I never thought I’d be in the position of defending extreme Chasidic “modesty” but I have no choice. The mocking condemnations of the Chasidic newspaper Di Tzeitung that are flying through cyberspace due to the paper’s removal of women from a picture are so lacking in self-awareness that someone needs to point out that the two parties in this discussion are flip sides of the same coin.
The newspaper’s decision is objectionable on many points, including copyright law, sensitivity and honesty. I can’t defend it. But rather than mock I can try to understand it. Satire can be insightful even when it is merciless. However, too often it is merely getting a cheap laugh or an easy position of outrage at the expense of thoughtful consideration.
The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 20b) says that a man should not think improperly about women during the day because that may cause an unnecessary emission at night. This is a broad requirement to (try to) control your thoughts. The divinely implanted desire to procreate and its attendant instincts make this quite a challenge. But, as any successful person will tell you, if you surrender without a struggle and give up even if you sometimes stumble, you will never get anywhere in life.
A Jewish community newspaper needs to ensure that its published material does not contain inappropriate material. What is inappropriate? Libel, profanity, vulgarity and more. Pictures that cause improper thoughts are also inappropriate. I think all reasonable people would agree that family newspapers should refrain from publishing provocative pictures. What makes a picture provocative? Forgive the tautology, but a picture that provokes improper thoughts is provocative. To some degree, this varies by reader, which makes the determination difficult and subjective.
In today’s world, standards are on a constant decline. A recent issue of Newsweek featured naked pictures of men with small smiley faces over their most private parts. This is what passes as decent today. Bus stops and subway trains are filled with half-dressed women, peddling their bodies in order to sell products to consumers. Decency is relative, and today it seems relatively gone. Religious and family publications cannot give in to this trend and must maintain their standards.
If it were up to me, a newspaper would have a committee that uses common sense and community standards to determine what pictures are provocative. I have no doubt that, since this exercise entails making judgment calls, such a committee would be publicly mocked as a censorship board and a nudity monitor. Another option is to simply refrain from publishing any picture that anyone might remotely consider inappropriate. Even more extreme is refraining from publishing pictures of women at all.
I don’t agree with this last choice. I think too much is lost — to women and to the public — to justify the blanket policy. However, I can respect the decision to refrain from making decisions on women’s pictures. I understand the desire to avoid the mockery of a censorship board whose job is to determine which women, clothing and poses are sufficiently attractive to arouse readers. The mocking class of commentators have created a culture where this last option is appealing and then they mock people who take the path they feel forced into.
I prefer moderate and flexible standards. But I can understand, even if strongly disagree with, those who choose otherwise.
See below a CNN interview with the editor of Di Tzeitung, who I think handles himself admirably even if I disagree with his interpretation of Jewish law:
“But anyone who knows the NY scene could have seen a mile away that this would backfire, as it indeed did.”
Excellent point. To me this is a clear case of the perfect vs. the good.
“Steve Brizel on May 10, 2011 at 6:15 pm
One can disagree with the SR’s Shitah on Zionism and gender issues, and still view Satmar as having been the basis for revitalizing interest in Mitzvos such as Shatnez, the venue where such enterprises as Hatzala were initiated, as well as reminding us on a daily basis that Bilur Cholim is a Mitzvah that is of communal importance and organized in an incomparable manner by the women of the Satmar community. ”
actually, the satmar bikur cholim is / was mostly funded by a friend of the SR who also donates substantial sums to riets. and a personal friend of r lamm, who recently had a campus building named for his family.
2. cropping pix — like the noah feldman issue — in the end, it turned out the picture was cropped to fit in the newletter. not photoshopped as implied then.
Jerry-are you saying that we should ignore the comments of J-Street, Kushner, Chomsky, and similar personae?
Jerry-are you saying that we should ignore the comments of Kushner, Chomsky, and similar personae?
Steve — should we then actively protest the loony-right fringe too?
IH-where is anti Semitism a greater threat today? IMO, the greater threat lies in on the left, especially among the cultural and intellectual elites. Kushner, Chomsky and other self hating Jews pose a far greater threat than the swastikas found in some bathrooms that ADL seems preoccupied with or the far right. FWIW, IMO, far too much attention is paid to the statements of the evangelical movements’ leaders despite the fact that they are Israel’s greatest supporters.
I meant the Israeli loony-right, when they are given platforms by Jewish organizations here in the US.
But in regard to the conservative loony left — never forget that your enemies enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Why do you ignore Glenn Beck’s latent anti-semitism that comes out from time to time; but spend days here railing about Tony Kushner for his politics?
Oops. Should have been: in regard to the conservative loony RIGHT — never forget that your enemies enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Shabbat Shalom
[...] Student defends Hasidic newspaper’s photoshopping [...]
>The Jewish orthodox response to that and your point should be, no, the determination is not subjective or difficult. It is quite easy. It is halacha.
I retract this statement, after being reminded of Dat Yehudit.
What I mean is that sociological considerations do play a large part in hilchot tzniut; this does not imply that I agree with the totality of the post, but my other points have been made by others already.
IH-Glenn Beck and John Hagee are great Ohavei Yisrael, whose religious POVs neither scare me nor cause me to lose an iota of sleep Tony Kushner and Noam Chomsky are Sonei Yirael, as was the late Tony Judt.
Which members of the “Israeli loony right” are you referring to?
IH-I see no downside in either Senator Inhof or Governor Huckabee or other politicans with similar views being given speaker’s roles at communal dinners.
[...] Women in Jewish Media [ public opinion @ Hirhurim ] [...]
[...] we have also noted that public fears can push organizations to act in an overly cautious manner (link). I suspect that due to the overly suspicious nature of many members of the public, communal [...]
[...] with the 2nd most unique readers: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 – 1,426 unique readers (day of the women in Jewish media [...]
[...] the American sphere, we had the infamous photoshopping out of Hillary Clinton a few months ago. This event prompted the website Vos Iz Neias to publish a halachic article on the [...]