The Lilith Blog

October 27, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Autumnal Holidays and Ballot Initiatives

My girlfriend is that rare combination of pessimism with the occasional flash of hardcore optimism, and a dash of superstition thrown in for good measure. (Actually, that’s probably why everyone assumes she’s Jewish when they meet her.) We’re not discussing national election polling data right now, but as a Golden State native, she is still gloomy about California’s Prop 8, which would amend the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. It’s been polling pretty well, although far less well than a similar proposition several years ago. (I’m worried about her state’s Prop 4, which requires parental notification and a state-mandated waiting period in the event of abortion. I don’t know, but when it’s the Knights of Columbus versus American Academy of Pediatrics and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, I tend to go with the people who went to med school. But that’s because I’m an elitist, I guess.)

My point here is not to induce gloom—although given that Prop 4 has a lead in the polls, by all means, feel that, too—but to point out that the choice between presidential candidates is not the only one you’re going to have to make on November 4th. There are going to be 153 ballot measures this election, which is nearly double the number there were in 2006. And most of these are, you know, fairly big deals. Nebraska’s going to vote on affirmative action. Oregon’s going to vote on mandatory minimums. And, of course, South Dakota’s going to make another attempt at banning abortion, Roe v. Wade be damned.

So, what’s Jewish about all this? Let’s suppose for a minute that there are two main seasons of holidays in the Jewish calendar—the spring cycle of Pesach-Shavuot, and the fall cycle of Rosh Hashana-Yom Kippur-Sukkot-Hoshana Raba-Shemini Atzeret-Simchat Torah (whew!). I love them both, and I really do think they provide essential counterbalances to one another. The spring cycle, though, celebrates a phenomenon in which things were done for the Jews—God freed us from slavery and gave us the Torah. The fall season is a lot more about human fragility and agency—we must ask for forgiveness, contemplate our place in the Book of Life, sit in a hut to remind us of our own temporality, and celebrate that we read the entire Torah another time. These are both vital aspects of life, but it makes a certain thematic sense to me that we vote in the fall, after contemplating our own morality, our culpability, our vulnerability and our joy in the law. I hope it raises our sensitivities a little bit.

Thus I make to you here not just an impassioned plea that, come the 4th, you vote for the candidate of your choice, but that you take the next week to make sure you know what else will appear on your ballot, and what you think about it. If you couldn’t get wifi in your sukkah, do your research now.

–Mel Weiss

The Lilith Blog

October 7, 2008 by Mel Weiss

The Devil’s in the Details, So We Better Be, Too

Okay, I know it’s probably a bad idea for me to write about the election in the U.S. right now, because I’m still a resident of freak-out-loss-of-perspective-ville, but this is a legitimate feminist comment on political media. Lisa Belkin’s piece in the Times magazine this weekend posited that when we talk about Sarah Palin, we’re really talking about our own feelings about women and the work-life balance in America. Still. Since Lisa Belkin also heralded news of the “Opt-out Revolution” and scrabbling youth in the city pulling in only $60,000 a year, I retain some residual skepticism. I must admit, I thought her column had some serious merit, although it feels like she hasn’t watched the news for two weeks.

I would, in fact, say that Sarah Palin got a twinge of my feminist sympathies in the first few days. It was cheap and intellectually dishonest for people for people to talk about how she has young children—as though that were the real problem they had with her. (It was even lamer if that was the problem they had with her.) And it was ridiculous that not enough people stepped up to say, Screw that—her positions are polarizing enough! You can know whether you’re for or against Sarah Palin’s positions without considering her mothering skills.

But, hey, lots of stuff has happened since then, and SNL has been doing a great job of documenting how ridiculous the whole process has been. And Queen Latifah, channeling Gwen Ifill, made a great point: we set the bar so low that now, Palin is perceived as jumping over it. Aside from my political concerns of the first degree (like how wonderfully tolerated I feel, and did I really want to get married, use tap water, or have a bank account in the next eight years, anyway?), I felt myself facing a feminist conundrum. Had we set the bar so low because she was a woman? Were we still, a la Lisa Belkin, using Sarah Palin as a symbol instead of recognizing that she, specifically, might one day soon (ptu ptu ptu) be in Dick Cheney’s office? Were we stuck in some Yom-Kippur-induced malaise, so weighted with our own sins that we couldn’t keep our hopes too high about our politicians’ abilities?

