S/o how do you feel about mags not having pics of women POLL

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:20 pm

amother Lilac wrote:

There's your mistake. I do come from that culture, so I know all the ins and the outs. And I still feel it's very wrong. So am I allowed to voice my thoughts?

And I do know how they always tell us how much they respect us but it's all words. It never holds water. Their actions tell a different story. Actions speak louder than words.

I'm going home and going to bed. Good night.

amother

Teal ↓

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:28 pm

amother Rose wrote:

What du mean? Miriam sang Shira WITH THE WOMAN! Not with the men. Because that's how it should be. Are you broiges about that.

You seem upset. But you mentioned one line in the Torah where a woman was in a tent, other than that women are not really in the background in the Torah.

amother

Chambray

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:30 pm

As a yeshivish wife and mother of a young bochur, I like that there are no pictures of women.

My son is trying to be careful with shmiras einayim and not go to non jewish stores.

(He is also trying not to read mishpacha because he thinks it's non jewish and that it's terrible that they have ads in it.)

amother

↑ Teal ↓

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:30 pm

amother Rose wrote:

Are you allowed to read the men's magazine? Why should people be forbidden to read a magazine because some people are femenists and lack of pictures bother them?

They’re not forbidden. It’s not forbidden to see pictures of tznius women and girls. But we should be allowed to have pictures of women and an 8 year old girl with her Lego tower, especially in the women’s and children’s magazines.

amother

↑ Teal ↓

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:34 pm

amother Canary wrote:

The victim mentality is trendy today.

The same women who cry about gender roles and being second class citizens are really vocal here..
It's all the same old tainos coming from such a miserable place. You are where your mind is honestly.
I read all the magazines and it never even occured to me to be offended by the lack of women until here..
I feel sorry for children who are raised in a home that views the world as out to get them and that they are inferior because of stupidity

I feel sorry for the children raised in a home that has to explain to their 8 year old daughter that her brothers picture with his Lego’s was published in the magazine but hers couldn’t be because some yeshiva bachurs are guarding their eyes.

amother

Chocolate

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 6:59 pm

There are enough places to get pressure from…
I am not looking to see a gorgeous model who is also amazing in every area featured every week…
The fact is men are not as interesting to look at as women and it’s great that I can tell my kids there are no interesting pics… and they don’t make me turn the page to see next picture…

amother

↑ Lightblue

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 7:04 pm

chestnut wrote:

Why does it annoy you if they gloss over a female president or PM if you're all for catering to the strictest norms?
Are women during the Holocaust less worthy being featured than presidents?
Oh, and hello, stickers on cereal boxes in supermarkets. That's what happens when you cater to the "stricter part of the community"

I don't buy those publications or have them around, I'm more likely to have non Jewish publications in my house. Just to give you context on who is speaking here.

But if others are on such a high level of shmiras einayim, who am I to stand in the way of their success in being holy.

I have to think why the politicians bother me, maybe because they are covered, dressed in general in a way that is respectful of the office and maybe I just can't comprehend it enough, as opposed to women or girls in clothing ads which is much easier to understand.

But I really think that I have no chip on my shoulder about this, its more to assist the men in their holy pursuits than about me. I don't think its the equivalent of asking women to wear burqas that maybe others are taking it that way.

The same houses that don't wont the superbowl ads playing in their living rooms want the papers to be a total non issue. Its not such a big deal to me.

Aren't there more MO type of publications that have pictures? You can just buy those instead if its more in line to what you want. Or make one, there is room for more choices.

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 7:07 pm

amother Teal wrote:

I don't tell that that's why, because it's not why. It's for tznius. BH my daughters have a ton of pride in their tznius, while also being bright and opinionated, and totally get it.

Would it be better if they had guidelines about skirt and hair length for girls pics? Of course not. This way it's inclusive for all girls (who are plenty Happy to have their names).

amother

NeonPurple

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 8:05 pm

Bone - beautifully stated.
I will add that I heard it comes down to the advertisers - many will not buy ad space in a magazine that features photographs of women for the simple reason that the target client of the advertisers will be unhappy at the advertiser. Advertisers spend the big bucks to advertise because they want the business. If they lose business they will stop advertising in the magazine , then the magazine loses business. You can’t fault a business - be it the advertiser or the magazine - for choosing to Not put their livelihood in jeopardy.
On a personal note , my friends and family whose husbands prefer not to have photographs of women staring up at them as they turn a page - I admire them and I’m happy for their wives. My son in law is like that , I am happy for my daughter.

amother

Salmon

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 10:06 pm

It bothers me. It bothers me that Mishpacha will print a cover picture of a non frum or even non Jewish man but won't print a picture of a holy Rebetzin in the women's magazine. It shows where the values are. The fact that on the record they say that it's a business decision, the fact that they publish ads, recipes, tablescapes that promote consumerism to a level that borders on anti Torah shows where their values are. That's ok. They are a business and money is their bottom line. Just be honest about it.

