Why Define?

I define nothing. 

Definitions of words come from the revelation of God to Adam, the forefathers and mothers, Moses, then the chain of prophecy. 

For Jews, prophecy stopped with Malachi. For the children of Noah, as long as a prophet does not contradict the word of God, he may be a true prophet/messenger for the people he or she was chosen to communicate the will of the Lord to. Definitions of words also spring from cultural progress. The word "mind" used to connote "listen to". Now it connotes "not bothered by". 

Language changes, but slowly and not through force, that is, not through forced speech and fines or jail time. Regarding the chain of prophetic tradition, it may be a good exercise to look at scripture and tradition and see, what have Judaism, Christianity, and Islam meant when they referred to men and women? 

There is a legal side and a philosophical side to Abrahamic religions. In Judaism, a man divorces a woman by handing her a document of divorce. Can this process happen between two women? 

Between two people who will not say what gender they are? The terms "man" and "woman" must be defined in order to function in an orderly society. There is also a philosophical side to monotheistic religions. Dina is the only example I can think of a woman who is considered by Jewish tradition to have had manly charactaristics. She is the foremother of the tribes Efrayim and Menashe. She birthed a daughter, Osnat, who married Josef when he was viceroy in Egypt. A tomboy is not necessarily a trans person. 

Jewish tradition is not flooded with overwhelming examples of transgender people. You can philosophize here and there about what it means to be effeminate and tomboyish, that is a wonderful exercise. But that cannot blur the importance of the following: where do definitions of words come from, and why do we need to define them? I wish you blessings on your journey.

Definitions of Words, Terms, and Phrases are Essential in Peaceful Living

Definitions of words are essential to dialogue and therefore to peacemaking. 

The activists who do not want to define the word "woman" are not being intellectually honest. 

If you want to attempt to redefine a word, you are welcome to make this attempt in any society in which there is free speech, but there is no word that can be defined by everyone who uses it. There cannot be three hundred million contradictory definitions for a word. If you think there can be, then you must respect all those definitions, and not seek to educate others on your definition.

If you hold that there can be millions of definitions of a word, you also cannot force others to agree with your definition.

This is especially so when it comes to legal issues: is my toy doll my daughter? If I feel that it is, can I claim it as a tax exemption? Is my granddaughter my daughter because I think so and she thinks so and therefore I can claim a child deduction on my tax form? Can one child be adopted into ten different families so that all those families can claim a child exemption because that child feels she has ten different parents and the parents feel the same? 

Those activists who cannot or refuse to define a word, any word, are acting in a dishonest manner. 

And that is because they end up defining what a woman is anyway, it is just that they are not up front about it - and here is their definition, which is usually finally pulled out of them only in an edgewise manner: gender is determined by according to how one identifies. 

There, they admit it finally, usually only after prodding and only indirectly.

This is not because they are so inclusive, but because they are so exclusive.

What this really means is that they feel they hold the reins of social power, and can get away with whatever they do. 

The activists at the forefront of non-definitions, then actually admitting that they do define according to feeling, will never be damaged by their definitions, because they will simply switch horses midstream should definitions change yet again.

Forced speech is next. Men taking away sports championships from women is already happening. 

But the few who will not be damaged by these fuzzy definitions, like the activists who refrain from defining, and then actually do define by saying, for example, that gender is according to how one feels, care nothing for all the damage this intellectual anarchy will bring down on so so many others. 

The same thing has occurred with "who is a Jew?" in the Jewish community. Those who claim that the definition is fuzzy, and cannot be defined, end up saying that it is just a feeling. They end up defining it, only in an edgewise manner and only after prodding.

 The challenge for the modern liberal is - can you embrace the hands-off tolerance that prevented civil war in England? Can you live and let live? That was the key to avoiding civil war. Imposing gender awareness, or whatever, in schools is the opposite of tolerance. John Selden, one of the founders of the English Parliament and avid reader of traditional Jewish teachings, advocated for such ideas. Imposing is the opposite of tolerance.

Definitions do not spring from social activism or judicial activism. Definitions come from two places: one - they were handed down by God to Adam, then Noah, the forefathers and mothers, to Moses, and interpreted by intellectually honest, self-sacrificing scholars in the chain of tradition of Abrahamic religions until the present day. 

An intellectually honest person does not side-step, change the subject, or use a simple question to bring up another topic, and is completely up front with the knowledge that he or she inherited from her chain of tradition. She is an empty vessel with wisdom flowing through her. He or she is part of a greater whole and if corrected, welcomes it. She is not here to only impose. 

 Two - the connotations of words change as culture changes. But this is a slow and voluntary process. 

You actually do not have YOUR definition of a word or phrase. Definitions spring from without.

Those who claim non-definition, that is, that terms cannot be defined, or are ever so hard to define, are not being honest, because in the end they do define the very words they claim defy definition. 

They are in positions of power. Be wary of them.

Liberal Ideology is Designed to Polarize

 Brookline Massachusetts, public school, 1970's and 80's:

Liberal assumptions were in fact a social experiment. Experiments are supposed to be evaluated. 

The liberals experiment never was evaluated by its own adherents.

Some basic assumptions at that time:

 - Liberal and relativist, meaning that there is no Truth so you need to be an activist in order to create Truths, as Truth is what most people think.

- Sexual freedom was a given.

- ProChoice on abortion was a given.

- Affirmative Action, ie quotas was the only solution to racism, which is the worst problem in the world. (Well, that is racism against blacks is wrong, but no one gave a thought to the plight of poor whites, or what could be if Black Nationalism dominated.)

- Look for racism everywhere. 

- Assert yourself. Social situations are a place for you to impose, since you have to create Truths.

We could not question those basic assumptions. 

If you said, "wait, affirmative action may lower academic standards. How about a social experiment in which say have the New England colleges hold by Affirmative Action, and half just keep blind admissions according to academic standards, and see what works better over the next like 20 years?" Nope.

Or: "hey, the stable kids have monogamous, sober parents, what if sexual freedom leads to the inability to make committed relationships?"

Or: "Who really has the right to assert? Why can't situations be win-win?"

Or: "Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. say that black supremacy is just as bad as white supremacy?"

Or: "What are the side effects of abortion for a woman? When does the unborn feel?"

We did not simply refrain from asking these questions, the whole liberal ideology dictated that you never even dream of asking such questions, lest you be dubbed racist, phobic, sexually repressed, wanting to control women, etc.

We were not allowed to think. Yet we thought we were liberal, and therefore enlightened.

Some middle ground may have kept more people in the liberal fold and not led to the surprise election of Trump. But we could not moderate liberal stances, just widen the picture a bit, and so society polarized.

The interactions I had with liberals after I embraced traditional Judaism only confirmed how ideologically possessed liberals are. They treated me in a manner gruff, contemptuous, sarcastic, and provocative. They treated me in the same way that they feared they would be treated, in ways that would seal their fate as liberals for life, lest they be treated badly, excluded, maybe even unable to attain some positions.

I began to understand: liberal society is actually geared to polarize! To throw people out on the grounds of liberal claims that can get so absurd that you cannot stay in it unless you are directly benefiting say from a job, paid activism, or a social position.

Luckily I got out young. But if say a liberal professor in a college started to swing to the Right, she better keep it a secret, lest she face social shunning and even the loss of her position.

The solution for liberals: if you could no longer stand what you were being fed, yet you wonder at others who seem to hum along obliviously in the liberal world, it is because liberal ideology is designed to polarize.  It throws people out in order to be able to point fingers at the racists and phobes and what-have-you so they can have someone to loathe and thus be prodded to activism.

The solution for conservatives: be loving all the time. Be prepared for accepting as friends former liberals who are somewhat emotionally battered from their experience in the liberal world.

 

Build Family and Community. Resist Liberal Individualist Relativism.

 Uncle Ally and Uncle Leon were traditional Jews. They each had three children.

Both decided to move to Brooklyn from Pawtucket Rhode Island in order to send their kids to orthodox day schools.

The message at those schools: build strong family and community.

And they did.

Dad and his brothers were somewhat traditional. They remained basically where the boat landed in Massachusetts.  Their grandparents had immigrated from the Ukraine, fleeing the pogroms.

They sent their kids to local public schools.

The message at those schools: individualism. And for the younger kids the message was: liberal-left activism, be pro-choice, feminist, individualist, seek racism everywhere.

In Brooklyn, NY, they built strong families. Their progeny has fanned out over the globe as educators, spreading traditional values.

In Lynn and Brookline, MA, they built individuals who would set out on their own unique journey, engage in debate at every interaction, thus alienating other family members who differed in their political or social views. Some of the progeny attained the American dream, others sought spirituality in Eastern religions, turns out that the liberal world has limited place for its own people.

The religious cousins' value on Jewish education was partly because they saw their cousins assimilate, and not even end up with happy lives: one who made it big, another who remains floundering. 

They could not save their own cousins but they are doing all they can in outreach across the globe to help people bypass a liberal individualist relativist system in which few can make it, most will feel cynical, lost, and will flounder.

Sexual Promiscuity Leads to Cruelty

Linda was one of the nicest girls in Brookline High School, class of 1985.

The class nerds could talk to her and she was always friendly and kind, yet she remained respected by the popular kids - usually those who respond with friendliness to the class nerds get shunned a bit, but not her.

She dated a fellow that she said she is hoping to marry. When you saw them together, she would gaze at him admiringly. I do not know why they broke up, but rarely did I see anyone date in the 11th grade in Brookline High and end up marrying each other.

Then she started experimenting with promiscuity.

I saw her transform from a sunny optimistic girl to an increasingly bitter young woman.

Once at school she was wearing short shorts, and some guy fondled her bare leg, she laughed and pulled back. 

Why did she laugh? To stay in the social group.

Why did she pull back? That was her soul talking, in contradiction to her behavior. Your psyche craves boundaries, it actually does not crave sexual promiscuity or anything connected to it.

In college, she had intimate relationships with both men and women.

At a summer job, she wore short shorts, halter tops, and every time she sat, spread out her legs, sometimes with one knee raised on a nearby chair, or say the car door. She was exposing her body as much as possible.

She said the following to myself and to Julie and Nina:

"My boyfriend is upset with me, he said, 'I never know if you are sleeping with Anna,' Julie and Nina  laughed, but I was offended by her callous attitude regarding her boyfriend's need for commitment, for being hurt for being cheated on. I saw that I was the odd one out. There was my friend from childhood laughing along with her, while I was stunned and sad at this scene.

Previously kind young women had turned callous - and it was because of sexual promiscuity.

Sexual promiscuity leads to cruelty.  If you are sensitive, either because you were the rejected young man or because you were a stunned eavesdropper, you better pack your bags and look elsewhere - like towards those who truly practice safe sex, and this is what safe sex really is:

Safe Sex is:

Only having sex after you are in a committed relationship, and only if you prepared to handle a pregnancy.

Marry. Commit. Use birth control of you wish, but if it does not work, be prepared to cope with a pregnancy, which can actually become your greatest joy.

Then something even stranger happened: Nina parked her car in a public garage, a man opened his pants and flashed her, she was vary shaken up, and I accompanied her to report this crime. Linda did not show any concern.

Julie later told me, "Nina was very appreciative of your support, and was surprised that Linda was totally disinterested."

Well, Linda herself was flashing, with the way she dressed and held herself. She was breaking the walls of sexual promiscuity by sleeping with multiple partners of both sexes, and bragging about it; she was a revolutionary, not exactly trying to make other people feel comfortable. And it led her to not even care when her friend suffered because she was flashed by a man.

I had known her in high school, I saw her transformation. The purpose of her mode of dress and promiscuity were to kill her feelings, and kill the senses of others also, regarding sexual boundaries ie modesty. Oh such a mode of thought could even accuse the so called "patriarchy" of inventing modesty in order to "control women" and the like.

Why the bragging? She bragged about hurting a man because sexual promiscuity causes pain to the soul. Her bragging was a way to release that pain: by making someone else feel it - the cuckold. 

She also would tell people about her bisexual non-marital promiscuity in order to offend them and break societal norms. She was causing discomfort via social interactions, again, as a dumping ground for the pain her soul was in.

I saw this dynamic elsewhere too - Julie bragged that a former boyfriend bumped into her and said to Julie, in front of his new girlfriend, how much he would like to see her again, Julie then bragged to me about how this former boyfriend still likes her and how his new girlfriend was hurt by this - I retorted, finally, "I can understand how she would be hurt." and Julie just went stiff, no regrets, no sensitivity.

I saw the transformation of kind young women into braggarts that like to hurt others. Because that is where they dumped their inner feeling that something is deeply wrong with sex outside marriage.

 If they had preserved their boundaries, none of these bitter and cynical actions and attitudes ever would have happened.

If you have crossed your own sexual boundaries, it is never too late, you can reclaim them.

All you have to do is practice safe sex: within a commitment, and being ready to parent.

(names have been changed)

 

 

 

Relativism does not admit what it is

 We did not know we were relativists, we did not know we were individualists. 

Every so often, mom would return home full of astonishment about an issue.

You cannot cavort with individualist relativists and expect them to morph into a supportive community when you need them.

The social contract was modern individualist relativism.

The tragedy was that we did not even know what we were in, we had no perspective on it, relativism was the air we breathed.

By not being able to get a perspective on it, we were trapped.

You can wait, and you can parent.

 We did not know how to abstain.

We were taught that to be a good parent you had to be "ready",  have a career, money and already know how to parent.

Then I met Christians, then orthodox Jews, then religious Muslims.

Here is how you abstain from sex before you are ready to parent:

 1 - Curb your sexual frustration:

- Do not date until you are ready to marry.

- Avoid socializing in mixed-gender situations.

 - Do not listen to suggestive music.

- Do not watch suggestive media. 

- Do not attend parties in which boys and girls are mixing freely, and definitely not at night, and definitely not if there is drinking, dancing, and suggestive music.

 - Do not imagine you can just sex play without intercourse.

 You may be even a bit unfriendly at times. That is fine. 

Lee, a Chinese American high school student, was remarkably cool to me. He came for one day to Middlebury College, 1986, to visit my freshman roommate and have a tour to see if he would like to apply. I asked afterwards what I had done wrong that Lee was so unfriendly. My roomate replied, "oh, he does not talk to girls, he refuses to date until he graduates college. He says that college is a crucial time when you are building yourself. After he gets his engineering degree, then he will date."

I was stunned. 

Then, later, I agreed.

2 - Be around chaste people:  if you are secular, tell religious people, "I need religious friends. I need to socialize with you and be around you because you are modest. But please do not preach to me." You WILL find acceptance. (Thank you, Kim, Nadia, and Miriam, for your acceptance back when I was secular.)

3 - Wait until you are able to parent before you have heterosexual sex.

- Do not imagine that birth control always works. If your are in a mature relationship and feel ready to parent, but you wish to wait before having kids, use the rhythm method coupled with a barrier method, or some such combination. Double up! But remember, you may get pregnant.

Parenting:

You do not need money. You do not need to be perfect. You just need the basic stable routines that everyone needs, that you benefit from already. All you have to be is a good example. Lecturing does not work. The best way to parent is: be what you want to be, and what you would like others to be. 

Children are natural geniuses. They can sense what parents need. From a small age, they can actually be like a little pal. You are mistaken if you think you need reams of money and tons of wisdom to parent.

You can wait, and you can parent.

 My personal conversion was when I realized that you need to wait until you are in a committed relationship and ready to parent before engaging in heterosexual sex. This was a conversion, and not just changing my mind, because it was a serious departure from the liberal-left ideology I grew up with in the 1970's and 80's, Brookline Massachusetts, and Middlebury college VT: the liberal-left wants  you to feel stuck. True sexual liberation is being in control of your sexual desires, not controlled by them.