Culture, Global, Identity, Politics, Religion, Sex & Gender

Reconstructionist Movement's Well of Misandry

RRC_LOGO.jpgOnce outside a nightclub in the nation’s capital, I engaged in a shouting match dialogue with a member of the Nation of Islam. He was ranting and raving about the inherent evil of “whitey,” and when I challenged his generalizations and questioned the goals of NOI, he countered that blacks couldn’t be racist, since they are victims of racism. I assured him that he was never the less doing a remarkable job trying despite the ostensibly impossible parameters of this limiting paradigm.
Of course, the Nation of Islam is a small group within the American black community. The problem is when larger, more mainstream groups associate with and embrace Farrakhan.
So too, within the Jewish-Feminist community, there are groups and leaders who go beyond grappling with and suggesting changes to improve (if never actually solve) their “second class” citizenship, but resort to blatant misandry and advocate mohelet culture.
The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, is a proud supporter of both Kolot, and its website, Ritualwell.org.
On the surface, ritualwell.org is a typical, gender oriented (that means feminist) site committed to discussing pagan Rosh Chodesh festivals, New Ritual stuff, and of course, tambourines.
But Ritualwell goes a bit further than the usual expatiation upon (not really) parallel ceremonies.
In the first essay on the subject of circumcision, Elyse Goldstein writes,

Circumcision, life sacrifice, is not only the sealing of covenant and atonement, it is also a symbol of control. To cut, whether the sexual organ or the animal’s throat, is to be in command and to limit. The blood of circumcision limits; it sets bounds on who is a “member of the tribe,” while setting real, physical limits on that member’s sexual organ.

Goldstein makes sure that we understand that the female condition is preferable.

“Thus circumcision actually makes men more like women. Male circumcision removes the foreskin and “opens up” or reveals the genital.”

So many Jewish feminists attempt to deny the physical effects of bris milah in order to get past the fact that this one can’t be “egalitarian,” as actual effects would obviate any attempt at a “parallel ceremony.”
Goldstein does not. Rather, she cherishes its debilitating effects.

“Let our boys be entered into a circumscribed world of men whose spiritual sensitivities are increased as their phallic-centered power is decreased.[…]The common notion in our sexist world is that men are created “whole” and perfect. Circumcision negates that aggrandizement. In “sacrificing” a piece of the penis, in uncovering and revealing themselves in their most vulnerable part, in making themselves more like women, men can be made more whole.”

Obviously, not everyone in the Reconstructionist Movement supports this kind of misandry.  They just tolerate it.
But when a well established Jewish movement seeking as wide a net of Jews possible (of both genders) feels comfortable attaching its name and logo to a site like this, it is indicative of how serious the problem is in our community. They did not fear public backlash, because they shrewdly understood there wouldn’t be any.
Outside of practicing normative or fundamentalist Orthodox circles, you can’t get away from this stuff. My parents recently were shocked recently when at the bris of an intermarried woman’s son they were treated to a Mohelet’s performance of the ritual. They were given no warning.
Non-Orthodox Jews are not just wrestling with an irreconcilable Patriarchy (and as long as there is circumcision for boys, it is irreconcilable), they are prioritizing it. And this constant–in your face—aspect of the struggle can be exhausting and alienating to many men. The constant jostling for greater gender parity frequently can feel like you are attempting to find a place on an express train during rush hour. And very few dare to even raise the issue. Only halacha is an acceptable complication bring as a possible objection.
I generally don’t go where I don’t feel safe, where I am expected to see the world, myself and people like me, in a very different and negative way than I actually do. This is partially why I do not travel in social circles involving Muslim activists, like my NOI buddy back in DC who I mentioned previously.
But it is much harder to get away from such elements in your own community.
Or is it?
One factor (among many) for men remaining unaffiliated may be an aversion to the sort of Jewish-feminist double standards and wrath that are all but ubiquitous on many levels in the liberal ritual Jewish community.
Jewish men aren’t as vocal as Jewish feminists, but they may be voting. Out. Which is strange. After all, aren’t they the beneficiaries of Jewish patriarchy?
I personally am not a practicing Orthodox Jew. And I am not comfortable in a community that looks with favor, is influenced by, and gives support on many levels to bastions of Mohelet culture that seek to make “men more like women.”
In my own experience and readings, I have frequently detected a general contempt among Jewish-feminists not just towards The Patriarchy, but towards male sexuality, and even towards maleness generally. This essay elucidates such attitudes, and the Reconstructionist Movement’s support is indicative of how widespread and acceptable they are. This relationship is a smoking gun.
There are many ways to vote out. One is to stay single. One is to intermarry. The latter is a special back door out of Jewish continuity. Just for men.
When I have dated non-Jewish women, I have found that although my intense Jewishness is an issue (though to be fair, their lack of Jewishness has been a bigger issue to me), it was mitigated by their acceptance of my maleness. And these are feminist women. But it’s…different. Because they aren’t fighting The Patriarchy. They aren’t angry at me. They don’t feel I personally owe them for the last four thousand years of “oppression” in Jewish history. They don’t expect me to perceive the world the way they do. They accept that I think differently than they do.
Most secular Jews are liberal or left. Most liberal/left Jewish women are feminists. Most Jewish-feminists view themselves as “second class citizens” in Judaism.
And it sucks dating someone who sees herself like that.
Anyone else feel this way?
[Update — because of their own link on their site boasting of their relationship to Ritualwell.org, I incorrectly implicated the JCC of Manhattan as currently associating with Ritualwell.org.  There is apparently no current relationship, though I will be checking to see if that link remains.  Rather, ritualwell.org’s support comes solely from the fourth largest religious denomination of American Jewry.] 

29 thoughts on “Reconstructionist Movement's Well of Misandry

  1. just to reiterate: the views expressed by jewschool’s contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of jewschool.com, its editorial staff, its other contributors, nor matzat, the organization overseeing jewschool.
    that said, i used to work at the jcc and did a lot of work with mayan and even some work on ritual well itself, though as an independent contractor and outside the auspices of the jcc. i do not believe mayan and ritual well are linked any longer (there is no mention of mayan on the ritual well site presently, whereas previously there was a huge mayan logo on the site), i think mayan hardly exists itself this point, and i don’t think you can fairly associate the jcc with ritual well in any sense other than a very distant partnership. however irked as i am at and by the jcc, you can’t justifiably drag them into this.
    other than that, i hear you about the mohelets, as per our subway conversation the other night. and i think there — on the egal issue itself — you have an exceptionally fair point. either introduce female circumcision or eliminate circumcision all together.

  2. a former mayan staffer just emailed me the following:
    “In response to David Kelsey’s recent post, I think you should know that Ritualwell no longer belongs to Ma’yan but is the sole property of Kolot, the gender studies center of RRC, and this has been true for over a year. Before blaming the JCC for one paragraph on a site that has thousands of pages, you might want to note that Ma’yan can no longer respond to such criticisms, as it has no control over the site. The JCC certainly has no control over the site.
    “David’s post was highly disappointing to me in its total lack of sympathy for Jewish women struggling with the complicated legacy of sexism. Since he claims all mohelets are offensive simply because they are female (certainly not all are Goldsteinites), the post also seemed deeply mired in sexist assumptions. I was sad to see this post on Jewschool.”

  3. Kelsey, nice job responding to blanket sexism towards men with blanket sexism towards women. Nice job writing off all Jewish women as personally angry at all males for 4000 years of oppression.
    I’m not sure why your assuming that all women want to emasculate men, through brit milah or otherwise, or why your assuming that ritualwell speaks for all jewish feminists.
    Or that insisting on your “maleness” ad naseum makes you more manly.
    I mean, sorry to hear that your dating life sucks, but maybe its not all Jewish women who are the problem here . . .

