Guess Who’s In The Back Of The Bus? by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #247
October 31, 2011 Mike Gold 8 Comments
There’s a billboard up in certain New York City neighborhoods written in a foreign language, instructing women who are walking in public to step aside when a man approaches. The language is Yiddish, and these neighborhoods are home to a large number of “ultra-orthodox” Jewish-Americans.
Yes, free speech applies to bigoted zealots. A billboard is not a law; in this case, it isn’t even a suggestion from the government. So we’re not discussing matters of law, we’re discussing what’s right and what’s wrong. For those of you who are not familiar with the extremely broad range of Jewish dogma, let me overly simplify by saying the range of Jewish sects is as broad as the range of Christian sects, although it’s spread out among far, far fewer practitioners. Not all Jews are “ultra-orthodox,” just as not all Christians are fundamentalists.
These ultra-orthodox neighborhoods are linked by a public bus. The route (B110) is public, the bus is not. On this particular line, men sit in the front of the bus, women in the back. If a mother takes her son onto the bus, the son sits upfront, the mother in the rear.
The bus is decorated in livery that differs from the NYC public buses. It does not accept the local “Metro-Card” transit pass. It does not operate on Friday evenings or Saturday during daylight hours. The “Private Transportation Corporation” has operated this route under a franchise agreement with the city of New York for nearly 40 years. According to the New York Times, because the route was awarded through a public and competitive bidding process and, according to Transportation Department spokesman Seth Solomonow, the bus is supposed to be “available for public use” and could not discriminate. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg disagrees: as quoted in the same article, “You can have a private bus… Go rent a bus and do what you want on it.”
Hmmm. So, Mr. Bloomberg, if Greyhound said women, blacks, and/or short Jewish-American mayors had to sit in the back of the bus, is that kosher? To paraphrase Dick Gregory, what if they smoke?
The local media lit on this story like flies to Teiglach, sending women to the front of the B110 so local men and women alike could glower them at them. In each case, the bus didn’t move an inch until the female reporter moved first.
There’s an important difference between this current “back of the bus” issue and that of the black civil rights era: the victims of this practice do not consider themselves victims. They are simply following the tenets of their religion and that’s fine by them. By and large, these women are free to move away and leave the situation behind. They choose not to do so, and since nobody is getting physically hurt that’s their prerogative. That doesn’t make it right. Not in the least.
I’m not suggesting there never will be a Rosa Parks here to fight the good fight; history suggests otherwise. But there isn’t yet, and there should be. The Jewish Daily Forward editorializes “it’s not being alarmist to note with concern where this trend is moving. Relegating women to the back of the bus, forcing them to walk on separate sidewalks (a practice consistent with Haredi tradition), excising them from all public appearance is not Torah or Talmud. It’s abuse of power, and it has no place in a modern, just society.”
Amen to that.
—-
Trouble-monger Mike Gold does some sort of Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind rock’n’blues show that streams four times a week on www.getthepointradio.com and is also available at that same venue on demand for immediate consumption. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com, where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rick Oliver
October 31, 2011 - 8:32 am
Well, if it were a Muslim bus, they’d already be ranting about it in Congress…and the Republican primary stump speeches. Herman Cain has already stated that it’s perfectly legal for any municipality to outlaw mosques.
Rene
October 31, 2011 - 1:54 pm
I am 100% certain that the way those people live – with women being segregated – is a sick, degenerate way to live. I am also certain that they think the same way of the way we live. So what can you do?
Direct pressure probably will only make them cling harder to their traditions, such is the way of religious fanatics. The most a democratic society can do is make sure these women can leave anytime they want, without physical or legal retaliation from outraged male relatives.
If they don’t want to leave, what can you do? I am very in favour of all sorts of propaganda to make a more secular lifestyle seem as appealing as possible (and most religious conservatives would argue that modern media already does this), but those women live in New York City, not Afghanistan. It’s depressing, but I must conclude that they were already exposed to other lifestyles, and still choose to stay.
Well, they’re adults. As much as I hate it, you really can’t force them to change.
And the Jews at least have one good thing when compared to Christian or Muslim crazies. No Jew want you to convert and force your own women to ride in the back of the bus.
MOTU
October 31, 2011 - 3:23 pm
Rick,
The thing Herman will say is those women in the back of the bus should just shut, get a job and a life.
Mike Gold
October 31, 2011 - 3:38 pm
Certainly so, MOTU. But since some or most Godfather pizza is traif (cheese and meat?), it’s quite possible he never knowingly met a Jew. Fact is, most of these women live in less-than-middle class homes, and those who are not voluntarily burdened with raising a gaggle of babies certainly work. And raising a gaggle of babies is certainly work, but I’d never expect Herman to understand that.
BTW, your column at ComicMix tomorrow (which I happily edit) carries the single best line I’ve read about Mr. Cain. I won’t ruin it by taking it out of context, and I refer MOTUites to his column at http://www.ComicMix.com tomorrow after 8 AM eastern still-daylight time.
Jeremiah Avery
October 31, 2011 - 5:20 pm
These columns are a welcome sight in the morning and help me postpone working that much longer!
MOTU
October 31, 2011 - 5:56 pm
Mike,
I know the line you speak of-thanks!
JosephW
October 31, 2011 - 7:02 pm
I love the opening: “There’s a billboard up in certain New York City neighborhoods written in a foreign language, instructing women who are walking in public to step aside when a man approaches. The language is Yiddish, and these neighborhoods are home to a large number of “ultra-orthodox” Jewish-Americans.”
But, Mike, you missed a key point with this story. How DARE someone post a billboard anywhere in the USofA (also known as ‘Merka) that’s NOT written in God’s own ‘Merkan English? You just know that the right-wing would be crying foul if someone raised a billboard in Spanish and FoxNoise would be running that aspect of the story as its lead for the next week’s news cycle. (Oh, and as Rick noted, it would be even worse if it were a group of Muslims and the billboard were written in Arabic.)
Mike Gold
October 31, 2011 - 8:51 pm
Jeremiah, I’ve dedicated my entire life to that concept!
R. Maheras
October 31, 2011 - 11:18 pm
Rick — You seem to be creating the Muslim bus straw man argument just so you can take a pot shot at Republicans. After all, I seem to recall in one of your past comments on a previous thread here that you pretty much think religion in general is little more than a residual superstition some have that is left over from the days mankind lived in caves. If that’s the case, I doubt any religious group would take solice in the fact that you are using them as a wedge to attack your political enemies.
From what I’ve seenover the years and throughout history, stupidity, brutality, coercion, power grabs, and arrogance know no political, ethnic, racial, gender or religious boundaries.
mike weber
November 1, 2011 - 7:17 am
Yeah, but the Republicans seem to be the current “respectable” face of blatant bigotry.
Rick Oliver
November 1, 2011 - 8:10 am
Russ:
Actually I was trying to make the point we, as a country, are remarkably hypocritical. It’s currently political suicide to say anything negative about Judaism, but dissing Muslims is always fair gaime.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2011 - 8:16 am
Mike — “Blatant bigotry” — Do you even KNOW any Republicans?
As I’ve pointed out here before, growing up in Chicago, every racist I ever knew was a Democrat. And if you think that was just in the “olden days,” think again. In the post-Civil Rights era in Chicago, during the mid-1980s, the first black mayor of that city, Harold Washington, was subject to overt racism by his Democratic city council on an almost daily basis. Even today, the black neighborhoods in this Democratic bastion of more than 75 years are at a far greater disadvantage economically and education-wise than in white areas — even though whites only make up about 40 percent of the city’s population. In short, I’d argue that many white Democrats only play lip service to equality to get the black vote.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2011 - 8:18 am
Rick — Then just say what you really mean. You don’t have to use that hypocrisy as a club to beat up on Republicans when there are plenty of Democrats guilty of the same hypocrisy (see my note to Mike, above).
Mike Gold
November 1, 2011 - 8:20 am
Hmmmm… I pretty much think religion in general is little more than a residual superstition some have that is left over from the days mankind lived in caves. But so is eating meat, and I’m all for that. Both provide comfort for the willing. Whatever gets you through the night.
But eating meat only inconveniences the meat-generator, and if we can figure out a way to do it (PeTA will hate it), them cows can resolve our energy needs. Religion, on the other hand, is responsible for the murder and rape of millions and the willful degradation of millions more.
And if I drank alcohol, I’d actually be pissed about it.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2011 - 8:33 am
Mike Gold — Aw, Mike, you are a student of history and you should know a lot better than to go there.
What about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, who were atheists all? I’d say just those three men decisively disprove any theory arguing religion is the root of all evil.
Rene
November 1, 2011 - 9:12 am
Russ –
My beef isn’t with religion itself – if you take religion as meaning faith in a supernatural creator – but with religion as a organizing force in society that often tramples over individuals.
If you consider Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, their system and what they tried to do has a lot of correlations with organized religion.
1) A Chosen People (The Proletariat, the Farmers)
2) The Sinners and Unbelievers (The Capitalists)
3) A Promised Paradise (The Workers Paradise)
4) A Prophet (Marx)
5) A Holy Book (Das Kapital)
6) God’s Helping Hand (Historical Inevitability)
It was a system of values that justified any atrocity in the name of “good”, that tried to organize every aspect of people’s lives, that had charismatic leaders, etc. etc. etc.
It WAS religion in everything that counts, except that it wasn’t supernatural.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2011 - 10:26 am
Rene — Well, using that rationale, EVERY codified system with adherents and a positive/negative results and/or a value system/set of rules is a religion… meaning Weight Watchers, AA, the Boy Scouts, the ACLU, the Global Warming movement, etc. could aguably be religions. And less structured movements like the Tea Party and the Occupiers would arguably be proto-religions. But if that were the case, the term “religion” — at least in the traditional sense — would almost cease to have any meaning.
But the biggest problem with your argument is that, unless we all want to live in lawless anarchy where it’s every person for themselves, there will ALWAYS be some “organizing force in society that often tramples over individuals.”
Rene
November 1, 2011 - 11:57 am
No, you don’t need to live in lawless anarchy or accept organizers who trample over individuals. There is the third option of being a social libertarian who is most comfortable with minimal regulation when it comes to telling people what to do, while still believing in Aleister Crowley’s maxim:
Do as you will, and harm ye none.
The harm ye none part is important. There must be laws and punishment against murder, assault, robbery, fraud, reckless driving, libel, and countless other things that fall in the category of harming other people.
I also interpret Crowley’s motto as meaning people have a right to mess with themselves. I am okay with people joining any of the organizations you list, or any religious movement. In the same way I am okay with people taking drugs or killing themselves or becoming BDSM enthusiastics. Do as you will. It’s a good thing. But… if guys in the AA start to forbid the rest of us of drinking our beer, it crosses the line.
So, the problem with some religious movements. Imposition, limitation of personal choice, intimidation, all against people who may not be interested in joining.
Mike Gold
November 1, 2011 - 2:11 pm
Hmmm… well, I am a bit concerned about Weight Watchers. Who watches the Weight Watchers? Alcohol Anonymous IS a religious institution.
It wasn’t atheism that made Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin the monsters that they were. Rick Oliver and I haven’t murdered anywhere NEAR the number of people those guys did. We’ve got plenty of holy holy mass murderers, many right here in the good ol’ U.S.A. Most societies had sanctions against that sort of behavior long before the creation of the great hoary thunderer.
Of course, there’s religion and then there’s religion. I know a number of good, god-fearing liberals who do not consider Hindus or Buddhists to be members of a “real” religion. We call these people “fucking hypocrites.”
This is not unlike what’s going on in Kentucky this very week. Democratic governor Steve Beshear has been taking serious shit from his Republican opponent, David Williams, for participating in a Hindu ceremony. “He’s sitting down there with his legs crossed, participating in Hindu prayers with a dot on his forehead with incense burning around him. I don’t know what the man was thinking … To get down and get involved and participate in prayers to these polytheistic situations, where you have these Hindu gods that they are praying to, doesn’t appear to me to be in line with what a governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky ought to be doing.” That is blatant bigotry, sports fans.
So it seems the big American religions are tolerant of themselves and no others. Herman Cain, who isn’t the guy who Old Dixie Down YET, said it’s perfectly fine for communities to ban the building of religious institutions they don’t approve of. Justice Antony Scalia said states COULD establish official state religions. That last part kinda scares me: a couple hundred years ago, people of Jewish extraction weren’t allowed to own land. Which also meant they couldn’t vote. And I live in Connecticut. And my fore bearers were Jewish. Not that I could sell this place anyway, but I will be voting a week from today and I wouldn’t appreciate having to drop trou for the privilege.
People can believe whatever they want. I have said that repeatedly. But MANY religious sorts IN CONGRESS with others of their specific ilk have QUITE a tradition of murder, plunder, rape and hypocrisy. Taking the broad overview, Christians, Jews and Muslims are no better than Hindi, Buddhists, and atheists. It’s about time they stopped acting as though they were. Let everybody’s gods sort it out posthumously.
And if you want to buy a beer this Sunday, nobody should stop you anywhere in the so-called land of freedom of religion.
Or a joint, but that’s another matter.
Rene
November 1, 2011 - 3:56 pm
The obvious hypocrisy of conservatives like Anthony Scalia is that I bet he would sing a very different tune if, somehow, the majority of American populace turned Muslim or something. THEN he would oppose any attempts to insinuate religion into public life.
R. Maheras
November 1, 2011 - 5:21 pm
Rene, you wrote, “There is the third option of being a social libertarian who is most comfortable with minimal regulation when it comes to telling people what to do, while still believing in Aleister Crowley’s maxim: Do as you will, and harm ye none.”
That third objective is unachievable, because the definitions of the terms “minimal regulation” and “harm ye none” are as varied as the number of people on this planet.
There is virtually no law that someone won’t disagree with, just as the definition of “harm” varies not just with each person, but with each situation as well.
And such realities are only exacerbated by natural disasters, droughts, food shortages, greedy people who want what their neighbor has, etc.
Religions, and later, governments, historically have tried to temper these human tendancies “for the common good,” with varying degrees of success (and failure).
But it ain’t religion that’s the problem — it’s the fact that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
That’s why our forefathers were so dang smart. They installed checks and balances in the hopes that no one here would ever possess absolute power, or that if someone did, it would at least be short-term and tempered by frequent and peaceful transitions of leadership.
That’s why, despite its flaws, I think democracy will always the best form of government.
Rene
November 1, 2011 - 5:38 pm
I agree with most everything you’ve said. But consider that only because some ideal is unachievable, it doesn’t mean it isn’t something one should strive for. I think we’re moving slowly towards social libertarianism, with plenty of false starts and detours, but we’re getting there. And it makes me happy.
.
Democracy is definitely the best form of government, and a society where power is more widely distributed will always make me breathe easier.
Mike Gold
November 1, 2011 - 5:54 pm
I agree with Russ’s point regarding democracy (and a lotta other stuff). Democracy is the only logical way to go. A republic, though (and no, I’m not talking political parties here) opens the door to the political dark arts, which are, in turn, fueled by corruption.
Rick Oliver
November 2, 2011 - 10:30 am
Mike: AA is not a religious organization. It does not endorse any particular theology nor propose one of its own. It asks that you accept the possibility that a power greater than yourself exists, but it makes no attempt to define that power. It does refer to that power as “God”, but makes it clear that you can define “God” however you want.
Russ: If any Democrat were currently running for president and publicly claiming that it’s okay to pass laws banning mosques, I would have certainly mentioned that individual. And if Democrats had only recently decided to aggressively court Jewish votes by vociferously defending everything Israel does because it just happens to fit in with the weird Christian apocalypse agenda of their base, I would certainly mention that too.
But right now, the Republicans are the ones painting the biggest targets on themselves.
Rick Oliver
November 2, 2011 - 10:45 am
But I’ll also add that neither party will dare say anything negative about Israel or any particular Jewish religious eccentricities. Both parties want the Jewish vote too much.
Mindy Newell
November 2, 2011 - 12:29 pm
I’m in the miniority, I’m sure, but to me it’s a non-issue. These sects are Ultra-Hasidic…completely. The women are part of the community. They live this way because they want to, period.
Mindy
P.S.: Not all Hasidic sects are this parochial. The Lubavatichers, for one. I worked for nursing agency (White Glove in Brooklyn, on Bartlett St.) where the women run the agency. Yes, they’re Hasidic, but they’re also “in the world.”
