Women wearing Kippas

[JTFenthusiast2]

Everytime, I go home to NYC, I am treated to the sight of women in Kipas.  What is going on with this trend?  It used to be only women who were visibly butch and clearly taking on the male role in the lesbian subculture.  They would often be wearing tzit tzit as well.  I am uncomfortable when I see this, but hey, it's their life.

However, the last time I was in the city, I went to Bnai Jeshrun where I have the extreme displeasure of watching the female rabbi at the Bima, feminine and all, decked out with a kipa.  What the h**l is going on?  Later in the week, I saw a similarly attractive heterosexual appearing woman on the subway, also with a kipa.

I know I can't be the only one turned off by this.  I mean if a man went to synagogue with a schmata on his head and earrings, we would all look at him like he was a freak.  Why are we encouraging young women to take on the role of Jewish men?


Any thoughts or insights into this strange behavior?

[The One and Only Mo]

Everytime, I go home to NYC, I am treated to the sight of women in Kipas.  What is going on with this trend?  It used to be only women who were visibly butch and clearly taking on the male role in the lesbian subculture.  They would often be wearing tzit tzit as well.  I am uncomfortable when I see this, but hey, it's their life.

However, the last time I was in the city, I went to Bnai Jeshrun where I have the extreme displeasure of watching the female rabbi at the Bima, feminine and all, decked out with a kipa.  What the h**l is going on?  Later in the week, I saw a similarly attractive heterosexual appearing woman on the subway, also with a kipa.

I know I can't be the only one turned off by this.  I mean if a man went to synagogue with a schmata on his head and earrings, we would all look at him like he was a freak.  Why are we encouraging young women to take on the role of Jewish men?


Any thoughts or insights into this strange behavior?

Bro, they are just confused. Get over it, lol....it's rampant

[New Yorker]

Everytime, I go home to NYC, I am treated to the sight of women in Kipas.  What is going on with this trend?  It used to be only women who were visibly butch and clearly taking on the male role in the lesbian subculture.  They would often be wearing tzit tzit as well.  I am uncomfortable when I see this, but hey, it's their life.

However, the last time I was in the city, I went to Bnai Jeshrun where I have the extreme displeasure of watching the female rabbi at the Bima, feminine and all, decked out with a kipa.  What the h**l is going on?  Later in the week, I saw a similarly attractive heterosexual appearing woman on the subway, also with a kipa.

I know I can't be the only one turned off by this.  I mean if a man went to synagogue with a schmata on his head and earrings, we would all look at him like he was a freak.  Why are we encouraging young women to take on the role of Jewish men?


Any thoughts or insights into this strange behavior?

Seems they have no clue about Judaism, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this and making fools of themselves. They don't have friends and family to set them straight? Probably not, probably as screwed up as they are.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

This is clearly something out of whack in the reform system.  The women are trying to be men, rather than trying to be sincere Jews that do the will of God.

Even if I was still a non-observant/reform Jew like before I became a baal teshuvah, I would be revolted by the sight of a woman in a kipa.  It's like a man wearing a dress.  Or a woman wearing a men's suit and tie.  Comedy of the absurd!

[muman613]

Yes, they are halachically wrong for trying to dress like men... I try to tell them that they are violating the mitzvah which says that men and women should not wear the same clothing.

[JTFenthusiast2]

No Mo, they are not confused, they see it as completely normal!

I am less bothered by women in man tailored suits because at least that's fashion, like you see in say....Diane Keaton.  But this kipa wearing thing is not fashion, it's something else

Muman when you educate them regarding the Halachka of this, what do they say?

As for a man wearing a dress sachaying into services, is they any doubt that we would look at him like he was aberrant, but not in this case.  This is presented as if it's shomer shabbos (?)

[muman613]

No Mo, they are not confused, they see it as completely normal!

I am less bothered by women in man tailored suits because at least that's fashion, like you see in say....Diane Keaton.  But this kipa wearing thing is not fashion, it's something else

Muman when you educate them regarding the Halachka of this, what do they say?

As for a man wearing a dress sachaying into services, is they any doubt that we would look at him like he was aberrant, but not in this case.  This is presented as if it's shomer shabbos (?)

I am not saying that anyone I spoke to took my rebuke and changed their outlook. But at my liberal/progressive shul the women will wear tallis and kippah and I will tell them that Torah commands that women not wear mens clothing, and vice versa.

Women have a special place in Jewish tradition and they should not attempt to do everything that the man does. Men and women are intended to be different and we have special aspects which are different. I do not try to be a woman and women should not attempt to be a man. I just don't know why some people think that they can be everything. We should be happy with who we are.

[Rubystars]

I think it's weird. Why would they want to wear men's clothing?

[The One and Only Mo]

No Mo, they are not confused, they see it as completely normal!

I am less bothered by women in man tailored suits because at least that's fashion, like you see in say....Diane Keaton.  But this kipa wearing thing is not fashion, it's something else

Muman when you educate them regarding the Halachka of this, what do they say?

As for a man wearing a dress sachaying into services, is they any doubt that we would look at him like he was aberrant, but not in this case.  This is presented as if it's shomer shabbos (?)

I didn't mean confused, I meant tinok shenishba

[Dr. Dan]

First off that bnai jeshurun on the upper west side is reconstuctionist temple. I will give them kudos for their ruakh and encouraging people to have fun at a temple, but really not the proper venue.

Secondly, the non orthodox movement believe in the feminist movement. So women feel entitled to be rabbis and be condlsidered as men in a minyan. They wear kippas and tzit tzit and some even wear tfillin!!!

I can admire the desire for Jewish woman to embrace judaism however this is the wrong and backward way of doing. Its like singing aitz chaim he while taking the Torah out of the ark instead of closing it.

[muman613]

What these women are doing is not Jewish it is something which was made up by the feminist movement. When a woman wears a tallit, or dons tefillin, they are NOT doing a mitzvah, they are doing an aveirah. Women are never commanded to wear TzitTzits. The commandment only applies to men, same with tefillin... When a woman wears these items they may be doing something to look pious but since they are not commanded to do so, they receive no merit {Zachoos}.

The Talmud teaches that a person who does something which he is commanded to do by Torah he receives merit.. A person who does a nice deed who is not commanded to do so receives no merit...

So they are not doing it for the merit, they are doing it for looks. And this violates the mitzvah of Modesty/tzniut...

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/women.htm

The Role of Women in the Synagogue

To understand the limited role of women in synagogue life, it is important to understand the nature of commandments in Judaism and the separation of men and women.

Judaism recognizes that it is mankind's nature to rebel against authority; thus, one who does something because he is commanded to is regarded with greater merit than one who does something because he chooses to. The person who refrains from pork because it is a commandment has more merit than the person who refrains from pork because he does not like the taste.  In addition, the commandments, burdens, and obligations that were given to the Jewish people are regarded as a privilege, and the more commandments one is obliged to observe, the more privileged one is.

Because women are not obligated to perform certain commandments, their observance of those commandments does not "count" for group purposes.  While a woman must pray the silent standing prayer just as a man does, she need not pray the full prayer service of the synagoue that a man prays.  Thus, a woman's voluntary attendance at daily worship services does not count toward a minyan (the 10 people necessary to recite certain prayers), a woman's voluntary recitation of certain prayers does not count on behalf of the group (thus women cannot lead services), and a woman's voluntary reading from the Torah does not count towards the community's obligation to read from the Torah.

