The Disappearing Woman – A Collection of Bullet Points

The topic is important enough that elaboration is in order. It will be closer, really, to a summation of some of the points raised in the discussion, plus perhaps one new point not raised by our readers. Briefly, this is why I cannot wrap my head around the growing trend to remove all references to women from public view:

  • It is not about pictures. I would reject the across-the-board ban on pictures anyway, for reasons I will soon explain, but I could still find words to defend it. The banning of pictures, however, is a distraction. For quite some time we have seen our publications and local announcements eliding all mention of women. Publications don’t include their names, and substitute initials. In some circles, the word “woman” itself is censored. Something more is going on than protecting the purity of males by removing temptation as far as possible. It is clearly not just pictures.
  • Even in regard to pictures, changing policy from what it used to be is, I believe, indefensible, for a number of reasons. These reasons do not apply to groups that have long had this policy. My beef is with others picking up on the practice, as if they are doing HKBH a favor. They aren’t. (The sharp words that the Rambam (to Mishnah Chelek) addressed to those who took every aggada literally come to mind.)
  • To my tastes, arguing that it is too difficult to make distinctions between pictures, so all should be banned, is the single most distasteful element of this discussion. (I’m sure it would be different if I were a woman.) It represents capitulation to the most dangerous thinking in our community today – our disbelief in our own common sense. When we jettison common sense, when we no longer can nod vigorously in recalling Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky’s iconic “men darf zein normal,” there is no predicting where we will land up. How hard is it to allow pictures of children, of clearly old women, of face shots of any woman? Didn’t we make a point for decades when we tried to explain why we insist on covering up as much of the body as we do that we would never cover the face like the Arabs, because the face is the window to the neshamah?
  • Specifically, I spent too many years teaching law school students the difference between carefully considered rabbinic legislation and the Islamic general “blocking the means” that is the source of the Saudi ban on women driving. I am not prepared to turn Saudi and eat my former words.
  • Some have argued that the new policy reflects new needs. We are not wedded to the past. We react to new situations. Our generation is both subject to more sexual stimulation than previously, and more prepared to accept gedarim that are helpful. This is all true, but I don’t believe it. I cannot believe that pictures of faces of frum women are one hundredth as destructive to the public good than the pages and pages of advertising that run counter to everything in the print columns. Can anyone really argue that our kids are no affected in much more serious manner by constant exhortations to upgrade their wines, their clothing, their visits to foreign resorts (Daf Yomi and Chassidishe shechita only)? Do our advertising pages reflect the ethos of Kedoshim Tihiyu, and of a siman in Shulchan Aruch that demands of us that all of our kavanos should be leshem Shomayim? Are we aware that we are mocked by other Jews who see our rank materialism as hypocritical at best, and a repudiation of spirituality at worst? We don’t ban the sustained siren call for more, better, and classier, but instead we ban frum women to ensure that we maintain spiritual loftiness?
  • Another argument that I completely reject asks rhetorically, “What does it hurt to be machmir?” This is a negation of so much that we know to be true from our mussar literature, that to hear the words is painful. Of course it hurts! From clear-cut halacha, we do not budge. We will pay the price, and bite our upper lips through the mockery. But when it comes to being machmir, even for good reason, we are bidden to keep some realities in mind. Every time we deny ourselves something that is mutar, we pay a price. There is pushback from our yetzer hora. Often, the price is worth it. But we need some really clever accountants doing the cost benefit analysis. In the case of this campaign, some of the costs are astronomical. They include, in no special order:

• The policy is a huge turn-off to many of our kids, who are cynical and wary as it is about the tendency to routinely assur too much.

• The comparison to ISIS and the Taliban is all too common. Contrary to what some think, we care about what others say about the Torah – Jews and non-Jews. (Chalitzas ha-kaseif was instituted by Chazal as a required form of aveilus. The reason we don’t do it, according to some, is that it would lead to mockery by non-Jews.) Do we not care about the disrepute that this brings upon Torah?

• It drives away potential baalei teshuvah, who find it repressive and nuts.

• It fuels the hashkafic and halachic depredations of the neo-Conservatives, who point to the haredi world and argue, “If you don’t want to end up like them, you had better accept our progressive and liberal positions. It’s either them, or us, with our egalitarianism and our rabbahs.”

• It causes concern to women raising young girls, and not sure how they are supposed to explain the disappearance of women to their own daughters.

