WIMP
By nature, I am a pacifist. What this means
is that I would do almost anything to make sure that people get along.
Especially people who wouldn’t normally get along, such as people with
different ideologies, backgrounds, religious beliefs, or just people
who wouldn’t normally have the opportunity to actually sit down to get
to know one another on a deeper, more personal level. That’s pretty
much what this blog is all about, and it jives with a lot of other
activities in my life.
is that I would do almost anything to make sure that people get along.
Especially people who wouldn’t normally get along, such as people with
different ideologies, backgrounds, religious beliefs, or just people
who wouldn’t normally have the opportunity to actually sit down to get
to know one another on a deeper, more personal level. That’s pretty
much what this blog is all about, and it jives with a lot of other
activities in my life.
But this is not always a good
thing. As with any character trait, even a good one, it can be taken too
far to the extreme or applied wrongly.
thing. As with any character trait, even a good one, it can be taken too
far to the extreme or applied wrongly.
Sometimes I’ve
been notably quiet about certain issues. I’m not going to enumerate what
those issues are, because it is not the point of this post to
discuss those issues. The point is to explore what to do when certain
issues seem undiscussable. When discussion will only lead to more
fighting. And when there doesn’t seem to be any way of bridging the gap,
yet the truth must be stood up for despite all wishes for peace.
been notably quiet about certain issues. I’m not going to enumerate what
those issues are, because it is not the point of this post to
discuss those issues. The point is to explore what to do when certain
issues seem undiscussable. When discussion will only lead to more
fighting. And when there doesn’t seem to be any way of bridging the gap,
yet the truth must be stood up for despite all wishes for peace.
Sometimes
when I see someone standing up for something that I believe in, I
inwardly cringe. Not because he or she is wrong for standing up for the
truth. Not at all. But it’s not something that I would do, because it’s
not within my personality to stand up and take a stance publicly and
make a fuss and create conflict and controversy. Even where (maybe) I
should.
when I see someone standing up for something that I believe in, I
inwardly cringe. Not because he or she is wrong for standing up for the
truth. Not at all. But it’s not something that I would do, because it’s
not within my personality to stand up and take a stance publicly and
make a fuss and create conflict and controversy. Even where (maybe) I
should.
I’m not always proud of this, because I don’t necessarily
know that this stems from the good character traits of desiring peace.
It’s very possible that people who engage in civil disobedience or
social antagonism are also big advocates of peace. Maybe it just means
that I’m a wimp.
know that this stems from the good character traits of desiring peace.
It’s very possible that people who engage in civil disobedience or
social antagonism are also big advocates of peace. Maybe it just means
that I’m a wimp.
So should I wrinkle my nose or admire those that aren’t wimps?
TRUTH AGAINST PEACE
One relevant question in deciding whether to take a stand and antagonize people is whether you'll accomplish anything by doing so. If you won't change anyone's mind either about the issue or about the people they disagree with, what's the point?
True. But then again, people bring different motivations and styles to the table as well. If it were all a matter of politely learning about others on the blog without challenging them or being challenged, it would also be less interestingnot me. I myself have the most interest and pleasure in an exchange that is on the edge of uncomfortable, a little prickly and certainly complex. For other people that edge might be in a different spot on the controversy-conflict continuum, or might not be at all pleasant.
I guess for me there is the idea, or the fantasy, that someone might change their mind even in an antagonistic exchange, maybe another reader if not the interlocutor.
I do think it's possible to change another person's mind. It won't happen in a single comment or exchange. It's a long-term process.
DG, I think usually that's a wise start. But sometimes I feel an obligation to stand for the truth even where I will not effect change, just for my own sake – to know I fulfilled a moral obligation to register my protest. (Note I said I feel the obligation. Following up on this, for me, is the hard part.)
SBW, I don't think we shouldn't challenge. I just feel that when the challenge comes from, "I MUST convince him/her that s/he's wrong" it totally derails the conversation and makes it less likely that anyone will reconsider previously held perceptions. At least for me. Maybe others are better at seeing past conversational style to be objective. I get totally blindsided by negative rhetoric and have a hard time seeing, let alone considering, the objective message. I think, actually, you are exactly this. You challenge, all the time, in such a friendly and curious way, it's a pleasure to converse with and learn from you. And I have learned a lot from you. Sometimes it edges toward strong emotion, but even there I sense an attempt to reign it in.
Tesyaa: agree – where the emotions are calm, it's so much more likely. Again – I think you excel in this. I know that you and I have very different ideas about Truth, yet I have never felt attacked by you or that you felt you must convince me to see things your way.
