Photo courtesy of Emily Sullivan.
by Emily Sullivan
What seems more important: making bicycle commutes safe or catering to the demands of a misogynistic religious community?
Last week, the DOT removed fourteen blocks worth of bike lane from Bedford Ave in Williamsburg. This part of Bedford is critical to bike traffic because it leads to the bike path entrance of the Williamsburg Bridge, which carries thousands of commuting cyclists every day. The reasons cited are pretty fishy: “bike network adjustments,” which basically means the existence of bike lanes on neighboring streets. So…bikers will be safer without a lane than with because there are other lanes available? Right.
Another reason has been cited not-so-officially. The removal of the bike lane may be in response to pressures from the powers-that-be from within the Williamsburg Hasidic community, who are offended by the traffic of women in cycling clothes. According to Hasidic tradition, observing men may not look at a woman who is not fully clothed—meaning wearing a skirt longer than the knees and a shirt longer than the elbows.
I have experienced the intolerance of some people in this neighborhood personally. It was a chilly night, so I was completely covered. I was also completely lost, and looking for the bike co-op, which is located right underneath the Williamsburg Bridge. I stopped on a corner and tried several times to catch the attention of the passers-by for directions. The men passed right next to me, and wouldn’t even look at me.
Really? Are we really compromising the safety of thousands of cyclists because a group of people is intolerant of women who don’t conform to very strict guidelines for modesty? It is an appalling cession.
There is a lot to unpack regarding the relationship between gender equality and religion; a blog post couldn’t possibly scratch the surface. However, when safety concerns go up against religion-inspired intolerance, the discussion should be a simple one. Thanks to these guys and gals for taking back our lane.
I would encourage you to make sure this rumor is true. Hasidics, in general, don’t go in for involving themselves in the outside world. They’ll fight very hard for things inside their community (preventing mixed bathing in their own swimming pools, for example, or ensuring that Talmud gets as much time in school as English does) but they tend not to cross over into the secular world – as you’ve noticed; when something doesn’t fit into their idea of the world, they try to ignore it. It’s very rarely that Hasidics go out and lobby the goverment for changes that specifically fit their lifestyle, but not other people’s.
That’s (one of) the big difference(s) between Jewish and Christian fundies – Jews have no missionary zeal at all. If it had been a christian group in the above post, I would have believed it in a heartbeat. There’s nothing like being the dominant religion to make you think everyone should think and do as you.
That said, I don’t know the community you are talking about, so it may very well be the case that their pressure existed and was successful.
Bike safely!
I too agree with the fact that the removal of bike lanes is unsafe and that women should by no means have to conform to any standard of dress.
However, the paragraph discussing how no one would stop to help you or even look at you is somewhat culturally insensitive. Hasidic men are not permitted to shake a woman’s hand or even have eye contact.
While it is understandable that you would be upset about the loss of your bike lanes I don’t think that warrants a sideways attack on the religious rites of the Hasidism.
Saskia: “That’s (one of) the big difference(s) between Jewish and Christian fundies – Jews have no missionary zeal at all. If it had been a christian group in the above post, I would have believed it in a heartbeat. There’s nothing like being the dominant religion to make you think everyone should think and do as you.”
You advise against placing such judgement on the Hasidic community, and then make one of your own. And the aside wasn’t even essential to your argument.
I think this is a pretty awful article. You’ve made a generalization about an entire community of people based on 1) a “not-so-official” claim (made doubly problematic because of past and continuing antisemitic ‘suspicions’) and 2) a bad experience with a few of them? What?
Also, “misogynistic religious community”? What knowledge of Hasidic Jewish culture do you have to support that claim? Stating that Islam is a misogynistic religious community because, well, headscarves! wouldn’t be an appropriate thing to say at all, so why is this okay?
You’ve “experience the intolerance of some people in this neighborhood”? Sheesh, talk about Othering! How did this get past the editors? Why is this article okay?
Next time, consider whether content is True before reinforcing damaging stereotypes.