  • The argument that frum women don’t mind is simply not true. I don’t claim to have scientifically polled the population, but from those with whom I have spoken, and those who have written, I see that this is not true. Frum women of good Bais Yaakov background genuinely do not mind mechitzos in shul, do not froth at the mouth at the thought of being reduced to spectators on Simchas Torah, do not clamor to became rabbahs, and understand why genuine laws of tzniyus do put a burden upon them that requires mesiras nefesh in the summer, and generally when shopping for clothes. All this they understand, because of the effectiveness of our Bais Yaakov chinuch. But many of these same women are horrified and offended by the campaign to turn everyone with a double X chromosome into She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned. That is significant, even if we don’t have stats on how widespread is the dissatisfaction.

You may also like...

48 Responses

  1. Sarah Elias says:

    Thank you for this bullet-point collection. I agree with every point you make. And as far as how frum women feel about being erased from chareidi society, I can tell you that on frum women-only boards, there have been multiple discussions on this topic, running to 20, 30 pages or more, and 90% or more of the reactions to the policy have been negative.

    Even among women I know who do not have internet access, the reaction is at the very least mocking. I have never discussed this with any person who thinks it’s a good idea.

  2. Rachel Cohen says:

    Thank you Rabbi Adlerstein for this.

    As a frum woman who was raised in the beis yakov system I now find myself scanning books before buying them so my kids don’t immerse themselves in unnatural settings like shabbos tables with only fathers and sons.

    I’d like to point out that not only is this harmful to young girls, but also to boys. I am trying to raise my son to respect women! He should never feel that woman shouldn’t be seen or that they are second class citizens. Women too have a voice and that needs to be clear to both boys and
    girls.

  3. Skj says:

    Excellent – thank you

  4. Rabbi David Lapin says:

    Excellent.

  5. Menachem Lipkin says:

    You are “the man” Rabbi Adlerstein!

    I think the quote from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky sums it up well. I had the privilege of being in shiur with one of his grandsons for nearly a year. Often, when faced with an outlandish question regarding the advisability some recent behavior in the name of frumkeit, he’d closely repeat that phrase and say, “Just be normal”. The sad thing that we’re dealing with today is that fewer and fewer people understand what it means to be normal.

    • Bob Miller says:

      If enough people become abnormal, is that the new normal?

      From Rabbi Nachman of Breslov ZY”A (translated by Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum):

      THE TAINTED GRAIN

      A king once told his prime minister, who was also his good friend: “I see in the stars that everyone who eats from this year’s grain harvest is going to go mad. What do you think we should do?”

      The prime minister suggested they should put aside a stock of good grain so they would not have to eat from the tainted grain.

      “But it will be impossible to set aside enough good grain for everyone,” the king objected. “And if we put away a stock for just the two of us, we will be the only ones who will be sane. Everyone else will be mad, and they will look at us and think that we are the mad ones.

      “No. We too will have to eat from this year’s grain. But we will both put a sign on our heads. I will look at your forehead, and you will look at mine. And when we see the sign, at least we will remember that we are mad.”

      • Menachem Lipkin says:

        While that might be an interesting philosophical discussion, back in the real world, normal people know that it’s not normal to blur out the faces of 6 year old girls in Purim costumes in the name of modesty.

  6. Reuvan says:

    You write: “It is not about pictures. I would reject the across-the-board ban on pictures anyway, for reasons I will soon explain, but I could still find words to defend it.” If you can find words to defend this indefensible ban, then you also are beyond the pale of reasonable discourse. Taliban is an appropriate label for you fanatics.

    • Bob Miller says:

      The Left is very good at ruling out discussion on topics it would like to regard as 100% settled in its favor. Evidently, free discussion is a danger. Or maybe the Left thinks only in slogans.

  7. Bob Miller says:

    As is often true, sensible poskim, other rabbonim, and communities need to buck senseless trends.

  8. tzippi says:

    I’m having trouble loading the rest of the comments so apologies if this point was made.
    I have no problem with women’s pictures. But I would be hesitant to use the following as a basis:
    “Contrary to what some think, we care about what others say about the Torah – Jews and non-Jews. (Chalitzas ha-kaseif was instituted by Chazal as a required form of aveilus. The reason we don’t do it, according to some, is that it would lead to mockery by non-Jews.) Do we not care about the disrepute that this brings upon Torah?”
    Talk about slippery slopes – why would this not apply to same sex marriage and a host of other issues?

