8 ms·
Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan
- microcolonel 7y agoOkay, you have your copyright. The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, so if you're not willing to follow those strictures, you're just not part of the same group. No harm, no foul. If you don't want to cut your son's genitals, you'll also not be welcome in the same way. Edit: to be clear, I agree with the way that Deborah resolved this issue. But I'm just not sure how she could take offense, but continue to follow all the other common orthodox Jewish rules/interpretations on the basis that she hasn't personally been offended by them. It seems like a bit of a shallow way to decide what rules are appropriate.
- exelius 7y agoIt’s pretty clear the author is Orthodox, so this is within her community. That said, many forms of Orthodox Judaism aren’t far off from what we would call “radical Islam” when it comes to their views on women (they don’t wear an abaya, but many wear wigs and full-body covering).
- esarbe 7y agoWhy is this downvoted? Seems pretty much on the spot.
- eddieroger 7y agoBecause the author writes that her synagogue is a member of the Conservative movement, which is not the same as the Orthodox movement? It's not so much "pretty clear" as it is "wrong."
- esarbe 7y agoAh, thanks for clarifying! I'm not familiar with the many facets of religion, so thanks for the help?
- Geeek 7y agoShe is not, she clearly identifies herself as part of Conservative Judaism.
- exelius 7y agoYeah, exactly. I have more than one (female) Orthodox friend and they’re constantly having to stand up to elders within their own communities for respect. The older generations still believe women shouldn’t work.
- microcolonel 7y agoDisagreement with orthodoxy is heterodox. You can't be orthodox and heterodox at the same time, that makes no sense.
- true_religion 7y agoYou can be mostly orthodox except for one practice. Absolutism is hard.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lazerwalker 7y agoYou say the phrase "exact strictures of the religion", as if there aren't an untold number of different ways to interpret a set of religious texts that are in many places explicitly and intentionally ambiguous.
- microcolonel 7y agoI said strictures, not scriptures. They don't need to read any scripture again to know the rule about women's names they seem to be employing. It is a very, very common rule that certain groups of Jews follow, and they don't need to justify it with an interpretation of scripture every time.
- lazerwalker 7y agoYes, but you also described it as the strictures of "the religion", as if there is a single monolithic Judaism that universally follows that rule. She disagrees with the way they operate; she doesn't need to justify herself either. They were able to come to a satisfactory business agreement regardless. I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism, when in fact the specific thing she's disagreeing with isn't a universal part of the religion.
- microcolonel 7y ago> Yes, but you also described it as the strictures of "the religion", as if there is a single monolithic Judaism that universally follows that rule. I don't see why this has to degrade to an argument of semantics, but here we go. Just as if we were talking about Hokkien, we could talk about "the language" Hokkien, despite the fact that you could say "the language" and mean Chinese (which may include Hokkien) in some other context. Right now we're talking about this specific publication's circle of association. They clearly have different religious rules than Deborah, but she is still Jewish. > I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism She is, in relative terms, more of an outsider to this specific publication's Judaism than somebody who would agree with their first offer (assuming they still hold the view that their first offer was preferable).
- Geeek 7y agoAs someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.
- mikorym 7y agoI think the point of the article is that taking away someone's identity because she happens to be a woman is something that she has the right to oppose, especially if she is that woman. Also, they were dishonest. Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.
- Geeek 7y agoSo again, is she trying to bring awareness? Is she trying to show how she morally disagreed with something and then...nothing happened? I am no longer Hasidic and I absolutely side with her stance regarding the name used but I still do not understand the point of the article.
- lazerwalker 7y agoI mean, this is a short blog post on her personal blog, right? I don't know if there's that much more to it than "here's an interesting story that happened to me, including being happy to tell you about how I was able to donate $500 to some good organizations".
- celticninja 7y agoIs there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.
- Geeek 7y agoNo, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.
- hycaria 7y ago>The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, Sounds a bit ironic to tolerate using work from a woman without being willing to give her full credit then. Maybe they should get pictures from a male photographer next time.
- mikorym 7y agoI think that modern religions and the way they learn to part with certain medieval ways is critical. The Jewish religion has been arguably successful with this, producing exceedingly prestigious scientists and mathematicians. The risk is always the "fundamental" factions.
- jacobush 7y agoThey are higher risk, but sometimes come with great rewards too. I'd say Martin Luther King was pretty fundamental, as was Gandhi and a bunch of other people I have to credit with doing a lot of good.
