Oh, they're just conservative. I am conservative too. All right then, carry on with slaughtering and mistreating your women.

And people say that Judaism is sexist!

(just to start us of on the right foot on Monday morning :)

Shortly after 9/11 Rania came on Oprah to explain how Islam is really very peaceful. She pushed off honor killings as something "cultural" but not Islamic, as if that makes a flipping difference to the girls with their throats slit open.

Yeah, she's married to the king and can dress however she (or rather, he) likes and no one is killing her.

Islamists and conservatives opposed to the new law said it would encourage vice and destroy social values. ...

I thought the death penalty wasn't a deterrent...

They are barbarians. Pure and simple.

Judging them by our standards is ethnocentric. It's cultural imperialism. After all, they're just Arabs. It's their culture.

Cut them some slack!

'Deafening Silence' from the femenists on the left.

That's the second time this year. There have been multiple other times in years past.

OT - but has anyone been able to locate the second installment of William Sampson's story on the National Post?

#7 AG in Houston

'Deafening Silence' from the femenists on the left.

What did you expect? Honor killings are Arabs birth control.

Silly Infidels

Don't you know that Jordan is really just an extension of the Zionist arm? This "vote" was just another example of those nasty "JOOOZ" bleeding their influence in Jordan to create a holy war.

/back to "indymedia"

'Deafening Silence' from the femenists on the left.

That's really not true.

[Link: www.now.org...]

In fact, this resolution was sponsored by a Democrat

and also:

[Link: www.amnestyusa.org...]

Now I will grant you that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberal policies basically favor tsk-tsking about it rather than actually doing anything, but then again I can't say I've heard too many conservatives (at least in the political arena) act very concerned for the plight of Islamic women.

The only way it's going to stop is when the Jordanian women say "enough is enough".

Or waiting for the US Army to liberate them like they're doing to the Iraqis.

JG

#9: I wrote to the National Post's support e-mail address to ask about the story and what happened to it, and I got this response back:

Infidel! I kill you! I kill you! I kill you! I kill you! I kill you!

.
.
.
.

Ok, well... yeah -- no, I didn't, and no, I did not get that response.

But I had you goin' for a second there, didn't I?

Humph.

Once again the link to the Aman Jordan News which covers the violence against women and honor killings.

To deny it is connected to Islam is absurd because there is no other religion which would defend and excuse a man for killing a daughter, wife, sister, mother or cousin (the violence is primarily by family members) because he could claim she made him "angry" by her conduct which more often than not only "suspected."

For anyone who has doubts or wants evidence:

[Link: www.amanjordan.org...]

I wonder if it is fair to say the the only difference between "extreme" and "moderate" Islamic states is that in the moderates, the leaders are a little less wacked than their constituents. And it's kind of a useless distinction because the extremist always seem to win out.

#14 LOL--could have happened,huh?

then again I can't say I've heard too many conservatives (at least in the political arena) act very concerned for the plight of Islamic women.

The Bush administration has done more for islamic women than all the tsk tsking the Left has done.

Just ask the women in Afghanistan.

When the Left stop soft-peddling the crimes against humanity inflicted on islamic women, then maybe somebody will finally take them seriously. Until then, they are agenda driven, anti-west, anti-conservative, anti-christian, anti-judaism. For them, "women's rights" is just a tool to further that agenda.

I am including this one because of the last two paragraphs which reference the rejection of the amendment.

August 20, 2003 - 18:45
Brother confesses to strangling, putting dead sister in bag
Jordan Times by Rana Husseini
AMMAN — A 19-year-old man confessed Tuesday to strangling his sister in Zarqa two days ago to “protect his family's honour,” official sources said.

The suspect told authorities that he strangled his 16-year-old sister at their family home using tissues and his bare hands, then stuffing her body in a canvas bag and dumping it on a side road, the source said.

“The suspect told authorities he killed his sister because she had been missing on two occasions from the family home over the last month,” the source said.
The victim was taken to a medical centre for a virginity test when she was found the first time two weeks ago and the medical exam showed her hymen to be intact, the official said.

When she went missing again and when she was found and allegedly strangled to death by her brother, officials performed a second virginity test.
The second examination and autopsy performed at the national Institute of Forensic Medicine proved again that the girl had not been involved in any sexual activities,” the official source said.

A majority of Lower House deputies rejected on Aug.3 a government temporary law cancelling Article 340 of the Penal Code, scrapping penalty exemptions for men that kill female relatives and/or wives caught committing adulterous acts.

A local social analyst, who preferred not to be identified, believes that writing about the deputies' rejection of the amendment may have encouraged people to commit such crimes. “Three of these `honour crimes' in one month is the proof,” he said.

[Link: www.amanjordan.org...]

Remember the uproar when Israel said that Palis who marry Israeli Arabs cannot live in Israel? The uproar over this I am sure will be deafening.
/sarcasm

But Jordanian MPs argue that more lenient punishments will violate religious traditions and damage the fabric of Jordan's conservative society, where men have the final say.

I don't get it. Is someone arguing that more lenient punishments should be imposed for honor killing?

I thought this was merely about opposition to more severe punishments. What is going on here?

Was the word lenient used in error in this article or is someone really arguing for more lenient punishments?

the UN estimates that 5,000 honor killings take place every year.

5,000? That's a crying shame. Is there any way we can enrage them to make that 50,000? Or 500,000?

#16 Papijoe

I wonder if it is fair to say the the only difference between "extreme" and "moderate" Islamic states is that in the moderates, the leaders are a little less wacked than their constituents. And it's kind of a useless distinction because the extremist always seem to win out.

The only difference between a "moderate" and "extremist" in the Arab/Islamic world is that the former will want to kill you tomorrow while the latter wants to kill you today.

#18

The Bush administration has done more for islamic women than all the tsk tsking the Left has done.

I acknowledged that in my post. You don't think my "tsk tsking" comment was complimentary, do you?

But at the same time the "'Deafening Silence' from the femenists on the left" line is getting tired. It's just untrue and only seems true if you simply ignore anything coming from the feminists on the left. I suspect that people who can say that there's "deafening silence on the left" aren't the sort of people who have any real idea what the feminist left is up to. I doubt a lot of traffic on NOW's web site comes from these people.

Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor"

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
February 12, 2002

I picture it now - Bin Ladin dressed up as Tevya singin' "Tradition" while they ritually slaughter innocents in the background. Not coming to a theater near you - coming to the real world!

Sir Charles Napier, a British official in India was approched by a delegation who supported the suttee (burning alive of recently widowed women on their husband's funeral pyre). "It's our tradition," They said. He replied:

"It is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and hang them. Build your funeral pyre and beside it my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your national custom - then we shall follow ours."

Well, they're being removed from the death cult gene pool. That's positive, isn't it?

#24 James 9/8/2003 08:49AM PST

Feminist tsk tsking islamic crimes against women IS silence.

#24 Neo_Con

What would you have them do? The NOW and the like are hardly in a position to do anything other than raise awareness and push for legislation. They do this. Let me guess; you expect them to put aside all their political positions and support Bush because he happens to be at war in some Islamic countries? Do you think the Bush admin. plans on saving women in Saudi Arabia too? Or Pakistan?

#21 Schmerel

I don't get it. Is someone arguing that more lenient punishments should be imposed for honor killing?

Jordan is afraid that if they pass some kind of law punishing the men for honor killing, the women would become more loose with their morals and start sleeping around since this law would protect them.

My sister slept with an old best friend of mine. (True.) Then she married him.

Guess I should kill her. Maybe him too.

#32 WildJustice: What?! Your whole family didn't bury her up to her head and throw rocks at her until she was dead? How do you live with the shame?

Everyone should read The Haj by Leon Uris for a glimpse into this culture.

Couldn't, like, Ashrawi bring shame upon her family or something?

I'd like to see how that 'narrative' would turn out.

Re #9, nevermind, it looks like it went straight to the pay-per-view archives. Sorry.

#33   BH 

Nah, when they have kids I'll simply take the infant and dash its head against a rock or a wall or something with a jagged edge.

It was a great wedding, I have to admit. Lots of dancing and celebrating. But that premarital sex part – unforgivable.

#35 Maine's Michael

In all seriousness, Ashrawi isn't a Muslim. You don't think a Muslim woman could traipse around with Peter Jennings and rise as high as she did in her society? How many female Muslim "Palestinian legislators" are there? I'm guessing none. Abu Ashrawi would have chopped her head off, or her brother would have.

Which makes the case: it is an Islamic thing, not an Arab thing or a middle eastern thing. Arab Christians (to say nothing of Jews) never did this.

#30 James 9/8/2003 09:02AM PST

you expect them to put aside all their political positions and support Bush because he happens to be at war in some Islamic countries?

I expect them to do exactly what they're doing. I know that NOW is duplicitous in their agenda, which is primarily anti-conservative, not women's rights.

Witness the inconsistency in their treatment of Anita Hill, and Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick.

During the Anita Hill hearings, feminists told us that "women simply don't lie about this kind of stuff".

Yet Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick were left hanging in the wind by the NOW witches/bitches.

I expect NOW to focus and fuss about how pal women marring Israeli arabs are discrimated against, but I don't expect to hear them other than tsk tsk about murder of women in the arab world.

That's the world we live in, I don't expect anything different.

I think the Beebs and the UN are soft-pedaling this honor killing issue again...

5000 honor killings a year...In all of Islam? I tend to think that this number is way off base...
What about Pakistan? Afghanistan? Nigeria? Sudan? Egypt? How hany women "just go missing" and their deaths are never recorded?

to those folks who are cheerful at the reduction in the gene pool...first of all.. :p ...second of all...the people that are being killed are most likely the personality types who would do the most to help reform arab society.

#2 Avi

Traditional biblical Judaism is extremely sexist. Similarly to arab practice traditional orthodox Jews treat their women as baby factories and they are expected never work outside of the home. They are expected to dress conservatively covering their arms and legs in dresses. Married orthodox men are not allowed to touch unrelated women, including some thing as simple as a hand shake.

However, it is not acceptable to hurt them physically or mentally and women are expected to be educated.

If the women don't have children because of medical issues they are encouraged to work in the community providing some sort of service to the greater good. If there is no service needed (because all positions are filled) they are often encouraged to work in the family business.

Like the arab women they are not allowed to have premarital relations; at the same time the Jewish orthodox men are not allowed to either. If the Hadari women have or thought to have relations that are not approved they are expelled from the community.

When a foreigner applies to be an immigrant into the United States, a criminal background check is done so America won't knowingly import murderers and thieves.

For the same reason, we should end immigration from nations whose cultural and legal norms include acts which are criminal under our laws. That would mean no more immigration from Somalia (FGM prevalence 98%), Sudan (slavery), Nigeria (Sharia law in several provinces) and many others including Jordan.

One consequence would hopefully be the end of the tiresome cultural defense one hears in American courtrooms, that a certain brutality -- honor killing, ownership of young girls, etc. -- is acceptable in the man's own country. Like we care about his caveman homeland.

In the same vein, we should end the ridiculous policy of Diversity Visas, in which 50,000 visa lottery winners annually come to America and get green cards just because they got lucky and their country is on the "underrepresented" list. Is this any way to run even a small part of our immigration policy?

[Link: travel.state.gov...]

The LAX-El Al murderer (and illegal alien) Hashem Mohamed Hadayet was allowed to remain in the United States because his wife won a place in the Diversity Visa Lottery.

[Link: www.immigrationshumancost.org...]

#42 Kelly

That's not really true. Traditional Judaism is sexist, but not "extremely" so. It's more the "separate but equal" thinking in most cases - which does of course lead to problems at times.

Orthodox women have often worked outside the home - so that men could stay in shul and study. Women are respected intellectually (and spiritually) in Judaism in a way that isn't found in Islam - or in some versions of Christianity, for that matter. Interestingly, much of the discrimination against women in Jewish public life comes from Islamic influences. It's not native to the religion.

As for "baby factories" - Jewish woman are not required to have children, though men are. (The rabbis recognized that childbirth is physically dangerous for women.) Birth control is permitted under Jewish law. However, some of the Ultra-Orthodox don't approve of it - just as some don't approve of TV, modern music, etc. They have chosen to be far more "stringent" than the law calls for. But that doesn't make it "traditional."

Finally - do you mean "Haredi" when you say "Hadari"? If you're going to slander a group of people, you ought to get their name right.

#42

My daughter goes to a Jewish Day school and most of the teachers are mothers, and their kids also go to this school. So the parents have the best of both worlds.

JG

Brenda, Brenda, pushin' your agenda (#43)...I assume that means we shouldn't give amnesty to Islamic women who face violence from male relatives over their putative "immodesty."

You yourself write that female genital mutilation happens to 98% of Somali women. I have trouble reconciling this fact with your call to end all immigration from such nations.

I have no problem with immigration, as long as the immigrants in question have no criminal record or other signs that they may be involved in terrorist activities, get into this country legally, obey American laws, work rather than get on welfare and obtain other benefits, and assimilate at least to the point at which they can get along with a majority of their neighbors and co-workers.

While I have no problem with "racial profiling" as a tool in determining who gets in and who doesn't, I'd prefer it to be just that: a tool, not an outright barrier.

The "limits to growth" movement might want to ask the numerous states that are losing population, and economic vitality along with it, if they wouldn't mind absorbing immigrants such as I've mentioned above, who might actually be a boon to their communities.

Rumors of Bin Laden’s Lair
[Link: www.msnbc.com...]

Is bin Laden the 'Mahdi'?
Some Muslim followers believe he is prophesied 'awaited enlightened one'
[Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

Canadian author offers a challenge to Islam
[Link: www.canada.com...]

Muslim leaders in South East Asia (SEA) are strongly denying the existence of alleged "terror group" called Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), saying its only part of a plot by the U.S. and its allies to undermine Islam and the Muslims in this region.
[Link: www.islamonline.org...]

Two terrorists killed, several holed up in Pulwana mosque
[Link: www.hindustantimes.com...]

I assume that means we shouldn't give amnesty to Islamic women who face violence from male relatives over their putative "immodesty."

there is a down side to this type of immigration...people who should be working to reform their society for the betterment of all...including those who can't leave...emigrate...and their cesspools just get worse.

My appoligies for the generalities that I made. Contrary what may be thought, I am Jewish myself but not directly part of the orthodox community.

I live next to a very large extremely orthodox community in Atlanta and I often see these mothers with very large collection of children and have even been to some of their homes for shabbat diner after attending the local orthodox shule. One family had 9 children, and that takes a lot out of the body. One of the big reasons that women have lower survival rates in developing nations is that they are expected to have larger numbers of children and increases the chances of them suffering physical complications.

I often feel sorry for these women that are expected to have such large families because their health is negatively effected.

It has also been my observation that the majority of the women that don't elect to have the large number of children often work for the community centers and are teachers at the day schools. As I said above, unlike arab cultures Jewish women are educated.

Our (mercifully) former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was in town a month ago to speak at a banquet honoring her for her, um, service to the country. During the speech, she mentioned her dismay at honor killings - in Iraq. Figures.

Longer discussion of her speech here.

Kelly,

Sorry for sounding so fierce - I just get tired of some of the knee-jerk "Religious Jews are sexist, too!" stuff that seems to suggest a moral equivalence with the Islamic enslavement of women. I know you weren't saying that, though...

I'm somewhat observant but not Orthodox myself - but I've lived in close quarters to Lubavitch & other "black hat" types. Some of the non-Hasidic Orthodox are quite modern in their daily lives; they usually limit their families to 3 or 4 - though I knew one women who wore a shaydel who had 5+ kids and worked as an occupational therapist! - she had a live-in nanny. But the Hasidic women usually have 6 or more children, starting around age 18 or 19... and they often don't have the money for adequate childcare or even food. Which I agree is really rotten for the women's health and well-being.

