|
Rebecca Honig Friedman
Rebecca Honig Friedman is Senior Writer for Jewess, a blog about Jewish women, and a regular contributor to the The Lilith Blog, where her column, "The Jewish Beat", appears every Friday (another Lilith guest, Susan Schnur, was here a couple of weeks ago). In addition to freelance writing, she works as a producer for documentary film and television programs, having contributed to projects as diverse as a PBS documentary about abstinence-only sex education in Lubbock, Texas to a hip-hop celebrity poker television series (don't ask).
In her mid-twenties, Rebecca holds a BA in English from Yale University and is the product of a modern Orthodox day school education. She lives with her husband on Manhattan's Lower East Side, where she was born and raised.
We will discuss issues related to the American Jewish community, especially Jewish women. Readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Dear Rebecca,
Here's your last challenge, a question that appeared in different forms in some of the emails I got from readers: Is there a feminine Jewish agenda that's different from the agenda of Jewish men? What will it be?
Thank you for the time and the effort,
Rosner
Dear Rosner,
Thanks for the opportunity. It's been fun.
The idea of a Jewish agenda is a strange one to me, as if there was one common goal or purpose that unites the Jewish people. Some would say Jews' purpose is to be "a light unto the nations," but that strikes me as a rather naive - and arrogant - way of thinking, particularly since we don't seem to be doing very well with that mission.
There are so many different groups within the Jewish world, with their own particular agendas. The only real agenda I can think of that is particularly a Jewish one is the survival of the Jewish people and even that - the viability and desirability of the idea of Jewish Peoplehood -- has been called into question. Perhaps we can summarize the common Jewish agenda as the survival of Jewish identity and values -- in whatever form they may take - in the context of a modern, progressive world.
But as the old adage goes, "two Jews, three opinions." Jews disagree as to the best way to pursue that agenda. So each sub-group approaches it in the way that seems best form their particular perspective.
For some that means maintaining an affection for certain aspects of Judaism and Jewish culture while also abandoning the idea of belonging to a "people"; for others it means squeezing together even tighter to insulate themselves from the outside world and its destructive influences. For most of us in the middle, it means trying to reconcile our Jewish values and identity with our desire to partake fully in the secular world, whether that means taking influences from the secular world and applying them to Jewish life, or taking Jewish influences and applying them to our activities in the secular world.
Toward that end, there is perhaps a feminine -- maybe feminist would be more precise terminology -- agenda to further women's participation in the Jewish community. As we've already discussed, in modern Orthodox Judaism women are pushing for more equality, but in other denominations, where women already have the opportunity for equal participation, they are pushing for more access to leadership positions. There is a particular push going on right now, led by an organization called Advancing Women Professionals and the Jewish Community (AWP), to further women's leadership in Jewish organizational life, rather than just in religious life.
But AWP's mission is not just about women's progress as much as it's about a vision of a Jewish organizational world that is more representative of the true makeup of the Jewish community, giving women, who make up a significant portion of that community, a voice in making decisions about the overall "Jewish agenda."
That's really what the modern Orthodox feminist push is about, too. Acknowledging that halacha has always been determined by men and that that doesn't fly anymore, women are demanding that their voices be considered in making halachic decisions.
So I guess that's the feminine Jewish agenda -- advancing women's participation in Jewish life such that their concerns and ideas are reflected in the overall common Jewish agenda, if there even is such a thing anymore.
Thanks again, and Shabbat shalom,
Rebecca
Rebecca,
OK, enough with JAPS.
Why does "Judaism plays a central role in the lives of more women than men"?
Is it because women are more spiritual? better educated? feel more responsible for the children?
Can it be changed (not to have more men, but the same amount of men playing such role)?
Rosner
Hello there, Rosner,
(Do you ever go by Shmuel?)
Thank you for the change of subject!
There's been a fair amount of struggling with these questions lately in the American Jewish community (see the Jewish Week, the Forward, and 614: an HBI eZine to name a few) so I'm not sure I can offer a better answer than anyone else has. But I'll try anyway.
It's interesting to note that the discrepancy in the sexes' involvement, with women outnumbering men, varies by denomination, it's most apparent in Reform, becoming more of an issue in Conservative, and is not an issue in Orthodox Judaism. Thus, it might be helpful for the Reform and Conservative movements to note what is different about Orthodox Judaism that keeps men interested.
When I wrote a post on this subject a while back, a reader offered an interesting explanation for why the discrepancy exists between denominations, citing this post by the blogger at Elie's Expositions for his reasoning. I won't go into too much detail, Elie's post is worth a read if you're at all interested, but the basic argument, as it applies to the question at hand, is that if men were not commanded to do certain mitzvot, specifically the socially oriented ones, like taking part in a minyan, for example, they would not do them; whereas women are not commanded to do those mitzvot because they would be inclined to perform them anyway. Men are by nature less community-minded, he argues, and therefore need to be coaxed into taking part in cooperative, communal endeavors.
There's something to this theory. In Reform Judaism, where mitzvot are regarded more as guidelines or good deeds, men are not taking part; in Orthodox Judaism, where mitzvot are regarded as obligations, men are still going strong.
Another related issue is that Orthodox Judaism tends to be more action-oriented, focused on deeds much more than thought, feeling or spirituality, which tend to dominate in Reform Judaism, and it's been shown in many different facets of life that men like doing things. It's not surprising many of the teenage boys who drop out of Jewish communal and ritual life after their bar mitzvahs say it's because they're more interested in sports.
However, I've been ignoring the most obvious aspect of this issue, which is that as girls and women have become more empowered in the more liberal movements of Judaism, the boys and men are losing interest.
The obvious explanation for this is that men like to dominate, which they do in Orthodox Judaism. Certainly Reform and Conservative Judaism should not allow men to dominate just to win back their affections, but they might take heart to figure out how to keep men from feeling dominated.
The perhaps less obvious explanation, which is related to the idea of obligation to do mitzvoth, but from a different angle, is that in Orthodox Judaism men are necessary in a way they just are not in egalitarian Reform or Conservative Judaism. Without men, Orthodox communal ritual life would not exist, because women are not counted for a minyan.
There's a lot to be said for making people feel needed, not personally obligated (as is the case with commandments) but communally necessary, so that they know their involvement, or lack of involvement, makes a significant difference. Maybe that's the extra push men need, that maybe women do not need as much for some reason, to make them get involved in religious life.
Rebecca
Dear Mr. Rosner,
Can you please ask you guest to write the other pages she said she has on J.A.P.S. I find it most interesting. Especially, I would like to know if she can understand where this is coming from.
Best,
Miriam Levey
Dear Miriam,
The only other post I have written that deals at any length with "J.A.P." is this one, about the Jewish women's comedy showcase "The J.A.P. Show." But if you're extra curious, here are the results of a search for all of my posts that have mentioned the word or linked to other people's writing about it. Thanks for your interest.
I can understand where the stereotype comes from. In fact I grew up with a lot of girls who fit into it quite nicely. But I maintain that their fitting the stereotype has to do with their socioeconomic status and not with their being Jewish.
The characteristics encompassed in the J.A.P. are pretty similar to those invoked by the term "nouveau riche," and I'm fairly certain the term J.A.P. originated within that same context, in the 1950s and 60s, when a lot of Jews, often the children of immigrants, or immigrants themselves, were moving up the economic ladder and into the suburbs. In wanting to give their kids the kind of privileged upbringing they never had, they spoiled and sheltered them, particularly their daughters (i.e. "daddy's little girl"). Thus the term J.A.P. was born, and I imagine it would have been equally embraced by upper-class WASPs who looked down on their nouveau riche neighbors as by people lower down on the economic ladder, whether by choice (bohemians, hippies and communists) or not by choice (average laborers and the poor).
It makes for a nice little narrative, but you could tell the same one about other ethnic groups. And yet, somehow Italian American Princess has never quite caught on (not to bash Italians, I'm just using it as a rhetorical example).
Also, at the risk of sounding preachy or too nice, there actually is more to most (not all) "J.A.P.py" people (let's include men in this category) than their superficial surface presentation would suggest. Just because you get your nails done every week or insist on wearing designer jeans doesn't mean you don't have a heart and a brain. Giving people the benefit of the doubt is a very Jewish idea after all.
Okay then, on to the next question.
Dear Ms. Friedman Honig,
Do you deny that there is a certain problematic character to the way Jewish girls are raised in this country? Why do you think so many Jewish men want to marry non-Jewish women?
