Here is the official rabbinate response to some of the articles I've posted: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/israel-s-chief-rabbi-responds-to-haaretz-s-without-the-rabbinate-series-on-orthodox-jews-1.397633
Busting the myth that men think about sex much more than women: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/28/do_men_really_think_about_sex_more_often_than_women_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
Distressing news from Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/ngo-says-teenage-prostitution-worsening-in-israel-1.398125#.TtO2_WK71Jo.facebook
More on non-traditional marriages: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-marquardt/get-ready-for-group-marri_b_1064115.html?ref=weddings
Monday, November 28, 2011
Books Inspire Blog-posts, I suppose
I've recently been reading "Case Studies in Couple and Family Therapy", edited by Frank M. Dattilio.
I've noticed a pattern: Often, a major source of tension is that different spouses approach the relationship with different expecations, which remain uncommunicated. Thus, spouse A dissapoints spouse B without realizing it, and then can't understand why Spouse B is so upset, since spouse B never made it clear to Spouse A what was expected of him/her in the relationship.
This is one positive aspect of shidduch dating: Ideally, it forces couples to discuss relationship expectations before they commit to marrying each other. Realizing the extent to which expectations remain unverbalized in couples who are already married helped me appreciate why the Catholic Church encourages couples to go to pre-marriage counseling. I wonderf if the OJ model of chatan/kallah classes could be expanded to involve some sort of general class on communication within a marriage/relationship skills, or even have pre-couples counseling with a therapist thought of as an extension of such classes - since after all, a happy marriage is considered important in the Jewish religion, which has many sayings on the importance of "shalom bayit", a healthy family life.
There is this relationship questionnare that some of the couples in therapy filled out: http://psych.fullerton.edu/jstokes/relationships/isrs.htm
I think it would be a great idea when things start getting serious for each person to fill this out, and then compare answers, so you know each other's expectations. I also think the "how satisfied are you this need is being met" part is the least important, since that answer can easily be improved, and part of the reason for a negative answer might be that your partner doesn't realize that you have that need - which will change once you express that need by comparing survey answers. I suppose the thing about this survey, like all serious conversations in a relationship, is when to bring them up - you don't want to go too long without discussing certain things, lest you find yourself in a serious relationship without having discussed them, but at the same time, you don't want to bring things up too early, because a) it can freak the person out b) you are labeling the relationship as something that could be serious - and sometimes labels can choke romance. On the other hand, sometimes they help it grow.
Anyhow, another thing I found interesting is that touching that a man beleives to be affectionate or both affectionate and sexual, is sometimes interpreted by the woman as being purely sexual, which makes her feel used. This makes sense given the different ways that men and women are socialized to think about sex and the opposite gender, but it is still distressing to read.
Just food for thought.
I've noticed a pattern: Often, a major source of tension is that different spouses approach the relationship with different expecations, which remain uncommunicated. Thus, spouse A dissapoints spouse B without realizing it, and then can't understand why Spouse B is so upset, since spouse B never made it clear to Spouse A what was expected of him/her in the relationship.
This is one positive aspect of shidduch dating: Ideally, it forces couples to discuss relationship expectations before they commit to marrying each other. Realizing the extent to which expectations remain unverbalized in couples who are already married helped me appreciate why the Catholic Church encourages couples to go to pre-marriage counseling. I wonderf if the OJ model of chatan/kallah classes could be expanded to involve some sort of general class on communication within a marriage/relationship skills, or even have pre-couples counseling with a therapist thought of as an extension of such classes - since after all, a happy marriage is considered important in the Jewish religion, which has many sayings on the importance of "shalom bayit", a healthy family life.
There is this relationship questionnare that some of the couples in therapy filled out: http://psych.fullerton.edu/jstokes/relationships/isrs.htm
I think it would be a great idea when things start getting serious for each person to fill this out, and then compare answers, so you know each other's expectations. I also think the "how satisfied are you this need is being met" part is the least important, since that answer can easily be improved, and part of the reason for a negative answer might be that your partner doesn't realize that you have that need - which will change once you express that need by comparing survey answers. I suppose the thing about this survey, like all serious conversations in a relationship, is when to bring them up - you don't want to go too long without discussing certain things, lest you find yourself in a serious relationship without having discussed them, but at the same time, you don't want to bring things up too early, because a) it can freak the person out b) you are labeling the relationship as something that could be serious - and sometimes labels can choke romance. On the other hand, sometimes they help it grow.
Anyhow, another thing I found interesting is that touching that a man beleives to be affectionate or both affectionate and sexual, is sometimes interpreted by the woman as being purely sexual, which makes her feel used. This makes sense given the different ways that men and women are socialized to think about sex and the opposite gender, but it is still distressing to read.
Just food for thought.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Links
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-knight/creation-and-evolution_b_1087392.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-j-palmer/america-not-christian-nation_b_1102094.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/clergy-battle-porn-addiction_n_1110981.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/satpal-singh/martyrdom-guru-tegh-bahadur-sikh-thanksgiving_b_1109270.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://lightsindarkness.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/thanksgiving-with-israelis-and-some-thoughts-on-loving-the-charedi-world/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/02/i_do_i_do_i_do_i_do.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-j-palmer/america-not-christian-nation_b_1102094.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/25/clergy-battle-porn-addiction_n_1110981.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/satpal-singh/martyrdom-guru-tegh-bahadur-sikh-thanksgiving_b_1109270.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
http://lightsindarkness.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/thanksgiving-with-israelis-and-some-thoughts-on-loving-the-charedi-world/
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_undercover_economist/2006/02/i_do_i_do_i_do_i_do.html
Semantics Matter
With the Penn State Scandal, there's been a debate in the NY Times about phraseology for describing statutory rape and child molestation: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/opinion/sunday/the-language-of-sexual-assault.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share
This has caused me to clarify my postion:
1. I do think there is a difference between molestation and rape.
2. I think there need to be clear definitions of what constitutes rape (as opposed to molestation) - at what physical point of sexual intimacy does something become rape? The definition for this must not be penetration - and hence phallic - based, and must take into account rape where females are the perpetrators, as well as the victims.
3. There should be different words for different types of rape, because if not, it obscures factual differences. Rape measures the magnitude of a sexual crime, but it does not describe exactly what happened.
4. There is a difference between different types of rape: For example, in sex where one doesn't force oneself on a the child physically and where one does, in the first case of child sex, one type of rape occurs, where in the second, two types of rape occur - statutory and physical. This difference also exists with raping adults (ie, getting someone wasted out of their mind is rape, but it is a different type of rape than when they are in their mind and you physically force them, which is different than other types of coercion that can be used to the point where your action is called "rape") I think not having these differences actually prevents people from understanding that there are different types of rape, and its not all the "he forced himself on her while she was walking home" type of story - so then when a situation doesn't fit that story, they assume it cant "really" be rape.
I know that feminists tend to be against labeling different types of rape differently, because "rape is rape", and once you start giving different definitions, society might start classifying some of those definitions as not "real" rape. But the truth is, definining statutory rape, getting a girl roofied, and forcing yourself upon someone all as "rape", without any modifiers, does not prevent society from drawing distinctions and minimizing the first two categories - if anything, society feels the feminists have gone "too far" in equating the three scenarios, which makes them generally resistant to expanding definitions of rape and fighting for victims' rights.
The truth is, that I do beleive in degrees: Murder is a horrible crime, but our society recognizes the difference between first and second-degree murder. This does not mean that our society considers second degree murder acceptable or not "real" murder - if anything, having clear categories helps society to understand different types of murder and how they are all murder. The same can be said of rape: Having one's consciousness taken away and waking up having been slept with is experientally different from the semi-consious state of drunkeness in which you are too weak to resist, which is different from being fully awake, physically resisting, and being physically compelled. I think that the first case is hard to quantify, but the third case is worse than the second, and recognizing that while both are rape, they are different types and degrees of rape, would actually cause more people to accept the second case as rape. It is when you try saying the second case is "as bad" as the third that people intuitely sense that it's not, and then resist calling the second case rape all together - since after all, it's different from the third case. If you called the second case "second-degree rape", people might be more willing to accept the fact that it is really rape, and to treat it as such.
No matter how our society and legal system choose to define and label rape however, it is important to understand that semantics matter, and the time has come for our sociolegal system to have this discussion and take a deeper look at how we define such things.
This has caused me to clarify my postion:
1. I do think there is a difference between molestation and rape.
2. I think there need to be clear definitions of what constitutes rape (as opposed to molestation) - at what physical point of sexual intimacy does something become rape? The definition for this must not be penetration - and hence phallic - based, and must take into account rape where females are the perpetrators, as well as the victims.
3. There should be different words for different types of rape, because if not, it obscures factual differences. Rape measures the magnitude of a sexual crime, but it does not describe exactly what happened.
4. There is a difference between different types of rape: For example, in sex where one doesn't force oneself on a the child physically and where one does, in the first case of child sex, one type of rape occurs, where in the second, two types of rape occur - statutory and physical. This difference also exists with raping adults (ie, getting someone wasted out of their mind is rape, but it is a different type of rape than when they are in their mind and you physically force them, which is different than other types of coercion that can be used to the point where your action is called "rape") I think not having these differences actually prevents people from understanding that there are different types of rape, and its not all the "he forced himself on her while she was walking home" type of story - so then when a situation doesn't fit that story, they assume it cant "really" be rape.
I know that feminists tend to be against labeling different types of rape differently, because "rape is rape", and once you start giving different definitions, society might start classifying some of those definitions as not "real" rape. But the truth is, definining statutory rape, getting a girl roofied, and forcing yourself upon someone all as "rape", without any modifiers, does not prevent society from drawing distinctions and minimizing the first two categories - if anything, society feels the feminists have gone "too far" in equating the three scenarios, which makes them generally resistant to expanding definitions of rape and fighting for victims' rights.
The truth is, that I do beleive in degrees: Murder is a horrible crime, but our society recognizes the difference between first and second-degree murder. This does not mean that our society considers second degree murder acceptable or not "real" murder - if anything, having clear categories helps society to understand different types of murder and how they are all murder. The same can be said of rape: Having one's consciousness taken away and waking up having been slept with is experientally different from the semi-consious state of drunkeness in which you are too weak to resist, which is different from being fully awake, physically resisting, and being physically compelled. I think that the first case is hard to quantify, but the third case is worse than the second, and recognizing that while both are rape, they are different types and degrees of rape, would actually cause more people to accept the second case as rape. It is when you try saying the second case is "as bad" as the third that people intuitely sense that it's not, and then resist calling the second case rape all together - since after all, it's different from the third case. If you called the second case "second-degree rape", people might be more willing to accept the fact that it is really rape, and to treat it as such.
No matter how our society and legal system choose to define and label rape however, it is important to understand that semantics matter, and the time has come for our sociolegal system to have this discussion and take a deeper look at how we define such things.
links again
1. On puritans and sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/my-take-on-thanksgiving-puritans-gave-thanks-for-sex-and-booze/
2. on Christians and premarital sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
3. On gender difference and psychology:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/11/boys_brains_girls_brains_how_to_think_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=profile_oneline
4. Friends of mine dispute this article by pointing out that there are plenty of movies that focus on male mental illness as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/movies/a-dangerous-method-and-mental-illness-in-movies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
5. An Ortho gay wedding:
http://972mag.com/orthodox-rabbi-marries-gay-couple-in-washington-dc/27424/
6. A love story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/fashion/weddings/sunny-jacobs-and-peter-pringle-vows.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
7. philosophy links: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/stone-links-9/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/22/my-take-on-thanksgiving-puritans-gave-thanks-for-sex-and-booze/
2. on Christians and premarital sex:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/
3. On gender difference and psychology:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/11/boys_brains_girls_brains_how_to_think_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_toolbar&fb_source=profile_oneline
4. Friends of mine dispute this article by pointing out that there are plenty of movies that focus on male mental illness as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/movies/a-dangerous-method-and-mental-illness-in-movies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
5. An Ortho gay wedding:
http://972mag.com/orthodox-rabbi-marries-gay-couple-in-washington-dc/27424/
6. A love story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/fashion/weddings/sunny-jacobs-and-peter-pringle-vows.html?pagewanted=all%3Fsrc%3Dtp&smid=fb-share
7. philosophy links: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/stone-links-9/
Problems with this article
1. Assumption women are looking for committed relationships, whereas men are not
2. Assumptions men prefer casual sex, whereas women do not
3. not backing up said assumptions with data
4. Assumption men want sex more than women, based on an outdated study (going up to strangers and asking if they want sex with you - some men said yes, no women did), that has since been complicated by conflicting data from different studies
5. failure to explore how much of the "truth" in assumptions 1 and 2 is due to socialization, which can be changed if society teaches women to approach sex and relationships differently. Thus, even if 1 and 2 are true, its not that things today inherently favor men, but rather, that things favor men because men are socialized to take advantage of things in a way women are not - this article makes it seem like men are biologically relationship-averse, while for women its the opposite, therefore a relationship-averse society by nature favors men
6. this article assumes starting sex at a later point in relationships and not having kids outside of marriage are things women want more than men, and therefore signs of womens power
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.2.html
2. Assumptions men prefer casual sex, whereas women do not
3. not backing up said assumptions with data
4. Assumption men want sex more than women, based on an outdated study (going up to strangers and asking if they want sex with you - some men said yes, no women did), that has since been complicated by conflicting data from different studies
5. failure to explore how much of the "truth" in assumptions 1 and 2 is due to socialization, which can be changed if society teaches women to approach sex and relationships differently. Thus, even if 1 and 2 are true, its not that things today inherently favor men, but rather, that things favor men because men are socialized to take advantage of things in a way women are not - this article makes it seem like men are biologically relationship-averse, while for women its the opposite, therefore a relationship-averse society by nature favors men
6. this article assumes starting sex at a later point in relationships and not having kids outside of marriage are things women want more than men, and therefore signs of womens power
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.2.html
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Epiphany
I told this to my mom, and she agrees:
WASP women are afraid of being inadequate in the bedroom. Jewish women are afraid of being inadequate in the kitchen.
Note to readers: This is a joke. Please do not use it to start stereotyping anyone.
WASP women are afraid of being inadequate in the bedroom. Jewish women are afraid of being inadequate in the kitchen.
Note to readers: This is a joke. Please do not use it to start stereotyping anyone.
Snow White
Today I saw Snow White with my mom. I notice that the movie is a lot about woman-to-woman competition: Snow White and her stepmom are competing for who is the most beautiful. Of course, the whole mother-daughter competition Electra thing would probably make Freud happy.
Then, we have Snow White living with 7 dwarfs, who she performs stereotypical household chores for, such as cleaning and cooking. She also has an oddly asexual relationship with them: There is no kissing etc., - how could there be, when it would recognize a woman's right to polyamory? At the same time, there is dancing and flirtation, and Doc blushes when Snow White kisses him, so there are definitely some erotic undertones.
Of course, Snow White needs these male dwarves to protect her, and then needs a male prince to rescue her - enough said. Snow White only gets into trouble when she disobeys the dwarves by talking to the old lady witch who entices her to eat the apple, while the dwarves are away - much as Eve only gets into trouble by talking to the snake while Adam is away, and eating from the fruit as a result of the snake's words. It is when women trespass the rules men make in order to protect them that they are harmed.
It is interesting that this theme, of women eating fruit - symbols of female fertility - and getting into trouble as a result, appears in Snow White and in the Bible, though since Snow White post-dates the Bible, those two facts might not be unrelated. What I find more fascinating is that in Greek Mythology, it is because Persephone ate from a tree of the underworld that she is bound to Hades for six months - thus exiled from earth just as Eve is exiled from the garden, only here the fruit binds her to her husband, whereas with Eve, the fruit caused a fight (Adam seems resentful when he tattle on her to God) - yet on the other hand, were they not bound together in exile, which is shown by their having a child immediately after? (Of course, Rashi puts Cain and Hevel's birth as pre-exile from the garden, because it says "And Adam had known his wife", implying it had happened in the remote past.)
Persephone's eating from the fruit of Hades results in winter, since the earth is barren when she is underground. Eve's eating from the fruit results in a world in which the earth is hard to work. In both stories, a woman's eating from a symbol of agriculture, results in agricultural hardships.
I don't know what to make of all this, but the coincidences hardly seem coincidental - which maybe means I should start seriously reading up on the whole Greek-Jewish intellectual history relationship.
Then, we have Snow White living with 7 dwarfs, who she performs stereotypical household chores for, such as cleaning and cooking. She also has an oddly asexual relationship with them: There is no kissing etc., - how could there be, when it would recognize a woman's right to polyamory? At the same time, there is dancing and flirtation, and Doc blushes when Snow White kisses him, so there are definitely some erotic undertones.
Of course, Snow White needs these male dwarves to protect her, and then needs a male prince to rescue her - enough said. Snow White only gets into trouble when she disobeys the dwarves by talking to the old lady witch who entices her to eat the apple, while the dwarves are away - much as Eve only gets into trouble by talking to the snake while Adam is away, and eating from the fruit as a result of the snake's words. It is when women trespass the rules men make in order to protect them that they are harmed.
It is interesting that this theme, of women eating fruit - symbols of female fertility - and getting into trouble as a result, appears in Snow White and in the Bible, though since Snow White post-dates the Bible, those two facts might not be unrelated. What I find more fascinating is that in Greek Mythology, it is because Persephone ate from a tree of the underworld that she is bound to Hades for six months - thus exiled from earth just as Eve is exiled from the garden, only here the fruit binds her to her husband, whereas with Eve, the fruit caused a fight (Adam seems resentful when he tattle on her to God) - yet on the other hand, were they not bound together in exile, which is shown by their having a child immediately after? (Of course, Rashi puts Cain and Hevel's birth as pre-exile from the garden, because it says "And Adam had known his wife", implying it had happened in the remote past.)
Persephone's eating from the fruit of Hades results in winter, since the earth is barren when she is underground. Eve's eating from the fruit results in a world in which the earth is hard to work. In both stories, a woman's eating from a symbol of agriculture, results in agricultural hardships.
I don't know what to make of all this, but the coincidences hardly seem coincidental - which maybe means I should start seriously reading up on the whole Greek-Jewish intellectual history relationship.
Personal is Political - Right?
Every time I come to a family event or a social affair, I know my weight will be commented upon. It is usually in a positive way, but it still bothers me: The minute you tell me "You lost weight. You look good", you make me afraid to eat that second slice of turkey. I don't think this pressure is unique to me - most women I know tell me their weight is frequently a topic of discussion - even a three-pound loss or gain is cause for compliment or censure.
I confess - at this point in my life, if I entered a room without getting compliments on my weight, it would make me really nervous and unconfident - the way I once used to take it as a sign of something being wrong with me if I didn't get catcalls when I walked down the street.
But I mean, how screwed up is that? Yeah, it's partially me giving into society - but how screwed up is our society?
I think measuring a woman's worth by her weight is related to our society's general lack of recognition of a person's unique worth qua human being - instead, we judge people by two numbers: Their weight and their bank account. Say what you want about Judaism, but at least it judges people by their words and their actions, which are much more important - and that standard is much less objectifying both of men and of women.
I recently saw a Dolce Gabbana ad featuring a (very hot) nude man. The ad was for a clothing brand, yet it did not bother to clothe its model - it was selling the concept that if you buy Dolce Gabbana society will perceive you like this hot presumably rich guy, and repsect you the way it does him, and then you will get laid and get your next promotion - because in our society, we are told looks and money are the key to happiness, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - studies show that there is discrimination against people perceived to be overweight or "ugly", that does indeed make it slightly harder to get that promotion, and they must compensate with other qualities. I think it is terrible that this discrimination is not being actively fought, the way that other types of discrimination are - then again, the entire concept of "beautiful" is essentially a social norm- in the times of Rubens, being slightly zaftig was considered pretty. So I think there are two tasks ahead of us: 1. To form a societal definition of "beautiful' that accomodates more women (and men) and more types of bodies 2. To fight discrimination against people who don't fit that definition.
I'd say let's do away with a definition of beauty alltogether, but given that texts defining beauty have been around since ancient times, I find that goal very unrealistic.
I confess - at this point in my life, if I entered a room without getting compliments on my weight, it would make me really nervous and unconfident - the way I once used to take it as a sign of something being wrong with me if I didn't get catcalls when I walked down the street.
But I mean, how screwed up is that? Yeah, it's partially me giving into society - but how screwed up is our society?
I think measuring a woman's worth by her weight is related to our society's general lack of recognition of a person's unique worth qua human being - instead, we judge people by two numbers: Their weight and their bank account. Say what you want about Judaism, but at least it judges people by their words and their actions, which are much more important - and that standard is much less objectifying both of men and of women.
I recently saw a Dolce Gabbana ad featuring a (very hot) nude man. The ad was for a clothing brand, yet it did not bother to clothe its model - it was selling the concept that if you buy Dolce Gabbana society will perceive you like this hot presumably rich guy, and repsect you the way it does him, and then you will get laid and get your next promotion - because in our society, we are told looks and money are the key to happiness, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - studies show that there is discrimination against people perceived to be overweight or "ugly", that does indeed make it slightly harder to get that promotion, and they must compensate with other qualities. I think it is terrible that this discrimination is not being actively fought, the way that other types of discrimination are - then again, the entire concept of "beautiful" is essentially a social norm- in the times of Rubens, being slightly zaftig was considered pretty. So I think there are two tasks ahead of us: 1. To form a societal definition of "beautiful' that accomodates more women (and men) and more types of bodies 2. To fight discrimination against people who don't fit that definition.
I'd say let's do away with a definition of beauty alltogether, but given that texts defining beauty have been around since ancient times, I find that goal very unrealistic.
Monday, November 21, 2011
The Talmud and Greek Culture
In general, the question of how much the rabbis of the Talmud knew about Greek culture is a fascinating one. The Platonic myth of man and women being born one body, but separated later, which explains their sexual yearning from each other (which appears in Symposium) is also found as a midrashic interpretation on the creation of Eve: The Torah says in Genesis 1:27:
How can it be God created man -masculine singular- and humans - both genders, plural, at once? And how does this square with the story of God taking Eve out of Adam's rib? Answer: God originally created one man, who was in fact a man-woman in one body. Thus, this creature was both male and female, singular and plural, at the same time. God later separated the female element by taking her out of this hybrid human and creating woman - hence the taking Eve out of Adam's rib story.
In addition, Greek words, such as hydros, appear in the Talmud, and the presence of Greek language implies a certain knowledge of Greek concepts and Greek culture. I am sure there are scholarly articles on the issue - for tonight, I'm just throwing the question out there.
| ז וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם. | 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them |
How can it be God created man -masculine singular- and humans - both genders, plural, at once? And how does this square with the story of God taking Eve out of Adam's rib? Answer: God originally created one man, who was in fact a man-woman in one body. Thus, this creature was both male and female, singular and plural, at the same time. God later separated the female element by taking her out of this hybrid human and creating woman - hence the taking Eve out of Adam's rib story.
In addition, Greek words, such as hydros, appear in the Talmud, and the presence of Greek language implies a certain knowledge of Greek concepts and Greek culture. I am sure there are scholarly articles on the issue - for tonight, I'm just throwing the question out there.
Women, War, and Sex
I recently read Lysistrata. It's about how women end a war by engaging in sex strike, which of course drives the men crazy. I think this play speaks to three things: 1. The power of women as peace-makers 2. The power of sex 3. The power of the female body.
The concept of women as peace-makers, those who prevent people from killing each other, makes sense, since their bodies are life-givers that produce children. It is interesting that in ancient Greece, Aphordite, the goddess of romantic love, is often paired with Ares, the god of war, for in some ways the two are opposite: female and male, love and hate, sex, which produces life, and combat, which produces death - and yet, visually, sex and hand-to-hand combat have much in common. This similarity is played upon in Greek art.
