Talk:Malakia (effeminacy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Malakia (effeminacy) article.
Article policies

Revisionism in the Church Guess what word is missing from New Bibles:

NEW BIBLES Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

OLD BIBLES The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958

1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The King James Bible

1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.


This is an importance of an Encyclopaedia. So, information does not get lost. Nestle Aland is an prestigious work. It has an authority. It is used in many seminaries. Yet, where the Greek has five activities, the English only reads four.

Words are important. Lose the Word, one naturally loses the concept. It is important that this word disappears from modern culture. WHEELER 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • "Of the dispositions described above, the deliberate avoidance of pain is rather a kind of SOFTNESS (MALAKOS); the deliberate pursuit of pleasure is profligacy in the strict sense." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415.
  • "One who is deficient in resistance to pains that most men withstand with success, is soft (MALAKOS) or luxurious (for Luxury is a kind of Softness (MALAKIA); such a man lets his cloak trail on the ground to escape the fatigue and trouble of lifting it, or feigns sickness, not seeing that to counterfeit misery is to be miserable." Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 415
  • "People too fond of amusement are thought to be profligate, but realy they are SOFT (MALAKOS); for amusement is rest, and therefore a slackening of effort, and addiction to amusement is a form of excessive slackness" Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, pg 417.

Socrates and Plato trans by Paul Shorey

  • "And they may be excellent for other purposes, but we are in fear for our guardians lest the habit for such thrills make them more sensitive and SOFT (MALAKOTEROI) than we would have them." The Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 207.
    • This is the note Mr. Paul Shorey attaches to this: "With malakoteroi the image passes into that of softened metal; cv. 411 B, Laws 666 B-C, 671 B.
  • "In respect of savagery and hardness or, on the other hand, of softness (MALAKIAS) and gentleness". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289
  • "This if relaxed too far would be softer (malakoteron) than is desirable...". Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 289
  • "Now when a man abandons himself to music to play upon him and pour into his soul as it were through the funnel of his ears those sweet, soft (MALAKAS), and dirge-like airs of which we were just now speaking..." Republic, Plato, Loeb, pg 291.
    • The Great Classicist M. A. JOWETT translates this word malakos EFFEMINATE.

CATAMITE a, paiderastis Plato; to be a catamite, paiderasteo, Plato

  • NOWHERE DOES THE WORD MALAKOS APPEAR. Pg 87 if you dare to look

Effeminacy, anandria; anandrea; MALAKIA; MALTHAKIA;

  • PG 188

Effete is a totally differenct Greek Word, arimenos

  • pg 188.WHEELER 18:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, whatever else we may say about the word (whether malakos or effeminacy), you can't continue to deny that it has anything to do with "gender roles". The word "effeminate" in English derives its origin from the Latin femina -- obviously, to describe a man as being "womanly" is to state that something about him is more in accord with the gender roles fulfilled by women than those fulfilled by men. You insist that malakos is used to describe men who are "unmanly" -- I can't disagree. But surely you must admit that being "unmanly" means that a man is not fulfilling the gender role normally fulfilled by men. Even if it does not mean "womanly", it must be very carefully associated with classical Greek ideas and ideals of manhood. You can't continue to assert that it has nothing to do with gender roles. Jwrosenzweig 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deconstructionism

The above is an example of what follows:
Pick up the book by Gene Veith, Modern Fascism, Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. He has a subchapter on *Deconstruction* It is preceeded by a chapter on *Relativism*. "...deconstruction begins with the existentialist dictum that there is no transcendent meaning, that meaning is a human construction. Deconstructionists go on to show that the way meaning is constructed is through language. Who is the originator of this. Paul de Man. Henri De Man was is uncle. "Henri was mentioned in the same breath as Heidegger as major thinkers for the new fascist order"

  • "The act of writing, the simple assertion of meaning, becomes not only a "power play", but an act of "arbitrary power". pp 135-139
  • "Deconstruction encourages this kind of moral detachment. It also tends to minimize the past. In a discussion of Nietzsche, De Man wrote that "the bases for historical knowledge are not empirical facts but written texts, even if these texts masquerade in the guise of wars or revolutions." Just as literary texts have no determinate meaining in themselves and are ultimately unknowable, the same must be true of texts such as wars and revolutions." pg 140.

Veith continues:"...the major theorist of deconstruction is not De Man but Jacques Derrida, a Jew. "This Jewish approach is far different from Hellenic thought, which has dominated Western philosophy with its attempt to go beyond language to posit rational systems and idealized truths. Herbert Schneidau relates Derrida's deconstruction to the radical iconoclasm of the Biblical tradition. G. Douglas Atkins, supporting both Handleman and Schneidau, employs Thorleif Boman's Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek to place Derrida in the Hebraic traditon."pg 141.WHEELER 00:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We have two different thought patterns here. It is not about gender roles. It is about the faults of the soul. If you read carefully, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas you will find out that it is related to being lazy, luxury and entertainment. Either gender participates in this. It is not about gender roles or homosexuality or doing the laundry, or cooking or lipstick, or dresses or sexual position or penetration at all.WHEELER 00:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not talking about deconstruction, nor am I using that technique. Please focus on what I am saying. I am not talking about laundry or penetration or sexual positions. I never have. All that I am saying is the following simple statement. If you are talking about effeminacy or unmanly behavior, by definition, you are talking about a gender role. Perhaps not what modern society believes gender roles to be, perhaps a very vague gender role, but a gender role all the same. This is irrefutable, unless you propose to ignore the origins of the words "effeminacy" and "unmanly". Jwrosenzweig 16:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
English is a terrible language. It is not comparable to Greek. Greek is a very scientific language. It has deeper varied meanings to their words. English is a late language and not a pure one. Just because the English strove coined the term effeminacy for several things does not make it a technical language nor an exact translation of the word malakos. Virtue is not a gender role.
Werner Jaeger writes, "The qualities which usually came under the name aretai, "excellences" or "virtues", in the Greek polis—courage, prudence, justice, piety—are excellences of the soul just as health, strength, and beauty are excellences of the body. That is, they are the appropriate powers of particular parts of the soul or their co-operation cultivated to the highest pitch of which man's nature is capable." Paideia, Vol II, pg 44.
The origin of the word is the Greek word malakos. Their usage comes from the Bible and then the Latin Bible and Plato's writings. The Victorian English concept is the Greek classical concept.WHEELER 15:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know the etymology of malakia, and I agree with JWR that it has most definitely a connotation of sexual behaviour in Classical Greek (not to mention Modern Greek :o) — take for example Pseudo-Lucian's Lucius or the Ass (Λουκιος η Ονος), where the poor ass has to serve a bunch of malakes who are clearly male prostitutes. dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

btw, I don't understand what you mean by "The origin of the word is the Greek word malakos." at all. As for "English is a late language", well, so is Greek. Why, half of the PIE consonants have evaporated, or have merged. Semivowels - lost, several times over; Labiovelars - lost during the Greek Dark Ages. PIE prevocalic s - lost, before the Greeks even reached Greece. Voiced aspirates - lost. The language is a fair ruin, and by no means more pure than say Old Norse or Sanskrit. Modern English is, of course, again 2000 years later, and should be compared to Modern Greek, which hasn't exactly preserved its ancient glory either, although I suppose it's a marvel it is still spoken at all, after all the Slavic and Turkic migration that took place. dab (ᛏ) 12:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The linguistic side

I'm fixing up some linguistic things: giving the Greek with its classical accents, making sure the transcriptions reflect ancient and not modern Greek, etc. BTW, ἀνδρόγυνον is a Byzantine word for "marriage" (joining man and woman); the classical word for an effeminate man or androgynous person was ἀνδρόγυνος. --Angr/comhrá 08:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Unsuitable for Wikipedia

This article makes very POV assertions about a concept which is quite difficult to prove. Certainly, false claims are made: "[ἀνανδρία] is always applied to fully heterosexual men". This is clearly rubbish. Plato 'Crito' 45e2: Crito uses it of Socrates (et al), and Socrates, like most Greeks was by no means "fully heterosexual". The conclusions drawn border on original research; the introduction is a mishmash of etymologies, conveniently ignoring the evidence from the scanned dictionary entries that connect effeminacy with like θηλύνομαι. The words cited are fairly rare in any case (under 300 instances of μαλ(θ)ακος in all of classical literature, inlcuding references to objects and so forth). The article belongs either in a classics-related periodical - abd even then only after serious revision. --Nema Fakei 01:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me how old meanings of words are now "original" and "new". This article preserves the old meaning of the word and its context. I wish you would leave it alone. There is a story that Socrates refused sex from a male. For you to intimate that he was homosexual is pure conjecture on your part. WHEELER 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can be heterosexual and still refuse sex from someone of the opposite gender. That Socrates once refused does not mean he was not bisexual. Take, for example, Socrates' advances towards Alcibiades. I am not sure what you mean when you say "It amazes me how old meanings of words are now "original" and "new"."
Hm. I've taken a look at the bibliography, and there seems to be no secondary material whatsoever on the classical usage - just dictionaries and texts. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it clearly indicates that this is purely original research. I'm not suggesting that all of ideas the article presents are wrong or even new, but perhaps if you could cite some of the more sweeping or controversial claims. You've obviously put in a lot of work, and I'd prefer not to gut the article of POV/OR statements unless necessary.
Additionally, the dictionary entries would be much better typed: such big pictures are bad for dialup users, though that's low priority.
--Nema Fakei 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the following sentence included in the "Classical definition of Effeminacy"?

Without conetation it's to waste time.. because there is the real thing and there is Malakies

I can't parse the meaning of what's being said and I suspect it's just a goofball addition to this wiki. "Conetation" appears to be a misspelled "connotation" and the grammar is very poor...