Now, the post seems to have been met with a lot of positivity. And of course, my goal in publicizing the story was to show people that Orthodox people – especially women – have plenty of opportunities available to them if they’re willing to use some diplomacy and creativity. Maybe I could encourage or inspire someone who’s struggling with the same stuff. So it was nice to see lots of positive feedback on Facebook and on the site, like “Nice job!” “An important piece!” Y’know, that type of thing.
But I’ve long been a believer in the idea that you don’t grow from your supporters, you grow from your critics. So it’s always important to know what your dissenters think, and why they think it. Business owners should, if they’re smart, read their negative reviews on Yelp or Amazon or TripAdvisor or whatever, so that they can respond and improve. Those in relationships should regularly ask their loved ones: “What can I do to be a better wife/husband/mom/child?” While it’s often not fun to hear the truth, it’s how we become our best selves.
Here are some of the dissenting views I saw:
Poor girl. How sad for her that she has to not participate in some of the activities because of your ridiculous made up rules. I hope she grows to reject them one day so her daughter can be free.
OK, so that’s really just mean. This person is not arguing fairly or even presenting anything of substance. Let’s move on.
There’s a time and place for everything, and I can’t see anything “immodest” about a 12-year-old girl dressed for gymnastics the way all the other girls are dressed for gymnastics (in an all-female group, yet!). We Orthodox Jews tend to fixate on details, and often the wrong details too. What, after all, is “modest” about a skirt? In such a situation, if you ask me, the real point of the “modesty” argument is to ensure that the girl or woman knows she’s out of place, that she is always aware she’s unable to do naturally or comfortably what men can do without a second thought. Useful for the patriarchy; a terrible lesson for any girl.
I don’t want to be understood as condemning any of the individuals in this story. It seems they all tried their best to do what they thought was right. It’s the nature of the “values” involved here that I think needs closer scrutiny. When Orthodox women begin to ask — vigorously, seriously, at every point — why Orthodox men get to decide what women can do, how they can do it, and how they ought to feel when they’re doing it (or not), I think we’ll be on the right track.
Now this is a thoughtful, well-articulated view that is kind enough to make me really want to consider its message. In my sillier years, I would’ve commented on the thread, but now I’m a big girl with my own blog so instead of emotionally arguing with strangers, I’ll respond here.
1. There’s a time and place for everything.
Yes, yes. I fully agree. One of the ways I determine what it’s the time and place for at a given moment is by halacha (Jewish law). The man who posted this is obviously Orthodox, so he either interprets halacha differently from how I do, or he sometimes decides for himself how or if halacha applies. This is entirely possible. Different people have different rabbis who counsel differently. Some don’t consult with rabbis much at all.
2. I can’t see anything immodest about a 12-year-old girl dressed like everyone else for gymnastics.
Actually, leggings are pretty revealing. I often venture out in public and see women in leggings in ways that make me really uncomfortable – having nothing to do with Judaism; simply with propriety. But again, the comment starts from a standpoint of “what I see,” “what I think,” as opposed to “what does Judaism have to say about this” and afterwards assessing its merits or possibility. This idea of looking to an external source for guidance first, instead of relying on our intellect first, is one of the biggest differences between liberal and traditional Jewish thought. I believe our practice has to be a legitimate synthesis of halacha and independent thought, with the guidance of those who know us well and respect halacha. Besides, what everyone else is doing… reminds me of the Brooklyn Bridge.
3. We Orthodox tend to fixate on details and often the wrong details too.
This I agree with. We tend to fixate on details, and often the wrong details too. We fixate on how others are dressed (wrong). We fixate on what we eat (mostly right). We fixate on what we say (mostly right). We fixate on fitting in in the community (mostly wrong).
4. What is modest about a skirt?
OK, really? I know there are skirts that are immodest, and pants that are modest. Yes, there are even some pants that are more modest than some skirts. But overall, you can’t argue that pants hug the body and particular the upper legs and tush while skirts do so less. And putting a skirt over leggings – I mean that’s just fairly obviously more modest.