In addition, because women are not obligated to perform as many commandments as men are, women are regarded as less privileged.  It is in this light that one must understand the man's blessing thanking G-d for "not making me a woman".  The prayer does not indicate that it is bad to be a woman, but only that men feel fortunate to be privileged to have more obligations.

http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5765/tzav.html

SHABBOS DAY:

G-d told Moshe, "Command Aharon and his sons regarding the law of a Burnt- Offering." (Vayikra 6:1-2)

A commandment works exactly the same way. It creates a choice. Thus, the Talmud makes the following declaration:

Greater is one who is commanded and does than one who is not commanded and does. (Kiddushin 31a)

Greater in which respect? Normally people would assume just the opposite: if we really care about something we don't have to be told to do it. And that is exactly the point. Anyone can do that which he cares about, even if it is for the sake of someone else. However, the true test of any relationship is when I make myself do something that I do not care about for the sake of someone else for whom it is important.

Commandments are the best vehicles of birrur, forcing us to decide where we stand in the service of G-d. Do we believe in G-d, or don't we? If we believe in G-d, do we believe in His Torah, or not? And, if we believe in His Torah, that it came from Him at Mt. Sinai, do we perform the mitzvos? And, if we perform His mitzvos, do we do so scrupulously? And if yes, do we put our mind into them as well?

In a sense, the Torah is one very sophisticated sorter. Like a school test, it is designed to force people to reveal what they know or don't know, to reveal how they react to one thing or another. This is what the prophet alluded to when he said:

Who is wise and will understand these things; understanding and will know them? For the ways of G-d are straight; the righteous walk in them and sinners stumble in them. (Hoshea 14:10)

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

No Mo, they are not confused, they see it as completely normal!

I am less bothered by women in man tailored suits because at least that's fashion, like you see in say....Diane Keaton. 

But when women wear "suits" they're not cut like men's suits, so it's made into a woman-type garment and sometimes with a skirt rather than pants.   I was referring specifically to a man's suit tailored to a man but worn by a woman and wearing a tie, which you would never see a woman doing.  But yes I agree, kipa is also not fashion.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

First off that bnai jeshurun on the upper west side is reconstuctionist temple. I will give them kudos for their ruakh and encouraging people to have fun at a temple, but really not the proper venue.

Secondly, the non orthodox movement believe in the feminist movement. So women feel entitled to be rabbis and be condlsidered as men in a minyan. They wear kippas and tzit tzit and some even wear tfillin!!!

I can admire the desire for Jewish woman to embrace judaism however this is the wrong and backward way of doing. Its like singing aitz chaim he while taking the Torah out of the ark instead of closing it.

Interesting.  In truth, if a woman is Shomer Shabbat and shomer all of the mitzvot that woman are obligated in (which I doubt those reform women who wear tzitzit are), there is a discussion of this issue and at least some of the baalei Tosaphot held that woman are permitted to wear tefillin, and halachically it is not a problem for the woman to don a tefillin by some authorities.   There is a Talmudic passage which speaks about a certain woman who wore them and the chachamim did not protest.   But that is different from a man's garment or a kippa, as tefillin is a mitzvah not a gender-specific "garment," and of course only if the woman actually does the things she is really obligated in can she add it as an extra, or else it is insincere.   But tefillin is not like it's a "man's garment."   A kippa is just saying "Women can be men too," and that is assur and silly by all accounts as far as I know.

[muman613]

First off that bnai jeshurun on the upper west side is reconstuctionist temple. I will give them kudos for their ruakh and encouraging people to have fun at a temple, but really not the proper venue.

Secondly, the non orthodox movement believe in the feminist movement. So women feel entitled to be rabbis and be condlsidered as men in a minyan. They wear kippas and tzit tzit and some even wear tfillin!!!

I can admire the desire for Jewish woman to embrace judaism however this is the wrong and backward way of doing. Its like singing aitz chaim he while taking the Torah out of the ark instead of closing it.

Interesting.  In truth, if a woman is Shomer Shabbat and shomer all of the mitzvot that woman are obligated in (which I doubt those reform women who wear tzitzit are), there is a discussion of this issue and at least some of the baalei Tosaphot held that woman are permitted to wear tefillin, and halachically it is not a problem for the woman to don a tefillin by some authorities.   There is a Talmudic passage which speaks about a certain woman who wore them and the chachamim did not protest.   But that is different from a man's garment or a kippa, as tefillin is a mitzvah not a gender-specific "garment," and of course only if the woman actually does the things she is really obligated in can she add it as an extra, or else it is insincere.   But tefillin is not like it's a "man's garment."   A kippa is just saying "Women can be men too," and that is assur and silly by all accounts as far as I know.

