Rebbetzin Tziporah Hellers view on feminism

yo'ma

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 9:35 am

Someone asked a question on aish.com. I thought it was very nice and wanted to share. Any thoughts?

Quote:

Feminism
I grew up in the era of feminism, and while I am thrilled at the vistas of opportunity it opened up for me and so many others, I have grown somewhat disenchanted after having seen so much negative fall-out: the rise in media exploitation of women, and the break-down of the American family. What does traditional Judaism say about this trade-off?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Tziporah Heller, a popular Torah teacher in Jerusalem, writes:

The feminist movement stemmed from women feeling disempowered. Men clearly controlled (and still control) the reins of power in the political, financial and judicial spheres, which determine most of the obvious facets of personal and societal existence. Thus, a primary goal of the women's movement has been to demand a share in this power through equal pay and equal employment opportunities.

Power, in essence, is the ability to effect change. If women have financial clout or high political or business positions, it is thought, then they too can determine the changes that will affect their lives and the lives of others.

But the feminist movement has failed to recognize another, more subtle form of power: internal power -- the ability to affect other people's ethics and values. While external power may procure a high corporate position, internal power will determine whether that corporate executive will be honest or embezzle.

Women's quest for external power has left a frightening vacuum in Western society in the area of moral training, where women formerly held sway. Rampant crime, child abuse, kidnapping, and the dramatic rise in violence against women are symptoms of a society gone amok, where many people have no concept of right and wrong, of honesty, fairness, compassion or self-control.

Today's internal decadence is eroding the quality of life in America as fast as external political and technological advances are improving it.

Clearly, the lot of women cannot be improved by political and financial progress if the inner dimension of society -- its morals and compassion -- is neglected by the very people who have traditionally been its custodians: women.

A typical male analysis of such societal problems customarily blames them on external factors, e.g., low income families in impoverished neighborhoods inevitably leads to a high rate of violent crime, substance abuse, etc.

If this were true, then Jerusalem's religious neighborhood of Mea Shearim, which has one of the highest poverty rates in Israel and where families typically number seven to ten children in a three-room flat, should be a hotbed of violent crime. Instead, Mea Shearim has virtually no violent crime and very little substance abuse, this despite the total absence of policemen on its streets.

A materialistic society, one which recognizes only that which can be counted and measured (income, titles, degrees, etc.), is bound to discount the imponderables such as compassion, courage, and selflessness, which ultimately determine the fiber of its citizens.

Ultimately, the people who have had the most significant effect on who you are today are not the President of the United States and the Chief Executive Officer of Bank of America, but your parents, teachers, and childhood role models -- the people who influenced your internal development. The wielding of internal power, while rarely accompanied by impressive titles or salaries, has a deeper, longer-lasting effect than the external power maneuvers of those who dominate the nightly news.

Women are the most proficient wielders of internal power because of their preponderance of insight, the intellectual vehicle of entering the very heart, mind, and soul of the other person. Insight accounts for mothers usually being able to understand the differences in their children more readily than fathers; for women historically being the pioneers in establishing orphanages, mental hospitals, and homes for the developmentally challenged; and for the no doubt accurate feminist claim that if women ran the world there would be fewer wars. The ability to view events in terms of their human cost rather than their political ramifications derives from insight.

The Bible is full of accounts of great women whose exercise of internal power had decisive effects on Jewish history.

Sarah understood the negative moral impact of Ishmael's example on Isaac. She insisted that he be sent out of the household, which Abraham could not bring himself to do until God emphatically told him, "In all that Sarah says to you, hearken unto her voice." Commentaries on this verse state that Sarah was a greater prophet than Abraham, for she could see the long-range moral corruption that could jeopardize future generations of the Jewish people through exposure to a violent and ruthless example at a formative stage.

The sages of the Talmud (that portion of Jewish law that was originally oral but is now written) credited the redemption from Egypt to the merit of the "righteous women," who, against the judgment of their husbands, saw that they must continue to procreate despite Pharaoh's death sentence on all Jewish male babies. In all these delicate situations, the women's ability to perceive the reality of a person or situation determined the course of Jewish history.

Thus, defined Judaically, the issue is not whether women should or should not have power, but rather on the kind of power on which they should concentrate, both for their individual development as well as for the good of the whole society.

aish.com

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:00 am

yo'ma wrote:

Women's quest for external power has left a frightening vacuum in Western society in the area of moral training, where women formerly held sway. Rampant crime, child abuse, kidnapping, and the dramatic rise in violence against women are symptoms of a society gone amok, where many people have no concept of right and wrong, of honesty, fairness, compassion or self-control.

So feminism is to blame for violence against women, among all the other evils in society? Oy...this is why we need feminism!

sourstix

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:28 am

So she basically says, that women should stay home to raise their kids, so they will have good morals?

But she also says th at role models are also good.....

