The ad tells the story of a girl from seminar who took an afternoon nap on the couch.. When she woke up she could not find her tights/stockings. After looking all over, she gave up and sat back down on the couch. When she suddenly had to scratch her leg she realized she had been wearing her tights all along! From scratching too much she had caused a 'run' in her stockings, but said no big deal since nobody can see it anyway.
The ad then closes off saying it is prohibited according to all the poskim, not even as any chumra but as the main halacha, to wear see-through or skin-colored stockings because it is like going outside with the legs uncovered. The ad is sponsored in the merit of someone, via the organization Keter Malchut.
A Mother in Israel pointed out to me that Keter Malchut is the organization that Bruria Keren, the main Burqa Lady - the one serving a four year jail sentence for abusing her children, had been involved in.
Without debating or analyzing the actual halacha of whether this is a chumra or not, or if all the poskim say so (really - do ALL the poskim ever agree on anything?) or not, or any other aspect of this, just knowing that this is promoted by the people behind the burqas one must wonder if there is an ulterior motive.
Besides for that, while humorous, I thought the style and tone was demeaning and childish, and the story fairly stupid. I am surprised that in today's world, this is the sort of advertising they invest their money in thinking it will work. Maybe it does work, but I would be surprised to hear that an ad like this is effective.
She has to *look* to tell if she's wearing stockings? Does she have reduced sensation in the nerve endings of her legs?
ReplyDeleteAnd who actually has skin precisely the color of "nude" stockigs? Not *this* white girl.
Why do the charediim address women as daughters? In this case and recently in the New York posting that 'daughters' should step aside for me.
ReplyDeleteA) it shows a demeaning condescending attitude towards women, they are not real adult people, they are daughters.
b) It implies an unhealthy sexual nature to refer to all women as daughters. In both cases they are discussing modesty which is a sexual issue. To refer to general women in a sexual issue as your daughter is a bit sick.
The Way:
ReplyDeleteThe word for daughters and girls is the same in Hebrew, same with sons and boys. It's condescending to use the word for adult women, though.
Seeing as how they are talking to women they should use the word nashiim or mvugarot. The word for daughters is banot, the word for girls is yaldot.
ReplyDeleteMy points stand.
In Israeli Hebrew "Yaladot" would normally be translated as "infants", not "girls".
ReplyDelete"Banot" and "Banim" are common terms for older people, e.g. "Ben Torh" or "Bnei Yisrael doesn't imply children.
Way - as everyone else said, banot is common usage. Though I dont think it is being used for real adults - they would then probably say "nashim". they are talking about teenagers most likely. plus the reference to "seminar" indicates that as well.
ReplyDeleteit is condescending, but i dont think the use of the word "banot" is indicative of that
yes, if you use the word in a group setting, like bnei yisrael or ben torah it is acceptable because you are talking about a 'group protagonist.'
ReplyDeleteHowever, when talking to adults it is disrespectful to refer to them as a ben or bnot.
Even if you want to use the more general term of girls for banot, do you address women as girls? What does that say about someone who addresses women as girls. Boht the condescending and sexual disturbance stand as valid points.
Which is exactly the point they are making. These women exist in relation to their value or danger to men. They do not exist on their own nor do they have importance on their own. Their value is entirely dependent as girls in a relationship with Men (not boys).
The Way:
ReplyDeleteBat Yisrael simply means a Jewish woman - it doesn't have any demeaning connotation in Hebrew.
The ad is addressed to high school girls, so nashim would be inappropriate. Mevugarot means "adult women" and no one addresses anyone that way. Yeladot means little girls. Teachers of all grades, in religious and secular schools, refer to their female students as banot and male students as banim. The term is not the slightest bit condescending.
ReplyDeletedlz, it doesn't say bat yisrael, it says banot. so your comment has no application.
ReplyDeleteMother, Think of it this way, if a teacher or principal addressed a group of high schoolers and called them girls or ladies or young women.
As a teacher I can tell you that nowadays we are taught to address students as students or a more adult title, like ladies and gentlemen or class or people for a general setting. Calling people girls and boys is absolutely condescending. Especially if these girls/women/ladies are the object of these men's repressed desire. So does it sound better to say, Little girl, im scared of your sexuality or does it sound better to say, Women, we are scared of your sexuality.
Regardless of the term used to address these little girl minxes, the topic itself is dehumanizing and condescending and demeaning.
