Saturday, January 08, 2011

Single Frum Mom 2 B

The following ad was in this Friday's InJerusalem (the Jerusalem Post's Jerusalem section)

I believe the ad is real, and there a few people I can think of off-hand, whom I can imagine being the author.

This ad disturbed me all Shabbat long.

So there’s no real great way to write this so I’ll just start plainly and the following.

I’ve just turned 40 and I’m a Jewish Orthodox woman. I’m warm, fun and loving and very committed to Judaism and to Zionism. I’m told that I’m pretty and I choose to believe that;-) I don’t want to give out too much information but I’ve got some really great and cool family members.

Bottom line is I’m not married and I really would like to have children and BH still can – I was recently tested. So here’s the story, I’m looking for a partner to become a joint-parent with me. If you are frum (I assume you know what this means..) and doven and are a Zionist. If you’ve got a stable job and are normal (by my standards.. which are pretty lenient..) then please feel free to contact me at .

Of course we’d have to meet and discuss details as to where to live, send kids to school, mutual visitation rights etc.. and everything would have to be written and signed in a contract.

But think about it – you get to have kids with a wonderful Mom and you’re free!! Sounds like a good deal to me.

If you’re interested, drop me a note.


I want to make it very clear that I am not criticizing the girl lady in the least bit in this post. I understand her and how she got there.

But what does this say about what is happening in the single community?

Here is a girl lady who desperately wants to have children while she still can. Based on what she's written, I don't believe she is afraid to get married. At this point she may not even be too picky about the guy she is willing to marry. She is clearly willing to take on the commitment of raising a child.

But what is her big selling point to the prospective father?

"and you’re free!!"

She believes (probably rightfully so) that the guys that she is dating are afraid to commit to marriage (or even to a long-term relationship), and that is why she has reached this state.

I believe she's mostly right.

I do have a problem believing that she will actually find someone normal who wants a child, but is afraid to commit to getting married.

Perhaps she is hoping to break the commitment phobia, by easing the guy into a comfortable relationship over time, and when he reaches the point that he realizes he is actually in a relationship, by then he will be comfortable with it and be willing to take the step to marriage.

I don't know. I see heartbreak ahead if that's the case. But that might not even be what's on her mind. She may really believe that this is the only option left on the table.

As it is, even as popular as divorce is today, I can see the child having a tough time in this situation.

One theory I have is that guys don't want to, and often can't commit because in their mind, there's always someone newer or better around the corner (or because the girl lady is not exactly what they are looking for physically).

Meanwhile the girls ladies don't know how to get the guys to stay involved long enough to build a relationship, and subsequently convince the guys to take the next step. (And occassionally, because there is something just not perfect about the guy they are dating).

I think both sides need some lessons in what a relationship really is and what marriage really is.

Getting back to this girl lady, a lot of thoughts ran through my head while reading this. I have no conclusions to make, or advice to give. I was just saddened that someone had to reach that state at all.

I'm sending her an email to comment here, if she is willing. Perhaps it will help her find not just a partner, but a husband too.

Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד


Anonymous said...

Oy irresponsible guy choices - reminds me of a friend of my husband's. For years he's wanted a girl 10 years his younger - when he was 30 he wanted a chick in college so no one would whisper about how "old" she was at the wedding.... now that he's 40 he wants someone young enough to be "guaranteed" fertile....

sara g said...

A question (that might be part of the problem): Why do you refer to a 40 year old woman as a girl?

JoeSettler said...

I don't follow your point. At what exact age does someone of the female gender stop being a girl?

JoeSettler said...

I asked my wife, and she isn't sure what the problem is either. She says she's a girl too.

I think you're missing the point.

Anonymous said...

How do you know that she is looking for a physical relationship? How do you know that she isn't planning on accomplishing this through more mmm... medical means, but still wants the father to play a role in the child's life?

Anonymous said...

I am very impressed by this woman's creativity and courage. I wrote to her and offered my services, but only if she is interested in a romantic connection as well.

Anonymous said...

If she only wants children and no husband I think she should just become a temporary cocumbine to a married man and live in her own house with her future kids. The man will be doing a mitzvah, will give this woman kids, and everyone will be happy.

YH-O said...

Except, I suspect, the married man's wife . . .

pp said...

Joe- you are married with kids! and all your imagining aside, you have NO idea what this woman has gone through. I have a few friends who have done or are in the process of doing this and you can't even begin to understand what sort of sacrifices it entails... this is a very judgmental post, solidified by you referring to her as a "girl". (frum people seem to stop using "girl" only once a woman is married.) I think your commenter sara g hit the nail on the head.

Anonymous said...

I just turned 40 - and I"m married - as are most of my friends - and WE ALL refer to ourselves as girls. You are all missing the point.

JoeSettler said...

pp: Actually, I made it extremely clear that I wasn't criticizing the girl in the least bit.

"I want to make it very clear that I am not criticizing the girl in the least bit in this post. I understand her and how she got there."

I do not judge her in any manner shape or form on this post.

I very clearly stated that I find it sad (and distressing) that the single scene has come to this.

I also added my explanation as to why I think the single scene has reached this point. That is a statement on the single society, not her as an individual. You should be able to differentiate between the two.

And on a personal note, though I almost never interject my personal life into my posts or comments, I was a member of the single scene too, and I know exactly what it's all about. And I also have friends who have gotten married and divorced simply to have a child, and friends who went other routes to have a child.

As for girl vs. woman vs womyn, I won't kowtow to someone's latest PC usage of the English language.

I wrote "guys" and "girls" because that is how I speak, and listening to my wife's girl friends yesterday, they use the PiC term "girl" too, so I won't apologize for that. And if "women" making an issue of it, that perhaps could be connected to the problem.

If someone thinks that someone isn't married because a guy uses the term "girl" I might alternatively wonder if a "girl" isn't married because she makes a big deal about being called a "woman", and "men" aren't looking for a militant feminist for a wife.

I put up this post, because at a minimum, perhaps it will help her find someone... to marry.

Now having said all that, can we please get the comments back on track to the real issue.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Purple Parrot: JUDGEMENTAL?!

You may not like that he called a 40 year old feamle a "girl", but that has nothing to do with this post!

Nor do I see how that it part of the problem (!)

Its pathetic that no one is allowd to write an article without getting jumped on by the "polically correct" crowd for stating that there's something perhaps something odd about a religious woman advertising for a frum guy (am I allowed to write that, or do I need to write, "a responsible, adult, male, homosapien") to impregnate her, and then, "be free".

Joe Settler clearly wrote he wasn't criticizing her, and he understands how she ended up where she is.

To write that calling her a "girl" is the problem shows a total lack of understanding what Joe tried to write in this post.

He also clearly wrote, "IM NOT CRITICIZING HER".


