Home

Why do you want women in a Magazine
  Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 19, 20, 21  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Poll

Why do you want women in magazines
For inspirational reasons (Role Models)
 20%  [ 33 ]
I believe equal for men and women
 21%  [ 34 ]
Only little girls
 15%  [ 24 ]
It's not a halacha, I don't believe in Chumros
 42%  [ 68 ]
Total Votes : 159


amother




Slateblue


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 6:37 am
If mishpacha and vaccines didn't exist what would we talk about all day? We'd be so bored. Baruch Hashem they exist.
Back to top

amother




Seashell


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 6:38 am
Because my little daughters keep asking me why there's no pictures of women. They tell me it's unfair. They say what kind of book is that there's a father and sons but where is the mother and are there any daughters?
Back to top

Rappel




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 6:39 am
amother [ Slateblue ] wrote:
If mishpacha and vaccines didn't exist what would we talk about all day? We'd be so bored. Baruch Hashem they exist.


Halacha, hashkafa, and the natural sciences? Hiding
Back to top

Forrealx




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 6:50 am
amother [ Aqua ] wrote:
I believe in: "live and let live!" If they are happy, why does it bother you?
Dont go around changing the world but yourself!

There was a very interesting article in a chabad newsletter once, will see if I can find it.


Well I don't wake up and go sleep by thinking this. It is just bothering me so now and then that extremism is apperently the derech the frum world wants to follow.
Back to top

yerushamama




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:03 am
gingertop wrote:
This is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss things that we would like to change in our world, why are you here? Honestly?
Defend the idea on its merit but why would you find it "disturbing" if people want to discuss how ridiculous they find this all to be?


Discussion isn't disturbing. Ridiculous comparisons are.

Do you really feel that one's only value is in whether and how they are portrayed in magazine ads and articles? According to that standard, most people I know have no value to you - THAT is offensive!

Arabs and Lev Tahor denigrate and abuse women. That has nothing to do with any magazine policies!
Back to top

amother




Navy


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:07 am
gingertop wrote:
This is a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss things that we would like to change in our world, why are you here? Honestly?
Defend the idea on its merit but why would you find it "disturbing" if people want to discuss how ridiculous they find this all to be?


I will not defend it on it's merit, as I happen to disagree with this policy. I just don't understand why people are so threatened by it. Do you honestly believe that Arabs and Lev Tahor etc are cruel to women because Mishpacha and Ami chose not to include pictures of women?!?
Back to top

amother




Copper


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:27 am
amother [ Navy ] wrote:
I find people's reactions here very disturbing. No one is trying to "erase" women from our lives - public or private. This was most likely a business / editorial decision. Most people have things that they find disturbing or distasteful in magazine pictures and ads. Some people are offended by certain styles, others by certain colors, others by makeup, poses, pouty expressions, and on and on. True, articles about chashuve women would probably not have these issues, but since we aren't talking about things which are assur, drawing a line becomes difficult. Whatever they choose to allow or not include would be sure to offend someone.

Comparing it to Arabs or even cults like Lev Tahor is very offensive. Women in Yiddishkeit have tremendous value, and I do not believe that not putting their pictures in magazine will change that.

I used to be offended when frum salespeople, technicians, etc preferred speaking to my husband, or didn't look me in the eye, After a while, I grew up, and realized that it is their issue, not mine. Just get over it already!


This may be a business decision, but it is being presented and justified as a geder in tznius and/or shmiras einayim with the claim that it is done under guidelines from Rabbanim. And this is not a harmless or neutral business decision. This is a decision with harmful ramifications.

-It objectifies females by suggesting that any female (no matter how tzniusdikly dressed) is a $exual object that should be hidden from view.

-It denies female role models for women/girls.

-It changes the standard of what’s considered normal/acceptable in frum society, by normalizing omission of females.

-And it presents a distorted view of history and reality.

