Category — Feminism

Various segments of the liberal Jewish community would be spending all of their energy on communal hysteria. Each group would be respectively jumping up and down, screaming and crying, desperate to prove how much more upset and outraged they were than the next liberal Jew. It would galvanize the Jewish social Left like a bogus white on black rape case galvanizes African-American and feminist academics.

But when haredim force women to sit on the back of the bus, and seek to expand this policy on nationalized buses and rail lines (these buses are not private, contrary to the lies of the haredim), we don’t care all that much.

Do we really care less about our own women than we do about black people? Or does this illuminate that our professed love for other minorities and social justice is somehow disingenuous? Or can we just not smell our own shit?

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.

I have said it before…or at least, I have thought it. There is nowhere to go except within. Communally, Judaism itself does not improve in liberal communities. It just gets goofy. And frankly, that’s a damn shame.

POLJ bears witness that,

As I have mentioned before I am privileged to take the class “Exodus and Revolutions” sponsored mainly by AJWS and Avodah and few other cool [editor's note: please don't use the word "cool" in this context ever, ever again. It sounds fucking awful. You are making us vomit even before you give us reason.] organizations. We talk about oppression and the Exodus and other such Jewish-lefty-entitled things. [See POLJ's original post for links]

Okay. One we are defining Judaism in “Jewish-lefty” terms, we know two things. 1) This is going to be bullshit, and 2) This class is going nowhere interesting.

Where exactly is nowhere interesting? Here:

When class ended a man in the back called our attention to the fact that a vast majority of the class is women while a vast majority of the air time (his words) has been dominated by men[...]

In that there is a majority of folks in this class are women it is pretty clear they are free from the sexism that would have kept them out twenty-five years ago. However they may not yet be free to engage, explained this person in the back of class.

I find the whole exercise suspicious. To his credit, POLJ doesn’t buy it, but what I would have asked the gentleman insisting that women are too oppressed to speak is,

“Are you single?”

If his answer was in any way approaching “yes,” I would have asked,

“Are you in any way trying to get laid?”

Anyway, the funny thing is, yesterday in my class, which is filled with CCNY leftists, (and these aren’t the same as Jew-Leftists, my friends) I defended Roosevelt’s imperialist tendencies against a rigid, feminist interpretation.

These women are not quiet. And I kicked their ass. You know why, POLJ? Because I am liberated like that.

Rabbi Weinbach, founder and Rosh Yeshiva (Dean) of Ohr Somayach, comments on modesty for women this week.

You might think Rabbi Weinbach tackles the issue of the bleaching of women in the haredi community for wearing Shulchan Aruch acceptable but not fundamentalist appropriate clothing in his community…in a neighborhood right next to Maalot Dafna. But he does not say anything about that. As far as I can tell, he has been consistently silent on the subject, at least in writing.

You might think he has what to say about the women who have been beaten to the back of the bus…but again…only silence.

What Rabbi Weinbach does say on the subject of modestly this week is the following,

This slogan of the garment industry will certainly come to mind this Shabbat as we hear in the Torah reading the stress that was placed on the details of the sacred garments worn by the kohanim. Those garments not only identified the wearers as do uniforms in secular life but also exerted a mystical influence on those chosen to perform the Sanctuary service for the nation.

If clothes of dignity are important for men, this is even more important in regard to women. One of the disappointing features of secular society in Israel and elsewhere is the lack of appreciation by Jewish women of the need to dress in modest fashion. The Torah teaches us that the Divine Presence that protects us from our enemies departs from us when immodesty prevails.

It is to be hoped that the message of this week’s Torah portion that clothes make the man will inspire women to appreciate that clothes not only make the woman but transform her into a princess whose royal modesty will help protect Israel forever.

The idea that secular Jews will 1) be going to shul, and 2) extrapolate from a verse about the clothes of the male priests as pertaining to women’s modesty is a most dubious wish on Rabbi Weinbach’s part. In fact, one could be forgiven for believing that Rabbi Weinbach is being disingenuous. It would seem that Rabbi Weinbach’s message is not really to secular Jewry at all, but rather, a message to the already converted that the problems that exist in regards to modesty are not the beatings; are not the bleachings. These are the unfortunate, but justified, antics of vigilantes attempting to enforce the will of the Gedoylim.

And their will be done!

Rather, for Rabbi Weinbach, the root problem is the same problem that all middle eastern fundamentalists blame for all their countries problems. Whether in Egypt, whether in Israel, whether in Saudi Arabia. The problem is the secular government, and the nation’s lack of faith.

So cover up, bitches. You are the problem. Not the vigilantes. And certainly not the Gedoylim whom inspire them.

Yeshiva University appears to be reconsidering accrediting Ohr Somayach.

Okay. I admit it. I have a crush on Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

But how can I not? She is a courageous beyond my comprehension, facing down tyranny, rationalizations, and specious excuses (what we in the offline world call “bullshit”). She is a brilliant prophetess, and yes, she is quite beautiful. If she asked me out for drinks, I would say yes. And since she’s a feminist, we would go Dutch (I know…that one was a groaner).

