Mishpacha printed photos of women in their magazine

amother

Burlywood

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 6:56 pm

This week I was totally turned off from the article on Rebitzin Shechter. I never knew or heard about this tzadekkes. I would have loved to see just a small picture, shoulder up, to imagine how she looks. I don't think it is against the principals of tznius. So many times, they have amazing articles of dynamic women from all over the world. Why cant I have some kind of idea how they look??? I'm not interested in a dozen pictures of her Husband, no matter how much of a tzadik he is. This is about HER.

I will NOT write to mishpacha, BUT STATE MY OPINION CLEARLY: The minority that is against pictures is VERY VOCAL, but most people would want a small modest picture to get an idea of who is being extolled!!! This is coming from a frum, chassidisha women with many many friends with the same opinion.

Kugglegirl

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 8:50 am

I actually renewed my Mishpacha subscription when I noticed that they were printing pictures of girls and of boys. If there were no pictures of girls, I probably would have dropped the subscription.

The rest of my family members never even look at the magazine.

I did get rid of fashion magazines in my house years ago, at my husband's request. I would expect that a frum, Jewish magazine, if they published photos of rebizins, women community leaders etc. would have the editorial discretion to select appropriate photos of these women, just as they do with photos of men.

Agreeing with the posts about article honoring rebizins -- it is bizarre when the main person described in the article is represented only by photos of her male relatives.

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 8:53 am

amother wrote:

I will NOT write to mishpacha, BUT STATE MY OPINION CLEARLY: The minority that is against pictures is VERY VOCAL, but most people would want a small modest picture to get an idea of who is being extolled!!! This is coming from a frum, chassidisha women with many many friends with the same opinion.

Why will you not write to Mishpacha?

The editorial leadership will not know that you and many of your friends hold this opinion unless you tell them.

dancingqueen

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 10:41 am

glutenless wrote:

They don't believe it's tznius, tznius doesn't only refer to clothing. Tznius was never taught to us in terms of not tempting men, it was always "kol kevudah bas melech penima" and about modesty, both at home and in school.

A rebbetzin I know was featured in a few magazines after she was niftar, and they put pictures of her husband, which bothered me a lot. But I know she was extremely tznius, in her actions not only her dress, and she would never have allowed anyone to publish pictures of her. If it was up to her, they wouldn't have written about her at all.

I personally don't agree with the policy of never printing pictures of women, although I think they should respect each woman's sensitivities and not put pictures of ladies who they know don't want it. I also think they should respect the gedolim and rebbes who don't want their pictures published and there are quite a few of those.

I agree with you about the pictures of the husbands and sons being ridiculous. To me that's worse than no picture at all, it almost negates everything they're writing about the lady when they put a picture of her husband next to it.

Most people talk about concerns with their husbands and sons seeing the pictures so I assume that is the real reason, which I still
Find disturbing. Just saying we don't print pictures of women because it's inherently not tznius is kind of a tautology. And just pretending that women don't exist and shouldn't be seen even in a women's magazine just doesn't sit well with me...

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:15 am

dancingqueen wrote:

It's kind of disingenuous to suggest that a woman's magazine is "pretending women don't exist."

It's recognizing that women have minds, opinions, and thoughts that are way more important than their appearance.

Is one of Victoria Dweck's recipes going to taste better if you see her picture? Will a story by Riva Pomerantz be less entertaining if you don't like the outfit she's wearing? Do we need to know what all the experts quoted look like to decide if what they're saying makes sense to us? If so, that's a very shallow basis for decision making.

sky

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:28 am

debsey wrote:

I agree with you 100%. I don't think many of the women want their pictures in, especially the rebbetzins in question, knowing some of them personally they would be horrified.

Just curious - how many women on here would WANT or be comfortable with their picture included next to a cooking article they wrote?

The editor of the Hamodia is a women and that isn't hidden in any of their documentation so I don't think they are hiding women or pretending they don't exist.

However, why show pictures of the men who write the articles - in both the Features magazine and the Inyan for many articles they show a picture or drawing of the man who wrote it - in Many ways I wish they wouldn't. Maybe people do judge the article based on how the author looks?

dancingqueen

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:44 am

debsey wrote:

I don't buy any of these magazines, and am clearly not their target audience, but I've read binah magazine at a relative's house. I would say it's disingenuous to argue that not printing pictures of women as a policy is teaching that "her mind, opinion and thoughts" are more important than her appearance. I think it would teach my daughters that its shameful to be seen even if you are tznius. And especially on an article about a woman's accomplishments pictures of her Dh and sons tells a girl that no matter what you accomplish only your male relatives are worthy of being seen, even if the story is not about them.

Also, on ads for fashion and sheitels etc I do want to see how it would look on a person.

Chayalle

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:45 am

I'm kind of on the fence in this. I wouldn't want my picture to be broadcast in a magazine, and I'm not into posting pictures of my kids online. I feel that my family deserves privacy. I'm also quite sure that Rebetzin Shechter A"H would not have wanted her picture posted.

And yet, as a reader, pictures move me. When I read a book of non-fiction, for example, I will leaf thru it and look at the pictures first. I feel a connection and then I feel like reading it. Maybe a part of me never grew up, and I still like pictures. I love seeing pictures of long ago, and I love seeing pictures of families, and the person I'm reading about. I like to see pictures of how the person looked today. It adds a human touch and enhances my reading experience.

amother

Maroon

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:51 am

cnc wrote:

Oh my goodness. This is hilarious.

I do wonder what the newspapers and magazines will do if she wins the presidency.

Probably the same as a frum UK paper did when Theresa May became Prime Minister.

Picture of a podium and microphone.

Sans Theresa LOL

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 11:54 am

dancingqueen wrote:

I agree that there's no need to publish a pic of the DH in an article about a rebbetzin. I'd rather see photos of her home and her cherished possessions than her husband.

"....worthy of being seen" makes it sound like appearance is what matters. Contrary to what Madison Avenue tells us, image is not everything. Substance is everything.

You say you read Binah - a magazine published by a female publishing powerhouse and a practically all-female team of editors, writers, artists, etc. Tell me one instance of disrespect towards women that you've read in Binah.

chaiz

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 12:20 pm

debsey wrote:

You say you read Binah - a magazine published by a female publishing powerhouse and a practically all-female team of editors, writers, artists, etc. Tell me one instance of disrespect towards women that you've read in Binah.

When you have an article about frum female pediatricians, one of whom is supporting her husband in kollel, and have a random picture of a *male* doctor, I find that disrespectful. If images and pictures were so unimportant then do not invest that much in the graphics and have no picture or image at all. Otherwise one is not being consistent or honest.

HonesttoGod

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 12:40 pm

Its pathetic.
Pathetic that it was even NOTICED.
Pathetic that people have the time and nerve to call and complain and pathetic that in this day and age no one will print even the face of a GIRL DOLL!!! UGH it makes me sick.

Get a life.
I believe it was probably a mistake on Mishpachas behalf but seriously, a mistake because they didn't notice. It was so small and insignificant but hey there will always be that man (or wife who wants "kedusha" and "ruchinius" for her husband) that will notice and call in.
It is a WOMANS magazine the family first. And if they can't even make a mistake of printing a picture of a woman without backlash why are these people even buying it in the first place?!

Ugh.

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 12:41 pm

chaiz wrote:

Don't recall the article you are referring to (and I read Binah weekly) but I agree - there's no point in having a pic of a doctor, just have graphics of stethoscopes etc. Would that frum female pediatrician supporting her husband in kollel want her pic in there? Don't her accomplishments matter more than if she's ten pounds overweight or wears an unflattering sheitel?

chaiz

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 12:46 pm

debsey wrote:

It was in the Sukkos 5774 edition. I was so upset from that (and also from another article) that I have not bought it again. It could be that some of the pediatricians wouldn't want it, but maybe some did. And if not why not have a random female in the picture or as you said other images.
Why are you assuming that the women may be ten pounds overweight or have an unflattering sheitel? And why is it for some reason a potential issue for women, but all men never seem to have such issues.

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:04 pm

chaiz wrote:

I honestly don't need a picture of anyone to weigh their words. Don't need a pic of yonason rosenblum to know he's smart or a pic of Rabbi Horowitz to know he cares about kids. Don't need pics of Mindy Blumenfeld, Dr. Koslowitz, Dr. Teichman, or Rivka Weber to read their psychology columns. Don't need pics of Victoria Dwek or Nechama Norman to try their recipes! Some of those women (I happen to know) dress more/less fashionably than others, but I'm reading their words! Just read about the latest "Twitter-bash crisis" and you will see that women are consistently judged by their appearance, far more than men. That's human nature. That's why I find Binah's stance of NOT showing pictures of women to be a relief.

chaiz

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:10 pm

debsey wrote:

You are most probably unique that pictures add nothing to your reading experience. There must be a reason that pictures are almost always part of the graphics and that photography is a business.
Yes, we judge women more by their appearance than men. But how about we acknowledge that and work on that instead of not publishing pictures of women when pictures of men are almost always published.