Feminists Don’t Speak For All of Us on Palin
Your October 24 article “Sarah Palin Hits a Nerve Among Jewish Women, But It’s a Raw One” includes the opinion of Baila Olidort, editor of Lubavitch.org, who is quoted as saying that even though Palin’s “views are aligned quite well with traditional Jewish values,” she still has had second thoughts about Palin due to, as your article paraphrases, “Palin’s weak interview performances.”
As a woman in the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, I find that most women I know are concerned more with Palin’s views aligning well with traditional values than they are with what Olidort deems to be weak interview performances.
Palin may be new to her role, but she has proven herself to be a woman who learns quickly. Olidort might be referring to some early interviews, but in the debate with Joe Biden, Palin — under tremendous pressure — was brisk and firm, focused and factual, in addition to being friendly and feminine.
The last adjective is probably what bothers feminists the most. Her entire presentation is contrary to being a feminist. Palin is feminine. She exudes femininity. Palin jokes about “Joe six pack” without hostility because she is comfortable with men — but does not need to vie with men to exercise her integrity. I can see why Sarah Palin would strike a raw nerve in the already angry feminist. Palin is accomplishing what they all dreamed of, without buying into traditional feminist issues.
Palin is similar to Chabad women, and not only because she often wears skirts. Chabad women know what it takes to run a family with five children (plus) and to welcome grandchildren at the same time. The experience is a character-building one involving multi-tasking, peace negotiations and fiscal management — skills that would serve a vice president well.
Aliza Karp
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Your article on Sarah Palin ends by quoting New York University professor Lynne Bermont, who captures the negative sentiments expressed by the women cited in the article. Bermont excoriates Governor Palin as being “antithetical” to a tradition that “valorizes ethical integrity and intellectual activity.”
But what greater show of ethical integrity could one have than to bring a Down’s Syndrome pregnancy to fruition because terminating the birth would have violated one’s moral principles? And what snobbery to criticize a woman who ousted a corrupt governing establishment to become governor of her state by suggesting that she lacks integrity! Perhaps Palin isn’t an intellectual, but neither was Harry Truman.
Kenneth S. Dannett
West Nyack, N.Y.
Thank TV for Tolerance
Your October 24 editorial “Getting Beyond Bias” is valuable and, I think, very accurate. I would, however, like to correct one point in it: You credit increased tolerance among the young to “population shifts and the ubiquity of the Internet.”
While these factors are certainly important, they omit the largest cultural factor: television. According to the most recent data, television watching is still by far the most popular activity in the United States. The average American watches more than four hours per day, which is much more time than is spent on the Internet, or on much of anything else for that matter. Television reflects and alters how we see ourselves and how we are seen. English is the most popular second language in the world, due in no small part to television.
If television programming and advertising had not radically changed their representation of blacks and other minorities from what it had been 40 or 50 years ago, our newfound (although admittedly still inadequate) tolerance would never have happened.
Dave Mollen
Union, N.J.
The Press Won’t Stop
Certainly this is a challenging time for new publications (“New Publications, Launched With Fanfare, Find They Can’t Survive,” October 24). But it is also a season of great innovation and growth among Jewish publications. Faced with industry-wide declines in print readership, editors and publishers in the Jewish press are looking forward and developing new and creative ways to deliver information to our readers.
Collectively, we are devoted to sharing resources and facing, open-eyed, the changing nature of contemporary communication. We are blessed not only with a group of young and creative professionals, but also a solid core of devoted readers who care deeply about the stories we cover.
Elana Kahn-Oren
President
American Jewish Press Association
Editor
The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle
Milwaukee, Wis.
It’s Not ‘Universal,’ Alas
You noted in your editorial that we are about to celebrate “the 60th anniversary of a historic milestone, the signing in December 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which “spelled out for the first time in history an agreed international standard by which governments may be judged for their treatment of their own citizens” (“Return to Durban,” October 17).
Alas! In fact, the Universal Declaration is not universal at all, and the “agreed international standard” is a myth!
On the contrary, the Islamic countries subscribe to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. The Cairo Declaration asserts that Islam is superior to all other religions and that the only source of human rights is Islamic sacred law, the Sharia. There is just no compatibility between our “Universal Declaration” and the Cairo Declaration.
Former Iranian president Ali Khamenei said: “When we want to find out what is right and what is wrong we do not go to the United Nations; we go to the Holy Koran. For us, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is nothing but a collection of mumbo-jumbo by disciples of Satan.” The creator of the Islamic Republic of Iran and one of the most influential figures in 20th-century Islam, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, said: “What they call human rights is nothing but a collection of corrupt rules worked out by Zionists to destroy all true religions.”
