The original photo:
The photo printed in a Hasidic newspaper:
If we can’t keep women out of men’s jobs, we’ll just photoshop them out!
The photo printed in a Hasidic newspaper:Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blag Hag
Atheism, feminism, geekery
Now that is profoundly pathetic show of religiously inspired misogyny.
My significant other and I were having a conversation about this. I have ultra orthodox family, and I was explaining that it was generally not acceptable amongst them to photograph women, because it could be used for “impure” purposes. She then asked me, “Well, couldn’t a photograph of a man be also used for such impure purposes?” We then spent our time thinking of other things which could be photographed and then used illicitly, like vegetables, rock formations, fruit bowls, running shoes, and… The list goes on.
Honestly this is just kinda funny to me. This is more pathetic than a forum flame war about which pokeyman is best.
Its not like they were just secretaries or typists. oh wait, that was the Secretary of State! and isn’t there some irony that they use very new technology to uphold very old stereotypes and traditions?
Rule #34 means that there is nothing that can be photographed that cannot lead to impure thoughts.
I wonder if anyone should mention that to Hasidic leaders, so the prohibition against photographing women is dropped. Hah. Yea right.
Couldn’t they just photoshop her to make her ugly to prevent impure thoughts? Like give her a mustache or something?
And how do you know she wasn’t there and was photoshopped into the picture? After all, what would the Secretary of State be doing at that meeting?
Wait a minute, this is from a Jewish Newspaper? Here I thought that the Muslims were infuriating in their traditions! I realize that every religious cult has it’s quirks, but this is the 21st Century! Is there an Atheist colony somewhere that I can move to in order to insulate myself and my family from this kind of madness? I don’t usually feel that violence is the answer to problems, but I’m really concerned now about these kinds of “Nutbags” out in the world and what my three daughters and son will have to face someday. Anyone want to call a ‘Jihad’ on this kind of stupidity?
I fail to see why you see this as merely fodder for a flame war. What if the person that was “Photoshopped out” was you? Wouldn’t you feel insulted that someone felt that you were a “Non-Person” (or Persona Non Grata if you’d rather) and did not deserve to have any rights at all?
In fact, there are exhibitionists who liked being watched while having sex. God (or Gdashd) is omniscient. Therefore, any mention of God is bound to lead to thoughts of sexytime, and should be banned.
The fact that Jen called it a Hasidic newspaper and that the text in the paper was in Hebrew didn’t give it away?
Funny, I had the opposite reaction the first time I watched “The Day the Earth Stood Still”: when the kid is showing Klaatu around Washington and says, “That’s the Department of Labor. My mom works there. She’s a secretary”, my first thought was “wait a sec. Why does the secretary of labor need to rent out a room to make ends meet?”
Pretty unsurprising given the views towards women. The photoshop jockey in me though is tsking the poor job they did. Look at the guys arm, it’s so off it is hilarious if sad.But back on point I’ve seen this when I was in Brooklyn the general attitude. Me and a gal in shorts and a t-shirt were visiting someone who lived in one of the more orthodox neighborhoods. She is rather hot so watching some of the men try and pretend she did not exist was pretty amusing.Edit: I happened to look over while submitting and saw that the word boobs comes up 41 times on this blog. Just sayin’
Not being Jewish, nor having much exposure to their culture had left me ignorant of their ridiculous ways. Granted, I used to work with someone who converted years ago, but this kind of rules never came up in conversation.I now have less respect for their beliefs…
Hasidic is just one branch of Judaism, a sort of mysticism/ecstasy-oriented Orthodoxy, somewhat like Sufism in Islam. Most other branches of Judaism do not prohibit the photography of women, and Hasidics make up less than 10% of the Jewish community worldwide. The other branches, Orthodox, Conservadox, Conservative, Reform, Secular and Humanistic, all vary on their beliefs, the exact same way Christianity and Islam has different sects with different rules and regulations. This is not to excuse the behavior of the newspaper or endorse the religion, but since you seem to have such a poor grasp of Jewish history, I thought I’d fill you in on a few gaps.
Thanks for the info, even if it was laced with condescending sarcasm.To clarify, my co-worked only converted to Orthodoxy, and he kept a pic on his desk with him, wife, and children (so I guess his brand of crazy didn’t go that far.) Granted, any time I would come close to questioning him along too personal a line on his beliefs he’d always deflect with “Hey, how about those Amish? Aren’t they a crazy bunch?”
