[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 7:04pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar wrote:
: me
:> 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?

: I understand the desire to preserve Jewish norms...

Your phrasing is skewed toward your response. I'm talking about the
desire to preserve Jewish values, whether or not they are norms. What I
(following RHS) and calling zeni'us is one such value. The fact that
it's not the norm speaks ill of the norm, not the value.

The problem with defying norms is that we will break the mimetic element
of our mesorah. But the core to my objection isn't this break. It's
another con, smaller than the one I chose to focus on. Rather it's a
textually identified value.

...
: That has certain specific meanings.  First, there is the issue of our
: limited ability to issue general gzerot in the post talmudic area.

Not really. You are the motzi meichaveiro, not the people who say that
the rabbinate should stay in the hands of men. You need to show the
ability to make taqanos; not prove an inability to make gezeiros.

: But the second is that the Jewish norms involved have to be authentic
: Jewish norms.  I understand the novelty in pulbic roles for women -
: but you are basing your opposition on a norm that is not a Jweish
: norm, and even created out of whole cloth. TO

Again, translating back from norm to value, of course it's a Jewish
value that predates my inventing anyting from whole cloth. "R' Eliezez
haQapar omeir: ... vehakavod, motzi'in as ha'adam min ha'olam." (Avos
4:21 sometimes numbered 4:27)

See the Keli Yaqar Shemos 30:
    ... ein kaparah zu meshameshes ki im bizman shekol echad yosheiv
    besokh ami kemo she'amerah haShunamis...
Or the Tzitz Eliezer XVI:35, who uses besokh ami to argue that it's better
(yeish to'eles yoseir) to make one tefillah for numerous neshamos rather
than single out one at a time.

(Aside from the Radaq on the pasuq in Melakhim II itself, the same idea
made by the Chovos haLvavos, Cheshbon haNefesh 3, and other rishonim
ad loc.)

None of these sources are gender-specific, even those based on the
Shunamis's words.

...
: This is not an oversimplicfication.  In pubilic policy terms, it it is
: the actual, practical implication of your policy.

Then why aren't I actually reaching that conclusion WRT toanot?

:> 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".

: It is not a con for tzedaka dinners, it is not a con at weddings, it
: is not a con for any other aspect of Jewish life ...

Of course it is! However, we need as much tzedaqah as we can raise, to
honor mothers at weddings, etc... The presence of a con doesn't deny the
presence of a pro. That's the oversimplification of my position that I
wrote about -- you write as though my setting a threashold to justify
a change (that it must compete with the additional kavod threatening to
take a person out of the world) means an outright ban.

Rather, in cases where I see the advantages, I agree with the change.

In cases where the advantage is framed circularly, I don't. Such as
justifying promoting the Maharat concept rather than teaching women how
to fulfill their religious needs without being/turning to one being
based on the argument that it fulfills those needs. (Which in turn
was backed by the accusation that I didn't assess that as an honest
religious need, which is both wrong and less nuanced than what I really
said.)

Here's an example of that circularity:
: You find this new value compelling - and if everyone were like you, it
: might not be destructive of public enterprise - but our history, and
: nature of public practice
...
: The issue is not women who feel that they belong in the role  - but a
: community that thinks that they need women in the role. That is the
: major distinction.  Again, one can argue against hthe changes - but
: you are again focusing on the individual rather than the community.

So you justify going ahead with the Maharat idea because there are
people not like me who find the idea more compelling than a warning in
Avos. But it's the correctness of the worldview of those people that's
our very question!

Perhaps we need to teach that community that they don't need women in
that role. (C made this error in real halakhah, choosing to spread the
word that it's okay to drive to shul rather than teaching people that
being walking distance to a shul is something to look for in a house. You
don't need to take societal attitudes as a given when your task is to
foster a G-d-fearing society.)

Jumping back a bit:
: Besides the fact that signficance and prominence have an
: identification in tradtional Jewish sources as well (as RDR
: documented..), I think you are misrading the issue (and misreading
: feminism).
: The issue is not prominence but participation - being part of the community.

As a rabbi in all but name. We're not talking about taking down the
mechitzah, are we?

And why is participation as part of the community in the beis kenesses
valued so much that women want change in this domain so badly? Is it
not because of the prominence of such participation rather than those
mitzvos that Yahadus is /really/ about? (Particularly for people not
mechuyavos in tefillah betzibbur?)

