Lately on FB, there has been a new trend going around. People, mostly women, have been posting "Me too" as a status if they experienced sexual harassment or assault. The idea is to draw awareness to the problem and hopefully show that it's incredibly more widespread than most people's comfort levels would like to admit.
However, like all "awareness" campaigns, this one has had a bit of backlash. First off is "what about teh menz," usually uttered by guys who have never been assaulted, but are pissed off that they're being left out of the spotlight. The answer to that is easy and straightforward. If a man has experienced sexual assault, please feel free to post "me too." You have my utmost sympathy. No one should ever have to experience sexual abuse. The first person I saw post this statement was a transgendered male. I'm on your side, guys.
Then there are those who say, "why are women bitching about harmless catcalling and compliments? Grow up!" You are putting the "ass" in "assumption." Most women who post, I'm sorry to say, have experienced far worse than a few catcalls.
But the worst response has got to be the "virtue" response. The "guess I'm just not pretty enough to rape, huh?" response. Unfortunately, this comes from women. The variants on this are "where are my dick pics?" or "if you just (fill in the blank: dressed modestly, stayed out of the frat party/nightclub/bar, didn't drink so much/at all, didn't have that manicure/nose job/breast implants, didn't go to his suite, blah blah or blah), then this never would have happened to you." A demonstration can be found here. This is called the "just world" fallacy, and it makes me see every shade of red. Because the only thing that separates rape victims from those who haven't been raped is bad luck, and nothing more.
I posted "me too," and have written about my experiences. Like Ms. Bialyk, I decided to develop my mind instead of my looks, finishing college at 19 without ever going near a frat house. I'm not pretty (there's a reason my FB profile picture hasn't looked like me in years), dress very modestly, and spent several years as a religious fundamentalist. I even covered my hair. None of that protected me. I was at home and stone cold sober, wearing no makeup and plain, cheap clothes. That didn't protect me either.
When I have the spoons, I usually end up screaming profanity at the person expressing this viewpoint while hoping they never find out for themselves how wrong they are. But usually I don't. So I give my basic eight word answer: Long skirt. Turtleneck sweater. Covered hair. Raped anyway.
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label current events. Show all posts
Monday, October 16, 2017
Monday, August 14, 2017
Charlottesville and the government we deserve
Like so many Americans, I was horrified at the events that unfolded in Charlottesville over the weekend. Less than a century after World War II, Nazi flags are flying in the United States. A woman was killed by a white supremacist for the simple crime of disagreeing with him.
How did we get here?
After the end of Reconstruction, the Republican Party rallied around pro-business sentiments likely to be popular with the moneyed capitalists of the Northeast. This was the world of the "Robber Barons," and they created a tale of two Americas. Except that when the conditions of the working poor became impossible to ignore, they had to offer a token support of Progressivist ideas, or they would find themselves in homemade guillotines. Through a confluence of events that we had little control over, including a world war that wiped out most of the world's infrastructure while leaving ours intact, and fifteen years of austerity driving demand for new goods, the United States enjoyed a couple of decades of prosperity. The problem is that you can't run a country on rhetoric alone, and this was also a time when we were paranoid. So instead of spreading the wealth, Eisenhower-style, we poured all our energies into an unwinnable war. Enter Richard Nixon, who was about as far from Eisenhower as you could get. This brought the economy into a slow slide starting in the 1970s. However, the GOP can't just openly say, "give to the rich and screw the poor." Look how well that "47%" remark worked for Mitt Romney. So instead, the GOP played a long game of distraction. It's not OUR fault that there are no jobs, rents are rising and healthcare and college are practically inaccessible. Look over there! It's those darn Millennials, with their lattes and avocado toast! Or those baby boomers, who won't retire and are hoarding all the plum jobs! Or the "welfare queens," those evil people with dark skin and funny accents who mooch off the government, steal jobs, and live likes royalty while you scrape by! And we can't fund social programs, because if we cut military spending, all those bad people overseas who don't accept Jesus Christ and their lord and savior will bomb us back to the stone age and indoctrinate our children to hate Christmas! And we CAN'T HAVE THAT!
Well, look where that thinking has gotten us. A president with no political experience who is a genius at the art of the distraction, a Boy Scout jamboree straight out of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, and now a KKK/Nazi rally in Virginia, complete with torches.
However, I don't really blame the GOP for this. They may have profited from hatred, but they didn't create it. Hatred and fear have been there since before the settlers at Jamestown. I blame the James Andrew Fields, Jr.'s and Cole Whites. The Peter Cvjetanovics. I blame every person who thought that marching in a city with a torch in one hand and a swastika in the other was a good idea. And every person who chose not to condemn them (including you, Mr. President!) Because, yes, you are that angry racist. And since you keep talking about how your guy won the election, you have to figure out how to clean up the board without throwing the game away.
How did we get here?
After the end of Reconstruction, the Republican Party rallied around pro-business sentiments likely to be popular with the moneyed capitalists of the Northeast. This was the world of the "Robber Barons," and they created a tale of two Americas. Except that when the conditions of the working poor became impossible to ignore, they had to offer a token support of Progressivist ideas, or they would find themselves in homemade guillotines. Through a confluence of events that we had little control over, including a world war that wiped out most of the world's infrastructure while leaving ours intact, and fifteen years of austerity driving demand for new goods, the United States enjoyed a couple of decades of prosperity. The problem is that you can't run a country on rhetoric alone, and this was also a time when we were paranoid. So instead of spreading the wealth, Eisenhower-style, we poured all our energies into an unwinnable war. Enter Richard Nixon, who was about as far from Eisenhower as you could get. This brought the economy into a slow slide starting in the 1970s. However, the GOP can't just openly say, "give to the rich and screw the poor." Look how well that "47%" remark worked for Mitt Romney. So instead, the GOP played a long game of distraction. It's not OUR fault that there are no jobs, rents are rising and healthcare and college are practically inaccessible. Look over there! It's those darn Millennials, with their lattes and avocado toast! Or those baby boomers, who won't retire and are hoarding all the plum jobs! Or the "welfare queens," those evil people with dark skin and funny accents who mooch off the government, steal jobs, and live likes royalty while you scrape by! And we can't fund social programs, because if we cut military spending, all those bad people overseas who don't accept Jesus Christ and their lord and savior will bomb us back to the stone age and indoctrinate our children to hate Christmas! And we CAN'T HAVE THAT!
Well, look where that thinking has gotten us. A president with no political experience who is a genius at the art of the distraction, a Boy Scout jamboree straight out of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, and now a KKK/Nazi rally in Virginia, complete with torches.
However, I don't really blame the GOP for this. They may have profited from hatred, but they didn't create it. Hatred and fear have been there since before the settlers at Jamestown. I blame the James Andrew Fields, Jr.'s and Cole Whites. The Peter Cvjetanovics. I blame every person who thought that marching in a city with a torch in one hand and a swastika in the other was a good idea. And every person who chose not to condemn them (including you, Mr. President!) Because, yes, you are that angry racist. And since you keep talking about how your guy won the election, you have to figure out how to clean up the board without throwing the game away.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
The other certainty in life
The big deal in Washington is Trump's hastily sketched out tax "plan," which seems like a way to move money away the government and back to the hands of the wealthy. He would create a three-bracket system, eliminate almost all deductions (except charitable donations and mortgage interest), and cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% (unless you're a home business--the you can kiss your home office deductions goodbye).
It's a good outline--for people who have money.
Now I won't deny that the Internal Revenue code as it stands is a hot mess. However, the solution is not this.
Some people would like to put a "flat tax" into place, asking why the rich should pay more. I'll show you a little math from the 2016 tax workbook:
The highest tax bracket is for incomes of $415,050.00, and these individuals pay 39.6% of their income in taxes. Minus a $43,830.05 standard deduction, a single person earning the minimum for this tax bracket will pay $120,529.75 in taxes. That's a lot of money, right? They pay more in taxes than most people make in a year. However, let's look at it another way. Their post-tax income is still $294,520.25, also a lot of money. Now let's look at an office worker making $30,000 per year. Their taxes for the year are $4,040, leaving them $25,960 for the year. That's still less than one tenth of the first earner. Both of these individuals need housing, food, transportation and healthcare. Guess who will spend most of the year counting pennies? (Hint--it's not the first guy.)
