Tuesday, February 27, 2007

On a lighter note

I figured I'd lighten things up a bit. I was watching the Oscars last night, and noticed an odd trend. When did all of the actresses become stick figures? I mean seriously, they were attractive to begin with. What on earth convinced them that they all needed to drop whatever shape they had and become the same twiggish shape as everyone else.

I got into an argument with my sister over this. Yes, Americans as a whole are overweight, but models and actresses are underweight. If you are not small statured by nature (e.g. over 5'5'') YOU SHOULD NOT BE A SIZE 0. If you have to refrain from eating solids to maintain your current weight, that is not healthy for you. A couple of the actresses had some nice tone in their arms, but the majority lost most of theirs because their bodies needed a source of energy. I'm all for getting healthier and fit, but dropping sizes so that your body begins to resemble a frail board is ridiculous. No wonder young girls have such bad self-esteem issues....

Monday, February 26, 2007

Gender Roles and Religion, Part II

If I asked you to imagine G-d, what would G-d look like? When you use a pronoun in reference to G-d, which one is it?

It's easy to forget that descriptions influence the way we view G-d, and religion in general. For the first question, most people get the imagery of the wise old white guy with his cane. For the 2nd, I'd wager to say almost 90% of the people say He. Does this not seem odd to you? Why is it that the vast majority of society prefers to denote G-d with masculine qualities?

I can see two main arguments. The first, is probably the most disturbing. That argument is thus: the majority of society views stereotypical male qualities as good for a leader and a rock of spirituality. Males are the ones we feel more comfortable going to for guidance, the ones we hold in deeper respect, the ones that inspire us, the ones we can more easily see ascribing terms such as omnipotent and omniscient to. Now, I'm hoping that this isn't the case for most, but unfortunately it probably is for some.

The second argument is that in order to avoid using G-d every time, some gender-sided pronoun had to be used, and incidentally the male one was chosen. If this is only a grammatical decision, then why do we still imagine G-d as masculine? The answer most likely is that since the time we were little we have always heard G-d described as He. This was the time we first formulated an image of G-d, and it's stuck with us. Yet add to this imbalance the scarcity of women mentioned in the Torah and prayer books and a scarcity of female religious leaders. What you end up with is a male-centric (at least by outward appearances) religion.

Now, traditional religious thought in most religions deals with this difference by describing the center of male spiritual life external (i.e in synagogue, as leaders of the community), and the center of female spiritual life internal (i.e. in the house, raising the kids Jewish, etc). I'm quite thankful that in ultra-orthodox homes the women are well-respected for their roles, and men for theirs. I don't particularly feel comfortable boxing my religious identity into that small arena, but I can respect those who chose to do so.

My problem is with the middle of the observance spectrum who still follow the above-mentioned inequalities. These are the people who still cling to the gender imbalance, yet have no grounds to support their beliefs with other than "it's tradition". The many who adamantly refuse to add the matriarchs into prayers, without even understanding why they were excluded to begin with. And yet, it is in this middle group that women who do not feel comfortable within the rigidly defined orthodox sense of female spirituality (such as myself) seek religion.

For those women struggling to find a spiritual connection in a male-centric arena, it is often imperative for them to find something or someone with which they can identify. As society becomes increasingly more secular and egalitarian, it is these middle groups that must expand to include those who otherwise may be left behind (without losing the traditions that make them who they are). It's the reason I sought out a very minority-, gay-, and women-friendly conservative synagogue when I came to Atlanta. But it's a shame there weren't more truly egalitarian choices.

Here's a challenge to those reading this that pray on a regular basis. The next time you go through your prayers, think of G-d as female. Change every He to a She, and really think about the prayers and the way you feel reading them this way. You might just be suprised...

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Rewriting History

I'd like to take a second to address the recent controversy in Israel over the Mugrabi bridge. For those who don't know, Israeli authorities are rebuilding a ramp to allow non-Muslims to reach the Temple Mount, a religious site in Jerusalem that has been under Muslim control since 1967. Since the old ramp was deemed unsafe years ago and the interim ramp was designed for short-term use only, anyone with half a brain would understand that the need to rebuild access is important, and not a desire to undermine the Al-Asqa Mosque which was built on top of it.

Yet Arab leaders have incited absurd hysteria on these grounds, inciting their people to wreak violence on Israelis and Jews for their "attacks on the Al-Aqsa Mosque". The leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, Raed Salah, announced in response to the ramp project that "the danger in Jerusalem has increased. It is high time for the intifada of the Islamic people." The prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Ismail Haniyeh, called the construction project "continued Israeli aggression on Al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem." An Egyptian MP, Mohamed el-Katatny, announced in parliament, "That cursed Israel is trying to destroy Al-Aqsa mosque. . . . Nothing will work with Israel except for a nuclear bomb that wipes it out of existence."

At the heart of this battle is not a worry of undermining the foundations of the mosue (which Muslim authorities came much closer to in 1996 by trashing tons of dirt/artifacts from underneath the mosque), but a worry of what archaelogical digs in the area may turn up. This is the denial by Muslim authorities to admit any Jewish ties to Jerusalem and Israel. Let me remind you, the Roman empire Titus destroyed the 2nd Temple (built by King Herod for the Jews) in 70 AD (the 1st one having been destroyed much earlier in 586 BC). The Al-Asqa Mosque, built some 1400 years ago, is now claimed by many to have been in existence since Adam or Abraham. Similarly, many scholars doubt the existence of a Temple (at least anywhere near Jerusalem), and distort/ignore whatever they can to teach such.

Thus, these ignorant voices are willing to ignore whatever archaelogic finds might benefit the Muslim world in order to deny and Jewish claims to the land. The thought being if they can first destroy the Jewish existence and history with words, maybe the destruction of present day Israel will follow.


**For more info, check out:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/824139.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/311eafts.asp?pg=1

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Gender roles and religion I

It seems ironic to me that Islam is the focal point for gender inequality in religion. I mean, look at Judaism and Christianity. The most observant families proscribe a particular role to the women and the men. In traditional Jewish circles, women aren't allowed to read Torah and many prayers, aren't counted as part of a minyan (the 10 people required to perform certain prayers), don't where a tallis (prayer shawl) , are separated by a mechitza (curtain or wall) away from the men and usually the service, and are rarely mentioned in any prayer.

Now, the first few of those listed are officially because of the 613 commandments, women are only obligated to observe the negative, non time-bound commandments. This has something to do with a woman's ability to give birth and natural connection to spirituality, that the men can't/don't have, but have to follow a bunch of religious rituals in order to try. Now, I don't necessarily agree with this distinction, but in my opinion men and women's traditional roles should be respected equally, and each woman should be able to decide for herself what obligations she feels she has. Regardless, nowhere in Jewish law is it stated that women should be prohibited from touching the Torah or taking on more commandments than she would naturally be obligated to follow. In fact, there have been women since biblical times recognized for taking on all 613 commandments and being accepted by the community while doing it (as long as she hasn't neglected her wife/motherly duties. Yet lately, especially in Israel, this is viewed as unacceptable and disgraceful.

Additionally, just as women pray behind men in Muslim communities, women pray behind a wall or in a balcony in Jewish circles, so as not to distract the men. And, if you're like me and enjoy prayer, sitting up in a balcony where you can hardly hear the service and women just gossip and care for the kids is not your idea of religious fulfillment. Maybe we're not distracting the guys, but we're not exactly having a deeply spiritual connection ourselves. So where does this idea of women corrupting the spirituality of men come from?

Last week's parsha (Torah reading) involved the receiving of the Decalogue (more commonly known as the 10 commandments). In order to prepare themselves for this event, G-d tells Moses to make sure the people purify and clean themselves and their clothes. In reiterating this to the people, Moses makes one addition: Do not touch your women during these 3 days. This seems like an odd addition to tell the people, but maybe Moses knew the people better than G-d did, and knew they needed to stay separate to be in the right frame of mind. I'll offer a different interpretation that one of my rabbis brought up: Earlier in the parsha, we learn that Moses' father-in-law comes to visit with Moses' wife and kids, who he appears to have forgotten and hasn't seen in years. In the competition between family and leaderships, Moses has chosen leadership. That additional requirement is simply his justification of his neglect of his family duties, claiming that women (including his wife) would be a spiritual distraction for all the men. In doing so, he starts a long tradition of gender inequity within our communities, that is accepted with no questions asked.

Perhaps it's time to start asking questions.

More on this to follow

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Bridesmaids Must Be Rich

My bridesmaid duties for my old roomate's wedding have begun. Now, one might think that being a bridesmaid for a friend is a honor, a treat if you would. For the wedding day, you might be right, yet for the months leading up to it, it's one of the largest financial burdens one can stomach. Let me lay this out for you:

1) Buy a dress that you'll probably never wear ever again. And get it tailored, because you know even though you were measured for it, when it comes it will need altering, never fail.

2)If you live out of state, buy plane tickets and figure out housing for not only the wedding but one or more of the various pre-wedding parties. Which brings me to...

3) So many damn parties. Since when has a wedding turned into an excuse to get as many gifts as possible from each person? I don't know, maybe it's just a Southern thing, but for this one wedding, there are at least 4 parties. First there was the engagement party. Then there's the bridal shower (or perhaps more than one, targeting different audiences). Then there's the lingerie party. Then there's the bachelorette party. As a bridesmaid, you're invited to them all. For the latter, that includes an expensive night out on the town with lots of food and drinks, and paying for a hotel room in a city in which you live!

So how exactly is a poor grad student supposed to pay for this all??? Funny thing is, with Becky, she used to complain that her friends had all these damn parties and that she had to get gifts for them all. Perhaps as payback to her other friends, perhaps at the suggestion of her other bridesmaids (who seem to think these redundant parties are necessary), she does the EXACT SAME DAMN THING she was complaining about. WTF???

Monday, February 05, 2007

Reviving the Peace Process?

This morning, as with most weekdays, I digested my daily news along with my breakfast. Now, it's not uncommon for me to pay particular attention to the middle east, but today something was particularly striking.

One story began by quoting the latest figures of violence in Gaza. Interfighting between Fatah and Hamas has wreaked havoc, scarring buildings, bullets and grenades flying high at all hours, and leaving scores of civilians dead or wounded. And all predictions of the future say that this violence is only going to escalate.

Then the following story: Rice, allies at odds of how to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. ARE YOU F*ING KIDDING ME?!? Palestinians are in the middle of a no-holds-barred civil war, and the western world is talking about how to make peace with the Israelis. Seriously, people, get a grip. In order for a peace process to work, there has to be leadership on both sides willing and able to enforce it. Now, one could argue that there has never been such leadership on the Palestinian side, but in this case, there is not even a clear leadership. Even the Palestinian supporters can recognize that the Palestinians are too busy killing each other to win popular support for just about anything, let alone peace with Israel.

This just goes to show how naive and ignorant the western world is with matters in the middle east. No wonder our leaders have failed miserably in meddling over there.