Oh, Sheryl. I was all ready to hate your book.
But instead, on the heels of the Atlantic article
and the ever-brewing mommy wars, I think you’ve written an honest,
humble, and true-to-life assessment of women, work, and the will to lead
with your book Lean In. Bear with me as I dive all over the book to collect my thoughts and reactions to your words and observations.
YOUR JUDAISM
I was drawn in right away by what you wrote on page 12 about your Jewish roots, and how
education for girls was less important than education for boys. To be
honest, I would have loved for you to talk more about how Judaism or
Jewish values impacted your trajectory in life. Your husband has a
Jewish name but you don’t mention your faith much in your book. Of
course, Judaism isn’t what your book is about at all, but since you
start off with it, I sort of hoped you’d come full circle. Ah, well.
HIDING YOUR ACHIEVEMENTS
You
talk about modesty and being humble too, a subject about which I am passionate, since I teach 5 bi-weekly classes on ethical character
improvement (how’s that for a humblebrag?).
On page 42, you describe keeping your award, becoming a Henry Ford
Scholar for having the highest first-year academic record at business
school, a secret. You subtly lament your decision to do so, putting it
in a greater context that “as a girl, you know that being smart is good
in lots of ways, but it doesn’t make you particularly popular or
attractive to boys.” Much later in life, you follow up with this,
recognizing that “if a woman is competent, she does not seem nice
enough” and that “defying expectations and reaching for those [academic
or corporate] opportunities lead to being judged as undeserving and
selfish.” You conclude, however, that “owning one’s success is key to achieving
more success.”
Sheryl, from a pragmatic standpoint you
may be right. I don’t work in the corporate world, although I sometimes
wonder if I might have been successful there (as corporate America
defines success). But from a human perspective, you may be buying into a
false and wrong dynamic. You may have learned to succeed in the
system, but the system itself is flawed. What I mean by this is: how
does it benefit humans, men and women alike, when a beautiful, natural
personality trait (downplaying one’s achievements) is looked down upon
as preventing ascension in the academic and corporate sphere?? Quite
honestly, if I found myself in such an environment, where my positive personality traits were useless and even detrimental, I
would seriously question whether that was an environment in which I
would want to remain.
(Note: I do not speak of self-abrogation or martyrdom. I speak of a healthy reticence to trumpet one’s achievements.)
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
Your thoughts about men and women and how to draw
boundaries in the workplace resonated, since in Judaism, these are subjects that
are built into Jewish law and living. It always fascinates me to see
how other systems have dealt with these challenges. You write on page
72 and 73 that men and women may refrain from certain mentorship roles
in the workplace “out of fear of what others might think.” Some
solutions you suggest are, for men and women across the board, having a
“breakfast or lunch only policy” so that dinner together won’t be
unseemly. You conclude that “anything that evens out the opportunities
for men and women is the right practice.”
Personally, I’m intrigued that your main concern is of what it might seem like, rather than what might actually happen.
You use words like “perceived,” “it would look awful,” “what others
might think,” “it looks like dating.” But I’m sure in the workplace
you’ve seen that professional relationships often actually become
romantic relationships. The boundaries you mention are designed to look
professional to others but not to prevent unseemly behavior, unless
you’re describing harassment (“everyone involved has to make sure to
behave professionally so women – and men – feel safe in all settings”).
In Judaism, the boundaries are set too, not only
because of how it will look, but also because of what might actually
develop. Men and women who are not related leave doors open or at least
unlocked. When spending the night in the same home, minimum numbers of
other people must be present as well so they are not alone. Even casual
touching is a boundary. So I found your discussion on this topic very
interesting. I wonder if any boundaries have been drawn to discourage
workplace romances in general and how romance in the workplace affects
the discrepancy in perception of competence between men and women.
Maybe in your next book you’ll talk more about that.
WORK AND FEELINGS
I
loved reading about how you tried to be professional and organized and
keeping your personal life separate from work. This interests
me, since I run a non-profit together with my husband. On page 87, you
describe your weekly meetings with Omid, your superior at Google, and
how you would enter his office with a typed agenda and “get right to
it.” But you got feedback from Omid that you should take a minute to
connect with him personally before diving right in to business only.
For
women like me who work with their husbands, this resonated really
strongly. I am business-like and efficient, and this was a lesson I had
to learn too – that sometimes the right business relationship is
actually two parts efficiency and one part emotional connection. As an
Orthodox woman, I would definitely have strong boundaries in a business
relationship with another man who is not my husband – I would not be
comfortable with the emotional connection, innocent though it is, that
you describe – but the concept is a true and important one otherwise.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
You
continue on this theme of sharing your personal life with work with a
story on page 90 about your sister-in-law’s roommate whose daughter was
diagnosed with a serious syndrome, and how she would cry at the office –
with positive outcomes from her compassionate workmates. But what
interested me here is a theme that you espouse throughout the book,
which, to be honest, I was surprised to read from you: that you believe
perhaps a rather old-fashioned notion (my assessment, not yours): that
men and women are inherently different.
I found this so
refreshing, because, duh that I, a religious Orthodox woman, would buy
such a notion, but coming from you? Well, that was downright exciting.
The way you put it here was almost in a by-the-way fashion, which made
it even more endearing, but it repeats itself periodically through your
book, like on page 145 where you describe the content of your TedTalk
about “differences between men and women both in their behavior and in
the way their behavior is perceived by others…” You write that the
mom in the story knew “several men at my firm who have had similar
experiences with sick children, but they didn’t feel they could be as
forthcoming as I was,” she said. “So, in the end, I think my female
manner of relating served me well.”
I just love that
you are unabashed about these differences and don’t consider the
admission anti-feminist or a step back for women. You encourage women
to be aware of these differences and to use them in the most effective
way, but not to negate them or ignore them.
HUSBANDS
I
have to take issue with your use of the word “lucky” since I don’t
believe in luck, but rather in Divine Providence. But be that as it
may, you talk about how “lucky” you are to have a partner like Dave,
your husband, and how you guys share the load roughly approximating
50/50.
In the Jewish marriage
classes I’ve attended over the years (October 18th is our 20th
anniversary) I’ve heard this bit of wisdom: don’t try to divide up the
job 50/50. You try to give 100% and he tries to give 100%, and then you
will have not only equality but love.
You write about
your division of labor on page 112 as being rather traditional: Dave
pays bills, handles finances, provides tech support. You schedule kids’
activities, make sure there is food in the fridge, plan the birthday
parties. In our home, I handle bills, make sure there is food in the
fridge, and make all the appointments. We both do carpool and diapers.
My husband gives baths, does bedtime most nights and helps with errands
and taking the kids to appointments wherever possible. The overriding
attitude in our marriage is that we will both do whatever we can to make
this family work and to show each other that we care.
I
don’t call this lucky. I call it a blessing from Above combined with
hard work, focus and attention from us that comes from education about
marriage. I used to think that while I have a very helpful husband,
because our family has traditional beliefs about home and family, that
perhaps liberal Jewish families would be more likely to include husbands
who are “liberated” to “lean in,” as you put it, to their families.
More likely to change diapers, grocery shop, and do baths. But I don’t
find this to be the case. Husbands who rely on their wives to do more
around the house are a universal problem, and I don’t find that helpful
husbands exist more or less in “liberated” households.
Leaning in to your family for men, then, is more a function of being a mensch than anything else.
BEING AWAY FROM YOUR KIDS
Sheryl,
I’m hardly the CEO of Facebook and my company is significantly smaller
than Google. But there is something you and I share: we both struggle
with leaving our kids. There are speaking engagements I’ve turned down
and events I haven’t attended because I didn’t feel it was right to
leave my kids so much. And there are plenty of things I have done and
attended that I realized afterward – I shouldn’t have gone so early or
stayed so late or attended at all. So on page 135-136 when you quote a NICHHD report from 1991 about how
“children who were cared for exclusively by their mothers did not
develop differently than those who were also cared for by others” I sat
up straight and paid attention.
I don’t think me not
leaving my kids has anything to do with things mentioned in they study,
like cognitive skills, language competence, social competence, or the
quality of the mother-child bond (although I would seriously question
that last one as remaining unaffected). I leave less than I would
otherwise because I want to have my finger on the pulse of their lives
and because I want to give my kids values. I also don’t want my older
kids (19, 17, 15) to think they are responsible for my younger kids (13,
10, 6, 3). I am the mom, and caring for them is MY job, and my
husband’s. Of course, I expect all my kids to help around the house
regularly, but not because it’s their responsibility to run it.
Even
when I leave my kids with my husband, which is always our plan A, my
absence is fine until it interferes with my ability to have my finger on
the pulse of their lives, or until I feel I am sending a message that
work is more important than family (note: kids feeling resentful is not
an accurate signal that my judgment is awry). It’s pretty impossible to
quantify what a chilled-out evening at home with my kids doing nothing
can achieve. I also want to be their role model – so what am I
role-modeling to them in terms of how I spend my leisure time, what I
chat about on the phone with my friends, how I prioritize my calendar?
I
know that you, Sheryl, feel that leaning in more to work IS positive
role-modeling, especially to daughters, and on a limited scale I agree.
But I don’t swallow that whole. If the job of parenting is to give my
kids values, that should usually inform how I prioritize my time.
