How Is This A Good Thing?

This past Shabbos I was in a shul I have davened in only once before. There's a different Rabbi from the last time I was there, and so the announcement were different from what I remembered.

Each "Mazal Tov" was announced (I will use a generic name name for example purposes) as "Reb Chaim Schwartz and his family."  Even for the family who had had a baby, this was the way it was announced.  I cannot fathom what the reason could be that it could not be announced as "Reb Chaim and Mrs. Schwartz and their family"

What's the big deal you ask? Why does it matter if the woman's name isn't mentioned? Well, for one thing, by announcing it the way it was announced, the wife is equated with the children.  The man and his wife are not equals, or partners. There is the man, and as my sister says "those people he lives with."

Second it is degrading to women who are sitting there to be lumped in as an afterthought. We cannot mention women, because apparently the mere mention and mere thought that there is a female will send men into the depths impurity.

But the real reason, and I am not being sarcastic with this one, is that women today are out in the world. They are working and providing for their families, and the younger women are often the sole breadwinners, providing all financial sustainability for their brood. They are smart and hard working, and need to be to keep their jobs. They are respected and they are appreciated and validated by co-workers, bosses and clients. And then they come back to their own communities where they are ignored. This is not a safe or healthy scenario. Women are human beings, most humans enjoy and even thrive on validation, appreciation, and respect. If they cannot find it in our circles, where will they go to look for it?

Ignoring women won't make them go away, it won't make them more Tziniyus, it won't make them love Torah, or bring them closer to Hashem.

If that's true, then what's the point?

What Will I Get For It?

It appears to me that the current generation of children (by those I mean young adults/young marrieds-there's still hope for the youngers, but barely...read on)) seems to be fairly self-focused.  I will immediately say that I do not believe this to be true of all young people, and that plenty of them have a world view that goes past the end of their own noses, but many, unfortunately, are in the other camp. Now, I am  not old enough to know if this is a recent phenomenon, or even if these people will eventually grow out of it, but I (of course) have a theory on potentially how this came to pass.

It is unlikely that this is the only reason, but it is certainly a prevailing trend that is not doing any of us any favors. What is this scourge that turns well meaning individuals into those looking to see what it means for them?

The "Chesed Prize."

Apparently today one cannot do work for an organization on a purely volunteer basis. One cannot collect goods or money for those less fortunate or institutions in need without some sort of tangible real world payoff, where the ante gets upped as the volunteers get older.

I understand the need to motivate some kids, and incentivize, but it has become so rampant  that it seems that there are hardly any projects accomplished without a "prize" attached. From sodas, to trinkets that break within five minutes, to pizza parties, to grandiose trips, all good deeds come with some sort of, well, bribe.  In discussing the collection of small bags of potato chips for  a local hospital with one of the principals of one of the schools (where the student body would be  helping to bring a small bag of deep fry solace to those who were in the hospital with a loved one), the question was raised what would the kids would be given for bringing in their chips.

This is the problem. We've taken the act of giving, of caring, of doing for others and made it about what we can get for ourselves. The worst part is, the children who are innately giving and caring are having that character trait diminished in themselves through these programs that insist you need to get to give. We've created selfishness in the realm of selflessness, and then we wonder why know one cares about anyone besides themselves.

Is this definitely why so many young people cannot (as I have said often)  "get past themselves" to figure out a way to go a little out of their own comfort zone, or out of their way for others? And by others I don't necessarily mean strangers.And by out of the way it doesn't necessarily mean doing tasks and chores usually associated with "giving" or volunteering.  Sometimes it takes some effort to figure out how to join a Simcha, even if it means driving far, getting a babysitter, and changing a schedule here and there. But we can do things for people in our lives. We can make an effort and not only do what comes simply. And if the payoff is rubber chicken and kids who are kvetchy, but we've made the effort and we show others that we care about them, and that they matter, then that's the payoff. Someone else's happiness.  For one small disruption in our lives we've taken the feelings of someone else into account, dare I say, first. That doesn't mean every Simcha, or every event, but when family makes an event, or events by people we have a true connection with (and when you are young you don't have those every night)it may be the simplest act of Chesed to just show up.

We just need to be more focused on not always putting ourselves first. But in a culture where everyone needs to be happy without necessarily creating the opportunities to achieve true happiness, it's hard to find those who can really put others first. This is not about being someone who volunteers, or someone who is always giving. It's about being out in the world and not always assuming that others are out to get one over on you, or that you need to push your way forward, or be aggressive in driving, and just generally not give a thought to the people around you.

SO...

So my dear blog readers. I hope that your lack of response to the previous post was just you being cautious, and I have not lost you all.

Another letter came today, her second choice (really she didn't want to go, but was told she had to apply to two places), and they "wait listed her." which means a rejection, but no one wants to say that.

HOWEVER:

 SHE GOT IN TO HER FIRST CHOICE YESTERDAY!!! 

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!  

We are so happy for her.

Waiting...

...At this point, it's a mere ten minutes.

I went to the mailbox, looking for the high school girls' report cards, which almost everyone else in their school received late last week.  Nonchalantly, because there are few surprises on their report cards, I took out the stack of letters.

There on the top was a letter we were not expecting until at least tomorrow. I was unprepared for the flip- flop that my stomach did as I looked at the return address of the school the eldest child would like to attend next year. GULP.

I want this for her because I think it's the right place. I want this for her, because as her mother I don't want her to have to deal with rejection. I want this for her because she wants this for herself, and it is attainable, and will put her on a good path for the future.

I want this for her because I love her.

I just need her to get home and open the darn thing!

Independence Day

With the world as crazy as it is, we have taken to sheltering our children, but perhaps it has gone too far.

I know things are different from the way they were twenty five years ago, but we are creating a generation of super dependent children. Aside from cell phones taking a way a young teenager's opportunity to navigate the world on her own, to many parents are to afraid to let  their kids go. Do they not trust them, or is this just another step in our "parenting from fear" policy?

When I was in eighth grade, and going forward I went into the city from the suburbs with a friend of mine every time we had vacation. We took the bus, we took the bus back, we stayed past dark, and our parents' input was a piece of paper with a few pertinent places we wanted to go to, and a crude map of Manhattan. Oh, and no cell phone.

My friends' kids went into the city with a complete plan and itinerary mapped out by their mothers, the other one went WITH her mother, and one of my daughter's friends (almost 18) was allowed to go if they left the city by the time it got dark. Hmm.

Living in the suburbs it is very hard to give our kids any freedom or independence. There are very few places they can go to themselves, and the culture around here is just very car-centric and not at all public transportation based. Thus, I was quite excited when my daughter got her licence, because now she has the ability and the necessity to navigate the world, and interact with people and life without her parents doing things for her. I guess I am unsure as to why a parent would resist allowing their older children the ability to become a productive member of society, a functioning social being able to navigate the world around them in a way that will eventually give them  maturity and a step into adulthood. 

I look at my eldest and I see the little eighteen month old who climbed out of her crib at nap time, the one who looked up at me with huge innocent eyes, as she played, her facing registering a "what? did I do something wrong?" expression.  It's hard to see her moving on, but that's what she needs, and that what shes up to, and it hurts, but I can't hold her back, and I want her to succeed.

When they sprout the wings, we  need to let them fly.

Photo Evidence

Here is the photo, the sticky notes are covering up specific information about the who, why, what, when, where-  this is the internet after all!

From the ad with the face

From the ad blurred

There you have it! Seeing the picture shows even more of the absurdity of this. She's wearing a towel and her arm is exposed. As MBB puts it, the "temptress in the Harbor!" Wanna know why people stopped being frum when they got here? It was because of what loomed large above them as the boat sailed into Ellis Island. How could they withstand the temptation? Plus, if you get close, I think her toes are showing too!

They've Gone Too Far

By now my feelings on the omitting or  blurring of women's photos in magazines and ad circulars is well known.  I think though that things have finally reached the tipping point. At least for me.

My high schoolers are gearing up for their production, dance and drama, with one on the props committee, which is really not only props but set decoration. That means building the sets from scratch;  a lot of cardboard, foam and paint, coupled with blood (literally), sweat, burns, and laughter. (If there are tears we haven't seen them). Part of this endeavor is publicity,  aside from going to the local schools to sell tickets, ads are placed in local publications. My niece is running that committee, and alerted me to the following travesty parading as religiosity.

The play is an immigrant story, taking place at the time of the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory fire. The art for the poster and print ads is the backs of two immigrants with an American flag and the Statue of Liberty looming large above them.  In one of the ad magazines that are available for free at the supermarket (pages of local ads, some coupons and classifieds, lots of pictures of Rebbes,parlor meetings, accidents and weather related snapshots) the ad is in there, in the relatively early pages (61), albeit there is a change.

The Statue of Liberty's face has been blurred out.

If it wasn't so sad I would laugh.