Polygamy and Pilegesh

I was at a conference on Monday at the HBI with the topic: "Polygamy, Polygyny, and Polyamory: Ethical and Legal Perspectives on Plural Marriage." Now I naturally went to the conference expecting that a massively feminist organization like the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute would *oppose* polygyny (multiple wives), polyandry (multiple husbands) maybe, but definitely not polygyny. I based this on my own knowledge of the practice which basically treats women as property and was eliminated from Western and Jewish tradition through the combined force of the otherwise disenfranchised women. It's in fact the best proof that women had 'unofficial' power over the past few centuries.

Well, was *I* in for a surprise. I was only able to go to the first and third sessions (see the above link for the schedule) but that first session was the weirdest, most disturbing, academic panel I'd ever heard. It was filled with pro-polygamy weirdos and the audience, filled with feminists, didn't grab pitchforks and torches - rather they seemed to find the whole thing awesome.

How?! Well, in the airy academic world of anti-empiricism, all that's necessary is to have a compelling *idea* plus one or two anecdotes, and you're all set with a policy proposal! These doofi don't seem to bother with thinking about what the future would look like once the plans are implemented; I guess that's why communism is alive and well in the academy even though it's dead in every country it's been attempted.

There were some sane people in the crew. Prof. Elimelech Westreich, gave a detailed talk on polygamy in halakha, and the best stuff was from Prof. Alean Al-Krenawi who has published studies on the psychological impact of polygamy. His work shows that there's severe unhappiness and anomie in polygamous families. His was the last talk and I could see that he was nearly quivering with frustration and how all these progressives were seriously accepting what he knows to be a retrograde, and even evil, practice.

Yet, the biggest repudiation needs to be given to Prof. Zvi Zohar who spoke about his advocacy for pilagshut, a.k.a. Biblical concubinage (see above for "weird and disturbing"). His article, and a bunch of other wickedness, is found here.

Zohar's point is that there are many current social problems - a singles crisis, an agunah crisis, and his main focus: the crisis of liberal Orthodox Jews who wait until their 30s to get married but want to have sex in their 20s - that can be solved by re-instating 'pilegesh.'

To put it simply, Zohar's idea is both pernicious and ignorant. Pernicious because it will cause many more social problems than it would possibly solve, and of those it cares about, the only thing that will be helped is guiltless sleeping around. It will actually prolong the singles crisis, it won't help agunahs because he acknowledges that people will eventually get married anyway. So all he wants to do is allow nominally-frum Jews to sleep around. Yipee. It's basically the equivalent of saying "people are driving to shul, so let's just make driving OK on Shabbat!" And boy did that work out.

It's ignorant because he actually read the "Pilegesh at Giva" story as somehow advocating pilagshut instead of it being a CLEARLY OBVIOUS ATTACK ON PILAGSHUT. Its kinda like reading the golden calf episode as a support for golden idols.

Anyway, I will end my trashing of his idea with one of my favorite Onion stories: "Desperate Vegetarians Declare Cows Plants"

Maharat Becomes Rabbah

So the intertubes are aflame with the shocking, shocking, news that Avi Weiss's female ordinee, Maharat Sara Hurwitz, will now be called "Rabbah" (the female of Rabbi, and not "Fat Person"). See this JTA Story and the official pronouncement from their blog.

My reaction? In brief:


NB: The sound/film clip of Iago from Aladdin was made by me - but feel free to spread the code around the tubes...

Sandman, Male & Female Stories

I'm on my (semi)annual reading of the Sandman. I own the 10-book series (which I bought off ebay) and there's a fascinating balance between books 4 & 5 - Season of Mists vs. A Game of You. I love Mists, and I used to hate Game, until I read the background in the Sandman Companion, and Neil Gaiman (NG) revealed that Mists is a masculine tale and Game is feminine:

HB: I've heard you refer to various collections as "male" or "female." Could you talk a bit about that?

NG: Sandman was always designed to move from male stories to female stories. Preludes & Nocturnes is a guy's tale - it has a male hero, the Sandman, who triumphs over various difficult challenges. The next book, The Doll's House, is fundamentally Rose Walker's tale, and it deals with women, relationships, and the tearing down of walls. The following book, Season of Mists, is again a Sandman story, in which Dream uses his courage and wits to deal with a problem of diplomacy. And then there's A Game of You ,which is about women, fantasy, and identity. (TSC p117)

What I find amazing about this is that he accurately describes my subconscious reactions to each book - I didn't articulate why I liked one over the other, I just did (and I *hated* Game). Now I see that (a) this was intentional by the author, and (b) it wasn't because one book was 'better written' than the other - although that can happen with authors, especially the limited ones - but with Gaiman it was purposefully a different type of story, and that it resonates with different needs and tastes; (c) I'm relieved, in some homophobic way, that I am, even subconsciously, very male. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Gaiman, in Game, elaborates on the difference between Male and Female fantasy, in the words of the antagonist, The Cuckoo (p125-126, bracketed material to clarify]:

"Little boys have fantasies in which they're faster or smarter or able to fly. Where they hide their faces in secret identities and listen to people who despise them admiring their remarkable deeds. Pathetic bespectacled rejected [Peter Parker] is secretly [Spiderman]. Gawky, bespectacled, unloved [Clark Kent] is really [Superman]. Yes? ...

