Re: Kol Isha

[Eliezer Kaplan <zelwel...>]

Wolf-

You always post interesting stuff!

My own particular veiwpoint is that it takes all sorts (even within the
Orthodox community)- tradition is not a frozen thing, but something which
actually does change with the passing of generations.

Orthodox attitudes are complex things, which take hundreds of years to
develop, and hundreds of years sometimes to change. It's too easy to yell
'sexism' without an appreciation of the complexity of the issue- maybe some
rabbi was disturbed by a woman's voice, but somehow he had to get the
majority of an entire generation of Ashkenazic rabbis to agree with him (I'm
not even going to attempt to touch on the politics involved in doing THAT).

Problem is when something becomes irrelevant to the times, or may have even
not been the best idea to start with, folks can sometimes get stuck with an
anachronistic (if even that) traditional standpoint- which ain't gonna
change overnight.

                            EK


----- Original Message -----
From: Kame'a Media <media (at) kamea(dot)com>
To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 1999 12:38 AM
Subject: Re: Kol Isha


>
>
> 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 ---------------------+