Thursday, October 23, 2014

Feminism - Equality or Dogma?

For the last 4 years I have been defending a man who is accused of refusing to divorce a woman according to Jewish law. I have been supporting him because I think that it's a horrid crime to make such a false accusation against a man. We will call the couple W for woman and M for man, for purposes of simplifying this article. W has been libeling and slandering me for publicly supporting M. Among W's arsenal of "reasons" for my support, one of her irrational (sic) conclusions is that I must be defending M because I am sleeping with M. To support this irrationality, W has publicly accused M and myself of carrying on an affair and even parenting two children together. W has made these accusations in a letter to the Jerusalem rabbinate and in countless emails and Facebook posts. W's called for paternity tests for my children and insists that the fact that M and I refuse such "inexpensive" paternity tests is proof-pudding that we must be guilty as charged, why else would we refuse the tests W offered to pay for?

W claims to be a feminist. She has a PhD in social sciences and parades it out for everyone she meets. W champions women's causes and gay rights on her Facebook page. W insists women are capable of taking leadership roles and becoming social champions in our modern society. W is all about the "sisterhood" and women's rights and women uniting to fight injustice.

How is it then, that when faced with the challenge that I disagree with her, W stoops to the lowest trick in the book used to marginalize all women and dismiss our logical reasoning and thinking skills: W accused me of having an affair with M? And this accusation wasn't made after a series of arguments or debates. It was the default accusation W made against me 3 years ago, when she first found out I don't believe her version of the story, and W also flings it at other women who defend M, not just myself.

In fact, W has accused all the women in M's circle of friends and colleagues whom she knows, including M's book editor, of carrying on some sort of sexually inappropriate behavior with M, whether we support M or not.  Several of us have been accused publicly, not just myself. Even women who know M through the internet and haven't seen M for years have been accused by W of having "sexual thoughts and feelings" about M when they tell her they disagree with her campaign to libel M and destroy his life.

How is it that a woman who publicly identifies herself as a feminist and lauds female judges, advocates, physicians and CEOs, can stoop to such a low level of personal disparagement of her opponents when faced with disagreement?

Feminism is defined in Merriam-Webster as

:  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
:  organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Please read that definition over a few times. I hope you are seeing some words missing from that definition, the same as I do. The term "political, economic and social equality of the sexes" is an interesting one. At face value, women should have the same political, economic and social opportunities as men. But on what basis? Just because? Because it's right, or because it's nice - or because WHY? Because women are capable, intelligent, and logical? Because we're pretty and know how to smile? Or because, damnit, if you don't give me equality, I'll burn your dinner and throw you out of bed and send you to sleep with the dog?  What is the true basis for the equality "feminists" call for, for women? What is the standard for the equality we are seeking as human beings in multi-racial society? Should there be any?  If there are no standards of rational, can there be true equality?

One of American feminism's expressed goals is "equal pay for equal work", the standard that if a woman is African American, Indian, and Jewish and works as the head anesthesiologist at a famous hospital, she should be paid according to the same standards as the Caucasian White Anglo Saxon man who is the chief anesthesiologist at the world famous hospital next door.

Given that all things are equal, I don't think any rational people in our society have a problem with this standard. Yet, things are as never equal as they seem. What if the woman went to Harvard Medical School and the man got his degree in the Bahamas? What if he's been working for 30 years and she for only 10? What if the woman has been sued for medical malpractice, but acquitted 20 times, and caused nurses to ask for transfers or quit their jobs because she bullied them? Nothing is ever as equal as it seems. It's apparent that "equality" does not have a simple equation whereby salaries are adjusted. because there is always a social, or rather, human factor involved.

Let's take a look at an interesting video.

As demonstrated in the above video, the general public usually assumes that if a woman is angry at a man, it's because he "had it coming to him", It doesn't even occur to 99% of the public that a woman can be an abuser.  Enter the streams of feminists. There are men and women who believe in real equality for people of all genders (sic), religions, and nationalities and races. But there is a branch of feminism that is gaining popularity in our society, and the above video is a side-effect.

There is a class of feminists that Larry H. Taub has nicknamed Patriarchettes, whom he describes as women who channel feminism and use the system and society's biases in order to achieve their own goals inside patriarchal society, not really to help all women, or even most, but in a self-serving narcissistic fashion; but I disagree with Larry. I think Patriarchettes are a group of feminists who believe women should not only achieve equality, but supplant it against men - they want to turn society upside down, and in essence enslave men. They see it as a kind of divine justice. However, they're not seeking justice, truth or logic: their goal is revenge, to hurt men the way men have "hurt" women, and even with the same classes of dirty tricks and lies, machinations and manipulations.

That, in essence, is why W has completely disregarded me as an intelligent person; a woman fluent in two languages who has a degree in English Literature with a minor in Chemistry and premedical studies. W has completely ignored my ability to examine evidence, to read and understand language, and to draw an independent conclusion based on my own judgement; and because I don't agree with her, she has gone for the jugular and reduced herself to using the meanest, most primitive accusations men were once known to make against women when we disagreed with them. Most American men, having grown up in feminist society. would no longer even consider making such accusations anymore. In short, men have progressed, and accept women as equal thinkers and rationalists. So, when a woman who labels herself as a feminist comes along and accuses another woman of adultery, people say "it must be true," even if said affairs are completely manufactured children of the accuser's perverted imagination.

W may be a patriarchette, and she is demonstrating that she does not truly see women as equal to men on any traditional standard of equality that most of our social contracts abide by. W has demonstrated through her accusations that she doesn't regard women as really capable of examining arguments and making rational, logical judgments or conclusions. She's proved that by accusing not just myself, but at least 9 other women of sexual iniquities with M. She proposes that we are all just predisposed to believe M because we've been seduced.

If you think you're a feminist, you might want to pinch yourself and go back and check your standards of rationale. If I were in charge of writing social mores - much less the dictionary- my new definition of feminism would read something like this:

feminism:  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes based on the premise of equal intelligence, logic and rational capability.

To paraphrase - not just equal pay for equal work, but equal status for equal capability, responsibility and culpability.

To conclude, the dogma that W is pushing is not that of feminism at all, but rather Narcissism - her own perceived interests, and she is capitalizing on societal sympathies toward women to do it.

{For the last four years I have been defending via social media a man who is accused of refusing a gett to his wife.  For the uninitiated, a gett is a writ of Jewish divorce. I amnot a lawyer. See for a thorough explanation.

 The case is very sticky, and I don't want to get into the range of details of why I decided this man is NOT guilty of refusing his wife a divorce according to Jewish law. I will make a long story short by saying that I heard from both parties and have seen all the legal civil and religious documents in the case, both in English and in Hebrew, and I have even spoken with at least one of the rabbis involved in the matter legally, as well as consulted with people who deal with women who are refused divorces.

In summary, I took the man's side because it's my own conclusion and the conclusion of several legal experts that he hasn't refused a wife a gett.}

"Feminism." Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2014. <>.


  1. Interesting piece. I'm a middle age woman who's on the same page as you with feminism, and am truly bone-tired of its' screaming, unreasonable adherents. We may have different "equipment", but the sexes are both human and equally deserving of respect and common decency. And you're right about the more virulent harpies who have an agenda apart from the professed noble goal of "equal pay for equal work." Some of them want payback for real or imagined slights from the male gender throughout history, and see no problem with verbally, physically and/or emotionally castrating "the enemy" even if their current day arguments are flawed and their anger misdirected.

    Your article is especially resonant to me as I learned just this week that a casual male acquaintance of my husband and I committed suicide in late September. I felt broadsided by the news as I knew he'd endured an ugly divorce and was an active member of a mens' support group for those who'd suffered physical assault by the women in their lives. He'd mentioned the frustration he felt at how few people take male assault seriously, and how state and federal funding (not to mention recognition) was non-existent for their group, yet resources were seemingly available everywhere for battered women. He'd hardened himself enough to believe decent, caring women were as rare as unicorns, and professed to not care about being alone. Yet on a sunny fall day in New England, a friendly, successful business man pulled out a gun and ended it all ...

