What I Want From the "Chayas" and "Deborahs" Talking About Orthodox Judaism in the Media

I am a Chassidic woman. And I love going to Mikva. Oh, and I also hate going to Mikva. 

Can all the "Chayas" and "Deborahs" get together and talk about that? 

What I Want From the "Chayas" and "Deborahs" Talking About Orthodox Judaism in the Media 

By Mimi Hecht 

Yesterday, the Orthodox Jewish community proved it was just dying for some good PR. 

Chaya Kurtz, a not-so-well-known author, wrote an article on a not-so-well-known site about, well, the certainly not-so-well-known side of being an Orthodox Jewess. It was packed with attitude and confidence— a positive tell-all about how being a Chassidic woman is, in fact, nothing like the quiet or oppressed women that Oprah, Dr. Phil and seemingly all of mainstream media wants people to believe is real. With lines like "We have been happily shagging for a millennia" and referring to her black-hatted and black-suited husband as "hot," she struck a chord with the Orthodox community who, within the hour, turned her into a mini-celebrity for becoming a voice that is finally showing the world that we're not imprisoned, not unhappy and not...so weird. In short, Chaya's article said simply: We have great sex. Mikva is a spa. Being orthodox is cool, man. 

Speaking out from the other end of the spectrum is Deborah Feldman, famous for her book "Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of my Hasidic Roots" in which she exposes the ills and shackles of the Chassidic community from which she ultimately freed herself. Feldman has become a strong voice in the "unpious" community, sharing the details of her own marriage to a Chassidic man, and attacking the myriads of Jewish law and thought that she says caused her tremendous pain and suffering. Feldman's attack put simply: Chassidim have sex just to reproduce. Laws of Mikvah are a violation. Women are victims that don't know any better. Being Chassidic is oppressive. 

Although much can be said about the tremendous differences in Chaya and Deborah's communities and backgrounds, the debate exploded. Deborah responded to Chaya's article via comment, with a detailed, harsh attack on Chaya personally, her choices, her community. A blood-boiling, determined vendetta against everything Chaya proudly represented, telling her in conclusion "Please refrain from making claims on behalf of Hasidic women you have never met and know nothing about."

Ouch. 

What is going on and will there be an end to this circular back-and-forth? 

You see, where Chaya may be whitewashing, Feldman is also painting her own negative veneer. At the same time, where Feldman addresses real issues, Chaya comes across naive. Chaya's issue is that she's so happy with her life that she's glossing over potential issues. Deborah's issue is that she's incapable of understanding how someone wouldn't have these issues. 

Both of these attitudes are dangerous. Being proud and happy with our Chassidic lot to the point of denial is a crime to those among us that may feel aspects of Judaism causes them discomfort or pain. And being outspoken about stories of oppression and abuse in the religious community and insisting that Jewish law itself is inhumane is a crime to those who genuinely and proudly and consciously ascribe to the lifestyle.

There are plenty of proud Orthodox Jewish women who know that Chaya ignored the complexities and ultimate humaneness inherent in issues in our community related to marriage, sex and Mikvah.  Let's talk about me...


I grew up religious. I am darn proud of being a Chassidic Chabad woman. I feel respected, and empowered. I love my husband, whom I chose to marry without a single dose of pressure. I have never felt disrespected or oppressed by the laws mandating our intimate life. And yet, I know that Mikvah is a pain in the you-know-what sometimes. And I know that our community puts severe and harmful pressure on girls to marry. And I know that our lifestyle doesn't honor the colorful personality types and ambitions of all my amazing girlfriends. I know that my community is living in the dark ages when it comes to understanding homosexuality. I know this...and more. 

The thing is, I'm not so insecure that I worship a "Chaya" who loves her beautiful, simple Chassidic life. And I'm also not so fragile that I'll break because Deborah Feldman thinks that my underwear being checked by a Rabbi is a violation of my privacy. I represent the masses that are not being addressed—Orthodox and/or Chassidic women who can have a mature discussion on both the beauty and the ills of our lifestyle. 

So what about me? I am proud of my Chassidic life, but am also interested in and open to discussing areas that need reform. Get this: I love going to Mikva. Oh, and I also hate going to Mikva. This duality exists, probably far more than the extremes these two beautiful women feel they represent. 


Can all the "Chayas" and "Deborahs" get together and talk about that? 

The Orthodox world might feel empowered to hear a Chassidic women get all riled up in defense of her weird but beautiful life, but is our fleeting feeling of "You go girl!" really important to the conversation? What our tiny little majority is learning is that—lo and behold!—we're interesting to the outside world! People want to know what we have, and what we don't. They want to understand (and yes praise and ridicule) our ever-so-private life. Wow, look at all those laws. Does Mikvah work?  Do we have passionate sex? Is that allowed? Is it okay for us to speak our mind? Even to our husbands? Can we make choices about reproduction? THIS. IS. INTERESTING. STUFF. PEOPLE. Especially in an age where the world is finally seeing that resolving women's issues is central to a healthy and just society. 


But how are we aiding the conversation and educating those within and without our community that want and need to hear more? As long as massive statements on both ends are blanketing the entire topic, who is benefiting? 

It's the responsibility of both the happy/proud and the pained/disturbed Jewish woman to find a way to have this conversation with respect, a genuine desire to undersand, and most importantly, and end to whitewashing and die-hard conclusiveness. We need to speak, but not just from personal, but our collective experience. 

Deborah, are you capable of speaking not only from pain, but from heart and mind, to for a moment consider truths in Chassidic Jewish life? That perhaps not every Chassidic woman is blindly obedient to an oppressive regime? And Chaya, do you think you can put aside your sincere pride just for a moment, to consider that the same Jewish lifestyle you adore can often feel burdensome to some? That perhaps we need to recognize cultural and community flaws?


Now that you've spoken up, how will you both lead the camps you represent to approach these vital issues with intellectual and emotional honesty? 

Both the "Chaya" and the 'Deborah" experience represent truths and thereby deserve to have a voice. And that is the way we need to approach this conversation. This is what I will be working towards in my own responsibility as a writer. Until we generate an honest conversation devoid of all sensationalism, we'll all just keep spinning our wheels. Either our proud-Chassidic or our anti-Chassidic, but certainly loud-and-powerful, womanly wheels.  And if we can actually get somewhere—if we can grow up and stop being either defensive and out to prove or attacking and out to prove—we might just be able to capitalize on this great conversation. 

Why All The Stress?

By Mimi Hecht

“The very purest form of birth control ever devised.”

These are the words of a researcher summing up the findings of a two year study in which social scientists from the University of California videotaped every waking, at-home moment in the lives of thirty-two dual-earning, multiple-child, middle class American families. Over 1, 540 hours of videotape were studied for researchers to examine and codify interactions – from every hug to every fuss – between parents and their kids. Scientists are calling it “the richest, most detailed, most complete database of middle-class family living in the world.”

After $9 million and endless hours of video-watching, the researchers handed over a discouraging picture of family-life. The families under scrutiny revealed an extremely high-stress lifestyle brimming with multi-tasking, arguing and severe disorganization. Offering a candid look into parents’ many roles, the study showcased parents as at-home teachers, enforcing homework deadlines; as coaches and personal trainers, sorting through piles of equipment; as camp directors, planning play dates and weekend family-time.  Videographers reported being overwhelmed from recording the incessant coordination and problem-solving.

For everyone involved, witnessing today’s average family was dizzying. And that says nothing of what today’s American families are actually experiencing…

For parents reading the findings, it was “the story of my life.” With the unanimous results of this unique study, you can be sure that your dual-income neighbors are just as exhausted and defeated as you are. If you and your spouse both have a job and you have more than one child, you’re undoubtedly mirroring the stressed-out lives observed in this study. Every week, you’re in need of a deep massage, a few-day getaway and, of course, a session with your therapist. You’re not alone, and you’re not insane (but still, keep the therapist).

With an up-close encounter with parenthood revealing such an unappealing bottom line, the researcher quoted above is spot on: Why even have kids?

People who react to the study with fear of becoming a parent or, worse, disdain for having children, are missing the bigger picture. It’s not simply that having kids is stressful and insurmountable in itself. The new American family (represented by this study) is being brought to its knees crying because of our own inventions – namely, the dual-earning family.  Societal and financial pressures are increasingly bringing mothers into the workforce – and this study is great proof that it has brought significant stress and mismanagement into our homes. Researchers observed that that parents’ flexibility in dividing labor only added to household tension. Child-care responsibilities were usually decided on the fly, instead of being pre-ordained, which intensified anxiety and led to significant decay in family functionality. On the contrary, couples with more rigidly defined responsibilities seemed to function with a lesser degree of anxiety. It seems obvious, then, that the health of our families is dependant on parents’ commitment to their traditional, defined responsibilities. But how could that work with two parents in the workforce? As it turns out, the “old fashioned” family we often mock is exactly the role-defined system we need to save us, before all the frantic multi-tasking and corroding borders eat our families alive.

But while women in the workforce was once seen as an exhilarating right and opportunity, today’s parents that want to return to more traditional roles don’t have the luxury to make a decision. Mothers are increasingly holding jobs out of necessity, not desire.

Perhaps the solution to all the at-home drama is a mere recognition of an ideal - simply acknowledging what worked a few decades ago. By recognizing the unique state of our current parental roles, we can begin to re-structure our homes. Only when we match the inside of our families to our current method can we reduce the pile of stress we have created.

Mothers working means two parents are together holding not one, not two but three jobs. But what has changed inside the home? In all these years, what adjustments have we made to match this new structure? For instance, do fathers reserve the right to be tired and on hiatus when they come home if their partner is equally exhausted from work? Should mothers still be spending 27 percent of their time on housework, compared to dad’s 18 percent?

It could be that the Women’s Rights Movement lacked some foresight. With great intentions (and many great results), they didn’t see the repercussions of failing to ensure that their home’s inner-workings adapted with the turning of the tide. In many ways, the damage has been done – but it’s not irreversible. The answer is not to pull every mother from the workforce. What we need is a movement that brings both parents’ efforts into the home in a defined way with clear divisions of labor. Parents must stop acting as if dual-earning families are the way it always was. We need to rework our household arrangement, each family deciding for themselves what they need to alleviate the mounting tension.

A nation of stressful families means a bleak future on every level, not to mention it’s clearly bad PR for having children altogether. And if we don’t create families, what do we have?  Well, quite frankly, a disintegrating population of very busy lives, spinning in meaningless circles that nobody will even be around to remember.