I, Object

It never ceases to amaze me the lies people will tell to keep women in line. And how logic is no objection to these lies. A gem: http://www.jewishsexuality.com/is-heavy-petting-wrong. It seems to be a crazy kabbalist website, which encourages rolling around in snow to atone for sexual sins. But part of it unfortunately is just repeating lies often told in "normal" circles. A girl was told not to fool around because a boy who touches her before marriage is by necessity treating her as an object. But by abstaining, she is showing she is not an object. Instead, she is a precious jewel to be kept under lock and key. Until marriage anyway. Wow! I was totally inspired. Indeed, it is so much better to be locked up than to be chas v'shalom an object. Of course I am in love with my jewelry, and even more so with jewelry I have not bought that is locked up. How much more so a man would love a woman who locks herself up. People of course (or at least women, who are sort of people) desire to be locked up. Put on a pedestal. But not gazed at. For that would be objectification. Are these not really two sides of the same coin? In both respects, she is an object. The difference is only who gets to use this object. She is not a cheap whore, rather an expensive call-girl (in waiting.)





Then there's that stop sign that explains: You want love, he wants lust, stop in the naaame of love. It's weird though. Women must be stupid. Women have been told repeatedly men are not looking for love but only lust, and love is all a woman wants rather than lust, yet she gives in to (his) lust.





This brings me to a theory. It could be that women are people. This may not be as exciting as being an expensive jewel, at least in the short run. You may not be expensive. But it makes living life more tolerable. If a "person" feels lust or love or confusion, there are ways to think about it and deal with it. She can grapple with her human needs, and try to understand herself. She may also be able to relate to and communicate with the other person she is in the relationship with.



It is because of these lies that get repeated that I often fear sexuality education. We do not need hunger education. Or love education. These are drives we have,and we experience them in varying ways. We have to learn how to navigate through these ourselves. One can be taught rules, and how some people view these ideas. But how to relate to our bodies is something we have to figure out. Instead, we are told to compartmentalize it . We are lied to and in some cases made to feel guilty. For if women are given an idealized version of their sexuality, and it does not match reality, there is a disconnect between what they have to deal with and what they are told they have to deal with. This can confuse a teenager, but ultimately a relationship. And it can keep us from our humanity and honesty.

Rabbi Swinger

So last night I watched the heavily publicized expose on CBS about the Hasidic Swingers. I found it quite sophomoric and aplologetic. First, it takes for granted most of them are pious. Who knows? Only God knows what we actually do when no one's looking. But then it also talked about some of the problems that may be causes for this. While I agree that these problems exist, I am not sure if that is the cause of the problem. Also, if indeed there is less swinging by Hasidim than in the general world, well maybe they know something we don't. For example, the report suggests part of the problem is there is no dating and people just marry whomever their parents tell them to marry. But perhaps if there is more commingling of the sexes, overall that would lead to more infidelity than exists already. Clearly there is always going to exist some sexual sinning because that is our nature: yezer lev ha'adam raq ra minn'urav.

But the irony of ironies is that the rabbi they chose to address the problem was Rabbi Moshe Tendler. No, I'm not accusing him of impropriety, but I do not think he knows of a healthy way to deal with these problems considering how much he tried to cover up for his son. Those reporters did not do their homework. Of course there is the additional problem that Rabbi Tendler is reviled in the Hasidic world for his stance on meziza b'feh.

I think all these suggestions are worthless anyway. The hasidic community bases itself on sticking with tradition. Regardless of how much we learn about the problems of genetic inbreeding, they marry relatives. Regardless of the risk of herpes, they do mezizah. That is what has been done. It's all Torah. It can't change. I hardly doubt they would decide to change their whole world (and yes, if they allowed for regular dating, it would be a huge change) because CBS news says there are some swingers, and because a rabbi they hate tells them to.

Chasting Sarah

One of my favorite bloggers is Luke Ford. Mainly I admire his honesty and originality. Maybe there's also a part of me that thrives on being shocked. Last week he discussed and linked to Hillel Halkin (someone else whose work I admire) and his discussion/suggestion that Sarah slept with Pharaoh and Avimelekh. Actually that's a gross understatement; he actually believes that she'd been sleeping around. So Avimelekh's and Pharaoh's "punishment" was gonorrhea. In line with this theory, Avimelekh fathered Isaac (midrashim point to this suspicion) and so Abraham was tempted to kill Isaac. Hence the aqedah.



This gets points for shock value. Of course, the text outright contradicts much of this. However, here we turn to conspiracy theories and their appeal. Of course, they also win points for shock value. And that is part of their appeal. It even helps their credibility: If you don't buy it, it's probably because you can't handle the truth. But there's something else , which my stepfather one pointed out. These can never be tested because any evidence that contradicts it point to the strength of the conspiracy.



But anyway let's review where the text contradicts. First, it clearly says Avimelekh did not touch her. Second, he and his harem get a punishment where they are unable to give birth. As much as the midrashim are a stretch in saying it means all their orifices were closed, it actually fits better than the idea that it means gonorrhea. When he returns Sarah (because God told him to), Abraham prays and they recover. How did they recover? Is the "recovery" also a lie? The other contradictions are explicit, such as that it says Avimelekh didn't sleep with Sarah.



Also the Torah tells us Isaac was Abraham's. One also wonders if Abraham's initial decision to kill Isaac indicates hatred considering that in his society child sacrifice was commonplace.



I know; this is all part of the cover-up. I can't prove it's not. But I can question such a methodology. How does one know which evidence to take into account and which to ignore? When we select what to believe, we read what we want to. For example, rather than seeing Abraham as aafraid for his life, Halkin argues that since we know Abraham to be brave, this could not be true. What about the Documentary Hypothesis? Maybe this was a different Abraham? No. Now we're too frum to accept that. Why didn't Abraham have gonnorhea? How did Avimelekh recover? Or did he not and that's another lie?



But I will admit that when I looked at the story again I realized it is ambiguous regarding Pharaoh. It only says he took her for a wife and returned her. It does not say when he returned her, or what happened in between. So it's possible something happened. Yet all the mefarshim I checked (including Rashi, Rashbam, B'khor Shor, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Ralbag) take great pains to say of course nothing happened. Why? Perhaps a clue is in Luke Ford's pointing out how Artscroll discusses how the malakh prevented him, "thus assuring her chastity". Judgy, isn't it? Clearly she had no choice here. If something had happened, would she have been rendered unchaste? The implication is clear and probably in line with medieval sensibilities: A woman who is raped is something to be ashamed of. Sarah is a hero to us, a paragon of virtue. So she could not have been raped.

It may even be possible to suggest that this is precisely the rationale for the ambiguity in the Bible. If something did happen with Pharaoh, even though she is blameless, Sarah would have been lessened in the eyes of the Biblical generations. But really we should not be ashamed of her if that happened. We should be open to this reading.

Jonah & me

Among the Biblical characters I have most sympathized with recently is Jonah. I first felt a strong connection last year having been through and recovered from severe chronic depression. I noticed that is exactly what happend to Jonah. I also realized we both recovered in similar ways: we find comfort in physical pleasures. I believe I recovered by tasting water and feeling its refreshment , even in my darkest moment, when I knew I have nothing to live for. I also found that the only therapy that actually worked for me was Dialectical Behavior Therapy, which involves observing and describing, and living in the moment. True, I'm oversimplifying and cherry-piccking, but I'm explaining the aspects that worked for me. I actually learned to use it as a form of escapism; whereas it encourages you to be in the moment, I get lost in the moment to escape the rest of the story.

I therefore had a better grasp of Jonah who, right after expressing his preference for death because of a substantive issue, rejoices at the shade provided for him from the qiqayon. It is as though he just wants to be left alone, comforted, hidden, indeed lost. And the shade provides that cover.

Perhaps this is not the best therapy for leading a happy, productive life. It does not change negative thought patterns. I still live my life in fear. These fears do hold me back. It is a coping mechanism. But, while people often use that term disparagingly, as something the weak cling to, I now believe that a coping mechanism is often the best thing (especially if it does not involve dishonesty or harming others, as some mechanisms that involve thought pattens, often do). Perhaps I am weak, but being able to cope makes me strong. I may not live to be the best Doda I could be, but I can't do that anyway. So at least I live. At least I get up in the morning, do my job, help others, and find and create moments to enjoy.

Of course, this attitude runs counter to much of my religious upbringing. We read in musar books, in some mishnayos and gemaras, and in much of the rishonim that we should mainly strive for ruhniyus (spirituality) and here I am pursuing havle v'sa'anuge olam hazzeh. I seek and find solace in gashmiyus, and gashmiyus alone, even when it goes against ruhniyus.

