Pages

Monday, November 19, 2007

On Sad Perspectives

There are a couple of posts that I've read in the past day that sadden me tremendously; one of them it is obvious why, the other I think would upset people more than it saddens them. [click expand to see the excerpts]

The two posts are Jewboy's Moment of Perspective on Northern Parkway
I find myself behind an SUV. I noticed that there was a somewhat elaborate display in the back windshield that featured a depiction of two baby feet. The display read something similar to "Our Little Man-4/29/03-8/16/03. Around the license plate were the words-"Some People Dream of Angels-I Held One in My Hands." There were several bumper stickers promoting SIDs awareness as well. As a parent of a a young child, my heart went out to these people who were obviously devastated by the loss of their young infant. And my problems with the traffic suddenly seemed rather insignificant.
and Sephardi Lady's Better to be Supported by the Community & Welfare?
My husband has been learning for 12 years, not exclusively, but at least part-time. (Most of the years it was full time.) Even when we first got married, we did not receive any regular support from either set of parents. It was simply impossible for them. Yet, we both felt strongly that the type of family we wanted to establish was based on my husband remaining in yeshiva as long as possible, and, after that, staying in the “yeshiva environment” when employment became necessary. This is not chas v’shalom to denigrate anyone who doesn’t do this; everyone has their own needs, talents and tafkid. However, for me, this was such a strong feeling that I could not bear to have it any other way (although this was not the derech that either of us grew up with in our own families).

I always pushed - no, encouraged - my husband to stay in yeshiva. He didn’t need to be pushed. He always wants to learn and feels awful on a day during bain hazemanim when he barely gets to learn because he is so busy with the kids, etc. But sometimes he’d wonder if it was “time to go to work” because of parnassa. I’d tell him no, because:

a) I can’t bear to have him go into a non-yeshiva environment,
b) Even more than that, I know he could never manage in such an environment (he cannot bear to be exposed to the outside influences; plus, he is quiet, shy, and not a go-getter), and
C) I know that it wouldn’t help financially anyway. He’d never earn the $100,000 (now I read that it’s more like $200,000 - I’m shocked) needed to support a large family, k”ah. What would happen is that we’d lose Medicaid and Section 8 and be worse off than before, chas v’shalom. I’d rather be poor and in kollel, than just plain poor!
I just don't understand. I think the woman here is being brutally honest about her perspective; and I actually think that she's right, in her specific situation, to stay in the life she is in than to try and make that huge transition. (Economically, practically, they wouldn't gain, and emotionally and psychologically they'd be saddened.) What saddens me is the perspective: She says their families didn't have this derech, so where are they picking this up? Who is teaching them so strongly that kollel is the way to go that she 'can't bear to leave it'? Where are they picking up the idea that choosing a life which will - l'chatchila - essentially guarantee a reliance on items such as Medicaid and Section 8 is okay? I believe it is one thing to take advantage of such programs when you fall into a certain situation; I think it is quite another to
place yourself into such a situation. Who is encouraging a large family for this couple who cannot afford it? [Within halachic parameters, obviously.] She also mentions a bunch of items that "thank God someone gave them money" for. I just can't understand where these perspectives come from - who is teaching them that this is a life to live? As a couple of friends of mine like to say, "How is that okay?"

How is that okay?

28 comments:

  1. This attitude is SO not surprising to me. When you are taught that the highest possible level for a Jewish family is when the wife supports (both financially and emotionally) and encourages her husband to learn Torah full-time, and that "other" lifestyles are second tier, who would want to lead a lifestyle that their mentors, teachers, and role models are telling them is not as great a level as what they could really achieve? Of course everyone wants to reach the highest spiritual levels they can! And even if someone for whatever reason doesn't end up living a kollel lifestyle, then at least they have in the back of their minds that really the greatest thing they could be doing is sending their husbands to learn full time.

    Personally, this kind of teaching is unhealthy to me, because I believe that to teach that there is one ideal for ALL Jewish families results in people being disappointed with their spouses and their lifestyles should they not want (or be able to) live the learning lifestyle so glowingly outlined by their teachers. People should not feel guilted into living a certain way just because other people told them it's the best way to live for a religious Jew. And you also end up with people with attitudes like the woman in this letter, who "cannot bear" to give up her lifestyle and seek an alternative.

    And when people send the message of learning full-time as the highest level for the Jewish male (and his wife and family), there is very little mention of the cost of living like this. There is a lot of talk of bitachon and Hashem sending help k'heref ayin, but very little practical teaching on how to make a paycheck stretch or anything like that. That also disturbs me. If you're going to teach that a certain lifestyle is "better," teach it with all the strings and caveats attached so that people can make informed, honest decisions.

    There needs to be better chinuch, so that we don't end up with impossible situations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and also, re the whole Medicaid thing, I heard a girl once say that she doesn't think it's so terrible for a kollel couple to be on welfare, because there are lots of people who cheat the government and live lavishly while receiving Medicaid and welfare benefits. Not that kollel couples are necessarily cheating the government, but that if there are undeserving people collecting the benefits, why not have kollel families benefit too?

    :::sigh:::

    ReplyDelete
  3. i don't understand when it became "better" to sit and learn? Did our Avot sit and study? no, even Yaakov, who did the closest to it worked for Lavan all those years and then amassed all his wealth. Then his children did not all sit and learn...who would have been watching all those sheep if they would have been sitting on their tuchuses the whole time? Who would have fed all the children?

    For the top student who can truly find chidushim in the torah and really impact the torah world, sitting and learning is great. however, for the average kollel guy who is there because it is the expected thing to do...it is a crime.

    also, in many communitties, families are willing to pay a lot of money for tutoring children in gemara and other torah subjects. I have heard many kollel learners refuse to do this because it would waste their learning time. That is completely ridiculous.

    I understand that kollel learning is an important part of Judaism. But there really is a small percentage of men who really should be doing it because if you are going to do it, do it right. And trust me that's not how it is now.

    Sorryfor the rant, but this really enrages me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is that legal or is it fraud? If it's legal, we need to reform section 8. If it's fraud, it's just theft, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apple - Great, great comments. Thank you.

    Anon - I don't disagree. It upsets me greatly, but at this point, I'm more saddened than angry.

    JA - Legal, I assume. Charlie put it well in SL's post. Republicans have used people like this as an example of the problems with such programs. And they're right about it, too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Whatever...

    I have little patience for this topic as it is covered ground.

    I would just like to repeat a story that I've heard many times in my life:

    A young man expresses to one of his parents his intention to devote his life to full time learning. The family is not in a financial position to support this life, they would if they could but cannot. This is important as the issue is not ideological but practical. The parent expresses to the young man that this is not a responsible decision, how will he support his family. The young man replies that there is a well established system whereby many costs that would not be covered by the small kollel payment are taken care of through various government agencies. The parent is appalled; how could he allow his family to servive through such means, he asks. What's the big deal, the son replies, the goyim due it all the time, especially the shvartza's.

    His mother replies: Bist du a shvartza?

    -I apologize if the social terminology offends anybody, some things just don't translate well outside the yiddish language.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the record, the above conversation took place over 30 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's the big deal, the son replies, the goyim due it all the time, especially the shvartza's.

    I've heard this argument a number of times. If we don't take it, the
    Blacks will get it. Better us than them, right?

    We might value Torah study, but that's no reason for Joe American to sponsor our lifestyle. Government support should not be a legitimate source of income if the person can work. It's true for Blacks, true for Hispanics and true for Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  9. G - Heh. Very wise.

    N - I never understood the argument as a logical basis, period. It's not like there's a certain amount being given out. But the argument isn't meant to be logical per se anyway, so... ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. N - I never understood the argument as a logical basis, period. It's not like there's a certain amount being given out. But the argument isn't meant to be logical per se anyway, so... ugh.

    Yep. It isn't a zero-sum game, especially in NY and I assume NJ.

    I've also heard the argument that a major reason why the US is so successful is because of all the learning in places like Lakewood. So it follows that the government should show its hakaros Hatov by supporting it. I am not making this up. Just like I assume Rabbi Parnes wasn't making it up when he said that some yungermen don't feel bad when their parents have to return to work to help support them because it's in the latter's best interests to garner the zechusim they get from supporting Torah.

    Self-esteem isn't lacking among the people making these arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. JA - Legal, I assume. Charlie put it well in SL's post. Republicans have used people like this as an example of the problems with such programs. And they're right about it, too.

    I agree they're right about it, if they say such things. Clinton was right to reform welfare. Perhaps Obama will reform section 8. (I'm starting to think that he's going to be a lot more conservative than many people think, if he wins.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. N - Just like I assume Rabbi Parnes wasn't making it up when he said that some yungermen don't feel bad when their parents have to return to work to help support them because it's in the latter's best interests to garner the zechusim they get from supporting Torah.

    Did you know I had his SIL in OJ? Didn't care for the shiur much, which is why I didn't go to him in Lander. I'm glad. I may have killed somebody.

    Self-esteem isn't lacking among the people making these arguments.

    No, sadly, it's often not.

    JA - I agree they're right about it, if they say such things. Clinton was right to reform welfare. Perhaps Obama will reform section 8. (I'm starting to think that he's going to be a lot more conservative than many people think, if he wins.)

    See? I'm telling you, you're going to end up a conservative yet! :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. See? I'm telling you, you're going to end up a conservative yet! :)

    I'm all for, and always have been all for, fiscal responsibility. That has nothing to do with being for or against progressive taxation, welfare for those who need it, universal health care, etc. On all of those things, I am and always have been a liberal.

    Fiscal responsibility is only "conservative" according to Republican propaganda, though. I'm pretty sure Reagan and Bush II have dispelled that notion, though, especially when you stack them up against Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  14. JA - And I don't think most people are against welfare for those who need it, either. The question is if the system is used primarily by those who do or do not. Also, what defines "needing" it...

    Taxes I think often comes down to understanding economics; the better people understand it, the more they lean GOP, Buffett notwithstanding. Meanwhile, he could fix a lot of problems himself if he put his money where his mouth is.

    UHC is a different debate - at what point or until what point are we the people responsible for ourselves or responsible for others? Should medical care be available to all? Of course. But who's paying for it? It's really not so simple.

    Like I like to say to everyone, "Economics is the backbone to everything."

    ReplyDelete
  15. JA - And I don't think most people are against welfare for those who need it, either. The question is if the system is used primarily by those who do or do not. Also, what defines "needing" it...

    Could be, although I doubt it. I hope so, though.

    Taxes I think often comes down to understanding economics; the better people understand it, the more they lean GOP, Buffett notwithstanding.

    That's totally false! Among American economists, Democrats are way over-represented.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Economists

    Why do you keep making these claims which a quick google search will show are factually incorrect? (Not that I had to google to know this -- I've posted about it several times.)

    UHC is a different debate - at what point or until what point are we the people responsible for ourselves or responsible for others? Should medical care be available to all? Of course. But who's paying for it? It's really not so simple.

    I'm not saying it's simple, just that I support universal coverage. I don't support single-payer, but I think those who cannot afford it should have insurance paid for by the government.

    Like I like to say to everyone, "Economics is the backbone to everything."

    Agreed, but not if you focus only on the minority of economists who say things you agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Did you know I had his SIL in OJ? Didn't care for the shiur much, which is why I didn't go to him in Lander. I'm glad. I may have killed somebody.

    I don't think Rabbi Parnes was quoting the argument favorably. He has a number of children in Lakewood, and they are probably to his right.

    I don't know about his positions on full-time Kollel for everyone though.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's totally false! Among American economists, Democrats are way over-represented.

    I didn't say economists; I said people who understand economics. If they really understand it, they're usually not economists. ;) (Notice I used Buffett as my example.)

    On the rest, I think we basically agree.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think Rabbi Parnes was quoting the argument favorably. He has a number of children in Lakewood, and they are probably to his right.

    I don't know about his positions on full-time Kollel for everyone though.


    Ah, sorry, I thought you meant that was his own opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I didn't say economists; I said people who understand economics. If they really understand it, they're usually not economists. ;) (Notice I used Buffett as my example.)

    LOL. So your definition of "people who understand economics" is people who agree with the GOP. Gotcha.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cute.

    People who know how to build businesses and make money. People who don't waste money (which as you note shouldn't be a conservative position).

    While one can argue about the latter (and you know my feelings about Bush's spending), the former group votes predominantly GOP, yes. But that's not why they're right; they're voting GOP because they understand it.

    Ya know, I never did quite get how Krugman went from working for Reagan to Enron to the Times.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While one can argue about the latter (and you know my feelings about Bush's spending), the former group votes predominantly GOP, yes. But that's not why they're right; they're voting GOP because they understand it.

    Do you have any evidence for that? Especially, do you have any way of separating out the people who vote GOP because GOP favors big business at the expense of everyone else? For example, if you're a hedge fund manager, obviously you're going to like a party that supports super-low tax rates for you. That's not the same as supporting them because you understand better than the laypeople what's best for the country.

    It's also not clear that understanding how businesses work translates well to understanding how the nation's economy works.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mostly anecdotal.

    GOP doesn't favor big business; if they did, big businesses would be giving them the money they throw at the Dems. GOP favors small businesses.

    Hedge fund managers? Heh. I don't think that you're right about them. [Note: I audit hedge funds. I don't see how they vote, but... I can certainly guess.] The super-rich will often switch their views once they don't care anymore, possibly so that people don't question their lack of charitable contributions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. GOP doesn't favor big business; if they did, big businesses would be giving them the money they throw at the Dems. GOP favors small businesses.

    Huh? Until quite recently (the last couple of years) Big Business has donated more to the Repubs, haven't they?

    Hedge fund managers? Heh. I don't think that you're right about them. [Note: I audit hedge funds. I don't see how they vote, but... I can certainly guess.] The super-rich will often switch their views once they don't care anymore, possibly so that people don't question their lack of charitable contributions.

    I just pulled that off the top of my head. My point is that just because company X thinks that the GOP is good for them doesn't mean that the GOP is good for America.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Huh? Until quite recently (the last couple of years) Big Business has donated more to the Repubs, haven't they?

    Don't think so. Too busy to check, though.

    I just pulled that off the top of my head. My point is that just because company X thinks that the GOP is good for them doesn't mean that the GOP is good for America.

    Of course. But I think when you see a strong pattern of people who are serious contributers to society feeling strongly about a subject, it says something. It's why a lot of the staunch Dems I know are still conservative economically... they just feel it's outweighed by other issues.

    ReplyDelete
  25. How did we get from irresponsible Jews to democrat and republican economic politics? I am pretty sure no one thinks living off of the government if you can help it is the right thing to do, donkey or elephant.

    I won't weigh in too much on this topic, as it is not within my realm of experience and thus I don't feel I can responsibly comment outside of the above statement. But wow, is that depressing. ESPECIALLY in light of the first story you quote.

    ReplyDelete
  26. EK - Hehe. Welcome to JA & I. It's *always* about the discussion. :P

    ReplyDelete
  27. We're actually having an incredibly deep and meaningful conversation. The Republican and Democrat stuff is just code. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. and may I ask who is raising the kids, if the mom is supporting the dad and family,by working full time? so she has 10 of them, to unload them onto Maria? then she wonders why the kid is asking for "agua" instead of water. or why the kid goes of the derech- duh!

    ReplyDelete