Stand By Your Name

Blue Laws אכיפת חוקי שבת

2012-02-07T11:47:00.006+02:00

The headline reads:
Tel Aviv continues to fine store owners open on Shabbat in mostly non-Jewish areas

First of all, it should have read:

Tel Aviv continues to fine stores open on Jewish Sabbath in mostly non-Jewish areas

This is a classic example of the absurdity of blue laws. First of all, they assume — once again — that we can define who is a Jew. Do the city inspectors ask all the males in the ‘hood to show them their circumcisions? What about females? Just for the record, when I made aliya, I was never asked to provide “proof” of my Jewishness. Mom’s ketuba? Suppose Mom was never married. And by the way, I'm still dying to know if, when an ultra-Orthodox couple goes to the rabbinate to register, are they asked for their mothers' ketubas? Hard to believe, but if anyone knows the answer, do tell.

Let's just admit it: There is no way of proving an individual’s Judaism. Hard as it is after centuries of it going unchallenged, it is incumbent upon us to make a paradigmal shift: Anyone who feels herself to be and identifies as Jewish — is Jewish. And axiomatically: Anyone who wants to relocate to Israel should be subject to immigration regulations that do not relate to religion. It’s not that our current arrangement is racist, as some claim it is; it’s that it's simply illogical and untenable.

But for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that there were some way to definitively define — and identify — who is a Jew. It assumes some sort of universal database (managed by whom?), which in turn assumes some sort of ID carried on one’s person (biometric?), but just humor me here. How do we determine that a given neighborhood is “mostly Jewish”? By resident? By household? Because members of the same household might not all be Jewish. So, as soon as the 51st Jewish resident / household moves in (monitored by whom?), an alarm goes off at City Hall and the inspectors come to fine the store owner?

This is one area where market forces should be allowed free play. If someone is foolish enough to try to open a store on Saturday in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, they will be open about five minutes, or the time it takes for the neighbors to organize to 1) slash the store owner’s tires 2) shatter the display window and 3) trash the place. Ergo, no one will agree to even insure the automobile or place of business of such an individual. Problem solved.

Any other (read: sane) locale should be open game, as long as ordinances are adhered to with regard to noise and parking, which they should be on all other days as well, no? And by the way: Whose taxes go to pay these city inspectors? Bingo: Yours and mine. Certainly not ultra-Orthodox citizens, who pay negative taxes. Nope. It’s the rest of us funding this circus. So let’s congratulate ourselves once again for allowing ourselves to be exploited by the Haredim.

A neighbor recently remarked to me about the Tal Law: “…but there should be room [in our society] for [full-time Torah study].” No problem. Plenty of room: tucked away in a yeshiva somewhere, financed by your father or father-in-law, or Sheldon Adelson. Not by me! Not by us.

The Medium ith the Methage המכה ה11: השפתות

2012-01-30T14:20:00.006+02:00

A friend and I were talking (favorably) about someone we know and what a great guy he is. “But,” I said, “It’s hard for me to talk to him. His lisp distracts me.”
“His what?” she asked. “What lisp?”

The above conversation is representative of the common attitude in Israel toward this pervasive speech impediment. I don’t have statistics, but lisping is rampant in the Israeli adult population, so much so that I call it (to myself) the 11th Plague. It’s surprisingly tolerated, illustrated by the fact that we’ve had two lisping prime ministers. Yet I can think of only two adult Americans of my acquaintance who lisp. When I explained to my Israeli neighbor that in the States, you could not be elected to any public office — forget the presidency — if you lisped, she was uncomprehending.

My daughter was sitting in on this conversation and accused me of bigotry. My husband equated a lisp with a foreign accent, which should not count against a person. But it’s neither of these; it goes in its own category: It’s neither a deformity nor a birth defect; it’s simply perceived by the American public as a trait that’s inappropriate for someone in public office (or any profession wherein the practitioners face the public) to exhibit*. And it is eminently correctible.

A colleague explained to me that the reason it’s tolerated in Israel is because it carries with it an association of a stereotypically confident, macho IDF general addressing his troops. And as we all know, IDF generals are all but objects of worship in this neighborhood. Funnily, the lisp in the US is associated with infantility, or the exact opposite of an army general.

While the IDF general theory might explain a lot, it does nothing to comfort me or alleviate my distraction when I hear adults lisp — and there are so many here. The worst is when they can’t even pronounce their own names. Doesn’t anyone get it? Or care? We do have speech therapists here; we're not some far-flung outpost in that respect.

I’d be interested in hearing from other Americans whether they’ve noticed the extent of The Lisp, and also from natives of other countries how the lisp — and speech impediments in general — are perceived and handled therein.

* A “proof example” that foreign accents are not in the same category is Henry Kissinger: We Americans don’t mind accents, but we expect our words to be pronounced correctly.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more disgraceful

2012-01-06T13:20:00.011+02:00

Why should a court order a company or ad agency to include members of certain population groups in its ads? Not only is this undemocratic, but it could go in all sorts of absurd directions: Must men appear in ads for feminine hygiene products? Must women appear in ads for condoms, aftershave, or PED medications (oh wait. They already do)? Must people of color appear in ads for sun protection products? Must Asians appear in ads for hair straighteners?

When will Israelis learn that the courts are not our patrons? You don’t like Cnaan for succumbing to Haredi blackmail? Then find out who their clients are and boycott them. You oppose Isracard’s decision not to feature Gila Almogor in Jerusalem? Get out your scissors and cut your Isracard in half. Put your money where your mouth is; don’t expect the courts to waste their time with what is after all a consumer preference issue. Besides, the womenless ads are only a symptom of the problem, which is that this group that we call the Haredim — I don’t know a better way to put it — have us by the proverbial balls.

So, Roni Shuv, regarding assuming in advance what Haredi individuals’ positions are on every subject, well, yeah, guilty as charged: I'm not interested in whether the Belz don’t sing the national anthem, but the Shmelz mouth the words; or whether the Bangkok Lubavich believe the rebbe’s dead while the Katmandu Lubavich think he’s just on vacation. I’m interested in what they all do have in common, which, yes, I happen to know “in advance”: They compel me, the taxpayer, to support them. Which means that yes, as per that definition, they’re parasites: They’re not disabled; they’re able to work.

And not only do I unwillingly support them, but I support their schools, which not only thumb their noses at the core curriculum, but hatch an entire ethos based on maintaining their self-image as "us against the goyim", only now that they don't have the handy Cossacks persecuting them any longer, they’ve made us (non-Orthodox Jews) into the goyim. Twisted, I know. No doubt about it: They've made persecution into a fetish.*

They remind me of a girl in my social studies class who, upon learning about the Holocaust, raised her hand to inform us that, “The early Christians were persecuted by the Romans too.” Oh really? They had to meet in catacombs to worship? For like, what? Two years? If I’d been drinking coffee at age 10, I’d’ve snorted it out my nose. Not that it’s a competition or anything.

But today I’m not laughing, certainly not at Jews dressing up their children as concentration camp inmates. Talk about disrespecting those who gave their lives for kidush haShem [the sanctification of God's name]. As far as chilul haShem [the desecration of God's name] goes — as well as chilul haAdam — this disgrace takes the cake.

* For a much more accurate picture of our situation vis-a-vis the Haredim, read Aner Shalev’s description.

Think only Beit Shemeshites get spat on? Think again. אתה חושב שרק בבית שמש יורקים? חשוב שנית

2011-12-28T12:13:00.007+02:00

In a talkback on the report of eight-year-old Naama Margolese getting spat on and called a whore on her way to school in Beit Shemesh for not being dressed what the ultra-Orthodox deem modestly, talkbacker Eleanor says: "This group [the rabbis] must be stopped."

Eleanor, unfortunately the “rabbis” will not voluntarily stop. Instead, the police must go, i.e., do their jobs as public servants. Law enforcement and swift crackdown is the only response that will bring the desired results. Not only are the rabbis not going to cede their power, but the perps may not even be taking orders from “above”. I hate to say it, because it's such an oft-used cliche about another minority, but if the shoe fits, wear it: The only language they understand is that of [police] force.

Does not anyone see the irony in the second paragraph of the article? The protest march venue was moved after Haredim threatened violence if it was held at Orot Banot? Excuse me? So let’s get this straight: The thugs succeeded in moving the March Against Thuggery by threatening to use violence if their demands aren’t met. Yoo-hoo! Police: Anybody there? Aren’t you the ones who are armed and trained in crowd control, and if necessary, arrest those who commit violence? You certainly had no compunction about doing so in October 2000 against Arabs, did you?

And why does Haaretz insist on describing Naama Margolese as "religiously observant"? What does her level of observance matter? No eight-year-old, or eighty-year-old, or anyone of any age or level of observance, of any faith or denomination, should have to undergo bullying anywhere, certainly not on her way to school.

When will we, and the legislature, press, police, and other institutions, call a spade a spade? This is bullying, it's harassment, and it's assault, all of which we have laws against. Police: ENFORCE, for God's sake! Today it's “just” the ultra-Orthodox spitting on the Orthodox; tomorrow it’s the ultra-Orthodox spitting on us all.

Sidebar: My daughter’s youth movement winter camp joined the protest, for which I’m proud. Since the protest was hastily organized only after the camp began, the camp organizers had to go into action quickly and get all the parents’ permission for the kids to protest. I of course gave mine, along with my blessing, but not all the parents did. I’d like to ask those parents two questions:

1. Where are your kids supposed to learn solidarity with the downtrodden and social activism if not in their youth movement? Where are they supposed to learn about rights, and not letting terror win out, if not from us, their parents?

2. If you think your neighborhood is safe, that this outrageous behavior is confined to Beit Shemesh (where we, the “enlightened” don’t live), you’re in denial. The Haredim are spreading, and with them their vigilante rule -- Coming Soon to a Nice Suburb Near You.

I confess, I was a little scared; I reminded the counselors to watch out for our kids, and I trust them to, although I don’t expect them to hover. But it’s times like these when I remind myself that Tzviya Lubetkin was only 14 when she crawled through the sewers beneath the Warsaw Ghetto to evade the Nazis while delivering arms to the ghetto fighters. I’m not being melodramatic; obviously I’m grateful that my children are spared such scenarios, likely thanks in part to the Tzviya Lubetkins. The point is that if young people during the Holocaust wittingly placed themselves in danger in order to fight for their freedom, then surely we should encourage our kids to take slight, what are really negligible risks, in order to speak out against injustice, should we not?

If These Walls Could Talk לו הקירות היו מדברים

2011-12-20T14:18:00.010+02:00

I saw a disturbing film yesterday on the topic of abortion, called If These Walls Could Talk. Yet it wasn’t disturbing in the way you might assume. For those who haven’t seen it, I’ll give a synopsis:
The screenplay is actually written as a trilogy, with each story taking place in a different era, all featuring protagonists who find themselves pregnant and not wanting to be:

Claire is a widow in the 1950s who in desperation opts for a back-alley abortion after which she hemorrages and presumably dies.

Barbara is a 40-something mom of four in the 1970s. Her youngest is eight, she has just begun college, and she discovers she’s pregnant. She considers abortion, then decides to continue the pregnancy.

Chris is a college student in the 1990s who agonizes and then goes through with an abortion. [spoiler] Just as the physician is finishing the procedure, a psycho gunman bursts into the clinic and shoots the physician.

What disturbed me about the film wasn’t the fact that Claire’s kitchen looks like a scene from the Manson family as she sinks to the floor, the telephone hanging off the hook as she tries unsuccessfully to summon an ambulance. Rather, what I found disturbing is the horror of conservative backlash: The only character who had access to a safe, legal abortion without getting mobbed or firebombed was the 1970s one. If These Walls Could Talk reflects the fact that our society passed through a blip of progressiveness that lasted about a decade, a fact with which there’s no arguing whether one is pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

I refuse to use the euphemisms “pro-life” and pro-choice”. I’m unabashedly pro-abortion, i.e., I believe that all three women should've aborted. As testified to by the hundreds of testimonies at I'mNotSorry.net, not all women who find themselves pregnant against their wishes agonize over it; nor do I believe that having an abortion necessarily affects a woman negatively and / or for a long period of time. For that I'm grateful for the character in the middle segment who admits to having felt relieved after aborting. Hard for me to believe that relief isn't the Number One sensation felt by a woman after undergoing a safe, legal abortion. No, it will not haunt you for the rest of your days, and this needs to be heard.

Finally, I’m tired of hearing that abortion is a “very, very personal decision”. This statement has lost its meaning, if indeed it ever had any. Every decision, whether vanilla versus chocolate or whether to donate a kidney, is personal. Abortion is nothing if not political; everyone, whether pro- or anti-, must agree on this.

Veering a little off-topic here, can anyone explain to me why back-alley abortionists can't take the extra minute to wash their hands and disinfect their instruments? It's not as if it adds to their overhead. What motivates this pond scum? Money? You’ve already been paid. What skin is it off your back to swab some alcohol onto the speculum? The abortionist in the 1950s segment of If These Walls Could Talk was the one who deserved to be shot. Where are all the indignant anti-abortion voices when it comes to him and his ilk -- and they still must exist: The state of Wyoming has not a single legal abortion provider. Who do you suppose is performing abortions in Wyoming?

Take my muezzin...please! בבקשה, קחו את המאוזין שלי

2011-12-14T11:51:00.007+02:00

I have to concede in reference to Bibi’s support of mineret-muzzling that indeed, even a broken clock shows the correct time once a day. However, what bothers me is how he argued his case: “We don’t need to be more liberal than Europe”. Does he not realize that this remark gives him away as implicitly admitting that Europe is the light unto the nations, or at least the model of civility that we all should strive to emulate? As I read his words, I thought to myself: Aha! So you do admire Europe! And you admit that liberal is a positive thing to be! Gotcha!

However, although I agree that the Moslem calls to prayer constitute noise pollution, it’s still offensive and certain unnecessary to target them specifically. We have noise pollution ordinances; why not simply enforce them in all locales? That would take care of the ultra-Orthodox and their bullhorn-fitted vans that cruise the streets for hours (apparently it's OK to pollute in God's name) blaring their appeals to dress modestly, attend a study session, or light candles. If I had the misfortune to live within hearing distance of this noise, I’d applaud any and all measures to silence it, including that inspired by the scene in the film Hair wherein George fires a rifle to silence the loudspeakers at the military base parade ground.

Same goes for Shabbat sirens, which I find paternalistic and therefore offensive. Anyone who observes the Sabbath can consult their watches, calendars, newspapers, or multiple fridge magnets for Sabbath starting and ending times, and if those fail, go outside and look at the sun, for God’s sake.

More than one talkbacker to the article proposed that Muslims install an app in their phones (or subscribe to a service) that sets off a prayer reminder replicating the muezzin, so we could do without the public calls to prayer altogether. Good idea, and let’s take it a step further: The Religious Affairs Ministry should provide this service for free, should it not? As long as this rabbi-opoly has to exist, let it serve the public for a refreshing change, and not vice versa.

Pink-&-blue medicine and revealing clothing רפואה ורוד-כחול ובגדם חושפים

2011-11-09T12:43:00.003+02:00

I have long been skeptical of the claim that women having heart attacks “present differently” than do men. Could it not simply be the case that men tend to ignore their symptoms until a later stage? In other words, might a man experiencing back pain, fatigue, weakness, and nausea brush it off as a momentary discomfort; and not until the stereotypical symptoms set in — chest pressure, arm pain radiating to neck and jaw — seek help?

Or the reverse: If a woman experiencing back pain, fatigue, weakness, and nausea were to wait — as men typically do — might she also present with the stereotypical symptoms? I predict that as awareness of heart attack symptoms grows in the lay population, first responders are going to be increasingly seeing men present (sooner) with what physicians now refer to as typically female symptoms. Otherwise there should be a physiological explanation for the differences in symptoms, and I seen none offered, leading me to suspect that gender medicine is simply another manifestation of the blue-and-pink backlash. In fact, in the (admittedly few) articles I’ve read on the subject, the heart attack example is the only one ever cited. So we need an entire new specialty based on a single example, which might itself be flawed? Are not gynecology, obstetrics, and urology enough?

Seguing into a less cut-and-dried area of gender, I finally have a guess as to why Israeli women dress so revealingly, even when inappropriate, i.e., professional and employment situations: They’re hot! “Um, OK,” I can hear you saying. “Yes…so what?” Well, perhaps they’d be more willing to cover up if they could find decent cotton clothing. Ever looked for cotton clothing in Israel? Sure. It’s here — for double and triple the price of synthetics. While many are disturbed by the fact that whole grain flour costs more than white and granola costs more than Sugar Bombs, few seem perturbed about the equivalent situation in clothing.

In order to find 100% cotton elastic pants with pockets, I went all the way to the wholesale district in Tel Aviv, where Ofnát Sabába was willing to sell me one pair, for cash only, in their largest size, which they call Xtra Large. So what’s a woman larger than I to do? The largest size cotton tops at Fox are size 3s, which is barely a medium; 2 is small; and 1 is micro-human. I finally went to Onót, a plus-size chain, where I found a size that doesn’t cover me on top as well as I’d like, but at least it fits me. I’m now officially a plus-size woman (I’m 5’1” and weigh 135 lbs.), I live in a desert country, and can’t find decent cotton clothing that's not white yoga pants. Is this not absurd?

Id al-Adha and organ donation איד א-אדחה ותרומת איברים

2011-11-09T11:50:00.010+02:00

Let's begin with Muslim Knesset members' request to postpone the session for Id al-Adha so as to enable them to vote on two bills. Seems the Jewish Knesset members are so eager to get down to the work of running the country that they just can’t countenance postponing. My favorite quote from the article: Zeev Elkin: "...I don't believe these laws have a distinctively Muslim dimension..." Oh. So you mean that simply being an elected official who wishes to vote in the legislature is now not a good enough reason to ask for a deferral? The issue has to concern hizzer’s constituency directly?

This damned country and its parochial leaders. Everything has to be sectarian: You belong to either an "Arab party" or a "Jewish party". You either live in an Arab area or a Jewish area (we conveniently forget Lod, Ramle, Acre, Jaffa, Haifa, and even Eilat); you donate to / villify a "left-wing NGO" (that's "human rights group" on the rest of the planet), or just a default NGO (all the rest). Everything breaks down according to sector. When will we join the 21st century?

And as for the Druze celebrating their Id next week, I offer that we also have two Christmases: the Latin one celebrated December 25th and and the Orthodox one two weeks later. Those pesky non-mainstream denominations! Jeez! You mean they actually expect us to respect their calendars?!

Now let's turn to our current jack-in-the-box bills, i.e., the ones that keep popping up just as you thought we'd shut the lid on them. MK Ofir Akunis explaining why "left-wing" NGOs (aka human rights groups) should be prohibited from accepting donations from abroad: "The fact that a state such as England can donate money to a movement such as Peace Now is blatantly unfair."

Hmm...I was not aware that countries donate to Peace Now — can you cite an instance please, Mr. Akunis? — but for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s so: Would the same apply if England were to donate to Gush Emunim? ‘Cause after all, fair is fair…

Talkbacker Herring on the closure of Jerusalem's acclaimed MaGaL drug treatment facility is absolutely correct when s/he says, "Unfortunately, financing new settlements is a priority." Kah-ching! $17 billion dollars and rising…Because we all know that settler youth don't have drug problems. Anyway, let me get this straight: There will now be ONE 20-bed juvenile addiction treatment facility in a country of 7 MILLION? Are we out of our ever-lovin' minds?

Let's hear how [the] ADI [organ donor card-issuing organization] responded to donors' anger at Cna'an, ADI's ad agency, caving to ultra-Orthodox demands that they use images of men only in their sign-up drive:

“ADI officials: the decision was based on a desire to convey the … campaign's message to all Israelis.” And of course it’s incumbent upon us not to offend the sensibilities of the ultra-Orthodox. But hey. What about me? Last time checked, I was a member of the superset “all Israelis”, and I’m offended at the ad agencies’ excuse that the ultra-Orthodox vandalize whatever offends them. Great. So we’re letting terror win. And where is law enforcement in this equation? How come it’s so easy to detain Palestinian teenagers for throwing stones, but law enforcement just can’t seem to prevent public property from being vandalized by religious extremists? I’m a card-carrying organ donor; don’t I matter?

Why aren't the undersigned running our country? חבל שהחתומים למטה לא בממשלה

2011-10-25T13:44:00.014+02:00

Four letters to the editor of Haaretz yesterday are worth reprinting (I edited and added links) for their wisdom and, in the case of the last, its why-didn't-we-think-of-that, out-of-the-box thinking. Here we go:

What does “without religion” mean?

In response to "Court grants author's request to register as 'without religion,'" October 2:

Some see recognition of Yoram Kaniuk as a citizen "without religion" as a breakthrough for the separation of religion and state. Yet there is something strange about this definition. Embedded therein is the unstated premise that every individual is born into a religion, as though a religion is a limb of the body. "Without religion" therefore designates someone who lacks a quality ordinarily found among people, a classification tantamount to "missing a leg" or "homeless" [or an animal - M.E.].

The campaign's goal should be the opposite: Whoever feels it important to declare her religion on identity documents should ask for this attribute to be listed as an addition. This means that an identity document should include the following automatically: citizenship; name; and address. Affiliation with a religion should be listed only if the bearer explicitly asks for such.

Edna Inbar
Jerusalem
Hurray for Edna Inbár! As I've said many a time, What is the "Religion" datum doing there in the first place? Obviously only one piece of information is important: Are you, or are you not, an Arab? And that can overwhelmingly be discerned by the bearer's name and / or address. So "Christian" or "Muslim" are actually irrelevant in this case, are they not?

Barghouti should be freed

Gilad Shalit's release shows us as the big family we are, with so many regarding Shalit as if he were their own son. It also shows how achingly we want Jonathan Pollard to go free, as well as the agony of so many who lost their loved ones at the hands of swapped prisoners. Yet Haaretz always brings out the complexities of the conflict in both sides' narratives.

So, on the other side, even after the exchange, Israel will still hold thousands of Palestinian prisoners (some for as long as 30 years).

And yet in order to help bring both sides — with their so profoundly divergent narratives — closer to peace, how calamitous it is to leave imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, perhaps the one Palestinian leader able to unite the divided Palestinians behind an effective peace agreement.

Were Franz Kafka here, he would surely put this in one of his stories.

James Adler
Cambridge, MA

Is there really no one to talk to?

We watched those rare moments that were the outcome of talks with Hamas with Egyptian mediation. We talked with Hamas! It is possible. As someone who lost three members of my family — my sister Rivka and her sons, Roi and Ilan — in the bloody coastal road bus terror attack that took the lives of 38 Israelis, I can still remember the mindset with regard to the PLO: Not only was there "no one to talk to," it was forbidden to talk; anyone who talked with the PLO went to prison. Our partners today are the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. You have to sit and talk and talk and talk, until there is an agreement.

Khaled Abu Usba, who was among the perpetrators of that attack, was released in the Jibril deal, and unlike several who went back to terror, he eventually spoke about the need to arrive at a peace agreement.

Yona Kitai-Cohen
Kfar Saba
Agree, and I do perceive a shift. I heard one of the swapped prisoners tell a reporter, "We'll keep on abducting Israelis as long as Israel holds Palestinians prisoner." As little as ten years ago, the prevailing declaration would have been, "We'll keep on abducting Israelis as long as even a single drop of Zionist infidel blood pollutes the land of Palestine." So we're making progress, no? Although the problem is that as long as we occupy Palestine, we will hold Palestinians prisoner, even if it's on charges of an unpaid parking ticket...

The half-hour compromise

In response to "The shortest summer in the world," October 4:

I propose a course of action for Daylight Savings Time that could bridge between the sides without forcing anything on either. At the base of the idea is changing local Standard Time and moving it to a point more suited to our geographical locale — 34 degrees east (on average) — and deriving our Daylight Savings Time therefrom.

Israel lies in the Greenwich Mean Time +2 zone, which stretches from meridian 22.50 eastwards to longitude 37.5, with the 30th meridian at its center. However, the longitude of the central part of Israel is located at 34.5 east, closer to the edge of the area bordering on GMT +3. Geographically, therefore, Israel lies closer to GMT +3 than to GMT +2. Hence for most of the year, Israel's locale is more suited to being located in GMT +2.5.

In order to avoid constant conflict with the Orthodox, I propose encompassing by law the entire country, all year long, in the GMT +2.5 time zone. There are a number of countries and areas of the world that have adopted half hours and not whole hours. Moreover, between April 1 and September 1, Daylight Savings Time should be observed by moving the clock half an hour. Thus Yom Kippur will always fall in GMT +2.5.

Amos Cohen
Ramat HaSharón
Ah, but this would be too logical, wouldn't it? Is anyone in the Interior Ministry -- or any ministry out there -- listening?

And, on an unrelated note, over the recent holidays, among other festive fashion statements, I was disappointed to see a baby girl wearing one of those baby girl headbands, presumably so that she won't God forbid be mistaken for a boy. I've seen other babies wearing them, and I always want to ask their moms [it is the moms, isn't it?]: "Why, oh why are you perpetuating this blatant gender stereotyping that will only have to be untaught later?"

And ten bucks says five years hence Mom will be overheard to say, "She refuses to even look at anything that's not pink and sparkly. I just don't get it: I certainly never gave her those messages. I mean, look at me: Am I dressed pink and sparkly?" Sigh. Feminism: a Sisyphean climb.

Separation, not "pluralism" הפרדה, לא "רב-השקפתיות

2011-10-09T14:44:00.005+02:00

This news report was sent to me by a reader who knows that its contents would please me, and while they do, all these non-Orthodox groups struggling for recognition by the rabbinic establishment seem to me to miss the point, or at least my point. While it’s certainly a good thing that Jerusalem Police Chief Niso Shoham is committed to banning forced sex segregation in public, this should not be news. OK, so it made the news in the wake of last Succot’s public sex segregation in Mea Shearim. But what happens when a new police chief steps into the job? Supposing that s/he personally doesn’t take as deep offense at public sex segregation as does Shoham? Not only that, but should our energies, i.e., those of the non-Orthodox public, be aimed at banning sex segregation in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods or performances or in private schools, where the audience in any case segregates voluntarily?

Would our energies not be better expended on struggling for changes that would benefit the masses? For instance, public transportation on Saturdays? I did a little research on the origins of this ban, and it appears that it began in 1948, with the birth of the state. Not only am I outraged that David Ben-Gurion wheeled and dealed us into this corner, but I’m astonished that a ban on public transportation was not met with a public outcry: After all, in 1948, hardly any Israelis owned cars! Agreeing to such a ban on most citizens’ one day off work amounted to nothing less than a violation of human rights, as it still does today.

Today the cry for transportation on Shabbat should be all the louder, as environmental consciousness is far higher, and with the majority of Israelis car owners, we should be doing our utmost to remove as many cars as possible from the roads, not add them. Moreover, trains are a perfect answer as far as not offending Orthodox sensibilities on Shabbat, as unlike buses, they’re out of everyone’s view.

The struggle to have non-Orthodox denominations recognized is misplaced. We should instead be working toward separation of church and state, period. I would even accept the European model, wherein state symbols are religious — i.e., the Swedish flag, the cross in the Italian courtroom — nor would I even mind the state offering religious services to those who seek them, i.e., marriage, divorce, mikveh. But the state’s role in our lives should end there.

The rabbinic establishment recognizing more and more denominations won’t get us anywhere as far as our daily lives are concerned; in fact, I don’t need or want their recognition. Instead, we need to address each rights violation as exactly that, and I propose beginning with public transportation on Saturdays and Jewish holidays, as inroads have already been made, i.e., interurban buses run to and from Eilat. Only such a hands-on strategy will get the state out of our personal business and allow us to conduct our daily lives like Westerners.

Right-wingers should be equally outraged ימיניים אמורים להתעצבן גם כן

2011-08-29T11:53:00.005+03:00

While no one is surprised that I’m steamed about how the Knesset’s been spending its time lately, in fact, right-wingers should be angry too: With Iran breathing down our necks; Gilad Shalit still in the pit (Palis, after you get your state, will you let the Red Cross visit him???); the health, education, and welfare systems overextended; and the Palestinian Authority on the threshold of declaring independence (shouldn't they have to release Gilad Shalit first???), what legislature on earth (except a benighted one) would spend its time legislating a boycott prohibition; a law allowing communities to screen candidates for residency; an oath of allegiance requirement; a law allowing the Knesset to audit human rights groups (instead of simply visiting their Web sites); a bill opening the door for halakhic law to guide the courts and rescinding Arabic’s status as an official language; and debating whether J Street is Zionist?

Whether or not one agrees with the above measures, I’m certain we all agree that they do not further a single inch resolving the aforementioned issues. How can anyone, whether right or left, make an argument for a legislature spending the taxpayers’ time thusly? And no, I don’t agree that Knesset members aren’t answerable to their constituencies because they don’t have constituencies in the American electoral sense of the word. They’re elected officials, and instead of legislating, they’re sitting on their behinds McCarthyizing at our expense. Everyone should be mad as hell.

Fairy Tale God אלוהים של אגדות

2011-07-29T10:10:00.002+03:00

I can’t stop thinking about the following anecdote, told to me by the sibling of a Gan Israel (CHaBaD’s day camp network) camper, whose counselor told the campers:

“Gan Izzy saves lives. Ten years ago, a GI camper broke his arm while at camp. A few weeks later, his father took off work to take him to the doctor for a checkup. While they were at the doctor, some bad people flew planes into the building where the dad worked, but he wasn’t at work that day; he was with his son at the doctor. So Gan Izzy saved the father’s life.”

There are so many disturbing things about the above, I hardly know where to start. If any GI staff are reading this, let’s break it down: At any given workplace, on any given day, a certain percentage of the workers will be absent for any number of reasons. Every single individual who worked in the Twin Towers as of September 11, 2001 and who was absent from work that day has his or her own “Gan Izzy”: the traffic fine whose deadline for payment was that day, the tooth that broke while eating breakfast at a diner that morning, and any number of planned absences such as vacations, training, or family events (I can't even believe I'm explaining this elementary concept).

The leap from there to “Gan Izzy saved the dad’s life” is dangerously close to “…and therefore we should all send our kids to Gan Izzy, which is proven to be good insurance against being killed in a terror attack,” which in turn is dangerously cozy with “…affiliating with CHaBaD -- the operator of Gan Izzy -- is good insurance against any ill befalling you or your loved ones.” Moreoever, supposing one or more of the Twin Towers casualties did send their kids to Gan Izzy? How come it didn’t “work” for them?

Lubavitchers, believing that God [I refuse to call Her “haShem”] intervened for the outcome we all know to save those fortunate absent-from-work individuals is what we call “magical thinking”, which is not indulged in by rational, responsible adults. If you choose to indulge therein, it’s your right, but it is not your right to impart it to impressionable children.

As for the rest of us Jews: Perhaps this will give you pause next time you’re solicited by CHaBaD for a donation. Like all fundamentalist groups from evangelicals to the Islamic Movement (that’s right -- ask any mom in Um al-Fahm who runs the best daycare), the reason CHaBaD can offer quality, appealing programs is by keeping costs down, which they do via 1) donations and 2) low-cost labor, i.e., mobilizing their own young people. CHaBaD does not have the monopoly on Jewish continuity -- unless we choose to hand it to them on a silver platter. There are plenty of worthy Jewish causes that could use your donation that do not promote magical thinking. I encourage you to donate thereto.

Learn a dirty Hebrew word: "Political" "מלה גסה: "פוליטי

2011-07-26T19:57:00.005+03:00

In case it's escaped your notice, social protest here is deplorably unsophisticated. Three examples:

A female Jewish cashier dates a male Palestinian bagger, and all hell breaks loose. The local rabbi, who would be the sheriff if this were a western, pays a visit to the store CEO demanding that the latter do something, and poor Rami Levi twists himself into a pretzel trying to please everyone. In the process he sets himself up as a social worker, relationship chaperone, and babysitter, and forgets what he presumably does for a living: He runs a business. In a real Western country, where clerics don't intimidate the ordinary citizen, Levi would tell Rabbi Perl privately, "I run a business, and my employee policies are implemented with that one goal in mind. I regret that I'm not the address for your problems."

And in a real Western country, Levi's statement to the press would be: "We at Rami Levi do not purport to intervene in the individual relationships between our employees. As long as their relations do not interfere with their performing their duties, it's not our business. With all due respect, I direct Rabbi Perl to address his congregants on this issue, not us. Meanwhile, as always, we invite all our neighbors to continue to shop with us, and in return we pledge to continue to provide quality groceries at reasonable prices to all our customers."

Thank the Lord for Yossi Sarid. Unfortunately, we in Israel suffer from a disease called We're Not Political-itis, which manifests itself in social protesters resolutely insisting that their cause isn't, God forbid, political. Yet Sarid reminds us that curiously, there are no tent protests in the territories. Hello, Israel: How could anything be more political? When will Israelis stop being intimidated by the right? How long, Lord, before we demand what is due us?

That aside, I have a problem with the whole "I refuse to live anywhere but Tel Aviv" mindset. What's wrong with a 45-minute train commute to and from Ashdod, or a 10-minute commute to Lod? Who wants to live in Lod, you ask? Well, if a critical mass of tent-dwellers does, they'll benefit, and so will Lod. That's how organic communities form: Greenwich Village was originally populated by struggling artists. Ditto for similar urban districts all over the West, which morphed into bastions of -- you guessed it -- openness and tolerance. But if all the open, tolerant folks insist on living nowhere but Tel Aviv, what direction do they expect housing prices to go?

What a shame Ir Amim's Orit Noy didn't "tell it like it is" regarding artists performing in Silwan. She states her protest is "personal, not political" (there we go again: "Not political"). Why is Noy afraid to take a stand on behalf of Ir Amim, who's been valiantly fighting Elad for decades? Again: What could be more political?

And what's "active cooperation with a 'radical political move'" supposed to mean? Don't hide, Noy. Just state your case clearly: "We oppose patronizing Elad-sponsored events held in Silwan, as Elad has been harassing Silwan residents and making their lives miserable for decades." Case closed. What's so hard about that?

What in God's name are people afraid of? It must be the same fear that causes Israelis to incessantly use כ, or *keh* — a prefix that translates as "approximately" — anytime numbers are involved, i.e., *ani gara k'arba'im kilometer mi'Eilat* ["I live approximately 40 kilometers from Eilat"]; *k'esrim achuz miHaOchlusiya aravi* ["Approximately 20% of the population is Arab"].

From what lawsuit are people trying to cover their behinds? Are they afraid that if they don't use כ, someday they'll be subpoenaed and be required to prove that the distance from their house to Eilat is precisely 40 km? That precisely 1.5 million Israelis are Arab? It's Loony Toons. But then so is a CEO of a supermarket chain placating a local rabbi.

Boycotting and Goldstoning חרם וגולדסטון

2011-07-19T11:16:00.006+03:00

The talkbackers to Karni Eldad's defense of the Boycott Law say it better than I could, although I did edit:

JJ Burke wrote:

"If the settlers had any confidence in their arguments, they wouldn't need to mangle the law to silence their opponents."

David wrote:

"1. You did not go to Judah & Samaria to be human shields, but based on Messianic belief, so don't feed us that bull. Maybe the Arabs like martyr stories, but we don't. 2. You enjoy inexpensive housing and municipal services paid for by our taxes. 3. You have an entire army wasting resources on protecting you. I'd be surprised if your taxes cover that. 4. You cause millions to be spent on roads and utilities to support your settlements. I'd be surprised if your taxes cover that. 5. The decision to settle territories was not made democratically, even if it was eventually adopted by the governments, so let's not pretend the right is huge fans of democracy. 6. Thank you for not deploying supermarket inspectors to examine whether I buy Arabs' olive oil and not settlers' olive oil. The fact that you even bring this up as some sort of “capitulation” on your part should make everyone of sound mind shudder at the implications of the crazy thoughts you and your buddies consider acceptable, moral, and cultured discourse. You have become ridiculous. Wake up.

Nahman Umani wrote:

"She’s kidding, right? If this is for real, it shows us how much the settler movement is living in a parallel universe and that there is no real way of reconciliation. She is presenting us with the prospect of a zero-sum game. Tragic."

And I ask: If the settlers believe their cause (and livelihood) is just, why don't they just publish their own list of Judaean and Samaritan products, a la the Christian Yellow Pages? Why force the consumer to rely on (and decipher) BDS information, some of which is admittedly questionable? Nu, Yesha? I challenge you to pick up the marketing gauntlet. Let the consumer public decide who's right and who's wrong.

Know what galls me about the settlers? The pathetic Kiryat Shmona library, the only public library for miles, was closed for lack of funds; the Sderot Cinemateque, the only one in the entire Negev, is in danger of closing for lack of funds; and meanwhile, in the settlements, the beat goes on: paved access roads, lush, watered lawns, a theater in Ariel (because the five-minute drive to Kfar Saba is too far), museums (?!) -- plenty of money for those. But for the weak population who's really on the front lines -- being pounded by Katyushas and Kassams -- the well runs dry.

What I don't understand is all the secular Israelis who defend the settlers. I want to ask them: Don't you understand that they don't give a rat's _ss about you? They're totally in it for themselves. Karni Eldad cries crocodile tears about her "worthy sons" who defend "our" cafes and pubs. How about my sons (OK, nephews, but you get the idea) who have to serve in Hebron to defend her red-roofed house in Tekoa? How fair is that?

And now we turn to the proposed bill to audit human rights groups that "fed" info to Goldstone. Journalists Barak Ravid and Jonathan Lis, as well as Haaretz, have got my knickers in a twist almost as much as the Boycott Law. They’ve done it yet again in this headline: “Lieberman blasts PM, Likud ministers for refusing to probe left-wing groups”.

Why, oh why, do the reporters play directly into the right’s hands by referring to human rights groups as “left-wing”? Not only is this practice journalistically unacceptable, as “left-wing” is a subjective term that can’t provably be applied to non-profits; but in applying it to rights groups, it perpetuates the twisted notion that human rights is the exclusive purview of the left, which is the whole problem. I appeal to all journalists: Please, please refer to organizations by what they do, not some knee-jerk label.

The article headed MK Zuabi red-carded for role in 2010 flotilla tells us: ""The Ethics Committee said that Zuabi...dealt a blow to the Knesset's dignity and the public's trust therein."

No, I'm afraid that "achievement" goes to the Knesset itself, for passing deplorable laws instead of governing the country. Way to go, “Ethics” Committee.

Pink: Not just another color ורוד: לא סתם עוד גוון

2011-06-30T13:49:00.005+03:00

Even if you subscribe to the belief that girls and boys inherently differ — as argued by a friend who describes her son’s first encounter with a tractor tire at age three: “He stood there staring at it in awe…my daughter would never have exhibited such behavior” — it’s hard to argue that the deluge of Everything Pink, Princess, and Sparkly (after which they graduate to Sexy, Slutty, and Bratty) is doing our girls any good.

First, let’s take a look at the color (actually shade) pink. To those who shrug and ask, “What’s the big deal? It’s just a color,” I ask in kind: What’s the big deal about a swastika? It’s just an ornamental symbol that was in use for centuries before there were ever such creatures as Nazis. See what I mean? Nothing that ubiquitous, that pervasive, is ever “just a…” We can’t turn the clock back to when pink was just a color any more than we can go back in time to when a swastika was just a decoration.

Speaking of going back in time, let’s take a look at the quintessential female-stereotyped toy: the Susie Homemaker Oven As much as I disapprove of its message that cooking and baking are women’s jobs, note that 1) It’s — get ready! — green, and 2) It actually does something, i.e., it’s a tool used to produce, create, make something — not to mention promote learning a life skill — as opposed to the overwhelming quantity of products aimed at today’s girls, which encourage them to 1) dress up, 2) look good, and 3) get pampered.

Even classic toys like Lego, which encourage building and creating, now have a special “Girls” category, and parents unfortunately seem to swallow whole the Legos premise that kids’ interests break down by gender. Instead of asking, “Why aren’t there more ‘girls’ Legos’?” how come parents aren’t simply buying the “boys’ Legos” for their girls? Did I miss the Gender Police at Toys r Us?

Lastly, let’s turn our attention to this century’s corporate juggernaut, the Disney princesses. Look closer: They’re no longer innocent. In fact, they’ve gotten a sexy 21st-century makeover Also, note the facial expressions: In the last two examples, Belle and Sleeping Beauty have coy, come-hither expressions that they didn’t have when they were “born”. In other words, Disney princesses who began their “careers” as girls have "inexplicably" morphed into young women, i.e., they have sexual potential. Whether or not it’s not subtle, it's insidious, and like any subliminal message, deserves our attention.

So, what do we do? Well, for one thing, we can make a Present Pact: Next time you’re choosing a present for a kid, choose a gender-neutral one, or if those are too hard to find, at least don’t drench the recipient, if she’s a girl, in yet more pink; and if a boy, in yet more macho, superhero black. For newborns I recommend skipping a gift for Baby entirely and instead pampering the parents with a nice body products or coffee sampler gift pack. After all, being pampered is a privilege, not a right, right?

Taking bets: Is Storm a boy, or a girl? האם סטורם בת, או בן

2011-05-29T13:38:00.007+03:00

Regarding the Canadian couple who have chosen not to reveal the sex of their third child, I’m reprinting here some of the comments thereon, with my occasional responses interspersed in red. As you’ll see, the first few commenters don’t take the notion seriously at all, remarking snarkily about how much therapy the kid’ll surely need. Below the comments, I’ll offer my thoughts:

2. kris
I hope in Canada there's plenty of funding for therapy.

3. lk
These people are just setting their kids (all of them) up for years of therapy.

12. Tara Lindis
I am currently pregnant with our second child, and …as we prepare therefor, we have been searching for gender-neutral clothing and ending up frustrated by the lack of variety - or that anything remotely gender neutral is [to be found] in the “boys’” department. I believe it is indicative of the increasing disparity of gender identities.

As someone currently looking for baby clothes and as someone who did not have her first pink dress until she was six, I find the lack of primary colors in children's clothing disturbing: Everything is either pink, or camouflage.

A friend of mine from Finland tells me of a trend there wherein parents, when asked if their child is a boy or a girl, respond, "It's a person." I find this fascinating. Surely, there is some balance to be achieved between the Canadian couple and the nauseatingly limiting array of baby clothes on sale at Babies R Us? Isn't army fatigues for newborn boys and bikinis and high heels for three-year-old girls just as twisted as raising a child without any gender at all?

15. Kara
So... if I am not supposed to, or can't, use "he" or "she" to refer to this child..... do I use "it"? That is the only other pronoun available.
Uh, no, it’s not. I’ve seen: co / co’s; hizzer; hir; s/he; and others I can’t recall. Why not expand the options, instead of limiting them and ourselves?

19. Anne
It is not as if the child can be kept in the dark about its own gender much past the age of three, if that long. I doubt that a gender-neutral upbringing until then — exposing the kid to both dolls and cars — would have long-term traumatic impact. If gender identification is ingrained, then the child will eventually identify with its gender anyway. If gender identification is not ingrained — well, then they have proven their point that …societal norms rather than biology …determine who we are — and the kid will be fine.

21. jzzy55
What is the advantage of being gender-free?
I suppose the same advantage as not having to wear a yellow Star of David patch bearing the word “Jude”: It’s no one’s damn business and should be irrelevant, with the exception perhaps of the individual’s medical providers.

22. miami lawyer mama
We can only know so much about newborns, and one of the few concrete things we can know at birth IS what's between their legs (along with their weights and lengths). That's why those three things are the most asked [about]. Because seriously, what are we supposed to do? Sit down with newborns and have a conversation to "get to know" them?

Well, I suggest we can each actively make an effort to not ask the gender, or if the gender is known, not dwelling on it, and especially not making dorky and / or sexualizing comments such as [said in an artificially high voice to a girl] “Oh, such a sweetheart! She’s gonna knock ‘em dead!” / [said in an artificially low voice to a boy] “Hey, Big Guy. You’re a little man, aren’t you? Go knock ‘em dead, Bucko!”

Other suggested topics: the birth (without probing too much); nursing (without getting too intimate); how sibs are reacting, if any; the name; the weather; how ‘bout them [name sports team]? See? It’s actually easier than we think to not dwell on gender.

25. kateNonymous
While when I was a child, pink was “for girls”, today it seems as if pink is the only color “for girls”. There is relentlessness to the shade that it lacked in my own youth. Similarly, there were no babies wearing clothing printed with things like "Diva". That is not what we want to teach our daughter, or the message we want to send to the world.

I never have a problem with people who ask if she's a boy or a girl, or who refer to her in the masculine. She's a baby, and it's hard to tell at this age. But on more than one occasion I've had someone say in an accusing tone, "It's hard to tell when you dress her in blue."

My response to the next person [who says that] will be, "Really? I'm wearing blue. Can you tell I'm a girl?"

33. Hadfield:
I tried a very mild version of this. People would say "what a handsome boy!" and I'd just say, "Thank you" instead of telling them that my daughter is a girl (and vice versa with my son). But at a certain point, before they were 16 months old, my children would look at me with surprise, and some dismay, as if I weren't sticking up for them. They seemed to want the correction to be made.

While it might be crazy to ignore sex distinctions, it's equally crazy--and much more widespread--to highlight them constantly: Not all clothing, toys, haircuts, and types of play should be determined by gender. Yet marketers and parents seem to be rigid on these points--sickeningly so. I'd rather be treated as gender neutral than forced to paint my nails and wear high heels and tight shirts — and for some reason, elementary school girls are doing these things these days!

37. jh
Has it occurred to anyone that the kid could be intersex? This is actually a relatively common occurrence. If this is the case, the parents are perhaps taking a risk in being so public about rejecting binary gender for the kid, i.e., a lot of scrutiny of the family and the kid might not be so desirable either. On the other hand, what else is better? And who's to say?
I'm not saying this is definitely the case; obviously we simply don't know. Yet [it’s] worth considering before jumping all over the family’s choices. Indeed, worth considering as we think about gender, period.

43. Maggie
The tone of the commenters before me makes it completely clear to me how valuable this family’s action is. And how much I would like to see parents in general raising "children" rather than choosing to raise "a girl" this time and "a boy" next time. There is …damage in being told -- by teachers and neighbors, not just parents -- that what you are doing is 'too girly' for a boy or 'too mannish' for a girl.

Perhaps if all parents were raising gender-neutral children, as Storm's parents are, the world would be a bit safer for the kids who really aren't "boys" or "girls".

47. Tiara
While a more gender-neutral approach to raising children than our current standard would be good, a completely gender-neutral approach is impossible and unwise. That said, it's amazing how fixated we are on gender. It's the first thing asked about a baby: Boy, or girl? It shouldn't be the first thing we care about, and it shouldn't be artificially ignored.

55. sRose 1210
We're not genderless, and … these "progressive" parents aren’t doing their anon-tot any favors. If that doesn't scar them or ill prepare them for adulthood, their names surely will.
Let me guess, sRose: Your kids are named…let’s see now; what’re the trending names this year? Max and Emily? Oh no, wait: That’s so Last Decade. Or did you decide to just “blend” with Susan and Michael?

62. rh
I don't believe that a boy walks earlier and a girl has better language skills. That was made up long ago and now we’ve become to believe it. And that is how we are conditioned, and we project this on to our kids. It's time to wake up to new consciousness, and I congratulate all parents that give that freedom to their kids.

...And now back to our original programming: Commenter no. 4, slKim, basically sums it up for me:
"I can think of lots of ways to challenge gender norms [other] than this kind of veiling."

While I genuinely respect Storm’s parents and wish more would challenge gender norms and stereotypes, they may be killing their experiment with all the media attention. I’m imagining the pointing and whispering whenever they’re outside their home, and it’s just got to be hard on Storm’s siblings, if not the parents. It seems to me that they could’ve gotten the same point across by buying a dozen white onesies and having them printed with: “I’m not just a girl; I’m a person.” Or how about: “I’m not a girly-girl. I’m a kid.” For a boy: "I'm a person first, then I'm a boy." CafePress, I’ll be the first in line to buy one!

Women, don't give UP your surnames; give them PRIMACY נשים, תנו שמותכן זכות קדימה

2011-05-25T11:20:00.004+03:00

Please welcome guest blogger Mark Tyler, who recently took his wife's surname:

Yam,

The following explains why I believe the woman's last name should be given primacy rather than given up. In the ongoing discourse about last names, marriage, and children, nearly all of the focus is on the choices that women face upon marriage, i.e., whether to keep their birth names, take their husbands’ surnames, hyphenate, use one name at home and another at work, etc. I propose a totally new approach: On marriage, the woman keeps her surname, the man formally takes his wife's surname, and the children of the couple are given that surname. Further, if an unmarried couple has a child, it is given the mother's surname, while the father retains his surname.

This solution is superior to our (Western) traditional one. One advantage thereof is that with both divorce and single parenthood so prevalent, yet with divorced mothers still obtaining custody nearly 100% of the time, having kids bear their mother’s name simply makes sense. For example, under our current system, Miss Salt marries Mr. Pepper, becomes Mrs. Pepper, and their children are named Pepper. If, as happens about 50% of the time, the Peppers divorce, Mrs. Pepper will likely retain custody of the Pepper children. If she later marries Mr. Marjoram, she becomes Mrs. Marjoram, as will any offspring of that new marriage, resulting in Peppers and Marjorams living at the same address; whereas under my proposal, when Miss Salt first marries, the couple is Mr. and Mrs. Salt, and their children are Salts. After their divorce and Mrs. Salt’s remarriage, the new family – the couple and the kids from both marriages – remain Salts. Far less confusion, I’d say. And radical, too, I admit — yet it makes more sense than the present system.

It becomes even more logical when applied to out-of-wedlock children. Today, it's not uncommon for a single mom to be living with 2 or 3 kids under her roof, each of whom bear a last name other than hers (and each others'). My proposal eliminates that confusion, if not the attendant social dysfunction.

As long as we're being “radical”, let's go a step further and put men and women on equal footing when it comes to identifying their personal statuses, which should be irrelevant to everyone except the IRS and Social Security. Under our current system, men retain their privacy, i.e., they are all "Mr.", whereas women are still marked as "Miss" and “Mrs." despite the fact that "Ms." has uncomfortably coexisted with them for more than 30 years. I therefore propose using “Ms.” for all women and “Mr.” for men - totally equal.

So, to go back to our example with this refinement, Ms. Salt marries Mr. Pepper, he becomes Mr. Salt, she remains Ms. Salt, and their children are named Salt. If, as happens about 50% of the time, the Salts divorce, Ms. Salt will likely retain custody of the Salt children. If she later marries Mr. Marjoram, he becomes Mr. Salt, as will the offspring of that new marriage. So everyone living at that address will be a Salt. While the system is female-centric, it makes profound sense given our societal structure, and it is as even as can be made possible: All men and all women are treated equally when it comes to title. The only difference is that men change names upon marriage, and deal with that issue should there be a divorce.

Should a divorce occur, the man has the option of reclaiming his original surname. Some will, so our first Mr. Salt will revert to being Mr. Pepper; some won't, probably wishing to retain a naming connection to their kids, so our first Mr. Salt will remain Mr. Salt. Either way, from a naming standpoint, the man's decision is irrelevant. Take our Mr. Salt / Mr. Pepper: If he meets Ms. Nutmeg and marries her, he becomes Mr. Nutmeg and their children will be Nutmegs. If they have a child outside marriage, s/he will also be a Nutmeg. Since each child derives her last name solely from her mother, regardless of marriage, the man's naming decision does not matter.

To make one further point, men of course have the option of using their birth surnames in business or whatever other aspect they wish; just their official surname changes upon marriage.If society were to go in this direction, I'm confident we’d all adjust, and women would even have a good laugh or two: Wedding announcements stating, “the groom will retain his name professionally”; men bitching and moaning about all the paperwork involved in a name change. High school reunions will never be the same: The guys will wear the nametags that read “Bill (Clinton) Rodham” and “Tim (Robbins) Sarandon.” And not a few women would look at their daughters proudly and reflect that they will “carry on the family name”.

Mark Tyler

Mark, I congratulate you. Just one note regarding “Ms.” It’s been suggested that “Ms.” largely failed because someone(s) tried to reinvent the wheel, i.e., if instead those women had simply declared that all women, whether married or not, are now “permitted” to use “Mrs.”, “Miss” would’ve dropped off the horizon, along with all the ambivalence associated with “Ms.” So I’ll take this opportunity to re-propose it: Let’s all us women adopt “Mrs.”.

But hold on: Why not take titles to their logical conclusion? In keeping with my claim that gender is a social construct, why not both genders just adopt “Mr.”? If you think about it, in all cases outside of formal business correspondence, any title is superfluous. Why does my magazine address label even need one? As long as they get my name (and address) correct, who cares what my gender is? In cases where gender matters, such as research, the researcher can certainly ask the respondent to indicate it. Otherwise, I can’t think of a single instance wherein an individual seeking to correspond with me needs to know whether I’m a man or a woman. Anyone ready to jump?

Proposed circumcision ban האיסור על ברית מילה על הפרק

2011-05-20T12:12:00.007+03:00

At the behest of my cousin, who blogs here and wondered why I’ve been silent on the proposed circumcision ban, I concede that she’s right; while I don’t have a strong opinion thereon (perhaps because I don't have sons?), after having done my research, which consisted of reading this article and the first page of comments (which seems to cover all the bases), I’ll weigh in. First, though, I’d like to quote two of my favorite comments, the first actually being more appropriate to a discussion of another controversial procedure, but I’ve blogged on that procedure already, so I paraphrase it here:

NotKidding

"It's the anti-abortion people who should oppose circumcision. After all, either they care about those helpless little babies AFTER they are born too...or they are just a bunch of windbags using fake concern for zygotes to try and control women's sexual behavior, and care nothing for the actual infants / children / adults once they are no longer useful as 'punishment' for sex."

Well said, NotKidding!

Jane174596

"At what point does a collection of cells become a baby? Have your own opinion on that? Based upon…? See what I mean? Everyone has their own definitions... You are clearly entitled to oppose abortion... however you are not entitled to restrict my rights based thereon.... It is the woman's choice.... If she believes as you do, then she won't have one…no one is forced to have an abortion; one can only be forced not to.

Back to the topic at hand... how much government interference in our lives are we going to allow?... This might be a pertinent topic IF circumcision were required by law, but it is not. Therefore, once again: It is the individual’s choice, and it should remain so."

Me

What I am getting from the comments is that a small group claims to be extremely concerned about innocent infants’ genitals. Why is that? Who gets this hyped up about this issue?

I don’t buy the HIV prevention, sexual sensation, or aesthetic arguments, either pro or con. In a case like Africa’s, you do whatever it takes to prevent the spread of AIDS and save lives. As for sexual pleasure, it’s a toss-up: Some claim more, some claim less, both intact and circumcised. Aesthetics are certainly a matter of taste. Nor do I believe that banning circumcision makes a society more evolved, just as banning abortion certainly does not make a society more evolved.

I also reject, “It’s child abuse, and where does it end?” I don’t know. Where does it end? So far, it seems to end at the shouts of mazel tov! Circumcison doesn’t fit the parameters of child abuse as the social work and child protection community recognizes it, i.e., circumcisees are not an at-risk juvenile population and are not a risk to society due to their being more likely to grow up to be violent / abusers.

My proposal: Circumcision should be legal provided: 1) a topical anaesthetic is used; 2) health insurance doesn’t cover it. It is, after all, elective. There. Everybody happy?

We have to save our bellies for our husbands? עלינו לשמור את בטנינו לבעלינו

2011-05-19T10:43:00.004+03:00

I’m going to open this piece with the caveat that it’s going to contain a non-PC descriptive phrase, namely “dressing like a slut”. Or alternatively, as this articulate Amazon reviewer put it, "the slut uniform". So if you’re squeamish about what that phrase invokes in your imagination, read no further.*

I justify using this phrase by way of reminding readers that language and words serve us as code; non-PC though it be, “dressing like a slut / tart / hooker” describes an adequately consensual phenomenon, thereby eliminating the need for illustrations complete with arrows and labels and bulleted lists, i.e., when we hear “dresses like a slut”, we each know what we mean.

Now enter Secret Keeper Girl, which I came across in my cyber travels, a concept for Christian girls and their moms that advocates dressing modestly. So far, in light of our over-sexualized, under-parented young population, I’m down with that. The site even features a Truth or Bare Fashion Test designed to help girls dress in the latest styles, yet modestly. The first tip talks about showing too much belly. It explains, “Bellies are intoxicating, and we need to save that for our husbands!”

Well...not exactly. Here’s where my philosophy diverges from theirs: I presume that we don’t want to show too much belly so we don’t look like sluts, i.e., so we’ll be taken seriously, and not just related to as sex objects. This is usually the point where a young woman presuming to be a third-wave feminist chirps, “But I choose to dress this way [revealingly]. It’s my choice to flaunt my body.”

At this juncture, I’d ask said young woman: Are you willing to own that choice? Are you informed about the risks entailed in sex? Do you carry contraceptives with you and know how to use them? Do you know self-defense? Are you as aware of Aunt Ovum as you are of Aunt Flow?

Because “we have to save [our bellies] for our husbands” falls apart if the girl should ultimately reject Christianity, or the part thereof that prohibits physical intimacy outside marriage; whereas the second-wave feminist outlook — “We don’t want to come off like sluts” — will serve her no matter what she ultimately rejects or adopts.

So while I confess I am quite taken with the idea of fashionable-yet-modest, it’s a shame that it’s narrowly associated with religious views. Anyone want to step up to the plate and start a secular version of Secret Keeper Girls? Let’s call it the “Tell it Like it is Girls”!

* I considered “bimbo” instead of “slut”, but decided that no, they’re two different phenomena, thus not synonymous.

If this is "kashrut", count me out "נמאס לי "מכשרות

2011-04-15T11:04:00.003+03:00

Yesterday Haaretz reported on events venues, specifically wedding halls, whose owners have been threatened with loss of their “kashrut” certifications if they host same-sex couples. Note that I put “kashrut” in quotes. The reason is that for me, kashrut is about the spirit, not just the letter, of the law, i.e., it involves ethics, not merely the gushpanka of some mashgiach that the meat and dairy utensils and work surfaces don’t make any contact.

For a certain portion of the public, kashrut certification is akin to an establishment’s certification that it has passed fire, building, and health codes. Accordingly, where secular consumers wouldn’t patronize an establishment lacking the first three, Orthodox consumers won’t patronize an establishment lacking the latter. So in effect, establishments operating without kashrut certification are the victims of an institutionalized boycott: A state-run agency — the rabbinate — is actually violating the law that guarantees freedom of occupation. Furthermore, the rabbinate is now in violation of the Nakba Law, which contains a clause prohibiting state-funded institutions from engaging in incitement. Because after all, what is refusal to host gays but incitement, as it implies that gays are untouchables?

I’m certain that if it hasn’t happened already, wedding halls will be threatened with losing their “kashrut” certificates if they host events wherein there is mixed dancing, or what is deemed morally abhorrent music or other entertainment. So what are we non-Orthodox to do? While turning to the courts is nice (assuming they decide in our favor), it’s time-consuming and costly. Instead, there is something we can do immediately, and that’s ceasing to view ourselves as victims of the Orthodox establishment, and starting to view ourselves exactly as the Orthodox, i.e., a consumer group with power.

A restaurant owner is quoted in the article as saying, “…he was not refused over the issue of kashrut certification,…[but rather because] there was sensitivity at his establishment over the issue of [same-sex] weddings because of his religious clientele.” Well you know what? I’m sensitive to insensitivity. I and my public — the non-Orthodox — have our “special needs” too: We have the “need” to not be complicit in intolerant practices. And the natural followup thereto is to counter-boycott, that is, to boycott venues that have kashrut certification.

Upon giving an affirmative reply to a couple’s inquiry, “Are you kosher?” and then hearing the prospective clients say, “Then no thanks, we’re not interested,” venue owners will sit up and pay attention far faster than they will to some verdict issued after having been dragged through the courts at a glacial pace.

As far as adhering to Jewish dietary restrictions, a certification-free place (they should actually hang signs that say “We’re kashrut-free. We welcome all clientele!”) can meet our needs. The client chooses the menu, after all; all it takes is choosing a meat-only / dairy-only menu that includes only permitted foods. If Orthodox guests are invited, let them do as they would if invited to any event: Decline, or attend but don’t eat, or eat what they deem acceptable (cold produce; soft drinks for instance). It’s not a host’s duty to ensure that every single guest’s dietary limitations are taken into account; it is a host’s duty to make sure to provide enough selection so that every guest can eat something; in any case, no one is going to starve.

Business owners listen to one thing: their bottom line. As soon as non-kosher businesses begin to realize that they’re a niche market, i.e., they serve a certain clientele, they’ll respond accordingly. But first, non-Orthodox consumers must take the initiative. We have to realize our power as a consumer group with our “special needs”, just the same as the Orthodox are recognized as consumers with their “special needs”. We need to fight Rabbinic Rule over our celebrations from the ground up — or shall we say, from the wallet up.

Has Seder gone cutesy? האם סדר פסח הפך ל"פנן"

2011-04-11T12:19:00.009+03:00

When I read this article, I thought I’d plotz: Now we’re supposed to be concerned about the 10 Plagues’ psychological effects on our delicate little tatelehs? I give you a few excerpts from this absurd piece:

“It leads me to wonder,” says Nussbaum. “Is it possible to engage with the Seder’s graphic illustrations of God’s might without leaving the kids emotionally or spiritually scarred?”

Oh, please. This is clearly an attempt to find a “fresh angle” to a festival about which — admit it — everything’s already been said.

“Some of the things [in the Haggadah] sound amazingly scary and awful,” said Miami-based psychotherapist and author M. Gary Neuman.

So now we’re consulting psychotherapists about the Haggada’s effect on the *kinder*? Spare me.

Then we have psychologist Clark Goldstein helpfully advising parents to:

“…take their cues from their children, paying attention to the child’s age and disposition…If the child brings up concerns… address them. Try not to ask leading questions, like, ‘Does that section scare you?’ Let them lead with any concerns or questions they might have.”

Dear God. Was this quote lifted from some Parents’ Guide to Divorce or God Forbid, Death? Have we lost our minds? This is nothing less than a meshugeneh stop along the Coddling Continuum. Disturbing? We were shown Night and Fog at Hebrew School at age nine, and I don’t recall ever even considering approaching my parents about its, shall we say, disturbing aspects. And now we’re supposed to add “Possible Effect of 10 Plagues on Yankeleh’s Sensitive Psyche” to our list of 21st-century Parenting Concerns, underneath Exposure to Germs and Abduction by Sex Predator?

Later on, Neuman adds: “Seder’s focus ‘should be about the children, and connecting to them.”

Says who? Actually, if I hear one more person say this, I’m going to throw myself into a vat of locusts. Let’s take a minute to realign our tires here: The Haggada was compiled between 160 and 360 CE. Granted, the Mishnaic concept of “engaging children” is obviously light years from ours; and certainly no one wants to return to the days of Uncle Moishe or Zaydeh droning through the Haggada so tediously that a vat of locusts would actually have beeen a relief from your boredom, but does that mean we have to go to the other extreme and turn Seder into an episode of Sesame Street?

Cannot Seder be lively and thought-provoking without having to dodge whizzing stuffed frogs and Styrofoam hail? In short, where is it written that engaging has to equal fun? Fun is what Purim is for. Fun is what birthdays are for. Not everything that occurs in the presence of children has to be fun.

The Haggada tells of a solemn, dramatic event, and the telling thereof should be appropriately solemn and dramatic. One of the major themes is to “tell your sons [i.e., children] of the Exodus. I’d venture that the reason Seder is so central to Jews’ collective memory is precisely because of its solemnity and drama. Do we want our kids’ memories of Seder to be no more impactful than an afternoon at Discovery Zone?

Next, I looked up the product pictured with the article, Passover Ten Plagues Finger Puppets. Here’s my Amazon review thereof:

"...products like this are a turn-off for me. First of all, a basic "requirement" for me to buy any Jewish-themed product is the inclusion of Hebrew. Where's the Hebrew? So right away I'm not buying it. The other turn-off is that I'm loath to add anything to the Seder that's not already there, especially if it's something cutesy. You can have a good time at Seder and include the kids without turning it into a nursery school. This is pushing it too far in that direction for me."

It’s not the commercial aspect to which I object; I'm certainly in favor of clever, enterprising innovation. But to purport to sell a Jewish product sans Hebrew? Veto from here: Hebrew is what held us together for over two millennia in the Diaspora; I refuse to patronize any Jewish enterprise that omits it. Even if the recipient doesn’t know Hebrew — and I’m aware that most Jews don’t — the visual of the Hebrew words for the Plagues does have its effect, however small, and does transform the product into something that if not holy, is special: It’s not Just Another Toy in the kids’ collection.

To that end, I wrote to both companies to ask: Where’s the Hebrew? Perhaps if others followed suit, the manufacturers would be convinced to add it; certainly no one would be opposed to its addition, and who knows? It might even boost sales.

I’m not calling for a boycott, here; Lord knows there are more important products to boycott; I simply seek to call attention to the fact that Hebrew is not just another language: It’s our “brand”; without it, we become “generic”. And I’ll jump into a vat of locusts before I let 5,000 years of history go down the drain like so much chametz.

Divorcing? Time to Take Back That Name מתגרשת? הגיע הזמן לקחת את שמך בחזרה

2011-04-05T13:57:00.008+03:00

I recently noticed that, instead of reverting to her birth name, a divorced acquaintance of mine chose to hyphenate her and her ex’s surnames (her children have his surname). When I asked her why, she replied, “For the kids”, i.e., I want them to feel that we share a surname. Another acquaintance, a victim of abuse during her marriage, kept her ex’s surname even though it quite obviously doesn’t even reflect her heritage. Same reason given: the kids.

Both of these women divorced when their kids were young. Clearly, when they were in the “eye of the storm” so to speak, and their kids’ worlds (if not their own) were falling apart, these mothers sought to retain some semblance of order and stability, which is understandable in such a situation.

Yet also clearly — yet nonetheless understandably — they were not looking ahead: They were only looking at the next ten or so years during which anyone — namely schools and Scout troops — were going to care about or relate to the family as a unit. As far as the bureaucracies are concerned, after the age of 18, those children are individuals in their own right; it is no longer relevant who their progenitors are, or certainly if they are linked by a name. They go on to live their lives, presumably for decades, and Mom is stuck bearing the name of a man she may detest. How logical is that?

As soon as a person is an adult, the rest of us don’t have any expectations one way or the other regarding her surname matching those of her parents; in fact, we don’t expect matching names at all. I therefore urge divorcing women who took their husbands’ names at marriage to take the opportunity to remedy a decision they likely now regret, and reclaim their birth names. Not only is it likely to feel liberating during what may be an oppressive time, but the message to one’s children is likely more empowering than it is destablilizing: We make mistakes, but while we can’t go back and undo our mistakes, neither are we bound by them; we can shed the trappings of those mistakes and start anew, which is not synonymous with severing our link to those we love.

Is it the schools' job to foster creativity? זה תפקידם של ביה"ס לטפח יצירתיות

2011-03-29T13:22:00.014+02:00

OK, in the wake of having received for the third time, the link to Ken Robinson’s video Do Schools Kill Creativity? I watched it all the way through, and my responses thereto are interspersed by timepoint:

1:10 - Our kids no longer believe that learning = employment. This is a huge generalization. I believe that middle- and upper-class kids do see the connection; it’s likely true that lower-class kids do not. Yet I’m not sure it’s the schools — or anyone — that are “to blame”. My brother-in-law, who taught for several years at an inner-city school, says that he actually worked alongside dedicated teachers and felt the school did a good job. Yet what did the kids see at home, on the streets? That those earning truckloads of money were the drug dealers, while those with legitimate jobs barely got by.

1:50 - Our present system of education evolved during the Englightenment. That’s right, and it’s no coincidence that it was called that. There’s nothing wrong with a classical education, as exemplified by St. John’s College. The content should not be conflated with the means; just because we might aspire to a classical education does not mean it must necessarily be “inflicted upon” the pupil.

2:43 - Modern schools were necessitated by the Industrial Revolution. Correct. Machinery replaced human (child) labor, women were recruited to the workplace, now what were we to do with the children while their parents were at work? It does not follow that modern schools follow the industrial model (6:37) whereby students are schooled in “batches” called “age groups”. Schools educate by age group because, if you’ve noticed, human development roughly (or not-so-roughly) follows age: Children of a given age have generally mastered certain skills, as well as certain attention spans, impulsiveness, depth perception, and empathy, just to name a few. Sure, a given kid might have achieved proficiency therein at the same rate as kids a year or two older or younger than s/he, but there’s nothing revolutionary in this discovery. That’s why, from middle school onward, the age groupings for certain subjects are fluid. I doubt a six-year-old and a ten-year-old are ordinarily going to get much out of being taught together.

3:15 - the division of pupils into academically inclined / vocationally inclined. I believe that most of us veer toward one or the other, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, here in Israel, educators are talking about “bringing back the vocational track”. I don’t know where it went; from 7th grade on, where I went to school, all students (regardless of gender) could take metal, wood, automotive, foods, and clothing as electives, as well as music and visual arts. And you had to take a certain number of electives. Yes, we were all also required to complete a certain number of credits of English, math, science, PE, and social studies. It seemed fair to me. Yes, the “non-academics” struggled with these, and I struggled in gym. Would it be preferable to have separate vocational high schools where the requirements in the academic subjects are relaxed? In terms of efficiency and economics, the answer is probably yes. But do so and people start to scream “segregation!”

3:27 - “Most of us suffered with the present system”. Another generalization. School was school. Was it a party? No. Was it oppressive? No.

5:42 - the arts are the victims of our present system. My high school was strong in the arts. So is my kids’ high school. So strong is the latter, in fact, that what I believe to be a disproportionate number of the pupils (particularly the girls) are channeled theretoward. I sit in our local clinic, where their work is displayed, and year after year see the same Twiggy-shaped outline of a woman filled in by variations on an Academy Awards gown. This is arts education? Much more impressive work came out of my strict, regimented, conventional high school.

6:08 - we’re educating by anaesthetic in the form of Ritalin. Wrong. TV is an anaesthetic, as evidenced by the brain waves of those viewing it. Instead of sitting in front of screens, our kids should be running around outdoors, feeling real air and real weather, and something other than wall-to-wall carpeting under their feet. And we should be feeding them real food, not processed junk + vitamins to make up the deficit. And we should be spending enough time with them so that we don’t cave to ratcheting up their bedtimes, resulting in sleep deficit.

7:26 - conformity and standardized testing. Ask anyone who knows me: Do I feel the need to conform? The conventional, regimented schools I attended left plenty of room for individuality. Compliance with behavior standards? Yes. When the teacher said, “Form a line. We’re going to music,” I did so. When s/he said, “Get out your science book and turn to page 42,” I did so. Today, when I see a sign that says, “Speed Limit 25 mph,” I slow down and comply. When there’s a line at the checkout, I wait in it. Does this squelch my individuality? I don’t think so.
As for standardized testing, how else are we going to figure out if our kids are gaining proficiency? Why has standardized testing become a dirty word? I took standardized tests; they indicated to the school board if the school was doing its job. The SATs are a standardized test, and no one complains about it. On the contrary, it’s a sacred cow if there ever was one.

8:00 - thinking laterally. I believe it derives from knowledge, not vice versa. What is employment if not problem-solving? In order to solve problems and craft policy, one needs knowledge. In order to do their jobs, George Mitchell and Hillary Clinton need a solid mastery of history and economics, i.e., social studies. Where were they supposed to get these? In art class? Wood shop? I don’t think so. And by the way, artists and chefs need to know history in order to perfect their arts, too.

8:25 - the paper clip example: Even if you’re a genius by this measure, it and education are not mutually exclusive. And by the way, how did they test the children (and retest them at ages 8-10 - 9:25) if not by standard IQ testing?

10:00 - “There’s one answer”. I’m afraid that yes, to certain questions, there is one and only one answer: arithmetic problems, the dates on which events occurred, scientific properties of matter. At the research level, you start to ask questions. But in order to reach that level, and for your research to be respected by your peers, you do need to learn the facts first.

10:10 - No, copying does not equal collaboration. It may sound cute, but saying it doesn’t make it so.

10:32 - wholistic learning. I’m all for it, and I believe that today’s schools lean more in this direction than ever before. Yet it doesn’t mean that the old paradigm is a myth.

10:39 - “Most great learning happens in groups”. This is a broad, broad statement. I’m a loner. Every time the teacher said, “group project”, I cringed. I hated being dependent upon others for the results, or having them dependent upon me. Today I work in solitude, and I love it.

What I find to be absolutely true is:

“…the experience of personal talent meeting personal passion… in this encounter, we feel most ourselves, most inspired, and achieve to our highest level."

— The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything

Yet I wouldn’t have been able to find that passion without a solid grounding in written English; Hebrew (which involved frustration and tears, and was NOT FUN at first); and at least a superficial level of what we call classical education: I’d better know who Plato and Moses were, and if I don’t know what’s meant by Occam’s Razor, I’d better know how to read so I can find out. I just don’t see any way around it, unless we convert all learning into clever animated videos that scrunch dozens of concepts into 11:30 minutes. And even then, our kids would still need the vocabulary(“enlightenment”; “industrial”; “revolution”; “conformity”; “vocation”; “collaboration” -- these few just from glancing at my notes) to benefit therefrom. It could be that there simply are no shortcuts to basic skills.

Free to Be...Pink and Sparkly חופשיה להיות...ורוד ומנצנצת

2011-02-18T10:51:00.003+02:00

My friend and I are having a friendly running argument over whether Free to Be, You and Me “succeeded” or “failed”. I claim it failed, she disagrees. It may be that her POV is influenced by the fact that she’s a few years younger than I, which when speaking of the 1960s and 1970s, may have a significant impact on one’s growing up and memories thereof.

I suppose she’s right in the sense that we wouldn’t claim that the civil rights movement failed because there’s still bigotry; and we wouldn’t say the anti-war movement failed because here we are in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of Vietnam and Cambodia. Those movements did have an impact, if only to call into question established assumptions.

So by the same token, even though I would venture that the message “girls and women can do and be anything, including boxers and doctors” has been internalized, some of the more nuanced messages have not. I’m specifically thinking of William’s Doll, about a boy who wants a doll to the dismay of his father; and Ladies First, about a dainty, princess-like girl who doesn’t believe in running, as it will soil her dress, resulting in her getting eaten by a tiger.

These two examples are what cause me to ask: If Free to Be succeeded, then why do I regularly hear boys call each other “faggot”?; and why does the Princess Consumer Thing seem to have grown even more widespread and tidal-wavelike in its utter permeation of All Things Girl? Why are today’s moms absently humming the title track tune to Free to Be while picking out their daughters’ pink sparkle-drenched princess backpacks? Is there not a collosal disconnect here somewhere?

How come it's only the left-wingers who support democracy?

2011-02-01T14:02:00.008+02:00

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

— Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868–1919), author of The Friends of Voltaire, published in 1906 under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre

What’s happened to the spirit behind the above quote? When, as Dror Katsav asks in his letter that sums it up so well, did democracy become the sole province of the left? This is a frightening situation, not to mention unhealthy.

I partly blame the media. Take this headline, for instance, which violates one of the basic rules of journalism: For a reporter to decide that someone is a “left-winger” or a “right-winger” is to cross the line from reportage to editorializing. A reporter has no business labeling an individual as anything that cannot be objectively verified, for example, the person’s carrying a party membership card on her person — and even that doesn’t give the reporter license to decide anything except that the individual is a Labor member (for instance); it says nothing about her actual views, which may actually be a mix of left and right, with a pinch of anarchy thrown in. The reporter in this case should presume to know nothing about the victim (Emil Grunzweig) except that he happened to be in attendance at a particular demonstration.

A journalistically verifiable and professional headline for this story would have been, then: "Emil Grunzweig Murderer Released". Indeed, the Hebrew headline [my translation] reads “Murderer Yona Avrushmi Released From Prison”. While this is certainly more factual, it doesn’t tell us who Avrushmi is famous for having murdered; after all, murderers are released from prison every day. Does not the victim in this case merit a headline more than his murderer (or at least a street named after him? As opposed to that well-known peace activist King George)?

But I digress. Such skewed headlines appear every day: “Left-winger Injured at Beilin”. Did the reporter interview the injured to find out their political views? What right has she to assume? Is it not theoretically possible that a Likud member believes that the separation fence route is unjust and went to Beilin that Friday? Yet such is inconceivable to the Israeli mind. Here in Israel, we march in lockstep as per the dichotomy: believes in freedom of speech, fair housing, and civil rights for minorities = left wing. Any other scenario is unimaginable.

Take another hypothetical headline: “Haredim Protest Sabbath Traffic on Bar-Ilan Road”. Technically, the reporter cannot ascertain the protestors’ theologies. A headline that would better serve the reader would read: “Jerusalemites Protest Sabbath Traffic”, for the only thing that can be verified about the protestors is their place of residence. Yes, as far as a reporter is concerned, an individual’s color, race, faith, nationality, ethnic group, or even gender don’t exist unless 1) it can be objectively verified and 2) it’s relevant to the story. Otherwise, as far as the reporter is concerned, the event happened to a two-year-old [no gender], a protestor, or a Jerusalemite.

The breaching of these time-honored journalistic rules feeds our dichotomous thinking. The only thing we know about a protester is what s/he is protesting against, i.e., hopefully bigotry, injustice, and discrimination. It is incumbent upon us, and especially upon the journalists among us, to create an environment wherein we all feel comfortable speaking out against the above three; in a democracy, this noble task is not relegated to those who subscribe to a particular ideology — it should be a tenet of everyone’s ideology.

raging hormones = not accountable הורמונים רותחים = אין אחריותיות

2011-01-06T14:36:00.004+02:00

Pursuant to my Bristol and Abstinence post, I discovered this excellent slide show comparing US and European attitudes toward teen sex.

Note: The <> symbols are actually links that you click to progress from slide to slide.

I was particularly struck by the assertion that Americans are convinced that teen hormones are “raging”. I never questioned it until now, but it’s quite possible that this is an assumption rather than a universal, science-supported fact. While there’s no doubt that hormonal activity is elevated in adolescence, is it not possible that the constant refrain of “raging hormones” simply gives teens a pass? In other words, might all the talk about raging hormones be interpreted by a teen as “Well, my hormones are out of control, therefore they control me, therefore I’m not accountable for my actions while ‘under the influence’”.

Would it not instead make more sense to present sex like any adult fun (alcohol, for instance): pleasurable, but it does have the potential to be misused or to impair judgement, so use it wisely and responsibly?

As for those who claim that engaging in sex before marriage constitutes betraying one’s future spouse, or that it weakens marriages, let’s look at the divorce rate in the Netherlands. Hmmm, let’s see: Half that of the US.

In short, picture it: Lots of teens doing it, using lots of condoms, all awash in various contraceptive gels, creams, and foams, with close to no unplanned pregnancies. Works for me.

I'll close with an irreverent quote (my favorite kind) from the But I’m a Cheerleader comment board:
"Those who place so much emphasis on their anti-abortion stance should be focusing on educating and providing contraceptives to those at risk of unwanted pregnancies rather than arguing over when one's soul gets inserted into one's physical body."

Time management: The new "women's thing"

2010-12-10T12:19:00.007+02:00

I was just recalling how in the 1990s, the moms who had kids my kids’ ages always seemed to be plotting “Girls’ Nights Out” getaways, for which I could never work up any enthusiasm. There seemed to be an underlying sentiment of “let’s escape our meany husbands. We’ll show them! We’ll go out together!” Whereas all I wanted to do once the kids were in bed was either spend scarce time with my husband or hit the hay myself. I definitely had neither the inclination nor the energy to pile into a car and drive 45 minutes round trip to “seek refuge” with a bunch of women — or with anybody. Nothing sounded less relaxing.

Now the trend for adult women seems to be “getting my life organized”. Every other woman you meet claims to have “adult ADD”, or “ADD that went undiagnosed in childhood”. There’s a burgeoning industry aiming its products at this population, from life coaching to dedicated planners (since your Outlook sync-ed with your smartphone isn’t enough). Now I find this interesting: Boys are diagnosed with ADHD three times more often than are girls. Why, then, do I know so many women who claim to be ADD, while I can think of only one man who believes he is / was ADD (meaning he believes he is now, and was undiagnosed as a kid). Are all the not-diagnosed-as-children females now crawling out of the woodwork as adults? Perhaps, but I have another theory:

More moms work full-time now than a generation ago, including more single moms, of which there are both more in raw numbers and which make up a larger proportion of moms than they did a generation ago. That’s a lot of overwhelmed women, dancing as fast as they can to maintain a career (or just a job) as well as a household. And the men? They’ve never been expected to do as much householding as the women are, so little has changed for them: As kids, Mommy did all the heavy lifting carewise, and as adults, his mate does all the heavy lifting household- and carewise; the same attention span that served him (or didn’t) as a child, is serving him just fine as an adult. Whereas women’s attention spans are required to reach miles further than they did as kids, as well as miles further than the previous generations of women. Ergo, all the time management courses, dedicated planners, and life coaches.

Heck, I’d be at an attention deficit too if I didn’t have a partner who has my back. My guess is that a lot of the “adult ADD” among women would disappear if their partners, or the fathers of their kids, would hold up their end of the deal, by which I mean ALL it takes to run a household, which in my book includes child care and supervision; transportation; health care (meaning both appointments AND delousing); administrative duties (finances, social calendar, contact w/ schools); shopping (for groceries AND clothing AND school supplies AND birthday presents), cleanup and tidying; home, lawn, garden, and auto maintenance; meal planning and prep, including lunches, and on and on and on. In other words, scratch a woman who suffers from "adult ADD", and chances are you'll find a man in the equation who’s not pulling his weight.

Added Friday January 7, 2011: Just read yesterday that the Health Ministry is pulling Ritalin for adults from the health basket. I think I'm in favor.

Bristol and Abstinence בריסטול והמנעות

2010-12-06T15:12:00.012+02:00

Here I come, out of the closet. Confession: I’m a Bristol-watcher. Palin, that is. Ever since hockey-mom Sarah was nominated for the Vice Presidency, this family has been my window into the abstinence-only world of reproduction (that shouldn’t be happening in the same sentence, should it?). First things first: I think Bristol did a terrific job on Dancing With the Stars. I have no critique of her performance, despite the more than 1,400 comments generated by the Washington Post piece thereon, which quickly deteriorated into a bash-the-other-sideFest of which the commentors of both parties should be ashamed — not for bashing each other; that’s natural — but rather for failing to distinguish between fluff entertainment and politics.

My critique of Bristol is twofold. First of all, if, as she says, parenting is a 24-hour job, then why is she engaging in endeavors (dance competitions, speaking engagements, PSAs) that take her thousands of miles away from her not-yet-two-year-old?

Secondly, if she advocates sexual abstinence, what is she doing dancing provocatively in revealing costumes before millions of viewers? I know, I know: Sexy does not equal sexual, and being sexy does not equal engaging in sex. Still, I have a hard time ignoring the link between overtly seductive behavior — even if it’s pretend — and actual sex. Is there not a mixed message here?

I don’t know about others, but for me the mixed message here is about as hard to miss as the broad side of a barn, as is the illogic of abstinence-only education. My problem with AOE goes beyond the fact that it doesn’t work, ditto for its advocacy. My problem lies in this niggling sense I have that in their zeal to eradicate abortion, AOE advocates have lost sight of these starting-with-a-handicap girls and their babies.

Because I’ll give the AOE advocates credit for reading the stats, they have to
know that AOE doesn’t work: AOE-educated teens are still having sex (albeit delayed by an average of 18 months behind their non-AOE-educated peers — great, so 17-year-olds are doing it instead of 16-year-olds…only the former are 66% less likely than the latter to use protection) and still getting pregnant. So the AOE advocates know that babies “slip through” their net, and at the same rate as non-AOE babies. So where’s the Christian right’s zeal about young women’s futures? I suspect it’s trampled over by the ultimate goal of maintaining patriarchy.

Besides that, though, what’s going on here? Why are the AOE advocates willing to let babies “slip through”? I have a theory: We, all of us, pro- and anti-abortion, are secretly titillated by the image of a teen mom, and I have a hunch that it stems from the iconology of the Madonna. Why, then, is Europe so much more liberal about reproductive education and abortion than the US? I believe it has to do with our Puritan roots, which is why I don’t foresee any rapprochement on this issue: The Christian right simply sees terminating a pregnancy as a more grievous abomination unto the Lord than compelling a teenager, who has the most pessimistic profile for parenting, to give birth. Because after all, there’s life after having a baby at age 17: Just look at Bristol Palin.

The Jew & the Travel Agent היהודי וסוכן הנסיעות

2010-10-14T11:42:00.007+02:00

Yesterday, my husband, who’s shopping for a good pre-Passover fare to the States, told me of an Orthodox travel agent (probably not the only one) who won’t sell anyone an itinerary any part of which will compel the passenger to travel on the Sabbath. This of course raised my “parochialism-versus-civil-society” antenna. The following conversation ensued:

Me: How does he know you’re Jewish? The only document you're required to show him is your passport. Your religion isn’t listed on your passport [yet! Stay tuned…].

Him: Well, Plony Almony [acquaintance whose surname is typically Jewish] went to him, and he refused her.

Me: So he’s just assuming she’s Jewish because of her name. He has no actual proof.

So not only is Travel Agent claiming to be able to ascertain his clients’ ethnicity, but of course the real test would be if someone named Muhammed Abu-Salaam walked in and asked for a Shabbes-violating itinerary. If he is sold his ticket, then we have proof that Travel Agent is actually refusing service to certain customers (Jews, according to his own Jewish-o-meter) on the basis of their religion, which I presume to be illegal.

While I don’t have time to test this case, I believe it’s worth bringing to readers’ attention in order to illustrate what a Chelm we’ve created here on the decidedly flimsy basis of something called the “Jewish character of the state”. Not only is this “Jewish character” vague and doesn’t stand up to any Western standards of due process, but it derives from an unsophisticated, Hebrew school-level perception of Israel as a place where Jewish visitors ooh and aah over the taxi driver telling them “Shabbat shalom”…and isn’t it just adorable that the travel agent won’t sell you a ticket for a plane that takes off on Shabbes?!

By now, we as a modern Western country should have advanced past the rapture stage of a summer teen tour participant walking down Ben-Yehuda mall on a first-time-in-Israel Temple Mount High murmuring in stoned wonder, “Far out! Everyone here’s Jewish!” Because to do so is to remain in a state of national arrested development.

It’s time we grew up and faced the challenging, complex, not-as-much-fun-for-the-majority reality that we’re not all Jewish: That fully 25% of us have needs and desires, for instance, the need or desire to travel on the Jewish Sabbath, whether to visit a relative in another town or another country; or to purchase goods on the Jewish Sabbath. And those 25% (plus a large chunk of the other 75%) should not be constrained by the Jewish Sabbath.

It’s time we let go of our fear of losing our “blankie” that we call the state’s “Jewish character”: We’re grownups now; time to put aside our childhood security objects and face life as mature, adult citizens of a democracy.

Of loyalty oaths and playgrounds על השבעות נאמנות ומגרשי משחק

2010-10-10T21:11:00.011+02:00

Two things about Israel “get to” me. Well OK, more than two, but two specifically that to me symbolize lack of Western values and quality of life: 1) No public transportation on the Sabbath. Try exiting Jerusalem on a Saturday night; it’s like Escape From Alcatraz; 2) The first thing I notice about Arab-populated areas is that the kids always seem to be playing in weedy vacant lots; where are the playgrounds? Lack of playgrounds is the visual hallmark of an underserved population.

Therefore, after reading of the disgraceful proposal that “non-Jewish”* candidates for Israeli citizenship be required to swear an oath of allegiance to a “Jewish, democratic state”, I decided that if ever citizens are ever required to sign a loyalty oath, I will say, “Fine. You want me to swear allegiance? No problem. I will sign this document”, and will take out a red pen and amend the oath to read:

“…Jewish[1] …democratic[2]”

[1]- As per the definition: A country wherein public transportation operates seven days a week, 365 days a year

[2] - A country wherein a minimum of one dunam of European-standard playground area, with safe, functioning equipment, is available to every 50 children under the age of 10, within a kilometer radius of their places of residence.

If as a result, my citizenship is revoked, you'll find me at Ben-Gurion Airport wearing a t-shirt that reads יהודים לא מגרשים יהודים! [“Jews don’t deport Jews!”].

*Whatever that means, since we haven’t managed to decided what a Jew actually is

Kids in business establishments ילדים בבתי עסק

2010-10-08T13:21:00.003+02:00

Even though the topic of this post is parenting-related, it’s one that everyone’s got an opinion on, so everyone’s welcome to join in the fray. I’m taking issue with the seemingly universal axiom that “kids should be taken out in public; otherwise how will they ever learn how to behave there?”

I postulate that the pendulum has swung too far in the take-‘em-everywhere direction. I actually can't think of a single reason to take a child below the age of about eight to a store or a mall, or any retail establishment, unless they themselves need clothing, and even then, for instance, my mom’s solution was to stop in at a discount store on her way home from work and buy me half a dozen inexpensive dresses or pairs of pants, let me try them on at home and choose, and return the ones I didn’t want the following day. My mom’s method was simply efficient: Why would anyone opt to take hizzer kid to the Land of Temptation and $$$pending when s/he doesn’t absolutely have to?

The only exception I can think of would be single working parents who have no alternative, i.e., no one to watch their child while they do their shopping. Otherwise, why would anyone be under the impression that any effective commerce could be carried out with a child in tow? Besides which, why would anyone deliberately put their child through the predictable exercise of being tempted by all the colors, shiny stuff, and products that they can’t touch, handle, or own? Why?

A fellow commenter on Tell Me About It argues, “The first trips to any place are going to involve a learning curve, no matter what age that first trip is at.” I disagree. I believe that most people over the age of about 14, taken to their first opera, would be able to sit quietly without disrupting the performance, despite never having been to the opera before. Would there have been value in taking them while the “learning curve” was still in process? Similarly, I’d be willing to bet that upon being taken to Target for the first time at the age of eight, an Amish child who’s never seen the inside of a discount emporium, would not run up and down the aisles squealing, grabbing items off the shelves, and demanding to be bought toys and candy.

That’s because Amish (and ultra-Orthodox, etc.) kids of both genders are expected to adhere to “opera behavior standards” when out in public. When our kids hear us say “boys will be boys (i.e., rambunctious)”, our sons get license to behave rambunctiously, and our daughters learn that girls are supposed to be the opposite, i.e., docile. So the boys act up, the ‘rents can’t handle it, and put ‘em in treatment. Why not instead hold our sons to the same behavior expectations as we do our daughters, i.e., cooperative and well-behaved? No doubt because cooperative and well-behaved boys in our society are termed “sissies” instead of “civilized human beings”.

But back to retail establishments -- which we as a society seem to have forgotten are places where business is transacted, and have confused with places of entertainment -- to which I have a problem bringing small children. I’m not suggesting that they be sequestered with their parents under house arrest until they’re “opera-ready”. There are plenty of public places where toddlers belong:

1. The playground (free!) with lots of healthy snacks brought along
2. A public swimming pool or beach (reasonable membership rates)
3. A Discovery Zone if weather is inclement
4. The public libraries, which run wonderful children’s programs, all free

Note that the above are all public, non-sequestered places, yet they are not places where business is transacted (other than paying the entry fee).

You simply must show Junior the latest movie? That’s what DVDs are for. Why are parents of two- and three-year-olds under the delusion that their children can sit through an entire performance, even a children’s play? Eating out? Well, 21st-century parents should consider themselves fortunate that McDonald’s offers a play area; otherwise feed kids at home until they can handle the IHOP or Denny’s, then progress “up the sophistication ladder” from there. There’s no nobility in the parental boast, “Oh we just take her along everywhere!”

"We didn't start the fire..." הפסיקו לכבות שריפות

2010-10-01T11:50:00.004+02:00

Reading this article ע about gender dividers down Mea Shearim’s main street was frustrating for me, yet not for the obvious reasons. I’m more frustrated by the response of the seculars to this latest Khomeinization measure than I am to the actual barriers. Instead of once again “running to Mommy” to tattle and demand that “she” intervene from above in this endless quarrel, why don’t the female activists and elected officials inject some inspiration and humor into the struggle, a la the Supermarket Stripper? Instead of unproductive hand-wringing and putting out fires, why not engage in what’s sorely missing in this country: grassroots activism and civil disobedience? For example, the female activists could have done one or more of the following:

1. Gone to the site in the dead of night and silently removed the fabric from the barrier
2. Strolled up and down the divided street dressed in their usual garb
3. Strolled up and down the street dressed in swimsuits
4. Strolled up and down the street dressed in swimsuits, reciting tehilim [Psalms]
5. Gotten a bunch of male friends to dress as women and stroll up and down the street, reciting Psalms, or not

Get the idea? And if approached by police or residents, say they’re not violating any law. Same goes for the mehadrin [gender-separate] buses. Why not:

1. Board the bus wearing swimsuits?
2. Get a bunch of males dressed in women’s clothing to board and insist on sitting in the back?
3. If approached, respond by quoting a Psalm?

Or as I suggested in a previous post on the “battle for Kiryat Yovel”, instead of fighting the zoning-defying minyan [prayer quorum], go join them: Send a delegation of 50 non-Orthodox men to the home in question, who announce upon entering, “We heard there’s a minyan here. We want to pray.”

Road closed on the Sabbath because the city bowed to Orthodox pressure? No problem: Recruit a dozen swimsuit-wearing folks to stroll up and down it just as folks are going to or coming from shul. Too cold for swimwear? Then wear your usual garb and sing songs from the Bible.

In other words, turn the situation on its head. Challenge assumptions. Demonstrate to the public the absurdity of these situations. Secular activists, are you listening?

Segueing onto the topic of secular values, I’m reading ארבעה בתים וגעגוע by Eshkol Nevó (I believe the English title is Homesick). In it, a man tries to persuade his wife to enroll their son in the (low-low priced, extended-day) Orthodox preschool. He asks her, “What’s wrong with him learning a little Judaism? A few values?” This is an oft-heard question posed by the Orthodox when trying to persuade Jewish parents to enroll their children in Orthodox schools. After all, who would oppose their kids having values? But it got me to thinking: Why are values so inextricably associated with mitzva observance? Why can’t / don’t us non-Orthodox seem to be able to pass on humanist values to our kids?

I believe the answer is that progressive, liberal people, both Jewish and otherwise, tend to be so concerned with tolerance and pluralism that they forget to actually talk to their kids about these values; they figure they’re living them, so their kids will simply…what? Absorb it all by osmosis? It’s time for us liberal parents to take a leaf from the right-wing parents’ books and start talking at home, to our children. We don’t have to preach, and we don’t have to trash anyone; all we have to do is comment on any current news item and ask our kids what they think. Get a conversation started, and don’t be afraid to let your kids hear your opinion.

If you’re ambivalent about an issue, say so: “The occupation is unjust, but I can’t see ending it without a civil war. How would you propose we end it?” There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that every solution creates new challenges. How else will we raise a generation of problem-solvers? Even kids in the primary grades can learn the lexicon: “occupation”; “settlements”, and “territories” can be explained at their level. These are not dirty words, and there’s no reason to avoid using these terms in everyday conversation; our kids should hear us utter them: After all, in right-wing households, the kids regularly hear about building the Greater Land of Israel and expanding the settlements being God’s mandate. So why are we uncomforable talking to our kids about speaking out against oppression and injustice being committed in our names?

I once overheard an atheist mom twisting herself into a pretzel trying to answer her child’s question: “What’s God? Do we believe in God?” She was trying to walk the tightrope of political correctness with a three-year-old! And we are all That Mom: We’re so fearful of being politically incorrect that we forget to pass on our (humanist) values to our kids.

Guess what? Our kids will not absorb these by osmosis like they (unfortunately) absorb every jingle, commercial, and hit song plugged into their brains via their music players. That stuff is candy; we need to feed them vegetables. We’re not talking force-feeding; just arrange the nutritious stuff attractively on a plate and set it out where they can easily get to it. They’ll bite.

Do blue laws dovetail with Jewish observance? האם האיסור על קניות בשבת תואם לשמירת המצוות

2010-09-14T11:16:00.006+02:00

Those who know me can attest to the extent of my caring about our planet and my loathing of the consumer culture. And those who know me can attest to my loathing of the mixing of state and religion. That's why I have a problem with the conclusions that Rachel Talshir draws עברית from the fact that our entire country goes into Consumer Paralysis Mode on Yom Kippur.

The explanation that the Orthodox give for their demand that retail establishments close on Sabbath and Yom Tovim is that if the latter were to remain open, other Jews (not themselves, heaven forfend) would then shop and violate the Sabbath. In other words, the problem isn't that they themselves would be thus tempted, but rather that violation of the Sabbath, by any Jews, would occur.

I find this reasoning offensive in its blatant paternalism: Though not Orthodox, I choose not to engage in retail transactions on the Sabbath because I see value therein; it's irrelevant whether others so indulge. Moreover, the demand that there be no retail engaged in on our Sabbath necessarily diminishes the human value of those non-Jews who wish to so engage. In other words, the Orthodox are saying, "Our need to prevent our Sabbath from being violated (as if that were possible in any case) trumps the needs or desires of anyone who isn't of our faith." It's unfortunate that few Orthodox will allow themselves to be exposed to a courageous Christian cleric like the one who said, " Any religion that must depend upon the state to do what it cannot do [i.e., force the citizenry to observe the commandments] is not worthy of existence...even Christianity." The very belief that any legislation reduces Sabbath-violating can fairly be described as madness.

I therefore admit to being positively gleeful when I read of the sweeping profits earned by those stores that did remain open on Rosh haShana [could not find link]. Of course it appears the Orthodox have no trouble looking the other way when such stores are where the goyim shop (referring to Tiv Taam, a chain patronized heavily by non-Jewish consumers); it's only us fellow Jews' abominations they're worried about.

While I'm all for consuming less, including of course less fossil fuel, I absolutely oppose the government piggybacking on religion to make it so. There are plenty of government interventions that I support solidly, such as investing in public transportation, levying tolls on cars entering cities, and mandating recycling (by the way, do the Orthodox lobby for these measures?), but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that blue laws are somehow a good thing for the entire Israeli public.

The College of Your Choice אוניברסיטאות אמריקאיות

2010-09-07T13:34:00.005+03:00

Inspired by this New Yorker article, coupled with years of listening to 11th and 12th graders and their parents agonize over “getting into a good school”, here’s my advice to the agonizers:

Forget all about which schools have “a great X department”; the only time that will be relevant is if and when you apply to grad school. For earning a bachelor’s degree, your enjoyment without breaking the bank should be your priority. Pick a part of the country that’s always intrigued you, choose a state school(s) therein, and apply. Why?

First of all, until I got to college, I had no idea how common transferring is. This decision that looks So Fateful when you’re opening those acceptance envelopes should be de-mystified. Try this factlet on for size: Half of all graduating seniors did not start out at their schools as freshman.

Secondly, this may be the last time in your life when you get to choose where you’ll live. Soon enough your choices will be constricted by employment, aging parents, special-needs siblings or children, or those of a partner. Why blow this jewel of an opportunity so you can later say you attended Fancy Name College?

Finally, I wouldn’t do this post justice if I didn’t air-raid against the Great Brainwash of the Private College. It’s a shame how many families pursue the myth called “a good college”, the main claim of which is that public higher education is inferior. Why would any sane person dig herself deep in debt in exchange for a piece of paper that is only marginally more valuable — if at all — than an equivalent piece of paper purchased at a fraction of the cost?

A four-year degree is just the beginning of a life journey that in most cases consists of three or more career moves; it is therefore in actuality merely a ticket to either a job that doesn’t require a hairnet, or grad school. What one does in either of these post-B.A. worlds determines much more strongly one’s path and one’s success thereon than does what university you attended. Two anecdotes illustrate:

An acquaintance who attended community college and then continued at an Ivy League school tells of her community college instructors and how skilled they were at enthusing their students about the material. She was therefore shocked on her first day at Penn, when the professor stood on the podium staring at his shoes, then looked up and greeted the full auditorium with, “I don’t like teaching. It interferes with my research.” In complete seriousness.

VoteForTheLeastWorst, a reviewer on Amazon: “My brilliant community college communications professor told us a wonderful story on our first day. She was at Harvard for a conference, and decided to check out the bookstore and their communications textbook selection. What did she find? That my good ol' publicly funded community college uses the exact same book Harvard uses, for the exact same communication class. I paid $39 a credit hour for my education; Harvard students pay $800 a credit hour for theirs. Who's dumber?”

More on this subject at http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/09/12/why-are-colleges-so-selective/the-perils-of-being-a-perfect-student

Ariel: It's the occupation, stupid אריאל: זהו הכיבוש, טיפשון

2010-09-01T11:36:00.009+03:00

May I add my two zuzim to the Ariel theater “boycott” fray?
First of all, let’s get our terms straight. Or rather, let Limor Livnat et al. get their terms straight:
1. What a boycott is: an economic tool used to pressure a seller into ceasing a certain practice perceived by consumers to be unlawful, unfair, or inhumane
2. What a boycott is not: a social taboo, i.e., sleeping with one’s mother

When Livnat decries a “boycott from within”, I say: You can decry all you want, but from within or without, it’s legitimate to boycott an institution. For instance, I choose to boycott products made by Nestle, which now owns chunks of both Telma and Osem. So yes, in a miniscule way, I’m harming my own (Israel’s) economy. Does this mean it’s not my right to boycott it? After all, it’s “a boycott from within”.

3. What the theater personnel are actually doing: striking. That’s right: They’ve declared that they will not work under certain conditions. Prime Minister Netanyahu claims that their threatened actions are illegitimate because their employers — the theaters — are state-subsidized. Interesting. Last time I checked, teachers, firefighters, nurses, EMTs, and airport personnel are also state employees, and we’ve all certainly suffered the effects of their strikes. Therefore logic dictates that if there is a work dispute, it should be referred to the Labor Ministry, not the Patriotism Police, much as Livnat no doubt wishes there were such a thing.

Now let’s turn our attention to one of the popular arguments against the actors’ strike, that claiming that “Successive (read: Labor) governments supported the settlement enterprise, so it is unacceptable to turn our backs on it now”.

First of all, this is a transparent smear at the left, i.e., “Your once-powerful party started this thing, and now you have the chutzpa to oppose it.” This argument is disingenuous at the least, as we all know that many of us, despite having perhaps voted for Labor, opposed the settlements even as Labor established them, as we hoped to influence those whom we saw as our representatives to stop doing so.

Moreover, is the fact that one’s government made mistakes a reason to throw good money after bad? Many governments have backed or actively engaged in spilling effluent into and over-fishing our oceans, over-timbering the Pacific Northwest, and decimating our rainforests. Does that mean we should just continue engaging in these unsustainable practices? Because that’s what the settlement enterprise is: One can argue whether it’s right or wrong, good or evil. But whichever it is, it’s indisputably unsustainable, which in itself is a reason to do a U-turn and not continue down the Greater Land of Israel Collision Course.

Now let’s look at a term that’s being excavated from the media antiquities and bandied about: Ariel was enticingly advertised as being “five minutes’ drive from Kfar Saba”, the subtext of which is: “You get the scenery of Samaria with the convenience of a nearby city, which includes shopping, services, and entertainment, a five-minute drive for which is a low price”. So, the settlers paid their money and made their choice: They chose Samarian scenery over living inside the Green Line; therefore let them drive five minutes to see theater. The majority of Israelis live further than a five-minute drive from a theater, so what makes living in Ariel such a particular hardship?

The actors’ strike was inevitable; it’s a natural response to a policy that they oppose, and it won’t be the last. For their part, the Palis are perfectly situated to ensure that the building freeze never thaws: All they have to do is not show up for work on September 27th, i.e., a strike. What could be simpler? If all who oppose the settlements were to donate to a strike fund for those Palis who earn their livelihoods doing construction work in the settlements, we'd have enough to at least stop work for a while, during which we should demonstrate, but not in Rabin Square. Instead, we should form a human chain stretching from the Defense Ministry Compound to the remotest hilltop settlements, carrying banners proclaiming, "העם אינו עם השומרון"; "Settlers, you're outside the consensus"; and "Israelis Against the Settlements"; and make sure CNN is there with cameras rolling (to quote my talkback to Bradley Burston's heart-stopping piece on the settlements).

Welcome to the new classroom ברוכים הבאים לכיתה החדשה

2010-08-24T14:01:00.007+03:00

I happened into a blog called The Unbearable Lightness of Teaching. This post is titled The Wiki Classroom, which headline alone gives me the creeps, as “Wiki” means “quick”, implying that the process of gaining knowledge should resemble that of making a cake from a mix. Moreover, I found flaws in the author’s argument, which appears to be that the classroom should suit itself to the pupil, and not vice versa. I’ll take it point by point:

“Broadcast learning of old was teacher-centered, molding to the teacher’s own flair and style. It was an inflexible, one-size-fits-all method that utilized individualistic learning.”

How can something be inflexible and individualistic? Isn’t that a contradiction?

“The teacher must follow an interactive model to grasp and hold the learners’ attention, and must present them with real-world applications and issues to which they must synthesize, analyze, and respond.”

This is the core of what concerns me. The above basically describes teacher-as-television: It used to be the student’s job to pay attention to the teacher; now it’s the teacher’s job to “grasp and hold the learners’ attention”. Why should this be? School is not meant to be fun. That’s not to say that it should be intentionally unpleasant; but a world where all knowledge must be Relevant Right Now is a scary one indeed for the likes of us who value the liberal arts.

“Nearly half of those who drop out of high school found school uninteresting or boring, and 70% of these felt unmotivated or found the material irrelevant.”

This is news? Wasn’t this always the case? You mean to tell me that 30 years ago, dropouts found school relevant and interesting, and felt motivated? So now we’re supposed to change the schools to fit…the dropouts?

“Teachers are no longer endless supplies of knowledge; [they can be] circumvented entirely by the Internet.”

Right, but only if one knows how to read, and how to use a computer for something besides Mortal Kombat. You’re saying dropouts drop out because they can now get all the knowledge they need from the Web? I'm trying to picture the dropouts spending their days at the computer, diligently logged onto distance courses in trig and world history...and the signal in my brain is all fuzzy.

What concerns me about this post is the assertion that “Teachers must be prepared to adapt to this generation so that the classroom becomes an extension of their lives.”

Disagree. The classroom should actually be a haven from the plugged-in, wired, constant stream of electronic noise coming at the pupils. It should be a place with decorum (remember that word?), where an atmosphere conducive to learning prevails.
If it starts to resemble MTV, how are the kids going to tell the difference between weekdays and weekends?

What's a male? מיהו זכר

2010-08-23T14:30:00.004+03:00

This recent article עברית about a same-sex couple that was refused a family admission to two national park sites got me to thinking about the actual encounter between the family in the story and the employees who refused them admission. Aside from the obvious disgraceful, blatant discrimination involved, another, less explicit yet no less insidious phenomenon is at work here, namely our arrogant presumptions regarding “what is a man” and “what is a woman”.

In both cases, as far as we know (the article does not say that in either case they were required to show their ID cards, on which one’s gender is specified) the employee attempting to bar the couple from entrance based on their family membership clearly assumed both adults to be a particular sex (in this case male) based on what they saw, i.e., based on their assumptions about gender combined with the mens’ actual appearances. Supposing, though, that one of the men had no facial hair, wore his hair long, and wore typically feminine clothing or jewelry. Would the couple then have been admitted? I believe it is safe to presume so.

This puts me in mind of blacks “passing”, a phenomenon engaged in during the 20th century under circumstances wherein blacks were not allowed into certain establishments. The success of passing was entirely based on the assumptions whites held about “what a Negro looks like”, which did not include light complexions and / or Caucasian features.

What I conclude from both phenomena described herein is that both race and gender are nearly wholly socio-cultural (as opposed to biological) constructs: We see what we want to see, i.e., “we” in the case of passing being the members of the white majority; and “we” in the former case being “the vast majority of society that conforms in appearance to what it believes a girl / woman / boy / man ought to look like”. Just another illustration of why I can’t let go of my quixotic crusade to banish gender stereotypes from society. And in closing:

When her child was two, a friend took a parenting class. At the final session, my friend asked the facilatator (a family therapist) what serious problems brought more families to her office than any others. Without even pausing to think, the facilitator replied that with the exception of actual abuse, it was relatives (parents and grandparents specifically) who failed to love a child for who that child is, but instead constantly dinned into the child's ears what a disappointment s/he was.

Among the specific examples the therapist cited: the child who comes from three generations of doctors and lawyers, and wants a career in the arts; the child whose family is heavily into competitive athletics, yet has no interest in sports; and children who do not meet their parents' expectations for gender attire or behavior.
Parents and others who love children, take note...

The Sloshing of the Levant הצפת הלוונט

2010-08-15T11:20:00.003+03:00

There's only one statement with which I disagree in this excellent article[1] by David Elkan about our water situation (hint: It's bad):
השימוש במים כאן יעיל וחסכוני מאוד בהשוואה למדינות אחרות, הן מבחינה מערכתית והן ברמת השימוש האישי.
English: “Water use here is very efficient and economical compared to [that in] other countries, both system-wide and in terms of household use.”

Has Elkan ever seen a native-born Israeli wash her floor? I recall being dumbfounded when I first encountered this phenomenon in 1978. My roommate at Tel Aviv University announced that being Friday, it was time to wash the floor. She handed me a squeegee and proceeded to pour bucketsful of sudsy water throughout the apartment, instructing me to squeegee it out…out where? Out the door? Into the stairwell? And what about rinsing? I was raised with the foreign notion that soap needs to be rinsed off on order for the soaped-up object to actually be deemed clean. Apparently different rules apply here: Soap grunge accumulated in corners, around the edges of the rooms, and around furniture legs apparently "doesn't exist".

I, a newbie to the system, was confused. Isn't Israel an arid region? Aren't we supposed to conserve water? Then why are people behaving as if they live in Canada, or northern Europe? And don't the majority of Israelis live in multi-storey dwellings? So who invented this rule that you pour water like there's no tomorrow, then squeegee it outside?

This went beyond denial; there appeared to be a total disconnect between "the proper way to wash an Israeli floor" and reality. I theorize that the immigrants in the early days of the state, both European and Middle Eastern, somehow sought to prove to themselves that they were now in a modern country with all the amenities, i.e., if water came out of a tap, there must be plenty of it. It's the only explanation I have for this bizarre floor-washing obsession.

I observed more of the same in the kibbutz children's houses where I worked. On one occasion I was even reprimanded for leaving squeegee tracks on the just-washed floor. It was then that I resolved that if I were ever to be in charge in a children's house, I was going to wet-mop the floor. With plain water. No pouring, no squeegeeing, no soap grunge. I found validation for my resolution in Martha Meisel's householding column in the Jerusalem Post. Remember her? She actually interviewed the manufacturer of the ubiquitous terrazzo tiles that were standard flooring up until this century. She asked the manufacturer what the optimal product is for washing his tiles. The reply? "Water"[2]. Hah! I knew it! We don't need all those suds! Now I had facts to back up my "foreign notions".

My day finally arrived. I was working in the kindergarten and was instructed to wash the floor. I duly stacked up the chairs on the tables and tried to get as much furniture off the floor as possible. I then proceeded to sweep thoroughly, paying particular attention to the edges of the room. Then I wet a floor rag with plain water, hung it over a squeegee, and began to mop. The result looked fine to me. Gong! I was informed that what I was doing was not "washing the floor properly". Exasperated, I resolved that when I had my own house (not shared), I was going to clean its floor MY WAY.

Indeed, for 35 years, I've been sweeping thoroughly, then wet-mopping my floor with nothing but water, after which it dries instantly — clean. While there's no way I can prove it — I haven't done a comparative bacteria count — I raised three healthy kids in a home thus mopped, and the floor looks no less clean than any other. Why, then, are otherwise intelligent householders, in light of the looming drought tax and the Save Water Campaign, willing to dry up their yards and gardens, but they're still sloshing water onto their floors like sailors on a ship's deck? Does everyone else own stock in the Ritzpaz company? How does David Elkan call this profligate sloshing of water throughout our arid land "efficient and economical"?
Someone please enlighten me.

1 couldn’t find link to English version
2 I’m sure the same is true for ceramic tiles; both are a porous mixture of cement and marble.

Should Birthright Visit Hebron? האם מוצדק ביקור "תגלית" לחברון

2010-08-05T11:23:00.007+03:00

What interests me most about the article headlined thusly is how the reporter skirts around the ideological aspect of the question, dealing solely with the (red herring of) the security aspect. This implies that the only considerations to be taken into account when planning the Birthright itinerary are those of security, as opposed to considerations of showing a balanced picture of Israel to visitors, say, or considerations of identification-by-omission with the settlers (whom, to be fair, the reporter described as some of the most militant).

Truth be told, I agree with Daniel Guttman: The Tomb of the Patriarchs is our roots, is our story, and it is legitimate to take Jewish visitors there. However, Guttman and associates conveniently left out the other side of the equation: He refrains from then asking, “Has this site become a locus of cult worship? Is keeping it in Jewish hands worth strife, bloodshed, keeping another people subjugated? Worth an entire generation living under occupation that breeds hatred? Is it worth being here at any price?”

What I wish the reporter had reported was the presumed ensuing dialog between the Birthrighters and Guttman. I hope I’m not naïve in assuming that at least one of the former — if not more — voiced the above-mentioned questions. Now a clip of that conversation would send me straight over to YouTube. If anyone reading this knows of such a clip, do let us know.

Yikes! I had sex with an Arab! אוי לי! שכבתי עם ערבי

2010-07-21T09:49:00.005+03:00

It isn’t often that I blog first thing in the morning, but this news item has me so riled I won’t get any paid work done ‘til I’m finished sounding off. Imagine:

An Arab posed as a Jew so he could get a woman in bed. Oops! Honey, be more careful who you have sex with within minutes of knowing him. Well, apparently she hasn’t moved on: She pressed charges of rape and indecent assault (whatever that is; I suspect it’s a fancy term for miscegenation). But wait, it gets better: A judge actually agreed to hear the case. The verdict: The man was sentenced to 18 months in prison.

I call “racism”, and I don’t use that term lightly (I prefer “bigotry”, as “racism” is a victim of word inflation). But beyond the racism, thinly veiled as “protecting the public interest” (according to Jerusalem District Court Judge Tzvi Segal), why is there not a hue and cry from the legal community? This case should be published in the law school textbooks as the example of abuse of the justice system. The defendant has been under house arrest, wearing an electronic cuff, for two years. Show me a Jew in the same situation who would be thus detained. Not to mention the fact that the courts are overloaded and don’t have the resources to hear actual cases of injustice, for instance, those of women who suffer violence at the hands of their mates, or minors at the hands of their parents.

Thank goodness for the sane voices of Dr. Elkana Leist of the Public Defender and Judge Emeritus of Tel Aviv District Court Shelly Teiman. To paraphrase the former, while the defendant was perhaps a sleazeball, the courts don’t exist to protect us from sleaziness. Now is every woman whose sexual partner told her he’s rich when he’s not, going to file a rape-by-deception complaint? Aladdin and Jasmine, anyone?

Beyond Dolls vs. Trucks מעבר לבובות כנגד משאיות

2010-07-16T11:21:00.007+03:00

Say the phrase “gender stereotyping” in a roomful of parents, and inevitably someone(s) will “prove” that gender is wired in “because when Mary was a year old, we put a doll and a truck equidistant from her, and she went for the doll!” or “Do you know what Johnny did with his sister’s Barbie? Scooped her up with his bulldozer and buried her in the sandbox — after studiously dismembering her!”

Ah, I think. So we’re off the hook, are we? Mary chose the doll, so that means we can just relax, kick back, and keep right on reinforcing gender stereotypes, guilt-free. Well, no. Sorry to have to break it to all you parents, but the old doll / truck anecdote hardly locks up the nature-nurture debate. In short: לא עליך המלאכה לגמור, ולא אתה בן חורין ליבטל ממנה. Or for the matter under discussion: While the task of eliminating gender stereotyping is too large for an individual, we as parents can't merely offer our kids both dolls and trucks and claim we've done out part.

I myself grew up stereotypically female, right down to the ruffled underwear that I insisted on wearing ruffles-in-front so’s I could see ‘em, for gosh sake! I was offered neither trucks nor weapons, and was happy being a girl. The one non-conventional thing about my family was that my mother worked full time, and when I was six (1966) she began working toward a Master’s degree. It was a difference I caught onto early, and it must have had some impact on me.

But it’s no longer unusual for moms to work, you say. Correct. So now we have to be even more conscientious about not falling into the gender stereotype trap. I’d like to share some strategies I used to raise my daughters’ consciousnesses regarding gender:

· Feel free to “edit” stories read aloud. Many children’s book characters are animals, and their default gender is male. Question it: There’s not a shred of a reason why all of the characters in The Three Little Pigs cannot be female, nothing to stop us from reading “she” in place of “he”: There’s no Read-aloud Gestapo monitoring us. And no, my daughters didn’t accept my editing unquestioningly: Indeed, they protested, which gave me the perfect opportunity to ask them: Why can’t the pigs be female? Why can’t the wolf be female*? Ditto for Eric Carle’s spider (hurray for Charlotte and her Web!). I actually saw an illustration of a kangaroo, complete with pouch containing a joey, referred to as “he”!

· Continue to question. While substituting at a preschool, I told the teacher of my discomfort with a Chanuka song that has “Mother cooking the latkes and Father blessing the candles”. Why not change it up? I asked her. She replied that children “don’t accept things outside the norm”. Oh, I said. You mean they can accept that a human being can fly or become invisible (e.g., all the stuff they see on TV), but they can’t accept a dad who cooks? Not buying that one. And you know what? Suppose the teacher had switched them, and the kids protested. A perfect springboard for a discussion of gender roles. No, the four-year-olds will not leave school that day spouting de Beauvoir and McKinnon, but so what? Just as important is their having been exposed to the concept of it being OK to question assumptions, instead of blindly accepting what is. Isn’t that the aim of education?

