I once informed someone who was contemplating divorce: "You have no idea what divorce does to you spiritually". In short, contemplate staying married, because the spiritual ramifications of divorce are quite dire.
What I was referring to in that long-ago conversation is how,post-divorce, you typically get to a point within the first year where your tayvahs come to the fore. Indeed, it happens in such a linear fashion that you unconsciously start questioning where you have been holding and start adopting all types of koolahs. To wit- my current trading in of stockings and long skirts in favour of ankle socks and knee-length skirts, not to mention my wearing pyjamas instead of a nightgown if my laundry situation permits.
Granted, according to many poskim, my wardrobe choices are 100%permissible. Still, I cannot help but heave a sigh of relief that my shenanigans seem to have stopped there, because I know plenty of divorcees who became full-on pleasure seekers. I have even known a handful that frequent clubs of the "exclusive, adult-only" ilk. (Shudder.) Still, I wonder/worry about just how much further down the road I might wind up going.
Motzei Shabbos, during a bout of insomnia (and fueled by my neighbours' audible argument concerning a particular shidduch), I read online that it is an aveirah if you do not wish to marry. Now, while I assume there is some leeway for persons such as myself that are recently divorced, I had to question my present mindset. After all, do I want to remarry? Do I rush to fulfill that unspoken expectation from the frum community? No. Instead, if my mind happens to even go there (which is basically never these days), I see such a situation transpiring only many, many, many, many (you get the idea) years from now. In short, I can hardly state that my objective is to get married anytime in the foreseeable future. Heck, given my apathy towards dating, the venues left for "finding my basheret" basically include the sidewalk, street corner, metro or shop. Mind you, given my track record, maybe that's not a terrible thing...
To be honest, the most troubling aspect of my single status is that I have zero interest in dating because I have zero interest in dealing with men. Sometimes even my male friends manage to peeve me off due to their male mindset/behaviour. Moreover, since spent my 30s navigating the gender divide, I am ready for an extended break from it. Additionally, the dating pool that I dove into twice before is not exactly offering me anything new and enticing. That renders the prospect of dating and remarrying even more unappealing.
Thus, while I am thoroughly enjoying 1. being single, and 2. devoting my limited energy and resources to yours truly (for the first time in my life), should I be worried? Is the impetus for my behaviour simply self-nurturing or does it stem from a more insidious, evil source?
I suppose only time will tell. In the meantime, I am attempting to straddle the divide between spiritual vigilance and a life that I enjoy living. Since the universal enemy of yiddin is the yetzer hara, and in turn every yid faces the same challenge, that approach is pretty much all I can expect to do, for now.
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gender. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
"I'm a Mommy First"
On my way to work today, I witnessed a familiar scene: two mommies on their porch steps, adorned in tichel and tights and their favourite accessory- their children. As I walked by, their conversation was utterly predictable, namely what time little Shmueli went to bed last night and what time he woke up this morning. I was mentally thankful that I had missed the required discussion of his bowel movements.
Now I believe that it is only natural that a woman's primary focus be her children, except perhaps when her spouse is present. And I also understand that mothers need to discuss what is happening with their children with other mothers. There seems to be an inherent need to benchmark what is normal and to seek out advice with parenting issues or concerns. More to the point, due to the fact that parenting is the world's most difficult occupation, like any worker, a mommy needs support. She needs to gripe to someone in a similar position. Fair enough.
So, while I am not myself a parent, I can empathize with the impetus for the witnessed scene. That said, it would seem that mothers fall into one of two camps:
Still, when you read someone's online dating profile and the first sentence is "I'm a mommy first", doesn't that make you feel just a tad sorry for any guy she may date? Maybe she is capable of making room in her life for a man, but the sentence does not create that impression. To be fair, my view on relationships-any relationship, be it with your spouse or with your children- is that you remain separate entities who come together and form a common ground called The Relationship. By definition, a relationship is the connection between one part or entity to another.
Growing up, I never once heard my mother discussing my bowel movements or other features of my development with guests, friends, or family. Rather, topics discussed included the arts and culture, with the men veering off on occasion to discuss the economy or politics in a light-hearted fashion. So when I witnessed that the majority of conversation on the women's side of the mechitzah revolved around their children (or outfits for their children's simchas, if they were already grandparents), I was dismayed. I recall distinctly telling my first husband that I *hated* the kiddush at our shul, because there was only so much patience I could muster for sheitel and baby talk.
Recently I went to a family for Shabbos. The hostess had been in a high-powered position prior to getting married and having children. On the one hand, she seemed to be very proud of her previous career, yet on the other, she was now compensating by making her entire life about her children. As she had been involved in arts and culture, I tried to converse with her on those topics. She responded by ignoring my attempts and instead telling me what age each of her children had been potty-trained. Indeed, she spent 99% of the time I was in her house ignoring me and instead playing with her children or otherwise occupying their space. By the end of the evening, my impression was of a woman who had made her children her top priority, to the detriment of herself, her children, and her marriage.
Thus, while parenting is an all-consuming job, one where a mother can feel overwhelmed and require support, I worry about the women who seem incapable of remaining a self-contained person after having children. Because it strikes me as unhealthy to not have any concept of yourself beyond someone else, even your children (the ten-cent psychological term for that phenomenon, by the way, is co-dependency). So, while a child is naturally co-dependent to a degree on their parent, I cannot say that the reverse is necessarily productive, for either the child or the parent.
But then again, I am not a mommy, right? What do I know?
Now I believe that it is only natural that a woman's primary focus be her children, except perhaps when her spouse is present. And I also understand that mothers need to discuss what is happening with their children with other mothers. There seems to be an inherent need to benchmark what is normal and to seek out advice with parenting issues or concerns. More to the point, due to the fact that parenting is the world's most difficult occupation, like any worker, a mommy needs support. She needs to gripe to someone in a similar position. Fair enough.
So, while I am not myself a parent, I can empathize with the impetus for the witnessed scene. That said, it would seem that mothers fall into one of two camps:
- Those who identify themselves solely as a mommy, i.e. being a mother becomes their sole reference point for who they are.
- Those who remain individuals despite having children.
Still, when you read someone's online dating profile and the first sentence is "I'm a mommy first", doesn't that make you feel just a tad sorry for any guy she may date? Maybe she is capable of making room in her life for a man, but the sentence does not create that impression. To be fair, my view on relationships-any relationship, be it with your spouse or with your children- is that you remain separate entities who come together and form a common ground called The Relationship. By definition, a relationship is the connection between one part or entity to another.
Growing up, I never once heard my mother discussing my bowel movements or other features of my development with guests, friends, or family. Rather, topics discussed included the arts and culture, with the men veering off on occasion to discuss the economy or politics in a light-hearted fashion. So when I witnessed that the majority of conversation on the women's side of the mechitzah revolved around their children (or outfits for their children's simchas, if they were already grandparents), I was dismayed. I recall distinctly telling my first husband that I *hated* the kiddush at our shul, because there was only so much patience I could muster for sheitel and baby talk.
Recently I went to a family for Shabbos. The hostess had been in a high-powered position prior to getting married and having children. On the one hand, she seemed to be very proud of her previous career, yet on the other, she was now compensating by making her entire life about her children. As she had been involved in arts and culture, I tried to converse with her on those topics. She responded by ignoring my attempts and instead telling me what age each of her children had been potty-trained. Indeed, she spent 99% of the time I was in her house ignoring me and instead playing with her children or otherwise occupying their space. By the end of the evening, my impression was of a woman who had made her children her top priority, to the detriment of herself, her children, and her marriage.
Thus, while parenting is an all-consuming job, one where a mother can feel overwhelmed and require support, I worry about the women who seem incapable of remaining a self-contained person after having children. Because it strikes me as unhealthy to not have any concept of yourself beyond someone else, even your children (the ten-cent psychological term for that phenomenon, by the way, is co-dependency). So, while a child is naturally co-dependent to a degree on their parent, I cannot say that the reverse is necessarily productive, for either the child or the parent.
