Connect with us

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.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Zara Announces Partnership With Designer John Galliano, Who Has History of Antisemitic Comments

A Zara shop. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Zara announced on Wednesday a two-year creative partnership with John Galliano, who was fired as creative director of the French fashion house Christian Dior after being caught on camera going on a drunken antisemitic rant in 2011.

Zara said the British fashion designer, 65, “will re-author the brand’s archives through a series of seasonal collections,” which will be released seasonally during the partnership that will begin in September. “Mr. Galliano will be working directly with garments from Zara’s past seasons, deconstructing and reconfiguring them into new seasonal expressions and creations,” the Spanish company added.

Galliano spent two seasons with Givenchy before taking over in 1996 as creative director of Dior, which he helmed for 15 years. He was the creative director of the Paris-based fashion house Maison Margiela for 10 years, from 2014-2024. He has won the British Fashion Designer of the Year four times.

In February 2011, Galliano was accused of accosting a couple at the Paris restaurant La Perle in the Marais district. The couple, a Jewish woman and her Asian boyfriend, said the British designer told them: “Dirty Jewish face, you should be dead” and “f–king Asian bastard, I will kill you.” The incident led to Galliano’s arrest.

After the incident, a video surfaced that showed Galliano, in the same restaurant, making antisemitic comments at patrons while drunk in October 2010. He also expressed admiration for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. “I love Hitler and people like you would be dead today,” he said. “Your mothers, your forefathers would be f–king gassed and f–king dead … you, you’re ugly.”

Dior fired Galliano in 2011 shortly after the video of his drunken antisemitic remarks were widely circulated. Galliano also faced a one-day trial in Paris, after being charged with “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race, or ethnicity” related to the incidents in 2011 and the year prior. He was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to $8,500 for making the antisemitic insults, and damages to each of his victims as well as to five anti-racism groups who were also complainants.

Galliano claimed he has no recollection of making the offensive remarks and blamed his actions on drug and alcohol addiction. He also denied being an antisemite or racist, and apologized for “allowing myself to be seen to be behaving in the worst possible light.”

“I fully accept that the accusations made against me have greatly shocked and upset people,” the designer said in 2011. “I only have myself to blame and I know that I must face up to my own failures and that I must work hard to gain people’s understanding and compassion.”

“I have fought my entire life against prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination, having been subjected to it myself,” he added. “In all my work my inspiration has been to unite people of every race, creed, religion, and sexuality by celebrating their cultural and ethnic diversity through fashion. Antisemitism and racism have no part in our society. I unreservedly apologize for my behavior in causing any offense.”

He told Vanity Fair in June 2013 that his antisemitic comments were “the worst thing I have said in my life.”

“But I didn’t mean it,” Galliano said. “I have been trying to find out why that anger was directed at this race. I now realize I was so f–king angry and so discontent with myself that I just said the most spiteful thing I could.”

He also apologized in his 2024 documentary, “High & Low — John Galliano.” He admitted in the film, “It was a disgusting thing, foul thing that I did. It was just horrific … I couldn’t recognize that person. I felt horrified. Ashamed. Embarrassed.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

CAIR Sends Separate Letters to US Lawmakers Praising Democrats, Challenging Republicans on ‘Anti-Muslim Bigotry’

CAIR officials give press conference on the Israel-Hamas war

CAIR officials give press conference on the Israel-Hamas war. Photo: Kyle Mazza / SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent Muslim advocacy organization that has been scrutinized by US authorities over alleged ties to terrorist groups, has sent two separate letters to Democratic and Republican congressional offices, calling on lawmakers to confront what it described as rising anti-Muslim rhetoric and to reaffirm commitments to religious freedom. 

In its March 13 letter to Democratic offices, CAIR praised statements by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and others who have spoken out against anti-Muslim hate, urging lawmakers to go further by pursuing formal censure actions against Republican members accused of making inflammatory comments.

In a separate letter to Republicans, the organization struck a more critical tone, calling on the party to reaffirm its support for religious liberty and to distance itself from rhetoric it says targets Muslim Americans. 

“At moments like this, the voices of elected leaders defending constitutional values matter greatly. We encourage Democratic offices to remain vigilant in confronting anti-Muslim bigotry using the full range of congressional tools, including the pursuit of censure resolutions against Rep. Fine and Rep. Ogles,” the letter to Democrats read, referring to Republican Reps. Randy Fine (FL) and Andy Ogles (TN).

CAIR pointed to remarks attributed to several Republican lawmakers, including Fine, Ogles, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville (AL), arguing that such statements contribute to a climate of hostility toward Muslims. Earlier this month, Ogles wrote on X that “Muslims don’t belong in America. Pluralism is a lie.” Meanwhile, Fine posted, “We need more Islamophobia, not less. Fear of Islam is rational.:

The organization also criticized the formation of the “Sharia-Free America” Caucus, claiming its policy proposals could infringe on the religious freedoms of Muslim Americans. The caucus, comprised of more than 50 Republican House members, declares that Sharia, or Islamic law, is a “direct threat to our Constitution and Western values and seeks to replace our legal system and erode our basic freedoms.”

At the same time, CAIR framed its appeal to Republicans within the party’s historical identity, invoking the “big tent” vision associated with Ronald Reagan. The group noted that Muslim American voters have, at times, supported Republican candidates, but argued that relationship has eroded in the years following the Iraq War.

The group warned that the “potential relationship between the Republican Party and American Muslim voters is rapidly deteriorating as anti-Muslim rhetoric from elected officials goes unchallenged by Republican leadership.”

CAIR’s criticism of political rhetoric comes amid renewed attention to the organization’s own history. Founded in 1994, CAIR has long denied allegations of links to extremist groups, but it has faced scrutiny over past associations. The group was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal prosecution related to the Holy Land Foundation trial, a case involving the largest terrorism financing conviction in US history. While that designation did not result in criminal charges against CAIR, it has been cited by critics as a point of concern.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced in 2008 that it would suspend formal cooperation with CAIR pending further clarity about such concerns. CAIR has consistently rejected allegations of wrongdoing, stating that it condemns terrorism and supports constitutional principles.

Critics have also pointed to past statements by some CAIR officials and the organization’s positions on US foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel and the Middle East, as evidence of ideological bias.

Supporters, however, argue that CAIR plays a significant role in defending civil liberties for Muslim Americans and documenting discrimination. Several high-ranking members of CAIR openly celebrated and defended Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, a terrorist attack that left over 1,200 dead and more than 250 hostages.

In January, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott formally designated CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations under state law, citing in part what officials described as longstanding ideological and operational ties with Islamist movements hostile to the US and its allies.

Abbott’s proclamation described CAIR as a “successor organization” to the Muslim Brotherhood and noted the FBI called it a “front group” for “Hamas and its support network.” The document also outlined the history of the organizations and their historical associations with figures and networks tied to Hamas, an internationally designated terrorist group.

“The Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR have long made their goals clear: to forcibly impose Sharia law and establish Islam’s ‘mastership of the world,’” Abbott said in a statement while announcing the designations last month. “These radical extremists are not welcome in our state and are now prohibited from acquiring any real property interest in Texas.”

In December, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also signed an executive order designating CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist groups.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Trump Hails Japanese Leader, Says Tokyo ‘Really Stepping Up to the Plate’ on Iran

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC, US, March 19, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

US President Donald Trump greeted Japan‘s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warmly at the White House on Thursday and said he believed Japan was “really stepping up to the plate” on Iran, unlike the NATO alliance.

Trump has lashed out at allies for their lukewarm support for the US-Israeli military campaign and said the US doesn’t need any help. However, he is still pushing for more ships to clear mines and escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, largely closed by Iran in the conflict.

Ahead of the meeting, Japan joined leading nations in Europe in a joint statement, saying they would take steps to stabilize energy markets and were ready to join “appropriate efforts” to ensure safe passage through the Strait.

Trump hailed Takaichi’s election victory last month as “record setting” as he welcomed her at the Oval Office. He said they would “be talking about trade and many other things,” including Iran.

“We’ve had tremendous support and relationship with Japan on everything, and I believe that based on statements that were given to us yesterday, the day before yesterday, having to do with Japan, they are really stepping up to the plate … unlike NATO,” Trump said.

He said he expected Japan to step up given the support the US gave the country and the tens of thousands of troops it has stationed there.

“We don’t need much; we don’t need anything,” Trump said. “We don’t need anything from Japan or from anyone else. But I think it’s appropriate that people step up.”

Takaichi told Trump she had “brought specific proposals to calm down the global energy market” and said Iran must never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Takaichi condemned Iran‘s attacks in the Strait of Hormuz and said she believed only Trump could achieve peace. She also said the global economy was about to take a hit due to the turmoil in the Middle East.

At the same time, Takaichi said Tokyo had been reaching out to Iran.

Unlike Washington, Tokyo has diplomatic relations with Tehran, creating a potential avenue for diplomacy in any moves to end the war, although past attempts by Japan to mediate with Tehran in 2019 were unsuccessful.

JAPAN RELIES ON CRUDE OIL FROM GULF

Takaichi’s long-scheduled White House visit has been aimed at burnishing the decades-old security and economic partnership between Washington and its closest East Asian ally, but there have been concerns among Japanese officials that Trump will press her to do more than she is able to on Iran.

Takaichi has sought to move Japan away from a pacifist constitution imposed by Washington after World War Two, but with the Iran war unpopular at home, she has so far not offered to assist in clearing the Strait of Hormuz.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier he would expect that Japan, which gets a large share of its crude oil supplies from the Gulf, would want to ensure its supplies are safe.

He told Fox Business Network Japan‘s navy has some of the best minesweepers and mine-detection capabilities and that he believed Japan would release more of its large petroleum reserve to supply the strained oil market.

Takaichi told the Japanese parliament on Monday Japan had received no official request from the United States on Iran but was checking the scope of possible action within the limits of its constitution.

Trump said a lot of his discussions with Takaichi would be about energy. Takaichi said they would discuss economic security in areas like energy and minerals.

Japanese officials said Takaichi hoped to remind Trump of the dangers posed by a regionally assertive China – especially to Taiwan – ahead of his planned visit there, which has now been pushed back from an earlier plan him to visit in two weeks.

On Wednesday US intelligence agencies created potential awkwardness for Takaichi when they said that remarks she made last year in support of Taiwan marked a “significant shift” for a Japanese leader.

Takaichi has maintained that her stance, which sent Tokyo’s relations with Beijing into a nosedive, was consistent with Japan‘s long-standing policy and Japan‘s government spokesperson said the US assessment was not accurate.

In the Oval Office, Takaichi said Japan was open to dialogue with China.

Japan expects Trump to ask Tokyo to produce or co-develop missiles that could help replace stocks of US munitions depleted by the Iran war and Russia’s war in Ukraine. Tokyo is still considering how to respond, Japanese government sources said.

Takaichi will also tell Trump that Japan intends to join the “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative that is meant to detect, track and potentially counter incoming threats from orbit, two Japanese government sources said.

She is expected to announce a fresh Japanese investment in Trump-approved projects in the US, from a $550 billion commitment made by the government to win relief from tariffs the US president imposed last year.

Japan could pledge some $60 billion as part of the second tranche of its investments spanning critical minerals and energy, said a person familiar with the plans, after already committing to three projects valued at $36 billion.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News