Just like the right of a woman to refuse to be touched in any way by a man, a man can refuse to be touched by a woman!
This week's In Jerusalem has an interview with an extreme leftist female, Dalia Zomer, who's a member of the Jerusalem Municipal Council. It's a very sympathetic and supportive article.
She is a member of the Society for the Promotion of the Rights of the Ill, chairwoman of Bamat Hamerkaz, a research institute for pedagogy, and vice chairman of the local branch of the women's network of the Liberal International, the world federation of liberal parties (where she has to explain time and again that her mayor doesn't shake her hand).As usual with leftists, they only see one side of things.
Jerusalem's Mayor has the right to his religious convictions, meaning that he doesn't have to shake the lady's hand.
8 comments:
Roger that!
-- MAOZ
The demands of Shomer Negiah in the business world are hard enough, surely you could expect a little understanding in the holy city of Jerusalem.
Sure beats a recent ex politicians modus operandi
Mr Bagel
Checkout Bodgey Bagels Caption Contest
The anti-religious are the true fanatics, especially those who call themselves "liberals."
Well, as is often the case with "the truth," perhaps what is "fair" here is somewhere in the middle -- somewhere between this post's suggestion that there is no reason that Zomer should be upset by the Mayor's refusal to shake her hand, and Zomer's insistence that there is something fundamentally wrong with his refusal to treat her as an equal in the social/political/civic venue.
Sure -- the Mayor has a right to his religious convictions, but since many believe that the rights he is exercising in his refusal to shake Zomer's hand are grounded in mysogyny, I think it makes sense why Zomer is upset.
This is not a black-and-white situation -- it's a lot more nuanced than that, and both sides are in many ways valid.
Thanks for commenting, but the mayor's refusal to shake her hand is a religious law, not "Misogyny" (IPA: /mɪˈsɒʤəˌni/) is hatred or strong prejudice against women, as defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
It is nothing personal. He wouldn't shake my hand either. He has a right to live his life according to strict Jewish Law.
I know it's a religious law. I don't think anything in my comment suggested that I think it's personal.
But that's my point: many people believe that such "religious laws" are grounded in mysogyny. I am also well aware of the definition of mysogyny, though Wikipedia may not be the best source (I don't allow my students to use it).
I don't know how I feel about the issue as a whole. My point was simply that there are two valid sides to this issue, and that Zomer should not be ridiculed (I'm not saying that you were doing that) because she has a problem with it. There are many reasons that she should have a problem with it -- just as many reasons as the Mayor has for not shaking her hand.
Anyway, I meant to leave this comment on your Jewcy post, but somehow followed the links here!
One more thing -- I think what I also meant to say is that sometimes religious laws need to be questioned in light of the contemporary era. The impulse would be quite midrashic, one might say.
monica, nice to meet you
Those who don't believe in G-d and that G-d gave the laws to be obeyed are ready to change them with the hemlines.
But there are people who take them more seriously, and honestly, anything to do with sex is eternal. Sex has been around from day one and will always be part of human life. I'm sure that people were just as horny, randy and sexually charged 100, 1000 and 5000 years ago. Nothing's new, so especially in a generation which leaves so little to the imagination, Jewish Law can bring some control to things.
Post a Comment