Now, little girls, on the other hand, have different fantasies. Much less convoluted. Their parents are not their parents. Their lives are not their lives. They are princesses, lost princesses from distant lands. And one day the king and queen, their real parents, will take them back to their land, and they'll be happy for ever and ever.

Now this was another mind-blowing insight because it rings true - at least for me as a masculine man of the male persuasion (to paraphrase my man Dave Barry). And knowing what I've seen from 'female' stories, this also rings true (witness the plot of "The Princess Diaries" for corn's sake).

And once you take that dichotomy in mind, many stories can be analyzed. In fact, that's one reason why Harry Potter is so successful - because it combines both story-lines: he's a bespectacled outcast with amazing powers who's also the secret "Chosen One."

Note, I thought it was also Gaiman who described the male/female narrative dichotomy by claiming that the quintessential female story is "Alice in Wonderland" - because it's about person who is the only one who knows what's going on in a crazy world, and the male story is "Hamlet." I can't find this quote in my book from Gaiman, or online (is this it?) And I may just have imagined it.

The Sandman: Jewish Art?

Just another note, I have been thinking about patterns in Jewish art, especially in science fiction and fantasy (where the Jewish contribution, especially in comics, has been substantial). Is The Sandman a good example of Jewish-influenced art? Well, on one side, yes, because Gaiman mentions his feelings of solitude and strangeness that drove him to literary research and observation, a hallmark of artists - especially those in narratives - came from being Jewish in "C of E" boarding schools:

HB: ...What effect did religion have on you when you were young?

NG: I'd say the most important factor was my growing up as a Jewish kid in a Church of England school.... because it made me feel like an outsider. In a sense, it made me view everything as myth. (TSC p105)

However, the world he created is polytheistic and pagan - different from the monotheistic/dualistic world I expect from the modern Jewish identity (think Superman and Kafka). Then again, Gaiman has delved in Zohar and Aggadata - which is super-duper-crazy-pagan.

The difference is in the sense of justice and morality - monotheism claims a universal truth and thus an immutable definition of right and wrong. The right/wrong scale may be defined in opposition to a human scale (e.g. Kafka) but a universal system lends itself to satire, criticism, and I'd say even logic (a system that depends on order, right, wrong). Paganism, on the other hand, describes a world that is a chaos of unrelated oppositional forces. Nothing need make sense and there's definitely no right and wrong, only power and endurance.

One of the hallmarks of horror is to delve into paganism - to have an undercurrent of meaninglessness to existence (Lovecraft was excellent in this genre). An irritant of Gaiman's Sandman world, for me, is that there is no powerful cosmic good - especially via the protagonist who is evil in familiar yet inhuman ways. Human evil often comes from a descent into the animal - a single-minded drive to satisfy desires. That type of evil is exemplified, in the series, by the Incarnation "Desire" (simple enough) - a concept that is Freudian and very very Jewish.

"Dream"s evil comes from powerful indifference and while it's not as renowned or infamous as bestial evil, close observers of the world see it as, theologically and philosophically, more damaging. In my mundane existence, I rarely come across the bestial evil - the thieves, murderers etc. But I do see indifference to suffering - and not abstract suffering (ironically people are good about Saving The Whales or Saving the Earth) but real concrete, immediate, suffering.

I have enough faith in Gaiman to believe that he recognizes that.

Updated Links

1. Neil Gaiman's Official Website
   
2. Sandman FAQ
   
3. The Annotated Sandman [Link Updated]
   
4. The Wake
   
5. The Dreaming : Neil Gaiman

Top pic from here of Gaiman's bookshelf. Second pic from here of a collage of Jewish superheroes.

Broyde - Orthodox Women Clergy

Rav Michael Broyde, my nominee for Modern Orthodoxy's Posek ha-Dor, has come out with an essay about a pathway to elevate women into the clergy in Modern Orthodoxy. Wait, though, it's not what you think. In general, Broyde is not a mushy fence-smasher (one reason why I depend on his knoweldge, psak, and leadership). His goal in this essay is to create a legal status in the US law for women in chinukh to receive parsonage. He's practical and persuasive.

