There is a campaign beginning to "take back" Jerusalem. A group of secular people who are upset about the removal of women from the public sphere in Jerusalem have put together a plan to fight the phenomenon, and get women's images back on billboards and push for equality in the public sphere. The main focus of the campaign right now is photographing a group of women who have volunteered for this, and creating posters from those images. they will then hang up the posters from balconies and windows around Jerusalem.
The campaign seemed kind of pointless to me. The articles I read on it all described them hanging the signs in their own neighborhoods. That's very nice, and maybe it is making a statement, but it is not going to affect the haredim in any way - very few will actually see these signs and be disturbed by them. Now if they were hanging these signs all over Jerusalem, in Haredi neighborhoods, on bus stops, billboards all over the city, on bus advertisements, that would be something worth talking about.
Kikar spoke to a haredi askan about the new campaign. besides for the initial comment saying it is going to cause greater fights and violence, not just from the sikrikim but from all the haredim, he was asked specifically about the photos being hung. He said that he does not expect a fight about this, as they are hanging the pictures in their own neighborhood, so they will not bother anybody. However, he added, the problem would begin if they would dare to hang the "abomination" in a haredi neighborhood,
I wonder if his use of the word "abomination",
toeiva in hebrew, indicates anything towards his, of the haredi community's, real attitude towards women. What is toeiva about a picture of a woman? You can say you don't want to look at pictures of women because it might cause improper thoughts and stimulation, but the pictures alone are not toeiva. I have seen pictures of the posters and the women are mostly dressed fairly modestly. they are not hanging pictures of nude or scantily clad women (some might be less than perfectly tzanua, but even they are not so bad). Yet he does not say if they hang immodest pictures, or if they flash women in front of us, then... he says if they will hang the abomination in haredi neighborhoods.
They can say they really respect women, and look at the
funeral of Rabbanit Kanievsky for proof, and we show true respect by not treating our women like meat and objectifying them and turning them into sexual objects, etc. They can say that all they want, but if they call a simple picture of a woman an abomination, perhaps that shows what they really think of women.
Tznius is basically meant to make an object into a subject - to take the idea that a woman (or man) is an object and give the ability to be able to interact with them without or by minimizing their objectification. By harping so much on "Tznius" with all its forms, these people have institutionalized the concept of objectifying women (in a sense the inverse of the secular world, but with the same result), the exact opposite of the purpose of Tznius...sorta echos what Chazal warned us about in Maseches Sotah 22a-b.
ReplyDeleteSo why should it be surprising that some refer to any picture of a woman as Toeivah? These people have objectified women so much, that, yes, any picture to them IS toeivah. And in their worldview, that would be true for any girl above 3 yrs ago ('internalizing' the halachic concept). Which is a sad statement on some of these people and what they are training themselves to believe. Probably better to start a 12-step program...
More than that, I think when they go to these extremes, they're oversensitizing themselves to the sight of a woman. I think one of the most important aspects of tzniut is that it prevents the desensitization that I believe takes place in most of the secular world. But the opposite extreme, in my opinion, is just as dangerous. I believe this is the reason they keep raising the bar on tzniut - the less women, or pictures of women, they see, the more the sight of even a completely tzanua woman affects them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - What a beautiful definition of tzniut. Thank you. Why not identify yourself and get full credit for your insight? :)
ReplyDeleteBut I don't get the equation between objectification and toeva (unless I'm too effected by the modern Hebrew connotation of the word). Are you referring to the Halachic implications of toeva? Objectification is bad for not relating to the person objectified with the respect owed an individual human being as such - but why the direct route to toeva (negative sexual allusion)? Can't there (at least in the theoretical realm) be that moment between the two; of acknowledgement and only then the possible entire negative "baggage"?
And Baruch Gitlin - in full agreement with you. Defining and re-defining those lines/borders between blessed sensitivity (which leads to worth and holiness)and sickness is a work in progress. I guess it's a life-long mission..
Rachely - I can't actually take credit for that insight. It's my "Rebbi's" insight - R. Rakeffet. I've heard him say it a few times (when I was a student, and also via tape/MP3), and thought about it and its implication, and agree w/ it.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of my connection between Objectifying and Toeva, I think that Baruch expressed the idea I was trying to say best.
It's much easier to raise the bar (by making the standards for tznius higher) than to live a life of balance and nuance.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Baruch Gitlin's point, I'd say it's a losing battle to expect people to desensitize themselves to the normal appearance of women. They'd argue that it's always better to avoid any exposure to sin.
Ok. Thank you, Anonymous, "Ha'omer davar b'shem omro..". Still, lots to think about.
ReplyDeleteMore than that, this ridiculous extreme sense of 'tznuis' IMO and I hope to somehow get proof, causes sexual deviancy and pedophilia. It makes EVERYTHING sexual. When little girls are taken off kupat cholim stickers and put inside black swaths of fabric, it creates a severe evil with easy to see ramifications. Yes, its time to take back the world.
ReplyDeleteSince placating the extremists is only going to cause them to increase their demands, why bother taking them into account at all?
ReplyDeletetesyaa - Very well said about balance. I think that's the whole point of national religion / modern orthodoxy - the le'chatchila approach to challenge, openness, constant-border-definition, free choice, responsibility etc.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that men should desensitize themselves (and vice versa, though I am aware of the differences..). Why can't they acknowledge the effect, appreciate the workings of the human experience and move on? This is exactly the place for control, choice and health. Not all has to lead to dark, sinister outcomes.
extremists? the people spoken to and responding to this are UTJ people. not sikrikim, or ultra-hassidim. regular UTJ haredim
ReplyDeleteI think you're right, Rafi, and that's what's so disturbing about all this. What the rest of us should do, I think, is to try our best to maintain our balance and nuance, as Tesyaa put it so well, and stand up to these people if and whenever they try to impose their very unbalanced attitudes on the rest of us.
ReplyDelete