    [YA – Because those are categorically forbidden. We’re talking here about instituting gedarim as a quasi-takanah, to elevate the mitzvah performance of the community. When you do that, you must take into account all the collateral damage. (Chalitzas ha-kasseif was different. Even though it was a clear-cut halacha, its purpose was to show kavod ha-meis. When people realized that it was doing the opposite, there was a halachic argument that it was not serving its original purpose.)]

    • tzippi says:

      I figured this was “fifth Shulchan Aruch” territory or the like. Thank you for the clarification. I think it needed to be spelled out.

  9. Michoel Halberstam says:

    You have touched on an issue which is of extreme importance to this as well as countless other discussions. We cannot allow a situation to continue where the purveyors of Torah True thought should be able to make statements without any regard to how they will be received or understood. The injunction of Hizaharu bidivreichem is as binding as any other maamar Chazal . We ignore it at our peril.

  10. Excellent sentiments. On the other hand, calling the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy “neo-Conservative” is really beneath you.

  11. bracha spira says:

    This is all a very sound and good discussion, but until the conversation is taken up by the mainstream press, and not just on blogs, it is almost fruitless to discuss. The changes to the mainstream frum magazines have to come from the top. Publishers who themselves don’t think that there is anything wrong with pictures of women, will never publish one as long as they fear that their papers will be banned. However, if the gedolim say its okay to put pictures of women’s heads in their papers and their papers still sell, they will publish pictures of women. It’s a business decision on their part and will never change unless they can be assured that their papers will not be boycotted. The discussion of this new trend has to go to another level and unfortunately in today’s chumridik climate, I doubt that any gadol will have the courage to change it.

  12. Gary says:

    Perhaps Rabbi Adlerstein (and Rabbi Gordimer too, if he’s following) can address two points that, in my recollection, were made by Rabbi Hershel Schachter a few years back:

    1) When Iraq, post the U.S. takeover, inaugurated democratic elections, a picture was published showing separate lines for men and women waiting to vote. Someone (in YU?) lamented about how if the chareidim had their way the same practice would be adopted in Israel. Rabbi Schachter’s reaction was that, to the contrary, such a standard of tznius would be a good thing! We should avoid a mentality that everything found in the fundamentalist Muslim world is extremist and ‘not normal’. In other words (my understanding), we should be questioning the definition of what is considered ‘normal.’ True, the majority of Orthodox Jews living outside a few Chassidic enclaves perceive bans on female drivers as going way overboard and overly restrictive, but I feel most men recognize that it would be better if it was socially unacceptable to be standing in a queue together with women, or pressed together at a pizza shop counter.

    2) Rabbi Schachter also addressed the now ubiquitous gender separation at wedding meals and other social functions. Although this was not the norm in previous decades and many of our parents or grandparents found their spouses through such affairs. Nevertheless, he agrees that today such looseness is inappropriate primarily because of the change in womens’ style of dress. Even in staunchly Orthodox communities, clothing is much tighter and, despite covering the body from neckline to ankle, is actually much more revealing and provocative.

    Neither of these two points need influence the current discussion on the public display of women in photographs, which can debated intelligently either way. The point is that our definition of the terms ‘sensible’ and ‘normal’ may be skewed by the perverseness of popular culture and should be substantiated before they are employed in argumentation.

    My personal view on the publication of womens’ pictures is that it’s not a binary issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, Different magazines, even from the same publisher, have different target audiences and can adjust their policy’s accordingly. If a publisher strikes a balance and elects to use female images in some venues and not others that may placate some, though not all, of the grievances.

    • JL says:

      Re: 2) “Now ubiquitous” … I assume you are only referring to a select group of the Yeshivish contingency … most “YU-frum”, black-hat weddings I have gone to are not gender separated for the meal. and according to you, should boys be going to shul on shabbos where they might see members of the opposite gender … ?

    • Moshe Dick says:

      So,according to your train of thought, we should have separate sidewalks-alrady in use in some enclaves, not only women in the back of the bus but separate buses altogether and how about separate supermarkets for men and women? I mean, where does that insanity stop? No wonder that many people feel that the burka is coming. And, by the way, I totally disagree that we live in a more dissolute era. Read about the societies in Europe in centuries back and you will find plenty of temptations.

