Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Judaism
S/O Nashim b'mai zachyan
  Previous  1  2  3 12 13  14  15  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother
OP


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:08 pm
amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
I have never seen it this way. While I may have griped more than once about why men have it so much better than ladies (just ask my husband Wink ), I never viewed men as being better. While men and women may have different roles, I've always had the impression that men and women are equally valuable in our religion.


I don't believe that men are better or more valuable. My question is how this jives with the text that indicates that the man's learning is ikar and the woman's role is merely as a support. עזר כנגדו - how much more clearly can that be written?

amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
I can't remember now who the story is about, but there is a story (in the gemara?) of a couple who was giving tzedaka and ran away so the recipient wouldn't see them. They hid inside a hot oven. The man's feet were being burned, but not the woman's. This was because she did tzedaka on a higher level than he did. But this man was a tanna? Amora? I'm sure he learned a lot of Torah! Why was it her schar that protected her and not his? She was obviously on a high level and being rewarded for the good that she did. She was reaching her own potential for her.


I remember that as well but do not remember which Tanna/Amora it was.

Obviously, there are many places in Tanach and in Chazal where women are praised more than men. Their fortitude in מצרים and staunch refusal to participate in חטא העגל are two primary examples. But overall, the texts about women seem to indicate a secondary role.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:21 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Even if it's only referring to nursing women-

a woman is referred to ask a מינקת for 2 years postpartum in halacha. According to the Gemara, as long as a woman was nursing, she did not have to anticipate a flow and keep any of the onos perisha.

Nowadays, LAM attempts notwithstanding, there are many, many women who get their periods within 3 months postpartum despite following the exact instructions. The poster who wrote that is far from the only one. Just type "nursing clean" into Imamother's search bar and you'll see all the different threads about it. Nursing is NOT an effective form of birth control nowadays, even for the first 6 months.

But even if it was for the first 6 months- that is a far cry from a guaranteed 2 years without ovulating.

Again, though, there are rabbonim that hold that a woman can use bc for the first 2 years postpartum, no questions asked, since this used to be the physical reality, regardless of nursing. I don't know what their source is, but they're obviously getting it from somewhere.


Despite personal anecdotal stories, there is clear scientific evidence that nursing according to the LAM rules suppresses ovulation, in general. A respected, mainstream medical professional told me it's 98% effective, which is similar to the pill.

True, there's obviously a difference between 6 months and 2 years. One possible explanation is that LAM is used for purposes of birth control, so in that sense, we're told it's only effective until the baby is 6 months.

In looking at women's bodies in past history, we're not asking about birth control, we're asking what was effective in practice. It doesn't sound like a stretch to me to say that, in a time before bottles and formula, when people were poor and food was not as available today, if babies exclusively breastfed for 2 years, that that would have suppressed ovulation.

In that light, I understood the 2 year heter as based on the fact that mostly, women would not get pregnant within 2 years due to exclusive nursing. I am skeptical that there's been a major change to women's biology that was unconnected with environmental factors in the last few hundred years, but who knows.
Back to top

amother
OP


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:25 pm
Laiya wrote:
Despite personal anecdotal stories, there is clear scientific evidence that nursing according to the LAM rules suppresses ovulation, in general. A respected, mainstream medical professional told me it's 98% effective, which is similar to the pill.


Many well-respected medical professionals will tell you that. They'll also tell you all sorts of other things about birth control that are just not true.

LAM works- until it doesn't. There are so many factors involved that it's impossible to control. For example, a baby that has a strong suck and nurses quickly may very well not provide enough nipple stimulation to produce prolactin and prevent ovulation. The woman could do everything right LAM-wise and ovulate. Yes, it's 98% effective - if everything works well. In practice, it's a lot less than 98% effective. (They never publish the "typical use" statistics for LAM, and I always wonder why.)

amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
True, there's obviously a difference between 6 months and 2 years. One possible explanation is that LAM is used for purposes of birth control, so in that sense, we're told it's only effective until the baby is 6 months.

In looking at women's bodies in past history, we're not asking about birth control, we're asking what was effective in practice. It doesn't sound like a stretch to me to say that, in a time before bottles and formula, when people were poor and food was not as available today, if babies exclusively breastfed for 2 years, that that would have suppressed ovulation.

In that light, I understood the 2 year heter as based on the fact that mostly, women would not get pregnant within 2 years due to exclusive nursing. I am skeptical that there's been a major change to women's biology that was unconnected with environmental factors in the last few hundred years, but who knows.


Any change in biology is going to be because of environmental factors. That does not change the fact that what the Gemara said worked does not work today. It doesn't mean the Gemara was wrong, just that times have changed, and biology has changed.

Epigenetics is a big topic of discussion nowadays.
Back to top

amother
Seafoam


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:25 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
I remember that as well but do not remember which Tanna/Amora it was.

Obviously, there are many places in Tanach and in Chazal where women are praised more than men. Their fortitude in מצרים and staunch refusal to participate in חטא העגל are two primary examples. But overall, the texts about women seem to indicate a secondary role.


Again, I think secondary is how you can choose to view it. Or you can just view it as different.

I honestly don't have answers to all these questions. I wish I did. But I do think that agonizing over them is not helpful for anyone. I plan on doing my best with my job, and I can ask all the questions after 120.

OP - I see that you have questions, but I see that at the end of the day your feet are firmly planted in belief. Keep asking questions if it leads you to satisfaction, but know when you choose to give up digging, for your own sake.
Back to top

amother
OP


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:29 pm
amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
Again, I think secondary is how you can choose to view it. Or you can just view it as different.

I honestly don't have answers to all these questions. I wish I did. But I do think that agonizing over them is not helpful for anyone. I plan on doing my best with my job, and I can ask all the questions after 120.

OP - I see that you have questions, but I see that at the end of the day your feet are firmly planted in belief. Keep asking questions if it leads you to satisfaction, but know when you choose to give up digging, for your own sake.


That's why I said I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. A lot of it depends on where I'm holding emotionally and spiritually.

In my stronger moments, I'm okay with leaving it at "it's a גזירת הכתוב/תיקו/אמונה/הצור תמים פעלו". In my weaker moments, such as when I started this thread, I question, and I am rarely satisfied with answers.

I know that I have quite a bit of power as a woman. It pains me that the rest of the (frum?) world doesn't recognize it.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:32 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
Any change in biology is going to be because of environmental factors. That does not change the fact that what the Gemara said worked does not work today. It doesn't mean the Gemara was wrong, just that times have changed, and biology has changed.

Epigenetics is a big topic of discussion nowadays.


I'm not sure we're disagreeing....
Back to top

amother
Seafoam


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:34 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
That's why I said I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. A lot of it depends on where I'm holding emotionally and spiritually.

In my stronger moments, I'm okay with leaving it at "it's a גזירת הכתוב/תיקו/אמונה/הצור תמים פעלו". In my weaker moments, such as when I started this thread, I question, and I am rarely satisfied with answers.

I know that I have quite a bit of power as a woman. It pains me that the rest of the (frum?) world doesn't recognize it.


Don't let anyone else's ignorance bother you - it's their problem.

I really do think women are the stronger gender. There is no way my husband could manage what I do every day Wink
Back to top

amother
Honeydew


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:40 pm
amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
I can't remember now who the story is about, but there is a story (in the gemara?) of a couple who was giving tzedaka and ran away so the recipient wouldn't see them. They hid inside a hot oven. The man's feet were being burned, but not the woman's. This was because she did tzedaka on a higher level than he did. But this man was a tanna? Amora? I'm sure he learned a lot of Torah! Why was it her schar that protected her and not his? She was obviously on a high level and being rewarded for the good that she did. She was reaching her own potential for her.


I think it was Mar Ukva (and his wife).
Back to top

amother
OP


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:43 pm
amother [ Seafoam ] wrote:
Don't let anyone else's ignorance bother you - it's their problem.

I really do think women are the stronger gender. There is no way my husband could manage what I do every day Wink


But that's another thing that bothers me - the enormous amount of pressure placed upon women, and the nonexistent recognition that what we do is impossible!
Back to top

amother
OP


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:43 pm
amother [ Honeydew ] wrote:
I think it was Mar Ukva (and his wife).


It was indeed. Thank you.
Back to top

eschaya




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:54 pm
Coming into this discussion late here, so just going to make a few random points related to many of the previous topics on this thread:
- Regarding women being emotional. Yes, women are more emotional... when it comes to the emotions we (ie men) use to describe emotionality. Yet there are many male "emotions" that can be VERY important in decision making and that can detract from impartiality and rationality. Think anger, aggression, s-xuality, jealousness, apathy. I hate the argument that men are more logical and therefore make neutral decisions. How many wars have been started due to jealousy or anger? How many car accidents due to aggression?
- Male babies are known to be weaker than female babies. It's a real thing. (white babies are also weaker than black babies)
- For years it was assumed that women cannot become doctors because they could not handle the intellectual challenge, but also because they might become too emotionally attached and be unable to make risky decisions or order treatments that could hurt patients. Yah, not true. Now more than 50% of medical students and graduating physicians are female. And care has only improved. Years ago people thought women shouldn't drive because they lack the reflexes to be safe drivers. Well this too is proven false. Men have a higher rate of accidents, ticketing, aggressive driving, and fatalities. They also said that women couldn't fly planes. Or do science. Society - and frum society especially - has made lots of assumptions about women, based on the realities of their times, that are false. Not saying there aren't differences between men and women. But we need to reevaluate our assumptions every so often.
- I've had issues with this topic for years. We (dh and I) spoke to a chashuv rav about this years ago. He said that it is NOT apikorsus for me to say that Chazal were products of their times. He said that if chazal were codifying gemarah today, many of the statements about women would be VERY different. Chazal were great humans. Read the "human" part of the statement. Torah was given into the hands of humans. Who are by definition fallible.
- Like you OP, I am pained by the small box and meager, narrow role women are placed into in Torah Judaism. But I also appreciate being able to live in a day and time when I have the option of exploring roles and opportunities outside my religious sphere, without compromising my religion. I've sadly had to let much of my exploration and growth in Judaism lapse so that my resentment and hurt can fade and become buried by the ample good in my life. I try to avoid those "weaker moments" because I know the answers will not satisfy. I wait for mashiach when we will hopefully get better answers and the bigger picture. And the schar of believing and keeping it all in spite of the questions.
Back to top

amother
Seafoam


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 8:57 pm
amother [ OP ] wrote:
But that's another thing that bothers me - the enormous amount of pressure placed upon women, and the nonexistent recognition that what we do is impossible!


In a way, I think our lack of appreciation adds to our greatness. Men get to do what they do with lots of recognition. I think we are extra special because we do what we do without necessarily being appreciated.
Back to top

daagahminayin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 9:37 pm
JoyInTheMorning wrote:
I don't know anyone who can read the chicken-slaughtering-blood-dripping remedy for migraines/headaches that I quoted from Gittin 69a yesterday, and seriously think that this applies today in the same way that hilchot niddah or hilchot shofar apply today.


Nishtaneh hatevah - our chickens are different today.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 9:51 pm
daagahminayin wrote:
Nishtaneh hatevah - our chickens are different today.


Let's assume nature has changed totally. The chickens have changed. Our cycles have changed.

I can accept that.

But if nature has changed, then our inner natures have also changed. Today's women are not the women of a bygone era (neither are the men).

So why is halacha not flexible in a manner that recognizes this? Why have we canonized the sages (who wrote of a 'different nature'), in a way that freezes halacha?
Back to top

daagahminayin




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Sep 24 2019, 10:00 pm
I was being tongue in cheek. I think Rabbi Yoel Bin Nun said something along the same lines as you, that the category of “nashim” nowadays is different than what it was in chazal’s time, and that this has implications for halacha.
Back to top

amother
Aquamarine


 

Post Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:34 am
amother [ Black ] wrote:
Let's assume nature has changed totally. The chickens have changed. Our cycles have changed.

I can accept that.

But if nature has changed, then our inner natures have also changed. Today's women are not the women of a bygone era (neither are the men).

So why is halacha not flexible in a manner that recognizes this? Why have we canonized the sages (who wrote of a 'different nature'), in a way that freezes halacha?

Sorry but we can’t say the people changed ! We have x-rays and DNA of the bodies from different eras, we have many historical accounts of lives of many people.
Yes, if the nature has changed then we have to change the Halacha too Smile
But the nature didn’t changed ! We have many historical descriptions and accounts , not only the Talmud. So believe in Talmud only (I mean the historical and description of nature parts ) is illogical when it totally contradicts our knowledge, I mean really proven knowledge how things work and many other historical accounts.
Spontaneous creation for the flies, it’s like HaShem created a huge miracle every time when a fly was born before . Totally illogical. And why is it suddenly stopped for no reason? Now we know how this all this process works , we know about DNA, we know about eggs etc.
Also Chazal didn’t know even that a woman has egg and that her womb is not only a receptacle of the man’s sperm . Please be logical, it could not have changed since then ! We have too many scientific evidence to the contrary.
Chazal were very knowledgeable for their time and used the most advanced science in their time . We know that many of things that they mentioned in Talmud were taken from the Roman or Babylonian science of their time. But the Roman experiments were wrong, they didn’t used the tools that we use today and had wrong ideas to begin with.
Back to top

IrenaFr




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:37 am
amother [ OP ] wrote:
A simple example of women's biology changing:

In the not-too-distant past, women used to get natural breaks between babies. They would not ovulate until 2 years postpartum, regardless of whether or not they were nursing. That is clearly not the case nowadays.

When ??? We have so many historical accounts of lives of queens in Europe , they for sure had babies every year . Of course they didn’t nurse .
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Sep 25 2019, 8:40 am
I haven’t read all the recent comments — has anyone mentioned the whole “men used to have two separate openings” idea?

You deny evolution but sure, a measly 1000 years ago men had drastically different physiology 😂
Back to top

daagahminayin




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Sep 25 2019, 9:15 am
I understand “nishtaneh hateva” as a non-literal, diplomatic concept that allows Halacha to develop and adjust to the times. A euphemism of sorts that enables poskim to acknowledge that beliefs about the world have changed since the time of chazal without accusing them of being mistaken.
Back to top

amother
Cerise


 

Post Wed, Sep 25 2019, 9:54 am
sequoia wrote:
I haven’t read all the recent comments — has anyone mentioned the whole “men used to have two separate openings” idea?

You deny evolution but sure, a measly 1000 years ago men had drastically different physiology 😂



Maybe I missed it- Does anyone deny evolution these days? (or on this thread?)
Back to top
Page 13 of 15   Previous  1  2  3 12 13  14  15  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Judaism

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Nashim Tzidkaniyot 🌸 2 Mon, Jan 01 2024, 6:23 am View last post