Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: Eli Grubman <eli.grubman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:43:30 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 06:25:04 +0000 (UTC), moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eli Grubman <eli.grubman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eli Grubman <eli.grubman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
moshes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eli Grubman <eli.grubman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
It seems to me that women have an inflated (excuse the pun) opinion
of their ability to arouse men, whereas men are under no such
delusion as regards their ability to arouse women.
That's probably because that's how "civilized" society trains women.
Their clothes (or lack ot them) are _geared_ to excite/entice men.
Which is not to say the women are totally innocent! They're fully
aware of the effect of what they wear has on men and use it to further
whatever motive(s) they may have. Even women brought up in a 'closed'
society aren't exempt.
Nu? You're just proving my point.
OK, I thought you were suggesting that women were just the innocent
victims of civilised society.
In most cases, it's "eager accomplices".
Some more eager than others!
It's that mindset that the
blurring of women's pictures is supposed to counteract. And some call
_that_ - "evil"!
I was surprised myself to see that word used in this context.
We've become so accustomed to it, that anything different seems
"wrong" somehow. Says more about us than about Chareidim.
They would be the last people I would expect to engage in macho
posturing and locker-room banter.
Exactly. They try to keep their minds off such topics, and here
Joel calls them "evil" for that. Can you imagine?
"Evil" wouldn't have been my choice of word either, but I can't say
that I find what they (you?) do particularly logical - surely blurring
women's shapes would make more sense than blurring their faces?
Actually, the original article just talked about a _BLOG_ that
blurred the faces. I don't recall seeing any picture in HaModia (the
Agudat Yisrael newspaper) with a blurred wonan's face. They just
wouldn't run the picture. They use a lot more _words_ than pictures.
Maybe they have more respect for their readership. -:)
It's a *serious* newspaper, then. I think even the Wall Street
Journal has colour photographs these days.
They don't even use locker rooms, do they? :-)
I already posted that in the mikvah I go to every day, I have
_never_ heard anything like "locker room" talk. It isn't even
imaginable. I guess that's _another_ sign of our being "evil".
</sarcasm>
You're haredi? I had no idea.
I don't know how to answer your question. Come to Israel, meet me,
and then you can decide. :-)
You'll be the one with the big black hat, then? Should be easy enough
to pick out :-)
Eli
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: moshes
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- References:
- Re: Erasing women
- From: cindys
- Re: Erasing women
- From: cindys
- Re: Erasing women
- From: Giorgies E. Geshahnna
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: cindys
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: Eli Grubman
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: moshes
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: Eli Grubman
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: moshes
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: Eli Grubman
- Re: Erasing women's photos
- From: moshes
- Re: Erasing women
- Prev by Date: Re: Erasing women
- Next by Date: Re: Alternative Bar Mitzvah Ceremonies For The Active/Child
- Previous by thread: Re: Erasing women's photos
- Next by thread: Re: Erasing women's photos
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|