  4. Anonymous Mayan person, you wrote,
    “Since he claims all mohelets are offensive simply because they are female (certainly not all are Goldsteinites), the post also seemed deeply mired in sexist assumptions.”
    Circumcision ITSELF is a “sexist assumption,” and there is no way to get around that AND still circumcise boys and not circumcise girls. How do you not see that?!?
    “David’s post was highly disappointing to me in its total lack of sympathy for Jewish women struggling with the complicated legacy of sexism.”
    You will also frequently find my posts highly dissapointing in my total lack of sympathy for communists stuggling with the complicated legacy of capitalism, NOI supporters struggling with the complicated legacy of racism, Jew haters struggling with the complicated legacy of Zionist oppression, and Kahanists struggling with the complicated legacy of antisemitism. Cause I’m insensitive like that when hatred is justified by victimology. And I’m most vocal about it when it occurs in my own community, and no one else is protesting.

  5. Sarah M,
    I never said “all.” And if I was not positive that a lot of men felt like I do, even in liberal circles, I would not have dared to bring this up, because it obviously implicates my own personal failings, and invites being called out on them. I am still willing to do so because of an undercurrent of understandable resentment that is all too prevalent, and rarely acknowledged.

  6. David,
    I’m just not sure what you’re getting at in your post. I agree with you that tring to make men more like women is a form of reverse sexism; also someone can be a very fine person and adhere to tradtional gender roles, or they can ignore those roles and also be a very fine person. Blaming men today for 400 years of patriarchy is dumb, though I’ve never actually heard anyone say it.
    Im just not sure why you segued into a rant that uses a broad bruch to paint liberal Jewish women as emasculating and undateable.

  7. Sarah M,
    I took a risk, maybe a bad one. My point was to say this isn’t merely a theoretical problem. When “gender issues” mean ONLY feminist issues, as they all too frequently do in the liberal Jewish movements, and when they exclude mens feelings to the point where misandry is celebrated as progressive by mainstream religious movements, there are going to be some very real complications.

  8. These have got to be the funniest links in the history of jewschool:
    “Kolot creates and publishes “new traditions” …. ”
    and
    “…download a ritual, or cut and paste your own”
    Is this an ecample of the famous Jewish humor?

  9. Just as feminism requires a reevaluation of what is femininity, as well as debate as to whether is is a worthwhile construct, you are right that the conversation on gender should not stop at feminism. The “girls rule boys drool” line, or any more sophisticated phrasing of it, shouldn’t be coming out of the mouth of anyone past about 4th grade.
    I’m wondering if an exploration of what “gender issues” mean for masculinity might not be a more constructive way to make your point than (rather negative) generalizations about the liberal Jewish dating scene.
    it’s common for feminist thinkers to challenge “the way things have to be.” What does this mean for your definition of “manliness”?

  10. Sarah M,
    I said “maleness,” not “manliness.” I do not consider myself particularly “manly,” nor quite frankly, does anyone else.
    You said,
     “it’s common for feminist thinkers to challenge “the way things have to be.” What does this mean for your definition of “manliness”?”
    It depends on the context, the process, and the details and possible complications of the proposed new policy. When the ends justifies the means because of some ism, the policies, both small and large, will always be flawed, and frequently hurtful.

  11. Then what does it mean to have a problem with maleness?
    I would assume that someone who has a problem with maleness would just choose to not date males?

  12. Sarah M,
    You said,
    “I would assume that someone who has a problem with maleness would just choose to not date males?”
    That’s rarely the case. There has been a gender conflict and disconnect since the beginning of time. It has been particularly acute in the Jewish community since the 70’s. But having a problem with the opposite gender (or the perceived status of your own) hardly means you have no interest in them or a relationship wih one of them.
    I do not blame this situation solely on Jewish feminists. I also blame Jewish men for not sticking up for themselves properly. As much of relatively recent Diaspora history has shown, it isn’t our strongest suit.

  13. well, wrt the whole female circumcision or no circumcision thing – it might be interesting to note that the laws regarding circumcision appear in the same portion as the laws regarding a niddah for women and mikva before resuming sexual relations (parasha Tazria). Might we not see that as being the Torah mandated equivalent? Both occurring in the same passage, both having to do with blood and ultimately sexual relations, after all.
    Just food for thought.

  14. Hi Laya,
    Perhaps there is some mystical connection, but no, they are quite different. All fertile adult women menstruate naturally. Now if FGM1 was commanded in that parsha, then you would have a solid vort.

  15. Kelsey-
    Ritualwell is a repository of hundreds of articles by hundreds of contributors representing a wide range of perspectives. The article that you cite is one of 9 in the circumcision section alone (some of which are downright old-school). It is absurd to think that every one of these articles represents an official position of the Ritualwell editors, Kolot, RRC, the Reconstructionist movement, or Jewish feminists as a group. Mobius says above that “the views expressed by jewschool’s contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of jewschool.com, its editorial staff, its other contributors, nor matzat, the organization overseeing jewschool”. Just as I hope your bitter post will not reflect on me or the other Jewschool contributors, I hope that you will understand that this article on circumcisions says nothing about the Reconstructionist movement other than that it provides a forum for multiple views to be heard. While I disagree with this particular interpretation of circumcision, I don’t think it’s outside the bounds of civil discourse, and I don’t see why Ritualwell shouldn’t have included it.
    I have no idea what this “mohelet culture” is of which you speak. As you know, brit milah has been going on for thousands of years, and there is nothing fundamentally different about circumcision performed by a male or a female — it’s the exact same procedure.
    You write:
    Circumcision ITSELF is a “sexist assumption,” and there is no way to get around that AND still circumcise boys and not circumcise girls. How do you not see that?!?
    Boys and girls are physically different, and egalitarianism can’t go farther than biology goes. Men and women can share equally in parenting responsibilities, except that men can’t get pregnant or breastfeed. Girls and boys can be welcomed equally into the covenant, except that girls don’t have foreskins and can’t be circumcised. (The procedure known as “female circumcision” is completely different from male circumcision, and it is horribly misleading to lump them together.) Recognizing these physical limitations does not, as you suggest, render all other attempts at egalitarianism worthless.

  16. Kelsey wrote:
    I do not blame this situation solely on Jewish feminists. I also blame Jewish men for not sticking up for themselves properly.
    Perhaps this is because many Jewish men agree with the “feminist” idea that both men and women should be treated as human beings.

  17. If by Mohelet culture, David, you mean female’s performing Bris Milah’s, I’ll concede some confusion. After all, doesn’t the Torah itself allow women to perform Bris Milah’s? Didn’t Tzipporah perform the ceremony on her child when Moshe was – uh – indisposed?
    If you’re referring to the concept of a woman circumcising a child as indicative of some greater emasculation of the Jewish male, I think you can only push as far as the Torah itself. If the Torah allows it, it either isn’t emasculating, or the Torah promotes emasculation. You need to decide one or the other, because if your problem is with the latter, you’re picking a bone with the original Patriarchal document itself, not with modernity or feminism.

  18. BZ,
    You wrote,
    “The article that you cite is one of 9 in the circumcision section alone.”
    The first of nine, and it is cited by a subsequent essayist as well. It is all but the signature essay of the section.
    “I hope your bitter post will not reflect on me or the other Jewschool contributors, I hope that you will understand that this article on circumcisions says nothing about the Reconstructionist movement other than that it provides a forum for multiple views to be heard.”
    Unlike us, these essayists don’t disagree with each other. Ritualwell is hardly a group blog. And I really wouldn’t worry that anyone will confuse are views for one and the same. I certainly have no fear of that.
    “I don’t think it’s outside the bounds of civil discourse, and I don’t see why Ritualwell shouldn’t have included it.”
    Either you see it or you don’t. Let the readers decide if it’s a problem.
    “Girls and boys can be welcomed equally into the covenant, except that girls don’t have foreskins and can’t be circumcised.”
    Oh really?
    “Hygienic motivations: It is believed that the secretions produced by the glands in the labia minora and majora are foul smelling, unhygienic and so make the female body unclean. However, in noncircumcised women, it is very easy to clean the external genitalia. It is only in the rare cases where there is a stricture of the prepuce of the clitoris (phimosis) or elongation of the prepuce (foreskin) that is difficult to clean; in such cases a properly done surgical circumcision without encroaching on the clitoris may be required.”
    http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/techng-2000-August-22/techng9.asp
    “Recognizing these physical limitations does not, as you suggest, render all other attempts at egalitarianism worthless.”
    There is nothing in Goldstein’s essay that is “egalitarian.”
    Mordy, you wrote,
    “After all, doesn’t the Torah itself allow women to perform Bris Milah’s? Didn’t Tzipporah perform the ceremony on her child when Moshe was – uh – indisposed?”
    Sure, Mordy — privately. Not in front of the community. And it was, to most interpretations — not the ideal situation at all. Which is why it wasn’t customary to have women mohelets perform the ritual throughout history, and still isn’t normative.
    There are many, many, instances where what is done privately and what is done publicly are considered two very different issues.

  19. BZ, you wrote,
    “Perhaps this is because many Jewish men agree with the “feminist” idea that both men and women should be treated as human beings.”
    Now you are playing dirty. You can do better than that. past nisht

  20. David Kelsey writes:
    There is nothing in Goldstein’s essay that is “egalitarian.”
    I’m not defending Goldstein’s essay, I’m responding to your comments that “Non-Orthodox Jews are not just wrestling with an irreconcilable Patriarchy (and as long as there is circumcision for boys, it is irreconcilable)” and “Circumcision ITSELF is a “sexist assumption,” and there is no way to get around that AND still circumcise boys and not circumcise girls.”

  21. “Circumcision ITSELF is a “sexist assumption,” and there is no way to get around that AND still circumcise boys and not circumcise girls.”
    There is no honest way around this issue. Even Mobius agrees with that, so don’t try to make it sound wacko reactionary.
    It’s incontrovertible.

  22. Kelsey writes: Now you are playing dirty. You can do better than that. past nisht
    And you can do better than this. And better than your original post.
    I believe that BZ was making a serious point. Most Jewish men of my acquaintance do believe in the feminist/humanist/whatever you want to call it idea that all people should be treated like humans. Not nastily tarred with a stereotype-perpetuating brush that paints Jewish feminists as angry, loud-mouthed, man-hating, penis-chopping women, and the men who actually like Jewish women as wimps.

  23. David,
    I still don’t know what you mean by “maleness.” It seems the “maleness” you refer to is behavioral, not physical. Am i correct that you’re assuming that gendered behavior is an inherent part of being one sex or the other, and that males and females should behave certain ways?
    I think I don’t share this belief in gender roles. I mean, if it works for someone fine, but a lot of people I know seem happiest disregarding them.
    I really don’t think that most feminists are trying to grind the menfolk under their heel, adn the men to need to get their act together and “stand up for themselves”. If women, and men are choosing to base their behavior on something other than what society expects from them based on their sex, this should be (and often is) a liberating, not an oppressive situation for everyone.

  24. Sarah M,
    We are talking about different things. I am not talking about what consenting adults agree to do alone or in their relationships.
    Neither was Goldstein.

  25. I am not talking about what consenting adults agree to do alone or in their relationships.
    Neither was Goldstein.

    Neither, from what I can tell, is Sarah M. I, too, would like to know what it is you mean by maleness.

