My fellow blogger Kelly Youngblood, an occasional commenter here, just wrote this on Christian modesty in terms of women’s dress. Modesty actually includes a lot more than how women dress, but that’s what we’ll focus on for today. I’ll wait for you to read it. Hmm, hmm. La la la. K, are you done? Good.
A number of similarities and contrasts struck me while reading it.
First, one of the main things Kelly laments about Christianity is “there is a broad range of what modesty may mean, and so the admonition to ‘be modest’ is generally unhelpful.” Of course I found this interesting, since Judaism is VERY specific (to the dismay of many) about what modesty means. Specifically, collarbones, elbows, knees, and everything in between, ought to be covered. Nothing that is tight and form-fitting, or screaming for attention.
Next, she mentions that “modesty often tends to be about being covered up, but if that were the
case, then we should just all walk around in bathrobes. I can’t think
of anything more covered up than that.” I have learned in Judaism that women were created with the desire to look beautiful, and that this is a natural and honorable aspect of being a woman. We should and must feel pretty, without being provocative. So, clear one – no bathrobes. Modesty is not just about covering up, it’s about allowing our inner loveliness and refinement to emerge without distractions.
She also discusses that “women are often told to dress modestly in order that they don’t cause
their Christian brothers to sin by causing them to lust after the
women. Men are not warned in the same way…” Interestingly, in Judaism women are warned more, although men certainly are as well, about HOW they look; but men are warned more, although women are as well, about WHAT they look at, and how they look at things. In other words, men are cautioned more about objectifying women, and women are cautioned more not to allow themselves to be objectified. In no way does this remove blame from the other gender – both are warned. Of course, men could be objectified and women could objectify – but typically it goes the other way.
Finally, Kelly brings up the valid ideas that envy/objectification exists everywhere, so really, can you ever stop or avoid it? The answer to that is that each person has to work on his own arena of fault. If you tend to objectify people or be envious of what they show to the world, get a grip. Could it ALSO be their fault, for flaunting? Yup – that’s their arena of fault, not yours.
Thanks, Kelly, for getting me thinking about all these things.
I'm so glad you wrote this! As I commented over on my blog in response to your comment, I want to follow up on what I said in that post and was planning to ask you some questions so that I could refresh my memory on the Jewish idea of tznius.
Oh, I tweeted this, so if you get a bunch of new people/page views, that might be why 🙂
Great – thank you!
Is there any difference between objectifying a person and taking delight in their appearance? When I pass a pretty woman on the street, I can't really appreciate her intelligence or her good middot, but I can acknowledge to myself the simple pleasure that looking at her brings. Is that objectifying her?
There is a blessing one says on seeing beautiful people. How is that reconciled with the apparent contemporary Orthodox belief that finding a woman other than your wife attractive is an averiah (sin), even if you do not act on it? I see at least one site that says a man is forbidden to say it about a woman, or indeed to say the blessing at all in our times. Before I began studying halacha, I would have called this a Christian attitude, not a Jewish one.
I wouldn't call that a "contemporary Orthodox belief." Staring at women for one's own pleasure (whether you're married or not) is forbidden for men in plenty of ancient sources (Brachos 24a). Whether the woman is harmed in that act or the man himself is harmed by lowering himself in that way – I don't know. Either or both.
I think that acknowledgment of beauty is, say, the "first look". To me, that would just be appreciation. Objectification/leading to lust would be when the person looks again, and again…and again. It's when the person looking makes the person he/she is looking at as there for his/her own pleasure.
I called it a 'contemporary Orthodox belief' because it was not the halacha as practiced by my Orthodox relatives in the 1970s. When my local MO synagogue published a retrospective on their 120th anniversary, it included a copy of the invitation to their annual dinner dance. Needless to say nothing like that would happen today (and kol hakavod (all praise) to them for being willing to acknowledge their history instead of re-writing or suppressing it.)
We may be having now more like we did in 700CE, but we aren't behaving as we did in 1970CE.
Are you suggesting that mixed dancing was halachically then?
Mormons cover from the knees to the collarbone and can wear short sleeves but no sleeveless tops. This is simply because there are some things that simply don't need to be seen by others. Church is dresses only and wedding dresses are long sleeved, long skirts, collarbone covered and white only.
I have some Jewish friends who have ordered clothing from Mormon website (especially formal gowns) and have heard that Muslims recommend the same sites because it is SO hard to find a nice dress that isn't short, sleeveless and cut down to "there".
Not much difference in my opinion but we do wear shorts and pants although they are more modest than the average.
Thanks. I always find it interesting to learn how other faiths honor this value.
Not to be argumentative, but what you said only applies to members of the Church who have been endowed and wear the garment. Also, church is not dresses only. We have only been advised to wear our "best". Each person may decide what is their best. I don't care what you wear to church. Just come.
I have heard the phrase "a woman should look attractive, but not attracting" with relation to tznius, but to me it's not really a distinction. It seems like an excuse to wear stylish clothes while being technically within bounds. If it's truly a meaningful distinction, it probably is too fine a distinction for most people to work with.
As for bathrobes, what is a Shabbos robe other than a glorified bathrobe, with a few sequins or brocade, and made of velour rather than terrycloth?? And snoods, while comfortable and functional, are (sorry) unattractive. (Another blogger picturesquely describes them as "a sock you wear on your head"). Don't take it personally, I wore snoods in public for many, many years, but I never deluded myself that I looked good!
I never really liked the "attractive" phrase. Agree: too subtle. "Pretty, while not provocative" is much better.
Shabbos robes can be very pretty, or dumpy. If they are dumpy then indeed they are in the same category as bathrobes. But either way no one is suggesting to wear them all the time.
I think snoods are ugly. Period. Chenille colored ones are sometimes nice, when they have that beret look. When I go out in public and want to be comfy I do the Israeli scarf look. Personally, I consider it a religious obligation to look pretty.
The subtlety of these distinctions is, I think, what leads to a lot of the extreme practices promoted by some. Since it's so hard to draw the lines (exactly where in relation to the elbow/collarbone/knee, in what position; how fitted is too tight; which precise shades are too bright) – many just skip the gray area and draw their lines way over on one side.
As much as people get upset about definitions of "modesty in women's dress" that they perceive as extreme – I think it's a natural outgrowth of a natural human tendency to make things easy and clear and absolute.
At the same time – for those of us who don't want to take that easy road, with its potential pitfalls – maybe the subtlety of the distinctions is exactly what makes them meaningful. It's hard to draw those lines, especially for oneself ("oh, I REALLY want this skirt… I think it's long enough!") – but when we make a conscious effort to do so, then every item of clothing becomes a carefully considered expression of personal/religious values.
@Ruchi: re: considering it a religious obligation to look pretty. I actually have a very similar outlook based on my own theological reasons!
Why is it a religious obligation to look pretty?
I think the idea of a religious obligation to look pretty involves being attractive to one's husband, because of the importance of the marital relationship in Judaism. Otherwise, as I mentioned in a different column, looking neat and presentable is important for an "ambassador" of a religion or of religious people in general.
I am being snarky, but if it is a religious obligation to look pretty, a lot of people are failing this one. Of course, the rejoinder is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Sarah, that's a good point.
I will explain what I mean by "religious obligation to look pretty" (soul alert). Yes, a woman has a responsibility to take the effort to be beautiful to her husband, but that wasn't what I meant, and that only applies to married women anyway. And yes, neat and presentable – but more than that.
I believe that I have a beautiful soul and that my body is holy insofar as it is a container for my soul. My body's job is to hold and transport that soul, and to allow it to do good deeds (souls can't perform good deeds without the help of the body), and also to allow the inner soul to shine through by, on the one hand, looking pleasing – taking care of your holy body, respecting it, making it pretty with nice clothing and pleasing accessories, and not treating it like garbage – and on the other hand, not "letting it all hang out" where the soul becomes really obscured.
Tesyaa, the failure applies across the board (how many people are grocery shopping in pj's?).
I think I can accept some of this without the 'soul' wording (which would be the heart of it for you):
"to allow [my] inner [temperament] to shine through [and thereby acknowledge that I am part of the social world] by, on the one hand, looking pleasing – taking care of your [] body, respecting it, making it pretty with nice clothing and pleasing accessories, and not treating it like garbage – and on the other hand, not "letting it all hang out" where the [dignity of myself as a person beyond just a body] becomes really obscured".
The grocery shopping in pjs makes me crazy. Not because of soul but because of the sociality of the world that it denies. As if shared social space is the same as your own tv room.
I have no problem with substituting the words "inner temperament" or "dignity" for my "soul" vocab. It's semantical at some point. Like I have friends who are very unsure about what they believe in terms of the Jewish concept of God, but they are very comfortable with more general terms like "the universe" and "energy." There's no contradiction.
I always have problems with prescriptions; to me, what is mostly subsumed under the "modesty" discourse has more to do with respect for yourself. If I wear a shirt which does not allow others to see my cleavage, I can move safely and with self-assurance; if I wear a skirt, I look more "dressed" (and yes, gone are the times when H&M length looked good). So for me, the whole issue has more to do with style and respect for yourself and others. For me, therefore, that does also include pants, jeans, and bikinis. For some, that might be too revealing or even "immodest", but for me, that feels good. Wearing a bikini and feeling too naked in a spaghetti strap shirt is no contradiction for me. So I go by my personal feeling, not laid-down rules.
But I am not Jewish nor belong to a Christian religion where that is an issue. Interestingly, I only read about modesty and issues connected to that on American blogs. Here in Europe, people generally cover themselves more than in the US, as far as my personal experience goes.
Katharina, that is so interesting, because (without ever having been in Europe) I always was under the impression that Europe is less stuffy about modesty issues – not more.
From my European perspective, it's often not modesty per se but rather because of "there is a time and a place" viewpoint. So in Paris you won't see people shopping for groceries in their PJs (I was SHOCKED to see that in the US), not because PJs are indecent as such, but because you don't go out in pajamas in public. Out of respect for your neighbors. To show there is a clear line between the public and the private sphere.
I don't feel immodest in a swimsuit on a beach, because it's the right time and place. Yet I would never show myself in a bikini top on the street – because it wouldn't be appropriate socially. Also because at a beach everybody is dressed in a similar manner, so you're not attracting attention, whereas the same bikini top in the middle of the city would clearly indicate you want to draw attention to your bosom.
BTW, could you say something about makeup? From what I figured it is allowed to put makeup on in O circles (but are there some groups that frown upon it?), but I guess not any makeup is allowed… Somehow I have a hard time imagining an Orthodox woman with a red lipstick, but maybe I'm completely wrong?
Yes, W, I think you exactly hit the point. I also have no problem with going to the sauna naked as everyone is naked and no one stares – it is simply how things are (instead, I was shocked to once encounter someone fully clothed with a laptop in the sauna in the US while I left on my bikini). Clothing is more an issue of propriety than modesty in Europe. There is clothing for the theatre, shopping (I guess no one would ever go shopping in their pjs! I don't even dare to go to the basement in my pjs because of my neighbours!), the beach and everything in between. And in my view, propriety has more to do with respect than modesty.
How you describe about "time and place for everything" is exactly how I feel – in front of women. Exercising in front of women, I dress one way, and I would never dress that way to a formal event – even with only women. Dignity and respect carries the day.
In front of men, there are certain things I just don't think should be revealed. Even if no one will stare because everyone is used to it, I just don't think "what everyone is used to" is an objective barometer.
Makeup is acceptable but it shouldn't be loud/showy. Sure, some Orthodox women overstep those bounds.
I think it's a result of both propriety (thank you Katharina for the word, that's exactly what I should have written) and modesty. There are clothes I wouldn't wear in certain circumstances (PJs to go shopping) out of respect for others, because I live in a society. And then there are clothes I wouldn't wear because I would feel "immodest" in them – too revealing, too tight, too short, too… or not enough… something. And yes, it also does apply to my bikinis!
I do think though, that "what everyone is used to" is a barometer, to a certain extend. The way you dress Ruchi would probably be considered immodest in the 19th century Europe or the USA. The rule in Judaism states collarbones-elbows-knees, but 150 years ago the societal norm (or "what everyone is used to") was collarbones-wrists-floor. Therefore your great-great-grandmother would probably find your way of dressing immodest, not because of religious prescriptions but because of what society allows at a given moment.
Of course to a certain extent. I dress more conservatively when I visit certain communities than I do here in Cleveland. But there is still an objective standard beneath which I will not go.
I second W's observation about propriety being more the criterion than modesty in much of Europe. At the beach you might see a LOT more women's skin and 'stuff' than in the USA, and no one gawks (except me!). Even the teenagers don't gawk. It's just how people are at the beach. It's not eroticized; it's not at all just for young/slim/normative bodies/attractive people; and anyway clothing can be a lot sexier than plain old bodies.
What I appreciate is precisely, as Ruchi and others indicated, the "time and place for it" criterion. Men wear leather shoes, not sneakers, to nice restaurants. Women don't wear baseball caps to the opera. That sense of differentiation is something I miss in the USA sometimes. It isn't modesty, it is about the deeply social character of our choices about appearance.
Ruchi, I'll try again to make in a less explicit way the point that you understandably had to censor before, but if you have to cut this, just go ahead: Where I find Europeans more modest than (secular) Americans is when it comes to talking about private, including bedroom, matters. My experience is that (secular) Americans can talk, joke, and share things in an easy way that my European friends absolutely can't and won't do. So when my Euro friends start up with the talk about "puritanical Americans" I point out the kinds of jokes and comments I make easily that they get uncomfortable with.
SBW, I'm not absolutely sure about your last point. Firstly, I'd say this also obeys the "there is a time and a place" rule – there are things I won't discuss unless I'm in a certain setting (and obviously, with the right people).
Also, this varies VASTLY in different areas in Europe. I've had conversations in France that were pretty open – and I felt comfortable with them. Yet I've never had similar conversations in Eastern Europe, and what's more, I guess that I would NOT feel comfortable having them. I don't exactly know why that is, but probably because they are not socially acceptable in that part of Europe, so I would feel that I'm overstepping boundaries.
So maybe we Europeans shouldn't be generalizing about "puritan Americans", but maybe one could say that in the US someone is or isn't the type of person to have those conversations (in the sense that it is someone's inherent trait). Whereas in Europe everyone is or isn't – but "sometimes, with certain people, in a certain setting". I'm obviously generalizing, but hopefully you get my point.
As an aside thought, because this post and the comments gave me some food for thought: I would probably never spontaneously use the word "modest" or "immodest" to qualify why I would feel a given way of dressing is fine or not by my standards. Instead I'd probably qualify things that are too revealing, too flashy, too flaunting as "bad taste". And things can be in bad taste even if on paper the propriety criterion is fulfilled.
W, I absolutely share your thoughts and feelings. The discussion centres more on style, propriety, and bad taste than modesty.
@SBW: Hm, I guess nudity in general is less eroticised in Europe than in the US. But sexuality isn't – and I guess that is where the boundary is. What happens between a man and a woman is a private issue, just as PJs are private – so you neither go shopping in PJs nor talk too openly about your sex life. Close friends may discuss their sex life – but I guess Europeans have stronger distinctions between "acquaintances" and "friends" than Americans. I guess that is one of the reasons Europeans are more hesitant to talk about sexual matters with "acquaintances", as Americans are quickly more open. However, some Europeans think this a bit superficial (without wanting to judge, it is just a general feeling) whereas Americans tend to find Europeans a bit more closed or even unfriendly which is not intended. There is – just as with clothes – a distinction between what is appropriate with whom and where.
Katharina, interesting point about the difference between "friends" and "acquaintances" being more pronounced in Europe. I never thought about it before, but it's very true.
Incidentally, I think that the above conversation might explain the question/remark you made at its beginning, namely that the tznius issue is much more talked about on American blogs. If European societies at large have more strict rules about what is appropriate in general, than maybe the O community does not feel so much at odds with the neighbors? I have a noticeable O community in my neighborhood and I guess most of the time passers-by don't notice they are O Jews. Sure, the dresses are a bit longer, you don't see cleavage and jeans. But while you'd spot an O woman on a beach, on the street she'll pretty much fit with the crowd.
I'm talking about women, because men are simply wearing suits – though the kippot and the tzitzit are a bit of a giveaway 🙂
I find the whole discussion of modesty versus propriety fascinating. Coming from a very casual background (although I would NEVER go shopping in pajamas), I've never been able to understand the appeal of formality. This discussion makes things much clearer for me. So thanks, Katharina, W, and SBW.
Ditto for fascinating, although somewhat on the edge of what I feel comfy publishing here 😉
When I said above that modesty is so much more than women's dress, this is exactly what I meant. Discussing private matters casually is what is call a breach of modesty. You call it propriety, but I think it's the same thing.
Yes, but not entirely. For instance, dressing nicely to pray is a matter of propriety, not modesty.
Ruchi, that is what I meant – that what you call modesty is a concept that seemed alien to me on a first glance, but when I thought about it some more I realized that it might be mostly semantics. My concept of propriety/good taste is finally not that far off your definition of modesty. Deep down it's all about respect of yourself and of others, and being valued for what you are and not for what you flaunt, isn't it?
Exactly. DG, I'm envisioning a Venn diagram now… propriety in the outer circle with an inner circle called "modesty"…
Re the religious obligation to look pretty: I don't agree that this should be a priority. (Disclaimer: I personally enjoy looking pretty, but I don't view it – and never viewed it – as a religious obligation). Yes, it's important to be clean and neat and presentable. Yes, if one is representing a religion, one should strive to make a good impression, and appearance is part of that. But as a religious obligation, that's where it ends. I truly believe one should focus on good works instead of on enhancing one's appearance. Grooming and shopping take up a tremendous amount of time, no less for Othodox women than for any other women. I believe that if people truly wanted to make the world a better place, they would spend less time on these pursuits, and more time on helping others.
Mother Teresa was a woman known for her good works with the poorest of the poor. (I understand there is some controversy about her work, but let's leave that aside for now). From all pictures I have seen, she was not a beautiful woman, and she dressed in a simple white sari every single day. Should she have spent more time on grooming and clothing? Would that have made her a better servant of God?
Tesyaa, I agree with you: clean, neat, and presentable.
Looking nice does not need to take a lot of time. Or money. It's an awareness that how you appear matters.
I'm not sure if I am recalling this correctly, but as my father (who is very learned) constantly says, the onus is on the man not to look. I had found two articles to link in the post below that concur the same.
http://frumanista.blogspot.com/2012/04/eyes-up-here-pal.html
There is no conversation about the woman's requirement. If there is, it is recent, like being hit over the head with it in Bais Yaakov. Constantly.
As for the halachos regarding modesty, they are also recent, since a little more than a century ago it would have been considered scandalous for a Jewish or gentile woman to wear any skirt higher than the ankle.
Modesty also has to be based on societal norms, and considering how in high summer the norm is quite skimpy, modesty cannot be quantified as it is based on individual perception.
In the end, as Kelly said, my version of modesty cannot be projected on another, nor can I say what will make every man out there fantasize. My brother claims that guys fantasize about women in a sack – it is never-ending. A man has this overactive imagination he has to deal with, and that is his burden, not mine.
However, in that I can still dress modestly and still be subject to male admiration/fantasy, I respect myself enough that I do not objectify myself, seeking only primitive male desire. Modesty is about respecting oneself, and knowing one's motivations for attire and behavior.
Actually, that puts it better than my own post. 🙂
But I have to admit that I have problems about the assumption that it is mostly men who fantasise. Am I the only one out there who also likes looking at a guy once in a while, having my thoughts…?
Katharina, I addressed that in the original post. Sure it goes both ways, but usually it's the guy's problem.
Princess Lea, I wonder if your two observations are correlated. Maybe the Bais Yaakov movement had to respond more of late since the standards around us have changed so drastically.
It seems to me that society does objectify women more than men, and the way people dress reflects that. On formal occasions, women often wear ridiculously skimpy clothes, while men wear suits that cover them up almost completely. A woman who covers herself that much may be considered a prude because she isn't showing off her body, whereas the men are considered to look dignified.
Hm, to be honest I have to recur to the propriety thing I mentioned above. It is rather the women who objectify themselves by dressing in skimpy skirts, not the men who then look.
Ruchi, I would not say that looking is usually a men's problem even though it goes both ways; therefore I have objections to the conclusion that women should cover themselves more and men should not stare. As both goes for either sex in my view, why these regulations that mostly target women?
Personally I see much more objectification of women than objectification of men.
But the BY movement misses the point. Girls nowadays tend to feel inadequate. That's what they do, constantly judging themselves and finding themselves wanting. Then they are told that if they dress in a way that specifically the morah finds lacking, which is a skirt higher than mid-calf, not only are they sinning, they have caused absolute strangers sin as well.
Why am I not surprised at the number of former BY classmates that wear skin-tight jeans and tank tops?
Instead of focusing on the breastbone/elbows/knees, they should be building up girls' egos, emphasizing their worth and the good they can do, and not tell them Judaic untruths that they are responsible for another's thoughts.
Rabbi Yisroel Reisman NEVER talks about tznius, because he knows the damage its misrepresentation has caused. If a child has learned their other subjects properly, if they have been valued and ordered to value herself, then she will dress accordingly.
In general, you are right, Ruchi. But my point is that women objectify themselves by dressing in a skimpy way. Come in self-respect. I think we are more or less of the same opinion and just express it in a different way.
Yes – we agree!
Princess Lea, I did not attend a typical Bais Yaakov so I can't speak from experience. I do think sometimes BY teachers miss the point but I disagree that their job is to build egos. Their job is to teach Torah in the most loving, kind way they know how. I also disagree that it will come on its own. There are way to many contrary messages about body image and expectations that kids have to deal with.
I misspoke (mistyped?). Parents are supposed to raise children, yes, I agree. But spreading inaccurate statements on Judaism should be avoided, and girls should not think they are harbingers of sin. They were given this body, and they should not be given complexes about it. When I said about building egos, they should be emphasizing how Judaism places value on the women, on where we excel, talking about what we CAN do as opposed to what we CAN'T.
I just find the tznius conversation to always be besides the point. In the end, children grow up, and they will choose what they will choose when they are outside of school and their parents' homes. If they have been taught good values and know their (correct) stuff, modesty will follow suit. I am adamant on that point.
Of course. That's why the tznius conversation in schools has to be done with major wisdom. But not to be avoided completely.
Can I get some background on "the BY movement"? What are girls taught actually about all this? Sounds like there are disagreements about this.
The BY (Bais Yaakov) movement is the female counterpart to yeshiva. It's the girls' religious school system for the (non-Modern-)Orthodox community. I should really blog about it one day but all the people who had bad experiences would come bash it, so on second thought, maybe not. Not that I think BY schools are broken, but in any religious school system you are going to find disgruntled grads. Or dropouts.
Also, in any franchise operation you will have good and bad franchises.
Well put.
I would imagine that all the forbidding of looking, and focus around not looking and not being looked at, would have the effect of raising the temperature on one's whole life. What is more eroticizing than taboos and forbidding and distance from fantasized objects of desire?
I'll confess that I find being seen and looked at very important. To me it is part of being in the world, being in a social world. Where I live (not at all Jewish) people don't really LOOK at each other and it drives me crazy. No wonder everyone shuffles around in schleppy clothes that could easily be pajamas and yoga gear. I just love the cosmopolitan feel of people being dressed for public view (not sexy, just DRESSED). And of people looking at each other. Appreciative is also good–not leering slobbering, but a flash of "how charming" on someone's face is something that makes me feel very good and part of a human world.
SBW, I could agree more with your second paragraph.
To your first, we would have to do a case study on men to determine which lifestyle is more depraved – thinking about not looking, and generally trying not to look; or thinking it's all kosher and not being sensitized to it at all.
Wait, you AGREE about being seen as so important? But you must mean only by women? Because I thought men aren't supposed to look at you? Or?
I am, to be honest, rather gratified if the flash of "how charming" when someone sees me includes a frisson of appreciation that you might consider sexual, for me it's kind of a worldly flirtation (not directed toward actually getting involved).
How about a healthy balance?
Between men looking and not looking? Or between charming and sexual-appreciation frisson?
I really meant between showing off our bodies and hiding the fact that we have bodies. I had started writing something that was more relevant to what I was replying to (and your 3:41 comment hadn't come in yet), but then deleted almost all of it and left only the part about the healthy balance. I think some people's obsession with modesty is unhealthy, but other people's obsession with looks and showing everything is at least equally unhealthy.
What about people who spend an inordinate amount of time on their clothing, hair or sheitel, and makeup? Is that a healthy balance? One can be obsessed with looks even if one is modestly dressed. My objection to that is the time it takes to put on a full face of makeup to go to the grocery store or Target could be spent doing more worthwhile things. Saying tehilim if you are so inclined – or visiting someone sick – or even reading an informative book.
It doesn't take too much time to be neat and clean. It does take time to shop for stylish clothes, and to have them altered to fit just so. Makeup, nails, eyebrows take a ton of time. I am not jealous – I am comfortable with my style and my understated makeup – but I cannot see getting dressed up for Sunday morning errands (like I see so many people doing). I tend to dress casually and comfortably on a Sunday (my day off), and I don't consider myself shirking.
Sorry for the typo, SBW. I meant to say I couldn't agree more – in other words, yes, I DO agree. I agree that humans should connect and relate and say hello to one another and make each other feel valued in a way that is not inappropriate or unwanted attention. It can and should be done.
An obsession with modesty indicating something unhealthy is akin to an obsession with healthy eating being a function of disordered thinking about food. However, what one person might consider obsessive, I might consider necessary. I dress modestly but that doesn't mean I think about it all day. I have lots of other things to think about, like Words With Friends and do I have carpool and did I pray today and what's for dinner. But it should be mindful too and not just an empty habit.
Let's just say that in my upbringing and lifestyle I have never experienced a feeling of discomfort or being unsafe with unwanted attention from men. I am not claiming to be representational of all Orthodox women, I am merely sharing something I feel I have a certain immunity from. Is it how I dress? Is it that I don't work in corporate America? I don't know. A friend of mine blogged about a related story here:
http://www.the-broad-side.com/how-far-can-you-lean-in-if-you-are-pretty?vm=r
Tesyaa. Casual is not the opposite of pretty. I have a pretty casual style which does not equal dumpy. Come on, girls. We know the difference. Frankly, I find a full face of makeup unattractive.
That's "pretty casual" as opposed to "pretty, casual." 🙂
Great discussion Ruchi. I sent a link to my college roommate, who is Mormon and very interested in this topic. Hopefully she will be posting here.
Interesting read. Thank you for providing food for thought and a venue to explore this topic. I am an LDS (aka Mormon) woman who has been having some discussions with a friend who is an Orthodox Jew on modesty and how different religions/cultures maintain their modesty in a world that doesn't maintain or respect our same values. She sent over the link to your post to read. I love that there are others thinking about these same topics and I enjoyed what you said. The blog post on "Christian modesty" missed the point for me and just got mired down in the single topic of what we wear affecting men's thoughts and the responsibility that follows both for men and women. Modesty with regard for the fact that we are daughters of a kind and loving Heavenly Father is far bigger and more important than that to me. How we treat ourselves and regard our bodies which are an incredible gift from Heavenly Father is a much larger topic than "did Johnny notice". My daughter loves the show "19 kids and counting" and on it the mother speaks about wearing clothes such that your countenance speaks the loudest. I like that idea. The boys/men in their family all wear pants (not jeans, not shorts) and the girls/women wear long skirts. I can see that the strictness of the rules followed by Orthodox Jews about collarbones/knees/elbows covered being followed differently when men are present, but I think the attitude of respect we show for ourselves via our dress should not change depending on the gender of others around us. I simply don't think modesty is primarily about our attracting the opposite sex. For me, it is important with incredibly relevant practical applications, but not the primary focus.
Thank you, Amy and Marcie!
Marcie, I so agree with you that it's mostly about the dignity of our own selves. This is why many Orthodox Jews practice modesty even when no one is around. That goes right back to the body being a container for the soul – no matter who is looking.
I am curious what the members of others faiths feel about the body/soul connection in regard to this topic.
Ruchi, you write that Judaism is very specific about what modesty means. Of course I'm aware of the general collarbone-knees-elbows rule, but I guess the room for interpretation is still quite large – as was unfortunately illustrated a few months ago by those men who attacked the little girl in Israel? Maybe I didn't understand the heart of the issue right, but I thought it was precisely because they thought her dress wasn't modest enough, even though she came from an O community?
(I don't mean my question to be abrasive, I'm just trying to figure out where the lines lie – I'm sorry I'm not able to formulate it better than that)
It's actually more complicated than that. They were protesting the presence of her school, not necessarily the way she personally was dressed.
There are definitely groups that interpret modest dress more strictly (for instance, requiring socks or stockings of a certain thickness).
The strictness of the Orthodox tznius laws, in many communities, serve to objectify women as much as the secular world norms do. If a woman's elbow or collarbone is so erotic as to need to be covered at all times, that's reducing a woman to her physical attributes. Not even getting into those publications that don't publish pictures of women or even girls, publications widely read in our community.
If we are just discussing general modesty, no specific laws are needed. A woman wearing a sleeveless blouse and slacks is just as modest as one wearing a skirt and long sleeved top. People who show cleavage, etc, are considered low class and trashy in the secular world, at least in my circles.
When you say "the strictness of Orthodox tznius laws in many communities" do you mean that other peers will shun you if you don't follow? There are plenty of communities that follow a more chilled standard of tznius – there's a place for everyone without ditching the whole concept. You could objectify a woman in a burka if you tried hard enough. Re publications – yup, this is a hard one for me to understand too.
As far as no specific laws needed, that's exactly what Kelly was lamenting – the ambiguity. It doesn't seem like a bonus for me and I see lots of people trying to raise girls with positive body image without any specific guidelines – it's really hard. However, I will say this. When I take groups of (non-Orthodox) women to Israel in high summer, they pretty much all wear shorts and tank tops. You know what? There are shorts, and there are shorts. There are tank tops, and then there are tank tops. Modesty exists in varying degrees whether within tznius guidelines or outside of them.
Did you see that news item about the girl who was uninvited to prom because her dress was too revealing?
The strictness – I mean the entire emphasis. I have heard so many times the concept of "what Torah learning is for a man, so too is tznius for a woman," meaning that it is the most important mitzvah, above everything else. The emphasis in schools, the emphasis in shidduchim, the basic value of a woman or girl in many orthodox circles is based on how modest she dresses. Is she tznius or bummy?
Yes, there is more modest secular attire and less modest too. It is the same with tznius clothing, which can be modest in name only, as you know. At some point, we need to accept that we can't control people. Some will always be a little less classy than others.
The publication issue is simple: Themarket for frum books and magazines is very small. The publishers (at least some of whom have no objection to the pictures) can't afford to alienate the customers if they want to stay in business.
the question is not about publications, really- it's about the communities who create so many such "customers" that this attitude becomes the norm.
That's kind of ambiguous. How do communities create customers?
I don't know. I guess by allowing the chumra-of-the-month and more-is-better culture to grow.
What are you asking? I feel like we are speaking across each other.
Yeah.
Interestingly, biographies of ultra-Orthodox leaders DO contain pictures of women. So why books and not magazines or newspapers, I do not know.
The book publishing world changes more slowly than the world of periodicals, simply because it takes longer to publish books than to come out with magazines and newspapers. Years ago, Janet Malcolm delineated fundamental differences between books and periodicals in a piece in the New Yorker (in a totally different context).
Also, halacha is pretty explicity that modest attire is to protect men from sin. The explanations about self-esteem and being modest for yourself are much more recent and in reaction to the lack of acceptance of the man-as-animal concept.
Many of the early examples of modesty from the Torah that come to mind relate to men. The altar had a ramp instead of steps so it would be more modest when the kohanim ascended. Shaul was known for this middah – he hid among the "keilim" when he was being called to serve as king (a trait he inherited from his mother). Of course there are examples with women (Rachel, Ruth). None talk about clothing.
Specifically with clothing how would you reconcile your observation with the idea that tznius should be observed even "b'chadrei chadarim" – in total privacy? Clearly, protecting men from sin with a normal standard of dress is part of it, but hardly all of it. Apart from that, modesty in general, as I said in the original post, is about much more than how women dress.
If tznius is to be observed in total privacy, does that mean that the rules of tzanua clothing also apply to married couples being alone together? I'm not necessarily asking for specific details, but what are the general halchic guidelines?
when I mean halacha is to protect men, I am not talking about Biblical figures and modesty. I mean shulchan aruch and shaalos u'teshuvos.
Let me ask you: What sources do you now of, pre1900, that explicitly point to a focus on inner beauty /personality as a reason for tznius as opposed to protecting men from sin? I am unaware of any.
W, the rules of tzanua clothing between husband and wife only apply when she is niddah (are you familiar with this?) and/or if the husband needs to pray/study Torah in her presence.
MP, there's a distinction between tznius, the middah, and tznius, the halachah. It's like chessed the middah is for you, but chessed the halachah is to benefit others. Tznius, the middah is much larger than tznius, the halachah.
The whole Ruth story comes to mind. Her inner refinement and dignity. Her tznius which made her a role model. No focus on men sinning or not.
MP–So how do you explain Orach Chaim 2-3? These sections seem to indicate that tzniut applies to more than just protecting men from the sight of women. Links here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Shulchan_Aruch/Orach_Chaim/2 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Shulchan_Aruch/Orach_Chaim/3
Sarah, that's general propriety laws. More important back when many people lived in one room or used the bathroom all at the same time, etc.
Yes, I am totally on board with tznius as a general concept. Modesty, humility, the whole thing is great. I am a big fan. That generally has little to do with why people dress tzniuosly though 🙂
Whether you call it tzniut or propriety, the halachot of covering up the body go beyond preventing men from sinning. Another example is tzniut around seforim–obviously a sefer doesn't need to be prevented from sinning.
Many things in the KSA are not halachos but suggestions, like these.
A person who doesn't follow this, who doesn't change under the covers, is not said to be transgressing halacha, to be doing a sin.
But sure, there is a concept of appropriate behavior, whether in the bathroom or the bedroom, or whatever. it doesn't have to do with the beauty within or whatever.
I am quoting Shulchan Aruch, not Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. You said above, "I mean shulchan aruch and shaalos u'teshuvos."
I agree it is not about inner beauty, but it is more involved than covering up women so men won't see them. There are halachot about men keeping their bodies covered, and also about covering in front of inanimate objects like books.
MP, I don't know that I agree with you on why people dress with tznius. Why do you think they do? How would you describe that motivation? I think most of the women I know well, having grown past their adolescent years, who dress in a tzanua way, have embraced the inner meaning.
Even if I weren't observant, I would probably dress fairly modestly, because that was how I was brought up by my non-Orthodox but proper mother and father. My mother never talked about inner beauty or even used the word modesty, just about what was "proper". I think that kind of conditioning explains why many people dress "modestly".
Isn't that the same thing? Self-dignity?
Only if covering skin is seen as a matter of dignity?
Gotta ask: why is a ramp more modest for a man? Was he wearing a robe?
Yes. But even if one no longer thinks it's undignified to wear a strapless dress (for example), they might not be able to wear it themselves due to upbringing. I'd call that habit, or conditioning.
The idea that tznius should be observed b'chadrei chadarim is just that- an idea. It is most certainly not a halacha. Before the days of indoor plumbing, women all bathed together, at bath houses or rivers, etc. No halachic problems whatsoever, like men at mikvah.
Halachos, in contrast, are imposed only on the premise that tznius is to protect men from sin.
Great Post !!!! Your views about women dress modestly are really so impressive
Great discussion! I, too, find the contrast between Jewish and Christian views on this really fascinating.
Thanks, Keshet.
I was raised Presbyterian. There is no dress code regarding modesty, although it was expected to dress "appropriately" in church, by both male and female. Within my own family though, there was a strong ideal of modesty. There was one thing especially of which my family and minister often spoke that I have never heard mentioned in any discussion on modesty. Modesty is not bringing undue attention to oneself. When a group, religious or otherwise, dresses in a way that is so far from the norm that it immediately draws attention, it is immodest, regardless of what is or is not showing. Jesus says if you stand on a street corner and pray, you have your reward, because of all the people who see you doing so, but to pray in the dark keeps it between who and G–. To dress in a manor that all who see say, "she is dressed modestly, she must be religious," is praying on a street corner. To dress modestly yet in a way that is not conspicuously so, is praying in the dark.
Clear halachic guidelines on how to dress modestly is not a made-up modern thing.
There is Das Moshe, minimal Torah requirements for dress code — the torso has to be covered, the torso parameters are clearly defined– anything below the neck bordered by the front collarbone and back cervical bone. The 'shok' (Hebrew) has to be concealed — two interpretations for it — thigh or calf. The upper arm has to be concealed bordered by the elbow.
To learn more please visit http://bit.ly/1RXNgG1. Thank you.