Tznius Lunacy Abounds

From the tznius craziness files this week:

Don't Sing So Well...

A young bride moves to Lakewood to be with her husband's family. Her sister-in-law, who is affiliated with a local tznius organization which was sending out a mass-mailing in the community. The mass-mailing was to include a CD with songs sung by women. (I would presume that the mailing was meant only for women.) The sister-in-law recruits the young bride (who apparently has had some voice training) to record a few tracks for the CD. Sister-in-law, who also sings (but not as well as the young bride) also recorded some songs for the track.

So, what happened?

my mother ending up slipping to me, that the tznius organization wasn’t going to be using any of the tracks that I sang on. They loved my voice, it’s beautiful, don’t get them wrong. However, in comparison to my sister-in-laws voice (which is quite nice) mine is much more trained, and since the purpose of the organization is to promote tznius, they didn’t think it was a good idea to have a voice like mine on their cd.

A trained singing voice is not tznius? Keep in mind, we're not talking about a woman singing in front of men, since were that the case, the women would not have recorded any tracks at all. We're talking about women singing in front of women -- and it's still not considered tznius! One wonders where this is headed next. Will women swimming together not be allowed to wear a standard bathing suit because it's not tznius?

(UPDATE 2/25 8:30AM: See below for explanation on this next item)
Your Blog Might Lead To Mixed Dancing

Next up on the hit parade, Altie, of MoVinG oN, a Chabad-Lubavitch female blogger, reports that she received an email from "The Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Purity" (whomever they may be), telling her that she must close her comments to males and restrict what she writes to things that don't reflect badly on Chabad or Crown Heights. Ideally, of course, it would be better for a Bas Melech to not blog at all, as the idea of a woman expressing her thoughts violates the principle of kol k'vudah bas melech p'nima. As the letter states:

Kol kvuda bas melech pnima. A girl’s purpose is to be a mekabel. Not to overly express herself to the world around her. Al achas kama vkama to express herself in a way that is nontznius, and therefore is a drastic chillul Hashem and chillul shem Lubavtich.

and (emphasis added)

Obviously, to cease to express yourself through the derech of the internet, or bchlal in the world, as stated above: kol kvuda bas melech pnima, that would be the ideal. We hope that one day you will realize this remedy on your own. As for now, we are merely requesting the abovementioned guidelines to follow.

From the positive can be inferred the negative, and we hope that “a word to the wise is sufficient”. We would hope to not have to resort to any unpleasant measures, but of course we will do what must be done.

Interestingly enough, in their next email, they asked her to rat out her "blogging friends."

Incidentally, if you could share with us some information about a few of your 'blogging' friends (which as you know, the Rebbe would be very against having such friendships in the first place. It goes against everything the holy Torah dictates), then your help would show your sincere desire to not cause us to take necessary actions.

The committee would have made ol' Joe McCarthy proud.

The Pop Star Who Came To Lakewood

Moving right along, we have the letter from a store clerk in Lakewood who doctors products when the containers contain non-tznius images... and then catches flack when he or his staff misses one of the thousands of packages. He tells the story of one instance where a package contained an image of a female teen pop-star. The store clerks went to work marking up the containers but apparently missed at least one. A woman who bought a missed package came into the store and made a scene, screaming “What if a boy bought this and took it to another level?”

Took it to another level? What was he going to do? Call Miley Cyrus' agent to arrange a hook-up?

Eventually, the matter went to a local posek who ruled that as long as the images are covered, they can be sold.

The clerk, however, put the problem in focus:

There are so many problems. But no. A picture of a teen pop star was more important to wast the posek’s precious time. We have people dealing drugs to our kids, and this woman convinced the posek that our disposable package with a smiling girl will destroy our kids. I work in a store. I hear all. I know what is going on in this town. There are so many crazy problems. I never once heard someone say their child went off because of a fruit snacks package with a cd offer from M.C

Tznius Is In The Eyebrow Of The Beholder

And lastly, we have the case in Israel where an eyebrow shaping advertisement has drawn the wrath of local officials in Modiin Ilit (in Israel). It seems that the shape of an eyebrow is enough to cause the passions of men to erupt and, as such, the ads are not tznius. As Rafi (from Life In Israel) points out, this is likely to have an economic impact on the women of Modiin Ilit, as cosmotology is a very popular career among the wives of the community.

I always find it amazing how overboard we go with tznius. It's one thing to have rules and guidelines. There should be guidelines for acting and dress (for men AND women). I do believe that there is wisdom in a limited separation of the sexes. But the extremes to which some people carry it are just too much. I've often observed that the very first place we encounter tznius is when the prophet tells us to walk humbly with God. When he told us that, he wasn't advising us regarding skirt lengths, stockings and women singing in public. Do you think the women who caused a scene in the Lakewood grocery was adhering to the principle of Hatzneah Leches Im Hashem Elokecha? I don't think so - on the contrary, I'm convinced her actions were the direct opposite.

The Wolf

UPDATE 2/25 8:30am: Apparently the item on Altie's blog was a hoax. My apologies for posting it.

Sit Down, Shut Up and Don't Question

An editorial appeared today on Matzav.com concerning whether or not it is acceptable to publicly question "da'as torah" or the words of the gedolim. The editorial, written by Shmuel Miskin, is in response to an post that appeared on The Lakewood Scoop.

Beth Medrash Govoha (the big yeshiva in Lakewood) has a policy that prohibits its students from going to Blue Claws games (the Lakewood Blue Claws are Class-A affiliate of the Philadelphia Phillies). An anonymous author (M.E.) wrote to the Lakewood Scoop wondering if BMG might consider loosening the ban on Blue Claws games in light of the fact that people today need a "kosher" outlet -- more so than the past.

To be fair, I know next to nothing about the Blue Claws, BMG or the restriction -- but then again, that's not really the point here. M.E. may have a point that the restriction should be lifted or he may be utterly and completely wrong. It's all beside the point for the purpose of this discussion.

Shmuel Miskin, in his editorial, takes offense that someone has dared to even ask a question publicly about the ban. M.E., in his post, was not critical or disrespectful of the yeshiva administration. He wasn't even saying that the yeshiva should rescind the ban -- he merely brought up the question. But apparently, even that's unacceptable for Shmuel Miskin -- his view (unless I read the editorial wrong) is that even asking a question in public about policy change is wrong, disrespectful and "nothing less than a Chillul HaShem." Our lot is simply to accept the rules and shut up.*

But what if the rules are wrong? Yes, I know that some people may not be able to accept the fact that gedolim can possibly make an error -- but I'm not addressing people who believe in the Jewish version of papal infallibility. We have, unfortunately, seen time and again that there can be instances when gedolim base their decisions on incorrect information, are harried and/or manipulated into making decisions without properly reviewing all the facts. Sometimes, they can make the right decision and, due to the laws of unintended consequences, still have it turn into a disaster. And sometimes, a gadol may just may be plain wrong. So, if you believe that a decision is wrong for any one of the above reasons (or perhaps for another reason altogether) -- and it's a public policy decision that affects many people -- then why shouldn't it be subject to public debate? If something affects me, should I not have a right to speak my voice on the matter -- even if in the end I am overruled? Or am I a sheep whose job is to simply follow the shepherd without so much as a bleat of independent thought?

I am a firm believer in civil debate. I believe that if you're going to debate someone on an issue, s/he deserves to be addressed civilly and with respect** -- and that certainly goes all the more so for the gedolim. It's unfortunate that some may abuse the idea of respectful debate and start calling the gedolim names and otherwise denigrating them; but I don't believe that because some abuse a system that all have to suffer. If you follow that path, then no one should be allowed to own a knife or a car. But there should be no reason at all to disallow respectful questioning on public policy in public.

In some respects, it may be sad that the world of passive acceptance of the words of the gedolim without question has passed us by -- but it is a product of a bygone world. Sadly, since the gedolim have shown that they can err (and do so very publicly), there has to be a mechanism in place to allow for the respectful questioning (and yes, in public) of those public policy decisions that affect us.

The Wolf

* Yes, he does allow for private questioning, but I think that, at least with some gedolim, my chance of getting an audience is close to nil.

* *Of course, there are those that hold that the very act of disagreeing is disrespectful; but I obviously don't hold of that position.

Yet Another Tznius Letter... Making Promises for God to Keep

Remember when a Lakewood lady received a note telling her that her skirt did not cover her nees [sic] in back?

Well, it seems that yet another anonymous missive has been sent in Lakewood, and this time, the person who sent it must be pretending to be God. The Lakewood Scoop has published a letter* mailed to a childless couple in Lakewood. The letter reads (any typos are mine):

I am writing you because I realize what great parents you would be.

I promise you that if you accept upon yourself to wear much longer skirts and to always dress in loose (even baggy) clothing whether pregnant or not, Hashem will bless you both with children.

Dear husband, it is your obligation to compliment your wife on how beautiful she looks this way. As it is truly beautiful to keep her real beauty just for you personally.

You will both be blessed by Hashem.

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that the person is incredibly insensitive to send such a thing to a childless couple. Let's also put aside for the moment that if the recipient is living in Lakewood, they are probably already observant of the laws of tznius (albeit perhaps not to the letter writer's standards). Let's also put aside the fact that the letter writer is obviously a busy body, assuming that s/he knows what is right not only for her to wear but also for what he has to compliment her on. Let's even assume that the letter writer had the best of intentions in mind when sending the letter -- that s/he meant it l'shem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven) and truly didn't mean to cause any harm.

Even with all that, I am *still* deeply disturbed by this letter. This person has actually gone ahead and abrogated to himself the ability to promise something in God's name! How the hell does he know what God has in mind for this couple? Who gave him/her license to pedal such theodicic claptrap? Does s/he think s/he can order God around to provide her with a child if she starts wearing longer skirts and he compliments her on it? Who gave this person the right to do such a thing?

You know, it's not often you see the prohibition of a false prophet being transgressed these days, but I think that this letter actually comes close to that line in spirit.

Lastly, I've always wondered about the value of a promise made anonymously from whom you can't collect and to whom you can't turn to for recompense when the promise does not come true. If the writer had guts, s/he identify him/herself** so that the couple can demand recompense if the promise fails to come through.

The Wolf

* I have no idea of the veracity of the story. I'm assuming it's true, but make your own judgments.

** Yes, I'm well aware of the irony of an anonymous writer stating that. But I don't go around making promises that I can't fulfill - and I don't drag God into it either.