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
Anti-Israel Candidates for US Senate Boast Strong Polling Numbers in Michigan Democratic Primary
Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat running for US Senate in Michigan. Photo: Screenshot
Mallory McMorrow, a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and a candidate for the US Senate in Michigan, holds a narrow lead over the rest of the Democratic primary field, according to a new poll.
The Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media survey shows McMorrow, a member of the Michigan state Senate, ahead of the pack with 22 percent of the vote. US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) sits in second place with 17 percent of the vote. Abdul El-Sayed, a physician with an anti-Israel policy platform, holds a respectable 16 percent of the primary vote.
McMorrow’s lead over the field may spark consternation among supporters of Israel, whose defensive military campaign in Gaza has been characterized by McMorrow as tantamount to “genocide.”
Just days before the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, McMorrow called Israel’s response in Gaza a “moral abomination,” saying it was “just as horrendous” as the attack carried out by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists, who perpetrated the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
However, in a recent interview, McMorrow indicated tentativeness over her previous condemnation of Israel, admitting that the word “genocide” has become a “purity test” among progressive activists in Democratic primaries.
“I am somebody who looks at the videos, the photos, the amount of pain that has been caused in the Middle East, and you can’t not be heartbroken,” McMorrow said during an interview earlier this month. “But I also feel like we are getting lost in this conversation, and it feels like a political purity test on a word — a word that, by the way, to people who lost family members in the Holocaust, does mean something very different and very visceral — and we’re losing sight of what I believe is a broadly shared goal among most Michiganders, that this violence needs to stop, that a temporary ceasefire needs to become a permanent ceasefire, that Palestinians deserve long term peace and security, that Israelis deserve long term peace and security, and that should be the role of the next US senator.”
Conversely, Stevens has established herself as the favorite among pro-Israel Michiganders. Stevens scored an endorsement from the Democratic Majority for Israel in November 2025. In a statement, DMFI praised Stevens as someone who has “stood firm against extremism, antisemitism, and efforts to undermine America’s alliances.”
Stevens has routinely touted her pro-Israel bona fides, vowing to stand beside the closest US ally in the Middle East despite mounting pressure by party activists to cut ties with the Jewish state. The lawmaker promised that if elected she would continue to support legislation which bolsters Israel’s security.
“As a proud pro-Israel Democrat, I believe America is stronger when we stand with our democratic allies, confront antisemitism and extremism, and keep our promises to our friends abroad and our working families here at home,” Stevens said in a statement. “In the Senate, I’ll keep fighting to protect our democracy, support Israel’s security, ensure the ceasefire holds in Gaza, and deliver for Michiganders in every corner of our state.”
El-Sayed, the most far-left candidate in the race, has been especially critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. On Oct. 21, 2023, two weeks after the Hamas-led slaughter of 1,200 people and kidnapping of 251 hostages in southern Israel, the progressive politician accused Israel of “genocide.” The comment came before the Israeli military launched its ground campaign in Gaza.
He also compared Israel’s defensive military operations to the Hamas terrorist group’s conduct on Oct. 7, writing, “You can both condemn Hamas terrorism AND Israel’s murder since.”
In comments to Politico, El-Sayed criticized Democrats’ handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that they should become the “party of peace and justice” and said that they “ought not to be the party sending bombs and money to foreign militaries to drop bombs on other people’s kids in their schools and their hospitals.” He called on Democrats to stop supporting military aid for Israel, saying, “We should be spending that money here at home.”
Earlier this month, The Algemeiner reported that El-Sayed is facing scrutiny over his past fundraising and public support for a political advocacy group whose affiliates organized anti-Israel protests at Holocaust memorial sites in Washington, DC, and the Detroit metro area.
Uncategorized
Hamas Doubles Down on Refusal to Disarm as Trump Pushes Phase Two of Gaza Peace Plan
Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard at a site as Hamas says it continues to search for the bodies of deceased hostages, in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip, Dec. 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
As the United States and its allies prepare to roll out phase two of President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan, Hamas has doubled down on its refusal to disarm, clouding hopes for a breakthrough.
In an interview with the Qatari media network Al Jazeera on Wednesday, senior Hamas official Musa Abu Marzouk said the Palestinian terrorist group — which ruled Gaza before its war with Israel and still controls nearly half the enclave’s territory — never agreed to lay down its weapons under the ceasefire agreement.
“Not for a single moment did we talk about surrender the weapons, or any formula about destroying, surrendering, or disarmament,” the terrorist leader said, echoing repeated statements by Hamas officials saying they have no intention of disarming.
Abu Marzouk also reaffirmed that Hamas has moved to “restore order” in parts of the Gaza Strip from which Israeli forces withdrew as part of the ceasefire deal.
Currently, the Israeli military controls 53 percent of Gaza’s territory, and Hamas has moved to reestablish control over the rest. However, the vast majority of the Gazan population is located in the Hamas-controlled half, where the Islamist group has been imposing a brutal crackdown.
Disarmament “was never even presented to us,” Abu Marzouk told Al Jazeera.
“After a battle of this magnitude … and with the inability of Israel, America, and the West to disarm or destroy Hamas’s weapons, did they think they could obtain it through talks?” he continued.
The comments came one day before Trump said that Hamas would in fact give up its weapons.
“A lot of people said they’ll never disarm. It looks like they’re going to disarm,” Trump told a cabinet meeting on Thursday.
The US president also asked his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, for an update on the situation.
“We’ve got the terrorists out of there and they’re going to demilitarize. They will because they have no choice,” Witkoff said. “They’re going to give it up. They’re going to give up the AK-47s.”
Last week, Trump warned that Hamas “will be blown away very quickly” if it refuses to disarm and cooperate with the second phase of his administration’s 20-point peace plan.
According to multiple media reports, Washington is expected to announce a deadline in the coming days for the terrorist group to lay down its weapons, in an effort to set the terms of the disarmament process.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted that the next phase of the ceasefire deal would focus on disarming Hamas and demilitarizing the enclave, rather than on reconstruction.
“We are at the threshold of the next phase: Disarming Hamas and demilitarizing the Gaza Strip,” the Israeli leader told parliament, shortly after he officially announced that the remains of the last hostage had been recovered.
“The next phase is not reconstruction,” he continued. “We have an interest in advancing this phase, not delaying it. The sooner we do so, the sooner we will complete the objectives of the war.”
Under phase one of Trump’s peace plan, a ceasefire took effect and Hamas was required to release all remaining hostages, both living and deceased, who were kidnapped by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists during the group’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
The body of the final hostage, Israeli police officer Ran Gvili, was returned on Monday, and he was buried on Wednesday.
In exchange for Hamas’s releasing nearly all the hostages, Israel freed thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including many serving life sentences for terrorism, and partially withdrew its military forces in Gaza to a newly drawn “Yellow Line,” roughly dividing the enclave between east and west.
The second stage of the US-backed peace plan is supposed to establish an interim administrative authority, a so-called “technocratic government,” deploy an International Stabilization Force (ISF) to oversee security in Gaza, and begin the demilitarization of Hamas.
In an effort to advance his regional peace initiative, Trump launched the so-called Board of Peace last week, inviting several countries — including Turkey — despite Israel’s opposition to its participation.
Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any Turkish role in Gaza’s postwar reconstruction, warning that Ankara’s push to expand its regional influence could bolster Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure, as Turkey has been a longtime backer of the Islamist group.
Under Trump’s Gaza peace plan, the newly created Board of Peace will oversee the interim technocratic Palestinian government in the enclave, supported for at least two years by the ISF.
The ISF — comprising troops from multiple participating countries — will oversee the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, train local security forces, secure Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt, and protect civilians while maintaining humanitarian corridors.
In addition, the ISF would seemingly be expected to take on the responsibility of disarming Hamas. Even though several countries — including Hamas backers Qatar and Turkey — have expressed interest in joining the international peacekeeping force, no final agreement has been reached.
Further Israeli military withdrawals in Gaza are tied to Hamas’s disarmament.
During his Wednesday interview, Abu Marzouk declared that “nobody can enter Gaza without understandings with Hamas,” emphasizing that the group will not give up control of the enclave.
“If Hamas doesn’t agree to the administrative committee, it cannot enter the Gaza Strip,” he told Al Jazeera, asserting that the group has the final say over who sits on it.
Trump’s peace plan, which has been endorsed by the United Nations, calls on Hamas to relinquish any governing role in Gaza.
Despite Hamas’s comments, the peace plan is moving forward with a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration in Gaza. The newly established 15-member body is led by Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority.
According to media reports, Hamas is looking to position around 10,000 members of its police force within the new Palestinian administration for Gaza.
Uncategorized
Forverts podcast, episode three: The cemetery
דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט שוין אַרויסגעלאָזט דעם דריטן קאַפּיטל פֿונעם ייִדישן פּאָדקאַסט, Yiddish With Rukhl. דאָס מאָל איז די טעמע „דער בית־עולם“. די פֿאַרגאַנגענע וואָך איז זי געווען „ליבע“. צו הערן ביידע קאַפּיטלען גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.
אין דעם איצטיקן קאַפּיטל לייענט שׂרה־רחל שעכטער פֿאָר צוויי אַרטיקלען, „אַ טראַדיציאָנעלער מינהג געפֿירט פֿון פֿרויען: פֿעלדמעסטן און קנייטלעך לייגן“ פֿון אַנאַבעל כּהן, און „דאָס אַרײַנלייגן אין דר׳ערד: די פֿאַרשידענע ווערטער און אויסדרוקן פֿאַרן וואָרט ׳בית־עולם׳“ פֿון הערשל גלעזער.
אויב איר ווילט אויך לייענען דעם געדרוקטן טעקסט פֿון די אַרטיקלען, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ און קוקט אונטן בײַם סוף פֿון דער זײַט.
אין דעם וואָכיקן פּאָדקאַסט לייענט די פֿאָרווערטס־רעדאַקטאָרין שׂרה־רחל שעכטער פֿאָר געקליבענע אַרטיקלען וואָס דער פֿאָרווערטס האָט געדרוקט במשך פֿון די יאָרן. דערווײַל איז דער פּאָדקאַסט בלויז אַ פּראָבע פֿון פֿינעף קאַפּיטלען. אויב ס׳וועט ווײַטער וואַקסן דער אינטערעס צו אים, וועט ער ווערן אַ געוויינטלעכער טייל פֿונעם פֿאָרווערטס.
טאָמער האָט איר קאָמענטאַרן אָדער פֿאָרלייגן, שרײַבט אַ בריוול דעם פֿאָרווערטס: schaechter@forward.com
The post Forverts podcast, episode three: The cemetery appeared first on The Forward.
