Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Hobbies, Crafts, and Collections -> Reading Room
Publisher of Mishpacha magazine explaining no-pics
Previous  1  2



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

amother
Cobalt


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:35 am
amother Blush wrote:
Because their circulation will go down if they put in pics of women. Period.

Chassidim have the numbers and their leadership will not allow them to purchase the magazine if it has pics of women.

The magazines are part of a very lucrative industry. It’s always about the bottom line.


Good for them. Nothing wrong with having your own standards.

There's plenty of magazines in the world, different strokes for different folks.
End of.
Back to top

bsy




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:35 am
amother Cobalt wrote:
Good for them. Nothing wrong with having your own standards.

There's plenty of magazines in the world, different strokes for different folks.
End of.

Except there are not tons of similar magazines with pictures of women.
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:39 am
Magazines not featuring women does have an impact beyond the readership. For example, being featured in the business section of the magazine can help a business, and if women aren't featured, women's businesses are denied that opportunity.
Back to top

wigboutique




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:40 am
The no pictures thing doesn’t bother me. It provides a focus on the stories, not the image around it. I think it has a very Jewish background to it. And I am younger and more “modern” than most orthodox individuals (albeit with an appreciation and respect for tradition and Halacha)
It’s like people who appreciate looks more than the internal qualities of a person. You can also make the comparison of someone into brands versus actual style. What’s the point? It’s hollow.
Thank you Mishpacha for adhering to these values.
My two cents. Feel free to agree to disagree
Back to top

shabbatiscoming




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:41 am
amother Hyacinth wrote:
Ha I looked at the sign now and I see your point no wonder I didn’t see a woman

Actually there are quite a few women in that picture.
Back to top

shabbatiscoming




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 7:43 am
wigboutique wrote:
The no pictures thing doesn’t bother me. It provides a focus on the stories, not the image around it. I think it has a very Jewish background to it. And I am younger and more “modern” than most orthodox individuals (albeit with an appreciation and respect for tradition and Halacha)
It’s like people who appreciate looks more than the internal qualities of a person. You can also make the comparison of someone into brands versus actual style. What’s the point? It’s hollow.
Thank you Mishpacha for adhering to these values.
My two cents. Feel free to agree to disagree

But it does have pictures, of men. Just not of women. 🤔
Back to top

amother
Valerian


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:10 am
There have been many pictures of women lately in the Mishpacha. There have been pics of hostages, there was an article about the lady who supported Torah (Jennie something) with many pictures, and other places as well.
Back to top

chestnut




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:12 am
amother Valerian wrote:
There have been many pictures of women lately in the Mishpacha. There have been pics of hostages, there was an article about the lady who supported Torah (Jennie something) with many pictures, and other places as well.

Magazine or online?
Back to top

gootlfriends




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:16 am
I honestly don't care either way but I think the world forgets what modesty actually is. I recently was reading a magazine in monsey with zero pictures of women but the ads still had inappropriate content. And it goes to show that people have forgotten how to live.
Back to top

amother
Clear


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:17 am
amother Tuberose wrote:
about three weeks ago mishpacha had a small picture of a hostage, a teenage girl dressed in a low cut tank top. I didn't mind it but I have chassidish relatives who were disturbed. there is no reason that a man reading a frum magazine has to have that jump out at him where he doesn't expect it. (while walking on streets he does expect it and is careful)
He sent mishpacha a letter and they apologized and said it was an oversight.
I still think it was on purpose because they seem to be slipping it in wherever they can...

I hope people are more disturbed by the fact that there are hostages than abt whether or not a picture of one in a tank top was published. It probably was an oversight but remember that in a time when people are ripping down hostage photos we should not be advocating for anything that sends a message we render them invisible as well. JMHO.
Back to top

amother
Clear


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:21 am
chestnut wrote:
Magazine or online?

In the print magazine. For example, the issue about Jennie Miller included a full family photo of R' Kamenetzky (visiting her as an older lady) so clearly R Kamenetzky/his family gave permission and is ok with pics of women being published, Rebbetzin Kamenetzky as a young woman + their daughters as young girls were in the photo.

They got great feedback about that article and apparently the author is now working on a book about Jennie Miller, so I assume most of their readership took it in stride and were pleased to see photos or at least didn't mind enough to complain.
Back to top

amother
Blueberry


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 8:32 am
amother Tuberose wrote:
about three weeks ago mishpacha had a small picture of a hostage, a teenage girl dressed in a low cut tank top. I didn't mind it but I have chassidish relatives who were disturbed. there is no reason that a man reading a frum magazine has to have that jump out at him where he doesn't expect it. (while walking on streets he does expect it and is careful)
He sent mishpacha a letter and they apologized and said it was an oversight.
I still think it was on purpose because they seem to be slipping it in wherever they can...


