[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Micha Berger<micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 01:57:20PM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
> : Being private is a value; being a public servant is also a value.
> : Being private, even if you're especially qualified to serve the public,
> : is not a violation of the value of public service; it's simply the
> : emphasizing of a different value. Same for the public person. We need
> : both, but neither is violating any value by choosing between them.
RMB
> Emphasizing one of a conflicting pair of values IS violating one for the
> sake of the other, a necessary sactifice. I don't see how your reply in
> in contradiction to my words that you're quoting: "If being private is
> a value, then being a public person is a violation of that value. And
> if one is called upon to do so, one is making a necessary sacrifice."
>
One (hopefully last) attempt:
As tzeniut can be translated as private (better might be modest), RMB
suggests an intrinsic conflict with private and public - and
therefore, that any public role is necessarily a violation of tzeniut
- and therefore, there has to be a cost benefit analysis.

What I (and I think others) - do not see the dichotomy as public
versus private - but as a mode of being and behavior - hatznea lechet
and anavut are fully compatible with being a public figure  - and
therefore there isn't the necessary tension.

 It is reasonable to argue that that mode of being and behavior is
more difficult and less common in a public figure - just as, say
lacking yuhara - a related value - is more difficult and less common
in a public figure - but not that there is an intrinsic conflict
(which is  why, in the current debate, modest is a better translation
of tzeniut).  - One can completely lack tzeniut as a completely
private person, and have it as a very public figure.  This is a far
better fit for the sources - none of which (as ably documented by RCL)
go along with your understanding of tzeniut - although they use  the
term.

Indeed, the proof texts I cited make precisely this point.  vehaish
moshe anav me'od is said about moshe the public figure - anavut and
being a public figure are completely compatible.  It is also RYBS's
point - that public figures are obligated in hatznea lechet - if being
a public figure was, as you suggest, an intrinsic violation of hatznea
lechet - this would not make sense, but one would talk that even
though they are violating it, they should minimize the violation -
whihc is very different than his statement

Meir Shinnar