RSS

Category Archives: Cultural Critique

Hazardous Insulation

Aleichem

Anyone even remotely familiar with ultra-conservative enclaves might not be surprised to learn that there are insiders who see it as their mission to keep things just so. It stands to reason that the more insular a community is, the more self-regulating it is as well. This dynamic is not unique to religious groups. There are many small (and not so small) towns where outsiders (defined as anyone living there less than 25 years) are noticed and suspect, and locals are watched for deviation from the community norm. In some more traditional communities there may even be groups or committees of older families who consider themselves the keepers of the status quo. They may give their groups names that include the words “civic” or “betterment.” They may even host annual events (on their own behalf.)

Knowing this (or at least suspecting this) means we shouldn’t find it the least bit remarkable that such undertakings occur in America’s melting pot; New York City. This is a city made up of any and every ethnic and religious group. It is also a city that is much more a conglomerate of many small towns than one grand entity. One of those small towns is Hasidic and in Brooklyn. For Hasidim almost everything about their lives hinges upon being insular. Many of their customs stem from a way of life centuries old. You can only imagine (if you are not Hasidic) the level of vigilance needed to keep the modern world at bay in the 21st century. If you’ve been in almost any house of worship in the past few years you’ve no doubt seen someone texting? Yeah, that doesn’t happen in a Hassidic synagogue. I’m guessing you know of a parent trying to limit their offspring’s television and video game consumption? Yeah, not so much with the Hasidim. It’s a different world for them. For outsiders the Hasidim are probably more similar to characters from Sholem Aleichem’s Tevye the milkman stories than anyone they actually know. And that doesn’t happen without some community effort and oversight.

There is a group of keepers of very specific “do’s” and “don’ts” of a Hasidic community in Brooklyn going by the name; modesty committee. This ‘group’ considers it their duty to temper tantalization. Some of their (reported) activities are far from benign. Open threats, theft, violence are committed by people calling themselves members of a modesty committee. Modesty infractions range from the bizarre; fully dressed mannequins in a shop window, to (possibly) relatable; excessive cell phone usage with the opposite sex. Mostly there’s a lot of bullying involved. People in power pushing people without power around. No surprises there. It’s what lies at the heart of the committee’s furor that is most remarkable. The modesty that is being policed is for the benefit of young (and presumably not so young) men in the community. That’s right. Ultra-religous men could potentially grow wild with lust from viewing a clothed mannequin. If the material on a girl’s tights is not opaque enough a teenage boy could be sent ’round the bend. (I got news for you; a breeze could send a teenage boy ’round the bend.) All in all, this policing is about controlling the (presumably) uncontrollable impulses of men and boys. So the rigid dogma doesn’t do that, nor does the rigid and insulated daily life? Even with the most dire of social (and spiritual) consequences the only thing separating a decent man/boy and an uncontrollable bundle of sexual id is the fiber content of black tights? Well that’s not very flattering is it?

At the end of the day does anyone really care about what goes on in groups that opt out of the larger community? Maybe not, but they should. If you are going to live anywhere on the grid, there really is no such thing as total isolation. Enclave behavior affects outsiders either overtly or passively. We all share many of the same resources and we should (and need to) care how people are treated. It is a safe assumption that the primary targets of modesty committees are most often women and girls. The women and girls are seen as existing solely in terms of how they impact men and boys. This country has gotten to a point where we’re not comfortable with women relegated to the role of accessory to men’s lives. No doubt there are positive things to find in any insular society. There is most probably a strong sense of support and care for many members. But there is also a great deal of protection for members who abuse their power. Human rights violations and civil rights erosion sometimes happen slowly and undramatically. But they can only happen when enough people turn their heads.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 30, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

We, The People

45th President

Our 44th President of the United States celebrated his (second) inauguration today. An African-American president (re)elected to the highest office in the land is something to note. That today is also a federal holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is poetic. Hopefully the overwhelming significance of this occurrence is lost on the youngest generation of Americans. But for some of us it is simply breathtaking. If you are old enough and young enough you were taught about the civil rights movement by teachers who were in the fight. You listened to a scratchy recording of the I Have A Dream Speech played by a teacher who had been there. You may have witnessed (through child’s eyes) the placards and marches for E.R.A. and the first stirrings of gay liberation. To have one’s first understanding of civics to be that of exclusion and assassination is profound.

Fast forward to today: a day when the Vice President of the United States was sworn in by Justice Sonya Sotamayer (an Hispanic woman), the inaugural invocation was given by Myrlie Evers (the widow of Medgar Evers) and the inaugural poem was written and read by Richard Blanco (an openly gay Cuban.) The master of ceremonies for this great event was Senator Chuck Schumer (a Brooklyn Jew.) Have we covered all hues of the rainbow?

It is easy and human to be frustrated by what often feels like glacially slow progress. We know what is right and grow impatient seeing it become a reality. But today, and perhaps only for today, all things seem possible. That a president of the United States of America would mention Stonewall in an inaugural address is simply awesome. That Stonewall is (finally) said in the same breath as Selma and Seneca Falls is remarkable. That it was said by a 51-year-old President is not surprising. My guess is that he too was taught about the fights of the 1960s by those who had fought. I’ve often wondered what happens to a generation born into a rash of assassinations, college takeovers, and fire hoses. Today I finally have the answer: they grow up to lead the free world.

 
5 Comments

Posted by on January 21, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Facts Of Life

Maude

It’s been forty years since the passing of Roe v Wade. Forty years. That’s a very long time. In 1973 we were still smoking in restaurants, elevators and hospitals. In 1973 women were called girls and people of color were called worse. Push button phones were the edgiest things in communication technology and fancy people had remote controls for their televisions. We’ve come a long way baby! Or have we? The fight against reproductive freedoms is in full force and we seemed to have learned little. Literally. If you were to listen to the arguments or soundbites of anti-choice proponents you’d find yourself wondering how you missed that particular biology lesson. It’s alarming to discover grown people (who have made reproduction their raison d’etre) know so little about reproduction.

Babies don’t live inside of people, zygotes, embryos and fetuses do (in that order.) Semantics you say? Perhaps, but words are power; just ask any 50 year old “girl” or racially slurred man.

Contraception and birth control are not the same thing (though their end results are the same.) Contraception prevents conception. Any barrier device (i.e., diaphragm, condom, etc.) or spermicide (in the best case scenario) prevents a sperm from fertilizing an egg. Sterilization would fall into the category of contraception as well. Any method or procedure that prevents a fertilized egg from becoming a baby is birth control. All hormonal methods fall into this category (i.e., I.U.D., birth control pills, implants, etc.) as part of their efficacy is that they work to prevent uterine adherence. Spontaneous and medical abortions are also birth control. If anti-choice advocates believe that a fertilized egg is a human life, they should take a long hard look at all birth control.

By ignoring the erroneous use of terminology and the manipulation of biological fact it’s as if we endorse the fallacies. Of course we need only go to the movies or watch television to know that we’re doing a pretty bang-up job of ignoring the whole issue altogether. It’s been forty years since Maude had an abortion (with zero viewer controversy,) yet you’d be hard-pressed to ever see a character rationally choosing this option. In 2013 soap operas (once the bastion of contemporary socially relevant dramatization) refers to abortion only with hush and horror; “She was seen outside of an abortion clinic!” A relatively sophisticated police drama depicted a female athlete (how 21st century) choosing to be charged for a crime she didn’t commit rather than have people know she had (gasp) an abortion. Routinely teenage characters are depicted as having only two choices when faced with an unplanned pregnancy (and both involve giving birth.)

Half of all unplanned pregnancies in the Unites States are terminated. It’s left to our imaginations to determine how many unplanned pregnancies occur. It’s a relatively safe bet that at any book club across our land there are at least a couple of stories to be told. And maybe that’s part of our fractured and false conversation. Women don’t talk about abortion. They’ll talk about everything else under the sun, but not abortion. You can’t get through a bridal shower without hearing about pee sticks, frequency, duration, enhancers, gizmos, gadgets and gewgaws. But nothing would bring the consistency of mucus conversation to a screeching halt like the mention of the “A” word. Why? How did we come to believe that there was any shame in freedom of choice? How did taking responsibility for our health, our lives and for the future become tainted? How did we fall under the spell of the anti-choice rhetoric?

We can create small individual revolutions by adopting appropriate terminology. It’s probably a bit of a buzz kill to discuss any gynecological procedure at a bridal shower. But there’s ample opportunity to correct on-air and real people when they refer to fetuses as babies. Pointing out that birth control works very much like abortion does could make some waves as well. We’ve gotten to a point in this country where the loudest voice gains the most credence, not matter how ill informed or flat out wrong that voice is. Tuning out the screamers is not good enough; we need to add scientific and sociological fact to the noise.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 17, 2013 in Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

When Progress Falls Short

rail

New York State is passing new gun regulations. They are the first to do so after the 2012 Newtown (Connecticut) school shooting. The legislation will be lauded for its expanded ban on assault weapons and a broader definition of those weapons. The part of the legislation that will probably get the least attention the mention of mental illness. We seem to agree (subconsciously at least) that massacring innocent people is not the work of a sane individual. We also collectively agree that there are many many people struggling with their thoughts and feelings every single day. Most of us would agree that if we have a mental health system in this country to speak of, it is filled with holes and dead ends. So any legislation that even begins to address the mentally ill is a good thing, no?

Not when the legislation is a directive to mental health practitioners to report patients who are going to harm themselves and others, allowing the authorities to then remove guns from that patient’s home. Talk about your paper tigers! If people struggling with mental illness had access to a practitioner we’d have reason to celebrate! If mental health practitioners could predict who will cause harm we would be living in a very safe world indeed. A person is determined to be a danger to him/herself or others when the patient says that he or she is a danger to him/herself or others. So this ‘dangerous’ group is now a minute percentage of the actual group of potentially dangerous people. Now compound that with the fact that this new legislation might deter someone with any hint of paranoia or delusion from seeking mental health support. Add to that mess the fact that the shooting that prompted this legislation was done with weapons belonging to the murderer’s mother, not the man himself. You see how this might be more smoke than substance?

This could and should be the opportunity to decree that people haunted by their thoughts and impulses should not have to work so hard to get care. This is our chance to say that mental illnesses are complex and challenging to treat, but so is cancer and like cancer we need to go at it with everything we’ve got. Right now before the voices or the rage or the hopelessness cause a person to lash out on a subway platform, or slash someone on the street or shoot a toddler with a handgun or burn down a home; is when we should say that decent people do not allow this to continue. Decent people know that when we choose to not fight for those that need us most we forever must bear some responsibility for the consequences. Decency doesn’t allow for empty gestures or placating. There is no doubt that any restriction on guns is good for our country, and this legislation makes an impact on that goal. The public may very well applaud the creators of this legislation. There may be pats on the back and a nice sense of achievement. But at the end of the day the authors of this legislation know that they missed a golden opportunity to make real, humane and lasting change and may have stalled whatever building momentum there was to do so.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 15, 2013 in Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

One Nation…*

church state

The minister selected to deliver the benediction at the 2013 inauguration has withdrawn. It seems that his well-publicized (and recorded) anti-homosexual remarks were creating a distraction. This of course is not the first time that a preacher who has expressed bigotry has been offered an exalted platform by (current and past) White House occupants. This may however been the first time that bigotry was acknowledged as potentially offensive (after the selection but before the event.)

The thing is, religion by its very definition is about exclusion. ‘This is what we believe in.’ There can be no ‘we’ without a ‘thee.’ Whether we personally engage with the philosophy of organized religion or not is somewhat beside the point. What is of significance is how comfortable we seem to be with mixing church and state. In most of our lifetimes we have never before seen the extreme polarizing and lethal effects of religion that are in play today. War is raged and terror acts committed by people citing a conflict of religious ideals. We know from our own recent presidential election how divisive religion has become in this country. It has been many decades since we considered ourselves a white Christian nation. Our language reflects that change. We are cautious in how we identify people, we use euphemisms and/or bundle all winter occasions in place of casually tossing about; “Merry Christmas.’ We can and do change. Yet, our public institutions are still decorated with Christmas trees (presumably paid with tax dollars.) Our government hosts prayer breakfasts and includes prayer in ceremonies of state. Why?

Religion is a private matter and personal decision. If memory serves, that was the motivation for founding America. So why do we unconsciously continue to allow religion into our government? Is it unconscious? Could it be that there are people in power who still have cold war tics? Are we afraid of seeming the very thing some accuse us of; godless? Could it be that there are people who do not trust strength of character, integrity and morality without clear and present doctrine? Perhaps it’s a little bit of habit, a little bit of superstition and just a dash of unconsciousness. At a time in history when we seem to go to lengths to seem inclusive and/or ‘tolerant’ it all seems embarrassingly anachronistic. Seeing a modern president (or any elected official) include religious observance into official state business is like seeing someone pat their secretary on the bottom. To my eyes anyway.

*In 1954, (during the McCarthy era and communism scare) Congress passed a bill, which was signed into law, to add the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 11, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,