Anyone else mildly offended by this?

Ima_Shelli

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 10:47 pm

Call me immature, but I absolutely refuse to subscribe to a publication that doesn't publish pictures of women, ever. I am sure there are rabbanim who have advised these periodicals to use this particular approach. But I definitely find it insulting in some vague way, and the thought of paying to get a magazine or paper sent to my home that has issues with publishing pictures of females, under any circumstances, gives me pause.

Can some one explain what the issue is, anyway? The old Feldheim books that I grew up with had no trouble with this (think 'All for the Boss'), and this relatively new 'chumrah' strikes me as a bit fanatic. Why would I read a 'fanatic' magazine? I am not talking about inappropriate or revealing images, obviously. I mean pictures of women published in a way that you would be comfortable seeing them in real life, I.e. tzanuah and all that.

OTOH, this seems to pretty much be standard operating procedure these days, even for some magazines that are pretty forward-thinking in other ways, like in choice of topics that they are willing to discuss (e.g. infertility, abuse, etc.). I think it is probably a matter of 'keeping up with the frummy Jones', so to speak, at this point.

Anyone else have thoughts or explanations on this? Am I the only one who is bothered by this at all?

Raizle

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 10:58 pm

No you are not the only one bothered by this, I find it an extremely disturbing trend.

If other groups of Jews want to wear only opaque, then fine
If they only wear pantyhose with seams - fine
Only mid length skirts - fine
Only certain colors - fine

so be it and good for them but this issue of no pictures of women is taking what they call "Tznius" to a whole new realm which I find really scary.

Tznius according to Judaism means to be dressed and to behave modestly. Now there may be different opinions and shitas of what that means and how to dress but that I can live with.
Tznius has NEVER meant for the woman to disappear l'gamreh!
The same way we don't wear burkas to hide our faces in public, then why should we have an issue with tznius pictures of woman.
Great and holy people of once upon a time had no problem with their wives and mothers in pictures so why should we today?

Scotty

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 11:03 pm

Honestly? the reason they do it is to avoid complaints from readers who may/may not/may possibly be right, wrong, or in between. Think of it: they are understaffed, super-busy, overloaded with work and editing and layout - they just honestly don't have the time to field irate comments, letters, flames, or rotten tomatoes. It doesn't pay and can only lose them demographics - and so they avoid the issue entirely and have an ironclad rule that no females above the age of 3 may be represented. It's just safer for everyone involved, and just avoids the whole "is it right? Is it insulting? Is it appropriate?" issue entirely...

So it's economics, mostly, not an attempt to offend or make a sociological statement. It just doesn't pay to have to spark debate on something that could be so easily avoided. I do wish the women's mags could have pics of women, though. It would make it much easier to relate to... but there are plenty of male readers out there who devour the Family First and Binah, and I'm completely unsurprised that the same principles apply...

Ima_Shelli

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 11:12 pm

Purda curtain, here we come. (For the uninitiated, that's the old Hindu way of hiding women from sight.)

Seriously, the economic explanation is interesting but I can't believe it's the only one. I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but if you think about it, All for the Boss was the bestselling frum book of all time, from what I remember. No one avoided it because it had (gasp!) pictures of women.

louche

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 11:34 pm

I'm much more disturbed by ones that blur or pixillate women's faces. Leave them out if you must, we can live without pictures, but deliberately obliterating a person's face, I dunno, there's something creepy about it. Like ch"V a visual "yemach shmo" as it were. I know that's not the intent, but that's how it strikes me.

I also dislike the Tanach cards with faceless drawings of Biblical personalities. Again, I understand we don't want to assign faces to Tanach figures b/c we don't know what they looked like and don't want to mislead anyone, don't want to make them into objects of worship, but then why make images of them at all? Those pictures with vague blurs where the faces should be look like nothing so much as Dementors (evil characters in the Harry Potter series). They make my skin crawl.

Simple1

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 11:40 pm

I find it offensive too and I am what people would consider yeshivish. I do still buy the magazines and newspapers anyway. Sometimes the ommissions are so wierd. Like when they had pictures of all the attorney generals and they left out Janet Reno. And dh noticed in an old photo with some people in it they blurred out the woman. I definitely agree they shouldn't have provocative pictures in there, but can't see anything wrong with an average snapshot of a woman or polictical figure. And what about the pictures they have of men - there was one picture of a man with such a look that seemed a lot more wrong than having a picture of say Hillary Clinton.

I think Scotty may have a point that they're serving a certain clientelle that they have to please. I don't know if this is a psak, because if so I don't really feel comfortable speaking out against it. It's just my feelings.

My mother doesn't have the internet and I was a bit surprised when we were discussing Sarah Palin that she said she doesn't even know how she looks. Until I remembered that the publications she reads won't even print her photo.

Raizle

Wed, Oct 06 2010, 11:52 pm

louche wrote:

I also dislike the Tanach cards with faceless drawings of Biblical personalities. Again, I understand we don't want to assign faces to Tanach figures b/c we don't know what they looked like and don't want to mislead anyone, don't want to make them into objects of worship, but then why make images of them at all? Those pictures with vague blurs where the faces should be look like nothing so much as Dementors (evil characters in the Harry Potter series). They make my skin crawl.

I haven't ever seen anything like that but I did once see a children's book that when they depicted one of the Tanach figures they had them standing on the side or with their backs to the reader, you you never saw their face. You wouldn't have realized it unless you knew about this issue of not assigning faces

louche

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 12:11 am

Raizle wrote:

You wouldn't have realized it unless you knew about this issue of not assigning faces

I must be more into faces than you, because I noticed. in fact, it was only after I noticed and mentioned something about it that someone told me why they do it that way.

DrMom

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 12:52 am

Scotty wrote:

So it's economics, mostly, not an attempt to offend or make a sociological statement. It just doesn't pay to have to spark debate on something that could be so easily avoided.

By pretending that women don't exist, they do offend and they do make a sociological statement. Perhaps it appeases some, but it certainly offends others, present company included. It is particularly ridiculous when it comes to publications targeted toward women.

We refuse to subscribe to such publications.

RachelB

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 3:29 am

Depressed wrote:

I say burkas for everyone.. Ladies you aint seen nuttin yet.. Behold the Talibanization of American Orthodoxy...

Not just American. Burkas are very much in style in certain Jewish neighborhoods in Israael.

suomynona

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 3:41 am

I don't agree with it and think it's silly, but I also think it's silly to be offended. Their intention is not too offend, it's to cater to certain men's sensitivities. Even those men are not anti-women. so what exactly are you offended about?

ora_43

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 4:06 am

RachelB wrote:

Depressed wrote:

I say burkas for everyone.. Ladies you aint seen nuttin yet.. Behold the Talibanization of American Orthodoxy...

Not just American. Burkas are very much in style in certain Jewish neighborhoods in Israael.

Not exactly. The most anti-burka people I know are in the neighborhoods where some women wear them. It's not a stylish choice at all, it leads to ostracism. And the women doing it are not the hareidi/chassidish "elite" (that is, meyuchasot).

Raizle

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 4:28 am

suomynona wrote:

It is offensive.
Regular Tznius is not offensive but this is.
It shmecks of a Taliban style society which degrades and demotes the women.\
It's the lead up to a society in which women are pushed into hiding and can no longer show their faces in the street. Now where is that thread about what happened this year in meah sheorim on succos.
And don't you think it's rather perverted that even children's books are being illustrated with only the mommy's back in the picture.
illustrations, not photos.
If a man gets turned on by a children's book tznius illustration then something is seriously wrong with our frum society today. Not to mention the lack of sisters.

Karnash

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 5:06 am

I'm so glad you brought this up. I've boycotted these publications for years. One of my daughters is Charedi, and while I do everything to make them comfortable in my house (which they assure me they are), I won't buy or read those publications. I used to read them, but I think my breaking point came a few years ago when one of the charedi papers published a picture of the astronauts killed in the Challenger explosion and photoshopped out the woman astronaut and in her place put a duplicate photo of one of the male astronauts!

suomynona

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 5:12 am

Raizle wrote:

suomynona wrote:

Again I just don't find it offensive. I don't see how not showing pictures of women degrades them. If anything it's insulting to the men.
And as long as women continue to be the main breadwinners in chareidi society, they are not going to be demoted in a Taliban style.

grace413

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 5:15 am

We have two local papers here in Maale Adumim. One is backed by Charedim. I never really paid attention to whether or not there were pictures of wome. Before Purim, I was shocked to see a full page ad for Purim costumes with girls faces rubbed out. That's even worse than not putting in a picture of a woman - just a Queen Esther costume with feet and hands and a rubbed out face.

And the vast majority of this paper's readership is certainly not Charedi.

smilethere

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 5:39 am

I don't find it offensive at all, maybe because I'm ultra chareidi. My husband prefers me not to bring any pictures of women into the house. At all. No catalogues, no magazines etc (obviously family photos are rather something else Very Happy

). My husband grew up in a home where these things were allowed but he said it really disturbed him and doesn't want his kids to have these around. So I respect him on this, and am happy to have frum reading material to share with him.

What does get my goat, is when childrens drawing and colouring books have no pictures of women!! Ever heard the kids tape where the were 10 boys in the family and no girls or mother in the picture so they didn't have to draw females? I was so happy to find normal ultra chareidi storybooks (in yiddish for my sons) with normal family drawings, that I will keep on supporting the publisher and buying their books.

tweety99

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 6:13 am

I dont think its meant to be offensive for women at all. the main reason for it is that a man is not supposed to gaze at a woman unnecessarily. so by having pictures of good looking women in a magazine is bound to get men looking at them. its a boundary for the men, thats all.

Raizle

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 6:47 am

tweety99 wrote:

nu, so what's the difference between that and women out and about in shops and in the street? A man is not allowed to gaze at a woman unnecessarily so women shouldn't be out and about where men can see them.
Yeah I know you'll tell me it's easier to gaze at them in magazines then when they are there in person but does self control not count for anything any more nowadays?
And I mentioned before that many great and holy men of past had no problems with their wives, mothers and daughters in pictures. Why now is it an issue?