Earlier this year, the UN, bowing to pressure in the form of an ammendment proposed by Benin, decided to remove sexual orientation from the list of criteria that constitutes a crime of discrimination in case of execution. In other words, the UN decided that for gay people to be murdered for being gay is OK - or at the very least, not worthy of specific UN condemnation.
Fastforward a bit, and a Ugandan paper publishes a list of gay Ugandans - with adresses and photographs. During this time, a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death is pending in the Ugandan government - coincidentally, this law was introduced shortly after a visit by American missionaries who preached about how to turn gay people straight, condemned the gay rights movement as "an evil institution" meant to destroy marriage, and accused gay men of anally raping teenage boys. Did I mention that the tag in the magazine article that featured those photos read "Hang them'? Well, that becomes a bit more relevant given that today David Kato, one of the gay men from that article, lies dead, beaten to death with a hammer.
First of all, this crime shows that gay rights is a global human rights issue. Second of all, I don't get the missionaries: You fly to a foreign country to teach about Jesus, and the one message you choose to focus on is not "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Turn the other cheek", but - hate gay people. No, not kill - that is merely implied. Of course, both the magazine and the missionary group have already disclaimed any responsibility for the murder.
Quite frankly, if stopping homosexuality matters to you enough that you are willing to travel across the globe to do it (or rather, to stop others from doing it), then I think you probably have major issues. The two possibilities that pop to mind (like a cherry?) are: 1. You can not control your own sex life, and this manifests itself in a need to control the sex lives of others.** 2. You are homosexual and hate yourself for it because of your religious beliefs, and the need to expunge homosexuality from others is a displaced urge to expunge your own sexual preferences. I would like to point out that, given the biological and uncontrollable nature of sexual urges (as opposed to actions, which are controllable), these two theories complement each other, since someone who is homosexual against his will may feel he does not have control over his own sexuality.
Even more interesting, however, is that many in Uganda feel that homosexuality is a Western import, and an immoral one at that. The fight against homosexuality in Ugandan society is reflective of a backlash against globalization and Western cultural imperialism - a backlash that theoretically, as a liberal, I should support. Indeed, in an African country whose official language is English, it is not hard to understand why one would feel resentful of the cultural theft that is one of colonialism's more lasting legacies.
However, given that homosexual orientation occurs not only across the human species, but in other specieis as well***, it is most likely a natural biological phenomena, not the result of any cultural imports - especially given Western society's own homophobic past (and present). Furthermore, this specific political campaign against gay people seems to be a very expression of the culutral imperialism it is meant to combat, having been imported by American missionaries.
Africa - or at least, West-Central Africa - has a long tradition of more flexible sexual identities and tolerance of homosexuality, which was then upset by the imposition of Christianity by European missionaries and by the Western values that came across the ocean with the colonizers. Thus, Antonio/Victoria, a slave from Benin who had the body of a man but worked as a female prostitute in Portugal, was confused as to why he was hauled up in front of Inquisition authority. Antonio explained that he was a woman, but when a physical examination by the Inquisition revealed normal male genitals, he was sentenced to the king's galleys - showing that even in phallocentric Western culture, there were times when having a phallus could be a detriment. In light of Antonio's story, it is ironic that Benin was the country that proposed excluding homosexuality from the list of protected categories when it comes to discriminatory executions. James H. Sweet, who brings the above story in his book, "Recreating Africa" (p. 53), goes on to say (p. 54) that in Central Africa, especially Angola and Congo, there were male transvestites who engaged in sodomy, who were known as jinbandaas. Not only was this behavior not considered negative, but jinbandaas (quimbandas) played an important role in many Angolan societies, and may have been entrusted with religious powers.
Of course, Uganda is in Eastern Africa, not West-Central. However, the details of Sweet's book, as well as other sources, ascribe a less rigid gender/sexual dichotomy in many African societies than in Western ones - meaning, that a more accurate rebellion against Western culture might actually be to accept homosexuals.
In general, sexual issues have become a popular way to rebel against Western cultural hegemony as a result of colonialism and globalization, and is why for some - but not all - women, the decision to wear a hijab may be as political as it is religious. Of course, it is dangerous to reduce hijab-wearing to a counter-Western statement, since for many women it is not, but rather a deep profesison of religious faith - many women wear hijab, and each has her own reasons. Furthermore, it is important to not deligitimize the reaction against Western culture - as long as this reaction is peaceful and does not involve human rights violations, there is no reason to oppose it. It is also hard to distinguish between an action done for political reasons, and a religious establishments appropriating political languge in order to convince a segment of society to engage in a certain action. This quandary applies to both the Uganda and the hijab situations - not that they are morally comparable, since one involves killing people and the other involves a peaceful expression of one's beliefs.
I hope to read "The Politics of Piety" by Saba Mahmood, which examines women's roles in the Islamic Revival movement in Egypt, to understand more about the complicated relationship between politics and religion for Muslim women in Egypt. I wonder if I will find any parallels with the experiences of Orthodox Jewish women - though that IS NOT my motivation for reading the book - I am not THAT ethnocentric.
* This is part of why I view the UN as an organization that is not morally credible, and why I do not put any stock in their criticism of Israel. I believe that the UN has "editorial bias" in which situations it chooses to comment on and not to comment on, and to what extent. This bias is one against Israel, at the expense of more serious human rights violations elsewhere. That is not to say I think Israel is perfect, rather, that I think the morality or immorality of Israel's actions is in no way connected to or reflected in the UN's comments about those actions.
** Lives of Others - great movie.
*** A quick Wikipedia check reveals cheetahs, dolphins and caribou - oh my!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
And Never The Twain Shall Meet?
I recently signed up to be on the e-mail list for a group called Keshet (www.keshetonline.org), a Jewish GLBTQ group based in Boston. The group seems good, based on their e-newsletter: They are sponsoring various gay-straight alliances throughout the nation, a cabaret in Massachusetts, GLBTQ birthright (in co-operation with Nehirim), and, most excitingly in my mind: A writing contest! (http://keshetonline.org/news/index.php/2010/12/09/announcing-keshet%E2%80%99s-jewish-childrens-book-writing-contest/)
There is one part of the newsletter however, that gave me pause: Dvar Torahs that reclaim "a queer seat at the table". I fully believe in reclaiming religious texts - whether from a feminist, GLBTQ, or other framework.
I think however, it is important to recognize reclamations as reclamations. The way I see it, a major hashkafic difference between Orthodox and other streams of Judaism pends on textual interpretation and textual authority. This religious difference mirrors two streams of thought in critical text study: The first, which has fallen out of vogue, maintains that the author's intent "matters", while the second discounts authorial intent, and is all about what can be read into the text, or how the text can be deconstructed. Context may matter for deconstructing discourse, but that is its limit.
I would argue that more "liberal" streams of Judaism have a more postmodern approach: Each interpretation of the text is equally valid, regardless of authorial intent. My interpretation is as valid as Rashi's, because the meaning of the text changes - that is its beauty, and what makes Torah a tree of life. (Just as evolution is what makes the Constitution "a living document" -lihavdil.)
The other position is that, while my own interpretations may be nice, it is the rabbis of previous generations who have the authority to interpret text officially, and my interpretation has no value beyond the personal meaning I find in it. Furthermore, if it contradicts the authorized interpretation or authorial intent at all, it must be "wrong".
There is a third, more "middle of the road" (centrist as Obama's SOU?) path: Modern interpretations are valid. All can have personal truth for the person who creates them, and should be used to enrich the religious experiences of those who find them meaningful. They should be used however, to complement, but not replace, the authorized interpretation.
These interpretations become problematic only if they contradict the plain meaning of Torah verses. If they contradict mainstream rabbinic opinion however, then the contradiction must be acknowledged, and each opinion recognized as valid, but in different ways. The authority that stems from tradition must be stressed, and while one can acknowledge anti-halachik interpretations of a an issue, one must still advocate halachik practice, accepting the cognitive dissonance derived from such an approach - a dissonance inherent in the beauty and complexity of Modern Orthodoxy.
The above streams are referring to institutional and pedagogical approaches. On a personal level, an Orthodox Jew may indeed choose to reject an Orthodox approach to a certain issue - I don't think it makes them less Orthodox, if they accept the Orthodox approach in general, and are Orthodox in practice.* But I do think it makes an institution or educator less Orthodox to teach a modern view to the exclusion of ancient sources, or to teaches the content of ancient sources while discounting their validity in favor of a modern approach.
I do not expect Keshet to adhere to a Modern Orthodox viewpoint, but the inclusion of the Dvar Torahs reminded me of a general critique I have of certain groups within certain denominations of Judaism: The modern, liberal interpretation of the text is given primacy over the traditional sources. I believe each should be at least equally weighted, though on an individual level, each person may choose the one they find more meaningful, because, there is something to be said for the weight of tradition - not even religiously per se, but rather, historically and culturally.
Judaism is a religion that very much values tradition: On a certain level, halacha has authority because generations of Jews have imbued it with authority. While this may seem circular, it is important to acknowledge that part of halacha's power is connecting to a community of current and past generations who have followed halacha. I believe that the communal power of halacha is recognized in the Torah, where many laws are given "because you were slaves in Egypt" - ie, as a way of connecting to the enslavement experience of one's ancestors, and where the entire nation must be present at Har Sinay, where it is the community's acceptance of the Law that binds them to it.** It is precisely because Judaism is such a communal religion that stigmatizing GLBTQ people as a community can be so devastating to them religiously, and sever their connection to Judaism. (If you do not believe me, see the ex-Chassid in "Trembling Before God".)
I guess this is just an example of how gender/GLBTQ issues often are the loci at which major hashkafic issues manifest themselves: In this case, the issue is textual authority and interpretation, but it is also a bigger issue - Do we fit the Torah into our modern lifestyle, do we fit our modern outlook into the Torah, or do we try to juggle each realm separately, and never the twain shall meet?
* Of course, I object to the very concept of judging how "Orthodox" a person is, since it violates the Pirkey Avot maxim "Do not judge a person until you come to his place" - as does judging a person's religiosity.
** This is amplified in the story of the oven of achsenay, where Rabbi Eliezer has the right ruling according to the letter of the law - a voice comes down from heaven and says so, but the rabbinic majority overules Rabbi E anyway, saying "It is not in the heavens" ie, when God gave the Torah, He imbued the rabbis with the authority to interpret the Torah the way that they wished, and exegesis and halachik rulings were passed out of God's hands and into the hands of God. In the story, God's response is to laugh, saying "My children have won", after which God does not prevent the rabbinic quorum from overuling and excommunicating Rabbi E. Interestingly, this story is often used for an ultra-conservative interpretation: The authority of traditional rabbinic authority stems from God, and they must be followed no matter what, because even if they are "wrong", they are "right", in that they were given authority to be obeyed even if they are wrong or make mistakes. On the other hand, this story can be interpreted in a very liberal way: Torah interpretation is in the hands of people and even if it is "wrong" and goes against the traditional meaning of the text, that is ok, because God gave the Jews the permission/authority to form their own interpretations, and even if those interpretations go against God's opinion, they are still valid! Either way, it is very empowering to people - the question is, which people.
There is one part of the newsletter however, that gave me pause: Dvar Torahs that reclaim "a queer seat at the table". I fully believe in reclaiming religious texts - whether from a feminist, GLBTQ, or other framework.
I think however, it is important to recognize reclamations as reclamations. The way I see it, a major hashkafic difference between Orthodox and other streams of Judaism pends on textual interpretation and textual authority. This religious difference mirrors two streams of thought in critical text study: The first, which has fallen out of vogue, maintains that the author's intent "matters", while the second discounts authorial intent, and is all about what can be read into the text, or how the text can be deconstructed. Context may matter for deconstructing discourse, but that is its limit.
I would argue that more "liberal" streams of Judaism have a more postmodern approach: Each interpretation of the text is equally valid, regardless of authorial intent. My interpretation is as valid as Rashi's, because the meaning of the text changes - that is its beauty, and what makes Torah a tree of life. (Just as evolution is what makes the Constitution "a living document" -lihavdil.)
The other position is that, while my own interpretations may be nice, it is the rabbis of previous generations who have the authority to interpret text officially, and my interpretation has no value beyond the personal meaning I find in it. Furthermore, if it contradicts the authorized interpretation or authorial intent at all, it must be "wrong".
There is a third, more "middle of the road" (centrist as Obama's SOU?) path: Modern interpretations are valid. All can have personal truth for the person who creates them, and should be used to enrich the religious experiences of those who find them meaningful. They should be used however, to complement, but not replace, the authorized interpretation.
These interpretations become problematic only if they contradict the plain meaning of Torah verses. If they contradict mainstream rabbinic opinion however, then the contradiction must be acknowledged, and each opinion recognized as valid, but in different ways. The authority that stems from tradition must be stressed, and while one can acknowledge anti-halachik interpretations of a an issue, one must still advocate halachik practice, accepting the cognitive dissonance derived from such an approach - a dissonance inherent in the beauty and complexity of Modern Orthodoxy.
The above streams are referring to institutional and pedagogical approaches. On a personal level, an Orthodox Jew may indeed choose to reject an Orthodox approach to a certain issue - I don't think it makes them less Orthodox, if they accept the Orthodox approach in general, and are Orthodox in practice.* But I do think it makes an institution or educator less Orthodox to teach a modern view to the exclusion of ancient sources, or to teaches the content of ancient sources while discounting their validity in favor of a modern approach.
I do not expect Keshet to adhere to a Modern Orthodox viewpoint, but the inclusion of the Dvar Torahs reminded me of a general critique I have of certain groups within certain denominations of Judaism: The modern, liberal interpretation of the text is given primacy over the traditional sources. I believe each should be at least equally weighted, though on an individual level, each person may choose the one they find more meaningful, because, there is something to be said for the weight of tradition - not even religiously per se, but rather, historically and culturally.
Judaism is a religion that very much values tradition: On a certain level, halacha has authority because generations of Jews have imbued it with authority. While this may seem circular, it is important to acknowledge that part of halacha's power is connecting to a community of current and past generations who have followed halacha. I believe that the communal power of halacha is recognized in the Torah, where many laws are given "because you were slaves in Egypt" - ie, as a way of connecting to the enslavement experience of one's ancestors, and where the entire nation must be present at Har Sinay, where it is the community's acceptance of the Law that binds them to it.** It is precisely because Judaism is such a communal religion that stigmatizing GLBTQ people as a community can be so devastating to them religiously, and sever their connection to Judaism. (If you do not believe me, see the ex-Chassid in "Trembling Before God".)
I guess this is just an example of how gender/GLBTQ issues often are the loci at which major hashkafic issues manifest themselves: In this case, the issue is textual authority and interpretation, but it is also a bigger issue - Do we fit the Torah into our modern lifestyle, do we fit our modern outlook into the Torah, or do we try to juggle each realm separately, and never the twain shall meet?
* Of course, I object to the very concept of judging how "Orthodox" a person is, since it violates the Pirkey Avot maxim "Do not judge a person until you come to his place" - as does judging a person's religiosity.
** This is amplified in the story of the oven of achsenay, where Rabbi Eliezer has the right ruling according to the letter of the law - a voice comes down from heaven and says so, but the rabbinic majority overules Rabbi E anyway, saying "It is not in the heavens" ie, when God gave the Torah, He imbued the rabbis with the authority to interpret the Torah the way that they wished, and exegesis and halachik rulings were passed out of God's hands and into the hands of God. In the story, God's response is to laugh, saying "My children have won", after which God does not prevent the rabbinic quorum from overuling and excommunicating Rabbi E. Interestingly, this story is often used for an ultra-conservative interpretation: The authority of traditional rabbinic authority stems from God, and they must be followed no matter what, because even if they are "wrong", they are "right", in that they were given authority to be obeyed even if they are wrong or make mistakes. On the other hand, this story can be interpreted in a very liberal way: Torah interpretation is in the hands of people and even if it is "wrong" and goes against the traditional meaning of the text, that is ok, because God gave the Jews the permission/authority to form their own interpretations, and even if those interpretations go against God's opinion, they are still valid! Either way, it is very empowering to people - the question is, which people.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Note on Terms
There are two main terms that may be unfamiliar to readers:
1. halakha -Jewish law
2. hashkafa -theology (for lack of a better term)
There are two more terms that are important, but complicated:
1. The Gay Rights Movement
2. Feminism/The Feminist Movement
Both of these terms encompass such diversity, that to reduce them to one term, "The" gay rights movement or feminist movement, is unfair, and implies at monolith that does not in fact exist. Many would argue there is no gay rights movement or feminist movement, but rather a series of gay rights/feminist movements, many of which have partial overlap in their sets of goals or their methods of agitation. In reality, I should say "certain streams within the Feminist Movement" or "certain elements within the Gay Rights Movement". When writing however, this gets redundant. Therefore, I may at times critique "the gay rights movement" or "feminism". In those times, I am only critiquing the elements of the movement to which the critique applies, not the entire movement as such. I am using a whole as a stand-in for the part - sort of the opposite of synecdoche.
I apologize in advance to any I may confuse or offend. I consider myself a part of both of these movements, and my critique is sharp precisely because I care. As children of Jewish mothers* can tell you, criticisim is a form of love.
* No, I do not actually believe in the stereotype, but it is fun to play with.
1. halakha -Jewish law
2. hashkafa -theology (for lack of a better term)
There are two more terms that are important, but complicated:
1. The Gay Rights Movement
2. Feminism/The Feminist Movement
Both of these terms encompass such diversity, that to reduce them to one term, "The" gay rights movement or feminist movement, is unfair, and implies at monolith that does not in fact exist. Many would argue there is no gay rights movement or feminist movement, but rather a series of gay rights/feminist movements, many of which have partial overlap in their sets of goals or their methods of agitation. In reality, I should say "certain streams within the Feminist Movement" or "certain elements within the Gay Rights Movement". When writing however, this gets redundant. Therefore, I may at times critique "the gay rights movement" or "feminism". In those times, I am only critiquing the elements of the movement to which the critique applies, not the entire movement as such. I am using a whole as a stand-in for the part - sort of the opposite of synecdoche.
I apologize in advance to any I may confuse or offend. I consider myself a part of both of these movements, and my critique is sharp precisely because I care. As children of Jewish mothers* can tell you, criticisim is a form of love.
* No, I do not actually believe in the stereotype, but it is fun to play with.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Biological Determinism and the Gay Rights Movement
One of the arguments advanced by the gay rights movement is that homosexuality is biologically pre-determined. This argument bothers me for a few reasons:
1. It implies that being homosexual is wrong. If it is right, then it does not matter whether or not it is biologically determined, since it would be as valid a choice as straightness.
2. This argument has an element of biological determinism in it: You are born attracted to member of the same sex, therefore you can not help but have sex with them. The fact is however, that people have freedom of choice and can overcome their biology. Sexual orientation is pre-determined, but sexual behavior is not: Both gay and straight men and women in the Catholic Church have chosen to lead lives of celibacy for religious reasons, and many, though not all, have succeeded. Their sexuality did not predetermine their actions.*
Recent studies show that pedophilia, like homo and heterosexuality, is a biologically predetermined sexual orientation. Yet we expect pedophiles to overcome their biologically instilled sexual desires, and to avoid tempting situations, because we value our children's safety over pedophiles' sexual happiness.
Of course, because sex is such a basic need, refraining from sex - no matter what one's orientation is - can be physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially destructive. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair that we as a society demmand such a sacrifice from pedophiles - I believe the answer is yes, because pedophilia can be so harmful to children, but I still think it is a question worth pondering.
3. The case of pedophilia is different, because it is (in my opinion and that of most of society) immoral, whereas homosexuality is not. Which brings me back to my first point. At the same time, the biological determinism makes this argument insulting to gay people on another level - it feeds into popular cultural motifs of gay people as being especially unable to control their sexual desires, which is why there was such a climate of fear about molestation surrounding the American Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
4. My issues with the bioligical determinism inherent in this argument are great, because I believe it is a slippery slope: As we discover that more and more of our behavior is influenced by genetics, I can envision a day in which a murderer gets away with it, because his lawyer shows results of a DNA test that verify the murderer was pre-disposed to murder (and indeed, some people are born more genetically predisposed to violence). This would be a world in which no individual is responsible for her or his actions - and it is why I advocate setting strict standards for which behavior is and is not acceptable based not on biology, but on morality. As I said previously, since I do not qualify homosexuality as immoral, I do not view this change in criteria as a threat to gay rights - the question is why the gay rights movement views it as such.
5. I do believe that sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined. But the question I would ask of the Torah regarding its ban on male anal sex is not why it mandates a biologically impossible behavior, but rather, why it mandates a behavior that, while possible, is extremely difficult, not only biologically, but also emotionally, socially, psychologically, and spirituality - a behavior that deprives people of a basic human need, a need that would not violate morality.
I do not have an answer to this question, and I believe it is an urgent question for millions of people. I am simply advocating for a reframing of the way the question is asked, one that focuses less on biology and more on morality, and the seeming immorality of asking people to give up on such an essential human pleasure.
*Yes, many within the clergy did fail, and many molested children. But the ones who succeeded are the ones who do not make the headlines - and they constitute the majority.
1. It implies that being homosexual is wrong. If it is right, then it does not matter whether or not it is biologically determined, since it would be as valid a choice as straightness.
2. This argument has an element of biological determinism in it: You are born attracted to member of the same sex, therefore you can not help but have sex with them. The fact is however, that people have freedom of choice and can overcome their biology. Sexual orientation is pre-determined, but sexual behavior is not: Both gay and straight men and women in the Catholic Church have chosen to lead lives of celibacy for religious reasons, and many, though not all, have succeeded. Their sexuality did not predetermine their actions.*
Recent studies show that pedophilia, like homo and heterosexuality, is a biologically predetermined sexual orientation. Yet we expect pedophiles to overcome their biologically instilled sexual desires, and to avoid tempting situations, because we value our children's safety over pedophiles' sexual happiness.
Of course, because sex is such a basic need, refraining from sex - no matter what one's orientation is - can be physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially destructive. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair that we as a society demmand such a sacrifice from pedophiles - I believe the answer is yes, because pedophilia can be so harmful to children, but I still think it is a question worth pondering.
3. The case of pedophilia is different, because it is (in my opinion and that of most of society) immoral, whereas homosexuality is not. Which brings me back to my first point. At the same time, the biological determinism makes this argument insulting to gay people on another level - it feeds into popular cultural motifs of gay people as being especially unable to control their sexual desires, which is why there was such a climate of fear about molestation surrounding the American Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
4. My issues with the bioligical determinism inherent in this argument are great, because I believe it is a slippery slope: As we discover that more and more of our behavior is influenced by genetics, I can envision a day in which a murderer gets away with it, because his lawyer shows results of a DNA test that verify the murderer was pre-disposed to murder (and indeed, some people are born more genetically predisposed to violence). This would be a world in which no individual is responsible for her or his actions - and it is why I advocate setting strict standards for which behavior is and is not acceptable based not on biology, but on morality. As I said previously, since I do not qualify homosexuality as immoral, I do not view this change in criteria as a threat to gay rights - the question is why the gay rights movement views it as such.
5. I do believe that sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined. But the question I would ask of the Torah regarding its ban on male anal sex is not why it mandates a biologically impossible behavior, but rather, why it mandates a behavior that, while possible, is extremely difficult, not only biologically, but also emotionally, socially, psychologically, and spirituality - a behavior that deprives people of a basic human need, a need that would not violate morality.
I do not have an answer to this question, and I believe it is an urgent question for millions of people. I am simply advocating for a reframing of the way the question is asked, one that focuses less on biology and more on morality, and the seeming immorality of asking people to give up on such an essential human pleasure.
*Yes, many within the clergy did fail, and many molested children. But the ones who succeeded are the ones who do not make the headlines - and they constitute the majority.
Why is Gender So Important, Anyway?
I have often been asked by I am so focused on gender issues. My answer is simple: 1. Gender issues are one of the foundations of a society 2. Gender issues tend to be a locus where larger hashkafic/halachic issues within Judaism manifest themselves.
1. Gender is a basic foundation of our society. We live our lives in gendered bodies: From birth, we are told we are a "boy" or a "girl", and based on which category we find ourselves in, we will be given a different set of expectations, and related to in different ways by individuals and by our society.
Imagine a world in which sex and gender were completely dissociated: You were born with a male or a female body, and there was a gender spectrum, fro R to T. These gender-poles were not associated with body-type at all. You could be a female with a T gender: agressive, sport-loving, and emotionally non-demonstrative - and it would be completely acceptable. This world would be completely different from the world that we know - and much easier for transexuals.
Related to gender is the issue of family: Because sex is a basic human need, the social rules governing sexual relationships are an important component of society. Marx understood the family unit to be an essential element of capitalism that would become null and void under the Communist model of free property, but most Communist societies found the family unit too entrenched to be destroyed. The family unit also shapes people's childhoods, since they usually spend it in their family unit. The psychological importance of childhood extends into adulthood and continues throughout one's life. Aldous Huxley understood the importance of sex and family units to our current society, which is why the revolution of sex and family was a basic foundation of the new society portrayed in "Brave New World".
As a feminist, I also believe that patriarchy is one of the foundations of Western society, and any attack on the patriarchy threatens that society as a whole. This is why attacks on sexual morales and gender norms have been met with such vehemence throughout Western history, and why such a concentrated effort has been made to protect the family unit and women's roles within the gender heirarchy.
2. It is precisely because of the importance of gender issues to any society - especially Western society - that gender and sexuality become the loci in which many hashkafic and halachik issues play themselves out: How to confront and relate to modernity, the extent of halachik flexibility, the extent of rabbinic authority and the role of traditional texts, what are "Jewish values" - all of these issues come into play, making gender and sexuality important test cases and thought experiments for Modern Orthodox Judaism.
Writing this post fills me with a desire to re-read Tamar Ross's "Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism". It is a brilliant explanation of the complex challenge that feminism poses for Orthodox Judaism, as well as an exploration of how this challenge might be met. It has been branded as heresy by some, but I believe that even those who disagree with it will benefit from the reading.
1. Gender is a basic foundation of our society. We live our lives in gendered bodies: From birth, we are told we are a "boy" or a "girl", and based on which category we find ourselves in, we will be given a different set of expectations, and related to in different ways by individuals and by our society.
Imagine a world in which sex and gender were completely dissociated: You were born with a male or a female body, and there was a gender spectrum, fro R to T. These gender-poles were not associated with body-type at all. You could be a female with a T gender: agressive, sport-loving, and emotionally non-demonstrative - and it would be completely acceptable. This world would be completely different from the world that we know - and much easier for transexuals.
Related to gender is the issue of family: Because sex is a basic human need, the social rules governing sexual relationships are an important component of society. Marx understood the family unit to be an essential element of capitalism that would become null and void under the Communist model of free property, but most Communist societies found the family unit too entrenched to be destroyed. The family unit also shapes people's childhoods, since they usually spend it in their family unit. The psychological importance of childhood extends into adulthood and continues throughout one's life. Aldous Huxley understood the importance of sex and family units to our current society, which is why the revolution of sex and family was a basic foundation of the new society portrayed in "Brave New World".
As a feminist, I also believe that patriarchy is one of the foundations of Western society, and any attack on the patriarchy threatens that society as a whole. This is why attacks on sexual morales and gender norms have been met with such vehemence throughout Western history, and why such a concentrated effort has been made to protect the family unit and women's roles within the gender heirarchy.
2. It is precisely because of the importance of gender issues to any society - especially Western society - that gender and sexuality become the loci in which many hashkafic and halachik issues play themselves out: How to confront and relate to modernity, the extent of halachik flexibility, the extent of rabbinic authority and the role of traditional texts, what are "Jewish values" - all of these issues come into play, making gender and sexuality important test cases and thought experiments for Modern Orthodox Judaism.
Writing this post fills me with a desire to re-read Tamar Ross's "Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism". It is a brilliant explanation of the complex challenge that feminism poses for Orthodox Judaism, as well as an exploration of how this challenge might be met. It has been branded as heresy by some, but I believe that even those who disagree with it will benefit from the reading.
The Ant-Bra Rant
Easy access is not the only reason not to wear bras.* Recent preliminary findings show that there may be a link between wearing a bra on a regular basis and an increase in chances of getting breast-cancer. This evidence is explored in the book, "Dressed To Kill" by Sydney Ross Singer and Sonja Grismaijer - which I have not read. While the evidence is not conclusive, the bra industry is so big, that I do not take the FDA's lack of concern as proof of bras' harmlesness, since the FDA is very much under the thumb of corporate influence.
Interestingly, the study does not draw a distininction between different types of bras, but intuitively, it makes sense that more comfortable bras, such as sports-bras or plain cotton underwires (granny bras), are less harmful than fashionable bras such as push-ups and lace monstrocities. The study pointed out tightness as a major factor for breast-harming, and said that while untested, super-tight clothing might also be suspect - which puts a new spin on tzniut.
Breast pain and bra-wearing have been definitevely linked, though again, these studies fail to distinguish between different types of bras, and the granny-bra/lacey-bra dichotomy could prove crucial.
In any event, all of these studies call into question while we as a society advocate wearing bras, and the answer is simple: To conform to our conception of female beauty, a conception that is reinforced by the media. Different societies have different ideals of what a beautiful pair of breasts should look like, though the Western society ideal is spreading thanks to globalization. The point is, that the bra-requiring ideal of breast beauty is not objective or universal, and should not be treated as such.
What is universal, is a desire for symmetry in a female, since symetry predicts fertility - yet ironically, in the West we have adopted an ideal of beauty so skinny, that it probably lessens fertility.
So ladies, let loose: I challenge you to go without a bra for a day and see how it feels. The idea may seem scary at first, but just think about how sexy Giselle Bundchen is in a Victoria's Secret bra - now think how much sexier she is without the bra!
If you want to be free but subtle, I recommend layering: a sweater, and a shawl over a shirt/dress, or a tank-top/tee-shirt over it work pretty well.
Turns out those bra-burners might have been right after all.
* Lovely date moment: "You don't wear bras - that's so cool!" Me (I thought this but was too polite to say it): "I don't wear bras because I'm a feminist you ****!" Clearly, this was an ill-fated romance.
Interestingly, the study does not draw a distininction between different types of bras, but intuitively, it makes sense that more comfortable bras, such as sports-bras or plain cotton underwires (granny bras), are less harmful than fashionable bras such as push-ups and lace monstrocities. The study pointed out tightness as a major factor for breast-harming, and said that while untested, super-tight clothing might also be suspect - which puts a new spin on tzniut.
Breast pain and bra-wearing have been definitevely linked, though again, these studies fail to distinguish between different types of bras, and the granny-bra/lacey-bra dichotomy could prove crucial.
In any event, all of these studies call into question while we as a society advocate wearing bras, and the answer is simple: To conform to our conception of female beauty, a conception that is reinforced by the media. Different societies have different ideals of what a beautiful pair of breasts should look like, though the Western society ideal is spreading thanks to globalization. The point is, that the bra-requiring ideal of breast beauty is not objective or universal, and should not be treated as such.
What is universal, is a desire for symmetry in a female, since symetry predicts fertility - yet ironically, in the West we have adopted an ideal of beauty so skinny, that it probably lessens fertility.
So ladies, let loose: I challenge you to go without a bra for a day and see how it feels. The idea may seem scary at first, but just think about how sexy Giselle Bundchen is in a Victoria's Secret bra - now think how much sexier she is without the bra!
If you want to be free but subtle, I recommend layering: a sweater, and a shawl over a shirt/dress, or a tank-top/tee-shirt over it work pretty well.
Turns out those bra-burners might have been right after all.
* Lovely date moment: "You don't wear bras - that's so cool!" Me (I thought this but was too polite to say it): "I don't wear bras because I'm a feminist you ****!" Clearly, this was an ill-fated romance.
Nidah, Feminism, and The Menstrual Taboo of (Post-)Modern Society
I have recently been watching a Mechon Hadar series on Nidah, taught by Rabbi Ethan Tucker*. One of the themes that keeps popping up, is that in antiquity, men knew when women had their periods. Furthermore, in pre-diaspora Jewish society, not only did people know when one had her period or irregular bleeding, they also knew when different men had different types of seminal emissions, which, like female bleeding, require immersion in a mikvah before one can engage in taharah.
I find this very interesting. The typical (post)modern narrative of Nidah goes as follows: Those primitive people had menstrual taboos. I would like to posit however, that there was not a taboo specifically around menstruating women in ancient Israelite society, rather; there was a taboo about a variety of bodily fluids from both males and females, primarily fluids related to sex. Two possible theories for this taboo are: 1. Judaism is a religion of life, the bodily fluids that have taboos associated with them are all loss of potential life. That contact with a corpse or even in some cases, dead insects, constitutes tumah, is evidence for the loss-of-life=tumah theory. 2. A recognition of the sexual nature of said substances, which responds by forcing the individual to abstain from taharah in order to have time to ponder their sexuality. Sex can be a distraction from focusing on God, but people can't not think about sex, so simply create time-spaces for each type of thought: thoughts about God, and thoughts about sex. This is analogous to two things: 1. Giving the metzorah time to ponder their actions by sending them outside the camp. The metzorah too, is tameh and must immerse to become tahor 2. Shabbat, which** is about creating a (sanctified) space within time. The second theory is much more interesting in light of idol worship cults that used sex in the sanctuary, whereas Judaism is drawing a clear geographic and space boundary within the two (the tameh is not allowed within certain geographic places deemed holy, and then there is the time-space of abstention from holy activity), while emphasizing the holiness of sex within the home, the mikdash meat, and of course, because marriage is kidushin, which comes from the same root as the word "kadosh"***. So there is the paradox of sex as holy and uplifting - but only within the home, and to be separated from places of worship, whereas you would expect something holy and uplifting to be encouraged in places of worship.
Anyhow, back to Niddah: The very publicity of one's Niddah status that the rules of Niddah necessitated during the times of the temple, mean that periods can not have been taboo. The entire concept of taboo is something one can not talk about, something shameful. But in the times of the temple, periods and seminal emissions were public knowledge, openly talked about, and because everyone knew when you had your period or when you had seminal emissions, there could not have been shame associated with it - because just like your neighbor knows what happened to you last night, you know what happened to your neighbor last week. Usually, shame comes from fear of disclosure, because your behavior is considered not normal - but if everyone does something, or has a certain bodily state, and everyone knows about it, then by nature it can not be shameful.
By contrast, in our society, there is a menstrual taboo: Having one's period is not considered shameful per se, but it is certainly considered unattractive/unsexy, and it would not be considered appropriate to say "I have my period today" to a mere acquaintance, especially in a professional setting, the way that it would be considered appropriate to say, "I have a headache." If one has terrible menstrual cramps, one could not email a professor to say one will be absent, the way one could if one had a stomach viruses.
The very message of the pad/tampon industry is, "A woman must hide that she has her period in order to function in society during that time. A woman must hide her menstruation in order to appear sexy. Look how well we can help you hide the fact that you have your period. Buy our product!'
The second part of this equation is that women are expected to function normally when they have their period. Part of this is due to modern medical science, which has medicine women can take when they have their period to mitigate physically limiting or uncomfortable side effects of menses. Part of it is that women have had to prove to a patriarchal society that they can function as well as men in order to gain equal rights****, especially in the areas of education and employment. Women already have to deal with fears that they are less productive than men because they may be incapacitated for a few weeks if they choose to have a child; imagine if they also had to deal with fears that they would be less productive a few days of every month, whether or not they choose to have a child.
As a feminist however, I wonder: Does equality mean treating women as if they did not have periods ie were the same as men, or does it mean acknowledging that women have periods, that even with modern medicine, there may be days when a woman is not feeling well due to her period, and should that be as legitimate an excuse to take off from work as a migraine - assuming the woman already tried anti-menstrual sympotms medicine and it failed, and the symptoms were bad? I feel that at the very least we should live in a world where it is acceptable to talk about periods, where there is no more stigma attached to the sentence "I have my period" than there is to "I have a headache."
Some feminists will say that women can not afford to acknowledge the potentialy physically limiting factor of periods, because it will set back the struggle to equal rights. But then, why acknowledge the potentially physically limiting factor of childbirth, which also sets back the struggle, since a man who chooses to become a father does not have to take time off from work (but perhaps, should have the right to do so.) I think in general, feminism, in its struggle to prove that women are equal to men, has forgotten that a woman's body is different, in terms of menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation, and that a major stumbling block to equality in the workforce is lack of legal accomodations for those diffferences - the US does not even have mandatory maternity leave. That is a huge issue for women who want to have children, and it is discriminatory in that a man wanting to have children does not face the possibility of being laid off for needing time to physically recuperate from the biological ramifications of his fathering offspring.
As a matter of fact, I protest to the very concept of having to prove that I as a woman am equal to a man. In proving myself to patriarchal society, I acquiesce to that society's right to demmand proof, and recognize the validity of the assumption I am trying to disprove. True feminism must seek an overhaul of the entire power structure, as opposed to trying to change the position of women within a pre-existing patriarchal framework.
Lastly, for those who may think menstrual taboos have vanished: I can not tell you the number of times I heard (mostly) males make jokes about how if Hillary Clinton became president, she could screw up America's diplomatic ties with certain countries, because if she was in a diplomatic meeting and had PMS - bam! There went America's good relationship with whatever country the poor unfortunate diplomate who had to endure her PMS belonged to. What I find especially interesting is that no one ever suggests that male presidents might make diplomatic concessions to countries represented by hot women, even though our society has this concept that when a man sees a beautiful woman his tongue falls out, and he loses the power to say no to anything she says. If you wonder why I am not mentioning men falling for beautiful men, the answer is that I would not expect society to discuss that, because society is heteronormative.
*http://www.mechonhadar.org/yeshiva-courses
** I think this might be according to Rabbi Heschel, and remember learning about it in Ms. R. Weinstein's 12th grade Tanach class.
*** same root as kedesha, prostitute. Also, Rashi on "kedoshim tihiyu" - "prushim tihiyu" - kadosh has a sense of being set apart. The Jews are set apart for God, the wife and husband are set apart for each other. The kedesha is set aside for sexual functions - this word might also be connected to cultic prostitution.
**** And society has a long way to go before full equality is achieved.
Another Link
For some reason this did not go through in the other post:
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/search/label/Gay
It is a transcript of the famous Yeshiva University Panel on Homosexuality and the Orthodox World.
In general, the curiousjew blog is fascinating, thoughtful, and well-written - definitely worth reading.
http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/search/label/Gay
It is a transcript of the famous Yeshiva University Panel on Homosexuality and the Orthodox World.
In general, the curiousjew blog is fascinating, thoughtful, and well-written - definitely worth reading.
Useful Links
GLBTQ
This article, from Mosaic, sums up the Consertaive Movement's stance on GLBTQ issues, including same-sex marriage and AiDS: http://www.jewishmosaic.org/page/load_page/51
This is the homepage of Jewish Mosaic, the national center for sexual and gender diversity: http://www.jewishmosaic.org/
This is a collection of Jewish texts related to issues of gender and transgender, from Mosaic: http://www.jewishmosaic.org/verses/about
"Statement of Principles on the Place of Jews with a Homosexual Orientation in Our Community", from (mostly Modern) Orthodox rabbis:
http://statementofprinciplesnya.blogspot.com/
Interview with Miryam Kabakov author of a book about Orthodox lesbians: http://www.forward.com/articles/129411/
Article about virtual community for Orthodox gay men: http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=204083
Blog from Ely Winkler, a gay Orthodox Jew, and how he deals with "those two seemingly conflicting identities": http://anotherfrumgayjew.blogspot.com/2010/04/martyrdom.html
A forum for Orthodox gay people and their allies:
http://kirtzono.blogspot.com/2008/05/vahavta-lereacha-kamocha.html
An article against sexuality-change therapy: http://notwhileiamaround.blogspot.com/2010/01/wait-whos-one-with-agenda-again.html
Jewish Queer Youth: http://www.jqyouth.org/index.html Their website includes a resources page with recommended books, and a page with links to other useful website.
Tirtzah: A Community for Frum Queer Women http://tirtzah.wordpress.com/
Resources for Orthodox gay people, home of GLYDSA, the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Dayschool Alumni Association, which meets the fourth Thursday of each month in Manhattan, at the Lesbian and Gay Community Services Center, 208 W 13th St, btw 7th and 8th ave., 8:00-10:00 PM. http://www.orthogays.org/
Responsa from the Conservative Movement about the Status of Transexuals: http://www.jewishmosaic.org/resources/show_resource/35
Conservative Responsa about Homosexuality: http://www.jewishmosaic.org/resources/show_resource/24
A brilliant article by Reen Zeidman about lesbianism in traditional Jewish texts, especially notable for its great footnotes: http://wjudaism.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/165/211
A Jewish Community Pledge against homophobia: http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1285/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=2580&tag=bjcong
Jerusalem Open House: LGBT center in Jerusalem: http://joh.org.il/index.php/english
Eshel, a community for "Orthodox, frum, and other traditional gay and lesbian Jews seeking to maintain their Jewish observance and find meaningful religious community. We also welcome all those who are formerly Orthodox, “Orthodox-curious,” or otherwise interested in maintaining a connection to traditional Judaism as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender Jews." They have retreats and shabbatons. http://www.eshelonline.org/
Nehirim: Jewish Culture and Spirituality for GLBTQ Jews. They have retreats and shabbatons. http://www.nehirim.org/
Feminism
An interessino article about Jewish Feminism: http://www.crosscurrents.org/Adlerwinter2002.htm
Jewish Women's Archive: http://jwa.org/feminism/_html/2_03_00.htm
Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance: http://www.jofa.org/
Drisha Institute for Jewish Education: http://www.drisha.org/
Yeshivat Maharat: http://yeshivatmaharat.org/
Half the Sky movement, started by Nicholas Kristoff to help women globally: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
General
The Yeshiva University Tolerance Club: http://toleranceoncampus.blogspot.com/
Uri Litzedek, Orthodox Social Justice: http://www.utzedek.org/
Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network: http://www.rainn.org/
Yeshiva Chovevey Torah: http://www.yctorah.org/
Judeo-Christian Values
I hate that phrase. I mean, there are many common values held by both religions, but many of the good values originated in the old testament, ie judaism, while many concepts that bother me are to be found in christianity only, and its assumed that they appear in judaism as well.
ex: The concept of sex as original sin, therefore sinful, and women are sinful because of their lust. According to judaism, sex is not a sin and originated before Eve ate from the tree. (see rashi on "vihadam yada") God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply, and sex in the context of marriage is holy, even when the woman is post-menopausal or infertile for other reasons. A man is obligated to satisfy his wife's sexual needs, and his failure to do so is considered legitimate grounds for her to divorce him. Thus, sex as original sin, while thought to be judeo-christian, is certainly not jewish. I don't know about christianity enough to comment on its place there. I do know that the concept has long been used for the opression of women and repression of their sexual desires, esp in the middle ages.
What got me thinking about this, oddly enough, were the Chronicles of Narnia - is anyone else bothered by the last chapter of "the Last Crusade"? (not to mention the title)
ex: The concept of sex as original sin, therefore sinful, and women are sinful because of their lust. According to judaism, sex is not a sin and originated before Eve ate from the tree. (see rashi on "vihadam yada") God commanded man to be fruitful and multiply, and sex in the context of marriage is holy, even when the woman is post-menopausal or infertile for other reasons. A man is obligated to satisfy his wife's sexual needs, and his failure to do so is considered legitimate grounds for her to divorce him. Thus, sex as original sin, while thought to be judeo-christian, is certainly not jewish. I don't know about christianity enough to comment on its place there. I do know that the concept has long been used for the opression of women and repression of their sexual desires, esp in the middle ages.
What got me thinking about this, oddly enough, were the Chronicles of Narnia - is anyone else bothered by the last chapter of "the Last Crusade"? (not to mention the title)
Orthodox Judaism: The Flipside of the Coin
I often think of my position in orthodox society as an Orthodox Jewish woman: My love of my religion often conflicts with my feelings as a modern woman who is a product of the feminist revolution.
Today however, I thought about the other side of the coin: How does it feel to be an Orthodox Jewish man? The token feminist anwser of course, would deal with the subconcious internalization of man's dominant position, and the viewing of this position as normal.
But I don't want to settle for that anwser, because I'm not sure that its right, and even if it is right, it is only part of the story. How would I view it if I were obligated to attend minyan three times a day, to encase myself in phylacteries, to spend time studying Torah, to volunteer to be the shaliach tzibur if no one else was available, unable to leave for class in the middle of shacarit because my doing so would prevent someone from saying kaddish?
I probably would resent it, and maybe even grow jealous of women, who don't have all of those cumbersome obligations. So not only would I not understand how a woman could actually complain about being counted for a minyan, I would wish that I were not counted, and not understand how she fails to appreciate her luck and her freedom.
Of course, I am not an Orthodox Jewish man, and these speculations of mine could be totally off, but I think that women must recognize that while desire to grow closer to God may lead to desire for more religious obligations and rights within the Jewish community, our position may not be as disadvantegous as it seems.
(Especially if one buys into the apologist theories that a: Women are gifted with a higher spiritual intuition which allows them to connect more directly to God, without the medium of certain mitzvot that are necessary to men, who are on a lower spiritual level and thus need those mitzvot to guide them b: Women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot, because those mitzvot are supposed to remind one of the importance of time, the ephemarality of life, and dedicating time to God, and women, due to their natural cycles, are more in-tune to the passage of/preciousness of time than men.)
Today however, I thought about the other side of the coin: How does it feel to be an Orthodox Jewish man? The token feminist anwser of course, would deal with the subconcious internalization of man's dominant position, and the viewing of this position as normal.
But I don't want to settle for that anwser, because I'm not sure that its right, and even if it is right, it is only part of the story. How would I view it if I were obligated to attend minyan three times a day, to encase myself in phylacteries, to spend time studying Torah, to volunteer to be the shaliach tzibur if no one else was available, unable to leave for class in the middle of shacarit because my doing so would prevent someone from saying kaddish?
I probably would resent it, and maybe even grow jealous of women, who don't have all of those cumbersome obligations. So not only would I not understand how a woman could actually complain about being counted for a minyan, I would wish that I were not counted, and not understand how she fails to appreciate her luck and her freedom.
