- This topic has 737 replies, 58 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I think this thread is becoming rather pointless. What’s a difference who should listen and obey whom, sometimes the wife’s opinion is correct and sometimes the husband’s. If everyone understands their tafkid in life, be they a man or woman and there’s mutual respect and honesty in the marriage then it will be sholom v’shalvah.
One thing I can guarantee you, I nor any frum woman will wash their husbands feet.
Is being a top poker player something to be proud of? Chazal would not think so!
I think that the thread has now generated all the useful comments it will generate.
>>>What about in Bereshis where after eating (or drinking) from the tree of knowledge where it says the woman shall obey her husband?<<<
>>These are curses, not laws. It is saying that unfortunately the world will run its course that way, not that anyone is obligated to act that way. Would you suggest that the halacha says a woman must have pain in childbirth and may not take a painkiller? Because it says that there too.<<
This is the natural way (wife obeying husband) of the world, as defined by the Torah. Our gedolim have always taught us as such, and as pointed out it is written right in the Torah. Halacha or not, it is the natural order of the world. As Rav Miller said “the wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition the home is disordered.”
This is nothing for us to be ashamed or apologetic about.
>>What’s a difference who should listen and obey whom…<<
The Torah is the difference. And the natural order of the world.
>>One thing I can guarantee you, I nor any frum woman will wash their husbands feet.<<
Please speak for yourself. Some of us take halacha seriously.
“Speak for yourself.”
Are you arguing against Chazal’s characterization of gamblers?
missme, your decision on what is the natural order of the world and nuch dertzi your deciding what the Torah’s way is, does not necassarily reflect the true Torah way. For if you were right, then Avrohom would have to listen to Sura and not the other way around and Oin ben Peylos’s wife would not be hailed as a courages woman who saved her husband, but rather that her husband did not do the right thing by listening to her.
Rochel Imeinu too was not submissive to her future husband when she did not honor their predetermined codes and gave them over to her sister. That’s not submissive.
There are indeed numerous intances in the Torah and Jewish history where women were assertive and were not submissive to their husband’s wishes. If women were only submissive in nature then they would certainly not be able to influence the atmosphere of their homes and their husbands in their spiritual leanings. I have seen numerous times that when the wife was submissive to the husbands demands when they were not the right thing to do, and went along with his wishes, then the ending was not good to say the least.
Rather a wife should be submissive and assertive, each in their correct times. And maybe because the woman’s role is to be submissive most of the time and in most cases (some men do need a more assertive wife)Rav Miller said the wife is submissive.
I’m glad that you wash your husband’s feet or your wife washes yours, so I’ll concede the point that no women will wash their husband’s feet. But I guarantee you that MOST frum women who are yirah shomayim, and follow halacha will not wash their husband’s feet. As others previously pointed out, minhag homokum can have a huge impact on how we live out halacha.
clearheaded: My decision? Not at all. It is the Torah’s decision. As explicitly stated in Bereishis (as someone previously pointed out). And as reiterated by our gedolim, including one godol who I directly quoted in my last comment, including the direct quote of him writing in his Sefer that “The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural.” that you are disputing. Your issue is with them, not with me. I am merely the messenger, not the author of the message. That is the Torah as explained by our Chachomim.
Reading some of the comments on this thread, I must sadly conclude that even some of our Torah observant brothers and sisters are more influenced on this issue by the Gloria Steinem’s, Betty Friedan’s, and Bella Abzug’s of the world, than by our Torah HaKedosha and Gedolei Yisroel who are our guiding lights.
I once heard a great point: The Rambam teaches two sets of rules for husband – wife relationship.
1)(hilchos ishus 15,19) A man should honor his wife more than himself, and he should love her like he loves himself. If he has money he should give her lots of good etc… (see source).
2)One halacha later the Rambam writes: the woman should honor her husband more than enough… she should act according to his saying…He should be in her eyes like a king or a minister to do as he desires and keep away from what he dislikes…etc.
A great person once said: The first set of rules are FOR MEN ONLY! The woman should not be waving them in front of her husband to get him to act this way,The second set are FOR WOMEN ONLY,not for the man to demand this from his wife.
The same can be said of many issues about which way a man or woman should be/or should not be acting. Many of the rules are meant to be learned by those they are relevant to, and not that each side is a “bokey and chochom well learned and all fired up in what the other paty must do, and with his/her own obligations he/she remains a total ignoramus.
Both hereorthere and missme alluded to words in sefer beraishis which they say indicate that a wife should be submissive to her husband in all aspects of their relationship. It seems to me that they are referring to the words “v’hoo yimshol bach”. However, Rashi connects those words to the first half of the pasuk. According to his explanation, these words do indicate that a wife is/ should be submissive to her husband, but are referring to one specific aspect of the marriage relationship.
For additional understandings of the submissive roles of a wife please see the Meshech Chochma who expresses the idea of her being submissive to her husband, and see also the Ramban, at the end of commentary to 3:16.
heretothere-
“Can you show me a psak froma Rav who said that it was not a halacha?”
That’s not the way halacha works. The one trying to impose restrictions has the burden of proof. You bring me a valid makor, as kasha is attempting to do, and I’ll accept it.
charliehall-
“Is being a top poker player something to be proud of? Chazal would not think so!”
Clearly you missed my point. I did not in any way indicate whether or not playing poker is a good habit. I simply showed from the fact that women generally do not do well at the game that their brains work differently.
It is indeed very telling that those who have disputed what I have written in my previous post, have skirted the issue regarding being assertive when the husband is veering from the right path or making bad decisions. I know what I’m talking about. I have seen cases where the woman has blindly followed the husband and it led to disaster and I have seen the fakerte instances too, where the wife stood up for what’s right and that led the husband too comply with doing the right thing (of course that must be done in the right way).
I cannot bring sources regarding the topic of submissivness as I am a woman who doesn’t delve in actual study of Torah (I’m not a feminist). However, I would venture to say that even while Rav Miller spoke about women being subverssive, where he to be asked whether a woman still is mchiuv to wash her husban’d feet, when she doesn’t wnat to, I highly doubt he would say that she must do that.
There is such a concept of the “fifte shilchun aruch” i.e. common sense. For example, if a woman has born a girl and boy and she doesn’t want to have more children because she is not michiav to do so al pi halacha and her husband too has fulfilled the mitzvah of having children. Will any Yeshivish/Chassidish Rov agree with her? Why does she need to seek a heter anyway if al pi halacha she is in the right? That’s where the fifte shichun aruch comes in. Maybe we can even call this daas Yehudi.
The same is with the issue of women being submissive. If today a man insists that his wife wash her feet and she doesn’t want to, I highly doubt where he to ask a Rov what to do with his insubordinated wife, the Rov would tell him to divorce her. It is much more likely the Rov will tell the husband to cut out the shtuss.
Kasha,
I still did not receive an answer to my question from the last page. You said:
I said “equal say” is at odds with the Torah, in the context of the earlier discussion. Compromise and discussion is very much in line with the Torah. But that doesn’t mean equal say, when the Torah specifically specifies who has more say. Compromise and discussion ? equal say.
And I responded:
OK, now you have me confused about your position.
My marriage is based on the concept of “equal say.” The mechanisms by which we achieve that are (a) discussion/compromise and (b) agreeing not to act preemptively/unilaterally.
By the use of these mechanisms, we both agree that no one will overrule the other on major decisions.
That being said, does this run counter to the way the Torah wants a marriage run or not?
Please respond.
The Wolf
What I find highly amusing about this thread (and I, too, am guilty of it) is that we’ve spent five days and five pages arguing about “feminism” and no one has defined exactly what feminism is.
Of course, feminism means different things to different people. Arguing about “feminism” (in the general) is just about as useful as arguing about “Judaism,” “patriotism” or “conservatism/liberalism.” Until one defines exactly what it is one is arguing about, there is really little point (and I mentioned that in my first post in this thread).
So, let’s try to focus the discussion a bit more (but please note, Kasha, I’m not letting you off the hook for my last question).
For me, this is what “feminism” means.
Equal pay for equal work/experience/qualifications. (If I and a woman are doing identical jobs with identical experience, etc., we should be earning the same salary).
Equal opportunities in the workplace. (Women should not be excluded from professions [with certain possible well-defined exceptions] solely based on their gender.)
Equal educational opportunities. Women should not be excluded from colleges or any other educational opportunity.
Equal say in the political world. Women have the right to vote, hold office, petition officeholders for redress, etc.
Equal protection under the law. A woman is not the property of her husband or any other man. She is entitled to the same rights/privileges that men are entitled to.
The Wolf
Wolf, I did on page 2:
“Yes, I do think secular society should be about men and women being equal. Women SHOULD (and thankfully are) allowed to vote, own property, have no men enforcing rules on them.”
And then I added that halachically its different.
But I agree with your expanded post.
“That being said, does this run counter to the way the Torah wants a marriage run or not?”
Wolf: Your voluntarily relinquishing your rights, to the best of my understanding, would violate no principle.
As far as the definition of feminism is concerned, it is synonymous with “women’s lib” (the women’s liberation movement.)
Kasha,
Thanks for answering the question.
As far as the definition of feminism is concerned, it is synonymous with “women’s lib” (the women’s liberation movement.)
