Earlier this year, the UN, bowing to pressure in the form of an ammendment proposed by Benin, decided to remove sexual orientation from the list of criteria that constitutes a crime of discrimination in case of execution. In other words, the UN decided that for gay people to be murdered for being gay is OK - or at the very least, not worthy of specific UN condemnation.
Fastforward a bit, and a Ugandan paper publishes a list of gay Ugandans - with adresses and photographs. During this time, a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death is pending in the Ugandan government - coincidentally, this law was introduced shortly after a visit by American missionaries who preached about how to turn gay people straight, condemned the gay rights movement as "an evil institution" meant to destroy marriage, and accused gay men of anally raping teenage boys. Did I mention that the tag in the magazine article that featured those photos read "Hang them'? Well, that becomes a bit more relevant given that today David Kato, one of the gay men from that article, lies dead, beaten to death with a hammer.
First of all, this crime shows that gay rights is a global human rights issue. Second of all, I don't get the missionaries: You fly to a foreign country to teach about Jesus, and the one message you choose to focus on is not "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Turn the other cheek", but - hate gay people. No, not kill - that is merely implied. Of course, both the magazine and the missionary group have already disclaimed any responsibility for the murder.
Quite frankly, if stopping homosexuality matters to you enough that you are willing to travel across the globe to do it (or rather, to stop others from doing it), then I think you probably have major issues. The two possibilities that pop to mind (like a cherry?) are: 1. You can not control your own sex life, and this manifests itself in a need to control the sex lives of others.** 2. You are homosexual and hate yourself for it because of your religious beliefs, and the need to expunge homosexuality from others is a displaced urge to expunge your own sexual preferences. I would like to point out that, given the biological and uncontrollable nature of sexual urges (as opposed to actions, which are controllable), these two theories complement each other, since someone who is homosexual against his will may feel he does not have control over his own sexuality.
Even more interesting, however, is that many in Uganda feel that homosexuality is a Western import, and an immoral one at that. The fight against homosexuality in Ugandan society is reflective of a backlash against globalization and Western cultural imperialism - a backlash that theoretically, as a liberal, I should support. Indeed, in an African country whose official language is English, it is not hard to understand why one would feel resentful of the cultural theft that is one of colonialism's more lasting legacies.
However, given that homosexual orientation occurs not only across the human species, but in other specieis as well***, it is most likely a natural biological phenomena, not the result of any cultural imports - especially given Western society's own homophobic past (and present). Furthermore, this specific political campaign against gay people seems to be a very expression of the culutral imperialism it is meant to combat, having been imported by American missionaries.
Africa - or at least, West-Central Africa - has a long tradition of more flexible sexual identities and tolerance of homosexuality, which was then upset by the imposition of Christianity by European missionaries and by the Western values that came across the ocean with the colonizers. Thus, Antonio/Victoria, a slave from Benin who had the body of a man but worked as a female prostitute in Portugal, was confused as to why he was hauled up in front of Inquisition authority. Antonio explained that he was a woman, but when a physical examination by the Inquisition revealed normal male genitals, he was sentenced to the king's galleys - showing that even in phallocentric Western culture, there were times when having a phallus could be a detriment. In light of Antonio's story, it is ironic that Benin was the country that proposed excluding homosexuality from the list of protected categories when it comes to discriminatory executions. James H. Sweet, who brings the above story in his book, "Recreating Africa" (p. 53), goes on to say (p. 54) that in Central Africa, especially Angola and Congo, there were male transvestites who engaged in sodomy, who were known as jinbandaas. Not only was this behavior not considered negative, but jinbandaas (quimbandas) played an important role in many Angolan societies, and may have been entrusted with religious powers.
Of course, Uganda is in Eastern Africa, not West-Central. However, the details of Sweet's book, as well as other sources, ascribe a less rigid gender/sexual dichotomy in many African societies than in Western ones - meaning, that a more accurate rebellion against Western culture might actually be to accept homosexuals.
In general, sexual issues have become a popular way to rebel against Western cultural hegemony as a result of colonialism and globalization, and is why for some - but not all - women, the decision to wear a hijab may be as political as it is religious. Of course, it is dangerous to reduce hijab-wearing to a counter-Western statement, since for many women it is not, but rather a deep profesison of religious faith - many women wear hijab, and each has her own reasons. Furthermore, it is important to not deligitimize the reaction against Western culture - as long as this reaction is peaceful and does not involve human rights violations, there is no reason to oppose it. It is also hard to distinguish between an action done for political reasons, and a religious establishments appropriating political languge in order to convince a segment of society to engage in a certain action. This quandary applies to both the Uganda and the hijab situations - not that they are morally comparable, since one involves killing people and the other involves a peaceful expression of one's beliefs.
I hope to read "The Politics of Piety" by Saba Mahmood, which examines women's roles in the Islamic Revival movement in Egypt, to understand more about the complicated relationship between politics and religion for Muslim women in Egypt. I wonder if I will find any parallels with the experiences of Orthodox Jewish women - though that IS NOT my motivation for reading the book - I am not THAT ethnocentric.