· My two older daughters insisted on subscriptions to a rather low-quality teen magazine called Rosh Echad. While each issue did contain “policitally correct” articles on eating disorders and alcohol abuse, these were spaced among ads featuring emaciated models and teens drinking out of Heineken mugs. I made sure to point out these inconsistencies to them, and eventually, they were pointing them out to me. Now they point them out to me in Haaretz and other publications that we all read.

The point is that while modeling desired behavior is certainly important, it’s not enough if we want kids to absorb our values. We’ve got to talk to our kids: This doesn’t mean lecturing or sermonizing; it means questioning assumptions and encouraging them to do so (“Do you know any women who look like that? Do you suppose that’s her actual shape, or is she photoshopped?). It doesn’t mean being rigid (“No, you may not give out lip gloss as party favors”); it means offering alternatives (“Not all your friends might appreciate lip gloss. Might these cute erasers please everyone?”). After a while, it becomes a reflex; you begin to see opportunities to raise your kids’ consciousnesses all over the place, and at a certain point the kids themselves proudly take over; make sure to praise them when they notice gender stereotypes on their own.

So yes, most girls like Barbies, want to pierce their ears, go through a dresses-only stage, and get excited about wearing makeup. I did, and I watched my daughters move through those stages; but instead of passively pointing to them as “proof” that gender is wired in, I didn’t make a big deal over it, and just continued “playing the gender-neutral tape”. The key is not to give up: Nail polish and consciousness-raising can — and should — coexist. The issue doesn’t begin and end with dolls and trucks.

* I taught my kids the words “female” and “male” early on. For some reason, it bugs me to hear “girl dog” and “boy cat”. Same way it bugs me when I hear parents describe unfamiliar foods to their kids as “like spaghetti” or “like pizza”. Riiiiight. That’ll expand their vocabularies and broaden their minds…

Mystery Photo תצלום תעלומה

2010-06-28T11:36:00.008+03:00

Taking a break from our regular programming to post the photo on the left, which I found in May while cleaning out my mom's purses, which she no longer uses. Neither she nor my dad had any idea who these people are, nor how the photo made its way to my mom's purse.

While the likelihood is that they're Kansas Citians, just for the record, my mom volunteered at the (now defunct) Hadassah Bargain Center, where she might have taken a liking to and purchased the handbag in which the photo was found; so it's anyone's guess. I welcome all info, and will be pleased to send the original photo to its owner(s).

None of us are deportation-proof אף אחד מאיתנו אינו חסין כנגד גירוש

2010-06-21T14:43:00.009+03:00

Reading about the cases of Drs. Imad Hammada and Murad Abu-Khalaf עברית — both of whom have had their East Jerusalem residency revoked while residing abroad — got me to thinking: None of us should get too smug about our right to live here. As long as our Interior Ministry is headed by ayatollahs, who run it in their typical capricious, draconian manner, it can turn on any one of us any day. Take my own case, for instance:

When I came on aliya, I don’t recall having to submit any proof that I’m Jewish. The shlicha asked for neither my mother’s ketuba nor a brisket receipt from my great-grandmother’s kosher butcher in Grodno. Ditto for the state rabbi who officiated at our wedding. However, according to what I hear and read about most other immigrants, my experience is exceptional.

Supposing in the same way that some rabbi decided to investigate further and revoke hundreds of conversions, a rabbi who didn’t have anything better to do that day decided to look into my Jewish pedigree. While no one would blink before attesting to the fact that I’m Jewish, I actually have no way of proving it. And neither do any of us. Ten years into the 21st century, we Jews have got to come to grips with the new reality; we’ve got to let go of the fantasy called “the unity of the Jewish people”. Not only is it impossible to prove that someone’s Jewish, it’s impossible to prove that someone isn’t. Not only do we need to admit this, but we need to come to grips with the implications thereof:
· Israel has become a desirable destination for the have-nots of the world, whether they hail from the former USSR, Africa, or elsewhere.
· Because thousands are knocking at our door, the Law of Return must be revoked and replaced with an immigration policy, as strict or as lax as we wish.
· The above entails (to paraphrase Carlo Strenger עברית) the state severing its ties to all religious institutions, and becoming completely secular, along the French or U.S. model. Both Jews and Muslims would have to accept that the state cannot play any role in affairs of religion, and religious institutions would become completely voluntary and communitarian.

These three are not only intertwined, they’re inevitable; the only alternative is a theocracy. The fact that any Jew has the power to certify the kashrut of any other Jew -- unless granted such power by the Jew in question (i.e., you’re a willing follower of a particular rabbi) -- should be setting off alarms for us all. I call on every Jew reading this to “take back the brit”: Don’t submit your pedigree for inspection; don’t hand over authority to any entity to whose views you don’t subscribe. Don’t sign over your “power of Jewish attorney”.

"Choice Feminism": I'll Opt Out "פמיניזם הבחירה"...אני בוחרת "לא"

2010-06-17T12:27:00.015+03:00

I’ve noticed that whenever a woman defends having taken her husband’s name, or defends dressing provocatively, it’s invariably stated, “After all, feminism is about choice.” Well I’m not pleased with having women who choose tradition, or patriarchy, telling me what feminism “is about”.

Take the word “choice”. Somehow, when a woman explains her decision to take her husband’s name as a choice, it feels like she’s using the term in the sense of “I choose vanilla; you choose chocolate”, i.e., there's no implication, no greater statement being made; it's simply a matter of what you like and what I like. But the difference between choosing ice cream flavors and choosing which name to use is that the former has no values attached, while which name one uses very much reflects one’s values.

In this sense, I can’t really go with “feminism is about choice”. To me it’s akin to an African-American saying, “The civil rights movement was about choice, and I choose to sit at the back of the bus.” Unlikely, I’d say. So why is feminism any different? Feminism is about choice in the sense that it’s about women having choices other than the traditional ones; we don't need feminism in order to opt for tradition -- traditional roles have been "freely available" for the past 10,000 years.

Therefore I see feminism as being about parity (notice I didn’t say “equality”, God forbid), i.e., being on a par with men; and when I take someone else’s name, I’m by definition not on a par with him. Ditto when I intentionally dress (or dress my daughter) so as to objectify myself in men’s eyes. How can I be on a par with someone who views me as an object?

Moreover, it doesn’t strike me that someone who chooses to take her husband’s name is sincerely concerned about her “choices” being jeopardized. In a world where at least half of all women retained their birth names, such a woman might indeed feel pressured to do so, but we’re not even close to that world. On the other hand, stay-at-home moms do feel pressured to work for an income, but I doubt that that pressure is coming from feminist circles; more likely it’s economic pressure coming from within their own households.

In actuality, it’s democracy that’s about choice. In a democracy, we’re free to choose traditional lifestyles a la Amish or ultra-Orthodox, as long as we don’t impose them on the rest of the citizenry. Yet it seems disingenuous for women making traditional choices to invoke feminism in the defense of those choices, especially when it’s only when it serves them that they even bother to acknowledge feminism.

And, what exactly are they acknowledging when they say, “feminism is about…”? It appears to refer to a rather fuzzy code for “Some 1970s struggle that ended the Dark Ages”. How many of you who parrot “feminism is about choices” have actually read feminist literature, taken a gender studies class, or attended a consciousness-raising session?

I rather conceive of feminism as precisely being about questioning assumptions, pushing the boundaries, even rocking the boat, and yes, doing the uncomfortable thing. Taking your husband’s name does none of these; an eight-year-old wearing a top emblazoned with “So Many Boys, So Little Time” is making a statement…unfortunately a twisted one.

I will rejoice when we get to a place where retaining our names is the comfortable thing; when Western society finally strikes that sartorial balance between repression and promiscuity. Until then, please don’t drag feminism in when defending your having chosen to settle into comfortable, traditional roles.

Added February 13, 2011- quote from Haxer Beck2:

"Traditional ladies didn't have to pay for anything, but they didn't get to have sex until they were married, and the only decisions they ever got to make in their lives were whether to say Yes or No to an offer of marriage, and what they were going to wear.

Modern ladies get to do whatever they want (as long as it's considerate of others), AND they pay for that privilege by taking full responsibility for their own material support and well-being.

A woman can pick either system and still be a lady -- but she can't enjoy the rights from one system and ditch its associated responsibilities."

Party of Five שולחן לחמישה

2010-04-28T14:50:00.005+03:00

When Gilmore Girls was dropped from the local channel, it left a hole in my day. So I checked out the series that replaced it in its time slot, Party of Five (I know, I know: I’m 15 years behind the times. Just humor me).

First let’s get something out of the way: Yes, Pof5 engages me; you could even say I’m hooked, because I want to know what happens next, and I even — I admit it — analyze it when I’m not watching, i.e., “Charlie should’ve moved them to Seattle”; “Why does Bailey have to go to college 2,000 miles away?” “Julia was so out of line talking about Justin to his mom”.

So while there’s no question that I enjoy the program, there’s a disturbing undercurrent running through it: Do viewers get that the way the characters operate in their relationships is a model of how not to do relationships? I’m not referring only to the incessant cheating; I can deal with that. It’s that every couple seems to have two modes: Deliriously in love, or quarreling, the latter always seeming to stem from an innocent remark from which offense was taken, along the lines of:

Character A: You need to act responsibly here…

Character B: Responsibly? Excuse me! What do you know about responsibility?!

Character A: Look, all I’m saying is that maybe it wouldn’t be the end of the world if you’d…

Character B: Oh! Like you’re so perfect! I suppose you expect me to…!

It’s disturbing to think that young viewers may think that the above is a normal relationship pattern. Not to mention that the emphasis in Charlie and Kirsten’s almost-wedding seemed to be on one thing: forsaking all others. Not joining their lives, compromising, working as a team, putting each other’s happiness first…but forsaking all others, as if marriage is nothing but a relationship version of traffic law, i.e., just don’t exceed the speed limit, and you’ll be fine.

All in all, simplistic, served up as realistic. I know: It’s “just” TV; we can’t expect it to reflect real life. Yet we can’t ignore that it does feed into viewers’ — especially young viewers’ — concepts of what to expect from real life. I’d like to think that my kids will dig deeper and shoot higher than do the Salingers.

Netiquette, please נימוסים אלקטרוניים, בבקשה

2010-04-13T15:34:00.003+03:00

E-mail having been around since 1996, and most literate folks having gotten on the bandwagon by 2000, a decade should be sufficient time for us all to’ve gotten used to it, and for the novelty to’ve worn off. Why, then, am I still getting mail with “Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd Fwd…” in the Subject line? Why are people still sending me mass mailings in 24 boldface font, three words to a line, and with a lifetime supply of exclamation points?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why is the message preceded and followed by a meter-long list of recipients’ addresses? And why am I instructed to “Hit forward and send this to everyone you know”? If you’re under eight or over 80 years of age, you get a pass from me. The rest of you, please heed:

1. A To or cc field with inches of addresses says, “Not serious; not businesslike”. When you send these out, you’re failing to protect your friends’ and others’ privacy. Learn to bcc.

2. Subject lines containing “Fwd” are spam magnets. Delete “Fwd” both in the Subject line and in the body of the mail.

3. Learn to compose a decent Subject line. Examples of the lame and the annoying: “Important! Please forward!”; “Hi”; “ " (that’s an empty Subject line; the first two examples might as well be empty, as they give no useful information whatsoever).

4. Trim off all excess “froms”. We don’t need to read them, and it’s annoying to have to scroll all the way down to Antarctica to read a mail.

5. Read through what you’re about to send. Ask yourself what impression it gives. Oversize lettering and multiple colors screams, “Written by a fourth grader!” Consider selecting the entire letter (Ctrl + A), going to your Format menu, selecting Rich Text, and adjusting the font(s) and color(s) (Format menu > Font). If you’re really ambitious and have the time, fix the double spaces and dial back those exclamation points. Correct spelling wouldn’t hurt either. And finally…

6. I don’t need to be told to forward mail any more than I need to be told to tell people my opinion on an issue or my impression of a product; it’s implicit. And can we lose the expression “Hit Forward” and “Hit Reply”? First of all, none of us should be hitting anything. We press keys on our keyboards, i.e., “Press Enter”; “Press Escape”. We click buttons using our mouses, i.e., “Click OK”; “Click this link”. And we simply forward mail…after performing all of the above steps.

A Cleric Speaks Out For Separation of Church & State כומר בעד הפרדת דת ומדינה

2010-04-11T13:07:00.006+03:00

I finally tracked it down after 17 years, with the help of Dwight Tawney and Caroloyn Nussbeck of the Village Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village, Kansas: A sermon delivered by their Pastor Emeritus the Rev. Doc. Robert H. Meneilly, and reprinted in the New York Times in 1993. It was probably reprinted in whatever English language paper I read at the time, and I never forgot it. I'm posting a link to it here (you don't even need to download the doc; just click on the above link and read), but for those who don't feel like slogging through the entire four pages, I'm reprinting what I feel to be the salient quotes:

Any religion that needs the government to support and subsidize it doesn't deserve to survive. It's not the state's business to carry out the churches' ministries!
Any religion that must depend upon the state to do what it cannot do [i.e., force the citizenry to observe the commandments] is not worthy of existence...even Christianity.
When the state and the church would become entwined, it is the latter that will be the loser.
We can't uphold the...commandments by majority rule!

As far as I'm concerned, that says it all as far as church and state. Would that more clerics and religious leaders were as courageous as Rev. Meneilly, who a friend calls "an icon in the 'burbs"*.

*Johnson County, KS, where his church is located. Think Ultimate Suburbia, and you're there.

Why Popeye Has to Defend OliveOyl ?מדוע חייב פופיי להגן על אוליב אויל

2010-03-25T11:00:00.007+02:00

A friend sent me Yet Another Article citing a “study” finding that male and female brains differ, and therefore 'proves' that the genders are destined to behave according to long-held stereotypes. Since you have to sign up as a member to comment (I hate that. What’s that all about?), and I don’t want to become a “member” of Yet Another Forum, I’ll sound off here, where I’m a member of my own club and anyone with a computer is welcome and encouraged to comment.

Dr. Louann Brizendine is here to tell us among other things that “his amygdala, the alarm system for threats, fear, and danger is...larger in men…making men more alert than women to potential turf threats.”

Why, then, are women the stereotyped worriers, and the ones who are stereotyped as getting up on a chair and shrieking if we see a mouse or a spider?

Dr. Brizendine goes on to explain how male’s brains are the reason they constantly check out women and stare at their breasts, and why, when we tell them our problems, they go into Fixit Mode. She concludes by proverbially throwing up her hands and sighing that it makes more sense to deal with these brain realities, than to argue with them or ignore them…”The best advice I have for women is make peace with the male brain. Let men be men.”

Ah, yes. Let men be men: It’s just one molecule away from “boys will be boys”. It’s all wired in. It’s in their DNA. Not a darned thing we can do. Why even try to civilize them?

Dr. Brizendine's credentials notwithstanding, this is simplistic pop drek parading as science and excusing gender stereotyping.

Christmas. Yeah, Christmas. חג המולד

2010-03-19T11:55:00.002+02:00

As I’ve mentioned on occasion, I’m a *chasida* [follower] of Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax’s commenters’ forum. The other day Hax ran a letter from a reader who was offended that his Christian MIL (that’s mother-in-law) sent him, his Jew-by-choice wife, and their four-year-old son Christmas cards. Unfortunately, the LW (that’s letter-writer) didn’t arouse too much sympathy, as he also complained that MIL gave them a cash gift, as opposed to one she picked out. Now I’m all down with the second point; heck, I’ll accept cash from any source, even if it’s the Islamic Jihad Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. But the ensuing discussion about card-sending (which elicited no fewer than 287 comments) aroused some latent defensiveness in me vis-à-vis Christmas in America that the Hax discussion finally enabled me to articulate after all these years. My visceral reaction to Christmas is so strong, in fact, that despite having left it behind 29 years ago, I was surprised that I still haven’t actually let go of it.

So, for any American Christians reading this, here's my Knee-Jerk anti-Christmas Primer. And yes, for my purposes, “Christian” refers to you even if you weren’t baptized and have never stepped foot in a church, as long as you don’t actively affiliate or identify with another faith. OK, now that we've got that sorted out, here we go: The LW got all hot under the caller ‘cause his MIL sent him a Christmas card — a seemingly innocuous act, right? And predictably, within the first dozen comments, someone piped up with, “I’ve gotten Chanuka cards and wasn’t offended”, to which I replied:

Christians getting Chanuka, Divali, or Eid cards and not being offended in a Christian-majority society proves nothing. Minority members — the laid-back poster above notwithstanding — tend to be sensitive on this and other fronts, and not without grounds, even if those grounds date back decades or centuries: They’re still part of our group’s collective consciousness. Call it paranoia if you want, but if you haven’t been one, you can’t judge.

Another poster commented: “The Jewish people I know all celebrate Christmas”, to which I replied:

This is akin to telling a blond joke, and when the blond you’re telling it to gets offended, saying to her, “But all my other blond acquaintances thought it was funny.” So you know a few assimilated Jews; does that make you an authority on Jewish observance? I’ll detour here to say that it also pushes my buttons when year after year on December 25th, some fellow ex-pat gigglingly greets me with “Merry Christmas” and then goes on to wax nostalgic about the Christmas carols of her childhood and memories of helping the neighbors trim their tree. It always makes me want to say, “Are you trying to shoe how worldly you are, having come from the multi-cultural West? ‘Cause I’m from there too, and I’m not impressed”.

It’s also ignorant to draw conclusions about a group based on the members thereof that you happen to know. I recall a (nominally) Jewish teacher harassing an Orthodox classmate when the latter told the former that he’d be absent on Succot. The teacher said, “What do you mean it’s a Jewish holiday? I’ve never heard of it!” When I tried to vouch for my classmate, telling the teacher that Succot indeed exists (this was pre-Internet) and it is indeed forbidden to work thereon, he asked me if I’d be in class on Succot. When I replied in the affirmative, he predictably said to my classmate, “See? She’s going to be here, so why can’t you?” It’s called nuances, or in this case, differing levels of religious observance. A university journalism teacher should be sensitive to these, no?

Another poster commented that she didn’t understand what all the fuss is about as she’d never received a Rosh haShana card. To which I replied:

Chanuka is not a Christmas equivalent, and card-sending is not an inherently Jewish tradition. My parents’ generation sends out Jewish New Year cards, which falls in September-October, to their Jewish friends. That explains the fact that you’ve never gotten one.

Another poster tried to smooth things over by saying how she simply sends everyone on her list regardless of religion her usual Christmas cards. Another described the whole issue as “just one big happy diverse soup”, to which I replied:

It works like this: Christians have their Important Holiday on December 25, so many of them (excepting the enlightened group here) assume that everyone has Something To Celebrate circa December 25th. You send your friends "the usual Christmas card". Nice. What you need to understand is that for non-Christians, there is no such thing as "the usual Christmas anything". It's this assumption on the part of (many) Christians that galls (many of) us non-Christians. Sorry. It's my upbringing. This is just not an issue I can get all Zen and soupy about...

To the commenter who claimed that the LW “…is missing out on and not learning a thing about his MIL’s traditions”, I referred to another Jewish poster’s references to: “…so overwhelming is the [Christmas] cheer with the movies, decorations, lights, commercials, sales, concerts: It's impossible not to get sucked in!” I wrote:

Pennagirl, "learn about MIL's traditions"? Are you kidding? Did you read Tscoll’s post? In order to "learn about" Christianity in the US, the only requirement is to have a pulse and watch TV: You absorb it into your pores by osmosis. In fact, if you can wrap your head around it, "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" is almost as presumptuous (perhaps more -- I haven't decided) as "Merry Christmas". The presumption that "OK, we get that you don't celebrate Christmas, but you MUST celebrate SOMETHING at this time of year", i.e., there is something inherently spiritual or joyous about the period between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year akin to the sun rising every morning, therefore I greet you with "Good morning". (What? Your religion doesn't recognize mornings???!!!). It is just so hard for Majority America (for lack of a better label for this category) to internalize that December 25th is just another day for us, like the 10th of Tishrèi is to you all. Except unlike the 10th of Tishrèi, of which you walk around all day utterly unaware, Christmas is In Our Faces; we feel assaulted by it. Though we'd like to, we can't just pretend like it's any other day. Believe it or not.

Finally, I agree that the LW seems to be looking for offense where there is probably none intended. I was just trying to give the majority members in this forum a window into what makes minority members tick, i.e., what may push our buttons. I don’t mean to sound bitter; I'm just tellin' it like it is, through my lens, having grown up as an identifying Jew in the US. For any of you who “get it”, you’ll understand this: I'd jump for joy if just one retail clerk between Thanksgiving and Gregorian New Year were to bless me with a generic, "Thank you. Have a nice day".

*

Tangentially, I was reminded just yesterday of how cringe-producing it is when the screenwriters of TV series try to “do Jewish”: I was watching the Party of Five episode wherein Claudia contemplates converting to Judaism for her preteen Jewish boyfriend. Arty’s attempts to explain Judaism “while standing on one foot” are superficial at best, pathetic at worst.

Regarding “the rules”, he tells her about “kosher” [kashrut] by explaining, “You’re not allowed to eat lobster or shrimp, and you can’t have a hamburger together with a milkshake”. When Claudia’s face falls, Arty reassures her, “But you don’t have to be kosher [observe kashrut]; we’re not.” Oy vey! And the actor’s awful attempts at Hebrew (or in this case Aramaic): *yees go dole, vah yees go dosh, shmay row bow*. Gawd. Please, screenwriters-attempting-to-be-diverse: Spare us this torture. We’re all blushing beet-red on your behalf.

Gender, Brain, & ADD מיגדר, המוח, והפרעות קשב וריכוז

2010-02-19T10:28:00.008+02:00

I’m an active participant in the Free Range Kids forums, where in reference to studies on brain and gender, I wrote:

Yes, I’ve read those gender brain studies, and I always say, fine, but why are we so invested in the differences? We know that the differences between any two individuals of the same gender are wider than those between the genders in general. So what do we get out of emphasizing the differences between the genders? What do we gain from it? Who funds this research? Is it advancing humankind?

A poster named Lucy replies:

"The simple answer is it helps us understand ourselves. In an ideal world, it would be used for good, for things like changing classroom environments so boys aren’t expected to behave like girls in the classroom, and as a consequence, drugged to gain that achievement. In our twisted world, such information would most likely be used to develop better drugs to get boys to behave like girls in the classroom."

My reply:
Lucy, I’m sorry you equate sitting quietly and listening, skills that our society expects of audiences at lectures and performances, as well as worship congregants, with behaving “like a girl”. Reminding you that from the beginning of compulsory education until the 1960s, both genders were expected to behave thusly in school; this in an age when gender roles were rigid.

Today, parents want to have their cake and eat it too: They like our post-feminist world where women can be doctors and men can be nurses, but when they don’t bother to set the same behavior standards for their sons as for their daughters, they cry “ADD!” at the resulting behavior. Can’t have it both ways…

Another thing I’ve been wondering about is the incidence (or existence) of ADD among populations that demand compliant behavior of both genders, such as the ultra-Orthodox, or the Amish. Does anyone know the incidence of attention deficit in these populations? My guess is that it’s very low if it exists at all. Any information is welcome.

Adding to this post:
I'm also an avid follower of the Hax forum, where a commentor called jrzWrld wrote:

"When you have ADD -- especially when you've grown to adulthood before it's diagnosed (as I did) -- there are kind of like holes in your life skills. You don't learn the way other people do, so some common, basic skills are never learned properly.

Long before I was diagnosed, I had a boyfriend who picked up on the fact that I didn't learn things like other people did or focus like they did, and that was part of why I was such a bad housekeeper. When we were setting out to clean the apartment one day, he broke the plan down for me into tiny steps that made it seem more manageable and far less overwhelming.
He didn't know I had ADD, but he had realized that I tended to view household tasks as monolithic monstrosities rather than a series of much smaller jobs strung together. Even years later I am amazed at his sensitivity."

To which I replied:

While your boyfriend sounds quite sweet, I'm suspicious of ADD having become the go-to explanation for what used to be called simply "disorganized" or "unable to run a household". Seems to me that if you take the time to demonstrate cleaning the toilet to a (reasonably intelligent) child, let him try it, and praise his efforts, it should stick in there and be retrievable years later when that skill is needed. And yes, I used the male pronoun deliberately, Moms of Sons!

In that vein, a quote from Haxer Trout-on-line:

“The goal of raising kids is to end up with adults who can function successfully (outside the penal system or a fool farm) after you're gone; who don't need someone (defense attorney? consulting psychiatrist at sentencing hearing?) to explain to the world that they're good people, just high-energy (or however you favor selling people on the idea that a piece of ca-ca is actually a chocolate bon-bon).”

Chametz Ban Round II חרם על חמץ, סבב שני

2010-01-06T15:03:00.004+02:00

Referring to this article עברית:

Here we go again. At least this time (I have to give Shas credit) they’re starting the battle early, i.e., months prior to Passover. Gives everyone plenty of time to get their media licks in and do the requisite amount of keening and hand-wringing. In this corner — Shas. No explanations needed. In this corner — the confused, scattered, spineless stammering of the non-Orthodox.

First in this year’s lineup is MK Yohanan Plesner of Kadima, who walks straight into the decades-old semantic trap: “We support maintaining the Jewish character of the state. On the other hand, it is forbidden to change the status quo for the worse and to enter into people's dinner plates.” Go, Yohi.

Worst policy idea ever: Trying to fit vague concepts such as “the Jewish character of the state” into a legal context. No one can quite define this elusive Jewish character, but, like the judge said of pornography, “I know what it is when I see it”. Problem is, “I know what it is when I see it” is not a sufficient concept on which to base a law. Unfortunately, “Jewish character” is not like “quiet”, which it takes a certain decibel level to violate according to city ordinances. Decibel levels are an objective measure; everyone can agree that the wedding hall down the block is or is not violating the Noise Law. Not the case with “Jewish character”. Perhaps all Shas followers agree what constitutes it, but the rest of us don’t.

Even worse idea, policy-wise: “status quo”. Since when does “status quo” carry any legal weight? Does it merit being preserved even if it’s a bad idea? Why do all legislators, no matter their party affiliation, seem hell-bent on treating this status quo — which was cobbled together decades ago — like the sacred cow that it most certainly is not? Times change; perhaps we need to stop protecting this insidious and crippling “status quo”.

To quote Washington Post columnist Carolyn Hax on victims of abusive relationships: “We contort ourselves into pretzels [trying to appease our abuser], then wonder why we’re so uncomfortable”. Shas is bullying us into submission, no more, no less. The only way to put a halt to bullying is to stand up to the bully. Legislators, take note: You’ve got exactly four months to show us — and them — what you’re made of.

New dads, old dads אבות חדשים, אבות ותיקים

2010-01-06T14:59:00.004+02:00

I happened to be walking by a new dad carrying his baby when he was approached by an older male acquaintance, who said (jokingly) something to the effect of, “I feel very sorry for her [the baby]!” Besides finding this a vaguely inappropriate way to congratulate a new parent, even as a joke, something bugged me about it. After thinking about it for about three seconds, it dawned on me: Gender (of course!). Believe it or not, there are gender stereotypes zooming all over this scenario.

Let’s start with the Congratulator. What was behind his little jokelet of a remark? That we don’t really expect a father to take any more than a cameo role in parenting, because really, what’s a dad? Just a bumbling, doofus-y cartoon version of a “real” parent, i.e., a mother.

Second, only a man could get away with making such a remark. No woman could, even as a joke. Why is that? Because we expect women to be genuinely interested in new babies and solicitous of new parents, whereas our expectations of men in this area are diminished: Men get to make a joke and walk away, thereby distancing themselves from the matter at hand — i.e., a baby has been born — which makes them squirm and feel awkward. Women, on the other hand, are expected to exclaim over the baby and make a fuss, whether or not they feel a shred of interest in or ease around babies. A remark such as, “I feel very sorry for her!” coming from a woman would be perceived as rude indeed.

And where does all this lead? To the fact that we socialize our girls to be the responsible ones, the civilizing influence over those wild, out-of-control boys. I see it in our kids: Who does the baking, draws the signs, makes the greeting cards, composes the poems for classmates’ birthdays? Who recruits and organizes the class ditty for classmates’ bar mitzvas? Only in a few years, when fire (barbeques, bonfires) or vehicles are involved do the boys come out of the woodwork. Hmmmm…what’s at work here?

Noise is the new smoking רעש: העישון החדש

2010-01-06T14:56:00.003+02:00

When I first moved here, Israel was way behind the States in terms of smoking in public places. I found that in order to get someone to put out her cigarette, on a bus, say, I’d have to say I have allergies, or asthma, or contact lenses: It had not yet been internalized that we’re all entitled to a smoke-free environment, just because.

We’ve come a long way vis-à-vis smoking, but I noticed that I’ve had to fall back on the same excuse-giving in order to get retail establishments to lower the volume on their (usually awful) music. This week I was sitting on a bench in Azrieli Mall in Modiin, taking a break and waiting to meet a friend. The bench was situated between two stores, each playing loud music. A few meters away was an Orange (cellular provider) island, and I wondered how the staff imprisoned therein could stand it and how they were able to even hear their customers. Then I had an idea.

