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.