  26. Rabbi Kahane, if you got a chance to talk to him privately, was a warm and funny Jew. Perhaps the funniest Jew since Lenny Bruce. Sure, he advocated radical policies. Of course, when Shimon Peres discusses demographics he won’t acknowledge that it was RMK who first brought the issue to general Jewish consciousness. His raising of the transfer issue, I believe, helped raise consciousness of the expulsion/flight of Sephardic Jews from the Arab/Muslim world in 48-51 (yes, like the flight of the Arabs of Palestine it was a complicated story – some fled for their lives, others were allowed to leave – in any case, few wanted to stay).
    I’m reading the quote from Rav Soloveitchik below. Kahane was a complicated guy. Most of the rhetoric was just that, rhetoric. He loved getting liberal Jews’ noses out of joint, while being personally warm to most every Jew he met. Most important was his seminal role in the t’shuvah movement. Probably an influence on the renewal movement as well. In the late 1960s the only Jew on the national US scene who said anything at all about being proud to be a Jew was Meir Kahane. He wanted Jews to move to Israel. Even Jews who disagreed with him. He told them to move there and vote against him. I saw him absolutely charm a liberal reporter, but by the time the editor got through with it the story was the same old shit complete with a photo of him waving his fist. He’d speak for an hour, rarely raising his voice, but the flashbulbs would go off when he would get animated. They needed that fist shot. And he was no racist and openly decried racism. He was indeed obsessed about Jewish women having sex with non Jewish men, and he may have had an affair with a secretary. Nobody is perfect.
    Do the Mohelets practice metzitzah b’peh?
    Seriously, though I personally recite the misheberach for Tzahal during yizkor (and martyrs as well), I’m not too keen on politicizing Jewish rituals. That’s exactly what the mohlet culture mentioned is doing. The brit milah is a powerful, ancient ritual. So powerful that anti-circ activists have a very tough row to hoe w/ Jews and even liberal Jews have a bris, albeit apparently now w/ a female mohelet, who puts a feminist spin on the ritual to assuage mom’s natural misgivings over what DK has pointed out is an unavoidably male ritual. Dad is probably happy that there is a bris at all (if he’s Jewish), but isn’t too sure about having a feminist near his son’s penis w/ a sharp knife. Dad may not know what the word misandry means, but he’s no idiot.
    Yes, there have been women who mahled their sons. There’s a heartwrenching story involving a Jewish woman begging for a knife and being handed one by a Nazi guard who expected her to commit suicide. Instead she unwrapped a dirty bundle and circumcised her baby boy. Both were killed. Mom wanted her son to die as a proper Jewish male. So in theory I don’t have a problem w/ women performing circumcision.
    If there is a dad, the mitzvah is on him. The mohel acts as his agent. In our mishpocha, at least in my generation, when our sons were mahled, the mohel set it up, handed us the messer and we did the cuts ourselves. If there’s no dad, al pi halacha I believe, the milah is performed at the behest of the beit din, not the mother, though I could be wrong.
    I think it’s interesting that as soon as a man brings up the subject of misandry, even liberal women will attack his masculinity and ability to attract women. DK, if you keep it up, they’ll call you a little boy, and say that you are a whining loser.

  27. BZ wrote:
    “Recognizing these physical limitations does not, as you suggest, render all other attempts at egalitarianism worthless.”
    Kelsey responded:
    There is nothing in Goldstein’s essay that is “egalitarian.”
    Egalitarian explorations are valuable – they keep us honest and introspective. Yes, egalitarianism CAN turn biased against a particular gender. However, it is still a valuable pursuit. Also, it is not safe to assume that no women are uncomfortable with sexism against men. Just as it is not such a great idea to assume that no men are uncomfortable with sexism against women.
    Kelsey, I don’t think you dealt with the issue of this article as part of a larger body of egalitarian dialogue. Do you see this body as lacking relevance? Is it by nature always sexist?
    Also, a side note, please leave my phimosis alone – long or short, it has nothing to do with my being in a covenant with hashem as a woman. Size doesn’t matter. Female circumcision accomplishes a very different end than male circumcision. The medical procedure described above has no connection to the practice of female circumcision because that is simply not the reason it is done in societies in which the practice is prevalent.
    Although this Jewish liberal woman doesn’t see herself at all in the light you described above, I enjoyed your provocative post.

  28. you know, i’m really sorry, but your post is ridiculous. you take one article from one website and suddenly the opinion that this one person expressed in this article on circumcision becomes equated with the entire reconstructionist movement. what’s your context? what gives you the right to make these blanket statements accusing the reconstructionist movement of a “well of misandry”? i had to google to figure out what “misandry” means, which given your premise is kind of odd, being that i am a male in the reconstructionist movement. theoretically, shouldn’t i know if they hate men?
    and comparing the reconstructionist movement to the nation of islam, even implicitly? i would have hoped for a much higher level of discourse on this website.
    you totally miss the entire point and value of the ritualwell website, it’s not to destroy traditional judaism and circumcision. it’s a repository for do-it-yourself rituals for various lifecycle occasions – previous ceremonies that you can use to for weddings, funerals, brit mila ceremonies, bnei mitzvah, brit bat for baby girls, and other moments that can be ritualized. and thereby doing it using a jewish framework, which hopefully will help create meaningful experiences to mark the liminal moment taking place.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.