[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:43PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : To complement RCL's tale about refusing food as being a model for the
> : shliach tzibbur - which does not reflect a midda of tzniut, but of
> manners -
> ...
>
> Mah beinaihu? Is not tzeni'us one middah among the set we call "having
> good manners"?
>
it isn't that zniut isn't good manners, it is that the focus is on manners
rather than zniut....(and the proof is that we don't enforce zniut in the
ways that RJR has suggested or in multiple other ways)  - it just isn't a
value in communal life..



>
> ...
> : RMB
> : >Again, I ask you as well to propose your definition of tzeni'us as "the
> : >other shitah", the one we do follow, in contrast to RHS simply running
> : >with the literal translation of the word and buttressed by other
> : >sources.
> :
> :
>
> You still have me lossed. Why are you placing tzeni'us as an antonym of
> kavod? Dignity breeds kavod without always jumping into the limelight.
>
The issue of kavod in this context is not merely dignity - it has intrinsic
right to the limelight -  the insistence of some rabbanim on certain
kibbudim and the limelight that it entails.  The trappings of serara -
whether king's crown and throne, rabbi's chair in the mirzrach, are all
factors of limelight - that are not merely dignity.  We attach a positive
value to the limelight for our leaders. (and, to go back to the first point,
we expect our leaders to show good manners while they enjoy the limelight..)


>
> And the whole question wasn't whether communal roles would at time
> outrank tzeni'us, it was in changing the role of half the community
> which would multiply the number of times tzeni'us takes a back seat.
> Is that a positive change? Is a desire for that change a positive one?
> Is not feminism's search for empowerement *frequently* aimed at allowing
> women the opportunity to erode the concept of tzeni'us?
>

No - and this (IMHO) reflects a misunderstanding both of feminism and of the
halachic role of tzeniut.

I would argue that the problem of tzeniut is one of seeking the limelight
for the sake of being in the limelight - not of getting or being in the
limelight.  (and this goes with the simple pshat of the word)  Getting the
limelight because of doing something intrinsically acceptable is not
problematic at ll -  not a question of hutra or dchuya - tzeniut doesn't
factor in.  Yes, as an individual one has to worry that being in the
limelight won't lead to a lack of tzeniut - but it isn't that being in it is
intrinically tzanua.  (Again, I don't know of any classical source that says
that if approached for any public position, I have worry that it is not
tzanua and do the balancing - from mussar, I may have to worry it doesn't go
to my head - but not that it is a problem of tzniut.)

What has to be understood (and not yet addressed) is, that for good or for
bad, the role of half the community has changed - and is no longer one that
is primarily in the home.   but if a woman has the right and option to be a
lawyer/doctor/teacher/..... - she will be in the public sphere and not in
the home. (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in front of a class?
In front of a court? a doctor wearing a white court? in business
conferences?)This has never been thought to be a problem of tzeniut for men
- so why is it one for women....?_

If you believe that that is an intrinsic violation of tzeniut - then you
should be fighting that.  If you don't believe it is a violation of tzeniut
- this isn't a question of seeking the limelight for the sake of the
limelight (a problem of zniut), but of getting the limelight because it is
part and parcel of doing what is right - where we then the question is the
religious model that corresponds to it (Note: I am not advocating a
particular solution - merely that there needs to be a solution).




>
> ...
>
> And last, I still don't see how you provide any proof that the word
> "tzeni'us" means something other than "acting betzin'ah", that
> vehatznieah lekhes isn't dachui by the need to have leaders. You aren't
> even arguing hutrah, you are telling me to follow a different and
> unprovided definition of the word without a source behind the claim
> that RHS -- or actually RYBS, since he discussed it in Nefesh haRav (pg
> 281) -- got it wrong by translating the word literally. Tzin'ah is the
> antonym of parhesia, no?
>
Acting betzina means one doesn't seek the limelight - but not that one is
striving to avoid the limelight...(I will reviw Nefesh Harav..)

>
> : It is one thing to oppose innovation - it is another to propose radical
> : innovations in the name of opposing innovations.....
>
> I am not opposing innovation, I'm opposing following desire, even
> religious desire, without a weighing of pros and cons as measured in
> Torah terms. The problem isn't with the concept of innovation as a
> whole. (If it were, could I follow some blend of derakhim none of which
> existed in 1850? Would I take the initiative, much to RRW's irritation,
> of picking and choosing among nusachos for my own tefillah? Etc...)
>
Formulating the problem as one of following desire is what is(IMHO)
problematic -and quite paradigmatic in much of the responses to this issue -
as it attributes impure motives to the other side.  Are there those to whom
this is applicable? Absolutely.  However, there are many others for whom the
issue is not desire, not even religious desire - but the question of how to
have modes of religious expression that reflect their reality.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090714/40971bdd/attachment-0001.htm>