In a sense, Lysistrata is the opposite of "The Illyiad", in which a woman's body and sex cause men to go to war. No doubt, many blamed Helen, and medieval culture often used the story of Troy as an example of the sinful power of woman's body, and its ability to bring man death (as indeed, Eve was beleived to have brought man death in medieval Christian theology).
What interests me however, in addition to the power given to sex and the female body - a power that can be seen from sexual cult religious practices and the use of preistesses in temples* - is the relationship between war and a woman's body, which is often compared to earth: Like earth, it produces life, and like earth, it must be conquered. Lysistrata at one point even refers to a girl's genitalia as her "garden", and in Haiti today sometimes women will refer to their vagina as their "feild" - like a feild, it produces new life, must be tended to, and provides a sustenance (women in Haiti often have arrangements where they offer men the feild of their bodies, in exchange for which men till their plot of land and make sure they have food).
The male fear of a sex strike* is also apparent. That fear is negated by turning the entire concept of a female sex strike into something so carnivalesque that it is impossible for it to ever be true.
Reading Lysistrata, I could not help by think how in so many communities, women are on the front lines of peace and reconciliation efforts, and do all sorts of outreach into their communities, but generally are not given the credit they are due. This changed a bit this year, when the Noble Peace Prize was given to women.
One of those women, Leymah Gbowee, organized other women, and they used a sex strike as part of their peace-acheiving strategy in Sierra Leone. Also, at one point, when Gbowee was going to be arrested, she threatened to strip right there, in public, and it stopped the officers from taking her. This is an ancient African tradition - in Kenya, in the Mau-Mau uprising, elder women bared their privates to shame young men, and in the 1600s-1800s, female slaves from Africa would sometimes bear their privates in protest of their treatment, in order to shame the white men around them, who just didn't get it, because it is the phallus, not the cunt, that has power in Western society.
Of course, this is why Lysistrata does not really "work" in a post-Christian world: Women's bodies have been devalued, seen both as places devoid of sexual desire and as places full of a sexual desire that is fraught with sin, and sex in the modern world is not an act of power: It is a negotiation of two bodies in a world fraught with peril, an act of pleasure surrounded by so much nervous discourse that it has been both over-sensitized and sanitized at the same time. Until we get back to a healthier image of our bodies and their sexual nature, such comedy simply won't be as amusing. I think for men especially, the sexual mores of this world can be hard to navigate - today's young men are not being taught confidence, which not only harms them, but also harms the women who want to sleep with them. Feminism must help guide culture to develop a positive male identity that is one of equality, and not domination, if they wish to be succesful. Leopold Von Massoch said that without equality, men will dominate women or be dominated by them. I think that is true, but at the same time, without equality, women will either dominated men or be dominated by them - and that's something we as women must keep in mind. Yes, there is more work to be done on the front of women's rights - but that doesn't mean we can forget about men, who are left to negotiate a new post-feminist world in which the confident tropes of the patriarchal male identity are starting to shift beneath their feet.
Anyhow, this entire episode also reminded me of a midrash I heard that when Ahashverosh's advisors tell him he must get rid of Vashti lest the other women follow her example, they mean as follows: Vashti refused to sleep with the king. Other women might follow her example and form a sex strike. If so, this would mean the midrash-writers were familiar with the fear of a female sex strike: Was this a generalized ancient fear? Had they come into contact with the story of Lysistrata in some way - probably not by reading it, but by hearing of some random Greek tale about a woman who organized a sex strike to end a war? What did the midrash writers think about the power of the female body - a power that bears none of the negative connotations that came into being in medieval times?***
These are all questions worth pondering, just as this interview with Leymah Gbowee is worth watching: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee?xrs=share_copy
*Their work often included sex, and temples sometimes served as glorified brothels. Milgrom posits that a major goal of Leviticus is to completely separate the sexual realm from the religious realm, as opposed to surrounding cultures that fused the two.
* Some say Lysistrata was actually written by a woman
*** Many of the medieval Ashkenazic writings that seem mysogynistic were actually taking their cue from the Catholic culture that surrounded them; pre-medieval Jewish writings are much more women friendly. For more on this see "Carnal Culture" by Daniel Boyarin.
The concept of women as peace-makers, those who prevent people from killing each other, makes sense, since their bodies are life-givers that produce children. It is interesting that in ancient Greece, Aphordite, the goddess of romantic love, is often paired with Ares, the god of war, for in some ways the two are opposite: female and male, love and hate, sex, which produces life, and combat, which produces death - and yet, visually, sex and hand-to-hand combat have much in common. This similarity is played upon in Greek art.
In a sense, Lysistrata is the opposite of "The Illyiad", in which a woman's body and sex cause men to go to war. No doubt, many blamed Helen, and medieval culture often used the story of Troy as an example of the sinful power of woman's body, and its ability to bring man death (as indeed, Eve was beleived to have brought man death in medieval Christian theology).
What interests me however, in addition to the power given to sex and the female body - a power that can be seen from sexual cult religious practices and the use of preistesses in temples* - is the relationship between war and a woman's body, which is often compared to earth: Like earth, it produces life, and like earth, it must be conquered. Lysistrata at one point even refers to a girl's genitalia as her "garden", and in Haiti today sometimes women will refer to their vagina as their "feild" - like a feild, it produces new life, must be tended to, and provides a sustenance (women in Haiti often have arrangements where they offer men the feild of their bodies, in exchange for which men till their plot of land and make sure they have food).
The male fear of a sex strike* is also apparent. That fear is negated by turning the entire concept of a female sex strike into something so carnivalesque that it is impossible for it to ever be true.
Reading Lysistrata, I could not help by think how in so many communities, women are on the front lines of peace and reconciliation efforts, and do all sorts of outreach into their communities, but generally are not given the credit they are due. This changed a bit this year, when the Noble Peace Prize was given to women.
One of those women, Leymah Gbowee, organized other women, and they used a sex strike as part of their peace-acheiving strategy in Sierra Leone. Also, at one point, when Gbowee was going to be arrested, she threatened to strip right there, in public, and it stopped the officers from taking her. This is an ancient African tradition - in Kenya, in the Mau-Mau uprising, elder women bared their privates to shame young men, and in the 1600s-1800s, female slaves from Africa would sometimes bear their privates in protest of their treatment, in order to shame the white men around them, who just didn't get it, because it is the phallus, not the cunt, that has power in Western society.
Of course, this is why Lysistrata does not really "work" in a post-Christian world: Women's bodies have been devalued, seen both as places devoid of sexual desire and as places full of a sexual desire that is fraught with sin, and sex in the modern world is not an act of power: It is a negotiation of two bodies in a world fraught with peril, an act of pleasure surrounded by so much nervous discourse that it has been both over-sensitized and sanitized at the same time. Until we get back to a healthier image of our bodies and their sexual nature, such comedy simply won't be as amusing. I think for men especially, the sexual mores of this world can be hard to navigate - today's young men are not being taught confidence, which not only harms them, but also harms the women who want to sleep with them. Feminism must help guide culture to develop a positive male identity that is one of equality, and not domination, if they wish to be succesful. Leopold Von Massoch said that without equality, men will dominate women or be dominated by them. I think that is true, but at the same time, without equality, women will either dominated men or be dominated by them - and that's something we as women must keep in mind. Yes, there is more work to be done on the front of women's rights - but that doesn't mean we can forget about men, who are left to negotiate a new post-feminist world in which the confident tropes of the patriarchal male identity are starting to shift beneath their feet.
Anyhow, this entire episode also reminded me of a midrash I heard that when Ahashverosh's advisors tell him he must get rid of Vashti lest the other women follow her example, they mean as follows: Vashti refused to sleep with the king. Other women might follow her example and form a sex strike. If so, this would mean the midrash-writers were familiar with the fear of a female sex strike: Was this a generalized ancient fear? Had they come into contact with the story of Lysistrata in some way - probably not by reading it, but by hearing of some random Greek tale about a woman who organized a sex strike to end a war? What did the midrash writers think about the power of the female body - a power that bears none of the negative connotations that came into being in medieval times?***
These are all questions worth pondering, just as this interview with Leymah Gbowee is worth watching: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-14-2011/leymah-gbowee?xrs=share_copy
*Their work often included sex, and temples sometimes served as glorified brothels. Milgrom posits that a major goal of Leviticus is to completely separate the sexual realm from the religious realm, as opposed to surrounding cultures that fused the two.
* Some say Lysistrata was actually written by a woman
*** Many of the medieval Ashkenazic writings that seem mysogynistic were actually taking their cue from the Catholic culture that surrounded them; pre-medieval Jewish writings are much more women friendly. For more on this see "Carnal Culture" by Daniel Boyarin.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Summary of "Evaluation and Treatment of Unconsommated Marriages in Orthodox Jewish Copules", by David S. Ribner and Talia Y. Rosenbaum.
Traditional Jewish attitudes towards sex dictate that within a marriage it is good, and sexual gratification is a perfectly legitimate justification for sex, in its own right, unrelated to the mitzvah of procreation. Sexual gratification is one of a woman's rights in her marriage contract. Purposeful emission of semen outside the vagina however, is forbidden*. When a couple can have sex is mandated however: Not during Nidah, not while drunk or arguing, not if sex is being used as a weapon by one spouse over the othe. Also, if one party is not consenting, sex is forbidden. When the importance of sexual gratification is combined with the importance of procreation, Judaism's attitude towards marital sex is quite positive.
In Orthodox Jewish women, ignorance of their own body due to lack of info on the female anatomy, lack of sexual experience and tampon use or exploration of their own body, purely physical factors related to their hymen or their level of lubrication, fear and anxiety about sex, or some combination thereof, are all factors in the inability to acheive penile penetration after marriage.
The self-inspections of Niddah that a woman takes on before marriage may help her to know her own body, since she must instert a bedika cloth. Often, women who report inability to consumate marriage may have had difficulties with such inspections. Vulvar vestibulitis and vaginal muscular hypertonus, as well as fear, anxiety, and lack of knowledge of one's own anatomy, all contribute to inability to consummate marriage. These symptoms do not uniquely affect Orthodox women, but treatment for such issues shoudl take the clients' cultural sensitivities into account, which in the case of Orthodox women may involve toning down the explicit language and visual aids often used in treatment.
While most Orthodox women are able to consummate marriage, for some, the modesty standards they have been raised with make them feel inhibited, or make them feel immodest and thus transgressive in their attempt at sex, especially since Jewish law expects both partners to be naked, whereas religious culture expects women until marriage to always be very clothed in front of men.
As for men, erectile disfunction and premature ejaculation are the two main factors preventing consummation. The reasons for these symptoms may be purely physical, purely psychological - or, as is most often the case, some mixture of the two. Most men have not had any physical contact with their spouse or even with women in general, especially in Haredi communities - yet at the same time, they are expected to know what to do, to be the man and take control - which leads to performance anxiety. ED or PE on a first try will further increase such anxiety, thus increasing the chance of future ED or PE.**
Jewish prohibitions on "spilling the seed" may play a role in this phenomenon in the following ways:
1. Since even masturbation is not allowed, men are used to viewing the entire concept of sexual arousal and ejaculation as negative, and are not able to suddenly start viewing it as positive the minute they are married, even though halachikly they are entitled to do so.
2. Fear of non-vaginal ejaculation causes the man to insert the penis before he is either emotionally or physically ready (or both). Things then go badly, and the dissapointment and shame means that its a while before the couple tries again.
3. This fear of non-vaginal ejaculation, even if the man inserts at the right time, causes the woman to be nervous as well, so there is a general sense of nervousness surrounding the sex.
Extreme sensisitivity/heightened excitability at the female touch can lead to PE, which can become a pattern.
