What an amazing start to my week. This was moving and thought provoking as my own congregation wrestles with how to take action.
For me though, the reminder that we our Holy, all of us, because God is Holy really struck me. That should be the guiding principle of leadership. A ‘we’ that includes the whole of that whom God has made Holy, ie all of us.
If that principle of leadership guides us, if community guides us, we will still make mistakes but they are less likely to be ones of exclusion as hook’s notes. Exclusion that is something that has been baked into feminism from the beginning and, in my experience, the queer rights movement as well.
We can change if we remember that we are God’s Holy We.
Yasher Koach! Especially appropriate following Repro Shabbat and a most interesting discussion at my shul (we only discuss... no d'vars) when my husband had to raise the question of why all the seemingly biased questions were coming from males???? Our congregation, that trends older, was shocked when I stated that I will no longer use the word "choice" but only direct statements that contain the word abortion and full health care options, including abortion! We have a long way to go in dealing with our biases. Thank you again for this!
My personal experience administering public assistance benefits in the 1980s, brought the illusory nature of "choice" into sharp focus. I remember prioritizing the processing of applications for the limited program that covered abortion and necessary transport. I knew every day mattered and knew the applicants would need to travel, so I often had to call and make sure transportation providers knew the cost would be covered, so that the person would be let on a plane.
I agree that we have a long way to go - but universal health care (including abortion, contraception, etc.) is a worthy goal to fight for. Repro Shabbat and the other work of NCJW does give me hope, in a dark hour when Roe v Wade hangs in the balance.
"We must do work that is no less than to go back to the base of Sinai and re-receive Torah anew. This time with God’s intended meaning—in a way that sanctifies every single one of us. All of us together. The whole community.
We shall be holy, for God is holy."
This is a really powerful statement. Thank you for this, and for the resources at the bottom of the newsletter
Thank you Rabbi. I have been a seminary professor for years in the area of practical theology and clinical counseling. Also in Leadership. This was revelatory and encouraging. I am a recovering Evangelical--have jettisoned a lot of my tribe--but I am most certainly enjoying being a part of yours.
Even if God's intent in saying "make holy" _does_ have something to do with a state of taharah, and thereby requires abstaining from sex for the duration, Moshe's delivery of the instruction is still unmistakably directed to the men and ignores the women except as a means whereby men might fail at the requirement. And there's no kinder way to read that.
I have found Diane M. Sharon's observations on page 421 in "The Torah A Women's Commentary" provides a way to get some use out of Moses' odd troubling statement in Exodus 19:15.
The study guide for Parashat Yitro includes these questions:
"3. Read the Another View section by Diane M. Sharon (p. 421).
a. How does Moses seem to subvert God’s commands in 19:15?
b. What questions about authority and authenticity does Moses’ addition to
God’s commands raise?
c. According to Sharon, how does the ancient literary form of the Command/
Performance help us to understand the implications of Moses’ action?
d. How does Moses’ “audacious transformation” of God’s words give currency
to the tradition of interpretation of sacred texts in Judaism?
e. What does Sharon mean when she asserts that Exodus 19:9–15 subverts
omniscient authority and gives authority to the reader? What are the
potential implications of her analysis for how you read the Torah?
Rabbi Ruttenberg, I wanted to say that I really, really enjoy your posts. I have learned so much from you and usually lurk but I had to respond below. Please keep this up; your posts are very powerful.
<3 Please be encouraged and empowered to engage as you feel is appropriate. Your pushback was totally within bounds of reasonable discourse (and also on point!) Thank you for being here, and I'm honored that this resonates for you.
What if Moses told to stay away from woman was about to make society stay focus on Exodus from slavery because the serpent can make woman as an entry point of man weakness which is seduction similar to Eve deceived by the serpent to tempt Adam. When Noah was preparing the Noah's Ark & he didn't focus to build & prepare the Noah's Ark then he didn't survived on that big flood. Similar to Moses to take his people out of Egypt. It's not about gender equality but rather than to focus on God's command, if not then the Nehushtan will devour the people (Numbers 21:4-9).
Where are women and their agency, needs, and dignity in this analysis, Brian? Pretty absent. Women are more than a distraction. They have whole entire lives that merit consideration.
