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

↑ ittsamother ↓

Yesterday at 12:39 pm

amother Rose 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.

That's the point though. It's clear that a percentage of the population that they cater to (ie, who would not be comfortable with a magazine with more left-leaning viewpoints) prefer that the magazine does include photos of women and of little girls with their art projects. That's the crowd who's speaking up here. They don't have another magazine they can turn to because hashkafically they hold the same values that Mishpacha/Binah/Ami etc holds, and they're just not happy that these magazines won't publish female pictures.

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Yesterday at 12:43 pm

ittsamother wrote:

A poll on here is not indicative of the true number of people who want pics vs those who don't.
I'm one of the small percentage of those in my community who use social media (and I'm only on Ima, not X, tik tok or Instagramm), and we all buy the Mishpacha. I'm going to do an informal poll between my neighbors, family, friends and cooworkers and update on here. I might be surprized, but I think not.

amother

↑ Bone ↓

Yesterday at 12:46 pm

ittsamother wrote:

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.

Because then every single picture printed will be seen as a stamp of approval, and every woman not pictured will become a major controversy and scandal.

And when those women in the second category are suggested as possible features or interviews, the editors will shoot it down because they will not want to face the backlash. This is a business meant to make money. Why start a controversy?

And then more women will be excluded.

I truly believe that the no pictures no exceptions rule allows there to be The most diversity possible in women interviewed and featured.

amother

↑ Bone

Yesterday at 12:50 pm

ittsamother wrote:

I would like to see a poll taken only of those who chose the middle option in this pool, of not liking this rule.

I would want to know if they would otherwise buy the magazine, or would find it unrelatable to their lifestyles, too Expensive, poorly written, and so on and so forth.

Many people sound off on here how they would never buy these magazines for other reasons, like on all the fiction threads and all the short story threads. I think many people would never buy them anyway and are jumping on this militantly.

I also would like to know how many buy it despite not liking this rule, because many of us would not buy it with pictures.

And I think it should not be discounted that a large percentage of their readership target, most likely not to want pictures, are not online.

woman

Yesterday at 12:56 pm

amother Pansy wrote:

I don’t know why [b]Binah[/b] can’t have pics of women. It really bothers me when couples are honored and they don’t show pictures of the wives (not specifically related to magazines).

[b]

Because I believe it was the brainchild of hamodia/Binah’s Rav. Dayan Chaim Cohen. All other publications just followed suite. It was a mere decade in a half or two ago that there were photos of women in all publications.
It would make sense that magazines geared to women and books about and for women ex biographies of women would have photos of them. It’s not a mesora it’s a pretty recent psak and all jumped on the bandwagon.

↑ ittsamother

Yesterday at 1:59 pm

amother Bone wrote:

And yet we have plenty of articles about men with no picture featured and there's no controversy or backlash, we all just assume the man either didn't want a picture, couldn't provide a good one, or the editor didn't feel the need to include it. Why assume every woman will immediately be up in arms every time an article doesn't have a picture. We're only upset cuz there's an outright policy that even if someone does want their picture in (even a perfectly innocent little 6 yr old girl) they won't post it, sight unseen.

amother

↑ Dodgerblue

Yesterday at 3:13 pm

amother Rose wrote:

A little girl or teen girl's headshot or group photo in a school or what have you is not ervah, either. Why can't a little girl be pictured in the kids magazine next to her art project?

GLUE ↓

Yesterday at 5:05 pm

amother Rose wrote:

I did an informal poll with some people in my crowd and most felt that once you stop putting in the girl you should stop putting in the boys.
More felt that flyers should never blur out the little girls face like some do.

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Yesterday at 6:02 pm

GLUE wrote:

What's your crowd?

I don't understand, there's no issue with photos of boys. Sounds like kindergarten kids 'If I haven't got a snack, you also shouldn't nah nah nah nanah!'

amother

↑ Waterlily

Yesterday at 6:15 pm

amother Bone wrote:

I don't know how accurate a poll would be. If I were approached IRL I would never tell my neighbor my true opinion. I'm not looking to make waves, I'm sure there are others like me...

