Book Review
Book Review: “Unorthodox” by Deborah Feldman
This is a review of Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots by Deborah Feldman. There are many reviews of the book that are thinly disguised reviews of Ms. Feldman. This is not one of those reviews. There are many reviews that are little more than defenses of Orthodox Judaism, or of Satmar. This is not one of those reviews. Where Ms. Feldman herself is relevant, I’ll invoke her, but it’s the book I’m reviewing, not her decision to leave or to write it.
Regarding the accuracy of claims made in the book, I’m not qualified to comment. However, I do find it troubling, and will follow the situation as it develops. As Ms. Feldman writes in the prologue: “[...] publishing my life story calls for scrupulous honesty, and not just my own.” Hella Winston is a fine reporter, but I doubt it taxed her excessively to find out the truth behind the story of the alleged murder. Why couldn’t Simon & Schuster have done the same? The most valuable aspect of the story—that people within the community find a covered-up child murder somewhat plausible—is a much sharper point than a factually incorrect claim of a killing, and the distraction saps the point’s punch.
Unorthodox is not a terrible book, but it is a deeply flawed book. It sorely lacks the maturity of years and is often transparently poor in insight. The book would have been far more valuable with a few more years distance from her break with the community, giving more time for reflection on the past and more content of her life post-break.
The lack of maturity manifests in many ways. Williamsburg is invariably described as dirty, smelly, filthy, etc. That may be how it’s colored in her memory, but a more mature and nuanced view of the Brooklyn neighborhood would surely be more insightful. The book is also tainted with myths, mistakes, and poor editing. The very first sentence contains a myth about Satmar (that it’s named after Saint Mary; it isn’t). The timing of events don’t fit with external evidence. Many of these are excusable as things that she believed; it is a memoir after all. But clarifying such things and identifying what was (understandable) incorrect belief is what separates a good book from a poor one.
Critically, the author makes no distinction between the things that were peculiar to her circumstances and what is common in Satmar in general. Many things she describes (maybe even accurately) as her experience in her family are definitely not typical of Satmar life. Her indiscriminate mixing of aberrations with things that are common in Satmar damages the book’s flow and accuracy, even as a memoir. The book is riddled with it: that a Satmar woman would expect to never fly on a plane (pg. 9), that compliments and physical affection to kids is frowned upon (pg. 18), and on throughout the book. This flaw is particularly tragic for the book since it’s so unnecessary. The parts of her story that are common within Satmar are often moving and interesting, as they should be. The conflation leaves the reader with a mistaken impression about Satmar, surely not something a book with this one’s subtitle should aspire to.
More time and distance would have also benefited the characterization of some of her family members. Her Aunt Chaya in particular bears the brunt of this heavy-handed, thick-lined drawing. Surely she deserves a more shaded portrayal than the Disney villain she’s made out to be. Chaya’s story is not one that is undeserving of sympathy. She was given the thankless task of finding a place and future for a girl with awful prospects in a community where reputation is second to Godliness. Many will find fault with her actions, but the book’s moral authority was weakened by a lack of any sympathy for a woman in a tough position through no fault of her own and trying to make the best of it. The only allowance Ms. Feldman grants Chaya is a single sentence at the end of the prologue, one that is immediately repudiated by the rest of the book.
Her husband, Eli, also falls victim to this lack of sympathy. Ms. Feldman never credits his feelings as a young man stymied by vaginismus and, later, a wife who is uninterested in sex or even foreplay. Ms. Feldman writes that they fight, but not about what. He was thrown into a loveless arranged marriage as much as she was, but only she is portrayed as victimized by it. I did find curious how quickly she glossed over the implication that he gave her an STD, but the brevity was too cryptic to read into.
