Study of a closed society (Chassidim)- How accurate is this?

life'sgreat

Thu, Jan 14 2010, 11:34 pm

I don't even know where to start responding to what she wrote. Firstly, her study is flawed by virtue of sticking to one Chasidish city. Secondly, her study is flawed because I can see some of these answers being said by some girls. But they are the ones who are the most closed minded, growing up in uber frum homes and are taught the stuff at home. Out of a class of 35 girls that I had in school, I can think of 2-3 girls that would say some of the above. I have a feeling that she knew whom to target with her questions. And they are easy to spot as well.

Mevater wrote:

How accurate is this?
When a man passes her in the street, “Gitty”, a Chasidic girl from New York, says she steps aside. A young male Torah scholar should not be distracted by “hearing the sound of her pumps as she goes by”. The streets, she says, “belong to the men”.

While a girl might step aside (debatable, some do some don't), no one thinks the men rule the streets, or own it. That's preposterous.

Mevater wrote:

Chasidic girls are taught from an early age to “fit in”. Mothers practise positive reinforcement, rewarding respectful behaviour. Meanwhile, they systematically ignore questions perceived as challenging to authority.

Yes, fitting in is something that is often stressed. Which is unfortunate. The bolded is just as true as untrue. It's a broad sweeping statement. It varies by family, teacher, Rebbe and community. To me, it's the same as saying that in public school, kids at the age of 16 are systematically not virgins any longer. Yesh V'Yesh.

Mevater wrote:

Teachers emphasise that their students are “daughters of a King” — that is, God — and accordingly must behave modestly. Rebellion against rabbinic or male authority is treated as a rebellion against God. And there is a strong emphasis on the need to avoid being like “the non jews”, commonly portrayed as vulgar and less civilised.

I'm not sure what she means about rebellion against male or rabbinic figures. Does she mean chutzpa, or defying tznius codes? Thus, I am not clear if the rebellion against G-d piece is true or not.

Yes, there are many who say that 'the non jews' are vulgar and less civilized. But I don't think it's what it used to be like.

Mevater wrote:

The larger theme is the Chasidic struggle with modernity. While every effort is devoted to protecting their daughters from mainstream society, mothers must also equip them to navigate it; it is the women who are expected to support their husbands, pay the bills, and take the children to the doctor.

Untrue. There are some who pay the bills, but for the most part, the fathers work and pay the bills. In short, they do the finances. And if the father works, why wouldn't the mother take them to the doctor? Is that wrong? Last I checked, secular, non Jews, Litvish etc... women also take their children to the doctor if their spouse is working.

Mevater wrote:

Fader argues that Chasidim are not, actually, “pre-modern”. Rather, she says, they take what they need from the modern world and put it to a Jewish purpose. Thus, mothers consciously use modern theories of child-rearing — paradoxically, in order to bring up what Fader calls “non-liberal” children. Chasidic women read “self-help” books — which direct them to put their trust in God.

Modern theories of child-rearing... What is she referring to? The self help books she is referring to are Jewish books on Emunah if I understand correctly.

Mevater wrote:

The problem for Chasidic society, however, is that even as they pick and choose elements of modernity that suit them, they still portray the outside world as wholly negative to their followers. When young Chasidim realise that “non jews” and secular culture are not as useless as they have been taught, they are vulnerable to a crisis of faith. The phenomenon of Chasidic drop-outs has become particularly apparent in recent years. The internet is now an amenable host to forums for “lapsed Chasidim”.

I find this to be an issue in communities where there are no non Jews, such as New Square, Monroe, and Tosh. I don't think it's true across the board. A crisis of faith usually comes from an entirely different place.

Mevater wrote:

This would not have been apparent during Fader’s research in the late 1990s. Still, when she showed her own wedding photographs to a Chasidic woman, the latter said: “‘I thought by those kinds of weddings....’ Then she stopped herself and said: ‘But you’re not like them. They’re so cold, like you see in the movies’. She made a face of disgust, implying that ‘they’ have weddings that are all for show, involving no real familial feelings.”

Um, I don't even think I need to comment on the above.

What I find weird about the above is that there are quite a number of Chasidim even on this site. Perhaps 1% of them would agree with what she's written. If she'd have interviewed any of us, she'd have gotten entirely different responses. I gather that she got many many other responses, but they weren't in favor of the point she was trying to make, so it was simple to simply omit them.

life'sgreat

Thu, Jan 14 2010, 11:48 pm

Yocheved84 wrote:

Such studies are always tough to do--if you're an "insider," you're accused of bias. If you're an outsider, you're accused of not being fully versed in the culture or "getting it."

If you're an outsider with an agenda, you're accused of picking and choosing what to share in the article. LOL

Mevater wrote:

Are you Chassidish/Yeshivish? I'm not Chassidish but I have many relatives who are and while it might not be 100% accurate, the article rings more true than false. Outsiders are NOT projected in a favorable light at all.

The article rings more false than true. There are some true points, but for the most part, it's twisted to fit her agenda.

amother wrote:

Not in monroe, new square or any chasidish enclave I am familiar with.

The ones in EY I would guess are pretty much the same.

What do you mean by the EY comment? They are pretty much the same in what?

amother wrote:

If you need a good documentary please spend 10 years in normal happy funloving chasidisha homes like the one I grew up in. I don't feel supressed, segregated or humiliated in no way B"H. Todays Chasidim run very close in line with the Litvaks so make sure you get your facts clear.

Chasidus is about serving hashem besimcha, spending time with the Rebbe, farbrenging, tishin.

Re: the bolded - not true. What's in line with them?

While that might have been the intention of Chasidus, many don't do any of the above. At least not moreso than the Jewish counterparts of other communities.

freidasima wrote:

As for what she writes here, I've heard from more than one person the business about not wearing heels outside so that men aren't aware of your "tapping" so that's not made up. Chassidim may work abroad but here in EY they are just the Litvish, they learn, learn, learn. The rest I wouldn't know...

I once heard from a non Jew that we have horns. Doesn't say a thing about what non Jews really believe. The fact that you heard it from one person isn't a rayah that that's how we believe. If most of us say it isn't true, are we lying? Or perhaps it takkeh isn't true for the most part?

I have a large family in Israel, as well as many many friends and it's not true that for the most part they learn. Perhaps many learn part time, but most of them have jobs. They might learn just so that they get out of duty.

freidasima wrote:

Amother what I meant is while chassidim abroad learn for a year or maybe two after marriage and then as far as I know they go out to the workforce, here in EY because of the kollel system and the law that you have to go to the army if you aren't in kollel, they sit and learn for years and years (at least as far as the record is concerned ) just like the Litvish do. So you don't see young chassidic men going out to work in EY as it would mean that they have to go to the army. At age 35 or 40 it's a different think, then there is no problem, but a young man of 22 or 23? Almost never.

Again, not true. Many many of them have Ptors, but they work.

amother wrote:

There aren't many chasidish academics, especially female ones Wink

There are more than you'd know.

freidasima wrote:

And isn't there a Dr. Sarah Rigeur in New York, is she also charedi or something like that? In EY there is Malka Scheps who is a mathematician and writes charedi girls books under a pseudonym of Rachel Pomerantz.

You're seriously trying to count them by name?

Fox wrote:

I can tell you the basic thesis, though: Despite an official commitment to using Yiddish almost exclusively, Bobover women generally speak English with one another, and as girls get older, using more English is almost a sign of increasing maturity. However, various Yiddish expressions, sentence structures, and other linguistic characteristics are transferred from Yiddish to English. Individuals who do not incorporate these elements of Yiddish into their English are generally regarded as outsiders.

She does draw some general conclusions about how women pick and choose elements of "modernity" that they incorporate into their lives, and it's annoying that she thinks this is a chiddush (apparently she had previously confused us with the Amish!), but it's not really the point of the study.

While I can't comment on Dr. Fader's methodology, I will mention that at the last Bobov chassunah I attended in BP, I didn't hear a word of Yiddish among the women and girls -- unless they were talking to a small boy or their husbands.

The above shows just how flawed her study is. Because BP is known to have a lot more Chasidish English speakers than many other Jewish communities, including Williamsburg, Monroe, Monsey etc...

freidasima

Fri, Jan 15 2010, 2:56 am

Life's great, you wrote lots of really intelligent things but the minute you wrote that there are a lot of chassidish women on imamother and that only 1% would agree with what was written in the article, you lost me.

We all know that shtark chassidish women aren't on imamother. I don't count lubavitch here where internet is fully allowed. But as for the rest? Is your "archtypical" bobover, satmar, and Pupa and Vizhnitz chassidish woman here on imamother? I don't think so.

Second, I wrote that MORE THAN ONE WOMAN told me about the heels business, not ONE WOMAN. Lots of women to be precise, including showing me a flyer in which is was exhorted that women should wear rubber soles so that men wouldn't hear the tapping of their shoes, which seems to be making its way around the charedi areas of brooklyn. So I wouldn't discount it.

Most important, Fox summarized the book, I assume well, and it doesn't seem to be about much more than the use of language. In other words, the article that was quoted here was what? Someone who picked and chose some of the things that must have been said as background or an aside in the book, and as most people (unlike me!) aren't interested in the use of language or especially Yiddish (mymother still is upset that my yiddish isn't as good as hers and my kids barely know the language), that's what this writer of the article decided to target in her stuff, and it's not necessarily the push or the direction of what Fader may have written, who knows? We all know how things are taken out of context.

And lastly, if the question is the "shita" and not necessarily how many people agree with it, so it wouldn't make a difference if only a few girls in your class were so shtark and kept this way, particularly if this is the shita that is taught. What does a study deal with? I don't know. In psychology we only deal with what exists "in the field" meaning what people actually do, we don't give a hoot what they were taught in school, only how it adapts in their thought and feelings and life. But maybe in sociology or more so, anthropology, what is taught "normatively" is what is important and thus maybe that's why it was mentioned.

But basically, as what we saw here wasnt the book but rather what someone took out of it, it went through that writer's filter and I would take a lot of it with a grain of salt until I would actually read the book.

Also Green, I agree in full. Any woman, from a frum community, who just stood by the sidelines while men did everything might get the feeling that the "street" belongs to the men, which actually in yiddishkeit, more I think of it, is true across the board, for MOs as well, and the "home" belongs to the women. Men do the visible things and chas vesholom if anything a woman does is visible. She is supposed to basically be transparent right? What are her mitzvos? Niddah which we keep secret. Challah which we do at home, benching lecht which she does at home. In shul? Nothing. She doesn't even have to go almost all of the time. Anything public? Never! Not only that but she is exhorted in the realm of tznius to be basically invisible to any man except her husband!

So maybe it IS true that in the frum world, the shita is that the men ARE supposed to own the streets while we are home, albeit doing very important things, or at work, supporting our families, but never in public.

I remember a litvish friend of mine in EY saying that a woman's name is in the paper three times. She meant Yated. When she is born, when she gets engaged and in her death notice. Period. Otherwise women aren't mentioned publically by name, their picture will NEVER get into a charedi paper, and she is supposed to be invisible.

Also, I can only say that most of the charedi families I know here, chassidish and litvish, the men if they are young are either learning full time or learning most of the time and working off the books in the late afternoon and evening, othewise they are breaking the law and liable to lose their ptor.

Atali

Fri, Jan 15 2010, 8:53 am

freidasima wrote:

Since when did the yated put a woman's name on her birth and engagement notices? Aren't they usually written as "Reuven Cohen is engaged to the daughter of Shimon Levi"?

They do seem to include the full name at her death, however.

freidasima

Sat, Jan 16 2010, 1:25 pm

It's close but let me clarify.
Lubavitch is not considered charedi by other charedim, that isn't my definition. It is chassidish, but various things which are routinely allowed by Lubavitch and are not condemned in the Lubavitch lifestyle (from wearing denim to using the internet, and certainly types of kiruv or rather methods which bring Lubavitchers very close proximity to secular and non Jewish society etc.) are totally ossured by any and every other chassidish group.

As for charedi and shtark charedi, it's definitely across the board here in EY that the only large chassidish group which is allowed point blank to use the internet is Chabad in EY. All others ossur it and all the big chassidish rabbonim signed every kol koreh in the book ossuring the internet. Lately some allow it for work only and never at home period. If you therefore have it at home and you are: Satmar, Ger, Vizhnitz, Bobov, Pupa, Belz, etc. then you are doing it "under the table" and can't be considered shtark here. Shtark keeps to what the rebbe says. Period.

So with very very few exceptions, any chassidish poster using the internet who isn't Lubavitch and hasn't specifically gotten a heter, can't be considered "shtark" because the definition of "shtark" is just that - following exactly what your rebbe says. That would mean that the chassidish posters on Imamother aren't shtark by that definition.

If anyone has a different definition for shtark that doesn't include following precisely what your Rebbe has said about internet, I would be interested in hearing it.

As for the Litvish, it seems to be a bit more common to get heters to use the internet for work at home, even though Litvish gedolim have signed the Kol Koreh. Hence Litvish posters here are another story as I am assuming they are here with a Heter.

life'sgreat

Sat, Jan 16 2010, 6:48 pm

freidasima wrote:

Actually, there are many, from all walks of Chasidish life (do you have any idea who I am? What I look like? How I 'hold'?) that are online. From Williamsburg, Monroe, New Square, Monsey and beyond. There are women that work in offices and have net access and are on imamother, regardless of affiliation or what they look like. There are those who, for whatever reason, have net access at home. Again, no connection to their level of frumkeit sometimes. Yes, you can find the archtypical satmar, bobov, pupa etc... online. The only one where I would say it is somewhat limited would be viznitz. At least in viznitz monsey where there's a rebbe and they generally do live a little differently even though outwardly it seems that they are the same and are often lumped with satmar. I live in this world. I know what I am talking about. I think most chasidish women on this site can agree with me.

freidasima wrote:

Second, I wrote that MORE THAN ONE WOMAN told me about the heels business, not ONE WOMAN. Lots of women to be precise, including showing me a flyer in which is was exhorted that women should wear rubber soles so that men wouldn't hear the tapping of their shoes, which seems to be making its way around the charedi areas of brooklyn. So I wouldn't discount it.

I have never, not even once, heard of this phenomenon. I don't live in Brooklyn, so I'll let the brooklynites respond to the above. However, from my past experiences, I can tell you that there are some 'machers' from the communities there who are uber frum and print those flyers, handing them out and making a big to-do about it. Most people either laugh at it, or get angry at their crazes. It's definitely not the accepted thing in those communities. But then again, I'll let others really focus in on this.

freidasima wrote:

Most important, Fox summarized the book, I assume well, and it doesn't seem to be about much more than the use of language. In other words, the article that was quoted here was what? Someone who picked and chose some of the things that must have been said as background or an aside in the book, and as most people (unlike me!) aren't interested in the use of language or especially Yiddish (mymother still is upset that my yiddish isn't as good as hers and my kids barely know the language), that's what this writer of the article decided to target in her stuff, and it's not necessarily the push or the direction of what Fader may have written, who knows? We all know how things are taken out of context.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the above. That she was, or wasn't writing with an agenda?

freidasima wrote:

And lastly, if the question is the "shita" and not necessarily how many people agree with it, so it wouldn't make a difference if only a few girls in your class were so shtark and kept this way, particularly if this is the shita that is taught. What does a study deal with? I don't know. In psychology we only deal with what exists "in the field" meaning what people actually do, we don't give a hoot what they were taught in school, only how it adapts in their thought and feelings and life. But maybe in sociology or more so, anthropology, what is taught "normatively" is what is important and thus maybe that's why it was mentioned.

Oh, but there's the error. Those things aren't taught in school. They are taught those stuff at home. They are considered uber frum by mainstream chasidish people across the board. They are the girls who don't participate (sometimes) in school trips, as well as other stuff. You'll have the one or two girls who opt out of English classes etc... It is definitely not what is taught in schools. Every city has one school for the really frum and again, it's not the accepted mainstream school.

freidasima wrote:

But basically, as what we saw here wasnt the book but rather what someone took out of it, it went through that writer's filter and I would take a lot of it with a grain of salt until I would actually read the book.

I can definitely hear that. But that's valid across the board on this topic then.

freidasima wrote:

Also Green, I agree in full. Any woman, from a frum community, who just stood by the sidelines while men did everything might get the feeling that the "street" belongs to the men, which actually in yiddishkeit, more I think of it, is true across the board, for MOs as well, and the "home" belongs to the women. Men do the visible things and chas vesholom if anything a woman does is visible. She is supposed to basically be transparent right? What are her mitzvos? Niddah which we keep secret. Challah which we do at home, benching lecht which she does at home. In shul? Nothing. She doesn't even have to go almost all of the time. Anything public? Never! Not only that but she is exhorted in the realm of tznius to be basically invisible to any man except her husband!

So maybe it IS true that in the frum world, the shita is that the men ARE supposed to own the streets while we are home, albeit doing very important things, or at work, supporting our families, but never in public.

The above is true in many circles. However, what the girl said and what you wrote above are two different thing. One is concrete - men own the street, so I better stay indoors, or move aside and the other is abstract - we need to stay in the sidelines because they 'own the street'. I don't think what the girl said was meant to be the above.

freidasima wrote:

Also, I can only say that most of the charedi families I know here, chassidish and litvish, the men if they are young are either learning full time or learning most of the time and working off the books in the late afternoon and evening, othewise they are breaking the law and liable to lose their ptor.

Many learn part time (not too many hours) and work some. At least in the chasidish velt there.