Is Silence Enough?

Both the RCA (in a Facebook post) and the OU (in an email shared to a Facebook group by its recipient) have shared their opinions that their actions speak louder than words. Because these rabbinic organizations do not engage in the practice of excluding women’s images from their publications, dayenu.

When I think about other forms of abuse, and yes, attempting to eliminate 50% of the population from the public sphere is abuse, is it enough to stay silent? Even if I myself am not an abuser, does that absolve me from speaking up when I know that others are being harmed?

The Jewish community often cites this poignant quote from Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller, an outspoken activist against Hitler who spent seven years in a Nazi concentration camp –

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Kowtowing to extremists never ends well. Although remaining silent and uncritical might seem like the more diplomatic solution – as long as we aren’t part of their group or one of their targets, let them continue their madness until the movement fizzles itself out – this is a naive belief. The other naive belief is that because we, as Jews, have historically been victimized, we can never be the victimizers. It’s all well and good to read Pastor Niemoller’s words while nodding out heads and saying, “Yes! You didn’t speak up for us and in the end they came for you too!” However, are we capable of taking his lesson further to understand that we are also included in his admonition to speak up for others who have no voice – yes, even victims are responsible to speak up for their fellow humans wherever possible.

Wasn’t it only just over a year ago that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate put out a “blacklist” that rejected the conversions of foreign liberal rabbis – 77 of them from the United States, with 40% of that number being RCA members? Were there a few rabbis excluded because of individual scandal associated with them, yes. However, it was disturbing to see a possible push by the haredi Israeli Chief Rabbinate to discredit American modern orthodox rabbinic leaders. Point being, the move from the right to exclude and erase won’t end with women.

Silence on the part of witnesses is an essential element needed for criminals to get away with their crimes. Secrecy is another essential element. Harboring fugitives to help them evade confrontation and punishment also makes one culpable in their crimes. Both the RCA and OU have historically been proud “old boy networks.” Oh to be a fly on the wall of some their formal and informal meetings where the men can speak freely.

Unlike us women, I have no doubt that the members of these organizations know exactly who is behind the movement to erase women. There are probably a few proponents within the ranks of the RCA and OU themselves who support and encourage such an attitude. However, their names will never be given up – members will continue to close ranks and remain silent in support of their right wing comrades – even if they personally disagree.

Silence equals acquiescence. It means that while you wouldn’t do a certain thing yourself, you are willing to stand by and let someone else do it. It means that you have absolved yourself of responsibility toward your fellow Jew.

They have taken our voices, now they have taken our faces. Ladies, there are no knights in shining armor coming to save us. The time has come for us to save ourselves.

Advertisements

Help Solve The 31 Year Old Murder Mystery of Chaim Weiss

This isn’t my normal type of post, and since I rarely update this blog anymore it’s a shot in the dark that someone with information will see it, but just in case, I feel compelled to reach out to anyone who might ease the pain of the family of Chaim Weiss, a Long Island Yeshiva student who was murdered in the school’s dormitory in the early morning hours of November 1, 1986 by helping to find his killer. Anyone having any information about the case should contact a special hotline set up by the Nassau County Police at 1-800-244-TIPS.

This article describes the case and includes a video (linked below) 

This is a video from Unsolved Mysteries that goes into greater detail about the case –

Here is an October 4, 2017 podcast about Chaim’s case on Robin Warder’s “The Trail Went Cold.

After listening and reading about Chaim’s case, I can’t help but hear so many details taken as fact that don’t make sense to me.  Without the benefit of more information other than what’s been published in the media, this is my armchair detective take on things as they stand – which could be completely wrong – but I wonder if anyone else reading this from the perspective of the orthodox Jewish world noticed these things too.  I am also going to add in a detail that goes against what has been reported in the press thus far.

There are a lot of strange bits of information in the case.

For example, the memorial candles lit in Chaim’s dorm room for the shiva period. First of all, only immediate family members sit shiva for a departed loved one (these would be Chaim’s parents and siblings), and they are the ones to light the memorial candle (they have large 7 day candles for this purpose, so you don’t usually keep lighting individual candles). Second of all, you wouldn’t light such a candle at the place of the departed’s death (like Chaim’s room), but rather, most likely in the family home where you are sitting shiva (in a place safe for lighting candles and perhaps on a nice tray and a place of visual prominence).

The second off detail is how much of a prominent role the idea that Jews are targeted for violence on Halloween plays in the push to consider that the killer was a random non Jewish stranger. This is a common paranoia in more insular orthodox Jewish communities, because historically, there were times when Jews were harmed on Halloween. However, in 20th and 21st century America, almost no one else outside of the orthodox Jewish community would associate Halloween as a “kill the Jews” day.

Generally speaking, I don’t believe that in America, there is a great uptick in violent crime against Jews during this largely “dress up in costumes, watch scary movies, and eat lots of candy” cultural version of Halloween as it is celebrated today. I can’t say if a Yeshiva, with its group of boys, might attract other groups of non Jewish boys for general mischief like egg tossing, but certainly, I can’t recall any murders or mayhem happening specifically to Jews on Halloween in recent times in America. My son went to an out of town dorm Yeshiva and so did my husband and they didn’t experience crime or harassment specifically on Halloween. Maybe they got lucky.

My point is, only someone with a firm belief that it’s widely accepted that Jews are targeted for violence on Halloween would feel that police would also think it a reasonable motive for a non Jew to murder a random Jew on that day. To anyone outside the enclave, that theory seems pretty far fetched and without recent precedent. Which is why I personally think this was an inside job perpetrated by someone in the community.

The third inconsistency I see is the widely reported detail that Chaim was one of only two students with his own room. This is the part of the story where I have heard the opposite of what has been reported. I mentioned my husband went to a dorm Yeshiva. In 1986, my husband was in a Yeshiva in Baltimore. Shortly after Chaim Weiss’ murder, one of Chaim’s classmates joined my husband’s Yeshiva. Not just any classmate, but Chaim’s roommate.

He told the boys that he had been spending that Shabbos at home when Chaim was murdered. His parents were so freaked out by the situation that they never sent him back to the Long Island Yeshiva and transferred him to Baltimore.

Now keep in mind that at that time in 1986, Chaim’s murder had a huge impact on the orthodox community all over America – especially in the Yeshiva world. It was all anyone talked about. So, it is possible, that a newly transferred high school student, anxious for friends, attention and clout, might exaggerate his level of involvement with the victim. Certainly, roommate or not, I can see why his parents would have panicked and removed him from the school. However, if he really was the victim’s roommate, how might that change things? Why would the school have told police that he had his own room?

Certainly, if this was a premeditated murder, waiting until Halloween might seem like a good night to claim that an antisemitic stranger bent on murder randomly struck down Chaim. But maybe the Halloween part was incidental and the murderer picked a night when the roommate would be gone and surely wouldn’t return until after Sabbath? Of course, there is always the possibility that this roommate had something to do with Chaim’s demise and the school covered it up and allowed his parents to shuffle him to another Yeshiva (this theory seems unlikely, as my husband didn’t say this kid was a troublemaker or behaved strangely in any way).

The other odd mention was that there was no dorm counselor present during the night – dorm counselors are usually younger unmarried guys (early 20s) and there have been unofficial (read unreported) cases of abuse between dorm counselors and students in the past. Where was the dorm counselor that night? He wasn’t around during the night to detect an intruder or hear the sounds of murder and the subsequent movement of the body and cleanup, but he was around the next morning to find his body and tell everyone to get out of the building?

Which bring me to what I see as the smoking gun that the murderer was a staff member – Chaim’s hysterical crying phone call from camp during the summer before school started, asking his father to bring him home. As with the murky accusations about abuses in dormitories, there have likewise been reports (both official and unofficial) of kids being abused in Jewish camps by staff. Most cases are never reported much less convicted. We can thank the internet for bringing attention to such accusations, but of course, you can only believe what you hear about on the internet so much. However, in terms of opportunity, it is so much easier to abuse a child in a mountain camp in the outdoors – no parents, much less supervision than in a school setting, and many more places to go to commit the crime unseen.

Apparently there are online sleuths who feel that Chaim was likely abused at the school or camp (it was mentioned that this was a camp run by his school with the same staff as during the school year), and by the time his father came to the camp a week later, after returning from Florida, the staff and/or possibly the perpetrator had already convinced Chaim not to tell. The fact that the yeshiva’s principal was so anxious/nervous to speak to Chaim after camp ended (probably to make sure he didn’t talk outside of the influence of himself or other staff), and also convinced Chaim not to reveal the contents of their conversation to his father, is all the more suspicious. An odd detail reported in a 1986 New York Times article on events that happened at the school shortly before Chaim’s murder –

Also, last summer, a mattress was found burning at one of the yeshiva dorms, according to Rabbi Chaim Wakslak, a local Orthodox leader.