They are not obligated to don tefillin. As I posted above there is no merit in doing something if it is not commanded of them.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/149,2095969/Why-cant-women-wear-Tefillin.html

The Rabbi states that women may don tefillin but only if they are observing all required mitzvot.

She already fulfils all her Divine Duties and wishes to take on this auxiliary commandment as well:

Problem: Fantastic! She may put on Tefillin. First she must study the laws of Tefillin, which have very strict requirements: constant focus on the Tefillin; perfectly clean body; entirely pure mind etc. Upon studying these laws and meeting these requirements she may certainly put on Tefillin.

Now you may ask: "are you telling me that all men who wear Tefillin live up to all the above conditions?"

The answer is: No! As a matter of fact most men don't live up to half of those conditions. However, men have an "obligation" to don Tefillin.

When you are given a daunting task by someone who knows you won't be able to do it perfectly, you must nonetheless do it. However, if you were not asked to take on a daunting task, you must make certain that you are completely capable before undertaking this responsibility.

In other words, this doesn't mean that men are more capable than women. This says that men are commanded to do so, and by virtue of the commandment, capability is rendered irrelevant. Women, however, are not obligated to put on Tefillin, capability suddenly becomes a major issue.

Parenthetically, the Arizal states that women DO put on Tefillin. What does he mean?

Well, does a man put on Tefillin or does his hand put on Tefillin? Technically it is his hand that is donning the Tefillin, but of course it is he, in his entirety, that is fulfilling the Mitzvah. Take that a step further: man and woman are two halves of one soul; two components of a single entity. Thus when a masculine left hand wears Tefillin, the Mitzvah is being fulfilled on behalf of one complete Jew = man and woman.

[Zelhar]

So they wear just a kipa ? what about tzitzit ? what about a beard ? Is a woman rabbi allowed to pluck her facial hair ?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

They are not obligated to don tefillin.

Please read carefully.  I did not say they were obligated.   No one argues that.

But the tosephoth on the gemara where the chachamim did not protest, they say a woman can wear them!  (and that's quite obviously the pshat of the gemara or at least the most obvious one)...  Hence the famous legend (not sure if it's true, but it's almost universally known) of Rashi's daughters wearing tefillin.

As I posted above there is no merit in doing something if it is not commanded of them.

Less merit does not mean "no merit."   There is more merit to do something one is commanded to do, than there is for doing something one is not commanded to do.  But that is a matter of degree.  That doesn't mean doing something when not obligated has no merit?   Who says such a thing?

[Dr. Dan]

Well written. A message to be sent jewish women who go to the conservative temples, but mean well and try to be spiritual. But that's only for tfillin

[muman613]

They are not obligated to don tefillin.

Please read carefully.  I did not say they were obligated.   No one argues that.

But the tosephoth on the gemara where the chachamim did not protest, they say a woman can wear them!  (and that's quite obviously the pshat of the gemara or at least the most obvious one)...  Hence the famous legend (not sure if it's true, but it's almost universally known) of Rashi's daughters wearing tefillin.

As I posted above there is no merit in doing something if it is not commanded of them.

Less merit does not mean "no merit."   There is more merit to do something one is commanded to do, than there is for doing something one is not commanded to do.  But that is a matter of degree.  That doesn't mean doing something when not obligated has no merit?   Who says such a thing?

Here is a discussion on the topic of Women studying Torah which is, in a way, analogous to wearing tefillin, etc.