Of course, I am not an Orthodox Jewish man, and these speculations of mine could be totally off, but I think that women must recognize that while desire to grow closer to God may lead to desire for more religious obligations and rights within the Jewish community, our position may not be as disadvantegous as it seems.
(Especially if one buys into the apologist theories that a: Women are gifted with a higher spiritual intuition which allows them to connect more directly to God, without the medium of certain mitzvot that are necessary to men, who are on a lower spiritual level and thus need those mitzvot to guide them b: Women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot, because those mitzvot are supposed to remind one of the importance of time, the ephemarality of life, and dedicating time to God, and women, due to their natural cycles, are more in-tune to the passage of/preciousness of time than men.)
3 Types of Feminism
Ok, so I was talking to a friend, and we were joking about a points system for feminism, how if you like cooking, its minus one, if you hate vacuming, its plus one, etc. But then, in the middle of working on the Dostoevsky paper that I seem to be constantly in the middle of writing, I started wondering: Is this what feminism should mean? Why should it be considered anti-feminist to like cooking? I confess: I love cooking, and I love feeding people, and I don't mind doing laundry, and I find something comforting about handwashing dishes. (Machines, while more efficient, don't have the soothing power of water running over your hands as you scrub.) I also like kids, I enjoy babysitting, and I plan on one day marrying and having kids, beezrat Hashem. (Yes, the secret is out - I clearly don't hate men as much as I pretend to.)
So what should feminism be about?I think that there are three tracks:
1. A woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to have a career. A woman should have the right to inherit roles not typically associated with women, and society should redefine its method of role association - 'CEO" should not automatically conjure up images of men in black suits. Also, it is ok for a man to like cooking, and depending on family's situations, a more equitable of distribution of household chores and childrearing obligations should be arranged. The onus of obligations associated with wife-hood should not fall automatically upon the woman, nor should the onus of obligations associated with husbandhood fall automatically upon the husband. Each couple should have the freedom they need to figure out what works best for them.
2. At the same time, society must learn how to respect women for who they are and de-objectify their bodies. Unfortunately, society seems to be headed in the opposite direction, and objectifying the bodies of men in some sort of misguided road towards equality, but the hyper-sexualization of society ultimately disadvantages both genders. Also, let's get rid of the myth of sexual liberation: Women in secular society can now engage in pre-marital sex without shame, but more often than not, this is simply an excuse for men to take advantage of women. Studies show that women are more likely than men to develop emotional attachments to people they're physically intimate with. Furthermore, secular society often puts reverse pressure on women: If they want to wait until they are in a committed relationship, then they are prudes or old-fashioned. Thus, the sexual revolution has merely brought about more opression of women.
3. I beleive that gender stereotypes become self-fulfilling prophecies: Women, from an early age, are taught that as women they are (fill in the blank) thus they become (fill in the blank), beleiving that they have no option, and internalizing the stereotypes subconciously, so that they do not even realize that they have the ability to be people who do not conform to those stereotypes. I beleive most of the differences in gender roles/behaviors can be interpereted this way, and society must now engage in a process to socialize women and men in a gender-stereotype-free enviroment. I do beleive however, that there are some natural differences that can not be combatted, that are biological - and that is ok. Different does not mean worse, and by implying that being different from men is bad, we are elevating men and demeaning women, thus going against what feminism stands for: Why should it be bad to be different from men - are they really that worthy of emulation? We should be proud of our womanhood. (which does not mean liking domestic chores - women are entitled to hate cooking and cleaning, etc.)
To sum up, both feminsim and society seem to have taken turns in the wrong direction, and we need to take a step back, see where the turn was made, and forge a new path. (sorry about the cliche - i have to get back to my paper, and have no time to search for words that are creative enough to not make me cringe)
So what should feminism be about?I think that there are three tracks:
1. A woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to have a career. A woman should have the right to inherit roles not typically associated with women, and society should redefine its method of role association - 'CEO" should not automatically conjure up images of men in black suits. Also, it is ok for a man to like cooking, and depending on family's situations, a more equitable of distribution of household chores and childrearing obligations should be arranged. The onus of obligations associated with wife-hood should not fall automatically upon the woman, nor should the onus of obligations associated with husbandhood fall automatically upon the husband. Each couple should have the freedom they need to figure out what works best for them.
2. At the same time, society must learn how to respect women for who they are and de-objectify their bodies. Unfortunately, society seems to be headed in the opposite direction, and objectifying the bodies of men in some sort of misguided road towards equality, but the hyper-sexualization of society ultimately disadvantages both genders. Also, let's get rid of the myth of sexual liberation: Women in secular society can now engage in pre-marital sex without shame, but more often than not, this is simply an excuse for men to take advantage of women. Studies show that women are more likely than men to develop emotional attachments to people they're physically intimate with. Furthermore, secular society often puts reverse pressure on women: If they want to wait until they are in a committed relationship, then they are prudes or old-fashioned. Thus, the sexual revolution has merely brought about more opression of women.
3. I beleive that gender stereotypes become self-fulfilling prophecies: Women, from an early age, are taught that as women they are (fill in the blank) thus they become (fill in the blank), beleiving that they have no option, and internalizing the stereotypes subconciously, so that they do not even realize that they have the ability to be people who do not conform to those stereotypes. I beleive most of the differences in gender roles/behaviors can be interpereted this way, and society must now engage in a process to socialize women and men in a gender-stereotype-free enviroment. I do beleive however, that there are some natural differences that can not be combatted, that are biological - and that is ok. Different does not mean worse, and by implying that being different from men is bad, we are elevating men and demeaning women, thus going against what feminism stands for: Why should it be bad to be different from men - are they really that worthy of emulation? We should be proud of our womanhood. (which does not mean liking domestic chores - women are entitled to hate cooking and cleaning, etc.)
To sum up, both feminsim and society seem to have taken turns in the wrong direction, and we need to take a step back, see where the turn was made, and forge a new path. (sorry about the cliche - i have to get back to my paper, and have no time to search for words that are creative enough to not make me cringe)
On Being Shomeret Derech Chibah
I wrote this a while ago, but am posting it because I think what I was feeling when I wrote it is something many shomer/et people go through:
Tonight, my roommates went to a frat party. Looking at their flushed faces and hearing their laughs, as they sat there discussing what a good time they'd had grinding and looking beautiful, a part of me wished I'd gone with them. I found myself longing to sit there, laughing, knowing I looked beautiful, and had just unleashed my sexual energy in the non-harmful, risk-of-std-free form of grinding.
But then I thought of the emptiness of it all; I thought of parties in highschool, which I would go to about once a year, when being shomeret finally got on my nerves. I would show up, dance, but not grind, or grind on girls, (to be more halachikly correct) and leave feeling great. I'd wake up the next morning, and feel like a slut - but a happy slut. And I would have the renewed strength to be shomeret for another year.
I could have gone tonight - no one in the Jewish community had to know. I probably could have kept my non-slut reputation. But I chose not to: Why?
It has taken me so long to be comfortable with my decision to be shomeret derech chiba. At one point in my life, I used to always diet and dress up in order to convince myself that I was shomeret by choice, and not by necessity, because I was undesirable to men. Now I am more confident, but being shomeret is still difficult. I think that it, along with kibud av vaem, is my hardest nisayon.
I thought tonight, how maybe it was better for me to close myself off from being exposed to such a sexually licentatious society - but doesn't that mean cutting myself off from a part of myself, ignoring my own sexuality? It would be easier to go to immerse myself in Orthodox, sexually repressed society, but I don't want to do that, both because I generally disapprove of repression, and because I believe that sexuality can be something beautiful.
I am not sure what the point of this rant is: I am shomeret derech chiba, and although I find it frustrating, I do believe that it is worth it. But I also believe that the frustration is something that many shomer/shomeret (derech chiba or in general) people feel, and it is an issue that needs to be discussed. Unfortunately, sexuality is something not really so socially acceptable to talk about in Orthodox circles. It is true that such discussions can often degenerate into verbal smut, but there is a way to balance being open with not being completely dirty. Isn't there?
Tonight, my roommates went to a frat party. Looking at their flushed faces and hearing their laughs, as they sat there discussing what a good time they'd had grinding and looking beautiful, a part of me wished I'd gone with them. I found myself longing to sit there, laughing, knowing I looked beautiful, and had just unleashed my sexual energy in the non-harmful, risk-of-std-free form of grinding.
But then I thought of the emptiness of it all; I thought of parties in highschool, which I would go to about once a year, when being shomeret finally got on my nerves. I would show up, dance, but not grind, or grind on girls, (to be more halachikly correct) and leave feeling great. I'd wake up the next morning, and feel like a slut - but a happy slut. And I would have the renewed strength to be shomeret for another year.
I could have gone tonight - no one in the Jewish community had to know. I probably could have kept my non-slut reputation. But I chose not to: Why?
It has taken me so long to be comfortable with my decision to be shomeret derech chiba. At one point in my life, I used to always diet and dress up in order to convince myself that I was shomeret by choice, and not by necessity, because I was undesirable to men. Now I am more confident, but being shomeret is still difficult. I think that it, along with kibud av vaem, is my hardest nisayon.
I thought tonight, how maybe it was better for me to close myself off from being exposed to such a sexually licentatious society - but doesn't that mean cutting myself off from a part of myself, ignoring my own sexuality? It would be easier to go to immerse myself in Orthodox, sexually repressed society, but I don't want to do that, both because I generally disapprove of repression, and because I believe that sexuality can be something beautiful.
I am not sure what the point of this rant is: I am shomeret derech chiba, and although I find it frustrating, I do believe that it is worth it. But I also believe that the frustration is something that many shomer/shomeret (derech chiba or in general) people feel, and it is an issue that needs to be discussed. Unfortunately, sexuality is something not really so socially acceptable to talk about in Orthodox circles. It is true that such discussions can often degenerate into verbal smut, but there is a way to balance being open with not being completely dirty. Isn't there?
Alpha Phi Self-Challenge (FYI: Alpha Phi is a sorority.)
While surfing facebook at 3 am this morning, in a futile effort to distract myself from mounds of unfinished homework, fully aware that studying Ramban would have been a better form of procrastination, I stumbled across an event called "Alpha Phi Challenge".
I was very excited - could it be that a sorority was challenging women to become better human beings, to grow, to set high goals and work towards the attainment of those goals? With excitement and trepidation, I clicked on "See details". It was a weight-loss plan for how to get in shape for spring, because "everyone can use a little motivation". The disappointment was keen. As my inner feminist cried, I tried desperately to immerse myself in my schoolwork, so as to distract myself from this blatant desecration of my values, and the values of all people who are fighting against mass-media's pressure on women to be skinny.
But ultimately, women need not just better body images, but better self images. They need to realize that they deserve to be loved for who they are as human beings, not for the shape of their buttocks. (or breasts, or whatever body part you wish to choose - personally, I prefer thighs... notice how this makes women seem like chickens? Maybe there's a reason that French word for slut is "pullet", which means chicken... or maybe they were called pullets because they did the chicken dance to attract customers - I hear that when done properly it can be quite attractive.)
Anyhow, I shall stop now before I lose myself in a web of unhumorous jokes and vague literary allusions, but I wish you a beautiful day - or a beauty-filled day.
I was very excited - could it be that a sorority was challenging women to become better human beings, to grow, to set high goals and work towards the attainment of those goals? With excitement and trepidation, I clicked on "See details". It was a weight-loss plan for how to get in shape for spring, because "everyone can use a little motivation". The disappointment was keen. As my inner feminist cried, I tried desperately to immerse myself in my schoolwork, so as to distract myself from this blatant desecration of my values, and the values of all people who are fighting against mass-media's pressure on women to be skinny.
But ultimately, women need not just better body images, but better self images. They need to realize that they deserve to be loved for who they are as human beings, not for the shape of their buttocks. (or breasts, or whatever body part you wish to choose - personally, I prefer thighs... notice how this makes women seem like chickens? Maybe there's a reason that French word for slut is "pullet", which means chicken... or maybe they were called pullets because they did the chicken dance to attract customers - I hear that when done properly it can be quite attractive.)
Anyhow, I shall stop now before I lose myself in a web of unhumorous jokes and vague literary allusions, but I wish you a beautiful day - or a beauty-filled day.
Post-Midnight Musings: Words, Rain, & Torah.
Recently I have been thinking about the power of words. I have cursed three times in the past three days - not something I usually do. I grew up surrounded by curses, and weaned myself off of them slowly. Every rare occasion that I do curse, I am reminded why: Cursing is a way of escaping the need to articulate to ourselves and to others.
I can say “F U” instead of “You didn’t value me as a friend, and that hurt me.” That way, I am not articulating my pain, and so I am evading having my pain devalued by you. But then there comes the point where, instead of thinking one thing to myself and saying aloud another, I am unable to articulate to myself what is bothering me, but merely think, “F him” without being conscious of exactly why I am upset or what is upsetting me.
I thought also, of the power of other words: The words of davening, because my admittedly unfocused davening and the hours I spent reading “The Charterhouse of Parma”, by Stendhal, were really the most productive parts of my day. The time I spend poring over my textbook leaves me feeling so unaccomplished, even though technically it is essential to my future career, whatever that may be. Isn’t college supposed to be about education? Shouldn’t I at least feel that I am learning something by studying for finals?
The only answer is the patter of the rain moistening the leaves of trees. There is something comforting about the beauty of rain. Ma rabu maasechah Hashem.* There is something comforting about knowing that God is thinking of this particular spot of the universe, this corner of Baltimore, and showering rain upon it.
Rain is slightly scary in its beauty; it is essential for life, but it also has the power to kill. So inevitably I am reminded that chazal often compared Torah to water. Like water, Torah is essential for life. But like water, Torah has the power to kill. In a literal sense, it perscribes death penalties, but that is not its only danger: The gemarah tells a story of a rabbi whose learning was so fierce that birds above him would spontaneously burst into flame.
How can Torah, something so good, have the potential for destruction? Torah is the most powerfull tool given to human beings to carry out the purpose of creation. When that tool is misused, the havoc it can wreak is inestimable. When we do things in the name of Torah that are antithetical to its values, or use Torah for our own ego instead of lishem shamayim*, the consequences can be catastrophic.
But why give us a tool that can be used both ways? Because God gave us freedom of choice. Each one of us is given a life, and we can use that life to help build the world or destroy it. That is the beauty of the human condition, and that is the beauty of our world: That in every flaw, there is the potential for growth - there is nothing in the world we can’t change. Even physical circumstances can be advance through science, and environmental issues can be fixed if humans so desire.
These changes however, can only be succesful when God wishes to grant them success; the message of bringing bikurim on shavuot is that we can’t say “kochi viotzem yadi", our own strength and mighty hands did this. Rather, we must recognize that our success is like fruit: The work of the farmer is essential, but it is up to God to allow the rains to come in their proper time, and the fruit to blossom.
May the rain of Torah shower upon us, and may we blossom to be fruits of the etz chayim, and be truly semechim beyeshuat Hashem.*
* Ma rabu...How great are your works, Hashem.
* lishem shamayim - for the sake of heaven
*tree of life...truly happy in/with God's redemption
I can say “F U” instead of “You didn’t value me as a friend, and that hurt me.” That way, I am not articulating my pain, and so I am evading having my pain devalued by you. But then there comes the point where, instead of thinking one thing to myself and saying aloud another, I am unable to articulate to myself what is bothering me, but merely think, “F him” without being conscious of exactly why I am upset or what is upsetting me.
I thought also, of the power of other words: The words of davening, because my admittedly unfocused davening and the hours I spent reading “The Charterhouse of Parma”, by Stendhal, were really the most productive parts of my day. The time I spend poring over my textbook leaves me feeling so unaccomplished, even though technically it is essential to my future career, whatever that may be. Isn’t college supposed to be about education? Shouldn’t I at least feel that I am learning something by studying for finals?
The only answer is the patter of the rain moistening the leaves of trees. There is something comforting about the beauty of rain. Ma rabu maasechah Hashem.* There is something comforting about knowing that God is thinking of this particular spot of the universe, this corner of Baltimore, and showering rain upon it.
Rain is slightly scary in its beauty; it is essential for life, but it also has the power to kill. So inevitably I am reminded that chazal often compared Torah to water. Like water, Torah is essential for life. But like water, Torah has the power to kill. In a literal sense, it perscribes death penalties, but that is not its only danger: The gemarah tells a story of a rabbi whose learning was so fierce that birds above him would spontaneously burst into flame.
How can Torah, something so good, have the potential for destruction? Torah is the most powerfull tool given to human beings to carry out the purpose of creation. When that tool is misused, the havoc it can wreak is inestimable. When we do things in the name of Torah that are antithetical to its values, or use Torah for our own ego instead of lishem shamayim*, the consequences can be catastrophic.
But why give us a tool that can be used both ways? Because God gave us freedom of choice. Each one of us is given a life, and we can use that life to help build the world or destroy it. That is the beauty of the human condition, and that is the beauty of our world: That in every flaw, there is the potential for growth - there is nothing in the world we can’t change. Even physical circumstances can be advance through science, and environmental issues can be fixed if humans so desire.
These changes however, can only be succesful when God wishes to grant them success; the message of bringing bikurim on shavuot is that we can’t say “kochi viotzem yadi", our own strength and mighty hands did this. Rather, we must recognize that our success is like fruit: The work of the farmer is essential, but it is up to God to allow the rains to come in their proper time, and the fruit to blossom.
May the rain of Torah shower upon us, and may we blossom to be fruits of the etz chayim, and be truly semechim beyeshuat Hashem.*
* Ma rabu...How great are your works, Hashem.
* lishem shamayim - for the sake of heaven
*tree of life...truly happy in/with God's redemption
Tzniut: Response to Article
Ok, so today I was reading the Jewish Press, and there was an op-ed about tzniut. http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?contentid=34086&mode=a&contentname=Modesty_-_More_Than_Mere_Clothing&recnum=0&fromsect=2
Basic premise: Tzniut is about an attitude that stems from self-respect. I agree with the premise, but have a few questions: If this is true, why is it that the Jewish education system emphasizes tniut for women much more than for men - we're all human, and should all encapsulate this beautiful value.
Furthermore, if tzniut is a value, how can that value be properly portrayed through clothing, inherently physical objects? Halacha's mandating elbow-length can force a girl to wear a shirt that covers more (clearly, unbeknownst to me, upper arms are the epitome of sexiness) but can not force her to be a modest person. She can wear elbow-length while seducing men - and, as someone who was forced to wear elbow-length for a year, I know that one can wear elbow-length in such a manner that guys would have to be crazy not to look at you - I know, because I used to dress in that way in order to rebel against the rabbis who dictated the length of my sleeves.
On the other hand, one can wear jeans and be tzanua. I would argue that the main way that tzniut comes into play with dress-code is in the attitude that informs purchasing clothing. When one gets dressed in the morning, one should aim to look attractive, but in such a way that one is overall attractive - physically and spiritually. One should not dress in a way that is meant to cause people of the opposite sex to be distracted and unable to stop staring at certain attractive body parts -you can all fill in whichever body part you wish ;)
If people are instilled with the value of tzniut, no dresscode is necessary because when people purchase clothing they will not be looking for clothing that could distract people from their neshama. The problem is that Jewish education does not instill people with the value of tzniut - just as it does not instill them with the value of viahavta lireecha kamocha or with the primacy of Torah to everyday life.
Basically, the Orthodox world is facing a values crisis that the rabbis are trying to fix with chumras and with practical, mundane halachas. But forcing people into the practical application of a value, without inspiring them to believe in the value itself, will not solve the crisis. Maybe it is time to stop getting fixated on the details of the law, and focus more on the spirit of the law and the values behind it.
Basic premise: Tzniut is about an attitude that stems from self-respect. I agree with the premise, but have a few questions: If this is true, why is it that the Jewish education system emphasizes tniut for women much more than for men - we're all human, and should all encapsulate this beautiful value.
Furthermore, if tzniut is a value, how can that value be properly portrayed through clothing, inherently physical objects? Halacha's mandating elbow-length can force a girl to wear a shirt that covers more (clearly, unbeknownst to me, upper arms are the epitome of sexiness) but can not force her to be a modest person. She can wear elbow-length while seducing men - and, as someone who was forced to wear elbow-length for a year, I know that one can wear elbow-length in such a manner that guys would have to be crazy not to look at you - I know, because I used to dress in that way in order to rebel against the rabbis who dictated the length of my sleeves.
On the other hand, one can wear jeans and be tzanua. I would argue that the main way that tzniut comes into play with dress-code is in the attitude that informs purchasing clothing. When one gets dressed in the morning, one should aim to look attractive, but in such a way that one is overall attractive - physically and spiritually. One should not dress in a way that is meant to cause people of the opposite sex to be distracted and unable to stop staring at certain attractive body parts -you can all fill in whichever body part you wish ;)
If people are instilled with the value of tzniut, no dresscode is necessary because when people purchase clothing they will not be looking for clothing that could distract people from their neshama. The problem is that Jewish education does not instill people with the value of tzniut - just as it does not instill them with the value of viahavta lireecha kamocha or with the primacy of Torah to everyday life.
Basically, the Orthodox world is facing a values crisis that the rabbis are trying to fix with chumras and with practical, mundane halachas. But forcing people into the practical application of a value, without inspiring them to believe in the value itself, will not solve the crisis. Maybe it is time to stop getting fixated on the details of the law, and focus more on the spirit of the law and the values behind it.
Happiness
What is happiness? This age-old question has been asked by pretenscious philosophers since the dawn of human civilization. So please pardon my pretensciousness in asking it. Surely my inadequate spelling abilities will take away from any pretension I might have to pretension.
Seriously, what is happiness? I think happiness, true, deep happiness, which is different than the superficial gladness one might feel from the mere energy of being alive, of being out with friends on a Saturday night, comes from empowerment, and the feeling that one's life is headed in the direction one wants it to be headed in. Those two things are related: When one takes control of ones life, it should cause that life to head in the direction the person in control of it desires.
I think forgiveness is one of the most empowering acts. But in order to forgive others, we must forgive ourselves. This past week, out of the blue, someone who had hurt me deeply over the course of many years apologized, and as I sat there, hugging this person, who had begun to cry, it occurred to me that the reason I could forgive him/her was that I had finally forgiven myself for allowing myself to get hurt.
I am often struck by how precious life is, by how precious it is to be me, sitting here right now, with all my talent and all my potential, and even with all my flaws and my pain. But this knowledge of how precious everything is also fills me with dread, dread that I will waste it, that I will not use it the way I was meant to.
I think forgiving our own mistakes is essential to stop mistakes from becoming abysses. Soon, we will be asking God for forgiveness. How can we ask Him to forgive us, unless we have first forgiven ourselves?
Seriously, what is happiness? I think happiness, true, deep happiness, which is different than the superficial gladness one might feel from the mere energy of being alive, of being out with friends on a Saturday night, comes from empowerment, and the feeling that one's life is headed in the direction one wants it to be headed in. Those two things are related: When one takes control of ones life, it should cause that life to head in the direction the person in control of it desires.
I think forgiveness is one of the most empowering acts. But in order to forgive others, we must forgive ourselves. This past week, out of the blue, someone who had hurt me deeply over the course of many years apologized, and as I sat there, hugging this person, who had begun to cry, it occurred to me that the reason I could forgive him/her was that I had finally forgiven myself for allowing myself to get hurt.
I am often struck by how precious life is, by how precious it is to be me, sitting here right now, with all my talent and all my potential, and even with all my flaws and my pain. But this knowledge of how precious everything is also fills me with dread, dread that I will waste it, that I will not use it the way I was meant to.
I think forgiving our own mistakes is essential to stop mistakes from becoming abysses. Soon, we will be asking God for forgiveness. How can we ask Him to forgive us, unless we have first forgiven ourselves?
Selichot (Yes, There Actually Is a Judaism Component to This Blog)
The first year that I don't go to slichot nightly - not because I have gone down in belief, but simply because I fear to confront myself. I don't remember ever going into a yamim noraim feeling so "off the derech" - not literally. I still observe halacha, etc, but - spiritually. I don't feel like I have been integrating God into the minute details of my life - which is essentially the purpose of mitzvot. (Not willing to engage in the "do mitzvot have a purpose/if so what" debate at the moment.)
So can a blog post replace selichot? If I were to suddenly write down every sin I had committed, exposing myself to public embarrassment (according to some rabbis, benificial to teshuva, though I've also read that confessing a ben adam laMakom in public is actually considered vain and a chilul Hashem) would that do the trick?
My question reminds me of the midrash's story of Korach asking Moshe: if I have a garment of tzitzit that is all techelet, why does it matter if certain strings are techelet? ie, if something meta-halachik seems to fulfill the purpose of the halacha, why bother with the halacha at all - why not just circumvent it and use the meta-halachik method to achieve that purpose. This is the danger of finding "purposes" to mitzvot.
According to Yeshayahu Liebowitz, the very purpose of the mitzvah is that we observe the will of God. There is no purpose beyond that. The means (halacha) become the ends, so there can be no meta-halachik ways of fulfilling God's will, for inventing those ways, we would be negating that will - which is that we subjugate our wills to His. (not that God has a gender)
I am not sure where I am going with this. I guess I just wanted to think about God and write something on those thoughts, for myself. At the moment, tonight, stranded between two art history papers, this is the most introspection I feel capable of giving - and that makes me sad.
I believe that who we are during the aseret yemey teshuvah is who we truly are, stripped of the layers of sin that accumulate throughout the year. We are like beautiful silver - during the aseret yemey teshuva we polish ourselves, getting rid of the rust and revealing the true beauty within. Of course, the rust builds up again, which is why we must polish ourselves on a yearly basis - but our essence is still that beautiful silver, even when covered by a removable layer of grime.
There is a chasidic story that a certain man was a secular business man during the year. Starting during the three weeks, he grew a beard. On tisha biAv he would go to a chasidic rebbe and stay with the rebbe through Yom Kippur. One day, he came to the rebbe sans beard, in secular garb. The rebbe began to cry. "I always knew you were a secular businessman, but as long as you came here looking like a hasid, I thought deep down you were a hasid and circumstances forced you to be the businessman. Now that you come here without even putting on the pretense of being a hasid, I know that deep down you're actually the businessman."
I feel like God is the rebbe, and the chasidic garb is being the best we can be. And I am worried that at the moment I am not wearing my metaphorical chasidic garb.
So can a blog post replace selichot? If I were to suddenly write down every sin I had committed, exposing myself to public embarrassment (according to some rabbis, benificial to teshuva, though I've also read that confessing a ben adam laMakom in public is actually considered vain and a chilul Hashem) would that do the trick?
My question reminds me of the midrash's story of Korach asking Moshe: if I have a garment of tzitzit that is all techelet, why does it matter if certain strings are techelet? ie, if something meta-halachik seems to fulfill the purpose of the halacha, why bother with the halacha at all - why not just circumvent it and use the meta-halachik method to achieve that purpose. This is the danger of finding "purposes" to mitzvot.
According to Yeshayahu Liebowitz, the very purpose of the mitzvah is that we observe the will of God. There is no purpose beyond that. The means (halacha) become the ends, so there can be no meta-halachik ways of fulfilling God's will, for inventing those ways, we would be negating that will - which is that we subjugate our wills to His. (not that God has a gender)
I am not sure where I am going with this. I guess I just wanted to think about God and write something on those thoughts, for myself. At the moment, tonight, stranded between two art history papers, this is the most introspection I feel capable of giving - and that makes me sad.
I believe that who we are during the aseret yemey teshuvah is who we truly are, stripped of the layers of sin that accumulate throughout the year. We are like beautiful silver - during the aseret yemey teshuva we polish ourselves, getting rid of the rust and revealing the true beauty within. Of course, the rust builds up again, which is why we must polish ourselves on a yearly basis - but our essence is still that beautiful silver, even when covered by a removable layer of grime.
There is a chasidic story that a certain man was a secular business man during the year. Starting during the three weeks, he grew a beard. On tisha biAv he would go to a chasidic rebbe and stay with the rebbe through Yom Kippur. One day, he came to the rebbe sans beard, in secular garb. The rebbe began to cry. "I always knew you were a secular businessman, but as long as you came here looking like a hasid, I thought deep down you were a hasid and circumstances forced you to be the businessman. Now that you come here without even putting on the pretense of being a hasid, I know that deep down you're actually the businessman."
I feel like God is the rebbe, and the chasidic garb is being the best we can be. And I am worried that at the moment I am not wearing my metaphorical chasidic garb.
Feminism: The New Frontier
There is something I have noticed in the library that really bothers me. The women's bathroom has a sign for a diaper change station, while the men's does not. This is discriminatory against both men and women. It is discriminatory against men because a father wishing to change his baby's diaper is not given the proper place to do so, and discriminatory against women because the implication is it is the woman's job, and not the man's, to change diapers.
We have been fighting for women to not have to give up careers to have babies. Maybe now is the time to fight for women to not give up having babies to have careers. Better maternity leave programs, along with paternity leave - which would a) enable fathers to spend more time with their babies b) alleviate the work of the mother, since the father would be around to help out, and maybe even allow the mother time for herself (gasp) during which the father could watch the baby c) generally give couples more room to negotiate more equitable baby-management, as fitting to their preferences, life choices, etc. d) show that society believes it is the man's obligation to care for his child just as much as the woman's
Now, there are legit reasons for women being the ones who get maternity leave: Namely, recuperation from the birthing process, which is physically taxing, and nursing, which obviously can not be done by the man. (Though now, with pumps, women can still breast-feed without having to be with the baby twenty-four seven. And last time I heard, men were perfectly capable of giving babies bottles - though there is something to be said for the maternal bond inherent in nursing, which can not be gotten from a father holding a bottle...I'll leave that discussion up to the lactation consultants.)
Nevertheless, giving fathers, if not paternity leave the way that mothers get maternity leave, at least some form of time off: say, ten extra "personal days" off in the first six months of the babies life, which would allow the father to at least stay home to help out with emergencies, or just to spend more time with his baby...or maybe being allowed to cut-back on hours slightly for the first month of the baby's life - while being compensated for them, the same way a woman on maternity leave is compensated. Since forcing a father to choose between money for his baby and time with his baby is unfair. (Beyond the general quandary of the more time you spend at the office, the more money you have, but the less time you have with your child.)
So basically, maternity leave and paternity leave are the new frontier in women's liberation. Because parenthood is a right that all people, men and women (well at least those who are somewhat psychologically sound) are entitled to.
We have been fighting for women to not have to give up careers to have babies. Maybe now is the time to fight for women to not give up having babies to have careers. Better maternity leave programs, along with paternity leave - which would a) enable fathers to spend more time with their babies b) alleviate the work of the mother, since the father would be around to help out, and maybe even allow the mother time for herself (gasp) during which the father could watch the baby c) generally give couples more room to negotiate more equitable baby-management, as fitting to their preferences, life choices, etc. d) show that society believes it is the man's obligation to care for his child just as much as the woman's
Now, there are legit reasons for women being the ones who get maternity leave: Namely, recuperation from the birthing process, which is physically taxing, and nursing, which obviously can not be done by the man. (Though now, with pumps, women can still breast-feed without having to be with the baby twenty-four seven. And last time I heard, men were perfectly capable of giving babies bottles - though there is something to be said for the maternal bond inherent in nursing, which can not be gotten from a father holding a bottle...I'll leave that discussion up to the lactation consultants.)
Nevertheless, giving fathers, if not paternity leave the way that mothers get maternity leave, at least some form of time off: say, ten extra "personal days" off in the first six months of the babies life, which would allow the father to at least stay home to help out with emergencies, or just to spend more time with his baby...or maybe being allowed to cut-back on hours slightly for the first month of the baby's life - while being compensated for them, the same way a woman on maternity leave is compensated. Since forcing a father to choose between money for his baby and time with his baby is unfair. (Beyond the general quandary of the more time you spend at the office, the more money you have, but the less time you have with your child.)
So basically, maternity leave and paternity leave are the new frontier in women's liberation. Because parenthood is a right that all people, men and women (well at least those who are somewhat psychologically sound) are entitled to.
Skirts and Labels
I have been thinking a lot about labels. Asked recently by a family very dear to my heart how I define myself (charedi, chardal, dati-leumi, mesorati, chiloni) I replied that I define myself as someone who tries to engage in avodat Hashem. I don't believe in any of the labels. I was told to stop being an idealist and just pick a group.
The truth is that I see elements of all groups in myself, and each group has elements which I abhor as well as elements which I admire. I feel comfortable both with charedim in Bney Brak and with chilonim in Haifa. The only time I ever feel uncomfortable is when human life is being insulted - something that can happen at times in any societal group.
I was thinking also about how most of the women who I most admire, those who I consider to be true tzadikot and paradigms of chessed, wear skirts and elbow length. I often wonder if there is some kind of connection: Would I be a better person if I only wore skirts? The question is ridiculous, but I sometimes wonder.
Then I realized the connection between these women was not their dossit uniform, but their intense faith in God, as well as their lack of cynicism. I wondered if cynicism detracts from kindness - after all, cynicism implies a certain negativity, while surely kindness stems from seeing the good in people and wanting to do good for them. I also wondered if there was a connection between faith and concealing sexuality. All of these faith-filled women live in communities where sexuality is concealed.
Each society recognizes the difference between three phases of a person's life: pre-sexuality* , age when one is physically able to engage in sexual activity**, and the time in a person's life when one is actually engaged in sexual activity. (The time period in between those last two phases is dependent on suavity and religious preference.) The age when one starts becoming aware of one's sexuality and developing physically is also the age when one begins questioning the words of one's elders, "thinking for oneself", and, essentially becoming a bit more cynical. The increase of skepticism as a mass-cultural phenomena, as well as an intellectual one, has been accompanied in an increase in open sexuality and decrease in religious faith. Those are three basic elements of the development of the modern era.
Chazal say that Israel engaged in avodah zara in order to commit acts of sexual lewdness. (I hate the phrase sexual immorality - the only sex I view as immoral is that which hurts another person. I do not think halacha and morality are the same, especially halachot regarding sex. The halacha to not commit adultery happens to be moral. But you observe it not because of your own inner morality, but because you are fulfilling God's will - which in this case conforms to your own inner morality. See Yeshayahu Leibowitz.) I wonder if there really is some complicated connection between cynicism, sexuality, and faith - something to do with the first sin in gan eden. (I do not mean to say that sexuality is bad, or that the sin in gan eden was sexual. I am not the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The result of the sin however, clearly had impact of the relationship between man/woman and his/her sexuality, because it is then that Adam and Eve begin to be uncomfortable about being naked, and attempt to hid their sexual organs.)
On the other hand, there clearly are many extremely kind people who wear pants and may or may not have faith in God. One such person is Tamar. Her daughter, who lives at the facility where I volunteered, can not speak and is in a wheelchair. She does not give any outward sign of recognizing her mother, or anyone else. Yet her mother is one of the most cheerful, kind people I've met. I do not understand how, despite the pain she must feel, she has one of the warmest smiles. To watch her seeing the good in people and doing things for them is truly inspiring. She has something kind to say about everyone, and her words are accompanied by actions. She wears pants and is not "orthodox". She may be traditional and/or believe in God. She may be a hardcore atheist. I never asked her.
*I am not factoring in Freudian grossness, psychological experiments or studies on gender difference. It is important to distinguish between awareness of gender and sexuality. The seeds of one lie in the other, but they have not been germinated.
** I mean by "normal" standards, not NAMBLA-esque ones. But even in societies where that age is young, there still is the distinction.
The truth is that I see elements of all groups in myself, and each group has elements which I abhor as well as elements which I admire. I feel comfortable both with charedim in Bney Brak and with chilonim in Haifa. The only time I ever feel uncomfortable is when human life is being insulted - something that can happen at times in any societal group.
I was thinking also about how most of the women who I most admire, those who I consider to be true tzadikot and paradigms of chessed, wear skirts and elbow length. I often wonder if there is some kind of connection: Would I be a better person if I only wore skirts? The question is ridiculous, but I sometimes wonder.
Then I realized the connection between these women was not their dossit uniform, but their intense faith in God, as well as their lack of cynicism. I wondered if cynicism detracts from kindness - after all, cynicism implies a certain negativity, while surely kindness stems from seeing the good in people and wanting to do good for them. I also wondered if there was a connection between faith and concealing sexuality. All of these faith-filled women live in communities where sexuality is concealed.
Each society recognizes the difference between three phases of a person's life: pre-sexuality* , age when one is physically able to engage in sexual activity**, and the time in a person's life when one is actually engaged in sexual activity. (The time period in between those last two phases is dependent on suavity and religious preference.) The age when one starts becoming aware of one's sexuality and developing physically is also the age when one begins questioning the words of one's elders, "thinking for oneself", and, essentially becoming a bit more cynical. The increase of skepticism as a mass-cultural phenomena, as well as an intellectual one, has been accompanied in an increase in open sexuality and decrease in religious faith. Those are three basic elements of the development of the modern era.
Chazal say that Israel engaged in avodah zara in order to commit acts of sexual lewdness. (I hate the phrase sexual immorality - the only sex I view as immoral is that which hurts another person. I do not think halacha and morality are the same, especially halachot regarding sex. The halacha to not commit adultery happens to be moral. But you observe it not because of your own inner morality, but because you are fulfilling God's will - which in this case conforms to your own inner morality. See Yeshayahu Leibowitz.) I wonder if there really is some complicated connection between cynicism, sexuality, and faith - something to do with the first sin in gan eden. (I do not mean to say that sexuality is bad, or that the sin in gan eden was sexual. I am not the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The result of the sin however, clearly had impact of the relationship between man/woman and his/her sexuality, because it is then that Adam and Eve begin to be uncomfortable about being naked, and attempt to hid their sexual organs.)
On the other hand, there clearly are many extremely kind people who wear pants and may or may not have faith in God. One such person is Tamar. Her daughter, who lives at the facility where I volunteered, can not speak and is in a wheelchair. She does not give any outward sign of recognizing her mother, or anyone else. Yet her mother is one of the most cheerful, kind people I've met. I do not understand how, despite the pain she must feel, she has one of the warmest smiles. To watch her seeing the good in people and doing things for them is truly inspiring. She has something kind to say about everyone, and her words are accompanied by actions. She wears pants and is not "orthodox". She may be traditional and/or believe in God. She may be a hardcore atheist. I never asked her.
*I am not factoring in Freudian grossness, psychological experiments or studies on gender difference. It is important to distinguish between awareness of gender and sexuality. The seeds of one lie in the other, but they have not been germinated.
** I mean by "normal" standards, not NAMBLA-esque ones. But even in societies where that age is young, there still is the distinction.
Post-Shabbat, Pre-Yom Kippur
I got a lot of homework done this weekend, though not as much as I had hoped. I was angry at myself, until I realized that the message of shabbat is that we are not work machines, but human beings who need to recharge, and who are entitled to time to relax.
Yom Kippur is a shabbat shabbaton, an ultra-Sabbath. Because if shabbat is a reminder to take time out of our week to focus on our spirituality, Yom Kippur is a chance for us to shape our entire year through the mold of spirituality. It is a chance for us to ask what we want from ourselves as human beings this year, irrespective of our careers or mundane obligations. It is a chance to look back on what we've done wrong and think of ways we can do things right next time around.
Most of all, it is a time to remember that our lives are in the hands of God. It is a chance to remember that the most important thing in our lives is our relationship with God, and that our acheivments, even in the secular realm, are not by the might of our hands, but by the help of God. This is also the lesson of Bikurim, first fruit offerings, where the farmer would bring their first fruits to the temple and acknowledge those fruits were not thanks to his hands, but thanks to God's blessings - because God performs miracles, as we say in shemoneh esrey, "at all times, evening and mornings and afternoons".
Have a chatima tovah.
Yom Kippur is a shabbat shabbaton, an ultra-Sabbath. Because if shabbat is a reminder to take time out of our week to focus on our spirituality, Yom Kippur is a chance for us to shape our entire year through the mold of spirituality. It is a chance for us to ask what we want from ourselves as human beings this year, irrespective of our careers or mundane obligations. It is a chance to look back on what we've done wrong and think of ways we can do things right next time around.
Most of all, it is a time to remember that our lives are in the hands of God. It is a chance to remember that the most important thing in our lives is our relationship with God, and that our acheivments, even in the secular realm, are not by the might of our hands, but by the help of God. This is also the lesson of Bikurim, first fruit offerings, where the farmer would bring their first fruits to the temple and acknowledge those fruits were not thanks to his hands, but thanks to God's blessings - because God performs miracles, as we say in shemoneh esrey, "at all times, evening and mornings and afternoons".
Have a chatima tovah.
Twiglight: A response to http://bitchmagazine.org/article/bite-me-or-dont
While I do agree with much of this critique, I think it is important to separate the critique of abstinence in Twilight with abstinence in general. In it and of itself, abstinence is a neutral concept when it comes to feminism. It is the discourse surrounding abstinence, its role in society, and differing expectations viz a viz sexual activity for each gender (a woman who sleeps around is a slut, while a man is a player) that have feminist value - usually negative value.
As for the sex-death connection in Twilight: That’s nothing new. Orgasms were referred to as “petits morts”, little deaths, in French in the Middle Ages. The Bible’s first sex scene occurs just after Adam and Eve are denied immortality. (A fact that was picked up on by the Catholic Church, which often associated sex with mortality in its discourse.) I think these associations are natural: Sexuality, like mortality, is a basic fact of being human. Additionally, because sex can result in birth and new life, it is natural for it to be associated with the opposite of life.
What is more disturbing about Twilight is Bella’s inability to control her sexual needs in contrast to Edward’s self-control. This harkens back to medieval discourse about women being voraciously sexual animals who could tempt men to evil, just as Eve tempted Adam - indeed, throughout the series, “temptress” seems to be Bella’s role - and in tempting Edward sexually, she also tempts him to murder - thus reinforcing the consummation of sexual desire as the act that opens the pathway to sin, a notion that’s been around since the concept of sex as original sin came into being.* Of course, traditional discourse about female sexuality dichotomizes, with woman being both sexual animal unable to control her urges, and being devoid of sexual desires and thus not having a right to making demands in the bedroom, which becomes all about the satisfaction of the man’s sexual desires, since the woman has none.**
Despite all my criticism, I am really curious what shomeret/shomer porn would look like....
*It is interesting that rabbinic literature linked sex and murder way before Meyer - the three sins a Jew should never do even if threatened with death are idol worship, sexual sins, and murder. Furthermore, it is said that idol worship was practiced during the time of the first temple in order to psychologically enable people to engage in murder and sexual misconduct.
** Kudos to Judaism for recognizing a woman’s sexual desires as a healthy part of humanity, and making a man obligated to satisfy his wife’s sexual needs. Failure to do so is grounds for divorce.
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/bite-me-or-dont
As for the sex-death connection in Twilight: That’s nothing new. Orgasms were referred to as “petits morts”, little deaths, in French in the Middle Ages. The Bible’s first sex scene occurs just after Adam and Eve are denied immortality. (A fact that was picked up on by the Catholic Church, which often associated sex with mortality in its discourse.) I think these associations are natural: Sexuality, like mortality, is a basic fact of being human. Additionally, because sex can result in birth and new life, it is natural for it to be associated with the opposite of life.
What is more disturbing about Twilight is Bella’s inability to control her sexual needs in contrast to Edward’s self-control. This harkens back to medieval discourse about women being voraciously sexual animals who could tempt men to evil, just as Eve tempted Adam - indeed, throughout the series, “temptress” seems to be Bella’s role - and in tempting Edward sexually, she also tempts him to murder - thus reinforcing the consummation of sexual desire as the act that opens the pathway to sin, a notion that’s been around since the concept of sex as original sin came into being.* Of course, traditional discourse about female sexuality dichotomizes, with woman being both sexual animal unable to control her urges, and being devoid of sexual desires and thus not having a right to making demands in the bedroom, which becomes all about the satisfaction of the man’s sexual desires, since the woman has none.**
Despite all my criticism, I am really curious what shomeret/shomer porn would look like....
*It is interesting that rabbinic literature linked sex and murder way before Meyer - the three sins a Jew should never do even if threatened with death are idol worship, sexual sins, and murder. Furthermore, it is said that idol worship was practiced during the time of the first temple in order to psychologically enable people to engage in murder and sexual misconduct.
** Kudos to Judaism for recognizing a woman’s sexual desires as a healthy part of humanity, and making a man obligated to satisfy his wife’s sexual needs. Failure to do so is grounds for divorce.
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/bite-me-or-dont
Time to Make Fun of Fashion
I was reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24APPEAL.html?_r=1 on fashion, and thought that maybe the new ultra-feminine/anti-feminine/dominatrix fashion dichotomy speaks to how our hetero-normative society tends to conceive of sex in dominated-dominating dichotomies, with the role of dominating going to the man, and what makes female dominatrixes/S&M fetishes with the woman on top so subversive is that they reverse this role.
And then I kept on reading, and realized that fashion is not something we should read deeply into, but rather something we should mock at all times. A few anti-feminist highlights from the article:
1. It's "weak" to be "girly" - women as weak. How original.
2. The look "reflects a mistrust of trends" - except for the fact that it itself is a trend. What it truly reflects is buying into consumer culture, and a media that tells women that in order to be attractive they have to dress a certain way. It is buying into a culture that thrives on showing pictures of anorexic women and telling other women to emulate them.
3. It is also a "pragmatic response to a hobbled economy" - except for the fact that these clothes often cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. A good example is the 1,295 dollar boot that sold out, and was featured in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574611953724468432.html?mod=article-outset-box
4. "Models are the new fashion-icons" - models are also exposed constantly to fashion-designer clothes, and are paid to not eat and to exercise. The average working woman doesn't have the time to jetset from fashion show to fashion show, needs to eat to have energy for her career, and doesn't have time to work out with a personal trainer for five hours a day. I'm glad that these working women are being offered good role-models by the fashion world. Maybe next, they should be asked to start emulating 1950s housewives.
5. "It's models authenticity that makes them so appealing" - Yes, with their professionally styled hair and makeup, and their fashion-designer clothing, not to mention their constant diets and personal-trainers, they're so authentic. That's leaving aside the air-brushing that goes on in magazines.
6. There's "nothing sexy" about being "self-conscious" - but the fashion industry is one that thrives on making women self-conscious about how they look, and about their bodies. So basically, after spending hundreds of dollars on the latest trend, the average woman still won't be sexy according to the standards of the industry whose approval she seeks, because she feel self-concious about her body, especially her weight (she is so fat compared to those models...) thanks to the very industry that convinced her to buy those clothes in the first place.
Someone give me a bra to burn. Just make sure its La Perla.
And then I kept on reading, and realized that fashion is not something we should read deeply into, but rather something we should mock at all times. A few anti-feminist highlights from the article:
1. It's "weak" to be "girly" - women as weak. How original.
2. The look "reflects a mistrust of trends" - except for the fact that it itself is a trend. What it truly reflects is buying into consumer culture, and a media that tells women that in order to be attractive they have to dress a certain way. It is buying into a culture that thrives on showing pictures of anorexic women and telling other women to emulate them.
3. It is also a "pragmatic response to a hobbled economy" - except for the fact that these clothes often cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. A good example is the 1,295 dollar boot that sold out, and was featured in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574611953724468432.html?mod=article-outset-box
4. "Models are the new fashion-icons" - models are also exposed constantly to fashion-designer clothes, and are paid to not eat and to exercise. The average working woman doesn't have the time to jetset from fashion show to fashion show, needs to eat to have energy for her career, and doesn't have time to work out with a personal trainer for five hours a day. I'm glad that these working women are being offered good role-models by the fashion world. Maybe next, they should be asked to start emulating 1950s housewives.
5. "It's models authenticity that makes them so appealing" - Yes, with their professionally styled hair and makeup, and their fashion-designer clothing, not to mention their constant diets and personal-trainers, they're so authentic. That's leaving aside the air-brushing that goes on in magazines.
6. There's "nothing sexy" about being "self-conscious" - but the fashion industry is one that thrives on making women self-conscious about how they look, and about their bodies. So basically, after spending hundreds of dollars on the latest trend, the average woman still won't be sexy according to the standards of the industry whose approval she seeks, because she feel self-concious about her body, especially her weight (she is so fat compared to those models...) thanks to the very industry that convinced her to buy those clothes in the first place.
Someone give me a bra to burn. Just make sure its La Perla.
The Beauty of Shabbat: Friday Musings
There I was, sitting in my room, feeling like a shlub: My library-cleaning-my room day had turned into a wake-up-late-watch-TV day, and the multiple donuts I'd consumed in the past 24 hours had me feeling heavy and ashamed at my lack of self-control.
I did not feel like getting dressed up or facing the world. But I had to - shabbat was on the way, and I was going to Hillel. So I changed into a dress - and I figured, once changing into a dress, might as well put on jewelery - one putting on jewelery, might as well put on makeup...and now I feel happy - because I just spent the past 20 minutes taking care of myself and my body, and I am about to pray and take care of my soul.
Shabbat forces you to take time out of your week to take care of yourself - something its easy to forget to do when you're busy taking care of yoru schoolwork, your career, and your summer travel plans.
Let's all try to take better care of ourselves and each other this upcoming shabbat and upcoming week. Shabbat shalom.
I did not feel like getting dressed up or facing the world. But I had to - shabbat was on the way, and I was going to Hillel. So I changed into a dress - and I figured, once changing into a dress, might as well put on jewelery - one putting on jewelery, might as well put on makeup...and now I feel happy - because I just spent the past 20 minutes taking care of myself and my body, and I am about to pray and take care of my soul.
Shabbat forces you to take time out of your week to take care of yourself - something its easy to forget to do when you're busy taking care of yoru schoolwork, your career, and your summer travel plans.
Let's all try to take better care of ourselves and each other this upcoming shabbat and upcoming week. Shabbat shalom.
On Open-Mindedness
Imagine the following scenarios:
1. A man is telling you he has a big desire to say lashon hara. He works on himself constantly to overcome this yetzer hara, but at times he slips up. It is a constant struggle.
2. A single woman is telling you she has terrible trouble keeping shomeret laws, despite not immersing in a mikvah. She has slipped up as well. Now invert the situation for a single man, who has been with a woman who has not immersed. In each case, the perpetrator has not violated the law in quite a while, and constantly struggles to continue keeping shomer/shomeret laws and prays to Hashem for help in this endeavor.
3. A single man tells you he has great sexual desires for other men. He once kissed another man, but felt horrible guilt. He prays everyday to God to help him.
In terms of acceptability in Orthodox society, each case is less acceptable than the last, despite the Torah's harsh terms for violating nidah, just as it is harsh on male homosexual intercourse.* Yet while the person in the second scenario severely risks their chances of finding a good shidduch**, the person in the third scenario risks not being counted for a minyan and jeopardizing their siblings' shidduch chances as well.
This shows that the stigma against gay people can not be purely halachik. As further evidence: It is more unacceptable in Ortho Society (O.S.) to be lesbian than to be male and gay - which is perhaps why YU could find no lesbians to speak at the (in?)famous panel last week. Yet halachikly, its preferable to be lesbian, since it only violates a rabbinic commandment, whereas male homoesexual action violates a Torah commandment.
This reflects general society, where it was acceptable to be male and gay long before it was acceptable to be female and gay (if indeed, it is truly acceptable to be lesbian today outside of a fetishized hot-lesbian in a way that makes a guy fantasize about threesomes, a la Kate Perry), and lesbians have had to fight for their rights within the larger gay rights movement. This is especially so with the male gay rights movement in France in the 60s and early 70s, which largely ignored or denigrated women, including women who are attracted to women.
In general, I believe that OS's fear of gay people stems from assimilation and appropriation of modern secular values: Modern secular society is all about sex. It judges people - especially women - based on their sexual desirability and activity. OS also judges people by these standards, but instead of judging people by their engagement in successful sexual relationships, it judges them by their lack of sexual activity (shomerness, and tzniut, which is supposed to be a sign of shomerness but often isn't). Dressing in a tzanua manner and being shomer, and being straight, are the new hallmarks of religiosity - which is in it of itself extremely untzanua. How many times have you (if you are Ortho or datlash) been asked "Are you shomer/et?" by someone you barely know? It is considered acceptable that we bear the details of our sexual lives (or lack thereof) to near strangers, in order to prove our religiosity and shidduch-worthiness. Yet how often is one asked "Do you speak lashon hara often? Do you daven with kavanah? How much time a day do you spend studying Torah and what do you study?" - I'd venture to say not often. And while our struggles with other aspects of Judaism can be discussed publicly or on a first date, our struggles with the sexual part of Judaism must remain secret - unless we want to disparage our reputation.
This sex-centered view of religiosity is detrimental, because it takes the focus away from other aspects of Judaism that are important, and tells us that our hishtadlut should be focused on one area which, while a very important part of life (and something I would classify as a need, not a desire) is not the be-all-and-end-all of life or of our relationships with God.
God is the ultimate judge; it is our job to be merciful.***We should not judge people for being gay, because we all struggle with different part of Judaism, or for engaging in homosexual activities, because we all sin, and don't have the right to judge others for the sins that they commit.
By making gay people ostracized within OS, what we are doing is forcing people to choose 1. Closeted existence with halacha, with all of its psychological implication, which often lead people to sin ben adam lechaveiro, especially in their relationships with their parents 2. A closeted gay lifestyle, with a double-existence and its psychological implications 3. An openly gay lifestyle, devoid of halachik observance in all the other areas of Judaism
We are depriving people of: 1. Being openly gay without engaging in homosexual activity, while remaining part of O.S. 2. Being gay, but observing all the other halachot
The argument is if we are too compassionate, we take away social pressure to not engage in homosexual activity, thereby becoming responsible to a large segment of Jewry engaging in sin - but it is not our job to exert social pressure on people to obey the mitzvot. One observes the mitzvot because of her or his relationship with God. A religious Torah Jewish male will not simply jump into bed with another man - because he will not want to violate a deoraita law. Will a religious Jewish man maybe be more likely to give in to his desire after years of struggle thanks to OS's new open-ness? Maybe, maybe not. Will a formerly religious Jew who has had to leave OS because of his homosexual lifestyle come back to it now and start observing all the halachot not related to sexuality because of OS's new open-ness? Hopefully.
If we are to start not including gay people for minyan, because we need to exert social pressure on them, perhaps we should also start not counting lashon-hara speaking people or chutzpadik people in minyan, in order to exert social pressure on them. Signaling out the sexual sin for special treatment speaks to secular society's encroachment on OS. Also, lashon harah violated the Torah commandment of "viahavta lireecha kamocha" and chutzpa violates the Torah commandment of kibud av vaem. (In case you wanted to engage in the deoraita vs drabannan argument - which still would not explain why gay people who are not acting on their desires, therefore not sinning, fear being excluded from minyan.)
Two final points: 1. I was not at YU's panel. But I do think that it is important to talk about issues, and not sweep them under the carpet, even if these conversations are uncomfortable or even involve staring apikorsut in the face and rejecting it. (This is not to say that I think the YU panel involved apikorsut.) Judaism's ability to engage with difficult issues is a sign of strength; refusing to engage is a chilul Hashem because it implies that Judaism does not have the answers. 2. I think it is important to separate between halacha and ethics, as Yehsayahu Liebowitz did. Ethics are codes of human morality, and to equate that with halacha is to deny that halacha is above humans, and their rationality and ethical codes. This means that even though war against Amalek**** may violate human ethics, it is a halachik obligation. But it also means that while engaging in homosexuality is a halachik violation, it is not a violation of ethics, and we do not have a right to condemn it as such.
If anyone reading this is homosexual, bi, etc., Remember: You are not alone.
1. A man is telling you he has a big desire to say lashon hara. He works on himself constantly to overcome this yetzer hara, but at times he slips up. It is a constant struggle.
2. A single woman is telling you she has terrible trouble keeping shomeret laws, despite not immersing in a mikvah. She has slipped up as well. Now invert the situation for a single man, who has been with a woman who has not immersed. In each case, the perpetrator has not violated the law in quite a while, and constantly struggles to continue keeping shomer/shomeret laws and prays to Hashem for help in this endeavor.
3. A single man tells you he has great sexual desires for other men. He once kissed another man, but felt horrible guilt. He prays everyday to God to help him.
In terms of acceptability in Orthodox society, each case is less acceptable than the last, despite the Torah's harsh terms for violating nidah, just as it is harsh on male homosexual intercourse.* Yet while the person in the second scenario severely risks their chances of finding a good shidduch**, the person in the third scenario risks not being counted for a minyan and jeopardizing their siblings' shidduch chances as well.
This shows that the stigma against gay people can not be purely halachik. As further evidence: It is more unacceptable in Ortho Society (O.S.) to be lesbian than to be male and gay - which is perhaps why YU could find no lesbians to speak at the (in?)famous panel last week. Yet halachikly, its preferable to be lesbian, since it only violates a rabbinic commandment, whereas male homoesexual action violates a Torah commandment.
This reflects general society, where it was acceptable to be male and gay long before it was acceptable to be female and gay (if indeed, it is truly acceptable to be lesbian today outside of a fetishized hot-lesbian in a way that makes a guy fantasize about threesomes, a la Kate Perry), and lesbians have had to fight for their rights within the larger gay rights movement. This is especially so with the male gay rights movement in France in the 60s and early 70s, which largely ignored or denigrated women, including women who are attracted to women.
In general, I believe that OS's fear of gay people stems from assimilation and appropriation of modern secular values: Modern secular society is all about sex. It judges people - especially women - based on their sexual desirability and activity. OS also judges people by these standards, but instead of judging people by their engagement in successful sexual relationships, it judges them by their lack of sexual activity (shomerness, and tzniut, which is supposed to be a sign of shomerness but often isn't). Dressing in a tzanua manner and being shomer, and being straight, are the new hallmarks of religiosity - which is in it of itself extremely untzanua. How many times have you (if you are Ortho or datlash) been asked "Are you shomer/et?" by someone you barely know? It is considered acceptable that we bear the details of our sexual lives (or lack thereof) to near strangers, in order to prove our religiosity and shidduch-worthiness. Yet how often is one asked "Do you speak lashon hara often? Do you daven with kavanah? How much time a day do you spend studying Torah and what do you study?" - I'd venture to say not often. And while our struggles with other aspects of Judaism can be discussed publicly or on a first date, our struggles with the sexual part of Judaism must remain secret - unless we want to disparage our reputation.
This sex-centered view of religiosity is detrimental, because it takes the focus away from other aspects of Judaism that are important, and tells us that our hishtadlut should be focused on one area which, while a very important part of life (and something I would classify as a need, not a desire) is not the be-all-and-end-all of life or of our relationships with God.
God is the ultimate judge; it is our job to be merciful.***We should not judge people for being gay, because we all struggle with different part of Judaism, or for engaging in homosexual activities, because we all sin, and don't have the right to judge others for the sins that they commit.
By making gay people ostracized within OS, what we are doing is forcing people to choose 1. Closeted existence with halacha, with all of its psychological implication, which often lead people to sin ben adam lechaveiro, especially in their relationships with their parents 2. A closeted gay lifestyle, with a double-existence and its psychological implications 3. An openly gay lifestyle, devoid of halachik observance in all the other areas of Judaism
We are depriving people of: 1. Being openly gay without engaging in homosexual activity, while remaining part of O.S. 2. Being gay, but observing all the other halachot
The argument is if we are too compassionate, we take away social pressure to not engage in homosexual activity, thereby becoming responsible to a large segment of Jewry engaging in sin - but it is not our job to exert social pressure on people to obey the mitzvot. One observes the mitzvot because of her or his relationship with God. A religious Torah Jewish male will not simply jump into bed with another man - because he will not want to violate a deoraita law. Will a religious Jewish man maybe be more likely to give in to his desire after years of struggle thanks to OS's new open-ness? Maybe, maybe not. Will a formerly religious Jew who has had to leave OS because of his homosexual lifestyle come back to it now and start observing all the halachot not related to sexuality because of OS's new open-ness? Hopefully.
If we are to start not including gay people for minyan, because we need to exert social pressure on them, perhaps we should also start not counting lashon-hara speaking people or chutzpadik people in minyan, in order to exert social pressure on them. Signaling out the sexual sin for special treatment speaks to secular society's encroachment on OS. Also, lashon harah violated the Torah commandment of "viahavta lireecha kamocha" and chutzpa violates the Torah commandment of kibud av vaem. (In case you wanted to engage in the deoraita vs drabannan argument - which still would not explain why gay people who are not acting on their desires, therefore not sinning, fear being excluded from minyan.)
Two final points: 1. I was not at YU's panel. But I do think that it is important to talk about issues, and not sweep them under the carpet, even if these conversations are uncomfortable or even involve staring apikorsut in the face and rejecting it. (This is not to say that I think the YU panel involved apikorsut.) Judaism's ability to engage with difficult issues is a sign of strength; refusing to engage is a chilul Hashem because it implies that Judaism does not have the answers. 2. I think it is important to separate between halacha and ethics, as Yehsayahu Liebowitz did. Ethics are codes of human morality, and to equate that with halacha is to deny that halacha is above humans, and their rationality and ethical codes. This means that even though war against Amalek**** may violate human ethics, it is a halachik obligation. But it also means that while engaging in homosexuality is a halachik violation, it is not a violation of ethics, and we do not have a right to condemn it as such.
If anyone reading this is homosexual, bi, etc., Remember: You are not alone.
A Note on "Will and Grace"
Recently, I attended a lecture by two actors in a film, sponsored by my school's gay-straight alliance . I have not seen the film, but from what I gathered, one of its goals was to portray gay sex realistically on film.
One of the actors said that while the character of "Jack" on Will and Grace could have been powerful, it really was not, because Sean Hayes, the actor playing Jack, had not yet come out of the closet. This was upon the heels of a discussion about how there was a stigma on gay men in Hollywood/the acting industry.
I can see where the actor is coming from: Sean Hayes was in a position to be a role-model for GLBT men and women, to show that you could be GLBT* and succeed in Hollywood, that the character of "Jack" was acceptable on-screen as well as off. Instead, maybe he even became the symbol of shame at being GLBT, or of repressing one's identity. He did come out and openly embrace his sexuality after the show was over, by the way.
I think that maybe Sean Hayes embodied a contradiction between obligation to self (career and not wanting stigma of being labeled as gay) and obligation to community (ability to serve as role-model). This contradiction expresses itself in many different ways for many people who belong to many different communities. In my own life, I sometimes feel this contradiction, but it is all subsumed under the rubric of my relationship to God, because ultimately, if my purpose is to serve Him, then I must ask myself about my relationship to myself and my community as ways of growing closer to God.**
I think this contradiction appears on a microcosmic level when it comes to our relationships with our families, who are our micro-communities. Balancing our relationships with ourselves and our families is a very hard task - which is probably why it is one of the Ten Commandments, and one of the two commandments for which God promises long life. ***
I have also been wondering something else about community: If we identify with a communities values and goals, as well as with community members, and actively work to advance those goals and to engage in positive and meaningful relationships with the community members, do we get to identify ourselves as part of that community? If I have many African-American friends, live in a predominantly African-Ameircan neighborhood, and am working to fight defacto segregation in Baltimore, can I identify myself as part of the African-American community? If I go to shul every week, most of my friends are Jewish, and I run a pro-Israel blog, but I was born and remain a practicing Christian, can I identify myself as part of the Christian community? If I have many GLBT friends, love reading GLBT fiction****, and spend my spare time advocating for GLBT rights, and can I identify myself as the GLBT community?
To take this a step further: In the cases mentioned above, can I identify myself as African-American, as Jewish, or as GLBT? In a post-modern world, where there is no objective arbiter of right and wrong, and where each person has the right to define themselves, it would seem the answer is yes. and yet I am not sure if that is an answer I feel comfortable with.
For the record, I do believe in God as sole arbiter as right or wrong, but am applying post-modern standards in this note because they are the standards used most often by current secular society, and I have no wish to impose my religious views on the reader.
* That's gay, bi, lesbian, transgender. Apologies to people who identify as queer or other identities that are not in the acronym.
** When did I become such a religious fanatic? Someone get me a pair of Castro jeans!
*** The other one is not taking baby birds from the nest while the mother bird is there. There arguments on a) why these two b) what does this show about mercy and animal rights in Judaism? c) is long life metaphoric?
**** flawed: How does one define GLBT fiction? using the expression "trans fiction" however, would have continued the FALSE equation society makes, that trans=gay
One of the actors said that while the character of "Jack" on Will and Grace could have been powerful, it really was not, because Sean Hayes, the actor playing Jack, had not yet come out of the closet. This was upon the heels of a discussion about how there was a stigma on gay men in Hollywood/the acting industry.
I can see where the actor is coming from: Sean Hayes was in a position to be a role-model for GLBT men and women, to show that you could be GLBT* and succeed in Hollywood, that the character of "Jack" was acceptable on-screen as well as off. Instead, maybe he even became the symbol of shame at being GLBT, or of repressing one's identity. He did come out and openly embrace his sexuality after the show was over, by the way.
I think that maybe Sean Hayes embodied a contradiction between obligation to self (career and not wanting stigma of being labeled as gay) and obligation to community (ability to serve as role-model). This contradiction expresses itself in many different ways for many people who belong to many different communities. In my own life, I sometimes feel this contradiction, but it is all subsumed under the rubric of my relationship to God, because ultimately, if my purpose is to serve Him, then I must ask myself about my relationship to myself and my community as ways of growing closer to God.**
I think this contradiction appears on a microcosmic level when it comes to our relationships with our families, who are our micro-communities. Balancing our relationships with ourselves and our families is a very hard task - which is probably why it is one of the Ten Commandments, and one of the two commandments for which God promises long life. ***
I have also been wondering something else about community: If we identify with a communities values and goals, as well as with community members, and actively work to advance those goals and to engage in positive and meaningful relationships with the community members, do we get to identify ourselves as part of that community? If I have many African-American friends, live in a predominantly African-Ameircan neighborhood, and am working to fight defacto segregation in Baltimore, can I identify myself as part of the African-American community? If I go to shul every week, most of my friends are Jewish, and I run a pro-Israel blog, but I was born and remain a practicing Christian, can I identify myself as part of the Christian community? If I have many GLBT friends, love reading GLBT fiction****, and spend my spare time advocating for GLBT rights, and can I identify myself as the GLBT community?
To take this a step further: In the cases mentioned above, can I identify myself as African-American, as Jewish, or as GLBT? In a post-modern world, where there is no objective arbiter of right and wrong, and where each person has the right to define themselves, it would seem the answer is yes. and yet I am not sure if that is an answer I feel comfortable with.
For the record, I do believe in God as sole arbiter as right or wrong, but am applying post-modern standards in this note because they are the standards used most often by current secular society, and I have no wish to impose my religious views on the reader.
* That's gay, bi, lesbian, transgender. Apologies to people who identify as queer or other identities that are not in the acronym.
** When did I become such a religious fanatic? Someone get me a pair of Castro jeans!
*** The other one is not taking baby birds from the nest while the mother bird is there. There arguments on a) why these two b) what does this show about mercy and animal rights in Judaism? c) is long life metaphoric?
**** flawed: How does one define GLBT fiction? using the expression "trans fiction" however, would have continued the FALSE equation society makes, that trans=gay
Reaction to Watching "Trembling Before God"
I would like to preface this post by pointing out to all those who may be interested that "Trembling Before God", a movie about homosexuality and the Orthodox world, is available for free on hulu.com.
I saw the movie on Hulu, and it inspired me to write down some thoughts I've been having about homosexuality.
In the debate on gay rights, there is a huge debate on whether homosexuality is biologically determined or not. I believe this debate is irrelevant: If homosexuality is immoral, then there should be no legally sanctioned way of entering into an official homosexual relationship, whether or not it is biologically pre-determined. There are many immoral behaviors - including alcoholism, anti-social disorder (inability to feel empathy for people which often results in crime), murder and pedophilia, just to name a few - that are biologically pre-determined.
At the same time, if homosexuality is not immoral, then there is no reason not to have gay marriage - whether or not homosexuality is pre-determined by biology. There is nothing wrong with choosing homosexuality, if it is not an immoral act.
I also wonder, for the people who consider homosexuality immoral, why they oppose gay marriage. They consider the act of homosexuality immoral, yet not legalizing gay marriage will not prevent people from engaging in those acts. As a matter of fact, even criminalization of sodomy failed to prevent people from engaging in it. This is because sex is not something that can be regulated - unless the government wishes to place surveillance cameras in every bedroom. So preventing the legalization of gay marriage will not prevent the acts that these people consider immoral.
I saw the movie on Hulu, and it inspired me to write down some thoughts I've been having about homosexuality.
In the debate on gay rights, there is a huge debate on whether homosexuality is biologically determined or not. I believe this debate is irrelevant: If homosexuality is immoral, then there should be no legally sanctioned way of entering into an official homosexual relationship, whether or not it is biologically pre-determined. There are many immoral behaviors - including alcoholism, anti-social disorder (inability to feel empathy for people which often results in crime), murder and pedophilia, just to name a few - that are biologically pre-determined.
At the same time, if homosexuality is not immoral, then there is no reason not to have gay marriage - whether or not homosexuality is pre-determined by biology. There is nothing wrong with choosing homosexuality, if it is not an immoral act.
I also wonder, for the people who consider homosexuality immoral, why they oppose gay marriage. They consider the act of homosexuality immoral, yet not legalizing gay marriage will not prevent people from engaging in those acts. As a matter of fact, even criminalization of sodomy failed to prevent people from engaging in it. This is because sex is not something that can be regulated - unless the government wishes to place surveillance cameras in every bedroom. So preventing the legalization of gay marriage will not prevent the acts that these people consider immoral.
Gay Marriage Is An Expression of Family Values
I support gay marriage because I support family value. Marriage, as an official label, allows a couple the legal, financial, social and psychological security they need in order to form a stable, long-term relationship.
Refusing to grant gay couples the right to marry does not prevent them from being gay or having relationships with people of the same sex, it merely introduces an element of instability into those relationships that is unhealthy for both the people in them and the society around them.
It is often argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and gay couples can not biologically do so. This is an insult to the thousands of married heterosexual couples who either choose to be childless or are unable to have children. It insults couples who are biologically able to reproduce but choose instead to adopt, (or not to have children at all) since they have chosen to negate the purpose of marriage (biological reproduction.) It insults couples who are biologically unable to have children, even if they choose to adopt, since according to this logic, those couples are ineligible for marriage. After all, gay couples can adopt as well, and in this they are no different from heterosexual biologically barren couples.
Furthermore, bible-toting anti-gay rights activists must ask themselves whether the marriages of the matriarchs in the Old Testament, all of whom (with the exception of Leah) were barren until God performed a miracle, were invalid up to that point. At the time these couples got married, they clearly were biologically unable to reproduce, not meeting the marriage criteria set up by today’s activists. If one argues God did a miracle to validate the marriage, since God’s miracles can transcend nature, couldn’t He make a man or woman pregnant from gay intercourse – especially if He made a woman, the Virgin Mary, pregnant from no intercourse? (This is leaving aside the separation of Church and State issue, which mandates that religious concerns should not factor into the gay marriage issue at all.)
It has also been argued that marriage is about a true love that homosexuality can not encompass, and that homosexual relationships tend to be more unstable than heterosexual ones. Marriage however, has traditionally been about regulating the merger of properties than about love; for most of Western history, a woman could be forced by her parents into a loveless marriage, which was more about financial stability then about love. There is no way to measure the love in relationship; the surest way to ensure not marriage not based on true love would be to abolish marriage altogether. In terms of the stability element: This is a ludicrous claim, especially since 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. There is no evidence to support this claim, and even if there were, it would be chicken or egg situation: Are these relationships less stable and therefore not good candidates for marriage, or are they less stable precisely because they are not allowed the stability of marriage?
It seems that many anti-gay marriage activists see homosexuality as a choice, an urge to be controlled. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is biologically determined and not a choice. Who would choose to be attracted to a group of people if being attracted to those people makes them social outcasts? It is true that even biological urges can be controlled: The Catholic clergy (sex scandals aside) have done this for ages. But there is a difference between making a conscious choice to set aside one’s urges in favor of one’s beliefs and wanting to fulfill those urges but not being allowed to do so by society. In this first case, one overcomes sexuality in order to pursue a different kind of fulfillment. In the second scenario, one is unable to find fulfillment in life because of their sexuality. This second scenario can lead to intense psychological strain, weakening many individuals in our society. This weakness is detrimental to us all, since our society is the sum of the individuals who comprise it. This applies especially in the case of a democracy, where individuals voting in booths decide who our government will be, and what it will stand for.
Furthermore, even if being gay were a both a choice and immoral, it is important to recognize that preventing gay marriages does not stop people from engaging in homosexual activity.
A New York Times op-ed once posed this question to people who want homosexuals to overcome their tendencies and live straight lives: Would you want to marry, or would you want your child to marry, one of these gay-tendency straight-action people? The assumption of the columnist was that the answer would be no, because people recognize on some level that it is impossible to “overcome” homosexuality, especially enough to have a happy heterosexual marriage.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen both our society and the individuals it is made up of, and in order to strengthen family values, we must allow gay marriage.
As to people who say gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, that is ridiculous. There are many children out there who are in need of loving homes, and to ban gay couples adopting is depriving the children of those homes, while causing pain to the gay couples.
Refusing to grant gay couples the right to marry does not prevent them from being gay or having relationships with people of the same sex, it merely introduces an element of instability into those relationships that is unhealthy for both the people in them and the society around them.
It is often argued that the purpose of marriage is to have children, and gay couples can not biologically do so. This is an insult to the thousands of married heterosexual couples who either choose to be childless or are unable to have children. It insults couples who are biologically able to reproduce but choose instead to adopt, (or not to have children at all) since they have chosen to negate the purpose of marriage (biological reproduction.) It insults couples who are biologically unable to have children, even if they choose to adopt, since according to this logic, those couples are ineligible for marriage. After all, gay couples can adopt as well, and in this they are no different from heterosexual biologically barren couples.
Furthermore, bible-toting anti-gay rights activists must ask themselves whether the marriages of the matriarchs in the Old Testament, all of whom (with the exception of Leah) were barren until God performed a miracle, were invalid up to that point. At the time these couples got married, they clearly were biologically unable to reproduce, not meeting the marriage criteria set up by today’s activists. If one argues God did a miracle to validate the marriage, since God’s miracles can transcend nature, couldn’t He make a man or woman pregnant from gay intercourse – especially if He made a woman, the Virgin Mary, pregnant from no intercourse? (This is leaving aside the separation of Church and State issue, which mandates that religious concerns should not factor into the gay marriage issue at all.)
It has also been argued that marriage is about a true love that homosexuality can not encompass, and that homosexual relationships tend to be more unstable than heterosexual ones. Marriage however, has traditionally been about regulating the merger of properties than about love; for most of Western history, a woman could be forced by her parents into a loveless marriage, which was more about financial stability then about love. There is no way to measure the love in relationship; the surest way to ensure not marriage not based on true love would be to abolish marriage altogether. In terms of the stability element: This is a ludicrous claim, especially since 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce. There is no evidence to support this claim, and even if there were, it would be chicken or egg situation: Are these relationships less stable and therefore not good candidates for marriage, or are they less stable precisely because they are not allowed the stability of marriage?
It seems that many anti-gay marriage activists see homosexuality as a choice, an urge to be controlled. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is biologically determined and not a choice. Who would choose to be attracted to a group of people if being attracted to those people makes them social outcasts? It is true that even biological urges can be controlled: The Catholic clergy (sex scandals aside) have done this for ages. But there is a difference between making a conscious choice to set aside one’s urges in favor of one’s beliefs and wanting to fulfill those urges but not being allowed to do so by society. In this first case, one overcomes sexuality in order to pursue a different kind of fulfillment. In the second scenario, one is unable to find fulfillment in life because of their sexuality. This second scenario can lead to intense psychological strain, weakening many individuals in our society. This weakness is detrimental to us all, since our society is the sum of the individuals who comprise it. This applies especially in the case of a democracy, where individuals voting in booths decide who our government will be, and what it will stand for.
Furthermore, even if being gay were a both a choice and immoral, it is important to recognize that preventing gay marriages does not stop people from engaging in homosexual activity.
A New York Times op-ed once posed this question to people who want homosexuals to overcome their tendencies and live straight lives: Would you want to marry, or would you want your child to marry, one of these gay-tendency straight-action people? The assumption of the columnist was that the answer would be no, because people recognize on some level that it is impossible to “overcome” homosexuality, especially enough to have a happy heterosexual marriage.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen both our society and the individuals it is made up of, and in order to strengthen family values, we must allow gay marriage.
As to people who say gay couples should not be allowed to adopt, that is ridiculous. There are many children out there who are in need of loving homes, and to ban gay couples adopting is depriving the children of those homes, while causing pain to the gay couples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)