Late to the party, but, R Danya, this is superlative. I've been a clinic escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic and an indie in our town for 31 years, and I am convinced that the language of "choice" was a dreadful tactical error for abortion rights and access. We fought for those rights even as we allowed our guilt and shame to dictate the words we used. And we are paying for that now. Abortion will not disappear in this country, but it's going to be a pretty rough stretch for providers and people who need abortions but don't have a lot of extra resources. I hope everyone who still uses the language of "choice" abandons it and declared themselves to be proudly pro-abortion, on demand, without restrictions, and accessible and affordable for all.
Now I have a different language question. In the verse from Shemot you cited, the Hebrew for people is הָעָ֔ם. Is that a male or female word? If it's male, are the rabbis of the Talmud using its gendered nature to justify excluding women from the covenant? Is it ever used in a clearly universal context?
Oh, עם as people is (as a concept) gender-inclusive, generally, should include everybody. I've never seen an argument about the gender of the word being used to exclude women from the covenant--which isn't to say there isn't one on the books, I've just never come across it. As for your other point--hard agree, and just wait for next week's post.
Rowena, please be mindful that this is both fundamentally Jewish space, and also interfaith space. So even if it weren't fundamentally Jewish space, it would be interfaith space. Comments like this are not really appropriate here. You can talk about what you believe, how you connect to your own tradition or faith or spiritual practice, but objective statements such as this don't quite fit the welcoming vibe I'm going for here, OK? Thanks for understanding.
I'm more than willing to go along with my leader (Rabbi Ruttenberg) in thinking that God didn't say "Don't go near a woman", but I don't feel comfortable putting it all on Moshe either. Even if I agree with my leader's (Rabbi Ruttenberg) bias, the Written Torah depends upon Moshe being at least a reasonably reliable narrator. We do need to stand again at Sinai (per Judith Plaskow) and catch the parts that have been missed so far, by Moshe and all of us who were there (women included).
(feel free to comment on my post below and my Jan 24 question directed to RABBI RUTTENBERG. I am around as subtle as the Israelites on their way to Sinai.)
“Do you think that the covenant between God and the Jewish people might be an unhelpful model for relationships between people?” (Covenantal Relationships Jan 24 – see full question/comment)
An awkward observation. Am I being harder on Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s Substack post today because she is a woman?
Judith Plaskow, Betty Friedan, bell hooks, Tarana Burke and the unnamed women (go-girl, Lean In, individualistic, capitalist, the abortion justice movement, etc.) have their achievements discounted by different people more easily because they are women.
I’ll admit that it is disturbing that Rabbi Ruttenberg seems to go there with some of the women mentioned in “When Leaders’ Biases Do Great Harm”.
I’ll give Betty Friedan, the benefit of the doubt, even if she was writing for wealthy whites. Working for social justice even for those with privilege did not occur in a vacuum. The struggle against racism and sexism has a lot of overlap.
I just finished reading Judith Plaskow’s “Standing Again At Sinai” (1990) and I am certain that its influence on Judaism was very helpful in my decision to join the Jewish people. Judith Plaskow noted things regarding race that Betty Friedan hadn’t dealt with twenty seven years prior.
Appreciating Patricia Hill Collins (“Black Feminist Thought” (2002) which I am still reading) and the Black feminist thinkers “Angela Davis, bell hooks, Alice Walker, and Audre Lorde” doesn’t require diminishing non-BIPOC women. The powerful richness of Black feminist thought speaks for itself.
Side note: For whatever reason, it took listening to Sarah Hurwitz’s “Here All Along” (audiobook) to realize that Rabbi Ruttenberg’s given name is Danya, not Dayna. I think I would have noticed by now.
Hi, Jeff-- The analogy made in this post was Moses' misogyny and the racism and sometimes classism of white feminist leaders. Conscious or unconscious, deliberate or not. The problem was not that Betty Friedan's achievements were discounted because she was a woman. The problem was that she discounted the labor and experience of BIPOC and poor white women. Plaskow is indeed one of the greats. She too has had her learning curves. (http://shma.com/remapping-the-road-from-sinai/) . As to your other question, Jeff, I'm sorry, I just don't always have the capacity (either time or the mental/emotional capacity) to write a whole involved essay in response to someone's question, and that's not the kind of question to which I can respond in an off the cuff way. I'm happy to engage when I'm able, but I'm not always able. And as you know, we have our regular Ask the Rabbi sessions that are dedicated to these conversations--when I make the time to be able to engage more deeply.
As a point of clarification. My adult non-binary child was the person who told me how she followed you on Twitter and let me about "Life is a Sacred Text" because they realized I would be interested. I'm not looking for ally cookies. Just figured this would give a little more context to what I try to say.
