Sexism in Judaism
Mark Ethan Smith
For more than 5,000 years, Judaism made no bones about or apologies for
being a sexist, patriarchal religion. Boys were given the best possible
education, girls were not. Males had the most responsibilities, and
therefore the most rights, and women existed to serve them, to raise
their children, and to support their scholarship. Men could be
important and have honored roles as rabbis and scholars, and women
could take pride in their husbands' status. Nobody tried to argue that
the wife of a rabbi was as important as a rabbi, although the wife
of an important man had some derivative status and was given more
respect than the wife of a less important man. Women were permitted
to attend some services, but they sat on the balcony or the other side
of a curtain, as far from the Torah as possible, since women, not being
Jews but only the wives/property of Jews, were not permitted to touch
or to read publicly from the Torah, the central item of Judaism.
But look at the articles this past month. Here are all these Jewish
men saying that Canaanites, slaves and women aren't considered inferior,
and that Jews don't thank G-d for not being made goyim or slaves or
women because they consider themselves better, but because slaves are
just different as women are different, and in no way inferior.
How do you differ from the revisionist scum that claim that the Holocaust
never happened? If you thank G-d for not being made slaves or women,
not because slaves or women are considered inferior, but because Jewish
men have more Commandments and therefore more responsibilities, but
not necessarily more rights, did you thank G-d for the Holocaust because
Jews were given more responsibilities and even fewer rights and were
again enslaved, under even worse conditions than Egypt, and certainly
under worse conditions than they had ever imposed on their own slaves
when Jews were slaveholders? If Judaism isn't sexist, perhaps Naziism
isn't anti-Semitic?
In America in the 1940s and 1950s, Jewish families sent as many of
their sons to college as possible. Jews honor and respect scholarship.
But Jewish Americans sent only 10% of their daughters to college before
1960. And almost 25% of those college educated Jewish American men
i the '40s and '50s married bright, educated schiksas they met in
college, so not only were Jewish women left without an education,
they were without the possibility of finding husbands. A disproportionate
number of the homeless prior to 1960 were Jewish women. They weren't
given higher education because they were supposed to marry, and supposedly
Jewish men didn't want wives as educated as themselves. But the men,
given educations so they could support families, rejected the uneducated
cows, and supported families of converted shiksas--families that
therefore remained within the Jewish community while the women who
were denied educations were cast out for not finding husbands. To
deny the hardships I faced back when it was still legal to discriminate
against women in this country, is, to me, no different than denying
the Holocaust.
My younger brother, who didn't do very well in school, was sent to
college because he was male and would need to support a family. I
got top grades in school, but was told it was a pity I wasn't a boy,
and resented by Jewish boys because I was too smart for a girl. They
married shiksas, just as my brother did (he's on his second shiksa now).
I was left without a husband to support me or any way to support myself.
I was put in a mental hospital for being dissatisfied with my lot in
life. Then I wandered the streets for more than 20 years, constantly
trying to find work that would pay me a living wage, with absolutely
no success because such work wasn't given to females in those days--
or if it was, it was only given to the best educated of females.
Judaism isn't sexist? The Holocaust never happened?
If we do not remember the past, we are doomed to repeat it. We
must remember, lest it happen again. Reevisionists are scum, be
they Jewish or Nazi. Don't tell me Judaism treats men and women
equally. Reform and Conservative Jews in America certainly try,
and the Israeli kibbutzniks tried also, but the essence of Judaism
is sexist and the Orthodox don't accept female rabbis any more than
they accept the secular state of Israel. It is true that Jewish
rabbis don't go around throwing acid in the faces of women who try
to educate themselves, the way Islamic mullahs do, but the separation
of roles and the superiority of the male role to the female role
is as basic to all patriarchal religions as the separation of Jews
and Aryans and the supposed superiority of Aryans is to Nazis.
In 1969 Social Security declared me totally emotionally disabled
and put me on disability checks. Of course I had no possibility of
getting a place to live for $72 a month, but it was beter than nothing.
Ironic that I took that money and, hungering for education, went to
medical school in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, where women who wanted
to abandon purdah and learn to read and write are about to be
slaughtered wholesale by Islamic fundamentalists with American and
Israeli arms and support. But I returned home before the Russians
arrived there, not having completed my medical studies and unable to
tranfer because the school, in Jalalabad, was unaccredited. Again
I was homeless. And in 1981 there was a genocide here in America.
President Reagan cut the Social Security checks to half a million
totally disabled people. Just as in Nazi Germany, the totally disabled
were the first group attacked. Several years later the courts
overturned that action and restored the benefits to the survivors.
Many did not survive. Some were Jewish. But just like in Nazi
Germany, when the totally disabled were the first group exterminated,
the Jewish community was silent. What genocide? Did you see a
genocide?
In Nazi Germany too, many of the mentally ill and the totally disabled
were Jewish women, cast out from their families for being too independent,
too smart, not submissive enough, not willing to submit to arranged
marriages, for wanting higher education, for the sin of wanting to
be equal rather than inferior. They must have been mad and therefore
deserved to die?
Okay, so the next time some revisionist scum tells me that the
Holocaust never happened, I have an answer. "Sure," I'll say, "and
Judaism isn't sexist."
It is certainly cheaper to deny sexism in Judaism than to grant
reparations to the Jewish women it harmed.
--Mark
P.S. Don't tell me want my name should be. My name is Mark. Is
your middle name Israel? If Hitler can't choose your name for you,
you can't choose mine for me. And don't tell me what women must wear.
Do you wear a yellow star? If Hitler can't tell Jews what they must
wear, you can't tell me what women must wear. And don't tell me what
roles are appropriate to me as a woman. If Hitler can't tell you what
roles in life are appropriate for Jews, you can't tell me what roles
are appropriate for women. Sometimes I suspect that everything Hitler
knew about fascism, he learned from Jews. After all, if Jewish men
can treat their women as 2nd class citizens, why can't other men treat
Jews as 2nd class citizens?
Judaism isn't just sexist. It is hierarchical, patriarchal, authoritarian
and fascist.
As hard as I fight anti-Semitism, I also fight sexism. Jewish women,
like all minority women, face double discrimination. Black women
were told that they shouldn't fight for womens' right until Blacks
had equal rights. Jewish women are also told to put their community
before themselves. Some of the hardest hit by anti-Semitism in
America are Jewish women who were forced to seek work in Gulut because
they couldn't find husbands to support them, and then were fired for
being Jewish, often without knowing the reason they were fired. Do I
need to quote Hillel? "...And if I am not for myself, who will be
for me? And if not now, when?"
Shalom,
--Mark
Linda Merle
the Jewish woman shares the plight of all the other women of the world and
the same paternalism that is so evident in Judaism is found in all the other
religions.
I spent the weekend reading Chaim Potek's novel "Davita's Harp". What an
amazing book to be written by a man! It is the story of a young Jewish
girl raised in the 30's in a socialist family and her struggle to reconcile
with her heritage. There are no answers here, and that's part of the beauty.
I recently also purchased a book entitled The Spiral Path, Essays and
Inteviews on Women's Spirituality, edited by Theresa King O'Brien and
published by the Yes International Publishers of St. Paul in 1988. One of
the many fine articles in this book is by Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, entitled
Navia: the Voice of the Prophet Woman.
Rabbi Gottlieb has embarked on a search for the forgotten voice of woman
within Judaism.
Rabbi Gottlieb was ordained by Rabbi Zalman Schacter and Rabbi Everett
Gendler in New York. Reb Zalman is also engaged in such a search. If you're
on the East Coast check him out.
She claims "Prophet-women existed among the early Israelites. They were
women of power. Devorah, Hulda, Miriam, the wise women of Avel, and Serach
all give testimony to the presence of the famale prophetic voice within
early Jewish culture and tradition." In spite of the loss of their lives
and memories, she feels it is still possible to "reimage women's place in
pre-patriarchal times."
My un-liberated, daughterhood wants now to appologize to the males who
dominate this group and find comfort in the forms of traditional religion
that they practice for disturbing them with my presence (though my arms
are properly covered). But more of me wants to say that I sincerely
believe that the seekings of Reb Zalman, Rabbi Gottlieb, Mark, and the
others are important voices to be heard too. Wasn't it Prager who remarked
that there weren't three kinds of Jews, just two: one who struggles, like
Jacob with G_D and one who is complacent? That a real Jew's relationship
with G_D is always changing, growing, maybe towards to greater observance
of traditional Mitzvoh, but always the focus is on a relationship, a
dialectic. Belief defines a Christian, who is assured if he only belief
he will have eternal life. But action defines a Jew. But what action?
Prager (I know if I am wrong, you'll correct me) says it's the action of
struggling with G_D.
We are all wrestling with G_D, and like Jacob, we all bear wounds to prove it.
Just don't try to tell us we can't wrestle, because we are.
Devorah
--
======================================================================
"Another day on the wrong planet"
======================================================================
THIS LIFE IS A TEST---IT IS ONLY A TEST.
IF IT HAD BEEN AN ACTUAL LIFE, YOU WOULD
HAVE RECEIVED FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS ON WHERE
TO GO AND WHAT TO DO.
v
B.SCHWARTZ
>For more than 5,000 years, Judaism made no bones about or apologies for
Virtually all text deleted
>--Mark
Mark-
I am truly sad and sorry that life has been so terribly cruel to you.
I am a woman, and I have responded to your postings before at
legnth. I see no reason to repeat my feelings on this issue
again. Perhaps someday you will find a spiritual recovery that
will make you less bitter, and less inclined to look for the
negative.
Although I disagree substantially with what you have posted this
week, I would like to support you in some aspects of what you
have posted. I think that we must differentiate between the
spiritual essence of a religion, and the sociology/culture.
Many of the things that you have said are true from a
sociological standpoint. Are women oppressed in our secular
society? YES. Are there sexist Jews? YES. Are
there many sexist Jews? Probably. Is Judaism sexist? I believe
that it is minimally so. Is it more sexist than Christian
sects? A resounding NO! Is it more sexist than other major
religions? Again, NO!
Your life story may or may not be typical. It is not the story
of 4 generations of women in my family. (That's as far as I can
legitamitely recount.) I'm in my mid-thirties now and I
don'think it will be true for the next generation of Schwartz'.
My life and the women of my family's lives may not be typical
either. The issue of being a Jewish woman in a patriarchal
society has been dealt with in MS. Magazine several times.
There are many good things that feminist women can take from the
Jewish religion. There are many ways that they can work to
change from within. I was married by a female Reconstructionist
rabbi, who had been raised strictly Orthodox. She wrote a few
HERS columns for the NEW YORK TIMES. She has all the correct
feminist credentials and she has a deep dedication to Jewish
life. Being a feminist, and being Jewish are not mutually
exclusive.
By the way, a few words of hope..... my husband insisted that we have
a female rabbi.... He's a Jewish man, son of Holocaust (sp?)
survivors. Also, among the 250 guests at our wedding ceremony
were Lubatvich and other Orthodox Jews. They were surprised at
how traditional the ceremony was, even though we made a concious
effort to delete any sexist references. Most of our guests were
quite impressed with our rabbi and told us that it was the most
memorable ceremony they remembered.
We each must find our own ways to deal with our own demons.
Blaming them on the religion, or your parents, or your SO, or
some other outside influence will not make you any happier.
Loving yourself in spite of it all may help the road be easier
to travel.
--
Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery--Red & Ruddy Abyssinians
(201) 576-3632 Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan &
...att!lzfme!brs Ch. Kinyan's Ramsette & some kittens
& a couple of people too!
SVS
> being a sexist, patriarchal religion. Boys were given the best possible
> education, girls were not. Males had the most responsibilities, and
The sexist, patriarchal outlook is not particular to Judaism but is rather
a reflection of the surrounding society. Judaism is a living, growing
religion and in many ways updates itself along with society. Today,
women are fully accepted as equal participants in the vast majority of
Conservative and Reform congregations. This parallels the shift of many
women from housewives to full members of the workforce.
> If you thank G-d for not being made slaves or women, ... because Jewish
> men have more Commandments and therefore more responsibilities, did you
> thank G-d for the Holocaust because Jews were given more
> responsibilities...? If Judaism isn't sexist, perhaps Naziism isn't
> anti-Semitic?
There's been a lot of fuss over this prayer, which was removed from the
Conservative Jewish liturgy many years ago because it is out of touch with
20th-century sensibilities. The rationale for this prayer is gratitude
for the opportunity to perform more Mitzvot (acts of merit, in the sense
of fulfilling God's commandments).
The comparison with the Holocaust is, to say the least, gratuitous. Jews
were not accorded the opportunity to perform more Mitzvot; the Nazis did
everything they could to prevent Jews from following the commandments.
> In America in the 1940s and 1950s, Jewish families sent as many of
> their sons to college as possible.... But Jewish Americans sent only 10%
> of their daughters to college before 1960.... [Jewish women] weren't
> given higher education because they were supposed to marry, and supposedly
> Jewish men didn't want wives as educated as themselves. But the men,
> given educations so they could support families, rejected the uneducated
> cows... To deny the hardships I faced back when it was still legal to
> discriminate against women in this country, is, to me, no different than
> denying the Holocaust.
Did Jewish American families send fewer of their women to higher education
than non-Jewish American families? And, yes, women were legally discriminated
against just about everywhere. Why single out Judaism as a culprit? And
who is denying that women faced discrimination and hardships?
Again, the reference to the Holocaust! It is *not* the same as a historically
based denial of equal rights to women. No society set out to systematically
degrade, torture and exterminate all its women! The Holocaust was a unique
and heinous crime and cannot be compared to hardships such as were mentioned
in this article.
> If we do not remember the past, we are doomed to repeat it. We
> must remember, lest it happen again.
Fine.
> Reevisionists are scum, be they Jewish or Nazi.
What Jewish revisionists??? This line of thought is perilously close to
bigotry in its own right.
> Don't tell me Judaism treats men and women
> equally. Reform and Conservative Jews in America certainly try,
> and the Israeli kibbutzniks tried also, but the essence of Judaism
> is sexist and the Orthodox don't accept female rabbis any more than
> they accept the secular state of Israel.
I'm a Conservative Jew. I do not believe that the essence of Judaism is or
should be sexist. I have the same disagreements with Orthodoxy and see it
as being arrested in its progress. Mainstream, Orthodox Judaism grew,
expanded and responded to the progressing moral development of outside society
for thousands of years. Come the Enlightenment, and Orthodoxy stopped dead
in its tracks. There is more to Judaism than Orthodox fundamentalism.
> the next time some revisionist scum tells me that the
> Holocaust never happened, I have an answer. "Sure," I'll say, "and
> Judaism isn't sexist."
Again, the unreasoning, blind anger directed against Judaism itself.
Sexism doesn't come from Judaism. It has always existed independently.
Finally, sexism is being overcome in society at large. And Judaism is
also grappling with the issues of sexism. Don't single out the Jews for
blame!!
> Sometimes I suspect that everything Hitler
> knew about fascism, he learned from Jews. After all, if Jewish men
> can treat their women as 2nd class citizens, why can't other men treat
> Jews as 2nd class citizens? Judaism isn't just sexist. It is
> hierarchical, patriarchal, authoritarian and fascist.
Bingo! Name calling. Pure and plain anti-Semitic hatred. Displaced anger.
This kind of attack is every bit as bad as -- if not worse than -- the sexism
against which it is directed.
Let's get it straight. Judaism is not the source of sexism. Jews are not
going to be scapegoated for sexism. If anybody has problems with this,
it's just too bad.
I apologize for the angry tone of this reply. But I am not going to sit
still for an angry, bigoted attack against my faith.
----
David Ellis
Digital Equipment Corporation -- BXB1-1/D03
85 Swanson Road, Boxboro MA 01719 -- (617) 264-5073
Usenet: {ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!ultra.dec.com!ellis
ARPA: ellis%ultr...@decwrl.dec.com
Ken Arromdee
>the Jewish woman shares the plight of all the other women of the world and
>the same paternalism that is so evident in Judaism is found in all the other
>religions.
I suppose you have examined "all the other religions" and thus can make such a
statement accurately? (Not to mention disapproving of anti-semitism while
supporting an anti-semite).
--
EARTH | --Kenneth Arromdee
smog | bricks | UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa
AIR mud FIRE| INTERNET: arro...@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu
soda water | tequila | BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm
WATER |(please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)
Element chart from "Science Made Stupid". (The chart seems rather popular...)
Avi Y Feldblum
of "Ad d'lo yada bein baruch mordichai V'arur Haman" however I
haven't fully succeded, since I can still calculate both gematriot
and they both come out to 502. I have had enough to be stupid enough
to respond to --Mark.
--Mark, I don't care what you want to call yourself. I applaud you
for making clear, however, that you are a female homo sapiens much
earlier than you have in several other groups. I, however, wish to
restrict the use of the male pronoun to male members of the species
homo sapiens. I do not wish to use a term which you find derisive,
so I will not use the female pronoun but will use the only neuter
gender pronoun I know - it. You wish to compare Hitler and God. If
you believe that he was God, then be concerned with what he thought.
I choose to not believe that he was God and I choose to believe that
the one who gave the Torah to Moshe on Har Senia was God. As such, i
feel that one must try to understand as best as one can what God
wants of us, as God (I will try and not use any pronouns that may
upset you) has made known to us in the Torah. If you reject the the
Torah and it's divinity, simply say so. However, if that is the case
you cannot in a self consistant way criticize the "Orthodox" from a
framework which we reject. There may very likely be adapted sexism
in Judaism which was absorbed from the sorounding cultures, and one
would be correct in trying to correct that. But if all you want to
do is sound off against one and all as you have done on other
groups, I pray that all s.c.j members ignore your postings except on
times like Purim. when we have an excuse for our actions.
A very happy Purim to you all (and I hope I wake up feeling ready to
face this harsh world).
Avi Feldblum
Daniel P. Faigin
Smith) writes a long story about how it is wrong to say that Judaism isn't
sexist.
Guess what kids? She's right.
Judaism is sexist, primarily as a result of the society in which is was
developed. We cannot change what has happened or the history of our religion.
That is all said and done. It is a fact.
The future? Well, now that's a different question. Although the chasidim in
Jerusalem are still throwing chairs at women who want to pray at the wall (cf.
Los Angeles Times, 3/21/89), Reform Judaism is making an effort to remove the
sexism from Judaism:
o Reform allows women to be Rabbis, Cantors, and Mohels
o In parity with the Circumcision ceremony (Berit Milah), a
corresponding berit ceremony called The Covenant of Life has been
instituted (see Gates of the House, pg 114-117)
o It is the responsibility of *both* parents (not just the father) to
bring a child into the berit. (Gates of Mitzvah (GoM), B-7)
o Old custom has the name of the child linked to that of the father
(ben). In Reform, it is proper to link the name of the child with both
parents (e.g. Yosef ben Rachel ve-Daniel) (GoM, C-1)
o Both boys and girls should be named in the synagogue (GoM, C-2)
o The ritual of pidyon ha-ben is not followed in Reform, hence there is
no corresponding custom for girls (GoM C-5)
o There is encouragement for both sexes to learn Torah, and to be Bar or
Bat Mitzvah (GoM E-1 through E-7), as well as confirmed (E-8).
o Reform encourages equality in marriage. To quote GoM, A-7:
"Although the Bible and later rabbinic literature attempted to protect
married women, especially though the device of the ketubah, it is
clear that Judaism, which developed in a patriarchical society,
traditionally projected the husband as the domanant figure in marriage
while the wife was often subject to severe disabilities and
indignations (see note 1)
"In the Reform Jewish view, Kiddusin establishes a bond of mutuality
between a man and a woman. They are equal partners in the home,
consecrated to one another unconditionally. Therefore, any aspect of a
marriage or the preparations for a marriage which suggests the
dominance or diminution of one or the other partner should be
recognized as such and avoided."
o In Reform, wedding vows are recited by *both*. (GoM, C-3)
o Reform accepts civil divorce, a get is not required (GoM, D-2)
o As can be seen from the discussion on patrilineal descent, as long as
one parent is Jewish and the child is raised Jewish, the child is
Jewish. (this was actually a reverse sexism)
o Reform does not observe the "purity" laws; women are not considered
"unclean".
o Everyone participates in preparations for the seder.
o Men and women sit together during services.
o It is OK to hear women sing in Reform.
As you can see, Reform is making a strong effort to be a vibrant, non-sexist,
expression of modern Judaism. Please do not continue the mislabeling of ALL
Judaism as being sexist TODAY. Reform isn't.
Notes:
(1) [GoM, pg 77] "No amount of modern Jewish apologetic, endlessly poured
forth, can alter the fact that the Rabbinic attitude towards women was
very different from our own. No amount of apolgetics can get over the
implications of the daily blessing, which Orthodox Judaism ... [still
retains]: Blessed art thou, O Lord our G-d, who has not made me a woman.'
At the same time, it must be readily admitted that the Rabbis seem to have
loved their wives, that they all, apparently, had only one wife each, and
that the position of the wife was one of much influence and importance"
(Montefiore and Loewe, _A_Rabbinic_Anthology_, p. 507)
In studying even those passages in rabbinic texts that are most
complementary and protective of women, one notes immediately that the
focus is the man, e.g., "A man who has no wife lives without joy,
blessing, and good" (Yevamot 62b) or "Be careful about the honor of your
wife, for blessing enters the home only because of the wife" (Baba Metzia
59a). These are very noble sentiments, but they are unquestionably
male-centered.
In the traditional wedding service, it is still the man who takes the
woman to be his wife; she is consecrated to him; there is no mutuality. In
traditional Judaism the perogative in divorce belongs to the man almost
exclusively; a bereaved woman, not a man, is subject to the indignities of
yibbum and chalitzah (levirate marriage and the ceremony required to avoid
it; see Deut. 25:5-10); witnessed becomes an agunah (lit. restrained,
i.e., forbidden ever to remarry); and control of the family is vested in
the husband. The emphasis on the absolute equality of man and woman is one
of the significant contributions of Reform Judaism.
Daniel
Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149
Home :8333 Columbus Avenue #17 * Sepulveda CA 91343 * 818/892-8555
Email:fai...@aerospace.aero.org (or) Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"
Arthur S. Kamlet
>Judaism is sexist, primarily as a result of the society in which is was
>developed. We cannot change what has happened or the history of our religion.
>That is all said and done. It is a fact.
>The future? Well, now that's a different question. Although the chasidim in
>Jerusalem are still throwing chairs at women who want to pray at the wall (cf.
>Los Angeles Times, 3/21/89), Reform Judaism is making an effort to remove the
>sexism from Judaism:
This was clearly a test case, similar to lunch-counter
demonstrations in Alabama and Mississippi. Everyone, on each side,
knew in advance what the outcome would be. The women went to the
"Men's side" of the wall and threatened to read Torah, the men got
violent, and no one was surprised. I predict that eventually the
wall will lose its exclusivity (at least the Men's side).
BTW: The news article I read said orthodox Judaism prohibits women
from carrying the Torah. Can someone cite the Halachah on this?
-----
Daniel does an excellent job of summarizing where Reform Judaism
stands. I will attempt to list the Conservative Judaism stand
on each issue. This is a bit complicated since most rulings are
permissive instead of mandatory, so some conservative congregations
may choose not to permit certain practices.
>o Reform allows women to be Rabbis, Cantors, and Mohels
Conservative: same, with certain exceptions: 1) women may not witness
where 2 witnesses are required; 2) There is a pending decision as to
whether women may serve as shaliach tzibur.
Note: One of the very early mohels was Tziporah, who circumsized
her own son. But it isn't recorded whether she was orthodox or
conservative or reform :^)
>o In parity with the Circumcision ceremony (Berit Milah), a
> corresponding berit ceremony called The Covenant of Life has been
> instituted (see Gates of the House, pg 114-117)
I don't know how this would apply for Conservative Judaism, though
I'm not aware of any specific ceremony.
>o It is the responsibility of *both* parents (not just the father) to
> bring a child into the berit. (Gates of Mitzvah (GoM), B-7)
Conservative Judaism allows but doesn't require this.
>o Old custom has the name of the child linked to that of the father
> (ben). In Reform, it is proper to link the name of the child with both
> parents (e.g. Yosef ben Rachel ve-Daniel) (GoM, C-1)
Conservative Judaism allows but doesn't require this. In my
synagogue, the rabbi encourages everyone to adopt this form of
naming.
>o Both boys and girls should be named in the synagogue (GoM, C-2)
I've not seen boys named except at the bris.
>o The ritual of pidyon ha-ben is not followed in Reform, hence there is
> no corresponding custom for girls (GoM C-5)
Conservative Judaism still encourages pidyon ha'ben, but I would
estimate in our synagogue it's followed only about half the time.
>o There is encouragement for both sexes to learn Torah, and to be Bar or
> Bat Mitzvah (GoM E-1 through E-7), as well as confirmed (E-8).
Conservative Judaism: ditto
>o Reform encourages equality in marriage. To quote GoM, A-7:
Similar, although a get is still required before remarriage of either
the divorced wife or divorced husband.
Also, in the case where chalitzah is required, a small ceremony is
performed. Remarriage of wife who has married someone else is not
permitted.
>o In Reform, wedding vows are recited by *both*. (GoM, C-3)
Conservative: I've seen this at some weddings.
>o Reform accepts civil divorce, a get is not required (GoM, D-2)
Conservative requires a get.
>o As can be seen from the discussion on patrilineal descent, as long as
> one parent is Jewish and the child is raised Jewish, the child is
> Jewish. (this was actually a reverse sexism)
Conservative Judaism follows the line of the mother to determine if
child is Jewish, and follows line of father to determine if Kohen or
Levi.
>o Reform does not observe the "purity" laws; women are not considered
> "unclean".
Conservative Judaism still lists the purity laws as to be followed, and
requires mikvah for conversion. However, I know so few Conservative
Jews who observe these laws, I can easily name those I know. In
other words, in our community, purity laws are seldom followed by
Conservative jews.
Note: 'unclean' (a poor translation) applies to both men and women.
>o Everyone participates in preparations for the seder.
ditto
>o Men and women sit together during services.
ditto
>o It is OK to hear women sing in Reform.
ditto
So, surprise, surprise, Conservative Judaism is in a position
between Orthodox and Reform Judaism regarding sexism. I suspect some
people will read this and observe that the differences between
conservative and reform are too small to truly matter, while others
will read this and see too few differences between conservative and
orthodox to really matter. Never-the-less, over the last 20-25 years
I have personally observed significant changes in women's roles in
Conservative Judaism, and see additional changes as likely.
--
Art Kamlet a...@cbrmb.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Bruce Krulwich
>This was clearly a test case, similar to lunch-counter
>demonstrations in Alabama and Mississippi. Everyone, on each side,
>knew in advance what the outcome would be. The women went to the
>"Men's side" of the wall and threatened to read Torah, the men got
>violent, and no one was surprised.
I missed some of the facts of the case. Did the women in fact go into the
men's section of the Kotel prayer area??
> I predict that eventually the
>wall will lose its exclusivity (at least the Men's side).
I don't understand. You think that Orthodox people will lose the right to
pray at the Kotel in the way they believe??
Bruce
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
>Smith) writes a long story about how it is wrong to say that Judaism isn't
>sexist.
(I will substitute the abbreviation [D.P.] which can stand either
for displaced person or diminutive pronoun, to avoid repeating the
slur.)
>Guess what kids? [D.P.]'s right.
An otherwise excellent article, Daniel. But I do not submit to
diminutive pronouns based upon sex. I find them to be insulting
and discriminatory. I fought long and hard for my right to equal
terms. I am legally entitled to my name and the pronouns that go
with it. But I haven't hidden my sex. You can simply say, "Even
though he is a woman, kids, Mark is right." That way you avoid
the insulting diminutive, but can still mention my sex if you need to.
It does take both thought and practice. Discrimination is difficult
to transcend because it is built into languages similarly to the
way sexism is built into traditional liturgy.
When you refer to a woman as "he," such as in the sentence, "He
is a woman," you will find that it becomes much easier to think of
the woman as an equal. By avoiding terms that YOU would consider
insulting, diminishing, or belittling in referring to others, you
can gradually lose the need to denigrate them.
But don't ask what term women prefer. They never had a choice, so
they cannot have a preference. Also, America has no Equal Rights
Amendment, so every step towards equality has to be gained and
defended by each individual woman on a case by case basis.
With reference to a different article, just because the Chinese don't
have sexist pronouns, doesn't mean they aren't sexist. But sexism
is so ubiquitous it resembles the air we breathe which took us
thousands of years to discover because it was all around us. By
insisting that I be referred to as a unique individual, rather than
as a member of a group based upon sex, I force people to think of
me differently and treat me differently. During the many years I
was homeless I got no special privileges for being female, and I
don't want any now. I prefer equal treatment and it my Constitutional
right as an American--a right I couldn't have merely as Jews.
Speaking of tradition, there is a tradition that men's and women's
shirts button in opposite directions. But this tradition only began
during WWII, so new traditions can be created. I personally see no
reason to respect a tradition that it younger than I am. If traditions
deserve respect, that one must respect me! :-)
--Mark
Steven M. Bellovin
> This was clearly a test case, similar to lunch-counter
> demonstrations in Alabama and Mississippi. Everyone, on each side,
> knew in advance what the outcome would be.
In fact, according to the AP, the situation was rather more complex.
There was an earlier demonstration in which some women did carry the
Torah, wear talitim, etc., and the outcome was as described: they
were attacked by some of the men. This time, they did *not* do anything
the orthodox regard as forbidden; they simply showed up, on ``their''
side of the wall. They were attacked anyway, by men who *though*
they intended to do something. Isn't vigilantism great? (Not that
a ``legal'' attack would be any better, of course.)
Then there was the matter of the police response. Current policy says
that the regular police forces do not respond at the Wall unless and
until the religious authorities call them in. For obvious reasons, that
was slow to happen this time. Accordingly, the Jerusalem police are
re-evaluating that policy to prevent recurrences of this sort of
nonsense.
