Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Feminism
Tagged: women and judaism
- This topic has 737 replies, 58 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by CS.
June 13, 2010 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm #1162673KashaMember
Der ikkur iz nuch aza machlokes mir zulen ala huben ah git gebenshed choidesh, in yuhr, in ales gitz biz ah hindred in zvunztzig, gezinterheit!!!)June 13, 2010 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #1162676
SJS in NYC -The way you apply your idea of feminism, it sounds like it is within the realm of torah. Buy you CAN NOT extrapolate your life to others. Many frum women who wouldn’t even consider themselves feminists, who live ultra-yeshivish communities, do the following: They routinely go out to malls and other shopping areas even if they really don’t need to buy something. They routinely go out with friends, to restaurants, malls, etc., just to hang out. Of course they must get dressed up for these excursions like they are going to a chasunah. Now, I’m not talking about the woman who needs to do this once in awhile to take a break from the stresses of life. I’m talking about ROUTINELY! Where did this come from -that this should be taking place in the frum community? My only answer is the influence of the goyim via what the world calls FEMINISM!June 13, 2010 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #1162677fayweeMember
So Health, you define feminism as routinely going shopping?
If you are a women- then nebuch on you that you define your femininity in such inane terms!June 13, 2010 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #1162678KashaMember
femininity and feminism are two polar opposites.
feminism is about women displaying their manhood and masculinity, whist femininity is the opposite.June 13, 2010 7:35 pm at 7:35 pm #1162679
Faywee -No where in my post did I even attempt to define feminism.
I obviously struck a chord with my words with you. Also, you conviently left out what I wrote- “They routinely go out to malls and other shopping areas even if they really don’t need to buy something.” Femininity has nothing to do with Feminism!June 13, 2010 7:57 pm at 7:57 pm #1162680
My only answer is the influence of the goyim via what the world calls FEMINISM!
Health, while you didn’t define feminism you definitely implied that feminism is the cause for women routinely going shopping.
Feminism is the mixing up of the yoitzres of what male and female roles are.
Compulsive shopping is the result of an emptiness that the soul feels- a spiritual void that needs to be filled.
Any compulsion is a human’s way of coping with a spritiual void.June 13, 2010 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #1162681
Clearheaded- In order to respond with a clear head, you must read the post first. Again, I was talking about people who like to Drey in malls or walk up and down streets- “Window Shopping”. They left their house without a definite purpose of- I need to buy “X” now- for whatever. Also, I didn’t imply it, I outright said it. “Call a spade, a spade.”June 13, 2010 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm #1162682
First of all, I don’t like it when someone attacks in a very stupid way that doesn’t relate to the topic. I mean come on, clear head?
Now listen, nobody can forever keep on zich dreyen in the mall if they don’t shop! Impossible! One can do that here or there, but not on a steady basis. Our generation is about consumerism because of the steady pressure from advertisements and when someone keeps on going frequently to the mall, they spend, period.
In any case, whether one wants to call it zich dreyan in the mall or compulsive shopping is beside the point. The main point here is that being in the mall very frequently (who’s going to define that?), whether the purpose is for zich dreyan in the mall or compulsive shopping is because of a spiritual void.June 13, 2010 9:00 pm at 9:00 pm #1162683
Yea, but the spirtual void for dreying is caused by feminism. I don’t know what the spiritual void for compulsive shopping is. Maybe it’s just a mental illness.June 13, 2010 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #1162684
(On the broken engagements thread and I was asked to continue it, over here)
“The court hears all sides of an argument and does not assume a gender bias in the decision process. There are women who for legitimate reasons lose their cases. Feminist conspiracy is utter nonsense.”
Do you also belive the U.N. is not biased against Israel?
Just because SOME women lose, does not mean that most do not win.
And the only reason some do lose, is because there is a growing mens rights movement, that has started fighting back, countering the feminist, man hating, agenda.
What about “Judge” Sotomayer, who said that a Latina woman was smarter then a white male?
What about the Duke Lacross prosecutor, who deliberately withheld evidence that finally cleared the BOYS, of the abuse they were falsly charged with (Only with massive publicity, like on Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s shows)?
Of course, feminists will do anything and everything, to make people think they are not pushing the agenda, that they….’are’…..actually pushing; But the FACTS show otherwise.
Abuse of men BY feminists, is every bit as much (if not much more so)a serious concern in the frum community as any abuse against women.
