First we have Josh Waxman of Parshablog with My Thoughts on Megirot I and II.
Then there’s the story of dancers forced to cover up for the Jerusalem bridge dedication ceremony. The girls, aged 6 to 13, were told to wear hats and long skirts; see this report for before and after pictures. Some parents respond here. According to this update in the JP, the organizers chose the black ski caps to make a point.
Finally, the army has been giving some teenage girls trouble about an automatic religious exemption. I wonder if any haredi girls have been hassled.
Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.7.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.
Someone is probably going to hand me my head on a platter but I looked at the costumes the girls were going to wear originally and I didn’t think they were “appropriate” either. We don’t use strictly cholov Yisroel in our home. But when I am having a large group come to eat in my home I do use Cholov Yisroel so that I have covered everyone’s preferences. A public performance in celebration of a municipal happening should take into consideration the preferences of the whole municipality. It is not that the girls were putting on a private performance in a hall where those who wanted to come and pay money for the tickets had that option. The pants and all but sleeveless tops were going to cause a problem for some members of the municipality. Having said that however, what possible halachic problem was there for 6-13 year old girls wearing their hair uncovered? It’s the strange blend of based on halacha and non-based on halacha requirements that bothers me more.
The haradi are becoming more like the Saudi morals police and it seems many of the customs and traditions like the curtain were adopted after Jews lived in MUslim lands. There was nothing immodest about what the girls were wearing.
Eh, profk, the pple who would be truly offended by pants and short short sleeves really weren’t going to be watching the show anyway. J-m has a lot of religious pple, but it is still not governed by halacha just yet. If they girls were going to go out in Vegas showgirl outfits, I’d see your point. White pants and cap sleeves? Notsomuch.
I just looked again. I didn’t see any tank tops in the picture. Just some very short sleeves. All of their knees were covered.
Take a look at the girl who is holding her leg up in the splits. I’m not saying it bothered me but I know a lot of otherwise “normal” people for whom that would be a real breach of tsnius.
Frankly I’m puzzled as to why the Haredi element even bothered focusing on the clothes being worn by the girls. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t they be against the idea of the girls dancing in public altogether?
ProfK, your last comment raises another question, and that is how suggestive the dances themselves were.
I’m sorry but girls dancing in public in Jerusalem shouldn’t be dressed like that. It doesn’t matter if they’re religous or not. The same way that non-religous people come to the kotel wearing skirts these girls should have also been wearing skirts. I do feel that the original picture was problematic. Their shirts had short sleeves and the pants were tight. Any religous person would immediately say that they should at least be wearing something looser. They make these skirts with elastic on the bottom so they are like pants these days. They could have easily worn that and I don’t think anyone would have protested.
I do however feel that the need to wear hats was very strange. After all, I’m assuming that none of the girls were married. There could be much more said on the subject. Yea it’s true that the charedim aren’t watching the show but I have a feeling that some dati leumi people wouldn’t be too fond of it either.
I understand the need for a state of the art show to match the bridge but the character of the city needs to be taken into account. This is a city where there are lots of religious people (charedi and not) and it has a certain special feel to it. What makes it special? The fact that it has so many religious people who help keep standards higher here. There aren’t any inappropriate billboards like in some other cities. This is not for our eyes. I’m not debating about whether the girls should have been dancing in the first place but once it’s decided that they’re dancing, they should be dressed as close as possible to the minimum of halacha. I’m sure lots more will be said on the subject. But that’s all I have to say for now.
once again the haredim have picked the wrong fight. of course no surprise here.
BB:
“The same way that non-religous people come to the kotel wearing skirts these girls should have also been wearing skirts.”
the kotel has the status of a בית כנסת.
“I do however feel that the need to wear hats was very strange. After all, I’m assuming that none of the girls were married.”
i guess they were following the rambam
Here’s an update:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1214492527917
Once again, I feel that even though it was reported in the newspaper, it’s not necessarily true. In fact, since the organizers of the dance chose those hats – maybe they chose to make the girls wear hats in general IN ORDER TO make it look like the Haredim don’t know what they’re talking about – or to make them look like the “Jewish Taliban.” Or maybe it was assumed that the Haredi mayor’s office wanted them to wear hats because, after all, that’s what Muslims do, and the Haredim are no better than Muslims… I find this whole story very circumspect.
SS wrote: “In fact, since the organizers of the dance chose those hats – maybe they chose to make the girls wear hats in general IN ORDER TO make it look like the Haredim don’t know what they’re talking about – or to make them look like the “Jewish Taliban.”
That’s what I understood from the article I linked to in the comment above yours.
it wasn’t clear from the article who initiated the hats, because it also says, “The dancers . . . were informed several hours before Wednesday’s event by production organizers that, at the municipality’s instruction, they had to cover their hair and wear long clothing.”
I have a lot of thoughts ranging from why weren’t the girls informed of the dress code before being invited (afterall, the city had time to order hundreds of brown bags and ski caps for the to wear) to why didn’t the instructor pull the girls out of the performance, especially after they were called “promiscious” which was over the line imo.
If the girls were never invited in the first place, no news would have been printed.
I think that it’s a sign of the oversexualization of the religious/charedi community.
If a man can’t look at a girl in cap sleeves and long pants without losing control, he should lock himself in the basement and never come out.
TriLcat – men and women are supposed to be turned on by each other. It’s a sign of a society’s oversexualization that they’re not – people are numbed by provocative and inappropriate advertising and by seeing “too much skin” every day on the street. There’s a famous story about a rabbi who told his student to go to the doctor when he said to the rabbi that he could go to a co-ed school or camp (I don’t remember the details) because seeing the girls didn’t bother him. The rabbi said – there must be something wrong with you if you are unaffected by the opposite sex.
the newer article states
“Pollack, who had called the dance “promiscuous,” said the organizer’s decision to choose black ski caps for the girls – as opposed to colorful or white hats – was a “provocation” to prove that the “we are the Taliban.”
the implication is that they were insisting on hats, but the color choice was to make a point.
this seems to be echoed by the earlier statement that “at the municipality’s instruction, they had to cover their hair and wear long clothing. “