“What remains constant in feminist Jewish studies is the claim to have innovated, transformed, and changed the field, when for the most part the opposite is repeatedly demonstrated in one anthology after another. The very brief introductions to these anthologies praise the articles which, for the most part, are concerned with specific subfields rather than with theoretical frames of reference” (22). “This apologetic representation suggests that “Judaism” did not constrain “women” in any way, however, the term “women” usually defines , as noted earlier, heterosexual, married, wives, and mothers, for the most part of the middle or upper middle class” (19). “By confining “gender” to traditional, heterosexual domesticity, the editors naturalize the definition of “women” in Jewish history, while ignoring their definition in Women’s Studies and feminist theory” (16).

What I found interesting is how repeatedly in anthologies about this subject there is this claim of “innovation” , “transformation” and “change” when in reality there is the opposite being repeated. There is a cycle of repetition and redefinition of gender and how that functions in feminist studies, and Jewish studies and how there is also an abandonment of the Women’s Studies and feminist theory definition of “women” in the context of Jewish history. There is this naturalization by the insistence of confining the definition of “gender” to heterosexual domesticity. Another aspect of the article that fascinated me is when this naturalization occurs there is a belief that the natural choice for women is that of a heterosexual lifestyle. The essay brings up a contrary notion by suggesting that being heterosexual and following those norms is the choice that is made, and a more homosexual trend is the one that females often naturally sway to but are drawn away from in favor of the traditional definition of “women” and “gender”. I also found it interesting that in every discussion of Jewish feminism the concept of “gender” is momentarily forgotten and then redefined and discovered as if it’s the first time. Why is this? Why are scholars of Jewish feminism stuck in a cycle of re-imagination of the same concept instead of moving forward?