895 replies to this topic

[accolade]

I asked the rabbi there, and was told that it depends on whether the news publication allows women pictures or not.

I got that flyer in an email. I didn't sign up for the too-frum-to-see-othergendered-individuals list.

[Jeanette]

[My other counter argument against it being no skin off my nose is that lehavdil, the issue of civil rights for African Americans - should I not care because I'm not Black myself? Should I not care just because some Blacks are fine with the status quo?].

I'm not sure how well this line of thinking plays out in practice. If you're going to argue that it's a civil rights issue, then you can just as easily argue that it's demeaning for women to have to cover their hair or be "unclean" two weeks of the month or not daven for the amud. Even if you're going to limit your protests to those things that go beyond the strict letter of the law, it's hard to argue that consistently, since many restrictions that are normative practice in many communities aren't required by the strict letter of the law.

[Jeanette]

I don't think it's really a civil rights issue. The analogy is that one can care about something that doesn't directly impact oneself directly. [Although this is indeed impacting others nonetheless. But even if it didn't].

I have no issue with hakpadot and restrictions and shtick and minhagim and gederim that are motivated by a sincere desire to improve one's avodah.
But my issue with this practice is that, in my opinion, the real motivation is to silence and disempower women, that part of their sincere avodah is to silence and disempower women and thereby get closer to God notwithstanding.

In your subjective opinion, maybe.

[Jeanette]

I said, "in my opinion". Of course it's my personal subjective opinion. That the real goal is to silence and disempower women is my opinion, not fact.

I just think that your distinction is artificial. "This is a legitimate geder/chumrah/sensitivity/minhag, but this is only to silence and disempower women."

I'm not sure myself what the motivation is. But women do have the option of not accepting these speaking invitations if they feel they're being treated disrespectfullly.

[TheDuncePolice]

.

[Jeanette]

It's simply done to pretend that women don't exist. The attitude being that they don't belong in books, newspapers etc... They should stay behind the scenes.

Then don't invite them to speak. Can't have it both ways.

I don't think Gateways is trying to make women disappear (not that I know squat about this organization). It just seems that they got swept along with the current.

[TheDuncePolice]

.

[Jeanette]

No. Gateways doesn't want that I think. But they want to advertise in the more heimishe newspapers and have to abide by their rules.

Right. It's the heimish newspapers problem, not this or that organization.
And people are locked into buying only heimishe papers because that's all that's allowed to be sold and read in their communities.

[TheDuncePolice]

.

[Jeanette]

Is this a new thing? Can you remember a time when it was common for heimishe magazines to show pictures of women? Is it the magazines themselves that are new? Or is it that we now have the internet so we can analyze and discuss the phenomenon?

[TheDuncePolice]

.

[Beilum Shem]

Golda Meir was of an appearance and nature that she hardly provoked any sort of untoward thoughts (except maybe from Malka Leifer).