I will post the beginning of the article below:


http://www.nishma.org/articles/update/updatesept92-wij.htm

Women and Judaism: The Question of Learning
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, North York, Ontario

Of all the issues that must be investigated within the realm of women and Judaism, the one that I believe is most significant concerns the question of learning. okuf sdbf vruw sunkw, the study of Torah is equal to all (Mishna Peah 1:1), yet women are excluded from this command (T.B. Kiddushin 29b). How we understand this exclusion must present important insight, not only into the role of women within Judaism, but also into the very nature of the mitzvah of talmud Torah.

The investigation could begin with the simple question: why are women not commanded to learn Torah? The issue is, however, further complicated because women are not just excluded from the command but, at least on the surface, seem to be instructed not to study Torah. See, as the primary source, Mishna Sotah 3:4, and, as a most definitive and powerful statement in this regard, Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:13. Unlike a mitzvah such as lulav and etrog or listening to the shofar, where women can choose to act if they so wish, the Halacha seems to decry a necessary difference in behaviour, demanding men to learn and women to refrain. Unlike a command such as pru u'rvu, to have children, where the distinction between men and women in the command is mostly of theoretical interest (although of great importance to the entire subject of women and Torah), the distinction in studying Torah is of ultimate practical import affecting, obviously, no less than our very approach to Torah education. This powerful distinction in behaviour in what is considered the most important of mitzvot is most perplexing. The question is not only why women are excluded from the mitzvah but how could there even be a distinction in this command? The concern is not only what this law says about the Torah view of women but also what this law says about limud haTorah.

The very value of Torah study would seem to be challenged. How can half of the Jewish nation be excluded from the pursuit of Torah knowledge? To say that they can be, ultimately, is to declare that the information to be gained is not really necessary for the maintenance of a Torah life-style. To say that they cannot be, however, contests the statements that declare that women should not learn. How do these two apparently conflicting positions merge?

The answer must lie in an examination of the limiting statements and a determination of what they really are declaring in regard to women and Torah study. For specific approaches and answers one may wish to see such works as Rabbi Elinson's HaIsha v'HaMitzvot, chapter 13 or Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's Jewish Women in Jewish Law, chapter 7. In general terms, the commentators discern two poles. On one hand, women must be able to learn and must learn those matters which she must know to maintain her practice as a Jew. The limiting statements never applied to these areas of study. On the other hand, they do recognize that there must be a restriction of some nature which must be defined. The issue, however, is the extent of one pole in connection to the other. It is here that the commentators disagree and the complexity of this law continues.


I will look into this issue further and may ask my Rabbi about it this Shabbat.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Muman.  The ask moses site that you quoted actually agrees with me and supports my argument.   Look carefully at what sources he cites and what he doesn't cite.   He has many unsubstantiated statements that he adds to what is actually a citation of the halacha.

"She already fulfils all her Divine Duties and wishes to take on this auxiliary commandment as well:

Rabbi response: Fantastic! She may put on Tefillin."

His citation (interestingly he does not cite the actual gemara that is the source of halacha on this issue, but instead cites a legend that supports the same view of the gemara anyway, go figure):  2. It is said of Rashi's daughters that they put on Tefillin. Needless to say, they adhered to all the Mitzvot they were obligated to fulfill, such as Shabbat, Kosher, family purity, etc. See next section

Like I said above.



Let's examine this that he adds uncited:   "First she must study the laws of Tefillin,"
(well, you can't perform a mitzvah without knowing how to, so that is logical, but it can be achieved on a basic level in a very short time, especially with the help of a rabbi.  The amount of knowledge needed to don a pair of tefillin is very minimal.  The more knowledge the better and more meaningful it will be, but there is not that much to know, and that is why in kiruv one of the first things they teach people how to do is to don tefillin because it is a way to connect with Hashem each day.

"which have very strict requirements: constant focus on the Tefillin; perfectly clean body; entirely pure mind etc."    
Source?  perfectly clean ?  What does that term mean exactly?  Sounds like he is trying to add extra stipulations to make it difficult but it does not seem the gemara required extra stipulations than the basic requirements of everyone who wears tefillin for Michal the daughter of King Shaul.