* This is part of why I view the UN as an organization that is not morally credible, and why I do not put any stock in their criticism of Israel. I believe that the UN has "editorial bias" in which situations it chooses to comment on and not to comment on, and to what extent. This bias is one against Israel, at the expense of more serious human rights violations elsewhere. That is not to say I think Israel is perfect, rather, that I think the morality or immorality of Israel's actions is in no way connected to or reflected in the UN's comments about those actions.
** Lives of Others - great movie.
*** A quick Wikipedia check reveals cheetahs, dolphins and caribou - oh my!
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
And Never The Twain Shall Meet?
I recently signed up to be on the e-mail list for a group called Keshet (www.keshetonline.org), a Jewish GLBTQ group based in Boston. The group seems good, based on their e-newsletter: They are sponsoring various gay-straight alliances throughout the nation, a cabaret in Massachusetts, GLBTQ birthright (in co-operation with Nehirim), and, most excitingly in my mind: A writing contest! (http://keshetonline.org/news/index.php/2010/12/09/announcing-keshet%E2%80%99s-jewish-childrens-book-writing-contest/)
There is one part of the newsletter however, that gave me pause: Dvar Torahs that reclaim "a queer seat at the table". I fully believe in reclaiming religious texts - whether from a feminist, GLBTQ, or other framework.
I think however, it is important to recognize reclamations as reclamations. The way I see it, a major hashkafic difference between Orthodox and other streams of Judaism pends on textual interpretation and textual authority. This religious difference mirrors two streams of thought in critical text study: The first, which has fallen out of vogue, maintains that the author's intent "matters", while the second discounts authorial intent, and is all about what can be read into the text, or how the text can be deconstructed. Context may matter for deconstructing discourse, but that is its limit.
I would argue that more "liberal" streams of Judaism have a more postmodern approach: Each interpretation of the text is equally valid, regardless of authorial intent. My interpretation is as valid as Rashi's, because the meaning of the text changes - that is its beauty, and what makes Torah a tree of life. (Just as evolution is what makes the Constitution "a living document" -lihavdil.)
The other position is that, while my own interpretations may be nice, it is the rabbis of previous generations who have the authority to interpret text officially, and my interpretation has no value beyond the personal meaning I find in it. Furthermore, if it contradicts the authorized interpretation or authorial intent at all, it must be "wrong".
There is a third, more "middle of the road" (centrist as Obama's SOU?) path: Modern interpretations are valid. All can have personal truth for the person who creates them, and should be used to enrich the religious experiences of those who find them meaningful. They should be used however, to complement, but not replace, the authorized interpretation.
These interpretations become problematic only if they contradict the plain meaning of Torah verses. If they contradict mainstream rabbinic opinion however, then the contradiction must be acknowledged, and each opinion recognized as valid, but in different ways. The authority that stems from tradition must be stressed, and while one can acknowledge anti-halachik interpretations of a an issue, one must still advocate halachik practice, accepting the cognitive dissonance derived from such an approach - a dissonance inherent in the beauty and complexity of Modern Orthodoxy.
The above streams are referring to institutional and pedagogical approaches. On a personal level, an Orthodox Jew may indeed choose to reject an Orthodox approach to a certain issue - I don't think it makes them less Orthodox, if they accept the Orthodox approach in general, and are Orthodox in practice.* But I do think it makes an institution or educator less Orthodox to teach a modern view to the exclusion of ancient sources, or to teaches the content of ancient sources while discounting their validity in favor of a modern approach.
I do not expect Keshet to adhere to a Modern Orthodox viewpoint, but the inclusion of the Dvar Torahs reminded me of a general critique I have of certain groups within certain denominations of Judaism: The modern, liberal interpretation of the text is given primacy over the traditional sources. I believe each should be at least equally weighted, though on an individual level, each person may choose the one they find more meaningful, because, there is something to be said for the weight of tradition - not even religiously per se, but rather, historically and culturally.
Judaism is a religion that very much values tradition: On a certain level, halacha has authority because generations of Jews have imbued it with authority. While this may seem circular, it is important to acknowledge that part of halacha's power is connecting to a community of current and past generations who have followed halacha. I believe that the communal power of halacha is recognized in the Torah, where many laws are given "because you were slaves in Egypt" - ie, as a way of connecting to the enslavement experience of one's ancestors, and where the entire nation must be present at Har Sinay, where it is the community's acceptance of the Law that binds them to it.** It is precisely because Judaism is such a communal religion that stigmatizing GLBTQ people as a community can be so devastating to them religiously, and sever their connection to Judaism. (If you do not believe me, see the ex-Chassid in "Trembling Before God".)
I guess this is just an example of how gender/GLBTQ issues often are the loci at which major hashkafic issues manifest themselves: In this case, the issue is textual authority and interpretation, but it is also a bigger issue - Do we fit the Torah into our modern lifestyle, do we fit our modern outlook into the Torah, or do we try to juggle each realm separately, and never the twain shall meet?