But then again, I am not a mommy, right? What do I know?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Look
Yesterday during my train ride home from Manhattan, a guy stared at me for a good part of the trip. He was, naturally, a goy and I was, to be fair, all dolled up in a suit and makeup. Still, it got me thinking...
When I first moved to Brooklyn, I noticed two related, yet equally perplexing inter-gender phenomena/rituals: As a woman walking down the street, if I
My ex-husband used to say to me, "Don't worry. They look! All men look". :) But I will admit that these encounters continue to disturb me. Perhaps my reaction is due to my never having had such an experience before moving to Brooklyn. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am mildly insulted by the experience.
Why?
When you begin to live in the hermetically-sealed environment that is ultra-frum Brooklyn, you begin to notice that there is, like it or not, an "Old Boys" mentality to the men. It permeates everything, from when you're doing your shopping to when you are at work to when you attempt to park your car at the end of the day. Men rule here.
Now, I go on record as saying that I like men to be men and women to be women; I am most comfortable when in a traditional feminine role. Indeed, I have zero interest in the "freedoms" of feminism, because I find feminism to be a flawed ideology that has actually worsened women's lot. Instead, I want to be equal with a man but remain a woman. Hopefully you can grasp the distinction without labelling me "oppressed". :) But despite yiddishkeit's innate equality between genders, gender inequality does exist around these parts.
As a result, when the men do their song and dance pretending that I am invisible, I feel that inequality. And when they don't move out of the way, but rather expect me to step aside! Well,that actually upsets me. I may be a woman, but there's no excuse for chivalry to be dead.
You can consequently imagine that now, almost 5 years into living in Brooklyn, it comes as a surprise when non-Jewish men look at me on the street (or cat call, depending on their culture, lol). And while yes, I am being acknowledged in a way that is sexual and therefore not empowering, I *am* being acknowledged. In short, is the act of frum men ignoring me any more respectful than the non-Jewish men staring/making comments?The answer is no.
I guess it would be fair to say then that if I were choose how I prefer to be disrespected, it would be in the goyishe style. Because I just don't buy the claim that pretending I am invisible is actually about tznius. Jewish men may sing the praises of the righteous woman layl Shabbos, but you will note that in order to sing her praises, they are acknowledging she exists.
So stop pretending you don't see/hear me, guys. Because the nicest take on it is that you're being rude. And the last thing we yiddin need is more fodder to be twisted into "evidence" of the misconception that Judaism is misogynist. At least, that's my humble opinion.
When I first moved to Brooklyn, I noticed two related, yet equally perplexing inter-gender phenomena/rituals: As a woman walking down the street, if I
- Wished a male "Good Shabbos", he didn't respond.
- Approached a male on the sidewalk ,the man would look up at the sky or otherwise make a grand display of not looking at me.
My ex-husband used to say to me, "Don't worry. They look! All men look". :) But I will admit that these encounters continue to disturb me. Perhaps my reaction is due to my never having had such an experience before moving to Brooklyn. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I am mildly insulted by the experience.
Why?
When you begin to live in the hermetically-sealed environment that is ultra-frum Brooklyn, you begin to notice that there is, like it or not, an "Old Boys" mentality to the men. It permeates everything, from when you're doing your shopping to when you are at work to when you attempt to park your car at the end of the day. Men rule here.
Now, I go on record as saying that I like men to be men and women to be women; I am most comfortable when in a traditional feminine role. Indeed, I have zero interest in the "freedoms" of feminism, because I find feminism to be a flawed ideology that has actually worsened women's lot. Instead, I want to be equal with a man but remain a woman. Hopefully you can grasp the distinction without labelling me "oppressed". :) But despite yiddishkeit's innate equality between genders, gender inequality does exist around these parts.
As a result, when the men do their song and dance pretending that I am invisible, I feel that inequality. And when they don't move out of the way, but rather expect me to step aside! Well,that actually upsets me. I may be a woman, but there's no excuse for chivalry to be dead.
You can consequently imagine that now, almost 5 years into living in Brooklyn, it comes as a surprise when non-Jewish men look at me on the street (or cat call, depending on their culture, lol). And while yes, I am being acknowledged in a way that is sexual and therefore not empowering, I *am* being acknowledged. In short, is the act of frum men ignoring me any more respectful than the non-Jewish men staring/making comments?The answer is no.
I guess it would be fair to say then that if I were choose how I prefer to be disrespected, it would be in the goyishe style. Because I just don't buy the claim that pretending I am invisible is actually about tznius. Jewish men may sing the praises of the righteous woman layl Shabbos, but you will note that in order to sing her praises, they are acknowledging she exists.
So stop pretending you don't see/hear me, guys. Because the nicest take on it is that you're being rude. And the last thing we yiddin need is more fodder to be twisted into "evidence" of the misconception that Judaism is misogynist. At least, that's my humble opinion.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Resumes and What Not
It would seem that more than on Rav at the yeshiva is involved with shidduchim. In fact, during his last stay in America, none other than the top poo-bah spent several hours of his (and my) time contacting one donor whose children are "in shidduchim".
One email that was involved in this mission included on those "resumes" that I had kept hearing about the last 4 years. A question that had always plagued me was, what type of resume could a 19 year-old have? What exactly were the contents of such a resume? Well folks, that there mystery was solved today.
It turns out that these all-important documents, which parents put together with much heartfelt anguish and concern, contains nothing more than:
But in the end, how much better do you really know the given person by having read this two-pager? So while I understand that the purpose of the document is supposedly to provide a summary of the "boy" or "girl" so that one can evaluate them for a potential match, I would have to weigh in by saying that unless more details of substance are added, one needn't lose too much sleep over their resume.
Because at the end of the day, they all read the same anyway. And isn't that the point? We wouldn't want our son or daughter to sound unique, after all! ;)
One email that was involved in this mission included on those "resumes" that I had kept hearing about the last 4 years. A question that had always plagued me was, what type of resume could a 19 year-old have? What exactly were the contents of such a resume? Well folks, that there mystery was solved today.
It turns out that these all-important documents, which parents put together with much heartfelt anguish and concern, contains nothing more than:
- a list that includes the names and ages of the shidduch's family members (mother, father, siblings),
- a description of the child's personality and core middot, and
- a few quotes from people who know the child describing him/her
But in the end, how much better do you really know the given person by having read this two-pager? So while I understand that the purpose of the document is supposedly to provide a summary of the "boy" or "girl" so that one can evaluate them for a potential match, I would have to weigh in by saying that unless more details of substance are added, one needn't lose too much sleep over their resume.
Because at the end of the day, they all read the same anyway. And isn't that the point? We wouldn't want our son or daughter to sound unique, after all! ;)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Emotions and Illness Connection
I was once at the Shabbos table when the hostess quipped that every woman she knows who developed breast cancer had an unhappy marriage. While I acknowledged that there is definitely an emotional component to developing cancer in any form, I don't know if I would go so far to say that an unhappy marriage was the sole reason for developing the disease. Given that Ashkenazi women are particularly prone to that type of cancer, it would be a disservice to label all those women as unhappily married.
Now a study was just released that demonstrates that undergoing even a couple years of stress increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by sixty-two percent! That's an incredible amount if you ask me, not to mention pretty shocking when you consider how many women undergo extended periods of "unhappiness" in their lives.
You can read the article here.
Now a study was just released that demonstrates that undergoing even a couple years of stress increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by sixty-two percent! That's an incredible amount if you ask me, not to mention pretty shocking when you consider how many women undergo extended periods of "unhappiness" in their lives.
You can read the article here.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Belated Purim Question
Inspired by Barb Chansky (see Barb's World), I had a belated question spawned by Purim.
Having witnessed the usual parade of Esthers and Mordechais, etc. etc. for yet another year, I had to ponder: why don't girls want to be Vashti? When I was a kid, that's what I wanted to dress up as! Esther was so BORING. I mean, why be the Good Witch of the East, when you can be the Wicked Witch of the West??? We all know the WWotW is oh so much cooler than the Good Witch. Why else would "Wicked" be such a huge phenomenon?
