Walking the Line

Sara,
Well done. It’s great to see Southern belles interested in our little niche.

Opppps. I jumped in without reading the article. I saw the title and saw red. I HATE this book!

I am pleased that you too share my concerns with the author’s emphasis on Yossi.

Ms. Winston seems to have based her ideas of such people on him, and boy, she is way off target.

But it’s all in a published book, so it must be true. No?

Re-Unchosen, eh? Somehow sounds familiar…

Way back when, I attempted to clarify some of the misconceptions Hella Winstons put forth. Call it the impetuousness of youth, but I was certain that I might get people to understand the truth. I actually believed that Ms. Winston wanted to give an honest portrayal, and I was sure that people cared about the ‘real deal’.

Ha! The innocence of youth. It’s a darling thing.

I’ve since realized, then for most people, it’s the sensationalism they’re after. And for someone to tell them they’re right – and it’s the world that’s wrong. And for all those seeking a reason out – Hella helped them find it.

As for Ms. Winston’s interest in the facts? After personal interaction and interactions that she had with others, I’ve noticed that Hella Winston’s only concern is with making her claim appear valid. That any dissident in this community is “unchosen”, unloved and unwelcome. And she’ll twist her stories any which way to help support her thesis.

It is a biased and hateful piece of work. Or she is. Same difference.

Well done Ms Winston.

Somehow you’ve managed to get free publicity for your book, a good number of years after it was published. In usual circumstances a book targeting a niche market such as this one, would gather dust very soon after the rumbles of the grumbles have worn off. Not this one. Ever so often some well meaning soul brings it up again. More $$$$$$$ for the author.

To anybody who hasn’t purchased this book and is now thinking of doing so, don’t!

>With his substance abuse problems and obvious mental illness, he seems like he’d be an outlier in any group…

That comment really hit me. I would say the same about people who do not have substance abuse problems or mental illness. Some degree of mental pathology is necessary to explain why the “doubters” in such settings can stay in when it’s abusive and destructive – not merely comfortable and safe. Since the 60s, Orthodox Jewry has been suffused with a sense of obligation to Outreach to non-Orthodox Jews (Kiruv), but a response of sorts has formed in “Kiruv Judaism”, a complex lifestyle apologetics filled with expectations that EVERY JEW has a place at the Charedi table, and if Orthodoxy is rational and reasonable, at least THEORETICALLY any ‘normal’ non-Jew. But the idea that a religious Jewish community can, indeed, have elements *that would be outliers anywhere* is unthinkable to many BTs and Jews “inspired” by BTs and the new Orthodox Jewish culture the are part of. It suggests both that Orthodox Jews are human, and that Orthodox Judaism is not for all humans – even all Jews.

“I imagine the reader will skim over it to get to the juicy parts”
So the question is, are there enough juicy parts to make it worthwhile? I have not read it, and according to this review, the juicy parts would be the only reason for me to read it. (And can someone send me a copy that has the juicy parts marked off, so I don’t need to look for them? RandC, sort of like the Heichal Habrachah chumashim in Tosh… .)
I have a nagging suspicion that the characters in the book are more represantative of OTD chassidim than many on here would like to imagine. It is just a guess, but that is the way it seems to me from the OTD people that I know. Reb Yaakov Horowitz recently had an editorial on VIN, with 5 causes for most OTD kids. Pedophilia, learning disablities, shalom bayis, and 2 others which I don’t remeber right now. There are exceptions, of course, but I think it is a small minority. The majority of people with intellectual reasons to leave the religion opt not to upend their lives and stay inside, either leading double lives, or as in my own case, are “magbir the lev on the sechel”. Just my observations, which are either right or wrong. I’d like to hear what others have to say.
One more point, what are the qualifications of Mrs. Winston? Is she presenting herself as a sociologist, as a psychologist, or as an author just supplying her readership with interesting reading material? The strength of her detractors’ arguments would depend on that. Anyone knows?

I’m glad to see that you have all rightfully unmasked Ms. Winston for the fraud she is. I read the book a while ago and I was unimpressed to the extreme. She presents the book with the pretence of being a well researched and scholarly work, which couldn’t be further from the truth. She totally didn’t grasp the heart of the issues at hand. She vulgarly oversimplified and was poorly informed. Everything in the book is based on a select few sources and poorly conducted interviews. All in all, a completely detestable read. I would give it 4 swastikas instead of the 4 shields of David.

On a personal note, I know the hero of the book Yossi, and the way she dealt with him was extremely deceitful and unethical. I don’t want to get into details, but take me for my word. She literally screwed him over for the advancement of her personal narcissistic need to gain notoriety and fame. For those of you concerned, Yossi made a full 180 and is a pious Jew now.

Great book and excellent review.

Frummer: As Sara pinted out so astutely: “there are many groups to whom this book wouldn’t appeal…Chasidim with a distaste for dissent. If you fit one of these categories, you’re at the wrong website anyway.”

Piss off.

>Yossi made a full 180 and is a pious Jew now.

I guess when Sara said “With his substance abuse problems and obvious mental illness, he seems like he’d be an outlier in any group” she was wrong.

He’d fit right in in the frum community!

offthederech; “piss off”
Isn’t the correct term, FUCK OFF!!!
(ugh, the bitter vibes coming off you, why are you so angry?)

Kaf

There are quite some juicy parts in the book. I don’t question her talent as a writer. She is pretty decent writer. I was unimpressed with the content and her narrow view of contemporary Chassidish society.

I am not familiar with the Tosh chumushim.

The so called ‘reasons’ you quoted above happen to be true in a lot of the cases, but you must be very careful with attributing causality to them. I’m not sure if they are correlational or causational. My first thought would be that attributing OTD, solely, to one of those factors is extremely narrow minded and shallow.

Winston’s credentials are: un-academic bitch.

Off.

Dont make fun of Yossi. He is a tragic and pathetic figure, who Hella abused.

>Yossi made a full 180 and is a pious Jew now

Bullocks.
He is DRESSED as a pious jew, but he is the same Yossi. The only change, which is also the good part, is that he found stability in life.

Also, I have spent hours talking to him and he doesn’t feel he’s been taken advantage of, nor does he feel defrauded. So I think your harsh words towards Winston is more for the sensation of it than for the actual facts.

Kaf.

Here is how I would approach Horrowitz’s position.

1)How did he arrive at the 5 factors?
2)Was there an empirical study done?
3)What are his resources, statistics, etc.
4)Could Horrowitz be biased?
5)Frummers doing research on OTD is biased in its inception. They view OTD as a perversion so they have to apply unflattering reasons for its occurrence. They can never admit that a stable healthy person left, so I would question the motive of the study too.
6)Theoretically is it even plausible to attribute a given lifestyle to “one” factor?

And the most important question is: Who says OTD’ness is an abomination that there must be an underlying reason for it? Should I conduct a study of why people are frum? Should OTD people come up with 5 factors why people are religious? How would the Frum community take to that?

Kaf: >Isn’t the correct term, FUCK OFF!!!

You said it, not me.

>why are you so angry?

Kol hapoisel…

R and C: >Dont make fun of Yossi.

Chas veshalom. I’m making fun of the community.

Good points above about OTDness, but I can’t agree with you about Winston. Not that I ton any background details (although I’d love to hear more from you), but she seemed like a professional, and the book did bring up some of the major problems in the frum world. I’d say it’s somewhat like Faranak Margolese’s book “Off the Derech”, just written about real people and with less of that frum bias you pointed out above. Neither book is perfect, but they both shed light on a subject few have bothered/dared to explore.

Not to toot my own horn, but I posted some excerpts from the book here.

offthederech;
“Kol hapoisel…”
Firstly, shvache comeback.
Secondly, you’re implying that I am angry, but that has no basis in reality. For real. Your comments, on the other hand, reek with anger, and so does your blog. There’s always the possibility that I am reading you wrong, of course. Do you honestly believe that you’re not angry?

And the most important question is: Who says OTD’ness is an abomination that there must be an underlying reason for it?

No one is calling “OTD’ness” an abomination. But for a person to reject the basics he was taught, for him to suddenly see ‘reality’ in an entirely different light (even if what he arrived at NOW is the truth), there needs to be an underlyling reason.

Should I conduct a study of why people are frum? Should OTD people come up with 5 factors why people are religious?
Indeed there are many who’ll give you a laundry list of reasons of why people become religious. It is not the everyday typical occurrence, and there are for the most part extenuating circumstances that bring it about.

In whatever form it happens, there usually is a catalyst for change.

