 |
| Female IDF instructor demonstrating a move (Jerusalem Post) |
That said generally speaking - what is and isn’t considered immodest - is a matter of what people are used to. So that the aforementioned woman walking down the street wearing tight shorts in the summer hardly registers a blip on the modesty radar screen.
But this is not how Halacha understands the term. Modesty in Halacha covers many areas outside of sexual matters or clothing. But it clearly includes them.
How to define modesty in dress Halachicly is a matter of debate that has far reaching consequences on our daily lives. On the extreme right even a picture of a woman’s face is considered immodest. Extremes like that should never be the basis for policy. But mainstream views about it - should be, as long as they don't inconvenience anybody. How should Israel - a country that has a significant number of religious recruits - deal with this?
That question is raised by a story in the Jerusalem Post:
The Israeli army is warning commanders to implement IDF policy of protecting the rights of female soldiersas reports that they are being excluded for religious reasons have increased in recent months.
“Such strict [practices] are in violation of army orders and policy, do unnecessary harm to wide-scale groups serving [in the army] and are inconsistent with the IDF commanders’ responsibility,” wrote the Head of the IDF’s Manpower Directorate Maj.-Gen. Moti Almoz.
Citing cases where female soldiers were banned from wearing white shirts in general and bathing suits in pool areas, the army’s top human resources officer stated that orders must be followed to the letter by commanders.
Almoz was referring to a recent “ban” on women wearing white shirts at the Shizafon training base in the South, which came after religious male soldiers said that the shirts would be see-through and therefore immodest.
“The orders regarding appearance, dress and the common service are binding orders, and they must be acted upon as they are written. No commander may decide on his own to harshen or lighten them,’ he said, stressing that the IDF is above politics.
“In the wake of reports of a number of cases in which commanders decided to tighten the rules of appearance and clothing written in the orders – for example by prohibiting women soldiers from wearing a white shirt or prohibiting wearing bathing suits in pool areas, [this] unnecessarily hurt large groups of servicewomen,” wrote Almoz.
OK. As far as women wearing bathing suits in pool areas is concerned, they ought to have that right. What should a woman wear at a pool? Men who don't want to see a woman in a a bathing suit can just stay away from the pool. I don't think the army requires men to go swimming.
But white shirts that are somewhat see-through? What ever happened to common sense? Why would any woman want to wear something like that? Is that really a feminist goal? Is white a more comfortable color that grey or red or blue? Or is it just an old fashioned desire to look attractive and draw attention to oneself?
I can understand why men would want that. That is just the way sexuality works for men. I am willing to bet that it was men in the military that had designers of female uniforms design them with low cut slacks a few years ago. There is clearly no military need for that.
Common sense should tell us that as long as matters of Tznius do not hinder ones ability to perform their military duties, why not accommodate reasonable standards of modesty in the army? How does that hurt anybody?
One may quibble about whether women should serve in combat. I can hear both sides of that argument – although I am strongly opposed to it for reasons beyond the scope of this post. But to allow or even require women too wear sexy clothing (as in the case of the aforementioned low cut army slacks) is unfair to those find it religiously offensive.
It’s easy to say just don’t look. But if there is an elephant in the room, it’s kind of hard not to notice it.
In this age of #metoo, where just yesterday the CEO of CBS, Les Moonvez, was accused of sexually harassing several women under his employ… why contribute to a climate where everything is sexualized? Shouldn’t the smart money be on more modesty in the public square - including the army? It’s not like a soldier can just walk out if he doesn’t like what he sees.
Why not follow the example of the Miss America contest that has eliminated judging women by how sexy they look in bikinis?
I mean... really! Are army officials that clueless? Or are they doing this on purpose - desiring to create a more sexualized environment? And who in the end are the winners and losers here? Perhaps feminism is a winner, But women may in fact be the losers.
Common sense, people. Common sense!