What Women's Media Needs to Know About Chassidic Women

[chiccy]

Not sure if this article has been posted yet (my search said no, but I haven't been around here for a bit, so...). Anyway, it's a would-be feminist Chassidic apologetics by, you guessed it, a young Chassidic woman. I guess there are a lot of these pieces these days.

I'm usually more sympathetic than most FJ'ers to anything Chassidishe, but this one rubbed me the wrong way.

When you slam Orthodox Jews because you think you're defending or somehow liberating the women of our communities, you're actually doing us a huge disservice.

[...]

Hi. I'm Chaya, and I am a Chassidic Jewish woman. I am also a media professional with a degree in Women's Studies from a large, very liberal university (magna cum laude, baby!).

In the past few days, I've been reading the backlash against "the asifa," a recent mass meeting of religious Jewish men meant to draw a few boundaries around Internet use in our homes (meaning religious Jewish homes; not your house).

Whenever religious Jews make a stink about some cultural issue, the media moves in on it with a bizarre kind of vengeance. Like yesterday, Katie J.M. Baker published an article on Jezebel about the event, in which she actually compared Jewish men to ants!

See: "While men in traditional Orthodox garb filed into Citi Field as steadily as a never-ending line of ants approaching an anthill…" Um, where have I seen Jews compard to insects before? Oh, wait, WWII.

As a resident of Brooklyn, the epicenter of all things hipster and the home of many, many clad-in-black religious Jews, I'd like to clarify a few things for all of you. Here are a few things you need to know about Chassidic women:

1. We are not imprisoned.

The last time I checked (which was right now), I am free to do whatever I want to do. Nobody is making me do anything. If I want to leave the community I live in, whether to go grocery shopping or to put on a pair of pants and go to a disco and snort coke, I can. Nobody is going to stop me. Would I wear a pair of skinny jeans and snort coke in a disco? No. Why?

2. We like ourselves the way we are. And most of us are happy.

Poor Deborah Feldman got the short end of the stick. She got a dysfunctional family and a crummy school. But listen: That happens everywhere. How many (non-Jewish or secular Jewish) friends of yours come from dysfunctional families and crappy schools and just couldn't wait to leave home? Did they represent your entire hometown?

We call becoming lax in religious observance and adopting a secular lifestyle "frying out." People fry out all the time. Most of us, though, feel like we are leading pretty rewarding lives.

Look at it this way: When your friends go to India to learn how to meditate and come home "leading spiritual lives" and suddenly won't go out for barbecue with you, you think it is cool. Your friend is leading a spiritual life. Spiritual lives involve boundaries and not just doing whatever your body feels like at that second. We lead spiritual lives. Leading a spiritual life is rewarding.

3. We find our husbands attractive.

(more after link)

I have a bunch of problems with this article--starting with "the mikvah is just a really fun all-girls' spa!"--but what is grating at me inordinately is that she seems to think "frei out" is spelled "fry out." Now that's some pitiful Yiddish.

[xDreamerx]

Disclaimer: Not even a tiny bit Jewish.

But I have some issues with the assertions she made:

"The last time I checked (which was right now), I am free to do whatever I want to do. Nobody is making me do anything. If I want to leave the community I live in, whether to go grocery shopping or to put on a pair of pants and go to a disco and snort coke, I can. Nobody is going to stop me. Would I wear a pair of skinny jeans and snort coke in a disco? No. Why?"

Yes, but your strict fairly insular culture is likely to make you self police. Read Foucault.

"Leading a spiritual life is rewarding."

Depends who you ask and it they buy into the logic that oppressing ones desires is 'spiritual'.

"Fun fact: Jewish law prohibits marrying someone who you're not attracted to. Another fun fact: In the Jewish marriage contract, one of the conditions of marriage is that a husband is obligated to sexually satisfy his wife. If my husband would deny "conjugal rights" to me, that's grounds for divorce. Pretty effing progressive if you ask me."

