January 16, 2015 3:48 pm at 3:48 pm #614675
This thread is a spin-off of another discussion, from the newspaper editing the pictures.
I don’t want to discuss the issues of long sleeves/short sleeves, tights/socks, etc. That’s been discussed enough already, and everyone should follow what their Rav tells them.
I want to discuss the issue of pictures of women being shown in newspapers/magazines. Once again this is in the limelight because a chareidi paper edited out females from the picture of the world leaders marching against terrorism.
We have rules of tznius. The rules are well known, and obviously there are debates about them. That’s perfectly fine. What I don’t understand is the rule of not printing pictures of women. According to the rules we have, a woman should not go out and be seen if she’s not dressed appropriately. If she is dressed according to the standards of tznius, she can, and everything is fine.
So why do these papers have a rule that they can’t show pictures of ANY woman? Why not show a picture of a woman who is dressed according to the rules? For example, when Rebbetzin Kanievsky a”h passed away, would it have been so terrible to put a picture of her in the paper? Would it have been a bad thing? Just as people can benefit from seeing pictures of Rabbonim, can’t they benefit from seeing these special women? Yes, there should be standards, but once they are met, what’s the problem?January 16, 2015 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1072269👑RebYidd23Participant
Because women don’t exist to be looked at. Pictures exist to be looked at.
But I do think women’s magazines should print pictures of women.January 16, 2015 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1072270
Answer is simple. It is becasue to be a charedi paper you cant have pictures of women, this is the new norm, so having pictures would make your publication less frum.
As to how it got this way read any of several sociological works on the right ward shift of OrthodoxyJanuary 16, 2015 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm #1072271
Men don’t exist to be looked at, either.January 16, 2015 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #1072272
Methinks rebyidd is one of the smartest yidd’s I know. That was some really good analysis. Succinct, and cutting directly to the underlying theory.
Strong work.January 16, 2015 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm #1072273MDGParticipant
“Why not show a picture of a woman who is dressed according to the rules? For example, when Rebbetzin Kanievsky a”h passed away, would it have been so terrible to put a picture of her in the paper? “
You have to draw the line somewhere. The editors drew theirs on the machmir side. It’s their prerogative. This “chumra” in policy makes it easier later on. I think that a picture of Rebbetzin Kanievsky would not have been terrible, but actually good. She was tsniut tzadekket and could inspire, much like pictures of Rabbanim. But once the policy was set it should be followed, tsniut tzadekket or not.
“Because women don’t exist to be looked at. “
No one said that they exist to be looked at. We all have pictures of ourselves, family members, friends, Rabbiim, etc. Stam Reiah is mutar, Histaklut is assur. A picture which is meant to be looked at casually may become stared at intently. I will agree that one can easily lead to the other.January 16, 2015 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1072274HaLeiViParticipant
Me too. A picture is the equivalent to coming up close and staring the person in the face, without the creepy part. Those who don’t look into the face women they are conversing with would choose not to have a picture in a paper placating to them. Instead of having to focus away and be conscious and on the lookout, they finally have something they can comfortably read without all that.
If it were up to me, I’d be Mechaleq between a picture of one person and of many, which is not like looking the person in the face.January 16, 2015 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #1072275mw13Participant
Kol kevuda bas Melech pneimah – a woman is not supposed to put herself in the spotlight, regardless of how she is dressed.January 16, 2015 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1072276
Damoshe, I think you misread ry’s point.
His point is that your comparison to the halachos of walking in the street is inapt. Women don’t walk in the street to be looked at, but the point of a picture is only to be looked at.January 16, 2015 9:12 pm at 9:12 pm #1072277
No pictures is a good geder (at minimum.) Once you have a no picture rule it is almost impossible to have someone start judging she’s tznius, she’s not, etc. There are too many gray areas. And it is subjective sometimes. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, it is best to not look at any women altogether if it can be avoided and isn’t essential. So to follow this path of the righteous the best policy is to avoid it altogether, especially since it certainly isn’t vital to see the pictures and it can be avoided.January 17, 2015 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #1072278interjectionParticipant
It would’ve made more sense to use a picture that didn’t have women in it or a picture with too many people in it that the women would have been too tiny to make out.January 18, 2015 2:48 am at 2:48 am #1072279WolfishMusingsParticipant
Heck, I had a poster a while back telling me that having any photos of my wife or daughter, even in my home, was a violation of tznius, “Kol K’vuda…” and the like, and that they should all be destroyed.
No, I didn’t listen to him.
