My body was supposed to the object of the rules of men – and not my object, to be used in prayer. The night before putting on Teffillin, I went to an orthodox run mikvah. I bathed, put on my robe, and got ready to dip, my new Tefillin in my bag. The woman working in the mikvah that night, did not want me to use it – because my body was not as she wished it to be. I was wearing my nose ring and a ring on my finger. Both I do not remove for mikvah. She told me that she was going to call a Rabbi – that these are actually not her rules– but his, the man made these rules, she was just following them. We are the enforcers. I, without saying anything, dropped by robe, and went into the mikvah. I had a right to be there – my body, with its rings, had a right to be there – a right to use this community resource. I using the mikvah, with a non-approved body would in no way render it less kosher: I just wanted to dip. The woman working in the mikvah did not say anything to me – she was silent.

And I was utterly joyful; joyful to have dipped in the mikvah – to be performing this utterly embodied ritual in my body – to be dipped, not because I menstruated, but because I was going to put on Tefillin. Mikvah, like Tefillin is denied to women. Yes, married women can use the mikvah in order to have sex with their husband. But they cannot use it to be spiritual beings – to use their bodies in prayer/ as prayer. I do not want to imply that the using the mikvah after menstruation is somehow less spiritual, less embodies, rather, I am arguing that circumscribing mikvah usage to this on one occasion is in fact denying women a full spirituality – it is allowing ritual only as it effects men (women can touch them after mikvah) and not for purposes that are entirely her own. Purposes outside the desire of men.

Even non-orthodox mikvahs have been known to prohibit menstruating women from using the mikvah, when there is no prohibition for men to use the mikvah at any point, and in general the mikvah claims to be there for purposes outside nidah. However, just the thought of a woman with blood between her legs, deciding she is nevertheless worthy of ritual, worthy of spirituality is an impossible thought.

Today, I will discuss one of them: Kiddushin. There is no question that Kiddushin is not egalitarian. The ceremony is about ownership – it is the definition of less than human, less than free, less than a man.

Attempts to create prenuptial agreements that will decrees the likelihood that at divorce the man will try to extort his wife in exchange for granting her a “get” – (Jewish divorce) is absolutely besides the point. Kiddushin is not about divorce, it is about marriage. Kiddushin is about the structuring of relationships. And the structure it purports is one of patriarchal marriage – in exchange for protection, both physical and otherwise, the woman gives herself to a man. Patriarchal marriage does not protect women; it is what women need protection from.

Kiddushin is not “just” a ritual – ritual is an enactment of our values. Women continue to take their husband’s name, or even if they do not, they give that name to their children – this, by definition, is patriarchy. The “ritual” of taking the husband’s name is secular kiddushin. Kiddushin is not an isolated, archaic religious hokus-pokus; Kiddushin is how men and women are currently relating to each other. Kidushin is what we call love.

I do not believe in love – because love is ownership. I believe in knowing, being, doing, building, fucking: together – kiddushin / love is none of these things, Love is about siphoning the fullness of women’s experience – with a fantasy about being possessed, about being “his.” The last blessing of the seven traditional blessings (sheva brachot) recited at a Jewish wedding bring this point to life. The blessing ends with the following “Blessed are You Who causes the groom to rejoice with his bride.” Notice that it could have said “who causes the groom and the bride to rejoice.” But no, the bride she is not the one who is rejoicing, it is the groom, who is rejoicing with “his” bride. The joy is his not hers – no wonder women are less happy then men.  She is a vehicle threw which he rejoices – she is not a person.

SO, if you must do Kiddushin, the next best thing is to invalidate your Kiddushin: Two simple ways do it.

1. Make sure the dude does not own the ring

2. Choose witnesses for Kiddushin who are either not Jewish or not religious.

plight of slavery and the plight of women – both a struggle against the patriarchy. In halacha, women and slaves have much in common as well, except the halachic slave is only a theoretical being today, but the halachic woman (“the isha”)– is still very much in existence, still under the power of the patriarchal halachic system, where the isha will remain, until the isha perishes from this earth.

