Home

Do you want pics of women in the frum magazines?
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Report offensive ad

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


amother




Denim


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 2:20 pm
When dealing with a diverse crowd head shots become complicated.

- what is the head? The neck? Is the collarbone exposed? What is the collarbone?
- Sheitel - is it too long, too natural, does it have a part?
- Tichel- is it too loud? Does it show hair in the front?
- Is some hair showing - what is considered hair of the neck, face or hair of the head?
- Makeup - is it too loud?

It will never happen because it is impossible to make everyone happy.
I could see that had Hillary been elected president an exception would have been made for her in some papers - but to pick and choose what is acceptable is an impossible task.
Back to top

amother




Natural


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 2:23 pm
aleph wrote:
I understand that there could be many difficult issues involved in what is considered tznius appearance by all standards.

But I agree that not printing any pictures of women sends out a message about women and z-xuality that is very different from what is intended, and seems to be almost less tznius as a result. I mean, the first thing I think that comes into many people's minds is that the pictures are absent because of the fear that men will be using these pictures in some inappropriate manner, which is just not a thought that is accurate or pleasant.

I can see two possibilities for these magazines, which I will readily admit to not buying as I am not in that community:

1. No pictures period. No men, no women, (ie, under the guise of "pictures in general are inherently untznius"). Then there is no bizarre divide, no uncomfortable implications regarding why women cannot be pictured.

2. Head shots only, of men and women. What could possibly be the issue with that?

I agree 100%
Back to top

pause









  


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 4:59 pm
gold21 wrote:
A picture of a deceased Rebbetzin as an example- let's see her photo with the obituary- not a picture of her husband.

A picture of a woman in pre Holocaust Europe- don't blur out the face of a tzanuah Holocaust victim- that's just wrong.

Etc etc.

We can skip the shaitel advertisements if people don't want it- keep the pictures of tzanuah women from our history

I want the shaitel ads skipped even without faces. How is it more tzanua to have a picture of a long wavy human hair wig than the face of Rebbetzin Kanievsky?

OT, but why is it more ok to have pictures of perfectly manicured and painted (pink) nails than the face of Henny Machlis?
Back to top

cbsp









  


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 5:19 pm
gold21 wrote:
Totally different than blurring out female Holocaust victims


I don't disagree but it was in context with youngishbear's statement:

youngishbear wrote:
As a viewer/reader, I also don't want photos to turn into a "thing". Unfortunately, when a woman stands up in front of an audience, people notice what she looks like before they listen to what she says, and the former informs the latter. It does not bother me at all to get to know a woman through her words, personality, or inner essence rather than her appearance.


I don't believe that being a victim (of anything - holocaust, terror, murder) would automatically equal being printed (while the normal style of dress 70+ years ago was a whole lot more modest across the board, there are many images that exist of immodestly clad women from that era. I believe their neshamos would not derive benefit from the dissemination of those images).

Having written that, I do vehemently object to the blurring and cropping that goes on. And yes, I've written letters to the editor regarding the practice. Either print a picture or not but don't change history.

I find it equally abhorrent when random men tangentially related to the story get their photos included (one memorable one was where they published the photo of the wicked perpetrator of the crime committed against the deceased but not the lady herself.) I wonder why they don't have the same policy about printing pictures of known reshaim - one should not be gazing at evildoers either.
Back to top

Simple1









  


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 5:22 pm
pause wrote:
I want the shaitel ads skipped even without faces. How is it more tzanua to have a picture of a long wavy human hair wig than the face of Rebbetzin Kanievsky?

OT, but why is it more ok to have pictures of perfectly manicured and painted (pink) nails than the face of Henny Machlis?


This is what I was saying. I don't buy the argument of "where do you draw the line" . The no women rule is not a substitute for common sense as seen in the examples you mentioned.
Back to top

youngishbear









  


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 6:36 pm
Simple1 wrote:
This is what I was saying. I don't buy the argument of "where do you draw the line" . The no women rule is not a substitute for common sense as seen in the examples you mentioned.


Those images are examples of mocking the spirit of the letter while sticking to the letter.
Back to top

youngishbear









  


Post  Fri, Mar 17 2017, 6:38 pm
centurion wrote:
Yes, but they don't have pictures of boys instead.


I agree. This is the aspect of the policy that annoys me. Oh, and blurring faces. Either you include the relevant photo or you don't. Trying to circumvent controversy ends up looking worse.
Back to top

imasoftov









  


Post  Sat, Mar 18 2017, 1:39 pm
cbsp wrote:
I found this interesting:

http://www.vogue.com/article/k.....-interview

It's a (not specifically Jewish) magazine for girls 5-10 with the stated goal of having no pictures of the girls - for very different reasons than the frum crowd.

They don't have photos (of people, not just of women and girls) but they do have drawings of people.

Quote:
http://mynorthwest.com/420817/girls-magazine-kazoo/

Unlike most magazines, there isn’t even a single photograph of a person in Kazoo. Instead, people are illustrated.

“I wanted our readers to be lost in all the stories. We have science experiments and recipes and activities for them to do. I didn’t want our readers to come to the magazine and see a picture of another girl doing what they’re doing because I didn’t want them to compare themselves to anyone else. I want them to be lost in their own mind, in their own experience and never be made to feel that they don’t look the right way, they’re not acting the right way.”
Back to top

youngishbear









  


Post  Sat, Mar 18 2017, 9:28 pm
imasoftov wrote:


I have no objections to drawings of women. The illustrators can set the tznius bar as high or low as they wish.

That might be a reasonable compromise.
Back to top

pause









  


Post  Sat, Mar 18 2017, 11:43 pm
youngishbear wrote:
Those images are examples of mocking the spirit of the letter while sticking to the letter.

Yet all of the above-mentioned magazines do it. I've written letters to the editor about that. No improvement. "We take all comments from our readers very seriously bla bla bla."
Back to top

amother




cornflower


Post  Sun, Mar 19 2017, 8:33 am
Ok I didn't have time to read all the posts on this thread. But I have a theory (and I know a lot of people will disagree with me.)
The problem today is that boys/men don't know what a real woman looks like. The only exposure they have is airbrushed magazine covers in cvs or shoprite, and unfortunately, porn stars with fake body parts. This leads to an unrealistic portrait of what a woman should look like, and ultimately leads to dissatisfaction with their real wives when they get married.
In the outside world men don't expect their wives to look like models because they have seen real women.
So we should NOT have airbrushed or untznius pictures of women in our frum magazines. But headshots are not a problem.
Back to top

mirror









  


Post  Sun, Mar 19 2017, 6:32 pm
tigerwife wrote:
So the question is, what constitutes 'strictly tznius'?


MagentaYenta wrote:
In this case anything that would not reduce magazine sales or risk the loss of advertising revenue.


Like this?

Warning - Elbow showing (close your eyes)


Picture resized

or this


Picture resized
Back to top

amother




Goldenrod


Post  Sun, Mar 19 2017, 11:40 pm
pause wrote:
I want the shaitel ads skipped even without faces. How is it more tzanua to have a picture of a long wavy human hair wig than the face of Rebbetzin Kanievsky?

OT, but why is it more ok to have pictures of perfectly manicured and painted (pink) nails than the face of Henny Machlis?


For that matter explain why a picture of Angela Merkel is verboten in HaModia but young innocent BY girls need glam shots on their resumes that make them look like they are looking fir work at a modeling agency
Back to top

amother




Orange


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 12:02 am
I'm ultra orthodox and read Mishpacha. When I read long articles describing wonderful, erlicha women, YES!!! I would love to see how they looked. To learn from them, to emulate them. If I cannot see at least a headshot, DO NOT SHOW ME HER HUSBAND OR HER SONS OR HER SHUL, OR HOUSE!!! PERIOD!!
The radicals are VERY vocal, but I don't think men and boys would be hurt by a small glimpse of erlicha women! Listen to the majority, that want pics of women!!!
I signed the petition gladly.
Back to top

farm









  


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 3:07 pm
amother wrote:
I'm not even bothering answering your attack. Believe it or not, Yeshivish people also have feelings. But I'm done with this site.

I did not mean to bash you. I am merely disagreeing with and belittling your counter argument. Not you. I would probably win you in the chumra department if we want to start a "who is a bigger fanatic" contest. But that's not the point. The same way one isn't more holy or on a higher madreiga if they only cover hair with tichels instead of a sheitel, they aren't more holy if they ignore the existence of women. Stop making up new rules of kedusha and declaring them "sensitivities." I am calling your bluff. If a more "sensitive" man is avoiding unnecessary exposure to women, his fine sensitivity would be equally offended by an article about Donald Trump or stolen fortunes by Swiss banks.
Back to top

Roots









  


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 3:49 pm
I will NOT sign this petition. and I dont think it is right.
not the whole rabbetzin-kanievsky-and holocoaust-survivors-pictures , cuz all the magazines are not only about these two things so you cant keep bringing that up as examples IMHO.

the problem is where you draw your line.
so lets say the mag had no pics of women and now they will start
it is too difficult to decide is this pic ok? is the neckline too deep, is her hair covered well. if we can show this how come we cant show clinton? is clinton wearing pants? so why cant we show kate middelton? so her knees are showing a drop but she is sooo modest etc etc, it just goed on and on

and then the next petion that says we need to include xyz because if abc is alowed then why is xyz not

etc.

there are enough magazines with women and finally there is normal good quality reading material for ultra orthodox women please dont take that away from those of us whjo its important to..

and for the poster who said along the lines of ' if you dont like it dont buy it', then right back at you,
Back to top

allthingsblue









  


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 3:53 pm
Did anyone stop to think: these "ehrliche women" who keep being discussed, would they be okay with having their pictures published? Somehow I think not.
What we want is irrelevant; we should respect their wishes, shouldn't we?
Back to top

cnc









  


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 3:54 pm
allthingsblue wrote:
Did anyone stop to think: these "ehrliche women" who keep being discussed, would they be okay with having their pictures published? Somehow I think not.
What we want is irrelevant; we should respect their wishes, shouldn't we?


Good point.
Back to top

sky









  


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 3:59 pm
allthingsblue wrote:
Did anyone stop to think: these "ehrliche women" who keep being discussed, would they be okay with having their pictures published? Somehow I think not.
What we want is irrelevant; we should respect their wishes, shouldn't we?


I agree 100%.
Back to top

amother




Gray


Post  Mon, Mar 20 2017, 4:50 pm
Roots wrote:
I will NOT sign this petition. and I dont think it is right.
not the whole rabbetzin-kanievsky-and holocoaust-survivors-pictures , cuz all the magazines are not only about these two things so you cant keep bringing that up as examples IMHO.

the problem is where you draw your line.
so lets say the mag had no pics of women and now they will start
it is too difficult to decide is this pic ok? is the neckline too deep, is her hair covered well. if we can show this how come we cant show clinton? is clinton wearing pants? so why cant we show kate middelton? so her knees are showing a drop but she is sooo modest etc etc, it just goed on and on

and then the next petion that says we need to include xyz because if abc is alowed then why is xyz not

etc.

there are enough magazines with women and finally there is normal good quality reading material for ultra orthodox women please dont take that away from those of us whjo its important to..

and for the poster who said along the lines of ' if you dont like it dont buy it', then right back at you,


You've brought up the two big problems here:

1. How did we get to a situation where people don't have the common sense to know what's appropriate and what's trashy? Why don't we know how to discriminate?

2. It's a perversion of our religion to claim that the sight of a woman is problematic. It's not enough to boycott a woman-free magazine (though it's a good start). If a man is disturbed by the sight of a fully dressed woman, let him deal with his problem privately. We don't have to cater to abnormality in the name of frumkeit.
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next Recent Topics

Page 9 of 10 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Similar Topics Replies Last Post
[ Poll ] S/O Do you want pics of women in the frum magazines?
by amother
44 Tue, Mar 21 2017, 12:07 pm View last post
Frum magazines are attacking sheital weairing women?
by amother
117 Thu, Feb 16 2017, 12:42 pm View last post
Do frum women get more help than non frum women?
by amother
80 Tue, Jul 30 2013, 3:41 pm View last post
by etky
Payment rates for frum magazines
by iluvy
10 Sun, Jan 05 2014, 9:42 am View last post
what frum magazines for kids? 9 Thu, Dec 11 2014, 5:26 pm View last post

Jump to:  

Report offensive ad