To be honest, I don’t think so. I think it is the habit of the twenty-four hour news cycle to harp on some issues, and certainly has a history of downplaying a candidate’s intelligence. (Seven years and eleven months ago, Molly Ivins was ranting about how stupid the media portrayed Bush to be—it masked the real problems, which hasn’t had so much an intelligence theme—more like reckless endangerment. For fun, imagine the columns Molly would write about Sarah Palin.) So let me say this right now, and set the record straight: although there may be some women who like Sarah Palin just because she is a woman, most of us are no longer judging her by her gender. Although some people have said stupid things about the relationship between her motherhood and her job, and she’s been useful for restarting a national conversation on work-life issues, the vast majority of us have moved on. The devil’s in the details, folks. There may have been some sexist assumptions about her abilities, but most concerns have never been sexist. Gender got a lot of play in this election, but to be honest, I think its role is waning. Let’s talk about Palin the politician for a while, and we can come back to all that symbolic stuff in a bit.

Agree? Disagree? Talk back below!

–Mel Weiss

The Lilith Blog

September 29, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Livni Rocks the Vote, Just Barely

Man, miss a week of blogging and you miss Tzipi Livni getting elected by 431 votes. Of course, there’s been plenty going on since then, what with the U.S. presidential debates and, oh yeah, Wall Street crashing and this clip looping endlessly through my brain, especially as we stare the High Holidays in the face.

Personally, I think there are a number of really solid reasons to like Tzipi Livni. For starters, she’s relatively new-school. One of the most shocking things about Israeli political history is the relatively short list of names you’ll have to learn. Livni’s certainly establishment enough—she’s been in the Knesset for almost ten years—but she not one of the big names from years gone by. She won’t carry nearly as much baggage, plus it’s just nice to have a breath of fresh air. She’s dovish, anti-settlement and believes that change can be accomplished, so she’s going to have quite a battle trying to pull a government together.

(One of the worst lines of recent news was Bibi Netanyahu’s response to a question about Likud joining a Livni-led Kadima coalition. Politics aside, I’m sorry, the guy just reminds me of a used-car salesman, and smarmy remarks like “It would be like joining the board of Lehman Brothers right now” just rub me the wrong way.)

Not that it matters as much in Israel, where it seems you’re generally determined fit to lead before your skill area is sharply defined, but Livni’s worked in law, in the Agricultural ministry, Immigration ministry, and has had a number of jobs within government. She’s seen a variety of issues up close. There’s strong evidence to suggest she’s quite intelligent.

Until the deadline on her mandate expires, we should appreciate her. She’s here, there’s no evidence she’s been pocketing any envelopes of cash, and she wants to take a big step towards peace. For the future, I wish her well and hope she manages to pull that whole coalition shtick off.

But in the interim, she’s a useful symbol because of that tiny margin. 431 votes. A reminder of the power of democracy and the power of a single vote. One that made me want to text all my friends to ask Are you registered? And if you’re not, can you change that, um, immediately?

And while we’re working on rocking the vote over here—the best of luck to you, Tzipi Livni, in pulling together a coalition and getting on with the good work.

–Mel Weiss

The Lilith Blog

September 15, 2008 by Mel Weiss

What Political Rhetoric Do We Take For Granted? You “Decide”

Having referred to myself last week as a burgeoning partisan lunatic, I’ve decided not to endanger Lilith’s non-profit status with a long enraged rant about political issues right now. I’d rather discuss political rhetoric, as that’s a pretty fruitful field of lunacy, too.

If one of the downsides to having female candidates in the running is the rampant misogyny we’ve gotten to see for the last eighteen months, one of the upsides has obviously been watching comedians rip that misogyny to shreds. (And, as twenty-three people have asked me in the last twenty-three hours, have you seen the SNL skit yet? Because if you haven’t, you should. And if you’re a feminist and you haven’t—well, damn, what are you waiting for? Check it out!)

Finally, we get to enjoy being the subjects of the joke in a relevant way! These jokes, when properly wielded, also serve to bring even feminist
sensitivities to the relentless news cycles. And in thinking about how the language of this looooooong election has played out, this kind of joking revelation can be a welcome break—and also really powerful.

It’s fascinating what we’ve come to take for granted in American politics. One day, fuming, I started showing my girlfriend a day’s worth of email “alerts” about the danger of an Obama administration for Israel. She’s pretty politically savvy, so when she ask, “Do you think any serious candidate for President would ever consider downgrading American support for Israel?” (I said, “Nope,” but more on that another time), I knew we’d both realized how hegemonic political support for Israel has become. (Not counting President Carter, of course.) It is self-evident that Obama’s perceived lack of support for Israel is a political liability—this we can agree on regardless of our various perspectives on the veracity of such claims. It’s a fixed part of our political landscape.

I’m not sure how I feel about that, to be honest, but I’m far more intrigued by the hilarious video by The Daily Show’s Samantha Bee.

If you’ve been a little confused by all this accolades for Bristol Palin’s decision to carry through her pregnancy (I know, I know, this was last week’s news cycle, but this thought had to percolate—sorry!), well, Sam Bee and I are there with you. Decision? Like…a choice? So, you mean, you’re just accepting a natural the idea that she had a choice? Because think about it: if she deserves credit for “making the right choice” then we’re pretty much accepting the fact of that choice as something normal. Is this some strange sign of victory—to have made so much of the existence of such a right that it’s taken for granted—in the rhetoric of its political enemies? Are we at Israel’s level of political-jargon stick-to-it-ive-ness with the choice thing yet?

We can only hope. But I think it is important to pay attention to such things. If people are going to take choice for granted at the same time they bitch and moan about it, we should point that out. Maybe one day support for choice, too, will be as obvious a sign of political normalcy as support for Israel.

–Mel Weiss

The Lilith Blog

September 8, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Introducing the Republicans: Convention #2

This week, the politics column of the Lilith blog presents a special guest blogger. Laura Matson, the woman who first introduced me to Minnesota and all its charms, was our blogger-on-the-ground for the Republican Convention in St. Paul. She and I spent a lot of prep time discussing one main question: what are the issues that drive a Jewish Republican woman? What political concerns create such an identity? (For Laura, who recently left the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding to continue her studies, these sorts of religion/identity questions are meat and potatoes. Hard to imagine what we talk about, right?)

As a ferociously liberal woman who ties her Jewish values into her political identity, I have to say it’s a question that fascinates me. And Laura, who as you’ll hear was not raised Jewish but is vastly Jewishly literate, it was a question she sought to answer by speaking to as many women at possible at a special event put on by the Republican Jewish Committee. Hearing women’s own words, we agreed, was the feminist way to find our answers.

As you’ll hear, it is an interesting landscape, populated mostly by people concerned about the issue of Israel. (A group I’ve written about here before.) While I don’t have to agree with this line of thinking, I can at least applaud the sentiment. And, as the election enters its final phase and some of us (cough cough) turn into partisan nutjobs, I think being able to empathize even a little with one’s political opponents is important. Someone’s going to win this election, and someone’s going to lose. I have pretty strong feelings about who’s on which end of that, but when we wake up on November 5th, we’re all still Americans. It was something Laura, a consummate Minnesotan who always manages to be both feisty and kind, picked up on. “Actually,” she said on to me on the phone from the Xcel Center parking lot, “everyone’s been really nice.”

Onwards and upward…

–Mel Weiss

My day with the RJC Women

At the beginning of the week, I attended an event sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis. I am not Jewish, nor am I, truth be told, a journalist, but since the GOP had chosen my hometown for its festivities, my good friend Mel Weiss offered me the chance to do some on-the-ground reporting. I jumped at the opportunity, and despite our inability to secure a press pass for the actual convention (in hindsight, this was probably in my best interest), I stumbled upon a luncheon honoring Hadassah Lieberman and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The luncheon, sponsored by the RJC, was a project of its woman-centric branch, the National Women’s Committee.

I arrived at Neiman Marcus in the late morning, while the attendees claimed their nametags and perused the silent auction items. Initially, I wandered around, observing the guests and trying to get my bearings in this bastion of high fashion. I overheard one woman describe her fashion and expenditure tastes to another as they admired the auction items, “I’m into maximalism—not minimalism.” Though not everyone in attendance was there for the Tory Burch boots, I spoke to a few women who had attended at the behest of their employer, a lobbying firm representing non-union construction shops, as well as a few legislative representatives and members of their staffs.

