I really don't get the inconsistency of the chareidi position

If you're familiar with Mishpacha Magazine, you would recognize it as one of the chareidi publications that considers any picture of women -- not matter how well-covered or how old -- unfit to be included in its pages. As a photographer who advertises in another such chareidi publication explained, you never know what may be viewed as provocative so no woman's face is ever to be publicized. I don't agree with this view because it renders all women invisible, which has far reaching consequences. It also seems absurd in certain contexts that clearly are intended for a female audience.
I believe in including positive images of women that are completely tzanua and do not compromise on standards of dress of depiction. I am forced to reject ads that have to low a neckline or too short a sleeve, etc. But most publications fall either in the chareidi camp or do end up relaxing standards with pictures that are not 100% tznius.
What I find very surprising is a conflation of the two. Why in the world would Mishpacha Magazine advertise in a magazine that does include pictures of girls (clearly past bas mitzvah, never mind the more machmir age cut offs of 6 or 3) wearing cap sleeves or of couples in a semi-embrace? Given their assumption that NO females should be shown even when completely covered, isn't putting their ad in such a publication seen as tantamount to others placing an ad in a "girly" magazine? I just don't get it.

Comments

Mindy said…
I've never heard of Mishpacha Magazine, but I get the general idea. I became observant in high school and have always wondered why there is a tremendous push to go above and beyond Halacha. Specifically in this case where it creates an environment that seems so unatainable and honestly, sometimes insulting to those who would like to become more observant. Furthermore, in this case I agree with you- it does make women seem invisible, and reduces them to objects instead of intelligent beings who are great contributors to society. It seems silly for women who are dressed modestly not to appear in a magazine. We're not about to dissapear in soceity, so why a magazine?
Chaim B. said…
Easy answer: $$$. They want to attract subscribers from all communities, even outside what you view as their core demographic. Witness their treatment earlier in the year of Lubavitch, their treatment of R' Shachter and the Rav two weeks ago. Of course, someone less cynical might view the R' Shachter piece as done lishma, but the picture of the R' Soloveitchik drawn was so far from the historical mark that the impression I and many others got was that this was simply a way to attract those in the YU camp happy to finally be given some credit while not writing anything that would offend their core audience. Re: the invisible woman issue -- they have plenty of articles aimed exclusively at women, and the lack of pictures has become expected.

Popular Posts