JERUSALEM — The debate over bus lines that segregate men and women is growing:
On Wednesday, April 20, a group of residents, most of them wearing crocheted kippot, gathered in Mea She’arim, bearing placards protesting segregation on Egged buses in the capital…
[City Councilor and protest organizer Rachel] Azaria, herself a religious woman, adds that the whole issue of separation between men and women on buses is not clear and that according to some of the highest Orthodox rabbinical authorities (such as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein), there is absolutely no reason for the segregation.
Mehadrin lines are Egged bus lines in which there is a separation between men and women. Usually the women sit in the back and men in the front. Usually these lines travel between Orthodox neighborhoods inside and outside Jerusalem and/or connect such neighborhoods directly with the Old City for those who want to reach the Western Wall without going through secular neighborhoods.
This is a complicated issue that involves civil liberties, the Jewish religion, and business profits. And the lines between the three are hazy and open to debate.
The crux of the religious side is that ultra-Orthodox Jews (also known as charedim) insist on a strict separation between the sexes at all time. Men and women who are not married are not allowed to be in the same room together. They are not allowed to touch, even merely to shake hands or hug. Most charedim believe that men and women should not even sit next to each other on buses. All of these restrictions are intended to remove all temptation to have pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
In a secular country like the United States, such practices in public transportation would quickly be overturned — one, after all, cannot discriminate on the basis of gender. But Israel, of course, it a completely different country. It is a officially a secular, democratic state that operates under the rule of civil law — but it is unofficially a Jewish one as well. So these competing values can conflict with each other:
WHETHER OR not mehadrin lines are the main issue on the haredi agenda, the issue is certainly becoming important for non-haredi residents of Jerusalem, who do not want to use the buses but feel that their rights are being denied by Egged. Besides the fact that many people — whether they are religious, traditional or secular — refuse to use the segregated buses, the fact remains that these lines, inside or outside the city, are cheaper and in some cases there is no alternative.
The charedi community tends to live in poverty because men generally choose not to work; instead, they pray and study Torah all day. (Women work part-time jobs until they get married — usually in their late teens or early twenties — and begin having children.) So the fact that the segregated bus lines are cheaper makes logical business sense. In fact, if the demand exists for segregated bus lines, then can Egged be faulted for fulfilling that need?
Moreover, the issue highlights the conflict between the private and the public. As one person states in the article:
“…We’re nearing the summer, and that’s when it becomes impossible for us. The secular passengers dress in a way that is absolutely unbearable for us.”
When I worked in the Holy City, I would use the same bus line to and from work. Although it was not a segregated one, people still dressed modestly (as is common throughout Jerusalem). But once in a while, I would see a young woman in shorts and a tight, revealing tank top. I had lived in the city long enough not to have seen people in such clothes very often. It was slightly uncomfortable, even for me. So I understand how ultra-Orthodox Jews can feel.
But, as the frequent debates in the Western world over issues like the Mohammed cartoons have shown, there is a conflict over what limits government and society can — or should — set to protect the sensibilities of people. In a democracy, the desires of the majority should be enacted (within legal limits, of course) — so if a significant portion of the community does not want to see women in revealing clothing, then perhaps they have the right to pursue that goal. But, then again, Israel is — in theory — a civil society in which people should be free to do what they wish as long as no one is hurt by their action. After all, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. An argument could be made that the religious man quoted above should, well, “get over it.”
The common theme in my posts about Israel is that life here is always a paradox. Public transportation is just another example of the craziness here — for better and for worse.