That being said, imagine if the halachic category of “isha” simply did not exist?

In halacha, the “isha” is not a free person – she is in the same basic category as children and slaves – this religious demarcation, of course, is simply a reflection of the patriarchal order – women slaves and children are under the control of the man who is the head of the household. While, I certainly oppose that world order, it is important to mention that slaves and women had some rights and obligations within the system and the man also had obligations towards his wives, slaves and children. While women were not equal to men or free under the patriarchal world order, they were often taken care off. Society tends to still believe this regarding children, modern parents have an obligation to provide for their children and children have some rights and obligations but they are reduced because of a belief that children are not ready to take on all the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. This same belief that we currently hold about children was once held to various degrees about woman, slaves and children.

In the halachic patriarchy, there is also the matter of conflicts that might arise when women, slaves and children are in a situation where the patriarch’s demands might conflict with requirements of halacha , thus halacha acts to secure the power of the patriarchy, by removing the requirements to proactively obey God (positive time bound commandments). Beyond the logistical needs of the patriarchy, there are also symbolic needs – the time-bound requirements that women, slaves and children are not required to fulfill intersect with the question of social standing – such leading communal prayers, which traditionally, can only be lead by men, who are representative of community leadership. Under the classical patriarchy of antiquity, simply put, MEN COUNT: women, slaves and children exist to facilitate the counting of men.

Contemporary approaches to include women in halacha (within orthodoxy)either apologize (women are holy already) or attempt to say that women can do things they are not obligated too, or that there might be some way to obligate them. The problem with these approaches to halachic innovation is that they are all attempts to create a more friendly patriarchy. This is an unacceptable solution – the woman in halacha, a creature named “isha” does not describe me. It also does not describe today’s ethics.

We can all agree that slavery is unethical (even though there are still slaves in this world). So too – the “isha” status, was a kind of slavery – wives were property – today we can mostly agree that this is wrong (even though there are woman who are still far from free).

Practically what does this mean?

1. The man of the torah – is the human of today: Whatever laws you apply to him you apply to woman.

2. Studying the halachot regarding women, is like studying the halachot of slavery or ritual sacrifices – does not have practical implications, but what does these days?

3. Kidushin is out – it’s a patriarchal marriage: it depends on the existence of the “isha” – owning someone’s halachic status is wrong, and more importantly, impossible if there is no “isha.”

4.Queerness: not a problem, a man in an egalitarian relationship is not lying with another man like an “isha.” Hell, a man cannot even lie with another woman as an “isha,” assuming their relationship is egalitarian.

Some bloggers have cited parallels to eating disorders. Both anorexics and the burka women are denying their bodies in order to make them “disappear”. Both are reacting to unattainable cultural ideals, be they size-zero thinness or increasingly stringent standards of modesty in the Charedi world, by taking them to an obsessive extreme. And anorexia is often understood to be a desperate way for women to assert control over at least one aspect of their lives. Surely, wearing a burka or vowing silence can be construed similarly. Jewish Chronicle.

The assumption behind the blog I cited above is that there is a kind of modesty that is good, and thus by comparison wanting to be skinny per se, is not the problem, it is just the twisty version that becomes a problem. This analysis does not implicate the “healthy” majority in the illness of the fanatics. I, however, implicate the very notion that a woman should strive to be thin or/and modest as the fuel behind this bazaar fire.

Women who strive to be thin or/and modest are doing so (most of the time) because they believe, that they are striving for an ideal of womanhood, an idea that is directly connected to pleasing men sexually (anorexia) and following men’s rules (modesty).