But then again, we all know that I'm not exactly the litmus test for what's normal...
Having witnessed the usual parade of Esthers and Mordechais, etc. etc. for yet another year, I had to ponder: why don't girls want to be Vashti? When I was a kid, that's what I wanted to dress up as! Esther was so BORING. I mean, why be the Good Witch of the East, when you can be the Wicked Witch of the West??? We all know the WWotW is oh so much cooler than the Good Witch. Why else would "Wicked" be such a huge phenomenon?
But then again, we all know that I'm not exactly the litmus test for what's normal...
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
For Men Only
While at ShopRite Monday evening, my eye caught a new product: Pert 3-in-1 for men. The idea? A product that can be used as a shampoo/conditioner or body wash.
I had seen 3-in-1 products before, and have even tried a few. However, I personally found the products to be lacking in at least of the 3 purported areas covered, and have since foregone trying out similar items.
That said, I couldn't help but imagine the marketing/PR guys figuring out how to market this "manly" product. What makes it so manly anyway? The scent? Or is it the fact that any of us who have brothers or husbands already know- that a a non-metro man is the most likely candidate to streamline his "beauty" regime. Can't you just picture it? How many guys have, before the introduction of this Pert product, already tried out swapping their shampoo for soap or vice versa? I'm sure quite a few, and more importantly, I'm sure they found nothing wrong in doing that. And if you're a man, whose skin/hair isn't generally as delicate as a woman's, there is nothing wrong with that.
Still, that was definitely one product that made me twirl around and do a double-take. The potential for SNL routines is unending...
I had seen 3-in-1 products before, and have even tried a few. However, I personally found the products to be lacking in at least of the 3 purported areas covered, and have since foregone trying out similar items.
That said, I couldn't help but imagine the marketing/PR guys figuring out how to market this "manly" product. What makes it so manly anyway? The scent? Or is it the fact that any of us who have brothers or husbands already know- that a a non-metro man is the most likely candidate to streamline his "beauty" regime. Can't you just picture it? How many guys have, before the introduction of this Pert product, already tried out swapping their shampoo for soap or vice versa? I'm sure quite a few, and more importantly, I'm sure they found nothing wrong in doing that. And if you're a man, whose skin/hair isn't generally as delicate as a woman's, there is nothing wrong with that.
Still, that was definitely one product that made me twirl around and do a double-take. The potential for SNL routines is unending...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Prozbul
During my first marriage, I extended to my then-husband a business loan. When our marriage dissolved, the one stipulation in our divorce settlement was that he pay me back the loan at a rate of a small sum monthly over the course of 5 years. Since he has not made it a habit of paying me promptly however, the majority of the loan remains outstanding. So this morning I went to make a prozbul.
I find it quite interesting that you can use a prozbul to circumvent releasing debts during shemitta. As I was waiting for the Rav though, I found myself stressed out instead of mentally preoccupied with the legal ins and outs of the contract. The main source of my stress was the fact that I had been unable to find a shop that sold the contract, as the Rav had recommended. Instead, after failing to purchase the document, I did a search and found a yeshivah online that seemed to have the appropriate wording. The other source of stress was that I was the only woman around, and I was worried about contacting the Rav and otherwise having the proceedings occur without causing a stir. I just prayed that everything would go smoothly.
When I finally met with the Rav, he examined the document and said that it would be fine. Then he told me to meet him at the Beit Din's office. Phew! First hurdle over! I had never been inside the Beit Din's office (B'H'), and was impressed: I found it to be modern, clean, yet mildly inviting. The Rav told me to have a seat, and then collected some information. Then he went and got two witnesses, who took their jobs most seriously. They discussed/argued a bit in Yiddish before each signed. One witness even returned to discuss one more point and review the document a second time.
The Rav gave me the prozbul, wrote down my name and number and that was it. Not so painful in the end. All I can say is, I finally understood why my friend always claims that this "Beit Din is known to be honest". They were thorough and did everything very visibly with yirat shemayim. What started out as a fretful ordeal wound up being an inspiring one. A nice turn of events indeed, eh?
I find it quite interesting that you can use a prozbul to circumvent releasing debts during shemitta. As I was waiting for the Rav though, I found myself stressed out instead of mentally preoccupied with the legal ins and outs of the contract. The main source of my stress was the fact that I had been unable to find a shop that sold the contract, as the Rav had recommended. Instead, after failing to purchase the document, I did a search and found a yeshivah online that seemed to have the appropriate wording. The other source of stress was that I was the only woman around, and I was worried about contacting the Rav and otherwise having the proceedings occur without causing a stir. I just prayed that everything would go smoothly.
When I finally met with the Rav, he examined the document and said that it would be fine. Then he told me to meet him at the Beit Din's office. Phew! First hurdle over! I had never been inside the Beit Din's office (B'H'), and was impressed: I found it to be modern, clean, yet mildly inviting. The Rav told me to have a seat, and then collected some information. Then he went and got two witnesses, who took their jobs most seriously. They discussed/argued a bit in Yiddish before each signed. One witness even returned to discuss one more point and review the document a second time.
The Rav gave me the prozbul, wrote down my name and number and that was it. Not so painful in the end. All I can say is, I finally understood why my friend always claims that this "Beit Din is known to be honest". They were thorough and did everything very visibly with yirat shemayim. What started out as a fretful ordeal wound up being an inspiring one. A nice turn of events indeed, eh?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Triangle of Kindness
I have been very busy the past few days, B'H', in preparation of starting a new job on Monday. That being said, here is a little thought of mine about this week's parshah (Ki Saitzai).
This parshash contains several references to marriage: the captured woman, acceptable converts from certain nations, gittim, and yibum. Each of these instances constitutes "unusual" circumstances; they are not commonplace unions, and involve a loss of comfort while carrying the risk of stigma, as underscored by the proximity to the various mitzvot in the parshah that deal with "forbidden mixtures. Yet even more interestingly, what does this proximity also underscore?
Elsewhere in the parshah, the prevailing theme is a desire to prevent unsavory middot- dishonesty (false weights/measures), greed (leaving yield to the poor and underprivileged), insensitivity (neglecting to consider someone else's safety, i.e. leaving a pit uncovered, a roof unfenced), and even downright evil (Amalek). The point therefore is that these marriages are ones that may seem to require less compassion on the part of the Jew, because the circumstances are abnormal. Why show compassion to someone who belonged to a nation we can war against, to a person from a nation we rightly feel negatively about, to a woman who is unable to remain with her husband because they become incompatible, to a woman who did not bear a child to her deceased husband? Isn't it only 'natural' to think of these individuals as lacking in some way and consequently warranting less favourable treatment?
The Torah answers No for exactly this reason. We should indeed overcome this inclination and remember that above all else, these marriages still require the one ingredient required of all marriages to succeed: compassion. By considering these persons as marriage partners then, we must strive to always demonstrate compassion towards them, for it is precisely this compassion that purifies the relationship and renders it a suitable abode for the Shechina. The parshah in turn underscores a primary trait that must exist in all marriages if they are to remain spiritually feasible.
Good Shabbos!
This parshash contains several references to marriage: the captured woman, acceptable converts from certain nations, gittim, and yibum. Each of these instances constitutes "unusual" circumstances; they are not commonplace unions, and involve a loss of comfort while carrying the risk of stigma, as underscored by the proximity to the various mitzvot in the parshah that deal with "forbidden mixtures. Yet even more interestingly, what does this proximity also underscore?
Elsewhere in the parshah, the prevailing theme is a desire to prevent unsavory middot- dishonesty (false weights/measures), greed (leaving yield to the poor and underprivileged), insensitivity (neglecting to consider someone else's safety, i.e. leaving a pit uncovered, a roof unfenced), and even downright evil (Amalek). The point therefore is that these marriages are ones that may seem to require less compassion on the part of the Jew, because the circumstances are abnormal. Why show compassion to someone who belonged to a nation we can war against, to a person from a nation we rightly feel negatively about, to a woman who is unable to remain with her husband because they become incompatible, to a woman who did not bear a child to her deceased husband? Isn't it only 'natural' to think of these individuals as lacking in some way and consequently warranting less favourable treatment?
