Man Up, dude!

 


So I cannot think about Father's Day without thinking about what it actually means to be a man, to be a good husband and father.  What is the essence of being a 'man'?  Or, more importantly, what's the gist of being a 'gentleman'?  Do men still play into age old stereotypes where they are told to be macho and mean?  For me Father's Day is about feminism and realizing that real men value the importance and role that women play within our society.  

My big complaint about guys is that they don't realize that women are: 

1) Usually, if not ALWAYS, right about EVERYTHING. 
2) Smarter and more capable than men (in general).
3) Able to fix and handle projects/situations on their own, if given the chance.
4) Amazing multi-taskers and problem solvers given having to balance motherhood with careers (or out of home duties)
5) Incredible and beautiful in that, as mothers, they carried a living human in their womb for nine months and went through hour upon hour of excruciating pain at giving birth. 

Now, I am biased, as a male feminist who generally feels more passionately about women's rights and feminism than my own wife. However, my complaint is that many men are too macho and chauvinistic.  They try to act all tough and gruff.  Spitting and adjusting your ech um belt is not civilized in any form.  What's more is that women of 2013 want men who are a little sensitive and artistic.  The image of men having to play the role of cowboys or meathead jocks is cliche and what the French would call, demode (old fashioned).  I think of the Marlboro Man here, or the Western cowboy who carries the dame off on his horse at sunset.  Now, I'm sure women fantasize about such men but when it comes to reality, it doesn't cut the mustard.  Now, I'm not a woman or attracted to men so I am only observing what I feel most women would desire out of a mate.  I surmise, though that when women look for permanent relationship material, that they want a guy who drops all the macho crap.

Real men realize the value of women and the true beauty that they possess.  If you're a real man, you don't care if your girlfriend or wife wears make-up or if she has gained a few pounds.  If you're a real man, you fell in love with the woman for her intellect and soul.  Looks play into things but only in the sense that real men love looking into a woman's eyes as much as he enjoys interlocking hands with her fingers.  Yes, men, are in general obsessed with breasts, but it's not all about the (to be crude) T & A, not at all.  That's what rappers and douchebags talk about non-stop.

Now, some guys reading this might already be thinking 'aw this dude is such a p-ssy'.  Well, thinking that way makes it definite that the tables are actually turned on you.  Like I said, too many guys have this image in their head of being in control and having to always be right.  I admit that I'm very stubborn and that when I'm arguing, I have a mentality ('mantality') that I have to win.  Sometimes, I admit shamefully, I even say things to my wife to see how she'll react or what she'll say.  Yes, I thrive on conflict.  But I listen to my wife's advice and her words, despite her thinking that I ignore her.  I know, deep down inside that a) she knows me really well, b) she wants what's best for me, and c) she loves and cares about me; so shut up and listen.  Yes, the key to a happy marriage is just to say 'yes, dear' and 'you know you're right, I should...right away.'

Take it from me, women are right most (if not all) of the time so it's futile to try and win any argument no matter how pithy or insignificant it seems.  If your wife wants the dishes to be done and put away a certain way, do it that way.  If she wants a specific brand of bleach or garbage bag, then get exactly what she asks for.  If you don't, you'll have to go back to the store and return what you go to get the right item, whatever it is.  So I will outline my advice below:

10 Rules for a WINNING 'MANTALITY'

1: Don't think you'll win an argument because you won't.

2: Make a specific shopping list and make sure you get everything on it. (be very detailed)

3: Don't rush a woman when she is buying/looking at shoes.

4: Get a gal flowers every now and then (surprise her).

5: Make her feel pretty and special by giving compliments and saying a certain pair of jeans looks attractive (even though you've seen her in said pair of jeans all day).

6: Try to co-manage the household duties and decisions.  She shouldn't have to do everything.

7: Dads, do NOT let her parent alone.  Get your hands dirty and get in there.

8) Women can use power tools too.  I've seen women fix/install things better than me. (IJ: even toilets)

9) Never call a woman 'fat', 'bitch', 'stupid', 'ugly', etc.  Put-downs are a quick way to bachelor-ville.

10) WOMEN ARE SUPERIOR TO MEN!  It's the truth.  'Yes dear' is the key to bliss!