More distance would have also improved her insight into what she left behind. The end of the book makes pretty clear that she claims no loss, and definitely no regret, from what she left behind. But life is rarely that neat, and the Satmar community for all its flaws is more than a conglomeration of horrors. Most telling in this regard is her comment quoted in The Forward’s Sisterhood blog: “‘Everything I miss I can have,’ she said. ‘If I want cholent, I make cholent. I have it all now.’” Religion didn’t become a near-universal aspect of human culture due to its connection to ethnic food. If she she thinks cholent is what she left behind then she needs to ruminate a bit longer.
The book succeeds best when it connects emotionally with the reader, as it did many times with me. I twisted with pained horror at her having to sneak out to the library, and I had to put the book down for a breather when she’s forced to gather her beloved books to be sent to the dumpster. Libraries have been a big and happy part of my life for decades; my library card is rubbed smooth from active use. The thought of hiding library visits and then losing one’s books is particularly painful for me. Her pain is shared by other members of Unpious. I had the same moving experience reading Shulem Deen’s post Raising Rebels: Pt II, wherein he describes having to bring his children into the conspiracy of their library attendance. My kids each got a library card not long after receiving their birth certificate, and almost never miss the Friday pre-Shabbos library trip to restock for the week. Ms. Feldman’s experience was affecting and deeply troubling.
Her experience of leaving Chasidism so as to gain access to wished-for things is not unique. At several points in the book I was struck by the similarity of her feelings to the feeling expressed in the video, made by members of the Unpious.com community, titled It Gets Besser. A play on the gay It Gets Better campaign, it shows before and after pictures of people who left Chasidism. The after pictures show them swimming with dolphins, boating, biking, camping, etc. When I first saw that video, what came to mind is that I, as a member (in good standing!) of a Modern Orthodox community, do all those things—and with my shul friends, definitely not in secret. Lest you think I mean that as a judgment against them for leaving Orthodoxy to get access to those things, allow me to disabuse you of that notion: I mean the opposite. That video and Ms. Feldman’s book are a more damning indictment of the Chasidic world than any gleefuly prurient exposé of hilchot niddah could ever be. When the book is at its most effective is when it is expressing how ill-suited the lifestyle is for people who will not be happy within its narrow confines. The Satmar lifestyle documented in the book can and does make some people joyously happy—but woe is to you if you’re not one of those people. You needn’t be far from the prescribed and proscribed norm to suffer; there’s precious little allowance for personal quirks. The only Chasidim I see at triathlons are Lubavitch, and thus books like Ms. Feldman’s ring more forcefully.
Inevitably when this point about her book is raised, some jump in to denounce her for not remaining observant in a Modern Orthodox environment. But her book contains the answer to that: why should she? The community spent decades drilling into her the illegitimacy of any other stream of Judaism; it’s hypocritical of them to then turn and demand she disregard it. You can’t fully legitimate a Modern Orthodox lifestyle as an acceptable alternative and still manage to keep people as Satmar. A sense of being the One and Only Right Way to God is a necessary ingredient, and she imbibed it.
Furthermore, what good would it have done her? Would she have maintained a healthy, meaningful relationship with her family? Of course not. As per above, that option would scarcely have left her better off. She’d still be alienated, divorced, and tossed into a different culture. Two years ago I spent some time with a young man who was a Modern Orthodox ex-Chasid. The guy was 100% frum. He had done exactly what those people suggest when he found the Chasidic lifestyle too stifling: became MO. I spent a whole 24 hours in a car with him, so I got to know him: great guy, amazingly upbeat. But his family virtually disowned him and are ashamed of him. When he got married, his father refused to attend unless he wore a shtreimel to his own wedding. You understand: the shame. He told his father that he can choose to not come, but he himself will do as he wants. His father folded his bluff. Still, he suffers constantly from being distant with his family despite being totally frum, a nicer guy than I am, and having a bunch of cute kids. The book doesn’t spell it out, but the lessons she was taught make this clear enough.
The book is undermined by Feldman’s lack of maturity in other ways. She has a tendency to lump all non-Chasidic lifestyles together, failing to draw important distinctions within the broader world. In this manner, she refers to her desire to not be Chasidic as a desire to be “normal.” (Pg. 2141: “I’m going to be normal, so normal no one will ever know.”) On pg. 230 she writes that she doesn’t “own any normal clothing” so she buys jeans. But normal depends on context, and even wearing jeans can be a sign of conformity to a sub-sect (just ask the skinny jeans-wearing hipsters that share her maligned Williamsburg). It’s common among people leaving an insular world to be too blinded by the glare of The Outside World in their adjusting eyes to make out the gradients of other lifestyle and cultures. What is “normal,” and does a black community where basketball star Grant Hill is called an Uncle Tom for being educated qualify? Chasidim aren’t the only ones that view education with suspicion and as cultural betrayal. Only in the epilogue is there a glimmer of awareness of this when she makes an insightful comparison between the community from which she departed and the New Orleans community she’s visiting. What’s normal in NOLA?
In the same vein, she shares with many ex-fundamentalists the trait of being too easily impressed. The teachers she meets are all paragons of brilliance, and her friends are all living lives worthy of jealousy. I could only cringe when she writes about meeting a poetry professor (pg 223), “I feel privileged just speaking to him.” Time would have left the admiration intact but put the fawning in perspective.
The lack of time also makes for a very rushed ending. From the time she decides to finally make a break for it to the end of the book is a breathless three pages. In those few pages she has enough time to assure us that everything is wonderful now, all her dreams came true (really!), and she regrets nothing. Lost in the haste to end on a saccharine note are some fascinating opportunities for reflection. Also inexplicable is the missed opportunity to see through her eyes how outsiders view Chasidim, something she gives only a tantalizing hint of (“people described them to my face as pushy, offensive, and unhygienic”). That glimpse of trouble in paradise begs for a more thorough exploration.
I’ve read many OTD-related books (heck, nearly all of them). Many are great books, some are insightful, and most had value. My critique of Unorthodox has nothing to do with her decision to leave Chasidism, or even observance. She left a shitty life, as she had every right to. Her personal circumstances were even more stifling and just plain atrocious than the average Satmar woman. Ms. Feldman’s book is, as I said, deeply flawed on its own merits.
Printable Version
Thanks for a really good review which manages to step back from the potential knee jerk reaction and view the book with clarity and objectivity. It’s a little annoying when a book’s repute is based on its shock factor rather than literary merit, something I also found with “the Rabbi’s Daughter” by Reva Mann.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
7
Its nice to read a review that actually discusses the book.
I fully agree with you. She wrote the book too soon, and it suffers for it. However, I found much of the book to be incredibly emotional, and I think time would’ve dampened those emotions.
I believe one of the reasons she published the book now was to help in her custody battle. As such, I find it hard to criticize the timing.
Like this comment?
3
I wonder when someone who has spent as much time in one lifestyle as in the other is going to write a book making a fairer comparison. (I was a goy 16 years, now a Jew for 35 and counting.)
Like this comment?
2
This blog is interesting.
http://deborah-feldman-exposed.blogspot.com/
Apparently the woman is a true pathological liar who, after all is said and done, will go far in defaming the ex-orthodox community.
Like this comment?
0
I hardly think that Mr. Ovitz, who describes himself as “… a member (in good standing!) of a Modern Orthodox community,” is qualified to share with the Unpious community his review of this memoir. His bias oozes throughout this unimaginative and subjective review, especially when he naively remarks “some jump in to denounce her for not remaining observant in a Modern Orthodox environment.” Who jumps in, exactly, aside from Ovitz and perhaps his kiddish club cronies? No one wonders “why is she not MO?” Feldman’s life path is what it is, where does her becoming your version of religious come into play at all?
How dare Ovitz’s conclusion insult his readers by summing up; “My critique of Unorthodox has nothing to do with her decision to leave Chasidism, or even observance,”
when his disjointed references to the virtues of Modern Orthodoxy clearly indicate otherwise.
Overall this review is unbalanced and seems to dwell too long on the flaws that do exist in the memoir, as well as imagining new things to pick on: Ovitz derides Feldman’s immaturity when she describes “being normal and wearing jeans.” He dismisses Feldman with the tired condescending tone many ex-chasidim are used to hearing from Ovitz-types: “It’s common among people leaving an insular world to be blinded by the glare of The Outside World.” Ovitz continues his snorting; “ In the same vein, she shares with many ex-fundamentalists the trait of being too easily impressed.” Well excuse me, you smug, boating, biking, camping, worldly gentleman! Do you know what it is like to encounter open minded intellectual free-thinkers –such as Feldman’s poetry professor- after leaving a close minded society? It is a revelation,is what it is, and I don’t see why you have to deride Felman’s powerful relationship with a successful educator. I am far more impressed by Feldman’s positive encounters with Academia than I am of Ovitz’s cynical haughty dismissals.
Indeed, Mr. Ovitz’s review is deeply flawed on its own merits.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
16
I loved the balanced tone of the review. Immaturity and naivete are at least in part products of being raised in an environment where exposure to the best thinking is threatening and threatened. As such they are part of the story. Maybe the author will write another book after she has had time to reflect further.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
David Duke would probably appreciate your site as well, Stein.
You two think much alike on many issues.
Like this comment?
3
> He was thrown into a loveless arranged marriage as much as she was, but only she is portrayed as victimized by it.
Maybe she sees him as part of the system? Not a person in his own right, but part of “the community” that made her life miserable.
> She has a tendency to lump all non-Chasidic lifestyles together, failing to draw important distinctions within the broader world.
Of course. That’s what she was taught her whole life. That’s what we were all taught. There’s the Torah True, and there’s everyone else.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
She wrote a book that reflects the way she perceived her life. The main thing we can fault her for, is not being more open-minded.
Like this comment?
0
Gosh darn it. You had to link to the old Hasidic Rebel blog, where I am now gonna spend the next two weeks dissecting Religion as Fairytale. This website is the biggest rabbit hole I’ve ever encountered online.
Like this comment?
2
According to reports coming in here
http://deborah-feldman-exposed.blogspot.com/
she wasn’t even very chassidish to begin with. Notice her very American way of speaking? The book is just some antisemitic nonsense like Vicki Polin’s famous appearance on Oprah. This is going to embarrass Feldman, her publisher, all Jews, Hassidic Jews, former Hassidic Jews. Simon and Schuster must be kicking themselves.
Like this comment?
0
Jesse, you come tantalizingly close to it when you say ‘Do you know what it is like to encounter open minded intellectual free-thinkers –such as Feldman’s poetry professor- after leaving a close minded society?’, yet Ovits’ point seems to have gone straight over your head.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
14
YAWN….YAWN… I am yawning simply because no one who actually behaved as a Jew went OTD. Lets examine what Rav Avigdor Miller ztl (Laitzonim KEEP QUIET and just read) calls a great Jew. Then lets examine all of our OTD friends and family members. I think it will be very enlightening. I call this OND–On the Derech. The derech of real LIFE!
10 STEPS TO GREATNESS by Rav Avigdor Miller zt’l
Do the following once a day for 30 days.
1. Spend 30 seconds thinking of Olam Haba
2. Say once “I love you Hashem”
3. Do one hidden act of chesed.
4. Be like Hashem who lifts the humble, say something to encourage someone.
5. Spend 1 minute about what happened yesterday (cheshbon hanefesh).
6. Your actions should be l’shem shamayim (say once during meals)
7. Look into someone’s face and think “I’m seeing a tzelem Elokim”
8. Just like Hashem’s face shines on us, give someone a big smile.
9. When saying “malbish arumim”, think about the great gift of garments.
10. When reciting the words, “If I forget you, Yerushalayim…,” sit on floor and think of loss of Yerushalayim (privately, 1 second)
Like this comment?
1
I like my apikursush well written. Unfortunately, ‘Unorthodox’ was not.
Like this comment?
2
“The very first sentence contains a myth about Satmar (that it’s named after Saint Mary; it isn’t).” It’s an easy mistake to make, given the resemblance. Except it’s also well known Satmar is NOT named after Saint Mary. The mistake has been so often made and debunked that printing it without fact checking is pretty sloppy.
I’m impressed with Deborah and would love to meet her. But I agree. The mistakes, both big and small, do a disservice to the book as a whole.
Like this comment?
0
Deborah Feldman’s Family on the Verge of Filing a Lawsuit against Simon & Schuster:
http://www.tlj-news.com/2012/02/28/deborah-feldman%E2%80%99s-family-on-the-verge-of-filing-a-lawsuit-against-simon-schuster/
Like this comment?
0
The review was great and well thought out. You (as well as others who reviewed this excuse of a book.) point out some of the flaws in this collection of scribblings and drivel. Just the fact alone of the mistaken origin of the name “Satmar” points to shallowness and intellectual laziness of the author. To me, especially (I love to dabble in trivia.) this is sort of a test of the intelligence of the protagonist. But, seriously. She failed miserably in the achievement of any goals that she might have set for herself in writing this book. Other than heaping dirt on the people who cared for her the most. And as a collection of excuses for the failings in her personal life. Beside the malicious misstatement of facts which are in the public record.
It is quite possible that with all the negative (and rightly so.) reviews of this book, the publisher. Simon and Schuster might recall it, or relegate it to the “Sale Annex” of the major book stores, where it will sell for a fraction of its original price.
Like this comment?
0
“Just the fact alone of the mistaken origin of the name “Satmar” points to shallowness and intellectual laziness of the author. ”
The Satmar Rav wrote Sakmar, at least in the 1930s. Does that point to his shallowness and intellectual laziness?
Highly rated. Like this comment?
7
do a google on “deborah feldman pippi longstocking”
Like this comment?
0
Reply to “S”; of 02/29/12;
Why the Satmar Rebbe pronounced it as “Sakmer”, I don’t know. Nor am I interested. But among the many sources of reference that I consulted, none of them lists it as being at or near, St. Mary. I reiterate. The deliberate or negligent misstatement of such a basic fact, points to a lack of being scrupulous with the truth. Furthermore. Her statement about the mental incapacity of her father, is greatly exaggerated. In fact, he works for a living at a regular job. A mentally ill person would not be able to perform the work that he is doing. As one reviewer called her (state of mind)”On the Cusp of Adulthood”. Meaning an adolescent. To sum up. Other than being a collection of half-truths and complete lies, this “Book” has no intellectual value.
Like this comment?
3
How does the author of the post still bite on Feldmans claim to be a literary prodigy, after reading the book giving the review? Of the many untruths that I was initially baited on, that was a give away.
I suspect the sharp but eloquent negative reply post was authored by a member of the publisher. Certainly not from a junior member of their team. It was professional and dogmatic.
Your playing with the big boys
Alex
Like this comment?
0
“Why the Satmar Rebbe pronounced it as “Sakmer”, I don’t know. Nor am I interested.”
That’s convenient. Because you had said “Just the fact alone of the mistaken origin of the name “Satmar” points to shallowness and intellectual laziness of the author.” When I asked if the fact that the Satmar Rav seemed to have labored under this same illusion also pointed to his his shallowness and intellectual laziness, instead of refuting my contention, you say that you are not interested in why he pronounced it that way. Like I said, convenient. Or is it lazy? Or shallow?
