the concept of a woman wearing a tallis it absolutely ridiculous. It stems from a deep inferiority complex.

Brother, please.  We all know you're just jealous of my rockin' satin tallit. 

A man wearing a kilt is ridiculous. It stems from a deep inferiority complex. Ask any tree-throwing, claymore-wielding Scotsman.

...are always anonymous.

To Mr. Anonymous:  what are you afraid of, in revealing your identity?  Don't you realize how little credibility you have when you refuse to claim your thoughts and feelings?  It's like a hit and run.

There's got to be something somewhere in some talmudic Jewish text you respect... that says that if a man canh't stand behind his ideas they aren't worth speaking... or something... 

Can you imagine Maimonides having a point of contention with someone, and instead of working it through, engaging it, arguing it... just posting an anonymous note on their door and running away?

 xoL http://jewishyirishy.com

I'm not interested in credibility, I'm interested in content, and thanks to the ruling cuntocracy, I can't say what needs to be said about insulting jewish tradition in the name of 'equality' without damaging my career. So nuts to you (pun intended).

And francois, I'm sure your comment really scored you points with the ladies. Are you aware of the term 'Mangina'?

http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/04/06/are-you-a-mangina/

"Can you imagine Maimonides having a point of contention with someone, and instead of working it through, engaging it, arguing it..."

sounds like the Women's Studies department at my college.

Anyway, if you are interested in Jewish TRADITION, rather than mocking it, you might understand that its about the nature of man and woman. Its in the first few chapters of the Torah, maybe you should give it a read some time, or shall we 'update' that as well? What does Amraphel mean again?

I'm pretty sure using words like "cuntocracy" and linking to misogynist websites will do more damage to your career than any legitimate arguments you have to make, gentle Anon.  It's kind of hard for our half of the species to take seriously anyone who seems to categorically despise us so much.

Despise you so much?

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck". - Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator

misogynist websites? In case you haven't noticed, and I'm sure you have, marriage law in the US has changed drastically in the past 20 years, making marriage completely untenable for men. This web site is highly informative.

The fact is though, I don't need to school you. Just take a look at one of your feminist sisters in the later stages of life and tell me just how 'liberated' she is. Here's whats in store you : http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/04/15/andrea_dworkin_narrowweb__2...

the feminism thing works for you now, because you are still young and can command a measure of control of the leagues of panting sex crazed morons who attend university (and believe me, its not hard to do). Once that is gone you are likely to evolve into a venomous bitch.

The fact that you are turning a symbolic item like a tallis into a fashion statement tells me everything I need to know.

I don't agree with what the anonymous poster here had to say--quite the contrary, actually I find it repugnant--but what is Jewcy's beef with anonymous posts more generally? I realize you are an online community in addition to a journal, but particularly as a journalistic enterprise, it seems silly to spend so much time bashing outsiders for being 'anon' rather than engaging the remarks (when they're worth engaging). Not everyone is interested in posting comments under their actual name. So what? The point is to debate honestly, no? As often as anonymous posters waste time with stupid remarks, those who do have IDs waste time fawning over each other and trying to make sure they don't step on toes, are in agreement with their friends, etc. And setting up an 'ID' online is by no means a guarantee of an authentic identity.

I stumbled on this site initially and now read it regularly since I admire a lot of the writing and am interested in the debates. I would assume many of your readers are like me. Constant 'anon' bashing really just alienates people and discourages participation from those who aren't card-carrying Jewcy members. If you want to just talk amongst yourselves, why take it to the worldwide web?

...are infinitely more coherent and interesting than you.

But what really makes me laugh is your outrage at the tallit as a fashion statement.  Originally, there were no tallitot--people just had tsitsit on their regular (presumably fashionable) clothes.  Then when four cornered garments went out of style, tsitsit were in danger of being forgotten.  So in the Middle Ages Jews took it upon themselves to wear something with four corners that would require tsitsit.  Combining fashion and religion was pretty much the whole point.  The rabbis didn't say that people had to go back to wearing clothes with four corners, they just had to add this new thing, a tallit.

Also, I am not an Administrator from the University from Maine, nor am I Andrea Dworkin.  If you have a problem with them, why don't you take it up with them? 

if you are trying to suggest that at some point in history, women wore tzitzit, you are not only a reprehensible shrew, you are also an idiot.

what makes you think that you can just make up your own version of judaism? you are insulting your own ancestors, and the tradition that you claim to advocate.

as I had mentioned earlier, this insane contortion of jewish tradition has its basis in a deep sense of inferiority. I can assure you though, that wearing a tallis will not cure you of this psychological problem. Perhaps truly getting in touch with your feminine instincts will. AMOF, all of feminism has its basis in this sense of inferiority- because all of your actions are about confounding the symbols of manhood. because that is really what you are after... deeply, you know you cannot be men, but you can try to look like them so that you might confuse people into thinking you are a man. But you will never be a man, and the sooner you realize that the better off you will be.

"The leagues of panting sex crazed morons are infinitely more coherent and interesting than you."

sure if you are looking for someone that tells you what you want to hear in return for a blow job. But you wont understand this until you hit about 30, when you will start whining about wanting a 'traditional man'. I should know, women won't freakin leave me alone, they detect that I have something most men don't: SELF RESPECT.

agreed! no need to make get in a tizzy over the fact that people comment as anon's, relax a little - i have an account i just don't feel like logging on!

...is the same.

I only take issue when the anonymity becomes a shield for saying things like "cuntocracy".  I doubt very seriously that this poster would have used such language if there was any accountability in place, if his employer, say, might stumble upon such language.. 

I often forget to log in myself... no harm in that.  And for most comments, it doesn't make any difference. But if you're slapping someone in the face, you shouldn't wear a ski mask.

xoL http://jewishyirishy.com

mostly its just is starting to sound 'whiny' with the anon post bashing. its the nature of the beast DUH! so stop complaining and appreciate that at least its being read.

And I am grateful.  But I can't help wishing people like this would step out from the shadows...

xoL http://jewishyirishy.com

"But I can't help wishing people like this would step out from the shadows..."

Are you fucking kidding me? Why not try and repeal 20 years worth of 'hate speech' legislation that can put me in jail for saying something that may irk the 'fairer sex'. You are absolutely out of your mind if you don't think staying anonymous is a good idea. But all it really takes is an act of war and believe me, all you whiny vagisil warriors will shut up real quick.

I have learned the hard way, through experience, that reasoning with feminists gets you absolutely nowhere.

all you girls clearly have the spoiled 'daddy's little girl syndrome'. Guess what daddy's little girl is also a pain in the ass for her husband and is very likely be be a divorced daddy's little girl when she hits 30. Have fun cunt bags!

"I only take issue when the anonymity becomes a shield for saying things like "cuntocracy"."

I hear that. I hesitated to make the case in this particular thread, since the anon in question was spouting such garbage. But given that over half the comments are usually 'anon', I'd seen the sentiment a surprising number of times on this board recently. My point is just that privacy SHOULD be an option. People have a lot of reasons for not wanting their names out there, most of which are not so they can say 'cuntocracy' behind a ski mask (although obviously on the net, that comes with the territory too). Some might simply want to test drive a web community for a bit before creating a profile. Others might just not want their names/thoughts handily searchable on the web.

hey ladies... why is it that words like 'phallocracy' are perfectly legitimate in a university setting, 'Cunt' is used widely in popular literature; even bearing a somewhat positive connotation, but the word 'cuntocracy' is derogatory, sexist, and blahdifrekinblah. you girls are a combination of stupid, spoiled, and clueless. have a nice day!

Trying using that word TO a woman and see how positive she finds it.  Your porn mags don't count as "popular literature.

And now I'm done engaging with this thread. It is making my cunt very tired.

xoL http://jewishyirishy.com

porn huh?

http://www.themanitoban.com/2002-2003/0115/features_index.shtml

your cunt is tired? thats because it knows it can't win. You can't offer me a blow job online so all your typical persuasion strategies wont work. You actually have to reason, an activity that, as a woman you are ill-equipped for.

Me thinks that Anonymous needs to get laid.
Preferably by a woman wearing tallit who effs his brains out.

"Me thinks that Anonymous needs to get laid."

me thinks that Adam Shprintzen can't get women any other way than selling out men to bullshit feminism. YOU ARE A SHMUCK! See you at the Hillary rally, jackass.

I'd just like to remind everyone that, while Jewcy is an open forum where you can discuss tons of things, from Cuntocracy to Cummunism (although we shy from Repube-lickin'ism), it's probably not okay to go all apeshit with the personal insults. So calm the fuck down, please. Thanks!

Totally going to use that line in my bio and CV. Thanks Anonymous!

i love angry anonymous. i bet he looks hot in a sheitel when he benches licht.

"Totally going to use that line in my bio and CV. Thanks Anonymous!"

remember the part about leagues of panting sex crazed morons that Laurel Snyder finds interesting? You can put your membership status on your CV as well. Honestly, I'm surprised that Laurel got past the math problem required to post to this site. Meanwhile Izzy Grinspan is amazed at how nice everyone is when you become a 'sexually liberated woman'. Yeah Izzy! Life really is that easy. Being a liberated woman is great! give it a few more years and a case of HPV and well see how generous men really are.

To respond to anonymous above: my problem with anonymouses, is that you cannot know which one you're referring to, as this reply may suggest. You can perfectly well create an account using a pseudonym. But are you happy to share the same 'name' as the other(s) anon above? I wouldn't be. Speaking of which, methinks there are three possible options at this point: (a) ban anons; (b) edit the posts so that grossly derogatory or overtly personal attacks, especially those of a discriminatory nature do not appear on the site; (c) since none of the other two is my choice, here's what I've got left: since as I mentioned I think it's pretty easy to use a pseudonym on this site if you'd like to conserve anonimity, and since I think that anyone who doesn't mind sharing a 'name', be it generic, with the author of some of the above anonymous posts, is not reticent to said poster's views, I will feel free to treat all anonymous posters as one. I'm expecting vast energy savings as a result of this measure and I invite all Jewcy radicals to follow me in this amazingly daring action!

All I have to say is : KEEP YOUR STUPID HAIRBRAINED WHORE BULLSHIT OUT OF SHUL.

Poor, poor woman-hating fellow. (Notice I'm not calling him by the word synonymous with "incognito," just to make everyone happy.) He clearly speaks from a place of deep personal trauma. Perhaps a woman date-raped him when he was a teenager, and when he took her to court, the defence lawyer got her acquitted by digging into his sexual history and painting him as a promiscuous slut who was "asking for it" by dressing so provocatively. Or perhaps he experienced sexual harassment at work, with his women colleagues constantly grabbing his balls lasciviously as they walked by, or his woman supervisor informing him that if he wanted a promotion, or to stay employed at all, he'd better put out. Or perhaps he was fed up with being paid only three-quarters of what women in an equivalent position are paid, and with his country's refusal to ratify the Equal Rights for Men Amendment.

By the way, I'm a man. I don't have a "mangina." I enjoy my masculinity, as do the women I've had relationships with, and am neither embarassed nor apologetic about being male. There is no war between the sexes, except in the minds of a misguided few.

You were missed Michael Nehora!

Michael Nehora returns! Where were you, Simon Peter?

Good grief, every 'anon' poster does not identify with the 'cuntocracy' raver. Why not just paste a comment from the post you'd like to reply to into your post? That should eliminate confusion, and it's a simple strategy used on web forums everywhere. If you respond to all anon posters 'as one', you'll be pretty much treating half of Jewcy's participants as if they're irrelevant. If Jewcy chooses to do away with anon posts, so be it--people can create pseudonyms, as you point out--or the conversation can dwindle to one between ten regulars. But at the moment, a large percentage of comments are coming from people who identify as 'anon.' Rather than complaining about this, change the rules, or simply find a way to respond to what they're saying. We're responding to ideas after all, not names.

Aw shucks, guys, thanks.  :-)  As for where I was, let's just say barukh dayan ha-emet.  I can elaborate further via private message for those who wish, but due to the frequent trolling on this site, you'll understand if I choose not to reveal too much of my family life for public consumption.  Good to be back, though.

is that someone would get into such a tizzy over the thought of a woman wearing tallit.  Essentially Anon.'s argument is based in the idea that people are arbitrarily making changes to the religion.  However, I would point out that a few thousand years ago we also would have stoned a woman to death for committing adultery.  CLEARLY we all make changes to reflect social conditions, is just a matter of what those changes are.

Though I should be cafeful, there is a possibility that Mr. Mysogny would have no objections to such an idea.

And before you play the "more Jewish" than thou card Anon., you are going to be barking up the wrong tree on someone who is shomer shabbos, kosher and kippah-clad. That may be the truly sad part; people like Anon. project such irrationality that inevitably it leads many people to presume that such thoughts are common (perhaps why I get strange looks on the street with my kippah and Chuck Taylor combination).  I don't know what happened to Anon. at some point in his life (clearly he was humilated, heart broken or something) but I feel sorry for him that it has created such an angry person. That is certainly no way to live life.

umm, it's "harebrained," and refers to the small brain of a rabbit. although the idea of a hairy brain is also funny.

i like furious anonymous guy. jewcy should invite him to write a piece on why he feels judaism should be stagnant and not evolve with the times, which has been a jewish tradition since abraham.

incidentally, these anti-spam math problems are getting really difficult.

Re: one of the above commenters, we've got no problem with anonymous comments, we've made the decision to allow anonymous commenting because we want to keep the barriers to participation low and encourage the broader range of opinions that anon commenting always brings (though a comment that reads in toto "Keep your hairbrained whore bullshit out of my shul" is content-free enough and personal-insulty enough to warrant snarky replacement text, possibly.) Are some of the Jewcers rethinking anon commenting?

Anonymity isn't the issue, anyway, dear Anons...will the vaginocrat Gestapo have any better luck ferreting you out as registered user Jester479 than as Anonymous? Pseudonymity's as safe as anonymity, but it does help us keep track of who's saying what. Registration improves discussions, but it doesn't out anyone. And no more math problems!

But it's your call, obviously. If we don't want anonymous commenters, then we have to disable anonymous commenting, which I think would be throwing out way too much baby with the bathwater.

I once sided with the "ban anonymous posting" side but on reflection I can see there's a place for posting without an account.  Example:  a recent comment, on the mikva article, from a religious Jewish woman who explains why she dreads going to the mikva.  It's not hard to understand why she'd want to remain anonymous, or at least not to post a photo of herself.

And much as I hate to admit it, Angry Dad--er, I mean Angry Anon--has a point about possible endangerment of one's career from posting under one's real name.  To this I would add the danger that some kook who really really takes issue with a comment might decide to harass and even threaten the commenter by phone, or worse.

So yeah, I'd say keep the "anonymous posting" option.  Practising basic civility shouldn't require a login, in any case.

I'm not sure if a ban on anon posting is even being seriously considered, but I've seen it suggested on and off, and picked up on a general 'anti-anon' tone (Craig's recent comment to an articulate anon was something to the effect of, 'finally, an anon with some sense')--and to me, that seemed a little off-putting. (Sorry to single out Craig here--whose comments I generally very much appreciate.)

One reason is that some of the anons are probably not creating accounts simply because they aren't Jewish. They wound up here for one reason or another, and come back for the writing or the debates or what have you, but hesitate to become card-carrying members of a community they're not sure they're 'supposed' to be a part of. Granted, I understand that Jewcy would have no problem with gentiles who are regular readers creating accounts (correct me if I'm wrong), but I would bet that factors into the hesitation for some. I think it's important to hear from these folks too. Although a few of the comments here and there suggest otherwise, I don't think Jewcy aspires to be a closed community...

Probably a better discussion for "how to improve the website". Sorry to drag the conversation so far away from 'cuntocracy'--though it never seems too soon to close the door on that one.

"I understand that Jewcy would have no problem with gentiles who are regular readers creating accounts (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Emphatically, yes. I hope that non-Jews aren't hesitating to register because they're uncertain whether this is "their" place. As we say at the top of our e-mail blasts, Jewcy is "Jewishly-inflected, [but] catholic in its interests." We consider ourselves part of a larger "Jewcy" demographic in the Anglophone world, not at all limited to people who identify as Jewish.

If your understanding is wrong, it's only in that you sort of suggest that we might want non-Jews to register as part of the user community only if they showed a greater level of commitment than we would expect from a new Jewish Jewcy user. Strongly-identified Jews, people with some Jewish connection who don't identify as Jewish, or people with no Jewish connection whatsoever--if they're interested in the site, we're happy to have them aboard and registered. 

