For those of you who have seem my talk on the intersection of atheism and feminism, one of my key points is that religion doesn’t necessarily create sexist ideas, but it does make them untouchable. We unfortunately live in a society where criticizing religious belief is viewed with contempt. We can’t question something because it’s protected by the bubble of “Respect my beliefs!” And then you get bad ideas – sexism, racism, homophobia, incorrect science – piggybacking on the theology and persisting through time.
My previous post is a perfect example of this. A Hasidic Jewish newspaper photoshopped Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director for Counterterrorism Audrey Tomason – the only women – out of the White House Situation Room in what is now an iconic photo. I didn’t comment much on my previous post because I was busy at work. But I need to say more now that the newspaper has responded to the widespread fury over their photoshopping:
The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel.
Except that you are denigrating women, soooooo… yeah, not 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.
Except that you do discrimination based on gender, since that’s kind of what you did. Not that hard to wrap your head around. You do not post photos of women. You happily post photos of men. Discrimination.
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.
In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status.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.
Except it does relegate them to lower status, because your religion is saying the mere existence of women is somehow immodest. You’re not giving an impression – you are being disparaging to women. You have a special rule that women can’t be seen and men can. That is sexist, no matter how much you scream “We’re not sexist!”
And people complain about Islamic extremists who keep their women covered in burkas? At least they can be seen covered up. Heaven forbid if a man knows women actually exist in the world!
Sometimes I think men should be the ones getting most upset about these ridiculous “modesty” laws you see in almost all religions to some extent. They’re all based on the idea that men are brutish pigs who can’t control themselves and will fall to sin and temptation at the mere idea of something with a vagina being in a ten mile radius of them. Isn’t it convenient how the solution to that problem is the oppression of women, and not self control and accountability of the men?
Commenter Chris Lawson had an additional good point that needs to be made:
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.
Exactly. This isn’t just about women not being able to be seen. What they’ve done is rewritten history to remove these women entirely.
Hasidic Judaism is an extremist sect, and obviously not all Jews or all religious people agree with these sort of actions. But this sort of defense of sexism in the name of religion is seen over and over again, and is why it’s so important that we speak out. You certainly have the right to practice your religious belief – but I also have the right to say you’re wrong and your actions are harmful.
thank you. great post. and I completely agree.
What I want to know is this: Remember that controversy a few years (or months?) ago over that magazine that altered a picture of Obama so that his swimming shorts were a different colour (Black to red, I think) so that it would look more aesthetically pleasing on the cover? That’s when I found out, along with many others I’m sure, that it is illegal to alter a photograph released by the white house in ANY fashion. So…. Where’s the charges and chastising for this, because I believe that photo was originally white house released.
Right on the money. I might understand a Hasidic newspaper’s objection if Clinton and Tomason were in bikinis shooting whipped cream at each other, but their defenses are pathetically transparent. And yes, I, for one, am a dude who is offended by this kind of crap. It doesn’t just denigrate women (although they certainly bear the brunt of it), it denigrates men as well.
I had pretty much the exact same “except that you are” and “except that you do” responses to their rather ludicrous claims.And I also felt that the reference to “malicious slander and libel” kind of jumped out. Just that blatant righteous indignation that seems to be the default response whenever you are actually called on your sexist or otherwise discriminatory activities.
I’ve come to the same conclusion independently. Experience has shown that some of my neurons live outside of my cock, and I’ve so far been able to interact with women normally, without raping them or even necessarily wanting to have sex with them.But, you know, maybe I’m just not manly enough.
“We can’t question something because it’s protected by the bubble of “Respect my beliefs!” And then you get bad ideas – sexism, racism, homophobia, incorrect science – piggybacking on the theology and persisting through time.”Think I’m starting “quote of the day” with this one. The Jewish Orthodox newspaper can show how sorry they really are, by printing the picture with both women restored.
Yup it is this strange confluence of “women are naturally evil and temptations” combined with “men can’t resist them because they are inherently weak against women.” It is idiotic. The one part that gets me is this sort of thing is no different than how muslim women are supposed to cover up, it’s the same basic idea in a different form.Cover them up, banish seeing them, treat them as objects that are like weapons that can damage your ability to get into heaven. It’s all the same basic idea really that women are not humans, but something else meant to be controlled lest their powers damage men. Really weird thinking.
This is Jen at her best!
I love how clearly you express what I’m thinking. Thank you!
This whole “we are offended that you called us on our bigotry” nonsense is becoming too damn common from the monotheists.
Hassidism is indeed sexist. The boys and girls go to separate schools, but they learn essentially the same material until about 8th grade (bar mitzvah time). After that, the boys are expected to become studious about the Torah and the girls are expected to become studious about being good wives, and mothers later in life. The women are allowed to read ditzy fiction, not non-fiction. The men don’t read anything but the religious texts, but I guess they read newspapers. It’s okay for women to fill their heads with junk because that’s what was already in there to begin with. (I used to be a librarian in Crown Heights, Brooklyn). Except for the modern conveniences, they’re a lot like the Amish, I think.
Oh look, a woman. I must immediately destroy civilization in an attempt to get me some of that.I agree with you completely and shake my head in disappointment.
Hear hear! I’ve been saying the same thing for years. It’s amazing just how much misandry and misogyny can be wrapped up in a single religious sentiment.
you know, I can’t help but think of this…had Hillary Clinton WON the presidential race, and there was a photo of the iconic situation room, the photo of the official release that Bin Laden was dead…their paper would have implied, falsely and harmfully to those who did not read other newspapers (such as the religious types who avoid secular news and entertainment sources…and there’s a lot of them) that the PRESIDENT, the very same President who gave the go-ahead to take him out, was not in the situation room where they officially learned of Bin Laden’s death…for all that photo would show is the president was off playing golf (oh wait this is the female president option…so…what? knitting? doing the secret service’s laundry? flower arranging?) never mind that according to their photographs, the female president would never appear to actually be doing anything at all, or even present where they’re officially expected, nay! required! to be. we live in an age of photographs, of video, of visual representation. we’re very much a SHOW ME culture. to remove all visual signs that they were there, leaves viable doubt that they were actually there, regardless of what the caption under the photo says. there’s plenty of photoshopped garbage out there showing Kerry sitting next to, behind, in front of, jane fonda at an anti war rally, there’s tons of badly photoshopped pics of Obama failing to cover his heart durring the pledge, etc…there’s even tons of photoshopped heads of Palin on bikini girls…and regardless of how often it’s proven they’re BS, people STILL believe them, and post them saying “SEE! SEE! I TOLD YOU!” because we STILL believe what we see more than what we’re told.
A friend of mine is a photojournalist, and we’ve had some interesting discussions about the limits of ethical alteration: sometimes it’s okay to crop a photo, sometimes it’s not. It’s usually okay to adjust the color balance, but sometimes it’s not. It’s never okay to rearrange objects (say, a basketball going into the hoop) to show something that happened but that you didn’t manage to get a good picture of.So yeah, removing people is beyond the pale.
As a purely arbitrary subjective preference, I think Obama was the most attractive person in the original picture. Where do I send my letter complaining about how immodest it is to show pictures of men in the newspaper?
Uh, slight side track, but did you mean to imply that all fiction is “ditzy” and lesser than nonfiction? Because I tend to think stuff like “Frankenstein” is hella important and even current pop fiction offers interesting things to think about. Indeed, I think there’s quite a link between the disparagement of “genre” fiction and misogyny.
From the page that Jen linked to, above:News Report1281 49th StreetBrooklyn, NY 11219t: 718-851-6607f: 718-854-5282mail@ditzeitung.com
While pointing out such dickery is very important, it really always makes me think of the privileging of certain cultural practices even by blogs such as this one. Case in point, where is the outrage that women’s nipples must be blurred out while men’s can be displayed on TV or the street? I can only deduce that it is due to it being a cultural rather than religiously based norm that no one calls such misogyny out. Not good ratings without the religious controversy, maybe?
Yes, because a single blog post must call out every single example of sexism ever, and I have never ever talked about sexism that wasn’t related to religion….
Jen, thank you for saying this. I honestly don’t understand how, in this day and age, people could do things like this and still see no problem with it.I must say in fairness, however, I’d actually have less of a problem with this if they’d come out and said “well, our religion is misogynistic, therefore we remove women from pictures” instead of giving a dishonest and illogical reply. It’d still be repugnant, but at least they’d have been forthright about what they believed (and we could have had a debate about it and eviscerated the ideas there). It also wouldn’t have been news, because the misogyny of the Abrahamic religions is an indisputable fact.Instead, we have this completely gratuitous exhibition of foot-in-mouth syndrome.
They learn totally different material from preschool age. Ultra-orthodox women (and girls) aren’t allowed to learn Mishna or Talmud, which are pretty much the core texts.
There’s a complete cognitive dissonance in Orthodox Judaism about women. Despite the hugely different expectations of and opportunities for men and women, it’s not sexism, it’s “different but equal”. Except that it isn’t, obviously.Relevant to the original topic is this 100-year-old photo of Orthodox Jews at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem: http://womenofthewall.org.il/w… –not only are the women in the photo (OK they couldn’t have been shopped out, but they could have been cropped) but they’re praying in the same space as men! Very immodest. Tsk. Ultra-orthodox Judaism thinks it’s the traditional way but it’s not really true. Anyway, this is what you get from a Jewish atheist if you bring up this kind of topic. ;)
I agree that it is contemptible to criticize other people’s beliefs. What is fair game in my book is other people’s behavior. Believing it is immodest to print images of women is totally fine with me. It only becomes a problem if you then act on that belief in a manner that infringes upon the rights of some person. Of course it gets murkier when considering privileges, but I pretty much regard that as very bad behavior too. Speech is a particularly important type of behavior to consider. I hope we’re all on the same page in recognizing that it is impossible to deprive some person of their rights simply because of the beliefs someone else expresses in speech.
Thank you for the new catch phrase.
Actually is was Biden who brought out the whipped cream until Obama told him it was inappropriate.
Some male posters hit upon this, but it bears noting: the practice you’re railing against isn’t sexist against women; it’s a denigration of all individuals based on gender alone. Women’s presence represents immodesty; men can’t control their animalistic urges. Women can be leaders, but if men are aware of that fact they’ll draw their passion and energy away from God and lust after them. As a someone trained in close reading of halacha and torah, there’s something I’ve been toying with…The ludicrous nature of altering a photo to be in line with halacha (biblical and rabbinical law regarding conduct). Altering a photo could be equivalent to creating a graven image (as opposed to an accurate photo, which would be a true likeness). Boom! Law broken! It could also be construed as bearing false witness (in regards to who was actually present). Boom! Law broken!Let’s see if that goes anywhere, though…
I wonder do they also photoshop out the pictures of Golda Meir? She was the prime minister of Israel, and the third woman PM in the world.
Agreed, but mayhaps “ditzy” was meant as a distinguishing adjective rather than a redundant adjective.
Or, as one guy in a comment thread at Greta Christina’s blog said, “we are not gender self-aware males”.
The Thtupid part of this is: Clinton (and the aide) could have EASILY been simply cropped out of the picture . But NOOoooooo.Or, and here’s a thought, they didn’t have to use the picture AT ALL. Instead of distorting reality with Adobioid software magic.There is no amount of abuse that is excessive for these assholes.
Just fyi – as stated in the article – the other woman isn’t an “aide” she is the Director for Counterterrorism.
I was trying to reply to Anna, above, but it doesn’t seem to be working properly (or I’ll have several half finished replies showing up, in which case I apologise, and please remove them…) Where I live (Ontario) women can go topless. It’s one of those horrible rulings where the correct decision was made, for all the wrong reasons (like simplifying the fraction 16/64ths by crossing out the 6s – right answer, completely wrong method). But the correct decision was made, so it’s hard to complain – less discrimination is good.Unfortunately, the ruling would pretty much allow the type of discrimination that the religious would like (as in this censoring of a photo). One judge commented regarding the baring of a woman’s breasts in public, that
It’s a little frustrating to have a liberal enough society that we see discriminatory laws being challenged successfully (yay!), but to have the judges essentially saying that we can’t offend people (wtf?) and that we must limit our actions, even when they are legal, to avoid offending other’s religions. I fail to see how it has anything to do with freedom of religion – being constrained by the religious beliefs of another is precisely the opposite of freedom of religion.
All this modesty and religious morality (as long as “do what I say or burn” can be considered morality) is nothing but a form of control. Takes away people’s control of their own lives.You have to be from another planet to think erasing women is a good way to respect them.
lol!
I believe that it is quite alright to criticize other another’s beliefs. By your standards, you are unable to criticize me about this, even though you disagree. Mwahaha, checkmate.
Good point, what an strange world to live in, where half the population is invisible. @5857be51f4109682ee9f8192212d552a:disqus mentioned what if Hilary was president! Pictures of empty podiums, insane. By not mentioning it, or indicating the airbrushing, they are perpetuating the idea that women have no place in the visible world. All behind the veil of tolerance.
I live in an area that has a major proportion of ultra orthodox jews. The women usually show less skin than Muslim women in head scarfs. Slacks/pants are not worn and the married women wear opaque stockings, past the knee skirts and either wigs or scarves. The women exist only to have children, Kiryas Joel http://nyti.ms/kwWfeI http://cbsloc.al/kY9pWE has the highest poverty rate in the US from the last census. The men exist only to study and tremble before god.
Thank you for taking a moment at the end to acknowledge that Hasidic Judaism is an extremist sect. I’m a Reform Jew, and I think the Ultra-Orthadox (Hasidic) are nuts. They’re ridiculous. So please don’t assume we’re all like that. Most modern Jews are embarrassed to be associated with them in any way (myself included).
Thought you were a Jedi? More like a Jewdi!Sorry… I cannot resist bad puns…When Hilary Clinton inflames your passions then you need to stay away from the internet. God knows what you can stumble on. It would probably make their pants explode or something….
I wonder if the Hasidim also describe theirs as “a religion of peace”.
Really? Beliefs should be immune to criticism? So if someone expresses the belief that “all blacks are criminals” it is contemptible to criticize that idea unless they take action based on that belief?Religious beliefs should not be immune to criticism any more than any other belief. Criticizing a belief is not the same thing as stifling it, it does not affect the person’s ability to hold those beliefs when they are criticized.Religious people (and you) seem to conflate criticism and censorship, they are two different things. Censorship is when you block someone from expressing those beliefs, or punish them for holding or expressing those beliefs. Criticism is simply pointing out the flaws in a belief, this does not actually affect the ability of one to hold or express those beliefs, and does not punish them for holding or expressing them. It just points out to them that they are wrong.
I don’t think anyone describes their religion as one of peace. Even when they are actually out there shooting people for disagreeing with their idea of peace.
How incredibly pathetic. “Don’t you dare draw attention to our sexism! That’s antisemitic of you!” This is the perfect example of why “you must respect my beliefs because they’re HOLY beliefs” is stupid and dangerous tyranny. We should respect other people’s rights to hold their beliefs – we do NOT have to respect the beliefs themselves. And we absolutely should not respect beliefs that are stupid, hateful and backward, however “holy” they might be.
bah, like thats an important position or something…(/sarcasm)
This kind of practice is getting worse, while you wouldn’t find Victoria secret’s adds in this kind of paper a picture of a female public official as part of a news article would have been a non issue 20 years ago.
As Sam Harris has pointed out, the problem with religious tolerance is that it has given shelter to religious extremists of all stripes.
My bad.–umm, technically, she’s aiding the whole country, just like everybody in the room. yeah, that’s the ticket…
I really really REALLY REALLY want someone to take that same photo now and photoshop out all the men, leaving just the two women. Please please please!
Oh please. Do you read this blog?
Wow Patrick. How did censorship get linked to my statement? See David’s post for an example of someone who obviously understands enough logic to reach a reasonable conclusion. Support for crusades to denigrate other people’s beliefs is an essential element in much of the suffering in the world from the past and into the present. A completely fatal flaw to such an attitude is that it presupposes that the beliefs of the person doing the criticizing are in some fashion “better”, “superior”, and even (most outrageously) “right” while the criticized person’s beliefs are “worse”, “inferior”, and “wrong”. Such fundamental disrespect to a person’s humanity and integrity from another makes it impossible to achieve peace and equality. If you want the world to become a better place, leave the contents of other people’s minds alone and attend strictly to your own. Social justice can only be established on the basis of behavior.
Not to minimize the sexist aspects of that newspaper’s practices & the religious beliefs behind them, but to me there is another important message here: the sheer stupidity of it. Religion often makes people do outrageously, profoundly, appallingly stupid things.
I actually am offended as a male. These fucked up attitudes remind me of how they treated rape in the middle ages; they always said it was the women’s fault. Some people still think it’s the woman’s fault for dressing provocatively, as if men are all rapists that need insulated from any hint of human sexuality.I hate it when religions have different rules for men and women, but pretend that this doesn’t promote inequality. “Separate but equal” has never quite worked out, has it?
Well that’s what happens when you start trying to make rules about how evil you are for having basic human emotions. “Oh god, I can’t stop getting turned on when I see hot women, even though the bible says this is bad!” You have three options: blame your religion, blame yourself, blame the women. The first one will send you to “hell,” the second one involves some self-control and taking responsibility for your actions (yuck!) and then third one doesn’t require anything except the ability to be jaw-droppingly judgmental. There’s a no brainer!
I’m not sexist! I have friends who are women!
I think you’re completely misinterpreting their intentions. Now, the Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox) *are* sexist, to be sure. But in this case, sexism has nothing to do with it. They really are just saying that they don’t want women to have their pictures in public, for the sake of their male readership. In fact, their assumption is that men cannot control themselves in the presence of women, but that women *can* control themselves in the presence of men, which is why they are not concerned about their female readership seeing pictures of men. I’d hardly call that sexism.In short: they are censoring Hillary out of the picture the same way the Washington Post would not print a picture of a naked woman. For a Haredi, a woman – any woman – dressed in any way, is practically naked. But the basic paradigm is the same. Have you seen Weird Al’s “Amish Paradise” video, where the two Amish books are looking at porn in which a woman shows her shin? The Haredi Jews are like that. It has nothing to do with sexism in the “women are inferior” sense. It’s more, “men are pathetic and will get sexual arousal from any little bit of bare skin”.Furthermore, it’s worth noting that in the Haredi world, it is women who are the breadwinners, not the men.Now, the Haredim *do* have many problems, and I could spend hours telling you all about their problems. But in this case, their problem is not sexism. I’d say the problem here is more of a monastic asceticism and Freudian sexual repression, than anything sexist.
RE: Avicenna’s saying, “I don’t think anyone describes their religion as one of peace. ” John Locke (who was an Arminian Christian), “A Letter Concerning Toleration”: “I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.”Samuel Adams (who was an orthodox Calvinist), “The Rights of the Colonists”: “In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society.”Anyway, as for myself, I as an Orthodox Jew would agree with the following pastiche of passages I composed from Rose Wilder Lane’s The Discovery of Freedom (http://blog.mises.org/6830/ros… ): Abraham “had taught his increasing family that men are free.” (p. 73) “Abraham said that none of these gods exist. He said that God is the One Creator-and-Judge. God is The Right, he said; Rightness creates the universe and judge’s men acts. (As water judge’s a swimmer’s rightness in swimming, God judges rightness in living.) But God does not control any man, Abraham said; a man controls himself, he is free to do good or evil in the sight of God.” (p. 74) “When you think of the pagan world as it was in the historical time when only the Israelites held this truth, you see their preserving it as the great achievement of all history.” (p. 75) “They were a very small group, surrounded by powerful pagan empires; Egypt in the south, Armenia, Persia, Chaldea, Babylonia, Assyria, in the north and east, and in the west, Rome. The most promising young Israelites were always falling in love with pagan girls. The pagan achievements awed them all. When you see the incredible walls of Baalbek or Tadmor, in ruins as they are now, and even with the memory of New York’s towers behind your eyelids, you are struck dumb. The simple Israelites who saw these gigantic cities in their magnificence, dwarfing their thronging populations, must have been stunned. They would have melted humbly into those pagan multitudes, if their strong men had not stood in the way and driven them back with threats, telling them that they were like no other people, that they were set apart, chosen to know the truth and hold to it. They wanted to be ‘like all the other nations.’ But to be like any other people, they must forget that men are free. That is the truth they held. Therefore, of course, they were anarchists. They lived and prospered for centuries, with no government whatsoever.” (pp. 77f.) In other words: Biblical Israel was to be basically a libertarian paradise, with everyone sitting under his own vine and fig tree, with none to make him afraid. I’ll reckon that that’s a lot closer to peace than anything anyone else has come up with.