So there you have it.  I have outlined how a real man should and ought to act toward his woman.  You must give respect to your partner to receive it back.  That whole traditional image of men as bread winners who make all the tough decisions concerning finances and life changing matters, is bunk.  Men should not fall into the whole Marlboro Man/James Bond/Superhero/Caveman image.  WE are better than that crap.  It's time to man up and just admit that women are just, well, not men and that's why we (as heterosexual men) love and appreciate them.  Men, could you stand being married to or dating yourself?  Imagine it!  Really!  Imagine it!  Yea, not only creepy but you'd punch yourself in the face out of annoyance.  As much as I'm an ego maniac, I do not want to marry/date myself.  So that's the reason I revere women and admit that they're better.  WOMEN RULE!

NOTE: This argument has nothing to do with homosexuality.  By saying that I do not want to date myself and thereby, having it fuel my reverence of women does not mean that I reject homosexuality.  Far from it. I'm an LGBTQ ally and I respect and value every kind of relationship under the sun.  However, I do not want to imagine a world where I'm married to myself.  That's all!!

Masculinely yours,

~R~

And for the record, guys, THIS is what we're fighting against (images below):

 

ISHAH

נשות הכותל (Neshot Hakotel)- Women of the Wall

This is a movement that began in 1988.  It started on December 1,1988, when a group of seventy multi-denominational women met to pray (daven) at the Kotel (Western Wall) in Jerusalem.  They brought a Sefer Torah with them, as there were not ANY Torahs available in the women's section.  Because it is considered by more religious/traditional Jews that women should not carry or read from the Torah especially at such a place as the Western Wall, there was immediate backlash.  Men from the other side of the mechitzah (wall separating men and women) cursed, yelled, and threatened the women (which to note is not Torah behavior).

However at that time, the Kotel administrator, Rabbi Yehuda Gertz, allowed the service to continue and said that the women were not violated any part of Halakhah (Jewish law).  For the last twenty years, these women have fought to be able to read Torah, wear prayer shawls and even tefillin (prayer boxes usually worn by men) at the Western Wall.  They have been gaining notoriety especially in the States and other Western countries.  There is even a half hour film about the topic, which the clip above is taken from called 'Praying in Her Own Voice'.  I recommend seeing the whole movie. 

For those unfamiliar with why women cannot pray at the Western Wall with a Torah, you need some background.  Within some sects of Judaism, it is not believed to be permissible for women to touch/carry/study Torah.  They also have to sit separately from men and cannot receive aliyot (mitzvah where one is called up to bless the Torah).   This  would mostly be within the Orthodox and Chassidic (ultra-Orthodox) camps.  Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative Judaism generally allow women to read from the Torah openly and accept aliyot.  Within those sects, women can also sit together with men and go up on the bimah (alter) with men as well.  Again, the belief on women and their place and practice differs depending on the degree of religiosity and the sect of Judaism that you speak with.

However, from my standpoint, a woman who wants to daven, especially at a place like the Kotel should be able to do so while carrying a Torah and wearing a tallit (prayer shawl) or tefillin (prayer boxes).  I ask the question, why would a woman want to pray there in the first place?  To serve Hashem (G-d) of course.  So, to deepen a woman's prayer and her connection to Hashem, wouldn't having a Torah make sense?  It's not like these women are going to the Kotel naked or they are doing something overtly blasphemous like cussing and playing loud death metal.  These women are going to the Kotel to pray, to be Jews.  That's all.  Nothing taboo or mysterious. So, by blocking them from praying and expressing their devotion to G-d, one is sinning, right?  Isn't it a sin, within Judaism to prevent a person from praying and showing devotion to the Almighty?  I'd say so. 

Futheremore, there is NO specific stipulation in the Torah or traditional rabbinic sources saying that women cannot carry/read from the Torah or wear a tallis/tefillin.  In fact, the daughter of Rashi (A Jewish Biblical philosopher/scholar) apparently used to wear tefillin while she prayed.  This is similar to how there is no specific stipulation that women (or even men) should cover their hair, or at least wear a wig.  There is a part in the Torah a woman, who is accused of adultery, called a 'Sotah' has her hair 'uncovered' by the priest (rabbis weren't in fashion yet).  It isn't quite known whether the passage from Numbers is meant to be directly interpreted or not.  In fact, the Mishnah (Torah commentary)  says that a woman's hair covering has more to do with the laws of the Jewish community, as it was grounds for divorce, rather than dating back to Moses and being an actual 'sin'.  The whole idea of women's modesty (clothes and behavior) has to do with 'tzinut' (humility/modesty) which is why the signs in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in Israel ask women not to wear 'immodest' clothes (pictured below).  One could also say that just because something isn't in the Torah, doesn't mean it isn't followed or practiced.  Take for instance, take the laws of kashrut (kosher).  It says in the Torah that a kid should not be boiled in its mother's milk.



*Women and Head Covering

So, Jews who observe the laws of kashrut, or who keep kosher, do not eat milk with meat.  This goes further to mean that milk and meat shouldn't be on the same table at the same meal and that separate plates and silverware are to be used for each.  The Torah doesn't specify the degree of practice, and one could even say that chicken is not included int he stipulation of being separate from dairy.  However, Jews keep count chicken as meat.  Jewish law and text cannot be taken in a vacuum but there are also many instances where fences are created around fences, meaning laws are extended beyond how they were probably originally meant to be followed. 

I am not trying to say throw out all the rules of Judaism.  I respect and love the Torah and the laws/rules of my religion.  However, Israel is in a major hot spot right now.  It is surrounded by contentious neighbors like Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.  Hamas and Hezbolah want Israel to be demolished and don't give a rat's tail what happens to the Jews.  So, do we need even more animosity and fighting amongst our very own people?

I mean, again, as a Feminist I speak, but women should be allowed to wear tallit and tefillin.  In fact, supposedly it was my cousin, a rabbi in Minnesota who started the women's tallit movement, or at least was a big hand in getting it off the ground.  I also think women should be able to read from the Torah as well as study it.  I'm all for the opening of more women's yeshivas, and dare I say it, co-ed yeshivas like the wonderfully beautiful Pardes (that I attended) in Talpiyot, Jersusalem.  Now, what I'm not saying is to tear down the mechitzah and have women and men sit together.  Just because I daven egale (men and women together) these days doesn't mean everyone does.  Synagogues and individuals should do what they are comfortable doing as long as it follows the laws of Judaism.  I mean, if I'm invited to a Reform synagogue and the general congregation doesn't say wear tallit or conduct service in mostly English, it doesn't mean I won't attend.  I'd want to welcome other Jews into my house as I'd be expected to be invited into theirs (be it actual house or house of G-d, synagogue).  However, this is not the sentiment of the religious right!

I am disgusted by the behavior and actions of the religious right, who have a major stranglehold on Israeli politics right now.  Women aren't even allowed to accept secular studies awards because it is 'too immodest'.  I, however, am going to say something very controversial right now.  The pigheaded men who lead the religious right movement and those who follow the very extremist line of thinking walk a dangerous line.  Many of them do not respect the state of Israel or recognize the government as an institution.  Many of the religious right families are also using the welfare system in Israel, as they have lots of children and usually only the women work while the men study.  So, they have to use the social services available.  Some would call them 'leaches', though I wouldn't go that far because I still recognize and welcome them as fellow Jews.  My question is to them, why is a person living in a country that you don't formally recognize, while also reaping the benefits of its social services yet tearing it apart?  It hurts my hear and makes me sick to think about it. 

Many of my Israeli friends have thought about leaving and there is a large exodus, especially amongst younger Israelis to leave the country because of the difficulty that the religious right is causing.  They want everyone to 'be Jewish' like them which means black suits and hats with the women in long skirts and wigs.  This is despite the fact that the beliefs held by the Charedi (right wing) Jews are cultural and have little basis off of Jewish law.  However, what they need to realize and appreciate is that Judaism has a multitude of different beliefs, practices, sects, races, ethnicities and dare I say it, sexualities.  That's what makes Judaism so beautiful, in my eyes.  But many folks of the religious right want to erase the rainbow, the keshet, of Judaism.

I would go as far as to say that the religious right who are against the Women of the Wall don't even respect women.  They revile women and fear them.  They are scared misogynists who want to keep women quiet and subdued.  And the only reason their women don't fight back is because they're brainwashed to accept their lifestyle as the ONLY way.  And I say this as a proud Jewish feminist who thinks women should be treated and respected like the women in the Torah.  What would our matriarchs, prophets, and other notable women of the Bible- Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah, Ruth, Esther, Deborah, Miriam and Judith- say?  These women were strong and fierce fighters for the Jewish faith.  These women would be disgusted and outraged that such a travesty in Israel is taking place right by their very tombs. 

Plus the fact that it is women who are the carriers of Jewish tradition.  The religion was patrilineal in the Biblical ages but changed to matrilineal religion.  The women teach the children about Jewish laws and customs while keeping the Jewish home (also keeping the idea of maintaining a 'kosher' home).  The ideas of having a 'kosher' home are imbedded within the laws of 'niddah' (female cleanliness)  and 'taharath hamishpach' (family purity).  Women are at the forefront of this.  So, why, if women are so important, are they so shunned and kept waiting in the wings?  I'm not saying we should undo Jewish law, but why can't women be allowed to daven WITH a Torah at the holiest of Jewish sites?  WHY??  Because a few men find it offensive?  Because they don't respect women enough to give their own a voice?

What's even more disgusting is the thought that many of these religious right individuals act with violence and aggression to keep their so -called version of the Torah.  So they end up being total hypocrites because the behavior they show when they spit, cuss, and use violence toward women or other Jews is definitely definitely forbidden in the Torah.  No questions asked.  Their behavior shuns Jews and converts away from the religion.  Is that Torah living?  To drive people away from being closer to G-d and Torah?  Are these members of the religious right acting within G-d's sense of light and truth?  When you spend so much time creating fences around fences around fences, you forget the bigger picture.  

Plus, the other thing is that we, Jews and Israel, have enemies who want to see Israel blasted into the ocean.  Why do we have to be fighting amongst ourselves.  The messiah will NEVER come at this rate, with the Jewish people being so divided.  The Torah DOES say that.  It also mentions how being divisive and tearing the Jewish people apart is WORSE than idol worship.  The nation of Israel's unity and the idea of AM YISRAEL CHAI (people of Israel living and being whole) is very important.

WE HAVE TO BE ONE PEOPLE!!!  We have no one else.  We have been smitten throughout history and many cultures and people have tried to wipe the Jews out.  Coming on the heals of Hanukkah, and thinking about the strength of the Maccabees and the miracle of the lamp burning for eight night, we should consider another miracle, the one that has Jews living through major times of strife and evil.  The fact that Jews are still here and that we have a nation to call our own, is the biggest miracle of all.  What better way to celebrate that than to come together and elevate one another to being not only better Jews, but better people as well.  Though this is my view both as a rabid Feminist and Zionist. 

My hope for the future is that the Women of the Wall are allowed to daven there freely and are not met with the ferocity of animosity that they've experienced.  I hope that Israel will become a place where Jews of many shades and beliefs are not met with discrimination and disgust.  None of us, as Jews, or as people are perfect.  We should be trying to encourage each other to live and breathe Torah and the customs/laws of Judaism.  We should elevate one another upward rather than holding each other back.  A Jew is a Jew is a Jew.  Nu?

I will leave you with a song, 'Henay Matov', Psalm 133:

'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for bretheren to dwell together in unity'

Jewishly yours,

  ~R~




LINKS:

~ Women of the Wall site

~NY Times article on Women of the Wall

There's something in the water!

Nowadays, women don't think twice about being able to do the same things as men.  I mean, in the sense that women can become police officers and judges, they can vote and become CEO's, and many women earn much more than men do.  However, what if there was a place where none of women's liberation ever happened.  What if the glass ceiling and equality fought by 'pink collars' in the 70's and 80's was a blip that became erased?  WELCOME TO STEPFORD!

I'm sure many of you reading this have seen the recent 2004 film re-make of The Stepford Wives with Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Glenn Close, Faith Hill, Christopher Walken and Bette Midler.  However, not only is that movie kind of hokey but it totally downplays the creepy factor of the original 1975 movie with Catherine Ross, Paula Prentiss, Tina Louise, Peter Masterson, and Patrick O'Neal as well as the 1972 novel by Ira Levin.

I just watched both the 1975 film and read the novel for the first time (the latter first).  I have to say that if you are a virgin to the Stepford Wife story, DO NOT see the 2004 film (at least not first).  It pales by comparison to the original movie AND novel.  The novel is brilliant.  Though short, only 123 pages (the 2002 edition I read), it is a masterpiece of literature.  I am surprised that this book is not taught in more curriculums in college classrooms and even high schools.  It could definitely be added to any 60's/70's counterculture class, science fiction class, or feminist/women's movement literature class.  I LOVE this book!

It might be because I have a soft spot for fucked up dystopian novels about suburbia and the 'American dream' in all of its lovely perfection and glory (smell my sarcasm?).  The book isn't just commenting on a dark suburban town that transforms women into robots/zombies to domesticate and shut them up.  It is a commentary on the silencing of women in general and looks at an alternate reality where women didn't care about burning their bras and marching for equal rights and pay.  There are realities where this exists, though Stepford is a far cry from most people's daily reality.  Believe me when I say that where I grew up, sometimes I wondered if places like Stepford were too true.   That's another story for another time.  Though, I do think it peaks my interest in the story behind this book.  Women who only exist to be beautiful and stay home to cook and clean.  Certainly there are men out there (cough Rick Santorum).  There was a lecturer (her name escapes me) who came to my college on the platform that women should stay in the home, not going out to earn a living.  In fact there are whole websites devoted to the anti-feminist female perspective: Anti-Feminist Females

What's interesting is that it is a more recent phenomenon for women to work outside the home.  Take my sister and myself.  We are distanced by six years.  We went to the same preparatory high school.  In my class, very few of the mothers worked a full-time job.  My mom was one of the few, and she went back to get a law degree in her 40's.  Mom, you rock!  By the time my sister was in high school, I'd say that it was peculiar if one's mother stayed at home making cupcakes.

Look, I'm not devaluing being a homemaker and housewife.  My wife stays at home with our two year old son right now.  It is a job that is not paid and where you work 24-7.  All mothers, and women for that matter should get a round of applause.  Women who are full-time mothers and/or work outside of the home deserve more credit than they get.  Though, I'm a little biased because I generally think men are pigs and should be kept on short leashes.  Yes, I just said that and I am a man.  Get over it!

Going back to Ira Levin's novel, one can see why I am so enthralled with the premise.  Take a New York family, the Eberhardts and transplant them to a Connecticut town, Stepford.  At first glance, it seems that things are peachy-keen.  The taxes and crime are low, the schools are great, and the women are obsessed with cooking and cleaning.  Sounds normal, right?  Not for Joanna Eberhardt, a native New Yorker with two small children, Pete and Kim.  She is a hobby photographer who has a yearning to be the next Annie Leibotvitz or Dorthea Lange.  What's more is that her husband, Walter, is a lawyer who completely digs women's liberation.  He is level with Joanna's passions and aspirations, at least in the book, he is.  The problem is that his feminist tendencies wain as he joins the seemingly only social organization in Stepford, the Men's Association.  Though, Walter makes a plan and promises Joanna to make the Men's Association co-ed. 

Joanna also will try to start a local NOW (National Organization for Women), which began in 1966.  However, Joanna does not have many female friends, as the women aren't interested in socializing together beyond trivialities.  Joanna makes friends with Bobbie Markowe who says that 'given the complete freedom of choice' would 'just as soon not squeeze the Charmin' (17-18).  She also makes friends with Charmaine Wimperis, who loves playing tennis on her own backyard clay court and reads about astrology.  With Charmaine and Bobbie on her side, Joanna tries to get the women of Stepford to organize a women's group.  However, they find out that this was already done.

After digging in the library, Joanna finds out that the town of Stepford had a League of Women Voters and a Woman's Club.  In fact, the Woman's Club mysteriously disbanded and lost its fifty plus members after Betty Friedan came to speak to them.  For those not in the know, Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique which was published in 1963 and help spark the women's lib movement.  It was at this time that the Men's Association began and takes in the men of Stepford, who are ironically all inventors as well as computer and chemical engineers.  Spooky!

Joanna then realizes that her friends begin to change.  It begins with Charmaine, who is very independent and free thinking but then tears up her clay court to make room for a golf course for her husband.  Now, she is obsessed with pleasing her husband and is too far wrapped around cleaning her house than do anything else.  Then Bobbie changes; one minute she wants to get out of Stepford and drinks bottled water, wanting the Department of Health to investigate.  The next minute, she wears lacy frocks and suddenly cleans up her house; her only worries are to look pretty and keep a spotless house for her husband.  Joanna's only hope is an African American woman who just moved to town, Ruthanne Hendry, who hasn't become a 'housefrau' yet. 

However, Joanna realizes that time is running out, as she figures out that the women of Stepford get only four months until they 'change'.  Walter thinks Joanna is stark raving mad crazy and sends her to a shrink.  Joanna begins to sound more like Mia Farrow as Rosemary Woodhouse in the 1968 film, Rosemary's Baby (the book was also written by Ira Levin in 1967; creepy irony!)  So Joanna is left between a rock and a hard place.  This could be a metaphor for how a battered woman would feel before the age of equal opportunities.  Actually, I volunteered for Legal Aid of Eastern Missouri, and did intakes for the battered women's unit.  I will never forget the stories I encountered.  Women told me about how they called the police and were told they were crazy or drunk.  One woman said a police officer told her 'drunk bitch, get back in the house.'  So, Ira Levin's fiction isn't too far off from reality.

What happens to Joanna Eberhart?  You'll have to read the rest of Ira Levin's book.  Also, read the books before you watch either film.  And, if you watch the film, watch the 1975 version first.  The 2004 version strays pretty far away from the book, and I was disappointed in it.

The 1975 film paints the characters pretty vividly.  You get the sense of time and place.  Even though the movie came three years after the book, you still get a sense of the 70's woman.  I also like that the women of Stepford are sexy 'housefraus' but they are not overt.  In the 2004 version, they're all airhead blow-up dolls.  In the 75' version, the women just seem lost in outer space, like they've been drugged/brainwashed or turned into cleaning zombies.  The science-fiction element hasn't been erased; the '75 film is submerged in it.  The Stepford women are shells of their former selves, taking no interest in activities other than cooking, cleaning, shopping, and looking good.  I like that in the '75 version, the women dress modestly in public, with floor length skirts and tasteful outfits.  You get the sense that whoever is behind turning these women into robots, wants them to be the ultimate 50's housewife, 'housefrau'.

I also like the alternate book ending in the '75 version.  The 2004 version didn't know which concept to choose (robots or computer chips), and had a very different, happier ending, which didn't sit right with me.  I like the darkness and eeriness of the book, and it was lost in the 2004 movie.  The 2004 version also had the women be more modern in the sense that all the women of Stepford are 'retired' CEO's and successful career women whereas in the '75 version, they're just smart, assertive and wear pant suits.

What I like best about the book, though, is how the women of Stepford are described.  Joanna says this about the women of Stepford: 'They never stop, these Stepford wives..they work like robots all their lives (64).  Joanna's friend, Bobbie says this at wanting to move away: "I wanted to buy in Norwood all along; too many WASPs, he said.  Well I'd rather get stung by WASPs than poisoned by whatever's working around here" (58).  In the 1975 film the idea of the women as freakish 50's housewife sitcom drones is played-up.  As Joanna tries to organize a woman's meeting, one Stepford wife can only talk about cleaning products, "Is it that good?  Well, if time is your enemy, make friends with Easy-On, that's all I can tell you.  It's so good that if ever I became famous and the Easy-On people asked me would I do a commercial, not only would I do it, I'd do it for free.  That's how good it is."  Then the best line in the 2004 film, is when Glenn Close's character says, "'Where would people never notice a town full of robots?  Connecticut!'"

So I've told you here.  Read the book, see the 1975 film, and then maybe watch the 2004 version.  I'd also read and watch Rosemarys' Baby.  Actually, I kind of want to read all of Ira Levin's stuff now.  It is appropriately sinister and creepy.

*Levin, Ira.  The Stepford Wives.  New York: Harper Collins, 2002.

   Works of Ira Levin (1929-2007):

      BOOKS-                                                     PLAYS                                   
   A Kiss Before Dying (1953)                   No Time for Sergeants (1956)
   Rosemary's Baby (1967)                        Interlock (1958)
  This Perfect Day (1970)                         Critic's Choice (1960)
  The Stepford Wives (1972)                    General Seeger (1962)

  The Boys from Brazil (1976)                 Dr. Cook's Garden (1968)

  Sliver (1991)                                          Veronica's Room (1974)

  Son of Rosemary (1997)                         Deathtrap (1978)

                                                                  Break a Leg: A Comedy in Two Acts (1981)
      MUSICALS                                        Cantorial (1982)
 Drat!  The Cat! (1965)




                                                            
Literature-ly Yours,

  ~R~