The Torah answers No for exactly this reason. We should indeed overcome this inclination and remember that above all else, these marriages still require the one ingredient required of all marriages to succeed: compassion. By considering these persons as marriage partners then, we must strive to always demonstrate compassion towards them, for it is precisely this compassion that purifies the relationship and renders it a suitable abode for the Shechina. The parshah in turn underscores a primary trait that must exist in all marriages if they are to remain spiritually feasible.
Good Shabbos!
Friday, July 18, 2008
Where Oh Where Has My Little Girl Gone?
Since I am still basically voice-less (I have a followup appointment in 2 weeks with the ENT, who prescribed an outrageously expensive spray that I'm supposed to use twice daily for a month), I figured I had better type down a Torah thought so that my DH can read it at the Shabbos table tonight. It'll just be one though (really, I promise), since we had a crazy late night and I have to start cleaning the house.
It struck me that Tzelafchad's daughters provide outright evidence that women have rights according to Torah law, albeit not evidence in the way that one might expect. Rather, we see that daughters are entitled to property in the event that a father has beget no sons. Now, that's discrimination, some might say. However, when one looks at the underlying "logic" of this legal detail, we see that in fact this detail is most fair and that some might protest that the detail discriminates in favour of women.
In brief, the reason for distributing property is to keep that property within the family. Now, we will recall that women leave their own families to become part of their husband's family upon marriage. Therefore, for women to receive a portion despite the fact that they will become part of a different family later in life seems to be preferential to women. We note that when Hashem deems the claim of Tzelafchad's daughters valid, He instructs them to marry men from their tribe. The hope is to always keep property within family then, and the reason why the exception is made on the part of women is because Hashem, in His Compassion, felt that daughters should be entitled property to reward them for their devotion to their birth family. In other words, prior to marriage, women contributed with their labour towards the household. If there are no sons then, the bond with and role of the daughters to their father must be acknowledged.
We see therefore that Hashem, in His Infinite Wisdom, did not discriminate against women materially and indeed chose to reward them for their emotional and physical connection to their father. To do otherwise would deny their relationship with that parent and would be a grave injustice. As we know, Hashem is Himself a most Compassionate and Just Father, and could therefore only inbue Torah Law with those attributes.
Good Shabbos.
It struck me that Tzelafchad's daughters provide outright evidence that women have rights according to Torah law, albeit not evidence in the way that one might expect. Rather, we see that daughters are entitled to property in the event that a father has beget no sons. Now, that's discrimination, some might say. However, when one looks at the underlying "logic" of this legal detail, we see that in fact this detail is most fair and that some might protest that the detail discriminates in favour of women.
In brief, the reason for distributing property is to keep that property within the family. Now, we will recall that women leave their own families to become part of their husband's family upon marriage. Therefore, for women to receive a portion despite the fact that they will become part of a different family later in life seems to be preferential to women. We note that when Hashem deems the claim of Tzelafchad's daughters valid, He instructs them to marry men from their tribe. The hope is to always keep property within family then, and the reason why the exception is made on the part of women is because Hashem, in His Compassion, felt that daughters should be entitled property to reward them for their devotion to their birth family. In other words, prior to marriage, women contributed with their labour towards the household. If there are no sons then, the bond with and role of the daughters to their father must be acknowledged.
We see therefore that Hashem, in His Infinite Wisdom, did not discriminate against women materially and indeed chose to reward them for their emotional and physical connection to their father. To do otherwise would deny their relationship with that parent and would be a grave injustice. As we know, Hashem is Himself a most Compassionate and Just Father, and could therefore only inbue Torah Law with those attributes.
Good Shabbos.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Korach's Wife
Our landlord recently mentioned to me (prior to the incident noted in "Two Israelis") that men always say they are looking for an asheyt chayil, but he reminds them that they must first be an "ish" chayil for their woman to be an asheyt chayil. Definitely a good sound bite, I thought.
Applicable to this week's parsha too. It is certainly a mitzvah, as we are all painfully aware, to propagate shalom bayis. And, to that end, one should support and respect one's spouse. When we look at Parshah Korach, we see that Korach's wife is characterized as a woman who built up her husband constantly in her speech. However, she also erred in doing so: she bolstered his self-confidence and displayed respect for him by cutting down Moshe and Aharon. Now, Hashem detests Lashon Hara. Indeed, as much as one should go to all lengths to preserve shalom bayis, one must similarly refrain from Lashon Hara. In Korach's wife then, we see the epitome of the wife who builds up her home at the expense of others.
Contrast Korach's wife with Onn's. The latter persuaded her husband to quit the rebellion by highlighting that whether Aharon or Korach was Kohen Gadol in the end made no difference to Onn's existence. Such phrasing, like that of Korach's wife, stresses the benefit to one's husband. However, unlike Korach's wife, Onn's wife chose to persuade her husband to side with Moshe and Aharon, and in turn with Hashem. Korach's wife, on the other hand, chose words that created a home environment that was ripe for rebellion.
In the end, we see that is important to choose a spouse whose words are both productive and l'shaym shamayim. Only then can a peaceful home, one that epitomizes the symbol of the family as a microcosm of the Beit HaMigdash possible. Korach and his wife, as rashoyim, rebelled against Hashem and consequently created a home equivalent to a house of idol worship: one wherein Lashon Hara instilled hatred, and in turn a denial of Hashem. We should all merit to refrain from their example and instead bolster each other into becoming an ish and ashet chayil.
Applicable to this week's parsha too. It is certainly a mitzvah, as we are all painfully aware, to propagate shalom bayis. And, to that end, one should support and respect one's spouse. When we look at Parshah Korach, we see that Korach's wife is characterized as a woman who built up her husband constantly in her speech. However, she also erred in doing so: she bolstered his self-confidence and displayed respect for him by cutting down Moshe and Aharon. Now, Hashem detests Lashon Hara. Indeed, as much as one should go to all lengths to preserve shalom bayis, one must similarly refrain from Lashon Hara. In Korach's wife then, we see the epitome of the wife who builds up her home at the expense of others.
Contrast Korach's wife with Onn's. The latter persuaded her husband to quit the rebellion by highlighting that whether Aharon or Korach was Kohen Gadol in the end made no difference to Onn's existence. Such phrasing, like that of Korach's wife, stresses the benefit to one's husband. However, unlike Korach's wife, Onn's wife chose to persuade her husband to side with Moshe and Aharon, and in turn with Hashem. Korach's wife, on the other hand, chose words that created a home environment that was ripe for rebellion.
In the end, we see that is important to choose a spouse whose words are both productive and l'shaym shamayim. Only then can a peaceful home, one that epitomizes the symbol of the family as a microcosm of the Beit HaMigdash possible. Korach and his wife, as rashoyim, rebelled against Hashem and consequently created a home equivalent to a house of idol worship: one wherein Lashon Hara instilled hatred, and in turn a denial of Hashem. We should all merit to refrain from their example and instead bolster each other into becoming an ish and ashet chayil.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The Virgin, The Widow, but not the Gerusha
There has been much controversy over the years as Kohanim marry later in life, and consequently encounter a dearth of permissible marriage partners. Let's face it: if you had to wait until your thirties to marry, the majority of "singles" are in fact divorcees. Given this reality, many Kohanim resort to "giving up" the kehuna in order to marry women who are ineligible to Kohanim for marriage.
I use this controversy as a starting point for discussing Parshah Emor, because much of the talk surrounding this passuk in that parshah is about the psychological reasons why Kohanim cannot marry a gerusha. However, I humbly suggest that this prevailing focus is perhaps misplaced. Certainly, most men in general are hesitant to contemplate dating the gerusha, and the reasons for this are psychological. However, I think that it sells Kohanim short to speculate that they would be preoccupied with the status of their wife if she was a gerusha; if the Kohen exhibits a level of consideration for his fellow yid, such "judgmental" behaviour is incongruous with the true nature of a Kohen. Indeed, if the issue is that their wife has a "history", why would the same hesitation be absent in the case of the widow?
That question, I believe, touches upon the true reason for why a Kohen is unable to marry a gerusha. If we look at what precedes the list of eligible versus ineligible partners in the parshah, we note that the parshah starts with the description of how the Kohen who is metamay from the passing of his closest relatives can eat first bread after one week and mikvah before moving on on the eighth day to korbanos.
Why is the point underlying this description? The Kohen has had to separate himself from his priestly duties, and in the timeframe between mikvah and resuming his duties in the Beit Hamigdash, he can eat bread. He has been, in other words, on a lower level spiritually, and prior to returning to his full spiritual level as exemplified by korbanos, he partakes of bread. However, during his week of separation from service, the Kohen also ate bread. Thus, this emphasizes the three spiritual levels that the Kohen experiences under these unfortunate circumstances. This second bread, to rephrase, emphasizes the fact that this second bread is a segue between the tumah of his relative's passing and his resumption of his temple duties.
This juxtaposition of the food consumed by the Kohen and the women that a Kohen can marry accentuates that the reason for the gerusha being unsuitable for a Kohen is predominantly spiritual. In brief, a Kohen personifies ahavah, and his duties rely upon his always evidencing a phenomenal degree of love for his brethren. A virgin obviously represents a clean slate, someone that the Kohen can have a fresh start in his journey into married life. Such a connection is conducive to the Kohen and his spouse developing a pure love for each other. A widow, while not physically pure, represents devotion, in that she still maintains positive feelings for her prior spouse; their separation was physical, and she has only fond memories of this prior partner. Such a connection is similarly rooted in ahavah, and therefore renders the widow suitable for marriage to the Kohen.
But the gerusha, unfortunately, will always have a tiny smudge, albeit possibly imperceptible even to her, on her emotionally with regards to her previous relationship. No matter how amicable her divorce, the gerusha became separated from her previous spouse because of their incompatibility. By extension, even when the warmest feelings still remain, a disconnect between the two prior spouses is apparent due to this incompatibility. And, on a spiritual level, a divorce is precisely the severing of two neshamas that were united.
It is this severing, both emotional and spiritual, that is spiritually damaging to the Kohen. The Kohen cannot be with a woman who has encountered this negative separation, since the Kohen must always bridge the gap between people. To be spiritually connected to animosity, even minutely, is inappropriate for the Kohen.
Thus, this parshah underscores not only the sad state of affairs for Kohanim in terms of finding a suitable partner, but also the tragic spiritual blemish that divorce places on people. With Hashem's help, this parshah should act as a cautionary reminder and prevent us from becoming blase about the ever-increasing number of divorced individuals in our communities.
I use this controversy as a starting point for discussing Parshah Emor, because much of the talk surrounding this passuk in that parshah is about the psychological reasons why Kohanim cannot marry a gerusha. However, I humbly suggest that this prevailing focus is perhaps misplaced. Certainly, most men in general are hesitant to contemplate dating the gerusha, and the reasons for this are psychological. However, I think that it sells Kohanim short to speculate that they would be preoccupied with the status of their wife if she was a gerusha; if the Kohen exhibits a level of consideration for his fellow yid, such "judgmental" behaviour is incongruous with the true nature of a Kohen. Indeed, if the issue is that their wife has a "history", why would the same hesitation be absent in the case of the widow?
That question, I believe, touches upon the true reason for why a Kohen is unable to marry a gerusha. If we look at what precedes the list of eligible versus ineligible partners in the parshah, we note that the parshah starts with the description of how the Kohen who is metamay from the passing of his closest relatives can eat first bread after one week and mikvah before moving on on the eighth day to korbanos.
Why is the point underlying this description? The Kohen has had to separate himself from his priestly duties, and in the timeframe between mikvah and resuming his duties in the Beit Hamigdash, he can eat bread. He has been, in other words, on a lower level spiritually, and prior to returning to his full spiritual level as exemplified by korbanos, he partakes of bread. However, during his week of separation from service, the Kohen also ate bread. Thus, this emphasizes the three spiritual levels that the Kohen experiences under these unfortunate circumstances. This second bread, to rephrase, emphasizes the fact that this second bread is a segue between the tumah of his relative's passing and his resumption of his temple duties.
This juxtaposition of the food consumed by the Kohen and the women that a Kohen can marry accentuates that the reason for the gerusha being unsuitable for a Kohen is predominantly spiritual. In brief, a Kohen personifies ahavah, and his duties rely upon his always evidencing a phenomenal degree of love for his brethren. A virgin obviously represents a clean slate, someone that the Kohen can have a fresh start in his journey into married life. Such a connection is conducive to the Kohen and his spouse developing a pure love for each other. A widow, while not physically pure, represents devotion, in that she still maintains positive feelings for her prior spouse; their separation was physical, and she has only fond memories of this prior partner. Such a connection is similarly rooted in ahavah, and therefore renders the widow suitable for marriage to the Kohen.
But the gerusha, unfortunately, will always have a tiny smudge, albeit possibly imperceptible even to her, on her emotionally with regards to her previous relationship. No matter how amicable her divorce, the gerusha became separated from her previous spouse because of their incompatibility. By extension, even when the warmest feelings still remain, a disconnect between the two prior spouses is apparent due to this incompatibility. And, on a spiritual level, a divorce is precisely the severing of two neshamas that were united.
It is this severing, both emotional and spiritual, that is spiritually damaging to the Kohen. The Kohen cannot be with a woman who has encountered this negative separation, since the Kohen must always bridge the gap between people. To be spiritually connected to animosity, even minutely, is inappropriate for the Kohen.
Thus, this parshah underscores not only the sad state of affairs for Kohanim in terms of finding a suitable partner, but also the tragic spiritual blemish that divorce places on people. With Hashem's help, this parshah should act as a cautionary reminder and prevent us from becoming blase about the ever-increasing number of divorced individuals in our communities.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Second Chance
A Guten Rosh Chodesh Nissan! :=)
A couple of quick notes on Parshah Tazria before my husband and I start tackling the kitchen this afternoon, as per our Pesach cleaning schedule...
Similarly, the process of proclaiming a person as afflicted with tzaaraas carries a similar message. Why not just view the affliction and deem the person contaminated? Why the first week and then second week? In the case of an old affliction that has not healed, yes, the determination is immediate. For a new affliction however, the process is certainly drawn out.
When someone is afflicted with tzaaraas, it is a horrible embarrassment. Everyone knows that you have performed the given aveirah, and you are essentially excommunicated until you go through the necessary purification process, which is itself lengthy and humiliating. The purpose therefore is to provide the person ample time to do teshuvah and avoid having to endure this most public of punishments. You must go before the Kohen repeatedly, because Hashem hopes that in doing so, in having to face the Kohen who is the embodiment of purity and service to Hashem, you be humbled enough privately to do teshuvah and circumvent having to travel down the path to punishment.
We consequently find in both aspects of the parshah tremendous compassion on the part of Hashem, in His providing us the appropriate amount of time to return to our "normal" state of purity.
May everyone have a great Rosh Chodesh, and have an easy time with their Pesach preparations.
A couple of quick notes on Parshah Tazria before my husband and I start tackling the kitchen this afternoon, as per our Pesach cleaning schedule...
- Why is there mention of bris milah having to be performed on the eighth day, in the middle of the description of how many days a woman counts post-childbirth?
- Why do we have these whole drawn-out process of determining whether or not someone is afflicted with tzaaraas?
Similarly, the process of proclaiming a person as afflicted with tzaaraas carries a similar message. Why not just view the affliction and deem the person contaminated? Why the first week and then second week? In the case of an old affliction that has not healed, yes, the determination is immediate. For a new affliction however, the process is certainly drawn out.
When someone is afflicted with tzaaraas, it is a horrible embarrassment. Everyone knows that you have performed the given aveirah, and you are essentially excommunicated until you go through the necessary purification process, which is itself lengthy and humiliating. The purpose therefore is to provide the person ample time to do teshuvah and avoid having to endure this most public of punishments. You must go before the Kohen repeatedly, because Hashem hopes that in doing so, in having to face the Kohen who is the embodiment of purity and service to Hashem, you be humbled enough privately to do teshuvah and circumvent having to travel down the path to punishment.
We consequently find in both aspects of the parshah tremendous compassion on the part of Hashem, in His providing us the appropriate amount of time to return to our "normal" state of purity.
May everyone have a great Rosh Chodesh, and have an easy time with their Pesach preparations.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Simple Stuff
I once overheard a Rabbi who had just recovered from a terrible bout of the flu that even such a small thing as the flu can remind you how fragile we are and how reliant we are for everything on Hashem.
I have been fighting a head cold all week, which I happily came down with only post-bar mitzvah last Shabbos. Of course, given my druthers, I would take a head cold over a virus any day. Sure, head colds are painful and annoying, and yes, I get CRANKY either way, but colds are more bearable somehow for me.
Anyhow, while doing some shopping for Shabbos last night as I cleaned the house, my husband made a new discovery, which he presented to me when he returned. And boy, did my face light up when I saw it!...Puff Tissues with Vicks scent.
Now, I will admit that I hated Vicks as a child. Too slimy. Too strong a scent. Too... overpowering in every way for the child me. But let me tell you, these tissues are a find. They cuddle my peeling, Rudolph nose and that gentle waft of Vicks does impart comfort in a kind of "almost 5 years old again and your mother is taking care of you" way. And, while it can almost certainly be attributed to the placebo effect, I will attest to feeling- despite all claims by Puffs that their product only imparts a Vicks scent and should not be confused with using the actual Vicks product - my sinuses clear out a bit.
My husband did not present me the tissues with any fanfare. In fact, he simply dropped off the packages and went out to do a bit more scrounging around. In other words, he got the tissues solely to provide some comfort, without any need for fanfare, etc.
I will acknowledge that my husband and I can drive each other batty. Indeed, we do so not just frequently but constantly. In many ways, men and women are programmed to do exactly that; you can love your spouse but because they are a man or a woman and you are not, there is a lot of a room for that "what the heck was that" reaction? Would so many stories, tv shows, and movies have been devoted to that same topic if this reaction was not commonplace?
But when I saw those tissues, let me tell you, I felt loved. We all have needs, and the key in marriage seems to be finding a way to meeting the needs of your spouse. So step 1 is identify what your spouse needs and step 2 is attempt to fulfill that need, especially if you can fulfill it in the way that your spouse wants. For example, maybe your husband gives you some sewing to do or maybe your wife asks you to take out the garbage. Do you give a look or a mutter and do it begrudgingly, or do you smile, say Thank You (because this is an opportunity to do something for him/her), and do it without a second thought? Now this latter attitude is very hard to maintain, no question about it. But I think the key is exactly that: recognizing that our spouse is asking for our help, and thereby giving us an unspoken compliment, namely that s/he trusts us enough to do the given request in a satisfactory way.
Maybe a box of tissues is a "duh" need when your wife has a cold. But when I saw that he had devoted time and effort to picking out just the right box of tissues, without the usual phone calls being placed with questions to aid selection- now that was not just meeting my need, but meeting my need in the way I needed it to be met.
A simple communication in a box of tissues. How sweet is that?
Good Shabbos!
I have been fighting a head cold all week, which I happily came down with only post-bar mitzvah last Shabbos. Of course, given my druthers, I would take a head cold over a virus any day. Sure, head colds are painful and annoying, and yes, I get CRANKY either way, but colds are more bearable somehow for me.
Anyhow, while doing some shopping for Shabbos last night as I cleaned the house, my husband made a new discovery, which he presented to me when he returned. And boy, did my face light up when I saw it!...Puff Tissues with Vicks scent.
Now, I will admit that I hated Vicks as a child. Too slimy. Too strong a scent. Too... overpowering in every way for the child me. But let me tell you, these tissues are a find. They cuddle my peeling, Rudolph nose and that gentle waft of Vicks does impart comfort in a kind of "almost 5 years old again and your mother is taking care of you" way. And, while it can almost certainly be attributed to the placebo effect, I will attest to feeling- despite all claims by Puffs that their product only imparts a Vicks scent and should not be confused with using the actual Vicks product - my sinuses clear out a bit.
My husband did not present me the tissues with any fanfare. In fact, he simply dropped off the packages and went out to do a bit more scrounging around. In other words, he got the tissues solely to provide some comfort, without any need for fanfare, etc.
I will acknowledge that my husband and I can drive each other batty. Indeed, we do so not just frequently but constantly. In many ways, men and women are programmed to do exactly that; you can love your spouse but because they are a man or a woman and you are not, there is a lot of a room for that "what the heck was that" reaction? Would so many stories, tv shows, and movies have been devoted to that same topic if this reaction was not commonplace?
But when I saw those tissues, let me tell you, I felt loved. We all have needs, and the key in marriage seems to be finding a way to meeting the needs of your spouse. So step 1 is identify what your spouse needs and step 2 is attempt to fulfill that need, especially if you can fulfill it in the way that your spouse wants. For example, maybe your husband gives you some sewing to do or maybe your wife asks you to take out the garbage. Do you give a look or a mutter and do it begrudgingly, or do you smile, say Thank You (because this is an opportunity to do something for him/her), and do it without a second thought? Now this latter attitude is very hard to maintain, no question about it. But I think the key is exactly that: recognizing that our spouse is asking for our help, and thereby giving us an unspoken compliment, namely that s/he trusts us enough to do the given request in a satisfactory way.
Maybe a box of tissues is a "duh" need when your wife has a cold. But when I saw that he had devoted time and effort to picking out just the right box of tissues, without the usual phone calls being placed with questions to aid selection- now that was not just meeting my need, but meeting my need in the way I needed it to be met.
A simple communication in a box of tissues. How sweet is that?
Good Shabbos!
Monday, March 17, 2008
Russell Crowe and Shalom Bayis
Last night my husband and I saw a "little train that could" film directed by Ron Howard called "Cinderella Man". The film was well done, albeit only relatively tznius, not to mention stereotypically negative in its portrayal of "half-Jewish" (i.e. not) Max Baer, who is the boxer against which our hero Jimmy Braddock (read nice Irish Catholic) must prevail. On solely those terms, I would definitely not recommend the movie to my frummie frumstein friends.
However, the film did a good job of portraying Jimmy's devotion to his wife and family; they are the force that drives him during his boxing career, with each purse meaning the children can eat their fill that evening. And, even rarer, we see that Jimmy's wife supports him in his endeavours despite her understandable fears that her husband could end up permanently damaged or worse.
Watching the movie, I was touched by the realistic portrayal of a devoted husband and wife. How refreshing to find, despite the film's other ideological shortcomings, a cinematic portrayal of a traditional family, where the man is the provider and his wife a homemaker and no excuses are made. In fact, what I liked best about the movie was the fact that the love that they had for each other was based on mutual respect, pride, and support. Here were two people who came together and became a true team, time and again putting the other person first, and never losing sight of the good qualities in the other. Now that is a Torahdikk perspective of love and marriage! And why can we not see that more often in films, versus scene after scene of men and women demeaning themselves and each other in a host of ways?
So the film in its own way ended up being a triumph of some fundamental Torah values. On our very first date, I told my husband that being "in love" is very nice and good, but not a replacement for "real" love, which develops over time and is based on respect and kindness. Despite having been undeniably smitten when we married, I still hold by that statement. That is what I enjoyed about this movie and what it reminded me.
Often we get caught up in a routine, and while taharat hamispacha certainly helps, couples can get into a rut where they lose sight of how they feel about their spouse. A sense of duty comes to inform everything, actions are done out of rote, and while duty and routine can prove satisfying to a degree, in the end resentment can build. We can lose sights of ourselves, our needs, and our spouses in the process.
I therefore propose a suggestion and challenge to myself and all of you readers out there. Let's try our best to focus for a few moments a day on who our spouses are and their positive traits. Let's remind ourselves why they are worthy of our respect and devotion. In doing so, we can help bolster Shalom Bayis. And, as we all well know, while Shalom Bayis requires a concerted, continuous effort on the part of both spouses, when we perpetuate Shalom Bayis, Hashem smiles upon us.
However, the film did a good job of portraying Jimmy's devotion to his wife and family; they are the force that drives him during his boxing career, with each purse meaning the children can eat their fill that evening. And, even rarer, we see that Jimmy's wife supports him in his endeavours despite her understandable fears that her husband could end up permanently damaged or worse.
Watching the movie, I was touched by the realistic portrayal of a devoted husband and wife. How refreshing to find, despite the film's other ideological shortcomings, a cinematic portrayal of a traditional family, where the man is the provider and his wife a homemaker and no excuses are made. In fact, what I liked best about the movie was the fact that the love that they had for each other was based on mutual respect, pride, and support. Here were two people who came together and became a true team, time and again putting the other person first, and never losing sight of the good qualities in the other. Now that is a Torahdikk perspective of love and marriage! And why can we not see that more often in films, versus scene after scene of men and women demeaning themselves and each other in a host of ways?
So the film in its own way ended up being a triumph of some fundamental Torah values. On our very first date, I told my husband that being "in love" is very nice and good, but not a replacement for "real" love, which develops over time and is based on respect and kindness. Despite having been undeniably smitten when we married, I still hold by that statement. That is what I enjoyed about this movie and what it reminded me.
Often we get caught up in a routine, and while taharat hamispacha certainly helps, couples can get into a rut where they lose sight of how they feel about their spouse. A sense of duty comes to inform everything, actions are done out of rote, and while duty and routine can prove satisfying to a degree, in the end resentment can build. We can lose sights of ourselves, our needs, and our spouses in the process.
I therefore propose a suggestion and challenge to myself and all of you readers out there. Let's try our best to focus for a few moments a day on who our spouses are and their positive traits. Let's remind ourselves why they are worthy of our respect and devotion. In doing so, we can help bolster Shalom Bayis. And, as we all well know, while Shalom Bayis requires a concerted, continuous effort on the part of both spouses, when we perpetuate Shalom Bayis, Hashem smiles upon us.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Standards of Beauty
When I was younger, I liked to coast on what was termed "natural beauty". As a die-hard tomboy who found all things girlie (dolls, makeup, ballet, gymnastics) BORING, I had the sense from very early on in life that I should not have to find my self-esteem in attracting a boy. I mean, I was my own person, with ideas and likes/dislikes. Why would I ever want to put on mascara just so some boy would like me? I wanted to be a beautiful person on the inside.
I have long outgrown my tomboy-ishness and learned to embrace my feminine side. Several years ago, I came to understand that after a certain age, a woman is expected to wear light makeup under most circumstances (in the workforce, at simchas, on shidduchim). And so I replaced my slightly over sized, "comfortable" skirts and turtlenecks with properly sized clothing, my "sensible" shoes for pumps, and find myself always on the lookout these days for a new fabulous lipstick or eyeshadow shade. I learned, in other words, that to be valued as a person, I had to act like a woman. After all, would we respect a man if he acted unmanly?
Speaking of men, one mitzvah that I take very seriously is doing what I can to remain attractive to my husband. While I do not, B'H', feel pressured to always be seen with a full face of makeup on, as some women do, I do always try to have a bit of makeup on when my husband is home, to ensure that my hair is neat and my clothes clean. And of course, this consideration for appearance is a two-way street; a man should attempt to remain appealing to his wife. That means showering enough and laundering your clothes enough to banish odour, trying to refrain from wearing hole-ridden clothing (especially socks) in our presence, and striking up a relationship with your barber. Because one thing any woman appreciates on a man is a good haircut.
I had a conversation recently with my husband about tznius, specifically internalizing the concept of tznius versus superficially adhering to the the letter of the law. The conversation turned to the wearing of clothing that may cover all the "important" parts but are tight enough to leave nothing to the imagination, spike-heeled boots, and/or shaggy-maned sheitels.
I mentioned that most girls/women who wear such styles do so to be deemed attractive by men- all men. The intention is to invoke a look on the street, to turn a head and garner attention. The impetus for such intention is a hyper form of that sensibility evidenced by most girls (tomboys excluded) to be considered the most physically beautiful. Girls fuss with makeup, with fashion, with hair, in an attempt to find the most attractive look for themselves. We could come up with several reasons for this general preoccupation, but that's a whole other post. Rather, the point I would prefer to focus on is that there needs to be a balance for everyone, men and women, between attractiveness and modesty.
I go on record as not being a fan of the snood. While I can appreciate that a mother of 6 would wear a snood out of necessity, because she has not time for herself and because her children would ruin anything else she might get a chance to shove on her head, I think we would all agree that it is nobody's best look. Having been in hospital several times in the past year and a half and having experienced the difficulty involved in keeping your tichel on under such circumstances, I can to a degree relate. And, as someone who wore the simplest of clothes for many years, I understand the comfort factor, as well as the sense that somehow "frumpier" clothing is more tznius. But, let's face it, frumpy is not more tznius; we are obligated to not render ourselves repulsive to our spouses. So those who dress in too understated a fashion could move a bit more to the "attractive" side of the balance and those who dress too provocatively could move a bit more to the "understated" side.
Similarly, while we are bombarded from within the frum community and from outside sources with pressure to "put ourselves out there", we should not believe that overtly "come hither" hair, clothing, or footwear is tznius- no matter how well our body parts are covered. Certainly, one should be physically charming to one's spouse. And certainly, one should present a pleasant appearance to the outside world, since our appearance reflects upon our families and even our community, not just ourselves. And, just as the frumpier side of the spectrum can be inappropriate, so too can be a "too attractive" appearance.
I know I am always striving to strike the right balance in my appearance. And maybe, when we all have it down pat, both men and women, our minds will be better freed to focus on other, equally important aspects of life. Such as that idea I had first as a child: to make ourselves into a nation of people who are beautiful on the inside.
I have long outgrown my tomboy-ishness and learned to embrace my feminine side. Several years ago, I came to understand that after a certain age, a woman is expected to wear light makeup under most circumstances (in the workforce, at simchas, on shidduchim). And so I replaced my slightly over sized, "comfortable" skirts and turtlenecks with properly sized clothing, my "sensible" shoes for pumps, and find myself always on the lookout these days for a new fabulous lipstick or eyeshadow shade. I learned, in other words, that to be valued as a person, I had to act like a woman. After all, would we respect a man if he acted unmanly?
Speaking of men, one mitzvah that I take very seriously is doing what I can to remain attractive to my husband. While I do not, B'H', feel pressured to always be seen with a full face of makeup on, as some women do, I do always try to have a bit of makeup on when my husband is home, to ensure that my hair is neat and my clothes clean. And of course, this consideration for appearance is a two-way street; a man should attempt to remain appealing to his wife. That means showering enough and laundering your clothes enough to banish odour, trying to refrain from wearing hole-ridden clothing (especially socks) in our presence, and striking up a relationship with your barber. Because one thing any woman appreciates on a man is a good haircut.
I had a conversation recently with my husband about tznius, specifically internalizing the concept of tznius versus superficially adhering to the the letter of the law. The conversation turned to the wearing of clothing that may cover all the "important" parts but are tight enough to leave nothing to the imagination, spike-heeled boots, and/or shaggy-maned sheitels.
I mentioned that most girls/women who wear such styles do so to be deemed attractive by men- all men. The intention is to invoke a look on the street, to turn a head and garner attention. The impetus for such intention is a hyper form of that sensibility evidenced by most girls (tomboys excluded) to be considered the most physically beautiful. Girls fuss with makeup, with fashion, with hair, in an attempt to find the most attractive look for themselves. We could come up with several reasons for this general preoccupation, but that's a whole other post. Rather, the point I would prefer to focus on is that there needs to be a balance for everyone, men and women, between attractiveness and modesty.
