Twice Blessed

The phrase "twice blessed" reappeared throughout the readings to describe a gay-Jewish identity. A subject in the Aviv article states that "As Jews, our tradition admonishes us to be a 'light unto nations' (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6). In other words, we have a oral responsibility, borne out of our history, to lead cultural change, pursue peace, and seek justice" (5). Therefore as gay-Jews, they have a religious imperative to advocate for gay rights (as do all Jews for that matter). At NYU, it's easy to forget how hostile many people still are to homosexuals. I think the developments that Aviv and Shneer talk about--Reform synagogues having gay rabbis and weddings, homesexuals being welcomed into non-gay-only temples, and gay synogogues opening their doors to liberal Jews--are all positive. Of course, this is because I see marriage and family as positive institutions that could do with some change from inside (breaking rigid gender roles, etc.) as opposed to institutions that should be absolutely demolished. This change should not be limited to one small subgroup. I think in order to lead the "cultural change" in the quote above, queer Jews should integrate into shuls. I do not mean that they should subvert their sexual identity in order to be accepted at non-gay-only shul, but that a synagogue and its Jewish community would benefit from a wide array of congregants.

After comparing the description of gay synogogues in the Aviv and Shneer piece to the one in the Shokeid piece, it seems like they have changed a lot in the past ten years. The CBST sounds like a really hard shul to keep together, especially since, according to Aviv, the AIDS crisis no longer serves as a unifying forces in the community. Most congregations are based on a broad ideology that its congregants either believe in or feel comfortable with. I don't know if there can (or should be) one set queer opinion on rules of kashrut or Shabbat or other textual interpretations. I think it makes more sense to reconstruct a current movement to include gays and lesbians or perhaps to have a gay-Orthodox or gay-Conservative shul.

If You Thought Heeb Was Offensive......

About a week ago, I was watching a television show on FX called "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" (a surprisingly funny dark comedy about a bunch of post-grads who run a bar). In one episode, Charlie goes to visit Dennis's grandfather in a nursing home. The old man asks Charlie to retrieve a trunk he's hidden at home because it contains the suit he wants to be buried in. He says he can't trust the people who work at the home to get it for him. More specifically, he says he can't trust the "greedy kykes" who work there to get it for him. Charlie goes to get the trunk and, of course, finds it full of Nazi memorabilia. Turns out Dennis's grandfather was a German soldier during WWII and is apparently still proud of it. After some zany plot twists where Charlie tries to sell the trunk to an appalled museum owner, he ends up burning it since Nazis are bad guys anways.

It's probably one of those things that you'd have to see for yourself, but the episode was actually really funny. What stood out to me, though, is that it's only something that could be done in America. It reminds me of what the editor of Heeb said about choosing that title for his magazine, how he thought it was almost a cop out because of its obviousness, because it's harkening back to this insult that most people of our generation have never heard before. As an American Jew, when it's done in a way that's making fun of past anti-Semitism, I can laugh at how awkward Charlie feels when the grandfather says the "k-word." It's the same way I feel when someone 60 years older than me tells a semi-racist joke. Like "that really took a turn for the ugly." And although many Jewish families in the United States have ties to people who were victims of the Holocaust, there is not the same connection to actual Nazis. The episode wouldn't be funny in Eastern Europe because a lot of people really do have grandparents who supported Hitler; it wouldn't be an odd occurence.

The episode also reminded me of the difference in freedom of speech between here and Europe. In many European countries, neo-Nazi parties are illegal as is Holocaust denial or the wearing of Nazi attire. Americans can allow those things to exist in this country because we haven't had the same history and don't really fear those anti-Semitic forces ever taking power or gaining seats in Congress. (Whereas in Germany today, the equivalent of neo-Nazis have gained seats in Parliament.)

Israel and Youth Trips

I've never been to Israel. I haven't been on Birthright or the March of the Living or Young Judea Discovery or any of those other youth group trips I get daily E-mails about. Part of the reason that I've been putting it off is because, as the ethnography article states, I look at it as a rite of passage. It's this really significant event that has to happen at the perfect time with the perfect group of people. And it's become such an obvious rite of passage in Jew's life that when I tell people that I haven't gone to Israel yet, even my non-Jewish friends reply "You should." Birthright would be the obvious trip--who could pass up a free vacation? Part of what makes it less appealing, however, is that most accounts I've heard of it make it sound like one big hook-up fest, and somehow the idea of spending my first week in the Holy Land listening to a friend cry over some jerk from Rutgers didn't seem quite right. Of course, the ethnography article also says that the goal of these programs is that "in the years ahead,
these youngsters will make the most consequential "affiliation," namely marriage to a Jewish partner and all that flows from that choice—forming a Jewish family, raising Jewish children, playing an active role in a Jewish community, making a commitment to
Jewish values, literacy, and causes, and doing so through formal affiliations within the organized Jewish community" (10). I don't agree that marriage to another Jew necessarily leads to all that or is the best way to fix the "continuity problem," but maybe making lovematches on these trips isn't actually that far off from their mission.

A friend of mine once called Birthright Israel "just a PR campaign for the Israeli government." At time time, the comment really bothered me, but after learning more about these trips, perhaps they aren't as organic as I thought. They are engineered to give the students a specific idea of what Israel and Jewish identity are. I think the trips are still meaningful, however. Even if the participants don't go to shul or any other Hillel events, they have this trip as their one Jewish activity; something to tie them to a larger community out there somewhere. I haven't met that many people who've made life-long friends through these trips, but they have made connections with vague groups of friends whom they keep in touch with on AIM over the years and run into on other Hillel trips (like Professor Cohen's friends).

I Heart Adam Goldberg

At the risk of sounding like a fangirl, a couple plot holes from the Hebrew Hammer persist in perplexing me.

A.) Adam Goldberg has tattoos. Is it supposed to make him cooler? Isn't it sorta weird that someone who's Shomer Shabbat would be all tatted up? Like Prof. Cohen said, his outfit sorta incorporates garb from various denominations; maybe this was a shoutout to the Jews from Heeb. I'm guessing in reality it just would've cost too much to try to cover them up.

B.) The sex scene. I think Lisa was alluding to this when she made that comment about Esther. I really found it odd at first 'cause like.....again, they're all Shomer Shabbat and she's rockin' the long skirts and it sorta seemed out of place. I kinda think Kesselman ignored that part in order to achieve his greater goal of establishing a Jewish sex symbol. Or he just wanted to get Adam Goldberg in bed (who can blame him).

C.) Speaking of Adam Goldberg, this isn't really a plot hole, but the fact that he isn't Jewish (he made the conscious decision to stop going to Hebrew school when he was 12 since his mom isn't a Jew and he doesn't consider himself one...um, it was on the "daily show") but is constantly typecaste as THE JEW says a lot about stereotypes. Even I think he seems "really Jewish." It's interesting that on one hand, Kesselman is making this movie to break Jewish stereotypes, but on the other hand, in order to find someone "Jewish" enough to play the most badass of Jews, he had to find a gentile. Looks-wise, he didn't really break any new boundaries.

On the other hand, maybe part of what he's saying is that you don't have to completely break away from Jewish culture (or even all the Jewish stereotypes that go with it). Like the whining thing or the Jewish-looking thing. He's creating a new space to be sexy instead of saying that Jews can "live up to" the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant ideal.

"He's Not Bad; He's Cha-Baad"

I forget how I first heard about the Hebrew Hammer, but I know as soon as I did, I was obsessed. I counted down the days 'til it came out in the theaters. I would call my sister at home and talk about the cool stuff on the website. Then I dragged a friend along to the Angelicka to go see it.

One interesting thing about seeing it in the theaters was that I'm pretty sure it wasn't a totally Jewish audience (okay, according to everyone at my high school, I don't "look Jewish," so you can never be sure, but I'm fairly certain there were some gentiles in the crowd). So I guess in a small way, at least, Kesselman managed to bring his piece outside of the community. And if his goal is partially to destroy the less-than-flattering Jewish stereotypes in the non-Jewish world, then that audience is necessary.

The other thing that's stuck with me about the experience is how different my reaction was to my friend's. She hadn't grown up in a particularly observant environment (like agnostic, but celebrates some holidays, you know what I mean), but had grown up surrounded by a bunch of Jews with similar attitudes. And she really didn't dig the movie. She found it offensive and thought that it portrayed Jews as whiny with "a lot of digestive problems." Meanwhile, I loved it! The opening scene is the best......Having gone to a public school where I was usually the only Jew in the class and sang mandatory Christmas carols and made Easter baskets every year, I could so relate. It was really refreshing/exciting to see a satire on that experience on the big screen. When my sister saw it, she felt the same way.

So why the difference in reactions? It could just be sense of humor. At the same time, part of the reason why I liked the Hebrew Hammer so much was because I could relate to one of its central themes. Growing up in a place where being Jewish was really common if not the norm, my friend couldn't really relate to the idea of not being accepted or being an outcast on some level.

I know Professor Cohen said it was distributed widely, but when I was looking to see it, it was only showing in New York, LA, and South Florida--places with huge Jewish populations. My sister actually couldn't find it in any theater around Orlando and had to watch it on Comedy Central (which is sad 'cause the edited version just isn't the same). I think this is really unfortunate because in addition to trying to destroy stereotypes in the non-Jewish world, I think the movie is letting Jews know that it's cool to be Jewish. And that message could be used more by Jewish living in Oklahoma than by Jews living in Boca Raton.

So after class I had to ask myself--How could I love the Hebrew Hammer so much, but HATE Heeb? Both are confronting stereotypes; both are sorta in-your-face; both use words like kyke and yid and heeb. I think Hebrew Hammer just does it better. The main difference I can see is that while Heeb comes from a place of "I'm Jewish, BUT....," Hebrew Hammer comes at you with "I'm Jewish, AND......." I'm Jewish and I'm sexy. I'm Jewish and I'm cool. I'm Jewish and I can kick your ass. These two parts of his personality are not in conflict and that makes him so much more appealing.