Bochrim Spray-Paint Over ‘Not Tzniyus’ Advertisement

Home Forums Controversial Topics Bochrim Spray-Paint Over ‘Not Tzniyus’ Advertisement

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 243 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #759962
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Well, the next time anti-semites spray paint swastikas on a shul, I should have no sympathy right?

    I don’t expect non-Jews to respect our sensibilities. Why should I? Do you respect Christian rights? Would you support a Christian who vandalized something that they felt was inappropriate?

    I saw those signs and they weren’t terrible at all. Women walk through Boro Park in much less. I’ve seen them personally.

    Its that attitude that allows men to throw acid on a woman dressed inappropriately.

    I don’t understand how anyone can support this. We live in a country that grants us tremendous freedoms with the stipulation that we grant others those same freedoms.

    I still don’t understand how someone can be following their code of conduct (7 mitzvos bnei noach) and we have the right to say “Too bad. I don’t like what you are doing.” Hashem said that’s enough for them!

    #759963
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Popa,

    There is a difference between outlawing something that directly affects us vs something that has the possibility to affect us.

    We have to actively do bris mila. We aren’t actively required to look at signs. Since there are so many women dressed inappropriately on the street, men should be walking by looking down at the ground wtih the occasional glance forward to make sure the path is safe. He has no reason to look above doorways at signs.

    #759964
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    SJS:

    You have to differentiate between a hate sign and regular spray paint. If the bochrim would have spray painted a “jewish star” over the sign, then we might be having a different discussion.

    I can’t think of a good comparative example for non-jews, but lets say there was a new religion that included Mohamud as a prophet, and included his picture as an icon. A Muslim would want to “erase” the picture, and even though it would be illegal, they (themselves) would feel justified in doing so.

    #759965
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    GAW, them feeling justified doesn’t make it right. In fact, all something like that causes in anti-muslim sentiment.

    And they posted on the sign that pictures of “women” were problematic, not “scantily-clad” women, right?

    This just seems to me to be a part of the ever growing radicalism on Orthodox Jewry that has very little to do with Torah. A true Torah Jew would have been so absorped in saying Tehillim while he was walking that he wouldn’t have noticed the sign 🙂

    #759966
    agittayid
    Participant

    “…..our neighborhoods.”

    I don’t think we want to go back to times in New York (or any city) when it was unsafe to walk in certain neighborhoods being a certain race or religion. To prevent that from recurring, all citizens must obey the law and the laws should be enforced.

    #759967
    apushatayid
    Participant

    “Since when is a catholic idol considered as an avoda zara? It is not considered as a god in itself.”

    Also to MW13. Forget the cross. I’m talking about the icons of mary. catholics pray to mary. that is an avoda zara, even for a non jew. there is no issue of shituf to discuss on this one. it is one of a number of “problems” protestants have with catholicism.

    So, when will the bachurim go and be mikayim this mitzvah to uproot avoda zara?

    #759968
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    SJS:

    I’m not saying it does make it “right”. Right is a very subjective word. All I am saying is that (as I have said before) some (I think most) people are willing to break the law for their cause. If this is their cause, and they are willing to go to jail for it, then it (to a certain extent) changes the action from vandalism to a protest.

    I agree with you that the concept is probably foreign to these bochrim, and they are doing it for “shtick”, as a dare, or (least likely) “growing radicalism on Orthodox Jewry”. But hypothetically, the concept of “civil disobedience” does and should exist, and the law is not the end all. I hope we all would have sat with Rosa Parks, or walked from Selma, even though it was “illegal”. If these bochrim were really doing what they did as a protest against the lack of Tznius on the billboard (which I did not see), and would pay damages, etc. to H&M, then OK, but they have failed miserably at that.

