Posts from — May 2008

Guest post by Sarah/Froylein

Being taken to task for something I haven’t neither said nor insinuated, namely that single motherhood means a lot of work and that there are situations in which single motherhood becomes inevitable, and, as a Chinese proverb says, “The hit dog barks”, and I’ve obviously hit a weak spot there, I’d like to add my two cents worth from my personal, private perspective as well from the perspective of one involved in education and educational research. Please bear in mind, my focus are the children and what’s been proved to be good for them. At the end, I’ll add a few thoughts on relationships that just reflect my personal views.

First of all, to set the terminology straight, there’s a word for being proud of something one hasn’t achieved oneself respectively being excessively proud of one’s achievement; it’s called “vanity“. One may be happy, glad etc., but “pride“ semantically as well as philosophically (theologically as well for religious people) serves a highly limited purpose. So people won’t jump at me out of misconception, while I don’t see single motherhood a reason to be prouder than single fatherhood or single parenthood, I also don’t aim to undermine the efforts of parenthood in general. And indeed, I’ve got single mothers in my family as well (two of my cousins are single mothers); my great-great-grandmother raised seven kids by herself – and ran a farm – after her husband had died in an accident when their youngest was only two months old, my great-grandmother’s as well as my father’s mother both died when they were young; a considerable number of my students are single mothers. But that doesn’t make me an expert on single motherhood or single fatherhood.

There are, however, studies one can concern oneself or get involved with that help comparing the different types of parenthood and their educational outcomes at a larger scale. There are a few premises though one needs to lay out when it comes to educational research:
a) everybody believes to be an expert on education as everybody has been educated in some way or has educated in some way;
b) people, unless suffering from depressions, tend to think of themselves as having turned out well, so are not likely to admit having lacked something in their education;
c) people that have educated will more likely find excuses for mishaps than admit to having made mistakes;
d) if educational outcome as well as a trackable on-time maturing process can be determinants of successful parenting, then one must try to determine not only by subjectively surveying but actually researching the relation between family background, educational outcome, and children’s developmental processes (as e.g. PISA and its accompanying studies have done);
e) there always are exceptions to the empirical rule, but, as we say in German, exceptions serve to prove a rule right.

Firstly, why would single motherhood, or single parenthood for that matter, be a reason to be proud? If we can determine pride as happiness over one’s personal achievements, which compare to be higher / of higher quality than others’ achievements, and if there is emphasis placed on the validity / legitimacy of single mothers being proud of being just that, this suggests that parenthood delivered by two caregivers results in fewer or no achievements, hence requires less or no efforts and work from both or either partner. But then, a study that has recently been reported on on the news for instance emphasized that married women with children spend the highest amount of numbers on housework compared to single parents and single adults without children; the women surveyed generally pursued jobs. Anybody who has been in a solid one-on-one relationship for a period of time long enough to go beyond the phase of being in-love (one to four years in general) knows that maintaining a satisfactory loving relationship is “day labour” (R.M. Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet) and requires time and effort on a daily basis. It requires willingness to compromise just as much as to subject oneself to the other’s needs. (More thoughts on relationships below; feel free to grab something to drink before you read on.) Ergo, relationships are time- and energy-consuming.

Secondly, does single parenthood produce the same outcome as “dual” parenthood? As much as a few politicians over here try to make people believe just that, educational research says, “Decidedly no.” The evaluations of multi-national studies (e.g. PISA, IGLU) have clearly shown that children raised by single parents rank decisively lower in educational outcome than their peers with both parents. The reason for that, so the researchers concluded after extensive follow-up studies, was that single parents in Western societies are a) more likely to be found in environments of lower educational backgrounds, and b) parents of lower educational backgrounds in general are less likely to emphasize the importance of learning and / or are less able to support their children’s studying, e.g. by supervising their homework.

