October 31, 2010 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #707595
Ladies, I’m sorry this is so sore a point for you.
Perhaps someone should make a magazine for women only and show as many pictures of women as you want. This way, children can see positive role models, as you suggest. But it is still not proper to do so in a general-circulation publication, despite the benefits it may have.
And yes, it is for the woman’s dignity. Do you really think they want to have to crop every picture?
Incidentally, I hope you have some real in-the-flesh examples of women to emulate, and do not need a newspaper to provide the only image of a woman worth emulating. Regardless, perhaps a women’s only magazine would be a solution to that issue.
Regarding the person who misinterpreted the “ata yadati ki Isha yifas mareh at”, he was roundly rejected in that thread for his erroneous conclusion. That’s not a reason to reject the Torah perspective of Kol Kevuda Bas Melech Penimah or this particular application of it.
Anticipating some of this reaction, I specifically wrote that women drive cars, work in real jobs and generally participate in society. But that doesn’t mean we should increase that exposure to include putting their pictures in general-circulation newspapers.October 31, 2010 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm #707596
If having pictures of women in public is disrepectful and undignified, do you think I should take down the picture of my mother that is hanging in my home? After all, people who aren’t relatives come into my home and can see it.
The WolfOctober 31, 2010 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm #707597
“we all need to learn to act with respect towards all people who are decent, good people”
I do not believe that according to the Torah, there is such a thing as a “good, decent” person who defines himself as gay. I think they are just as morally corrupt as molesters, thieves, etc. All are doing what Hashem has clearly said is absolutely wrong – what difference is there between them? would you tell me that there is such a thing as a “good, decent” thief or molester?
HaKatan: True. But I still hear both sides of this issue.
“Hinei Ba’ohel, does not necessarily mean she never walked outside her tent to be seen by anyone. But if it does, that was a generation when women in general were probably not seen much if at all, because they were viewed by so many, as chattel. It certainly was not because of the Torah, which a) had not yet been given and b) does not direct us to keep women ensconced solely at home.”
First of all, the concept was most certainly a Torah-true ideal, as can be seen from the fact that the Melachim praised Sarah (albeit indirectly) for this very act, as Rashi on the passuk points out.
“It certainly was not because of the Torah, which… does not direct us to keep women ensconced solely at home.”
Nobody is suggesting that Sarah was “ensconced solely at home”, only that she did not appear in public when there was no need for her to do so. Also, note that nobody was “keeping her indoors”, she was doing it voluntarily.November 1, 2010 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #707598
Then how come Bina magazine and Family First magazine titled as magazines for women do not show pictures of women? Like it or not we are out in the world as evidenced by the amount of women working in these magazines and elsewhere. If our faces are considered so dangerous (even elderly and departed women) then maybe we need them covered up with burkas (which is probably the direction our charedei society is heading).November 1, 2010 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #707599
Hakatan, I have no problem with them doing it, but I don’t need to patronize them.November 1, 2010 2:23 pm at 2:23 pm #707600
jakyweb: If you don’t like the society, feel free to leave it. I’m sure the Reform will welcome you, take pictures of you, and post your pictures all over their publications and websites.November 1, 2010 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm #707601
I and many in the frum community do not like women being erased from Jewish history. I am only looking out for the self esteem of our daughters and granddaughters that they see images of frum women as not being sinful.November 1, 2010 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm #707602oomisParticipant
“jakyweb: If you don’t like the society, feel free to leave it. I’m sure the Reform will welcome you, take pictures of you, and post your pictures all over their publications and websites. “
A true Ben Torah would not have posted such an boorish and uncalled-for comment such as yours. I am with Jakyweb on this one. She makes a very salient point. If you, BT, disagree with her position (and you have the right to do so), then try framing that disagreement in a respectful tone. people who make comments such as yours, only reinforce the notion that some people hold that the Yeshivishe world is judgmental, intolerant, and fanatic.