If it was indeed a values decision, they would not print pictures of people at all. But that would limit the readership & ads revenue so they don't do that.

I'm a chareidi woman living in Israel. My girls go to BY. My son to cheder. I work in chinuch habanos and do see how this impacts our girls chinuch in a negative way. I do buy Mishpacha frankly because there's nothing else. I wish I had the strength to stop buying it. I'm working on it.

amother

Electricblue

Mon, Nov 04 2024, 11:10 pm

amother Lilac wrote:

The thing is, the magazines themselves aren't supportive of those values for the most part. They just do it for financial reasons. This is their reasoning:

- if they print pics they lost a portion of their market share
- if they don't print pics, those who are unhappy don't have alternatives, so they'll reluctantly buy it anyways.

So here we are. If we were to collectively stop buying their magazines bec of the picture issue, it would trigger a change, but we will never organize ourselves around this.

Because I see absolutely no reason to "organize" myself around this. Why miss out on some great reading material because some other people are bothered by the lack of women?

June ↓

Yesterday at 12:33 am

amother Salmon wrote:

I feel exactly the same way.

When my daughter was around 8, we did a vision board project together where we cut out pictures from the local circulars, and she was so, so frustrated that there wasn't a single picture of a girl. I had no idea what to say.

I don't buy mishpacha because I don't think the price is worth it. Actually since the war started I stopped reading fiction altogether on Shabbos - I read Torah books, tehillim, a parsha pamphlet my husband brings home from shul. I think my Shabbos and life is immensely richer as a result.

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Yesterday at 2:59 am

thegiver wrote:

I don’t think it has to be a pic of the body but a pic of the face surely is Tznius.

Some women will inevitably have to be left out. Women who I would respect but halachikally disagree with. Women who are wearing, for example, scarves with 2-3 inches of hair out, overly elaborate and high scarves (I say this as an exclusive scarf wearer), nose rings, huge earrings, collar bones, and the like.

I'm thinking of specific, very special people, interviewed in both ami and misphacha over the past several years.

Why have them censored out when they can be appreciated without their picture? Especially when the picture is easily available on IG and probably even the magazine's website.

singleagain ↓

Yesterday at 3:05 am

amother Bone wrote:

Or you could you know realize that different people keep halacha differently and some tolerance for your fellow Jew should be extended.

amother Bone wrote:

Why have them censored out when they can be appreciated without their picture? Especially when the picture is easily available on IG and probably even the magazine's website.

And if the magazine is meant for shabbos people are hopefully not checking IG and the website on shabbos.

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Yesterday at 3:29 am

singleagain wrote:

And if the magazine is meant for shabbos people are hopefully not checking IG and the website on shabbos.

Who said it's intended for shabbos? It comes out on Wednesday. And they certainly get traffic on their website. There's even a current thread where a bunch of mishpacha articles are linked.

I don't know why I can't quote your other comment, but of course I have "tolerance"...I have real real respect and want to hear from them!! But the target audience will not support pictures that are not tzanua to a certain standard (call it chareidi/BY or whatever).

Why should the magazine have to leave these women out all together because of varying tznius interpretations....their poskim say it's ok, our say it's erva, and no we don't have to be "tolerant" of erva...but leaving the picture out let's the magazine be inclusive to all women.

There was a medical article a couple years ago asking for funds and tefillos. The mother, who was featured, was not halachikally observant at all. She couldn't have been featured if a picture would have to be included. There are countless examples of this, that I keep citing.

↑ singleagain ↓

Yesterday at 3:30 am

amother Bone wrote:

Who said it's intended for shabbos? It comes out on Wednesday. And they certainly get traffic on their website. There's even a current thread where a bunch of mishpacha articles are linked.

A lot of people I know who get the magazine get it specifically for shabbos so I'm sure that while they're reading they would like to see pictures of the people.

amother

Dodgerblue ↓

Yesterday at 3:45 am

amother Bone wrote:

I agree, most people save it for Shabbos reading.
The only thing I disagree in your post is that there are poskim who say it's ervah. Nobody has ever produced a single rav or posek by name that has used that term. Nobody has ever said more than it being about hashkafah or sensitivities. At most, people quote from gemara about men not supposed to gaze at a woman, but nobody has ever brought a source to say halachically it's a matter of ervah (and if it was, as pp pointed out, then women wouldn't be allowed out in public with their face showing).

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Yesterday at 4:16 am

amother Dodgerblue wrote:

I specifically called a certain amount of hair showing and/or exposed collars disputabley erva. Of course faces aren't erva.

I understand there are poskim who hold differently, I respect that, I want to hear from these women (I am thinking of a few in particular who have been beacons of emunah but are from a community that has vastly different standards in this area).