My opinion is that Chaim’s murder was an inside job, but none of the people involved, nor those close to them, will talk. It’s not because they have a moral obligation not to accuse someone unless they are certain, which is what potential witnesses have told media and authorities. It’s because they have a moral obligation not to be an informant against another Jew to secular authorities. This is misguided, as respected rabbis have rules that in cases of abuse (how much more so murder) a Jew is required to go to authorities. But many religious Jews still feel that reporting a Jew to non Jewish authorities is still worse than whatever crime the Jew committed. Of course, the actual murderer(s) exploit this belief because it’s to their advantage not to be turned into the authorities.

These are just my theories and opinions based on what I’ve heard and read about the case. I came across another article that discusses a taunting letter sent to Chaim’s family eight years after his death in 1994. One commenter on that article said the Yeshiva had suggested that the school’s Polish janitor committed the murder and then fled back to Poland, sending the taunting letter years later. This version could be true, or the letter could be a plant by the true killer trying yet again to put forward a theory of an outsider (non Jew) as the murderer who conveniently skipped the country and couldn’t be questioned. Was there even actually a Polish janitor?

I would be interested to hear your perspectives and who you think might have committed this atrocity. Chaim’s family is in agony even to this day. His parents are getting older, and it would be a terrible thing for them to leave this world without ever knowing who killed their son and to know that they will never get justice unless the murderer is found.

Again, the hotline is Nassau County Police at 1-800-244-TIPS

Facebook Pulled The Rug From Under The JBlogosphere


Remember when you gave up reading Failed Messiah for Aseret Yemei Teshuva? It’s author, Shmarya Rosenberg, was but one of many town criers exposing the underbelly of the orthodox Jewish world. Rosenberg and naysayers like him have largely gone silent.

Is this because many of the societal issues that took place during the JBlogging heyday of 2000-2010 have been resolved? Has day school tuition dramatically lowered? Has the stigma surrounding mental health gone away? Has sex abuse been eliminated? Have we discovered a compassionate approach towards LGBTQ Jews? Have people stopped committing fraud and other white collar crimes? Have things simply  gotten better over the past several years?

If not, maybe the jaded bloggers who attracted hundreds of followers have all become baalei teshuvas? Maybe they turned over a new leaf and either see things in a different way or now agree with sweeping things under the communal rug? 

Maybe many of them decided to leave the community and its angst behind, going frei, so to speak?

I would argue that the miles of comments containing passionate debates and discussions on the blogs of yore have been replaced by Facebook – but Facebook threads can never hope to replace the raw honesty that happened when people were able to comment anonymously on blog posts. This is because on Facebook you can’t hide.  

Sure, there are folks who try to get away with fake Facebook profiles.  While they might last for awhile, if they get too intense or insulting towards those Orthodox Jews who love debating with frum critics, their profile will get flagged and deleted.  Long term fake profiles only work if the person behind it lays low and mainly observes.

On Facebook, you have to stand behind what you say – with your own name, and with your own face. That can inhibit discussion and critique when you are part of a world with only two or three degrees of separation between you and everyone else. The only town criers left seem to be those who are no longer part of the community, on the edge of it and don’t care who knows it, or the truly courageous among us.

Facebook not only caused the downfall of the JBlogosphere network, but also took away the anonymous platform that critics within the community used to have. These pseudonymed critics often had the valuable vantage point of a current insider’s perspective, rather than the perspective of those outside of the system or those who made their exit many years before. Shmarya Rosenberg wasn’t anonymous, so people knew how to get to him. The buzz online was that he was paid to stop blogging about the ills of Orthodoxy.

Many would say that the abolishment of the “Failed Messiahs” is a good thing. What do you think?

An unspoken dream is like an unopened letter

Many years ago when I was newly married, I woke up from a nightmare. I don’t get nightmares often, but when I do, they stay with me for a time, haunting my waking thoughts as I search to make sense of the frightening visions. I woke that night in a confusion between dream and reality, with tears streaming onto my pillowcase and barely concealed snuffles and sobs, trying not to wake my husband without success.

He asked me what was wrong, and I began to tell him about my dream, thinking that putting it into words outside of my dreamscape would take away the power of the disturbing alternate universe from which I had so recently emerged.

As I began to delve into the details, my husband stopped me.  “No!  Don’t tell me.  An unspoken dream is like an unopened letter.  If you don’t say it out loud, it won’t come true.” Apparently this was an adage that many in the frum community live by, and are deeply superstitious about.  Indeed, he seemed nervous at the prospect that I might say too much, thus bringing ill tidings upon us.  He spent time soothing and reassuring me that it was just a dream and everything was fine, until my little crying hiccups subsided and my eyes no longer ran in salty rivulets down my cheeks.

As I turned over on my damp pillow and heard my husband begin to softly snore, I lay awake and thought again about my nightmare.  I felt unsettled and restless, but I repeated the mantra to myself that it was only a dream.  Eventually I drifted off to sleep.  While the dream continued to haunt me for a few days afterward, not putting it into words eventually helped to eradicate it from my memory, as I have no recollection about the details today.  I have since kept my nightmares to myself, to the same amnesic effect.

It’s interesting to note that the idea of not speaking of dreams, lest they come to pass in real life, is typically only brought up when referring to bad dreams.  Nightmares are the visions that must be kept at bay, by not infusing them with the power of words.

I believe it’s this same theory that prevents us from speaking of real life horrors.  If we don’t name the atrocities, they don’t exist.  Except they do – much in the same way my nightmare affected me in a very real way – even though it remained unrevealed.  Even though I don’t remember the details, I still remember my fear and panic as I woke from that bad dream and struggled to put it into context.  I know the nightmare happened, I remember the trauma, whether I spoke of it or not.

There are some brave people in our world who dare to reveal what we all want to remain hidden.  They refuse to leave the nightmare unspoken, because if these nightmares are allowed to exist in the name of keeping unpleasantries out of the public eye, they grow and flourish like a cancer.  Rabbi Yakov Horowitz is one such champion who refuses to remain silent, if he can save even one child from being harmed by those things that go bump in the night, or even in broad daylight, while the rest of us “keep it sweet” and stay quiet because, “loshon horah,” because, “think of his/her (the abuser’s) family, because, “there are two sides to every story,” because, “it’s embarrassing to talk about such topics,” or because, “it will make a chillul Hashem for the rest of the world to hear of this happening in the Jewish community.”

Yes, especially when it comes to child sexual abuse, there are so many reasons to remain silent, yet that silence is mostly self-serving.  It alleviates us from the responsibility of getting involved.  We tell ourselves the rabbis will handle it, the parents will handle it, maybe even the police (if they are notified) will handle it.  It’s not for us to mish in (butt into someone else’s business).  Yet when all of us have that attitude, it leaves no one to mish in.

Rabbi Horowitz is the perfect example of why a person shouldn’t mish in, after all, look where his mishing in got him? A defamation lawsuit and failed attempt at an order of protection filed against him in the Israeli courts from U.S. convicted Level 3 sex offender, Yona Weinberg!  The lawsuit remains pending.

It all began when Rabbi Horowitz, founder and director of the Center for Jewish Family Life/Project Y.E.S. and founder and dean of Yeshiva Darchei Noam of Monsey, discovered Weinberg had moved to the Har Nof area in Jerusalem, and sent out tweets to warn residents of his presence.  Ever since those fateful tweets, Rabbi Horowitz, a child safety advocate who speaks internationally educating parents and children on protecting themselves against predators, has been the subject of a legal campaign by Weinberg to silence him against warning residents of his Har Nof community about his criminal past.

Ironically, the media attention brought on by Weinberg’s own legal campaign has called more attention to his current whereabouts and criminal past than a few tweets ever could.

Rabbi Horowitz recently spoke in Har Nof about child safety, an event that was almost derailed by Weinberg’s attempt to get an order of protection against Horowitz, unsuccessfully arguing that Horowitz would incite community violence against him and his family. Hours after successfully fighting the petition for a restraining order in Israeli court, Rabbi Horowitz was able to give his seminar to an audience of 200 as planned, despite Weinberg’s legal effort to prevent him from coming to his neighborhood.  His speech from August 2 in Har Nof can be seen here.

Lohud featured a timeline of Yona Weinberg’s crimes and whereabouts, giving more background and justification for why Rabbi Horowitz would want the citizens of Har Nof to be aware of Weinberg’s presence –

June 2008: Brooklyn district attorney indicts Yona Weinberg, a 29-year-old licensed social worker and bar mitzvah tutor, on numerous charges including nine misdemeanor counts of second-degree sexual abuse and six of child endangerment.

June 2009:  Weinberg convicted of nine counts for victimizing two boys — seven counts of second-degree sexual abuse and two of child endangerment.

September 2009: Weinberg sentenced to 13 months in jail. At his sentencing, Judge J. Reichbach criticizes the Orthodox Jewish community for supporting Weinberg, noting 90 letters were sent attesting to his character and innocence — and mentioning nothing about the victims.

2010: Weinberg released from jail after serving roughly a year. He returns to his Brooklyn home, where he lives with his wife and young children. Weinberg is designated a Level 3 sex offender (high risk of repeat offense and threat to public safety).

June 2014: Police investigate a complaint Weinberg allegedly groped an 11-year-old boy after they were watching television in Weinberg’s apartment earlier that year. Prosecutors declined to bring charges, according to the Daily News.

August 2014: Weinberg allegedly elbows and slams the same 11-year-old against a coat rack in synagogue after prayer service, hurting the boy’s back. The boy told police that Weinberg pushed him against a bookshelf, threatening further harm if he continued to talk to authorities, the Daily News reported.

September 2014: Police file report about the alleged physical assault. The next day, police go to Weinberg’s Flatbush home to arrest him, according to the Daily News. His wife told police he was not home and referred them to his attorney. Weinberg moves to Israel. Shortly after, his wife and four children join him in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Har Nof.

January 2015: News of Weinberg’s presence in Israel appears in the Daily News. After the story, the NYPD notifies the state that Weinberg had moved to Israel. Rabbi Yakov Horowitz of Monsey, child-safety advocate, sends out a tweet to notify Har Nof residents of the presence of a Level 3 sex offender in their community. Tweet says he was as dangerous to children as “a terrorist with a machete.”

June 2015: Horowitz is served papers at his Monsey home, informing him that a summary judgement was issued against him for $55,000 in an Israeli court, stemming from a defamation lawsuit. Horowitz didn’t show up in court, he said, because he didn’t realize he was being sued.

Later that year: Horowitz’s attorney in Israel has judgment set aside. Horowitz is still required to pay some court costs.

July 2016: Weinberg seeks protective order against Horowitz, which would prevent the rabbi from giving a lecture on child safety in his neighborhood, where the rabbi has been lecturing for 13 years. The court denies the request.

November 2016: Trial date scheduled in Israel for defamation charges. Horowitz says he will appear in court to defend himself.”

Horowitz said that he will not be silenced by a bullying sex offender.

“I think this is a test case…,” he told The Journal News/lohud. “I am not giving up.”

Israel does not have a sex offender registry, and as such, some child abuse activists such as Horowitz take it upon themselves to warn residents of predators in their vicinity. “How can you slander a sex offender?” asked Horowitz..”

“Horowitz told The Journal News/lohud that he won’t be intimidated by Weinberg, who used his position as a bar mitzvah tutor to gain access to his victims, who were 12 and 13.

He also sees the fight as part of a larger effort designed to thwart others from exposing sex offenders and warning potential victims of the danger. The Israeli legal maneuverings are key to this tactic, he said…”

“If you care about the personal safety of children, these lawsuits should trouble you deeply. For, make no mistake, if these outrageous lawsuits are permitted to continue, fewer and fewer people will be posting warnings when convicted sex offenders move near you or those you love,” he wrote on his blog, RabbiHorowitz.com.

“Horowitz, who faces thousands of dollars in legal fees, in addition to the threat of a judgement against him, pledged to continue his defense in order to protect families who have a right to know a predator is in their midst….I will fight to the end,” he said.”

I asked Rabbi Horowitz how those of us who also feel this lawsuit is an outrageous and dangerous precedent can financially help him.  He said that the best way to help him is by donating to his efforts to distribute complimentary copies of his Project Y.E.S  Let’s Stay Safe books and give seminars to communities who want to learn how to protect their children from abuse.  The Let’s Stay Safe book has been translated into several languages and been culturally appropriated for various Jewish communities in Israel and the diaspora. Many of these communities are impoverished and so he gives his books away to them for free with no compensation for even basic costs.

Mishing in comes at a price, and it’s a price most of us aren’t willing to pay.  Thank God for those who mish in. Thank God for those who wake and tell what they saw, for those are the ones who will save lives, save worlds.  We can no longer afford to be dreamers, dreaming that if we don’t acknowledge the nightmares, they don’t exist.

Let’s assist Rabbi Horowitz in his important work so that he can continue to share his message to communities around the world.

https://www.youcaring.com/the-child-safety-initiative-of-cfjfl-project-yes-619170

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

I saw a Facebook post from a friend of mine who is appalled to find out that one of the main sources of business advertisement in Chicago, called Only Ads, has an official policy to only include photos of men.  I never realized that this was an official policy of the publication, but I do remember wondering why my husband’s relative decided to represent herself in her ads resembling a Minecraft avatar.  Now I know.

The reason why discovering this policy is unsettling is that many of the advertisers in this publication, and certainly, many of those on their mailing list, belong to communities where excluding images of women is frowned upon.  In fact, perhaps as a backlash against the growing trend of “female-free” public images in the more ultra-orthodox communities, some organizations and schools pointedly include positive images of women and girls engaging in communal activities or being honored at banquets.

Adults and children alike are bombarded with negative images of women in the general media.  Both women and young girls are visually sexualized in order to sell clothing, music, food, toys, beauty products, you name it.  The answer isn’t to go the polar opposite and hide half of the population away, the answer is to counter those images with positive role models and positive peer models both for the girls and women in the orthodox community, and also for the boys and men who can see their mothers, wives, sisters, teachers, and neighbors achieving success in business, torah learning, chesed, and any other number of positive activities that are part of the real fabric of daily orthodox life.

It goes without saying that a picture is worth a thousand words.  Whether you are looking for a lawyer, a realtor, a therapist, a dentist, a doctor, a wig stylist, a makeup artist, or any other type of service – seeing the face of the person you might be working with can have an impact on deciding to do business with them.  

A business relationship is similar to a shidduch.  If you are browsing a dating website, how likely would you be to skip over the profiles with no photo, as opposed to the profiles that do have a picture attached?  Likewise, it makes sense to feel that you have more information about the lawyer whose ad features a photo of his face, as opposed to the lawyer whose ad only features her firm’s logo.

This puts 50% of the Only Ads business advertisers at a competitive disadvantage when using the Only Ads platform to reach their desired market, yet I’m willing to bet that female advertisers pay the same rates as their male competitors and counterparts, who are allowed to share more visual information about themselves, thus better engaging the trust of the consumer.

The decision not to include female images for Only Ads is a financial one.  The publication determined that more of its readership doesn’t want images of women, than does want images of women.  I’m not sure how they came by their statistics, but often publications that decide to exclude photos of women from their pages do so for monetary reasons, and not necessarily because they personally hold the conviction that it’s forbidden.  I can’t say whether or not the publishers of Only Ads are personally offended by images of women; the only thing that is certain is that the publication feels it would lose too many eyeballs and advertising dollars if they included female images.

The nice thing about Chicago is that there are other options.  For example, The Chicago Jewish Advertiser (disclaimer – I have no relationship to the publication other than being on their mailing list) provides the same service as Only Ads, and they give fair photo representation to both males and females.

These are a few pages from the Chicago Jewish Advertiser April 2016 issue, as an example –

cja 1

cja2

cja3

cja5

cja 6

cja7

cja 8

One of the things that you will notice is that there are still advertisements in the Chicago Jewish Advertiser publicizing women owned businesses that don’t show photos of the business owner herself, nor female models who might logically be photographed showcasing jewelry, clothing, or makeup services.  Again, the decision to include photos or not, even for the advertiser, is a financial one.

On the one hand, a simple black and white, or two color text ad, is cheaper to create and run in print than a multicolored ad with photos.  This is true regardless of the publication you choose to advertise in.  Running an advertisement without a photo could simply be a cost effective way of publicizing your business.

On the other hand, if you are a small business, and you want to use the same ad in all of the local advertising venues, you most likely don’t have the budget to hire an artist to create different ad designs for the same campaign.  You will likely pay to create one advertising layout to run in each publication, and that means creating one ad that conforms to the Only Ads restriction of not showing female images, even if you would otherwise have included photos.  Thus, even in publications that don’t have such restrictions, Chicago area business women are still penalized and limited by the Only Ads “no female photo” requirement if they only have the budget to create one ad.

I think the sense of outrage that some folks expressed on Facebook is a reaction to the growing “scope creep” of ultra-orthodox standards being foisted upon the modern orthodox community.  The only answer for objectors is to patronize businesses and services that have more egalitarian policies, or create new venues where men and women alike can promote their services to the fullest extent.