I am naïve sometimes. Each time I guilelessly believe something only to be jolted with the truth, I feel like a simple-minded child. Here’s my latest experience:
This morning I read a short piece in the Gothamist about Rabbis plastering the Williamsburg streets with posters telling women to dress modestly. Although the piece was a mere three paragraphs short and featured a single quote by Baruch Herzfeld who said, “These men think they are doing God’s work, but they are fanatics — everyone in Williamsburg hates them,” it managed to garner 145 comments (at the time I’m writing this), with a fair share poking fun of Hasidim. Nothing unexpected (and some comments were actually hilarious). Nothing unexpected, either, that half the people who wrote seemed to have no clue about the Orthodox Jewish or Hasidic construct. Anyhow, I perused the thread, promising myself that I would not join the discussion. “The battle is not yours to fight” and all that.
But then I noticed a comment, which essentially said that Hasidic men will beat their wives if the wives don’t listen to them. It then brilliantly offered the knowledgeable nugget that “their women aren’t even allowed to socialize with you.”
Well, of course I couldn’t resist. I wrote: Beat their women? What the heck are you talking about?
The person responded (and I’m paraphrasing, as I don’t know the regulations for quoting entire comments directly from other sites) that she’s referring to the radicals in the community. According to her, many had seen their (the radicals’) abuse “first hand.” She let me know, quite confidently, that if I don’t realize there’s a domestic violence issue in this group that views the women as possessions, I am sadly mistaken.
Now this is where my naivete kicked in. Here’s a person, I thought, who really doesn’t understand Hasidism. She’s probably dying to be enlightened. Someone fed her this crap about Hasidic men mistreating their wives and she mistakenly swallowed it. So I set out to edify her with this (somewhat patronizing, truth to tell) comment:
Most Williamsburg hasidim belong to the Satmar sect, who are, I believe, whom you consider radical/extremist. And sorry to deflate your sensationalist assumption, but no, there isn't a domestic violence "issue" among these radicals. It is possible (probable) that among the thousands of hasidic families, there are a few sick individuals who physically abuse their wives, but this is a personality issue, not a hasidic one. And if you'll compare statistics, I am certain that the percentage of abusers is proportionate or lower to that of the general population. Ideally, of course, there would be ZERO abuse, but unfortunately, we're not living in an ideal world. Still, to make this a case of hasidic norm is disingenuous.
If you're truly interested in learning about hasidic culture, please read some texts by sociologists or anthropologists who've actually taken the time to observe and participate in the hasidic communities instead of lazily relying on stereotypes. I can recommend some, if you wish.
Oh, and of course, you can read my blog.
If you're truly interested in learning about hasidic culture, please read some texts by sociologists or anthropologists who've actually taken the time to observe and participate in the hasidic communities instead of lazily relying on stereotypes. I can recommend some, if you wish.
Oh, and of course, you can read my blog.
Well, she was enlightened, all right. She told me to “fuck off” (verbatim; not paraphrased). Then she said my reading comprehension skills stink. And finally she announced to the “ladies and gentlemen” who were reading the thread that ha, ha, ha, this idiot actually believes that Hasidim don’t beat their wives.
Oddly, this last comment was deleted. Not sure whether there’s a Gothamist moderator who might have felt it was too nasty, or if the commenter herself changed her mind about me f---ing myself off.
One good thing, though, did come out of my naivete. I discovered that there are two vibrant, living hasidisms. One is complex, beautiful and absurd all at once. The other is simple: it is a Hasidism where everyone smells bad, many beat their wives, and nobody works. The former is an actual denomination with real people who breathe, love, hate, cry, laugh, and behave in other human ways. The latter exists in a lot of people’s heads who—No, no! Don’t you dare tell them otherwise!—consider it as real and true as the breath coming out of their mouths.
