Uncategorized
Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame
(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.
That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”
Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement.
Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public.
“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”
“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”
Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.
Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask.
I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or actual accomplishment.
In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.
You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”
There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.
It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”
The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.
“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)
You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?
Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.
While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.
I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.
I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.
Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons.
Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.”
You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.
In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’”
I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop.
You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.
Really painful.
I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.
Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.
The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?
Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done.
In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity.
Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion?
I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues.
Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.
So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way.
You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?
I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there.
My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.
Is that an aspect of getting older?
I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.
—
The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Holocaust Denial Is Best Predicted by Belief in Other Conspiracy Theories, New Research Shows
White supremacist Nick Fuentes with a crowd of supporters after speaking at the America First Political Action Conference 4 outside of Huntington Place in in Detroit, Michigan, on June 15, 2024, after he and his supporters were ejected from the Turning Point USA ”People’s Convention.” Photo: Dominic Gwinn/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The best predictor of Holocaust denial is belief in other conspiracy theories, which is driven by low trust in institutions, according to newly published research.
The report, released by The Center for Heterodox Social Science and written by Canadian professor Eric Kaufman, is titled, “Recreational Racists and Performative Antisemites? A Profile of Right-Wing Audiences from Fuentes to Carlson.”
In the report, Kaufman explores the audiences of far-right podcasters, including Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens. He also extensively goes through a recent Manhattan Institute report that included findings on antisemitism and other forms of hate.
“Fuentes and others are infotainers, with very little impact on public opinion,” the professor states. “First, Fuentes’ audience is no larger than Alex Jones. My new survey shows that just 2-3 percent of US adults and 7 percent of [US President Donald] Trump voters under 35 tune in regularly.”
And while Kaufman found in the data that the audiences of Carlson and Owens are larger, “There are few white nationalists among Fuentes or Tucker Carlson’s followers. Only 10-20 percent of Fuentes & Carlson’s regular viewers back zero immigration or say you have to be white to be a ‘true American.’”
In his article on the report for Compact Magazine, the researcher argued, “It’s time to press pause on the panic about antisemitic and racist influencers taking over young conservatism. We should worry more about how a collapse in trust is fueling nihilistic conspiracy theories.”
He goes on to explain that the audiences of many of these podcasters are not particularly ideologically or consistently hateful. For example, “Holocaust denial is linked to other conspiracy theories but not as clearly to attitudes toward Jews, with only 22 percent of Holocaust deniers saying that Jews are given too much support and favorable treatment in American society.”
Instead, “Their racism is superficial, transgressive, and performative,” and it is driven by a form of nihilism that expresses itself in conspiracy theories.”
“Researchers find that an important predictor of belief in conspiracy theories is low trust,” Kaufman writes. “After all, conspiratorial thinking is predicated on a lack of trust in powerful elites and institutions, notably mainstream media, and a suspicion that one’s fellow citizens have had the wool pulled down over their eyes.”
On that note, he notes in a summary of his findings on social media that “the strongest predictor of Holocaust denial is believing in other conspiracy theories (i.e. moon landings, 9/11 an inside job). This is even more predictive than identifying as an antisemite!”
12/ The strongest predictor of Holocaust denial is believing in other conspiracy theories (i.e. moon landings, 9/11 an inside job). This is even more predictive than identifying as an antisemite!
The strongest predictor of Jewish conspiracism is general conspiracism. pic.twitter.com/4ANbApk9sw
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) January 20, 2026
He continues, “Similar pattern for beliefs about ‘Israel’s supporters’ controlling the media. The more conspiratorial accounts (Jones, Fuentes, Tucker, Owens, Bannon) are twice as likely to believe this.”
“The strongest predictor of Jewish conspiracism is general conspiracism,” he writes.
The consequences of his findings, Kaufman explains, is that “the right-wing cultural ecosystem faces a dilemma. A degree of populist disruption, mistrust, and skepticism is necessary to reform established institutions and challenge the power of special interests, entryism, and ideological capture.”
However, “the challenge,” Kaufman argues, “is to permit all theories to be advanced in the public square, but have commentators dismantle those which are ungrounded in systematic evidence.”
He sees this as a dilemma that needs to be solved to prevent his concern over “the emergence of a floating ‘conspiracy vote,’ leaning young and nonwhite, which could shape the political and cultural direction of today’s unprecedentedly low-trust America.”
Uncategorized
UN Rights Body Censures Iran’s ‘Brutal Repression’ of Protests; Tehran Threatens US Investments in Region
Members of the UN Security Council meet on Iran at the request of the United States at UN headquarters in New York City, US, Jan. 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
The UN rights body condemned Iran on Friday for rights abuses and mandated an investigation into a recent crackdown on anti-government protests that killed thousands of people.
“I call on the Iranian authorities to reconsider, to pull back, and to end their brutal repression,” High Commissioner Volker Turk told an emergency session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, voicing concerns for detainees.
The council passed a motion extending a previous inquiry set up in 2022 so UN investigators could also document the latest unrest “for potential future legal proceedings.”
Rights groups say bystanders were among those killed during the biggest crackdown since Shi’ite Muslim clerics took power in the 1979 revolution. Tehran has blamed “terrorists and rioters” backed by exiled opponents and foreign foes the US and Israel.
Iran‘s mission decried the rights council’s “politicized” resolution and rejected external interference, saying in a statement it had its own independent and robust accountability mechanisms to investigate “the root causes of recent events.”
Twenty-five states including France, Mexico, and South Korea voted in favor, while seven including China and India voted against and 14 abstained.
“This is the worst mass murder in the contemporary history of Iran,” Payam Akhavan, a former UN prosecutor of Iranian-Canadian nationality, told the meeting. He called for a “Nuremberg moment,” referring to the international criminal trials of Nazi leaders following World War II.
Iran‘s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, told the Council its emergency session was invalid and gave Tehran’s tally of some 3,000 people killed in the unrest.
One Iranian official, however, has told Reuters that at least 5,000 people, including 500 members of the security forces, had been killed.
The US-based HRANA rights group said it has so far verified 4,519 unrest-linked deaths and had 9,049 additional deaths under review.
China, Pakistan, Cuba, and Ethiopia also questioned the utility of the rights session, with Beijing’s ambassador Jia Guide calling the unrest in Iran “a matter of internal affairs.”
It was unclear who would cover the costs of the extended UN inquiry amid a funding crisis that has stalled other probes.
Meanwhile, an influential Iranian cleric warned on Friday that Iran may target US-linked investments in the region in retaliation for any US attack on the Islamic Republic, Iranian news agencies reported.
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that the United States had an “armada” heading toward Iran but hoped he would not have to use it, as he renewed warnings to Tehran against killing protesters or restarting its nuclear program.
“The one trillion dollars you have invested in the region is under the watch of our missiles,” said Mohammad Javad Haj Ali Akbari, a leader of prayers that are held on Fridays in Tehran before a large gathering. He did not specify which investments he was referring to.
Separately, Iran‘s top prosecutor Mohammad Movahedi denied that Iran had called off 800 executions of people arrested in recent nationwide protests, as Trump has said.
“This claim is completely false. No such number exists, nor has the judiciary made any such decision,” Movahedi was quoted as saying by the judiciary’s news agency Mizan.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Fox News last week “There is no plan for hanging at all” by Iran, when asked about the anti-government protests.
Uncategorized
US Threatens to Starve Iraq of Its Oil Dollars Over Iranian Influence, Sources Say
A general view shows al-Firdous Square in Baghdad, Iraq, July 27, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Saad
Washington has threatened senior Iraqi politicians with sanctions targeting the Iraqi state – including potentially its critical oil revenues – should armed groups backed by Iran be included in the next government, four sources told Reuters.
The warning is the starkest example yet of US President Donald Trump’s campaign to curb Iran-linked groups’ influence in Iraq, which has long walked a tightrope between its two closest allies, Washington and Tehran.
The US warning was delivered repeatedly over the past two months by the US Charge d’Affaires in Baghdad, Joshua Harris, in conversations with Iraqi officials and influential Shi’ite leaders, according to three Iraqi officials and one source familiar with the matter who spoke to Reuters for this story. The message was delivered to some heads of Iran-linked groups via intermediaries, they said.
Harris and the embassy did not respond to requests for comment. The sources requested anonymity to discuss private discussions.
Since taking office a year ago, Trump has acted to weaken the Iranian government, including via its neighbor Iraq.
Iran views Iraq as vital for keeping its economy afloat amidst sanctions and long used Baghdad’s banking system to skirt the restrictions, US and Iraqi officials have said. Successive US administrations have sought to choke that dollar stream, placing sanctions on more than a dozen Iraqi banks in recent years in an effort to do so.
But Washington has never curtailed the flow of dollars from the oil revenues of Iraq, a top OPEC producer, sent via the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to the Central Bank of Iraq. The US has had de facto control over Iraq’s oil revenue since it invaded the country in 2003.
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s office, the Central Bank of Iraq, and Iran‘s mission at the United Nations did not respond to requests for comment.
“The United States supports Iraqi sovereignty, and the sovereignty of every country in the region. That leaves absolutely no role for Iran-backed militias that pursue malign interests, cause sectarian division, and spread terrorism across the region,” a US State Department spokesperson told Reuters, in response to a request for comment.
The spokesperson did not answer Reuters questions about the sanction threats.
Trump, who bombed Iran‘s nuclear facilities in June, threatened to again intervene militarily in the country during protests last week.
NO ARMED GROUPS IN NEW GOVERNMENT
Among the senior politicians to whom Harris’ message was passed were Prime Minister Sudani, Shi’ite politicians Ammar Hakim and Hadi Al Ameri, and Kurdish leader Masrour Barzani, three of the sources said.
The conversations with Harris started after Iraq held elections in November in which Sudani’s political bloc won the single-largest bloc of seats but in which Iran-backed militias also made gains, the sources said.
The message centered on 58 members of parliament views by the US views as linked to Iran, all the sources said.
“The American line was basically that they would suspend engagement with the new government should any of those 58 MPs be represented in cabinet,” one of the Iraqi officials said. The formation of a new cabinet could still be months away due to wrangling to build a majority.
When asked to elaborate “they said it meant they wouldn’t deal with that government and would suspend dollar transfers,” the official said.
The US has had de facto control over oil revenue dollars from Iraq, a top OPEC producer, since it invaded the country in 2003.
Iran has long supported an array of armed factions in Iraq. In recent years, several have entered the political arena, standing for election and winning seats as they seek a slice of Iraq’s oil wealth.
Renad Mansour, director of the Iraq Initiative at London’s Chatham House think tank, said armed groups were increasingly benefiting from positions in Iraq’s massive bureaucracy and so took the threat of cutting dollar flows seriously.
“The US has significant leverage,” he said. “The threat of the loss of access to US dollars, which is how Iraq’s economy functions through the sale of oil, has made it very concerning.”
WASHINGTON OPPOSES FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
One of the people Washington objects to is Adnan Faihan, a member of the powerful, Iran-backed political and armed group Asaib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), who was elected first deputy speaker of parliament in late December, the Iraqi official and the source with knowledge of the matter said.
They said the US opposed Faihan’s appointment to the post.
In a sign the pressure campaign was working, AAH leader Qais al-Khazali communicated a willingness to the Americans to remove Faihan as deputy speaker, the Iraqi official said. Faihan currently remains in his position.
The AAH media office and Faihan did not immediately respond to a request for comment and neither did Faihan.
In the last government, AAH held the education ministry, and Iraqi officials say it is seeking to participate in the next government too.
AAH was a key group in a sophisticated oil smuggling network generating at least a $1 billion a year for Iran and its proxies in Iraq, sources previously told Reuters.
Khazali was sanctioned by Washington in 2019 for AAH’s alleged role in serious human rights abuses, related to the killing of protesters in Iraq that year and other violence, including a 2007 attack that killed five US soldiers. At the time, he dismissed the sanctions as unserious.
DOLLAR CONTROL
Iraq holds the bulk of proceeds from its oil export sales at a Central Bank of Iraq account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Though it is a sovereign account of the Iraqi state, the arrangement gives the US practical control over a critical choke point of Iraqi state revenues, making Baghdad reliant on Washington’s goodwill.
“US efforts to achieve stability in the region are focused on ensuring states retain their sovereignty and can achieve security through mutual economic prosperity,” the State Department spokesperson said in their reply to Reuters questions.
The move to pressure Baghdad with a possible suspension of dollars takes place as the US begins marketing Venezuelan oil, which followed the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro in Caracas by US forces and his transfer to New York to be put on trial in relation to drug charges.
The US Department of Energy has said all proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales would be initially settled in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks.