Israel’s Chief Rabbi: ‘Immodest’ Women Like Animals

Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef preached that a woman must dress modestly because she ‘is not an animal’ and that when subjected to a female performer, men should ‘conspicuously’ refuse to listen

israel-chief-rabbi

Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef

Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef also said that serving Israeli soldiers who attended events with female singers should remove their glasses and “conspicuously” turn to religious books in order not to participate.

“A woman is not an animal, she has to keep her dignity. To be modest [in her dress] is her dignity,” said Yosef.

read more in Al Bawaba.com

Advertisements


Categories: Judaism

Tags: , ,

16 replies

  1. Why does the West only care when some imam makes a dumb comment on women? I want them to criticize this rabbi too. It’s called consistency

    Like

    • Hi Michael,

      While the rabbi words sounds harsh I agree with him that women should keep their dignity by dressing modesty.
      By this I understand in a way that do not attracts attention. Why would a lady wear revealing clothes if not for attracting males attention? I respect woman who dress in accordance with religious modesty.

      Liked by 1 person

    • For the record I agree with you. I just made a statement that if the West criticizes Muslims for their dress code they must do the same to Jews in Israel. But we both know that they won’t be consistent because it doesn’t suit their agenda.
      Thanks

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The implication of the Rabbi’s words is that man is an uncontrollable beast, unable to take responsibility for his own actions, and therefore a woman’s behaviour is in need of controlling. That’s the wrong message, for both men and women.

    Liked by 1 person

    • But man and woman are created unequal. Naturally it is a woman who is “in control” with man desires isn’t she?

      Like

    • I’m not sure I understand the question or the point? A woman isn’t usually in control – not when a man cannot control his urges to the point where he rapes her. The man then hides behind the excuse of ‘provocative clothing’.

      Like

    • loose clothes

      bikini

      To illustrate my point: woman can either choose to wear  the loose modest clothes as defined by God can be very comfy and protective under the scorching hot summer sun at the beach while the same time keeping away ladies-man…. or goes with the bikini or thongs thus taking the risk of sunburn and cancer and stimulating male desires.  Yes a woman is always in full control.

      Like

    • The implication is that men can’t be held responsible for their behaviour if a woman dresses in a so-called provocative fashion. Not every woman will find covering up comfortable and not every woman will believe in God either – it’s not unreasonable to expect men to rise above base instinct and conduct themselves as reasonable human beings, regardless of what women wear.

      Like

    • tabloid psychology

      Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t think the Rabbi is implying that men cannot control their emotions because the next statement is speaking to men, specifically male Israeli soldiers. If he believed they were uncontrollable then why would he instruct them?

      The Rabbi I think is saying that both men and women are responsible for their actions toward one another. Just in different ways.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The point is that women are expected to be responsible for preventing men from attacking them, whereas I feel men should bear that responsibility.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Of course men should be responsible for their actions and thoughts but neither should we pretend that immodesty is better than modesty and that immodest dress does not have an impact on others. This works both ways, there are magazines, tv, and the internet that objectify men as sexual objects.

      This is also wrong.

      Like

    • Anything that turns people’s in sex objects is wrong. However, on a baking hot day is it fair to ask anyone – man or woman – to dress ‘modestly’ (and who defines that anyway?) in the interests of not encouraging some misogynist who thinks he’s entitled to grope at a woman?

      Like

    • The Rabbi hasn’t even mention men. He was not talking about sexual provocation but dignity. A woman should cover up because it’s part of her dignity and not because of men. That is also the essence of the hijab.
      Of course Islam also enforces the prevention of sexual provocation. But the hijab is primarily part of the dignity and chastity of the Muslim woman. A woman should wish to cover her up because of her having a sense of shame. Enforcing coverings for non-Muslim women is discretionary and not part of the hijab. This is related to the issue of sexual provocation.

      You have to understand these two different aspects of covering.

      “Not every woman will find covering up comfortable..”

      Modest men dress modestly too. Some things are more important than convenience.

      “..and not every woman will believe in God either”

      Then there is no reason for her to be alive anyway.

      ” it’s not unreasonable to expect men to rise above base instinct and conduct themselves as reasonable human beings, regardless of what women wear.”

      Moral religious men do not rape or molest women independent of how they are dressed. Criminal men do rape and molest women in general and especially when provoked. And it is absolutely reasonable for them to do it from their perspective.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Rider,

    [quote]The Rabbi hasn’t even mention men. He was not talking about sexual provocation but dignity. A woman should cover up because it’s part of her dignity and not because of men. That is also the essence of the hijab.
    Of course Islam also enforces the prevention of sexual provocation. But the hijab is primarily part of the dignity and chastity of the Muslim woman. A woman should wish to cover her up because of her having a sense of shame. Enforcing coverings for non-Muslim women is discretionary and not part of the hijab. This is related to the issue of sexual provocation.[/quote]

    The apparent state of dignity or otherwise is being established by… men! Men are deciding, on behalf of women, whether they should cover up or not. Men are decided whether or not a woman should feel shame if she dresses (in what is yet another male definition) immodestly. If a woman chooses to cover up, that is their choice – and that is the key word. If a woman chooses to wear a short skirt because it’s a hot day and they feel more comfortable in a short skirt, that is also their choice. This doesn’t mean she is then responsible for the actions of men toward her – she is no more responsible for being assaulted if she wears a bikini to the beach than she is if she wears a business suit on her way to and from work – that responsibility rests entirely with any would-be attacker, and going after the victim’s dress code is a form of victim-blaming.

    [quote]Modest men dress modestly too. Some things are more important than convenience.[/quote]

    Apparently convenience is the issue here – it’s more convenient for a man to blame their behaviour on what the woman was wearing, than to take ownership of their own behaviour. It’s an excuse, nothing more.

    [quote]Then there is no reason for her to be alive anyway[/quote]

    Which is rubbish, quite frankly. And my point stands. There is zero requirement for people who are not of any faith to be held accountable to the requirements of those faiths.

    [QUOTE]Moral religious men do not rape or molest women independent of how they are dressed. Criminal men do rape and molest women in general and especially when provoked. And it is absolutely reasonable for them to do it from their perspective.[/QUOTE]

    Moral individuals – religious or not – don’t go around committing any crimes. I’d also like to focus on that last sentence – ‘from their perspective’ – their perspective is hopelessly flawed, yet they are allowed to get away with it every time the victim’s dress code is somehow drawn up as a factor behind why they were assaulted. It’s used as an excuse, and it’s high time it was an excuse that was treated with the contempt it deserves.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: