1. Concise and clear definition of Reconsructionist Judaism - yay!
http://www.rrc.edu/resources/reconstructionist-resources/what-reconstructionist-judaism
2. This sight helps women in Israel who need gets, and is striving to make the marriage/divorce laws there more equitable: http://www.cwj.org.il/home
3. I usually try to keep this sight a-political, but here are some website related to Israel that are a bit "off the beaten path" - and therefore, interesting. Also, today is Gilad Shalit's 25th birthday - and I don't think it is too political to point out he is being kept in conditions that are not in keeping with the Geneva Convention - unless it's political to believe in a system of international law....
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/26/israel.dual.narrative.tours/index.html
This blog sums up recent news related to religion and state in Israel: http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/
This sight is a micro-finance sight: http://www.lendforpeace.org/userLend.php?mode=searchEntre&ent_id&user_type&user_id&searchtext&status=F&gender=M§or=All&sortBy=Default&lend_amount_46=25
While we are on the subject: http://www.kiva.org/
10 ways you can help in the horn of Africa, currently undergoing a major famine: http://www.wfp.org/stories/horn-africa-10-ways-you-can-help
Monday, August 29, 2011
PETA
I am a big fan of this blog: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
If you scroll down to the second story, called "Peta Does Porn", you will see an article that is pretty much what is sounds like from the title. This is a reason I do not support PETA: I do not support their methods, which are inconsiderate of human beings. Objectifying women to protect animals is not ok.
But this article also shows how recognized it is by our society that sex sells - even non-profits are using that knowledge. It makes me kind of sad.
The article also pointed out that this site could actually be used by people who get off on seeing animals suffer - kind of the opposite of PETA's intention. I also wonder if showing the pictures of tortured animals does not in it and of itself constitute a second objectification and feitishization of the tortured subject: They are re-objectified when they are turned into mere objects of propaganda. This has been one of the contested issues in human rights coverage: Showing the plight of those in need is vital to getting people to help those in need, but when does that showing go too far, turning humans into propagandistic objects?
(Insert proper pseudo-intellectual comments about the "photographic gaze". Make sure to have a deep voice and dangle a cigarette.)
If you scroll down to the second story, called "Peta Does Porn", you will see an article that is pretty much what is sounds like from the title. This is a reason I do not support PETA: I do not support their methods, which are inconsiderate of human beings. Objectifying women to protect animals is not ok.
But this article also shows how recognized it is by our society that sex sells - even non-profits are using that knowledge. It makes me kind of sad.
The article also pointed out that this site could actually be used by people who get off on seeing animals suffer - kind of the opposite of PETA's intention. I also wonder if showing the pictures of tortured animals does not in it and of itself constitute a second objectification and feitishization of the tortured subject: They are re-objectified when they are turned into mere objects of propaganda. This has been one of the contested issues in human rights coverage: Showing the plight of those in need is vital to getting people to help those in need, but when does that showing go too far, turning humans into propagandistic objects?
(Insert proper pseudo-intellectual comments about the "photographic gaze". Make sure to have a deep voice and dangle a cigarette.)
Low-Brow?
With the addition of Mad Men to my blog repertoire, I think this blog might have officially become "low-brow". One of the art-forms that seems to signify low-brow to many people is that of cartoons, even though, in fact, cartoons may be quite sophisticated. Society is beginning to catch up, with the craze for "graphic novels", but some of the best cartoonists, even from the beginning of cartoon's boom in Georgian England, such as Hogarth and Thomas Rowlandson, were in fact great artists with keen sense of humor and social satire.
On that note, I decided to post some XKCD cartoons. All except one are related specifically to gender; one is a more general comment on society.
http://xkcd.com/355/
http://xkcd.com/425/
http://xkcd.com/470/
For me, this is one of the most poignant XKCD cartoons: http://xkcd.com/636/
This is one of my favorites: http://xkcd.com/150/
On that note, I decided to post some XKCD cartoons. All except one are related specifically to gender; one is a more general comment on society.
http://xkcd.com/355/
http://xkcd.com/425/
http://xkcd.com/470/
For me, this is one of the most poignant XKCD cartoons: http://xkcd.com/636/
This is one of my favorites: http://xkcd.com/150/
Sham Marriages
I recently saw this link: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087274,00.html
on a friend's Facebook profile. The article is about a rabbi who marries gay men and women; they both enter into the marriage knowing it is a sham. Friends' comments about the article were all negative.
While I think Orthodox society must make itself a society in which gay people can live openly as gay people, in gay relationships, without social stigma, I also think that this is a good way of responding to the fact that such a society is not the one most gay Orthodox Jews currently face. Putting a band-aid on the wound is a good idea, as long as one continues to search for the permanent cure as well.
Given that a) many Orthodox Jews, for religious or social reasons* wish to remain celibate b) many want the social acceptance that in the Orthodox world only comes from being married** c) many want children, and in many Orthodox communities adopting a child as a single parent is not socially acceptable d) many gay people do not want to be alone, having sham marriages could be a way of providing gay people with a socially acceptable way of living life with a dear platonic friend, feeling less lonely, and having children.
This debate reminds me of the debate in human rights: Is it better to distance oneself from dictators in the name of human rights as a theoretical value, or to work with dictators to deliver aid to people who are suffering - thus compromising on your values, but actually implementing human rights aid for those who needs it. The answer is usually that both approaches must be applied in different situations. Here too, the choice is not between eliminating homophobia and capitulating to homophobic society, but rather, fighting homophobia while implementing a variety of creative solutions to help gay people navigate the homophobic world they currently face, until the larger fight is won. This could be one such solution.
What bothered me most about the article was that a) it was assumed said couples were sleeping together b) cheating was accepted. I think that true sham marriage shadchans should have a variety of marriage options - including whether or not one wants children, if one would like to have sex-less marriage but adopt children, or if one would be willing to have sex for biological offspring. Cheating must also be discussed - is any cheating ok? If so, how much? Should there be arranged nights, where you can each go out to a bar and pick someone up? Is having a serious relationship with a person of the same gender on the side ok? These questions might seem trivial in a platonic relationship, but since these individuals are sharing homes and sometimes having children, these questions are extremely important. Another question is how separate the cheating must be from home - can a wife bring her girlfriend over for dinner, or must she have an affair?
What bothered me was not the idea of sham marriage per se, but the idea that these sham marriages should resemble traditional heterosexual marriages, as opposed to providing a social cover for a variety of flexible living arrangements between two people of the opposite gender looking for companionship, and possibly children. Such non-traditional, socially acceptable living arrangements could do much to alleviate the plight of gay Orthodox Jews - provided they do not come at the expense of fighting for the day an openly gay couple can proudly walk into synagogue.
* The traditional interpretation of Orthodox law is that homosexual sex is forbidden. Many Orthodox gay Jews believe in this interpretation and thus may choose to remain celibate for personal religious reasons.
** A separate problem, in it and of itself
on a friend's Facebook profile. The article is about a rabbi who marries gay men and women; they both enter into the marriage knowing it is a sham. Friends' comments about the article were all negative.
While I think Orthodox society must make itself a society in which gay people can live openly as gay people, in gay relationships, without social stigma, I also think that this is a good way of responding to the fact that such a society is not the one most gay Orthodox Jews currently face. Putting a band-aid on the wound is a good idea, as long as one continues to search for the permanent cure as well.
Given that a) many Orthodox Jews, for religious or social reasons* wish to remain celibate b) many want the social acceptance that in the Orthodox world only comes from being married** c) many want children, and in many Orthodox communities adopting a child as a single parent is not socially acceptable d) many gay people do not want to be alone, having sham marriages could be a way of providing gay people with a socially acceptable way of living life with a dear platonic friend, feeling less lonely, and having children.
This debate reminds me of the debate in human rights: Is it better to distance oneself from dictators in the name of human rights as a theoretical value, or to work with dictators to deliver aid to people who are suffering - thus compromising on your values, but actually implementing human rights aid for those who needs it. The answer is usually that both approaches must be applied in different situations. Here too, the choice is not between eliminating homophobia and capitulating to homophobic society, but rather, fighting homophobia while implementing a variety of creative solutions to help gay people navigate the homophobic world they currently face, until the larger fight is won. This could be one such solution.
What bothered me most about the article was that a) it was assumed said couples were sleeping together b) cheating was accepted. I think that true sham marriage shadchans should have a variety of marriage options - including whether or not one wants children, if one would like to have sex-less marriage but adopt children, or if one would be willing to have sex for biological offspring. Cheating must also be discussed - is any cheating ok? If so, how much? Should there be arranged nights, where you can each go out to a bar and pick someone up? Is having a serious relationship with a person of the same gender on the side ok? These questions might seem trivial in a platonic relationship, but since these individuals are sharing homes and sometimes having children, these questions are extremely important. Another question is how separate the cheating must be from home - can a wife bring her girlfriend over for dinner, or must she have an affair?
What bothered me was not the idea of sham marriage per se, but the idea that these sham marriages should resemble traditional heterosexual marriages, as opposed to providing a social cover for a variety of flexible living arrangements between two people of the opposite gender looking for companionship, and possibly children. Such non-traditional, socially acceptable living arrangements could do much to alleviate the plight of gay Orthodox Jews - provided they do not come at the expense of fighting for the day an openly gay couple can proudly walk into synagogue.
* The traditional interpretation of Orthodox law is that homosexual sex is forbidden. Many Orthodox gay Jews believe in this interpretation and thus may choose to remain celibate for personal religious reasons.
** A separate problem, in it and of itself
Saturday, August 27, 2011
NY Hurricane - Even More On Madmen
My Saturday night plans were hurricaned out, and I am sick of spending time on phones screaming at banks, so I decided to blog instead. Woohoo!
I realized I have a few more thoughts on Mad Men (spoiler alert):
1. Joan is raped in season 3. She goes to the office with her fiance. Everyone is gone. She tells her fiance "No, not here" and "This isn't fun", but he continues. I thought that this scene was realistic, since in the 1960s societal definitions of rape were different, and a) spousal/fiance-al rape was not really talked about or considered legitimate b) it was sometimes assumed if a woman started kissing, but started saying "No" or "This isn't fun", unless she was screaming, or physically resisting you, it wasn't "real" rape - a part of her wanted it.
I think these attitudes are still prevalent today, but not to the degree that they were then. Joan's fiance does not think of his actions as rape, but merely as screwing/having a good time with his fiance. I applaud Mad Men for realistically portraying this issue, and for portraying it without fetishizing it or making that scene seem sexy.
Extra kudos for making Joan's husband a jerk. The message: Usually, you are not a perfect guy who loves and respects your wife who happened to rape her once. If you raped her once, this probably reflects a lack of respect for her/for women that will impact other areas of your relationship. I am not opposed to a complex movie that portrays a rapist in a psychologically nuanced way, including good aspects of his character, but since MM is only a TV series, it can't do that - so it made him a bad guy. I think that was the right decision.
2. There is one scene where Sal does a "Bye Bye Birdie" impression, after having rebuffed his wife's negligeed advances on the grounds that he is too upset about work. His wife looks at him, crushed, magically realizing he was gay. Would his wife, a nice, young, religious girl from Baltimore, even have known enough about gay people to have a stereotype of them in her mind? Would that stereotype have been one of "showtunes nut"? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", than her magical epiphany moment is historically inaccurate.
3. Pete Campbell is fascinating. He does not cheat as often as the others; its not a habit, more an "if opportunity strikes, I won't turn it down", type of cheating, which is admirable, given the social context he is living in. On the one hand, he says terribly hurtful things to Trudy. On the other hand, they have moments of real communication - he shares what is going on in his life with her, including his worries. In certain senses, their relationship is the most real. Despite his huge flaws, he does care for her.
4. I really empathize with Betty. Even in today's world, there is so much pressure on women to look perfect and cook good food, to be perfect wives and mothers. I consider myself lucky that I live in a world where I can pursue a career - I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to go to college and not be able to use my education in a way I considered productive! Also, Don does not really share things with Betty. She feels isolated and lonely. She does many actions I disapprove of, but I can understand her frustration.
Just today, removing my eye makeup, I was wondering how healthy or unhealthy it is to actually wear makeup. I know women have been putting chemicals on themselves for thousands of years to color different parts of their bodies in order to make themselves more attractive to men. But sometimes I wonder, what does it say about me, a feminist who I consider a pretty self-confident person, if there are days I feel the need to wear makeup?
I find these days fall into two categories: 1. Days when the makeup enhances my outfit. 2. Days when I am feeling uncomfortable with something I have done in my life, or feeling unaccomplished as a human being. When I am feeling truly at peace with myself, like I am living my life to the fullest and accomplishing things, I usually don't care about makeup, and I often don't have time for makeup. (Of course, many accomplished woman still find the time to apply makeup everyday.)
I guess what I am saying, is, I definitely feel social pressure to look "good". I am aware that when I walk into a room, I will be analyzed - have I lost or gained weight? Is my hair done? Does my outfit match? - and that people - including people I know - will use this analysis to infer things about me as a human being, and about my life. I do not think this is a pressure that men face to the same degree; if a man gains or loses ten pounds, it may be remarked upon, but for a woman, even three pounds will do the trick.
I now address women, specifically (as opposed to the mixed gender audience I previously had in mind): How often do we judge ourselves and each other, giving into the patriarchal values that have been instilled in us by our culture? Every time we judge a woman based on the patriarchal values of society, we are giving in, and further perpetuating the patriarchy.
Back to mixed-gender again: I think that is why I sympathize with Betty - she symbolizes that pressure to be outwardly perfect that most women face every day. I feel bad for her, because no one shows any interest in who she is as a person - and I thank God that in my life, I am surrounded by people who do show that interest, and who are supportive and inspiring. If only Betty had that, then perhaps her life wouldn't be so drab.
I realized I have a few more thoughts on Mad Men (spoiler alert):
1. Joan is raped in season 3. She goes to the office with her fiance. Everyone is gone. She tells her fiance "No, not here" and "This isn't fun", but he continues. I thought that this scene was realistic, since in the 1960s societal definitions of rape were different, and a) spousal/fiance-al rape was not really talked about or considered legitimate b) it was sometimes assumed if a woman started kissing, but started saying "No" or "This isn't fun", unless she was screaming, or physically resisting you, it wasn't "real" rape - a part of her wanted it.
I think these attitudes are still prevalent today, but not to the degree that they were then. Joan's fiance does not think of his actions as rape, but merely as screwing/having a good time with his fiance. I applaud Mad Men for realistically portraying this issue, and for portraying it without fetishizing it or making that scene seem sexy.
Extra kudos for making Joan's husband a jerk. The message: Usually, you are not a perfect guy who loves and respects your wife who happened to rape her once. If you raped her once, this probably reflects a lack of respect for her/for women that will impact other areas of your relationship. I am not opposed to a complex movie that portrays a rapist in a psychologically nuanced way, including good aspects of his character, but since MM is only a TV series, it can't do that - so it made him a bad guy. I think that was the right decision.
2. There is one scene where Sal does a "Bye Bye Birdie" impression, after having rebuffed his wife's negligeed advances on the grounds that he is too upset about work. His wife looks at him, crushed, magically realizing he was gay. Would his wife, a nice, young, religious girl from Baltimore, even have known enough about gay people to have a stereotype of them in her mind? Would that stereotype have been one of "showtunes nut"? If the answer to either of those questions is "no", than her magical epiphany moment is historically inaccurate.
3. Pete Campbell is fascinating. He does not cheat as often as the others; its not a habit, more an "if opportunity strikes, I won't turn it down", type of cheating, which is admirable, given the social context he is living in. On the one hand, he says terribly hurtful things to Trudy. On the other hand, they have moments of real communication - he shares what is going on in his life with her, including his worries. In certain senses, their relationship is the most real. Despite his huge flaws, he does care for her.
4. I really empathize with Betty. Even in today's world, there is so much pressure on women to look perfect and cook good food, to be perfect wives and mothers. I consider myself lucky that I live in a world where I can pursue a career - I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to go to college and not be able to use my education in a way I considered productive! Also, Don does not really share things with Betty. She feels isolated and lonely. She does many actions I disapprove of, but I can understand her frustration.
Just today, removing my eye makeup, I was wondering how healthy or unhealthy it is to actually wear makeup. I know women have been putting chemicals on themselves for thousands of years to color different parts of their bodies in order to make themselves more attractive to men. But sometimes I wonder, what does it say about me, a feminist who I consider a pretty self-confident person, if there are days I feel the need to wear makeup?
I find these days fall into two categories: 1. Days when the makeup enhances my outfit. 2. Days when I am feeling uncomfortable with something I have done in my life, or feeling unaccomplished as a human being. When I am feeling truly at peace with myself, like I am living my life to the fullest and accomplishing things, I usually don't care about makeup, and I often don't have time for makeup. (Of course, many accomplished woman still find the time to apply makeup everyday.)
I guess what I am saying, is, I definitely feel social pressure to look "good". I am aware that when I walk into a room, I will be analyzed - have I lost or gained weight? Is my hair done? Does my outfit match? - and that people - including people I know - will use this analysis to infer things about me as a human being, and about my life. I do not think this is a pressure that men face to the same degree; if a man gains or loses ten pounds, it may be remarked upon, but for a woman, even three pounds will do the trick.
I now address women, specifically (as opposed to the mixed gender audience I previously had in mind): How often do we judge ourselves and each other, giving into the patriarchal values that have been instilled in us by our culture? Every time we judge a woman based on the patriarchal values of society, we are giving in, and further perpetuating the patriarchy.
Back to mixed-gender again: I think that is why I sympathize with Betty - she symbolizes that pressure to be outwardly perfect that most women face every day. I feel bad for her, because no one shows any interest in who she is as a person - and I thank God that in my life, I am surrounded by people who do show that interest, and who are supportive and inspiring. If only Betty had that, then perhaps her life wouldn't be so drab.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
More on Mad Men
I watched season 2 and part of season 3 of Mad Men (henceforth known as MM), planning on writing some grand opus on gender issues in the TV series. As so often happens however, if you don't write observations as you watch the show, it is hard to culturally analzye it later on. I would like to point out a few things however:
1. Sal's marriage: Sal, who is gay, is portrayed as being disrespectful to his wife. I do think however, there might have been men who liked their wives as friends, and had good friendships with their wives. Some of them may even have had wives who knew of their true sexual preferences. Also, Sal is a walking stereotype: He loves art and cooking. Many gay men love art and cooking, but many gay men don't. Furthermore, the scene where has the random hookup is confusing: Given that a) Sal expressed no interest in the hotel employee b) there was a hug risk to admitting one was gay/coming on to a man in the 1960s, how would the employee know that Sal was gay and that Sal was interested? At first I thought the random hookup scene gave into stereotypes of gay men as licentious, but then I realized - since in the 1960s, you could not openly have a gay partner, if you wanted to not be a social outcast, living a life as "single" man or a married man, while pursuing either one-night liasions with a series of men or even a secret affair with one man, were pretty much your only option. This made me wonder if part of the "gay = licentious" stereotype stems from a time where hetero-normative society forced gay men to be licentious, by not providing them with a socially acceptable way to be in a long-term relationship. I do give MM credit for portraying a realistic make-out scene between two men.
2. The frustration of the housewives is well portrayed. You have these smart women, used to going out and having fun, and having good sex, who all of a sudden have nothing intellectually stimulating to do all day, and who are not being taken out - or maybe not even given good sex - by their husbands on a regular basis, since their husbands are at work all day, and even the night-time business bar meeting scene seems to be mostly reserved for the men and for "fun" women who are no their wives, though there are exceptions. There certainly are "couple" business evenings as well, just that a) there are less of them b) even then, some of them are dinner evenings inside the couple's home, which is a lot of work for the hostess. I wonder how accurate this is. It seems that in the Madison Ave world of MM, cheating is a non-issue, because it is so socially acceptable. I am sure cheating was more openly accepted in that milieu, but I refuse to believe there was absolutely no moral/social stigma at all, or that all men cheated, which MM makes it seem like.
3. There is one lesbian (so far) in MM, and she too is a stereotype: She basically follows Joan in order to be with her, even though she knows that to Joan this is just a friendship. She dates men. She comes across as desperate. I want to see a strong lesbian figure, who either a) pursued the scene - God knows it existed in NY in the 1960s b) does move in with Joan do to romantic feelings, but because she landed a kick-ass job in NY - not because she followed Joan to NY c) lives a happily single life enjoying the non-sexual things and good friends, knowing she can't have everything she wants, but not letting that disappointment define her life
4. Just in general, MM seems to not believe in a mutually enjoyable, respectful, intellectually challenging, fun relationship between men and women, whether sexual or platonic, with, perhaps, the exceptions of Don-Peggi and Don-Anna. Part of this is due to the fact that women had more limited opportunities than men, which did not allow them to self-actualize in the same way, and it is hard to have mutually enjoyable, respectful, intellectually challenging, fun relationships when one person is extremely self-actualized and the other is not - which is the point of "Venus in Furs", by Leopold Von Sacher-Massach, the guy who gave "masochism" its name. I think MM goes beyond historic realism however, into the realm of - msogyny may be the wrong word, because I do not think it's intentional - I think it is well-meaning, an earnest fear of not being faithful to the 1960s - but anyhow, I believe a) there were women who transcended the limited opportunities given to them, in order to become self-actualized - not just those who escaped house-wifery, but even those who read and wrote a lot, and found hobbies and ways of being happy within the confines of house-wifery b) there were men who escaped the boundaries by really striving to understand and respect women. These men and women, despite the odds, were able to have healthy relationships - and I wish at least one couple on MM had a healthy relationship, for the sake of, if nothing else, historical accuracy.
1. Sal's marriage: Sal, who is gay, is portrayed as being disrespectful to his wife. I do think however, there might have been men who liked their wives as friends, and had good friendships with their wives. Some of them may even have had wives who knew of their true sexual preferences. Also, Sal is a walking stereotype: He loves art and cooking. Many gay men love art and cooking, but many gay men don't. Furthermore, the scene where has the random hookup is confusing: Given that a) Sal expressed no interest in the hotel employee b) there was a hug risk to admitting one was gay/coming on to a man in the 1960s, how would the employee know that Sal was gay and that Sal was interested? At first I thought the random hookup scene gave into stereotypes of gay men as licentious, but then I realized - since in the 1960s, you could not openly have a gay partner, if you wanted to not be a social outcast, living a life as "single" man or a married man, while pursuing either one-night liasions with a series of men or even a secret affair with one man, were pretty much your only option. This made me wonder if part of the "gay = licentious" stereotype stems from a time where hetero-normative society forced gay men to be licentious, by not providing them with a socially acceptable way to be in a long-term relationship. I do give MM credit for portraying a realistic make-out scene between two men.
2. The frustration of the housewives is well portrayed. You have these smart women, used to going out and having fun, and having good sex, who all of a sudden have nothing intellectually stimulating to do all day, and who are not being taken out - or maybe not even given good sex - by their husbands on a regular basis, since their husbands are at work all day, and even the night-time business bar meeting scene seems to be mostly reserved for the men and for "fun" women who are no their wives, though there are exceptions. There certainly are "couple" business evenings as well, just that a) there are less of them b) even then, some of them are dinner evenings inside the couple's home, which is a lot of work for the hostess. I wonder how accurate this is. It seems that in the Madison Ave world of MM, cheating is a non-issue, because it is so socially acceptable. I am sure cheating was more openly accepted in that milieu, but I refuse to believe there was absolutely no moral/social stigma at all, or that all men cheated, which MM makes it seem like.
3. There is one lesbian (so far) in MM, and she too is a stereotype: She basically follows Joan in order to be with her, even though she knows that to Joan this is just a friendship. She dates men. She comes across as desperate. I want to see a strong lesbian figure, who either a) pursued the scene - God knows it existed in NY in the 1960s b) does move in with Joan do to romantic feelings, but because she landed a kick-ass job in NY - not because she followed Joan to NY c) lives a happily single life enjoying the non-sexual things and good friends, knowing she can't have everything she wants, but not letting that disappointment define her life
4. Just in general, MM seems to not believe in a mutually enjoyable, respectful, intellectually challenging, fun relationship between men and women, whether sexual or platonic, with, perhaps, the exceptions of Don-Peggi and Don-Anna. Part of this is due to the fact that women had more limited opportunities than men, which did not allow them to self-actualize in the same way, and it is hard to have mutually enjoyable, respectful, intellectually challenging, fun relationships when one person is extremely self-actualized and the other is not - which is the point of "Venus in Furs", by Leopold Von Sacher-Massach, the guy who gave "masochism" its name. I think MM goes beyond historic realism however, into the realm of - msogyny may be the wrong word, because I do not think it's intentional - I think it is well-meaning, an earnest fear of not being faithful to the 1960s - but anyhow, I believe a) there were women who transcended the limited opportunities given to them, in order to become self-actualized - not just those who escaped house-wifery, but even those who read and wrote a lot, and found hobbies and ways of being happy within the confines of house-wifery b) there were men who escaped the boundaries by really striving to understand and respect women. These men and women, despite the odds, were able to have healthy relationships - and I wish at least one couple on MM had a healthy relationship, for the sake of, if nothing else, historical accuracy.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Also...
Also, good news for any bisexual male readers out there: According to a recent NY Times article/recent scientific study, you exist - http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/civil-religion/hyim-shafner/article_f2cce15e-cc5b-11e0-8cb1-0019bb30f31a.html?mode=story
I wasn't aware that there was any doubt, beyond the pop-culture anti-bi bias, as in when Sex and the City's Miranda says that "bi is just a stop on the way to gay-ville, which is next to Rick Martin-ville."
Maybe they should do a study to see whether or not straight men exist. I mean, there isn't any proof, other than their stuffing their penises into women's vaginas - but what about ones who are celibate? OMG - that 40-year old virgin dude was totally gay!
Seriously, it is insulting for science to "prove" bi men exist, because that gives into the hava amina (starting assumption) that they may not exist.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/16/9534403-case-closed-bisexual-men-exist
I wasn't aware that there was any doubt, beyond the pop-culture anti-bi bias, as in when Sex and the City's Miranda says that "bi is just a stop on the way to gay-ville, which is next to Rick Martin-ville."
Maybe they should do a study to see whether or not straight men exist. I mean, there isn't any proof, other than their stuffing their penises into women's vaginas - but what about ones who are celibate? OMG - that 40-year old virgin dude was totally gay!
Seriously, it is insulting for science to "prove" bi men exist, because that gives into the hava amina (starting assumption) that they may not exist.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/16/9534403-case-closed-bisexual-men-exist
I am watching Anderson Cooper as I write this
Ok, I shared my anti-ring speil. But now please allow me to indulge my pro - or at least not anti - virginity before marriage speil. I am not saying the PMS is immoral, or anything like that, merely that I think virginity until marriage is a valid and legitimate option.
Most of my friends' objections to virginity before marriage go something like this: 1. How can you know if someone is "good in bed" unless you sleep with them first? If you are married and they suck at sex, you are screwed for life, by which I mean not satisfactorily screwed for life. 2. As Samantha told Charlotte on Sex and The City, you test-drive the car before you buy it.
I guess my problem with these arguments can be tied to Samatnha's phraseology in objection 2: I think it is objectifying to see someone as this sex object, where you need to test the machinery before you lock yourself in. Of course, sex is an important part of a romantic relationship: I simply believe that love, combined with hard work and practice, can usually combine to form a satisfactory sex life. Sex is like art: Some people might have more innate ability than others, but it is a skill that can be taught. One doesn't need Mozart's natural abilities to be an excellent pianist.
That is not to say that everything always works out. I am sure there are the exceptions to the rule. But I think marrying someone without sleeping with them first is making a statement of faith: I love you and believe that because of our love we will have a good sex life. I think this faith comes with the understanding that achieving that good sex life might involve time, and may sometimes even involve sexual therapy and professional help, but you are committed to doing whatever it takes to make your sex life good, and because of that, it will probably wind up good. This affirmation of faith is incredibly romantic, and it shows that sex, while important, is not the most important part of your relationship - if it was, taking that leap would be too risky.
I also think that the concept of "good in bed" is fallacious: There is whether one person's body works well with your body. Sex isn't some skill that takes place in a vacuum. Usually, attitude - being responsive to your partner's needs - is as big a part of giving sexual pleasure to your partner as some sort of magical, unquantifiable physical quality known as "being good in bed".
Which lead me to my real concern about virginal marriages: Having the confidence to talk openly about sex, and express your needs to your partner, is extremely important when it comes to having a good sex life. I think that by making PMS so taboo, Orthodox society sometimes also precludes conversations about sex from a couple's pre-married life - and once you have a relationship dynamic where sex is not part of the conversation, where its immodest to speak of it - it's hard to change that. Orthodox society should be encouraging couples to speak about sex, both before and during marriage - because open communication, not PMS, is ultimately the key to successful sex and a successful relationship.
PS - PMS stands for pre-marital sex. For the source of these initials, please see my previous post.
Most of my friends' objections to virginity before marriage go something like this: 1. How can you know if someone is "good in bed" unless you sleep with them first? If you are married and they suck at sex, you are screwed for life, by which I mean not satisfactorily screwed for life. 2. As Samantha told Charlotte on Sex and The City, you test-drive the car before you buy it.
I guess my problem with these arguments can be tied to Samatnha's phraseology in objection 2: I think it is objectifying to see someone as this sex object, where you need to test the machinery before you lock yourself in. Of course, sex is an important part of a romantic relationship: I simply believe that love, combined with hard work and practice, can usually combine to form a satisfactory sex life. Sex is like art: Some people might have more innate ability than others, but it is a skill that can be taught. One doesn't need Mozart's natural abilities to be an excellent pianist.
That is not to say that everything always works out. I am sure there are the exceptions to the rule. But I think marrying someone without sleeping with them first is making a statement of faith: I love you and believe that because of our love we will have a good sex life. I think this faith comes with the understanding that achieving that good sex life might involve time, and may sometimes even involve sexual therapy and professional help, but you are committed to doing whatever it takes to make your sex life good, and because of that, it will probably wind up good. This affirmation of faith is incredibly romantic, and it shows that sex, while important, is not the most important part of your relationship - if it was, taking that leap would be too risky.
I also think that the concept of "good in bed" is fallacious: There is whether one person's body works well with your body. Sex isn't some skill that takes place in a vacuum. Usually, attitude - being responsive to your partner's needs - is as big a part of giving sexual pleasure to your partner as some sort of magical, unquantifiable physical quality known as "being good in bed".
Which lead me to my real concern about virginal marriages: Having the confidence to talk openly about sex, and express your needs to your partner, is extremely important when it comes to having a good sex life. I think that by making PMS so taboo, Orthodox society sometimes also precludes conversations about sex from a couple's pre-married life - and once you have a relationship dynamic where sex is not part of the conversation, where its immodest to speak of it - it's hard to change that. Orthodox society should be encouraging couples to speak about sex, both before and during marriage - because open communication, not PMS, is ultimately the key to successful sex and a successful relationship.
PS - PMS stands for pre-marital sex. For the source of these initials, please see my previous post.
Purity Rings
I have no problems with men and women waiting until marriage to have sex, nor do I take issue with religions that urge their adherents to do so - I am an Orthodox Jew, after all.
