Mishpacha printed photos of women in their magazine

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:11 pm

chaiz 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.

Because if you think you can change human nature.......I'd rather work realistically within it.

chaiz

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:13 pm

debsey wrote:

Because if you think you can change human nature.......I'd rather work realistically within it.

But as Jews aren't we expected to learn how to judge properly? Not sure this is so much about changing human nature. But I am not a psychologist and do not pretend to be so obviously it is possible that I am wrong.

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:20 pm

chaiz wrote:

"Supposed to" vs. "real world" are very different. Human nature is human nature, and there's a reason a picture is worth a thousand words - because people tend to judge based on pictures. Hence, my desire not to do that.

dancingqueen

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 1:57 pm

debsey 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.

I've read binah at a relative's house I'm definitely not an expert in their publication. No, if appearance was everything they would only show airbrushed versions of already skinny and beautiful women, like some secular mags. (Though that is changing! Yay) as chayallah said, these same publications print a pic of the male author of the article whether he is beautiful or not, but seeing a picture adds another dimension. That's why we have avatars on this forum for example. Surely as a businesswoman you understand the importance of a good visual in a presentation? Since most of us are visual people.

Also I just don't understand why it has to be all or nothing? Why would a picture invalidate or minimize a woman's mind, instead of just being another facet of the publication?

Stars

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 2:02 pm

Debsey I am the last person to judge people by their looks but still I would like for them to print pictures of the women columnists just like they do for the men. This isn't about their weight (gosh). This is about putting a name to a face and enhancing my reading experience.

Mishpacha, if you're reading this, it seems like the minority who would boycott you for printing photos of women would be by far over weighed by the vast majority who wants it.

tigerwife

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 2:56 pm

Chayalle wrote:

There are many books with pictures of women in it - like All for the Boss, for example. Why is a book different than a magazine?

There was a book that was published recently about Reb. Vichna Kaplan A"H. I was happy to see that they included many pictures of her and her fellow trailblazer teachers.

Chayalle

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 3:38 pm

tigerwife wrote:

There was a book that was published recently about Reb. Vichna Kaplan A"H. I was happy to see that they included many pictures of her and her fellow trailblazer teachers.

But if they would write an article about her in a magazine, they would leave out the pictures. No one has answered my question - why?

Notsobusy

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 5:02 pm

Chayalle wrote:

But if they would write an article about her in a magazine, they would leave out the pictures. No one has answered my question - why?

You're right, it makes no sense. The only reason I can think of is that the magazines are trying to make everyone happy, chassidim and non chassidim, while chassidim are probably not the target readership of a book about Rebbetzin Kaplan, although it's very possible that I'm wrong about that. I can't imagine a book about a chassidish rebbe will have a picture of his rebbetzin.

Notsobusy

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 5:14 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

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...

I don't know anyone who would have a problem with their husbands and sons seeing pictures of women. I know plenty of people who wouldn't want their husbands and sons seeing a Victoria's Secret catalog but don't care if he flips through a Macy's catalog (besides for the lingerie page).

Look, I agree with you that it's wrong to put pictures of men in frum publications and not pictures of women. I especially can't understand the problem with putting pictures of women in a magazine geared towards women, like Binah.

I don't disagree with you that there should be pictures of women in frum publications. I don't agree with you that the reasoning behind it is so that men shouldn't m@sturbate. I also can see why some women wouldn't feel comfortable -or tznius - with having a picture of themselves printed in a magazine.

debsey

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 8:28 pm

Chayalle wrote:

But if they would write an article about her in a magazine, they would leave out the pictures. No one has answered my question - why?

Because a magazine is inherently a cheaper, less valued publication. Every Tom, d!ck and Harry can flip through it. Whereas a big, thick, boring looking "The Life of Rebbetzin So-and-So" book is probably only going to be read by people who are interested in the subject matter. Having your picture in a thick, respectable volume is more respectable than having a picture of yourself in newsprint that can be used to wrap fish! The whole point of tznius is the inherent dignity of the Jewish woman. That's just not dignified.

BTW, not related to your point, to those that say Binah should put in pics of columnists - I just want to point out that it is Mishpacha who puts in thumbnails of their main columnists (Kobre, Rosenblum, etc) and maybe Ami does as well, I dk. Binah has male columnists, like Leiby Burnham, in the Teen section they have Rabbi Jung - and they don't put in pics of anyone. It's not like Binah has pics of the men but not the women.

ally

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 8:41 pm

debsey wrote:

All these arguments could be equally made about talmidei chachamim where there is an explicit concept if kavod. But none is saying not to print their pics....

My answer to Chayalle's question about All for the Boss would be that it was published 20+ years ago. But it is nice to see there are still books appearing with pictures of their subject.

shirachadasha

Mon, Aug 22 2016, 8:48 pm

debsey wrote:

Having your picture in a thick, respectable volume is more respectable than having a picture of yourself in newsprint that can be used to wrap fish! The whole point of tznius is the inherent dignity of the Jewish woman. That's just not dignified.

I don't think the magazine editors believe that. If so, they would not publish pictures of rabbonim.