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

tulip3

Yesterday at 5:19 am

amother Bone 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).

All the posts about women who don't have the same standards if tsnius as you- I'm confused, what does that have to do with not allowing little girls in the magazines? Or old old old rebbitzions? The same way they have guidelines about topics they write about, they could have guidelines about photos. They would never let an ad with a bare chested man on it but they do allow fully dressed men. It's not so hard or complicated guys.

amother

↑ Dodgerblue ↓

Yesterday at 5:30 am

amother Bone wrote:

First of all, headshots would eliminate the concern about collarbone.
Also, if concerns are about uncovered hair, there should be no issues with pictures of girls, teens, or unmarried women. Just for starters.

amother

Waterlily ↓

Yesterday at 5:41 am

I didn't vote because my opinion is too nuanced. I used to really want women's pictures in magazines, but over time I've come to realize that practically, it would not work out the way I envision. When I think of women's pictures, I'm thinking of Rebetzins and politicians and maybe business owners, but my guess is that if women's pictures were to start being published what I would see is glam shots of marketing executives and models for ads.

Also, it's not only the lack of pictures that bother me, I have so many other issues with the magazines at this point that my goal is to move away from reading them altogether. The lack of pictures is just one problem among many, so....

The lack of pictures bothered me because as a yeshivish woman who didn't have internet for years, if I was reading about a Rebbetzin or a politician and they didn't have her picture, I had no way to look it up... Am I a visual person? Newsflash, we are all visual people, pictures do have more impact than words for almost everybody. It bothered me.

Also, I felt that the articles/publications I was reading were completely geared to men and the pictures reflected that. I really did feel that women didn't really exist. I understand that it's different for teachers, who work in an all female environment, but for those of us who work "out there" and then are not represented at all in the frum community...

And to be honest, I don't know if the wonderful shmiras ainayim that causes so many women to get hurt is worth anything. And yes, I live in the very yeshivish world, my husband learned in kollel, my kids are in the most yeshivish schools.... but I have always been taught, that in the yeshivish world at least, people's feelings are more important than chumros. I guess that is no longer the case, and it makes me sad.

amother

↑ Waterlily ↓

Yesterday at 5:45 am

amother Chambray wrote:

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.)

The people who are careful with shmiras einayim and don't go to Jewish stores are also the type of people who don't buy these magazines to begin with, in my experience. Your son is not an anamoly. I feel that at this point it's just a game they are playing. A silhouette of a woman with her face blanked out is ok? But a face is not? It's absurd.

amother

↑ Burlywood ↓

Yesterday at 5:46 am

amother Waterlily wrote:

Sometimes in these conversations everything ends up conflated. But there's no reason why Mishpacha can't have an editorial policy that they print pictures of women in their articles but continue to forbid pictures of women in ads. That would continue to give them control over the types of pictures printed while not making an across the board ban.

(Other suggested policies: pictures of women only in Family First, not in Mishpacha. Headshots only. Pictures only of deceased women. Black and white pictures only. There are many different types of policies that they could have enacted.)

amother

↑ Teal ↓

Yesterday at 5:47 am

amother Bone 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).

Why is it tznius to have a 6 year old girl, but suddenly an 8 year old girl isn’t tznius and can’t have her picture but her 8 year old brother has his picture in the contest? What do they get about it?

amother

↑ Burlywood

Yesterday at 5:47 am

amother Bone wrote:

I'm yeshivish and I can't begin to understand why I'd object to seeing a picture of a woman in a very elaborate high scarf. I don't wear them personally but why would I be scare of having a picture of one around? (Referring to scarves that cover all the hair.)

amother

↑ Waterlily ↓

Yesterday at 6:21 am

To add - I also think that it is largely too late. The women in the yeshivish/Chassidish communities have mostly moved online. I am now on a social media platform (not this one) where I have a voice and can advance myself professionally. As the print media is closed to us... we have moved on. I personally would not rather have been online, but it is what it is, and the choices we made have led us to where we are now.

amother

↑ Coral

Yesterday at 6:27 am

amother Waterlily wrote:

Sorry this post makes absolutely no sense. We're not online because we don't have pictures in magazines. Or no voice, whatever that means. It has no connection whatsoever.

readreread

Yesterday at 6:45 am

amother Dodgerblue wrote:

They could also have a rule that any women featured must follow the strictest standards of tznius, regardless of their community's psak.

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Yesterday at 7:35 am

readreread wrote:

They could also have a rule that any women featured must follow the strictest standards of tznius, regardless of their community's psak.

Imagine the outrage from a dati le'umi community, when an absolute here, rabbanit, and mother of a terror victim is pictured wearing a head covering that is NOT her standard and aligns with views she doesn't hold. Would she even agree?

It's offensive to her and to her community, it's misleading, and it's not necessary.

(If my sephardi husband was being featured somewhere and his options were in a shteimel or no pic, he'd 100% go with no pic.)

amother

Chartreuse

Yesterday at 7:36 am

amother Bone wrote:

Bone, thank you for being a voice of reason across this thread.

↑ Aurora

Yesterday at 7:39 am

I'm not completely sure about this. When I'm a Shabbat guest in another community, I usually try to dress to conform because of (a) Das Yehudis and (b) it's polite. That said, I still usually prefer my tichels to sheitels.

I might see the request to dress a certain way as a guest in a different community's publication in that light.

ittsamother ↓

Yesterday at 8:12 am

amother Bone wrote:

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.

Again, why is it all or nothing? They can still write an article about this specific woman and just not have her picture, it doesn't mean all women should never have their picture. The same way not every single article about or by a man has his picture printed, not every article by or about a woman needs to have her picture printed. As someone else said, if a man provided only a picture of him bare chested, the article would still run and they just wouldn't include his pic. If an appropriate and printable picture exists, publish it, if no such picture was provided, don't.

The same way every magazine has an editor (and hopefully a rabbinical board) who makes a final decision about what content to publish in each article, they can make a final decision about which pictures to print.

amother

↑ Teal

Yesterday at 8:29 am

amother Bone wrote:

It’s more offensive to be completely erase women and female children. Period, point blank.

amother

↑ Dodgerblue ↓

Yesterday at 8:48 am

amother Bone wrote:

Imagine the outrage from a dati le'umi community, when an absolute here, rabbanit, and mother of a terror victim is pictured wearing a head covering that is NOT her standard and aligns with views she doesn't hold.

(If my sephardi husband was being featured somewhere and his options were in a shteimel or no pic, he'd 100% go with no pic.)

Not a good analogy bec they'll print photos of Jewish men with no head covering at all...
But seriously if the main concern is uncovered hair why can't the kid mags show a 10 year girl with her art project? Not to mention teens or unmarried women?

amother

Gold

Yesterday at 9:19 am

amother Bone wrote:

This. And women are so much more complex- unmarried s as well. Hair style, lipstick, etc
So many women whom I would like to hear from would end up being marginalized.

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Yesterday at 9:35 am

amother Dodgerblue wrote:

Not comparable. A man without a kippa is not ervah. I don't get the whole issue, buy a different magazine if you don't like Mishpacha's rules. They cater to a population that prefer magazines without photos of woman.