Mike Gold
November 2, 2011 - 12:34 pm
Rick, if I define “god” as magical thinking and I firmly believe there is no higher power save our own, then I trip over that 12th step and get booted out of AA. They believe that there is a higher power and they define that power as god. That’s religion in my book.
I understand there’s some version of AA for atheists in certain locations.
You know, like… hell.
Mike Gold
November 2, 2011 - 12:35 pm
Mindy, Ii’s a public route operating on a franchise from the city. If a shiksa were to get on, or even a Jewish woman who didn’t think she should be forced to the back of the bus, the bus wouldn’t move until either she moved to the back or she got off. That’s discrimination in my book.
Of course, my book has a lot of dirty pictures.
Rene
November 2, 2011 - 5:01 pm
Mike –
The higher power need not be supernatural. You could define it as Nature or even Science, as long as it is something greater than you and that you care a lot about it.
Mike Gold
November 2, 2011 - 5:08 pm
Nothing is greater than anybody. Nature isn’t greater than humans; humans are part of nature.
And we’ve got the plowed-over forests to prove it.
Rene
November 2, 2011 - 6:12 pm
Yeah, I know.
But, for AA purposes, they’d accept it in the Higher Power slot.
Rick Oliver
November 2, 2011 - 9:28 pm
Mike: I define religion as an organized belief system that has a fairly specific notion of what god is and how god feels about your behavior. As such, AA fails to meet my definition of religion.
God is mentioned several times in the 12 steps, but several of the steps and the main AA books make it clear that the term is used for convenience — but yes it does require a willingness to believe in a power greater than yourself.
Some of the literature suggests that you can make AA itself your higher power if you have problems with belief in any kind of less tangible higher power. I find it sufficient to believe there are things in this universe beyond my comprehension — like what came before the big bang, and even the big bang itself (I believe it, but I have trouble comprehending it).
Mike Gold
November 3, 2011 - 6:55 am
There’s lots of stuff out there that is beyond my comprehension: The Big Bang, trigonometry, Herman Cain… to name but a few. But I reiterate: Nothing is greater than anybody. Different, to be sure, but not greater.
I also don’t believe in the concept of evil as an external force. That’s just a cop-out for people to explain away other people’s actions. Stalin was a murderous, insane, back-stabbing cocksucker, and that’s entirely on Stalin, not on some magic force.
I reserve the right to reconsider this opinion when discussing Sean Hannity.
Rick Oliver
November 3, 2011 - 9:40 am
I think lots of things are a good deal more powerful than my personal willpower, and that’s really the issue in AA.
I think people often claim the existence of evil as an external force to excuse their own inexcusable actions. (The devil made me do it.) I’ve seen it in AA, and those folks don’t make it. Personally, I think personal responsibility is far more important than any religious belief or absence thereof.
Vinnie Bartilucci
November 3, 2011 - 10:31 am
When The Wife was having The Kid, she shared a room with a Hassidic woman who she would notice peeking through the curtains between their halves of the room, sneaking a look at her television (which was inexplicably only showing one channel, and on that, nothing but 101 Dalmatians on endless loop (The cartoon, thankfully).
The Wife bid her open the curtains, and they got to chatting. She was at least a year or two younger than The Wife, and this was at least her third or fourth child. Much was said about what she considered Her Place and Her Job was; The Wife listened politely, defined as “Did not begin filling her head with crazy ideas”.
The young lady’s family came by later, and divided their time between seeing that the patient was well, and giving The Wife the hairy eyeball. They decided the potential exposure to Ideas was too great, and she was moved to another room BUT fast.
So The Wife got a private room for the rest of her stay. And she can now recite most of 101 Dalmatians from memory.
R. Maheras
November 3, 2011 - 10:55 am
Dang, Vinnie, now I’ve got the Cruella De Vil song playing over and over again in my head!
Mike Gold
November 3, 2011 - 12:58 pm
Vinnie, where was she moved to? Unless she got a private room, I gotta think the odds on her landing another Hassid were pretty slim.
Wait. You live where? Maybe not so slim.
Oh, and I’m with Russ on the internal song loop. I’m gonna play me some Screamin’ Jay Hawkins now. Constipation Blues. That’ll shove anything out of my brain.
And… elsewhere…