Tzniut

One of the most important achievements of the modern feminist movement was the passage of rape shield laws. These laws prevented defense attorney of alleged rapists for interviewing the alleged victim about her past sexual history, the implication being that licentious behavior may have somehow invited the rapist’s behavior or made the woman “deserve” to be raped. Before the passage of those laws, women were often found guilty of allowing themselves to be raped, as opposed to the rapist guilty for raping. Thousands of years earlier, the Torah held a woman’s rapist guilty for his behavior. His punishment was to marry his victim and pay her father. The concept of marrying one’s rapist seems cruel to the modern Westerner, yet at the time, women did not have careers. Marriage was a woman’s only way of obtaining financial security. A raped woman was deemed unmarriagable, and the Torah sought to remedy that by forcing the rapist to marry his victim, thus ensuring her financial security.

As a matter of fact, the innocence of the rape victim is so strong that when discussing how Esther could have slept with Achashverosh when giluy arayot is one of the sins of yehareg vial yaavor, the Gemarah explains that Esther was as still as the ground while Achashverosh was having intercourse with her. In other words, Esther, by being physically unresponsive, was essentially passively allowing herself to be raped, and just as a rape victim is not responsible for the intercourse, since it is against their will, so too, Esther was not responsible, since it was against her will. (In certain places in the United States today, lying as still as the ground while a man had intercourse with you does indeed count as legally defined rape.)

So why is it that in contemporary Orthodox society a common perception is, “If you dress a certain way, expect to be treated a certain way”? This is certainly not the view of halacha. A wise woman once said, “Men have a yetzer harah to look, and women have a yetzer harah to want to be looked at.” The yetzer harah of men to look is dealt with explicitly by halacha.

The Ritva says, “Halachikly, it all depends on one’s appraisal of his own piety. If precautionary measures are appropriate, one takes them, even if it means avoiding the sight of women’s colored clothing. If one knows that his passions are in check, and he is not prone to impure thoughts, he is then permitted to look at and speak to women prohibited to him...but not all scholars can trust themselves. In fact, none but an extremely pious person who knows his limits can be lenient in this regard.”

The Sefer Hachinuch says, “Even someone fairly devoid of lust should not say, “Since I know that I am this way, what does it matter that I gaze upon women? I will not be aroused.” Many have spoken thus and then sinned...at first the yetzer hara is very weak and then it become stronger...”

Both of these statements are clearly meant for men, since they involve the yetzer hara of improper sexual thoughts regarding women. Nevertheless, women should not ogle men inappropriately either. Such statements are often taken as evidence of the Gemarah’s considering women as temptresses, but the emphasis on the above passages is not on women, but on men’s flaws. It is not that the women are doing anything wrong, but that men can not control their sexual desires. It is the men, not the women, who are flawed.

The Shulchan Aruch forbids men from leering at women, even in pursuit of a shidduch. The tefillat zakah has a special section regarding men’s having inappropriate thoughts about women. The implication in the prohibition on leering is that to do so is to violate the respect due to a woman by objectifying her. This is before the rise of modern feminism, yet its assumption are clearly what would today be deemed feminist. The inherent worth of a woman and her lack of objectification is central to the dogma of tzniut.

A woman is enjoined to dress modestly. This can be hard for a woman to comply with however, due to the reality implicitly acknowledged in the Shulchan Aruch’s prohibiton on leering: Men tend to be much more visually oriented than women when it comes to seeking a prospective mate. Making a positive first visual impression, whether on a first date, or when trying to catch a guy’s eye at a party, is vital. If the guy finds the woman attractive, he is much more likely to get to know her, whereas a woman may not initially be attracted to a guy but will take the time to get to know him and then grow attracted to him in the process. This is not to say that there are no exceptions to the rules. The above statement is a generalization, but one with a grain of truth to it. In addition, women often want to look attractive to men. Society also pressures women to look good. One way of making tzniut easier for women would be to encourage men to be less visually oriented in choosing a mate and for society to put less pressure on women to be beautiful. Much of this pressure comes from modern secular society, which tends to judge people based on their external appearance. That this value has become part of modern Orthodox society shows the encroachment of secular values upon us and a growing assimilation into America and its materialistic culture.

In this sense, tzniut can be seen as a feminist aspiration. It is a reaction against society’s objectification and sexualization of women. It is a philosophy that calls for women to be judged on who they are as people, on their internal qualities, as opposed to their external qualities.

Nevertheless, tzniut poses a very complicated issue for most women today. Women are judged on their external appearances. The way they dress is equated with their level of religiosity. Pants = not frum. Skirt and elbow-length = frum. This emphasis on externality goes against the values of tzniut, by re-objectifying women and placing the emphasis on their bodies and their clothing. Furthermore, this simplistic equation is doing a great disservice to Orthodox society and probably enhancing the shidduch crisis. Men who wear a certain type of kipah will not date women who dress in a certain way, while women who dress in a certain way will not date men who wear a certain type of kipah. In reality, there may be frum pants-wearing women whose hashkafah and life goals would allow her to marry someone who wears a black velvet kipah, while a kipah serugah guy might be happy with a long-sleeve ankle-length wearing Beis Yaakov graduate. Admittedly, these might be the exception rather than the rule, but there are enough exceptions that for groups of people to not be in the same dating pool due to these external factors can not help but contribute to the shidduch crisis the Orthodox world faces.

A large part of this inaccessibility has to do with the politicization of religion: External factors have become codes for belonging to certain factions within Orthodox Judaism, and marrying someone from that faction means agreeing to adhere to its values and become part of that faction by association. Whatever happened to the phrase “Yarey Elokim”, God-fearing? Instead of defining each other by our political labels, why can’t we define each other as: shomrey mitzvot, yirey Elokim, meleim/meleot chesed, etc. - things that describe our shared values, not our differences. This would also help us to combat sinat chinam, so that mashiach can come bimhera biyameynu.