I go on record as not being a fan of the snood. While I can appreciate that a mother of 6 would wear a snood out of necessity, because she has not time for herself and because her children would ruin anything else she might get a chance to shove on her head, I think we would all agree that it is nobody's best look. Having been in hospital several times in the past year and a half and having experienced the difficulty involved in keeping your tichel on under such circumstances, I can to a degree relate. And, as someone who wore the simplest of clothes for many years, I understand the comfort factor, as well as the sense that somehow "frumpier" clothing is more tznius. But, let's face it, frumpy is not more tznius; we are obligated to not render ourselves repulsive to our spouses. So those who dress in too understated a fashion could move a bit more to the "attractive" side of the balance and those who dress too provocatively could move a bit more to the "understated" side.
Similarly, while we are bombarded from within the frum community and from outside sources with pressure to "put ourselves out there", we should not believe that overtly "come hither" hair, clothing, or footwear is tznius- no matter how well our body parts are covered. Certainly, one should be physically charming to one's spouse. And certainly, one should present a pleasant appearance to the outside world, since our appearance reflects upon our families and even our community, not just ourselves. And, just as the frumpier side of the spectrum can be inappropriate, so too can be a "too attractive" appearance.
I know I am always striving to strike the right balance in my appearance. And maybe, when we all have it down pat, both men and women, our minds will be better freed to focus on other, equally important aspects of life. Such as that idea I had first as a child: to make ourselves into a nation of people who are beautiful on the inside.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Gender
While recently walking in Manhattan following a business meeting, I began reflecting upon previous waves of feminism. Yes, feminism. And it was interesting to me that most of feminism has been reactionary, despite attempts by third-wave feminists to construct a "true", global dialectic based on the real experiences of women. This failure to accurately reflect the day-to-day lives of women has resulted in a fracturing of the ideology, since that ideology is predicated on the notion that the role of the family is oppressive to women, that it robs women of respect and financial independence. Rooted as it is in a Western, socialist mindset, a mindset that separates identity and life in general from religion, feminism responds to the question of gender by answering that women's minds must be changed in order to understand that the world and their identity therein is political, that their sense of self is rooted in an economic model that is imbalanced and must be balanced- by feminism. This model, you'll note, makes no mention of Hashem.
Yet if feminism balances the enslavement caused by consumerist, capitalist economics, then why do so many people still chose to have a family? Why, moreover, do so many women now work to the point of exhaustion in order to have both a family and work outside of the home? If the feminist ideology states that gender is a construct, that children are a consumer item that feeds the capitalist economy, then what has that ideology been successful in changing?
One could find fodder for the opinion then, that feminism has not really addressed the universal desire amongst people to have, as my husband puts it, a legacy. Canadian economist Harold Innis coined the theory that cultures are either spatial or temporal; spatial cultures are ones that focus on geography (i.e. this land is my heritage and constructs my identity) versus temporal cultures, which focus on establishing continuity across time (i.e. my culture and identity is rooted in the morality of my predecessors). Under this concept of cultures then, children are rooted in economics for spatial cultures (my child supports the economy of the given country and, in turn world) and in continuity for temporal cultures (my child will carry on the name and morality of my fore bearers). While feminism has attempted to address the former reason for children, the ideology has not made room for the latter.
Women have, in frumkeit, always been defined as equal to men. Moreover, women have always been granted financial rights: they can possess property, are entitled to retaining their earnings, etc. It is the acknowledgment of women's traditional role in the home that is precisely the reason for women's exclusion from performing certain mitzvot; such an exclusion, in other words, is due to the equal respect and consideration given to the role of women, not because women are deemed incapable or unworthy. They are simply released from the obligation to perform those mitzvot. Feminism fails to take into account these disparities of economics and identity between feminism and frumkeit.
Why am I devoting so much verbiage to an ideology that is irrelevant to yiddishkeit, that cannot accurately represent the reality of frum women? First, I mention this gap because I believe that feminism has infiltrated the frum community. It could stem from the rise of Baalei Teshuvah in North America, or from the increasing number of frum people who are seeking a secular education in order to further their economic status, or from many other reasons. Regardless, it is this conflicting ideology that is helping convince singles to stay single, this ideology that is convincing both young men and young women to contemplate alternate versions of yiddishkeit.
The Harold Innis theory leaves out a third type of culture, which I am now charting, namely a hybrid culture that I will label spatial/temporal. In this third type, of which yiddishkeit is an example, the given culture gives equal emphasis to the temporal (i.e. Torah) and spatial (i.e. Eretz Yisrael). How does this labelling of yiddishkeit as a hybrid culture affect gender and economics? Under this label, gender is based on the examples of the matriarchs and patriarchs, on living your life as exemplified by those individuals. Identity and economics become rooted in turn in the concepts and laws documented in the Torah- the word of Hashem. That is why yiddishkeit is a "world religion"; yiddin can live their lives in Asia the same as they do in Florida, or anywhere else. Until gallus ends anyway.
For those who acknowledge Hashem, and the role of Torah, there should be no confusion then. Gender roles are acknowledged, respect is equally granted, and economics open to all. Now that's a culture I can be thrilled as a woman to belong to.
Yet if feminism balances the enslavement caused by consumerist, capitalist economics, then why do so many people still chose to have a family? Why, moreover, do so many women now work to the point of exhaustion in order to have both a family and work outside of the home? If the feminist ideology states that gender is a construct, that children are a consumer item that feeds the capitalist economy, then what has that ideology been successful in changing?
One could find fodder for the opinion then, that feminism has not really addressed the universal desire amongst people to have, as my husband puts it, a legacy. Canadian economist Harold Innis coined the theory that cultures are either spatial or temporal; spatial cultures are ones that focus on geography (i.e. this land is my heritage and constructs my identity) versus temporal cultures, which focus on establishing continuity across time (i.e. my culture and identity is rooted in the morality of my predecessors). Under this concept of cultures then, children are rooted in economics for spatial cultures (my child supports the economy of the given country and, in turn world) and in continuity for temporal cultures (my child will carry on the name and morality of my fore bearers). While feminism has attempted to address the former reason for children, the ideology has not made room for the latter.
Women have, in frumkeit, always been defined as equal to men. Moreover, women have always been granted financial rights: they can possess property, are entitled to retaining their earnings, etc. It is the acknowledgment of women's traditional role in the home that is precisely the reason for women's exclusion from performing certain mitzvot; such an exclusion, in other words, is due to the equal respect and consideration given to the role of women, not because women are deemed incapable or unworthy. They are simply released from the obligation to perform those mitzvot. Feminism fails to take into account these disparities of economics and identity between feminism and frumkeit.
Why am I devoting so much verbiage to an ideology that is irrelevant to yiddishkeit, that cannot accurately represent the reality of frum women? First, I mention this gap because I believe that feminism has infiltrated the frum community. It could stem from the rise of Baalei Teshuvah in North America, or from the increasing number of frum people who are seeking a secular education in order to further their economic status, or from many other reasons. Regardless, it is this conflicting ideology that is helping convince singles to stay single, this ideology that is convincing both young men and young women to contemplate alternate versions of yiddishkeit.
The Harold Innis theory leaves out a third type of culture, which I am now charting, namely a hybrid culture that I will label spatial/temporal. In this third type, of which yiddishkeit is an example, the given culture gives equal emphasis to the temporal (i.e. Torah) and spatial (i.e. Eretz Yisrael). How does this labelling of yiddishkeit as a hybrid culture affect gender and economics? Under this label, gender is based on the examples of the matriarchs and patriarchs, on living your life as exemplified by those individuals. Identity and economics become rooted in turn in the concepts and laws documented in the Torah- the word of Hashem. That is why yiddishkeit is a "world religion"; yiddin can live their lives in Asia the same as they do in Florida, or anywhere else. Until gallus ends anyway.
For those who acknowledge Hashem, and the role of Torah, there should be no confusion then. Gender roles are acknowledged, respect is equally granted, and economics open to all. Now that's a culture I can be thrilled as a woman to belong to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)