Major factors in inability to consummate in Orthodox couples include: lack of information about sex/the female anatomy, so the husband does not even know where he is supposed to be penetrating, and the woman might not know or might be too modest to guide him, lack of arousal, lack of knowledge about foreplay/ways to stimulate arousal, and discomfort/awkwardness with one's own body.
When first experiencing inability to consummate, couples may turn to religious, rather than medical sources. These sources may be unable to provide them with accurate scientific information they need. Often religious sources will refer them to medical sources - whether psychological, gynecological, or both. Most couples feel "failure at meeting personal, spousal, and communal expectations". They think something is wrong with them or their partner and are embarrassed.
A therapist must ask her or himself if one or both spouses are expressing reservations about the marriage through "sexual distancing". Therapists should not refer to inability to consummate as a "problem" and should try to make the couple feel as normal as possible, emphasizing that all newlyweds face certain challenges. While one spouse may be more responsible than the other for sexual failure, emphasis should be placed on how sex is a partnership and responsibility for consummation lies with both spouses, and unite the newlyweds in pursuing a common objective ie sex. Religious couples may turn to religious professionals whose "noise" interferese with the therapy. Therapists should help couples evaluate advice from religious sources to see what is and is not applicable and right for them, and should develop working relationships with a couple's rabbi, if necessary. Information abot sex and genitalia must be presented in a very medical manner that can in no way be considered inappropriate. The gender of the therapist, as well as whether the couple will work together or alone, or some combo, and whether or not one spouse would feel ok with a therapist of the opposite gender, must be taken into account.
Each spouse should be included in the treatment as much as possible, even if the treatment is focusing one one spouse who is the primary cause of the issue. For example, with vulvar vestibulitis, the husband should help guide the dilator, while with ED, the wife should manually stimulate the husband. Such steps should only be taken if and when the couple is comfortable with them, however. In the process of encouraging spousal sex, also emphasize that in the eyes of Jewish law, all sex must be consensual, since in the process of pursuing consummation, one spouse might bully the other into sex if the therapist does not do her or his best to prevent the couple from pressuring each other.
A 19 year old, S., and her 20-year old husband, N., were referred after 6 months of marriage. S. barely spoke or made eye conact, and N. "seemed confused and embarrassed". S. had been diagnosed with vaginismus. S. was shown her anatomy using a mirror and started inserting dilators, while B. saw a therapist who corrected some "sexual misinformation" he had regarding male and female anatomy, as well as "paramaters of desire, arousal, and performance". During therapy, S. revealed that her ability to prevent penetration was the one thing she felt she could control in her life, and she resented her community's pressing her into a marriage that involved moving to a new country, and leaving her friends and family. N. revealed guilt about pre-marital - and later, marital, given the lack of sex - masturbation. He fantasized about sex with his wife but didn't know how to communicate his feelings, and wasn't sure whether he considered sex with is wife positive, or simply a biological necessity. S. and N. were encouraged to be more open about their mutual desire with each other and to find a common vocabulary to express their feelings. N. "was advised to consult with a rabbi regarding his perception" about sex and Jewish values. N. was involved in S.'s dilation exercises, done from home, which proved stimulating and enjoyable. After completion of the dilation exercises, the couple succesfully had sex. "Residual issues" regarding their discomfort with physical contact were left unresolved at the time of therapy, since the couple feared to continue therapy due to the social stigma surrounding it.
A clinician treating a couple such as the one above must educate her or himself about the cultural and religious norms of the community they come from and take those norms into account; often much of this education will come from the clients themselves. Sometimes it may be necessary to involve more than one clinician.
This was published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy" in July 2005.
* Yeah, I don't plan on observing that one.
** See how gender stereotypes affect men? If they weren't expected to take control and know what to do more than their spouse, simply because they are the men and being in charge is masculine, maybe they'd have less performance anxiety and hence an easier time getting laid.
In Orthodox Jewish women, ignorance of their own body due to lack of info on the female anatomy, lack of sexual experience and tampon use or exploration of their own body, purely physical factors related to their hymen or their level of lubrication, fear and anxiety about sex, or some combination thereof, are all factors in the inability to acheive penile penetration after marriage.
The self-inspections of Niddah that a woman takes on before marriage may help her to know her own body, since she must instert a bedika cloth. Often, women who report inability to consumate marriage may have had difficulties with such inspections. Vulvar vestibulitis and vaginal muscular hypertonus, as well as fear, anxiety, and lack of knowledge of one's own anatomy, all contribute to inability to consummate marriage. These symptoms do not uniquely affect Orthodox women, but treatment for such issues shoudl take the clients' cultural sensitivities into account, which in the case of Orthodox women may involve toning down the explicit language and visual aids often used in treatment.
While most Orthodox women are able to consummate marriage, for some, the modesty standards they have been raised with make them feel inhibited, or make them feel immodest and thus transgressive in their attempt at sex, especially since Jewish law expects both partners to be naked, whereas religious culture expects women until marriage to always be very clothed in front of men.
As for men, erectile disfunction and premature ejaculation are the two main factors preventing consummation. The reasons for these symptoms may be purely physical, purely psychological - or, as is most often the case, some mixture of the two. Most men have not had any physical contact with their spouse or even with women in general, especially in Haredi communities - yet at the same time, they are expected to know what to do, to be the man and take control - which leads to performance anxiety. ED or PE on a first try will further increase such anxiety, thus increasing the chance of future ED or PE.**
Jewish prohibitions on "spilling the seed" may play a role in this phenomenon in the following ways:
1. Since even masturbation is not allowed, men are used to viewing the entire concept of sexual arousal and ejaculation as negative, and are not able to suddenly start viewing it as positive the minute they are married, even though halachikly they are entitled to do so.
2. Fear of non-vaginal ejaculation causes the man to insert the penis before he is either emotionally or physically ready (or both). Things then go badly, and the dissapointment and shame means that its a while before the couple tries again.
3. This fear of non-vaginal ejaculation, even if the man inserts at the right time, causes the woman to be nervous as well, so there is a general sense of nervousness surrounding the sex.
Extreme sensisitivity/heightened excitability at the female touch can lead to PE, which can become a pattern.
Major factors in inability to consummate in Orthodox couples include: lack of information about sex/the female anatomy, so the husband does not even know where he is supposed to be penetrating, and the woman might not know or might be too modest to guide him, lack of arousal, lack of knowledge about foreplay/ways to stimulate arousal, and discomfort/awkwardness with one's own body.
When first experiencing inability to consummate, couples may turn to religious, rather than medical sources. These sources may be unable to provide them with accurate scientific information they need. Often religious sources will refer them to medical sources - whether psychological, gynecological, or both. Most couples feel "failure at meeting personal, spousal, and communal expectations". They think something is wrong with them or their partner and are embarrassed.
A therapist must ask her or himself if one or both spouses are expressing reservations about the marriage through "sexual distancing". Therapists should not refer to inability to consummate as a "problem" and should try to make the couple feel as normal as possible, emphasizing that all newlyweds face certain challenges. While one spouse may be more responsible than the other for sexual failure, emphasis should be placed on how sex is a partnership and responsibility for consummation lies with both spouses, and unite the newlyweds in pursuing a common objective ie sex. Religious couples may turn to religious professionals whose "noise" interferese with the therapy. Therapists should help couples evaluate advice from religious sources to see what is and is not applicable and right for them, and should develop working relationships with a couple's rabbi, if necessary. Information abot sex and genitalia must be presented in a very medical manner that can in no way be considered inappropriate. The gender of the therapist, as well as whether the couple will work together or alone, or some combo, and whether or not one spouse would feel ok with a therapist of the opposite gender, must be taken into account.
Each spouse should be included in the treatment as much as possible, even if the treatment is focusing one one spouse who is the primary cause of the issue. For example, with vulvar vestibulitis, the husband should help guide the dilator, while with ED, the wife should manually stimulate the husband. Such steps should only be taken if and when the couple is comfortable with them, however. In the process of encouraging spousal sex, also emphasize that in the eyes of Jewish law, all sex must be consensual, since in the process of pursuing consummation, one spouse might bully the other into sex if the therapist does not do her or his best to prevent the couple from pressuring each other.
A 19 year old, S., and her 20-year old husband, N., were referred after 6 months of marriage. S. barely spoke or made eye conact, and N. "seemed confused and embarrassed". S. had been diagnosed with vaginismus. S. was shown her anatomy using a mirror and started inserting dilators, while B. saw a therapist who corrected some "sexual misinformation" he had regarding male and female anatomy, as well as "paramaters of desire, arousal, and performance". During therapy, S. revealed that her ability to prevent penetration was the one thing she felt she could control in her life, and she resented her community's pressing her into a marriage that involved moving to a new country, and leaving her friends and family. N. revealed guilt about pre-marital - and later, marital, given the lack of sex - masturbation. He fantasized about sex with his wife but didn't know how to communicate his feelings, and wasn't sure whether he considered sex with is wife positive, or simply a biological necessity. S. and N. were encouraged to be more open about their mutual desire with each other and to find a common vocabulary to express their feelings. N. "was advised to consult with a rabbi regarding his perception" about sex and Jewish values. N. was involved in S.'s dilation exercises, done from home, which proved stimulating and enjoyable. After completion of the dilation exercises, the couple succesfully had sex. "Residual issues" regarding their discomfort with physical contact were left unresolved at the time of therapy, since the couple feared to continue therapy due to the social stigma surrounding it.
A clinician treating a couple such as the one above must educate her or himself about the cultural and religious norms of the community they come from and take those norms into account; often much of this education will come from the clients themselves. Sometimes it may be necessary to involve more than one clinician.
This was published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy" in July 2005.
* Yeah, I don't plan on observing that one.
** See how gender stereotypes affect men? If they weren't expected to take control and know what to do more than their spouse, simply because they are the men and being in charge is masculine, maybe they'd have less performance anxiety and hence an easier time getting laid.
Blu Greenberg (one of the founders of MO feminism)
So, some of you may know that I have a bit of an obsession with Niddah. My convo last night has brought it out.
I have uploaded an image of Blu Greenberg, in which she explains the pluses of observing Nidah. I wanted to do the same for her observations on how to "improve" the mitzvah, but I just can't seem to be able to.
So here goes a summary:
1. Reappropriate Nidah as a special women's mitzvah, using the language of feminism.
2. Get rid of negative language and superstitions surrounding the mitzvah, and talk about the holiness of sex.
3. Get rid of the rabbinically mandated extra 7 days.
4. Offer marriage counseling that takes the Nidah-related stresses into account and tries to deal with them.
5. Get rid of the whole "treating a virgin who bleeds like a Nidah, so that she must wait 11 days before having sex again" thing.
6. Tack women's health issues, like monthly breast exams, onto Niddah. (My note: Actually, about a week after your period is probably a good time for breast-checkups, since breasts can be sore/swollen around one's period, however, there is now a debate about monthly checkups v "breast awareness", which is more about having a general awareness of your breasts and any changes going on there/ocassionaly (say, once every two months) checkups, as opposed to monthyly self-exams. One should consult one's doctor, and those with a family history of breast cancer should take more care.)
7. Accept that people have pre-marital sex. Encourage women to immerse and emphasize the value of having sex only in meaningful relationships. Keeping Nidah will lead to less promiscuity, since only in real relationships will people be willing to refrain from sex for two weeks.
8. Accept that the degree of touching couples engage in while in Nidah is a personal choice, and everyone draws the line somewhere else. Put some trust in women and men that they won't jump into bed the minute they touch each other, especially if its casual/non-sexual contact.
I am pondering this. Why?
1. I've met a lot of motherss who do things lately, and I find that cool and inspiring. Obviously, when you have a child you need to be dedicated to them, but I think its important to still take time to focus on your own personal development and fulfillment. I also think if you don't seek fuflfillment as a person, it can negatively impact your relationship with your child and your spouse.
2. I am in a house where the husband generally helps out, but when it comes to dishes, that is the wife's domain - even if the husband has time and the wife is busy, the husband won't do them, because that's just not his job. While, despite my feminism, I would actually be fine with an arrangment where I took on most of the domestic duties, I don't think I could handle being in a relationship where - for either of us - some chore was just "not my job" to the point where even if one of us had time and the other didn't, the one with the free time wouldn't do it. My minimum household requirements from my partner are that he help out with the laundry, dishes, and taking out the garbage, and that when he has free time and I am doing the dishes, he keeps me company and talks to me, as opposed to being on Facebook or something (unless he had a rough day/needs some alone time, because I totally get that.) Of course, I guess that's easy to say now, because I'm not in a relationship, and I would be willing to compromise on these chore requirements for the right guy, but I also feel like the right guy for me probably would agree to those requirements.
3. I think it's really important to walk in with a smile and say, "Hello, my beautiful family/wonderful husband/wife", etc, and then walk over and give everyone huge hugs/kisses - even if one is in Niddah. This is usually how I greet my parents, and it is how I would like to one day greet my husband and children. I think it "sets the tone" for your interactions for the rest of the day. Of course, if you've had a bad day, it should be ok to talk about it, to express upset and to cry - if you can't do that, you're in a pretty bad relationship - but I think there should be an effort made to put on a smile and a hug for that first minute you walk through the door, even if five minutes later you're sitting on someone's lap sipping tea and crying.
2. I am in a house where the husband generally helps out, but when it comes to dishes, that is the wife's domain - even if the husband has time and the wife is busy, the husband won't do them, because that's just not his job. While, despite my feminism, I would actually be fine with an arrangment where I took on most of the domestic duties, I don't think I could handle being in a relationship where - for either of us - some chore was just "not my job" to the point where even if one of us had time and the other didn't, the one with the free time wouldn't do it. My minimum household requirements from my partner are that he help out with the laundry, dishes, and taking out the garbage, and that when he has free time and I am doing the dishes, he keeps me company and talks to me, as opposed to being on Facebook or something (unless he had a rough day/needs some alone time, because I totally get that.) Of course, I guess that's easy to say now, because I'm not in a relationship, and I would be willing to compromise on these chore requirements for the right guy, but I also feel like the right guy for me probably would agree to those requirements.
3. I think it's really important to walk in with a smile and say, "Hello, my beautiful family/wonderful husband/wife", etc, and then walk over and give everyone huge hugs/kisses - even if one is in Niddah. This is usually how I greet my parents, and it is how I would like to one day greet my husband and children. I think it "sets the tone" for your interactions for the rest of the day. Of course, if you've had a bad day, it should be ok to talk about it, to express upset and to cry - if you can't do that, you're in a pretty bad relationship - but I think there should be an effort made to put on a smile and a hug for that first minute you walk through the door, even if five minutes later you're sitting on someone's lap sipping tea and crying.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Thoughts
Being a feminist is exhausting: Being angry at the patriarchy and all that jazz, when that jazz surrounds you everyday, is just tiring. Of course, at times I leave it behind - I too, am capable of laughing at a mysogynistic joke or even telling one once in a while. I am not about to become a not feminist - as a matter of fact, today someone joked that my feminism was rubbing off on them and that made me happy - but I did want to point out this fact.
Anyhow, the Jerusalem post had an "Ask the Rabbi: Does Halach permit pre-marital sexual relations" column and a dvar Torah from Rabbi Riskin that had some interesting observations on Avraham's relationship with Sarah. The halacha article was ambiguous, mainly pointing out that the Torah never mentions pre-marital sex as its own category, whether for good or for ill (except in cases of rape or seduction of a virgin, where a man must either pay for the woman's upkeep for the rest of her life by giving a huge sum of money to her father, the assumption being she is now unmarriable and will remain in her father's house, or he must marry her and can not divorce her. The choice is hers to make. Obviously, the point of his marrying her would be that marriage entailed financial support. In ancient near eastern society, women were financially dependent on husbands, fathers, or brothers, and life outside of a household was not an option - as a matter of fact, life outside a household was not usually feasible for men either. The Torah does not condone the fact that she was considered unmarriable - it was merely recognizing a fact of ancient near eastern society and trying to protect the woman given that fact.)
The Rabbi Riskin article is worth summarizing but I'm too tired at the moment.
Anyhow, the Jerusalem post had an "Ask the Rabbi: Does Halach permit pre-marital sexual relations" column and a dvar Torah from Rabbi Riskin that had some interesting observations on Avraham's relationship with Sarah. The halacha article was ambiguous, mainly pointing out that the Torah never mentions pre-marital sex as its own category, whether for good or for ill (except in cases of rape or seduction of a virgin, where a man must either pay for the woman's upkeep for the rest of her life by giving a huge sum of money to her father, the assumption being she is now unmarriable and will remain in her father's house, or he must marry her and can not divorce her. The choice is hers to make. Obviously, the point of his marrying her would be that marriage entailed financial support. In ancient near eastern society, women were financially dependent on husbands, fathers, or brothers, and life outside of a household was not an option - as a matter of fact, life outside a household was not usually feasible for men either. The Torah does not condone the fact that she was considered unmarriable - it was merely recognizing a fact of ancient near eastern society and trying to protect the woman given that fact.)
The Rabbi Riskin article is worth summarizing but I'm too tired at the moment.
Education 2
In general, I have been thinking a lot recently about how I want to raise my future children (God willing). Don't get me wrong - I hve no immediate plans to have children. I am not in a serious relationship, and even if I were, I think ideally it is good to wait two years after marriage before even trying to have kids. Also, I would want to be more financially stable before producing offspring whose financial (as well as emotional) well-being I'm responsible for.
So why am I thinking about this topic? 1. Social pressure 2. Many of my friends now are married/have kids 3. Spending lots of time in family environments, so one sees things other families do and thinks "I like that", or "I don't like that" 4. Parent issues causing me to think about my own childhood and hence what I'd want my kids' childhoods to be like 5. Evolution 6. I am at a stage where while I am happy with my life as it is, I can also envision being in a relationship that leads to marriage and settling down - yes, scary, I know. Me, the uber-feminist, caving into the desire for this patriarchal institution.
Anyhow, because of this, the issue of a child's education - especially their religious and their ethical educations - have been on my mind, and its why I found tonight's conversation so gratifying. I know the values I want to raise my children with (kindness, openness, an ability to ask questions, a sense of fun and wonder at this world, a love of learning), as well as random other stuff - for example, I want there to be "cookie-baking Thursdays", I want a part of the wall designated as a parsha mural where my kids can draw their feelings about the parsha, and I want every Rosh Chodesh to be a dress-up day. I also want to have special themed days where I teach the kids about different historical eras and we do activities related to that. I also want to be able to eat dinner with my kids most days of the week, which I know is not great for my career prospects, but is really important to me. (At the same time, having a date-night with my husband at least once a week is also really important to me, even if that date involves hiring a sitter and going for a one-hour walk in the park.)
I think living in a family household has had a lot to do with my thinking about child-rearing: Today I explained to a little boy how sometimes we get angry at people we love, and that's ok, but anger is different from hate, so instead of saying he hates his sister, we should discuss what she is doing that makes him angry, and I also spoke to him about prayer. Having these types of conversations with little children is both enlightening and enjoyable. My friend - the child's father - discussed how hard it is to raise children to be religous without raising them to be fundamentalists, but I said that maybe you do teach things to children a bit more "black and white", when they are younger, and then you keep on opening up the same conversation topics as they grow older, increasing the complexity of your discussions, and that you also encourage them to ask questions and teach that every question is ok, so that they feel comfortable coming to you and approaching you in conversation, and that's how you raise open kids who aren't fundamentalists.
For example, the song "Hashem is here. Hashem is there. Hashem is truly everywhere" might be a simplification, but I don't think a five-year-old is harmed from knowing the song, and if you encourage your child to ask questions and they feel comfortable approaching you, when they are older, they might have a discussion with you about beleif in God, which could be more complex and "gray". I don't know - I don't have kids - but I think these are things you need to start thinking about way before you have kids, because raising human beings is one of the most important and delicate tasks someone can do, so it takes a lifetime of preparation.
So why am I thinking about this topic? 1. Social pressure 2. Many of my friends now are married/have kids 3. Spending lots of time in family environments, so one sees things other families do and thinks "I like that", or "I don't like that" 4. Parent issues causing me to think about my own childhood and hence what I'd want my kids' childhoods to be like 5. Evolution 6. I am at a stage where while I am happy with my life as it is, I can also envision being in a relationship that leads to marriage and settling down - yes, scary, I know. Me, the uber-feminist, caving into the desire for this patriarchal institution.
Anyhow, because of this, the issue of a child's education - especially their religious and their ethical educations - have been on my mind, and its why I found tonight's conversation so gratifying. I know the values I want to raise my children with (kindness, openness, an ability to ask questions, a sense of fun and wonder at this world, a love of learning), as well as random other stuff - for example, I want there to be "cookie-baking Thursdays", I want a part of the wall designated as a parsha mural where my kids can draw their feelings about the parsha, and I want every Rosh Chodesh to be a dress-up day. I also want to have special themed days where I teach the kids about different historical eras and we do activities related to that. I also want to be able to eat dinner with my kids most days of the week, which I know is not great for my career prospects, but is really important to me. (At the same time, having a date-night with my husband at least once a week is also really important to me, even if that date involves hiring a sitter and going for a one-hour walk in the park.)
I think living in a family household has had a lot to do with my thinking about child-rearing: Today I explained to a little boy how sometimes we get angry at people we love, and that's ok, but anger is different from hate, so instead of saying he hates his sister, we should discuss what she is doing that makes him angry, and I also spoke to him about prayer. Having these types of conversations with little children is both enlightening and enjoyable. My friend - the child's father - discussed how hard it is to raise children to be religous without raising them to be fundamentalists, but I said that maybe you do teach things to children a bit more "black and white", when they are younger, and then you keep on opening up the same conversation topics as they grow older, increasing the complexity of your discussions, and that you also encourage them to ask questions and teach that every question is ok, so that they feel comfortable coming to you and approaching you in conversation, and that's how you raise open kids who aren't fundamentalists.
For example, the song "Hashem is here. Hashem is there. Hashem is truly everywhere" might be a simplification, but I don't think a five-year-old is harmed from knowing the song, and if you encourage your child to ask questions and they feel comfortable approaching you, when they are older, they might have a discussion with you about beleif in God, which could be more complex and "gray". I don't know - I don't have kids - but I think these are things you need to start thinking about way before you have kids, because raising human beings is one of the most important and delicate tasks someone can do, so it takes a lifetime of preparation.
Religiosity and Religious Education
I also discussed child-education with the religios/non-religious couple: They plan on sending their child to a religious/traditional school until highschool, so the child has a background knowledge of Jewish religious culture. Then for highschool, the child can decide. I think this is brilliant: When you are little, it is comforting to beleive in God and to have this religious environment, with the songs and community it entails. Also, being in a religious school in youth gives you a life-long connection the religion, whether or not you continue your religious education or are observant in adulthood - and I do think that a life connected to one's tradition, even if one chooses not to observe that tradition, is important. I think a Christian should be connected to her Christian tradition, a Muslim to her Muslim tradition, etc.. I am Jewish, so I want to be connected to the Jewish tradition.
In my case, in addition to being a traditonal Jew, I am also a religious Jew, however, while the behavior involved in the two overlaps and each enhances the other, there are certain things I do solely because of tradition, certain things I do solely because of religion, and certain things I do because of both traditional and religious reasons, even if the reasons themselves are unrelated.
Thus, I as a woman, choose to eat in a sukkah despite not being halachikly obligated, because it is my religious tradition. I pray solely because I am halachikly obligated to, even if I don't always have kavanah (focus). I observe Pesach seder both because I am halachikly obligated and because it is my religious tradition, but each reason alone would be sufficient.
Anyhow, I thought it was great this couple worked out an innovative solution to challenges such as Niddah and education. I think religious-non-religious marriages are good for Jewish unity, provided each partner's lifestyle is respected within the relationship. That being said, I am not about to marry a non-religious Jew solely in order to make a point - at the same time, I don't see a person's lack of religiosity as a barrier to a relationship.
