What did I sign up for--Abuse and divorce

So, it looks like I'm taking a little break from everything wrong with American politics to discuss--everything wrong with Israeli politics.  Specifically, this cute little story out of Jerusalem.
A woman sues for divorce on the grounds of domestic violence.  Naturally, the Beit Din cannot force the man to give a get, but they have the power to sanction in case of refusal.  In this case, they did not use that power because--the husband only assaulted his wife after she left him.
Wow.  Just--wow. 
"When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter, and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house," (Devarim 24:1).
"She does not find favor in his eyes" are the grounds for a get, according to Torah text.  I'd say assaulting her was evidence that he found her "unfavorable."
The rabbis argue that if she hadn't left, he would never have assaulted her.  However, I would argue that, based on everything I've read about DV, physical assault was the escalation of a situation that has gone very, very bad.  Usually, the wife leaving is a catalyst for escalation of abuse, and this can range from physical assault to murder.  (I actually know someone this happened to.  The wife was a victim of emotional abuse for years.  She left her husband, and he physically assaulted her.)  Moreover, the rabbis' statement sounds a lot like victim-blaming.
To me, there should be no discussion.  The man assaulted his wife.  We have it on the record.  This is grounds not only for divorce, but a restraining order.  The Torah is about compassion.  Where is the compassion for the abuse survivor?  Why do we have none for this poor woman?

Marriage=slavery?

One of the proofs given to me that Orthodox Judaism is really enlightened was that Jewish marriage guaranteed a wife that her husband provide her with "food, clothing, and marital relations."  These rights are guaranteed in the ketubah signed by every Jewish couple just before they go under the chuppah.  This was usually framed in a very feminist, sex-positive way.  As I like to put it, "On the eighth day, G-d created the orgasm--and it was GOOD!"
Sounds great in theory.  But as usual, context is everything.
This particular list of a wife's rights caught my eye as Queen Mom and I were reading the parsha last Shabbos.  Only it was not in the context of marriage.  It was in the context of buying a slave, or as the text put it, "a Hebrew bondswoman."  Not really much to argue with there.  Apparently, bride purchase was a common practice in the time of the Torah.  And these wives had the status of wives--sort of.  If the master decided not to marry them, they had to be released after six years.  (Sounds like there was a "try before you buy" option.  Nice.)  They also had to be paid off for their betrayal, adding to the theory that these men were "test-driving" their slaves before deciding whether to make them a permanent fixture in the harem.  (And, yes, there were multiples.  That line about food, clothing, and marital relations was the guarantee given to these slaves just in case Massa decided to get himself another slave wife.)
Disturbed enough?  It gets better.  Understand that I use the term "bondwoman" rather loosely.  See, according to the commentary, these "bondwomen" were roughly the same age as my daughters.
I wish I were making this up.
Straight from the commentary of my Stone Chumash, now considered the standard in Orthodoxy, "For example, if she had been sold when she was five years old..." Yuck.  Stop right now.  Put down the book, and back away slowly.  Children?  Seriously?  Grown men are buying CHILDREN for their harem?  This is the Torah?  And, please, spare me the cliché about how children were more mature back then, blah, blah, blah.  This is little more than the permitting of baby rape.
Makes you rethink that immortal line from the ketubah, doesn't it?

When love is painful and confusing

Before I got married, I used to think the most painful words in the English language were "I love  you."  Even saying those words would make me sick to my stomach and make me cry.  Seven years of escalating emotional (and other) abuse from Builder have only reinforced that idea in my mind.  Here is a short list of what "I love you" can mean:

• Don't leave me.
• You're mine, to do with as I please.
• I want to possess you.
• I'm allowed to scream at you, because you're stupid and worthless (but I love you anyway).
• I'm sorry.
• Don't hurt me.
• Give me what I want.
• I want s-x.
• You can't leave.
• You must meet my every demand.
• Let's have another child.
• Allow me to show you some token of affection after scaring you and our children with my latest outburst.
• My abuse of you is justified.
• I'm such a nice guy.
• I'm afraid of you.

Keeping the faith

Since I left Builder about two weeks ago, I've gotten a range of responses.  Surprisingly, most of them have been very supportive.  Chavie, of course, had reservations.  After all, how could my family possibly make it without a may-unn?(This was after I had explained that Builder had not treated me the way a husband should treat a wife--in pretty much every possible sense.)  But among my supporters, I've gotten one response almost universally from those who knew me before Brooklyn.
"Hey, so you're leaving Orthodoxy, right?"
Wrong.
I left my husband, not my faith.  The Torah is not responsible for Builder's behavior.  If anything, it condemns his actions in the strongest possible terms.  Judaism is a beautiful religion with many wonderful teachings about the way we should treat each other.  Moreover, there are also the Things to consider.  Thing 1 is already six years old--old enough to know about Shabbos, kashrut, and good middos.  She has spent the better part of the past year learning various mitzvot, and the better part of her life reading the parsha.  I'm sorry, but divorce causes enough upheaval in children's lives as it is.  Why add in the stress of "You know all the mitzvot we spent your entire life teaching you are important?  Well--they're not."  I'm sorry, but that seems like a really screwed up thing to do to your kids.  Finally, as I have spent the entirely of this blog explaining, the religion is not the community.  It's certainly not a marriage.
See you in shul!

Queen without a King

(With apologies to both Led Zeppelin and Stevie Nicks)
Last week, I did the hardest thing I have ever done, but also the most necessary.  For seven years Builder has treated me as an indentured servant and housepet.  When he has a bad day, he takes it out on me.  Last week, I left him.  Now, as I prepare to navigate the world on my own and rebuild my life, I am dealing with orders of protection, custody petitions, family court, attorneys, and wondering if I will stay in Brooklyn or if my journey will take me elsewhere.  I may not post too frequently, but I am still thinking about my blog community.

Bird in a Gilded Cage--When Ever After isn't Happy

She's only a bird in a gilded cage,

A beautiful sight to see,

You may think she's happy and free from care,

She's not, though she seems to be,

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the nature of marriage.  Specifically, the part where the Happily Ever wears off and you're just left with the "after."  Or, in some cases, the aftermath.  Literary tropes are not kind to women whose assertion of self involves leaving an already broken marriage.
Let's begin, of course, with one of the most famous plays of love, deception, and the woman's role--Ibsen's A Doll's House.  Nora Helmer, fed up with being treated like an imbecile and angry that her husband Torvald cares more about his image than he does about her, walks out.  One might applaud her belated showing of spine--except that in doing so, she had to give up her children.  (I first encountered this play in the tenth grade.  Interesting side note--even at that tender age, I thought that Nora was significantly younger than Torvald.  No man would ever treat his wife that way if her considered her to be his equal.)
Or, we can look at the feminist classic The Yellow Wallpaper.  Great example.  Gilman's character finds herself--but in the process loses her grip on reality, as displayed by her frenzied destruction of the wallpaper.  But then, I guess it's not an unsurprising outcome--she was locked in an attic with barred windows, battered floorboards, and scarred walls and floors, and ordered to rest completely to save her nerves.  Guess that one backfired.
For those who prefer trading in the staid older husband for the dashing younger lover, we have Anna Karenina.  Both her husband and her lover even have the same first name.  However, in trading up (in her eyes) she loses not only her position in society, but also her child.  In the end, she throws herself under a train.
And let's not forget what happened to our bird in the gilded cage!

A tall marble monument marked the grave,

Of one who'd been fashion's queen,

And I thought she is happier here at rest,

Than to have people say when seen.

She's only a bird in a gilded cage,

A beautiful sight to see,

You may think she's happy and free from care,

She's not, though she seems to be,

'Tis sad when you think of her wasted life,

For youth cannot mate with age,

And her beauty was sold,

For an old man's gold,

She's a bird in a gilded cage.

Cutting the middleman

So, Builder is still determined to get the Things into a school, any school , no matter their personalities.  However, Small Modox Girls may be out of the running.  (The price tag scared off Builder, and their hard-sell tactics with a side of soft deception scared me off.)  His new project is Big Mainstream Girls, where one of our nieces is enrolled.  (It came highly recommended by my SIL--whose kids go elsewhere.)
My response:  Isn't that particular niece still illiterate--in the third grade?
Builder then said that it's not the school's fault, because the girl has a learning disability and her mother doesn't put in the time I put in.
Of course her mother doesn't put in that kind of time.  The girl goes to school!  The school, which charges tuition, is supposed to handle that.  And, if I have to teach my kids everything anyway, why not just cut the middleman and teach them myself?  (Incidentally, Thing 1 may have a learning disability as well--but she's still reading at least at grade level.)

On the subject of weddings

Last night, I went to the wedding of my niece's daughter.  (Did I mention that I have a "May-December" marriage?)  What made this wedding sort of unique was that it was at the same hall Builder and I used for our wedding, Ateres Gashmius (again, all names have been changed to protect the guilty.)  The wedding was...a wedding.  No big surprise.  Take standard wedding formula, plug in bride and groom, and there you are.  Same halls, same snowbeast dress, tiara from Claire's Accessories and pancake makeup, same flowers, same food, same music.  Same circle dancing to "Od Yeshama" played about 100 decibels over the tolerance of the human ear.
However, since the wedding was at Ateres Gashmius, it got me thinking about my own wedding.
Builder and I got engaged Erev Rosh Hashanah.  The vort was Motzai Shabbos Chol Hamoed Sukkos.  The event itself was the fourth night of Chanukah.  That means I had ten weeks to prepare.  Normally, a bride given only ten weeks would be in panic mode.  How do I deal with all the details?  However, when it became clear that my input was not required nor even particularly wanted, I ceased caring about the details.  Moreover, it became clear that this wedding was more for Builder's benefit than mine (it didn't help that only five people showed up from my side.)  So, my job was literally put on the dress and show up.  And, even the dress was "something borrowed."  As a result, I remember very little about my own wedding, except the sea of faces, most of them I didn't know and would never see again.
Had I been able to work my will, several things would have been different.  For one, the wedding would have been much smaller--I would have only invited family and a few close friends.  It would have been outdoors--say Prospect Park or maybe even Central Park.  Set up a nicely decorated chuppah, maybe made with appliques or painted fabric in a clearing, and let the trees act as a natural mechitza.  My gown would have been my own creation--maybe an Empire waist with an overskirt of lace, Regency puffed sleeves ending in a wide flare.  And it certainly would not have been in December--both the dead of winter and the height of tourist season in NYC.  As for the music, I would have gone more romantic and less raucous--say "Strangers In The Night," "The Way You Look Tonight," or some other romantic standard (Although, since no bandleader sings anything remotely secular, it was kind of a blessing that I didn't get those.  Sinatra standards as instrumentals sound too much like elevator music.  Besides, what makes the song is that famous Sinatra voice.  Le sigh.)  Even something classical would have been nicer.
However, I did have some say in some matters.  I got to order purple yarmulkes for those guests who didn't have any.  I did get to make my own veil (flower wreath, not glitzy tiara).  I walked down the aisle to Pachelbel's Canon.  And I did get to order the flowers--although the florist looked at me as though I was speaking ancient Sanskrit when I said I wanted something between Court of King Arthur and Lord of the Rings.
Well, one down, two more to go this winter.  Now to order some fabric so my girls have something to wear besides their fundie jumpers to the next one.

Breadwinners and caregivers--one and the same

Recently, Rabbi Zev Farber posted a controversial blog post about expanding a woman's role in the synagogue.  I'm not really sure where I stand on this.  On the one hand, I came into Orthodoxy knowing that I would never lead any part of davening or be called to the Torah.  On the other hand, what are the two main arguments for this position?
1. Women have the G-d given role of caring for children, and synagogue honors and obligations would interfere with that.
2. Kol kevuda bas melech p'nima--the glory of a princess is within.  Women should stay on their side because they should not cheapen themselves by drawing attention to themselves.
Now, I am a stay-at-home mom, a housewife, or whatever term is currently in vogue.  Builder and I have structured our lives around it.  (In fact, I joke that because we save the cost of two tuitions, I'm sort of contributing $20,000 a year to the family budget.)  So, this argument sort of works.  But what if I weren't?  Like it or not, the default position has become the working mother.  Women serve in every position from secretary of an office to Secretary of State.  And frum women are not exempt.  In fact, because of the rise of the "kollel wife," it's not uncommon for women to be sole breadwinners in their families.  Or to possess more education than their husbands.  There are frum women who are doctors, lawyers, and college professors.  And then, they go home.  After supporting their families, they're told "kol kevuda bas melech pnima."  Really, if you're so concerned by my kavod, then ensure that I can stay in, stop reading books, and get a job!  And, if you want me to do my job of being a caregiver, then stop forcing my toddlers into institutions!
If we want to keep using these apologetics and have them mean something, we need to structure our society around keeping women home.  We can't have women serving as breadwinners when it's convenient, and then shut them up at home the rest of the time.  Whether it means lower tuitions, an end to the playgroup system that takes children younger and younger (some as early as 18 months), widespread homeschooling to save tuition (many frum working women are part of two-income families partly to pay tuition), pushing for community schools so that costs can be spread over more students (and drop), or a blanket rule that forbids yeshiva students from marrying until they get a job, it is crucial that we change our society.  Otherwise we're lying to ourselves.  And enabling a generation of man-cubs who demand that women become both breadwinners or caregivers based on the man-cub's convenience.

What's in your head?

Builder is concerned about the effect I'm having on Thing 1 and Thing 2.  He's afraid that I want them to be "modern" (whatever that even means anymore).  Last week, he asked me, "How would you feel if one of our daughters married a boy who wears a shtreimel?"
As long as he's a decent human being, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.  I would give the same answer for every type of cover, from a shtreimel to a sruga.  I care more about what's in the head than what's on it.
I'm going to be every shadchan's nightmare when my girls grow up.  I care nothing about externals or how many blatt Gemara my potential son-in-law can parrot back.  I care about the inside.  What kind of person is he?  Is he considerate?  Does he work hard?  Will he respect independent-minded women?  Will he be a good father?  Does he respond well to setbacks?  Is he open-minded?  Is the Torah he studies in him as a way to live?  Does he love and respect his family?  Does he have a good, caring heart?  None of these questions can be answered by looking at shirts, hats, or tablecloths.  They can only come with time.