Anyone else mildly offended by this?

HindaRochel

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 10:55 am

I think an across the board policy should apply. No pictures of people or pictures of people who are modestly dressed or stam pictures.

I think the whole thing is not only ridiculous but as others have pointed out, probably causing the very problem they are trying to avoid.

But I don't read these magazines anyway. I don't find them interesting, I don't find the stories compelling...so nu...I'm waiting for the one that does.

I'll try Z'man...but, and referencing another thread, really I don't put much stock in these periodicals.

milchigs

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 10:57 am

louche wrote:

Next thing you know, they'll be pixillating cows (I assume the Statue of Liberty is already banned) and after that, it's but a short slide to hiding the legs of our furniture.

The thing about legs on furniture-- believe it or not, this is a secular idea, used way back when women did not treat themselves as pieces of meat nor dress like it. An old-school, non-jewish practice from long ago. Guess they were fanatics too.

freidasima

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 11:09 am

Haven't seen any blurring of women's faces in Oprah or Ladies Home Journal lately....in my house we don't read Mishpacha, Bina, or any of the charedi magazines etc. My girls like catalogues, my boys couldn't care less although the older one is now into looking throught my stuff for short stories which he uses in teaching.

In general though, I grew up on Feldheim and knew the family well, in the days that things were more Poalei Agudah and not today's Agudah style...and most charedim of my generation and older that I know think it's ludicrous. Or as Bubby wrote, "Bloody stupid".

And like Ora said, it can lead to really bad things in society.

Its like the story of the Bhuddist monks which one of my supervisors always used to tell. Two bhuddist monks are praying on the banks of a river, an old monk and a young one. They hear a woman scream "help, help" and see a young woman, naked and drowning. The older monk rushes in, saves her, gives her the "kiss of life" and when he sees that she is breathing and back to herself and covered he bids her farewell and walks off with the younger monk.

The younger monk is in shock. "We are bhuddist monks", he said "we aren't allowed to touch women!!!" "You touched a woman"!!! The older monk just looks at him and walks on. The younger one goes on and on and on about this for over half an hour, shaking in shock..."you touched a WOMAN"...and finally at some point the older monk stops, looks at the younger and says, "yes. I know we are not allowed to touch women but she was drowning and yes, I touched a woman". "A Naked WOMAN" the younger monk said again. "Yes, a NAKED woman" repeated the older monk. "But you know what the difference between us is? I saved her life, touched a naked woman and then left here there, walking on....but you? You have been carrying her on your back with us for the past half hour."

That's the difference.
Moral to be learned? Be careful when you take things to extremes. You might not like what you end up getting at the end.

louche

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 12:16 pm

milchigs wrote:

louche wrote:

Next thing you know, they'll be pixillating cows (I assume the Statue of Liberty is already banned) and after that, it's but a short slide to hiding the legs of our furniture.

Precisely my point. Victorian England--prudish, repressed Victorian England-- feared that the sight of piano and table limbs--limbs, mind you, mustn't use the raunchy word "legs"--would excessively inflame the imaginations of their young people and lead to lascivious behavior, which was why they had to be modestly hidden from sight. Meantime, Victorian London was teeming with brothels --the number reached an all-time high during this period--of every type and variety to suit every taste from the straight to the depraved.

Women didn't think of themselves as pieces of meat? Really? Whyever do you think they wore those ridiculous corsets that made them look like pouter pigeons in front and sofas in back? G-d forbid an ankle should show, but they made up for it by exaggerating the curves of the female form.

Please do not hold up Victorian England as a model of purity and good family values. It was anything but.
Think about how sick, perverted, and s*x-obsessed a society has to be to see something s*xually inflaming in sticks of wood. Those who are pure of mind and thought see a piano and nothing more and have no need to hide it; those who need to hide it are those with filthy minds. And I very much fear that the leaders of the movement to rub out pictures of little girls and women's faces are also not those of pure hearts and minds but just the reverse. I would like to believe otherwise, but at a certain point sensible conservatism crosses the line and becomes something evil.

HindaRochel

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 12:30 pm

freidasima wrote:

Its like the story of the Bhuddist monks which one of my supervisors always used to tell. Two bhuddist monks are praying on the banks of a river, an old monk and a young one. They hear a woman scream "help, help" and see a young woman, naked and drowning. The older monk rushes in, saves her, gives her the "kiss of life" and when he sees that she is breathing and back to herself and covered he bids her farewell and walks off with the younger monk.

The younger monk is in shock. "We are bhuddist monks", he said "we aren't allowed to touch women!!!" "You touched a woman"!!! The older monk just looks at him and walks on. The younger one goes on and on and on about this for over half an hour, shaking in shock..."you touched a WOMAN"...and finally at some point the older monk stops, looks at the younger and says, "yes. I know we are not allowed to touch women but she was drowning and yes, I touched a woman". "A Naked WOMAN" the younger monk said again. "Yes, a NAKED woman" repeated the older monk. "But you know what the difference between us is? I saved her life, touched a naked woman and then left here there, walking on....but you? You have been carrying her on your back with us for the past half hour."

That's the difference.
Moral to be learned? Be careful when you take things to extremes. You might not like what you end up getting at the end.

Love that story....one of my faves.

JAWSCIENCE

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 1:25 pm

I do not subscribe to these magazines. I do not care if they are somebodies parnassah, nobody cares about "somebodies parnassah" when they ban things because they are not frum enough - despite the fact that they were considered frum enough for many previous generations. I have no problem condoning a boycott.

I think these extreme measures are leading klal yisrael down a very dangerous path where there will be a split between those that want to get stricter and stricter and those that want to stick to halacha and not create extra chumras.

There is no reason a woman should feel unwelcome walking down certain streets because she is wearing a sheitel, regular stockings and an outfit that covers her apropriately but is not black. There is no reason that young boys should stare at such a women and overly s*xualize her because they have never seen a woman before.

Removing female supreme court justices is very odd. Do you think women should not be allowed to have a job or be newsworthy? Then who is going to support all the learners? NOT ME. Because they can't can't take my money - I'm a woman.

dimples

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 1:45 pm

yup, I definitely have an issue with all this, but what really truly annoys me is the fact they wont even publish a picture of a public figure. I dont need the whole body, but a head with shoulders? come on! good thing Hillary didnt get elected, otherwise good old Bill would have gotten all the credit...

by the way there was a letter published in the Yated about this issue a couple of months ago. And all the replies were the same excuse, its not tznius..this is the best way...etc...

Ima_Shelli

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 2:10 pm

Sorry I missed the Yated back-and-forth on this, I would have found it interesting.

BTW, I am reminded of the time a couple of years ago when my nephew was reading a Pesach book for kids; my first encounter with the 'new chareidi'-type publications. It had a picture of a seder with men and boys sitting around the table. I was wondering where the females were... a relative quipped, "they're probably in the kitchen!" Suffice it to say I was not happy with that particular answer. Hallo, we get to clean and cook and... zat's all, folks? I don't consider myself a feminist- but come on!

I think for now I'll stick to House Beuatiful and Architectural Digest and Cooking Light; appropriate (for me), secular publications (gasp). BTW, they don't especially have 'pictures of women' in them. They just don't NOT have them. It's basically a non-issue. People read them for the articles and pretty pictures and creative ideas, and don't make femalehood per se into an obsession.

Again, I don't mean to take anyone's livelihood away. And part of me cheers every time I pick up one of the frum periodicals at a friend's and see an article about women with interesting jobs who've (gasp) gone to college, or reads a thought-provoking article that touches me in a way that no secular magazine article never could. And I am obsessed with some of the serials, and read them whenever I can. But every time I contemplate subscribing to one of the publications I just can't bring myself to do it since that would mean that I am literally 'buying into' this trend, which I really don't want to.

louche

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 2:47 pm

OOTBubby wrote:

I'm involved with a local publication that used to print pictures of men only. When they were threatened with a discrimination suit by a female advertiser (because they wouldn't allow her photo in her ad), the switched to not allowing any photos of people of any sort. I've even had to blur out faces of Rabbonim in Kupat HaIr types of ads.

A pub devoid of pictures of people, that I can live with. It's pubs showing a world that is "Frauenrein" that I can't.

chavamom

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 3:27 pm

milchigs wrote:

louche wrote:

Next thing you know, they'll be pixillating cows (I assume the Statue of Liberty is already banned) and after that, it's but a short slide to hiding the legs of our furniture.

Yes, they were. The Victorians don't get much good press on topic, if you are familiar with the era Rolling Eyes

DrMom

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 3:39 pm

Simple1 wrote:

Sometimes the ommissions are so wierd. Like when they had pictures of all the attorney generals and they left out Janet Reno.

louche wrote:

...(I assume the Statue of Liberty is already banned) ...

I'm trying to decide which is more disturbing: men getting turned on by Janet Reno or men getting turned on by the Statue of Liberty...

JAWSCIENCE

Thu, Oct 07 2010, 3:58 pm

DrMom wrote:

Simple1 wrote:

Sometimes the ommissions are so wierd. Like when they had pictures of all the attorney generals and they left out Janet Reno.

louche wrote:

...(I assume the Statue of Liberty is already banned) ...

I'm trying to decide which is more disturbing: men getting turned on by Janet Reno or men getting turned on by the Statue of Liberty...