From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Orthadox Judaism and women
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:11:25 GMT

faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes: >
On 8 Jan 1993 19:07:13 GMT, Jennifer S. said: >>
>
>> I was born and raised an orthadox Jew, but recently have been attending
>> conservative Jewish services and enjoy them much, much more than orthadoxy
>> (for many reasons) but one being that conservative Judaism respects women. 
>
>> It's high time that Orthadox Judaism wakes up from the Middle Ages and
>> re-vamps some of its sexist customs.  It is an embarrasment to the rest of
>> Judaism.
>
>First of all, you must remember that from the point of view of the Orthodox,
>their behavior is not sexist. Women have a set of obligations given by G-d;
>men have a set of obligations from the same source -- and you don't question
>the source. Rather, you are thankful that you have your set of obligations.
>Neither set is more or less important -- all are important for the sanctity of
>the world. You thank G-d each day that you have been given your obligations. 

I have been having an interesting e-mail discussion on this very subject
with another poster.  I had asked him to return it to the newsgroup, so
perhaps this is a good opportunity to do so.

Your last sentence says that you thank G-d each day that you have
been given your obligations.  Perhaps you or another poster would
care to explain why men thank G-d they were not created female,
while women thank G-d that they were created what they were.  This
phrasing is the same catchall used by blind and handicapped people.
Why doesn't the prayet instruct each sex to thank G-d for being
create {male|female}?  The implication here is that femaleness is
a limitation, much as blindness or being confined to a wheelchair.

>The behavior only appears "sexist" when viewed from the egalitarian point of
>view implicit in Reform and Conservative Judaism. Reform, and Conservative (to
>a lesser extent), go out of their way to make all obligations equal. Whether
>this is good or bad is not for me to say -- it all depends on your point of
>view.

But sexism, defined as the assignment of roles, privileges, and 
restrictions by sex, is still sexism.  A law or tradition can be
sexist and still be useful.  It is the rigidity of the law or
tradition I object to.

I posted a series of articles earlier explaining why I became
disillusions with religion (I was brought up Jewish).  It was the
sexism that started my unease and questioning.  I did some
study.  So many of the laws and traditions seemed to apply to a
society that no longer exists.

Let us examine the Purity Laws.  They proscribe physical contact
between husband and wife for two weeks of every four.  The no-touch
period is Days 28 to 12 of the menstrual cycle.  The most fertile
point is Days 14 to 16, and sperm are volatile for 48 hours.  I
contend the purpose of this law is twofold: it does strengthen the
marriage because the couple really *wants* each other after the
no-touch period.  But, it also ensures the woman will become
pregnant quickly.  Now, in ancient times, this was a good law,
so the tribe could "be fruitful and multiply."  But I contend
this is a bad idea today, with 5.5 billion people on the planet,
1/4 of them starving.

Why stifle the intellect of half the population?  This was my
objection to sexism in O.

I have no wish to be involved with the relentless O/C/R debate, so
I have removed the "embarassment" discussion.  My interest is on
the topic of sex roles in Judaism.


-- 
Maddi Hausmann                       |  The Truth is still The Truth, forsooth 
madhaus@netcom.com                   |  Even if believing It you refuse
Centigram Communications Corp        |  Complete disproof's uncouth and moot
San Jose California  408/428-3553    |  A Fundie's brain is dead.