In her first televised interview ever, Gloria Cain, wife of GOP candidate Herman Cain, defended her husband against recent allegations of improper conduct in his past. Said Mrs. Cain:
"You hear the graphic allegations and we know that would have been something that's totally disrespectful of her as a woman. And I know the type of person he is. He totally respects women."
It's an interesting choice of words. Mrs. Cain says that the behavior described is "disrespectful" of women and that her husband couldn't have done such a thing because he "respects" women.
Whether or not Mrs. Cain's assessment of her husband's character is accurate, her choice of words is spot-on. There are all sorts of emotionally charged terms she could have used to describe the alleged behavior. But I think her word choice was uncanny. Disrespectful. It's like the French say, le mot just, -- the perfect word.
When a man, or woman for that matter, behaves in the sort of way that Cain is being accused of having behaved, the real problem is the lack of respect. We confuse it by calling it immoral or unbecoming or dirty, but what it really is, is disrespectful.
So, what is respect?
Human beings are capable of a wide array of emotions, but they can all be classified into two very basic kinds of feelings: attraction and repulsion. In that way, we aren't all that different than the animals. We are drawn to things that make us feel good and we are repelled by things that threaten to hurt us or to take our good feelings away. On a higher level, these two reactions may express themselves as the emotions we know as love and fear. We want to be close to that which we love and we want to get away from that which we fear.
So where does respect fit into this model? Does it pull us in or push us away?
It should be clear. Respect doesn't beckon us "come hither." No, not at all. Respect tells us to back off. Quite aptly, we use expressions like "to respect someone's limits" or "to respect their boundaries." You don't "love" a boundary. You respect a boundary. Respect is that little voice that says, "Hey, watch it, buddy. You can't just barge in here."
So, respect is the opposite of attraction. And yet, it's not repulsion either. And that is what makes respect so holy, so sublime and so uniquely human.
Respect tells us to back off from something not because we loathe it but, to the contrary, because we think it's too important and too valuable to be treated casually.
It's amazing to consider that human beings can regard something as so precious or so powerful that instead of being drawn toward it, they feel like giving it space. An animal doesn't back away from something that it holds dear, but a human being does.
To me, this also helps us define another elusive word. What is "holiness"? It's a tough word to get a clear working definition of in English, but in Hebrew, its meaning is obvious. The word "kadosh" does not just mean "sacred;" it also means "set apart." In Jewish thought, something is holy when it is no longer available for regular use. So, for example, while I might use a phone book (if they existed anymore) to prop open a window, I would never use a prayer book to do the same job. What's the difference? The phone book may not have been designed to prop open windows, but if I wish to re-appropriate it for that task, there is no real reason why I shouldn't. What makes the prayer book holy is that we no longer use it to serve other purposes even when to do so would work just fine on a functional level.
Human sexuality is no different. Indeed, that is why the Talmudic term for marriage is "kiddushin" from that same root "kadosh" which means to set apart. On a purely functional level, all kinds of inventive uses of our sexuality are possible just as it is technically possible to use the prayer book to prop open the window. But for a human being who is capable of feeling respect, we just don't go there. "Of course it works," we say, "But that's not what it's supposed to be used for." And this is respect, because respect means holding off even when to jump in might be a whole lot more convenient.
I do not think I would be guilty of exaggeration or alarmism if I were to say that the lack of healthy respect for human sexuality is probably the biggest threat to society today. Society encourages men and women to love each other, to impress each other, to excite each other, to communicate with each other, even to fight with each other. But where do we hold up the virtue of men and women respecting each other? Where do we learn to revere our own and other people's sexuality by backing off or setting limits?
Sadly it is our gross inability to do so, as a society, that has destroyed intimacy because, as much as this runs counter to popular misconceptions, what makes intimacy intimate is not the force of attraction involved but the power of awe and reverence that forces us to take a step back from each other and say, "Wow! This is bigger than me. This is overwhelming. I dare not take this casually."
But alas, to quote Alexander Pope, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
So, Mrs. Cain, I wish to thank you for your remarks and your excellent choice of words. It is my hope that this latest news story will not just serve as another titillating scandal but as an opportunity to start a serious discussion about what it really means for men to respect women, for women to respect men, and for all of us to respect the power of our own God-given sexuality.
Follow Rabbi Shais Taub on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shaistaub
Andy Ostroy: It's Not Because Cain Is Black
Herman Cain defence 'goofy', says sexual harassment lawyer ...
Chicago Woman Claims Herman Cain Wanted Her to Trade Sex for ...
Herman Cain 'sexual harassment': New woman, first to speak out ...
Herman Cain accused by two women of inappropriate behavior ...
Herman Cain Sexual Harassment Charges: Fourth Woman Makes ...
Mr. Cain's "respect" of women is based on what value he sees in each. In these cases, payback for delivering value to them by preying on weakness or desperation, which civil society deems as immoral, unethical conduct.
In the same way believers choose to highly value/respect/worship a deity for personal benefit/gain, in weakness or desperation. It's an attraction/addiction like the roulette is to the gambler. In order for the Casino to gain, the gambler must lose. The roulette, like the deity, is just the tool.
Who's the prey? Who's the predator?
Hint:
Four Characteristics of a Predator: Proximity, Rewards, Routines/Rituals, Spin.
Four Characteristics of a Prey: Need, Disadvantage, Fear, Gullibility.
I think respect fits squarely into the "repulsion" category, which simplifies the Rabbi's model and disposes of the needless assertion that human behavior is unique in this regard (compared to other animals). When we respect something, we are simply being mindful of the consequences that casual familiarity or inconsideration could lead to. We are "repelled" to a safe distance.
When the Rabbi says, "An animal doesn't back away from something that it holds dear," I'm sure he's incorrect. Your dog may love you more than anything, but he will back away if you are visibly angry (even if you're not mad at him). In groups of dogs, respect is demonstrated in pack hierarchies. Adult dogs show respect for puppies -- tolerating behavior they wouldn't accept from an adult dog, and being careful not to harm them, even if the puppies belong to a different adult. And dogs usually recognize the similarity of human children to puppies and extend that respect to toddlers.
These beings are easily manipulated and controlled, especially by the media, the movies, and games of violence. The body becomes addicted to the chemicals produced when the human is frightened or excited or stimulated in some way. NOW, at this time, there are those of you who are awakening and becoming conscious.
A human who is conscious uses the incredible abilities of the mind to create new ways of being, new ways of seeing this reality, and new ways of responding to reality.
To me, as an agnostic, respect does not come from the fact that something is Kadosh according to some religion; respect to me is the child of empathy.
The ability to understand and feel what another human being feels is what sets the boundaries for what we do and what we say. Cain and people like him do what they do, not because they are perverts or irreligious or of a criminal mind; they do it due to their lack of empathy, their self-centeredness and consequent inability to see through other’s eyes. Empathy is the source of good and its absence the root of evil; not religious belief.
In other words, I think you've reached the same destination; the Rabbi by way of Talmudic thought and faith, and you by way of human psychology (if you use empathy in the clinical way).
You can claim it if you like, but it is post-hoc at best.
You are correct religious people make unique claims, even when they share the same religion. The reason should be obvious, there is no objective claim for any religion, so claims are as numerous as believers, since they are all equally unconnected to reality. But that is exactly the problem with religion, so I don't see why it needs to be noted that believers don't all hold the same opinion. If you recognize the commonality of what is religion, that should be obvious.
And you can definitely attribute everything to God, whether God was one step removed or a million steps removed. There is no real difference. It is a God of the gaps fallacy, you're just declaring a different placement of the goal post. It is advisable to avoid fallacies, if you want to be taken seriously.
The problem with using your method as a sole arbiter of right and wrong is in determining the “objective” notion. Whose objective notion do we accept?
I suspect that a neurotypical can rely on his physiological trait known as empathy while an Asperger would achieve a similar (or even superior) position by constructing a more elaborative epistemological framework for a proper definition of right and wrong; In other words, to “be good for goodness sake”.
But neither of these alleged acts have anything to do with respect, nor does the number of years spent with an individual make anyone an absolute authority on their character. It's unlikely that anyone would do these kind of things in front of other people, and certainly not a spouse.
The truest test of character is what people do when they think no one is looking.
I do not consider what Mr Cain has been accused of doing to be disrespectful, I would consider it criminal. I do not believe that someone who touches inappropriately is being disrespectful, I think that they are doing so deliberately to assert domination and control.
Sexual assault is about power, it is about a deliberate act of degradation and it is a lesson that is easily learned and deliberately set aside.
No prosecution is needed. It's manifest in what he *says and does right now.*