But that does not mean I need no ruhniyus; I have not abandoned the Torah. Disobey, question, yes; but not abandon. I cannot live my life without it. In the words of Kenny Rogers, You are always on my mind. Perhaps I am Halakhic Rebel. But not even. I still try, where I can, and where I am sure that it won't lead to depression, to keep the Torah. I just can't completely give myself over anymore. Overall, I have adjusted to this kind of life over the past year. Perhaps I am lying to myself, trying to have it both ways. Or maybe I am confused, pulled in different directions by various aspects of emotions and intellect, and this is the best I can do.


This year, as I wrote in my last post, Yom Kippur was especially hard to deal with. I just could not make peace with all that's going on: Asking God for a good year when I do not expect or try to deserve it; not believing anything I do will matter; and willingly not changing my ways and abandon sin. Most of Yom Kippur was indeed empty. But then I read Jonah again. (I must admit, it was during the rabbi's uninspiring speech for ne'ila where he said that now that we have rid ourselves of sin, we are trying to get rid of re'ah ha'avera. I could never relate.) And I found a way to relate.

It occurs to me that Jonah is a book about religious struggle, and eloquently depicts teh interplay of our emtions, intellect, and actions. Quite simply, Jonah does not know what to do. And his shipmates also do not know what to do. They try so hard not to throw him off, but it seems initially they at least suspect it's his fault; he's the only one not praying so they wake him up. They cast lots, presumably to know whose fault the storm is. They must have faith in tis system. But after they cast lots, and the lot shows it's Jonah's fault, they do not just throw him overboard but ask him a bunch of questions, including באשר למי הרעה הזאת. They ask him, the one on whom the lot fell, whose fault the storm is! Isn't it obious? Wasn't that the point of the lots?Then v. 10 tells us they were afraid because they knew he was fleeing God since he'd told them so. It sounds like he volunteered this information. So it seems even more obvious they need to throw him overboard. Instead, they ask him what to do to save them from the storm. He tells them to throw him off. Instead, they try to dock safely. Then, before actually throwing him off, they pray to God (interestingly, no longer their gods) for forgiveness for what they are about to do. They then throw him off, and predictably, the storm stops. They obviously did the right thing. What more of a sign could one want? But their reaction is not relief, but fear! So they take measures to be mekhapper!

It makes no sense.

I can only surmise that they felt emtional anguish. Of course, I may be projecting, and it might have something to do with the idea of appeasing God (or gods) that existed in the ancient world, but I still believe emotions play a part in our determining what is right and deciding what to do. We do not only do what we know to be right, but it also has to feel right. And they do seem like they want to do what's right; they keep emphasizing morality. But the point is we do not just do what our mind tells us we need to, we still try to make ourselves comfortable. And when the two do not match, chaos ensues and we act in an illogical manner.

In fact, I noticed a significant convention: בשל: The prefix ב shows an internal focus. On the outer level, this is referring to who is causing the storm (which is the most obvious issue). On the inner level, we can say it refers to a personal problem. Thus, to determine who caused the storm , the shipmates ask בשלמי הרעה הזאת לנו :In whom is the bad. We can interpret the bad as sin. Of course this makes sense as sin is bad, and since there is a direct correlation with punishment: The sinner is the cause of bad. Using the same word underscores this relationship.

Jonah answers בשלי הסער הגדול הזהעליכם: The storm is in him. Could there be a more poignant way of describing an inner struggle?

G'mar tov?

Each year, this time of year becomes more and more disappointing and empty. When I was young, I belived my teachers to some extent and did view each year as a chance at a clean slate. I did believe that I could change, and that my life could change accordingly. Even though I could not live up to my resolutions, I believed that even if I had the right intentions God would take pity on me and reward me. So I always tried. I am not saying that I never sinned or was a tzadekes. But I tried. I had to or I would think Yo Kippur was a joke, and God would know it, and my teshuva would not count (ehta v'az ashuv doesn't count.) I avoided sin at every turn and even pushed doubts out of my mind; I felt guilty if I did doubt, and that guilt served as a somewhat effective barrier.

Of course, it was not only guilt. I think that what lay at the heart of every devotion, guarding from sin, and avoidance of guilt was fear. Fear that if Yom Kippur did in fact seal my fate for a whole year, I had to do the right thing. Otherwise, my life would be a mess, and it would be my fault. All I had to do to avoid it was repent and that would save me. Of course, a lot of the liturgy is very effective with this approach. How could one who is fearful not feel terror at hearing U'nsanneh tokef? And who is not then filled with hope and relief when we hear: ותשובה ותפלה וצדקה מעבירין את רע הגזרה. Of course I'd want to repent and was hopeful that through repentance my bakashos would be answered. And so I tried, and I davened, and the davening moved me.

But with all these devotions and efforts, my life has turned out to be only a series of tragedies and failures. The k'lalos of the Torah always seem to happen, but never the b'rakhos. At night I wait for day, at day for night. I work hard but nothing bears fruit. I see these tragedies and it hurts, and there is nothing I can do. No matter how hard I tried to do the right thing, God has always been there to punish me. As we read in Ekha, דוב ארב הוא לי.

So I can no longer stand self-abnegation. I will suffer no matter what. Waiting for Olam habba is too much; I need to deal with my life now. And I can no longer be hopeful that God will reward me: I am resigned that my life will only get worse. So I cannot take u'nsanneh tokef seriously anymore. I do not feel awe. I do not tremble. I only go through the motions. Yes, I enjoy the davening. I have come to feel an attachment to rituals I grew up with. I could never imagine not fasting or going to shul on Yom Kippur. But it no longer motivates me; it has become meaningless to my life.

Whereas most Jews (and I used to as well) live by the mantra גם כי אלך בגיא צלמות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי I now live by a different גם
גם כי אזעק ואשוע שתם תפלתי

To everyone else, I wish a g'mar hasima tova. But I know I'm in the bad book.

Binah, or Lack Thereof

The first time I saw Binah magazine was 2 Purims ago. My life experience has taught me that the adage from Kindergarten about not judging a book by its cover is a bad rule of thumb. Usually, you can learn a lot about a book by its cover. (I'd assume however the idea was originally about the condition of the cover alone, but I digress.) So I looked at the cover: It stated: The Jewish Woman's magazine. And it boasted directions on making napkin rings(!). So I judged it wasn't my magazine, even though I am a Jewish woman (hey, I never said the cover can't be wrong, just that it clues me in as to what the book is trying to say). I've never been one for arts and crafts, and don't really see a strong connection between being a Jewish woman and napkin rings. I see more of a connection with being a Jewish woman and Talmud Torah, and I pretty much decided the readership of Binah did not.











So I just brought my groceries and told my friends in the store about it, who also don't see the connection between being a Jewish woman and napkin rings, or how that demonstrates binah (let alone yeserah), and we all had a good laugh. I pretty much forgot about it.











Then, about a month ago marked milestone event: Binah reached its two-year anniversary. To mark this, they gave free copies, which my sister-in-law got. So I got to read the inside of the magazine. Now I am even more convinced about the cover of a book giving us a clue. And I am even more convinced that the haredi concept of binah has nothing to do with intellect.









The most disturbing aspect of this magazine is its propagandizing. It is not about exploring ideas, but about convincing ourselves of a certain conclusion we know to be true over and over again. This conclusion can be: a)Tzniyus is the greatest thing since before women were able to slice bread; b) Women naturally love tzniyus (Alternatively: Tzniyus is fun, but hey don't have too much fun, wouldn't be tzniyus); c) Supporting your husband, raising the kids, and cooking for your husband in kolel is the greatest thing since before women were able to slice bread; d) All of the above make women happy. The basic idea is follow the haredi system because it makes you happy. Every other way will make you miserable, and just looks appealing because "they"figured out how to make it look that way. And "they" magically send signals to your brain to confuse you. They are also convinced that Talmud Torah is beyond the comprehension of the Jewish woman. Perhaps, and this is my guess, the two are related: Women are easily persuaded, so they can get confused and get manipulated into doing what is not in their interest.





One of the articles showcases the wife of a mashgiah for frozen vegetables. (I know, his job is probably not necessary, but that's another issue.) In accordance with their hashkafa that a frum woman never complains for not having a normal marriage, they ask this woman if she ever resents that her husband is so often not home, and she admantly replies: Not in the least! After all, women have had to live with their husbands going away to yeshiva since the time of the gemara. Feelings, then, have to do with what should be; and what should be is defined by what used to be. Rachel and R Akiva are the norm. If a woman does not feel this way, there is something wrong with her yiras shamayim.





The same article also showcases how women's inability to learn. Said wife explains that, "like many women," she would do homework with the kids "until the boys started to learn mishnayos." (They put this in the big print to get us to want to read this interview.) Of course she could not figure it out with Kehati. Even though it is simple Hebrew, and now available in English. She mentions that she tried to get her sons to teach her what they had learned but that did not work. (Of course, how would she understand it? She's just a girl.) The implication is that women just can't figure it out.





As ar as tniyus, I cannot tell how we substantively differ with Muslims; it seems that haredim not requiring a bourka is a technicality. I've read ads from the B'nos Melakhim and letters from readers. The Bnos Melakhim seems to be devoted to promoting whatever lies are necessary to make women ecstatic over covering their hair. One tape boasts of how kids are more well-adjusted if their mother covers her hair. We are also promised to learn techniques on how to tap into our feminine natural instinct (pro-tzniyus) and filter out the message society ("they") tries to signal into our brain(anti-tzniyus.)



Perhaps the saddest thing about Binah is that some of its goals are laudable but are undercut by the system it is a part of and it dedicated to promoting. The one thing I applaud is that it tries to address and destigmatize problems in the haredi community. Unfortunately, yatza s'kharo b'hefsedo.For example, it wants to discuss Post Partum Depression and alcoholism. In a community so intent on making people try to live and be as they should, people as they are do not always fit the bill. We are not perfect. And so there is shame, and people do not seek help. But here too it sometimes seems the editorial board and writers cannot ultimately overcome what that community does. And they promote it. For example, in the aforementioned story, I would suspect most women cannot relate not being upset if their husband has to be away so much. It is natural. But when they read about this woman, perhaps they would feel guilty of ever being resentful towards their husband. Furthermore, most of these women are brought up iwth the expectation that they will support a husband in kolel; this is the norm. Is it surprising then that when there are problems there is tooo much fear to discuss it? Indeed, even the article on PPD was met with some opposition, and the editors tell us they consulted da'as Torah in deciding what was okay to print. For the life of me, I cannot understand why a shayla has to be asked in publishing information that helps people. The ones who should be consulted are mental health professionals who know what needs to be publicized, not rabbis who tell us what they allow or want to be publicized. My guess might be they do not want women to use birth control, which is already too stigmatized in their community. But if it is necessary for some women, shouldn't they be made aware? Perhaps it is time to see the world as it is: Made up of imperfect people with feelings and problems that arise regardless of what we want. And we should do our utmost to make sure those people can live healthy and fulfilling lives. Perhaps Rachel is not the norm, and perhaps that is why the story is outstanding.

Sarah Palin debacle

The latest display of idiocy coming out of the Jewish leadership has reached an all-time low. Imagine my excitement when I heard Palin and Clinton were to speak at the UN rally against Ahmadinejad. Here we would have two heavyweigths publicly displaying their opposition. To borrow an overused cliche, this would at least energize the base. A large rally with these figures would perhaps at least create the illusion we care enough to vote on these issues. Unfortunatly, this hasn't been the case for a long time; for all intents and purposes, Israel is hardly a significant issue in the Jewish vote, but it may have at least created the illusion that opposition to terrorism is a deal-breaker for a significant portion of us. Of course it would also send a message to the UN that we are enraged at letting Ahmadinejad come and will use every tool at our disposal to fight him. Having these important pols shows we mean business. This would be especially effective since Palin has publicly said she would not rule out any means, including military, to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; she has even said she would trust Israel if it destroyed their base. By putting her up on the podium, we would show how far we are willing to go. And having everyone show up and cheering them on certainly shows we are determined and powerful. Of course that is how things get done in this country; we use politics as a tool to push our agenda.



After hearing that Hillary cancelled, my only thought was that it showed how small and petty she was. After all, if McCain and Obama could put aside their campaigns for 9/111 and lay wreaths together at Ground Zero, surely Hillary, who, in case she forgtot, is not running, could show up with Palin to rally against a terrorist. If the parties can come together on an important issue, wouldn't that be best? Isn't bipartisanship generally a good thing? But okay if Hillary doesn't feel that way and wants to let personal issues get in the way, fine. She alone looks ridiculous.



But of course the Jewish leadership decided we also had to look ridculous. By "we'" I mean all those who would go to the rally who want to send a clear and srident message against Ahmadinejad. They decided to disinivite Palin. The rationale given is they do not want this to be about who to vote for. It's not political, but only to say we don't really like Ahmdinenad and would prefer he not show up at the UN. We would also prefer for Iran not to get their hands on nuclear weapons.


And actually it's even worse. Politically, we're saying: Even if you support us, we have no qualms about publicly insulting you. We are clueless about politics.



So the rally's message now is: We would never suggest voting for someone who supports our message; we must not even make it look like we might use opposition to terror as a factor. And we will have no people in positions of power, who could make any diffference, display their support. So the rally will kind of say: We don't like Ahmadinejad but not enough to do anythung about it. We also couldn't get our acts togetehr enough to have anyone important shopw up. But: Please UN listen to us anyway because we'd like you to. Reminds me of the MadTV of Kerrry's hypothetical reactionto 9/11.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5onpavKbWSg.