  13. Miriam Ellinson says:

    I write for one of the women-less magazines, and this subject is one I continually debate with my editors. (Notably, I do use my full, real name for most articles and have never received negative feedback for that.) Thank you Rabbi Adlerstein for this cogent summary. I remember once when I interviewed a well known frum female doctor, a leader in her field and a mother and grandmother of a beautiful Torah family. She asked me if she could send photos; I was forced to share with her the policy. We joked that if she sent a photo of herself in scrubs (skirt scrubs) plus surgical mask, perhaps they’d make an exception…

  14. Dr. E says:

    Rabbi Adlerstein:

    Thank you for your insightful and articulate round-up on this topic. Undoubtedly, the post will not win you many fans from the magazine editors or their advertisers. Moreover, it will not positively resonate with those who have put much emotional and rhetorical capital into defending the new practice. Hopefully, there is a chance of this being read by those leaders who agree in principle, yet until now have been overly concerned, in a black-and-white world, of being excused of being “liberal” or OO.

    I find it interesting that there is significant hypocrisy in this area as it plays out in the Shidduch System. Any girl who is interested in having her resume move to the top of the pile for review by prospective suitors knows that a head-shot is required. Assuming that such a picture is unavailable through Facebook, the guy will need something to go on. Of course, most of the guys who represent the best “catches” might by definition be totally immune to any Yetzer Horah in this regard and any such evaluations are purely l‘shem Shamayim. But, there might be a minority for whom the temptations associated with such pictures will be an issue. Once again, I would expect those adept in Halachic Yoga to defend this carve-out.

    In your last bullet point, you make reference to those women who have been informed by a “Bais Yaakov chinuch”. Most will look back at that fondly as having been a quality influence on their home and professional lives. But, many are now disillusioned as they have realized that over the past 10 years or so, the “BY brand” has been fundamentally hijacked. Sure, there were always guidelines and even restrictions associated with that chinuch. But, these women have come to understand that the new rules of the game are ongoing, increasingly intrusive, and reactionary. Many of the new policies are all about the schools’ image, devoid of both common sense and Halachic bases. They are made behind closed doors by a chosen few and lack any particular “big picture” considerations relative to the entire community. As such, these new rules and factors are dissonant with their upbringing, making it virtually impossible for mothers to defend them to their own daughters in 2015.

  15. Moshe Dick says:

    Wonderful article and you still leave out the most glaring example of the hypocrisy of those who are so insistent of being the ultimate arbiter of our thoughts: the fact that these same people who censor photos and have banished women from our world are happy, nay, insist, on sending our wives and daughters to work into a world that is infinitely more destructive and difficult than looking at a photo. They pride themselves that this gives them the opportunity to be the “learners’ and yet, this is the most selfish and egoistical arrangement, contrary to all Torah values and human needs. They endanger those same human beings-women- in environments that they decry for themselves. It is a shameful exploitation of our traditions.

    • Rafael BurgerhotdogKnish says:

      Moshe – in principle I agree with you. However, I believe given the MO world’s expansive view of women’s rights and their roles in a family in our post-modern world, that the MO world is not a harbour for homemakers and stay at home mothers. Women today work even where the husband is not learning full time due to expense of being Frum Yidden, or to allow women to able to express themselves beyond being mothers at home. Therefore, in theory, the Chareidi can be validly attacked as hypocrites based on their chumros when it comes to written publications, but in practice, all ‘wings” of Orthodoxy increasing have women at work, and a “Leave it to Beaver” scenario is no longer viable, especially when the MO lifestyle is actually more expensive and harder to manage for your average MO family. Unless you show me stats that say otherwise, MO women are not ordinarily stay at home moms. In fact, I don’t think I would be wrong to say that Chareidi families likely have a higher percentage of stay-at-home moms. Also, I should add that in terms of Chareidi women working in the Israeli Litvishe Chareidi world, most either stay confined in workplaces as teachers and principals that avoid the Secular workplace, or work in women only business environments. Therefore, they do avoid the pitfalls of a mixed workplace environment.

      • Moshe Dick says:

        Modern Orthodoxy-normal orthodoxy in my vocabulary- does not go around photoshopping women’s faces from official photos -a la Hilary Clinton- (oops, I mentioned woman’s name ….) or failing to print the mother’s name in a wedding invitation but Hareidi Orthodoxy does. Hence the hypocrisy. There just aren’t enough teaching jobs around for every kollel wife, not to say that they don’t pay much and there certainly are even fewer women only environments in business.

  16. Gary says:

    {Please use this text; the first submission had 3 typos.}

    Perhaps Rabbi Adlerstein (and Rabbi Gordimer too, if he’s following) can address two points that, in my recollection, were made by Rabbi Hershel Schachter a few years back:

    1) When Iraq, post the U.S. takeover, inaugurated democratic elections, a picture was published showing separate lines for men and women waiting to vote. Someone (in YU?) lamented about how if the chareidim had their way the same practice would be adopted in Israel. Rabbi Schachter’s reaction was that, to the contrary, such a standard of tznius would be a good thing! We should avoid a mentality that everything found in the fundamentalist Muslim world is extremist and ‘not normal’. In other words (my understanding), we should be questioning the definition of what is considered ‘normal.’ True, the majority of Orthodox Jews living outside a few Chassidic enclaves perceive bans on female drivers as going way overboard and overly restrictive, but I feel most men recognize that it would be better if it was socially unacceptable to be standing in a queue together with women, or pressed together at a pizza shop counter.

    2) Rabbi Schachter also addressed the now ubiquitous gender separation at wedding meals and other social functions. Although this was not the norm in previous decades and many of our parents or grandparents found their spouses through such affairs, nevertheless, he agrees that today such looseness is inappropriate primarily because of the change in womens’ style of dress. Even in staunchly Orthodox communities, clothing is much tighter and, despite covering the body from neckline to ankle, is actually much more revealing and provocative.

    Neither of these two points needs influence the current discussion on the public display of women in photographs, which can debated intelligently either way. The point is that our definition of the terms ‘sensible’ and ‘normal’ may be skewed by the perverseness of popular culture and should be substantiated before they are employed in argumentation.

    My personal view on the publication of womens’ pictures is that it’s not a binary issue of ‘yes’ or ‘no’, Different magazines, even from the same publisher, have different target audiences and can adjust their policies accordingly. If a publisher strikes a balance and elects to use female images in some venues and not others that may placate some, though not all, of the grievances.

    [YA Rav Hershel Schachter, shlit”a, is one of the most honest and refreshing voices out there. He is 100% correct on both counts, and of course my agreeing is pointless and adds nothing. My piece was a call for common sense, not for dismissing needed gedarim. RHS applauds ensuring that the genders are not physically thrown against each other on lines. Of course he is correct! What does that have to do with photos of little girls? RHS believes that there are better arguments today for separate seating at weddings than a few decades ago. Absolutely! What differentiates him from others is that he also advocates singles “in the parshah” to davka sit at mixed tables at weddings, to provide a way for more people to meet potential mates. He stipulates that there be frum couples seated at the same table, to ensure that the atmosphere does not deteriorate. IOW, he is prepared to make distinctions, rather than lump everything together. The rest of us should insist on common sense solutions and distinctions; from genuine Torah personalities we can get uncommon sense!]

    • Shades of Gray says:

      “Someone (in YU?) lamented about how if the chareidim had their way the same practice would be adopted in Israel.”

      The story is 26:00 in MP3 below:

      “Gender Separation in Halacha: Al Cheit…B’siach Sifsoseinu”, Torah Web, October 5, 2008

      • Gary says:

        Thank you, Shades of Gray, for the audio reference.

        And thank you very much, Rabbi Adlerstein, for replying to my comment; it’s a real honor to share a dialogue with you.

        I would appreciate if you can add a word of clarification about your closing exclamatory statement, “from genuine Torah personalities we can get uncommon sense!” Is it not a sine qua that a “genuine” Torah personality possess common sense? If he exudes uncommon sense he must not be legitimate!

        Also, I did not understand from your article that you were only concerned about photos of little girls. You appear to advocate that pictures of women should not be excluded from any frum media that publishes photographs. While I fully appreciate your call for ‘common sense’ and understand your concerns about being too machmir, I think, to use your words, that it’s sensible policy “to make distinctions” between different audiences and also the types of shots. In magazines geared for women it’s ludicrous to exclude women. In publication geared for general readership, I can understand why blotting them out from general shots is deemed offensive, but close-ups which by nature focus on physical features is reasonably inappropriate. For that matter, I find it inappropriate when a magazine publishes a blown up shot of a man, Rosh Yeshiva or otherwise, often with high enough resolution to make out facial pores and hair follicles! It seems overly intrusive and I often imagine the subject cringing when he sees the picture of himself.

        [YA – What I meant by uncommon sense was common sense with an upgrade. Common sense is great, but even more penetrating insight is what we can expect from some of our greatest Torah leaders.]