Thirdly, how do single parents compensate? While I don’t have the slightest doubt that most single parents try the best they can, I cannot help but wonder why I am supposed to consider this an outstanding achievement as I also think that the majority of parents in general try the best they can to deliver care for their children. Children’s developmental psychologists clearly state that children need both parents, a father and a mother, all the way to adulthood. I certainly do understand and feel for single parents that have lost a partner to unexpected circumstances, but that demographic makes only a minimal percentage of single parents in Western post-industrialized societies. Ideally, educational and psychological research tell us, children grow up in families with one stay-at-home parent, at least until the children get into secondary school. The advantages of those conventional family structures are obvious as it has been shown that children in such families are more likely to get instructed in scholarly and non-scholarly activities, receive regular and more wholesome meals, have got a fixed person to relate to etc. The choice single parents have to make is whether they want to be stay-at-home parents, and consequently rely on others’ funding (be it family or welfare) or working parents, and consequently miss out on much-needed interaction between them and their children and rely on others’ help. Single parents often claim their children learn to stand on their own feet more quickly, but is that really desirable? Also, does having to be self-reliant equal to maturity?
Pre-WW2, children were considered “little adults”, which reflected in the clothing as well in parents’ position on child labour; children were considered their parents’ property, that was used to contribute to the family’s budget. Things only changed gradually when mandatory school education (up to age 13 / 14 in most Western European countries) was introduced. Yet, most children (whose parents could either not afford or actually see the need for secondary education) were thrown into adult work life at age 18. We now know that depriving a child of a gradual maturing process is a way of mind-control and access to manipulation that particularly totalitarian states of 20th century Europe made use of: WW1 saw youths quitting school to sign up with the military, the Nazis as well as the GDR and Soviet communists highlighted the social role of “the worker” over that of a member of the intelligentsia, spoon-feeding that ideology into kids from small on in more-than-less mandatory youth organizations. For a large part of the 20th century, children were deprived of their childhood. Putting a child in a position where it has to “mature” young, i.e. to act like an adult before reaching adulthood – which not necessarily means that a child needs to serve as a soldier – , is not only counter-productive and at large odds possibly harmful to the child’s development, but in terms of what self-acclaimed feminists try to sell to the public, it’s retrogressive, not progressive. I’d strongly wish for the selfish feminist movement that has taken chokehold of the Women’s Rights movement (which placed great emphasis on the welfare of the children cf. the motivations of the Abolitionists and the early organized Jewish women’s trade unions) to focus more on children and their needs as any call for self-fulfilment, IMHO, becomes nil and void if I am not ready to grant the basis needed for self-fulfilment to those I am responsible for.

Another way of compensating a lot of self-acclaimed “progressive” politicians promote over here is full-day daycare delivered by public institutions. I come from the country where kindergartens were invented, but there also was another invention that would become the standard in the former GDR, namely “Kinderhort”, full-day public childcare institutions. How do both kinds of institutions compare? Generally, children enter kindergarten at about age four and go there half-days until they start primary school; kindergarten is voluntary, but many parents opt to send their children there so the little ones may learn to get along within larger groups of same-age peers before starting school. Kindergarten teachers are well-trained professionals (one year of practical training prior and after three years of college) that not only learn about entertaining children but how to evaluate and, if need be, support developmental processes. Now more and more kindergartens are required to offer places for babies and toddlers, some even offer over-night facilities. Particularly the places for babies are limited as newborns, naturally, need a lot of extra cost-, effort- and time-consuming care. Two females in my family happen to run kindergartens. (They’re either public or church- / synagogue-run here, but since there’s a mutual agreement between state and religious bodies, all kindergartens are open to all children; a fee of roughly $150/month is asked from parents for the childcare delivered there; parents that cannot afford this get subsidiary payments from the state.) Both independently report that the lower the age children start kindergarten, the lower their communicative, social, sensory, motor skills are. Both also independently report that the vast majority of parents signing up their newborns and toddlers for kindergarten care are non-working single mothers that express a need “to get a little extra sleep” before dropping their kids off at the kindergarten entrance. Kinderhort was generally attended by children from the cradle on; caregivers there usually were more trained in party doctrine than in children’s education. The Communist ideal of “free love” discouraged traditional marriage and family structures and denounced them as “reactionary”.

Educational researchers regard not only the ailing economy in the former GDR as an important contributor to political extremism, particularly on the right-wing end of the political sphere, but also Kinderhort education as children there, unlike children raised in traditional family structures, did not learn from role models about respect, conflict management, establishing a communicative culture etc. This goes in line with the findings of Adorno, who conducted a series of studies after WW2 on how family structures influence a child’s development to xenophobia / racism. Not only to the researchers’ astonishment, mothers perceived as non-loving, rejecting, and / or emotionally or physically violent were determined more decisive factors in racist youths’ developmental paths than physically violent fathers.