Note: I am assuming that even those who don't approve of women being
equal can agree that throwing chairs at them is not an appropriate
response, especially at the Wall.
Bruce Krulwich
>o Old custom has the name of the child linked to that of the father
> (ben). In Reform, it is proper to link the name of the child with both
> parents (e.g. Yosef ben Rachel ve-Daniel) (GoM, C-1)
This is actually not true. Traditionally the mother's and father's names were
used in different situations. The typical examples are using the father's
name when making a "Mishe-Berach" (type of blessing) for an action in a Shul,
but using the mother's name when making one for a person's recovery or health.
>o Both boys and girls should be named in the synagogue (GoM, C-2)
This is true within Orthodoxy as well. (See, for example, p273 in a Rinat
Yisroel siddur, which is the only one I have with me now.)
>o There is encouragement for both sexes to learn Torah, and to be Bar or
> Bat Mitzvah (GoM E-1 through E-7), as well as confirmed (E-8).
This is also true within traditional Judaism. The Chofetz Chaim, for example,
started the "Bais Yaakov" schools where Torah was taught to girls. Nowadays
there are many schools teaching Tanach, Talmud, etc to both boys and girls.
Bat Mitzvah's are becomming more and more common, although they are different
from Bar Mitzvahs.
>o Reform accepts civil divorce, a get is not required (GoM, D-2)
I've never understood the reason for this. It seems togratuitously cause
problems with traditional Jews, and the only purpose it seems to serve is as
a sop to those who don't want to take the effort to have a religious divorce.
>o Reform does not observe the "purity" laws; women are not considered
> "unclean".
Again, this is a misportrayal of the laws of "purity." Aspects of purity
exist for both men and women. There are times that men should go to the
Mikva, cannot partake in various sacrifices, etc.
Also, impurity is always relative to a certain action. Noone is ever
considered "unclean" in any general sense (except perhaps for "lepers").
>o Everyone participates in preparations for the seder.
Someone (Rambam? Ramban?) claimed that men have an obligation to help with
preparations for Shabbat and Yom Tov meals. While this may not sound like a
big deal now, it certainly was in the time that it was said.
Bruce Krulwich
J A Biep Durieux
>Belief defines a Christian, who is assured if he only believe
>he will have eternal life. But action defines a Jew. But what action?
Please, please, let's make a deal: you fight out among each other
what constitutes a Jew, an we Xians fight out among each other what
constitutes a Xian, OK?
About once every two weeks someone in this newsgroup stands up
and posits that Xians think they only have to believe and they
will just fly straight into heaven. That is (generally - there
are always discordant sects) simply untrue.
If you don't want to read about things Xian, hit 'n' now,
for below follow some Greek Scripture quotes that clearly show
what Xian teaching really is about.
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has
faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a
brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
and one of you says to them: "Go in peace, be warmed and
filled", without giving them the things needed for the
body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it
has no works, is dead.
But someone will say: "You have faith, and I have works".
Show me your faith apart from your works, and by my works
I will show you my faith. You believe that G-d is one;
you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder.
Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith
apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father
justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon
the altar? You see that faith was active along with his
works, and faith was completed by works, and the
scripture was completed, which says: "Abraham believed
G-d, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he
was called the friend of G-d. You see that a man is
justified by works and not by faith alone.
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot
justified by works when she received the messengers and
sent them out another way? For as the body apart from
the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
James 2:14-26
The idea is that faith causes love, and love causes works.
The love is the most important, and if there are no works
it is clear there is no love, but if there *are* works, it
is not yet certain that there is love: they might be so-called
"dead works", which are performed for other sakes (for egoistic
or ritual reasons, or out of fear, or whatever).
So: works don't do it, but where there are no works, there is
no love (and therefore at most "dead faith", like the daemons
have), and without love one is sure not to please G-d.
So the doctrine is, I think, quite different from the Jewish one
we don't do the works because G-d says so, but because we love
G-d, we want to please G-d, and G-d is pleased by us doing the
works. A sort of indirect route to the same point.
(Well, not really the same point: we goyim have other works to do
than you Jews, but that's another issue.)
Therefore one can hear Paul scream, whenever he finds out that
people are doing (the right) works for the wrong reason, that
through works *of the law* (so: not incited by love) no one is
justified.
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Well, this must be enough to get me killed by the heat of flames,
of by my imploding CRT, I guess.
--
Biep. (bi...@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
Who am I to doubt the existence of God? I am
only a simple man, I already have trouble
enough doubting the existence of my neighbour!
Sean Engelson
>
>
>For more than 5,000 years, Judaism made no bones about or apologies for
>being a sexist, patriarchal religion. Boys were given the best possible
>education, girls were not.
I have attempted in the past to answer Mark's questions, however, it
seems that I should review for her a few notes on civilised
discussion.
(a) Civility. While rhetoric has its place, unnecessarily
inflammatory comments and exaggerated histrionics do not. Use of
name-calling or offensive comparisons does little to advance a
point or to clarify a position. It also does not cause listeners to
appreciate either your argument or your scholarship.
(b) Scholarship. It is important when debating, especially when
accusing others of acts or beliefs both you and they would consider
heinous, to document your claims. Making bald accusations, and
further, ignoring information that has previously been stated in
forum, is inexcusable behavior. It isn't necessary, in an informal
forum, to have a list of 27 references after a post, however, when
making strong accusations, it is best to refer to some sources for
your information, preferably non-anecdotal.
(c) Respect. I do not believe that it is too much to ask for people
not to dismiss others' arguments out of hand by calling them
"apologists", or "revisionists". If you disagree with an argument,
state why. In clear, logical terms, without resorting to blithe
categorisation, which is as likely as not to be wrong, given closer
examination.
(d) Thought. A point which has been raised many times in this
discussion and others is the difference between a religion and the
culture in which it is embedded, or the difference between a religion
and its adherents. It is important to recognise this distinction, and
to think about the phenomena being discussed so as to understand the
motivating factors thereof.
In summary, it is not too much to demand that we act like adult human
beings here, and treat each other, and each other's ideas,
accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Who is he that desires life,
Yale Department of Computer Science Wishing many happy days?
Box 2158 Yale Station Curb your tongue from evil,
New Haven, CT 06520 And your lips from speaking
(203) 432-1239 falsehood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nondeterminism means never having to say you're wrong.
+Saal S.
> In article <21...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era...@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan
> Smith) writes a long story about how it is wrong to say that Judaism isn't
> sexist.
> Guess what kids? She's right.
Naah. We should all recognize the cries for help in the form
of statements biased to the point of outrageous racism.
> o Reform allows women to be Rabbis, Cantors, and Mohels
> o In parity with the Circumcision ceremony (Berit Milah), a
> corresponding berit ceremony called The Covenant of Life has been
> instituted (see Gates of the House, pg 114-117)
About a year ago there was a discussion of how some (barbaric)
groups perform abominable destruction of women's sexual organs.
Some did it in the name of circumcision. I certainly hope that
this ceremony is only symbolic instead of physical.
That said, a question. Circumcision in Judaism is a part of
_Brit_ Milah, the circumcision covenant or agreement. An
agreement requires two parties. For males, this agreement is
well known. It was orginally an agreement between God and
Avraham and its repetition since then is more than simply
symbolic of this first agreement. Women are accepted in this
covenant without the ceremony itself. With whom then, is a
girl's circumcision a covenant? As the Reform say, they are
adding new "traditions" but it seems they are looking for a
unilateral contract here.
