Even as Tennessee tries to prevent the word "gay" from being used in schools, polls show that, finally, more than 50 percent of Americans support gay marriage. Of course, George Takei has come up with an ingenious loophole in Tennessee's new legislation, which I was informed of via the Rachel Maddow show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkIWB3HIEs
Cooking and Relationship Advice:
http://www.slate.com/id/2294849/
This article explains why educating men to take equal household responsibility is vital to the success of feminism:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/world/europe/23iht-letter.html
The Planned Parenthood Zine Project
http://ppnnezine.com/
Judaims Links - Specifically, a Debate Within Reform Judaism
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/05/12/3087674/op-ed-reform-judaism-must-move-beyond-personal-choice
http://mahrabu.blogspot.com/2011/05/in-defense-of-autonomy.html
Another Item of Jewish Interest: The Full Texts of the Most Recent Obama Speeches
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/05/19/obamas_speech_on_the_middle_east.html
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/full-text-of-obama-s-aipac-speech-20110522?page=1
I will God willing be traveling from May 24 to July 5th, so probably won't be updating the blog during that time. Have a great summer, and happy Lag Baomer. Thanks for reading!
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Fashion as Objectification: Writing This While Watching AIPAC Coverage on CNN, Here's To Hoping Its Cohesive
I recently went to the Alexander Mcqueen exhibit at the Met with a friend. The exhibit has a quote from Mcqueen where he explained that he was an artist, and fashion was his medium. Watching the videos of his fashion shows, I could not help but think that is fashion was his medium, so were the women who wore his clothes, who were transformed into objects on which to display his work.
Seeing the exhibit reminded me of an article I read in a fashion magazine by a woman who felt that her fashion savoir faire got in the way of her looking beautiful, because the outfits that were a la mode were not necessarily flattering. I realized that this woman was turning her body into a canvas on which to exhibit fashion, and to show off her creativity through the mixing and matching of various items to form a complete outfit, as opposed to using clothes as a way to exhibit her own body's beauty - which might in it and of itself be a different sort of objectification.
Later that day, as I applied eyeliner, it occurred to me: I was literally painting my face, literally transforming myself into a canvas. Oddly enough, this did not make me feel objectified. Streaking stripes across my face, I felt more like a tiger, ready to pounce at the world with my claws.
Then, today, a friend sent me the following link: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/05/18/what-makes-a-body-obscene/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SociologicalImagesSeeingIsBelieving+%28Sociological+Images%3A+Seeing+Is+Believing%29 which, while not about fashion per se, made me think a bit about clothes and the fashion industry.
I think that the reason women are expected to cover their chests and men are not, is that our clothing standards have traditionally been set by a white straight male world, which viewed women's breasts as sexual turn-ons that must be covered the same way other sexual areas must be covered, whereas men's chests were viewed as sexually neutral territory. (President Obama has just been introduced on TV.) This white straight male hegemony was responsible for corsets and bustles, and, I believe - though have yet to do research on this - bras. I can not imagine any woman creating such an uncomfortable contraption (though you never know): It seems that main job of bras is either a) to minimize bounce, thus allowing straight men to avoid dealing with a less sexy part of a sexual organ, the same way tampons/sanitary napkins allow men to avoid dealing with the fact of women's menstruation - a less sexy fact of the woman's sexual anatomy b) to make women's breasts look beautiful - to make them look bigger, or perkier, or shaped in a certain way, or to cover them in lace and other designs that would make them more attractive to a man. Of course, some bras are designed for women's comfort - most noticeably sports bras (applause at the word "reaffirmed" - huh?), but these are not considered bras appropriate for everyday use outside of athletic activities, and are certainly considered unsexy and nebbish (or gay - quite literally) by the fashion world.
Seeing the exhibit reminded me of an article I read in a fashion magazine by a woman who felt that her fashion savoir faire got in the way of her looking beautiful, because the outfits that were a la mode were not necessarily flattering. I realized that this woman was turning her body into a canvas on which to exhibit fashion, and to show off her creativity through the mixing and matching of various items to form a complete outfit, as opposed to using clothes as a way to exhibit her own body's beauty - which might in it and of itself be a different sort of objectification.
Later that day, as I applied eyeliner, it occurred to me: I was literally painting my face, literally transforming myself into a canvas. Oddly enough, this did not make me feel objectified. Streaking stripes across my face, I felt more like a tiger, ready to pounce at the world with my claws.
Then, today, a friend sent me the following link: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/05/18/what-makes-a-body-obscene/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SociologicalImagesSeeingIsBelieving+%28Sociological+Images%3A+Seeing+Is+Believing%29 which, while not about fashion per se, made me think a bit about clothes and the fashion industry.
I think that the reason women are expected to cover their chests and men are not, is that our clothing standards have traditionally been set by a white straight male world, which viewed women's breasts as sexual turn-ons that must be covered the same way other sexual areas must be covered, whereas men's chests were viewed as sexually neutral territory. (President Obama has just been introduced on TV.) This white straight male hegemony was responsible for corsets and bustles, and, I believe - though have yet to do research on this - bras. I can not imagine any woman creating such an uncomfortable contraption (though you never know): It seems that main job of bras is either a) to minimize bounce, thus allowing straight men to avoid dealing with a less sexy part of a sexual organ, the same way tampons/sanitary napkins allow men to avoid dealing with the fact of women's menstruation - a less sexy fact of the woman's sexual anatomy b) to make women's breasts look beautiful - to make them look bigger, or perkier, or shaped in a certain way, or to cover them in lace and other designs that would make them more attractive to a man. Of course, some bras are designed for women's comfort - most noticeably sports bras (applause at the word "reaffirmed" - huh?), but these are not considered bras appropriate for everyday use outside of athletic activities, and are certainly considered unsexy and nebbish (or gay - quite literally) by the fashion world.
Thoughts on Ritual Egalitarianism
Many of my friends have an assumption that an Orthodox woman is by default less liberated than her non-Orthodox counterpart. I reject this assumption; there are many facets of life to be liberated in. One of those facets is the ritual realm. However, the fact that one is liberated in that realm does not necessarily mean that one is liberated in the others, nor does the fact that one is not liberated in that realm mean that one is not liberated in the others. Thus, while an Orthodox woman may be less liberated in the ritual realm, she may be more liberated in other realms, leading to an overall equality between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox women.
For example, I recently noticed that, in my college's egalitarian minyan which mostly serves professors, all of the women were sitting outside of the minyan, watching the children, while the men prayed. Meanwhile, an Orthodox man was watching his children, while his wife prayed in the Orthodox minyan. My Orthodox friend has an even split of housework with her husband, while I know a Reform woman who feels pressure to be the primary house-chore person and caretaker in her home.
I feel that ultimately, freeing women from the expectation that they will automatically be the primary caretaker and primary household chore person, will liberate women - both in terms of career, and by giving them time to be present in public Jewish communal events, such as prayers, regardless of their denomination - is more important than ritual egalitarianism, which I do not equate with ritual equality. Part of this involves educating men, teaching them that they must be equally responsible for childcare and household chores, as the de facto position, though they may of course work out various differing arrangements with their significant other, as opposed to now, where the de facto is that it is primarily the woman's responsibility, but various differing arrangements may be worked out between different couples.
Furthermore, with the rise of partnership minyanim and increased women's presence in the pulpit either by being congregational educators or maharats, I think the ritual gap for women in Orthodox Judaism is lessening, making it more on par with other streams of Judaism. I suppose this is still not 100% egalitarianism, since women can only perform certain parts of the service - which many minyanim reserve for women, in order to counter-act that parts of the service are reserved for men - and women do not have the title "rabbi". As a Jew however, I believe that upholding the halacha ultimately trumps feminism: If women are living fully liberated lives, where they can have fulfilling careers, etc., and can perform some but not all public rituals due to halacha, I think that, given that the halacha is, at that point, presenting an inconvenience, like not eating pork, as opposed to causing major distress, the halacha must be respected. Or, to put it another way: I have a looser definition of "equality" - as long as the ways in which men are empowered and women are not are extremely few and minor, and are balanced out by certain way women are empowered but men are not, then I think that, since true equality may be impossible to achieve, there are certain things not fighting for. I think that these ritual inequalities will lose much of their significance when the playing field is leveled in other realms - which is part of why I think the focus should be on fighting for equality in terms of home roles.
Some might argue that exclusion from parts of ritual causes much more distress than eating pork, however, I believe - though I have no proof - that most women who grow up with the understanding that they can not be rabbis or lead a service the way a man can, do not feel distress about it the same way that women brought up with that expectation do. Orthodox women do - that is, they feel distress, but it is not the type of distress that would still be great after inclusion in a partnership minyan, rather, it is the distress of wanting to be counted in some way, or to lead a service/lein, or give a public shiur - all needs that partnership minyanim and maharat type programs can satisfy. Of course, there are some Orthodox women who feel as much or more distress than their non-Orthodox counterparts, and whose distress will not go away as a result of partnership minyanim and maharat programs. But there might also be someone born with an insane desire for pork. The nature of a religion that has laws, is that some people will feel very oppressed by those laws, because it is impossible for a set of laws to appeal to anyone, instead, it must orient itself towards the majority for the laws to be practical and enforceable. I think we tend to engage in apologetics, but the truth is: Sometimes halacha can be hard, but it is still halacha, and as Jews, it is our task to grapple with that.
A last point: Sometimes I wonder if the egalitarian movement within Judaism has not internalized misogyny: It works of an assumption that the traditionally male roles - leading a service, donning teffilin, being a rabbi - are superior, and the only way to be fully involved as Jews, and that, therefore, those roles must be made available to women. But what makes these roles superior, if not the fact that they have traditionally been done by men? Perhaps praying alone is superior to praying communally, donning tefillin is an alternative but not superior way to connect to God, just as lighting shabbat candles is, and being a rabbi is one of many occupations that allow one to serve the community and connect with the Divine - this does not mean that these roles should not be available to women, since women should have all alternatives on the table, but it does dictate a different attitude towards these roles than I currently see in more liberal streams of Judaism. Furthermore, what about opening the traditional women's roles - of lighting shabbat candles, performing hachnassat orchid, maybe even of going to mikvah in response to certain physical activities connected to one's sexual organs - to men? True equality can not be unidirectional.
For example, I recently noticed that, in my college's egalitarian minyan which mostly serves professors, all of the women were sitting outside of the minyan, watching the children, while the men prayed. Meanwhile, an Orthodox man was watching his children, while his wife prayed in the Orthodox minyan. My Orthodox friend has an even split of housework with her husband, while I know a Reform woman who feels pressure to be the primary house-chore person and caretaker in her home.
I feel that ultimately, freeing women from the expectation that they will automatically be the primary caretaker and primary household chore person, will liberate women - both in terms of career, and by giving them time to be present in public Jewish communal events, such as prayers, regardless of their denomination - is more important than ritual egalitarianism, which I do not equate with ritual equality. Part of this involves educating men, teaching them that they must be equally responsible for childcare and household chores, as the de facto position, though they may of course work out various differing arrangements with their significant other, as opposed to now, where the de facto is that it is primarily the woman's responsibility, but various differing arrangements may be worked out between different couples.
Furthermore, with the rise of partnership minyanim and increased women's presence in the pulpit either by being congregational educators or maharats, I think the ritual gap for women in Orthodox Judaism is lessening, making it more on par with other streams of Judaism. I suppose this is still not 100% egalitarianism, since women can only perform certain parts of the service - which many minyanim reserve for women, in order to counter-act that parts of the service are reserved for men - and women do not have the title "rabbi". As a Jew however, I believe that upholding the halacha ultimately trumps feminism: If women are living fully liberated lives, where they can have fulfilling careers, etc., and can perform some but not all public rituals due to halacha, I think that, given that the halacha is, at that point, presenting an inconvenience, like not eating pork, as opposed to causing major distress, the halacha must be respected. Or, to put it another way: I have a looser definition of "equality" - as long as the ways in which men are empowered and women are not are extremely few and minor, and are balanced out by certain way women are empowered but men are not, then I think that, since true equality may be impossible to achieve, there are certain things not fighting for. I think that these ritual inequalities will lose much of their significance when the playing field is leveled in other realms - which is part of why I think the focus should be on fighting for equality in terms of home roles.
Some might argue that exclusion from parts of ritual causes much more distress than eating pork, however, I believe - though I have no proof - that most women who grow up with the understanding that they can not be rabbis or lead a service the way a man can, do not feel distress about it the same way that women brought up with that expectation do. Orthodox women do - that is, they feel distress, but it is not the type of distress that would still be great after inclusion in a partnership minyan, rather, it is the distress of wanting to be counted in some way, or to lead a service/lein, or give a public shiur - all needs that partnership minyanim and maharat type programs can satisfy. Of course, there are some Orthodox women who feel as much or more distress than their non-Orthodox counterparts, and whose distress will not go away as a result of partnership minyanim and maharat programs. But there might also be someone born with an insane desire for pork. The nature of a religion that has laws, is that some people will feel very oppressed by those laws, because it is impossible for a set of laws to appeal to anyone, instead, it must orient itself towards the majority for the laws to be practical and enforceable. I think we tend to engage in apologetics, but the truth is: Sometimes halacha can be hard, but it is still halacha, and as Jews, it is our task to grapple with that.
A last point: Sometimes I wonder if the egalitarian movement within Judaism has not internalized misogyny: It works of an assumption that the traditionally male roles - leading a service, donning teffilin, being a rabbi - are superior, and the only way to be fully involved as Jews, and that, therefore, those roles must be made available to women. But what makes these roles superior, if not the fact that they have traditionally been done by men? Perhaps praying alone is superior to praying communally, donning tefillin is an alternative but not superior way to connect to God, just as lighting shabbat candles is, and being a rabbi is one of many occupations that allow one to serve the community and connect with the Divine - this does not mean that these roles should not be available to women, since women should have all alternatives on the table, but it does dictate a different attitude towards these roles than I currently see in more liberal streams of Judaism. Furthermore, what about opening the traditional women's roles - of lighting shabbat candles, performing hachnassat orchid, maybe even of going to mikvah in response to certain physical activities connected to one's sexual organs - to men? True equality can not be unidirectional.
Two Short Thoughts
While I generally try to make this blog theoretical and not personal, I would like to note to instances that have happened to me this week that I think are telling about my community:
1. I bumped into a woman and we discussed her son's engagment. She blessed me that I, like her son, should be lucky enough to find my right match - when I was ready. This last phrase, "when you are ready", made me extremely grateful. I have long said that I do not beleive there is a "right" time to marry; there is a right person, and your job is to pursue the life you want and to become the person you want to be, and hope that as a natural progression, this path will lead you to meet that person. However, I often meet people who assume that because I am unmarried, I must be desperately seeking but not finding, or must be failing at seeking. In either case, the solution is to propose set-ups or advise me of dating opportunities. This works off of a basic assumption that I am currently ready to get married and it is (or should be) a priority in my life. In fact however, while I am open to the possibility of marriage in the near future, my focus right now is on myself, and that is a situation I am comfortable with. I am also comfortable with that focus shifting - even in the immediate future - if I develop a serious relationship. Because of this, the phrase "when you are ready" made me grateful, because it took into account the possibility that right now, I might not be, or I might have other priorities.
2. Someone I know is getting a divorce, and I have no idea how to deal with the situation. Our community seems to have guidelines for dealing with marriage, with birth and with death, but not with divorce. I am not sure how to be there for someone - especially someone who is not a super-close friend -in a situation like this. It is unfortunate that there is a higher divorce rate now than there once was, but perhaps, in response to these changes, it would be good for our communities to develop guidelines, and to have support groups for members going through a divorce.
1. I bumped into a woman and we discussed her son's engagment. She blessed me that I, like her son, should be lucky enough to find my right match - when I was ready. This last phrase, "when you are ready", made me extremely grateful. I have long said that I do not beleive there is a "right" time to marry; there is a right person, and your job is to pursue the life you want and to become the person you want to be, and hope that as a natural progression, this path will lead you to meet that person. However, I often meet people who assume that because I am unmarried, I must be desperately seeking but not finding, or must be failing at seeking. In either case, the solution is to propose set-ups or advise me of dating opportunities. This works off of a basic assumption that I am currently ready to get married and it is (or should be) a priority in my life. In fact however, while I am open to the possibility of marriage in the near future, my focus right now is on myself, and that is a situation I am comfortable with. I am also comfortable with that focus shifting - even in the immediate future - if I develop a serious relationship. Because of this, the phrase "when you are ready" made me grateful, because it took into account the possibility that right now, I might not be, or I might have other priorities.
2. Someone I know is getting a divorce, and I have no idea how to deal with the situation. Our community seems to have guidelines for dealing with marriage, with birth and with death, but not with divorce. I am not sure how to be there for someone - especially someone who is not a super-close friend -in a situation like this. It is unfortunate that there is a higher divorce rate now than there once was, but perhaps, in response to these changes, it would be good for our communities to develop guidelines, and to have support groups for members going through a divorce.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Phallocentrism and Lesbianism
I have a theory that in general society, it is easier to be a gay man than a gay woman, due to mysogyny. This mysogyny takes two forms:
1. There are elements of mysogyny in certain male homosexual communities, and though these communities are a minority, there is not the same level of misandry in lesbian communities.
2. Our society is extremely phallocentric. Gay men do not negate the need for the phallus, thus they are not a threat to phallocentrism. Lesbian women however, negate the need for a phallus in order to acheive sexual pleasure. This is threatening not only to the phallocentric structure of our patriarchal society, but also the psyches of invidual men, who have been taught that their worth is in their penis, and in women's need for that penis in order to achieve orgasm.*
Thus, the media tends to portray lesbians as extremely butch and masculine, depriving them of womanhood by attributing to them characeristics associated with phalluses. It is common to envision butch/feminine couples, implying that the phallus - or at least markers that stand in for it - is still a part of lesbian relationships.
The other media trend is to fetishize lesbians. This places them in the phallocentric framework, where now their desires are being appropriated in order to stimulate the phallus - their phallus-less relationship is ok as long as it still serves the needs of the phallus in some way. Furthermore, this fetishization often transforms lesbians into bisexuals, therefore a) making the fantasy more "real" because the girls making out might let the man in on the action for a menage a trois b) putting back in the need for the phallus: Now the need for cunt is in addition to, not instead of, the need for the penis. This especially true because the media image of the bisexual (somehow media bisexuals are all women, where have the male ones dissapeared to?) seems to be that she needs both a man and a woman to feel satisfied, while in reality, most bisexuals are capable of being stasified in a monogomous relationship with either/or, making the phallus a possibility, but not a requirement, for sexual satisfaction.
* As a matter of fact, our society's entire definition of sex as penatration, and of sexual pleasure as orgasm, is both heteronormative and phallocentric.
1. There are elements of mysogyny in certain male homosexual communities, and though these communities are a minority, there is not the same level of misandry in lesbian communities.
2. Our society is extremely phallocentric. Gay men do not negate the need for the phallus, thus they are not a threat to phallocentrism. Lesbian women however, negate the need for a phallus in order to acheive sexual pleasure. This is threatening not only to the phallocentric structure of our patriarchal society, but also the psyches of invidual men, who have been taught that their worth is in their penis, and in women's need for that penis in order to achieve orgasm.*
Thus, the media tends to portray lesbians as extremely butch and masculine, depriving them of womanhood by attributing to them characeristics associated with phalluses. It is common to envision butch/feminine couples, implying that the phallus - or at least markers that stand in for it - is still a part of lesbian relationships.
