From: mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz)
Subject: Re: sexism
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:00:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.144028.14689@tc.cornell.edu>,
bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Oct12.191539.26528@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
> (Randall Holmes) writes:
> 
> >It isn't clear to me that Melanie is merely "expressing her feelings".
> >It seems to me that her argument can be expressed (at least
> >approximately) via syllogisms:
> >
> >	Sexism is bad.
> >	The Torah is sexist.
> >	 therefore, the Torah is bad.
> >
> >	All works of God (if IT exists) are good.
> >		(pronoun altered in deference to Melanie)
> >	The Torah is bad (taken from conclusion of above syllogism).
> >	therefore, the Torah cannot be the work of God.
> >
> >	Some of this reconstruction is conjectural, of course.	Now it
> >is clear from the premiss "Sexism is bad" that she takes as primary
> >certain modern Western values.  If the premiss "The Torah is sexist"
> >is correct, then, at least in my conjectural reconstruction of her
> >argument, she has no choice but to reject the Divine origin of the
> >Torah.  Clearly she does NOT accept as a primary premiss that the
> >Torah is the word of God, or this argument would have ended up
> >as a _reductio ad absurdum_ of one or another of the premisses of the
> >argument outlined above.  I would ask the first respondent why he
> >thought that it was at all likely that Melanie would accept as a
> >primary premiss that the Torah is the word of God.  I would ask the
> >second respondent where Melanie's _feelings_ necessarily enter into
> >the matter.
> 
> 
> I was looking for the missing link between Melanie's past and present.
> 
> 
> Since Melanie indicated that she was brought up in an Orthodox
> environment I assumed ( note the IF in my first posting ) that at
> an EARLY PERIOD in her life she believed that the Tora is devine.
> 
> TODAY, however, it is clear that Melanie does not believe in the Jewish
> law being given by God, and she is probably an atheist.
> 
> So, my question was how did the transition between her past and present
> value-systems occur. She did say that the reason for the transition
> was the recognition that the Bible is sexist. But that by itself could
> not be a sufficient reason without (a) Assuming the modern definiton for
> sexism - many Orthodox people claim that the Jewish Law is not sexist,
> and more importantly (b) Taking for granted that what we perceive in
> out society to be bad, has a validity above the commandments of a God.
> Why did Melanie make that assumption ?
> 
> 
> Dov
> 


Wow!  I have never read a discussion of my thoughts and feelings in the
third person before!  

No, I do not believe that the Torah is the word of God.  It basically comes
down to the fact that I cannot believe in a God who would write such a
book, full of brutal violence and nearly condoned rape, and sexist to the
core.  

Someone has argued in this exchange that Judaism is much better than the
culture around me.  To this I have two responses:  1)  In SOME ways,
Judaism is WORSE than the culture around me.  I have much more autonomy in
how I choose to live my life in the culture around me.  I am not considered
less "clean", less moral, or less intelligent in many segments of the
culture around me.  I do not have to listen to men thanking God that they
were not born women.  2)  Yes, in some ways, Judaism IS a better world. 
For instance, I like the fact that Judaism emphasizes thinking,
questioning, challenging ideas instead of encouraging blind faith, which is
the cornerstone of religions like Christianity and Islam.  However, I see
no reason why I should have to choose between two evils.  I want to find a
belief system (which may or may not include a God) which feels right to me,
and I see no reason to "settle" for the partiarchy of Judaism.

There is no "rational" explanation as to why I feel sexism as defined by
Western culture is wrong.  There is no "rational" reason to believe the
Torah is true, either!  It just feels wrong to me.  I wince when I read in
Ethics of the Fathers that too much conversation with women will lead a man
to "inherit Gehinum."  I wince when I hear Lot tell the crowd to "do with
his daughters as they please."  I wince when I hear that the punishment for
a man who rapes a women is that he has to marry her.  ("But that's what she
would want," my teachers would tell me, "since no one else will marry her
now that she is defiled.")  I wince when I hear that my menstrual cycle, a
facet of female biology which enables humans to reproduce, causes me to be
treated like a leper for five days a month...

I've heard many Orthodox Jews attempt to "explain away" this sort of
sexism, and I have yet to hear a remotely satisfactory explanation.  The
one I hear most often is that the Torah was written for a particular time
and social situation in which women had very few rights.  But the Torah was
also written for a time when idolatry was considered mainstream;
nevertheless, the Torah insisted that Jews abandon it.  Why didn't the
Torah insist that Jews abandon sexism as well?  Is it asking too much to
insist that a nation treat half of its people as something more than sexual
property and domestic labor?  Is it asking too much to insist that God
treat women as equally important, too?  

Melanie



Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish