One of the reasons I became a Reform Jew was that in Conservative services I had no idea what I was praying about.  Most of it was in hebrew and since I could only sound out hebrew and not translate it I might as well been praying in  gibberish.

 Also Reform Jews believe in an equality of Women.  My Temple has  a wonderful women Rabbi.  She is one of the greatest Jews I have ever met in my life.  In "traditional" Judaism she could never have become the great Rabbi I know her as.

 Frankly I find the entire idea that somehow Orthodox Judaism is the only right path to be absurd. Orthodox Judaism is worlds away from its roots in ancient Israel where we prayed at a temple and Rabbis didn't exist.  Judaism changed then out of necessity because in the diaspora the religion of their forefathers could not survive.  So we invented Rabbis and Talmudic Judaism.  So while I am not going to try to convince every Jew to join the reform movement  I will say it is hypocritical to act as if Judaism never changes.

At least the Conservative Movement, as geeky and awkward it is--in that kippah girl with a tallis and a little extra facial hair than usual sort of way--at last they are constantly in trauma over trying to reconcile a tribal, Middle Eastern faith with liberal Western culture and norms. Hey, it isn't easy.

 But the Reform...they act like it's so easy by just erasing whatever they don't like and pretending it's still Judaism ...you kind of have to hate them a little. 

(1) Women can be and are rabbis in traditional Judaism: Conservative synagogues.

(2) Conservative (and most Orthodox) prayerbooks have translations of everything on the opposite page, so it is not difficult to know what you're saying even if you don't speak Hebrew. It is also well-established in traditional Judaism that individuals may pray in English.

(3) Jews didn't pray in the Temple, they conducted animal sacrifices and other rituals there. They still prayed in other locations. And if the change from Temple/priest-based Judaism to Rabbinic was done out of necessity, what necessity now mandates that change from traditional halachic Judaism (which I view the Conservative movement as part of) to something totally different?

I sometimes enjoy going to a Reform shul, but it's like chewing pink bubblegum - very sweet and totally lacking substance.  However, I rarely get anything out of going to Conservative or Orthodox shuls either because what I like to focus upon gets glossed over quickly and what I feel should be done quickly always seem to be very drawn out.  I know that this is a radical statement, but I actually only feel like I am truly acknowledging God when I daven alone.

If you call Halacha: "Do whatever you want and then write a teshuva explaining why it is allowed" Halachic, then I guess so. But be honost, Conservative Judaism is not halachic, nor are conservative Jews. Of course Conservative Jews hate reform, they are basically the same, but Reform is always about 10 years ahead in their innovations.

With all the debating back and forth about conservative vs. reform, I think it's important to acknowledge that the vast majority of conservative or reform Jews don't choose a movement based on ideology.  They choose a synagogue, and that choice can be based on any number of factors: location, where their friends go to shul, the quality of the hebrew school, whether they like the rabbi, price (yes, membership has a price).  And if you don't live in a major metropolitan area, chances are you don't have much choice anyway.

 The orthodox are different, and tend to follow specific movements/rabbis based on their upbringing or ideology, rather than based on more pedestrian concerns.  But even they will let pragmatism trump ideology if they have to leave Jerusalem or Borough Park.  When I lived in Raleigh all the modern orthodox Jews went to Chabad, because that was the only game in town.

--Z

isn't sensationalism fun?! the reform movement advanced equal roles for men and women; long ago opened its seminary to gays and lesbians; has been ordaining more women than men as rabbis for the last ten years; wields vital influence in washington dc through the important work of the religious action center for reform judaism under rabbi david saperstein; and is at the forefront of fighting for the marriage, birth, conversion and burial rights of non-orthodox jews in israel. whatever criticism one may have about theology, it's not systemic but rather sensationalized based on people's individual experience. the movement is in a constant state of assessment, growth and change, a dynamism that i find intellectually satisfying and challenging. bash away and have fun. but you're missing the point.

Andy,

 The Reform isn't leading human rights; it is demanding that Judaism mirror  Western progressive sensibility. Which may or may not be the right thing to do, but it isn't innovative, it isn't particularly intellectual, and it isn't "growing." It is usually keeping up with the general secular movements, or rather, attempting to implement the policy they dictate. 

 Also, plenty of Jew groups "wield vital influence" in Washington, DC.  That's not particularly unique either. 

Jewcy! Because Reform-bashing is like, so totally original and, like, totally fresh.