See the full article and comment thread here: http://gothamist.com/2011/06/08/fashion_police_no_tank_tops
I might be wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me that hassidic communities are more sexist than non-hassidic ones, in that women are expected to be subservient to men in many roles. I don't think that necessarily translates into abuse, but it's not unreasonable to expect that having such an attitude towards women would contribute to abuse.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, then to the degree that the sexist attitude contributes to any abuse, then this would seem to be a hassidic issue, and not just a personality issue. Even if it did only appear in a minority of the population.
Tom, when you make the comparison of hasidic vs. non-hasidic, who are the non-hasidic you're referring to? Orthodox but not hasidic? Jewish but not hasidic or Orthodox? Secular/non-Jewish?
ReplyDeleteAll of the above, in increasing degree as one moves along the spectrum of insularity. For example, non-hassidic Orthodox also expect somewhat of a subservient role for women but not as strongly as hassidic ones do.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I don't see why it matters. The point was that an attitude of expecting subservience can reasonably contribute to abuse, and hassidic society seems to expect that subservience from women.
Well, that's a tiny detail where I believe you're mistaken, and why I asked whom you were comparing to. Hasidism doesn't expect more subservience than traditional Orthodoxy does. Regardless, you're right that it doesn't really matter: if a society expects subservience from women, it stands to reason that one possible effect is that husbands will use their authority or power to abuse their wives.
ReplyDeleteTo understand why hasidim (other than a few sick individuals)don't abuse their wives, one should look at, first, the Orthodox ideology, and second, the contemporary reality.
Regarding ideology, the Torah is vast and has many varied statements on most topics. So, for example, while you may use the "isha ksheira osah ratzon baalah" dictum to make the case for female subservience, another will use the Talmud's remark(Yevamot 62b), “A man must love his wife as much as he [loves] himself, and honor her more than himself” to make the case that a man must bend his will for his wife in order to honor her properly.
But as I've already mentioned on this blog, the ideology and actuality don't always match up anyhow. The fact is, Jews have always been influenced by their host countries. This is as true today as it has been in the past. Because contemporary western society places a lot of emphasis on egalitarian values, Jewish (including hasidic) families have instinctively adopted a lot of these attitudes.
This manifests itself outwardly (notice how many hasidic men push baby carriages when out with their wives -- something almost never seen in the 50s and 60s), in the home (hasidic men routinely help with household chores, especially with child care, also nearly non-existent of hasidic fathers four decades ago), and in their general attitudes: most hasidic men who have good marriages consider their wives their best friend and partner.
I want to discuss the typical hasidic woman's attitude too, in order to flesh this out more completely, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll continue later.
Great post. I've encountered similar prejudices against Hasidim. I once mentioned my research among Lubavtich teenagers on a women's studies list serve. Within minutes, angry diatribes against Hasidim began pouring in. The level of hatred was incredible. I'll never forget it.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand you correctly, you're saying that in contemporary hassidic society, whether because of the absorption of western mores or because there are many traditional teachings that stress egalitarian ideals, the expectation of female subservience is not present?
ReplyDeleteIs that correct?
No, I wouldn't say this definitively about expectations. I believe there are some who may expect it to some degree. I'm saying the actuality is that hasidic women (in general) don't act subserviently to their husbands.
ReplyDelete"there are some"? Sorry, but that's a bit too vague for me.
ReplyDeletePlease clarify for me: As a general rule, do hassidic men expect hassidic women to be subservient to them?
And maybe that's a bit too ambiguous, so let's try some examples:
If a hassidic woman wanted to wear something that her husband disapproved of, would she be able to?
If a hassidic woman wanted to pursue a career that did not fit with the communal norms, would she be able to?
If a woman disagreed with her husband (or any other man, for that matter) about a halachic issue, would her opinion carry any weight?
Re question 1: Yes, many women wear clothes their husbands aren't excited about, and vice versa. I'd say that in this respect, the spouse who's more demanding and outspoken and naggy wins. And often, this describes the wife.
ReplyDeleteRe question 2: The answer is no (unless you're creative), but you can add the words *or man* right after *woman*. The gender of the individual makes no difference. Neither hasidic man nor hasidic woman can become a brain surgeon, for example, and still be accepted as part of the mainstream hasidic community. (I'm not including Lubavitch when I say "hasidic community.)
Re question 3: Would her opinion carry any weight by whom? Both men and women must adhere to halacha, according to OJ.
Tom, no offense, but have you ever met any hasidic women? They basically rule their houses, and their husbands have to listen, whether they like it or not. The husband gets his little space to make some halachic comment, perhaps, and other than that he's got to follow her. The stereotype of the henpecked Jewish husband has a basis in reality; Jewish women usually rule the home, and that's especially true in a strongly regimented home like a hasidic one.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I'm surprised by your answer in regards to Q1. That's not how I ever understood these situations to be handled.
ReplyDeleteI was going to press those other examples further, but I don't think there's any point to pursuing it. I can see I'm not going to make any headway.
I think I understand your perspective. I can believe that in the vast majority of hassidic families, the husbands don't mistreat their wives in any way. Indeed, in all the ultra-orthodox families that I've found myself among, there was never any examples of aggression or hostility displayed by the men towards the females. However, there was almost always an attitude of patronizing paternalistic dominance. An assumption by the men that "we make the rules, we know what's best, you're *just* a woman." The subservience that I've been referring to is not manifested by men saying "serve me, woman" but by infantilizing women and not considering them truly equal in capability or competence to men (aside from areas that are traditionally the exclusive domain of the women).
In almost every situation of conflict or tension that I've witnessed in an ultra-orthodox home, it's the man who puts his foot down to settle things (at least when it comes to matters of any real significance). Yes, the women might "rule the home", but that's because most men don't really give a damn about the day-to-day running of the home, at least in any way that differs much from what the women want. More significantly, women might run the home, but how much say do they have in how society operates? Is their voice ever heard (or even sought out) when decisions are made?
That there are many laws and directives that instruct hassidic men to treat their wives with respect and consideration does not minimize the condescension which seems to be inherent in the hassidic (or rather, ultra-orthodox) worldview.
It's this widespread attitude that I think contributes to abuse in that world. This is why I think any abuse in the hassidic community cannot simply be attributed to aberrant personalities. Just like alcohol can turn a normally decent person into a violent monster, it's this underlying condescending sexism which provides the fuel to an abusive personality to actually become abusive.
Actually, on second thought, I think it's actually worse than that. Unlike alcohol, which just opens the door to an already existing dark inner side of the person, this derisive attitude is what can create the unhealthy foundation for any abuse that might come later on. Thankfully, for most people, the negative attitude towards women is tempered by all the ideas which stress treating a woman properly, but just because some good things are mixed in with the bad, doesn't mean those bad things aren't a contributing factor for problems that may come later on.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I think abuse in the hassidic (or ultra-orthodox) world is widespread. I'm saying that the condescending attitude towards women is widespread, and in the relatively few instances where there is abuse, this condescension has played a significant part in it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, spousal abuse is actually more common in ultra-orthodox society than most people ever think (although I would still believe it to be a small percentage). See the book "The Shame Borne in Silence" for more on this.
Tom, it seems like you've said what you intend to, and I really want to thank you for your comments; it's not often I get to argue with an intelligent debater. I *am* wondering about your comment, "I can see I'm not going to make any headway." Were you expecting to change my mind on something I'm entirely familiar with? Of course, it's all anecdotal and difficult to prove, but I'm living in this community and have observed the dynamics of hundreds of families, and I know that what I say about the average hasidic woman not acting subservient is true.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your statement about the hasidic male's condescending attitude, I'm not sure what to think about that. I believe you when you tell me you've observed this phenomenon, but I'm wondering why I myself haven't seen this. (Could it be that I just have the wrong--or right, actually!--family and friends?) I wish you'd give examples of situations where a man might "put his foot down to settle things." I assume you don't mean kids' schooling, vacation plans, or other family-related/money-related decisions?
Jose, your comment made me laugh. Surely it's not as bad as all that? :)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I'm glad you brought this up, because it was part of what I'd intended to write about the hasidic woman's attitude.
