Women in Judaism.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Not saying that I doubt these claims but I would like some more information on the sources.

Did you read my entire post.
I have mentioned 4 of my sources on those teachings.

And 3 out the 4 links are Jewish.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

This is a prayer taken from the Jewish Siddur - the prayer book. Specifically, this prayer is said in the Shacharit, or Morning Prayer service.

The prayer is actually slightly different than the one shown above. But, the point of the prayer is not to demean women, but rather to state that every individual has their place and role under G-d's plan. Jewish men, for example, have strict obligations to pray 3 times per day, among other religious duties. The prayer is essentially singing praise to G-d for giving the Jewish man the opportunity to serve his Creator. The prayer was never intended to demean women.

Similarly, the verses that people quote from Islam to portray Islam as misogynistic....can also be explained by a muslim as having a different meaning and that its not misogynistic as they think it is.

There is a lot of anti-semitism in quotes taken out of context. You really have to understand Hebrew - an intricate and complex language - to be able to debate these topics. I have studied Orthodox Judaism intensely for the last 4 years, and I have not read a single statement in any of their religious writings that promotes racism, sexism, etc. towards others.

Again, I am not looking to generalize all Jews.
I recognize that among every religion, there are the fundamentalists, the moderates and those who don't follow their religion. I was simply demonstrating that misogynistic quotes exist in other religions as well, but that only Islam gets the spotlight, while others such as Judaism is exempted from being scrutinized... and its followers from being portrayed as woman haters.

Believing that different people have different roles in society is not racism or sexism. It's simple acceptance of where people are in their lives, and thanking G-d for the gifts He has given us at our particular place in history and our current role in society.

So, please don't take these quotes literally. They are inaccurate, highly misleading, and taken completely out of context. Let's use some reason, intelligence, and straightforward facts when discussing these subjects.

I wish people would apply this line of reasoning for Islam as well... not just for Judaism.
I try to rise above generalizing an entire group of people on some words spoken or written by a religious leader... I find it hard to believe the average Jewish guy would refer to his own mother or daughter as a "sack of excrement". Yet, some people actually seem to believe that the average muslim is a wife beater or a misogynist.

reply to post by FlyersFan

People like me?? Yes, I 'stooped to the level' of actually educating myself and not continually clinging to a particular religion even though it's obviously bogus or bad for humanity.

An anti-christian can smear all of Christianity and then claim he is just getting "educated" on Christianity.... from websites that you would deem anti-Christian. This is exactly what you are doing.

-------

sk0rpi0n said : You on the other hand brand 1.5 billion muslims as wife beaters and misogynists because you assume that every single muslim lives by every single religious law in Islam.

try going to a Saudi Arabia tell the muslims that they aren't following Islam. See how quickly they call for you to be beheaded.

I don't see how that even addresses what I originally said.

You seem unable to understanad that misogyny is inherint in Islam. And most Muslims cling to their antiquated books and their so-called prophet.

Sure, those who beat their wives are a-holes ... but they use their religion as an excuse

This is exactly the kind of reasoning I am speaking against. If a Jew hits his wife, only he is to blame... not his religion. But when a muslim hits his wife.. its because he was performing a religious duty. So its clear that your approach itself is biased.
One can just as well, refer to cases of Jewish misogyny and say "he did it because of his religion".... I mean, we even have the Jewish teachings on record.

The websites I go to that tell the ugly truth about misogynistic Islamic practices and beliefs can not be equated with neo-nazi anti-Jewish sites. Not even close. Any information that shows Islams negative side would be considered 'anti-Islamic' to you ... because you are so deeply into your religion. Facts are facts ... and sometimes the truth is ugly.

The ugly truth is that you are no different from people who cite FBI statistics on black crimes and say "blacks are more criminal. I'm not racist but facts are facts".... or "Any information that shows the nature of blacks would be considered 'anti-black'" or some other similar nonsense.
Those same people also cite Talmudic quotes on treating gentiles and accuse Jews in general of being thieving and greedy because of their religion... even if said "Jewish" thief was an atheist.

And you ARE in the same boat as them... with your claims that Muslims are violent and misogynistic because of their religion... even if said misogynist never really cared about the Koran.

Actually you can't. Because you already admitted that, for the most part, Jews don't follow their own religion or their ancient books and they have secular rule of law, not pushing the Jewish faith on anyone.

Not that I can't... its because I WONT. Big difference there.
Unlike you, I don't believe in generalizing an entire group of people.

And also, you seem to be in denial that certain groups of Jews are fundamentalist and seem to be enforcing some of those misogynistic teachings. I guess you ignored that link on Jewish domestic violence and that video where a 8 year old girl was spat upon in public by a fundamentalist Jews.

I'm not usually one for quoting Scripture, but...


(On Israel's revenge against the Midianites):And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Quran 4:34, "Women,"


I've included a New Testament verse here so that there's no confusion:

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . ." (Ephesians 5:22–23)


Abrahamic religion in general is patriarchal. It's inescapably macho. It's really not that surprising. Wasn't Yahweh originally an Edomite war god?

In any case, it's undeniable. It's in the Scripture, so either you believe it or you don't.

Again, I am not looking to generalize all Jews. I recognize that among every religion, there are the fundamentalists, the moderates and those who don't follow their religion. I was simply demonstrating that misogynistic quotes exist in other religions as well, but that only Islam gets the spotlight, while others such as Judaism is exempted from being scrutinized... and its followers from being portrayed as woman haters.

Then you need to address those accusations against Islam, and not attack the beliefs of Judaism. You don't bring in another religion into the argument. You refute the allegations one by one.

reply to post by CookieMonster09

Then you need to address those accusations against Islam, and not attack the beliefs of Judaism. You don't bring in another religion into the argument. You refute the allegations one by one.

I'm not attacking anybody's beliefs.
I'm addressing larger issues here... so called misogyny in religion and the habit of generalizing entire groups as being misogynistic. There is no harm in bringing up other religions to compare and contrast.

Certain people here cite Islamic texts and go "see, Islam is misogynistic"... so by their line of reasoning, any religion that contains teachings such as the ones posted in the OP, should be misogynistic as well.

Which is why I asked in the OP... after citing Jewish texts, is Judaism somehow exempt from being portrayed as a misogynistic religion? I want to know how far they would apply this line of reasoning and if they are willing to be objective about it.

reply to post by eight bits

They are treating their religious documents as what they are: the record of what human beings understood long ago as the revelation of God in history.

the Law turns out to be the constitution for a Bronze Age tribal state that God is telling the Jews to establish in greater Canaan.

I am not talking about the bronze age laws. But rather the Talmudic laws, which are mainly Rabbinical commentaries and teachings written much after the bronze age. The Talmud is second only to the Torah... and so is an essential part of the Jewish religion and not just merely a record of something.

As far as I know no prophet ever described a woman as a "sack of excrement"... or that the scriptures should rather be burned than handed to a woman. These are man made teachings that happen to be very much part of the Jewish religion. So its on record that the Jewish religion contains teachings that are extremely misogynistic.

The Jewish and the Muslim texts could be identical, but the different peoples differ in their understanding of the proper relationship between what any text says and how they should behave.

If "texts" decide whether or not a religion and its followers are misogynistic then the same applies to both groups.

To claim that the 2 groups behave differently is simply biased reasoning. Its like saying between 2 groups of people with guns, only one group would use the gun for criminal purposes and the other group would not, because they just leave their guns at home as showpieces.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Thus, a fair observer looks upon the two groups differently,

A fair observer would acknowledge that a Jewish or a Muslim man who beats his wife does so because he is a cruel misogynistic. Its a personality trait... and religion has nothing to do with it. The same applies to a Christian or a Hindu or atheist or agnostic wife beater.

Scorpie

I am not talking about the bronze age laws.

That's the only kind there is in the Jewish canonical scripture.

But rather the Talmudic laws, which are mainly Rabbinical commentaries and teachings written much after the bronze age.

I might remember your flexibility on this point in your next thread about how other folks should read their Bible. Anyway, there's nothing normative in the Talmud that is binding on any living Jew; its behavioral prescriptions are a discussion among men about how Jews might approach various questions, hypothetical and actual. It is not, and does not purport to be, the "last word" on anything.

The written Talmud is roughly contemporary in age with the Koran, and perhaps incorporates older traditions and has later accretions, too. So, again, living Jews don't conform their behavior to what was progressive in the ancient Iron Age or even Medieval times, but is no longer so.

If "texts" decide whether or not a religion and its followers are misogynistic then the same applies to both groups.

As I've already said, that's not my position. It is behavior that displays misogyny, and the existence of living religious advisors who endorse the behavior on religious grounds that attaches the misogyny to the religion. The texts only explain where the advisors get their ideas; the contents of the texts cannot explain why the advisors lack the discernment shown by other Abrahamic religious thinkers.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

Unfortunately, that's not as widely admired a precept in Islam as it is among some other groups.

A fair observer would acknowledge that a Jewish or a Muslim man who beats his wife does so because he is a cruel misogynistic. Its a personality trait... and religion has nothing to do with it. The same applies to a Christian or a Hindu or atheist or agnostic wife beater.

No doubt a wise observation, especially had the the topic been "Jews who beat their wives." I share your intuition that wife beaters have much in common. One distinction, though, is that if a Jew discusses his wife beating with his rabbi, the rabbi is likely to disapprove on both humanitarian and religious grounds. In contrast, if the Muslim wife beater seeks clerical advice, he may very well leave the interview with helpful hints, focusing on how to do it even more agreeably to God.

reply to post by eight bits

Anyway, there's nothing normative in the Talmud that is binding on any living Jew; its behavioral prescriptions are a discussion among men about how Jews might approach various questions, hypothetical and actual. It is not, and does not purport to be, the "last word" on anything.

The Talmud IS an integral part of the Jewish religion, second in importance only to the Torah and it cannot be discounted in any way. Any religious Jew would tell you that. So all those misogynistic teachings remain a part of Judaism.

No doubt a wise observation, especially had the the topic been "Jews who beat their wives.

It would also hold in a thread titled "Muslims who beat their wives". So there is no reason to selectively apply it for one group and not the other.

if a Jew discusses his wife beating with his rabbi, the rabbi is likely to disapprove on both humanitarian and religious grounds. In contrast, if the Muslim wife beater seeks clerical advice, he may very well leave the interview with helpful hints, focusing on how to do it even more agreeably to God.

Your ideas that a Muslim cleric would encourage an act which that would be disproved by a Rabbi is simply black and white thinking on your part.

The reality is that Jews are very much capable of domestic violence and wife beating... so much so that it has been recognized as a major issue in Jewish society...

The evidence that Jewish wife beating exists is strong. Statistics and headlines assail us with facts. 'One out of six' or 'one out of seven' Israeli women is regularly beaten at home. The estimated minimum figure is 100,000 battered women in Israel (of whom 40,000 end up hospitalized); the maximum number is 200,000 (which includes the Arab population).
....
Pick up the Denver newspaper, the Boston Jewish Advocate, The New York Times and you will hear about rabbis' wives who are beaten by their husbands, surgeons' wives who stay in abusive marriages for 12-16 years
Judaism confronts wifebeating

However, there is much data demonstrating that domestic abuse is a significant and under-recognized behavior in Jewish communities in Israel and the Diaspora.
Domestic Violence in Jewish Law

Rabbis regularly advise men to restrict their wives to the home and be responsible for educating them. Thus the husband, who “owns” his wife, is given a great amount of latitude in educating her. In this view it is permissible and acceptable to beat one’s wife in order to keep her in line. The rabbis who justify beating see it as part of the overall “duties” of a husband to chastise his wife for educational purposes.
Wifebeating in Jewish Tradition

All those links address the issue of Jewish wife beating in light of Jewish religious laws. Interestingly the second link refers to the Islamic stipulation, on dealing with wives, to justify the Jewish view.

So one can just as easily connect Jewish domestic violence with Judaisms misogynistic teachings. Simply claiming Jews wouldn't do that doesn't work.

Scorpie

The Talmud IS an integral part of the Jewish religion, second in importance only to the Torah and it cannot be discounted in any way.

Nobody "discounted" it. The only on-topic issue is whether the conclusions reached in its deliberations are normative for living Jews' behavior or binding on their religious advisors. They aren't.

I definitely will remember in your future discussions of how other religions must read their scripture that you relegated canonized scripture, the rest of the Tanakh, to an inferior status behind a tradition writing. Thank you for that.

Your ideas that a Muslim cleric would encourage an act which that would be disproved by a Rabbi is simply black and white thinking on your part.

Thank you also for this. I do think of wife-beating as black-and-white, good for you to notice.

Are there shades of gray in wife beating? Well, yes, it seems that there are in Islam and in states where Sharia applies. Not so much where I live, just as you say.

The reality is that Jews are very much capable of domestic violence and wife beating...

You seem to be losing track of who posts what. Let me recap my views.

I never said that typical living Jewish men were physically disabled or otherwise incapable of domestic violence. I never said that Jewish men, as men, displayed any special reluctance to domestic violence. What I said was that a living Jewish man who does beat his wife will be hard-put to find a religious advisor who approves of his conduct on Jewish religious grounds. That is what bears on the topic of "women in Judaism."

This is not the first time that you have responded to my posts with lengthy "rebuttal" of points that I haven't raised. Once in a while that may be understandable, but a pattern and practice of it, like yours, eventually acquires the stink of straw man argumentation.

The Bible was written by a council of men, of course they put in that women are nothing more than slaves, there to serve for the comfort of men. And while they're at it, why don't we add that they also ok-ed the use of children as bed partners...
I will always abhor any teaching that says that women are unclean during their period. Because bleeding from my vagina is so unnatural, its not like all women do it or anything...

reply to post by eight bits

The only on-topic issue is whether the conclusions reached in its deliberations are normative for living Jews' behavior or binding on their religious advisors.

No, the issue is why Judaism isn't regarded as misogynistic, despite the fact that it also contains teachings that are highly misogynistic. That was the question I posed in the OP. All you had was some special pleading for the Jews...how Rabbis are likely to disapprove it etc.

that you relegated canonized scripture, the rest of the Tanakh, to an inferior status behind a tradition writing.

No need to put words into my mouth. I don't recall ever saying the Tanakh was inferior. In fact I haven't mentioned the Tanakh so far... the only Jewish texts that I have mentioned are the Torah and the Talmud... and that the Talmud is second only to the Torah.

-------------------------------------

sk0rpi0n:Your ideas that a Muslim cleric would encourage an act which that would be disproved by a Rabbi is simply black and white thinking on your part.

I do think of wife-beating as black-and-white

Well, so do I and a lot of others. Has nothing to do with what I was referring to, i.e - your biased assumptions that Rabbis would disaprove of wife beating while a Muslim cleric would encourage it . This is basically saying "Jews good, Muslims bad"... i.e - black and white thinking.

I never said that typical living Jewish men were physically disabled or otherwise incapable of domestic violence.

Well, I never said anything about "Jewish men being physically disabled". Its something you are bringing up here.

What I said was that a living Jewish man who does beat his wife will be hard-put to find a religious advisor who approves of his conduct on Jewish religious grounds.

But thats not quite how you worded it...

Lets go back to what you said
8bit : "if a Jew discusses his wife beating with his rabbi, the rabbi is likely to disapprove on both humanitarian and religious grounds. In contrast, if the Muslim wife beater seeks clerical advice, he may very well leave the interview with helpful hints, focusing on how to do it even more agreeably to God."

You are basically implying that Jewish Rabbis would disapprove wife beating... while maintaining that Islamic clerics would encourage it. Like as if you just know how a Rabbi and an Islamic cleric would approach this matter. Kind of like those people who believe certain groups of people are more likely to be criminal...

with lengthy "rebuttal" of points that I haven't raised.

I have little time to waste on argumentative agnostics and atheists, so I just stick to the point. I have no need to type out rebuttals to points which haven't been raised. All your quotes in my posts are there on record for anybody to review. You happen to be the one raising irrelevant points... such as the ones about Jewish men and physical disability... and the Tanakh. Those were all points that you raised, not me.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Jews confess their sins to a Rabbi.
Catholics confess their sins to a Priest.
Muslims confess their sins to a Cleric.

A Rabbi and a Priest will tell the confessor to stop beating his wife.
A Cleric will tell the confessor how to beat her better.

That is what eight bits is saying.

Scorpie

No, the issue is why Judaism isn't regarded as misogynistic, ...

That's easy, then. There were Jewish misogynysts in the past. There's nothing peculiarly Jewish about having misogyny in its past. Living Judaism, like any other cultural group, is "regarded" by others according to how its living version appears to them.

I can only imagine the anti-Semitic uproar if Judaism tried to disown its record of past misogyny. So, living Jewish religious teachers don't disown their recorded past, but many of them rise above it. Some of them are women these days, in some branches. If and when other groups catch up, then I predict they won't be "regarded as misogynyst" by other people either.

I don't recall ever saying the Tanakh was inferior.

Let me refresh your recollection

The Talmud IS an integral part of the Jewish religion, second in importance only to the Torah and it cannot be discounted in any way.

Torah first; Talmud second, so the rest of the Tanakh is what? Either at best tied for second place with (funny use of only in that case), or else third behind non-canonical tradition literature. Either way suits me fine. Take your pick, but lose the fake victim-baiting "don't put words in my mouth."

Well, so do I and a lot of others.

Then we're in agreement. Moving on.

This is basically saying "Jews good, Muslims bad"... i.e - black and white thinking.

Apparently you missed what I wrote in the post,

I never said that Jewish men, as men, displayed any special reluctance to domestic violence.

You also need to decide whether you object to my attitude toward all adherents of the religions, or just to what I estimate to be the advice that adherents are apt to receive from their religious advisors, based on religious grounds. When you make up your mind, be sure to let me know.

Well, I never said anything about "Jewish men being physically disabled". Its something you are bringing up here.

Once again, let me refresh your recollection,

The reality is that Jews are very much capable of domestic violence and wife beating...

To which I responded, in pertinent part, "I never said that typical living Jewish men were physically disabled or otherwise incapable of domestic violence."

What other kind of capability were you discussing, if not physical capability? I covered the "otherwise incapable" option in my response, but now that you insist and seem all wounded about it, I'm curious to know what you meant instead of physically incapable.

Like as if you just know how a Rabbi and an Islamic cleric would approach this matter.

The premise of the OP is that you have already been acquainted with the bases for the description of Islam as misogynyst. We also have other current and recent threads on point. Need we really cover that ground again? As to the Jewish situation, that Judaism is typically as miserable for living women as Islam is yours to prove. I rejected your ancient evidence as bearing on the living religion, and await your offering something both modern and on point.

In the meantime, you may consider my statements about living Jewish religious advice as your invitation to produce that evidence, a declaration of what you're short so far. They are offered as a description of my state of belief, as can hardly be a surprise on a discussion board, and as is appropriate in a thread with whose ill-founded assertions I post to disagree. It is not, however, my job to supply your missing foundation, nor to prove that what is utterly absent is missing.
-