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.

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).

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.

Check out advocatesforpregnantwomen.org for the facts of countless stories, and activist opportunities.

Spending time in a Israel this summer, a place where women receive free fertility treatment from the government, while having to go before a committee of three in order to be granted permission for an abortion, I cannot help but search for the common links between free fertility treatment in one small part of the world, and criminalization of women’s bodies in another rather large part of the world. 

To begin with, the abortion committees, the fertility treatment, and the incarceration of pregnant women are all policies that are largely supported by the extreme religious folk in both America and Israel.

However, even that link does not run deep enough, because it does not answer why religion has become a repository for conservative perspectives (I believe religion at some point may have been a radical force for progress), and second of all why does everyone else go along with it? In the liberal circles crack mothers have little support as well.

This issue fascinates me to no end because more then anything other issue the rights of women when it comes their reproducing bodies or the lack there of, is the epitomy of  gender injustice, because to a large degree arguments for gender difference/ inequality stem from the reproducing bodies of women.  This being the case, there cannot be feminism without women having complete control over their reproducing bodies.  But according to the prevailing model the pregnant body becomes the exception to women’s rights. (Women generally, have rights, except when they are pregnant.) In such a system, women cannot, by define have rights, because for the majority of their adult life, that can at anytime become pregnant, and rights that can be removed at anytime, are not rights to begin with – rights by definition do not get taken away by the state.

However, there is a powerful argument that can be made for the “rights of the fetus.” After all, doesn’t my right to swing my fist end at your nose? So too, it ends at my “fetus’s nose,” says the rights of child ideology.  Thus women’s rights are sublimated to the rights of the fetus, which of course is not a problem considering that women are expected to sublimate themselves to the needs of their family and children, so why not start early, before the child is even born, and we might as well make it the law.   

 Pretty much all inequality for women stems from their role as baby machines (women are nurturers, aka  unqualified to public life and serious careers where competition  and hard work is required. (I say “baby machines” on purpose, because I speak of an ontology that sees women’s essential rule in society as reproducers  – objects, this is a universe away from an individual women’s right to be mothers on their own terms).

Today gender inequality persists because women are still “baby machines.”  The laws that makes this happen are not surprising, they are inevitable in society such as ours. Often these law are perpetuated by the extremely religious, because religion in its tradition manifestations is based on law and order that is constructed through predetermined and clear-cut roles for all members of society.  Women’s primary role is motherhood within this mapping of reality.  And thus “fetus rights” becomes away to continue a system that actually has nothing to do with rights for anyone and everything to do with predestined roles (aka what is socially constructed is absolute and inevitable.)

 This perspective is absolutely bad for women! and frankly everyone else, if you ask me.

Pride Parade!  At one point the policeman actually told me not to go and tried to block me. I was shocked – I asked him if I’m allowed to go, and he said don’t go. I told him that I have the right to go and I will go, and he let me through. Other friends had similar confrontations with the police that tried to discourage people from going to the Parade.

I cannot figure out what that is all about. The police had a really good excuse to cancel the parade all together because the fire department was on strike for over six days, but they did not. Over half of the active police force were at the parade (8000 police for 2000 marchers, plus military) God, you do that math – for every marcher there were four police officers. Five Thousand marchers were expected. What happened?  Did the potential marchers get scared? Is the community to small to get 5000 to show up and argue with the police that are actually on their side?

Also, there were few observes, very little touching, absolutely no music, and the after party was canceled.  It is hard to be festive with this amount of young men and women with guns all around. Even when the military state is on your side, it is still a military state. (not to underestimate the important of it being on your side.)  

Despite the situation, still the parade was an event to behold. My favorite the “Fuck Gender: Say No to Family Values” poster.  The quite progression down David Hamelach was full of hope. Perhaps the first few marchers are always doing so under the watchful eye of the police. After all, racial integration in the states occurred with the help of the National Guard.

However, I wonder if there might be some other way of dealing with the difficult situation.  Perhaps the police could be more helpful, instead of scaring people away from the parade by literary telling them not to go because there will be violence. At the same time, violence was a real threat, an Ultra-Orthodox Man with a bomb was stopped and 24 others were arrested throughout the day. However, is the role of the police to breed fear in an already guarded population?

I wonder if a few details could take the edge of the military state? However, who can you expect the police to be courteous if even the waiters at local restaurants are not? Israel is not a “costumer service” society.  Most adults come of age in the army, and thus bring that culture back with them into civilian life. Perhaps that is why both the police officer and the waitress are standoffish?  Or is it the other way around? 

Grumble as I might about the rude police, the bottom line of the Parade is clear, The majority (however, ungracefully) put stood against the increasingly powerful, and absolutely terrifying version of Judaism. There is nothing authentic, sweet or quant about this sort of religion.  Perhaps this can be the profound lesson of the parade, for those who encounter the outreach activities of this particular group. Their life may seem inspired, beautiful, spiritual, and filled with meaning, and often this is all true – however the price you has to pay is blind hatred of your queer friend, queer child, your queer neighbor and perhaps your queer self.  Meaning should not cost your soul.

It took me an entire adolescence of being a “bal teshuva” before I came to this conclusion. This

summer, I came to Israel to say good-bye to Orthodox Judaism, the Parade certainly helped in that processes.

For main stream covarage of the Parade check out Jpost and Haartz (the facts in my article mainly comes from Jpost article, but the Haartz peace is every uplifting.) 

  http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1182409606778&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/873728.html 

So once again I ask – who or what is helped when I work in the dining room from 8 to 5 pm six days a week?

Kibbutz Ketura is a community where you don’t do your own cooking, laundary or banking. You never see your paychecks, and the kibbutz accountant gives you a monthy amount based on your “need.” The vast majority of the money comes from some sort of super algae that the kibbutz grows and then sells in-you guest it- in the international market place.

Of course there is nothing wrong with such a community- as long as it remains voluntary membership and other options abound, and this of course is the case in Israel. However, it is not viewed as an option amongst members and volunteers, but as a socialist, morally superior ideal. And thus, Kibbutz Ketura, one of the last non-privatized kibbutzm becomes a sort of willful “truman show” for an ideal that if realized universally would actually be terrifying (at least to me). It is game of “socialism” sustained by the capitalist reality that buys their super-algae and turns it into expensive makeup for wealthy women, while hiring foreign workers who live in shacks, and relying on the labor of “idealist” volunteers who think they are serving some goal of a better world.

A better world does not start here,and certainly it will not end here of that I’m sure.

“Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad were all divine Messengers; the Báb and Bahá’u'lláh are the most recent” – website

Baha’u'llah centers his prophecy on all the right stuff  - We are one, just as God is one – thus we must eliminate poverty, inequality and oppression of all kind, in order to reflect the truth of God’s Unity.

One thing they forgot to eliminate is homophobia. “Bahá’í law limits permissible sexual relations to those between a man and a woman in marriage”  This is an answer to a question  inquiring about the Baha’i perspective on homosexuality( http://www.bahai.org/faq/practices/sexuality).

Thus, it seams that the prophet was just as revolutionary as the best  progressive thinking of his time. A visionary can only see so far – this after all is at the heart of the faith that forgets to apply the same principle to itself.

Thus my Judaism ( I say “my” because I have no menopoly  on the word Judaism) shares the recognition that there is no singular “word of God” for all times and all places, perhaps there is a common motif, but no such perfect word. If such a perfect word was to exist then we would indeed spent our lives striving to go back in time – to Sinai, to the Temple, to Jesus, to Mohamed.., to Baha’u'lluh. ( Judaism pushes the envelope on no-perfect word-of-God, by suggested that the word” does not come from God at all, but from human ingenuity – think Oral Law, but more on that later)

Now back to striving for prophecy – this infact is the official line of many – especially  in Israel, where people flock to the west’s holiest  spots – the wall  of the temple build by an illegitimate convert – King Herod, and the places where Jesus, Mohammad and Baha’u'llah died. However, the Kotel is a tomb as well – the burial place of Temple Judaism.

Fortunately, the very existence of Rabbinical Judaism, allows for a different party-line.  Judaism is the religion that was changed to save it by instituting a process by which Judaism can be saved again and again - the legal process of Halacha. (Prophets need not apply)

Thus, inherent in keeping Halacha, is changing Halacha (which  of course does not have to end up looking like Judaism lite, even  though it does in almost every case I’ve  personally encountered which of course pisses me of to no end.)

1. I can write about articles I’ve read.

2. Stuff I’ve experienced.

3. Stuff I generally thing about all the time.

 For today, I’m going to stick to experience, since this is supposed to be a record of this season’s adventure, and thus I will continue rambling on about the settlers, and I a new topic – Christians.  After Shabbat with hard core settlers ( I mean actual territory-occupying-God-gave-us-the-land-and-it-is-a- sin-to-give-it-back settlers),  I headed on a tour of the  Church of holy Sepulchre build on the spot where it is said that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.  Only ten people at a time can enter the holiest place within the church – his “tomb,”and thus the line is intense, and people are pushy as hell. Being the good liberal that I am, I tried to understand the narrative of the other – pushing me to get to Jesus. People have been waiting decades to touch these stones that are standing in the place where their God once stood.

People are in trances, crying, kneeling,  crawling on their knees to the holiest places, while the majority of the people on the Russian Language tour (don’t ask  why i picked it,  I didn’t really, my cousins did and its half the price of other tours) are photographing, and even I couldn’t resist, and photographed a two monks praying in the spot of the last supper.

Overall, I understand intellectually that Jerusalem has been a holy spot long before Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Our temples where build on the ruins of others.  This land has been continually holy for thousands of years - it is an inherited holiness.  I just cannot get over the “ruins of others” part.

I experience it a bit like the way some people experience Modern Art. You know others appreciate it, and thus you go and pretend to appreciate it as well.  In Jerusalem I’m always a tourist, watching others pray, even as I pray. This is not to say that I don’t have moments of holiness – inspiration and such.  Yet those moment seem a  world away from a city that really should not belong to anyone, a city that breeds little intellectual or spiritual innovation because its members are worshiping the ancient, raising it on a pedestal above the current (for the most part).  

I cannot look beyond the politics of the Jerusalem, after all it is not a found city, it is not Tel Aviv, a place that was swamps until Jews drained those swamps and planted trees. Jerusalem already existed (before 1948) as a hyper-holy city, hell it already existed before Christ and before the Torah as a holy city.  It is true that under Jewish control, Jewish and Christians and Muslims can got to to the holy places, while under Muslim control that was not possible. I’m not blind to history; however, I also know that this holy city brings self-riotousness and violence into the world. The holy city is made political in absolute terms by becoming the capital of a modern state – the place of its courts and its Parliament instead of prayer of all traditions. The politics is not only interfaith.  Women cannot pray in minyan at the kotel because the Kotel belongs to israel, and in israel the ruling religion does not let women gather and pray.

 This actual and rhetorical  violence came to the forefront when I witness the swearing in ceremony of Israeli solders at the Kotel, I did not understand the speeches, all except for a single reference to the Book of Yehusha – the first of the books of the Prophets. In this book God commanded the Jews to  destroy or conqure the seven nations of Canaan. God gave the Jews a land already occupied by civilizations upon civilizations. Our Mount Zion, the location of our destroyed temples is also the location of the temple we destroyed.

In the Torah, God commands the following:

 ”Say to the people of Israel, When you pass over Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places; and you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it” (Numbers 33: 50-53).

This was the ethic of the Bible -  and this continues to be the spirit of the ethic today, even if its translated into modern terms (The UN give it to us, the world sanctioned our presence,  instead of God gave it to us. We observe more human rights, we are democratic, instead of we are righteous and we are chosen. They are terrorists, instead of the they are pagans).  Ownership is no an unalienable absolute, and certainly not a catch all response. Thus, the politics of holiness do not impress me. 

 I find my holiness else where. If Torah in the code by which we should live our life – then I cannot say “Torah Tzia Tzion” (Torah goes out from Zion).  In many ways, despite it own troubles (they are huge and numerous) Torah Tzia Modernity, and Post-Modernity and even perhaps (I say it with my caution)Torah goes from from the emorphes concept that is the “west”. Just as in the time of the Talmud Torah Tzia Babylon- the authoritative Talmud, we study today.