Now, back to the initial question, when comparing single parenthood and “dual” parenthood in conventional family structures regarding trackable on-time maturing process with the aim of letting children grow up to be mature adults, the latter beats the former hands-down.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I do believe any child is better off being raised by a gay couple or a single parent in Western Europe than rotting away at a foster home in Romania, but research has clearly shown there is a family pattern that has proved to be best for children’s development. It irks me to hear sentences that start with, “Considering she’s a single mother, she does fine…”.

Considering I’m not a multi-millionaire, I’ve got a few rather expensive hobbies. Considering I’m not a nuclear physicist by trade, I think I should be awarded the Nobel Prize. Considering I’m a female, I did a pretty good job peeing my boyfriend’s name into the snow (hypothetically; I’d never actually do that). Catch my drift? As long as the premise is a “No, but…”-excuse, there’s admittance of something to be lacking. From my point of view, with children being the focus, to add such a premise as the reason for being proud is just as absurd as my analogies. Why be proud of something if all one can deliver is “not the best, but…”? Be happy, glad, joyful, elated, euphoric about single mothers managing at parenting. But proud? On a theological note, in Judaism as well as in Christianity, pride is considered a sin (Ancient philosophers considered it a vice); it leads to hubris, decadence, and, if you believe in the existence of a superior being, blasphemy. Our elders used “pride” sparsely, maybe because they were simply raised that way, but maybe also because they understood that concept. In these days and age, where everything is extra-, hyper-, mega-, über-[add quantifier of choice], plain “joy” obviously doesn’t do the trick for many anymore.

I’d like to add that the comment this response is referring to makes statements about my actual persona that one cannot necessarily deduct from my comments or my posts on Jewlicious. While I may be the only blogger on there that has ever simultaneously worn more than half a dozen pieces of body jewellery and has donned dark blue hair for an extended period of time, my views on families have become rather traditional over the years through what I do and what I’ve come to understand. The comment this response is referring to also wishes for me never to be in certain situations without any evidence that I’d actually never been in such or similar situations. Also, I don’t believe in kharma, and if disagreeing with someone will puncture what others believe to be my kharma until it is perforated like toilet paper, so be it.

To shed some light onto the dark, I’ve been in a relationship with the same man for almost nine years. As in all relationships of substance, we’ve had our ups and downs, the distance of 3,800 miles occasionally adding to that. Since we both were into education when we met (as a good Ashkenazi diaspora Jew, he’s now in business), there was a mutual understanding not to rush into founding a family until we’d both established ourselves in life, thus building a solid foundation. Neither of us is perfect, but we see beauty in the respective other’s imperfection. He’s stubborn, I’m emotional. He hates pasta, I can see myself eating pasta three times a day, calling it “a happy day”. He dresses, uhmmm, conservatively, I love fashion. He’s forgotten my birthday five years in a row, I always make sure to remember his. But those points – while have been considered valid reasons for divorce in US courts (and that’s where most single parents come from) – are way below secondary. To love a person means to provide them with a space where they can be vulnerable in without being hurt. To love a person with every fibre of your being means to not let stand your vanities in the way of giving your partner that one happy smile. To love a person means to complement, and at that strengthening, each other. To love a person means going out of your way without gauging the value of what you’ll get in return. To love a person often means just being “there”, wherever that may be.

In those nine years, we had to struggle with a life-threatening medical condition on his part that lasted for about three years. All details aside, particularly then, I spent a lot of time and money on being overseas, often straining my resources to the max. During that time, a lot of people recommended a break-up to me, highlighting the inconveniences and the low odds of complete recovery. I argued that if I didn’t stick up to my partner in rough times, I didn’t deserve him in good times either. To put it into Shakespeare’s words:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
(Sonnet 116)

And that’s exactly where I see many relationships failing. Life can’t always be pancakes and lollipops. The feeling of being in love gradually gets replaced by the more substantial feeling of love, and most divorced couples that I know married before that substantial feeling set in. Divorce stats from the US I read last year indicated people mostly get divorced over trivial matters or out of convenience. Domestic abuse only made a minimal percentage of reasons for divorce. People get married to someone they consider “cute” and not too long afterwards get divorced when “cuteish” has turned into “annoying”. That is also where the nasty divorces stem from. People that have never really loved each other will not shy away from causing each other harm if it is to their benefit. Unfortunately, there often have kids been set into this world on the way from Cloud Number Nine to the divorce courts, and it’s the children that suffer the consequences of their parents’ dysfunctional marriage, one way or another. These days, early to mid twenties are those years when young adults change the most, when they get into professions and thus establish new social environments and, likely, interests. The situation is not like 80 years back, when an 18-year-old had already been a breadwinner for four years. People get older now, the phases of life get more outstretched, they mentally mature more slowly. That’s why I, for my part, find events irresponsible that are there to encourage, more than less rush or even guilt, young people into marriages before they’ve established themselves in life.

