Do you want pics of women in the frum magazines?

tigerwife

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 12:55 am

gold21 wrote:

Couldn't they place the photos only in the magazine targeting women? So don't put them in the main Mishpacha/Bina/Ami, that's too controversial and it would be offensive to some. Only strictly tznius photos, and only in the magazines targeting women.

So the question is, what constitutes 'strictly tznius'?

amother

Powderblue

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 3:31 am

amother wrote:

Between all the magazines there are only maybe one or two articles that don't insult human intelligence . I've stopped purchasing the magazines and couldn't care less about the lack of females pictured . I'd focus more on worthwhile reading, well written articles , articles that are thoroughly researched before printing bs that people believe just because "The Ami" printed it and so on..
There are bigger fish to fry than pics in reading material you CHOOSE to purchase in our community . Honestly this petition is a joke. Noone gives a darn. Every magazine will continue to have their policies they choose to and the buyer can either choose to subscribe or move on.

Wow condesending much? I am a writer for several magazines and newspapers and am known for my thorough and precise researching and reporting.
I love the way people think that if its frum it cant bei relied upon. But oh yes, any non jewish or non frum publication- well surely they are reliable and professional. Right?
Yes, I take this as a personal insult to my intelligence and integrity.
Guess what, there are highly professional people among the frum writers too.

Debbie

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 4:13 am

amother wrote:

Very well said Powderblue
I often buy Mishpacha and Ami and whilst there might be an article or two that don't appeal to me, for the most part I find these magazines very good reading.
As for pictures of women, my issue is them not even being allowed in the women's magazines.

amother

Ginger

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 4:51 am

I totally understand why it bothers others that there are no females in pictures. However, in my community, men usually don't look at women. You expect them to look at a picture of them?

What bothers me is when a woman works hard for something and a picture of her husband is there instead. Horrible. Or, in the Community Connections (Monsey circular) all the boys are in the picture of their hard work ànd ideas of creating something out of toys. Girls have their faces blurred. These are young girls and the pictures are not even clear ones!

My boys asked me why are the girls faces like that? Didn't know what to answer.

DrMom

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 5:04 am

amother wrote:

Tell them what you just told us:

Quote:

in my community, men usually don't look at women. You expect them to look at a picture of them?

If you don't think your sons will swallow that argument, then why should we? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate it.

real israeli

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 7:40 am

IMO the problem with this forum is that those posting are from many different backgrounds. Right or wrong is irrelevant: majority of their boro park/Lakewood/Williamsburg clientele aren't going to buy it if there are women inside.

gold21

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 8:56 am

tigerwife wrote:

So the question is, what constitutes 'strictly tznius'?

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

amother

Slategray

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 9:29 am

someone asked me: Thank you for sharing your professional perspective. I'm curious if you have discussed this with the editors of your magazines?

My answer: No I don't like to rock the boat and I don't think its worth it. There are hundreds of wannabe writers who would be happy to take my place and I'm happy to have parnassah from writing. If the magazines change their policy, I'd be thrilled but if they don't I will keep my head down (and face, whatever!) and just be happy to have a job I find meaningful. in the long run, not having my own pic printed means nothing. I just feel bad for special ladies I've written about, it would have added so much to their article.

petiteruchy

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 9:38 am

I still don't understand why it's wrong to have pictures of women but not men. What is the reasoning behind this? Since people are saying it's not just a s-xual thing. Can someone explain it in small words?

self-actualization

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 10:34 am

I signed the petition. It has recently started to bother me A LOT that women can't have their pictures in the magazines. It overly objectifies women, in my opinion, to think that they can't be seen in magazines. Also, I see the trend spreading to some picture books as well. I can't believe that our society would just erase 50% of the people from its literature. It seems like a misplaced sensitivity.

Frum women are currently doctors, lawyers, CEOs, principals, teachers, business owners, real estate moguls, investment professionals, and every other career under the sun (including funeral directors, bus drivers, and more). But for the magazines we need to be relegated to invisible?

youngishbear

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 10:47 am

petiteruchy wrote:

I think it's wrong to have pictures of men instead of their wives or daughters when the article is actually about the females.

I also think many women raised with tznius values are often less willing to put themselves out there with a photo.

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.

amother

Gray

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 10:55 am

youngishbear wrote:

It's healthy to look at a picture of a woman and see her not as a pair of breasts, but as an economist, politician, community activist, doctor, lawyer or Indian chief.

A question I asked upthread still hasn't been answered. What about pictures of gedolim? Shouldn't we just have seforim? Do you think the gadol is immodest? Do you check him out because he's handsome? Or do you just want a picture to clue you in to the essence of someone's humanity?

youngishbear

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 11:23 am

amother wrote:

I don't have pictures of gedolim in my house. Nor do I believe that seeing a real photo of Plato would help me understand his works. I guess I'm more of a verbal person than visual. I just don't see the value of photos of women being worth the extra work and controversy for the editorial staff, as I posted earlier.

I also posted earlier that I don't believe modesty is only about s-xuality. I hate being judged by my appearance, and I am sick of how much it matters. I imagine if we would have real photos of ourselves on here half of you would not deign to read my posts because of assumptions you would make about me based on my headcovering. I appreciate that in this sense, women are being given a judgement-free voice in heimish "literature".

amother

Gray

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 11:32 am

youngishbear wrote:

So you aren't visual. What about visual types? Don't they matter? If you think it's immodest to have your picture splashed all over the place, doesn't that apply to men too?

And actually, I think it would be refreshing and stereotype breaking to get an opinion from someone who doesn't look the way you'd expect.

I agree with you that modesty isn't just about hemlines and collars. But a picture has value, and censoring out women sends a dangerous message.

cbsp

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 12:25 pm

youngishbear wrote:

I found this interesting:

http://www.vogue.com/article/k.....rview

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.

gold21

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 12:28 pm

cbsp wrote:

Totally different than blurring out female Holocaust victims

Dandelion1

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 12:36 pm

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?

centurion

Fri, Mar 17 2017, 2:10 pm

cbsp wrote:

Yes, but they don't have pictures of boys instead.