In love with a married woman...

[Trojina]

I'm a big fan of Wilhelm's translation, it's beautiful. The bits of commentary that now seem outdated and misogynistic don't worry me too much. Also it's always been the case for me it's the 'magic' book to have in the room to indicate to me the presence of Yi. So if I consult I always have Wilhelm before me. This might be habit or superstition but it might also be I do sense Wilhelm was a most sincere servant to the spirit of Yi and that shines through, illuminates and more than that actually brings Yi to us not only as words on a page. So Wilhelm's book seems to have a symbolic heft to it for me. It's the only Yi book I will take from room to room, I like it before me to consult. Also his actual translation is not misogynist at all. It's deeply refreshing that Hilary uses the pronoun 'she' in her book, it does make a difference to be included. Constant use of 'he' subtly excludes women despite what's was always said about 'he' including both male and female. Well if that's the case then why can't 'she' also include the male and female and that's what Hilary's done.

 

[IrfanK]

Also his actual translation is not misogynist at all.

No, I don't think his translation is misogynist. Gender specific, in a way that the original wasn't, but not misogynist. Misogynist implies an active dislike or disrespect of women. I think the gender specific stuff just reflects the common practices at the time he translated it. When I use it, I'm aware of the other translations and the issues involved, so if I come across a line like "She is the treasure of the house," I'm quite aware that she might not be a she. I never liked the title Fellowship with Men, it sounds a bit Masonic or something, so I mentally substitute Community. And so on. I still love the language though. I'm not a Christian and I don't frequently read the bible -- but if I did, it would probably be King James. Same kinda thing. Classic. Old school.

Hmm... speaking for myself I don't find Wilhelm's gender specific language off-putting but that might make for an interesting survey question. And do you think it works both ways? Are you put off by Hilary's use of feminine pronouns? Anyway, being able to identify with the oracle is certainly an essential part of divination.

No, I don't find it offputting -- but I don't use Hilary's translation for divination, even though I really appreciate the commentaries and ideas. I agree with you that it's good to look at multiple translations, although I'm not sure about using multiple versions for divination. Possibly better to stick to one for that, just so you get used to the words and so they resonate clearly.

When it comes to recommending translations, I don't just go on the gender of the person, it's more about their personality. One friend, he's a secular buddhist, big on evolutionary brain science, a rationalist and a materialist. Okay, Balkin for him. Another is a poet. He really appreciated the way Bradford played with words and images. An acid-taking Tantra teacher who is into loud, extravagant images? Okay, Karcher for her. And one friend who does indeed have a bit of grudge about gender-specific language. She likes working with visual word images. Hilary is perfect for her. But I think I'm referring here to the commentaries and tone of their work overall, not just to their translations of the text.

Sorry, OP. We seem to have drifted away from your issue with the married woman. Hope it's turning out well for all involved.

 

[Trojina]

There wasn't really any drifting since it wasn't a current conversation when you posted on Tuesday, it's an old thread from last August. Also the OP has left. Where you see 'guest' by the name it means the person left. I think they left last year.

No, I don't think his translation is misogynist. Gender specific, in a way that the original wasn't, but not misogynist. Misogynist implies an active dislike or disrespect of women. I think the gender specific stuff just reflects the common practices at the time he translated it.

I'm confused as to why women would need non gender specific translation and men wouldn't. I mean men could be put off by the gender specific stuff in Wilhelm. They could be put off by the 'she' in 37.4 for example. Also how much incorrect gender specific stuff is there in Wilhelm? I'm not sure. For 37.4 I much prefer Wilhelm's 'she is the treasure of the home' to Hilary's 'enriching the home' because we are in 37 which does describe gender specific roles. I just like Wilhelm's translation of that line better than Hilary's.

And if it's not misogynist what is wrong with being gender specific. I did think in Mary's thread on sexism in Yi that some of the men seemed to be going in the direction of any reference to gender was misogynist which of course it isn't, as soon as that happens, people believing gender specificity is a problem, women tend to get erased altogether and so it just ends up as sexism in another guise.

If the words of Yi are not actually gender specific then of course it is more true to Yi to depict that. But in 37, which talks about the family in the home, well the wife was central then as she is central now. Women still mainly look after the children, they still mainly keep the home as they always have.....which is straying from the point somewhat but if I were recommending Yi books I would recommend exactly that same books to both men and women which is not to cast shade on your choice to recommend Hilary to women more often.

 

[IrfanK]

I'm confused as to why women would need non gender specific translation and men wouldn't. I mean men could be put off by the gender specific stuff in Wilhelm. They could be put off by the 'she' in 37.4 for example. Also how much incorrect gender specific stuff is there in Wilhelm? I'm not sure.

Well, every time he mentions the superior man, for a start. That's not gender specific in the original. I'm aware that the "superior man" certainly doesn't always refer to the querent, but it often does - or perhaps it refers to how the querent should be. If I'm reading for someone else, particularly a woman, I still use Wilhelm, but I change it to "superior person." Also sometimes the pronoun.

As I said in my response to Rosada, a lot depends on the personality of the person in question, rather than their gender. I'm quite happy making little mental edits in my head, some people might not be.

 

[Trojina]

Ah yes I forgot about the superior man, that could be offputting for a newbie. I take it that what the superior man does is the ideal way to act in the specific query posed...unless the lines say otherwise. I often substitute the name of the person there, like 'the superior Irfan' I find it helps to bring a person into their reading whereas these days 'the superior man' is to me feels quite a cold and remote phrase.

 

[rosada]

This is an old thread so I don't think we have to worry about the discussion going off topic.