If the purpose of arguing is to convince the other person that s/he's wrong, that's just arguing for the sake of argument and is liable to lead to antagonism. If the purpose is to discover the truth or simply understand the issue better, I think arguing and challenging can be productive.
Tesyaa, I'm wondering: Do you think it's possible to change another person's mind by trying to do so? Or is it just something that happens over time as you express yourself without actively trying to convince the other person? (I'm talking about major issues that can't be proven incontrovertibly, not a simple fact that can be looked up easily or a matter of preference like where to go on vacation.)
Thanks again, Ruchi, for this wonderful post! I think the most important thing about controversial exchange is respect. If I want to convince people of my own views, I devalue theirs and overrate my own ones – everything is relative in my opinion (which does not mean that I don't have principles I act on – but others have their own as well ;)). If I respect others and their convictions, however, that changes the picture – I may discuss heatedly but respect prevents me from hurting other people's feelings, I hope.
However, the whole thing gets problematic if tolerance is one-sided; besides, tolerance derives from the Latin "tolerare" (=to bear with) rather than approval or acceptance. Whereas it would be ideal to learn and grow from other people's views and experiences, an option is living side by side based on toleration if acceptance is not possible for whatever reasons.
DG: I think it depends on the circumstances and the relationship of the people involved.
Katharina, that's exactly what I meant by getting stuck at first base. In my teaching I try my hardest to just give people a context as to why I believe what I do. I do not try to convince. Partly, because that's my personality (and there are those who can do it wonderfully without sacrificing respect) and partly because I don't find it really works. Again, maybe those who have a stronger personality coupled with that respect (an elusive combination, maybe) do see that it can be done. Maybe that's what truly effective leadership looks like.
Ruchi, I think it depends a lot on the other person. I know that if someone pushes me to buy something, I push back. The more they push, the more I resist. If instead the salesperson describes the product without trying to convince me (or even says, "It sounds like you're not interested"), I'm more likely to buy it (if the product appeals to me). I think the same applies to convincing people of ideas.
On the other hand, the hard-sell approach is used because it works. The question is whether that applies to ideas, where the "customer" is supposed to continuing "buying" the idea after the salesperson has left. Or does the "customer" regret the "purchase"?
As with all of your posts, I love this, Ruchi. I have the rather unpopular view right now of not supporting female Rabbis, as I think our leadership strengths lie outside of the spotlight and it's a mistake to think emulating men equals empowerment. The people at my very modern synagogue who are in favor of them are being rather abrasive about the subject, and though I usually don't shy away from a debate, the one-sided dialogue and the tone of it has made me avoid the topic and even wonder if there is a place for me at that shul.
I would never presume that you agree or disagree with me on this issue, and I would respect your opinion either way, But this post reaffirms my belief that women have always been and will continue to be leaders in Judaism by speaking to the heart. Thank you for the inspiration.
Kate, there are people that agree with you 😉
Kate… thank you for this. I support your standing for the unpopular view that you believe in.
Ahhh, thank you, ladies! It's nice to know I'm not alone.
I disagree pretty much completely with the content of what you said, Kate, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. It's very difficult to be a lone voice in the wilderness. I hope that you're able to either find a way to be part of your current shul without compromising your beliefs, or to find another one if necessary where that is true.
I do want to say a few words about the specifics of your viewpoint. It's one thing to say that you yourself have no desire to become a rabbi, nor would you be comfortable in a congregation that had one, or consulting one on spiritual or halachic matters. Everyone's entitled to personal preferences. But it's a huge leap from there to saying that no woman anywhere should be allowed to become one or is suited to the job. Full disclosure: I call myself a feminist, I belong to a Reform congregation with both male and female clergy, and I'm old enough to remember when newspapers had separate "help wanted" sections in the classified ads for men and women and have no nostalgia for that whatsoever.
Women who become rabbis do so for the same reasons that anyone of either gender chooses any profession or calling. It matches their skills and interests, it strikes a chord within them, they've always known that they were meant to do this; the list goes on and on. It has nothing to do with wanting to be a man, or like a man. It has to do with wanting to be a physician, or a rabbi, or a reporter, or whatever. As to women's leadership and the spotlight, if you feel most comfortable and effective when you remain outside it, however you define that, you should absolutely stick with what rings true for you, but I don't accept that you have the right to make that declaration about me or anyone else.
I absolutely agree with you that women, in general, have a special way of "speaking to the heart." That's a lovely way to put it. But moving off the professional sideline doesn't change or endanger that. And rabbis are often called upon to do just that.