Indeed! Exactly right!I’ll add that Judeo-Spanish Sephardi Jews in Turkey would sit around singing Medieval Spanish-language love ballads. Rabbi Dr. Marc D. Angel’s Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality: The Inner Life of Jews of the Ottoman Empire, on page 125, says : “Although there were religious pietists who objected to singing love songs, the romances were very popular throughout all strata of Sephardic society. Men and women often sang these songs together. It was not unusual for women to sing solo parts in the presence of men. People participated in the singing and enjoyed the songs in a natural, easygoing way.”Professor Menahem Friedman of Bar-Ilan University also has some articles about how Haredi Judaism distorts history regarding women, lying to people and telling them that traditionally, the woman would be the breadwinner and dream of marrying a man who would learn all day, when nothing remotely similar to that was the case in Eastern Europe.
I’m pretty sure it is sexist. Implying that men are base animals who can’t control themselves is offensive and sexist. Not quite on the same scale as erasing women so they don’t exist, but definitely also sexist. I’m quite sure they have other problems as well, but just *saying* they aren’t sexist when their actions clearly demonstrate otherwise doesn’t make it true.
This type of thinking also implies that women don’t want sex, because in their view women think sex is just something we do as a duty to our husbands or whatever.
Exactly, sort of a declaration that all males are potential criminals just waiting for the opportunity……..http://blogs.alternet.org/thebreeze/2…
It’s funny how you say “it’s not sexism” and then you write a great explanation of why it’s sexist.
On the other hand, the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) women DO learn Tanakh (Bible), which actually gives them a more rounded, open-minded worldview. In a strange, unintentional way, the women are actually almost better off than the men.
On the other hand, the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) women DO learn Tanakh (Bible), which actually gives them a relatively open-minded, rounded worldview, compared the men. In a strange way, the women are perhaps better off than the men.
On the other hand, the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) women DO learn Tanakh (Bible), which actually gives them a relatively open-minded, rounded worldview, compared the men.
It’s not sexism. It’s monasticism and asceticism. They censor women for the same reason they don’t let pudding companies put pictures of dinosaurs on their food containers. (I’m not kidding. They were afraid that children might be misled into believing dinosaurs actually existed, so they said they wouldn’t certify the pudding as kosher unless the pictures were removed.)
I saw a newspaper article yesterday that said that the whitehouse is protesting the change in the photo because of exactly the rule you suggest.
Yeah, I’ve been reading in the Onion about all of Biden’s wild antics. For example: http://www.theonion.com/articl…http://www.theonion.com/articl…
If Hillary was president, that newspaper would just never print a picture of the president again as long as she was in office.
Jen makes good points, not only about religion trying to make them immune from criticism but also about how the ban on woman’s pictures paints men as brutes and then punishes women for it. All around poor showing for this hard core conservative Jewish paper.
“They censor women” Therefore, it’s sexist. Case closed. I don’t care if it’s sexist because they are this or because they are that. What matters is what they do. And they censor women.
Feministe’s got you covered: http://www.feministe.us/blog/a…
“But in this case, sexism has nothing to do with it. They really are just saying that they don’t want women to have their pictures in public, for the sake of their male readership. In fact, their assumption is that men cannot control themselves in the presence of women, but that women *can* control themselves in the presence of men, which is why they are not concerned about their female readership seeing pictures of men. “You honestly can’t see that *is* sexist?”It has nothing to do with sexism in the “women are inferior” sense. It’s more, “men are pathetic and will get sexual arousal from any little bit of bare skin”.”That is also sexist.”Furthermore, it’s worth noting that in the Haredi world, it is women who are the breadwinners, not the men.”Also sexist.
“They were afraid that children might be misled into believing dinosaurs actually existed,”And now they are afraid that their readership might be led into believing that women actually exist.
Also, they need better Photoshoppers. The photo after Ms. Clinton was ‘shopped out looked like the guy sitting behind her was kind of deformed in the shoulder area. Which indeed he might be, I wouldn’t know,but I suspect not.
“I’m not racist!”, says the shop owner. “Blacks just can’t shop here because the white customers might not be able to control themselves and I don’t want a lynching in my store.” Michael, you can call it whatever you want. The action is what makes it sexist. It doesn’t matter what the motivation is. Motivation doesn’t magically make it right.
I didn’t say it makes it right. I specifically said they have a problem of monastic asceticism. But a problem of monastic asceticism, is not the same as a problem of sexism. Not all problems are the same, and the fact that there is a problem, does not excuse a wrong diagnosis.
So censoring women means you hate women, eh? I guess censoring exposed breasts or penises in the Washington Post (to make a hypothetical example) would make the Post’s editors be opposed to genitalia?
Straw man, you very well know not showing exposed genitalia is nowhere near the same thing as photoshopping out women of events they were involved in to prevent showing them.
You can label it how you like, but at the end of the day it is still the same kind of behavior. The act is sexist, the root cause may be what you say but the act is the act.
after recently taking a class about the crusades, I learned that, after some research, the Muslim tradition of religious law basically says that men are weak and cannot stop themselves from being incredibly horny whenever they look at a woman, so they should be covered up and “hidden” so that the men will not stray from their moral path. It is not because they discriminate against women (yes, there are certain jobs women cant have in the Muslim world) but because they hold their women on pedestals as high value in society. When the ban on burqas was placed, a lot of women felt “naked” (if you will) with out them and/or saw it as an identifier of them and continued to wear them and still choose to. So, don’t go saying that because they cover up their women they are being sexist and that religion almost encourages sexism. Because clearly, it doesn’t.
a) The ‘we repress women’s rights out of respect, for protection, to preserve their dignity, etc.’ thing has already been ripped to shreds in this thread and the last one.b) Even if you ignore all that shreddedness and continue to use this ‘they do this to women because of how awful men are’ trope, that’s still sexism. Sexism against men is still sexism.
So wait. If some women buy into a notion, that makes it necessarily not sexist? Nope. Some women still think (consciously or not) that their periods make them unclean in some way. Some women have internalized the notion that rape is the fault of the victim. Tons of examples here…And sexism is not limited to men subjugating women. The idea that men can’t control themselves in the presence of a fully clothed woman is profoundly sexist. And justifying it by saying “well, it’s just because we hold women in such high regard” is BS. They absolutely do not. They seem to believe that because men are such weak willed creatures (sexist and insulting… and also convenient), that women have to DO something about it, to change themselves or hide themselves or DIMINISH themselves, lest they corrupt men by their very existence, or lest they become the victim of the uncontrollable lust of men. If the latter happens, of course, it will be her fault and even worse things can happen to her. Absolute BS.
pir8gurl said after recently taking a class about the crusades, I learned that, after some research, the Muslim tradition of religious law basically says that men are weak and cannot stop themselves from being incredibly horny whenever they look at a woman, so they should be covered up and “hidden” so that the men will not stray from their moral path. It is not because they discriminate against women (yes, there are certain jobs women cant have in the Muslim world) but because they hold their women on pedestals as high value in society. When the ban on burqas was placed, a lot of women felt “naked” (if you will) with out them and/or saw it as an identifier of them and continued to wear them and still choose to. So, don’t go saying that because they cover up their women they are being sexist and that religion almost encourages sexism. Because clearly, it doesn’t.By the same logic , if my village is infected with thieves, the authorities should put the innocents in jail to prevent them from being looted by thieves !
“Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me as a woman.”When I was a good Orthodox Jewish boy as a kid, this was one of the prayers I said every morning. How can these people insist that Judaism is not sexist?
Shackling a woman to the top of a pedastal is still discriminatory and sexist. It’s meant to be a gilded cage that keeps them from thinking about why they are where they are.
“Hasidic Judaism is an extremist sect, and obviously not all Jews or all religious people agree with these sort of actions.”Quoting Sam Harris, “It’s not the fundamentalist that is the problem, but the fundamental of the religion that is the problem” All Jews use the same book, just some are more hard core than others. Or to put it another way, you never see Jews, of any stripe, spearing peaches with hair brushes, according to their scriptures, because that text does not appear in them.
I agree that religion protects and fosters gender-biased culture. But Hillary does not represent a liberated woman but a very corrupt one.