Between Halakha and Pedophilia
Here’s a doozy from Rabbi Aviner’s website today on girls and skirts:
Q: My daughter is 8 years old and refuses to wear skirts. How and when is the best way and age to get her to start?
A: There is an obligation to wear a skirt at this age. It is similar to all other educational issues in which she should be encouraged including prizes if need be.
Let’s put aside the troubling educational practice of bribing kids into doing things they really do not want to be doing. I mean, it’s almost innocuous — after all, I buy my 5-year old a snack in order to move us through the supermarket a bit faster. Although, I would say that there’s a huge difference between trying to get my shopping done and bribing my child into doing something that she really does not want to do. Especially if what she doesn’t want to do is bad for her.
Let’s face it. Girls in skirts cannot do cartwheels, climb a tree, swim, ride a bike, hang upside down on the monkey bars, or sit freely in a chair without being obsessively aware of the location of her knees. So, yeah, a girl who doesn’t want to wear skirts is probably expressing a healthy desire to move, to live, and to experience her body with zest and zeal. Maybe if she is offered enough chocolates she’ll change her mind about that. (And we wonder where eating disorders come from.) Good educating there, rabbi!
But let’s put all that aside for a moment, because there is something that really, really bothers me about this whole discourse. I don’t know about you, but I’m a little uncomfortable with the way rabbis and poskim freely discuss the bodies of underage little girls. Sure, we can call it halakha if we want. But really, when rabbis talk about how girls need to cover their bodies, aren’t they bordering, just a tad, on pedophilia? What exactly do rabbis mean when they say that a girl needs to wear skirts? Or long sleeves? Or whatever latest mishugas is on the order of the day, from braids to socks to cellphones?
The message is that girls from this young age have to be aware of how their bodies are seen. That is, seen by men. The message is that from this early age, girls must effectively be taught to know that their bodies are viewed as sexual. Even if they are only 8 years old. Or younger.
Rabbi, that is really sick. Bordering on — or perhaps promoting — pedophilia.
I’m reminded of the writing of Rabbi Lau about whether or not a little girl should be allowed to sing Anim Zemirot. His answer relies on the idea that “kol isha erva” applies to young girls. That is, as if it’s not troubling enough that a man thinks that my adult voice is sinfully alluring, what’s worse is that the sexualizing of voice is now carried over to young, pre-pubescent girls.
As I said, pedophilia.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Elana,
I just want you to know that ALL humans are sexual beings, that includes children. It is not simple. I am not arguing, but just making a point. It is not that, suddenly, with the onset of puberty that humans gain an interest in sexuality. It just becomes MORE developed. All normal healthy children explore their genitalia and are aware of the sensations that it brings. It is up to adults to teach our children about sexuality, and not abuse or neglect our children’s natural curiosity…unfortuantely, in my eyes, neglecting to teach children about their bodies can cause almost as much pain and confusion as outward abuse.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Jackie
Although people’s own exploration of their sexuality, at whatever age — even though we can argue about whether kids’ genital exploration is in fact sexuality, and whether the sensations involved have anything to do with sex — are obviously legitimate, this has NOTHING to do with the issue I raised here.
On the contrary, aviner is not encouraging people to explore their own bodies and sensations. Rather, he is making girls revolve around what orthodoxy claims is a man’s nature, which is to be able to be excited by girls’ bodies. This has nothing to do with girls and everything to do with the way adult men are perceived in this discourse.
Aviner is actually completely repressing girls’ body sensations. Their own feelings don’t even exists. They are meant to internalize a perception of men’s needs. Girls’ needs are absolutely last on the list of priorities.
Aviner imposes a male sexual gaze on young girls. He is saying that girls need to be taught that men are looking at their bodies sexually.
It’s really quite sick when you think about it.
e
June 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
What I am saying is that just because children are pre-pubescent doesnt mean that they are asexual…dafka, the opposite. But since I am NOT a psychologist nor a gynecologist, nor a sexologist… I am only expressing a belief that children are sexual beings. Just as sexuality does not begin with puberty… a modest (pun intended) degree of modest clothing and behaviour shouldnt begin only with puberty’s onset either.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Jackie
I wholeheartedly disagree. On both counts.
(1) I think Floyd Moritson’s book on children and sexuality is highly suspect, very freudian, and as such male-centered (read, penis-centered). Also has a terribly broad, adult reading of all sensuality as sexuality.
(2) The idea that kids need to be covered because they enjoy sensuality is, again, distorted, and actually, Jackie, cruel.
I think when rabbis tell girls to cover up, it’s cruel.
To start justifying excessive body cover for girls on the basis of a questionable freudian psychological analysis of kids and body is really wrong.
Sorry, Jackie….
e
June 11th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Elana
DO you believe that their is any value in Tsniut, for anyone, at anytime?
June 11th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Since u havent answered yet…I want to know if you think there is any value to “family purity”…
Are men and women different? Is it OK, if they are different? is it purely learned behavior?
I truly want to know what you think about these things…
June 11th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I think the first part of this article points just how silly it is to assume that skirts are automatically more tzanua than pants. Obviously a healthy active girl at that age is much better off wearing pants and not having to worry about any body parts being immodestly revealed. Pants allow kids to be kids (and adults too for that matter) without any tzniut issues. I really wish the religious world would see that. It seems so obvious to me. Skirts, especially on young girls is just plain cruel - and unnecessarily restrictive. My girls all wear pants underneath their skirts to school, which I think makes a pretty horrible fashion statement, but I totally understand where they are coming from.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:32 am
This reminds me of the old joke about the girl who comes home from school and tells her mum that all the boys in her class want her to do cartwheels and handstands and the mother says, “They only say that because they want to see your undies.” And the girl replies, “I know. That’s why I take them off.”
June 12th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Ah for the good old medieval and Talmudic days when everyone wore skirts. I go with Mona - let little girls [and big ones] wear pants under their skirts. Then they can even wear short skirts, maybe with leggings - I’ve seen lots of teenagers wearing that fashion statement. But skirts only is restrictive and cruel, the first of many cruel restrictions that religion has forced on women unfortunately.
Maggie Anton
http://www.rashisdaughters.com
June 13th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Shavua Tov
Skirts with pants underneath is definitely an improvement. And I really think it’s problematic to tell girls what to wear. There was a conference last week on body image among religious girls, and one of the main speakers, Dr Esther Althause, basically said that she wouldn’t be surprised to find out that every single religious girl has some kind of body image/eating disorder issue considering what messages the religious world gives girls from very early on.
Jackie — to answer your questions, I don’t think that the language of gender differences is helpful. Whether or not men and women are born different — it’s just not relevant. Because so often the language is used to justify aggression of men and servitude of women. Oh, he can’t help it, he’s a man. Or, boys are that way. Or, women love serving and cooking, they’re “naturally” better at it than men. These are lines that ultimately keep women in their “place” — and keep a status quo that is convenient for men.
I would rather talk about we as human beings can do to alleviate human suffering. That’s my goal. So I’m looking at human, societal factors, not dubious claims on biology.
Is there any value to “modesty”? That’s a complicated question. I try very hard not to tell my kids what to wear. But that’s not absolute. But I think that what we call “modesty” is much more social convention than anything else. We need to recognize that first and then decide how important all these artificial borders are.
As for the issues of “family purity”, that’s a subject for another post. To be continued.
B’vracha,
Elana
June 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am
The way tsnius is emphasised today in Orthodox circles for 2-5 year old girls is, frankly, a mild case of abuse. If you would put, tights, ankle length skirts, a shirt with sleeves till the wrist on a dog during the heat of summer, well, the SPCA will take your dog away for cruelty. Lets tell the child that she cant jump and run because its not tsnius is even more cruel.
With all due respect, a 3 yr old girl is not sexual and not a sexual being. She is a child that may be cusrious about some parts of her body like her ear and toes…I think it is awful to say these things as we are restricting a child because a man might think a 3 year old as a sexual object!?
Its time for halacha to let women be and perhaps take all men who think that a girl of 3 is a sexual object to therapy…or jail!
July 15th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
This blog just made me think about growing up and being told I couldn’t play with certain things because they were ‘for boys.’ And I wanted to play with dolls AND trucks. I wanted to watch Batman AND the Little Mermaid. Girls are supposed to sit in their pretty little skirts and not get dirty, not get in the way, not be loud or roughhouse or Gd forbid climb monkey bars. The Orthodox didn’t invent this one. This has been around for a long while and even in secular circles, there are still ideas putting put out about what’s okay for girls and what’s okay for boys. I seemed to me like it was always okay for boys to have more fun!
July 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Wow, Aliza, that’s so interesting. I’ve been really intrigued by some of what you’ve written about your upbringing on your blog, about growing up in the company of women, being raised by women, never having experienced the “men have all the power” kind of thing. So it’s interesting that even in such a woman-strong setting, there’s still the dolls vs trucks thing happening…
Thanks for sharing
elana
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Thank you so much for writing about this. Your message is vitally important.