Mishpacha printed photos of women in their magazine

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Hobbies, Crafts, and Collections -> Reading Room

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

Papaya

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 10:26 am

Perhaps they don't print the rebbetzin picture at least partially because they think SHE wouldn't have wanted her picture printed for public circulation.

amother

Burgundy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 10:28 am

amother wrote:

Perhaps they don't print the rebbetzin picture at least partially because they think SHE wouldn't have wanted her picture printed for public circulation.

Oh please. And what about her husband the rabbi? Maybe he doesn't want to have his picture printed for public circulation?

amother

Burgundy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 10:30 am

dancingqueen wrote:

I just can't wrap my head around a women's magazine printing tznius pictures of a rebetzin because of fears that their own family members will m@sturbate to it. I just can't.

I've actually asked some people about this, and they genuinely believe it is 100% assur for a man to look at a woman. Even in a picture.

Many of them are the type of people who look down at the sidewalk to avoid seeing females.

It's very sad, because while the goal is kedusha and shmiras einayim, the result is that these men and boys are conditioned to think that they are so weak, when they DO look at women they will inevitably sin, and the direct result of all this is that women are terribly objectified, there's a lot of misogyny, and women are pushed further and further into the background.

Notsobusy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:16 am

dancingqueen wrote:

I just can't wrap my head around a women's magazine printing tznius pictures of a rebetzin because of fears that their own family members will m@sturbate to it. I just can't.

Why do most tznius threads end up with such a post in it? I don't know anybody who believes tznius is about making sure our men don't m@sturbate. Maybe that's true for some chassidim or some very "frum" people, but that's not true for most of us.

amother

Cyan

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:22 am

glutenless wrote:

Because the alternative, that the mere sight of a fully dressed woman is offensive, is simply too frightening. There's something profoundly wrong with a society that sees women exclusively as objects.

Rubber Ducky

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:27 am

PinkFridge wrote:

They had the same ad previously without the pictures.
Either it was a mistake, or they want reaction. So react. The editor's just an email away.

Great idea! Letters to the editor, for Mishpacha: inbox@mishpacha.com

and for Family First: familyfirst@mishpacha.com

amother

Burgundy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:36 am

Nothing beats the picture Yated had of Hillary last week. Exquisite embarrassment.

Rubber Ducky

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:41 am

Her face and elbow are both covered! Wink

DrMom

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:52 am

Rubber Ducky wrote:

Her face and elbow are both covered! Wink

But you can still see her hair! (Although it looks like a sheitel.)

cnc

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 11:57 am

amother wrote:

Nothing beats the picture Yated had of Hillary last week. Exquisite embarrassment.

Oh my goodness. This is hilarious.

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

dancingqueen

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 12:09 pm

glutenless wrote:

So what is the fear of printing a tznius picture of a rebetzins face in an article about her? Printing pictures of her Dh and sons is just ridiculous imo.

amother

Green

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 12:10 pm

I don't take this as a sign of a changed policy in the mishpacha magazine, considering that the children's magazine still has the disclaimer that they will only print pictures of girls under the age of 6. it was an ad error.
I read both the mishpacha magazine and the jewish press and I often see two versions of the same ad. usually when it's a school dinner and a couple is being honored, they have a picture of the couple in the jewish press and a pic of just the mr. in the mishpacha. last week, mishpacha advertised the same cookoff with the censored ad. next week they will do that again,along with a disclaimer and an apology I'll bet, considering the way this thread is trending.
p.s. this big shpiel we're talking about here is pictures of women's heads no larger than FDR's on the dime.

sourstix

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 12:19 pm

to me this is so minor. it so doesnt make a difference. if they put or not doesnt make a difference at all. I just want quality reading. and thats what counts to me. thanks mishpacha for your excellent reading material. keep going. your doing great!!

amother

Floralwhite

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 12:44 pm

glutenless wrote:

But it seems that these are really the only people who would not be buying the magazines because of a picture of a woman.

Why do the magazines cater to this small subset?

Rubber Ducky

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 12:54 pm

amother wrote:

But it seems that these are really the only people who would not be buying the magazines because of a picture of a woman.

Why do the magazines cater to this small subset?

Because they believe "this small subset" is bigger than the people who won't subscribe because of the lack of women's pics. Anyway, they're the frummest, right?

Here in Baltimore, I do the layout for an occasional newsletter for a women's college/seminary. Yes, we include pictures of women. And every year the school receives a few complaints about it. But B"H that isn't a mainstream position around here.

greenfire

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 1:02 pm

first you complain if they don't - now you complain if they do

daisy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 3:44 pm

A few weeks ago the Jr had a feature on Hillary which included a line drawing. Wondering why they can't do that for Rebbetzins?

devash1

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 4:00 pm

I kept looking at the ad trying to figure out what was strange about it, it took me about 10 seconds to realize it was women's faces. I was happy to see it, but probably a mistake.

abound

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 4:07 pm

Personally, I would never want my picture printed in a magazine, Luckily I am not extraordinary in any way, so no worries.
I still would want to see woman in a magazine, just not me Smile

Notsobusy

Sun, Aug 21 2016, 4:14 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

So what is the fear of printing a tznius picture of a rebetzins face in an article about her? Printing pictures of her Dh and sons is just ridiculous imo.

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.

Page 2 of 4

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next