Published in today's Jerusalem Post: It took the tragic killing of Neda Soltan in Iran for the world to realize that the lives – anddeaths – of women are at the center of the struggle for human rights against religious extremism. The astounding protests takingplace in Iran over the past week, since the fraudulent victory of Islamic extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh, is really a story about women. According to an article in last weekend’s Yediyot Aharonot, written in collaboration with an inside Iranian journalist, the protests were started not by supporters of Massawi but rather by supporters of his wife Zahra Rahnavard. It was Rahnavard, a professor of art history, author of over a dozen books on art, former government minister and former chancellor of Alzahra University in Tehran, who called for the protests when the altered results came in. (She and her husband were originally told that they won, and then several hours later the official announcement was changed.) The million protesters running to the streets calling for an end to radical Islamic rule in Iran came because of her not him. In fact, what you might not read in the media is that at the beginning, most of the protesters were women.
Jewfem Blog
My husband went to a month of reserve duty, miluim, and now I'm back to doing laundry. Oh, of course there are other things that I miss about Jacob not being here, but laundry has given him a special presence in my life. It all started around a year or two ago when I was experiencing what I have come to describe as death by laundry. I'm sure it's familiar to many of you: the sense that laundry is taking over your house, your life, growing in mountains, never going away, never stopping, taking on an increasingly ominous personality, like the "Feed me, Seymour!" plant. I thought at one point, if I saw one more person sift through a pile of socks to find a pair and then walk off without bothering to sort the rest, I might just ignite a sock bonfire and let them all go sockless forever, smelly sneakers be damned.
I'm collecting stories of English speakers in the Israeli workplace. Frustrations, challenges, and moments when you feel like tearing your hair out. Like when someone prints up a thousand brochures without noticing that the word "April" is not capitalized, and is on the front page. Or when someone walks up to you when you're in the middle of a conversation and just starts talking to you -- and fully expects you to be listening. Or when someone asks you to take on a project that's due, like, in ten minutes. Things like that. Tell me YOUR stories.....
I don't know about you, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the way rabbis and poskim freely discuss the bodies of little girls. Sure, we can call it halakha if we want. But really, when rabbis talk about how girls need to cover their bodies, aren't they bordering, just a tad, on pedophilia? What exactly do rabbis mean when they say that a girl needs to wear skirts? Or long sleeves? Or whatever latest mishugas is on the order of the day, from braids to socks to cellphones?
When President Obama uttered the words "women's rights" during his speech at Cairo University last week, my ears perked up. The fact that a US president is putting women's rights up there on the international agenda -- on par with peace in the Middle East, no less -- is indeed historic. That he has the guts to say to a room full of Egyptian men that women's rights in the Muslim world are a topic that needs addressing, was quite a thrill. The fact that there was some applause after he made that opening statement, "the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights," was absolutely startling. Signs of change, perhaps. But when Obamastarted to outline the details of his vision for women's rights in the Muslim world, that's when I started to bristle.
The blogosphere is abuzz with news of the new program opening up for women to become clergy in the Orthodox world. “Maharat,” the title being granted to women graduates of the program, a cumbersome acronym for something like “spiritual, religious, Torah teacher,” is being touted by JOFA as “an historic moment for the Jewish people” in that it “ordains” women as “clergy.” JOFA announced that Sara Hurwitz, the first Maharat in history, “has passed the same tests required for rabbinic ordination that entitle men to be called Rabbi. We trust that Yeshivat Mahara"t will offer this same opportunity to other qualified women so that they can take their rightful position in Orthodox leadership.” Although it is encouraging to see so many people come out in support of women’s advancement in Jewish life, the announcement is disingenuous and troubling.
I would like to dedicate this post to my friend Ariella Zeller, who taught me everything about women, friendship, and love. Despite rumors to the contrary, I am fairly certain that Ruth did not convert to Judaism. At least not by today’s standards. Even though we celebrate Ruth as the quintessential convert, the fact is, she became Jewish without doing any of the things that the rabbis would have demanded of her in the modern state of Israel. The Book of Ruth has no mention of dipping naked into mikva. There is no mention of three haredi men watching, and asking her all kinds of prodding questions. There is no interrogation. No studying of halakha for years. No coming to her house and checking how she makes tea on Shabbat. I mean, chances are she didn’t even keep Shabbat or kashruth. What, you think when Naomi left Israel to be the only Jews in Moab, her sons married Moabite women but she was actually using two sets of dishes and putting a plata on her stove on Shabbat? It’s ridiculous. Elimelech and Naomi left Israel for ten years without ever looking back. They left because there was a famine and bread was more important than heritage. The Jewish people was not important to Elimelech, he let his sons marry local women, and never made plans to go back to Israel. So, really, what are the chances that he kept a kosher home over there in Moab? I’d say between slim and nil. Ruth probably never even heard of Shabbat. So what did Ruth do exactly to merit becoming an esteemed member of the tribe, grandmother of King David, matriarch of the messianic line? No Torah, no halakha, no covering every inch of flesh (that we know of). None of that. How did she come to be the archetypal Jew? She simply declared her loyalty to Naomi. In what is undoubtedly one of the most stirring passages in the entire Bible, Ruth says: Wherever you go, I shall go; wherever you sleep, I shall sleep. Your people are my people, your God is my God.” Passionate, moving, even thousands of years later. But really, we have to ask ourselves, why did Ruth do this? What motivated her to drop her entire life, her entire identity, leave home, and attach herself to a poor, barren, widow? She left a life she knew, her language, her culture and her family, in order to become a woman on the margins, a woman so poor that she slept on hay and gleaned from the wheat that fell on the floor. Why? She went from having a life to being less than a nobody. Naomi was a nobody, and Ruth was the nobody’s sidekick. Why on earth would she do that? So of course the rabbis over the generations delighted in painting this as the consummate conversion story. Obviously, she loved Torah and wanted to be part of the Chosen People. Obviously…. Only, that really doesn’t fly...
So.... following my previous blog post in which I criticized the whole creation of this Maharat creature, my friendElli Sacks, a great guy with a feminist spirit and genuine care for women's well-being, took issue with my position.He took the time to argue with me on facebook (I know, adults are supposed to do these things on twitter, so Iguess I'm not quite an adult yet). So I asked his permission to share some of his points here.
A gigantic two-page spread in this weekend's newspapers advertising an economic conference by Calcalist and Psagot advertises "ALL THE BIG NAMES" with photos of these big names -- and they include 16 men and only one woman. Have the planners no shame whatsoever? Is there not one person in either of these organizations who can look at this and see something is wrong?
I was sitting with a client last week, a man who directs a not for profit for whom I’m doing some grant-writing. He told me he has a new project for me, to write a 15-page marketing document, “But we cannot pay you,” he added. The organization has no money, he explained, and then he gently asked me if I would be willing to do this “not as a volunteer,” but with the understanding that I would be paid “eventually,” or “some time in the future”. I smiled politely and said that I’m grateful that he is not asking me to volunteer because I do quite a bit of volunteer work and can’t take on any more, and that this is my livelihood. And then it came, the question that always comes in conversations like this: “What does your husband do?”
