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
Civil Rights Group Blasts ‘Drop Hillel’ Campaign as Attack on Jewish Identity
Anti-Israel protesters in New York City in April 2024. Photo: REUTERS/David Dee Delgado
A California-based civil rights advocacy group on Tuesday condemned a campaign to ban chapters of Hillel International from college campuses as a “transparent” assault on Jewish identity which aims to force the community and support for Israel underground.
StandWithUs, a nonprofit currently litigating a slew of antisemitism cases across the US, issued the comments in response to the “Drop Hillel” initiative being spearheaded by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and a network of other anti-Zionists groups, some of which claim to be Jewish. The cause is being amplified by a robust social media effort, and at least one undergraduate student government attempted earlier this month to pass legislation based on it only to be vetoed by the administration.
“The campaign makes false and misleading accusations about Israel, then frames Jewish students and institutions as guilty by association simply because they refuse to erase Israel from Jewish life,” said StandWithUs, which is currently representing dozens of victims of antisemitism in legal cases across the US. “This campaign echoes a long history of Jewish communities facing pressure to abandon core aspects of their identity to gain acceptance and/or safety.”
Drop Hillel — a component of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — increased its presence on college campuses after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel triggered an explosion of extremist student activism. Students for Justice in Palestine says it targets the organization, which is the largest for Jewish college students in the country, for having “monopolized … Jewish campus life into a pipeline for pro-Israel indoctrination, genocide-apologia, and material support to the Zionist project and its crimes.”
Said the group in October 2024, “Across the country, Hillel chapters have invited Israeli soldiers to their campuses; promoted propaganda trips such as birthright; and organized charity drives for the Israeli military … Such actions reveal Hillel’s ideological and material investment in Zionism.”
The campaign, while not successful so far, has been operating within a campus ecosystem in which animus toward Israel and anti-Jewish discrimination are widespread and often go hand in hand.
In the 2024-2025 academic year, Drop Hillel almost caught on at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In that case, SJP planted the seed of the idea during a “no more Hillel” during a rally which, among other things, demanded removing Israel from UNC’s study abroad program and adopting the BDS movement. Addressing the comments to the school’s student newspaper days later, SJP, which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations, proclaimed that abolishing Hillel is a coveted goal of the anti-Zionist movement.
“Zionism is a racist supremacist ideology advocating for the creation and sustenance of an ethnostate through the expulsion and annihilation of native people,” the group told The Daily Tar Hell. “Therefore, any group that advocates for a supremacist ideology — be it the KKK, the Proud Boys, Hillel, or Heels for Israel — should not be welcome on campus.”
SJP recently targeted The New School in New York City for the campaign, an effort which yielded a successful student Senate vote to defund Hillel and revoke its university recognition on May 1. The measure conditioned restoration of the chapter’s status on its severing ties with Hillel International and shuttering a program which awards trips to Israel. While the New School’s administration blocked the measure, it declined to reject the ideology which motivated it.
“By distorting a qualified student organization and characterizing it as something it is not, the [student government] is using its platform to target fellow students in a misguided attempt to hold those students responsible for the acts of government,” the university said in a statement which also said the student Senate “does not have the authority to determine the recognition, funding eligibility, or official status of registered student organizations.”
Punching back, the student Senate vowed to continue its participation in Drop Hillel, saying that it “will continue to sanction Hillel” for its “direct material collaboration with a foreign military.” Meanwhile, in its own response, Hillel said, “We are not going anywhere.”
This week, StandWithUs implored Jewish students, faculty, and staff to continue fighting Drop Hillel wherever it appears.
“No one can ever sever the Jewish connection to Israel,” the group said. “As with all challenges like this, the Jewish people and our institutions will continue with solidarity and strength, and we will not only survive, but we will continue to thrive.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Britain to Legislate to Tackle Threats From Hostile State Proxies After Wave of Antisemitic Attacks
Orthodox Jews stand by a police cordon, after a man was arrested following a stabbing incident in the Golders Green area, which is home to a large Jewish population, in London, Britain, April 29, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay
Britain will legislate to strengthen its ability to deal with proxies for malign state actors, taking powers to make it possible to ban them in light of increased activity in Britain and a rise in antisemitic attacks.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the government has to “deal with malign state actors” in the wake of a series of attacks on Britain‘s Jewish community.
In a speech outlining the government’s agenda, King Charles said it would “introduce legislation to tackle the growing threat from foreign state entities and their proxies,” and would also take urgent action to tackle antisemitism.
POSSIBLE BAN ON THE IRGC?
Several British lawmakers have called for the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The IRGC is an elite military force whose purpose is to protect Shi’ite Muslim clerical rule in Iran. It controls large parts of Iran’s economy.
While Starmer has not publicly named the IRGC as being the target of the legislation, in an introduction to the King’s Speech, he said that Britain would tackle extremism “including where it is sponsored by foreign powers that are hostile to the UK, such as Iran.”
The move comes after a spate of arson attacks on sites in London linked to the Jewish community and the targeting of Iranian dissidents, with police saying they were examining possible Iran links.
Britain‘s security chiefs have for years warned about threats from “hostile“ states such as Iran, Russia, and China, with a number of convictions of people who had been accused of carrying out spying or other offences on their behalf.