The other media trend is to fetishize lesbians. This places them in the phallocentric framework, where now their desires are being appropriated in order to stimulate the phallus - their phallus-less relationship is ok as long as it still serves the needs of the phallus in some way. Furthermore, this fetishization often transforms lesbians into bisexuals, therefore a) making the fantasy more "real" because the girls making out might let the man in on the action for a menage a trois b) putting back in the need for the phallus: Now the need for cunt is in addition to, not instead of, the need for the penis. This especially true because the media image of the bisexual (somehow media bisexuals are all women, where have the male ones dissapeared to?) seems to be that she needs both a man and a woman to feel satisfied, while in reality, most bisexuals are capable of being stasified in a monogomous relationship with either/or, making the phallus a possibility, but not a requirement, for sexual satisfaction.
* As a matter of fact, our society's entire definition of sex as penatration, and of sexual pleasure as orgasm, is both heteronormative and phallocentric.
Resources
When I started this blog, I also meant for it to serve as a resource base. The following article recently came up on my Facebook feed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hx9J9-ta5CCFnpCj0kY7NGO9cS9w?docId=0f1a6220f2a5426e96d8b4e4d8a954fe
This led me to the following three sources, all different websites serving the Orthodox gay community in Israel. These groups hold events as well - Havruta, for example, held its own megillah reading on Purim.
http://havruta.org.il/english
http://www.hod.org.il/?en=1
http://www.kamoha.org.il/?page_id=43
On the subject of resources, I read two books which I highly reccomend:
1. Expanding the Palace of Torah, by Tamar Ross: http://www.amazon.com/Expanding-Palace-Torah-Orthodoxy-Feminism/dp/1584653906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305677143&sr=1-1
2. Gender Relationships In Marriage and Out, edited by Rivkah Blau, from the Orthodox Forum: http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Relationships-Marriage-Rivkah-Blau/dp/0881259713/ref=sr_1_30?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305677269&sr=1-30
This led me to the following three sources, all different websites serving the Orthodox gay community in Israel. These groups hold events as well - Havruta, for example, held its own megillah reading on Purim.
http://havruta.org.il/english
http://www.hod.org.il/?en=1
http://www.kamoha.org.il/?page_id=43
On the subject of resources, I read two books which I highly reccomend:
1. Expanding the Palace of Torah, by Tamar Ross: http://www.amazon.com/Expanding-Palace-Torah-Orthodoxy-Feminism/dp/1584653906/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305677143&sr=1-1
2. Gender Relationships In Marriage and Out, edited by Rivkah Blau, from the Orthodox Forum: http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Relationships-Marriage-Rivkah-Blau/dp/0881259713/ref=sr_1_30?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305677269&sr=1-30
Background
A friend of mine who is getting an MA in psych told me he thought I over-simplified the pedophilia case, that while many are biologically prone to it, some are not, and it depends on the person.
A different friend of mine told me that in her opinion it is easier to be an Orthodox gay woman than an Orthodox gay man.
This brings me to the subject of authority: What I write here is my opinion. I guess, in order to decide how to react to my opinion, you are entitled to my background.*
I am an Orthodox Jew. Much of my opinions about the Orthodox world are based directly on my experiences with it, as well as some sociological articles I have read. Within the Orthodox community, I try to directly engage others in conversations about things that matter to me, which includes many sex and gender issues. I do this a) to learn from others and hear their opinion b) to try to get a sense of the Orthodox concensus around me. I admit that my sampling supply is limited, and would not really get me anywhere if I were to write an academic paper.
I have taken a few college courses that were part of the gender studies program, and some courses in psychology. I cull from what I learned in those, as well as books/articles I have read - and while I do try to be well-educated on the subject, at the end of the day, my knowledge is limited to what I have time to read.
I have also recently spent some time at a feminist institute of Jewish education, which has deepend my understanding of Jewish feminism by fostering dialogue with passionate, commited, and well-educated Jewish women (and men) about a variety of gender and sex related issues.
Now that you know more about where I am coming from, I hope it will help you to understand my posts, and decide how you want to relate to them.
* I have long argued journalists and even academicians should have to present backgrounds, since as humans, it is impossible to be completely unbiased, no matter how hard we try.
A different friend of mine told me that in her opinion it is easier to be an Orthodox gay woman than an Orthodox gay man.
This brings me to the subject of authority: What I write here is my opinion. I guess, in order to decide how to react to my opinion, you are entitled to my background.*
I am an Orthodox Jew. Much of my opinions about the Orthodox world are based directly on my experiences with it, as well as some sociological articles I have read. Within the Orthodox community, I try to directly engage others in conversations about things that matter to me, which includes many sex and gender issues. I do this a) to learn from others and hear their opinion b) to try to get a sense of the Orthodox concensus around me. I admit that my sampling supply is limited, and would not really get me anywhere if I were to write an academic paper.
I have taken a few college courses that were part of the gender studies program, and some courses in psychology. I cull from what I learned in those, as well as books/articles I have read - and while I do try to be well-educated on the subject, at the end of the day, my knowledge is limited to what I have time to read.
I have also recently spent some time at a feminist institute of Jewish education, which has deepend my understanding of Jewish feminism by fostering dialogue with passionate, commited, and well-educated Jewish women (and men) about a variety of gender and sex related issues.
Now that you know more about where I am coming from, I hope it will help you to understand my posts, and decide how you want to relate to them.
* I have long argued journalists and even academicians should have to present backgrounds, since as humans, it is impossible to be completely unbiased, no matter how hard we try.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Biological Essentialism
While I consider myself an advocate of gay rights, I am troubled by the biological essentialism I have seen in certain segments of the gay rights movement. The argument goes something like this: A person is born biologically attracted to people of the same gender, so their being gay is ok.
I agree with the first part of the statement - that sexuality (at least for men, for women the picture is slightly more ambiguous) is biological, however, I do not believe that simply because a behavior is biologically mandated that makes it moral.
Thus, while one's attraction is a matter of biology, how one chooses to act - or not act- about those attractions is a matter of choice. It is possible to be attracted to members of the same sex and not act on that attraction. Of course, to do so would be extremely difficult, not to mention emotionally, psychologically, and physically unhealthy, and could easily result in misery, but it is possible - which means that not do so, to choose to act on one's desires - is a choice.
Studies show that much of who we are is influenced by genetics. Murderers are often born pre-disposed to violence. I dread the day a murderer gets off in court because he shows a DNA test that proves he was biologically pre-disposed to violence.
Recent studies have showed that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biologically pre-determined sexual orientation. Yet pedophilia is still a crime - and rightly so. We expect pedophiles, as difficult as it may be for them, to keep it in their skirt/pants, for the safety of our children and the health of our society.
Of course, unlike pedophilia, I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral - which brings me to my other point of contention: By fighting for gay rights on the platform that being gay is biologically pre-determined, the gay rights groups are inadvertently and implicitly acknowledging that homosexuality is immoral. If homosexuality is moral, it should not matter whether or not it is biologically pre-determined - no one asks if my desire to share my toys with my neighbor is biologically pre-determined, because it is considered a moral action - I only need to use biology as an excuse or justification if my action would not be moral, were it not for the fact that I was biologically compelled to do it, and hence had no choice in the matter.
I agree with the first part of the statement - that sexuality (at least for men, for women the picture is slightly more ambiguous) is biological, however, I do not believe that simply because a behavior is biologically mandated that makes it moral.
Thus, while one's attraction is a matter of biology, how one chooses to act - or not act- about those attractions is a matter of choice. It is possible to be attracted to members of the same sex and not act on that attraction. Of course, to do so would be extremely difficult, not to mention emotionally, psychologically, and physically unhealthy, and could easily result in misery, but it is possible - which means that not do so, to choose to act on one's desires - is a choice.
Studies show that much of who we are is influenced by genetics. Murderers are often born pre-disposed to violence. I dread the day a murderer gets off in court because he shows a DNA test that proves he was biologically pre-disposed to violence.
Recent studies have showed that pedophilia, like homosexuality, is a biologically pre-determined sexual orientation. Yet pedophilia is still a crime - and rightly so. We expect pedophiles, as difficult as it may be for them, to keep it in their skirt/pants, for the safety of our children and the health of our society.
Of course, unlike pedophilia, I do not believe that homosexuality is immoral - which brings me to my other point of contention: By fighting for gay rights on the platform that being gay is biologically pre-determined, the gay rights groups are inadvertently and implicitly acknowledging that homosexuality is immoral. If homosexuality is moral, it should not matter whether or not it is biologically pre-determined - no one asks if my desire to share my toys with my neighbor is biologically pre-determined, because it is considered a moral action - I only need to use biology as an excuse or justification if my action would not be moral, were it not for the fact that I was biologically compelled to do it, and hence had no choice in the matter.
Gender Essentialism
As a friend of mine recently reminded me that Judith Butler, one of the pioneers of gender and queer theory, believes that gender is performative. That is to say, gender is a role one assumes, not a biologically pre-determined outcome.
The notion that gender roles (as opposed to physical sex) are biologically pre-determined is called "gender essentialism". Gender/queer theory believes that gender essentialism is a self-reifying force: By framing gender as a biological imperative, it causes women and men to simply accept the gender roles they are given, thus "proving" its own theory by becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like many feminists, I believe that gender roles can change, and that they must change in order to provide us with a more egalitarian society. Furthermore, I believe that the status of current gender roles negatively affects not only the lives of women, but also the lives of men - even straight men who feel comfortable in their current role - albeit, to different degrees and in different ways.
I do however, believe in what I shall term the "soft" theory of gender essentialism: I believe that women are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated by society with the term "feminine", and men are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated with the term "male".
Being biologically prone to something however, does not make it one's destiny. Thus, a person may be born biologically prone to alcoholism, but still not become an alcoholic. Similarly, a person may be biologically prone to obesity, but if they are aware of their genetic pre-disposition and work hard to combat it, they may maintain a healthy weight.
The problem is not that our society has set up gender roles, but a) that a vast power differential exists between those roles b) that it is considered unacceptable for a person of a certain sex to not adhere to the gender role associated with that sex.
I have no hard evidence for this, but somehow I connect Kinsey's groundbreaking work about homosexuality/heretosexuality being a scale, as opposed to a strict dichotomy, with the beginning of the acceptance of homosexuals. It is harder to classify someone as Other if their Otherness stems not from them having a trait completely alien to you, but rather, from their having the same trait as you, but to a completely different degree - you are both on the same scale, just at different points.
I think gender, like sexuality, should be scalar. There can be a feminine pole and a masculine pole, with all sorts of shades in between. This scale should be dissociated from sex. Thus, a male sexed person should have the freedom to take on the role on the ultra-feminine side of the scale, and vice versa. I suspect most people would fall somewhere in between, taking qualities they like from each gender. This dissociation would make life substantially easier for gender queer and transgender people, without completely getting rid of gender, since many people out there enjoy taking on gender roles.
This gender-sex dissociation however, must not be taken on at the expense of changing the discourse about gender roles to begin with, and of getting rid of the power differential between the female and male roles.
The notion that gender roles (as opposed to physical sex) are biologically pre-determined is called "gender essentialism". Gender/queer theory believes that gender essentialism is a self-reifying force: By framing gender as a biological imperative, it causes women and men to simply accept the gender roles they are given, thus "proving" its own theory by becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Like many feminists, I believe that gender roles can change, and that they must change in order to provide us with a more egalitarian society. Furthermore, I believe that the status of current gender roles negatively affects not only the lives of women, but also the lives of men - even straight men who feel comfortable in their current role - albeit, to different degrees and in different ways.
I do however, believe in what I shall term the "soft" theory of gender essentialism: I believe that women are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated by society with the term "feminine", and men are born biologically prone to certain (but not all) types of roles/actions often associated with the term "male".
Being biologically prone to something however, does not make it one's destiny. Thus, a person may be born biologically prone to alcoholism, but still not become an alcoholic. Similarly, a person may be biologically prone to obesity, but if they are aware of their genetic pre-disposition and work hard to combat it, they may maintain a healthy weight.
The problem is not that our society has set up gender roles, but a) that a vast power differential exists between those roles b) that it is considered unacceptable for a person of a certain sex to not adhere to the gender role associated with that sex.
I have no hard evidence for this, but somehow I connect Kinsey's groundbreaking work about homosexuality/heretosexuality being a scale, as opposed to a strict dichotomy, with the beginning of the acceptance of homosexuals. It is harder to classify someone as Other if their Otherness stems not from them having a trait completely alien to you, but rather, from their having the same trait as you, but to a completely different degree - you are both on the same scale, just at different points.
I think gender, like sexuality, should be scalar. There can be a feminine pole and a masculine pole, with all sorts of shades in between. This scale should be dissociated from sex. Thus, a male sexed person should have the freedom to take on the role on the ultra-feminine side of the scale, and vice versa. I suspect most people would fall somewhere in between, taking qualities they like from each gender. This dissociation would make life substantially easier for gender queer and transgender people, without completely getting rid of gender, since many people out there enjoy taking on gender roles.
This gender-sex dissociation however, must not be taken on at the expense of changing the discourse about gender roles to begin with, and of getting rid of the power differential between the female and male roles.
A Note on Cheating and Space
Often, there may be things partner A does that bother partner B, even if they are within the bounds set by the couple. If such a situation occurs, here are a couple of questions worth asking yourself:
1. Why does this bother you? Is there something specific about the situation - ie, B is meeting a girl at a restaunt, a setting you mentally define as a "date'? Is it that this situation objectively makes you uncomfortable - ie, having B have dinner alone with a girl at a fancy restaurant will always make you uneasy? If so, it might pay to take a second look at the boundaries you have set for your relationship - maybe you could make a "no dinners with a person of whatever gender(s) we are sexually attracted to at a fancy restaurant" rule, where B and the girl can meet for a pizza dinner or for a fancy lunch, and still have space to have a friendship, but not in a way that makes you uncomfortable.
2. Alternatively, did B and this girl once date? If so, remember: There is a reason they broke up, and a reason he is with you now, and not with her.
3. If you are nervous after asking yourself these questions, it may pay to have a conversation that goes something like this:
A. Affirmation
I wanted to talk to you about your dinner with C tonight. I love you, and I know that you would not violate my trust.
B. Expression of Concern
However, I am uneasy about your having dinner with C tonight,
C. Reason
because ......now discuss what you can do, both as inviduals and as a couple, to adress this reason/cause of concern.
or
I don't know why that is, and I know I have no reason to be concerned, however, I wanted to share my feelings with you, and let you know what's going on in my head.
D. Resolution
An active, concrete solution to address the reason if there is one.
or (and optional, sometimes there is no resolution for a reason-less problem, and that is ok)
I am still trying to figure out why I am concerned, and trying to work on myself so as not to feel this way in the future. I want you to feel comfortable to go out with friends.
E. Re-Affirmation
I am grateful/happy that we have had this conversation. I love you and I hope you have a good time tonight.
4. Is this an unreasonable fear? Does it pay to ignore it? Sometimes it can pay to share unreasonable fears in a calm manner, because if not, they might come up in an angry manner later on (ex. if you resent A's having dinner with C even though you know it is unreasonable). It is important to pick a good time, when you are both happy and not rushed, to have these types of conversations, even though it is hard and so tempting to keep pushing it off.
5. Does this fear speak to a fundamental insecurity about yourself or about your relationship? If so, is this an issue that can be talked about and worked through? If it is due to insecurity about yourself, it may pay to seek professional help, because insecurity can be a major drain on any relationship.
6. Does this speak to a very particular issue that is easily adressed? For example, if you realize that boys' nights make you nervous because you feel very left out of that part of your hubby's life, it might pay to have one night (or even a couple) where you boyfriend's guy friends (and maybe even their significant others as well) come over for dinner, or where you go out for drinks. These night should be in addition to your boyfriends' guys nights out however, not instead of. That way, next time he goes out, you will feel more secure because you will know who he is going with, and you won't feel like its this mysterious part of his life that you're not included in.
1. Why does this bother you? Is there something specific about the situation - ie, B is meeting a girl at a restaunt, a setting you mentally define as a "date'? Is it that this situation objectively makes you uncomfortable - ie, having B have dinner alone with a girl at a fancy restaurant will always make you uneasy? If so, it might pay to take a second look at the boundaries you have set for your relationship - maybe you could make a "no dinners with a person of whatever gender(s) we are sexually attracted to at a fancy restaurant" rule, where B and the girl can meet for a pizza dinner or for a fancy lunch, and still have space to have a friendship, but not in a way that makes you uncomfortable.
2. Alternatively, did B and this girl once date? If so, remember: There is a reason they broke up, and a reason he is with you now, and not with her.
3. If you are nervous after asking yourself these questions, it may pay to have a conversation that goes something like this:
A. Affirmation
I wanted to talk to you about your dinner with C tonight. I love you, and I know that you would not violate my trust.
B. Expression of Concern
However, I am uneasy about your having dinner with C tonight,
C. Reason
because ......now discuss what you can do, both as inviduals and as a couple, to adress this reason/cause of concern.
or
I don't know why that is, and I know I have no reason to be concerned, however, I wanted to share my feelings with you, and let you know what's going on in my head.
D. Resolution
An active, concrete solution to address the reason if there is one.
or (and optional, sometimes there is no resolution for a reason-less problem, and that is ok)
I am still trying to figure out why I am concerned, and trying to work on myself so as not to feel this way in the future. I want you to feel comfortable to go out with friends.
E. Re-Affirmation
I am grateful/happy that we have had this conversation. I love you and I hope you have a good time tonight.
4. Is this an unreasonable fear? Does it pay to ignore it? Sometimes it can pay to share unreasonable fears in a calm manner, because if not, they might come up in an angry manner later on (ex. if you resent A's having dinner with C even though you know it is unreasonable). It is important to pick a good time, when you are both happy and not rushed, to have these types of conversations, even though it is hard and so tempting to keep pushing it off.
5. Does this fear speak to a fundamental insecurity about yourself or about your relationship? If so, is this an issue that can be talked about and worked through? If it is due to insecurity about yourself, it may pay to seek professional help, because insecurity can be a major drain on any relationship.
6. Does this speak to a very particular issue that is easily adressed? For example, if you realize that boys' nights make you nervous because you feel very left out of that part of your hubby's life, it might pay to have one night (or even a couple) where you boyfriend's guy friends (and maybe even their significant others as well) come over for dinner, or where you go out for drinks. These night should be in addition to your boyfriends' guys nights out however, not instead of. That way, next time he goes out, you will feel more secure because you will know who he is going with, and you won't feel like its this mysterious part of his life that you're not included in.
Open Relationships: Part Deux for the Menage a beacoups de persons...
I beleive that whatever a couple mutually defines as cheating, is cheating, and there is no "right" or "wrong" definition, as long as each partner is comfortable with the definition. Open relationships do not violate this rule. However, often one partner will compromise - either by agreeing to not do something they would like to do, or by agreeing to let their partner do something they would rather have that partner not do. I understand that some degree of compromise is inevitable, but due to the nature of open relationships, I beleive that when the compromise is a couple's not being monogomous because of the needs of one person, at that point, it is not a compromise at all, but one partner capitulating to the other on something that defines the very nature of their relationship. So I think open relationships are prone to misuse.
Also, being non-monogomous is not a substitute for one person giving the other space, though many seem to think it is.
My other major beef with open relationships is that you are defining your relationship not in relation to your partner, but in relation to others (being with other people) or in relation to what is not present in your relationship (monogamy) as opposed to what is (love, affection, fun, etc.). This may seem like a minor semantic issue, but I beleive that words effect realities, and shape how we view things, giving form to self-fulfilling prophecies. Shaping discourse about something can become in effect, shaping the thing itself. I am not going to pretend to understand Foucault, though I have tried reading and re-reading various works by him, but that is what other people (ie college professors) tell me he said.
Also, being non-monogomous is not a substitute for one person giving the other space, though many seem to think it is.
My other major beef with open relationships is that you are defining your relationship not in relation to your partner, but in relation to others (being with other people) or in relation to what is not present in your relationship (monogamy) as opposed to what is (love, affection, fun, etc.). This may seem like a minor semantic issue, but I beleive that words effect realities, and shape how we view things, giving form to self-fulfilling prophecies. Shaping discourse about something can become in effect, shaping the thing itself. I am not going to pretend to understand Foucault, though I have tried reading and re-reading various works by him, but that is what other people (ie college professors) tell me he said.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Open Relationships
Ok, now that I have tackled Random Hookups (yay!) time to move on to Open Relationships (Polyamory is all around us, and then the feeling grows.*):
There are two major types of open relationshops:
1. The couple is allowed random hookups, but not to date in a serious way.
2. All cards - both physical connections and emotional ones/real dating - are on the table.
Within these two categories, there are two physical sub-categories:
3. Yes to everything but sex.
4. Any physical action is ok.
I understand I have no right to judge; I know many people who are extremely happy with their open relationships. I am speaking right now about hesitations I have about the institution (leaving aside religious issues - clearly, Orthodox Judaism does not recognize the concept of an "open marriage" - nor would I want one - "Hey honey, I can't tuck the kids in tonight because I need to meet my lover at the S&M club down the street" - that might work for some people and make them very happy, but it's not my style.)
1. I would like to start off by observing that 90% of the people I know in open relationships either a) do not plan on getting married/winding up together permanently or b) see the open-ness as a remedy to the problem of dating long-distance, to be terminated once the couple is able to live near (or with) each other. I think that these facts say quite a lot about the nature of a long distance relationship: It is often either an indicator of doubts as to the long-long-term viability, or an imperfect remedy for having sexual needs that for whatever reason, can not currently be fulfilled by the partner in question.
Now, with these two facts in mind, I will explain my personal misgivings about this type of romantic attachment:
1. If you are saying that dating and physical connections are both on the table, you are essentially saying that you can not completely fulfill either each other's emotional or physical needs, and if you are both seriously dating on the side, you are both seriously seeking out romantic life partners who are not each other, which begs the question - why are you together in the first place?
2. If you are only having random hookups, whether or not those hookups involve actual sex, there is a major STD risk (yes, you can get herpes from a hookup that does not involve intercourse). You are basically limiting yourself to people you do not know, and often, people who engage in random hookups, since they tend to be with more people, have a higher risk of STDs, since they have more potential sources from whom to pick up disease. I do not mean this as a moral judgement; it is an unfortunate but true fact. This means your risk is higher as well. Of course, you could just go around having random hookups with people you know/trust they don't have STDs, but after a while, wouldn't that get pretty awkward?
3. If you are people who enjoy spending time together but sleep both with each other and with others, what makes you more than friends with benefits?
If any couples in open relationships want to respond, that would be great - I would love to learn more about this from people actually involved in it, and hear what they have to say. I have heard form my friends, but its a limited sample.
There are two major types of open relationshops:
1. The couple is allowed random hookups, but not to date in a serious way.
2. All cards - both physical connections and emotional ones/real dating - are on the table.
Within these two categories, there are two physical sub-categories:
3. Yes to everything but sex.
4. Any physical action is ok.
I understand I have no right to judge; I know many people who are extremely happy with their open relationships. I am speaking right now about hesitations I have about the institution (leaving aside religious issues - clearly, Orthodox Judaism does not recognize the concept of an "open marriage" - nor would I want one - "Hey honey, I can't tuck the kids in tonight because I need to meet my lover at the S&M club down the street" - that might work for some people and make them very happy, but it's not my style.)
1. I would like to start off by observing that 90% of the people I know in open relationships either a) do not plan on getting married/winding up together permanently or b) see the open-ness as a remedy to the problem of dating long-distance, to be terminated once the couple is able to live near (or with) each other. I think that these facts say quite a lot about the nature of a long distance relationship: It is often either an indicator of doubts as to the long-long-term viability, or an imperfect remedy for having sexual needs that for whatever reason, can not currently be fulfilled by the partner in question.
Now, with these two facts in mind, I will explain my personal misgivings about this type of romantic attachment:
1. If you are saying that dating and physical connections are both on the table, you are essentially saying that you can not completely fulfill either each other's emotional or physical needs, and if you are both seriously dating on the side, you are both seriously seeking out romantic life partners who are not each other, which begs the question - why are you together in the first place?
2. If you are only having random hookups, whether or not those hookups involve actual sex, there is a major STD risk (yes, you can get herpes from a hookup that does not involve intercourse). You are basically limiting yourself to people you do not know, and often, people who engage in random hookups, since they tend to be with more people, have a higher risk of STDs, since they have more potential sources from whom to pick up disease. I do not mean this as a moral judgement; it is an unfortunate but true fact. This means your risk is higher as well. Of course, you could just go around having random hookups with people you know/trust they don't have STDs, but after a while, wouldn't that get pretty awkward?
3. If you are people who enjoy spending time together but sleep both with each other and with others, what makes you more than friends with benefits?
If any couples in open relationships want to respond, that would be great - I would love to learn more about this from people actually involved in it, and hear what they have to say. I have heard form my friends, but its a limited sample.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Random Hookups
I have long argued the the culture of random hookups tends to hurt women more than men. This is because it is easier (as a general rule - of course there are exceptions!) for men to detach themselves from a hookup than it is for women. I beleive this is mostly due to socialization: Women are taught to expect/want sex only within the context of a serious relationship, are taught that their self-worth stems from such relationships, as well as from desirability (putting so much more pressure on each sexual encounter) and that hooking up outside of a relationship makes them a whore. Part of this however, is biological: Women tend to produce a hormone that encourages emotional attachment during sex - men do not produce this hormone.
Empirically, I have gotten a number of late-night phonecalls from girls with what I term post-hookup syndrome: Feeling used and rejected when it turns out the man really only wanted a one-night stand, feeling upset when said man avoids one afterwards, neglecting even the friendship which might have existed pre-hookup. I have yet to receive one such call from a man.*
I have developed a few theories about this phenomena. I don't know if any are right, but I suspect each is right for some situations but not for others, though there may be some situations not encompassed by these theories:
1. The girl secretly hopes for more than a random hookup, even though the guy says its all he wants, so she is dissapointed when what he said turns out to be true.
2. The girl lies to herself and really wants more (as she is conditioned to do by our society), but only realizes after that fact that she was lying to herself.
3. There was a sexual tension to the friendship/acquaintance-ship, and hooking up got rid of the tension this relationship was premised on, therefore, for the man, getting rid of the need for the relationship/further contact, whereas for the woman, who viewed the tension as part of but not all of the relationship, the need for it is still there.
4. The man is ashamed in some way, hence does not want to face the woman, who reminds him of his shame. (Like in Amon and Tamar: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b13.htm)**
5. The man has been told by society that girls can not handle random hookups, but will want to turn those into a relationship, and/or he has a big ego (perhaps because as a man in our patriarchal society, he is encouraged to have a big ego). He therefore interprets even normal, friendly, unromantic actions by the girl as evidence that she really wants him, and is pursuing a romantic relationship with him. He does not interpret such actions as evidence pre-hookup, because he has no "proof" she is attracted to him, but does interpret them as such once they are corroborated by the hookup-cum-proof. He thus avoids the girl, to send the clear message that he is not romantically interested in her, to counter-act her perceived romantic interest in him.
Closing Thoughts:
1. This paradigm could be changed if women were taught to dissociate emotion from sex, but would such a dissociation be "good" - would it be healthy? Isn't there something to be said for having sex mean something? Maybe the shift should be that men are encouraged to value sex as an emotional experience.
2. I am generalizing, and beleive that this generalization holds true because of the patriarchal way our society is currently structured, but here goes: The average woman, if she is with a friend she is not particularly attracted to/not romantically interested in, if he solicits her for a hookup, will not take it. The average man, on the other hand, will, as long as there is even the slightest amount of physical attraction. This observation is backed up by psychological studies, but I beleive those studies are biased. Evolutionary psychology in general has a tendency to reinforce stereotypes about women wanting emotional attachments more than men, because they need to look for a father who will help raise the kids, whereas men look for more sexual attachments to spread their seed, but I beleive that this is largely due to bias: Evolutionary psychologists often want to find results that enforce these stereotypes, precisely because those stereotypes reinforce the evolutionary theory that the researchers have even before they start designing their experiments.
Also, here is a link to an interesting article on the topic, that quotes from one of my favorite Sex and The City Episodes (hey, don't judge me!): http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29282186/ns/today-relationships/t/can-you-should-you-have-sex-man/
* I notice I use the words girls/man vs girls/boy or women/men. I beleive this has to do with the way our society disrespects women, but respects men - hence term of disrespect for females my age seems natural to me, whereas one of respect is my de facto for males. If you think"girl" is respectful: Know that in the south, during the Jim Crow era, African-American men and women were reffered to by white people as boy/girl, no matter what their age, as a matter of principle, in order to disrespect them. Both Richard Wright and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have mentioned this fact in various writings. I am too lazy to look up exact quotes right now.
** As Pirkey Avot says, "A love based on something - the thing dissapears, the love dissappears." It then gives the Amnon/Tamar story as an example - an attraction based on lust that evaporated once the lust was satisfied. Of course, here "friendship"or some other noun must be substituted for love.
Empirically, I have gotten a number of late-night phonecalls from girls with what I term post-hookup syndrome: Feeling used and rejected when it turns out the man really only wanted a one-night stand, feeling upset when said man avoids one afterwards, neglecting even the friendship which might have existed pre-hookup. I have yet to receive one such call from a man.*
I have developed a few theories about this phenomena. I don't know if any are right, but I suspect each is right for some situations but not for others, though there may be some situations not encompassed by these theories:
1. The girl secretly hopes for more than a random hookup, even though the guy says its all he wants, so she is dissapointed when what he said turns out to be true.
2. The girl lies to herself and really wants more (as she is conditioned to do by our society), but only realizes after that fact that she was lying to herself.
3. There was a sexual tension to the friendship/acquaintance-ship, and hooking up got rid of the tension this relationship was premised on, therefore, for the man, getting rid of the need for the relationship/further contact, whereas for the woman, who viewed the tension as part of but not all of the relationship, the need for it is still there.
4. The man is ashamed in some way, hence does not want to face the woman, who reminds him of his shame. (Like in Amon and Tamar: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b13.htm)**
5. The man has been told by society that girls can not handle random hookups, but will want to turn those into a relationship, and/or he has a big ego (perhaps because as a man in our patriarchal society, he is encouraged to have a big ego). He therefore interprets even normal, friendly, unromantic actions by the girl as evidence that she really wants him, and is pursuing a romantic relationship with him. He does not interpret such actions as evidence pre-hookup, because he has no "proof" she is attracted to him, but does interpret them as such once they are corroborated by the hookup-cum-proof. He thus avoids the girl, to send the clear message that he is not romantically interested in her, to counter-act her perceived romantic interest in him.
Closing Thoughts:
1. This paradigm could be changed if women were taught to dissociate emotion from sex, but would such a dissociation be "good" - would it be healthy? Isn't there something to be said for having sex mean something? Maybe the shift should be that men are encouraged to value sex as an emotional experience.
2. I am generalizing, and beleive that this generalization holds true because of the patriarchal way our society is currently structured, but here goes: The average woman, if she is with a friend she is not particularly attracted to/not romantically interested in, if he solicits her for a hookup, will not take it. The average man, on the other hand, will, as long as there is even the slightest amount of physical attraction. This observation is backed up by psychological studies, but I beleive those studies are biased. Evolutionary psychology in general has a tendency to reinforce stereotypes about women wanting emotional attachments more than men, because they need to look for a father who will help raise the kids, whereas men look for more sexual attachments to spread their seed, but I beleive that this is largely due to bias: Evolutionary psychologists often want to find results that enforce these stereotypes, precisely because those stereotypes reinforce the evolutionary theory that the researchers have even before they start designing their experiments.
Also, here is a link to an interesting article on the topic, that quotes from one of my favorite Sex and The City Episodes (hey, don't judge me!): http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29282186/ns/today-relationships/t/can-you-should-you-have-sex-man/
* I notice I use the words girls/man vs girls/boy or women/men. I beleive this has to do with the way our society disrespects women, but respects men - hence term of disrespect for females my age seems natural to me, whereas one of respect is my de facto for males. If you think"girl" is respectful: Know that in the south, during the Jim Crow era, African-American men and women were reffered to by white people as boy/girl, no matter what their age, as a matter of principle, in order to disrespect them. Both Richard Wright and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have mentioned this fact in various writings. I am too lazy to look up exact quotes right now.
** As Pirkey Avot says, "A love based on something - the thing dissapears, the love dissappears." It then gives the Amnon/Tamar story as an example - an attraction based on lust that evaporated once the lust was satisfied. Of course, here "friendship"or some other noun must be substituted for love.
Excerpts: 2
More Boyarin Excerpts
pg 82: "In midrashic texts, Eve is nearly always presented as the victim of the snake and not the victimizer of man. According to the midrash, the snake did not seduce Eve to have sex with Adam - she had already had sex with Adam - but rather, he seduces her to have adultery with him....human intercourse, even in this world, carries no stain, just as it did not for Adam and Eve..."Woman" in Bible and midrash, is almost never essentialized as something evil and dangerous, as a snare to man. According to the rabbis, there was no Fall into sexuality in the Garden of Eden. On the rabbinic readings, Adam has had intercourse with Eve from the beginning. Their intercourse is not associated in any way with the snake, the "forbidden fruit", or a Fall or expulsion from the garden. Licit sexuality, the intercourse of married couples, belongs not to the demonic realm of the snake, but to the innocent realm of the Garden of Innocence itself. Indeed, according to Genesis Rabbah 18:6, the snake became inflamed with lust for Eve because he saw Adam and Eve having intercourse with each other, and according to 19:3, he came and spoke to Eve while Adam was sleeping after having intercourse with her."
Pgs. 84-88 engage in a feminist readings of Pandor in Hesiod, and of a Pandora-like rabbinic midrash, in which Pandora's guilt is displaced onto Adam.
95-97: Boyarin cites Buckley and Gottleib, who point out that historically, when women have been excluded from male domains, such as "hunting gear", that object has been interpreted as prestigious, and women's exclusion signs of their inferiority, whereas when men have been excluded from a female domain - "such as menstrual blood" - that object has been classified as inferior, and women's inclusion signs of their inferiority. Boyarin then explains, "If as I have argued, within Rabbinic Judaism of the Talmudic period, even menstrual taboos did not constitute an essentialized fear and hatred of women as defiling, such interpretations were certainly latent and easily derived from the practices...In the rabbinic period...legends, fears, and terrors of women's sexuality apparently persisted below the official consciousness of textuality and culture. The evidence for the existence of such legends in the rabbinic culture, however, comes only from the repression or denial in the "official texts". The rabbinic culture (understood strictly here as the culture of the Rabbis themselves) did not countenance them. But from the Middle Ages on, they became well entrenched in rabbinic culture and official religion, paralleled exactly by similar changes in the discourse of menstruation from cultic disability to near-demonic contamination. The development of such demonized images of women...is, moreover, paralleled by a growing anxiety about sexuality itself during the Jewish Middle Ages. We could argue then, that mysogyny was a latent and predictable effect of the disenfranchisement of women, and even more so of the menstrual taboos themselves. We must not however, read the texts of classical rabbinic literature through the fear and hatred of women characteristic of the later period, running the risk, by doing so, of further cannonizing the mysogynistic position."
pg. 109: Baba Metzia 59a: "Rav Pappa to Abbaye: Don't people say," if you wife is short, bend down and whisper to her?""
pg.110 Nedarm 29a-b - worth looking up, too long to quote.
pg. 142-143, discussing Ketubot 61b: "In addition to the aspect of sexuality as an obligation a man owns his own body, ..the married man was considered by Talmudic law under a legal-contractual obligation to sleep with his wife regularly for her pleasure and benefit. This obligation was derived by the Rabbis from the verse that, when taking a second wife, a man must not "reduce the flesh, covering, or seasons" (Exodus:21:10) of the first wife...the hegemonic opinion is that "flesh" means food, "covering" refers to clothing, and "seasons" refers to the regularity of sexual intercourse. This obligation was made contractual in the standard rabbinically approved marriage contract, which reads, "I will feed you, clothe you, and have intercourse with you, in accordance with the customs of Jewish husbands."
pg. 227-228: "My assumption is we can not change the actual past. We can only change the present and the future, in part by changing our understanding of the past. Unless the assumption is that the past is ... a burden to be thrown off...then constructing a monolithically negative perception of the past and cultivating anger at it seem to be counterproductive and disempowering for change. Finding only mysogyny in the past reproduces mysogyny; finding only a lack of female power.autonomy, and creativity, reifies female passivity and victimhood. In contrast to this, recovery of those forces in the past that opposed the dominant andocentriscm can help put us on trajectory for empowerment and transformation."
*****************************************************************************
Thanks to a friend for sharing the following link: http://nes.berkeley.edu/Web_Boyarin/BoyarinArticles/
Book Excerpts: 1
Excerpts: Carnal Israel, by Daniel Boyarin
Below are excerpts from the book that I found particularly fascinating. There is a pro-sex bias in my selection.
The rabbis said: Since it is a time of God's favor, let us pray regarding desire for sexual sin. They prayed and he was committed into their hands. God said to them. "Be careful, for if you kill him, the world will end." They imprisoned him for three days, and then they looked for a fresh egg in all the Land of Israel, and did not find one. They said, "What shall we do? If we kill him, the world will end. If we pray for half* in heaven they do not answer halfway prayers. Blind him and let him go." At least, a man does not become aroused by his female relatives." (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 69b), pg. 61. Boyarin, pg. 62: "The crucial part of the story is that halfway prayers are not answered. It is this that gives us the crucial clue to the rabbinic psychology and their concepts of the Evil Desire. In order for there to be desire and thus the possibility for sexuality at all, they are saying, there must also be the possibility for illicit desire. Desire is one, and killing off desire for illicit sex will also kill off desire for licit sex, which is necessary for the continuation of life...the desire for sex it itself productive and vital, but it has destructive and negative concomitants. These concomitants need to be controlled, and can be, but only with difficulty."
