What women's media needs to know about Chasidic women

Are you a Chassidic woman?  Your bio here says you are M. Unless that is your voice in the article please put it in quotes.

It reminds me of the women of other religions who wear modesty apparel of various kinds.

Anyone catch that documentary a few years ago (on the SUnday Edition, I think) about an orthodox woman who took her husband to court to force him to grant a divorce?

I agree with the article in the opening post that it is inexcusable for anyone writing about any religious community to compare them to insects, but particularly Jewish communities, considering how that exact kind of rhetoric was used to describe Jews (as vermin, insects, etc.) during the Holocaust.  You'd think the article writer or the editor would have had the sense not to write such a thing.

I also think that the author from the opening post raises good points about how mainstream white feminists do tend to marginalize women from religious communities and assume they know (and can dictate) what is best for them.

That said, I'm glad that Catchfire posted what he did about and from Deborah Feldman.  I read another article on xojane about Feldman's book, and I support the struggle of women within patriarchal religious movements fighting for reform or to get out or to help others get out if they or their children need or want to.  (Another interesting book along those lines from a decade or two ago is Secret Ceremonies by Deborah Laake, a former Mormon.)

Does this mean that women inside some of these religious groups should be generalized about, assumed to all be forced into their lot in life without choice?  No, of course not.  It's an assumption often made in white, nominally Christian society about Muslim women too.  I also don't believe that all Christian fundamentalist women are forced to be observant either.

And I also think it's good when women from within religious communities who embrace traditional practices explain why the perceptions of those on the outside about certain religious practices may not be what they seem or what mainstream society assumes about them.

That said...I also have a lot of time for dissenters from within religious communities who speak out about abuses they have suffered from within, because when fundamentalist religions oppress some of the people within it, darned if they don't just so happen to usually be women and children.

Here is an interview with Deborah Feldman where she discusses both the personal AND systemic oppression she has written about from within her religious community.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/it-happened-me-fleeing-hasidism-and-living-...

The event that the writer in the opening post (and the article she is refuting) refers to is a 40,000 strong gathering of ultra-orthodox men to hear about the dangers of the internet.  One of the side stories about this gathering that the offending article-writer highlights is that there were a number of Jewish protesters (including Feldman) who showed up to demonstrate about what they claim is a cover up of child sex abuse within the communities and severe intimidation of those within communities who try to report it to the police, or try to help the victims of abuse.  These are people FROM these communities trying to raise awareness and, in many cases, promote change from within, not white mainstream feminists imposing their will from without.

I agree with the writer's surface points in the opening post about how mainstream feminists need to listen to women from religious communities instead of assuming that they know what is best for them.  But that's not all she was doing in that post.  She was also marginalizing dissenters from within her community.  When she does her best to marginalize voices of dissent from the oppressed from within her own community, I think it's a good thing when those voices then come along (in the comment section of her post, and elsewhere) to call her on it.

This is an interesting article on prenuptual contracts that women, including that Congressman's wife, is promoting.

I also found it interesting that there were a number of references in the article to men within the community taking matters into their own hands and even going as far as to use physical violence against men who refuse to give a get. 

But I have to wonder (and just wondering since I have no contact with anyone in one of these traditional communities) how uniform that kind of advocacy is.  For instance, if a woman is well-liked, or if her family has more status, would there be a better chance of a community moblizing behind her than if, for instance, there was a perception that she had "done him wrong", or she wasn't as well-liked, or if she didn't have much family backing? 

Firm laws based on principles of equality seems to me like a safer bet than trying to rely on social capital to get justice, whether in family matters or otherwise.

Michelle, there is a difference between force and coersion.  So yes, it's technically a choice - but the other choice is to lose many near and dear to you, to have to venture out of a comfort zone, to be unsupported in your decision.  It's never as simple as "it's a choice".

In one sense, yes, we need to listen and pay attention and understand that there is a range of experience, as I said above.  But I also think that you have to call a duck a duck.  The system itself is predisposed to discriminate against women - like most religions.

Any system that has to rely on community pressure is flawed and likely inconsistent.  And it still comes down to the man saying yea or nay, leaving the woman's fate out of her own hands.

I remember my father discovering that one of the neighbors was in the habit of smacking his wife.  My father and a couple of his friends put the fear of "peer pressure" into him one night.  I think it was fairly effective in the short term.  However, I think domestic abuse prosecution, real deterrence and a social safety net that allows a woman to leave an abusive situation are much more constructive and long term. 

You could argue that men like my father kept domestic violence under control back in the good old days of patriarchy - but we know that it isn't true, it didn't work in the big picture and that this is probably true of community pressure on men who get to decide whether or not to issue gets to their estranged wives.

Ostracizing and banishment are some of the most coercive types of fundamentalist oppression.  It is a very effect system of control.  The Jehovah Witnesses are ruthless in their application of those communal punishments.  The Puritan leadership used it and the idea of breaking consensus as an offense against community to turn a supposed democracy into an oligarchic government.  Public shaming as an enforcement mechanism has no place in any justice system.

I don't know, NDPP, there really is that difficult juxtaposition between choice and free choice that is one of the hardest things to reconcile within feminism.  Taking on a role that is more traditional and gendered is a choice that some women do make freely, but the thorny question is when is that choice free and when is it coerced?  Chaya obviously has freely chosen, but Feldman felt her circumstances made that choice heavily coerced if not non-existent.  So where's the line?  What can we, as feminists, support or not?  I think that's a good discussion for progressive feminists to have. 

It is typical of fundamentalist religious sects (and other weird sects, such as Scientology) to set up spokespersons to counter any apostates or those simply leaving the fold.

Yes, mighty ignorant to call the Hassidic male enforcers of patriarchal rule "insects" or "vermin". But there are lots of apt terms that have nothing to do with Nazi or earlier anti-semitic epithets, and don't even relate to the fact that it is a sect of Judaism. Fundie patriarchal enforcers has a ring to it, and at certain points the more familiar "goons" might well be appropriate.

These religions and other sects, though they have wildly diverse doctrines (though most, except for a couple of the more "modernist" ones, are very big on enslavement of women and hatred of LGBT people) all seem to share the practice of shunning and shaming. It makes it extremely hard for people questioning the sect in which they were born and raised to leave it, whether economically, socially or psychologically/in terms of affect. Fortunately, with Internet access, at least those sects that use electricity are exposed to other ways of living (not just secular ones but also far less stringent versions of their own religion). I've read reports that there has been a great increase in Hassidim leaving the fold, and now there are organizations to help them.

There have been serious accusations of sexual abuse of minors by prominent members of the Satmar sect. Hell, as a lapsed Catholic, I don't find the idea of Men of God diddling children particularly novel.

One of the key things to do to limit the damage sects can cause to the children of their members is ensure that the course of study and the human rights codes in a given jurisdiction must be respected by all schools. And certainly, no subsidies to any private religious schools that teach the inferiority of women or the perversity of LGBT people.

@ lagatta

That reminds me of a friend of mine who experienced some severe culture shock when she started making contact with some other families in her area who were home schooling. Many of them were doing it in order to shut out contact with the outside world, and make sure that nothing but their dogma was taught to their kids. And of course, there are sects which still favour beating kids.

Again, it gets back to the point of how far can the state go. There are enough jurisdictions where homeschooling is forbidden, though I don't think that would be possible or even advisable here.

And while I think the question of whether one is born into a community or not is significant in some cases. In others, it is not, because negative groups  (not all communities, obviously) work by playing on weaknesses, self-image, and addictions. A family member of mine who got involved with the scientologists did it half as a lark. By the time they were bleeding him dry, and poisoning him with vitamin overdoses and saunas, and pressuring him every time he tried to leave, it was no joke at all.

Of course feminists indict Canadian society for the rape and murder of women and children within it.  We always have.  It's called patriarchy, and we live in it, and feminist analysis has always included an indictment of the rape culture we live in.

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." — Rosa Luxemburg

Mr Tea @#25:

It does seem that Chaya Kurtz is happy with her life.  And that's a good thing - she has obviously made choices that are working for her.

Here's the "but":  You have to acknowledge that Kurtz is coming from a position of relative privelege.  While she and Feldman are or were part of the same cultural/religious group, you will always find subsets within a large group.

Kurtz had access to a post-secondary education.  Feldman did not.  Kurtz has the choice to work outside the home - from what I understand, Feldman's choices were much more circumscribed.  Kurtz chose to embrace Chasidism as an adult, Feldman was raised and conditioned to it and strongly discouraged from leaving it.  It also sounds like Kurtz had more economic security in her youth and in her current life than Feldman did.  Honestly, Kurtz has plenty of reasons to be happy with her life and we shouldn't begrudge her that, but I have to wonder which figure represents the more prevalent experience in a fundamentalist, conservative religious sect.

Also about patriarchy and Chasidism:  Um.  You have read about the rules and regs Chasidic Jews live by, yes?  It is, by its own definition, patriarchal.  Gender roles are clearly divided.  lagatta isn't just "feeling" it's patriarchal, she's calling a duck a duck.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  The debate has never been whether or not the religious system of Chasidism is restrictive to women (even Kurtz acknowledges restrictions) or deeply patriarchal.

Opinion comes in where the debate between Kurtz and Feldman begins - is that patriarchal system a bad thing?  Kurtz says no, Feldman says yes.  Kurtz feels that whatever restrictions have been placed on her as a Chasidic woman are workable and good and she's okay with those because she feels there is a larger benefit to be had.  Feldman disagrees.  And we need to acknowledge that these opinions are informed by *relative* privelege or lack thereof within that system.

It's worth noting that Kurtz's own argument is explicitly from the perspective of a straight cis-woman who seems absolutely comfortable with the notion that sex can wait until after marriage to a man. And that, because it's okay for her, it's okay, period. So that winnows things down, in terms of who'll be comfortable within those confines.

It's also worth noting that this discussion is housed within the feminism forum, yet that is not a word she used to self-describe. In fact, it is only mentioned once:

Quote:

Y'all need "sex-positive Third wave feminism" to help you feel like having sex is OK.

Um. Yeah. Let's talk about sweeping generalizations and distorted portrayals to the point of cartoon when referring to other cultures. Like those lying outside her own are one yummy blend of same, and we're all 30-somethings with a couple years of Women's Studies under our belt.

I agree with you there!  She's claiming the benefits of what we would define as feminism while defending a partriachal system.  Interesting.  I've seen women do this before and had to wonder if the cognitive dissonance wasn't sort of painful.