Anyway, in an interview with the Mainichi Daily News, the following was discussed.

Q: When did you begin to become suspicious of Islam?

A: When I came to Holland, I came to a country that was not ruled by Islam and I found it confusing to see that people like me, who are Muslims, were at war with each other. And our stereotype of the non-Muslims was that they are cursed. Coming to Holland and being cursed was clean streets, a lot of food, a lot of wealth, a lot of peace. If it was the curse of Allah, then I was very confused.
[…]
Q: Your position is that women in Muslim societies should be freed. You freed yourself from Muslim society but now you have to move around with security. Do you feel like you are freed now?

A: Well I am free intellectually. I got an education, I learned a whole new world opened up to me. After Sept. 11, discussing Islam and exercising my intellectual freedom got a price with it. Which is then that you understand the Jihadists will threaten you and some of them may want to kill you and that is for me a price I still want to pay, it is not too much.

What is so amazing to me is that at the core of her crucial resistance is a commitment to freedom of thought.

Loved your post. Nothing makes male circumcision quite as appealing as when feminists support it incessantly, especially with graphics! Isn’t there a better way to express one’s *love* of cock?

This one’s for you, KRG. Cause I know you’ll miss me at Jewschool.

Some mothers might claim that the child would be psychologically and physically harmed by these procedures (I wonder what our East African Muslim fellow humans think of that?)

The thing that’s unusual with FGM is that generally American courts never ever stay out of cases involving religion such as this, no matter how mild the FGM.

[picture of FGM diagrams deleted]

Because I don’t live there and because I am not a citizen there, I try not to dictate too many policies to the State of Israel. Not everyone agrees. Like, say, Sophie Glass over at the Lilith blog.

Ms. Glass writes,

I believe that it is important for Israel to accept the Sudanese refugees and that any housing, educational and health-care issues can be overcome by true political will. These refugees would not have been displaced had the international community intervened before the conflict mounted to its current humanitarian crisis. Many countries, namely the United States, have spoken-out against genocide in Darfur, but have not committed military forces due to political and logistical reasons. Actively accepting some of the 2.5 million Darfurian refugees is a non-military display of commitment to the lives of Darfurians.

I don’t speak for Israel, but I don’t think Ms. Glass does either. Israel has limited resources, and limited land. Absorbing “some” refugees could force them to end up grappling with pressure to absorb many, many more.

This is Holocaustism. Israel must not be pressured by Holocaustians to do any such thing. This is “tikkun olam�? out of control. This won’t tikkun a damn thing.

You know who is on the floor laughing? The far-right. Comments I have read on a race realist site (hint: the smartest large one) include the following,

“Israel will suffer the same fate as Europe and the United States but in a faster process. The same Jewish Organizations that advocate for “open borders�? in every Western country are now engineering the end of their “homeland�?.

“Considering the last names of so many of the attorneys and civil rights activists who are responsible for the invasion of hispanic, muslim and african third worlders into this country all I can say is:

What goes around comes around.�?

“Israel should welcome the cultural enrichment of the Africans. They should encourage third worlders to storm their borders because “diversity�? is such a strength.�?

“The Israelis will open their hearts to these poor unfortunate brothers from oppressed countries. I for one hope that Israel opens their borders and allows the downtrodden to come and share the land. There should be no borders in Israel. We are all a part of the human race.” [editor's note: This comment was meant sardonically. Trust me.]

“Considering the role played by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and Morris Seligman Dees’s SPLC (as well as the large numbers of “ordinary�? American Jews who contribute to these groups financially) in supporting Third World immigration into the USA and doing everything in their power to cripple, demoralize and break White America, I think this is wonderful! Wonderful beyond measure!”

It reminds me of an old, terrible joke. Three elderly communist women were sitting playing Mahjon, talking about their sons’ success.

1st Jewish woman: My son is helping to build a workers’ paradise in Russia.

2nd Jewish woman: My son is helping to build a workers’ paradise in Cuba.

3rd Jewish woman: My son is in the export business in Israel.

First two Jewish women: And he isn’t building a workers’ paradise?

3rd Jewish woman: What, in our own country?

My point is, Jewish insanity about saving the world needs to be…directed. As I have explained elsewhere, the whole point of Darfur is not only about Darfur itself, but for some, about why Islam sucks. If you make the issue about why Israel is the problem, then the mainstream Jewish community will feel pressure to back off Darfur. Of course, I was opposed to this mission from the start. I worried it would bite us in the ass somehow.

It will probably get much worse, in the off chance that the social-Left Jews aren’t able to solve Africa’s problems. But don’t worry, at least we tried. And hey, that’s what counts guys! Look at all the goodwill the Neocons got us for backing Bush’s Democracy for the Middle East plan! Okay, so maybe it didn’t quite work out as planned. Well, no big whoop. But anyway, what could possibly go wrong here? Solving an African civil war…how hard can that be?

But remember, my tikkun olam social-left friends…not in our own country!