The new law would allow the government to specify state-backed organizations that threaten national security through espionage, sabotage, interference, or other means. A review last year found that Britain‘s existing framework had a legal difficulty in proscribing state entities.
There will be new offenses created for belonging to such organizations or raising support for them, and the government said that collectively the measures would create a “tougher operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies.”
The king’s speech also promised a new National Security Bill which would address those who were fixated on violence and planning mass killings, but were not obviously inspired by a particular ideology.
The new law would aim to criminalize the creation and sharing of the most harmful online material.
As part of an approach to align countering state threats with addressing terrorism risks, the bill would add “polygraph testing as an available license condition for state threat offenders,” the government said.
Uncategorized
‘Shame on Hollywood’: Cannes Jury Member Defends Actors ‘Backlisted’ for Anti-Israel Activism Over Gaza War
Workers set up a giant canvas of the official poster featuring actors Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon from Ridley Scott’s road movie “Thelma & Louise” on the facade of the Festival palace before the start of the 79th Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, May 10, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/ Marko Djurica
A jury member of the 79th Cannes Film Festival on Tuesday condemned the Hollywood film industry for “blacklisting” actors who have spoken out against Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip during the country’s war against Hamas terrorists controlling the enclave.
At the festival’s jury press conference, Cannes award-winning Scottish screenwriter Paul Laverty mentioned Susan Sarandon, Javier Bardem, and Mark Ruffalo, all three of whom have been outspoken in criticizing Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza. Sarandon’s character in “Thelma & Louise” is on the official 2026 Cannes poster.
“The Cannes Film Festival [and] the wonderful poster they have,” Laverty said at the end of the press conference on Tuesday, held before the opening of the film festival in France. “Absolutely iconic. Brilliant. And isn’t it fascinating to see some of them like Susan Sarandon, Javier Bardem, Mark Ruffalo blacklisted because of their views in opposing the murder of women and children in Gaza? Shame on Hollywood people who do that. My respect and total solidarity to them. They’re the best of us, and good luck to them.”
“I just hope we don’t get bombed now, because we’ve got this poster in Cannes,” the BAFTA winner added in conclusion.
Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency for castigating Israel while participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York City in November 2023. At the protest, the Oscar winner accused Israel of war crimes, encouraged others to have the “courage to speak out” in support of Palestinians, and compared the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel just weeks earlier to hardships Palestinians endure in Gaza.
She talked about the fallout with her agency during an interview in 2024, saying: “I was dropped by my agency, my projects were pulled. I’ve been used as an example of what not to do if you want to continue to work.” Earlier this year, Sarandon further spoke about being shunned in Hollywood for her views about the Israel-Hamas war.
“I was fired by my agency, specifically for marching and speaking out about Gaza, for asking for a ceasefire. And it became impossible for me to even be on television,” she said at a press conference in February before receiving a career achievement honor at the 40th Goya Awards in Spain. “I don’t know lately if it’s changed, but I couldn’t do any major film, anything connected with Hollywood. I found agents ultimately in England and in Italy, and I work there … I know this Italian director that just hired me — he was told not to hire me, so that’s still recently. He didn’t listen, but they had that conversation. Right now, I kind of specialize in tiny films with directors who have never directed, in independent films.”
At the Cannes jury press conference on Tuesday, Laverty further talked about Gaza in remarks about this year’s film festival.
“You see so much violence, genocide in Gaza and all these terrible things,” he said. “The idea of coming to a festival – which is a celebration of diversity, imagination, tenderness — when there’s such vulgar, vicious, systematic violence. The idea of attending to a festival where there’ll be contradiction and nuance and beauty and inspiration. It knocked me out, to be honest.”
Before the start of the Cannes Film Festival last year, more than 350 members of the film industry — including Bardem, Sarandon, Ruffalo, and Richard Gere — signed an open letter condemning the festival’s “silence” over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza targeting Hamas terrorists.
Emmy-winning actress Hannah Einbinder recently criticized Hollywood’s silence about the Israel-Hamas war during a guest appearance on an episode of Zeteo’s “Beyond Israelism” podcast that was released in full on Tuesday.
“It pisses me off,” said the “Hacks” actress. “Because I’m sitting here with [Algerian-Palestinian activist] Mahmoud [Khalil], who has so much to risk and who has risked so much who has sacrificed so much … And I look at these people who have absolutely every privilege imaginable to mankind and they cannot utter a single word. I guess it makes me naive, but I cannot understand it. I really can’t understand it. And I hear people say that they don’t know enough and I — I don’t, it’s like, OK, so what do you do all day?”
“People in Hollywood, unfortunately, need these issues to affect a white person for them to see it as relating to them,” she stated. “Like, they see Jimmy Kimmel getting taken off the air suddenly, they see Stephen Colbert’s show being canceled by CBS, which is owned by the Ellisons, and they go, ‘How could this possibly happen?’ And it’s like, we know how because we saw students and professors and journalists and authors and Palestinian folks be silenced and fired and expelled and imprisoned … it took it happening to these white men for people to be like, ‘Oh my God.’”
In her acceptance speech at the Emmys last year, Einbinder declared “Free Palestine.”