Now, let's look at the Trump plan. The first earner will see a tax bill that drops from 39.6% to 35%, meaning a drop in taxes from $120,529.75 to $101,437.45. However, what of the $30,000 earner? Depending on the bracket, this earner could either see a drop in the tax bill from $4040 to $3000. Or, if this unfortunate soul is in the 25% bracket, that earner's taxes could go up to $7,500 per year--nearly double the current tax bill!
A fashion consultant once said that we should dress for the body we have, not the body we want to have. So too with national policy. We should demand policies that positively affect the lives we have, not act like millionaires in a temporary slump and allow policies that only benefit the rich on the odd chance that we find ourselves among their members someday.
It's a good outline--for people who have money.
Now I won't deny that the Internal Revenue code as it stands is a hot mess. However, the solution is not this.
Some people would like to put a "flat tax" into place, asking why the rich should pay more. I'll show you a little math from the 2016 tax workbook:
The highest tax bracket is for incomes of $415,050.00, and these individuals pay 39.6% of their income in taxes. Minus a $43,830.05 standard deduction, a single person earning the minimum for this tax bracket will pay $120,529.75 in taxes. That's a lot of money, right? They pay more in taxes than most people make in a year. However, let's look at it another way. Their post-tax income is still $294,520.25, also a lot of money. Now let's look at an office worker making $30,000 per year. Their taxes for the year are $4,040, leaving them $25,960 for the year. That's still less than one tenth of the first earner. Both of these individuals need housing, food, transportation and healthcare. Guess who will spend most of the year counting pennies? (Hint--it's not the first guy.)
Now, let's look at the Trump plan. The first earner will see a tax bill that drops from 39.6% to 35%, meaning a drop in taxes from $120,529.75 to $101,437.45. However, what of the $30,000 earner? Depending on the bracket, this earner could either see a drop in the tax bill from $4040 to $3000. Or, if this unfortunate soul is in the 25% bracket, that earner's taxes could go up to $7,500 per year--nearly double the current tax bill!
A fashion consultant once said that we should dress for the body we have, not the body we want to have. So too with national policy. We should demand policies that positively affect the lives we have, not act like millionaires in a temporary slump and allow policies that only benefit the rich on the odd chance that we find ourselves among their members someday.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
The Excelsior Scholarship--good intentions, poor implementation
The latest idea to come out of Albany is the Excelsior Scholarship--free college for anyone whose income is less than $100,000 per year, to increase to $125,000 by 2019. Sounds like an ideal benefit--proof of New York's growing commitment to middle-class families.
It looks good on paper anyway.
The Excelsior Scholarship is little more than a raised cap on New York State TAP grants, with a catch. The scholarship only covers up to $5,500 per year--which is not the full cost of CUNY tuition. If you receive any other aid, the scholarship will only provide funds to bring the total to $5,500. You have to work in New York state after graduation for as many years as you received the grant (which makes sense--it is taxpayer funded). Recipients must earn 30 credits per year--a hardship for working students. Also, the grant only covers four years, and is not offered to people with bachelor's degrees. Since degree holders are not eligible for federal aid or TAP grants, this would have provided much needed assistance to people trying to enhance their skills to keep up with a changing world.
This provides some assistance, but not much. This is designed for people taking a traditional route through school--but state schools have a number of non-traditional students. Students who are taking fewer classes to go to school around a job. Students getting second bachelor's degrees because, whoopsie, the world changed; the economy's in the toilet, and that B.A. in liberal arts that was supposed to provide a decent living doesn't, and why didn't you get a degree in STEM you idiot. Students who are taking more challenging degrees that take five and six years to complete. Students changing majors because that math degree is harder than we thought. Students taking a semester off because life happens and I got meningitis and couldn't finish the term. And guess what? All of them could use the grant, and almost none of them qualify for it.
It looks good on paper anyway.
The Excelsior Scholarship is little more than a raised cap on New York State TAP grants, with a catch. The scholarship only covers up to $5,500 per year--which is not the full cost of CUNY tuition. If you receive any other aid, the scholarship will only provide funds to bring the total to $5,500. You have to work in New York state after graduation for as many years as you received the grant (which makes sense--it is taxpayer funded). Recipients must earn 30 credits per year--a hardship for working students. Also, the grant only covers four years, and is not offered to people with bachelor's degrees. Since degree holders are not eligible for federal aid or TAP grants, this would have provided much needed assistance to people trying to enhance their skills to keep up with a changing world.
This provides some assistance, but not much. This is designed for people taking a traditional route through school--but state schools have a number of non-traditional students. Students who are taking fewer classes to go to school around a job. Students getting second bachelor's degrees because, whoopsie, the world changed; the economy's in the toilet, and that B.A. in liberal arts that was supposed to provide a decent living doesn't, and why didn't you get a degree in STEM you idiot. Students who are taking more challenging degrees that take five and six years to complete. Students changing majors because that math degree is harder than we thought. Students taking a semester off because life happens and I got meningitis and couldn't finish the term. And guess what? All of them could use the grant, and almost none of them qualify for it.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Cyberbullying--new wineskins, old wine
Recently, an eleven-year-old boy committed suicide because he thought his girlfriend killed herself. It turned out that the girlfriend had used a friend's Snapchat account (and the help of some of her other friends) to play a prank on the boy. And now, she's in trouble with the law. Reading the comments on the article, so many blame easy access to social media for the girl's actions.
Yes, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram are relatively new. Teenagers acting like assholes however? Has been going on since the dawn of time. This same prank could have happened without a single cell phone.
Girl convinces a few of her friends to tell Boy that she committed suicide and then cuts school for the day. Boy, distraught, runs to a teacher, who has Girl's parents called. Parents are unable to find Girl (because no one has a cell phone), and call the cops. Boy, devastated, jumps off the school roof at lunchtime. Meanwhile, Girl comes home from the mall and has to deal with not only her furious parents, but some incredibly ticked-off cops. Same prank, same outcome--and nary a cell phone or social media account in sight.
While I don't think the girl should be charged with homicide, she needs to realize that actions have consequences, and that a "cute," "harmless" prank is neither. Bullies (and that's what this girl is, social media or no social media) bully other kids because it's fun, and they get away with it. Once they have their asses handed to them with hard consequences, they usually stop, because it's not worth it anymore. Certainly a harassment conviction and a couple of nights in juvie will straighten out her head.
Yes, Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram are relatively new. Teenagers acting like assholes however? Has been going on since the dawn of time. This same prank could have happened without a single cell phone.
Girl convinces a few of her friends to tell Boy that she committed suicide and then cuts school for the day. Boy, distraught, runs to a teacher, who has Girl's parents called. Parents are unable to find Girl (because no one has a cell phone), and call the cops. Boy, devastated, jumps off the school roof at lunchtime. Meanwhile, Girl comes home from the mall and has to deal with not only her furious parents, but some incredibly ticked-off cops. Same prank, same outcome--and nary a cell phone or social media account in sight.
While I don't think the girl should be charged with homicide, she needs to realize that actions have consequences, and that a "cute," "harmless" prank is neither. Bullies (and that's what this girl is, social media or no social media) bully other kids because it's fun, and they get away with it. Once they have their asses handed to them with hard consequences, they usually stop, because it's not worth it anymore. Certainly a harassment conviction and a couple of nights in juvie will straighten out her head.
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
It's only been three weeks...
Next Monday is President's Day, and appropriately enough, it will also be the one-month mark on this presidency. So, how are we doing so far?
- Inauguration Day protests led to the arrests and detention of six journalists.
- Comparisons of the size of the crowd between the Obama and Trump inaugurations led to the coining of the term "alternative facts."
- Trump has falsely claimed that between three and five million illegal votes were cast for Hillary Clinton.
- Trump has labeled CNN "fake news." (CNN has found so many "alternative facts" during press secretary Sean Spicer's press briefings that it has refused to air them until they could be fact-checked.)
- Steve Bannon of alt-right propaganda site Breitbart has been added to the National Security Council--supposedly without Trump's understanding of what he was doing.
- Trump's business interests are being held by his children, including his overseas holdings, in violation of the emoluments clause.
- Trump has taken two weekends off to play golf (and it hasn't even been a month.)
- Trump's executive order banning entry of anyone who has citizenship in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia was successfully challenged in court within 48 hours of being signed, and overturned in federal court not long afterwards.
- ICE raids in urban areas have led to the detention and deportation of numerous immigrants.
- A botched raid in Yemen led to the death of a Navy SEAL, the loss of an Osprey Plane, and the deaths of 25 civilians, including nine children. Moreover, the Al-Qaida target remains at large.
- National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has been forced to resign under suspicion that he has been involved in unlawful communications with Russia.
- Tornadoes throughout the Southeast have not been responded to in a timely fashion by FEMA. Meanwhile, a dam breach in California is being completely ignored. (Makes me long for the days of "Brownie". He did a heckuva job...)
A presidency riddled with scandals, questions, and poor judgement. And it's only been three weeks.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
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?
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?
Monday, November 3, 2014
Kiruv above the neck
I have said this many times before--I rarely buy services magazines published under Orthodox auspices unless there's an article of interest to me. Kiruv articles qualify, and so I actually plunked down some coin on a copy of last week's Mishpacha Magazine. Not only was there an article on the roaring success of the Shabbos Project, but there was also a roundtable discussion on the success of kiruv. According to the article, more Jews than ever were learning about the wonder and beauty of Torah observance through lectures, open Shabboses, and of course, the campus Chabad. (In my day, the campus Chabad was a home for ex-frat boys who wanted cheap rent and plenty of booze. Slap on a kippah, grow a beard, change your name to Menachem and you're good to go.) There are plenty of people with a need, and it's easy to believe that Orthodoxy will fill that need.
However, booze, cholent and divrei Torah will only take you so far. Getting people in the door is relatively easy. Keeping them in the fold, however, is far more difficult. As the article stated outright, about 150,000 Orthodox Jews are baalei teshuvah. However, there are about 330,000 adults who were born into Orthodox families but are no longer observant. In other words, for every person you bring in, two have left. And that doesn't include the former BTs who bail.
So what's the problem? If the Torah is so profound, why do our own children bail? As Pirkei Avos states, "Any love dependent on a specific cause dies with the cause." Let's face it--being Torah observant is capital-H HARD! The lifestyle is expensive, the dress code both restrictive and conspicuous, and there are rules about everything from light switches on Saturday to music in the summer. Once the bloom is off the rose, what keeps someone from saying, "See ya"? You have to get above the neck. And there's more to that than Midrash and Gematria.
Remember those "needs" I mentioned? Well, if our community doesn't meet them, then the motivation to stay wears a bit thin. Someone sold on those beautiful families around the Shabbos table may grow discouraged after years of sitting single (or being trapped with an abuser who lays tefillin every morning before coming home to scream at his wife). If you want to emphasize community, then genuine inclusion is a necessity. There can be no talk of "bad influences" as the BT and his or her children are rejected from schools and excluded from playdates. For me, it was hearing that Torah study makes you a more moral person. If we want to say that and mean it, then we have to let the Torah get above our own necks. It must be more than skirt lengths, velvet kippot, and four hechsherim on your cookies. We cannot condone any act of abuse, theft, or dishonesty, ever.
(To be continued...)
However, booze, cholent and divrei Torah will only take you so far. Getting people in the door is relatively easy. Keeping them in the fold, however, is far more difficult. As the article stated outright, about 150,000 Orthodox Jews are baalei teshuvah. However, there are about 330,000 adults who were born into Orthodox families but are no longer observant. In other words, for every person you bring in, two have left. And that doesn't include the former BTs who bail.
So what's the problem? If the Torah is so profound, why do our own children bail? As Pirkei Avos states, "Any love dependent on a specific cause dies with the cause." Let's face it--being Torah observant is capital-H HARD! The lifestyle is expensive, the dress code both restrictive and conspicuous, and there are rules about everything from light switches on Saturday to music in the summer. Once the bloom is off the rose, what keeps someone from saying, "See ya"? You have to get above the neck. And there's more to that than Midrash and Gematria.
Remember those "needs" I mentioned? Well, if our community doesn't meet them, then the motivation to stay wears a bit thin. Someone sold on those beautiful families around the Shabbos table may grow discouraged after years of sitting single (or being trapped with an abuser who lays tefillin every morning before coming home to scream at his wife). If you want to emphasize community, then genuine inclusion is a necessity. There can be no talk of "bad influences" as the BT and his or her children are rejected from schools and excluded from playdates. For me, it was hearing that Torah study makes you a more moral person. If we want to say that and mean it, then we have to let the Torah get above our own necks. It must be more than skirt lengths, velvet kippot, and four hechsherim on your cookies. We cannot condone any act of abuse, theft, or dishonesty, ever.
(To be continued...)
Monday, July 7, 2014
On the Hobby Lobby decision, contraception, and personal responsibility
OK, I really wanted to weigh in on this earlier, but life has prevented blogging! I have moved out of Builder's house! (Happy dance, happy dance.)
This Hobby Lobby case has raised strong opinions, and since I have friends who range from very liberal to very conservative, I have heard them all. I also caught what Justice Ginsberg had to say in her dissent, and I happen to agree. Supreme Court decisions have had far-reaching consequences, and when they have curtailed individual rights in favor of some other cause (see Dred Scott or Korematsu--which are now taught as examples of the Supreme Court being on the wrong side of history, and proof of a more bigoted time), they usually are overturned by a more enlightened court, or never brought up outside of a college-level constitutional law class.
Now, here's the thing. CONTRACEPTION IS NOT ABORTION! Contra comes from the Latin for "against." Meaning, that contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Contraceptives by their very nature cannot cause abortion because the woman using the device was never pregnant. If you're not pregnant, you don't have an abortion. End of story. (Any comments which refer to abortion will be deleted.)
Now, let's discuss personal responsibility.
Once we get past the issue of "but, but--think of all the poor baybeez you're killing" (see what I said above--if you use a contraceptive device, you did not create a baby, therefore you did not terminate one), the next comment is "women should take responsibility for their actions." Loosely translated--if you dumb sluts would just keep your legs closed, you wouldn't have to worry about pregnancy. (the thought process of the Rush Limbaughs of the world.)
Let's deconstruct this, shall we?
How many contraceptive users are married? Should married couples completely abstain from sex until the wife reaches menopause? How many men would agree to that? What happens if a married couple can't get access to birth control?
I'll tell you what happens. Journey with me to the hamlet of Kiryas Joel, in upstate New York. Kiryas Joel is a Satmar Hasidic enclave. Birth control is unheard of, and most couples who marry are too young to drink at their own weddings. That translates to a lot of fertile years, and a lot of children. Kiryas Joel is number one in the country for two demographics--it has the most children per capita of any town in the US. And it has the most residents per capita living below the poverty line. So, who supports all these precious little babies? Why, you and I do, of course! These "responsible" citizens may not use birth control, but they sure don't have a problem with collecting welfare.
So, where's the responsibility? All these couples are very religious and very married. Holding hands out of wedlock, much less sex out of wedlock, is unheard of. So, by most measures, they are "responsible." However, they have more children than they can afford, which to me is very irresponsible. An IUD is about $400 and lasts ten years, assuming it's not rejected. Try even getting halfway through a single pregnancy on $400. Can't be done.
Now let's consider a Hobby Lobby employee making $8/hour. If she and her husband have a child they can't afford, they have to go on welfare (I guarantee you she has no job protection if she takes maternity leave). Isn't that more "irresponsible" than implanting an IUD?
This Hobby Lobby case has raised strong opinions, and since I have friends who range from very liberal to very conservative, I have heard them all. I also caught what Justice Ginsberg had to say in her dissent, and I happen to agree. Supreme Court decisions have had far-reaching consequences, and when they have curtailed individual rights in favor of some other cause (see Dred Scott or Korematsu--which are now taught as examples of the Supreme Court being on the wrong side of history, and proof of a more bigoted time), they usually are overturned by a more enlightened court, or never brought up outside of a college-level constitutional law class.
Now, here's the thing. CONTRACEPTION IS NOT ABORTION! Contra comes from the Latin for "against." Meaning, that contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Contraceptives by their very nature cannot cause abortion because the woman using the device was never pregnant. If you're not pregnant, you don't have an abortion. End of story. (Any comments which refer to abortion will be deleted.)
Now, let's discuss personal responsibility.
Once we get past the issue of "but, but--think of all the poor baybeez you're killing" (see what I said above--if you use a contraceptive device, you did not create a baby, therefore you did not terminate one), the next comment is "women should take responsibility for their actions." Loosely translated--if you dumb sluts would just keep your legs closed, you wouldn't have to worry about pregnancy. (the thought process of the Rush Limbaughs of the world.)
Let's deconstruct this, shall we?
