Get Refusal

[imayid2]

Halachically does a women have a right to demand a get? (Disclaimer: I never learned anything on the subject)

Only if he has been determined to be abusive or isn’t fulfilling his חיובים to her, or some other extreme cases. If she walks out of the marriage for a non halachikly valid reason she would be a מורדת and would not be considered an ‘Aguna’.

[EliJelly]

Halachically does a women have a right to demand a get? (Disclaimer: I never learned anything on the subject)

If the husband isn't brushing his teeth

[imayid2]

[Afrages6]

she’s insane.

[chevron]

I miss the naked dancing dude

[Tzvi687]

They should be giving shuirim to all the batei dinim. Seems like they know a lot better.

[Afrages6]

This was followed by a instagram live with Flatbush girl and the non religious one of the three of them titled “should agunah’s go off the derech in order to force rabbonims hand..

[avromie7]

I'm actually shocked how open she was that she doesn't care if a man loses his kids or is sued too poverty.

[Afrages6]

I'm actually shocked how open she was that she doesn't care if a man loses his kids or is sued too poverty.

You listened to the entire podcast and were shocked by what she said at the end?

[avromie7]

You listened to the entire podcast and were shocked by what she said at the end?

I listened to that 15 minute clip before posting. I just finished listening to the rest of the podcast.

[Yehuda57]

I'm actually shocked how open she was that she doesn't care if a man loses his kids or is sued too poverty.

I'm not here to defend either side in this hot mess of a podcast, but I don't think she said that. She drew a red line in front of withholding a get for any reason whatsoever. You may not agree with that but it is certainly understandable. Once you allow for using a get as leverage on some cases, then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line, which any husband could then abuse.

That doesn't mean she doesn't care about men losing their kids, but that's not her fight. Of all the things she said, that might be the least problematic.

[Afrages6]

I'm not here to defend either side in this hot mess of a podcast, but I don't think she said that. She drew a red line in front of withholding a get for any reason whatsoever. You may not agree with that but it is certainly understandable. Once you allow for using a get as leverage on some cases, then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line, which any husband could then abuse.

That doesn't mean she doesn't care about men losing their kids, but that's not her fight. Of all the things she said, that might be the least problematic.

lol she literally said that child abuse isn’t my problem.

[avromie7]

I'm not here to defend either side in this hot mess of a podcast, but I don't think she said that. She drew a red line in front of withholding a get for any reason whatsoever. You may not agree with that but it is certainly understandable. Once you allow for using a get as leverage on some cases, then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line, which any husband could then abuse.

That doesn't mean she doesn't care about men losing their kids, but that's not her fight. Of all the things she said, that might be the least problematic.

She said she would tell that guy that he must give a get even if he'll lose his kids because otherwise it's abuse. She's admitting that she's not here to do good, she is here to further this specific agenda regardless of the consequences to the person involved

[Yehuda57]

lol she literally said that child abuse isn’t my problem.

She said she would tell that guy that he must give a get even if he'll lose his kids because otherwise it's abuse. She's admitting that she's not here to do good, she is here to further this specific agenda regardless of the consequences to the person involved

She has taken on an advocacy role for a specific issue. She is saying she is not advocating for other issues, she is keeping her advocacy to get refusal. Yes, that is her agenda which trumps all others. You can be passionate about terrorism in Israel and not be passionate about terrorism in Pakistan without being a hypocrite. If a woman refused to accept a get prior to custody and alimony arrangements being sorted out, and FG didn't condemn that, that would be hypocritical.

I think she is wrong and hypocritical on other issues. 

[imayid2]

https://daastorah.substack.com/p/coffee-room-hock-about-agunos-and

[avromie7]

She has taken on an advocacy role for a specific issue. She is saying she is not advocating for other issues, she is keeping her advocacy to get refusal. Yes, that is her agenda which trumps all others. You can be passionate about terrorism in Israel and not be passionate about terrorism in Pakistan without being a hypocrite. If a woman refused to accept a get prior to custody and alimony arrangements being sorted out, and FG didn't condemn that, that would be hypocritical.

I think she is wrong and hypocritical on other issues.

You're misunderstanding. I don't have an issue with someone taking an advocacy role for one issue but not another. The issue here is that she doesn't care about the negative effects of her advocacy. She is ok with someone losing his kids because he gave a get right away as she is advocating. Even worse, she thinks someone should give up his kids because someone else is unfairly withholding a get.

[Yehuda57]

You're misunderstanding. I don't have an issue with someone taking an advocacy role for one issue but not another. The issue here is that she doesn't care about the negative effects of her advocacy. She is ok with someone losing his kids because he gave a get right away as she is advocating. Even worse, she thinks someone should give up his kids because someone else is unfairly withholding a get.

She's against using a get as leverage and is making a hard red line around that. Are there potentially negative effects from such a policy? Absolutely. But likewise, she is saying that allowing a get to be used as leverage in some instances will cause agunos, and that is her priority. A guy "losing his kids" is an entirely different battle. Again, I understand if you disagree, but it's a legitimate position to hold. The way the question was framed, as an extreme hypothetical with no basis in reality, she could have actually said "in that narrow hypothetical which will never happen, I'd agree" and then everyone would have walked away happy. But this issue is never going to be that clear and any time the question of withholding a get comes up by definition means the case is not clear cut. It is messy. Creating red lines around certain areas, such as not being able to use a get as leverage, is understandable.

It would be wonderful if you could make a similar red line around using kids as leverage. But much the same as she can't change the fact that some men will use a get as leverage, I doubt there is a way to stop women using children as leverage.

[avromie7]

She's against using a get as leverage and is making a hard red line around that. Are there potentially negative effects from such a policy? Absolutely. But likewise, she is saying that allowing a get to be used as leverage in some instances will cause agunos, and that is her priority. A guy "losing his kids" is an entirely different battle. Again, I understand if you disagree, but it's a legitimate position to hold. The way the question was framed, as an extreme hypothetical with no basis in reality, she could have actually said "in that narrow hypothetical which will never happen, I'd agree" and then everyone would have walked away happy. But this issue is never going to be that clear and any time the question of withholding a get comes up by definition means the case is not clear cut. It is messy. Creating red lines around certain areas, such as not being able to use a get as leverage, is understandable.

It would be wonderful if you could make a similar red line around using kids as leverage. But much the same as she can't change the fact that some men will use a get as leverage, I doubt there is a way to stop women using children as leverage.

It's not a narrow hypothetical with no basis in reality. It is the reality on a regular basis. Even she admits it happens, but tries to claim it's incredibly rare. What she wants is akin to telling a man to castrate himself because other men are rapists. The fact that she can't differentiate between abuser and abused doesn't make it reasonable for her to advocate that all men should unilaterally open themselves up for abuse.

[avromie7]

It would be wonderful if you could make a similar red line around using kids as leverage. But much the same as she can't change the fact that some men will use a get as leverage, I doubt there is a way to stop women using children as leverage.

The way to stop women from using children as leverage is by making sure she everything is complete and enforceable in court before the get is given.

[Yehuda57]

It's not a narrow hypothetical with no basis in reality. It is the reality on a regular basis. Even she admits it happens, but tries to claim it's incredibly rare. What she wants is akin to telling a man to castrate himself because other men are rapists. The fact that she can't differentiate between abuser and abused doesn't make it reasonable for her to advocate that all men should unilaterally open themselves up for abuse.

The case that was presented to her in the podcast was a hypothetical that the husband was 10000% objectively correct and the woman was 10000% objectively wrong. That does not happen on a regular basis, if ever.