Williamsburg Bus Makes Women Sit in the Back

[Jewess]

Anyway, the bus. Personally, I think it's outrageous. If they want to buy a community bus, hey, go ahead and do what you want. I think it's ridiculous and totally above and beyond anything required in the Torah, but that's their right. On a public bus, though? Not on my freaking dime, buddy. They get away with this crap in Israel because the Prime Minister doesn't feel like compelling the police to actually enforce the rulings of the High Court, because he's afraid it'll upset his coalition, but the U.S. isn't Israel, and you don't get to just arbitrarily start forcing women to sit in the back of your bus. To me, it's a gigantic chillul Hashem; what they're doing isn't Judaism, it makes Judaism look awful to anyone looking in from the outside (and makes Orthodoxy look pretty unpalatable to a lot of people looking at this from other movements, incidentally), and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. If you're that fragile that you can't even see a woman without your yetzer hara going out of control, maybe you shouldn't leave your house.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly, I want to know- the people who reported this bus service- are they people who actually use this bus line and therefore are upset about how it is run, or is it people who heard about it, got enraged even though it had no affect on them personally, and then decided to make a stink about it? If it was the first, honestly, I think they need to stay out of it. There's enough wrong things going on in the world- pick something that really matters, something that the people whom it affects are actually upset about, instead of something that just "is wrong, goes against the law/my morals" even though it has no personal affect on you.

Honestly, reminds me of this:

I mean, I have lots of things that upset me about how other people act, but who am I to dictate to them what they can and can't do when it doesn't affect me, and they prefer it that way- even if it is technically wrong? The things that really should be stuck up for, given the attention and protests, are things where one type of person is hurting another type of person, and they need you to stand up for the truth, for morality, for the law, to protect them. But if they want it, they like it, it doesn't affect anyone but them, why do you actually care if its technically illegal? And even if you care, why do you care enough to actually make them stop doing it when it doesn't affect you or even other people who also are similarly bothered, but only affects the people that actually want it to be that way?

I know there was a story recently in Israel where some secular foreign students came to Israel, decided to sit on the mehadrin bus line as a protest, even though its a line they would never take, they just have an issue with the mehadrin lines in general, so even though it has no bearing on their life, they feel the need to protest. It pretty much just made everyone roll their eyes, even those against the mehadrin lines, because no one takes them seriously when they have no personal bearing on the matter.

As for gender segregated bus lines... Well, I say that (legality aside) if a community of people all want things a certain way, and its hurting no one, then who cares what I think about it, and whether or not I think its necessary or beneficial? And thats how it is on most mehadrin bus lines- those lines exist to serve communities who want them, so if someone outside the community wishes to take the bus lines meant for that community, well, then they should just suck it up, or find some alternative method of transportation, because the same way you don't want the gender segregation enforced on you by people who think its important, they don't want "gender mixing" enforced on them by someone like you who thinks its important, and I think that an extreme majority who uses a bus line should be able to decide how it works. To try to enforce your morals on them seems just as wrong as them trying to enforce their morals on you, especially when you're the minority trying to enforce your morals on the majority.

Personally... I have mixed feelings about gender segregated lines. I like to be able to sit next to my husband when I get on the bus, and I like to sit towards the front of the bus especially when I get on with my kids and bags and don't want to have to worry about tripping and falling while I walk to the back of the bus. They tried making our local bus line into a mehadrin/gender segregated bus line- by urging women via community newsletters to sit in the back of the bus, and people would comment to women who'd sit in the front, but it never took hold. Our bus line serves both a Hareidi/ultra orthodox community and a Dati Leumi/religious zionist/Modern Orthodox community, and just because some of the Hareidim want it segregated doesn't give them a right to dictate to the other half- the Dati Leumi/Modern Orthodox- how they should sit on their own bus line.

I like the status quo on our buses now. People respect the people who'd rather not sit next to someone of the opposite gender and a man won't sit down next to a seated woman and a woman won't take a seat next to a seated man, and if there are two people of the same sex sitting down in different seats and someone of the other sex gets on and there aren't available seats for "his/her sex", people will get up and move to sit next to someone of their sex so that the new passenger can not sit with people of the other sex.

Personally, I appreciate not having to worry about some perverted guy sit next to me (as happened way way way too many times to me on regular city buses in the US- picture horny man sticking his face in my breast and making crude remarks), but also being able to sit whereever in the bus I feel like it, whether front, back, middle or whatever.

[FaustianSlip]

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly, I want to know- the people who reported this bus service- are they people who actually use this bus line and therefore are upset about how it is run, or is it people who heard about it, got enraged even though it had no affect on them personally, and then decided to make a stink about it? If it was the first, honestly, I think they need to stay out of it.

I totally, completely disagree with this. This is not a private bus that the Haredi community in Williamsburg decided to purchase and do with as they please. If that were the case, I'd say hey, I think it's ridiculous, but go to town. In fact, the Haredi communities in NYC have been running such buses for years with no issues, but that's not what this is. This is a public, NYC bus that they're basically trying to take over by intimidation. It goes to the same kind of mentality as those signs they put up recently telling women to walk on the other side of the street. Williamsburg isn't Kiryas Joel or New Town or some other Hasidic enclave. It's a borough in a huge city that has all kinds of people living there, as many of them black, Hispanic or young, white hipsters as there are ultra-Orthodox Jews. More to the point, it's the taxpayers- all of them- paying for this bus. Thus, anyone has any right to get on said bus and sit wherever they damn well please. If someone doesn't like it, they can use whatever shoeleather it takes to walk.

Most of us are offended by people on public transport with bad body odor, but that doesn't mean we get to put up signs saying, "If you smell gross, please board at the back." Huh uh. That's not the way the U.S. works, and just because someone doesn't ride that bus all the time doesn't mean they don't have a right to look at what's going on there and say, "Hang on a second... why exactly should women have to sit in the back of the bus on a public bus line?" There are plenty of reasons for non-Haredim to go into Williamsburg, and they should not feel intimidated into sitting in the back of a bus that, if they're an NYC resident, they're freaking paying for. If we don't bother to enforce the rule of law in this country, what are we, exactly? Moreover, the longer it goes without comment, the harder it could make it to file a complaint later, since people can then turn around and say, "Oh, well, it's been like this for the last three years, and you didn't care then."

I'd disagree with the assessment that "no harm" comes from the Mehadrin buses, as well, given that I've heard more than a few stories of women being intimidated, harassed and outright physically bullied because they declined to sit in the back of the bus on such lines, but since I neither live in Israel nor pay taxes there, what the Israeli government chooses to do with its bus system isn't really my concern. I do find it a pretty sad state of affairs that the High Court has ruled very clearly that the Mehadrin lines are illegal and unconstitutional, but neither the government nor the police force seem inclined to lift a finger to actually uphold that ruling. I'm not sure what it says about a country when the highest court in the land is blatantly ignored by the people in charge of implementing its rulings. Probably nothing very good.

[Jewess]

I totally, completely disagree with this. This is not a private bus that the Haredi community in Williamsburg decided to purchase and do with as they please. If that were the case, I'd say hey, I think it's ridiculous, but go to town. In fact, the Haredi communities in NYC have been running such buses for years with no issues, but that's not what this is.

This is a private franchise of a public line. I'll be totally honest and say I don't completely get what that means, but that does make it different than if say, they decided to make the Q train a "mehadrin train" and force everyone to sit a certain way.

[Shirley MacLaine]

that does make it different than if say, they decided to make the Q train a "mehadrin train" and force everyone to sit a certain way.

Not really. Public is public.

[Jewess]

Not really. Public is public.

Then please explain to me what private franchise means and how it differs from regular public?

[Jewess]

Moreover, the longer it goes without comment, the harder it could make it to file a complaint later, since people can then turn around and say, "Oh, well, it's been like this for the last three years, and you didn't care then."