The other part is the fact that the girls get a better secular education, plus they start working earlier than the men do. Which means that at the beginning of the marriage, it's generally the wife who earns and handles the money and who takes care of any legal, technical, or governmental particulars. The husband usually needs his wife's advice on everything except halacha issues. Which means, the marriage starts out with the wife in the dominant position. Of course, this dynamic can and does change with time in many families.
As to your request for examples, here's some that come to mind:
ReplyDeleteWife wants to have internet in the house. Husband feels it's too treif, and besides, all the gedolim are against it. Result: No internet.
Husband decides that a certain food item must be bought from a new company because its kashrut seal is "better". Wife protests that she prefers the old brand, and that it still has the old hechsher, so isn't it still just as kosher as it always was? Result: Only new brand brought into house.
Wife subscribes to certain magazine. Husband disapproves, feels it's 'too modern', and not a good influence on the kids. Result: Subscription cancelled.
As I understand it, in hassidic circles it's not acceptable for women to have drivers license's, or even to sit in the front seat of the car with a male driver (unless the rear seats are occupied). If this is indeed the case, how do you explain it, if not as an example of this condescending infantilization?
I'm also curious, what recourse do women have if there is a new demand or directive from the community leadership that unduly burdens them? When I have witnessed such situations arise, the reaction is always the same: they let out a sigh of frustration, shrug their shoulders, and then swallow their annoyance, as they resolutely accept their fate. When such things affect the men though, they might complain or make a fuss or pull some strings or possibly even just ignore it.
Tom, your three examples are perfect! I have seen all these examples become an issue in many homes. Here's the thing: in most of these homes, it was the *wife* who protested these things. For some reason (many blame the girls' education), it seems the women have become the frummer ones in hasidic society. Anyhow, in most of the cases I've seen or heard about, the wife won -- not because she's the woman but because she was the one holding the frum card. And that's the way these arguments usually work: the frummer spouse calls the shots on religion-related issues, regardless of whether the spouse is male or female. I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions (and creative or determined spouses often find a way to sneak in their desires), but I challenge anyone who truly knows hasidic society to show me that this isn't true.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that in hasidic circles it's not acceptable for women to drive, but women don't sit in the rear seat. Tom, come visit Williamsburg and Boro Park, and see for yourself.
Re your last statement. I don't think there's a difference in men's and women's attitudes when a new directive is announced, but I can't think of any specific examples now, so I can't say this definitively. Maybe I'll think of one while I'm having my coffee. Or if you do, please tell me.
Ruchy. I think you made a mistake. Women do sit in the back seat when they'ere riding with other males. You were thinking of their own husbands? Except for this, you hit everything on the button. I am a chassidishe man and when I got married I was very intimidated by my wife. I'm not anymore, but she still makes all the rules. I can't bring newspapers or magazines into my house and she doesn't let me be on the internet even on my blackberry. Ruchy is right that the wifes are more frum. It's like that by me and by all of my friends. Tom, I think you are maybe talking about chassidishe society from a lot of years ago? It's not like this now.
ReplyDeleteWould you mind explaining the restriction on women driving? thanks.
ReplyDeleteI am in two minds about the subject of your debate with Tom here. You can argue that the men dictating precisely when they are ready to commence the Shabbos meal or at which minyan they choose to daven and so when they will come home, is no different to the secular English woman working her Sundays around the weekend's football for the boys sake.
ReplyDeleteBut can you really argue honestly that ideology and actuality do not add up at all? Ever? I remember being instructed before I wed, to impose my authority even in the mundane to ensure I had the final say where it mattered. That I did not is beside the point, but that was the explicit instruction and I was rebuked for ignoring this instruction by my Marriage teacher.
In other words, a fair minded man might be inclined to ignore the dictum you mention, a more assertive hasidic man might choose to use it. I would say, anecdotally of course, that within at least half of marriages the dictum dictates to a greater or lesser extent. It certainly provides moral backing to many an angry and irate husband I would say.
There are thousands of dictum's hidden within our literature, yet this one sits on the tip of your tongue. You can rattle it off in its Hebrew form in your sleep, as can any young woman. Advertisers pay top dollar for just this kind of sound-bite coverage, because it works.
Another Yoeli, you're right; I misread Tom's statement. So Tom, yes, you're right. If there's a male driver who isn't one's husband, father or brother, it's not acceptable for a woman to sit in the front, unless the rear seats are occupied or she has some other reason (say, she gets nauseated in cars easily). However, the same applies to men when the driver is a woman. My sister-in-law drives (Yes, there are a small minority of hasidic women who drive), and when my husband and I go with her, I sit in the front passenger seat and my husband sits in the back. It's a sex-segregation thing, not an infantilization of any particular gender.
ReplyDeleteLuke, forgive me, but your first paragraph is silly. Yes, of course the husband should choose which minyan he should daven with. For god's sake, he's the one who's davening with a minyan. And the woman should decide when dinner is ready, if she's the one cooking dinner. If there's to be a winner in who waits longer and more often for the other, I highly doubt anyone will argue in the male's favor. Exhibit A: Check out all the bored chassidishe guys dozing in their cars on 18th Street in Manhattan every Sunday because their wives are shopping at Zara, Gap, and Daffys.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your claim that your "marriage teacher" told you to impose your authority -- in all honesty, I've never heard anything like this. Is this marriage teacher still in business? Is there any chassidishe male reading this who has been told to impose his authority in the marriage? From what I understand, the teachers say the opposite (and this is actually a point in favor of Tom's infantilization claim): Women are sensitive, cry easily, need to be handled with kid gloves, etc. etc.
Oh, and Luke, I did not say ideology and actuality *never* match up. Of course they do. But often, they don't. Expecially in hasidic society.
Stacy, I'm not definite what the original justification for the proscription of women driving was--it was something to do with modesty, either that a woman behind the wheel attracts attention or that her legs are spread when she presses the gas or brake pedals in what was initially an open vehicle--but I do know that it's one of those ridiculous hasidic rules that have nothing to do with religion, but rather, are self-inflicted, restrictive social taboos. In Lakewood and in Monsey, ultra-Orthodox women have always driven cars and it was perfectly acceptable. There is no halacha against it.
ReplyDeleteIt's similar to the taboo against boys over the age of 13 driving bikes. In Monsey, the frummest men drive bikes and it's okay, but in Williamsburg, if you're a hasidic guy who rides a bike, you're a "bum."
It’s been a pleasure sitting on the sidelines and watching this argument play out between Rachel and Tom. As a Hasidic male, I do agree in most areas with Rachel, but in some with Tom (Chasidism IS a conservative patriarchal society, and there is definitely a level of condescending towards women, especially in religious matters).
ReplyDeleteWhat I do find a bit intriguing is that while this post was supposedly intended to show how misplaced popular attitudes are about Chasidim, and how blogger comments often give free rein to the vilest forms of anti-Chasidism, the debate has shifted towards the intricacies of the Chasidic value system, sidelining the original subject of the post.
The Chasidic value system has been debated ad nauseam in various forums (books, lectures, and a variety of media outlets), and I doubt much will be resolved by this current debate (simply because of the innate patriarchal nature of almost every conservative society). What I believe does warrant more air-time is the level of open hatred and misguided attitudes in the blogging and online community towards the entire ultra-orthodox community. Chasidim, who by their insularity lack a certain social acumen, are increasingly trying to fend off a litany of “charges” and accusations (most recently the Hillary photo episode comes to mind) brought against them not by (thanks heaven!) government institutions, but by popular media outlets. Their sometimes-awkward and occasional outright stupid responses only serve to aggravate many of these situations.
While this has many of the same components of old-fashioned anti-Jewish diatribes of the days of old (Jews are greedy, corrupt, too-weak/too-strong, smelly, lecherous, and the list goes on…..), no-one is calling the spade by its name, in large part because secular American Jews are either gleefully participating in the onslaught (sometimes the comments are unmistakably “Jewish” in tone), or they are comfortably ensconced in their ivory towers, giving silent thanks to their fathers and forefathers who checked-out of this god-awful way of life. I am still waiting for the first academic or serious author to pay attention to this ever-widening chasm between liberal and ultra-orthodox Jews, and what it portends regarding the future of ALL American Jews.
The problem here is that all we have is our own subjective experiences by which to go by.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I do not think my first paragraph "silly", is because family time i.e. the weekend meal with its air of importance and officialness, is in my opinion hugely relevant. I can list quite a number families where all are held hostage by a dominant patriarch at such meals for a few hours.
When to bath the kids is less relevant if it does not matter to the hypothetical dominant male.
The isha kesheria sound-bite is well known, whilst the other one you mention is not so well known. Rashi also mitigates the Mishna you mention by saying saying respect her: with gifts!
Someone who didn't grow up in chasidic society will never understand practices that Hasidim take for granted. Driving is for modesty reasons, modesty is a state of mind and has levels to the taste of the community. No matter what reasoning you will try, you wont get anywhere. I suggest anon of 3:57pm to post his comment on gothamist too. Some obnoxious comments there don't need to be dignified with a response. Some come across as some Muslim living in a tribal village in Waziristan, never met a Jew, hate them, can't figure out why.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, you're absolutely right! The initial point of this piece was about the blatant anti-semitism (I know, I know, *anti-semitism* has become a word to deride) and ignorance portrayed by online "pundits." That the discussion here has segued onto another tangent is due to my debate partners offering intelligent comments instead of typical hateful fluff. What's particularly incredible about the Gothamist commenters (and the tv outlets who've filmed the posters) is that these are the same people who yell when hasidim tell hipsters how to behave or dress. Now here's a poster written in Yiddish, directed at a specific hasidic community and no one else, and yet, here they all are sniping at it. What happened to "live and let live"?
ReplyDeleteBtw, we don't disagree that hasidism (or Orthodoxy, rather) is a patriarchal conservative construct. I believe that, too. And for those who follow this blog or essays I've published elsewhere, you know that I also believe the formal aspects of OJ are unabashedly sexist. My argument is that this doesn't spill over in the social arena. I don't believe that the typical hasidic male is condescending to his wife, and certainly, he doesn't mistreat her. I also don't believe that the typical hasidic female is subservient to her husband.
Luke, you're totally right about the subjectivity of our comments. Since all our evidence is anecdotal, who's to say what the truth is? Does anyone out there know how we can go about quantifying such data?
Re the soundbite. Hey, you're a male, so you know the isha kesheira one; I'm a female, and believe me, I *know* my rights! I expect and demand to be honored. :)
I believe that much of the antipathy directed at the hassidic world is a result of the many negative associations that their behaviors and norms connote, especially to those who are not well versed in the nuances of the community. Although there always are exceptions, for the most part, the ire directed at them is not a result of any deep-seated hatred, but due to misunderstanding of what's really at play.
ReplyDeleteFor example, consider this very issue we are discussing: It's understandably hard for an outsider to appreciate that while there can exist a very condescending and derisive attitude towards women (which I understand is debatable, but even if it were agreed upon to exist), that doesn't necessarily translate into abuse or any significant mistreatment. All the outsider can hear is "women looked at as second-class" and all sorts of alarm bells go off in her head, and justifiably so, as that sort of attitude very often does go along with a mistreatment of women.
The same thing with the Hillary photo debacle. It's actually very hard to see that this was simply an example of a zero-tolerance policy based on the communal norms of extreme sex segregation to prevent any sort of sexual impropriety, rather than a deliberate attempt to minimize women of power. This is so, partly because on the surface, it seems to be the more obvious reason, and secondly, to suggest that there is anything sexually arousing in that picture is just so utterly absurd to anyone (even a hassid). So people go to the more simple understanding of the issue: sexism!
