What Women's Media Needs to Know About Chassidic Women

[RR88]

That's the crux of it. The progressive, enlightened women who choose this lifestyle are in no way comparable to the women who were born/forced into it.

[artschooldropout]

I agree. The idea that Judaism is black-and-white when it comes to observance is at best, absurd. Yet organizations such as Chabad, and especially, Aish thrive on selling this idea to secular people who know very little about religion. It's more convenient to pretend that alternative views do not exist in order to convince people that you have to be a fundie in order to be a religious Jew. This article is no different than the screed published on the Aish website (which deserves its own thread BTW), with their sugarcoating, ad-hoc assumptions and phony science. As someone who is thinking about becoming more observant (though not Orthodox, at all), this kind of thing just irks me.

Also, am I the only one who finds the author's implied assumption that wearing pants somehow equals snorting cocaine really problematic?

[alba]

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.

When I read things like this I can't help thinking it places a huge burden on some women. If a woman has vaginismus, has been sexually assaulted, or for whatever reason feels uncomfortable sticking her fingers in her vagina, then she's not just got the direct effects to deal with, but also the religious guilt at not being able to do something she's supposed to do as a part of her faith.

That's not liberty, sexual or otherwise.

Also, am I the only one who finds the author's implied assumption that wearing pants somehow equals snorting cocaine really problematic?

No, you're not.

[Terrie]

The fact that she can't seem to defend her own lifestyle without degrading others is pretty telling to me. If her life is so great, it should speak for itself.

[duplessis3]

And the other creepy thing abt the checking for blood question is that if you arent sure...you go and show a peice if cloth with your secretions on it to a rabbi. Who will decide if you are clean enough to have sex...tellme again how it isnt abt purity...

[2xx1xy1JD]

: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.

I found Yael through OnionSoupMix.

I've talked before about the difference between fundie and merely very religious. She's a definite case of someone who is really religious but not fundie - her blog has made me both laugh and cry, and inspired me as well.

[2xx1xy1JD]

When I read things like this I can't help thinking it places a huge burden on some women. If a woman has vaginismus, has been sexually assaulted, or for whatever reason feels uncomfortable sticking her fingers in her vagina, then she's not just got the direct effects to deal with, but also the religious guilt at not being able to do something she's supposed to do as a part of her faith.

That's not liberty, sexual or otherwise.

It's only required if you are preparing to have sexual intercourse. If a woman has that much discomfort with just a finger, how would she manage doing more? Hopefully, it would be a sign that a discussion is needed ASAP with a doctor, the groom and the religious advisors.

[2xx1xy1JD]

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.

Chabad Lubavitch at times seems to have a split personality when it comes to the outside world.

In some ways, this reflects the life of their late leader, the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In their younger years, he and his wife were university students - first in Berlin, then in Paris. In Berlin, they sometimes hung out with Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, who would go on to be the leading intellectual figure in Modern Orthodoxy. Chabad talks about this proudly, esp. to the BT crowd. At the same time, though, the Rebbe eventually ended up fleeing from first Berlin, and then from France, because of the Nazis. So, during his first 50 years, he would have lived through pogroms, seen the Russian Revolution and how it ended up oppressing religious Jews, dreamed of studying of Germany - which at the time was considered the height of intellectual and cultural development - and then seen it all turn into a nightmare under the Nazis. It's perhaps not surprising that he later discouraged university studies. At the same time, though, HE was still educated, and the university education and life experience showed in his letters and his general approach. Many of his followers don't have this background, and they don't have the same worldview or approach.

You also have a split between those who work in outreach, and those that are living in Crown Heights or some of the more insular Chabad communities. For those in outreach positions - they are often at one end of the religious extreme in their communities, and the constant pressure is to relate to those who are less observant. For those in Brooklyn, though, they are often at the other end of the religious spectrum, surrounded by stricter Chassidic sects and sometimes feeling embarrassed at the perception that they are a bit lax.

[Guest Anonymous]

What's your theory? The Rebbe thought 'I went to university and I had to flee the Nazis, therefore education is bad'? That's a bit weak.

[RR88]

It's only required if you are preparing to have sexual intercourse. If a woman has that much discomfort with just a finger, how would she manage doing more? Hopefully, it would be a sign that a discussion is needed ASAP with a doctor, the groom and the religious advisors.

Irrelevant. If women are required to stick cloths into their vaginas fourteen times each month, they aren't part of a sex-positive religion. Sex-positive cultures don't require people to engage in any specific behavior.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Irrelevant. If women are required to stick cloths into their vaginas fourteen times each month, they aren't part of a sex-positive religion. Sex-positive cultures don't require people to engage in any specific behavior.

I think we can agree that traditional Judaism does not have an anything-goes approach to sex and does in fact have a slew of rules and requirements, for both sex and life in general.

It's simplistic to say that it's sex-positive or not. When it comes to basic drives/functions like sex and eating, Judaism imposes a bunch of rules, so that indulging within the rules is considered good, but going outside the rules is considered bad.

[RR88]

I agree. That's why I can't stand the article. It is filled with misinformation and lies, and it's written in a tone that implies things about Judaism that are incorrect.

[alba]

It's only required if you are preparing to have sexual intercourse. If a woman has that much discomfort with just a finger, how would she manage doing more? Hopefully, it would be a sign that a discussion is needed ASAP with a doctor, the groom and the religious advisors.

I'm not sure why the religious advisors should be relevant, unless it's because the religious edict has already caused some degree of emotional harm.