The WolfJanuary 18, 2015 3:17 am at 3:17 am #1072280mw13Participant
Wolf, the fact that some have applied a concept incorrectly is no reason to discard it entirely (particularly when the said concept is God-given).January 18, 2015 3:30 am at 3:30 am #1072281rabbiofberlinParticipant
Wolf: I stand tall with you. This whole idea is totally insane. And anyone who keeps on staring at merkel’s photo (all dressed and barely recognizable as a woman) needs a lot more help in his personal life than he realizes.January 18, 2015 6:16 am at 6:16 am #1072282Little FroggieParticipant
We’ve been here before. No one is denying YOU the option to go look, gaze, stare at any picture you want. It is someone else’s publication, one who wants to keep clean from any questionable, ???, ????? of sin. There’s no room in your heart to allow SOMEONE ELSE to stay holy, to do ??? ???? ????? ???
Being broadminded means to look at it from another’s point of view. To cause someone to have even a cursory, unwanted glance at something one mustn’t, to put a dent in another’s Neshamah, is not something these publications want to risk. That’s all!!
(btw, I think that’s the policy of the site your on NOW!!!)January 18, 2015 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #1072283mominjerusalemParticipant
I think it has to do with 2 things:
a) A truly tznius woman would be embarrassed to have her picture publicized for all to see. Tznius isn’t just about neck-bone elbows knees. Its about staying out of the limelight and acting in a tznius matter. Rebbitzen Kanievsky would be horrified if her picture was publicized in a newspaper.
b) I think Shmiras Einayim comes in to play here. If its a frum newspaper, I doubt it wants to put men in the situation of looking at women. Even if they are tznius, a man should not be looking at women. Period.January 18, 2015 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #1072284golferParticipant
I think there are two points being overlooked here-
It’s interesting to notice that while just about everybody nods along agreeably when the subject of tolerance comes up, many people are tolerant of those less fortunate, less educated, less observant, less machmir. They don’t feel the need to be considerate of those who are MORE, in any way.
Also, most of us can agree that there are photos of women that, because of the advanced age, extreme modesty, or a combination of both on the part of their subject, are not a problem for men to look at. Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment and then offend by publishing a photo of this rebbetzin and not that one.January 18, 2015 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #1072285jakywebMember
Can we have one frum magazine for women with pictures of women?January 18, 2015 5:47 pm at 5:47 pm #1072286
Golfer, as usual, a voice of seichel.January 18, 2015 6:23 pm at 6:23 pm #1072287FriendInFlatbushParticipant
The FJJ had a picture of Rebbetzin Pam alongside Rav Pam in this past week’s paper.
Did anyone else notice this?January 19, 2015 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #1072288zaidy78Participant
The newspapers don’t have standards.
The papers are trying to please their readership.
One of the countries popular newspapers has a sister paper in a “out of town” community and there they have no problem putting pictures of women – namely because the readers there don’t mind or prefer to see the pictures. Even mosdos from communities that they themselves would never publish pictures of women, when advertising out of town, can use the pictures of women.
Yes, it does show a double standard, or more like a newspaper without any standard besides selling newspapers.January 19, 2015 7:49 pm at 7:49 pm #1072289
Golfer neither point is being overlooked
Your first point is wrong for several reasons first of all the split with more vs left doesn’t hold up. Since a. it is a false dichotomy less educated (in a secular sense) people tend to be more religious so by your metric do people feel the need to be tolerant of them? and b. It is all relative people who are less fortunate are more unfortunate so this less vs more split doesn’t quite hold up. More to the point if something is viewed as intolerant the call for tolerance doesn’t hold water. We aren’t tolerant of antisemites, racists or sexists, nor should we be. If (as some believe) the women were removed out of intolerance for women, calling those who criticse the intolerance, intolerant doesn’t hold much water.
Your second point “Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment” is wrong too. There is no question it is easier to look at the picture determine there is nothing wrong with and print it than to sit there and edit out the women. Spare me nonsense about coming up with standards. This one was straight forward. If it is uncertain fine, edit it. OR better yet use a different picture which is also easier than editing!January 19, 2015 8:12 pm at 8:12 pm #1072290
Ubiquitin, your first point is wrong because there’s no disrespect, there’s intolerance for more religiosity masquerading as a claim of disrespect.
You second point is wrong because easier is not limitedlimited to one Photoshop session, it’s the overall policy which is easier.January 19, 2015 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1072291oomisParticipant
What offends me, is not the failure to post a woman’s picture, as that is the prerogative of the publisher. I am bothered when a woman is being honored for HER activities on behalf of an organization and her HUSBAND’S picture is the one shown in the article speaking of her accomplishments. If he has literally nothing to do with the organization, there is no shaychus for his picture to bed there, when hers is not. It’s a stretch to argue that he enables her to do her chessed work. She is still the one doing it.January 19, 2015 11:59 pm at 11:59 pm #1072292Little FroggieParticipant
Oomis.. in front of every successful woman…
(can’t be in back, chazal say it’s not proper)January 20, 2015 12:23 am at 12:23 am #1072293
DY regarding point 1I copied from the other post on this subject
As far as disrespect. This by definition is subjective, and not (solely) dependent on intent. If you sit down when say Obama enters the room becuase your legs are tired, you may not have meant to be disrespecful but you can bet it will be perceived that way. Editing women out of history (in this case literally) even without intent to be disrespectful is understandably perceived tha way. and silly platitude type answers (Kol Kevod Bas melech pnima etc), may work for some that are datan kalos but dont mitigate the (even if only) percieved disrespect.
and point #2. It certainly is easier to avoid pictures of women always or most of the time. Than to photoshop pictures. I’m not sure if on this point you are arguing for the sake of arguing? It is easier to remove the women than not to print them?January 20, 2015 12:49 am at 12:49 am #1072294👑RebYidd23Participant
I don’t want my picture published because I have enemies. Print a picture of my dog instead.January 20, 2015 1:29 am at 1:29 am #1072295
There are excellent reasons not to publish photos of any women, as I previously explained. Additionally, tznuah women such as Rebt. Kanievsky would certainly not WANT their photos splattered over millions of newsprints out of their own deep sense of modesty.
And as DY pointed out, it is disrespectful to be intolerant of those who out of modesty or deep religious observance choose not to print or view photos of women. Who are you to demand they go against their principles and print or view such?January 20, 2015 2:06 am at 2:06 am #1072296
I’m not sure if your question was addressed to me but, I demanded no such ting.
I do have a question for you though. Do you think Rebetzen Kanievsky is opposed to the Artscroll Biography of her? (It is full of her picture)January 20, 2015 2:26 am at 2:26 am #1072297
I bet she would be opposed to it. But in my opinion that is certainly far less severe than splattering her photo over millions of newspaper front pages. 1, the book is less prominent, 2, it has a much more useful tachlis than a newspaper, 3, its read by a higher Torah-level audience. But this is just my opinion.January 20, 2015 2:51 am at 2:51 am #1072298
Also, the comparison to the halachos of women appearing in public is inapt.
Regarding appearing in public, there is a balance because the women themselves also have an interest in being able to live normal lives.
But Angela Merkel has no interest in being able to appear in a chareidi newspaper–it is purely a matter of the editor’s and the readership’s interests. If the editors decided that they had some interest in not putting her picture in, why do you care to second and third guess them?
Why do you care so much if Angela Merkel’s picture was or wasn’t in a newspaper?January 20, 2015 3:01 am at 3:01 am #1072299oomisParticipant
Little Froggie, behind every successful married man is a great woman and an even more surprised mother-in-law!January 20, 2015 3:43 am at 3:43 am #1072300yehudayonaParticipant
Lior, who do you think reads frum papers? What makes you think they’re less frum than people who read Reb. Kanievsky’s bio?
The issur on publishing pictures of females is not total. Hamodia published a photo of a baby girl a while ago. I’m not sure if it was a mistake, or if they have an age below which the deem it OK.January 20, 2015 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #1072302
I dont know what her thoughts would have been but according to the book it has the support of her family
Hamevaser has millions of copies in distribution? Wow!
The book is more prominent and is meant to last a while to be reread over and over.
The tachlis of A newspaper printiing a picture or Rebbetzin KAnievsky would be identical to A biography.
As far as the level Torah audience, I never farhered nor took a survey of hamevaser’s readership vs Artscrol biography’s So I simply dont know. Though Im not sure how that factors in. Does a higher Torah-level audience make you more or less susceptible to pictures?January 20, 2015 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm #1072303
DY regarding point 1I copied from the other post on this subject
They’re not the same discussions; the overall policy is not the same as how it’s implemented in particular cases. Regardless, nobody has a “right” to take offense at innocent things. Your analogy is flawed, because those who claim to be offended are not the intended audience, and undoubtedly only look at frum papers to stir up trouble. Daily, there are countless other seriously offensive items published in various media which go practically unnoticed; the motive here is, or should be, obvious.
Regarding point two I’ll just quote golfer: “Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment and then offend by publishing a photo of this rebbetzin and not that one.”