Men and women are indeed very different in some ways. I absolutely believe that it's precisely because of those differences that the rabbinate, and every other profession, is enriched by having both male and female participants.
I believe that every profession and institution benefits from the unique skills and talents of women. I don't believe that every woman benefits from being in every profession. Likewise, I don't believe that legally women should be barred from any profession, but I do believe that the Torah can make recommendations about which professions maximize our potential and which will not be healthy for our feminine souls.
The discussion about women in the workplace is re-raging today. The workplace will always benefit from the woman; the woman will not always benefit from the workplace.
Ruchi, I appreciate you explaining this reasoning, which is completely new to me in its focus NOT on how 'women just aren't suited to the job'. It reminds me of what you said about people becoming more observant 'for the children'–that it's for their own souls, not the kids. A surprising twist on the 'selfishness' discussion from a few posts back. But can I press you–do you really think it's a matter of the 'healthy soul' of the woman, not the 'suitedness to the job'?
But, no surprise, I don't buy the metaphysics of types of souls, and especially "feminine souls" even creeps me out a little.
With a non-metaphysical twist on what you're saying, I could agree with you, from a self-identified-feminist perspective, that "the woman will not always benefit from the workplace". And that the idea of "individual choice" on these matters sometimes masks various pressures that are unhealthy, for women and men, and often in different ways for women and men.
Sorry for creeping you out. It seems to be a habit of mine 😉
You don't need to buy into metaphysics, as you observe, to recognize what I really do believe is the crux of the issue. (Are you following the "Lean In" debate?) To be blunt, I think I have the skill set to be a pretty good rabbi. Or maybe cantor. But I buy in to the Torah's recommendation that certain positions of leadership will compromise what I am as a woman. To go out on a limb: Hillary Clinton is a great leader, and whether you agree with her policies or not, has served America well. Has her position served HER well? As a woman? I wonder what she will say in her memoir. Or what she will think and not publish.
These are the things even feminists are discussing in the woman-in-the-workplace debate that just doesn't want to go away.
Women are different, people are different. It's too general to say that a woman's womanhood is compromised by taking a public role. For some, perhaps yes; for others, no.
Truth will always be controversial for people who do not fully know it. It is inherently divisive. We should love people enough to tell the Truth in our words and actions (with good timing, tone and consideration of the audience.) Truth tellers in our society are often labeled judgemental (or even worse, bigot). We are not to judge (condemn or criticize). But that does not mean we are not to **discern** right from wrong.
Having been graciously entrusted with Truth, scripture repeatedly exhorts believers to evaluate carefully, and choose between good and bad. So it is on us to responsibly handle the wisdom we've been given. It is more important to stand for the Name than for various opinions–but discretionary silence is not wimpy, it's wise. (proverbs 10:19) Using a firehose to deliver Truth to those who aren't ready to receive will only do damage. Relationships first.
All this to say, I think your blog and musings have a very transparent, pragmatic and diplomatic content, very enjoyable and safe for seekers like me. Keep speaking the good word!
Leigh, thank you for your wise words.
For me Leigh's comment embodies one problem that Ruchi is hinting at. She [Leigh] places herself firmly on the side of truth.
Sometimes truth tellers are labeled judgmental–and sometimes people who THINK they are truth tellers SPEAK judgmentally and really ARE bigots. Most of us think we are telling "the truth" and not just "an opinion", but a sense of humility or at least a PRETENSE (cf. Larry's comment) helps the conversation along. Even Leigh's idea that some people "fully know [the truth]", and that those people are "we" [she] makes it difficult for me (and maybe others) to feel like we are engaging with someone who can converse in good faith, i.e. with an open mind.
I often write "to me" or "maybe" or "I think" and other things like that to indicate open-mindedness and humility about what I'm declaring. Ok, I'll confess that what I write seems totally true to me, but the "polite lie" of those hesitation-indicating words is supposed to convey to others that I'm not arrogating access to truth to myself, and also is supposed to MAKE me humbler about it because if I make myself say things that way it does have an effect. Like manners–don't those little lies make us truly more sociable?
So the way things get said does matter–and setting oneself up as a truth teller in my view [see there I go again] doesn't set things up for a mind-changing discussion.
SBW, the problem with being open-minded and humble about absolutely everything is that you're liable to end up giving equal credence to absurd opinions. Would you have a problem with saying, "The world is round"? Or would you have to say, "I think the world is round"? What if you're talking to a member of the Flat Earth Society? What if you're talking to a psychopath who sees nothing wrong with killing people? Would you say, "To me killing doesn't seem like the best course of action"? I'm taking extreme examples, and none of us are likely to have conversations with such people, but I'm using these examples to make a point: In some cases the truth is so obvious that most of us wouldn't consider humility a virtue. Do you agree?
Personally, I tend to hold back and not get into huge arguments with people who I'm sure will disagree with me. But I don't think that's wimpy. I just think of it as not wasting my time on them. Does that sound a little blunt?
SBW, of course I do the same all the time. I say I believe when I'm really thinking "I know." I say "to my view" when I'm thinking, "this is truth so I wish everyone would view it the 'right' way." But I think all honest people will admit to that. It's like the thread on the conversion post. Being respectful means restraining your real thoughts sometimes because all of us have offensive thoughts and views sometimes.
DG, I really like your final question, and it touches on one of my struggles in this issue.
Tesyaa, yes, that is a bit more blunt than how I stated it, but essentially I made the same point when I described why I won't discuss some issues publicly. I highly doubt I will reveal new information that anyone is ready or interested in hearing, and, worse, I could get tarred and feathered in the process.
DG, I see your point. But it is in a way about the rhetorical situation, and it is ALWAYS a situation. Talking to someone else's small child I might hold back from explaining that the world isn't flat if the child mentioned that idea. If someone were (creepy scenario) holding a gun to my head I might try to offer a pragmatic, rather than ethical, suggestion about killing not being to his advantage.
On a blog we can work with manners and discuss humbly, but obviously if we were making genuine political decisions the stakes would be different.
Yes being humble can sometimes end up giving credence to absurd opinions. Some of the opinions I read on here I consider absurd. In this rhetorical situation it's easier to not say anything. Stakes are low, and 'social skills' are part of the currency.
I am actually not worried about getting tarred and feathered… I just literally don't want to waste my time on someone whose mind is already made up 🙂
I think I'm in a unique position of having been a true Torah believer along the lines of many readers here, and done a 180-degree shift in that regard. Obviously, I am open to arguments and change. Having seen both sides, though, I don't think there are any arguments that will lead me to revert to my previous belief.
Ditto what Should Be Working Said. As someone who has known you (Ruchi) and worked with you for over a decade, I can only say that I would have been gone a LONG time ago if you came at me with anything that smelled remotely of "I know THE TRUTH." I much prefer, "I believe this to be true" and other more subtle ways of imparting knowledge to others, because the reality is that none of us are G-d and no one actually knows "THE TRUTH."
SBW: I agree with everything you wrote in your 1:45 post (although we probably disagree sometimes about which particular opinions are absurd).
I still remember someone telling me that if he has a conversation with someone and doesn't learn anything from the other person, he considers it a wasted conversation. That idea has stuck with me ever since. (He might not have meant it to apply to "What time is it?" "6:30." That is, assuming he's doing the answering.)
Regarding my use of the word Truth in my original comment: It means what we know from the Scriptures alone. To me, that's what it means. 🙂
What about stating you truth and NOT having it be confrontational? Check out Parker J. Palmer's book – "A Hidden Wholeness". Read together with the Chafetz Chayim's books it is very thought provoking! How to speak your truth and speak it well – both author's agree: a formidable but so worthwhile venture!!
I will definitely check that out. Thanks!
I like arguing because it definitely changes my understanding and it clarifies my own opinion. As Tesya said, though, it is a long term process and my changing understanding is not at all apparent from one or even two conversations.
For example, I used to imagine that people who wanted women to wear longer skirts, etc, were people who were controlling hypocrites with their own creepy issues. After countless arguments on this topic, I now understand that some people have reasonable and sincere perspectives that are not at all controlling or hypocritical or creepy.
Because it is a process, though, the original 15-20 people with whom I debated this, have no idea that my opinion has changed. Even the last person probably does not. I almost never say, thank you so-and-so, you have really shown me the error of my thoughts. The only way anyone would ever know my opinion has changed is if someone argued my old position back to me ("hey, MP, I think all people who want women to dress modestly are creepy controlling hypocrites with their own problems, don't you agree?")- then I would have to argue back, and only if one of my original 15-20 debaters were watching, would he or she then know my perspective changed.
But arguing is always risky. I've said things I've regretted and lost friends over them. I usually enjoy arguing in person better than online because you can assess easier whether your opponent is really taking offense or is just getting heated up as part of an enjoyable debate. This is hard to do online, at least for me.
Re: unpopular opinions. I have a few opinions that almost no one agrees with me on, regardless of the left-right continuum. I'm not usually shy in discussing them because this is where I can probably learn the most since there are just so many other people who will explain why I am wrong, or it is the best place for me to figure out how to rephrase and explain my perspective so at least one person will understand it. In this way, I clarify to myself what is really at the root of the issue for me and I also see from the other's perspective how that root of the issue looks. Maybe it looks a little arrogant? Condescending? Yes? Yes.
You're cute, MP. I think you and SBW should wrangle it out one day since you both love that prickly, edgy conversation (which makes me UNcomfortable). Although you may very well agree on many issues. See, I've learned something from you guys. There are actually people who ENJOY arguing. That was a major eye-opener when you first posted that on my online argument post. I was like, HUH? Some people enjoy that and aren't looking for a place to hide when it happens??
I so agree with you about in person vs. online. I'm curious, were the 15-20 people that you debated the creepy controlling hypocrite thing with – were those conversations online? Did you know those people personally?
I don't think your approach sounds arrogant at all. In fact, it seems to me rather humble. Arguing to see where you may be wrong or figure out how to rephrase or see it from another's perspective? How is that arrogant?
But I kind of know what you mean. Because the people you are arguing with don't know that that's why you're doing it, so it can just feel like an attack on their value system (ahem).
No, I mean that with each specific issue, the more you argue with people, the more you see the flaws and strengths of your position. Sometimes I see that what I thought was a clever point was actually just an arrogant presumption on my part 🙂
The 15-20 people- it's a mix. Some in real life- maybe 5-7, the rest online.
I've definitely experienced that. That sometimes what I thought was a clever point was actually an arrogant presumption on my part.
So that we can have two sides to this argument I will cite two posts in favor of lying, one classic, one contemporary.
Is the 'second side' in favor of the well-told and appropriate lie? Ruchi indicated in her post that she does tell 'silent lies', i.e. holds back when it serves the social purpose of the blog.
The question of the use of lies to promote truth is an interesting one. I often hear it debated in the context of kiruv.
A chabad rebbetizin I knew once told me she didn't know the translation of the phrase "Yechi Adoneinu Moreinu v'Rabbeinu Melech haMoshiach l'olam vo'ed!". In fact she really didn't want to get into a discussion of Chabad Messianism with me, preferring to leave that to her husband. Why she didn't say that instead of claiming ignorance in unclear to me.
Rav Yehuda Amital of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel mentions in one of his essays:
I heard from a reliable source that one of the leading halakhic authorities in Israel instructed those who work in kiruv not to discuss the laws of family purity with those married individuals taking their first steps toward renewed observance. Furthermore, he suggested that even if the subject is broached by the penitent himherself, the instructor should plead ignorance.
Larry, I gotta ask for a translation. Something about God and teaching and king and messiah. Otherwise I'm missing your Chabad punchline.
Whaa?? I've been instructed to teach ALL the laws to prospective couples, even where they are clearly not interested in keeping them past the first mikveh visit, and what they choose to keep is (obviously) their own business. I do understand the idea of not initially overwhelming people with more detail than they can handle but at any point in the journey it is their decision what to absorb in practice and what to reject.
SBW, it's a phrase describing the (late) Lubavitcher Rebbe as "King Messiah".
And just so that you don't think they're describing him as God, "adoneinu" means "our master" and can refer to a human being. I'm impressed that you recognized all those words in inflected forms.
Thanks, DG.
I think I've written on the blog before that the main phrases, apart from prayers I know by rote, that come to mind when I try to say something in Hebrew (rare though that is) are "kelev gadol" and "yeled katan". If people ask me how well I speak Hebrew, that's usually what I give them. So a few weeks ago we were out with the dog on a hike, and at a clearing we come across some Israeli scout types, plus a separate family with a toddler. Our 50-lb, very friendly dog jubilantly races around, hoping for a lick of sticky fingers or a snack. Toddler gets scared, I restrain dog apologetically, family moves on. Israeli scouts look at me, and I finally have my chance: "Kelev gadol, Yeled katan!" But then the Israelis wanted to converse and I had to admit that's all I can remember.
Apart from all that, I have plenty of questions about what it means to have a "rebbe" like I guess the various Chasidic groups do. But I imagine that most of those types don't hang around here much (except the wonderful interview with Libby).
Absolutely hilarious!
SBW: Wikipedia on Yechi. The closest I can come to an analogy is this is like a Catholic priest saying they can't translate "In nomine Patri, et Fili, et Spiritus Sanctum."
The thing is, I think there's a difference between someone saying, as Ruchi does here, "Look, it doesn't really matter what I think- I'd rather all of you discuss this amongst yourselves," and someone pleading ignorance, as in the example with the Chabad rebbitzen, saying, "Oh, I have no idea what that means!" The former is pretty straightforward, IMHO. The latter would just come off to me as ridiculous, because I wouldn't believe for a second that a Chabad rebbitzen would have no idea at all of what the "Yechi" phrase's translation is. It would come off to me as a deliberate lie, either to try and mask the teller's own Messianic inclinations or to try and present the flawless face of Chabad Judaism in order to woo me into observance. Either way, it would make me start doubting everything else that person had told me and do the kiruv cause no favors. Religion, as I think we're all aware, is a hugely personal and emotional thing. Why would I trust someone with something like that after they lie to my face?
Clearly, I see a pretty huge difference between a "silent lie" and a lie told outright. Maybe it bothers me because it seems so transparent- and needless. If you'd prefer that your husband explain the whole "Yechi" thing, just say so.
SBW…hilarious. And you'd actually be surprised who lurks around here without commenting…
Diplogeek, just to be clear, I do think it's important what I think… 🙂
I don't know much at all about supposed Chabad messianism. But I did once read something that I found strangely moving in that connection.
A non-Chabad O wrote that while it might seem like a bad or embarrassing thing if some Os believe they have (or had) the messiah in their midst, it's actually something that Os can be grateful for–because it's a sign that the daily (I guess) prayers that Os say for the coming of the messiah are not just rote, but are truly, passionately felt and believed. (I keep adding O because I don't recall any messiah-related prayers in R synagogue.)
In other words, some (O) Jews mistakenly believing in a false messiah is a risk run with passionate belief in his coming. And so "their" belief in "their" messiah is a testament to the passion of that belief in general.
I found that somehow beautiful, I don't know why.
To me, it sounds like apologetics.
How so? I like how it turns around embarrassment and annoyance, showing that a "mistake" like supposed Chabad messianism is a pitfall that might happen to people who hold a REAL belief in a coming messiah as opposed to mumbling words for sheer ritual's sake.
Also, in case it isn't clear, I have no stake in Chabad belief nor general messianic belief, so I don't mean to evoke inflammatory topics for the purpose of offense, I'm just 'reporting' on this from the sideline.
I guess, aside from the obvious difficulties of believing the Messiah can be a person who died and returns from the dead, that there are other O Jews who believe in the Messiah just as passionately, but have not latched on to a contemporary figure as a way of showing that belief.
Perhaps the Chabad belief in the Rebbe as Messiah made more sense when he was alive, although I was aware of it at the time, and it didn't make much impression on me as good or bad. Besides, the veneration of the rebbe always seemed a bit too close to worship for comfort.
Is it too sensitive to ask how the 'veneration' of Chasidic rebbes (or just Chabad? I don't know) is different than non-Chasidic groups? Is that what defines Chasidic Jews as Chasidic? Are there some without ANY rebbe? Do non-Chassidic Os venerate their rabbis? And how is a rebbe different than a rabbi? Which is what in relation to a rav?
SBW, I'm going to address your question in another post.
To provide another example, the foods that I choose to eat cause people to challenge me all the time. I only eat plants, nothing else. People feel compelled to talk to me about my food choices and to challenge how I get enough nutrients. I can't change how anyone else eats by arguing with them about it. There are reasons we have our beliefs – for some they are faith based and for others there are different connections. All serve a purpose for us – if that purpose isn't there for another person, no amount of arguing will change that.
However, if backing down all of the time makes you feel disloyal to your position, a different approach has to be found. I don't think you need to be a crusader, but I do think you have to state your position – it is valid for you and should be acknowledged. That your lifestyle seems to threaten others isn't your problem, especially if you continue, as you do, to state your beliefs with kindness and knowledge.
Thanks, Susan. I appreciate your words. Question: have you found, in your eating habits, that you've just given up trying to discuss them with people?
I'm not sure you are being wimpy, maybe just intelligent enough to know that some things just are not worth "going there." But then again, all of the exciting posts are the controversial ones! So maybe sometimes it is worth the drama . . .
Sometimes, but in the case of highly charged issues, it's not worth the drama and vitriol in my opinion. You aren't going to change anyone's mind, and those convos are better left to face-to-face long term convos.
I agree. Wholeheartedly. Although I don't think you are a wimp. You are allocating your time effectively.