I went into one of the music-blaring stores (empty of clientele) and asked the two teenagers staffing the place to turn down their music, “because I’m trying to execute a transaction at Orange and I can’t hear myself think”. They complied, albeit with quizzical looks on their faces. Ditto for the other store. They complied, but I’d had to give a reason for my request; after all, I was not their customer, so technically I had no “right” to ask them for anything…except that noise is…well, noisy.

While I’d solved my situation-specific problem momentarily (one of the stores turned its music up a few minutes later, causing me to wonder, “Wasn’t it a relief for the proprietors to have it quiet?”), I can’t help but wonder: Doesn’t the mall management get it? Instead of being relaxed and inviting, the atmosphere at that mall was like that of an outdoor bazaar, which here in the Middle East means each vendor blasting her music as loudly as possible, which according to their logic attracts customers, which I find anything but inviting: I find it downright off-putting.

Didn’t the mall management study “What makes a successful mall” in mall management school? Have any of them happened to visit a mall in the States, by any chance? Because while I’m by no means a fan of malls or consumerism in general, if you’re going to run a business — regardless of the nature thereof — don’t you want to do it right?

How Come All the Boys're on Ritalin? מדוע כל הבנים נוטלים ריטלין

2009-12-10T14:54:00.015+02:00

ADHD. Say it in a roomful of parents, and you won’t have to worry about small talk for hours. Everyone’s got an opinion, from the anti-TV crusaders to the armchair anthropologists [“It’s a trait that was useful when we were hunting mammoth”; “It shows up more in the descendants of immigrants”]. For a long time now, I’ve suspected an element of gender stereotyping in the “ADHD soup”.

First of all, we need to reintroduce a term that unfortunately has gone out of use: hyperkinetic, meaning simply “can’t stop moving”. I knew one kid in my childhood who actually had this disorder; it is indeed organic, and present from birth. I recall reading an article in some women’s magazine decades ago written by the mother of a hyperkinetic teen. She described a parenting nightmare for about the first 14 years, when according to her description, the condition began tapering off. At her writing, her son was 16 and well-adjusted. She never mentioned drugs, although these perhaps could have been a livesaver for her. Hyperkinesia is rare.

Whenever people begin to speculate about the explosion of ADHD in the population, and someone laments, “What happened? It used to be a rarity.” I want to respond, “True hyperkinesia is still a rarity. What is now referred to as ADHD is simply a product of too much screen time, too little parenting, and a large dose of gender stereotyping, all of which may respond to drugs, but none of which are congenital.” Except parents let themselves off the hook by choosing to believe that it is congenital.

I did some Web research and found two articles about the prevalence of ADHD among boys. The first does a nice job of explaining the phenomenon. The second does a good job of reinforcing stereotypes:

“When girls are under increased stress, they fold their hands and get quieter. When boys are under stress, they become a behavior problem.”

A commentor on an Amazon review of The Trouble With Boys:
“As a female classroom teacher… I understand the difference of learning styles between boys and girls.”

Furthermore, the article claims that schools are more rigorous than they once were:
“…schools ratchet up their expectations, says Lawrence Diller, a psychiatrist in the Bay Area who has been an outspoken critic of the ADHD industry. “More kids — and particularly more boys — look as if they might have a problem. Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students. Many can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions — even within the range of normal — if it interferes with the pace of their class.”

“The way schools are run we have kids sitting at desks for a very long time,” says principal Susan Charles.

Let’s take a look at these claims:

Teachers now demand a standardized level of performance from all students? - You could’ve fooled me. I thought we’d gotten away from all the soul-sucking uniformity, having shifted over to the “tailored-to-the-individual” and “learn-at-your-own-pace” philosophy.

Today’s teachers can’t tolerate too much motion, too much noise, too many questions? As if teachers in previous generations could?

We have kids sitting at desks for a very long time? Certainly not that I’ve noticed. On the contrary, from what I’ve observed, not only is there much more motion in my kids’ classrooms than there was in my classrooms as a kid, but moving about the room is much more accepted today, as is a certain noise level. In fact, I have my doubts about my former kid self being able to concentrate in today’s classrooms precisely because of the casual atmosphere.

My mother began teaching in 1943. She was assigned a combined class of 40 second and third graders in a school with a working- and middle-class enrollment. I asked her if she recalls any discipline problems. “No,” she replied. “They all behaved.” I’m pretty certain, too, that they were all seated at desks and required to remain quiet for hours at a time, in surroundings far less comfortable or kid-friendly than those in today’s schools. So what gives?

My theory? “He’s ADHD” is the new, PC “Boys will be boys”. I suspect a link between parents’ expectations of their sons’ behavior conforming to "boy" stereotypes, and the likelihood of those sons being diagnosed ADHD. After all, all the other explanations — TV and computers, single-parent homes, food additives, environmental toxins — affect both genders equally, yet up to four times as many boys as girls are diagnosed ADHD. I blame parents’ throwing in the discipline towel sooner with their sons than with their daughters, thereby perpetuating the stereotype of rambunctious boys and compliant girls. Ever noticed that one never hears parents of daughters describe their offspring as “high-energy”, “noisy”, or “rambunctious”?

I would love to construct a study of two groups of parents: one composed of parents who believe that the genders are inherently different and express it in their parenting, letting gender stereotypes take over in the home; and one composed of parents who actively oppose gender stereotyping and who hold their sons to the same behavior standards as they do their daughters. These concepts being almost completely subjective and difficult if not impossible to measure, it would seem that such a study will not be conducted anytime soon. Therefore, while I can’t prove such a link, I am here, throwing it out to anyone who will listen. If anyone knows of a study like the one I describe, please let me know.

He's All Baby! הוא כזה תינוק

2009-10-30T12:00:00.011+02:00

I heard it again today. The twenty-something mom saying about her six-week-old infant: hu kazeh ben! Translation: “He’s all boy”. Tip: If you want to see me go ballistic, this is the perfect way to do it. Since I wasn’t part of the conversation, I managed to control myself and make do with an eyeroll and a sigh, but what my shadow was doing was tapping her on the shoulder and saying:

“Excuse me. This is 2009. How is it that you’re twenty-eight years old and you sound like my grandmother? Have we gone backwards? Are we devolving? Was feminism just a blip?"

That's right: Despite what you choose to believe, feminism is too about combating gender stereotypes; if we perpetuate stereotypes, how can we honestly say that our children have choices? Sorry, Millennials: Despite what you may believe, feminism is not “the choice to dress my girl in girly-garb if I want; I’m secure in my feminism. I’m liberated.” Mom, you may feel liberated, but your job is far from done.

Let’s take a minute and break this down: You say your son is “all boy”. Even if I chose to buy into stereotypes, this doesn’t parse. What is he doing at age six weeks that’s typically masculine? Is he smoking cigars? Watching a prize fight on ESPN? Saying “hubba hubba” as a blond bombshell passes by? Fast-forward 16 years. If he were doing any of the above, would you be saying glowingly of him, “He’s all boy!”?

I’m thinking you’ll say no. I’m thinking you probably want your son to have more substance than a cartoon version of “boy” or “man”. If you do, then how come you’re starting now — at age six weeks — to push a cartoon agenda, if only in your own mind? At what point does it stop being in your own mind and begin to be absorbed by him? When he starts to understand language? Age two? Three? At that point, will you jump up and “insert the Human Being disk into your son’s CD drive” and quit referring to him as “all boy” / relating to him as a stereotype?

Mom, wouldn’t it be simpler to insert the Human Being disk now, rather than have to uninstall the cartoon program later on? Consider substituting for “He’s all boy!” > “He’s exquisite. I’ve never seen anything quite like him. I’m crazy about him!” There. Didn’t that feel wonderful?

Has anyone else had it with NYCentrism?

2009-10-05T14:56:00.007+02:00

Has anyone else had it with NYCentrism? I’m referring to the assumption on some people’s parts that not only is New York City the center of the planet, but that it’s everyone else’s reference point.

This morning I happened to sit down at breakfast across from a women who proceeded to wax on about the Village and “the Park” [I assume Washington Square Park] and Bleecker Street, nodding at me earnestly the entire time as if we’d grown up together next door to the Village Gate. I honestly thought she might have mistaken me for someone else.

We hadn’t been introduced; in fact, I hadn’t uttered a word, so there was no way she had of knowing that I’m even a native English speaker, much less whether I’d ever so much as stepped foot in North America. For all she knew, I’d just dropped in for the day from Afghanistan. But the galling assumption not only that I’d been to NYC, was familiar with it, and share her cultural references, was simply over the top.

Anyone else been in this situation, and does it bother you?

Fashion 4 Teachers לבוש הולם לְמורים

2009-09-13T10:42:00.004+03:00

The subject of teacher dress codes עברית reminds me of two juxtaposing articles that appeared in recent years in Haaretz: One during the 2006 teachers’ strike, profiling a male junior high teacher who owned but one work outfit, but took care to come to work every day dressed in a clean dress shirt and pressed pants. He told the reporter he wants to set an example for his students. He gets it, I thought. I nearly cried with gratitude. God bless you, wherever you are, haMorèh*.

The other article told about some unique 6th grade curriculum being implemented in a classroom somewhere in the Center, perhaps it was Holon. The accompanying photo showed the teacher surrounded by her students, wearing a dress that revealed a cleavage the size of the Suez Canal. It reminded me of a teacher in my kids’ school: She’s in her mid-fifties and as my friend observed, she seems to reveal more skin every year. Has anyone reminded this woman that she’s teaching teenagers, not a teenager herself?

Ms. Livneh, I beg to disagree with you: What we wear does affect those around us, especially those in appearance-oriented occupations such as teaching. How are adolescent boys supposed to ignore exposed breasts and heady perfume? How are the girls supposed to respect someone who looks like their peer? I’m not suggesting that teachers should have to dress like nuns, but yes, they need to look businesslike; they are doing an indoor job that doesn’t involved cleaning or heavy lifting, they are meeting the public, and they should dress commensurately.

Regardless of the amount of skin showing, I also admit that I’ve never gotten used to the Israeli concept that it’s perfectly acceptable for female teachers to dress flamboyantly. What’s up with the two-toned nails in day-glo colors, the magenta hair, earrings the size of hubcaps, and the hooker shoes? Can you honestly say that these are conducive to teaching? At the very least, that they aren’t distracting?

Ms. Livneh, your reminiscences in the second-to-last paragraph have no worth other than as anecdotes. You may attribute your students’ success in English to the teacher’s wardrobe, and the literature teacher may have been unpopular, but it wasn’t about his clothing. And while it is true that reducing class size, raising salaries, and bolstering teachers’ status are certainly called for, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the idea of dress codes.

Not only would teachers dressing appropriately for their jobs likely go a long way toward their gaining the respect of both students and parents ― but guess what? It doesn’t cost the taxpayer one agorah!

Israel's Retail Culture תרבות הקניות

2009-09-03T12:37:00.014+03:00

Whenever anyone asks me if there’s anything I miss about the States, I don’t even hestitate to reply: The retail culture. Notice I did not say “consumer culture”, which I abhor, and which I define as the drive to buy, buy, buy regardless of the effect on our planet or the humans thereon. What I mean by retail culture is the fact that in the States, the shopper is treated like the very royalty whose eschewance the Land of the Free is founded upon, whether shopping at Family Dollar or at Nordstroms -- true equality.

I grew up in the epitome of Shopping Land -- the Midwest ‘burbs -- where every component of The Shopping Experience, from the spaces-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see free parking to the Have-A-Nice-Day! Return and Exchange Policy are geared toward Getting You Inside The Store, Enticing You To Stay As Long As Possible, and Getting You To Come Back. Makes sense to me that if you’re selling something, you want to makes things as painless, simple, easy, and convenient for your customers as possible. Why, then, are Israeli retailers still stuck in Soviet-style Supply-Side-Rules-And-The-Customer-Can-Blow-Me mode?

I get that not everything is under the retailer’s control: Space in Israel is at a premium, so we’re stuck with cramped parking, narrow aisles, and telephone booth-sized fitting rooms. But everything else is doable, including:

1. Atmosphere - When I enter your store, I want to hear Muzak. That’s right, Muzak, or at the very least, I don’t want to feel trance music pulsing through my being, played at so loud a volume that I can’t hear myself think.

2. Cleanliness - I usually have to use the bathroom at some point during shopping. I was recently in an H&O whose bathroom wasn’t fit for a junkie to shoot up in. I went to see the manager and asked him if he would let his own daughter use the bathroom there. He said he’d “check it out”. Right. HaMashbir is slightly better: They supply toilet paper and occasionally a squeeze bottle of all-purpose soap, complete with drippings down the sides, to wash your hands with. Towels or dryers? You’ve gotta be kidding -- who dya think you are? The Jordanian royal family? You must have us confused with a business that wants its customers to stay as long as possible and buy stuff.

3. Fitting rooms - Have Enough Of Them. No one should have to wait to try on clothing. And while they may be small, there’s no reason they can’t contain: 1) An ottoman to place your belongings on; 2) Hooks to hang clothing on; and 3) A full-length mirror. You retailers who put the mirrors on the outside of the doors? So transparent. You think we’re stupid? We know you just want to force us out of the fitting room so you can talk us into buying whatever we’re trying on. Recently at Fox, my daughter was trying on a cute gray shirt emblazoned with “The One & Only” (one of the less offensive messages on Israeli clothing). She was checking out her reflection in the extra-fitting room mirror and said to me, “I’ll take it” ― ding-ding-ding, that’s called a sale ― when a sales clerk said to her, “You’re fair-skinned. You need another color, like pink.” Predictably, the same shirt in the pink version was emblazoned with “Never Dance Alone”. My daughter was flustered. I ignored Sales Clerk and told her, “Honey, the gray looks good on you, and the message on the pink one is cheap”. The sales clerk continued to argue. I turned to her and said, “She wants the gray one”, thinking, What is the matter with you, Lady? She likes the item; she wants to purchase it. Hands off!

OK, we’ve decided on our purchases. Now let’s move on to the ordeal known as…

4. Checkout - I have never seen all three (or at most four) registers staffed at an Israeli store. Never. Yesterday I was at Mega ba’Ir at 17:30, peak shopping time, and as I approached the checkout, the cashier informed me she was closing her register -- at peak time, mind you. I had three items. The “Express Lane” line reached all the way to Taba. I opted to stay in a regular lane. We moved forward at a snail's pace and waited 'til the customer before me argued with the cashier about the price, then had to rummage around for her vouchers, then couldn't find enough cash...just the way I wanted to spend my afternoon.

At haMashbir recently, only one of two registers was open. I dutifully got into the line, which reached all the way to Nuweiba. I stopped every sales clerk that passed me and asked to have the other register opened. Most looked at me like I’d dropped in from Mars. One actually had the gall to reply, “Why? The line’s not that long”. In contrast, when I worked as a KMart cashier in high school, as soon as a supervisor noticed shoppers having to wait in line behind more than two other shoppers, it was: “Miriam, open Register 16, and hustle”. Why do Israeli retailers hire just less than enough staff? And why can they not train all employees to operate a register? Is it that complicated?

5. Flawed merchandise - In the States, cashiers have the Authority Vested In Them to give a standard discount on flawed merchandise, usually 10%. Here in Israel? Forget it. First of all, no personnel has any authority to make any decision whatsoever beyond how she’ll have her nails sculpted. So I’ve learned to just skip over the lowlings and ask to speak to the Shift Manager. Recently a Shift Manager at H&O grudgingly gave me 5% off a tank top with a stain in front, warning me, “Realize that this is it. No returns or exhanges. It’s yours.” Oooooh. Real scary. I wanted to say to her, “Honey, I’m doing you a favor. No one else’ll buy this, and you’d be forced to let it go for way less than 5% at the end of the season, when you’ll be stuck with it. Instead I’m taking it off your hands now.”

6. Returns - I like to say that you can walk up to Customer Service at KMart with a pair of sneakers you bought in 1965 and return them, explaining, “My boyfriend doesn’t like the color on me”. It’s an exaggeration, but not much of one. At Target, I recently returned a pair of earrings that I’d already worn, explaining that they were heavy and made my earlobes sore. Within five seconds I had my money back ― cash ― with a smile. You can bet I’ll be back at Target ― again and again and again. In contrast, I bought a futon frame at Futon ba’Ir that broke after ten days. The store had the chutzpa to offer me store credit, as if a futon is a staple you buy every day, like a pair of socks. At Mixer, when I wanted to return a fridge magnet whose magnet had fallen out on my way home, the sculpted-nail teen running the register told me, “My supplier won’t take it back.” And this is my problem? We’re talking a ₪5 doodad, for God’s sake.

Now I’ll tell you about my two most recent restaurant complaints. After eating at Passador in Eilat, I wrote the management a letter containing several complaints, including loud music inappropriate to an eating establishment; a giant-screen TV on the Fashion Channel, forcing me to stare at cleavages as I dined; chincy portions; and unimaginative presentation (no garnishes, etc.). The very nice manager called me and assured me that all had been rectified and invited me back so he could prove it. But. Didn’t. Offer. A freebie. No free dessert, not even a free beverage, much less a free entrée or complete meal. Sorry, not gambling in that establishment again.

At Aroma recently I ordered a Health Sandwich, whose ingredients can only be described with the British “sodden”. And it contained, of all things, sliced zuchinni. I wrote to the chain that 1) The sandwich wasn’t fresh and 2) The reason I didn’t know I’d be getting zuchinni [why not avocado?] was because the menu’s writing was so tiny that I was too impatient to read the entire ingredient list. I got a letter back from someone named Reuven telling me 1) I should’ve told the [sculpted-nail teenage] staff and 2) Describing to me in detail Aroma’s quality assurance practices.

I wrote back saying that he hadn’t addressed my complaints. Particularly, the staff has no control over the menu, nor could they change it on the spot. I got another letter informing me that the Eilat Big Aroma branch would be thoroughly investigated. Then I got a call from Avner, the manager, with the same rigamarole I got from Reuven, inviting me to come in and “discuss it over coffee”.

Avner and Reuven, wherever you are, I don’t need your lengthy explanations and invitations to coffee. Send me a voucher for a free cup of coffee, or a ₪25 gift card…anything, but give me something to compensate me besides verbose letters and phone calls that take up my time. Show me some good faith; demonstrate to me that you’re interested in my future business! I’m not interested in meeting you, I don’t want your company; I just want a reasonable product in exchange for my money!

Then there are the institutions and businesses that don't even bother replying: Ben-Gurion Airport, when I wrote in to its Feedback telling them that they should redo their signs to make them more comprehensible to the public, i.e, referring to Terminal 1 as "International Terminal" and Terminal 2 as "Domestic Terminal"; and the ones like the City of Jerusalem, who wrote back to tell me that there's no reason to label the bus station as such, thank you. They apparently think it's superfluous to label the building. Yet it's important that Clal Center bear prominent ads on its facade for a retail establishment that sells sex toys, in the middle of the city holy to three faiths. And to think there's a commentor out there who thinks I do this for recreation...

Israelis do a tremendous amount of marketing research; I know this first-hand, because I edit reams of it. When, oh when, is any of its findings going to be applied down here on the ground? When am I, the ordinary consumer, going to see the results???

Back-to-school Special on Master's Degrees מבצע בתארי ב'

2009-08-24T13:29:00.006+03:00

Research question: Can kibbutz [principles] be applied in the developing world?

The researcher: She arrived unannounced on a Saturday and figured she could finish interviewing (five members of my income-sharing community) by sundown, with no prior notice.

She couldn’t string together three words.

She took handwritten notes in a cutesy hardback Blank Book adorned with dolphins: no laptop, no recording device.

She was unable to answer my question about the use of the word pseudonym that appeared on the waiver she gave me to sign after she’d finished “interviewing” me, saying, “I think it's like ‘he’ or ‘she’”. "No," I explained. "‘He’ and ‘she’ are pronouns."

She didn’t connect the dots: After I told her that my reaction to an article I’d read in the mid-1980s about Tlalim was that it wouldn’t last, much later she asked me, “Are there any kibbutzes that didn’t last”? Honey, I just handed this one to you on a silver platter ten minutes ago. Go Google it (duh) and find out!

When she asked me if I "had any ties to the other kibbutzes" in the area, I replied, not particularly, but suggested she look them up, as each surely has a site. Her response: "Oh, yeah. Good idea".

She completely missed key thoughts. She asked, “What about adaptability? You guys seem adaptable”. I replied, “What one person thinks of as adapting, another might call selling out”. If not a gem, a tidbit, no? Went straight over her head. I suspect she didn’t know what “selling out” means.

She told me twice that her grandparents live in Missouri. Both times, she couldn’t recall where. Granted, perhaps she’d only visited once, when she was six, but I had the feeling she’d’ve had the same trouble with St. Louis. Hell, I had the feeling she couldn’t pick out Missouri on a map. “Big deal,” you say. “So couldn’t most Americans”. Yes. But this one is in a Master’s degree program. She seemed like she could barely handle community college. A neighbor said to me, “Yes, but look at where the program is [a not-particularly-prominent state university]”. I contend: It doesn’t matter. The granting of a degree, assuming the granting institution is accredited to do so, is supposed to mean mastery (hence “Master’s”). This gal clearly has mastered nothing beyond her PIN number and the On/Off switch on a TV remote.

Hello? McFly? Is there an advisor in the picture? If so, is s/he permanently out to lunch? The fact that this gal even got this far (?) is a condemnation of the institution she’s enrolled in, if not academia in general. If these are today’s master’s candidates, how am I to trust any research results I read two years hence?

And let’s not even go to how she chose [State U.]: “Well, I was driving through there, and I just thought it was so pretty…”

The real "demographic threat" ה"איום הדמוגרפי" האמיתי

2009-07-17T12:26:00.010+03:00

In response to Dror Yehezkel’s piece on demanding that the Arab states recognize us as a Jewish state עברית, talkbacker Eric responded: "If indeed Israel IS a Jewish state, then why is it importing Russian atheists to populate the West Bank, based strictly on their lineage?"; while talkbacker Mark Lincoln of Houston, TX, adds: "Paranoia is the national pastime: A sound practice before the decisive Yom Kippur War; a national curse since. The curious thing is that as the real threat has vanished, the hysteria about `the threat` has increased. Whereas the major security threats to Israel were external for its first quarter-century, the major security threats for the last 30 years have been of Israeli device."

Apropos paranoia, the very words “demograhic threat” make me cringe. How can anyone in this day and age even utter that phrase and take themselves seriously? To view an entire group of human beings not as such, but as a phenomenon? On the other hand, how can I then justify my unapologetic loathing for the ultra-Orthodox? I suppose the difference lies in the fact that I see the ultra-Orthodox as lording it over us non-Orthodox. How else can we explain what can only properly be described as their mass tantrums עברית, i.e., dumpster-burning whenever they don’t get their own way?

Let’s even suppose for the sake of argument that in some warped world, rioting as a protest to a denial of one’s rights (a free parking garage open on the Sabbath, say) has its place. But rioting in response to a fellow citizen’s undergoing the accepted consequences of abusing her child? Certainly never heard of such a thing in the Pali community. And yet we label the latter a threat. If any group threatens our existence as a democracy, it’s the ultra-Orthodox.

Here’s my favorite sentence from the article: “[in arresting the mother], the police destroyed the delicate relations built for years between the city and Haredi community, the officials said.” So now it’s the fault of the police that our “delicate relations” with the ultra-Orthodox are destroyed? Everything was fine until the evil Jewish Gestapo had the gall to intervene in our “internal” affairs?

And let’s talk about these delicate relations. When I hear that phrase, what I read is: the non-Orthodox tiptoeing on eggshells for 60+ years in a grossly misguided attempt not to offend the ultra-Orthodox and set off rioting. If a woman described her relationship with her husband to me this way, I wouldn’t have to be a therapist to see that she’s in an abusive relationship. And with an abuser, there’s no “talking it out” or “negotiating” or “processing” or “if I’m ‘good’, he’ll stop”.

If we wouldn’t counsel a woman in an abusive relationship to placate her abuser, then why, oh why, do we continue trying to placate the ultra-Orthodox, whose behavior is nothing more or less than bullying? With a bully, if you can’t exit the situation, you set boundaries, i.e., “I refuse to be treated this way”. Two-year-olds who learn that tantrums will get them what they demand grow up to be bullies and abusers. If it wasn’t transparently, abundantly, crystal-clear before this, it should be now: If any minority community needs to be “put in its place”, it’s the ultra-Orthodox.

Too busy to run our own occupation עסוקים מכדי לנהל את הכיבוש

2009-07-01T15:39:00.011+03:00

I thought surely I’d heard everything, that the situation couldn’t get any more Chelm-like, and now I find out that the IDF, finding that it’s too busy to staff its own checkpoints ― the manifestation of the occupation ― is farming this uh, lively task out to private security firms עברית. I can picture the Chiefs of Staff meeting where they came up with this one:

Chief of Staff: Men, the Tul Karm checkpoint is a problem. There just aren’t enough kids in the 18-20 demographic to man it. Something’s gotta give.

Colonel in charge of manpower: Gabi, what’s the problem? Just crack open the Yellow Pages and give Soldier of Fortune a call. Or Jane’s Defense Weekly. I know I have their number somewhere in my Rolodex here…

Chief of Staff: Nah, let’s go blue and white. Hand out some defense contracts to the local boys. Issue an RFB and I want at least three quotes on my desk by 07:00 hours tomorrow.

Colonel in charge of manpower: Right, Chief. Right away.

I mean, could it get any more ludicrous? We don’t have time to run our own occupation? Oh, excuse me, I meant “liberation”. Let’s see if we can explain things to our alien journalist from another galaxy:

Alien: I’m here with Yam Erez in the West Bank, and I’ve got to say to the folks back home, the way they run this show is downright confusing. Now, Ms. Erez, would you mind explaining to me again why you Israelis are in charge here, yet we can’t visit Ramallah?

Me: Well you see, Israelis aren’t allowed there.

Alien: You’re in charge of this territory, yet you’re not allowed there.

Me: That’s right. It’s in Area C, which is Palestinian-controlled. I mean, it’s ours, ‘cause God promised it to us, and She’s overall in charge, but it’s under Palestinian control. I mean…oh never mind.

Alien: So who’s that fellow over there? The one wearing the Muslim clerical-style head covering and the 5.5 kids? Is he a Palestinian?

Me: Oh, you mean him? He’s a settler.

Alien: A settler. So he’s…

Me: Israeli.

Alien: He’s Israeli. So how come he’s allowed to be here, yet you’re not?

Me: He’s Jewish.

Alien: But aren’t you Jewish?

Me: Yes, I am, but I don’t live here.

Alien: So let me get this straight: You’re Israeli, so you’re not allowed to be here, but he’s Israeli, and he’s allowed to live here. But you’re both in charge. Yet not really in charge, ‘cause the Palestinians are sort of in charge.

Me: Well, I can visit. For instance, were he to invite me, I could visit that settler.

Alien: Uh-huh. And suppose that nice actor of yours, that Muhammad Bakri fellow, wants to visit the settler. Would that be OK?

Me: Well, actually, no, it wouldn’t.

Alien: But I don’t get it. Mr. Bakri’s Israeli, isn’t he? So that means he's an occupier. What seems to be the problem?

Me: Yes -- I mean, no, that is, yes, he's Israeli, but he’s an Arab.

Alien [looking flushed]: It must be the heat. Do you suppose the settler would give us some water? I understand it’s a scarce resource in the occupied -- excuse me, I meant liberated -- territories...

What next? Oh, I have an idea: How about importing Thais or Filipinos to man the checkpoints? Isn't that what we Westerners do with our unseemly tasks? Farm them out to foreigners? Oh, that's right, [slaps forehead] you need permission from…what ministry was it again? The Welfare, or the Agriculture Ministry? I can’t seem to keep all the regulations for the various wood-hewing, water-bearing nationalities straight. [snaps fingers] Hey, I’ve got it! How about employing the Sudanese refugees to do it? They need work; we need staff―it’s a match!

Suppose they are conniving נניח שהם אמנם מתחכמים

2009-06-22T12:37:00.007+03:00

Of course our initial response to Ashdod Chief Rabbi Yosef Sheinin’s assertion עברית that “[Russian immigrants] will do everything possibly to deceive. They are to be assumed to be cheaters" is horror and revulsion. At the very least, Sheinin should hire a spokesperson more skilled in diplomacy than he himself is. But let’s examine the issue disregarding for the moment Sheinin’s offensive words.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Sheinin is right: Russian immigrants are lying in order to be accepted into Sheinin’s club. Can we blame them? They’re being set up for failure. First we lure them here on the premise of meeting an irrelevant criterion (one Jewish grandparent) and for our own paranoid ends (adding to the non-Arab population), then when they arrive, we tell them, “Oh yeah, we forgot to inform you that a primary civil right will be denied you”. Who among us wouldn’t at least consider trying to get around a hulking bureaucracy rather than jumping through its Kafkaesque hoops? And let’s not forget that we’re only talking here about the negligible numbers of “obedient” immigrants* who have sought conversion.

The more I turn over this intractable problem in my mind, the harder I hit the wall: There is simply no way that we Jews will arrive at a consensus on who is a Jew, and corollarily, who is a rabbi. Would that there could be a worldwide (interplanetary? Intergalactic?) Jews Database, but not even the Cyber Age would solve this one: We’d still need someone behind it all ― someone we all trust and whose rulings we agree to abide by ― to honcho the whole thing, to approve or reject those logging in to register, to send out the confirmation e-mails with your Jewser Name and Password.

The answer to me appears to run counter to the calls for unity: A Jewish nation that continually subdivides according to groupings and followings of individuals ordained as rabbis, whose conversions and marriages certain Jews accept and others do not. The key, of course, is for governments to stay out of the religion business, i.e., the government must assiduously avoid backing any one or more particular group(s) of Jews, or their institutions or rabbis. Each Jew decides for herself which kashrut seal to accept and which other Jews are kosher enough for her children to marry.