MERITOCRACY
“…Many
people believe that the workplace is largely a meritocracy, which means
we look at individuals, not groups, and determine that differences in
outcomes must be based on merit, not gender. Men at the top are often
unaware of the benefits they enjoy simply because they’re men…” (page
150). In other words, the workplace SHOULD be a meritocracy, but, in
fact, isn’t. Well, I believe it should be and I will fight for equal
pay for equal work in my field and any other.
This might
raise some serious eyebrows considering my view on women in the
rabbinate. But see, I don’t believe Judaism is a meritocracy. It’s not
either a democracy. Judaism is a theocracy. So what God says (and we
can certainly converse about what He did or didn’t say) goes regardless
of merit. Do I have the skills to be rabbi? A pretty good one, I’d
think. In fact, I think I’d make a rockin’ good cantor. Not the
point. I also think I’d make a great dad. But in religion I seek what
God wants me to do, and try to follow that as best as I can. This is
why I wholly and fully agree with the meritocracy aspect of your
argument, Sheryl, and find it to be no conflict whatsoever with my views
on women in religion.
In fact, I find the gender bias
in modern times in the workplace even more egregious than gender
differences in the religious sphere because there is no viable
explanation for it. One might argue that the “explanations” the
religious adherents espouse are wrong, outdated or historically
inaccurate, but that’s not really the point. If you were to pinpoint a
male CEO and ask why more women do not hold senior positions, what would
he even respond?
And this is why, to your view, I am a
proud feminist. You struggle on page 158 with calling yourself a
feminist, and ultimately embrace the title, since if a feminist is
“someone who believes in social, political, and economic equality of the
sexes” – then, yes, you and I wholeheartedly agree with every word,
along with 65% of my fellow women. And my religious views are no
contradiction.
SOCIAL NORMS
You
recount a story where the students introduce their parents at school
parents’ night. Your friend Sharon’s daughter Sammy pointed at her
father and said, “This is Steve [ouch, my ears hurt when I hear kids
refer to their parents by their first names], he makes buildings, kind
of like an architect, and he loves to sing.” Then Sammy pointed at
Sharon and said, “This is Sharon, she wrote a book, she works full-time,
and she never picks me up from school.” To Sharon’s credit, hearing
this account did not make her feel guilty. Instead, she said, “I felt
mad at the social norms that make my daughter feel odd because her
mother doesn’t conform to those norms.”
You know,
Sheryl, I feel like that a lot. Not mad, per se, because it really
doesn’t help, but I do feel annoyed at the social norms that make my
family and me feel odd. I mean here the social norms of skimpy clothing
for girls, such that I can’t find appropriate clothing for them in
mainstream stores. Norms of body image messages, such that I cringe
every time my kids go the mall. Norms of men and women who are casual
friends greeting each other with a hug and a kiss, so that I’m the odd
one for saving those affectionate gestures for a spouse or close
relative.
I understand that sometimes, when we feel
like the oddball, it helps to realize that what is socially “normal”
isn’t always the right way.
US VS. US
To
me, one of the saddest parts of your book is highlighted on page 162
where you describe the media-fueled mommy wars. From Marissa Meyer and
the backlash to her decision to work through her abridged maternity
leave from Yahoo (as CEO), to the Betty Friedan-Gloria Steinem rift, we
have always been our own worst enemies. And, as you sadly note, the
media loves a cat-fight.
Orthodox Jews are no exception. Someone on this blog once referenced the “narcissism of small differences”
and I haven’t stopped thinking about that since. The more closely
aligned we are on political, social, or religious issues, the more our
small differences will appear enormously insurmountable.
Wouldn’t
non-Jews think that Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative Jews have SO
much in common? Wouldn’t Reform and Conservative Jews think that all
Orthodox Jews have SO much in common? Wouldn’t modern Orthodox Jews
think that ultra-Orthodox Jews have SO much in common? Wouldn’t
ultra-Orthodox Jews think that Chassidim of various sects have SO much
in common?
Can’t we quit the obnoxious narcissism of
small differences?? Women need each other badly to support our mutual
cause, and Jews of all stripes need each other badly for the same
reason. And Orthodox Jews need each other badly too. Yet our greatest
enemies are often those most similar to ourselves. Frankly, that
stinks. It’s time for us to stop thinking about superiority,
inferiority, insecurity, and jealousy. We should be too busy making a
difference in this world for the good.
At least, I can hope.
LET’S LEAN IN
And
that’s why, Sheryl, I haven’t really taken your message head-on, as I
thought I might before reading it. Because I realized as I read how
much we have in common. How much our messages jive. How your voice in
this book is honest, real, and humble. So you keep leaning in, Sheryl,
and so will I. I’ll lean in to religion and to my career and to my
husband and to my family, and you keep leaning in where you need to lean
in. And let’s support each other in that venture – as fellow Jews,
fellow women, and fellow leaners-in.
I haven't read the book, but it seems to me that downplaying your achievements can make it hard to influence people. That doesn't mean you should brag about them, but if I don't know what you've accomplished, why should I take your advice?
I think that truly wise and accomplished people are sought out by others via word of mouth – and others' mouths' words are far more convincing than your own. Note: Costco does no advertising.
I felt very similar felling when i read the book but you say it sooooo well!
Thanks Faygie!
Great post — really enjoyable to read. I remember reading a study somewhere (sorry to be vague) that when they polled boys and girls in an ultra-Orthodox school about their goals, both boys and girls said that being a good father / mother was the most important goal they had for adult life. That really stayed with me and I think it is generally true. Traditional Jewish men have a lot they could teach the larger culture about fathering.
Thanks for this comment. I recently posted on Facebook a small project that my son's first grade teacher did with the all-boys class. She had them fill out a card with typical things like "favorite color" (golden), "favorite animal" (loin, he wrote) and "what do you want to be when you grow up. Indeed, my son wrote "a father."
It says a lot about your writing and ideas, Ruchi, that I read every word of this. I say that because it is true of all your posts. I tend to skim a lot on the internet (and in books) out of necessity–because I read A LOT. But this essay in particular is so full of ideas I wanted to let simmer. I really hope this one makes the rounds. Your approach to the book is truly original.
Thank you so much Nina! That really meant a lot to me. Tonight we were discussing at our dinner table "what was your favorite part of the day" and getting this comment was it (instead I said something about my son's upcoming bar mitzvah prep to make him happy…shh). If you, as a writer, have ideas on how to help this one "make the rounds" I am all ears. Thanks again for your words and ultimately, I am glad my ideas could impact another in a meaningful way.
I haven't read the Sandberg book, but appreciate this discussion. I am wondering about something that is only tangentially related to all you write here, and might belong somewhere else. You write about how Os would keep a more distanced emotional relationship from a colleague, especially of the opposite sex, and you have also written before about attempting even among friends to avoid all gossip and discussion of intimate matters. I sometimes wonder if that makes for feelings of isolation among Os. I talk to my friends, and my friend-workmates (important to know who's a real friend and who is just a friendly workmate), about events involving other people in ways that would probably be considered gossip; and sometimes about intimate matters as well. Because these are things that evoke feelings and conflicts. My friends are the people I go to for support and feedback, and if I couldn't really talk to them about these things, what would be my sense of connection?
The privacy/modesty/virtue that you strive for would, I believe, lead me to feel rather isolated. Maybe the idea is to connect to God instead of people on these things.
Hi SBW,
I think to some extent your impression that these ideals would leave you feeling isolated stem from some misunderstandings.
First, you say, "Os would keep a more distanced emotional relationship from a colleague, especially of the opposite sex." I would emend that to "only of the opposite sex." With fellow women of all types I am very emotionally connected. I still won't discuss very intimate things, but I don't think that's strictly an Orthodox thing.
Gossip, too, is easily misunderstood. You write "events involving people" – but the only prohibited talk is that which
a. paints others in a nasty light, or
b. crosses the boundary of personal dignity and privacy
Obviously each of those categories includes incredibly wide gray areas. There are lots of books that get very detailed about which situations are kosher and which are not. Also if discussion of an intimate matter is necessary and important for a particular reason (and constructive) it might be OK.
It definitely makes for far more mindful conversations (and far less regret and worry that others are discussing you). Sometimes I will agree that a small degree of isolation can set in if you are taking these ideas to an extreme. A healthy, application, I have found, leads to only more high-level conversations and ultimately relationships.
Discussing intimate issues is to a large extent a matter of personal comfort, even among Os. Sure, discussing highly personal topics creates connection. But do you really want ALL your friends to know every last detail of your personal life? And do you want all of THEIR friends to know the details, too (since they're gossiping about you, too)? If you complain to your friends about a problem in your marriage, wouldn't you regret it afterwards when the problem had been resolved and everyone knew the gory details? I heard of a woman posting a film of herself giving birth on the Internet. Childbirth is truly an amazing, wonderful occasion, but does showing it to everyone add to or detract from the wonderfulness of it? If you need to discuss an intimate topic, that's fine, but I personally would choose someone to talk to who might be able to help. That isn't gossip.
Ruchi: "I want to have my finger on the pulse of their lives and because I want to give my kids values. I also don't want my older kids (19, 17, 15) to think they are responsible for my younger kids (13, 10, 6, 3). I am the mom, and caring for them is MY job, and my husband's."
Again, I haven't read Sandberg, so I'll stick to commenting on your comments on Sandberg and what that has to do with O.
Most of what you say here has, in my view, no particular relation to O or religion. I totally share this feeling of wanting to have my finger on the pulse of the kids' lives. I want to know about tests at school, about quarrels with friends, about what got eaten at lunch, about general emotional temperature. I want to know, and that they know I know, what is going on on many levels. This is what I consider "mothering". It does not require that I am home every single evening, nor (thank goodness–is that ok to say among Os??) supervising homework personally. But the kids are first and foremost in my mind, even though work does require that sometimes I put those thoughts aside.
And don't all parents want to give their kids values? Maybe not as consciously as you do, though. I guess if you are O you have to pay much more attention to giving kids values, because some of those values go against the mainstream and a lot of exposure they get in everyday life. But I feel like values PER SE go against a lot of everyday life, where acquiring stuff and trying to be sexy (or at least good-looking, for both sexes!) fill in for real values. I might not look very countercultural to people, and not like Os do (somewhat), but I feel like I fight uphill battles everyday for values–not just kindness and generosity, but also criticizing bad and ubiquitous cultural messages, recognizing where advertising manipulates us, considering what the purpose of government is. It comes out in little ways with the kids–like talking about a photo in the newspaper or about an endangered animal we saw at a zoo.
The last one, about your older kids not being responsible for the younger ones, was most surprising to me. I wouldn't think this would be on the top 5 or even 10 considerations you have. Is that typical O or just you? I would imagine (based only on old-fashioned movie representations of large families) that the older ones are sort of made responsible for the younger ones. Interesting that you pointedly want to avoid this. And quite fair of you.
Just musings. I see that this post must have taken hours to write, totally impressive. I can only pick out a few things that evoke my questions and comments.
I agree, SBW, that much of what I say here is not unique to Orthodox Judaism. It's just me. Part of what this blog reveals is how much we share in common. And part of it reveals in what ways we're different and demystifies them.
I do think there is an added layer of "holiness" in parenting in a religious worldview – that parenting is holy work, cultivating the soul of another human being for eternity. And that every child I have is uniquely destined for me and I for him/her, for some greater purpose. How that translates into reality in terms of contrasts I don't know. Maybe it does give you added fuel for the uphill journey.
As far as the older kids and younger kids, I don't know that it's unique to Orthodox Jews but it is to large families in general. The temptation sure is there to let that happen, and it's a conscious decision not to let it happen – although it is sometimes constructive to harness the older ones in assisting the younger ones, and beneficial to all concerned, it opens up a new realm of challenge in drawing appropriate boundaries therein. It's certainly a topic of discussion at our events and in our periodicals.
The post did take me considerably longer than most of my posts 🙂 I'd love to hear more of your insights.
Interesting about the holiness side of parenting for Os or religious people in general. I can't bear the idea that my children won't exist eternally, but nonetheless raising the kids does have something approaching "holy" in it, insofar as that exists for me. It's absolute, undiluted value. Otherwise I am pretty ironic as a person (as you know) and game for different angles and arguments. Not the kids. It is transcendent, immutable, as value.
You pointed out once that my ambivalence about only having a few of them is tied to how they have such a unique value for me, and what about my own soul and my own meaning-making once they are gone and grown. It's true that you have that task to cultivate your own soul as consolation for the kids' departures. It means that raising the kids is ONE of your sacred duties, but there are others. I don't have that.
SBW, do you really mean to say that you see no meaning in life after your kids are grown? And do you need consolation or just other meaningful activities? It sounds depressing to me if your future activities are just consolation for not having your kids at home. Anyway, you'll always be a mother to your kids and they'll always need you, just in different ways. I know I still need my mother even though she doesn't cook dinner for me anymore or drive me where I need to go.
DG, nah, there is certainly meaning in my life besides the kids. But I will say that nothing else has had that ABSOLUTE feeling of meaning. I love my work, but it is not the unquestioned value that the kids are. And yes, it is a little depressing for me that the kids will be gone and I won't have that daily "finger on the pulse" relationship. But it is nice to think that they still need me even later.
I guess there is the larger existential point here that Os (and other religious people) have a sense of their own value apart from their work and kids, just in being the religious soul they are. If I became unable to work and the kids were gone, and even became unable to do much at all, I think I would feel a thorough lack of value for my life. Scary, yes.
I was trying to stay away from the PG-13 world of men/women/romance topics that you (Ruchi) must get tired of responding to all the time, but it is another biggie lurking in your account of Sandberg.
Sandberg apparently points out how men and women should avoid looking like they are in intimate situations, or potentially intimate situations, as part of a savvy work/personal space divide. You connect this to O's rules about unpaired men and women being not-too-alone in a house and not getting close at work except for work reasons. You point out that romances do arise at work.
This just leads me to something you have discussed before, but I still don't really get it. Romance seems to be a "bad ingredient" for Os. The O matching and dating as you've described it sounds like a sort of calm assessment of whether I am compatible with this other person: he should be pleasant, kind, someone I feel I can communicate with.
Romance is (in my world) a passionate and crazy desire for the other person, an overly focused interest in the other person, an idealized view of that person as SO wonderful and great. I am emphasizing the irrational, unreasonable, "negative" view here. I even believe that romance is in part a projection of inner wishes onto someone who, temporarily, might fit the bill but not necessarily and not forever. So you could say I have a bit of a "tragic" (or you might also say "pragmatic and experienced") view of romance: the giddy part is not necessarily a reflection of how well a long-term relationship would work out. Not to say it won't work out, but giddy romance alone is not the predictive factor.
Is your/O perspective that romance and all that idealization is in itself wrongheaded because it is so much a matter of fantasy, passion, hormones, whatever? Or that it should all happen, but only with the one you've gotten engaged/married to? Or that something like that should develop in the marriage (and is the idea that it stays?)?
There is obviously a lot of effort for Os to avoid people getting anywhere near that romantic mood where things are hard to govern and people do things they wouldn't otherwise do. Do people then just live their lives without that, or how does that work?
"pleasant, kind, someone I feel I can communicate with"
All very important, but it makes him sound pretty boring. Orthodox Jews can be as exciting as anyone else. And I know some who have met at work and are now happily married.
I seems to me that both Orthodoxy and secular society recognize that hormones can overpower self-control, but whereas the Orthodox try to avoid situations where they're likely to get to that point, the secular deliberately put themselves into those situations for enjoyment (I'm not talking about work). Do you agree?
DG, this is such a great question. GREAT. It gives me a totally different lens through which to view what I see as "normal" ways of doing things. Never thought about the O-secular contrast this way.
Thinking through the lens you offer: Seculars put themselves into situations where hormones can overpower self-control. Yes, some (ok lots, over a lifetime) do. Including, oftentimes, alcohol. It is true that seculars (very broadly generalizing, and trying to see it through your lens rather than in terms of accurate sociology), especially those who are single and looking for partners (the other kinds are more complicated maybe) can try to evoke the romance-vibe, get into the infatuated state, and pursue it to its physiological and also relationship end, and then realize that the emotional match is not going to work out. Then there is suffering, or for more jaded types, shrugging it off. [Seculars–back me up or disagree please!!]
And I guess some younger and/or immature seculars get very focused and even hooked on the buzz of infatuation, desire, the startup vibe of a relationship, or something less than a relationship. I think this is what you are talking about, and it's true, and pop culture assists in this. The idea is that the romance-buzz is a "sign" of something deep and true. And sexual desire gets very mixed up with devotion and caring, and so on. But after a few rounds of this, you have to wonder about that mixup.
So yes, I agree that seculars do put themselves into those situations for enjoyment, and I don't know if for most people it is in the hope that this will be a better, truer relationship or just the buzz of romance to enjoy once again. Or if it is "copying" a lot of pop culture where sexualized situations seem to be everyday and everywhere.
My idea is that figuring out the thrill AND limits of that buzz is part of growing up and becoming mature. So that yes, you go through it a few times and then see its limits. No guarantee that you won't fall for the buzz in a way that doesn't serve you well. I guess for me the no-guarantee/maturity combination seems preferable to the avoid-the-situations-all-your-life model.
But the way you put this question does make me want to think more about why.
Your turn now.
Wait, I thought some more about this, but from "my" point of view and not yours.
Part of my own view is that having a little tad of charm between people is indeed very pleasurable and is one of the ways that everyday life can be nice. If the guy at the photocopy shop gives me an appreciative look (not a gross leer) and a smile that in my imagination means "hi cutie! have a nice day!", I can enjoy that. I can make a little joke and be charm-friendly to a colleague after a meeting and think to myself "he's a cutie!" but not then invite him to coffee. I'm not talking about flirting (maybe none of this vocabulary and its subtle differentiations make sense to Os, or even some [immature?] seculars), but about just a flash of acknowledgment that someone is charming, attractive, without actually letting that go anywhere. I'm talking about something that I would consider less than flirting although maybe other seculars wouldn't see the difference.
This is where maturity comes in. We can be in a world where we acknowledge in small ways the charm and even pre-desire dynamic without going there and getting messy. It is in fact much easier to do this with people we don't have real or lengthy contact with (photocopy shop guy) than with people we go on business trips with. It's just a passing flash of pleasure, not an attempt to lure anyone into anything.
So in that vein, I would confess that not just "people" but I myself evoke situations sometimes NOT to let my hormones exceed my judgment but to have a little flash of attraction/charm and enjoy it. I'm not talking about major cleavage or smoldering suggestions, just a kind of appreciative smile. I bet this does not sound mature at all to you or Os. I have to think about that.
Sounds to me like a risk/benefit question.
Risks: If we're talking about relationships and not alcohol, drugs, or weapons, the person could still get killed or raped, although usually the consequences aren't that extreme. Often there are unwanted pregnancies or extramarital affairs that break up marriages. To Orthodox Jews, adultery is a very serious sin even if the other spouse never finds out about it, so that's also a severe consequence.
Benefits: Mainly short-term pleasure. You mentioned becoming mature. So does that mean that sexual risks are necessary for maturity? Couldn't you make that statement about all risks? But don't we all consider some risks too great to take? What makes this category different?
I think this reply was intended for my 12:08 comment, not the 2:26 one, where I talked about people getting into relationships, or encounters, based on a romance-buzz.
I agree there are big risk/benefit problems for the description I gave there. It's a bad trial-and-error model.
That said, killing and raping are not in my view really germane to what we are discussing, and I believe it is a misperception that rape or murder would mostly happen when people get into a romance-buzz. There is such thing as date-rape, no question. But I believe that date-rape is not at all about a "misunderstanding" or even about a guy's arousal overpowering good judgment or human decency. And I think this is the least powerful of your arguments here.
On the other hand: Unwanted pregnancies and extramarital affairs, yes. They happen. And sexually transmitted diseases. People don't protect themselves in the heat of the moment. All very immature and dangerous. Damaging to families. This is indeed a good reason to avoid getting into situations where hormones could overpower judgment. See my more recent post for the more casual stuff that wouldn't lead to this (the copy shop just is not a very romantic place).
I am feeling very mixed about the question of whether "sexual risks" are necessary for maturity. In my secular view, people learn from having different relationships and that (I hope) makes them better prepared for a commitment to build a family with someone. I know for Ruchi, "giving values" to kids is precisely about narrowing this way down. "Giving values" to my kids includes trying to convey good judgment and keeping your head even while discovering what romantic relationships are. It is more ambiguous, I think, than what Os try to convey.
I think it's easier to talk about drugs as an analogue to the risk/benefit issue than about romance. I talk to my daughter about drugs, explain why they are unhealthy, can land you in bad situations (like sneaking around at night behind stores to smoke something), can get you in trouble, etc. She asks the big question, "Have you ever …?" and I answer honestly, "Yes, I tried x or y. Makes you feel silly and funny, but you are young, your brain is developing, this stuff can mess with your judgment, I think this is something to really avoid." And I bring it up again the following week and have another similar conversation. I guess with the secular model, you are IN society and will come across this and be offered this (as I tell my daughter). "I want to give you the information you need to make a good choice, my support if you want to talk about it, my opinion about why this is a bad idea."
I can imagine to Os or even some seculars that sounds really soft and asks for trouble.
First of all, I didn't grow up in the Orthodox world, so I'm not unfamiliar with non-Orthodox society. As far as interactions with the opposite sex are concerned, I'm all in favor of smiles and pleasant conversations. I definitely see a distinction between flirting and the sort of "pre-flirting" that you're talking about, but I wouldn't be comfortable with it. It seems objectifying to me. Obviously, people are going to think total strangers are attractive, and there's nothing wrong with that. Of course that's a physical assessment to a large extent (although emotional energy and other things can also be seen). But acting on it even slightly is objectifying.
I'm thinking a longish response I wrote to 2:27 got caught in a modesty filter, which is fine.
Actually I don't think it's a physical assessment and thus is not objectifying in that way. (Fascinating that you didn't grow up O!!) I can have a cheerful flash of pre-flirting with someone who is not "objectively" attractive but who has a jaunty smile. In my case, humor is a much bigger attractor than anything else. Jauntiness, for lack of a better word, is really at the heart of this–a moment of playfulness or cheerfulness that is beyond what the situation warrants and you recognize the other person enjoys it.
And I'm fine-average-looking, with good and bad days, but some days even with bad hair and bad outfit my own humorous or warm or who-knows-what look might evoke that flash on someone else's part. I don't think it's just looks.
It is objectifying if by objectifying you mean "someone feeling at all drawn to you without knowing you as a person". Yes. But we "objectify" people all the time–"is she a good teacher?" "Would that person make a good teammate?" "Hmmm, whom should I sit next to at this cafeteria . . . she looks like someone I could talk to, I'll go sit there."
Which leads to another question, not particularly about O/not-O: why should we think that "objectification" (also sometimes known as "making a judgment about someone in a pragmatic situation") is all bad?
I didn't mean to suggest that most people who let their hormones take over are risking being murdered. I simply meant that it's a possible (though highly unlikely) consequence of high-risk behavior. And in terms of date-rape, I wasn't talking about the guy's hormones; I was thinking of the girl getting involved with someone she should stay away from.
As for taking risks in order to become mature, I'm sure you'd agree that some risks are too great. Yes, we learn from relationships how to have better relationships, but wouldn't a close, long-term friendship be a better way to develop the ability to build a permanent, committed relationship in the future? How do multiple easily broken physical relationships teach commitment? Wouldn't they have the opposite effect?
In terms of physical assessments, I was really thinking of a stranger with whom you have no interaction (someone you pass on the street, for instance). "Objectification" to me means not "she looks like a nice person" but "nice body!" It's unavoidable and even necessary to make preliminary judgments about strangers in pragmatic situations.
DG, I misunderstood. I thought you were associating flirtation with rape and murder. I think I mixed up on one hand "getting involved with someone" and the possible implications of doing that on the basis of attraction alone, and on the other hand flirting or "pre-flirting". And they are two different things to my view, with different sets of risks.
I get what you are saying about risks and maturity with respect to the multiple-physical-relationships model. I think this is where we are really far apart and I'm curious.
The O model is apparently to have one permanent relationship and build a family on that. And in part (I gather) because young people have desires, that relationship has to happen early (by some secular standards, not all–plenty of 20-yr-olds get married among seculars too).
One secular model that is pretty much mine is more jagged than this. Intimate relationships happen but those lives are still developing and the personalities still changing. Starting a family waits because people are getting more education or working. Of course when someone starts a relationship the idea isn't "Ok, this is my boyfriend for just 4 months and then I'll move on". Everyone feels in the moment that this is a great thing and has amazing possibility. But then life happens, people grow, and it's not right.
I don't know. It's messy and hard. But if I had married the guy I liked when I was 20, I can't imagine how miserable I would be now.
I think I still don't understand a lot of how the O marriage system works, it feels really foreign and I apologize if I'm so stuck in my own lens that I can't say things in a sympathetic way.
I'm pretty much secular and I'm not feeling the love here. There's a lot of generalizations flying around. I've worked in a variety of offices and professions and have never come across affairs, illicit pregnancies, etc. It's not typical at all- that's why it would be the topic of shock and gossip.
In my current professional job, the men are polite and friendly. They call me by my first name and ask about my weekend and the kids. We would all go out as a group to a coffee shop or whatever and I've met with individual men the same way. Chatting about work and our kids and events coming up in our lives. There's really nothing inappropriate and I'm not sure why some Orthodox groups would assume there's a serious risk of an affair or whatever. People of all religions and observance levels generally have self control and it's difficult for me to accept the Orthodox rules that assume I don't have that self control.
Quite honestly, it can be a shock for a frum Jew who enters the secular workforce to realize that their co-workers are "normal" and not sex-crazed alcoholics. And if a frum Jew wants to keep true to his or her frum principles, he or she has to keep reminding himself that appearances are not real, and that the non-frum world is still a not-so-good place. When I was "frum", I did used to remind myself that the world I was seeing was "sheker" (false) and that even if my co-workers seemed nice and normal, it was a bad idea to associate with them.
Needless to say, I'm no longer in that place and I enjoy interacting with people and not trying to convince myself that their lives are shallow and meaningless (at best).
Hold on a second! I find this slightly offensive. I do not think all or even most non-Jews and non-observant Jews are sex-crazed alcoholics. In my experience, most of them are very nice people. I don't tell myself their world is false and I don't try to avoid them. People are more likely to be close friends with others who are more similar to them in outlook and way of life, but that doesn't mean I think everyone else is shallow. I have a lot of admiration for some people who are not Orthodox Jews.
DG – thanks for your comment; I wasn't referring to you personally, which I hope you realize. All this means is that I myself was not nearly as tolerant an OJ as you are. Many times, when we seem to be criticizing others, we are really criticizing ourselves.
And the sex-crazed alcoholics expression was meant to be slightly facetious. It's based on reality, though. The original post talks about maintaining emotional boundaries between men and women. (Full disclosure, my closest work friend is a guy, but we are not romantically interested in each other – that would be laughable). And my cousin seriously told me that all her non-Jewish coworkers do after work hours is get drunk. It may be true of her workplace, but as far as I know, most people are not alcoholics. I was being silly by combining the two stereotypes. Forgive me?
Of course I forgive you. It was mainly the idea that you HAVE to keep reminding yourself of this that implied that we all do it. Halachic boundaries are meant to prevent problems. That doesn't mean that everyone would have affairs right and left without them.
I really enjoyed reading this, Ruchi! I had enjoyed Sheryl Sandberg's TED talk and a feature TIME did on her, but I didn't know if I would enjoy her book or if it would be frustrating for me to read. Based on what you wrote, I am definitely going to check it out. I'm all for feminism that allows women to be women. 🙂