There needs to be pictures of women and girls for the same reasons that there needs to be pictures of men and boys.
Back to top

monseymom25




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:43 am
Quote:
I hid that magazine so that my young daughter would not see that picture and realize that nothing in the Hamodia could be trusted, since it is all (even what is presented as history) edited to suit a certain world view. I didn’t want her to distrust all that she sees (as I now do).

If you distrust and disagree why do you want her to trust blindly?
Back to top

gingertop




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:46 am
Re: the comparison to Lev Tahor/Arabs
I'm not going to die on this hill.

I didn't make that comparison and I'm not exactly defending it.
Arab is the name of a very large ethnic group, many of whom aren't even Muslim. Even amongst Muslims, the laws of "tznius" are not one universal standard. The poster who brought that up was making a general point about "treasuring" women and that ownership mentality that doesn't leave women in a very good position.

As for Lev Tahor, they are obviously way more dangerous than a magazine that only publishes pictures of men. There's a similar source of the corruption but not comparable.

I disagree with the policy of omitting women and I fear where we're headed with it but it's not the same as the worst of the abuses in groups that over obsess about female modest.
Back to top

shabbatiscoming




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:51 am
Angel wrote:
Who are these women endorsed by?
I do not know the answer to your question, but I will say that not everything needs to be endorsed. Sometimes you can see a cause and say "oh, wow, this makes so much sense. I want to be a part of it".
You can go onto their site and ask them.
Back to top

gingertop




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 7:51 am
yerushamama wrote:
Discussion isn't disturbing. Ridiculous comparisons are.

Do you really feel that one's only value is in whether and how they are portrayed in magazine ads and articles? According to that standard, most people I know have no value to you - THAT is offensive!

Arabs and Lev Tahor denigrate and abuse women. That has nothing to do with any magazine policies!


See my post about the comparisons.

AS for whether one's only value is in how they are portrayed in magazine ads and articles- where did I say anything as ridiculous as that? Straw man.

OP asked why I want pictures and I answered. My life isn't lacking any value because Mishpacha doesn't have pictures of the people they interview.

I don't think the policy *shows* that *they* value women but I never said that one's only value is how they are portrayed. Complete dishonest reading of what I said.
Back to top

Angel




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:01 am
shabbatiscoming wrote:
I do not know the answer to your question, but I will say that not everything needs to be endorsed. Sometimes you can see a cause and say "oh, wow, this makes so much sense. I want to be a part of it".
You can go onto their site and ask them.

Deff not something I want to be part off, I agree with some of their things but other stuff they deff got wrong.
Sorry
Back to top

amother




Pink


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:05 am
I'll add: even if you use the slippery slope argument for women, how can any sane person think it is a normal policy to specifically say pictures of girls over the age of 5 can't be published?
That they fear their husbands or teenage sons seeing those pics? Because in previous threads here, some posters have endorsed this policy.
Such a sick and perverted view would not have become accepted without this blanket policy. And that's another reason I want pictures of women to be included.
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:06 am
I ask this question on these threads when I bother to get involved in them (usually too frustrating for me). And no one answers. I'll ask it again.

Who are these people who claim that halacha says its assur to print pictures of women in magazines? And what do they know that Rabbi Kanievsky, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and the family of Rav Shteinman did not know?

To quote borrow one of Rav Shteinman's lines - this is gaaiva to think that they have knowledge of secret halachos and secret Torah that forbid printing photographs of women's faces.
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:07 am
And I'll add (so my previous question does not get ignored because of this other point - this was never about printing ads with photographs of models in long, glossy sheitels or clothing or whatever. This is about printing a photo of a rebbitzen in her yartzeit article. This is about printing a head-shot of an author or an article - should she want it to be printed. For those who say "I dont want my photo printed" - fab! No one is forcing anyone to have pictures of themselves printed! But if someone wants - she should have the choice.
Back to top

amother




Pink


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:08 am
Yes, exactly. I have never, ever seen an actual name of a rav who says it is not allowed.
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:14 am
amother [ Pink ] wrote:
Yes, exactly. I have never, ever seen an actual name of a rav who says it is not allowed.

