tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post8000303491672482633..comments2024-03-28T21:30:33.665+02:00Comments on Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Should the wife be sacrificed for the marriage or the marriage sacrificed for the wife's happiness?- there is a third way!Daas Torahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07252904288544083215noreply@blogger.comBlogger162125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-57809722672877583682018-04-09T23:38:59.248+03:002018-04-09T23:38:59.248+03:00Dear priest ogidiga, Thanks for everything. You ar...Dear priest ogidiga, Thanks for everything. You are the best among all the spellcasters I tried these last months. They gave me little results but none of them did what you done. I hardly believe this but you just fulfilled my dream. I say it again: You are the best my husband is back. any one look for help should visit him on email him on [M I R A C L E C E N T E R 1 1 0 @ G M A I L . C O M] or whatsapp at + 2 3 4 8 1 8 2 2 6 0 9 8 2<br />Monica Fay.mercy josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-16171568250357156222014-01-03T16:50:23.900+02:002014-01-03T16:50:23.900+02:00BB
yehalelucho zor, velo picha
Klum nachtom meid a...BB<br />yehalelucho zor, velo picha<br />Klum nachtom meid al isaso<br />to each his own<br />if you have a comprehension problem<br />try to deal with it<br />U&F preach pure ORA all over the place<br />if it walks like a duck talks like a duck<br />quacks like a duck<br />guess what... it is a duck<br />FYI ur aggressiveness quacks loud n clear<br /><br />"That's because I try not to be judgmental."<br />scrolled back and found B & F in unison<br />doing just that<br />constantly on the attack like a rotwiler, name calling<br />very aggressive, angry, issues mostly<br />with power authority, rights, bias, respect,<br />walking out, withholding, oppressed women,<br />wife like garbage? leveling the playing field,<br />how Torah is out of date, <br />shut up and suffer, misogynist posters,<br />controlling husband, censorship etc., etc....<br />that's all you have been quacking about, quack ...quack<br />everything seems so black to you, unfair, unjust<br />Let's give it up, Feminist - the best thing yet you have said<br />go get a life and stop bickering<br />to put it in nutshell<br />chaval al hazmandear shvestersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-65509308528580236582014-01-03T16:33:42.221+02:002014-01-03T16:33:42.221+02:00@F
Emes backed up all his quotes, gave you the Can...@F<br />Emes backed up all his quotes, gave you the Canadian website of comparison, what are you whining about. You do sound like a loser.dear shvestersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-25474082956910901582014-01-03T16:20:38.519+02:002014-01-03T16:20:38.519+02:00My dear feminist.................
""sel...My dear feminist.................<br /><br />""seldom right, but always certain."Ploninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-62287277505240540162014-01-03T15:16:04.711+02:002014-01-03T15:16:04.711+02:00you are blasting off anything in your sight and an...you are blasting off anything in your sight and anything that moves. bet you, they can't even polish his shoes, regardless of time.trigger happynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-2467791241618993882014-01-03T13:54:15.243+02:002014-01-03T13:54:15.243+02:00MU I have no idea what you're rambling about....MU I have no idea what you're rambling about. Your post was incoherent most of the time. However ine point was clear. You insult me for supporting that "filthy, despicable organization." Scroll back. You will notice that I have NEVER commented on either Weiss Dodrlson or Ora. That's because I try not to be judgmental. Try it yourself sometime. Another poster also made nasty comments revarding Ora and my own personal circumstances even though I have no connection nor expressed support for the org. One positive though. You and the other poster have inadvertently renewed my appreciation for my husband whose midos tovos are far superior to yours, thank GdBunsa Bayisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-25101702815160784862014-01-03T11:32:27.785+02:002014-01-03T11:32:27.785+02:00Intersting how your use of the word "feminist...Intersting how your use of the word "feminist" has evolved from being an insult and synonymous to "lesbian" to an adjective you use to describe the torah.<br /><br />I am happy that at least I could show you that your attitude was uncalled.Feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-45640850528965873622014-01-03T03:43:01.956+02:002014-01-03T03:43:01.956+02:00@Feminist -
You haven't proved that anything ...@Feminist - <br />You haven't proved that anything written on this blog was actually "misogynist":<br /><br />"Halacha considers Jewish wives who moser their husbands" - Nothing misogynist here. The prohibition of m'sirah (informing on Jews) is gender neutral, see Choshen Mishpat 388. There are exceptions for persons in danger, ask a non-feminist Orthodox rav. I only referred to Jewish wives because its more common for women to abuse the feminist DV laws than it is for men. The video link I provided above is a common case of m'sirah committed by women. <br /><br />"they normally need to feel they have some authority in their homes" - There's nothing misogynist about a normal man who leads his family in a reasonable and halachic manner. <br /><br />I am not the spokesman for other commentors, but I can say this:<br /><br />"this terrible situation can and should be fixed" - There's nothing misogynist about trying to fix broken marriages as opposed to destroying families unnecessarily.<br /><br />"how to spend the money that the wife may bring in" - A Jewish wife may keep her income in return for releasing her husband from supporting her, see Rambam Hilchos Ishus 12:4. <br /><br />"She is obligated to obey his wishes and commands" - That's correct as long as the husband is not violating halacha, otherwise the wife may protest (see the gemara AZ 18a cited by Ploni). Nothing misogynist here. <br /><br />Contrary to feminist imaginations, Torah marriage halacha is mildly "feminist" in the sense that it tends to favor the wife over the husband. In fact the husband has more obligations to his wife than she does to him, see Rambam Hilchos Ishus 12:1.<br />EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-14583633400139593822014-01-03T01:40:14.717+02:002014-01-03T01:40:14.717+02:00FeministJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM
If it is true...FeministJanuary 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM<br /><br />If it is true that<br /><br /> {<br /><br /> a) since AMW was such a good catch and was given a recorded promisary note (TANAIIM) of weekly <br /><br /> income for support as NADEN; // a recorded business transaction e.g.Yissaschar and Zevulun<br /><br /> b) tried to budget his well earned fixed income of allocated funds;<br /><br /> c) complied to wife's request of going to a Goyishe nonTorahdig therapist only at least on four separate occasions;<br /><br /> d) pleaded with her not to divulge publicly that the marriage is on the rocks;<br /><br /> }<br /><br /> then {<br /><br /> a,b) he was well within his rights to budget his earned income on living within his means;<br /><br /> c,d) she is a moredes and has no rights of Get on demand;<br /><br /> e) she must settle all oustanding issues before Get Krisus is finalized;<br /><br /> f) she must put down designated funds in escrow to ensure his visitation rights are complied to;<br /><br /> g) she must cease and desisit defamation of character;<br /><br /> h) until conditions are met - it is SHE that is WITHHOLDING him;<br /><br /> i) if she does not comply within a designated time, I don't pity her;<br /><br /> j) it is highly obvious that she is at fault acting immaturely as a spoiled brat;<br /><br /> } endif<br /><br /><br /><br />// BTW - AMW Never said a bad word about her <br />if I were a Rotschild... biri...biri...biri... baum..noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-89970519788342758532014-01-02T22:16:13.305+02:002014-01-02T22:16:13.305+02:00"As a feminist you're very quick to assum..."As a feminist you're very quick to assume that Torah law is misogynist or inconsistent."<br /><br />You and some of your fellow commentators present the torah law as misogynist.<br /><br />Personnally, I doubt that you are right.<br /><br />I even strongly suspect that some of you are trolls who want to ridicule torah.<br /><br />A few examples? Just in this thread?<br /><br />"The Torah and Halacha are clear. A man acquires a woman. The wife is in the husband's possession. She is obligated to obey his wishes and commands."<br /><br />"Halacha considers Jewish wives who moser their husbands to have no share in the world to come, they are not part of Klal Yisrael, and mitzvas bein adam l'chavero do not apply to these women"<br />(this is a general statement with no restriction, i.e. even a wife who obtains an order of protection against a violent husband has "no share in the world to come")<br /><br />" Re the issue of who decides on how to spend the money that the wife may bring in - it is pure halacha that the man does."<br /><br />"It may not be politically correct, but the halacha is a wife must obey her husband's wishes and requests. And the halacha is she must respect him as her King."<br /><br />"Let's even take your biggest extreme example you gave. Yes, he was unfaithful. This is repairable! Yes this terrible situation can and should be fixed. (Assuming there is no incurable STD, in which case I would concede you are correct in that very limited circumstance.)(...) It is NOT a cause for divorce if it is fixable and he demonstrably commits to fixing his problem. You do not need a Rov to insist she remain in that relationship. It isn't a "cause" under halacha to give her the right to a Get."<br /><br />"Unless men are completely emasculated (which is the goal of feminists) they normally need to feel they have some authority in their homes."<br /><br />etcFeministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-41637311578093866272014-01-02T20:55:12.126+02:002014-01-02T20:55:12.126+02:00@Feminist - "having repeated over and over ag...@Feminist - "having repeated over and over again that the husband should have sole authority and sole control over income" -<br /><br />As a feminist you're very quick to assume that Torah law is misogynist or inconsistent. I never said that the husband must have sole authority and control over all income. The gemara cited by Ploni refers to a wife managing the material affairs of the household, in which case she might be managing her income and property or her husband's income and property, or both. <br /><br />A Jewish wife is allowed to own her own property, and her income may belong to her IF she's not demanding that her husband support her. Its not at all immoral if halacha gives her husband control over her income when she is demanding that he support her. <br /><br />None of this contradicts the concept that her husband has a certain authority over her, even if he does not own her property and income.<br />EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-16860485857446901132014-01-02T20:00:43.127+02:002014-01-02T20:00:43.127+02:00If it is true that
a) AMW never provided an incom...If it is true that<br /><br />a) AMW never provided an income for his family<br />b) tried to tell his wife what to do or not to do with the money she earned<br />c) refused marriage counseling before his wife walked out<br />d) threatened to divorce her while she was pregnant<br /><br />then<br /><br />1) I have no pity whatsoever with him<br />2) I see no reason whatsoever to withhold a get. He was the first to say that he wanted a divorce.<br />Feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5047250407861421632014-01-02T19:03:24.077+02:002014-01-02T19:03:24.077+02:00Halacha is that ALL assets from the marriage, incl...Halacha is that ALL assets from the marriage, including the wife's income, belong to the husband.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-58736028214473422972014-01-02T18:07:06.647+02:002014-01-02T18:07:06.647+02:00Watching from the side. I will contact the blog ow...Watching from the side. I will contact the blog owner to obtain the indo i seek . However I am very confused. If it is muttar to go to arko"oys as your well respected posek and dayan purport and they can base it in halocho, why are they afraid to articulate it in public. If they can bring halachik case law ie precedents from poskim from prior generations I will even apologize for my strident assertions. However I strongly suspect (again could be wrong ) that sthe argument is as follows: since the NY notorious courts dont accept arbitration with regards to custody bais din is wasting it's time with regards to custody as the arbitration is not binding. Hence its muttar to go to arko"oys. This is an argument I heard from BDA types and is halachikally invalid.<br /><br />again if its nuttar to go to arko"oys for visitation why are rhese voices scared to be heard and why was weiss condemned? <br /><br />Even james who doesnt believe in bais din never clained thatstannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-26874232921929871842014-01-02T18:02:47.044+02:002014-01-02T18:02:47.044+02:00Personnally, I do not think that, as a default val...Personnally, I do not think that, as a default value, the man should provide for the wife or family.<br /><br />However, that is what he promises in the ketuba. A man who promises but does not fullfill is a hypocrite. This is why i feel that hareidi men who do not provide for their families (completely, so that there is no lack whatsover) are hypocrites. In the same vain, I think that hareidi men who never provided for their families and then go on their high horses of male prerogatives to refuse a get are despicable.<br /><br />Equally, I think that men who feel they can have complete control over an income they never earned are immoral.<br /><br />My view is that both spouses should work and equally contribute to the household while keeping what they can save as long as there are no children.<br /><br />As soon as children come into the picture it might be usefull that one of the spouses reduces professionnal activity in order to care for the children. In this case, I think that this spouse deserves a compensation from the other party. In this case, I would propose as a just sharing that they take the sum of the income of the couple, spend what they have to spend and share what remains in equal parts.<br /><br />If such a couple divorces, I think that the party who used to care for the children deserves custody (sole or shared, depending on how compatible the couple is), alimony and child support.<br /><br />Incidentally, that is more or less how divorce courts rule nowadays.<br /><br />If a spouse wants to be protected from having to surrender part of their possesions at divorce, he can make a marriage contract. In my country, there are three possible "sharing" regimens during marriage <br /><br />a) the default model is sharing what was gained during the marriage years (except inheritances).<br /><br />b) it is also possible to have completely separate assets<br /><br />c) or it is possible to completely share all the assents, also those who were brought into the marriage.<br /><br />d) apart from those three standard-models, there is also the possibility of agreeing on any other model in a marriage contract.<br /><br />I think that those models are quite fair. That's why I can't understand why so many commentators over here rail against those "evil secular courts".<br /><br />In fact, I suppose that the concept of marriage contract exists in your country too, and I suppose that it would allow you to protect your assets against unjustified looting on your ex-wife's part - if only you had thought of making one before getting married.<br /><br />The concept that the husband should have the sole authority on the wife's spending, including on her income, does not seem fair to me.<br /><br />It is interesting that after having repeated over and over again that the husband should have sole authority and sole control over income you suddenly come up with a gemara that seems to say the exact contrary.<br /><br />Which shows to me that you can always find a gemara to prove anything and it's contrary if you look for it long enough.<br /><br />Which shows me that your earlier assertions about "the torah saying that the husband should have sole authority, etc", does not reflect the full truth.Feministnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-63122298536655055472014-01-02T17:20:45.725+02:002014-01-02T17:20:45.725+02:00Bunsa / Fem,
What is your opinion about GD's ...Bunsa / Fem,<br /><br />What is your opinion about GD's ongoing saga, where the Head of the household recommended counseling yet within the first year. The household without a head painted the conditions of how, where, when and with whom, without consultation of AMW first. GD insisted bemilay dishmaya on the very first Shabbos to be Mekabel Shabbat her way, or else for starters. Is that the TORAH way to be Boneh a Bayis BeYisrael, or 'HORESS' a Bayis? After this incidence, GD downsized her Head of the household to CONTROLLER, on charges of insubordination. After the newly elected Gd ordained alleged Controller directed the self proclaimed upgraded General to a more 'Milay Dishmayadig' Ob/Gyn, Gd lost all self control and world war Three broke out. Since the Controller overextended his Control beyond his Gd given allocated Powers, ways and means, he was charged with abuse of Command and Control, abuse of power, therefore, was downsized and reduced to Rubble.<br />Gd then called in ORA's Army to do the dirty job of Character Assassination with a tremendous Chilul Shem Shamayim berabim that alarmed the whole country. You both, bunsa and feminist support such a despicable filthy organization, while you still consider yourself FRUM. This is not a struggle for power, but mamash Shfichat damim, nekama, kinah vesinah of Biblical proportions. Gd fights tooth and nail, to disenfranchise Father of the child, chas veshalom he should have any nachat from his son. Aren't you the one that advocates to sacrifice for the sake of the children not to rock the boat? What is your stand and opinion about ORA's actions and about GD's actions in this specific saga? In the spirit of sports, "it ain't over till it's over", why even after years of having sholom bayis issues, won't you give it another shot for counseling, after all she might have matured and grown up in the process, kvar haya dvarim meolam. All vehicles need some overhaul and lubrication from time to time, why not give peace a chance? And this question is in reference outside of the Gd's case.Machrivayich Umeharsayichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-77800672225144505222014-01-02T16:53:33.380+02:002014-01-02T16:53:33.380+02:00Blabbling and making claims about some anonymous &...Blabbling and making claims about some anonymous "renowned posek" who supposedly is "a well known Rov" is without the slightest credibility without a name. In your view Mr. Avi Weiss of Riverdale could be the "a well known Rov". We all know what his views are worth. <br /><br />If you can't give a rabbis name don't expect any credibility by burnishing the supposed anonymous rabbi has some kind of credentials.Smartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-5565168403212043462014-01-02T16:42:00.482+02:002014-01-02T16:42:00.482+02:00“Feminist” decrees “the caricature of torah values...“Feminist” decrees “the caricature of torah values … that a wife should be forced to stay married even if her husband cheats on her … fails to provide for her … constantly disrespects her, even if she tried to make it work for years and years and it failed.”<br /><br />“EmesLeYaacov” decrees the method of creating "shalom bayis" [that] seems to involve relegating the husband to the level of a private who must follow ALL the orders of his wife the general.”<br /><br />Although the two views seem to be diametrically opposed to each others, it could be that what’s going on here can be explained by Newton’s “Third Law”: “To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.”<br /><br />Perhaps Feminist’s experiences are similar to what she writes about; a misogynistic man who feels a sense of entitlement by virtue of his gender and nothing else. These men forget that Kllal Yisroel is also “Chosen” & yet, when we misbehave we’re punished quite severely – as the Tochacho & our History both attest.<br /><br />Perhaps Emes LeYaacov’s experiences are similar to what he writes about; the suffering of men made into “karbonos” because of a backlash against ALL men – who are now perceived as “the gender of oppressors”. He’s decrying a movement which was originally meant to level an uneven playing field stacked against women, but has now ended up putting men “on the wrong side of the gender gap”, where ALL men are assumed guilty unless proven innocent.<br /><br />Could be this knee-jerk reaction is similar to what Prof. Sommers characterizes as "gender feminism" (see my earlier comment about her theories or see her Wikipedia page) – where inequities against women have brought a backlash of inequities against men. <br /><br />Perhaps BOTH could agree with the statement that “Watching by the Side” made earlier:<br /><br />“I do not place blame on either gender. Just at the feet of the perpetrator, regardless of whether the husband or the wife.” <br /><br />In my humble opinion, the problem is that we’re missing a “First Line of Defense” that could ascertain WHO the perpetrator is & could avoid the escalation of such strife.<br /><br />I think that such a “First Line of Defense” might include: <br /><br />1) Fact Finding. <br /><br />2) Determination of would allow for a Halachic / Hashkafic (that also needs clarification) dispensation allowing for separation & / or divorce, or at least for some type of “censure” against the guilty party. I think we need SERIOUS Poskim to decide on: 2a) what type of behaviors, 2b) over what time frame & 2c) after what types of remedial efforts, what kind of behaviors …. <br /><br />Torah based “reason” should reign - at least by the parties not directly involved - and negative emotionality should be relegated to the wastebasket - where it belongs.Ploninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-73275133835823953602014-01-02T15:43:04.306+02:002014-01-02T15:43:04.306+02:00Watching from the side wrote:
“I do not place bl...Watching from the side wrote:<br /><br />“I do not place blame on either gender. Just at the feet of the perpetrator, regardless of whether the husband or the wife”.<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree. G-d created each gender with both Yetzer HaTov & Yezer Horah, and divorce proceedings can bring out the worst of people, regardless of their gender…<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think there are Rabonim who – probably out of ignorance – become accessories to the mud-slinging and manipulations so widespread in separations and divorces. Let me explain how:<br /><br />I’ve heard of quite a few cases where women will seek permission to move out of a home or to seek an Order of Protection against their husbands, where even some prominent Rabonim will say something along the lines of, “Based on what you’re saying, it’s Muttar”. The women then goes ahead and follows the Psak, thus starting a wrenching and costly battle in the courts.<br /><br />The problem with a Psak like this is that the Psak is ignoring the inherent BIASES & DISTORTIONS – both cognitive and emotional – that skew the woman’s OWN views of reality. Yet, the Posik makes no effort to do FACT FINDING, even in cases where reasonable people willing to donate several hours of their time and willing to listen carefully to BOTH parties - would easily be able to discern many of these biases distortions, which are often hidden from the woman’s own view.<br /><br />For an exhaustive list of cognitive biases, please see @ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.<br /><br />Furthermore, these biases are widespread & they also effect highly trained, experienced people engaged in their area of expertise, as noted @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias_mitigation#Real-world_effects_of_cognitive_bias.<br /><br />The Wikipedia article also notes many real-life examples.<br /> <br />I would like to know your opinion about perhaps stemming the heartache and Chilul Hashem of unnecessary divorce proceedings by discussing the phenomenon of bias & distortion with the eminent Rabbonim that you communicate with, with the goal of only issuing Heterim for separations and / or OOP after the aforementioned fact-finding. <br />Ploninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-48439827741019387712014-01-02T14:20:30.593+02:002014-01-02T14:20:30.593+02:00@Feminist -
"fails to provide for her"...@Feminist - <br /><br />"fails to provide for her" - Isn't it sexist hypocrisy if a feminist demands that her husband provide for her?<br /><br />"הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא" - Ploni cited a Gemara above where the rabbis seem to be advising that the wife manages the material matters in the house, while the husband manages the spiritual/religious matters.<br /><br />Would Jewish feminists accept the concept of a marriage based on that Gemara? <br /><br />If not, what is the feminist concept of Jewish marriage?<br />EmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-32228741640094286232014-01-02T12:56:26.605+02:002014-01-02T12:56:26.605+02:00There is indeed some truth to what you’re saying. ...There is indeed some truth to what you’re saying. <br /><br />In the Gemara B”M concerning the division of authority at home which I quoted in an earlier post, I only quoted the opinion that הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא, in other words – women’s counsel should be sought by “worldly” matters, while men’s’ purview is in spiritual matters. <br /><br />There is, however, an additional opinion (which I skipped for the sake of brevity) that says הא במילי דעלמא והא במילי דביתא – that in worldly matters concerning the HOME the woman’s counsel should be sought, while in other worldly matters the husband is in charge.<br /><br />Some say (ספר עין אליהו), that the two opinions don’t actually disagree, but that if the woman is נושאת ונותנת – which would seem to be what you’re saying – she understands financial matters – and the husband doesn’t, then HER counsel is to be valued מילי דעלמא, defined as financial matters. If, however, HE is the one doing business – then he is in charge.<br /><br />Based on this, what happens if BOTH know about finances? I don’t know. <br /><br />I’ve re-tuned my definition of איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש לה based on Rashi - כפוף עצמך ושמע דבריה, which means “listen to her words”.<br /><br />Regardless, are you aware of the work of Prof. Christina Hoff Sommers on feminism?<br /><br />This is from her Wikipedia article:<br /><br />"Views on feminism: Sommers uses the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism. She describes equity feminism as the struggle based upon "Enlightenment principles of individual justice"[15] for equal legal and civil rights and many of the original goals of the early feminists, as in the first wave of the women's movement. <br /><br />She describes "gender feminism" as having "transcended the liberalism" of early feminists. Instead of focusing on rights for all, gender feminists view society through the "sex/gender prism" and focus on recruiting women to join the "struggle against patriarchy."[16] A reviewer of Who Stole Feminism characterized gender feminism as the action of accenting the differences of genders in order to create what Sommers believes is privilege for women in academia, government, industry, or the advancement of personal agendas.<br /><br />I think lot’s of reasonable people think she’s right. What do you think?<br />Ploninoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-72738057420780011332014-01-02T07:09:36.899+02:002014-01-02T07:09:36.899+02:00Feminist:
Passed the same way you are mechane shem...Feminist:<br />Passed the same way you are mechane shem. I did sympathize with her having a tough life. May Hashem hold his right hand over her and children. She was brave to give me a rain check upfront and granted mechila, I extended the same. I firmly believe that deep down her yiddishe kishke pounds a warm heart, and hope she accepted the mutual exchange. All is well, if it ends well. As for your most recent attack, in the same spirit I moichel you just the same, veSholom al Yisrael. B n Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-31386833023554364272014-01-02T06:20:01.060+02:002014-01-02T06:20:01.060+02:00Sorry to bust your bubble. I spent Shabbos with a...Sorry to bust your bubble. I spent Shabbos with a renowned posek, and I posed the question to him several times. He was emphatic about the response I quoted above. In interest of my anonymity, I suggest you contact the blog master directly who can forward your request of the identity. I will gladly provide it. He stated numerous times that he takes this position and will back it up for anyone that calls him.<br /><br />I also spoke to another dayan today on another matter, but also asked him this question. He stated that he felt one should go to beis din first, but out of formality. He admitted that there is no halachic basis to pasken on visitation, and that going to court is not an issur of arkaos. He also stated that if BD could negotiate a settlement, fine. Otherwise, most cases would then be referred to court anyway.<br /><br />I have no clue about the Weiss case. Was the going to court about anything else besides visitation?<br /><br />Disagreeing with Stan is not Sheker by definition nor baloney. Watching from the sidenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-87135364359498462662014-01-02T04:58:23.166+02:002014-01-02T04:58:23.166+02:00It appears there is a definite connection between ...It appears there is a definite connection between feminism and lesbianism. <br /><br />(Note: I am NOT accusing any women bloggers here of being lesbians.)<br /><br />"According to Judy Rebick, a leading Canadian journalist and political activist for feminism, lesbians were and always have been at the heart of the women's movement, while their issues were invisible in the same movement"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_feminismEmesLeYaacovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7309929059139673041.post-85732549374927283042014-01-02T03:06:17.722+02:002014-01-02T03:06:17.722+02:00Might be that Avigdor Miller had a bias against ca...Might be that Avigdor Miller had a bias against career-women.<br /><br />Nevertheless, his concept of marriage is one of complete loyalty from the husband to the wife and vice-versa. <br /><br />He says, to an audience of men: "there are many korbones of your own ratzon, many times you have to yield your own will, many times you have to keep your mouth closed....".<br /><br />This is a far cry from the caricature of torah values presented by many commentators here, who say that a wife should be forced to stay married even if her husband cheats on her, even if he fails to provide for her, even if he constantly disrespects her, even if she tried to make it work for years and years and it failed...<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the gross caricatures presented by many commentators here, where a wife should forced to stay married when her husband cheats on her, when he fails to provide for her, when he disrespects her constantly, etc...Feministnoreply@blogger.com