The following essay is from the Jewish Press, and available here as a pdf. It's been modified from the original (words in italics have been romanized, sorry)
------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Women Clergy?
By: Michael J. Broyde
Date: Wednesday, July 22 2009

You may applaud the idea of ordaining women rabbis, or you may recoil in horror at the prospect, but the simple fact remains that women already serve the Orthodox world in clergy-like positions.

Women teach Torah in various settings, answer questions of Jewish law on many matters, provide guidance on issues of Jewish theology to individuals and otherwise function as "clergy."

All Orthodox Jews ought to agree that these women deserve the best training possible. We certainly should recognize that they are entitled to parsonage under the Federal tax code.

The best way to accomplish this is for our community to start many different training programs for Orthodox women who wish to work as clergy.

Titles do matter, of course, and the title of this article was picked with some care: "Clergy," a term broader than "rabbi," is defined by Webster's as "the group of men and women who are ordained as religious leaders and servants of God." (In the Catholic tradition, for example, nuns are certainly clergy, though they do not perform sacraments and cannot provide communion, the central rite of Catholicism.)

Women Studying Torah: A Brief Overview

Jewish law generally does not change in terms of its core principles, at least not as understood by the Orthodox community. Change is effected in only three real ways: Innovative re-understanding (chiddush); rabbinic decree (takanah) and emergency decrees (hora'at sha'ah). Each of these has, at various times and places, altered the very face and form of Jewish law and community.

The first two, while not the focus here, are nonetheless worthy of brief explanation.

Throughout Jewish legal history, scholars of halacha have advanced novel understandings of classical sources - understandings that have changed the practice of Judaism, from Boaz's assertion in the Book of Ruth that a Moabite woman may marry a Jew, to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's recent assertion that in cases of surrogacy the DNA mother (rather than the birth mother) is considered the mother according to Jewish law.

So too, change through rabbinic decrees prohibiting that which is otherwise permitted has transformed the face of Jewish law: consider, for example, Rabbeinu Gershom's decrees prohibiting polygamy and coerced divorce and their dramatic impact on Jewish law and society.

Neither of these mechanisms, however, is as far-reaching or as powerful as exigent decrees (hora'at sha'ah), the rarely used power to abrogate Jewish law and do that which is prohibited in order to allow Judaism to survive. As the Talmud recounts with regard to the decision to take what had been an exclusively oral tradition and record every aspect of that tradition in writing, "it is the time to act for the sake of God, to avoid destruction of God's Torah."

Women's study of Torah was the subject of exactly such a process one century ago when a group of famous rabbis - led by the Chofetz Chaim and the Admor from Gur - decided to encourage women to study Torah. The Chofetz Chaim wrote (Likutei Halachot, Sotah 20b):

It seems that all of this [prohibition against women learning Torah] applies only to times past when all daughters lived in their fathers' home and tradition was very strong, assuring that children would pursue their parents' path, as it says, "Ask your father and he shall tell you." On that basis we could claim that a daughter needn't learn Torah but merely rely on proper parental guidance. But nowadays, in our iniquity, as parental tradition has been seriously weakened and women, moreover, regularly study secular subjects, it is certainly a great mitzvah to teach them Chumash, Prophets and Writings, and rabbinic ethics, such as Pirkei Avot, Menorat Hamaor, and the like, so as to validate our sacred belief; otherwise they may stray totally from God's path and transgress the basic tenets of religion, God forbid.

This approach, which reflects the needs of the times and the dangers of under-education in the modern world, stands in direct contrast to the formulation of Jewish law found in Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, which apparently prohibits such study. It is important to note that while the Chofetz Chaim's formulation has the appearance of being less than ideal (bedi'eved), in reality, his construct - like the change from a purely oral Torah to an oral Torah that is written down, as Rav Yehuda HaNasi mandated - is really an adaption to changing times.

Even those who paint a slightly less radical story of this change and maintain that the statement of halacha was a case of innovation (chiddush), as women were always technically allowed to study oral law (the Rambam's formulation of "tzevo chachamin," used to prohibit women's Torah study, does not create a formalissur), agree that for centuries the practice was not to allow women to study Torah and so the change was still quite radical.

Problem With the Status Quo

We all agree that a dramatic change has taken place in the last fifty years. By and large we live in a society where many women are studying Torah intensively and participating extensively in a plethora of professional capacities, including many different roles in Jewish communal life: Women teach our children, found and run our schools, counsel troubled adults, run social service agencies, lecture on Torah topics and texts and serve as outreach professionals.

Women also study a large variety of Torah subjects and texts - far beyond what was studied a generation ago - at sister institutions of numerous great yeshivot and at many independent Torah institutions. Reflecting these changes, Rav Soloveitchik wrote simply and directly nearly fifty years ago (Community, Covenant and Commitment, page 83) that "not only is the teaching of Torah she'b'al peh to girls permissible, but nowadays an absolute imperative Boys and girls alike should be introduced into the inner halls of Torah she'b'al peh.

Just as, in order to save Torah from total destruction 2,000 years ago, the oral law had to be put into writing in direct violation of Jewish law, the oral law now needs to be studied by men and women alike if Torah is to be preserved. If that seems like a radical position, consider that today one would be hard pressed to find an Orthodox high school that does not, in fact, teach portions of the oral law to girls.

The above-mentioned changes have created something of a dilemma: What should those women who have studied Torah for several years after high school or college do for a living? I confess to having counseled many such women to "go to law school," assuring them that if they can master a halachic tome by Rav Moshe Feinstein or Rabbi Y.M. Epstein, they can master a legal work by Benjamin Cardozo or Louis Brandeis. I had given that advice because there were few, if any, good careers in Torah for women, despite the personal realization that this represented a significant loss for the Jewish people.

Training Women as Orthodox Clergy

We all see and sense that there are aspects of the clergy role in which women do better than men, and our community would be deficient if we did not, in fact, have women already serving in quasi-clerical roles. What the community needs is a training process - analogous to the one we have for men - to ensure that women are properly trained in halacha, theology, and pastoral matters and practice in order to best serve our community.

Training people for a job is more prudent that expecting them to do such a job untrained. If they are serving in these roles and servicing our community well, the Orthodox community will grow.

The opening of institutions to train women as members of the Orthodox clergy would be an excellent alternative to law school, and would serve as a logical progression in the development of women's Torah education in the Orthodox community.

Some will insist that whatever role women clergy play, they may not answer questions of Jewish law. This does not, however, seem to be mandated by halacha. As the Chinuch (mitzvah 152) noted many centuries ago, as a matter of Jewish law there is no issue with a woman answering questions of halacha if she is qualified to do so. Women involved in kiruv regularly answer questions of halacha and hashkafa. Should we not want to see to it that women in this field have adequate training to handle the issues that frequently present themselves?

Indeed, in Israel women are being trained to assist other women in taharat hamishpacha matters as yoatzot halacha and the rabbinical courts of Israel have welcomed women as advocates in the area of divorce as toanot rabbaniyot. Both of these formal programs and the many informal programs in Israel recognize that training is important to those who are in the field.

This does not mean women would or should be called "rabbi." For reasons ranging from formal authority (serarah) being limited to men, to the title being given only to those who can serve as witnesses or function as chazzanim, to it simply being a matter of tradition, it is reasonable to argue that a different title should be given.

Nor does this does mean training for women in the Orthodox clergy must be identical to the training men receive for the rabbinate. Women sometimes bring different pastoral approaches that require different training. All of this is secondary to the fact that formal institutional training for women who wish to be part of the Orthodox clergy - teaching, preaching and answering questions of halacha and hashgacha - is an improvement over the current lack of any formal training and therefore a good idea. Such programs, granting degrees conferring fitness to be a member of the Orthodox clergy, are a wise idea whose time has come.

Some Objections - and a Reply

Some will no doubt protest that this will all lead down a slippery slope toward egalitarian services. Personally, I think this slope is unlikely to slip. Pastoral and halachic matters undertaken by clergy are quite distinct within Orthodoxy - from the liturgical work of a chazzan to the sexton duties of a gabbai to the rabbinical court responsibilities of a dayan. In England, different members of the clergy (not all of whom even have semicha) go by distinctly different titles, reflecting different roles: reverend, minister, rabbi, and dayan; maybe that is a fine idea worth importing to America.

Others object to this type of training based on their disagreement with the worldview (hashkafat olam) of specific individuals involved in organizing the first training program for Orthodox women clergy. (Let me be honest: I share many of those objections). But the solution to that objection is to open alternate training programs with different faculty, staff, students and worldviews. It would be a shame if a good idea were abandoned merely because some in the Orthodox community think ill of the people who first thought it.

So, yes, certifying people - men and women - as well-trained Orthodox clergy is a good idea, and certainly better than the status quo, which allows essentially untrained women to function in pastoral roles.

In the end, our community can only grow and flourish with well-trained clergy - both men and women - teaching, preaching and counseling God's Torah. I look forward to all my children - both my sons and my daughters - being scholars and students of God's living legacy on this planet.

Michael J. Broyde is the founding rabbi of the Young Israel in Atlanta, a law professor at Emory University and a dayan in the Beth Din of America.

Pic from Broyde's TIM profile. Backpost finished 2009-11-30.

Steve Greenberg and Conservadox

One of the topics which I hope to spend more time researching (and publishing) is that of the denominations in Judaism. I am especially interested in the new formation of 'non-denominational' or 'trans-d' or 'post-d' (especially paired with the new 'partnership minyans') because these people, I claim, are basically conservative Jews who don't want to admit it.

Either they grew up Conservative and don't identify with them anymore - either because C is too liberal, too wishy-washy, too materialist, or what have you. I don't know too well because I haven't interviewed these people, but that's my assumption.

The ones I do know, who do belong to Partnership Minyans, are liberal Orthodox Jews who were taught Torah and Halakha but not about the philosophy of the halakhic process and were basically Conservative Jews for years without even knowing it.

No matter what they call themselves (trans, post, non) I still think of them as Conservadox: and by that I mean that they have the ideology of Conservative - which includes the conception of the halakhic process as constantly mutating and mutable - but with the basic practice of ignorant (Modern) Orthodox.

The ignorance is an important component; because while there are ignoramuses in both Modern and Charedi Orthodox, the ignorant Charedi does not have another system to fall back on to fill up the lacunae of knowledge: when they don't know what to do, or why they do what they do, they fall back on either superstition, minhag, or the combination of the two (what I label "tabloid halakha").

Ignorant Modern Orthodox fill in their gaps of knowledge with modern culture which makes them think like 21st Century Americans; which also fits in very well for whatever passes for Conservative halakha at this time.

The biggest aspect of the Orthodox born conservadox - again the people I'm most familiar with, so it could be for the whole group - is a bigotry against being called Conservative. They hate the label and will do whatever they can to still be called either 'Orthodox' or at least not-conservative.

Part of the bigotry comes from plain ignorance: they don't know what the terms mean; but related to that is the main impetus: when these people grew up, in their home cultures, being Orthodox was 'good' (authentic, real, valued) and Conservative was 'bad' (fake, invented, unauthentic). And to these labels they cling.

I have had many conversations with these people where I have to assure them, repeatedly, that being Conservative is OK if that's what they are. I emphasize that being honest in what you are, and what you believe, is important to yourself and to others. This is especially important for rabbis (see below).

The motto of Conservadox is "where there's a rabbinic will, there's a halakhic way." This motto, invented by Blu Greenberg (On Women and Judaism (JPS 1981) p.44 sez this), is the whole denomination in a nutshell. Blu herself is classic conservadox (her husband is more like Doobie-dox or who knows).

If you believe the truth of that statement then:

1. You are ignorant of the halakhic process - get up right now and rush into a yeshiva and start learning
   
2. You are on notice for being Conservadox
   
3. Which I think is fine as long as you're honest about it

Why isn't it an Orthodox belief? Because there are some things which just can't be explained away with legal mumbo-jumbo. It only appears that it can from the position of someone who knows how halakha works from listening to (bad) rabbi sermons or reading the footnotes in the Artscroll Chumash.

Steve Greenberg

What does this have to do with Steve "The Gay Orthodox Rabbi" Greenberg? Well, this morning I had a discussion with my bar-plugta about him because he was the guest rabbi in Brandeis over Shabbas.

Side note: my bar-plugta (an Aramaic term, from the Gemara, meaning a sparring partner in learning) is the driver of my daily car-pool. That's the basis of the name I'm giving her in this blog as well: Bat-Plugta.


Anyway, Bat Plugta is a very spiritual, and religiously knowledgeable person, who nonetheless holds the diametrically opposite view on almost everything from what I have. We even disagreed about whether we like fast days (she does, I don't). She's conservadox with a capital D - e.g. she puts on tallis and tefillin - yet she is under the impression that she's comfortably within the Orthodox definition. Even though she admits that David Weiss-Halivni is her posek.

Anyway, she went to hear Steve Greenberg and was gushing over his perspective on halakha. While normally I bite my tongue when conversing with benefactors (the carpool is very helpful and I'll ride with a J4J if it shaves 2 hours off my commute), but I needed to put my foot down about Steve.

Basically, I stated, that while I sympathize with Greenberg's plight - the closet is hell - I repudiate his fundamental dishonesty about halakha. Like many gay clergymen, he tries to find a way that being gay and 'frum' is OK. It is not; that is pretty much fundamental. Yet in his machinations and contortions to make being gay A-OK he ends up following the 'progressive halakha' methodology of Conservative halakha.

Which means that when he calls himself an Orthodox Rabbi, he's lying. Bat Plugta, in arguing with me, claiming Steve's still an Orthodox Rabbi, brought up all the bad proofs I fear (including 'rabbinic will, halakhic way.') She also brought proofs of his Orthodoxy from rabbis that, alas, are on the cusp of being booted from the definition. But, critically, she said that Greenberg claimed that he doesn't like 'labels' and that he doesn't need to embrace being 'Orthodox' while at the same time she said he said (and now I'm saying) that he doesn't identify as 'conservative' either.

Well bully for him. Sadly, Steve seems to have stepped from one closet into another: and that's what Conservadox is, it's a closeted conservative trying to pass as Orthodox.

Note, you can be Orthodox and gay. Either you are celibate - which means a life of righteous self-torture - or you are a lifelong compelled sinner. I have compassion for those who are compelled, through uncontrollable urges, to sin. They fall under a specific category of "mumar l'teyavon" (sinners of appetite) and can be trusted in halakha for many things. It's a sad life - it would be unconscionable for me to deny the difficulty - but it's honest, and as halakhic as possible.

Jewish law about homosexuality, as opposed to other modern prohibitions (like women's learning etc), is consistent: halakha severely limits sex. It's clear. And halakha is pretty much anti-compassion when it comes to violating Torah prohibitions. If you think not, then you need to learn more. If that's not the kind of Judaism you like, then, again, either learn more, or find another Judaism - just don't call it Orthodox; it's dishonest.

The last word, for now, on this huge troubling concept: what I'm very worried about is how examples from Modern Orthodoxy of halakha that *has* progressed - e.g. women's learning, Zionism, secular learning - are being used by these deluded sinners to substantiate their attempts to step beyond the line. I'm worried because, when push comes to shove, allowing women to learn Gemara should not lead people to believe that homosexuality is mutar. And if the connection is made too often, then Modern Orthodoxy will die: it'll be a horrible sacrifice to jettison women's learning in order to persist in forbidding homosexuality, but it will be a sacrifice that the Orthodox leadership will make.

Women Reading Megillah For Men (Hirhurim)

So you may have heard that Rav Ovadya shlit"a allows women to read megillah for men. According to R' Gil Student at Hirhurim this is not news and as such not as earth-shattering as it sounds. Read what he sez.

Pic is my crop of the Hirhurim logo. Backpost finished 2009-12-03.

Sarah Palin?!

All the news reports are saying McCain's VP pick is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. How does a 44 year old governor of a non-contiguous, and largely frozen, state pass the "commander in chief" threshold that McCain boasts about? Answer: because she's a republican.

She's the perfect GOP woman too: young, pretty, and anti-abortion. She was almost Miss Alaska, and that is how Republicans see women, no?

How is this a winner for McCain? Because he looks edgy? She's pro-life so most women won't flock to her (but it does explain all the weird pro-Hillary commercials McCain has been running). In fact, that must be the strategy: to use the groundwork of animosity and scorched-earth performed by Hillary to win over the largest block of disgruntled Democrats and Independents (PUMA/women). I really can't imagine it will work, but that must be the thought.

And she has no foreign policy experience what-so-ever, which means McCain took away his main line of attack against Obama. So the disgruntled Hillaryites is all he's done. McCain's kept the base happy by keeping it anti-abortion, so whoopie, but they must be in some strange echo-chamber if they think this will help.

To reiterate: McCain has been mocking Obama, and the Democrats, by saying we nominated a vapid pretty-boy who resembles Brittney Spears. And now McCain has actually nominated a young, inexperienced pretty-girl. Whoa.

Backpost: Abuse of Women in the Military

From 3/17/07. I had the link and the embedded quote.

This article from the NYTimes Sunday magazine is an investigation of the horrific state of abuse of women by the military. Note that armies have been abusing women for millenia (see the first subject in parshat, Ki Teitzei), but new wrinkle for 2007 is that the victims are also wearing uniforms.

Read the whole article ("The Women's War" by Sara Corbett) yet this quote gives a taste of the horror: "Despite fighting wars in two far-off countries, the Bush administration recently announced that while it will increase V.A. health-care financing by 9 percent for 2008, it has proposed consecutive cuts of about $1.8 billion for 2009 and 2010."

Sebelius vs. Hillary

The TNR quotes from this Washpost story about Hillary supporters pushing back against Kathleen Sebelius as a possible Obama VP because, wait for it, Sebelius is too nice. And, evidently, the Hillary supporters that interest the mainstream media the most, are unhinged wackos who back Hillary mainly because she's equally mean as they.

Why is it that I - a major Hillary hater - have more respect for her than her supposed supporters? Logic would state that the media just seeks out the crazies, because certainly there must be some sane people among the millions who voted for her. These 'journalists' just prove, again, that they are out to create trouble and stir up controversy in the hopes of stirring up revenue.

I'm on record supporting Sebelius as Obama's VP, she seems to be a good electoral choice, and it is about time to have a woman hired into the White House.

Pic self made. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Articulations of my Hillary Problems

These are two comments from New Republic readers who articulate their problems witgh Hillary, from a feminist and from a Democratic/Liberal persepective. It's validating to see someone else say what I've been saying. The two writers are both Democrats (as far as I can tell) and Wandreycer is a woman in her 70s:

Wandreycer1 said: Whether or not there is an element of chauvenism and/or mysoginy (you'd think an old feminist like me would have any idea how to spell those words) to the criticisms and mistrust of Hillary (and there is) does not excuse her from personal responsibility for her behavior. Life's a bitch, no one ever said it was fair. Ask the successful female graduates of the military academys - not to many of them whining about sexism, although no doubt they had it twice as tough as anyone. Those women are almost the most beloved come graduation too.

That "excusing" tendency of her blind supporters - because of her gender - is patronizing as hell, that's why I loathe those simpering ads. I don't need to be pitied or babysat, thank you. They ar so insincere and infantilizing, I want to hurl things around the room, to paraphrase virginiacentrist.

I'd like to the under the surface mistrust of powerful women to be gone too, but that is not the whole story with Hillary. Like I said, part of her character problem is that she is incapable of taking real, not half-assed self-serving (oh, I was just too thorough and careful in the health care debaucle, I just cared too much and that right wing conspiracy dontcha know), responsibility for herself.

This is a character problem of many people, regardless of gender. Please don't excuse my crappy behavior because I've been a victim of sexism my whole life, and in some ways I have. Kick my ass, please.

I know she is self-protective and I understand that, I also understand why - but it's not up to us as voters to be hectored in to "getting" that, it's up to her to explain herself and then to change it.

As far as Bill CLinton's behavior - I just want to hide every time I see him, he's been so dishonest, manipulative and undignified as a former President. Just compare him for one second with GHWB whose SON was running. I say this as someone who six months ago adored him: how DARE he?

Number 2:

Rhubarbs said: pccostello writes, "My own guess is that we are hearing the vilification (as distinct from analysis) coming mainly from youngish males who have a lot of anxiety about powerful women. They should try the following: breathe slowly and repeat often: She is not my mother."

Well, I'm complimented that someone would still call me youngish. Thanks for that. But the rest is just BS. I would vote for my mother for president in a heartbeat. Enthusiastically. I would vote for any of the several currently serving women Democratic governors and most Democratic members of Congress for president all week long and twice on Tuesday if I could, purely for the sake of voting for a woman. Hell, if the Republicans ever nominate a woman whose support doesn't depend on admiring her husband, I'd give strong consideration to voting for her _because_ she's a woman, and because it's about damn time for a woman president.

Maybe Hillary can turn things around after she wins the nomination, and convince me that she's had a complete and total transformation of her personality, politics, and judgment. But until then, I'm just not willing to vote for someone who has done as much actual harm to my party and my party's policy goals as Hillary Clinton did in the mid-1990s. I'm not willing to vote for a candidate who is as gleefully cynical and dishonest as Hillary has been this last year. She has a record of real, personal financial corruption that would embarrass even a Republican. On almost all of the votes that have really mattered while she's been in the Senate, she's voted against liberal values, or she hasn't shown up to vote. (And now she frequently lies -- outright lies -- about the nature of her votes.)

Finally, if Hillary had been president and her husband were now running for the nomination based so transparently on appeals to aristocratic nepotism, I would oppose the man. How can any Democrat look back on the last seven years and conclude that putting the close relative of a president in the White House is a good idea? Why they hell not make Laura Bush president? Or Hillary's brother? Maybe there's a Bush or a Clinton named "Jong Il" or "Bashar" and we can just dispense with the facade of being a republic entirely. If I knew that the only way to implement the policies I support and ensure good Supreme Court nominations was to make my favorite Democrat king of America, I'd be against it, even at the cost of the defeat of my personal policy preferences. Some things are just more important than policy.

I am _desperate_ to vote for a woman for president -- and in local elections I've sometimes crossed party lines to vote for Republican women against Democratic men. But Hillary Clinton is not a generic woman candidate. She's not an archetypal emasculating strong woman figure. She's an actual politician with a terrible record and bad judgment who stands for all the wrong things, things I used to pride myself that Democrats had no truck with even as Republicans wallowed in them.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Fear of a Female President?

