In the news, whether politics, current events, or celebrity following, “shame” seems to be the word. People seem to have lost the ability to discuss or debate an event or topic, or plainly just refuse. When we see celebrity news in even limited amounts, it tends toward the use of drugs, relationship failure, threats of jail, or drunkenness. It titillates. Not so much is even made of who won an award or their work as a whole.
Even much has been made of shame in child rearing. I can’t tell you how many times as a teacher I have heard variations of the theme that all ‘so and so’ really needed was a ‘kick in the pants’. When in truth, most of the time children who needed the most guidance had very clearly been kicked enough.
The Rabbis say, “Whoever shames his fellow person in public has no share in the world to come. He is one of those who will go down to Gehinnom and never come up again.” Shame is, of course, closely related to Lashon Hora.
“Shaming” is described as a “whitening of the face.” Can someone die of embarrassment? It seems unlikely, however, because of the comparison of the blood draining from the face and causing the person to go pale as well as the damage to their reputation in the community, shaming is compared to murder.
Leviticus 19:17 tells us, “You shall surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.” Notice that it doesn’t say you should shame him, nor does it say you should talk about him to the general public. His errors should not be expounded upon, or speculated upon, and certainly not for entertainment purposes or to further a cause. It does not say, either, that he is answerable to you. Rashi’s interpretation is that we are to have a stand against sin, but not shame the sinner. This sounds like a delicate balance.
One example of how this may be achieved is the story of Tamar who recounts the pledge she had from her father-in–law, Judah, but not that they had had relations. Another example is when Joseph revieled himself to his brothers in Egypt. He did this without on lookers and only out of absolute necessity. His brothers had sold him into slavery only after abandoning a plot to kill him, so if he wanted to shame them, he clearly had a lot to work with. So did Tamar. Tamar’s relationship with Judah resulted in a pregnacy. Aditionally, she had the proof of the belongings he had left behind and the rather scandulious fact that he had mistaken her for a ‘harlot’.
There once was a beautiful custom of woman wearing borrowed clothes on Yom Kippur when unmarried men would be looking for brides. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, "… the daughters of Jerusalem would go out wearing borrowed white clothing so that they should not embarrass those who did not own such.” Given the current economy, perhaps this is worth remembering. Further, we are also not allowed to speak ill, even of the dead. "One who shames those who sleep in the dust has also committed a grave sin."
We know that it is human nature to measure a person against our own yardstick, and since they are not us, find them wanting. How quick are we to ‘tell some home truths’ once we are angry? How anxious to pontificate about someone’s perceived shortcomings, especially when things don’t go our way? How hasty are we in joining in? But the parameters are clear. We are not to shame someone for being not as smart or not as wealthy or not as educated, as we would like him or her to be. We are not to shame people for owing us money, past offences, ancestry, or personal weakness. There are rules of etiquette built around this, too numerous to name here.
And if we believe that Gehinnom is a spiritual condition, rather than a place, then maybe the point is that shaming someone not only harms the target and both their reputation and connection to the community, but we harm ourselves, spiritually and socially, when we undertake these behaviors. And that’s a shame.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Are you talking to ME?
“Are you talking to me? Are you talking to ME?” who can forget this famous line forged by the character of Travis Bikle of Taxi Driver fame. They have been repeated over and over in comedic content and in drama. How often in writing do we see ourselves, and wonder that? So many stage plays and novels begin with a standard disclaimer of denial of real persons, places, or things. Good writing, we are told is universal; it appeals to a wider audience and holds some agreed upon, universal truths that speak to us all.
And aren’t Drushas, in part, good writing? Or at least good speaking? I have had some of my best conversations of the week just outside of out Shul because of the Rabbi’s Drusha. I have even asked myself, sometimes kidding and some times less so, if the Drusha was about me. Is he talking about me being… impatient? Judgmental? Unkind? Might I have treated someone unfairly? Some might find this type of introspection upsetting.
It was recently remarked to me that ‘people want uplifting messages’ and that maybe true. But is really the job of a good Rabbi to make us all only feel good about ourselves? And is he responsible for any discomfort people experience at all?
Judaism has specific rules for specific situations and though some customs change from place to place the rules do not. Nor does custom ever replace the rules. It is the job of a spiritual advisor to let you know about these rules. Try not to shoot the messenger. Every discussion, like every pancake, has two sides. For example, when there is a dispute about how something should be done and the Rabbi tells everyone what the rules are, there is always going to be a ‘side’ that didn’t get what he or she wants. I repeat, try not to shoot the messenger. And don’t ask your friends to shoot him either. Rabbis don’t just arbitrarily make up rules. And they DO have to be sure the rules are followed in the synagogue. It is up to you to decide to follow them in your own life.
The Rabbi often reminds us a this time of year, with the High Holiday on the horizon, that it is human nature to easily turn a critical eye toward our fellow man, but difficult, at best, for us to aim that all seeing lens at ourselves.
So, to be clear, he is talking to you…maybe through some universal truth, maybe by offering to educate you on some rule or custom you hadn’t known about, or maybe by giving you the means to become more introspective. But you cannot really hold any one other human being responsible for your internal dialogue or your journey or whatever processes you are going through. He can offer support and spiritual guidance.
The Torah is about behavior-and the Drusha is about the Torah, if it makes you regard your own behavior with a critical lens then perhaps it is not about you personally, but IT IS ABOUT YOU because it speaks to you. And that makes it a really good Drusha.
And aren’t Drushas, in part, good writing? Or at least good speaking? I have had some of my best conversations of the week just outside of out Shul because of the Rabbi’s Drusha. I have even asked myself, sometimes kidding and some times less so, if the Drusha was about me. Is he talking about me being… impatient? Judgmental? Unkind? Might I have treated someone unfairly? Some might find this type of introspection upsetting.
It was recently remarked to me that ‘people want uplifting messages’ and that maybe true. But is really the job of a good Rabbi to make us all only feel good about ourselves? And is he responsible for any discomfort people experience at all?
Judaism has specific rules for specific situations and though some customs change from place to place the rules do not. Nor does custom ever replace the rules. It is the job of a spiritual advisor to let you know about these rules. Try not to shoot the messenger. Every discussion, like every pancake, has two sides. For example, when there is a dispute about how something should be done and the Rabbi tells everyone what the rules are, there is always going to be a ‘side’ that didn’t get what he or she wants. I repeat, try not to shoot the messenger. And don’t ask your friends to shoot him either. Rabbis don’t just arbitrarily make up rules. And they DO have to be sure the rules are followed in the synagogue. It is up to you to decide to follow them in your own life.
The Rabbi often reminds us a this time of year, with the High Holiday on the horizon, that it is human nature to easily turn a critical eye toward our fellow man, but difficult, at best, for us to aim that all seeing lens at ourselves.
So, to be clear, he is talking to you…maybe through some universal truth, maybe by offering to educate you on some rule or custom you hadn’t known about, or maybe by giving you the means to become more introspective. But you cannot really hold any one other human being responsible for your internal dialogue or your journey or whatever processes you are going through. He can offer support and spiritual guidance.
The Torah is about behavior-and the Drusha is about the Torah, if it makes you regard your own behavior with a critical lens then perhaps it is not about you personally, but IT IS ABOUT YOU because it speaks to you. And that makes it a really good Drusha.
Friday, June 24, 2011
“The world rests on three things: justice, truth, and peace" (Avot 1:18)
What a peaceful world it might be, if even in the face of opposing view points, without politicing…people rested their arguments on the topic at hand in a direct and respectful manner. More often than not, reasonable people could find reasonable solutions. One need only regard the nightly news to find sensationalizing of current events, false analogies and character assasinations that all but completely veil the original and true concerns.
Consider recent political news: A new flotilla of Pro Palestienian activists is ready to set sail and try to break through Israel’s navel blockade. Brg. Gen. Yoav Mordechai has said on Israel Radio, “There is an unequivocal directive from the government to enforce the navel blockade that is recognized by international law, and we will not allow it to be broken.” News of the proposed fotilla comes nearly a year after the flotilla, where nine were killed, and Israel has already warned of a potential use of force, yet activist set to participate still insist on refering to themselves as “peace activists”. Is there really any doubt as to their true agenda?
