“The Queen's Daughter is all Dignified Within” (Ps. 54:14):
Basing Israeli Women’s Status and Rights on Human Dignity
Orit Kamir

Human Dignity at the Heart of Israel’s Bill of Rights

From a constitutional point of view, the early 1990s mark the beginning of the kvod ha’adam ve-heruto era in Israeli legal history. In 1992 and again in 1994, the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, enacted Israel’s Basic Law: kvod ha’adam ve-heruto, which was widely accepted and embraced as the country’s long-awaited Bill of Rights. The Basic Law’s title was translated into “human dignity and liberty”. In fact, whereas the Hebrew herut does indeed indicate liberty, kvod ha’adam entails a host of diverse values, best captured by the English terms honor, glory, dignity and respect. In the context of Israeli society and culture, these distinct values connote very different – and clashing - political world-views (most significantly nationalistic Zionist, Jewish orthodox and “leftist” liberal perspectives). Of these values, honor has always been predominant in Israeli society and culture, as well as most problematic and unacknowledged. The enactment of Basic Law: kvod ha’adam ve-heruto manifests a vague, implicit, attempted compromise between the rivalling worldviews and their supporters. In other words: it constitutionally intertwines honor, Israel’s underlying value, with glory and dignity. 

Significantly, the Basic Law’s official translation into English neglects to mention honor, glory and respect, presenting Israel’s Bill of Rights as constituting human dignity at the heart of Israel’s constitutional value system. This ideological determination echoes the judicial system’s explicit interpretation of the Basic Law, which has, understandably enraged significant sectors of the Israeli society, feeding into their growing alienation from the Supreme Court and “its” Bill of Rights. 

I have explored these issues in other publications, including an English one, discussing the implications of the many faces of Israel’s kvod ha’adam. In this paper I focus on human dignity alone, examining its potential implications for the development of Israeli women’s socio-legal status and rights. I observe that, given the status of “equality”, “dignity” and other values in Israel’s Bill of Rights and constitutional rhetoric, dignity is the single most important value for women to utilise in the promotion of their socio-legal status and rights. Since the exact contents and ideological meanings of dignity are still vague and embryonic, it is crucial for women to explore this new area of law and ideology, learning to conceptualise their needs and voice their demands in the emerging framework of human dignity. Reviewing the roots of dignity in traditional Jewish thought, I suggest that contemporary Israeli women cannot turn to this cultural heritage, which links women’s dignity with their “modesty” and confinement in traditional, stereotypical roles. In their exploration of dignity, Israeli women must look within and listen to their inner voices practising the language of their dignity. 

Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty stipulates that “There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such”, and that “ All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity”. It thus affords human dignity special status among the many values and rights it addresses explicitly and implicitly. Since the Basic Law’s enactment, the Supreme Court has been reiterating that it did little other than officially state and validate the central role human dignity has always played in Israeli society and law. In fact, this statement cannot be supported. The Declaration of Independence does number "liberty" among the many values it mentions, but there is no trace of the concept "human dignity" anywhere in this national "credo".  Similarly, no other official document has ever mentioned human dignity. Even the rulings of the Supreme Court include only scant and random references to human dignity, and only since the late 1970s.  The (claimed) centrality of human dignity to Israeli culture and law is a new phenomenon, beginning in the 1990s. It is thus time to address the issue, and to imbue as yet unformed concepts with substantial legal and ethical content. 

 Universal and Specific Aspects of Human Dignity
Human dignity is ascribed in the Basic Law to "any person as such".  This assertion stresses the universal and absolute nature of this value, applying it to persons of every creed, race, sex, age, sexual preference or social status.   This universal nature of human dignity testifies to basic equality of all people, who, as human beings, possess human dignity and are equally entitled to be treated accordingly. We are all ends in our own right rather than means to be exploited by others, and equally deserving of such treatment.  Indeed, every person is equally entitled to basic "human" living conditions, self-determination and the opportunity to raise a family as s/he desires.  Every person is equally entitled to protection against torture, abuse, expulsion, illegal invasion of her/his privacy and the demolition of her/his home. 

Human dignity, however, comprises another, more particular aspect. Safeguarding human dignity includes protecting people against humiliation, degradation, and terrorisation.  Members of groups with diverse histories might feel degraded, humiliated or terrorised by different circumstances.  The relatives of a hanged man - so the saying goes - are particularly sensitive to rope.  Thus, associating a Jew with an anti-Semitic stereotype could constitute an affront to her/his dignity, although the very same remark when addressed to another person might give no offence whatsoever. Similarly, addressing a person as an "Uncle Tom", or burning a cross on his or her lawn might pose an exclusive offence to the dignity of an African-American. 

From this perspective, human dignity may be better suited to address culturally based sensitivities than equality. Focusing on “common denominators” that may serve as basis for equalizing, the rhetoric of equality risks privileging human features and preferences which are unique to the members of powerful, ruling classes, but presented by them as universal “common denominators”. Such privileging entails oversight regarding the unique characteristics of members of minority groups. Through the prism of human dignity, it may be possible to respect and defend culture-specific dignity as well as fundamental human common denominators. 

The Status of Women in Israel

Israel’s Declaration of Independence announces full sex equality. Accordingly, an impressive series of progressive, egalitarian, laws flesh out women’s extensive legal rights. Israeli legislation is exemplary and outstandingly progressive in its treatment of numerous areas of women’s lives (maternity leave rights, liberal regulations governing artificial insemination, financial support to single mothers and protection against sexual harassment are cases in point).  Nevertheless, women in Israeli society have never possessed full equal rights. Most significantly, on several issues, the law itself restricts women’s right to equality.  Thus, for example, the very law that constitutes women’s equal legal rights explicitly restricts it own application, exempting the whole area of marriage and divorce. What this means is that Israeli women are not entitled to full equality before the law in their family lives.  Every woman in Israel is subject, in this important area, to the precepts of religious law as practised by the community to which the state law relegates her, and to the authority of that community’s religious authority and courts.  Thus, every Jewish woman is subject to Jewish religious law, as interpreted by the rabbinical court; every Moslem woman to Islamic law, as determined by the shari'a court; every Christian woman to the religious law of her Church - none of which award women a status fully equal to men’s. 

More typically, discriminatory guidelines and regulations govern some areas, which are not directly regulated by state law. Thus, for example, military regulations discriminate against women by barring them from field units, and thus from advancing through the military hierarchy.  In Israel, a military career is often a required springboard to managerial positions in business and central roles in local and national politics. Women’s prevention from getting ahead within the military limits their opportunities in civilian life as well.

Finally, even where law and regulations do not explicitly discriminate against women, patriarchal prejudices, sexist stereotypes, conservatism and fear of change feed and perpetuate underlying social norms, customs and prevailing practices that deny women equal opportunity.  As in every other society, misogynist stereotypes prevail, upholding a glass ceiling and barring women from advancing and expanding to new social and economic realms.  Commendable, progressive legislation attempts to preclude such practices, but is very difficult to implement.  The family’s central role in both Jewish and Palestinian Israeli societies places a particularly heavy burden on women. Both societies respond to the national conflict by encouraging women to bear children, thus saddling them with heavy maternal obligations at the expense of other potential options. Despite strict legislative prohibition of discrimination on the basis of family status, pregnancy and parenthood, such practices are widespread.

As in every society, women in Israel face rape, child sexual abuse, prostitution, trafficking, battery, sexual harassment and stalking. Every form of violence against women is appropriately addressed by Israel’s criminal code in great detail and with much good will and determination, but law enforcement is lacking, and other war-related national priorities always prevail. Over the last decade, violence against women has elicited public attention, in particular domestic violence leading to murder. General tension and violence breed increasing domestic murders of women in both Jewish and Palestinian Israeli societies. As of yet, no adequate means of prevention have been formulated and implemented.

In conclusion, while bluntly discriminating against women in the realm of family life, Israeli law offers women impressively progressive rights in the workplace and exemplary protection against gender-based violence. Social reality is far less impressive. Despite the still prevalent, misleading equality myth, Israeli women suffer every form of violence and discrimination typical of contemporary patriarchal hierarchies in the western world. 

The Potential of "Human Dignity" to the Elevation of Women’s Status 

Equality has always been the predominant concept in the struggle for women’s status and rights in Israel as everywhere else world-wide.  Nevertheless, the use of equality entails inherent difficulties.  One is the prevalent and dangerous intuitive association between "equal" and "similar".  This association has taken root in western culture over millennia of adherence to the Aristotelian definition of equality.  According to Aristotle, "equality" means treating those "similarly situated” in a similar fashion.  Equality does not, therefore, entail similar treatment of those “differently situated”.  As professor Catharine MacKinnon has shown, in patriarchy, women are constructed as paradigmatically “different”. Since in patriarchy men are the uncontested, “natural”, taken-for-granted standard for everything, and since it is men who control all evaluation and definition, women are perceived and constructed (by men) as inherently "different" (from them). “Different” is viewed as “differently situated” in every way, thus deserving of different treatment. In other words, women’s “difference” is associated with "inequality”, resulting in their construction as “undeserving of equal treatment”. In a patriarchal cultural context, therefore, the conceptual proximity between "equality" and "similarity" creates a psychological barrier, precluding the perception of women as fully "equal" and entitled to equal rights and opportunities.               

Moreover, approaching the status of women through the concept of equality often makes it difficult to focus on problems that are unique and/or significant to women.  Since the accepted standard in our society is the male experience, "equality for women" is understood as granting women the same rights possessed by men.  This liberal approach is immensely useful in guaranteeing women’s equal pay, but is highly problematic for women demanding maternity leave rights, rape-law reforms, legal prohibition of sexual harassment, increased punishment of sex offenders, or funding for breast cancer research. As long as "equality for women" is widely understood to mean "granting women similar rights to men’s”, it is inherently difficult to see, understand, and deal with women's unique needs within the discourse of equality.

Politically, these conceptual difficulties are coupled, in Israel, with the discriminatory, overtly patriarchal positions espoused by the Jewish religious and haredi parties, who bluntly reject the notion of women's equality and their entitlement to fully equal rights.  Any discussion of women’s equality is perceived by these circles as challenging the Halakhah and the accepted divine world order, therefore an outright provocation threatening the fragile Israeli “status-quo” (between orthodox and non-orthodox Jews).  In the Israeli reality, thus, very real political interests and power back up the conceptual difficulty inherent in the notion of equality.

The employment of “human dignity” and “women's dignity” may contribute to the elevation of Israeli women’s status and rights where “equality” talk has reached a dead end. Universal protection of dignity may call attention to basic "human" problems suffered by many women, such as poverty, violence and abuse. Additionally, approaching women's lives from the perspective of their dignity as human beings may promote better understanding of their essential and unique hardships and needs. For example, the grave damage caused by sexual violence - as well as by insensitive treatment by law-enforcing agencies - may be more readily explained and understood in the context of human dignity than in the conceptual framework base on equality.  Moreover and very significantly, the conceptualisation of women’s issues in human dignity rhetoric minimises the political controversy, since, unlike equality, human dignity is considered a consensual value in Israeli politics, accepted and respected by religious and haredi Knesset members.

Women's Dignity

It is self-evident why, in the context of universal defense of human dignity, women must be protected against hunger, torture and abuse.  The application of human dignity to accommodate treatment of women’s unique conditions requires imaginative and innovative conceptualisation of a derivative concept, "women's dignity".  

Women, as a group, have suffered throughout history from unique forms of repression and humiliation under patriarchy and male domination.  Women have been defined from an androcentric perspective and forced to internalise and embrace these definitions.  They have been systematically perceived and constructed as inferior to men, irrational, and incapable of governing their own lives or participating in public life.  They have been taught to obey, serve and fulfil secondary roles within domestic, professional and social settings.  Their abilities have been trivialised; the tasks assigned to them (particularly domestic tasks) have been marginalised, deemed unprofessional and unworthy of recognition or recompense.  Their experiences have been excluded from public discourse, determination of collective goals and allocation of resources.  They have been precluded from participating in cultural or political endeavours.  They have been defined as "belonging" to male relatives, mostly fathers, brothers or husbands, and have not been recognised as autonomous and responsible for their own fate.  In other words, patriarchal society has denied them all sources of power and self-esteem it has granted men, relegating them to the sidelines. 

