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

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#21

Post by exelius »

Geeek wrote: post #11
exelius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, exactly. I have more than one (female) Orthodox friend and they’re constantly having to stand up to elders within their own communities for respect. The older generations still believe women shouldn’t work.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#22

Post by lazerwalker »

microcolonel wrote: post #20
lazerwalker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but you also described it as the strictures of "the religion", as if there is a single monolithic Judaism that universally follows that rule.

She disagrees with the way they operate; she doesn't need to justify herself either. They were able to come to a satisfactory business agreement regardless.

I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism, when in fact the specific thing she's disagreeing with isn't a universal part of the religion.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#23

Post by jacobush »

mikorym wrote: post #7

I think that modern religions and the way they learn to part with certain medieval ways is critical. The Jewish religion has been arguably successful with this, producing exceedingly prestigious scientists and mathematicians. The risk is always the "fundamental" factions.

They are higher risk, but sometimes come with great rewards too. I'd say Martin Luther King was pretty fundamental, as was Gandhi and a bunch of other people I have to credit with doing a lot of good.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#24

Post by Geeek »

telesilla wrote: post #19
Geeek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hear you. Still a very subtle take on things.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#25

Post by microcolonel »

lazerwalker wrote: post #22
microcolonel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but you also described it as the strictures of "the religion", as if there is a single monolithic Judaism that universally follows that rule. She disagrees with the way they operate; she doesn't need to justify herself either. They were able to come to a satisfactory business agreement regardless. I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's someh…

> Yes, but you also described it as the strictures of "the religion", as if there is a single monolithic Judaism that universally follows that rule.

I don't see why this has to degrade to an argument of semantics, but here we go.

Just as if we were talking about Hokkien, we could talk about "the language" Hokkien, despite the fact that you could say "the language" and mean Chinese (which may include Hokkien) in some other context. Right now we're talking about this specific publication's circle of association. They clearly have different religious rules than Deborah, but she is still Jewish.

> I think what I'm responding to is that your circumcision comparison made it sound like you're suggesting she's somehow "less Jewish" or an outsider to Judaism

She is, in relative terms, more of an outsider to this specific publication's Judaism than somebody who would agree with their first offer (assuming they still hold the view that their first offer was preferable).

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#26

Post by mikorym »

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.

Again, why is this being downvoted?

Sexism should be highlighted. Many of the comments here are trying to rationalise injustice.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#27

Post by roel_v »

Veen wrote: post #18
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.

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.

"In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)"

Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#28

Post by Veen »

roel_v wrote: post #27
Veen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm i…

What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle.

It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others.

So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#29

Post by bigiain »

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.

They weren't the photographer's "new conditions". The original agreement said she wanted credit for he photos with her full name. Quite reasonably in my opinion, especially given the zero price offered under those conditions.

After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. They paid according to new conditions imposed by them. (Apparently with poor grace on the part of the editorial communications, but with at least outward signs of professionalism and good manners on the part of the author.)

End of story, sure. But it was an interesting story none the less. I'm glad she told it (and appreciate whoever posted it here).

Re: Call Me by My Name: Deborah Abrams Kaplan

#30

Post by appleflaxen »

greedyloo wrote: post #16

Those little stances against segregation are necessary to humanity advancing. Also better when you do it with sarcasm !

Completely agree about your humanity point, but completely disagree about sarcasm.

I personally use sarcasm far, far too often. And when I sit back and reflect on those times, I am completely certain that it never advances my point farther (vs. the same point made without sarcasm), never makes my point seem more clever, and never makes my point seem more funny.

So why do I continue to do it? Honestly, I don't know. It is a completely valueless communication strategy, and I continue to use it. The best answer I have is that it's a self-protection mechanism, which seems better-armored against a hostile audience than if I made my point with sincerity. So I, personally, will try to do better. But I would also caution anyone with less entrenched habits to consider carefully whether sarcasm is a useful rhetorical tool.

Post reply on HN