"Upon studying these laws and meeting these requirements she may certainly put on Tefillin."  

So he again confirms that a woman can put on tefillin.  Obviously not an averah like you claimed or else the rabbi would not allow it.

The main point to stress here is that if a woman is lax on guarding the Shabbath, keeping the laws of family purity, kashruth, etc etc like reformim invariably are, they have no business adopting mitzvot they are not obligated in.   When the authorities spoke about this gemara (including the Rambam) and they mentioned that a woman (or child)  may take on mitzvoth she is not obligated in, they did not discuss a "heretic woman" or a woman who violates halacha regularly but chooses to do this instead.  They had in mind a righteous person that not only keeps the law but also wishes to go above and beyond.

[muman613]

Muman.  The ask moses site that you quoted actually agrees with me and supports my argument.   Look carefully at what sources he cites and what he doesn't cite.   He has many unsubstantiated statements that he adds to what is actually a citation of the halacha.

"She already fulfils all her Divine Duties and wishes to take on this auxiliary commandment as well:

Rabbi response: Fantastic! She may put on Tefillin."

His citation (interestingly he does not cite the actual gemara that is the source of halacha on this issue, but instead cites a legend that supports the same view of the gemara anyway, go figure):  2. It is said of Rashi's daughters that they put on Tefillin. Needless to say, they adhered to all the Mitzvot they were obligated to fulfill, such as Shabbat, Kosher, family purity, etc. See next section

Like I said above.



Let's examine this that he adds uncited:   "First she must study the laws of Tefillin,"
(well, you can't perform a mitzvah without knowing how to, so that is logical, but it can be achieved on a basic level in a very short time, especially with the help of a rabbi.  The amount of knowledge needed to don a pair of tefillin is very minimal.  The more knowledge the better and more meaningful it will be, but there is not that much to know, and that is why in kiruv one of the first things they teach people how to do is to don tefillin because it is a way to connect with Hashem each day.

"which have very strict requirements: constant focus on the Tefillin; perfectly clean body; entirely pure mind etc."    
Source?  perfectly clean ?  What does that term mean exactly?  Sounds like he is trying to add extra stipulations to make it difficult but it does not seem the gemara required extra stipulations than the basic requirements of everyone who wears tefillin for Michal the daughter of King Shaul.

"Upon studying these laws and meeting these requirements she may certainly put on Tefillin."  

So he again confirms that a woman can put on tefillin.  Obviously not an averah like you claimed or else the rabbi would not allow it.

I am not suggesting that the Rabbis have stated it is an aveirah, rather that according to my understanding as I posted above, that doing so in a Orthdox shul would violate the ideal of Tzniut because it would appear to be done in order to get attention. This is my own understanding and I am sorry if it was not clear from my previous postings that this was my interpretation.

The two ideas I bring are that women are not commanded to do things and thusly they are doing something which is not necessarily meritorious according to Torah. You argue about the relative merit of mitzvahs and this I cannot argue with because we do not know the value of a mitzvah. But given that a women who does something which she is not required to do, which is usually a very good thing {as we consider Chassidus to be going beyond the letter of the law}, it appears to me that she is not tzniut. Maybe in the future this will not be the case but in my generation it is provocative for a women to act like a man, and men are obliged to so many more mitzvot than women. I question what their intention is..

I agree that there are cases, as in the daughter of Rashi, that it is not objectionable for women to do this. But I would not say that she should daven amongst the men, nor be counted in the minyan. Obviously I encourage women to daven regularly {and in my minyan we have a mehitzah where the women can daven}. What a women does in her prayers and her devotion is her own personal relationship with Hashem, and I encourage everyone to engage in regular tefillah.

I am sorry if I implied any authority in stating it is an aveirah... It is an opinion of mine.

PS: I think the term perfectly clean refers to whether she obeys the commands concerning mikvah, ritual family purity laws.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Another fascinating subject, Muman.  The discussion of woman learning Torah.

