Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Why do you want women in a Magazine
  Previous  1  2  3 17  18 19  20  21  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h



Why do you want women in magazines
For inspirational reasons (Role Models)  
 20%  [ 33 ]
I believe equal for men and women  
 21%  [ 35 ]
Only little girls  
 15%  [ 24 ]
It's not a halacha, I don't believe in Chumros  
 42%  [ 68 ]
Total Votes : 160



Ravenclaw




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:19 am
Slippery slope arguments are the funniest.
Back to top

Mommyg8




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:24 am
PinkFridge wrote:
Right. It's one thing if you see a teacher in casual clothes, I.e snood, biz skirt, etc. vs. her professional clothes. This is something else.

This might segue into, ok, so we'll photoshop the pictures to make them work. That to me is even more offensive than not publishing the pic at all.


But PF, you are too late! They ARE already photoshipping all women out of all magazines and newspapers! Have you not read upthread that the famous picture of the Chofetz Chaim was photoshopped to remove his wife and daughter? Do you not see that by removing ALL pictures of women, you are creating a female free frum world that is so much worse than any tiny bit of hypothetical photoshopping of women? Which can anyway easily be prevented by just having clear policies?

I really don't understand what is offensive about clear guidelines of tznius. I have MO relatives, they all come to our simchos with their hair covered, this is basic mentchlechkeit. Forget MO, I even have a NON-FRUM relative who will has a special dress or sweater that she wears to frum simchos. IRL people are generally not offended, in my experience. Unless they have an agenda.
Back to top

naturalmom5




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 10:03 am
Mommyg8 wrote:
Lots of events have both litvish and Chassidish women. I think it's respectful to follow the most machmir guidelines so that everyone will feel comfortable.


But why are we always pandering to crazies on the Right to the point that we are we chasing away many women in the center and left completely

This speaker should have the honesty and integrity to say
I AM NOT CHASIDISH FULL STOP

I follow very big poskim in my community .. End of story
That way you get respect

This way the women in the yeshivish-lite and JPF world are repulsed
And the Chasidim are anyway laughing at her...
Back to top

amother
Puce


 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 10:07 am
Ravenclaw wrote:
Slippery slope arguments are the funniest.

So now you've decided which type of argument is the "funniest"? Is this a joke to you? Keep it up and you'll turn every discussion into some kind of comedy club, and from there, it'll go to making movies, and pretty soon we'll be traveling around the world filming and abandon our families chas v'shalom!
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 1:10 pm
Mommyg8 wrote:
But PF, you are too late! They ARE already photoshipping all women out of all magazines and newspapers! Have you not read upthread that the famous picture of the Chofetz Chaim was photoshopped to remove his wife and daughter? Do you not see that by removing ALL pictures of women, you are creating a female free frum world that is so much worse than any tiny bit of hypothetical photoshopping of women? Which can anyway easily be prevented by just having clear policies?

I really don't understand what is offensive about clear guidelines of tznius. I have MO relatives, they all come to our simchos with their hair covered, this is basic mentchlechkeit. Forget MO, I even have a NON-FRUM relative who will has a special dress or sweater that she wears to frum simchos. IRL people are generally not offended, in my experience. Unless they have an agenda.


I think that both types of photoshopping are potentially equally offensive.
I like your line about the lack of transparency and how the editorial boards might be able to get away with choosing who they print. That could work.

I wonder: will the hypothetical guidelines be very simple, e.g. hair and collarbone, or will they be excruciatingly detailed?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 2:44 pm
Of all the potential problems with these magazines, their desire to avoid the photo wars is the least concerning.

Basically, these magazines are the Playboy of the frum world. Not in the sense of titillating adolescent boys, but in the sense of promoting an aspirational lifestyle.

Who was Hugh Hefner's core audience? Young men who'd served in WWII and who were now beginning to enjoy the fruits of the booming post-War economy. Many had relocated from rural and semi-rural towns to urban and suburban areas. They were looking for guidance about how to be sophisticated -- what music to listen to; what to read; what to discuss or not discuss; how to behave at a fancy restaurant. This was the real meat of Playboy -- along with pictures of naked ladies.

The frum magazines are serving the same role for an increasingly affluent frum audience. What kinds of foods are "in" for Shabbos and holidays? How do with-it hostesses set the table? Who are the up-and-coming Orthodox leaders in business, government, and science? What are the social problems we should care about, and which are we prompted to ignore?

I am not crazy about the no-women policy, but I understand how it developed. Everyone wants pictures of rebbetzins and other notable women. But then we start arguing what constitutes a "notable woman." And then the advertisers want to include women, and the publisher finds itself fighting repeated battles over what constitutes a appropriate photo.

Many secular magazines and newspapers -- most notably The New Yorker -- banned advertisements for underwear. Not because they thought their readers would be led astray by grainy black & white photos of Cross-Your-Heart brassieres, but because they were sick of constantly arbitrating each individual case.

I suspect that frum publishers have the same dilemma. There is absolutely no benefit to them to have to engage in constant monitoring, and they will invariably make someone angry. Easier to make everyone a little angry than make a small group extremely angry.

Really, though, publishing or not publishing women's photos in aspirational frum magazines is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You can argue that the deck chairs really should be arranged on way or another -- and you may be correct. But that won't prevent the ship from sinking.
Back to top

cbsp




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 3:06 pm
Fox wrote:
Of all the potential problems with these magazines, their desire to avoid the photo wars is the least concerning.

Basically, these magazines are the Playboy of the frum world. Not in the sense of titillating adolescent boys, but in the sense of promoting an aspirational lifestyle.

Who was Hugh Hefner's core audience? Young men who'd served in WWII and who were now beginning to enjoy the fruits of the booming post-War economy. Many had relocated from rural and semi-rural towns to urban and suburban areas. They were looking for guidance about how to be sophisticated -- what music to listen to; what to read; what to discuss or not discuss; how to behave at a fancy restaurant. This was the real meat of Playboy -- along with pictures of naked ladies.

The frum magazines are serving the same role for an increasingly affluent frum audience. What kinds of foods are "in" for Shabbos and holidays? How do with-it hostesses set the table? Who are the up-and-coming Orthodox leaders in business, government, and science? What are the social problems we should care about, and which are we prompted to ignore?

I am not crazy about the no-women policy, but I understand how it developed. Everyone wants pictures of rebbetzins and other notable women. But then we start arguing what constitutes a "notable woman." And then the advertisers want to include women, and the publisher finds itself fighting repeated battles over what constitutes a appropriate photo.

Many secular magazines and newspapers -- most notably The New Yorker -- banned advertisements for underwear. Not because they thought their readers would be led astray by grainy black & white photos of Cross-Your-Heart brassieres, but because they were sick of constantly arbitrating each individual case.

I suspect that frum publishers have the same dilemma. There is absolutely no benefit to them to have to engage in constant monitoring, and they will invariably make someone angry. Easier to make everyone a little angry than make a small group extremely angry.

Really, though, publishing or not publishing women's photos in aspirational frum magazines is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You can argue that the deck chairs really should be arranged on way or another -- and you may be correct. But that won't prevent the ship from sinking.


Ah, so with Playboy it really was about the articles? Who knew?!

LOL

Can you please clarify your analogy in the last paragraph? What's sinking with regard to the magazines?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 3:14 pm
cbsp wrote:
Ah, so with Playboy it really was about the articles? Who knew?!

Ironically, it actually was. The joke about "I just read it for the articles" was funny at two levels. The obvious level and the level about absorbing the gospel of consumerism in the guise of urban sophistication. In many senses, the articles were more subversive of society than the photos.

cbsp wrote:
Can you please clarify your analogy in the last paragraph? What's sinking with regard to the magazines?

The mindless, headlong march into unbridled consumerism is ultimately more dangerous than the lack of women's pictures.
Back to top

cbsp




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 3:33 pm
Fox wrote:
The mindless, headlong march into unbridled consumerism is ultimately more dangerous than the lack of women's pictures.


This I can totally relate to. I think the boundaries of tznius in lifestyle are crossed over and over and over again (and some of the fiction stories are subtly pointing that out!) - but there are no halachically defined boundaries and its oh so subjective - what's over the top for me may be every day for you.

I'm someone who'd want to see women's images in a woman's magazine - but I don't feel like I'm being erased when said images don't exist. I can understand why they're not there.

I don't understand those who say "mind your own business" when it comes to protesting clear violations of halacha (chilul Shabbos, etc) but feel they need to protest this because they view the lack of women's images as a perversion of Judaism (and can't understand when people tell them to mind their own business!)
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 4:08 pm
cbsp wrote:
I don't understand those who say "mind your own business" when it comes to protesting clear violations of halacha (chilul Shabbos, etc) but feel they need to protest this because they view the lack of women's images as a perversion of Judaism (and can't understand when people tell them to mind their own business!)

Each of us has her own ox, and when that ox is gored, we respond mightily. We may object to the goring of other people's oxen in principle, but when it's someone else's ox, we reach deep into our reserves of tolerance and counsel understanding and goodwill.

The best we can do is try to have a little humility and sense of humor when our oxen are being gored, remembering that not everyone shares our perspective.
Back to top

Notsobusy




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 4:17 pm
Mommyg8 wrote:
But what about the chumrah of darchei sholom? Kovod Habriyos? Maybe when you have two conflicting chumras one overrides the other? Wink

In any case, I'm backing off from my position. I spoke to some people IRL about this topic, and I have found that they have the same misgivings of the women on this thread - that this is a slippery slope and if they start printing pictures of Hilary Clinton and Niki Haley and old Rebbetzin's, soon they're going to be printing pictures of n*ked women. Literally, that's what I'm hearing. And to me, this means that we don't really trust our magazines to do what's right, and although I am very sad that this the case, they are probably correct and I'm just too idealistic.

Personally, this is not the only problem I have with these magazines, and these kind of conversations are pushing me completely away from them. At this point I rarely buy them, and after this conversation I think I might stop altogether. So maybe I'm the only person in the universe who thinks the way I do, so be it. I do me, you do you Wink .


I can't believe that there is anyone who is really afraid that the Jewish magazines will start printing naked pictures. I can hear that they might start printing pictures that SOME people won't feel is tznius ENOUGH, but nobody is even thinking about naked pictures.

Please, do you trust them enough that you read their articles, and you're not afraid that they are going to slide down into some terrible madreiga where they are printing kefirah or erotica? If yes, then I don't think you have to worry that much about the pictures.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 4:28 pm
Seriously?
Do these people not understand the difference between a Good Housekeeping Magazine and actual p-rn? Do they not realize that nobody in the Frum world, whatever spectrum they come from would stand for it? And, do they not know that magazines with nudity would not be able to be displayed at your local grocery store??? That it would be illegal to sell it to a minor?
Of all the reasons to argue against pictures of women, this has to be the most nonsensical (and, frankly, just plain dumb).
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 4:40 pm
Fox wrote:
Of all the potential problems with these magazines, their desire to avoid the photo wars is the least concerning.

Basically, these magazines are the Playboy of the frum world. Not in the sense of titillating adolescent boys, but in the sense of promoting an aspirational lifestyle.

Who was Hugh Hefner's core audience? Young men who'd served in WWII and who were now beginning to enjoy the fruits of the booming post-War economy. Many had relocated from rural and semi-rural towns to urban and suburban areas. They were looking for guidance about how to be sophisticated -- what music to listen to; what to read; what to discuss or not discuss; how to behave at a fancy restaurant. This was the real meat of Playboy -- along with pictures of naked ladies.

The frum magazines are serving the same role for an increasingly affluent frum audience. What kinds of foods are "in" for Shabbos and holidays? How do with-it hostesses set the table? Who are the up-and-coming Orthodox leaders in business, government, and science? What are the social problems we should care about, and which are we prompted to ignore?

I am not crazy about the no-women policy, but I understand how it developed. Everyone wants pictures of rebbetzins and other notable women. But then we start arguing what constitutes a "notable woman." And then the advertisers want to include women, and the publisher finds itself fighting repeated battles over what constitutes a appropriate photo.

Many secular magazines and newspapers -- most notably The New Yorker -- banned advertisements for underwear. Not because they thought their readers would be led astray by grainy black & white photos of Cross-Your-Heart brassieres, but because they were sick of constantly arbitrating each individual case.

I suspect that frum publishers have the same dilemma. There is absolutely no benefit to them to have to engage in constant monitoring, and they will invariably make someone angry. Easier to make everyone a little angry than make a small group extremely angry.

Really, though, publishing or not publishing women's photos in aspirational frum magazines is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You can argue that the deck chairs really should be arranged on way or another -- and you may be correct. But that won't prevent the ship from sinking.

That's actually a really important point.
Back to top

gingertop




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 6:51 pm
Fox- I agree with your post and others, like Leiya, who made similar points.

Basically, as in the Abie Rottenberg song*, "modesty" has developed a very narrow meaning, only pertaining to women, and only their physical forms.

Which is why, at the very start of this discussion, I said that I don't trust the editorial decisions of magazines when they make decisions of textual content more than decisions of graphic content.

In fact, I would think that they would be much more serious about tznius rules in photos than they are in observing the spirit of the law currently. There are magazines that are marketed for women and don't have any pictures of any women yet routinely run advertisements that are so materialistic that they are decadent and immodest. Forgive me if I think that interviews in those magazines would be enhanced with pictures of the interviewees instead of bouquets of flowers and/or their husbands' close-ups.

The message that women's faces are immodest but men can never be immodest no matter how self-aggrandizing some of them may be, is not a Jewish one. Shaul Hamelech is the model for modesty. Framing the entire discussion on women is wrong and the obsessiveness with which tznius is approached is not helping, IMO.

Again, this is a business decision and an easy way out for the magazines. That is something that 100% of the posters on this thread agree on.

If magazines cared about their impact on frum culture as much as they claimed they do, the magazines would have more serious articles by serious men and women and would turn down some of their advertisers. And they wouldn't want to be part of a trend where kids are growing up frum and thinking that there's something inherently wrong with girls faces being featured with their clics menorahs. It's a dangerous place that we're moving to.


*The Wedding Song:

"Katz's wedding consultant Agency"
"Hello Katz, this is Hershkoivitz"
"Hershkoivitz..."
"Ya ya Hershkoivitz, Feivel"
"Feivel Hershkoivitz, how are you Feivel"
"Boruch Hashem, vismachester reb yid"
"I'm fine, what can I do for you"
"I tell you the truth, I called because I get a big mazel tov, my daughter chanie became a kallah
"Ah mazel tov, that's wonderful news, what can I do to help you"
"Well I tell you the the truth, I never made a chasunah before, and I need some advice for what I should I do"
"You came to the right person, come here boys, Mr. Hershkoivitz wants to know how to make a chasunah. Hit it!"

Well the first thing I must say is you're going on display
And what will people think if the wedding isn't nice
None of the neighbors on your block have to know you're in hock
So no matter what it costs it's worth the price

It's worth the price, it's worth the price

Now the kallah's wedding gown should be the talk of the town
Designed from top to bottom just for her
And although it will be June when the heat can make you swoon
Make sure you buy your wife a real nice fur

No your guests will not be bored when they see that smorgasbord,
With chopped liver piled up to the sky.
And the band that you bring in should have 16 violins,
Each one in a white tuxedo and black tie.