Thank you,
Barry,
Brooklyn
Dear Barry,
There's so much diversity amongst Jewish girls in America, and the families in which they are raised, that I don't think we can generalize about a certain upbringing for Jewish females. I'm really not sure what problems you're referring to. If you mean the ones I alluded to above, then, yes, those are problems, but not ones specific to Jewish girls. They apply to lots of different spoiled girls, of different ethnicities and religious affiliations, around the country, and there are many Jewish girls to whom those particular issues do not apply.
As to why so many Jewish men want to marry non-Jewish women, I don't know -- do they really? That is the idea perpetuated by popular literature (in Philip Roth books and Woody Allen films, specifically), and the pop-psych answer most often given is that Jewish men don't want to marry women who remind them of their mothers. But I wonder how true any of that it is to reality.
A 2003 demographics study found that the intermarriage rate was only slightly higher among Jewish men that it was among Jewish women - 33 percent of men, compared to 29 percent of women. To be sure, four percentage points is statistically significant, but not enough to make the case that there must be something wrong with Jewish women that makes them undesirable to Jewish men. Which I think is the point you were trying to make. In fact, the percentage of women who intermarry is significant enough that we could just as easily ask why so many Jewish women want to marry non-Jewish men.
The answer I would suggest to both questions is that most Jewish men and women, even the ones who end up marrying out of the faith, don't go out intentionally seeking to do so. Nor do they necessarily set out to marry a fellow Jew. Finding the right person is hard, especially when you limit your pool of potential soul mates, so if Judaism isn't the guiding force in your life, why make it the guiding force in your choice of mate?
Considering how many American Jews are unaffiliated, it's almost surprising more don't marry out. (Disclaimer: I'm not advocating intermarriage.)
As to the discrepancy between male and female intermarriage rates, perhaps this can be chalked up to the difference between male and female involvement in Jewish communal life - women outnumber men in synagogue and institutional affiliation, particularly within the Reform movement, the largest Jewish denomination in America. So if Judaism plays a central role in the lives of more women than men, it would make sense that more men would not consider it a determining factor in their spousal choices and would end up marrying non-Jewish women.
Rebecca
Dear Rebecca,
Let's talk about something that makes you really angry (judging by previous postings of yours) - the term JAP.
Again, two questions:
1. Can we agree that it has a sort of comeback?
2. Is it really so bad?
Rosner
Dear Rosner,
Is this the post you're referring to? That did make me angry, but it was more about how the term was being used -- and by whom -- than about the word itself, though you're right that I don't like it. Also I didn't like being scolded by the attendant at Bloomingdale's for taking pictures.
Alana Newhouse wrote a great article about "The Return of the J.A.P" a couple years ago in which she points out how the word has come back into popular public discourse, though in a somewhat modified form, after being banished by Jewish feminists in the 1970s. There have been a slew of titles for books and plays and the like that invoke the Jewish American Princess stereotype. But it's hard to really call this a comeback because I don't think the word J.A.P. ever went away, not in private usage anyway. Perhaps it's just that I'm young, but I don't remember a time when the word J.A.P. wasn't casually bandied about -- often by young Jewish women to describe other young Jewish women -- or even to describe themselves.
Which brings us to question #2, is it really that bad?
Yes, it is. But it's complicated.
The way that the word J.A.P. tends to be used by the kids these days is, on the surface, fairly innocuous. At worst it means a girl is superficial, vapid, spoiled -- but not necessarily a bad person -- and at best, it means she cares about looking good -- something to which most women aspire. In fact, a certain amount of J.A.P.-iness can be equated with femininity, so being an "American Princess" isn't necessarily a bad thing anymore.
Yet, the phrase is not A.P. -- it's J.A.P.
Being Jewish is inextricably linked to the stereotype even if people don't necessarily think of it that way anymore (stress on the "even if"), and that's a problem. Because being Jewish has nothing to do with the collection of characteristics associated with the J.A.P. stereotype. As my colleague in the blogosphere, Menachem Wecker of Iconia, put it when I asked him what he thought about the term J.A.P.: "I have a phrase for stuck up rich snobs, and that phrase is stuck up rich snobs." There's no need to bring Judaism into it.
