Yours, Mine, And Hours

This is an essay about the Mikveh, a subject that may be unfamiliar to you, and I'll get to that presently – but first some preliminaries.

American society (actually most others as well) has changed. There was a time when the vast majority of “Western” nations were ruled by a law that was based, primarily, on the Bible. There was “good” and there was “bad,” and the rules were reasonably straightforward. Perhaps they didn't always seem “fair,” but that question wasn't really ours to decide or judge.

Eventually lines were drawn between Church and State, and, ultimately, especially with the establishment of the secular state, the whole idea of “right” – such a judgmental construct especially for those who didn't accept theological definitions – was supplemented and, in many respects, superseded by “Rights” which were assigned by the State. These rights were often based on “right” and “wrong” as viewed through the lens of fairness, with “fairness” determined by those on the ground floor – those who wrote the governing documents – and subsequently by the societies in which the new rules were applied. Indeed, cultural “norms,” fads and vogues are often the determinants of “rights.”

Most of the recently discovered rights have centered around minorities, victimhood, and sensitivity. People saw threats in words and images that were intolerable in a fair and liberal modern society, and they sought to eliminate such evil. (Apart from censorship by rulers – religious and secular – there had mainly been restrictions in the past based on what were said to be matters of national security, but in the modern cases sensitivity and fairness were more at issue.) For example, pin-up calendars, long a staple of men's lockers, were decreed to be degrading to women (along with wolf whistles) and all but outlawed. And, similarly, looking at, or otherwise paying unwanted attention to women, or men for that matter, is now considered sexual abuse.

We have also created the category of “hate crime” to show our sensitivity to victims of violence caused by those who are biased against them – usually demonstrated by voiced statements of the perpetrator, and their interpretation by the victim. Of course that might raise problems. If a prejudiced mute assaults a deaf or intellectually challenged minority member, is it a hate crime? In fact the whole idea of a “hate” crime is bizarre. If a bigot insults, and then kills, a minority member over a woman – a “crime of passion” – is it a “love” crime? All crimes are “hate” crimes. If I'm mugged it's the action, not the thought, that angers me. Frequently attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. among others is the aphorism concerning the right to swing your arms ending at the other man's nose. The reason for swinging is irrelevant.

A more recent concern – and this will get me to my main point – is the ruling in many jurisdictions that transgender individuals may use whatever rest room they choose. Sexual restrictions based on birth are biased, and take away the self definition rights of the individual – the right to choose his/her/their/its own self-image. Rest rooms should be gender neutral and everyone should have the right to use whatever facility seems more comfortable (as long as there are no pin-up calendars). Actually, money could be saved by only having a single facility.

But what has all this to do with the Mikveh? In fact, what is a Mikveh?

According to Jewish law it is necessary, before engaging in certain ritual and family actions, to be “pure.” Impurity may arise from a variety of different situations such as (in addition to others) contact with the dead, menstruation, and particular kinds of oaths. The Mikveh is a ritual bath where such purification can take place. The process is also a basic part of conversion, and the new convert is made ritually pure during the ceremony.

The ritual of Mikveh, therefore, is one which may involve both men and women, but the reality is that purification following menstruation is the most frequent situation in which it is used. Thus the facility is reserved for women during most of the hours it is open, but there are times set aside for men who may wish to use it. Separation of the sexes – especially in a situation like this when the involved individual is completely disrobed – is a feature of Judaism. So there are strict schedules governing the Mikveh's use.

There was a recent scandal in the Jewish community when it was learned that a rabbi had been spying on women who were using the facility. Voyeurism has long been an affliction of mankind (literally – “man” is usually the sex of the culprit) however this particular disclosure was considered especially heinous because of who was involved and where it had taken place. But perhaps we overreacted.

While there are traditions in Judaism of modesty and privacy, there are no explicit prohibitions of voyeurism in the Torah, so however we may feel about it personally our revulsion lacks Biblical support. (Indeed, while we condemn certain sexual unions, and while we reject violence that is unassociated with the control of evil or the service of G-d's will, “sexual abuse” is not specifically forbidden. Maybe it's a good thing. Or maybe that's going too far.)  So perhaps the best solution to the problem is to open the Mikveh to all people at all hours.

One thing is certain. The fewer taboos there are on sex, and the more familiar we are with, and thus immune to, the bodies of our sisters and brothers, the less interesting the whole topic of sex will be to the evil-minded among us. Of course it will also be less attractive to the rest of us. Maybe the old days were better.

Free Speech, Gossip, Bullying, Hate Speech

I've written on the subject before,ⁱ but news of the conviction of a Rutgers student for, among other things, a “hate crime,” prompts me to do so again. The student hasn't yet been sentenced, and his lawyer has stated that there will be an appeal, but whatever the outcome, the charges and the trial themselves raise concerns.

The story is clear. The student spied on his roommate – he invaded his privacy – and invited others to do so as well. The spying was done with a live action television camera, which added to the titillation because his roommate was gay, and the viewing was to be of a gay liaison. Ordinarily it wouldn't be much of a story and it's unlikely that a trial would have resulted from it, nor would it have gotten the publicity it's received. But the individual who had been spied on committed suicide. While the accused was not specifically linked to that suicide by the prosecution, the jury was aware of it and it is likely that they were concerned about that result when considering their verdict. So a stupidⁱⁱ college prank – one eventuating in a suicideⁱⁱⁱ – ends in the criminalization and possible incarceration and deportation of an otherwise intelligent student just out of high school – a result which seems to be motivated more by the desire to “send a message” to others than anything else. The accused student invaded another's privacy and publicized aspects of his life that should have been private. His actions were irresponsible and reprehensible – and he should be punished for them in the same way that they are treated in other instances of spying and bullying – but I cannot help wondering about the piling on of statutes forbidding “bias crime” to add on to the guilt. In fact, it is hard for me not to wonder if there is any justification at all in the conceptions of “hate speech” and “bias crime.”

If there is one activity in which we all participate it is gossip. It is not always done with the intention to cause harm, but it is the basis for much of the conversation we have – whether over the telephone, by the water cooler, at a cocktail party, on Facebook, or Twitter. We live on the troubles of others, real or imagined. Soap operas, motion pictures, and television programs that chronicle those troubles fascinate us. And that's the way we view it – as a fascination.^iv We don't consider ourselves as “bad” people because we're interested in the lives and problems of others. We're good, and we know right from wrong. We know, for example, that the paparazzi have no business spying on others. Like the student in this case, they invade the privacy of their subjects and they publicize what they find. But if they have a particularly revealing photo of someone famous,^v we're eager to see it. And if a private investigator^vi produces photographs of some financier's or politician's dalliance as part of a divorce procedure or political campaign, it's sure to attract our attention. It may be invasion of privacy but no matter. They're fair game and we're interested. And if the paparazzi document activities that some view as immoral or outside society's limits, all the better. Unless they involve a “protected” group, in which case they cannot be tolerated. In that circumstance we abhor them. (But we look anyway.)

After all, crime is crime, but making fun of others – especially those sensitive to perceived insults – must be condemned. Fortunately political figures are usually thick-skinned. So late-night TV personalities can make jokes at their expense, no matter what conduct they have displayed. Even though most viewers would condemn the behavior that is belittled – even if they are “biased” against it – watching and laughing aren't crimes.^vii Actually, virtually all humor is at someone's expense. If someone weren't belittled, shown up, or criticized one way or another, it wouldn't be funny. Is the comedian biased? Is he guilty of “hate speech?” Does it matter if the butt of the humor is recognizable or not?

And does it matter if the butt cares? Who decides what is “hate speech?” Is it a function of what the accused says or how the “victim” takes it? And does labeling something as a hate crime^viii depend on the thoughts of the accused, what he says, or is the deciding factor what is perceived by the accuser and the law? The individual convicted was considered as biased because he invaded the privacy of a gay and publicized it. Does a proud gay who “outs” a fellow – who invades his privacy and publicizes it – do the same. Is the act any less troubling to the victim because it was done by someone not biased against homosexuals? And is someone guilty of sexual abuse because a statement he makes,^ix one which might be considered unexceptionable by some, is viewed as derogatory by others? At what point does free speech yield to societal preferences and prejudices? And at what point does a person's thoughts become a crime separate from whatever else he does?

We have moved far from the principles on which our country was established. At least in terms of our laws and their interpretations. As people we're probably pretty much the same. Even if we try to show our concern with insincere proclamations that we assume will only involve others.

i     See “Hate Speech,” which appeared on January 8, 2012.

ii     And mean.

iii    Although it is difficult not to wonder about the underlying mental health of an individual who would ultimately take his own life.

iv    There are many who argue that viewing crime on television leads to criminal behavior. Is the same true of watching such programs? Does it legitimize and lead to the kind of behavior we condemn?

v     Or one not so revealing; or of someone not so famous.

vi    He's not Congress but an individual citizen and not subject to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution or to the remainder of the Bill of Rights.

vii   It's interesting that in the case described I've seen no mention of prosecutions of those who were titillated by the transmission. Were their “biases” different from the accused?

viii   As opposed to a “love crime?”

ix     Or a calendar in his locker.