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
Iran Hands Over New Proposal for Talks With US to End War
An Iranian flag lies amidst the rubble of a building of the Sharif University of Technology, which was damaged in a strike, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 7, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Tehran has submitted its latest proposal for negotiations with the United States, Iranian state media and a Pakistani official said on Friday, a move that could break a deadlock in efforts to end the Iran war.
The official, involved in Pakistani mediation over the war, said Pakistan had received the proposal late on Thursday and had forwarded it to the US.
Neither the official nor Iranian state news agency IRNA gave details, and the White House declined to comment, while saying negotiations continued. Global oil prices, which remain well above $100 a barrel, eased following news of the proposal.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused unprecedented disruption to energy markets, choking off 20% of the world’s oil and gas supplies and causing a record rally in oil prices.
The blockade of the vital sea channel has also increased concerns that there will be an economic downturn. The US Navy is blocking exports of Iranian crude oil, and on Friday the US Treasury warned shippers that they risked sanctions if they paid tolls to Iran to pass through the strait.
A ceasefire has been in place since April 8 but reports that US President Donald Trump was to be briefed on plans for new military strikes to compel Iran to negotiate had pushed global oil prices up to a four-year high at one point on Thursday.
Iran has activated air defenses and plans a wide response if attacked, having assessed that there will be a short, intensive US strike, possibly followed by an Israeli attack, two senior Iranian sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
‘TREACHEROUS AGGRESSION’
Washington has not said what its next steps are. Trump said on Tuesday he was unhappy with the previous proposal from Iran, and Pakistan has not set a date for new talks on ending a war that has killed thousands, mainly in Iran and Lebanon.
After US and Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28, Iran fired at US bases, infrastructure, and US-linked companies in Gulf states, while the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah launched missiles at Israel, which responded with strikes on Lebanon.
Underlining the concerns of the Gulf states, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said the “collective international will and provisions of international law” were the primary guarantors of freedom of navigation through the strait.
“And, of course, no unilateral Iranian arrangements can be trusted or relied upon following its treacherous aggression against all its neighbors,” Gargash wrote.
Trump faces a formal US deadline on Friday to end the war or make the case to Congress for extending it under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
The date looks set to pass without altering the course of the conflict after a senior administration official said that, for the purposes of the resolution, hostilities had terminated due to the April ceasefire between Tehran and Washington.
Financial and energy markets remained on edge because of concerns about the impasse over negotiations and worries that there could be a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
IRAN SAYS NOT TO EXPECT QUICK RESULTS FROM TALKS
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei cautioned on Thursday against expecting quick results from talks.
A senior official of Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards said any new US attack on Iran, even if limited, would usher in “long and painful strikes” on US regional positions, while Aerospace Force Commander Majid Mousavi was quoted by Iranian media as saying: “We’ve seen what happened to your regional bases; we will see the same thing happen to your warships.”
Trump repeated on Thursday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and said the price of gasoline – an important concern for his Republican Party before midterm elections in November – would “drop like a rock” as soon as the war ended.
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.
The conflict has aggravated Iran‘s economic plight, which could head toward total collapse. However, the regime looks able to survive a standoff for now, despite the US blockade that has curtailed its energy exports.
Axios news site reported that one plan to be shared with Trump during a briefing by top US military leaders that was scheduled for Thursday involved using ground forces to take over part of the strait to reopen it to commercial shipping. Trump is also considering extending the US blockade or declaring a unilateral victory, officials have said.
Washington did not immediately announce any details of its plans.
In a sign that the US was also envisaging a scenario where hostilities cease, a State Department cable due to be delivered orally to partner nations by May 1 invited them to join a new coalition, called the Maritime Freedom Construct, to enable ships to navigate the strait.
France, Britain, and others have held talks on contributing to such a coalition but said they would help to open the strait only when the conflict ends.
Uncategorized
When Jews Are Attacked, the Media Won’t Say ‘Jew’
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
As soon as the words “attack in Golders Green” were uttered, everyone in Britain — Jewish or not — understood what that likely meant: another antisemitic attack.
Golders Green is one of the most recognizably Jewish areas in the UK, with around half its population identifying as Jewish. When violence erupts there, the context is not ambiguous.
Witness accounts quickly confirmed what seemed obvious. Two visibly Jewish men, in a well-known Jewish neighborhood, were stabbed. The suspect — a 45-year-old Somali national — was arrested at the scene.
Video footage showed police tasering the attacker and using force to disarm him as he refused to drop his weapon. Yet as news of the attack spread, something else became clear: major British media outlets were struggling to name who had been targeted.
The BBC reported that “two people” had been stabbed, attributing key details to a “Jewish security group,” as though the identity of the victims was uncertain or subjective. Sky News similarly opted for “two people,” stripping the attack of its clear antisemitic context in the headline. Later, Sky went further, running a headline emphasizing the attacker’s “history of mental health issues” — a framing that deflects from the antisemitic motive. The Independent, while calling it a terror attack in its headline, still avoided explicitly stating that Jews were targeted.
You mean two Jews, @SkyNews. https://t.co/OdU8YWw7CT
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) April 29, 2026
This is not a minor omission. It is a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. When Jews are the victims, the language shifts. Attacks are softened, anonymized, universalized. Victims become “people.” Targeted violence becomes generic crime. The specificity disappears.
But antisemitism is not generic. It is not abstract. And it is not universal.
Jews are being targeted as Jews.
The data makes that impossible to ignore. According to the Community Security Trust (CST), 3,700 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the UK in 2025 – the second-highest total on record and a 4 percent increase from 2024. That followed 4,298 incidents in 2023, itself a historic peak. The trajectory is clear: antisemitic violence is escalating.
And it is visible beyond statistics. In recent weeks alone, Hatzola ambulances were firebombed, synagogues in Finchley and Kenton were targeted in arson attacks, and a building that formerly hosted a Jewish charity in Hendon was targeted. Now, Jews have been stabbed in one of Britain’s most prominent Jewish communities.
Yet even as this reality intensifies, large parts of the media still struggle — or refuse — to name it plainly.
Why?
Part of the answer lies in a broader narrative environment. For months, British audiences have been exposed to coverage that portrays the Jewish state as uniquely malevolent, often with little context or balance. Mass protests openly invoking “intifada” have been downplayed or sanitized. Extremism, when directed at Jews, has too often been reframed as legitimate grievance.
Within that climate, the reluctance to say “Jew” is not accidental. It reflects a deeper discomfort with acknowledging Jews as a distinct and targeted group.
But language matters. When the media erases victims’ identities, it erases the nature of the crime. And when the nature of the crime is blurred, so too is the urgency to confront it.
This is how normalization happens – not through a single headline, but through repetition. Through omission. Through the quiet reshaping of reality.
If the trend continues, the consequences will not remain confined to headlines. Britain’s Jewish community is already questioning its future in a country where anti-Jewish violence is rising — and where even that violence is not always named for what it is.
Two men were not simply stabbed in Golders Green. Jews were attacked for being Jews. And the media should be able to say so.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Say ‘Palestine Was Stolen’ and Win Cash From the Palestinian Authority
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas holds a leadership meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank, April 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman
In a separate episode of official Palestinian Authority TV’s quiz program for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, participants received cash prizes from PA Chairman Abbas for denying Israel’s existence. Lebanese “refugees from Palestine” were also given money for lengthier answers to questions such as “how significant is Palestine for you?” and “why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?”
This episode and the cash rewards were also sponsored by PA Chairman Abbas, the PLO Department of Refugee Affairs, and official PA TV. The following are excerpts of the questions put to residents of the Al-Badawi and Nahr Al-Bared refugee camps in Lebanon and their answers that all presented Israel as “Palestine.” The envelopes with the cash given to the participants bore the PA’s logo:
Woman 1: “[I’m] from Al-Tira [near] Haifa, in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Official PA TV host: “How significant is Palestine for you?”
Woman 1: “Palestine is in our hearts, and we educate our children and future generations that we have the right of return to Palestine.”
Host: “Why do our people in the diaspora keep the names of their villages and cities?
Woman 2: “We have not forgotten Palestine nor any of its regions… Allah willing we will return soon, each to his area. The right of return is legitimate…”
Host: “Why is it important that we pass on this message, the names of the cities, the names of the villages, and the story that happened in 1948… to the younger generation?” …
Woman 2: “We educate our children on the principle that we have a land that was stolen and is occupied by the Zionist enemy.” …
Host: “Your answer was correct. You receive from us a [cash] prize, a presidential grant given to you on behalf of President Abbas…”
Host: “Why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?” …
Woman 3: “No! This is our land. Palestine is our land and our homeland! Allah willing, Palestine will be liberated, and we will return to our lands. We are sitting here [in Lebanon] as guests… Generation after generation, we teach [our children] that we have a land and a homeland, which must be liberated.”
Host: “Your answer fills the heart with pride and joy, because as a Palestinian people, we have the right to return to our homeland. You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “How important is the right of return for our people?”
Man 1: “Important. We hope to return already today! The right of return is a right! And there is no substitute for our homeland!” …
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “How important is it that we teach our children about the holy sites of Islam and Christianity that belong to us, about our Palestinian villages and cities from which our people were expelled?”
Man 2: “It is very important… We must teach the younger generation so that the memory will be preserved in their hearts, and of course so that we will return to Palestine, Allah willing!” …
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “Why have our Palestinian people insisted on keeping the names of their villages and towns from which they were expelled?”
Woman 4: “To preserve our homeland, Palestine… Because Palestine is our land, our homeland, our soil, and our right!” …
Host: “Allah willing, we will return to the homeland’s soil!”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Man 3: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Host: “Why do our people not consider any country they live in as their homeland, instead of Palestine?”
Man 3: “We cannot leave our land, our cause, our soil, and our land! … We are the children of Palestine, and we do not want any other land to be a substitute for Palestine! … In Lebanon we are guests…”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Man 4: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”
Host: “Why do our Palestinian people insist on keeping the names of their villages from which they were expelled in 1948?”
Man 4: “We want to return because everyone [wants to return] to his village, to his area, and to his land – Palestine… We cannot give up Palestine, it has no substitute.”
“How important is it that you pass on the name of the village… to your children… so that they too know… that they have a right?”
Man 4: “We always continue to tell [our children] there is nothing like our land and borders! … Allah willing, all the refugee camps in Lebanon will return to the land of Palestine, to their land…”
Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”
Host: “What does Palestine mean to you?”
Woman 5: “This is my land.”
Host: “You receive from us a prize, which is a presidential [cash] grant given on behalf of the honorable President Abbas, the Department of Refugee Affairs [in the PLO], and Palestinian Television. Here you go!”
[Official PA TV, Discourse of Memory, March 17, 2026]
Palestinian Media Watch has exposed how the PA along the same lines instruct Palestinian “refugees” that the countries they live in are only “waiting stations.”
This is yet another example of how the PA does everything it can to cement the ideology among Palestinians that there is no Israel and that “Palestine” will be liberated.
The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.