by Ruchi
WHERE'S HILLARY?
I was utterly bowled over this week that the editorial practices of a tiny
Hasidic newspaper in Brooklyn has made it to Yahoo news and thus to every major
news carrier in the country. Apparently, the paper, citing Jewish guidelines
of modesty, maintains a policy not to print photos of women, yet they wanted to
print the famously iconic photo of Obama and his security team in the Situation
Room, viewing the capture of Osama Bin Laden. So they photoshopped out Hillary
Clinton and Audrey Tomason, leaving empty spaces in their wake.
THE BACKLASH
Some of the reactions that came my way, via the internet news media and
Facebook:
1. Making women disappear? How far has sexism gone?
2. Religious Jews are patriarchal and oppressive towards women.
3. In fact, religious extremism of all kind must not be tolerated .
4. This photo? Sexually suggestive? Really? How laughable.
5. If Orthodox guys have a problem with this, they clearly need help.
6. This is illegal – the Terms of Use were violated.
7. How wrong, to alter history, and especially by deleting the
contributions of a strong female role model.
Please note: I paraphrase – many of the reactions were fanged and clawed.
MY VIEW
Our local Jewish paper called me on Wednesday, requesting a statement from an
Orthodox woman. Here are my credentials: I grew up Orthodox, attended Orthodox
day schools, summer camps, high school, and seminary in Israel.
Here’s my experience - I have never been disrespected, overlooked, harassed,
or spoken down to by the Orthodox men that I have encountered. Not in the
Hasidic community (my brother is Hasidic) or in any other segment of
Orthodoxy. I have found the guidelines of modesty (incumbent in different ways
on men and women) to be highly effective in ensuring secure marriages that are
way resistant to infidelity, in preserving boundaries in relationships, and in
fostering healthy sexual attitudes. I have grown used to being valued for my
mind and soul, not my body. I have never, ever been objectified or made to feel
sexually uncomfortable.
Make no mistake: this is not my way – I’m on Facebook, and my photo is on my
website. But it is a way, and it comes from a good place. The paper has a
policy not to print photos of women at all. It has nothing to do with whether
the photo is suggestive, as clearly this photo is not. While this paper's
policies are not strictly necessary, there is value here. Hillary Clinton has
been a victim of Western morality. Now she is a “victim” of Hasidic morality.
Which encounter hurts her more? Does the cover of Cosmo bode well for us
females? How far have we come, really?
THE ROYAL WEDDING
Did anyone notice how modest the royal wedding was? Let me take out the word
“modest” and replace it with a word I like even better: “dignified.” Modesty
connotes removal of something (flashiness, provocative behavior) but does not
connote what remains in its place. Judaism teaches that when we protect
ourselves from being cheaply advertised, what remains, what is allowed to
shine, is dignity, refinement, and class.
The royal wedding gown had sleeves! The royal kiss was, oh so classy. No
cheap flashy show here. Us Jews are meant to be a light unto the nations. We
too have royalty. We are gifted with that class and dignity. That’s what the
guidelines of dignity are meant to offer us.
MEN AND WOMEN
Women are more likely to violate their own dignity and that of others by
allowing themselves to be overexposed. Men are more likely to violate their
own dignity and that of others by allowing themselves to view things that are
overexposed. Hence, Judaism steps in to offer boundaries to each gender where
it needs it most. Women are guided to cover more parts of their body, and men
are guided to guard their eyes more. Which do you think is more restrictive?
When we want to take a trip to the beach, I would go with some girlfriends –
we’ll just cover up. My husband doesn’t go at all. He knows it will be
impossible for him to maintain his modesty there in the realm of what he will
allow his eyes to see.
PACKAGE DEAL
Underreported factoid: the paper likewise refuses to publish anything bordering
on gossip (lashon hara) – similarly driven by religious sensibilities.
Granted, we’re looking at two extremely opposite sides of the spectrum, but if
a celebrity or politician had the choice of one package or another, one would
wonder which is preferable. Michael J. Fox references the “Hollywood Fun
House” in his memoir as an impossible place to maintain a healthy sense of self
– it’s like looking into a distorted mirror every day of your life. You’re on
show, all the time, to the point where you have no idea who you are. This is
exactly what modesty protects us from, and the reverse is what it offers us in
return.
THE END OF THE STORY
Terms of Use, were, indeed violated. The paper has printed an apology.
Indeed, it should have opted not to print the photo at all rather than alter it
– for many reasons. But here’s what a non-Orthodox acquaintance had to say:
“If we want to respect different views of Judaism, we have to respect different
choices within this ultra-Hasidic group’s framework. The issue is not whether
the paper edited out Clinton’s picture, it is the way this Hasidic sect views
women’s role in public life overall. I understand that the Brooklyn newspaper
is being consistent in following its readers’ religious beliefs. I may not
like their strict interpretation of modesty, and I may question whether their
view of a woman’s role in life represents an understanding of Judaism I agree
with. But it is in keeping with their practice of Judaism, and they are
entitled to their interpretation and consistency.”