>you’re implying that I am angry, but that has no basis in reality.

Methinks you need to read the books of one great OTDer, Shloimy Freud. You’re in denial.

Rabbi Howrowitz, who has been working with “kids at risk” for the past 15 claims that these are primarily the reasons why people chose to go OTD.

Child abuse/molestation/neglect
2.      Lack of simchas chayim/shalom bayis at home
3.      Poor parenting or overbearing parents
4.      Undiagnosed or unaddressed learning disabilities. 
5.      Extremism (lack of flexibility in raising children and forcing them into the same mold) .

I would add a fifth;

Undiagnosed or diagnosed psychological/ social disabilities as well.

RandC,
Should I conduct a study of why people are frum? Should OTD people come up with 5 factors why people are religious? How would the Frum community take to that?

Would you conduct a study to find out why people sleep, eat, and breath?
Human beings don’t need much reason to follow the status quo.
If a person choses to disrupt his life in such an extreme fashion, there usually is reason for it.

I don’t know if Yossi feels like he has been taken advantage of, or wrongly portrayed – but I do know that he is not the only one.

I know of quite a few of the ‘personal stories’ she shared, where the person in question feels lied to and manipulated.

She took what she wanted, twisted what she could, and discarded the rest. This is not the in-depth and balanced sociological study she claims she intended it to be. This is simply bias – put on paper.

Someone asked about Hella Winston’s credentials.

Dr. Winston is a sociologist.

I agree with Tzippi, although I can never be as eloquent as her. Nobody is making a study of why men in American culture wear pants, as opposed to long robes or kilts. If someone would start wearing a kilt, we would need to find a reason for that.

RandC; Re Horowitz, although you are probably right that he has a bias towards frumkeit, he definitely does have a lot of experience in the field, and even though I am sure the 5 factors he mentions are not the results of a scientific study, nonetheless he is in a position to make such estimations as good as anyone. That should answer questions 1 2 and 3. I am not sure what you mean by question 6, because even though every individual is likely to have multiple reasons, a general trend can usually still be found.
Can you explain your earlier comment about correlation and causation? I understood your comment to mean that those 5 factors might not be the cause of leaving the community, rather they might be the cause that would remove, so to speak, the impediments to leave, by mitigating the effects of social pressure. Assuming that is true, those factors still play a huge role in determining the reasons people leave and the types of people you can expect the “rebels” to be. Thus, what I said before is still true, that Ms. Winston’s sample in the book, is maybe more representative of the “unchosen” than you can admit. I am not saying anything with certainty, just suggesting the possibility.

offthederech; “Methinks you need to read the books of one great OTDer, Shloimy Freud. You’re in denial.”
Can you bother to elaborate? I am quite thick, and I have no clue to what Freud’s theories have to do with this. Is that supposed to be a retort similar to the first one, “kol haposeil bemumo poseil”? Because if it is, I long outgrew those “arguments”, and have had my share of those in yeshiva arguing who was in the right, chassidim or misnagdim…..

Hoezen, I didn’t see that you had already made the same point as Tzippi, that people don’t need much of reason to follow the status quo, and I totally agree.

Look Kaf, there’s no reason why I or anyone should have to put up with accusations of being angry or anything. That’s called “ad hominem attacks.” I don’t know you and you don’t know me, so why should either of us make assumptions about each other?

Stick to the issues. If you prefer flame wars, I can do that too.

How would you like it if I accused you of being old, or smelly, or in jail, or anything else? It’s just not nice. I don’t think I’m angry, but even if I am, I think it’s rude of you to bring it up (on a public forum, especially).

If you insist on insulting me, fine. Just don’t expect to get away with it. Besides, there’s an old saying I used to hear: if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it. You’re violating basic rules of manners, I’ll have you know.

offthederech; In all honesty, I had no intention to “flame you” or anything of the like. Actually, I don’t necessarily disagree with your comments neither on here nor on your blog. Having said that, I do think that your comments come off sounding angry and bitter. This is what I wrote earlier-
“There’s always the possibility that I am reading you wrong, of course. Do you honestly believe that you’re not angry?”
and you just answered me-
“I don’t think I’m angry”.
I can leave it at that, if you want, but if you give your permission, I would like to hear from others if I am the only one that felt anger coming from your posts. (So that if it turns out that I was the only one with this impression, I will have my eyeglasses checked.) Also, do I come off sounding angry?

good job, sara. With my alabama-born, jewish girlfriend living in philadelphia right now, i’m getting a good second-hand look at the diversity of jewish lifetyles… it’s interesting stuff indeed.

@kafhakela: You’re not the only one. I have no idea who this guy is,nor do I care, but I dislike reading his bitter comments. Not going to make assumptions about him as a person, but his rants seem angry and obnoxious.

offthederech;
“How would you like it if I accused you of being old, or smelly, or in jail, or anything else?”
Funny, I do feel kinda old sometimes (e.g. when I am with my kids in an amusement park), I am smelly at times (You should have smelled me the other day after doing some heavy labor! But the ladies out there should probably focus on what my skin smells like after a nice long shower… I use fruity body wash…) and I clearly am in a kind of jail.

Kaf: Now all you need to do is apologize and it’s water under the bridge.

Though I wonder why it matters to you whether or not I’m

Maybe my name bothers you more than my personality. If I used the handle “Joe Shmo” would your opinions be any different?

>But for a person to reject the basics he was taught, for him to suddenly see ‘reality’ in an entirely different light (even if what he arrived at NOW is the truth), there needs to be an underlyling reason.

Thats funny; that statement could apply to Gerim too, positively and/or negatively – which means it could apply to OTDs positively as well. If you bring Gerim in as their own kinds of OTDs, there’s a lot of overlap with R. Ethan Tucker’s series on Gerim and BTs at Machon Hadar’s website. As a lapsing Ger who has met many gerim, there is quite often something ‘up’ with Gerim, other than intellectual inclination to Judaism, true (similar in some ways to BTs who become Chabad). But there’s also often more continuity than people like to believe (or want to admit to), between the worldviews they left and their adopted ones. The West, where most OTDs and gerim come from and remain in – is deeply saturated with Biblical presuppositions, even the “secular” is built on selective rejection of Biblical views, and is even now still juxtaposing against it. Admittance of non-Jewish men into Judaism really began in earnest at a time when one could ‘become’ Greek (Alexander’s empire spread beyond his ‘world’ and new peoples came under their dominion), and Judaism responded as Jews saw a way ‘out’. I don’t think it’s possible to talk about apostasy from Judaism without noting similarities to ‘apostasy’ into it.

I hope it’s not against the rules to use an old post as a comment. I just don’t feel like rewriting it…

Hella Winston does a wonderful job. She does a wonderful at job at giving us a look at the world through the eyes of her characters. I know many people who fall into the category of Hasidic Rebels and the book gives an accurate account of their lives, from their point of view. She accurately portrays her characters feelings and battles and she chose an interesting set of characters. I enjoyed the book immensely and would recommend it to anyone chasidish who wants to understand the rebels.

Any serious reader will find him/herself asking if some of the characters’ issues do not stem from their society or community but stem from other issues such as disorders that exist in the outside world as well. I think that to an extent Ms. Winston is guilty of portraying some of these issues as stemming from the community, but she is definitely not as guilty as most of us make her out to be.

As an anthropological subject, shouldn’t the book have the opposing points of view as well? I was surprised to see no interviews with the people within the community who are fighting the trend. I was even more surprised that she didn’t write about the ones who have rebelled, gone all the way, and then came back. I think that to the outsider reading the book such a character would have been very insightful. I think it would’ve given the book another dimension that it desperately needs. After portraying such a good picture of leaving the fold, a reader wants to know how one can go and come back. I have a friend who grew up in chasidish Boro Park, left the fold in his late teenage years and ended up ‘living the life’ in Eastern Europe. Why did he come back? How is he accepted? What did he learn?

Another thing I was thinking about was along the lines of what the rebel wrote. Is Hella now friends with Malkie and her characters or was it all good for the book and is now gone?

originally written in January 2006 as my last ever blog post.

Tzipi, Kaf and Hoezen, you all seem to be saying the same thing so I’ll address you as one with my sincere apologies to your individual glory.

I never said I disagree with Rabbi Horrowitz’s assessment; I haven’t done a counter study to disprove him. I only have certain questions before I take his words for granted and apply canonical gravity to them.