And many have gone on record as saying that it IS allowed.
Back to top

amother




Linen


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:18 am
I also dont understand how not putting women's pictures in a paper makes them a s@uxual object... I just don't get it.

I read a newspaper that has a small picture next to the article they wrote. But, I like their articles regardless of if their picture is there or not. It really doesn't make a difference to me.

The magazines that dont include women is a different type of orthodoxy, catering to ppl who accept this as "law" which is not any different than "laws" of not wearing denim, not wearing bright colors, no long sheitels, seemed stockings etc.....

We all keep different things. I dont understand why these two women are trying to influence a group that clearly will never agree with their"laws". We all keep /observe Judaism differently. I stll don't understand the connection of not showing pictures means they are "saying" women are s@xual objects.

I actually think it may be a "geder"(fence) on a "geder"(fence) which may be a little overboard. But, on the other hand, one of the papers showed pics of women and now are way too lenient such that they allowed a fashion article which included really inappropriate pictures. This newspaper went too much the opposite extreme bec. They started allowing pics of women and then were too lax/open about it, and they didn't make proper boundaries.

So, yes, maybe they are taking it too much to the extreme, and maybe other newspapers went in the opposite direction, of allowing inappropriate pictures. But, everyone lives differently and keeps different boundaries /fences /gederim. I still dont understand how their "not putting women pictures" is negative.
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:19 am
Angel wrote:
Deff not something I want to be part off, I agree with some of their things but other stuff they deff got wrong.
Sorry

What did they get wrong, and what is your source to show that its wrong? What Rav or halacha can you point to to back up your statement?
Back to top

watergirl




 
 
 


Post  Thu, Jun 20 2019, 8:26 am
amother [ Linen ] wrote:
I also dont understand how not putting women's pictures in a paper makes them a s@uxual object... I just don't get it.

I read a newspaper that has a small picture next to the article they wrote. But, I like their articles regardless of if their picture is there or not. It really doesn't make a difference to me.

The magazines that dont include women is a different type of orthodoxy, catering to ppl who accept this as "law" which is not any different than "laws" of not wearing denim, not wearing bright colors, no long sheitels, seemed stockings etc.....

We all keep different things. I dont understand why these two women are trying to influence a group that clearly will never agree with their"laws". We all keep /observe Judaism differently. I stll don't understand the connection of not showing pictures means they are "saying" women are s@xual objects.

I actually think it may be a "geder"(fence) on a "geder"(fence) which may be a little overboard. But, on the other hand, one of the papers showed pics of women and now are way too lenient such that they allowed a fashion article which included really inappropriate pictures. This newspaper went too much the opposite extreme bec. They started allowing pics of women and then were too lax/open about it, and they didn't make proper boundaries.

So, yes, maybe they are taking it too much to the extreme, and maybe other newspapers went in the opposite direction, of allowing inappropriate pictures. But, everyone lives differently and keeps different boundaries /fences /gederim. I still dont understand how their "not putting women pictures" is negative.

Re: the bold - Mishpacha does not cater to this type. They are very careful to cater to all of orthodoxy, as shown in their choice of weekly articles and columnists .
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 19, 20, 21  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 2 of 21 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Is there a Jewish Women’s Songwriter/Musician Group? 6 Fri, Aug 16 2019, 10:45 am View last post
Hosting divorced women for shabbos meals
by amother
69 Thu, Aug 15 2019, 12:43 am View last post
ISO call in number for women's kinos, Lakewood 2 Thu, Aug 08 2019, 10:39 am View last post
Mishpacha Magazine had photos of women in Shavuos issue 173 Thu, Aug 08 2019, 8:13 am View last post
Frum women in Israel forced to take off their head coverings 38 Wed, Aug 07 2019, 5:53 am View last post

Jump to: