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
Actor-Director Rob Reiner dies at 78
Rob Reiner, who rose from an early career as a sitcom star to direct a run of film classics that included The Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally…, has died at 78 along with his wife, Michele Singer, in what TMZ reported and Deadline confirmed was an apparent homicide, with wounds consistent with a knife attack.
Robert Reiner was born in the Bronx on March 6, 1947, to comedy writer, actor and director Carl Reiner, and mother actress mother Estelle (née Lebost). In interviews, Rob Reiner said his early upbringing resembled that depicted in The Dick Van Dyke Show, which his father created.
Describing his Jewish upbringing to JTA in 2017, he recalled his Yiddish-speaking grandmother, and his own Yiddish instruction. He described the experience as “home shuling.”
With a notable pedigree, Reiner distinguished himself, first in small TV roles and later as Michael “Meathead” Stivic in All in the Family, the bleeding-heart son-in-law of Archie Bunker. (Reiner, like his late father, was an outspoken progressive.)
In a 1994 interview with 60 Minutes, Reiner estimated he’d been called Meathead 1,241 times in that week alone.
But beginning in the 1980s, Reiner emerged as a director, debuting with an immediate comedy classic in 1984’s This is Spinal Tap, arguably creating the genre of mockumentaries — and starring as director Marty di Bergi.
While made with his friends, it was far from a lark. Reiner was immediately prolific, directing The Sure Thing, a modern update of It Happened One Night, the following year. Then the coming of age classic Stand By Me, based on a Stephen King short story, in 1986 and The Princess Bride in 1987, a streak of well-regarded films that, in their staying power, is virtually unrivaled in Hollywood.
Spanning genre from faux-rock doc to fantasy, Reiner proved his range almost immediately. When Harry Met Sally… hit theaters in 1989, Roger Ebert dubbed Reiner “one of Hollywood’s very best directors of comedy”— a compliment to remember given some of his later notices — and gave him the opportunity to cast his own mother in an instantly iconic punchline; his next film was Misery, another, more conventionally scary Stephen King adaptation.
Reiner’s career as a filmmaker saw the introduction of screenwriter Aaron Sorkin to the big screen (1992’s A Few Good Men), a famously maligned comedy, North (which Roger Ebert said he “hated, hated, hated”) and more diminishing returns. But even the later works had their impact on the zeitgeist. While not approaching the quotability of Spinal Tap, Princess Bride or When Harry Met Sally… (Estelle Reiner was the one who said “I’ll have what she’s having”), the term The Bucket List entered the lexicon because of his 2007 film.
Begining in the 2000s, Reiner’s work and public life were largely concerned with activism and civics. He cofounded the marriage equality group American Foundation for Equal Rights. He had a close circle of collaborators, directing a documentary about his best friend, Albert Brooks, but followed it up with a documentary, God & Country, about Christian Nationalism.
In a 2004 interview, explaining why, as a Jew, he pursued the project, he mentioned a trip he made with his wife the previous year, to Auschwitz, where his wife’s mother’s family was an inmate, and the rest of the family was murdered.
“You see what nationalism can do. You see the results of it,” Reiner said in an interview with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. “And so for us who are Jewish by birth, we know what the dangers are, and hopefully this film can at least be a little bit of a teaching tool to everybody.”
Describing his sense of humor, he told JTA there’s a reason Jews are funny. “You have Cossacks. You have Hitler. You have a lot of things weighing down on you. You have to have a sense of humor or you can’t survive.”
Reiner’s final film, Spinal Tap II: The End Continues, a sequel to his first, came out in October. Reiner’s life, and body of work, are already a blessing.
The post Actor-Director Rob Reiner dies at 78 appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
China, Saudi Arabia Agree to Strengthen Coordination on Regional, Global Matters
Flags of China and Saudi Arabia are seen in this picture, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, December 7, 2022. REUTERS/Mohammed Benmansour
China and Saudi Arabia agreed to have closer communication and coordination on regional and international issues, with Beijing lauding Riyadh’s role in Middle East diplomacy, statements following a meeting between the nations’ foreign ministers on Sunday showed.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is on a three-nation tour in the Middle East that began in the United Arab Emirates and is expected to end in Jordan. He met with Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud in Riyadh on Sunday.
A joint statement published by China’s official news agency Xinhua did not elaborate on what issues the countries will strengthen coordination on, but mentioned China’s support for Saudi Arabia and Iran developing and enhancing their relations.
“(China) appreciates Saudi Arabia’s leading role and efforts to achieve regional and international security and stability,” the statement released on Monday said.
The statement also reiterated both countries’ support for a “comprehensive and just settlement” of the Palestinian issue and the formation of an independent state for Palestinians.
At a high-level meeting, Wang told his Saudi counterpart that China has always regarded Saudi Arabia as a “priority for Middle East diplomacy” and an important partner in global diplomacy, a Chinese foreign ministry statement on Monday said.
He also encouraged more cooperation in energy and investments, as well as in the fields of new energy and green transformation.
The countries have agreed to mutually exempt visas for diplomatic and special passport holders from both sides, according to the joint statement.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran Considers Removing Hezbollah Leader Naim Qassem
Lebanon’s Hezbollah Chief Naim Qassem gives a televised speech from an unknown location, July 30, 2025, in this screen grab from video. Photo: Al Manar TV/REUTERS TV/via REUTERS
i24 News – Iran is reportedly dissatisfied with the performance of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem and is preparing to reorganize the group’s leadership, potentially removing him from his position, according to a report by Emirati outlet Erem News citing senior Lebanese diplomatic sources.
The report claims Tehran views Qassem as “unsuitable to lead Hezbollah at this critical stage,” arguing that he has failed to meet the leadership standards set by his predecessor, longtime Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah.
Iranian officials are said to believe Qassem lacks sufficient political acumen and hold him responsible for the deterioration in relations between Hezbollah and the Lebanese state.
According to Erem News, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is expected to oversee preparations for restructuring Hezbollah’s internal leadership during an upcoming visit to Beirut.
The visit is intended to assess the organization’s internal climate through direct meetings with senior Hezbollah figures and influential operatives.
“The Iranian minister seeks to monitor the general climate within Hezbollah and convey an accurate picture of the internal situation to decision-makers in Tehran,” the report said, adding that the findings would be used to inform “crucial decisions regarding anticipated changes at the head of the organization, most notably the fate of Naim Qassem.”
