Volume 48 Number 50
Produced: Thu Jun 16 21:07:49 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Feminism and men (4)
[Chaim Shapiro, Leah S. Gordon, Chaim Shapiro, Leah S. Gordon]
Lo Tachmod (Don't Covet)
[Mark Symons]
"Marketplace" vs. Dark Alleys and Seatbelts
[Frank Silbermann]
Second wine for guest
[Alex Heppenheimer]
Victim blaming
[Shoshana L. Boublil]
Women Working
[Yisrael Medad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:48:47 EDT
Subject: Feminism and men
I was referring to the Yalkut who was obviously speaking of European
marketplaces. As I said in my post, it is quite possible that given the
inferior status Jews suffered in Europe such places could be dangerous
for women, even in broad daylight.
I must also point out that claiming an area, such as a dark alley, is
dangerous "per se" as Leah claims, is in direct contradiction to her
later statement that,
> There is no criminal human involved in a car's dashboard crushing a
> person. To reduce a rapist to an inanimate object obeying the laws of
> physics is to free him from personal responsibility"
There is nothing dangerous about dark alleys. Criminals make it
dangerous. Claiming that a dark alley is inherently dangerous
mitigates, if not contradicts your point about criminal responsibility.
Chaim Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:00:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Feminism and men
Mr. Shapiro wrote:
> I was referring to the Yalkut who was obviously speaking of European
> marketplaces. As I said in my post, it is quite possible that given
> the inferior status Jews suffered in Europe such places could be
> dangerous for women, even in broad daylight.
If this is the case, and if we are to take the "marketplace" comment as
meaning ancient European marketplaces, then it is not relevant in any
way to the discussion at hand, and should not be quoted as evidence. It
was probably a good idea for Jewish children to stay away from
Molech-altars back in ancient times, as well.
As for:
> I must also point out that claiming an area, such as a dark alley, is
> dangerous "per se" as Leah claims, is in direct contradiction to her
> later statement that, "'There is no criminal human involved in a car's
> dashboard crushing a person. To reduce a rapist to an inanimate
> object obeying the laws of physics is to free him from personal
> responsibility' "There is nothing dangerous about dark alleys.
> Criminals make it dangerous. Claiming that a dark alley is inherently
> dangerous mitigates, if not contradicts your point about criminal
> responsibility."
Hm, you may be correct. Certainly you are correct that a woman who goes
into a dark alley wearing a miniskirt is not to blame if a rapist
attacks her; the rapist is to blame, 100%. I was thinking more along
the lines of "everyone, men and women, avoids dark alleys".
Perhaps we can agree, then, that there is a scale of danger for
locations, correlated to the frequency of violent crime vs. its
avoidability. In no way is this relevant to which gender should be
restricted more in location decisions. Let me restate, then. Anywhere
that a man feels free/safe to travel should be just as
accessible/safe/expected for a woman to go. And, I stand by my point
that a ("the") marketplace is not a place that most people avoid.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Dagoobster@...> (Chaim Shapiro)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:20:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Feminism and men
Leah wrote:
> If this is the case, and if we are to take the "marketplace" comment
> as meaning ancient European marketplaces, then it is not relevant in
> any way to the discussion at hand, and should not be quoted as
> evidence. It was probably a good idea for Jewish children to stay
> away from Molech-altars back in ancient times, as well."
I made no assertions, now or ever about the current marketplace. I was
looking for a possible explanation of the Yalkut to a specific post.
> Certainly you are correct that a woman who goes into a dark alley
> wearing a miniskirt is not to blame if a rapist attacks her; the
> rapist is to blame, 100%. I was thinking more along the lines of
> "everyone, men and women, avoids dark alleys".
This highlights my serious objection to modern feminism. Wear a
miniskirt or don't, the point should be ANYONE going ANYWHERE who is
attacked is a victim, whether or not they used appropriate judgment
going there or not. This is a safety, not a man/women issue. 99% of
men find those who attack women as abhorrent as women find them. I love
my wife and daughter and advise both to avoid dangerous places. And
although it is to a slightly lesser degree, I do the same for myself.
Chaim Shapiro
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:44:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Feminism and men
> I made no assertions, now or ever about the current marketplace. I
> was looking for a possible explanation of the Yalkut to a specific
> post.
I fear that you may not have read the discussion, in that case. The
Yalkut was cited only in a modern context. It was a natural assumption
that your post was a continuation of the thread.
> Certainly you are correct that a woman who goes into a dark
> alley wearing a miniskirt is not to blame if a rapist attacks
> her; the rapist is to blame, 100%. I was thinking more along
> the lines of "everyone, men and women, avoids dark alleys".
> This highlights my serious objection to modern feminism. Wear
> a miniskirt or don't, the point should be ANYONE going
> ANYWHERE who is attacked is a victim, whether or not they used
> appropriate judgment going there or not. This is a safety,
> not a man/women issue. 99% of men find those who attack women
> as abhorrent as women find them. I love my wife and daughter
> and advise both to avoid dangerous places. And although it is
> to a slightly lesser degree, I do the same for myself.
I'm afraid I do not understand your point. I have been saying nothing
else but that women and men should be able to go to the same places and
be as safe as each other. I am the one who first objected to the
victim- blaming. Perhaps we have a point of agreement.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:18:31 +1000
Subject: Lo Tachmod (Don't Covet)
In discussing the tenth Commandment/Saying the other day, my daughter
suggested that what might be forbidden is coveting something BECAUSE it
belongs to someone else. Does anyone know if any of the Commentators say
anything like this?
Mark Symons
Melbourne Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:51:54 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: "Marketplace" vs. Dark Alleys and Seatbelts
If earlier authorities advised that women should try to avoid the
marketplace less they suffer the fate of Dina, I would take this to be
an accomodation to undesireable aspects of the authors' environment,
rather than a feminine ideal.
Their advice would not apply in an environment where Dina's fate is not
a danger, or in a place that permitted women to carry effective tools
for defending their virtue. (Until the middle of the 19th century, most
weapons required significant muscular strength for effective use, and in
any case our enemies outlawed Jews' use of them.)
Frank Silbermann New Orleans, Louisiana <fs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 09:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Second wine for guest
In MJ 48:46, .cp. asked:
> Is a guest's knowledge of the available wines for a meal
> `botul` to that of the hosts?
> The host plans to serve a second , different type bottle of
> wine at the meal. When the wine is brought to the table the
> host obviously does not make a `tov umeitiv`. But what about
> the guest?
I'm not a (practicing) Rabbi, nor do I play one on TV, so obviously
everything below is for the sake of discussion only.
First of all, it seems that the question needs to be corrected slightly:
for the second bottle of wine, the operative condition is that it's
brought to the table, not whether it was originally planned to be served
or not. We see this from the fact that the berachah is required even if
the second one was on the table to begin with, if they're of the same
quality or if he first (incorrectly) recited "borei pri hagafen" on the
inferior one (Orach Chaim 175:1 and 3, Magen Avraham 175:2).
So the question would really be on the third (or subsequent) bottle of
wine, since there it is indeed the intention that counts (Seder Birkas
HaNehenin of the Baal HaTanya, 12:17).
Another point to consider is whether guests can recite "hatov
ve-hameitiv" at all: according to the Magen Avraham (175:4) they should
not, because of a doubt whether the host and the guests are truly
"partners" in the benefit conferred by the extra wine. It is true,
though, that Baer Heitev (175:6) cites opinions that the guests should
indeed recite this berachah.
I do see in Seder Birkas HaNehenin (12:13) that the Baal HaTanya flatly
states that the guests "initially have in mind [to drink] whatever the
host brings them" (and therefore aren't required to recite "hagafen" on
the second bottle). Applying that to our case, it would seem that if the
host knows that he will be bringing out that third bottle, then the fact
that they don't know of its existence should be immaterial - and they
wouldn't recite the berachah (or to put it in terms of the original
question, their knowledge is indeed botul to his).
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 08:49:19 +0200
Subject: Re: Victim blaming
> From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
> >Someone wrote <<< The Yalkut also says that women ought not frequent
> the marketplace lest a tragedy like what happened to Dina occur. >>>
Excuse me, but I think we are all missing the point. The example given
is Dina. Let's examine that for a moment.
Dina is walking in the marketplace. The local ruler's son decides he
wants her and rapes her. There are several background issues involved:
a) Why didn't the local population stop this?
b) Didn't Dina realize that the marketplace was a dangerous place?
The answers are that Dina thought that the marketplace was a public
place where she was safe. She didn't take into consideration that
according to the rules of the land and custom at the time, the son of
the ruler could probably steal from any stand in the marketplace with
impunity - and that no one would dare to stand up to him.
In many places in Europe, the situation was similar. The local nobels
could do as they pleased -- and nobody could stand up to them, and the
nobles were never (or very rarely) punished for the abuse.
Under such conditions, it would indeed be dangerous for a young woman to
walk in a public place (anyone remember the story Ivanhoe?).
Nowadays, as we live in democratic societies where abuse is punished (at
least theoretically), the prohibition is irrelevant. What the saying
should teach us to examine the situation, and if we are placing
ourselves, men or women, in a state of danger (walking with flashy large
diamonds in a crime district where you could get beaten up and robbed
before a policeman could respond, for example), then we should take
extra care NOT to do so. This is not "blaming the victim" -- this is
taking a realistic view of the situation. It also matches with Chazal's
view of the issue of "Sakana".
To attempt to learn that women shouldn't go out to the market nowadays
is, IMHO, a misunderstanding of the Yalkut's intention.
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:54:29 +0200
Subject: Women Working
Regarding a thread that went by recently regarding the Chareidi sector
and the role of the woman as main provider with the consideration of
leaving the home and the apparent contradiction of "kavod bat melech
p'nima", of the Chofetz Chaim it is told that his father-in-law was
wealthy enough to support him ("kest") but Rabbi Meir Kagan preferred to
work saying, "if I get used to a life of financial ease, what will
happen when I have to provide for my family's needs all by myself?
Therefore, it is better for me if, from the start, I provide my family's
sustenance by myself even if it be negligible". Source: Siach Sarfei
Kodesh, Vol. V, No. 519, p. 208.
This seems to revise a story I once posted a few years ago that it was
the Chofetz Chaim's wife that supported the family selling alcoholic
drinks or was it a simple grocery store?
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 48 Issue 50