Lol as far as I know, this line has been running for more than 3 years. I am pretty sure I took this bus 7 years ago when I traveled from Boro Park to Williamsburg.

[Shirley MacLaine]

It means the city makes a deal with a private company to carry out a public service. As long as it is providing a public service, it must abide by the rules of a public service. As long as it is under contract with the city, city rules.

[Jewess]

It means the city makes a deal with a private company to carry out a public service. As long as it is providing a public service, it must abide by the rules of a public service. As long as it is under contract with the city, city rules.

So what does the private company benefit by running the line?

[FaustianSlip]

They bid on a contract and probably get a cut of the profits, while the city ends up paying less in maintenance costs and such. Incidentally, NYC has now said that they will shut the line down completely if the company doesn't immediately stop enforcing this gender segregation nonsense. Frankly, I find it almost as irritating that the city was apparently franchising out bus lines and not bothering to have anyone riding those lines to check up on how they're being run as I do that the gender segregation was going on in the first place.

And while the line has probably been running much longer than three years, were there notices posted about women in the back of the bus and/or were people being ordered to the back by the passengers or driver at that time? If so, it was illegal then, and it's illegal now. I'm only amazed that it was allowed to go on as long as it has, but then, black people were forced to sit at the back of a bus for a long time before getting full rights, too.

No one is saying that the Haredim can't have a gender-segregated bus. If that's something they want, however, they need to get the money together to finance a fully private line, and then they can implement whatever rules they want. I personally find it pretty deplorable that they'd make pregnant women with shopping or strollers or whatever drag themselves to the back of the bus, but if that's what the community wants, they can certainly have it. They just have to foot their own bill, which is entirely fair (and, y'know, the law). The same freedom of religion that allows these communities to live their lives unmolested also prevents them from forcing everyone else to do the same.

[Jewess]

They bid on a contract and probably get a cut of the profits, while the city ends up paying less in maintenance costs and such. Incidentally, NYC has now said that they will shut the line down completely if the company doesn't immediately stop enforcing this gender segregation nonsense. Frankly, I find it almost as irritating that the city was apparently franchising out bus lines and not bothering to have anyone riding those lines to check up on how they're being run as I do that the gender segregation was going on in the first place.

And while the line has probably been running much longer than three years, were there notices posted about women in the back of the bus and/or were people being ordered to the back by the passengers or driver at that time? If so, it was illegal then, and it's illegal now. I'm only amazed that it was allowed to go on as long as it has, but then, black people were forced to sit at the back of a bus for a long time before getting full rights, too.

No one is saying that the Haredim can't have a gender-segregated bus. If that's something they want, however, they need to get the money together to finance a fully private line, and then they can implement whatever rules they want. I personally find it pretty deplorable that they'd make pregnant women with shopping or strollers or whatever drag themselves to the back of the bus, but if that's what the community wants, they can certainly have it. They just have to foot their own bill, which is entirely fair (and, y'know, the law). The same freedom of religion that allows these communities to live their lives unmolested also prevents them from forcing everyone else to do the same.

Personally, I think footing their own bill and having a fully private line is probably the best idea. They do that already for other lines, like the boro park-monsey line, and the monroe-boro park-williamsburg lines, and the monroe-manhattan lines...

As for "forcing pregnant women with shopping or strollers to drag themselves to the back of the bus", I just have to note that the women enter in the back doors, so they arent dragging themselves any further than men who enter the front and sit down in the front.

[Eponine]

Also saying that making women sit in the back is "harmless" is BS. Anything that so clearly enforces the idea that women are less and don't even deserve the same space as men is harmful. Such a manifestation of misogyny, no matter if it comes from religious beliefs or what, is always harmful to society at large.

Even if this were a completely private line and no one outside their community ever rode the bus, it's still harmful. Yes, religions have the right to be misogynist if they so choose but people don't live in a bubble: attitudes like that make it so that when I dare to walk around Boro Park in jeans I get dirty looks, and women who wear sleeveless dresses etc are sometimes harassed. It's no different than when fundamentalist Christian misogyny spills out into the larger community. It's always harmful.

[jaelh]

As for "forcing pregnant women with shopping or strollers to drag themselves to the back of the bus", I just have to note that the women enter in the back doors, so they arent dragging themselves any further than men who enter the front and sit down in the front.

except they are paying at the front, so that's an extra set of stairs/walking.

[Jewess]

except they are paying at the front, so that's an extra set of stairs/walking.

AFAIK, you pay at the back. At least thats how it is in Israel on the mehadrin busses, and maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I thought thats how it also worked on that williamsburg/boro park line.

[Jewess]

Also saying that making women sit in the back is "harmless" is BS. Anything that so clearly enforces the idea that women are less and don't even deserve the same space as men is harmful. Such a manifestation of misogyny, no matter if it comes from religious beliefs or what, is always harmful to society at large.

You're viewing it with your outside bias, that this means women are less, but chassidim don't view women as less at all, even if they do have more stereotyped gender rolls. If anything, they view men as "less".

Even if this were a completely private line and no one outside their community ever rode the bus, it's still harmful. Yes, religions have the right to be misogynist if they so choose but people don't live in a bubble: attitudes like that make it so that when I dare to walk around Boro Park in jeans I get dirty looks, and women who wear sleeveless dresses etc are sometimes harassed. It's no different than when fundamentalist Christian misogyny spills out into the larger community. It's always harmful.

You know what? Personally, when I walk somewhere with certain sensitivities, even if those aren't sensitivities that I have, I try to be respectful of other people's beliefs/sensitivities and dress/act accordingly. So even, for example, if I was anti military, I wouldn't protest at a military funeral, because that's just lacking sensitivity, even if I have a "right to do so".

Not that I think harassing someone for dressing differently in their vicinity is fine in any way, I just think respect goes two ways, and both sides should be respectful of the other side's feelings.

[FaustianSlip]

So no one should ever walk around Williamsburg or Boro Park in jeans because the community might be "offended"? Give me a break. This is the kind of attitude that, when taken to extremes, leads to women having acid thrown on them in Mea Shearim because they're dressed "immodestly." Judaism, last I checked, holds that people have free will. Again, if your yetzer hara is so all-powerful that you can't see a woman in pants, again, maybe you should just stay inside and draw your blinds. Boro Park is not some isolated shtetl in Eastern Europe, no matter how many people opt to dress like nineteenth century Polish nobles. Ditto Williamsburg and Monsey. These are places in the United States, a diverse country with freedom of religion and expression, and it's those very things that mean that a Hasidic Jew might (Heaven forefend) have to gaze upon an immodestly-dressed woman occasionally that also protect his right to wear peyos and a black hat, decline to work on Shabbat (or at all, should he attend kollel), have gender-segregated synagogues and parochial schools and all the rest. Personally, I think it's pretty great that Haredim have those options here, but it's part of the deal that they (and any other fundies, regardless of their religious affiliation) have to put up with everyone else having the same rights, which means there will be people around with whom they disagree or by whose behavior they're offended. Especially in a city the size of New York.

Would I rock up to a Litvak shul wearing a tube top and a micro mini? Of course not. That would be disrespectful. Is walking down a public street in whatever the hell clothing I please disrespectful? Sorry, but no. If people want to live in an isolated community where their kids will never see anyone who doesn't fit the official mold of what is appropriate dress and behavior, then they should move to New Square or Kiryas Joel or something. And even then, it's a free country. We don't force people to dress a certain way based on religious mores, perhaps because we're not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

If someone chooses to walk through, say, downtown Colorado Springs (the center of evangelical life in America) wearing a kippah and full Hasidic garb, and he's on the receiving end of harassment or intimidation, is he asking for it, since he's not being "respectful" of community sensitivities? Should a woman not go into a Muslim area of Dearborn, Michigan, without putting on a hijab because she might offend someone? I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that. Jewish communities aren't so magical and special that we're deserving of special consideration in that regard.

I see things that offend me every day. Since I'm an adult, I find a way to deal with it and still function.

[Patsy]

You're viewing it with your outside bias, that this means women are less, but chassidim don't view women as less at all, even if they do have more stereotyped gender rolls. If anything, they view men as "less".

You know what? Personally, when I walk somewhere with certain sensitivities, even if those aren't sensitivities that I have, I try to be respectful of other people's beliefs/sensitivities and dress/act accordingly. So even, for example, if I was anti military, I wouldn't protest at a military funeral, because that's just lacking sensitivity, even if I have a "right to do so".

Not that I think harassing someone for dressing differently in their vicinity is fine in any way, I just think respect goes two ways, and both sides should be respectful of the other side's feelings.

The 'I can't sit where a woman's been' thing only works in wider society to THEIR favour (let's cater to their needs) if you don't actually consider women to be equal members of society. Sorry, but we fucking are. Deal with it.

[Jewess]

The 'I can't sit where a woman's been' thing only works in wider society to THEIR favour (let's cater to their needs) if you don't actually consider women to be equal members of society. Sorry, but we fucking are. Deal with it.

You must have been reading "The year of living biblically" because I know of no orthodox Jew, no matter how fundie, that won't sit where a woman has been.

[Deleted03]

So no one should ever walk around Williamsburg or Boro Park in jeans because the community might be "offended"? Give me a break. This is the kind of attitude that, when taken to extremes, leads to women having acid thrown on them in Mea Shearim because they're dressed "immodestly." Judaism, last I checked, holds that people have free will. Again, if your yetzer hara is so all-powerful that you can't see a woman in pants, again, maybe you should just stay inside and draw your blinds. Boro Park is not some isolated shtetl in Eastern Europe, no matter how many people opt to dress like nineteenth century Polish nobles. Ditto Williamsburg and Monsey. These are places in the United States, a diverse country with freedom of religion and expression, and it's those very things that mean that a Hasidic Jew might (Heaven forefend) have to gaze upon an immodestly-dressed woman occasionally that also protect his right to wear peyos and a black hat, decline to work on Shabbat (or at all, should he attend kollel), have gender-segregated synagogues and parochial schools and all the rest. Personally, I think it's pretty great that Haredim have those options here, but it's part of the deal that they (and any other fundies, regardless of their religious affiliation) have to put up with everyone else having the same rights, which means there will be people around with whom they disagree or by whose behavior they're offended. Especially in a city the size of New York.

Would I rock up to a Litvak shul wearing a tube top and a micro mini? Of course not. That would be disrespectful. Is walking down a public street in whatever the hell clothing I please disrespectful? Sorry, but no. If people want to live in an isolated community where their kids will never see anyone who doesn't fit the official mold of what is appropriate dress and behavior, then they should move to New Square or Kiryas Joel or something. And even then, it's a free country. We don't force people to dress a certain way based on religious mores, perhaps because we're not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

If someone chooses to walk through, say, downtown Colorado Springs (the center of evangelical life in America) wearing a kippah and full Hasidic garb, and he's on the receiving end of harassment or intimidation, is he asking for it, since he's not being "respectful" of community sensitivities? Should a woman not go into a Muslim area of Dearborn, Michigan, without putting on a hijab because she might offend someone? I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that. Jewish communities aren't so magical and special that we're deserving of special consideration in that regard.

I see things that offend me every day. Since I'm an adult, I find a way to deal with it and still function.

very well said!

In Montreal the hasidim comunity asked a YWCA to blind their windows, because their teen sons could see the women working out when they walk on shabbat or back from school. I am not respecting someone who can't control itself in public venues.

[Jewess]

So no one should ever walk around Williamsburg or Boro Park in jeans because the community might be "offended"? Give me a break. This is the kind of attitude that, when taken to extremes, leads to women having acid thrown on them in Mea Shearim because they're dressed "immodestly."

Did I say that people must do as I do? No, I said that I try to be respectful of other people's values, and try not to dress in a way that would offend them.

Judaism, last I checked, holds that people have free will. Again, if your yetzer hara is so all powerful that you can't see a woman in pants, again, maybe you should just stay inside and draw your blinds.

Or just be careful about "Shmirat ha'eynayim" and have the men look down at the ground instead of looking at women. Oh wait. But that offends people just as much, if not more. So basically, I should be able to dress however the f I want, and even if other people have a religious belief that they can't look at someone dressed in my type of dress, they have to look at me because I won't dress differently and I require them to look at me because looking away is horridly offensive.

Boro Park is not some isolated shtetl in Eastern Europe, no matter how many people opt to dress like nineteenth century Polish nobles. Ditto Williamsburg and Monsey. These are places in the United States, a diverse country with freedom of religion and expression, and it's those very things that mean that a Hasidic Jew might (Heaven forefend) have to gaze upon an immodestly-dressed woman occasionally that also protect his right to wear peyos and a black hat, decline to work on Shabbat (or at all, should he attend kollel), have gender-segregated synagogues and parochial schools and all the rest. Personally, I think it's pretty great that Haredim have those options here, but it's part of the deal that they (and any other fundies, regardless of their religious affiliation) have to put up with everyone else having the same rights, which means there will be people around with whom they disagree or by whose behavior they're offended. Especially in a city the size of New York.

Personally I agree with you when it comes to a place like Boro Park or Williamsburg, but not when it comes to places like Monroe or New Square (Hasidic villages built specifically to be religious enclaves).

Would I rock up to a Litvak shul wearing a tube top and a micro mini? Of course not. That would be disrespectful. Is walking down a public street in whatever the hell clothing I please disrespectful? Sorry, but no. If people want to live in an isolated community where their kids will never see anyone who doesn't fit the official mold of what is appropriate dress and behavior, then they should move to New Square or Kiryas Joel or something. And even then, it's a free country. We don't force people to dress a certain way based on religious mores, perhaps because we're not Saudi Arabia or Iran.

If someone chooses to walk through, say, downtown Colorado Springs (the center of evangelical life in America) wearing a kippah and full Hasidic garb, and he's on the receiving end of harassment or intimidation, is he asking for it, since he's not being "respectful" of community sensitivities?

In a way. If we were in Colorado Springs, my husband would probably tuck his peyot under a baseball cap and wear some nondescript clothing.

Should a woman not go into a Muslim area of Dearborn, Michigan, without putting on a hijab because she might offend someone?

Depends how heavily muslim. But a hijab I'd say is a bit far. I'd say dress respectfully, not showing too much skin.

I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that. Jewish communities aren't so magical and special that we're deserving of special consideration in that regard.

I think I just did. I think in general people shouldn't wear clothes that are offensive to people around them, just because its not nice, but that doesn't excuse how other people act to them in response. Personally, if I went to an area that was known to be gay central, I wouldn't wear a T-shirt loudly proclaiming something about "teh ebil gays" or something of the sort.

I see things that offend me every day. Since I'm an adult, I find a way to deal with it and still function.

That's great. So do I. But just because you try to not take things personally when you see something offensive doesn't mean that you should purposely do something that offends others.

For the record, I don't go to Meah Shearim often, and I don't dress like the people there, but I do dress "up" a bit more when going there to respect their sensitivities, even if its a public place. I don't think theres anything wrong with wearing jeans in boro park, for example, but going to Meah Shearim where it is exclusively hareidi (non jews live in boro park and williamsburg!) I think its polite to at least not wear midriff bearing or cleavage baring or shoulder bearing or above knee clothes. Jeans and a T-shirt, even for a woman, I think is totally fine, btw.

[Patsy]

You must have been reading "The year of living biblically" because I know of no orthodox Jew, no matter how fundie, that won't sit where a woman has been.

Oh, right, the gender segregation's because seeing women is impure, not sitting where they've been. Silly me, that doesn't treat women like lesser citizens at all!

[Jewess]

Oh, right, the gender segregation's because seeing women is impure, not sitting where they've been. Silly me, that doesn't treat women like lesser citizens at all!

No, its because men are considered to be horny f*cks that can't control their d*cks if they see a woman dressed inappropriately, or even appropriately. There's something that says that if a man so much as gazes at a woman's pinky finger (who isnt his wife) and gets a hard on, he's committing a sin.

Say what you want, but if you want to peg Orthodox Judaism as treating one gender as "lesser", its definitely the men who are treated lesser, aren't thought to be able to have enough self control over their d*cks to not get turned on by every woman he sees.

[Patsy]

No, its because men are considered to be horny f*cks that can't control their d*cks if they see a woman dressed inappropriately, or even appropriately. There's something that says that if a man so much as gazes at a woman's pinky finger (who isnt his wife) and gets a hard on, he's committing a sin.

Say what you want, but if you want to peg Orthodox Judaism as treating one gender as "lesser", its definitely the men who are treated lesser, aren't thought to be able to have enough self control over their d*cks to not get turned on by every woman he sees.

By that argument, you can say the fundie Christian stuff we criticise here treats men as lesser, and yeah, on that level, it does. But in reality, who's picking up the slack for that and having to pay the price? Women. If, in reality, women are treated as less, then I don't care what someone would say is explicitly the 'lesser sex'. A VF lacky can tell me all about how the submission model actually honors women and gives them respect, but until that's SHOWN, being told that doesn't convince me in the slightest.

[Eponine]

I can vividly remember two instances of being made to feel unwelcome in Boro Park because of my appearance: once when I went to look at an apartment wearing jeans and a peacoat (it was fall), and once while wearing a below the knee, no cleavage, but sleeveless summer dress on a day it was about 103 degrees out. The former I just got some glares and one woman pointedly shepherded her children to the other side of the street, and the latter I got some under the breath comments and one woman basically told me to GTFO.

But you know? Considering I was just walking through the neighborhood to get somewhere else and minding my own business, no one has the right to make comments like that - I don't care what percentage of the people who live there are Hassidic. I was not "purposely doing something that offends others" I was trying to not pass out from heat stroke on the subway platforms. Having grown up around these communities I know perfectly well that it's not really that they think women are "less" per se, but they obviously have very strict gender roles, very specific views of how women should look and behave, and treat women differently, with less privilege, than men. That is inherently harmful to women inside and outside the community.

They are not living on a shtetl, they are living in the middle of NYC, and their misogyny, no matter what is behind it - religious views or not - affects the people around them.

[FaustianSlip]

Did I say that people must do as I do? No, I said that I try to be respectful of other people's values, and try not to dress in a way that would offend them.

No, you just implied (twice, now), that people who don't feel compelled to have their modes of public dress dictated by a fundamentalist religious community are being disrespectful as opposed to, say, just going about their daily lives, as I think most people do. I kind of doubt that the hipsters of Williamsburg, for instance, are waking up in the morning going, "Man, I'm really going to stick it to the Hasids today! Wait'll they get a load of my shorts and tank top!"

Or just be careful about "Shmirat ha'eynayim" and have the men look down at the ground instead of looking at women. Oh wait. But that offends people just as much, if not more.

Uh, did I say that? No, I didn't. Please don't put words in my mouth. If someone feels that they need to look down at the ground instead of gazing upon someone with two X chromosomes, I find that pretty out there, but that's their prerogative. It's certainly better than defacing advertisements, glaring at women deemed to be "immodest" or trying to compel people who aren't even Jewish, let alone Haredi, to comply with community standards via intimidation.

So basically, I should be able to dress however the f I want, and even if other people have a religious belief that they can't look at someone dressed in my type of dress, they have to look at me because I won't dress differently and I require them to look at me because looking away is horridly offensive.

Again, didn't say (or even imply) that. Don't put words in my mouth. Aside from being a strawman argument, it comes across as pretty condescending.

Personally I agree with you when it comes to a place like Boro Park or Williamsburg, but not when it comes to places like Monroe or New Square (Hasidic villages built specifically to be religious enclaves).

I know what New Square and Monroe are, though at the end of the day, they're still located in the United States and are still bound by state and federal law. Do I think it would be very nice or considerate to ride a Vespa down the streets of Kiryas Joel on Shabbos while wearing a halter top and daisy dukes? No, but if someone did do that, it's probably within their rights to do so without, say, having rocks thrown at them, as has been known to happen in Haredi neighborhoods in Israel.

In a way. If we were in Colorado Springs, my husband would probably tuck his peyot under a baseball cap and wear some nondescript clothing.

Seriously? You would say that someone who chooses to publicly wear a kippah in a place with no Jewish population (or in a place that's hostile to Jews) is "asking for it" if they get harassed? That's just nuts to me, but okay.

I think I just did. I think in general people shouldn't wear clothes that are offensive to people around them, just because its not nice, but that doesn't excuse how other people act to them in response.

I don't think the argument that we should always dress to avoid offending people reasonable at all, personally, but to each their own. There will always be someone who is offended by what you wear, do or say. Always. I'm sure I offend people daily with my disinclination to be fashion forward. In a society of adults,

But just because you try to not take things personally when you see something offensive doesn't mean that you should purposely do something that offends others.

Who's talking about "purposely do[ing] something that offends others"? There's a difference between walking down a public street, minding your own business, or getting onto a bus to go somewhere and sitting in the first available seat (as people generally do, unless they're living in the South during Jim Crow or something) and managing to offend someone with an extremely low threshold for what they consider to be immodesty and/or gender mixing and going into that same person's synagogue, say, wearing leggings and a tank top. The first is completely acceptable; people are not obligated (nor should they be) to bend to the will of the person in the community with the strictest dress code. The second would be wildly disrespectful, because presumably you know the community standards and are deliberately flouting them. That's not the case, however, with this bus. The bus is public property, being paid for by public tax dollars. Everyone's tax dollars, not just Haredi tax dollars. Given that, anyone who's prepared to pay the fare has every right to ride the bus, sitting in whatever seat they choose, wearing whatever they choose. That's part of living in society.

I don't think theres anything wrong with wearing jeans in boro park, for example, but going to Meah Shearim where it is exclusively hareidi (non jews live in boro park and williamsburg!) I think its polite to at least not wear midriff bearing or cleavage baring or shoulder bearing or above knee clothes. Jeans and a T-shirt, even for a woman, I think is totally fine, btw.

Personally, I'd actually be afraid to go to Meah Shearim in jeans (or pants of any kind), but I don't have any big plans to go there, anyway, so that's really a moot point. But then, the issue of how to dress in an enclave neighborhood in Israel is moot, as well, since we're not talking about Israel, but communities in the United States. If the Israelis choose not to enforce their laws that require the Mehadrin buses to desegregate, or to keep extremists from yelling at M.O. girls going to school that they're promiscuous, that's their prerogative. But I personally don't want to live in a situation like that, and I'm glad that we have laws designed to prevent it, and I expect those laws to be enforced when necessary.

[JesusFightClub]

Have been trying to avoid this thread but WTF.

There's quite a large difference between intending to provoke (wearing a Gays are Evil shirt) and wearing normal, non insulting clothes. It's not like gay men demand everyone wears what I believe are called "assless chaps" or lesbians demand everyone wears button down flannel shirts. They do not care what you wear and have a wide variety of clothing themselves. That is the difference.

You know what this sounds like? Gang colours or football colours. It's generally seen by most people as wrong to have to dress in a certain way to have to access public areas or you are going to get disapproval at best.