Further, consider the proposed ban on circumsision in San Fransisco. Is it really about children’s rights, as ‘intactavists’ claim or is it a ban intent on hindering the practice of Judasim? The writer of the proposed ban in SF, Mathew Hess, is also the author of the notoriuosly anti-semetic comic “Foreskin Man”, which has been sited by the Anti Defefamation League for “gross Anti- Semetic imagery and themes.” ADL Associates representative Nancy Appel has been quoted as saying, “This is an advocacy campain taken to a new low. It is one thing to to debate it, it is another thing to degrade it. This reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive.”
When did it become good debate or quality discussion to disparage and degrade one’s opponent? I cannot help but think that these types of tactics betray not only an argument without substance, but often an agenda and are acts of hatred. “Tale-bearing and unkind insinuations are proscribed, as is hatred of one's brother in one's heart (Lev. 19:17).”
At worst, humans fall prey to particpating in this, inadvertantly or not. At best, we can guard against it and demand facts, direct sources, and laws in support of a position, rather than emotion and hearsay. We have to trust each other with the truth and the ability to make democratic decisions. The facts should not be eclipsed or silenced by retoric. It’s okay to ‘fight’, but fighting fairly and ethically is paramount. “The reputation of a fellow man is sacred.” (Ex. 21:1).
Consider recent political news: A new flotilla of Pro Palestienian activists is ready to set sail and try to break through Israel’s navel blockade. Brg. Gen. Yoav Mordechai has said on Israel Radio, “There is an unequivocal directive from the government to enforce the navel blockade that is recognized by international law, and we will not allow it to be broken.” News of the proposed fotilla comes nearly a year after the flotilla, where nine were killed, and Israel has already warned of a potential use of force, yet activist set to participate still insist on refering to themselves as “peace activists”. Is there really any doubt as to their true agenda?
Further, consider the proposed ban on circumsision in San Fransisco. Is it really about children’s rights, as ‘intactavists’ claim or is it a ban intent on hindering the practice of Judasim? The writer of the proposed ban in SF, Mathew Hess, is also the author of the notoriuosly anti-semetic comic “Foreskin Man”, which has been sited by the Anti Defefamation League for “gross Anti- Semetic imagery and themes.” ADL Associates representative Nancy Appel has been quoted as saying, “This is an advocacy campain taken to a new low. It is one thing to to debate it, it is another thing to degrade it. This reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive.”
When did it become good debate or quality discussion to disparage and degrade one’s opponent? I cannot help but think that these types of tactics betray not only an argument without substance, but often an agenda and are acts of hatred. “Tale-bearing and unkind insinuations are proscribed, as is hatred of one's brother in one's heart (Lev. 19:17).”
At worst, humans fall prey to particpating in this, inadvertantly or not. At best, we can guard against it and demand facts, direct sources, and laws in support of a position, rather than emotion and hearsay. We have to trust each other with the truth and the ability to make democratic decisions. The facts should not be eclipsed or silenced by retoric. It’s okay to ‘fight’, but fighting fairly and ethically is paramount. “The reputation of a fellow man is sacred.” (Ex. 21:1).
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Foreskin Man: Fanning the fires of Anti-Semitism
Okay, just as I am nearly about to concede that most people are acting primarily out of concern and information available, even if that information is sometimes misinformation, when some reprehensible creation has to prove me wrong. Enter Foreskin Man. So how like the propaganda of nineteen thirties Germany, to depict the caricature of the bad, evil, scary Jew who will do something unspeakable, with, usually, enough left unsaid that the imagination runs wild. But Foreskin Man leaves no spurious image or wearisome stereotype left to our imagining. And frankly nothing here seems to be all that mysterious.
Even the people who will decry that the Jewish people always claim anti-Semitism in the face of opposition will have a difficult time ignoring the very blond super hero “Foreskin Man” or his darker skinned and exaggerated featured nemesis, the Model Monster. Even if one could block out the less than subtle stereotypes, then enter the ridiculous gore-ifying of the religious rite beyond any recognition. The cover of the particular issue I saw shows the mother shielding the child protectively. Umm. The mother who likely called the Mohel and requested his services, you mean? Seriously. Not to mention his blood spattered shirt.
from Foreskin Man
The writer of the comic is Matthew Hess, who says that the comic is not intended to be Anti- Semitic. According to Hess, "It takes an unflinching look at the practice of circumcising children, as well as those who perform it. The characters are drawn accordingly to convey that message." If I take him at his word, then I can’t help worrying more than a little bit about what true colors and unspoken bias Mr. Hess might be unintentionally channeling through his art.
So far the Anti Defamation League has sited the comic for “grotesque antisemitic imagery and themes”. And Nancy Appel of ADL associates said, “This is an advocacy campaign taken to a new low. It is one thing to debate it, is another thing to degrade it. This reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive." But these remarks have not kept the comic from supportive pages on Facebook or items being marketed at Café Press. (Please feel free to call them or write emails to express your displeasure.)
One can’t help but wonder about how Hess’ group, Male Genital Mutilation Bill, feels the argument is going if they are willing to resort to this type of propaganda. Not well, I’d surmise, if the comic book is any evidence. (If only there were a white, very blond, super hero with Nordic features to tell people what to think!) I’d like to believe that popular culture definitions of an issue wont make a difference, except to those most limited or on the fringe of society. But history has proved this belief wrong.
In the interest of fighting popular culture with popular culture, I recall the character of George Castanza of Seinfeld fame, who gave this advice in a sketch, “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.” If George where a real person, I would be compelled to remind him- that yes, yes it still is a lie, even if you choose to believe it.
Even the people who will decry that the Jewish people always claim anti-Semitism in the face of opposition will have a difficult time ignoring the very blond super hero “Foreskin Man” or his darker skinned and exaggerated featured nemesis, the Model Monster. Even if one could block out the less than subtle stereotypes, then enter the ridiculous gore-ifying of the religious rite beyond any recognition. The cover of the particular issue I saw shows the mother shielding the child protectively. Umm. The mother who likely called the Mohel and requested his services, you mean? Seriously. Not to mention his blood spattered shirt.
from Foreskin Man
The writer of the comic is Matthew Hess, who says that the comic is not intended to be Anti- Semitic. According to Hess, "It takes an unflinching look at the practice of circumcising children, as well as those who perform it. The characters are drawn accordingly to convey that message." If I take him at his word, then I can’t help worrying more than a little bit about what true colors and unspoken bias Mr. Hess might be unintentionally channeling through his art.
So far the Anti Defamation League has sited the comic for “grotesque antisemitic imagery and themes”. And Nancy Appel of ADL associates said, “This is an advocacy campaign taken to a new low. It is one thing to debate it, is another thing to degrade it. This reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive." But these remarks have not kept the comic from supportive pages on Facebook or items being marketed at Café Press. (Please feel free to call them or write emails to express your displeasure.)
One can’t help but wonder about how Hess’ group, Male Genital Mutilation Bill, feels the argument is going if they are willing to resort to this type of propaganda. Not well, I’d surmise, if the comic book is any evidence. (If only there were a white, very blond, super hero with Nordic features to tell people what to think!) I’d like to believe that popular culture definitions of an issue wont make a difference, except to those most limited or on the fringe of society. But history has proved this belief wrong.
In the interest of fighting popular culture with popular culture, I recall the character of George Castanza of Seinfeld fame, who gave this advice in a sketch, “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.” If George where a real person, I would be compelled to remind him- that yes, yes it still is a lie, even if you choose to believe it.
A Cut Above?
Banning Circumcision in SF
(Warning: contains adult content)
So let me get this right…you can pierce it…you can tattoo it…and in some cases you can show it off while dancing and in others cut it off entirely! These are your rights. But what you simply cannot do is keep a covenant with G-d and have a circumcision on the eighth day of life. Hmmm. This November voters in San Francisco will have the opportunity to vote on a ban that should it pass will make it illegal to circumcise under the age of eighteen.
Normally, I shy away from making statements about the ‘war on religion’ as I have heard it stated, as it has always rung a little paranoid if not outright ‘fringe element’ in my ears, but this argument under the circumstances makes itself. Who else, after all is bound, and I do mean bound, to have one? The importance of the event is underscored in the Torah when Moses’ wife performs her son’s bris herself in Exodus. “So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his leg with it, saying, ‘you are truly a bride groom of blood to me’ “ And by doing so she saves Moses’ life as G-d was prepared to kill him for having not carried out this command.
I am also reminded of the story of Jonah and the big fish. Many people seem to gloss over the fact that Jonah ended up in the fish because he was trying to avoid what G-d asked of him. He was to go to Nineveh and foretell of its destruction. (The message stands out, that one can return to G-d, if one is sincere. This is bore out with the timing of this reading, as it takes place on the Day of Atonement.) But another message is clear as well-when G-d asks us to do something; it is not really a conversation. It seems best, with us as with Jonah, not to try to avoid his “requests”.
While arguments have been made regarding the relative health benefits of circumcision, and they are many, reduced instances of urinary infections, reduced risk of other infections such as herpes and syphilis, and the Human Papilloma Virus which causes cervical cancer in women (British Medical Journal), the fact of the matter is it that for Jewish people it is first and foremost a religious ritual.
Many laws are designed to save us from ourselves and to this I say, if you dislike the practice of circumcision, you find it wrong or inappropriate then don’t practice it. But don’t interfere with a religious obligation that you do not understand. And I know there will be arguments that people do understand…so let me say that if YOU are not obligated to have your child circumcised then don’t. But don’t force your options on the people who practice this for religious reasons and view this practice in an entirely different light. And I encourage lawmakers and others who wish to understand the practice better, to make an appointment with a Rabbi (A Jewish one-which I know sounds redundant, but I have found people who use this title and are not.) because this is a person who, having studied for years and years, understands the laws.
The arguments comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation while numerous and varied are moot, because the two are incomparable. It is an effort to sensationalize the argument and thus gain support for a law that would undermine the religious freedoms of many. The argument wants my heart to go out to women who are abused in the most indelicate and unsanitary of circumstances and it does. But I am also moved as much, in my heart and in my soul, by the thought of the tragic possibility of a Jewish man deprived of a bris.
(Warning: contains adult content)
So let me get this right…you can pierce it…you can tattoo it…and in some cases you can show it off while dancing and in others cut it off entirely! These are your rights. But what you simply cannot do is keep a covenant with G-d and have a circumcision on the eighth day of life. Hmmm. This November voters in San Francisco will have the opportunity to vote on a ban that should it pass will make it illegal to circumcise under the age of eighteen.
Normally, I shy away from making statements about the ‘war on religion’ as I have heard it stated, as it has always rung a little paranoid if not outright ‘fringe element’ in my ears, but this argument under the circumstances makes itself. Who else, after all is bound, and I do mean bound, to have one? The importance of the event is underscored in the Torah when Moses’ wife performs her son’s bris herself in Exodus. “So Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his leg with it, saying, ‘you are truly a bride groom of blood to me’ “ And by doing so she saves Moses’ life as G-d was prepared to kill him for having not carried out this command.
I am also reminded of the story of Jonah and the big fish. Many people seem to gloss over the fact that Jonah ended up in the fish because he was trying to avoid what G-d asked of him. He was to go to Nineveh and foretell of its destruction. (The message stands out, that one can return to G-d, if one is sincere. This is bore out with the timing of this reading, as it takes place on the Day of Atonement.) But another message is clear as well-when G-d asks us to do something; it is not really a conversation. It seems best, with us as with Jonah, not to try to avoid his “requests”.
While arguments have been made regarding the relative health benefits of circumcision, and they are many, reduced instances of urinary infections, reduced risk of other infections such as herpes and syphilis, and the Human Papilloma Virus which causes cervical cancer in women (British Medical Journal), the fact of the matter is it that for Jewish people it is first and foremost a religious ritual.
Many laws are designed to save us from ourselves and to this I say, if you dislike the practice of circumcision, you find it wrong or inappropriate then don’t practice it. But don’t interfere with a religious obligation that you do not understand. And I know there will be arguments that people do understand…so let me say that if YOU are not obligated to have your child circumcised then don’t. But don’t force your options on the people who practice this for religious reasons and view this practice in an entirely different light. And I encourage lawmakers and others who wish to understand the practice better, to make an appointment with a Rabbi (A Jewish one-which I know sounds redundant, but I have found people who use this title and are not.) because this is a person who, having studied for years and years, understands the laws.
The arguments comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation while numerous and varied are moot, because the two are incomparable. It is an effort to sensationalize the argument and thus gain support for a law that would undermine the religious freedoms of many. The argument wants my heart to go out to women who are abused in the most indelicate and unsanitary of circumstances and it does. But I am also moved as much, in my heart and in my soul, by the thought of the tragic possibility of a Jewish man deprived of a bris.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
In “Honor” of Mother’s Day
Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you. – Exodus 20:12
Honoring your father and your mother is a familiar and for some people seems like a relatively easy commandment to follow. On one Sunday a year in the US people flock to buy cards, flowers, candy, and other gifts in celebration of a person that, for most, is easiest to love. Sentimental memories flood the day and though media we are encouraged to spend, spend, spend, on everything from cards to diamond jewelry.
But what does it mean to Honor? First of all call your mother. I know she has probably told you this before, so do it. But also know that this is part of honoring your mother as a ‘child’ who is traveling has the obligation of keeping his/her parents from worrying by keeping in touch. So what constitutes traveling? Does it matter? In the spirit of this, in my humble opinion, one could say that keeping the parents from worrying, check in from time to time.
Other requirement toward a parent includes not speaking arrogantly to or in away to shame a parent. No one loves hubris. As a parent and former teacher I couldn’t even count the number of times a fourteen or fifteen year old had reminded me or their parents in my presence that they knew so-so much more about the world than we did. If you are of this age, be warned-this feeling will pass. And if you have done this and not been corrected, you should know it because you are surrounded by love and someone with exceedingly more patience that I have. (I was thinking that I have shoes older than you and you should stop!)
Additionally and in the same vain, a child is not allowed to contradict a parent or disturb a their sleep. Obvious emergency situations not withstanding, a fast rule from my daughter’s youth, “Never wake a sleeping adult.” What does it mean to contradict? It is similar to the above mentions speaking arrogantly, but excludes of course any dealing with any wrongdoing. For example, while a child is required to obey their parent-it is within reason. A child is NOT required to do something that would be considered a sin or against Torah. (If this is a little ‘master of the obvious’ please excuse. I want to be sure to include this rather than risk misquoting.) In this vain, a child is also NOT required to marry someone- or not marry someone based on the parent’s preference.
A child is also required to say Kaddish for a parent during the period after they have passed and on the yahrzeit each year that follows. One of my friends has a mother that he never met because she passed away shortly after childbirth. So how does he honor her? The only ways that he can, he continues to say Kaddish for her on her yahrzeit. One can also continue to do charity in memory of a parent and study Torah, as he does. I’ve never seen him miss a Yizkor service. A good model in honoring a parent, if ever one was needed.
The Talmud compares honoring one’s parent to honoring G-d. I would like to honor my own mother with this post. I meant to post it on Mother’s Day, but distracted myself with other things. One of the friends of my youth once said that sometimes the thing that we least want to do is the thing we need to do most. So here it is, better late than never I suppose. In memory of a woman who in my few short years with her influenced me most,in Honor of the person who made me a person.
Honoring your father and your mother is a familiar and for some people seems like a relatively easy commandment to follow. On one Sunday a year in the US people flock to buy cards, flowers, candy, and other gifts in celebration of a person that, for most, is easiest to love. Sentimental memories flood the day and though media we are encouraged to spend, spend, spend, on everything from cards to diamond jewelry.
But what does it mean to Honor? First of all call your mother. I know she has probably told you this before, so do it. But also know that this is part of honoring your mother as a ‘child’ who is traveling has the obligation of keeping his/her parents from worrying by keeping in touch. So what constitutes traveling? Does it matter? In the spirit of this, in my humble opinion, one could say that keeping the parents from worrying, check in from time to time.
Other requirement toward a parent includes not speaking arrogantly to or in away to shame a parent. No one loves hubris. As a parent and former teacher I couldn’t even count the number of times a fourteen or fifteen year old had reminded me or their parents in my presence that they knew so-so much more about the world than we did. If you are of this age, be warned-this feeling will pass. And if you have done this and not been corrected, you should know it because you are surrounded by love and someone with exceedingly more patience that I have. (I was thinking that I have shoes older than you and you should stop!)
Additionally and in the same vain, a child is not allowed to contradict a parent or disturb a their sleep. Obvious emergency situations not withstanding, a fast rule from my daughter’s youth, “Never wake a sleeping adult.” What does it mean to contradict? It is similar to the above mentions speaking arrogantly, but excludes of course any dealing with any wrongdoing. For example, while a child is required to obey their parent-it is within reason. A child is NOT required to do something that would be considered a sin or against Torah. (If this is a little ‘master of the obvious’ please excuse. I want to be sure to include this rather than risk misquoting.) In this vain, a child is also NOT required to marry someone- or not marry someone based on the parent’s preference.
A child is also required to say Kaddish for a parent during the period after they have passed and on the yahrzeit each year that follows. One of my friends has a mother that he never met because she passed away shortly after childbirth. So how does he honor her? The only ways that he can, he continues to say Kaddish for her on her yahrzeit. One can also continue to do charity in memory of a parent and study Torah, as he does. I’ve never seen him miss a Yizkor service. A good model in honoring a parent, if ever one was needed.
The Talmud compares honoring one’s parent to honoring G-d. I would like to honor my own mother with this post. I meant to post it on Mother’s Day, but distracted myself with other things. One of the friends of my youth once said that sometimes the thing that we least want to do is the thing we need to do most. So here it is, better late than never I suppose. In memory of a woman who in my few short years with her influenced me most,in Honor of the person who made me a person.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Passed agreements about Tznius
A “push up” bikini top for girls was recently in the news. Abercrombie and Fitch market the product, and that wouldn’t be so weird if the product were not literally for girls, little girls, starting at around age seven. Ick.
Passed the shock of parents and other concerned groups, shouldn’t Abercrombie and Fitch be asking who, which designer and which marketing wiz thought that this was a reasonable, nay, even good idea? I think the company should take a much, much closer look.
There maybe on going discussions and disagreements about what in particular is appropriate clothing based on any number of variables. But I think at some places in the road, there is common ground. And I think this might be it. Whether we agree with modest dress or not, and passed all arguments of the fault of the media and blaming parents and/or schools in general, I think most of us agree that sexualizing little girls is wrong.
The problem with a product like this according to Professor Gail Dines of Wheelock College is “It gets young girls to think about themselves in sexual ways before that’s developmentally appropriate.” And as if this were not problematic enough, the negative effects are not limited to girls according to Dines, “It sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects, objects of sexual desire for young men.” (WHDH-TV3/25/2011)
First, let me say that I don’t want to give Abercrombie and Fitch any undue press. I think that would only further the insanity. What I would like is a solution or at least an answer. Perhaps parents and others would be willing to contact the company either via email @ https://abercrombie.custhelp.com or by visiting the manager of their local store. It may seem like these small acts do not amount to much, however, people who answer email and who work in stores have to be paid, generally by the hour, and you and twenty other people like you are going to cost the company time and money. If it cost enough money, perhaps they will find that marketing items to sexualize young girls is not only creepy and amoral, but not at all cost effective.
Additionally, since the publicity the company has removed the term “push up” from their website. The product, however, is still listed.
Passed the shock of parents and other concerned groups, shouldn’t Abercrombie and Fitch be asking who, which designer and which marketing wiz thought that this was a reasonable, nay, even good idea? I think the company should take a much, much closer look.
There maybe on going discussions and disagreements about what in particular is appropriate clothing based on any number of variables. But I think at some places in the road, there is common ground. And I think this might be it. Whether we agree with modest dress or not, and passed all arguments of the fault of the media and blaming parents and/or schools in general, I think most of us agree that sexualizing little girls is wrong.
The problem with a product like this according to Professor Gail Dines of Wheelock College is “It gets young girls to think about themselves in sexual ways before that’s developmentally appropriate.” And as if this were not problematic enough, the negative effects are not limited to girls according to Dines, “It sends out really bad signals to adult men about young girls being appropriate sexual objects, objects of sexual desire for young men.” (WHDH-TV3/25/2011)
First, let me say that I don’t want to give Abercrombie and Fitch any undue press. I think that would only further the insanity. What I would like is a solution or at least an answer. Perhaps parents and others would be willing to contact the company either via email @ https://abercrombie.custhelp.com or by visiting the manager of their local store. It may seem like these small acts do not amount to much, however, people who answer email and who work in stores have to be paid, generally by the hour, and you and twenty other people like you are going to cost the company time and money. If it cost enough money, perhaps they will find that marketing items to sexualize young girls is not only creepy and amoral, but not at all cost effective.
Additionally, since the publicity the company has removed the term “push up” from their website. The product, however, is still listed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