I do however, take issue with "purity rings", where parents give children rings to wear that symbolize the commitment to not have PMS (pre-marital sex)*. Sometimes there are even chastity balls, where girls wearing white gowns pledge pre-marital virginity to their fathers, who then give them the ring.
My objections are:
1. Society has long tried to control women's bodies, but this takes the cake. A woman is pledging to uphold the social norms of her parent's community, and publicly displaying a commitment to do so. Now, if she takes the ring off, all of her society will know she violated the "norm" (even though it is probably more of a norm in violation than practice, it is still the officially mandated behavior). The ring is a ploy to use social and family pressure to whip women's bodies into line - or rather, to prevent their being playfully whipped.
2. I believe sexuality and sex are private. A person can choose to share whichever details they desire, but that should be their choice. This puts a person's sexual activity (or lack thereof) on public display, violating their right to privacy.
3. A woman should have control over her body and over her sexuality. This takes that power away from her and puts it into her parents' hands. The ring is essentially saying "I relinquish my right to my body, in favor of your right to control my body's sexual actions". Again, an attempt by patriarchal society to deprive women of agency.
4. This is way too Freudian. Leaving aside the obvious oedipal implications of women pledging to sexually behave (or not behave) in a certain way in order to please their daddies, if parents have that much of a vested interest in kids' sex lives, to the point where they want the symbol usually used to symbolize romantic/sexual love/fidelity to lover to be used to symbolize love of parents/lack of sex/fidelity to parents, there is something wrong - an unhealthy sexual tinge to the parental-child relationship. The parents essentially want to replace the role of the romantic lover in their daughter's lives. This may place them in quasi-incestual/emotionally incestual territory.
I notice such rings are not given to men. As usual, society prizes female virginity over male, and is only concerned with controlling the female body. By the religious standards that inspire purity rings, it should be just as "sinful" for men to have pre-marital sex as for women. But of course, why would society stomp on men's need for sexual conquest? As in so many cultures, there is a double-standard: Women should languish innocently while men sow their first seeds, because these women must be pure when the men decide to marry and sow the crop in their permanent pasture. Once more, women are land, territory to be conquered. It is no coincidence that in Haiti "land" can also be used as slang for a woman's vagina.
* Rabbi Haskel Lookstein is to be credited with the creative initials for this phenomena, which he used while teaching his Jewish Sex Ethics (aka "Sex with the Rabbi") class at the Ramaz Upper School in Manhattan.
I do however, take issue with "purity rings", where parents give children rings to wear that symbolize the commitment to not have PMS (pre-marital sex)*. Sometimes there are even chastity balls, where girls wearing white gowns pledge pre-marital virginity to their fathers, who then give them the ring.
My objections are:
1. Society has long tried to control women's bodies, but this takes the cake. A woman is pledging to uphold the social norms of her parent's community, and publicly displaying a commitment to do so. Now, if she takes the ring off, all of her society will know she violated the "norm" (even though it is probably more of a norm in violation than practice, it is still the officially mandated behavior). The ring is a ploy to use social and family pressure to whip women's bodies into line - or rather, to prevent their being playfully whipped.
2. I believe sexuality and sex are private. A person can choose to share whichever details they desire, but that should be their choice. This puts a person's sexual activity (or lack thereof) on public display, violating their right to privacy.
3. A woman should have control over her body and over her sexuality. This takes that power away from her and puts it into her parents' hands. The ring is essentially saying "I relinquish my right to my body, in favor of your right to control my body's sexual actions". Again, an attempt by patriarchal society to deprive women of agency.
4. This is way too Freudian. Leaving aside the obvious oedipal implications of women pledging to sexually behave (or not behave) in a certain way in order to please their daddies, if parents have that much of a vested interest in kids' sex lives, to the point where they want the symbol usually used to symbolize romantic/sexual love/fidelity to lover to be used to symbolize love of parents/lack of sex/fidelity to parents, there is something wrong - an unhealthy sexual tinge to the parental-child relationship. The parents essentially want to replace the role of the romantic lover in their daughter's lives. This may place them in quasi-incestual/emotionally incestual territory.
I notice such rings are not given to men. As usual, society prizes female virginity over male, and is only concerned with controlling the female body. By the religious standards that inspire purity rings, it should be just as "sinful" for men to have pre-marital sex as for women. But of course, why would society stomp on men's need for sexual conquest? As in so many cultures, there is a double-standard: Women should languish innocently while men sow their first seeds, because these women must be pure when the men decide to marry and sow the crop in their permanent pasture. Once more, women are land, territory to be conquered. It is no coincidence that in Haiti "land" can also be used as slang for a woman's vagina.
* Rabbi Haskel Lookstein is to be credited with the creative initials for this phenomena, which he used while teaching his Jewish Sex Ethics (aka "Sex with the Rabbi") class at the Ramaz Upper School in Manhattan.
Rather than the obsess over the earthquake that invaded my bedroom half an hour ago, I've decided to post some links. I really want to blog about pre-marital virginity and purity rings, but I am so tired!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/fashion/modern-love-say-it-out-loud.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44220736/ns/health-behavior/#.TlPy-YLNjrI
http://lit.newcity.com/2011/02/07/nonfiction-review-%E2%80%9Cpleasure-bound-victorian-sex-rebels-and-the-new-eroticism%E2%80%9D-by-deborah-lutz/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/fashion/modern-love-say-it-out-loud.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44220736/ns/health-behavior/#.TlPy-YLNjrI
http://lit.newcity.com/2011/02/07/nonfiction-review-%E2%80%9Cpleasure-bound-victorian-sex-rebels-and-the-new-eroticism%E2%80%9D-by-deborah-lutz/
Thursday, August 18, 2011
First Jezebel, Now Jewcy
Ok, so I decided to check out the other blog that I, as a YJF*, am supposed to read on a regular basis: Jewcy.
http://www.jewcy.com/
I found this quick post: http://www.jewcy.com/sex-and-love/joe-lieberman-shabbat-sex
which led to this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/senator-lieberman-talks-sex-and-the-sabbath/2011/08/17/gIQAP4QQLJ_blog.html
Jewcy seems to think this is funny and slightly disgusting that Joe Liberman is speaking about sex, and, more specifically, shabbat sex. I think however, that for a middle-aged man to be open about his religion's positive attitude to sex within a marriage/the sexual componnent of his marriage is, well - admirable.
* Young Jewish Feminist
http://www.jewcy.com/
I found this quick post: http://www.jewcy.com/sex-and-love/joe-lieberman-shabbat-sex
which led to this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/senator-lieberman-talks-sex-and-the-sabbath/2011/08/17/gIQAP4QQLJ_blog.html
Jewcy seems to think this is funny and slightly disgusting that Joe Liberman is speaking about sex, and, more specifically, shabbat sex. I think however, that for a middle-aged man to be open about his religion's positive attitude to sex within a marriage/the sexual componnent of his marriage is, well - admirable.
* Young Jewish Feminist
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
CTOP and Links
Closing Thoughts on Polygamy: If they make one's wife upset, they technically violate the Torah maxim of "Love your friend/neighbor/lover as yourself".*
A funny link shared by a friend: http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgfkmvLWxg1qzc78lo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1313637435&Signature=2N0pq6dVTsIE0W%2FpSCsB65vRiUY%3D
There is a new HBO documentary coming out about Gloria Steinem!
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/gloria_days_PyHNmxteqP3PTTrNWj2KAJ#ixzz1VDc7dExM
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394522/august-11-2011/gloria-steinem
(It's not link-ifying - sorry! Also, I love coining neologisms - it makes me feel so Shakespearean. Now I must stand on a balcony and extol the properties of roses...)
*Re-eh is a hard word to translate; arguably, it is related to "my beloved", as in "raayati".
A funny link shared by a friend: http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lgfkmvLWxg1qzc78lo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1313637435&Signature=2N0pq6dVTsIE0W%2FpSCsB65vRiUY%3D
There is a new HBO documentary coming out about Gloria Steinem!
http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/gloria_days_PyHNmxteqP3PTTrNWj2KAJ#ixzz1VDc7dExM
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394522/august-11-2011/gloria-steinem
(It's not link-ifying - sorry! Also, I love coining neologisms - it makes me feel so Shakespearean. Now I must stand on a balcony and extol the properties of roses...)
*Re-eh is a hard word to translate; arguably, it is related to "my beloved", as in "raayati".
More Jezebel, and: Polygamy! (And I Don't Mean "Big Love")
This was just too funny not to share:
http://jezebel.com/5831751/anne-hathaway-performs-anti+paparazzi-rap-song-on-conan
Also, news which, pre-SATC movies, would have been greeted with "yay!", but now makes me a bit more ambivalent: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/08/could_sex_and_the_city_return.html
Now, on to polygamy:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100434,00.html
I am going to start off with something controversial: While I support a legal ban on polygamy because of the way in which it is used to oppress women, and I think to some extent, women's wanting to be in polygamous marriages may reflect an internalization of mysogyny, I also think a) that some women may want to be in a polygamous marriage for perfectly "legitimate" reasons b) it is possible said women have not internalized mysogyny (or at least, not any more than the rest of us) c) to claim otherwise is patriarchal. I have no right to claim a woman's marriage is illlegitimate just because I think it is. To claim that all women in polygamous marriages must somehow be opressed or have been coerced into it is to objectify them by denying them any autonomy over their own actions.* Furthermore, some may claim that the legal ban on polygamy is just one more way for a patriarchal male society to control women's bodies: If one man helps himself to more than his fare share of women, that's not fair to the other wife-seekers out there.
In light of the amount of cheating that goes on, judging polygamy becomes a bit hypocritical. Furthermore, some might claim polygamy prevents cheating, and is akin to having a mutually agreed upon "open marriage", only even better - because the open-ness is limited to a few partners, to stable partners who you know, so you don't wonder which woman your husband will pick up at the bar tonight. Of course, this open-ness is only one-sided, which may make it unfair - but in many open relationships, one spouse is the one who really wants the open-ness. Furthermore, if the woman doesn't feel the same need for other sex partners, but her husband does, isn't it her right to grant him that to save her marriage?**
Now, on to social problems reflected in the article:
1. The "polygamy is great for Jews" ads were funded by desperate single women. While some of these women may be desperate of their own accord, one wonders how much of their desperation stems from their belonging to a society in which one does not gain full acceptance into the community sans marriage, in which communal life focuses around families with children, and the single are shunned and pitied. Furthermore, if these women are observing shomer law, being single must be especially hard - out of mercy, a prime Torah value, maybe rabbis should look into at least easing shomer laws for women over 30. However, to do so would only reifie the message that single women over 30 are to be pitied, so I feel ambivalent about my own suggestion. Of course, I am in general, in favor of rabbis easing shomer laws for everyone by allowing women to go to mikvah starting in puberty, which I also think is beneficial for religious reasons that have nothing to do with sex.
2. I think my assertion is strenghened by one woman's claim that her fear of not being able to have children prompted her to support the ads. Having children is part of the path to acceptance in Orthodox society; it was this path that she sought. (The treatment of childless couples is another serious issue Orthodox society must deal with). Alternatively, or at the same time, there is the legitimate longing to be a parent, for oneself, because one wants children. It is a shame that single-motherhood via IVF and adoption are not considered acceptable in Israeli Orthodox society, the way that they are considered acceptable in Modern Orthodox society in New York. This woman should not have to choose between singlehood and motherhood.
3. The article mentions Biblical examples of polygamy, including Solomon's wives, but his wives were seen by the Tanach as his downfall, and there is a ban on the king having too many wives. I would argue that reading in between the lines, while the Torah allows polygamy (or at least bigamy - I don't think three wives are ever mentioned in the Torah's legal code), the Torah and Nach have a negative attitude towards polygamy, which comes out in its tone.
4. At least the man interviewed seemed to think it essential to have wife a's consent before taking wife b.
5. The whole "did times change" / "how can our Torah be wrong" exchange however, is what troubled me, because the view of times changing/halacha adapting to said changes, and the aboslute right-ness of the Torah, as being mutually exclusive, is troubling.
* Similarly, to claim that women who dress modestly for religious reasons must somehow be opressed or have been coerced into it is to objectify them by denying them any autonomy over their own actions.
** Of course, this works off the sexist assumption that women desire sex less than men, which is not true.
http://jezebel.com/5831751/anne-hathaway-performs-anti+paparazzi-rap-song-on-conan
Also, news which, pre-SATC movies, would have been greeted with "yay!", but now makes me a bit more ambivalent: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/08/could_sex_and_the_city_return.html
Now, on to polygamy:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4100434,00.html
I am going to start off with something controversial: While I support a legal ban on polygamy because of the way in which it is used to oppress women, and I think to some extent, women's wanting to be in polygamous marriages may reflect an internalization of mysogyny, I also think a) that some women may want to be in a polygamous marriage for perfectly "legitimate" reasons b) it is possible said women have not internalized mysogyny (or at least, not any more than the rest of us) c) to claim otherwise is patriarchal. I have no right to claim a woman's marriage is illlegitimate just because I think it is. To claim that all women in polygamous marriages must somehow be opressed or have been coerced into it is to objectify them by denying them any autonomy over their own actions.* Furthermore, some may claim that the legal ban on polygamy is just one more way for a patriarchal male society to control women's bodies: If one man helps himself to more than his fare share of women, that's not fair to the other wife-seekers out there.
In light of the amount of cheating that goes on, judging polygamy becomes a bit hypocritical. Furthermore, some might claim polygamy prevents cheating, and is akin to having a mutually agreed upon "open marriage", only even better - because the open-ness is limited to a few partners, to stable partners who you know, so you don't wonder which woman your husband will pick up at the bar tonight. Of course, this open-ness is only one-sided, which may make it unfair - but in many open relationships, one spouse is the one who really wants the open-ness. Furthermore, if the woman doesn't feel the same need for other sex partners, but her husband does, isn't it her right to grant him that to save her marriage?**
Now, on to social problems reflected in the article:
1. The "polygamy is great for Jews" ads were funded by desperate single women. While some of these women may be desperate of their own accord, one wonders how much of their desperation stems from their belonging to a society in which one does not gain full acceptance into the community sans marriage, in which communal life focuses around families with children, and the single are shunned and pitied. Furthermore, if these women are observing shomer law, being single must be especially hard - out of mercy, a prime Torah value, maybe rabbis should look into at least easing shomer laws for women over 30. However, to do so would only reifie the message that single women over 30 are to be pitied, so I feel ambivalent about my own suggestion. Of course, I am in general, in favor of rabbis easing shomer laws for everyone by allowing women to go to mikvah starting in puberty, which I also think is beneficial for religious reasons that have nothing to do with sex.
2. I think my assertion is strenghened by one woman's claim that her fear of not being able to have children prompted her to support the ads. Having children is part of the path to acceptance in Orthodox society; it was this path that she sought. (The treatment of childless couples is another serious issue Orthodox society must deal with). Alternatively, or at the same time, there is the legitimate longing to be a parent, for oneself, because one wants children. It is a shame that single-motherhood via IVF and adoption are not considered acceptable in Israeli Orthodox society, the way that they are considered acceptable in Modern Orthodox society in New York. This woman should not have to choose between singlehood and motherhood.
3. The article mentions Biblical examples of polygamy, including Solomon's wives, but his wives were seen by the Tanach as his downfall, and there is a ban on the king having too many wives. I would argue that reading in between the lines, while the Torah allows polygamy (or at least bigamy - I don't think three wives are ever mentioned in the Torah's legal code), the Torah and Nach have a negative attitude towards polygamy, which comes out in its tone.
4. At least the man interviewed seemed to think it essential to have wife a's consent before taking wife b.
5. The whole "did times change" / "how can our Torah be wrong" exchange however, is what troubled me, because the view of times changing/halacha adapting to said changes, and the aboslute right-ness of the Torah, as being mutually exclusive, is troubling.
* Similarly, to claim that women who dress modestly for religious reasons must somehow be opressed or have been coerced into it is to objectify them by denying them any autonomy over their own actions.
** Of course, this works off the sexist assumption that women desire sex less than men, which is not true.
Exchanging the High Brows for the Low (and still preferring a unibrow)
When faced with a crisis, one has two options: 1. Engage in introspection 2. Go on a Jezebel binge. I chose the latter option. Here are the results:
Of course, it was small time until pop culture's recent vampire fetish was used as en excuse to opress women/(alleged) rapists will sometimes use any excuse:
http://jezebel.com/5831614/violent-man-uses-the-im-a-500+year+old-vampire-excuse
The fascinating question is: Does he beleive his own story?
I snitched this from a friend's Facebook page. To me, the saddest part is how unshocked I was by this story:
http://jezebel.com/5831447/school-allegedly-made-girl-write-apology-to-her-rapist
Also snitched from Facebook:
http://thenewgay.net/2011/08/separation-of-church-and-self.html
While I agree with the court's decision about the following case, (http://jezebel.com/5831704/sexy-lollipop-sleepover-shots-are-constitutionally-protected-speech), in which the court found it unconstitutional for a school to punish female students for sexually suggestive pictures posted on Facebook, I think that posing this as a free speech issue detracts from what this case is really about: These girls have learned to sexually objectify themselves. The girls took pictures of themselves sucking on phallic objects - ie, pleasuring men. If the pictures were of girls pretending to pleasure themselves or each other, at least it would be about their sexual autonomy, not about being men's sex toys. Even if they had taken other pictures that were more about mutual heterosexual sex acts - but blowjobs, while some women (and men) may find giving them enjoyable, are ultimately geared towards the pleasure of the receiver.
One photo shows the girls kissing - which is great if they are interested in women, but in context, speaks more to the fetishization of lesbianism by our society, and to objectifying oneself by doing something sexually unstimulating to oneself in order to sexually turn on men. Then there are the pictures where women hold pretend phallic symbols protruding between their legs. While I think Freud's "penis envy" theory is no more than thinly veiled mysogyny, I do think that our society equates a penis with power, reserves the highest power for those with a penis (there are exceptions, but in terms of general social heirarchies), and equates sticking one's penis in someone as dominating them - which is why rape is perceived by the man as an expression of his power over the woman. These pictures make me wonder if these women somehow had "picked up" on that subconsciously.
One more thing: These picures are all of sexual actions that need not involve face-to-face contact (anal sex, blowjobs), with the exception a) of the kiss, because two kissing women is considered "hot" b) of another photo, but in that, one of the people is on the phone, showing that they are not really engaging in focused face-to-face contact with each other. This shows that the photos are of people relating to each other as sexual objects, not as people engaging in sexual acts (or perhaps, more accurately: sexually suggestive/pseudo-sexual acts). According to Emmanuel Levinas, it is our face-to-face contact with the Other that constitutes the formation of ethical relationships. While I have nothing against nights (or days) of debauchery, I do think that having a society in which sex is seen only in terms of physical gratification, almost as one would go to the bathroom, is kind of depressing. Sex can also be a sign of affection and an expresison of love - and I wish society would remember that, and teach young women that they do not need to objectify themselves or engage in sexual relationships that are solely sexual in order to be cool.
A friend of mine once told me she felt like a prude, because ever since liking this guy, she no longer felt comfortable engaging in random hookups at parties. She continued to do so however, in order not to lose face. Social coercion that leads people to do things they are not sexually comfortable with is extremely prevalent in our society. In gaining the right to say "yes", have we given up (in a social sense, obviously in a moral/ethical sense we always have this) the right to say no?
Of course, it was small time until pop culture's recent vampire fetish was used as en excuse to opress women/(alleged) rapists will sometimes use any excuse:
http://jezebel.com/5831614/violent-man-uses-the-im-a-500+year+old-vampire-excuse
The fascinating question is: Does he beleive his own story?
I snitched this from a friend's Facebook page. To me, the saddest part is how unshocked I was by this story:
http://jezebel.com/5831447/school-allegedly-made-girl-write-apology-to-her-rapist
Also snitched from Facebook:
http://thenewgay.net/2011/08/separation-of-church-and-self.html
While I agree with the court's decision about the following case, (http://jezebel.com/5831704/sexy-lollipop-sleepover-shots-are-constitutionally-protected-speech), in which the court found it unconstitutional for a school to punish female students for sexually suggestive pictures posted on Facebook, I think that posing this as a free speech issue detracts from what this case is really about: These girls have learned to sexually objectify themselves. The girls took pictures of themselves sucking on phallic objects - ie, pleasuring men. If the pictures were of girls pretending to pleasure themselves or each other, at least it would be about their sexual autonomy, not about being men's sex toys. Even if they had taken other pictures that were more about mutual heterosexual sex acts - but blowjobs, while some women (and men) may find giving them enjoyable, are ultimately geared towards the pleasure of the receiver.
One photo shows the girls kissing - which is great if they are interested in women, but in context, speaks more to the fetishization of lesbianism by our society, and to objectifying oneself by doing something sexually unstimulating to oneself in order to sexually turn on men. Then there are the pictures where women hold pretend phallic symbols protruding between their legs. While I think Freud's "penis envy" theory is no more than thinly veiled mysogyny, I do think that our society equates a penis with power, reserves the highest power for those with a penis (there are exceptions, but in terms of general social heirarchies), and equates sticking one's penis in someone as dominating them - which is why rape is perceived by the man as an expression of his power over the woman. These pictures make me wonder if these women somehow had "picked up" on that subconsciously.
One more thing: These picures are all of sexual actions that need not involve face-to-face contact (anal sex, blowjobs), with the exception a) of the kiss, because two kissing women is considered "hot" b) of another photo, but in that, one of the people is on the phone, showing that they are not really engaging in focused face-to-face contact with each other. This shows that the photos are of people relating to each other as sexual objects, not as people engaging in sexual acts (or perhaps, more accurately: sexually suggestive/pseudo-sexual acts). According to Emmanuel Levinas, it is our face-to-face contact with the Other that constitutes the formation of ethical relationships. While I have nothing against nights (or days) of debauchery, I do think that having a society in which sex is seen only in terms of physical gratification, almost as one would go to the bathroom, is kind of depressing. Sex can also be a sign of affection and an expresison of love - and I wish society would remember that, and teach young women that they do not need to objectify themselves or engage in sexual relationships that are solely sexual in order to be cool.
A friend of mine once told me she felt like a prude, because ever since liking this guy, she no longer felt comfortable engaging in random hookups at parties. She continued to do so however, in order not to lose face. Social coercion that leads people to do things they are not sexually comfortable with is extremely prevalent in our society. In gaining the right to say "yes", have we given up (in a social sense, obviously in a moral/ethical sense we always have this) the right to say no?
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Tal Ilan
As part of my Jewish Studies minor in college, I was exposed to the works of Tal Ilan, a feminist scholar of late antiquity whose work is colored by her outlook: She examines the evidence with an eye towards coming up with feminist conclusions, and is honest about that. This makes her work both extremely valuable and extremely biased at the same time. I wonder: How many men - even without realizing it - are looking for conclusions that back up the current heteronormative/patriarchal status quo? Are they any less biased than Ilan? I think the answer must be yes, if only because subconscious biases influence one's research less than conscious ones - or do they?
Anyhow, I thought it would be fun to sum up the findings of some of her articles, starting with this one* (btw, she does have books on Amazon):
1. The word "pharissee" has traditionally meant "legitimate Jewish religious authority/interpeter of the Jewish religious texts" in post-exilic Jewish society; the equation of Pharisees with legitimate Judaism meant that any claim to be upholding the Pharistic tradition was inherently political.
2. Tannaim are seen as carriers of the pharrisitic tradition; Shaye Cohen maintains that in fact, "rabbinic Judaism after 70 CE, whose representatives were indeed former Pharisees, did not become mono- lithic but resigned its claim to exclusivity in the interest of a religious and social tolerance, which is the most common feature of rabbinic Judaism." (Ilan 3). Thus, the more pluralism is in fact the movement with the greatest adherence to the Pharissitic tradition, which was that of embracing different relgious traditions in the name of unity.
3. Similarly, Judith Hauptman maintains that "since the rabbis of the Talmud, the historical heirs of the Pharisees, had bettered the condition of women in their day demonstrably, Judaism today should do likewise.20 Hauptman adopted the attitude that the true heirs of the Pharisees can be feminists, much like the Pharisees themselves probably had been." (Ilan 4). There has been much debate on whether Pharisess were feminists or mysogynists.
4. Thesis: Pharisanism, while not particularly feminist, still held much attraction for most women. (Ilan 5).
5. According to Josephus, Herod's sister-in-law paid a fine levied on the pharisees for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to Ceasar; in exchange, they foretold that "by God's decree" power would be taken from Herod and passed on to his sister-in-law's descendants. The pharisees are described by Josephus as " a group of Jews priding itself on its adherenceto ancestralcustomand claimingto observethe laws of which the deity approves." (Ilan 5-6).
6. Josephus also claimed that the Pharisess ruled over women. (Ilan 5). This claim "is not meant as a compliment. Real rulers rule over both men and women; rule over women
alone is a sign of weakness". (Ilan 6) Furthermore, since husbands rule over wives, this claim implies that the pharisees were stepping on husbands' toes. (Ilan 6).
7. Did women in general follow the Pharisees, or only women in Herod's court?
8. Rabbinic literature (RL) is pharisitic in nature, but due to changes over time, it is questionable how much of rabbinic literature was encompassed in the original pharisatic teachings.
9. RL claims that pharisees exerted influence over the Temple, a sadducean establishment, and that women who were part of the saduccean society followed pharisean law, especially regarding menstrual laws. A story is brought of the wife of a preist (part of the saducean Temple establishment supposedly influenced by the pharisees) who consulted pharisees with Niddah questions.
10. While neither Josephus or RL are completely reliable, the confluence of the two texts on the point that women of the higher sects of society supported pharisees makes it likely that there is truth to that statement.
11. The third chapter of tractate Sota in the Mishnah discusses the desirability of teaching one's daughter Torah: "R. Eliezer says: 'Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her tiflut". It is not clear what the last word means, but on the basis of the next sentence, it is usually interpreted as sexual licentousness. "R. Joshua said: A woman prefers one porition with sex(tiflut), rather than nine portions with abstinence (prishut)." Ilan explains that while prishut here means abstinence, it is also the same root as the word for pharisee. In this text R. Joshua asserts that women's sexual drives are paramount in their lives; the text's position in the Mishnah suggests that in order to avoid sexual misconduct, women should be married and ruled by their husbands. The text then proceeds as follows: "R. Joshua would say: 'A foolish Hasid, a sly villain, a prushi woman, and the injuries of the prushim, these wear out the world."
Is R. Joshua still referring to an abstinent woman? This is not clear since hementions injuries of the prushim, which probably refers to the Pharisees, after mentioning the woman. His referencet to a prushi womanmaybeaplay on the two aspects of the word prushi. The woman follows the Pharisees, disobeys her husband, and is thus driven to sexual abstinence. Correct sexual conduct can only be maintained if women are not prushi according to both meanings of the word; they must be ruled by their husbands rather than prushim' (Pharisaism; sexual abstinence). The sage therefore, acknowl- edges the phenomenon of Pharisee women, that is women who adhered to the Pharisee ways. If these women had been the wives of Pharisees, they would not have been worth mentioning. It is logical to assume that women apart from men or with no relationship to men, had followed the Pharisees; it is this that is strongly criticized.
R. Joshua's statement is negative in its assessment of both the prushi woman and the injuries of the prushim. If the second should be identified with the Pharisees, so should the first." (Ila 9-10).
12. Ilan claims that although this text is Pharisee, this source, which is in the context of discussing the destruction of the temple, "may be a personal reflection of certain social phe- nomena associated with Pharisaism, of which the sage disapproved, without actually discrediting Pharisaism. Perhaps when Pharisaism gained universal recognition after the destruction of the Temple, its members scoffed at some of the behavior of their forebears and the following they had relied
upon before attaining prominence. Once the following of women was no longer necessary to bolster up the lines of the Pharisees, the women's loy- alty was viewed as a burdenratherthan an asset." (Ilan 10)
The mishna cited is the fourth in the third chapter of Sotah.
Stay tuned for more on the Pharisee-women saga.... (I am too tired to continue for tonight)
*The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism during the Second Temple Period Author(s): Tal Ilan Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-33 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509816
Accessed: 05/12/2010 01:03
Anyhow, I thought it would be fun to sum up the findings of some of her articles, starting with this one* (btw, she does have books on Amazon):
1. The word "pharissee" has traditionally meant "legitimate Jewish religious authority/interpeter of the Jewish religious texts" in post-exilic Jewish society; the equation of Pharisees with legitimate Judaism meant that any claim to be upholding the Pharistic tradition was inherently political.
2. Tannaim are seen as carriers of the pharrisitic tradition; Shaye Cohen maintains that in fact, "rabbinic Judaism after 70 CE, whose representatives were indeed former Pharisees, did not become mono- lithic but resigned its claim to exclusivity in the interest of a religious and social tolerance, which is the most common feature of rabbinic Judaism." (Ilan 3). Thus, the more pluralism is in fact the movement with the greatest adherence to the Pharissitic tradition, which was that of embracing different relgious traditions in the name of unity.
3. Similarly, Judith Hauptman maintains that "since the rabbis of the Talmud, the historical heirs of the Pharisees, had bettered the condition of women in their day demonstrably, Judaism today should do likewise.20 Hauptman adopted the attitude that the true heirs of the Pharisees can be feminists, much like the Pharisees themselves probably had been." (Ilan 4). There has been much debate on whether Pharisess were feminists or mysogynists.
4. Thesis: Pharisanism, while not particularly feminist, still held much attraction for most women. (Ilan 5).
5. According to Josephus, Herod's sister-in-law paid a fine levied on the pharisees for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to Ceasar; in exchange, they foretold that "by God's decree" power would be taken from Herod and passed on to his sister-in-law's descendants. The pharisees are described by Josephus as " a group of Jews priding itself on its adherenceto ancestralcustomand claimingto observethe laws of which the deity approves." (Ilan 5-6).
6. Josephus also claimed that the Pharisess ruled over women. (Ilan 5). This claim "is not meant as a compliment. Real rulers rule over both men and women; rule over women
alone is a sign of weakness". (Ilan 6) Furthermore, since husbands rule over wives, this claim implies that the pharisees were stepping on husbands' toes. (Ilan 6).
7. Did women in general follow the Pharisees, or only women in Herod's court?
8. Rabbinic literature (RL) is pharisitic in nature, but due to changes over time, it is questionable how much of rabbinic literature was encompassed in the original pharisatic teachings.
9. RL claims that pharisees exerted influence over the Temple, a sadducean establishment, and that women who were part of the saduccean society followed pharisean law, especially regarding menstrual laws. A story is brought of the wife of a preist (part of the saducean Temple establishment supposedly influenced by the pharisees) who consulted pharisees with Niddah questions.
10. While neither Josephus or RL are completely reliable, the confluence of the two texts on the point that women of the higher sects of society supported pharisees makes it likely that there is truth to that statement.
11. The third chapter of tractate Sota in the Mishnah discusses the desirability of teaching one's daughter Torah: "R. Eliezer says: 'Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her tiflut". It is not clear what the last word means, but on the basis of the next sentence, it is usually interpreted as sexual licentousness. "R. Joshua said: A woman prefers one porition with sex(tiflut), rather than nine portions with abstinence (prishut)." Ilan explains that while prishut here means abstinence, it is also the same root as the word for pharisee. In this text R. Joshua asserts that women's sexual drives are paramount in their lives; the text's position in the Mishnah suggests that in order to avoid sexual misconduct, women should be married and ruled by their husbands. The text then proceeds as follows: "R. Joshua would say: 'A foolish Hasid, a sly villain, a prushi woman, and the injuries of the prushim, these wear out the world."
Is R. Joshua still referring to an abstinent woman? This is not clear since hementions injuries of the prushim, which probably refers to the Pharisees, after mentioning the woman. His referencet to a prushi womanmaybeaplay on the two aspects of the word prushi. The woman follows the Pharisees, disobeys her husband, and is thus driven to sexual abstinence. Correct sexual conduct can only be maintained if women are not prushi according to both meanings of the word; they must be ruled by their husbands rather than prushim' (Pharisaism; sexual abstinence). The sage therefore, acknowl- edges the phenomenon of Pharisee women, that is women who adhered to the Pharisee ways. If these women had been the wives of Pharisees, they would not have been worth mentioning. It is logical to assume that women apart from men or with no relationship to men, had followed the Pharisees; it is this that is strongly criticized.
R. Joshua's statement is negative in its assessment of both the prushi woman and the injuries of the prushim. If the second should be identified with the Pharisees, so should the first." (Ila 9-10).
12. Ilan claims that although this text is Pharisee, this source, which is in the context of discussing the destruction of the temple, "may be a personal reflection of certain social phe- nomena associated with Pharisaism, of which the sage disapproved, without actually discrediting Pharisaism. Perhaps when Pharisaism gained universal recognition after the destruction of the Temple, its members scoffed at some of the behavior of their forebears and the following they had relied
upon before attaining prominence. Once the following of women was no longer necessary to bolster up the lines of the Pharisees, the women's loy- alty was viewed as a burdenratherthan an asset." (Ilan 10)
The mishna cited is the fourth in the third chapter of Sotah.
Stay tuned for more on the Pharisee-women saga.... (I am too tired to continue for tonight)
*The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism during the Second Temple Period Author(s): Tal Ilan Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 88, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 1-33 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509816
Accessed: 05/12/2010 01:03
Mad Men
I recently saw the first season of Mad Men on Netflix. I was horrified by the msyogyny; a friend replied that it comes with the territory (portraying 1960s America), but of course, the fact that such msyogyny actually happened and affected the lives of real women only makes it more horrifying.
What really bothers however, is that Mad Men fetishizes advertising life in the 1960s - you are supposed to desire and be jealous of these men for the spoiled, sexist lives they lead. Mad Men is about power - specifically, it is about male power, which comes in two forms: money and sex, and one will get you the other. It is Don Draper's power that makes him the ultimate man, since in our society, in 2011, male= power, female= disempowerment. This is also why James Bond was the ultimate man.
JB however (good thing he wasn't Bond James), is abot using sexual power for politics; his sexy body allows those in the free world to continue their daily lives, by preventing a communist takeover.(Even SPECTR is essentially a bunch of crazy Eastenr Europeans bent on world domination - kind of USSR stand ins for the sake of plot variety.) Our generation is disillusioned with politics and has no cold war mentality. We are proudly capitalist, and that capitalism is threatened not by the USSR, but by the decay of quality of life from within the system itself, so Mad Men is all about power as money. Sex is an extension of that, since money buys sex - it buys wives, access to easy ass at the office, and nights out on the town meant to culminate in orgasm.
The women in the series, except for Joan, are mostly one-dimensional - stereotypes of the opressed housewife, the office slut, the husband-getter, and the girl just trying to work her way up so she can leaver her opressive childhood behind her (Peggy).
Speaking of Peggy, it is completely unrealistic a) that Peggy gets fat when she is pregnant, in a very non-descript way. Pregnant women usually develop a very distinct shape, and may in fact not look overweight while pregnant. It is the male mind that equates the two: Pregnant = fat =sexually unattractive. It is unlikely no one would notice Peggy's pregnancy, and that weight would not concentrate in her breasts and belly. b) that Peggy does not notice she is pregnant until she gives birth. Presumably, missing 9 periods would stand out. It does sometimes happen that extremely obese women do not realize they are pregnant, but Peggy isn't one - why would the TV industry have a real part for an extremely obese woman, anyway?
Also, I do not think men said "I want to suck ur blod like Dracula" in 1968 - i think that was subconscious Tiwhglight-ization of the series.
I have not decided yet whether or not I will watch the second season; time will probably be a major factor in that decision. I am fascinated by the show's popularity as a social phenomena, however. I think part of its popularity might be because all of the show's characters are acting: The wear personas at the office, and different personas at home. The characters are lonely: Since they are always wearing personas, they have a hard time forming real relationships, which require showing someone who you really are, not just who you want to be or feel you are supposed to be. We live in an internet age, in which we are constantly under the public eye, constantly wearing our personas, on display - which is why the idea of a world where you spend all your time acting out an identity, an idea which veils its own hypocrisy, is so appealing to us. Today, even a private moment may not be private - it is always a Facebook upload away. Think about the case of Tyler Sclementi: A decade ago, a shmucky roommate might have secretly videotaped his gay sex and showed it to friends for a laugh. Now, within hours it was on youtube, available to people literally across the globe.
This also accounts, in a logistical way, for part of MM's success: Not only is it available on TV - it is also disseminable on the internet, both through legal and illegal means, for cheap or for free, which allows it to reach a wider audience.
A friend shared an interesting article with me about Mad Men:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/24/mad-men-account/?pagination=false
and here is one I found on my own: http://www.newwestnotes.com/2010/07/26/the-mad-men-file/
What really bothers however, is that Mad Men fetishizes advertising life in the 1960s - you are supposed to desire and be jealous of these men for the spoiled, sexist lives they lead. Mad Men is about power - specifically, it is about male power, which comes in two forms: money and sex, and one will get you the other. It is Don Draper's power that makes him the ultimate man, since in our society, in 2011, male= power, female= disempowerment. This is also why James Bond was the ultimate man.
JB however (good thing he wasn't Bond James), is abot using sexual power for politics; his sexy body allows those in the free world to continue their daily lives, by preventing a communist takeover.(Even SPECTR is essentially a bunch of crazy Eastenr Europeans bent on world domination - kind of USSR stand ins for the sake of plot variety.) Our generation is disillusioned with politics and has no cold war mentality. We are proudly capitalist, and that capitalism is threatened not by the USSR, but by the decay of quality of life from within the system itself, so Mad Men is all about power as money. Sex is an extension of that, since money buys sex - it buys wives, access to easy ass at the office, and nights out on the town meant to culminate in orgasm.
The women in the series, except for Joan, are mostly one-dimensional - stereotypes of the opressed housewife, the office slut, the husband-getter, and the girl just trying to work her way up so she can leaver her opressive childhood behind her (Peggy).
Speaking of Peggy, it is completely unrealistic a) that Peggy gets fat when she is pregnant, in a very non-descript way. Pregnant women usually develop a very distinct shape, and may in fact not look overweight while pregnant. It is the male mind that equates the two: Pregnant = fat =sexually unattractive. It is unlikely no one would notice Peggy's pregnancy, and that weight would not concentrate in her breasts and belly. b) that Peggy does not notice she is pregnant until she gives birth. Presumably, missing 9 periods would stand out. It does sometimes happen that extremely obese women do not realize they are pregnant, but Peggy isn't one - why would the TV industry have a real part for an extremely obese woman, anyway?
Also, I do not think men said "I want to suck ur blod like Dracula" in 1968 - i think that was subconscious Tiwhglight-ization of the series.
I have not decided yet whether or not I will watch the second season; time will probably be a major factor in that decision. I am fascinated by the show's popularity as a social phenomena, however. I think part of its popularity might be because all of the show's characters are acting: The wear personas at the office, and different personas at home. The characters are lonely: Since they are always wearing personas, they have a hard time forming real relationships, which require showing someone who you really are, not just who you want to be or feel you are supposed to be. We live in an internet age, in which we are constantly under the public eye, constantly wearing our personas, on display - which is why the idea of a world where you spend all your time acting out an identity, an idea which veils its own hypocrisy, is so appealing to us. Today, even a private moment may not be private - it is always a Facebook upload away. Think about the case of Tyler Sclementi: A decade ago, a shmucky roommate might have secretly videotaped his gay sex and showed it to friends for a laugh. Now, within hours it was on youtube, available to people literally across the globe.
This also accounts, in a logistical way, for part of MM's success: Not only is it available on TV - it is also disseminable on the internet, both through legal and illegal means, for cheap or for free, which allows it to reach a wider audience.
A friend shared an interesting article with me about Mad Men:http://www.nybooks.com/
and here is one I found on my own: http://www.newwestnotes.com/2010/07/26/the-mad-men-file/
WOW Part 3
My main issue with Orthodox establishment coerciveness, apart from that it turns people off to OJ (and I don't mean orange juice or Mr. Simpson), is that it causes divisiveness among Israeli society and sinat chinam. According to chazal, the first Beit Hamikdash was destroyed because of idol worship, while the second was destroyed for sinat chinam. The theological implication of the midrash is that sinat chinam is as bad as avodah zarah - which is one of the "biggies" - a Ten Commandment prohibition that's also yehareg veal yaavor.
This begs the question: Isn't causing sinat chinam in order to force people to be more Orthodox counter-productive? Even if all Israeli Jews were idol worshippers, by the above logic, if one had to cause sinat chinam in order to force them to cease their idol worship, in the end, one would only be breaking even - trading in one destruction-worthy sin for other. Since most Israeli Jews do not worship idols however, one is not even breaking even - one is coming out negative, since the sin one is using sinat chinam to replace is not as serious as sinat chinam itself.* This is especially so if the coercive, sinat-chinam-inducing methods are ineffective to begin with: which they are. So you are inducing sinat-chinam, and every "gain" you have with an Orthodox wedding is offset by a) the sinat chinam you use to get it b) that now, another Jew is not going to a shiur because they see shiurim as part of a coercive religious establishment.
To put it simply: According to chazal
sinat chinam (sc) = avodah zarah (z)
avodah zarah > sins supposedly prevented by coerciveness of Israeli Orthodox establishment - (s)
methods used by the current establishment to prevent said sins (m) =sc
so
sc=z
z>s
sc>s
m=sc
m>s
The values referred to here are the "sin" values, or the theological negativity of - so the sin value/theological negativity of m - the methods used by the current Israeli Orthodox establishment, are greater than the sin value/theological negativity of s, the sins such methods are meant to prevent, according to the very tradition they are claiming to uphold. The reason m = sc, is that the coercive methods used by the current establishment cause sinat chinam, so the value they have on Jewish Israeli society is equivalent with and synonymous to sinat chinam.
Of course, I am not sure exactly what the sins such methods prevent are...having Orthodox prayer space and Orthodox weddings doesn't cause people to not drive on shabbat, so what "sin" is being prevented - the derabanans of premarital sex (wait, Orthodox weddings don't prevent that) or of davening without a mechitza?
This begs the question: Isn't causing sinat chinam in order to force people to be more Orthodox counter-productive? Even if all Israeli Jews were idol worshippers, by the above logic, if one had to cause sinat chinam in order to force them to cease their idol worship, in the end, one would only be breaking even - trading in one destruction-worthy sin for other. Since most Israeli Jews do not worship idols however, one is not even breaking even - one is coming out negative, since the sin one is using sinat chinam to replace is not as serious as sinat chinam itself.* This is especially so if the coercive, sinat-chinam-inducing methods are ineffective to begin with: which they are. So you are inducing sinat-chinam, and every "gain" you have with an Orthodox wedding is offset by a) the sinat chinam you use to get it b) that now, another Jew is not going to a shiur because they see shiurim as part of a coercive religious establishment.
To put it simply: According to chazal
sinat chinam (sc) = avodah zarah (z)
avodah zarah > sins supposedly prevented by coerciveness of Israeli Orthodox establishment - (s)
methods used by the current establishment to prevent said sins (m) =sc
so
sc=z
z>s
sc>s
m=sc
m>s
The values referred to here are the "sin" values, or the theological negativity of - so the sin value/theological negativity of m - the methods used by the current Israeli Orthodox establishment, are greater than the sin value/theological negativity of s, the sins such methods are meant to prevent, according to the very tradition they are claiming to uphold. The reason m = sc, is that the coercive methods used by the current establishment cause sinat chinam, so the value they have on Jewish Israeli society is equivalent with and synonymous to sinat chinam.
Of course, I am not sure exactly what the sins such methods prevent are...having Orthodox prayer space and Orthodox weddings doesn't cause people to not drive on shabbat, so what "sin" is being prevented - the derabanans of premarital sex (wait, Orthodox weddings don't prevent that) or of davening without a mechitza?
Ramaz (WOW continued)
For an example of having good yet non-coercive education, I think Israel should look to American models. It should establish a committee to look at different models and see what works and doesn't work, and come up with suggestions that can be applied to the Israeli school system.
The first model that comes to mind is that of the Ramaz (my alma matter) which caters to a student body that is about half Modern Orthodox observant, half non-observant. The school is hashkafically MO, but focused on teaching text skills, not on forcing an ideology down people's throats; it focused more on a life of Jewish knowledge and social action guided by the Jewish tradition and Jewish values than on strict halachik observance, which was taught as a fact (This is what rabbi A says. This is what rabbi B says. Now let's analyze it, bc its very interesting and intellectually stimulating) rather than an obligation (ie it was teaching it as descriptive, not prescriptive).
http://www.ramaz.org/
Other examples are Heschel, officially pluralistic, and Beit Rabban, both pluralistic and Montessori:
http://www.heschel.org/ http://www.beitrabban.org/
There is also the Gann Academy in MA: http://www.gannacademy.org/home/
There are also some places of higher Jewish learning that are pluralistic and could still serve as models on non-coercive Jewish education, though how much could be applied to an elementary/highschool setting, I don't know:
An all women's, non-denominational women's institute, with a high quality of learning and very supportive atmosphere. I am a huge Drisha fan and have studies there in the past: http://www.drisha.org/
Yes, its in Israel, but it's heavily anglo and caters to anglos:
http://www.pardes.org.il/
The first model that comes to mind is that of the Ramaz (my alma matter) which caters to a student body that is about half Modern Orthodox observant, half non-observant. The school is hashkafically MO, but focused on teaching text skills, not on forcing an ideology down people's throats; it focused more on a life of Jewish knowledge and social action guided by the Jewish tradition and Jewish values than on strict halachik observance, which was taught as a fact (This is what rabbi A says. This is what rabbi B says. Now let's analyze it, bc its very interesting and intellectually stimulating) rather than an obligation (ie it was teaching it as descriptive, not prescriptive).
http://www.ramaz.org/
Other examples are Heschel, officially pluralistic, and Beit Rabban, both pluralistic and Montessori:
http://www.heschel.org/ http://www.beitrabban.org/
There is also the Gann Academy in MA: http://www.gannacademy.org/home/
There are also some places of higher Jewish learning that are pluralistic and could still serve as models on non-coercive Jewish education, though how much could be applied to an elementary/highschool setting, I don't know:
An all women's, non-denominational women's institute, with a high quality of learning and very supportive atmosphere. I am a huge Drisha fan and have studies there in the past: http://www.drisha.org/
Yes, its in Israel, but it's heavily anglo and caters to anglos:
http://www.pardes.org.il/
Women of the Wall
A friend of mine mentioned that at an event she attended recently featuring Israel ambassoder Michael Oren, someone mentioned Women of the Wall.* I promptly envisioned a tri-chitza at the wall: women section, men section, and coed section, and wondered why it so scared the Israeli rabbinic establishment. Then I realized: Most Israelis would probably choose the coed option - that way, families can stay together. I wondered: Is the rabbinic establishment afraid that if men and women are not forced to pray separately at the kotel, they won't choose to do so? Are they afraid, in general, that if not forced to conduct marriages, etc., through Orthodox rabbinic authorities, they will choose to eschew any connection to Orthodoxy? Is that why they hold on so tightly to their power, to forcing marriages to be Orthodox and the Kotel to have separate praying space, among other things?
I think the answer to these questions is yes - but if it is yes, than the Orthodox establishment is failing. If you think that unless forced, most people will have nothing to do with your religious establishment, then your establishment is failing to provide incentive for people to remain connected. At the same time, once you have the ability to force people to be under your religious framework, you lose the incentive to provide people with the incentive to be connected; there is no need, they will be forced to do so anyway. Perhaps this is why power and religion don't go together: When religion has hegemony, it no longer needs to respond to the needs of its followers - so it loses followers.
I think that providing a proper Jewish education for people, so they are empowered to make their own religious decisions, will ultimately bring people closed to Judaism - and to Orthodox Judaism - than forcing people to have Orthodox marriages or Orthodox prayer spaces. Often, people are turned off to Orthodoxy out of mistaken beleifs about its theology and laws, and do not observe because they are not knowledgeable enough for observance to be meaningful for them. Instead of fighting for more funding for Orthodox schools, the O. establishment should be fighting to ensure that all Israeli public school students graduate with a working knowledge of the Jewish religious tradition. This knowledge must be taught in a non-coercive manner. As long as the Orthodox establishment is using force when it comes to certain issues however, any overture they take at bringing people closer to Orthodoxy will be seen as coercive; people in Israel have a natural resistance to anything to with Orthodoxy - they see O. Judaism as inherently coercive, because the O. establishment in Israel is coercive - so the establishment may actually be furthering people from Orthodox Judaism.
Furthermore, instead of separating itself from secular society by living in haredi neighborhoods or in yishuvim (depending on the type of kippah one wears) where driving on shabbat is prohibited, Orthodox Jews should be fighting for integrated Orthodox-non-Orthodox schools, and for more programs that provided substantive interactions between the two groups starting in elementary and highschool, so that Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Jews can have real relationships. Many O. Jews have a fear of their family being "contaminated" by too much exposure to secular culture and secular Jews, but the separaiton of Orthodox and non-Orthodox is not only a stumbling block to Israel's attempt to build a civil society, by creating many mini-socieites with little to do with each other; it also lessens the impact Orthodox Jews can have on secular society, since they are the Others lecturing to a socieyt, not integrated parts infulencing the whole. Furthermore, I think that this attitude makes many secular Jews feel they are looked upon by the Orthodox, making them more resistant to Orthodox Judaism's message.
Sometimes, the key to maintaining power is knowing when to give it up: If Louis the sixteenth had agreed to get rid of the three estates, there would be no tennis court oath, and France might still have a monarchy. The Orthodox establishment currently spends most of its efforts in a) getting funding for Orthodox institutions b) ensuring that only Orthodox authorities control government prayer spaces and weddings/lifecycle** milestones c) supressing non-Orthodox Jewish denominations. Unless the O. establishment focuses more on improving people's general Jewish education, and allows for secular marriages and other lifestyle milestones, while it still has power, as opposed to focusing on coercion and supression of other denominations, it will lose power; people are getting more and more fed up with the rabbinate, and soon might wind up leaving Judaism or turning to other denominations (lihavdil) out of pure spite.
* Women of the Wall advocates for women's rights to hold public prayers at the wall where women read out loud from the Torah and wear tallisses; it does so on the women's side of the prayer space however. Thanks to a friend for pointing out it's "Women of the Wall", not "at the Wall"
** Thank you to same friend for making me realize "lifestyle milestones" sounded like I was referring to the hundredth ejaculation using Lifestyle brand condoms...
I think the answer to these questions is yes - but if it is yes, than the Orthodox establishment is failing. If you think that unless forced, most people will have nothing to do with your religious establishment, then your establishment is failing to provide incentive for people to remain connected. At the same time, once you have the ability to force people to be under your religious framework, you lose the incentive to provide people with the incentive to be connected; there is no need, they will be forced to do so anyway. Perhaps this is why power and religion don't go together: When religion has hegemony, it no longer needs to respond to the needs of its followers - so it loses followers.
I think that providing a proper Jewish education for people, so they are empowered to make their own religious decisions, will ultimately bring people closed to Judaism - and to Orthodox Judaism - than forcing people to have Orthodox marriages or Orthodox prayer spaces. Often, people are turned off to Orthodoxy out of mistaken beleifs about its theology and laws, and do not observe because they are not knowledgeable enough for observance to be meaningful for them. Instead of fighting for more funding for Orthodox schools, the O. establishment should be fighting to ensure that all Israeli public school students graduate with a working knowledge of the Jewish religious tradition. This knowledge must be taught in a non-coercive manner. As long as the Orthodox establishment is using force when it comes to certain issues however, any overture they take at bringing people closer to Orthodoxy will be seen as coercive; people in Israel have a natural resistance to anything to with Orthodoxy - they see O. Judaism as inherently coercive, because the O. establishment in Israel is coercive - so the establishment may actually be furthering people from Orthodox Judaism.
Furthermore, instead of separating itself from secular society by living in haredi neighborhoods or in yishuvim (depending on the type of kippah one wears) where driving on shabbat is prohibited, Orthodox Jews should be fighting for integrated Orthodox-non-Orthodox schools, and for more programs that provided substantive interactions between the two groups starting in elementary and highschool, so that Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Jews can have real relationships. Many O. Jews have a fear of their family being "contaminated" by too much exposure to secular culture and secular Jews, but the separaiton of Orthodox and non-Orthodox is not only a stumbling block to Israel's attempt to build a civil society, by creating many mini-socieites with little to do with each other; it also lessens the impact Orthodox Jews can have on secular society, since they are the Others lecturing to a socieyt, not integrated parts infulencing the whole. Furthermore, I think that this attitude makes many secular Jews feel they are looked upon by the Orthodox, making them more resistant to Orthodox Judaism's message.
Sometimes, the key to maintaining power is knowing when to give it up: If Louis the sixteenth had agreed to get rid of the three estates, there would be no tennis court oath, and France might still have a monarchy. The Orthodox establishment currently spends most of its efforts in a) getting funding for Orthodox institutions b) ensuring that only Orthodox authorities control government prayer spaces and weddings/lifecycle** milestones c) supressing non-Orthodox Jewish denominations. Unless the O. establishment focuses more on improving people's general Jewish education, and allows for secular marriages and other lifestyle milestones, while it still has power, as opposed to focusing on coercion and supression of other denominations, it will lose power; people are getting more and more fed up with the rabbinate, and soon might wind up leaving Judaism or turning to other denominations (lihavdil) out of pure spite.
* Women of the Wall advocates for women's rights to hold public prayers at the wall where women read out loud from the Torah and wear tallisses; it does so on the women's side of the prayer space however. Thanks to a friend for pointing out it's "Women of the Wall", not "at the Wall"
** Thank you to same friend for making me realize "lifestyle milestones" sounded like I was referring to the hundredth ejaculation using Lifestyle brand condoms...
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Post-Script To Thoughts ofn Greek Mythology
1. For more on why Oddyseus's communing with dead souls is different than a typical sojourn into Hades, please see Mr. Roberts' book.
2. In Greek mythology, Pandora is sent to man as a punishment for stealing fire. In Genesis, woman is sent as a gift to aid man: "It is not good for man to be alone. I will get him a helper to be opposite him." Rashi explains that the meaning of this word is that if man treats his wife well, she is is helper. If not, she is "opposite" him. The Hebrew word used however, "kinegdo", can also mean "equal to". In Genesis, woman exposes man to the "knowledge of good and evil", which has unintended consequences, whereas in Greek mythology, she exposes him only to the knowledge of evil - she exposes him to hope as well, but in context this is not something "good" so much as a palliative to help man deal with his newborn miseries - a type of neutralizer that still can not neutralize. Furthermore, by giving man and women separate punishments for the sin of eating from the fruit of knowledge, the Bible is acknowledging that woman alone does not bear responsibility for man's eating: While she tempted him, he had a choice, and he made it. He expressed agency in the act of eating. In the story of Pandora, man has no choice - it is solely woman's actions and her responsibilities that let evil into the world.
The theme of man's responsibility is magnified in rabbinic literature, where the midrash says that God told man not to eat of the fruit, lest he die, but man told woman not to touch the tree, lest she die - therefore, the snake pushed Eve to the tree. When she touched it and did not die, she figured that if one part of Adam's statement was false, the other was as well. The rabbis take this as a lesson not to add on needless restrictions to pre-existing laws. In this story, Adam's dishonesty with his wife is what led her to be in a position to tempt him to sin. When God asks Adam what happened, Adam blames the woman. God punishes Adam, but punishes woman as well - thus acknowledging both Adam's responsibility for his own actions, and the fact that woman was responsible as well. He asks Eve what happened, but does not ask the snake. According to the rabbis, this is because the snake could have responded "The words of the teacher, the words of the student - who do you listen to?". In context, this phrase is meant to encompass both Adam and Eve's actions both had a choice between the words of the teacher - God - and the words of a student - for Eve, it was the snake, for Adam, it was Eve - and both listened to the student. Both made the same mistake.
I do not consider these apologetics; I consider them a re-emphasis of an under-emphasized feminist (or at least, pro-women/one that considers men and women equal to men) voice within the Jewish tradition, which is often ignored in an attempt to fit rabbinic Judaism's values into "Judeo-Christian values", when, in fact, traditional Christian (ie Catholic, which is what Christianity started out as, whereas Protestantism is more modern) views of womanhood are in fact, completely different from Talmudic/Midrashic ones. For example, there is no concept of "original sin" in Judaism, and many sources - including Rashi, who lived in a medieval Christian context - identify Adam and Eve as having sex before they ate from the fruit of knowledge, thus detaching it from any sinful connotations. This is because of the verse, right after the story of the Garden of Eden, that states - in the past perfect "Adam had known Eve his wife", implying that the sex had happened quite a while ago - i.e., before the entire "expulsion from the garden" episode.
This note focuses on the middle of chapter 2-beginning of 4:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
2. In Greek mythology, Pandora is sent to man as a punishment for stealing fire. In Genesis, woman is sent as a gift to aid man: "It is not good for man to be alone. I will get him a helper to be opposite him." Rashi explains that the meaning of this word is that if man treats his wife well, she is is helper. If not, she is "opposite" him. The Hebrew word used however, "kinegdo", can also mean "equal to". In Genesis, woman exposes man to the "knowledge of good and evil", which has unintended consequences, whereas in Greek mythology, she exposes him only to the knowledge of evil - she exposes him to hope as well, but in context this is not something "good" so much as a palliative to help man deal with his newborn miseries - a type of neutralizer that still can not neutralize. Furthermore, by giving man and women separate punishments for the sin of eating from the fruit of knowledge, the Bible is acknowledging that woman alone does not bear responsibility for man's eating: While she tempted him, he had a choice, and he made it. He expressed agency in the act of eating. In the story of Pandora, man has no choice - it is solely woman's actions and her responsibilities that let evil into the world.
The theme of man's responsibility is magnified in rabbinic literature, where the midrash says that God told man not to eat of the fruit, lest he die, but man told woman not to touch the tree, lest she die - therefore, the snake pushed Eve to the tree. When she touched it and did not die, she figured that if one part of Adam's statement was false, the other was as well. The rabbis take this as a lesson not to add on needless restrictions to pre-existing laws. In this story, Adam's dishonesty with his wife is what led her to be in a position to tempt him to sin. When God asks Adam what happened, Adam blames the woman. God punishes Adam, but punishes woman as well - thus acknowledging both Adam's responsibility for his own actions, and the fact that woman was responsible as well. He asks Eve what happened, but does not ask the snake. According to the rabbis, this is because the snake could have responded "The words of the teacher, the words of the student - who do you listen to?". In context, this phrase is meant to encompass both Adam and Eve's actions both had a choice between the words of the teacher - God - and the words of a student - for Eve, it was the snake, for Adam, it was Eve - and both listened to the student. Both made the same mistake.
I do not consider these apologetics; I consider them a re-emphasis of an under-emphasized feminist (or at least, pro-women/one that considers men and women equal to men) voice within the Jewish tradition, which is often ignored in an attempt to fit rabbinic Judaism's values into "Judeo-Christian values", when, in fact, traditional Christian (ie Catholic, which is what Christianity started out as, whereas Protestantism is more modern) views of womanhood are in fact, completely different from Talmudic/Midrashic ones. For example, there is no concept of "original sin" in Judaism, and many sources - including Rashi, who lived in a medieval Christian context - identify Adam and Eve as having sex before they ate from the fruit of knowledge, thus detaching it from any sinful connotations. This is because of the verse, right after the story of the Garden of Eden, that states - in the past perfect "Adam had known Eve his wife", implying that the sex had happened quite a while ago - i.e., before the entire "expulsion from the garden" episode.
This note focuses on the middle of chapter 2-beginning of 4:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
Links - Woohoo! (Because saying "Yay!" gets repetetive)
Review of a book that entertainingly deals with gender issu
es through the lens of exploring the lives of (gasp) real-live English lesbians from the WW1 era, some of whom made love to Virginia Wolf:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/books/review/a-book-of-secrets-by-michael-holroyd-book-review.html?_r=1&ref=books
By the way, great quote from the review "Love may sometimes lead to nudity".
Fascinating profile of a high-quality literary porn writer who's happily (and monogamously) married:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/magazine/nicholson-bakers-dirty-mind.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
A blogger takes the mickey out of "Real Housewives":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar-hedayat/real-housewives-women_b_901196.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1870824,b=facebook
I find this both slightly humorous and slightly offensive:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-post-gender-normative-man-tries-to-pick-up-a-woman-at-a-bar
I haven't read this yet, but anything called "Do Women Like Sex" peaks my interest, even though I already know the answer (hell, yes!):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
As much as I like beating up the fashion industry, this sight allows one to buy shoes while supporting a good cause; for every pair of shoes you buy, a pair of shoes is donated to children who can't afford any. I think I read about in Oprah magazine, but am not 100% sure.
http://www.toms.com/womens/vegan?view=all
es through the lens of exploring the lives of (gasp) real-live English lesbians from the WW1 era, some of whom made love to Virginia Wolf:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/books/review/a-book-of-secrets-by-michael-holroyd-book-review.html?_r=1&ref=books
By the way, great quote from the review "Love may sometimes lead to nudity".
Fascinating profile of a high-quality literary porn writer who's happily (and monogamously) married:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/magazine/nicholson-bakers-dirty-mind.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
A blogger takes the mickey out of "Real Housewives":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar-hedayat/real-housewives-women_b_901196.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1870824,b=facebook
I find this both slightly humorous and slightly offensive:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/a-post-gender-normative-man-tries-to-pick-up-a-woman-at-a-bar
I haven't read this yet, but anything called "Do Women Like Sex" peaks my interest, even though I already know the answer (hell, yes!):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html
As much as I like beating up the fashion industry, this sight allows one to buy shoes while supporting a good cause; for every pair of shoes you buy, a pair of shoes is donated to children who can't afford any. I think I read about in Oprah magazine, but am not 100% sure.
http://www.toms.com/womens/vegan?view=all
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Hmm.....
I rcently read somewhere on Slate, during a recent bout of insomnia, that birds who are players burn out quikcly, have low energy and weak sperm at a relatively early age. The article touted this as good news for women who've had to deal with sleezeballs at bars. First of all, I am not a huge fan of extrapolating from birds onto humans without further research. Second of all, as a woman who has had to deal with sleezeballs at bars, this would not be good news to me - it would just make me feel sorry for said sleezeballs. Anyhow, its like these birds use up their sexual energy - and good sperm - quickly, and then are left dissipated.
I think this is is interesting, becausein India there is a type of depression and lack of potency caused by excessive male masturbation, ie release of sperm, and Maimonides also beleived that excessive sperm release could lead to lack of energy. It makes sense - if sperm is this life-giving force, and you are born with an ability to create a large - yet ultimately finite - amount of it - then every time you spill sperm, you are spilling a bit of that life-force out of yourself, leaving you with less life-force inside you, less life-force to spend on future sexual encounters and life endeavors. I am not saying this was the thought process of ancient Indian culture and Maimonides - I know their scientific knowledge was not as advanced, but I think humans have long had ways of intuiting things about the human body, and these intuitions manifested themselves in different cultures. In the Middle Ages, they did know that man gave the "seed" for the baby, but they didn't realize that some of its characteristics were received from the woman as well - she was viewed more like the earth in which the seed grew.
I would be very curious to see what science has to say about the human sleezeball - but not because I want revenge - rather, because I find it fascinating when science validates aspects of ancient cultures.
I think this is is interesting, becausein India there is a type of depression and lack of potency caused by excessive male masturbation, ie release of sperm, and Maimonides also beleived that excessive sperm release could lead to lack of energy. It makes sense - if sperm is this life-giving force, and you are born with an ability to create a large - yet ultimately finite - amount of it - then every time you spill sperm, you are spilling a bit of that life-force out of yourself, leaving you with less life-force inside you, less life-force to spend on future sexual encounters and life endeavors. I am not saying this was the thought process of ancient Indian culture and Maimonides - I know their scientific knowledge was not as advanced, but I think humans have long had ways of intuiting things about the human body, and these intuitions manifested themselves in different cultures. In the Middle Ages, they did know that man gave the "seed" for the baby, but they didn't realize that some of its characteristics were received from the woman as well - she was viewed more like the earth in which the seed grew.
I would be very curious to see what science has to say about the human sleezeball - but not because I want revenge - rather, because I find it fascinating when science validates aspects of ancient cultures.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Art - Yay!
Don't worry, you will not be subjected to my art in this blogpost.
But, I would be depriving you if I mentioned Rinaldo and Armida without mentioning the beautiful Poussin and Van Dyck paintings on the topic. The painting "Rinaldo and Armida", by Nicholas Poussin, is displayed above. It currently resides in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. Here is a nice blog post on the painting: http://mydailyartdisplay.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/rinaldo-and-armida-by-nicolas-poussin/
There is also the painting by Van Dyck painting, shown below, which currently resides in the Baltimore Museum of Art (On the second floor. If you are in the main room off of the staircase with the Virgin Maries, go to the room on your left.)
Click here for the Baltimore Museom of Art's interactive presentation on the painting.
Ancient Entitites
I am currently reading "Myths of the Greeks and Romans", by Michael Grant. It is a great read, and I highly recommend it (I am onl 65 page in).
I was reading about Calypso, who ensnares Oddyseus on an enchanted garden island, detracting him for his manly task as he relishes in the delights of Calypso's land. Of course, Oddyseus cries because he longs to go back to Ithaca, as the gods intend him to -but in the very act of crying with desire to do the masculine act, he shows his emasculation: For tears are the realm of women. The text implies that even sexual desire has waned for Oddyseus on the island, making his emasculation quite literal.
My first thought in reading this was that it was reminiscent of the character Armida in Toqruato Tasso's "Gerusalemme Libeata", a witch who falls in love with Rinaldo, and takes him to live with her in a bewitched garden, where he becomes quite feminine, until male friends come and pull a Cher, telling him to snap out of it and rejoin the Crusade. If memory serves me correctly, the two wind up together after Rinaldo has proved himself on the battle field, and Armida has converted to Christianity.
This connection makes sense, since Tasso was a Renaissance writer who was inspired by classic Greco-Roman mythology. *
My second thought was that it was reminiscent of Eden, where a woman is very much associated with a story about a garden. This is interesting, because the ancient godess Asherah may have been associated with trees, and trees in general seem to be associated with female deities, such as tree nymphs. This makes sense: Trees are symbols of life and of renewal, as well as potential source of life (food) much like grain, which was also associated with female deities, such as Persephone and Demeter.
I also think it is interesting however, that land is so often associated with female deities as well: There is Gaiai, mother earth, and Persephone who spends six months a year below the ground. In Haiti, a woman will often refer to her vagina as "her land". This makes sense: Her vagina produces offspring, the same way that the earth produces life. It also makes sense because often a man will work a woman's land so she has food, in exchange for sexual access to her vagina - a metaphor which may have been applicable to ancient marriages, where women had no career options other than wife - ie, sexual partner - in exchange for which their husbands provided them with sustenance and a place to live - land.
Lands are also places of death and burial. Women's bodies are liminal places: They mark the border between being and non-being, in their ability to give birth. This liminality is extended to include the border between life and death (the other state of non-being, at least as it pertains to this world) as well: Women were often seen as mediums betwen the world of the living and the world of the dead - notice how in Tanach, it is always a "baalat ov", a female who speaks to the dead, who is condemned. Persephone, too, served as a medium between the dead, physically traveling between the two world - bringing life to the earthly world when she emerged from Hades' realm, and taking that life with her when she re-immersed herself in the realm of the dead. The man who manages to come down to Hades realm and live - Orpheus - is not able to bring life up with him: He loses Eurdyce. Only Persephone remains unscathed, and able to carry life-giving from one world to the other. In Candomble as well, women preistesses often have a special power to mediate between the world of the living and the world of the dead.
Women also often acted as healers, which stemmed from their roles as midwives. Their remedies included not only special mixtures of herbs, but special incantations as well - something closer to what today we would call magic. It is for their role as medicine women, as well as (supposed) mediums between the world, combined with a male fear of women having power and being independent, especially if they were post-menopause, that helped lead to so many women being arrested as witches once Catholicism became hegemonic in Europe.
In Greek mythology, there seems to be a dichotomy: Aphordite, the pretty one, and Athena, the wise one, who are contantly bickering with each other, presaging the modern "nerd vs. pretty girl" mofit in pop culture. I wonder if this is where Western culture gets its beleif that brains and beauty in women are mutually incompatible. Judaism's classic text of the ideal woman, by contrast, is all about brains - being able to practically and succesfully manage a business and a household - and goes so far as to assert the "Grace is a life, and beauty is worthless. The woman who fears God she shall be praised". This is one of my favorite quotes, and was supposedly sung by girls as they pursued men on "Tu B'Av", a holiday when women would go out dancing and hit on men (all for the purpose of marriage, of course.)
The idea of a woman's sexual body being incompatible with wisdom would explain both Athena's unique manner of coming into this world (out of a a male Zeuss's head, not out of a woman's vagina) and her supposed virgnity: A woman can not use her body as a woman - ie for sexual congress with a man - and still have wisdom, which is the province of men. The same goes for hunting, and for battle, explaining a) Artemis's virginity b) the myth about the Ammazons cutting off one breast per person - breasts, as symbols of a woman's femininity and of her body's life-giving abilities, were incompatible with the male role the Amazons inhabited. Perhaps too, giving life (ie maternity) and killing were seen as incompatible, and the cutting of the breast symbolized this.
At moments like these, I am grateful for traditional Judaism's view of women - with all of its complexities, and the ocassional troublesome comment or two, there ultimatley is a view that values women both as sexual partners and as life-advisors, as humans with wisdom to share - God told Avraham to listen to Sarah's voice and do everything she said - setting a precedent that no doubt many Jewish men have come to resent in the centuries that have passed since.
* An aside: The opera "Armida", by Rossini, is based on this story, and is quite beautiful.
I was reading about Calypso, who ensnares Oddyseus on an enchanted garden island, detracting him for his manly task as he relishes in the delights of Calypso's land. Of course, Oddyseus cries because he longs to go back to Ithaca, as the gods intend him to -but in the very act of crying with desire to do the masculine act, he shows his emasculation: For tears are the realm of women. The text implies that even sexual desire has waned for Oddyseus on the island, making his emasculation quite literal.
My first thought in reading this was that it was reminiscent of the character Armida in Toqruato Tasso's "Gerusalemme Libeata", a witch who falls in love with Rinaldo, and takes him to live with her in a bewitched garden, where he becomes quite feminine, until male friends come and pull a Cher, telling him to snap out of it and rejoin the Crusade. If memory serves me correctly, the two wind up together after Rinaldo has proved himself on the battle field, and Armida has converted to Christianity.
This connection makes sense, since Tasso was a Renaissance writer who was inspired by classic Greco-Roman mythology. *
My second thought was that it was reminiscent of Eden, where a woman is very much associated with a story about a garden. This is interesting, because the ancient godess Asherah may have been associated with trees, and trees in general seem to be associated with female deities, such as tree nymphs. This makes sense: Trees are symbols of life and of renewal, as well as potential source of life (food) much like grain, which was also associated with female deities, such as Persephone and Demeter.
I also think it is interesting however, that land is so often associated with female deities as well: There is Gaiai, mother earth, and Persephone who spends six months a year below the ground. In Haiti, a woman will often refer to her vagina as "her land". This makes sense: Her vagina produces offspring, the same way that the earth produces life. It also makes sense because often a man will work a woman's land so she has food, in exchange for sexual access to her vagina - a metaphor which may have been applicable to ancient marriages, where women had no career options other than wife - ie, sexual partner - in exchange for which their husbands provided them with sustenance and a place to live - land.
Lands are also places of death and burial. Women's bodies are liminal places: They mark the border between being and non-being, in their ability to give birth. This liminality is extended to include the border between life and death (the other state of non-being, at least as it pertains to this world) as well: Women were often seen as mediums betwen the world of the living and the world of the dead - notice how in Tanach, it is always a "baalat ov", a female who speaks to the dead, who is condemned. Persephone, too, served as a medium between the dead, physically traveling between the two world - bringing life to the earthly world when she emerged from Hades' realm, and taking that life with her when she re-immersed herself in the realm of the dead. The man who manages to come down to Hades realm and live - Orpheus - is not able to bring life up with him: He loses Eurdyce. Only Persephone remains unscathed, and able to carry life-giving from one world to the other. In Candomble as well, women preistesses often have a special power to mediate between the world of the living and the world of the dead.
Women also often acted as healers, which stemmed from their roles as midwives. Their remedies included not only special mixtures of herbs, but special incantations as well - something closer to what today we would call magic. It is for their role as medicine women, as well as (supposed) mediums between the world, combined with a male fear of women having power and being independent, especially if they were post-menopause, that helped lead to so many women being arrested as witches once Catholicism became hegemonic in Europe.
In Greek mythology, there seems to be a dichotomy: Aphordite, the pretty one, and Athena, the wise one, who are contantly bickering with each other, presaging the modern "nerd vs. pretty girl" mofit in pop culture. I wonder if this is where Western culture gets its beleif that brains and beauty in women are mutually incompatible. Judaism's classic text of the ideal woman, by contrast, is all about brains - being able to practically and succesfully manage a business and a household - and goes so far as to assert the "Grace is a life, and beauty is worthless. The woman who fears God she shall be praised". This is one of my favorite quotes, and was supposedly sung by girls as they pursued men on "Tu B'Av", a holiday when women would go out dancing and hit on men (all for the purpose of marriage, of course.)
The idea of a woman's sexual body being incompatible with wisdom would explain both Athena's unique manner of coming into this world (out of a a male Zeuss's head, not out of a woman's vagina) and her supposed virgnity: A woman can not use her body as a woman - ie for sexual congress with a man - and still have wisdom, which is the province of men. The same goes for hunting, and for battle, explaining a) Artemis's virginity b) the myth about the Ammazons cutting off one breast per person - breasts, as symbols of a woman's femininity and of her body's life-giving abilities, were incompatible with the male role the Amazons inhabited. Perhaps too, giving life (ie maternity) and killing were seen as incompatible, and the cutting of the breast symbolized this.
At moments like these, I am grateful for traditional Judaism's view of women - with all of its complexities, and the ocassional troublesome comment or two, there ultimatley is a view that values women both as sexual partners and as life-advisors, as humans with wisdom to share - God told Avraham to listen to Sarah's voice and do everything she said - setting a precedent that no doubt many Jewish men have come to resent in the centuries that have passed since.
* An aside: The opera "Armida", by Rossini, is based on this story, and is quite beautiful.
I Promise I Do Not Have A One Track Mind - Bli Neder
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Insomnia
I am told that insomnia is good for creativity, but what about those nights when you can't fall asleep, but you are just so tired, too tired to enjoy it really, this beautiful awakeness at night?
So I decided to post this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2300663/
and this: http://www.slate.com/id/2300600/
and this, which I thought was a pretty balanced answer - also, the reader comments are very interesting: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/02/could-i-have-been-sexually-abused/?hpt=hp_bn6
I think this article points to the complexity of memory with regards to sexual assualt: Often, if a victim can not remember exactly what happened and how it happened, if there are any discrepancies in their story, in how they remember it one day verse how they remember it the next, they are completely discredited, both by the legal establishment and by society. However, memory in humans is extremely complex, and all the more so when it comes to traumatic events in our past. Every time we remember something, we reconsolidate it, and in doing so, are able to change our memories - in other words, memories have a certain amount of neuroplasticity.
After a while, if the event happened in the distant enough past, or was a borderline case of abuse to being with, victims can begin to doubt themselves, to feel "Did this really happen to me?", to almost wonder if they are imagining things. (For more on how what society tells us can change our memory of events that happened to us, please see the studies by Elizabeth Loftus.) I am not saying that is what happened here, since this person has no memory, and may not have been assaulted - but I think it is an issue people should be aware of.
Two more points: 1. There is one reader comment by someone who clearly was abused asking if what happened to her was abuse. This just underscores the need to teach both men and women exactly what constitutes abuse, assault, etc. because there is a lot of confusion. 2. One person said they would never have let anyone abuse them as a child; they would have fought back. I think that this attitude of "she could have fought back harder and therefore prevented the attack", is a major factor in blaming the victim: The rapists' success is proof the woman somehow wanted it; if not, she would have been able to prevent it. This is especially the case when men are raped, because society has an assumption that men are strong and able to defend themselves. If you think about it, that is also part of the argument behind women's self-defense classes and rape whistles: That you can prevent rape. While I do think these classes are important, and I am sure many women have been saved because of them, I think the concept that women should have to do something to prevent rape, when not getting raped is a basic human right, is preposterous. It's like if society started mandating that people carry guns so they don't get robbed, and then blaming them for being unable to defend themselves in the case of a mugging.
Also, I think the article should have mentioned that childhood abuse need not come from within the family, but can often come from a teacher or family friend.
So I decided to post this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2300663/
and this: http://www.slate.com/id/2300600/
and this, which I thought was a pretty balanced answer - also, the reader comments are very interesting: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/02/could-i-have-been-sexually-abused/?hpt=hp_bn6
I think this article points to the complexity of memory with regards to sexual assualt: Often, if a victim can not remember exactly what happened and how it happened, if there are any discrepancies in their story, in how they remember it one day verse how they remember it the next, they are completely discredited, both by the legal establishment and by society. However, memory in humans is extremely complex, and all the more so when it comes to traumatic events in our past. Every time we remember something, we reconsolidate it, and in doing so, are able to change our memories - in other words, memories have a certain amount of neuroplasticity.
After a while, if the event happened in the distant enough past, or was a borderline case of abuse to being with, victims can begin to doubt themselves, to feel "Did this really happen to me?", to almost wonder if they are imagining things. (For more on how what society tells us can change our memory of events that happened to us, please see the studies by Elizabeth Loftus.) I am not saying that is what happened here, since this person has no memory, and may not have been assaulted - but I think it is an issue people should be aware of.