For you, perhaps, and maybe for others — but not for everyone (including myself). Perhaps your argument isn’t with “feminism” but with the “women’s lib movement” (something else that, more likely than not, also has a “fuzzy” definition).
The Wolf
When you google “women’s lib” (no quotes) the first entry is the Wikipedia article titled “Feminist movement”, with the article opening as “The feminist movement (also known as the Women’s Movement, Women’s Liberation, or Women’s Lib)…” So I think it is safe to assume this is the standard definition of feminism.
In any event, even the individual actions they pursued such as encouraging family planning and suffrage, were things that many of our gedolim took strong issue with. But the real goal of this corrupt movement, whether admitted or denied, was and is the destruction of the traditional family unit and function. Gender bending and anything to go against traditional society norms.
Kasha wrote:
“In any event, even the individual actions they pursued such as encouraging family planning and suffrage, were things that many of our gedolim took strong issue with. But the real goal of this corrupt movement, whether admitted or denied, was and is the destruction of the traditional family unit and function. Gender bending and anything to go against traditional society norms.”
Where do you get this nonsense from?
The term feminism has lost all meaning, as has the term women’s lib movement.
But the notion that there’s a unified corrupt movement that seeks to destroy the traditional family unit is silly.
Feminism has paved the way for a good deal of what makes the kollel lifestyle possible- workplaces where women are accepted and treated with respect and dignity.
So I think it is safe to assume this is the standard definition of feminism.
No, I don’t think so. Certainly the women’s liberation movement has it’s roots in feminism. But then again, Reform Judaism has it’s roots in Judaism. But I think we can agree that Reform Judaism isn’t the standard definition of Judaism.
In any event, even the individual actions they pursued such as encouraging family planning and suffrage, were things that many of our gedolim took strong issue with. But the real goal of this corrupt movement, whether admitted or denied, was and is the destruction of the traditional family unit and function. Gender bending and anything to go against traditional society norms.
I don’t think the women’s liberation movement is a monolithic movement — any more than “Judaism” is monolithic or “liberalism” or “conservatism” are. There may well be some ultra-fringe elements in the WL movement that have the goals you state — but there are just that — ultra-fringe elements. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who call themselves feminists are looking for the goals I outlined in my post above, and not to destroy the family unit.
Just as with almost any other mass-movement, you have fringe elements on both sides of the spectrum. You’re taking the extreme fringe on one side and extrapolating it to the movement as a whole. But reality doesn’t work that way. Just like any other movement, you’ll find that the vast majority of people have their views towards the center.
The Wolf
“But the notion that there’s a unified corrupt movement that seeks to destroy the traditional family unit is silly.”
Whether it is unified or not at this point is almost secondary. But collectively they most certainly do seek the destruction of the traditional family unit.
Kasha, I know a lot of hardcore feminists. They don’t want to destroy the family unit – they want choices.
Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to vote in secular society? Own land? Have equal pay for the same job? Have access to the same jobs men have assuming they have the same qualifications?
Not necessarily. (Do I hear some gasps?)
“Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to vote in secular society?”
No.
“Own land?”
Yes.
“Have equal pay for the same job?”
This is a misnomer. No two jobs and employees are the “same.”
“Have access to the same jobs men have assuming they have the same qualifications?”
Not necessarily. Jobs are frequently ill suited for one gender or the other for many reasons.
Heck, I’m related to a hard-core feminist. And you know what? She actually married and had two daughters. Hardly sounds like the actions of someone dedicated to “destroying the traditional family unit.”
The Wolf
I’m talking about the collective practical effect of what the women’s lib/feminist movement has wrought upon society.
“Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to vote in secular society?”
No.
And yet, in just about every election, women are told to go out and vote. Apparently the gedolim don’t agree with you.
“Have equal pay for the same job?”
This is a misnomer. No two jobs and employees are the “same.”
Oh, please… that’s a cop-out. If Employer X has two employees, one male and one female, doing the exact same job and with the same experience and qualifications, should the female expect equal pay?
Not necessarily. Jobs are frequently ill suited for one gender or the other for many reasons.
Barring unusual situations (military combat, for example), what jobs do you think women (or men) should be barred from?
The Wolf
“And yet, in just about every election, women are told to go out and vote. Apparently the gedolim don’t agree with you.”
That wasn’t the question I was asked. I understood the question to be should secular society, l’chatchila, allow suffrage. The question wasn’t if there already is suffrage, should women then vote. Two different questions with possibly differing answers.
“what jobs do you think women (or men) should be barred from?”
I think women should be barred from being rebbeim for example. Or secular teachers of adolescent boys. Or men’s room attendants.
