This issue has always baffled me.
The ultra-orthodox are made fun of because they do not look at women. ON the secular side the women gets jealous and angry when their husband and/or boyfriend looks at other women.
If women do not want the men to look at other women, then why do they insist to go to places where there is no chance for the men to not look?
Another oxymoron, the woman is dressing or undressing to kill and she will be substantially hurt if not appreciated, while at the same time the husband cannot look!
Who is the problem here?
: )
8 comments:
how about not starting with the assumption that no matter what, men are going to look at women as objects to drool over - so women's two choices are to be not looked at at all (invisible), or to be drooled over?
How about teaching your sons to treat women as PEOPLE that it's rude to stare at? Not starting with the base assumption that gee, men can't help it, they're animals. So women have to change their habits to accomodate men's failings?
Can't wear what they want, even if it's hot out, can't go to the beach with others (that's what you're saying, right?), even though the beach is a lovely place, can't swim in a bathing suit -- all because men "can't" control themselves.
Or the alternate option is to have men refuse to treat them like people - to not engage with them directly at all, even in conversation.
Most women don't mind when men look at women if they don't "give them the eye" as if they are a piece of meat -- that's the difference.
This shouldn't be so hard to understand.
stepIma:
how about not starting with the assumption that no matter what, men are going to look at women as objects to drool over - so women's two choices are to be not looked at at all (invisible), or to be drooled over?
I know a good psychiatrist.....
Talk about generalizing how would you like it if I said all women are sl-ts? When you begin to understand how women and men are created differently you'll get a better understanding of what modesty is all about.
Thank you for insulting me.
I could recommend a psychiatrist for you as well, along with someone who could teach you better manners.
I do understand what modesty is about. And I do dress modestly as well, though perhaps not to the standards you would deem necessary if you consider not looking at women at all to be within reason.
You were the one who stated "If women do not want the men to look at other women, then why do they insist to go to places where there is no chance for the men to not look?" That literally means, "why are women going places (I'm assumed you meant the beach because of the cartoon you posted, but if you meant places where women wear more layers, then so be it) where there is no chance for the men to not look?"
Those are your words.
You are saying that women should not go someplace because it is assumed that men are going to look at them. With the underlying meaning being, if they are dressed a certain way.
I will counter that with, men also dress a certain way, and women do not stare at their bodies. Or call out the way construction workers do, for example.
For you to begin a sentence with "When you begin to understand how women and men are created differently..." and then say that I am the one who is making a generalization, is almost goofy. You are the one who just made a blanket statement.
Of course men and women are created differently. However, their behavior is not created by G-d. That is my point.
You are saying "the women gets [sic] jealous and angry when their husband and/or boyfriend looks at other women." That is a generalization. That all women feel a certain way. Or your statement that "the woman is dressing or undressing to kill and she will be substantially hurt if not appreciated..." Another gross generalization.
The main point behind your entire post is that men look at women in a certain way.
And therefore women must dress a certain way. So they won't be hurt, or so they won't be looked at, you didn't make clear.
And now you're saying that I need to realize that, or I need to see a psychiatrist.
But you won't recognize that the other solution is to tell men, "don't look at women in a way that makes them uncomfortable.
If you can't comprehend the difference between looking at a woman like a human being, and looking at her like someone that is defined by how much you want to have sex with her, then you're the one with the problem. And it's no wonder that all the women who come in contact with you seem to be so oxymoronic to you.
And it's no wonder that your immediate response to my post is to ask, "how would you like it if I said all women are sl-ts?" That of all the ways you could have used to 'prove' that I was generalizing, you chose one saying that I wouldn't like it if you said... exactly what you pretty much were saying in the first place, only in terms of clothing. All you're saying to begin with is "all secular women dress like sluts, so what do they expect" and now, "how do you like it if I add all women into that mix?" Do I not like it?
Of course I don't like it. But it doesn't offend me any more than your original post. You're still not addressing my original issue. Which is that regardless of the issue of tsnius, so long as you think that women don't want to be beautiful because they don't want men to look - without your realizing that it's not men looking, it's men staring at them and sizing them up - you're the one with the problem. And perpetuating the problem.
Men and women are different. But women can't change who they are. Men can change how they behave. Plenty of frum men give modestly dressed women the up-and-down look. The clothing isn't the issue. And the solution shouldn't have to be such a drastic dehumanizing (to women) change as "men should never look at all."
You can keep writing off what I have to say as crazy. But if you do, I'll just assume it's because I'm posting as a woman, and you're still not taking my argument seriously. Why take me seriously, after all, no matter how well-thought-out my arguments, when you can just call me mentally unstable? That you'd rather just keep to your party line that if I wear whatever ankles-to-wrists ensemble you espouse and you don't look anyway, it will make all the "oxymorons" go away and all women will be happy with their relations with men.
How's that for generalizations...? ;)
stepima: since u need steps i will number them, to clear up a mishmhash u r creating
1.I (shadchun) posted the post.
2. U ( stepima) then posted a comment
3. JB then commented on your comment
4. U ( stepima) then are mixing up my (shadchun) post with his (JB) comments to U
5. I (shadchun) suggest u untangle yourself here.
6. I (shadchun) hope to comment on your comment tomorrow.
7. ok ???
JB: i agree with u that stepima is clueless to what is the point. that is why i posted this post. hope to to expand tomorrow.
i would suggest u give it to her step by step. : )
Sorry I didn't look closer and mistook the commenter for the original author of the piece.
You're right. That completely negates my entire argument and makes me "clueless."
I stand by my original comment. I also stand by my answer to JB that he completely misunderstood my comments to your piece, and that he was rude and insulting to me while he was at it. Feel free to substitute "shadchan" every time the post says "you," and my comments hold. Other than that, there's no mishmash.
Thank you for dumbing it down for me with the "step by step" comment, and for simplifying "you" to "U." Because clearly I don't understand you. Clearly it isn't possible for someone whose entire set of comments were misread by both of you to ever be able to understand what it is you're saying without a restatement of it - after all, I made the hugely egregious error of not looking at who signed off on the comment line. I'm the clueless one.
Not, G-d forbid, U.
sylvia: it's a pleasure to read u r comment and your theory.
i agree with your accountablity thinking, although it doesn't work for some men.
thank u
stepima: i would appreciate if u comment again to me what your questions are to me so that i can address them in respectful way without an attitude.
for what i do understand: i only questioned women in the secular world who choose to be either at a beach or other affair with their boyfriend or husband and why would they deny their bf/hus from appreciating the Creator's art? and if they are afraid to "lose" them maybe they should rethink where they go to.
Post a Comment