* Of course, I object to the very concept of judging how "Orthodox" a person is, since it violates the Pirkey Avot maxim "Do not judge a person until you come to his place" - as does judging a person's religiosity.
** This is amplified in the story of the oven of achsenay, where Rabbi Eliezer has the right ruling according to the letter of the law - a voice comes down from heaven and says so, but the rabbinic majority overules Rabbi E anyway, saying "It is not in the heavens" ie, when God gave the Torah, He imbued the rabbis with the authority to interpret the Torah the way that they wished, and exegesis and halachik rulings were passed out of God's hands and into the hands of God. In the story, God's response is to laugh, saying "My children have won", after which God does not prevent the rabbinic quorum from overuling and excommunicating Rabbi E. Interestingly, this story is often used for an ultra-conservative interpretation: The authority of traditional rabbinic authority stems from God, and they must be followed no matter what, because even if they are "wrong", they are "right", in that they were given authority to be obeyed even if they are wrong or make mistakes. On the other hand, this story can be interpreted in a very liberal way: Torah interpretation is in the hands of people and even if it is "wrong" and goes against the traditional meaning of the text, that is ok, because God gave the Jews the permission/authority to form their own interpretations, and even if those interpretations go against God's opinion, they are still valid! Either way, it is very empowering to people - the question is, which people.
There is one part of the newsletter however, that gave me pause: Dvar Torahs that reclaim "a queer seat at the table". I fully believe in reclaiming religious texts - whether from a feminist, GLBTQ, or other framework.
I think however, it is important to recognize reclamations as reclamations. The way I see it, a major hashkafic difference between Orthodox and other streams of Judaism pends on textual interpretation and textual authority. This religious difference mirrors two streams of thought in critical text study: The first, which has fallen out of vogue, maintains that the author's intent "matters", while the second discounts authorial intent, and is all about what can be read into the text, or how the text can be deconstructed. Context may matter for deconstructing discourse, but that is its limit.
I would argue that more "liberal" streams of Judaism have a more postmodern approach: Each interpretation of the text is equally valid, regardless of authorial intent. My interpretation is as valid as Rashi's, because the meaning of the text changes - that is its beauty, and what makes Torah a tree of life. (Just as evolution is what makes the Constitution "a living document" -lihavdil.)
The other position is that, while my own interpretations may be nice, it is the rabbis of previous generations who have the authority to interpret text officially, and my interpretation has no value beyond the personal meaning I find in it. Furthermore, if it contradicts the authorized interpretation or authorial intent at all, it must be "wrong".
There is a third, more "middle of the road" (centrist as Obama's SOU?) path: Modern interpretations are valid. All can have personal truth for the person who creates them, and should be used to enrich the religious experiences of those who find them meaningful. They should be used however, to complement, but not replace, the authorized interpretation.
These interpretations become problematic only if they contradict the plain meaning of Torah verses. If they contradict mainstream rabbinic opinion however, then the contradiction must be acknowledged, and each opinion recognized as valid, but in different ways. The authority that stems from tradition must be stressed, and while one can acknowledge anti-halachik interpretations of a an issue, one must still advocate halachik practice, accepting the cognitive dissonance derived from such an approach - a dissonance inherent in the beauty and complexity of Modern Orthodoxy.
The above streams are referring to institutional and pedagogical approaches. On a personal level, an Orthodox Jew may indeed choose to reject an Orthodox approach to a certain issue - I don't think it makes them less Orthodox, if they accept the Orthodox approach in general, and are Orthodox in practice.* But I do think it makes an institution or educator less Orthodox to teach a modern view to the exclusion of ancient sources, or to teaches the content of ancient sources while discounting their validity in favor of a modern approach.
I do not expect Keshet to adhere to a Modern Orthodox viewpoint, but the inclusion of the Dvar Torahs reminded me of a general critique I have of certain groups within certain denominations of Judaism: The modern, liberal interpretation of the text is given primacy over the traditional sources. I believe each should be at least equally weighted, though on an individual level, each person may choose the one they find more meaningful, because, there is something to be said for the weight of tradition - not even religiously per se, but rather, historically and culturally.
Judaism is a religion that very much values tradition: On a certain level, halacha has authority because generations of Jews have imbued it with authority. While this may seem circular, it is important to acknowledge that part of halacha's power is connecting to a community of current and past generations who have followed halacha. I believe that the communal power of halacha is recognized in the Torah, where many laws are given "because you were slaves in Egypt" - ie, as a way of connecting to the enslavement experience of one's ancestors, and where the entire nation must be present at Har Sinay, where it is the community's acceptance of the Law that binds them to it.** It is precisely because Judaism is such a communal religion that stigmatizing GLBTQ people as a community can be so devastating to them religiously, and sever their connection to Judaism. (If you do not believe me, see the ex-Chassid in "Trembling Before God".)