Hillel Hazakein would never have responded as you did, and he had good reason to do so. What was your excuse? You owe Jakyweb a sincere apology.November 1, 2010 3:01 pm at 3:01 pm #707603
Every time anyone makes any criticism of the status quo inevitably someone trots out “why don’t you join the reform jews.” I am very proud to be a frum woman. I do not seek or want any fame for myself. Very simply put, I and many in the frum community do not like women being erased from Jewish history. I am only looking out for the self esteem of our daughters and granddaughters that they see images of frum women as not being sinful.November 1, 2010 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm #707604
Thanks Oomis.November 1, 2010 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #707605
If you don’t like the society, feel free to leave it.
Ah, so you advocate people *leaving* frumkeit if they don’t adhere to your definition of it. Why don’t you ask your rabbeim if that’s *really* the proper approach. Come back and tell me if even one says “yes, tell them to go off the derech….”
Your version of Shivim Panim LaTorah is kind of like Henry Ford’s version of choice of colors on the Model T.
The WolfNovember 1, 2010 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #707606WiseWomanMember
YATED!!!! i love the chinuch roundtable! then i read the editorials then the restNovember 2, 2010 1:02 pm at 1:02 pm #707608
Wolf, there is a tremendous difference between hanging a picture of your mother in your home and publishing her picture in a mass-circulation newspaper. Please don’t make a mockery of the discussion; any guest who comes to a home will obviously see the woman of the house over the course of the meal; but that doesn’t mean her shabbos table should be broadcast on national TV (Shabbos aside). Do you see the difference?
Having said that, *perhaps* it is, in truth, more dignified for the woman that her picture not be there. I don’t know what the answer is to that, but ask you LOR if you’re interested in knowing you’re for sure doing what’s right. Personally, I don’t recall seeing any pictures of women in any of the Roshei Yeshiva’s homes that I have been to, but perhaps one cannot extrapolate from that.
I am a little amused by the whole “erased from history” argument. Again, nobody forbade taking a woman’s picture, and many people of all sects and types do so. So much for worrying about preserving history. But that doesn’t mean the pictures have to be published in general circulation newspapers. And even if historical record were a concern, it still does not override the kavod due to a bas melech, so it would be a moot point, anyways.November 2, 2010 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #707609
The worst is when they replace women in pictures with men.November 2, 2010 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm #707610
Wolf, there is a tremendous difference between hanging a picture of your mother in your home and publishing her picture in a mass-circulation newspaper.
Why? It’s only an issue of magnitude, but the same basic underlying principle remains the same. If my mother’s picture can be seen by the cable guy (yes, I know, I’m going to hell for having cable), the plumber, my sons’ friends, the insurance salesman and any other Tom, Dick or Harry that parades through my house, then why can’t it be seen by people in a newspaper?
I don’t recall seeing any pictures of women in any of the Roshei Yeshiva’s homes that I have been to,
I *have* seen pictures of women in the homes of my rabbeim and rosh yeshiva. Those include their mothers, grandmothers, daughters and granddaughters. But, of course, I’m sure there are those who will say that if they accepted me as a talmid then they clearly aren’t *real* rabbeim…
The WolfNovember 2, 2010 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm #707611
I am not amused by the erased from history argument. Our daughters are being led to believe they have no right to see pictures of historical frum women like Sarah Schneirer (recent article in Mishpocha left out her picture). It is extremely praiseworthy for women to be modest but I believe that it would give girls tremendous chizuk to see pictures of Rebbitzens and Neshei chesed from the past and how they presented themselves in the world. Someone once asked the Spinka Rebbe if girls in his Yeshiva should wear uniforms. He responded no, that girls need to know how to shop and determine what to wear and this is how they will learn how to cope in the world. The same lesson applies that if you never see pictures of female role models in frum media, then you are taking away a powerful lesson for girls. I believe this also takes away self esteem. How do you think little girls feel when their brothers see pictures of frum men everywhere and not one picure of a frum lady?November 2, 2010 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #707612
She feels that girls are different than boys — as is appropriate.November 2, 2010 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #707613
huh?November 2, 2010 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #707614
Girls and boys have different roles in life and expectations.November 2, 2010 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #707615
So girl’s role is to work hard and somehow not be seen in public? Sorry, but just because some chasidishe families have only men at the Shabbos table while the women are in the kitchen does not mean it follows that all frum families should aspire to that model. The same feeling holds that just because some charadei families hold that women’s pictures should not be in a public forum, many other frum families do not hold with that view. Neither view is right or wrong but right for that group of people. It is a shame that there is no proper frum paper or magazine that prints pictures of frum women.November 2, 2010 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #707616
jakyweb, I think its really a business decision. There are people who won’t buy the publications if women are in it. There aren’t many people who won’t buy it if there aren’t women in it. They get more money that way.November 2, 2010 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #707617
Start your own paper instead of being such a bigmouth about other papers standards.November 2, 2010 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #707618
For the record. YWN Photo album contains pictures of women.November 2, 2010 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #707619
“Yated, Hamodia, Jewish Press? What Is Your Choice?”
