I rent an apartment in Jerusalem. Came home today to find this letter (in Hebrew) on my door handle:
"Dear bla bla,
have you considered selling your apartment? We [are thieving bastards who want to make a killing off your already overpriced apartment, and] would be happy to help you. After years on the rise, real estate prices have reached an unprecedented peak [allowing your greed to far outstrip what you actually need to return your original investment and make a comfortable living]. The recovery from recession; the booming economy [which hasn't raised real wages by even one seventh of the rise in Jerusalem apartment prices over the last 2 years]; stronger European currencies against the Dollar; purchase of apartments by diaspora Jewry - all these have contributed to the sharp climb in prices we are witnessing.
Our market analysis shows us that this is the time for you to optimally realize your assets and sell your apartment during a period of record prices. [..] We specialize in [the non-crap areas of Jerusalem, soon to be another Manhattan.]
We would be happy to visit your apartment, offer a price estimate [..] survey recently sold apartments in the area [and contribute to an additional, artificial increase of real-estate pricing by encouraging you and other homeowners to sell for much more than you might have otherwise. In a sense, we're "unionizing" home owners to take maximum advantage of the psychological element of these soaring prices, which is great for our real estate agency and terrible for the forever non-"unionized", individual renter] and help sell your apartment for maximum price [which we helped raise by encouraging greed through letters such as these.]
Love, hugs and kisses,
bla bla Real Estate Agency"
Jerusalem municipality: BUILD BUILD BUILD*. This can't go on.
*as in, approve building plots.
(P.S.
This is not in any way an endorsement of socialism over capitalism, nor a call for market intervention. It merely represents my distaste for what I consider (justifiably legal) greed.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
"Every Man a Matchmaker." And?
(I'll start by pointing out that I'm not religious. Just FYI... Still, I come from a traditional home, haven't an ounce of "anti", and get by just fine with my religious friends. Put another way, I'm not particularly gagging to move to Tel Aviv. :) )
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has been named "the most famous rabbi in America" by Newsweek. I first ran into his name through reviews of his bestseller Kosher Sex which, at the time, screamed "sensationalist" to me. I've since come to see he's got some good ideas up his sleeve, even if - like so many other self-anointed saviors - he often states what should be the obvious. His expansion of what "attraction" means, beyond the surface-level denotation it has today, is remarkably important, especially to the many guilt-ridden religious people out there. I take issue, though, with his last syndicated article, "Every Man a Matchmaker", which ran in this weekend's Jerusalem Post.
The article certainly makes for a good read, and though he's mainly writing to religious Jewish singles here, much of his descriptions will sound familiar to singles of all stripes. Boteach gives a reasonably accurate, if somewhat simplistic, overview of the reasons singles today aren't getting married (or at least not to the right person).
The first part of the problem, as Boteach sees it, lies with today's "shallow values" (his words). He claims these have penetrated "even" the "very Orthodox dating scene, where stick-thin women are paired up to young men from wealthy families, and where character is subordinated to pedigree." As he goes on to say, "In the secular world, of course, it's much worse." So, in short - it's a crisis of values. I'll get back to this later.
He then goes on to paint an amusing picture of the dire options facing the average single - covering singles parties, bars, speed dating, internet dating and matchmaking - and ruling them out. In one particularly sharp observation, he writes:
The second part of the problem, then, lies with flawed options for how to meet people.
Having set out such a frank overview, I had high hopes for whatever solution he was going to come up with. Must say I found it more than a little disappointing. The solution, he claims, is having everyone play matchmaker:
That's it? After having systematically ruled out the other possibilities as inherently flawed to the point of pointlessness, he's going with the friend-brings-friend system? A quick look around my hometown shows that this system is at least as flawed as any of the others he finds fault with. (You'll either have to trust me on this or read the article, if you haven't yet. Go! Read! it's not long.) Jerusalem's infamous "swamp", that area of neighborhoods teeming with semi-cool, semi-desperate religious 20-somethings, has everyone busy matchmaking all the time, with plenty of still-frustrated singles complaining about feeling smothered, seeing the same old faces, feeling it's all a bit too forced. My point isn't that this system is bad, only that it has its own problems, and isn't fundamentally better than the rest.
So what's my solution, you ask? Well, as far as what options to go for, I just say - whatever you're comfortable with. Diversify. I wouldn't fundamentally endorse any technique over another - odds are fairly low no matter what you do - but you can try to enjoy yourself while you're looking.
As for the main problem, I agree with Rabbi Boteach that at heart, it's those "shallow values". I do take issue, however, with his off-hand assumption that the problems are "much worse" in the secular culture. I would say they're different, but not "much worse". The secular problems are quite widely known, so let me just point out one problem I see quite often in the religious world: many of them seem paralyzed by the sheer gravity of it all. They have more guilt for lusting, since they ought to be "caring about the inside". They can't touch, yet are dying too. But mainly, every encounter becomes incredibly decisive - since marriage is such an immediate, pressing concern. This brings a tendency to focus on every flaw in the other person - "do I want to live my whole life with this person? I should decide now" - and to measure every word, instead of just enjoying oneself and giving the relationship some breathing-space.
Obviously, for many if not most religious singles this isn't the case, and people handle it differently. The imperative to marry can bring more "results", but it can also paralyze. I am not generalizing, only saying it does happen, and more often than Boteach seems to think. "Shallow values" may be slightly more acute among the secular, but religious singles certainly have problems of their own in this "get-married-now" ethos.
So how do we deal with shallow values? Well, they're all around us, so the battle becomes quite individual. A proper answer would be quite long, but as time goes on, I feel more and more that the gist of it is: by growing up.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has been named "the most famous rabbi in America" by Newsweek. I first ran into his name through reviews of his bestseller Kosher Sex which, at the time, screamed "sensationalist" to me. I've since come to see he's got some good ideas up his sleeve, even if - like so many other self-anointed saviors - he often states what should be the obvious. His expansion of what "attraction" means, beyond the surface-level denotation it has today, is remarkably important, especially to the many guilt-ridden religious people out there. I take issue, though, with his last syndicated article, "Every Man a Matchmaker", which ran in this weekend's Jerusalem Post.
The article certainly makes for a good read, and though he's mainly writing to religious Jewish singles here, much of his descriptions will sound familiar to singles of all stripes. Boteach gives a reasonably accurate, if somewhat simplistic, overview of the reasons singles today aren't getting married (or at least not to the right person).
The first part of the problem, as Boteach sees it, lies with today's "shallow values" (his words). He claims these have penetrated "even" the "very Orthodox dating scene, where stick-thin women are paired up to young men from wealthy families, and where character is subordinated to pedigree." As he goes on to say, "In the secular world, of course, it's much worse." So, in short - it's a crisis of values. I'll get back to this later.
He then goes on to paint an amusing picture of the dire options facing the average single - covering singles parties, bars, speed dating, internet dating and matchmaking - and ruling them out. In one particularly sharp observation, he writes:
"Speed-dating is one of the most puzzling relationship ideas to come along in years. Take a generation of commitment-phobic young people, who are already dating-addicts and love anorexics, and cater to their obsession for variety by having them date 10 people at once! What wonderful preparation for monogamy!"
The second part of the problem, then, lies with flawed options for how to meet people.
Having set out such a frank overview, I had high hopes for whatever solution he was going to come up with. Must say I found it more than a little disappointing. The solution, he claims, is having everyone play matchmaker:
"Every man and every woman must take it upon themselves to introduce the single people they know to each other. We all believe in giving charity and we all believe in acts of loving-kindness. Now, is there any higher act of kindness than curing someone else's loneliness?"
That's it? After having systematically ruled out the other possibilities as inherently flawed to the point of pointlessness, he's going with the friend-brings-friend system? A quick look around my hometown shows that this system is at least as flawed as any of the others he finds fault with. (You'll either have to trust me on this or read the article, if you haven't yet. Go! Read! it's not long.) Jerusalem's infamous "swamp", that area of neighborhoods teeming with semi-cool, semi-desperate religious 20-somethings, has everyone busy matchmaking all the time, with plenty of still-frustrated singles complaining about feeling smothered, seeing the same old faces, feeling it's all a bit too forced. My point isn't that this system is bad, only that it has its own problems, and isn't fundamentally better than the rest.
So what's my solution, you ask? Well, as far as what options to go for, I just say - whatever you're comfortable with. Diversify. I wouldn't fundamentally endorse any technique over another - odds are fairly low no matter what you do - but you can try to enjoy yourself while you're looking.
As for the main problem, I agree with Rabbi Boteach that at heart, it's those "shallow values". I do take issue, however, with his off-hand assumption that the problems are "much worse" in the secular culture. I would say they're different, but not "much worse". The secular problems are quite widely known, so let me just point out one problem I see quite often in the religious world: many of them seem paralyzed by the sheer gravity of it all. They have more guilt for lusting, since they ought to be "caring about the inside". They can't touch, yet are dying too. But mainly, every encounter becomes incredibly decisive - since marriage is such an immediate, pressing concern. This brings a tendency to focus on every flaw in the other person - "do I want to live my whole life with this person? I should decide now" - and to measure every word, instead of just enjoying oneself and giving the relationship some breathing-space.
Obviously, for many if not most religious singles this isn't the case, and people handle it differently. The imperative to marry can bring more "results", but it can also paralyze. I am not generalizing, only saying it does happen, and more often than Boteach seems to think. "Shallow values" may be slightly more acute among the secular, but religious singles certainly have problems of their own in this "get-married-now" ethos.
So how do we deal with shallow values? Well, they're all around us, so the battle becomes quite individual. A proper answer would be quite long, but as time goes on, I feel more and more that the gist of it is: by growing up.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
In Praise of (Single) Womankind
This isn't going to be some feminist manifesto, nor some teenage-y "grrrls do it better" populist blather. It won't be in praise of any "innate" multitasking abilities at child-rearing or home keeping (it's not anyway), emotional depth, ability for compassion, "fairer sex" theories etc. The fact of the matter is, I haven't lived with you, nor been in a long-term relationship with you. I'm going to write from the only angle I have - that of perennial single-guy.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
This can be saddening and disheartening at times. But only now am I finally settling down to realize that through it all, even with the disappointments and perplexing acts of self-contradiction, irrationality and occasional cruelty, it's always been fun. It's always been thrilling to get the attention from those of you that have given it. Even when it's felt badly mismatched - and I've gotten pretty good at weeding those out beforehand - It's always been interesting. I say this at eye level, not cynically and not arrogantly: thank you. Besides music, I know of nothing else nearly as life-affirming.
Keep driving me nuts. I'm open.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Recovering Romantic?
I'm either a recovering romantic or a realist with a romanticism problem.
Scratch that - cliched as it may be, I think it's both.
Scratch that - cliched as it may be, I think it's both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)