How many contraceptive users are married? Should married couples completely abstain from sex until the wife reaches menopause? How many men would agree to that? What happens if a married couple can't get access to birth control?
I'll tell you what happens. Journey with me to the hamlet of Kiryas Joel, in upstate New York. Kiryas Joel is a Satmar Hasidic enclave. Birth control is unheard of, and most couples who marry are too young to drink at their own weddings. That translates to a lot of fertile years, and a lot of children. Kiryas Joel is number one in the country for two demographics--it has the most children per capita of any town in the US. And it has the most residents per capita living below the poverty line. So, who supports all these precious little babies? Why, you and I do, of course! These "responsible" citizens may not use birth control, but they sure don't have a problem with collecting welfare.
So, where's the responsibility? All these couples are very religious and very married. Holding hands out of wedlock, much less sex out of wedlock, is unheard of. So, by most measures, they are "responsible." However, they have more children than they can afford, which to me is very irresponsible. An IUD is about $400 and lasts ten years, assuming it's not rejected. Try even getting halfway through a single pregnancy on $400. Can't be done.
Now let's consider a Hobby Lobby employee making $8/hour. If she and her husband have a child they can't afford, they have to go on welfare (I guarantee you she has no job protection if she takes maternity leave). Isn't that more "irresponsible" than implanting an IUD?
Thursday, June 26, 2014
A partner in hope
This is the story of a young woman with no family. A naive girl, duped into marriage to an older man. A young woman who endured years of abuse, then fled with her children. To this day, she is embroiled in a custody fight, her husband menaces her, and she is just trying to obtain her Get.
No, it's not my story. The young woman in question is fellow Brooklyn resident Rivky Stein.
No, it's not my story. The young woman in question is fellow Brooklyn resident Rivky Stein.
Her story resonates with me, and also gives me hope. Her Facebook page has close to 8,000 "Likes," and she's gotten a great deal of support from both anonymous donors and ORA.
But as hopeful as I am, her story also makes me sad. For all her supporters, there are many voices online (and perhaps in person) who would rather silence her. Those who call her "unstable" or "crazy", or those who claim that she is playing the domestic violence card to win in court. (Just read the comments.) Those who claim her husband is a sweet, charming man who has been blindsided by a drama queen looking for a payoff.
Let me say this: Having gone through a similar experience, I believe her. Both the video and the documents she posted to her page make her husband sound like a more extreme version of Builder. Moreover, since she was not legally married to Yoel Weiss, she can not put in any claims against his property or assets. In other words, she gains nothing by lying. She got an order of protection, which in Kings County is all but impossible. That alone adds weight to her allegations.
Rivky, this is for you. You are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you receive your Get soon.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Feminism--A short history
Recently, the Yeshivat Maharat graduated its latest class. Congratulations to the graduates. Semicha, whether or not one receives the title of "rabbi," is a challenge and requires a great deal of study and hard work. I know these women will be an asset to the Jewish community as a whole.
And, of course, we now have to deal with opinions.
Rabbi Harry Maryles is against the whole business of ordaining women. I'm not sure what "serara" means, or why it's a problem that a woman rabbi will be on the other side of the mechitza from him. (My rabbi is always on the other side of the mechitza from me--live with it!) However, he stated that all this ordaining women "nonsense" stems from feminism, a movement that should be discounted because it dates back only to the 1970s, unlike the longstanding traditions of Judaism. OK, history buff hackles officially raised.
I'm not about to get into a cyber shouting match with the man. However, I will use a tool that I used with my own kids--a timeline. This will show that not only does feminism date back quite a while, but that women's interests have been used and misused to meet other goals in society.
1791 (those numbers are not transposed--I mean the 18th century): Mary Wollstonecraft publishes the Declaration of the Rights of Women in France.
1848: Seneca Falls conference on women's suffrage in New York, USA
1851: At the Women's Convention in Akron, OH, USA, Sojourner Truth delivers her "Ain't I a Woman" speech, arguing that women are not always treated like ladies, can handle the same work as men, and deserve the right to vote.
1869: In an attempt to entice female pioneers, Wyoming becomes the first United States territory to offer women the right to vote
1878: Amendment introduced to grant women suffrage in the United States (failed)
1890s: Women's Christian Temperance Movement aligns with suffrage movement; liquor interests attempt to keep women's suffrage quashed.
1902: The newly formed Commonwealth of Australia grants suffrage to non-aboriginal women.
1909: The Uprising of the Twenty Thousand, the largest labor strike in history, shuts down garment manufacturing in New York City for about a year. Local suffragists tried to invade the labor movement, then abandoned it when their Republican interests clashed with that of the laborers.
1917: In an effort to keep girls from leaving Judaism, seamstress Sarah Schnirer opens the first Bais Yaakov girls' school. The schools, which taught Judaism and halacha, would become key institutions in the Orthodox Jewish world.
1919: 18th Amendment passes, beginning Prohibition. Temperance laws are now longer an issue.
1920: The 19th Amendment passes in the United States by one vote, granting suffrage to all Caucasian women. (Women of color still had to deal with anti-suffrage laws based in racism).
1941-1945: During World War II, American women are encouraged to perform men's jobs in factories, then relinquish those jobs to returning veterans.
1949: Simone de Beauvoir publishes The Second Sex, considered the manifesto of Second Wave feminism.
1953: First issue of Playboy magazine, famous for its centerfolds of scantily-clad women, is published.
1963: Betty Friedan publishes The Feminine Mystique. It describes "the problem with no name," as a number of college-educated women had been discouraged from working and encouraged to be homemakers in the suburbs.
1964: Title VII barred discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of gender or race.
1968: Protesters gathered at the Miss America pageant. Although no bras were burnt, several items of lingerie were discarded in a "Freedom Trashcan." The event, however, gave rise to the term "bra-burning."
1973: Roe vs. Wade states that laws banning abortion interfere with the physician's right to privacy. However, laws regulating abortion are still permitted and enforced.
1979: Equal Rights amendment fails.
1985: Tracey Thurman successfully sued the city of Torrington, CT, for failure to offer equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Her estranged husband, Charles "Buck" Thurman ndearly beat her to death while the local police watched and did nothing.
1991: South Carolina became the last US state to make marital rape illegal. However, it is still damn near impossible to enforce existing laws
2009: Sara Hurwitz becomes the first woman ordained as an Orthodox Maharat. The next year, the title would be changed to "Rabba," making her the first woman t receive semicha.
2010: "No-fault divorce" is the law in all 50 states.
Feminism is not new, not restricted to the 1970s, and not superfluous. It affects Judaism just as any trend in the wider culture does. Hopefully Orthodoxy will be big enough to offer these ladies a seat at the table, as well as those who may follow.
And, of course, we now have to deal with opinions.
Rabbi Harry Maryles is against the whole business of ordaining women. I'm not sure what "serara" means, or why it's a problem that a woman rabbi will be on the other side of the mechitza from him. (My rabbi is always on the other side of the mechitza from me--live with it!) However, he stated that all this ordaining women "nonsense" stems from feminism, a movement that should be discounted because it dates back only to the 1970s, unlike the longstanding traditions of Judaism. OK, history buff hackles officially raised.
I'm not about to get into a cyber shouting match with the man. However, I will use a tool that I used with my own kids--a timeline. This will show that not only does feminism date back quite a while, but that women's interests have been used and misused to meet other goals in society.
1791 (those numbers are not transposed--I mean the 18th century): Mary Wollstonecraft publishes the Declaration of the Rights of Women in France.
1848: Seneca Falls conference on women's suffrage in New York, USA
1851: At the Women's Convention in Akron, OH, USA, Sojourner Truth delivers her "Ain't I a Woman" speech, arguing that women are not always treated like ladies, can handle the same work as men, and deserve the right to vote.
1869: In an attempt to entice female pioneers, Wyoming becomes the first United States territory to offer women the right to vote
1878: Amendment introduced to grant women suffrage in the United States (failed)
1890s: Women's Christian Temperance Movement aligns with suffrage movement; liquor interests attempt to keep women's suffrage quashed.
1902: The newly formed Commonwealth of Australia grants suffrage to non-aboriginal women.
1909: The Uprising of the Twenty Thousand, the largest labor strike in history, shuts down garment manufacturing in New York City for about a year. Local suffragists tried to invade the labor movement, then abandoned it when their Republican interests clashed with that of the laborers.