  17. Dr. E says:

    Here is another example of how the absurdity has gone mainstream. I recall that a few years ago an international American-style Kiruv organization encouraged our shul to show one of their video documentaries chronicling some of their success stories. (The objective was to encourage regular people to do Kiruv.) In one of the profiles, the story began with an extraverted married Chareidi woman who started speaking with a secular Israeli on a plane. That conversation started a path towards observance which brought the fellow into the family’s home for Shabbos, etc. The classic and predictable happier-ever-after Kiruv story. Yet, when they recorded the profile, the organization interviewed the guy and the woman’s husband about the story. The husband was totally uncharismatic and thin on the details of the original meeting and the fellow’s journey. Yet, since they could not interview the wife on camera, the husband was called upon to recount the story. It was comical, as it became pretty obvious that his involvement was limited to walking the guy to shul and being motzi him in Kiddush.

    Needless to say, I saw right through that and that was the last time we showed anything from that organization.

  18. Mikey says:

    I’ve been reading the discussion and this post inspired the following thought: You mentioned our “disbelief in our common sense.” While it might be hard to believe for those who actually possess the gift of such sensibilities, there’s a whole lot of people out there lacking in the common sense of Tznius, on both sides of the fence.

    Many in our communities, enough to define the market of our Frum magazine’s readership, don’t know how to discern dignified from suggestive. Tight-fitting tops and tight skirts that barely cover the knees while standing are considered Tznius. A girl will go to a Tznius clothing store today and asked for a skirt that fully covers her knees, even while sitting, and the clerk will refer to her as “one of those” types, as if she’s some fanatic.

    Going to the other side of the fence, in one doctored advertisement I saw, the girl’s face was dutifully blurred, while her provocative body language was not. A man I know, who does not dress Chassidish, but wears a leather yarmulke, told me he was preparing election voting booths in a Chassidishe community when a group of Chassidishe women came to the same room for an aerobics class. This frum man, and a number of other mixed non-Jewish volunteers were there, but that didn’t stop these women from shedding their Tznius clothing and exercising in their revealing leotards! That’s widespread ignorance and lack of common sense.

    It seems to me that the extreme approach the publications have taken, where even women’s first names are abbreviated or removed, is a result of the demand of those who lack the common sense.

    While magazine editors are likely to have the necessary common sense, there’s enough of their readership that doesn’t. Rav Yaakov’s ztl’s “be normal” plea, falls on the ears of those who have lost their sense for normalcy. Some communities are able to be more balanced in their local publications and print dignified pictures of women, true. But the larger market that Mishpacha, Binah, Hamodia, etc. cater too has enough readers who cannot strike a balance in their own minds to accept women in the publications they bring home. I think the Gedolim can try to explain what’s normal until they’re blue in the face (if they can get past the physical threats of the misguided Kanoim) and our communities still won’t “get it.”

    An additional factor, which Rabbi Adlerstein has conceded to and respected, is there are communities that have in their Mesorah a complete separation between men and women in all formal settings. These days those communities are a significant portion of the readership of the popular publications.

    I’d like to hear suggestions of how to educate the masses in our communities on what’s considered “normal” and “common sense.”

    • Bob Miller says:

      “An additional factor, which Rabbi Adlerstein has conceded to and respected, is there are communities that have in their Mesorah a complete separation between men and women in all formal settings. These days those communities are a significant portion of the readership of the popular publications.”

      How many of them, both men and women, buy into the new community practices and how many comply under duress?

      • Mikey says:

        These communities have gender separation in formal settings in their Mesorah. It’s not new. Granted, they have their own challenges of “does the Mesorah include separate sidewalks for men and women, or is that going overboard?” etc, etc. People in those communities will regularly question such measures, will question whether their Rebbe actually proposed them, or whether some influential Kanoim are forcing it on the community. But the general sentiment of men and women living separate lives outside of marriage is strong in many Chassidishe communities, and always has been.

  19. Moshe Katz says:

    Rabbi Adlerstein’s bullets are right on target! Regarding maintaining our belief in our common sense and Rav Yaakov’s reminder to remain “normal”, I wanted to share a delicious quip that Rav Yaakov made. It is “light” but powerful.
    A parent expressed his concern with the fact that in his child’s preschool they were singing “goyish” nursery rhymes. Rav Yaakov smiled and said, “what should they sing, Kol Nidrei!”

  20. Moshe Katz says:

    Sorry. Forgot my initials.
    M.K.

