And to do a little more toward the 100-pages effort, I'd like to return to an earlier debate:
Do we have higher expectations these days of people in terms of planning their lives/making financial choices?
Earlier this got off track into the question of whether Jews in Europe worked as farmers or peddlers or something else, and why that's relevant. So now I'm going to give examples to hopefully clarify.
When my great-great-grandfather was supporting his family, if he had trouble (dunno if he did or what), nobody would have said, "well why didn't you become a doctor if you were planning to have so many kids? or an engineer?" Nobody was a doctor, nobody was an engineer, nobody had access to more than basic education. It just wasn't on the charts.
When my great-grandfather was raising his kids, things were different. He had managed to go to medical school in America (by lying and saying he was a Norwegian Protestant, if I recall the story correctly). But where he was living, a lot of people could only afford to pay in potatoes and cabbage.
Nobody would have said, "how can you raise kids on potatoes and cabbage? why don't you move to a big city, where you can make actual money for your work?" He lived where the government had sent him when he got to America. People weren't expected to move.
When my grandfather was raising his kids, the midwest already had a bit of actual money. But let's say the family had run into financial trouble. Nobody would have asked my grandmother, "why don't you get a job?" It was just accepted, it wasn't a woman's job to keep the family afloat, it was the man's. If the man was a bum or had bad luck, that was his issue not hers.
But today, we expect people to 1. plan their profession 2. plan their location and 3. take responsibility for income regardless of gender. If someone needs tzedaka - why didn't they get a professional degree, if they were planning on more than four children? Why are they living where their parents live, why not move somewhere inexpensive? Why is the woman home with the children, she could work too?
I don't think those are bad things necessarily, just signs of the times. Just wondering if anyone agrees that the change in expectations goes both ways - people expect a higher standard of living (for good and bad), but people are also expected to do a lot more in terms of making an effort.
There's camp, and there's day camp! (Can't you start seeing what it means talking yourself blue against the wall! This has been discussed many times on this thread already!!!!!)
Day camp, the kind Leiby Kletsky went to, is a daytime program only, with hours ranging form 8:00 am and up, through 3:00 pm and later. Some are simple, usually the boys, where there's learning and then some swimming and/or activities and trips. The girls usually have some davening, a shiur, and then activities, swimming and trips. It gives WM a place to leave their school age kids when they work, and it gives the SAHM a few hours of a break so they get their homes/lives in check, while their kids are in a "supervised" environment.
Now with the sleep away camp, it's a gantz andere maaseh. The camps usually start boys over kitta vav, and girls over the fifth grade. Boys don't really have much of a choice (in chassidishe circles) of going or not, as the ENTIRE cheder/yeshivah system relocates to camp. All the menahalim and melamdim and their families, move up for those two months. Only a handful of boys stay behind in a make-shift cheder in the city. With girls it's a bit different, where going to camp is totally optional, so as the gradea rise, more girls come. In other words, few girls in the younger grades go. In the older grades, you always have more and more girls joining.
The reason for sleep away camp? To provide a "country setting" for the city kids, away from the sweltering heat, confined apartments and tank top clad non jews. This is why for the boys it is mamesh liek not an option to stay behind, except for in extreme cases. The girls who stay behind, if they are younger than 8th grade, they attend a day camp. If they are older, they usually apply for some volunteer work or work in the day camp.
Now since the sleep away camp is more as an escape from the city, those living out of the city do not really have camps. I don't know of any cheder or yeshiva out of the city that has a camp, since they are not city restraint kids and have an almost camp like lifestyle. (Although you can't compare care-free spirit-induced camp life to structure-like suburb life, but now I digress...). There was one camp for the Monroe boys where they provided a camp experience for the boys for 2 weeks each summer, but now that the economy hit hard, they discontinued the program.Suburban girls don;t have camps at all, so they join any camp that is owned by city run directors, if they wish to.
We must keep the thread going! I know...how do you feel about having so many trips in camp? Are they necessary? If camp is funded by tzedaka, should it be wading pools and simple arts and crafts?
My kids are doing a considerable number of trips. The principal claims neither he nor parents can occupy kids with simpler activities for ten minutes.
When I was in the tween division of a day camp, the director disabused us of the notion that there should be a trip every day. But now that same program is called Teen Travel, and there is a trip every day. A sign of our times?
Whenever something is called, "A sign of our times," it makes me feel old.
Anyway, I registered dd for camp and now a child I don't want her associating with has also registered. This other girl has bad middos and waaaay too much freedom for my taste. (Read: unlimited Internet access, no curfew, no limits that I see.) We're talking early teens here.
There is no other camp for my dd to go to and she's been looking forward to this all year.
Now what?
Let her go.
There will be other girls around. Your daughter might not spend any time at all with her. And presumably they won't be spending their days surfing the 'net.
The reason for sleep away camp? To provide a "country setting" for the city kids, away from the sweltering heat, confined apartments and tank top clad non jews.
So the tank top clad yidden are a-ok? What you object to is the immodesty, not the presence of non-Jews (I'm making the charitable assumption here.) Your message will get through more clearly without the anti-gentile slurs, FYI.
And to do a little more toward the 100-pages effort, I'd like to return to an earlier debate:
Do we have higher expectations these days of people in terms of planning their lives/making financial choices?
Earlier this got off track into the question of whether Jews in Europe worked as farmers or peddlers or something else, and why that's relevant. So now I'm going to give examples to hopefully clarify.
When my great-great-grandfather was supporting his family, if he had trouble (dunno if he did or what), nobody would have said, "well why didn't you become a doctor if you were planning to have so many kids? or an engineer?" Nobody was a doctor, nobody was an engineer, nobody had access to more than basic education. It just wasn't on the charts.
When my great-grandfather was raising his kids, things were different. He had managed to go to medical school in America (by lying and saying he was a Norwegian Protestant, if I recall the story correctly). But where he was living, a lot of people could only afford to pay in potatoes and cabbage.
Nobody would have said, "how can you raise kids on potatoes and cabbage? why don't you move to a big city, where you can make actual money for your work?" He lived where the government had sent him when he got to America. People weren't expected to move.
When my grandfather was raising his kids, the midwest already had a bit of actual money. But let's say the family had run into financial trouble. Nobody would have asked my grandmother, "why don't you get a job?" It was just accepted, it wasn't a woman's job to keep the family afloat, it was the man's. If the man was a bum or had bad luck, that was his issue not hers.
But today, we expect people to 1. plan their profession 2. plan their location and 3. take responsibility for income regardless of gender. If someone needs tzedaka - why didn't they get a professional degree, if they were planning on more than four children? Why are they living where their parents live, why not move somewhere inexpensive? Why is the woman home with the children, she could work too?
I don't think those are bad things necessarily, just signs of the times. Just wondering if anyone agrees that the change in expectations goes both ways - people expect a higher standard of living (for good and bad), but people are also expected to do a lot more in terms of making an effort.
Busy day, so writing quickly:
(1) People didn't have as many options in terms of professions 50 or 100 years ago as they do today. Many colleges didn't accept Jews, or had strict quotas. Same for professions. *No Dogs or Jews Allowed* So no one was telling people to do things that they had no way of doing.
(2) As a whole, the population had less, expected less, and lived with less. Partially because a lot of things hadn't even been invented, like cell phones and computers. Most homes lacked a/c, even into the 1960s. (Which was the *real* reason that people went to the "country" back in the day. To escape from the diseases that spread through overheated cities.)
(3) Poor people expected to do with less. Sure, there was tzedaka. But it was to make sure that people had food and shelter. So no one said *if you wanted to support your 12 kids, you shouldn't have decided to be a peddler." But they did say "peddlers don't get to send their 12 kids to yeshiva and camp, give their kallahs diamond jewelry, and take an annual vacation. But here, have this lovely piece of cardboard to stick in little Shumuly's shoe; it will keep the snow out of the holes."
(4) Maybe no one would have told granny to get a job. Married women were generally expected to be at home. Without modern conveniences like electric washers, vacuum cleaners, blender, food processors, etc, housework was a lot more onerous. And most places wouldn't hire married women. The kids, OTOH, were expected to work. My grandmother (a"h) went the furthest in school of her 8 siblings -- she finished 9th grade. Then her brother asked her who the h*ll she thought she was, 14 years old and still in school; she needed to get that tush in gear (I'm updating the language) and get a job. She did, at Sears. And when my other grandparents couldn't make ends meet, my father was expected to go out and get a job to help support the family. From the time he was 12 or 13, he worked selling food at sports games, making deliveries for the kosher butcher, and cleaning the butcher's store. He did graduate high school, though.
The reason for sleep away camp? To provide a "country setting" for the city kids, away from the sweltering heat, confined apartments and tank top clad non jews.
So the tank top clad yidden are a-ok? What you object to is the immodesty, not the presence of non-Jews (I'm making the charitable assumption here.) Your message will get through more clearly without the anti-gentile slurs, FYI.
It is very 2011 to be politically correct, and in my post, I was not projecting MY point of view or feeling towards anything. I just very matter-of-factly covered the differences of day camp, sleep away camp, city kids, suburb kids, girls and boys.
"tank top clad non jews" is the reasoning these cheders and yeshivas are using in their promotion of camp and when they do their fundraising. In their words it's "to stay away from the pritzus in the city, form the non jews and learn in the 'reina luft' and air out".
Please don't accuse me of using anti-gentile slurs. I was not posting MY personal take on this.
Please don't accuse me of using anti-gentile slurs. I was not posting MY personal take on this.
Actually most self-aware educated frum Jews of my acquaintance stopped using "non jews" as a blanket derogatory, or even at all, well over a generation ago. It's sad that it's only reaching some communities now, but better late than never.
And while I'm sure you intend nothing offensive by it, as I said, you should be aware that for a large chunk of the non-charedi world, you're automatically tuned out as backward for using the word that way, just as someone who uses the N-word to describe Americans of color. So you see if you're trying to communicate effectively, you should choose words accordingly, otherwise people will focus on the offensive language, and not the substance - as is happening here.
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
Please don't accuse me of using anti-gentile slurs. I was not posting MY personal take on this.
Actually most self-aware educated frum Jews of my acquaintance stopped using "non jews" as a blanket derogatory, or even at all, well over a generation ago. It's sad that it's only reaching some communities now, but better late than never.
And while I'm sure you intend nothing offensive by it, as I said, you should be aware that for a large chunk of the non-charedi world, you're automatically tuned out as backward for using the word that way, just as someone who uses the N-word to describe Americans of color. So you see if you're trying to communicate effectively, you should choose words accordingly, otherwise people will focus on the offensive language, and not the substance - as is happening here.
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
Me or my husband?
Heh. I like you.
Sorry if I virtually snapped your head off, I've known too many bubbies who use [gentile] as an insult, so it bugs me to hear it used casually - I think in some circles it's just unredeemable, like other ethnic labels. But I should bear in mind that in different groups it is simply a description, no insult intended, as someone just reminded me in PM.
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
Me or my husband?
Heh. I like you.
Sorry if I virtually snapped your head off, I've known too many bubbies who use [gentile] as an insult, so it bugs me to hear it used casually - I think in some circles it's just unredeemable, like other ethnic labels. But I should bear in mind that in different groups it is simply a description, no insult intended, as someone just reminded me in PM.
Hey, I'm a bubby and I take great umbrage at that!
(Not really, just doing my bit to have this thread actually overtake the immediate reaction thread. Dreeeeeaaam the impOssible dreeeeeammmmm )
Just wondering if anyone agrees that the change in expectations goes both ways - people expect a higher standard of living (for good and bad), but people are also expected to do a lot more in terms of making an effort.
Ora, you are my new heroine! And you live in Israel! Wow! Talk about achdus!
Whenever I've talked seriously with thoughtful, intelligent people, this is the point that always comes out! BTW, I've had this conversation with at least five or six Holocaust survivors; several name-recognizable talmidei chachomim, as well as a large number of people from various geographical backgrounds.
The biggest issue, based on the conversations I've had over the years, boils down to the following:
There is a subtle but significant difference between the American attitude toward providing for oneself and family and the Jewish view. American attitudes developed out of Puritan theological beliefs, and though various immigrant groups have impacted the application of those beliefs, they still form a strong backdrop for how people raised in America understand the concept of self-sufficiency.
Breathing Puritan Air in the U.S.
The American Puritan view is informed by the concept of predestination. I won't go into the details -- anyone interested can easily Google the concept and get more information that she ever wanted. To put this into day-to-day sociological terms: Puritans believed (and still believe!) that people who live pleasant, easy lives are being rewarded by G-d, and that anyone whose life seems unusually difficulty has displeased G-d in some way through his/her behavior.
Do I need to elucidate how this is different from the Jewish view of hishtadlus? We view our difficulties as tests, not direct punishments. We also believe that we have free will and that all of us have the capacity to respond to our yetzer tov.
Unfortunately, most of us who've grown up in the U.S. have absorbed more than a little Puritanism into our psyches. We've mixed up the concept of hishtadlus with the idea that good behavior leads inexorably to a comfier life. Well, maybe if you're a Puritan. But not if you're a Jew. We believe, on the contrary, that Hashem will test us in a variety of ways to help us purify our middos.
The tests Hashem gives us, too, are not clear-cut. How many of us have heard that poverty is an easier test than wealth? Of course, it sure doesn't seem so when the electric bill is due! But truly devout Jews feel as anxious when they are given great wealth as when they face financial hardship. I am privileged to know one such individual who consults at least 3-4 times a day with the local dayan regarding the halachos of how to spend and give money. Unfortunately, he is in the minority.
The Jew versus the Puritan
A man works hard in school; plans a career; defers gratification . . . becomes a professional in a solid, in-demand field. Yet he seems to have no financial luck. The economy buckles when he graduates; he is laid off due to poor business; he just can't seem to grab hold of the proverbial brass ring. Ironically, many of his classmates who were less serious or less talented seem to be doing fine. Perhaps one inherited a small factory that he's expanded; another lucked into a dead-end job where he created an opportunity. But our hero has no mazel. He and his family live as best they can, pinching pennies.
If this man is a Puritan, the message is clear to him: G-d has rejected him, and his difficulties are punishments. Perhaps, if he figures out what he's doing wrong and becomes closer to G-d, his difficulties will be eased. However, he is obviously not "elected" for G-d's "salvation."
If this man is a Jew, however, his difficulties do not indicate that Hashem has rejected him, but rather, that Hashem is giving him difficult tests to ensure that he reaches his full spiritual potential and recognizes his need for Hashem's help. In fact, far from rejection, this Jew may be especially beloved to Hashem, who is giving him "extra tutoring" through his hardships in order to become more spiritually elevated.
When Jews Nibble from the Puritan Fruit
You can see the problem here: Jews do have the concept of hishtadlus. We are not permitted to sit around and wait for Hashem to swoop in and save us. However, hishtadlus does not result in a comfier life. That is entirely up to Hashem. Some people make good decisions and work hard and live difficulty lives, economically and in other ways. Some people are idiots who can barely walk erect and have no greater hardship than awaiting the arrival of the next shipment of Louis Vuitton bags.
We do hishtadlus because Hashem demands it, not because it results in an easier material life.
We do not assume that people living in poverty do so because of a lack of hishtadlus. That is a Puritan concept. Analyzing or understanding the reason for their suffering in olam hazeh is far beyond our pay grade.
When people on imamother or elsewhere demand to know why anyone with financial difficulties didn't do X, Y, or Z to prevent the situation from developing, they are not 100 percent wrong. It is entirely possible that some people have been lax in the hishtadlus department. But they are definitely not 100 percent right, either. Doing histadlus doesn't lead to lack of financial difficulties. Doing hishtadlus simply means doing our part -- Hashem controls the outcome.
This is a hard idea to swallow for anyone who grew up in the U.S., where over the last 300 years, Puritanism has developed into a kind of "umbrella religion" -- complete religious freedom in the U.S. as long as you work hard, live frugally, and don't engage in anti-social behavior. This is good advice, of course, and it's served many immigrant groups well. We just have to be careful when we start to integrate Puritan-based beliefs into our Torah outlook.
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
I thought the Constitution guaranteed everyone in the USofA the right to bare arms. (I'm Canadian and have major bingo wings, but there's no A/C in my office, so I'm shvitzing in cap sleeves today!)
The idea of getting city kids to the country is not a novel one, and back in the day there used to be something called the Fresh Air Fund which was subsidized by donations from our local newspaper (they also have an Xmas Fund). There were maudlin tales in the paper every day of kids crammed into stuffy city apartments who were yearning to breath country air. I actually preferred day camp, because I missed my creature comforts such as cable TV and the corner store which fed my comic addiction, as well as the relative lack of mosquitoes in town. So the concept of charity being used to fund summer camps is not something that we've recently invented.
So do tank top wearing yidden bother you too, to get back on topic?
I thought the Constitution guaranteed everyone in the USofA the right to bare arms. (I'm Canadian and have major bingo wings, but there's no A/C in my office, so I'm shvitzing in cap sleeves today!)
)
(showing some bare arms...)
