I wrote the following for my Beit Midrash's weekly email, and on reflection I'd like to get feedback from a broader population, so I'm reproducing it here:
Two weeks ago, journalists revealed that Harvey Weinstein, a very influential Hollywood film producer, stands accused of many acts of sexual harassment and assault. The story has been given top coverage on every major news website.
Commenting on Hollywood's abusive culture, Orthodox Jewish actress Mayim Bialik wrote an apparently well-intentioned essay for the New York Times last week, describing her own experiences. Toward the end of the article, she stated, "I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy."
Ms. Bialik also wrote very clearly, "Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women." Nonetheless, she has been attacked by numerous victims of sexual abuse, who claim that she is blaming the victim. Ms. Bialik's message of 'I help protect myself by acting modestly' is understood as alleging that victims must not have acted modestly.
This is not what Ms. Bialik meant, as she has responded. However, I think the fact that people read her comments this way is important. As the Talmud (Bava Metzia 58b) explains, we are guilty of ona'at devarim [verbal abuse] if we convey to sufferers that they are responsible for their own pain, even if we don't mean that.
I think if we are to be honest, we must admit that ideas expressed in Torah can be seen as blaming the victims. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 2:6) associates Dinah's rape with the fact that she mixed among the people of Shechem. A well-known midrash (Psikta Zutrita to Shemot 2:12) links the rape of Shlomit bat Divri to her friendliness toward an Egyptian slavedriver. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21a) states that the sages reacted to the rape of Tamar, daughter of King David, by prohibiting seclusion of men with unmarried women. To my mind, these comments of our sages are meant to educate about hazards, not to claim that victims of abuse must have put themselves at risk. But if they are cited without context, or to a sensitive audience, or without complete explanation, these sources come across as indictments of rape victims.
We do need to learn and teach Torah, and halachic sexuality is certainly worth promoting. At the same time, we who learn/teach these texts are obligated to be very careful with our words. As the Talmud (Sanhedrin 107a) quotes King David, "One who commits adultery receives capital punishment, but he enters the next world. One who causes another person to blanch [in shame] in public has no share in the next world." May we learn from the events of the past two weeks; when addressing sensitive matters, even [or especially] when quoting Torah, let us choose our words with extra care.
Showing posts with label General: Sexual mores. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General: Sexual mores. Show all posts
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Another Seat Change Scandal
The stories are familiar from flights to/from Israel, but now we have one in Canada. Per CBC News, an "ultra-Orthodox" man on a Porter Airlines flight from Newark to Toronto requested that a woman, Christine Flynn, change her seat, so that he wouldn't need to sit next to her on the flight.
The article includes harsh indictments of the man and his religion:
Flynn said she might have been willing to accommodate the man had he spoken to her directly and politely asked her to switch seats. She admits language may have been a factor — saying his English "wasn't terrific" — but said his refusal to even make eye contact was offensive.
"He could have made a plan, he could have put in a request," Flynn said in an interview Wednesday on CBC Radio's Metro Morning. "When someone doesn't look at you, and when someone doesn't acknowledge you as person because of your gender, you're a lot less willing to be accommodating.
"Leaving it to the last minute and expecting me to move is appalling. He's expecting me to fall in to that archetypical feminine role and acquiesce."
And:
Flynn says she's frustrated she was asked to move and upset others on the flight were willing to help the man.
"I have a problem with that. He [the flight attendant] probably, maybe, didn't realize that asking a woman to move because the fact she had a uterus made the man next to her uncomfortable ... I don't think he even would have put it together that that's kind of insulting and maybe even discriminatory," she said.
"If someone had refused to sit next to me because I was gay and maybe they were some kind of old-school religion that doesn't like gay people no one would have switched with him. It would have been off the table," she said.
[Update: I have now seen another CBC article on the story, here. Not any better, sorry to say.]
My three thoughts:
1. The man should recognize that taking public transportation may involve sitting beside women. If he believes that sitting beside her is wrong (and he certainly has basis in Shulchan Aruch), then it is not her job to move; it's his job to move. If he doesn't want to sit next to a woman, and he cannot select a seat guaranteeing that, then he should find another means of travel.
2. The man is guilty of chillul HaShem, desecrating Gd's Name, for voluntarily taking public transportation and then practicing this discriminatory act.
And yes, I do believe this qualifies as discrimination, per the Supreme Court of Canada (Andrews v. Law Society of Canada, 1989): Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society.
Since a man would not have been asked to move, this is discriminatory.
3. The people interviewed in the article and writing in the comments are depressingly judgmental. I know that they feel no obligation to assume the best of someone, but do they really need to assume the worst?
They assume the man did this because he sees the woman as evil or dirty because she "had a uterus". In truth, separating men and women is simply a barrier against sexual impropriety - a woman might make the same request for a man to move.
Of course, society as a whole doesn't view sitting next to someone as a sexually charged situation - but society as a whole has an abysmal track record for sexual safety. I personally don't believe that switching seats was required by Jewish law, but frankly, if people would observe such strictures then we would be able to avoid much of the rampant sexual harassment and abuse we tolerate as "normal" in our world.
I wish the writer had interviewed someone with knowledge of Judaism.
The article includes harsh indictments of the man and his religion:
Flynn said she might have been willing to accommodate the man had he spoken to her directly and politely asked her to switch seats. She admits language may have been a factor — saying his English "wasn't terrific" — but said his refusal to even make eye contact was offensive.
"He could have made a plan, he could have put in a request," Flynn said in an interview Wednesday on CBC Radio's Metro Morning. "When someone doesn't look at you, and when someone doesn't acknowledge you as person because of your gender, you're a lot less willing to be accommodating.
"Leaving it to the last minute and expecting me to move is appalling. He's expecting me to fall in to that archetypical feminine role and acquiesce."
And:
Flynn says she's frustrated she was asked to move and upset others on the flight were willing to help the man.
"I have a problem with that. He [the flight attendant] probably, maybe, didn't realize that asking a woman to move because the fact she had a uterus made the man next to her uncomfortable ... I don't think he even would have put it together that that's kind of insulting and maybe even discriminatory," she said.
"If someone had refused to sit next to me because I was gay and maybe they were some kind of old-school religion that doesn't like gay people no one would have switched with him. It would have been off the table," she said.
[Update: I have now seen another CBC article on the story, here. Not any better, sorry to say.]
My three thoughts:
1. The man should recognize that taking public transportation may involve sitting beside women. If he believes that sitting beside her is wrong (and he certainly has basis in Shulchan Aruch), then it is not her job to move; it's his job to move. If he doesn't want to sit next to a woman, and he cannot select a seat guaranteeing that, then he should find another means of travel.
2. The man is guilty of chillul HaShem, desecrating Gd's Name, for voluntarily taking public transportation and then practicing this discriminatory act.
And yes, I do believe this qualifies as discrimination, per the Supreme Court of Canada (Andrews v. Law Society of Canada, 1989): Discrimination may be described as a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations, or disadvantages on such individual or group not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society.
Since a man would not have been asked to move, this is discriminatory.
3. The people interviewed in the article and writing in the comments are depressingly judgmental. I know that they feel no obligation to assume the best of someone, but do they really need to assume the worst?
They assume the man did this because he sees the woman as evil or dirty because she "had a uterus". In truth, separating men and women is simply a barrier against sexual impropriety - a woman might make the same request for a man to move.
Of course, society as a whole doesn't view sitting next to someone as a sexually charged situation - but society as a whole has an abysmal track record for sexual safety. I personally don't believe that switching seats was required by Jewish law, but frankly, if people would observe such strictures then we would be able to avoid much of the rampant sexual harassment and abuse we tolerate as "normal" in our world.
I wish the writer had interviewed someone with knowledge of Judaism.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Gittin 15-18 – Hand-washing, Dating a get, and the frequency of sexual immorality
As always, please read with a gemara in front of you. It will just make more sense that way.
Gittin 15b
The gemara discusses netilat yadayim, washing one’s hands for ritual purposes, and addresses the case of pouring water on one and immersing the other. At least, this is the way Rashi explains it. Rabbeinu Tam, though, (Tosafot הנוטל), has a different edition, in which the case is very different: A hand is washed from a single pour, instead of the usual multiple pours. Ordinarily we require two pours in order to remove the first water, which has contracted tumah (some do three, for separate reasons), but here we are saying that if the second pour with a double portion of water, that suffices.
Gittin 16a
The gemara talks about a get held by two deliverers. Rashi seems to say that both must, literally, grip the document, but Tosafot (אבל) disagrees.
Gittin 17a
I am very troubled by the יתד היא שלא תמוט answer offered by R’ Ami to justify issuing two contradictory legal statements, one stricter and the second more lenient. If R' Ami means that his former, more stringer position, is a decree to prevent trouble, then this decree will end up creating agunot unnecessarily, something the gemara has explicitly said we avoid (such as the bottom of 2b, top of 3a)!
R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish offer reasons why we require a date on a get document. Rashash notes a third reason: To establish at what time the husband ceases to be “related to” his ex-wife’s family, for the purpose of validating or rejecting his role as a witness in a court case.
Gittin 17b
The gemara seems to say that extramarital sexual relations are rare and therefore not worthy of rabbinic decrees dealing with its occurrence. This does not seem to be the case, given various rabbinic enactments which are instituted for such cases, such as the preference for Wednesday night weddings in order to expedite a Thursday morning trip to court (Ketuvot 2a)! Tosafot זנות explains that sexual immorality is, indeed, not considered unusual; what is unusual is such an occurrence with witnesses and a legal warning.
Gittin 18a
Rav and Shemuel debate how to count the 3-month “havchanah” waiting period for a woman who has been divorced and wishes to re-marry. (The goal of havchanah is to ensure that we can properly identify paternity of a child born severeal months into her second marriage.) Rav says to count from the time the get is delivered, but Shemuel says to count from the time the get is written. The gemara says we follow Shemuel, which is unusual; we usually follow Rav on prohibitions, Shemuel on financial matters! Perhaps, though, we follow Shemuel here because of the latter amoraim who took his side – Rav Ashi, as well as Rav Kahana and Rav Papi.
Gittin 15b
The gemara discusses netilat yadayim, washing one’s hands for ritual purposes, and addresses the case of pouring water on one and immersing the other. At least, this is the way Rashi explains it. Rabbeinu Tam, though, (Tosafot הנוטל), has a different edition, in which the case is very different: A hand is washed from a single pour, instead of the usual multiple pours. Ordinarily we require two pours in order to remove the first water, which has contracted tumah (some do three, for separate reasons), but here we are saying that if the second pour with a double portion of water, that suffices.
Gittin 16a
The gemara talks about a get held by two deliverers. Rashi seems to say that both must, literally, grip the document, but Tosafot (אבל) disagrees.
Gittin 17a
I am very troubled by the יתד היא שלא תמוט answer offered by R’ Ami to justify issuing two contradictory legal statements, one stricter and the second more lenient. If R' Ami means that his former, more stringer position, is a decree to prevent trouble, then this decree will end up creating agunot unnecessarily, something the gemara has explicitly said we avoid (such as the bottom of 2b, top of 3a)!
R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish offer reasons why we require a date on a get document. Rashash notes a third reason: To establish at what time the husband ceases to be “related to” his ex-wife’s family, for the purpose of validating or rejecting his role as a witness in a court case.
Gittin 17b
The gemara seems to say that extramarital sexual relations are rare and therefore not worthy of rabbinic decrees dealing with its occurrence. This does not seem to be the case, given various rabbinic enactments which are instituted for such cases, such as the preference for Wednesday night weddings in order to expedite a Thursday morning trip to court (Ketuvot 2a)! Tosafot זנות explains that sexual immorality is, indeed, not considered unusual; what is unusual is such an occurrence with witnesses and a legal warning.
Gittin 18a
Rav and Shemuel debate how to count the 3-month “havchanah” waiting period for a woman who has been divorced and wishes to re-marry. (The goal of havchanah is to ensure that we can properly identify paternity of a child born severeal months into her second marriage.) Rav says to count from the time the get is delivered, but Shemuel says to count from the time the get is written. The gemara says we follow Shemuel, which is unusual; we usually follow Rav on prohibitions, Shemuel on financial matters! Perhaps, though, we follow Shemuel here because of the latter amoraim who took his side – Rav Ashi, as well as Rav Kahana and Rav Papi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
