Little Mosque S2E14 – Welcome to Mercy

Tags

gender roles, ideal life, learning Torah, obligations, public prayer, tv series review, tzniut, women

Sarah is acting mayor for ten days. During this time Joe runs over the sign at the town entrance, Sarah gets a new one that has many languages on it – but no English. Yassir is relegated to be the pretty face next to the mayor and launches his own campaign to teach people how to use tools. McGee takes up painting and Amaar has to pretend to like the results.

Best quote:

Fatima: About that sign.
Sarah: Oh, don’t tell me you want Nigerian on that sign.
Fatima: Of course not. I want Yuruba, what we speak in Nigeria.

This episode takes a satirical look at gender roles. Sarah is doing business with the men, while Yassir has drinks with the spouses. We have Yassir behaving irrationally ("like a woman") when Sarah criticizes his campaign and in the same episode have him being the stereotypical man who does stuff with tools. The episode is more comedy than anything and does not provide us with information on how gender roles are viewed in Islam, but I want to talk a bit about gender roles in Judaism.

First off, this is a highly controversial topic and probably many people won’t agree with what I am writing. Traditionally, Judaism is very gendered and prescribes different roles for the two genders. Women and men have different religious obligations. While both are required to pray, only men are required to pray in "public", i.e., in a group. That women are not required to do so, leads to their traditional exclusion from various roles that are reserved for those who have the requirement of public prayer (i.e., men): women do not count for the quorum of 10 men required for a prayer service, women do not lead services, women do not read from the Torah, women do not put on Tallit and Tefilin. Nowadays, this is still the way prayer works in many traditional orthodox communities. In some modern orthodox communities and in other streams of Judasim, women do some or all of the above. And many (non-orthodox) synagogues have practically erased all gender differences in rituals.

The different roles (and probably a good dose of historical discrimination of women and sexism) are reflected in non-ritual parts of Judaism as well. When we look at "preferred lives" for men and women, there is the ideal that women take care of the house and children and men learn Torah. Women are mothers, men are learners. The role of women is not unimportant, the home is the place where lots of Jewish rituals happen. But what if a women does not want or cannot have children? The ideal role of men is different from what Westerners usually associate with traditional male roles (feeding the family). But what if a man is not made to be a learner? And then there is the whole issue of whether it is permissible for a woman to fill the man’s role of learning Torah. Hence the hot debate in orthodoxy about whether women can be rabbis (the non-orthodox movements have long decided that yes they can). If you wonder whether women can learn non-religious stuff – that is usually not a question. Orthodox women are doctors, lawyers, you-name-its. Some circles prioritize men’s learning so much that it’s the women who earn the money for the family and the men learn Torah full-time.

It is a pity that we haven’t seen more about Islam’s vision of gender in this episode, but I would guess that – like Judaism – there is some discrepancy between Western egalitarian values and traditional role models. And while there is definitely a defensible basis in Jewish/Muslim thought and we maybe shouldn’t throw all of this away, the concepts are probably influenced by any number of things besides Judaism/Islam (from traditional sexism to making a statement against the sexualization of secular society). There has been a lot of discussion and change going on about this topic in the last few decades and I doubt that we have reached the end of it.

Advertisements

Kol isha

Tags

kol isha, singing, tzniut

Many have heard of the prohibition in Judaism for a man to hear a woman sing, called kol isha. The source for this is in the Talmud:

Shemuel said: The voice of a woman is nakedness (kol b’isha erva) as it says (Song of Songs 2:14) ‘for your voice is sweet and your countenance comely.’
(Talmud Berakhot 24a)

There are a few questions associated with this prohibition. What is the scope of the prohibition? Is it always prohibited or only sometimes? What exactly counts as the "voice" of a woman?

The topic is broad, but the general consensus in orthodoxy is that the prohibition applies at all times (even though it is stated in the Talmud in the context of praying the Shma), but it is only a woman’s singing that is prohibited, not speaking in general. If rationale behind the prohibition is that a woman’s voice will lead men to sin, it makes sense to allow normal talk, since all men are used to hearing women talk during normal life.

So what about singing? Some people say any singing even of girls is prohibited, but there are several possible leniencies in situations where it is unlikely that listening to a woman sing will lead a man to sin. Many people allow the voice of family members. Some authorities say that it is permitted if the man does not know what the woman looks like, e.g., on the radio. Another case that some authorities say is ok, is when the content of the song is definitely not sexual in any way, e.g., a shabat song, funeral song or lullaby. And finally, allowances can be made if there is a group of women singing together as "two voices cannot be distinguished".

What is clear in any case is, that the prohibition only applies to men. Women may hear other women sing without problems. There are actual all-women-bands who perform only for women audiences, e.g., the Bulletproof Stockings. So if a woman has talent as a singer, there are ways she can develop this talent.

A few links:
Chaburas: Kol Isha part 1, part 2
Michael Makovi: A New Hearing for Kol Ishah

Verses on modesty – Part 2

Tags

dress, inner beauty, inside, Psalms 45:14, source text, the glory of the princess is inside, tzniut

The second verse is from the Psalms:

All of the honor of the daughter of the King is within.
(Psalms 45:14 as quoted for example in Dina Coopersmith: Beneath the Surface, A Deeper Look at Modesty)

This verse is usually interpreted as an injunction for women to "de-emphasize their bodies in order to emphasize that which is their real beauty: their inner strengths, their souls." (from this article which is one example among many). The texts adress women as they are (more than men) prone to "dress to impress" or to show off their body.

I think this is generally a good message. But I have just now for the first time read the complete Psalm and I just don’t see how you can get that message from the context. The Psalmist sings "concerning a king" (verse 2) and enumerates all sorts of positive things about that king (verses 3-10). He then encourages a princess, desired by the king, to go to the king (verses 11-13). He then describes a bit more positive stuff about the princess marrying the king (verses 14-17). And ends with a general "we praise you" (I’d guess this male-form "you" could refer to G-d).

In this context, the following translation that Mechon Mamre gives makes a lot more sense (just for fun, if you want to see more translations, although most, maybe all of them seem to be Christian, here’s a list):

All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace; her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold.
(Psalms 45:14, JPS English translation from 1917)

Curious! So is the princess’s glory inside or is the princess who is inside glorious? Let’s look at the Hebrew ourselves to at least see where the translations are coming from, even if we may not be qualified to decide. This is the phrase in Hebrew: כָּל-כְּבוּדָּה בַת-מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה

What do we have? There is בַת-מֶלֶךְ ("bat melech") which quite unambiguosly means "the daughter of the king", i.e., the princess. We also have כָּל-כְּבוּדָּה ("kol kvuda"). The word "kavod" is often translated as "honor", it can also be "glory". The final "ah" (the letter ה) is a female possessive marker which makes the whole thing "her honor/glory". I think it is a noun, not an adjective, so I don’t know how it could be understood as "glorious", but that’s out of my league, maybe it can be. The word "kol" (written with kaf, כ) is "all" or "every". Combining this with "her honor/glory" could be something like "all her honor/glory" I guess. Finally, פְּנִימָה ("pnima") means "within" or "inside". I have no idea how we are to infer "inside the palace". So, we have three parts: [the princess], [all her honor/glory] and [inside].

There is no word for "is" in Hebrew, so we have to insert this somewhere ourselves where it makes sense. We could do "[all her glory/honor] of [the princess] is [inside]" or "[all her glory/honor] is for/of [the princess] who is [inside]" (which you’d translate to real English using an adjective: "[all glorious] is [the princess] who is [inside]"). My knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is insufficient to decide whether both are legitimate readings of the original or one is grammatically impossible, so let’s stop here.

So, can we make the verse about modesty? Regardless of translation, when reading the context, I just don’t see it. When taking the verse alone, even if the verse says that the glorious/rich/famous/whatever princess is inside we could argue that she is only glorious/rich/famous/whatever because or while she is inside. Bit of a stretch maybe, but possible.

Verses on modesty – Part 1

Tags

dress, humility, Micah 6:8, source text, tzniut

This (very old) blog post got me investigating sources for the concept of "tzniut" ("modesty") and what is a blog for if not sharing this stuff. So this is the first source, from the prophets:

It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.
(Micah 6:8)

The phrase "walking humbly" in the refers to men and women (it may also be only men, but I’d have to know more about the context to be sure). It describes a general mindset or attitude towards life and the commandments. A person should be humble, not draw too much attention to himself/herself. This is reflected in clothes by not wearing anything too scandalous, too flashy or in other ways attention-grabbing. I’d say it extends to not wearing something that screams "expensive" or something that is making a radical political statement, etc. Men are just as susceptible to pride, arrogance and egotism as women, so the verse is relevant to both genders.

The possible extreme this verse can be taken to is obvious: absolute conformity. If it is not modest to stand out in any way at all, we’d all need to dress the same. We need to recognize that there is a difference between legitimate ways to express individuality and attention-seeking [though where to draw the line in practice may be very challenging, especially if teenagers are involved!]

Women, Beit Din and the Mikvah

Tags

beit din, conversion, immersion, mikvah, tzniut

One of the arguments for modesty is that men can’t stop to think of women in a sexual way. So why can male rabbis be in the mikva with a female conversion candidate? Doesn’t this counter all the things we are taught about modesty? (Shoshanna Jaskoll: Make up your minds on modesty).

One argument that it does not is that the situation is the same as for a woman seeing a male doctor. It is allowed to see a doctor of the opposite gender. Supposedly the doctor can maintain a professional distance, so the situation has nothing sexual. I agree and I have seen male doctors with no second thoughts. But I guess that a doctor has seen hundreds of naked patients and as a result is very used to it. The situation with a beit din is very different. Orthodox rabbis are not used to seeing naked people all day, they might do a few conversions a year. Also, in general they remove themselves from anything related to sexuality, which makes a naked woman in the room even more unusual. So I don’t think this is a good analogy.

I am undecided on the issue of male rabbis in the mikva, but in general I argue against excessive modesty. I do think that it is possible for men to not think of sex when they see a woman. Maybe not for 16 year old hormone-crazed teens, but grown men should be able to ignore the body of a woman and talk to them normally. Evidence for this can be found in the millions of asexual social interactions between men and women in a workplace or family setting.

On the other hand, I can imagine that certain things can cause a man’s thoughts to go down the way of fantasizing about a women. And I guess that a naked woman in a bath is one of these things. Many people argue that the rabbis don’t actually see anything inappropriate, only the head or there is a robe or something. I am not sure it makes a difference, it is the situation in itself, not what is actually seen that makes it weird.

The point of this post? I don’t know what to think. Three clothed men and a naked woman in a bath makes a setting for a late-night movie I guess, but I don’t actually think anything inappropriate will happen with a beit din and a conversion candidate. I only know that I would be very uncomfortable and though I would really like to convert, I am not looking forward to the mikvah experience.

You Can Do It In a Skirt

Tags

fashion, skirt, tzniut, you can do it in a skirt

Just found this blog You Can Do It In a Skirt and thought it’s cute. I can check off hiking, climbing a tree, climbing around a playground, swimming (see my last post), horseback riding. Ok, I’m cheating a bit, sometimes I’m wearing a dress that goes not quite go until the knee over pants. Still I get strange comments from people, so that should count. I don’t think I have ever been hanging upside down in a skirt though. Maybe when I have kids…

I went swimming

Tags

burquini, modest swimwear, swimming, tzniut

I went swimming with friends. This statement in itself wouldn’t be too exciting for most people, but for me it is. I haven’t been swimming with friends for some years now. On the few occasions I was invited to a party at the pool with friends I put my feet into the water and no more.

I have always been rather modest and I never liked myself in a swimsuit. So Jewish modesty rules gave me sort of the excuse not to wear it again. But the price was not swimming. Which was sort of fine with me, but my boyfriend didn’t like it too much. So he got me a "burquini", the muslim version of a modest swimsuit (we didn’t find anything Jewish that was not horribly expensive with overseas shipping).

It consists of leggings that go to the ankle, a dress that goes to the knee with sleeves to the wrist and a hijab (veil). So I look very muslim. The veil is actually rather uncomfortable so I took it off after some time. The only annoying thing is that the skirt goes up in the water, I need to find a way to fix this. But apart from that I rather liked the experience and I felt fine. And I didn’t get any strange comments (but after all, these were my friends). When I wear it to a public pool I’ll report back.

Lev Tahor Documentaries

Tags

cult, documentary, extremism, haredim, hyper tzniut, jewish burka, Lev Tahor, politics, shals, tzniut, video

I don’t usually post on politics, but I wanted to link these documentaries about Lev Tahor:

Under the veil of Lev Tahor by Global’s 16×9, aired on February 22nd, 2014 (you can watch at the link or on youtube).

Rabbi of the Pure Hearts: Inside Lev Tahor by CBC’s The Fifth Estate, aired on February 28, 2014 (you can watch at the link or on youtube)

The Lev Tahor cult (כת לב טהור), by Amnon Levi of True Faces (פנים אמיתיות) on Arutz 10, aired on November 2012 (you can watch on youtube with English subtitles Part 1, Part 2)

Horrible!

Going overboard with tzniut (fun video)

Tags

chumra, fun, tzniut, video

Men’s responsabilities

Tags

dress, gender differences, men, public transport, tzniut, women

Yesterday I cited part of a ruling by Rav Moshe Feinstein about a man sitting next to a woman in public transport. Here is another part of this ruling (emphasis mine):

[…] even if it brings about lustful thoughts. He needs to fight against these thoughts by distracting himself and thinking about words of Torah as the Rambam (Issurei Bi’ah 21:19) advises. […] However if he knows that he has a lustful nature and these circumstances will cause him to be sexual aroused – then it is prohibited even if he needs to travel on the buses and subways for his job. But G-d forbid that a person should be that way. This is a result of idleness as it states in Kesubos (49) concerning a woman but it applies also to a man. Consequently he needs to be involved in Torah study and work and not be that way. (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 2:14)

We can argue about women’s clothing all day. But for some given man and his standard there will always be women that do not meet it (if only because there are so many opinions). So the responsability for his behaviour is always on the man and he must learn to deal with his thoughts.

Some men claim they cannot. I am not a man, so I cannot tell them how they should feel. But it should be possible for men to control their thoughts in normal, every-day circumstances (e.g., public transport, crowds, shopping, children). Rav Feinstein agrees that not being able to control his thoughts is a) not a desirable state and b) this needs to be changed. Bottom line, this is not a valid argument and men who use it to restrict women should be ashamed of themselves.

Gender segregation on public transport

Tags

chumra, gender differences, judgemental, public transport, segregation, tzniut, women

There has been much noise about gender segregation on busses in Israel. Most authorities seem to agree that it is permissible to sit next to the other gender on public transport, so there is no obligation to have segregated busses. Individuals may of course decide for themselves if it is a problem for them.

Two halachic opinions:

Consequently there is no need to refrain from traveling on subways and buses to go to work when they are very crowded and it is not possible to avoid contact with women. That is because contact without intent for pleasure that results from the inevitable crowding and pushing is not done in a licentious manner (derech chiba)…. Similarly there is no prohibition for this reason to sit next to a woman when there is no other place available. That is because this is also not done for the sake of pleasure (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 2:14)

Seemingly, from an aspect of modesty, segregating buses and streets is advantageous; however, its damage exceeds its benfits, for a number of reasons:
First, all issues of ‘hiddur mitzvah’ should be personal acts, […]
Secondly, when some people are negatively affected by the ‘hiddur’, the damage caused is immeasurably greater than any benefits. […]
Thirdly, this type of policy harms proper family behavior. […]
Fourthly, when dealing with the laws of modesty, special care must be taken, for sometimes additional laws are liable to arouse more forbidden thoughts. […]
(Rabbi Melamed: Gender Segregation on Buses is Not Jewish Law)

More opinions can be found in Yeranen Yaakov: Men and Women on Buses – Contemporary Rabbis’ Opinions.

As last words, I want to add that there is never a reason to be rude or to embarras someone. It’s very easy. If you get on a bus and look for a seat, just chose a seat next to someone your own gender. If there is none, stand. If there is an empty seat next to yours and someone of the other gender sits down, keep focused on your book or get up (if you think this is rude, offer your seat to someone old, say you’ll anyway get off soon, …).

Modesty and self-worth

Tags

children, obsession, self-worth, the spirit of the law, tzniut

I came across an interesting thought I would like to share:

[…]
Instead of focusing on the breastbone/elbows/knees, they should be building up girls’ egos,
[…]
Rabbi Yisroel Reisman NEVER talks about tznius, because he knows the damage its misrepresentation has caused. If a child has learned their other subjects properly, if they have been valued and ordered to value herself, then she will dress accordingly. (Comment by Princess Lea on June 6, 2013 at 10:36 AM)

Will kids learn modesty alone? I don’t know. It probably depends a lot on the environment, group pressure, role models, etc. There is probably no guarantee that a child will learn the values you want it to learn. But again, there are never absolute guarantees. On the other hand, if the decision to dress modestly is not forced from the outside, but comes from within, it will not feel like a burden, but be a positive force. And as such it has a higher chance to hold even when the child grows up and enters a different environment (like university, work, where the chance of very immodest general culture is high).

Immodest focus on modesty

Tags

children, haredim, objectification, obsession, self-worth, shades of grey, the spirit of the law, tzniut, women

Is it modest to talk about modesty all the time? Or, better said, is it helpful to discuss skirt lengths over and over, if the goal is to get people to focus on the character instead of the body? I think not. This is why (feel free to add to the list).

First, if modesty is misrepresented as being only about skirt length and measurements, the idea behind it is lost. I can dress totally immodest within the borders of tzniut measurements, it is near impossible to define "too tight" for example. On the other hand people can be totally modest while not complying with every measurement.

Second, if you talk about a topic all the time, you make it an issue where otherwise there might not be one. If I order you not to think about a kangaroo, you will certainly think about one. For some protest here, people chose the color light green as their identifying color. Before this protest, if you would have asked me if my colleague wore light green yesterday, I wouldn’t have been able to answer you. But now I can, because as soon as I see the color, the protest is on my mind. The same happens when you talk about skirt lengths or colors all the time.

Third, it can damage the self-worth especially of teenage girls. If you are told to hide your body, you could come to see your own body as something shameful (you don’t have to, but some girls might). Of course I am not saying dressing in tank-tops does not damage self-worth. It is in general the connection of self-worth with a way of clothing and being judgemental about it. We need to teach girls to accept their body. Yes, also, that their body is theirs alone and not to be displayed to everyone. But not out of shame, out of respect for it.

Fourth, it objectifies women. If the only time we talk about women is when the topic is modesty, something is very wrong. If a woman is reduced to what parts of her body are covered, it just as objectifying as if she is reduced to what parts of her body she is showing.

A final remark: I do not think the answer is to drop tzniut completely. I dress modestly and I would wish that my hypothetical future children (of both genders) did as well. But I think we are going about this the wrong way.

Teaching Tzniut

Tags

children, chinuch, gender differences, judgemental, objectification, obsession, orthodox judaism, shades of grey, teaching, the spirit of the law, tzniut, women

Tzniut (or tznius) is a word that gets tossed around a lot. Tzniut is mostly used to refer the rules of modest dress, sometimes modest behaviour is included. Ideally, dressing and behaving modestly makes it possible to focus on the character of a person, without being distracted by the appearance or sexuality. I think most people would agree, that this is desirable. But, is this really the effect the current approach to tzniut has in the very religious communities?

It is easy to understand where the emphasis on tzniut comes from. The modern secular world is obsessed with women’s bodies. Everywhere we go we see advertisements with undressed women. Pretty much all lyrics of radio songs are about love or sex. To see naked or half-naked women in movies is no big deal. And many women dress in skirts that could also be sold as belts and tops that show everything. Is this healthy? Probably not.

As reaction, in the orthodox world, we have ever increasing requirements for women to cover parts of their body. Tzniut is said to be the most important mitzva for women, an immodest woman alledgedly causes all sorts of bad things for her family. But, does this focus on tzniut really have the desired effect? Apparently not, if you take modesty-related news articles as a measure. We have seen religious men spit at little "immodest" girls in Beit Shemesh, we have seen women’s pictures disappear in newspapers, fighting about women’s place in a bus and much more. Somehow, modesty is never modest enough.

My theory is, that if you cover more and more, you increase the sensitivity of the men. No secular Western man would find an exposed ellbow attractive in any way, but a yeshiva boy apparently will. So the focus on sexualility is still there, only shifted to other body parts. And all the talk about (im)modesty only puts apprearence and the gender differences in the front of the mind all the time. Not speaking about the psychological effects for teenagers of both genders if the topic is so prevalent and at the same time so taboo.

I think the goal of modesty is a worthy one. Sexuality is private, it should not be displayed for everyone. Every person should be valued for his or her character, not for the appearance. So how can we teach this to our children in a way that is healthy? I don’t know, but I would like to link a great post by Chana about this topic: Analyzing Myths of Female Beauty: An Alternative Approach To Teaching Tzniut. Read it whole and come back with suggestions.

Shades of Grey in Tzniut

Tags

absolutes, annoying, judgemental, obsession, orthodox judaism, shades of grey, the spirit of the law, tzniut, women

During my first stay in Jerusalem (I was 18 at the time) I once walked through a religious neighbourhood by accident (it was a shortcut). I was not religious at that time, but I wore an ankle-length wrap-skirt out of respect for the holiness of the city. When I walked through that neighbourhood, I was approached by a young women who tried to tell me something. My Hebrew was pretty bad at that time, but after maybe 10 minutes I understood that she wanted to tell me that I should stich up the slit in the skirt, because men might be able to look at my legs through it.

I have two issues here: The first (obivous) issue is of course that it’s none of her business. I don’t want to discuss this here. The other issue is something that has been bothering me in a lot of similar situations. Some girl wears a skirt that is just one inch too short? Immodest! No stockings? Immodest! A slit in a skirt? Immodest!

These very minor infractions in an otherwise very modest outfit lead to the general judgement that this person is immodest. What is missing is the nuances, the shades of grey. Isn’t there a difference between a miniskirt (or better said a broad belt) and a skirt that just barely reaches the knee? Between a bikini top and a loose t-shirt that bares the ellbows?

If we eliminate shades of grey, the person that is judged for the one-inch-too-short skirt might come tomorrow in a bikini – after all, what’s the difference? But we all (at least all sane people) agree that there is a difference. So please, can we stop the nonsense? We are too busy checking the measurable requirements of modest clothing and forget about the spirit. I can be very immodest in clothing that is perfectly fine by the letter of the law (google "hot chanie"). I also can be perfectly modest in a skirt that is a tad too short. It is the spirit that counts, not the exact measurements. There should be some margin of tolerance.