Matsuura !1 Reina Matsuura Professor Reisenberger REL2047F: Religion Sexuality & Gender 19 March 2018 Visibility of Women in Jewish Traditions When our identities are rooted in ourselves as historical beings, that is, contextualized by time and space, it is no wonder women find themselves conflicted at one point or another, when the myriad of our existence and individualities have been limited in representations throughout history. While this holds true for many traditions and current realities around the world, this paper will focus on both progressive and Orthodox Judaism, and the ways in which Jewish women have been successful in finding spaces for themselves while contesting others, calling for a revision in Hallachic traditions. Given the “problem of difference” in feminist discourse, where women (particularly women of color and of non-normative sexualities and abilities) have been marginalized in their own movement because of the emphasis that has been put solely on what unites them (i.e. oppression) (Spelman 4), we must also take into account differences among women in the Jewish community. This paper is committed to delineating some of the recently contested aspects of Judaism with regard to women’s self-worth and religious pride, ultimately in an effort to explore the choices Jewish women have in gaining oppressive knowledge. In this sense, it reflects stand-point theory’s belief that our positions as women (with intersectional identities) enables a unique perspective that is inherently out-of-reach to men who benefit fully from current Jewish structures. Jewish knowledge is linear, and it is a citational history. The problem many (but not all) women face in this citational history is two-fold: what has been cited regarding her responsibilities and devotion take up perhaps a quarter of documented Jewish history, if that. Second, her history is largely one of absence. This lack of visibility in representations of women connote them as one-dimensional figures as opposed to the multi-faceted, intricate beings described as “men.” This is evident from the male pronouns used throughout Jewish texts. Although the male norm is often collapsed into the universal, human norm in which somehow “the generic masculine includes the feminine,” it is problematic to do so because women and Matsuura !2 men are socialized differently in all cultures (Gross 19). While in theory this would provide full membership for women, it is evident that in practice, no such overlap of women-men, feminine- masculine exists. Otherwise practices such as the Nashim in which women must sit upstairs and men downstairs in the Synagogue, contraception for women but not men (Genesis 38), and minyan (counting 10 adult men for the official reading and practice of Judaism) would not exist. These practices do not even encompass the biological variations in practice between women and men (i.e. menstruation, circumcision, etc.). Since the masculine equals the norm, and yet women are by definition different from men, women are thus defined in relation to men. Here, texts concerning women may speak to women’s otherness. It is said women were historically exempt from “time-bound commandments because of family responsibilities and obligations which might prevent their regularly fulfilling them” (Baskin 5), so there already exists the expectation for women’s limited participation. Perhaps that is why many of the responsibilities of women revolve around what they must not do —particularly when she is menstruating. When one asks why she must not have any physical contact with her husband during her period, she is told she will create too much temptation. Here, it is crucial to note her status as temptress is prescribed to her by man. Her subjectivity, then, is nonexistent. Much of women’s frustration with Jewish representations of themselves revolves around this nonexistence. In her observance of niddah in Orthodox Judaism, Blu Greenberg acknowledges the subject as one that “lay very quiet and deep inside of me” (106). Such restraint speaks to the lack of discursive space for women to discuss their bodies. Similarly, Hellig notes the absence of blessings in Judaism catered to women (41). The Jewish woman thus confronts a restricted sense of self, of what she can be, both from the limited representations that exist for her (woman as temptress, impure, and unable to fulfill time-bound commandments) as well as the lack of representations or, perhaps more specifically, a lack of reference to female power figures. How, then, can women ever feel fully participatory in her own religion? Feminists face this question about contexts outside of religion as well. Some feel that women cannot fully participate in Judaism and so call for a dismantling and rebuilding of Jewish feminism. Others, Matsuura !3 feel that Judaism is already so intrinsic to their identity they instead work from within current structures. Parallel arguments exist between radical and liberal feminism in relation to the patriarchy. For feminist Judaism, working within can take several forms. Greenberg, for example, finds meaning the the limits placed on her sexuality during niddah. As a form of reverse psychology, what happens within the limitations has the potential to become very special (118). In other words, the ritual encourages alternative modes of communication between men and women (119). When put this way, sex begins to revolve around Jewish women’s cycles as opposed to an imposition brought on by their counterparts. This is exactly the kind of reparative reading necessary in the construction of a more inclusive Judaism. In an attempt to provide more texts with women’s voices, Greenberg writes, in her own subjectivity, her sacred experience with niddah. By inserting their own histories, stories, and experiences from a woman’s point of view, women are contributing to the Jewish tradition in a context in which they finally can, or should, be able to participate. Understandably, however, contribution comes from a stance of privilege. That being said, there is profound empowerment in the act of searching for forgotten or hidden histories regarding women in the historical texts of a text-oriented, linear religion. “Feminism is therefore…an attempt by women…to become full members of Judaism” (Hellig 39), where full members may embody adequate emotional or physical membership, both of which are crucial in teaching future women the ways in which they can increase the versatility in their representations of Jewish women. First, we must make our choices visible. Matsuura !4 Works Cited Baskin, Judith. “The Separation of Women in Rabbinic Judaism.” Women, Religion and Social Change, edited by Y.Y. Haddad and E.B. Findly, Suny Press, 1985, pp. 3–17. Greenberg, Blu. “In Defense of the ‘Daughters of Israel’: Observations on Niddah and Mikveh.” On Women and Judaism: A View from Tradition, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981, pp. 105–123/ Gross, Rita. Feminism & Religion; An Introduction. Beacon Press, 1996, pp. 5–28. Hellig, Jocelyn. “The Feminist Challenge to Halachah.” Jewish Affairs, 2000, pp. 38–44. Spelman, Elizabeth. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought, The Women’s Press, 1990, pp. 1–17..