[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

Both RRW and RKM suggested that the problem with my model of  
participation as driving some of the current women's issues, is  
problematic - because we can not participate in many aspects of avodat  
hashem, such as birkat kohanim (RRW)  - and a definition  
distinguishing proper participation from improper is whether one is  
fit for it (RKM).
I fully understand the limitations of participation - it does not mean  
that everyone gets to do everything, and the particpatory model does  
have flaws in the shuls that adopt it - that there are people who  
daven who don't know nusach, etc.  These are all real issues, but they  
miss the fundamental point.
The driving impetus behind the Young Israel movement (which started as  
the prototype participatory minyan - as distinct from a hazzan led  
shul) - was not that everyone would duchen, or even just that everyone  
would rotate davening musaf on yom kippur before the amud.   The issue  
is that doing something - whether it is merely pticha , or an aliya,  
or davening before the amud - increases one sense of avodat hashem and  
of belonging to the minyan.  The level of participation clearly varies  
- but there is some participation.

In essentially all Orthodox shuls, if one removed the women's section,  
or if just no women came to shul, it would have no impact at all on  
what goes on in the men's side and with davening - maybe some social  
issues, but would not change anything that happens.  That means,  
essentially, that the women's role in shul is essentially an extension  
of their private role - they are there as private individuals, rather  
than being part of the kahal (yes, I am aware of the different  
opinions about whether the ezrat nashim counts as part of the shul,  
and issues of answering to different tefilot - and even possibly kiyum  
of mitzvot - but on a practical level, they are not perceived as part  
of the kahal).

What this means is that for many women therefore do not feel any need  
to come to shul - this is both in many haredi communities, where there  
is no expectation for them to come - but even in MO - where there is a  
social expectation, and the religious training is that they should  
come to shul.  For sure, there is no sense that the shul serves as the  
outlet for religious expression of the public person.

Some Orthodox shuls have instituted a limited amount of participation  
- whether it is carrying the sefer torah near the ezrat nashim for  
them to touch, carrying it through it, allowing women to say kaddish  
(either by themselves, as permitted by RYBS, or with a man, as  
permitted by RYE Henkin), etc - but it is still a very limited amount.

The issue I am raising is not what the proper solution is - I am aware  
of the problems with many of the solutions.  The issue I am raising is  
recognition of what the problem is - today, people are not willing to  
be actively engaged in an institution that does not offer them any  
outlet for participation -but only as  spectators.  This means that  
the shul does not function as the religious expression of the public  
personae of the women.  The failure to recognize this has long term  
consequences.

Finally, RMB raises the issues of tzeniut as a problem - arguing for a  
model of tzeniut wherein any public role is automatically a violation  
of tzeniut - and then we judge whether there is a reason for the  
violation of tzeniut.  I, as well as others (RCL far more ably and  
more scholarly, RTK (if I and RTK agree on something.....)) view this  
model of tzeniut as being a radical innovation, without any basis (and  
RMB has still not provided any basis) which is actually opposed to  
traditional Jewish values - which makes further discussion difficult,  
as RMB wishes to protect a value that is not recognized as such by the  
rest of us.  However, even with the model of tzeniut that RMB raises,  
the issue becomes one of justification - violations of RMB tzeniut may  
be acceptable if there is sufficient good that comes from that.

He argues that the changes in the workplace - have led to changes in  
kol kvuda bat melekh pnima (and I would agree).  he also argues that  
this is a violation of anava - and here I (and others) disagree -  
viewing this as being created out of thin air..  however, he is not  
arguing for a change in the workplane - but rather, that no changes  
take place in avodat hashem - and therefore arguing that there be no  
correspondence between the inner and outer - that halacha should have  
no form of expression of the changed status and role - which is  
essentially writing their lives out of the community - and this is a  
profoundly anti halachic, anti mussar viewpoint.  What the changes  
should be is, again, a different issue - but that there should be no  
correspondence is something that we must reject as ovde hashem.  Even  
with his utilitarian model, the damage from no recognition is large.

Meir Shinnar