1917: In an effort to keep girls from leaving Judaism, seamstress Sarah Schnirer opens the first Bais Yaakov girls' school. The schools, which taught Judaism and halacha, would become key institutions in the Orthodox Jewish world.
1919: 18th Amendment passes, beginning Prohibition. Temperance laws are now longer an issue.
1920: The 19th Amendment passes in the United States by one vote, granting suffrage to all Caucasian women. (Women of color still had to deal with anti-suffrage laws based in racism).
1941-1945: During World War II, American women are encouraged to perform men's jobs in factories, then relinquish those jobs to returning veterans.
1949: Simone de Beauvoir publishes The Second Sex, considered the manifesto of Second Wave feminism.
1953: First issue of Playboy magazine, famous for its centerfolds of scantily-clad women, is published.
1963: Betty Friedan publishes The Feminine Mystique. It describes "the problem with no name," as a number of college-educated women had been discouraged from working and encouraged to be homemakers in the suburbs.
1964: Title VII barred discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of gender or race.
1968: Protesters gathered at the Miss America pageant. Although no bras were burnt, several items of lingerie were discarded in a "Freedom Trashcan." The event, however, gave rise to the term "bra-burning."
1973: Roe vs. Wade states that laws banning abortion interfere with the physician's right to privacy. However, laws regulating abortion are still permitted and enforced.
1979: Equal Rights amendment fails.
1985: Tracey Thurman successfully sued the city of Torrington, CT, for failure to offer equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Her estranged husband, Charles "Buck" Thurman ndearly beat her to death while the local police watched and did nothing.
1991: South Carolina became the last US state to make marital rape illegal. However, it is still damn near impossible to enforce existing laws
2009: Sara Hurwitz becomes the first woman ordained as an Orthodox Maharat. The next year, the title would be changed to "Rabba," making her the first woman t receive semicha.
2010: "No-fault divorce" is the law in all 50 states.
Feminism is not new, not restricted to the 1970s, and not superfluous. It affects Judaism just as any trend in the wider culture does. Hopefully Orthodoxy will be big enough to offer these ladies a seat at the table, as well as those who may follow.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Blurring lines
CN: Strong language, references to sex acts
Last summer, a fun little romp of a song was all over the radio. (I didn't hear it until the fall, since I keep my radio tuned to classic rock.) The song was by Robin Thicke, T.I., and Pharrell, and was called "Blurred Lines."
Since I only listen to classic rock (on the radio at least--my Spotify playlists can be described as eclectic at a minimum, crossing both genres and centuries), I'm not sure if this song is even still being played. Between the plagiarized melody and the creepy lyrics, I was happy to hear it a couple of times, roll my eyes, say "Yuck" and move on.
However, this song still has something of a shelf life. According to this rather patronizing article, this song is still being played and still pissing us off. Apparently, a campus pub was playing the song, a student complained that it was offensive, and the school took action, barring the song from the pub.
For those of you who spent 2013 under a rock, here is the video:
Now, we do have a First Amendment, and artists should be free to express themselves as they please. But it takes a discerning audience to distinguish good art from bad. And I draw a very not blurry line at songs that degrade women, call them "animals" and think that it's OK to "smack your ass and pull your hair like that."
Last summer, a fun little romp of a song was all over the radio. (I didn't hear it until the fall, since I keep my radio tuned to classic rock.) The song was by Robin Thicke, T.I., and Pharrell, and was called "Blurred Lines."
Since I only listen to classic rock (on the radio at least--my Spotify playlists can be described as eclectic at a minimum, crossing both genres and centuries), I'm not sure if this song is even still being played. Between the plagiarized melody and the creepy lyrics, I was happy to hear it a couple of times, roll my eyes, say "Yuck" and move on.
However, this song still has something of a shelf life. According to this rather patronizing article, this song is still being played and still pissing us off. Apparently, a campus pub was playing the song, a student complained that it was offensive, and the school took action, barring the song from the pub.
For those of you who spent 2013 under a rock, here is the video:
For those of you not distracted by bright red hashtags and oversized dice, the message is pretty obvious. The "blurred line" in question is between consensual and non-consensual sex. Because any girl who goes to a club and dances with a guy after a drink or two wants to sleep with him.
Some have criticized the reaction as being overblown, including Cathy Young, whose article I linked to above. But give a listen. Really give a listen. Besides "I know you want it," which has almost become a cliché in rape culture, the song talks about "I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two" and "Do it like it hurt." That sounds degrading on a good day. But for me, the innocent opening lyrics really frame this. "If you can't hear what I'm trying to say/...Maybe I'm going deaf." Yes, you are. A dance does not equal a proposition. Even Internet music critic Todd in the Shadows said the song had a "rapey" vibe to it. All three artists have deflected criticism by saying how much they respect women. After all, they're married men! And as we all know, married men never rape women...oh wait a minute.Now, we do have a First Amendment, and artists should be free to express themselves as they please. But it takes a discerning audience to distinguish good art from bad. And I draw a very not blurry line at songs that degrade women, call them "animals" and think that it's OK to "smack your ass and pull your hair like that."
Thursday, April 24, 2014
What did I sign up for--Marginalized groups
Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of my separation from Builder. I celebrated by joining some of my job training classmates at a seminar on sexual assault. (It was very empowering, not triggering.) The organization hosting the event at the Queens Borough President's event, SAVI (Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention) started off by describing services specifically to four groups they considered "marginalized" in reporting sex crimes or domestic violence--immigrants, trafficking victims, and the LGBT community. Guess which group was number four?
Ding ding ding! That's right. Orthodox Jews for the win!
Am I saying that all Orthodox Jewish men are rapists or abusers? Far from it! I'm sure there are many kind Orthodox men out there. I didn't happen to be married to one, but one bad apple is easy to dismiss as just that. I am saying, however, that Orthodox women who are victims of this sort of crime are reluctant to report it. Look what happened to the girl who went up against Nechemya Weberman. Booed out of shul on Rosh Hashanah. Look what happened to me. My own rebbetzin told me that Builder "didn't do anything to me." (Seriously, what do you call being raped?) Besides community pressure to keep silent, how many Orthodox women even call it rape if their attacker stood under a chuppah with them? Fathered their children? Made Kiddush for them? Even in the secular world, marital rape is still a crime almost impossible to report. How much more so in the Orthodox world, where women are taught that they are responsible for shalom bayis? My own kallah teacher taught me nothing about my right of refusal. If I didn't have a secular background, how long would I have tolerated being the victim? Would I have continued to cry silently, then shrug it off as an inescapable part of marriage? How many more times would it have happened? How many more times will it happen to other women before we end it?
Ding ding ding! That's right. Orthodox Jews for the win!
Am I saying that all Orthodox Jewish men are rapists or abusers? Far from it! I'm sure there are many kind Orthodox men out there. I didn't happen to be married to one, but one bad apple is easy to dismiss as just that. I am saying, however, that Orthodox women who are victims of this sort of crime are reluctant to report it. Look what happened to the girl who went up against Nechemya Weberman. Booed out of shul on Rosh Hashanah. Look what happened to me. My own rebbetzin told me that Builder "didn't do anything to me." (Seriously, what do you call being raped?) Besides community pressure to keep silent, how many Orthodox women even call it rape if their attacker stood under a chuppah with them? Fathered their children? Made Kiddush for them? Even in the secular world, marital rape is still a crime almost impossible to report. How much more so in the Orthodox world, where women are taught that they are responsible for shalom bayis? My own kallah teacher taught me nothing about my right of refusal. If I didn't have a secular background, how long would I have tolerated being the victim? Would I have continued to cry silently, then shrug it off as an inescapable part of marriage? How many more times would it have happened? How many more times will it happen to other women before we end it?
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Oh, my goodness!
Yesterday, an actress who was one of my childhood favorites, Shirley Temple Black, passed away at the age of 85.
Some facts about the actress turned ambassador:
Some facts about the actress turned ambassador:
- Shirley Temple was "discovered" at the Meglin Dance Studio in Los Angeles at the age of 3. Her film career spanned 18 years from 1931-1949, during which time she appeared in 42 feature-length films and 19 short films (Take THAT, Lindsey Lohan.)
- Shirley's first films were shorts in what was called the Baby Burlesks. These eight films feature a cast of young children playing adult roles while clad in diapers featuring prominent safety pins (and often little else, save for a hat). Later, she would appear as a younger sister in a typical American family in the Frolics of Youth series. Most of these films are in the public domain.
- Shirley Temple's first feature film in which she was billed was The Red-Haired Alibi. The first in which she received prominent billing was Stand Up and Cheer. Although she is hardly in it, this film has the "Baby, Take a Bow" dance number in which she tap-dances in the red and white "coin-dot" dress that would later become a signature costume on Shirley Temple dolls. She would later appear with Stand up and Cheer co-star and dance partner James Dunn in two more films--Baby Take a Bow and Bright Eyes.
- Besides James Dunn, Shirley Temple appeared in films with some of the most prominent actors of the 1930s and 1940s, including Lionel Barrymore, Jack Haley, Buddy Ebsen, Robert Young, Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Jane Darwell, Alice Faye, Claudette Colbert, Randolph Scott, Arthur Treacher, Myrna Loy, Clifton Webb, Hattie McDaniel, Frank Morgan, Carole Lombard, Ginger Rodgers, and future US President Ronald Reagan. She produced films for Fox, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, United Artists, and David O. Selznick Studios.
- With four exceptions (Baby Take a Bow, The Little Colonel, Our Little Girl, and The Blue Bird) Shirley Temple's early roles were either orphans or children who has lost a parent (usually the mother).
- The reason Shirley Temple's footprints at Grauman's Chinese Theater were done without shoes was to draw attention away from her face. She had lost a tooth that morning, and didn't want the media catching her gap-toothed. Later, the studio would provide her with caps as each tooth fell out so as not to mar her perfect smile.
- Gertrude Temple, Shirley's mother, not only made most of her costumes and helped the young actress rehearse, she also ensured that Shirley Temple's hair was in fifty-six perfect little pin curls for each shoot.
- Three of her movies were named for her noted facial features--Bright Eyes, Curly Top, and Dimples.
- In 1934, Shirley teamed up with seasoned dancer Bill "Bojangles" Robinson for a dance routine in which they tap-dance down a flight of steps. Temple and Robinson were the first interracial dance team in film history. Their affection for each other off the set was notable. They always walked hand in hand; she always called him "Uncle Billy," and he always called her "darlin'."
- Shirley Temple never won an Oscar for any of her films, since in the 1930s, the Academy did not deem child actors eligible for nomination. However, she won a special juvenile Oscar in 1935 for her combined six films of the previous year. (Judy Garland would win a similar award for her work in the Wizard of Oz.)
- The head of production of Fox Studios changed Shirley Temple's birth certificate so that it would show that she was born in 1929 instead of 1928. Shirley only discovered the change when her mother told her about it on her thirteenth birthday.
- Shirley's career was modeled after that of another "girl with the curls," silent-film-star Mary Pickford. At least two of Temple's movies (Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm and The Little Princess) were remakes of Pickford films.
- Shirley Temple married former airman Jack Agar in 1945 at the age of 17. The couple had a daughter and then divorced in 1949. She then married Charlie Black in 1950. The couple had two more children and were together until Black's death in 2005.
- Besides her film career, Shirley Temple also hosted the TV series Shirley Temple's Storybook through the 1950s. She was the ambassador to Ghana and later to Czechoslovakia through the 1980s. In 1988, she published her autobiography, Child Star, which was adapted into a made-for-TV movie in 2001.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Wrapping up and lighting up
When I became a Bat Mitzvah (a week after my college graduation--figure that one out), I bought myself a tallis to commemorate. It was pink and black silk with silver thread woven into the atara, and came with a matching tallis bag and kippa. I still have it. I was never sure what to do with it. Cut off the tzitzit and atara and turn it into a headwrap? Keep it as a relic? Donate it? To whom? No boy would be caught dead in a pink tallis, and we certainly wouldn't want to give it to a girl--since of course, any girl who wants to wear a tallis is some evil feminist with either an agenda or a score to settle. One morning, I decided on a lark that I would wear it again while davening at home. (The Things were not there to witness my transgression.) Before I even got to Shema, I took it off. Somehow, after all those years of not wearing it, it just felt wrong somehow.
I think about my pink tallis, sitting on a shelf in my closet, now that the explosion is starting to settle down. The explosion of course is the Orthodox yeshiva SAR permitting two girls to wear tefillin during in-school Shacharit. I can't say that I've ever had the experience of wearing them, but I can sort of relate.
The halacha is very clear. Women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvot. This includes things like tefillin, since they are to be worn during Shacharit. This also includes davening with a minyan, hearing the megillah and the shofar, sitting in a sukkah, hearing Parshat Zachor--wait a minute!
Even in uber-frum Boro Park, plenty of women rush to shul for Zachor. Some shuls even have later readings which are packed with women. Same with megillah leinings. As for shofar--even homebound women get to hear it, thanks to wandering shofar-blowers. And I've never been ordered away from a sukkah.
Moreover, if that's the benchmark, why are women obligated to light Shabbos candles? That's one of the main mitzvot for women. However, since the lighting is from the commandments of "keep Shabbos" and "remember Shabbos," aren't those both positive? And it's certainly timebound. I can't, for example, decide to keep Shabbos on any day of the week I feel like. And, as any balabuste can tell you, the minute is set in stone. Miss the time, and you're mechalel Shabbos. Bad Jew!
Frequently, I hear appeals to emotion like "most women don't really care about wearing tefillin" or "you women don't know how good you have it, not having to get up early" or "my wife would rather not wear tefillin, and doesn't understand why anyone would." That's nice. Unfortunately, these sentiments have no place in a discussion about halacha. Either it's allowed or it's not. And if women can sit in a sukkah or hear Zachor, and have to play "Beat the Clock" every Friday for the rest of their lives, then apparently the time-bound rule is a little fuzzier than we thought.
I think about my pink tallis, sitting on a shelf in my closet, now that the explosion is starting to settle down. The explosion of course is the Orthodox yeshiva SAR permitting two girls to wear tefillin during in-school Shacharit. I can't say that I've ever had the experience of wearing them, but I can sort of relate.
The halacha is very clear. Women are exempt from time-bound positive mitzvot. This includes things like tefillin, since they are to be worn during Shacharit. This also includes davening with a minyan, hearing the megillah and the shofar, sitting in a sukkah, hearing Parshat Zachor--wait a minute!
Even in uber-frum Boro Park, plenty of women rush to shul for Zachor. Some shuls even have later readings which are packed with women. Same with megillah leinings. As for shofar--even homebound women get to hear it, thanks to wandering shofar-blowers. And I've never been ordered away from a sukkah.
Moreover, if that's the benchmark, why are women obligated to light Shabbos candles? That's one of the main mitzvot for women. However, since the lighting is from the commandments of "keep Shabbos" and "remember Shabbos," aren't those both positive? And it's certainly timebound. I can't, for example, decide to keep Shabbos on any day of the week I feel like. And, as any balabuste can tell you, the minute is set in stone. Miss the time, and you're mechalel Shabbos. Bad Jew!
Frequently, I hear appeals to emotion like "most women don't really care about wearing tefillin" or "you women don't know how good you have it, not having to get up early" or "my wife would rather not wear tefillin, and doesn't understand why anyone would." That's nice. Unfortunately, these sentiments have no place in a discussion about halacha. Either it's allowed or it's not. And if women can sit in a sukkah or hear Zachor, and have to play "Beat the Clock" every Friday for the rest of their lives, then apparently the time-bound rule is a little fuzzier than we thought.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
So, what does 2/3 of a kid look like?
Recently, an article came out decrying the rates of women in poverty. The article quoted the statistic that 42 million women and 28 million children live in poverty. This, of course, leads to the inevitable comments about welfare queens with multiple baby-daddies having kids they can't take care of.
I know, after all, if you do the math, 28 million kids distributed among 42 million women works out to--about 2/3 of a kid per woman.
Less than one.
I would love to meet the baby-daddies performing this feat of nature. Seriously, which two-thirds? Is it divided from the feet up or the head down? Or is it laterally? Those poor children hopping around with only a vestigial second leg. I have never seen a 2/3 kid, but I feel sorry for them.
Now of course, this does not mean that we have a rise in partial children. Statistically speaking, it means that at least one-third of the women living in poverty HAVE NO CHILDREN AT ALL! Yeah, so much for blaming the welfare moms. Also, since this is not China, women can have multiple kids. Therefore, this means that every woman in poverty with more than one child, means another woman with none.
So much for "can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." So much for the multiple baby-daddies.
So, what is the problem?
Wage price inequities. Henry Ford famously paid his employees enough to afford the cars they produced. Today, the minimum wage barely covers rent. When I was single and worked full-time (with a college degree and no children), my salary barely covered an illegal converted shed that I called home. My car was falling apart (and this was in California--you don't have a car, you're nowhere), and I once considered not using it because it needed repairs that I couldn't afford until payday three days later. Fish and cheese were luxuries--forget meat. I was in that statistic--and I had done the "responsible" thing by going to college and not having kids.
Plenty of people do the "responsible" thing and get burned. Remember that. And before you cry foul, do the math.
I know, after all, if you do the math, 28 million kids distributed among 42 million women works out to--about 2/3 of a kid per woman.
Less than one.
I would love to meet the baby-daddies performing this feat of nature. Seriously, which two-thirds? Is it divided from the feet up or the head down? Or is it laterally? Those poor children hopping around with only a vestigial second leg. I have never seen a 2/3 kid, but I feel sorry for them.
Now of course, this does not mean that we have a rise in partial children. Statistically speaking, it means that at least one-third of the women living in poverty HAVE NO CHILDREN AT ALL! Yeah, so much for blaming the welfare moms. Also, since this is not China, women can have multiple kids. Therefore, this means that every woman in poverty with more than one child, means another woman with none.
So much for "can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em." So much for the multiple baby-daddies.
So, what is the problem?
Wage price inequities. Henry Ford famously paid his employees enough to afford the cars they produced. Today, the minimum wage barely covers rent. When I was single and worked full-time (with a college degree and no children), my salary barely covered an illegal converted shed that I called home. My car was falling apart (and this was in California--you don't have a car, you're nowhere), and I once considered not using it because it needed repairs that I couldn't afford until payday three days later. Fish and cheese were luxuries--forget meat. I was in that statistic--and I had done the "responsible" thing by going to college and not having kids.
Plenty of people do the "responsible" thing and get burned. Remember that. And before you cry foul, do the math.
Monday, December 30, 2013
What did I sign up for--Disposable children
The Things are now 7 and 5, respectively. They may grouse a bit about Shabbos, but they still keep it. They go to yeshiva, daven when they're told to daven, learn the parsha, and follow the Torah. They're little kids. Going OTD is not really an issue at this point.
Fast forward ten years.
I am picturing Thing 1, who wants with every fiber of her being to be a professional actress. How will she react if she is given a part that demands a Friday-night performance? What about Thing 2, who was born with a mind of her own and a penchant for bending the rules? What will happen if one of my children turns out to be gay? What will I do if they decide to go OTD?
I'll tell you what I will not do. I will never abandon them.
One of the big selling points in kiruv is Judaism's strong family values. I have questioned this for years, seeing the widespread institutionalization of young children, educational neglect, silent children, and kids knocking on strangers' doors doing fundraising without adult supervision. However, this article in the Mishpacha made my hair stand up on end.
The article referenced a rabbi in Israel that takes in young OTD girls tossed out by their parents. A kind act, true, but why are teenagers being turned out at all? Because the parents are ashamed? The child (and make no mistake--15 and 16 year-olds are still children) is trying to grow and define herself. Sometimes, this takes on forms that parents disagree with. That's typical adolescence. However, putting one's own children out on the street is not only atypical, it is abusive. Moreover, it is counterproductive. Odds are, once a child is tossed out, that child will never come back. Not to the parents, and not to Yiddishkeit.
As parents, it is our job to put our children first. Our own feelings, our egos, others' opinions--all are secondary. No family should ever throw away their children. No parent should ever pray for a child's death. No parent should ever deliberately put a child at risk of harm, whether through starvation, physical attack, or sleeping in the street. And no one should ever tell a confused teenager that "she brought it on herself."
Our children are gifts from G-d. They are not disposable!
Fast forward ten years.
I am picturing Thing 1, who wants with every fiber of her being to be a professional actress. How will she react if she is given a part that demands a Friday-night performance? What about Thing 2, who was born with a mind of her own and a penchant for bending the rules? What will happen if one of my children turns out to be gay? What will I do if they decide to go OTD?
I'll tell you what I will not do. I will never abandon them.
One of the big selling points in kiruv is Judaism's strong family values. I have questioned this for years, seeing the widespread institutionalization of young children, educational neglect, silent children, and kids knocking on strangers' doors doing fundraising without adult supervision. However, this article in the Mishpacha made my hair stand up on end.
The article referenced a rabbi in Israel that takes in young OTD girls tossed out by their parents. A kind act, true, but why are teenagers being turned out at all? Because the parents are ashamed? The child (and make no mistake--15 and 16 year-olds are still children) is trying to grow and define herself. Sometimes, this takes on forms that parents disagree with. That's typical adolescence. However, putting one's own children out on the street is not only atypical, it is abusive. Moreover, it is counterproductive. Odds are, once a child is tossed out, that child will never come back. Not to the parents, and not to Yiddishkeit.
As parents, it is our job to put our children first. Our own feelings, our egos, others' opinions--all are secondary. No family should ever throw away their children. No parent should ever pray for a child's death. No parent should ever deliberately put a child at risk of harm, whether through starvation, physical attack, or sleeping in the street. And no one should ever tell a confused teenager that "she brought it on herself."
Our children are gifts from G-d. They are not disposable!
Monday, December 16, 2013
A few thoughts on Chabad
I have a friend who is very strongly oriented to the Lubavitch way of practicing Judaism. I am not. This has led to some interesting discussions.
After the Tablet article on head-covering came out, we had one of these discussions again. I happen to believe that if you're going to cover your hair, it had better look covered. No wigs. Especially not some long, flowing, gorgeous hairpiece that costs upwards of five grand and looks better than the graying, frizzy mop on my head. (Occasionally, I wear a wig, like to court or a job interview, but usually, when I do, it's covered. Does that make me rebellious or extra-pious?) My friend, however, quotes the last Lubavitcher rebbe as stating that wigs are preferred for two reasons--stray locks that fall loose aren't as obvious, and we're supposed to be modest, not frumpy or hideous.
And then I read an article that explained the perspective. Apparently, Rebbe Schneerson decided that Orthodoxy would be a lot easier to sell to assimilated Jews in the 1950s if it didn't come with the schmattes their grandmothers had discarded the minute they hit the goldeneh medina. America--where Jewish identity meant lighting Shabbos candles on Friday night (maybe) and then getting up early to hit the factory the next day. (Would this be a good time to mention that the Triangle fire was on Shabbos?) There was some attempt to stem the tide of assimilation, and that's where the Young Israel movement came from. But Chabad was trying to sell Chassidus to American Jews who wanted to join the melting pot. To "Devorah"s who became "Dorothy"s and "Itzik"s who became "Irving"s. To those who firmly believed that one should "be a Jew in the home and a man in the street." And, he was trying to do so during the height of 1950s conformity and xenophobia.
This, I truly believe, is what sets Chabad apart. Whereas other Chasidic sects are mostly the descendants of shell-shocked Holocaust survivors clinging to a spiritual leader out of fear in a world that seems full of anti-Semitism and genocide, Lubavitch draws its followers from a more assimilated crowd. Some of the excesses of other Chasidic sects (shtreimels, Yiddish-only, ghettoization, extreme gender segregation to the point of separate doors, lifetime learning to the exclusion of learning job skills) would not be tolerated by the target audience of American Jews.
Is Chabad a cult? Maybe. But certainly no more so than any other haredi group (two words--daas Toireh). My own thoughts are sort of mixed. I appreciate that they don't turn people away, I love the free services, and I like that they're willing to meet people on their level. However, I think they tend to have a bit too much hard sell to young, impressionable Jews (the SDSU Chabad had cheap rooms and lots of liquor--a great enticement for alumni who wanted the glory days of AEPi back), and they seem to put more emphasis on the Rebbe than G-d. Also, I find it troubling that the Sorbonne-educated Schneerson would discourage secular education for his own followers (Lubavitch boys' schools that cater to those born into it do not teach their students to read English until the third grade). One rabbi of my acquaintance has accused them of poaching congregants--but maybe those are the congregants that WANT to be poached. And then there's the whole "Schneerson as messiah/Schneerson isn't really dead" controversy, which just adds it's own touch of weird. However, at the end of the day, I do think they unfairly get a bad rap from the rest of the Jewish world. They mean well.
After the Tablet article on head-covering came out, we had one of these discussions again. I happen to believe that if you're going to cover your hair, it had better look covered. No wigs. Especially not some long, flowing, gorgeous hairpiece that costs upwards of five grand and looks better than the graying, frizzy mop on my head. (Occasionally, I wear a wig, like to court or a job interview, but usually, when I do, it's covered. Does that make me rebellious or extra-pious?) My friend, however, quotes the last Lubavitcher rebbe as stating that wigs are preferred for two reasons--stray locks that fall loose aren't as obvious, and we're supposed to be modest, not frumpy or hideous.
And then I read an article that explained the perspective. Apparently, Rebbe Schneerson decided that Orthodoxy would be a lot easier to sell to assimilated Jews in the 1950s if it didn't come with the schmattes their grandmothers had discarded the minute they hit the goldeneh medina. America--where Jewish identity meant lighting Shabbos candles on Friday night (maybe) and then getting up early to hit the factory the next day. (Would this be a good time to mention that the Triangle fire was on Shabbos?) There was some attempt to stem the tide of assimilation, and that's where the Young Israel movement came from. But Chabad was trying to sell Chassidus to American Jews who wanted to join the melting pot. To "Devorah"s who became "Dorothy"s and "Itzik"s who became "Irving"s. To those who firmly believed that one should "be a Jew in the home and a man in the street." And, he was trying to do so during the height of 1950s conformity and xenophobia.
This, I truly believe, is what sets Chabad apart. Whereas other Chasidic sects are mostly the descendants of shell-shocked Holocaust survivors clinging to a spiritual leader out of fear in a world that seems full of anti-Semitism and genocide, Lubavitch draws its followers from a more assimilated crowd. Some of the excesses of other Chasidic sects (shtreimels, Yiddish-only, ghettoization, extreme gender segregation to the point of separate doors, lifetime learning to the exclusion of learning job skills) would not be tolerated by the target audience of American Jews.
Is Chabad a cult? Maybe. But certainly no more so than any other haredi group (two words--daas Toireh). My own thoughts are sort of mixed. I appreciate that they don't turn people away, I love the free services, and I like that they're willing to meet people on their level. However, I think they tend to have a bit too much hard sell to young, impressionable Jews (the SDSU Chabad had cheap rooms and lots of liquor--a great enticement for alumni who wanted the glory days of AEPi back), and they seem to put more emphasis on the Rebbe than G-d. Also, I find it troubling that the Sorbonne-educated Schneerson would discourage secular education for his own followers (Lubavitch boys' schools that cater to those born into it do not teach their students to read English until the third grade). One rabbi of my acquaintance has accused them of poaching congregants--but maybe those are the congregants that WANT to be poached. And then there's the whole "Schneerson as messiah/Schneerson isn't really dead" controversy, which just adds it's own touch of weird. However, at the end of the day, I do think they unfairly get a bad rap from the rest of the Jewish world. They mean well.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Clarifying the First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
This is probably one of the best known lines in the Constitution. It is also one of the most poorly understood.
There is a case before the Supreme Court now. Two women in upstate New York are suing to ban a blatantly Christian prayer that opens a public meeting. The women, one Jewish, one atheist, state that being forced to participate in the prayer when they attend the meetings on other business infringes on their First Amendment rights.
Let's break down that famous line from the First Amendment.
What does "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" even mean? It means that whatever your faith, you are free to practice it as you so choose. If you wish to cover your eyes and say the Shema twice a day, you may do so. You may burn incense in front of a golden Buddha. You can attend church and light candles to the Virgin Mary. You can say "There is no G-d but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" with complete sincerity. You can cast a circle in Central Park on October 31st and invoke Hekate. You can join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care. And neither does the US Government.
What you may not do is force me to join you. And that's where the whole "respecting an establishment of religion" comes in.
If a hundred very devout Christians want to start a prayer club in their public school, they may. They may not, however, insist on leading the Lord's Prayer before algebra class. And it's the same thing here. Go to church and pray for the welfare of the government. But a town hall is not a church. And a government meeting that people need to attend for business is not the place or the time to pray to a deity. Why? Because you're essentially holding those who do not share your beliefs hostage. And that's not OK.
There are those who say that the US is a Christian country anyway, so let the prayers continue. But what if it wasn't? What if we were majority Buddhist, and every government meeting included lighting incense in front of a golden Buddha? Those whose faiths prohibit idol worship would be outraged. Similarly, what if we were majority Rastafarian, and every meeting included passing a bowl for a ceremonial smoke? (Although that would make government meetings more interesting...but I digress.)
We need to remember the old rule that our rights stop at someone else's nose.
This is probably one of the best known lines in the Constitution. It is also one of the most poorly understood.
There is a case before the Supreme Court now. Two women in upstate New York are suing to ban a blatantly Christian prayer that opens a public meeting. The women, one Jewish, one atheist, state that being forced to participate in the prayer when they attend the meetings on other business infringes on their First Amendment rights.
Let's break down that famous line from the First Amendment.
What does "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" even mean? It means that whatever your faith, you are free to practice it as you so choose. If you wish to cover your eyes and say the Shema twice a day, you may do so. You may burn incense in front of a golden Buddha. You can attend church and light candles to the Virgin Mary. You can say "There is no G-d but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" with complete sincerity. You can cast a circle in Central Park on October 31st and invoke Hekate. You can join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don't care. And neither does the US Government.
What you may not do is force me to join you. And that's where the whole "respecting an establishment of religion" comes in.
If a hundred very devout Christians want to start a prayer club in their public school, they may. They may not, however, insist on leading the Lord's Prayer before algebra class. And it's the same thing here. Go to church and pray for the welfare of the government. But a town hall is not a church. And a government meeting that people need to attend for business is not the place or the time to pray to a deity. Why? Because you're essentially holding those who do not share your beliefs hostage. And that's not OK.
There are those who say that the US is a Christian country anyway, so let the prayers continue. But what if it wasn't? What if we were majority Buddhist, and every government meeting included lighting incense in front of a golden Buddha? Those whose faiths prohibit idol worship would be outraged. Similarly, what if we were majority Rastafarian, and every meeting included passing a bowl for a ceremonial smoke? (Although that would make government meetings more interesting...but I digress.)
We need to remember the old rule that our rights stop at someone else's nose.
Friday, October 4, 2013
"I need my paycheck"
We are now on Day 4 of the Great Government Shutdown. To prevent the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the Republican-controlled Congress has voted to shut down the government.
As part of the shutdown, 800,000 "non-essential" workers were placed on unpaid furlough. (For clarification, "non-essential" in government parlance means those whose services are not needed on an emergency basis. In other words, fire, police, military, and elected representatives are essential. Civil court judges, about half of FEMA, non-combat military, clerical workers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement clerks, and others of that ilk are "non-essential." So are the people who process Social Security and WIC applications.) However, our elected officials, including Congress, are still working and still drawing paychecks. This has raised ire on all sides of the political spectrum. One representative, Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, had this to say:
Well, darlin', ain't you just the most special little snowflake?
The thing is, we all NEED our paychecks. We all have bills to pay and kids to feed. Just because you are in Congress doesn't make your need more pressing than ours.
It's too bad, too. See, again, this is the 21st century. Memes like this get passed all over the Internet and have very, very long shelf lives. And, as some of your would-be colleagues learned in the last election cycle, this can lead to that congressional paycheck not happening.
Enjoy your position while you can. And see you (or not) in 2014.
As part of the shutdown, 800,000 "non-essential" workers were placed on unpaid furlough. (For clarification, "non-essential" in government parlance means those whose services are not needed on an emergency basis. In other words, fire, police, military, and elected representatives are essential. Civil court judges, about half of FEMA, non-combat military, clerical workers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement clerks, and others of that ilk are "non-essential." So are the people who process Social Security and WIC applications.) However, our elected officials, including Congress, are still working and still drawing paychecks. This has raised ire on all sides of the political spectrum. One representative, Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, had this to say:
Well, darlin', ain't you just the most special little snowflake?
The thing is, we all NEED our paychecks. We all have bills to pay and kids to feed. Just because you are in Congress doesn't make your need more pressing than ours.
It's too bad, too. See, again, this is the 21st century. Memes like this get passed all over the Internet and have very, very long shelf lives. And, as some of your would-be colleagues learned in the last election cycle, this can lead to that congressional paycheck not happening.
Enjoy your position while you can. And see you (or not) in 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)