Debunking a Feminist Propaganda Article

By Menachem B.

In discussions involving Jewish divorce cases, fairness and balance in regard to Jewish men's rights is practically non-existent in much of the Jewish media. Whether in the "Orthodox" media or in the secular Jewish media, a feminist motivated bias against Jewish men in divorce situations seems to be blatant, glaring, and predominant.

As an example, I will examine a recent article (linked below) on the Israel National News "Religious Zionist" site that I consider to be a typical feminist propaganda article.

INN Article

I don't believe I know either of the spouses in that divorce case. Nor am I addressing which spouse is "right" or which spouse is "wrong" in that case. These are some anti-male biases and distortions I observe in that article:

  1. The husband is portrayed solely as the perpetrator of injustice against his wife and never as a possible victim of his wife's misconduct.

  2. The wife is portrayed solely as the victim of her husband. No mention is ever made of any possible misconduct committed by the mother. The article never indicates whether the mother has conducted a halachic divorce process, or whether the mother has alienated the children from their father (a very common tragedy nowadays).

  3. The article heaps glowing praise on a militant Modern Orthodox feminist organization involved in the divorce case, IE Ohr Torah Stone Yad La'isha Legal Aid Center, using terms such as "professionalism, dedication and care". No fathers' rights or mens' rights activists or organizations are quoted or praised in the article.

  4. Initially the article claims that the father was "a man who had been refusing his wife’s request for a divorce". Later the article states that the father agreed to issue the get "unconditionally" after the father "was taken into custody". The "unconditionally" term seems to be a tacit admission that the father had in fact been willing to give a Get when certain conditions would be met. Meaning that the father was probably not a malicious Get refuser, rather there were unresolved divorce settlement issues.

  5. There is a stench of halachic fraud in many of these cases. A valid Jewish Get normally requires the honest consent of both the husband and the wife. Why is it that these types of feminist articles almost never cite any valid, traditional halachic sources that would require the husband to divorce his wife? What kind of halachic farce is it to claim that the husband "agreed to issue the Get unconditionally" while the husband is being held prisoner? How many non-feminist rabbis would even consider such a Get valid?

  6. Essential details are omitted from the article. Why doesn't the propaganda article state what the father's conditions for divorce were? (This is typical of such articles.) Perhaps the father was simply asking for his normative halachic rights in return for agreeing to divorce? Without stating the father's conditions for divorce, how can the article imply the father was a malicious Get refuser?

  7. The article quotes the wife's response to the events, but does not make the slightest effort to quote the father or his attorney for their point of view. As if the father has no right to express his point of view, and the only point of view that ever matters is the mother's point of view.

  8. The article quotes the director of the feminist organization. She portrays women as victims of men who are allegedly "extorting" women during divorce proceedings. The article makes no mention of the many female Get refusers that exist. Shouldn't holding a father prisoner until he consents to his wife's demands be considered a form of "extortion"?

These types of biased, anti-male articles regarding divorce conflicts are basically feminist propaganda IMHO. Decent Jewish men and women need to avoid being brainwashed by these biased, misandrist articles. Such articles only serve to further exacerbate the current "Orthodox" divorce wars that have proven disastrous for both men and women.

Debunking a Feminist Propaganda Article