On disengagement, menstruation and the politics of the female body

What does women’s menstruation have to do with disengagement?

Everything, it would seem from recent arguments within religious Zionism.

This is not surprising, of course. As usual, religious nationalist power struggles take place over the female body.

What does women’s menstruation have to do with disengagement?

Everything, it would seem from recent arguments within religious Zionism.

This is not surprising, of course. As usual, religious nationalist power struggles take place over the female body.

Perhaps it all began thousands of years ago, when Moses was preparing the new Israelite nation for receiving the Torah. “Be ready,” he warned, “and do not approach the women.” [Exodus 19;15] From this statement it seems clear that at Mount Sinai, “nation” meant “men”. The text, after all, does not say, “refrain from relations with your spouse”. It says you, whoever is listening, stay away from them, the women, who are obviously not the recipients of this speech. And so, at this auspicious moment in Jewish history, readiness, preparedness, and correct spirituality are male constructs defined by the extent to which women’s bodies are kept at bay.

The connection between nationalism and the female body was expressed perhaps more vehemently by the Persian king Ahashverosh, who, upon learning that his Queen Vashti refused to appear before him saw this as a threat to his entire national security. “If the Queen’s actions get out,” he feared, “all women will belittle their husbands,” [Esther 1;17] causing national anarchy. Therefore, he declared that “all women shall endear their husbands… so that each man can rule his house and speak the language of his people.” That is, the potency of national identity is entirely dependent the man’s control over his wife’s actions. Although Ahasverosh was not Jewish, one can only wonder at the effect he had on Mordechai, who of course used Esther’s sexuality to gain his own political power. Esther spent years as the head of a royal harem so that Mordechai could become royal vizier. Esther’s body became quite the tool of national power after all.

Indeed, throughout the existence of the modern state of Israel, the female body has dominated discourse of national power, especially in religious Zionist circles. According to Hebrew University sociologist Professor Tamar Rapoport, “Contribution to the national collective” through female fertility is construed as the benchmark of religious commitment. Moreover, symbols upon the female body such as hats, necklines, sleeves and skirts have become penultimate determinants of religiosity. Religious identity of entire communities is measured along the bodies of the female members. How long is the sleeve, how long is the skirt – arms and legs become like measuring sticks upon which levels of religiousness are calculated. Religious Zionism draws invisible red lines upon the female body not only to measure the women but to measure themselves. In a 1984 study, for example, conducted by the late Bar Ilan professor of sociology Mordechai Bar Lev, religious identity among young male yeshiva students was determined in part by “whether your wife will cover her hair.” Never mind that the respondents were only 17 and for the most part did not yet know “the wife.” Control over the future wife’s body, even just in theory, is a fundamental measure of religious-national correctness.

So it can hardly be surprising that religious Zionists who are angry about the powerlessness with which disengagement left them are once again seeking to regain power over the battleground of the female body. Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a pillar of religious Zionism who boldly spoke out against refusing orders to evacuate settlements, is being attacked within his community not merely for supporting disengagement, but more emphatically for his rulings on niddah, on female menstruation, the set of dictates that determines the correct spiritual readiness of the female body for sexual intercourse. How typical, indeed, that posters are going up all over Jerusalem that Rabbi Aviner is no longer a suitable religious leader because he is too “lenient” about niddah. Like in the days of Ahashverosh, the message is clear: if we don’t control our women’s bodies, then our entire nation will lose control. And the subtext continues: See, look at Gush Katif. We lost our stronghold and it must be because we have become too lenient about niddah.

It’s time for Religious Zionism to grow up. This small-minded patriarchy is getting tired. Now that women are starting to make strides in religious Zionism, I would like to see the focus not on women becoming leaders of niddah, but on women changing the entire communal discourse. It’s up to women to set a new tone and reshape the agenda. There must be more to religious Zionism than the female body, and I believe the time has come for women to lead the construction of a new religious Zionism where it’s not all about the female body. There must be something more.