- mannykannot 7y agoFundamentalism is not a appropriate term for the sort of leadership that King and Ghandi gave. Fundamentalism has come to mean a preoccupation with obeisance to formal rules, taken literally.
- appleflaxen 7y agoI disagree that their religion produced them. Their genetics and their environment did, to varying degrees, but religion is only one small aspect of the latter. What's your basis to assert that it is the most important factor?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- llamaz 7y agoI'm not sure if genetics play as great a role as culture. IMO there is enough genetic variation in all cultures to produce Einsteins, but some cultures are able to cultivate that potential better than others. You can't separate culture from religion, but culture is distinct from religion. I'm actually really mad at Jordan Peterson for answering the Jewish Question and giving it a platform. I assume that's where you got your opinion from, but if you didn't, many will agree with you because of JBP.
- comunii 7y agoWhat private religious groups do in their own publications is one thing, what's more concerning, and evident from this story, is the way some parts of Wikipedia are mostly run by fringe groups and operate under their own rules. I have seen other examples of this in the past. Pages about Hasidic rabbis will mention miracles they performed as undisputed fact, and will not mention facts about them that may be unflattering.
- baud147258 7y agoDo you have any link to such pages?
- Balgair 7y agoNot OP, but the biographies of rabbis do seem to not conform to the wikipedia standards. I've just done a very cursory look over a smidge of the pages, and nothing that the OP mentions is occurring, per my very brief look at it. That said, the style and tone of some of the bio pages isn't really the best. It is Wikipedia and you should assume that these lesser visited pages should not be super well polished. The talk pages seem to be pretty sparse as well. Though there is not be evidence of an 'agenda', the sniff test isn't really passed either, but you could say that of nearly any less popular page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Leib_Rabinovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Leib_Rabinovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Ber_of_Mezeritch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Ber_of_Mezeritch That said, OP's claims are a bit incredulous and I would also like to see the pages myself.
- greedyloo 7y agoThose little stances against segregation are necessary to humanity advancing. Also better when you do it with sarcasm !
- appleflaxen 7y agoCompletely agree about your humanity point, but completely disagree about sarcasm. I personally use sarcasm far, far too often. And when I sit back and reflect on those times, I am completely certain that it never advances my point farther (vs. the same point made without sarcasm), never makes my point seem more clever, and never makes my point seem more funny. So why do I continue to do it? Honestly, I don't know. It is a completely valueless communication strategy, and I continue to use it. The best answer I have is that it's a self-protection mechanism, which seems better-armored against a hostile audience than if I made my point with sincerity. So I, personally, will try to do better. But I would also caution anyone with less entrenched habits to consider carefully whether sarcasm is a useful rhetorical tool.
- pcl 7y agoI frequently find myself in the same boat. Growing up, my mom always told me that sarcasm is the weakest form of humor. When I'm about to say something sarcastic, I try to remember that advice and come up with a better turn of phrase.
- veryworried 7y agoIt is almost certainly for self-protection. Responding seriously in response to someone's sarcasm or snarks is a fool's endeavor. The person doesn't care and their only interest is to score cheap laughs at the cost of lowering the level of discourse.
- chengiz 7y agoShe did what she thought was justice, and I agree it is. I did not detect any sarcasm in her post, and it's better because of it.
- bjourne 7y agoIt's odd that if Muslims want to separate their boys and girls from a young age we think it is horrible and abusive. But if Christians or Jews do the exact same thing, we are fine with it because we must respect their traditions.
- dalbasal 7y agoDid you read the article? It's about not being fine with it.
- darylfritz 7y agoI feel like bjourne is referring to the hypocracy that society commonly accepts the Jewish practice, whereas the Muslim practice is generally rejected. I don't think bjourne is suggesting that Deborah accepts the practice.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dalbasal 7y agoWhere is the example of "society commonly accepting the Jewish practice?" Not hn society, as you can see in the thread. Not Jewish society, as you can see in the article. In any case, this is not a Jewish practice. The practice in this article is specific to certain hasidic sects, within the haredi minority... And very few outside of the haredi minority are accepting of sexism within the community. It's a big point of conflict.
- bjourne 7y agoI didn't say it was a "Jewish practice" it was darylfritz who misunderstood. The practice is common in the Hasidic minority as a result of society accepting people shoveling religious dogma down their children's throats. Except for Muslims having their girls wear veils which "society" has a problem with. But society shouldn't be accepting religious indoctrination of children from anyone.
- stevespang 7y agoAnother feminist zionist
- draw_down 7y agoGood for her.