Debra Nussbaum Cohen: Responsible Journalist, or Federation Sponsored Jewish Feminist Cheerleading Hack?

“The Scholar”

The subscription base of the overwhelming number of Jewish Weeklies throughout the country is owned by their respective, local UJA. The ramifications of this can be seen in the headline of the New York Federation paper, the Jewish Week (80% of it’s specific subscription base supplied by the UJA) with this story on UJA fundraising achievements: Go figure - this did not warrant a headline or a story the Forward, a precious secular Jewish newspaper outside the control of the Federation. The problem is the New York Jewish Week (and many others) pretend they are independent. The JUF News of Chicago is a rare exception, acknowledging that it is indeed a Federation organ.

The problem does not stop with puff pieces about the UJA, however. Used to (and comfortable with) setting an agenda, the Federation sets a dishonest parameter of debate on many, many issues.

One of them is Israel.

Another is Jewish Feminism.

Debra Nussbaum Cohen is often selected to report on “gender issue� stories in the Jewish world. She is selected for a reason. To give the feminist perspective. Only.

The only other side recognized is one of stringent halacha. And halacha, according to these women, can “evolve� and “change�.

That’s it. That’s the parameters of the debate, and all such (frequent) stories are written within these parameters.

So what’s the problem?

Nussbaum Cohen’s dishonesty and inconsistencies in her reporting are tolerated, and her self-grandeur rewarded. No one, as far as I know, calls her on it.

Come and Hear:

In this past week’s article on the reasonable discomfort of people trying to concetrate on praying and not breasts reactionaries who would prefer to not have the woman next to them nursing while they are focusing on praying, and the new Conservative resolution to allow breast-feeding in the synagogue, Debra editorialized that,

“In Jewish environments, those in charge don’t always seem to extend the milk of human kindness to nursing mothers.�

Yes – if you are uncomfortable with a woman nursing, anywhere, at any time – you hate motherhood.

Who says the boob can’t be a cudgel?

What if an infant is screaming at the top of his lungs? Should he also be allowed to stay with his mother in the sanctuary or concert hall since that is part of childhood? After all, to make him leave (apparently) means we hate children. And we should love children.

Strange also is the statement,

“The 14-3 vote for approval was split largely along generational lines, Rabbi Artson said.�

But the quotes of the sentence in its entirety are mine. I am quoting Ms. Nussbaum Cohen, not Rabbi Artson.

She did not have quotes. Why not Debra? Did he not say that? Was that your interpretation? Was that your interpretation so you can push your own agenda that all that is Jewish Feminism is NOW and FOREVER, and all that isn’t is yesteryear’s alterkacker stinky leftovers?

But is Ms. Cohen that vocal on what should be in the Jewish world today? Does she have a stong opinion on these matters?

Oh, yes. A visionary.

Many journalists write books. They write books on the subjects they are experts in, or about their experiences as journalists.

B’nai Jeshrun calls Ms. Nussbaum Cohen “a scholar.�

So Ms. Nussbaum Cohen wrote a book too. But she wrote one on ritual.

Alternative rituals. Alternative rituals for your daughters.

There is one problem. Ms. Nussbaum Cohen is not a rabbi. I don’t mean she isn’t an Orthodox Rabbi. I mean she has no rabbinical certification from anywhere.

And it shows.

In “Celebrating Your New Jewish Daughter” (Jewish Lights Publishing, 2001), she suggests many things for her flock.

That’s what she told Beliefnet.com. And I quote her, not my interpretation.

“I’m hoping that’s what the book will do–really be a tool for people to use.â€?

She gives some examples, such as a favorite Jewish Feminist “ritual�, the Simchat Bat, like she did for her daughter, which included,

“For taste, we put some grape juice on her tongue, which is also done at a bris.�

She also did something else!

“For hearing, we sang a traditional Jewish song. And then we ended with the seven blessings, the sheva brachot, the traditional end to a Jewish wedding.�

Why, Debra? Is she getting married today? At eight days (of course) old?

Or do you simply not have the skills to navigate through Jewish text and prayers in anything more complicated than a bencher?

Parallel ceremonies to circumcision are telling in their doublethink, and illuminate that this movement is not about egalitarianism at all.

If it were, they have two options.

1. Don’t circumcise the boys
2. Also circumcise the girls. Cut the hood of the clitoris off the girls.

Neither of those options may be particularly appealing to these women, but they are the only egalitarian options with regards to circumcision.

A Simchat Bat, or allowing Mohelets, is simply not egalitarian. The boy’s genitalia is cut, the girl’s is not.

Nussbaum Cohen, though, is not only a rabbi in her own mind, but apparently a prophet.

She writes that,
“I think when my children have their daughters, every Jew will do this for their daughter.�

Yes, the Chassidim and B’nai Torah are going to be following this Gender Rebbe of the Jewish week. It’s just a few years away.

All stories on “gender� are given to the likes of Debra Nussbaum Cohen or her ilk. There is no other type of “gender� story, there is no other perspective. Just like a story on what wonderful things the UJA did this week.

The Jewish Weeks of this country are dedicated to this monolithic viewpoint, and so will only assign only those types of writers. This is the viewpoint of the UJA, who despite the denunciation of too many men at the tippy top, is composed of a work force that is 75% women, and rising. It is very much like a Westchester chapter of N.O.W. And those few men there are well aware of their paucity of numbers, and the resentment towards them. Hence they will not be a dissenting voice, but rather consistently capitulate to the Jewish Feminists without fail, and willingly enforce this slant in their newspapers on “gender” issues.