WolfishMusings

No it isn’t.

So then, in practical terms, what does it mean?

The Wolf

Although our lives are both very busy right now (three teens, both of us in school, etc.) we *try* to make sure to have some together time alone. Unfortunately it does not always work, but when we do get to go out on a date, we make sure to make the most of it.

The Wolf

Anyone who thinks that women are incapable of learning or don’t have intellectual capabilities have only to open their eyes and look around.

Those that refuse to do so and think women are intellectually inferior are only doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tightly and loudly saying “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”

The Wolf

Wolf please don’t take offense, but I do think babysitting as a profession belongs to a woman.

I didn’t take offense. I took exception.

I was a darned good babysitter. There were plenty of parents who had the opportunity to choose a female and chose me because they felt I was better suited for the job.

The Wolf

To torture society. That is what feminism is about.

No, it’s not. Don’t be silly.

The Wolf

In Egypt, when we were slaves, they were experts at assigning men to women’s jobs, and women to men’s jobs.

As a form of torture.

Ah, so you’re saying that women who want to be firefighters are doing it to torture themselves?

The Wolf

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

“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

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

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

Kasha,

I did not use the word “embrace” in my post. The mods edited my post and, as such, completely undermined my entire point.

The Wolf

EDITED

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.

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?

The Wolf

And “working things out through discussion and compromise” IS EXACTLY what we do.

And yet when I said that my wife and I both have equal say in the household back on page 1, you said:

That’s at odds with the way the Torah dictates a marriage is to be run.

Which is it?

In my household we both have equal say because we work things out through discussion and compromise. We agree not to make pre-emptive moves against each other. We agree not to make major life decisions unilaterally. Neither of us would ever dream of “pulling rank” on the either. But you said that that’s counter to the way a marriage is to be run according to the Torah.

So, which is it? Is the way my household is run counter to the way the Torah dictates (in your opinion) or not?

Or am I totally misunderstanding your position — and if so, please explain how.

The Wolf

Kasha,

Great. If that’s what works for your marriage, then all the more power to you. If your wife is willing to stand around and wait on you hand and foot all day, then fine — it’s her (and your) life (lives). If your wife is willing to lay down and let you “pull rank” on major decisions, then great — it works for you.

But just because it works for you doesn’t mean that it works for everyone. I’ve found that, in my household, working things out through discussion and compromise — and with no one “pulling rank” works for us.

Yes, I know that you believe that that’s not how the Torah wants families run. But I can’t believe that the Torah wants me to run roughshod over my wife’s wishes (against my will too) when making major life decisions. I don’t believe for a moment that that’s what the Torah wants and I will not do it.

The Wolf

my point as others have made if there is no agreement, or compromise possible, one has to be able to pull rank, this isn’t something anyone can argue with otherwise a lot of disagreements would never be finalized.

If a couple cannot come to some sort of compromise — even on a major issue — to the point where one has to “pull rank” and force the other to do something against their will, then that is a sign that there is something troubling in the marriage. And forcing the wife (or husband, for that matter) into a major decision against their will will only cause resentment and further deteriorate shalom bayis.

I highly doubt that that is what the Torah wants.

The Wolf

Is a woman really obligated to wash her husband’s feet nowadays when its not done? Perhaps not.

I have often maintained this stance. And yet, when I do (despite the obviousness of it — consider the Rambam’s halacha that women shouldn’t leave the house more than a few times a month) I get bashed for suggesting that halacha sometimes changes with the times.

The Wolf

Wolf, please be honest and do not ascribe false imputations to my comments.

TMB,

Please don’t ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to ignorance.

If I misinterpreted your post, then please explain it and point out where my error is rather than accusing me of dishonesty.

The Wolf

but I do recall that halacha makes a general statement that a wife is obligated to obey her husband’s wishes

But that doesn’t preclude the possibility of the couple working out some other arrangement (i.e. where they both share equal power in the marriage).

The Wolf

The actions of a godol are more informative than that of an anonymous poster.

Maybe. But nonetheless, I didn’t hear it from a gadol that one must eventually “pull rank.” I heard it from him. That being the case, I want to hear from him if he would actually do so.

It’s not a difficult question — and I’m even not asking him to actually do it. Just asking if he would actually force his wife to move to the ends of the earth against her will.

The Wolf

Chesedname,

Your point aside, you didn’t actually answer my question. Would you assert your authority and “pull rank” and *force* your wife to move to EY, Lakewood, Seattle, Vanuatu (or anywhere else) if she absolutely refused?

The Wolf

The Torah calls a husband a “???” (ba’al). Anyone know the teitch/reason why?

And guess what? The navi tells us that that’s not the ideal paradigm for a relationship. The ideal is ???????

?? ?????, ?????? ??????? ??????????, ??????????????, ???????????; ?????????????, ???-???????. ?? ?????????? ???? ???-?????????? ???????, ?????-????? ?????? ??????? ????????; ????????? ???????? ??????? ??????????, ???????? ????????? ???????-?????????. ?? ??????? ???????-?????? ?????-??????, ?????????? ???????; ?????-?????????-??? ????, ????????.

Hosea 2:16-18

Being a “Ba’al” is not the ideal. Being a husband is the ideal.

The Wolf

Isn’t “????? ???” fire and brimstone? The term is a Jewish one.

Yes, but the association of “fire and brimstone” with hell is not necessarily a Jewish concept. Sodom’s fire did not necessarily come from hell (on the contrary, I would think it came from heaven. The pasuk explicitly says ?? ????? 🙂 )

The Wolf

it’s not normal, or human nature to have 2 ppl agree all the time, or one always saying OK we’ll do it your way this time. there has to be one boss!

Of course Eeees and I disagree on some issues. But when we do disagree we work it out — and no one makes a preemptive move to undermine the other until the matter is decided. We work things out with discussion and compromise. Neither my wife nor I will *ever* unilaterally overrule the other on any major decision.

If that’s not the Torah ideal, then I don’t know what is.

The Wolf

Take lawyers as an example. I believe that in the military, a lawyer ranks as an officer. I assume that the position and rank comes with a good deal of training not required by say, a NY law firm, such as weapons training, basic combat, basic officer training, etc. Fair enough?

Yes, it’s true that a JAG officer may be required to have some basic training, but, on the whole, they are not likely to find themselves in combat situations. And, in any event, they usually can’t take an active combat role. While a JAG officer is, by definition, an officer, he usually is not a line-officer with authority to command outside his area of expertise.

The Wolf

yes wolf, go to court and you can see how they all turned out.

All? That’s pretty presumptuous of you.

Of course there are equal partnerships that end up in court. But to suggest that all (or even the majority do) is just wrong.

The Wolf