There is no difficulty making a case for "Moses' misogyny and the racism and sometimes classism of white feminist leaders. Conscious or unconscious, deliberate or not." Indeed, Leader's Biases Do Great Harm sometimes. My clumsy attempts at articulating why I think leaders in the final analysis are not the problem have added more heat than light. To remove the scourge of systemic racism, it will take a lot more than a leadership change.
Rabbi Ruttenberg: Please excuse the repost from Jan 24. I don't expect answers from you on every question/comment I post. I think that you succeeded in making me feel a little too comfortable here in the Life is a Sacred Text space. At one point in the past, you indicated that people in the community didn't seem to be directing questions to you. I imagine that the avalanche of questions during Ask The Rabbi and Ask The Rabbi And Each Other took care of that.
:) I'm delighted for questions, but am truly not able to give all of them the due that they truly deserve. When I catch something that I can answer with the time I have (which could be not much time or a bit of time, depending on the day) I'm happy to, but part of why it's important to me for us to have the dedicated space is that I know I'll be setting aside time to focus there and be intentional about not missing things, and on weeks like this (whew, it's a week) when I can't go into deep philosophical stuff, I can know there will be other times when I can.
First time commenter! I am a Christian Black woman who welcomes perspectives that influence my own. I look forward to and immensely enjoy Rabbi Ruttenberg's excavation pieces on the old testament as they have influenced my understanding of the bible and even my Christian faith.
Jeff, I have to push back on your comment. Why are you giving Betty Friedan the benefit of the doubt? I frequently see White men (don't know if you are) excuse White women for being complicit with White supremacy. The history of this country is replete with examples of White women who are complicit with White supremacy and racism even to their own detriment. We can examine how the majority of White women consistently vote Republican (going back to the 1970s) despite the fact that many of the Republican party's policies are harmful to their demographic. That being said, why are you willing to give Betty Friedan the benefit of the doubt?
Keep reading bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins. I would add in Kimberle Crenshaw, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Toni Cade Bambara, Sojourner Truth, and Ida B Wells to name a few.
Hi, Eleanor Seaton, - I am very happy for the pushback.
My comment giving Betty Friedan the "benefit of the doubt" was meant as an acknowledgement of her role in helping to found the National Organization for Women and NARAL. My concern is that all women are judged by a harsher standard than men.
I was also thinking in terms of the world I knew in 1963.
I have to especially thank you for mentioning Toni Cade Bambara as it was a name I was not aware of, and whose works I plan to look into after a quick Google search put the name in context.
I don't excuse anyone for being complicit with white supremacy. I am a white male, former Christian, convert to Judaism. My comments and questions are part of the Life is a Sacred Text back to Jul 16, 2021.
The reason I mention that my comments/questions go back to Jul 16, 2021 is that they provide my response to various teachings from Rabbi Ruttenberg over time.
Your pushback gave me the opportunity to consider why I felt that I had to try and understand the feminists of the 1960s and 1970s, especially the Jewish women. Indeed they had their faults, like most human beings. The Jewish feminists were women of my mother's generation (a Roman Catholic Christian). So I can't help think of the mothers of my grade school friends. In 1965, the Shoah/Holocaust was only twenty years in the past. Every Jewish family I knew lost some, and my friends parents weren't talking about it.
I have been painfully aware of the privilege of being a white male for as long as I can remember. The racism, sexism, classism, etc. of the greater Philadelphia area where I grew up was plain to me. The reality of racism as a national problem, and not just a regional problem was beyond question.
In High School I took a two-year class in preparation for the Advanced Placement exam in History. It was the only class in the school that seriously dealt with Black history and the shameful history of slavery and the treatment of indigenous peoples. We used John Hope Franklin's "From Slavery to Freedom" and another book on the Cherokee removal in addition to our American history textbook. The irony of elite white students being the only ones with a Black History textbook was not lost on us.
None of this is really a defense of my own sloppy handling of my response to "God Didn't Say That". Your pushback was needed and helpful.
What an amazing start to my week. This was moving and thought provoking as my own congregation wrestles with how to take action.
For me though, the reminder that we our Holy, all of us, because God is Holy really struck me. That should be the guiding principle of leadership. A ‘we’ that includes the whole of that whom God has made Holy, ie all of us.
If that principle of leadership guides us, if community guides us, we will still make mistakes but they are less likely to be ones of exclusion as hook’s notes. Exclusion that is something that has been baked into feminism from the beginning and, in my experience, the queer rights movement as well.
We can change if we remember that we are God’s Holy We.
Yasher Koach! Especially appropriate following Repro Shabbat and a most interesting discussion at my shul (we only discuss... no d'vars) when my husband had to raise the question of why all the seemingly biased questions were coming from males???? Our congregation, that trends older, was shocked when I stated that I will no longer use the word "choice" but only direct statements that contain the word abortion and full health care options, including abortion! We have a long way to go in dealing with our biases. Thank you again for this!
My personal experience administering public assistance benefits in the 1980s, brought the illusory nature of "choice" into sharp focus. I remember prioritizing the processing of applications for the limited program that covered abortion and necessary transport. I knew every day mattered and knew the applicants would need to travel, so I often had to call and make sure transportation providers knew the cost would be covered, so that the person would be let on a plane.
I agree that we have a long way to go - but universal health care (including abortion, contraception, etc.) is a worthy goal to fight for. Repro Shabbat and the other work of NCJW does give me hope, in a dark hour when Roe v Wade hangs in the balance.
This is the most important d'var I have ever seen you give. Yishar koach!
"We must do work that is no less than to go back to the base of Sinai and re-receive Torah anew. This time with God’s intended meaning—in a way that sanctifies every single one of us. All of us together. The whole community.
We shall be holy, for God is holy."
This is a really powerful statement. Thank you for this, and for the resources at the bottom of the newsletter
Thank you Rabbi. I have been a seminary professor for years in the area of practical theology and clinical counseling. Also in Leadership. This was revelatory and encouraging. I am a recovering Evangelical--have jettisoned a lot of my tribe--but I am most certainly enjoying being a part of yours.
<3
Man, now I gotta get out my bell hooks again. Thank you.
It really comes down (as always) to who we mean when we say "people".
I am having a Not Enough Caffeine In The World kind of morning but this was invigorating.
Even if God's intent in saying "make holy" _does_ have something to do with a state of taharah, and thereby requires abstaining from sex for the duration, Moshe's delivery of the instruction is still unmistakably directed to the men and ignores the women except as a means whereby men might fail at the requirement. And there's no kinder way to read that.
I have found Diane M. Sharon's observations on page 421 in "The Torah A Women's Commentary" provides a way to get some use out of Moses' odd troubling statement in Exodus 19:15.
The study guide for Parashat Yitro includes these questions:
"3. Read the Another View section by Diane M. Sharon (p. 421).
a. How does Moses seem to subvert God’s commands in 19:15?
b. What questions about authority and authenticity does Moses’ addition to
God’s commands raise?
c. According to Sharon, how does the ancient literary form of the Command/
Performance help us to understand the implications of Moses’ action?
d. How does Moses’ “audacious transformation” of God’s words give currency
to the tradition of interpretation of sacred texts in Judaism?
e. What does Sharon mean when she asserts that Exodus 19:9–15 subverts
omniscient authority and gives authority to the reader? What are the
potential implications of her analysis for how you read the Torah?
"
https://www.wrj.org/sites/default/files/WTC%20Study%20-%20Yitro%20-%20new.pdf
There is no free online version of "The Torah A Women's Commentary, I can share. The CCAR Press link is https://www.ccarpress.org/
Rabbi, Thank you for exploring and unpacking this. I am grateful for your wisdom.
Wow. THIS is tremendous. So much insight and wisdom here. Thank you.
Rabbi Ruttenberg, I wanted to say that I really, really enjoy your posts. I have learned so much from you and usually lurk but I had to respond below. Please keep this up; your posts are very powerful.
<3 Please be encouraged and empowered to engage as you feel is appropriate. Your pushback was totally within bounds of reasonable discourse (and also on point!) Thank you for being here, and I'm honored that this resonates for you.
What if Moses told to stay away from woman was about to make society stay focus on Exodus from slavery because the serpent can make woman as an entry point of man weakness which is seduction similar to Eve deceived by the serpent to tempt Adam. When Noah was preparing the Noah's Ark & he didn't focus to build & prepare the Noah's Ark then he didn't survived on that big flood. Similar to Moses to take his people out of Egypt. It's not about gender equality but rather than to focus on God's command, if not then the Nehushtan will devour the people (Numbers 21:4-9).
Where are women and their agency, needs, and dignity in this analysis, Brian? Pretty absent. Women are more than a distraction. They have whole entire lives that merit consideration.
Late to the party, but, R Danya, this is superlative. I've been a clinic escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic and an indie in our town for 31 years, and I am convinced that the language of "choice" was a dreadful tactical error for abortion rights and access. We fought for those rights even as we allowed our guilt and shame to dictate the words we used. And we are paying for that now. Abortion will not disappear in this country, but it's going to be a pretty rough stretch for providers and people who need abortions but don't have a lot of extra resources. I hope everyone who still uses the language of "choice" abandons it and declared themselves to be proudly pro-abortion, on demand, without restrictions, and accessible and affordable for all.
Now I have a different language question. In the verse from Shemot you cited, the Hebrew for people is הָעָ֔ם. Is that a male or female word? If it's male, are the rabbis of the Talmud using its gendered nature to justify excluding women from the covenant? Is it ever used in a clearly universal context?
Oh, עם as people is (as a concept) gender-inclusive, generally, should include everybody. I've never seen an argument about the gender of the word being used to exclude women from the covenant--which isn't to say there isn't one on the books, I've just never come across it. As for your other point--hard agree, and just wait for next week's post.
Thanks.
This is why the Messiah is so vital. He came n will come again ! He speaks for Himself, God Himself !
Rowena, please be mindful that this is both fundamentally Jewish space, and also interfaith space. So even if it weren't fundamentally Jewish space, it would be interfaith space. Comments like this are not really appropriate here. You can talk about what you believe, how you connect to your own tradition or faith or spiritual practice, but objective statements such as this don't quite fit the welcoming vibe I'm going for here, OK? Thanks for understanding.
I'm more than willing to go along with my leader (Rabbi Ruttenberg) in thinking that God didn't say "Don't go near a woman", but I don't feel comfortable putting it all on Moshe either. Even if I agree with my leader's (Rabbi Ruttenberg) bias, the Written Torah depends upon Moshe being at least a reasonably reliable narrator. We do need to stand again at Sinai (per Judith Plaskow) and catch the parts that have been missed so far, by Moshe and all of us who were there (women included).
FOR RABBI RUTTENBERG and anyone else
(feel free to comment on my post below and my Jan 24 question directed to RABBI RUTTENBERG. I am around as subtle as the Israelites on their way to Sinai.)
“Do you think that the covenant between God and the Jewish people might be an unhelpful model for relationships between people?” (Covenantal Relationships Jan 24 – see full question/comment)
An awkward observation. Am I being harder on Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s Substack post today because she is a woman?
Judith Plaskow, Betty Friedan, bell hooks, Tarana Burke and the unnamed women (go-girl, Lean In, individualistic, capitalist, the abortion justice movement, etc.) have their achievements discounted by different people more easily because they are women.
I’ll admit that it is disturbing that Rabbi Ruttenberg seems to go there with some of the women mentioned in “When Leaders’ Biases Do Great Harm”.
I’ll give Betty Friedan, the benefit of the doubt, even if she was writing for wealthy whites. Working for social justice even for those with privilege did not occur in a vacuum. The struggle against racism and sexism has a lot of overlap.
I just finished reading Judith Plaskow’s “Standing Again At Sinai” (1990) and I am certain that its influence on Judaism was very helpful in my decision to join the Jewish people. Judith Plaskow noted things regarding race that Betty Friedan hadn’t dealt with twenty seven years prior.
Appreciating Patricia Hill Collins (“Black Feminist Thought” (2002) which I am still reading) and the Black feminist thinkers “Angela Davis, bell hooks, Alice Walker, and Audre Lorde” doesn’t require diminishing non-BIPOC women. The powerful richness of Black feminist thought speaks for itself.
Side note: For whatever reason, it took listening to Sarah Hurwitz’s “Here All Along” (audiobook) to realize that Rabbi Ruttenberg’s given name is Danya, not Dayna. I think I would have noticed by now.
Hi, Jeff-- The analogy made in this post was Moses' misogyny and the racism and sometimes classism of white feminist leaders. Conscious or unconscious, deliberate or not. The problem was not that Betty Friedan's achievements were discounted because she was a woman. The problem was that she discounted the labor and experience of BIPOC and poor white women. Plaskow is indeed one of the greats. She too has had her learning curves. (http://shma.com/remapping-the-road-from-sinai/) . As to your other question, Jeff, I'm sorry, I just don't always have the capacity (either time or the mental/emotional capacity) to write a whole involved essay in response to someone's question, and that's not the kind of question to which I can respond in an off the cuff way. I'm happy to engage when I'm able, but I'm not always able. And as you know, we have our regular Ask the Rabbi sessions that are dedicated to these conversations--when I make the time to be able to engage more deeply.
As a point of clarification. My adult non-binary child was the person who told me how she followed you on Twitter and let me about "Life is a Sacred Text" because they realized I would be interested. I'm not looking for ally cookies. Just figured this would give a little more context to what I try to say.
There is no difficulty making a case for "Moses' misogyny and the racism and sometimes classism of white feminist leaders. Conscious or unconscious, deliberate or not." Indeed, Leader's Biases Do Great Harm sometimes. My clumsy attempts at articulating why I think leaders in the final analysis are not the problem have added more heat than light. To remove the scourge of systemic racism, it will take a lot more than a leadership change.
Rabbi Ruttenberg: Please excuse the repost from Jan 24. I don't expect answers from you on every question/comment I post. I think that you succeeded in making me feel a little too comfortable here in the Life is a Sacred Text space. At one point in the past, you indicated that people in the community didn't seem to be directing questions to you. I imagine that the avalanche of questions during Ask The Rabbi and Ask The Rabbi And Each Other took care of that.
:) I'm delighted for questions, but am truly not able to give all of them the due that they truly deserve. When I catch something that I can answer with the time I have (which could be not much time or a bit of time, depending on the day) I'm happy to, but part of why it's important to me for us to have the dedicated space is that I know I'll be setting aside time to focus there and be intentional about not missing things, and on weeks like this (whew, it's a week) when I can't go into deep philosophical stuff, I can know there will be other times when I can.
First time commenter! I am a Christian Black woman who welcomes perspectives that influence my own. I look forward to and immensely enjoy Rabbi Ruttenberg's excavation pieces on the old testament as they have influenced my understanding of the bible and even my Christian faith.
Jeff, I have to push back on your comment. Why are you giving Betty Friedan the benefit of the doubt? I frequently see White men (don't know if you are) excuse White women for being complicit with White supremacy. The history of this country is replete with examples of White women who are complicit with White supremacy and racism even to their own detriment. We can examine how the majority of White women consistently vote Republican (going back to the 1970s) despite the fact that many of the Republican party's policies are harmful to their demographic. That being said, why are you willing to give Betty Friedan the benefit of the doubt?
Keep reading bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins. I would add in Kimberle Crenshaw, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Toni Cade Bambara, Sojourner Truth, and Ida B Wells to name a few.
Hi, Eleanor Seaton, - I am very happy for the pushback.
My comment giving Betty Friedan the "benefit of the doubt" was meant as an acknowledgement of her role in helping to found the National Organization for Women and NARAL. My concern is that all women are judged by a harsher standard than men.
I was also thinking in terms of the world I knew in 1963.
I have to especially thank you for mentioning Toni Cade Bambara as it was a name I was not aware of, and whose works I plan to look into after a quick Google search put the name in context.
I don't excuse anyone for being complicit with white supremacy. I am a white male, former Christian, convert to Judaism. My comments and questions are part of the Life is a Sacred Text back to Jul 16, 2021.
[Edit Feb 1 2022] Kimberle Williams Crenshaw's is someone whose writing I follow and greatly respect. I found her recent Op-Ed https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-01-17/critical-race-theory-martin-luther-king very powerful reading.
The reason I mention that my comments/questions go back to Jul 16, 2021 is that they provide my response to various teachings from Rabbi Ruttenberg over time.
Your pushback gave me the opportunity to consider why I felt that I had to try and understand the feminists of the 1960s and 1970s, especially the Jewish women. Indeed they had their faults, like most human beings. The Jewish feminists were women of my mother's generation (a Roman Catholic Christian). So I can't help think of the mothers of my grade school friends. In 1965, the Shoah/Holocaust was only twenty years in the past. Every Jewish family I knew lost some, and my friends parents weren't talking about it.
I have been painfully aware of the privilege of being a white male for as long as I can remember. The racism, sexism, classism, etc. of the greater Philadelphia area where I grew up was plain to me. The reality of racism as a national problem, and not just a regional problem was beyond question.
In High School I took a two-year class in preparation for the Advanced Placement exam in History. It was the only class in the school that seriously dealt with Black history and the shameful history of slavery and the treatment of indigenous peoples. We used John Hope Franklin's "From Slavery to Freedom" and another book on the Cherokee removal in addition to our American history textbook. The irony of elite white students being the only ones with a Black History textbook was not lost on us.
None of this is really a defense of my own sloppy handling of my response to "God Didn't Say That". Your pushback was needed and helpful.