The truth is, the subtlety to properly grasp a controversial and nuanced issue is very rarely displayed towards any issue that makes it to the media, regardless of the target. But it's especially hard when the setting of the story is a foreign culture.
Personally though, despite the fact that I can agree that much of the criticism of the hassidic world's norms are not properly understood, I will confess that I still feel they are deserving of much of the scorn that is heaped upon them. Hassidic society (and to a lesser degree all ultra-orthodox society) is very much based on norms and values that are directly at odds with western society.
For instance, in the Hillary example, while they aren't guilty of the outright misogyny that the censoring seems to indicate, the story does highlight the very dysfunctional and unhealthy attitudes they cultivate in regards to male-female interactions, and I, for one, find it hard to believe that such a skewed worldview does not have very tangible and adverse effects within people's private relationships.
While I don't think that hassidic society is such a terrible world overall, and I think that for many people, the hassidic way of life is perfectly suited, it is undeniable that many people in that world DO NOT want to live that way (to varying degrees). But the price of speaking up is too high, and the result is many people who are miserable, who feel trapped, and who are forced to live secret double-lives. (Look at what happened to a guy in New Square for simply praying at an 'unauthorized' synagogue!)
"Someone who didn't grow up in chasidic society will never understand practices that Hasidim take for granted."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that as long as hassidim think that such a tepid answer is sufficient to explain the many atypical practices of their world, they will continue to be misunderstood, and as a result, probably vilified, by those outside their world. Simply asserting that "Driving is for modesty reasons..." does nothing to explain why women should be denied the freedom to drive, and in fact sounds far too similar to the typical apologetics of the domineering male authoritarian who disguises his desire to control women with all sorts of vague calls to modesty.
Tom, re your 6:06 comment. Excellent summary. I agree with you on every point, but I do wonder about your confidence that most of the ire against hasidim isn't baseless hatred. There are many groups that don't abide by typical western norms, but few elicit such universal derision and dislike as hasidim. Even Muslims have a large liberal contingent that stick up for them.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think you're being quite selective. Those Muslims who have liberal defenders are usually not the ones that are trying to recreate a 15th century Caliphate. I don't believe anyone is seriously defending the burkhas, and the lack of education or freedom for women, etc. Those practices are condemned as strongly as people condemn the seemingly sexist practices of the hasidic world. (Actually, far stronger. Are there outside organizations that come into Kiryas Joel to offer educational program to women?)
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that if you asked a traditional Muslim, they would strongly dispute your claim that you are viewed worse than they are.
Additionally, I didn't mention it, because I really would rather avoid the topic, but there are other (quite understandable, IMHO) factors that contribute to a dislike of hassidim. To highlight a few of those causes: what is perceived by many to be an attitude of dismissiveness and/or disrespect by hassidim towards goyim, increasingly frequent examples of their disregard for secular law and general ethics, and the universal tendency to want to knock down those who claim a moral superiority to the rest of society.
Lastly, keep in mind that the average outsider can not distinguish between hassidim and any other ultra-orthodox group. When there is any negative news item involving ultra-orthodox (whether it be a financial scandal, a sexual abuse story, a neighborhood clash, or any sort of bad press), it all goes into the box in their minds called 'crazy Jews/ultra orthodox/hassidim/ religious fundamentalists'. So what you see as 'universal derision and dislike of hasidim' is really an amalgam of dislike towards many Jewish groups.
I am delighted that finally the discussion is shifting back to the original topic of this post.
ReplyDeleteTom, I mostly agree with your claim about Chasidim and the ultra-orthodox (to me, these once two-distinct groups are nowadays almost indistinguishable); that they sometimes appear as obnoxious, and have a combination of self-righteousness and a contempt for common social norms. This is often being used as a kind of justification (or at least excuse) for the hostility directed towards Chasidim.
Yet, it seems that the level of contempt directed against Chasidim doesn’t fully support that obvious rationale. There are other distinguishable groups, such as blacks, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, or Asians who can also be lobbed with a healthy (or UN-healthy) doze of stereotypical bile (lazy, smelly, creepy criminals, etc…), yet rarely do they elicit the popular emotional response that Chasidic and UO “transgressions” evoke.