Eventually the women were ushered to their fuchsia-clothed tables by various Neiman Marcus employees and RJC volunteers for the dining and fashion show portions of the afternoon. Yes, there was a fashion show. Tall, thin models walked down the aisle while the few members of the press corps sent text messages and one of the ladies at the table next to me quipped, “Jewish ladies are eating, they’re modeling. We’re all doing what we do best.” The fashions were Urban Outfitters meets Jackie O, neon leggings and wide collars. The women nearest me were particularly enamored of the shimmering floor length gowns.

(more…)

The Lilith Blog

August 27, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Punch-drunk on Democrats: Convention #1

Before anyone calls partisan bias, let me assure you this blog has some excellent programming planned for the Grand Old Party’s party, too–but the Dems are up first, and I am hooked. Okay, so we’re not going to talk about last night, which was pretty damn pareve, Senator Kennedy aside. I’d much rather talk about tonight.

But first, an aside: I’m sitting here watching convention coverage alone, because my girlfriend just can’t stand this kind of coverage. She says it’s just rhetoric, rhetoric, propaganda, rhetoric. It’s certainly a fraught watching experience, and I’ll cop to being a difficult person to watch it with. And she’s entirely right–it’s intense, with a lot of in-your-face repetition–the key phrases become clear very quickly–and language that manages to be both charged and totally meaningless.

And yet, I’m addicted. You have to dig below the surface, a little, understand the symbols and the codes to what’s going on, and you also have to be able to follow the rapid fire patterns of rhetoric, commentary, commentary on the commentary, all of it circular and self-referential. Essentially, I think it’s possible that what I feel for the Democratic Convention is what some folks feel about Talmud study. I don’t know if that means that I should give Talmud a try, but it certain adds a nice veneer to my news addiction.

Anyway, the convention has really picked up tonight. (Can I channel Rebecca for a moment to note that almost all the funny lines have gone to women?) I’m surprised but pleased to see a frequent reference to the economic benefits of a “green economy.” And I was pleased beyond measure to see that the people on stage have represented many aspects of a real America.

I’m writing this before Senator Clinton speaks, because I can’t trust myself to be in writing shape afterwards. I have spent months assuring most people that there is no way that there are “Clinton Democrats” who won’t vote for Obama–and vehemently denying that this is an issue among women in particular. Convention-floor interviews with delegates have shaken that belief, and I can’t help but feel a little frantic. It’s the DNC, folks. We’re all Democrats.

When you hear rhetoric about equal wages for equal pay, about using green jobs to regrow our national economy, improving our educational system, about giving tax breaks to middle class families and making big business accountable for their actions–if you hear that, and it stirs you, then why let pettiness hold those ideals back?

Ted Kennedy struck a lovely note last night as he spoke glowingly of our potential for “renewal.” Renewal is a concept that I can’t help but think of as Jewish, especially at this tome of year, when the High Holidays are starting to peak their heads over the horizon.

So let us renew, and remember our many trailblazers, and celebrate our ideals. In the meantime, I’m going back to my “studying.”

–Mel Weiss

UPDATE: Man, Clinton cleared the fence with that one, critics be damned. In honor of that whopper, enjoy another Convention show-stopper from our illustrious past.

The Lilith Blog

August 18, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Partying Like It’s…1981?

Man, somehow I woke up this morning and walked into the mid ‘80s. That’s how it felt, anyway, after I found a pamphlet from Mother Jones, circa 1981. For the record, 1981 predates me—not by much, but a bit—and so I count reading such material as history, normally. But this time…I don’t know. This little pamphlet delved into the issues its liberal authors saw as plaguing America: the rapid rise of Political Action Committees (with their undue effect upon legislation that may not be in the public interest), a recent tax act that heavily favored the wealthy and business interests at the expense of the still-a-lot-larger-then middle class, the harmful effects of jobs being shipped overseas, the rise of government debt, the disposal of nuclear waste, American dependence on oil, the backlash against contraceptives and abortion, disproportionate crime rates among young black men…

Um, any of this sounding familiar?

Oh, sure, there were some indications of how dated the thing was—predictions that the next big war would be nuclear, terminology that gave computers and robots equal weight as concepts, a foreign citizens’ language guide that included Yiddish but not Chinese or Arabic or Russian—but these paled in comparison with the stark, blinding and frankly terrifying similarities.

The eighties theme continued with Brazil, a film from 1985 that has actually nothing to do with South America’s largest nation. The movie is the disquieting story of a totalitarian state, and there’s much ado in all the reviews and synopses you’ll read about the similarities to Orwell’s 1984. If you happen to be watching 23 years later, on the other hand, it’s impossible not only to identify the dehumanizing effects the system portrayed has on its inhabitants, allowing for the existence of a procedure of torture for those suspected of terrorism.

Um…? Anyone?

(As a side note, one of the most chilling themes in the film is that when the terrorists—who do seem, somewhere, to exist—detonate big bombs in public places, no one rushes to help the wounded. Although the world’s hot spots for exploding buildings don’t yet seem to have reached this soulless state—and I am of course thinking of Israel and Iraq here—it’s very, very scary to imagine that such a day might come.)

Surely, this is all anecdotal and not worth a lot as hard evidence of anything. And yet, I don’t they can be ignored. And I’m starting to get pretty seriously worried here, folks. Rick Warren is the one who’s getting the candidates-to-officially-be to sit at the table together. (He opened by quoting Scripture, y’all. The hell?) Gallup has McCain and Obama tied. I’d say it was the end of the world, but I think it’s worse—I think it’s history, coming back to bite us in the ass again. And with the 2008 election looming ever closer, we need to be extra vigilant.

So let’s make a pact, all of you with longer memories and more experience. How about you all start talking to us young ‘uns. Tell us the stories of what happened—political battles fought and won (or lost), nightmare scenarios and dreams for the future you once had. Help us identify issues and problems that have appeared before. The news media isn’t helping our institutional memory, and we’ve abandoned most of the civil institutions that might help. And then, we can help draw up the new plans, because clearly, something has got to change.

If we don’t stop this political cycle, who knows? Big hair might even come back into fashion, and I’m not sure the nation could survive that.

–Mel Weiss

The Lilith Blog

August 12, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Tisha b'Av: A Family Story?

Gosh. I leave New York—and my trusty laptop—for a few days, and the world goes beserk. John Edwards and his affair, Russia invading Georgia, random violence at the Olympics, and a scandal involving Sudan’s profit margin on the same kinds of food the world is shipping its starving citizens. Yikes.

Yet through all of this, I couldn’t stop thinking about Tisha b’Av, for obvious reasons. It’s one of those holidays I have to really work to connect to each year, but this year, I had some unexpected help from soon-to-be-rabbi Kate Palley, who gave a great drash about ways to connect to the Temple. I will admit that for me, the Temple is a big ole abstract symbol. I get it intellectually, a little, but it’s an all-head-no-heart deal, and that’s sad on a holiday that should be mostly heart. But Kate spoke about how the Temple was the last time the Jewish people could come together automatically, like a family, and that’s when it clicked. Family has been on my mind a lot, too.

Actually, the reason I was away from my hometown (and aforementioned laptop) for a few days was to be with family. Family that lives far away, that I care for very much but that lead different lives from me. For a while, in fact, parts of my family led flat-out divergent lives—away from one another.

So when I thought about the Temple, and tried to reach around for that mourning, I found it helped to think about my family, writ large. And you know what? It is a damn shame when families break apart, drift away, lose touch. It’s not just the story of my family, either—it’s certainly the story of the Jewish people. (If you don’t believe me, check out the comments section of any article on Ynet or Ha’aretz or the Jerusalem Post website. People say stuff to and about each other you couldn’t make up on your own. Whew!) It’s not just “two Jews, three opinions”—multiple viewpoints are not the problem here. It’s more like, “two Jews who never have a face-to-face conversation because they’ve both written the other off as the source of all ills in the Jewish world.”

And, sadly, this is the story of the feminist movement, too. First, it happened in the movement’s youth, when younger members of the women’s liberation movement rebelled against the more staid NOW. (For more on this fascinating and far-too-little-known aspect of history, check out Ruth Stone’s The World Split Open, which will blow your mind.) As I’ve kvetched about before here, this infighting (often baited by the media) goes on still.

