Posted to Jewish News on

Mayim Bialik Apologizes for Modesty Comments

Following severe backlash, Orthodox-Jewish actress Mayim Bialik has apologized for her New York Times op-ed suggesting that dressing and acting modestly is protection against assault and harassment from predatory men.

From the JTA:

In the op-ed Friday, written in response to allegations of sexual assault against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, the observant Jewish actress said she has long made decisions that she considers “self-protecting and wise.”

“I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with,” Bialik wrote. “I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”

Social media users said that Bialik was insinuating she had not been sexually harassed or assaulted due to her choices and that she was contributing to victim blaming.

Click here to continue reading at the JTA.


  • 1. jdf007 wrote:

    She should’ve never apologized, I thought it was a well written piece. When I was more secular and going to public universities, I thought it was off-putting watching old-men hug their female interns as a standard greeting. Not mentioning even more vulgar things too.

  • 2. Berel wrote:

    she committed thought crime
    the emperor has clothes
    as long as nobody says he doesn’t
    we will remember you comrade

  • 3. BHM wrote:

    Regardless of one’s position on this, such is the power of the radical left that an “apology” is required for a thoughtful and well-written op-ed piece expressing a very reasonable opinion. Of course, I’m forgetting … freedom of speech is only available to those who agree with the liberal left. Ms. Bialik is a credit to both her gender and religion and a wonderful role-model. We can only look forward to the day when reasonable people are no longer held hostage by extremists.

  • 4. CHT wrote:

    The thing is she never ever implied anything she was accused off. It is ridiculous, what is the need to apologize.

  • 5. #me too wrote:

    I think she’s the most rational one speaking. Growing up in the secular society it was a given if you were a student, model, actress, secretary, waitress, patient, stewardess, etc etc etc that you were open territory.
    #me too
    Yes it’s such a chilul Hashem with Weinstein
    Just look at how “out there” these actresses are. Look at the role models for girls these days. Horrible

  • 6. Milhouse wrote:

    “What you wear and how you behave does not provide any protection from assault,” Bialik wrote, “nor does the way you dress or act in any way make you responsible for being assaulted.”

    Ridiculous. This is such obvious nonsense. Nobody actually believes it, they only pretend to. Every sane person understands that while no defence is 100% effective, there is a lot a woman can do to prevent such things from happening to her, and if she chooses not to take these measures then she is taking a risk. That may be a valid choice for her, but it is what it is, and the elevated risk won’t go away just because one pretends it isn’t there.

    • 7. 770 wrote:

      You should feel honored- in a sea full of ridiculous, ham handed comments, yours seems to rise to the top.

    • 8. You are so wrong wrote:

      Did you read about the thug who slipped into an 89 year old woman’s home a few days ago & demanded money? She didn’t have, so she offered him a hot meal. Instead of eating her food he raped her.

      Do you think she brought it on herself? An 89 year old poor woman was “begging for it”, & got what she deserved? Rape is an act of rage & power. Get in touch with JCW or any social worker and find out for yourself.

      And just FTR… “770” was too easy on you. You are an idiot.

    • 10. Milhouse wrote:

      The claim that rape is not a crime of sex but of “rage and power” is an obvious BLATANT LIE. If it were true, 89-year-old women would be at the same risk as 19-year-old ones, and that is obviously not the case. It is very rare for old women to be raped, and the reason for this is simple and obvious: because very few rapists find them attractive. Once in a while an old lady has the misfortune to come across one of the very few rapists whose tastes run that way; that is all.

  • 11. So Sad wrote:

    She did and said nothing wrong.
    She should never have apologized
    Now it sound like Tznius isn’t so important, that it doesn’t protect yada yada.
    I hope she retracts her apology and explains why she said what she did in her first article

    • 12. SERIOUSLY??? wrote:

      Being Tzanua will protect you?

      No it doesn’t. It may get a woman treated with more respect by real gentlemen, but the Harvey Weinsteins don’t care about modesty.

      I agree, she had no need to apologize, but modesty is sadly, no guarantee against sexual assault. Explain how nuns are raped.

  • 14. Great Dane - agree with #1 wrote:

    When a person dresses provocatively and doesn’t practice yichud, and walks into Hollywood, it’s no surprise that abusers will take advantage. This doesn’t excuse the abuser in any way and every abuser should be fully prosecuted and punished for his/her crime. But it doesn’t make sense to walk into the “lion’s den” dressed like that…

  • 15. Rebecca wrote:

    true anyone can be assaulted at any time but would u walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood with $$$ hanging out of your pocket? why not? we must each be sensible

  • 16. Moishe pipek wrote:

    The right thing to do .Weinstein acted like a crimminal and Jewish dress code is no excusefor himj

  • 17. shlomo wrote:

    so lame..
    btw, “Orthodox-Jewish actress” how this 3 words going together? m.b some people should stop they delusions?

    • 18. Milhouse wrote:

      Why would these words not go together? She’s not the first or the only frum actor.

  • 20. shlomo wrote:

    to #13
    I asked about orthodox you answered about frum))))
    why ? just to feel that CHinfo your private place?

  • 22. two different things wrote:

    compare to a helmet. a helmet will protect you from injury, but not wearing a helmet doesnt mean youll get injured. same here. wearing modest clothes does protect but just because someone doesn doesnt mean theyre gonna be attacked.

  • 23. Woman wrote:

    It seems the majority, if not all, these comments are from men. They must be, because they are so out of touch with reality.

  • 24. shlomo wrote:

    to #18
    THE real victimS, in this case, is Weinstein and actresses who do not sleep with producers and in consequence of not GET roles.

  • 25. shlomo wrote:

    21. Milhouse ))) sure? m.b you need to ask someone else)))
    p.s you comments more than 50% of the general amount. why?


Comments are closed.