Pg. 65: Boyarin brings the story of Abbaye, who seeing a man and a woman (not married to each other) about to embark on a journey together, is convinced they will wind up having sex, and is saddened when he is proven wrong. "Said Abaye, if that had been me, I would not have been able to control myself." He went...and was miserable. A certain old man...taught him, "Everyone who is greater than his fellow, his Desire is greater also." (Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a) Boyarin explains: "The very passion that drives Abbaye to study Torah and become a "great man"...one learned in and devoted to Torah, is the same one that would have prevented him from simply saying goodbye to the woman and parting from her without sex. ...The same desire that will lead man in the study house to study Torah will in bed lead him to have intercourse with his wife, and this is the very same drive that will lead him into sin when he is alone with a woman to whom he is not married. The passion is one."
* Rashi - ie that people will only desire licit sex
Part 2
Part 2: The Sequel Never Has To Be As Good.
While I do try to separate morality from halacha, I do also believe that Judaism does have an ethical framework. I believe that certain halachot are manifestations of this framework, while others are not, and are morally neutral - or sometimes even morally troubling.
When it comes to sex, I do believe that certain sexual halachot fall under this framework, within the confines of "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself", which I believe translates into my axiom of "Do not consciously use sex or your sexuality to hurt yourself or others".
Example of "moral" sexual halachas:
1. Obligation to provide a wife with sustenance, clothing, and sexual satisfaction, to the point where if a husband refuses to sleep with his wife for an extended periods of time, it is seen as legitimate grounds for divorce. Need I say more? Yes - I would like to emphasize that this halacha treats a woman's sexual desire as legitimate, despite being formed in a social context that often saw such desires as harmful, or ignored them, depending on the specifics of the situation.*
2. Laws about not thinking about person A while having sex with person B
3. Having sex nude, as opposed to clothed. (There are conflicting sources about this, however, the pro-clothing source is framed as a story, the anti-clothing source as a halachik ruling.) This is presumably because wanting to have sex with a woman clothed bespeaks a lack of desire on the man's part, as can be seen from the language: "Rav Yosef cited in a tannaitic tradition, "Flesh: This means the intimacy of the flesh, namely that he should not behave with her in the manner of the Persians, who make love while dressed. This supports the view of Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said, "One who says I do not desire it unless she is in her clothing, and I in mine, must divorce his wife and pay her the marriage settlement." (Kettubot 48a, cited in Boyarin 48) The rabbis were so concerned about having a husband not sexually desire his wife properly (which could lead to her feeling hurt) that they suggested having sex in the dark lest the light reveal a blemish on her body.***
4. Consent - having sex with a woman without her consent is considered a major breach of Jewish law.
Normally, when it comes to forbidden things that do not seem to have a moral valence, I classify those halachas a morally neutral. An example of this is kashrut: It is morally neutral to not eat pork, despite being halachikly forbidden. It is a restriction, but not a major imposition on a person's life.
When it comes to sexually forbidden things that have no moral valence however, I must classify those halachot as morally problematic, because sexuality is such an essential part of a human being, that any restriction in that area is a major denial of an important part of the human experience.
For that reason, I am glad that Judaism generally has a permissive attitude towards sexual behavior: As long as it is within marriage, whatever you do is ok, even if it is not for purposes of procreation.**
Even sex outside of marriage, while viewed as undesirable, is not viewed particularly harshly in Talmudic Judaism. The children of such unions are not mamzers. Furthermore, such unions can be legitimized either a) through using sex as a means of marriage b) through the institute of pilegesh, concubine. As a matter of fact, the ban on single women immersing in ritual baths and on marrying through sex only came later, supporting Boyarin's contention of a negativity towards sex emerging later on, in response to the negative discourse of the mainstream culture that Judaism found itself in during exile. I am not saying that this phenomena is not problematic in it and of itself, but because I believe rabbis to be imperfect interpreters of a Divine Revelation, I am more concerned with issues in the Talmud and Torah, documents that I believe to be sufficiently influenced by such revelation that their authority can not be abrogated.****
Because of this, I am very concerned however, about two main realms of sexual halacha that do forbid actions I believe to be sexually neutral: Nidah and male homosexuality. I will deal with this in my next note.
* The Pandora story has been read by many modern feminist scholars as a treatise on the dangers of woman's sexuality.
** This is evidenced by allowance to have sex whenever one wants, even if one or one's spouse is post-menapausal or pregnant. There is an opinion that after ten years a couple should get divorced if they have no children, but this opinion has long been marginalized and is undermined by the very text itself in the presentation of the opinion, which "came to be honored more in the breach than in the observance". (Boyarin 54) For more on the marginalization of this opinion, please seeדרכה של הלכה: קריאת נשים בתורה, מאת דניאל ספרבר
*** Rav Yosef says the word "Flesh", expounding on that word's appearance in Exodus:21:10, Daniel Boyarin, explains, "Among the three debts a man owes his wife are "her flesh, her coverings, and her seasons"' (Exodus 21:10) While the last is normally understood to mean sexual relations and the first to mean food, Rav Yosef knows of Babylonian tradition (perhaps Palestinian in origin, but not cited in Palestinian texts) that interprets the first term to mean bodily intimacy, the touching of skin during sexual intercourse, and he interprets this to mean nudity during sex." (Boyarin 49)
**** For more on Jewish concubinage, please download Zvi Zohar's lecture at Mechon Hadar: http://www.mechonhadar.org/web/guest/online-learning/guest-presenters
A Lazy Blogerrette
I went to a conference today about the power of blogging, and realized that its probably not good how lacksadasical I am about updating, not to mention editing. So, I decided to edit, starting by copying/pasting some Facebook notes I wrote recently (within past week) about a book I finished over shabbat, "Carnal Israel", by Daniel Boyarin: http://www.amazon.com/Carnal-Israel-Talmudic-Historicism-Cultural/dp/0520203364
Here is the Note, originally entitled: "Thoughts on "Carnal Israel" (Woohoo! I Am Like Hollywood: I Have Sequels. And Sex.)":
I recently finished reading "Carnal Israel" by Daniel Boyarin.* I think the book is brilliant. It posits a positive sexual ethic to be found in strands of rabbinic Jewish culture in Late Antiquity. I hope to post highlights of the book I found interesting**. Before I do so however, I would like to delineate some of my own attitudes when it comes to the relationship between Judaism and sexuality:
My faith in Judaism is based on a few premises:
1. There is a God who created the universe. I feel this God's presence in my life, and find it in the beauty of this world. This God may have created the universe through the Big Bang and Evolution, however, what matters is not how He (or She - my God is genderless, since She is un-corporeal. Thanks Maimonides.) created the universe, but why. Since I assume a sentient Creator, I assume there was a purpose to creation.
2. If so, there must be a document to communicate to humans what this purpose is and/or how to serve this purpose. I believe that the Torah is such a document. As for why I believe it is the Torah and not another document, that is beyond the scope of this note. I do believe however, that while human beings do have free choice, God also plays a role in major historical/intellectual phenomena, so if there is a Christianity, somehow God wanted there to be a Christianity, same thing for Islam, or feminism, or any other major religious or intellectual movement that played a major role in history.
While these two premises may be (a gross oversimplification of) the intellectual basis for my faith, emotionally, my faith in Judaism is enabled by what I see as two related tenets of Judaism: 1. All people are created in the image of God, and, therefore, holy.*** 2. Sexuality and sex is essentially a positive force, albeit one that can be misused.
I do not think I would be able to believe in a God who did not view all people as equal, or in a faith that saw such an essential part of human nature and such an essential and pleasurable activity as negative. In the modern era, for sociological reasons too complex to fathom in the form of a Facebook note, sexual behavior (or professed sexual behavior - how many of us truly practice what we preach?) has become a marker of belonging, defining one as part of Jewish Orthodox society. I believe that to judge a person by their sexuality, when it is such a deep and basic human need, violates the first tenent of Judaism - that all people are equal, meaning we have no right to judge others - provided that their behavior does not violate the equality of others, i.e. is not harmful to other people.
On this note, I believe that the one moral rule that can be applied to sexuality is: Do not consciously use sex or your sexuality to hurt yourself or others. In doing so, I draw a distinction between halacha and morality. For the basis of this distinction, please read the writings of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.****
Of course, I still struggle with elements of sexual halacha, and I will try to delineate these struggles in a separate note. For now however, I wanted to show how Judaism's (generally) positive attitude towards sexuality is essential to my religious faith.
As an aside, many of the negative sources that do exist come from Europe in the Middle Ages, and were in direct dialogue and influenced by a negative discourse on women's sexuality/sex in general that was occurring in the Catholic hegemony of the era.
* http://www.amazon.com/Carnal-Israel-Talmudic-Historicism-Cultural/dp/0520203364
** Favorite new fact, courtesy of this book: The ideal ancient Greek male had a small penis. Today "people" - I am not really sure who these people are, since none of the people in my life who fuck men have made this claim - say that bigger is desirable. All this just goes to show how size really doesn't matter, and different societies have these very arbitrary definitions of "good" that are no more than projections of fear about male masculinity.
*** See verse 27: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm
**** http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibowitz-yeshayahu/#JewFaiJewLaw
Monday, May 2, 2011
Yechezkel 16
In chapter 16, 6 of the book of Yechezkel, Yechezkel says "Bedamayich chayi", in or through your blood you shall live. This verse seems rather problematic, and is often translated as "despite your blood", even though this translation is not the best literal interpretation of the prefix"be", which usually means in. This essay will attempt to explore the appropriation of this text about female blood into a rabbinic framework that valued male blood as an exemplar of the Covenant.
The most obvious female blood is the blood of the afterbirth in which the baby is wallowing when God takes mercy on her. This blood is made explicit when Yechezkel says, (16:6) "I saw you wallowing in your blood" .However, perhaps in a more metaphoric way, this scene is referring to menstrual blood and the blood of virginity as well: Both play a part in conception; menstruation is a sign that a woman's body is in a stage where it is able to bear children, while the blood of virginity symbolizes the beginning of sexual activity. These latter readings of female blood gain credence from context: In the story recounted by Yechezkel, the woman in question is found by God as a baby, wallowing in her blood. She is then abandoned until she reaches the start of physical maturity - i.e. menstruation - and grows up to be His wife, thus losing her virginity to Him. It is only when the marriage is consecrated that the baby-woman is fully divested of her blood: (16:8-9): I passed by you, and looked upon you, and behold it was the time of your love; I spread my wings over you and covered your nakedness. I swore to you and came in a covenant with you…and you became mine. I washed you with water; I cleansed your blood from you and covered you with oil.
This washing off of blood is a consecration, symbolized by anointment with oil. This ritual washing is analogous to the washing of menstrual blood in a mikvah, a purifying act that confirms a woman's part in the Covenant, as evidenced by the fact that if she has intercourse sans immersion, she receives karet, a punishment of cutting off that is used when one violates commandments that signify one's partnership in the Covenant of Israel, such as not eating hametz or keeping Yom Kippur. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that here the washing away of blood is part of Israel's entry into a monogamous relationship with God, whereas in later prophets, Israel's violation of that monogamy, a theme discussed later on in this chapter, is often compared to niddah.
The mikvah analogy in "And I washed you with water and rinsed your blood from you and I covered you with oil" can be applied to the bloods of afterbirth and of virginity as well, since both are washed off in the mikvah, leading to re-entry into a state of kedusha, here typified by the act not just of washing with water, but also of covering with oil.
"Badamaich chayi" - We live, literally through the blood of birth, the blood of virginity that starts the process of conception, and the menstrual blood that signifies a woman's ability to conceive. Women often live, literally, in this blood.
The midrash transposes this feminine ideal onto masculine milah ideal of Shemot 12. It explains that the blood spread on the doorposts was that of circumcision. This reading makes sense because circumcision was a prerequisite for eating from the korban pesach, and, like the act of spreading blood on the doorpost, symbolizes one's counting himself in the nation of Israel and using a physical marker to identify himself as such. The pasuk used as evidence for the doorpost blood being circumcision blood is the one from Yechezkel 16 - an ironic choice given that, as previously mentioned, Yechezkel 16 is explicitly dealing with female blood.
The implication of the madras -which has since been circumscribed on Ashkenazik circumcision liturgy - is that the "through your blood" in Yechezkel is that of circumcision: It is through circumcision blood that we, as a nation, continue to live, and continue to carry out the covenant with the God of Abraham. While the issue of covenant certainly does appear in the pesukim, thus lending some credence to this view, I find it problematic to impose an ideal of male sexual blood onto a very viscerally feminine scene, one very much grounded in the anatomical detail of the woman's body. Even according to the pshat of the pesukim, this story is clearly meant to be a metaphor - however, the metaphor is conscious of its own symbolism, and is therefore making a very conscious decision to make itself one of specifically feminine imagery. If the gender were of secondary importance, there would be no need to ground the image so much in the physical details of her body.
Of course, the male blood is easier to read into Shemot: No uncircumcised man may eat of the korban Pesach, so there clearly is a connection between Pesach and milah. If the Exodus is entering into a new stage of the covenant - a stage that was foreseen at the brit ben habetarim and that will eventually entail a new covenant in the form of a set of laws at Mount Sinai, then it makes sense for this sacrifice to be intimately bound to circumcision, which embodies both the old Abrahamic covenant and the new legal-Torah covenant, as well as the continuity between the two. Thus, to eat the Pesach uncircumcised would be to accept the Covenant through one bodily action while denying it with the other. This covenantal duality is echoed in the relationship between the blood on the doorpost from the korban and the eating of the korban: The blood is a public display of covenantal acceptance, while the eating of the korban at home, in the private realm, is a private acceptance of the covenant.
Thus, smearing the blood is a form of bringing the covenant of family into the realm of covenant as community/nation. This foreshadows Israel's development from a set of bet avot - the standard family form mentioned in Shmot chapter 12 - to tribes, in the desert, and to a unified nation, in Israel - which was, after all, the ultimate purpose of the Exodus, embodied in Shmot 6:7-8 "And I will take you to me for a nation…and I will bring you to the land where I stretched My hand, to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to give to you as a heritage, I am God."
Korban Pesach in general, especially when comparing its Shmot and Vayikra versions, seems to be dealing with two conflicting paradigms: The Vayikra version is the male paradigm, which entails a) only circumcised males eating it b) each man and his house taking a sheep, an active acquisition of property very much associated with masculinity, c) temple worship, by its nature an all-male domain. No woman was allowed to be in the area where the sacrifice was slaughtered. The Shmot version is the family paradigm, wherein it is each man "and his house", and the sacrifice must be eaten at a shared familial meal, where children ask questions. Qumran deals with the tension between these two paradigms by simply negating the familial one, having men eat the sacrifice at the temple, though this may be a symptom of Qumran's general attitude towards women and family life.
It is interesting that the midrash chooses to address the male paradigm with a metaphor that, in its most plain meaning, is referring to female blood, because, when it comes to the korban pesach, male and female blood can be seen as almost polar opposites. The male blood of circumcision enables eating from the sacrifice; it is a prerequisite for doing so. Female blood however, prevents one from eating from sacrifices or engaging in temple-related ritual. The male blood of circumcision transfers protection to the door, turning it into part of the Pesach ritual, while female blood transfers impurity to household items, preventing them from being used in kodshim rituals.
Some modern scholars have suggested that the doorpost, as an opening, represents a womb, therefore making the blood on the doorposts the metaphorical birth blood of the Jewish people. This tantalizing interpretation, though it works well with the verses of Yechezkel 16, is not mentioned by the midrash. Furthermore, since birth blood, like menstrual blood, renders a woman unable to partake of sacrifices, it is hard to associate such blood with a sacrificial ritual.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that in transforming the Yechezkel text from one of femininity to masculinity, the midrash transforms the text from one of passivity to one of action, for passivity is associated with the feminine, activity with the masculine. By connecting the two texts in the way that it does, the midrash is reading passivity into activity and vice versa: Activity and reliance on God are two halves of a whole, and neither is complete without the other, just as, in many midrashic texts, the male and female are incomplete without each other. (An example of this is the midrash where man and woman were originally one being and are literally two halves of a whole - a tale that echoes Plato's Symposium), and just as the family sphere, associated with women, is incomplete without the more public sphere associated with men - i.e. each paradigm of Pesach is incomplete with out the other.
This is essentially a reading of a female text into a patriarchal ideal, in which it is circumcision that signifies the covenant, that enables redemption, protects from death, and enables one to engage in worship of the Divine by eating the sacrifice. If the blood of the womb-shaped doorpost is truly circumcision blood, then it is only by swabbing the male (milah blood) over the female (doorpost as womb), that protection is achieved, for the woman, who bleeds every month and cradles life between her thighs, is unknowable, and therefore, dangerous.
The association of women with both death and life can be seen from many ancient cultures, where women were associated with earth - a place both of life (flowers, fruit, wheat, etc.) and death (burial), and it was often women who were tasked with communicating with the dead (for example, the baalat ov in Shmuel). Womens' bodies, portals between the worlds of pre-birth and life*, where expected to act as portals between the worlds of life and death as well. Death meant going down towards "sheol", symbolizing both going down into the earth, but also, entering sheilah, the great unknown. for death, like women, represented a vast unknowable.
In this context, one wonders if it is purely coincidental that in so many myths, it is women who bring evil in the world through knowledge -whether it is Eve bringing knowledge of good and evil, or Pandora bringing knowledge of various ills when she opens her box. Here, women are uncovering and revealing, whereas patriarchal society has long had a need to conceal women by keeping them away from the public sphere and covered in modest clothing. Women are also more "hidden" than men in that, unlike men, women have their gonads inside of their bodies. Is it pure coincidence that societies so obsessed with covering up and protecting women have mythologies that put women in a situation of revealing and exposing, that cultures that fear the unknowability of women have them as givers of the original knowledge?
Here are some mythological figures to consider:
- Sphinx – a female guardian of knowledge, with the power both to reveal and to conceal, who can kill you if you give a wrong answer
- Persephone/Demeter – represent both death/underworld and spring/rebirth/harvest. The seasons, the earth's lifecycle, is based on a mother-daughter relationship: When Persephone is in a world of death, her mother can not bring forth life (i.e. can not mother), resulting in winter. The agricultural cycle is also like the cycle of a woman's body, which at times flowers and at time hibernates. Each menstrual cycle results in loss of life (winter) that brings upon it a new cycle, with new potential to conceive (spring).This mythic story associates women both with trees and flora (life), and with the earth (both death and life)
- Furies are women
- Fates are women – determiners of both life and death
- Circe – can grant immorality, but this immorality is death in the sense that one is frozen in time/place, bringing the end of life as man knows it. Thus, her sexual power grants both life and death, or rather, life as death.
- Eden – links women, who bring both knowledge and death into world, with life (Chava is "the mother of all life", to sex (since a knowledge of nakedness immediately follows eating of the fruit) but the nature of the link is unclear.
I am still not sure exactly what the link between these figures is, or why so many societies seem to have mythologized woman into life/death dualities associated with agriculture and knowledge, but I do believe that it is worth pondering.
* I am using these terms for convenience; the question of if/when a fetus becomes life, and the qualitative difference between life in vitro and life post vitro is beyond the scope of this essay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)