I'm surprised no one else addressed this point yet. Assuming you would believe this notice to be correct, wouldn't this affect the entire sheitel business? Can't the same argument be made for assuring sheitels?
ReplyDeleteI believe this goes a long way to show how people pick and choose their chumras/halachot. I also agree with The Way that the terminology is demeaning and sexually charged.
I was once teaching a class of (very frum) high school girls in England and I called them "people!" to which they replied, "we're not "people" - we're girls!" What I find more offensive is calling all unmarried women, even those in their 20s, 30s etc "girls" whereas a married 19year old becomes a "lady". Re tights - as far as I understand, if you are part of a kehillah which wears tights, they have to be visible on your leg. Sensible really, otherwise there is not a lot of point in wearing them!
ReplyDeleteRafi,
ReplyDeleteI think you should change the title of this post to "A discussion of the gramatically correct way to address females."
This morning in shul in Flatbush, I was told there is a push to not allow girls to wear shells under "non-tznius" clothing as they are:
ReplyDelete1. to form fitting.
2. to much the way the "umas haOlam" dress.
3. Taking $$ from "real stores that sell only tznius clothing".
-LFD
Stop focusing on the "banot" In Israeli Hebrew it's used like "girls" is in English as in "Girls' night out" etc.
ReplyDelete> I thought the style and tone was demeaning and childish, and the story fairly stupid
Well if they can't figure out to look in the Mishnah Berurah or Aruch HaShulchan to see that this poster is lying, then they are children and fairly stupid, aren't they?
LFD: disallowing shells under sleeveless tops will bring about the banning of bais yaakov style sweater vests, right? Vests are not "tznius" on their own. And the "frum" stores are selling plenty of sleeveless tops and shells to go with them, and plenty of minidresses with knit pencil skirts to go with them.
ReplyDeleteThe only people losing money are the manufacturers of 1930s style suits and blouses.
As for copying the umos haolam, sure, some non-frum people occasionally wear a layered long sleeve shell, but only Jewish women do it every day!
I would like to address a different point, as I've been thinking about this issue recently.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why this ad is so 'simple' and why it 'works', is because many of the people of today are not as intellectually sophisticated as the people of yesteryear (meaning say up to about 10-15 yrs ago). R. Rakeffet has quoted in the name of the Rav (if I'm quoting properly), that the Brisker Derech for learning is so sophisticated that it equals or surpasses the level of learning (or maybe sophistication) of other bodies of knowledge. Only through the sophistication and depth of the Brisker Derech could one have elightened the American masses of the 50's, 60's and beyond. Without getting into whether the statement is right about the Brisker Derech, it is a statement about the sophistication and depth of the learning of the students. He made that comment, as the students were Ph.D's and Master's students, etc. of various fields of studies that encouraged critical thinking. Today, while there are a number of people in Academics, it seems that only some of them are the critical thinkers (w/ a few exceptions on both sides of the divide, of course). The HaMon 'Am aren't trained that way any more (Truthfully, I think this is true not just in the Jewish world, but in the general world as well. People, in general, are taught to quote a party line rather than to be their own thinking person). As a result, people are more open and receptive to ideas that wouldn't stand up to critical thinking.
Tesyaa-
ReplyDeleteNo one ever said it was an intelligent ban. Maybe it's a backward push against the BY vests!
Another example of Rabbaim undermining themselves by pushing something that no one will ever listen to.
-LFD
Back to language for a moment.
ReplyDeleteA 'run' in a stocking is a 'rakevet' now? When I was young I'm quite sure the girls AND women called it a 'sulam'.
i asked. i was told it means a run. though the person also said it is also called a sulam
ReplyDeleteGarnel;
ReplyDeletereally? if we relied on everyone to actually look up halachah, most of what we do nowadays would be stopped and our rabbis wouldn't earn as much a paycheck(donation).
Of course it's not really halacha, but that is not the target audiense. teh target audience are those people who believe what they read and will help spread this around as if it were true.
MII - Teachers of all grades, in religious and secular schools, refer to their female students as banot and male students as banim.
ReplyDeleteBut when the teacher enters the classroom, or the principal enters the cafeteria (or other general assembly), what do they say to get the kids to quiet down?
I seem to recall something on the lines of "Yeladim. Yeladim. Sheket Bevahaka. Na lehakshiv. YELADIM. NU, SHEKET! BEVAKASHA!" :)
And we refer to groups of Sherut Leumi girls (ages 17-20) as "Bnot Sherut"!
ReplyDeleteI agree, "Banot" is not the problem here. Everything else in it is however.
according to the mishna brura, they don't have to wear stockings at all. r yosef chaim sonnenfeld says the same, is he not right wing enough?
ReplyDeletein igros moshe, someone asked r moshe feinstein why the women can wear nude stockings. he says that he holds like the mishna brura, but for those who say they must wear stockings, it's a technical issue, not something that attracts attention, so nude is fine as long as its covered.
now people are going around measuring the tiny holes in stockings and whether they add up to a tefach (which I assume they do on the assumption that one would nevr wear the terrible, awful, pritzusdik ankle-length skirts...)
but of course these holes are not a new thing. rather, stockings are part of the standard beis yaakov uniform as part of respectable dress and maybe a nod to the machmir shita that they are necessary, not because across-the-board there is agreement that meikar hadin it's necessary. to me it's clear that the mishna brura's is the mainstream psak. it's a chumra to ask for covering below the legs altogether as far the halacha goes. everything else is local custom.
in the above comment - by holes, i mean the holes in the mesh. not a run in the stockings! LOL
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mother in Israel about the term. One must realize that in their community, girls and young women ARE more demure, not worldly, and therefore are affectionately called daughters of Israel. This meaning signifies that they are, and are bringing up daughters of Israel, the next generation of demure and tsnius females. Being condescending shows a lack of understanding, intelligence, and respect.
ReplyDeleteWe do want true 'Jewish' daughters so that we continue with the Jewish race. Others are welcomed (after proving sincerity) but a certain continuity is vital.
About the poster, the frum daughters understand the message. We in the broader community find it not relative. So be it.
neshama, it's hard to take your attitude of 'so be it' seriously when you read this from the blog post:
ReplyDelete"A Mother in Israel pointed out to me that Keter Malchut is the organization that Bruria Keren, the main Burqa Lady - the one serving a four year jail sentence for abusing her children, had been involved in."
So an organization affiliated with people who want women to be covered from head to toe, whose leader is in prison for all sorts of abuse, including abuse of a sexual nature, and these people put up signs directed to raising "holy" daughters and your attitude is so be it?
I know, let's let the burqa lady out, lets start a compound and fill it with 13 yr old girls who will all be married off against their will so they can be proper and true daughters of Israel and we can all sit back and feel good that it's not "our" problem. These girls need to be serving their older men so they provide continuity. So be it.
But I'm sure their old man will call his demure young bride 'daughter' affectionately.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, deleted my response to The Way's last comment that I mistakenly thought was directed at me.
ReplyDeleteWay - I think you are making a big deal out of a word without realizing common usage, even if that common usage does not fit exactly with linguistic rules. The word banot is commonly used when referring to groups of females, especially teens and below (sometimes even adult women as well).
ReplyDeleteActually, just this morning I received a booklet of events in the community that will happen over the sukkos holiday. I glanced at it and saw that there are events that are gender-separate. It says at the bottom of each such event (in hebrew) "during the activity of the banim, no banot will be allowed in (including mothers), and during the activity of the banot no banim will be allowed in (including fathers) except for banim up until age 6.
being that these events are not age-specific (for kids only, up until 8, teens, up until 12, etc), they are clearly using the terms banim and banot to refer to all males and all females.
it is just common usage
"Regardless of the term used to address these little girl minxes, the topic itself is dehumanizing and condescending and demeaning."
ReplyDeletedoesn't anyone read. I dropped the banot issue a few posts back. Hebrew itself is an ancient language and thus there are terms that living in a more equal world no longer fit and yet are still used.
However, as I previously said, regardless of the term banot, the issue itself is from a group of sexual predators and fringe extremists who are propagating sexual abuse in the form of religion.
My problem with the so be it attitude is that it is the default setting. Let everyone get as crazy as they want, so be it. which I agree with, until you start talking about kids. I don't agree that you can sexually abuse your children in the name of religion and so be it just because the abusers are covered in black.
I also don't understand how covering yourself up from head to toe maintains any continuity to judaism. Tsinuis is about a girl who goes through a crowd of men and maintains her modesty while getting water from a well, not covering yourself in black from head to toe and walking on the other side of the street. You are raising a generation of christian and muslim girls, not jews.
ReplyDelete