Also, people should reflect on what marriage means to them and what it’s supposed to be about. If it’s all about kitschy celebrations and a large choice of desserts, go visit Disneyland Paris. If it’s all about financial security despite equality of chances, go get a job. If it’s all about outdoing your friends as the first one to get married, go move to Central Africa; girls there usually get married off once they reach reproductive age. If it’s all about pleasing your parents, go grow up. If it’s all about getting hands on a certain guy before anybody else can, regardless of emotions, go see a shrink about narcissism.
Back in the days of King Solomon, weddings constituted out of sexual intercourse. If we re-understand the binding qualities and responsibilities that (can) come with sex, maybe we’ll also get a more responsible and mature grasp on relationships. But don’t let kids pay the price. And don’t celebrate those that have their kids pay the price. That is Kafkaesque.

The Extreme Godol Hador slams Rabbi Shafran’s disgraceful article on Albert Einstein. XGH notes,

Sounds like Shafran has been taking courses at the Reb Elchonon school of circular logic and general kiruv clownery.

See Daas Kefirah’s full response to Shafran’s “Baby Einstein.”

And in other news, Dr. Mahamud M. Yahye slams Hirsi Ali as, “a supercilious person with a childish attitude.”

Maybe there is a basis for Muslim-Jewish dialog after all! Great minds think alike.

Rabbi Shafran trashes the man whose last name is synonymous with genius. Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, which is the leading ULTRA-Orthodox organization in the U.S.

In his essay respectfully entitled, “Baby Einstein,” Rabbi Shafran notes that, among his many sins and proof of how “wrongheaded” (but not quite “pigheaded”) was, R. Shafran points to Einstein’s agitation that the U.S. stop nuclear testing.

Now, why Einstein would have wanted to stop nuclear testing? Could it be that the great scientist foresaw that in some way, as difficult as it is to fathom, that the radiation fallout would somehow be bad for the environment, and even, dare I say it, people? What was this crazy Lefty dreamer thinking?

Well, if by any chance there are some haredim reading this, for your edification, nuclear fallout is really bad news. Yes, even if you aren’t in the exact area when the bomb goes off. No, really. It is accepted that thousands have died from nuclear testing. And others got sick. The true cost of nuclear testing is probably much higher. And it gets into the water supply. They’re still monitoring this in Nevada. It’s still a problem.

And Rabbi Shafran, in 2008, is criticizing Einstein for suspecting that danger.

Rabbi Shafran is also upset that, “He insisted that a Marxist be appointed the president of a university to which he was to lend his name.”

Marxism is, of course, monolithic. As Shafran notes,

Not that there’s anything wrong with Marxism, of course. No, wait! There is! Wasn’t that the political system that brought us the Soviet Union and its gulags, East Germany and the Berlin Wall, the curtailment of human rights in the People’s Republic of China and the cruel deprivation of the citizenry in North Korea?

That was Communism specifically, Rabbi Shafran. Hardly all Marxists endorsed that, especially western ones.

Anyway, the man Rabbi Shafran is referencing is Harold Laski. Laski was the chairman of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Can Rabbi Shafran truly not distinguish between the Labour Party and the dictators of communism?

Rabbi Shafran suggests why Einstein is not in accordance with traditional Jewish thought. It is due to Einstein’s “own childishness, the self-centeredness that he retained from babyhood.”

There are no words. The proper response is as follows:
–

If you stab a Jew and yell, “”S— Jew, I will kill you,” you face a whole 3 and 1/2 years in jail.

I remember the Muslim outrage on the streets in midtown when Oslo fell apart…I haven’t forgotten that. We’ll have to face this shit regularly here, too, and already have. Just keep ‘em coming.

Wake up, Jews. It’s time to revisit our immigration stance. We can’t afford this “We’re a nation of immigrants” narishkeit. These guys aren’t always immigrants in the sense that we would like to believe, nor in the way we once were. A small but virulent faction appear to be settlers bent on colonizing the West. Just look at the mess they are making in Europe. Others harbor ambitions of cultural dominance through numbers and language.

So Happy Memorial Day, yidden. Pre-war Jewry must remember those who came to build this great nation. And we must ally on immigration with the descendants of our countrymen who forged it, and who have treated us so well.

Let’s make a deal. When the Muslim community in Europe successfully integrates into France, England, and Canada, something I am so sure is just around the corner, just as soon as everyone learns to love each other and there is everlasting peace in the Middle East, we can absolutely revisit a moratorium on mass immigration from those nations producing these immigrant problems.

Until that time, we need to be realists.

But Carter really is a bastard.

In case you didn’t hear, Christian Bibles were burned in Or Yehuda, Israel by ultra-Orthodox fanatics. Why? Because people missionized. And Israel ain’t no U.S. A., that’s for damn sure. This is the Middle East, baby.

The IHT reports,

Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.

Who directed this retro-style communal-identity building effort?

Just the DEPUTY MAYOR of Or Yehuda, Uzi Aharon. Shockingly, Aharon is not connected to either the Labor party nor even Likud or the National Religious Party. Rather, he is a member of Shas, the Mizrahi ultra-Orthodox party.

Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.

After receiving complaints, Aharon said, he got into a loudspeaker car last Thursday and drove through the neighborhood, urging people to turn over the material to Jewish religious students who went door to door to collect it.

The books were dumped into a pile and set afire in a lot near a synagogue, he said.

Well, isn’t that special.

A silver lining in this black cloud was that it proved an opportunity to teach Or Yehuda youth the importance of respecting those of different faith.

The Israeli Maariv daily reported Tuesday that hundreds of Jewish religious school students took part in the book-burning.

Needless to say, Christians are angry. Actually, Christians are very angry. And understandably hurt.

You might think that at least for the sake of PR, Aharon would not only be condemned, but he would lose his job. Instead, he gave a half-assed apology (see, it’s not his fault since it wasn’t planned), and that’s it – case closed.

Haaretz notes,

If the deputy mayor of Or Yehuda remains in his post, it will only strengthen the perception that the persecution of minorities has not been discontinued due to its revolting nature. As long as Shas produces the likes of Uzi Aharon, the lighter of the bonfire, it must be viewed as a full participant in this act.

No. As long as Uzi Aharon remains in his post, the State of Israel must be viewed as a full participant in this act.

Reuters has an article on Obama preaching to older Reform Jews in Florida. I thought the first part of this woman’s response–a woman whom I suspect really wants to trust him–says it all.

“As a Jew, would I vote for a black person? Sure,” said Lippy. “But …

There are many silly allegorical stories in the Talmud about VERY BIG rabbis who could raise the dead.

Fortunately, when it comes to casting aspersions on a fellow Jew’s status, they still can!

Like many of you, I like to think of myself as an ethical person, or perhaps, one who at least strives to be ethical. But sometimes it isn’t clear at all what the right thing to do is. For instance, let’s say you think that a dangerous pack of octogenarians are practicing witchcraft. And let’s say the government—even though you have evidence of witchcraft—is moving too slowly on this matter.

Would you go through the legal channels, or would you drag the witches out of their house and burn them?

As bad as we knew things were with Agriprocessors, the allegations are even worse than we feared.

And yet, through this whole mess, there is one group of victims that the media has forgotten: the original Christian population of Postville, a town riddled with problems thanks to the frummies.

As Bloom has long noted, the boys sent to Postville were not always the good boys, not always the yeshiva bochers.

But does that explain everything? I don’t think so. Steve Sailer offers an interesting explanation on the tension between the communities. Remember before you assume anti-semitism on the part of the white Christians as contributing to part of the problem, consider that we know the Chassidim have been behaving in a predatory and brutal manner for many years, and that carries over into other aspects of engagement, or lack thereof, with others.

Sailer writes,

The point is not to pick on the business practices of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The bigger issue is that this kind of in-group morality is not at all restricted to Lubavitchers. In-group morality and sharp elbowed business practices are the norm among mercantile minorities across large swathes of the world, the great majority of them non-Jewish. (In fact, many are notoriously anti-Semitic.)

It’s the nature of low trust societies: you have the peasants and you have the business people, and never the twain shall marry.