Women in Jewish magazines

[aygart]

The question still remains, where, when and how did this become the norm in orthodox publications? When did little girls become sexualized that frum men cannot be trusted to look at them? When did tznius dressed women become vixens to be avoided at all costs.

The big issue will be that there is no way these publications could make anyone happy with defining tznius.

It is definitely the easy way out to avoid having a big advertiser submit an ad which may be suggestive even with all lines kept to and have to deal with explaining to the advertiser why the ad they spent money on making doesn't meet the standards.

Some of the more chassidish it is ideological. That has at this point spilled over into other communities as well. I think some is not having the backbone or the interest in standing up to those who go overboard but some is also to avoid what would become constant haggling over standards.

[hvaces42]

Lowest common denominator = ideology = misogyny

Got it. Thanks. Makes perfect sense now. No room for common sense in any of this.

[aygart]

Lowest common denominator = ideology = misogyny

Got it. Thanks. Makes perfect sense now. No room for common sense in any of this.

1=2=3

[efflpetzel]

In telushkin's book 'Rebbe' I loved the Rebbe's response when asked whether to include pics of girls when the tzivos hashem magazine was first published

[Yammer]

204 comments and some nice Sparks...

Bottom line.

Ppl that don't want pictures of women in the publications believe that it will cause harm to their children/families yiddishkeit and will stop a subscription of any paper if they were to change. While the others don't have .05% of that conviction.

Therefore they win.

And while some 100s of women wrote letters to the publications, there are every week 10s of calls to publications complaining about how their  standards have fallen. ( I have heard this first-hand from the publications biz )

[hvaces42]

204 comments and some nice Sparks...

Bottom line.

Ppl that don't want pictures of women in the publications believe that it will cause harm to their children/families yiddishkeit and will stop a subscription of any paper if they were to change. While the others don't have .05% of that conviction.

Therefore they win.

And while some 100s of women wrote letters to the publications, there are every week 10s of calls to publications complaining about how their  standards have fallen. ( I have heard this first-hand from the publications biz )

And those phone calls are the product of an intolerant misogynist and perverted form of Judaism.

[sky121]

204 comments and some nice Sparks...

Bottom line.

Ppl that don't want pictures of women in the publications believe that it will cause harm to their children/families yiddishkeit and will stop a subscription of any paper if they were to change. While the others don't have .05% of that conviction.

Therefore they win.

And while some 100s of women wrote letters to the publications, there are every week 10s of calls to publications complaining about how their  standards have fallen. ( I have heard this first-hand from the publications biz )

Are the ones who 'yell' the loudest always right?

[gingyguy]

And those phone calls are the product of an intolerant misogynist and perverted form of Judaism.

i  dont think thats even close to being true. you will not find any mainstream rabbonim that will tell you to be printing pictures of women in  magazines. people have a misconception that צניעות means covered. the true definition is hidden . כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה. while that doesnt apply to pictures of little girls ( which im assuming no one really cares about that anyways ) it definitely applies to anyone over the age of בת מצוה no matther how well they are dressed

[Sport]

204 comments and some nice Sparks...

Bottom line.

Ppl that don't want pictures of women in the publications believe that it will cause harm to their children/families yiddishkeit and will stop a subscription of any paper if they were to change. While the others don't have .05% of that conviction.

Therefore they win.

And while some 100s of women wrote letters to the publications, there are every week 10s of calls to publications complaining about how their  standards have fallen. ( I have heard this first-hand from the publications biz )

Your argument just underscores the issue that she and others take with this policy.  Yes, the magazines are free to do as they want, but why is there such an impassioned protest against something that has little to no basis in Judaism. And if @aygart is right that it's just easier to have a zero tolerance policy than figuring  out where to draw the line, why would anybody be offended if the magazines tried being more subtle, and nuanced with a clear policy of which images are acceptable?

[Sport]

i  dont think thats even close to being true. you will not find any mainstream rabbonim that will tell you to be printing pictures of women in  magazines. people have a misconception that צניעות means covered. the true definition is hidden . כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה. while that doesnt apply to pictures of little girls ( which im assuming no one really cares about that anyways ) it definitely applies to anyone over the age of בת מצוה no matther how well they are dressed

Valid point, but why do you think no one cares about the lack of pictures of younger girls? To me thats more indicative of a dangerous and unhealthy extremism than anything else.
 

[sky121]

Valid point, but why do you think no one cares about the lack of pictures of younger girls? To me thats more indicative of a dangerous and unhealthy extremism than anything else.

+1

[gingyguy]

Valid point, but why do you think no one cares about the lack of pictures of younger girls? To me thats more indicative of a dangerous and unhealthy extremism than anything else.

when i say no one cares i mean that the main issue isnt with them.
no one is going to be happy if there would be pictures of little girls while still keeping women out.

[Sport]

when i say no one cares i mean that the main issue isnt with them.
no one is going to be happy if there would be pictures of little girls while still keeping women out.

As long as they keep a zero tolerance policy, They'll never be convinced that the policy is for their benifit and/or due to @aygart's reason.

[gingyguy]

As long as they keep a zero tolerance policy, They'll never be convinced that the policy is for their benifit and/or due to @aygart's reason.

they will never be convinced no matter what you do. they are coming with an agenda and until you conform to their agenda your a person who discriminates against women

[Sport]

they will never be convinced no matter what you do. they are coming with an agenda and until you conform to their agenda your a person who discriminates against women

I don't think you're correct. There are obviously those that are just looking to tear us down but you can't  just dismiss any valid claim by saying its coming from that agenda. Otherwise you're guilty of what you're accusing them- not debating the merits of the 2 sides of the argument just accusing the other side of having hidden agenda.

[gingyguy]

i already posted my reason why i dont think its a valid claim and i dont either think that their agenda is hidden

[hvaces42]

For those who support the total ban on women anywhere they would probably be happier if somehow one  could make a wedding without the kallah too. There is some perversion of reality at play when you cant allow yourself to see a small girl modeling an outfit which is matching to a boys outfit and instead you would rather a headless mannequin. Because one wishes something were not seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It's fantasy, which is just as perverted and distorted as the thing it is supposedly intended to protect us from.

[aygart]

For those who support the total ban on women anywhere they would probably be happier if somehow one  could make a wedding without the kallah too. There is some perversion of reality at play when you cant allow yourself to see a small girl modeling an outfit which is matching to a boys outfit and instead you would rather a headless mannequin. Because one wishes something were not seen doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It's fantasy, which is just as perverted and distorted as the thing it is supposedly intended to protect us from.

Straw man alert.

[aygart]

when i say no one cares i mean that the main issue isnt with them.
no one is going to be happy if there would be pictures of little girls while still keeping women out.

FWIW that is what the Lakewood publications do.

[Dan]

It is definitely the easy way out to avoid having a big advertiser submit an ad which may be suggestive even with all lines kept to and have to deal with explaining to the advertiser why the ad they spent money on making doesn't meet the standards.

Cop out response.
Somehow DD has managed that balance for 13 years.

Never had an advertiser kvetch about our subjective standards and having to redo an ad or landing page, even if we don't have well defined written rules.

In the end if the day this is about what they feel will sell subscriptions.