“Easy” has little to do with how much time it takes or how physically tedious it is.January 20, 2015 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm #1072305
If Hamavaser had just not printed any picture, nobody would have cared, but once they doctored the picture they opened themselved up to deserved critiscmJanuary 20, 2015 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm #1072306
Without question the motive here is purely to stir up a story. I cant prove it but of this I am 100% certain. I am not saying those making a tumul are glorious defenders of human rights. Far from it. Nonthless in this case they have a point. I’m not sure why intended audience is relavent, when Iran hosts a Holocaust cartoon contest or deniers confrence we are not the intended audience, yet we are (I know I am, I assume you too) rightly offended.
Bottom line is fundamnetally we are in agreement. They made a mistake in running that particular picture.
“”Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment and then offend by publishing a photo of this rebbetzin and not that one.”
Refraining from publishing photos of ladies is a halbe tzara (Ok its not a tzara at all, just faltsche frumkeit (in most cases)) The issue at hand is editing pictures.January 20, 2015 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #1072307
ZS, they opened themselved up to deserved critiscm
No, they opened themselves up to UNdeserved criticism.
Ubiquitin, this is why we are fundamentally in DISagreement.
And your analogy is again inapt. How can you possibly even begin to compare this to clear expression of hate, in which case the audience is irrelevant? It’s also pretty naive to assume that we are not at least part of the intended audience.January 20, 2015 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #1072308
I’m not sure why my post wasn’t approved before, so I’ll try again. Mods, if it’s not good, can you please tell me why not?
Ok, so histaklut is not allowed. Does that issur only apply to men, or is there such an issur for women as well? Can a woman stare at a picture of a man?
If there is an issur for women, then why don’t the newspapers refrain from printing all pictures?January 20, 2015 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #1072309
The criticism was wanted and deserved. They have made a terrible Chilul Hashem by some Chassis Shoteh c humrah.
Just because someone lives a frum life and does something he thinks is correct doesnt mean it isJanuary 20, 2015 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #1072310flatbusherParticipant
Curiously the “yetzer harah” issue which figured prominently in another thread on this site regarding women hasn’t even been mentioned here. Isn’t that the underlying reason why women’s pictures are not published in frum publications?January 20, 2015 5:47 pm at 5:47 pm #1072311
DaMoshe, if it would cause a problem, it would be assur, but the assumption is that it’s less common than for men.
ZD, they wanted criticism? Your opinions get more incredible from post to post.
Flatbusher, that is the underlying issue, but it’s much more subtle, because the type of picture a frum publication would print is highly unlikely to be an issue.January 20, 2015 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1072312
DY, I’d imagine that ZD’s post contained a typo. It likely was meant to say “warranted”, not “wanted”.January 20, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1072313
Flatbusher: “Isn’t that the underlying reason why women’s pictures are not published in frum publications?”
No! The underlying reason is it serves as a shtemple of faltche frumkeit. It has become the norm that charedi publications dont have pictures of women, therefore to be considered a Torah-True TM publication you cant have pictures of women. It has zero to do with tznius as DY points out ” the type of picture a frum publication would print is highly unlikely to be an issue.” And in Merkel’s case it is completely unlikely.
This is why people get upset over this. Of course they can exclude women or anybody they deem objectionable in a any way. That isnt the real issue. However when it becomes an international story, if it was based on halacha, who cares what the international community says! But when it is based on faltche frumkeit, it is upsettingJanuary 20, 2015 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1072314
Yeah it was a typo Warranted not wanted
Should have said
The criticism was warranted and deserved. They have made a terrible Chilul Hashem by some Chassid Shoteh chumrah.January 20, 2015 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1072315Sam2Participant
Here’s my problem. The time it takes to find and erase women from the pictures is much more a lack of Tznius than leaving tiny pictures of modestly-dressed women in.January 20, 2015 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #1072316
Ubiquitin: how do you define “faltche frumkeit”, anything further to the right than your hashkafos? Or maybe only if it’s a certain degree further to the right? This a perfect example of religious intolerance.
DaMoshe, ZD: fair enough. I’m sorry. I still strongly disagree.
Sam: tarud b’umnoso (assuming it’s even a man doing the editing).
Also, as golfer pointed out, it’s often not the objectionable nature of a particular picture which is an issue, it’s the maintenance of the policy.January 20, 2015 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1072317
Very simple if they dont want a picture of women, dont print one
They could have easily just not published this pictures and done. Once they decided to publish this picture they had no right to edit itJanuary 20, 2015 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1072318nishtdayngesheftParticipant
Chillul Hashem? You clearly have no clue what chillul Hashem is.
A real Chillul Hashem is when you mock peole doing something more religious than what you are ready to do.
That is a chillul Hashem.January 20, 2015 8:13 pm at 8:13 pm #1072319a maminParticipant
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.