I think Natan's (and writers like him) concern trolling about "hypersexualization" misses an important point that they don't realize, due to not having much exposure to Torah, and taking for granted certain facts of life without thinking about them (or it is possible that they realize, but don't care).
In the Torah, women are people who were created to be עזר כנגדו. They are inherently people who were designed to be attached to men, and not in the same way that men were created to be attached to women. This is not a disparagement of them, but is their deepest nature. And this is reflected in every aspect of the Torah sheb'ksav, Torah she'baal peh, halachos, aggados, and Torah culture.
But even without the Torah, it is a simple fact of life that women are "sexualized" to a very great degree. It doesn't matter which culture or which time period, that is simply human nature. This is self evident to almost anyone who knows any women, no matter which culture they are a part of. And to the contrary, in today's progressive feminist world of completely equal rights, women are sexualized in the EXTREME, far more than at any other time in history, as is evident from literally anywhere in any media, or by just walking out into the street.
So the question is how to deal with this. The secular way is to encourage the profligate expression of this very natural tendency in the name of "freedom" and "liberation", all the while pretending that women are completely equal to men in every aspect. The Torah way is to make a mitzvah out of פרישות and צניעות, and to encourage the positive expression of this human nature within a marriage of קדושה and טהרה as a בית נאמן בישראל.
People like Natan think, or pretend to think that this religious expression is "hypersexualization", but totally ignore the elephant in the room, (or in Natan's case we will say the dinosaur) the real hypersexualization that goes on in their own society, in the absolutely wrong direction.
Not at all well put. The usual binary choice, either the yeshivah way or the goyish way. There is a healthy middle ground too and that was practiced amongst yeriim and sheleimim not too long ago.
For example, the Rebbes in the ma'asalach had no problems talking to poor almonos (last time I checked an almonoh was female). You find me a rebbe that will talk to a woman today. Mind you, many first divison premier league rebbes won't give more than a 30 seconds good day to men without a healthy bank balance either. We've come along way since Reb Zusha....much frummer nowadays.
Indeed. The yereim and sheleimim today have no problem wishing women mazel tov. Including numerous rabbonim. As far as I am concerned any man who suffers a hint of a hirhur when wishing mazel tov to a woman has a mental issue caused by the hypersexulisation of women in the chareidi world. Like those who complain when a four year old girl is brought into the ezras anoshim. Any male whose davening is disturbed by a four year old (well behaved) female has big issues....
Four year olds are segregated by gender in the orthodox educational institutions. In that socirty the presense of four year girls in the men's section is inappropriate. Four year olds shouldn't be ptesent in shul regardless of gender.
It's par for the course. Once you prove one irrelevant point is wrong, he brings other irrelevant points in rebuttal.
These sick retards project their own sicknesses on everyone else. They impugn motivations that are not in evidence and don't really exist. It's also clear that to them the beit knesset exists for almost any purpose but tefilla.
Because lines like that cannot be defined. It depend on circumstances and individuality. And a healthy dose of common sense. Going to the extreme because 'the line cannot be defined' is the nonsense the chareidi world believes in today.
That's retarded. Circumstantial responses still depend on well-defined lines to formulate them as they are needed.
There are well-defined parameters recognized across the entire charedi world. That you disagree with them doesn't mean they cannot be defined. It's exactly like I said. You disagree with the lines, insist that other lines exist, and then refuse to define them. Of course they can be defined. You don't want to because they are so repulsive to charedim and even many frum Jews who are not damaged like you and your ilk.
This one school with their weird policy does not mean that the entire charedi world has a line of consensus drawn the same way. It's you who applies the single example to smear the entire group.
There is absolutely nothing 'well-defined' in the chareidi world. It's not a science. For example A mareh that would be tomeh for some will be kosher for a couple with fertility issues. Treifing a pot will be hefsed merubah for some and not for others. And so on.
Just wanted to add that my comment shouldn't be construed as support for the rule. I agree with HaRav Mecharker that it seems to be going too far. But at least it is going too far in the right direction!
Without going into it, there is enough destorted approach to sexuality in the charedi society, but RNS has an unhealthy obsession with constantly looking for new faults of the charedim and regurgitating the old ones instead of addressing the issues of his own MO and DL communities. He presents a distorted and one sided portrail of a society that someone unfamiliar with it may mistake for all there is.
The girls will most likely ignore the meshugasen and will continue drinking from the bottles. It's nothing to write a post about, but to expect people to fork over money to read it, is beyond rationality and common sense.
I think the chiloni or modox discussions about how Chareidi norms of tzniyut are "exaggerated" in comparison to earlier times fail to take into account the precipitous drop in western society's standards of modesty and decency.
It is very illuminating to go into Youtube and watch old clips of films taken around 1900 of how women dressed - not by the Kotel, not in the street, but on the beach!!!
And you only have to read 19th century novels by Jane Austen, Dickens, Eliot etc. to see how women behaved and were spoken to or addressed.
So what our generation considers "exaggerated" is daring in comparison to those times.
Even the "frummest" of us have lost sensitivity in this regard - for example, I notice the freedom with which the Chareidi male and female bank employees in Bnei Brak speak to one another......
Rubbish. Victorian England was anything but decent. Zonos and all that goes with it was much more open and in public than today. Men were not embarrassed about having 'mistresses'. And the necklines and arm covering hardly conformed with Rabbi Falk. Dresses were longer at the bottom true, but at the top.....Austen etc focused on the high echelons of society. Don’t ask what the servants got up to....
Have you even read Jane Austen? The same could certainly be said more accurately today. You don't add to the discussion. All you do is rebut, retardedly. Boors existed then in great numbers. They exist today in even greater numbers. The mores back then were more respected by the common folks who aspired to be more than boorish. Today, the common folks follow the boors, and aspire to be more like them.
It cannot be said more accurately today. Prostitution is regulated in law or downright illegal. It was not in Victorian England. Today no normal man will parade around with a mistress. Back then, husband having a mistress was something that wives had to put up with.
In other words, there is no evidence that society back then was more moral.
Notice how I have responded to you with facts. Not silly insults which to be honest do not reflect well on the society you defend.
You can't be serious. The vast majority of young women today are functionally prostitutes/mistresses, they shamelessly live with their numerous boyfriends out of wedlock. The same is with men.
Victorian England certainly had laws prohibiting prostitution
A child is born out of wedlock. Nobody lives out of wedlock.
The discussion is on whether Victorian England was more moral than today or not. Shimshon claims it was without presenting any evidence other than Jane Eyre talking about the upper echolons of that society (society which, incidentally saw nothing wrong with many well heeled men having a mistress and not being embarressed about it.
Don't try to deflect on to other topics - I am wise to that game. Do you have anything specific to say on the topic of whether Victorian England was more moral or not than current society? Do yout think the teenage low class youth of victorian England did not have multiple sexual partners? How do you know? Where you there?
If we compare the morality of the upper echelons of Victorian society with the upper echelons of modern society....there is no comparison. Most young women in the upper echelons of modern society are functionally prostitutes/mistresses, and they see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In Victorian society, even for those who did it, it was shameful.
There's a difference between a ban, and school decorum etc. You gotta wear a uniform, but that's not a ban on other clothes. Same with this water bottle. It likely has more to do with what the school considers respectable, and nothing to do with men.
Good point! I didn't even think of that. I know that many Bais Ya'akovs are very into teaching the girls to act eidel and refined - and specifically discourage drinking straight out of water bottles. I wonder if Natan is just completely missing the boat again. He probably can't even fathom such a concept.
Small correction: "There are halachos from Chazal about seeing women in such while swimming - and Chazal call someone who does so a rasha." Chazal weren't even talking about actual swimming, they were talking about doing laundry, where sometimes their arms would maybe show! Pretty radical to the modern mind, if you ask me...
I can't decide what's funnier. The fact that you have a whole fan blog devoted to Slifkin or the fact that you are giving money to him.
I hope you accept constructive criticism. I've read through both your comments on Slifkin's blog as well as your own blog posts. I couldn't help but notice you never seem to address his point. You just deflect to some issue about modox movement.
And what's wrong with giving money to him? He works hard and writes well! I think when I am addressing his points, I do so pretty directly. Do you have any examples where I do not, or are you just BSing?
Too many to go through, but let's stick with this situation. You do acknowledge that this school did go over board with banning water bottles, but instead of actually discussing what their reasoning you pivot to talking about how modox jews look at inappropriate things on their phones. There are many things that girls school ban that make absolutely no sense. Such as nail polish or certain hair styles, and it is perfectly reasonable to question why they do so. I think it's weird when school administrators sexualize things that aren't to begin with. What's next no more lollipops or girls can't call their fathers Daddy?
Well, talk about deflecting!!! That was not the topic of Natan's post at all! The reason the schools do so is because they feel it's a lack of refinement. Nothing to do with sexualization! I think it's perfectly understandable.
How is drinking from a water bottle unrefined? I think it's commendable that they want to cut down on waste by not using plastic. Is it unrefined for yeshiva boys to drink from water bottles? Seems pretty misogynistic to me
It's a cultural thing. Can you imagine Biden or Macron swigging from a water bottle at a state meeting? The mechanchos try to inculcate a level of refinement in the girls. It's not a halacha, but an extra level of refinement. Many and maybe even most girls out of their school years will swig from water bottles, and there is nothing wrong. But the point is to educate them to be aware of their surroundings and act with refinement.
If you don't come from our culture, you won't be able to appreciate it.
Did you quote the whole post? I don't think it's right to reveal what's behind a paywall. He's trying to make money. You definitely can and should critique what he's saying, and even summarize it. Just don't quote the whole thing.
I think Natan's (and writers like him) concern trolling about "hypersexualization" misses an important point that they don't realize, due to not having much exposure to Torah, and taking for granted certain facts of life without thinking about them (or it is possible that they realize, but don't care).
In the Torah, women are people who were created to be עזר כנגדו. They are inherently people who were designed to be attached to men, and not in the same way that men were created to be attached to women. This is not a disparagement of them, but is their deepest nature. And this is reflected in every aspect of the Torah sheb'ksav, Torah she'baal peh, halachos, aggados, and Torah culture.
But even without the Torah, it is a simple fact of life that women are "sexualized" to a very great degree. It doesn't matter which culture or which time period, that is simply human nature. This is self evident to almost anyone who knows any women, no matter which culture they are a part of. And to the contrary, in today's progressive feminist world of completely equal rights, women are sexualized in the EXTREME, far more than at any other time in history, as is evident from literally anywhere in any media, or by just walking out into the street.
So the question is how to deal with this. The secular way is to encourage the profligate expression of this very natural tendency in the name of "freedom" and "liberation", all the while pretending that women are completely equal to men in every aspect. The Torah way is to make a mitzvah out of פרישות and צניעות, and to encourage the positive expression of this human nature within a marriage of קדושה and טהרה as a בית נאמן בישראל.
People like Natan think, or pretend to think that this religious expression is "hypersexualization", but totally ignore the elephant in the room, (or in Natan's case we will say the dinosaur) the real hypersexualization that goes on in their own society, in the absolutely wrong direction.
Well put! As always.
Not at all well put. The usual binary choice, either the yeshivah way or the goyish way. There is a healthy middle ground too and that was practiced amongst yeriim and sheleimim not too long ago.
For example, the Rebbes in the ma'asalach had no problems talking to poor almonos (last time I checked an almonoh was female). You find me a rebbe that will talk to a woman today. Mind you, many first divison premier league rebbes won't give more than a 30 seconds good day to men without a healthy bank balance either. We've come along way since Reb Zusha....much frummer nowadays.
The rebbes that I'd known, granted they weren't many, talked to women.
Satmer rebbe בעל ברך משה would go to ezras noshim to wish the women at the bris. I was there.
Indeed. The yereim and sheleimim today have no problem wishing women mazel tov. Including numerous rabbonim. As far as I am concerned any man who suffers a hint of a hirhur when wishing mazel tov to a woman has a mental issue caused by the hypersexulisation of women in the chareidi world. Like those who complain when a four year old girl is brought into the ezras anoshim. Any male whose davening is disturbed by a four year old (well behaved) female has big issues....
Four year olds are segregated by gender in the orthodox educational institutions. In that socirty the presense of four year girls in the men's section is inappropriate. Four year olds shouldn't be ptesent in shul regardless of gender.
Why is it inappropriate (leaving aside behaviour)? You have just repeated without explaining. Wonder why?
It's par for the course. Once you prove one irrelevant point is wrong, he brings other irrelevant points in rebuttal.
These sick retards project their own sicknesses on everyone else. They impugn motivations that are not in evidence and don't really exist. It's also clear that to them the beit knesset exists for almost any purpose but tefilla.
The problem with people like you is, you say a line exists, but then refuse to define it.
Because lines like that cannot be defined. It depend on circumstances and individuality. And a healthy dose of common sense. Going to the extreme because 'the line cannot be defined' is the nonsense the chareidi world believes in today.
That's retarded. Circumstantial responses still depend on well-defined lines to formulate them as they are needed.
There are well-defined parameters recognized across the entire charedi world. That you disagree with them doesn't mean they cannot be defined. It's exactly like I said. You disagree with the lines, insist that other lines exist, and then refuse to define them. Of course they can be defined. You don't want to because they are so repulsive to charedim and even many frum Jews who are not damaged like you and your ilk.
This one school with their weird policy does not mean that the entire charedi world has a line of consensus drawn the same way. It's you who applies the single example to smear the entire group.
There is absolutely nothing 'well-defined' in the chareidi world. It's not a science. For example A mareh that would be tomeh for some will be kosher for a couple with fertility issues. Treifing a pot will be hefsed merubah for some and not for others. And so on.
Just wanted to add that my comment shouldn't be construed as support for the rule. I agree with HaRav Mecharker that it seems to be going too far. But at least it is going too far in the right direction!
Without going into it, there is enough destorted approach to sexuality in the charedi society, but RNS has an unhealthy obsession with constantly looking for new faults of the charedim and regurgitating the old ones instead of addressing the issues of his own MO and DL communities. He presents a distorted and one sided portrail of a society that someone unfamiliar with it may mistake for all there is.
The girls will most likely ignore the meshugasen and will continue drinking from the bottles. It's nothing to write a post about, but to expect people to fork over money to read it, is beyond rationality and common sense.
....ברוך שפטרני
I think the chiloni or modox discussions about how Chareidi norms of tzniyut are "exaggerated" in comparison to earlier times fail to take into account the precipitous drop in western society's standards of modesty and decency.
It is very illuminating to go into Youtube and watch old clips of films taken around 1900 of how women dressed - not by the Kotel, not in the street, but on the beach!!!
And you only have to read 19th century novels by Jane Austen, Dickens, Eliot etc. to see how women behaved and were spoken to or addressed.
So what our generation considers "exaggerated" is daring in comparison to those times.
Even the "frummest" of us have lost sensitivity in this regard - for example, I notice the freedom with which the Chareidi male and female bank employees in Bnei Brak speak to one another......
Rubbish. Victorian England was anything but decent. Zonos and all that goes with it was much more open and in public than today. Men were not embarrassed about having 'mistresses'. And the necklines and arm covering hardly conformed with Rabbi Falk. Dresses were longer at the bottom true, but at the top.....Austen etc focused on the high echelons of society. Don’t ask what the servants got up to....
Have you even read Jane Austen? The same could certainly be said more accurately today. You don't add to the discussion. All you do is rebut, retardedly. Boors existed then in great numbers. They exist today in even greater numbers. The mores back then were more respected by the common folks who aspired to be more than boorish. Today, the common folks follow the boors, and aspire to be more like them.
It cannot be said more accurately today. Prostitution is regulated in law or downright illegal. It was not in Victorian England. Today no normal man will parade around with a mistress. Back then, husband having a mistress was something that wives had to put up with.
In other words, there is no evidence that society back then was more moral.
Notice how I have responded to you with facts. Not silly insults which to be honest do not reflect well on the society you defend.
You can't be serious. The vast majority of young women today are functionally prostitutes/mistresses, they shamelessly live with their numerous boyfriends out of wedlock. The same is with men.
Victorian England certainly had laws prohibiting prostitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_Kingdom#19th_century
and before that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_Houses_Act_1751
A child is born out of wedlock. Nobody lives out of wedlock.
The discussion is on whether Victorian England was more moral than today or not. Shimshon claims it was without presenting any evidence other than Jane Eyre talking about the upper echolons of that society (society which, incidentally saw nothing wrong with many well heeled men having a mistress and not being embarressed about it.
Don't try to deflect on to other topics - I am wise to that game. Do you have anything specific to say on the topic of whether Victorian England was more moral or not than current society? Do yout think the teenage low class youth of victorian England did not have multiple sexual partners? How do you know? Where you there?
Hmm, I will take the New York Times in 1977 over you
"Again, yes. The trend, however, seems to be away from changing custody simply because the parent is living out of wedlock"
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/08/archives/a-legal-guide-to-cohabitation-a-legal-guide-to-cohabitation.html
If we compare the morality of the upper echelons of Victorian society with the upper echelons of modern society....there is no comparison. Most young women in the upper echelons of modern society are functionally prostitutes/mistresses, and they see absolutely nothing wrong with that. In Victorian society, even for those who did it, it was shameful.
Good post. Not paying money to read it, better to give to a kollel.
There's a difference between a ban, and school decorum etc. You gotta wear a uniform, but that's not a ban on other clothes. Same with this water bottle. It likely has more to do with what the school considers respectable, and nothing to do with men.
Natan is not very good at understanding nuance
Good point! I didn't even think of that. I know that many Bais Ya'akovs are very into teaching the girls to act eidel and refined - and specifically discourage drinking straight out of water bottles. I wonder if Natan is just completely missing the boat again. He probably can't even fathom such a concept.
His middle name may as well be "misconstrue". I don't even doubt there is more to the story.
Small correction: "There are halachos from Chazal about seeing women in such while swimming - and Chazal call someone who does so a rasha." Chazal weren't even talking about actual swimming, they were talking about doing laundry, where sometimes their arms would maybe show! Pretty radical to the modern mind, if you ask me...
I found something interesting about the ban on Slifkin's books, in the new book on Reb Dovid Feinstein zt"l "REB DOVID", page 219. Take a look.
Fraudulent though typical responses from those who as usual prefer hedonism.
For a start:Sure, they did all sorts of ... in Victorian England and America .
But they dressed emphatically far more decently.They took that as a given,unless you belonged to an inferior less moral society
They expected and assumed for coming generations [& themselves when they aged] to act better and appropriate in accordance with the dress.
And it forced them [or enough of them] to as well on occasion behave proper
That supposed hypocrisy was for a much larger purpose .
They would have been tragically stunned by where we are at today.
I can't decide what's funnier. The fact that you have a whole fan blog devoted to Slifkin or the fact that you are giving money to him.
I hope you accept constructive criticism. I've read through both your comments on Slifkin's blog as well as your own blog posts. I couldn't help but notice you never seem to address his point. You just deflect to some issue about modox movement.
And what's wrong with giving money to him? He works hard and writes well! I think when I am addressing his points, I do so pretty directly. Do you have any examples where I do not, or are you just BSing?
Too many to go through, but let's stick with this situation. You do acknowledge that this school did go over board with banning water bottles, but instead of actually discussing what their reasoning you pivot to talking about how modox jews look at inappropriate things on their phones. There are many things that girls school ban that make absolutely no sense. Such as nail polish or certain hair styles, and it is perfectly reasonable to question why they do so. I think it's weird when school administrators sexualize things that aren't to begin with. What's next no more lollipops or girls can't call their fathers Daddy?
Well, talk about deflecting!!! That was not the topic of Natan's post at all! The reason the schools do so is because they feel it's a lack of refinement. Nothing to do with sexualization! I think it's perfectly understandable.
How is drinking from a water bottle unrefined? I think it's commendable that they want to cut down on waste by not using plastic. Is it unrefined for yeshiva boys to drink from water bottles? Seems pretty misogynistic to me
It's a cultural thing. Can you imagine Biden or Macron swigging from a water bottle at a state meeting? The mechanchos try to inculcate a level of refinement in the girls. It's not a halacha, but an extra level of refinement. Many and maybe even most girls out of their school years will swig from water bottles, and there is nothing wrong. But the point is to educate them to be aware of their surroundings and act with refinement.
If you don't come from our culture, you won't be able to appreciate it.
To further butress: Paul Reichmann never drank straight from a water bottle or soda can. Because. It. Was unrefined
Did you quote the whole post? I don't think it's right to reveal what's behind a paywall. He's trying to make money. You definitely can and should critique what he's saying, and even summarize it. Just don't quote the whole thing.
Fixed!
I agree. I'll summarize it soon.