Getting the gender balance right
(Miami) Al commented here:
"I reiterate my object to Heterodox Judaism, it's pushed the men out. Combined with the overly simple understanding that if the woman is Jewish, the children are, the husband/father and his role in Judaism has been marginalized by egalitarian Judaism . . . "
I don't wish to be negative or to paint a glum picture. I'm just stating a possible challenge, and seeking constructive suggestions.
"I reiterate my object to Heterodox Judaism, it's pushed the men out. Combined with the overly simple understanding that if the woman is Jewish, the children are, the husband/father and his role in Judaism has been marginalized by egalitarian Judaism . . . "
- Do you agree? Why or why not?
- If you agree, how do we can encourage women to participate without discouraging the men?
I don't wish to be negative or to paint a glum picture. I'm just stating a possible challenge, and seeking constructive suggestions.
posted by Shira Salamone at 2:45 AM
6 Comments:
Men need clubs and clubhouses. It doesn't matter whether that club is the Elks, the Chamber of Commerce, the local pub, or the Freemasons' Lodge. In Orthodox Judaism, the club is the shul, and its leadership roles are reserved solely for men (with few exceptions).
Heterodox Judaism has eliminated the male clubhouse and cast aspersions on male-only expressions of any sort, and men are voting with their feet. Truth is that this isn't just men. Both sexes seek single-sex gatherings and communities as part of the fabric of their lives. The synagogue (and beit midrash) allowed men to integrate that need with religious practice, but in heterodox circles that is not the case, and as men drift to other male-only activities and groups, they drift from their religious life as well.
I'm a guy, and until I became traditionally observant about 8 years ago I hadn't been in a male only group since the cub scouts, nor had I missed it. Frankly I think the relative lack of women's voices (both literally and figuratively) in my Orthodox community makes it a poorer place than it could be.
Here we have one supporter for each perspective. At least it's even. :)
In all seriousness, the reason why first-generation feminists opposed male-only clubs, etc., was that those organizations enable men to network and maintain dominance. It could be argued that the same is true of a synagogue, where the men get to run the entire show while the women watch.
The trick is to find a way to enable men to get together without the result being male dominance. Integrating the need for a men's club into public religious practice has cut women out of public religious practice. Personally, I don't thing that's the best way to go about it.
Really, and I always thought that the sisterhood ran the show... the Shul President got to give a speech...
This has been a trend long established and identified by many observers of the religious scene in the liberal Protestant denominations. As women are welcomed into more leadership opportunities in those churches, fewer and few men go, much less participate as clergy. There have been many reasons offered, one entirely satisfactory. The end result is that since churches liberalized, their numbers have gone down, not up. The only churches growing are either charismatic or staunchly traditional.
Giving women opportunities, or gays for that matter, are issues of justice and fairness. Bu that does not mean that it comes without a price.
The real question is whether a church or synagogue that cannot survive without a male only heirarchy is worth saving.
I've heard of that trend, but I don't understand it. Why should there be "a price" for giving opportunities?
Post a Comment
<< Home