Arutz Sheva and The Onion. If the Onion is making fun of it, you know its been in the news.November 2, 2010 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #707620not IMember
I am not sure what this hack is all about. Girls see pictures of women role models in school. I remeber being shown a picture of Sara Schenirer in school. Besides, further back in history I am not sure there are not too many pictures available. Not sure why you are getting carried away! Why rely/ blame it on the newspapers to show ff pictures of role modelsNovember 3, 2010 12:22 am at 12:22 am #707621
Wolf, you seem to have ignored the rest of my statement and so it further seems that you simply wish to poke fun at this Torah view (there may be others that disagree, granted).
So I will quote from my own previous post, the part which you ignored (same paragraph as the one you quoted):
“Please don’t make a mockery of the discussion; any guest who comes to a home will obviously see the woman of the house over the course of the meal; but that doesn’t mean her shabbos table should be broadcast on national TV (Shabbos aside). Do you see the difference?”
Again, magnitude *is* a factor. People in my community who go out for a Shabbos meal will definitely see the lady of the house at the meal. But these same people will not see that meal (nor that lady of the house) photographed for the newspapers (Shabbos aside). There is an obvious difference as it relates to the woman’s kavod.
If you can’t see why one might be more sensitive by the latter instead of the former then I am afraid we have lost the ability to have an intellectual discussion (though I suspect, in your case, that intellect is not at all an issue; rather, lack of respect for the opposing position and, most of all, intentional mockery, seems to be the cause).November 3, 2010 12:33 am at 12:33 am #707622
Jaky, there are women’s magazines like Yaldah (teen girls, anyways) that definitely show pictures of women/girls. If there are none for adult women, then why don’t you approach your favorite publisher to start one?
Besides, why would you specifically *want* to be seen in public? Especially if one is a woman? Your quote “So girl’s role is to work hard and somehow not be seen in public?” seems to harbor this misogynistic view that men allegedly have over women. Again, it is for your own dignity as a bas melech, not to put you in an undesirable role which it is not. If you don’t/can’t believe that, why don’t you (ask a Rav and also) write a Letter to the Editor asking why their policy is to not show pictures of women. Perhaps they can explain better.
Again, I see no loss in not showing a woman’s picture. I already mentioned that anyone, male or female, can take photos. And that you are free to publish a magazine or newspaper with pictures of women in it. And that, presumable, they would, too, in theory.November 3, 2010 2:03 am at 2:03 am #707623anon for thisParticipant
I can understand, somewhat, why the Yated does not publish pictures of women. But I’ve noticed that increasingly they don’t even mention women’s names. For example, an article about a wedding will mention the names of the chosson, the chosson’s father, and the kallah’s father, but no women’s names at all. This would lead some to believe that some publications are indeed attempting to erase women’s presence from Jewish history, because what could be wrong with mentioning a woman’s name?November 3, 2010 7:43 am at 7:43 am #707624
anon, I think that this should be explained by the publishers so that people do not misunderstand.