I would suggest that if you have a convincing alternative explanation it would be good to give it. Until then, try to think of something else to stand in for her intellectual laziness that the Satmar Rav himself did not apparently agree with.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
“The most valuable aspect of the story—that people within the community find a covered-up child murder somewhat plausible—is a much sharper point than a factually incorrect claim of a killing, and the distraction saps the point’s punch.”
this is just stupid. you could lie to bring about a point that cant be proven true if not for the lie. ever heard of a catch 22?
the thing that bothers me most about your review is you are missing the big point about feldman…she lies…and she lies alot, not just about the murder claim. she lied about her background, she lied about when and how her mother walked out, she lied about what schools she went to, she lied about her prearranged marriage (they went out for 3 months before getting married and it wasnt through a shadchan) she claims she wasnt accepted in the community yet in real life she managed to land a job in UTA, the satmar beis yaakov, she just lies and lies… not to expose a community riddled with problems but to exploit the public’s lack of knowledge about the aforementioned community to make as much money as possible. Im not chassidish, i am an otd litvak nonetheless even i knew when to call a bluff and half of what she wrote was simply not true. she really didnt know what a vagina was until the night before her wedding…?! and where did she imagine the blood was coming from monthly? her rear end?! furthermore you have to learn hilchos nida and do bedikos long before your wedding, if she only found out about her vagina the night before her wedding than there was simply no way for her to get married the next day (barring a chupas nidda). in order for a memoir to make a statement, it has to be true, not that it could be true in theory but that it actually is true. her book isnt, its fiction and as such, i probably couldve done a better job writing it.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
6
Confused, there have been more than a couple of documented cases in medical literature of Hareidi couples who did not have any idea where the vagina was, were not having sex, and were not conceiving. Maybe such is the case with only 1 in 1000 couples, but it is real. The fact that these kallahs are not properly performing bedikos does not mean that they did not get married. You want to ask a kashya on a mayseh? Since this does exist, where do you get off assuming that Feldman is lying here, simple because in your naivete you imagine that it doesn’t ever happen?
Like this comment?
0
Did anyone else catch how she used Chaim Potoks “the chosen” to segway into her lie, about having to sneak into the library. She used a fictional character, who lied to his parents about his pursuit of literacy, to project and shadow her lie about having lie to go the library, in a ‘non-fiction’.
Like this comment?
0
anon, i dare you to find me even one documented case of a chassidish girl not knowing what a vagina was the night before she got married. the fact that couples cant properly consummate their marriage does not mean they lack knowledge of what a vagina is. according to your logic, your very “documentation” could be used to prove that chassidish men dont know what a penis is. i could make broad claims and say almost any crazy story is true on the basis that it could be true. thats what an urban legend is. something that could be true in theory and even sounds plausible…but simply isnt. thank you for ignoring the rest of my earlier post though.
Like this comment?
0
I used to sneak out to the library as a teenager to read books about judaism. Seriously. Maybe I can write a book about how I escaped from the extreme cult called Lutheranism?
Stomfront is picking up on this as expected.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t869777/
Like this comment?
0
Confused and Anon, I would like to tell you that I am a girl who grew up in a very conservative Christian home with “traditional” type parents who never discussed sex issues… ever… I was not prepared when I began to have my period and no one ever told me anything. I only knew what to do because I have an older sister and I copied her. (my mom did talk with her a little) I did not learn what sex was until my senior year of high school in a required health class. (I was 17… the age, I believe, the girl in question was married) My parents had previously had me opt out of the sex sections of the health classes. I focused on academics and mostly socialized with my family and church friends so I had not ever heard of such things before. So yes, it is possible for a girl not to know about sex and parts of her body (for goodness sake they are inside of her!) I think for a boy, among peers, locker room talk, it is easier to find out about sex because it is an organ that is outside and visible and in puberty he will start having erections and such. Obviously, I know about my body a lot now and I am married but I’m just saying you could be a little more respectful to ladies and the fact that even me growing up in “normal” society it is quite possible to be sheltered from those conversations and knowledge. I certainly was.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
PS. As a side note. Yes, I had my period when I was 13 and I learned what sex was when I was 17. No, it never occurred to me to think where the blood was coming from. You have to remember that many people go through life and see creation and never stop to think that there is a Creator. How the very laws of physics require a “first-cause” an un-created being that was the first to create. In the same way, when topics are never discussed and seemingly taboo it is only in retrospect that we can make the statements you are making. The concerns on the mind of a girl who never thinks/talks about sex issues is no where near, “hmmm where is my vagina and where does the monthly blood come from?” It is dealing with growing up and relationships and fear of change and uncertainty and a whole world of other things that are discussed and talked about in one’s life and community.
You make some very valid points and it would be unfortunate if points in her book are false however we can all take advantage of general truths like our needs to be loved and accepted and cared for and perhaps examine our own life to see how we can love and accept and care for others.
There is always a lesson we can learn, if we are wise enough to find it.
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
naima, the reason you didnt fully appreciate what i said is because you are not so privy to jewish and especially chassidish law. before a woman gets married, she has one on one classes weeks if not months before her wedding discussing everything as there are many many laws that are needed to be covered. There are called kalla classes (bride classes), thos teaching them are called kallah teachers. now if feldman went to classes before her wedding on a weekly basis which almost totally discuss the vagina, the uterus, uteral blood, virginal bleeding etc etc.and still didnt know what was going on till the night before her wedding, well mild retardation would be an understatement.
Like this comment?
0
p.s if she would have written the book as a fiction, i could hear your points. the problem is she claims this all happened to her and once you lie about alittle, there is not reason to assume you didnt lie about the whole thing. meaning, you become guilty till proven innocent. there is a blog devoted to exposing her lies. I mean to say her own personally life story and how the real thing is not similar to the book at all. She didnt go to satmar schools her whole life, she wasnt forced to get to married, her mother didnt abandon her when she was a child, the community did help her and support her, and the list goes on. one has to wonder how much of the story is actually true and after all is said and done, most of it is simply a LIE.
Like this comment?
0
Whether all or some parts of this story are true is beside the point to me. The fact that a totally patriarchal religion that supresses women exists is the part that scares me and is the reason that I don’t belong to a religion that does. Hurray for Deborah for leaving such a repulsive society.
Like this comment?
0
what for some seems repulsive for others seems beautiful and the vice versa.
Like this comment?
0
I liked Feldman’s book, chiefly because she clearly describes the source of her unhappiness in her community. According to her, no person in her community took the time or the trouble to develop a meaningful, loving relationship with her, and as a result, no one had the moral and emotional authority to enforce the rules upon her without leaving her bereft.
Her grandparents meant well and did their best, but the generational and cultural gaps meant that they could not help her. Her grandmother could only express her love the way that my eighty-year old grandmother does, through lovingly prepared food and the constant exhortations to eat.
Everyone else in her life, including her aunt and her husband, saw her as a girl who broke rules and caused trouble. Her parentage meant that she was a difficult girl to marry off. Her aunt saw her as someone who had to be raised and married off so as to not disgrace the family. Her husband saw her as someone who wasn’t performing the role of the wife properly.
She wasn’t valued for any intrinsic spark of individuality, creativity, intelligence or kindness as a daughter, friend, student, or woman. Whatever she said to her friends and family would be shrugged off. Her community only valued her for her ability to perform the role of a good Hasidic woman. She was valued in exactly the same way that a chair is valued for its sturdiness, a cup is valued for its ability to hold water, and a dog is valued for its ability to obey the commands of its master: she was property.
She doesn’t say this explicitly in any line of the book, but her anger against being told what to do, how to do it, and with whom is not just a simple rebellion against authority. It’s a rebellion against being treated like an object. No one cares how a chair feels when you sit on it. That’s what being an object is like: your feelings don’t matter.
As for the rest of the debate (did she actually hear about some boy whose penis was cut off? her husband seemed like a nice guy, didn’t he? she was too mean to her Aunt, who was only doing her best), I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. Yes, she’s castigating individual people (and that may be unfair), but her anger is firmly directed against an entire system, an entire way of life, that forces a girl to get a substandard education and have a baby without giving her any other option to develop her talents, her mind, or her heart.
Like this comment?
3
Having grown up on the same block of UTS, in the heart of the Satmar hasidic community, I believe everything she wrote. I have seen it all. She writes about the uneducated chasidim who surrounded her. I have seen them and known them all.
I think all of the above detractors and angry respondents have either no real insight to the real hasidic world (which consists of lots of uneducated, superstitious folks – remember – they have limited education and practical every-day Hassidism is about custom and tradition more than religious knowledge). She is not writing about the educated Chasidish, or even the Yeshivish crowd where intellectualism and questioning are encouraged.
Having grown up completely surrounded by all types of Chasidim, especially Satmar, there is nothing in this book that I find extreme. I’ve heard even worse ‘old wives tales’ as a child and young adult and have seen these stories believed by Chasidishe young people. Theirs is a world with limited access to information and rumors and misinformation are all powerful. Again, all the arguments some commenters put forward about exaggeration seem to be from people who are embarrassed or have no exposure to real ‘in-the-trenches’ Chasidim. I know that Deborah’s world exists. Obvioulsy, it doesn’t reflect all orthodoxy, or Chasidim, but it reflects some. It reflects a slice of culture within a culture. If you are shocked, it’s because you don’t know this world well enough and are basing your experiences on the few Chasidim you know or have contact with. I do know this world and the wide diversity of subcultures that exist within.
I especially can relate to her experience in the Mikvah – this was widely discussed. When women wanted to refer to someone intrusive or disgusting – they’d say ‘…she’s like a mikvah lady’. Also discussed was a specific lingerie shop where all Chassidisha girls got thier bras. The old woman there would aggressively feel you up (only the girls) to assess your size – without even asking you or warning you. You were property of the older women.
I find absolutely nothing in her book shocking or different from stories I myself have heard, been told or experienced. Her book is about her experience, not a researched review of the life of your average Chassidish or Ultra Orthodox woman.
Good on you Deborah! No one else tells these stories because of the fear that it wont be believed, or the shame will be turned on them. I only regret leaving too many years to remember my stories or I’d be writing a similar novel. But it would be even more shocking.
Like this comment?
3
I just finished this book, and as a non-Jewish woman with a doctorate in women’s studies, I was kind of mortified that DF found her “feminism” in mainstream American consumer culture. As the author of this book review mentions, she seems to slant her marriage story so that she is the only one being hurt from its arrangement, and she also neglects to identify the multiplicity and diversity of the secular world. She herself claims she is free when she is eating sushi and wearing overpriced sunglasses. I had to cringe when I read this.
I realize that her situation was bleak – and while I was held captive reading about her life in Williamsburg (I live in the same neighborhood but not in the Hasidic community) – her story of adolescence ressonated with me. My childhood was similar to hers (though not the particulars involving religion, obviously), and it seemed to be that her main malcontent was based in her disfunctional family as opposed to simply a hyper-patriarchal religion. I am by no means dismissing the obvious overarching (though not universal, in my experience) sexism within the community or the unimaginable stress and depression that might come with a marriage arranged while she was still, as secular people would consider, a child… but I very much felt that DF wasn’t giving the other characters in her story the same emotional consideration that she gave herself.
Ultimately, I can’t get past the idea that she thinks she is somehow free because she can go shopping. I expected her to go more rogue, considering how intelligent she paints herself as, and how rebellious. As an outsider, I loved the story until she decided to divorce Eli and thus throw him under the bus without a fair shake… after that, I lost interest. I would be interested in reading the stories of Hasidic women who go rogue within the community, and of those who leave and don’t fall prey to the capitalist false hope of the American dream…
Highly rated. Like this comment?
4
honestly melanie, probably the best comment ive read yet and one that it think hit home what was really bothering me about her. A good example is how on one of her interviews she stated she wants to be more intellectual, “kardishiasque” was the word she used to define this. thats sad.
Like this comment?
1