5. She’s aware she can’t do what men can naturally do… useful for the patriarchy.
In families like mine, where halacha (the way we follow the laws) is the first guiding force in our lives, men are just as bound as women – if not more so. My sons can’t do gymnastics because of all the women who are wearing sleeveless clothing and such. My husband can’t go to the beach unless it’s deserted – I can. My men can’t go see a Broadway musical because of the female dancers and vocalists, but I can. The “patriarchy’ seems to be denying itself just as many indulgences as it is women. The point of it all is to enhance modesty and propriety. The topic is so loaded because of how out-of-control things have become, that it’s become almost impossible to have a non-emotional conversation about modesty within religion. It devolves into rape culture conversation before you can blink.
The point of the modesty laws for men is to keep guys’ minds clean as much as possible and, for women, to help them retain their personal dignity and refinement. Each sex has its own rules and limitations in order to achieve these goals. If you would like to discuss this further in the comment section, please do so politely and logically.
I would do the same thing if my daughter wanted to do gymnastics in an all female class where men might be present— send her in a skirt—- but how does she handle being upside down? I would imagine a lot of her tricks involve her being upside down at some point? Just curious. Because then she's got a skirt flipping up and perhaps obscuring her view and technique. (says the mom whose kid will probably never want to do gymnastics!)
The upside down point is exactly my question. I'm also a skirt wearing Orthodox Jew and I can totally understand wearing a skirt from an identity perspective, but from a tznius perspective, doing gymnastics in a skirt makes little sense to me, the moment you flip upside down, the skirt creates a "hidden" place which can't but help being shown while performing gymnastics (i.e.: anytime you flip, cartwheel etc.). I think loose pants or capris would be more tnzius in this case. Though Kol HaKavod to your daughter- I'm glad she is able to do her gymnastics class in an outfit that works for both her and the gym!
I think I just found a garment that would please everyone- the skant! Functions like pants, but looks like a skirt. http://aquamodesta.com/design-of-active-modesta-sportswear/
I've thought about this. And I'm not sure what the perfect answer is. Some details I'm leaving up to my daughter to navigate on her own. Beth – that is very cool! Thanks.
I agree with every point you've made here. It seems to be the case that some people have a tendency to zero in on rules that women follow in a given religion, while simultaneously overlooking or failing to recognize all of the other rules that pertain to men. It makes me a little sad when I see people making the automatic assumption that religious dress must automatically equal oppression. Fortunately, it doesn't look like the dissenting views were all that extreme aside from that first person who was probably just trolling.
You would be surprised what kind of ugliness comes out of people! I was delighted to read this story and then completely shocked to see people tearing into it, using "safety" as a shield for straight up anti religious bigotry. I am sure many of these people would tout a girls right to bodily autonomy in the less modest direction, but not in the more modest one, which is both disingenuous and dissapointing. In the end, I write it up to some people just refusing to have a nice day.
There was a case in Germany a few years back of a Muslim woman who was told she couldn't swim in a public pool with her children in a (voluminous) modest swim garment because it was "unhygienic". There was some kind of city hearing/event around the whole thing and it was pointed out that no one would stop an O Jewish woman from swimming in a modest swim outfit (post-Holocaust hyperconsciousness). Ultimately they decided it was fine to swim in the garment.
I think a skirt with the balance beam might make for easier loss of balance, and I definitely see the point with bars. Frankly I'm impressed that the gym owner was willing to do anything that MIGHT seem against safety in the age of rampant lawsuits. I don't think, as PP said, this is religious bigotry. The fear of a lawsuit is so huge that I can see a gym trying to avoid anything that could lead to a huge legal mess, like someone falling off a beam, hurting herself, and then the parents sue because safety conditions were not fully enforced. They don't know that Ruchi and Mr. Ruchi are reasonable, non-litigious people.
The bars are the one activity the gym disallowed with a skirt (which is fine because my daughter doesn't like them). Do you have a link to that story in Germany? I'll let Mr. Ruchi know about the compliments 🙂
The one about the Muslim mom who wanted to swim in a big modest swim thing doesn't seem available in English. There is available in English the story of a schoolgirl who was ordered by a judge to swim in a modest swim thing–not such a compromise-friendly ending, in that the girl did not want to swim with boys at all, but the judge basically said it's a school requirement to learn how to swim and the classes are coed.
I think one area in which we have a big advantage over Europe is in our First Amendment which creates this cultural balance in which people have the right to be religious (which should be accommodated) and also to be free of religious pressure or religious coercion.
Everyone in America – even your local gym owner – knows that religious needs are important. But religious people here also know that there is a balance and that they cannot and should not interfere with another person's religion or lack thereof. Even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court upheld a young woman's right to wear a headscarf at work and they called it an "easy case". Problem solved, let's move on to real problems.
Compare with France. Or with Saudi Arabia. Or even New Square with its signs reserving one public sidewalk for men and the other for women.
Here are some things that you did not do: you did not demand that all males leave the room so that your daughter could have an ideal environment, you did not demand a female teacher, you did not try to change anyone else's dress.
I know that seems self-evident (why would you do those things) but it's an important part of the cultural balance. It's much easier for a non-religious person to accommodate your needs when they understand that you are not trying to make them follow your rules.
Things get complicated when one person's religious needs conflict with another's persons rights and vice-versa. What if a college student says he can't learn from a female teacher? Is that her problem or his problem? What if I say that I can't work with any of our clients directly because they are men? Can I still do the job I was hired to do?
My belief is that there are no simple answers to these questions but our society — our specific society — provides a mechanism for working these things out. We have a balance and as long as people agree with the fundamental idea underlying that balance, we can argue about the details and bring them to our legal system if needed.
I think this is one of America's great strengths and I would so much rather see us export this one idea than McDonalds. Even Israel — a place that is meant to be Jewish but with no agreement about what "Jewish" means — needs this idea.
Great points. There is actually an Orthodox-run all-girls gym here, and the girls travel to NY and NJ to compete with other Orthodox girls, so the whole environment works for them. The young lady who runs is is and incredible young entrepreneur who's only in the 12th grade and has been doing this for years. She started in her house and now rents her own storefront and hires her own staff! The reason she did this (I think) is that she trained in a "regular" gym and didn't want Orthodox girls to have to compromise – not on safety, modesty, or opportunity.
Part of what bothers me is the age. If "the point of the modesty laws for men is to keep guys' minds clean as much as possible and, for women, to help them retain their personal dignity and refinement," then aren't we just accepting that 12 year olds can be sexually attractive? That a guy can slip by watching her? You write that leggings are very revealing- for a 12 year old? How about for an 11 year old? For a 9 year old? Isn't there a point where we say that no, a child is not sexually attractive and any men that would be attracted to a 12 year old shouldn't be anywhere near children anyway?
The point of the laws for MEN is to keep their minds clean. For WOMEN (ie 12 and over) is to retain their dignity. It's a standardized age based on bat mitzvah, not based on how sexual that particular child is. Twelve is when most girls start puberty, start to wear a bra, get their periods. My 12 year old daughter doesn't even know what sexually attractive means so she's definitely not getting the message that this is about sex. Have you ever seen 12 year old girls at bat mitzvahs? They can definitely dress to be sexually attractive. The point of the modesty laws is to avoid that and to remain dignified.
Well, if it is all about retaining dignity for the women, I don't understand why it would make a difference if men are in the room or not.
What's "dignified" is different if there are guys around. But there are women who wear a skirt in an all-women's exercise group too, for that reason.
Why is what's dignified different for women when men are around, if not to shelter men's thoughts? Also, I don't think this view is supported by halachic authorities pre-feminism. I think the dignity explanation came into being after the "proect the men" one was considered only after feminism came around and nixed the idea that women must protect men from themselves.
We discussed this a lot in a previous thread – grocery shopping in PJs for example. PJs are perfectly dignified at home but not in public. And not if the president is over. It has nothing to do with others' thoughts but rather with propriety.
The character trait of tznius (broadening it beyond dress to include speech and comportment) is mostly about personal dignity and humbleness. Narrowing to dress, it would include both personal dignity and putting others in an uncomfortable spot.
We discussed this a lot in a previous thread – grocery shopping in PJs for example. PJs are perfectly dignified at home but not in public. And not if the president is over. It has nothing to do with others' thoughts but rather with propriety.