In my case, in addition to being a traditonal Jew, I am also a religious Jew, however, while the behavior involved in the two overlaps and each enhances the other, there are certain things I do solely because of tradition, certain things I do solely because of religion, and certain things I do because of both traditional and religious reasons, even if the reasons themselves are unrelated.
Thus, I as a woman, choose to eat in a sukkah despite not being halachikly obligated, because it is my religious tradition. I pray solely because I am halachikly obligated to, even if I don't always have kavanah (focus). I observe Pesach seder both because I am halachikly obligated and because it is my religious tradition, but each reason alone would be sufficient.
Anyhow, I thought it was great this couple worked out an innovative solution to challenges such as Niddah and education. I think religious-non-religious marriages are good for Jewish unity, provided each partner's lifestyle is respected within the relationship. That being said, I am not about to marry a non-religious Jew solely in order to make a point - at the same time, I don't see a person's lack of religiosity as a barrier to a relationship.
Niddah
Today I got into a discussion about Niddah with a couple where the wife is religious and the husband is not. The wife said she does everything except for actual intercourse when she is in Niddah - she was unclear on how she defined "Niddah" - ie does she define it as the days she has her period (the Torah definition), or the days she has her period + the 7 "clean days" mandated by the rabbis? Either way, I thought its cool her secular husband agreed to this.
I was telling friends earlier today that I would like to be in a relationship where I have the freedom to be as lenient as possible with Niddah laws, without worrying about my significiant other being stricter than I am. My (male) friend replied by saying that halachikly, Niddah is considered the woman's mitzvah and her responsibility, so a husband doesn't have the right to tell the woman what to do in that regard - but I wonder how many men are taught that halacha. I know I was never taught it, despite being taught the minutia of "harkachot", such as that one shouldn't pass a baby to one's husband - of course, I don't plan on observing these harkachot.
I think that the way Niddah is taught to women is really problematic (also the way its taught to men - men should be well-educated on these halachot as well, because even if they are a women's mitzvah, they are halachot that affect one's romantic relationships if one is straight). Women are taught "This is the halacha", without being taught how the halachot developed, and usually, the halachot they are taught are the stricter opinions, opinions they might reject if they knew the process of how those opinions came to be, and if they knew of the more lenient opinions of the tradition. This is a general trend with regards to how mitzvot regarding gender and sexuality are taught, especially to girls.
For example, there is a kallah teacher used by some of the more right-wing Modern Orthodox Washington Heights girls who teaches that a) one may not laugh with one's husband during Niddah b) one may not give/receive gifts, flowers, etc. c) one may not tell one's spouse "I love you" during Niddah. Not only are all of these things ridiculous - and have been outed as "ridiculous" by mainstream YU rabbis - but they also can negatively impact one's spousal relationship, because these "issurs" are about one's emotional connection with one's husband - laughing, saying "I love you", giving each other little presents - these are not sexual, and they are the little things that form the basis of a strong relationship. Especially if one is not engaging in physical contact, verbal "I love you"s are extremely important.
A friend of mine told me how during Niddah, her husband had a crisis, and she was really frustrated by her inability to hug him. To me, hugging someone is not sexual, and especially during a time of crisis, it is really important to be able to comfort one's spouse. Judaism stresses the value of shalom bayit - household peace is the literal translation, but I would like to think of it more as a healthy household/family life - and not being able to hug one's husband in a crisis is not healthy for one's family life. According to the midrash - ie, rabbinic philosophy as reflected in exegisis - God lied to Avraham in order to cover up Sarah's thinking Avraham was old, because God valued the health of Sarah and Avraham's relationship over the truth*, and God allowed His** name to be erased in the Sotah ceremony in order to maintain "shalom bayit". (The ceremony was supposed to quell the jealousies of husbands and restore peace between man and wife.)*** If God is willing to lie - despite Biblical injunctions like "From words of falsehood stay away" and to have His name erased for healthy households, it is hard for me to beleive that Judaism would have halachot that detract from the health of households, which is why I can not beleive Niddah laws would truly santion not hugging one's husband when he is sad, or not telling each other "I love you". I think the Orthodox community needs to have a real conversation about how Niddah impacts relationships, and about how to prevent it from having a negative impact - which means lightening up on harkachot.
I think that these letters are a good illustration of the problem - and by the way, I find the answers unsatisfying:
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=4181
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=2627
* Sarah asks how she can conceive when Avraham is old, but in repeating her words to Avraham, God changes them to Sarah asking how she can conceive when she is old, thus skipping over her questioning of Avraham's virility and changing it into a question about her own
post-menopausal state.
** Yes, God is genderless, but English has no gender-neutral pronoun
*** Think about it: If she drinks the water and nothing happens, she is assumed to be innocent and her husban must show contrition for accusing her of infidelity to begin with. If something happens and she dies, she is assumed to be guilty. There are two ways of seeing this: 1. God performed a miracle with Sotah water so innocent women lived and guilty ones died - this is certainly how the Talmud saw it 2. The water never had the power to kill; it was normal water that certain harmless elements were mixed into during the course of the ritual. Thus, the water served the social function of restoring household peace since all women survived, and their having drunk it and survived proved their innocence to their husbands. This is the theory about the effectiveness of much of African tribal medicine, where the medicine cures a social ill: For example, a woman who complained of her husband's anger was told when she thought of his anger to put a large stone in her mouth for a few minutes. This did decrease the husband's anger, because they fought less, since the woman was not saying things that angered her husband. Of course, the official reason given was that the stone had certain powers. But in any event, I think such medicine is valid, because it is getting done what it is meant to get done and improving people's lives. Of course, I do not think it should come at the expense of Western medicine, and if the two were to conflict I would side wit Western medicine - thus for example, I am against FGM, which in modern medical terms is thought of as extremely unhealthy for the woman, despite is esteem in certain heritages - which is beginning to change thanks to organizations like Tostan.
I was telling friends earlier today that I would like to be in a relationship where I have the freedom to be as lenient as possible with Niddah laws, without worrying about my significiant other being stricter than I am. My (male) friend replied by saying that halachikly, Niddah is considered the woman's mitzvah and her responsibility, so a husband doesn't have the right to tell the woman what to do in that regard - but I wonder how many men are taught that halacha. I know I was never taught it, despite being taught the minutia of "harkachot", such as that one shouldn't pass a baby to one's husband - of course, I don't plan on observing these harkachot.
I think that the way Niddah is taught to women is really problematic (also the way its taught to men - men should be well-educated on these halachot as well, because even if they are a women's mitzvah, they are halachot that affect one's romantic relationships if one is straight). Women are taught "This is the halacha", without being taught how the halachot developed, and usually, the halachot they are taught are the stricter opinions, opinions they might reject if they knew the process of how those opinions came to be, and if they knew of the more lenient opinions of the tradition. This is a general trend with regards to how mitzvot regarding gender and sexuality are taught, especially to girls.
For example, there is a kallah teacher used by some of the more right-wing Modern Orthodox Washington Heights girls who teaches that a) one may not laugh with one's husband during Niddah b) one may not give/receive gifts, flowers, etc. c) one may not tell one's spouse "I love you" during Niddah. Not only are all of these things ridiculous - and have been outed as "ridiculous" by mainstream YU rabbis - but they also can negatively impact one's spousal relationship, because these "issurs" are about one's emotional connection with one's husband - laughing, saying "I love you", giving each other little presents - these are not sexual, and they are the little things that form the basis of a strong relationship. Especially if one is not engaging in physical contact, verbal "I love you"s are extremely important.
A friend of mine told me how during Niddah, her husband had a crisis, and she was really frustrated by her inability to hug him. To me, hugging someone is not sexual, and especially during a time of crisis, it is really important to be able to comfort one's spouse. Judaism stresses the value of shalom bayit - household peace is the literal translation, but I would like to think of it more as a healthy household/family life - and not being able to hug one's husband in a crisis is not healthy for one's family life. According to the midrash - ie, rabbinic philosophy as reflected in exegisis - God lied to Avraham in order to cover up Sarah's thinking Avraham was old, because God valued the health of Sarah and Avraham's relationship over the truth*, and God allowed His** name to be erased in the Sotah ceremony in order to maintain "shalom bayit". (The ceremony was supposed to quell the jealousies of husbands and restore peace between man and wife.)*** If God is willing to lie - despite Biblical injunctions like "From words of falsehood stay away" and to have His name erased for healthy households, it is hard for me to beleive that Judaism would have halachot that detract from the health of households, which is why I can not beleive Niddah laws would truly santion not hugging one's husband when he is sad, or not telling each other "I love you". I think the Orthodox community needs to have a real conversation about how Niddah impacts relationships, and about how to prevent it from having a negative impact - which means lightening up on harkachot.
I think that these letters are a good illustration of the problem - and by the way, I find the answers unsatisfying:
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=4181
http://www.yoatzot.org/question.php?id=2627
* Sarah asks how she can conceive when Avraham is old, but in repeating her words to Avraham, God changes them to Sarah asking how she can conceive when she is old, thus skipping over her questioning of Avraham's virility and changing it into a question about her own
post-menopausal state.
** Yes, God is genderless, but English has no gender-neutral pronoun
*** Think about it: If she drinks the water and nothing happens, she is assumed to be innocent and her husban must show contrition for accusing her of infidelity to begin with. If something happens and she dies, she is assumed to be guilty. There are two ways of seeing this: 1. God performed a miracle with Sotah water so innocent women lived and guilty ones died - this is certainly how the Talmud saw it 2. The water never had the power to kill; it was normal water that certain harmless elements were mixed into during the course of the ritual. Thus, the water served the social function of restoring household peace since all women survived, and their having drunk it and survived proved their innocence to their husbands. This is the theory about the effectiveness of much of African tribal medicine, where the medicine cures a social ill: For example, a woman who complained of her husband's anger was told when she thought of his anger to put a large stone in her mouth for a few minutes. This did decrease the husband's anger, because they fought less, since the woman was not saying things that angered her husband. Of course, the official reason given was that the stone had certain powers. But in any event, I think such medicine is valid, because it is getting done what it is meant to get done and improving people's lives. Of course, I do not think it should come at the expense of Western medicine, and if the two were to conflict I would side wit Western medicine - thus for example, I am against FGM, which in modern medical terms is thought of as extremely unhealthy for the woman, despite is esteem in certain heritages - which is beginning to change thanks to organizations like Tostan.
Rivkah and Yitzhak
A friend pointed out over shabbat pointed out that Rivka's family asks her if she would like to go and marry Yitzhak, and how revolutionary that was for the time. Then we got into a discussion about how Judaism does not beleive in coerced marriage; a marriage is a contract in which two people must give consent and if one does not - whether it is the man or the woman - the marriage is not considered valid.
My friend's comment - about how marrying Yitzhak was Rivka's choice - elicited another comment, about the possibility that Rivkah was desperate to escape her home, especially if her folks were as bad as the midrash says.
This entire discussion got me thinking more about Rivka and Yitzhak: Rivka has a very physical, powerful response to seeing Yitzhak for the first time - she falls off the camel. Meanwhile, Yitzhak loves Rivkah from the beginning of their marriage, and the Torah states so outright. They are so passionate that they can't keep their hands off each other, and hence fail at the whole "She's just my sister" ruse that was succesfully carried out by Avraham and Sarah. Rivka also clearly knows what her husband wants - she seems to run his life, and he doesn't mind. They even pray together, for the same thing - children - when they are experiencing difficulty conceiving. The Torah describes them praying while facing each other. This presents a strong contrast to Avraham, who prays for a child for himself without mentioning Sarah - a fact that the rabbis attibute Sarah's anger to, when she tells Avraham after Hagar conceives a child for him, "My anger is upon you". At the same time, one does not see much verbal communication between Yitzhak and Rivka - she goes behind his back with getting Yaakov the birthright, although she does speak to Yitzhak when convincing him to send Yaakov to Lavan, and Yitzhak listens. He also does not seem too upset that Yaakov is the one with the birthright, and does not try to change things, but actually gives Yaakov an additional bracha after finding out the truth - which makes one wonder if Rivkah knew what Yitzhak wanted better than he did. In any event, the image is one of a powerful woman who runs the household, who has a passionate relationship with her husband, even if sometimes there are miscommunications/she manipulates him "My Big Fat Greek Wedding Style - "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
My friend's comment - about how marrying Yitzhak was Rivka's choice - elicited another comment, about the possibility that Rivkah was desperate to escape her home, especially if her folks were as bad as the midrash says.
This entire discussion got me thinking more about Rivka and Yitzhak: Rivka has a very physical, powerful response to seeing Yitzhak for the first time - she falls off the camel. Meanwhile, Yitzhak loves Rivkah from the beginning of their marriage, and the Torah states so outright. They are so passionate that they can't keep their hands off each other, and hence fail at the whole "She's just my sister" ruse that was succesfully carried out by Avraham and Sarah. Rivka also clearly knows what her husband wants - she seems to run his life, and he doesn't mind. They even pray together, for the same thing - children - when they are experiencing difficulty conceiving. The Torah describes them praying while facing each other. This presents a strong contrast to Avraham, who prays for a child for himself without mentioning Sarah - a fact that the rabbis attibute Sarah's anger to, when she tells Avraham after Hagar conceives a child for him, "My anger is upon you". At the same time, one does not see much verbal communication between Yitzhak and Rivka - she goes behind his back with getting Yaakov the birthright, although she does speak to Yitzhak when convincing him to send Yaakov to Lavan, and Yitzhak listens. He also does not seem too upset that Yaakov is the one with the birthright, and does not try to change things, but actually gives Yaakov an additional bracha after finding out the truth - which makes one wonder if Rivkah knew what Yitzhak wanted better than he did. In any event, the image is one of a powerful woman who runs the household, who has a passionate relationship with her husband, even if sometimes there are miscommunications/she manipulates him "My Big Fat Greek Wedding Style - "The man is the head, but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants".
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thoughts
Reading the parsha, Chaye Sarah, I am struck by the importance of women:
Abraham goes all-out to provide Sarah with a proper burial, and then seeks a wife for Isaac, sending his servant far to ensure that Isaac has a good wife, which shows Abraham considerd wives important. Then, Isaac loves Rebeccah, and she makes him feel happy again after his mother passes away - again, showing the power of women.
I am about to start shabbat, where we will read the Eshet Chayil poem, read every Friday night, that praises women - women who engage in commerce, no less. More on that another time.
I was also thinking about different types of liberation: There is ritual liberation - women's partaking equally in religious ceremonies. Then there is life liberation - an equal splitting up of household chores, etc. Many Orthodox families I know engage in the second type of liberation. The women in these families are not opressed -they are simply prioritizing one type of liberation over another. I saw an egalitarian minyan where the women could participate equally, but were not, because they were the ones watching the kids - those women had chosen to partake of ritual liberation, but not life liberation.
Feminism is about choice, and no one thing is right for everyone, so I can not condemn or condone anyone's choice. But I think viewing people who fit into one box as "opressed" and people who fit into another as "liberated" is overly simplistic and condescending, and this is often done with regards to Orthodox women.
Abraham goes all-out to provide Sarah with a proper burial, and then seeks a wife for Isaac, sending his servant far to ensure that Isaac has a good wife, which shows Abraham considerd wives important. Then, Isaac loves Rebeccah, and she makes him feel happy again after his mother passes away - again, showing the power of women.
I am about to start shabbat, where we will read the Eshet Chayil poem, read every Friday night, that praises women - women who engage in commerce, no less. More on that another time.
I was also thinking about different types of liberation: There is ritual liberation - women's partaking equally in religious ceremonies. Then there is life liberation - an equal splitting up of household chores, etc. Many Orthodox families I know engage in the second type of liberation. The women in these families are not opressed -they are simply prioritizing one type of liberation over another. I saw an egalitarian minyan where the women could participate equally, but were not, because they were the ones watching the kids - those women had chosen to partake of ritual liberation, but not life liberation.
Feminism is about choice, and no one thing is right for everyone, so I can not condemn or condone anyone's choice. But I think viewing people who fit into one box as "opressed" and people who fit into another as "liberated" is overly simplistic and condescending, and this is often done with regards to Orthodox women.
Lovely Ladies of Kings 1 Chapter 3
I was recently re-reading Kings 1, chapter 3: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a03.htm
In this story, two prostitutes go to King Solomon, each claiming to be the mother of a baby. Solomon proposes slicing the child in half and giving half to each woman, at which point one woman says, "No. Don't kill the baby - let the other woman have him", and Solomon realizes the woman who was willing to give up the baby to preserve his life must be the mother.
The profession of the women - prostitution - is presents factually, without any moral censure. Furthermore, these women are granted a personal audience with the king, and treated with respect.
Whether or not the story happened is irrelevant: What matters is that whoever wrote and/or edited this story, who had this pro-Yahweh, pro-Davidic dynasty political-religious agenda, felt comfortable casually mentioning prostitution without needing to morally censure the women involved, and felt comfortable having a wise leader respect said women and grant them a personal audience.
I think that's pretty cool.
Links
On modern day sex slavery:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/kristof-the-face-of-modern-slavery.html?_r=1&src=tp&smid=fb-share
on the Israeli police and honor killings of Arab women;
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/defending-police-honor-1.395618
A "be proud of Israel' moment:
http://unitedwithisrael.org/israel-develops-cancer-vaccine/
More on the Israeli rabbinate:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=245345
On male and female rape victims:
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/xx_factor/2011/08/03/an_accusation_of_female_on_male_rape_shows_how_much_it_resembles.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
Two opposing views on sexual harrasment:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/sex-harassment-what-on-earth-is-that.html?src=tp&smid=fb-share
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/14/aren_t_we_past_katie_roiphe_s_fear_that_sexual_harassment_laws_will_make_workplaces_drab_and_women_uncool_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
On the gender of nurses:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/14/does_it_matter_whether_male_nurses_are_masculine_or_feminine_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
On religious women fighting for women's rights in Israel:
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/israel_news/the_struggle_to_make_sure_womens_voices_are_heard/27686
Credit photos - courtesy of George Takei.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Dvar Torah + A Link
First the link: http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142300731/gangs-enter-new-territory-with-sex-trafficking
Then the Dvar Torah:
A friend recently sent me an article by Eve Ensler, of Vagina Monologues fame, that reminded me how endemic rape is in our society and across the globe: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html
Then I started thinking about parshat Noach, Genesis 6*: The verses mention men sleeping around with women "whomever they chose". The traditional implication is that they slept around with married women. I think however, that in context, this verse is referring to rape - the men slept around with whomever they chose, giving the women no choice in the matter. Men sleeping around improperly with women is mentioned twice as a reason for God's dissapointment with the human race - no other sin - not theft, not murder - is mentioned by name. There is a midrash that picks up on this, listing rape as a endemic in that society - rich men would rape the wives of poor ones, and insist on sleeping with virgins before they were married - a practice carried out by feudal landlords in the Middle Ages. It says a lot that the midrash credits rape with being responsible for the destruction of the humanr race.
In that case, it could be that it is rape that caused the flood - rape is the sin that destroys society, that so angers God that he is willing to destroy the human race - and remember, it doesn't matter whether or not the flood actually happened: The story was put into the Torah to teach a moral, to teach a value expressed by the Jewish religion.
One need only look at places like the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan today to see the way that rape can - and does - tear families and societies apart. Whether or not there was an actual flood, the Torah's message - that rape cultures are doomed to destruction, and that rape has the power to destory human life - is extremely powerful, because it is true.
As a more general principle, one notices that it is for sins against fellow humans- not for sins against God - that the world is destroyed. The rabbis taught that the reason Bavel, which sinned against God, was given a light punishment (they are dispersed, but no one is killed) whereas Noah's generation is condemned to death, is that the Bavel-ites behaved nicely towards one another, as it says in Genesis 9:1 "And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech.", whereas Noah's generation behaved badly towards each other. (This badness is predicated on the rabbinic interpretation of "hamas", violence/anger, as that of theft and rape - at least in the context of the Noah story.)
I think the Noah story is an example of the rabbinic saying, "derech eretz kadma laTorah" - common decency is a prerequisite to the Torah - something that comes before it. That is why, when looking for a wife for Yitzhak, Avraham's servant did not seek a monotheist or a religious person - he sought a kind person, as evidenced by her giving him and his camels water. The servant understood that kindness was a prerequisite to Divine worship, and once that foundation was there, the rest could follow.
I also beleive this may be the meaning of the term "olam chessed yibaneh": It is kindness that builds the world, not just because kindness is the bridge between people that allows them to form a good society, but also because love leads to romantic relationships that result in children, and love must be based on kindness - and that is why the relationship between the Jewish people and God is metaphorized as a romantic relationship based on kindness - not just the kindness of God towards the Jewish people, but also their kindness to Him "zacharti lach chessed neurayich, lechtech acharay bamidbar" - I remember the kindness of your youth, in your going after me in the desert, God tells the Jewish people.
* Not that improper sleeping with women is mentioned twice. Genesis 6: א וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, ב וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. ג וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר; וְהָיוּ יָמָיו, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.' ד הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. {פ} 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P} ה וַיַּרְא יְהוָה, כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ, רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם. 5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ו וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. ז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶמְחֶה אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה, עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם: כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם. 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.'
Smurfs (Blog Overlap + some)
A friend of mine recently shared this youtube clip with me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qACNqaEkHmE
I usually try not to ingest feminism with my movies, because most things I find funny, when analyzed from a feminist perspective, are quite problematic. However, I would like to point out that the question, "Dude, what's the point of living if you don't have a dick?", in this case, is indicative of our culture's phallus-worship. There is no similiar worship reserved for female genitalia, especially female genitalia as sexual genitalia, as opposed to baby-popping canal. Imagine a similiar scene with women, with the term, "What's the point of living if you don't have a cunt?". It just wouldn't have the same ring to it. I would find it funny, but I doubt such a scene would sell well in mainsteam, male-centered culture.
Walking back from the Old City this morning, I thought about that clip, and remembered that there was a line in Sex and the City where Samantha says either "it was like being fucked by a smurf", or "it was like fucking a smurf". I tried to remember which, because the language of fucking is much more empowering and active than that of "being fucked", which places a woman in the passive sexual role (she is merely a receptacle for the man's semen) in which our patriarchal society loves to place her. I wondered, in terms of vernacular, if there is a difference - do men tend to say fuck or be fucked by, what do women say, and does it make a difference if they're talking about sex with a member of the same gender or not?
Then I thought to myself that this is why I never did drugs in high-school: If I think about such things while sober, imagine the kinds of things I'd think about while on acid - it would just be too much to handle.
Speaking of cunts and dicks, by the way, here is a brilliant youtube clip another friend sent me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5_fpoHZEjI&feature=player_embedded
If this was done as a joke, its hysterical. If the person was serious, its quite scary.
I usually try not to ingest feminism with my movies, because most things I find funny, when analyzed from a feminist perspective, are quite problematic. However, I would like to point out that the question, "Dude, what's the point of living if you don't have a dick?", in this case, is indicative of our culture's phallus-worship. There is no similiar worship reserved for female genitalia, especially female genitalia as sexual genitalia, as opposed to baby-popping canal. Imagine a similiar scene with women, with the term, "What's the point of living if you don't have a cunt?". It just wouldn't have the same ring to it. I would find it funny, but I doubt such a scene would sell well in mainsteam, male-centered culture.
