"It's not that I have ideological differences, I'm just not a hat person"--S. Griffin

Yarmulkes kinda fascinate me. It's not just the fact that there's a random r in there. It's the whole set of assumptions and practices associated with them. The amount of thought and calculation on behalf of boys that goes into wearing them is so interesting. For example, I was talking with a friend at a bar-birthday-party one Saturday night. He'd gone to shul a couple hours before and had decided to leave his yarmulke on even though he doesn't normally wear it outside of services. He said he was contemplating wearing it full-time. Why, I asked. He said he realized that a lot of girls weren't even looking at him as a datable option because of his lack of the yarmulke. That they assume that he's not observant because of this one thing. (He's pretty kosher and semi-Shomer Shabbat.)

Even though it may sound like a silly reason to start wearing one, he's sorta right. There is a whole set of assumptions that goes along with this outward signifier. A lot of times you hear the latest gossip about some guy, and even though you don't know him that well, the surprised response is "But....but.....he wears a yarmulke!"

Then there're the guys who do the reverse. They take OFF their yarmulkes when they go out to clubs. Sorta like G-d can't see what they're doing unless they wear their homing device.

I guess it all comes down to trying to get the ladies.

Speaking of the ladies, we use physical objects to signify identity, too. I was talking with a few girls the other day at Starbucks. One of them was saying how she feels more religious when wearing a long skirt, like she has to pair it with a long-sleeve T-shirt. We were also saying how it almost makes us feel like imposters. That by wearing a long skirt we're somehow telling people we're something we're not. Like so much meaning is wrapped up in your day wear. I have to admit, I did get really excited when I saw a group of yarmulke-clad tourists walking down the streets of Prague after going so long without seeing them last spring. I could assume they were craving non-existent Czech kosher meat just like I was. :)

Of course, girls can also adopt a Jewish identity by wearing a yarmulke themselves. I saw a woman walking down University wearing one a couple days ago; the first time I saw a woman wearing one outside of shul, I think. It's really interesting how girl-yarmulkes tend to be crocheted or pink or purple. Like they're taking this masculine object and imbuing it with their own feminine identity.

Heeb

Okay, so I already had a bias against Heeb after reading an article in it a couple months ago. I won't go into details, but I'm pretty sure that's why my friend at University of Central Florida tells me that the word around campus is that "Jewish girls are easy."

But enough with that, here's what I think about this issue.....

The main story featured on the cover is a reaction to Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ movie. I was really disappointed by the execution of the article (Um.....no pun intended?). Heeb Jesus is hot, but the pictures just don't match up with the rest of the story. The opening points out the fallacy of the passion play and inside there are two good quotes. I think the most interesting one is by the photographer who quotes Susan Sontag. He says that he doesn't think the movie will "create hatred against Jews, but it might awaken dormant hostilities" and that "The dangerous part of filmmaking is that it fools us into seeing fantasy as reality and representation as history." The other interesting quote is by the guy playing Pontius Pilate who basically says that the Christian church was created on the "one simple anti-Semitic principle" that Jews killed Jesus. I'm kinda wondering if he's Jewish or not (he went to a Catholic high school, but is a Yiddish translator) because for some reason it makes a lot more of an impact if a non-Jew says that.

So, we have these two comments that have the potential to really create an in-depth, interesting critique of the Passion controversy. But instead, Heeb falls short. Take the caption below the guy playing Judas. He says, "I'm an Italian Jew. I'll bust a cap in your ass, then check your pockets for change." Yeah, Heeb, way to stick it to Mel for promoting Jewish stereotypes. And besides not telling that good of a narrative story, the pictures seem to be shocking for shock-value's sake. There're naked ladies everywhere. What is this trying to say? Is it mocking Mel's version by imbuing it with sexuality? Is it trying to say that Jewish girls can be sex objects too? Is it just trying to sell a couple extra issues? I'm really not sure.

I know I probably sound uptight. Sorta like in that article I posted about the Chanukah party with Triumph the Insult Comedy Dog, how the "older generation" would get offended and leave, telling the younger people not to do anything that would "bring shame to the community." Maybe you should call me Maude, but I can't help feeling that way. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was in a non-Jewish magazine, but when a magazine is tying the idea of Jewish identity with the idea of being really sexually free or promiscuous, it seems wrong. As does the idea of Jews publishing pictures of other naked Jews; it seems like exploitation. (Even though if it were in a magazine not specifically connected to Judaism, I would think otherwise.)

My real problem with the magazine is its self-conscious tone. So many of its articles seem to be coming from a place of "I'm Jewish, but.........." I'm Jewish, but I'm still good at sports; I'm Jewish, but I can be sexy and desirable; I'm Jewish, but I can still be cool! It's taking this defensive stance, talking to some Christian audience that isn't really there. It's basically saying to them "I'm Jewish, but really, I can be just like you!" And the underlying assumption is that Judaism is seen as worn out and for an older generation. Heeb is trying too prove that you can be edgy and be Jewish. And the fact that its trying so hard is unappealing.

As for the name itself, I guess there are two sides to the whole "making ethnic slurs your own" debate. If you adopt those terms as your own, do you strip them of any insulting power they used to have over you? Is it demeaning? Are you actually using a term that Jews have called each other in the past (apparently during the Ellis Island days Jews would call each other kykes)? Is it better to try to foster acceptance and work to make these words (and the sentiments attached to them) disappear from society? I prefer the latter.

And the magazine's failure to question the sport society's labeling Jewish athletes by "mother", "father", or "convert," and instead just confirming that someone was a "full-blooded Yid" was appalling.

To be a little more balanced, here are some things I do like about Heeb...

The article "Fault Lines, Political Shifts Among Activists in San Fransisco and Beyond" discussed the problem faced by many Jews on the political left who feel alienated by the anti-Semitic stances taken my many progressives today, but who also don't want to jump in with the Right. I can relate.

David Cross (he's Jewish?!) did a great music review in which he totally trashed almost every CD. Way to not just give them free ad space.

Actually, my favorite part of the magazine is the ads. They actually are a lot more daring and edgy than ads I've seen in other mags. And you would never expect it from the sources. For example, the Streit's matzos ad with an African-American holding a piece going "Damn! That's a big ass cracker!" or the Village Temple ad with a picture of a Torah and the phrase "It should be illegal to roll something this good." Very creative and funny.

I Wanna Start an Algonquin Round Table

Reebot is awesome. I really enjoyed the website and the entire concept. I think one of my favorite parts about the website, is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't try to define what a Jew "should be." Its mission isn't to make you more observant or to make you wanna make Allyah (Aliah?....I can only spell in French) or to make you lobby Congress to vote against Alito or to make you incorporate Eastern religions into your life philosophy. Its main goal seems to be just to get you thinking about being Jewish. And more importantly, talking about it. It's kinda like bringing this Jewish Identity class to the world. I think what's so refreshing about this concept is that it's actually promoting intelligent debate. The ipods and the stylish look of the site appeal to a younger generation, and although it is trying to make itself sound kitschy and cool so young people will gravitate towards it, there's substance behind the gimmic. I think that so many movements or trends today are sorta empty.......they're based on a slogan or a T-shirt or blind adherance to some stringent set of goals. Things are boiled down into black and white issues instead of being talked about in a nuanced manner (wasn't one of the major complaints about Kerry that he couldn't talk in simple rights and wrongs?). It's refreshing to see a call for real debate. It's also really nice to see an ipod being used to promote a study on religion instead of the latest Gwen Stefani song.

I was just reading someone's blog, and they said how talking about all these religious movements was making them feel less Jewish. I think that's what's cool about a movement like reboot. It's not telling you how to be more or less Jewish. It's just asking you to think about who you are. I wanna start a Salon.....

One last suggestion--I wish they could somehow incorporate Jewish arts and crafts into their Do It Yourself section. Seriously, I think that's what's missing for me.

UJA

My experience with the UJA:

The summer after freshman year, I stayed in the city for 5 extra weeks or so and decided to try to make a few extra bucks. UJA representatives had been flyering around campus the last few weeks of school about being a fundraiser (i.e. telemarketer) for the federation. First came a group interview. Then about a week later, you were invited to an (unpaid) training session. Then came your "final" interview where some other college student pretended to be a 40-something Long Island Jew and you tried to get her to donate a triple chai. Then they tell you that it wasn't perfect yet, but 'cause you have potential, they're gonna give you a REAL final interview where you can try to convince the Long Island lady again. I'm not sure how much longer the process goes on (Final Final Final Interviews?) 'cause by that point, it was time for me to go home to Florida.

So what did I take away from this fiasco? The UJA means business when it comes to raising money. The script plotted out every possible response. Furthermore, the whole interview farce allowed them to end up with a team of well-trained telemarketers before every having to dole out a dime. Goldberg's article didn't surprise me; that organization knows how to raise a dollar or two.

The other lesson I took away from the training session was how much good work the UJA does (although now that I know more about it, I guess a lot of the things they talked about were really done by organizations that fall under its umbrella). The thing that has always stuck with me was when the representative told us about airlifting Ethiopian Jews out of the country. At the time Goldberg wrote his article, the funds raised by the UJA had fallen. It would be interesting to see if Goldberg's theory holds up and the amount of money raised had risen since the start of the 2nd Antifada.

Aish Follow-Up

More about the AISH Shabbat dinner (in response to Prof. Cohen)....

The point of the guy's speech was indeed to urge people to "live a Torah way of life," as he said, but I don't think his motive for telling the story undermines the actual events. The path he took was extreme, and obviously that's why Aish asked him to come speak. Of course, not every young, secular Jew looking for religion is going to become a Christian youth minister, but I think that his feelings as a child are valid and probably common.

Completely unrelated note--that's interesting that Aish is trying to convince people to become Orthodox 'cause the chocolate cake they served for dessert was totally from 2nd Ave. Deli (and yes, I've ordered it enough to know). Maybe it's all from one glatt kosher bakery....

Can't Start the Party.......

The term "Sephardi" doesn't seem to sufficient to encompass the broad array of people covered by the term. At NYU, Sephardic seems almost synonymous with Persian. Originally, Sephardic was supposed to mean hailing from Spain. I think having more knowledge about history and trade routes and migration would help me understand how all these various regions are connected.

It's really interesting to see how the mission of the American Sephardi Federation has shifted over the years. So many of the Jewish sects have political focuses. It seems like the ASF had more of a political message in the late seventies/early eighties when it tried to publicize the mistreatment of Jews in Arab countries and the Soviet Union. Today, the focus seems to be largely on emphasizing a cultural identity and almost do PR for the existence of Sephardic Jewish communities around the world (with their magazine). I wonder if this shift means that there is less mistreatment of Sephardic Jews (maybe only because many have emigrated out of their homelands and the Soviet Union has fallen).

On the ASF website, there's a link to a definition of a Sephardic Jew, and Angel defines it as "Almost any Jew who isn't Ashkenazi." I think this definition is potentially troublesome because it creates an Other. It sets up the main Jewish group as Ashkenazi and all other cultures, although they might actually be extremely different and diverse, are lumped together under a name that doesn't even appropriately identify them all. When Kostelanz talks about Greek or Persian Sephardic Jews, he is describing something different from say Iranian or African Jews. As he mentions, Sephardic Jews are often left out of anthologies and other works on American Jewry. With such a huge emphasis on culture in defining today's American Jewish Identity, I wonder if this is why the ASF has started focusing on promoting some Sephardic culture; so it can compete with Ashkenazi culture on equal footing.

Winona Ryder Drinks Manischewitz Wine

This Friday night, I attended a large Wine-Tasting Shabbat dinner sponsored by AISH on the Upper East Side. Its target age group was a term I've been hearing a lot about lately--"young Jewish professionals" in their 20s and 30s. Well, the wine was bad and my friends and I were about 10 years younger than the average attendee, but the night was interesting nonetheless. I thought it was impressive that they did get at least 400 people. Services were offered beforehand, but it was obvious that the majority of people showed up just for the food. I think that the fact that so many young(ish) people are looking to be part of a Jewish community even though they aren't necessarily interested in the practicing part exemplifies a sense of Jewish identitiy outside of the religion itself and reminds me of that quote from the Reconstructionist website about stressing 'belonging over believing." Community was a major theme. One rabbi spoke about toasting l'chaim and how it's talking about the life of all the Jewish people and how one Jewish person's life is integrated with another's. (I think that was the gist; my attention wandered.) The featured speaker was one of the co-writer's of Shreck 2. He talked about growing up as a secular, sorta-Reform Jew in a community that was almost completely Christian. As a young teen (tween?) he was searching for meaning in life. He was basically craving G-d, but thought Christians had the monopoly on Him. That G-d was a Christian concept. He ended up converting to Christianity since that was the only source telling him about G-d and life, and he even became a youth minister for 15 years or so. (Years later, he eventually saw that you can have G-d and a fulfilling life as a Jew and converted back to Judaism.) His story makes me wonder about the effect some of the movements have on Jews who are looking for something to believe in. When Jewish movements say that there isn't a G-d or that G-d is just a metaphor for Goodness or nature or human decency, does that alienate Jews who feel drawn to G-d or are looking for someone to tell them it's okay to believe in Him in a more traditional sense? Cheng kept mentioning those "MidWest Jews." They may only come in contact with one form of a shul, if any. I think it may be harder to define yourself as a cultural Jew when that's not the culture you're immersed in. And if that's the only aspect of Judaism that you're being told about, then what is your Jewish identity predicated upon?

G-d as a Metaphor

The Reconstructionist website is the least professional-looking of the three websites. That's not to say it's not informative, I just think that may allude to the smaller size and possibly smaller income of the Reconstructionist movement compared to the other three we discussed. I was really surprised to find out that the Reconstructionist movement grew out of the Conservative movement. I first heard about Reconstructionism at a Schusterman summer conference a few years ago. When the rabbi said that the movement rejected the idea of miracles, the Chosen People, a messiah, and I think something about the exodus, I pictured the movement as being to the left of the Reform movement in that hierarchy of Jewish sects. As I've learned more about the individual movements, it's become clear that the hierarchy idea doesn't actually apply. The actual movements denote philosophical differences, not levels of observance.

The website had a really interesting quote:

Reconstructionism has stressed belonging over believing when to comes to Jewish identity. Belonging to a group with common commitments, culture and memories has given us a valuable sense of peoplehood and mission that has power regardless of what we believe about God.

On one hand, the philosophy behind the movement does sound really vibrant and beautiful. Thinking of yourself as a people devoted to erasing all the evil in the world like the article states gives you a really noble mission and reason for living.

On the other hand, I don't know why the two have to be mutually exclusive, why G-d can't be an actual body AND the Goodness inside of people. On a deeper level, the thought that there aren't miracles and there won't be a messiah and that there isn't a G-d in a traditional sense is sorta depressing. It's also really interesting when you keep in mind that Judaism is a religion, at least on some level, but the quote above makes me think more of a social club or even a high school clique.

Cha-Ching (Money and Synagogues)

In response to Professor Cohen's question, I don't think that paying membership dues to an organization alone makes you feel like a full member. For example, I've been on the French Club's list serve for three and a half years now, but I've never attended a meeting. So when somebody asks, I can't really say that I'm a part of le cercle francais. If not participating in the meetings and rituals specific to the French club makes me feel like I may be a member in name, but can't identify with the club on a deeper level, then it would be all the harder to identify with a religious group when you don't follow any of their (stricter, more integral) rules and practices. I think, if anything, the concept of having to pay dues to belong to a specific temple makes some Jews feel like even more of an outsider. Then, even if you do want to attend shul and follow some laws, you're made to feel like a moocher for not paying thousands of dollars a year. Or you might skip around from synagogue to synagogue in your area. It's like the saying in the diaspora that the Jews were a people without a home; you become a Jew without a shul. Membership dues create a space for shallow connections to a Jewish identity and an obstacle to stronger connections with one.

OU is mmm mmm good

After reviewing the OU website and reading the articles posted, I was
stumped. I really couldn't think of that much to comment on. But
Rabbi Sarna's lecture and question and answer session helped me relate
a few observations I'd made about the site to larger questions
concerning Orthodox Jewish identity as a whole.

One thing that struck me about the site was the fact that the vast
majority of the people in charge are men. It seems like something of a
boys club, and I wonder whether this influences positions taken by the
group as a whole (although there doesn't seem to be one SET group of
correct interpretations). I've known Michelle Sarna for three and a
half years now, and before Rabbi Sarna brought it up, it never occured
to me that she might feel unsatisfied with the role of women in the
Modern Orthodox movement. She was always a symbol of the movement to
me since she and Rabbi Sarna were the first Orthodox rabbinic couple
I'd really met. Furthermore, since she seems so independent when it
comes to knowledge of religious and academic fields, I never thought of
her has stuck in a certain preordained female role. For the past couple
years, I've been attending Orthodox services at NYU and a lot of the
gender assignments haven't bothered me. I think the mechitzah (?) can
be useful as long as girls can see and my Hebrew is awful, so I wouldn't
be venturing up to read from the Torah anyways. In some ways, I think
the fact that women don't HAVE to pray three times a day and follow
certain obligations is actually flattering to women. However, I've been
able to feel this way as someone who is something of an outsider, not
completely immersed in Orthodox culture. I think my personal identity
as a woman is rather separate from my identity as a Jew (probably a lot
more influenced by secular forces and the feminist movement). But when
a religious identity also defines your gender identity, it takes on a
much more important role and gives you less wiggle room to decide what
you want your future goals to be.

Another thing I noticed is that the more traditional the movements
became, the more and more conservative their political leanings became.
I'm not sure why this is. Perhaps because far left political
ideologies are often associated with lifestyles that are frowned upon by
more Orthodox movements. I disagree with something Rabbi Sarna said,
however. Although I believe that many Orthodox Jews voted for President
Bush in the past election because they thought he was best for Israel
and put Israel first, I think that many Jews placed Israel high on their
priority list when it came to whom they voted for. Personally, I voted
Democrat because I believe Kerry would have been better for Israel AND
for Jews in the United States. I think many politically active Jews of
all sects took Israel into high consideration when voted, but just
arrived at a different conclusion.

Another statement made in class that struck a chord with me was the
story about the Reform Jewish boy enrolled in Orthodox Jewish school and
the identity issues he thus suffered. Although many people who call
themselves Orthodox or attend Orthodox services may not follow all the
Jewish laws, I think that when you believe the Orthodox philosophy is
the correct one, but don't live up to its standards, it does leave you
with something of an identity crisis. You are less on the "inside" of
the group, as you said in class. For example, if you come from a public
school and have not had the same immersion in Orthodox-only culture,
then it's easy to feel alienated when no one else in the community
shares your childhood experiences and you don't share theirs. There's
also a whole hierarchy of how kosher you keep. It's easy to feel like
you're on the "outside" when you're eating at Chickpea, but everyone
else is at Bagel Bites. And I think keeping Shabbat is a whole cultural
ritual onto itself. A lot of people feel pressure to appear like they
keep Shabbat when they attend services even though they actually don't
in order to stay on the inside of the group. And at a certain point,
how do you continue to maintain that you're Orthodox, when few of your
practices live up to the ideal model of an Orthodox Jew. You're left
somewhere in the middle...ideologically incompatible with the
Conservative or Reform movements, but not really a full member of the
Orthodox one.