The Downside of Hatzalah in Smaller Communities

911*Identifying details have been changed in the examples to protect the privacy of those involved.

Growing up in America, from the time we are young children we are taught to dial 911 in an emergency.  This number is so ingrained in our psyche that even elderly people suffering from early dementia sometimes remember to call 911, even when they can no longer remember their own telephone number (and even when a 911 call isn’t warranted).

In an emergency, how quickly help is asked for and received can make the difference between life and death.  How then is the situation improved or diminished based upon a change of protocol, such as having to make a quick choice between dialing 911, a lifelong standby, or dialing a 10 digit number for Hatzalah?  What are the factors that go into the decision between calling one number over the other?  What are the factors that delay the decision over who to call?

When Hatzalah opened a branch in Chicago a few years back, it was to better serve the community’s needs when it came to medical emergencies.  Some people complained that 911 ambulance calls took too long to arrive at the scene, the city being underserved with emergency vehicles and EMT staff.  Another large complaint was that the ambulances took patients to hospitals closest to the community, which are generally smaller and not as reputable, instead of the major hospitals slightly farther away that give more extensive care and have their personal physicians on staff.  With Hatzalah, if the medical situation permits, they will take patients to the hospital of their choice.  Additionally, there was the added benefit of having care with a personal touch, by volunteers who likely know their patients and therefore, will give them the best care possible.  Aye, there’s the rub!

I happen to know a few Hatzalah volunteers, and have seen firsthand how dedicated they are to their cause.  Aside from the training and hours of experience needed for EMT certification, they must sacrifice time away from their families, their tranquility and peace on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and much needed sleep for nighttime emergency calls.  Their families also sacrifice their time with their husbands and fathers in order to allow them to perform this mitzvah.

However, the personal touch is not what everyone wants from an EMT.  There is a certain comfort in being anonymous in a patient/caregiver situation – particularly in emergency situations where we are at our most vulnerable and exposed.  Confiding intimate healthcare problems, or undergoing examinations that could be experienced as embarrassing is often made more bearable for many by knowing that the caregiver is not someone you are ever likely to meet at a birthday party, or synagogue, or at parent teacher conferences.  Not true with Hatzalah in a smaller town.

It doesn’t matter how discreet and professional the men of Hatzalah are, the fact is that they are neighbors, friends, and relatives who don’t normally see their patients in a state of undress or in a mess of bodily fluids.

For example, two local elderly brothers waited to call Hatzalah until the younger brother, who had suffered a fall and couldn’t get up, could clean himself up to greet the emergency workers.  The older brother recounted that his younger brother was weak and disoriented after falling.  He also suffered from occasional incontinence, and in the shock of the fall had soiled himself.  They had thought about calling 911, but knew they wouldn’t be taken to the hospital where his doctors were on staff, so they attempted to get him up to go to the bathroom, clean off, and change clothes. In the attempt to lift him up, his brother fell again and hit his head on a dresser, which later required stiches.  They finally managed to get him to crawl to the bathroom, where he readied himself for the volunteers who were sure to recognize him, and only afterwards did they dial Hatzalah for assistance.

Added to the mix of lack of anonymity is the overarching international policy of the Hatzalah organization that only men are allowed to be volunteers.  I have written about this topic before, and also about how men and women are very different when it comes to modesty in medical care.  While certainly there are women who prefer male doctors and medical workers over female, many women specifically choose female health care workers, especially for any care requiring intimate examinations or exposure.  While some national Hatzalah volunteers have been quoted in the press as saying that as long as there is a positive outcome, their patients are happy and satisfied, many women will tell you that an embarrassing health care experience is something that stays with you, regardless if the health outcome was good.  This is especially true in segments of the frum community, where women place a high emphasis on tznius.

