Tznius as its own religion
Let me clarify: I dress according to pretty strict tznius standards and tend to wear "Mommy" clothes that are comfortable and easy care rather than stylish. I favor skirts with length to spare way below the knee, and do not wear halter or tank tops over skin-tight shells. My shoe wardrobe is devoid of stilettos, gladiator sandals, or high and tall boots. So, I admit it, I err on the side of dowdiness in dress, and I do consider it wrong for frum-owned stores to peddle inappropriate clothing styles to their Jewish customer base. Still, I don't consider my standards for dress to be my entire religious raison d'etre. However, in the push for tznius, some seem to magnify modest dress into its own religion. constructing the the entire identity of a Jewish female on the basis of tznius.
Here's a practical take on the subject -- a guide to sewing tznius clothes:
Here's a practical take on the subject -- a guide to sewing tznius clothes:
Seams and Souls A Dressing, Altering, and Sewing Guide for the Modest Woman
Comments
And you disagree with what exactly; that in reality a large opening won't expose the collarbone, or that this isn't a problem 'l'halacha'?
Why this label for clothing only? How about, eating in public on a fast day because you consider women to be exempt always (even if not nursing or pregaant) is not for a "Bas Yisroel"? Now that is clearly a breach of tznius if you think of what the word means and the directive to eat only betzina on public fast days.
And why not then apply it to other halachos? You could declare, cookbooks and magazines containing recipes on Shabbos are "not for a Bas Yisroel." Eating milk right after meat is "not for a Bas Yisroel."
Let's go even further, Samuel. How would you like to be instructed in halacha with something like, "delaying payment of wages is not for a Ben Yisroel." Do you grasp how absurd that sounds? What about the other 612 mitzvos? They are not part of what makes a "Ben Yisroel" or what are not for him. But you know that the term would not be a "Ben Yisroel" but a "Ben Torah" because men are recognized as having their role defined by Torah itself. Females should not be given any such ideas. In fact, people like R' Falk (and I believe his wife gives a type of haskama to this book) have actually declared that tznius does for a woman what Torah does for a man. Look, I've heard of Talmud Torah keneged kulam, but I've never heard a Chazal that equates anything else to Torah.
Halacha is what it is, and the emphasis placed on defining what is a "Bas Yisroel" solely on one aspect is raising it its own religion.
I subscribe to a pluralism within daled amos shel halocho whose aim is veholachto bidrachav.
An outcome of this attempted cloning is labeling, of course. Both cloning and the inevitable labelling serve to drive a wedge between people. Some say that it gives birth to false or shallow frumkeit.
In my estimation, Artscroll and similar are very much responsible for cloning in the english speaking world.
A good example in the Tzniyus arena is "open-toed" shoes. It's now "halacha lemoshe misinai" (although moshe was probably wearing sandals rachmana litzlan) that this is "assur". I am not talking about "above" the ankle. Let's start below the ankle.
In a cloned world, where there is no room for machlokes, the "bas yisroel" could never wear such. Toes are not like fingers. They must be hidden if you are a Bas Yisroel.
I have tried to understand, but have been unable to date. This is one example of many, and Tzniyus is a popular target because it's visible, and the cloned need to have uniforms.
a) There can be discussion about the area below the shok (whichever way one defines it). I believe that those discussions are a matter of "minhag hamakom". This in of itself is a proof that there ought not be such a thing as cloning. The fact that one makom can do things one way and another a different way surely says that it is not also the case that one person is a Bas Yisrael and other is not!
b) Even according to those whose minhag is for some form of sock covering below the "shok", I am not aware of any source that says that from the ankle and below (ie open shoes) has a mekor which would suggest that it is a makom erva. Happy to stand corrected. As such, I think it was always common to see ladies who are tzanua in every sense of the word, wearing long skirts but also wearing sandals and the like.
Now, if someone wants to decree that feet are more chamur than hands, then that is their business but to even suggest that anyone who doesn't do so is not a Bat Yisrael is something I simply don't understand.
And yes, this type of thing seems to be a pre-occupation and how such a concept plays an important part in describing a Bat Yisrael is something I do not understand. As Ariella points out, there are many things that are not even a matter of minor dispute or "minhag hamakom" which somehow are elided.
Ironically, if minhag hamakom is not to wear a fedora when in the presence of royalty, the male still needs to wear one in some circles in order to be considered a "Ben Torah". Another anachronism.
I wouldn't be too hard on your guest. It may be the case that for the area below the shok her minhag hamakom was not to be bare legged (on Shabbos). At the same time, people should understand the parameters and not allow themselves to be cloned in order to attract an artscroll or feldheim "title".
והחכם עיניו בראשו
It's because some things are not befiting for us. -
Yes, it might be better to just mention to be modest. - I think the reason why people say bas yisrael and ben torah is so we remember who we are. They are not just saying, be modest, they are saying do it because you are Jewish