So perhaps I take more issue with using the term J.A.P. as a Jew than I do as a woman.
But as a woman, I still don't like it. Because even if the values of the J.A.P. are now considered acceptable, even desirable, I don't think they should be. And because of the obvious -- there is no equivalent term for men.
There's a place for reclaiming words and reinventing them, but that's not the way J.A.P. is used in everyday parlance. Rather, it's used as shorthand, a lazy way to call someone superficial, without regard to the deeper meanings and connotations associated with the language. And that's dangerous.
I could write pages more about this but I need my beauty sleep. ;-)
Best,
Rebecca
Dear Rebecca,
My first question is about a topic I find the most fascinating of all the issues concerning Jewish women today - that is, the change in status and approach of modern Orthodox women. Let me ask you these two most difficult questions:
1. Is it really a revolution?
2. How far will it go?
Best
Rosner
Good questions. Before answering I want to clarify a bit what I think you mean by the "change in status and approach of modern Orthodox women." It's the idea that women can and should have the same access to all facets of Jewish life that men do, wherever the law permits. The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) is the embodiment of this new approach and sums it up well on its website: "JOFA works to expand the spiritual, ritual, intellectual and political opportunities for women within the framework of halakha." Some practical examples include women's prayer groups, women's Torah reading, women learning Talmud at the highest levels, women taking on leadership roles in synagogues. These are things that were just not done forty years ago, or even twenty or fifteen years ago, and that are still controversial in many Orthodox - even in modern Orthodox - circles.
But it's important to note that while some more right-wing Orthodox might accuse these women of compromising halacha, if anything the women who are seriously pursuing these controversial activities are often more strictly observant -- because they are more educated in Jewish law -- and more engaged in Jewish ritual and spirituality -- because they can be -- then their predecessors.
Yet, to get back to your questions, while they are willing to be controversial to a certain extent, most modern Orthodox women would have a hard time with the word "revolution," insomuch as it implies an actual break with the status quo. Most people who affiliate as modern Orthodox are very insistent on the Orthodox part, they very much want to be seen as acting in accordance with halachic Judaism. No one at the JOFA conference is talking about changing halacha or breaking halacha, rather they talk about interpreting halacha in ways that reflect a more modern and feminist approach to Jewish life. Most modern Orthodox women are not willing to act without some sort of sanction by a nominally Orthodox rabbi. Fortunately, there are those modern Orthodox rabbis who are sympathetic to the feminist Orthodox cause.
That said, there are those stalwarts of the Orthodox feminist cause -- Tova Hartman would be one prime example -- who are growing so frustrated with the majority of Orthodox rabbis' lack of sensitivity to women's rights, particularly on the agunah issue, that they are talking of revolution, if not in name than certainly in idea. At this year's JOFA conference, there were a few mentions of the idea of breaking with the (ultra-)Orthodox establishment: Sharon Shenhav, the only woman to serve on the commission appointing Israeli rabbinic judges, suggested creating an alternative, modern Orthodox rabbinical court, and Tova Hartman suggested that at a certain point, the leadership of rabbis who disregard women's rights should become invalid, that we should stop asking those rabbis questions about kashrut, for example (The latter suggestion, it should be noted, met with silence from the crowd.) So while the majority of what might be called "lay" modern Orthodox women aren't there yet, those at the forefront of JOFA do seem to be increasingly ready for something bordering on revolution.
As to how far this revolution, if that's what it is, will go, it seems to already be leading to a new movement that sees itself as being within modern Orthodoxy. Perhaps not even a movement yet, but a different approach, called "open" or "progressive" Orthodoxy, at the center of which is Rabbi Avi Weiss' new rabbinical school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. This approach is still Orthodox in name, still insistent on adherence to halacha, but more willing than the modern Orthodox establishment to look for loopholes and interpretations that make halacha more inclusive and open to progressive values. I think this approach will keep growing and it will create a rift within modern Orthodoxy - those on the left affiliating as progressive, those on the right affiliating as modern.
On a practical level, will there ever be women rabbis who call themselves (modern/open/progressive) Orthodox? I think so, but I have a feeling they won't be getting ordained by Yeshiva University or recognized by the Rabbinical Council of America anytime in the foreseeable future.
|
