Escaping My Religion Leah Vincent on the Katie Couric Show

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 10:48 am

sequoia wrote:

Because it's outside of the norm. If I didn't grow up frum, and if my parents were abusive, am I going to point to that as an indictment of the secular world? Of course not. Because "secular" is nonspecific.

But IF someone is a terrible parent AND they are part of a specific, unusual, identifiable group (nudists, Mormons, chassidim, people obsessed with Homer and Virgil), then the dysfunction is blamed partly on their group.

It's not just that they are part of the group. But when the dysfunction is explained as characteristic to that group, such as when certain behaviors are defended as something which is the "proper torah approach" then it seems entirely appropriate to indict the group as a whole.

If you think about it, it's kind of ironic, because if certain frum groups wouldn't feel a need to claim that everything they do is sourced in the Torah or by guidance of their rabbonim (who have da'as torah), then it would indeed make sense for any criticism to not go past the individuals who are acting wrongly. But as soon as it is becomes "the torah way" then it's no longer just a lone individual, it's now endemic to those who subscribe to that "torah way".

And true, just because a person claims to be acting in the name of Torah doesn't mean s/he really is, but if the rest of the "Torah community" doesn't correct that perception, we can't blame people for thinking that this behavior is indeed commonly accepted.

esther09

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 10:59 am

EmesOrNT wrote:

A lot of girls are sent away to seminary during High School when they rebel.

To me that seems like a problem in and of itself.

anotherima

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 10:59 am

I don't know if everything Leah says is true, but I believe her pain is very real.
It would be interesting if her parents were interviewed as well!

sarachana

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:04 am

what made me so sad when watching this, was that had she been shown that you CAN be frum and still go to collage she may not of ended up "throwing out the baby with the bathwater"...

It wasnt until the end when they showed her in pants that I realized she really had thrown everything away. It must of been so incredibly painful since she seems to me like a very savvy and intelligent women!

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:06 am

sarachana wrote:

I agree with your overall point, but want to point out that many halachically observant women wear pants. Assuming that a pants wearing woman isn't frum is very mistaken.

sequoia

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:12 am

Pants? Seriously?

I don't wear them because it's not accepted around here, but it says nothing about a person's observance or lack thereof.

Better than shaitel and bikini cause, oh, there are no Jews (read: my acquaintances) around.

rainbow dash

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:13 am

mirisim wrote:

She says she was 16 when she went to seminary in Israel.. when I was in seminary the only 16 year old girl was European and she was a minority. Most seminaries don't want girls that young, I know girls who were really young because they skipped and were told to wait a year. I know at neve u have to be at least 19 ....so her story seems a little off to me

I was 17 when I went to Neve

sarachana

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:13 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

sarachana wrote:

I agree with your overall point, but want to point out that many halachically observant women wear pants. Assuming that a pants wearing woman isn't frum is very mistaken.

good point! I didn't think of that! but then I also read some of her articles....
I dont want to come across as judgemental...but it does seem like she no longer sees the mitzvos as necessary to be jewish.

b from nj

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:14 am

anotherima wrote:

I don't know if everything Leah says is true, but I believe her pain is very real.
It would be interesting if her parents were interviewed as well!

Sadly enough, it sounded believable to me although of course there are 2 sides to every story.

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:27 am

sarachana wrote:

I dont want to come across as judgemental...but it does seem like she no longer sees the mitzvos as necessary to be jewish.

That's correct. Based on everything I've been able to gather, she's currently not at all mitzva observant in any way. Acknowledging that is not judgemental. (Saying she's a bad person for not being frum would be judgemental.)

m in Israel

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 11:34 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

sarachana wrote:

I dont want to come across as judgemental...but it does seem like she no longer sees the mitzvos as necessary to be jewish.

At the end of the second clip when she is asked if she "still considers herself Jewish", she clearly states that she is not at all religious but certainly considers herself "culturally Jewish". She did not say she is not "ultra-Orthodox" -- she said she is not at all religious. So I think it is safe to assume that she is not mitzvah observant in any way. Of course she is completely correct in that one's Jewishness in not determined by mitvah observance. Anyone born to a Jewish mother or converted according to Halacha is a Jew, no matter what that person does.

anotherima

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 12:17 pm

rainbow dash wrote:

mirisim wrote:

I was 17 when I went to Neve

I was also seventeen when I went to Neve but perhaps they changed the rules.

b from nj

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 12:41 pm

anotherima wrote:

rainbow dash wrote:

mirisim wrote:

I was 17 when I went to Neve

I was also seventeen when I went to Neve but perhaps they changed the rules.

We have no idea which seminary Leah went to...

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 12:45 pm

b from nj wrote:

anotherima wrote:

rainbow dash wrote:

mirisim wrote:

I was 17 when I went to Neve

I was also seventeen when I went to Neve but perhaps they changed the rules.

We have no idea which seminary Leah went to...

What difference does it make? The incidents she related weren't even about her seminary.

Fox

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 12:51 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Fox wrote:

I don't know of any rav who is currently counseling parents to kick their teenagers out their homes unless there is a great deal more to the story (e.g., abusing or manipulating younger siblings). And even in cases where it's determined that the teenager would do better away from home, everyone goes into overdrive to find an appropriate school, boarding situation, etc.

Allow me to introduce you. In a recent Mishpacha magazine, a prominent Bais Yakov principal advocated kicking out kids who don't behave properly. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/145124935/.

the article wrote:

A rebellious child does not belong in our home until he at least tries to conform and change his actions. He must know that certain actions that cross a "red line" will leave him isolated in a way that his friends won't be able to help him through.

Huh? It's impossible to know precisely what the author means here, but under any circumstances, this is not an article of practical advice -- it's more a reflection on the general zeitgeist of our times.

If you want to argue that too many people get their world view from Mishpacha and the like, well, I'm with you on that. My DH finally, finally got me to agree to allowing Hamodia in the house -- and I'm not terribly happy with the decision.

I'm also all in on the premise that prominent Bais Yaakov principals may be great for advice on school administration but that's not the same as providing chinuch to one's own child.

All that said, I have never heard of such a case. Even the more extreme cases involved a mutual, as-respectful-as-possible decision for the teenager to live elsewhere.

BlueRose52 wrote:

In fact, Rabbi Horowitz even wrote a column addressing this issue years ago. Where do you think these parents are getting this idea from to kick out their kids?

Well, clearly not from Rabbi Horowitz! He seems to argue against it in general.

BlueRose52 wrote:

Fox wrote:

I have no doubt that there are small enclaves or crazy rabbonim who advocate horrible things. I have no doubt that there are certain kehillas that tolerate far less individuality than others. I have no doubt that there are well-meaning rabbonim and rebbetzins who simply get it wrong in general or in particular cases.

So why discount that the people telling these stories aren't from these communities?

Now just hold on! Who is "discounting" anyone's story? However people might haggle over the details of an individual's story, I have no doubt that there are plenty of people in our communities who suffer directly as a result of ignorance, shallowness, and just general stupidity on the part of those communities.

Heck, I've suffered plenty myself!

But that's true of everyone, everywhere. My life and work experience have brought me into contact with enough different types of people and communities to know that there is no free lunch anywhere. The fact that you happen to be less bothered by certain values or norms in Community A doesn't mean that everyone feels the same. I can guarantee you that a certain percentage of people find Community A just as intolerable as you might find Community B.

BlueRose52 wrote:

Fox wrote:

But the high level of drama that these stories always involve points far more to bad parenting (and probably parents with their own issues!) than comprehensive indictments of the frum world.

I would tend to agree that these stories do reflect a lot of bad parenting, but I don't think it happens in a vacuum. I think it needs to be acknowledged that much of what is taught in frum society enables these bad parents.

Okay -- we should be more concerned about helping people become good parents. Again, I'm with you on that. Sadly, the people who need the help most are generally the ones least willing to accept the help.

My reaction to these stories is not disbelief -- it's boredom. Yes. We've got it. Frum life is demanding. Combine that with other problems, and it may be unlivable. Frum people can be shallow, hypocritical, and foolish. Yup, I think we're all in agreement. All this has been said and done long ago. If someone wants to publicize her story, I have no problem with it. But it doesn't mean that I can stifle my yawn, either.

b from nj

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 12:52 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

b from nj wrote:

anotherima wrote:

rainbow dash wrote:

mirisim wrote:

I was 17 when I went to Neve

I was also seventeen when I went to Neve but perhaps they changed the rules.

We have no idea which seminary Leah went to...

What difference does it make? The incidents she related weren't even about her seminary.

It makes no difference but as long as ppl. were discussing it & doubting whether or not a 16 year old could really be admitted into seminary, I just figured I'd just mention that b/c as I've mentioned above, although this story pains me greatly, I DO believe everything that Leah mentioned in the interview.

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 1:43 pm

Fox wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

Fox wrote:

Allow me to introduce you. In a recent Mishpacha magazine, a prominent Bais Yakov principal advocated kicking out kids who don't behave properly. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/145124935/.

the article wrote:

Um... I think it's pretty clear what he means. What exactly was ambiguous to you?

Fox wrote:

If you want to argue that too many people get their world view from Mishpacha and the like, well, I'm with you on that. My DH finally, finally got me to agree to allowing Hamodia in the house -- and I'm not terribly happy with the decision.

No, I'd argue that too many people get their worldview from rabbonim and rabbeim like this man. Weekly magazines only give these figures a broader audience. But the problem is with rabbinic figures who espouse such views. And sadly, they aren't uncommon. Rabbi Horowitz seems to be a lone voice of reason and level-headedness in a world of growing extremism and intolerance.

Getting back to the original point, I think this demonstrates quite well that it's not quite accurate to discount the approach of kicking a misbehaving kid out of the home as not at all a normative yeshivish approach. It might not be common, but clearly it's an acceptable approach.

lkwdmommy

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 2:01 pm

See a follow up on Cross Currents on this issue. There he explains what he meant. (FTR, when a column is edited for space, sometimes a crucial sentence is deleted, and that causes misunderstandings in the final version.)

He did not say that one should always kick a misbehaving child out of one's house. All he was saying that there needs to be a limit on what is accepted in a home and when a child's behavior crosses certain lines (eg. behaving abusively towards his parents), he may need to be removed. One can even hold an OTD child accountable for his actions.

And, BTW, this Rabbi is not a fire breathing fanatic. He is an open minded, level-headed, very experienced mechanech.

yogabird

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 2:14 pm

What constitutes a kid abusing their parents? I never even knew such a thing could exist.

BlueRose52

Wed, Jun 05 2013, 2:15 pm

lkwdmommy wrote:

See a follow up on Cross Currents on this issue. There he explains what he meant. (FTR, when a column is edited for space, sometimes a crucial sentence is deleted, and that causes misunderstandings in the final version.)

HE did not say that one should always kick a misbehaving child out of one's house. All he was saying that there needs to be a limit on what is accepted in a home and when a child's behavior crosses certain lines (eg. behaving abusively towards his parents), he may need to be removed. One can even hold an OTD child accountable for his actions.

I saw that CC piece, but it seems quite obvious to me (and others who I discussed it with) that that CC follow-up is pure spin control. Do you really find it believable that the sentence, "A rebellious child does not belong in our home until he at least tries to conform and change his actions," refers to a kid being abusive to parents? That he wrote an article addressing a mainstream problem but intending it to refer to only a rare exceptional situation? And yet never felt it necessary to mention those specific situations?

Still, the fact that he wrote this is actually a good sign. That enough people were bothered by his words that it compelled him to slightly retract them is promising. But I don't believe for a second that he meant these special cases when he first wrote it.