I also think the picture issue is more intuitive, and unless people insist on keeping their indoctrination of secular values(and on a higher plane than their Torah observance), then it is understood that omitting pictures of women is, at least, a good thing to do.November 3, 2010 10:14 am at 10:14 am #707625
anon: Traditionally when mentioning a woman’s name other than one’s wife (or non-immediate relative), a frum person would refer to her as Mrs. Smith or something of that sort; never by first name.
[Even in America they used to call John’s wife “Mrs. John Doe”.]November 3, 2010 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm #707626cantoresqMember
Ben Torah, where does the Torah refer to Mrs. Avraham Avuinu, Mrs. Yitzchak Avinu, or Mrs. Yaacov Avinu? I don’t recall a mention of Mrs. Moses Rabbeinu either. Devorah is not ever referenced in terms of her husband, and now that I’m thinking about N”ach, where is Mrs. David Hamelech mentioned?November 3, 2010 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #707627cantoresqMember
I forgot, the Talmud refers to Kimchis and Beruriah by name.November 3, 2010 1:47 pm at 1:47 pm #707628not IMember
I think people want to misinterpret the message of Ben torah. he has a very valid point.. think about it before you argue it with pointless arguments.November 3, 2010 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #707629
That women should neither be seen nor spoken about?November 3, 2010 7:18 pm at 7:18 pm #707630
I noticed, btw, that one of the above-mentioned papers will sometimes write the article author’s name in full (e.g. Jane Doe) and others will write only the first initial and last name (e.g. J. Doe).
My assumption, upon seeing this, is that by an unmarried woman they would use the full name while for a married woman they do not (this is only a guess, of course, because I do not know the authors), also to conform to this holy practice of not referring to a married woman by her first name.
Referring to someone by their first name conveys a certain familiarity and since a married woman is an erva and one must distance one’s self from an erva, that, perhaps, is why we do not address a married woman by her first name.
I’m not sure if that’s what anon was referring to above, but I still think a letter to the editor is the best way to find out.November 4, 2010 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #707631
Re: The pictures of women. Its a business decision, plain and simple. The publications will either lose subscribers or get a lot of bad “press” if they published pictures of women. They dont need it and it is not worth the money they will spend trying to get back customers or battle bad press.
I have a bigger problem with many of the pictures that they do publish. Do I really need to see another picture of Rav Belsky Shlita dancing at a vort or Rav Leizer Ginsburg Shlita with a bagel at a bris? I readily admit, that these pictures fill, in some small way, the voyeur in me. I always wanted to know what went on at the Schwartzkopf sheva brachos or the Schwatzenager bris and these publications fill me in.November 4, 2010 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm #707632
apy: They’d also lose business and “get a lot of bad press” if they advocated for abortion on demand. They dont need to advocate it and it is not worth the money they will spend trying to get back customers or battle bad press by the pro-life.
Regarding your “bigger problem”, if you don’t like seeing a picture of Rav Belsky, skip the page or the paper.November 4, 2010 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm #707633MiriamMember
We live in Israel and have been subscribing to the English Hamodia for years. Their editorials are very right wing and always on the mark. BTW. although there are many frum papers today, Hamodia is the only frum paper that is published in English. Kol Hakavod to them.November 4, 2010 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #707634myfriendMember
Does anyone know the reason the Eretz Yisroel and American Yated’s split? Who controls the European edition?November 4, 2010 11:09 pm at 11:09 pm #707635
Ben Torah. Are you trying to make a point?November 5, 2010 3:19 am at 3:19 am #707636EnderParticipant
If i wanted news i would get the Hamodia, but as i get my news from other sources i like to get the Yated because its not a newspaper, its an opinion paper.November 5, 2010 5:22 am at 5:22 am #707637
“If you don’t like the society, feel free to leave it. I’m sure the Reform will welcome you, take pictures of you, and post your pictures all over their publications and websites.”