I think this is very helpful.

I'm okay with anonymous commenters.  I have no interest in having more information about/from our vagina-hating buddy.  I do think it's sometimes hard to distinguish between one anon and another, though, and I find that mildly frustrating, but not hugely problematic.  The Torah and gemara actually advocate for anonymity when public knowledge of one's identity would be embarrassing, and it clearly would be with our Citizen of the Cuntocracy.  If I was him I wouldn't want anyone knowing my real name.  For one thing, it would just encourage all those pesky women who won't leave him alone because of his courageous SELF RESPECT.

At the behest of the administration, I have just completed a modification to allow Anonymous commenters to include a name along with their post. At least then we don't have to be all, "Anon from 5:42" or whatever. So yeah. You can use that now.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This famous sentiment (ofen misattributed to Voltaire) seems to sum up the situation at hand.  Clearly, the original Anon is a wanker who needs attention and has nothing intelligent or particulary insightful to add, and who insteads falls back on insult.  That's all well and fine, since such people are their own worst enemy, fanning their own insipid flames.

But, of course, we need to encourage this sort of thing, since collecting a wide variety of opinions is the beauty of this 21st century form of communication (as opposed to, say, print, where the writer and readers can never truly have a dialogue).
Let all the Anons come and say their various parts.  Many add to the discussion.  Others, like the Anon above, trip and fall into their own bile.  But they must all be welcome to offer their opinions, thoughts and sentiments, or else what is the point?  Besides, to fully cultivate our gardens we do need a layer of manure, right?

I am really feeling the love for all us anon's - thats so special

"Collecting a wide variety of opinions is the beauty of this 21st century form of communication."

Agreed, Peter. The glory of the internetz is in the endless variety of POVs it offers up on any issue. To be honest, even our vaginophobic shul-going Anon was making some points that--though they'd put him in the minority on this site--would have been a worthwhile contribution had he not obscured them under pointless vulgarity, personal attacks, and then some sort of batshit freakout.

I hesitate to even engage in this discussion because the anonymous user who began this thread is clearly beyond redemption. However, in regard to his statement that there is no historical precedent, I feel the need to set the record straight. The Gemara in Menachot 43a specifically mentions that R. Yehuda (HaNasi) would place tzitzit on the corners of the garments of the women of his household. Although this was not widely practiced, it clearly happened. The Rambam also addresses the issue and rules (as is the sephardic custom regarding optional mitzvah activities) that a sephardic woman should not make a blessing. If Maimonides addressed it, I assume it happened. Any voluntary engaging in mitzvah observance should be praised, not vilified. Furthermore, I would hesitate to call the codifier of the Mishna a member of a "cuntocracy."

Tamar, may you continue to be zochah to fulfill more mitzvot.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." -the jew book, also known as the torah

Right, anon ("Unto the woman he said...") -- that's one example of how the Hebrew bible is prophetic (anticipates the future, whether it is an "ethical" future or not) rather than apocalyptic (orchestrates/chooses/dictates what will happen in the future). Torah abounds with examples of what not to do, of how not to behave, of how it looks not to have an ethical relationship. What you've cited is not an example of Torah's admonition to treat women (or anyone, for that matter) as less than one's equal; it's a prophetic rendering of a world that has lost sight of the ethical relationship with the Other.

 But, I fear, pearls to swine . . .

you have got to be kidding me. You are dispelling an obvious, and fundamental commandment as 'prophetic'? Your explanation is more like a discombobulation (discomBabelation) of terms that the average reader is going to shy away from. But your intellectual intimidation tactics don't work on me... the problem is that you have been given the semblance of credibility in the first place. Because whatever the hell it is that you are expounding here, its not Judaism. I am actually surprised that you are not suggesting we remove that portion from the Torah altogether.

"But, I fear, pearls to swine . . ."

those aren't pearls darling, they're your birth control pills.

"BLESSED ART THOU, O LORD OUR G-D, KING OF THE UNIVERSE, WHO HAST NOT MADE ME A WOMAN."

I'm the only one who is allowed to make intellectualized puns here. That's also a bannable offense. Just FYI.