Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

lettersfromnj.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#11

Post by Geeek »

exelius wrote: post #3
microcolonel wrote: post #2

Okay, you have your copyright. The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, so if you're not willing to follow those strictures, you're just not part of the same group. No harm, no foul. If you don't want to cut your son's genitals, you'll also not be welcome in the same way. Edit: to be clear, I agree with the way that Deborah resolved this issue. But I'm just not sure how she could…

It’s pretty clear the author is Orthodox, so this is within her community. That said, many forms of Orthodox Judaism aren’t far off from what we would call “radical Islam” when it comes to their views on women (they don’t wear an abaya, but many wear wigs and full-body covering).

She is not, she clearly identifies herself as part of Conservative Judaism.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#12

Post by Geeek »

mikorym wrote: post #10
Geeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

I think the point of the article is that taking away someone's identity because she happens to be a woman is something that she has the right to oppose, especially if she is that woman. Also, they were dishonest. Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.

So again, is she trying to bring awareness? Is she trying to show how she morally disagreed with something and then...nothing happened?

I am no longer Hasidic and I absolutely side with her stance regarding the name used but I still do not understand the point of the article.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#13

Post by celticninja »

Geeek wrote: post #9
microcolonel wrote: post #2

Okay, you have your copyright. The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, so if you're not willing to follow those strictures, you're just not part of the same group. No harm, no foul. If you don't want to cut your son's genitals, you'll also not be welcome in the same way. Edit: to be clear, I agree with the way that Deborah resolved this issue. But I'm just not sure how she could…

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#14

Post by lazerwalker »

Geeek wrote: post #12
mikorym wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that taking away someone's identity because she happens to be a woman is something that she has the right to oppose, especially if she is that woman. Also, they were dishonest. Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.

So again, is she trying to bring awareness? Is she trying to show how she morally disagreed with something and then...nothing happened? I am no longer Hasidic and I absolutely side with her stance regarding the name used but I still do not understand the point of the article.

I mean, this is a short blog post on her personal blog, right?

I don't know if there's that much more to it than "here's an interesting story that happened to me, including being happy to tell you about how I was able to donate $500 to some good organizations".

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#15

Post by Veen »

Geeek wrote: post #9
microcolonel wrote: post #2

Okay, you have your copyright. The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, so if you're not willing to follow those strictures, you're just not part of the same group. No harm, no foul. If you don't want to cut your son's genitals, you'll also not be welcome in the same way. Edit: to be clear, I agree with the way that Deborah resolved this issue. But I'm just not sure how she could…

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

What they wanted was unreasonable by her standards, and she said so. The end of the story is not the transaction because our interactions with other people are not governed by exclusively transactional concerns, even when they are in large part transactional in nature.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#17

Post by Geeek »

celticninja wrote: post #13
Geeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#18

Post by Veen »

celticninja wrote: post #13
Geeek wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

I'm entirely on Kaplan's side in this, but the way you express it gives me pause. "All sexism is bad" is true from my perspective, but it clearly isn't true from the perspective of the community concerned.

In the interests of pluralism (not relativism), I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to universalise social norms in that way.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#19

Post by telesilla »

Geeek wrote: post #17
celticninja wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.

It was, in my view, an article about where copyright and ethics meet. An interesting take.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#20

Post by microcolonel »

lazerwalker wrote: post #5
microcolonel wrote: post #2

Okay, you have your copyright. The exact strictures of the religion are considered important by these people, so if you're not willing to follow those strictures, you're just not part of the same group. No harm, no foul. If you don't want to cut your son's genitals, you'll also not be welcome in the same way. Edit: to be clear, I agree with the way that Deborah resolved this issue. But I'm just not sure how she could…

You say the phrase "exact strictures of the religion", as if there aren't an untold number of different ways to interpret a set of religious texts that are in many places explicitly and intentionally ambiguous.

I said strictures, not scriptures. They don't need to read any scripture again to know the rule about women's names they seem to be employing. It is a very, very common rule that certain groups of Jews follow, and they don't need to justify it with an interpretation of scripture every time.
Post reply on HN