For example, one son told of how his elderly mother called him in the middle of the night in a panic.  She was suffering from chest pains, and she couldn’t decide whether to call 911 or Hatzalah.  She had been lying in bed about to go to sleep when the pains hit her.  She had her phone by her bedside, but she was simply in too much agony to get out of bed, much less put on clothing and a sheitel.  She couldn’t stand the thought of frum Jewish men coming into her home and seeing her without her hair covered.  At the same time, she felt Hatzalah would give her better care than calling 911, so she also hesitated to dial 911.  She simply didn’t know what to do.  Finally, she called her son to ask his advice, and he promptly called 911 and headed to her house.  By the time he arrived, the ambulance had arrived, but his mother’s heart had already stopped.  The medics had to resuscitate her on site and put her on a portable ventilator.  She never regained consciousness.

Of course, not every incident is as dramatic as those described above.  One woman who had used Hatzalah’s services for herself in a non-life-threatening emergency situation, said that while the care was excellent and she was appreciative, she felt extremely uncomfortable to be examined by men she knew.  She had also hesitated at first about which emergency service to call.  She was worried that she would be required to partially disrobe in order for Hatzalah’s EMTs to examine her, but ultimately, the desire to be transported to her hospital of choice overrode her fear of potential embarrassment. After finally choosing Hatzalah, she was relieved that her back pain didn’t require her to remove her shirt or lift it too high.  The EMT’s were very conscious of her desire for modesty and took pains to keep her covered as much as possible.  Nevertheless, reliving the embarrassment of two of her husband’s friends coming into her home and putting hands on her is something that has stayed with her, despite their professionalism and discretion.

The last thing an injured or ill person should have to worry about is embarrassment, but when the caregiver is a personal acquaintance and/or a member of the opposite sex that you know out of context from the health care angle, it is an issue.  How many people waffle between whether to call 911 or Hatzalah because of the lack of anonymity?  How many lives are put at risk because people have one too many options regarding who to call in an emergency?  How many times do social or religious reasons override health reasons in reaching out quickly for medical care?

My goal in writing this post is not to disparage Hatzalah, whose volunteers save lives on a daily basis and deserve our gratitude and admiration.  Rather, I wanted to discuss an unintended impediment to achieving Hatzalah’s mission of rapid response.  There is already a general hesitation in medical emergencies over whether or not a trip to the hospital is warranted.  Once the decision is made to go to the hospital, precious lifesaving minutes could be further wasted in the possible hesitation over which emergency service to call.  Hatzalah needs to find a way to ameliorate the hesitation and embarrassment inherent in calling upon friends and neighbors for assistance in private and potentially humiliating situations.  In a small community like Chicago, where everybody knows everybody, the anonymity larger communities can expect when calling Hatzalah is difficult to achieve.

Hillary Clinton has gone where no woman has gone before – the cover of Yated!

hillary yatedYes, that’s really her arm – and her sleeve is threatening to slide above her elbow!

Things are getting more complicated by the minute for the Haredi press.  It was bad enough that the Treasury Department announced new designs earlier this year for several bills that will incorporate women, including Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt.  Ultra-orthodox men will now be forced to carry around pictures of women in their wallets, and even fondle their faces as they attempt to find the proper currency to purchase a Shmiras Einayim sefer from their local Jewish book store – exchanging the forbidden photos with all the shame and excitement of young adolescents swapping issues of old girlie magazines stolen from the corners of their father’s closets.

However, with the looming prospect of the first female American President being elected this November, some of the papers that have historically shunned showing images of women will now have to rethink their policies.

Right now most of those papers have written stories about Hillary Clinton either eschewing a photo all together, or showing loosely related images of her surroundings.

An example is this recent photo of her supporters that appeared in Mishpacha magazine accompanying a story about her strategic DNC acceptance speech:

hillary1(note the signs don’t even have her name on them)

Or another photo from the same publication of her husband Bill Clinton when Hillary finally clinched the nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate:

hillary2Indeed, if Hillary wins, it will most likely appear as if Bill Clinton has won a 3rd Presidential term in the Haredi press, as his face will likely be switched out for hers wherever possible.

Ari L. Goldman of the Columbia Journalism Review writes that:

In interviews, the editors of four major English-language ultra-Orthodox publications, three of them published in New York and one in Jerusalem, said that they are reevaluating their no-women policy in light of the Clinton candidacy, but would not make any final decisions alone. As with all important decisions, they will take the question to the boards of rabbinical advisors with whom final authority over the publications’ content rests. One of the editors, a rabbi himself, said that a Clinton victory could spell a change in the longstanding no-women policy in his paper and the others. “I think we’re going to have to rethink it,” Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter, the executive editor of Ami Magazine, told me. Not to do so, he said, “would be disrespectful.””

This is a big statement coming from a publication that has a well-known policy not to use any photos of women, and has been accused of cropping women out of photos for its publication.

Goldman goes on to say:

All of the editors said that the practice of not using women’s photographs started with the Israeli papers, which set the standard. Most of them said that the vast majority of their subscribers read other publications with pictures of women, but that they declined to use women’s pictures out of fear of alienating the more observant segment of their readership.

The adoption of this standard has led to some foibles that garnered worldwide media attention.  For example, in an excerpt of Goldman’s CJR piece, OnlySimchas reprints a photo from 2011 when Di Tzeitung, published in Brooklyn, digitally removed then Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, from a picture of the White House situation room on the night of the military operation that assassinated Osama bin Laden:

hillary3Goldman says, “While the editor of Di Tzeitung apologized for manipulating a White House photo, which is a violation of the licensing agreements, Rabbi Frankfurter of Ami defended his stance, saying that cropping is “done routinely by most papers and magazines.

Also shown in the OnlySimchas excerpt is a photo that circulated among Haredi publications that cropped out Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, from a long line of world leaders at the huge rally in Paris after the murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists:

hillary4Goldman writes, “But continually cropping out President Hillary Clinton might prove too much even for Rabbi Frankfurter. “We would be locking ourselves out of a lot of opportunities,” he said. “We couldn’t even run photos of the White House Hanukkah party.”

Interestingly, the publishers and editors of two prominent Haredi newspapers with a no-women photo policy are women themselves, Ruth Lichtenstein is the publisher of Hamodia and Shoshana Friedman is the editor of Mishpacha.

Goldman concludes:

Friedman, who at 36 is the youngest of the editors I interviewed, said that being a woman editor who doesn’t run photos of women sometimes puts her in an uncomfortable position. “Every now and then, I get a letter from a reader who asks, ‘Why don’t you run pictures of women? I want my daughter to have role models in life. I want her to see that women can achieve great things.’ ”

Friedman added sadly: “For these women I don’t have a good answer.”

If Clinton is elected President, and the Haredi press does relax its no-women photo policies, It remains to be seen if only she, as Commander in Chief, will be given a special dispensation to be shown in photographs, or if a more liberal policy will be given to all women.  For example, if there is a photo of “President Hillary Clinton” beside German Chancellor Angela Merkel, will Merkel still be cropped out?  Or maybe the Haredi newspapers will alter their policies based on the woman’s religion – choosing not to publish photos of Jewish women, but conceding to publish photos (or partial photos) of non-Jewish women?  For example, if Hillary Clinton is standing beside Ayelet Shaked, Tzipi Livni, or Miri Regev the Jewish politicians would be cut out, but Clinton would remain in some form?  Would a policy like this continue to preserve the modesty and sanctity of the bas Yisroel?

It will be interesting to see what creative solutions they come up with – or which publications might abandon their no-female policies all together, following the lead of the historical Yiddish newspaper, Der Tog, which was published between 1914-1971, and became the first Yiddish newspaper to include female journalists on the editorial staff.

Wikipedia says:

Adella Kean-Sametkin wrote about women’s issues, and Dr. Ida Badanes, about health matters; the popular fiction writer Sarah B. Smith was also a regular contributor over many years.[15] Before making her mark as a poet, Anna Margolin (pseudonym of Rosa Lebensboym) distinguished herself as a reporter and editor for Der Tog, contributing a column, “In der froyen velt” (In the women’s world), under her actual name, and articles about women’s issues under various pseudonyms, including Clara Levin.