The more “intellectual” debate about the prevalence of sexism in UO society also appears to be an exercise in hair-splitting. I wonder how Chasidim compare in this regard to contemporary (not 15th Century) Christian traditionalists who make up a sizable chunk of the population in the American heartland. I am not at all sure (based on what I’ve read and watched) that Chasidim won’t be viewed as the more progressive party in that regard.
I tend to believe that the emerging phenomenon of orthodox bashing cannot be divorced from the age-old form of general Jew-hatred, which also had its rationale, namely, the claim about the reluctance of Jews throughout the ages to assimilate into the prevailing culture or religion. While most modern Jews rushed headlong to join their surrounding societies, the ultra-orthodox decided to opt out. As a result, the UO and the Chasidim became the new “face” of the ever-obstinate Jew.
It seems that the ultra-orthodox, not much unlike their ancestors in the old country, are stuck in a perpetual bind. Their staunch resistance to join the American mainstream and culture (their very raison d’être), combined with their often-repulsive unkempt appearance and general aloofness, thrown together with the occasional wrongdoing (real or imagined) on part of an individual or sub-group, will always keep the UO on their toes, trying to respond to an ever growing chorus of “legitimate” accusations against them. It might take a long while (if ever) before liberal American Jews will make the connection, and try to mitigate the charges rather than the other way around. Only time will tell how this will play out in the long run.
Anonymous (I assume you're the same anon as 3:57?),
ReplyDeleteYou again make valid, seminal points. I'm not clear, though, what precisely you mean by "make the connection" in the last paragraph. Are you saying that hasidim have become the face of Judaism and if one hates this face, he will automatically hate Jews in general, even the secular Jews?
Tom, I thought of this statement of yours -- "but by infantilizing women and not considering them truly equal in capability or competence to men" -- this morning when I listened to a talk show someone had put on at work. The show host discussed a new book called *Man Down*. According to the book, there's absolute proof that women are better than men in almost every area, including as hedge fund managers and in politics. But still, said the host, when the very people who had found this proof were asked if they'd rather hire a female or male hedge fund manager, they all said male. When asked which gender they'd want as president, they all said male.
ReplyDeleteSo, Tom, here's what I'm wondering. Can the patronizing attitude you say you observed in OJ homes simply be the attitude of most of society? Is it possible that you were hyper-aware of it because this was the particular group you were studying and these were the particular attitudes you were looking out for?
My two cents on the off-topic topics here: I agree with Tom that hatful commentary on reports about Hasidim are by and large not a result of anti-Semitism but instead a result of conceptions developed from a shallow reading of, more often than not, shallow reporting.
ReplyDeleteTom’s claim, however, that Hassidic “women are expected to be subservient to men in many roles” does not match the Hassidic community I live in, especially if we use the examples Tom has listed: a woman dressing in clothing her husband doesn’t approve of; perusing an education or career at odds with communal norms; or disagreeing with her husband on a halachic issue (presumably taking a more lenient position).
Conflicts among Hassidic couples over halachic or communal deviance is common as air; they come in all degrees and flavors. Men and women are equally common to be on either side of the conflict. The side arguing the status quo, be it the man or woman, will have an advantage. You’ll also find both men and women who are successful in challenging the status queue, but for reasons other than their gender.
Specifically on halacha in the Hasidic house: If a woman yields to her husband’s halachic rulings, that’s mostly because the men are more likely to possess halachic knowledge, as they typically study halacha more than women do. Indeed, in certain areas where the women are often better schooled than the average man - shabbes and nideh – most men gladly yield the authority to the women. In either case, a woman is not “depended” upon her husband’s halachic take; she could ask a scholar and if she got a different ruling than her husband’s, the issue would have to be settled just as the question where to go vacation would be– depending on the particular marriage, men and women, again, equally likely to win.