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.
Definitely agree on the importance of life liberation. I take that as a given, but I guess that's apparently not the case for everyone...?
ReplyDeleteBut the main point is that they're not mutually exclusive. Or rather, they are, but in the other direction: non-liberation in ritual areas in some very real ways precludes liberation in the others...but the reverse is not true.
It's quite unfortunate that in the egalitarian minyan the women were not participating because they were watching the kids. But they could have been participating *in theory* with the husbands watching the kids if they managed to absorb the principles of life egalitarianism.
In a non-egalitarian setting, however, that would have been simply impossible. The women have to be watching the kids because the men are needed to leyn, lead davening, ensure there is a minyan so Chaim can say kaddish, etc. They don't even have the option of switching places. There is a technical ritual barrier to a major aspect of life egalitarianism enforced by ritual non-egalitarianism.
(The only time this isn't true is on Shabbat morning from Yishtabach on in a large minyan/shul. Any other time - Shabbat psukei d'zimrah for the kaddish d'rabanan, weekday minyanim, Shabbat mincha - essentially any other time, a large proportion of shuls will struggle for a minyan, and if Chaim's going to say kaddish, then all the community wives are going to have to watch the kids so their husbands can go to shul.
I'm not saying ritual egalitarianism takes absolute priority over life egalitarianism. In fact the opposite (and I really apologize for the rhetorical tactic I'm about to employ). To me, it's precisely the opposite. If the price of maintaining ritual non-egalitarianism is enforced life non-egalitarianism, even if it's only in a defined number of realms, that price is too high. I am not willing to maintain sacrifice life liberation so that I can maintain ritual non-liberation. And I think that in a Jewishly active context, that is precisely the price.)
Ok, don't worry, I'm done now :)
Time for Shabbat for me!
I disagree. I do not think that "non-liberation in ritual areas in some very real ways precludes liberation in the others". First of all, even if men are needed to lein, etc., the fact that women would have more pressure to watch kids during shul time does not necessarily translate into women having more pressure to watch kids during non-shul time, so at most, it is precluding other sphere of equality during those few hours a week.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, a) there are families where men take the children to shul and are expected to watch them, or the kids are split in half, with one parent taking a few kids each, and then either some stay home with the mother or both parents go to shul but each is responsible for looking after certain kids/keeping certain kids on their side of the mechitza, or both parents go to shul but take equal responsibility for their kids c) there are families where they go to an Orthodox minyan, but the man will step out to take care of the kids at times, giving the woman time to daven, and the woman will do the same for him. They will divide their time about evenly -after all, women are obligated to daven, halachikly (at least according to ashkenazim. For sefardim they may only be chayavot for the basic "shevach-bakasha-hodaa" format, which does not necessarily mean a full davening, but can be a three-sentence text one makes up on one's own.)
Shavua tov! I have to run, but I will only raise one quick point, which you probably are already aware of: the fact that women are in fact obligated to daven (as you're right, Ashkenazim believe and the Mishna Berura states explicitly) definitely seems to do away with the argument that the reason they can't lead certain parts of davening is because only one who is obligated in a mitzvah can fulfill the obligations of others, like kedusha or barechu.
ReplyDeleteShavua tov!
Another quick thought: (A) I'm never getting the kids up and ready for school because I have to be at shul, and (B) I'm probably not making dinner at night either because I have to be at shul. In many communities, if I can be, I have to be because that's just how the numbers work. But yeah, I'll put the kids to bed, sure. And I'll have fun with them on Sunday afternoon, and after dinner. Maybe that's good enough.
ReplyDelete1. I still think you can't generalize - I know charedi families where man are the primary caretakers, despite minyan obligations 2. The minute you bring communities into the equation, you are discussing sociology surrounding the ritual, but the fact that the sociology exists that way now doesn't mean it has to in the future 2. You are listing potential difficulties stemming from ritual inequality, but all I am saying is that "difficulty" is different from "impossibility", and that one type of equality without the other is possible. Shavua tov.
ReplyDelete