Often accompanying stories written by women were photographs of women.  The blog, From the Vault, said,

One page from a May 1952 edition of Der tog that has been cut out in its entirety—“In der velt fun froyen” (“In the World of Women”), a section for female readers, formerly edited by the well-known Yiddish poet Anna Margolin—is studded with photographs of international beauties in the latest bathing costumes and eveningwear. At the bottom is a society snapshot: “a khasene in holivud” (“a wedding in Hollywood”), with the actors Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis “vinshen zikh mazl-tov” (wishing each other mazl-tov) following their wedding ceremony. (Note that the editors misidentify the couple: it is the Reagans in the center and William Holden with wife Brenda Marshall on the outside, not the other way around.)

hillary5From the Vault also shares another photo of the newly elected “Mame fun der velt” (Mother of the World), Chilean First Lady Rosa Markmann (right), on a visit to the just-completed headquarters of the United Nations from that same 1952 issue:

hillary6As a humorous aside, the headline near the photo is “an article by one Sarah Koenig (a past incarnation of today’s NPR broadcaster, alike in name and journalistic rigor?) headlined “Fete froyen zaynen oft gliklekher in leben” (“Fat Women Are Often Happier in Life”). The piece contains such surprising evidence as “Fete froyen zaynen oykh mer religyez geshtimt un hoben lib tsu geyn in shul davnen” (“Fat women are also more religiously inclined and enjoy going to shul to daven”) and “Di statistik hot bavizn, az tsvishen fete menshen bikhlal zenen faran mer gut hartsige, vi tsvishn dine menshen” (“Statistics have shown that among fat people generally, there are more goodhearted people than among those who are thin”), a claim that the writer juxtaposes to the assertion that overweight people’s higher blood pressure necessitates their having a calmer disposition. The piece ends by comforting the reader with the assertion that though the number of plump women is great among Jews, the proportion of overweight Italian women is greater, and anyway, “Iz do zehr fil froyen vos di diklikhkayt past zey, un fete froyen kenen zayn sheyn un reytsnd” (“There are many women whose stoutness suits them, and fat women can be beautiful and alluring”).

My understanding is that Der Tog is the great-grandfather publication of the modern day Alegemeiner Journal.  Though it was founded by businessmen and intellectuals, and not a religious publication, the fact that it was in Yiddish and intended for Jewish audiences means that in the early 20th century, a time when there wasn’t a dearth of American Haredi newspapers being published, odds are the religious community made up a nice portion of its readership.  That probably came to an end in 1953 when laid off Der Tog editor, Dr. Aaron Rosmarin founded Der Yid, and hired a Satmar editor named Uriel Zimmer, which then established Der Yid as the religious and anti-Zionist alternative to Der Tog.

Will Hillary Clinton be the revolutionary figure to finally break past the no-women photograph barrier in Haredi publications?  Will she be a one-time anomaly, an exception to the rule, if her image does get published?  It remains to be seen, both literally and figuratively.

Friday Night Mannequin

mannequinDress me up, dress me down

It’s all the same to me.

The rules will change, I can’t keep up;

There’s no more me to be.

One year the fashion is elegant robes,

The next they lack modesty.

So dress me up, clamp me down,

Wheel me out and turn me around.

But first check me over, look a little closer

Are my nails too long, can you see?

Did I clean my navel, am I sure I’m able

To toivel the night my dunk should be?

I’ve been scooped out, brushed out, flushed out, and then rushed out,

Vacated of all uterine matter.

Fourteen little cloths all in a row,

With neither stain, smudge, nor splatter.

Spotless from stem to stern,

As every pure woman should be.

Now dress me up or dress me down

It’s all the same to me.

I think I’m ready to greet the guests,

The soup will soon be burned.

I know they’ll be wondering where I went,

My husband will think he’s been spurned.

It’s not easy navigating city streets

With arms and legs that don’t bend,

Stiffly dodging men in hats,

Wondering if they know where I’ve been.

She walks, she walks, and soon she will talk,

An emergency compelled her to take a quick walk.

An elderly neighbor, a friend who’s in labor, a meal for the needy,

Think fast, girl, be speedy!

Why were you gone, why were you late, why has a damp curl escaped in your plate?

Prop me up, pin me back, back to my chair with a small smack.

Wake up, wake up, take a drink from my cup,

It’s time for benching, I must not give up!

My eyes must stay open, my banter stay witty,

Are my shoes still squishy and my stockings still gritty?

No, I haven’t been swimming, you ask me this, why?

I was caught in a downpour, but I’m perfectly dry.

Perfectly perfect, no tears left to cry.

I can touch any Torah or kiss my own man

Strictly glatt kosher, that’s what I am.

Some wish they could be me, some wish they could free me,

But there are more where I come from coming out of the factory.

It won’t stop, it won’t end;

Be my enemy or be my friend.

Dress me up, dress me down

It’s all the same to me;

I cannot hear your counsel, I am made of clay and putty.

The guests have gone, the stairs are steep,

One step, two step – shush the baby is asleep!

Make no noise, breathe real soft, hope that He has drifted off,

Lay like a thief in a stolen bed, spine like a board, spikes in my head.

Pillow, blanket, lying still as a sack,

Doesn’t fool the hand on my hip, turning me onto my back.

So dress me up, dress me down

It’s all the same to me.

Dolls, they don’t feel lonely;

There’s no more me to be.

Shidduchim for Dummies: Chapter 1 – Uncovering the Hidden Feminists

no feminists

[The post below was inspired by a conversation I had this Shabbos about how beis medrash rabbaim are warning young men to avoid dating and marrying women with feminist leanings, and that this issue is among the top areas of concern among young men in the more liberal yeshiva circles who want an educated, yet frum wife.  Anti-feminism and how to avoid marrying a feminist is a popular topic of conversation among Orthodox young men who are beginning to date, as many do not want wives who aim to bring feminist values into the home.

These conversations are happening particularly in Modern Orthodox yeshivot, where young men have a greater chance of being set up with women who identify as feminists.  This issue is widening the rift between Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy further, as Open Orthodoxy is seen as a proponent of feminism.  Those who oppose Open Orthodoxy and want to firmly root themselves as part of the more “traditional” Modern Orthodox camp, are more vehemently opposing feminism than even before, aligning themselves more closely to the haredi position on women’s roles within the home and Judaism in order to differentiate themselves from Open Orthodoxy. 

This will put Modern Orthodox women in a difficult position, as the sign of allegiance is denouncing feminism if they want to marry and be a part of the Modern Orthodox community without suspicion.  This post is what I imagine a lecture on identifying and avoiding Orthodox feminist women might be like, based on the conversation.]

Dating in the 21st century has become a daunting prospect for Orthodox young men.  Men on the shidduch scene have to face a danger that their fathers and grandfathers didn’t when making the all-important decision of selecting a spouse.   Sure, there were those pesky female-voting flappers with their rouged knees and propensity for breaking out into the Charleston that our great zaydes had to contend with.  Yes, there were the hippie flower children who insisted on women’s rights, free love, birth control, abortion, and Woodstock that our grandfathers had to avoid.  True, our fathers’ generation saw unprecedented numbers of women getting higher educations and joining the workforce in greater numbers and in more positions of authority than ever before – and we can’t forget about Madonna.

However, all of these separate events in their time seemed to have left the Orthodox community unscathed.  Our women understood that the cultural feminist revolution sweeping up the non-Jewish world and changing the fabric of secular society had no place among the Jewish people.

Until now.

It seems that the various freedoms and hedonic pleasures women have been grabbing at for the past hundred years, selfishly placing the principle of egalitarianism in all things virtue or vice above their God given role as helpmate and mother, have finally accumulated to a point of normalcy and expectation even among our own pious bas yisroels.

Our mothers, growing up during a time when all avenues of secular education were open to them, and all careers were an option, culled a very useful psychology called cognitive dissonance.