Some of this drive to have extreme numbers of children is a reaction to the Holocaust - and to the low birthrate of more assimilated Jews. With the low birthrate and intermarriage, we're losing lots and lots of Jews over time, and they've made it a priority to reverse that trend. (Some of it is also purely "religious" - "Go forth & multiply" and the fact that many forms of birth control are problematic to the extremely frum.)

Laura, #44: No, Kelly is correct. Orthodox Judaism can be extremely sexist.

I should mention here at the beginning of my post that, of course, Christianity and Judaism do in fact treat women much, much better than Islam does. The point I wish to make is that this is no excuse. Do we refuse to arrest a man who slaps his wife hard and breaks her jaw because other men have shot or stabbed their wives to death?

I may have mentioned on LGF before that my best friend, who was raised Orthodox and who made aliya in 1999 or 2000, fled back to the States in the summer of 2002 — three months pregnant. Her husband was and is a drunk, a drug addict, a pathological liar, a thief, verbally abusive, and incredibly manipulative. When she visited the battered women's shelter in Jerusalem (I think he hit her once, and she was afraid it would escalate), the women running the place would tell her to go home to her husband and work things out. The implication, whether it was spoken or not, was that it was her duty as a wife to do so.

And once she returned to the States, she had to fight the Israeli government tooth and nail for a divorce recognized by Israeli law, as well as for termination of any rights her husband had to their infant daughter, in whom he has never showed any interest. Getting full custody was easier than it would have been had she given birth to a boy. This is fortunate for her and her daughter, but a sad commentary in general.

Despite the popular conception that Jewish men are the "perfect husbands" because they never drink, do drugs, hit their wives, or do other things over which other Jews tend to associate with "the goyim," substance abuse and domestic violence do indeed happen in Jewish communities. It doesn't get the attention it merits not only because of the stereotypes and the sexism, but because many Jews are afraid to give antisemites more verbal ammunition, if you will. This is misguided: cleaning one's own house is preferable to denying a problem exists.

Then there's the whole equivalence of menstruation with uncleanliness, which gave rise to the mikvah. Orthodox feminists can spin the mikvah all they want as a place to unwind or rejuvenate themselves, but in my humble opinion, there is something wrong with a religious tradition in which a man may not touch his wife, even take an object from her hand without touching her, while she is menstruating.

Now I should mention that I read about that last bit in Life Is With People, the posthumous anthropological study of the shtetel by students of Margaret Mead who interviewed émigrés from Eastern Europe to the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere. Things may indeed have changed. But one wonders how much. My friend told me that she stayed at Mea Shearim for a short while and encountered people who actually were having religious arguments over what angle one should urinate at. (Admittedly, "Mea Shit," as she fondly called it, isn't the mainstream.)

Women are respected intellectually (and spiritually) in Judaism in a way that isn't found in Islam — or in some versions of Christianity, for that matter.

It's called the pedestal, Laura. Woman revered as the source of life, rejuvenation of man, yada yada yada... but only revered insofar as she "does" for others. When she "does" for herself, she is often criticized for neglecting her husband and her children, being unwomanly, or even being un-Jewish.

As for "baby factories" — Jewish woman are not required to have children, though men are.

Well, the peer pressure must still be pretty intense. I once read a story about infertility treatments that featured an Orthodox woman as a client. She already had two children — sons, yet! — but she was seeking in vitro or some other fertility technology to help her have more kids, because all her friends and neighbors had six or seven.

If I were a truly infertile woman who wanted children, and I saw this mother of two in the waiting room describing herself as "barren," I'd be quite disgusted, frankly. Anyway, if you're religious, aren't you supposed to just accept that your "barrenness" is "ghod's will"?

Interestingly, much of the discrimination against women in Jewish public life comes from Islamic influences. It's not native to the religion.

Right, and much of the belief system of what we now call Orthodox Judaism comes from medieval Christian influences. It's not native to Judaism, either. I am not sure how either fact relates to the tolerance of negative external influences in modern Orthodoxy.

#42 Kelly

Requiring modesty is not considered a form of sexism by the orthodox women I know (and the one I'm married to). It is intended to honor women and their sexuality, while recognizing that it's not something to be shared outside the marriage. And it's part of a comprehensive approach to sexuality that is embraced by orthodox women, not imposed on them by their husbands. By hiding the more obvious sexual features, modesty forces the outside world to deal with women as people, and less as sexual objects.

It's entirely different from requiring burkhas and chadors, which treat women as something to be hidden entirely.

As for high birth rates and female mortality, this tends to be less of an issue in civilized countries with decent health care. As it happens, my sister and brother-in-law are quite possibly your neighbors (!) They only have two kids. But as far as I can tell, few of the fathers of these large families are widowers, and I don't see an inordinate number of health problems, so these do seem to be confined to third-world countries.

They'll also tell you that by the time they have #5 or #6, #1 is old enough to help out. It's not what I've chosen, and it's not what my family has chosen, but it's not altogether bad. Just very, very expensive.

Joseph Sharf, #53: Requiring modesty is not considered a form of sexism by the orthodox women I know (and the one I'm married to). It is intended to honor women and their sexuality, while recognizing that it's not something to be shared outside the marriage. And it's part of a comprehensive approach to sexuality that is embraced by orthodox women, not imposed on them by their husbands. By hiding the more obvious sexual features, modesty forces the outside world to deal with women as people, and less as sexual objects.

I am very skeptical about any religiously mandated covering of women in order to "honor" them. If a woman chooses to cover much of her body, that is her choice. But when such behavior is mandated, women who do not choose to dress this way inevitably stand out in contrast and are labeled "immodest." This may even extend to a woman who chooses to wear a shirt with sleeves of less than full length (i.e., to the wrist) during a particularly oppressive spell of hot weather.

Yes, Orthodox women are free to leave Orthodoxy, or even Judaism in general, without threat of persecution, unlike Muslim women. But the labeling of non-"modestly" dressed women as "immodest" isn't confined to Orthodox women. I've heard tales of "black hats" in certain Jerusalem neighborhoods throwing stones at women who dare to trespass through said neighborhoods wearing clothing the men deem inappropriate, even if it's clothing that would be perfectly suitable for, say, a Catholic mass in the U.S.

The covering of women to "forc[e] the outside world to deal with women as people, and less as sexual objects" seems to me to give the outside world a pass. In the American work force, men have by and large adapted to working alongside women in normal street dress. Of course, there are many exceptions, and there are a good number of women who come to work in clothes more suitable for a nightclub than for a professional environment. But, generally speaking, the guys cope.

Mandatory "modest dress" seems to imply that men are incapable of behaving like gentlemen unless the women they see are garbed as asexually as possible, which I believe is insulting to men. (And yes, it's insulting when feminists imply it, too.)

Oh you infidels, why you critic our customs? Is it for infidels to critic something you have no understand of?

May Iblis the thrice-damned pierce your eyeballs and drink the juice running down your face!

Oh america, enemy of the Prophet, blessed be his name, understand we kill womens of little honor to save them from shame to father and brothers. Have you no honor as you offer your american daughters to be ravaged and shamed by lustful infidels?

May thorn-cocked Gulbuth The Rampant hollow out your insides and use you as prophylactics!

TS #47- That is a very intersting article! Thanks for the link. [Link: www.canada.com...]

It deserves much more attention. A lesbian muslim writer who challanges Islam to change! Irshad Manji is a brave woman, I do hope that Random House can keep her safe.

#55 hamdellelah:

Well, really! I've taken my shots, and the condition is much better now.

A lesbian muslim is a dead muslim.

#46 Reginleif

So you don't mind importing cultural oppression en masse? Okay for your daughter to go to school with little girls who have been physically mutilated so males can maintain their control over them? Or maybe a Nigerian stoning perp can move into your neighborhood.

What I suggest is not so different from what some people in the State Dept. tried to do a year ago. Last October, the US government considered banning Somali refugee families in Kenyan camps because they were rushing to mutilate even toddlers after parents learned that FGM was illegal here.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Re: #18
The Bush administration has actually forged an alliance with Islamic nations in tthe United Nations on issues such as birth control and abortion.

You racists bigots. Honor killing is an exception in arab countries. It's not even islamic, it's "cultural".

sheesh, you always have to blow things out of proportion!

From an article in the September 2003 Vanity Fair about Jordan's Queen Rania:

"Jordan has begun to reform its divorce laws, and Queen Rania has, like Queen Noor, taken a strong stand against so-called honor killings, in which men murder female relatives who have had sex outside of marriage, even when they've been raped."I'm not going to tolerate somebody who believes in 'honor killings," says Queen Rania. "In the Koran there is no justification whatsoever for 'honor killings'; in fact, it's anti-Islamic. You need awareness programs; you need Islamic clerics to go out and explain to people about the issue."

"In the Islamic world, however, radical clerics are often the most violent extremists--and all-too-often influential instigators of terrorism, according to many Western analysts. But Queen Rania rejects the idea that such extremism is a hallmark of Islam."I think it exists in Christianity, Judaism, every kind of religion," she says. "Yes, there is jihad, which is holy war, in Islam--but that is open to interpretation. I know that Islam certainly does not condone the taking of innocent lives."

Poor, sweet , deluded Queen Rania. If she wasn't such a babe and married to a King, she'd just be another Jordanian idiot.

And, by the way, I don't care how sexist Orthodox Judaism is. There aren't any Jewish men out there who think their family's honor resides between the legs of their family's women, and who are "avenging" female sexual activity by committing horrific murders.

#59, Brenda: So you don't mind importing cultural oppression en masse? Okay for your daughter to go to school with little girls who have been physically mutilated so males can maintain their control over them? Or maybe a Nigerian stoning perp can move into your neighborhood.

Who says we have to let the men — or even the mothers who commit FGM — into the U.S.? I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of amnesty for young girls in danger in FGM that would preclude immigration for their parent(s), if the parents are determined to be part of the problem.

How this would work, I am not sure. I can already hear the cries of "interfering with a sovereign nation" from the left and "discriminating against boys" from the right. But the idea of the U.S. washing its hands of any attempt to help end these truly evil crimes is abhorrent to me.

Snopes (#48) is correct that a progressive-minded immigrant fleeing an oppressive country often means there is one less citizen to stand up to the government. But it's not unusual that an immigrant to the U.S., after having lived there for a number of years and learned what it means to be free, will return to his or her homeland and start instigating for reform.

Although I am not well-enough read on the subject, I gather from a very recent National Geographic article on the "untouchables" of India that a big impetus for change there is those from far-bottom castes who fled to America, made good lives for themselves, and later returned to India to fight for the rights of their fellow "untouchables."

Scaramouche, #62: And, by the way, I don't care how sexist Orthodox Judaism is. There aren't any Jewish men out there who think their family's honor resides between the legs of their family's women, and who are "avenging" female sexual activity by committing horrific murders. (emphasis mine)

May I assume you're merely opining that the sexism of Orthodoxy is no excuse for or equivalent to Islamic atrocities? Or are you actually saying, "The Orthodox don't treat 'their' women as horribly as Muslims do; therefore, no problem exists in Orthodoxy"?

#52

No, Kelly is correct. Orthodox Judaism can be extremely sexist.

If you're going to jump into a conversation, please get your facts straight. She didn't say "can be." I wouldn't have disagreed so strongly if she had. She said

Traditional biblical Judaism is extremely sexist. Similarly to arab practice traditional orthodox Jews treat their women as baby factories and they are expected never work outside of the home.

I did not and will not deny that there is sexism in Judaism (all Judaism). I will not deny that there is "extreme" sexism among some Ultra-Orthodox people - even many Ultra-Orthodox people. But I will disagree with the statement that "Traditional Judaism is extremely sexist."

To me, "extremely sexist" implies active, hateful misogyny - which seeks to justify such things as the virtual enslavement of women, wife beating, and honor killing - as opposed to discriminatory beliefs about women such as "separate spheres," chivalry, etc. Consider the distinction between "extremely racist" and "racist." Extreme racists join the KKK and Aryan Nation, right? I do not accept that even Ultra-Orthodox Judaism as a whole is at an equivalent level of misogyny.

Yep, looks like I made a mess.

OK, question time: Of the people who are of the opinion that Orthodoxy is sexist, have any of you spent any time in an Orhodox community? Have you spoken to any Orthodox women about how they feel about being part of that community? Or do you base your opinions on stories and individual episodes? There are certainly stories of abuse, both physical and emotional, within the Orthodox community. Does this make Orthodox Judaism sexist? Or might it be a function of something else?

#55 hamdellelah

very funny use of sarcaism.

#62 scaramouche

No one said or implied that the sexist standards that exist in Jewish culture is the same violent blood letting that the arab cultures perpetuate. The Jewish women at all times have a choice of what actions they decide to practice. At a certain point they are still considered Jewish but not practitioners of the Traditional Orthodox sect.

It must be remembered that not all arabs find the honor killings aceptable. Just since the Jordan legal system does not punish these people the way it should does not mean that most Jordanians practice such an activity as "honor killings' when the excuse arises.

The first time I heard about the practice of "honor killings" was from an arab that was talking about how disgusting it was and mentioned how a man killed his wife after she was raped in my coworkers home villiage and in turn the husband was killed by his family.

You've all been indoctrinated by secular humanism to believe that being treated differently proves sexism.

The Bible and orthodoxy treat both men and women with dignity and respect, though the treatment is different. That's because though men and women are equal, they ARE different.

That's not sexism.

James et al: One thing that NOW and the other women's groups could do is loudly picket Jordan on this issue. Spend at least as much time on public demonstrations as they spent on trying to get that all-male country club opened to women, for instance. 5,000 dead per year in one country is over the top by anyone's standards - especially since these figures come from the UN where they're probably down-played.

The trouble is that NOW and the others really seem to have lost their focus - now all they want to do is decry the persecution of Southern Baptist women and show how bad western men are.

#66 Avi

from what I have read of the physical and mental abuse that occasionally happens with in the Jewish orthodox community the sexism is not the problem. The problem is the secrecy of the incidences are the problem. The traditional orthodox community is rather tightly knit and they often don't want to report the cases because of embaresment that such a thing takes place.

I know a Jewish social worker that told me there has been attempts to do a study of the numbers of cases to figure out if there are more or less cases amongst the orthodox community but it is very difficult trusting the numbers. They feel there may be more unreported cases but they just don't know.

#63 Reginleif

It is not the job of the United States to rescue the downtrodden of the planet. Immigration to this nation is a privilege, not a right. It should benefit the citizens, not harm or endanger them.

It's news to me that any Dalit has returned to India after being inspired by women's equality in America to mount a social revolution there. However, I do know that there are businesses in the United States that market ultrasound imaging of fetuses to Indian immigrants so that can abort the females. It said so in the New York Times.

[Link: www.genetics-and-society.org...]

You know what's really funny? I'm an extreme feminist - to the extent that I got into a really ugly exchange with some of the more Neanderthal members of this board - and here I am defending Judaism on charges of being "extremely sexist."

But that's because I did the research, and I know. Judaism is certainly sexist, as you would expect from any ancient religion. But it doesn't have that hatred and condescension toward women that other religions have. It's just got some hidebound traditions.

And yet it is willing to change and grow. Which is another reason it's not like Islam - in all but the strictest circles (which I personally consider more cult than religion), Judaism is willing to admit its faults and work to fix them. There are now groups of Orthodox feminists (for example, here). Things are improving.

