When I was a young boy, all I wanted to see was two parents who loved each other. A daily vitamin also would certainly have done me a world of good. But only my parents' happy marriage could have provided me with peace at my center and the more secure personality I sorely lack. I would take the diarrhea and cough any day over the permanent sense of brokenness that affects children of divorce.Ok, Shmuley, I'm sorry your parents got divorced and that it screwed you up, but seriously, you might want to get some counseling for these self-esteem issues. I don't think this whole column-thing is doing it for you.
Obviously, breast-feeding is not the same as carrying on an extramarital affair. But when a mother gives her breasts to her son and takes them away from her husband, the effect on the marriage can feel the same.
What?
In the end, there are two effects of breast-feeding that we often refuse to acknowledge. One is the de-eroticization of a woman's body, as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than romantic purpose. This is not to say that breast-feeding isn't sexy. Indeed, the maternal dimension is a central part of womanliness. But public breast-feeding is profoundly de-eroticizing, and I believe that wives should cover up, even when they nurse their babies in their husband's presence.
"Come on down to Yankel's Burqas! Best Burqas in Crown Heights! Tell them "Shmuley sent you" and get a 5% discount!"
I believe this same problem comes up when men witness childbirth up close. There are certain poses in which a husband should not see his wife.
That's interesting; I believe you've been smoking your yarmulke. Friendly advice? Lay off the velvet, try suede.
By all means, be there for the entire labor, as I have been for the births of each of my eight children. But I strongly agree with the advice of the ancient rabbis that husbands should not be staring at the actual delivery. That is just too erotic a part of a wife's anatomy for it to become a mere birth canal.
The erotic nature of a wife's body is one of the principal elements of attraction in marriage. When a husband ceases to see his wife as a woman, and begins to see her as "the mother of his children," a negative trend has begun in his mind that can only subvert his erotic interest.
Shmuley, I'm telling you as a friend- get some help, dude. Believe or not, most marriage problems are NOT because the husband saw his wife's hoo-ha when she gave birth. Then again, maybe it has something to do with HOW MANY births there are- obviously, Orthodox Jews with 6 to 10 kids are at a much higher risk of suffering from "utilitarian wife disease" than, say, Reform Jews with their 1.6 kids. Maybe that higher birthrate thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Edit: Modifactions made after some comments by Irviner Chassid. Also, to reitterate, I would say the basic principle being articulated here is solid, almost to the point of being obvious- ignoring your spouse, for anything or anyone, will get you into trouble. The problem is that Shmuley takes this and then runs somewhere fairly absurd with it.
10 comments:
Wait, what? He really . . . he thinks breast-feeding . . . what, what?
Does he realize that one of his theses is literally a slightly used Stephen Colbert joke?
many people don't know this but moslim women breast-feed in public.
So do many israeli women including charedei women in israel.
If a man has a problem looking at his wife when she or any other women is breast-feeding then don't look at her.
Shmueli, the breasts are not considered a sex organ. It's primary goal is to nourish a child !!
Should a woman have to run into a public bathroom to feed her child ??
Shmueli, would you enjoy eating your lunch on a toilet seat !!!
Please get some help !!
Anon- Well obviously all those haredi women acting like total sluts is why God is punishing Israel with Katyushas. Shmuley and Lazer are totally compatible- who says Chabad and Breslov can't get along?
Sylvia- I don't think Shmuley would debase himself by watching Comedy Central. He prefers to operate via a higher standard, like whoring himself on TLC or serving as "court Jew" on Fox or MSNBC, like when he served up this great piece of activism: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/
WILLIAM DONAHUE, PRESIDENT, CATHOLIC LEAGUE: Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It‘s about the messiah.
Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.
You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.
...BOTEACH: Hollywood has become a cesspit because it's secular, period.
Don't this us—don‘t tell us that it's secular Jews.
Oy. That's Shmuley Boteach, official defender of the Jews for over 20 years. Well, defender of the ones he likes, anyway.
Irviner- I've blogged about it, though I can't recall if I've done so here. There was a brief thread over at Sultan Knish where I popped in. It's great that he wants to do a show, and it's nice when my opinions and his happen to intersect, but on the whole, I find him rather distasteful- not the least because of hysterics like this.
Obviously we have a different opinion on what constitutes appropriate "bashing". I criticize people I think deserve it. Shmuley's bizarre theories are obviously much less harmful or eggregious than a lot of other people- Daniel Lapin comes to mind.
I didn't purposefully ignore the NY Times reference, though I don't think it merits much comment. I'm not suggesting that breast-feeding (or, rather, putting more attention on children over a spouse) couldn't harm a marriage. Obviously, if you ignore your spouse, your marriage suffers. The issue is how he's presenting this fairly straightforward argument- ridiculously.
That said, re-reading the post, it does seem a bit harsh. Point taken.
What about the first part? I have been interested in the argument, presented by Judith Wallerstein, among others, that all children of divorce are damaged goods, emotionally. It's not a popular point of view but I'm finding as time goes on that its more & more true & I'm considering advising my kids to avoid children of divorce in shiddukhim. Is this wrong?
I think that's basically a cop-out. A lot of things can damage a person emotionally, but to categorically dismiss all children of divorce as likely damaged-goods is not only unfair to them, but also reinforces the belief that they are more likely to be screwed up. Yes, divorce is traumatic, but so are a lot of things. We can acknowledge that pain and trauma without exalting it as permanently all-consuming, or at least, as necessarily so. Why can't Shmuley simply be one kind of product-of-divorce kids?
As far as the shidduch thing- that's a whole other can of worms. Suffice it to say I think you'd be much better off telling your kids to look for a specific set of emotional qualities and warning signs rather than screening people based on family dynamics.
Well, actually you're right that one ought not to make a blanket generalization regarding children of divorce but as for looking at family dynamics...nobody is divorced from their reka'.
I have no interest in R. Boteach; it would seem that he is an opportunist who saw a vacuum and filled it.
About children of divorce--I think the child of a happy divorce is often much more emotionally stable than the child of an unhappy marriage. The parents could have been married for a million years, but if they're abusive, unpleasant people, it will rub off on the kid. Or not. Some of the nicest people come from hideous families. I wouldn't use that as a yardstick for a shidduch, although if it seems there's a hard family situation, you may want to know what the prospective plans to do to make life workable for him/herself and the children.
As for the rest...oh, for the love of Mike!
Look, I know men like the breasts, but the fact is, God created 'em so the little tykes could get some lunch. A woman nursing is beautiful, and by long-standing tradition, modest. Does it say anything in Gemara about ducking into the filthy Wal-Mart ladies room to feed your children? If the sight of your own children nursing de-eroticizes your wife's body for you...well, the two of you may have to come up with a plan to avoid that. But Shmuley, please don't assume all men feel this way. I know for a fact that many of them emphatically don't. And no one but the husband has ANY reason to care, so unless he's also at Wal-Mart...
As for childbirth--uh, maybe we could leave this between man and wife to decide? Just maybe? 'Cause unless you're in the delivery room, not your business at all...
Post a Comment