> o Both boys and girls should be named in the synagogue (GoM, C-2)
This is an interesting point. Boys are named at home, girls in
shul, in traditional Judaism. In Halachic Judaism, the home, not
the synagogue, is the center of Jewish life. However, in
"sexist" Judaism the home is where the woman's place is. If the
home is inferior, it would seem that the girls should be named
there and the boys in the community center. But it is the
opposite. I could argue that this means that the whole arguement
falls apart: the home cannot be the inferior because the son is
named there, but if it is controlled by the women, then it must
(according to the enlightened ones :-) be inferior. Can't have
it both ways. I vote for the notion that there is no comparison.
Neither is "better" than the other.
> o Reform accepts civil divorce, a get is not required (GoM, D-2)
This move away from Halachah is as frightening as patrilineal
descent in the extent that the Reform movement wishes to alienate
its (so far) fellow Jews for the sake of cowtowing to western
notions of sexism. In a few years, when children of non-Get
divorced parents try to marry observant (forget about Orthodox)
Jews and are not allowed, the Reform will come screaming again
about how the Orthodox are disrupting the unity of Israel.
> Notes:
> (1) [GoM, pg 77] "No amount of modern Jewish apologetic, endlessly poured
How can explanations hundreds or thousands of years old
be considered "modern"? How could explanations used for truly
recent questions be called "apologetics"?
> Daniel
--
Sam Saal ..!attunix!saal
Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
Bruce Krulwich
>I do not submit to diminutive pronouns based upon sex. I find them to be
>insulting and discriminatory. I fought long and hard for my right to equal
>terms. I am legally entitled to my name and the pronouns that go with it.
I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that "he"
and "she" should be used based on the gender of the name of the person being
referred to instead of the gender of the person being referred to?? If so,
this directly contradicts Webster's dictionary.
Also, the fact is that "he" and "she" are probably the only pronouns that I
don't see as one being the diminutive of the other. Fans of psycholinguistics
will notice that Rosch-ian theories would indicate that "he" and "she" are at
equal levels of "base"-ness.
>When you refer to a woman as "he," such as in the sentence, "He
>is a woman," you will find that it becomes much easier to think of
>the woman as an equal. By avoiding terms that YOU would consider
>insulting, diminishing, or belittling in referring to others, you
>can gradually lose the need to denigrate them.
Personally, I only denegrate people based on what they say.
Bruce Krulwich
+Saal S.
> I'm a Conservative Jew. I do not believe that the essence of Judaism is or
> should be sexist. I have the same disagreements with Orthodoxy and see it
> as being arrested in its progress. Mainstream, Orthodox Judaism grew,
> expanded and responded to the progressing moral development of outside society
> for thousands of years. Come the Enlightenment, and Orthodoxy stopped dead
> in its tracks. There is more to Judaism than Orthodox fundamentalism.
> ----
> David Ellis
David
Please remember that as there is more to Judaism than Orthodox
fundamentalism, there is more to orthodoxy (and Orthodoxy) than
fundamentalism.
Mark's slurs, to which you were responding, may be excused as the
rantings of a mad person. Yours cannot.
Happy Shushan Purim.
Harvey Cohen
met to vote on renewal of our Cantor's contract. Men and women
in their 20's through 70's told how she had revitalized the
Torah Readers program, the School Choir, etc. Although "minor"
children of member families are normally not allowed to speak
at such meetings, a young woman of 14 rose and declared she
was Bat Mitzvah and had a right to be heard. She was recognized,
and gave an impassioned speech on how the Cantor had interested
her and many other Hebrew High School students in reading Trope (sp?).
The congregation voted by a large margin to renew the contract.
--
Harvey S. Cohen / att!mtund!hsc || h...@mtund.ATT.COM
AT&T Bell Labs / LZ 3G301 / 201 576 3302
307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd. / Lincroft, NJ 07738 / U.S.A.
michael
> For more than 5,000 years, Judaism made no bones about or apologies for
[...lots of stuff...]
> Do I need to quote Hillel? "...And if I am not for myself, who will be
> for me? And if not now, when?"
This shows us something and explains Mark's attitude. The current year
is 5749. How can Mark criticize that which (s)he knows so little about.
But there is more to this then bad arithmetic. Unlike the secular year,
5749 is from the day after the creation of the world not the beginning
of Judaism. If you start Judaism at the birth of Abraham it is only 3800
years old. This shows that Mark's prospective is secular, and incorrect
for a critical analysis of sexism in Judaism. She views Judaism from
the viewpoint of a sexist secular society that has degraded women. This
prospective says that all that is male is good and therefore all that is
feminine is bad. If all that is feminine is bad then anything a woman
does is menial and degrading. The circle completes itself by asserting
that all that is degrading is feminine. From this point of view, in any
instance where women are not treated as men's exact equivalents they must
therefore be inferior _by_definition_. Her sexist viewpoint is so extreme
that nothing feminie can be desirable, case in point she uses a male name.
She ends by mis-quoting Hillel; the correct quote being "If I am not
for myself who will be for me? And if I am only for myself what am I?
And if not now when?" Interesting how "If I am only for myself what
am I?" was missing...
This whole business points to the Greek belief in perfection of self for
self's sake. So, the importance of family falls second to the importance
of self. This even surfaces in charity work, where people give of them-
selves to make their selfs better people. Since the advent of `the office'
the male is perceived as the one who goes into the world and fulfills his
self and is therefore considered good, etc. This develops into a value
system that elevates male at the expense and degradation of female.
This is the farthest possible thing from Jewish values! Judaism emphasizes
belief in G-d, family, and Hesed (empathic acts of kindness). Remember,
Hillel also said "Do not do to others that which is hatful to you. This is
the essence of Torah, all the rest is commentary."
Not that Judaism rejected all the Greek ideas. It saw merit in Greek logic
and embraced it, but the rest was spit out as poison! This was the whole
point of Hanukkah.
In article <47...@aero.ARPA> fai...@sunstroke.aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
[ Daniel, you have brought a lot of good insight about Reform Judaism
into this group, but here I lose all respect for you. ]
writes:
> Guess what kids? She's right.
When you throw out spirituality, the importance of family, empathic
acts of kindness, and personal humble scholarship; then elevate only
the _visable_ ritual -- those menial tasks assigned mostly to men.
Now indeed... you *are* right,
but... *are* you still Jewish?
Not in your heart.
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
abbreviation [D.P.] to denote that a diminutive pronoun was used.)
In article <54...@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> enge...@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) writes:
>I have attempted in the past to answer Mark's questions, however, it
>seems that I should review for [D.P.] a few notes on civilised
>discussion.
>
>(a) Civility. While rhetoric has its place, unnecessarily
It is not civil to make gratuitous references to a person' sex,
to diminish or belittle them, or to refer to them in a way to which
you yourself would not wish to be subjected.
>(b) Scholarship. It is important when debating, especially when
A scholar would know that the inclusive forms are used to refer
to those who have undiminished names, and that such forms can be
used inclusively, without regard to sex.
>(c) Respect. I do not believe that it is too much to ask for people
It is disrespectful to disregard my stated wishes and my right to
equal terms. It is also disrespectful to diminish anyone unless
they wish to be diminished. Those who wish to be diminished have
names that so indicate.
>(d) Thought. A point which has been raised many times in this
With a little thought, you can learn to respond to my postings
directly, as to a human being who is present, without referring to
me in the third person. That took long and hard thought on your
part, as it would for me now to stop talking to you as if you are
here, and refer to you in the third person as if you were not here or
were not worth responding to as a human being.
>In summary, it is not too much to demand that we act like adult human
>beings here....
But former Reagan advisor George Gilder says there are no human
beings, only men and women. How can we treat people as human beings
if we have to treat them as men and women? What about those who say
there are no Americans, only white Christians and mongrels? How
can we treat Americans as equals if we have to treat them as White
Christians or mongrels?
While the Orthodox are lambasting me as anti-Semitic, I got a
letter asking if I worked with the ADL from somebody who used
a Germanic "handle," and the following was posted to soc.women:
-------
From agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-ses!hpcuhb!hpsmtc1!markc Fri Mar 24 23:20:07 PST 1989
Article 26972 of soc.women:
Path: agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-ses!hpcuhb!hpsmtc1!markc
>From: ma...@hpsmtc1.HP.COM (Mark Corscadden)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Orthodox Women Attacked (or something like that...)
Message-ID: <1202...@hpsmtc1.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Mar 89 01:07:38 GMT
References: <6...@adobe.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 12
> Subjugating Jews because they are Jewish, or women because they are
> female, is equally despicable.
Yea, but snuffing out all the god-damn goyim you see around you would
be pretty neat, eh?
> --Mark
> ----------
Change you name, would you?
Mark Corscadden
---------
So, as usual, I am being persecuted by the Jews for being a feminist
and standing up for equal rights for women, and by the anti-Semites
for being a Jew who fights anti-Semitism. And believe me, among
feminist circles there is also anti-Semitism.
But the incident at the Kotel shows that it is not the Wall or the
Torah or the Tallit or the prayer that Orthodox Jews consider holy,
but the sacred segregation of men and women, the sacred subjugation
of women, the sacred sexism that is the essence of Orthodox Judaism.
The women were on their own side of the wall and they remained
with Haluchah. The men reacted because they thought the women
*might* do something wrong. The chief rabbi called the women pigs,
but later the statement was attributed to somebody else. And these
women weren't feminists--many were Orthodox and consider feminism a
dirty word.
So, who's going to kill me first, the Orthodox Jews who think I'm
a dangerous radical feminist anti-Semite, or the neo-Nazis who think
I'm a dangerous radical feminist Jew? Why don't you throw lots for it?
Do I get a price on my head like Salman Rushdie? After all, there
were at least three people who agreed with me, so I must be so
powerful that I have to be eliminated before the danger spreads, right?
With both the Orthodox Jews and the anti-Semites against me, if I am
not for myself, nobody indeed will be for me. Well, that's how it
has been all my life. Mostly homeless, never a decent wage, and
who shall I blame, the Jews for sexism or the goyim for anti-Semitism?
As the victim of both, isn't it just possible that I might blame
both and be correct? Sure I'm a bigot. Some of my best friends were
Jews and some of my best friends were neo-Nazis. When you're poor
and homeless, you can't pick and choose your friends. I didn't
expect to live this long, I don't expect to survive each day I live.
But so long as I breathe I will condemn both sexism and anti-Semitism,
and any other form of bigotry.
--Mark
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
(Note: Here we go again. Daniel Faigin said his usage was just a
"slip" and I shouldn't have responded publicly, but I noted to him
in email that once somebody uses the diminutive, hundreds of others
follow suit to prove their masculinity and bait me. So this time,
in addition to replacing the diminutive with [D.P.] for diminutive
pronoun, I will refer to Michael exactly as she referred to me.)
In article <3...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> bm...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (michael) writes:
>for a critical analysis of sexism in Judaism. [D.P.] views Judaism from
>that nothing feminie can be desirable, case in point [D.P.] uses a male name.
Oh? Does my name have genitalia? What makes it male?
I do not use a male name. Names do not have genitals, therefore they
do not have sex. My true legal name is a name that is nontraditional
for women, but it is no more "male" than the practice of medicine is "male."
Reserving certain things to men and makig them taboo to women does not
make the things reserved exclusively to men, "male" things. Something
that was historically prohibited to women is obviously nontraditional
for women. But it was never "male." Forbidding women to practice
medicine or law didn't make either the legal or the medical profession
"male." Similarly, forbidding Jews to practice medicine or law didn't
make either the legal or the medical profession "Aryan." Occupations,
articles of clothing, words, and anything else that primitive peoples
may attach tribal taboos to, are still sexless--the taboo is sexed,
not the thing to which the taboo is attached. When the Chinese
stopped binding women's feet, Chinese women were not left walking
around on "men's feet." The unbound state of human feet is as natural
to women as to men. Placing restrictions and limitations on what
women may do, or what they may be called, does not make everything
unrestricted and undiminished "male." If you were able to stop
sexualizing words and objects, you would realize that such sexualization
is merely an artifact of sexist, patriarchal societies and languages.
If you believe that the basic segregation in life must be between
males and females, or between Aryans and Jews, then you will want to
know if every item and word you encounter fits in one category or the
other. Words are words. People are people.
>[D.P.] ends by mis-quoting Hillel; the correct quote being "If I am not
>Hillel also said "Do not do to others that which is hatful to you. This is
>the essence of Torah, all the rest is commentary."
Obviously, then, it must follow that Michael doesn't mind when people
refer to her as "she." She would never, after all, do to anyone else
that which was hateful to her. Since she doesn't mind being referred
to in diminutive terms, which I do totally without regard to her sex,
which is probably male, she cannot imagine that I might take offense
at being referred to in a way to which she herself, despite her
undiminished name, does not find hateful.
But she was born with the right to an undiminished name and to
undiminished pronouns, takes them for granted, and has never
doubted that she has a right to diminish all females and that all
females prefer to be diminished. The first Black American males
to say, "Don't call me boy," were lynched. Most African-Americans,
at that time in U.S. history, if asked, would have said that they
preferred being called boy. After all, they didn't want to be lynched.
How can there be a preference when one "choice," that is submitting
to denigration, permits you to survive, and the other "choice,"
insisting on equal terms, gets you killed?
>In article <47...@aero.ARPA> fai...@sunstroke.aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
>> Guess what kids? [D.P.]'s right.
Yes, I told Daniel that even though the "slip" was unintentional,
it would cause me harm because others would read it and copy it,
exactly as has occurred here.
Now here's an interesting letter I got from somebody in Denver who
calls themself, "Olga from the Volga."
Do you suppose this is just normal curiosity, or could it be some
neo-Nazis who want to know how many points they'd get for killing me?
--------------
From ijoh...@udenva.cair.du.edu Thu Mar 23 09:00:02 1989
Received: from NIKE.CAIR.DU.EDU by violet.berkeley.edu (5.61/1.30)
id AA02232; Thu, 23 Mar 89 08:59:58 PST
Received: from udenva.cair.du.edu by nike.cair.du.edu (5.59/1.0)
id AA06484; Thu, 23 Mar 89 06:48:01 PST
Received: by udenva.cair.du.edu (5.59/1.0)
id AA11361; Thu, 23 Mar 89 07:47:54 MST
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 89 07:47:54 MST
From: ijoh...@udenva.cair.du.edu (Olga from the Volga)
Message-Id: <890323144...@udenva.cair.du.edu>
To: era...@violet.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Sexism in Orthodox Judaism
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
In-Reply-To: <21...@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
References: <24...@scolex.sco.COM>
Organization: U of Denver
Status: RO
>The Jews I fight to protect here (through legislative rather than
>violent means) are the assimilated Jews who find themselves the
>victims of anti-Semitism.
I find your postings very interesting. I was just curious of this
last sentence. Do you work closely with Bnai Brith ADL or another
group, or just in general. Just curious.
Ilene Johnson
ijohnson@udenva
era...@violet.berkeley.edu
>I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. Are you claiming that "he"
>and "she" should be used based on the gender of the name of the person being
>referred to instead of the gender of the person being referred to?? If so,
Yes. I'm suggesting that if you refer to somebody named Mark as
"he," you do so without regard to whether the person is male or female,
unless they request otherwise. I'm suggesting equal terms without
regard to sex. A novel and radical suggestion, isn't it?
>this directly contradicts Webster's dictionary.
Fortunately, Webster's dictionary is not thhe ultimate authority on
grammatical usage in English. The grammar books say there are two
sets of pronouns for referring to people. One set is called the
"masculine or inclusive" set. These can be used when the sex of the
person referred to is male or is *unspecified.* Not unknown, just
unspecified. For example, I can call you Mister in English without
specifying whether or not you are Jewish. I don't need a special
title to denote Jews and set them apart, or to remind them of their
religion and keep them in their place. I find references to me
that refer to my sex, to be derogatory, as you might find it if
people referred to you as, "Jew," instead of by your name.
The second set is called the "feminine or diminutive," set of pronouns.
This is an exclusive, diminishing set used to refer to people that are
female or are of lesser social status, value and worth. Only the
"masculine or inclusive" pronouns can be used inclusively, without
regard to sex. That is why there was a posting explaining that the
use of "He," to refer to G-d does not mean that G-d is a man, or is
male, but is an inclusive term. Of course, if this were true, and the
capitalized "He" were inclusive, then the uncapitalized "he" could
also be used inclusively. Grammatically it can, but in ppractice, as
you have seen, men resist using any term for women that they see
as superior and reserved solely for themselves. If Jewish men (and
some can and have, but they tend to be Conservative or Reform) could
refer to me as "he," without meaning that I am male, but in an
inclusive sense, then the argument that they refer to G-d as "He,"
not because G-d is male, but in an inclusive sense, would be justified.
But when they say that the lower case "he," indicates masculinity and
male sex, it is obvious that the upper case "He," is not inclusive
and also indicates masculinity and male sex.
--Mark
Daniel P. Faigin
> [ Daniel, you have brought a lot of good insight about Reform Judaism
> into this group, but here I lose all respect for you. ]
I'm sorry to hear that. I never lose respect for people, even when I disagree
with them.
>When you throw out spirituality, the importance of family, empathic
>acts of kindness, and personal humble scholarship; then elevate only
>the _visable_ ritual -- those menial tasks assigned mostly to men.
Who said that spirituality, family, kindness, and scholarship were thrown out
of Reform. They are key parts. All that Reform has done is attempt to
establish equal participation in these areas regardless of gender.
>Now indeed... you *are* right,
>but... *are* you still Jewish?
>Not in your heart.
I am. Nice of you to ask :-).
G. Levine
> (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
> > If you thank G-d for not being made slaves or women, ... because Jewish
> > men have more Commandments and therefore more responsibilities, did you
> > thank G-d for the Holocaust because Jews were given more
> > responsibilities...?
>
> Conservative Jewish liturgy many years ago because it is out of touch with
> 20th-century sensibilities. The rationale for this prayer is gratitude
> for the opportunity to perform more Mitzvot (acts of merit, in the sense
> of fulfilling God's commandments).
There is an additional reason for this much-talked-about prayer.
In the days when the traditional services were first being formulated,
it was commonplace for women to die in childbirth, there being little
in the way of sophisticated medical procedures to save them. It was
therefore considered proper for parents to encourage their sons
to marry, but not to encourage their daughters, as they would be
pushing them into possible childbirth and death. This prayer was
therefore included as a way for men to thank G-d for sparing them
from the dangers of childbirth.
Judaism is a religion where people are not treated the same. If
laws and tradition are fully studied without a pre-reading bias,
it will be seen that Judaism extols women. There are many heroic
women in the Old Testement, Esther and Ruth for example. Women
and men, however, have different responsibilities and roles.
As Dennis Prager recently wrote, too many people confuse equality
and sameness.
gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confession may be good for one's own soul, but our obligation extends
to the other person's soul as well. And confession of our sins
to another can sometimes be terrible for that
person's soul--Joseph Telushkin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Gazis
> It is also disrespectful to diminish anyone unless they wish to be
> diminished. Those who wish to be diminished have names that so
> indicate.
Mark, kindly refrain from presuming so much about other people's
motives. According to your criteria, I retained my middle name,
Diana, because I want to be sure everybody knows that I am a woman
so that they can properly belittle me. I like my middle name because
it is the name of my mother, a strong, independent, and intelligent
woman, and I do not accept that I am diminished by it.
As for your complaints of persecution by Jews, what do you expect
when you start a discussion by comparing people to Nazis? Do you
really think there is *nothing* to Judaism but sexism? I think
you are wrong. When I was considering conversion to Judaism some
years ago (I didn't convert), I didn't consider Orthodox Judaism
precisely out of concern over sexism. But I still believe that
there is much in Orthodox Judaism which is valuable and not
oppressive. And I have the greatest respect for Reform Judaism.
I see no persecution of you here. You flamed people and what
they held most precious; they flamed you back. No one put a
price on your head. You can expect to get back what you dish
out.
Lynn Diana Gazis-Sax
sap...@sri-nic.arpa
P.S. If you wish to refer to me in the third person, you may use
the Chinese pronoun "ta". I refuse to recognize any special honor
in the masculine pronoun.
Raanan Herrmann
A while ago I posted an article on this subject, saying something like:
Judaism is not better than other religions. 99% of religions
discriminate against women and Judaism is one of them. It is clear that women
in Judaism do not have the same rights as men so it is clear that if X#Y than
either X>Y or X<Y. Surely nobody will claim that women are superior to men than
X<Y (X=women, Y=men).
I got many replies that Oranges/Circles can not be compared to Apples/
Squares. I could not reply back because my News-Feed computer is down for
sometime now. So here it comes now (through a new News-Feed computer):
Oranges can not be compared to Apples. That is true because to say
"Orange > Apple" is meaningless. However, when one hears "Woman < Man" or
"Woman inferior to Man", one does not need a great deal of imagination to
understand what is the meaning behind such a saying.
Ken Arromdee
>either X>Y or X<Y. ...
It is not clear at all to me. Would you please clarify it?
Say, for X=4+3i, and Y=3+4i?
Bruce Krulwich
> Oranges can not be compared to Apples. That is true because to say
>"Orange > Apple" is meaningless. However, when one hears "Woman < Man" or
>"Woman inferior to Man", one does not need a great deal of imagination to
>understand what is the meaning behind such a saying.
Obviously you're implying that traditional Judaism says this. Please tell us
where. There are millions of Seforim about traditional Jewish philosophy and
practice written over the last 2000 years, so you've got alot of potential
sources to back up your claim.
Bruce Krulwich
Sean Engelson
>Squares. I could not reply back because my News-Feed computer is down for
>sometime now. So here it comes now (through a new News-Feed computer):
>
> Oranges can not be compared to Apples. That is true because to say
>"Orange > Apple" is meaningless. However, when one hears "Woman < Man" or
>"Woman inferior to Man", one does not need a great deal of imagination to
>understand what is the meaning behind such a saying.
The argument is not with your conclusion, although I don't think it is
correct. It is with the logic of your argument, which says:
Premise: Women != Men in Judaism
Conclusion: Women < Men in Judaism
Abstracted to symbolic form, we have:
Pr: A != B in C
Co: A < B in C
Then, why not substitute differently and say:
Pr: Men != Women in Judaism
Co: Men < Women in Judaism
If you wish to show your conclusion through logic, you're going to
have to do better than that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Make your learning a fixture;
Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much;
Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with
New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude.
(203) 432-1239