![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've returned to one of my favorite topics for musing, and have been thinking about head covering and hair covering lately.
My first through is less related to myself. THe basic premise is that if a married woman's hair is really supposed to be erva (nakedness, more or less), then how come for many women, seeing photographs of her without a hat on- either from before she was married, or taken at home or in all women's gatherings, seems to be ok? Or would there be a difference between the two categories of pictures, in some cases? In either case, the fact that there seems to be little objection (this is based on social observation, not halakhic research- it's a question worth investigating on that level too, of course, it's just that I only started thinking about this over shabbos.) to letting people see pictures of something that is nominally erva.
In thinking about this, I realized that it seems to parallel a similar reaction to photographs that I have as a BT/quasi-BT/whatever the heck I am. I mean, I have photos of myself in my album dressed in things that I'd never go out in public in now, that show things that are certainly a halakhic problem. But I'm not taking them out of my album, or even trying to hide them when showing my album to male friends. On the other hand, if I were Actually naked (but not a little kid- naked photos of children under a certain age are just different), those photos wouldn't be in my album, and I'd be hugely embarassed if a guy saw them. I think it reflects the difference between halakhic norms and social norms- so that even though we dress by halakhic norms, the way we regard photos seems to be more guided by social norms based on the norms of outside society to at least some extent.
The other issue is more relevant to my personal practice. So, I wore a different kippah this shabbos, and received all sorts of "oh, I like that one" "oh, that kippah is much more comfortable for me to look at" sorts of comments- it's one of the large sort of hat-like ones. It was interesting to hear that my friends do still find a woman in a kippah a little strange. On the other hand, when that woman isn't me, even I sometimes notice it as being a little surprising- it seems to fall into two or three categories for me (this being Purely social right now): there are 1. women where a kippah looks like the most normal thing in the world, where I react just like I do to kippot on men's heads, 2. women whose kippah looks like a visual item that you can tell is putting them into "I'm at shul now" mode, and 3. women whose kippot look Uncomfortable, like they shouldn't be there, like they're trying to make a feminist statement without feeling comfortable with the actual item, or where they're trying to say "I'm a rabbi" or "I'm an official Jew" rather than "I'm a religious Jew".
That third category is the one that is, I think, most familiar to most people, and I think that that's caught up in why I sometimes feel that a kippah sends a sort of a funky religious message to the world, because most women who hold the way I do in general would never, ever wear a kippah. So, just like scarves send this inaccurate "I'm married" message, kippot often feel like they're sending this inaccurate "I'm religiously Very liberal/Reform" message. Headbands just don't feel like headcoverings, in general, even though they cover just as much as plenty of kippot. So I'm thinking about alternating between kippot and scarves rather than doing primarily one or primarily the other. Maybe that way they'll sort of balance the inaccurate messages, and cancel eachother out or something. That and maybe keep my eyes open for a few more nice kippot of the hat-like sort.
My first through is less related to myself. THe basic premise is that if a married woman's hair is really supposed to be erva (nakedness, more or less), then how come for many women, seeing photographs of her without a hat on- either from before she was married, or taken at home or in all women's gatherings, seems to be ok? Or would there be a difference between the two categories of pictures, in some cases? In either case, the fact that there seems to be little objection (this is based on social observation, not halakhic research- it's a question worth investigating on that level too, of course, it's just that I only started thinking about this over shabbos.) to letting people see pictures of something that is nominally erva.
In thinking about this, I realized that it seems to parallel a similar reaction to photographs that I have as a BT/quasi-BT/whatever the heck I am. I mean, I have photos of myself in my album dressed in things that I'd never go out in public in now, that show things that are certainly a halakhic problem. But I'm not taking them out of my album, or even trying to hide them when showing my album to male friends. On the other hand, if I were Actually naked (but not a little kid- naked photos of children under a certain age are just different), those photos wouldn't be in my album, and I'd be hugely embarassed if a guy saw them. I think it reflects the difference between halakhic norms and social norms- so that even though we dress by halakhic norms, the way we regard photos seems to be more guided by social norms based on the norms of outside society to at least some extent.
The other issue is more relevant to my personal practice. So, I wore a different kippah this shabbos, and received all sorts of "oh, I like that one" "oh, that kippah is much more comfortable for me to look at" sorts of comments- it's one of the large sort of hat-like ones. It was interesting to hear that my friends do still find a woman in a kippah a little strange. On the other hand, when that woman isn't me, even I sometimes notice it as being a little surprising- it seems to fall into two or three categories for me (this being Purely social right now): there are 1. women where a kippah looks like the most normal thing in the world, where I react just like I do to kippot on men's heads, 2. women whose kippah looks like a visual item that you can tell is putting them into "I'm at shul now" mode, and 3. women whose kippot look Uncomfortable, like they shouldn't be there, like they're trying to make a feminist statement without feeling comfortable with the actual item, or where they're trying to say "I'm a rabbi" or "I'm an official Jew" rather than "I'm a religious Jew".
That third category is the one that is, I think, most familiar to most people, and I think that that's caught up in why I sometimes feel that a kippah sends a sort of a funky religious message to the world, because most women who hold the way I do in general would never, ever wear a kippah. So, just like scarves send this inaccurate "I'm married" message, kippot often feel like they're sending this inaccurate "I'm religiously Very liberal/Reform" message. Headbands just don't feel like headcoverings, in general, even though they cover just as much as plenty of kippot. So I'm thinking about alternating between kippot and scarves rather than doing primarily one or primarily the other. Maybe that way they'll sort of balance the inaccurate messages, and cancel eachother out or something. That and maybe keep my eyes open for a few more nice kippot of the hat-like sort.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
That having been said, there was something very formal and shabbastik and beautiful about the one you had on this shabbat. It was a combination of the shape, the color, and the level of detail work (that is, the thinness of the yarn) that was involved in it. It also just somehow seemed to work for you - like when a hat fits properly vs. a hat that fits wrong. This one just worked really well for you.
So it was only partly the discomfort thing - I also happened to like this particular kippah is the point.
Maybe it also had a specifically feminine look about it - which is a good thing, looking feminine - since I am not sure I see a guy looking good in that sort of thing. But I could be wrong.
From:
no subject
What I do appreciate is that you gave absolutely no sign of finding it even a bit weird until yesterday- that's pretty impressive, really.
I really do like that kippah, but it's not the sort of thing I can wear every day. (I have a really gorgeous cap of about the same size with beadwork and whatnot that I wear when I'm up for looking a little bit exotic and quite dressy- which means not too often, but it's a great thing for the right occasion.)
From:
no subject
anyway yesterday I was wearing this black sparkly netted kippah-like thing that I made for myself and my friend Ira, referring I'm sure not only to this one instance but to the generality of my headcovering practice as pertaining to being here in Yerushalayim (though probably the long brown skirt I wore to shul helped as a catalyst for the comment), said "Gella, you're sporting the MO married look," indicating my head.
My reaction? "You know... doesn't really matter. Cause it's not anything's likely to happen anyway." Fortunately, Ira and his family understand me and my practice (and exploration thereof).
I know what you mean about the kippa signal thing... my reaction to my reaction though is generally to intellectualize it, thinking to myself that my reaction (when it a perception of discomfort) is the result of social coding that can (and I think should) be undone if we want to be mamash egalitarian. And how does this change? By persisting in the practice. *shrug*
I'm still working up to the tzitzit. We'll see what happens. Maybe I'll have a meltdown and go either secular or frum while I'm here. But I don't think so.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
To my surprise, a very right-wing cousin of mine was once showing me her photo album and showed a picture of herself and a bunch of friends at the pool. i made some comment about, "Ah, this is the album you only show other women!" and she, with some surprise, said, "It's only a picture..."
I suspect this is similar to the thought that hearing a woman's voice on tape is ok--some people who don't listen to women sing live will listen to tapes/cds/mp3s.
This is one reason why I will permit people to see pictures of me with my hair uncovered.
RE pictures taken before marriage: Some people believe hair is covered after marriage because of some sort of energy that settles in it upon beginning a physical relationship. Therefore, pre-marriage pictures are not a problem because the hair does not yet have that energy. Post-marriage pictures are similarly not problems because it's the hair itself, not the image, that's a problem.
Other people believe hair is covered as a matter of symbolism-to state clearly, "I am a married woman". (I count myself among this camp.) More of a problem for showing pictures, but again, pre-marriage, you were not yet married, and anyone seeing your picture knows you're now married. And post-marriage pictures--if there's anything else in there to state that you're married (EG, a baby, your husband, your house, etc.), it shouldn't be aproblem.
Off the top of my head (no pun intended) Must run!