Re: Kol Isha

[Kame'a Media <media...>]

Steven M. Singer wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Kame'a Media wrote:
>
> > It's like: "Okay, we won't bring the Black guy".
>
> Ah, Wolf... you make being part of this list so much more entertaining.
> Cute comparison, but I don't think that it holds mayim.

What; I amuse you?  I stand by my analogy. <Kol isha> insofar as it pertains
to women being able to take the stage and sing at an orthodox venue or in
front of an orthodox audience that includes men, is an issue of discrimination
and exclusion that affects many people on this list.

The Black guy in my analogy is excluded because he is perceived to have too
much melanin to be socially acceptable to a racist.
The woman, -- well, she becomes excluded, in this case, simply because she is
not a man.
Her talent, accomplishments, decency and intelligence mean nothing.
Any man, no matter what his character,  is accorded more respect and entree
simply because he possesses testicles.  This is supposed to be a just and
fair standard?
You can't tell me that it is a   righteous doctrine; no way.

Why would my analogy not hold water,  if t both the Black and the woman are
denied what is given to others whose only difference is being  white or male?
"Cute" -- my butt.


>   Orthodoxy's issue with kol isha is old-hat.

Meaning that it's an entrenched doctrine, so  let's leave things the way they
are?You can't be serious.

> Further, intermarriage/assimilation is a distraction that will (if
> unchecked) slowly - but surely - remove for the need for this listserv
> altogether.

Why would intermarriage lead to a loss of interest in Jewish music?You mean
all the Jews will disappear (gasp!) and there will be no more computer geeks
to take their place setting up discussion webs like this?  I doubt it.

You may be interested to know that some top klezmer musicians are married to
non-Jews.  Hasn't made them abandon Jewish music.

I don't see Orthodoxy's treatment of women as a social

> injustice in the context of Judaism, but it sure doesn't look right in
> 90's America, eh?  My question is, are we as Jews truly "fish on dry
> land", or do we want to be like everybody else?

Well, Steve, Black slaves (the masters claimed) were happy in the context of
slavery, too.We ARE like everybody else.In America, Jews are just part of the
great consumer culture -- no more, no less.
We are no better, no worse than most any other group.
All those  statistics that Jews loved to brag about over the years insofar as
alcoholism, drug addiction, crime and other abuses go, have for several years
now, been demonstrated to resemble those pertaining to the  rest of the
general population.

What's with the "fish on dry land" analogy?
Are you saying, we are intrinsically so different (chosen?) and the general
environment (the <goyim> ?) so inhospitable, that  Jews are to be compared to
"fish on dry land".
Please be so kind as to elucidate the fishy part.


> If the former is true,
> you need to redefine "social injustice" and your use of the word, "us".

A social injustice can be one that happens globally, nationally, in a group,
or in a family.
Man, I have to explain "us"?  Give me a break. "Us" is humanity.

>
>
> > Jewish life and living are too precious to be dominated by the monolithic
> > arcane views of a handful of MEN ONLY.
>
> Until recently, I'd agree with you.  However, Orthodoxy contains a very
> large (vocal) constituent of women who CHOOSE to be Orthodox.

So?  What does that prove?  That people make choices?
And this makes all the doctrines, policies and rules  of a  group well and
good?
Please.

> > I believe Judaism is an evolving civilization.
> > Jewish institutions are another matter.
>
> OK... the dinosaurs evolved themselves right into extinction.
>

Not true.  The dinosaurs became extinct due to intense volcanic activity and
large meteor showers whose resultant smoke blocked the light of the sun,
impeding photosynthesis and the normal generation of life-sustaining biomass
needed by the vegetarian dinos.

We have learned much about the workings of the human mind, emotions and
sexuality in very recent history.   We won't even mention anthropology.
Orthodoxy chooses to ignore many of these advances in understanding, much to
it's detriment, in my opinion.  What if doctors were still practising medicine
at the ninth century standard?
Why are we expected to accept  "ninth century" attitudes concerning so-called
"proper" behaviours?

The rabbis who formulated the <kol isha> injunction were only men, after all.
And often, due to the intense life of study and <davening> they most often
led, they
had very little to do with day-to-day   family life;  hence their
understanding could reasonably be seen as somewhat flawed and incomplete in
some cases, no?

I believe the injunction against <kol isha> was first addressed by a rabbi who
was disturbed while saying the <sh'ma> by the sound of a woman singing.
If the same rabbi  had been disturbed by the bellowing of a cow, do you think
a similar injunction against hearing cow sounds would have made it into the
books?

Think about the subtext and the self-interest of the men in control.

My posting is not intended to express any disrespect for orthodox people,--
-- my mother comes from a family of Zhuriker <khasidim> --
but only certain disagreements over issues under discussion at this time.

Wolf

> -Steve
>



---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+