[In light of the recent Bnei Akiva "walkout" disgrace, I decided to speed up writing this post. I hope the point gets across. – aiwac]
In one of the comments to My Obiter Dicta's post on MO, the author asked about the connection between the status of women and MO. What has one got to with the other, he wondered? Well, unfortunately, it has everything to do with MO and the difference between it and the Charedi outlook. Simply put, there is an inverse correlation between rightwing religious stringency and the status of women. The higher the former, the lower the latter. Would that this were not so, but it is.
Hafrada buses, tznius standards that become more insane every year (with more and more RWMO people following suit), obedience brainwashing (esp. in Israeli seminaries) on a level that would not happen in the most stringent boys' yeshiva – these are all the inevitable result of the RW view of women gone haywire. The argument is always the same – avoid nisyonos! Yetser Hara! Having neglected education of women in Europe to the point that a huge number of women assimilated; many are now overcompensating by trying to shove women into an isolation chamber.
Of course, we are told, it is all halacha – woman is erva – her voice, increasingly every inch of her body and more. People who launch this crusade can quote me chapter and verse of all the "right" halachic opinions, no doubt considering the various leniencies to be barely "bedi'eved" and certainly one should aim to hide women as much as possible. The ever-increasing shrinkage of ground for women in the area of the kotel is evidence enough of this. Even in our circles, the aim to separate as many activities as possible grows in strength every year (Recently, they separated psychometric classes!!!!).
In my opinion, the issue of women's ordination and aliyot is entirely secondary and peripheral to this RW crusade to push women out of the public square entirely - out of sight, out of mind. Next to this, the question of "shira chadasha" and Maharat may be interesting from an academic point of view; it may even lead to the breakaway of some of the feminist elite. But the issue of stringent separation and increasing religious misogyny (because that's what it is) outside the shul is something which adversely affects all women, including those who have no interest in changing halachic norms. The main danger for MO women lies not in feminism, but in a renewed chauvinism. Not in the minority of "gender studies" women who make a lot of noise, but in the Rabbis and teachers who consider WOMAN to be the cause of all disaster.
I am not a Blu Greenberg-ite. I know that even when there is a Rabbinic will, there is not always a halachic way. But I refuse to swallow the idea that every last halachic norm of tzniut of the 16th century is unchanging and untouchable. I refuse to accept that women's singing is always erva, that it is justified to keep covering women up far beyond what is necesarry. I refuse to accept this method of chumra-by-proxy where self-important men make themselves feel holier-than-thou by making the women cover up rather than work on themselves.
If this makes me post-Orthodox, then so be it. I'm not going to watch this abuse any longer and keep silent.
7 comments:
link to bnei akiva walkout?
you write that the bnei akiva walkout stimulated this post, but i fail to see a connection.
i fail to see a legitimate problem with bnei akivas position.
i do not know enough about the halakhos of kol isha, nor about singing that would occur at the lamed-hey ceremony.
but prima facie, there is a halakhic consideration to be taken into account: is it permissible for women to sing in front of men?
Your criticism of those who "[consider] the various leniencies to be barely bedi'eved" is on target. But it cannot honestly be applied to live singing by a single woman in front of men, which (as discussed here) does not seem to allow for any mitigating factors. Choosing to simply reject a unanimously agreed upon halacha does not make you "Open Orthodox", rather, it puts you on the left wing of Conservative theology.
Shlomo,
You might want to read your own source more carefully. Also, read my own post more carefully. I said that I don't think it is always erva, and your own link proves as much, at least according to some authorities.
Also, this was a "walkout" on a mixed choir. So a "clear-cut" case this most certainly was not.
It may be more edifying for you to attack and label people, but life tends to be more complicated.
Anon,
My problem is not just this incident, but the general trend. Just a year ago (I think), Lifshitz college took down face portraits of women so that bachurim wouldn't have to look at them. This walkout only strengthens the impression that we are going the same route as the kono'im.
Yes, there is a prima facie halachic issue, but there are lenient opinions, and I think that it was necesarry to be somech on them (even if only bedi'eved) to avoid hillul hashem.
I don't think I can describe to you just how much damage this incident has caused to MO Jewry here. If this were a clear-cut violation, I'd say fine, let the chips fall where they may.
But i's not, and halachic decisions in machloket cases with public impact need to be measured not just by the formal yardstick, but also the hillul hashem that could ensue.
thanks for supplying the link, and for your response.
you speak in generalities, in terms of policy. but there are so many conundrums your position gives rise to.
for example, what if the lamed-heh commemoration included women dressed unacceptably from a religious point of view [choose your definition of unacceptable]? what if the program would include rabbi or tradition bashing?
i think it is necessary to draw lines in the sand, and hillul hashem is not a blanket heter. i agree that there is room to be flexible, especially in a bediavad situation [that is, if you are already sitting in the audience and women begin singing...]
you position sounds fine in theory, but in praxis there are many, many problems.
i wish you would discuss the limits of your policy.
great blog!
Also, this was a "walkout" on a mixed choir.
If true, that does change things. You will have to forgive me for not knowing that fact, which is not mentioned in your post or in the article you link to. Israeli memorial services typically include solos from both male and female singers, so I assumed that was the case here.
My problem is not just this incident, but the general trend.
Just don't object to a trend using an example which is not actually part of the trend, it hurts your point.
P.S. It was you who called the word "Conservative" an "attack", not me.
OK, Shlomo, I changed the link to a ynet article that fully describes what happened. The "typical" scenario could have been avoided as was made clear at the end of the article.
PS It's an attack whether you call it such or not.
Anon,
You are right that "hillul hashem" is not a "blanket heter" and I never intended it as such. My point was rather that this IS a very serious consideration when making a ruling on a divided (or divisive) issue.
Post a Comment