 |
| Women at the Siyum - picture by Agudah (YWN) |
Whatever one thinks about Agudah, the one
thing everyone knows about them is their claim that their rabbinic leaders (known
as the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah) represent
Daas Torah (the Wisdom of the Torah) on
all matters, big and small. If I had a nickel for every time the phrase ‘Daas
Torah’ was mentioned at an Agudah event, I’d be a millionaire.
Whether Agudah is the last word on what the actual wisdom of
the Torah is a matter of debate. While I have great respect for the Torah
knowledge and piety of those leaders, I have my own rabbinic authorities I look
to for the wisdom of the Torah. None of whom are - or were on the Agudah Moetzes. The point here is that most (if not all) of Agudah’s
rabbinic leaders are widely seen as the rabbinic authorities of our time in the
non Chasidic Charedi world. At least in this country. Even by Charedim that are not necessarily
members of Agudah itself.
Considering that the Agudah Moetzes carries so much weight
among the largest plurality of Orthodox Jews outside of the Chasidic world, it
is important to know exactly what their views are in a matter near and dear to
my heart: The increasing erasure of women from the public eye. A phenomenon
most recognizable by the omission of any picture of a woman at all in any of
their popular print media. Like Mishpacha Magazine.
I have always believed that Agudah’s rabbinic leaders have no
real issue with publishing pictues of women. It is likely that some of the same rabbis that are on the Moetzes are also the rabbinic advisers for Mesorah Publications (ArtScroll). They nevertheless publish books with pictures of women in them. It is also true that Agudah’s
now defunct magazine the Jewish Observer had also published pictures of women –
even on their cover!
When I made the
observation about the Jewish Observer to one of Mishpacha Magazine’s editors, I
was told that Agudah had stopped doing it long before they stopped publishing.
And that we are now living in a world with higher standards. They therefore refuse to publish of even a head shot of their female columnists while
publishing head shots of their male columnists.
I found that argument to be tenuous
at best.
Standard?! It is impossible for me to believe that there is
one ‘Daas Torah’ standard for Mishpacha and another one for ArtScroll. And yet
that is exactly what seems to be the case. That is clearly contradictory.
I mention all this in light of the recent Daf Yomi Siyum
HaShas sponsored by Agudah. There was the same kind of contradiction there.
On the one
hand there were several large magazine style publications distributed to all of
the attendees. (At least at the Siyum I attended in Rosemont, Illinois.) Every
single one of them did not have a single picture - or even a caricature of a woman. Even the one
specifically designed for women, Neshei HaSiyum. Not one! This, despite the
fact that one of the speakers actually gave them credit for enabling their husbands
to take the time every day to learn the Daf.
On the other hand - there was a picture ‘essay’ about that Siyum in
Yeshiva World News, where every single photograph was that of the women in attendance. Pictures
that were actually taken by Agudah themselves according to the headline!
While I applaud them for publishing those pictures online, I
have to wonder, Why the double standard? If it’s good enough for my eyes on the
internet, why is it not good enough for my eyes in print?
Interestingly, Mishapcha’s online addition also publishes
pictures of women. I have to ask them too, ‘Why the double standard?
I can only surmise that this decision is based more on the
sensibilities of a particular constituent class: Chasidim. The more right wing of
which believe that looking at a picture of a woman violates Halacha. Or might lead to violating it. No matter how Tzanua (modestly dressed) a woman
in a picture might be. Even a head shot!
There cannot be two standards of modesty. One for online images
and one for printed images. It makes no sense. Especially in light of the very
reason the internet is so frowned upon by the right: the fear of encountering
porn (online pictures) in the privacy of one’s own home. Does publishing pictures of women online
makes any sense in that context? Not to me it doesn’t.
There can be only one real reason for not publishing
pictures of women in any of their print media: Money. That’s right. As is
almost always the case follow the money and you will get your answers.
These magazines want as many readers as they can get.
Including Chasidim that might not buy their magazines if there were pictures of
women in them. Those of us who care about these things are minuscule compared to the
potential readership of the largest demographic in all of Orthodoxy. A demographic
that at least in theory is not supposed to be online at all.
The sad irony is that I would be willing to bet that the Chasidic
edict forbidding internet use is honored mostly in the
breach. Which means the very Chasidim they cater to by refusing to publish pictures of women may very will access their online
version anyway. So what in heaven’s name is being gained by all this?
Nothing in my view. But a lot is lost.
What is happening is that young people are being raised in a world where
there are no women ever depicted. Not even in caricature. As was the notorious case of an entertaining book called ‘A Yiddishe Kop’. There
one will find an illustration of a father making Kiddush at his Shabbos table that
features only him and his male children. No wife. No mother. No daughters.
What is the Charedi world teaching their children with this
trend? That there are pictures online is meaningless in world that paints that
medium as evil. Even as it might by now concede that it is necessary evil, it
is still evil. So that finding a woman pictured online is part of it.
This is terrible Chinuch for their young. And yet the trend is
in that direction. Will women eventually be entirely erased? Even online?! Even in caricature? What
kind of world are the children of this largest segment of Orthodox Jewry (by
far) going to be living in?
