever suggested that we should deliberately use terms other than what the bourgeoisie use, when discussing things with them? Of course not. It would be wrong to call their fictional characters by the wrong gender (as they have assigned gendered pronouns, in any event) just to piss them off, even if the imbalance of power is hugely in their favor. And you don’t do that, either, not really exhibiting independence of thought.
I’m attacking power, you just attack those without. Because that’s what’s easy to do, and it pays to stroke the wealthy and powerful, as you do.
Maybe if you knew something about politics and power, other than what you were told to believe…
Glen Davidson
Christians do not have a monopoly on the concept of God, and the ‘respect’ thing would have to be mutual to carry any force.
When you are in conversations with Christians about their (concept of) God, you probably should attribute to it all the same characteristics that the Christians do, or else you wouldn’t be talking about the same thing, right? So in that case, God would be a He. Not so much as a matter of respect, but to ensure you are not talking past one another.
Same when talking to Muslims about Allah, or Jews about JHWH etc.
When talking about God, or god, or gods, in general terms, there is no a priori reason why such an entity would be male, or female, or neither, or both. ‘It’ would seem the most suitable pronoun in this case, but I can see the tension between the often implied personal attributes of a god and the use of ‘it’. A balanced use of ‘he’ and ‘she’, capitalised if one is so inclined (depending on the amount of reverence one has versus the entity) would appear to be the most reasonable approach. When someone insists during a conversation about ‘generic’ gods that everybody uses He, and Capitalises, they are letting you know that they are not really interested in a mutually respectful exchange of ideas.
Anyway, in the context of ID this whole issue is moot since ID does not posit God as the Intelligent Designer. Right?
That’s completely orthogonal to what’s actually at stake. Not that I think you know anything about “default male” language other than propaganda (given that I only see you write trite slogans regarding these matters), but of course no one was saying that it’s “default male” language that matters.
The issue is that it’s their God and to not disrespect them is to use the terms they use for their God. The “default male” language matter is something you projected onto the field, not about what Gregory, Murray, or I ever wrote. The “default to their terms” (with exceptions, I suppose–“The Only God” presumably isn’t something we’d need to say) as a matter of respect issue is what we actually discussed, not what you wrongly impute to us. That you make it out to be about your concerns only indicates that you’re not listening to them or to us. As if that were not already obvious.
Glen Davidson
So what’s your point? I explicitly said that I wasn’t talking about the generic “God” in regard to the pronouns used, and I don’t see any reason to think that Gregory or Murray were either, especially since they brought up respect to the “other side” with regard to pronoun usage.
Meaning that the context always indicated that we were talking about “the Christian God” and not about what anybody else might call their Gods.
Glen Davidson
My point relates to the OP, not to your private wars on here.
Nothing there about the Christian God specifically.
Glen:
No, it didn’t. You’re way off base, Glen, as are William and Gregory.
Here’s how the issue arose:
Mung:
Elizabeth:
Gregory:
Elizabeth was referring to a generic Designer, not Yahweh, so her choice of pronouns was entirely appropriate.
Your fulminations about “disrespect”, “the yapping bourgeoisie” and “stroking the wealthy and powerful” are ridiculous.
keiths,
Keith leaves out a couple of rather important quotes in his detailing of the origins of the issue. EL responded to Gregory’s quote above:
Of course, later we find out that the reason EL uses the pronoun wasn’t quite so simple or neutral. Before she admitted that, though, I put my 2 cents worth in:
And that is what set the tone for further discussion; which was not framed in terms of EL applying “she” to some god she personally imagines does not exist, but rather in terms of what appeared to me to be a political poke in the eye of the very people she is supposedly trying to attract here – ID supporters from UD who mostly refer to god as a “he” and for whom that pronoun is meaningful from a Christian context.
Others, especially hotshoe, jumped in and explicitly or inadvertently expressed the same kind of political/social hostility towards the same people EL was poking with that term. Everything GlenDavidson said from that point on was on target despite keiths’ and hotshoe’s attempts to recharacterize the nature of the discussion after it had become about EL and others apparently deliberately using the “she” pronoun to irritate Christians.
When I make a case or explain things about my view of god, I use the term “it”, because it’s more appropriate to my concept of god. If I’m interacting with Christians and I’m discussing the Christian conceptualization of god, out of respect for their views and in the spirit of good faith argument, I’ll either use “he” or try to word my argument in a manner where I can just use the term “god” and not he, she, or it.
If I were arguing or discussing someone who had a female concept of god, I’d do the same thing – use “she”, or avoid such references and just use “god”.
A trivial point, but the male/female distinction in English is usually a matter of sex rather than gender. Imbuing a god/goddess* with maleness or femalenss seems a rather childlike personification of an unchanging, immortal deity.
You see, even gods are implicitly male!
William,
Nothing in your lengthy comment changes the basic facts:
1. Elizabeth used the pronoun ‘she’ in reference to a generic Designer-god, as shown by the quotes I provided.
2. Gregory jumped on her for that, and you and Glen piled on.
3. Elizabeth explicitly stated that if she were referring instead to a specific male god, such as Zeus, she would use male pronouns.
Her position makes sense. You, Gregory and Glen are off base.
This fable seems to me basically deist, although this “creator” is lonely, needy, etc. and, notably, powerless.
FWIW, I think calling this character “she” perpetuates a stereotype about women.
ETA: I suggest the author maybe consider something like “Mopesy”
Gregory was making reference to Lizzie’s general use, as a sort of continuation of the many comments he’s made about capitalization. He didn’t ask, ‘why does Elizabeth use the feminine gender there,’ he asked, “why does Elizabeth use the feminine gender and also not capitalise?”
But it isn’t always done in reference to a generic Designer, and Gregory wasn’t asking about a specific case. William especially made it explicit that he was writing about general practice, not the one time. Here’s one example of where she goes to the feminine even when the IDist God is referenced:
Bolding added.
They’re not particularly reluctant to bring in God whenever it’s a very religious audience, and they never or almost never say “her” when they do. Lizzie referenced “God” there because we all know that its an omnipotent and omniscient “Designer,” usually Yahweh, Jesus, etc.
Your stupidity about power structures is grating (if all too common), as is your inability to recognize where matters are general and not specific.
Glen Davidson
No, it doesn’t, it just reinforces the fact that Lizzie uses “she” in order to provoke people, apparently thinking that her bleat is exceptional (it’s too little used–my God you people need to get out and see how many brave little sheep bleat the same thing.).
Which would matter if that specific case were what was being discussed. Can you tell from wording what is general and what is specific, or is that simply beyond your ken?
You’re a bright one, aren’t you? We discussed the general, you blather on about some specific case, as if that were the issue (not the best example, as it happens, but things go down on their own timing).
Yes, but she’s not so much concerned about Christians, is she?
Why, because you lack the capacity to distinguish between general discussion and discussion of the specifics? Too bad for you, but some of us do better.
Glen Davidson
Keith said:
Why would I want to change the facts? EL herself admitted I was right and Glen’s assessment valid:
I would think it hard to defend someone’s position when that someone has already conceded the point – but, you’re welcome to keep trying.
Glen,
No, he was referring to a specific pronoun in a specific sentence:
Give it up, Glen. You got this one wrong.
William,
No. She admitted that her use of “she” to refer to a generic Designer-god was a “small political act”, but she rejected your (and Glen’s, and Gregory’s) criticism of it.
You wrote:
Lizzie:
And:
And:
I think you will find that people who have spent more than six decades being female know quite a lot about “default male language” without any recourse to “propaganda”.
Dammit I was aware of it as a five year old, before there was any propaganda about pronouns at all (or any accessible to a fifties five year old anyway).
As indicated above, I do see Mopesy as paradigmatically female. I think she may look a bit like Joni Mitchell.
Funny that a person with apparent male identity has the mouth to state an (adult and intelligent) woman doesn’t understand about default male language.
It’s not as if you’re a goldfish who cannot really understand the water you live in.
I don’t think I figured it out by age five, though.
Beats languages where most nouns have gender.
Or an unmarried woman is an it.
Haha. Godfish. Would that be a male or female godfish?
Elizabeth, to Glen:
You’re just saying that to repress the proletariat and “stroke the wealthy and powerful“. Glen is having none of your feigned bourgeois “concern”. 🙂
Calls to refer to God as a woman as female bishops take up posts
Get real, the point is that you exhibit a lack of understanding of how in languages male gender is (often at least) relatively close to neuter and why that should be. All you are doing is pretending that it has to do with nothing but some sort of “oppresion,” which almost certainly is not the case. I wasn’t denying its existence, but your simplistic, reactive, and absolutist viewpoint indicates that you know almost nothing about what it means.
If you thought about these things, rather than reacting according to script, you’d realize that your “male default,” as you so prejudicially call it, is quite arguably “male generic,” simply not valuing the male as it does the female (it wouldn’t necessarily be valuing females in a overall good way, I’d note). I bring it up as a possibility, one with as much evidence as there is for your reaction, really none.
You might argue otherwise, certainly. You don’t, you just condemn, because your beliefs aren’t to be scrutinized, they’re just absolute truth, as with many of the religious.
Which only indicates that you haven’t really asked why, or what it really means, but have merely reacted to it. Like the people you fault for mere reaction with respect to other issues. Yes, it’s the typical ignorant bourgeois reaction, as the stereotypical reactions of hotshoe and keiths exhibit, as well as your own ignorance of the issues indicates.
Nice way to ignore the fact that no one was even discussing “male default” language, and you projected that onto it. Not a decent way to discuss things.
Glen Davidson
It was the specific instance of an overall pattern, just as the capitalization in that specific instance was. I mentioned that it was an example (or “the example”), of course, but what would be the point of worrying about one instance anyway? The “does…use” suggests that it’s about her usual practice, not about one instance.
As I noted, Murray evidently read it that way and made it more clear that it was about the general–not that it’s really in question in Gregory’s post, either. It was WJM’s post that I noticed before commenting on it (Lizzie alerted me to Gregory’s earlier comment, not that it mattered substantively), not Gregory’s. Even were Gregory’s about a single instance, which it wasn’t, WJM’s comment would have made it general.
It’s rather likely that a single instance is what provokes someone to make a comment about a more general matter. That’s certainly how it was with the capitalization matter, which, along with the general wording, makes it more likely that it’s about the general matter, not a single instance. Even had it been written as if it were only about a single instance, which it wasn’t, the implication would be implicitly about the general.
Glen Davidson
Since we seem to be more closely related via common ancestry via Ardipithecus ramidus than to chimpanzees, and they themselves are significantly derived compared to the common ancestor, I cordially disagree with any attempt to place us in the genus pan. Homo narrans, though, that’s a good alternative.
Good grief, Glen. You made a mistake. Get over it.
Now that I’ve read the post and skimmed all the responses, I have two comments — one a quibble, one a little deeper.
1. Quibble: Using the feminine pronoun “she”, wouldn’t it be more linguistically consistent to refer to the god-figure as “goddess”? There is a grand tradition of female deities in many cultures, and we very willingly refer to all of them as goddesses. I don’t know why there’s be a reluctance to do that here, as long as we’re going to be gender specific.
Since this IS a quibble, for the life of me I don’t understand why nearly all the responses are arguing about gender terms. It’s a trivial side show.
2. Deeper: The “lonely god” tale always leaves me dissatisfied. The Universe is some 13.8 billion years old. God is supposedly eternal. Why does this supposed loneliness have a timestamp on it? Why wasn’t god/goddess lonely before then? And of course, if time began with the creation of the cosmos, there’s no “before” within which the loneliness can reside. So eternity is really meaningless in that case.
So we have a picture of this possibly bored creator, spending eternity creating one universe after another, and after each one plays out, it sighs and thinks “I’m bored and lonely, I think I’ll create a universe again. Ho, hum.” It’s just not a very glorious picture in the grand scheme of things.
Alternatively, the creator is NOT eternal, space and time pre-date the big bang, and the god became lonely at some point after it was itself created. Now we’re looking at something more akin to the old Indo-European religions with some senior god there first who then creates a menagerie of lesser gods, and humans come in as an afterthought.