Torah & Hashkafa Questions (PC Free For All)

[EliJelly]

I guess it's nothing to do with frum publishing. We were driving past road works the other day and she got upset about the caution signs that said "Men Working".

A silly friend probably fed her some shtusim. A girl of her age should not even notice the mentioning of only male gender on roadwork signs.

For experimental sake I asked my girls - the older probably the same age of your daughter - with a very straight face, why isn't there any photos of girls in their kids book/publications kids section, and if they would want girl pictures should be included too. They laughed at my suggestion saying that all these kids books are for girls and boys and even teens are looking at them so it isn't really appropriate to have girls photos in there. So please don't try selling me the "ill effects" girls have when they see no girl photos in their kids magazines. That's not how you do it in Lubavitch? good for you, and I can hear the argument that photos of young girls isn't a problem per se, but the velt, especially the chassidisha velt outside Lubavitch did draw a stricter line in that regard, and suggesting that our girls feel deprived in the slightest for not being "represented" with having their photos too is just laughable, your girl is probably used to chabad literature hence her frustration when she sees that missing in other publications.

[Yehuda57]

A silly friend probably fed her some shtusim. A girl of her age should not even notice the mentioning of only male gender on roadwork signs.

I thought it would be obvious, but she was joking. She was laughing as she said it.

But why should she not notice the gendering in signs? Is there some sort of mental block that gets lifted at a certain age that you can read the word "men" and know it doesn't mean women?

[EliJelly]

I thought it would be obvious, but she was joking. She was laughing as she said it.

But why should she not notice the gendering in signs? Is there some sort of mental block that gets lifted at a certain age that you can read the word "men" and know it doesn't mean women?

Men on road work should be like fireman, servicemen in the army etc. By default its men.

[yuneeq]

Men on road work should be like fireman, servicemen in the army etc. By default its men.

Firefighter, soldier. Why does it have to be gendered in either direction? Sounds awkward way too often, especially when there a lot of females.

[EliJelly]

Firefighter, soldier. Why does it have to be gendered in either direction? Sounds awkward way too often, especially when there a lot of females.

There is a disproportionate amount of males in those sectors up until today that's why the terms are still used.

[yuneeq]

There is a disproportionate amount of males in those sectors up until today that's why the terms are still used.

Mailman is not accurate for roughly 40% of the sector. Talk about being outdated.

[EliJelly]

Mailman is not accurate for roughly 40% of the sector. Talk about being outdated.

Right I davka didn't include that. But roadworker demographics are similar to firefighters and servicemen, perhaps even more male. (Not including those directing traffic )

[Yehuda57]

The point isn't whether or not to use gendered language for occupations, but the ridiculousness of the assertion that a child would need to be "fed narishkeit" to notice the gendering.

[biobook]

Some fundraiser mailed me an illustrated children's haggada, which I felt I had to get rid of since the drawings in the first part showed that the seder was only for boys and men.  Although it did make sense, because in the second half one sees that only boys and men were involved in yetzias mitzrayim and matan torah.

[yuneeq]

Right I davka didn't include that.

Mailman disproves this:

There is a disproportionate amount of males in those sectors up until today that's why the terms are still used.

These terms are used because the occupation used to be only male and people never changed. If some occupation is still fully male I understand it. But makes no sense to use male terminology when there is a significant minority that is female.

[EliJelly]

The point isn't whether or not to use gendered language for occupations, but the ridiculousness of the assertion that a child would need to be "fed narishkeit" to notice the gendering.

To notice and then become frustrated, ill effected, misrepresented and the rest of that nonsense

[EliJelly]

Some fundraiser mailed me an illustrated children's haggada, which I felt I had to get rid of since the drawings in the first part showed that the seder was only for boys and men.  Although it did make sense, because in the second half one sees that only boys and men were involved in yetzias mitzrayim and matan torah.

Drawings usually do include girls and awkward indeed when not.

[Yehuda57]

Drawings usually do include girls and awkward indeed when not.

Let's put aside the whole idea of representation for a second.

I noticed that in your response to me you didn't address the points I had made about non tznius drawings being published in a magazine that won't publish pictures of 4 year old girls.

Which one upholds the values of tznius more?

When a drawing of girl in a Barbie doll costume has the face pixelated, but not the non-tznius part of the drawing, is that also my Chabad sensibilities telling me it's absurd?

And going back to your previous post, what is the reason your daughter thinks a 6 year old boy should not be seeing a picture of a 6 year old girl?

[EliJelly]

Let's put aside the whole idea of representation for a second.

I noticed that in your response to me you didn't address the points I had made about non tznius drawings being published in a magazine that won't publish pictures of 4 year old girls.

Which one upholds the values of tznius more?

When a drawing of girl in a Barbie doll costume has the face pixelated, but not the non-tznius part of the drawing, is that also my Chabad sensibilities telling me it's absurd?

No it's foolish indeed, I agree. Once the line is drawn that no actual pictures are allowed they probably don't pay any further attention to non actual photos that might be worse, is that logical? No. (Although Toys 4 U's costume ads come usually in their own leaflets and is not printed in the publication, that might explain why the publications don't feel the responsibility.)

And going back to your previous post, what is the reason your daughter thinks a 6 year old boy should not be seeing a picture of a 6 year old girl?

So my daughter doesn't need to become a professor on the matter, and it's not really important what she thinks as long she's happy and doesn't become ill effected and feeling misrepresented. But certainly what she did explain wasn't why a 6 year old boy shouldn't be seeing a 6 year old as you so eloquently put it, she still interacts regularly with boys her age. What she did say is;

They laughed at my suggestion saying that all these kids books are for girls and boys and even teens are looking at them so it isn't really appropriate to have girls photos in there.

[YitzyS]

Mailman is not accurate for roughly 40% of the sector. Talk about being outdated.

I know. We should call it Femaleman.

[Yehuda57]

No it's foolish indeed, I agree. Once the line is drawn that no actual pictures are allowed they probably don't pay any further attention to non actual photos that might be worse, is that logical? No.

Exactly. So what are they proving? They have no care for tznius, chinuch, or any values, and are merely checking the right boxes. But dare someone question who decided on those boxes and if they are actually helpful or maybe problematic and they're are accused of going against "Chareidi values".

(Although Toys 4 U's costume ads come usually in their own leaflets and is not printed in the publication, that might explain why the publications don't feel the responsibility.)

Toys 4 U is following the rules they need to in order to be able to be included in the magazines. Again, checking the same boxes. They know if they publish a face, they'll get nixed. But the same person who will nix a face will greenlight a Disney character in a tank top. Chareidi Values FTW.

So my daughter doesn't need to become a professor on the matter,

Kids don't need to be professors to ask basic questions about what they see and hear

and it's not really important what she thinks as long she's happy and doesn't become ill effected and feeling misrepresented.

The first part is an extremely sad line to read. I'm sure you don't really mean that, as is evidenced by the second part, which contradicts it entirely.

But certainly what she did explain wasn't why a 6 year old boy shouldn't be seeing a 6 year old as you so eloquently put it, she still interacts regularly with boys her age. What she did say is;

I didn't say she did explain it, I'm wondering why she would think it is a problem. Unfortunately, the way these things are portrayed according to Chareidi Values ends up sexualizing kids. As they get older, it teaches girls that boys cannot control themselves, and it is the girls' responsibility to prevent boys from "sinning". Needless to say, that is not a recipe for a healthy marriage.

This is not my mishegas, or a Chabad mishegas, or some liberal progressive agenda that is anti-Torah. This is being espoused by therapists and professionals across the spectrum of the frum community.

she still interacts regularly with boys her age.

She must be the only Chareidi 11 year old girl interacting with 11 year old boys on the reg. (outside of Shluchim's kids)

[Euclid]

Mods can we break out this discussion? Think it deserves a thread of its own

[koplonko]

Right I davka didn't include that. But roadworker demographics are similar to firefighters and servicemen, perhaps even more male. (Not including those blocking traffic )

Ftfy

[koplonko]

I know. We should call it Femaleman.

Lol

[EliJelly]

Exactly. So what are they proving? They have no care for tznius, chinuch, or any values, and are merely checking the right boxes.

Yep it proves that Toy's 4 U is guilty of the above and is merely checking boxes.

But dare someone question who decided on those boxes and if they are actually helpful or maybe problematic and they're are accused of going against "Chareidi values".

I don't see how it proves that, nor am I against raising questions if one finds things to be illogical. You were the one accusing that the system that bans girl photos is so infuriating, has extremely ill effects on our children, is sexualizing our kids and the rest of that hyperbole, I find that to be so out of reality that I'm frankly stunned this is actually coming from someone I consider to be a wise person.
(I call it system because that was likely the intention of systemizing the rule of having no actual photos of girls in frum publications, regardless of age, as a safe measure not to deal with what should or could be allowed and what not. I haven't find the place where allowing actual girl photos is strictly limited to 6 year olds or even 10 yr olds. Once that line is blurred then everyone does what they see fit, and you know exactly what I'm referring to, but that is a topic for another time.)

Toys 4 U is following the rules they need to in order to be able to be included in the magazines. Again, checking the same boxes. They know if they publish a face, they'll get nixed. But the same person who will nix a face will greenlight a Disney character in a tank top. Chareidi Values FTW.

Once again you rightfully accused Toy's 4 U of checking boxes. I don't really care much about what Toy's 4 U does. Does it show that we have a box checking system? it sure does, we all know that anyway. Did the "system" fail in that area? Very likely. It only takes one zealous hothead to take it as his mission and this is all banned too.

Unfortunately, the way these things are portrayed according to Chareidi Values ends up sexualizing kids. As they get older, it teaches girls that boys cannot control themselves, and it is the girls' responsibility to prevent boys from "sinning". Needless to say, that is not a recipe for a healthy marriage.


This is not my mishegas, or a Chabad mishegas, or some liberal progressive agenda that is anti-Torah. This is being espoused by therapists and professionals across the spectrum of the frum community.

This have so much to do with the ways we teach tznius to our children more than anything else. Implying that the reason for that happening is because we omit girls photos from our magazines is just ridiculous. I remember hearing those exact accusations on Dovid Lichtenstein's podcast from school graduates of modern schools where your girls photos issue is non existent. Every rule of tznius can be taught in a positive or negative fashion.

Kids don't need to be professors to ask basic questions about what they see and hear

The first part is an extremely sad line to read. I'm sure you don't really mean that, as is evidenced by the second part, which contradicts it entirely.
I didn't say she did explain it, I'm wondering why she would think it is a problem.


She must be the only Chareidi 11 year old girl interacting with 11 year old boys on the reg. (outside of Shluchim's kids)

This was just a nit picking job without any real substance to it.