As such Halacha realizes that men often see women as sex
objects. Not that Halacha God forbid endorses that view. But that it realizes that it
is often the case that men are visual and see women in sexual ways much more so
then women see men. I think Hollywood substantiates
this view. No where are women more sexualized than in the vast majority of stuff
coming out of Hollywood.
Civilized society has tended to regulate how to deal with the sex
drive. Either by law, by custom or by both. So that we do not act immediately upon impulse. For Jews, these laws are contained in the
Torah, the Talmud and its commentaries. All of which have been redacted into Halacha
in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries.
Although there are areas of sexual conduct upon which there
is universal Halachic agreement, there are disputes about it in other areas. Such as whether platonic physical contact
between a man and a woman is permitted or not. The commentaries in the Shulchan Aruch disagree
about it. One commentator says that as long as the contact is platonic, it is permitted
and the other that any contact at all is forbidden and to be avoided at all
cost.
This is where a schism has developed between various Orthodox
segments. The more right wing segments among us take on the stringent view. The
more left wing among us take on the lenient view.
The Yeshiva world for the most part has the view that even
platonic contact is to be avoided, but not at all cost. If it will embarrass others
or cause undue problems, then it is permissible to have platonic contact.
In my view, the Yeshiva world approach is an appropriate
compromise. It is one that 20th century Gedolim like Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky advocates. Which allows us all to avoid uncomfortable
situations that inevitably inconvenience others and make us look a bit foolish in
the modern world.
That the more right wing among us take the stringent view
and avoid all contact between the sexes is to be avoided at all cost is because
they see it at the core as always being sexual. No matter how platonic it is at
the surface. And from this follows other stringencies – all in service to the
idea of avoiding any possibility of being sexually aroused.
This is exacerbated by the fact that in many cases the stringent among us tend to live in isolation
from the rest of even Orthodox Jewry. Seeing themselves as exemplars of God’s
will, they have developed a sense of entitlement about their stringent views. No
matter how much it inconveniences others or how it makes them look. And that’s
what has led to conflict. Which seems to be getting worse by the day.
Here is how J.E. Reich put it in the Forward:
In recent years, both mainstream and Jewish media have reported on other misogyny-fueled instances of male dominance in fringe communities, from the terrorizing and policing of women’s clothing (and bodies, and sexuality) in ultra-Orthodox Beit Shemesh to Yiddish signs posted in the Satmar area of Williamsburg ordering women to cross the street in the presence of an approaching Jewish male.
Since this demographic is the fastest growing one, their
influences are quickly spreading outside of their own community:
The issue of airplane seating arrangements reaches a whole new level: While most publicized instances injury of fringe Orthodox misogyny are insular in nature, only affecting Jewish women in these occupied areas, the latest wave affects secular women, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.
This phenomenon is happening in Ramat Bet
Shemesh as described by Shoshanna Jaskoll in Life in Israel:
Female speakers are prohibited from publicizing their pictures, newspapers alter photographs and history by erasing women, phonebooks list only the husband’s name, families are honored but only the men accept the awards, etc. This causes the women to feel increasingly marginalized.Those that are pushing their stringencies on others (or those that sympathize with them) have retorted with the following:
*If it bothers you, just don’t buy them, its really that simple.
*Women are so sexualized in the world that we must do the opposite:
*A woman’s worth, her beauty is internal.
*Achdus! Why must you start up?
*Its always been this way.
*We are telling our daughters that their externals are not important.
*Preserving women’s privacy does not prevent them from having a major influence in our lives.
*It’s our right.
*If it bothers you, just don’t buy them, its really that simple.
Mrs. Jaskoll has an excellent response to all of these
points which can be read in Life in Israel. But for me it is as plain as day
that even if one is to respect the stringent sensitivities of these people and
not attribute them to misogyny, they nevertheless
have no right to place the burden on others so that they can live their lives
so easily.
The Gemarah relates a story about how 2 sages who were stringent
about these matters reacted to a situation where women were not appropriately
dressed because of the nature of what they were doing - washing clothes in a
river. The sages did not tell them to leave. They did not yell at them or worse beat them up. They
did not put up posters the next day telling these women to stay home. They took
a detour so that they would not encounter the women in a state of dress that
was not Tzanua.
That is what this group should be doing. They want to be
stringent? Fine. But not at the expense of those of us that rely on Gedolim like Rav Yaakov who is lenient in these matters.
The problem of course what can be done about it? Telling them that they must compromise is whistling in
the wind. I don’t know. But I’m happy to see that residents of Ramat Bet Shemesh - among
them members of the Charedi community - are fighting back. May God give them
the strength to prevail.