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:34pm BST, Chana Luntz wrote:
: I don't have children of that age myself yet, but I am certainly expecting
: it to be exactly the same for my children.  But that is because of a
: conscious choice on my and my husband's part, to raise them within a modern
: orthodox community and not a charedi one...

I think that you're working from an outsider's view of chareidi life.
It's like all the talk about subjugating onself to daas Torah as seen from
the media vs what you hear from yeshivish people on Avodah about how their
decision-making really works. (Thanks RJJB who recently brought up that
example in an IM discussion.) The child has to make a conscious decision
to allow their parents into that role. Just as daas Torah becomes a data
point in making a personal decision; not mindless robotics. But I don't
really want to carry this discussion too far, as it's a sore point with
a number of members of the chevrah right now. One whose off-list battles
already cost us yesterday the membership of one regular.

But none of this has to do with the role of Maharat and whether it
introduces any new pros to outweight the cons, which is why I see your
line of argument as off-topic. Or, as I wrote earlier:
:> 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....

: I don't think I was grouping them together...
:                                                What I specifically focussed
: on, throughout my postings, was the fact that, as a consequence of
: modernity, women are getting married later, ie you have single women around
: at ages and in numbers you never had before.

Is that the question of Maharat? Or is it something else grouped
together?

...
: But your very suggestion is interesting.  Are you advocating creating a paid
: position in which a woman without a title will give lectures to women in
: shul?  It will need to be supported by the community of course, out of
: community funds, the same way that a rabbi is.  But if you didn't happen to
: know a local candidate for such a position, how would you advertise it?
: "Wanted, woman to give classes to women at shul X - salary $$$".  Does this
: deal with your concerns - ie if we advertised for a woman to fulfil this
: role without a title? ...

If we have a need for women in such a role, and I could see many
communities that would need a paid position for an adult educator of this
sort, then create such a position and a new title. I must be missing
something, because that seems trivial.

Learning YD wouldn't be a part of it. Nor would her being the one
officiating (being mesaderet) at lifecycle events, the leader of the
shul, etc...

...
: And what I was trying to focus on was, what about the needs of single women
: in such a community.   Is this woman that you have proposed will give
: classes at the shul without a title also going to fulfil any or all of these
: roles to the women?  For example, if the women are busy working all week,
: and only make it to shul on shabbas, are you proposing that we should split
: the shul, and while the Rav gives his drasha to the men, this woman should
: talk to the women (or is she only going to give the occasional class at
: inconvenient times or is she going to alternate with the Rav)? ...

Remind me again, why do they need the derashah to come from a woman?

Because otherwise they'll have a crush on the rabbi? They won't have a
role model? What exactly is your argument. How does this and that relate?
And why are we to redefine the traditional structure of the community
rather than tell them to come to the Tues night shiur rather than a
shabbos morning minyan if they really have to choose?

:> 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.

: I fully understand that that is how it speaks to *you*.  What I was trying
: to get you to see, however, is that is not how it speaks to everyone.  There
: are other messages that can be derived from this.

This is more of taking the attitude as a given rather than the very
question whose fate we're trying to decide.

:> 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.

: Not quite sure what you are getting at here - because I don't see any
: discussion about turning to a rav for hora'ah - which is very personal and
: hopefully taylored with abusive men...

Except that you spoke against men lecturing women. If this is an issue
for a woman, how can she be ready to accept hora'ah when she has to ask
a man?

....
:> 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.

: But handwashing is indeed din - d'rabbanan perhaps, but din unquestionably.
: The quabbalistic practices only add weight to the din...

The practices are NOT din. Lehalakhah, I did a full neigl vasr if I
pour water over my weaker hand and then my stronger one (sorry, as
a lefty that's the only way I coudl phrase it) and then put the cup
away. Since I'm not Teimani, I violated minhag, not din. I never saw a
teshuvah arguing that we should break the mimetics of neigl vasr because
it is a danger for those of us with OCD. And I see that as something of
a parallel to your raising the issue of kol kevudah and abusive men.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 07:55:36AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: This is a very weird paragraph.  You started with a definition of tzniut 
: which purports to be gender neutral.  You deduce that women should be 
: forbidden to have public offices...

NOT AT ALL! Sorry for the caps, but you seem to have missed all the
times I contrasted Maharat to Yoezef and Toenet during the course of
this thread. I felt a need to "say it louder".

Yes, I do feel that feminism is suboptimal, because it's based on a
conflation of prominence and significance that is endemic in the west but
at odds with basics of the Jewish worldview. We are to do critical jobs,
and in theory we shouldn't care if we're something everyone can name,
like a piston, or that nameless screw that holds the case together.

However, that doesn't mean banning women from leadership positions. It
means only banning them in situations where the alternative isn't
worse. E.g. When women are too embarassed to ask a man about taharas
hamishpachah, or women can't speak up for themselves to a court or a male
to'ein, then we have an even less optimal situation for our other choice.

Here we are watching RAW go a major step beyond -- a school for women
who are rabbis in everything but actual name. Same curriculum and test
as Yoreh Yoreh going out for the same kinds of pulpits.

So I asked, what's the offsetting positive not already addressed by the
current set of opportunities to become or have a female role model?

Second, you rephrase my position as thought I said nothing about
encounter, grappling, and weighing pros and cons.

My question is very much Maharat specific (although it admits to having
parallels for every other communal innovation under the sun), and also
very much a confrontation we must think through weighing the pluses and
minuses of our options -- not a simple "women should be forbidden to
have public offices".

:                                   and that men should do introspection 
: before accepting them, and then you conclude that this is harder on men 
: than on women.  But the difference which I find glaring is that you let 
: individual men determine their own choice, but you make the choice for 
: women.

Because lemaaseh, there is no talk about institutionalizing male
leadership of a new sort. The change on one side is a communal one.
OTOH, the male leadership that has existed since Yisro proposed our
having sarei asarot are failing in our preservation of tzeni'us whereever
possible. That's an individual's struggle. And as already noted a few
times on this thread, one I personally have to face in spades; and I'm
not even a communal leader!

...
: It seems to me that you are missing RCL's point.  Surely by the time you 
: sent your daughter to seminary she was old enough to marry (I just 
: looked it up on the web, which is not necessarily reliable, but in NJ 
: she can marry at 17 with parental consent, and at 16 with the consent of 
: a judge).  We homeschool, and our only child is a boy, so I don't 
: actually know, but surely there are Jewish high schools in NJ which 
: encourage children to marry as soon as possible.  Why didn't you send 
: your daughter to one of those high schools and then marry her off, 
: rather than send her to a school which encourages further education at a 
: seminary?

Why the really odd assumption that I didn't weight pros and cons and
consciously make that decision? Actually, the girl in question had an
eclectic education from both chareidi and MO institutions, as her needs
evolved.

(At some point I might critique the disadvantages of trying to raise
children without affiliation to a particular O movement, but this isn't
the appropriate venue, nor is all the data in yet. The biggest danger:
Be very careful with the negative criticism, lest you create the illusion
that you believe that since no O movement fits your bill, O as a whole
does not.)

Earlier in this discussion I pointed to my critique of both MO and the
yeshiva velt (and to some extent chareidim in general) as being 
self-defined by one-off answers to questions that really need to be
handled casewise. Including a plug for mussar, which gives one the tools
to do such case-by-case assessment as well as historically (at least in
Kelm, Slabodka and Telzh) doing so to produce a broad diversity of great
people with unique perspectives. See
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/06/modern-orthodoxy-chareidism-and-mussar.shtml

But again, instituting a communal strucrtural change isn't a
one-off question. It has to be dealt in aggregate, since this is an
all-or-nothing decision; you can't make and dimantle a school on a
one-by-one basis.

: "Movement" is an ambiguous word; we use it to describe both Hassidus and 
: Reform....

Tangentially, I don't think that's an ambiguity. The way I see it,
the Enlightenment caused a rupture in our culture, to which there were
numerous Isms developed about how to respond. Some of those Isms retained
the ikkarim of Yahadus, so we call them O movements, and others did not.

IOW, Chassidus, Yeshivish, Hungarian "Chadash Assur", DL, neo-O, MO,
etc... are sociological parallels to C and R. (And thus "movement" is
being used in the same sense.) O as a whole is not; it's used to refer
to an attribute that a movement could have, or to the set of movements
that share that attribute.

Yes, historically, it took us a while to agree on what that O property
is, especially with the rise of the first such Ism, Chassidus. And it
took Chassidus a generation to shake out the rebbeles that really
weren't O, and brought a negative impression of Chassidus as a whole
to Litta. But once we did have some clarity as to what we would call
the defining ikkarim of Orthodoxy, I believe the above description
fits.

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