Okay, here’s a new take.
In Hasidic New York.
It seems that the Hasidic neighborhood of New York is upset by the way women dress in their neighborhood. So, here’s a sign that recently appeared on one of the stores there.
Hasidic Sign in New York
No Shorts
No Barefoot
No Sleeveless
No Low Cut NecklineALLOWED IN THIS STORE
And here’s the story.
Here’s how the story starts:
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish business owners are lashing out at customers at dozens of stores in Williamsburg, trying to ban sleeveless tops and plunging necklines from their aisles. It’s only the latest example of the Hasidic community trying to enforce their strict religious laws for everyone who lives near their New York enclave.
“No Shorts, No Barefoot, No Sleeveless, No Low Cut Neckline Allowed in the Store,” declare the English/Spanish signs that appear in stores throughout the Hasidic section of the hipster haven. The retailers do not just serve Jews — they include stores for hardware, clothes and electronics.
It is ticking a lot of people off. Of course, they are not annoyed by the “No Barefoot” part of the sign (or even by the poor grammar!). No, they are concerned about the Hasidic trying to enforce their moral code upon their customers.
PAIN IN THE NECKLINE: Hana Dagostin (left) and Ivana Saftic balk at a dress code posted for a pharmacy on Lee Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Tensions have risen as the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has tried to impose religious law on the local hipsters.
From the story:
“Religious freedom is one thing, but we do not have the right to enforce our beliefs on someone else,” charged Bob Kim, 39, comfy in tight jeans and a T-shirt.
“Why should they be able to say that on their signs? It’s not OK,” added Hana Dagostin, 32, wearing a sleeveless top.
“People should be able to wear what . . . makes them comfortable,” said Fabian Vega, 34, also wearing shorts and a T-shirt.
The thing is, as far as I can tell, the barefoot restriction has nothing to do with the sort of modesty that the Hasidim are concerned about. After all, feet were extensively exposed in biblical times. It’s just there because, well, everybody knows that bare feet just don’t belong in stores. Right??????
Yet we never see such indignation about NSNSNS signs. “Why should they be able to say that on their signs? It’s not OK.”
Well, why not? Why can’t we wear what makes us comfortable, even if it means no shoes?
What we hear as barefooters is that every business ought to be able to make whatever restrictions they want to. On the other hand, if a business wants to open itself up to customers, why should they have the right to restrict their customers based upon their prejudices or quirks?
It’s an age-old battle. I just find it interesting that, in this situation, so many people come out against the store-owners, while when it comes to barefooters, with what is really the same issue (without much in the way of religious overtones), it is perfectly okay to discriminate.
My own personal thoughts are, silliness is silliness; unreasonable adherence to myth is simply unreasonable adherence to myth. If these folks want the business of the public at large (whether barefoot or sleeveless), then they ought to put up with the public at large. If they want ridiculous restrictions, then they should cater only to their own sect, and organize as private clubs.
And that applies also to those who restrict the barefooted.
I saw a story about the same community blacking out the bike lane lines on the streets, because they don’t like people riding bicycles through their neighborhood on the sabbath… or somesuch. But the cyclists weren’t having it, and were repainting the lines guerrilla style, in the night.
A stunning case of hypocrisy. Not so much on the part of the Hasidim but on the part of the public who are ‘not annoyed by the No Barefoot part of the sign’ and at the same time indignant at the ‘No Sleveless’ part. Where are all those defenders of the businesses’ right to expel anyone?
On the side note. Maybe you care to answer in a separate blog entry. For me, a Siberian, New York is a very southern city. It’s somewhere on the latitude of Uzbekistan, and must be very hot. Still, from reading XIX and early XX century books (like O. Henry’s stories) I conclude that people wore full suits, hats, waistcoats, spats and what not. There was no air conditioning at that time I presume, was there? How did all those fully clad ladies and gentlemen survive in the heat? Those Hasidim – how do they survive wearing their long coats and warm hats in summer on the 40th parallel?
BTW there is a famous photo of the New York 1900 heat wave. You can clearly see gentlemen wearing coats in the photo. Does it make sense?
The no shirt no shoe thing has been around for decades. It was designed for cleanliness and safty. If you knocked a can or bottle off a shelf you could injure your foot ( and in todays mindset instead of saying oops my bad, yould probably try to sue the store). These new signs are a blatent attempt to force their religous restrictions on every one else. Boycot these stores and it won’t be long before they change their aditude or go out of bussiness.
Recent New York Times article about Hasidic dress and hot weather.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/hasidic-jews-in-heavy-dress-bear-up-in-summer.html
Dear Mike Taylor,
I am afraid there are some inconsistencies in your statements.
Really, what do shirts have to do with cleanliness? If the NSNSNS rule had been really about cleanliness, it should read like “Dirty hands – no service” or “No shower – no service”.
What does a foot have to do with cleanliness? The foot (bare or shod) stays on the floor. Nobody is going to touch food with the feet or eat with the feet, and if some crazy person does, a shoe is not any cleaner than a bare foot for food handling.
The liability theory is flawed too. If the NSNSNS signs were really about safety, a “Bare feet at your own risk” would be more appropriate because it would legally cover the store owner’s ass without turning away paying customers. And what do shirts have to do with safety? Isn’t it ridiculous? Besides, you said yourself that the NSNSNS thing has been around for decades. In fact, the signs appeared well before the USA became a litigous nation.
brian, thank you, very interesting. This clothing thing seems to be a form of religious asceticism for those Jews. I can understand it.
Was it the same for the 19th century WASP Americans?
Well, it’s interesting how different religious groups have different “uniforms.” As you know, being in Ohio, the Amish, who often go barefoot, have their beards and hats and buttons or no buttons depending on the sect. We all wear cultural uniforms to some extent, of course. Shoes, it seems, have become a requirement of our mainstream cultural uniform, and those of us who go barefoot are breaking the rules.
I wouldn’t be surprised if sometime sooner or later, someone will go to a court and try to file a motion to make these NSNSNS signs unconstitutional. It can be said that these signs are just as prejudice as the “separate but equal” laws or “The Irish need not apply” signs from the 1800s. If people can go inside of a store with a strange looking haircut or homosexuals can be inside holding hands, I don’t understand why so many people fear barefooters. We’re not forcing people to go barefoot.
“lashing out at customers”
Fun, but not productive.