mcb@styx.UUCP (09/18/86)
In <1163@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > . . . > >If they don't want to accept the state's services as is, without > >attempting to force them to conform to an antiquated, sexist, and illegal > >moral code, let them pay for it themselves. > > Once again Mikki Barry shows her essential social fascism. By calling > Jewish law antiquated, she tries to convince that it should be > chucked. By calling it illegal she sanctions compulsory measures > against Jewish law. I suppose next she will want to move all those > who obey Jewish law to concentration camps to isolate them in their > illegal and antiquated practices from the rest of the public. With this posting Mr. Martillo has moved from a trenchant and irrepressible observer of Jewish culture and affairs to a vicious, ad hominem waver of the bloody shirt. I find his concentration camp analogy offensive and believe that he owes Ms. Barry -- and more importantly, the rest of us on the net -- an apology. But let's look at the substance of Ms. Barry's remarks: Antiquated -- Indeed. Hasidic practice is quite antiquated, and seems to have lost the train of progressive social thought that has developed in both the Jewish mainstream and that of other cultures, particularly with respect to gender roles, conduct of the home and school, permitted literature and cultural activities, etc. Sexist -- (If I have to argue *this* in detail, I don't know why I bother to write for this audience.) Hasidism is firmly based on sexism and archaic gender roles. That is one of the main reasons I find it and other religious-extremist sects morally insupportable, ranging from fundamentalist Islam to fundamentalist Christian to ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Sexism is stupid and wrong, no matter *why* you practice it. Nevertheless, we tolerate it in the free exercise of religion, for better or worse. Illegal -- Yup. If the Hasidim were not a religious group, but a social club or even a non-religious voluntary community, their practice of institutionalized sexism in employment, job assignment, and opportunity would leave them quite vulnerable to a suit for sex discrimination. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (09/22/86)
>If they don't want to accept the state's services as is, without >attempting to force them to conform to an antiquated, sexist, and illegal >moral code, let them pay for it themselves. Here here! The law says there should be no discrimination upon the basis of sex, and I believe the law of the land is right. Now, I have learned that the women's bathrooms here at U.C. Davis have a couch and a makeup table in them, while the men's rooms have no such amenities. According to the law, this is *ILLEGAL*. Of course, it's also antiquated and sexist. Also, since this is a state bathroom, state funds are used for the maintenance of the couches and makeup tables. In order to prevent discrimination between the sexes, and to end these antiquated, sexist and illegal moral codes, it's obvious that we must eliminate the distinction between men's and women's bathrooms by breaking down the wall between the two bathrooms and having one giant bathroom with "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN" on the door. Let's all work now to stop this antiquated separation of the sexes. Break down bathroom barriers at your company or college, and treat the sexes as one.
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/23/86)
In article <836@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (45281-GREEN, D, DAVID) writes: > > You could have said: > >"If they don't want to accept the state's services as is, let them >pay for it themselves." > > But you did include: > >"... antiquated, sexist, and illegal moral code ...". Because that is what I feel it is. I have expressed an opinion in a much less inflamatory way than the Hasidim did by asking the state to sanction sexism. >I am totally amazed at the amount of traffic generated by this >"nonissue", how about picking on another allegedly "sexist" group >that might take you seriously. Believe me, the Hasids aren't about >to change any of their beliefs because of netnews discussions >and the whole thing has a slight anti-semite tone, too. Did you ever consider that the amount of traffic has been generated because this really is an issue. I also do not recall any posting that has said that the Hasids should change their beliefs. If they want to live this way, fine. Just don't ask me to subsidize a religious belief that is contrary to the laws of the state involved, and contrary to federal acts of equal opportunity in hiring and job assignment. As for being anti-semite, I think you are reading a bit too much into this. I am a pagan, and as such believe very strongly in religous freedom. But when this freedom contradicts the laws and societal mores of this country, the religous beliefs lose. I could say that your postings smack of anti-women's rights, but I won't. Mikki Barry HASA
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (09/24/86)
> Antiquated -- Indeed. Hasidic practice is quite antiquated, and seems > to have lost the train of progressive social thought that has > developed in both the Jewish mainstream and that of other cultures, > particularly with respect to gender roles, conduct of the home and > school, permitted literature and cultural activities, etc. So? Does this mean that change is always right? Would you have supported the Hellinized Jews in Maccabean times because it was progressive? What you are doing here is making a value judgement that your view of Judaism is better than that of the Hassidim. Mainstream Judaism in the United States seems to me to be a way station to assimilation. Is sending kids to a Jewish school antiquated? Mark me down as antique. Is saying kiddush on Friday antiquated? I am even more antique. > Sexist -- (If I have to argue *this* in detail, I don't know why I > bother to write for this audience.) Hasidism