A not so Subtle Subtlety of Anti-semitism

Anyone who thinks that antisemitism in the US is over and done with needs to open their eyes and ears. While overt antisemitism is frowned on and has legal sanctions, there is the subtler form that appears, particularly in our media.

Find someone who is Jewish, particularly observant Jewish, featured in an article or report in any of the media and here is what you see: if what that person has done is a "good" thing, then the person is identified strictly by name or perhaps business title or perhaps area of residence. HOWEVER, if what that person has done is something seen as "bad," suddenly the identification will also include "an orthodox Jew." Now, if religious affiliation and degree of practice were the actual policy of these media in identifying those in their reports, I'd expect to see every report read "Mr. X, a devout Catholic" or "Mr. Y, a practicing Presbyterian" or even "Mr. Q, a devout Muslim." I'd expect that quotes would read "Mr. Z, a Seventh Day Adventist, said...." But that's not what happens. Short of using titles such as Archbishop X, the religious affiliation is not immediately mentioned as an identifying characteristic. In fact, it's almost never mentioned, except where someone Jewish is being reported about.

Presumably the identifying characteristics used by the media are for purposes of "objective" reporting. Presumably these characteristics are used to give readers all the "facts" necessary. One of the 5 Ws that reporters are supposed to include is "Who." But what does "who" consist of? If in 99 out of 100 cases that "who" consists of a name and perhaps a business affiliation, then why make the exception when you are writing about Jews? Why? I'll let you guess.

Years back I subscribed to a professional journal that had relevance to the classes I was teaching. In an article on an archaeological dig taking place in the Middle East, one of those involved in the dig was identified as an orthodox Jew. None of the others involved in the dig had such a religious or belief identification. I fired off a letter to the journal demanding an explanation for this identification. What academic goal was being fulfilled by this identification? What information necessary to understand the article did this identification supply? And if religious affiliation was necessary for understanding, why were the others not identified by religious affiliation? What answer did I get back from the journal? Actually, I was surprised that they sent me an answer altogether, that is until I read the answer. They thought that the religious label was an interesting fact for their readers, there not being all that many orthodox Jewish archaeologists around. Say what?!

When I see an example of this kind of antisemitism I fire off a complaint to the offending publication. Yes, I know, my complaint isn't going to change a darn thing. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want these publications to lose the knowledge that someone "out there" saw what they did and can call a spade a spade. As I pointed out to one publication, if their religious characterization had been even handed there would be no complaint. But when a religious Jew was a Nobel Laureate, suddenly "orthodox Jew" wasn't an interesting fact any longer.

Antisemitism? Different form, different shape, different intensity, yet still there.

The Demise of the 3 X 5 Card

I still occasionally get calls from people who are looking for shidduchim. Mostly I pass along to them the phone number of the head of our local shidduch group. Truth to tell there are still a few active members of that group, but a whole lot of the women, such as myself, have opted out of the organizational route. Why? I think it can be best summed up in a few simple numbers: 3 and 5.

Back in those "dark ages," as many like to call the time period when I was actively redting shidduchim, my shidduch files were highly portable and immediately accessible when I got a call. They all fit comfortably into 3 small boxes that held 3x5 cards in alphabetical order. A lot of us used the same method.

What was on those cards? Name, phone number, home community, age and birth date, height, schools attended, shul attending. In some cases we got the parents' names, the names of siblings and if the siblings were married. Sometimes we knew who the siblings were married to and sometimes not. We'd jot down what profession the person was already in or which one they were studying for. On occasion the front of the card would also hold the name and phone number of the shul rabbi or ONE other person who might have more information on the person--a lot of times we didn't have this information. We would also jot down, in single words, a few notes about the person's interests/hobbies. And we might make a note to ourselves about personality, either because the person mentioned it or based on our conversation with the person. The back of the card was reserved for the names of the people we thought would be shayich for this person and/or the names of the people we had set them up with. Everything we needed to redt a shidduch on the front of one 3x5 card--Zeh hu.

No questionnaires, no resumes, no interrogations and investigations worthy of the CIA. No waiting weeks and months either. Over the course of many years I set up hundreds and hundreds of dates. No, all those dates did not result in a shidduch being made. They did result in a lot of people going out, meeting people they might not have met otherwise, and finding out what was really out there as far as marriage goes. And yes, in many, many cases the two people I set up would not be interested in each other once they had met, but would have suggestions as to other people who might fit them. For the most part people were polite when they called and appreciative that a stranger was willing to take time to help them find their soul mate. When I called with a recommendation the acceptance was either immediate or was settled within a few short days.

And for the record, this resulted in 22 shidduchim made directly by me and 9 that I was a part of along with others.

So what changed? Just about everything. When the word shadchan began being spit out with venom by those who used a shadchan's services, it was time to get out. When the information on just ONE shidduch began to resemble a multi-volumed encyclopedia, it was time to get out. When it took longer to redt one shidduch then it did to build a multi-family house, it was time to get out. When the information insisted upon embarrassed me to write down, never mind to have to ask someone else, it was time to get out. What finally was the straw that broke the camel's back was when I came to realize that I was doing the dating for the people I was now fixing up--yes, you read that correctly. All that excruciatingly detailed information I was expected to have on anyone I was redting was equivalent to at least two date's worth of conversation on the part of a couple out on a date. And what was worse was that so many of the questions I was expected to know the answers to had nothing, yes NOTHING to do with whether or not a couple was going to find compatibility and real understanding.

Back when I first got married there was a company that decided that plain white milk must be boring to everyone, and it came out with special food dyes for milk products. It was now possible to color coordinate your milk with your china or with the dishes being served. That product didn't get too much by way of public acceptance and faded away rather quickly. That's what happens to products and services that the public looks at, examines and decides is not really necessary or in its best interests. We're perfectly willing to say "This doesn't work" or "This isn't for everyone" when it comes to other things. When it comes to the way shidduchim are made today we aren't willing to admit that the system in place is unwieldy, degrading, seriously flawed and, what's worse, doesn't work for a whole lot of the people using it. And even where it might be used to make an actual shidduch, a whole lot of those shidduchim don't result in "wonderful" marriages or in marriages that last.

How long is it going to take before those with children of shidduch age and those who are themselves in the parsha finally take that deep breath and say "The Emperor is naked!" How long before our frum society recognizes that systems for shidduch making are not written in stone, nor were they given at Har Sinai and are immutable?

As long as dating causes severe angst and gets glares when mentioned, I'll stay happily retired. As long as dating is looked at akin with other things to do that are painful but necessary, I'll opt out. As long as dating is no longer fun but goes in tandem with that other F word we don't use in polite company, I want no part of it. But frankly, I have to wonder and am still puzzled by why anyone would want to have anything to do with dating and shidduch making as it's constituted today.

A little rebellion or revolution is more than called for, but where are the brave and determined people who will lead that insurgence? A sad commentary, but if Patrick Henry were alive today and giving his impassioned speech, crying "Give me liberty or give me death!" there might be a whole lot of people who would shrug their shoulders and mark down on his resume "Unsuitable for shidduchim--doesn't toe the party line."

Something to Perk up the Blahs

While out running errands I got the unwelcome news that our area is going to be hit again with snow, for Friday and Shabbos. Although how much it's going to be will depend on how the storm veers, the talk was from 2 to 12 inches. That was enough to depress me thoroughly. And then I got home and in checking emails got a wonderful gift from one of my students that brightened the day considerably.

I seem to have a reputation as a rather strict instructor who doesn't hand out A marks like they were candy (okay, deserved but still). A major report got handed in and this student was rather nervous as to what the mark would be. It happens that the report was stellar and earned an A. When I notified the student he sent me back an email along with a link that he said pretty much illustrates how he felt while waiting to hear the mark.

I'm posting the link without further commentary because I think you'll get it when you hear what he sent me. Not bad advice for a dreary Tuesday or any other time when you wonder if it's worth it to put in all that work and not have any idea if anything will come of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gIztqPlJ3w

On Jonathan Pollard

I mostly keep away from politics, but that doesn't mean always. The link below is to a video well worth watching, regarding Jonathan Pollard. If you're like-minded, there are a number of things you can do, as delineated in the message received from Justice4JPnews and reprinted below:

Please watch the short video: "Should Jonathan Pollard be released?":
YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX8KY4VxoXk
(You can also view the video below.)

Please send it to at least 10 people (or more) with a request that each person who receives it from you, should please send it to 10 more people, who should in turn send it to 10 more people who should in turn send it to 10 more people and so on.

Please send the video link to anyone who has a large email distribution list and ask them to distribute it to their mailing list as a matter of "Pikuach Nefesh" (literally to save a Jewish life -- Jonathan's!)

Please send the video link to Jewish organizations and groups, and ask them to share the video with their mailing lists, as a matter of Pikuach Nefesh (literally to save a Jewish life -- Jonathan's!)

Anyone who can post the video link to their website or blog is encouraged to do so.

Please take a few moments of your time to do your part in the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim by ensuring that all of your friends and family receive the video link and that they watch it!
May all who participate in the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim by disseminating this video and by calling the White House at 202-456-1414 to tell President Barack Obama to Free Jonathan Pollard Now! be abundantly blessed!

Thank you for your help.

On House Ownership

Before reading the post that follows, chew on these facts for a moment: in 2005, 72.4% of all white Americans owned their own home. Among the two largest ethnic groups, blacks and Hispanics, approximately 50% of each group owned their own homes. This is a huge increase over the decade before. Even with the economic problems we have now home ownership has remained steady and has even risen a bit--one person's misfortune being another person's fortune.

Using the strictest definition of luxury, some people believe that owning a house would fall in the category (looking at that 72.4% figure above, a whole lot of people aren't considering it a luxury). Shelter is a requirement or necessity, but there are many options for shelter other than an owned house. In the ongoing discussion of tuition assistance house ownership has come in for a great deal of flack. The feeling of many is that people look at their scarce resources and elect to put those resources into buying a home, thus making it necessary for them to ask for tuition assistance from the yeshivas. They believe that this is wrong, and that home ownership should take second place to paying full tuition. If you do not have money to both pay for the house and pay for the yeshiva then the house should not be purchased.

On a different side you have those who look at home ownership as a type of investment, a type of savings plan. Rather than giving rent to someone else, money that you will never see again, mortgage payments are an investment in something that will pay off in benefits both now and in the future. You get to use the house for shelter now, and you will own the home when the mortgage is paid off, thus allowing you to sell it, if desired, and use the money for other things. Some people feel that this is no different from having a 401(K) or 503B. The house is part of a retirement plan, either because you will have a free and clear domicile to live in in the retirement years or you will have a property to sell that can help finance those retirement years. (And yes, if a strict emergency arises, you will have an equity property to borrow against if necessary.)

Again, there are some on the other side of the argument who will say that funding retirement at the expense of tuition payment is not a fair or equitable trade off. They don't feel that funding a 401C should be done if you can't pay full tuition. Frankly, I find this argument to be a rather specious one. Generally those who take the no-savings position also tell you that you will have plenty of time to garner those savings when you have finished paying tuition for your children. Would someone please register those people into a basic course on finance, and begin by teaching the time table for compounding.

There is a fallacy in the anti-house group commonly known as "either-or." This group is assuming that it must be either a house or tuition payment if there is not enough money for both. What if the reality is that it is not an either-or situation? What if both could be considered as necessities for the majority of people? What then? Then the question would be how can both be financed on limited funds.

Let me state the obvious: if there is only X money and you want two items, each of which cost that X, you are going to need to find cheaper alternatives for both of those items. Re the housing, there are many cheaper alternatives available. Pick a community where houses cost less. If such a community does not exist where you believe you want to live, choose a different place to live. Buy less house, either smaller or less fixed up. Consider buying a two-family house so that the rental income will reduce your out of pocket expenses on the house. Consider a coop or condo if a free standing house is still too costly for you. Re the school tuition, if that tuition is a make or break item for you, look around and see if there are schools somewhere that charge less than others (yes, there are some). Yes, commute time may be a factor with some of those less expensive schools, but then you need to weigh the time against the money and against the house you want. Are there other, less traditional options for schooling available that would cut the cost of tuition considerably?

Frankly, I believe that if we would stop arguing about home ownership (and yes, savings plans also) as being a luxury we might be able to concentrate on reducing tuition. As long as schools look at homes and savings as luxuries, there is no incentive to reduce tuition. If they see these things as optional, they have no problem telling parents that tuition will not be reduced--sell your house or stop saving. As long as schools see themselves as THE most important thing that parents have to spend money on, they have no reason to watch costs and to cut items out of their budgets.

As for parents (and prospective parents), they, too, need to be realistic. If a particular school is what they want for their children, but the neighborhood that school is in does not have any reasonable cost housing for sale, they are going to have to rethink both the school and the neighborhood.

In short, the argument about tuition versus buying a home needs to be seriously re-cast to take into consideration what the majority of people in our country think of as necessities for its citizens. If owning a home and paying yeshiva tuition are BOTH looked at as necessities, then how will they both be paid for?

Tidbits from the Past

Some events that took place in the week of January 1-8.


1 Paul Revere was born (1735)
1 Emma M. Nutt become sthe first woman telephone operator. (1878)
1 The ball was first dropped at Times Square in New York City. (1908)
3 Construction began on the Brooklyn Bridge (1870)
6 Samuel Morse demonstrates the telegraph (1838)
7 Astronomer Galileo Galilei discovers four of Jupiter’s moons. (1610)

Words to Ponder

On sitting and learning and considering parents as ATMs, some better advice:

"If you don't want to work, you have to work to earn enough money so that you won't have to work."

Ogden Nash