The Reform movement has standards. Not only that - we also have responsa, ideological stances, and platforms. We have halacha. We have liturgy. But all of the above has been reconceived, reimagined (like Jews have been doing to halacha and liturgy for centuries) and reinterpreted for congregations who value gender equity, universal human dignity, etc. You've managed to gloss over a century and a half of Reform "standards" in one (grammatically challenged) shot, though.

Oh - and one other thing. We don't just have standards. We also have the highest percentage of affiliated Jews in America coming to our synagogues, our camps, and our schools. Why? Perhaps because we value all those things that you seem able to do without: equality and tolerance - for all Jews, and all human beings.

Jordie,

You wrote, "We also have the highest percentage of affiliated Jews in America coming to our synagogues, our camps, and our schools."

 I presume you mean Sunday Schools, not day schools. Correct? If so, those aren't really schools, are they? Aren't those more after-schools?

I hate to imply that anybody here is taking cheap shots ... but what the hell. I don't know where you get off starting your argument with the call for less self-righteous bloggers, literally immediately before claiming that XXX topic the magazine is exploring is unoriginal. Please, maybe you could claim that Jewcy fosters anti-semitism, zionism, neoconservatism, and libertarianism also. Hop on the bandwagon, Jordie!

I accept that Tamar's "a movement that doesn't even attempt to have standards" was wrongly worded. I'm sure she understands that reform has its own, well-thought out, strict standards. She's saying that their standards don't seem to account for all the very strict, archaic rules outlined in the Bible (not that Conservative Judaism does either, I'm guessing).

...And as an outsider looking in, I gotta wonder what right they have to reinterpret (or "reconceive, reimagine") the Word of God to fit -- I don't know -- the admittance of women, allowing them to become great rabbis. Unless there were some new ancient texts discovered something along the lines of, ""Whoops, just kidding, go ahead and eat Pork. And let women be rabbis," then I don't see where they come off saying it's right, even if it fits the rest of society's expectations.

But anyway, the thing that gets me the most is that Tamar related a quote and suggested she didn't know what to think of reform Judaism, because as someone from a more conservative sect, it is probably a little tough to digest. Whether or not Tamar's glossing over a century of standards ("in one grammatically challenged shot" ... Ouch...) no one's defended yet why Reform Judaism GETS to reimagine Judaism at all. Although I am a little nervous to phrase it that way, at the risk of being accused of treading "unoriginal" ground.

I gotta wonder what right they have to reinterpret (or "reconceive, reimagine") the Word of God to fit -- I don't know -- the admittance of women, allowing them to become great rabbis. Unless there were some new ancient texts discovered something along the lines of, ""Whoops, just kidding, go ahead and eat Pork. And let women be rabbis," then I don't see where they come off saying it's right, even if it fits the rest of society's expectations.

Um...Rashi himself did a little bit of "reinterpreting" or "reimagining" or whatever you'd like to call it. After all, his daughter laid tefillin.

The rabbis of the Talmud "reinterpreted" and "reimagined" a Jewish life after the destruction of the temple and in exile in Babylon. Their "reinvention" of our religion is what enabled it to survive and thrive! Why can't we continue that reinterpretation in today's world as it grows differently? And why not in the thoughtful and serious way in which the great scholars of the Reform movement approach these issues? If anything, you can't tell me that the average Conservative Jew-on-the-street is any more well informed than their Reform counterparts, if not less so. Conservative Jews tend to be so because their parents were or because their parents were Orthodox and they can't quite step away...or, as another poster said, because the Conservative shul is the closest one for Hebrew School carpool. But let me tell you that the average number of Conservative Jews keeping kosher and being shomer shabbat is pretty darn low...they'd prefer to require it of their rabbis rather than actually do it themselves.

Hmmm....why can't we all just get along?

Here are the 4 most recent responsa posted to the CCAR website:

5767.3 - there is a general opposition to disinterment, which is subject to strict scrutiny (it's only ok if there's a very good reason, and a number of possible reasons are rejected)
5767.2 - the biological child of two non-Jewish parents, who is to be raised in a Jewish household, should undergo a formal conversion to Judaism
5767.1 - using feminine God language in a berachah meets the minimum requirements and is permitted for individual prayer but discouraged for communal prayer
5766.3 - force-feeding a prisoner on a hunger strike is "to be avoided in all cases except when it is obviously necessary to save the life of the hunger striker", and subject to other limitations as well.

One might disagree with these particular standards (I happen to find 5767.1 a bit heavyhanded -- though I don't use feminine God language in my own prayers, for reasons similar to those outlined in this teshuva, I don't have a problem with communities that do), or disagree with the priorities, but it is ludicrous to say that the movement "doesn’t even attempt to have standards".

Whether individual Reform Jews adhere to standards set by the movement is a separate question (and a question that applies to all streams of Judaism), but that's not what we're discussing.

Well I was raised Reform, and I have yet to understand the quite real animosity toward our kind. It might go both ways; a friend of mine once referred to the Hasidism as a cult, so take that, I guess.

I hate them

JewcyCraig writes:
no one's defended yet why Reform Judaism GETS to reimagine Judaism at all.

Yes, I can see how that would pose a problem for someone who appears to be under the impression that there exist any Jews in the world today who observe Judaism according to "rules outlined in the Bible". For those of us who know anything about the last 2500 years of Jewish history, this is no problem at all, since Judaism has evolved continuously from the biblical period to the rabbinic period to the present.

(If we're just observing biblical Judaism, then not only are there no women rabbis, there are no men rabbis either!)

"no one's defended yet why Reform Judaism GETS to reimagine Judaism at all."

At the risk of being too postmodern, I think you've misplaced the burden. The burden lies with the group that claims an exclusive right to define Judaism, the Orthodox. No one is claiming an exclusive right to re-imagine Judaism.

People create derivatives of everything all the time. Those who claim their views have authenticity are the odd ones out: they have to prove their views are not simply derivatives.

I am sad to see Tamar post such divisive and hurtful words. I am sad that the Jewish community, which is so small, tries to make itself smaller but by creating divisions even further between ourselves.

Every person is where they are at for a reason. Their journey to connect with G-D is their own. Each group within Judaism can find something outside itself not to like. Our job is to bring more Jews into the circle to connect with G-D, not to push them away. Remember if you save one it is as if you have saved the world.

This also reminds me of the Talmud story of the oven. The oven is assembled with bricks and mortar. For the oven to be ritually pure it could not be broken. Everything needs to be assembled and whole to be ritually pure. There are many bricks in the world, they may be reform, conservative, orthodox or assimilated. Few of us need to be the mortar to hold the bricks together to make the oven. If we do not hold together we will not be.

mTp

P.S. Until you have come to the reform temples around where I live and participate with these communities, I would hold back on the generalizations of reform Jews. I have several friends at my temple who have grown up in the Orthodox community who are part of our community, love it and are committed to helping others grow.

It is clear that the reform movement is the dominent Jewish religious movement in the US, measured by numbers of practitioners, temples etc... So it is obvious that people will take potshots at it. I am sure Tamar (who's posts I love) was not intending to be insulting about a lack of standards. However, I am concerned that someone who takes their Judaism so seriously isn't bothering to learn about the most prominent Jewish movement in the US. There just might be a reason for Reform's success. A great example is Reform movements welcoming and affirming position on same-sex unions/marriages making Judiasm the only "Western" religion that I know of in the US where the majority of its adherents reject sexual preference bias. The Reform movemnt deserves serious kudos for its deeper understanding of Judiasm and its attempts to bring this deeper understanding to the world as well as other branches of Judaism*.

-Matt

*My apologies to other branches of Judiasm that also reject sexual preference bias.

Get someone who writes thoughtful, insightful blog posts, not vapid, insipid, thoughtless, and hateful nonsense.

How is this "hateful nonsense"? Tamar was quoting the title of the article in Ha'aretz, then explicitly rejected the word "hate," and said she just "doesn't get them."

How could she possibly have been more gentle? She basically said, "It's not that I dislike what you are doing, it's just that...well, perhaps I need to be educated about you."  

If this sort of thing counts as "hateful" and "divisive" in the Jewish community, then Hashem protect us from, like, actual criticism. 

Personally, I didn't have great experiences with the Reform movement growing up. I went to a Conservative synagogue and was weirded out by a few of the deliberately and egregiously hip Reform rabbis I met. I wanted a rabbi who was daring and intellectually/spiritually innovative, but I didn't want him to show me how cool he was by swearing, dressing like a freak, and dragging his guitar everywhere. I guess that was just an aesthetic preference. I still wanted my authority figures to have a bit of gravitas. In any case, the Conservative movement, whatever its other flaws, at least still seemed serious to me.

This is just anecdotal, I'm not presenting it as revealed truth, but it was the honest impression of a kid growing up Jewish in West L.A., and I know that others felt similarly. Don't know whether kids growing up today would have the same impression. 

I entirely agree with Joey's points, and it was a similar situation for me growing up in NY in the 80s. Now that said, the Reform movement has certainly changed in many ways since then, so it is somewhat difficult to judge based on our experiences as kids (that were, dare I say without getting yelled at, often almost seemingly-church like to me). In a sense Reform suffers from the same inherent difficulties that the Conservative movement (which I generally affiliate with) faces, a point made above by one of the posters; that of the disjointed nature of the relationship between the movements and its members. So while Conservatism touts kashrut, the numbers of Conservative Jews who keep kosher or shabbos are actually staggeringly small. I would say that the same is often true for Reform; the idea that one should be able to make informed, personal decisions about how to observe. Yet, there are many people who certainly flock to Reform without thinking through their decision to eat treyf or go to Sunday services (just as, of course there are many who DO think through these decisions). Maybe in a way this is the shame vis-a-vis Reform (and perhaps the same could be said about Conservatism) that those who don't really think through their decisions or really care much overshadow those (many of whom I know in the Reform movement) care very deeply about their Jewish identity and do make well-thought out complex decisions about where religion falls in their life.

That said, I really do think that perhaps people are being a little unfair to Tamar who, I believe, was being geniune in her questions raised and not playing the judgement card that is so often part of our community.

Tamar's a cursed neocon.

Fight!

Rumble! 

we love tamar

I grew up in a Reform Temple, then in high school attended an unafiliated reconstructionist havurah of sorts, and am about to join my family up for a conservative shul where i won't understand a fucking word anyone says...

 all this to say that i don't like most of what goes on in most of the big reform temples. i don't care what anyone wears to the high holy days and am kind of offended by people who memorize (like i did) but never understand transliterated mumbo jumbo for bat mitzvah recitation performances.  but i don't hate the reform movement.  i've known some wonderful people for whom the reform movement made sense.  most of them because of very nice summer camp experiences.

 

But i do HATE HATE HATE!  Debbir Friedman!!!!!!

 

xoL http://jewishyirishy.com

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond--I was away from my computer for the holiday.

 

First of all, I admit that saying that the Reform movement doesn't have standards was wrong, and I apologize.  The movement does have standards, they don't coincide with how I see things, and I just up and got ridiculous with my phrasing.  Again, sorry.

 

That said, I am not particularly impressed by the Reform movement being the biggest movement with the most kids in schools or any of the other claims that have been made in these comments.  Biggest does not mean best.  Sunday schools, as anyone who has attended or taught them can tell you, are about the worst kind of education most people are likely to get, and sadly, in the Reform community, SUnday school is the most education most kids are going to get.  NFTY is great, but amost everyone I know who was a member of NFTY lost their virginity at a NFTY function (sorry, but it's true).  The RAC is amazing, but seems so loosely religious in any way that I'm hardly impressed by their religious convictions.  And though I applaud the movement for their liberal sensibilities, it seems to me that mostly they look at what is the liberal humanistic ideal and then figure out how to justify it.  And honestly, even though I wish that made sense with accordance to Jewish law, it just doesn't.  

I know some wonderful, brilliant spiritual Reform Jews, and I care deeply for them.  But personally, Reform Judaism is not enough for me.  I understand that it's the popular choice, but at the end of the day there are too many holes for me to embrace it.

Shavuah tov... 

There are no authentic movements, just authentic Jews. An orthodox Jew doing everything by wrote without any reason is just as worthless as doing nothing at all.

religious moderation is basically intellectually dishonest and self-deceptive. You either buy into the whole ball of illogical wax, or you don't. But then again, I'm just a coward who felt compelled to post her opinion anonymously...

But I agree with anonymous above, being authentic in what you do believe, is important.

Tamar,

No one asked you to embrace Reform Judaism. But our tradition holds that sinat hinam (senseless hatred) among Jews is the reason that the Temple was destroyed in the first place.

I first learned about sinat hinam at a NFTY convention where I was far too busy engaging with texts and learning to love my tradition to be losing my virginity. Given the number of Jewishly observant friends I retain from my NFTY days after more than a decade, I'm pretty sure that I spent most of high school leading something more than a sex machine.

In NFTY I also learned about the prohibition against L'Shon Hara. Perhaps it was because I learned about these concepts in English for the first time that I understand them so well.

If you understand what sinat chinam means you would know that nothing I've said would qualify as sinat chinam.  I don't hate anyone involved in this discussion, and I've never claimed that I did.  In fact, if you look at the post, I specifically said,"I don’t hate Reform Jews."

NFTY does great work.  There's also a lot of hooking up going on.  I don't have a problem with that (as anyone who reads my posts might remember, I'm all for Jewish hookups) I'm just saying it's not on the promotional materials for the youth group.  (Basically the same can be said of USY, where I spent much of my teen years.)  My point was that just because Reform Judaism is popular doesn't mean its membership is committed to abiding by many of its rules.

 

But anyway, thanks for commenting. 

That jab about English, by the way, was lame.  You really want to take on 14 years of Hebrew, including studies of Biblical Hebrew, and Babylonian Aramaic?  I'd be happy to study Yoma 9b with you, where the discussion of Sinat Chinam occurs.  Don't you think it's possible that it might benefit you to have someone familiar with the original text to help you examine some of the subtleties in the language? 

I think it's fine to study something in translation, but to suggest that because you learned it in English you understand it better than someone who went through the original with a fine toothed comb and parsed verbs and cross referenced quotations--- I just think that's bizarre.   

That jab about English, by the way, was lame.

Now we are in agreement!

Now that it looks like this discussion might've finally run its course, I might as well say that, my sentiments are the same as Anonymous 10/07/07 12:24 pm's sentiments. And I think "Judaism has evolved" is a shitty argument - regardless of whether I know anything about the past 2500 years of Judaism (I don't).

When Phyl says, "Their "reinvention" of our religion is what enabled it to survive and thrive!" I have to wonder why the word of God needed modification in the first place, and since it needed modification for Judaism to survive ... should Judaism survive?

"I have to wonder why the word of God needed modification in the first place"... Hmmm, 'cause there isn't one in the first place? eheheheh Tamar, good job on getting people to read so little of your post that they think that you're asserting what you're actually refuting... see, Faithhacker *can* be like the Shvitz ;-)

Francois, I can't believe I ever doubted it.

How exactly do a bunch of self-described 'Franken Jews' get off knocking Reform Jews?

Hilarious stuff, really.

Anyone and everyone is entitled to pwn the Reform movement, or any movement, up and down the court if they see fit. But for the record, I only ever said that Jewcy staff, i.e. the little cabal working out of the Jewcy offices, had jokingly self-described as "FrankenJews." True, we think it's applicable to a large and growing portion of our demo of 20-something and 30-something Americans of Jewish ancestry. But for all I know other contributors, even Jewcy stalwarts like Tamar, think the term is vile or stupid or irrelevant. Or have never heard of it in the first place.

Hilarious stuff! Yes! Ha ha ha ha! I get it! Is very funny!

Hey François, did you know that the reason Jewcy's comments sections strip the ends off usernames now is because of you? True story. Every time I see "Blumen..." I get all warm inside. 

JewcyCraig-
In your esteemed opinion, which (if any) contemporary streams of Judaism are operating in accordance with the word of God?

Well, I would've said the Ortho's, but it was pointed out to me that they're not doing it right either. So ... None?

...I'm sorry, was it taken as understood that someone had to be doing it right? Because I don't see why that's the case.

Youch, don't get Craig started...he seems like a snide techie agnostic, but once you get him riled up a bit suddenly everything starts and ends with the Pshevorsker rebbe. From that point forward he just can't be reasoned with.

Actually, I have gone "through the original with a fine toothed comb and parsed verbs and cross-referenced quotations" and am quite familiar with the original text. I appreciate your offer, but I will continue chevruta study with others who have exhibited far more respect for my Reform background than I have seen in these posts and do not view chevruta as an opportunity to "take someone on."

I don't think we'd be good study partners, G.  I was just pointing out that your comment about English was as poorly thought out as some of my earlier comments.  I don't see chevruta as an opportunity to take someone on (and neither did I ever say that--you brought up chevruta, not me), but I did see your statement as severely flawed, and felt it was worth addressing.

 

As for respect for a Reform background-- it's not backgrounds that I have respect, it's people.  I imagine I'd have a lot of respect for you personally, but I take issue with the way the Reform movement deals with halacha, and I do have trouble respecting it.  But you know, it's not personal, buddy.  

"I'd be happy to study Yoma 9b with you" seemed pretty clear, as did "You really want to take on 14 years of Hebrew, including studies of Biblical Hebrew, and Babylonian Aramaic?" That statement also seemed to make some pretty personal assumptions about my lack of background or ability to tackle or understand these texts, which can only be based on the only thing you know about me: that I am a former NFTY regional president. So yes, I'm afraid it does seem awfully personal. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Frankly, I've been pretty surprised to see what I consider to be unthoughtful, flippant Reform-bashing repeatedly in your posts on a site that prides itself on being a forum for Jews of all streams. I often wonder where it comes from. Have you really only had a few conversations with Reform Jews who lost their virginity at NFTY events and had the conversation end there? Or have you met committed Reform Jews who went to Reform day schools or even Reform summer camps? Have you engaged in dialogue with Reform rabbis? Have you read Reform philosophers, studied CCAR responsa, and developed any sort of understanding of how the movement has evolved over time? If you have, can you please ground your distaste in something that sounds more like reason and less like a hateful rant so we can have a meaningful dialogue? And if you haven't, do you think you can really make educated and fair comments on Reform Judaism at all?

that the site prides itself on bashing everyone?

I have to say I disagree with NFTY Ex-Prez regarding the nature of Tamar's posts. She already recognized the flaw in her language utilized in the article above. I think that consistently Tamar raises important, practical questions about all streams. That said, I understand why Reform Jews are a little sensitive precisely because they are frequently attacked, and questioned as to their Jewishness. However, I also do think that instead of going straight on the defensive there is an opportunity to explain (as Jordie did above) while also recognizing the faults within one's own groups because, let's be completely honest, they all have kind of ridiculous aspects as well strengths (to Tamar's credit, I think that she is equal in her criticism and positive appraisal of just about everything she has written about on the site). It is, believe it or not, possible to just respectfully disagree and not feel compelled to be in attack mode, especially when there is some truth behind those attacks (again, attacks that could be made on all off us).

Okay, well this is the last time I'm going to engage with you, Prez, but qualifying my comments as hateful is, truly, a complete misreading.  I have said a number of times that there's no hate here, and if you can't accept that I don't know what I can tell you.

 

I am certainly not well-read in regards to Reform responsa or some of the other things on your list, but I don't feel obligated to ground my distaste in that kind of thing.  I'm allowed to have issues with the movement, just the way you're allowed to come on here and call me hateful.  Doesn't make either of us right, but it's the way it goes.  The point of the post above was to get people thinking/talking about why the Reform movement has such a bad reputation with many Jews.  And fortunately or unfortunately, lots of people don't like Reform Judaism for some of the reasons I stated.  Again, doesn't make us right, but this might be a case where showing us we're wrong rather than telling me I'm hateful would be a good choice.     Maybe, as a former NFTY president you could do some work to make sure that the group is taken more seriously?

 

I feel I should also say that to its credit, I think the way the RM has dealt with sex education is fantastic, so it's not like they're not making lemons out of lemonade. 

Tamar,

 I don't believe you hate reform Jews and agree that some of the criticism you've received on this post does not reflect what you wrote.  That being said, you have to admit you asked for it, so to speak, when you titled your post "Do You HATE Reform Jews" (emphasis added, of course).  

 I realize the title was phrased as a question, not a statement, and that in the post itself (the fine print), you expressly state that you don't hate them.  But let's get real: you didn't title your post "Let's discuss 'why the Reform movement has such a bad reputation with many Jews,'" or even "Do you hate the Reform Movement?"

You intentionally used strong language directed at specific people in order to attract attention, and you got what you asked for.

--Z

You're right, I was trying to attract attention, but the language of the title came straight from the article title--Jews Who Hate Reform Jews.  My point was to get some people talking about why the movement upsets or annoys them. 

That said, even though I think some of the vitriol here is out of control, I'm glad to see people commenting and getting engaged with the matter.  Certainly I've learned a lot from it. 

See Tamar, just like the Shvitz -even *if* they read what you actually wrote, they'll never click the links and check out *what* you wrote it in response to! :-))

I clicked the links and read the article she referred to, and one major difference is that the original article urged for much more acceptance than the begrudging tolerance Tamar reluctantly invokes.