Mishpacha Magazine had photos of women in Shavuos issue

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Hobbies, Crafts, and Collections -> Reading Room

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother

↑ Lemon ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:06 pm

Coral, how is it LH to name these (I'm beginning to believe mythical, since nobody will name any) rabbonim. If you believe strongly in daas Torah etc, and you are proud to follow them. That would be called taking a stand. Not slander.

↑ marina ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:07 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

When you're publishing a bio, there is control and there are limits. There is one subject - the subject of the biography.
When you're publishing a magazine, the island keeps shifting. What happens when a magazine says, ok, we'll publish pictures of women but they have to adhere to some basic rules. Let's say, collarbones, hair, elbows. (And legs/feet if it's a full picture.) What happens when the subject is an incredibly wonderful woman who should be a role model for us all but she leaves a lot of hair out and the neckline's too iffy? Do they photoshop? Do they ask for a different picture? Is it possible, just possible, that it's simpler for magazines to just avoid the landmine altogether?

Yes, sure it is simpler. Should we all just do what is simpler then? It's just simpler to require everyone to wear a burkah. No need for detailed sefarim explaining tznius then.

Like I wrote earlier, all of gemara is basically a very long detailed "if this, then this but not this and this, but if that, then this." Taking the easy way of "assur" is absolutely not the jewish way at all.

↑ chestnut ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:17 pm

amother [ Coral ] wrote:

That would be lashon hara.

Lol would it also be LH to name rabbis who say there's an eruv in Boro park? Or that you can't use electricity on shabbos ? Or answer myriad of shailos?

Simple1 ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:22 pm

To those who are saying slippery slope and how will the editors decide what's ok and what's not, I feel the opposite has happened. Sometimes it seems because they have a black and white rule, then anything else goes regardless of whether or not its tasteful and modest. They'll put a long flowy shaitel covering half the page. Often pictures of little girls that are not so appropriate. Alluring pictures of men, and so much more.

I think they might be better off without rules and just use common sense. The bioagraphy of R' Shteinman with women pictures is way more refined than many of the no-women magazines.

↑ chestnut ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:22 pm

amother [ Aquamarine ] wrote:

Thank you for responding. But no, it is not good enough. you seem to be motivated by your frustration and anger at the myriads of extra chumros and stringencies that some people in "power" place on us unnecessarily. I agree with you and feel the same way. But you opinion is similar to saying "My mother did not let me ride a bike because it is dangerous and its not true so now I will ride a bike even on the highway". ok bad comparison but you were fed some lies - you can either reject it all or you can earn what is really yiddishkeit. If you learn that there is no issue with putting pictures of women in magazines - great! You may also find out many more things that may make yiddishkeit easier than you think it has to be. But find out. By stating your opinion so strongly without any backup, you are essentially doing what your teachers or parents did to you - teach you things under the guise of halacha - just the opposite extreme.

Yeah, the example is off, but I agree with the rest. There are rabbis who openly say it's nothing to do with halacha. So, there's definitely a backup for that. Not to mention (again) that the rabbis of the previous generation or 2 weren't less holy than ours today and saw no need to prohibit women's pics in books and mags.
Maybe, just maybe, it's really not about halacha, but a social/community issues. No one knows now how it started.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:24 pm

marina wrote:

I just want to say, I'm not against pictures but in an era of clear color pictures and photo shop, vs. some grainy older mag photos, I see the other side too.

↑ Simple1 ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:32 pm

Just to add to my post, similarly I've heard in some places hygiene regulations that don't allow gloves because it might leave you to be lax and rely on the gloves as oppose to making sure to keep the hands actually clean.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:39 pm

marina wrote:

Maybe the children and grandchildren will remember her if they met her. But their descendants certainly won't. They'll have pictures of their male ancestors but not their female ones. And it's mind boggling that you cannot actually understand how sad and ludicrous that is.

We have a book published of our family, and I can immediately pull up any grandmother or great grandmother or great great grandmother and we talk about her and who looks like her and it's just so sad for you that your grandchildren won't be able to do that.

Because of some extremist ideas of modesty? Why?

