Educating Our Boys

Feminist discourse in the Orthodox Jewish community—where it has been allowed in—has largely been driven and shaped by the voices of women; and unsurprisingly so. As women sought equal access to Jewish learning and practice, as women shared the pain of exclusion and missed opportunities, it was the female perspective that was being heard, debated, and analyzed. Decades later, women have made enormous progress—albeit with real limitations—in gaining access to learning at the highest levels and to increased opportunities as Jewish communal professionals and leaders. But what about the men? How have the lives of men been affected and shaped by the changing landscape? There are many points of entry here, but I would like to focus on high school life. Important things happen when boys learn in an environment in which the feminist perspective is present. The most important of those things is not rooted in curriculum—although that, too, is clearly important. It is rooted in the everyday exchanges that take place in school between the genders—between teacher and student or among the students themselves. 

How do we “wire” schools so they provide a framework for such interactions? Structural elements are vital to shaping the discourse and culture. It is not enough to talk about it; it must be expressed in the way school is organized. Both men and women must teach Talmud and Tanakh. Both men and women must serve as fellows studying in the Beit Midrash. Boys and girls should debate with each other about the meaning of a sugya or a verse in Tanakh. The structures are not the end, however; they are the means. They create a framework that shapes the interactions that happen throughout the days, weeks, and years at school. The wiring frames the discourse and the discourse shifts perspectives and understandings. 

What do boys learn from an environment that is led and shaped by both men and women? They learn five very powerful messages: 

1. Capacity: Members of the learning community experience firsthand the capacity of both men and women to anticipate the question of Tosafot or to penetrate a difficult Ramban. There is no need to debate whether women are capable of studying on the same level as men. The question is answered in everyday exchanges in class and in the Beit Midrash. In a coeducational setting, boys grow up respecting girls and feeling on par with them in the learning of Torah because they have studied together in classes and in hevruta.
2. Perspective: I recall studying sugyot in yeshiva—in Kiddushin or Ketubot, for example—with an awareness that, were women present, the discourse would change. The presence of another perspective both contributes to the debate and keeps all participants honest. Thinking becomes more careful and rigorous in the presence of differing perspectives. In a coeducational setting, it becomes clear that this is so not only in topics related to feminism. On any topic, the learning becomes more socially and culturally rounded through the varied voices present. 
3. Language: Students develop sensitivity to pronouns. The consistent use of לשון זכר,  the male perspective, begins to shift. Students learn to refer to “he or she” or to alternate their gender usage. When this becomes second nature, we can attest that this awareness has been internalized and is part of who the students are.
4. Role models: Having female Talmud and Tanakh teachers for whom one has great respect changes one’s perceptions and develops awareness and sensitivity. Boys see that women learn Torah and serve as Jewish role models just as men do. This profoundly affects the way that boys treat their female peers, and will eventually shape the way that they live their lives with spouses and daughters—and will affect the nature of relationships with their sons as well. It is certainly important for a boy to establish a unique connection with a male teacher, as for girls with female teachers. However, having male and female role models is of enormous importance in shaping the opportunities and expectations for men and women in the long term. It reframes possibilities for committed Jewish men and women in the professions, in the community, and in the home.
5. Self: The impact of this “wiring” extends beyond how boys think about girls. It refashions how boys see themselves. Developing awareness of issues of gender teaches one to be more sensitive to other social, cultural and ethnic issues. It shapes the way one reads and listens. One develops an ethics of interaction that is more attuned to the person before them. It is a בן אדם לחבירו that becomes part of one’s being.1 

Is coeducation the only road that feminist-oriented schools can take? A wide range of factors and tradeoffs informs the decisions of communities and schools regarding single-sex versus coeducation. But one thing is clear to me. These five powerful messages are best internalized through regular, normalized, consistent, substantive interaction between male and female students. 

It is certainly crucial to be explicit about the decisions that a school makes. The school community must carefully study the texts regarding women learning Talmud, coeducation, or kol isha and teach students to talk to those issues with confidence and clarity. However, there is a paradoxical—perhaps oxymoronic—character to culture building. Something becomes part of a culture when it has penetrated down to the daily-ness of everyday life—where it is lived and experienced, rather than lectured and talked about. Ideas have been effectively internalized when they become, literally, a matter of fact. Our legitimated values are pre-theoretical notions that shape the way that we understand our world. It is not philosophy; it is not the world of ideas. It is the dayto-day reason with which we explain our world. 

Important things happen when boys learn in an environment in which the feminist perspective is present.

Be aware, though: this works well when living within the particular community and its culture. A coeducational environment in which men and women have comparable roles teaches particular values about men, women, and the study of Torah. Step outside, and (in the language of Peter Berger) the plausibility structures are immediately weakened. One experiences difference and dissonance. It is in the face of such dissonance that one begins to theorize in earnest. The liminal point, the border of inside and outside, is a point of tension at which lived values cross over into reflection, theory, and self-consciousness. Many students will be challenged— in yeshiva in Israel or beyond—to defend their experience. Our students must be equipped with both the textual knowledge and the ethical value statements to clearly articulate the importance of their position. Before they are on their way, we must remind them that there is a reason for all of this. It is not about “being normal.” It is about more than equality. It is about ethics and values; listening and learning—for men and for women; for the Jewish people.