Let's ignore JP's basic underlying arrogant assumption that the Litvak Yeshivas of the 19th century represented the ideal and eternal pinnacle of Judaism. Never mind that this form of Judaism represents only a small percentage of living Jews today.
I remember sitting in on an argument among my relatives almost 40 years ago. They were discussing whether or not people should be doing bat mitzvah celebrations. Its hard to believe, just 40 years ago in the US, Bat Mitzvahs were almost unheard of in the Orthodox community. Only radical, bra-less feminists advocated them. Why should boys get to make a big splash for their 13th birthday, and not have something equivalent for the girls?
Now, in the mainstream Orthodox community, a bat mitzvah celebration is assumed. Some people do it more modestly than others, but nobody I know of would dream of not doing it at all. This is a simple example of "drift" in orthodox practice and attitudes, the occurs in parallel to shifts in western, liberal and humanistic thinking. It them becomes an inseperable part of Judaism and Jewish practice. There are many other examples of this shift, including the training of women's rabbinical court advocates, poskim, and teaching of girls talmud and mishneh in school and yeshivas. Furthermore, many poskim are working on halachic solutions to the "agunah" problem of women failing to get divorces from their husbands and thus being "stuck". My recently married daughter signed, along with her intended, a prenuptial agreement intended to prevent this scenario from occuring.
Another logical fallacy that JP uses is taking the rabbinic responses to problems from 100 years ago as though they were applicable now. He ignores the fact that even Heredi rabbis give psak halacha on the basis of current conditions, not for those that no longer exist. (I remember reading that Rabbi Kook opposed giving women in the yeshuv voting rights!) It is entirely possible that rabbinic ruling were very progressive in their day, and had those rabbis been living now, would rule entirely differently.
The obvious danger is being stuck in the past is that you make yourself irrelevant. Of course a person can choose to do so if he wishes, but to impose it on others in morally wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I like the post.
I think when people generally would say Judaism is opposed to Feminism is really in the context of that traditional family structure. i.e, the two words that feminists hate the most....gender roles.
>Of course a person can choose to do so if he wishes, but to impose it on others in morally wrong.
I think in manners of justice you enter the realm of "morals" not necassarily rituals.
True. I think feminism has become a politically loaded word because of the activism of 70s and 80s. Nowadays it simply means "no discrimination".
I do think that ritualistic issues enter the realm of morality, when there is religious coercion. This is a problem here in Israel. Its a political issue and a moral one.
>I do think that ritualistic issues enter the realm of morality, when there is religious coercion. This is a problem here in Israel. Its a political issue and a moral one.
Well give an example. Are you talking about forced tzniut and tzniut cops? Well ya, of course that immoral but so is ANY coersion. I was specifically talking about ritual within the realm of the community that everyone is a willing participant in (ie, mehitzah). But I guess that is obvious.
Meaning, from an objective outside perspective, is a mehitzah immoral? I guess from western standards, it is, EVEN THOUGH those woman are participants of that community
The context I am speaking about is when a posek in a position of authority (moral or legal) uses it in a severe way to denigrate women. For example, recently, a former IDF Rabbi said that women have no business in the army and that religious boys should go to jail rather than serve with them. Coercion per say isn't necessarily immoral, laws do that all of the time.
You raise a good point regarding women who are "willing" participants in a system that seemingly discriminates against them. The Muslims use this excuse for the burka. After all, them women want to wear it, right?
Until universal suffrage, did women complain?
Ya, so where is that fine line? Shouldn't every community/society have their own standards, even though some other society doesn't agree with it? But what exactly becomes immoral? Is a wig or scarf moral but burka not? why yes or no? I don't know if a good example exists. I think a starting point is if within the realm of justice, they are treated the same.
And maybe women should not be in the army? Is it immoral for a rabbi to say that? Is it all that different than some firefighters not wanting women in their battalion for obvious reasons?
I understand there are grey areas. But to say Judaism is
opposed to equal rights is incorrect.
Depends on what right? Can one ask "Is Judaism against voting rights for women?" I would say, Judaism is pretty open to either, or. I mean, Judaism doesn't discuss it, and its really left to us. R' Kook was opposed to it. I was just reading about another old sephardi rabbi that was for it.
But what about a question like women serving in the military? Judaism seems to imply that, that is within the realm of men's duty. But again, maybe that is also grey since back then, a military was JUST for fighting. Today, a military is also reconnaissance for. example
> Meaning, from an objective outside perspective, is a mehitzah immoral? I guess from western standards, it is, EVEN THOUGH those woman are participants of that community
That women are socialized to accept this as normal doesn’t make it right.
Historically general society was misogynistic, and Judaism developed and was codified way back when. There are many today in the right-wing communities who believe it is the nature of a woman that she would rather never leave her home, and it is a shame that in the modern world women have to be out on the streets and in the workplace.