    #759969

    SJS,

    I’m not defending their actions, I didn’t see the sign, and I have no idea if it was done l’sheim shomayim or not. Your analogies, however, are way off. You can’t compare right with wrong, just because it’s someone’s opinion! You can’t compare my lack of sympathy to someone who puts up an inappropriate picture to sympathy for a shul on which a swastika was painted; it’s a ridiculous comparison, unless you don’t believe that anything is inherently wrong.

    #759970
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    GAW,

    I absolutely would have supported Rosa Parks. She was also protesting an unjust law – how is the law protecting people’s property from vandalism unjust?

    My comparisons are fair, even if abhorrant. But do you like the Mohammed example better? We can’t ask for protection and freedom and then deny it to others. H&M’s sign was a lot less problematic than a swastika, but no one has the right to vandelize other people. Unless you think PETA is correct when they do it?

    There is absolute right and wrong. However, I don’t think tznius is in ANY way (especially a sign posted high up, so high that they needed to stand on a vending machine to even reach it) the type of problem that these men were making it out to be.

    I tested out walking looking down today – the only time I needed to look up was when my coworker called out to me as we passed in the subway and when I needed to cross city streets. Since these signs are high up, they are not in the line of sight of people, unless people are looking. We should be training men to walk looking down and then these signs wouldn’t be an issue. I didn’t see any advertisements while doing this experiment and I walked on a few city blocks and went into the subway. I also have no idea what people were wearing.

    Its kind of like when people throw dirty diapers. Its hard to take their cause seriously. Can you imagine R’ Elyashiv doing this? I doubt it.

    #759971
    shlishi
    Member

    “I absolutely would have supported Rosa Parks. She was also protesting an unjust law – how is the law protecting people’s property from vandalism unjust?”

    just like you agree the law against blacks sitting in the back was unjust and it was okay to break the law and engage in civil disobedience, so too here the law allowing immoral images in residential neighborhoods with children is an unjust law — as you put it — and it is equally okay to engage in civil disobedience and break that law.

    #759972
    shlishi
    Member

    and if the sign wasnt so bad and the images of the semi-dressed women could easily be ignored by men, why pray tell is the advertiser paying $30,000 a month (according to an earlier post in this thread) to put that ad up???

    #759973
    shlishi
    Member

    sjsinnyc, talking about rav elyashiv is a good point you brought up. rav elyashev — at over 100 years old — came out to the street protest a few months ago to SUPPORT those fathers WHO BROKE THE LAW by taking their daughters out of the school in emmanuel.

    #759974
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    If you can give me a good argument why a woman’s CALVES should be spray painted, then go ahead. (Never mind that they left the woman’s pants outline visible which I find strange)

    These are NOT lewd pictures. These are pictures of regular clothing that women on the street wear every day (and not even very explicit clothing). Its not bikinis and hot pants!

    The sign also mentions not to post pictures of WOMEN. Sorry, I do not support the idea that in America women should be hidden from view.

    #759975
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    SJS:

    I think you should be comfortable saying that they should not have spray painted the sign, without going so far as to say that the images were not objectionable.

    We do object to women wearing clothing which does not meet the minimum standard of halacha.

    We cannot stop people on the street from doing so, but we do still find it objectionable.

    And if we were in charge, we would stop them.

    #759976
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    SJS:

    I’m not arguing with you about the specifics of the case (which I stand by what I posted much earlier in the thread, and in my previous post), nor about the generalities (there is a time and place to break the law). I did not see the sign, so I won’t comment on it.

    From your last post, you are bothered by the specific unthinking actions of the bochrim, and how it may have hurt their “cause”. No disagreement here.

    As a postscript, a story, from a Ran in Keddushin (IIRC).

    After Rav (the Amorah) died, his Talmidim decided that each one of them would make a neder to be mekabel one of their Rebbe’s chumrahs. Rav Yosef was the one who was Mekabel not to look outside his own four Amos, so that he should not see things he shouldn’t see. He worked and worked at it, but was unsuccessful. Seeing that he would be unable otherwise to fulfill his Kabalah, he weakened his eyes to the point where he was blinded.

    It is easy for a woman to say “just do it” with Arayos. Hashem, in his infinite wisdom, created males with a strong Yetzer Hara for Arayos. Rav Yosef, an Amorah, was unable to “just do it”. It is a lifelong fight, and it never ends.

    Or as I have posted before: “You don’t know the power of the Dark Side”.

    #759977
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    Popa,

    The images were not objectionable in the sense of these bochurim requiring vandalism.

    They probably would have spray painted me if they saw me because my Rav follows a much more lenient view on tznius and halacha.

    Please tell me how a woman’s calves or face are objectionable. They are not inherently so. (I can’t actually see the necklines so I can’t comment, but one of the women in the ads is wearing a skirt).

    They were also cowardly and covered their faces.

    Shlishi, R’ Elyashiv protesting the rights of a father to remove his children from a public school is vastly different from allowing vandalism.

    #759978
    shlishi
    Member

    sorry sjs, but i agree with gavra’s bringing civil disobedience into the discussion. this is a civil rights issue for every orthodox jew. these boys are our rosa parks.

    #759979
    Getzel
    Participant

    (?) ???????? ????????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????????? ????? ????????:

    (?) ???????? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ?????????? ??? ????????? ??? ????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ??? ???????? ?????????? ??????????? ????? ?????? ??????????:

    #759981
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    Civil rights for an Orthodox jew is leaving work early Friday, Not working on Saturday. taking off for Yom Tom etc (Dont think this is always so easy, even in NY)

    Rosa Parks practiced NON-VIOLENCE, so if a bunch of bochrim sat in front of an H & M store until the sign came down, THATS non-violence.

    Disfiguring a Sign in VADALISM

    #759982
    zahavasdad
    Participant

    BTW How come nobody is protesting the restaurant TRAIF in Williamsburg.

    Do you advocate vandalizing the restaurant?

    #759983
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    GAW,

    I understand that it can be hard for men. However, what was posted on the sign was very similiar (and maybe even more tzanua) than what people on the street are wearing. Are you trying to tell me that a non-scantily clad picture is more alluring than a scantily clad woman walking down the street?

    PETA believes this is how to act as well. If someone posted how PETA had vandalized a picture of Chassidim wearing streimels on the street, no one could be ok with it.

    When we ask for freedoms we have to grant it to others, or we have no right to ask for it.

    For the record, H&M’s marketing department says the following:

    creative professionals located in the major fashion hubs of

    the world. The advertisements that we produce are largely

    identical in all of our markets, but the media strategy is

    adapted to local requirements and conditions.

    If someone had contacted them to remove the sign, they probably would have done something about it.

    #759984
    Feif Un
    Participant

    GAW: nice quote from teh Ran. What should be learned from it now is that avoiding these things is on the man, not the woman. I see people who write “Well, don’t women know how hard it is for a man not to look?” That doesn’t matter. Blind yourself, as R’ Yosef did. Don’t try to impose new chumros on women to make you feel good about yourself.

    #759985
    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    SJS:

    I didn’t see the picture, and I have a hard time justifying vandalism. I take no stand in this case.

    As I am aware, calves are dependent on minhag hamakom. I have heard claims that there is a minhag hamakom in NY, but I do not believe that.

    Faces are not ervah.

    #759986
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    GAW: nice quote from teh Ran. What should be learned from it now is that avoiding these things is on the man, not the woman. I see people who write “Well, don’t women know how hard it is for a man not to look?” That doesn’t matter. Blind yourself, as R’ Yosef did. Don’t try to impose new chumros on women to make you feel good about yourself.

    Boruch T’hiye.

    SJS: Actually, I think I would not have a problem with it (PETA), as long as they pay for it. I guess I have a different understanding legally than you do regarding damaging someone’s property as a protest. I believe the Bochrim should pay H&M, and are Over the issur of Gezailah if they don’t.

    And once again, in this specific example, I agree the bochrim could have done better.

    #759987
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Feif Un: Then who will the men blame for all the problems in the world?! (separate post in case it is blocked)

    #759988
    shlishi
    Member

    “We do object to women wearing clothing which does not meet the minimum standard of halacha.

    We cannot stop people on the street from doing so, but we do still find it objectionable.

    And if we were in charge, we would stop them.”

    i think p_b_a summed it up succinctly with that comment. if we could stop them from wearing it on the street, we would. but we dont have to get ourselves a multi-year prison term to do what is right. here the boys at most risked probably a fine and maybe probation. and they knew the chances of them getting caught in the first place was pretty close to zero. so they did what is right.

    #759990
    shlishi
    Member

    btw ive had the misfortune to see other h&m billboards. they are far from innocent. they show below the neckline and worse. the picture on boro park scoop show that the two women on the right are pretty much obliterated, so it is difficult to say for sure, but it is a pretty good bet that they too were showing too much.

    #759991
    apushatayid
    Participant

    Imagine the outcry when bachurim from PETA spray paint over an advertisement for shtreimelech.

    #759992

    PETA believes this is how to act as well. If someone posted how PETA had vandalized a picture of Chassidim wearing streimels on the street, no one could be ok with it.

    There you go again, comparing right with wrong as if they’re the same! PETA is wrong! (I’m not saying spray painting the sign was right, but it’s an unfair comparison to compare “Chassidim wearing streimels” to an inappropriate sign.)

    #759993
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    PETA is defending tzaar baalei chaim. A very Jewish concept. Yes, they take it to the extreme. However, there is no halachic need for a mink to die for a chassid to wear a streimel.

    And GAW, at least you are consistent. I can respect that.

    #759994
    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    There you go again, comparing right with wrong as if they’re the same! PETA is wrong!

    LOL! Who says? And does PETA agree?

    Maybe there is a parallel thread on the PETA boards discussing this very news item, with some PETA dude saying “but if we spray painted a furry hat, we would be right! We are saving animals!”

    #759996
    cherrybim
    Participant

    Rachel thought that she was doing right by stealing her father’s gods. The brothers thought they were doing right when they sold Yoseph to the Yishmaelim. There are countless more instances where the Torah instructs us not to violate the law, even when we believe someone is guilty of a sin.

    Last year when a store across from Chaim Berlin displayed certain photos that were objectionable, the Rosh Yeshiva did not instruct the bochrim to burn down the store but rather to boycott it. The store got the message. This is the Torah way.

    #759997

    cherrybim

    you have a good point(s)

    #759998

    However, there is no halachic need for a mink to die for a chassid to wear a streimel.

    So you’re against streimels? Are you also a vegetarian? Do you wear leather shoes?

    Maybe there is a parallel thread on the PETA boards discussing this very news item, with some PETA dude saying “but if we spray painted a furry hat, we would be right! We are saving animals!”

    Yes, and one on a neo-nazi site encouraging painting swastikas on shuls!

    The islamic “extremists” think they’re going to straight to heaven when they commit a “suicide” bombing. The reason what they do is wrong is because it’s wrong.

    #759999

    cherrybim,

    but the chilul hashem created does a far greater disservice to our cause that this destructive message can ever hope to do.

    I don’t think that anything which angers non-Jews is automatically a Chillul Hashem, it probably first needs determination if it was acceptable l’halacha. You’re point about it not being worth it is most likely correct, though, even if it’s not technically a Chillul Hashem.

    What type of store was it across from Yeshiva Chaim Berlin?

    #760000
    shlishi
    Member

    the boys dont owe the advertisers a dime, since it was wrong of them to put up images of semi-dressed women in a residential neighborhood in the first place.

    #760002
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    DY,

    I don’t personally agree with PETA’s agenda (at least on the whole, I absolutely believe in not being cruel to animals).

    However, at least butchering a cow gives sustenance to a person. You can use the leather from the cow to make shoes.

    Butchering an animal to make a hat does seem wrong to me. Unless you were going to freeze in the depths of Siberia, in which case it would be pikuach nefesh.

    #760003
    gavra_at_work
    Participant
    #760004

    SJS,

    I think you or I could more easily manage without meat and leather than a chossid could without a streimel.

    And BW, the heilige PETA would love to ban shechita, and complained that an animal was used in an attempt to kill Jews (about the animal). I think we’re in agreement on this.

    gavra,

    I think your point is that this was not a protest, just removal of a michshol. I think it might have been both, or even just “fun”; I don’t know the perpetrators and can only guess at their true motives.

    My point is merely that the same tactics used by two ideologies cannot be compared if one’s ideology is correct and one’s is not.

    Pba earlier made reference to Amalek. Any other context would make the idea abhorrent, but it’s a mitzvah, and is correct. I do not want to elaborate here for obvious reasons.

    #760005
    cherrybim
    Participant

    shlishi – and you asked which Rav?

    #760007
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    DY, I’m not a fan of PETA 🙂 I think they do a lot of crazy things. I do think they are the type of people to paint of the streimel of a chossid.

    But I do think its important to live by the rules of the land, when halachically feasible. In this case it was and given H&M’s own writings for marketing, they would have modified the ad had someone contacted them.

    These bochurim covered parts which we can agree are NOT erva (like faces).

    I didn’t support throwing acid on women who weren’t dressed properly in Israel either. There are better ways to handle this situation and IME in today’s day and age the zealousness doesn’t often come from Torah.

    #760008
    shlishi
    Member

    cherrybim – not the one you must have asked. which was?

    #760009
    SJSinNYC
    Member

    OK, I’m getting bored of this topic. Next!

    #760010
    agittayid
    Participant

    “What type of store was it across from Yeshiva Chaim Berlin?”

    A sheitel store.

    In the front window of the store were 4 identical head shots of a woman. Some found this objectionable. Now this store is vacant.

    This was discussed on this site.

    #760011
    shlishi
    Member

    agittayid: so the yeshiva objected to a sheitel store which displayed much less sleaze than this h&m ad did. if even that was objectionable, how much more so this ad was.

    #760012

    A sheitel store.

    That’s what I thought. So according to a previous poster, the reason that the store had to close down was because the bochurim from Chaim Berlin stopped buying sheitels there.

    #760013
    agittayid
    Participant

    “so the yeshiva objected to a sheitel store which displayed much less sleaze than this h&m ad did. if even that was objectionable, how much more so this ad was.”

    Nobody vandalized the store. Perhaps the store closed due to people staying away because of the conflict between the storekeeper and those who objected to the pictures.

    An issue seemed to be that the pictures were on the same block as the yeshiva. Also, according to what was reported on YWN, the storekeeper did not immediately agree to the demand to remove the picture. People do have a right not to patronize a store they are unhappy with. They do not have the right to vandalize.

    #760014
    apushatayid
    Participant

    “and they knew the chances of them getting caught in the first place was pretty close to zero.”

    If I dented your car in a mall, chances are I will never be found out. Does it make me right, if I just drive away?

    #760015
    shlishi
    Member

    why dont you quote the full statement in context, rather than a snippet out of context? in that case it would be clear to you that it is permissible to do the right thing (i.e. a bris mila in the soviet union) even if its against the secular law. my quoted point being that if the authorities will harshly punish someone for making a bris (or other good deed), he might be exempt from doing it if he might get caught.

    #760016
    apushatayid
    Participant

    Was the accusation of a misquote directed towards me? If yes, please explain what you mean with the statement I quoted.

    Tx

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 243 total)
  • The topic ‘Bochrim Spray-Paint Over ‘Not Tzniyus’ Advertisement’ is closed to new replies.