Kelly (#70)

You said in #42 that Orthodox Judaism is "extremely sexist". In #70 you seem to say that the problems are not because Orthodox Judaism is sexist, but because it is a closed society, so that when there are cases of abuse and mistreatment, they are not dealt with adequately. That's quite a turnaround for two hours, no?

Look at the posts on this thread concerning Orthodoxy. With so many people expressing such a gross misunderstanding of Orthodox practice, does it come to any surprise to you that we're a closed society?

# 69 rabidfox

James et al: One thing that NOW and the other women's groups could do is loudly picket Jordan on this issue.

I agree with you, but conservatives don't do this either. It's one thing to say that no one is really doing anything about this problem and another to make an indictment of the feminist left as if any other political or ideological faction is doing something they aren't.

#64 Reginleif; #67 Kelly

To tell the truth, I tend not to dwell too much on sexism in Orthodox Jewry. As a not-particularly observant Jew, I accept that there are practices and beliefs which I do not necessarily hold, but which enhance and give meaning to the lives of observant Jews who live "the Torah lifestyle" (that's what they called it at a frum wedding I attended recently). Hence, I don't really get the whole Mikvah thing, and I think that it probably arose because primitive Jewish men were repulsed by the spontaneous monthly bleeding by women, but I accept that it concepts of purity are crucial to the lives of observant men and women. Is it "sexist" to consider women unclean? Maybe, but, as I said, it is not something I dwell on.

At the same time, I do have a problem with the mindset of some ultra-frum people. Here's an example: I live in a neighborhood that has a very high concentration of Orthodox Jews. I enjoy the mix of cultures and costumes--which includes massive fur hats, white stockings, kids with shaved heads and earlocks, and men wearing those oversized fedoras which always seem two sizes too big for their heads.

Anyway, over the years we have become good friends with the frum family who live behind us. One Saturday, not too long ago, they invited us for lunch. The conversation was friendly and the food copious (although the appeal of cholent, that ubiquitous Ashkenazi Sabbath staple, has always been lost on me--it seems to have the taste and texture of wallpaper glue.) At one point, the conversation turned to all the calamities that seemed to be occurring in the world: SARS, Mad Cow Disease, West Nile Virus, not to mention the horrible things going on in Israel.

Jokingly, I said that with all the bad stuff going on right now, I half expected to look out my window one morning and see frogs falling from the sky.

My neighbor, an intelligent woman for whom I have great respect, responded, "As an observant Jew, I have to believe that it's my fault."

"Pardon me," I said. "All the bad stuff that happens is your fault?"

"Yes," she said. "If I would do better and act better, these things wouldn't be happening."

"But isn't that the same thing that the Jew-haters say--that we're responsible for everything that's bad?"

She didn't really answer my question, and we continued to eat in silence.

Ever since, I've been extremely disturbed by this conversation, and by the viewpoint which holds that all all we have to do is fulfill more mitvahs and light more Sabbath candles, and God will make all the bad stuff go away. More than that, by not "doing good", good people assume responsibility for the world's evil.

Never mind sexism. THAT is a belief system I will never understand!

#73 Avi

Look at the posts on this thread concerning Orthodoxy. With so many people expressing such a gross misunderstanding of Orthodox practice, does it come to any surprise to you that we're a closed society?

That's the chicken-egg argument.

But the fact is that most people who aren't Orthodox really have no basis for many of their assumptions aside from things like having watched Fiddler on the Roof and maybe read some Chassidishe maiselach collected by Elie Wiesel. At minimum you have to spend time with Orthodox people, not just at work, but at home and at shul.

Laura (#72)

That's quite an endorsement - Judaism is "sexist" but not "extremely sexist". Wow, I feel much better now, I can hold my head up high again.

I'm going to echo the sentiments of Lion O'Judah in #68:

The Bible and orthodoxy treat both men and women with dignity and respect, though the treatment is different. That's because though men and women are equal, they ARE different.

The fact that women have a decreased (and in some places non-existant) role in the synagogue in no way means that Judaism values them less, or that Judaism is sexist. It means that the role of men in Judaism is different from that of women.

Imagine if you had an orchestra that was made up entirely of violins. It would sound nice, but it in no way compares to the sound of many different instruments playing at the same time. So to, Judaism sees different roles for different genders. It is a sad statement that so many women feel that the only way they can make an impact is to read from the Torah or wear a talis (male prayer shawl). I see it as incredibly demeaning to women that the people who call themselves "Orthodox feminists" have nothing better to offer Jewish women than to turn them in to Jewish men.

(By the way, while there's nothing wrong with the topic this thread has turned to I'd like to point out that women are getting slaughtered by their brothers and fathers for 'dishonoring' them in dar al islaam and we're discussing if dar al yahud is sexist.)

scaramouche (#75),

Have you asked a Rabbi about that conversation, and the ideas that the woman expressed? There is an explanation for her statement, and if you'd like to email me, I'll be happy to give it to you (it's complicated, I'd rather not post it here). Otherwise, go find a Rabbi. It's what we do when we come across an idea that we don't understand. Don't immediately dismiss an entire group of people because you don't understand something one of them says.

James,
Bris on shabbos, Yitzchak Zev, after the Brisker Rav.
WARNING! Cute baby alert!

#71 Avi

Words can mean different things to different people. To me the term 'sexist' means that there is a division of the sexes and that they are not supposed to be crossed. I don't believe that there is any thing in Jewish religion or culture in any of the denominations that condones or violence against women, no matter what a man may find egregess.

As examples if sexism. In traditional orthodox practice a woman can never be a Rabbi, hazan, cantor, or moyal. I believe that she can never be a cantor or be counted in a minyon. A woman is not supposed to sit or stand with the men on their side of the synagogue. A woman can not stand on the left side of the wailing wall either because it might offend the sensibilities of some men.

Avi,

Fantastic! That's a great name and a really beautiful baby kn"h. Really handsome little guy. I'm sure you've heard all about that hair, so I'm not going to say anything. ;)

#75 scaramouche

In her extreme solipcism, your neighbor believes the rest of us do not have free will and live a sort of lesser existence.

#79 Avi

Oh my oh my! What a gorgeous baby! Mazal tov to you & your family!

May he bring you all great joy and naches.

solipsism (noun)
1.The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2.The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

Tell me, Brenda, how is that different from being so full of yourself that you think you are qualified to offer an opinion regarding another person's philosophy without having studied it, or having clarified with that person what she meant? Or is that something different?

Laura,
Thanks so much. He's already brought much nachas to the world, and, if he's anything like his two older brothers, he will continue to do so for many years.

#30 whoever you were, can't be bothered to look

It's all about hating Bush.

#--whole rest of the thread...

Aren't we just reinforcing the stereotype here that Jews will argue about anything?

#85 Stormi

Aren't we just reinforcing the stereotype here that Jews will argue about anything?

It's pretty much true.

Lion O'Judah, #68: You've all been indoctrinated by secular humanism to believe that being treated differently proves sexism. The Bible and orthodoxy treat both men and women with dignity and respect, though the treatment is different. That's because though men and women are equal, they ARE different. That's not sexism.

"Separate, but equal"...where have I heard that before?

As far as I am concerned — and I am an agnostic bordering on atheism, so appeals to $DEITY don't particularly move me — there are no "roles for women" and "roles for men" that have been authoritatively ordained by any person or source. Men can't give birth or milk; women can't donate sperm or do certain jobs requiring a high degree of bodily strength. Any other type of job is open to both sexes, providing the individual in question can do the job.

Oh, and to the "Neanderthals" that Laura mentions above: don't bother posting all those links from recent scientific studies purporting to find that men's brains are designed for math and physics, and the womenfolk are best relegated to the "soft sciences," liberal arts, childcare, and other "helping" professions. It was "scientific knowledge" 120 years ago or so that women could not both be mothers and scholars because there wasn't enough blood to supply both the brain and the womb.

Scientific method is indeed much more rigorous today, but the facts still aren't all in. For instance, none of the enthusiasts for separate, clearly demarcated roles for the sexes has yet, to my satisfaction, explained the existence of women who excel at "masculine" pursuits and men who excel at "feminine" ones without resorting to stereotypes and, sadly, nasty comments about homosexuals (even though many such individuals are actually "het").

Avi, #77: It is a sad statement that so many women feel that the only way they can make an impact is to read from the Torah or wear a talis (male prayer shawl). I see it as incredibly demeaning to women that the people who call themselves "Orthodox feminists" have nothing better to offer Jewish women than to turn them in to Jewish men.

And I see it as incredibly demeaning to Orthodox women that those who wish to exercise their leadership and scholarly abilities are scorned as wishing to become men, or wishing to turn other Orthodox women into men.

This derision of feminists as wanna-be men is the same crap the second-wavers took at the beginning of the '70s: "Why do you want to wear pants/do a man's job? You must want to be a man." Never mind that the definition of "a man's job" is highly open to debate. Or that "men's jobs" paid (and still pay) better. Or that pants are more comfortable for many women than are skirts. Nope, easier to find fault with the woman herself, preferably with her femininity. Even today, ad hominem (or, more accurately, ad feminem) arguments against women's rights — e.g., "they're all either man-hating lesbians, or ugly hags who can't get a man" — are what pass for valid debate among the "Neanderthals."

Laura, #72: Judaism is certainly sexist, as you would expect from any ancient religion. But it doesn't have that hatred and condescension toward women that other religions have. It's just got some hidebound traditions. And yet it is willing to change and grow. Which is another reason it's not like Islam - in all but the strictest circles (which I personally consider more cult than religion)...

Nobody on this board has said that the sexism in Orthodoxy in any way even begins to compare with the virulent misogyny of Islam. If I am wrong, please show me the relevant quotation. And yes, the thread was begun to discuss honor killings in Jordan. But I cannot believe the mule-headed resistance among some Jews to admitting that there are any problems with the treatment of women in Orthodoxy. What, are we Jews perfect?

Stormi, #85: Aren't we just reinforcing the stereotype here that Jews will argue about anything?

This is a bad thing?

Kelly (#80)

Again, the fact that Judaism has different roles for men and women does not neccesarily imply any value judgement on those roles. In fact, if you look through the Torah and other Jewish sources, you will see that women are routinely juged to be higher than men in intellect, compassion, prophesy, etc. Like most things in Judaism, the superficial view of the status of women is not even close to correct.

#87 Reginleif the Valkyrie

Part of misunderstanding in the issue, in my opinion, is the misunderstanding about the nature of the role of mitzvot in Orthodox Judaism. Things like getting up early in the winter to pray in shul and wear tallit and teffilin aren't optional for men. According to Judaism they are not obligatory to women. Why? Well for one thing it would be impractical to require women to be in shul to daven early in the morning if she's raising a baby. Now, while it's true that not all women raise babies, even in our own society where women are governors and astronauts, generally speaking it is the mother who does a lot of the child rearing, to say nothing of the obvious fact that it is the woman who actually gets pregnant, and sick in the morning, and goes through labor etc. Thus traditional Judaism views all mitzvot that are what's called "time bound" (e.g., must perform them at a certain time) non-obligatory to women. For them to be obligatory would be impossible in view of the other obligations that, let's face it, most women in every society have. We cannot require the same thing of a

Now women who would like to wear a tallit can do so within the bounds of Jewish law (regardless of what anyone says to the contrary). But the fact is they want it both ways. They want to be able to wear tallit and teffilin if they choose to do so, but are unwilling to accept upon themselves the obligation to do so. In fact they aren't choosing to do anything a man does. They're choosing to choose and this is different from a man's obligation to do these time-bound mitzvot.

So to recap, when not looking at it from an Orthodox perspective wherein mitzvot are actually obligatory its a different matter than looking at it from the perspective where it is. The question is, are feminists who wish to assume the role that traditional Judaism assigns to men prepared to accept it as binding upon themselves without days off, same as men?

#84 Avi

Are you disagreeing with my psychological assessment of scaramouche's neighbor or did you merely find it a convenient opportunity for attack?

Hey -- gotta run. Some prayer wheels need spinning so the universe won't stop.

#87 Reginleif the Valkyrie 9/8/2003

"Separate, but equal"...where have I heard that before?

I don't believe in Jim Crowe laws, but I certainly believe in separate but equal bathrooms for men and women.

You take it from there.

Reginleif,

As far as I am concerned — and I am an agnostic bordering on atheism, so appeals to $DEITY don't particularly move me — there are no "roles for women" and "roles for men" that have been authoritatively ordained by any person or source

Ha. First of all, you aren't an atheist or an agnostic. Second, if you don't believe that Jewish laws come from a higher power, it's going to be very difficult to convince you that the traditional gender roles in Judaism are legitimate. After all, you've seen that culture and customs change from generation to generation. To see a religion maintain traditions and roles that were in place consistently for over 3000 years must seem very anachronistic to you. But Jews are very stubborn; we tend to stick to what we know, even in the face of cultural pressure to change.

mule-headed resistance among some Jews to admitting that there are any problems with the treatment of women in Orthodoxy

You said it wrong - you should have said that there are problems with the treatment of women despite Orthodoxy. Yes, we have our problems. But those problems come when people are lax in their observance, not the other way around. Take a look at the leaders of the Jewish people, those whom you would most expect to be the most dedicated in their observance, and you find that they are also the most devoted to their wives. And if you'd bother to ask their wives what they though, they would tell you that they are more than happy with the system as it is, and don't need feminists telling them how to acheive fulfillment.

don't bother posting all those links from recent scientific studies

Evidence? I don't have time for evidence!

#87 Reginleif the Valkyrie 9/8/2003

As far as I am concerned — and I am an agnostic bordering on atheism, so appeals to $DEITY don't particularly move me — there are no "roles for women" and "roles for men" that have been authoritatively ordained by any person or source.

You're welcome to your atheism, and the relativism that goes along with it. No problem.

But don't tell me that because we believe in God and scripture that we're sexist. By your relativist reasoning, even the very notion of good and evil is relative to non-existent, let alone the notion of "sexism".

#89, James: Your argument makes sense. I would say that women should be able to choose for themselves whether or not to take on the time-bound mitzvot as obligations — but, once they've committed to doing so, they should remain committed, rather than "taking days off," to use your phrase. I've always believed that with rights come responsibilities. For example, I always offer to pay on a date, and usually insist unless the guy acts grossly insulted by it. Women who want all the rights without any of the responsibilities are not doing themselves, their loved ones, or other women any favors in the long run.

Yes, there are some biological differences between men and women that are going to crop up, such as those relating to childbirth. My point was that certain conservatives tend to exaggerate the differences to forward an agenda.

Now yes, certain feminists deny that any differences exist, to forward their own agendas. Two wrongs don't make a right. And both camps often stand in the way of working out various creative solutions that would help numerous men and women live their lives the way each of them individually chose (with some accommodations and sacrifices, of course; that's life), because the solutions are either politically incorrect or "ungodly."

Obviously the religious traditions they are safeguarding of those of the Methodist minority in Jordan.

Brenda (#90)

I am not only disagreeing with your psychological assessment of that woman, I am wondering how you feel qualified to make such an assesment, given that you are not only assesing the psychology of the woman, but her religious worldview. Given that the woman's statement was made in the name of Judaism, are you really expert enough in Jewish philosophy to explain it in one sentence?

To paraphrase Laura in #44, if you're going to slander an entire group of people, at least get your facts straight first.

#89 James

I completely agree vis-a-vis the timebound mitzvot. My issues are with such things as "a woman's voice" and the fact that women aren't called to the Torah (although halakhah doesn't forbid it), may not be rabbis or witnesses, etc.

I know the explanations - as I said, I've read quite a bit about it, both from a feminist and a traditional Orthodox perspective, and I've discussed it with at least two Orthodox rabbis - but I'm afraid I don't find it compelling. At some point it always comes down to - "Well, this is how we do it, how we've always done it" - and I don't find that morally acceptable.

Finally, the frequently heard argument that "Orthodox women don't mind" is neither completely true (otherwise why would Orthodox feminism exist?) nor particularly meaningful. People are generally satisfied with their own families' lifestyle and customs - including burqas, genital mutilation, etc. - but if they had been raised with a real choice - one that didn't involve rejecting everything and everyone they know - are you sure this is what they would choose?

Anyway. I don't expect to convince anyone (Heaven forbid!), but these are among the reasons I am a Conservative Jew & not an Orthodox one. However, I do admire the Modern Orthodox a great deal, and have met some lovely "black hats" as well. So please don't take any of this personally...

#87

The phrase "extremely sexist" [your emphasis] in fact suggests an equivalency or near-equivalency. What could be more sexist than "extremely sexist"?

I mean, if that's your term for Jewish attitudes, what would you use to describe Islamic attitudes? Very very horribly terribly disgustingly violently rottenly sexist?

Why would any halfway intelligent woman enter into a marriage where she has less rights than the family dog?

#52   Reginleif the Valkyrie 

#75   scaramouche

There are so many misconceptions floating around this thread its ridiculous. But since I stayed out too late partying with a bunch of Magen David Adom paramedics last night, I'll have to use whatever mental energy I have left today to focus on the subject of mikvah.

The concept of mikvah is to purify the spirit, not the actual body. The idea is that one has been made impure by having gone through the "flux" of menstruation or having been near something unclean such as a dead body. The same call for purification exists for Jewish men as well, who also practice mikvah ritual. Like women, men immerse in the mikvah prior to an occasion such as their wedding, a visit to Jerusalem or the Wall, or Yom Kippur. Also like women who have gone through the "passing" of menstruation, men also go to the mikvah when they have been in contact with a dead body.

So, chill on the mikvah jones. Its no more sexist than baptism -- which of course is derived from mikvah practice. Muslims have also adopted [stolen from Judaism] their own version of mikvah, too. And if I could bring this back on original topic, it would serve the believers of Allah well to rethink the idea of a dunk in the river as a better alternative to stoning their sisters to death, for the sin of being impure.

#15

what about indian widows who are thrown on the funeral pyres with their dead husbands and who are treated just as brutally throughout their lives?

What about tribal women in Thailand who are killed for having affairs?

I could go on but I really can't be bothered.

#101 jojo - But those practises are criminal & outlawed, not state-sanctioned.

Can Queen Esther or Avi or s o else explain this?

Q E wrote: p>

The concept of mikvah is to purify the spirit, not the actual body. The idea is that one has been made impure by having gone through the "flux" of menstruation or having been near something unclean such as a dead body.

Why is is that a convert to Judaism has to go to the mikveh as a part of the conversion process?

It SEEMS like this conversion process - the Mikveh dipping - implies that the non-Jew was unpure in spirit before the conversion and thus that all non-Jews are thus impure.

In this Judaism seems to differ from e.g. Christianity.

I'd have liked to discuss this with my Jewish friends but they are all non-observant and not very knowledgeable themselves so I am grateful for polite and straightforward answers to this one.

All orhodox rabbis are not to be trusted, Avi!

My own "partial" experience is that Jews can be just as prejudiced as we "Goyim". One example is enough: As an active Israel supporter I have a lot of contact with the Jewish congregation in my hometown. I had one extremely nasty experience with the Orthodox rabbi who insulted me for no reason whatsoever in public just because I am not Jewish and almost made me cry in front of him. I am not easily offended but what he said whas just to much - I don't want to repeat it here.

I brought this to the attention of one of the leaders who just gave me the cold shoulder and asked me to forget the incident. My feeling was that he didn't care just because I am not Jewish. A Jewish friend of mine was upset, though, and told the rabbi that he should apologize. He never did.

As Avi thinks you can just ask a rabbi if it is something you don't understand, I want him to reconsider and not have such a biased rosy view of rabbis of orthodox Judaism. This rabbi is well-known and respected among other Orthodox rabbis of my country. Who cares that he goes around insulting non-Jews? I am not the only one.

Woo hoo! A hat tip!

I think the reason that Jordan gets the attention is because they are actually trying to deal with the problem, albeit unsucessfully. Pakistan, on the other hand, is probably the worst offender. According to Yasmeen Hassan, author of The Haven Becomes Hell: A Study of Domestic Violence in Pakistan, "The concepts of women as property and honor are so deeply entrenched in the social, political and economic fabric of Pakistan that the government, for the most part, ignores the daily occurrences of women being killed and maimed by their families. Frequently, women murdered in "honour" killings are recorded as having committed suicide or died in accidents."

Anna (#104)

I don't know the details of your experience, and wasn't there personally, so I can't really comment on it directly. What I can say is the same that I said above: If there is mistreatment among Orthodox Jews, it comes despite the Orthodoxy, not because of it. Judaism law has no requirement to treat non-Jews poorly (unlike some other religions...), and it is unfortunate that there are some people who do so despite laws to the contrary.

I would not go so far as to discount all Orthodox rabbis based on your one experience, Anna. I would, instead, suggest the following: go to the rabbi in question and share your feelings with him. Tell him how hurt you felt, and continue to feel, as a result of his words. You may find that the entire episode was a misunderstanding, but even if it wasn't, it's certainly better to air your complaint to him as opposed to sharing it with everyone else, and defaming someone who might very well be innocent.

Now that I've said all that, remember, we were discussing a point in Jewish philosophy. Scaramouche's neighbor made a comment that required explanation, and, since that comment was made in the name of Judaism, I suggested that a discussion with a rabbi was in order. Where else do you suggest scaramouche turn in order to get the answer? It has nothing to do with having a biased rosy opinion of Orthodox rabbis, as you claim (although, as I know dozens of Orthodox rabbis, and have not had any negative experiences with any of them, I am certainly guilty as charged...), nobody else is as qualified to answer the question that scaramouche asked.

Ari, I guess you mean well but your defence won't do in this case. There certainly wasn't a misunderstanding between me and that rabbi. Not only did he insult me so that I started to cry - which I not easily do, he did it in front of one of the congregation and standing in the synagogue.

Ari, if you say something to a person and that person starts crying, then you KNOW that you have said something that has been taken amiss. If you then continue to insult then there is no question that you are acting wrong.

My friend brought this up directly with that rabbi and he did not care.

I happened to stumble across the rabbi on a party ten days afterwards. We happened both to be alone at the coffee table. He choose to just take one look at me and then leave the room.

I then go to one of the leaders who just refused to look into the thing.

Sometimes I think the orthodox just use Talmudic pulpil to make black look white.

Ok, you can say that as a non- Jew I can just drop out and not have anything to do with the congregation.
Fair enough, but then you loose one ardent Israel defender in a country known for its Pro-Palestinan and anti- Israel stance. There is no way for me to continue my very important idealistic work in this town.

Don't you think it's strange that the only Jews who defended me were not orthodox, and that the orthodox continued to insult me more than the rabbi ever did by refusing to look into the matter?

But you have just told me that I defame so maybe I am wasting my time?

#104 Anna

As regretable as whatever happened to you is, and I understand your feeling were hurt and that there's no excuse for it, the fact is that your experience was with a grand total of two rabbis (if I understood your post correctly). That is just not a large enough sample to make a reasonable, sweeping judgment of Orthodox rabbis. I don't say this intending to convince you, but to point out that our experiences with a small set of people often cloud our view of the larger picture.

#103 Jo

Unfortunately the concept of mikva is difficult to explain, not the least of which because the two concepts, tuma'ah and tahara, are not words which can be translated. The reason they can't be translated is that these are theological concepts which don't exist in any language besides Hebrew. However, we can try our best to use English to explain what they mean. Tuma'ah is the state that immersion in a mikva rectifies. Tahara, by contrast is the rectified state after immersion in a mikva. Tuma'ah is most often translated as "unclean" but that is flat out wrong, since it is most emphatically not talking about germs or dirt. To illustrate this I will tell you about the rule that one must wash their hands before eating. This is to remove tuma'ah. The 'rules' say that if no water is available then you can cover your hands with dirt. Thus, it is hardly the case that tuma'ah means "unclean". Another way to translate it is "spiritually impure", which is at least closer to the true meaning since it clearly shows that it has nothing to do with germs or dirt, but even then falls short because we have in no way defined what "spiritually impure" means.

So to understand how we should define "spiritually impure" it might help instead to look at what we believe a mikva does and then work backwards. A mikva is about renewal. The analogy is given that a person immersed in a mikva resembles a fetus in its mothers womb. Clearly the concept of the mikva is related to the birth process as a menstruating women immerses in a mikva, a man who's had a seminal emission immerses in a mikva, a women who has given birth immerses in a mikva -- and a convert immerses in the mikva. What does a convert have to do with the others, or with birth?

Judaism believes that a convert is "spiritually reborn" -- not unlike all other religion's conception of a convert to their religion. This might imply that the convert was spiritually defective according to the models of most religions, religions which require that all people be converted to be "saved", but the fact is that of the three major monotheistic faiths only Judaism teaches that all people, whether Jewish or not, have a place with God provided that they are moral people. Does it imply exclusivity, that Jews still insist on being Jewish if they believe that one need not be Jewish? Well of course not -- anyone can become Jewish if they desire to -- or not become Jewish and God is perfectly okay with either decision. So its as incorrect to say that a non-Jew is "spirituall impure" as it is to say that a new mother is "spiritually impure". But what they have in common is participation in a spiritual begining.

A mikva immersion effects this rebirth. It is "spiritual" since nothing physical about the person has changed as a result of a dip in the mikva.

James, You are stating some very obvious things about drawing from one's own partial experience. Have you considered that I may feel that for example Aris rose-colored views also are drawn from partial experiences and thus are prejudiced as well?

Or maybe you don't have higher expectations on spiritual leaders than you have on lay men and thus think I am unfair. I have.

There are some incidents that are so ugly that I think the congregations refusal to look into the matter speaks volumes. Obviously, they wanted to hide things. I think this even more serious as I happen to be known (and appreciated) in the congregation as a person very outspoken against anti-semitism.

I am often told , by Jewish friends, of incidents and sayings of orthodox Rabbis on occasions when there aren't gentiles present. Sayings they wouldnt' have made in public. So I am not drawing my conclusions on just this ugly experience I had.

I STILL don't believe all orthodox rabbis are rasist. I don't say the majority is it. I believe it is a minority. I believe that a minority of rasist rabbis are a MAYOR problem. (I would not think that a minority of orthodox rasist Jews were a problem as I am not holding them to that kind of higher standard that spiritual leaders should be hold.)

James, You are stating some very obvious things about drawing from one's own partial experience. Have you considered that I may feel that for example Aris rose-colored views also are drawn from partial experiences and thus are prejudiced as well?

Yes, I have. But I'm an Orthodox Jew and so have encountered literally dozens of rabbis from all across the US, Europe and Israel in my life and I can say that your experience isn't the norm.

Or maybe you don't have higher expectations on spiritual leaders than you have on lay men and thus think I am unfair. I have.

On the contrary, I do too. But that doesn't mean that two rabbis who happen to be monumental jerks make all rabbis monumental jerks.

I am often told , by Jewish friends, of incidents and sayings of orthodox Rabbis on occasions when there aren't gentiles present. Sayings they wouldnt' have made in public. So I am not drawing my conclusions on just this ugly experience I had.

So now you raise the spectre of the unprovable. Sorry, I can't dispel you of things you've been "often told" or debate it.

In any case, I already said that I don't intend to convince you since what you're doing is not uncommon and is even understandable in light of human nature. But your experience with a rabbi who humiliated you and another rabbi who didn't care about it (and now the added charge of things you've been told have been "said") just don't add up to a pattern.

Since the incident obviously left you feeling badly I won't debate it further. I'm sorry you went through that and even without knowing the details it seems outrageous.

Anna, I can certainly understand your anger, but let me ask you the following: Do you think you would have been upset if the person had not been Orthodox? While you seem to be of the opinion that Orthodoxy itself is the source of the problems that you have faced, I would suggest that the exact opposite is true. The fact that it was specifcally an Orthodox rabbi who said something improper to you and insulted you is th real cause of your pain, since you expected him to act in a certain fashion (i.e. according to the laws of the Torah), and he did not.

I don't know you save what you've posted here, but from the few stories that I've heard of those who have had bad treatment at the hands of someone who is Orthodox, the person would not think nearly as much of such treatment if it came from someone who is not Orthodox. So too, this is why it always makes the headlines when some Orthodox Jew is arrested for tax evasion. The reason that story is on the front page is because, as something that's out of the ordinary, it's news! People expect Orthodox Jews to act in a moral way, and to treat people accordingly, so in the rare cases when that doesn't happen, it's big news. You can be sure that you'll never see a headline "Reform Jew Arrested in Tax Fraud", because, quite frankly, that's not news.

But you have just told me that I defame so maybe I am wasting my time?

I'll let your own words speak for themselves:

Sometimes I think the orthodox just use Talmudic pulpil to make black look white.

Again, I would suggest speaking to the rabbi directly. Treat this like you would if any other person said something that hurt or offended you. Ask him politely for an apology, and see how he responds. As you may know, the holidays of Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are quickly approaching, and now is the time when Jews traditionally examine their actions and look to make amends. He should want to apologize to you as much as you would like to hear an apology from him.

I don''t think the rest of lgf is interested in hearing this very private conversation going on much further. I won't post any more.

To James and Ari,

thanks for bothering to answer and at such lengths too. I appreciate that and that James did admit that the rabbi acted wrong. You are the first orthodox to do that.

To Ari, I just want to add that the rabbi being an ORTHODOX rabbi had nothing whatsoever with my hurt feelings. The rabbi being a RABBI had it though. (I'd be just as well upset if he had been conservative or reform)

Talking about defaming. Yes, I thought you used pilpul when you claimed that I maybe defamed an innocent guy and that it was a misunderstanding when I described the incident. You made black into white even if I realise now you didn't intend to.

Thanks for the suggestion of bringing it up for Jom kippur though. I am not sure I want to be laughed at once more. The rabbi knows that I am alone in this as he more than once has claimed that non-orthodox are in fact non-Jews and there are no orthodox to defend me.

James, thanks! Unfortunately, this thread is old or I´d like to come back to your answer after I have pondered it for a while.

#103 Jo

I'm glad James (#108) has stepped in to answer your question, providing a far better answer than I am qualified to give. Thanks, James! Very interesting, yet again!

Avi, belated mazal tov on the birth of your new son!

Jo - luckily, email works fine. Both James and I post our email addresses, and I'll be happy to continue the conversation that way. As well, if you're looking for book recommendations for further reading, I'll be happy to assist.

QueenEsther - it's not so belated, he's only 10 days old! And doing very well, thank God.

I must admit I haven't read all comments, as it's time to go to bed now. But what I've noticed, is that in cases like this the man is never punished. Strange, for commiting adultery you usually need two people, usually a man and a woman. And when these two get caught, the man walks while the woman is stoned? I don't get it.

Jesus had a much better solution. In a comparable situation, the religious leaders presented him with a woman caught in the act of adultery. They wanted to stone her, and asked what his opinion on the matter was. He said: "he that is without sin, let him throw the first stone." And after some silence, all men walked away..no one dared to throw that stone. This story is somewhere in the gospel of John, not sure where.

What I like about this story is that Jesus didn't allow the men to stand there, with an attitude, all righteous and hypocritical. Suddenly they got involved in this trial in a very personal manner, and it scared the hell out of them.

It's that kind of wisdom these jordans seem to miss, sadly.