Superficially, it would seem that the Modern Orthodoxy did away with this injunction while the Haredim kept it more in tact but limited it only somewhat.

In reality, both groups have really done away with this notion in my opinion (admittedly not an expert on this, but I have some knowledge here).  The reality is that in all of society, the woman's position has changed radically in recent times relative to how it was historically.  Rav Soloveitchik ZT"L determined that halachically you have to teach the Jewish girls Torah (and complex Torah, including Talmud!) nowadays because woman are more educated, and the Torah has to be taught to them on a deep level commensurate with their modern-day intellectual abilities/knowledge in other fields or else they will simply go off the derech (off the path of Torah) and pursue other matters where there are opportunities for intellectual growth for women nowadays.  So as a matter of "pikuah nefesh" of sorts, he allowed teaching women Talmud, since it will keep them on the path of Judaism.    

Some might argue the haredi chachamim were against such a radical position.  But whether outwardly against it or not, this same change took place in haredi society.   Consider the Beis Yakov education system.  The girls learn very complex things in those schools.  They learn Tanach on a very deep level.  They learn halacha.   Halacha is the outgrowth of the Talmud and to learn halacha the way it is taught in the haredi schools, they are certainly involved in the exacting type of discussions with pilpulim as come up in Talmud.  And there are some who on an individual basis learn gemara or at least it's mentioned here and there if not studied directly in the curriculum.   Certainly though, we are educating Jewish women on a high level no matter which branch of Orthodox Judaism you consider.

It may be that those ideas that women shouldn't learn Torah she baal peh were based on the fact that in those days women were uneducated and therefore there is no sense in teaching something they have no possible connection to or no way to understand.  Now that women are educated it's a different story.  I have heard this idea before and it sounds most reasonable to me.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I am not suggesting that the Rabbis have stated it is an aveirah, rather that according to my understanding as I posted above, that doing so in a Orthdox shul would violate the ideal of Tzniut because it would appear to be done in order to get attention.  

Ok that is something different.  You're right this could be a problem today because people are sensitive and very protective of what they perceive as "mesorah."   So if it is not a shul that is very open minded or with women regularly doing such things, this may cause a social problem and it might be wisest to do so in private rather than at the shul.  At the same time, I'm not sure if the gemara in eruvin was speaking about in private, I had thought it was in public, but I will have to look it up and find out.

The two ideas I bring are that women are not commanded to do things and thusly they are doing something which is not necessarily meritorious according to Torah. You argue about the relative merit of mitzvahs and this I cannot argue with because we do not know the value of a mitzvah. 

Well, not exactly.  I'm saying they don't get the credit that man would get for fulfilling tefillin, since chazal state that there is more merit in doing something one is obligated to do, as opposed to what one is not obligated in.  Since they are not obligated in tefillin, they won't achieve the mitzvah a man does.  On the other hand, done with sincere and good intentions, (since it could only be done permissibly for the reason of connecting to God), there's a merit in that.  Not that I'm trying to quantify it.

But given that a women who does something which she is not required to do, which is usually a very good thing {as we consider Chassidus to be going beyond the letter of the law}, it appears to me that she is not tzniut. Maybe in the future this will not be the case but in my generation it is provocative for a women to act like a man, and men are obliged to so many more mitzvot than women. I question what their intention is..

The point you make about tzniut is no doubt agreed upon by some modern-day haredi poskim, but there is generally machloketh about this issue given the earlier sources which appear quite lenient.    So it will always depend on the individual situation and circumstances involved.  It's just important (or at least I thought it was important) to stress that it is not always without halachic justification if a woman does something "usually" only men do.

I agree that there are cases, as in the daughter of Rashi, that it is not objectionable for women to do this. But I would not say that she should daven amongst the men, nor be counted in the minyan.

But that is something different.  Women are not counted in a minyan (no matter what they are wearing or doing), a minyan is defined as 10 men, and women and men are not supposed to daven together.  So those are not relevant to this.