 |
| What's wrong with this picture? (Amazon) |
Earlier this month I discussed an issue that is very
troubling to me. Which is the recent trend by the right to no longer feature pictures of women in their publications. From the very beginning I have strenuously
objected to this practice for a variety of reasons. Which I am not going to repeat
here. Suffice it to say that most mainstream Charedi publications used to regularly
feature pictures of women as long as they were dressed modestly. Sadly, the trend is now clearly away from
that.
I received an email from a community Rav whose Hashkafa seems to be that of a moderate Charedi. He disagreed with my views and explained
why he believes that eliminating pictures of women in publications is a positive
development. While I absolutely disagree with him, I thought that in the
interests of fairness and balance it would be useful to present an opposing
view and an explanation of it. I invited him to submit a post and he accepted.
He asked to be remain anonymous and use the pseudonym he suggested as his a by-line. Although I rarely agree to publish anything written anonymously - I agreed in this case for the sake of the above-mentioned balance that I try achieve here. His unedited words follow :
I’d like to share my thoughts regarding the topic you
recently discussed – the chareidy community omitting photos of women
in magazines/newspapers.
I studied for many years in an American chareidy Yeshiva
[which is not as right as Lakewood nor as left as YU] where I eventually
received Semicha. I still consider myself a talmid of my
yeshiva.
I am happy that the magazines and newspapers I purchase do
not have photos of women in them. Let me explain.
I can appreciate the following position: omitting tzniyusdige photos
of women in magazines is not normal. It’s as if to say that Jewish women do not
exist. Even the Aguda’s Jewish Observer had photos of women.
However, the attack from the MO is on [what I think is] an
incorrect understanding of why chareidim omit photos of women.
Chareidim do not omit photos of women because “there
are some men who so sexually deviant that they might be sexually aroused by
viewing a sexually benign image (which is defined as a fetish in the world of
psychology)” Or as I’ve heard people say, “The chareidim are afraid that if
some of them see a photo of a woman they’ll do G-d knows what!”
I think the reason is because it is simply prohibited to
gaze at a photo of a woman to get pleasure from gazing, just as it is
prohibited to gaze at any part of a woman for pleasure, regardless if she is
dressed completely tzniyusdig. The prohibition is for simply getting any
level of pleasure from gazing. So omitting photos of women is not because that
is the halacha. The omission of photos is to remove the nisayon to
gaze which IS against Halacha.
Of course al pi halacha one may read a magazine
with photos of women in it. Nonetheless, I’d rather not have the nisayon of
there being a photo where I might spend an extra second staring when it’s an
attractive photo.
Similarly, many decades ago there was mixed seating and
there was no mechitza at weddings. Of course that is permitted al
pi halacha. Yet, when it comes to tzinyus we always try to be more
stringent because the passion to gaze is exceedingly powerful.
Just as when I go to a wedding I am glad there is a mechitza,
so too I’m glad there are no pictures of women in my magazines and newspapers.
Once the policy is not to show women then there can’t be
exceptions. I remember when some old Rebbetzin died and they didn’t
publish her photo and people complained. Obviously you can’t say we’ll only
publish photos which aren’t attractive, only the attractive ones we won’t
publish. (And maybe the reason why they don’t have even a tiny photo above the
name of the author of an article might be because once you’re not publishing
photos of women, Chassidim can purchase the magazine and any photos
of women will prevent them from purchasing.)
The two sides of the issue are simply: is omitting photos
normal or not normal. We all agree you have to be normal. You must walk in the
street even though there are many temptations to gaze. Saying you’re not going
to walk down the street is not normal. Forcing a woman to wear a burka is not
normal. (The argument that adding stringency after stringency regarding modesty
will lead to forced burkas does not have merit in my opinion.)
I think that the reason some in the MO community
misunderstand the reason why the chareidim omit photos is because
some don’t believe that getting any pleasure from gazing is prohibited. So they
have to say that the reason the chareidim omit photos is because
some chareidim will do G-d knows what!
As I have stated, it’s simply a question of “is it normal or
not normal” to omit photos of women. I prefer the omission but I could
definitely hear the other side.
*Not his real name
