Theres ladies in this weeks Mishpacha

fmt4

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 9:53 am

amother [ RosePink ] wrote:

Yes. Great policy because you allow secular materials. We don’t. (My kids actually have no interest in secular reading materials, they’re even more careful then I am)
Clearly they’re servicing a certain crowd like my family that appreciates their policy.
If you don’t like their business model ( a very successful one at that) start your own that services your crowd. Your standards are different, please don’t lower ours.

Maybe stop worrying so much about pictures of 7 year old girls, and work a little harder on your middos.

shaqued_almond

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 9:56 am

Raisin wrote:

Chabad womens magazines do have photos of women. Magazines aimed at men, not necessarily. Kids magazines def have photos of girls.

I agree. Moreover there's a famous video where someone asks the Rebbe if they can refrain from approaching women for kiruv and the Rebbe basically said that the women aren't the problem, it's the men who need to learn how to deal with it. I'm paraphrasing.

Mommyg8

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 10:15 am

Chazak613 wrote:

Correct. Eli Paley stated this clearly in a podcast. In fact when they asked Rabbanim about posting Hillary Clinton's photo, the Rabbanim responded with where did you ever get this psak that its assur?
Its on Behind the bima by R' Efrem Goldberg
https://open.spotify.com/episo.....VKfnw

Thank you so much for posting this link. This interview was extremely illuminating, and I can't believe I have never heard of these podcasts! Adding this to my "must listen to" list.

Yes, that response was fascinating. Did anyone ever ask before they decided to not put pictures of women in the magazines/newspapers? I'm always amazed at the questions people in general choose to ask (and not ask).

Mommyg8

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 10:20 am

paperflowers wrote:

NeonYellow didn’t mock anything. She articulated her viewpoint clearly in a respectful way.

Mishpacha’s policy of no pictures of women was a financial decision. They started it by default, but when they later asked a rav they were told there is no reason for the policy. I’ve always respected their policy because they can do what they want with their business, but there’s no chumros involved. That’s not mocking, it’s just the facts that mishpacha has disclosed.

This is what everyone says, but I found it really interesting that in the interview with Rabbi Paley he actually responded that that was NOT the reason. He said the actual reason he did not put pictures of women in the Mishpacha was in order to be as inclusive as possible - he tries very hard to cater to ALL segments of Klal Yisroel and in this decision, he was trying to be sensitive to the Chassidish/ultra frum community that do not want pictures. His goal, as he stated, was to try to unify everyone together and help us understand other streams of Judaism as well. I found that explanation very interesting.

Mommyg8

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 10:23 am

amother [ RosePink ] wrote:

I find the mocking on this thread disgusting.
You claim to be yeshivish, but I doubt you are yeshivish from the heim, because you are a bit misguided.
Signed someone yeshivish who understands why the mishpacha has no pictures and respects that policy.
Also someone who finds it abhorrent to mock other peoples chumros

I guess The Jewish Observer and Olomeinu were not yeshivish from the heim. Actually, indeed they weren't, I'm pretty sure the term "yeshivish" did not exist then LOL

.

Since you are yeshivish from the "heim" (which heim was this btw?), can you please explain why the Mishpacha et al do not have pictures? You seem to understand something that I don't.

Signed,

Someone with a similar bio to Odelya

amother

Grape

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 10:49 am

shaqued_almond wrote:

Well, Chazal seem to have said otherwise. Even with regard to Avrohom Avinu they said Avrohom was mekarav men and Sarah was mekarav women

Rubber Ducky

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 12:04 pm

There's a medrash (and a Gemara!) about a coin being minted in honor of Avraham Avinu. The coin was said to have images of an old couple and a young couple.

Link: https://yeshivahcollege.org/th.....arah/
No mention in the article of whether Sarah Imeinu's face was pixelated out of the coin.

paperflowers

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 12:28 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

That’s a good point. I’m this light, Mr. Paley has deemed it more inclusive and unifying at this point to include pictures of women. He doesn’t want to cause a chillul HaShem by making certain people feel alienated and like they don’t have a place in Judaism, especially when there is no Halachik reason.

amother

NeonYellow

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 12:30 pm

To break this down, I think there are two separate discussions happening here regarding pictures of women:
1. Should they be in the Women's and children's magazines?
2. Should they be in the general magazine which is also geared towards a male readership?

I think #2 is more something to discuss than #1. other than one poster who claims to be from some unknown yeshivishe heim, I am thinking most of us are on the same page regarding #1. Right?

amother

Daisy

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 1:04 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

He danced around it imo. Sure he wanted it to be inclusive as possible, because bigger readership = bigger $. It's a for profit business. (The JO wasn't, really.)

shaqued_almond

Fri, Dec 03 2021, 1:09 pm

amother [ Grape ] wrote:

Well, Chazal seem to have said otherwise. Even with regard to Avrohom Avinu they said Avrohom was mekarav men and Sarah was mekarav women

He wasn't saying that it's the men who have to do all of the kiruv, he only mentioned that it needs to happen. It's clearer in the video, I need to find it some time. As I said I paraphrased. Practically speaking in chabad the wifes are shluchot and the husbands are shluchim

Elfrida

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 12:10 pm

amother [ Smokey ] wrote:

There are no mishpacha magazines to be found in monsey. I wonder if it's related to this controversy.

Could be. Or could be because people who don't buy it every week buy the expanded Chanukah edition. Or people wanted the recipe book supplement. There are lots of possible reasons.

amother

DarkGray

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 6:55 pm

amother [ Smokey ] wrote:

There are no mishpacha magazines to be found in monsey. I wonder if it's related to this controversy.

They were gabbed off the shelves. I guess everyone wanted to see it in print.
I got one.

Last edited by amother on Wed, Dec 15 2021, 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

DarkGray

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 7:10 pm

Einikel wrote:

Which page was it on? I didn't notice it.

The article about the nursing home.

I was annoyed about the articles "Her husband's will", and "No" in the battle cry series in the Family First.
It felt like one step forward 2 steps back.

Last edited by amother on Wed, Dec 15 2021, 4:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Mayflower

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 8:11 pm

SafeAtLast wrote:

The article about the nursing home.

I was annoyed about the articles "Her husband's will", and "No" in the battle cry series in the Family First.
It felt like one step forward 2 steps back.

Can you summarize for those of us who don’t have Mishpacha?

amother

DarkGray

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 8:37 pm

amother [ Mayflower ] wrote:

Can you summarize for those of us who don’t have Mishpacha?

Her husband's will was basically a promo for Laura Doyle and No was about a mother cutting contact with a child.

Last edited by amother on Wed, Dec 15 2021, 2:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Daisy

Sat, Dec 04 2021, 8:44 pm

A bit off topic, but the "Coming Back to Life" article in Ami Living was fascinating but ultimately disappointing because of the photo situation. How much would have been added to see pictures of the girls in the D.P. camp (instead of a photo of a boys school picture which literally had nothing to do with the article), or a wedding photo that included a glimpse of the kallah. It would have been so powerful and a testament to the bravery of these women.