Sunday, October 20, 2019

Hillary the gender traitor...they believe

OK, so I’m late to the analysis game, but just recently was I able to articulate my theory of why conservative women refused to vote for Hillary Clinton: Because they perceive her to be a gender traitor [credit to Margaret Atwood]; she had the audacity not to “do gender” as non-feminists view it, i.e., a woman whose husband has been outed as having messed around with his intern should get kicked to the curb, or, if that’s not possible, take their child and leave, and install herself in a condo or townhouse that she makes him pay for, and settle into comfortable obscurity.

Instead, Clinton was ambitious, and her ambitions overrode her husband’s philandering. Unlike many wives of public figures who are outed on any number of charges, not only did she “stick by him”, but she had the audacity to remain in the Executive branch and maintain a high profile regardless of him. “Benghazi” and “e-mails” were nothing but distractions or red herrings. Women who voted for Trump were more willing to vote for a man who had been outed for groping, as he was at least “doing gender” correctly according to these women’s assessment; Clinton, however was not, and was therefore to be abhorred. As far as I can see, there’s no other earthly explanation: Clinton rocked the boat of gender and how spouses “should” behave, and conservative women simply couldn’t abide it. They found it less threatening to vote for an admitted groper than to vote for “her”.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

“We’re apolitical”…not! "אנחנו לא פוליטיים"... עלק!

עברית למטה
Recently Haaretz ran a piece on film director Sigal Avin’s short films on sexual harassment. I was cheering until I reached this quote: “It was important to ensure that the films…were not political.” Say what? Avin is likely too young to have heard that “the personal is political”, but beyond that, her statement is unfortunately, and exasperatingly, representative of a disturbing phenomenon: the Israeli rush to be “apolitical”, my exasperation at which is twofold:

First of all, when an organization (or in Avin’s case, individual endeavor) claims to be apolitical, it’s misusing the word: What Israeli non-profits and movements mean when they rush to declare themselves apolitical is that they’re non-partisan or non-sectarian…as if anyone would mistake a non-profit that provides support services to the disabled, or at-risk youth, or battered women, for a political party. I can understand why an organization called Catholic Charities or Jewish Family Services feels an obligation to state explicitly that they’re non-sectarian, but environmental action groups? Organizations that feed the hungry? Groups that advocate for road safety? Really? They’re afraid of being identified as political?

Then there’s the other side: organizations that are political, but claim they’re not: I’ll begin with the Masortì [Conservative] movement, in whose youth movement my kids were active. The Masorti movement has a wing called Al haMishmár that monitors church-and-state legislation in the Knesset. What could be more political? Another example: Women Wage Peace. What could be more political than a peace agreement? In order to reach one, we need to engage politically, not dodge politics.

It’s even curiouser why Israelis feel this need to rush to declare “We’re not political!”, as Israelis are some of the most outspoken folks you’ll meet: Unlike Americans, Israelis will unabashedly argue with an officer who’s ticketing them for speeding, or a clerk at City Hall issuing (or withholding) permits to close in a balcony, just to name a few stereotypical examples. And of course our parliament is infamous for its members’ uncivilized and downright disrespectful exchanges. Why, then, are Israelis so loath to be political?

Especially as we all know quite well what “political” is code for: Are you for, or against, trading land for peace? Are you for, or against, the settlements? Because God forbid anyone should identify feeding the hungry or helping battered women as supporting or opposing the settlements / occupation. And therein lies the sad part: that those who are doing the most important work of all – tikkún olám [repairing the world] – are terrified that their work could be construed as political. How twisted is that?

לאחרונה פורסמה כתבה ב"הארץ" על הסרטונים שהעלתהבמאית הקולנוע סיגל אבין בנוגע להטרדה מינית. אני התלהבתי עד שהגעתי לציטוט: "היה חשוב שהסרטונים... לא יהיו פוליטיים". וואלה? אבין היא כנראה צעירה מדי ולא שמעה ש"האישי הוא פוליטי", אולם מעבר לכך, למרבה הצער והרוגז, הכרזתה מייצגת תופעה מעצבנת: הישראלים ממהרים להכריז על עצמם כ"לא פוליטיים", והרוגז שלי על כך כפול:

ראשית, כאשר ארגון (או במקרה של אבין, השתדלות אישית) טוען שהוא לא-פוליטי, זה שימוש שגוי במונח: מה שעמותות ותנועות ישראליות בעצם מתכוונות כשהן ממהרות להכריז על עצמן כלא-פוליטיות, הוא שהן בלתי-מפלגתיות או בלתי-עדתיות... כאילו שמישהו בכלל יטעה לחשוב שעמותה המעניקה שירותי תמיכה לנכים, או לנוער במצוקה, או לנשים מוכות היא מפלגה פוליטית. אני יכולה להבין מדוע חשוב לארגון הקרוי "צדקה קתולית" או "שירותי משפחה יהודיים" להצהיר חד-משמעית שהוא בלתי-עדתי, אבל לקבוצות של פעילי הגנה על הסביבה? לארגונים המאכילים את הרעבים? לעמותות למען בטיחות בכבישים? באמת? הן מחוששות להיות מזוהות כפוליטיות?