    Rabbi Adlerstein’s bullets are right on target! Regarding maintaining our belief in our common sense and Rav Yaakov’s reminder to remain “normal”, I wanted to share a delicious quip that Rav Yaakov made. It is “light” but powerful.
    A parent expressed his concern with the fact that in his child’s preschool they were singing “goyish” nursery rhymes. Rav Yaakov smiled and said, “what should they sing, Kol Nidrei!”

  21. Micah Segelman says:

    Creating new norms and treating them as though they are ikar hadin sounds like the definition of Bal Tosif (in spirit).

    I think that one additional consideration is that removing women from the public sphere could lead to marginalizing women (and of course we are always accused of that) – limiting their ability to advocate for their needs, to share their perspective, and to be valued as individuals.

  22. Aharon says:

    Rabbi Adelstein, thank you for a great article. You are the John McCain of the Haredi world. Its about time an insider had the courage to publicly speak his mind,even when it goes against party lines. I think you should start a chavrusa with R’ Yaakov Menkin and help him see the light

  23. Shimon Chaim says:

    Thank you, Rabbi, for clearly stating the common sense position! If a man – frum or otherwise – finds himself morally challenged by the image of a modestly dressed woman then, frankly, he is the one with a problem and should seek rabbinic and even psychological guidance. Editorial policy should not be tailored to protect such individuals from themselves.

  24. Yehoshua Wiseman says:

    why make a stumbling block? It is assur to gaze even at an old lady. Let the Gdolim decide on such crucial issues. The saying “one must be normal” can be used to be sinfully dependent on defining our norms based on the sick norms of the “civilized” gentiles surrounding us.

    [YA 1) The don’t gaze! But don’t tell frum women, appropriately dressed, to disappear and to have their names and actions stricken – which has nothing to do with gazing. 2) “The saying ‘one must be normal’ can be used to be sinfully dependent.” It can. But it doesn’t have to. And the one who kept saying it was a Gadol]

    • Alexandra Fleksher says:

      Rabbi Adlerstein, pictures by definition are meant to be looked at. What would you say to that argument?

      [YA – Faces are also meant to be looked at 🙂 In halachah, some poskim in different areas differentiate between ראי’ ש and הסתכלות. There are men who never look at a woman. If addressed, they will answer, but not look directly at the woman. (Rarely – but with exceptions – do such men make good community rabbonim or Bais Yaakov teachers.) Such men should not read popular periodicals, period. A larger group of men do speak directly to women. They look them in the face. They do make this differentiation between the two terms above. For them, seeing (but not scrutinizing) pictures of appropriately clad women should not be objectionable]

  25. Raymond says:

    The above article reminds me of something a Rabbi said recently in addressing his Congregation. He pointed out that really, other than Torah learning, that there is not much room for growth in Judaism. Jewish law is Jewish law, and once one adapts to following it, there is not really much to do that is new and exciting, other than Torah study. Perhaps this idea is one motivation for this rather bizarre move by some Orthodox Jews to completely ban women from the public sphere. Perhaps such Jews are simply bored, and banning women’s faces from appearing in pictures, is their way of feeling as if they are gaining something spiritually. If only they would step back and have even a little objectivity, they might realize just how absurd they are being. Frankly, I think that such extremist thinking is very un-Jewish in its nature. I have long thought that Judaism represents a middle course, a moderate mindset. The Rambam certainly advocated a middle path when it comes to character development. In any case, yes, it is most definitely true, that seeing Orthodox Jews behave in such a manner, does turns off those of us who may identify with our Jewishness, but do not want to imitate the ways of the goyim, the goyim in this case being the moslems. Do we really want to move closer and closer to the misogynistic view of women held by too many moslems? If being a religious Jew requires isolating oneself from women, then why would any sane, rational human being want to be a part of that?

  26. Tania says:

    This could have been written by me. Ive been to the highest person in Mishpacha magazine-Eli Pilay the publisher. He was sure that the English edition would allow pictures of women, at least head shots. He argued with the rabbanim that chutz laaretz is different and needed a more even handed approach and yet he was turned down time and again. So what we have now is pictures of dogs, priests, Achmadinajad, not to mention O, but no pictures of women. Its all about the dollar. What sells in the Jewish world is men. Peoplewould swipe their subscription if suddenly there were pictures of women. So i did my part and swiped mine. Currently, as ISIS gains traction, what really is the difference if chareidim summarily slay the life force behind our families? The last part of the article is really what we are up against. Thanks for your voice R Yitzchok. Now what?

  27. Y. Ben-David says:

    Both Islam and Christianity have strains that view women as “Satanic temptresses” out to ensnare men’s souls. I read somewhere that Muhammed supposedly said that “90% of the people in the underworld are women”. It can be said that this obsessive erasing of women seems to be moving in the same direction, which is actually alien to Judaism.
    Maybe the next step will be to write the following

    “The Book of R–h”.
    “Megillat E—-r
    The Prophetess “D—–h”

    Sounds absurd,doesn’t it. Then why is it “immodest” to write a woman’s name?

    Why not? (Full disclosure:I did not originate this but I don’t recall the name of the fellow who first posted this).

  28. Dina says:

    As always, thank you Rabbi Adlerstein…

  29. Julie Kahan says:

    The Jewish Observer stopped printing pictures of women in the 1990s. Instead articles about women would be illustrated with something random like a picture of a flower (though Rebbetzin Wolbe’s obituary had a picture of a diamond instead). “Modesty- an Adornment for Life” (1998) does not forbid printing photos of women – on the contrary, it urges publishers to be careful to only use photos of women whose dress is appropriate.

    • Raymond says:

      This tells me that I will never pay for a subscription to the Jewish Observer, as long as they have such an anti-woman policy.

    • Alexandra Fleksher says:

      Can’t believe Oz Vhadar Levusha permits it…then that’s all the proof anyone on the right of this discussion needs!

  30. Ellen Lebowicz says:

    So what happens now? We can discuss this topic with the vast majority rightfully in step with Rabbi Adlerstein’s courageous comments on a respectable blog, yet the powers that be will still thumb their respective noses at the almost unanimous call to change this presposterousness. Because they can. Do we even know who’s calling the shots in any of these publications and ads? In this past week’s Ami magazine was a lovely article on the parsha written by Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi, where she ties it in to Chodesh Elul and emphasizes the need for tzinius. In the column’s margin is a box describing the Rabbanit as “one of Israel’s most popular speakers, with tens of thousands of students. Her lectures are attended by hundreds of women.” Immediately above that is a picture of men walking the streets of Israel. Why? There isn’t even a tie-in to the article. I sent my sister, who maintained our Conservadox upbringing, an uplifting video put out in celebration of Yom Haatzmaut. She wrote back, “But where are the women?” Oy vay, I hadn’t even noticed that one. I don’t think she or her children are going to be signing on to Orthodoxy anytime soon. At the very least, if a yeshiva is honoring Mr. and Mrs. Moishe Goldberg for their tireless work, can’t we just respect ourselves and not print anyone’s picture? It looks just plain comical to show only Mr. Goldberg over both their names. Perhaps the only solution is a boycott over those periodicals that subscribe to this folly. I’d hate to have to cancel my subscription to Mishpocha. They push the bar, rightfully so, respectfully sweeping out the dirt piling high under the proverbial carpet. I’d like to exchange a couple pictures of tzinusdik women for the full page ads emphasizing our endless pursuit of the ultimate gashmius experience. Pesach in China??? How many alcohol ads does one publication need? But I guess they pay the fare…

  31. Ellen says:

    The core issue is more one of chumra vs. halacha. But not just that. Rather, the core issue is everyone’s failure to recognize the division between subjective vs. objective halacha. When Gur says “it is not our way for our married men and women to walk together in the streets” – they are stating a common practice, a subjective choice. And they are conscious of this choice daily, in a positive way. This is very different from the formulation “in reaction to the widespread ‘pritzus’ in the streets, we have no choice but to increase the level of our shmiras eynaim [guarding one’s eyes from seeing immodestly dressed women, or in this case women at all]” – that is an absolute formulation about what the “right” thing is to do. Even if you say eilu v-eilu, the phrasing says “we have no choice, this is OUR halacha now.” So long as our people are in an argument regarding which blue is more blue, we can’t possibly find a common ground on these issues.

  32. Yehoshua Kahan says:

    This is something that my wife brought to my attention a number of years ago–it *does* bother her. If my wife, a true yoras shomayim who strives to act as the Ribbono shel Olam wants, who once asked me if it is ok to take a possibly-unnecessary plastic bag in the store for fear of stealing a few pennies, is bothered by this, then I believe that there are many other good Jewish women who are bothered by this too. And that, in turn, means that short of a directive from the bulk of our gedolei Torah that this is something we should be doing–a directive that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, has never been issued–we should not be doing it. This doesn’t even address the other excellent points in the article.
    .
    Kudos to Rabbi Adlerstein (full disclosure: I was in his gemara shiur one year of high school) on a substantive consideration of this phenomenon.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This