Images and Imaginations

I was not going to post on the topic because it has gotten too viral, but I've had too many questions posed to me by various and sundry people in various and sundry situations over the past 48 hours, and certain matters need to be set straight. There will be no hyperlinks in this posting, lest additional contributions be made to the current feeding frenzy.

The White House released a photo of Barack Hussein Obama and his advisors in the Situation Room, watching the mission to take out Bin Laden unfold. The Yiddish language newspaper Die Tzeitung, based in Brooklyn and directed to an insular religious Jewish readership, published the photo, but with the images of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Audrey Tomasen photoshopped out of the picture. Die Tzeitung is one of those newspapers that does not publish photographs of women, based upon its interpretation of certain religious prohibitions, and the fear that men who look at such photographs might likely entertain various impure thoughts and fantasies.

I make no apologies for Die Tzeitung and other publications that have "no photos of women" policies. I do not now seek to distance myself from them (though in many respects they themselves have already done the distancing). I shall not now dissect the logic, and the flaws therein, of the notion that the Torah prohibits the publication of photographs of women. I take no position as to the propriety or ethics of altering a photograph released to the media with the stipulation that the photograph not be altered. And I do not now analyze whether the implementation of the aforementioned policies do or do not constitute a debasement and degradation of women.

I do, however, note (in no particular order) that:


A. I do not consider the subscriberships of Die Tzeitung and similar-minded publications to be more religiously observant than I am. As alluded to in previous postings, I keep the Sabbath, eat kosher, wear a kippah on my head, and my wife covers her hair.

B. This matter has drawn a significant amount of media attention upon groups that, by their own unabashed admission, seek insularity.

C. Said media attention has collateral impact upon those of us who are also Torah-observant Jews, but who have not problems with photographs of women (provided that the woman in the photograph is not immodestly or provocatively dressed or demeanored).

D. The media attention generated may well redound to the detriment of the insular groups the news publications in question identify with. Specifically, these same insular groups, which are not known for providing their people with a high degree of self-sustaining vocational skills, are dependent in no small part upon the generosity of charity-givers and/or the politicians. The current ridicule may well dissuade, to one extent or another, the continuation of such generosity, particularly in thin economic times such as those which currently prevail.

In its public apology, the sincerity of which I do not question but the efficacy of which I do, Die Tzeitung described the White House's photograph as "iconic." But if indeed a photograph is truly "iconic" then Die Tzeitung's editors cannot expect their manipulation of it to go unnoticed.

Portraying the Wrong Picture

The news story now making the rounds (as in here and here and here) is about how certain newspapers in Israel photoshopped the women out of the news photo of the new Israeli Cabinet.

The fact is that in some religious circles, portraying a woman in a photograph is considered immodest. The newspapers at issue here are published by and for such segments of the population, therefore, they do not publish photographs which portray women. In fact, some have been known to insist that all photographs of people, even of males, are prohibited.

This posting shall not now get into the issues of whether pixelating or airbrushing out the women out from the group photo is or is not more journalistically ethical than rearranging the positions of the entire group so as to exclude the women, or whether it would or would not be better to not publish the photo at all.

What this post WILL address is the implication, in news stories such as the one at issue, that those Jewish people who eschew photographs of women are somehow "more religious" than those who do not.

Imprimis, I detest the use of the term "ultraorthodox" to describe any Jewish person. The use of the "U" word serves only to fragment the Jewish people, and to subject those of us who adhere to the Torah commandments to ridicule.

There are many groups of religious Jews who, for many generations, chose to stay isolated to one extent or another from society at large. Even when contact and communication could not be avoided, such groups have retained costume and custom which differs from the general norm. They are, in a word, insular. They have always been around, but in today's world of rapid transportation and communication, these groups now are noticed by more and more people who, even twenty years ago, would have been oblivious to their existence. Many of their practices are based more upon group traditions than upon any mandate from the Torah.

I have no particular quarrel with such groups; indeed, I regularly interact with many to one extent or another. And I read several publications whose intended readership is such groups [N.B. The Israeli "Yated Ne'eman" mentioned in the story officially split from the American publication of the same title a number of years ago; let us say that they now are divorced but they still sleep together.]. Such newspapers -- and their readerships -- have the right to decide which photographs will or will not be published in their pages.

As for my religious observance, I daven (pray) three times each day, keep the Sabbath and the dietary laws, and, in a few days, will observe the Passover. For the record, I personally have no religious issues with photographs of women who are decently clad. And, not that it really, really matters, but I wear a kippah and my wife covers her hair with a wig or a snood. Those who happen to wear the black hats but who are sex offenders, tax cheats, womanizers, or even ordinary murderers may well be more insular than I am, but they are not more religious!

Do not confuse insularity with religiousity!