Let us be under no illusions about the universality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much of the world will not be celebrating its 60th anniversary.
Carl Goldberg
Tempe, Ariz.
Yes, I Am Jewish
I, too, have been stopped by bearded men in black coats asking me if I’m Jewish (“‘Are You Jewish?’” October 17). If I say that I am, I am asked to put on tefillin and say a bracha in the Chabad mitzvah-mobile. My Hebrew reading is still passable after so many years from my yeshiva days. What is my response? If I’m not in a hurry, I say yes and do it. Why? Because it makes them feel good. If I’m in a hurry, I say that I’m not Jewish to avoid being pestered. If a gentile were to ask me if I’m Jewish, I would never deny it.
I love being Jewish, even though I am totally secular and an avowed atheist. So what makes me Jewish, outside of my circumcision, my bar mitzvah, my children’s bar mitzvahs, etc.? I am proud to be a part of a great people that has introduced some of the most humanitarian and beautiful ideas in the world; a people that has resurrected a superb and ancient language; a people that has produced one of the world’s most beautiful pieces of literature (the Torah); and, finally, a people that the Nazis tried to exterminate because the Jewish way of looking at life was in direct contrast to their own (I am a Holocaust survivor).
With all due respect to writer Dani Shapiro, I really do hope that the next time she is asked by a “bearded man in a top hat” if she is Jewish, she will answer yes, say the bracha, go on with her life (no need for a mea culpa article in the Forward) and feel good about having done the right thing.
Henry Stark
Chicago, Ill.
ACLU’s Busy at Home
Your article “U.S. Mounting Effort To Counter Limits on Speech Critical of Islam” (October 10) correctly identifies international “defamation of religion” resolutions as one of the most troublesome developments in human rights. The “defamation” movement does not promote tolerance as advertised but seeks to control speech for political purposes.
The article unfortunately suggests, however, that some “free speech advocacy groups,” and specifically the American Civil Liberties Union, have, for some unstated reason, been reluctant to come on board in opposing international “defamation of religion” efforts.
There is a simple explanation that could have been provided in your article. The ACLU’s mandate simply does not extend to civil liberties issues in foreign countries. This does not mean that those issues are unimportant, and it certainly does not imply indifference to speech-suppressing activities that take place elsewhere. The ACLU’s international activities are principally limited to holding the American government accountable for its own behavior — such as at Guantanamo.
T. Jeremy Gunn
Director
Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington, D.C.
At Survivors’ Service
I would like to clarify some issues raised by your article on the transfer of International Tracing Service records to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (“More Controversy-Plagued Holocaust Records Transferred to Museum,” October 3, 2008).
The museum led the effort to open the archive precisely because Holocaust survivors were for decades unable to obtain information in a timely way, if at all, from ITS. Now, thanks to the museum’s efforts, the material is available, and since January 2008, we have responded to more than 7,000 inquiries. The museum has always responded to requests submitted remotely by survivors and their families. This policy long pre-dates the acquisition of ITS materials. No survivor has ever had to travel to Washington, D.C., to receive information from ITS or the millions of other pages of documentation at the museum.
Concerning online access, the museum is receiving a copy of the ITS archive in a format that does not allow its pages to be searched using an Internet search engine such as Google. The archive was created in the 1950s with no intention of it being accessible outside of ITS headquarters in Bad Arolsen, Germany. The copies being received are digital pictures of documents. Making them searchable online would take years. But survivors do not have years. Getting information to survivors quickly has always been the museum’s top priority. While survivors are welcome to come to Washington to search the records themselves, at this juncture the best way to get them the information they need is for trained researchers to work with them, in person or remotely, and to search the archive on their behalf. Every other institution receiving the material has reached the same conclusion.
The museum will continue to ensure that every survivor who needs information will receive it in the shortest possible time. Survivors can visit or call the museum’s registry of Holocaust survivors at 1-866-912-4385.
Michael Haley Goldman
Director
Benjamin and Vladka Meed Registry of Holocaust Survivors
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Washington, D.C.
Thank you Deena for reading my letter and for your comment. At the end of the debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin's family came on stage. She took her baby and put him on her shoulder. She immediately started to rock back and forth and pat him. I am a mother and grandmother - and I don't know how to explain this to you - but when I saw that rocking and patting I was convinced that Sarah Palin's children had not been left with Nanny's. In the Palin-bashing, I have seen complaints about the air fare amounts for Palin's children to come spend time with her. And yes there are times when a woman does have to go out into the world if she is doing it to improve the world that her children live in. I am not sure why you mention 'encouraging' unwanted pregnancies, unless you are saying such pregnancies should be aborted. Life is tough. Having teenagers is tough. All sorts of unwanted things can happen. Sarah Palin is handling her situation with dignity. She does not say she is against abortion just to win votes - she has proven she is for real - not just another politician spin doctor. I am not sure about what you mean when commenting about Mr Dannett's praising Palin's decision to keep her child, unless here you are also impling that an abortion would be appropriate. My older sister has Downs Syndrome. I am 57. She is 58. I love her and cannot imagine the world without her. Let me clarify my comparison of Palin to Chabad women. I am saying that raising children build strong character traits. Most jobs outside the house are not as challenging as raising children. I see it when the children get older and the mothers go out to the working world. They are mavericks!
to Deena - i am surprised my letter is still posted. i wonder how much longer we will be able to write to each other. i admit that i do not have first hand information about the schedule of a President or Vice President. although for our discussion i think the possibility of Palin being President is the real issue. i am under the impression that VP is not a taxing position - but it does come with a lot of perks. Presidency however has tremendous responsibility - but i think it comes with a built in support system so that the President is always fresh. i doubt it is a 9 to 5 position. anyone in the White House, male or female, needs family time. and i agree that a mother needs more time. but i would hate to say that the President should not be a mother. or that her youngest child has to be a certain age. i think the Presidency needs a younger person and i think a mother of children is as good or better than men candidates. my guess is, if Palin were President - her kids would have a blast! the main point is that the Presidency does comes with a support system that is very generous and that the children would not feel neglected any more than children of mothers working in other careers. i always wondered how women who teach young children all day can come home to their own children and still have patience. i really think the Presidency perks will balance the responsiblity so that Palin would have more time for her children than most women executives, doctors and even teachers. this is our generation. a lot of women do not stay home with their children... let me clarify about the nanny, i said nanny and not babysitter to imply a full time nanny with very little mommy/baby time. we all leave our children with caregivers, but there are extremes and i am under the impression the Palin spends ample time with her family... as far as a Downs Syndrome baby needing more time. i am not a professional. i only know about my sister. my sister was not a demanding baby. being in a family with siblings is the stimulation my sister got. i believe nowadays therapists come to the home in most places to give additional stimulation. but i see no reason why a mother would have to spend more time with a Downs Syndrome baby - but as i said, i only know about my sister and her friends... i think a teenage pregnancy can be pretty embarrassing for any family, especially a public figure. no one would have known if it was terminated. but Palin sticks by her beliefs. i think that is an unusual trait for a politician... i do not see Palin as taking on a more difficult position than other women who have careers at the same time as they had young children. i stayed home when my children were young and am very proud that my married daughters are staying home with their young children. not all women are able to - but i do not see that as a reason to refrain from having children. and some women just need to get out and do other things as well as bringing up their children. i would think Palin is that type. i do not disapprove and i do not think women like this have to refrain from having children just because they are not inclined to be a stay at home mom. all the best, aliza
The two letters, above, leave me incredulous. Aliza Karp finds Sarah Palin a kindred spirit because: "Chabad women know what it takes to run a family with five children (plus) and to welcome grandchildren at the same time." Is that what Orthodox Judaism is about? Popping out children, then leaving them to go to campaign for the highest office in the land? I thought Orthodox Jewish women were exempt from time-requirement-mitzvot because they need the flexibility to deal with the young child's changing needs. And encouraging teenagers to have unplanned babies? To compare the Chabad lifestyle to Sarah Palin's having a baby while her daughter is pregnant...if that's Chabad, remind me to keep my daughters far, far away from anything-Chabad. Next: Kenneth S. Dannett's note about Sarah Palin's decision to bring to term a Down Syndrome baby. That's integrity? People who have Down Syndrome babies sacrifice much to put time and nurturing into raising those babies. They know how difficult it is to find help for those children and that depending on public funding is a risky way to raise a child. The comparison of Sarah Palin to Harry Truman...yougottabekiddin'! We have reached a new low in the Jewish community!
Aliza, I actually felt the same when I saw Sarah Palin pick up and hold her baby, after that debate. And I saw warmth in her interactions with her other children. However, after raising four children already, she knows very well she would not, as vice-president/president, have the time to devote to her baby (and help her daughter who will soon be a mother). How can you possibly think her baby has not been with a babysitter/nanny? While Palin is meeting with campaign organizers and giving speeches, the baby may be with the father--that's possible. But if Sarah Palin were to become...president (not necessarily vice-president) she would surely not be with her baby enough to give him the nurturing any baby needs. And she would not be able to give the attention a Down Syndrome baby needs. (Otherwise she'd neglect the country.) With your experience, wouldn't you agree? All of this would not be our business, if Sarah Palin were not anti-Choice. It's beautiful that your family raised your sister with a lot of love. I'm happy for you. Knowing what goes into that, wouldn't you agree that every child should be a wanted child? As far as Sarah Palin not changing her position to win votes--why would she change her position? She was chosen FOR her position. She was chosen to win the support of the right-wing-fundamentalist Christian Republican base. She was chosen for her family portrait: five children, a Down Syndrome baby and a teenage pregnancy. That said it all. John McCain did not need to say more. ' The Palins are a family in which responsible family planning is not a virtue. This is a family where bringing a pregnancy to term is more important than the quality of the mother-child bond. I dare say this is a mother who made a choice, but gave up her responsibility to that choice. Although she'd just had a baby, she could not say "no" to an opportunity of a lifetime. I feel for her dilemma. But...she's the one who's anti-Choice. She made her choice, she should put the baby's welfare before her career. I mean, she already had a career before taking on a presidential campaign! And John McCain would do just fine without her! She was willing to bring a fifth child into the world. There is nothing more important she can do for this world than nurture that child. If every mother would do that, we would not have half the problems of this world. I would like to understand how a Jewish mother could possibly respect the Republican tactics, this year.
Aliza, I really appreciate your response. This is fascainting and I'd like to understand better where you're coming from. I don't see how you can possibly think that the job description of President is appropriate for the mother of a young baby. Yes, there's plenty of support for the president. But no amount of "support" would be adequate--In addition, we're talking about the mother of FIVE children, including a baby and another baby born to a teenage daughter. As president, hopefully, if she's a normal mother, she'd have her children on her mine while we the public expect her to be concentrating on OUR business, not hers. If she would not have her children on her mind, she would not be the sort of woman one would want in the White House. Is her husband willing to stay home with the children? Do they have a wonderful, fabulous, excellent nanny? In the White House, as president, the mother would need round the clock care for her children. Is this the scenario you imagine when you see Sarah Palin rock her baby? A president is not a first lady. (I don't beleve this is not obvious.) THE point is....this is a woman who undertook to bring to term a Down Syndrome baby (which is her right) and THEN accepted the task of running for the potential-president. That's the problem! She did not say "no" to a career move that would jeopardize the quality of her mothering. There is no comparison between her choice and the choice of women who go out to work because they need the money or to express strong interests. The woman who becomes a doctor, for example, may arrange a work schedule appropriate to her family (hopefully). A president cannot do that. The president of the United States has no flexibility. Sure, there are arrangements for family time, but if an emergency comes up, the emergency is--and should be-- more important. Is anything more important, to you, than your children? I thought Orthodox women were exempt from time-bound mitzvot for the very reason that raising children requires flexibility. The next subject: Palin sticking to her values by not having an abortion. Do you think a pro-life candidate who allowed her daughter to have an abortion could keep that a secret? And is that a good thing? Her daughter is going to now marry a young boy whom she may or may not be right for, and raise a baby, whom she may or may not be ready to raise. That's good for the next generation? Again, that's their personal business (maybe the daughter wanted to keep the baby) but we're talking about a family that supports abstinence education...for MY children. And yours. You may like that. But I do not. I think it's unrealistic and dangerous. And I do not want those people as role models to my children. Ok, I'd live with the role models, since every family has its problems, but NOT on the condition that their values have to be mine. I say..every child a wanted child. And a woman has the right to choose. And I do not want, in the White House, a woman who would set back the clock on reproductive rights which women, men, nurses, doctors, scientists and all manner of caring people have worked so hard to make possible. Read about the life of Jews in the Lower East Side during the 1900s, when Margaret Sanger was a nurse there. Read about the pain and suffering that brought about the birth control movement. And tell me that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
When John McCain clearly has proven support for Israel, why would Jewish voters support a Barack Obama whose commitment to Israel is questionable? Look at Obama's ties to Nation of Islam's Lewis Farrakhan, a vocal anti-Semite; the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has a close relationship with Farrakhan; and Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Then there's the Rev. Jesse Jackson's recent comment that in an Obama administration “decades of putting Israel’s interests first would end.” Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a a lot of their clout when Barack Obama becomes president. Why trade a dependable friend for a maybe friend--especially with a mortal enemy like Iran in the picture? Can we afford a major misstep?
If the two of you (Retzlaff, Sprus) would read Obama's books and study his record in the senate and beforehand, you would see, if you're honest with yourself, a candidate who is closer to Jewish values and the Israeli mission of "Never Again!" than any other candidate this country has seen. It's a shanda that any Jew would speak about him as you have. You take his words completely out of context and spread misinformation, with gusto. Luckily, the majority of Jews see through the sort of propaganda that you seem to thrive on.