Besides, the system is warped from the git-go: Is the Gerer Rebbe’s grandchild required to show up at the local rabbinate bureau waving her mom’s ketuba at the clerk in order to be granted a marriage license?

*”Immigrants” having now become Israeli shorthand for “Russian speakers”

Big Sister's Pretty Dress השמלה היפה של האחות הגדולה

2009-06-09T12:21:00.003+03:00

In the past few years, I’ve become less timid about challenging gender stereotyping, perhaps as my kids have aged beyond the stages when parents are heard to say, “He’s all boy!” or “She’s a girly-girl!” (I can hardly stand even to write those statements. If I could I’d wave my wand and banish them forever).

Recently I challenged a case of gender stereotyping, and a father of two preschoolers accused my point of being “trivial” (hadn’t heard that one before, even from the detractors). Many claim that they are not guilty of feeding their kids any “sexist messages”. OK, all you skeptics about the existence of gender stereotyping and sexist messages, consider this recent, real-life, unplugged example:

In our community, when a baby is born, someone makes a clever, handmade congratulatory sign and posts it on the bulletin board. The sign is usually a gentle spoof on the parents and siblings. The sign for the newest baby, born this week, featured:
1. The dad wearing his political party’s t-shirt
2. The mom wearing a t-shirt “emblazoned” with the name of her job
3. Sister wearing a dress labeled ― are you ready? ― “Pretty Dress”

I challenge anyone to tell me that if Sister were Brother, his clothing would’ve been labeled “Great Outfit”. If anything, it surely would’ve been labeled “Big Brother”, which one would think would’ve been the obvious choice for either gender. Indeed, why not “Big Sister”? Is her appearance the only thing we can think of to say about this child?

Everyone in the community will see this sign. Kids who can’t read will ask their parents what’s written on it. I have no quarrel with it per se: It's tasteful, effort was clearly invested in it, and it will without a doubt be a family memento. But if anyone thinks that our kids aren’t getting messages that reinforce gender stereotyping, I offer this example, for which I didn’t have to go searching: It positively jumped out at me. Would anyone dare argue that my point is trivial?

Here's where my tolerance ends עצור! גבול סובלנותי לפניך

2009-06-08T13:23:00.007+03:00

For some strange reason, Gideon Levy suddenly decided to champion the cause of the poor, maligned ultra-Orthodox עברית who want to move into the secular stronghold of Ramat Aviv. As another columnist already responded*, we non-Orthdox don’t go into “their” neighborhoods and attempt to familiarize their young people with humanism, so the Ramat Avivians’ indignation is justified.

I also have a problem with Levy’s terming the Ramat Avivians’ justified indignation “anti-Semitism”, a deliberately inciteful use of a loaded term. Because I hate Jews coercing other Jews into giving up their freedom so that we all live in a Torah-pure environment, that makes me anti-Semitic? I don’t think so. I think it makes me anti-coercion. Requiring that I tolerate the intolerant is taking PC-ness too far, or to quote Tevye, “If I bend that far, I’ll break”. I cannot condone intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Besides, it’s hard for me to believe that Levy doesn’t realize that the ultra-Orthodox are in the same camp as his “beloved” settlers, the only difference being each group’s respective priorities: The former prioritize bringing about the redemption by adhering to the commandments and trying to get as many of us as possible to join them; while the latter prioritize bringing about the redemption by settling the Greater Land of Israel. But make no mistake about it: Both see the redemption as embodying a theocracy no less terrifying than that of, say, Iran. And, just because the ultra-Orthodox are infiltrating Ramat Aviv and not some hilltop in Samaria doesn’t mean their goals aren’t the same as the settlers’.

As Levy wrote yesterday, sipping espresso on Sheinkin עברית is not mutually exclusive to being a productive ― and yes, patriotic ― citizen, any more than does sipping espresso on the Champs d’Elysee or Fifth Avenue. Yet, sipping espresso on Sheinkin is antithetical to living in fill-in-the-blank-with-the-name-of-your-favorite-settlement. What Levy fails to acknowledge is that sipping espresso on Sheinkin is also antithetical to the ultra-Orthodox world, even though the latter doesn’t confine itself to a specific locale, as do the settlers. They’re one and the same, Levy; you can’t evade this truth.

*I searched for the response, but couldn't find it. All I recall is that it was written by someone named Carl.

Guide Dogs for Dummies יסודות אימוץ כלבי נחייה

2009-05-08T13:02:00.004+03:00

I’m posting this even though it deviates from my usual content. Last night my retired guide dog Labrador, in an attempt to get at the wax vestiges on a borrowed aromatic oil burner, knocked it over and broke it. That did it: The time has come to expose to the world the paucity of information on adopting retired guide dogs.

Although this isn’t an issue that touches most people, if this reaches even one person who’s considering adopting a retired guide dog, it’s worth it. For the sake of fairness, this is not an Israel-specific problem: I’ve looked high and low all over the Web, fully expecting to find an e-group, forum, or site aimed at guide dog retiree owners. Not only could I find nothing, but the school through which I adopted (twice ― this is my second guide dog) not only gave me little guidance, but neither did the former owners.

The lack of guidance is no one’s fault: The circumstances of “retirement” render nearly all information applicable to the dog’s working life irrelevant, which is why retired guide dog adopters need each other. Through a friend, I finally did find another retired guide dog adopter who was helpful; but having now owned two retired Labradors, I have a wealth of information to share.

So hopefully the engines’ll pick this up, but in the meantime, please fire this off to anyone you know who might benefit. Anyone considering adoption of, or who has already adopted a retired guide dog is encouraged to contact me for advice.

Shop 'til you're deaf קנו עד שתתחרשו

2009-05-06T13:54:00.009+03:00

I wish to publicly confess that my favorite days to shop are Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers, and Holocaust Remembrance Day. Now that you’ve picked your jaws up from off the floor, I’ll explain why in one word: noise. Unlike the other 362 days a year when malls and stores play music at an ear-splitting level, on the two aforementioned days, one can browse at a leisurely pace to the strains of *musika shketah* which literally means “quiet music” but in this context might also be translated as “respectful music”.

One of the most annoying phenomena in this country is that of music played by retail and other businesses, I’m assuming because the proprietors are under the hallucinatory impression that we consumers like it that way. Sure, I love it when:

I’m relaxing by a hotel pool and the aerobics music assaults me.
I’m in an outdoor bazaar where every merchant has his music turned on, oblivious to the others, supposedly to lure me into his special and unique shop to purchase his special and unique cheap merchandise.
I’m vacationing with my extended family at the Dan Eilat, and at 11 p.m., boom-boom music reaches us on the upper floors. I call down to the desk and they tell me, “It’s not on the premises. It’s coming from the *tayelet* [boardwalk].” Well then get your butts out there and find out where it’s coming from and tell them it’s disturbing your guests, who are presumably also their livelihood!
I’m in line at the cashier purchasing some clothing at Fox, and I ask the teenage sales clerk to lower the volume. She refuses, citing as a reason that she “can’t be turning it up and down constantly, according to whoever walks in the door”. Uh, like you’re going to have customers complaining that the music’s not loud enough?

We’re shopping for sneakers at MegaSport, where not only are they playing FM 102 over the PA system, but the wall-mounted TV is also playing MTV. I don’t even bother looking for the sales help. I simply go over to the wall where the TV is plugged into an outlet, and pull the plug. No one even notices.
I’m waiting for the Eilat Mall to open on a morning during Chanuka. The adjacent pub, Hof Tziyon, is blasting music to an empty beach. I make my way down and ask Tziyon to lower the volume, or at least turn his column speakers inward and not toward the Saudi Peninsula. The proprietor tells me, “Why? People want to hear it.” I look around. What people, pray?

Change will come only when we, we guests / shoppers / consumers demand it. I therefore propose a grassroots campaign consisting of the following:

Next time you’re in Eilat, before you go to the mall, take a few meters’ detour and ask Tziyon to lower the volume. Tell him you’d love to stay and buy a drink but his music’s too loud. Ditto for Papaya Nights, whose shift manager, when I asked him to lower the volume, asked me, "Are you sitting on my beach?" to which I replied, "No, that's the point. If I can hear your music all the way to Cafe Optimi, it's too loud. And I can promise you that as long as it's this loud, I will never patronize your establishment".
As you meander down the *tayelet*, tell every merchant playing music that you’d love to stay and browse, but his or her music’s too loud.
Call the reception desk at your hotel and / or random others to complain about the music from the *tayelet* ― and don’t wait ‘til dark. Call 24 / 7!

Seems to me that instead of evicting the merchants for operating illegally עברית, which is never gonna happen, the state should fine ‘em up the wazoo for disturbing the peace. Let ‘em have it, and don’t stop ‘til it’s quiet!

Yiddishe Kop, Where'd You Go? לאן הלך היידישע קופ

2009-05-01T11:46:00.005+03:00

עברית
Couldn’t find the English online: “Protest, counter-protest planned over gender-segregated buses” by Yair Ettinger p. 4, Thursday April 24, 2009 Haaretz English tells of a protest in the Shmuel haNavi neighborhood of Jerusalem and a counter-protest by the Orthodox women’s group Kolech*, which is demanding that gender-separate buses be eliminated.

Not only has the establishment of the Jewish state granted the ultra-Orthodox inordinate power, as explained here, ironically, precisely here in the Jewish state, Jewish ingenuity and entrepreneurship among the ultra-Orthodox is atrophying.

By way of explanation, let’s imagine a hypothetical ultra-Orthodox Jew in New York City who decides that he’s fed up with the existing public transportation options because he’s uncomfortable with being in close proximity to women. Obviously, he does not have the option of demanding that the city provide him with “kosher” transportation options. What’s the obvious next step? Start his own!

He gets his commercial driver’s license, takes out a loan, obtains the necessary permits for routes, buys a couple of vans, hires a couple of drivers, and voila ― a parnassah! He can even expand into the Muslim neighborhoods and eventually his business will support his own family and perhaps even others: Everybody wins.

Meanwhile, here in the Holy Land, sadly, everybody’s losing. How much psychic energy has been expended on both sides of this confrontation? Isn’t it about time we found a “third way”, instead of “My Way / Your Way”? My suggestion to the women of Kolech and if they’re smart, all relevant authorities (the Industry & Trade and Transportation Ministries, for starters): Propose to the ultra-Orthodox demonstrators that they start their own transportation company, and outline the steps needed to get there. There it is again―that coaching thing: Figure out where you want to go and take positive steps to get there: Everyone wins.

*I have to take a moment here and award this group the Yam Erez Clever Business and NPO Names award for not calling themselves Re’ut; Ofek / Ofakim; Keshet; Gvanim; Zchut [or some form thereof]; or Yad [or some form thereof]. Good going, gals!

Simulate a Checkpoint, Why Dontcha ?למה לא לחקות מחסום

2009-04-19T16:06:00.003+03:00

In his op-ed piece published on April 16 עברית, Gideon Levy bemoans the indifference to the occupation in the public at large, and the lack of a crusader for ending it in the Knesset in particular. Well, I’d like to reassure Levy that I’m reminded of the occupation every (work)day as I enter our (communal) dining room during floor-washing time.

Our dining room team has recently taken to pushing all the equipment (steam tables and warming ovens of various heights as well as other assorted institutional-size pieces) into the entrance, leaving a narrow passageway and reminding me of nothing if not a West Bank checkpoint in miniature. It has that feel too, of not being able to see out the other side. Then I came up with an idea (danger!): The youth movement activity of the 21st century.

Friends who were in Habonim tell me of all means of anti-capitalism indoctrination such as a crawling-on-hands-and-knees race for coins spilled at one end of a long gymnasium reminiscent of the famous digging-for-money scene in the film The Magic Christian; and being taken to a mall and given a few quarters per kid but admonished not to purchase from certain purveyors of enticing foods because said purveyors allegedly supported the grape growers, the leftist enemy of the day.

Why not, I thought, have youth movement members set up and operate a checkpoint? The activity might consist of building the checkpoint out of crates and other junk, an education in itself, as it has to be designed according to certain needs and parameters, with signs reading “Do not go beyond this point”; “Place belongings here”; “Men this way / Women this way”, etc.

Then each kid gets a card telling him or her hizzer “identity” and reason for needing to cross into Israel, for instance: Muhammad Abu-Kabir, age 78, suffering from heart disease, needs to get to Israeli hospital for treatment; accompanied by 20-year-old grandson”.

Meanwhile, the counselors have donned IDF uniforms and explain that they have received their daily directives from the intelligence services, and they know that one person in line is a suspected suicide bomber. Their object is to keep that person from crossing into Israel while not obstructing the innocent people who want to get across. The kids’ job is to convince the soldiers to let them cross in. Afterwards, of course, there is a sum-up session.

I challenge all youth movement members and counselors, and anyone involved in informal education to take this one on. I’ll be expecting the reports to roll in…including how many parents complain that the activity is “unpatriotic” and that the movement or school should be “apolitical”, as if anything nowadays can escape being political.

What more relevant activity could there be for a youth movement in 2009? If the Habonim members of the 1970s could crawl around trying to get their hands on a few coins, certainly our kids can spend an hour simulating a checkpoint, the tangible symbol of the occupation, no?

Natterings-on about church 'n' state הגיגים על דת + מדינה

2009-04-14T10:59:00.015+03:00

My dad recommended I read this well-written editorial condemning ultra-Orthodox violence as engaged in by the modesty patrols. I eagerly went online, and as I read, my heart soared: Finally a public condemnation of ultra-Orthodox violence from a member of the ultra-Orthodox community. Then I reached the end and read the bio line; my heart sank: The literate, articulate author is dean of a yeshiva in…New York. But of course, I told myself after the initial disappointment. What did you expect?

Why “of course”? What did I know intuitively that I didn’t even know I knew? That despite their insularity, when all’s said and done, the ultra-Orthodox abroad are still better-educated, more worldly, and have more respect for democracy than their counterparts in Israel. My buddy Dena Shunra explains it thusly:

"The practice of Jewish religion, especially by the Orthodox, has taken a flying leap out of being observant and into actual insanity. Quite seriously, I believe that the trigger therefor is precisely living in Israel. Our entire religion used to have the constraining force of living under the legal systems of other people, which helped keep it down to human size. With the advent of the state of Israel, the constraints were removed, and each crazy idea is met with people saying 'Gee, yeah. Let's try that one!'. It is not, overall, a positive development for Judaism (see Shabtai Zvi and other false messiahs for the likely eventual outcome, I'm afraid)."

Therefore, in my book, Horowitz’s condemnation just isn’t the genuine article. Admirable as it is, I'm as yet waiting for any ultra-Orthodox within a 3,000-mile radius of Maalot Daphna to join his or voice to Horowitz’s. If any readers hear of such, do let the rest of us know.

*

In discussions of church and state here in Israel, the term “the state’s Jewish character” always comes up as a defense of all sorts of coercive, theocratic laws. I, who advocate complete separation of church and state, am confident that as long as lots of Jews live here, should Israel (please, God) go the civil route, we are in no danger of losing our Jewish character.

Case in point: Yesterday a friend told me that Italy has the lowest birth rate in Europe despite its being the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, which opposes birth control. I looked it up in Wiki, and indeed only Germany’s birth rate is lower than Italy’s. It would appear, then, that while most Italians choose not to follow the teachings of the Church, amazingly, Italy manages to retain its Italian (and even Catholic) character.

To paraphrase Prof. Gadi Taub, Italy isn’t a sovereign state because God promised Italy to the Italians, but rather because it’s where the Italians’ story begins. Likewise, Jews have a right to live in Israel, but not on the condition that leavened products not be sold during Passover and public transportation not run on Saturdays; I live here because it’s where my story begins and I want to be a part of that story. I do not need Jewish practice as defined by a particular group and used to take the rest of us hostage, to justify my aliya.

It's Time to Out the ultra-Orthodox הגיע הזמן לחשוף את החרדים

2009-04-10T11:20:00.004+03:00

Previous to Haaretz running my op-ed piece in today’s edition, which was a version of my previous post about the secular struggle for Kiryat haYovel, the back-and-forth between myself and Editor David B. Green had value apart from the editing process per se, as it forced me to clarify and sharpen my argument, which is exactly what non-Orthodox Israelis need to do in the face of the perceived ultra-Orthodox invasion.

I believe that the knee-jerk anti-ultra-Orthodox reaction of most non-Orthodox stems not from blind hatred, but rather from the fact that most Israelis, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, have never had the pleasure of living in a civil society, i.e., one wherein the rules don’t change arbitrarily depending on who’s in power at the moment. Such arbitrariness is exemplified by the Chelm-like sleight-of-hand with which a judge decides that a supermarket is not considered public space [for the purposes of selling leavened products during Passover]; and a private residence is not zoned for praying.

Instead of the tactics they have employed until now, the non-Orthodox need to take a leaf from the book of life coaching, the underlying philosophy of which is: Instead of acting based on fear of what will be, imagine the outcome you want, and take positive steps to get there.

In the case at hand, the goal is to out the ultra-Orthodox on the fact that their practices (uglifying neighborhoods with their pasted-up notices; harassing inappropriately dressed women; driving cars fitted with bullhorns around residential areas at slow speed, blaring incessantly that the Messiah is coming; closing off streets to traffic at their own prerogative) have nothing to do with Torah observance, and everything to do with the fact that they want to escape back into a medieval ghetto and take the rest of us with them*. Perhaps I'm naive, but it's hard for me to imagine them launching a public, establishment-backed struggle for the “right” to engage in the above-mentioned practices.

Another thing I've observed about the ultra-Orthodox is that as much as they say that haShem and the Torah are their only authorities, they do respect strong leadership and law enforcement from outside the community. The key word here is "strong" -- the authority exerted must be confident and unyielding, not conciliatory like that of Beit Shemesh police chief Oz Eliasi, who allegedly made a deal with the ultra-Orthodox community there that police wouldn’t enter the neighborhood without first talking to the rabbi.

Taking potshots at “the black tide” won’t get us anywhere. Resistance to the ultra-Orthodox running our lives has to begin at the neighborhood level, and that means getting organized and leaving God out of it.

*So do the Amish resist modernity, but they don't move into my neighborhood and insist that I follow suit.

Kiryat Yovel, Change Tactics, Stat קרית יובל, שני את הטקטיקה במידי

2009-04-02T11:25:00.013+03:00

Reading Yair Ettinger’s account of the secular struggle for Kiryat Yovel עברית was mightily frustrating for me, as once again I see the same tired “there-goes-the-neighborhood” scenario being played out. It’s not the “Orthodox invasion” per se that frustrates me, but rather the predictably inefficacious, hand-wringing response on the part of the neighborhood’s veteran residents.

In going after a minyan held in a private residence, they’re no more empowered than hunting hounds going after a mechanical rabbit*. In the time it’s taking them (and the energy and court costs) to squelch it, ten more will pop up, representing a hundred new Orthodox families in the neighborhood. Is that what they want?

Instead of looking to the government to referee their dispute like some babysitter, the non-Orthodox must change their entire mindset, as per Henry Kissinger’s quote on the op-ed page of the same issue עברית. To paraphrase: The issue isn’t one more or less minyan or yeshiva in the neighborhood, but rather a total change in orientation. Repeat as needed: The government should not be involved in matters of religion. That’s right: Not to decide who can and cannot marry, nor to dictate who can and cannot live, pray, or study in a neighborhood.

Instead, the Kiryat Yovel residents and others in their predicament should learn two words: community organizing. Ettinger’s article mentions “an organization that seeks to preserve the neighborhood’s [secular] character”. Note that I put the word “secular” in brackets. That’s because it was in the quote, yet it’s superfluous. The terms "secular" and "Orthodox" need to be removed from this discourse entirely. The important issue here is that the veteran residents want their neighborhood to remain an appealing place to live, as it was when they moved in and as it’s been up until now.

Instead of disrupting prayers, which only makes them look bad, the veteran residents should be expending their panic-driven energy on strengthening their neighborhood, the one they’ve lived in for decades. What do I mean? Besides , showing up for said prayers en masse, they should be taking the following practical steps: A neighborhood association representative should visit every newcomer business and institution and inform the property owner that the following will not be tolerated:

1. Graffiti or signage of any type, including pashkavels and notices to the effect of “Daughters of Israel, dress modestly” and the like

2. Garbage, sewage, dog droppings, other pollution, or noise

3. Harassment of passersby and physical assault, including spitting

4. Blocking or obstructing any byway, for either pedestrian or motor traffic, either on a weekday or Sabbath or holiday

5. Soliciting, either for business or non-profit causes

By the way, the above must apply to the corner newsstand not displaying drug paraphernalia or girlie magazines, and to the (God forbid) local drug dealer. If the property owner asks why the above are prohibited, s/he should receive a two-word reply: property values. That’s all. Nothing more. No mention of religion or freedom therefrom. It’s quite simple: We bought homes here, we pay municipal taxes, and if any of the above violations occur, our homes will be worth less. That's where the entire dispute should begin and end.

Then, they need backup from City Hall in the event that there are violations, and no, this doesn’t have to be in the form of Meretz city council members. Parties are irrelevant here. The point is that a neighborhood ordinance has been violated and the neighborhood association must show “early and often” that it means business, i.e., violators will be prosecuted.

I truly believe that if the plan I’ve outlined above is followed, which means removing religion from the equation entirely (a difficult concept for us Middle Easterners, I know), neighborhood newcomers as well as veterans will fall into line, as they will see that 1) The same rules apply to all; and 2) If everyone observes the rules, the neighborhood will actually be a pleasant and desirable place in which to live and conduct business, and all will benefit. Plus it surely beats taking on every micro-minyan that pops up, which is about as effective as a drowning victim flailing about just to keep her head above water. Kiryat Yovel, you’re a symbol for us all: Don’t flail ― swim!

*Not to mention the utter absurdity of the case, matched only by last year’s chametz sale verdict. Outlawing prayer in private residences? Come on! It happens every day: shiva, circumcisions, Chanuka gatherings where a chanukiya is lit, Passover Seder…please, folks, let’s not even go there…

Passover: Isn't That the One Where We're Freed from Slavery? פסח שמח

2009-03-20T11:44:00.004+02:00

We’re approaching that time of year when we start to hear that greeting that always trips me up: chag sameach vKasher, invariably admonished gaily (picture finger-wagging with a preschool-teacher smile). chag sameach vKasher is unsettling to me for a few reasons: First, the kasher part sounds like a dangling appendage. At Purim, do we say chag sameach vShikor? At Chanuka, do we say chag sameach vMadlik?

Second, chag sameach vKasher has a distinct paternalistic ring. What? You think I’ll slip up and eat chametz if I’m not reminded of the primary directive of Passover every time I meet someone?

Third, it creates an unneccesary divide between those who are Torah-observant and those who are not. As one friend said, “It’s as if we went around greeting each other shalom uBitachon”. Do we really need to be reminded even more constantly of the divisions among us? Would it actually detract from the momentousness of Passover to simply wish each other chag sameach?

For the record, as far as I’m concerned your Passover can be kasher, chametzdik, or anything in between, as long as it’s an enjoyable festival wherein we join together to recite once again the story of the most dramatic hour of our history. This to me is the essence of Passover, not the collective elimination of every last molecule of leavening from the planet.

Gilmore Girls: Antisemitic? בנות גילמור: אנטישמי

2009-03-19T14:08:00.004+02:00

Those who know me know my obsession with Gilmore Girls, a TV series I have yet to find a show better than (See? It even caused me to end a sentence with a dangling superlative(?)). So it may surprise you that I have a big enough problem with an episode to blog thereon.

The episode in question is Season 3 Episode 10 (That’ll Do, Pig). It’s Rory’s senior year at Chilton. Ambitious, Type-A, nominally Jewish super-achiever Paris is telling Rory about her Christmas visit to her boyfriend’s family:

PARIS: The place smelled like cinnamon all the time, and there was a fire in the fireplace, and a ton of presents. I mean hundreds of presents. I’m looking at this mound of gifts, and I’m thinking, “Eight days of Chanukah. . . who was the skinflint who thought up that deal?”
RORY: Don’t the eight days symbolize something?
PARIS: Yes, they symbolize eight days of ripping off the little kids who can’t have a Chanukah bush.

Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Paris Geller: Typical self-hating assimilated Jewish brainiac: a walking encyclopedia of every culture…except her own. She’s on the expressway to the Ivy League, yet her knowledge of Judaism ― down to the most elementary facts, like why Chanuka lasts eight days ― is abysmal, going so far as to ridicule it.

The only excuse I can think of is that this episode was written not by regular screenplay writers Amy and Daniel Sherman-Palladino, but by Sheila R. Lawrence, who I see here has a filmography that includes, among others, many more GG episodes, as well as being producer.

How could she and the S-Ps let this go by? Did they think it would endear Paris to the gentile audience? Not only is it a disgraceful portrayal of a Jewish character, but it dips to such a low level in contrast to the piquant dialog for which GG is known. In addition, this soliloquy could have gone in a hundred other directions, i.e., the self-deprecation was totally unnecessary. Shame on you, Lawrence! You let us Gilmore fans down.

Teen Trips to Poland: Ka-Ching! ?המסע לפולין: חיוני

2009-03-17T14:58:00.007+02:00

Besides Avirama Golan’s excellent arguments against teen trips to Poland עברית and Fani Oz-Salzberger’s excellent response, I’d like to add that besides the obvious obscenity inherent in pouring thousands of dollars into the Polish economy, essentially rewarding the Poles for “having hosted the party” we recall as the Holocaust, I have another, more subtle problem with the teen trips.

I get the sense that they’ve become a vehicle for a last-ditch, mainline history lesson similar in kind to what my congregation growing up did for its confirmation classes: Rabbi Margolies, who was quite learned and charismatic, basically used the confirmation year to take the class on a journey through Jewish history. He knew that it was the last time many, if not most of us, would sit in a room with our Jewish peers and learn about our tribe. It was if he was saying, “OK. Enough with the model Seders and Purim costumes. We’re not fooling around now.” He knew that it was his last chance to fight our impending assimilation, and he pulled out all the stops. Valiant effort though it was, it was also sad; it was an admission of failure of seven years of Hebrew school.

In the same way, the teen trips to Poland seem to me to be an admission of failure of 12 years of Israeli schooling. It’s having the kids wrap themselves in our flag and calling it patriotism. It’s admitting that most non-Orthodox kids have a weak connection, at best, to their Jewish past, and hoping that a mainline injection of death camps will give it to them. The problem is that while a mainline injection has immediate knockout effect, the effect wears off just as quickly. You just can’t ring the little crystal bell* and “make Zionism appear” like it’s some pancake mix where you “just add water and serve”.

I’m inclined to agree with Oz-Salzberger, and am in fact enchanted by the idea of a Muslim-Jewish teen trip to Spain. The fact is that nothing, really --not even marching through the death camps themselves -- can substitute for hearing the live testimony of Holocaust survivors. We’re just going to have to accept that fact, and move on to a new era in Holocaust education.

&lang_select=31">

One Name: It's Not Monolithic שם אחד בלבד: לא בהכרח

2009-02-20T12:19:00.008+02:00

While I reject Arianna Huffington’s advice to bloggers not to bother perfecting their writing, I’ve decided to accept another of her suggestions, which is to “Focus on one or two issues and…specialize in them…and…latch on to a certain issue and…don't let go of it.” The last fits me to a tee, as those who know me know well.

Having thus decided, in addition to my main posts, I’ll be featuring mini-posts on the left-hand side of the page on the subject of women not taking their husbands’ names. Most of these will be in the form of responses to various arguments pro and con that I find across the ‘net. For the nonce, I’d like to take up what appears to be one of the main sticking points of deciding on surnames for one’s children, i.e., the oft-repeated mantra of “all family members having the same name”.

First, allow me to dismantle the assumption that a uniform surname is somehow the obvious ideal. I'll illustrate with my own situation: My surname is Erez (yes, I changed my birth surname, before I married or even met my husband); my husband’s surname is Slott ― simple, no hyphens, we each stayed who we’d always been. Pleasant, spontaneous result: Quickly, with no urging on our part, we became the Erez-Slotts, which we quite like.

It therefore seemed natural to give our children the surname Erez-Slott, and it’s worked out fine: Teachers and airport passport-checkers easily see the connections and how everyone arrived at their respective surnames. Mail is addressed to “the Erez-Slotts” or “Miriam Erez and Bill Slott” or “Hedy Erez-Slott”. Each of us shares some part of everyone elses’ names, and I have never had the sense on any of our parts that we aren’t an intact family unit, or that we are somehow irregular. The fact that Bill and I have separate surnames has had no impact whatsoever on our marriage.

I can already hear the protests: “That’s fine if you’re the Erez-Slotts, or the Walker-Smiths. Suppose we’re the Terwilliger-McGillicuttys?” OK, OK [picture me calming an angry mob]: Write your child's name from the git-go as “Hortense T-M”*. Everyone quickly gets used to it (the caregiver, the school, the soccer coach) and soon everyone will be referring to you as “the tee-ems”, and shalom al yisrael, as we say here in the Em-Eee.

Yes, yes, I know: When the T-Ms’ kids’ marry, they’ll more than likely drop one of their names (optimistic here that they’ll carry on with some option other than Bride taking Groom’s surname). Yes, inevitably names will get dropped along the way, but at least the women’s names will have a better chance of lasting more than one generation; either way, we now have recorded genealogies and databases, so no one’s actual identity disappears, like it did so often under the old system.

So there you are: a close-to-perfect solution, certainly closer-to-perfect than any other. So no more excuses, ladies: Get out there and Stand By Your Names!