↑ GLUE ↓

Yesterday at 6:20 pm

amother Rose wrote:

What's your crowd?

I don't understand, there's no issue with photos of boys. Sounds like kindergarten kids 'If I haven't got a snack, you also shouldn't nah nah nah nanah!'

sign, sign, sign, you really don't understand kindergarten kids they don't act that way they they feel that they should get the snack no matter what. 6 graders on the other hand....

If you don't understand I can't explain it

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Yesterday at 9:00 pm

GLUE wrote:

You're right, I don't understand. So can u explain it to me please?

-Photos of woman are not featured in the Mishpacha for reasons of modesty.
-There's no problem with modesty when featuring pictures of men.
-So why would men not be featured just because woman aren't?
-How would no pictures of men solve this?

It would seem that are not that important after all. If pictures held value, why would you u boycott men? It sounds like feminism at it's best.

amother

↑ Rose ↓

Yesterday at 9:15 pm

amother Rose wrote:

I asked so many times on this thread this. But the silence is deafening, wonder why, hmmm?

Can anyone answer why not featuring pics of boys helps any? Is it more of an issue of feeling 'put down' or because you genuinely want photos to enhance the mag? How is not having pics of males going help??

Answer: It doesn't. Feminism at it's best.

↑ chanatron1000 ↓

Yesterday at 10:04 pm

amother Rose wrote:

That's not correct, though.

There can be issues of modesty with pictures of men too. In fact, there have been.

Also, while removing pictures of men wouldn't change the fact that there aren't pictures of women, it still makes sense. Women end up being discriminated against because the magazines prefer to feature a man so they can print a photo. If there were no photos, they'd be more likely to feature more women. This is important because being featured in a magazine has a real world impact.

(Earlier you compared it to "if I can't have a snack, you also can't. Happens to be, it's bad manners to flaunt your "snack" in front of someone who can't have one.)

If you believe pictures have value, then don't expect other women to be okay with there not being pictures of women.

(Re "sounds like feminism at its best," well, feminism at its best got you basic human rights.)

↑ GLUE

Yesterday at 11:30 pm

amother Rose wrote:

You're right, I don't understand. So can u explain it to me please?

1-Photos of woman are not featured in the Mishpacha for reasons of modesty.
2-There's no problem with modesty when featuring pictures of men.
3-So why would men not be featured just because woman aren't?
4-How would no pictures of men solve this?

It would seem that are not that important after all. If pictures held value, why would you u boycott men? It sounds like feminism at it's best.

1-Photos of woman are not featured in the Mishpacha for reasons of $$$$
2-The same place it says not to look at women it says not to look at evil people, so why do magazines have no problem putting pictures of evil men in them?
3-I have no problem with men being in the main magazine my big problem is opening up the women's magazine and seeing men in ads and in articles of women with no women pictures.
4-I was not very clear in the first post, I and many people around me feel that if the children's magazine will not put in pictures of girls over 7 then they should not put in pictures of boys at that age. If you have no problem with this then I can't explain why this is a problem for several reasons.
Are you one of the people who send there girls to a school that the school newsletter will not put in pictures of girls over 3rd grade.(yes there are places like that)

If pictures held value why are women not put in them? If there is no value why do men insist of having there picture in there ads?

amother

↑ Rose

Today at 12:49 pm

chanatron1000 wrote:

It's not discrimination, it's simply for modesty, something that the torah dictates. You'll find that many woman who don't want pictures featured do not feel discriminated against. They, as I do, feel very content and confident in our role.

amother

↑ Lilac

Today at 1:14 pm

amother Rose wrote:

The Torah dictates modesty but does not dictate the approach. The interpretations and approaches are not dictated by Torah. So this discriminatory approach is just an extreme interpretation.

↑ June

Today at 2:38 pm

amother Rose wrote:

Many women who are just as frum as you are keep telling you that they DO feel discriminated against.

I feel 100% content and confident in my sacred and holy role as a Jewish mother, and I still see the value in printing pictures of tzanua women and girls.

The Torah does not say or imply anywhere that photos of tzanua females are assur or anti modesty.