Of course you were all right that there needs to be no study done on why people remain in a certain mold; it’s only if we observe a change that the question presents itself: why did this change occur?, or what was the catalyst for the switch? I’m only questioning whether Horrowitz has any validity due to certain flaws in his study, or better yet, lack thereof.

I understand that he is an expert, and that he has been working with teens at risk for 15 years and so on, but that still doesn’t give his proclamation a sniff of validity. If he would have done a comprehensive study and would have reached the same conclusion I would have to keep mum. But, I’m quite positive he didn’t do any scientific research on the subject; he is just speaking from an experiential point of view. I’m not throwing that away completely, experience is something, but I would need more to accept his words as fact. This is my first gripe. My second gripe with his statements concern the preexisting biased perspective Frum people hold when explaining the OTD trend.

Frum people definitely view OTD’ness as an abomination and corruption of proper values and respectable lifestyle. They view religion as the truth and the natural order of things. When someone decides to shed his religiosity the motive has to be a negative one; similar to the way a personality disorder is explained in psychology. Is it not shocking that all 5 reasons have a negative connotation to them?

A frum person can never admit that secular life is valid. The frum approach to the dilemma is: the behavior the person is exhibiting is deviant, now we have to find a cause for the perverse behavior. Hence, if the behavior is considered deviant and perverse the causation will always be a tragic event, general discontent, a mental or personality disorder, poor upbringing etc.

If the approach to the phenomenon would be unbiased, it’s not inconceivable that “philosophical differences of opinion” might arise as a factor. It’s not at all puzzling to me that the aforementioned is never given as a reason. Giving differences of belief and opinion as a reason would validate the newly adopted lifestyle, which in the frum mindset can’t be.

In the frum mindset the result of the switch must be attributed to a negative episode or a subversive attitude, so as to affirm that the other life is not equivalent, never the less-God forbid, superior to frum life.

Tzipi- “Indeed there are many who’ll give you a laundry list of reasons of why people become religious. It is not the everyday typical occurrence, and there are for the most part extenuating circumstances that bring it about.”

Shocked to hear this from you! This is very offensive and highly deconstructionist. Is it not because they saw the light that they return to God? Is it not an expression of the deep yearning of the soul that compels them to God?

Kaf- “Can you explain your earlier comment about correlation and causation?”

I am very aware that in many cases Horrowitz is right. The OTD individuals I am familiar with due tend to come from unprivileged backgrounds or had a harsh childhood. Never the less, until its proven empirically, one can never know if the change in lifestyle is a direct product of the former harsh life. In other words one cannot be sure if the former life causes the later life, or the former life is just a correlation (it just co-exists) without having any profound effects of the later life.

I’ll illustrate causation and correlation with a description I once read. Here goes: Every person that talks has teeth. Do teeth make a person talk? Of course not. One might argue that teeth “causes” speech, because we see that a person that has no teeth has hardships with speech. But, we know for a fact that teeth are not one of the factors that “causes” speech, hence it’s only a correlation. For speech to be a reality teeth have to exist, but they don’t necessarily cause speech.

The same is with the reasons Horrowitz gave. I know that the reasons are in many cases the reality of the OTD individual, but I’m not necessarily convinced it’s the cause for the phenomenon.

RandC;
You bring out valid points, but our discussion is quite different than the analogy of the teeth and talking. We know that teeth do not cause people to talk, so we know it’s only a correlation (I don’t like the use of this word in this context, but I’ll go along with it). But let’s assume that we do not know what causes people to talk, and we do not know that teeth do not cause it, and we do see that people who talk have teeth and vice versa. Wouldn’t we SUSPECT, that one causes the other?
Here, we know (not with certainty, but it definitely seems that way) that most people that are OTD have had a hard time fitting in and feeling comfortable with the rest of frum society. We also know that the vast majority of them have not had an intellectual search for the TRUTH. Doesn’t it follow that we should suspect that the first caused the second? They were not happy with their life, and were looking to change that. That doesn’t in any way intimate that had they been searching for the truth they would have stayed frum, all it saying that the cause of leaving the culture has nothing to do with TRUTH.
Actually, I believe, that the reason to be frum for most people that ARE frum also has nothing to do with TRUTH. The same social pressures that cause the OTD’s to leave, cause the rest of us to stay. Intellectual truth doesn’t affect most people’s choice of either staying or leaving. Hasn’t it been said, “halvai sheyehai moreh shomayim kemorai bosor vedam”?

Kaf

I couldnt have said better than thou hast. “Suspect” is a good start for speculation, its not a fact.

I really don’t understand why offthederech objects every time someone makes the observation that he sounds angry and bitter. Even the smallest sampling of his comments from various blogs reveal how bitterly angry he is that it seems pointless to deny it. I mean, his first comment here was, “piss off!”

Personally, I think that attributing his nasty comments to being angry is much preferred. After all, if it’s not anger that’s making him act like such a jerk, then that means he’s just an ordinary asshole.

Rather, the author is very clear about this book focusing on the stories of just several misfits who let her into her life and allowed their stories to be told by her. and Throughough the book, Ms. Winston remains non-judgemental and objective about the chasidic lifestyle, and is respectful of her subjects and their backgrounds.

Then why is it that more than one of her ‘subjects’ felt that their story was distorted and didn’t reflect what they said or meant?

Face it – her book wouldn’t have sold if she simply said ‘They live an odd life. Some stay, some leave.’ She needed the sensationalism, the pathetic fanaticism, the excessive disillusionment, and the outright rejection, for her story to be listened to. She didn’t find enough of it, so she created it.

I wouldn’t mind nearly as much – if she would place the book in the ‘fiction’ aisle.

Is it not because they saw the light that they return to God? Is it not an expression of the deep yearning of the soul that compels them to God?

Unhappy people yearn for something – anything! that might give them happiness. The common denominator between BTs and OTDs, is that they both are disillusioned with the life they are living, they see pain and dissatisfaction all around, and they are certain that they’ll find the answer – - – there.

The farther the better.

Only thing I do wanna point out – - odd thing. More BTs actually find happiness than OTDs. I wish someone would do a study to discover the whys of that.

Tzippi, you make me laugh, I like you. I just discovered your blog, (I am looking forward to many hours of enjoyable reading, I just need to find the time!) and I wanted to send you an email, but you have no email posted. If you want, you can contact me at kafhakela@yahoo.com.

Thanks Kaf. I quite enjoyed that blog myself.

Good times.

HR;
I am afraid of antagonizing the powers-that-be on this website, so I will be cautious…
Could it be that I chanced here upon a long running feud? It certainly seems so, because I am having a hard time finding the cause for the sudden escalation in tone.

I don’t for a moment think that OTDs are lacking in intelligence, compassion, or emotional maturity. Yet I do know that the OTDs see far more unhappiness than their BT counterparts.

Facts you ask for? Though I hate to broach it – take the suicide rate. Sad. Morbid. Inappropriate per my usual. But there you have it.

(And what do the children and grandchildren of BTs have to do with this conversation? Talk about staying on topic!)

Kaf,
I’m not very beloved around these parts. *whimper* Dissident views and all. They’re not all that ‘accepting’.

But I quite enjoy when the gloves come off and certain characters get to show their true colors.

offthederech:

Wow! Somebody is having a bad day.

I read that book when I was more off than on and I didn’t like it then. I still don’t like it.

It’s funny how at the time the book came out, blogvelt was full of people bashing anybody who DARED criticise the book or the writer. It’s pleasing to see how the tables have turned and how so many are now acknowledging that her book is far from the Gospel.

I am also seeing intense disappointment from those who trusted her. People who probably assumed that “here is a nice Goy who will befriend us offnicks, and accept us”. It seems that in the end, all her “friendships” were only to extract info for her thesis.

When there was nothing left to chew on, she spat you out and moved onto the next cage.

I can’t say I’m surprised. But I do feel bad for those of you who were stupid enough to trust her.

Frummer, it didn’t require stupidity. When she started to interview people, she wasn’t entirely upfront on the precise nature of her study.

She was telling them that she is studying Chassidic life and all its factions. She introduced the concept phrasing it as closely as to what she assumed they might want to hear.

Many people are just naturally trusting. Choosing to believe that people are good and don’t necessarily have an underlying agenda, isn’t be an automatic failing.

Using people is.

I still don’t believe she “used” anyone. She interviewed a bunch of people and turned it into a book. What’s there to feel so betrayed about?

Kafhakela: I’m sick and tired of your nonsense. Von Hayes was definitey you and “tweedly” probably is as well. Maybe in shul you can get away with acting like a complete chazer, but not here.

Re the comments that Hella lied. I believe that isn’t the case. Hella initially planned to write a book about chassidism. In the course of her research, she apparently stumbled upon a more sensationalist, ergo more popular commercially, topic and chose to switch themes. This happens often and is no reason for crucifixion. I understand that some characters (pretty sure that’s character, singular) may have felt miffed, but it’s unfair to presume that Hella set out to deceive.

As far as her credentials, her PhD in sociology entitles her to write a book of this sort. (HR, I wouldn’t say her scholarship is “impeccable”; this is not a scholarly book by any stretch of the imagination.) Rather, my beef with Hella is that she has taken the writing of this pleasantly readable, but ultimately shallow book to create a persona for herself as an expert of chassidism. When a Williamsburg melamed was accused of molestation, Hella got on tv (can’t remember which station) and offered her “educated” opinion. Hella is NOT an expert on chassidism and has no clue (nor do none but the direct parties involved) of what occured, yet she shamelessly used her publication of an unscholarly, superficial book to get on the air and speak as an “expert.”

Tzippi,

I disagree. People don’t share their life experiences just like that. Intrustive people with questions are generally given short thrift.

My feeling is that the individuals in question were enthralled by the fact that somebody was going to write a book about them. Somebody cares about us! We are something!

They then became very upset when they realised that she doesn’t care after all.

And indeed, why on earth should she?

HR, I agree with you that “that’s just tv and the media for you.” I would not, however, compare Heilman and Friedman to Hella. The former have done extensive research on chassidism, and their books build upon the works of others plus their own observations. In the case of Heilman, he spent years as a participant of chassidic lifestyle when he did his ethnographic study. (His only book that seemed to employ somewhat shoddy research was Sliding to the Right.) Hella, on the other hand, has written one book about a chassidic subset. The book does not build on other scholars’ works, nor does it analyze the chassid’s mindset. For her to put herself up as any sort of expert is dissimulative. And quite the chutzpah.

“I understand that he is an expert, and that he has been working with teens at risk for 15 years and so on, but that still doesn’t give his proclamation a sniff of validity. If he would have done a comprehensive study and would have reached the same conclusion I would have to keep mum. But, I’m quite positive he didn’t do any scientific research on the subject; he is just speaking from an experiential point of view.”

RandC,
You want scientific psychological research? That’s almost an oxymoron. If my recollection is correct, one of my blog buddies claimed that psychology isn’t a hard science.
How are you going to put a number on happiness, sholem bies, rigid parenting, etc?
15 years of experience with this niche population, that’s enough to impress me.

Yet I do know that the OTDs see far more unhappiness than their BT counterparts.
Many BTs latch onto frumkeit in search of close-knit community and a rigidly structured life. They get that, and the ones that don’t become disillusioned find happiness. BTs also tend to be a lot older when becoming frum than OTDs do when becoming frei, and therefore their situations cannot easily be compared.

You’d have a tougher time comparing OTDs to their frum counterparts, since a good many OTDs left the fold due to problems they had when they were in it. Their happiness is not guaranteed either way, and in some ways stands a better chance when not frum.

Hhahahah, HT, I’m glad to see that all the fumes you most definitely inhale during the process of “Pesach cleaning” hasn’t affected your memory.

I didn’t mean scientific per se. I meant to say that there is a certain way statistics are gathered there is a certain professional way to conduct research, to question people and to interview, which I am sure he did not do. He is talking from the “armchair expert’s” point of view , which I don’t take lightly as I have repeatedly pointed out. But, I take his words for what they are, a narrowly constructed hypothesis. He didn’t do a diverse study on the matter, with multiple subjects from multiple backgrounds; he is talking from his limited scope of personal experience.

I didn’t change my position on psychology and science; I hope you can see the difference between claiming something to be scientific and properly done research.

In any case, you shouldn’t be commenting so close to Paysech. Hust shoin getihn die oiybershte milichigeh cabinet? So, oif voos vartsti? S’zul zien bedikes chumetz nocht, demults vesti zien tzi beezy mit andere zochen, in farshtiets zich az s’vet fallen oif mien kup, azoiy vie ales arim dey hoiz!

offthederech, I am not any of the people you accuse me of being. Nor am I Garnel, which I’m sure would be your next guess.

Why is it that whenever you don’t like something that someone says to you, you immediately assume it’s another commenter under an assumed name? Is that how you typically operate?

Hedyot, that’s precisely my point. Hella is NOT knowledgable about chassidism. She is somewhat knowledgable about the rebellious subset within chassidism, which is a miniscule percentage of the whole. If she is approached by the media to be the spokesperson regarding an issue within the chassidic community, she should–if she is truly honest–admit that she’s the wrong person for the job. Of course, it’s entirely human to be pragmatic about this and not admit it. Which is why I understand Hella’s motives. But it’s still dishonest.

I agree with you regarding her relationship with her characters. The single exception is due to a misunderstanding rather than deceit on Hella’s part.

“The venomous and angry tone of the criticisms….”

Oh, Hedyot, have you been following the comments on this blog? Almost everyone here jumps at the slightest chance to criticize chassidim and their culture. If they are against Unchosen, it is NOT because they can’t stand chassidism being criticized.

>>The same thing is heard about books from Naomi Ragen, Tova Mirvis <<

FWIW, I don't think that either Tova Mirvis or Naomi Ragen are so off in their portrayal of the Charedi lifestyle. A lot of what they write is true, with some minor exaggerations. But Hella Winston's book was beyond that.

Bethany, I don’t see reasonable criticism of the book (or of any person, or any group) as a problem. Like I said, the review itself was critical, but IMHO, a fair-minded critique. But what’s being expressed here goes way beyond criticism. There’s a big difference between objective criticism and these kind of attacks.

> Hella is NOT knowledgable about chassidism.

I actually think she has a fairly good grasp of chassidish society and is, for the most part, aware where her knowledge falls short. Can you provide an example of something she wrote which demonstrates her lack of understanding of chassidim or their society?

Bethany: >Almost everyone here jumps at the slightest chance to criticize chassidim and their culture.

LOL. Which people? Some just see my name and already go apeshit.

I opened the book randomly and came upon this:
Getting an education and going to college might be perfectly all right for non-Jews, but for Hasidic people it is irrelevant, the women explain. They learn all they need to know within the community, which, by being good wives and mothers, they are helping to perpetuate. They are also doing this through their tremendous involvement in community charity. Some Hasidic women even work for pay, helping to support their families as teachers or administrators in the schools, or in other organizations or businesses that serve the community or are run by Hasidim. Further, because Hasidic women focus not on the theoretical aspects of Jewish law, but on its practical, everyday applications, most of them actually learn to speak and read better in English, and know more math, than the men.

It isn’t the condescension that I’m complaining about, although there is an ample amount of that. I’m talking about the exaggeration – or mishaps sincere misinformation. But I have reason to know that it isn’t the latter. See? I know quite a few of the people interviewed for her ‘better understanding’ of the community. Many didn’t warrant entire subjects, just anecdotal side stories within other chapters. No not just one, (at least 4 for sure) were intensely frustrated with the way she so obviously purposely misconstrued and misportrayed.

At her book signing in Brookly, as she was signing my book, I commented on her reading and anecdotally mentioned that although I frequent libraries, I just hadn’t attended a book signing before. Two weeks later she’s on Zev Brenner and talks about the book signing. She goes on to mention that ‘there was this woman from the community that told me that because of my book signing she stepped into a library for the first time.’ She was commenting on how proud she was of her ‘making a difference’.

No, nothing drastic. She just twisted the story to suit her needs.

I don’t begrudge her the success. I don’t object to much of the book. But I am intensely frustrated when I read the condescending and judgmental tone – and know unequivocally that she knows that it isn’t so.

…she had started getting a little more daring with her clothes in the neighborhood. She bought a few skirts that were a little shorter than “regulation,” with a bit of a flounce, and also began wearing a thinner grade of stocking. Sometimes, even in Williamsburg, she dared to wear high-heeled shoes and boots.

She’s kidding me. Right? Has she walked the streets of Willi? Has she??

Bethany — What makes you insist she’s NOT knowledgeable? I happen to think otherwise. Can you cite something she said or wrote that you found to be a blatant error?

In her book? No. Her book is accurate. It’s easy to draw inaccurate conclusions because she relates the experiences of a tiny minority, but that’s not Hella’s fault or problem.

However, regarding chassidism itself, even if she got to know chassidim during the course of her research for the book, I do not consider that adequate credentials for setting herself up as an expert on the chassidic community in a child molestation case. Unfortunately, I don’t have a copy nor know how to access the clip, but I do seem to recall that there was something off in her comments. If you know how to get the clip, would you email it to me so that I can comment more intelligently?

” Two weeks later she’s on Zev Brenner and talks about the book signing. She goes on to mention that ‘there was this woman from the community that told me that because of my book signing she stepped into a library for the first time.’ ‘

Tzippy,
Who says she was referring to you when she said that? Maybe she was talking about me?

Bethany, just curious;
Who would you consider an expert?

HT, I didn’t see many Chasidic women in the room, and I also didn’t see any go over to have their book signed. So it wasn’t presumptuousness on my part when I broached the subject with her in one of our conversations.

And she confirmed that she had meant me, and ‘stood corrected’.

Hedyot,

This womans “inside knowledge” of Chassidim comes from OTD’s, each with their own personal axe to grind against the society they come from. Surely her axe is going to be ground just like theirs. I don’t think one needs to be a rocket scientist to work that one out!

HR:

It’s nothing to do with the image thing.

Sure, one can criticize Chassdim for so very much.

But you can also criticize just about each and every group under the planet for the things they have wrong with their society. Utopia just doesn’t exist in reality.

It’s oh so very easy spend one’s life bashing others. But it’s a bottomless pit of frustration and annoyance.

It’s so very much harder to see the good in others. But boy, does it make you happy!

The trick of life is to focus on the good, to smile and change that which we can and to ignore the things we can do nothing about.

That’s why I am disappointed to read blogs like this one. They are pointless rants.

Each and every one of us are amazing people! Let’s keep smiling!

> This womans “inside knowledge” of Chassidim comes from OTD’s…

Actually, that’s not entirely true. She also speaks to people who are still frum, as people here have already pointed out.

> Sometimes, even in Williamsburg, she dared to wear high-heeled shoes and boots.

Tzippi, I really don’t see how this proves anything. She’s describing the perspective of her character. For her, this may well have been a very daring thing to do.

> …most of them actually learn to speak and read better in English, and know more math, than the men.

What is inaccurate or objectionable about this?

Frummer — That’s a nice sentiment. But we don’t point out the ills in Chasidic society more than, say, the New York Times does about the world at large. Any newspaper you open will have a degree of criticism of society; I don’t think that’s reason not to read newspapers. And it’s unfair to say we focus on the ills of Chasidic society, because that’s certainly not our mission. We focus on whatever is of interest to our “Chasidim on the Fringe” readership. It may include amusing anecdotes, poignant personal narratives, critiquing both the frum or non-frum worlds, and more. It’s unfortunate that you see this site as filled with mere “pointless rants.” But despite it all, I notice you still come back for more.

More to the point, Hella isn’t necessarily pointing out society’s ills in the book. She’s telling the stories of those who’ve decided to break away from a society from which it is notoriously difficult to do so; some of the stories might be tragic and troubling (Yossi); others are inspiring and life-affirming (Yehoshua Fine and Malkie Schwartz). But all the stories highlight tormenting personal choices that individuals have made in the interest of bettering their lives. That is an endeavor that seems “negative” only to those who see it so subjectively. But Hella, in her book, does not engage in bashing (or even anything more than mildly criticizing) the Chasidic community. To vilify her for her choice to tell the story of the disenfranchised is curious indeed.

Oh, and Frummer, in case you think we’re low on “positive” posts, we hereby extend a very eager invitation for you to write one. Seriously. We do want posts written from all perspectives.

And it’s unfair to say we focus on the ills of Chasidic society, because that’s certainly not our mission.

I disagree. It may not be your mission, but Frummer’s assessment pretty much sums up the posts on this site. An establishment’s mission and its reality are not always synonymous. (Of course, reality evolves. Perhaps now that you’ve clarified your mission, more objective essays will come your way.)

Bethany, you too are invited. But then, I think you already have a standing invitation.

Also, Bethany, while there may be some merit to what you say, I do think it’s the comments section more than the posts themselves. This site is as much a platform for discussion as it is for posting pieces by “authors.” And as such, it’s a bit of a free-for-all. Can’t really be helped.

Sometimes, even in Williamsburg, she dared to wear high-heeled shoes and boots.
Tzippi, I really don’t see how this proves anything. She’s describing the perspective of her character. For her, this may well have been a very daring thing to do.

She writes about how her character “dared” to wear the very things many Williamsburg women wear daily. And she goes on to say that others looked at her disdainfully, and some were even vocal in their opposition.

Indeed this is but one woman’s perspective. Could this have happened to her? Of course. Anything could happen anywhere, particularly since it is not so much of an occurrence as a perception. Does it happen often? And more than that – is it indicative of a suppressed community? No, and not at all!

Of course we can say that Hella was just telling some peoples’ stories. That would be fine. But not only do these anecdotes reflect on the entire community – but that is what Ms. Winston’ intended it to! She claims to have done a sociological study, and only told it in narrative form to make it a more pleasant and easier read. But overall, these little anecdotes are supposed to give the big picture. They are actually supposed to reflect on us all.

Which makes the fact that it is inaccurate and offensive that much more of an issue.

…most of them actually learn to speak and read better in English, and know more math, than the men.
What is inaccurate or objectionable about this?

Technically, nothing. In these parts women do indeed get a better secular education than their male counterparts. But that isn’t what she is saying.

While being ever so subtle, she still manages to be most condescending. If her writing deserves to be complimented, it is for this: Her adeptness at being able to finesse the paragraph so that the sugar coated insult is met with discomfiture, yet followed with a polite ‘Thanks’. After all, women of the Hasidic world be flattered! Hella Winston just told the world that even in this little hick town most! of these women actually! learn to speak and read better! in English than the men.

Forget about writing or even being fluent in this very odd language, but get this! Most actually are better than the men. That’s so grand! Let’s smile like buffoons, puff out our chests and be all thrilled with the great compliment she tossed our way.

What’s with the ‘awaiting moderation’ deal? I’ve gotten it twice – and I can’t fathom what it is that might be construed as offensive.

Tzipi,
I believe the computer bot detects and flags comments it detects as possible spam. What you did to offend its sensibilities only you know.

As far as your argument, I often wonder if you’re trying hard to come across as a nitpicking, ignorant, easily-offended representative of the community you claim to love. You’re on the verge of succeeding – had I not known you to be better than that. You made an argument that didn’t make sense, and then used a lot of “bold” fonts to reiterate the sublime message YOU found in it. You may want to look into the Bible Codes to find your calling.

If I sound harsh, Tzipi, please forgive me. It’s an expression of disappointment in your ability to read a sentence for what it’s worth.

WTF?

This is a great site. Sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but always fascinating. The chutzpa from Frummer and Bethany is alarming: not only do they hang out on this blog, they’re INVITED to post, and they’re treated with respect, yet they bitch and moan that it’s not optimistic enough towards their cult. How many frum webites can they name that are “optimistic” from an OTD point of view and are quick to see the “good” in people from other religions and all? None. Each website caters to their niche audience, and there’s no reason they should have to please everybody. If the frummers aren’t tzufreeden with YWN, maybe it’s time to ask themselves why.

Tzipi, I was gearing for a good fight. Ayekoo?

I wanted to hold back for awhile to see how the comments would play out.

It seems like many detractors are uncomfortable with the possibly-negative portrayal of Chasidim through this book. Honestly, I can say from a goyishe position that a good number of goyim would be likely to say, “Why would anyone stay in that environment? No wonder they wanted to leave.” (They might venture to use the word “cult” in reference to Chasidism.) They’d probably think that the questioning ones were the sane few.

All the characters, in my opinion, were presented as noble, intelligent individuals. The only character I think looked bad was Yossi, but I can’t imagine a reader with a lick of sense thinking his problems were CAUSED by his identity crisis. (Though, certainly they weren’t helped by it.) Yossi would have looked bad no matter what; that wasn’t a matter of selective reporting. I was actually impressed with Winston’s sensitivity; she made me want to convene a group of these OTD types for a dinner party so I could chat with them.

Maybe I’ll hand off the book to my mom (back in ‘Bama) and see what she thinks about the portrayal of the characters. For now, I think some of the commentors are just too sensitive. Would there be any book exclusively about OTDs that they’d be okay with? I doubt it.

Shtreimel, I was on my way Upstate and composed what I’d like to think was the perfect response. Unfortunately my Instinct isn’t all it is cooked up to be, and the comment never posted. Frustrating as hell, but I’ll try again. I’m not really up for a ‘good fight’, mostly cuz of the hour – but also because I’m not in the mood. But here goes anyway…

Your claim was that I was nitpicking – and I don’t think so.

It was a random paragraph, on a random page and it effortlessly offended me, much in the same way that random verses from certain poets so easily make my heart stop, and just about any chapter in any of Potok’s books will break my heart.

It is a talent no doubt. And Hella’s got it. To pretend to so factually tell a story, and yet with such subtlety and grace manage to just barely camouflage the blatant condescension. I should commend her for it, if wouldn’t bother as much. I’m not alone in noticing it. Obviously Sara Nordmann did too, and said as much. The Chasidim come across as the insane ones, as members of a cult, and from where anyone who has an iota of sense will flee from.

Because I know of many of things she saw and people she met – and I’ve seen what she has ignored and what she has chosen to incorporate in her story – in the way she spun it, I’ll repeat my initial assessment: It’s a hateful piece of work.

Tzippi, like you did with Unchosen, I’ll pick a random comment of yours on which to comment on.

>She writes about how her character “dared” to wear the very things many Williamsburg women wear daily. And she goes on to say that others looked at her disdainfully, and some were even vocal in their opposition.

I can identify easily with the subject and I’m just using a fictitious example about a stupid hat. The fact that some in my community would go to shul without a hat on Shabbos, doesn’t mean that I could get away with it without it being commented upon and being subject to scrutiny. Maybe it’s even just my imagination that I’d get flack, but the fact that I’ve been conditioned to THINK that everyone’s watching my every move is the reality of living in the ghettos we do.

If these are your random examples of your objections to Hella’s works, you’ve got a lot of explaining to do about your real onjections to the book.

Am I the only one surprised that Ms. Winston herself is not commenting?

but the fact that I’ve been conditioned to THINK that everyone’s watching my every move is the reality of living in the ghettos we do.

Uhhh, no. Actually, the fact that you’ve been conditioned to think that everyone’s watching your every move – is a reality created by the home you grew up in.

Your perception of self, and your obsession with outsiders’ perceptions of you – entirely depend on the way you were raised. Parents can ingrain this self-consciousness in kids at a very early age. Similarly, parents can teach kids early on not to care.

Besides which – for those who are concerned with what others think – it does not matter where the community may be, or what they may hold dear. Every community has its standards, and deviating might be uncomfortable for those that were raised to believe that others actually care.

Social pressure is a reality in every community, regardless of religion, race, or even sexual orientation.

Actually, the fact that you’ve been conditioned to think that everyone’s watching your every move – is a reality created by the home you grew up in.

Not really. Hasidic communities are very much like Foucault’s Panopticon. (Sorry, I don’t mean to sound pretentious by using Foucaltian language, but this is the most apt description.) Of course you can get away with plenty if you’re clever enough, but generally, people are watched. That’s not always a bad thing, of course. In a vast lonely world, it’s sometimes nice to feel people care whether you live or die.

Bethany, I heartily disagree. To beleive that your behavior needs to be on guard, in order to please those that watch, you’d need to have been told at one point that those who watch care about your behavior. Or even more, someone at some point needs to have convinced you that there is someone watching in the first place.

So much for Foucault’s Panopticon.

Regarding communities who care whether you live or die – every ‘community’ is like that. I repeat: be they religious, blue-bloods, or the very ‘liberal’ environmentally conscious, or even a solidly gay community. Close knit communities have standards and mores. Violating them might get idle tongues wagging. And only if one cares about what idle tongues do, only then does it become a concern.

The question in this particular argument was whether with her high-heels, short ‘flouncy’ skirt, and sox, she even came close to violating any social standards. I don’t think she was. Which makes it unlikely that she was sufficient fodder for gossipers in the first place.

True, high heels and flouncy skirt don’t violate social standards, but my comment was addressed to a different statement you made. The Hasidic community is, indeed, a Panopticon, regardless of which home you grew up in.

Bethany, you can either make the argument that ‘every’ community is a panopticon. Or you can argue that only those who’ve conditioned their minds so, end up living in a panopticon.

There is nothing special about the Hasidic community in that regard.

“The question in this particular argument was whether with her high-heels, short ‘flouncy’ skirt, and sox, she even came close to violating any social standards. I don’t think she was. ”

She very well might have been. We don’t know the type of family this particular woman comes from. But suppose she wears a shpizel, picture her walking down the street in sexy shoes and a flounct skirt…

As for the social pressure to conform, of course its part of the human existence. But as with almost everything else, it’s a matter of degree.
Most people don’t have to agonize over the length of their shaitel band or their earrings, the way many of us do.

I have been watching from the sidelines quietly, and I have to disagree with Tzippi on this last point.
I try to instill in my kids not to care what others think, but to my consternation, it is something that is picked up “from the street”. Will my son wear sandals this summer (it’s good for his feet)? He will see first what others do. He can’t wear the sneakers he got, because it has a hint of orange, and others might say it’s “moderin”. And so on….
You can argue that it has nothing to do with religion per se, but I think that it’s pretty clear that the guise of of frumkeit can definitely multiplies the effect.
An outsider of the community will have a hard time understanding it unless he reads books such as those by Nathaniel Hawthorne. When reading The Scarlet Letter, I almost thought it was written about contemporary Williamsburg!

I happen to agree with Tzippy. I to believe that Helle’s depiction of our lifestyle is condescending.

But of course it is. The reality is that our lifestyle IS condescending.

Tzippy, if you had to describe a woman who is two hundred pounds overweight, a cripple, and mentally unstable, could you do that without being offensive and “condescending”?

Hoezen, that is exactly Tzippi’s argument, that Helle views our life style as condescending. You seem to agree with Helle on that, but it still is only an opinion, not fact, and if the book is supposed to be an objective work, her opinion doesn’t matter, and should not be in the book. By letting her personal view that the frum lifestyle is a sick one seep into a supposedly nonbiased work, yes, that can be seen as hateful.
(I personally also feel that there are many aspects to the frum society that is the equivalent to the above mentioned woman who is two hundred pounds overweight, a cripple, and mentally unstable, but I am not convinced that the secular society is any healthier.)

” but I am not convinced that the secular society is any healthier”.

Kaf, there is no homogeneous secular society. There is no “us and them”, instead, there are many different thems.

I don’t think you understood my point. It is difficult to sugar cote something that is unappealing in the first place.
It’s the difference between calling someone a fat crazy cripple, versus calling her an overweight mentally and physically challenged woman.

Same difference.
The second description isn’t exactly wonderful either, because the reality isn’t too wonderful.

Btw, kaf, did you even read the book?

This little Mrs. Tzippi Obnoxious just won’t quit with her nonsense, My God!

Tell me sweety, in YOUR community, (and please don’t make me spell out your address here) Can you step out with white shoes shabbos?

Can you dress in a red coat?

Can you drive? ( I read your lie about the supposed reason you don’t drive, but I tried to restrain myself)

Can you go to the grocery with a snood? (if you grow hair under your sheitel)

Can you do the grocery shopping in your summer colony dressed in your swimming robe?

Can you go out with sunglasses?( I know there are about 4 woman who do, and they are frowned upon.)

Can you put on a pony sheitel?

Can you wear a denim skirt?

Can you walk to your parents shabbos in a long robe?

Does your husband go with crocks to shul?

Can your husband stroll down the neighborhood on a blazing hot shabbos afternoon without a bekiche?

Silly Girl.

Hoezen, I did not read the book yet, I reserved it at the library and I’ll be reading it this week, if I can find time.
My post was based on what you agreed with Tzippi that it was condescending.

“Kaf, there is no homogeneous secular society. There is no “us and them”, instead, there are many different thems.”
I misspoke. What I meant was that I haven’t found yet a society that is healthy enough to raise my kids there, for example. I do not want to raise them without any community either, so the frum one is maybe as good as any, even though there are definitely many issues I would love to change.

“I don’t think you understood my point. It is difficult to sugar cote something that is unappealing in the first place.”
When you have something that many thousands find appealing, how can you say that it’s a fact that it is unappealing? That is opinion, not fact. This isn’t an issue of math or science that you can say that those thousands are definitely mistaken. And as it happens, a large percentage of the people living in the community find it appealing and love it, whatever the reason may be, so how can you be so certain that it is “unappealing in the first place”?

HT – As Kaf said, it is a community that she ‘perceived’ as overweight and crippled. Her perceptions have no place in a supposedly unbiased sociological study.