*This is acceptable on all but the most official documents―and how often, really, do we have to deal with those? Once it’s on their passports and SSNs, that’s pretty much the end of it.

Does Shabbes Trump Tzniyus? האם שמירת שבת דוחה צניעות?

2009-02-18T14:31:00.016+02:00

In a recent discussion of tearing toilet paper on the Sabbath, I was reminded of an incident that happened to me when I was 19 and being introduced to the world of mitzva observance. I was spending Shabbat with an Orthodox couple and their young daughter. They’d both grown up non-Orthodox and had met while studying in their respective yeshivot-for-the-newly-religious in Jerusalem; he had been ordained as a rabbi.

To my misfortune, on Shabbat afternoon I ran out of tampons. Having searched the bathroom and found none, I managed to emerge therefrom long enough to discreetly ask Mrs. Rabbi if she perhaps had some tampons somewhere. After rummaging around, she found a box, but told me mournfully that while she usually remembers to tear a few of the wrappers open (for Shabbat use), none of present company had been so rendered shabbesdik.

Noticing my perplexity at this state of affairs, and trying to smooth things over (?) -- Orthodox style -- she sweetly said, “I’ll ask Chaim; he’ll give you a heter1!”; at which moment I simply grabbed the box out of her hands and disappeared into the bathroom, where no rabbi, with or without his heter, could get to me.

At the time, I simply rolled my eyes at the situation, impatient to solve my problem and annoyed that halachah stood in my way. Today, with more time to examine the situation, I’m even more irked than I was then: Putting a young woman in the position of having to expose her private matters to a married man? What happened to tzniyus2? What happened to simple regard for the comfort of a guest in one’s home? Does the letter of the law trump all? Trees, I wanted to scream, meet forest!

Needless to say, while at the time I was on the brink, thank goodness I did not adopt the Orthodox lifestyle. While I can "get into" spirituality, I happen to also "get into" the Western logic that allows me to tear open a tampon wrapper and fill my hygienic needs seven days a week without having to appeal to a “higher authority”. So Rabbi Chaim and Rebbitzen Chaviva, wherever you are, thanks for your hospitality, but save your precious heter for some other halachic “emergency”; As for me, no thank you, I won’t be needing it.

1 rabbi-issued exemption from upholding a commandment
2 the commandment of modesty and chaste behavior to be observed between the genders

Gestational Diabetes: What's Up With All the Sugar? סוכרת הריון: מה פתאום

2009-02-16T11:40:00.018+02:00

A friend who’s eight months pregnant was describing to me the sugar tolerance tests that pregnant women now routinely take, especially if their babies are large for [their] gestational age. Here are descriptions of the screenings and tests.

I recalled from my pregnancies dutifully drinking 50 cc of pure glucose, or grape sugar guck, the mere thought of which had me paying homage to the nearest toilet. Even back then I recall thinking, “So I (and my baby) am / are ingesting how much sugar? In order to…what? Obtain some number that tells me whether I can or cannot have sugar for the rest of my pregnancy?”

Not only does it seem simpler and less costly for everyone involved to simply advise moms whose babies are large for gestational age to cut back on or cut out sugar from Week 28, but just as I wonder about Gardasil and finding out the gender from an amnio*, I have to ask: Is it necessary? I went looking, and sure enough, found evidence that indeed, it’s not. In addition, it says here:

“Pregnancy makes extra demands on insulin production; to minimize the pressure, pregnant women should eat a diet low in simple sugars, high in complex carbohydrates and fiber, and moderate in fat. Moderate, regular exercise also improves glucose tolerance.”

Sounds reasonable, right? So why do we insist on “fiddling with the works”, especially in the majority of cases wherein no particular concern is indicated?

Once again, my instincts were on target: We simply have a case of a supposed condition whose existence is based on errant information, unnecessary tests for which have been “adopted into the medical canon”. Once again, we have the medical community playing on patients’ fears so that practitioners can protect themselves from blame.

What would be the problem with patients signing an Informed Consent Waiver on tests that they decide they don’t want? I’d sooner have done that than drunk enough liquid sugar to keep my baby bouncing off the walls until first grade.

* Even amnio, with which I'm also uncomfortable, at least supposedly gives us information that is unavailable otherwise. Not the case with GB testing.

I'll Take A Pass On Arianna Huffington אוותר על אריאנה האפינגטון

2009-02-15T13:42:00.004+02:00

Aspiring blogger that I am, thanks to the eagle eye of my neighbor, Sara Cohen, my attention was drawn to this review of a book on blogging by Arianna Huffington, editor of the Huffington Post. Perfect, I thought. Exactly what I’m looking for ― until I read this advice from the book quoted in the review:

“Focus on one or two issues and try to specialize in them…write often…don't waste time perfecting the text because the main thing is to publish…write the way you would speak…write succinctly…provide links to other blogs…get to know your audience, and…latch on to a certain issue and…don't let go of it.”

My talkback encapsulates what I think of her advice not to “waste time” perfecting your text.
As someone who has a love of language and appreciates well-written and -edited text, I have a huge problem with not “wasting time” perfecting it. If you want to read gigabytes of unedited drivel written “the way you would speak”, just open up MySpace or similar, and take your pick of blogs that recount the boozy adventures of twenty-somethings along the lines of, “Went out to Joes B&G last nite with Nicole, Ashly, Jason, and too other guys. Took Jasons car cause mines in the shop after the aksident (LOL*)”.

In contrast, I can appreciate reading even a point of view that is repugnant to me if it is well-written, and I don’t just mean engaging: I’m specifically referring to the mechanics of the writing. Two of the best-written publications I’ve ever read are Mad magazine (not kidding here -- there’s neither a typo nor an English error to be found therein) and the Land’s End Catalog. I actually read the latter for pleasure, that’s how good the writing is. For those of us who care, good writing is like a clean diner: You only notice when it’s not.

While I agree with the advice to link to others’ blogs, I do have a problem with what I call over-linking. Not everything a blogger mentions has to be linked; if it is I start to feel like I’m reading Wikipedia. I restrict my links to references to others’ writing that a standard search wouldn’t yield. If you’re not familiar with Mad or Land’s End, for example, I’ve put them in proper italics for you, thereby clueing you in to the fact that if you perform a standard search, you’ll be able to familiarize yourself therewith.

So, even though I’ve been excused by doing so by the likes of Arianna Huffington (who by the way needs to read my post on not changing one’s surname to that of one’s spouse), I shall continue to perfect my posts, editing them as many times as it takes in order to tell the world what I have to say and invite the world to talk back.

*Pet Peeve: “LOL” used when the writer actually means “ha-ha”.

Israel: Safer Than You Think ישראל: יותר בטוחה מאשר דמיינת

2009-02-12T12:19:00.010+02:00

Here we go rebranding again: Another pathetic Tourism Ministry scheme, this one to sell Israel as a safe destination. The talkbacks say it all: They’re so clever I almost don’t need to add anything, but I will (naturally!).

Besides what all the talkbackers said being true ―they so nailed it ― does the person who hatched this one live under a rock? I naively assume that TM personnel have some background in tourism. Have they not noticed that we don’t see adds for Carribean Islands captioned, “The Bermuda Triangle: Safer than you could imagine”?

In fact (as was pointed out by the talkbacker equating us with the Congo as a destination), the only such ads you ever see a la “Come discover UtopiaStan! We’re much more than just a mosquito-ridden dictatorship!” are aimed at luring budget travelers to (perhaps closer-to-home) countries that have the same things to offer as more costly destinations, just on a smaller / poorer scale. Is that who we want to be? Good grief! Are there any brain cells operating at the TM? Or are they all permanently out to lunch?

Attack of the Disney Princesses מתקפת נסיכות דיזני

2009-02-11T14:05:00.005+02:00

Hurray for Peggy Ornstein, who writes in "What's Wrong With Cinderella?" :

"In the 1990s, third-wave feminists rebelled against their dour big sisters, “reclaiming” sexual objectification as a woman’s right — provided, of course, that it was on her own terms, i.e., that she was the one choosing to strip, or wear a shirt emblazoned with “Porn Star”, or make out with her best friend at a frat-house bash.

"Third-waves have embraced words like 'bitch' and 'slut' as terms of affection and empowerment―that is, when used by the right people, with the right dash of playful irony. But how can you assure that? As Madonna gave way to Britney, whatever self-determination that message contained was watered down and commodified until all that was left was a gaggle of six-year-old girls in belly-baring t-shirts (which I’m guessing they don’t wear as cultural critique)."

The above expresses so well what I was trying to say here.

Ornstein continues:
"If trafficking in stereotypes doesn’t matter at age three, when does it matter? At six? Eight? Thirteen?", expressing exquisitely what I was trying to say here and here.

Go, Peggy Ornstein!

Air Travel Rant ירידה על חברות התעופה

2009-02-10T15:16:00.005+02:00

Picked up this gem from EgyptianZipper*:

“I refuse to fly, and it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with hassle. I do not want anyone going through my personal belongings at the airport. I do not want anyone patting me down or otherwise touching my body. I do not want anyone telling me to take my shoes off.

Then there is the little matter of airlines leaving their aircraft on the tarmac for six or eight hours, with no food, water, or access to restrooms for the passengers. The airlines should be sued for this and charged criminally with false imprisonment.”

I’ll add that what other industry besides the airlines takes your money with absolutely no guarantees to get you where you’re going when they say they will? i.e., “We’re cancelling / bumping you from your flight. Ooops! Sorry you missed your mother’s funeral. Nope, no refund. That was a non-refundable ticket.”

And don’t get me started on how you’re treated if and when you do actually manage to use your ticket: They herd you like cattle into a box where get to you sit for 10+ hours. OK; not their fault. But must the captain get on the PA and announce the altitude and the fact that the duty-free carts will now be trawling the aisles “for your shopping convenience”? And must they wake me up at 01:00 origin time to feed me a meat meal “because we want to transition you into destination time”? Can you say “paternalistic”?

How about just shutting up and letting me sleep and feeding me a nice, light, non-meat meal at a reasonable hour, and letting me decide when and if I want to transition into destination time? You’ve already got my money; it can’t possibly cost you anything to leave me in peace.

It's finally happened: "The surge in oil prices, a sinking dollar, and sagging Western economies have left commercial aviation on its knees…In the past six months, at least a dozen commercial airlines have failed, while others have been forced to ground planes, raise fares, cut jobs, and consider mergers as oil prices have climbed to record levels.

We’re scraping the bottom of the (oil) well, as has been predicted since I was born. What I don’t get is: Instead of casting about for alternative fuels a la “algae; halophytes, a group of salt-tolerant plants; and jatropha curcas, a bush native to Central America that can grow in poor soils” -- most of which won’t be commercially viable for years, if ever―and circulating e-mails like the one I got explaining how the common consumer can bring down fuel prices by boycotting Exxon ― why are consumers / travelers / drivers and airlines alike not scrambling to be the first to do the obvious: bring back rail travel?

Americans in particular ― who “moved on past” trains circa World War II and, imagining them to be passé, haven’t looked back ― should be demanding the resurgence of rail travel.
How many times have you heard someone say how sick and tired they are of the airlines? Of the waiting in ever-lengthening lines at ever-more-annoying security checks (the efficacy of which seem not to increase with their complexity)? Of the prohibitive cost of fares? Of the airlines’ bullying tactics (or what they no doubt refer to as “strategy” or “policy”) of Bumping, Cancellations, and Delays (BCD)?

When will we (and Americans especially) wake up and smell the coffee regarding the overwhelming advantages of 21st-century rail travel? Instead of the never-ending remodeling that seems to be taking place in every existing airport (Pardon Us While We Serve You Better!), those same airports could be adapted for use as train stations.

Not only would it remove most of the hassle from long-distance travel (it certainly couldn’t be more of a hassle), once you’re on board―comfort! You can actually get up and walk around! Even sleep! Eat without your elbows plastered to your sides. And use the bathroom―whenever you need to, without climbing over four other passengers. Another plus: no turbulence; no airsickness.

While it might not be quite as rapid as air travel, think about the frazzled nerves that are now an integral feature of the latter: the luggage that got waylaid…the passengers that got waylaid…need we say any more? Once we’ve adjusted our expectations in terms of the timing of our travels, I predict that we’ll leave air travel in the dust and never look back. Who’ll pick up the gauntlet? Airlines? Entrepreneurs? Anyone out there listening?

*another fellow Carolyn Hax commentator

Lisa Kogan Doth Protest Too Much

2009-02-07T10:58:00.010+02:00

I'm appalled at the tone of Lisas Kogan's rebuttal to a letter from a Nebraska SAH (that's Stay-@-Home) mom in Julia Has Three Mommies. First of all, it was unnecessary to address her as "Miss Nebraska", as well as to specify her (Kogan's) choice of comfort foods she used to "ignore the letter": Mint Milanos, Snapples, and Cheddar Goldfish. If you ask me, this was a deliberate dig at Nebraska, who, like many Americans Kogan will never meet, no doubt cannot even dream of throwing these items into her shopping cart, if she's even heard of them. Then Kogan has the chutzpa to say that she's "resisting a smartass reply"!

This is followed by what can only be described as a condescending and elitist explanation of how much four years at an Ivy League college is projected to cost in 15 years, when her Julia will naturally be enrolling in one. Can you say "presumptuous"? She's got her three-year-old's life mapped out, and is using that map to justify hiring both a nanny and a babysitter to care for her (only) child.

This is followed by another dig: "…that…is the way the cookie (which was not made from scratch, because hey, this is 2007) crumbles". Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more chutzpadik, Kogan has the chutzpa to "call a moratorium on snarkiness". Not only could Kogan's reply not have been snarkier, it pressed what I call my College of Your Choice Button.

This is the button that sends me into orbit whenever the discussion turns to paying the extortional sums known as College Tuition. It's unbelievable to me that the entire middle-class population of the US hasn't organized a boycott of private colleges; that people still subscribe to the concept of Getting Into a Good College. Has no one realized that where you earn your Bachelor of Arts has little bearing on your future success? That indeed, most people at age 40 are not working in the field in which their BA was earned?*

If I could give high school juniors advice before they start the rat race known as Applying to College, it would be this: Pick a part of the country that's always intrigued you, and apply to a state school(s) therein. It may be the last opportunity you'll have to choose where you live: Later on come spouses, jobs, elderly parents, and a smorgasbord of other obligations that life throws at you, resulting in the choice of where you live more often than not being made for you.

Where you earn your BA isn't as important as the fact of having earned one: A BA is nothing more than a ticket to either grad school or a job that doesn't require a hairnet. If the former is your direction, that's where you want to sacrifice, take out loans, etc. to get into the right program. Why in God's name go into debt for a BA? Is there any other product for which otherwise sane people willingly go into debt when there's a perfectly reasonable, non-debt alternative?

Yes, perfectly reasonable: They may not be Ivy League, but every state school, besides the obvious option of simply making good grades, offers honors programs that are not only challenging, but wherein, once enrolled, your little genius won't have to (God forbid) sit in the mega-lectures with the riff-raff. If you need more convincing, read here about the American obsession with Good Colleges (it's from the New Yorker, any of you who are still balking).

Indeed, my first thought while watching the travails of Nina, the overwhelmed Stanford scholarship student in the Broadway musical In the Heights: Why didn't she just enroll in SUNY Binghamton? Not only would she not have been in the Sisyphusian situation in which she'd found herself, but she wouldn't have had to listen to her rich classmates talk about their "cabins" on Lake Tahoe, and more importantly, she wouldn't have had to wipe her father out financially. But then, of course, there wouldn't have been a story…

Back to Lisa Kogan: Kogan, you're helping no one by perpetuating the disenfranchising myth that "the right college" is a status symbol. And if you're still convinced otherwise, perhaps you should consider giving up on one of Julia's "mommies" now, lest she God forbid ends up in the class of 2026 at University of Nebraska. Go Huskers!

* - "I was young and dumb and thought I really NEEDED to go to GWU to get anywhere"
— Gorijenna of the Hax commentors

3 films and a bunch of books

2009-02-04T18:52:00.004+02:00

It's film and book time. I recommend three recently seen movies:

Encounter Point
Whether you're on the Peace Train, or you're still on the platform mulling it over, you can't fail to be touched by this trilingual film (English / Hebrew / Arabic, with the two languages not being spoken at any given moment subtitled). It's a documentary about Semites on both sides of the divide bereaved by the Pali-Israeli conflict.

Everyone interviewed (it's a documentary) deserves a Peace Prize: the Pali who did time in an Israeli prison for a security offense, for adopting and trying to spread non-violence; the former (Orthodox) settler who moved inside the Green Line; and the rest of the bereaved parents who tirelessly lecture around Israel about giving the other side a chance. Left an imprint on my soul.

Sweet Mud Adadmáh Meshugá'at

Controversial film about a pre-decollectivized kibbutz circa 1970. Why controversial? Because everyone who's seen it feels compelled to either attack or defend the authenticity of the depiction of the kibbutz. I find it interesting that whereas many viewers have commented on the "beautiful scenery", I actually found the set to be drab and colorless – reflecting the spartanlike atmosphere of the kibbutz.

There's no doubt that kibbutzim are presented negatively; it's as if the director created a composite of Awful Stuff That Occurred on Kibbutzim. What bothers me is that so much of the Awful Stuff is so often attributed to the institution known as lináh meshutèfet [children's communal dorms]. Supposing there had been lináh meshutèfet, yet those caring for the children had been warm, caring, and had a sense of humor? I believe that if any or all of the Awful Stuff did occur (and I believe it did), it had more to do with the rigid ideological mindset and less to do with where the kids were housed / slept.

As a side note, I also find it interesting that two films that deal with kibbutz (this one and Mivtzah Savta) both have scenes about kibbutz kids stealing food. We've also had incidences of this type on my kibbutz, and it leads me to think that, as opposed to all the hand-wringing and wear-did-we-go-wrong-ing, it's a rite of passage in all institutional settings, including boarding schools. I'd be interested in hearing from readers who attended the latter about this phenomenon.

Odd Girl Out
Moms should watch this with their adolescent daughters. It's somewhere between Mean Girls and Thirteen in presenting the issue of relational violence, a term coined by the author of the book on which Odd Girls Out is based. I say just call a spade a spade: It's bullying, even though it's moved from the blacktop to the desktop.

Even though there's a happy ending, the film doesn't sugar-coat its subject. As a mom, I can vouch for the authenticity of the mother-daughter scenes and for the mom's despair and helplessness. As for the daughter, you want to jump out of your seat and shake her, but that's due to the fine acting and the film's succeeding in drawing in and involving the viewer. Recommended.

And now for books:
If you're interested in reading the books I've reviewed at Amazon, don't be deterred by the most recent, which is actually a product review of a dog brush. Just keep scrolling down…

Lose the Flags...Please חייבים להפטר מהדגלים

2009-02-04T18:05:00.003+02:00

You must have noticed them: the flags. You know the ones I mean: the pathetic-looking ones that "grace" the entrances to many of our hotels, particularly around the Dead Sea, but certainly not exclusively. I always wonder: What exactly is the message here? "We cater to people from Lots of Countries"? "All nationalities welcome here"? A-duh! It's a hotel, for God's sake.

I get the feeling that some Tourism Minister 'round about 1975 got the idea to start the Flag Thing, and since then no one has questioned it, and just left them fluttering forlornly to welcome all the Japanese, Germans, and Swedes swarming in to visit.

I can imagine that if done properly, it looks quite grand, a la the entrance to a world-class hotel in Hong Kong, or a luxury safari guest lodge, or, say
the Kampala (Uganda) Serena Hotel Conference Center, where:

"The broad plaza to the front of the conference centre features the flags of the nations with a generous sweep of stairs that leads into the grandeur of the marbled entrance lobby…"

…but unfortunately, our local examples, unlike the Kampala, conjure up the opposite of class, i.e., an old-time traveling circus or carnival road-show. In other words…tacky. Rinky-dink. The two last things you want to be if you're in the tourism business, right? I beg of anyone reading this who's in a position to have any say in the matter: Lose the flags. Please, for all our sakes. I would hope that we strive for class.

Housekeeping Poll סקר נטל הבית

2009-02-04T11:13:00.002+02:00

Thanks to Bethany W of the Carolyn Hax Commenting Crowd for giving me the idea for my poll (see left). Do vote!

Netiv: Now I'm Riled נתיב: עכשיו התעצבנתי

2009-02-01T15:22:00.008+02:00

Looks like Netiv has managed to anger the Germans. Can’t say I blame the latter. Besides the futility of trying to recruit German (read: Russian-speaking) Jews to immigrate to Israel, let’s talk about the presumptuousness behind Netiv’s claim that its purpose is to inform Jews about their option to do so.

If I recall correctly, in 1948, when Israel declared its independence and thus that it was “open for business”, Jews from such far-flung locales as Yemen managed not only to hear the news, but to show up ― despite the absence of any electronic communication. So it’s pretty hard for me to imagine that in our day and age, wherein we have not only television and telephones but the Web, there’s a Jew on earth who doesn’t know about the option of immigrating to Israel.

It’s therefore clear that Netiv’s purpose is none other than perpetuating itself and keeping its personnel employed. There’s no other rational explanation for its activities, “semi-covert” or otherwise. The same thing might even be said for the Jewish Agency. I therefore propose that we “divide the empire”: The Jewish Agency will operate in the West, and let Chabad set up shop in the likes of Uganda and Jamaica.

It makes perfect sense: Chabad loves the challenge of Jew-hunting off the beaten track, and anyone that they convert and thus deem “immigratable” is certainly kosher enough for me. This will allow the Jewish Agency to operate in mainstream Jewish locales such as France, England, Australia, and the Americas, and the Netiv staff can quietly take their ball and go home.

Chabad: What if They Threw a Seder & Nobody Came? קריאה להחרים את חב"ד

2009-02-01T13:57:00.005+02:00

I recently watched a TV documentary [could it have been this? Here you’ll read a short description of the film, about a Chabad couple “setting up shop” for outreach in ― are you ready? ― Ho Chi Minh City [hereinafter: HCMC]. Most of the program was spent following them around HCMC as they attempted to identify (and ascertain the kashrut of!) the unfamiliar foods at the grocery and explain to the furniture maker what kind of bed their toddler would need.
The suspense derived from the uncertainty of whether their things would arrive in time for Passover Seder, to which they’d naturally already invited a dozen or so guests. Their stuff arrived within hours before Passover, which they of course attributed to haShem working a miracle on their behalf.

Throughout, I could not stop exclaiming Why? I suppose I get the Chabad aspiration of increasing the per capita number of mitzvot performed anywhere on God’s green earth, but there? Vietnam? This article says that the Jewish population of HCMC is 200, most of whom are married to Vietnamese. Now what are the chances that an ex-pat Jew living in Vietnam and married to a native is going to “see the light” and return to the fold? Even if there should be such a Jew out there, among these 200, does it justify the formidable outlay of resources needed to relocate a family to a locale that Jewishly speaking is far-flung both in the geographical and figurative sense?

Yet my problem with Chabad shlichut goes beyond the expense. I "get" Chabad on college campuses, say. But the transplanting of an inherently Western institution to the Far East contains a distinct element of colonialism, manifested in the fact that all needs, down to formula for the toddler, flour for baking challah, and of course matzot, need to be imported; and also in the fact that the family’s only contact with the locals was to instruct the movers where to put things and supervise the carpenters who were assembling the Holy Ark ― tasks to which the shluchim naturally won’t or can’t stoop.

I find the entire phenomenon of Chabad in the Far East distasteful (and certainly not cute, as many Jews do): It smacks of paternalism, particularly the flagship Katmandu Seder, for which they’re famous among the post-IDF backpacker set, the underlying presumption of which is “those spiritually vapid seculars need us to ‘do’ Seder for them”.

Therefore, I would actually go so far as to actively discourage my kids from attending this or any other Chabad Seder or celebration, should they ever find themselves in the vicinity. Why not instead encourage our kids to join together with fellow travelers, shop for supplies to approximate a Seder (or Sabbath or other holiday) meal, and hold their own Seder? Such a Seder would certainly more closely resemble more Sdarim throughout Jewish history than does a Chabad Seder-in-a-box (Seder-in-a-vacuum?), and would no doubt not only have a more genuine feel, but would also likely be more memorable. So, calling all backpackers: Boycott the Katmandu Seder!

Yam Erez Takes On Community Vetting Committees מתנגדת לועדות קליטה

2009-01-29T10:34:00.006+02:00

Well, folks, I warned you here when it was “only” Arabs who want to live in all-Jewish communities that civil rights are just around the bend! Now an “undesirable Jew” wants in, and the High Court has given the ILA 60 days to explain why vetting committees for communities occupying state land should be permissible.

The Hebrew Talkbacks (90 responses) are roughly 50-50 in favor / against (I submitted two “pro” responses, nos. 89 and 90). The opposing responses seemed to be mostly in the category of, “Why shouldn’t a community get to decide who joins?”, clearly deriving from a century-old mindset of overwhelmingly communal-style settlement that’s even reflected in the Hebrew language, which takes special care to specify an entity known as ישוב קהילתי yishuv kehilatì, or “community settlement”*, as Hebrew-speakers have a hard time conceiving of a planned community being an ordinary bedroom community wherein nothing officially ties the residents together other than their common ZIP code.

It’s also reflected in the designation ישוב בודד yishuv bodèd [individually-owned settlement] labeling what everywhere else on the planet is known as a [family] farm or homestead, which we foreign-born wouldn’t bother specifying that it belongs to a single, nuclear family or individual(s).

In this particular case, the psychological assessment of the applicant (now the plaintiff in the case) described him as perceiving the move to the community in question as a refuge from his challenges. And that’s undesirable because…?

In regard to my own case, that of a kibbutz member, I understand that in its legal status as an income-sharing community, a kibbutz is exempt from the High Court ruling. As I wrote in one of my talkbacks to the article, I’m waiting for someone to challenge this state of affairs as well. We too occupy state-owned land; therefore, does the fact that we’re income sharing have any bearing on whether we have the right to restrict a citizen from living here (which is not the same, by the way, as accepting hizzer as a member).

My thoughts are wandering now: Are whites allowed to reside on Indian reservations? What constitutes an Indian / a white? Hmmm…

*I would normally translate ישוב yishuv as “community”, but couldn’t go as far as to translate ישוב קהילתי yishuv kehilatì as “community community”; and it’s not a communal community, because there’s no income-sharing element as there is in a moshav or kibbutz.

"Our Culture" = Patriarchy? "התרבות שלנו"

2009-01-28T15:30:00.003+02:00

While in New York this summer I was lucky enough to see the Broadway musical “In The Heights”, the plot of which involves an African-American who falls in love with a Hispanic. The latter’s family is patriarchal in the tradition of Hispanic families. Her father tells her lover angrily, “You do not understand our culture!”

Now, what does he mean by “our culture”? Our food? Our music? What’s to understand or not understand? Therefore, he can be referring to only one thing, i.e., “our culture” is code for “patriarchy”. Unfortunately, patriarchy typifies non-Western cultures, so that us Westerners are often accused of not understanding “X culture”, when what’s really going down is that Westerners are not patriarchal, which yes, we equate with progress.

It made me wonder what there is to admire in a culture wherein (as in “In The Heights”) young women are given approval for dressing sexily / provacatively / suggestively and for wearing shoes that might as well be stilts for how vulnerable these shoes make them. Where’s the female empowerment there? What’s admirable about this picture? Pray to a different God than I do? No problem. Eat monkey brains or other foods I find repulsive? I’m cool. Listen to atonal music? Go wild. But I find it difficult if not impossible to be relativist about patriarchy. Just sayin’.

Yom Kippur = Bike Day? ?יום הכיפורים: יום אופניים

2009-01-28T15:28:00.002+02:00

Jeremy Benstein writes that by creating a car-free environment, “…on Yom Kippur, it's no accident that we create an urban environment that makes us all fellow citizens…”.

While I applaud all reduction of car use and consumption, I fear that Benstein is being too kind in his interpretations, correct though he is politically. For my part, I’ve always had an uneasy sense regarding the whole “Yom Kippur equals bicycle free-for-all” phenomenon. In fact, I beg to differ that this one-day phenomenon makes us all fellow citizens; I propose that the contrary is true.

Implicit in all this “fear-free” cycling is the assumption, once again, that everyone here is Jewish. While the kids whiz around on their bikes and scooters, the grownups smile in approbation. Saturday in the Park. Feelin’ Groovy. Everyone’s enjoying themselves. But are they? In those smiles, and in all this seemingly innocuous fun, lie wholesale disregard for the fact that fully a quarter of Israel’s population isn’t Jewish. Along with that comes the fact that hundreds of thousands of Israelis are not observing Yom Kippur, any one of whom could by rights drive down any street at any moment, oblivious (or not) to the fact that we Jews are (arrogantly) assuming that our pedestrian and two-wheeled safety on this day is (Divinely?) guaranteed.

Where Benstein sees fellowship and coexistence, I see, once again, the colonialist face of Zionism, i.e., this land was empty when the first Jewish pioneers came, and a century later, we’re still not owning up to the fact that it’s not all ours, that others live here too.

It’s just another manifestation of the worldview that allows that certain groups (e.g., the ultra-Orthodox) have the right to close off their streets on the Sabbath, or that this practice is even negotiable. Do Jews residing in Crown Heights or Borough Park do this? Of course not, and that’s because in the States, at least, the streets are understood to be the public domain, whereon anyone can drive; no one resident or group of residents is allowed to decide on their own that use of their street is prohibited to the motoring public. Yom Kippur cycling is nothing more than a secular version of the Sabbath street-closing phenomenon. The message is the same: “We’re creating facts on the ground. We’ve taken over, like it or lump it.” It certainly doesn’t resonate as the fellowship that Benstein has in mind.