The wine I'm sure know it has to be French Bordeaux,
Brought in on a shining silver tray.
And the flowers don't forget should be Holland's very best,
Flown in on the Concorde that same day.

The main course I won't fib must be succulent prime rib
Thick and juicy filling up the plate
Never mind the calories bring on the table Viennese,
The next morning they can starve to watch their weight

The photographer should know how to shoot a video
Everyone invited gets their very own cassette
And no bentchers - that's old hat you can do better than that
Why not give a brand new shas to every guest

You're a mishiga Katz, that's not what I had in mind"
"So what did you have in mind Mr. Hershkoivitz?"
"I wanted something a little little bit more modest"
"I can't hear you"
"I said I wanted something a little bit more modest"
"Oh, you want modest? That's ok, no problem."

So on the invitation write, in a ways that's real polite,
That the women should dress tznius, "if you pelase",
Because we're dealing with a crowd, that is also very proud,
Of how it keeps the laws of modesty.
Back to top

amother
Puce


 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 6:56 pm
The song is about opulence, but I'm just imagining a violin wearing a tuxedo.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:03 pm
gingertop wrote:
. . . instead of bouquets of flowers . . .

This always cracks me up! Every article looks like an ad for some feminine product! Even if they choose not to show pictures of women, the flowers really have to go!

gingertop wrote:
If magazines cared about their impact on frum culture as much as they claimed they do,

That'll be the day! It's all about profit -- pure profit. As long as people keep buying them, the publishers will always take the path of least resistance combined with greatest profit.
Back to top

amother
Gray


 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:21 pm
Mommyg8 wrote:
So prove to me that FGM is directly related to Muslim extremism. I'm not looking it up - I'm letting you do the research.

This is a truly awful thing to do, but like I said, there is a movement in America that feels that circumcision is violence against men. So when you make something a religious thing, it's a bit more complicated to define it as violence against women. Especially as we are religious.

Is it violence against women to not allow them to drive? Again, it depends on how you define violence. And if you think about it, there has been quite a bit of religious wars, killing - is religion itself linked with violence?


Its over 2,000 years old. It is not directly related to Islam, any more than white wedding gowns are directly related to Judaism.
Back to top

amother
Pink


 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:28 pm
Maybe, but today the vast majority of women affected by this come from Muslim, religious countries. It is not found in more secular Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 7:56 pm
Fox wrote:
This always cracks me up! Every article looks like an ad for some feminine product! Even if they choose not to show pictures of women, the flowers really have to go!


Please put the flowers in the hot air balloon basket.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jun 23 2019, 8:03 pm
gingertop wrote:

If magazines cared about their impact on frum culture as much as they claimed they do, the magazines would have more serious articles by serious men and women and would turn down some of their advertisers.


Gingertop, do you think a magazine with serious articles would have a market in the frum world? The JO closed I assume because of financial reasons. Maybe the fluff is what people really want. And as long as that's the case, the magazines will continue to be supported by the same advertisers...

Fox wrote:
That'll be the day! It's all about profit -- pure profit. As long as people keep buying them, the publishers will always take the path of least resistance combined with greatest profit.


It's hard to make money in print publishing these days. I keep hoping someone will come up with a better model.
Back to top
Page 18 of 21   Previous  1  2  3 17  18 19  20  21  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
S/O Women and megilla
by corolla
2 Mon, Mar 25 2024, 12:40 pm View last post
The week jr magazine
by amother
2 Thu, Mar 21 2024, 6:45 am View last post
How to find sponsors for a magazine?
by amother
5 Sun, Mar 17 2024, 7:03 pm View last post
List of frum women's clothing websites
by amother
6 Thu, Mar 14 2024, 2:19 pm View last post
Remind me pls the story in ami magazine
by amother
6 Thu, Mar 07 2024, 2:27 pm View last post