Through cognitive dissonance, Orthodox women were/are able to live in a secular world where females can be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, mayors, governors, prime ministers, and presidents, while also living in a world where women are excluded from spiritual leadership positions that rule over men, are foridden (except by more liberal factions) to be educated in certain areas of Jewish law and biblical texts, and are discouraged from speaking, singing, performing, or appearing in public images where men might see them.  This cognitive dissonance is not only approved of, it is encouraged.

Men today realize that it’s an impossible task to keep women away from the temptations of a larger world that opens up endless opportunities regardless of gender.  Our community also realizes that if it wants to create a financially sustainable system for our Orthodox lifestyle, it benefits everyone for women to be given the opportunity to achieve higher paying jobs in order to support their families, and in some cases, allow men to learn full time.  Certainly, feminist gains have inadvertently had benefits for our community in terms of our wives’ abilities to become equal or even primary family breadwinners, but have the damages been worth it?

When husbands are no longer seen as the head of the family household, now vying for that position with their wives, the children become confused.  Shalom bayis all but disappears when the fight for egalitarianism is fought at home, and we see this break down in the form of the rising divorce rates in our communities.  It seems that some of our mothers have gotten the wrong idea that bringing in parnassah is more important than bringing in the spiritual wealth earned through compliance with halachah and mesorah.  The cognitive dissonance is dissolving.

How much worse is it today for our current generation of single men, who face a shidduch market filled with young women from such households where the mother is highly educated, has a respected career outside the home, and has made her father seem insignificant?  What are the lessons she has learned from watching her parent’s dynamic?

This next generation of Orthodox wives and mothers are going to take things even further than their mothers did.  There are some delicate questions that need to be added to the standard topics of conversation on dates.  It used to be enough to ask about where a girl went to school, camp, and at which shul her father davens.  Asking about where she hopes to live, what schools she intends to send her children to, and whether or not she intends to cover her hair used to be sufficient in determining compatible hashkafot.  Now there are other questions that must be asked, albeit, not necessarily on the first date.

You must tread carefully, because if everything seems otherwise bashert, her views on feminism might simply be a childish whim to go along with the trend of the moment, which she can be encouraged to abandon through logic and reason if she knows these sentiments will cost her the shidduch.  Twenty years of marriage and multiple children and grandchildren later, you might both have a good laugh remembering her initial perspectives!

Here are some sample questions that can be asked to discreetly determine if the woman sitting across the table from you at My Most Favorite Food is a feminist –

  1. What is your opinion about the group, Women of the Wall?
  2. What would you rather have as a wedding present, a pair of candlesticks or a pair of tefillin?
  3. Do you think that women should lead a mezumin if there are less than three men over bar mitzvah at a meal, but more than three women over bat mitzvah?
  4. Should a woman be allowed to make kiddush at the Shabbos table if her husband is present?
  5. What do you think about swapping brachot every now and then, where I bench licht and you make hamotzei (this can be a trick question if said with enthusiasm on your part as if you would enjoy such a scenario)?
  6. Do you believe that the most important mitzvah entrusted to women is tznius?
  7. In your opinion, does tznius elevate a woman’s status or degrade her (there IS a right and wrong answer to this question – if you are confused about this, please ask your Rosh Yeshiva)?
  8. What is your opinion on female rabbis?
  9. Should women be able to study Gemara?
  10. Would you want to dance with a Sefer Torah on Simchas Torah at shul?

These are some examples of questions that can form the basis of a vetting process to flush out hidden feminists that you might have the misfortune to encounter on the dating scene.  These are young women who are indiscernible from their non-feminist counterparts.  These young ladies dress the part of sincere Bas Torahs right down to the muted makeup, sensible flats, stockings, and skirts with no slits.  However, lurking beneath the demure surface lies a predator determined to ensnare her unwitting prey into a lifetime of struggle over Torah boundaries.  The only possible outcomes will be, God forbid, violating Hashem’s timeless commandments regarding His divine roles for each gender or divorce.

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.