Nachum said...

Yeah, well, how would you like it to be 35 and be referred to as a "boy," knowing full well that one thing alone will change your status? When's the last time someone called *you* "boy," Jameel? Joe? Stop hiding behind excuses of "political correctness." I'm the least PC person out there, and "girl" and "boy" in this context are just damn offensive. Whoever this woman is, she's a woman, what your wife and her friends call themselves notwithstanding. Man up and admit you screwed up.

JoeSettler said...

And again, yet another person not addressing the real issues of the post.

I'm off now to tell my contractualized copartner that she and her womanfriends had better start speaking in politically correct language for now on.

Nachum said...

Why must I address the real issues of the post? I agree with your overall point. I'm just asking you to demonstrate some human sensitivity.

Anonymous said...

When I got married my parents said I was marrying a wonderful girl. Can you imagine how offended my wife was? She nearly called off the wedding. And when my wife gave birth, my parents again told me how wonderful a girl she is. Can you comprehend how offended my wife was? She nearly filed for divorce. On our 15th year anniversary my parents got up and gave a speech saying how they never thought I'd find a girl as wonderful as this. Can you understand how offended my wife was? My wife nearly threw the cake at them.

Man, that woman really acts like a girl sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Q: How many Barnard Girls does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Its Barnard WOMEN, and that ISN'T funny.

amyrpk said...

I think all your back&forth over girl vs. woman entirely misses the point. And the point is the absolute disconnect from reality that men (for the most part, but women/girls suffer from it, too) about what marriage is, and what commitment is, and what to expect when looking for a life partner.

This from a late-in-life BT who was in her mid-30s when she married her late-in-life BT husband who was in his mid-40s. And from a community in NYC filled with middle-aged singles.

And it's not to be blamed on the 612 Club (or tefillin dates, or whatever you want to call it), because real relationships come from there, too.

It's from spoiled men/boys.

There. I said it.

Commenter Abbi said...

Right on, amyrpk!

Something got really disjointed in the upbringing of frum boys. I don't know what happened, but finding unspoiled boys is a major accomplishment these days.

Good luck to this woman and I applaud her in trying to solve her problem creatively. It could lead to a lot of complications and heartbreak, but at least she's really trying.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Nachum: You never heard of, "girls night out" or someone using the expression, "you go, girl" -- the expression wasn't used in a demeaning sort of way.

Taking a serious post like this and harping on something stupid that wasn't said maliciously or with intent to demean (and is used colloquially by many in this day and age), is a knee-jerk reaction to political correctness.

The real problem is that people think the "problem" is calling a person a girl instead of a woman, instead of actual story that JoeSettler posted.

(I'm glad others managed to get beyond the girl/woman/man/boy issue and managed to write something...)

JoeSettler said...

From experience, I wouldn't lay all the blame on the boys, but I'm glad the discussion is back on track.

Sarah said...

I agree with the main substance of your post, but think you are missing an important element here, which is that since they would probably be using artificial insemination, and won't be living together, the man is not only "free" to date other women, he also can have children with the ad-writer whether they are fully compatible or not. He doesn't have to think she is beautiful or wonderful enough to live with and have sex with. He just has to think she is nice and smart enough to work with on a time-intensive, expensive project that involves cooperation. He doesn't have to fall in love with her, only with the child. And she doesn't have to be in love with him, either. They need to reach the point of mutual respect, not attraction or affection.

The problem this solves is that neither he nor she needs to "settle" for marrying someone who is not attractive to them, or has some other flaw that would make them very annoying to be married to, but isn't the sort of character flaw that would make someone a bad parent.

Having given up on someone whom she can love who ALSO loves her back -- which is so difficult these days -- she's now looking for someone who is merely decent, an "ehrlich" person who will donate sperm, time, money and love to the child, even if not to her.

I know this will start comments like "if he's good enough to father the child, he's good enough to marry," or "if she's good enough to bear your child, she's good enough to marry," but the truth is, having sex with someone you aren't attracted to doesn't sound like something I'd want for anyone I truly care about. This, at least, removes that requirement.

And yes, it's very sad that more single people can't find people they love and are attracted to who ALSO feel the same way about them AND are willing to commit.

Sarah said...

And now, having responded to the substance of the post, I want to say that as a 38-year-old single woman, I don't like being called a "girl," either, not because it's not politically correct, but because it goes along with all the other ways I'm presumed to be child-like because I've never been married.

Since I'm single, I can sleep on the couch while my married sibling gets a bedroom. Since I'm single, I must be free to stay late at work or babysit for friends, because what else am I doing with my time? Since I'm single, it's OK to wait until Thursday night or Friday morning to invite me to Shabbat meals, when married people deserve to know at the beginning of the week whether they need to shop or cook. Since I'm single, it's OK for married people to tell me I'm so lucky to have so much time and freedom on my hands, as if earning my own living, cleaning my house, paying my bills, running errands, etc. isn't just as time consuming if you are doing it all alone. Since I'm single, it's OK to ask me one or two simple questions about myself when you meet me at a Shabbat meal, and then ignore me the rest of meal. Since I'm single, there is no point in my spending money on nice furniture, and certainly no reason for me to have quality kitchenware, because only married people, not single children, get to have a nice environment in their home. Since I'm single, I'm a girl, not a woman. It's all part of the same problem, that life in our community isn't deemed to be an adult life unless you are married -- preferably with kids, too.


AnonymousWhoDatedLate said...

Why is everyone jumping on men as a result of this article? We can just as easily conclude that the woman herself, the one writing this, thinks of marriage as an unbearable obligation, and that's why she referred to the father to be as being "free."

For every story about guys who "need" ten-years-younger good looks, there's a woman who "needs" great earning power, height, physical condition, type of job, educational background, or any one of many other things.

The woman writing might be a great woman who's the victim of too-picky men. But she also might be the one who's too picky, or who does something to drive men away from her, or who's off the wall.

I know it's more politically correct to blame men for being pigs, but let's admit that it could certainly be either way.

ProfK said...

We have a friend whose sister was turning 40 and wanted children desperately. She chose to go with in vitro fertilization. Her reasoning was that if all she wanted was someone to father her children this was possible now while she still could have children. If she continued to wait to find someone she could have a relationship with she would likely lose out on having children. Having children won. Her children are lucky to have such a wonderful and involved mom. As to their not having a "real" father to point to, this is different from so many of the children of divorced parents just how? Her kids, twin boys, know that she wanted them and chose to have them, offering them a tangible security that a lot of kids born the "regular" way don't necessarily have. The problem was that many people thought she was wrong to do this--having children without having a husband is looked at as impermissible. Fortunately for her kids, she and her supportive family members didn't think that way.

Re the girls vs. women issue, in general, in English girl refers to a young and/or unmarried female, generally under 21 years of age. Woman refers to the "older" members of the female persuasion, regardless of marital status. There is also this. Girl may be used in a denigrating sense. When a doctor uses "girl" to refer to the 48-year-old woman who runs his office, he is reducing her status. Keep this in mind however; if a woman chooses to call herself a girl or refer to others of her sex as her girlfriends, SHE is allowed, but males are not. A black person may rightly get upset if someone uses the "N" word to describe him or her. However, if they use that "N" word on each other that is not discriminatory--it's turning a slur into something else.

When in doubt, use woman as the preferred choice in cross gender speech.

1984 said...

PC alert
PC alert
PC alert

We control what you say. We control what you think. We control what you think you can say. We control what you say you think.

Sarah said...

You can say whatever you want. We are trying to explain why certain things feel insulting to us. If you want to continue using the same words, knowing that we feel it reduces our status, then gezuntheit. You have the right to call people in their 30's and up "girls," and we have the right, having explained to you why we don't like it, to think you are a boorish jerk. There is no law against being a boorish jerk. Keep it up if you want to! We can't stop you no matter what we think.

Free Thinker said...

ProfK: Keep this in mind however; if a woman chooses to call herself a girl or refer to others of her sex as her girlfriends, SHE is allowed, but males are not. A black person may rightly get upset if someone uses the "N" word to describe him or her. However, if they use that "N" word on each other that is not discriminatory...

Why thank you so very much, Professor, for laying down those important rules and regulations for all of us. We shall now all endeavor to obey your instructions regarding which words we are "allowed" to say, and which we are forbidden to say. And I'm sure that all black people who have had the gall to get offended by the use of the racial slur "nigger", even by black people, will now cease to be offended -- since you have explained to us that "a black person may rightly get upset" only of the utterer of the slur happens not to have black skin.

In all seriousness: I, and many other people, take great affront -- to put it mildly -- by the absurd notion that a racist slur ought to be judged as offensive or not upon the basis of the color of the skin of the person uttering the slur. This is one of the most outrageous tenets of modern PC nonsense. Understand: The fact that you and your fellow PC commisars declare such absurd ideas as though they were somehow laws or axioms, hardly makes them so.

Your pontification to the rest of us about what words are "allowed" to be spoken, and by whom -- based upon the sex and race of the speaker -- is a spot-on illustration of the very sort of presumptuously imposed groupthink that so many of us find so offensive.

Anonymous said...

Free Thinker, you need to get over the professor's comments. They have nothing to do with computer jargon. Just go out in the real(time) world & try calling young black people niggers. Stick around (if you're you aren't half dead at that point) and listen to them carry on a conversation among themselves.

The woman in question is indeed brave and practical. Where are the single men who should be stepping up to the plate pronto? I don't think they care much about the issues single women face. Single frum guys are too used to thinking they will always be in hot demand, not matter how old they get, (their mommies & rebbies told them so) and so we now have a grossly uneven society!

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Anonymous: I think you misunderstood Free Thinker. He wasn't dismissing ProfK's first analysis, rather her statements on woman vs. girl, and his point had nothing to do with the actual actions of the woman in question.

I do know however, that despite what JoeSettler has written, this issue isn't as nearly as "new" as he thinks...and is decades old.

Anonymous said...

As a man who is in the process of getting divorced, I can only say that as great and wonderful and loving as mariage can be, it is simply not worth the risk in many cases. The man stands to loose quite a bit from getting married.

Anonymous said...

Jammel- I understand your desire to protect joesettler, after all he "attempts" to fill in for you. But we all know that a forty year old women does not appreciate being called a girl. Nothing to do with pc or not. Your a class act, don't lower yourself to protecting joesettler word usage. It was wrong to use girl. Period. Now, was that the most important point of the post? No. Its shame joesettler did not just apologize and this thread would have ended a log time ago. I wish this woman success and happiness.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:53 - we have a (male) cousin who was put through a difficult and isolating divorce, does his best with kids' visitation, and has resolved to never marry again. It's sad but I hear it.

What I don't get is why the JPost ad writer *wants* to be entangled with some guy. Just find/pay for a donor and that's it. What makes her think 2 active parents raising a child will be any easier if they're pre-divorced rather than really divorced?

Anonymous said...

girl/woman - I just thought Joe was reflecting on the dating scene as he remembered it which was long ago, emphasizing more of her "fun loving" language than her serious resolution to enter mom territory. In other words an oversight - better served by "hey buddy it's woman not girl" rather than the accusatory "you're part of the problem why are you calling her girl?"

In fact, when potential marriage partners get so touchy about relatively little things and can't resolve them with some leniency and a little humor, *that* becomes a problem.... (That said my husband has been pretty darn tolerant of my picky semantics over the years.)

Sarah said...

Anon 8:43:

I can imagine two reasons she may be hoping to avoid an anonymous donor. One is that she wants the child to have some sort of father figure. And the other is that she wants access to the kinds of medical history questions that get played out over the decades of a person's life.

I know someone who chose an anonymous donor for the reasons you say -- to avoid entanglement with someone who isn't going to be a member of the family -- but I can also understand why someone would choose "pre-divorce" with a decent man over doing it 100 percent by herself, and not knowing at all who the father is.

In the end neither choice is ideal. It's really sad that people are stuck with such un-ideal options.

JoeSettler said...

As I read it, she wants an active father figure for the child. She simply doesn't believe that she will find a guy willing to commit to marriage.

I hope she chooses to weigh in here.

toolateforme said...

I am happy the issue is out there for all to see and realize that YES this is not a sitcom but real life for many aging women. I personally tried to conceive with an anonymous donor and was unsuccessful bc I personally waited too long. Had this discussion been up more years ago when I was feeling so isolated in having to make this decision, perhaps I wouldn't have waited so long.
I congratulate this woman on making the most difficult and most understandable decision that a woman makes to be a MOM which is such a visceral and heart wrenching desire for some women who want to be one and haven't succeeded through the "normal" routes.
Lots of luck to you Ms Anonymous and I wish some great guy is going to see what a gem you are and together create a successful family in the most traditional sense with full love and commitment for mom, dad and child

Renegade said...

Right after reading this I checked Facebook and that my friend had posted wishing a happy birthday to "the most amazing girl in the world"

I'm trying to decide if I should admonish him for being so insensitive, un-PC and degrading by calling his wife -the mother of his kids- a girl and not a woman...

Rivka said...

I wish the woman luck in finding a good man to have a child with.
And I think you made it very clear in your post what you thought when you kept leaving the word "girl" in, crossed out, and putting in "lady." Why would you have done that at all if you really didn't think there was a difference? Because, on some level, you knew there was a difference, that's why. Women with no husband and no children are "girls," no matter what their age, at least in the frum world. They sit with the other single girls at events (even if those girls are half their age), they're expected to have the same goals as other girls just starting out in life (even if they're well down their career path), and they're expected to have the same mentality as girls right out of college. But a twenty year old girl has time to wait and see if her beshert will come and give her kids; a forty year old woman does not. She has to make tough choices. She is not a girl anymore.

JoeSettler said...

Actually I was making fun of everyone so PC they couldn't discuss the actual subject of the post, because use of the word "girl" disturbed their sensibilities too much.

Oops, wait a minute. That wasn't very PC of me to write that.

Hey Jameel, can you get over here and "defend" me again?

JoeSettler said...

"Hey hey baby (ooh ah)
I wanna know if you'll be my girl"

"Hey. Did you happen to see the most beautiful girl in the world?"

"If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life,
Never make a pretty woman your wife,
So for my personal point of view,
Get an ugly girl to marry you"

"The girl from ipanema goes walking,
And when she passes, I smile."

"I’ve got sunshine on a cloudy day,
And when it’s cold outside girl, I’ve got the month of may,
Oh I guess you’d say what can make me feel this way,
My girl, talkin’ ’bout my girl, my girl "

"Diamonds are a girl's best friend."

"I need a girl
Someone I can just chill with
I need a lady
Someone I can be real with
I need a woman
That supports everything I’m doin
Girl if your that lady, come on woman be my baby"

"Girl, you're every woman in the world to me
You're my fantasy, you're my reality
Girl, you're every woman in the world to me
You're everything I need,
You're everything to me
Oh girl"

Commenter Abbi said...

Joe, it's one thing to make fun of anonymous "pc" commenters. It's quite another to make fun of people who have personally testified to how difficult it is to be an older single frum woman, actually listing in detail all of the excruciating ways it hurts them and destroys their dreams.

Takes a lot of guts to make fun of that. Wow, I thought you were a jerk before, but this just takes the cake. This could have been a really interesting discussion but you had to go ruin it with your personality.

Commenter Abbi said...

Also, you're bringing lyrics from pop songs as ra'ayot that it's ok to call women girls? NONE of those songs specifically address older women. They are all referring to young or actual GIRLS (teenagers). You are seriously whacked.

All these women were asking for was a little sensitivity. I'm not sure why it was so hard to be generous and grant them that sensitivity.

JoeSettler said...

Actually almost all my choices are from love songs, and the girl in the songs are not age-specified. In fact, many people would consider a Frank Sinatra song to be timeless.

It's very sad that you believe that only a young girl as opposed to an older girl can be in love, or the subject of a love song.

That says more about your perspective on life than mine.

JoeSettler said...

And furthermore, I wrote this post with great sensitivity to the girl's situation.

Your one and single (imaginary) peeve is that I wrote the word girl instead of woman.

And based on that one word the entire post is insensitive.

So, ignore that one word for a second, and please, please, tell me where else I even possibly made fun of this girl's plight in the post and didn't take her situation seriously and with great sensitivity.

Please, please give me just one example in the post, just one, other that your perceived misuse of the word "girl".

Do you know how you even sound?

Commenter Abbi said...

Joe, take a refresher course in English reading comp. Because I did respond above to the essence of your post, so no, my one pet peeve about this post is not your mislabeling of older women. My one pet peeve is your habit of being a jerk.

It was not necessary to correct the post with strikeouts. I didn't say you made fun of this woman's plight. I said you made fun of the other single women who responded to this thread, like Sarah. Your behavior says to Sarah and the other single women who reasonably and sensitively explained their positions in this thread "I don't care about your suffering and see, even Frank Sinatra calls you a girl, so it must be true!".

Nachum said...

As has been pointed out by many conservative commentators, "PC" is just what people used to call "manners," but which, in our degraded society, we need to have enforced rather than learned. Obviously, it went overboard early on ("womyn" etc.), but that doesn't pasul the whole thing, boy.

Anonymous said...

Joe you need to take some female semantics lessons from my husband....

The good-guy's answer here would be, "No I didn't mean it that way of course she's mature I have a lot of compassion for any woman in that situation that's why I'm writing it." (Without any emphasis on woman you just stick it in.)

While you might think it's stupid to switch from using girl to woman, using the word twice in your post can pass, but you keep doing it in the comments - davka!

And since all you have to do here is control your tone in text (no one sees you roll your eyes, or how long you pause before typing "woman") to get these women off your back you just write some variation of "you're right" and stop sticking it back to them by perpetuating your use of "girl" in your comments.

Personally I thought your strikeout of girl in the post was a way to say "fine, fine...." but you're doing the opposite in your comments. And secular songs are no proof - there are plenty of secular songs which if you followed, your wife and kids wouldn't think too kindly of you either.

crazycatscousin said...

Sorry Joe and Jameel,

I agree, calling her a girl is very telling.

JoeSettler said...

I am certainly making fun of the attempted enforcement of the latest (on not latest) PC policing of colloquial English. I don't deny that.

Now, if I had said that female commenter Sarah scares off prospective males with a militant feminist obsession over the use of the word girl, that would probably be insensitive, but I said no such thing.

So Abbi. I ask you again.

Besides your always being upset with me because you think I'm a jerk, or because you will only accept latest PC usage of the word girl, where exactly have I been insensitive to commenter Sarah or her plight?

Please, bring a quote.

JoeSettler said...

I wrote this post in the hope that one of our thousands of readers might suggest a decent guy for this female to marry, or perhaps might even be open themselves for marriage.

I'm sending her an email to comment here, if she is willing. Perhaps it will help her find not just a partner, but a husband too.

And you've all turned it into a PC enforcement campaign.

Shame on all of you.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

"The good-guy's answer here would be, "No I didn't mean it that way of course she's mature I have a lot of compassion for any woman in that situation that's why I'm writing it." (Without any emphasis on woman you just stick it in.)"

I agree with the above wholeheartedly.

Joe, if you can agree to the above, then maybe we can progress to the real issue at hand?

All: This particular situation isn't new, but has been around for decades (at least 80 years)...probably longer.

Sarah said...

I'm back!

In response to "where exactly have I been insensitive to commenter Sarah or her plight?" indeed the post with all the song lyrics was pretty rude. I write a comment explaining upsetting things that go on in my life (not HORRIBLE, but not pleasant, either), and instead of responding with something polite like "that's tough, sorry I upset you, of course you are a mature person," you chose to list song lyrics as a proof of . . . what, exactly? I agree with the commenter above that we're just asking you to be polite.

You even could have written "I'm leaving my post the way it is, but will keep your points in mind for the future. Thanks for explaining your side of things."

And I *did* respond to the substance of your post BEFORE focusing on the semantics of it. I don't see any response to THAT. Did you read that comment of mine?

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Joe: Sarah's correct (above)...

"...that's tough, sorry I upset you, of course you are a mature person," is all that's needed to move on.

Dave said...

You obviously feel pained that this woman has had to resort to this "backup plan", because conventional means have failed her.
I know that when I read that ad on shabbat I felt sorry for her, but impressed that she had chosen to take this difficult, controversial but courageous step.

I don't know what can be done to improve the singles situation, but what I do know is that it's tough to be a frum single, because you're not really an adult part of the community unless you're married. It’s a touchy/sensitive point with older singles. So we should be sensitive to their pain.

@Joe, of course your wife likes it when you call her a girl. It’s emphasizing that she’s still young, like when you first met her. But for a woman who’s constantly being treated like she’s a young college student, it’s pouring salt on a wound.

PC is where you avoid saying the truth because it’s unfashionable. Using the term girl here isn’t simply nonPC, it hurts and that’s real.

keren said...

what we should be discussing (even though I too find it offensive that men say Banot etc. ) Is that in recent years, more and more mainstream orthodox women have been becoming single mothers, partly as a result of direct psak halacha of some rabbis who have said that there are ways in which this is permitted.
We are not talking about what people might call "modern orthodox" or "dati light" or all sorts of terms, but people who define themselves as regular frum.

This is not one isolated case, it is now sort of everyone knows someone (I just found out a divorced person I know has had another child from IUV or whatever).

This has become a real issue. The lady who posted is just going about this in a different way.

JoeSettler said...


My post was sensitive and understanding, and was meant to be a productive post, hopefully to help someone who reached a point they should never have reached, and to discuss how the single community at large reached that point, and what can be done to fix it.

Your first question about usage was valid. I answered it. It should have been dropped at that point.

I personally find people trying to force PC compliance to be extremely offensive which is what happened next.

When, instead of talking about something actually important, some people were repeatedly harping on a PC term that, for a fact, not everyone finds offensive in colloquial usage - such as my wife and many of her female friends (both single and married).

I repeatedly asked that the comments be returned back to the actual subject, but instead certain people kept reverting back to their personal PC issues.

From my perspective, I wasn't being asked to be polite, I was being told to follow whatever PC trend is currently in, and the post was subsequently hijacked from it's original purpose as a result.

And as a result, I responded in the comments to how I felt I was being attacked (by others), and how silly (yes, silly) I think their point is.

I am sorry if you were offended. That was not meant to be the case.

I was single too for a while. I know exactly what you're referring to and am personally familiar with most of the examples you gave, and that's why this post was important to me - and I didn't appreciate the way it was being hijacked and diverted.


Yes, I read your comment, and I was hoping other people would respond to it too.

If I respond truthfully, I'm afraid I won't be considered sensitive by the readers here, but I'll respond anyway.

You are missing a basic understanding about what being in a marriage/relationship is all about.

Every spouse has flaws and things that annoy the other. At different times one spouse may even love the other one more or less.

Marriage is about creating a singularly strong friendship with someone, with whom you want to share your life and goals with (such as perhaps having children) and with you whom you share mutual respect

Obviously there must be sexual attraction too.

But it's not settling if you marry someone who has this physical flaw, or that annoying habit .- that's called maturity because you see the person as a whole.

There are plenty of singles having sex without love. Imagine if any of those Yezizim would actually invest time in becoming friends with their partner.

Friendship is the recipe for a successful marriage.

What you described is the friendship needed for marriage.

pp said...


No need to "Sheesh". It was quite clear that Joe, from the language he used and the questions he raised, was being judgmental about her situation, and that the use of girl was just one telling factor in that respect (and, for the last time, NOTHING to do with freaking
"political correctness".) Other commenters have expressed similar sentiment: It is simply disrespectful! (And, as a point of order, if you bother to check my comment, I resent the fact that every time I comment here you accuse me of being blindly PC) In fact I mentioned that I know several women who are in or after this process, and have a good idea of some of the difficulties and sacrifices involved in the cases of my friends, fyi some of whom have not given up on dreams of marriage (and have gone on to marry) and some of whom are actively raising their child/ren by themselves with the help of their families and friends... In my own capacity as a new mother, I can only take my proverbial hat off to these women for this step.

Now to the case in hand- Joe, irrespective of how many years you spent as a single, you'd have to agree that as men who married well before they hit 40 (even 30?) neither you or Jameel are in a position to be able to genuinely analyse the motivations of a 40 year old single frum woman with a desire to create a baby outside of a marriage. Doing so, especially when judgment is involved, borders on the offensive. (I recall that such bounderies were also discussed during "Srugim" posting days of yore.)

It is clear to me that you tried to be sensitive to this situation in your post and not criticise her, rather express sorrow that this is where people find themselves today- but several commenters have pointed out that you missed the mark and even made it worse by using 'girl'= the "correction" that you posted, and the various defensive comments and jibes about political correctness don't really add to your original case either, sorry.

JoeSettler said...

Sara: You see what I mean? Some people won't let the subject go back on track.

Jenny said...

PP: Are you even married?

Jameel dropped the issue of girl/woman, and told Joe to apologize to Sarah for that.

Joe is trying to carry on an intelligent conversation on the actual topic at hand, and you're still hung up on girl/woman issue?


I'd never treat guys that way.

Anonymous said...

pp I don't see one instance of anyone being "judgmental" towards the woman posting the jpost ad. people are asking questions, people are reflecting upon what contributes to the unfortunate phenomenon.... further, calling the phenomenon "unfortunate" isn't a judgment either - I doubt any women we're thinking about initially expected to go that route so it was a second (or third or whatever) choice.

Accusing everyone - or anyone - getting in on the discussion of being judgmental doesn't do any good here.

Jerusalemcop said...

Most of us have been thru (or are still in the midst) of the single scene in katamon or UWS.
I genuinely think that as a group, we should try to think of solutions to help our friends (male and female) in achieving their goals.

This particular woman wants her goal to be to have a child. she seems to have given up on the idea of having one within the institution of marriage, so she has done a very gutsy thing; she placed an ad for "a sperm donor" but did so in one of the most unlikely places: In Jerusalem. I actually commend her on her very brave stance.

It obviously saddens me that she reached the point of desperation that caused her to make this decision, but she has shown that eventhough she (so far) has been unable to achieve her goal within marriage, her clock is ticking and this is what has motivated her to make her plea public.

I hope and pray that once she achieves her goal, she doesn't forget about her previous goal of being in a loving relationship. There are plenty of guys out there who will be willing to marry a woman with a child out of wedlock (there are those who will also choose not to).

She seems to have made her choice and I wish her the best and hope that it all works out for her.

As I said earlier, It's sad that things have reached this point, but I can understand her motivation and only wish that as a community there was a way to change the way people think and try to help our brothers and sisters who have specific goals that they want to achieve.


Sarah said...


I will respond to just one part of your comment at 11:32 am (because to respond to the rest would be beating a dead horse):

*I* know that no one is perfect, and *you* know that no one is perfect, and we both know that making a marriage work means living with another person's flaws. But in the ACTUAL WORLD OF DATING TODAY, so many people (both men and women) do NOT know that, or don't WANT to know that, or don't know how to deal with -- or are just unlucky and the people whose flaws they can live with are not physically attractive to them -- that it becomes difficult to find a match.

To find someone whose flaws you can live with AND who is physically attractive AND who shares your values AND WHO FEELS ALL THOSE WAYS ABOUT YOU has become extremely difficult.

All I was trying to say is that in a world where finding all those things is so hard, the ad-writer has removed some of those obstacles, which is why her plan makes sense, even if it is sad.

Anne said...


It obviously saddens me that she reached the point of desperation that caused her to make this decision,

You are a judgemental misogynist and its despicable that you are "saddened" by this brave woman's choice.

I totally agree with the "PP" commenter above.

Jameel @ The Muqata said...

Purple Parrot:

Why do you think *I* am analyzing *anyone's* motivations?

Did I write that anywhere in this comment thread?

Can you please show me where?


JoeSettler said...


Most normal Singles have been in a few relationships over the years that could have resulted in marriage if they had only known what to do about it.

One of the secrets to getting married is to not allow "breaking up" to remain the first option on the decision tree.

If you build up a normal relationship with someone, which involves normal day-to-day activities (shopping, cooking, cleaning), as well as fun stuff such as going out, talking on the phone, simply keeping each other company and confiding with one another, then at a certain point, the fear of being apart becomes stronger than the fear of having to decide to commit.

How do you reach that stage?

If you basically like the person you're going out with, enough to go out with them a few more times, then do the following:

When one sides says they want out (or acts like they want out), discuss it, and convince them to continue on a little longer - without any begging, stalking or hysterics, if they really want out, obviously let them go. (Use your Sechel in trying to understand their motivation).

But if it just the fear of possibly having to commit in the future, then calm them down and talk them down from the idea.

After all, no one is asking them to commit at that exact point in time. Let them know that.

After doing that a few times, at a certain point you will both realize that you're actually in a very comfortable relationship, and you're happier together than you would be apart.

You'll also realize that the issues that really bothered you both, still bother you, but much less so, to the point where they're probably inconsequential.

It's still scary to make the decision to get married, but the alternative at that point would be far more miserable.

Alternatively you'll both realize that what divides you is for real and not just fear, and you aren't right for one another - but at least it was given a fair chance for a change.

(If the person is a serial dater who has a different girl each week. Don't waste your time in the first place. Same if there's something obviously not normal about them).

Rivka said...

The only thing I'm getting right now is that Joe has the right to insult anyone he wants on your blog, claim the insulted are just trying to force their "PC" on him, and brush their comments under the rug because they didn't focus on the "point" of the post.
This all could have been avoided if he had not left the word "girl" in his post, twice, crossed out. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. THAT is a valid point to bring up in the comments, and his attempts to brush all hurting single frum women aside like they're a bunch of hysterical females is obnoxious and very, very telling.
His wife can tell him whatever she wants. He's lucky to have her!

JoeSettler said...

Ho hum. Another off-topic comment.

But yes, we're both lucky to have each other, and we work very hard to make it successful.

JoeSettler said...

Hey boys and girls it's...

Which of the above commenters have used the following ill-mannered, non-PC, degrading and misogynistic use of the word "girl" in their own posts on their own blogs?
I particularly like the first three examples.
(And I've got plenty more where these came from)

We were divided into teams (girls/boys/mixed)...
[referring to herself and fellow adult coworkers]

OK. So I was talking to my mother on the phone. She was very excited: "I've got some WONDERFUL news for you, darling! X is also having twins!"
Now, I don’t X well: Our parents are friends. She's always seemed like a very nice girl.
[referring to female who just gave birth, presumably married] of those killed was a girl who was handing out her Wedding Invitations to her friends at the time.
[referring to an female engaged to be married who was subsequently killed]

...I point out "my" kibbutz to a girl who has recently joined our office...

Nush- welcome back, girl!
[referring to a female commenter]

The girl cops were beautiful.
[referring to female police officers]

I seem to remember a feature on dear old Guy Pines' show earlier this year, wherein a thin girl was told she'd have to "start eating lettuce" if she wanted to be a serious contender for the Eurovision...

The snooty girl next to me got the "Right Bite" Box on the United flight.
[referring to a fellow female passenger]

It felt not unlike an old SATC episode- the one where Carrie has all the girls over for out-of-the-window viewing
[referring to women over the age of 30]

Not that we are immune to this alleged maturity curve: as I discussed with Birthday Girl some weeks ago...

...the icy vibes emitting from Larry et al, specifically from a scowling girl to his right who earned the nickname Evil Esther after being absolutely vile to both of us...

All the tourists in our hotel -and everyone else's, in fact- seemed to know all about the evil be-skirted girls who'd nearly gotten her deported...

I'm a big girl, and I've been working in the NGO sector for several years...
[referring to herself]

...but hey: sometimes a girl needs her little flashy rubber balls made in Taiwan.
[referring to herself]

Meanwhile, a girl cannot shade her eyes with her hair alone...
[referring to herself]

...yeah, I'm more of an "Air Crash Investigation" girl when it comes to NG.
[referring to herself]

Awwww... how to make a girl feel special!
[referring to herself]

Girl clutching bouquet presses bell…
[referring to herself]

There was only so much a girl could take...
[referring to herself]

There's no better way to make a girl feel cared for than duplicate comments.
[referring to herself]

I'm a Tetley girl, myself.
[referring to herself]

JoeSettler said...

Have I made my point clear, or do I need to add in hyperlinks?

Rona, Israeli Policewoman said...

As a policewoman in Israel's National Police force (serving in Ramla), I'm extremely offended by whoever wrote "The girl cops were beautiful.[referring to female police officers]"

Did JoeSettler write that? I want to know, since its demeaning and sexist.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Rivka said...


Yes, Joe Settler, you are right. You know just how to write to women to make them thing you try your hardest to come across as a decent, caring individual.

You are just the glowing example of a perfect guy.

In fact, you glow so bright my eyes have to turn away. I'll be deleting this blog from my bookmarks, I can't take your shine anymore.


Borat said...

On this blog there is problem
And that problem is JoeSettler
He makes sexist comments
And he never takes it back

Throw JoeSettler down the well! (x2)
So this blog can be free! (x2)
You must smack him in his face (x2)
Then we have a big party (x2)

If you see JoeSettler writing
You must be careful of his bias
You must ignore his sexist comments
And I tell you what to do

Throw JoeSettler down the well! (x2)
So this blog can be free! (x2)
You must smack him in his face (x2)
Then we have a big party (x2)

Commenter Abbi said...

Your social ineptitude is staggering.

Anonymous said...

Abbi why is it offensive & sexist when Joe calls a woman a girl, but when you do the same on your blog, its ok? At least one of the examples above was written by you

Free Thinker said...

Wow -- I just googled it. Here it is -- Commenter Abbi on her own blog, talking about her own female (and male) coworkers:

"We were divided into teams (girls/boys/mixed)"

Mind you, this is the very same Commenter Abbi, who, right here on this thread, attacked JoeSettler as follows:

"Also, you're bringing lyrics from pop songs as ra'ayot that it's ok to call women girls? NONE of those songs specifically address older women. They are all referring to young or actual GIRLS (teenagers). You are seriously whacked."

So are we to understand, then, that your female coworkers are not adults, but rather "young or actual GIRLS (teenagers)"? If not, then why is OK for you to call them "girls", but not OK for JoeSettler?

Commenter Abbi to JoeSettler: "Your social ineptitude is staggering."

Perhaps you should be examining yourself first. What's "staggering" is your double standard and hypocrisy.

Renegade said...


"I don't like being called a "girl," ...because it goes along with all the other ways I'm presumed to be child-like because I've never been married."

I'm going to assume (I don't know your friends and family so i cant be certain) that no, you're not presumed to be "child-like" you're presumed to have less responsibilities & commitments and to be more flexible.

seems to me you have 1 or 2 legitimate gripes on your list. the rest of them, to be honest, sound like utter stupidity to me.
Do you honestly believe that it's just as hard (in terms of time / commitment / labor) to care of yourself on your own as it is to raise a family? that is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

This overdone meta-discussion is great proof of how technological communication is easily misunderstood - people are taking offense in many ways that weren't intended.

Someone makes a polite request to reconsider use of the word girl - Joe thinks he's being attacked for PC usage.

Joe doesn't take these "girl" corrections - polite or emphatic - very seriously but instead focuses on comments about the original topic - those who wrote them think he's intentionally snubbing them.

Someone makes the point that sometimes people can refer to themselves in ways that outsiders can't - again people are up in arms about PC.

Someone says they're sad that someone gets to 40 and because she couldn't start a familiy the traditional way.... - someone calls him a MISOGYNIST!

If we were sitting in the lunchroom, it would be much easier to read others' tone of voice, make a quick comment to clarify, etc. Instead everyone is just stuck in front of their own terminal with their own point of view.

That's part of the "dating" problem also - much less people-to-people interaction nowadays. People aren't used to it, and they aren't good at it.

Have a good day everyone. Better luck in real life.

Anonymous said...

Oh and Renegade why do you have to attack Sara what's the point? She never said who has it "harder" just that looking at a single person's life as if they have no responsibilities is downright wrong. And sometimes yes having a life partner does smooth out the logistics of maintaining a home - like when my tall husband changes the lightbulbs, or when I apply my analytical personality to rearranging the fridge, or when only one of us has to be home for the repairman, or when rent or auto expenses are shared between two salaries...

Commenter Abbi said...

Free thinker- I think it's been explained in about a dozen ways in this thread why referring to older single women as girls in the context of discussing dating and marriage is offensive. If at this point it's too hard for you and Joe to understand why it's offensive, than there's really nothing more to explain or discuss and yes, this complete lack of understanding reflects a rather large degree of social ineptitude ie: the inability to show simple sensitivity to another person's feelings otherwise known as "manners" or "politeness".

I'm astounded that you have to time to actually search my blog for the word "girl". You probably had to read a lot of posts to get just the right example since I talk about my two young daughters quite a bit. I wish you a lot of luck in your job search or in any kind of search for a more worthy use of your time. Since this "accusation" is so completely worthless (as was Joe's inane blog reference list), sorry, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response.

RulesWoman said...

Dear Joe,

Since you are clearly too dense to understand your complete lack of manners, I will spell out for you when you may or may not use 'girl'.

A woman may only be called a girl under any of the following circumstances:

1. She is a fellow coworker.
2. She is married.
3. She is engaged.
4. She is a mother.
5. She is under 12 (possibly 21).
6. You are referring to yourself.
7. She is a fellow commenter.
8. She is a friend.
9. She is a stranger.
10. She is your daughter.
11. She has a professional career.

You may never refer to a woman as a girl under any of the following circumstances:

1. Your name is JoeSettler.
2. You are referring to a single woman, age 40 and the discussion is about dating.

Any use of girl breaching this list of rules proves you are a misogynistic, socially inept, insensitive schmuck - but at least not a hypocrite.

Free Thinker said...

Aha, I see now: So according to Abbi, referring to women as "girls" is offensive only in the context of "discussing dating and marriage", but in the context of discussing adult women in the workplace, it is perfectly fine to call them "girls".

No doubt all the PC feminist groups will back you up on that piece of bizarre, inane hairsplitting. Not.

Your attempt to go on attacking JoeSettler, even after your complete hypocrisy has been exposed for all to see, is pathetic beyond words. I don't know which is more pitiable: Your desperate and ridiculous efforts to insist that your own use of the term is somehow different and therefore not offensive, or your transparent attempt to divert attention by attacking JoeSettler for having "had the time" to search your blog.

Get a clue: You've got so much egg on your face now, that there's a puddle forming around you. Fact: You yourself call your female coworkers "girls", yet you sanctimoniously assail somebody else for using the exact same term.

Most people, after being shown up as such a completely two-faced hypocrite, would either apologize contritely, or slink off quietly into the woodwork. But not you.

Talk about "social ineptitude". Sheesh.

Free Thinker said...

Oh, and one more thing: Since you yourself have now clarified that referring to women as "girls" is offensive in the context of "discussing dating and marriage" (as opposed to women in the workplace), can we all assume that you therefore take offense at these quotes from Purple Parrot that appeared in JoeSettler's "inane blog reference list", and refer to women as "girls" specifically in the context of dating or marriage? E.g.: of those killed was a girl who was handing out her Wedding Invitations to her friends at the time.

OK. So I was talking to my mother on the phone. She was very excited: "I've got some WONDERFUL news for you, darling! X is also having twins!"
Now, I don’t know X well: Our parents are friends. She's always seemed like a very nice girl.

It felt not unlike an old SATC episode- the one where Carrie has all the girls over for out-of-the-window viewing

Anonymous said...

Hey, Abbi -- give it up already, you've been owned.

Free Thinker said...


Since you have explained to us that calling women "girls" is offensive when it is in the context of "discussing dating and marriage", it is very instructive to look at the following quotes from yourself, from a post on this very blog in which you describe the plot of an episode of Srugim -- which is completely about "dating and marriage":

"At dinner the girls inform Nati that he was ambushed by the rich girl..."

"Nati is anxious to make havdala because he wants to call Nitzan, the rich girl..."

Perhaps you've got some sort of hairspitting explanation for us about why your references to women as "girls" -- this time in the context of dating or marriage -- is somehow not offensive, while JoeSettlers' are?

Anonymous said...

oh all of you just give up you've killed the thread already.

I would have liked to ask about what outreach there is for women in this situation (yearning to have a child) in contrast to blanket announcements such as the one by Rav Lior the other week. But don't bother to reply I'm not reading anymore and most anyone who has what to say isn't either.

JoeSettler said...

Well that's a shame, because it's a good question, and it's the kind of subject I wanted this comment section to talk about in the first place.

Rivka said...

Guess what, Joe? If this woman *was* going to reply to your request to answer a few questions about the ad, after the INCREDIBLE amounts of sympathy and understanding you've shown here to women like her, I'm sure there's no way in hell she'll come anywhere near this blog. Kol Hakavod!

pp said...

"Jenny", wtf?! Whoever you are, you need to find better things to do with your time than get involved in discussions not directed at you.

Joe- this last comment by Rivka sums up the mess you've made here just perfectly. I'd hope that you and Jameel would both take stock of your audience for future posts from now on, but sadly I know better than that.

Rachel said...

pp to Joe: ...this is a very judgmental post, solidified by you referring to her as a "girl". (frum people seem to stop using "girl" only once a woman is married.)

pp to Jenny: "Jenny", wtf?! Whoever you are, you need to find better things to do with your time than get involved in discussions not directed at you.

Excuse me??

Why does Jenny have any less right than yourself to weigh in on this thread with her opinion? This is an open discussion; why shouldn't she be able to express her opinions even if the discussion wasn't "directed at her"?!

JoeSettler's original post wasn't directed at you, yet you had no compunctions about joining the discussion with your own opinions, including a personal attack on Joe. Why are you entitled to do this, but not Jenny? Maybe you "need to find better things to do with your time than get involved in discussions not directed at you".

And why are you so angered by Jenny's comment, anyway? Because she disagrees with your attack on Joe regarding his use of the word "girl"? That's awfully hypocritical, coming as it does from someone who has refered to grown women as "girls" dozens of times, on an open blog that everyone can see for themselves.

For the record, I found Joe's post to be thoughtful and sensitive. He was extremely tactful and respectful toward the woman in question, and went out of his way to explicitly point out out that he hadn't even the slightest bit of criticism against her. He then then proceeded to present a cogent, considerate analysis of the predicament that this woman finds herself in, suggesting that it results from a widespread fear of commitment on the part of men in the current Jewish singles scene.

For the record, I completely agree with Joe's analysis. Your attack on him is unjustified, and not borne out in any way by the content of his post.

And I think that Jenny is 100% right when she criticizes you for your obsessive, over-the-top attacks, that twisted a sensible discussion of a critical social issue in today's Jewish community, into an irrational series of ad hominem attacks against the post's author.

pp said...

Rachel- Jenny asked me if I was married and proceeded to attack me personally. That was the "wtf". Ok?

Rachel said...

pp: Rachel- Jenny asked me if I was married and proceeded to attack me personally. That was the "wtf". Ok?

pp - you pointed out that Joe was married and proceeded to attack him personally. I hardly see the difference. Just a double standard.

pp said...

Joe is a married man, "Rachel". And therefore while he can ponder all he likes, he is not really in a genuine position to cast any judgment on the actions of this woman. Other commenters pointed that out in droves. And I mentioned in an earlier comment that while he may not have meant to come across as judgmental, he did, and the way he responded to the criticisms from a whole bunch of women (including, but not exclusively, me) proved to what extent he doesn't understand.

Sad that you can't see the difference between a double standard, and a fine line. Any thinking woman would appreciate that. But, if it works better for you to make me into the "Bad GIRL" here, knock yourself out.

Rachel said...

pp: Joe is a married man, "Rachel". And therefore while he can ponder all he likes, he is not really in a genuine position to cast any judgment on the actions of this woman. Other commenters pointed that out in droves. And I mentioned in an earlier comment that while he may not have meant to come across as judgmental, he did

Where in his post did he say anything judgmental about the woman? Please quote it.

Rachel said...

pp: Sad that you can't see the difference between a double standard, and a fine line.

What I see is that you rudely attacked someone for calling woman a "girl", even though you yourself have done exactly that on your own blog countless times.

That's a double standard, and your lack of shame over it even after it's exposure is simply astounding.

msp said...

I have to confess that I have been following this thread, but I never bothered to read the original post beyond the text of the woman's letter. And after reading all the things written here by pp, abbi, rivka, et al., I admit that I became just as pissed as they were at joesettler. But after seeing rachel's comment above, I decided to finally go back and read joe's full post. Now I am ashamed for having joined the wolf pack (mentally, at least).

Rachel is right on the mark about the post being very respectful and thoughtful. I don't know where the heck you all got this strange notion that there's anything at all "judgmental" or "misogynistic" about it, the post contains nothing of the sort. The exact opposite is true. It's like we're talking about two different posts. You people have just created an imaginary straw man, and are now tring to lynch it. And that's a shame, because joe's post deserved a serious discussion, not the ridiculous barrage of attacks out of left field that polluted this thread.

Given all the misogynistic attitudes that actually do exist out there, joe's sensitive and intelligent post was a breath of fresh air. It's a shame that this got washed away in a massive flood of baseless vitriol.

Man wanting Child said...

"I would have liked to ask about what outreach there is for women in this situation (yearning to have a child) in contrast to blanket announcements such as the one by Rav Lior the other week. But don't bother to reply I'm not reading anymore and most anyone who has what to say isn't either."

What can a man do in the situation where he can't find a woman to marry him but he wants a kid. If a man wrote a letter like this he would likely be lynched!

Anne said...

Man wanting Child: What can a man do in the situation where he can't find a woman to marry him but he wants a kid. If a man wrote a letter like this he would likely be lynched!

Typical male misogynist attempt to divert attention from the plight of women. You're even worse than JoeSettler. I find your hate-filled, snide implication of male superiority disgusting.

JoeSettler said...


No it's not said...

Comment #100!


Shlomo said...

Based on this thread, I'm sure glad I'm not married to someone like Joesettler.

Bruce said...

That would be an issur d'oreita. But if you are into that sort of thing...

Search the Muqata


Related Posts with Thumbnails