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 feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, October 16, 2017
Thursday, September 14, 2017
The other side of the "MRA Narrative"
I love reading feminist articles. However, the comment section is usually something to be avoided for the sake of my blood pressure. Usually, the comments are from men telling the same story--evil, castrating feminist bitches take a man who gives them everything for a ride, then after a few years walk out with the kids and the house. I've heard this story so often that I call it the "MRA Narrative." And it's bad for my blood pressure because I lived it.
When I was 24 years old, I married Mr. X, who was 55 at the time. Now, I know where this is going. Hot babe snaps up old guy with a fat wallet. Well, not really. For years, I was the girl who couldn't get a date. I'm socially awkward and not very pretty, and so I was the one being "friendzoned." Also, in college, I was always too young. I was 17 my freshman year (which made me "jail bait" in California) and 19 when I graduated (which meant I couldn't go anyplace that served alcohol). I turned 20, and for a short time, started attracting male attention. It didn't last very long. I joined a fundamentalist group on the promise of family, community, and, most of all, acceptance. Add in that in 2003-2005, it was obvious to me that our economy was built on a house of cards. So I wanted that package. A spouse, a job, and definitely children.
It was in this context that I met Mr. X. After moving to Brooklyn, I heard about the occasional BT that someone wanted to set me up with. Somehow those guys never materialized. So I moved into the world of "older singles"-- and I mean older. As in some of them had kids my age. It became obvious that these men were the only ones who would ever date me. The men I dated ranged in age from 40-62. I was all of 24. I knew even then that I had two things going for me. One, I was young enough to bear children (although "young" didn't mean "attractive"). Two, I was the novelty act. Within six months, I would be just one of the crowd, and forgotten. So I married Mr. X. He made a comfortable living, fed stray cats, gave people rides, and gave me a job. And I didn't exactly have a lot of other options.
Within two months, I was pregnant, and our first child was born a month before our first anniversary. In the early weeks, he was an attentive father to our daughter, but soon became unavailable. When we moved into our newly renovated house, I had to set everything up while taking care of a five-month-old, including assembling a computer desk. The only "help" I received came from neighborhood children. One of the schools offered me a teaching job. Mr. X convinced me not to take it. Over time, my place in the household shifted. I was there to serve him, bear his children, and provide sex on demand. When our second daughter was born, I came home from the hospital two days before Rosh Hashanah. As tired as I was, and with a newborn and a toddler to care for, I had to set up the bassinet, unpack baby clothes, and still prepare all the holiday meals with no assistance. His one concession to my condition was not inviting guests that year. After that, I decided no more children, but Mr. X didn't want me on birth control. I snuck myself onto an IUD because I knew he couldn't fool with it. After five years, the narrative shifted from "I will care for you so you never have to work" to "I have to take care of you because you aren't capable of working." After six years, he told me that a wife was "a cook in the kitchen, a laundress in the laundry room, and a whore in the bedroom." After seven years, he began sexually assaulting me and punching walls. I walked out and filed a restraining order. He violated it numerous times. All the time, he insisted that he had "treated me like a queen."
Now we come to the divorce. This is the part where I get "his" kids, his house and his money, right? I don't think so. Despite an indicated report from Children's Services that he would get drunk and pass out while the children were in his care, he got ten days of visitation per month, half their school vacations, and half the holidays. He kept the house and the business. And, because he worked for cash, there was no way to establish his real income. I got three years of alimony, child support, and a $20,000 settlement that has never materialized. Hardly taken to the cleaners.
So, please keep in mind that for every story about the "evil feminist," there is a real live woman who may have been through hell.
When I was 24 years old, I married Mr. X, who was 55 at the time. Now, I know where this is going. Hot babe snaps up old guy with a fat wallet. Well, not really. For years, I was the girl who couldn't get a date. I'm socially awkward and not very pretty, and so I was the one being "friendzoned." Also, in college, I was always too young. I was 17 my freshman year (which made me "jail bait" in California) and 19 when I graduated (which meant I couldn't go anyplace that served alcohol). I turned 20, and for a short time, started attracting male attention. It didn't last very long. I joined a fundamentalist group on the promise of family, community, and, most of all, acceptance. Add in that in 2003-2005, it was obvious to me that our economy was built on a house of cards. So I wanted that package. A spouse, a job, and definitely children.