I guess this is just an example of how gender/GLBTQ issues often are the loci at which major hashkafic issues manifest themselves: In this case, the issue is textual authority and interpretation, but it is also a bigger issue - Do we fit the Torah into our modern lifestyle, do we fit our modern outlook into the Torah, or do we try to juggle each realm separately, and never the twain shall meet?
* Of course, I object to the very concept of judging how "Orthodox" a person is, since it violates the Pirkey Avot maxim "Do not judge a person until you come to his place" - as does judging a person's religiosity.
** This is amplified in the story of the oven of achsenay, where Rabbi Eliezer has the right ruling according to the letter of the law - a voice comes down from heaven and says so, but the rabbinic majority overules Rabbi E anyway, saying "It is not in the heavens" ie, when God gave the Torah, He imbued the rabbis with the authority to interpret the Torah the way that they wished, and exegesis and halachik rulings were passed out of God's hands and into the hands of God. In the story, God's response is to laugh, saying "My children have won", after which God does not prevent the rabbinic quorum from overuling and excommunicating Rabbi E. Interestingly, this story is often used for an ultra-conservative interpretation: The authority of traditional rabbinic authority stems from God, and they must be followed no matter what, because even if they are "wrong", they are "right", in that they were given authority to be obeyed even if they are wrong or make mistakes. On the other hand, this story can be interpreted in a very liberal way: Torah interpretation is in the hands of people and even if it is "wrong" and goes against the traditional meaning of the text, that is ok, because God gave the Jews the permission/authority to form their own interpretations, and even if those interpretations go against God's opinion, they are still valid! Either way, it is very empowering to people - the question is, which people.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Note on Terms
There are two main terms that may be unfamiliar to readers:
1. halakha -Jewish law
2. hashkafa -theology (for lack of a better term)
There are two more terms that are important, but complicated:
1. The Gay Rights Movement
2. Feminism/The Feminist Movement
Both of these terms encompass such diversity, that to reduce them to one term, "The" gay rights movement or feminist movement, is unfair, and implies at monolith that does not in fact exist. Many would argue there is no gay rights movement or feminist movement, but rather a series of gay rights/feminist movements, many of which have partial overlap in their sets of goals or their methods of agitation. In reality, I should say "certain streams within the Feminist Movement" or "certain elements within the Gay Rights Movement". When writing however, this gets redundant. Therefore, I may at times critique "the gay rights movement" or "feminism". In those times, I am only critiquing the elements of the movement to which the critique applies, not the entire movement as such. I am using a whole as a stand-in for the part - sort of the opposite of synecdoche.
I apologize in advance to any I may confuse or offend. I consider myself a part of both of these movements, and my critique is sharp precisely because I care. As children of Jewish mothers* can tell you, criticisim is a form of love.
* No, I do not actually believe in the stereotype, but it is fun to play with.
1. halakha -Jewish law
2. hashkafa -theology (for lack of a better term)
There are two more terms that are important, but complicated:
1. The Gay Rights Movement
2. Feminism/The Feminist Movement
Both of these terms encompass such diversity, that to reduce them to one term, "The" gay rights movement or feminist movement, is unfair, and implies at monolith that does not in fact exist. Many would argue there is no gay rights movement or feminist movement, but rather a series of gay rights/feminist movements, many of which have partial overlap in their sets of goals or their methods of agitation. In reality, I should say "certain streams within the Feminist Movement" or "certain elements within the Gay Rights Movement". When writing however, this gets redundant. Therefore, I may at times critique "the gay rights movement" or "feminism". In those times, I am only critiquing the elements of the movement to which the critique applies, not the entire movement as such. I am using a whole as a stand-in for the part - sort of the opposite of synecdoche.
I apologize in advance to any I may confuse or offend. I consider myself a part of both of these movements, and my critique is sharp precisely because I care. As children of Jewish mothers* can tell you, criticisim is a form of love.
* No, I do not actually believe in the stereotype, but it is fun to play with.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Biological Determinism and the Gay Rights Movement
One of the arguments advanced by the gay rights movement is that homosexuality is biologically pre-determined. This argument bothers me for a few reasons:
1. It implies that being homosexual is wrong. If it is right, then it does not matter whether or not it is biologically determined, since it would be as valid a choice as straightness.
2. This argument has an element of biological determinism in it: You are born attracted to member of the same sex, therefore you can not help but have sex with them. The fact is however, that people have freedom of choice and can overcome their biology. Sexual orientation is pre-determined, but sexual behavior is not: Both gay and straight men and women in the Catholic Church have chosen to lead lives of celibacy for religious reasons, and many, though not all, have succeeded. Their sexuality did not predetermine their actions.*
Recent studies show that pedophilia, like homo and heterosexuality, is a biologically predetermined sexual orientation. Yet we expect pedophiles to overcome their biologically instilled sexual desires, and to avoid tempting situations, because we value our children's safety over pedophiles' sexual happiness.
Of course, because sex is such a basic need, refraining from sex - no matter what one's orientation is - can be physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially destructive. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair that we as a society demmand such a sacrifice from pedophiles - I believe the answer is yes, because pedophilia can be so harmful to children, but I still think it is a question worth pondering.
3. The case of pedophilia is different, because it is (in my opinion and that of most of society) immoral, whereas homosexuality is not. Which brings me back to my first point. At the same time, the biological determinism makes this argument insulting to gay people on another level - it feeds into popular cultural motifs of gay people as being especially unable to control their sexual desires, which is why there was such a climate of fear about molestation surrounding the American Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
4. My issues with the bioligical determinism inherent in this argument are great, because I believe it is a slippery slope: As we discover that more and more of our behavior is influenced by genetics, I can envision a day in which a murderer gets away with it, because his lawyer shows results of a DNA test that verify the murderer was pre-disposed to murder (and indeed, some people are born more genetically predisposed to violence). This would be a world in which no individual is responsible for her or his actions - and it is why I advocate setting strict standards for which behavior is and is not acceptable based not on biology, but on morality. As I said previously, since I do not qualify homosexuality as immoral, I do not view this change in criteria as a threat to gay rights - the question is why the gay rights movement views it as such.
5. I do believe that sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined. But the question I would ask of the Torah regarding its ban on male anal sex is not why it mandates a biologically impossible behavior, but rather, why it mandates a behavior that, while possible, is extremely difficult, not only biologically, but also emotionally, socially, psychologically, and spirituality - a behavior that deprives people of a basic human need, a need that would not violate morality.
I do not have an answer to this question, and I believe it is an urgent question for millions of people. I am simply advocating for a reframing of the way the question is asked, one that focuses less on biology and more on morality, and the seeming immorality of asking people to give up on such an essential human pleasure.
*Yes, many within the clergy did fail, and many molested children. But the ones who succeeded are the ones who do not make the headlines - and they constitute the majority.
1. It implies that being homosexual is wrong. If it is right, then it does not matter whether or not it is biologically determined, since it would be as valid a choice as straightness.
2. This argument has an element of biological determinism in it: You are born attracted to member of the same sex, therefore you can not help but have sex with them. The fact is however, that people have freedom of choice and can overcome their biology. Sexual orientation is pre-determined, but sexual behavior is not: Both gay and straight men and women in the Catholic Church have chosen to lead lives of celibacy for religious reasons, and many, though not all, have succeeded. Their sexuality did not predetermine their actions.*
Recent studies show that pedophilia, like homo and heterosexuality, is a biologically predetermined sexual orientation. Yet we expect pedophiles to overcome their biologically instilled sexual desires, and to avoid tempting situations, because we value our children's safety over pedophiles' sexual happiness.
Of course, because sex is such a basic need, refraining from sex - no matter what one's orientation is - can be physically, psychologically, emotionally and socially destructive. This raises the question of whether or not it is fair that we as a society demmand such a sacrifice from pedophiles - I believe the answer is yes, because pedophilia can be so harmful to children, but I still think it is a question worth pondering.
3. The case of pedophilia is different, because it is (in my opinion and that of most of society) immoral, whereas homosexuality is not. Which brings me back to my first point. At the same time, the biological determinism makes this argument insulting to gay people on another level - it feeds into popular cultural motifs of gay people as being especially unable to control their sexual desires, which is why there was such a climate of fear about molestation surrounding the American Army's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
4. My issues with the bioligical determinism inherent in this argument are great, because I believe it is a slippery slope: As we discover that more and more of our behavior is influenced by genetics, I can envision a day in which a murderer gets away with it, because his lawyer shows results of a DNA test that verify the murderer was pre-disposed to murder (and indeed, some people are born more genetically predisposed to violence). This would be a world in which no individual is responsible for her or his actions - and it is why I advocate setting strict standards for which behavior is and is not acceptable based not on biology, but on morality. As I said previously, since I do not qualify homosexuality as immoral, I do not view this change in criteria as a threat to gay rights - the question is why the gay rights movement views it as such.
5. I do believe that sexual orientation is biologically pre-determined. But the question I would ask of the Torah regarding its ban on male anal sex is not why it mandates a biologically impossible behavior, but rather, why it mandates a behavior that, while possible, is extremely difficult, not only biologically, but also emotionally, socially, psychologically, and spirituality - a behavior that deprives people of a basic human need, a need that would not violate morality.
I do not have an answer to this question, and I believe it is an urgent question for millions of people. I am simply advocating for a reframing of the way the question is asked, one that focuses less on biology and more on morality, and the seeming immorality of asking people to give up on such an essential human pleasure.
*Yes, many within the clergy did fail, and many molested children. But the ones who succeeded are the ones who do not make the headlines - and they constitute the majority.
Why is Gender So Important, Anyway?
I have often been asked by I am so focused on gender issues. My answer is simple: 1. Gender issues are one of the foundations of a society 2. Gender issues tend to be a locus where larger hashkafic/halachic issues within Judaism manifest themselves.
1. Gender is a basic foundation of our society. We live our lives in gendered bodies: From birth, we are told we are a "boy" or a "girl", and based on which category we find ourselves in, we will be given a different set of expectations, and related to in different ways by individuals and by our society.
Imagine a world in which sex and gender were completely dissociated: You were born with a male or a female body, and there was a gender spectrum, fro R to T. These gender-poles were not associated with body-type at all. You could be a female with a T gender: agressive, sport-loving, and emotionally non-demonstrative - and it would be completely acceptable. This world would be completely different from the world that we know - and much easier for transexuals.
Related to gender is the issue of family: Because sex is a basic human need, the social rules governing sexual relationships are an important component of society. Marx understood the family unit to be an essential element of capitalism that would become null and void under the Communist model of free property, but most Communist societies found the family unit too entrenched to be destroyed. The family unit also shapes people's childhoods, since they usually spend it in their family unit. The psychological importance of childhood extends into adulthood and continues throughout one's life. Aldous Huxley understood the importance of sex and family units to our current society, which is why the revolution of sex and family was a basic foundation of the new society portrayed in "Brave New World".
As a feminist, I also believe that patriarchy is one of the foundations of Western society, and any attack on the patriarchy threatens that society as a whole. This is why attacks on sexual morales and gender norms have been met with such vehemence throughout Western history, and why such a concentrated effort has been made to protect the family unit and women's roles within the gender heirarchy.
2. It is precisely because of the importance of gender issues to any society - especially Western society - that gender and sexuality become the loci in which many hashkafic and halachik issues play themselves out: How to confront and relate to modernity, the extent of halachik flexibility, the extent of rabbinic authority and the role of traditional texts, what are "Jewish values" - all of these issues come into play, making gender and sexuality important test cases and thought experiments for Modern Orthodox Judaism.
Writing this post fills me with a desire to re-read Tamar Ross's "Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism". It is a brilliant explanation of the complex challenge that feminism poses for Orthodox Judaism, as well as an exploration of how this challenge might be met. It has been branded as heresy by some, but I believe that even those who disagree with it will benefit from the reading.
1. Gender is a basic foundation of our society. We live our lives in gendered bodies: From birth, we are told we are a "boy" or a "girl", and based on which category we find ourselves in, we will be given a different set of expectations, and related to in different ways by individuals and by our society.
Imagine a world in which sex and gender were completely dissociated: You were born with a male or a female body, and there was a gender spectrum, fro R to T. These gender-poles were not associated with body-type at all. You could be a female with a T gender: agressive, sport-loving, and emotionally non-demonstrative - and it would be completely acceptable. This world would be completely different from the world that we know - and much easier for transexuals.
Related to gender is the issue of family: Because sex is a basic human need, the social rules governing sexual relationships are an important component of society. Marx understood the family unit to be an essential element of capitalism that would become null and void under the Communist model of free property, but most Communist societies found the family unit too entrenched to be destroyed. The family unit also shapes people's childhoods, since they usually spend it in their family unit. The psychological importance of childhood extends into adulthood and continues throughout one's life. Aldous Huxley understood the importance of sex and family units to our current society, which is why the revolution of sex and family was a basic foundation of the new society portrayed in "Brave New World".
As a feminist, I also believe that patriarchy is one of the foundations of Western society, and any attack on the patriarchy threatens that society as a whole. This is why attacks on sexual morales and gender norms have been met with such vehemence throughout Western history, and why such a concentrated effort has been made to protect the family unit and women's roles within the gender heirarchy.
2. It is precisely because of the importance of gender issues to any society - especially Western society - that gender and sexuality become the loci in which many hashkafic and halachik issues play themselves out: How to confront and relate to modernity, the extent of halachik flexibility, the extent of rabbinic authority and the role of traditional texts, what are "Jewish values" - all of these issues come into play, making gender and sexuality important test cases and thought experiments for Modern Orthodox Judaism.
Writing this post fills me with a desire to re-read Tamar Ross's "Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism". It is a brilliant explanation of the complex challenge that feminism poses for Orthodox Judaism, as well as an exploration of how this challenge might be met. It has been branded as heresy by some, but I believe that even those who disagree with it will benefit from the reading.
The Ant-Bra Rant
Easy access is not the only reason not to wear bras.* Recent preliminary findings show that there may be a link between wearing a bra on a regular basis and an increase in chances of getting breast-cancer. This evidence is explored in the book, "Dressed To Kill" by Sydney Ross Singer and Sonja Grismaijer - which I have not read. While the evidence is not conclusive, the bra industry is so big, that I do not take the FDA's lack of concern as proof of bras' harmlesness, since the FDA is very much under the thumb of corporate influence.
Interestingly, the study does not draw a distininction between different types of bras, but intuitively, it makes sense that more comfortable bras, such as sports-bras or plain cotton underwires (granny bras), are less harmful than fashionable bras such as push-ups and lace monstrocities. The study pointed out tightness as a major factor for breast-harming, and said that while untested, super-tight clothing might also be suspect - which puts a new spin on tzniut.
Breast pain and bra-wearing have been definitevely linked, though again, these studies fail to distinguish between different types of bras, and the granny-bra/lacey-bra dichotomy could prove crucial.
In any event, all of these studies call into question while we as a society advocate wearing bras, and the answer is simple: To conform to our conception of female beauty, a conception that is reinforced by the media. Different societies have different ideals of what a beautiful pair of breasts should look like, though the Western society ideal is spreading thanks to globalization. The point is, that the bra-requiring ideal of breast beauty is not objective or universal, and should not be treated as such.
What is universal, is a desire for symmetry in a female, since symetry predicts fertility - yet ironically, in the West we have adopted an ideal of beauty so skinny, that it probably lessens fertility.
So ladies, let loose: I challenge you to go without a bra for a day and see how it feels. The idea may seem scary at first, but just think about how sexy Giselle Bundchen is in a Victoria's Secret bra - now think how much sexier she is without the bra!
If you want to be free but subtle, I recommend layering: a sweater, and a shawl over a shirt/dress, or a tank-top/tee-shirt over it work pretty well.
Turns out those bra-burners might have been right after all.
* Lovely date moment: "You don't wear bras - that's so cool!" Me (I thought this but was too polite to say it): "I don't wear bras because I'm a feminist you ****!" Clearly, this was an ill-fated romance.
Interestingly, the study does not draw a distininction between different types of bras, but intuitively, it makes sense that more comfortable bras, such as sports-bras or plain cotton underwires (granny bras), are less harmful than fashionable bras such as push-ups and lace monstrocities. The study pointed out tightness as a major factor for breast-harming, and said that while untested, super-tight clothing might also be suspect - which puts a new spin on tzniut.
Breast pain and bra-wearing have been definitevely linked, though again, these studies fail to distinguish between different types of bras, and the granny-bra/lacey-bra dichotomy could prove crucial.
In any event, all of these studies call into question while we as a society advocate wearing bras, and the answer is simple: To conform to our conception of female beauty, a conception that is reinforced by the media. Different societies have different ideals of what a beautiful pair of breasts should look like, though the Western society ideal is spreading thanks to globalization. The point is, that the bra-requiring ideal of breast beauty is not objective or universal, and should not be treated as such.
What is universal, is a desire for symmetry in a female, since symetry predicts fertility - yet ironically, in the West we have adopted an ideal of beauty so skinny, that it probably lessens fertility.
So ladies, let loose: I challenge you to go without a bra for a day and see how it feels. The idea may seem scary at first, but just think about how sexy Giselle Bundchen is in a Victoria's Secret bra - now think how much sexier she is without the bra!
If you want to be free but subtle, I recommend layering: a sweater, and a shawl over a shirt/dress, or a tank-top/tee-shirt over it work pretty well.
Turns out those bra-burners might have been right after all.
* Lovely date moment: "You don't wear bras - that's so cool!" Me (I thought this but was too polite to say it): "I don't wear bras because I'm a feminist you ****!" Clearly, this was an ill-fated romance.
Nidah, Feminism, and The Menstrual Taboo of (Post-)Modern Society
I have recently been watching a Mechon Hadar series on Nidah, taught by Rabbi Ethan Tucker*. One of the themes that keeps popping up, is that in antiquity, men knew when women had their periods. Furthermore, in pre-diaspora Jewish society, not only did people know when one had her period or irregular bleeding, they also knew when different men had different types of seminal emissions, which, like female bleeding, require immersion in a mikvah before one can engage in taharah.
I find this very interesting. The typical (post)modern narrative of Nidah goes as follows: Those primitive people had menstrual taboos. I would like to posit however, that there was not a taboo specifically around menstruating women in ancient Israelite society, rather; there was a taboo about a variety of bodily fluids from both males and females, primarily fluids related to sex. Two possible theories for this taboo are: 1. Judaism is a religion of life, the bodily fluids that have taboos associated with them are all loss of potential life. That contact with a corpse or even in some cases, dead insects, constitutes tumah, is evidence for the loss-of-life=tumah theory. 2. A recognition of the sexual nature of said substances, which responds by forcing the individual to abstain from taharah in order to have time to ponder their sexuality. Sex can be a distraction from focusing on God, but people can't not think about sex, so simply create time-spaces for each type of thought: thoughts about God, and thoughts about sex. This is analogous to two things: 1. Giving the metzorah time to ponder their actions by sending them outside the camp. The metzorah too, is tameh and must immerse to become tahor 2. Shabbat, which** is about creating a (sanctified) space within time. The second theory is much more interesting in light of idol worship cults that used sex in the sanctuary, whereas Judaism is drawing a clear geographic and space boundary within the two (the tameh is not allowed within certain geographic places deemed holy, and then there is the time-space of abstention from holy activity), while emphasizing the holiness of sex within the home, the mikdash meat, and of course, because marriage is kidushin, which comes from the same root as the word "kadosh"***. So there is the paradox of sex as holy and uplifting - but only within the home, and to be separated from places of worship, whereas you would expect something holy and uplifting to be encouraged in places of worship.
Anyhow, back to Niddah: The very publicity of one's Niddah status that the rules of Niddah necessitated during the times of the temple, mean that periods can not have been taboo. The entire concept of taboo is something one can not talk about, something shameful. But in the times of the temple, periods and seminal emissions were public knowledge, openly talked about, and because everyone knew when you had your period or when you had seminal emissions, there could not have been shame associated with it - because just like your neighbor knows what happened to you last night, you know what happened to your neighbor last week. Usually, shame comes from fear of disclosure, because your behavior is considered not normal - but if everyone does something, or has a certain bodily state, and everyone knows about it, then by nature it can not be shameful.
By contrast, in our society, there is a menstrual taboo: Having one's period is not considered shameful per se, but it is certainly considered unattractive/unsexy, and it would not be considered appropriate to say "I have my period today" to a mere acquaintance, especially in a professional setting, the way that it would be considered appropriate to say, "I have a headache." If one has terrible menstrual cramps, one could not email a professor to say one will be absent, the way one could if one had a stomach viruses.
The very message of the pad/tampon industry is, "A woman must hide that she has her period in order to function in society during that time. A woman must hide her menstruation in order to appear sexy. Look how well we can help you hide the fact that you have your period. Buy our product!'
The second part of this equation is that women are expected to function normally when they have their period. Part of this is due to modern medical science, which has medicine women can take when they have their period to mitigate physically limiting or uncomfortable side effects of menses. Part of it is that women have had to prove to a patriarchal society that they can function as well as men in order to gain equal rights****, especially in the areas of education and employment. Women already have to deal with fears that they are less productive than men because they may be incapacitated for a few weeks if they choose to have a child; imagine if they also had to deal with fears that they would be less productive a few days of every month, whether or not they choose to have a child.
As a feminist however, I wonder: Does equality mean treating women as if they did not have periods ie were the same as men, or does it mean acknowledging that women have periods, that even with modern medicine, there may be days when a woman is not feeling well due to her period, and should that be as legitimate an excuse to take off from work as a migraine - assuming the woman already tried anti-menstrual sympotms medicine and it failed, and the symptoms were bad? I feel that at the very least we should live in a world where it is acceptable to talk about periods, where there is no more stigma attached to the sentence "I have my period" than there is to "I have a headache."
Some feminists will say that women can not afford to acknowledge the potentialy physically limiting factor of periods, because it will set back the struggle to equal rights. But then, why acknowledge the potentially physically limiting factor of childbirth, which also sets back the struggle, since a man who chooses to become a father does not have to take time off from work (but perhaps, should have the right to do so.) I think in general, feminism, in its struggle to prove that women are equal to men, has forgotten that a woman's body is different, in terms of menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation, and that a major stumbling block to equality in the workforce is lack of legal accomodations for those diffferences - the US does not even have mandatory maternity leave. That is a huge issue for women who want to have children, and it is discriminatory in that a man wanting to have children does not face the possibility of being laid off for needing time to physically recuperate from the biological ramifications of his fathering offspring.
As a matter of fact, I protest to the very concept of having to prove that I as a woman am equal to a man. In proving myself to patriarchal society, I acquiesce to that society's right to demmand proof, and recognize the validity of the assumption I am trying to disprove. True feminism must seek an overhaul of the entire power structure, as opposed to trying to change the position of women within a pre-existing patriarchal framework.
Lastly, for those who may think menstrual taboos have vanished: I can not tell you the number of times I heard (mostly) males make jokes about how if Hillary Clinton became president, she could screw up America's diplomatic ties with certain countries, because if she was in a diplomatic meeting and had PMS - bam! There went America's good relationship with whatever country the poor unfortunate diplomate who had to endure her PMS belonged to. What I find especially interesting is that no one ever suggests that male presidents might make diplomatic concessions to countries represented by hot women, even though our society has this concept that when a man sees a beautiful woman his tongue falls out, and he loses the power to say no to anything she says. If you wonder why I am not mentioning men falling for beautiful men, the answer is that I would not expect society to discuss that, because society is heteronormative.
*http://www.mechonhadar.org/yeshiva-courses
** I think this might be according to Rabbi Heschel, and remember learning about it in Ms. R. Weinstein's 12th grade Tanach class.
*** same root as kedesha, prostitute. Also, Rashi on "kedoshim tihiyu" - "prushim tihiyu" - kadosh has a sense of being set apart. The Jews are set apart for God, the wife and husband are set apart for each other. The kedesha is set aside for sexual functions - this word might also be connected to cultic prostitution.
**** And society has a long way to go before full equality is achieved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)