And, if Russia invading Georgia—regardless of the specifics, which it’ll take me several days of sifting through newspapers, blogs and my stand-by foreign policy wonks to form an opinion about—during the Olympics, yet!—doesn’t remind us of the insane tensions and grudges we hold in our larger human family, well, I don’t know what would. In truth, I have no interest in finding out. Who hasn’t seen a reference somewhere, in the great piles of words written every day about the Arab-Israeli conflict, to the story of Isaac and Ishmael? It’s like we save our deepest rancor not for those who are most Other, but those who are most like us. Those who are family. Even in America, where we share so much in common and have such a joined future, we fight like animals. We waste time that could be spent building up our common causes breaking each other down.

It would all be a bit too depressing for me, except I spent the last three days hanging out with my family, and it was fantastic. Did it take a lot of work for everyone in that room to be there, and be there for each other? Not in the present, really, but in the not-so-distant past? You bet. Keeping families together sometimes takes a lot of work on everybody’s part, but so what? It’s so, so worth it. And it is, truly, within our reach if we want it badly enough.

So one year soon I’ll hang around Jerusalem for Tisha b’Av and really focus on the proper political, historical and religious contexts. For now, though, I’ll trust that the personal really is the political, and I’ll think about my many families, large and small, all over the world—my family that is the world, in fact—and I’ll rejoice that some of the rebuilding has already begun, and that so many show up every day to keep at it, and when I think about the Temple, I’ll mean it when I say, “May it be rebuilt speedily, and in our days,”

–Mel Weiss.

The Lilith Blog

July 28, 2008 by Mel Weiss

“How Many Acts of Genocide Does It Take to Make a Genocide?”*

I had a whole post planned about rising gas prices, but Netflix finally came through with a movie I’ve been waiting literally years to see. That movie, which I’ve just finished watching, is Hotel Rwanda, and I don’t think I’ve felt this punched in the gut since…well, since the first time I saw Schindler’s List. Because that’s the pretty much the inevitable comparison, and it’s down right eerie how much they have in common. It was horrifying.

But there was one thing that was more horrifying than what was in the movie, and that was what came before it. Don Cheadle, the lead actor, made a special request for Darfur. For people to care. The movie came out in 2004, the DVD came out in 2005. The deepest horror here is not, in fact, that genocide happened before. Not that it happened in Rwanda. It’s that it’s happening right now. It’s still happening.

With the 2008 Olympics right around the corner (the first athletes start arriving today), there is another opportunity to speak loudly at every chance about Darfur. AJWS has done an amazing job of keeping Darfur in our faces, and fighting for more coverage to push the issue as much as possible.

Divest from companies supporting the genocide. Petition Congress to help with strengthening the peacekeeping mission and supplying healthcare workers. Spread the word. Send money. Find other ways to help. Get creative. What else can we do?

–Mel Weiss

*This quote courtesy of the U.S. State Department.

The Lilith Blog

July 21, 2008 by Mel Weiss

Keep Talking

As I sit in sweltering Brooklyn, trying very hard not think about global warming, I rather wish I were in another sweltering room, in Austin, Texas, watching the Netroots Nation conference, an annual conference for progressive bloggers. I have a few friends there, and I can’t wait to hear how it went. As someone who reads, watches videos, gets directions, banks and does any number of other things online, it shouldn’t be surprising that my politics unfold on the internet, too. Yet I still wish I was in that room: the human connection is still such a vital part of communications.

Face-to-face meetings seem de rigeur this week, as Obama met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and John McCain met with Yankees. They’re both aiming to stress their lesser-known traits, swinging at opportunities to demonstrate charisma and practical experience as they cross the plate.

We’re closing in on the three-month mark until the elections, and I understand that this is the time when the politicking comes hard and fast. Yet more and more I’m struck by the trials endured, and the efforts made, by everyday folk. It was my take-home lesson from this week’s parsha, too, where the daughters of Zelophchad changed Biblical law by asking to inherit their deceased father’s portion in the Land of Israel, and God gives Moses the thumbs-up. I’m not suggesting that we anticipate any divine intervention in the ’08 election, but the lesson resonates: something momentous changed because these women, who were probably among the most disenfranchised section of biblical society, brought it up, and they brought it up face-to-face*.

We live at a time when the vast majority of us will never have our individual voices heard by the next president of the United States. But that doesn’t mean that our individual voices, or—even better—our voices joined together, can’t still alter things entirely. I enter this week hoping that we, too, can use our powers to help enfranchise others, and that we keep talking to each other through every medium available.

–Mel Weiss

*Tip of the hat to Rabbi Carrie Carter at PSJC for that thought.