is firmly based on sexism > and archaic gender roles. ^^^^^^^ -- here we go value judgement again. Compare the Jewish treatment of women with that of Islam, or in the world outside of the "West", and you will find that a model created 3000 years ago is still highly progessive. > Illegal -- Yup. If the Hasidim were not a religious group, but a > social club or even a non-religious voluntary community, their > practice of institutionalized sexism in employment, job assignment, > and opportunity would leave them quite vulnerable to a suit for sex > discrimination. But, it is not illegal, it is their life style. The only one complaining about Hasidim are the non-Orthodox Jews who are embarrassed and goyim who have to deal with them when the Hasidim have to deal with the general world. rochester \ David Esan | moscom ! de ritcv/ ___________________________________________________________________________ Why are the Amish picturesque, and the Hassidim embarassing? ___________________________________________________________________________
rob@dadla.tek.com (Rob Vetter;1044;92-725;LP=A;60YB) (09/25/86)
Is it immoral for a young Hasidic male to be in the company of a female all of the time (there must be exceptions for mothers & sisters) or just when they are unescorted by an adult male ? If it's the latter, I'm sure the bus district would have no objections to the Hasidim providing an escort. That way no one's religious expression would be violated, and the bus company wouldn't have to make an illegal exception for anyone. Additionally, why are we only talking about Hasidic boys, are there also problems with Hasidic girls and male bus drivers ? Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
barry@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (09/25/86)
In article <524@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@deneb.UUCP writes: > >>If they don't want to accept the state's services as is, without >>attempting to force them to conform to an antiquated, sexist, and illegal >>moral code, let them pay for it themselves. > >Here here! The law says there should be no discrimination upon >the basis of sex, and I believe the law of the land is right. Now, >I have learned that the women's bathrooms here at U.C. Davis have >a couch and a makeup table in them, while the men's rooms have >no such amenities. According to the law, this is *ILLEGAL*. Of >course, it's also antiquated and sexist. Also, since this is a >state bathroom, state funds are used for the maintenance of the >couches and makeup tables. Will somebody please tell me how the federal laws on fair hiring and job assignments have anything to do with bathrooms? Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that whenever people stand up for women's rights, whether it be ERA, or even something as supposedly simple as asking the state not to sanction sexism and abide by its laws, that opponents start yelling about bathrooms? Probably the next argument will be that since women aren't drafted, they shouldn't be allowed to drive busses containing male children of the Hassidim. >Let's all work now to stop this antiquated separation of the sexes. >Break down bathroom barriers at your company or college, and treat >the sexes as one. One what? Mikki Barry HASA
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (10/01/86)
> In article <524@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@deneb.UUCP writes: > > > >>If they don't want to accept the state's services as is, without > >>attempting to force them to conform to an antiquated, sexist, and illegal > >>moral code, let them pay for it themselves. > > > >Here here! The law says there should be no discrimination upon > >the basis of sex, and I believe the law of the land is right. Now, > >I have learned that the women's bathrooms here at U.C. Davis have > >a couch and a makeup table in them, while the men's rooms have > >no such amenities. According to the law, this is *ILLEGAL*. Of > >course, it's also antiquated and sexist. Also, since this is a > >state bathroom, state funds are used for the maintenance of the > >couches and makeup tables. > > Will somebody please tell me how the federal laws on fair hiring and > job assignments have anything to do with bathrooms? > In case nobody got the point, I meant my first posting as sarcasm. Right now, some people are saying that one group is "antiquated and sexist." Well, we all engage in some sexism. Just how much depends upon our own tastes. Separate bath rooms, which often give one particular sex extra amenities, is a form of discrimination. To break down all forms of discrimination would be to break down the bathroom walls. By the way, I was told that a major corporation had to remove the couches from the women's rooms, after a sexual discrimination suit by male employees, so it isn't as ridiculous as you may think. Maybe some of you think that's a good idea. If you do, I'd say there's Torah against it. For those of you who say that there should be separate bathrooms but not separate busses, look closely at yourself. You've just approved a form of discrimination. Don't be hypocritical when another group has their own form of discrimination. Also, is *EVERY* form of discrimination evil? Is it really evil to have separate bathrooms or busses? Where is the line? > Mikki Barry > HASA {scdsvax,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!vega!ccrdave {scdsvax,lll-crg,ucbvax}!ucdavis!samira!kahless
rob@dadla.tek.com (Rob Vetter;1044;92-725;LP=A;60YB) (10/02/86)
In article <533@ucdavis.UUCP> ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) writes: > > ... For those of you who say that there should be >separate bathrooms but not separate busses, look closely at yourself. >You've just approved a form of discrimination. Don't be hypocritical >when another group has their own form of discrimination. Hmmm ... every home I've been in used the same bathroom(s) for both the men and the women. Aside from PERSONAL privacy (already provided in most by stalls), I don't see sharing public facilities as a problem. I think the point being made by some of us is being missed, however. There are certain rules written and unwritten in our society that should be followed. People are allowed to practice their religion - even if most of us consider elements of that religion discriminatory. When they are in public, however, using public funds, they should follow the rules of conduct prescribed by that public. It is THEIR burden to make sure that they follow their religion. As a smoker, I'm often requested not to smoke in certain public and private places. It is NOT the burden of the requester to make sure that I get my nicotine fix. > >Also, is *EVERY* form of discrimination evil? Is it really evil to >have separate bathrooms or busses? Where is the line? Collectively, we determine which forms are right or wrong. The line is pretty fluid based on anything from todays's weather to who is in power. (Just stay away from my dis- crimination on restaurant menus :-) ) Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
cjh@cca.UUCP (Chip Hitchcock) (10/09/86)
> rochester \ >David Esan | moscom ! de > ritcv/ >___________________________________________________________________________ > >Why are the Amish picturesque, and the Hassidim embarassing? >___________________________________________________________________________ Because the Amish keep intensely to themselves (those were Mennonites in the movie WITNESS---the Amish would have nothing to do with anything so vain as aappearing in a movie, even in a crowd scene), instead of demanding that the state serve them in some special fashion. I have also been told that even Conservative and Orthodox Jews consider the Hasidim embarassingly mystical, in opposition to the rationalism that is a significant tradition in ]mainline[ Judaism. It is true that historical Judaism has some interesting features which suggest that in its original time and place Judaism was indeed relatively progressive, specifically wrt women; there are also many facets of Judaism that have not changed even so much as other major conservative religions have changed. CHip (Chip Hitchcock) ARPA: CJH@CCA.CCA.COM uu: ...!{decvax!linus, seismo!harvard, cbosgd, caip!think}!cca!cjh We are just the vessel for a lot of intestynal flora--- And if we own something they will own it too. Dave Luckett PS: My minimal recollection of Hebrew I've sung suggests that a proper translation of "Hasidim" is "Righteous Ones"---does that give you a cue to attitudes?
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (10/10/86)
10 Oct 86 16:32:16 GMT 10 Oct 86 16:32:16 GMT Distribution: net Organization: MOSCOM Corp, E Rochester, NY, USA Lines: 48 Xref: moscom soc.culture.jewish:50 soc.women:285 I wrote: >>Why are the Amish picturesque, and the Hassidim embarassing? Chip responded: > Because the Amish keep intensely to themselves (those were Mennonites in the > movie WITNESS---the Amish would have nothing to do with anything so vain as > aappearing in a movie, even in a crowd scene), instead of demanding that the > state serve them in some special fashion. Not true. The Amish are not only in the back woods of Pennsylvania, but are in New York, Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as in Ontario (there are probably other states, but I am not sure). There was a large controversy when they tried to keep their children out of school after the age of fourteen (sixteen is the mandatory age in most states). The case eventually went to the Supreme Court and Amish children are excused from school after the age of 14. The State serves them in a special fashion. There was further controversy over the use of orange triangles on their buggies. The Amish felt they were too ornate, DOT felt they were necessary. After much discussion, some do, and some don't. The state has put up warning signs in the area to warn the rest of us that there can be horse and buggies around. The state serves them in a special fashion. > I have also been told that even > Conservative and Orthodox Jews consider the Hasidim embarassingly mystical, > in opposition to the rationalism that is a significant tradition in > ]mainline[ Judaism. So? While I might be embarassed by some Hassidic attitudes, I support their right to their life style. You have not answered my question. You suggest that the Hasidim are not picturesque because they live in big cities and are embarassing to the rest of the Jews? That smacks of feelings that are best left unmentioned at this time. Are the Amish embarassing to mainstream Protestants? > CHip (Chip Hitchcock) ARPA: CJH@CCA.CCA.COM > uu: ...!{decvax!linus, seismo!harvard, cbosgd, caip!think}!cca!cjh > PS: My minimal recollection of Hebrew I've sung suggests that a proper > translation of "Hasidim" is "Righteous Ones"---does that give you a cue to > attitudes? Yes, it means that they think they are right, which is the mark of all religions. Ask any Catholic, Moslem, Protestant or Jew. -- rochester \ David Esan | moscom ! de ritcv/
rob@dadla.UUCP (10/13/86)
I can't find any references in the back pages of the newspaper, and I guess the World Series, Reagan's refusal to compromise, and Dallas upsetting Washington are more "real" on TV. Obviously, there is a short term solution while legal issues are waiting to be resolved. What was it ? Rob Vetter (503) 629-1044 [ihnp4, ucbvax, decvax, uw-beaver]!tektronix!dadla!rob
ask@cbrma.UUCP (A.S.Kamlet) (10/16/86)
In article <244@ima.UUCP> trb@ima.UUCP (Andrew Tannenbaum) writes: >In article <10462@cca.UUCP> cjh@cca.UUCP (Chip Hitchcock) writes: : : >On the other hand, if you see a Hasid at prayer with his brothers -- dancing, >clapping, shouting, singing, chicken-fighting, kissing, crying, or whatever, >you might consider that embarrassingly mystical. I don't. There are plenty : : Could someone please explain "chicken-fighting." What is it? What does it mean? -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {cbosgd | ihnp4}!cbrma!ask