One should remember that Hassidism is the most fundamentalist form of Judaism. It is not unlike ultrafundamental Christianity or Islam in this regard. Misogyny in religion is common primarily to the Abrahamic ones. This behavior is no more representative of the thinking of most modern Jews than is some of that seen in Mormonism and/or Islam. It should be noted tht Golda Meir was the first female president of a modern western country , Israel.
These were Hasidic Jews, not your average Jew. As someone who grew up around them, because most of my relatives were Jewish, I can assure everyone that any non-Hasidic Jewish woman would be outraged by the photo, including my mom who was born in 1917.
As a photoshop jockey myself I was laughing at the arm, too.
Very true, but the Jews do have a long history of being misogynistic. Just 100 years ago in some countries women would not be allowed to read the Torah, and a woman’s role was very subservient. Still is in some places.
There’s an orthodox prayer that a man says every morning. It goes something like this: “I thank god that I was not born as Hillary Clinton”What’s funny is that Clinton is pretty pro Israel … and she’s the freakin’ Secretary of State for chrissakes. As it were.
Well if we’re going to judge cultures today by what was standard practice a century ago, then secular western democracies don’t look too hot either. No female suffrage, rape/battery in marriage was legal, women couldn’t work in professions, wives swore to obey their husbands…need I continue?
Wow, who knew that the guy behind her was wearing a dress???I used to work in a Hassidic neighborhood. I have seen a lot of silliness but this is surprising even to me. It’s not like she’s Jewish and embarrassing them. They’re already aware that goyim women do things they don’t approve of.
Ok. Time to educate and eradicate the anti-Semitism that has emerged in this comments section. Chabad Judaism, or hasidic Jews, are a group of ultra-orthodox Jews who follow the teachings of Rebbe Menachem Schneerson. Some even believe he’s the Messiah. This is by no means a mainstream branch of Judaism. Hasidim live their lives as “close to G-d” as they can by keeping strict to the laws of Torah while within the confines of the laws of the nation in which they live, which is also commanded by Torah. Therefore the parts of the holy book people call extreme, unlike in certain Muslim countries where stoning and beheadings are common practice, are not practiced by Jews of any denomination in Israel or America. They omit the “o” in God like I did in the above sentence, for example. Not photographing women is out of respect for women. It has nothing to do with anything sexist. This is a religious paper, have some respect and dignity for other people’s faiths. No Jew is crashing planes into buildings or blowing themselves up.
Ah well, at least they don’t behead people. That’s a relief.
If they do something as idiotic as photoshop out women because it offends their sensibilities then I will call them out on being stupid. I don’t need to respect someone for ignoring reality and insulting the women who were there by removing them from the picture.That says that those women in the room were not important to what was happening, it cheapens them and shows that their worth, in those minds, is less than the men in the room. It’s not respectful, it is akin to other practices where the act is done “for their own good.”I don’t see what this has to do with muslims or islam. We are talking about a paper that caters to a specific group that shows some rather misogynistic and backwards thinking by modern standards. If you don’t like it don’t complain when it is called out. Don’t go “OH YEAH WELL THESE PEOPLE ARE WORSE” either. That’s like a little kid going “YOUR MOM.”
” Not photographing women is out of respect for women. It has nothing to do with anything sexist. This is a religious paper, have some respect”I just spit my gatorade all over the keyboard. It was utterly obvious from the outset that this is a newspaper catering to extremists. But thank you for the lesson on how Jews are better than Muslims and on how respecting women involves making sure we pretend that they are never powerful.
“This is a religious paper, have some respect and dignity for other people’s faiths.”Do you know that you are commenting to an atheist blog? Also I doubt that Hilary Clinton would find her image being photoshoped out of existence respectful. If this is truly done out of respect for women they might want to consider the wishes of the woman in question and her beliefs.
Well, the photographer wasn’t Hassidic, so they could have blurred or pixelated them, or blacked out their shapes. Giving the impression that women weren’t in the room is different from not showing a woman’s image out of respect
The newspaper isn’t catering to extremists, it *is* extremist. Hassidim are the most extreme sect of Judaism.
Goodness gracious. I was referring to the act of Photoshopping people you don’t approve of out of pictures. It’s juvenile.
Since this is an Official White House Photo®, wouldn’t they be rather pissed (not like they’re not used to it) at someone altering their official history?Really, it’s pathetic. And as for ‘respect’, fuck the Hasidim with a pig’s dick– that enough respect for you?
True, but I think this is an extreme version of the extremists even at that.
See, the photoshopped pic just looks like a bunch of old guys looking at porn.
I have no idea if you’re trolling or not, but…1. How exactly is the paper *respecting* Hilary Clinton by deceitfully pretending to their readers that she had no involvement in high-level politics?2. How is editing out women but not men not sexist?3. While it’s true that Jewish religious terrorists have not achieved the levels of destruction meted out by al-Qaida, that doesn’t mean that they are non-existent or unimportant. Examples: the murder of 4 Israeli Arabs by Eten Naten-Zada in 2005; the Cave of Patriots massacre in 1994 (29 Muslims killed, 125 wounded); the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 2005; the attempted car-bombing of a Palestinian school for girls in 2005 by the Kahane Chai group; the 1983 shooting and grenade attack on the Islamic College of Hebron (3 killed, 33 wounded) by members of the Gush Emunim Underground. There are more examples. And apart from being disingenuous about Jewish terrorists, it is a complete distraction. “It’s OK to for one group of people to discriminate against women because a different group of people destroyed the World Trade Centre” is not a good argument.
Well if they’re all strict bible sluts they didn’t photoshop out enough.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thingthat is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Exodus 20:4)
Der Tzitung released a statement, published in the Washington Post, that makes it very clear that they operate from an extreme religious perspective that almost all Americans would reject—not just those who are feminist atheists:”The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ’00, and when she was re-elected in ’06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. (See below.) That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging to women, which is certainly never our intention. We apologize if this was seen as offensive.”I wonder: Do they also prohibit paintings that depict women? What about female children?Note especially this part:”The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel.”One has to wonder if they have a clue about modernity—let alone the legal meanings of such terms as “slander” and “libel”.
Maybe this should have been pointed out earlier. We don’t all know the ins and outs of every religion. Until this comment I had no idea we were talking about a Jewish paper.
You know, I might take them seriously if they put a black rectangle over the image of Clinton and labelled it with her name — it would still be sexist and objectionable, but at least it would be honest and it would let their readers know that she had participated. By photoshopping her out, they are lying to their readers and pretending she is a nobody. That is not respectful.
I’m willing to bet that it’s only because they lack the power to do so and get away with it. I seriously doubt that Jewish religious extremists are incapable of the ills the other religious extremists revel in.
Anyone notice that the woman in the doorway is also “missing”?
Do any of you speak Hebrew? Her name is in the caption as not photographed.
Tzipi Livni is the current Israeli opposition leader. In ultra orthodox papers, she’s not photographed. Neither was Golda Meir. The caption of this entry is “if we can’t keep them out of a man’s job, we’ll photoshop them out”. No sect of Judaism stops women from achieving high office.
The second woman photoshopped out of the photo is Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism; also a very powerful woman.
Audrey Tomason Director for Counterterrorism
You can give 10,000 reasons for it and examples where you think it is ok. It does not make it ok. It’s still stupid.Also, you can mention their name or talk about them but not look at them? Come on, that isn’t respect at all. It’s exactly along the same lines as the men telling muslim women they have to be completely covered for their own good.
Considering you are not allowed to modify published photos from the White House I’d say they are not happy about it.
Not photographed is a lie. Doesn’t their god have a problem with that?
What exactly are you “just sayin'”? I can’t understand why you would think that is relevant.
Not showing a woman out of “respect” comes from the same mindset that kills women for “honor”.
If you really think that this is done to respect women, you don’t understand how to respect women.And you’re saying they think stonings and such are still the right thing to do, they just live within the law? How very non-extreme.
This edit could be a smart move by any Jewish newspaper to reduce any potential offence to the Muslim followers of Bin Laden, who may be particularly annoyed that he was taken down by a group which included women. It’s potentially good damage control, not gender control.
I thought it said thy shall not worship any graven image, not that you cant make graven images – what edition are you quoting?
There is nothing “respectful” about erasing people.
But she WAS photographed. Whatever happened to not bearing false witness?
So far so good, but I have a bad feeling about this.
What anti-semitism?
Irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Stopped clocks, and all that.
Irrelevant to the argument at hand, also false with regards to the Torah’s commands against lying as indicated below.
Marginally reassuring but still irrelevant to the argument at hand, and also reminds me of this.
Irrelevant to the argument at hand.
False; remove head from sphincter and see entire rest of thread.
Ditto.
You’re kidding, right? There’s nothing about religious ideas that makes them inherently deserving of respect. As for dignity…after you, sir. We’ll start with not pretending people don’t fucking exist.
Ok.Now that you’re done clumsily condesplaining…
What? uhh.. more than a few copies of this got published elsewhere, unaltered.
See Also: http://www.ktla.com/news/landi…“It’s worth noting that the White House attached this disclaimer to the photo when it was released:’This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.’ “It’s odd, because I’m pretty sure Conan put this up last week with Andy ‘shopped into the upper left corner, behind Obama.
And, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to just NOT run the picture? Seriously, who the hell shops out top government figures from an official government photo ???
Who is “not allowed?” There is no way under the 1st amendment that a prohibition on altering published photos from the white house passes constitutional scrutiny. Heck, in the name of satire, almost anything is permissible (think Falwell and Larry Flynt)
No no no. If they acknowledged that Clinton was even in the room, that could lead to impure thoughts.
The reason they photoshopped Hilary Clinton out of the photo is most likely because her hair is visible. For an ultra-orthodox, on a married woman that is considered obscene and entrapping to men. Additionally, they ARE misogynistic and it’s quite likely they do not want their congregation to see a woman in a position of power.The title, btw, reads “In the fall of evil [men], [there is] joy”
Someone has posted later down in this thread why.
It’s not? It was an amusing aside. I am posting, I look right and it’s lined up perfectly at the time.
When my daughter was a little girl, Menachem Schneerson died and his picture was on the TV. When my daughter saw it she shouted out, “Look! Santa Claus!!!” (With the long white beard he did look a little like Santa.) Since the hasidim are so supportive of photoshopping, for Xmas this year I am going to take a photo of Schneerson and photoshop Santa’s hat and red suit on him and put it in my front window. It will show the level of respect I have for their racist and sexist religious beliefs.
I remember in a palace in India looking at the hand-prints left over the years by young Hindu women on their way to be burned with their deceased husbands. Thousands of young women are still burned in India every year by in-laws displeased with the bargain they made to marry their sons to them. A consumer of demographic data, I also can’t help noticing the gender imbalance created by China’s one-child policy and preference for sons. I don’t think the rest of the world has much to learn about misogyny from Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
I hope you are being sarcastic… You can’t seriously think the Secretary of State, the chief foreign affairs adviser, could have missed (or not been included) in that meeting.
Ignoring history only means you don’t learn history’s lessons. Certainly we have to judge everything partially based on its past.
I find impure thoughts very entertaining, you make it sound like a bad thing:-)
This was the same group that spat on a female journalist because she was using a recording device on the Sabbath. I’d say you’re spot on about the fact that they only don’t stone because they can’t, not because they don’t want to.
Not photographing women is out of respect for women. It has nothing to do with anything sexist.C’mon, now. That’s the exact same thing the Muslims say about burqas. Do you really, truly believe that it is a deep and abiding respect for women that caused Hilary Clinton to be Photoshopped out? Really?
That’s bollocks and you and I both know it. They don’t photograph women just like they don’t put the o in God. It has nothing to do with disrespect towards either. Tzipi Livni won the Hasidic community vote in Israel by a landslide and almost became PM over Bibi as a result. No Jew would kill a woman for any reason, honor included. Thou Shalt Not Kill.
This is exactly what I mean by anti-Semitism in this thread. Clearly the readership on this website is intolerant to say the least. This is my final comment here, may you all live in peace and prosperity. Shalom.
This is most probable too. However, Hasidim have no problem with women in office. I again give the examples of Meir and Livni, look at their polling data within the Hasidic community. A woman is just as valuable as a man in Judaism.
and they are wrong. again, this is one area of law i am very familiar with. the white house can very well sanction press corps members who do so by denying them continuing white house press corps status. they have no authority in THIS incident though.
Additionally, I’d also like to point out that newspapers such as the above are very rare anymore. Since even before the fall of the Czar or the holocaust, the majority of the Schneerson line’s following were murdered by either the pogroms, gestapo, or communists. They used to live in communities, small villages, separate from society like the Amish did, making them not hard to track down. Since then, the vast majority of Judaism has integrated into society and don’t even keep Kosher. I think something like 20% of Jews world wide identify themselves as Orthodox, with only a few percent within that identifying as ultra-Orthodox. The community itself is approximately 15 million worldwide, with maybe 20-30,000 Hasidim in shtetls (villages) that survived in the former USSR, New York, or Israel.
<a href="https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/G-d#In_English” rel=”nofollow”>Wikipedia says:
Not the same reason at all.We know the reason they claim to edit out women. It’s ludicrous. Imagine they refused to show black people and claimed it was out of respect because seeing them in photos would upset them. Saying that about women is just as absurd.
The fact that they are sexist towards their own leaders in no way exculpates them. In fact, it only further inculpates them.
Yeah, they put those you may not modify clauses under the pictures, but if the photographer is employed by the White House I think it’s public domain as a work of the US government. (Not a lawyer)
And like many have already said, we fully understand that these are fundies. Sexist fundies.
Both acts use faith and misapplication of virtue (honor, respect) to excuse abhorrent behavior. It is not respectful to anyone in any way to digitally remove women from photographs. That the editors are being sexist in a misguided attempt to respect women gives them no more excuse than a Muslim has for murdering his sister in a misguided attempt to restore her honor. While there is obviously a huge difference, it is one of degree and not kind.
I mistranslated. It’s a loose language structure when translating it to English. It said “Photographed and not shown: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton” and I think that other girls name is in there too. But I just lied, i meant to stop posting. Guess I’ll fix that on Yom Kippur. :)
I’m sorry, did the Jews not march with Doctor King in Birmingham? There’s a famous picture of a Hasidic Jew two people over in the front row right before they released the dogs.
Again, this paper caters to maybe 2000 people who are probably in their late 50’s into their early 80’s and upon dying off will be the last of their “branch” of the faith. Judaism in general has westernized far beyond its Islamic cousin. Israeli law does not permit the stoning of women for example, yet Iranian law does. So what if they don’t show her for whatever Talmudic reason? She is still credited in the photo with her title.
I really don’t think it’s fair to categorize people who have elected women to the highest offices in the nations they live in as sexist. Even these fundies, but whatever.
I agree. I’m sure the papers editorial board does too now that more people who read the paper are looking at this specific edition, many without any knowledge of the language or people it caters to.
And I do know this is an atheist publication. I’m personally a secular Jew. I just felt the need to try to defend my “fellow members of the tribe.” Sexism in Judaism has come a very long way in the past 50 years, and I don’t want the dying relics of a near gone generation to stain the popular opinion of people who just want to live and let live. Good fight, and good night.
I can’t be racist! I have black friends!
So they don’t respect men? Men can be photographed, right? Why the difference in treatment?
Well, looks more like they just want to live, let live, and edit women out of pictures.
one other thing, beheading was never a part of judaism, and the last “halakhic” stoning happened during roman rule. this is an ancient and modernized faith’s dying breed, as has been established.
Thanks for clearing that up that does lend some context which makes it slightly less objectionable.
Some Jewish men don’t allow themselves to be photographed
I see the point people are making here about the sexism. The problem is though there is no solid mainstream view on it within the faith except under each individual rabbinical authority. Some ok pictures of women when they are ok with it. Some don’t. I am merely trying to point out it had nothing to do with her being a woman in power as has been alleged by the, this will sound sexist of me, attractive publisher of this blog and her subsequent writing skills.
Holy fuck, are you being deliberately dense? Do you not understand the concept of hypothetical comparisons?
Exactly. It doesn’t matter if every single person who works at this paper voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary. Hiding women to protect them from naughty thoughts is not respectful. It’s the same thought process that hides women under niqabs or tells them they can’t leave the house without a man. It’s sexist and it’s demeaning.
So, no particular reason for the difference in treatment.
Not allowing yourself to be photographed is completely different than removing someone who was voluntarily photographed.Was it not about women in power when a Hasidic newspaper replaced female members of the Israeli cabinet with men?
I am intolerant of this paper’s sexism and your idiocy.
I repeat: what anti-semitism?
word. there’s a world of difference between opposing the backward, sexist, and humiliating aspects of hasidism and being anti-semitic.
That wasn’t the only Photoshopping going on. This one will raise the fur on your back!http://www.slate.com/id/229323…
Not photographing women is out of respect for women? I’d love to hear the explanation for this.
Calling the writer of this blog attractive is the least of your sounding sexist worries, dude.
Yes, I’m pretty sure he is being sarcastic.
That’s what the Conservatives normally do to Hillary. If you search her name on Google, much more nasty photoshopped pictures come up than for Obama or other male political leaders. I think that is an example of sexism in politics.
The good thing perhaps is that this example of sexism was widely reported instead of ignored.
Oy, veh iz mir…
The Hebrew didn’t tip you off?
I come from Jewish background ( thank god I’m an atheist now) and I can attest the horrible sexism in Judaism. I was forced to go to a Jewish faith school where we had a class called ” family life”. You can imagine what we were taught there.
The Hasidim are among the worst. But there are an astounding number of so-called “ultra-orthodox” groups who are just, to use a word, God-awful. It gets a lot better among the less fundamentalist groups, but various levels of sexism are still endemic among everyone short of the Reconstructionists. It’s hard to find a non-sexist society.