Read on Twitter
1. Thread: I had some thoughts on the current trend in Hareidi Judaism of erasing women in the name of "modesty."
2. First, to cover some basics. As I demonstrate in this shiur below, "modesty" in the Talmud refers to a general ethos applicable far beyond women's role in Jewish society https://joshyuter.com/2012/01/22/judaism/ep-55-current-jewish-questions-2-tzniut-modesty/
3. If that's too much, I turned it into a Twitter thread here: https://twitter.com/JYuter/status/931265142339272705
4. I'd also recommend my father's piece at @UTJViewpoints which goes into much greater detail about Jewish law and its authoritative sources. I'll be hitting on some points, but not nearly as exhaustively
https://utj.org/viewpoints/responsa/daat-torah-women-own-drum/
https://utj.org/viewpoints/responsa/daat-torah-women-own-drum/
5. The recent newsworthy event covered by @avitalrachel involved a band being sanctioned for allowed the bride to play at her wedding. This provoked a degree of pushback and mockery https://forward.com/schmooze/420031/orthodox-bride-haredi-wedding-drums-bnei-brak/
6. For those living in Israel, this isn't "new." @skjask has written extensively on the ever-increasing erasure of women in Hareidi public life, including blurring faces of women in publications (assuming they're published at all)
7. Some take a "live and let live" approach to these positions. If we assume that one Jewish community shouldn't impose its practices and values on another, then this would have to apply to the Hareidim too. Consider it the flip side of "pluralism."
8. Furthermore, for those who assume that Torah is a "living document" which is constantly reinterpreted and applied each generation, then Hareidim are acting no differently. Consider this the flip side of religious relativism.
9. Finally, even those who hold of an objective Jewish law, Jewish law itself allows for people to restrict what is permitted. For one extreme example, Jewish law technically permits slavery but we've adopted a de facto prohibition against it.
10. There are however reasons for non-Hareidim to protest, at least those who haven't embraced relativism. First, while it's not a problem to act restrictively, it *is* prohibited to invent new laws and pass them off as authoritative as Torah.
11. Those who are so sensitive to any distortions of Judaism from the Left (real or perceived), should be no less vigilent when it comes from the Right. Consider this the flip side of having standards.
12. Second, there is a cultural perception that the Hareidim are more authentic, and therefore more correct. This puts people like me in a position where I now have to field questions about whatever stringency the Hareidi community invents.
13. This brings me to another point stated by @skjask several times. Practices which start in the Hareidi community bleed into the more modern ones, which is easier to do w/the perception of authenticity and unwillingness to challenge the Right
14. Beyond the specific situations, there's a case to be made for the cultural harms, as Sarah Rudolph writes here: https://www.jewishpress.com/in-print/from-the-paper/results-reveal-foolishness/2018/03/12/
15. One of the worst manifestations has been restricting information about breast cancer because the word "breast" is immodest. As @skjask writes here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/saving-women-from-brt-cancer/
16. A final cause for concern is particular to Israel where religious norms can be imposed by the State (which currently is in charge of weddings, but that's a much longer conversation).
17. In this context, working to change the Hareidi world is akin to winning "hearts and minds" of voters. Consider it the flip side of Democracy.
18. At any rate, while there are a lot of bad faith arguments and no shortage of double-standards and hypocricy, there's a lot at stake. \\fin
19. Addendum: I'd like to address a point I missed when I did this thread last year. I argued that those who believe Torah is a "living document" which "evolves" have no legitimate recourse to canonical texts to criticize Hareidim. I stand by this point. https://twitter.com/JYuter/status/1105124068154576900
20. But what I did not address was that many Hareidi communities not only reject the idea of a "living document" but they reject any insinuation that halakhah or Jewish practice ever changed. What is observed today (or what they say ought to be observed) is how it's always been
21. Marc Shapiro's book Changing the Immutable cites examples of historical documents, including pictures and even books, being edited or censored bec they were at odds w/the desired narrative.
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Immutable-Orthodox-Judaism-Rewrites/dp/1904113605/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=changing+the+immutable&qid=1595504456&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Immutable-Orthodox-Judaism-Rewrites/dp/1904113605/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=changing+the+immutable&qid=1595504456&sr=8-1
22. Thus, when Leslie Ginsparg Klein produces pictures of Beis Yaakov girls with unblurred faces and "immodest" dress (by today's BY standards), it threatens the Hareidi narrative of an unbroken and unchanging practice https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/the-troubling-trend-of-photoshopping-history/
23. In sum, while those who hold of a "living Torah" cannot personally critique the Hareidim from texts with integrity, they *can* cite textual and historical evidence to challenge the Hareidi religious narrative on its own terms.
