I just received an email from Artscroll for their latest biography: Rebbitzen Kanievsky A Legendary Mother to Us All. The cover features a picture of an apartment building. If the next biography of a man features an empty apartment building, my cynicism is misplaced.
Meanwhile, Hamodia has introduced a "Clean Window" where, for an introductory rate of $9.99, you can get your own email and Hamodia's daily edition, page by page, with no access to any other internet site. "This is a closed, one-site connection which will enable you to enjoy reliable and important up-to-date news using an affordable technology that completely bypasses access to the worldwide web." . . .. . "As more people rely on electronic news, this service will be a key tool in battling internet dependency." Of course the reason there is a demand for internet news (and dependence on internet news) is because people want more access to information and thought than is provided by the New York Times or Washington Post's, more depth than what is provided by the TV network, and a variety that actually injects some reliability into the news.
I fear that our brothers are trying to turn back the clock to a time that never even existed.
18 comments:
people want more access to information and thought than is provided by the New York Times or Washington Post's
I understand people may want to read different perspectives, but the quality of news and investigative reporting provided by these two organizations is not matched by the vast majority of internet news outlets.
Off topic, but very relevant to your blog. I'd love to see a post on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/education/scholarship-funds-meant-for-needy-benefit-private-schools.html?hp
Rebbetzin Kanievsky was a tzadekes and the embodiment of tzniut. If we cannot publish her picture, something is very wrong with our priorities.
The mishna in Yoma (1;1) says "bayso zu ishto" meaning his house is his wife. So they use a picture of Rav Chaim's house. whats the big deal - it is a clear mishna! haha.
not amused, you offer good comic relief. Wish I'd thought of that myself
hamodia is run by a gerrer family and if they want to follow their own rav's tznius rules that is their right. But it bothers me that the rest of jewish publishing feels the need to be (=look) equally frum, as if this is the way we always did things. No, it isn't, rabosai.
I can't get too worked up over this: Artscroll has an audience that it caters to, and if keeping the Rebbetzin's picture off the cover sells more copies, then that's exactly what they should do.
I am curious about the inside photos, though: according to Artscroll's blurbs, the book contains "hundreds of pictures;" are they all blurred?
It's ArtScroll's translation series that has a bug in my bonnet: a 5 volume kitzur shulchan aruch kinda defeats the point, no?
I agree with efrex: since when did Artscroll claim to cater to, or to represent, Jews who are not chareidi? Sure, Modern Orthodox shuls buy their siddurim and chumashim. Sure, Modern Orthodox families sponsor their sefarim. But Modern Orthodoxy (of all stripes) is not who they're publishing for.
chavi beck:
ArtScroll is not "the rest of Jewish publishing." Urim publications has no problem publishing women's photos on their covers; neither does JPS.
Do you think the Rebbitzen herself would want her picture on the cover? Don't you think it's appropriate to respect what she would want? I am no fan of removing women from pictures, but I think the subject's preference should be respected.
why are there three men on the cover?
Aren't there enough Chareidi bashing blogs on the internet? I thought this one was about frum finance.
Besides, what's wrong with Hamodia's idea? Other than that it offends those who don't want to be reminded that the internet is a dangerous place for the spiritually seeking Jew.
ClooJew, falls under related subjects. Strong economies and freedom of information are related.
If one looks inside the book online at artscroll.com you can see that they have at least one picture of a woman (as I recall her mother).
I own this book and the reason why they have the apartment on the cover is because that is where she greeted the multitudes of women each day. It is a symbol of the chesed that she did. There are many pictures of her in the book. Even in Parshas Vayeira Sara Imeinu did not sit in the tent with Avraham Avinu and the guests.
Rebbetzin Kanievsky herself would probably even be uncomfortable with the pictures inside the book as well.This isn't about oppression of women but treating them as precious jewels rather than produce on the market place.
i believe the publisher of the hamodia is a woman. a very wise one who is taking all the proper precautions for her audience in order to continue relaying international, national, health, etc. information to a population that might not otherwise see it. while it is not my taste, it is keeping a cloistered section of the community aware of issues in a way that they accept. to give up / impose our methods of delivery on them would be elitist and not serve a greater purpose: keeping people informed.
Each of us should pick one information source, of the type that is often fanciful and unreliable bordering on fiction, and get an internet feed of that and that alone. How blissful we would be.
As another commenter pointed out, there are many pictures of Rebbetzin Kanievsky throughout the book, but the way I see it that's worse than not printing pictures of her at all. If Artscroll had a consistent policy - no pictures of women - that would, at least, have some integrity to it, although I would disagree with their choice. But to go so far out of their way not to put her picture on the cover, and then to print pictures of her inside the book, makes it look like they are trying to have it both ways - they don't really believe in such a policy, but they want to look like they do in order to cater to a certain segment of the population.
Post a Comment