Its beyond that for me. Its not my grandmothers, or me. Its history. Writing women out of it by editing them out of photos, or refusing to publish photos in which they appear.

↑ SixOfWands

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 4:43 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

I just want to say, I'm not against pictures but in an era of clear color pictures and photo shop, vs. some grainy older mag photos, I see the other side too.

This is a photo from the 19th century by Anthony Cavilla; not everything was grainy back then

↑ Forrealx

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 6:24 pm

Lets put it this way, I want that my daughters can see the faces of the great tzadeikes of the time. Like Rebbetzin Kanievsky, or the Chaya Mushka Schneerson, Rebbetzin Manis, Rebbetzin Chaya Sara Kramer and all these other women who inspired women.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 6:54 pm

Simple1 wrote:

I am also baffled by some of the other decisions.
Again, when we talk about magazines today we are NOT talking about
- biographies, which have a contained field of topics and pictures
- the older b/w magazines and the quality of their pictures.

↑ PinkFridge

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 6:55 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

This is a photo from the 19th century by Anthony Cavilla; not everything was grainy back then

Just saying that many of the older pictures of women I've seen aren't the same quality as in mags now.

↑ ectomorph ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 6:57 pm

merrygold wrote:

Marina, you may find it revolting. But if my grandchildren asked a sheila and were told to have no pictures of me, I'd be proud of them for having da'as torah. There would certainly be family photos at home, but not in the book. I'd be fine with that. You certainly would not be. Live and let live.

Well said.

amother

↑ Bisque

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:26 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Its beyond that for me. Its not my grandmothers, or me. Its history. Writing women out of it by editing them out of photos, or refusing to publish photos in which they appear.

This.

It presents a false world that doesn’t really exist. Women appear in streets, stores, offices, parks, at Simchos, around the Shabbos (and Tom Tov) table, etc. Why should they not appear in pictures and/or depictions of those places? Why present a distorted view that does not match reality? After all, women of all types can be regularly seen in real life in all those places. Why is it so much more harmful to see women/girls in books, magazines, and newspapers (where their tznius level can be monitored and accounted for)?

As an example - Hamodia published a picture of the Chofetz Chaim in front of his house. It is only because I have the same picture in my dining room, that I realized that the Chofetz Chaim’s wife and daughter were photoshopped out of the picture. (Do you think they were dressed inappropriately?). 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).

And that’s all besides the very disturbing message, that no matter how tzniusdik a woman or girl dresses, her very existence is a $exual provocation, and she must, therefore, be erased. What kind of message does that send to our girls? To our boys? To the world at large? To us?

amother

↑ Coral ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:38 pm

amother [ Lemon ] wrote:

Negative information is LH even if the person thinks it's positive.

BrachaBatya

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:46 pm

It is extremely sad that some women actually desire to be treated with such inequality. Where is the self respect for yourselves, for your daughters/sisters/mothers???

amother

↑ Ginger ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:48 pm

amother [ Coral ] wrote:

Negative information is LH even if the person thinks it's positive.

How is any stance in daas Torah considered negative information. It's just relaying a Rabbi's interpretation of something. A Torah opinion is never negative information & never considered to fall under auspices of LH.

If I name Rabbi X saying this, and Rabbi Y saying the opposite. Which part of that is LH?

As a metaphor, if I say Lenin is for communism and George Washing is for capitalism - is any of that considered LH?

amother

↑ Ginger ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:51 pm

BrachaBatya wrote:

It is extremely sad that some women actually desire to be treated with such inequality. Where is the self respect for yourselves, for your daughters/sisters/mothers???

The loss of that self respect is a product of our education system.

amother

↑ Coral ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 8:56 pm

amother [ Ginger ] wrote:

Yes, that is lashon hara on Lenin.

(I was kind of kidding though, I probably should have used an emoticon.)

amother

↑ Ginger ↓

Wed, Jun 19 2019, 9:02 pm

amother [ Coral ] wrote:

Yes, that is lashon hara on Lenin.

(I was kind of kidding though, I probably should have used an emoticon.)

Ahhhh.. so when we learn that Hillel holds one way, and Shammai holds another way, it's LH too.

Page 6 of 9

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next