It was in this context that I met Mr. X. After moving to Brooklyn, I heard about the occasional BT that someone wanted to set me up with. Somehow those guys never materialized. So I moved into the world of "older singles"-- and I mean older. As in some of them had kids my age. It became obvious that these men were the only ones who would ever date me. The men I dated ranged in age from 40-62. I was all of 24. I knew even then that I had two things going for me. One, I was young enough to bear children (although "young" didn't mean "attractive"). Two, I was the novelty act. Within six months, I would be just one of the crowd, and forgotten. So I married Mr. X. He made a comfortable living, fed stray cats, gave people rides, and gave me a job. And I didn't exactly have a lot of other options.
Within two months, I was pregnant, and our first child was born a month before our first anniversary. In the early weeks, he was an attentive father to our daughter, but soon became unavailable. When we moved into our newly renovated house, I had to set everything up while taking care of a five-month-old, including assembling a computer desk. The only "help" I received came from neighborhood children. One of the schools offered me a teaching job. Mr. X convinced me not to take it. Over time, my place in the household shifted. I was there to serve him, bear his children, and provide sex on demand. When our second daughter was born, I came home from the hospital two days before Rosh Hashanah. As tired as I was, and with a newborn and a toddler to care for, I had to set up the bassinet, unpack baby clothes, and still prepare all the holiday meals with no assistance. His one concession to my condition was not inviting guests that year. After that, I decided no more children, but Mr. X didn't want me on birth control. I snuck myself onto an IUD because I knew he couldn't fool with it. After five years, the narrative shifted from "I will care for you so you never have to work" to "I have to take care of you because you aren't capable of working." After six years, he told me that a wife was "a cook in the kitchen, a laundress in the laundry room, and a whore in the bedroom." After seven years, he began sexually assaulting me and punching walls. I walked out and filed a restraining order. He violated it numerous times. All the time, he insisted that he had "treated me like a queen."
Now we come to the divorce. This is the part where I get "his" kids, his house and his money, right? I don't think so. Despite an indicated report from Children's Services that he would get drunk and pass out while the children were in his care, he got ten days of visitation per month, half their school vacations, and half the holidays. He kept the house and the business. And, because he worked for cash, there was no way to establish his real income. I got three years of alimony, child support, and a $20,000 settlement that has never materialized. Hardly taken to the cleaners.
So, please keep in mind that for every story about the "evil feminist," there is a real live woman who may have been through hell.
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, 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?
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, June 23, 2013
Rape manual
Recently, over at Reddit, a guy calling himself TofuTofu (Ken Hoinsky) decided to promote himself as a dating guru and publish excerpts from his dating manual. Then he decided to solicit funds on Kickstarter, and raised the funds necessary for a self-publish. All well and good--the Internet is the ultimate land of free speech. However, the book itself...
Most of these come straight from Chapter 7--Physical Escalation & Sex. Comments in italics are mine.
"Just keep in mind that it's MUCH easier to enter into a fruitful relationship with a woman AFTER you've made her cum a half-dozen times. And that's true whether you're looking for a wife, girlfriend, friend-with-benefits, or anything in between." Actually, that's not attractive to most women. Or most people. I know for me, there are some things (OK, a LOT of things) that a lady doesn't do on a first date.
"This scenario happens all the time. A man is on a date with a woman. The man fails to touch the girl and only goes in for the kiss at the end of the night. He goes home alone. His internal dialogue says, 'WTF why won't girls hook up with me? I guess I'm in the friend-zone again.' " Riiight. Because dating=scoring. Whatever happened to letting a relationship develop? Besides, the ones who kept their hands to themselves on the first date were pretty much guaranteed a second. And, really, isn't that the point?
"From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished." Hey, idiot, according to the Merriam-Webster, "ravish" means "rape."
"Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances." Some women will rebuff this sort of advance, usually by "escalating" to a slap or a kick in a sensitive area. Others will freeze up and just want it to end.
"If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line:
"No problem. I don't want you to do anything you aren't comfortable with."
Memorize that line. It is your go-to when faced with resistance. Say it genuinely, without presumption. All master seducers are also masters at making women feel comfortable. You'll be no different. If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later." First of all, how often has "no" been interpreted as "try again in five minutes" or "I'm just being a tease, but I really mean yes?" More often than Mr. Hoinsky thinks. This is the sort of advice that usually leaves a woman calling her best friend at 3 am, crying her eyes out. NO MEANS NO EVERY TIME!
Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick." I believe the law calls that "misdemeanor sexual abuse." Again, would it hurt to ASK?
Gentlemen--Prove yourselves one, and DO NOT take this weirdo's advice. Ladies--It is NEVER OK to be grabbed, forced, or touched against your will. If you are with a man like this, get away!
Most of these come straight from Chapter 7--Physical Escalation & Sex. Comments in italics are mine.
"Just keep in mind that it's MUCH easier to enter into a fruitful relationship with a woman AFTER you've made her cum a half-dozen times. And that's true whether you're looking for a wife, girlfriend, friend-with-benefits, or anything in between." Actually, that's not attractive to most women. Or most people. I know for me, there are some things (OK, a LOT of things) that a lady doesn't do on a first date.
"This scenario happens all the time. A man is on a date with a woman. The man fails to touch the girl and only goes in for the kiss at the end of the night. He goes home alone. His internal dialogue says, 'WTF why won't girls hook up with me? I guess I'm in the friend-zone again.' " Riiight. Because dating=scoring. Whatever happened to letting a relationship develop? Besides, the ones who kept their hands to themselves on the first date were pretty much guaranteed a second. And, really, isn't that the point?
"From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished." Hey, idiot, according to the Merriam-Webster, "ravish" means "rape."
"Decide that you're going to sit in a position where you can rub her leg and back. Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don't ask for permission. Be dominant. Force her to rebuff your advances." Some women will rebuff this sort of advance, usually by "escalating" to a slap or a kick in a sensitive area. Others will freeze up and just want it to end.
"If at any point a girl wants you to stop, she will let you know. If she says "STOP," or "GET AWAY FROM ME," or shoves you away, you know she is not interested. It happens. Stop escalating immediately and say this line:
"No problem. I don't want you to do anything you aren't comfortable with."
Memorize that line. It is your go-to when faced with resistance. Say it genuinely, without presumption. All master seducers are also masters at making women feel comfortable. You'll be no different. If a woman isn't comfortable, take a break and try again later." First of all, how often has "no" been interpreted as "try again in five minutes" or "I'm just being a tease, but I really mean yes?" More often than Mr. Hoinsky thinks. This is the sort of advice that usually leaves a woman calling her best friend at 3 am, crying her eyes out. NO MEANS NO EVERY TIME!
Pull out your cock and put her hand on it. Remember, she is letting you do this because you have established yourself as a LEADER. Don't ask for permission, GRAB HER HAND, and put it right on your dick." I believe the law calls that "misdemeanor sexual abuse." Again, would it hurt to ASK?
Gentlemen--Prove yourselves one, and DO NOT take this weirdo's advice. Ladies--It is NEVER OK to be grabbed, forced, or touched against your will. If you are with a man like this, get away!
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Divorce in the looking-glass
This is the story of my very dear friend Alicia*. Alicia and her husband Charlie found Orthodoxy together. They had two beautiful boys, which they raised in the faith.
And then everything fell down the rabbit hole.
Unbeknownst to Alicia, Charlie was not faithful. Charlie was abusive. Alicia had enough and filed for divorce.
And now Alicia wants to leave Orthodoxy, taking her two sons
with her. While she is devoted to
Yiddishkeit, and will remain within some bounds of Torah practice (the exact
nature of which is still undetermined), she is through with the community. As she put it, “Had I known that by becoming
Orthodox I might someday lose my kids, I would have walked right out again.” Unfortunately, in the looking-glass world of
the community, she is extremely close to the mark. In a divorce mediated by a din Torah, boys
over six often go to the father. Even if
the father is abusive. Even if the
father is unfaithful. Even if the father
breaks Shabbos. To complicate matters,
Alicia is a giyoret, while Charlie is merely a BT. Charlie would be favored for reasons
completely unrelated to his parenting.
This has made Alicia so desperate that she wants to possul her own
conversion, thus declaring both herself and her children not Jewish.
And that is a great loss.
As Jews, we are all one.
If one of us cries, we should all cry out. But we care more about some bizarre, 14th-century
interpretation of the law than we do about the well-being of a family. We would rather curse the darkness than light
a candle. We would rather put our own
Torah through the looking-glass until it is distorted beyond recognition. And
in doing so, we affect real lives. People
like Alicia, who is a great contributor to any community. People like her children, who could have
become the sort of husbands and fathers we need more of. Instead, we have turned them into a
korban. And we will be the ultimate
losers.
Now, the Torah makes provisions for divorce. But, in the text itself, it only says that if
a man wants to send his wife away, he has to give her a get. Nowhere does the Torah
(and I’m referring only to the first five books here) state any laws about
custody. It is only our sages, great but
still fallible men, who have made this policy.
And it is the passage of time that has calcified this rule into an
unbreakable part of our mesorah. The rightness or justice in the eyes of
Hashem is never the issue. Only holding
on to a past that may never have existed.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Stepford Wives--The Club!
For those of who who missed the Stepford Wives (and I am still trying to purge the 2004 remake from my mind--this post is only going to reference the Ira Levin novel and the 1975 film), the story is pretty simple. An aspiring photographer, her lawyer husband, and their two daughters leave Manhattan for the suburb of Stepford, CT. Joanna, the photographer, notices that almost every woman in Stepford is obsessed with domestic chores, dresses like a runway model, and looks gorgeous. And they idolize their husbands. However, there are a few exceptions--a couple of new arrivals who have other interests. And then, they change. Finally, just as Joanna is about to flee, she finds out the truth. The local Men's Association has been bumping off the wives and replacing them with docile, beautiful robots. The story was intended as a satire, and a warning about the need for feminism in a world where women are still expected to fill that role and be nothing more.
It was never intended as a suggestion.
While Googling the book and movie, I found there is an actual Stepford Wives Organization. Turns out it's a group of housewives in Connecticut (surprise!) who have taken the Levin novel as a how-to guide, rather than a warning. The group emphasizes submission to husbands, dressing conservatively but feminine outside the home and like some sleazy pin-up in the bedroom, working only if the husband asks, and being the perfect stay-at-home mom. From their website:
It was never intended as a suggestion.
While Googling the book and movie, I found there is an actual Stepford Wives Organization. Turns out it's a group of housewives in Connecticut (surprise!) who have taken the Levin novel as a how-to guide, rather than a warning. The group emphasizes submission to husbands, dressing conservatively but feminine outside the home and like some sleazy pin-up in the bedroom, working only if the husband asks, and being the perfect stay-at-home mom. From their website:
Stepford Wives Organization is a
website that supports the idea of the homemaking wife who is not only
the cheery domestic goddess, but a fantastic dresser, neat as a pin, a
lady with good manners, and a gracious, well-behaved, obedient wife who
always puts her man first.
Stepford Wives Organization supports and promotes the Stay-At-Home-Mother.
Stepford Wives Organization celebrates the good housekeeping days of the 1950s.
Stepford Wives Organization also
believes in the freedom for anyone and everyone to pursue their dreams.
We never have a cross word to say about other people's decisions to lead
their lives. If we have an opinion- which is seldom- we speak quietly
to our husbands in the privacy of our homes. If we have an opinion on
the matter, it would be our husband's opinion.
My personal favorite is the "Dressing" section--women are not only encourage to diet down to a frail figure, but are expected to adopt a hyperfeminine, "Daddy's Little Girl" look--ruffles, bows, tight dresses and skirt suits. First of all, asking a grown woman to dress like "Daddy's Little Girl"--yeah, there's nothing pervy there. Secondly, what message are we trying to send? Most men would rather have a smart, competent woman as a lifelong companion, rather than a simpering idiot whose every thought is how can I please my may-unn.
In the "Pleasing Men" section, they take advice from the anti-feminist backlash literature of the 1960s and 1970s, including Fascinating Womanhood (written as a direct response to The Feminine Mystique), and Marabel Morgan's Total Woman. Their etiquette section even goes so far as to suggest that women skip dinner in order to be on call while their husbands eat! (And what could be better to keep that trim waist than living on the brink of an eating disorder?)
Now, I don't live in Connecticut, and these women wouldn't give me the time of day (From their blog: "none of us are Muslims or Jews"), so why does this bother me? Because women like this vote (although they will only do so if they vote like their husbands)! They have an Internet presence! They may have countless people who agree with them! (There is a blog called Ladies Against Feminism that wants to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment. And then there's Debi Pearl, and her Created to Be His Help Meet, which essentially advocated the same thing. People like this exist.) While it's ideal for a husband and wife to mutually respect each other, organizations such as this are not advocating respect between two adults of comparable intelligence and ability, but a domineering man having complete sway over the simpering, passive, submissive girl-child that he now controls. Even under the best of circumstances that can lead to resentment. And when the circumstances are not the best--domestic abuse, isolation from friends and family, marital rape, financial control...
Again, please note that all links are for informational purposes ONLY. I do not advocate any of the views presented in any of the websites linked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)