JDate has been around for awhile now, and I know quite a few couples who have met and gotten married. But everyone does, right? I just read in Newsweek that rabbis who are particularly concerned with their congregants marrying within the faith are now paying for their memberships to JDate. Isn’t this going a little too far? I’m all for marrying within the faith, but do rabbis really need to offer JDate scholarships?
In other matchmaking news, The Millionaire Matchmaker premiered on Bravo this week. I haven’t had the opportunity to watch it yet, but I already know I don’t appreciate her perpetuation of the JAP stereotype. She’s a third generation matchmaker (her mother and grandmother were matchmakers at their temple in Jersey), and she’s decided to take this talent and spread it to the masses. The very, very rich masses.
So on the one hand we’ve got financial aid for people who can’t afford JDate, and then we have extreme JAP who helps out extremely rich men. What’s worse? I’m not sure. I do, however, know that I will be laughing very hard at anyone who takes advantage of either of these services.
- I was there - 11/18/2009
- Israelis for Obama - 10/2/2008
- Things I Really Hate - 5/18/2008
It makes sense for extremely rich men (whether Jewish or not) to pay for this type of service. They don’t have the time to screen through all the women that want them. This is simply the law of supply and demand in action. There is an huge supply of gorgeous, intelligent young women who want rich men and very limited supply of straight, single, normal men who can even make an moderate income.
I don’t understand your problem with this. In the Ortho community that extremely rich women pay matchmakers to find them handsome Torah scholars.
As for the JDate scholarships, I think they are great. JDate is very expensive.
I also don’t see the problem here. People don’t always find partners or don’t have opportunities to find partners and if a go-between can bring the two people together, in some ways that may be more likely to succeed than randomly sitting next to your future spouse in a university lecture or bar. It’s also not that different than a friend setting you up on a blind date.
As for the issue of material wealth, why would the rich be different in needing to meet partners? The question is whether she only sets them up with other well-heeled prospects or looks for other qualities.
I think rabbis paying for JDate memberships constitutes a trend to be admired. Especially if they’re preaching intramarriage, let them–and the Jewish community–put their money where their mouths are.
She is looking for “Madonna in the Bedroom, Martha Stewart in the Kitchen and Mary Poppins in the Nursey” for these men but the women also have to be self-supporting first. These uber women also have to be intelligent as the men needed to bright and ambitious to get to where they are.
Middle…we agree so often, can’t you find me a man like yourself to let me be his Madonna, Martha & Mary? Oh, I know, my age and my baggage (3 kids) disqualifies me everytime.
And shout out to CK…I am SO OVER the Dov Charney thing.
Chutzpah, it’s not your “baggage,” since most men your age have their baggage as well. It has to do with me not knowing many single men and virtually none in your neck of the woods.
Also, I suspect Madonna is quite different in the bedroom than her stage act suggests. Still, if Patti can actually find a self supporting “Madonna in the Bedroom, Martha Stewart in the Kitchen and Mary Poppins in the Nursery†she’ll be fulfilling the dreams of 86.4% of American males.
Personally, I’d like the babe to be “Madonna in the Bedroom, Martha Stewart in the Kitchen, Mary Poppins in the Nursey, Carly Fiorina in paying the bills, Marie Curie helping the 5 children with their homework, Cate Blanchett for the nights out on the town, Hillary Clinton to handle all of my arguments with the idiots who are always wrong, Cheryl Crow in our sound proofed music room, Ruth Bader Ginsburg to handle the really complex issues that arise daily, Rachel Carson on nature walks, Lee Miller in the darkroom, and a mix of Audrey Hepburn and Candy Loving for when I’m sad.â€
Is David Kelsey dating anybody right now? I think you and he would get along swimmingly when discussing kiruv and some of the issues plaguing the Orthodox communities in your area.
What’s curious is that the Rabbis buying JDate memberships are both from Reform congregations. I didn’t think Reform Jews cared about Intermarriage – I mean as long as one parent is Jewish then its ok no? Am I missing something here? Is this an acknowledgment of some kind that on a societal level Intermarriage is, you know, bad for the Jews? Spawn, you have some contacts with the high priesthood of Reform Judaism, can you investigate this a little?
I have a bigger problem with her being named Patti than with the premise.
I keed!
Lee Miller (very good,Middle!) might be quite nice in the bedroom (and for describing the view from the Obersalzburg). Switch Lee in the darkroom with Arbus. {No photos of me, please, Diane.) Hillary? Perfect for suing my bank for negligent lending. I’m not kinky enough for Martha Stewart. (She’s a thinner version of the concentration camp commandant in ‘Seven Beauties’.)
Kate Blanchett heads to the kitchen– she’ll help me lose weight.
And Middle, how about your financial future? Melinda Gates?
Suppose those rabbis need a lasting supply of congregants. 🙂
It’s no feat to hook up with a multi-millionaire; just be prepared to pay your own bills.
I thought the Fiorina part of this mythical woman would take care of the financial future. I’d definitely consider Abigail Johnson who seems cut of a softer cloth.
If I had to lose Lee Miller, I’d pick Margaret Bourke-White over Arbus any day.
Also, I said “Cheryl Crow” but I’d certainly consider Allison Krauss.
Martha Stewart. (She’s a thinner version of the concentration camp commandant in ‘Seven Beauties’
That has to be one of the most accurate and yet funniest comments ever.
TM, does your wife know about your, uhmmm, fantasies?
What fantasies? My wife is unique, special and entirely irreplaceable. I definitely married up.
Then again, it would be nice if she had, I dunno, 0.2% of Abigail Johnson’s net worth…
If she’s unique, then to you her value is higher than twenty-six thousand grand.
I hear Fido’s trimmed Abby Johnson’s wings– old man Ned’s shoes are proving hard to fill. On the other hand, Abby’s a product of Boston College, and as such, possesses a unique set of…. talents, albeit not necessarily of the financial variety.
Um, Froylein, I said “it would be nice if she had” and I didn’t say I was interested in Ms. Johnson. You’re missing the fun in the fun here.
Besides, 0.2% of $13,000,000,000 is $26,000,000 and I would indeed be very glad if that sum were in my wife’s possession.
Tom, I know little about Boston College, so can’t relate to the special “talents” that you mention. Besides, even if she’s not performing as well as her father, as far as I know, she did quite well earlier on. It may be that they’ve grown so much that it’s just more difficult to manage the business.
Hmmm, TM, twenty-six thousand grand = 26,000*1,000=26,000,000. It’s been a while, but afterall one of my majors was maths. 🙂
I just use my math skills to figure out percentages of Abigail Johnson’s wealth.
If I ever hit the lottery, I’ll share some with you.
Middle, oh for the good old days of Peter Lynch….
That’s what a lot of Fidelity portfolios are saying (between the lines, of course) to their owners quite a bit lately.
Middle,
I’m sure your wife is all of those rolled into one. She is a lucky woman.
😉