Men Signing Off on How Their Wives Will Dress / School Reqts

PinkFridge

Wed, Jun 07 2017, 9:02 am

Culturedpearls wrote:

A woman should dress as a bas Yisroel with dignity, that sort of excludes denim & leggings. Again this could be ok & dressy in some communities . It's not in A major metropolis like NY.
This is a Crown Heights school & it's speaking to crown heights parents who should be dressed like chassidim.
There are mothers in my daughters school who flaunt the rules & I honestly feel sorry for their kids. The girls get very embarrassed in front of their friends if their mother is visibly different.

You bring up some points that have been on my mind but I hesitate to say as this should really be on the Lubavitch forum (which I wouldn't be able to listen in on).

Personally, I'm ok with denim.* I'm wearing a denim shirt now. But there's a difference between a pencil, skims the knees or longer but no way you can sit down skirt, and longer Biz skirt. Is it possible to make a difference in a dress code?

But then you get to a greater issue, and again, this is not mine to have any 2 cents in. If this was the dress code to any other chassidishe mosad, and maybe even some Litvishe schools, I bet you'd have a lot of imamothers saying, "Where can I sign up?" Because in those circles there is presumed to be a certain level of dress that's apart from current general trends, and a bit more regal, for want of a better word. This is an internal crisis in Lubavitch, and I'm sure that many old timers would like to see their community members (men too) looking more chassidish, or what they'd like to think of as chassidish. They're probably baffled by men who've been raised a certain way not saying something to their wives, or feeling too intimidated to say something and would like to empower them, in a way they probably think is appropriate and healthy**. Maybe they think if they can make a change in Crown Heights it'll have a ripple effect in communities around the world. (I'm trying to get into an older person's head here.)

I feel their pain. There is something going on here and again, as an outside observer, who doesn't have to live with any of this, my thoughts aren't very relevant.

*And ankle skirts, and knee highs, but that's not the point in this paragraph.
** To an extent, I agree.

Culturedpearls

Wed, Jun 07 2017, 9:21 am

PinkFridge wrote:

I'd venture to say that most people who send to this particular school don't actually have a big issue of tznius. However, we are all influenced by those around us. And if most young mom's are wearing gorgeous superlong sheitels - it's hard. My hunch is that the letter is meant to strengthen the parent body. This is not the only school with these requirements. Even flagship Beis Rivka has been known to have someone personally ask mothers to come dressed appropriately.
As someone who visits the community I have to say that there has been a general improvement of tznius in Crown Heights over the last few years.
And while such rules maybe beyond some women it does have a positive effect . So while they will wear a denim skirt it will now cover the knees or not be so tight. There's definitely a ripple effect and that applies in all communities.
Again conversation is good & the whole Crown Heights is talking!

Ilovemaryland

Wed, Jun 07 2017, 9:29 am

wondergirl wrote:

If the function of the school is to educate people then why are they not doing that? If the school wants to educate people then they should have sent home a letter with the sources of tznius rules and the reasons why wearing denim, leggings, tight pants, etc are not appropriate. That is how you educate people and inspire them to want to follow the rules, not by forcing parents to follow rules outside of school without providing them with the sources/education of why they have to follow these rules. I would like to know the sources for not allowing grown women to wear denim or leggings etc if they choose to do so. Are all denims banned or is black or white denim is acceptable? If leggings aren't tznius then can I wear pants underneath my skirt instead? Why or why not?

Quite frankly, schools are there to educate their students, not to force the parents to adhere to rigid, arbitrary rules outside of school without providing them the sources and educating them as to why its not tznius (based on halacha, not opinion). And you educate the students by teaching them the halachas and then inspiring them and encouraging them to follow the halachas to the best of their abilities. If you stick to educating people on the halachas then chances are that they will be more willing to follow the halachas as its not forced on to them against their will.

Imagine getting a letter from the school with sources from the Torah explaining why we should not be wearing denim or leggings, etc. I for one would be more inspired and encouraged to follow the Halachas instead of just being forced to follow rules today that were perfectly acceptable yesterday. Wouldn't you?

This is probably the most intelligent comment here and yet you need to be a BT or grow up WAAAAAY OOT to think like this

Culturedpearls

Wed, Jun 07 2017, 9:32 am

PinkFridge wrote:

You bring up some points that have been on my mind but I hesitate to say as this should really be on the Lubavitch forum (which I wouldn't be able to listen in on).

Personally, I'm ok with denim.* I'm wearing a denim shirt now. But there's a difference between a pencil, skims the knees or longer but no way you can sit down skirt, and longer Biz skirt. Is it possible to make a difference in a dress code?

But then you get to a greater issue, and again, this is not mine to have any 2 cents in. If this was the dress code to any other chassidishe mosad, and maybe even some Litvishe schools, I bet you'd have a lot of imamothers saying, "Where can I sign up?" Because in those circles there is presumed to be a certain level of dress that's apart from current general trends, and a bit more regal, for want of a better word. This is an internal crisis in Lubavitch, and I'm sure that many old timers would like to see their community members (men too) looking more chassidish, or what they'd like to think of as chassidish. They're probably baffled by men who've been raised a certain way not saying something to their wives, or feeling too intimidated to say something and would like to empower them, in a way they probably think is appropriate and healthy**. Maybe they think if they can make a change in Crown Heights it'll have a ripple effect in communities around the world. (I'm trying to get into an older person's head here.)

I feel their pain. There is something going on here and again, as an outside observer, who doesn't have to live with any of this, Tele my thoughts aren't very relevant.

*And ankle skirts, and knee highs, but that's not the point in this paragraph.
** To an extent, I agree.

Also your thoughts are very revelant . We are rarely objective so the way others view us is an important yardstick.

marina

Wed, Jun 07 2017, 11:36 pm

The good news about chabad is that it is more open to debating the topic than other groups have been. Here's a letter posted in response to the new requirements: http://www.collive.com/show_ne.....gings

Quote:

Dear Rabbi Gurary,

Your letter triggered so many responses in me, I don't know where to begin. By questioning why a man – especially a frum man and a chossid – could ever imagine it is appropriate to speak to a woman about her body? By marveling at the incredible irony of a letter inspired by pursuit of dignity and aidelkeit being a crude public itemization of what women should or shouldn't wear? By wondering what the role is here for the husband who signs this letter – is it to inspect and approve his wife before she leaves the house? By marveling at how you have turned tznius – a beautiful concept about moderation and refinement in human behavior and dealings, something that's supposed to translate into cars and homes and the way we make simchos – into something that defines solely the real estate of the skin of women's bodies? But I decided to respond to the most worrisome concept this letter symbolizes: the prioritization of Women's Clothing over all other community issues, as your school – and other institutions in Crown Heights – recently have.

To me, more appalling than denim, is the eight-year-old boy who has been bullied since he was four. More obscene than a three-year-old girl's bare calf, is the shameless conspicuous consumptionism of a bar mitzvah I recently attended of one of our staunch standard-bearers of the Bnos Menachem "Tights Imperative." More dreadful than red nail polish, is the silent serpent of poverty that poisons the happiness of young families who can barely make ends meet (who attend the extravagant functions of the "role models" of our neighborhood). More offensive than a shaitel that hangs below the shoulder blades, is the gross lashon hara that makes for Shabbos table conversations. More shocking than leggings, is the growing mass of young teenagers quietly throwing away a yiddishkeit they don't understand and have come to hate. More alarming than a tight skirt is the rampant consumption of alcohol by our children in yeshivos.

I understand that the way that women look in public colors the whole community because of its overt nature. One need look no further than this week's parsha in Likkutei Sichos (chelek 2), where the Rebbe discusses Kimchis, who merited to see her sons be kohanim gedolim because of her vigilance in covering her hair. But what I don't understand is how this has become the most prioritized issue, emphasized with a single-mindedness above all other community issues. After all, looking through many of the Rebbe's other sichos, the recurring, persistent and primary message is ahavas yisroel, helping a fellow Jew, even a rasha, as the Rebbe mentions a few parshiyos earlier in that same chelek. Not only does the new cultural stress on what you refer to as "tznius" not deserve the spotlight, it inevitably directly contradicts that which does – ahavas yisroel – when proponents employ harsh judgment, humiliation and shaming to "offenders", employing the new catch-all-phrase: "ahavas yisroel doesn't mean that…". "Tznius" is important, but if you really want to "elevate the kedushah in our neighborhood", let's take a cue from the elements of yiddishkeit the Rebbe actually focused on. And if you want to elevate the standard of tznius, let's talk about tznius –the whole concept – not just women's (and little girls'!) legs.

Aside from your choice of focus, I also have to question your tone and approach. Wouldn't your position of authority and leadership in this community be better served to healing us as a people, a fragmented community in pain, an individual and another individual and another individual just trying to do his/her best – like you. What has always distinguished Lubavitcher chassidim is our focus on ruling by light, not by darkness, the focus on each, individual yid, as a precious and valuable piece of Hashem to be treated with respect and kindness and care. The Rebbe's way didn't seem to be the way of prohibitive takanos like the ones you put forth. Rather, encouraging us all to be "street signs", placed at the intersections of the paths leading to arei miklat. Our job is to stand at the crossroads as our friends wander through their existential crises and to support them, to guide them with cries of, "miklat, miklat!", with warmth and support and empathy, and cheer them forward with positivity and love (as the Rebbe discusses in that same chelek 2).

Hatznei leches im Hashem elokecha is a fundamental principle of Jewish life. How has that been subverted to become this obsession about women's toes and little girls' legs? If you are looking to highlight one element of yiddishkeit – one ultimate value – to mandate the parents of your school to sign off on, ayn lanu ela divrei ben Amram. Your school represents the Rebbe. Why corrupt his legacy by distorting the meaning of "kedusha" in his shchunah.

Sincerely,
Chaya Sara Waldman

debsey

Thu, Jun 08 2017, 1:05 am

marina wrote:

Quote:

There's a logical fallacy here.

While I admire Ms. Waldman's command of English, her command of logic is a bit weaker. As every schoolkid knows, two wrongs don't make a right.

I question the assumption that teaching about the inherent dignity of a woman by enforcing tznius rules is at the expense of teaching about bullying or about middos. My daughter's High School , which has much more restrictive rules than Bnos Menachem when it comes to tznius (for both kids and mothers) also has an extremely robust Mishmeres, Chessed and Middos curriculum, all of which include material to be brought home and discussed at the shabbos table.

You can spin anything. You can also throw accusations into thin air (rampant Lashon Hora at the shabbos table - do you have any proof? Maybe many families are working hard on their shmiras HaLashon. You have stats to back this accusation up?)

You can associate anything - "young couples living in poverty" and "extravagant bar mitzvahs" - doesn't mean that one caused the other. Young couples living in poverty can get educated, live within their means, and make reasonable bar mitzvahs. Extravagant bar-mitzvah makers could also be extravagant ba'alei tzedaka. Judgemental much? I thought only people who care about tznius are judgemental.....

I admire Ms. Waldman's writing style - she can tug on heartstrings. Her command of critical thinking, though, is a bit weaker. She hasn't made the case she thinks she's making.

marina

Thu, Jun 08 2017, 1:37 am

debsey wrote:

Her point is very valid: The values that serve as your dealbreakers say a lot about you.

This is true whether you are looking for a spouse, customers, students, new employees etc.

This school's dealbreakers are nail polish colors, denim, sheitel length, leggings, tight clothes. The school did not require students and parents to sign - as a precondition to admission - anything about bullying, ahavas yisroel lashon hara etc.

So even if the school has a robust middos curriculum, this very letter indicates that the school values not wearing denim or red nail polish more than the middos it hopes to teach.

Imagine that your son is going on a date and he has something that he feels so strongly about that he will actually refuse to date any girl unless she signs a contract promising to always _________. What is in that blank space? What is so important to him that he has singled it out this way? It doesn't mean that he only cares about that and nothing else- it means he cares so much about this issue that it is a deal breaker for him.

For this school, it was leggings.

debsey

Thu, Jun 08 2017, 1:46 am

marina wrote:

The dealbreaker here is integrity. Do you live up to your word or not? If you sign up for a school, knowing their tznius values, and then cynically break those values, knowing that the school won't kick your kids out - sorry, that's my dealbreaker.

I don't like dishonesty and people who game the system. You're pointing to the leggings as though that's the issue here, when it's not. The issue here is treating a school like a designer label or an "it" handbag.

Some parents think they HAVE to sent to the "IT" school, the one with the "exclusive" label. So they buy a short sheitel for the interview, borrow their mother in law's clothing, whatever. Once their kids are accepted, they say "Hey, now I can do what I want." They know the school will not expel their children.

That's unfair. It's dishonest and unethical. Even in Lakewood, you have choices. Don't sign up for that "exclusive" school if you're not planning to follow their guidelines. That's just wrong.

Sorry, I know it's tempting to spin this as a feminist issue. It's not. It's simply this: Are you a (wo)man of your word, or not? Integrity.