If it's only required prior to intercourse then that would mean it wouldn't apply to some women. That said, it's possible to be OK with sex with a loving partner and a lot of foreplay and still have difficulty with non-sexual penetration. Yes, it's something that should be addressed, but it's not something that should have religion thrown into it, especially as one of the sources can be religious restrictions on sexuality that make women uncomfortable with their own bodies.

[2xx1xy1JD]

What's your theory? The Rebbe thought 'I went to university and I had to flee the Nazis, therefore education is bad'? That's a bit weak.

My theory is that early in his life, he was enchanted with German culture and academia, which was considered the gold standard at the time. From what I've read, he had been born and raised in Russia, and it was a real struggle for him to be able to get to study in Berlin. He spent many years as a student and was determined to be an engineer. Then, he sees this absolute horror springing from that same culture. It would have affected any assumption on his part that more education and more culture = more moral. He and his wife had left their families in Russia years before (although they visited her parents and had regular contact) when they left for their studies, but after arriving in New York, they re-embraced their roots in such an absolute way that they never even traveled again.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

It's simplistic to say that it's sex-positive or not. When it comes to basic drives/functions like sex and eating, Judaism imposes a bunch of rules, so that indulging within the rules is considered good, but going outside the rules is considered bad.

Sure, but so does Christianity (about the sex, anyway). Sex within marriage is not a sin, and that was one specific point that plenty of people called the writer out on. If the argument is "well yeah there's rules and plenty of sex is not okay but inside marriage, loving sex is something that God likes and encourages" then plenty of religions can say that. It's moving goalposts big time. If "sex positive" just means "sex isn't always a bad thing" that's a pretty easy target to hit.

That's where the tone of the piece turned a lot of people off - she came off as saying "the only way to have a meaningful life (rather than just snorting coke at a disco) is to be religious, and furthermore, MY religion is so much deeper than any of yours, you can never understand it until you've been steeped in it enough to (necessarily!!!) agree with me." She complains about people supposedly misunderstanding Judaism and then proceeds to do the same about other traditions.

Meanwhile from a secular perspective, people are saying, "okay, fine, you like your rules so you say this is positive, but we don't HAVE those rules so even more sex is positive." If someone wants to abstain for a week each month, they CAN. People are free to impose whatever rules on their own behavior that they want, tailored for their own personal lives. Not believing in divine rules doesn't need to equate to no rules at all.

And that's where the inevitable rationalization of religious rules by cherry picking certain ones and explaining how they're so perfect for modern living and helpful according to modern science just falls flat for me every time. If science finds that doing some behavior is helpful, you can just do it, without the religion. It doesn't change the fact that people who observe religious rules are doing it because they accept (via faith) that it's a requirement for them. God said to do it, so they do it. It's tradition and their ancestors did it, so they do it. There are all sorts of other restrictions that we know 100% have nothing to do with modern physical reality but people do them anyway, and that's fine. Just don't deny that it's not at heart about rational modern science or 2012 healthy living.

But that's where all the recruitment stuff comes in...

[gardenvarietycitizen]

I do think that 2xx1xy1JD is right on about there being a pretty big divide between Chabad BTs and the people who WERE actually born into it from a family that's been part of it for generations and therefore part of the "original stream" so to speak. If someone from that situation wrote an essay it would probably be a lot different at least in tone.

[RR88]

Great post, gardenvarietycitizen. It should be noted, however, that the "awesome" rules of family purity require a couple to abstain for a minimum of twelve days, sometimes longer. It ends up being closer to two weeks than one week, so for about half of each month couples do not touch each other at all or pass objects to one another.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I do think that 2xx1xy1JD is right on about there being a pretty big divide between Chabad BTs and the people who WERE actually born into it from a family that's been part of it for generations and therefore part of the "original stream" so to speak. If someone from that situation wrote an essay it would probably be a lot different at least in tone.

I'm pretty sure that Chaya was paraphrasing "The Secret of Jewish Femininity" by Tehilla Abramov. While there are some things that I like about Abramov (she also wrote a decent breastfeeding book and does believe that women should be comfortable with their own bodies), her book is filled with comments about how this enhances marriage, talking about how great it is that women are literally "in touch" with themselves and with claims of health benefits (with no corresponding footnotes).

I prefer Rivka Slonim's work instead. She was born into Chabad, and does outreach on campus. I've heard her speak, and she's quite honest about the fact that it does NOT make all marriages magical, and that the practice shouldn't be "sold" on the basis of secular benefits.

She writes:

The laws of Family Purity are a divine ordinance. There is no better, more legitimate, more logical, or essential reason for their observance. It is a difficult commandment, a discipline that makes demands on our time, our psyche, and our emotions. It is a force at odds with the flesh, a way of life that the average person would not likely choose or devise. It calls for willful suspension of self-determination, the subservience of our most intimate desires to the bidding of a higher authority

from http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/ar ... Mikvah.htm

Incidentally, the same article goes into far greater detail about the "not about physical cleanliness" point than I could.

[artmama]

I found Yael through OnionSoupMix.

I've talked before about the difference between fundie and merely very religious. She's a definite case of someone who is really religious but not fundie - her blog has made me both laugh and cry, and inspired me as well.

Oh what a small world! Yael is one of my absolute favorite people on the planet, she is like the sister I wish my sisters were like. I'll have to tell her about this, I know she will get a kick out of it. She is a fantastic writer, I look forward to buying her book when it's done. I have no doubt whatsoever that she'll get it published. anyhow, I digress.

Absolutely to the bolded.