Analyzing Myths of Female Beauty: An Alternative Approach To Teaching Tzniut

Those of you who have been reading my blog since its inception remember my upsetting experience at my Bais Yaakov school when it came to tznius. The main problem with the way tznius was taught in my high school had to do with the following fact: it worked based on two premises, only one of which proved true.

The first premise was that wearing certain clothing had the power to make you feel a certain way. The second premise was that wearing clothing that was deemed untznius made you feel dirty, exposed or otherwise unpleasant. This was illustrated by a session with our Mechanechet where she had us put on certain clothing (I believe on top of our uniforms) and then asked us to talk about how we felt in it.

In my case, it was true that wearing certain clothing had the power to make me feel a certain way. The problem was that wearing clothing that was deemed untznius didn't make me feel dirty, exposed or unpleasant. Rather, it made me feel attractive, sexy and powerful. I knew that the teachers felt that I should feel dirty or exposed in this clothing, and somewhere in the back of my mind there was even an urge to try to feel as I should. But the larger part of me- the part that didn't feel ugly, but felt confident- won out.

Tznius as it is currently taught has a lot to do with the word should. The phrase "Kol Kevudah Bat Melech Penimah" gets tossed around a lot. The meaning of the sentence is "The honor of a princess is within" - the implication being that it is within rather than without. We are told that we are daughters of God, princesses of Hashem. Just like a princess dresses herself in royal robes rather than rags, we too are called upon to dress in an attractive, presentable way, but not in a sexy, provocative manner. We are told that dressing in a sexy way is simply another way of being trashy. We are told that wearing such clothing should provoke uncomfortable feelings within us.

I think an alternative approach to teaching tznius would be to look at women and women's clothing through a media-critical lens. Many of my students are bombarded with media and its images throughout their day, whether on the Internet, their cell phones, billboards, magazines they read, books they devour or TV shows they watch. They toss off the easy comment, "Oh, the media doesn't influence me- I'm too smart for that" but are then shocked when presented with information regarding what the life of a model is really like, or the process a model's face undergoes before it reaches a billboard.

In the book The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It, author M. Gigi Durham presents five myths that are present in today's society. The myths are based around the following ideas:

1. If You've Got It, Flaunt It
2. Anatomy of a Sex Goddess
3. Pretty Babies
4. Violence is Sexy
5. What Boys Like

Durham explains that she is a feminist, and the premise of her book is based on the idea that children are inherently sexual. She believes that "sex and sexuality are normal, natural, and at best, wonderful aspects of being alive, and that the diverse range of expressions of sexual feelings can be both inspiring and valid" (11). However, the mainstream media mishandles and distorts girls' sexuality in "ways that actually limit and hamper girls' healthy sexual development" (12).

Durham is a pro-sex feminist, which means that she believes sex needn't be "taboo or hush-hush" but rather a "normal and healthy part of life, even of children's lives" (22). She's noticed, however that:

The turn of the new millennium has spawned an intriguing phenomenon: the sexy little girl. She's an all-too-familiar figure in today's media landscape: the baby-faced temptress with the preternaturally voluptuous curves, the one whose scantily clad body gyrates in music videos, poses provocatively on teen magazine covers, and populates cinema and television screens around the globe. She's become a fixture in Western pop culture: we all know her various incarnations, from Britney Spears to the sex-kittenish cartoon girls of anime, from Brooke Shields's child prostitute in Pretty Baby to JonBenet Ramsey's beauty queen persona and the Australian preteen sex symbol Maddison Gabriel. She's been celebrated and censured, and she serves as a symbolic flashpoint for raging debates about gender, sexuality, the definition of childhood, and the criteria for social standards of acceptance. (24)

Perhaps one reason for the fascination with the sexy little girl "is her tricky double role in contemporary society- she is simultaneously a symbol of female empowerment and the embodiment of a chauvinistic 'beauty myth.' She invokes the specter of pedophilia while kindling the prospect of potent female sexuality (24)," Durham suggests.

Durham notes that most contemporary conversations about sex in the media come down to a good/bad dichotomy where you are seen as either for sex or against sex (32). She argues against this, saying there needs to be a middle ground between supporting "fundamentalist Christian Joyce Meyers and pop singer Shakira as sexual guideposts in the media arena" (33).

Then she makes her brilliant point, one that is certainly not understood by many people in America, let alone the students I teach:

What has become clear- yet is not widely understood- is that media images of sexuality are quite specific, and are driven by a variety of factors, the most important of which is the for-profit structure in which they operate. As a consequence, the version of sexuality that proliferates in the mainstream media is not aligned with progressive politics, though the rhetoric around it offers the illusion that it is. (33)

Throughout the course of her book, she offers many examples of this claim, but perhaps the easiest one for all of us to relate to is that "Cosmopolitan magazine, a publication famous for instructing young women to please men sexually, describes its audience as 'fun, fearless females'" (33). Because of the rhetoric used, the "very conservative vision of sex celebrated in these arenas is strongly linked with sexual emancipation and even feminism" (33).

So now let's take a brief look at the myths.

1. If You've Got It, Flaunt It

The New York Times profiled "a group of accomplished teenage girls: they were varsity athletes, academic achievers, classical musicians and volunteer workers, all at once" (63). But they readily admitted that it was much more important to them to be 'hot' than 'smart.' The question is- what does hot mean? 

[H]otness or sexiness is relentlessly linked to particular images in Western popular culture. For example, in a recent issue of Seventeen, the top-circulating teen magazine (which is read by girls as young as ten), a photo fashion spread titled 'Sexy and Seventeen' featured a series of slender Caucasian models in clothes that revealed their underwear- sweaters unbuttoned to expose brassieres, models wearing only a top and panties or a camisole with tap pants. The "sexy" headline linked the body displays with desirability. 'Dare to bare' urges a headline in Teen Vogue that features teen girls in minuscule mini-skirts, their body-baring bodaciousness contrasted with a little girl wearing a frumpy mid-calf-length plaid skirt. The message there is that exhibitionism is daring, while conservative clothing is childish and boring. "Viva glam!" crows an ad for M.A.C. cosmetics, in which a buxom model poses in tiny strips of cloth that barely cover her curves, again celebrating semi-nudity as the path to glamour.  

[...] 

Music videos- by both male and female artists- almost inevitably feature semi-clad women and fully clad men, and the lyrics establish these women ad desirable and sexual. This pattern has been documented in a number of research studies, and at the time of this writing, the top three videos on MTV- 50 Cent's "Ayo Technology," T.I.'s "You Know What It Is," and Maroon 5's "Wake UP Call" - all contain images of female strippers performing for fully dressed male viewers; all of the representations of women in these videos conform to the porno version of sexuality that involves skimpy clothing or stripping and sexual servitude to men, while the lyrics establish the men's voracious desire for these women.  

[...] 

In these representations, sex is purely physical and based on female exhibitionism; this physicality can trigger high emotion, which is often violent (a subject discussed later in this book); but the women's sexuality never translates as anything other than a stimulus. It has nothing to do with intimacy, mutual respect, or love, ideas that have become virtually unthinkable in the arena of contemporary sexuality. The construction of the myth of female sexuality in music videos connects sex directly with female body displays and male desire, and disconnects it from "softer" emotions like tenderness or affection.  

-Pages 74-75

As Durham puts it, "The core message is not hard to recognize: if you're female, your desirability is contingent on blatant body display."

2. Anatomy of a Sex Goddess

Try this on your own- what does a 'perfect girl' look like? Close your eyes for a moment and think about it. Most likely, you came to the answer that I get when I ask this question, and that the author of the book always gets: "She would look like Barbie."

Barbie has been recast as a feminist these days; in the progressive New Moon magazine, twelve-year-old Abby Jones writes, "One of Barbie's slogans is 'Be who you wanna be'. You can buy Teacher Barbie, California Girl Surfer Barbie, Pet Doctor Barbie, and many others. In the Barbie movies, Barbie is smart, strong and courageous." Like Abby, I'm all in favor of Barbie's dizzying array of career trajectories, fo the ways she has overcome her mathophobia, and of her recent forays into tattoos and piercings. But it's also clear that Barbie's body stays the same throughout all of her incarnations: translated to human scale, in a now-infamous formulation, she would be a 5-foot 9-inch woman with an 18-inch waist, 36-inch breasts, and 33-inch hips, and she would weigh 110 pounds. That's too skinny to menstruate, according to one medical analysis of the doll. She may even be too skinny to stand upright. And it's still the ideal girl's body, the exemplar for all races, classes, and nations. Recent studies have shown that preteen girls still longingly described Barbie's body as 'perfect.'  

[...] 

But being thin is not enough: thinness must be coupled with lush curves in the "right" places- the breasts- in order for the ideal to be achieved. And these body characteristics don't normally tend to coincide: when weight loss occurs, breast size tends to decrease. Most fashion models stand 5 feet 10 or taller and weigh less- often much less- than 140 pounds. They are expected to fit into a dress size between 2 and 4. Men argue that stick-thin fashion models are not sexy or attractive, but Playboy centerfolds are similarly atypical in their physical characteristics- with vital statistics of 34-23-34 and weights significantly less than those of other women in their age group.  

In addition, almost all photographs in fashion and beauty publications and, increasingly, almost all video images of models are technical wonders of the digital age. The models themselves are pale shadows of their media images, which are airbrushed, edited, and altered so as to create flawless facsimiles of femininity. They are a far cry from the real world: according to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average American woman is about 5 feet 4 inches tall and weighs 163 pounds. The model- the adored ideal- is both a genetic anomaly and a fabrication of technology, constructing a physical type that is unattainable for almost all girls and women. 

~Pages 96-100

So who benefits from this? Certainly not women- who are comparing themselves to constructions of media and technology, not to real people. Not men- who either look longingly at these unattainable models and wish one of them was their girlfriend, or who end up with wives who have body-image issues. But there are multiple industries that do benefit.

[T]he ongoing pursuit of the ideal body is an expensive proposition. Diet pills and products, gym memberships, stylish clothes to flatter the figure (and become instantly outmoded), high heels to make legs look longer, plastic surgery to inflate the bust and suction the fat, anticellulite creams and potions- the products required to attain the Barbie body are myriad and costly. Multiple industries depend on girls' yearning for the Barbie body: the fashion, diet, exercise, cosmetic and plastic surgery industries all generate multibillion-dollar annual profits. These are the very industries that advertise in the media that promote this ideal body.  

And advertising is the lifeblood of the media, its major source of revenues. It is advertising, not subscriptions, that generate profits for the media. Seventeen magazine earned $101.9 million in advertising in 2006, while the Web site Teen People had advertising revenues of almost $77 million. The Coty cosmetics corporation spent $19 million in 2005 to advertise products targeted to fifteen-to-twenty one-year-olds. To post a single ad for four weeks on MySpace costs between $80,000 to $300,000-and the site's annual advertising revenues are estimated at $250 million, primarily because of the high proportion of young users. Health and beauty products contributed $1.63 billion to prime-time TV in 2006. 

Corporations from food manufacturers to lingerie retailers spend literally billions of dollars every year advertising to the youth market. This extensive network of interrelated corporations would collapse if girls and women stopped their pursuit of the "curvaceously thin" body. The media must promote the Barbie body in order to attract advertisers; advertisers must promote the Barbie body in order to sell the products needed for its attainment. The media and the fashion and beauty industries work hand in glove, driven by a common profit motive. The relationship is symbiotic; if one of these components were to fail, it would have a negative impact on all the others. So the relentless glorification of the Barbie body persists.  

-Page 101

3. Pretty Babies

The American media ideal of female sexuality has been getting progressively younger over the years. In the middle part of the last century, our icons of female sexuality were downright elderly by today's standards: Marilyn Monroe was twenty-seven when she immortalized the seductress Lorelei Lee in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; Elizabeth Taylor was twenty-four when she sizzled onscreen in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof; Sophia Loren was twenty-three as the sensuous Abbie Cabot in Desire Under the Elms. These film sirens were legally and physically adults; their much-admired bodies were women's bodies- voluptous and fully developed. Their bodies would not meet today's standards of sculpted masculinity and narrow-hipped leanness. They looked too much like mature women to have present-day appeal in an era of the Lolita Effect.  

[...] 

This emphasis on youthfulness as the mark of beauty and desirability has led to the increasing use of very young girls as models in fashion and advertising, often in very sexually suggestive contexts. Most catwalk models today are between fourteen and nineteen years of age, and some are as young as twelve- like Maddison Gabriel and Gerren Taylor, who was not yet in her teens when she began modeling for such haute couture houses as Betsey Johnson and Tommy Hilfiger. Victoria's Secret model Adriana Lima began modeling at twelve, and Sports Illustrated swimsuit model Laetitia Casta started at fifteen.  

[...] 

A series of Louis Vuitton print ads featuring seductive topless photographs of preteen girls appeared in major mainstream magazines a couple of years ago: they went wholly unremarked. A recent Newsweek article described Halloween costumes in little girls' sizes that include fishnet stockings, corsets and "Chamber Maid" outfits marketed as "sexy" and "hot." And an Australian billboard for Lee jeans featured a teenage model wearing hotpants, exposing a breast, and sucking on a lollipop. 

Actually, in this last example, the model was eighteen, but posed and made up to look at least five years younger. This is a different twist on the same idea: that ideal female sexuality is youthful, or even childlike.  

~Pages 117-118 

Why does this matter? In the words of the author, because "these depictions, and their ultimate conclusion, do nothing to foster a healthy, balanced understanding of sex as a normal part of human life that is best experienced in adulthood" (119). The author says this, not out of any religious or moralizing point of view, but because it has been proven that young children cannot understand the consequences of sexual activity and properly protect themselves (physically, emotionally and otherwise).

4. Violence is Sexy

Images of violence against women are pervasive: on billboards, in magazines, on television. A magazine ad for the upscale Dolce and Gabbana clothing line features a man having sex with a woman, while other men stand around watching. The scene implies a gang rape. The models in the ad are beautiful, and they look intense and turned on. The woman does not appear to be afraid. The gang rape is implicitly justified.  

An ad for Cesare Paciotti shoes shows a man stepping on a beautiful, red-lipsticked woman's face. 

An ad for Radeon gaming software depicts a topless young woman with the product's name branded on her back: the brand is red and raw. 

When I show these images in my classes, the students say they are "sexy." I ask them to imagine a puppy, or a little boy, in these situations: they are shocked. The images of violence are arousing only when the violence is aimed at girls.  

~Page 148

Durham cautions us that debates about sex and violence in the media always hinge on the issue of causality- the media does not cause people to go out and commit violent acts. Durham agrees that this is true and argues that the media does something much more insidious- it creates myths. They are our cultural mythmakers, and the myths supply us with "ideas and scripts that seep into our consciousness over time, especially when the myths are constantly recirculated in various forms" (148). These myths are "sugarcoated; they are aesthetically appealing, emotionally addictive, and framed as cutting-edge and subversive. But violence against women is neither edgy nor subversive: the violent abuse of women has been around for a long time" (149).

5. What Boys Like

In the pages of teen fashion and beauty magazines like Seventeen and CosmoGirl, tips on getting boys to notice and "crush" on girls are skillfully intermixed with the product placement that characterizes girls' magazines, so that the advice on buying jeans, accessories, and cosmetics is seamlessly linked to the relationship guidance that purports to help girls negotiate the complexities of love and sex. "Girls are empowered to be informed consumers of boys," as one analysis of these magazines concluded. The pleasures of self-adornment and consumerism are yoked to the central goal of achieving happy heterosexual couplehood. These magazines are oddly anachronistic: they offer a prefeminist vision of a girl's life, where girls require male admiration and attention and can gain it by learning to fulfill male pleasure in very traditional ways: by paying breathless attention to boys' needs and then offering services that provide for them. These services are often highly traditional ones: primping, cooking, and supplying limitless emotional support without expecting any in return. These kinds of activities seem hopelessly retrogressive when you stop to think about them, yet, as the sociologist Dawn Currie observes, girls insist "that the sexualized representations and expressions of femininity in contemporary magazines embody a new wave of women's emancipation."  

It's difficult to see where the emancipation comes in. The concept of a mutually pleasing relationship, in which both partners work to understand the needs of the other, is conspicuously absent from these media. And there are no corresponding magazines or other media for men or boys that exhort them, month after month, to learn how to please girls and women. Love and attraction are one-way streets, in the scenarios offered by these popular magazines.  

~Page 160

This last myth should be troubling to girls who want a mutually loving/ giving/ respectful relationship with boys, to homosexuals who don't see themselves or their sexuality represented by this type of media, and really to any human being.

I would argue that the best way to teach Tznius is to teach your students to do myth analysis. Don't present them with this information firsthand and let them read it; rather, pose questions to them. What does sexy mean? Who is the arbiter of sexy? Where do we get our ideas about what sexy connotes or implies? Look at print magazines. Who is pictured on the cover? Who isn't pictured? What words is this person put next to? What would you think about this picture if those words weren't displayed right next to them? Once you've begun to talk about the myths, the question becomes: what is the motivation behind the myths? The answer, of course, is profit. Then the question becomes:  how are we being coaxed into spending our money on the advertised products? The answer is that "the strategy is to create ideals that are impossible to attain and then suggest to audiences that they are attainable if the right products are purchased" (191). As Durham puts it, "there's no hint that sexuality is an inherent human trait, that both people and animals are de facto sexual, and that sexuality expresses itself in multiple and many-dimensional ways. No: sexiness must be bought" (191).

Once you've identified the myths, you can ask your students about their values when it comes to sexuality, intimacy and their bodies. You can also, if you wish, introduce Jewish values into the discussion. What you want to do is show your students that "the highly corporate, profit-motivated, mass-circulated images are the conformist positions. True rebellion lies in challenging, dissecting, and thinking through them- and then living your life according to your own values and ideas, not those of corporate media" (191).

It may be that your students' points of view will not align with your own, or with those of traditional Jewish values. But at least this way you have provided students with the tools to critically examine and question the media that informs their lives, to question whose definition of sexuality and beauty they choose to live by, and to question what it means to them to be female in today's world. Is the most important thing about them, as females, their physicality? Adele is famous for saying that she makes music "for your ears, not your eyes." In fact, her 2013 Oscar gown was elegant, fashionable, bared no skin and completely tzniut! Maybe your students' definitions of beauty will be more similar to hers than to the interpretations offered by most of our world today.

The Pharaoh Narrative As A Tale of Addiction

I'm reading through The Big Book, which neophytes can think of as the Alcoholics Anonymous bible. I learned something new, namely that alcoholism is considered an illness. In Chapter 2, the text states, "An illness of this sort- and we have come to believe it is an illness-involves those about us in a way no other sickness can" (18). In italics, the illness is later described:

The fact is that most alcoholics, for reasons yet obscure, have lost the power of choice in drink. Our so-called will power becomes practically nonexistent. We are unable, at certain times, to bring into our consciousness with sufficient force the memory of the suffering and humiliation of even a week or a month ago. We are without defense against the first drink. (Page 24)

William D. Clark, MD, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School, says in this AA.org clip "Alcohol, for some people, is poison. It just isn't the same for the alcoholic person as it is for a normal drinker. And once you get into that place of having alcohol run your life, it's like having an allergy to alcohol and it's very helpful to tell people, 'Look, alcohol is special- for you. It's different for you than it is for other people. Alcohol, in your situation, is a poison." He continues, "But I think the key concept is that it's poisonous, it's addictive, that the neurochemical changes in the brain caused by frequent and constant exposure to alcohol are such that people are no longer free to decide whether they're gonna drink or not, and if they drink, they're not free to decide how much they're gonna drink."

I came across a fascinating section in Chapter 3 that expands upon this statement:

Though there is no way of proving it, we believe that early in our drinking careers most of us could have stopped drinking. But the difficulty is that few alcoholics have enough desire to stop while there is yet time. We have heard of a few instances where people, who showed definite signs of alcoholism, were able to stop for a long period because of an overpowering desire to do so. 

[...] 

As we look back, we feel we had gone on drinking many years beyond the point where we could quit on will power. If anyone questions whether he has entered this dangerous area, let him try leaving liquor alone for one year. If he is a real alcoholic and very far advanced, there is scant chance of success. In the early days of our drinking we occasionally remained sober for a year or more, becoming serious drinkers again later. Though you may be able to stop for a considerable period, you may yet be a potential alcoholic. We think few, to whom this book may appeal, can stay dry for anything like a year. Some will be drunk the day after making their resolutions; most of them within a few weeks.  

For those who are unable to drink moderately, the question is how to stop altogether. We are assuming, of course, that the reader desires to stop. Whether such a person can quit upon a nonspiritual basis depends upon the extent to which he has already lost the power to choose whether he will drink or not. Many of us felt that we had plenty of character. There was a tremendous urge to cease forever. Yet we found it impossible. This is the baffling feature of alcoholism as we know it- the utter inability to leave it alone, no matter how great the necessity or the wish.  

~Pages 33-34

Even though Alcoholics Anonymous sees alcoholism as a disease and illness, they do not excuse their behavior as not having been their fault due to the fact they were ill. After all, people still got hurt in the process. Therefore, the Ninth Step of the Twelve-Step Program is to make "direct amends to such people [all persons we had harmed] wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others."

As I was reading, I realized that these ideas illuminate the Pharaoh story.

When we read the Pharaoh narrative, one of the most popular questions that is asked revolves around Exodus 9:12 and on.

  וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם:  כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Many people are deeply perplexed by this verse. What does it mean that God hardened Pharaoh's heart? Does that mean that God has divested Pharaoh of his free will? 

Many of the commentators address this question and offer interesting interpretations. Seforno provides a particularly novel one when he says that in fact, God hardening Pharaoh's heart was giving him back his free will, allowing him to decide what he wanted to do without being moved by his people's complaints or pleas. 

But if you look at this story as a tale of addiction, then you will see that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was an unfortunate but natural consequence of his former actions. 

I propose that Pharaoh was addicted to power, and specifically to the power relationship he had over the Jews. In the same way that an alcoholic loses the power to choose whether to drink and how much to drink due to his recurrent drinking, Pharaoh lost the opportunity to choose whether to exert power over Bnei Yisrael and how much power to exert. How else to explain the incredibly irrational decisions that he made?

Here is what happened to Pharaoh due to his refusal to release the Jews.

1. His main water supply (the Nile River), and that of all of Egypt, turned into blood. The fish died, which caused a horrible stench, and contaminated the water supply still further. It was also embarrassing that the being he worshipped as God (the Nile) was subject to this other, foreign, invading God's power.
       -Pharaoh takes no notice of this. Exodus 7:23 states that "Pharaoh turned and went back into his house; neither did he lay even this to his heart."

2. The entire land swarmed with frogs, which were a nuisance, but moreover, died, which created a stench throughout the land.
             -Pharaoh's response to this shows that he wants to behave rationally. In Exodus 8:4 he declares, "Entreat the Lord that He remove the frogs from me, and from my people, and I will let the people go, that they may make sacrifice to God."

3. Everyone in Egypt becomes infested with lice, which is extremely unpleasant.
            -The magicians themselves point out that Pharaoh cannot win here, saying that "this is the finger of God" in Exodus 8:15. 

4. Wild beasts tear throughout the land.
            -Once again, Pharaoh longs to behave rationally. In Exodus 8:21 he states, "Go and sacrifice to God in the land." He solidifies his promise in Exodus 8:23 when he says, "I will let you go so that you can sacrifice to God in the wilderness; only do not go very far away, entreat for me."

(Look at the wording! Pharaoh cannot bear to be far from his power source; even when letting them go, he gives the condition that they should not go very far away).

5. There is pestilence throughout the land and the death of all the animals.

6. Everyone in the land receives boils, including the magicians who had formerly been replicating the plagues.

7. Fiery hail rains down upon the land and destroys the crops.

            -Pharaoh attempts to behave rationally. In Exodus 9:27 he admits "I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous and I and my people are wicked. In Exodus 9:28 he requests for them to ask God to make the plague stop, and once that happens he agrees to let the people go. 

8. When it is predicted that locusts will come upon the entire land, the language of the pasuk is curious. It says that God hardens both Pharaoh's heart and that of his servants. But note what his servants say to him in Exodus 10:7!

  וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה אֵלָיו, עַד-מָתַי יִהְיֶה זֶה לָנוּ לְמוֹקֵשׁ--שַׁלַּח אֶת-הָאֲנָשִׁים, וְיַעַבְדוּ אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיהֶם; הֲטֶרֶם תֵּדַע, כִּי אָבְדָה מִצְרָיִם

And Pharaoh's servants said unto him: 'How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God, knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?'

Clearly, the impact that hardening Pharoah's heart has upon him vs. the impact it has upon the servants is different. The servants are aware that Egypt is destroyed, and that the only rational solution is to let the people go. Pharoah is only aware of this during brief, lucid, sober moments- but the rest of the time, he clings to his addiction, his power over the Hebrews. In Exodus 10:11 he requests that only the men go to serve God (a partial concession), and God brings locusts upon the land. 

In Exodus 10:17 Pharaoh admits he has sinned against God and Moses and Aaron and asks them to remove this 'death' from upon him, but once again, he goes back to his 'drink'.

9. Darkness covers the entire land; the Egyptians cannot see anyone or anything.
           - In Exodus 10:24 Pharaoh is willing to release everyone, including the children, except for the flocks and herds of animals (he needs some sort of guarantee or collateral that the Hebrews will return). When the Hebrew refuse this offer, Pharaoh becomes irate and tells Moshe to get out of his sight, because the day Moshe sees his face again, he'll die.

10. Death of all of the firstborn in Egypt.
--Finally Pharoah lets the people go, but not for long! In Exodus 14:3, it's declared that Pharaoh will assume that he can bring the Hebrews back because they are trapped in the land. 

Pharaoh loses literally everything due to his obsession with holding on to the Jewish people. His God is attacked, his land is filled with heaps of dead animals that create a stench and pollute the water supply, the bodies of his people are scabbed over due to lice and bursting pustules of boils, his livestock is torn apart or die, his crops are ripped apart by hail or destroyed by locusts, psychological warfare in the shape of darkness takes hold of him and every single Egyptian loses at least one member of their family during the death of the firstborns. Many times, Pharaoh wants to give in and promises that he will do better, that he will let the people go, or that he will let them go- partially. You can go- but not with your wives. You can go- but not with your animals. This is kind of like the wheedling conversations ascribed to alcoholics in The Big Book where people say "I'll drink beer- but not whiskey" or "See? I've licked alcohol because I haven't taken a drink- so let me take a drink now." Or swearing up and down to your wife or loved one that you'll be a changed man- but then showing up drunk the next day. And in the wake of  everything, after losing everything, Pharaoh still goes out, along with his whole army, to recapture the Hebrews. Who would behave this way if not an addict? It is Pharaoh's sheer desperation, his inability to live without the Hebrews under his thumb, without wielding power over them, that drives all his actions. The actions are neither rational nor logical, just like true alcoholism is not rational or logical- the alcoholic invariably loses his job, his wife, relationships with friends and family, his money and makes a mess of his life so that in the end, he is literally living in order to drink. In the end, Pharaoh's only goal (it's almost like he's a mad Captain Ahab, only intent upon the great white whale) is not to rebuild the destroyed land of Egypt, but to reclaim the Jews. And in pursuit of that, he perishes- much like the alcoholic in pursuit of more and more alcohol drinks himself to death when unchecked.

So what then, you may ask, was Pharaoh supposed to do? If he was truly an addict, in the same way that alcoholics are addicts, what could he do?

Well, the Twelve Step program outlines it beautifully.

1. We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol- that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood him.

What Pharaoh needed to do was:

1. Admit that he was powerless over his addiction (in this case, an addiction to power, specifically power over the Jewish people)- and that his choices at this point were based on his desire to keep them in the land vs. his desire to do what was best for his country and for his people.

2. Believe that God (and in this case, following God's command) could restore him to sanity.

3. Make a decision to turn his life over to the care of God, not only by following God's order to release His people, but by then praying to God that He would be able to help Pharoah to live his life as king without needing to have the Hebrews subjugated to him. He could pray that God would release him from this insane quest for power at all odds, even as his country disintegrates around him.

But Pharaoh refused to humble himself. At first, he refuses to even recognize God (see Exodus 5:2, where he states 'Who is God, that I should listen to Him? I know not the Lord and I will not let Israel go'), then he admits that he has sinned to God, but always asks an intermediary (Moshe and/or Aharon) to pray to God. He never prays to God Himself. He never acknowledges Him or asks for help ruling over or controlling his addiction. (It is deliciously ironic that Moshe, the humblest man ever to have lived, is pitted against Pharaoh  the man whose problem is that he cannot humble himself!) And so the real sin of Pharaoh isn't necessarily the fact that he has an addiction, but that he doesn't take the requisite steps to cure himself of it (or at least, since one can argue no addict is ever truly cured), to manage it.

Thus, the Pharaoh story becomes a cautionary tale. It is the story of a man who was so addicted to power that he lost his life, his country, and his nation. He and his countrymen were drowned at sea, and his land was ravaged by the ten plagues. Had he acknowledged God and followed His command, or at least thrown himself on God's mercy by directly asking God for the strength to allow him to successfully release the Jews, we might be reading a very different story. We might be reading the story of a recovering power addict, spared by the grace of God, rather than the story of one who lost everything.

The Aveirah Song T-Shirt

My husband showed me "The Aveirah Song" by Lev Aryeh guys and I've been cracking up ever since. There's only one error in the song (that I could catch)- they pronounce the name Shmuel 'Shmuel' when they should pronounce it 'Shmiel.'

Anyway, click here for the amazing song. It's a Purim parody, and it's brilliant in the way Weird Al Yankovic and Lonely Island parodies are brilliant.

I made a shirt on CustomInk.com based on the song. I know that a snake is not a sheretz, but this was the closest I could find, so consider it a lizard.

Here's a picture.

And here's where you can see the full shirt (click for the link).

More Thoughts On The Megillah

My student and I were learning today and we came across several interesting things that I am going to share below.

1) All of us have heard the interpretation that Memuchan is Haman, and they are the same character. My student and I were learning the peshat of the Megillah, not the derash, but she herself came up with the connection. Here's why:

Memuchan's reasoning is that if Vashti is permitted to get away with not listening to the king's command, all the other women will decide to flout their husbands' authority. This will be terrible, so the king needs to make an example out of Vashti by either banishing or beheading her (the plain text makes it seem like he banishes her; the derash says he beheads her).

Haman's reasoning is exactly the same when he sees Mordechai. He sees Mordechai does not follow the king's command and refuses to bow. The servants inform him the reason behind Mordechai not bowing is that he is a Jew. When Haman talks to the king and persuades him to authorize the killing of the Jews, he notes, " וְאֶת-דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים" which at first, seems odd. Just because Mordechai isn't keeping the king's law doesn't mean all the Jews aren't keeping the king's law. But if you look deeper, the reason Mordechai gave for why he is refusing to bow is because he is a Jew. Therefore, it follows that all the Jews would refuse to bow, and thus all the Jews would be guilty of not keeping the king's law. An example needs to be made out of this nation so that no other nation will think they can get away with not keeping the king's law.

This way of thinking is so unique that our sages conclude (or at least, my student did) that Memuchan and Haman are the same people.

2) I really like seeing where Chazal come up with their readings of the Tanakh, and today we saw a great example of this. Mordechai refuses to bow, which means that he is flouting the king's command. The king's servants inquire, " מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה עוֹבֵר, אֵת מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ?" Mordechai does not listen to them. At first we might think this means that he does not listen to their question, but it soon becomes apparent that what it really means is that he does not listen to them in terms of bowing; he refuses to listen to their advice to bow. The king's servants tell Haman that Mordechai is a Jew because "כִּי-הִגִּיד לָהֶם, אֲשֶׁר-הוּא יְהוּדִי." The question is, why would Mordechai have told the servants that he was a Jew? The answer is that somehow, that answers their question! So the conversation looks like:

Mordechai: *Is not bowing*
King's Servanats: Why are you transgressing the commandment of the king?
Mordechai: I am a Jew.
King's Servants: You should still bow!
Mordechai: *does not heed them*

The question then becomes, how does Mordechai's nationality answer the question? How does answering "I am a Jew" explain why Mordechai is not bowing? This is where the famous answer that Haman was wearing an idol on his clothing/ person comes in. Haman is wearing an idol on his person and Mordechai is a Jew and therefore cannot bow down, which would be worshipping idols. 

(Incidentally, I have the niggling idea in my mind that this scene is meant to connect with the scene in Jonah- there, he declares himself a Hebrew and we also have the casting of lots- but I need to think more about what exactly the connection is.)

3) I've been watching a lot of "Game of Thrones" on HBO, and I've also read the series. It occurs to me that Mordechai is a kind of Viserys the Spymaster. Here's why: First, we see him overhear the plot to assassinate the king that occurs with Bigsan and Seresh. But then, he's privy to a different piece of information that he has no reason to know:

 וַיַּגֶּד-לוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר קָרָהוּ; וְאֵת פָּרָשַׁת הַכֶּסֶף, אֲשֶׁר אָמַר הָמָן לִשְׁקוֹל עַל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ ביהודיים (בַּיְּהוּדִים)--לְאַבְּדָם.

How does Mordechai know the sum of money that Haman promised to give the king? On the one hand, it's possible that Haman was walking around bragging, saying "I offered the king 10,000 pieces of silver to kill the Jews, and he said kill them, and gave the money back to me!" But let's assume Haman wasn't bragging. How then does Mordechai know a private conversation that took place solely between the King and Haman?

Well, either he's a prophet and so God told him, or he's a spymaster who makes it his business to know what is going on in the court. The second interpretation fits the peshat better. 

4) As an aside, I would just like to say that to me, the coolest part of this story in terms of Esther's heroism and women's agency in general is that she has to use her mind. The Queen in an Oriental country has absolutely no power. She cannot go to the King uninvited. He must summon her or extend the golden scepter. She is not even informed of the important court decisions that he is making. She has no idea her people are in danger; it is Mordechai, who is outside of the palace, who must come to her to tell her of the proclamation and show her a copy of the decree. She is literally a prisoner inside of her beautiful palace. Therefore, the only weapon that Esther has is her mind. Using her cunning and her wisdom, she must come up with the exact way to persuade the king to save her people's life. She must figure out what will stimulate the king to reconsider, and must use those weapons.

5) This leads us to Esther's plan. Esther invites the king to a feast, a mishteh. Now, there are a lot of parties that are happening in this book. The first party is for 180 days and it is to celebrate the king's coronation. Then there is another party for 7 days, where the king and the queen are celebrating separately. Note that the king's party takes place in the  גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ while Vashti's party takes place in the בֵּית, הַמַּלְכוּת. There is something rather troubling about the power balance here. Vashti is inside of the royal house, possibly in the position of more power, while the king is outside of it, in the garden. 

The king makes one more party. This happens when he crowns Esther. 

  וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל, לְכָל-שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו--אֵת, מִשְׁתֵּה אֶסְתֵּר; וַהֲנָחָה לַמְּדִינוֹת עָשָׂה, וַיִּתֵּן מַשְׂאֵת כְּיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ.

So why then does Esther invite the king to parties? 

She is doing it deliberately. She wants to jog his memory. It was at a party that your former wife- Vashti- humiliated you. But it was also at a party that you celebrating choosing me, appointing me in her stead. Here we are at yet another party. Remember my loyalty to you? Remember her disloyalty? 

At the second party, Esther reveals that Haman has tried to kill her and her people. The king, filled with rage, goes outside to the גִּנַּת, הַבִּיתָן. This implies that Esther has deliberately held her party in a location that is adjacent to the palace garden. Why? Because she wants to set off the king's wrath. The last time I was in this palace garden, he is thinking, my trusted wife Vashti refused to obey my command. When the king goes for a walk in the garden, this memory comes back to him (consciously or subconsciously) full force. So when he enters the room to see Haman fallen upon the queen, the rage of that betrayal feeds into his anger at Haman, and leads him to feel betrayed by a close person yet again- and he orders him hanged. 

6) If we go according to the Rav's interpretation, where the king suffers from insecurity in his realm and fears revolt, his reasons for killing Haman become even more clear (I'm reading the ending a little differently from the Rav). When the king is sleeping fitfully one night, he awakes and reads of the service Mordechai has done for him. Then comes a non sequitur. 

 וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, מִי בֶחָצֵר

Why does the king suddenly ask "Who is in the court?" It seems like he heard a noise, or something else disturbed him about the presence of someone in the court, because otherwise Haman would have been announced and would have entered. Instead, the king is disturbed by someone's presence in the dead of night in the courtyard, and learns that it is Haman's. Later on, he discovers Haman has hatched a plot to kill the queen and her people. Finally, he enters the room and sees Haman fallen upon the queen- in his mind, possibly to kill her! Charvonah then speaks up and says "Haman erected a gallows to kill Mordechai- the one who saved your life!" The king's suspicious mind is turning. He thinks, "Haman wants to kill Mordechai- the man who saved me. Perhaps, then, Haman is really against me! Perhaps he was even part of that plot with Bigsan and Seresh! If he wants to kill Mordechai, who saved me, then perhaps that means he wants to kill me! After all, why was he in my courtyard in the dead of night? Let's get rid of this treasonous man- let's kill him!" 

7) If we go with the idea that the king is paranoid, it also explains why he would be willing to allow Haman's sons to be hanged upon the gallows. Esther requests that, and the king permits it. Here's why it could work- in the scene where Haman gets advice as to what to do to Mordechai, he has summoned " זֶרֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָל-אֹהֲבָיו". The JPS translation translates "ohavav" as "his friends," but what if it was literally all that he loved, meaning his sons? If his sons and his wife are the ones who advised him to hang Mordechai on the gallows, Mordechai the man who had saved the king's life, then it makes sense that Esther wants to kill those treasonous sons. By trying to hang the man who had saved the king's life, they put themselves under suspicion of not wanting the king to be saved in the first place! The only difficulty with this approach is, if so, why is Zeresh not punished at all? In fact, what happens to Zeresh? We aren't told.

Now we come to some questions I have. 

8) Mordechai gives Esther advice not to reveal her identity. And  yet, he told the servants, when they questioned him as to why he wasn't bowing down, that he was a Jew. This information gets back to Haman, who uses it to decide to kill all the Jews. The question I have is: Why didn't Mordechai take his own advice? Why did he not divulge his identity? Moreover, later on he says "Who is to say that this is not the reason that you arose to royalty?" to Esther re: her role in saving the Jews. But the fact is, there would have been no need to save the Jews if Mordechai had a) bowed or b) not divulged that he was a Jew, because then Haman could just have killed him, not his whole nation.

9) Mordechai refuses to don the clothing Esther sends him in order to enter the inner courtyard of the king and speak with her directly. Rather, he communicates with her via Hasach. I imagine that we can take some sort of meaning from this, such as that one is not allowed to put off mourning for even one moment when a terrible decree is clustered overhead, but it does seem odd. Why does Mordechai prefer to talk to Esther via a third party rather than just changing into the nice clothing for a few moments in order to chat with her, and then change back into the sackcloth? 

10) It says at the end of Chapter 3 that Shushan was bewildered. What were they bewildered by? Haman and Achashveirosh sitting down to drink? The decree against the Jews? What bewildered them and why? 

The Paranoid King: Insights Into Achashveirosh

Over Shabbat, my husband pointed me to Shiurei Ha-Rav, specifically the section on Purim. There, I read a fascinating write-up of a lecture on Purim delivered by the Rav in 1973. Tonight, I found Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's 'Insights into M'gillat Esther' reprinted in this Tebah.org Purim Reader, and figured I would reprint the excerpt focusing on Achashveirosh that helps shed some light on this king's character.

~


The king had a paranoid fear of an insurrection against the throne. The Talmud relates that he was not the legitimate heir to the kingdom, rather the son of the steward of the royal stables. His only connection with royalty was through his wife Vashti, daughter of Belshazzar. She obviously despised him as a social climber who lacked any royal grace and dignity. There was an underground movement to overthrow the government and restore the old order, as evidenced by the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh. Ahashverosh tried to “buy” the country’s loyalty by making those lavish parties and inviting everyone to eat and drink and view his wealth and women. But this is all clearly the workings of a mind that feels very insecure and fears revolt. The absurd law (4:11) proclaiming death to anyone who entered the throne room without an appointment seems also to be an outgrowth of his paranoid fear of revolt or assassination. When Vashti publicly insults him, he was worried that if he should kill her, this would inspire a revolution. M’mukhan (1:16-20) gave him the following brilliant analysis: “True, if you kill Vashti you may trigger off a revolt, but if you allow her to survive after publicly insulting the king, then she will serve as a model for all the women of royal blood to insult their husbands.” It was the custom in antiquity for the victor to marry the widow or daughter of the vanquished power. Thus, many of Ahashverosh’s officers had married women of the old order. “If they saw that the queen was not punished for her insolence, they too would start fighting their husbands and join the underground movement to restore the old order. The way to nip that in the bud is to execute Vashti.” Thus M’mukhan, whom the Talmud tells us was Haman, gained the confidence of the paranoiac king, appearing as one who loyally defended the throne. Immediately following the assassination attempt by Bigtan and Teresh, we find that Haman was appointed Prime Minister. The king was really frightened, and in his paranoia he turned to the person who had proven his loyalty M’mukhan (Haman)—and placed his faith in him.

Feeling slighted by Mordekhai, Haman decides to destroy the Jews. He plays on the king’s paranoia by casting suspicion on the loyalty of the Jews. He tells the king (3:8) that the Jews are a unified nation, widely dispersed in the kingdom, with queer laws and customs. Being a strange nation, no one can guess whether they are planning a revolt. Should they decide to join the underground, their unity as well as their dispersion geographically could make the insurrection very successful.

The king fell for this ploy and agreed to kill the Jews. When a paranoid lives in fear of an imaginary monster, all moral controls are abandoned. He has only one irresistible urge—to destroy. Esther understood all this very well and therefore could not agree to Mordekhai’s plan of immediate action. Once Haman had succeeded in arousing in the king fear of Jewish revolt, no human power or pleading could dissuade him from destroying his imaginary enemies. In grappling with the realities of the situation it was a woman’s mind, not a man’s ideas, that was needed. Esther decided that the only way out would be to turn the tables on Haman and accuse him of plotting against the king. She procrastinated day after day, waiting to find a possible opening, a possible way to shatter the king’s faith in his trusted Prime Minister. It seemed that only a miracle could weaken his trust and indeed a miracle happened: Balaila ha-hu nad’da sh’nat ha-melekh (6:1). This is the turning point in the whole story, the prime miracle. The most significant aspect of that night was not so much the king’s new respect for Mordekhai, but his loss of confidence in Haman. You feel the king’s malicious joy in taunting Haman while ordering him to honor “Mordekhai the Jew” (6:10). Whether it was Haman’s mention of the royal crown (6:8) that made the king suspect his loyalty, or his failure to reward the king’s benefactor Mordekhai, or the shifting perception of the universe in the mind of this paranoiac king, it was time for Esther to plant the seeds of distrust in his mind. This is the kind of subtle hester panim miracle, a change of mood in the mind of a deranged king, for which we give thanks to God on Purim. The next day, when Esther charges Haman with treason, the king willingly accepts the accusation. She explains to the king that had Haman really felt concern for the better interest of the king, he would have placed the Jews in forced labor camps, thereby keeping them under surveillance in a profitable set up. “But the villain is not concerned about the threat to the king” (7:4). By proposing to arm the countryside with weapons to kill the Jews, he was really making it much easier for the revolutionary elements of the population to organize their revolution. Esther made the king believe that Haman was plotting against the throne. The king’s paranoia took over where Esther’s words ceased. Upon returning from the garden to find Haman on the couch where Esther was lying he screams, “Do you even plan to seduce the queen while I am in the house?” (7:8). He was so convinced of Haman’s treachery that everything he did was viewed through the lenses of his paranoia. He “saw” Haman not only planning the revolt but even trying to steal the queen! This was the ultimate sign of revolt. Haman’s fate was sealed. The very strategy and the fate planned for the Jews now backfired on Haman and his associates.

Grapes & Their Issues (Operation: Cheer Up A Sick Chana)

It was a dark and rainy night. Tonight, actually. I was sitting on an accordion bus, my eyes limping across the outfits and objects of the people sitting across from me. My nose was red and runny; I was sad and sick. I saw a black man who reminded me of the Shepherd Book character in "Firefly." He was holding a book called 'Grapes and their Issues.'

"Grapes and their issues?" I thought indignantly. "What the hell, man? Who are grapes to complain? I mean, here I sit, having been told to leave my workplace by wellmeaning colleagues, my nose shot to hell, dripping like a leaky faucet, my eyes glazed over, my head feeling dull and foggy- and grapes have issues? I've just waited in the wet for a half an hour, the bus didn't come on time, and I narrowly escaped being drenched in a rainstorm... tell me, I ask, what kinds of issues do grapes have, exactly? It's like those Grapes of Wrath- I mean, whoever heard of wrathful grapes? What kind of ridiculous title for a book is that, anyway?"

I then reread the title. It said: 'Graphs and their Uses.'

Oh.

~

(If you enjoyed this post, please post a potential issue that a grape might have in the comments.) 

I Was A Very Strong Woman

There's a book I love called A Ring of Endless Light. I love it because I understand the characters, I value and respect them, and I appreciate the relationships between them.

There's this one scene where Vicky is talking to her grandfather about Zachary. I wrote up the scene here (click for link). 

"The thing is- he needs me," Vicky says, as she talks about Zachary. Zachary's needing her is the siren song that can pull her away from everything else she might love and might hold dear. And Grandfather cautions her that that is not healthy. He doesn't caution her with those words- he doesn't see it in terms of health. As a Christian, he instead puts into perspective based on vanity and the vanity a person has in thinking that they can bear the burdens that are meant for others.

Today I was home sick, so I decided to devote some time to watching TED Talks. I watched one given by Leslie Morgan Steiner entitled "Why Domestic Violence Victims Don't Leave." You can watch it below:



There was something she said that struck me- struck me and made me shiver. I felt resonance because what she said made sense to me. It's something I think, too. (For clarification's sake, not about my husband. But it's an attitude I understand.)

She said "I never once thought of myself as a battered wife. Instead, I 

was a very strong woman in love with a very troubled man. And I 

was the only person on earth who could help Connor face his 

demons."

We provide context and narrative to the situations in which we find ourselves. We either internalize or externalize. Leslie didn't want to say, "My husband is doing things that are harmful and dangerous. He is threatening my life. I may love him, but I need to leave him." Instead, she wanted to say, "My husband is a troubled man, but it is my duty to prove my fidelity to him. I will stand by him, through thick and thin. I will be there for him, because I am the only one who has the key to him- the only one who will be able to help him heal. This is my special task, and I must fulfill it." 

There is an idea that especially those of us who have been rejected, who have felt ourselves to be outcasts, hold ourselves to. The idea is this: We will never reject anyone. We will not leave them behind. We will remain loyal, no matter what. Even if the person isn't showing us proper respect or kindness. Even if the person treats us badly. We will stay, until that person makes us leave. Or, until we find the courage to leave, depending on how bad the situation is. 

We cannot bear to see in ourselves the slightest shadow of the attitudes that hurt us so deeply, so profoundly. Therefore, we leap away from these choices. We need to be better people, in our minds, to ourselves, than the people who hurt us. But because of this, we limit our options. The only role that we can play is that of savior, and we must put up with hurtful or harmful behavior because to challenge it is to reject others, which is something we must not do. We can't see both sides to the story. The only story that we can be part of is one where in the end, it will all come right. We will be loyal until that loyalty is rewarded. We will be strong. We will be Beauty saving the Beast. We will love our partners back to health, and all will be well.

Except for the times it doesn't work out that way. The times where we need help in realizing that despite denial, that narrative isn't the only way things could work out. The times where we need to be told that it is not strength that keeps us with this person, but a simple inability to conceive of any other options. To us, there is no other choice. Because leaving is admitting failure- and we cannot bear to fail. Leaving is rejecting someone we care about- and we cannot bear to reject them. Leaving hurts us- and we cannot bear the pain. 

Until the time comes when we learn why we cannot bear to stay.

And by then, it's usually too late.

The Problem With Contemporary YA Fantasy

Many of you are aware that I read a lot of Young Adult Fiction & Fantasy. I read it because I like it, and also because I like to know what my students are reading. I've read many amazing books, but I'm troubled because I feel like the genre as a whole is missing something integral and vital. 

They're missing reality.

Here's what I mean by this. YA fiction & fantasy fall into one of two categories.

Category 1: Adventurous hero or heroine battle demons, angels or other supernatural beings in order to save the world, right a wrong, and on the way, fall in love with one another. Their epic love story is usually star-crossed, and both hero and heroine and friends feel intensely during their battle. 

Category 2: Main protagonist has to deal with life in a really crummy situation- whether it's them or their friend who is dealing with mental health issues, drugs, an eating disorder, cancer and so on. They are a wry, interesting, irascible or spiritual character who pulls the reader in. 

Here's the problem. These two categories don't cross over in a meaningful way. Let me offer an example.

An example of a Category 1 book is Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments trilogy. Clary, Jace and Simon, alongside Isabelle, Alec, Magnus and others battle all sorts of difficult creatures and situations, but all of their feelings and issues revolve around love. Yes, Jace is a little messed up because of his father (who raised him to think that love is a weakness, and that loving would break him), but it's nothing a little love from Clary can't fix. These characters don't have to deal with their issues or emotions in a real way. They don't have real-life reactions to the situations they face (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, other mental health issues) and they don't have to deal with them in real ways (therapy, for instance).

An example of a Category 2 book is The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. This moving and hilarious book makes cancer funny. It explores the lives of two people battling cancer, one of whom makes it and one of whom doesn't. The friendships read as real, the issues (whether dealing with the cancer, trying to avoid dealing with the cancer, or wanting to find love) read as real. 

What troubles me is that the real life issues that are faced in books like Speak, The Fault in Our Stars, Hush and so on are not addressed in fantasy novels. Now, I can understand why that is. Most fantasy writers like to make completely separate worlds where the issues are fully external (or internal at times, but overcome by a little love). But I think this actually weakens the fantasy world. In a true fantasy world, people love, grieve, and are impacted by the events that occur. People are not just cold-blooded killers who never have to deal with PTSD or deal with phantom limb pain or who have flashbacks after being raped. Making reality converge with fantasy would actually, in my opinion, make the fantasy book stronger. 

An author who does this really well is Madeline L'Engle. Her book A Wrinkle in Time is a masterpiece because she weaves science fiction together with a real life heroine who is insecure, does not feel pretty and ends up having a real, complicated relationship with Calvin O' Keefe (not just one brimming with sexual tension where the two of them must end up in bed together and that solves all their problems). Susan Cooper also does this well in her series The Dark is Rising. But both of these authors have been largely replaced by contemporary, and to the large part, shoddy, fantasy writing. 

Even Harry Potter, which everyone read and was dazzled by due to its 'realness'- an actual ministry, laws, shady newspaper reporters, a seemingly unloved child- never allowed any of its characters to struggle with an actual diagnosed condition. Harry didn't suffer from depression. He didn't have to see a therapist. He was in the nurse's wing or the hospital pretty frequently, but problems with his mental state? Never. Even after everything he had gone through, all the loss he had suffered. Even after living his whole life with a person whose mission it was to kill him. Tip top mental shape.

If fantasy is, as many authors espouse, their way to enable students and children to interact with the world and find solutions for the monsters that threaten, it isn't enough to equip characters with otherworldly talents, traits or supernatural abilities. These characters should be real in every way, including the toll their actions take on them, including their mental health status and the actions they need to take to be healthy. If YA fantasy wants to aid the battle to help young people feel normal, it needs to focus on more than just gay characters or bullying. It needs to focus on making young people feel like it is okay to seek help when they struggle with their mental states. Otherwise, fantasy just joins the ranks of role models for people that says 'If they could get through all of this and be perfectly fine, no sweat, no therapy, no struggling, just a soulmate who loved them back to health, then I should be able to do it, too.' That message is unhelpful and even dangerous. 

So YA Fantasy authors, be brave. Take the next step. Start making your characters real.

Our kids will thank you for it.

Zero Dark Thirty

I saw "Zero Dark Thirty" tonight. The movie was a cerebral experience for me rather than an emotional one. It reminded me a lot of "Munich."

I found the film to be extremely impressive and very powerful. The message that I walked out with was how appreciative I need to be of my country and of my military.

Back when Obama was running his reelection campaign, he was making much of the fact that he gave the kill order on Osama Bin Laden. I, alongside many other Americans, I would wager, didn't really understand why that was such a big deal. Of course you would give the kill order on a man like that. What's the big deal?

But this film illustrates exactly why that was a big deal. According to the film (and assuming this is true), there was no positive confirmation Osama was even in that compound. It could have been someone high up in Al Quaida, but there was no definitive visual or voacal proof that it was Osama himself. If the operation had gone badly, it could have been publicly embarrassing for America. But Obama gave the kill order even though there wasn't that proof.

For me, the film also showed why we need to value our military. I'm sure a lot of us thought, "Well, it's about time" when they finally caught Osama 10 years later. But what we didn't realize is that there were so many leads, and so many tips, and people who needed to track them all down. People who lost loved ones in the process. People who got burnt out. People who didn't eat or sleep without thinking about this mission, this goal. All kinds of intricate people who were involved in the process until we finally got to the place where we could execute this man.

A lot of people are talking about this film in order to discuss torture and whether or not torture ought to be used. I think that misses the point. Yes, that is one aspect of the film. But that is not the film. The film shows the labyrinth that is created, the intricate ways in which the government worked to piece together the final data as to where Osama was living and how to take him down. Something interesting that one of the main characters pointed out was that they could have taken out the compound with a bomb, but instead they sent in SEALs. People had to risk their lives in order to kill this man- it wasn't just drop-a-bomb-and-be-done.

I was thinking, as I was watching the film, that a movie like this needs to be made about molestation. The Nechemya Weberman case especially came to mind. I can imagine a brilliant screenplay that takes the same concept as this film, which is the number of people needed to fulfill a mission, and uses it to talk about molestation. The film could begin with the girl in counseling at her new high school, her therapist treating her for PTSD. Finally, the girl confesses she was molested and runs out of the room. We then see the girl being evaluated by three separate analysts, each of whom grill her in order to make sure she is telling the truth and not lying. We see the girl decide to accuse Weberman. We see Weberman's supporters threaten the family; we see the repercussions as her family members are kicked out of school. We see the fundraiser held in order to defray Weberman's legal expenses. We see the prosecutor in the case, working tirelessly to try to ensure that this girl's story is heard. We hear the audio of the Satmar Rebbe talking about Dinah and low women. We see the girl in the courtroom, on the stand, see her called up, see the jury's faces, see Weberman's face. We hear from bloggers and news reporters who are covering the case and who have very disparate views. The movie closes after the 'Guilty' verdict, with the girl's face, an expression of triumph and relief. But wait- it's not over yet- there's one more scene where we hear the community talking about how it's anti-Semitism that this verdict got passed, we see the Vaad HaTznius still standing there and we realize nothing has truly changed.

If someone were to make a film like this about molestation, then the audience would finally see what it means to accuse someone, take it all the way to trial, and then get the guilty verdict. They would realize how difficult it is- as difficult, in its own way, as hunting down Osama Bin Laden. They would see the price that is paid, the casualties of daring to make the accusation. And they would walk out of the film changed people, in the same way that I am now so much more appreciative of our military. They would see the strength of the victim, not just the way in which she was harmed. That's what we need to give the viewers- the ability to see how complicated these trials are, in the same way the search for this evil man was.

Video Editing Downloadable/ Cloud-Based Software

I'm hoping Techy people can help me.

I want to assign my students to make a video mashup. But: it's not just resplicing some video clips and adding a song in the background (for example, the way the "Scary Mary" trailer is). I want them to be able to cut and paste different clips from different videos together while blanking out the video's sound, adding in snippets of conversation as audio and also a track/ song in the background.

So in terms of layers we have:

1. Video Layer
2. Audio of numerous different people speaking, all taken from different mp4s or mp3s
3. Different background music tracks that play while all this is going

So far, none of the video platforms that I've seen do this- and I've looked at WeVideo.com and DragOnTape.com and Mozilla Popcorn Maker. Does anyone have any leads about something that could do this and that is relatively intuitive to use?

Religion's Role In Conflating Issues & Labels

Disclaimer: This post is not comprised of personal experiences. I am lucky to have a great husband. The examples provided are drawn from life, but not my life.

Those of you who have studied psychology may be familiar with the terms 'black-and-white-thinking', 'all-or-nothing-thinking' or 'splitting.' The hallmark of this type of thinking is when a person can only see events in their life as wholly a virtue or wholly a vice, wholly good or wholly bad. People who have trouble with this type of thinking will often resort to 'You always' or 'You never' statements. Sometimes these statements have more to do with how the person is feeling at the time than the actual situation.

This is a particular challenge of mine. I have realized over time that I often conflate issues with labels. An issue refers to a particular behavior. A label is a judgement one has made about the behavior and a motivation one has ascribed to the action. It admits for no doubt and is generally immovable and unshakable. 

Suppose you have a loving husband and wife. The wife grew up always seeing her father do the dishes. She comes home from work, where she had a terrible day. She sees her husband sitting at his computer and notes that the dishes are not done. In an exasperated voice she says, "You never do the dishes. This shows me you don't care about me. You're irresponsible and you don't love me."

In that scenario, the wife has:

1) Resorted to black-and-white thinking. She claims the husband never does the dishes.

2) Assumed a motivation. Clearly the reason the husband doesn't do the dishes is because he doesn't really care about her.

3) Given him a label. She's labelled him as 'irresponsible.'

4) Come to a conclusion. Her conclusion is that he doesn't love her.

The question, of course, is whether any of these claims are true. What the wife needs to consider is:

1) Is it true he never does the dishes?

2) Why has he not done the dishes? What is his motivation?

3) Labeling is unhelpful.

4) You can't come to a conclusion until you examine the evidence, and you can't do that until you have a discussion with your spouse.

So in an alternate scenario, the wife might come home and say. "I had a bad day at work today and I am feeling very irritated. I notice that you have not done the dishes. Could you please tell me why you haven't done them?" 

At this point, the wife might be surprised by the answer. It could be that the husband truly is irresponsible or inconsiderate and simply didn't do the dishes because he didn't feel like it. But it could also be that he had a very pressing matter that had to be taken care of right then, and he was planning to do the dishes afterwards. Or maybe he was unaware that this was an expectation that she had of him in the first place. 

Only once the wife understands what has led to this behavior/ issue, can he and she together tackle the root of the problem.

All of this seems very straightforward when you lay it out this way, but to someone who struggles with this, it doesn't come naturally. It takes effort and time to learn how to see from this perspective. Some may be able to accomplish it on their own, and others may benefit from having a life coach or therapist to assist them in learning how to see from this angle.

What I have realized lately is that certain aspects of our community (specifically Orthodox Judaism) do not lead to a healthy separation between issues and labels. Indeed, they even encourage us to conflate them.

I attended a Bais Yaakov. It was not a good experience for me. At that school, we were given a very narrow, limited model of what made for a 'good girl.' A good girl wanted to grow up to support her husband in Kollel. She was completely tznius at all times, didn't talk to boys and didn't ask difficult questions about religion. 

At the same time, we were given a very narrow, limited model of a 'good boy.' A good boy was the top boy. You were looking for someone who was an absolutely brilliant Talmid Chacham. He prefers to spend his time in Beis Midrash, coming up with incredible raayos and chiddushim. He never misses minyan. He goes out of his way to learn with chavrusas and to be kovea itim. If he doesn't fit this model, then perhaps second-best is someone who still always davens with a minyan, is a big baal-chesed and otherwise devotes most of his time to community projects. 

Here's the difficulty. Imagine that you marry someone, and that person has a specific difficulty or issue. To give a simple example, suppose the man you married has difficulty getting up on time for Shacharis. He often misses minyan. If you're a typically raised Bais Yaakov girl, the thought that might flash in your mind is the following: He always misses minyan. This shows me that he doesn't really care about Hashem or Judaism. He also doesn't care about me, because it's embarrassing to me to have a husband who misses minyan. If he really loved me, he would get there on time.

Even worse, Bais Yaakov girls are taught that their sechar (heavenly reward) is directly tied up in ensuring that a man fulfills his heavenly duties. So the girl may think that her husband missing minyan is directly related to her and her well-being. She may at first try sweetly, then slightly more irritatedly and finally angrily to get her husband to daven on time. She may not be interested in the root of the issue or behavior, which may be important when it comes to trying to fix it, but instead simply decides to label him.

Let's say the husband is legitimately struggling with his penchant to be late to minyan. Having a wife who is nagging you and who then ultimately decides that you are worthless because your missing minyan is equivalent to not having true love or fear of God may not only be disheartening but crushing. You may respond to it in a variety of ways, many of them not positive. For example, in order to avoid her negativity, you may start lying to your wife and saying you went to minyan on time when you really didn't. Your wife will find out and will feel betrayed/ hurt. Everything may go downhill from there, because you now have a serious breach of trust.

All this because the wife decided to label rather than addressing the issue. The conversation that really needs to be had is, "I see that getting to minyan is a struggle for you. Can we talk about why?" or alternatively, if you know why, the next question might be, "How can I be helpful to you in this struggle? What do you need to succeed?" But not everyone realizes that an issue or a behavior is not necessarily related to the motivation one thinks it is related to, and thus the label one might ascribe. 

Obviously, the partners need to both be invested in working on problematic behaviors or issues. If something your partner is doing is really not compatible with your value system, and if the person is unwilling to change or to work on the behavior, that can lead to problems in the marriage, as marriages in our community are based on shared values. So it might not be acceptable to you to be married to a man who consistently misses minyan and who sees nothing wrong with this, or who is not interested in working on changing his behavior. But that is different from making the assumption that because someone is struggling with a behavior they therefore deserve a certain label. A person can be a 'good boy' or 'good girl' who has love and fear of God but has some behaviors, habits or issues that need to be worked on. The behavior is not always (possibly even not often) indicative of a greater meaning or statement about the person. 

Honey Love

All my life, I felt like there were invisible rules about life. These were rules I could not quite make out, and that I was afraid of breaking. If I broke them, knowingly or not, bad things would happen. I would fail at life. I would be seen as socially inept. People would find me or my behavior unattractive. In short, there would be major consequences for breaking the invisible rules.

Lately, I've been questioning the invisible rules. The one I've been thinking most about is the rules of love.

As an English major, I've read a lot about love. I've read about dark, possessive, selfish love, like that of Othello or Heathcliff. I've read Lord Byron's poetry, where he puts the woman who walks in beauty on a pedestal; she is untouchable. I've seen teenagers go gaga about the love between Katniss and Peeta in The Hunger Games. I've seen films and TV shows with love scenes that touch me and thrill me. And what I've always done is compared myself to all of it.

Love, I thought, should be a violent, all-encompassing feeling that leaves me wounded and wanting more. It needs to be a love for the ages, a love that devils my mind. It needs to be a love to match all the love scenes in all the books I've ever read. It needs to be a love that sparkles and rages- a love filled with fire, that encompasses the color of desire and that will hold me up if I fall. It needs to be unbreakable and impossible. It needs to grab me by the neck and almost choke me.

If it's not love like that, I thought dismissively, it isn't love. It isn't worthwhile.

So I went searching for that love. I went looking for the violent, feverish, impossible, thrilling love. I wanted the love where I felt bound so tightly that I could never break away.

And I found it. Or at least, I found pieces of it. It colored me, cut me up and spun me out. I was left as fragile as shattered glass in a mirror, spiderwebs of silver pieces that one touch can dislodge.

I looked for love that moved me and I found it. In the way a child looks at its protector. In a person who does a completely selfless act. In people who want to help others grow. That love touched me, but it was like honey spreading through me, slow. It was golden; it was warm. It wasn't the love I wanted; the love I thought I should want.

When I married, I tied myself to a golden love, not a raging love. I found a love that was playful, kind, nurturing and growth-oriented. It was honeyed. And it was frightening. It wasn't what the invisible rules, as I understood them, said I should look for. I was afraid it wouldn't be right, or that I would miss the raging love too much and it would get in my way. I was also afraid that other people on the outside looking in would see me, my marriage and my life and judge it. I was concerned about their perspective.

Sometimes, I'm still afraid. But more often, I realize there are no shoulds. I do not need to live searching for the love I should want, but rather, for the love that works for me. Who I am as a wife and a person need be bound by no shoulds other than the ones my husband and I create. And when I stop a moment and look at my life through another's eyes, I realize some illuminating things.

For one, people see my husband as very romantic. They see our engagement, with his focus on my love for Belle and books, as being the pinnacle of romance. The way my husband celebrates my anniversary and birthday are also, through other people's eyes, very romantic. Some have even used the word 'fairytale' to describe our story. So if I am concerned about other people's perspectives, I need not be.

For another, the only person who could help me grow properly would be a person who understands my many needs: for quiet spaces at times, for time to write, my love of books, my love of children. My husband knows all my loves and encourages them. He also knows the difference between a need and a preference, so he does not need to be afraid to voice his own.

Also, marriages take work. Love is not stagnant. It does not just come and stay; it needs to be built, maintained, recreated at times.

All these things come to my mind when a friend of mine tells me, "The only thing I want is to marry someone who I am really in love with."

What does that mean? I wonder. What does it mean to be really in love with someone? Per my own rules, it only refers to the raging love, in which case, I would not have qualified. Perhaps part of what at least some of us need to work on is discovering the many meanings of love, meanings beyond the conventional, beyond the typical. Meanings that refer, not to society's idea of the femme fatale, the glamorous woman in stilettos and sexy dresses, but to secret, honey love that tucks blankets around the hidden corners of your soul.

Perhaps I'm becoming a bit Nietzschean - or I'm referring to Plato's Forms. All I know is that the words we have, and the images we associate with them, are not enough. There are no shoulds. There are rarely definitions. And we need to create our own meanings for these words, meanings that go beyond those that our culture or society offer us.