As discussed more times than we can ever count, regardless of community, regardless of lifestyle, everyone has their failings. The study of sociology is the study of the social behavior of a group. It is the analysis of societies’ development. It has no room for condescension, however much one may dislike one’s subject matter.

Society’s elites may be perceived by some as pompous asses, and may be ridiculed for their shallowness, but no fair sociologist will describe them as such. Intellectuals will most certainly be scoffed at by the fashion community, and while their lack of concern for matters of high couture might make it into a sociological description of the groups ‘focus, no fair sociologist would let it color her opinion of what makes the group tick.
Let alone the fact that our community is on no level an obese, and mentally unstable being. I see them as a refined and polite, sweetly sensual woman of valour – with beauty, dignity and grace. A warm, maternal image with a welcoming embrace. Charming wit, a razor sharp intellect, and infinite charm. I also see the occasional bout of acne.

But she’s my perception, my opinion – and I’m entitled to her. I’m not the one claiming to be a sociologist.

I would like to add, that in the study of sociology, it is continuously stressed not to judge any other societies, because whatever your opinions might be, it is just based upon your own background, and sociology is supposed to be studying other cultures on their own, NOT based upon the views that you have from your own background and culture.
Is Helle a sociologist?

Kaf,
Read the book. Many questioned may be answered that way. And if you can read it in an unbiased way you may end up agreeing with the author, or not – without questioning her integrity or motive.

What I meant was that I haven’t found yet a society that is healthy enough to raise my kids there. I do not want to raise them without community either

Kaf, I don’t know about you, but I am the * kid* .
Why judge a lifestyle based on how healthy it is or isn’t, to be raised in ? Question should be, do you want to live that lifestyle for the rest of your life, *after* you have been raised?

”When you have something that many thousands find appealing, how can you say that it’s a fact that it is unappealing? That is opinion, not fact. This isn’t an issue of math or science that you can say that those thousands are definitely mistaken.

Kaf,
I was referring to specifics. Tzippy mentioned specific sentences in the book that she found condescending.
As for opinion versus fact, can I say that having cancer is a bad thing? That being homeless sucks? That the smell of urine is not appetizing? That acne is not beautiful??

Can I say that yeshivas hardly teach english and secular subjects, and that the women in chasidishe society actually do know more than the men?
Can I say that many feel that their fashion options are very limited? Can I say that so many woman I know are dying to dress very differently than they actually dare?
If I say that, will it sound condescending?

Hoezen;
Why judge a lifestyle based on how healthy it is or isn’t, to be raised in ? Question should be, do you want to live that lifestyle for the rest of your life, *after* you have been raised?

I just brought that as an example, or as a measure of the “health” of a society, but you’re right.

“As for opinion versus fact, can I say that having cancer is a bad thing? That being homeless sucks? That the smell of urine is not appetizing? That acne is not beautiful??”

NO!Absolutely not as a sociologist!

Shtreimel, I will “iy”h” read the book, and I will try to have an open mind.

“As for opinion versus fact, can I say that having cancer is a bad thing? That being homeless sucks? That the smell of urine is not appetizing? That acne is not beautiful??”

I take that back.

If I told you my friend has cancer and is homeless, would you feel I was being judgmental by trying to portray her as being in dire shape? Could I tell you about my friend without you pitying her?

Do you get my point?
Certain facts will sound condescending to the reader, not so much for the way its portrayed, but much more for the fact that it *is*.

You describe it as a woman who is two hundred pounds overweight, a cripple, and mentally unstable, but I just can’t see it.

I see a practically non-existent issue of teens with STDs, and of babies born to unwed mothers. The drug problem, while on the rise, is still blessedly exponentially lower than the rest of the population, and our streets are amongst the safest in the country –due to no crimes and practically no acts of random vandalism.

But most of all, I see chesed in the millions of dollars – that comes from the generous and successful businessmen from within the community (despite no advanced education!). We’re a community where no one goes unfed – whether it is exhaustion or lack of money that kept the food from the family’s table. Where the sick get top medical advice and care – even with no expensive medical insurance. There’s quick emergency medical response, the burden of doctor appointments is mitigated by free ‘chesed’ transportation, there are groups of entertainers who visit the bedridden and infirm, and if someone requires an overnight hospital stay – rest assured there are many who will gallantly spent the night so that the parents of the child, or the children of the parent can have a little respite.

With just one phone call you’re never alone. Or out of gas. Or locked out. And no flat tire can leave you stranded. There are gemachim for maternity clothing, baby necessities, furniture, car seats, simcha ‘necessities’, kallah gowns, clothing for the family, and for every facet of living.

There are organizations that help those in crises- where people can even call anonymously and get assistance in any which area. Be it marital, concern regarding childrearing, medical, homemaking, financial, sexual abuse, depression – and the list goes on.

These are programs run by people who instead of wasting their day online bemoaning how fat and ugly our community has become, have each decided to step up and make this a more beautiful place. And they have.

Hoezen, I get your point. As I said, I haven’t read the book yet, so I have no opinion on that.
But these two sentences from the book that Tzippi quoted, would seem slanted.

Some Hasidic women even work for pay,
and
most of them actually learn to speak and read better in English

DO only “some” hassidic women work for pay? That sounds like she is trying to portray Hassidic women as being dumbed down, and when a hassidic woman “EVEN works for pay”, that is considered to be a “major accomplishment”, and she is considered to be “out in the world”. If that is what she is trying to show, it is BS.
How about, they “actually” learn to speak better in english. Actually? Wow! They actually learn to speak English? I am amazed! I didn’t know they are smart enough and “allowed” to learn English! Get it?

Tzippi, yes, there is a lot of good in the community, but there is definitely still a lot to work on. By ignoring those aspects, and exaggerating the good, you are weakening your argument.

Tzippy, I’m sorry, but you absolutely did not get my point.
(In much the same way many daft readers did not get your point with “faking it oh god”)
You used it as a spring board to portray the community in the wonderful way which you did.
I will be generous, and let you get away with it.

For the futures, please understand that analogies are not meant to be taken seriously.

HT – you stated some facts and some personal perceptions and you ask If I say that, will it sound condescending?

Actually? No. Facts in and of themselves aren’t condescending. That would depend on how you phrase it. She didn’t come out and focus on the negative – that would be too easy. And too easily condemned. Instead she pretended to focus on the entire lifestyle, but managed to – even in the areas where there was no negativity to be found! – she still managed a condescending tone.

As I’ve said before – not because our community is fat and ugly. But because she put the few acne blemishes under the microscope, enlarged it to 2000x its regular size, and saw that as the ‘Big’ picture.

Do some hassidic women work for pay? That sounds like she is trying to portray Hassidic women as being dumbed down.

Which they absolutly are in comparision to your typical college educated American.

What should she have said?
Most women work? Many do? Or is it a few?

She said some Hasidic women ‘even’ work for pay.

Are you really that daft as to not see the condescension??! Without the ‘even’ the point would have still been made, and perhaps more accurately. She inserted her own views with those few words throughout the book. All we’re arguing is that it isn’t sociology. It’s a skewed view from but one outsider.

So long as it is accepted as such, I’ve got no issues with it.

Kaf – to focus on the positive isn’t to ignore the negative – just merely pointing out that the beauty exists.

HT – The ‘analogy’ was calling a complex system ‘ugly’. I looked at that complicated ‘ugly’ entity and saw much beauty.

As for your list of community supports and accomplishments, let me say this.

Allow me the opportunity to send my children to medical and law school.

Make it acceptable and the norm for me to have four to six children instead of eight to twelve.

Teach your students to have the critical thinking skills so that they DON’T have to call a hot line when in need of marital, medical, psychiatric help (these hot lines do way more harm than good).

And then you can keep most of your Tzeddoke organizations.

Don’t deny me the skills to help myself. That is *real tzeddoke*. Putting a band aid on a self-inflicted wound, isn’t.

Hoezen, many many women work. In many chassidishe communities I would venture to say that the percentage of women working isn’t any less the the average picket fence american family.

Kaf, I wasn’t referring to lakewood. Your average chasidishe viebel age 23 to 45 doesn’t work. Reason they don’t is simple. You have to make enough money after paying a babysitter.
I don’t know the numbers, and I doubt anyone does. I would venture to say that perhaps fifteen- twenty five percent of chasidishe women work.
If we exclude the teachers, the numbers are much smaller.

Hoezen, I LOVED your last post! You are soooo right with that! And I feel the same way.
But, (Doesn’t there always have to be a but?) not everyone would be better off your way. The people that can’t take care of themselves would be worse off. Capitalism vs. socialism. But then again, who says we can’t have both? People going to school, and chesed organizations for whoever can’t. But we’re getting sidetracked.

HT – I’m surprised that you are that unfamiliar, but look around and you’ll find that you’re allowed to make the choice of going to medical school. Of those that have chosen those professions, and there are quite a few who have – and have not heard a peep from the community regarding their choices.

Sure, some gossipers ridicule, others commend. But the options exist. And I’m glad of it.

Similarly, I’ve heard no objections to those who choose to have between 4 and 6 kids. None. (And of those in my immediate circle, I don’t know any who plan to have more.)

And then there’s this fascinating thing on the rise in greater America. Despite ‘critical thinking skills’ being taught to all middleschoolers, the psychiatrist’s couch still sees more people than ever. More harm than good? Possibly. But advice and assistance aren’t an inherent evil. Quite the opposite.

True, I too opt for a more advanced education, but regardless of the many improvements I wish to see in this community, I wouldn’t for one moment choose to see even one of these helpful organizations close their doors.

Hoezen, I LOVED your last post! You are soooo right with that! And I feel the same way.
But, (Doesn’t there always have to be a but?) not everyone would be better off your way. The people that can’t take care of themselves would be worse off. Capitalism vs. socialism. But then again, who says we can’t have both? People going to school, and chesed organizations for whoever can’t. But we’re getting sidetracked.
Re the other comment, why exclude the teachers?

I have 2 comments awaiting moderation…I tried to repost, but no success. My point is that Hoezen is right, teach me to fish, so you won’t need to give me a fish. But we’re getting sidetracked.

Re the other comment, why exclude the teachers?

Include the teachers or choose to ignore them – but since when did being a working mom become a lofty goal? Are we back in the 70s fighting for women’s liberation? Women are allowed to work. Currently the ‘in’ thing is to be a SAHM – (the oh so cool acronym for the Stay At Home Mom).

How’s this conversation even relevant? Women can and may and some do work. Others don’t. Big whoop!

Again Tzippy, you are taking my comment and tweaking and spinning it to make your own point.
We were not discussing the value of staying home or going to work.

Kaf, your right, I shouldn’t have excluded the teachers. Then again, Kolel yingerliet get paid as well JK

But really, why would you even think of excluding the teachers?

Kaf, as per HT, teaching is obviously not a respectable enough position.

HT – we were not discussing the value of being a working mom. Indeed not. But we were discussing whether or nor Hella Winston’s tone was derogatory when she listed how few work.

Her tone was. It indicated that it was an odd phenomenon. And yet you went on to point out that she might be right. That indeed there aren’t ‘enough’ working moms. You went on to point out the low percentages, and the lack of respectable positions held.

I don’t get how that is relevant to the argument.

The points that are irrefutable are:
Hasidic women can and do work. It isn’t an anomoly and it isn’t expected of them either. One could argue that from a sociological perspective it isn’t even relevant at all.

Little Mrs. Tzippi, I s it true what Insider ie saying? They really don’t allow women in bikinies in the local Supermarket? Also no Crocks, what a shame! ! can not imagine how you get by the day. I feel soooooo sorry for you and all the Men and women in your Commnnuity.

yippy –
He asked about robes, not bikinis.

People here seem not to be able to differentiate between something that is really frowned upon because it goes against our belief system, (whether you agree with that system or not is not the issue, every community has its own value system, and is rightly entitled to it), and things which are just self imposed stupidities, such as men not wearing crocks to a wedding (I exaggerate, but I hope you get the point). Nobody is looked down upon for violating the latter, they are just looked at funny, but if you violate the former, why should you not be looked down upon, aren’t they entitled to their own belief’s? And they believe it’s wrong! what’s wrong with that? If you don’t like it, move out! And if they will call you an OTD, well, isn’t that what they believe? Why can’t they believe a certain way? No, they do not accept the view that as long as you don’t bother anyone else, you’re good. They believe tht if you flick a switch on shabbos, you are liable for the death penalty, and you will burn in hell, I don’t see anything wrong with such a belief system.
There are some other things, for example going to medical school, which a segment believes to be wrong, let’s say, because the goyishe atmosphere you’re going to be immersed in ; what’s wrong in believing that? Another segment wouldn’t look at it favorably, because they might believe that it would come at too great of cost, for example torah learning or raising a family. Now, whether you agree or not, why aren’t they entitled to feel that way?

oh shuts… He did say robes, but what the heck lets be critical of the commnnunity for not allowing bikinis. We might as well, after all the rest of the world dosnt have a problem with it.

Darn this Pesach cleaning. Apparently I missed another of Insider’s gems before it was removed.

Pity.

Tzippi, it wasn’t removed, it’s still there, way up there. I didn’t either see it until now. Looks like the “waiting for moderation scheme” has something to it….

tzippi, it’s not removed, it took quite a while for the moderation process. It’s up there. But good that you preempted the “gem” strike, maybe it’ll make you feel better so you won’t have to run to bed and cry due to male dominance. Nebech. Shaifeleh.

Hey Insider, you think I’m worried about spelling out the community I’m from? Have I ever NOT mentioned it? I’m from Williamsburg. Satmar. I’m as ‘inside’ as they come. And on your pop quiz I scored a 8/11.

Not a perfect score. But since it was the dumbest and most irrelevant lil questionaire I came across in quite some time – I’ll take it.

Tzipp, I understand your anger sister, I understand your outburst, but you have to calm down and not show how wild you are, at least *act* cool and in control. No, 8/11 is a monster lie. The only thing you do is the sunglasses. Whom do you think you’re bluffing here??

Insider, 8 out of 11 is no lie. It is the absolute truth. And for the record, the question wasn’t so much of what I actually do – but what I can do.

(For example: I don’t wear white shoes on Shabbos this season – only because it isn’t fashionable. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the color of the shoes at all – seeing as I can wear it during the week.)

I find all of your comments comical, but none as much as when you suspect me of being angry. All day this was somewhat bordering on an intellectual debate. Thank you for turning it into silly comedy.

Insider,
Why can’t a community decide for themselves what they believe is right or wrong, without your approval? I am still waiting for a response on my earlier post regarding this.
Thank you.

Kaf, you’re asking for too much. Insider isn’t capable of responding to an actual intelligent question.

But he’s good at creating irrelevant quizzes. And making idiotic statements.

Let’s leave well-enough alone.

(I’m hoping that this comment goes thru. My previous one is still awaiting moderation.)

Insider and tzip, what am I missing? What kinda test are you taking/giving?

HT, all the way on the top of this page, Insider posed 11 queries. Whether one can wear sunglasses, a long robe, white shoes, a snood, and other such meaningless questions that have absolutely no bearing on the conversation we have been having.

Hoezen, it took me a second too.
I will repost it for the benefit of whoever missed it.

Can you step out with white shoes shabbos?

Can you dress in a red coat?

Can you drive? ( I read your lie about the supposed reason you don’t drive, but I tried to restrain myself)

Can you go to the grocery with a snood? (if you grow hair under your sheitel)

Can you do the grocery shopping in your summer colony dressed in your swimming robe?

Can you go out with sunglasses?( I know there are about 4 woman who do, and they are frowned upon.)

Can you put on a pony sheitel?

Can you wear a denim skirt?

Can you walk to your parents shabbos in a long robe?

Does your husband go with crocks to shul?

Can your husband stroll down the neighborhood on a blazing hot shabbos afternoon without a bekiche?

Silly Girl.

Two comments awaiting moderation this time.

What could these auto-censors possibly have found offensive in such mild comments?

kaff, I didn’t see your comment but hey, I’m sure it’s real seep man! I mean tzippi herself says that I’m not intelligent enough for such amazing depths, the queen of stupidity and obnoxiousness herself!

Now to your point, of course a community can decide! And that’s exactly my point. Mrs. Hypocrite asserted that she was brought up in a enviroment of not minding what other people think or have to say, so I asked her, well, is this true? Can you do the following things? And of course she had to lie, I mean, according to her, a satmer woman in willy can drive!! Go figure, what a basket case.

I took his poll, and me and my wife would get an 8. I am as “inside” as they come.
The one with the white shoes I don’t understand.
The red coat is in Shulchan Aruch, so my wife wouldn’t do it.
And she wouldn’t wear a denim skirt.
That’s all. And I think we are considered very ehrlich and tzniusdik.