I think in such a case the magazine could slightly blur the body part that's not tznius. I think it fine to blur the body part if they have a very expose top-like a tank top or very open neck.

I don't know if it's like that way still. I'm chasidish hamoidea magazine had no pictures of women. To the point that a family picture in the coloring section showed no mother or girls. To me that looked like a gay family. I decided the newspaper was for very closed -mined people. Unsiscribed. If they couldn't include a sister in the children's section this newspaper was not for me. My children play with their boy next door neighbors and cousins up until they are about 9 years old. They are then told they could talk to their but not touch them. They end up being disinterested even before that age. We are all very chasidish. Men that can't even look at women. Will treat women bad if they have to interact with them its fanatic.
Back to top

amother
Tuberose


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 10:10 am
amother Clear wrote:
I hope people are more disturbed by the fact that there are hostages than abt whether or not a picture of one in a tank top was published. It probably was an oversight but remember that in a time when people are ripping down hostage photos we should not be advocating for anything that sends a message we render them invisible as well. JMHO.


thats fine, of course they should be putting pictures of the hostages. but putting one in a tank top when there are nebach 240 others wasn't necessary.
Back to top

amother
Aqua


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 10:32 pm
amother Clear wrote:
In the print magazine. For example, the issue about Jennie Miller included a full family photo of R' Kamenetzky (visiting her as an older lady) so clearly R Kamenetzky/his family gave permission and is ok with pics of women being published, Rebbetzin Kamenetzky as a young woman + their daughters as young girls were in the photo.

They got great feedback about that article and apparently the author is now working on a book about Jennie Miller, so I assume most of their readership took it in stride and were pleased to see photos or at least didn't mind enough to complain.


Sorry, but this is being ridiculously closed-minded. You have no idea what kind of negative feedback they got for this which they're wisely not sharing with their readers.
Back to top

amother
Clear


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 10:37 pm
amother Aqua wrote:
Sorry, but this is being ridiculously closed-minded. You have no idea what kind of negative feedback they got for this which they're wisely not sharing with their readers.

Since they've continued to include pictures of women, it's pretty obvious the positive reaction was greater than any negative feedback they may have received. If they had lost business or been overwhelmed with negative feedback they would have stepped back from publishing similar photos. As has already been pointed out on this thread, whether or not to publish photos has always been a business decision and their business is doing fine even once they started to include them. (Side point, but the term "close minded" means something different than the meaning you are ascribing to it, anyway...it doesn't work in that context.)
Back to top

LovesHashem




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 11:07 pm
amother Tuberose wrote:
about three weeks ago mishpacha had a small picture of a hostage, a teenage girl dressed in a low cut tank top. I didn't mind it but I have chassidish relatives who were disturbed. there is no reason that a man reading a frum magazine has to have that jump out at him where he doesn't expect it. (while walking on streets he does expect it and is careful)
He sent mishpacha a letter and they apologized and said it was an oversight.
I still think it was on purpose because they seem to be slipping it in wherever they can...


Even in they were trying to slip in pictures they would not put something like that in. All of the graphics and production is done from Israel, and everyone was I'm sure very shaken up and emotional and last minute.....
Back to top

amother
Ebony


 

Post Sun, Nov 26 2023, 11:27 pm
amother Blueberry wrote:
I think in such a case the magazine could slightly blur the body part that's not tznius. I think it fine to blur the body part if they have a very expose top-like a tank top or very open neck.

I don't know if it's like that way still. I'm chasidish hamoidea magazine had no pictures of women. To the point that a family picture in the coloring section showed no mother or girls. To me that looked like a gay family. I decided the newspaper was for very closed -mined people. Unsiscribed. If they couldn't include a sister in the children's section this newspaper was not for me. My children play with their boy next door neighbors and cousins up until they are about 9 years old. They are then told they could talk to their but not touch them. They end up being disinterested even before that age. We are all very chasidish. Men that can't even look at women. Will treat women bad if they have to interact with them its fanatic.


They have been printing pictures with little girls up to around age 7 for many years now.
Also the hamodia doesnt have such a page
Back to top
Page 2 of 2 Previous  1  2 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Hobbies, Crafts, and Collections -> Reading Room

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Overnight lukshen kugel from circle magazine ..need recipe 4 Today at 11:52 am View last post
Mishpacha Double Take
by amother
80 Mon, Feb 19 2024, 7:31 am View last post
Writing for a magazine
by chakie
0 Thu, Feb 15 2024, 3:03 pm View last post
Rebbe/ Gedolim Pics
by amother
1 Wed, Feb 07 2024, 12:42 pm View last post
by ynms
Trust Fund - Mishpacha serial
by amother
107 Wed, Feb 07 2024, 9:29 am View last post