Why do you want women in a Magazine

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 7:59 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

I'm sorry, but bittul Torah is a much bigger aveirah than glancing at a woman's picture. Let's stick to what's real.

When I was in seminary 100 years ago our principal said something like, so there are times, maybe in the summer, when your husband will have to relax. So don't panic when you see him without a sefer in his hands but a JO instead.
(This was a seminary that did NOT push kollel, remember, this was 100 years ago, but did push marrying bnei Torah.)

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 8:36 am

PinkFridge wrote:

You both misunderstood me (maybe I shouldn't post late at night, my post was not clear). I meant that since it is allowed to look at a woman there should be no problems with having (tznius) pictures of women. If someone is so derheiben and feels that he's extra special and is acting on a extra holy madreiga - such a person shouldn't be reading the magazines altogether. Especially as others have pointed out that there is plenty in these magazines that is not necessarily pure Torah values.

The same way your seminary teacher told you it's ok if your husband doesn't learn every second of the day - some women have to learn that it's ok if their husbands will glance at a woman or engage in regular normal interactions with women.

↑ ccwife ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 8:46 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

I think it's the assumption that a guy like this feels that he's extra special is rubbing me the wrong way. My husband works really hard not to look at woman not because he thinks he's on such a high madreiga - actaully quite the opposite. So he's careful. Believe me he doesn't take off his glasses often because he feels he's a RY.

But that's really besides the point. Like I said if a magazine really truly only had pictures of totally tznius women it's one thing but no offence to our dor I don't think it's so possible without really really offending people. And I dont think you can compare the quality of the photos let alone the difference in tznius level of newspapers from 50 years ago to how allowing pictures of women would look like Mishpacha magazine today.

↑ Mommyg8 ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 8:59 am

ccwife wrote:

I think it's the assumption that I guy like this feels that he extra special is rubbing me the wrong way. My husband works really hard not to look at woman not because he thinks he's on such a high madreiga - actaully quite the opposite. So he's careful. Believe me he doesn't take off his glasses often because he feels he's a RY.

But that's really besides the point. Like I said if a magazine really truly only had pictures of totally tznius women it's one thing but no offence to our dor I don't think it's so possible without really really offending people. And I dont think you can compare the quality of the photos let alone the difference in tznius level of newspapers from 50 years ago to how allowing pictures of women would look like Mishpacha magazine today.

I dont understand - why does he not look at women at all? There's no issur.

Second, why do you have so little faith in the editorial boards of these magazines? You trust them to filter out bad hashkafas and other things that are against halacha - why do you not trust them in this area?

You can easily make guidelines that will work for almost everybody - let's see... headshots only, no heavy makeup. See? Easy as pie.

I also want to point out something you might have forgotten- the tznius level 50 years ago here in America was quite bad, actually.

And the concept of photo shop exists. Let's use it to make women tznius rather than photo shopping women out altogether.

Rubber Ducky ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 9:11 am

ccwife wrote:

...And I dont think you can compare the quality of the photos let alone the difference in tznius level of newspapers from 50 years ago to how allowing pictures of women would look like Mishpacha magazine today.

Newspaper resolutions are much lower than magazines. The Agudah-sponsored Jewish Observer was a magazine — I was a subscriber — and had high-resolution photos.

Linked article contains hi-res JO pics as well as lo-res newspaper pics: https://blogs.timesofisrael.co.....laim/

↑ Laiya ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 9:47 am

ccwife wrote:

There are 2 issues.

One, even if all the pictures were 100% tzniyus according to all halachic consensus and sensitivities, the magazines would face the exact same pressure by extremists. That's bec the reason for the push to erase women has nothing to do with halacha or halachic sensitivities.

This is why so many of us are disturbed.

The second issue is the "slippery slope", how to ensure that, if there were pictures of women, they would be appropriate. And here I submit that this is truly a conundrum, since the majority of the ads--which are what pay for the magazines and enable them to exist--are not appropriate according to our values, regardless of any photos.

Look, the basic premise of any magazine or newspaper is, the ads should be the same or similar topic as the content, bec that's the topic the readers are interested in. In a magazine devoted to travel, you'll see ads for hotels, getaways, etc. And in a lifestyle magazine, you see adds that aggressively promote the glorification of materialism and consumerism.

Worrying about photos of women being appropriate, but being perfectly fine with everything else, doesn't really make sense imo.

amother

↑ Navy ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:04 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

Okay, so define heavy makeup. By layers? What about people who need to cover up acne or other skin issues? By color? But what looks nice and eidel on one woman looks garish on another. No heavy pouty lips? But for some women that is their natural look - even with no makeup at all!

I agree with your point, but it would be extremely difficult to implement. Any rule they make would be sure to offend someone. If they use photo shop to change any features, it would be extremely offensive!

amother

↑ Sapphire

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:21 am

amother [ Navy ] wrote:

It is the simplest thing to implement. The magazines can have their own rabbinical guidelines for photos, just like they have for the rest of the content. And then each individual gets to manage their personal version of shmiras einoyim. Just like this:

If you're fine with the magazine's guidelines - you're good to go.

If you have issue with the current guidelines - either tear out those pages, or censor the images.

I still can't wrap my head around why people think that the right way for them to perform their mitzvohs is to demand others to do it for them. You don't want to take the 10 min time to censor the magazines, so you demand the magazines remove all pics? It's your life & your perspective - so just do it yourself. No one is obligated to do your work for you. Why in the world is everyone else responsible for your decisions?

You do your interpretation of shmiras einoyim and I'll do mine. Why must I do yours?

debsey ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:36 am

Chayalle wrote:

It's not just magazines.

I grew up on a certain Hagaddah Shel Pesach that had these black and white drawings of both girls and boys at various points.

A few years ago my husband decided it was time for new Hagaddas. He brought home these gorgeous, glossy hagaddas BUT THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WOMEN OR GIRL in them. The Seder picture has a Totty and a Zeidy and a whole bunch of boys crowded around. Guess the women and girls were tired and all went to sleep, huh? The drawings of the Makos....all men. Yetzias Mitzrayim - all men. Gorgeous painting-like drawings, but the women were totally cut out.

DH totally did not realize when he looked at it and bought it. Clueless. Just saw the pretty pictures and thought we would like it.

So we've been cut out of history already.

It bothers me. It's ridiculous, we can't even draw little girls anymore, never mind pictures ?!

For me, I have a problem with pictures in magazines, I've posted about this before.

But I find not including drawings of girls ridiculous. Drawings can be edited and can be drawn to fit any tznius standard. Photographs can be a slippery slope - who is going to say what "tzinus" is for a publicity photo in a magazine?

Drawings are a whole different story, and that bothers me a lot.

amother

↑ Pink ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:44 am

If some men (or their wives) feel they are that susceptible than they can eschew these magazines altogether. And they probably shouldn't ever go shopping or to simchas etc, I guarantee they will see women in the flesh that post more of a temptation to gaze at.

I think it is totally doable to have guidelines, I.e. no close ups, only group photos, headshots, even just in black and white if people are concerned about a woman with heavy make up or "pouty lips" etc.

↑ debsey

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:46 am

amother [ Pink ] wrote:

I think being the people on the "tzinus standards" committee who "pasken" on a photo would be the world's most thankless job............

↑ soap suds ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 10:58 am

amother [ Sapphire ] wrote:

I think you've hit upon the solution.

If you're fine with the magazine's policy if no photos - you're good to go.
If you have issue with the current policies- toss the magazine altogether.

Who are those people demanding the magazines to remove pictures? This is the way the magazines are right now. The ones making demands on others to accommodate their perspective are the ones demanding the magazines change their current policies to suit thier needs and wants. You don't like it, go ahead and publish your own magazine with as many pictures as you want. Can't be bothered to do it yourself? Well, nobody is obligated to do your work for you. Why is everyone else responsible for your decisions?

↑ Laiya ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 11:05 am

soap suds wrote:

Others explained it very well in this thread. Because it's a perversion of my religion. Just like when a particular community that holds itself out as religious, started ordaining female rabbis, others who were not part of that community felt obligated to protest.

And because they're hiding behind trying to give the impression that there's a halachic or hashkafic basis, when there isn't, it's just business.

↑ Laiya ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 11:15 am

soap suds wrote:

You don't like it, go ahead and publish your own magazine with as many pictures as you want. Can't be bothered to do it yourself? Well, nobody is obligated to do your work for you. Why is everyone else responsible for your decisions?

The problem with creating a lifestyle magazine that conforms completely to Torah values, is that it's a lifestyle magazine. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain a magazine on subscription sales alone.

I fondly remember the JO, which was NOT a lifestyle magazine but even so, if I'm not mistaken, was supported at least partially by Agudah. And even then it apparently wasn't sustainable.

I'm curious if anyone has any realistic ideas. What's another way a lifestyle magazine can make money such that it is not forced to bow to the demands of advertisers?

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 11:19 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

And the concept of photo shop exists. Let's use it to make women tznius rather than photo shopping women out altogether.

Really?? This hypothetical rabbanit I bring up who has hair showing and maybe the neckline is iffy. You want to do that?
And people get so bent out of shape when elbow coverings are photoshopped into pictures from the 40s...(And I agree. We don't change history.)

↑ soap suds ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 11:21 am

Laiya wrote:

I didn't read the entire thread.
I still think it's a marketing decision. It's quite clear from the fact that they do have pictures of women on their website. As long as it'll be more worthwhile for them financially to not print women, they won't. If the majority of their readership would want it - they would do it. Seems like we haven't reached that point yet. Obviously, a vast majority of their readership prefers the status quo, or is at least not bothered by it. It may very well change one day.

↑ Laiya ↓

Fri, Jun 21 2019, 11:32 am

soap suds wrote:

Agree, except that it's not the readership, it's the advertisers who call the shots.