Two more points: 1. There is one reader comment by someone who clearly was abused asking if what happened to her was abuse. This just underscores the need to teach both men and women exactly what constitutes abuse, assault, etc. because there is a lot of confusion. 2. One person said they would never have let anyone abuse them as a child; they would have fought back. I think that this attitude of "she could have fought back harder and therefore prevented the attack", is a major factor in blaming the victim: The rapists' success is proof the woman somehow wanted it; if not, she would have been able to prevent it. This is especially the case when men are raped, because society has an assumption that men are strong and able to defend themselves. If you think about it, that is also part of the argument behind women's self-defense classes and rape whistles: That you can prevent rape. While I do think these classes are important, and I am sure many women have been saved because of them, I think the concept that women should have to do something to prevent rape, when not getting raped is a basic human right, is preposterous. It's like if society started mandating that people carry guns so they don't get robbed, and then blaming them for being unable to defend themselves in the case of a mugging.
Also, I think the article should have mentioned that childhood abuse need not come from within the family, but can often come from a teacher or family friend.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Mashiach
As a postmodern feminist Jew, I am supposed to frequent websites like www.jezebel.com and www.jewcy.com, however, I fail to do so, preferring to immerse myself in liberal news shows and Harry Potter.
Occasionally however, I do visit, and something catches my eye. That is the case with this photo, which brought me back to Jerusalem days, when I would schepp nachas from the fact that I was (depending on my current attitude towards the religious establishment0 either buying my long skirt in the same store where a Muslim woman was buying her hijab, or buying my tight t-shirt in the same store that the Muslim woman was buying her tight t-shirt in.
For those cynics out there, please remember what David Ben-Gurion said: "In order to be a realist, you need to be an optimist", or as Herzl said, "If you want it, it is not a legend" - ie it is reality - this sound better when you are belting it out in Hebrew.
On that note, I just want to say that I love Av, because I always feel mashiach is more likely to come during that month, since we are thinking about him/her so much during this time of year, and praying so much about mashiach. Of course, mashiach might come everyday, for the mercy of God is greater than we can fathom. So here's to hoping we will see each other soon in the newly rebuilt Beit Hamikdash - I will definitely take korban meat over fasting.
Occasionally however, I do visit, and something catches my eye. That is the case with this photo, which brought me back to Jerusalem days, when I would schepp nachas from the fact that I was (depending on my current attitude towards the religious establishment0 either buying my long skirt in the same store where a Muslim woman was buying her hijab, or buying my tight t-shirt in the same store that the Muslim woman was buying her tight t-shirt in.
For those cynics out there, please remember what David Ben-Gurion said: "In order to be a realist, you need to be an optimist", or as Herzl said, "If you want it, it is not a legend" - ie it is reality - this sound better when you are belting it out in Hebrew.
On that note, I just want to say that I love Av, because I always feel mashiach is more likely to come during that month, since we are thinking about him/her so much during this time of year, and praying so much about mashiach. Of course, mashiach might come everyday, for the mercy of God is greater than we can fathom. So here's to hoping we will see each other soon in the newly rebuilt Beit Hamikdash - I will definitely take korban meat over fasting.
The Judaism Part: Here is Where It Really Kicks In
There is a drought in Somalia. People are dying everyday. The World Food Programme is offering a chance to feed people, at no charge to you. You take the quizz and provide your email address - a small price to pay for the opportunity to help save a life, for the Talmud says that "saving a life is more important than everything else", and the Torah tells us we can not stand idly by while our brethren (and sistren)'s blood is shed.
http://gifts.wfp.org/quiz/hornofafrica?lead_source=fbshare-wfp-hoa-quiz
To me, this is a major part of being a religious Jew. Rabbi Akiva said "Love your fellow as yourself: That is a major rule in the Torah', and Hillel said that "Do not do to another person what you would not have him do to you", was the quickest summary of the Torah he could give.
Lawrence O'Donnel had a good clip about this on his show today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43996238#43996238
This clip specifically adresses concerns people might have about donating. Even if not every organization is perfect, these organizations do help, and we must help to the best of our abilities - as pirkey avot says, "The work is not yours to finish, but you also are not free to disengage from the task" - in other words, we must do our hishtadlut. Furthermore, even this anti-aid op-ed condones giving to programmes like the World Food Programme in times of dire crisis, like the current famine in Somalia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4827881.ece
If people want more information to guide donation decisions, here is a useful sight: http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Here is more information on the crisis in Somalia:
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/02/7233184-helping-famine-victims-in-somalia
http://gifts.wfp.org/quiz/hornofafrica?lead_source=fbshare-wfp-hoa-quiz
To me, this is a major part of being a religious Jew. Rabbi Akiva said "Love your fellow as yourself: That is a major rule in the Torah', and Hillel said that "Do not do to another person what you would not have him do to you", was the quickest summary of the Torah he could give.
Lawrence O'Donnel had a good clip about this on his show today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43996238#43996238
This clip specifically adresses concerns people might have about donating. Even if not every organization is perfect, these organizations do help, and we must help to the best of our abilities - as pirkey avot says, "The work is not yours to finish, but you also are not free to disengage from the task" - in other words, we must do our hishtadlut. Furthermore, even this anti-aid op-ed condones giving to programmes like the World Food Programme in times of dire crisis, like the current famine in Somalia: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4827881.ece
If people want more information to guide donation decisions, here is a useful sight: http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Here is more information on the crisis in Somalia:
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/02/7233184-helping-famine-victims-in-somalia
Links
Ok, I've been way to heteronormative lately - I mean, I haven't mentioned homosexuality in like what - three posts? This is unacceptable.*
So, here is a fun article from "The New Gay" website, which a friend introduced me to:
http://thenewgay.net/2011/08/coming-out-for-nerds-and-queers.html
Another fun link courtesy of a friend (wow, I pilfer a lot of information from people, don't I?)
http://gothamist.com/2011/07/24/video_avenue_q_gay_puppets_get_marr.php
A third link, also courtesy of a friend. Recently, there have been some attacks on clinics that offer abortions, including the assasination of a doctor in the midwest who performs abortions, as he was coming out of church. This doctor's assasination led some on the right to wonder if they were being too virulent in their anti-abortion rhetoric, if perhaps it had inspired the murderer. For the most part however, these introspective voices - among whom was Shepher Smith of Fox News - were shut down, and the virulence went back to normal.
Apparently, there was another attack this week on a clinic that offers abortions - and the press barely reacted:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/
Rachel Maddow, who generally does a great job of covering both womens' health and GLBTQ issues, covered Dr. Tiller's death extensively, and was involved in a documentary about it. Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39826272/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/maddow-assassination-dr-tiller/
More on Shepherd Smith, for those who are interested: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4841
His officisl Fox Profile (I am linking people to Fox. I am waiting for mashiach to come crashing through my bedroom door.) http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/shepard-smith/bio/#s=r-z
* Almost as unacceptable as mocking oneself on the internet
So, here is a fun article from "The New Gay" website, which a friend introduced me to:
http://thenewgay.net/2011/08/coming-out-for-nerds-and-queers.html
Another fun link courtesy of a friend (wow, I pilfer a lot of information from people, don't I?)
http://gothamist.com/2011/07/24/video_avenue_q_gay_puppets_get_marr.php
A third link, also courtesy of a friend. Recently, there have been some attacks on clinics that offer abortions, including the assasination of a doctor in the midwest who performs abortions, as he was coming out of church. This doctor's assasination led some on the right to wonder if they were being too virulent in their anti-abortion rhetoric, if perhaps it had inspired the murderer. For the most part however, these introspective voices - among whom was Shepher Smith of Fox News - were shut down, and the virulence went back to normal.
Apparently, there was another attack this week on a clinic that offers abortions - and the press barely reacted:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/07/30/planned_parenthood_terrorism/
Rachel Maddow, who generally does a great job of covering both womens' health and GLBTQ issues, covered Dr. Tiller's death extensively, and was involved in a documentary about it. Here is the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39826272/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/maddow-assassination-dr-tiller/
More on Shepherd Smith, for those who are interested: http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=4841
His officisl Fox Profile (I am linking people to Fox. I am waiting for mashiach to come crashing through my bedroom door.) http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/shepard-smith/bio/#s=r-z
* Almost as unacceptable as mocking oneself on the internet
Remember How There Was Supposed To Be a Judaism Part To This Blog?
Yeah, so about that: Sorry for neglecting. The thing is, with secular stuff, you have all these articles online. I guess with Judaism you do too, but I prefer to sit down with books and sources I can feel in my hand - which means more time and energy, two things I am in short supply of at the moment.
I would like to announce however, that there will be a "happy hour" even at the Public House NYC, on Lexington and 41st, on Weds August 17th, from 6:30-8:30 PM, and proceeds will go to benefit ORA, the Organization for the Resolution for Agunot, which has done some amazing work: http://www.getora.org/
Admission is 36 dollars and can be paid at the door. The event can be found on Facebook. For more information, please email: raquelgreenberg@gmail.com
Thanks.
I would like to announce however, that there will be a "happy hour" even at the Public House NYC, on Lexington and 41st, on Weds August 17th, from 6:30-8:30 PM, and proceeds will go to benefit ORA, the Organization for the Resolution for Agunot, which has done some amazing work: http://www.getora.org/
Admission is 36 dollars and can be paid at the door. The event can be found on Facebook. For more information, please email: raquelgreenberg@gmail.com
Thanks.
Now I Have to Compensate By Blogging About Going To The Movies
I recently saw the 7th Harry Potter with two male friends. I bawled the entire time. My two friends tried not to laugh at me; they failed. I was reminded of a first date I had when I was a tween: I went to see Tarzan, and I cried during the scene where Tarzan finds the picture of his parents. My date's male friends were sitting a few rows behind us, sniggering, but when I started crying, their laughs grew even louder. I realized that while women are programmed by society to be sensitive to emotion, and to show emotion by actions such as crying, men are programmed by society to not pick up on emotional cues, and to not react to emotional moments. If they must react, they should certainly not show their reaction publicly, and certainly not cry. To so would be "un-manly". This is unfair to women: Society teaches them to cry, and then uses their tears as evidence against them, that they are not as strong as men. This is also not fair to men, who are being deprived of the basic human right to express human emotion - and tears are on way of doing that.
A while ago, there was a controversial - and poorly run - study claiming that women's tears lowered men's libido, thus providing women with a get-out-of-rape-free card: As they cried, the man's desire would wane, and with it, his motivation to force them into sexual intercourse. Leaving aside that a) without a comparable study of the effect of men's tears on women, this study's supposed gender implications are meaningless b) rape is about power, not about sex. Plenty of men who could get laid by consenting women choose to force women into sex - for some, it is the only way for them to get turned on or acheive orgasm (thus qualifying as a fetish in clinical terms). But the psychology of a rapist, while a complicated issue, does not change the fact that the rape is about his (or her - there are female rapists) psychology, not about the rapists' sex drive per se, and certainly not about the rape victim's actions and whether or not she cried - to say otherwise puts us right back into the old "blame the victim paradigm". So, either a) the rapists actions are not about sex, but about power, in which case libido is meaningless, as long as he has enough to get hard b) the rapist has a sexual fetish (rape is literally the only way for him to acheive satisfaction) that is very uncommon in the human population, so a study about the nature of "normal" men's sex drive would be irrelevant, this study goes completely against the pop-culture image of a man's comforting a crying woman, and all of a sudden, that comforting turns sexual. This pop-culture image was presaged by the Bible, which asserted in 2 Samule 12, that "David comforted Batsheva with love-making" after the death of their first-born child, a punishment for David's adultery with Batsheva and the murder of her husband. (Who needs telanovellas when you have stories like these?) The value that the Bible places on comforting a wife can be seen from the fact that this comfort-love-making results in the conception of Solomon, considered the wisest king of Israel.
So it seems that women's tears have long been beleived to have power: The power to entice a man to the bedroom, according to ancient and modern pop-culture, the power to stop rape (wow, if only women had that power!), according to a pseudo-scientific study masquerading as evolutionary psychology - no wonder that female tears make men so uncomfortable (such tears often evoke male laughter, which psychlogists and cultural theorists assert is a sign of discomfort - see Freud "Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious"), and that they must reinterpet such tears as womens' weakness, to fit them into the motif of male superiority that forms the core of their male identity.
Of course, I should have known I would be embarrassed the minute we walked into the theater - the last time I was at that theater, was with one friend from the same group, to see the third LOTR. Before the movie, my friend and I had an argument over who was hotter, Liv Tyler or Cate Blanchett. During the movie, Aragorn and Arwen are reunited for the first time. Everyone was quiet during that moment, except for my friend, who turned to me and said in what he thought was a whisper, "You're right, Liv Tyler is hot!" - I wasn't sure what was worse - the shushing from avid LOTR fans, or the looks of pity from those who thought that my friend and I were on a date (we were not).
But of course, my main point in writing this rant was to be able to blame society for my tears - because what is feminism about if not enabling women to blame men for their problems?
A while ago, there was a controversial - and poorly run - study claiming that women's tears lowered men's libido, thus providing women with a get-out-of-rape-free card: As they cried, the man's desire would wane, and with it, his motivation to force them into sexual intercourse. Leaving aside that a) without a comparable study of the effect of men's tears on women, this study's supposed gender implications are meaningless b) rape is about power, not about sex. Plenty of men who could get laid by consenting women choose to force women into sex - for some, it is the only way for them to get turned on or acheive orgasm (thus qualifying as a fetish in clinical terms). But the psychology of a rapist, while a complicated issue, does not change the fact that the rape is about his (or her - there are female rapists) psychology, not about the rapists' sex drive per se, and certainly not about the rape victim's actions and whether or not she cried - to say otherwise puts us right back into the old "blame the victim paradigm". So, either a) the rapists actions are not about sex, but about power, in which case libido is meaningless, as long as he has enough to get hard b) the rapist has a sexual fetish (rape is literally the only way for him to acheive satisfaction) that is very uncommon in the human population, so a study about the nature of "normal" men's sex drive would be irrelevant, this study goes completely against the pop-culture image of a man's comforting a crying woman, and all of a sudden, that comforting turns sexual. This pop-culture image was presaged by the Bible, which asserted in 2 Samule 12, that "David comforted Batsheva with love-making" after the death of their first-born child, a punishment for David's adultery with Batsheva and the murder of her husband. (Who needs telanovellas when you have stories like these?) The value that the Bible places on comforting a wife can be seen from the fact that this comfort-love-making results in the conception of Solomon, considered the wisest king of Israel.
So it seems that women's tears have long been beleived to have power: The power to entice a man to the bedroom, according to ancient and modern pop-culture, the power to stop rape (wow, if only women had that power!), according to a pseudo-scientific study masquerading as evolutionary psychology - no wonder that female tears make men so uncomfortable (such tears often evoke male laughter, which psychlogists and cultural theorists assert is a sign of discomfort - see Freud "Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious"), and that they must reinterpet such tears as womens' weakness, to fit them into the motif of male superiority that forms the core of their male identity.
Of course, I should have known I would be embarrassed the minute we walked into the theater - the last time I was at that theater, was with one friend from the same group, to see the third LOTR. Before the movie, my friend and I had an argument over who was hotter, Liv Tyler or Cate Blanchett. During the movie, Aragorn and Arwen are reunited for the first time. Everyone was quiet during that moment, except for my friend, who turned to me and said in what he thought was a whisper, "You're right, Liv Tyler is hot!" - I wasn't sure what was worse - the shushing from avid LOTR fans, or the looks of pity from those who thought that my friend and I were on a date (we were not).
But of course, my main point in writing this rant was to be able to blame society for my tears - because what is feminism about if not enabling women to blame men for their problems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)