People who believe the above quote from artchill’s post, will automatically believe any woman, who lies that her “husband abused her”, when he in fact, was the abused one (at the very least, he is now being severly abused, by the feminists in the court system and probably suffered much emotional and verbal abuse in the marriage, as well).
“He abused me” the wife lies, and the automatic knee jerk response is “We have to get that (so and so) put in jail, for as long as possible”.
If a man is accused of abuse, he is automatically judged Do’n L’chav Chov.
Those trying to claim; There supposedly, is no feminist agenda being pushed in these cases, are proving there is.
Because they automatically reject ANYTHING that does not automatically and always blame the man, in each and every case
hereorthere: Suggestion – When quoting another poster, put his screen name on the first line, skip a line, then put the quote as a paragraph on another line WITH QUOTES around them. (See the above edit of this post.) Then skip another line. Forget the dashes and other symbols. This will make it easier for readers to understand which part is being quoted, and which part is your comment. And it is simpler than using italics.June 13, 2010 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm #1162685
I think it is important to understand that Feminism is an actual sociological term with a set definition. Not all feminist are men-haters. Some are and they are called radical feminists. These are the women whose agenda is to break down the family institution because they believe it is a system of oppression. It are the radical feminists who are truly a threat to the family as we know it. That said, just like any radical group they tend to be fewer in number but have a greater presence in the mainstream media.
There are also liberal feminists whose main agenda is equal opportunities, similar to the efforts of African Americans during the civil rights movement of the 1950s. They are people promoting “equal pay for equal work.
Hereorthere, I am not sure I understand your logic in the following passage:
“Those trying to claim; There supposedly, is no feminist agenda being pushed in these cases, are proving there is. Because they automatically reject ANYTHING that does not automatically and always blame the man, in each and every case.”
The denial of something does not automatically support or prove the opposite of that. Denying the corruption of the courts does not necessarily mean an individual supports ignoring any evidence that does not support the woman’s case. The logic simply does not follow.June 13, 2010 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #1162686
Radical feminists try and hide behind equality but many websites dedicated to feminism if you are a member you get access to their “inner circle” where they admit they are frusterated with equality because they really want superiority and always have.
They just understand that they cannot come out and admit such things.
To answer Arosem; If someone claims or tries to imply that feminists never try and abuse the court system or act like
all divorce cases in the frum community are some kind of abuse.
Then they are proving the feminist agenda is operating, because
it is totally illogical to claim (or to try and project the idea even, without actually saying it, in those words)that women are never corrupt and never ever have ulterior motives, in divorces.
When I pointed out that (real) abuse, in the heimish community, is far more rare then some would have us believe, and the same people who atatck me for saying that are going on about how ‘wonderful’ divorce is and how they strongly imply that Torah supposedly does not consider there to be anything wrong whatsoever with it.
That is obvious proof of the feminist agenda being carried out and promoted, since no one can find a G’dol B’Torah who would agree with such ideas or pasken that they were kosher for frum people to have.June 13, 2010 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #1162687
If someone claims or tries to imply that feminists never try and abuse the court system or act like
all divorce cases in the frum community are some kind of abuse.
Who claimed or implied that feminists never tried to abuse the court system? You make it sound like every case is run according to radical feminists who are evil.
The Torah allows divorce. The Torah doesn’t say “treat your marriage like its disposable” but it does recognize that there are times when divorce is needed. Why is there Gittin??? I’m glad the Torah is run according to Hashem, and not Hereorthere.
EDITEDJune 13, 2010 11:22 pm at 11:22 pm #1162688
Please cite a place where we can find that feminists are “admit they are frusterated with equality because they really want superiority and always have.”June 13, 2010 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #1162689
Hereorthere, you say,
“Radical feminists try and hide behind equality but many websites dedicated to feminism if you are a member you get access to their “inner circle” where they admit they are frusterated with equality because they really want superiority and always have. They just understand that they cannot come out and admit such things.”
I am not really sure what websites you are referring to. Feminism is a social movement, not a cult. It is true that radical feminist want superiority, they do not try to hide this fact. On the other hand liberal feminists disagree with the radicals. They do not believe in superiority for anyone, not from men nor for themselves, they seek only for equal opportunity for all people. They are usually aligned with other civil rights activists.