    I know there's nothing I could have done to change A's fatal choice, but I feel deep sorrow about how his pain was not taken seriously. The "War on Women" has become a lopsided dialogue because of radical feminists efforts to cancel out the genuine concerns and problems of the other half of the population. In A's memory, I plan to be more vocal about offenses as I see them, and make efforts as they come to me to bridge the divide. Men are NOT the enemy, and they are NOT dispensable -- like ying and yang, they are integral to the whole. Extremist femmes, take note!

    1. Thank you so much for your reply.

      I have been in touch with Larry Taub on the subject of feminism, as he was once cronies with Firestone et al. He paid me a huge compliment on this blog entry.

      Right now I am anxiously waiting to see what Bill Cosby does about his narcissist.

    2. I think retirement in a tarnished and diminished state awaits Mr. Cosby - certainly not what he had planned. Check out this recent article and the comments that follow for more interesting perspectives:

  2. I read the article. Let's remember something - Hollywood is full of narcissists. Actors and Actresses are narcissists. Cosby is now 79? It's now almost 2015, and the alleged incident took place in 1969. That's almost 50 years ago, when he was in his early 20's - 30's and barely popular himself. I think the reason Cosby refuses to answer is because he knows he's dealing with a narcissist, and answering will not make it go away one bit.

  3. The fact that Cosby is almost 80 now is beside the point: some nazi's were found in their 80's and 90's and still rightly brought to trial for their crimes. More recently, Stephen Collins, the actor on the series 7th Heaven was "outed" for his actions as a molester 20 years ago. The Catholic Church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into publicly acknowledging the decades of sexual abuse perpetuated by some of their clergy. Cosby's behavior off-camera has been rife with accusations for years (, and he's managed to pay off and bury the allegations. But like the other cases listed, the stars have finally aligned and he is being forced to address the issue. I'm sorry, but there's too many accusers with too many similar stories for there not to be a grain of Truth to their allegations.

    I agree that narcissism is in the sinew of Hollywood's denizens, both famous and aspiring. I also agree that those hungry to score a break will use others to get it. A part of me finds Cosby's accusers absolute idiots for not bringing their involvement with him to a screeching halt once they suspected they'd been drugged and molested. That so many continued to interact with him I find hideous as it shows no self-respect, and if they convinced themselves that this was simply going to be "the price of doing business" I find that unspeakably sad.

    I DO, however, understand why they remained silent, or hesitated to press charges. Cosby was (and is) powerful, popular, and connected. Rape in the 70's and 80's was not discussed as it is today, and alleging such sick conduct against a comedy icon would be an earth-shaking accusation. Who would believe them, and why risk further shame by admitting the episodes ever occurred? As time went by and more stories appeared with similar allegations, these women most likely began to realize they were not alone in being violated. Comedian Hannibal Burress's recent on-stage rant stirred a sleeping dog, and shot a hole in the firewall of Cosby's carefully constructed reputation. And here we are today, with a perfect storm of past conquests coming forward and revealing Mr. Cosby's public persona is quite different from the wry father image that's been the backbone of his career.

    I think Cosby's silence is attorney advised: anything he says will be scrutinized and brought up in civil court. There will never be a criminal trial, as the statute of limitations will prevent it, and there's no physical evidence.

    Does he deserve his day (and say) in court? Without question. But the cold reality is Cosby's reputation has already been dealt a death blow: by sheer numbers alone, he is now viewed as a serial scumbag. No one who enjoyed his work in the past will ever again be able hear his recordings or see his characters without the material feeling tainted. The women who've come forward, to a lesser degree, will also be marked as dupes, users, opportunists, golddiggers, and/or idiots. It's ugly all the way around.

    1. Psychotic rapists have to expend a ton of energy; so do comedians who are involved in numerous projects. I don't see how someone who was spending so much energy on positive endeavors would have all that time for evil.

  4. Cosby has the advantage of having "personal assistants" and managers who could quite easily take care of many of the set-ups these scenarios required.

  5. Ler's please go back to the subject of the article. Absent real hard facts, we will argue about Cosby until the cows come home.

  6. Replies
    1. I've come back to read all of this. I plan in the near future to write an article on the reduced reruns of Cosby while he sits in prison/house arrest and the aftermath.

      How has your perspective on feminism changed if at all in the last 4 years?

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.