As feminist scholarship has been convincingly showing for decades, patriarchal conceptualisation and treatment of female sexuality is a central site of women’s repression, discrimination and humiliation.  Perceived by men as objects of sexual desire, women have been viewed and treated as sexual beings and sex objects for the use of men.  From a male perspective, sexuality has been defined women’s central feature, portraying women as "temptation", "stumbling-blocks", and beings whose very presence elicits sexual responses - among men, that is.  Women are of course no more or less sexual than men, and men arouse (or fail to arouse) sexual responses (in women) just as women arouse (or fail to arouse) such responses in men.  But since men seized the exclusive prerogative of defining women  - as well as themselves - from an entirely male perspective, it is little wonder that they defined themselves as possessing a wide variety of multidimensional characteristics, while defining women as first and foremost sexual.  

Moreover, since women’s sexuality was perceived by men as incomprehensible, uncontrollable, and even threatening, it was deemed dangerous, negative and requiring male control.  Natural phenomena associated with female sexuality, such as menstruation, were defined as "impure", and viewed as "disgusting", and many aspects of women’s lives were perceived as sexual - and thus negative and in need of supervision.  Women's hair, for example, was seen in many cultures as sexual (apparently because men found it sexually attractive), and women in those cultures were therefore required to cover it, or even remove it entirely.  Similarly, women's voices were perceived as being sexual, and were therefore restricted in public and sometimes altogether.  Various parts of the female body were defined as "seductive", and women were required to conceal them, thus restricting their movement and forcing them to hide from the public eye.  The male leg for example, was considered a limb used for walking, while the female leg was considered an object of desire.  A woman who did not cover her leg in accordance with accepted cultural practices was thus seen as sexually "provocative", "asking" for men’s sexual attention, "cheap", and even "to blame" if men responded sexually and assaulted her.  It is no wonder, therefore, that women in patriarchal societies have learned to view their sexuality as a source of weakness and shame (while men have learned to treat their own sexuality as a source of power and pride).

Just as the treatment of a Jew in a manner echoing anti-Semitism may be humiliating and an affront to her/his human dignity, the treating of a woman in a manner echoing patriarchal sexism and misogyny may humiliate her and constitute an affront to her human dignity, that is to her woman's dignity.  In other words, women's dignity - human dignity unique to women - requires that women not be treated in a manner that links them to their inferior status within patriarchal ideology.  More specifically, treating a woman as a sex object, or as a being of secondary importance, who is irrational, incapable of conducting her own affairs and unable to fully participate in any professional or social activities, could be a violation of her woman's dignity. Human dignity, which includes women's dignity, requires, therefore, that women not be treated in this fashion.  

Women's Dignity (kavod) in Jewish Culture

Attempting to define the concept of "women's dignity" in an Israeli context, a reasonable starting point would be Jewish tradition and cultural heritage.  Indeed, this rich cultural repository provides such lovely aphorisms as "a man should always be mindful of his wife's dignity (Bava Metzia 59a), and "a man should love his wife as himself, and dignify her more than himself" (Yevamot 62b).  Alongside these pretty sayings, however, one can also find in halakhic literature, a profound and systematic association of "women's dignity (kavod)" with the most repressive aspects of patriarchal culture.  "Women's dignity (kavod)" is perceived as inexorably linked to a woman's duty to serve her husband, lord and master, and to her "modesty" - a term that expresses and perpetuates deep discrimination against women in Jewish patriarchal culture.     

The explicit association of "women's dignity (kavod)" and "modesty" in traditional Jewish literature, as well as the barring of women from public life, is rooted primarily in tremendously popular homilies on the verse "The king's daughter is all dignified/glorious within" (Ps. 45:14). The association of woman’s dignity with her obligation to be modest appears explicitly in traditional literature, and is presented as follows:  "A woman is obligated to be extremely modest, to keep all of her dignity (kavod) within, and to conceal herself from every man in the world, in everything possible"; "Modesty requires that a woman be modest in her home, and not go out except when necessary, and therein lies her dignity, as it is written: 'the king's daughter is all dignified within'.  And even when she is at home, she must also conduct herself with modesty, to be fully clothed, that even her hair may not be uncovered, and even in her own room, because the more she conceals herself in the ways of modesty, the more righteous and upright her sons will be."

This approach is closely connected to the belief that a woman who steps outside the home is liable to sin and cause others to sin due to her unbridled sexuality and frivolousness ("every woman who goes out in public is destined to sin" - Midrash Rabbah, Gen. 8,12).  By the very fact of her dangerous sexual presence, she will cause men to look at her and lust after her: "A woman must sit at home and refrain from going out into the street, lest she sin herself and cause others to sin, for they will be looking at a married woman" (Midrash Tanhumah, Vayishlah 5).  A woman's modesty, her own good and the public (male) good require therefore, that a woman remain at home, far from the public arena.  "A woman should always try to be modest […] and not step beyond the threshold of her home except in cases of great need, for a woman who goes out of doors sins and causes others to sin" (Reishit Hokhmah, Sect. 4, Ch. Derekh Eretz); "Rabbi Yose said that a woman who conceals herself within the home is worthy of marrying the high priest and having sons who will be high priests, as it is written: 'the king's daughter [is all dignified within]'" (Midrash Tanhumah, Vayishlah 6).

A woman's dignity is thus inexorably linked to her modesty, which requires that she "conceal herself from every man in the world, in everything possible".  Maimonides, the greatest medieval halakhic authority, put it particularly well: "It is a disgrace for a woman to go out all the time, abroad or in the streets, and husbands must prevent their wives from so doing, and should not allow them to go out but once or twice a month, as needed, for there is nothing more becoming a woman than to sit in the corner of her house, as it is written: 'The king's daughter is all dignified within" (Hilkh. Ishut 13,11.  This halakhah also appears in Arba'ah Turim , Even Ha'ezer 73).  

The "dignity" of the “modest” woman who remains at home is explicitly associated with her matrimonial role and duty toward her husband and his family.  Rabbis have always stressed women’s duty to serve their husbands in the home: "A woman is indentured to her husband to be in his home"; "A woman must be by her husband's side, since this is the essence of marriage" (Igrot Moshe, Orah Hayim 158). In his summary of Maimonides' position on the linkage of these matrimonial duties with women’s dignity, Meir Shoresh writes: 

There is no unequivocal and total halakhic requirement here that a woman remain at home, but rather a directive in the spirit of the biblical verse, whereby a married woman should remain at home and perform her duties there, and in so doing, she will have the same level of dignity as that of a king's daughter.  If she does not fulfil her duty-dignity, it is a disgrace for her.  

A woman's duty toward her husband and his family is thus to be at home at all times, in order to serve them; this duty constitutes her "dignity".  A woman's "dignity" therefore lies in her duty to be at home in the service of her husband and his family.

A woman who does not remain at home does not merely lose her dignity and respectability; the Rabbis openly blame her for any evil that may befall her outdoors.  Thus for example, they blame Dinah, Jacob’s and Leah’s daughter, who did not remain at home, but ventured outside and behaved in an undignified manner, for having caused Shekhem to rape her.  Midrash Tanhumah explains: 

The Torah alludes to this matter - that a woman should not venture out too much - as it is written: 'And God blessed them [and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,] and subdue it …' (Gen 1:28).  'And subdue it' (vekhivshuha) is written like 'And subdue her' (vekhivshah - without the letter vav) - a man subdues a woman, but a woman does not subdue a man.  If, however, a woman goes about in public excessively, she will come to sin and harlotry.  Such was the case of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob.  As long as she remained at home, she did not come to sin, but once she ventured outside, she caused herself to come to sin (Tanhuma, Vayishlah 12).  

The Rabbis have no qualms about blaming Dinah's mother, Leah, as well: "Since it is written that Leah went out to meet Jacob (Gen 30:16), her daughter was also wont to go out and a harlot, who brought her rape by Shekhem upon herself."  

Moreover, women's dignity is derivative of "public dignity", that is the dignity of men.  The connection is as follows: the very presence of a woman - just like the sight of her uncovered hair, the sound of her speaking aloud, singing, or chanting the Torah - is perceived in many sources as violations of public dignity, male dignity.  (The best-known statement to this effect can be found in the Talmud, Megilah 23a: "The Rabbis said: 'A woman may not chant the Torah, for reasons of public dignity".)  "Public dignity" therefore requires that women be excluded from public life.  A woman "dignifies" society by her absence from the public arena, conceals herself at home and is thus herself dignified.  In other words, a woman's dignity depends upon and derives from the respect she shows for (male dominated) society by staying away from public domain.

For centuries, countless sages and scholars (all of them men - including the contemporary, academic Meir Shoresh) addressed questions such as the following: Since a woman is not allowed to leave the house, is her husband required to support her financially when she has killed someone by accident and is forced to seek asylum?  Is a woman permitted or obligated to leave the house for the sake of fulfilling a religious duty, or in the case of a religiously mandated war? (Many believe that she may not go out even to return a lost item or to attend legal proceedings in which she is involved.)  For many centuries, there was a general consensus that a woman's "dignity", "duties" and "modesty" precluded her leaving the house altogether (except perhaps in cases of dire necessity). 
 
In significant parts of traditional Jewish culture, women's dignity is thus not a basic, human, liberal right. Rather, it is, a socio-religious status that expresses and imposes upon women obligations of "modesty" and matrimonial service that bar them from public life and lock them up at home, silencing and subjecting them to their husbands’ authority.  This type of "women's dignity" compels women to assume patriarchal female roles and images, denying them the right to self-determination.  This type of "women's dignity" presumes, expresses and perpetuates humiliating stereotypical images of women's bodies, sexuality, personal abilities and place in the world.  This type of "women's dignity" confines women out of consideration for the male community, apparently incapable of tolerating female presence.  This type of "women's dignity" is a restrictive and repressive concept.

In seeking content for "women's dignity", suitable to Israeli society and law, these traditional sources cannot provide inspiration.  Furthermore, we must beware of the influence repressive patriarchal views might exert - through language - on the contemporary, emerging notion of "women's dignity". To undercut the negative impact of rabbinical interpretation of the verse "The king's daughter is all dignified within", and in hope to free this idiom from the confines of patriarchal culture, I propose a new, alternative interpretation.  A fitting meaning of "The king's daughter is all dignified within" is that only the king's daughter herself - not the king, nor any who would curtail and imprison her in a corner of her house - can and may define her own "dignity".  This self-determination of the king's daughter will come from "within", and will not be rooted in any extraneous concepts of "public (male) dignity", or images of a king's daughter as conceived through the eyes of men who look at her but see only their own desires, fears and needs.  The dignity (and glory) of a queen's daughter is indeed found in her inner self, her experiences, self-perception, desires, fears and the ambition to achieve self-fulfilment.  The queen's daughter, the queen and all of their women subjects must set aside extraneous, restrictive and repressive images, and define themselves and their dignity from within.

This reading of the biblical verse expresses the two basic principles that constitute the framework for a contemporary approach to human dignity: the liberal principle, as established by John Stuart Mill, which defines each individual as autonomous, free and entitled to self-determination, and the Kantian categorical imperative, which requires that every person be treated as an end to her/himself and never only as a means to an end.

Israeli law must facilitate and support women's efforts in seeking self-determination, defining women's dignity, and establishing social values worthy of recognition and protection.  The legal system must actively participate in this undertaking, and integrate its results into the normative framework of Israeli society.

Sexual Harassment as a Violation of Women's Dignity in Israeli Law

I would like to conclude on an optimistic note, with an example of how Israeli law may imbue the concept of "women's dignity" with positive content and look to it to derive women’s rights.  To do so, I briefly present the position taken by Israeli law on the issue of sexual harassment.

The term "sexual harassment" was popularised in the United States in the 1970s. The narrowest and most basic definition of sexual harassment refers to the unwelcome treatment of a person, usually a woman, as a sex object. (A wider variety of chauvinistic and sexist behaviour is commonly defined as sexual harassment today.  For reasons of economy, I have chosen to mention only this basic definition.) This type of harassment involves unwelcome behaviour relating to a woman's sexuality, which forces her to perceive herself as sexual when she would rather not do so.  Consequently, the woman feels invaded and violated, and experiences a sense of weakness, shame and/or apprehension.  Sexual harassment denies a woman the right to define herself as she sees fit, as any autonomous rational human being is entitled to; it associates her, against her will, with patriarchal stereotypes of women as sexual in every context and always available for the sexual use of men.  

A woman's sexuality can and should be a source of pleasure, power and self-fulfilment for her.  Every woman is entitled, of course, to realise her sexuality in any way she sees fit (as long as she does not harm others).  A welcome sexual approach of a woman is clearly positive and desirable. But relating to a woman as a sexual being when she is not interested in such approach, assigns her a certain, familiar place within the context of the patriarchal world view, relegating her to a secondary, inferior, subservient and unequal role.  Relating to a woman as a sexual being when she is not interested in such approach, may be humiliating to her, just as racist behaviour toward an African American or anti-Semitic behaviour toward a Jew may be humiliating to them. Sexual harassment, therefore, undermines a woman's self-confidence, damages her faith in herself, restricts her ability to choose her own self-image, and decreases her chances of integrating into society as a full human being, endowed with equal rights and opportunities.  Sexual harassment thus violates women's dignity.

On March 8th 1998 (International Women's Day) the Knesset approved Israel’s new sexual harassment law.  The first article of the law states that its goal is "to prohibit sexual harassment, in order to safeguard human dignity, liberty and privacy, and in order to promote equality between the sexes". The explanation notes accompanying the law pronounce its chosen perspective and social goals, stating inter alia, the following:

In the State of Israel, as in other parts of the world, sexual harassment is a common social phenomenon that harms many people, especially women.  Sexual harassment constitutes a violation of human dignity, liberty, privacy and the right to equality. It adversely affects the self-respect and social standing of the harassed.  It degrades her/his humanity, inter alia by treating her/him as a sex object for the harasser's use.  Sexual harassment denies the harassed person autonomy and control over her/his body, sexuality and right to self-determination; it invades her/his privacy, and discriminates against her/him.  Sexual harassment of women humiliates them with regard to their sex or sexuality and impedes their integration as equals in the workplace and other areas of life, thus compromising their equality.

The new law thus adopts the perception of sexual harassment as a violation of human dignity in general and women's dignity in particular, legally condoning and sanctioning it. By law, each of the following types of conduct is now defined as sexual harassment, therefore as illegal violation of human dignity and women's dignity: sexual blackmail, assault, repeated unwelcome sexual propositions, repeated unwelcome references to a person's sexuality, humiliation or degradation of a person based on her/his sex, gender or sexuality, including sexual orientation.
 
Israel’s new sexual harassment law constitutes an important breakthrough in defense of human dignity in general and women's dignity in particular.  It is the first systematic attempt by Israeli law to define "women's dignity", types of conduct that might violate it, and legal means of protecting it.  In its pursue of these goals, the law adopts a woman-centered perspective of women's lives, affording women self-determination and control.  Let us hope that such legislation will engender serious public discourse as well as helpful judicial decisions regarding women's dignity in Israel, and that it will be a sign of further legal developments.  Many additional legal issues require re-evaluation in light of the developing notion of women's dignity (and liberty).  Foremost among these are family-law issues, such as denial of divorce, ineligibility to marry, levirate marriage, surrogacy and the entire issue of marriage and divorce, as well as other women-related issues, including pornography, prostitution and abortion.  Time is pressing and work is plentiful, as the Jewish saying goes.