To say that it is a feminist agenda to abuse the court system is simply incorrect. If you are able to find a feminist manifesto which dictates its followers to break laws and lie in court, I would love to see it. But as it stands, greed is a separate attribute from feminism. That is not to say that not a single feminist is not greed, of course people are drive by the prospect of easy money, but this applies to men and women, feminist and anti-feminist. If greed was exclusive to feminism, why have so many men been imprisoned for white collar crimes like tax evasion?June 13, 2010 11:29 pm at 11:29 pm #1162690
dupe post.June 13, 2010 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #1162691
SJSinNYC it was claimed on the broken enggements thread where they also made it out like it was somethung to run to rather then a last resport when all lse failed.
No I did not make it out like “every case” was run by radical feminists that is just a false charge that feminists try and use
to marginilize anyone who does not follow or support their agenda.
SJSinNYC posts; “The Torah allows divorce. The Torah doesn’t say “treat your marriage like its disposable” but it does recognize that there are times when divorce is needed.”
Only as last resort, which is the opposite how it was portrayed by some on that other thread.
That is why they had the waters into which H-sh-m’s name is disolved.
He says (paraphrasing)”Let my name be erased rather then a marriage should break up”.
I’m glad the Torah is run according to H-sh-m, and not SJSinNYC.June 13, 2010 11:46 pm at 11:46 pm #1162692
Hereorthere, we need to define last resort:
1) A woman gets beaten by her husband. She slowly saw signs of violence in him but ignored it during engagement. Now it escalated to physical violence. Gone.
2) Man or woman regularly beats up kid or spouse (and I don’t mean a potch). Gone.
4) Man or woman is addicted to some substance (alcohol, drugs etc) and doesn’t want to change. Gone.
5) Man or woman lies about something major before marriage. Gone.
In which of these cases should the man or woman stay with the spouse?
EDITEDJune 13, 2010 11:57 pm at 11:57 pm #1162693
SJSinNYC; Even arosem agreed that such feminists exist, ask ‘him/her’ to ‘cite’.
arosem the liberal feminists ARE the radicals.
This is like the antisemites (who the liberal feminists support) who claim they do not hate Jews just “Zionists”.
If all they wanted was equality they would oppose special treatment for women but they do not.
Not one feminist group has EVER opposed companies that hire women who are less qualified then men competing for a job, because the company is afraid of discrimination lawsuits (or any other reason for that matter).
Not one feminist group has ever opposed the imbalance of so many more women these days entering college then men despite the fact that they ALL screamed long and loud when in the past, it was men who were entering college at greater rates then women.
Not one feminist group, ever opposed tiny undersized police women who can’t handle the more physical aspects of policing like making a raid on a violent motorcycle gang.
If they truly cared about EQUALITY, they would oppose these things and they never do.
arosem; The claims in your last paragraph are full of holes and totaly illogical.
Your argument is tantamount to claiming that Stalinists as part of their agenda as a group, couldn’t hate Jews because they had no written down ‘Manifesto’ that ‘specified’ hating Jews, yet Jews who lived under that system, can tell you all about Stalins systematic persecution of Jews.
Your other argument is like claiming the Stalinists cannot hate Jews, because others (like Nazis) also hate Jews.
Both of those arguments are utter nonsense.
Since you admit there are radical feminists how can you then claim that none of them ever became lawyers and judges and as such, never allowed their feminist agenda, to influence their practice, (or rulings for feminist judges)?
Why indeed, does Torah not allow women judges in the first place (and Devorah was a singular exception, NOT the general halacha)?June 14, 2010 12:24 am at 12:24 am #1162694
SJSinNYC How about you “citing” proof that all this abuse you listed by numbers, that you think is so rampant, in the heimish community and that the vast majority (if not all) divorces are only from such abuse, and not because of women (or others), lying about the men in order to gain sympathy when they want the divorces for ulterior motives”?
And lets face it; You say “men or women” being abused but who is going to believe a 5’9″ 180 LB male that his 5’2″ 120LB wife, smacks him around or even mentally abuses him?
The woman on the other hand, is always believed instantly (Even if she were much larger and stronger then he was).
I have never heard of a single case, where the woman made false claims even outlandish claims, that were obvious lies, where she still was not believed by a lot of women (maybe not ALL, but a lot of them) who heard about it.
That is part of the onesidedness of it all.
And since those on the feminist side claim to be so concerned about abuse both physical and mental; How come abuse of children (and of adults in some cases) by children (bullying)is not even mentioned even thought it happenes every day both in school and in other places (like on the street or in shule in some cases, for example).
I remember one time I was in one large shule with bleechers for seating in some places and I was in one bleecher during an event and some kid on the one above me was deliberately kicking me, something like 20 or thirty times.
I tried moving around and the kid kept at it.
He did not stop till I finally turned to the father and told him that if he did not get his kid to stop, I’d throw him over railing to the ground.
I would not actually have done it of course but if I had said t loud enough for many to hear I’m sure some of them would have thought I was some kind of abuser, which is why kids can get away with bullying, even adults.
And the feminists, never say anything about that.June 14, 2010 12:35 am at 12:35 am #1162695
“hereorthere: Suggestion – When quoting another poster, put his screen name on the first line, skip a line, then put the quote as a paragraph on another line WITH QUOTES around them. (See the above edit of this post.) Then skip another line. Forget the dashes and other symbols. This will make it easier for readers to understand which part is being quoted, and which part is your comment. And it is simpler than using italics.”
Mod, OK but how do I did it when there are a few paragraphs with lines some quoting what I said, and other quotes of rsponse from someone else?
Often a line or two are taken out from another post and if you do not quote everything that said by both in the back and forth response (sometimes more then just two) people it gets confusing as to who said which quote and and trying to understand what anyone, is talking about?
You can use the following format for quoting, using a separate line for each quote (with quotation marks) and a blank line between each one:
Chaim said “hereorthre you are a great guy”
Yankel said “Chaim I completely agree with you”
hereorthere said “Thanks guys”
Chaim said “Your welcome”June 14, 2010 12:42 am at 12:42 am #1162696
OK Mod, that is good advice, I will Bli Nadir, try and remember to do it that way, thanks 🙂June 14, 2010 12:57 am at 12:57 am #1162697
Hereorthere, actually many liberal feminists are actively trying to spread awareness about spousal abuse perpetrated by the wife against the husband. Many of the scholarly articles published by and for psychologists, sociologists, and social workers, dealing with domestic violence, tend to focus on violence against men not by men. My husband, who is currently studying to become a social worker, tells me that he is constantly reading and learning about studies showing that men, too, are victims of spousal abuse. This in turn has lead to a slow rise in men who are succeeding in bringing cases of spousal abuse to the police and the courts. In a sense, it is the same feminists who you are accusing of ruining society, that are also fighting for the things you claim society ignores. (No court will accept a case of spousal abuse, even cases brought by women claiming their husbands hurt them, unless there is clear evidence that shows that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether or not her girl friends believe her claims is sort of irrelevant.)
There is also a fair amount mentioned about the way some children treat their parents. Although I believe that the children’s behavior is not entirely comparable to that of the spouses’ because a child’s mind is not yet fully capable of understanding the complete effects of all their actions. The example you brought, although frustrating, could be considered abuse or bullying,IMO.June 14, 2010 1:26 am at 1:26 am #1162698
arosem if what you say is true then things are starting to change in the area of abuse.
It was not that way till now.
But the abuse of boys in public school by teachers and the system, keeping them back so the girls can artificially get ahead, continues as shown by the fact that women enter college at 3 times the rate of boys and get hired even when less qualified for a job just to the comoany does not face a discrimination lawsuit.
This means that in the not too distant future, men will be treated the way women used to in the work place as second class citizens with lower paid and harder jobs because they were kept out of
the pathways to success by the feminists (who of course will always deny that this is going on just like Islamics deny teaching their radical terroristic views to children in classes at Islamic schools and in the mosques).June 14, 2010 2:00 am at 2:00 am #1162699
“his means that in the not too distant future, men will be treated the way women used to in the work place as second class citizens with lower paid and harder jobs”
I do not think that this will happen, at least not in this country because the Supreme Court has ruled against the practice of reverse discrimination. If a man were to be denied a job merely because he is not a woman, he can challenge it and has precedents to rely upon to support his case.
I will agree that in the effort to allow girls to succeed in school, boys have lost out in a sense. The classroom is set up to better allow girls to learn, like using novels that appeal more to girls than boys or and the removal of recess from many schools’ schedules. This is not a conspiracy to make boys fail, instead it is an unintended consequence of trying to level the playing field. It is for this reason that I, and many others, believe that education should only be in same-sex environments. Boys and girls learn differently and it is very difficult to cater to the needs of both in a single classroom.