OK Kasha, now I see where you are coming from. You don’t think women should be able to vote at all. Yes, I think that is 100% wrong. As a legal adult in society, I think my voice is just as important as anyone elses.
As to “no two employees are the same” – you are hiding behind a screen. Sure, a better employee should be rewarded better, but not based on gender – based on job performance. And yes, some jobs are exactly the same – I work for a union based company and many people have the exact same task responsibilities.
What jobs are better suited to men? If a woman wants to be a firefighter and can meet all the qualifications (weight lifting and other performance based things that I don’t know of), should she be chosen after a man who can’t fulfill those requirements?
There is good and bad in every movement (just about) and feminism has its benefits and drawbacks. I don’t think you can blame the lack of family values on feminism. A woman who doesn’t want a family for “feminist” reasons is not breaking apart families.
“If a woman wants to be a firefighter and can meet all the qualifications (weight lifting and other performance based things that I don’t know of), should she be chosen after a man who can’t fulfill those requirements?”
Wonderful example! The feminist movement has ensured the watering down of physical requirements of firefighter (and police officers), jobs that exactly require strong physical requirements! Women now have lower standards to become a firefighter than men. Thanks to the feminist movement and the corrupt courts that heard their lawsuits.
I sure hope no one you know gets one of these female firefighters, if G-d forbid there is a fire, to come to rescue them. (Can you imagine a 150 pound female firefighter trying to rescue a 250 pound guy?)
Kasha, I for one do not agree with lowering requirements. If a woman CAN meet the more stringent requirements, should she be barred?
“If Employer X has two employees, one male and one female, doing the exact same job and with the same experience and qualifications, should the female expect equal pay?”
No, employee pay in the private sector is based on negotiation. You ALWAYS have and always had 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 MALE employees doing the same thing, with the same experience and qualifications, getting different — often vastly different — salaries due to better employee compensation negotiations by one employee over the other. Should we force all companies to pay all employees with the same experience and qualifications the same salary? Should we then lower the higher paid employees or force all companies to pay more to the lower paid ones? Or is this special privilege only to be extended to female employees in comparison to males?
Kasha- your conception of negotiation is very unrealistic. Particularly in this economy, most negotiations consist of this is what the job pays, take it or leave it.
Just-a-guy: Do you advocate employers be forced to reset all salaries of all current equivalent employees (i.e. same job, experience, etc.) to match each other? And if so, only females to match males, or lower paid males to match their higher paid male colleagues as well?
Kasha- no. I advocate employers paying based on work and performance, not gender.
Ah, so you are going to what I said a number of comments back that “no two employees are the same.”
Bravo.
Ah, so you are going to what I said a number of comments back that “no two employees are the same.”
He didn’t say that. There can certainly be two employees that are evenly matched (or so closely that there is no practical difference) for the job at hand that an equal salary is warranted.
That being said, in that instance, should a woman be paid less than a man?
The Wolf
Kasha- not at all.
Kasha- why don’t you think women should be allowed to vote in secular society?
Wolf: You’re leaving out the negotiations factor.
Just-a-guy: Their father’s and husband’s can vote.
Why shouldn’t children be allowed to vote?
Kasha- this “negotiations factor” is nonsense. You know what an employer will do if he realizes he gave someone too high a salary? Give them a lower salary.
Wolf: You’re leaving out the negotiations factor.
No, I’m not. Assume an entry level job where there are no negotiations. You either take their offer or another applicant will take the job.
The Wolf
There is a difference between equality which is the social norm today in democtratic societies and then there is feminism which is a totaly seperate premise.
Equality means having equal rights but different roles, this belief is not neged haTorah and this is in fact what is practiced by the majority of frum Yidden today.
Then there is feminism which stands for women being able to perform men’s jobs and having no problems vice versa the men.
Rabbis, firefighters, soldiers, all these occupations are man’s and a woman’s occupation and a woman in such a role is not doing Hashem’s will for what He created her. It is unbecoming for a woman to work in a manly role as much as it is for a man to have a job as a babysitter.
When the whole rabbah thing came out, frum people were having a hard time figuring out why there’s something wrong with the concept. They knew inherentely that there’s something wrong but they couldn’t articulate why. And that’s because you can’t find sources in the Torah against such concepts. Rather those who are living the life of true avodas Hashem and are not influenced by the surrounding culture know instictively that men and women have an obligation to fulfill their respective roles in life.
Its unbecoming for a man to have a job as a babysitter?
Is it unbecoming for a man to take food stamps?
Sorry, I meant to write Rabbis , firefighters, soldiers,etc. are manly jobs and women occupying such roles are not doing Hashem’s will for the gender He created them for.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.