When God split the sea and the Jews went through, did they have separate lines for men and women?
When the Jews received the Torah from God, were the women on one side of the camp and men on the other*?
Did the women ride in the back of the Annanei HaKavod (the Clouds of Glory)?
Does the Torah ever mention the first names of women, or are they only referred to as "Aishes Avraham" or "Aishes Ya'akov" or "Aishes Moshe?"
The Wolf
* Yes, the men and women did not sleep with each other for three days, but I don't think they actually all moved en masse away from each other.
Showing posts with label segregation of the sexes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label segregation of the sexes. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Admas Kodesh Hu (It Is Holy Land)
This past Sunday was Visiting Day at a bunch of camps in the Catskills regions. Eeees and I took another long and tiring (but well worth it) trip up to the mountains to see Wilma. On the way back, a friend of ours, Phoebe* hitched a ride back to Brooklyn with us.
On the way back from the mountains, Phoebe told us about her trip up. She went to see her daughter in the same camp that Wilma is in. However, the people she went with made a stop at another camp to see their son at a learning camp somewhere in the Catskills. Apparently, this learning camp doesn't allow women on the camp grounds at all. They set up an area outside the camp (michutz la-machane... literally) where the women could have refreshments... but they could not step onto the actual grounds. This sounded very odd to me, so I asked Phoebe what the mothers do on visiting day. Do they just go up but not see their sons? Do they not go up at all? She responded that no, the boys go out to the women's area to see their mothers.
I don't understand the logic in this at all. If women are barred from the grounds in toto, and the boys could not see them, I could see the logic (I don't agree with it, but logically, given the values of those running the camps, I can understand the course of action). However, if they're allowing the boys to go to the women's area to see thier mothers, then why not allow them on the grounds already? The boys are going to see other people's mothers when they go to the women's area anyway. So what's the point? Why keep the women confined to one small area?
Can anyone come up with a logical reason for this?
The Wolf
* No, that's not her real name.
On the way back from the mountains, Phoebe told us about her trip up. She went to see her daughter in the same camp that Wilma is in. However, the people she went with made a stop at another camp to see their son at a learning camp somewhere in the Catskills. Apparently, this learning camp doesn't allow women on the camp grounds at all. They set up an area outside the camp (michutz la-machane... literally) where the women could have refreshments... but they could not step onto the actual grounds. This sounded very odd to me, so I asked Phoebe what the mothers do on visiting day. Do they just go up but not see their sons? Do they not go up at all? She responded that no, the boys go out to the women's area to see their mothers.
I don't understand the logic in this at all. If women are barred from the grounds in toto, and the boys could not see them, I could see the logic (I don't agree with it, but logically, given the values of those running the camps, I can understand the course of action). However, if they're allowing the boys to go to the women's area to see thier mothers, then why not allow them on the grounds already? The boys are going to see other people's mothers when they go to the women's area anyway. So what's the point? Why keep the women confined to one small area?
Can anyone come up with a logical reason for this?
The Wolf
* No, that's not her real name.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Mind-blowingly Stupidest Quote of the Week
The Forward has an article on the battle over Mehadrin buses in Israel this week. In it, one of the women who favor segregation made the following statement (emphasis mine):
“I see Haredi women who sit at the back as being the Israeli Rosa Parks,” said writer Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, one of the leading proponents of segregation. “We see it as a stand against the deterioration of standards in the public arena, and view the chance to sit at the back without men gazing at us as a form of empowerment.”
Um..... words just fail me on this one. If you want to argue that the Mehadrin system has it's merits, then by all means go ahead and do so. If you want to say it makes you feel more comfortable to sit in an area with no men, then say so. If you think the plan has merits and should include every bus line, then, please, make your arguments. But to compare yourself to Rosa Parks is simply mind-blowingly ignorant. You realize that she refused to sit in the back, right? She fought for the right to sit anywhere on the bus she darned well pleased. In her case, it was about race, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that had it been gender, her reaction would have been the same.
Oh, and one last point...
Men can still gaze at you. Sitting in the back of the bus doesn't solve that problem. All they have to do is turn around.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pravda Ne'eman
“I see Haredi women who sit at the back as being the Israeli Rosa Parks,” said writer Shira Leibowitz Schmidt, one of the leading proponents of segregation. “We see it as a stand against the deterioration of standards in the public arena, and view the chance to sit at the back without men gazing at us as a form of empowerment.”
Um..... words just fail me on this one. If you want to argue that the Mehadrin system has it's merits, then by all means go ahead and do so. If you want to say it makes you feel more comfortable to sit in an area with no men, then say so. If you think the plan has merits and should include every bus line, then, please, make your arguments. But to compare yourself to Rosa Parks is simply mind-blowingly ignorant. You realize that she refused to sit in the back, right? She fought for the right to sit anywhere on the bus she darned well pleased. In her case, it was about race, but I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that had it been gender, her reaction would have been the same.
Oh, and one last point...
Men can still gaze at you. Sitting in the back of the bus doesn't solve that problem. All they have to do is turn around.
The Wolf
Hat tip: Pravda Ne'eman
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Interesting Wording
Recently, the Rabbinical Committee of Transportation (whoever they are) distributed a brochure in the Bais Ya'akov system advising girls to ride in the back of the bus (as is done on mehadrin buses) so that riding can be done in a "halachic" manner.
Of course, the interesting thing about all this is that it has nothing to do with halacha. There is no halacha anywhere in Shulchan Aruch or anywhere else that says that men and women cannot sit together when riding in public transportation. Were it so, then thousands (millions, maybe?) of Jews would be violating halacha every time they boarded the New York City subway system or rode on a city bus.
Call it a chumra. Heck, call it a hiddur if you like. But don't suggest that thousands and thousands of people who are shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos are violating halacha every day by suggesting that complete segregation is the only "halachic" way to ride the bus.
The Wolf
Of course, the interesting thing about all this is that it has nothing to do with halacha. There is no halacha anywhere in Shulchan Aruch or anywhere else that says that men and women cannot sit together when riding in public transportation. Were it so, then thousands (millions, maybe?) of Jews would be violating halacha every time they boarded the New York City subway system or rode on a city bus.
Call it a chumra. Heck, call it a hiddur if you like. But don't suggest that thousands and thousands of people who are shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos are violating halacha every day by suggesting that complete segregation is the only "halachic" way to ride the bus.
The Wolf
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Two Quick Takes on MP4 Players and Non-Mehadrin Buses
Just a couple of quick takes on things that are happening. I may expand on these in later posts:
Banning MP4 players
It's been reported that MP4 players have been banned by rabbonim in Israel because of the possibility of accessing inappropriate content. This, of course, is on top of the ban on DVD players, computers, the Internet, and cellphones that aren't technologically frozen in the late 1980s.
Whenever there is a new technology available, there are two possible approaches to take:
(a) An outright ban
(b) A cautious acceptance with education
What are the possible outcomes of these approaches? My guess would be as follows:
(a) Some people will adhere to the ban while others will secretly disobey it. As the technology becomes more common in the mainstream, it will eventually filter into the hareidi society as well. Since there is an outright ban on the devices, no education on how to use it responsibly will be given. Youngsters may stumble onto content that they should not be accessing and, not having had any guidance in how to avoid it or why it is to be avoided, will stumble into it. Eventually, as the devices become common enough to be owned openly, you will have large numbers of people who have already clandestinely been viewing things they should not.
(b) Educate people on the dangers of having such devices. Teach them that it's better that they not own them and explain why. Play to the positives (i.e.... "It's not befitting a yid to waste his time watching videos. You're above that...") not the negatives. Encourage them to act responsibly. Will there be some who will go and search out bad stuff anyway? Of course there will... but I'm willing to bet that most of them will be the same people who would do so under the other scenario.
What's the best answer in the short term? Probably the first one. However, I think it completely fails in the long term - and this is the type of problem that you want a long term solution for... not a short term one.
In many ways, I'm grateful that the telephone was invented over a hundred years ago, otherwise, there would be people banning it now (after all, you could use it to call a member of the opposite sex).
(Yes, I know I ignored the vandalism aspect of the story. Perhaps I'll address it later.)
Women and Public Transportation
There are reports that rabonnim in Israel are trying to create additional mehadrin buses by encouraging the Bais Ya'akov girls to monopolize the back of non-mehadrin buses, thus forcing men to sit in the front. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how this would really change matters... after all, there is still nothing preventing a woman from sitting in the front of a non-mehadrin bus and nothing preventing a man from sitting in a spare seat he finds in the back. In addition, how are they to enforce this? Will they start punishing Bais Ya'akov girls whom they find riding in the front?
In any event, I personally find the whole idea demeaning and insulting. To be fair, "back of the bus" doesn't carry the same ugly racial and social overtones in Israel that it does in the United States -- so it may only be my cultural biases that cause me to react so... viscerally to this idea. And, nonetheless, while I try to be dan l'kaf z'chus whenever possible, I'm finding it very hard to see this other than as a means to denigrate women. Women and men travel together on public transportation all over the world in many cities without nary a problem of impropriety. Why can't the hareidim in Israel be expected to behave any better than a subway rider in New York City?
The Wolf
Banning MP4 players
It's been reported that MP4 players have been banned by rabbonim in Israel because of the possibility of accessing inappropriate content. This, of course, is on top of the ban on DVD players, computers, the Internet, and cellphones that aren't technologically frozen in the late 1980s.
Whenever there is a new technology available, there are two possible approaches to take:
(a) An outright ban
(b) A cautious acceptance with education
What are the possible outcomes of these approaches? My guess would be as follows:
(a) Some people will adhere to the ban while others will secretly disobey it. As the technology becomes more common in the mainstream, it will eventually filter into the hareidi society as well. Since there is an outright ban on the devices, no education on how to use it responsibly will be given. Youngsters may stumble onto content that they should not be accessing and, not having had any guidance in how to avoid it or why it is to be avoided, will stumble into it. Eventually, as the devices become common enough to be owned openly, you will have large numbers of people who have already clandestinely been viewing things they should not.
(b) Educate people on the dangers of having such devices. Teach them that it's better that they not own them and explain why. Play to the positives (i.e.... "It's not befitting a yid to waste his time watching videos. You're above that...") not the negatives. Encourage them to act responsibly. Will there be some who will go and search out bad stuff anyway? Of course there will... but I'm willing to bet that most of them will be the same people who would do so under the other scenario.
What's the best answer in the short term? Probably the first one. However, I think it completely fails in the long term - and this is the type of problem that you want a long term solution for... not a short term one.
In many ways, I'm grateful that the telephone was invented over a hundred years ago, otherwise, there would be people banning it now (after all, you could use it to call a member of the opposite sex).
(Yes, I know I ignored the vandalism aspect of the story. Perhaps I'll address it later.)
Women and Public Transportation
There are reports that rabonnim in Israel are trying to create additional mehadrin buses by encouraging the Bais Ya'akov girls to monopolize the back of non-mehadrin buses, thus forcing men to sit in the front. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how this would really change matters... after all, there is still nothing preventing a woman from sitting in the front of a non-mehadrin bus and nothing preventing a man from sitting in a spare seat he finds in the back. In addition, how are they to enforce this? Will they start punishing Bais Ya'akov girls whom they find riding in the front?
In any event, I personally find the whole idea demeaning and insulting. To be fair, "back of the bus" doesn't carry the same ugly racial and social overtones in Israel that it does in the United States -- so it may only be my cultural biases that cause me to react so... viscerally to this idea. And, nonetheless, while I try to be dan l'kaf z'chus whenever possible, I'm finding it very hard to see this other than as a means to denigrate women. Women and men travel together on public transportation all over the world in many cities without nary a problem of impropriety. Why can't the hareidim in Israel be expected to behave any better than a subway rider in New York City?
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)