I think that there is more to the rate of girls vs. boys entering college than simply than actual abuse of boys in the public school. I find it hard to believe that anyone who pursues a career in education wishes for about half of their students to fail. There are other larger societal factors at play that hurt boys chances at graduating high school and continuing on to college. Some of these factors do not tend to apply to the jewish community, but it did not seem like you were talking exclusively about jews. Major factors, especially in poorer areas where fewer boys tend to make it into college than girls, include a greater likelihood of boys getting involved in a gang or because a boy is able to contribute more to a family’s income by getting a job (because they will be able to bring in more money than a girl in the same family could).June 14, 2010 2:56 am at 2:56 am #1162700
arosem; Several months ago on I believe it was Sean Hannity or Rush’s show (perhaps both) they were talking about the Supreme Court rulling about a case of a White student who scored higher on college entrance exams then some Blacks who had been accepted.
His suit made it all the way to Supreme Court which rulled that the reverse discrimination against him was legal.
This was a case of White VS ‘minority’, but still showed that the court ruled (at least in this case) in favor of reverse discrimination.
I fully agree with you about same gender classes only.
But liberals claim it is just like Black VS White Water fountains in the Old South with ‘separate but equal’.
They claim it still discrimination even nthough both genders have proven to learn better that way.
It was win win situation but the liberals still got it, shut down.
This definately shows that there are many who are doing everything possible to not just ruin it for boys, but also for the entire country.
This anti American agenda, is what got Obama elected.
True I was not speaking just about the Jewish community when talking about public schools, but what happens ‘out there’ still affects us too both in terms of influences that come into the Heimish community (or the frum community in general) and in terms of what happens when we need to getr jobs and work along side all those who did or did not suffer from discrimination or did or did not get ahead when someone more qualified was forced to the side so someone else could be promoted through political correctness.
As fars gangs go boys are far more likerly to join and ‘bring in the money” although these days girls are starting to get into some gangs as well.
Some gangs like some motorcycle gangs will forever be closed to girls ecause the gang members (like in the Sons of Silence, and the Outlaws and The Pagans) consider women in the gang to be their property and the harshest, most strict sense of the word.
Other motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels do not consider women their property but still pretty low on their social scale.
while not impossible eventually it is unlikely that women will siin be riding with them as full fledged gang members rather then as just those who go along to be with those who ae gang members.
Some street gangs, in some (still pretty rare for now) cases, have women who actually fight and do their dirty, criminal, business, as part of the gang.
Of course all of them are violent criminals or supporters of violent criminal thugs.
Anyone male or female who gets mixed up with any of these gangs is seriously messed up.June 14, 2010 3:18 am at 3:18 am #1162701
Hereorthere, I agree with a lot of what your saying. I guess the case your bringing up is perhaps more recent but it does not negate the fact that there are still precedents that try to strike down reverse discrimination. I think its also important to bear in mind your news sources. Relying exclusively on Hannity or Rush means that your likely only getting one interpretation of a story. I think though that you are mistaken in comparing the fight for equality amongst blacks and whites to girls and boys. No one would deny that most schools populated mostly by minorities tend to be underfunded and therefore not on the same level of the white schools; even in today’s world, this still tends to be true because our neighborhoods are rather segregated. Many liberals who want black and white students to be mixed do not always want for boys to be mixed as well. Co-ed schools are part of a particular educational approach that has nothing to do with liberalism. Also, most of the prestigious schools, like the super-expensive private schools tend to not be co-ed.June 14, 2010 4:37 am at 4:37 am #1162702
arosem I get my news from various sources not ‘just’ the ones I mentioned, but I find the main ones I use to be more reliable and they have opposing views also.
On the radio shows, they get opposing views from callers.
One (not necessarily the only) reason Black schools look under funded is because the gangs controlling such places make them look that way.
For example in PersonHattan in some Black public school years ago, they put in new computers which were promptly stolen.
The private schools can have separate boys from girls because the government has not yet found a way to force their liberalism on them, like they have with industry.June 14, 2010 11:49 am at 11:49 am #1162703
It is not the gangs who cause schools to be underfunded, although they may exacerbate the issue. Schools are underfunded because of the cities set up the initial funding for schools. Because they are tax based, a school based next to a housing project is never going to be as well funded as in a middle or upper class neighborhood. Also, there are some al-girls or all-boys public schools.June 14, 2010 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm #1162704
The housing projects became havens for the gangs which ruined the neighborhoods and destroyed the tax base.
The liberals also destroyed families withn their policies of telling families that they had to break up to get welfare money.
Are you saying that there are single gender PUBLIC schools?
Where?June 14, 2010 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm #1162705
Hereorthere, the reason you are frustrating to talk to is that you add your commentary to anything someone says and attribute it back to them. I never said abuse was rampant. I said no one should tolerate an abusive relationship. There is a major difference. Please learn to read what I write, not what you percieve.
Also, when you make a claim about websites and are asked to cite, you should. Arose didn’t mention the websites – you did. I know radical feminist exist, no one denies that. I also know not to judge a movement by its radicals only.
You also never responded as to which of those five situations I posted someone should stay in marriage. Please respond.
Why are poor men not allowed to be judges? There was an exception made for a woman, was there an exception ever made for a poor man?
I’m not sure if you realize this, but all forms of discrimination are still rampant. There was a study done recently where they put qualified black men and white men with prior jail sentences (fabricated on their resume for the study). In most cases, the white man with the jail sentence was picked over the qualified black man with no jail sentence. It was a fairly small study so it doesn’t “prove” anything, other than some discrimination still exists.
If feminists had their way there would be gender segregation because studies have shown that girls do better in single gender classrooms and boys do better in coed classrooms.
I’m also not sure what the point of the bleacher story was. Did you ask the father to keep his son from kicking? I would have been really upset with you for yelling at my son like that.
I’m not sure what your issue with feminism trying to tackle women’s issues and not bullying of kids. Their primary purpose is to protect women. We have organizations whos primary function it is to protect Jews. There are all sorts of organizations that focus on some subset of the population. No one can fight every battle.
While I am a fan of Hannity, I realize he too has bias. You can’t trust any news source 100%.
I’m going to research the girls vs boys entering college thing. I don’t know enough about it.June 14, 2010 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm #1162706
There is one such public school in the bronx, PS 140, which has both boys and girls, but keeps the classrooms single sex.
I am not going to defend gang behavior, it really is indefensible, but I will say that it is important to understand the nature and way in which a gang comes into existence and maintains popularity. Call me liberal, but gangs really only gain power when more traditional methods of succeed (like acquiring a job and being able to provide for your family, having access to basic resources like a decent education and a decent library) are closed off. Housing projects become havens for gang activity because there is not much else available to many of the people in the housing projects. The issue is larger than the formation of the gang, it is an infection within the welfare system, which is not really designed to be a stepping stone for people in need. Instead it creates dependency, leaving the youth growing up in a cycle of welfare, soon believing that there is no more they are able to achieve than glory in a gang or a welfare check.
Hereorthere, you also said,
“The liberals also destroyed families withn their policies of telling families that they had to break up to get welfare money.”
What is an example of a policy that dictates the family must break up so that the government has more money for welfare? Also do you use feminism and liberalism interchangeably? Liberal tends to be a rather loaded word, similar to feminism, which really has numerous meanings depending on exactly what type of liberal you are actually talking about.June 14, 2010 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #1162707gavra_at_workParticipant
1: Saying Feminists all want men to be in the kitchen is like saying all Jews believe the Torah is man made, after all a segement of Reform does believe that. There is no monolithic community of Feminists (or Jews).
2: This is a problem with radical feminists in the outside world, but in the Torah world, it really doesn’t exist (with a few major execptions). I think it goes together with “liberalism”, which is what “Here or There” is really against, not “equal pay for women who work” type feminism. I believe most of us agree that “liberalism” is not the Torah MeHalech.
3: Moshe Rabbainu and Aharon HaKohen were “equal”. That does not mean they were the same, it means both of their inputs were required.June 14, 2010 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm #1162708so rightMember
However you define feminism, one thing is for sure. Our Gedolim have said feminism is Keneged HaTorah and a very bad thing.June 14, 2010 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #1162709WolfishMusingsParticipant
However you define feminism, one thing is for sure. Our Gedolim have said feminism is Keneged HaTorah and a very bad thing.
Actually, your statement is self-contradictory. The gedolim can only say feminism is bad based on the way *they* define it. Perhaps their definition of it was different than mine (and hence they made no statement about *my* definition of feminism).
For example, why would the gedolim have a problem with the concept of equal pay for equal work?
The WolfJune 14, 2010 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #1162710oomisParticipant
The Gedolim are also the ones who defined “ezer k’negdo” as meaning that sometimes in order to be an ezer, a wife must be neged her husband FOR HIS OWN GOOD.June 14, 2010 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm #1162711
Hereorthere, the reason you are frustrating to talk to is that you add your commentary to anything someone says and attribute it back to them.”
That is your claim but you cannot prove it in not in fact the other way around.
SJSinNYC ” I never said abuse was rampant. I said no one should tolerate an abusive relationship. There is a major difference. Please learn to read what I write, not what you percieve. “
I never said it was non existent but I was ACCUSED of saying that.
If others can put words into my mouth, then I have just as much right to do it to them.
And this is not a case of “getting someone back” it is a case of exposing liberal tactics of how they hold everyone else to an impossibly high standard (like with Israel) while holding
themselves to far more lenient ones, and I am exposing the liberal hypocrisy.
“SJSinNYC “Also, when you make a claim about websites and are asked to cite, you should.”
What websites are you talking about?
SJSinNYC”Arose didn’t mention the websites – you did. I know radical feminist exist, no one denies that. I also know not to judge a movement by its radicals only.”
Anyone who wants TRUE equal treatment is simply someone who wants that.
Someone who becomes a specific type of “advocate” like a feminist has a certain agenda.
I have personal bad experiences with some who have been strong supporters of extreme radical feminism and yet they never used any words like “women lib” or Feminists” or anything like that.
But they CLEARLY supported the most radical extreme feminist agenda and no one around them ever suspected such a thing because they were very careful to push for their agenda in subtle ways in public and get far more forceful in personal situations that would be chalked up to “that was their reaction in that siatuation and they had a point” (No they did not have a legitimate point, anymore then a holocaust denier, has a point when he mentions Bernie Madhoff and talks about
“How corrupt the Jews are”.
SJSinNYC “You also never responded as to which of those five situations I posted someone should stay in marriage. Please respond. “
Yes I did respond a second time, after it was deleted the first time.
I said that the issue is not what sitiutions would mean there ashould be adivorce but HOW OFTEN those truly horrible situations actually come up in a way they can be proven to be true, and not just someone lying that the husband supposedly did something,
he never actually did, just son those telling such lies can promote some ulterior motive.
SJSinNYC “Why are poor men not allowed to be judges? There was an exception made for a woman, was there an exception ever made for a poor man? “
No one by defnition, can be immune to bribes if they are poor.
It does not prove that a poor man never had the capabilities to understand and give proper halachic unemotional responses to the cases involved.
Find a Gadol who will pasken that women can be judges, then.
Why won’t anyone be able to find one?
SJSinNYC”I’m not sure if you realize this, but all forms of discrimination are still rampant. There was a study done recently where they put qualified black men and white men with prior jail sentences (fabricated on their resume for the study). In most cases, the white man with the jail sentence was picked over the qualified black man with no jail sentence. It was a fairly small study so it doesn’t “prove” anything, other than some discrimination still exists.”
Discrimination exists but that is not the same as severe divorce causing abuse in the heimish community.
And there is plenty of discrimination against White males as well.
At one point I was considering trying to get a job as a NYC transit authority track worker, and it was suggested to me that as a Jew among all non Jews, it would not take much for there to be an ‘accident’ where I had’fallen’ against the third rail.
SJSinNYC”If feminists had their way there would be gender segregation because studies have shown that girls do better in single gender classrooms and boys do better in coed classrooms.”
Wrong, in a New York coed class it showed that BOTH genders did better in gender segragated classes.
I heard this on on of the radio shows, (Hannity or Rush most likely), a few years ago.
And for someone always saying I should ‘cite’ sources I notice you did not do the same.
SJSinNYC “I’m also not sure what the point of the bleacher story was. Did you ask the father to keep his son from kicking? I would have been really upset with you for yelling at my son like that.”
I was already upset that this father had raised such a monster of a son who could even THINK of doing anything like that.
I have had plenty of experience with such types and they just make excuses for it and blame the victim.
SJSinNYC “I’m not sure what your issue with feminism trying to tackle women’s issues and not bullying of kids. Their primary purpose is to protect women. We have organizations whos primary function it is to protect Jews. There are all sorts of organizations that focus on some subset of the population. No one can fight every battle.”
All these liberal organizations get together to support their mutual causes.
Feminists also march with gay activists and with PLO supporters and with animal rights wackos.
But NOT ONCE have they EVER marched to stop school bullying.
They actively go out to prosecute fathers accused of spanking their boys claiming it is ‘abuse’ and further claiming such abuse cause more abuse to their own wives and children.
If so then then being bullied in school will ALSO cause such abuse down the line, and yet the feminists have nothing to say about it.
Pure liberal hypocrisy.
SJSinNYC “While I am a fan of Hannity, I realize he too has bias. You can’t trust any news source 100%. “
I don’t; I know Hannity is still a liberal after all.
SJSinNYC “I’m going to research the girls vs boys entering college thing. I don’t know enough about it. “
As Haannity says, please give me full report 🙂
1June 14, 2010 9:17 pm at 9:17 pm #1162712
SJSinNYC I just checked in the broken engagements thread and my detailed response to your “5 examples of abuse”, is still there.June 14, 2010 10:44 pm at 10:44 pm #1162713
The Gedolim are also the ones who defined “ezer k’negdo” as meaning that sometimes in order to be an ezer, a wife must be neged her husband FOR HIS OWN GOOD.
oomis, great vort!June 14, 2010 10:54 pm at 10:54 pm #1162714
“The Gedolim are also the ones who defined “ezer k’negdo” as meaning that sometimes in order to be an ezer, a wife must be neged her husband FOR HIS OWN GOOD. “
But it seems some only want to see the “against him” part.
Not the part about her serving him and doing his will,
when he is doing G-ds’ will.June 15, 2010 12:18 am at 12:18 am #1162715
Hereorther, I thought you were just making mistakes, but now you say you are misconstruing information on purpose. I wont debate you under such circumstances.
EDITEDJune 15, 2010 12:55 am at 12:55 am #1162716
Did my post come through?June 15, 2010 1:00 am at 1:00 am #1162717
Thank you.June 15, 2010 1:19 am at 1:19 am #1162718mosheroseMember
“Since the kids are in school all day, why do you think it’s so bad that my wife out learning/working while they aren’t home? “
Its bad because what if the kids come home early? Who will be home for them if your wife is working? It should be assur for a woman to work unless there is really no other choice and only a rav can make that choice.June 15, 2010 2:21 am at 2:21 am #1162719
SJSinNYC so you are now admittimng you are misconstruing information on purpose.
I only REACTED to YOU.
If that is what you call it then you are saying this is what YOU were doing first to me.
This is like the story where the baker takes the dairy man to a Beis Din because he says the Dairy man is cheating him in charging him for a pound of butter and not giving him a full pound.
To make a long story short, the dairy man was very honest and bit nieve, in thinking that he could use the pound of bread he got from the baker as a weight in his scales (the type with equal weights on both sides to balence out) and measured his weight of butter that way.
Whatever I did was a direct reflection of what was done first to me if it was ok to do TO me, then by definition it was ok for ME to do.
Now if someone who does not like being hoisted by their own petard, wants to sulk about it, that is not MY fault.June 15, 2010 4:04 am at 4:04 am #1162720WolfishMusingsParticipant
Its bad because what if the kids come home early? Who will be home for them if your wife is working?
Milsa d’lo schicha lo gazru bah rabannan.
It should be assur for a woman to work unless there is really no other choice and only a rav can make that choice.
This is so bizarre that I don’t even know how to respond to this.
The WolfJune 15, 2010 10:11 am at 10:11 am #1162721
This is so bizarre that I don’t even know how to respond to this.
LOL.June 15, 2010 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #1162722oomisParticipant
“oomis, great vort! “
Thanks, but they are not my own original words. It was told to me as a peirush on the posuk.
To respond to the comment that some women always are negative towards their husbands, if a woman is ALWAYS looking for the “against her husband” part then either 1) she is a shrew or 2) he is a very foolish man who needs a wife to stand up to him, because he makes poor choices in most things (except choice of wife, of course).June 15, 2010 3:32 pm at 3:32 pm #1162723
I was saying that as I remember learning in yeshivah that the ezer knegdo was more like an all or nothing deal in that if the husband was not following H-sh-m then she would always be against him.
And if he WAS following H-sh-m THEN she would always be serving him and doing his bidding.
In other words if he is doing
H-sh-m will then she should never be going against him.
It is not like “there should be some of this and some of that” just so ‘both’ are in there.
If he is a tzaddik, then she should never be against him.
If he is a rasha G-d forbid, then she should never be doing his bidding.June 15, 2010 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1162724
Hereorthere, nobody never makes mistakes, only Hashem is perfect.
If there is a time that a wife needs to be knegdo then she should.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.