Harley at Jewbiquitous is annoyed at the pronatalist policies in the U.S. generally and the Jewish world specifically. Harley’s observations of the effects of a pronatalist society on women generally appear both astute and correct. I found Harley’s mapping of pronatalist assumptions useful and helpful, and it did make me rethink my position.

After thinking about what Harley wrote in “Making Jewish Babies�? I would now agree with Harley that indeed the current pronatalist positions of both the U.S. and the Jewish community are flawed, and would even argue that they need to be changed. Where we might disagree is in which direction.

The U.S. should strengthen its pronatalist position in the professional world, and in the Jewish world, it should be dramatically increased, and aggressively demote the status of childless Jewish women.

But let’s back up, and first understand where Harley is correct, and why.

Harley wrote,

This process of un-gendering women based on their procreation choices has two effects: (1) you must have children to be considered a “real woman�? in this society and (2) to become successful professionally, women must become non-gendered. Either you are a successful woman, meaning you have children or you are successful professionally, meaning you are not a mother and therefore not a woman. (Disclaimer: I am not saying this argument holds true to this extreme, but that the original article logically leads to this conclusion.)

I do not seek to deny that women bare the burden of our society’s pronatalist position. I would only ask you to consider that:

1) Men also bare a burden for this, and always have, just not as heavily, of course.

2) The cost to a society for abandoning a pronatalist position is high. Over a long-term abandonment of a firmly pronatalist position, you risk losing your culture, and perhaps eventually, to some degree, even your country, to those groups, including immigrant and indegenous groups, who retain a pronatalist position. We can talk about the joys of multi-culturalism til we’ve knitted the largest quilt ever, but most of us don’t really want that. And even if you think it’s great, most Jews in Israel don’t want that.

It is, therefore, not in any civilization’s interest in the long-term to completely abandon a pronatalist position unless everyone abandons a pronatalist position, and Jews are not the exception. At least not to the extent that they will end up being overrun by a different civilization, which does seem to be a possibility in certain countries, at least to some degree, but rather, as in the case of Sweden, accommodates women’s other needs, and make the cost of pronatalism as low as possible.

But to ask a civilization — particularly a painfully small one like the Jews — to abandon or even just further weaken a pronatalist position seems like you are advocating a policy of self-destruction. Fine for a far-Left site like JVoices, but an untenable position for a moderate Left site like Jewbiquitous.

I will concede that Harley’s points serve to suggest that the Jewish community needs to always strive to accommodate women’s professional needs better once there, even if not to encourage this — but like in Sweden, this is only in order to more effectively promote a pronatalist position. This was Harley’s second point.

But what I learned from the first point, that “you must have children to be considered a ‘real woman’ in this society” — well, I would say perhaps this isn’t overt enough. It seems it would benefit the Jewish community to employ harsher and more effective ways to stigmatize Jewish women who stay single or choose not to have children.

Harley continues,

Nancy Rome’s piece in The Washington Post inspired me to reflect on women who were childless by choice (or not) in the Jewish world. For a psychological perspective on the effects of not choosing children in a pronatalist society, I read Larissa Remennick study on childless Jewish Israeli women, who also have the double-pressure of a country that privileges progeny and a religion that promotes procreation as a primary mitzvah. Remennick’s research echoed Rome’s article (and confirmed some of my fears): Infertility became a “master status” for these women, undermining any other merits and achievements they might have.

Harley is not happy with this, because she wants the individual’s needs to be placed higher than the communal needs. But is the Jewish community in a position to value anything else more than continuity? Isn’t that our single greatest concern? Are we lacking lawyers, writers, or even Nobel Prize laureates? Israel needs more Jews, and Israel needs more water. There may be a few women who can help with the second problem. Many more can help with the first. It is not in Israel’s interest to alleviate any stigma that remains, but rather, to increase the stigma of childlessness earlier in their lives.

Not that such a path is moral, and not that barren women (or barren because of their sterile husbands) wouldn’t end up being stigmatized as well, but from a communal position, it is clearly too acceptable for female Jewish communal members to remain childless.

So theologically, I would have to say that the most responsible thing the non-Orthodox Jewish community could do through halachic “evolution�? and “process�? they are willing to employ is to create rituals that reward mothers and penalize women who aren’t mothers, as we did with men when they were considered the ones who needed the communal pressure.

Perhaps all new rituals seeking to give women a greater or equal role in the synagogue should be restricted to those who are mothers. And women who aren’t mothers would not be considered full communal female members, like men in the Orthodox world prior to marriage.

In the organizational Jewish world, childless women could be excluded from the top positions as bad examples to young people, and quietly declared unfit for leadership.

The fact that a non-radical like Harley has personal antipathy towards motherhood is absolutely understandable. What Dr. Wertheimer and others might call “the cult of individualism�? is a quite understandable and reasonable way to view the world and one’s place in it. But what’s good for an individual can be devastating on a communal level. There is good reason for the Jewish community to take a contemptous position against these women who decide to remain childless, just as it does against intermarriage, even though most of us aren’t really sure we see anything wrong with that either.

They may be producing. But not in the way we most need them to.