Getting Out of the Pool

As soon as Jewcy contributer Aaron Hamburger suggested writing a piece arguing for the end of the mechitza — the divider between women and men in Orthodox shuls — I know exactly how critics of the story would respond. Superuser Michael Nehora put it succinctly: “If you dislike mechitzas, don't go to a shul with one.”  After all, he says, Hamburger’s not Orthodox, although his brothers are.  Why can’t he (and anyone else discomfited by the implications of splitting a congregation by gender) just go to the local Reform synagogue instead?  If you don’t like the water, why are you still in the pool? Meanwhile, on the Schvitz, Michael Weiss mentions Christopher Hitchens’ take on the critics of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is fast becoming America’s most prominent Islamic apostate with her memoir Infidel.  Hitchens is particularly incensed by Newsweek’s review of the book, which equates the absolutism of Hirsi Ali’s views with the strict Wahhabi Islam she opposes.   Says Newsweek:

Hirsi Ali is more a hero among Islamophobes than Islamic women. That's problematic considering she describes herself in "Infidel" as a woman who "fights for the rights of Muslim women, the enlightenment of Islam and the security of the West." How can you change the lives of your former sisters, and work toward reform, when you've forged a career upon renouncing the religion and insulting its followers?

In other words, how can you complain about the water when you’ve already gotten out of the pool?   I don’t mean to speak for Laurel, but I bet this is what she meant when she wrote about how religion writers are afraid to step on people’s toes.  If you don’t like the religion, leave, we tell critics—but if you leave, you don’t have the right to criticize.  For some reason, both of these arguments are considered equally valid.  Wonder if it’s because they don’t leave much room for criticism either way?