Priceless Quote!
Thanks to DovBear
According to the police, Mrs. Greenberg said she was singled out because she chose to wear denim skirts, long, natural-looking wigs made of human hair, and stockings without a visible seam — traditionally worn because they show that women’s legs are not bare.In other words, you gotta bare your legs to show they are not bare! What a F****D UP lifestyle!!
How, exactly, is this considered Tzanua?! Isn't it better to simply leave the slit out and not worry about what's underneath?! What, exactly, is going through the minds of these men that the NEED to know a woman's legs aren't bare by having her bare her legs?! How, exactly, and why, is this considered "frumkeit?!"
See the full NY Times article here...
12 comments:
Perhaps you should funnel some of the energy that you're currently expending in vitriol instead toward research. The "seam" isn't a gap in the fabric. The stockings are purchased sans "seam" and it is stitched on for those who request it because their community standards require it. The "seam" is nothing more than a series of stitches running up the back of the stocking.
Once again: Why are these supposedly VERY FRUM men looking at women's legs?
Besides, aren't the stockings supposed to be BLACK? Isn't it obvious they're wearing them? And even if not, it's pretty obvious to me when my wife wears normal colored (I guess neutral would be the correct term) and when she's not. And yes. I do quite often look at my wife's legs, thank you very much... :)
The custom in those communties is to *avoid* black stockings, actually.
It's not a question of men looking or not looking, rather a violation of community standards.
Community standards? BS. It's a population completely preoccupied with stuff other than the Torah with which they claim to be occupied... This isn't about community standards. Tznius enforcement?! What about child molestation watch? Or watching so these same people don't cheat on their taxes? Things that are actually MEFORASH in the Torah, things that are actual Mitzvos Lo Sa'Aseh?
No. This isn't about community standards. It's about deflecting attention away from things that actually NEED attention.
This is not about religion, it's about power. People have always used, and will always use, religion as a way to control. When a woman is beaten on a bus because she won't sit in the back? This is not out of concern for keeping the sexes separate. If it were, the men would go to the back of the bus. It is about power, controlling this woman, and punishing her for not following orders - not G-d's orders, but the orders of the mortals who imposed the rule in the first place.
You are correct. Which simply leads me back to a conclusion I made a while ago. These people are not Torah observant Jews any more than a Reform Jew is. In fact, they are far worse than Reform Jews because they hide behind Torah to justify their completely non-Torah, I would even say ANTI-Torah, practices. Reform Jews make no such claim.
These people do not and have never believed in Torah. They believe, as you said, in power and only in how much they can get for themselves.
Funny, the last I checked, "v'hatznea leches..." was a possuk in the Torah. If my memory serves, its requirements are also codified in the Shulchan Arukh, much like the laws of Shabbos and Kashrus. And if I'm not mistaken, "community standards" is actually noted there as having the force of din. *shrug*
So, when is your wife going to start wearing a Burkha?
Now, don't get me wrong. If this person doesn't want to follow community standards, ridiculous as they are, they don't have too live in that community and I'm not defending their actions. But I certainly condemn what the tznius police is doing as well.
Oh, and funny here too. Last I checked, it was a possuk from MICHA, a navi, not from the Torah. It is not a possuk in the TORAH. Get your facts straight. And this from Rabbi Herschel Schachter: "The prophet Micha (6:8) uses the verb "leches" in conjunction with tznius: "vehatznea leches im Elokecha." The rabbis of the Talmud (Sukkah 49b) understood the choice of that particular verb to be an allusion to the expression in Koheles (7:2) "tov laleches el beis ovel mileches el beis mishteh." This particular form of the verb appears in connection with a funeral and a wedding - occasions which are intended for a public outpouring of emotion. The navi Micha is telling us that even on these occasions one should tone down his public display of his inner emotions. And kal vachomer, so much more so all year long, one should try to lead as private (as tzanua) a life as possible ."
Sounds like it's talking about inner, Pnimiyus, not outer, Chitzoniyus. The funny thing is, Chareidim have ALWAYS focused on the Chitzoniyus because it's SOOOOO much easier than actually internally bettering oneself.
And even if he meant Chitzoniyus, it means keeping one's life private, which means keeping to oneself as well. Which brings me back to the original question: Why are women being examined so closely as to know if she has a seam in her stockings and longer wigs than others if they are not supposed to even be LOOKING at the women?
"The navi Micha is telling us that even on these occasions one should tone down his public display of his inner emotions. And kal vachomer, so much more so all year long, one should try to lead as private (as tzanua) a life as possible."
And it still doesn't sound to me like Micha is talking about outer tznius... And it doesn't seem to sound like it to R' Herschel Schachter either...
Hmm. Seems I've won this argument. :)
Post a Comment