Tangent: Lesbians are at much lower risk of Anorexia. Doesn’t surprise me! (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994; 62(2):252- 260)

There is no “good” desire to be thin, and there is no “good” desire to be modest. Modesty, is a bad idea, not just at its extreme, it is a bad idea at its inception, because modesty is about women not tempting men by remaining silent and covered! Women silencing themselves for the sake of men is the very definition of patriarchy, if you ask me.

The perversion of modesty is only it progression. And anaraxia, is just the progression of the desire to be thin (aka, desirable, aka beautiful, aka for men).

Thus, the frame of reference must change. Twisty modesty is not going to disappear, until the ideal of modesty disappears, and of course the same thing can be said, and is often said about eating disorders. The change in these fields begins with a change in discourse.

Modestly aught to be a dirty word.

Some might respond to this critic, by attacking the conclusion (rather than the premise); this of course has been done in the Jewish community in regards to women’s learning. Jewish feminists he fought back by saying “It is not true, a learned woman will be just as moral as she was before, even more so.”

This argument is actually devastating to women’s dignity, because it assumes that a goal for womanhood is good behavior, and if men let us learn, we’ll continue to behave (aka be sexually pure). This of course is not true, it cannot possibly be true. Be it Talmud or calculus, a woman who lives in a world where she is taught what is considered valuable for her culture, will by definition have a measure of freedom that will enable her to be “lascivious,” a right that men have cherished for quite some time.

Bottom line: The idea of trading girls’ education, for their good behavior is still alive and well and it will continue to be that way while we accept their premise: women’s top priority is propriety. Time for a new premise: Women exist for their own sake, and not for the purpose of blindly reproducing the hegemonic regime of the moment.

Despite what some well intentioned feminists might say, Women’s liberation is a liberation from “good behavior” first and for most; because it was in the name of “good behavior” that women were locked away from the world, century after century, civilization after civilization.

Well this time he went beyond feel good platitudes, to trying to explain the reason “Why women dress skimpily in the cold.” The answer of course is “complicity of an educated generation of women in their own degradation and denigration!” Never mind, that the skimpy dressed “degenerates” are going to get up the next morning (with a slight hang over and march of to the office in business attire, of course even Shmuley admits that these women are “educated.” He accuses these women of being nothing but men’s “play things” rather than their own individual human beings. One would assume that someone with such harsh criticism comes from a community where women have more options, than the Dublin young Professionals; However, the Rebbi (dead leader of movement), spoke against the use of any of birth-control for Jewish and non-Jewish alike. The Rebbi said “We must convince the leaders of the country to fight against family planning and birth prevention by lobbying in Congress, simply soberly, and with common sense. (53)” I guess the real obstacle to women‘s dignity is mini-skirts and not reproductive freedom!

But, that’s not even the worst of it. Shmuley throws out, without citing, a particularly frustrating statistic that I seem to come across all the time (it’s the first five hits on google for the word combination of “depression, sexually active, girls).

A few years ago a similar US study, based on the government-funded National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, linked adolescent female depression and suicide with adolescent sexuality. The study found that about 25% of sexually active girls say they are depressed all, most or a lot of the time, while only 8% of girls who are not sexually active feel the same. While 14% of girls who have had intercourse have attempted suicide, only 5% of sexually inactive girls have. (Shmuley in the Jpost)

“A few years ago” is the key, because it turns out that this data is no longer accurate. The changing attitudes to adolescent sexuality removed some of the stigma , and the depression went with it. Thus it appears that premarital sex doesn’t actual cause depression, but social stigma does. Suppose, we all decide that eating apples is immoral, wait a while, and will find a strong correlation between eating apples and depression. I even have up to date information from a reputable source to back up my analysis. According the American Journal of Sociology

Girls who have sex at a young age relative to the norms of their peers experience a significant increase in depression, while those who have sex “on time” or later than the majority of their peers do not experience significant effects.

Apparently adolescent girls fall prey to….pear pressure. When they have sex “on time” all is well, but if they step outside the box depression hits. Sex, itself is not the problem at all.

A far more interesting question seems to be why are girls victimized by pear pressure in a way that boys are not at least when it comes to sexuality since according to the same study “males do not experience a significant increase in depressive symptoms after first sex, regardless of age norms or relationship status.” I’d love to have a serious conversation on this topic, because, all the answers I can think of are very sad. Perhaps, girls growing up in a liberal society are not very liberated at all, but stuck in whatever paradigm of sexuality is presented to them, be it virginity till marriage, or casual sex. In that case, neither model is particularly empowering or liberating. In that model the Lubavitch woman who is pregnant half of her adult life, and the Dublin partier are equally caught it in systems of power outside their own creation (some might call those systems of power patriarchy!), despite the varied window dressing.

Sources:

Kaploun, Uri. A Partner in the Dynamics of Creation: Womanhood in the Teachings of the Lubavitch Rebbe. New York City. 1994

Ann M. Meier, “Adolescent First Sex and Subsequent Mental Health”, American Journal of Sociology 112.6 (May 2007): 1-28.

When, I heard this I was taken back by the stark clarity this outlook enables, the clarity is increased that much more when you add in the notion that the soul of Moses gets reincarnated in every generation, at least according to this particular woman (I’m not a chassidut expert, but the Chabad website does have a selection of prophetic predictions that the Rebbe made, which of course came true http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=75574).

The belief in the Tzadik whose got the soul of Moses and a direct line to God is at the heart of Chabad authority; however, after some thought it occurred me that there is a similar concept from which Orthodox Feminism derives its authority, “continues revelation” a la Tamar Ross in Expanding the Palace of Torah: Feminism and Orthodoxy. According to “continues revelation” each generation has Torah to teach the world, and the will of God is continuously revealed through said Torah.

This is incredibly similar to the Tzadik, yet I embrace the notion of “continues revelation” yet, I reject the tzadik. Why? What is the crucial difference between the two concepts? Is it just the message? Could you in theory have a tzadik who speaks a message of egalitarian gender equality? Would I like it then? What if the Rebbe said, women from now one count in a Minyan, would I appreciate what he stands for then? After some brief deconstruction of both concepts – it seems that what is identical at first blush, actually represents two divergent ways of understanding God. When Tamar Roth talks about “continues revelation” she is referring to a the flexible notion of truth and the ethical wisdom of humans – both are constantly evolving – and because God is truth and God is justice, evolving truth and justice, necessitates evolving our understanding of Gods will. However, the Tzadik is a single individual with a special connection to God – there is an assumption of unfiltered God-speak coming out of the tzadik’s mouth, versus a changing spectrum of knowledge facilitated by our joint perspectives/minds/intellects. The differences go beyond the one – versus the many, to the very core of where authoritative knowledge comes from. For “continues revelation” our truth is the manifestation of God’s will by definition, but for the Tzadik his word is truth because it comes directly from God’s will. (This of course is a version of a classic question: Is murder wrong because God said so, or did God say saw because it is wrong? Plug it what ever you want for “murder.” Guess the answer the Tzadik concept grants this clasic question!) Also the tzadik continues to be relevant always – he is never wrong, not even in a thousand years, he is not bound by particularity of time and space.

Thus, go the Safed, stay at Accent, take some Chabad classes, go ahead, get a kick out of it, but when you get back back check out Tamar Ross’s Expanding the Palace of Torah: Feminism and Orthodoxy (for starters).

There is very little out there for modern orthodox folks who are no longer buying it.  The Ultra-orthodox apostates can turn to organizations such as Footsteps in the states. The organization guides people who seek it out towards basic skill training, GEDs, and other survival tools. (Unchosen by Hella Winston tells you all about this organization). I hear that Israel also has a simular NGO, but I could not locate its website, if you know about it please write in.

In either case the modern orthodox don’t need GEDs – they have  higher education from top universities, what they need (that the ultra-orthodox might need as well) are people to talk to about their spiritual life.  Unraveling a system of meaning is terrifying when you see no other system to replace it – no other will of God, besides the normative orthodox observance. After all, that is the party-line in mainstream orthodoxy – they, apparently, hold a monopoly on the will of God.

Thus many who leave, continue to believe that Orthodoxy is essentially – Judaism/truth/Divinity and they simply do not like it, and thus leaving symbolizes rejecting Judaism/truth/divinity.

There needs to be a place to go for conversation on this issue – a place where the Will of God is understood in contingent and multiplicities ways. Where the ethical problems in Orthodoxy can be discussed – Where can you go to ask a question and receive an intellectually honest answer that takes into account multiple currents in Judaism (halachic and non-halachic) alongside world thought at large. For example, at least for me this question was very important “Why would God make me a woman, if I feel most comfortable in male roles?”  As a very young woman, I loved the apologetic about the specialness of woman’s primary roles as private and domestic. At 22, I understood the injustice of circumscribed lives. (I also understand that many people who are just and wonderful and thoughtful continue to find meaning in Orthodox.) There are hundreds of similar questions that challenge the ethics of a system where your birth determines what you can and cannot do.

The one thing I wanted to find on the web and could not is the following message. People do not leave Orthodoxy because it is to hard, they leave because they are seeking the Will of God. At least I am.   If you are interested in discussing these questions from any end of the spectrum. Please post, I cannot wait to here form people who might know of some outlets for this conversation.

Nishmat took all the students for Friday night to what is known as a fairly picturesque and hippie-filled Jerusalem neighborhood, Nahloat.  The group went to what is supposed to be a famous area minyan – Kol Rina.  And thus, I went through the alleys and down to the basement, to Kol Rina and found my spot behind the great wall of separation, behind the man’s section.  This of course is the most offensive machitza ever – the women are not equal but separate, but actually behind the men, behind a wall, that thank god had curtains about four feet of the ground that could be moved away for the Dvar Torah (rabbinic homily).

This week, I decided to listen to the Dvar Torah – it must have been divine providence, because the Dvar torah was simultaneously the most honest, and most offensively hideous thing I ever heard within Orthodox Judaism – this guy, whose name I never found out, actually had the gull to say it like it is, and thus I know have language for saying Good-bye to Orthodoxy. Thank you random Dvar Torah Man.

This man, brought up a feminist classic:  Daughters of Zelophehad. In brief, its an account of women who ask Moses to alter the existing law, because it screws over their right to inherit their father’s land, and when Moses goes to God with the problem, God declares these women to be correct and changes the law to accommodate them   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelophehad).  This Kol Rina man went one to say that he understands that the women in today’s Judaism are also dealing with a great injustice. However, currently we do not have a way to communicate with God, the way they had back in the time of Moses, thus the women should just suck it up till messianic redemption.  When we are redeemed the women will bring their injustice before God, who will fix it the way he sees fit.  

Now, I have clarity, and clarity is a powerful thing – the core problem within Orthodox Judaism is the perpetuation of injustice, for fear of rocking the boat. (0nce upon a time they used to say that we cannot set up a Jewish state till Messiah comes, but for better of worse, someone had the balls to change that) Theologically, today’s rabbi’s  have no balls for fear of doing the wrong thing. Thus they willfully freeze the system; and this is inherently injust.  How can one simultaneously acknowledge human pain, and tell those in pain to wait…and wait…and wait, because those who can end the pain have no fait?  Yes, I say faith, because to combat injustice is an act of faith – in a good God, who created good humans, who will make justice manifest.  On the other hand, those who lack faith, fear for “Jewish continuity.” Their primary experience is fear:  of change, of modernity, of feminism, of evolution, of God.  Fear is the lack of faith, the lack of hope.

Continuity cannot be a separate goal; the goal must be to have something great, something that is striving to continue. For instance intermarriage is not a problem but a symptom of a problem….more to come.