Jump to content


Photo

Hadarat Nashim


  • Please log in to reply
570 replies to this topic

#41 warren

warren

    click vegetable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,910 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 05:01 AM

The first is an ad from a Rechovot local newspaper for datim and haredim, advertising an event in which the two people whose photos appeared in the original copy (Yedidya Meir from Kol Hai Radio and Sivan Rahav-Meir from Channel 2) will speak. The second is a joke I found on Facebook.

Posted Image

Posted Image
Poe's law: without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

Demand the impossible! everyone will be free

#42 starwolf

starwolf

    curmudgeon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,702 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 06:13 AM

How will Sivan Rahav-Meir participate in the forum? If they can't show her face on the flyer, how will they allow her on stage?

הַתְקַשֵּׁר מַעֲדַנּוֹת כִּימָה אוֹ-מֹשְׁכוֹת כְּסִיל תְּפַתֵּחַ

doubt not through the ages one increasing purpose runs, and the thoughts of men are widened with the process of the suns.

#43 Xi'le

Xi'le

    -->

  • Administrators
  • 2,708 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:38 AM

Don't you know that photos are worse than RL?

#44 mosheshmeal

mosheshmeal

    Student

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:40 AM

I think they did it (even though they are mizrechisten) because she's a decent looking chick and not the usual hilltop raggedy ann.

Vado a bordo, cazzo!


#45 Xi'le

Xi'le

    -->

  • Administrators
  • 2,708 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:41 AM

Why should that matter?

#46 mosheshmeal

mosheshmeal

    Student

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:42 AM

Does it not follow?

Vado a bordo, cazzo!


#47 Xi'le

Xi'le

    -->

  • Administrators
  • 2,708 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:46 AM

Not really.

Maybe I'm dense.

#48 warren

warren

    click vegetable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,910 posts

Posted 30 January 2012 - 07:48 AM

How will Sivan Rahav-Meir participate in the forum? If they can't show her face on the flyer, how will they allow her on stage?

I think they did it (even though they are mizrechisten) because she's a decent looking chick and not the usual hilltop raggedy ann.

The newspaper serves both the dati and charedi public. The event is for the former, or at least those who have yet to succumb.
Poe's law: without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.

Demand the impossible! everyone will be free

#49 Indigo

Indigo

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 09:10 AM

http://www.siawi.org/article2905.html

Apparently the phrase for the orthodox power structure making women disappear is hadarat nashim.


I listened to an interesting talk by R. Rakeffet about the Tal Law controversy, and he references the new phrase at 51:02, approved by the academy of language

Are Religious Zionists & Chareidi Worlds Begining to understand each other- Chok Tal and the New Israeli Scene
http://www.yutorah.o...keffet-Rothkoff

#50 Moshi

Moshi

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,543 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:24 AM

i had to stare at the knob of the door


Was it hard?

The first is an ad from a Rechovot local newspaper for datim and haredim, advertising an event in which the two people whose photos appeared in the original copy (Yedidya Meir from Kol Hai Radio and Sivan Rahav-Meir from Channel 2) will speak. The second is a joke I found on Facebook.

Posted Image



on shabbat Shira, eh.

Separate seating on buses is also a positive.

Look, obviously i'm not a tzaddik, nor a person of halachic authority, but its obvious to me that with the pritzus these days (i.e. lack of proper dress), it is much easier to be a proper jew with these separations. i personally, during aseres ymei tshuva, tried to be makpid on shmiras einayim. just to give an example of how hard it was, i had to stare at the knob of the door on the bus going to yeshiva in order for me to not be seeing something i shouldn't (this is a non-mehadrin bus). (or close my eyes). who's to blame is a different point - the main thing i want to bring out from that is that for a boy who's trying to keep the only image of a woman in his head to be his wife, and if he wants to not see things he shouldnt be, its very hard. so, is it proper to enforce this in a public transportation - probably not (since, unfortunately, this is not a halachically or jewishly run state), but is there a strong positive reason for it, yes.


Try as you may, women exist, and men will think of women and be attracted to them. No amount of heavy-handed regulation will change that.

There's a story in Shabbat of rabbis being on a boat with a woman. I guess they didn't have gender-separated boats. Granted the woman turned out to be a witch, but that's the risk you take in life.

Religiously speaking, you are better served to actually work on yourself to be able to look at women and interact with women without experiencing such profound emotions as to require you to stare at a door knob.

This thread is really upsetting.

#51 Indigo

Indigo

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:31 AM

How will Sivan Rahav-Meir participate in the forum? If they can't show her face on the flyer, how will they allow her on stage?

That's one of the many things I don't understand about this practice of removing women from pictures. Because women are allowed to walk around in real life with their faces exposed. I don't get why it's ok to see women's real faces, but not images of their faces.

Except that the real agenda has zero to do with tzniut. It has everything to do with making women disappear for reasons of sexism and misogyny, using the excuse of tzniut to oppress women.

#52 Moshi

Moshi

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,543 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:40 AM

Because women are allowed to walk around in real life with their faces exposed.


Erm not if these bigots have their way. They can walk, but they can't drive. They can walk, but on separate sidewalks; they can shop, but only in separate stores; they can ride, but in separate buses; and they can take themselves to another level, but only in a separate elevator.

The ideal is set out by the Rambam -- they must hide their faces, and they must not leave the house unless absolutely necessary.

#53 Indigo

Indigo

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:44 AM

Erm not if these bigots have their way. They can walk, but they can't drive. They can walk, but on separate sidewalks; they can shop, but only in separate stores; they can ride, but in separate buses; and they can take themselves to another level, but only in a separate elevator.

The ideal is set out by the Rambam -- they must hide their faces, and they must not leave the house unless absolutely necessary.

That's certainly the ideal of torah truthers.

But many people who are fine with removing images of women from publications would think it's wrong to make women cover their faces in real life. Look how many people decry the Burka Babes of Beit Shemesh as doing the wrong thing.

It's the element, and there's a lot of them, of people who are fine with no pics of women but are fine with real women not covering their faces that is most interesting to me.

It's the element, and there's a lot of them, of people who are fine with no pics of women but are fine with real women not covering their faces that is most interesting to me.


On a different level, but the same concept, is people for instance in my shul who work with women on a daily basis, but God forbid should sit in shul in a shiur with women present.

#54 Snag

Snag

    מי זה מחשיך עצה

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,041 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:47 AM

they can take themselves to another level,

taking it to the next level is only a problem for men...
" All my life I have tried to pluck a thistle and plant a flower wherever the flower would grow in thought and mind."

#55 Moshi

Moshi

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,543 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:50 AM

That's certainly the ideal of torah truthers.

But many people who are fine with removing images of women from publications would think it's wrong to make women cover their faces in real life. Look how many people decry the Burka Babes of Beit Shemesh as doing the wrong thing.

It's the element, and there's a lot of them, of people who are fine with no pics of women but are fine with real women not covering their faces that is most interesting to me.


I think it's just the visual of jewish women in burkas looking like arab women that is jarring. I have not heard anyone articulate a real distinction between separate sidewalks/stores/elevators/buses/wearing all black, and all the other b.s. and wearing a burka. I don't think there is a distinction. It's just a visceral reaction to the photos of the burkas.

On a different level, but the same concept, is people for instance in my shul who work with women on a daily basis, but God forbid should sit in shul in a shiur with women present.


Yea

#56 Indigo

Indigo

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,723 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:51 AM

It's just a visceral reaction to the photos of the burkas.



Yea

agreed.

#57 Chiloni

Chiloni

    TA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 773 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 12:04 PM

I think it's because a picture can be stared at intently without it running away in embarrassment/horror.

#58 Dan

Dan

    Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 12:59 PM

Was it hard?

not sure how you mean that

Try as you may, women exist, and men will think of women and be attracted to them. No amount of heavy-handed regulation will change that.

There's a story in Shabbat of rabbis being on a boat with a woman. I guess they didn't have gender-separated boats. Granted the woman turned out to be a witch, but that's the risk you take in life.

Religiously speaking, you are better served to actually work on yourself to be able to look at women and interact with women without experiencing such profound emotions as to require you to stare at a door knob.

This thread is really upsetting.

I don't remember the thread, but since you seem to be replying to my post i'll reply to this one. I never said whether its the proper thing to enforce/do, but I said there is definitely good reason to do so (if it were privately owned, etc). I never said it's not more important to work on yourself (although i disagree that you're supposed to get accustomed to such people if you don't have to), I just said that there *is* imho sufficient reasoning for the opinion that there should be separation.

#59 Moshi

Moshi

    Dean

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,543 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:23 PM

not sure how you mean that


yea

I don't remember the thread, but since you seem to be replying to my post i'll reply to this one. I never said whether its the proper thing to enforce/do, but I said there is definitely good reason to do so (if it were privately owned, etc). I never said it's not more important to work on yourself (although i disagree that you're supposed to get accustomed to such people if you don't have to), I just said that there *is* imho sufficient reasoning for the opinion that there should be separation.


There is always a reason. But what makes a reason "sufficient"? Is the fact that a man can't keep himself from fantasizing a good enough reason to change the operation of bus companies, sidewalks, and elevators? I mean, I'm sorry that you had to stare at a door knob, but why does is you having to stare at a door knob establish a sufficient reason for me to have to sit apart from my wife, or for my wife to have to sit in the back of the bus?

#60 Dan

Dan

    Professor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,751 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 01:28 PM

1 There is always a reason. But what makes a reason "sufficient"?
2 Is the fact that a man can't keep himself from fantasizing a good enough reason to change the operation of bus companies, sidewalks, and elevators?
3 I mean, I'm sorry that you had to stare at a door knob, but why does is you having to stare at a door knob establish a sufficient reason for me to have to sit apart from my wife, or for my wife to have to sit in the back of the bus?

1) Comparing it to the other side.
2) If they're privately owned, why not. If a person can enhance his religious observance on his own cheshbon (see further), why not.
3) First of all, all helpful rules can create specific issues. (yotzi min haklal). however, if i owned a bus company, i would feel obligated to separate the seats. It's helpful to religious observance. If that's going to cause some people to not come because they'd rather sit next to there wives, then they can take the public bus.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users