A connection among bans?
Item 1: A number of years ago, someone informed the Vaad Harabonim of Queens (known best for its reputable kashrut supervision in the New York City metropolitan area) that a young Queens girl was planning to have her Bat Mitzvah celebration at a women's tefillah group. The Vaad issued a statement banning women's tefillah groups. (The Bat Mitzvah girl and her family got around the prohibition by move the celebration to a home in the Bronx, outside of the Queens Vaad's jurisdiction.)
Item 2: The National Council of Young Israel recently banned women's tefillah groups and forbade its affiliated congregations from having women serve as synagogue presidents. I've read two things about this (sorry I can't find any links): A) Outside of the New York City metro area, the local Young Israel synagogue may be the only (formerly?) Modern Orthodox synagogue in town, leaving women (and men) who disagree with these decisions nowhere else to go. B) Since the National Council often provides start-up money for new YI synagogues, they're in a position to be able to threaten non-compliant congregations with confiscation of property.
Item 3: "The Shaigetz," a British and Chassidish blogger, has posted that, in some Chareidi communities in Britain, women are forbidden to drive on the grounds that driving is immodest. He asked why it was considered immodest for a woman to drive, but not to be alone in car with a man (the driver) or ride public transportation for hours and be ogled by every male in sight.
Item 4: In some of the most extreme Chareidi communities, women are taught from copies of sacred texts because they're not permitted to read directly from the actual books. (Sorry I can't remember on whose blog I read that, but see the related comments here).
Item 5: In some of the most extreme Chareidi communities, women have been banned from performing, even before an all-female audience, on tzniut (modesty) grounds. You can read about the latest ban here. No, I don't think this ban was a hoax. I read a letter to the editor several months ago in the New York Jewish Press by a woman who'd abandoned a career as lead singer in her own performing group when she became a baalat t'shuvah ("returnee" to Orthodox Judaism). In an attempt to continue her career within the bounds of the prohibition (accepted by some, but not all, in the Orthodox community) against a man hearing a woman sing (kol isha), she volunteered to organize a fundraising performance by women for women. The charity lost money on the show because the men of her community forbade their wives to attend, on the grounds that it was immodest for women to sing in public, period, even for an all-female audience. Still hoping to salvage something of her career, she then performed a piano concert, to avoid the kol isha issue. The men refused to attend on the grounds that they weren't allowed even to look at a woman's clothing, much less the woman who was wearing said clothing. Her entire musical career having been reduced to giving private piano lessons (presumably to girls only), she lamented what she considered the unnecessary strictness of her chosen community.
The connection among all of these bans, in my opinion, is that all of them treat women as men's property, and attempt to keep women under men's strict control by denying them any independence or leadership roles of any kind. In some segments of the Orthodox community, women may not pray by themselves as a group. In some, they are also forbidden to be president of a congregation. In some of the strictest Chareidi communities, women may not travel alone and/or may not study sacred texts by themselves (presumably lest they learn to make their own halachic decisions) and/or even entertain one another. They must be kept as completely dependent on men as possible (except, of course, for earning a living for their husbands in kollel).
As an American who grew up during the era of the Civil Rights Movement, I'm well acquainted with the idea that certain classes of people must be "kept in their place." :(
Item 2: The National Council of Young Israel recently banned women's tefillah groups and forbade its affiliated congregations from having women serve as synagogue presidents. I've read two things about this (sorry I can't find any links): A) Outside of the New York City metro area, the local Young Israel synagogue may be the only (formerly?) Modern Orthodox synagogue in town, leaving women (and men) who disagree with these decisions nowhere else to go. B) Since the National Council often provides start-up money for new YI synagogues, they're in a position to be able to threaten non-compliant congregations with confiscation of property.
Item 3: "The Shaigetz," a British and Chassidish blogger, has posted that, in some Chareidi communities in Britain, women are forbidden to drive on the grounds that driving is immodest. He asked why it was considered immodest for a woman to drive, but not to be alone in car with a man (the driver) or ride public transportation for hours and be ogled by every male in sight.
Item 4: In some of the most extreme Chareidi communities, women are taught from copies of sacred texts because they're not permitted to read directly from the actual books. (Sorry I can't remember on whose blog I read that, but see the related comments here).
Item 5: In some of the most extreme Chareidi communities, women have been banned from performing, even before an all-female audience, on tzniut (modesty) grounds. You can read about the latest ban here. No, I don't think this ban was a hoax. I read a letter to the editor several months ago in the New York Jewish Press by a woman who'd abandoned a career as lead singer in her own performing group when she became a baalat t'shuvah ("returnee" to Orthodox Judaism). In an attempt to continue her career within the bounds of the prohibition (accepted by some, but not all, in the Orthodox community) against a man hearing a woman sing (kol isha), she volunteered to organize a fundraising performance by women for women. The charity lost money on the show because the men of her community forbade their wives to attend, on the grounds that it was immodest for women to sing in public, period, even for an all-female audience. Still hoping to salvage something of her career, she then performed a piano concert, to avoid the kol isha issue. The men refused to attend on the grounds that they weren't allowed even to look at a woman's clothing, much less the woman who was wearing said clothing. Her entire musical career having been reduced to giving private piano lessons (presumably to girls only), she lamented what she considered the unnecessary strictness of her chosen community.
The connection among all of these bans, in my opinion, is that all of them treat women as men's property, and attempt to keep women under men's strict control by denying them any independence or leadership roles of any kind. In some segments of the Orthodox community, women may not pray by themselves as a group. In some, they are also forbidden to be president of a congregation. In some of the strictest Chareidi communities, women may not travel alone and/or may not study sacred texts by themselves (presumably lest they learn to make their own halachic decisions) and/or even entertain one another. They must be kept as completely dependent on men as possible (except, of course, for earning a living for their husbands in kollel).
As an American who grew up during the era of the Civil Rights Movement, I'm well acquainted with the idea that certain classes of people must be "kept in their place." :(
posted by Shira Salamone at 7:44 AM
9 Comments:
Item 4: In some of the most extreme Chareidi communities, women are taught from copies of sacred texts because they're not permitted to read directly from the actual books. (Sorry I can't remember on whose blog I read that, but see the related comments here).
Perhaps it was here or here?
The Wolf
Wow, thanks so much for those links, BrooklynWolf! Yep, those were the posts in which I read about women studying from photocopies.
By the way, DS9 is my favorite Star Trek series, too. I also appreciate the comment (to the "frummies as Ferengi" post) that the extreme Chareidi are so blinded by ideology that they won't change their views concerning women even when those views result in harm to the entire community. That's why some of their leaders (especially in Israel?) have forbidden women from earner higher college degrees even though a limit on women's higher education severely limits the career opportunities of women, who are often their families' primary income earners, and contributes to the poverty of the Chareidi community.
As a thoroughly modern Orthodox man who davens at a shul with a woman president and a women's tefillah group, i say feh on all those things. What naarishkeit.
I also learn midrash with my 10 y.o. daughter (oh noes, he'z teaching da Oral Torah to a girl).
This isn't Orthodoxy. It's fanatacism.
I'm too much of an Erev Shabbat hurry to give this the time it deserves.
So, Shira PLEASE before making pronouncements, sit down with someone each time and look at the relevant halachic sources. Then, at least you'll know what you are actually objecting to/contending with.
For one thing, much of this isn't new. National Council of Young Israel has followed the instruction of Rav Moshe Feinstein on women's roles as president for a very long time. Yes, there are other well-considered approaches. But there position isn't mere chauvinism, as you would seem to dismiss it.
More importantly, I want to state loud and clear that you basic assumption is simply wrong. Women are not now, and have NEVER been considered property in halacha. A broad, thorough understanding of halacha reveals that. The people who use this canard are usually (from my estimate) driven by political agendas, well-entrenched biases, and (in most cases) pretty shallow scholarship.
Please, there are plenty of really good Torah teachers in the NY area. Men and women. Go learn with one of them BEFORE making pronouncements about policy in Torah. Of course you may still disagree, even vehemently. But at least you'll be critical of what really is; not some thin misunderstanding.
Oh,and yes I looked at the original you linked to at Wolf's blog. That article was the opinion of a crackpot in a community of like-minded people. It is totally unrepresentative of a normative, historically established approach in Torah.
Hey, a big Chabad rabbi (Cunin) can be seen on film in his West Coast shul during the recent Mumbai crisis saying clearly 'the Rebbe runs this world.' Yes, there are some crackpots who believe this. But their understanding is outside the pale of normative Judaism. Are you going to tell me that because you can hear approval of this in Crown Heights, that it is an historically established position in Torah?
Again, women have never been considered property in Torah. Go to Drisha, or the Stern College women's kollel or some such place (or learn with a man if you like) and learn the material.
jdub, can you argue against Rav Moshe Feinsteins position based on it's merits and sources (I can, and do); or can you just say 'feh' ?
I can and do, but not on a blog. On a blog, I say "feh." The naarishkeit comment was on some of the other stuff, and the NCYI imposing restrictions on member shuls and threatening to take away their property. (I have friends in an out of town YI for whom this is a major concern.)
pls pardon poor typing--2 broken wrists. see dec. 12 post. (sorry-- can't create links in comments at moment)
mord, ur right--i shouldn't pay so much attention 2 crackpots
"Shira PLEASE before making pronouncements, sit down with someone each time and look at the relevant halachic sources. Then, at least you'll know what you are actually objecting to/contending with."
guilty as charged. see my recent "lazy learner" post
pls pardon poor typing--2 broken wrists. see dec. 12 post. (sorry-- can't create links in comments at moment)
mord, ur right--i shouldn't pay so much attention 2 crackpots
"Shira PLEASE before making pronouncements, sit down with someone each time and look at the relevant halachic sources. Then, at least you'll know what you are actually objecting to/contending with."
guilty as charged. see my recent "lazy learner" post
Post a Comment
<< Home