Judaism has no opinion on women voting, but that is because it has no real opinion on voting at all. Democracies like we have now are a modern invention (for all they looked to Athens for inspiration). But I doubt that Dovid HaMelech would have been in favor of a government for the people, by the people.
When the rabbi spoke about women in the military, I have a feeling he was talking about something like tznius, not practical considerations. And historically most soldiers were men because the average man has greater upper body strength than the average women, which would provide a man with an advantage over a woman when swinging a sword or pulling a bow. Modern firearms, to say nothing of mechanized warfare, pretty much evens the playing field.
"When the rabbi spoke about women in the military, I have a feeling he was talking about something like tznius, not practical considerations"
Thats exactly the point. "Tznius" is a male imposed disability on females, adopted by Jews from their surrounding cultures. The women in the bible are bold in comparison to Heredi women now. Tznius is our problem as males, not women's, IMHI.
> The women in the bible are bold in comparison to Heredi women now.
Depends which women. The imahos are depicted as paragons of tznius - Sarah is in the tent while Avraham talks with the malachim, Rivkah hides her face when Yitzchak approaches
> Tznius is our problem as males, not women's
Girls are taught that dressing 'untznously' is an issue of lifnei eiver. After all, everyone knows that men have no self-control. Part of the problem is also making thinking about sex a thought-crime. (At least, I hope it is. Otherwise the implication is that a man will rape any women he sees who isn't dressed to tznius standards.)
What do you mean it doesn't ,make it right? Are you really equating a mehitsah with real mysogenistic attitudes found in the extreme right?
Regarding tzniut, I think it CAN be taken to extremes BY the males, as it has been on the right. Clearly, there should be SOME responsiblity on the male not to get arroused everytime he sees an attractive woman. But to be fair, clearly the woman is the object of lust between the sexes, and if anyone is to be dressing modestly, it would tend to be the woman. (I think a healthy soceity is on that does respect female modesty, both male and female alike) I don't think we need to toss the baby with the bath water here.
"But to be fair, clearly the woman is the object of lust between the sexes, and if anyone is to be dressing modestly, it would tend to be the woman"
True, but this is relative and society based. The standards can vary based on what people are used to. We all know about South American tribes where everybody walks around naked and the men don't get aroused.
"Rivkah hides her face when Yitzchak approaches"
And when Yacov met Rachel he kissed her. I guess negiah wasn't as much a problem in those days...
Let's be honest, guys. The Torah and Talmud, having been writen by men, reflect men's point of view from the perspective of attitudes at the time.
Alot of modesty issues have to do with context. At a beach we are used to seeing people in bathing suits. But if a woman (or a man) were to walk into a store or a clinic dressed the same way, it would get much more attention.
All of the Talmudic statements about this or that being "erva" are context-based and relative, according to many poskim.
>We all know about South American tribes where everybody walks around naked and the men don't get aroused.
Ya, but we don't live in those tribes :) and with flailing modesty we have seen the outcomes in our society. And besides, even in tribes it is the men that get aroused. They will just get aroused by a woman doing something else and I am sure they have specific modesty rules intact as well.
> What do you mean it doesn't ,make it right? Are you really equating a mehitsah with real mysogenistic attitudes found in the extreme right?
I’m not making a value judgement there. Just pointing out that the fact that the women are ok with it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s fine.
> And when Yacov met Rachel he kissed her. I guess negiah wasn't as much a problem in those days...
Good point! I have to remember that.
Though one of my high school rabbeim told us that Yaakov was allowed to do this because he never had an erection (though of course he didn’t use that word) and never did in his entire life except when he was having relations with his wives.
>Just pointing out that the fact that the women are ok with it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s fine.
So how do you judge it to be wrong if consenting adults have no problem with it, and in fact many women actually prefer it.
> So how do you judge it to be wrong if consenting adults have no problem with it, and in fact many women actually prefer it.
At one time in India it was accepted practice for women to immolate themselves in their husband’s funeral pyre. They were consenting adults, and many were very upset when the British forbade the practice.
There is no absolute way to judge, but I suppose one way would be to see if a practice causes harm. Women burning themselves alive clearly causes harm. Does a mechitza?
classic.. three men discussing how women dress or should dress, believe or should believe, feel or should feel regarding feminism, judaism, sexism, discrimination..
>Just pointing out that the fact that the women are ok with it doesn’t automatically mean that it’s fine.
ya...who are we to know what`s fine with us or not..
some good points have been made.. but seriously, this is just comical
> ya...who are we to know what`s fine with us or not..
I would make the same point regarding men. That the issue under discussion happens to perttain to women is irrelevant.
Please, provide a woman's perspective.
Nice blog, but just a quick suggestion...
Perhaps, for each post, include a link to the JP post so that people reading this three months from now (or even people who don't normally read JP's blog) will know what particuar post you are tearing apart.
Thanks.
The Wolf
Post a Comment