Whoa. Uncalled for. Seriously, just because somebody disagrees with your hashkafa doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re totally not frum.
“there is a tremendous difference between hanging a picture of your mother in your home and publishing her picture in a mass-circulation newspaper. Please don’t make a mockery of the discussion; any guest who comes to a home will obviously see the woman of the house over the course of the meal; but that doesn’t mean her shabbos table should be broadcast on national TV”
“I believe that it would give girls tremendous chizuk to see pictures of Rebbitzens and Neshei chesed from the past… How do you think little girls feel when their brothers see pictures of frum men everywhere and not one picure of a frum lady?”
Honestly, I’m not sure why seeing pictures of positive role models is so important. I can only speak for myself, but I find that I get far, far more chizuk from reading stories about Gedolim then from looking at their pictures.
“So girl’s role is to work hard and somehow not be seen in public?”
Yes, I think that would sum it up rather nicely. What’s the phrase? Kol kavudah bas Melech pneimia? (Or something like that.)November 5, 2010 1:19 pm at 1:19 pm #707638
With all due respect, notice the magazines and pictures of Rebbis and the Rebbi cards the boys collect – why are they circulated? Because it gives the boys chizuk and someone to be a role model. Same as the female half of the population would like something to look at besides flowers and hearts. Like it or not, we are a visual society and when I read stories of valorous women from the past I would like to see what she looked like. I don’t have the money to start my own magazine but I wish the frum magazines had a ladies only section that showed women’s pictures.November 5, 2010 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #707639
jakyweb – I believe the “Rebbi cards” were primarily made as an alternative to collecting sports cards. Again, I don’t think boys get an incredible amount of chizuk from just looking at pictures of Gedolim, on cards or not. That said, I can’t imagine anybody would have any issues with “Rebbitzen cards” for girls… I would imagine the only reason nobody has tried that already is because they don’t think they’ll make too much money off it, as girls aren’t so into collecting cards in the first place.
As for the pictures in magazines, some have legitimate issues with circulating a woman’s picture to the masses, as HaKatan explained.November 5, 2010 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #707640
MW13. Because of those “some” they have made a business decision not to publish them. They wouldn’t run an ad for an abortion clinic either, their readership would revolt and stop buying the paper.
Visual role models for frum girls….
How about, instead of girls collecting hello kitty stickers, they start collecting the hello gitty series. Stickers and coloring books of their favorite females throughout jewish history. Still dont have a decent substitute for dolls and doll clothes. The Rebetzin doll series, with clothing and accessories? How much creativity and imagination does it take to dress a doll all in black?November 5, 2010 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #707641
I like it!November 6, 2010 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm #707642twistedParticipant
jakyweb: not to be relied on always, but a good rule of thumb in a civil debate is to watch closely when the ad hominum attacks and uncivil comments begin and from what direction. What you are fighting is the disease of creeping isms defended by insecure and frightened people. Note that as yet you did not receive an apology fron the “ben torah” nor was “helpful” very polite. The discourse will not always be rational and you will see the circling of the wagons. Part of the fear of old pictures is that it doesn’t exactly confirm the positions of todays chumradom . A corollary discussion ( old thread maybe) of mixed seating at functions (other than smachot) follows the same pattern. Gedolim of yesteryear saw the segregation train comming, and they voiced discomfort with it. Good luck with your daughters and granddaughters education. May they turn out to be Nshei Chayil.November 7, 2010 1:12 am at 1:12 am #707643myfriendMember
Gedolei Yisroel, whom these frum papers take general direction from, insisted on no female pictures. That is why they instated that policy. If you don’t like it, take it up with Gedolei Yisroel shlita, not their messengers.November 7, 2010 1:59 am at 1:59 am #707644deiyezoogerMember
Where is the picture of mama rochel? I geuss she is olso ereased from jewish history.November 7, 2010 3:10 am at 3:10 am #707645
I can’t help but notice that your comment wasn’t exactly the epitome of logic and tolerance, either.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.