[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar replied to my
post:
: 3.   Women's roles.  One of the things that has clearly changed in the  
: twentieth century is the public role of women...
: As part of that discussion, RHS made the following argument(?psak):
: There is an inherent conflict between the value of modesty (he used  
: tseniut, but that is also used in terms of the pritzut connotation -  
: and the part of tzeniut that he was emphasizing is better translated  
: by modesty) and public actions.  This is suggested by the rule that  
: someone asked to be a shliach tzibbur is supposed initially to  
: refuse.  What is mattir (and his argument was essentially a brisker  
: argument) us to transgress the value of modesty is that there is a  
: hiyuv inherent that someone has to fulfill a role /do the action - but  
: absent this mattir, one should not violate modesty.
: As women do not have such a hiyuv (for many of the actions  
: contemplated), therefore they should not violate their modesty - and  
: not assume a public role.

: You adopted this argument, and out of this Brisker argument developed  
: a far reaching theory of modesty - and one practical implication of  
: this is the consequence for women - and positions such as maharat.

I didn't really extend RHS's argument as much as shift it. RHS argued in
Brisker terms of chalos, and thus stating it directly in the language
of pesaq (although one shouldn't confuse a parashah sheet essay with
a teshuvah). I was adopting in more Telzher terms, or perhaps more
accurately outright mussar terms, and therefore was stating in terms of
the need for a "political pesaq" to preserve Jewish norms. The difference
in worldview between a Brisker and myself meant that the notion was
severely recast in translation from RHS's statement to mind.

FWIW, I think the practical implication on men is far greater. Because
it implies that men, who already occupy leadership positions, are called
upon to make sure that their leadership is really warranted. Do they
bring something to the table that others can't or aren't, or is much of
it a pursuit of kibud?

...
: Objections.
: 	a) This model of modesty is one that in practice is not followed by  
: the general Jewish community. (I and many others have pointed out many  
: examples)

I don't consider this relevent.

: 	b) Not only is it not followed in practice, it is not viewed as an  
: ideal that we are unable to fully implement, and there is literature  
: against it.

This I think is due to an oversimplification of my position. As is this:
: 	c) Not only is it not viewed as an ideal, it actually represents an  
: ideal that is profoundly immoral, dangerous to the Jewish community,  
: and of foreign origin.  ((t is this last point that made the  
: discussion so heated - and I confess that I find it difficult to  
: understand how someone so morally sophisticated and sensitive adn  
: Micha could adopt such a position)


And the bottom line about what's missing from RMS's depiction of my
position is that I agree with:
: 	d) Even if one were to accept this definition of modesty with its  
: restrictions as an ideal, it actually doesn't solve the issue of  
: women's roles - because the underlying issue of public roles for  
: women, such as yoetzet halacha, to'enet, high school tanach teacher,  
: or maharat (all revolutions in some form or other), is not satisfying  
: the base need for public adulaton of the individual - as viewed by  
: some of the critics - but satisfying a communal need that has been  
: identified by its leaders.  The question then becomes of what are the  
: needs of the community.

Very much so. I'm saying that such decisions need an active encounter
with the change, and a real assessment of pros vs cons. I am saying that
while RHS presented the notion in Brisker terms, the idea of tzeni'us /
anavah / avoiding kibud is an identified and significant "con".

Also, that this worldview is diametrically opposed to the western one
where significance is too often identified with prominence. And third,
that much of feminism derives from this identification as well.

So the question for every step that changes the role of women, from Beis
Yaakov to seminaries to yoatzot to WTGs to Maharat, is whether we can
define an offsetting pro. And moreso, a positive associated with that
claim that doesn't presume the conclusion.

And so, it's not placing personal development ahead of the kelal until
one decides that the con of pursuing kibud outweighs the pro of serving
the kelal -- and I never said anything remotely like that!

Rather, I said that one must actually identify a pro of equal import
to the negative of making major societal changes to accomodate a value
directly derived from a person's right to assume prominence.

(This being the distinction between encountering an idea and accepting it,
this time on the side of whether one grapples with tzeni'us or simply
follows it, rather than on the side of confronting moderinity rather
than assuming it as a given.)

It is unsound to say that we should accomodate rather than work to
remove a desire for Maharatot because there are women who feel they
belong in the role and women who feel they want to turn to someone in
that role. That circularly presumes that the religious desires involved
are positive ones -- the very notion under question!

Speaking of which, I feel to see the distinction recently posted by
RJJB in the name of RMT:
> That's the R' Tendler expansion on RMF's letter that theoretically
> allows women's tefillah groups. RMF allowed them if the motivations of
> the women were pure, not driven by feminism. RMT clarified that this
> was pure theory, that RMF didn't believe such women could exist.

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Let's assume, since we have no reason not
to, that the motives are purely religious. (It's unfair to assume we're
dealing with women who care more about making some feminist point than
tefillah.) However, those motives are based on a particular worldview. If
the worldview is suboptimal, then the purity of the motive doesn't redeem
it from being consequentially suboptimal.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:46pm BST, Rn Chana Luntz replied to my post:
: So, I was asking you to do that - and specifically about the change that has
: gone on in the lives of young women -prior to their marriage.  As I tried to
: indicate, the reality is in non charedi circles, young women are spending a
: decade or two post puberty but prior to marriage.  Obviously at least the
: first two to four years of that is indeed forced upon us (depending on the
: dina d'malchusa dina of wherever it is you live - in England you need to be
: 16, but other parts of the world differ).   Please explore whether the rest
: is indeed forced upon us?  Do the pros of later marriage outweigh the cons?
...

Yes, this determination has to be made. (You invoked my children, but
that just demonstrates that you don't have children of that age yourself,
yet. My daughter came back from sem, and all I can do is give points of
information, not make decisions.)

I find this and your post in general off-topic, since there are different
pros and cons with each change. Saying that we need more yoatzot doesn't
mean we need Maharatot, and saying that girls need more role models of
their own geneder doesn't imply we need more of either.

The Maharat is a unique invention in that it intentionally shadows
the rav in both education and future job. It is on those criteria in
particular that I question its net positive value. If the woman would be
a yoetzet, or give classes to the women in shul with no more a title than
Nechamah Leibowitz's, would anything be lost? Would she be any less of
a crush-proof (for the girls and single women in her class) role model,
any less of a contributor?

But in general, each such decision is unique. You're grouping them all
together as though the pros of education for college-bound women are the
same as the pros of some of those Jewishly educated women becoming toanot
leBD legeirushin. If I were to address the other questions you raise, my
original point would be lost in the volume of the numerous issues in each.

BY had a simple pro-vs-con -- either educate the girls who were getting
a secular education, or lose them to yahadus. Very straightforward. The
CC, BTW, phrased his endorsement in pesaq terms -- that learning what
was necessary to be a shomeres Torah umitzvos is defined in part by
this reality, and thus the original pesaq is now broader than just
learning pragmatic halakhah due to this change in metzi'us.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 02:55pm EDT, R David Riceman joined the conversation:
: I think one of the problems here is, in the mythical saying of Tonto, 
: "Who do you mean by we, paleface?" In the mythical past all Jews in one 
: small town followed the same customs and consulted the same Rabbi.  Ever 
: since 19th century Warsaw, if not earlier, and certainly nowadays in the 
: US and Israel, we live cheek by jowl with lots of different types of 
: Jews as well as non-Jews.  Expecting conformity beyond halachic norms 
: strikes me, in our context, as both unjust and absurd.
...

And yet, we're discussing a societal change. I see only three outcomes
for the future of American O on this question: either we accept the
institution of Maharatot, we do not, or we end up two movements.

(BTW, I'm not that pale.)

...
: But don't you give the same kavod to your knowledgeable neighbor whether 
: or not she is titled? If kavod is the problem, shouldn't having a 
: knowledgeable neighbor be troubling regardless (though, in your defense, 
: see Rashi on this week's parsha 11:13 s.v. "L'ahavah es hashem").
...

There is a fundamental difference between my obgliation to give kavod,
which includes kibudim, and the value of my not pursuing kibud -- and
thus not institutionalizing yet another way in which people can fall
into that trap.

See my earlier post on prominence vs substance, and besokh ami anokhi
yosheves. (You're coming in weeks after this thread left Areivim for
Avodah on Jul 9th; I can't repeat points made a couple of times prior.)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TZENIUS%20AND%20GENDER%20ROLES>
or <http://bit.ly/2hfeJ9>.

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:14pm BST, Rn Chana Luntz wrote in reply to
RAM:
: My reference to a generic "man lecturing women" was wider than that, I'm
: afraid.  I agree totally with this idea about focussing on one's OWN
: obligations and responsibilities.  The issue that arises, however, is often
: the kind of husband who may perhaps have tendencies towards abuse, may well
: also not always be clever enough to think up these things himself.  Nor will
: he necessarily have the authority to speak them solely by himself. He will
: seek to source them and buttress from others, particularly authoratative
: others.  The man lecturing women is, of course RHS and RMB himself.  Because
: while there is an attempt to argue, in these theses, that these concepts
: apply to men as well, because of the "but men are commanded", part of it,
: the message that is very easily taken is fundamentally about men lecturing
: women.

As above, I think the advantage of RHS's formulation that it's not about
"man lecturing woman". It has as much to say to someone like myself, who
manages to work bragging about my teaching gigs into more conversations
than necessary -- as you yourself pointed out earlier in this thread.

Second, I am nervous when I hear someone turning this into a gender-war
thing, that turning to a rav for hora'ah is somehow related to abusive
men who use gender norms to self-justify their controlling natures.

After all, when all is said and done, the baalei hora'ah and dayanim
will still be exclusively an all boys club.

: And I agree with RMB's example about OCD and the fact that Torah observance
: itself is open to abuse.

My example was actually about extra-halachic customs in hand washing. I
thought that some Qabbalah-based practice is closer to our case than
asking about din. After all, we can't ask questions about the viability
of following a halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha at aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507