The Photoshopped Hilary Clinton Brouhaha

Ultra-Orthodoxy (aka Hasidism) is one of the most misunderstood denominations, and the brouhaha over the photoshopped Hilary Clinton picture is the latest example. The general assumption is that women being refused “face space” in ultra-orthodox publications is due to a tacit attempt to “silence” the female voice as well as the overall lack of respect for women in ultra-orthodox society. Although several pundits—Albert Friedman, publisher of Di Tzeitung, and Dov Hikind, NYS Assemblyman, among them—have attempted to explain that not publishing images of women is merely a modesty standard that the Orthodox abide by, few people are listening.

And small wonder. Hilary Clinton is not what one would think of as a sex symbol. To say that cutting her picture is necessary in order not to incite lustful thoughts seems, to the world at large, a ludicrous explanation. Furthermore, feminist discourse has (thankfully, in my opinion) become commonplace, and so, the phrases “silencing the woman” and “dominant male ideology” are part of the layman’s lexicon, springing instinctively to mind in a situation such as this. Never mind that bookstores catering to the Orthodox are filled with books about inspirational women and/or by female authors, belying the silencing of women claim, and that the ultra-orthodox were on the whole, exceedingly supportive of Hilary during her run for presidency, negating the lack of respect for women claim. These facts are dismissed and ignored. As is typical with stereotypes and preconceived opinions, the popular viewpoint prevails, despite evidence to the contrary. 

To be fair, Ultra-Orthodoxy is misunderstood because the link between certain ideologies and their resultant actions are, indeed, frequently blurred. Channeling Poet Laureate Gerald Stern’s poem, “Blue Skies, White Breasts, Green Trees” (Blue Skies, White Breasts, Green Trees “It was my brain fooling me, sending me false images…”), what one takes to be discriminating against men is often based on an ideology that reflects negatively on women, and vice versa.

Here is one example: The entrance to wedding halls that cater to the Orthodox are divided – one entry area for men, one for women. In most halls, the women’s entrance is a large room featuring elegant décor and plush seating (similar to a lobby of an upscale hotel). The men’s entrance is usually an unadorned foyer, not especially large or impressive. The actual hall itself is also often more elaborately decorated on the women’s side. Additionally, most ultra-Orthodox weddings boast live floral centerpieces on each table – but only on the women’s side. The female guests are generally served a more gourmet appetizer and a much more elegant dessert dish than the men. How discriminating against the male species, wouldn’t you think? How second class they are treated! But oddly, the ideology that created this unjust setup is based on a concept that glorifies the male. According to Utra-Orthodox doctrine, men are cerebral specimens, engaged in (or at least, meant to engage in) erudite and scholarly matters, unconcerned and uninterested in superficial trivialities such as the décor of a room, a table centerpiece, or presentation of food. Women, apparently more frivolous and shallow (according to this ideology), care deeply about such material entities and, therefore, are accommodated in this area. Understanding the reasoning places an entirely different spin on an action that appears to be treating the Orthodox male shabbily.

Analogously, the exclusion of female images in Orthodox media, though appearing to be dismissive of women, is actually—if one goes by the ideology it is based on—more of a negative reflection on the Orthodox male character than it is of the female. Is the Orthodox male so animalistic and weak that he cannot control his lust at the mere sight of a female?

In truth, the Orthodox don’t much care about the origins of certain acts or the ideologies that have created them. As is often the case, the ideal and the actuality are not precisely the same. The Orthodox women are pleased to enjoy elegant affairs and couldn’t care less that it’s supposed to make them appear frivolous. (Many men, though, are beginning to speak up, demanding “equal rights” in the wedding dinner menu department.) The Orthodox men are happy to have “kosher” reading material that is interesting and relevant to their lives and are unconcerned that exclusion of certain images reflects badly on their natures. Like humans all over the world, their thoughts and concerns are about whatever affects their immediate lives.

And that is another thing that is misunderstood about the Ultra-Orthodox/Hasidim: They are, ultimately, human beings. Despite the singular clothing, despite the lifestyle that complies with a legal code of an ancient text, they are regular people with regular desires, worries, loves, and hates. Except for a small minority, none have chosen this lifestyle. They were born into it and have retained the status quo. They are not, at their core, more pious or more base than other human beings.

And yet, if one peruses the various comments sections following articles about the edited Hilary Clinton photo, the hatred spewed upon the Ultra-Orthodox is staggering to behold. Interestingly enough, the vitriol directed toward them—as an entire group, a single entity—is coming from those who supposedly glorify liberal values, who care about women’s rights, and who believe in tolerance toward all.  How strange that this tolerance seems to evaporate when the discussion turns to fundamentalist Jews who are “all retarded, evil, and sick” (as expressed, among other lovely sentiments, by numerous commenters).

The Ultra-Orthodox set certain standards for themselves that are intended to help them live morally. One of these is the prohibiting of publishing pictures of women in their own media. They do not differentiate between images that have the potential to incite lust and those that don’t, as to do so would cause more disagreement and problematic situations than applying a single blanket rule.

Does the exclusion of female images actually help the Orthodox live more piously? Possibly for some, doubtful for most. Does it show a lack of respect for women in general or for Hilary in particular? Absolutely not. The Orthodox regard Hilary highly and most would have probably voted her into office if she would have won the democratic candidacy instead of Obama.

Is the exclusion of female images in Orthodox media a wise or ethical policy? Each person will respond to this question according to her/his personal beliefs. But the fact remains: Orthodox media is created by and for the Orthodox. These are their standards. They do not condemn the secular media for not abiding by their standards; perhaps it would be prudent for the secular community to return the favor.