Yet another column from the New Republic by Michelle Cottle, about how people just don't like Hillary because it's ingrained in the American psyche to assume that any high-ranking woman is automatically a Bit-h (or is it b-tch? or bi-ch?). Anyway, because we think powerful women are mean and unfeminine, Hillary is seen that way. And, using a hidden syllogism technique unknown to Socrates, that's why Hillary is unliked.

So, by the numbers:

1. I hated Hillary when she was Bill's wife. First ladies have no power.
   


2. I don't hate all first ladies. Yeah, I didn't like Nancy, but I am indifferent to Barabara & Laura Bush.
   


3. I have no problem with these women who are (currently) in power: Barbara Boxer, or Dianne Feinstein, or Elizabeth Dole, or Barbara Mikulski, or Amy Klobuchar, or Blanche Lincoln, or Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins, or Claire McCaskill, and Nancy Pelosi.
   
   These are the current Senators from California (2), North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Arkansas, Maine (2), Missouri and the Speaker of the House. I am bipartisan in my 'no-problem-ness' (except that I have an instinctive dislike for Kay Bailey Hutchison but just because she's a Texan and a Republican... I can only be so charitable).
   

Note, that Nancy Pelosi is the freakin' Speaker of the House. And I'm happy and proud that she's a decent, talented, Democrat. The only reason I may think she's unpleasant is that (a) she's from San Francisco and is probably more liberal than I could stand, and (b) her facial features seem pinched in public. But I have no negative feelings towards her and she's seriously in power.

I have no problem with Elizabeth Dole, even. Maybe because she's Southern and they've always been good at softening a politician's image.

But I hate Hillary!

I have hated her ever since the first Clinton term because she was a king-hell gonzo biyatch back then. She caused every single self-inflicted wound his administration: specifically the way she would attack the press, or anybody who she felt disagreed with her. Bill doesn't do that; he's truly a lover not a fighter. If Bill were married to any woman on earth, he would have been president because he is immensely talented. Hillary would never be near the Senate or now the White House if she hadn't married the big-horndog-teddy bear Bill.

So, sorry, Michelle and your brain-dead "pundit" ilk. Hillary is considered a b-tch by me and most of Creation not because she's a "powerful woman" but because she is a mean, nasty, woman.

{2009 Update: Weird Bill-Hillary mashup pic from here.}

More About Hillary's Anti-Feminism

From this article on Politico.com "Feminists split on HRC sexism defense" by Ben Smith and David Paul Kuhn.

One prominent feminist who was critical of Clinton, former NARAL Pro-Choice America President Kate Michelman, has endorsed John Edwards. In tandem, Smeal’s comments suggested that the reaction of female activists may be driven more by their candidate preferences than their feminist sensibility.

“Any serious candidate for president should make their views clear and let the American people know where they stand on issues,” Michelman said in a statement released by the Edwards campaign.

“And any serious candidate for president should be held to the same standard — whether man or woman. Have we have come a long way? Well, far enough to know better than to use our gender as a shield when the questions get too hot.”

Michelman says the exact things I've been saying and, naturally, she's an Edwards supporter as well.

One More Hillary Comment

As I've mentioned before, one reason why I don't like Hillary is from a feminist perspective. Yeah, she may be the first female US president but she won't be the first US woman to be elected to fill her husbands old political post. There's a long list (which I can't find right now) and it's not impressive. The whole idea that a woman can (only) become powerful if she's married/related to an even MORE powerful man is disturbing.

Now she plays the second anti-feminist card. After the most recent debate - where she became the target of the other candidates - her PR team came out with this message: "What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?” Hillary comes out on top... One strong woman."

Ya see, she's trying to depict herself as a big strong woman, yet still a woman who cannot be attacked. She's trying to play the victim - which would NEVER be attempted if she were a man - and hope that the female Democratic base will rise up in anger at Obama/Edwards for being mean to a lady.

And, ya know, this tactic may work. Women may instinctively support Hillary even more because she's being treated badly by the old-boy club. And sure, playing the victim just enrages the menfolk who really don't want to ever see that tactic played. It enrages me because it's anti-feminist.

There's a Dilbert comic with Alice and Tina about the glass ceiling which I'm trying to find to illustrate this...

Update: There's a story in the Times right now about this.

Women Drivers

I just hear the awesome 1960 routine by Bob Newhart about being a driving instructor. It's funny, yet it's based on the conceit that 'women drivers' are dangerous.

This is a good example of how humor is a good tool for anthropology and culture study. Because back in 1950s, it was an accepted stereotype that not only couldn't women drive, but it was implied that it was something to do with the female constitution. That they were flightly, unserious, and too emotional to ever handle the responsibility of driving.

Yet who would think that now? It's like how women can't study Talmud...

2009 Update: A Demotivator based on the routine: