I care about our planet
yet I’m not an environmentalist.
I care about animals
but I’m not an activist.
I feel that women are strong, wise, and capable, and have an incredibly important contribution to offer the world
but I’m not a feminist.
I believe that humans have values and concerns that are deeply important
but I wouldn’t be called a humanist.
It is vitally important to me to understand things rationally
but I don’t want you to call me a rationalist.
My observance may seem extreme to some
but I don’t think you’d call me an extremist.
I believe that God has a masterplan
but I’m definitely not a fatalist.
I’m a Jew.
It’s my highest calling.
I wouldn’t dilute it, hyphenate it, or share it with any other identity.
All my other callings fall under its umbrella.
I’m a Jew-ist.
May I ask your definition of feminism? Do you think it incompatible with Judaism?
Here's from wikipedia: Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
I believe this definition is not incompatible necessarily, but possibly problematic, in two regards:
1. the use of the word "equal" – does that mean sameness or not?
2. the use of the word "rights" – Judaism does not offer anyone rights, but rather ascribes everyone responsibilities.
If you like my definition of what women have to offer (you may call it feminism if you wish; I've certainly seen it defined in a variety of ways – in fact even the definition above considers figuring out how to define it as part of what "it" is) above, then yes, I am a feminist, but only secondarily to being Jewish.
I find your second point difficult to reconcile with the Jewish sources that clearly describe rights. Some classic examples concern the rights of a husband to his wife's property, rights of property owners in conflict, parents' rights, inheritance rights etc.
Of course, you may, if you so wish, rephrase almost all of these as responsibilities ( the man is responsible to give… the woman is responsible to hand over… someone who finds property is responsible to…)but this is not the way the halachos are phrased in English. With regard to Hebrew, the term "right" is implied and the verb is just used instead. For example, instead of "he has the right to nullify her vow," the halacha reads "he nullifies her vow." Not much difference there and not much in terms of "responsibility." In short, I don't see how a thorough review of the textual sources supports your position that Judaism is all about responsibilities and no one is offered rights.
Examples: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952896/jewish/Chapter-Twenty-Two.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1362866/jewish/Chapter-Eight.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/973891/jewish/Chapter-12.htm
Makes me wonder why the words "has the right to" are bracketed each time. Do you know what the Hebrew is? In any event, it's a useful term to use when describing what the halacha is but there isn't even a word for "rights" in Hebrew. The closest is "zchuyot" which really means merits – something you've earned.
In the context I used above, it means that a movement that is concerned with furthering one's rights may (depending on how it's done) be problematic with Jewish philosophy, because in Judaism we are supposed to be preoccupied with our responsibilities and others' "rights."
That was such a question. Wondering why you choose to be Anonymous. But, it's your right. 🙂
Such a GOOD question, is what I meant to say.
The hebrew is available on that site as well- the word right is not used but the verb is just used instead. So it becomes "he nullifies" instead of "he has the right to nullify" in hebrew.
In any case, how is this not semantics? Would you not agree that Sara Scheiner fought for the rights of girls to learn in Jewish schools? Would you be more comfortable with feminist lingo that speaks in terms of responsibilities? Say,"it is the responsibility of any progressive woman to obtain a career so as to provide for her family and develop herself as a well-rounded individual."
I was going to ask *you* how this is not semantics. 🙂
I would absolutely not agree that Sara Scheneirer was concerned with the rights of girls. She was concerned for the future of the Jewish people and the future spirituality of Jewish women.
And yes, I like the lingo you quoted far better that framing it in terms of rights, except I would disagree that it's the responsibility of a woman to do those things. Also, define "progressive." I think it's key to this discussion.
Sara Schenirer was globally concerned with the future of the Jewish people and Jewish women, etc. But practically, day to day, she fought for the right of girls to learn in schools, like boys did. She wanted girls to be able to do this, to have the halachic and social right to do this.
You can phrase feminist philosophy in the same way. Feminists are globally concerned with the development of humanity, the furtherance of all goals in which women can play a part, and the development of women as multi-faceted human beings. But practically, day to day, they fight/fought for the rights of women to vote, to get jobs, to be admitted to universities, to get equal pay, to get equal respect, to get protection from employment discrimination, to make choices for themselves.
To me, the difference between "rights" and responsibilities or global concerns for the future- these are all semantics, all different ways of saying the same thing.
progressive= moving forward.
A progressive woman is one who is not tied to archaic social norms. For example, she does not think that a woman's role is limited to the spinning of wool and the baking of pot roast and the care of young children. She understands that a woman can leave her mark upon the world by being a doctor, a political leader, or anything she wishes, including a caregiver for young children. A progressive woman's choices are simply more numerous than someone who is not there yet.
OK. If you think we're agreeing, I'll go with that. Me, I think it's all in the mindset. Yes, the action could be the same, and the result could even be similar, albeit with very different intentions.
Example: I am in a women's band. We perform for women only. We're not feminists. We are not operating on the premise that "women have the right to be heard." We are operating on the premise that we have the responsibility to share our God-given talent to bring joy to others in a way that is consistent with halacha. The difference is subtle but there. We are not fighting for anything. We are not fighting.
When Sara Scheneirer had her idea she went to the Chofetz Chaim for his opinion, guidance and blessing.
Re: progressive. The Aishet Chayil song of praise for the ultimate Jewish woman describes commerce, property ownership, optimism, creativity, resourcefulness, hard work, loving-kindness, wisdom. The only mention of children is that they praise her.
And that's 3000 years old.
Several sources indicate Sarah Scheneirer faced opposition. Here's one. http://www.jewishtreats.org/2010/03/teach-girls.html
I don't think it's inaccurate to characterize her as working towards securing permission (rights!) to establish girls' schools.
Re: women's band.
Your participation in a women's band is primarily due to halachic restrictions on women's activity, so it is most certainly not a fight for anything.
If women's voices were not considered impermissibly arousing to men, and women's bands were as halachically acceptable for public entertainment as men's bands are, I doubt that many in your group would insist on limiting your opportunities for sharing your gifts to women only.
I agree with everything you just said.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Sarah S was not seeing it as the rights of girls to be schooled but rather the responsibility of parents to educate their daughters jewishly. It wasn't about the right to have schools just like the boys. After all, the girls did go to school just they went to the secular ones. The issue was that the parents were nog getting that the old system of passing thetradition on at home was not cutting it any more. Her struggle was convincing people that the solution was Jewish schooling for the girls.
Really good list, however I sense a certain disapproval for titles that are(within reason of course) actually complimentary.
Not disapproval, but it's not me to take any of these -isms as a primary MO to the exclusion of others.
I tend to express what you said above by "I view the world through the lens of halacha". When a friend posted in a private journal about her in-law difficulties and asked for advice, I talked about the degree to which the requirement to honor one's parents applied to in-laws, and what the laws required in her kind of case.
Personally I believe contemporary Orthodox Judaism cannot be feminist, but it can make common cause with feminists towards goals they both find desirable. For example, an Orthodox Jew can in good conscience work towards equal pay for equal work, opposing gender based discrimination in promotions, etc.
True. Re: feminism and Orthodoxy, it depends if "equal" means "same." If it does, you're right. If there's leeway, then it can be feminist. It really all depends on how you're choosing to define feminism.
I think most feminists would agree with Brown vs. Board of Education "Separate is inherently unequal."
There aren't all that many halachic instances where men and women need to be separate. Davening when there's a minyan. Swimming. Dancing.
But there are lots of women-only events, conferences, gyms… that wouldn't run counter to feminism. Is it only when there are men-only things that it's a problem?
Is it only when there are men-only things that its a problem Based on my understanding of feminism, a consistent policy of requiring or forbidding things based on gender when gender is not obviously relevant is a problem. The fact that I am required to daven 3 times a day solely because I am a man is a feminist problem in my eyes. The fact that a women cannot lead a congregation in prayer solely because she is a woman is a feminist problem as well.
There is nothing wrong with women only or men only conferences on occasion. There is a difference between saying "You can't go to the women's gym" and "Mixed gyms are forbidden." There are borderline cases too – men only clubs where significant amounts of business were transacted were found to be illegal, for example.
I certainly don't hold feminism as my supreme principal – I live in an Orthodox community and attend Orthodox shuls. And I think most feminists agree that there is room for variety. There are competing principals, and there has to be a balance, and we won't all agree where the balance point lies.
There aren't all that many halachic instances where men and women need to be separate.
Tell that to the people at my shteible, who have separate rooms for men and women dining. Tell it to the people in Lakewood NJ where a large catering hall has separate entrances for men and women. Tell it to the people at the local Agudah when men and women routinely socialize in different rooms in a private house for a Shalom Zachor. Ask the people who refused to go on the HP Unity walk because it was 'mixed walking' (My phrase, they quoted the rule about a man not walking between two women or vice versa.)
Is this halacha or minhag? Depends on whether you ask me or them.
I like what you said about you being obligated to daven thrice daily is a feminist problem. That makes sense to me and is consistent.
Re: separation of the sexes. Trust me, if anyone knows what the minimal halachic obligation (not custom, convention, extra stringency) is, it's me, because whenever we run a JFX event we need to know so we don't impose anything on people that is not necessary.
There are lots of people and communities who don't *want* to operate on minimum halachic requirement. They want to do more. And I say, great. I know it tends to irritate people who don't want more, and that's normal. People have to be pleasant about it, whichever side they're on, and people have to know what is halacha, what is minhag, what is a nice extra to do if you can, what is a (oy the word) chumra.
Interestingly, the separation of the sexes often favors women. Women can watch men or mixed groups dance, sing, swim at the beach, and so are much freer in that regard.
When I worked at a all-girls' high school, attended girls' camps for 9 years and worked in one for 5 years, the men were definitely disadvantaged due to being in the minority. They had to figure out how to halachically maneuver themselves around the women, not the other way around. Of course, we tried to be sensitive, but we definitely ran the show.
This is hijacking the thread from the 'ism' question overall, but I'm wondering how, Larry, you account for the differences between your own feminist commitments and the general Orthodox ways of separating men's and women's spheres and obligations. Do you see those separations as historical add-ons to an older, truer Judaism? Or is misinterpretations of Torah? Or do you see them as part of original Judaism but open to evolution?
Interestingly, the separation of the sexes often favors women. Women can watch men or mixed groups dance, sing, swim at the beach, and so are much freer in that regard.
Women's arousal at the sight of men is not considered sinful, whereas men's arousal at the sight of women is considered sinful.
Women do not have more freedom in singing or swimming because they must care to do so outside of men's attendance. This is not freer at all.
I can go to the beach whenever I want, so long as I'm in a coverup. My husband can rarely go to the beach.
I can attend any Broadway show or play (so long as my religious sensibilities aren't challenged) but my husband is limited based on who's performing, how they're performing, and what they're wearing.
What is more often relevant to more people: going to a show, or being in one?
So perfectly said.
Love it!
We've talked about different approaches to feminism before. I thought you might find this article on Orthodoxy, difference feminism, and equality feminism of interest.
Interesting, Larry – someone just posted this article on my Facebook wall yesterday. Here's what I responded: I find the demarcation between "difference" feminism and "equality" feminism fascinating. I like the terminology. I don't know that I agree with the whole "empowering" thing, because I don't think either men or women should be striving for power, per se. Re women having a vote in synagogues, I don't now and never have belonged to a business-like shul with very official officers and what have you – the Orthodox shuls I've belonged to are typically much more casual and ad hoc, but my current shul sends an email to all of us when an issue arises and my "ability" to add my voice has never been an issue.
I don't understand 'difference feminism' as defined in the article. The author said In contrast, difference feminism argues that men and women have different roles and women should not try to mimic the roles of men. It argues that a woman who does not desire to live like a man is no less a feminist. . A woman (or man) can be a feminist while insisting that they choose to follow roles that are considered feminine (or masculine). But as soon as they say that their choices must be pushed upon all the other members of their gender, i.e., not that I don't want to be a lawyer (full time homemaker), but no women(men) should be allowed to be lawyers(full time homemakers) I don't see how they can claim to be feminist.
Are you asking in the context of Torah Judaism? Or are you asking me to further clarify what "difference feminism" is?
You said I find the demarcation between "difference" feminism and "equality" feminism fascinating. I like the terminology. , I was saying that I didn't understand what difference feminism was, since it seemed to me to not be feminist at all. If you'd like to explain your understanding of difference feminism, and why it qualifies as a version of feminism, great. I think I understand the conventional Torah perspective already, thanks.
I'm hardly an expert in feminism and how or why something would qualify for inclusion under its umbrella. This is the first time I encountered the idea, which explains my fascination.
What I like is the notion that being different need not imply chauvinism.
When feminists describe how far they've come, I find they're generally referring to equal pay for equal work, employment opportunities in general, or men treating women with respect.
It doesn't seem to me that any of these things are contradicted by Orthodox Judaism or by a "difference feminism."