וישנו גם הצד השני: ארגונים שהם אמנם פוליטיים, אך טוענים שאינם כאלה: אתחיל עם הזרם המסורתי שבנותיי היו פעילות בתנועת הנוער שלו: לזרם המסורתי ישנה זרוע הקרויה "על המשמר", שמנטרת חקיקת דת ומדינה בכנסת. מה יכול להיות יותר פוליטי מזה? דוגמא נוספת: תנועת "נשים עושות שלום". מה יכול להיות יותר פוליטי מהסכם שלום? כדי להשיג הסכם כזה, יש צורך להיות מעורבים פוליטית, לא להתנער מפוליטיקה.

אפילו יותר מסקרנת מתמיה היא השאלה מדוע ישראלים חשים צורך למהר ולהכריז, "אנחנו לא פוליטיים!", שהרי הישראלים ידועים במוכנותם להביע את דעתם בראש חוצות. בניגוד לבני לאום אחרים, ישראלים לא יהססו להתווכח עם שוטר הרושם להם דו"ח על נהיגה במהירות מופרזת, או עם פקיד בעיריה המוציא (או מסרב להוציא) אישורים לסגירת מרפסת, ואלו רק דוגמאות אופייניות אחדות. וכמובן שהכנסת  ידועה לשימצה בשל חילופי הדברים הבלתי-תרבותים וחסרי הכבוד בין חבריה. למה, אם כן, נרתע הישראלי כל כך מלהיות פוליטי?

בייחוד בהתחשב בכך שכולנו יודעים הייטב מה צפון במילה "פוליטי": האם אתה בעד או נגד מסירת שטחים תמורת שלום? האם את בעד או נגד ההתנחלויות? כי חס וחלילה, מישהו עלול לזהות מתן אוכל לרעבים או עזרה לנשים מוכות כעמדת תמיכה או התנגדות להתנחלויות / לכיבוש. ופה טמונה האמת העצובה: שאלו העוסקים במלאכה החשובה מכל – תיקון עולם – חוששים שפועלם המבורך עלול להתפרש כפוליטי. איזו מציאות עקומה היא זו?
תרגם באדיבות: עמי ארגמן

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Where are the Caucasians with gunshot wounds?

Recently I was involved in two conversations with fellow Caucasians that veered uncomfortably toward bigotry. The first was with a former admissions or guidance counselor (can’t recall which) at Heritage College, a now-defunct for-profit career college whose enrollment was predominantly black.

The former counselor told me how, after spelling out the rules and regulations, students would invariably tell her, “Well, that’s not how I roll” and / or “Hey. I’m a grown-a_s woman!” I was stunned that someone would generalize this way, but didn’t say anything. Whatever I would think of to say would come out sounding like I was accusing her of lying; after all, she was a credible person, and she was there; I wasn’t. So I said nothing.

Then I listened to another account, this one from the mother of a resident working in the ER of a city hospital serving a predominantly black area. She said her daughter, a physician, had told her that she saw several cases of gunshot wounds nightly, most of the patients with police records.
She said that after one patient that they’d tried to save had died, his family members almost rioted and she was compelled to ask for a security escort her to her car at the end of her shift. Another gunshot patient came in at 4 a.m. After treating him, she asked him, “What are you doing out this time of night? You know this is a rough neighborhood. Stay indoors.” Again: She was there; I wasn’t. I said nothing.

But I couldn’t let these two conversations go. I just didn’t like the direction they headed in and their subtext about blacks and the black community. Then I finally arrived at what might be an answer, what I wish I’d said: “Somewhere, there’s a career college serving a mostly poor white population, and you might hear the same things out of the mouths of the students there. Somewhere, there’s an ER serving a mostly poor white population, where the staff sees gunshot wounds [or hunting injuries?] on a regular basis. Like some of the black wound patients, some of them might even wear their wounds as a badge of pride." Of course that’s f_cked up. The difference is:

We don’t see poor whites – or any whites – as a group to be commentated on, analyzed, and / or victim-blamed. We don’t see poor whites as a threatening group with its own culture and codes, or as losers unable to extricate themselves from the cycle of poverty. We aren’t instantly suspicious of young poor white men. We don’t talk about white-on-white violence, or the alcohol abuse and teen pregnancy (that invariably results in poor mom-headed households on public assistance) that pervades poor white communities. Quite simply, we don’t see a "poor white problem", and we certainly don’t attribute these ills to their being white.


Thursday, March 10, 2016

No problem: Put me in Business Class אין בעיה: תנו לי לעבור למחלקת עסקים

Hi everyone. Back after a long hiatus. So, many of you have no doubt heard about the airplane seat-switching controversy involving ultra-Orthodox men and non-Orthodox women passengers. But instead of just getting riled up over the ultra-Orthodox attempt to control not only our lives on the ground, but airborne as well, let’s look at the phenomenon as part of a larger, meta-phenomenon that I call tiptoe-ing around, placating, and pretending to the Orthodox.

I know of at least three funerals where Orthodox people – either themselves mourners, or members of the Chevra Kadisha [burial society] – compelled the primary mourners to engage in / refrain from engaging in, certain practices. In one case, everyone in attendance was compelled to engage in a strange ritual that originated generations back in some neck of the Diaspora woods with which none of them identified, much less had ever heard of. In another, distant Orthodox relatives of the deceased showed up and jogged behind the hearse, loudly chanting psalms in a way that, I found out later, horrified the children of the deceased. At another funeral, the deceased’s children, being daughters only, only began reciting kaddish after a male relative began doing so.

In addition, it calls to mind a recent bar mitzva I attended where the host edited her speech at the Shabbat dinner that mentioned the bar mitzva boy’s grandmothers having aliyas the following morning in shul, so as not to offend an Orthodox relative who wasn’t even going to be at the ceremony.

What do all three of these situations have in common? They all involve heightened anxiety, impatience, and being invested in everything going smoothly: a trifecta, or “perfect storm” if you wish, for the Orthodox individuals to exploit the non-Orthodox individuals’ (the stakeholders) vulnerability to compel the latter to accede to the will of the former. After all, boarding a plane, we all have the same goal: For the accursed thing to take off. Not having buried a parent, I’m assuming that the goal at a funeral is to just get through it intact and start the shiva. And as for the bar mitzva, I know how stressful it can be to host an event of that scope: You want so badly for it to go off without a hitch, and are thus willing to skirt anything that has even the slightest potential to “become a thing”, or what everyone’s going to remember about the event in which you and your child have invested so much.

Regarding the funeral and bar mitzva examples, since every case differs, it would be impossible to suggest a blanket policy. But you can be sure that if I’m ever asked to change seats pre-flight, I’ve got my answer ready: “Sure. I’d be happy to either upgrade to Business or higher; or get a voucher for a free round-trip flight of equal distance on this airline.” That way, I’m not holding up takeoff, but I obtain what I believe to be fair compensation for my inconvenience.

I actually don’t agree that the seat change request is anti-woman; I simply believe it to be pure chutzpa. Maybe if we all gave my suggested answer, the airlines would start printing on their ticketing conditions and posting signs at check-in (i.e., before passengers hand over their luggage) to the effect that no seat change requests will be honored beyond this point, we can make this chutzpa go away. How about it?

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Gender and the physical plant מגדר והחצר

My backyard, wedding day – my neighbor’s daughter’s getting married. A corner of the chuppah is anchored to another neighbor’s roof. Bamboo rods conceal my back porch, as if it’s an eyesore, even though I covered up my “unsightly”water bottles, as I agreed to do. A crew constructs the chuppah…headed – as always – by a woman. The landscaping team sweeps the area surrounding the dining room, and we’ve been asked not to park our bikes there.

What does it all mean? On the surface, the aforementioned activities are always described with pride: “Our community knows how to put on a wedding.” “The entire community comes together”. “The community invests all its resources”. “Members toil day and night”. But what are we saying when we allow entire teams (landscaping, maintenance, dates) to be commandeered toward this objective? What’s the message conveyed when we’re admonished not to park our bikes – in the bike racks provided for that very purpose – or when neighbors start to dictate what’s visually acceptable for a particular event?

I theorize that the frenzied preparations and their pleasing result fulfill some peoples’ – overwhelmingly women’s – fantasy-for-a-day that we actually live in suburbia – clipped, manicured, homogenous, sterile of any human activity – and not in an alternative community in the desert.

And, notice that it’s always the women’s responsibility to produce the appearance thereof, to remove any evidence of actual human activity, from menstrual blood, to brooms concealed in a broom closet or outdoors, to bicycles banished from the landscape. Sure, the men are working. They’re out there leveling uneven terrain, setting up traffic barricades, removing anything deemed unsightly…but they’re doing it at women’s behest, and as per women’s instructions. The women are carrying out their gender’s implicitly assigned job of eliminating all evidence of human activity; the men are delegated to do the (literal) heavy lifting toward that end.

The above was borne of a conversation I was having with a friend. He asked me what it is that bothers me about Ketura wedding frenzy. I had to dig deep to discover what it is that bothers me and why. After all, what could be bad about sprucing up the community in honor of a community-raised child’s wedding? “After all,” I’ve been reminded, “When it’s your turn, won’t you want the place to look nice? When it’s your child getting married, you’ll feel differently.”

It’s called a tradeoff

Look, I can’t predict how I’ll feel at a hypothetical event; no one can. But what I do know is that I didn’t sign up to live in suburbia, and that decision, like all our decisions, comes with a price: It means living in close quarters with other human beings who actually ride bikes and produce waste. It means trees that provide shade but that also shed their leaves and needles. It means that back porches contain furniture, and yes, toys, drying laundry, and other evidence that – as the sign said on the safe house in the film In the Name of the Father – People Live Here.

Friday, August 28, 2015

Water Conservation: Offensive? איגום מים: מעליב?

This blog post was originally a response to yesterday’s article about the impending water crisis and my admittedly small-scale but earnest effort to offset it. But an incident this morning is having its effect. As many of you know, for years now I’ve collected air conditioner condensate from each room unit in our home (4) and my unit in my office. For those not familiar with the process, every room unit air conditioner has a pipe from which condensate drips…all summer long. Depending on the unit, the drip can reach up to six liters a day. The water is safe for all uses except drinking: mopping the floor, wiping the countertops, shampooing my hair, feeding it to my dogs, steam ironing, car radiator (it’s essentially distilled water)*, flushing the toilet.

I collect the water in 1.5-liter soft drink bottles, which are arranged in neat rows on my back porch, to the chagrin of my husband and to the admiration of visitors. The part that hurts is that despite numerous attempts to interest them and encourage them to follow my example, my own fellow community members’ reactions range from amused to downright derisive, the latter on the grounds that the collection and storage is unsightly. We are talking about a bucket containing a bottle and a funnel; nothing could be less offensive. To see what it looks like, see this writeup on me (and others) in Maariv.

The amusement derives from the claim that the entire volume of water that I collect throughout “air conditioner season” – six months where I live, which lasts me all the way through the winter to the following air conditioner season – is enough to irrigate one date tree for one day. To which I reply, “So what?” Whatever I collect replaces (costly) tap water; every time I don’t turn on the tap, that’s quickly-depleting groundwater not being depleted.

The question shouldn’t be “Why do you take the trouble (which “trouble” is about five minutes a day)?” The question in my view is “Why isn’t everyone else doing it?” If they were, it would no longer be a one-date-tree savings; it would be significant, perhaps huge. As far as I’m concerned, everyone in Israel who runs a room unit air conditioner should be collecting the condensate. It’s free water, for God’s sake. Even if you think I’m crazy, who can argue with money in your pocket?

Let’s not wait for the impending water crisis. Let’s instead lead the way to offsetting it. How can conserving water – of any quantity – be a bad thing?

* - In fact, during last year's date harvest, our date-growing enterprise used a portion of the water I collected to feed a water-guzzling radiator in one of the hydraulic lifts. I was glad to supply them!

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Is BDS hypocritical? האם בי.די.אס צבועה?

There’s been lots of talk about boycotts lately, particularly BDS. The predictable response to BDS on the right is, “How come they don’t talk about other human rights violations, but only Israel’s?” So I’ve made a convenient table listing the human rights violators usually cited in such discourse (“Top Violators”), and how BDS can be expected to react:

Action >
North Korea
1. Do they have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any North Korean academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any North Korean companies?
Aren’t we already doing this?
Islamic State
1. Do they have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any ISIS academics? Are there ISIS academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
Have you heard anyone express anything other than condemnation? I mean, who’s not already there?
1. Does he have anything we want?
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any Russian academics?
3. Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there?
OK. Then you may call for a boycott.
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any Russian companies?
Thought we already were.
1. Yes, they have oil.
2. Do you know of any Western academics who seek to collaborate with any Iranian academics?
3.Is Roger Waters scheduled to perform there? OK. Then you may call for a boycott.
Do you know of universities, churches, or other institutions invested in any Iranian companies?

There. That was easy, wasn’t it? But for the sake of transparency, we must discuss one more human rights violator: Saudia. If you look at the table, the big difference between Saudia and the other Top Violators is: Petroleum. Anyone who wants to boycott petroleum had better be energy independent. Ironically, who’s more dependent upon Saudi oil: Israel, or any other Western country? Unless shipments are coming in the back door unmarked, I‘d venture to say that barrel for barrel, Israel is the more energy independent country. Yay, us.

But you know what’s even more important? We should aspire to be a respected member of the family of nations. I should hope that irrespective of BDS, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than do the Top Human Rights Violators. Do we really want to be “Best of the Loser States”?