Just because something is written in a culture's laws, doesn't guarantee that this will be the practice. This applies to every culture, not just Jews.

5. Mikveh is awesome. We don't go to the mikveh because we're "dirty."

This whole point is flawed. She says it's all about what is considered ritually pure and impure. But instead of offering readers an explanation of this, she just simply says that all I need to know is Mikveh is awesome?! Great argument. That's not all I need to know. If your aim is to persuade, persuade me. Don't sidestep the issue. As I recall Leviticus refers to a woman's menstrual cycle as her "uncleanness". I don't see how that is unclear.

"We do not have sex at times that our vaginas are vulnerable to infection (such as right after birth). Because we do internal checks for menstrual blood the week after we finish menstruating, the rate of early detection of (G-d forbid) tumors and cysts in the vagina is very high."

As far as I'm aware, all women's doctors advise them not have sex for a period after birth. I think it's 6-8 weeks or something like that. Also sticking a finger into one's vagina does not accurately check for issues. You need a pap smear for that. I don't buy that their vaginal health is better than the average population, except maybe where HPV is concerned and that's assuming everyone is faithful and not having premarital sex ever.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Not sure if this article has been posted yet (my search said no, but I haven't been around here for a bit, so...). Anyway, it's a would-be feminist Chassidic apologetics by, you guessed it, a young Chassidic woman. I guess there are a lot of these pieces these days.

I'm usually more sympathetic than most FJ'ers to anything Chassidishe, but this one rubbed me the wrong way.

...

I have a bunch of problems with this article--starting with "the mikvah is just a really fun all-girls' spa!"--but what is grating at me inordinately is that she seems to think "frei out" is spelled "fry out." Now that's some pitiful Yiddish.

Heh. Yeah, even *I* know that!

Just reading the excerpt here it strikes me that she's pulling that same old same old false dichotomy, that you're religious and "spiritual" or else, well, you might as well be snorting coke in a disco, and why would you do that? - because it would be a life with no meaning. Either you're religious, or you can just do whatever the hell you want to when you want to do it, there's no discipline there.

Which is bogus, regardless of the individual flavor of fundie spouting it. There's never any recognition that people can have sincere goals and "higher purposes" and work hard and learn and be selfless and all the rest, have self-restraint, and yet BE SECULAR.

She also goes right for the other main talking point of every single one of these posts, namely that the only reason people "frei out" is because they come from dysfunctional households. They're broken, they didn't see the real beautiful lifestyle.

It's always either "people want to be hedonistic and live for the pleasures of the flesh, they want to do drugs and eat cheeseburgers" or else it's "well, they come from broken households and didn't see the true beauty of the religion." Or both. Heck, if you read blogs of ex-religious people who talk of breaking away (or heck, just going MO for that matter) due to intellectual reasons or a lot of thought, there are ALWAYS a bunch of commenters who will call it all a bunch of lies and excuses, saying that nah, you just wanted to slut it up and eat cheeseburgers - because you come from a broken home.

But the bottom line about apologetics is that they're just that... apologetics. People say all kinds of things to say that hey, our traditional practice is really good by modern views because it does X, Y and Z - but the thing is, that's not why they do it, they do it because it's a requirement. God said so. Period. If she hated going to the mikvah, she would have to go anyway, or be violating the norms of her community.

So many of the various fundie (any type) apologetics come off as "but I love my cage! It's wonderful in here! You're just jealous because you aren't in here!" Whether it's "but going to the mikvah makes me appreciate sex so much more" or it's "but I really love being a helpmeet and homeschooling is my favorite thing to do" or "I love skirts!" or whatever it is.

Thing is, as a secular person, I'm free to not have sex for certain times of the month too, IF I want. I can wear modest clothes. I AM married to a guy with a full beard. :)

Meanwhile if she's talking about the asifa, she knows many of the speeches were about not having Internet at home at all, right? Filtered only for work, and then only IF absolutely necessary? People talking about kicking kids out of school if their parents have Internet at home? That's what people were snarking. That's not "freedom."

[chiccy]

"Fun fact: Jewish law prohibits marrying someone who you're not attracted to. Another fun fact: In the Jewish marriage contract, one of the conditions of marriage is that a husband is obligated to sexually satisfy his wife. If my husband would deny "conjugal rights" to me, that's grounds for divorce. Pretty effing progressive if you ask me."

Just because something is written in a culture's laws, doesn't guarantee that this will be the practice. This applies to every culture, not just Jews.

Yeah. Nor is it "effing progressive" that being physically rejected by one's husband is grounds for divorce. The mere fact that the husband has to meet some [pretty extreme] conditions of shittiness in order for the woman to have a right to a divorce is exactly the opposite of 'progressive.'

[Guest Anonymous]

See: "While men in traditional Orthodox garb filed into Citi Field as steadily as a never-ending line of ants approaching an anthill…" Um, where have I seen Jews compard to insects before? Oh, wait, WWII.

Wow! That's quite a random and unprovoked comparison to the holocaust. What's her argument? We're all fine and you're... Nazis?

[VintageJen1984]

Wow! That's quite a random and unprovoked comparison to the holocaust. What's her argument? We're all fine and you're... Nazis?

Yeah, there's a pretty clear difference between "Jews aren't people they're insects" and a SIMILE, which is a technique used in writing all the effing time! Would she have been offended if it was a gathering of Christian men "filed into Citi Field as steadily as a never-ending line of ants approaching an anthill…"? It's just like saying "The butterscotch filled the candy dish, brightening the day just like the sunshine". No one's disparaging butterscotch here...and no one is disparaging Jews in that statement either!

[chiccy]

Yeah, seriously. That part was aggravating. She must not take the Holocaust very seriously if she thinks that journalist's word choice has anything in common with it.

She seems like either a baalat teshuvah, a convert, a newlywed, or someone else in the honeymoon phase of their relationship with Orthodox Judaism. Yeah, there are some superficially cool aspects of it, like pretty much every culture, but you have to go into the sober daylight to start seeing the whole picture for what it is. She's not there.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Deborah Feldman did a response to this.

http://deborahfeldman.tumblr.com/post/2 ... ane-titled

Basically, Chaya is comparing apples to oranges. She had a liberal upbringing, and then chose to join the most liberal of the Chassidic sects (Lubavitch). Her perspective and life experience will be completely different from that of a woman who was raised Satmar from birth. A Satmar girl will not be going to university to do Women's Studies. Life options are very different when you come from an insular community, when any difference or deviance is seen in an extremely negative light, when you don't have a decent secular education and when you are pushed to marry young. Yes, I do know of some Satmar women who are happy, but Chaya is in absolutely no position to speak for them.

I also had to cringe a bit over the mikvah part. Yes, it's true that the concept has nothing to do with physical cleanliness (different words are used in Hebrew, and there is no precise English equivalent). The rest of it, though, comes across as over-eager PR that IMO actually detracts from the religious teachings. Yes, many a modern mikvah today happens to be fancy. That's nice and appreciated, but a mikvah is not just a spa and fulfilling the commandment has nothing to do with how nice the facility is. Skinny dipping in a natural body of water, or using a nasty old facility, are just the same from a religious POV. Lower rates of cervical cancer would likely be related to number of sexual partners, since it's related to HPV. I have an issue with pseudo-scientific rationales being provided for commandments which are clearly supra-rational.

[pixydust]

Dear Chaya,

I fully support your right to practice Judaism in anyway you seem fit (as long as it is your choice, not your father's or husband's choice for you). Do you support mine? I doubt it.

Love, a pretty liberal Jew and happy with it!

[shesinsane]

Dear Chaya,

I fully support your right to practice Judaism in anyway you seem fit (as long as it is your choice, not your father's or husband's choice for you). Do you support mine? I doubt it.

Love, a pretty liberal Jew and happy with it!

Yeah, isn't it funny how some people will complain about being persecuted (Orthodox Jews aren't like that!) while persecuting others within their own faith (you're not really a Jew because you're just not Jewish enough).

I will give patriarchy Jews some credit - it's important to educate girls, not only so they can educate their children, but perhaps work to support the family while the husband studies Torah. It's an improvement over the fundie thinking of:as long as a girl can tend to her siblings and do housework, that's all the education she needs.

My friend married a man who was raised Orthodox but is no longer religious, but his sister has 6 daughters (and only stopped trying for a boy when doctors said it would likely kill her) and my friend is worried about the limited opportunities for her nieces. I pointed out that their mother went to college and would allow her daughters to as well, plus they have an aunt and uncle they can run to if they want to leave the lifestyle.

[Eclipse]

Yeah. Nor is it "effing progressive" that being physically rejected by one's husband is grounds for divorce. The mere fact that the husband has to meet some [pretty extreme] conditions of shittiness in order for the woman to have a right to a divorce is exactly the opposite of 'progressive.'

Ands its still the husband who has to give his wife the divorce. The wife has to go to a Rabbinical Court to ask for a divorce and then the Rabbinical Court orders the husband to divorce his wife. The wife doesn't have the power in this situation, its all in the husband's hands as he can still refuse to do so even though he has been ordered by a Rabbinical Court. That isn't progressive. I know when I dealt with my Jewish male clients going through a divorce in Ontario we had to make sure they got the Get and told the Court, otherwise they wouldn't be granted a secular divorce. Why? Because there was a case that went up to the Supreme Court in Canada in which a husband purposely refused to give his wife a Get for over twenty years until she was too old to have children. His wife was religious and would not marry outside of her faith and would not have children outside of marriage. As a result, you must now remove religious impediments to remarriage if it is within your power to block it before you are granted a divorce. It is my understanding that this is the case in some other jurisdictions as well.

I don't know if any of the more liberal forms of Judaism have changed the rules regarding Gets and I apologize if I am lumping more liberal Jews with them.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Dear Chaya,

I fully support your right to practice Judaism in anyway you seem fit (as long as it is your choice, not your father's or husband's choice for you). Do you support mine? I doubt it.

Love, a pretty liberal Jew and happy with it!

Interestingly enough in the article she mentions how "why it is that people will look at their friends going to India and finding their mysticism interesting but they bag on traditional religious like Judaism, oh, how close minded they are!" (and she's definitely not alone in that sentiment, either - plenty of these apologetics articles include that).

Of course those travellers aren't instantly getting into the equivalent of "Orthodox Hinduism" with all the rules and saying that all the rules are cool. Plenty of people in the US and elsewhere are similarly interested in Judaism (or Jewish for that matter, yeah) and yet don't go for Chareidism. It's about fundie or not more than the particular flavor, I think.

Not to mention that her community wouldn't go for any form of foreign mysticism, it'd be idol worship and rejected - but I suppose that's not similarly close-minded? And as you point out, she's not likely to support liberal Judaism even - is that not similarly close-minded?

[FaustianSlip]

She had a liberal upbringing, and then chose to join the most liberal of the Chassidic sects (Lubavitch).

Ah, I knew it! Just reading the first few lines, I found myself thinking, "I'll take ba'alat teshuva and Lubavitch for $500, Alex." I'm not trying to dump on either BTs or Lubavitchers at all, but as has already been said, you really can't compare someone in Chaya's situation to a woman who was raised in Kiryas Joel or a Gerrer enclave her entire life. They're just not even remotely equivalent. For one thing, Lubavitch is by far the most liberal and outward-looking of the various Hasidic groups (to the point that I've heard both Hasidim and non-Hasidim question whether Lubavitch is "real" Hasidism at all, and it almost invariably gets categorized separately from, say, the Satmarers and the rest when people start talking about various gradations of frumness). It also probably has the highest ratio of converts and BTs to FFBs ("frum from birth"), even in places like Crown Heights, which completely changes the dynamic of the group. Even if a Lubavitch kid is discouraged from, say, going to college, if they're surrounded by peers and adults who did go and get a secular education before becoming religious, they know it's a possibility, the general education level of those around them is higher, and it rubs off.

Also, Chaya either isn't aware or conveniently neglects to mention that despite her own academic background, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe was pretty adamantly against tertiary education for his Hasidim, barring a few specific instances. If you go to Lubavitch message boards, you can find lengthy discussions of whether or not people would "allow" their kids to attend university and, if so, whether this is really in keeping with the Rebbe's teachings. There are quotes of his all over the place about the evils of secular education, college in particular. So, no, I don't think you can honestly make the argument that Lubavitcher teachings are, like, totes cool with going to Smith and getting your degree in Womens' Studies. And remember, this is the most liberal of Hasidic groups we're talking about here. If they wouldn't go for that, I can guarantee you that Toldos Aharon or whoever wouldn't, either. But Lubavitch's primary goal is outreach, so they're not going to make a big production of emphasizing any of this (or even bringing it up) to people outside the fold because, hey, that would be kind of a turn-off.

I'm not even going to touch the whole question of Lubavitcher meshichism (i.e. the belief that their deceased Rebbe is the Messiah) which, while not something that everyone in the group believes, is enough of an issue that Crown Heights is basically divided between the Meshichists and the non-Meshichists, and there's an ongoing political battle for control of the group between the two sides.

I also think Gardenvarietycitizen is right on in her assessment of the piece; I really resent it when people present Judaism as a binary equation: either you're Orthodox and shomer mitzvot, or you're completely secular and eating bacon double cheeseburgers. It's such a pile of horse pucky, and I know way too many people (myself included) who would identify as liberal or non-Orthodox Jews who have a deep and active spiritual life, are engaged in their synagogues and communities and so on. Just because Chaya here was raised with very little Jewish education and then jumped into Orthodoxy doesn't mean that those are the only two options for people. And really, you would think that a Lubavitcher, of all people, who presumably encounters Jews all over the spectrum of observance, would be able to make that kind of distinction.

I don't have any issue with women who choose to be Orthodox or Hasidic or whatever else, if that's what fulfills them. I think Judaism is a stronger religion for having a wide range of practices and denominations. But it's deliberately misleading to try and tell people that the experience of an adult BT in a relatively liberal Hasidic group is representative of what someone who was born and raised in an extremely isolated community, cut off from the vast majority of educational and employment options, has experienced. They just aren't equivalent, and I suspect Chaya knows that. I would also point out to her that using phrases like "pretty effing progressive" isn't impressing anyone and does nothing to bolster her secular bona fides, which is what I think she's going for.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Ah, she's BT Lubavitch? I suppose the "but the mikvah is a spa!" should have given that away... :)

But yeah. As a secular person, raised non-religious, raised completely alienated from the culture of the "of the book!" Abrahamic religions, I will admit it bugs the hell out of me when people make these sweeping judgements that somehow the only meaning in life, the only RESTRAINT in life, the only "classy behavior" in life has to come from belief in those religions, that the rest of the world is just mindlessly mired in sluttiness and fruitlessly chasing the fleeting pleasures of the flesh with no meaning. The world is far larger than that, and plenty of other people have knowledge of self-restraint and asceticism already.

But of course it's the thing with BTs, in particular too - they CHOSE this. That's different from being raised in it (and possibly not being in favor), regardless of how much their adult selves wish with all their hearts that they were raised in it, retroactively.

[ilovetchotchkes]

Ah, she's BT Lubavitch? I suppose the "but the mikvah is a spa!" should have given that away... :)

But yeah. As a secular person, raised non-religious, raised completely alienated from the culture of the "of the book!" Abrahamic religions, I will admit it bugs the hell out of me when people make these sweeping judgements that somehow the only meaning in life, the only RESTRAINT in life, the only "classy behavior" in life has to come from belief in those religions, that the rest of the world is just mindlessly mired in sluttiness and fruitlessly chasing the fleeting pleasures of the flesh with no meaning. The world is far larger than that, and plenty of other people have knowledge of self-restraint and asceticism already.

But of course it's the thing with BTs, in particular too - they CHOSE this. That's different from being raised in it (and possibly not being in favor), regardless of how much their adult selves wish with all their hearts that they were raised in it, retroactively.

It depends - there's a liberal mikveh that Anita Diamant (liberal feminist jew FTW!!!) she's headed the development of one somewhere on the east coast that its like a spa. I THINK it even has like massages you can get before or after immersion. (could be wrong there) thejewishweek.com/news/new_york/recession_not_sinking_mikveh_movement -- the article also includes info that the mikveh she set up - the ladies are trained in LGBTQ sensitivity and welcomes folks who are immersing for a same sex wedding or trans folks. :) (which i think is super cool)

However, this woman's defensiveness rubbed me the wrong way big time. I"m a Reform Jew, but i'm pretty dang observant for a Reform Jew (using the internet on a Friday night aside) , and Uh.... just no. Like everyone else is saying, if you choose it its DIFFERENT.

Edited to add linkypoo

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Finally got through all the comments, and the various blogs on blogs on blogs discussing it, and I was quite happy to see that she WAS in fact taken to task by many who pointed out that as a BT, she can't speak for people who were born into and raised into a life (say, Satmar, etc, not even Lubavitch) that is far stricter than her own and that would never have let her get those degrees and what not.

As someone on one of the endless comment threads put it, "when you voluntarily join a community (ANY community, not just observant Judaism) as an adult you simply don't have the standing to speak on behalf of those born into it." That pretty much sums it up for me.

As far as being "free to leave my community," commenters also pointed out that if, as a BT, she were to leave again, she would be returning to a "normal" life. Odds are her extended family would welcome her "back" and be relieved, and she would walk right back into a world that she already knows how to navigate. Whereas someone born into the life who goes OTD, very often it means giving UP everything and cutting most if not all ties with family, as well as walking to into a brand new foreign world full of people you've been taught are the enemy (or just plain alien) your entire life, and quite possibly without any skills.

So the bottom line is, she likes the life that she has CHOSEN for herself (as an adult with a full education already completed), and finds beauty in religion. Great for her. But it's not a rebuttal to the stuff she was aiming to rebut.

(As for my fancy mikvah comment - I'd just read some other thread about some fancy Lubavitch ones in NY, compared to the ones of other chassidic groups. Quite possibly just a "when was it last remodelled?" question but apparently some of 'em are quite nice...)

All the comments were worth a read, far more interesting than the article!

[RR88]

New adherents of Orthodoxy (as the writer of this piece is) are often fed a sugar-coated, "PC" version of the religion that can cause them to wax poetic about its supposedly progressive virtues. All I can say is this: Sticking your fingers in your vagina twice a day for a week following your period is only a sign of sexual liberty if that's what you freely choose to do. If your religion requires you to do it and you only stick your fingers in your vagina because some rabbi/deity says that it's required, you ain't liberated.

[Guest Anonymous]

New adherents of Orthodoxy (as the writer of this piece is) are often fed a sugar-coated, "PC" version of the religion that can cause them to wax poetic about its supposedly progressive virtues. All I can say is this: Sticking your fingers in your vagina twice a day for a week following your period is only a sign of sexual liberty if that's what you freely choose to do. If your religion requires you to do it and you only stick your fingers in your vagina because some rabbi/deity says that it's required, you ain't liberated.

It is odd that she talks about prodding her vagina as if it is progressive and somehow inherently sexual. In my mind, it seems entirely mechanical and not particularly sexual. Her view is quite childish ('Guess what? I touched my Hoo-haa!').

[RR88]

I could be clearer.

The most basic problem with the piece is that it is written from the perspective of someone who actively chose to adopt this lifestyle. Orthodox Judaism, however, is seen by (most) Orthodox Jews as the correct way for every Jew to live. In reality, then, one would be urged to follow these rules even if they weren't seen as "awesome" and the person in question didn't want to live such a way.

[RR88]

It is odd that she talks about prodding her vagina as if it is progressive and somehow inherently sexual. In my mind, it seems entirely mechanical and not particularly sexual. Her view is quite childish ('Guess what? I touched my Hoo-haa!').

I concur. Is it sexual or progressive or "naughty" when I wash the outside of my genitalia, or treat a yeast infection with a vaginal suppository? After all, I'm touching my body when I do those things, aren't I?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Over on the mommy forum there were some posters who were shocked that this writer dared to mention that custom, because heaven forbid someone might think she refers to masturbation, or what if our teenage kids see it??? They were of the opinion that until the bridal classes there's no need to know where that hole is or what it's for. :roll:

So yeah, not exactly of the same cultural background as the author with her cute innuendo. (Mind, other posters over there aren't that sheltered - but definitely some of 'em are!!)

[Guest Anonymous]

RR88, I do appreciate your point regarding touching herself as an independent choice vs. a religious mandate. I agree with you. I just felt the need to piggyback off of the quote.

[RR88]

RR88, I do appreciate your point regarding touching herself as an independent choice vs. a religious mandate. I agree with you. I just felt the need to piggyback off of the quote.

I know! And thank you. :) I was just reiterating my point in a more general sense as opposed to considering it from a mainly sexual perspective. I think this can be applied to all religions. People who choose a religion are not coming from the same place as people who are operating under coercion or urging. Plus, there's the obvious factor of most religions being seen as "the one true way", and so one's perception of how "awesome" a custom is is irrelevant when one's salvation or whatever is at stake. If God wants you to rub yourself raw with a white cloth twice a day to make sure there's no blood left in your vagina, then you're supposed to rub yourself raw whether or not you find it sexually liberating.

[valsa]

Another fun fact: In the Jewish marriage contract, one of the conditions of marriage is that a husband is obligated to sexually satisfy his wife. If my husband would deny "conjugal rights" to me, that's grounds for divorce. Pretty effing progressive if you ask me."

Actually, no. I consider myself pretty damn progressive/liberal and I frankly find the whole "Give me sex or I will divorce you"* thing to be very skeevy... no matter which way the genders swing. My sniff test for this sort of thing is generally "if the roles/genders were reversed, what would I think?" I'd find it fucked up if a religious order said that a woman had to give her husband sex whenever he wanted it, or he'd divorce her, so why should it be any different just because the genders are switched?

* Sexual incompatibility is a legit grounds for divorce and perhaps that's how that little caveat plays out in real life but, the way this woman is talking, it sounds like one party can basically hold divorce over the other party’s head as a manipulation tool to force them to have sex when they don’t want to.

[artmama]

:hide: I actually really enjoyed that article. I read it after it was linked by one of my dearest friends, who is Lubavitch. She and her family live in Crown Heights again, after spending a couple of years on the UWS, and working as a mikveh attendant. The mikveh that she worked at was super fancy, just based on pictures I saw.

We met online a few years ago, and we actually have not yet met in person, but I do consider her one of my best friends. We make a rather unlikely pair, I am sure. She is always happy and willing to answer any of the ridiculous questions that I might have about her faith, and I have told her all about the faith in which I was raised, but no longer practice. Just based on my own experiences growing up and then as a young adult, going from SBC to Church of Christ, finally to charismatic evangelical "non denominational", Judaism sounds a lot more pleasant.

My friend is Jewish by birth but became more observant as an adult, and I realize that it does make a difference when one is able to choose to follow a path, versus being set on it from birth and not being allowed to deviate from it. The latter is the thing that concerns me.