I'm somewhat confused by this article.

treestump

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:36 am

Quote:

If this were true, then Jerusalem's religious neighborhood of Mea Shearim, which has one of the highest poverty rates in Israel and where families typically number seven to ten children in a three-room flat, should be a hotbed of violent crime. Instead, Mea Shearim has virtually no violent crime and very little substance abuse, this despite the total absence of policemen on its streets.

This is false. Has anyone seen footage of the riots that happen way too often in Meah Shearim? The way many people in Meah Shearim will beat up frum men because they're in uniform?

Anyone here has had the experience of having bleach thrown at them because some people in Meah Shearim decided they weren't dressed modestly? Some of my friends experienced that in seminary - in their long pleated skirts, button down shirts and sweaters.

What about the ones who sometimes puncture Arab taxi drivers tires, just for fun?

Obviously there are upstanding people in Meah Shearim too. But there is no lack of violent crime.

As for the claim that feminism caused a rise in crime, that is so ludicrous I won't bother responding to those allegations.

I'm saying this as someone who deeply respects Rebbetzin Heller's wisdom and approach to life and fusing meforshim to make her own unique approach. But this response left me scratching my head.

Last edited by treestump on Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total

tigerwife

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:36 am

I agree with her that women's strengths are severely underestimated in today's society. Yes, we can do everything man can do... and more.

Aylat

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:41 am

sourstix wrote:

So she basically says, that women should stay home to raise their kids, so they will have good morals?

But she also says th at role models are also good.....

I'm somewhat confused by this article.

Where do you see her saying this?
We aspire to be our children's role models amd instil them with morals. That is our first priority, before becoming a CEO etc. But that says nothing about being an SAHM or going out to work.

sushilover

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 11:46 am

It's an interesting theory, but the stats don't seem to prove it.

2015 homicide rates were almost identical to 1950.

I'd be interested in knowing the rates for other violent crimes...

amother

Seafoam

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:15 pm

sushilover wrote:

It's an interesting theory, but the stats don't seem to prove it.

2015 homicide rates were almost identical to 1950.

I'd be interested in knowing the rates for other violent crimes...

Medical care has gotten better, so people who would have died of gunshot wounds are more likely to live. That cuts the murder rate.

You're right, seeing the rates for violent crimes as a whole would be more instructive.

Because we all know that there have been no other changes in society, other than women entering the work force.

dancingqueen

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:27 pm

Some of the regions that have the worst violence against women - parts of Africa and the Middle East - have very little in the way of feminism. In fact, its quite the opposite.

amother

Natural

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:34 pm

sushilover wrote:

It's an interesting theory, but the stats don't seem to prove it.

2015 homicide rates were almost identical to 1950.

I'd be interested in knowing the rates for other violent crimes...

According to the Freakonomics authors, the most important factor in the reduction of crime was the legalization of abortion. THAT was an interesting theory, with numbers as evidence, but their conclusion is obviously controversial.

I don't recall learning that the Biblical era was crime free, nor any era since.

I have my own hypothesis. Men who disrespect women will not be changed by female influence in adulthood. In any event, if disrespect for women goes back to mommy issues, it sort of disproves the notion of women being the nurturing moral center of society.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings."

sushilover

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:53 pm

treestump wrote:

Quote:

The crime in Mea Shearim is not comparable to other areas with similar levels of poverty. Rebbetzin Heller is not saying that there is 0% crime.
She is saying that a strong home environment is more important than wealth when it comes to raising moral children.

amother

Natural

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:58 pm

sushilover wrote:

How does she prove that feminism led to weaker home environment? Rise in divorce rate?

I think it's a circular problem. More women leaving unhealthy marriages is a good thing. They would not be raising moral children with abusers or in otherwise miserable conditions.

treestump

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 12:58 pm

sushilover wrote:

No, what Rebbetzin Heller said was,

"Mea Shearim has virtually no violent crime."

Which is demonstrably false.

We can interpret what she meant to say with this, but using false facts to build your case doesn't work.

sushilover

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 1:24 pm

amother wrote:

Good points

Fox

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 1:27 pm

The biggest problem with this discussion is that virtually all of us will bring a different defintion of "feminism" to the table.

To some of us, calling oneself a feminist means supporting equity in pay and opportunities; promoting efforts to discourage s-xual harassment, s-xual assault, and domestic violence; encouraging kids to explore interests and hobbies outside of gender expectations, etc.

To others, "feminism" means advocating theories of intersectionality; Derrida, Foucalt, and deconstruction theory; and apologies for "raunch culture."

I don't believe that Rebbetzin Heller is attempting to draw a straight line between equity feminism and increased violence. Rather, her point is that social breakdown is highly correlated with changes in family structure that have been championed by feminists.

No matter what yardstick you want to use, children born out-of-wedlock fare worse than those born to married parents. They fare worse than children from divorced homes. In fact, your chances of experiencing long-term poverty in America are vitually nil if you (a) wait until you're married to have kids; (b) finish high school -- even a lousy high school; and (c) get a job -- any job -- by your late teens.

Certainly, to some extent, feminists have promoted and glamorized choices that are disastrous for women and children. Some of you may remember the outrage when the hapless VP Dan Quayle criticized TV character Murphy Brown for having a child outside of marriage.

The deeper criticism implicit in Rebbetzin Heller's comment is that the feminist movement had a choice after its initial victories for equity feminism.

One direction would have focused on identifying, promoting, and appreciating "feminine" qualities while simultaneously educating and advocating that anyone could exhibit those qualities, no matter his/her gender.

The other direction -- and the one which feminism chose -- was to subtly denigrate "feminine" qualities and hold up traditionally "masculine" qualities as the goal toward which everyone should strive. This is the root of the "mommy wars" and Hillary Clinton's famous response that she "could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" but chose instead to work in her profession.

Choosing that direction was, IMHO, a huge mistake that will haunt us for many generations. Feminism bet the house on the goal of completely eliminating gender characteristics and roles based on those characteristics. That has failed miserably, as almost anyone with a toddler can attest. Thus, we are left with a dominant culture where the very qualities women typically bring to the table are treated as a joke and where men are often the punchline. And that's not a situation that leads to a strong society or successful families.

amother

Natural

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 1:46 pm

Fox wrote:

There have been other feminist movements besides the ones you mention, specifically a "takeback" of femininity in the third wave (such as "girl power" "yay look at all the great things only we as women can do"), and what some are calling the current fourth wave (it's about gender equality, family leave) often without using the F word at all.

ora_43

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 1:52 pm

ITA with Fox.

I see her answer as criticizing modern feminism without rejecting it.

I don't like the wording that falls into blaming feminism for crime, or the historic revisionism.

But the overall message I more or less agree with. Yes to feminism as in, giving women the same opportunities as men, no to "feminism" that rejects the feminine by seeing care-taking and emotion-focused roles as inferior to intellect-focused roles.

(and yes, that's not the only kind of feminism. in fact some has gone too far in the other direction IMO, by elevating what's seen as "feminine" too far... but I saw it as a response re: the shallow mainstream view of feminism, not the deeper philosophies that aren't known as well)

Tablepoetry

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 2:02 pm

Fox I think it is a mistake to confuse different kinds of single moms.
There are single moms on welfare, uneducated, struggling. Those are the single moms who make up most of the bleak statistics you quote. It's not a lifestyle feminism ever celebrated.
On the other hand the feminist movement did encourage educated career women to have kids if they want, regardless of their marital status.
There is a huge socio-economic difference between this group and the welfare moms. I am pretty sure that the socio-economic gap is more influential than the difference between married or not.

Fox

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 7:16 pm

Tablepoetry wrote:

I'm sure you're correct, but there's no real way to know. Why? Because highly-educated, high-income women have largely rejected the idea of single motherhood. The number of women in that category who bear children outside of marriage is statistically negligible.

In other words, the most successful women in society have categorically rejected the idea that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" -- at least when it comes to bearing and rearing children.

Given the recent events at Middlebury College, I would again recommend Charles Murray's Coming Apart. He makes a compelling case that American society is increasingly being divided not by race, but by socio-economic status, and that socio-economic status is highly predicated on certain behaviors or lack thereof. One of the most important of these is being married before having children. Others include religiosity and the expectation that men should support their families.

Again, there's no direct line between any of these societal changes and feminism, just the observation that the women who are most successful consistently reject putting into practice many of the ideas advanced by post-equity feminism.

amother wrote:

The problem with the "girl power" model is that it attempts to please everyone and therefore pleases no one. "Girly" feminism has tended to focus on the message that you can enjoy makeup and still be a feminist; you can be a CEO during the day and still have fun baking cookies with your kids.

Granted, that's better than saying, "feminists can't wear makeup" and "baking cookies is worthless," but only a little. It deliberately avoids making the case that makeup and cookies might be good things in and of themselves -- not as add-ons to a life fulfilled through traditionally masculine activities.

Whether the more practically oriented fourth wave feminism catches on will depend on whether the intersectionality womyn can share a movement with married white moms who work at high-prestige jobs. I'm not personally hopeful, but you never know.

Tablepoetry

Sun, Mar 05 2017, 10:34 pm

If I recall correctly, Murphy Brown was a successful career woman, so your example wouldn't fit the stereotype of the struggling single mom.

In any case, socio-economic success today, by and large, rests on both spouses working, so it really has nothing to do with going back to traditional norms. The study Fox quoted says it dependson men taking responsibility for supporting. Of course it does, but today most women need to support too.

In any case, I really dont think the responsibility for today's family structure lies wholly with feminism. Other forces worked to break down the status of traditional marriage, such as focus on the individual above the collective/se@ual freedom/financial forces/etc.