Jewish sect in Stamford Hill 'bans' women from driving children to school

[OliveCane]

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mothers-face-ban-from-driving-their-children-to-orthodox-jewish-schools-in-stamford-hill-10280936.html

Its shocking that this has been on going until now in London and nothing has been done about it! Imagine if 'Jewish' was replaced by 'Muslim', there'd be a nation wide uproar!

I pass tonnes of members of this community everyday as I live in a nearby area that is en route to Golders Green from Stamford Hill. I don't think I've ever seen one of the women driving in any case. The vehicles are quite distinctive - used to be old Volvo estates now a lot of old Toyota and VW Minivans.
The women you mostly see on foot with large numbers of kids and wearing black and bobbed wigs.

all in the name of religious tolerance

Well sure but it's not just this group is what I'm saying. These are sects and they exist in different flavours around the place. How you deal with them / should deal with them, I don't know.

The people in them, many will say that they are living a simpler life, free from capitalism, with strong community and family ties, and strong codes of ethics, and the children have large extended families nearby and stuff. And, that they look at outsiders and don't see something particularly great.

And you know some of them, many maybe, that will be how it is. Of course the problem is when you don't fit, you don't believe, you want out etc. Or you have an abusive situation those are rarely handled properly in these types of groups or at least I assume they aren't, no-one really gets to find out, as few leave to talk about things.

Their community is largely a law unto itself. For example, Planning laws are not enforced there either by Hackney council. The children suffer a much higher than average health and hereditary conditions such as stays Sachs and so on due to the closed nature of the community. It's quite sad in many many ways. There was an interesting documentary about the area a few years back. It seems that very few children leave when they grow up.

I used to live in this area and was browsing the council summer holiday clubs to see if I could recommend any to some children I was volunteering with in a music club* and there were loads for "Orthodox Jewish girls" i.e. council run segregated holiday clubs. I have less of a problem segregating by gender than by religion in this context, but I am not sure why.

*We ended up taking them to a Prom and sitting in the gallery. It was fab!

(I should add that the children I volunteered with were not Orthodox Jewish but in typical London fashion ranged - when I spoke to them about their holiday arrangements - from "we're going to France and the cleaner is coming in to take in the post" to "we went to Nigeria last year and someone kicked in the panel on the door and nicked the telly".)

I think their justifications for it are interesting - it's not directly about controlling what a woman can do, but about saving them from the immorality you can experience/witness while driving (roadrage etc.) - kind of spinning it as an evil that they're saving women from rather than a convenience they're denying them.

I lived in a place with a large orthodox (of some sort) jewish community for a while, heavy coats on the men in the middle of summer (proper summer, southern europe, not UK summer), women in wigs, everyone totally covered up all the time in fact. It was like we occupied the same place, but were star trek style out of phase with each other - no interaction, just polite avoidance and everyone going about their business as if the other wasn't there.

I think their justifications for it are interesting - it's not directly about controlling what a woman can do, but about saving them from the immorality you can experience/witness while driving (roadrage etc.) - kind of spinning it as an evil that they're saving women from rather than a convenience they're denying them.

I listened to a discussion about it on LBC yesterday and one of the callers tried to justify it with an argument that began "If your wife wanted to walk through the woods at night would you let her? No you wouldn't. It's about safety." The presenter (James O'Brian) tried explaining that he could not let his wife do anything, but the guy just did not get it. It boils down to plain old fashioned control and keeping women in their place.

I heard that discussion too, the Jewish man was just on a different wavelength, I suppose that the belief that women must be controlled and subordinated is so central and deeply ingrained that he is unable to recognize it as a belief.
Too him it is an objective fact, grass is green 2 plus 2 equals 4 women are controlled by and subordinate to men.

Surely these fundamentalist views are counterproductive?
All the inbreeding and being out of step with modern society, do they not contain the seeds of their own destruction?
Modern life isn't all brilliant but it provides numerous survival advantages over ye olden days

Chunky not sure how you can interpret this as not controlling women. "Not one of my friends would let his wife drive"

Orthodox Jewish sect's female driver ban condemned by Nicky Morgan

gu.com/p/49b8y

I'm not - hence my use of the word 'spinning' and 'their justifications'

ie. this is how they are pitching it. Obviously it's actually about controlling women.

I just found it interesting that that was how they were trying to justify it, rather than going straight for the 'women must be subordinate to men and do as they are told' jugular as I've heard other religious leaders go for on other subjects

Yes, you could understand it if they were saying no-one should drive because they don't believe in the technology/environmental impact/effect on behaviour. Even if they were saying parents should not drive their children to school because if they live close enough to attend that school they're close enough to walk (and wouldn't any of us who have ever lived near a school agree with that! - particular needs excepted obviously). But that does not appear to be where they're coming from.

Refusing a child access to education on the grounds that you disapprove of its mother's method of transport has got to be against the law, hasn't it? If not, why not?

I'm not clear what distinction you're trying to make Chunky.The "don't do that because it's not for your own good " argument is hardly a new or different argument.

Oh, OK then. To me it felt like a different angle, generally I've seen just blanket restrictions, not moral justifications - it felt like the difference between don't wear a short skirt because it will tempt men, and don't wear a short skirt because the wind between your legs will tempt you.

Or to use the examples above, don't walk through the woods at night because a man might attack you, vs don't walk through the woods at night because you won't be able to see and might trip over.

A kind of concern that's entirely about the woman, rather than a concern that involves men. Almost recognising women as people, and giving them restrictions based on what people might do, rather than as things that people do stuff to, and restricting them based on what people might do to those things

I'm not saying it's any better, it just felt slightly different somehow (to me at least).

I get where you're coming from chunky.

In one of the pieces I read it said that driving was stressful and they didn't want the women exposed to unnecessary stress.

It's trying to make it sound like benevolent sexism but of course because it's so far out of the norm no-one is going to be convinced like they are when men justify eg rushing to help women do things that they are perfectly capable of doing themselves. It's just a different perspective and ours and theirs are so far apart. Like, I bet they see things that we do that they think how awful that we see as completely normal and we don't even notice, sort of thing.

The letting your wife walk through the woods though I don't think it would have been her tripping over that he was most concerned about so that goes straight back to a man might attack you.

Thing is these people (like Chunky says with the star trek thing) live in a different world. And we probably seem as peculiar to them in our ways as they do to us, and there's little common reference ground. And of course they have GOD on their side, they KNOW they are doing the right thing.

It's not like the CofE or a mainstream Jewish branch making an announcement like this. And I'm not defending anyone here, I'm sort of trying to get across just how isolated these people are, how drastically different their way of life is.

Oh sorry for going on like I live near to areas where these groups live and also we have extreme christians so I just find it really interesting and have since I was little!

Chunky I see where you're coming from. It is an interesting angle and one that women in that particular community may agree with, their choice.

Whirlpool I think you're spot on with this: "The people in them, many will say that they are living a simpler life, free from capitalism, with strong community and family ties, and strong codes of ethics, and the children have large extended families nearby and stuff. And, that they look at outsiders and don't see something particularly great."
Assuming that people adhere to the rules of the community out of choice (there's no reason not to assume this), I respect any group that practices their faith as long as causing no harm to others. I can actually see how living a simpler life may feel more appealing to mainstream western culture, each to their own.

I understand the point about protecting children though - but I guess since the "rule" will be enforced from August, those parents who disagree with it may remove their children from that specific school?

I think it's really quite depressing.

I also find it interesting that the UK criticises other countries on their treatment of women and yet this stuff is going on right under our noses right in a busy part of North London.

About the wigs: in ancient times covering the hair was a sign of modesty in both men and women. Even up to modern times in the Western world, people were considered improperly dressed if they did not wear some sort of head-covering when out of doors.

In medieval Eastern Europe, the Barons had the Droit de Seigneur, ie they could have sex with any bride on her wedding night. To prevent this, Orthodox Jews would shave a bride's head to make her unattractive. But in order to preserve her self-esteem she would then wear a beautiful wig out of doors and a pretty scarf indoors.

Hassidism started in Eastern Europe (Poland IIRC), by which time this habit had become custom. This is why you only see Hassidic women wearing wigs. (BTW the men also cover their heads, but not every hair) Other streams of Orthodox Judaism also head-cover to one extent or another, but none wear wigs.

The wig-wearing women are not obliged to shave their heads. They can have their real hair any length or style they want, as long as it can all be hidden under the wig. In practice most of them go for pixie styles.

I'm a little surprised at the level of justification going on here. It's just their choice - really? Will it be their daughters ' choice ?

And as for the, "they're not really being horrible, they mean well argument" sorry but the "we only want to protect you' line is as old as the hills.

Sometimes, yes, it is their choice. People do choose freely and voluntarily to subjugate themselves to a way of life.

Unfortunately, if you grow up in such a closed community, with no real interaction with an alternative viewpoint, and with extremely strong societal pressure upon you to conform, then, I doubt very much whether there is any freedom of choice at all.

behind "Assuming that people adhere to the rules of the community out of choice (there's no reason not to assume this), I respect any group that practices their faith as long as causing no harm to others. I can actually see how living a simpler life may feel more appealing to mainstream western culture, each to their own. "

It's not really like that though. So looking at the brethren (who I know more about) you are born into it. No-one is allowed to join, and they lead separate strict lives. They are taught from a young age that outsiders are ungodly, immoral and so forth. It is not allowed to access any form of media - radio, TV, newspapers, internet. It is a closed community, and they mix with each other. People who do not follow the line can be forced out, and they often commit suicide. It doesn't happen very often as once you have been told to leave, or decide to leave, you will never be able to see or speak to any of your family or friends again, and you are unlikely to know anyone else. They all work together, what do you do for work. That sort of thing.

It's not like, say my uncle who joined what my dad describes as a cult in the 60s, did it for a few years and then left. It's not to do with choice at all.

Like I say I know more about the brethren than the hassidic jewish population but from what I have read there are parallels. No access to media, very closed, "traditional" roles for men and women, large families, antiquated dress codes, women having lots of rules around hair and so forth.

Oh xpost with Oink.

Like I said upthread, personally I think that people need to be poking their noses into what is going on in these types of community a bit more. But I don't know, maybe the authorities already do, and everything is OK. (OK in terms of nothing illegal going on, rather then in terms of sex equality and everything's rosy from an outsiders POV obv).

If women were happy about not driving then it wouldn't need to be banned, surely? The fact that women have to be told not to do it suggests that some of the would choose to do it.

"In a letter sent out last week and seen by the Jewish Chronicle, they add that there has been an increase in the number of mothers driving their children to school which has led to “great resentment among parents of pupils of our institutions”.

So, as it stands, women are choosing to drive and now they are being forced not to. That's not a 'choice'.