Walking back from the Old City this morning, I thought about that clip, and remembered that there was a line in Sex and the City where Samantha says either "it was like being fucked by a smurf", or "it was like fucking a smurf". I tried to remember which, because the language of fucking is much more empowering and active than that of "being fucked", which places a woman in the passive sexual role (she is merely a receptacle for the man's semen) in which our patriarchal society loves to place her. I wondered, in terms of vernacular, if there is a difference - do men tend to say fuck or be fucked by, what do women say, and does it make a difference if they're talking about sex with a member of the same gender or not?
Then I thought to myself that this is why I never did drugs in high-school: If I think about such things while sober, imagine the kinds of things I'd think about while on acid - it would just be too much to handle.
Speaking of cunts and dicks, by the way, here is a brilliant youtube clip another friend sent me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5_fpoHZEjI&feature=player_embedded
If this was done as a joke, its hysterical. If the person was serious, its quite scary.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
links
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2011/11/11/barbara_grier_remembered_1933_2011.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/11/what_does_it_take_to_put_a_past_in_porn_completely_to_bed_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20224
A parallel to "without the rabbinate, I'll thee wed": http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/without-the-rabbinate-i-ll-convert-to-judaism-1.394970#.Tr6YgcLoRpQ.facebook
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16444
Frank O'Hara was famously gay - he wrote about his homosexuality in his work, at a time when the subject was taboo in polite society. Here is a lovely piece of his: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20378
This is so Park Slope: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/park-slopers-tell-you-about-their-sex-lives.html
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20984
A great poem entitled "Erotic Energy": http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15267
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/11/what_does_it_take_to_put_a_past_in_porn_completely_to_bed_.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=profile_oneline
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20224
A parallel to "without the rabbinate, I'll thee wed": http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/without-the-rabbinate-i-ll-convert-to-judaism-1.394970#.Tr6YgcLoRpQ.facebook
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16444
Frank O'Hara was famously gay - he wrote about his homosexuality in his work, at a time when the subject was taboo in polite society. Here is a lovely piece of his: http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20378
This is so Park Slope: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/11/park-slopers-tell-you-about-their-sex-lives.html
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/20984
A great poem entitled "Erotic Energy": http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15267
Urgent Message from Stop Genocide Now/I Act for Sudan campaign
If you don't think this is related to Judaism, go back and read the first chapter of Genesis:
Dear Friends,
Now that the rainy season has ended, a government-sponsored ground offensive in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains has begun. Just this morning the government of Sudan bombed a refugee camp filled with those fleeing the Nuba Mountains. The problem isn’t the people of the Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, Darfur, or Abyei. The problem is the Khartoum regime that has consistently pursued a policy of genocide against the civilians it is supposed to protect. We must continue to pressure our own government to act. Your voice is needed now.
From November 14-18, please join I Act for Sudan to demand escalated action against the Khartoum regime. Here’s how you can participate:
- Email KTJ Scott at ktj@iactivism.org to let us know you’ll be participating.
- Every day between November 14-18, take a photo of yourself holding a sign that has a daily slogan, post it to our Act for Sudan page, and tag an influential member of the administration.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9940745
Friday, November 11, 2011
A Good Day For Women's Rights
Prop 26 (see previous blog post) was defeated in Missisipi. Yay! Missisipi is a very conservative state, in which only 3-something percent of women identify as pro-choice, as opposed to the national average of 50-something percent. If it can't pass there, it has no chance in other states - and politicians know that. Prop 26 not only was defeated, but was overwhelmingly defeated, by a very large percentage -60-something percent against. This sends a huge message to the pro-life camp, that even speaking of prop-26 like policies will be very unpopular and not politically smart.
In defense of the pro-life camp, some of them - including the Catholic Church - did oppose this measure.
Today is also a nice day for women's rights because women all over Israel gathered to protest in favor of gender equality: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/hundreds-protest-for-women-s-rights-in-rallies-across-israel-1.395044
In defense of the pro-life camp, some of them - including the Catholic Church - did oppose this measure.
Today is also a nice day for women's rights because women all over Israel gathered to protest in favor of gender equality: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/hundreds-protest-for-women-s-rights-in-rallies-across-israel-1.395044
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Links Again
Oodles and oodles of them! (Who created that phrase? I'm pretty sure I first heard it in a 1950s movie)
Kidnapping brides in Kyrgistan is a major women's rights issue:
I get all personal again - party!
Ok, so I recently saw this article: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/religious-services-ministry-bans-alternative-wedding-ceremonies-performed-by-tzohar-rabbis-1.394257
about how the Israeli rabbinate is now preventing Tzohar, a liberal Orthodox rabbinic organization, from performing weddings. In Israel, there is no distinction between secular and religious weddings: Each religion has its own legal-religious authority that is tasked with performing marriages. The only way to have a secular legal marriage is to have that marriage performed abroad and register it with Israeli authorities when one returns home. For Jews, the body tasked with performing marriages is the government rabbinate, which tends to be right wing. Many secular or even liberal religious Israelis don't feel comfortable marrying with the rabbinate; Tzohar, as a more liberal organization, strove to cater to the needs of those Jews by marrying them religiously and registering them with the municipal rabbinic court, but is now being prevented from doing so.
As an aside, Israel does have recognized domestic partnerships outside of official legal marriage - i.e, common law marriage.
As a religious Jew, I would not feel comfortable having an official Israeli religious legal marriage, for two reasons a) I object to the rabbinate's very existence, so using it to legitimize my romantic relationship seems a bit hypocritical/grants the rabbinate legitimacy I think it lacks b) the rabbinate has a terrible record in terms of its treatment of women seeking divorce - and any institution that does not respect women does not have the moral authority to legitimize my romantic relationship. As a matter of fact, I hope for a marriage based on respect and equality - the very opposite of the values the rabbinate espouses, so why would I want to start off my marriage by having anything to do with that institution?
I probably would get a secular marriage abroad and register it in Israel upon returning, or have a legally recognized common law marriage.
In terms of religious marriage, with a halachik prenup (a legal document in which the husband binds himself to give the wife a get in terms of divorce) I would consider a religious marriage, provided that marriage were not connected in any way, shape, or form, to the Israeli rabbinate. To perform such a marriage in Israel is actually illegal, so it would have to be done abroad as well.
Some other options I like are marriage by religious contract (as opposed to the ketubah and ring ceremony) and concubinage. More and more I wonder if "living together" does not halachikly constitute at least concubinage, maybe even marriage - according to the plain reading of the mishna, a woman is acquired through money, contract, or sex. This does not mean that sex automatically means marriage (the guys at Qumran believed that, which might have been why they had so much trouble getting laid), just as giving money to a woman does not automatically constitute marriage - there must be intent behind the giving, whether it is of money or of one's body. But in a relationship where sex is given in the context of living together, maybe the intent of building a life together - ie marriage - is part of the sex? But then you run into the problem of two male witnesses...unless you are an exhibitionist and have some really kinky friends....
I guess I am still figuring all of this stuff out, but it is worth pondering, and I am much more flexible and amenable to non-traditional religious forms of union than I would have thought possible a few years ago - though yes, I still see the chuppah and the white dress as my "ideal".
I am glad there is a lot of noise being made about the new move to prevent Tzohar weddings, even though Tzohar is still too connected to the rabbinate for me to feel comfortable using.
I am also glad that this Friday, the 11th, at 11, Yisrael Chofshit (mentioned in a previous post) will be having a musical event for men and women to "take back" the streets and public places for women.
Info:
I also saw this interesting article about women and worker's rights in Israel. I think the issue it raises is a general global one, this article just focuses on how the issue plays itself out in Israel bc it's an Israeli newspaper (a strike was called in Israel for earlier this week): http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/most-of-israel-s-expendable-workers-are-women-1.394277
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
If I am so exhausted, why can't I fall asleep? I need to leave for work in 6 hours.
There is a classic joke: God turns to Adam and say "I have two gifts - one for you, one for Eve. You choose first. I have peeing standing up" - At this point, Adam interrupst God and says, "I'll take it.' God gives peeing standing up to Adam, turns to Eve and says, "Here - you can take multiplele orgasms."
The premise of this joke is that men somehow like sex more than women, and would have definitely taken multiple orgasms over peeing standing up, had they been aware of both options. Of course, this premise ticks me off.
Leaving that aside, it is unfair to compare the two, because obviously the average man uses the ability to pee standing up way more than the average woman uses the ability to have multiple orgasms. This is not only because of centuries of Western culture's denying the validity of women's sexual urges and teaching them to be afraid of expressing their desires in bed, but also because one pees much more frequently than one has sex.
Anyhow, this entire post so far has been an introduction to my favorite gendered epithet for a man: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08a25.htm - "one who pees against the wall".
Think about it: If you have a really good date, peeing against the wall can be a sign of manliness:
"We had the best time last night. He's so hot - such a משתין בקיר".
The premise of this joke is that men somehow like sex more than women, and would have definitely taken multiple orgasms over peeing standing up, had they been aware of both options. Of course, this premise ticks me off.
Leaving that aside, it is unfair to compare the two, because obviously the average man uses the ability to pee standing up way more than the average woman uses the ability to have multiple orgasms. This is not only because of centuries of Western culture's denying the validity of women's sexual urges and teaching them to be afraid of expressing their desires in bed, but also because one pees much more frequently than one has sex.
Anyhow, this entire post so far has been an introduction to my favorite gendered epithet for a man: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08a25.htm - "one who pees against the wall".
Think about it: If you have a really good date, peeing against the wall can be a sign of manliness:
"We had the best time last night. He's so hot - such a משתין בקיר".
If on the other hand, you have a terrible date, it can be taken as a sign of man's vulgarity. "Uch. I had such a terrible time last night - the guy was such a "משתין בקיר
By the way, there is a great article in Bitchfest about gender politics and the different design of men's and women's restrooms, with a focus on how the ability to pee standing up is perceived in pop culture. http://www.amazon.com/BITCHfest-Years-Cultural-Criticism-Magazine/dp/0374113432 Did I mention that I have this book proudly displayed in my parents dining room?
By the way, there is a great article in Bitchfest about gender politics and the different design of men's and women's restrooms, with a focus on how the ability to pee standing up is perceived in pop culture. http://www.amazon.com/BITCHfest-Years-Cultural-Criticism-Magazine/dp/0374113432 Did I mention that I have this book proudly displayed in my parents dining room?
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Randomosity - I am trying to swith to Decaf Caffe. That rhymed. Yay!
1. I notice there is discrimination against men when it comes to babysitting - people tend to feel more comfortable with female babysitters. I guess its because of our culture which emphasizes a woman's role as the mother/caregiver, etc.
2. Huffington Post has a "women" tab, where you click for women-related columns. I don't like that, because it implies that the rest of the site is meant for the norm, ie, men. Women, who are not the norm, are not the target audience of the main site, but rather, are relegated to their own section. I hate it when Simone de Beauvoir is proved right - I am way too jealous of her having had Jean Paul Sartre as a lover. I would not take issue with a men section and a women section, implying a gender-neutral audience for the main site, with designated gender specific sections for each gender. To make it even more insulting, the "women" section consists of "healthy living" - usually code for weight loss - and "parents", which not only puts women in a box, but also puts men in one by denying them the right to be interested in said topics , implying that having a love of parenting and health is somehow unmanly. (I don't know about y'all, but I like my men organic.)*
3. Now time for some breast milk: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F10%2F31%2FBA3C1LMVSN.DTL&type=health (Breast milk cocktails for Halloween? That's a little too kinky for my taste.)
4. The picture in the right-hand corner kind of sums up a lot of my critique of Western society.
5. I call this the "magic happy blog" - I don't read it regularly, but it came up in conversation the other day and it occurred to me that a romance blog about a mormon couple might be slightly gender related: http://writingrainbows.blogspot.com/p/hes-prep-im-hippie-were-perfect-for.html
6. I am not posting the link to the South Park episode "Broadway Bro Down", but if you like South Park, Broadway, or blow jobs, you should watch it.
* I have no idea what I mean by that, but I think it would be something funny to say while wearing a cowboy hat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)