The character trait of tznius (broadening it beyond dress to include speech and comportment) is mostly about personal dignity and humbleness. Narrowing to dress, it would include both personal dignity and putting others in an uncomfortable spot.
If the original idea were just to protect men, then the laws would apply only to women. But I remember hearing a prominent rabbi say he gets dressed under the covers as much as possible, even though there's no one around at all! And he had a source for it (I don't remember what) that was a lot older than feminism.
My impression is that protecting men is simply the main thing that people focus on because it's easier to understand, but it's not really the main point.
Hmm, the rabbi getting dressed under the covers does not help me see this in a positive light because that strikes me as quite undignified! And while I like Ruchi's spin here about dignity–I am a way-not-O proponent of more clothing and general "public" sensibility in the public sphere–there seem to be elements of this (as with the rabbi) that strike me more as a matter of body shame. Is looking at yourself in a mirror naked a bad thing for Os?
Another question: Aren't there some O women who wear no head cover in their own houses, or around other women? A few years ago I knew a couple who got married, became O, and she wore a scarf on her head outside but not inside. If I'm remembering right.
I really don't think it's about body shame, but it could definitely turn into that. A sensitive parent and educator has to be mindful of this. I try to say things to my kids like "your body is private, it's yours, it's just the right body that God gave you" – trying to include elements of pride, dignity, ownership.
There are some O women who don't cover their hair at home, and some who don't cover at all.
When did female modesty become a hot topic and a defining characteristic of the religious level of Jewish women? To those who will rebut: it isn't – listen in to the next shidduch vetting call about a girl. It will come up in detail.
We have an unexpected position statement in Jewish thought when it comes to the relationship of our internal and external selves: Tocho c'varo. Our insides should be like our outsides. Typically applied to our ethics – as we are more likely to 'behave' under public scrutiny.
But does this also shed light on our relationship to our dress/modesty? That's so not Girl Power! Our external should reflect our internal self, no? I always like to think so. Let my inner neshama shine, blah blah blah.
We have another principle: Haadam nifal c'fi p'ulotav. Humanity is influenced by their actions. It underlies behavior mod. and countless types of therapies, a unique purposeful efficacy of our mitzvos, etc. etc. etc.
My thinking about how I want to present myself to the world – or not caring – affects my psyche / self-image / comportment, etc. because that is a law of nature / how humanity is wired.
When I simply put G-d into that equation: how do I want to present myself to the world as a Jewish woman – that is not limiting. That is a ridiculous statement. That this would mean that everyone would look the same – would be even more ridiculous. Every human being (almost) looks different!! G-d could simply have made us all look the same if that were a value. Instead – it's an anomoly! If we all end up looking the same- that means, we're dressing communally tznius (or that there were just a few tznius clothing outlets to shop from), not necessarily G-dly tznius.
There are limitations that unleash much greater opportunity for self-expression / productivity / impact – art, medicine, physics, EVERYTHING. That is life. By limiting certain areas of my body from view in the choices I will now make in how I present myself – dress myself – does not mean I am dressing for men. I am dressing with a G-d mindset – and the limitations as defined by halachah – create opportunity now for my Toch – my internal self to be greater / my SELF. obviously those limitations touch on how men and others see and relate to me – but that is not the point – that is a benefit / side effect.
Limits that nurture growth. Externals that develop the internal. It's almost post-modern. ;).
Limiting myself for others? That's so shallow, but I believe that is how most of this is taught because it is more digestible. Too bad. We're wasting a lot of energy and focus away from positive identity-building…. imo.
;). Tobey
My goal with my own daughter is to support her sense that her body is her own. I have seen women wearing short skirts and high heels who are happy, confident, and ready to take over the world. I have seen women wearing sheitels and long skirts who look the same way. That's what I want for my daughter — the ability to choose what feels right to her, what feels comfortable and empowering to her. This is different from Orthodoxy, which has a standard within which both men and women should dress, but the overall goal to be inner directed and to dress in accordance with one's values is the same.
Every culture has its own norms about what is considered sexy, what is considered appropriate for children, young women, mothers, old women. In some Hassidic neighborhoods, Ruchi would need to cover her wig with a hat or scarf in order to appear modest and appropriate. To do otherwise would be sexy and risque.
A secular Israeli friend told me that secular women wear miniskirts, Hassidic girls wear knee length skirts and modern Orthodox girls wear maxi skirts. She herself liked maxi skirts but saw no way to wear one without being relentlessly teased.
There is no actual line between modest and immodest. There is only culture and cultural norms. There is no culture on earth that I am aware of in which female appearance is not highly regulated and intensely scrutinized, usually by other women. Is it all about men in the end? I honestly do not know. Most men only notice the most striking deviations from the female norm. They are completely unaware of the level of detail that women enforce on each other.
The rules — whatever they are — are always intense and failure to comply is always an issue. Raising a girl who is inner-directed about appearance is incredibly hard regardless of your community.
Lots of truths here…
Hi! Thank you for sharing this story. I had a question regarding your last point: “The point of the modesty laws for men is to keep guys’ minds clean as much as possible and, for women, to help them retain their personal dignity and refinement. Each sex has its own rules and limitations in order to achieve these goals.”
Do you have a source for this? I am not sure we really “know” so simply the reasons for tzniut, we just know the few d’orita references to an idea of modesty and the many rabbinic protocols that follow. I think this attitude might just be us appropriating conservative and secular ideas of sexuality and gender. But if I am wrong please point me in the right direction.
I personally find a statement like that offensive to men, as if they are animals who cannot be around a woman’s bodies without thinking about sex. We can and should expect all adults to behave as adults when necessary. Also this attitude perpetuates a society where we excuse men for acts of sexual aggression, as if it is not their “fault” but that something innate in them that reacted to a woman’s behavior. This obviously of course blames women for being victims, as if their dress caused something or sent a signal.
Further, this kind of attitude of men’s unclean minds vs. women’s “dignity” ignores the fact that women have sexuality and sexual attraction as well, making girls and women feel guilty and unnatural for having sexual thoughts rather than understanding where they come from and how to react to them. Science and psychology can be helpful in understanding this.
Thank you and good luck with all your pursuits!
hi, I really enjoyed this article. THough I am not Jewish, I am conservative Christian and are raising our girls to dress like girls (skirts/dresses) and be modest. My 14 year old is really interested in gymnastics and has been practicing in our backyard all year. My question is, have you found any particular skirt that works well for gymastics, I’d love to know. I say the post about the aqua pants, but was wondering if you had a particular skirt idea? thanks
Not everyone is articulate. Even those not articulate by commenting suggest they just don’t understand.
What is revealing is relative. What is sexual is relative. In Japan school girls in some schools can not wear ponytails up high exposing their neck in the back. Once they are out of high school it is not longer an issue. I guess they think for students it is distraction but when they are adults they have control over thoughts? It is an age thing too. But someone from somewhere else just can not understand. A person from Japan but second generation American probably can’t understand either.
All this talk over socks, tights, nude pantyhose, black tights seems a bit ridiculous. One school forbids socks once 6. Another forbids it even outside school uniform. Even the secular schools go nuts over how many inches the shoulder strap on the shirt needs to be and how long the shorts for girls. As the mom of a boy I barely noticed there was a dress code section. Did Sara wear tights? Or socks? I’d hope open sandals. It’s hot.
As for the pool I like to be covered. When I wore a regular tshirt over I was told okay today but it’s bad for the pool (dye) so they are telling people not to. I bought a proper rash guard for over my suit and swim sorts besides. I feel safely covered with the suit I like to additionally be covered to help with sunburns and for the fact I would like more areas on the body covered. There are ways to cover the parts that need to be covered for every activity. But should the standard not come from the own person’s perspective and not that of another and still follow the dictates to be modest? Afghan teens got locked out of classes again over what the uniform will look like. All were only showing faces and hands. It is about control. Do I feel dressed according to the activity in this space? Like the pool it isn’t the water that makes something modest or not it’s the clothing. Isn’t that what she has said before?
Most activities stop at that age anyway. School is a bigger focus. The expense with college coming up is hard to balance. Is gymnastics a life activity like running?