Eating your cake and having it
Nope. No can do. Will not fly.
Brooklyn-based Hasidic newspaper Der Zeitung has apologized for publishing an iconic photograph of President Obama and his national security team with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security team member Audrey Tomason photoshopped out…
Der Zeitung addressed what it cast as “allegations” that the women had been removed from the photograph because “religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office,” calling such suggestions “malicious slander and libel.”
The newspaper offered kind words for Clinton and said it respects all government officials, but that religious considerations prevent it from showing images of women.
That’s the thing you can’t do – the thing that won’t fly. You can’t treat women as so special and different that pictures of them in news media have to be faked out of existence, and claim that you don’t denigrate women and you do respect them and that to say otherwise is malicious slander and libel.
You think you can, because you deployed the magic phrase “religious considerations,” but you’re wrong. You can’t. Fraudulently altering an official government photograph that shows the Secretary of State present at an event of great importance to the State Department, in such a way that she is not there at all, is not consistent with respecting women and not denigrating them.
“In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status,” Der Zeitung said. “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.”
Not accepted. Worthless. Fundamentally insulting. Fuck your rabbinical board. You don’t get to delete women from history, and pretending to apologize after doing it doesn’t salvage anything.
I’m reminded of how we in the US use to literally white wash depictions of non white athletes in promotional posters and the like.
Scary to think that just went on in my backyard.
Its sad to see the orthodox Jews slowly ruining my notions of Judaism as being ‘not one of the bad religions’.
Do these guys live in caves, wear skins and drag clubs around? It is a wonder the newspaper isn’t printed on animal hides using charcoal mixed with pine resin and spit.
Why show the picture at all?
Sili is right. These men may believe that they are such slaves to their own appetites that they cannot look at a photo of the secretary of state without causing offense to their imaginary friend, but I very much doubt that they are commanded to publish pictures of men.
here’s my response to that… if you believe your religion forbids you to have pictures of women, than do not publish even pictures of men. Have the newspaper fully text only. (after all, isn’t there a commandment against likenesses of anything in heaven or earth, ANYWAY? But I’m not an expert on that.)
Orthodox Jewish men also refuse to shake hands with women because they might be on their periods or for some other crazy ass reason. If they truly believe that, then they should not shake hands with MEN either. Have it be fair. If your deity disallows something for one class of humans, but not another, it is not a sin for you to also not do it for the other, in order to be fair. In fact, it is far more moral than your god, and you can do it without getting him angry.
The fact that these religionists do not take that option, proves that they really do hate women, and are using their god as an excuse to be obvious about it.
But hey, it is because us men can’t see a photograph of a woman without getting all frisky in the groinal region. It isn’t at all hatred of women, it is hatred of women AND men, in a ridiculously sexually neurotic sort of way. Just ignore that the answer is to delete women from existence, nothing to see here… literally! Not once we get done with Photoshop!
Honestly, they claim it is because of the stirrings in the groinal region, but I seriously doubt that’s the REAL reason. The real reason is they want to maintain control of their daughters completely. Teaching them only a language which is foreign to the nation they live in. Filtering all their news through religious minders, and even removing PICTURES of what women could be in the rest of society. If little girls in that community could see the undoctored photo… they would learn something about wider US society the religionists don’t want them to ever know. Their little girls might get ideas that their minds could be valued and respected or something horrible like that.
Just the rationalization. Obviously, the practice is related to an understanding that women should not be seen as projecting individual agency. Of course, in this instance, they knew they would be called on it and looked forward to claiming that there’s a huge difference between denigrating women and religiously denigrating women.
Is that really the stated reason? No pics of women because women=sex? I know it’s not the real reason, but I haven’t even seen it claimed as the save-face reason.
The Colbert Report skewered this really nicely last night.
In accordance with my beliefs, I just want to take all of your beliefs, squeeze it into a pulp and shove it up your backside all the way through, but it should not be inferred that I don’t respect your beliefs. Putting stuff inside the human body is a strenuous task and is guided by a sound knowledge of Gray’s Anatomy. Because of the intricacy of the procedure, you might endure agonizing pain (as well as excruciating ecstasy) and I regret if that description already gives you mental enema, which is not my intention (actually it is just a little). I apologize if I sound rude, obnoxious and strident.
Uh huh, sure. You expect them to go on: “But, of course, everyone knows that women are unclean.”
Fuck every religion. Srsly.
They have a way to treat women as inferior to men, and, what’s worse, society lets them!
I’m prepared to believe that many of them don’t actually think women are inferior, in this day and age (I have no way of knowing, really), but they are in thrall to a belief system created by men who did think that. And I missed the book of the Old Testament which bans photos of women but approves of faking with Photoshop – the Book of Adobe, I suppose. It’s a nauseating photograph.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the rabbinic council that women could be aroused to lust by looking at pictures of men, or perhaps it has but they just don’t care.
There is another reason why they shouldn’t be publishing photographs: the prohibition against graven images. You are not supposed to represent any form existing in nature, visually. This is the same reason so much Islamic art is geometric and abstract.
One way around it would be to represent items that don’t actually exist as a famous Haggadah did. All the figures have human bodies and bird’s heads. Perhaps Die Zeitung could photoshop animal heads on all the figures in the room.
I still don’t know that it’s a lust thing though. Is it? Do we know that? Do we know it’s not just “god sez no women in the temple no women anywhere important stuff iz going on”?
That’s my interpretation of the “laws of modesty,” in part based on the provided link that says this:
Also, something else I’ve read on the issue here:
So maybe it is just a less-than-generous interpretation on my part, but the idea that men cannot be fair to women based on how they look certainly suggests a sexual element to me. I can’t imagine that long hair and earrings, or shirts that button on the opposite side of men’s shirts are what they are afraid of people looking at.
“I still don’t know that it’s a lust thing though. Is it?”
The editors of Der Tzitung said in their comment to the Washington Post:
“…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…”
So there it is–the unbendable Laws of Modesty. Rabbi Jason Miller notes in The Jewish Week, “The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of women in the newspaper because it could be considered sexually suggestive….To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g’neivat da’at (deceit)”.
Out of the fryin’ pan, and into the fire…
To which hot mess, I would only append my friend
Daz’ comment:
“Does any one else see a parallel here with ‘Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust’?”
They could have run an outline, with a little tag saying Hilary Clinton- but I suppose even a whited-out silhouette might have started the boys’ knees shakin’
Right on Ophelia!
Putting aside the sexist bullshit about not printing her picture, if they cared at all they could have at least printed a note below the picture saying “Sec of State Hillary Clinton was also present, but we cannot print her picture because blah blah…” The fact that they don’t do that proves the real point is not about the image, it’s to keep on pretending women can’t do anything important, and to make sure everybody in the community thinks so. Don’t want any uppity b-ches getting ideas…
Even easier would have been to zoom in on the President’s face and publish just that, with a caption stating that it was a detail of a larger photo. (“Detail of Situation Room photo, courtesy of White House Flickr Photostream”) Details of photos are published all the time, and labeled as such. But you’re right, Anna, that they didn’t do something that simple–and specifically that they didn’t direct readers to the actual photo– suggests that they’re in the business of keeping women behind the iron curtain of the Law.
But they’re unpersons, so they can’t be denigrated. Genius!
#16,
They said they don’t publish women because of ‘laws of modesty’.
Apparently, Clinton is not modest enough for them. Should be wearing a veil or a wig or something. They judge women and decide for them. Clinton thought it was appropiate for her to be in that picture (otherwise, the White House wouldn’t have released it). And then they decided it wasn’t. So they replaced her decision with theirs. In practical terms, they silenced her and decided for her. That’s not respectful.
I had the same reaction.
At first, I assumed some repressive climate was responsible but to realize that this was happening in Brooklyn was extremely jarring. We still have a lot of work to do here at home.
I could have sworn I posted a clarification of my earlier claim of “pictures of chicks make Hasidic Jews too hot in the trousers to think straight.” It is in the statement “apologizing” where they claim that they can’t show women because they want to judge women on something other than their looks, leading me to believe that they are saying that the appearance of a woman makes Jewish men automatically dismiss them. Might not be based in lust, but it sure as hell is sexist as all hell.
I think Norman Geras put it well in http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/05/picture-her.html
Where is this statement, Joe?
Thanks Amy (# 17).
Who’s we? Who’s “we,” bub?
The whole moronic thing simply takes for granted that “we” are always always men and that therefore women=sexual excitement. Apparently women don’t even have access to newspapers in his world. Women are always objects and only men are ever subjects. What men see and think and react to is what counts, and women are just acted on.
What would these morons be doing if Clinton had actually won the election? Would they be publishing pictures with the president photoshopped out?
Do they photoshop out Angela Merkel?
Ophelia Benson (#26)
Stephen Colbert brought that up, with even more relevance, by mentioning that readers of Der Zeitung may have been led to believe that the fourth Prime Minister of Israel was a particularly headstrong podium.
We could tell you why we’re doing this, but you’re a woman and you wouldn’t understand. Just remember that we’re doing this for your own good.
Richard, I know, I saw that – I watched the repeat last night on purpose because somebody at Facebook said he did a good takedown.
@Ophelia re:#26
http://www.nrads.com/statement.html
It seems as though they sent out two similar but slightly different explanations, unless I’ve so pickled my brain with Celebrity Rehab that I can’t tell if two printed statements are alike or different. It is a serious possibility and I’m feeling slightly scared.
“The readership of the Tzeitung believes that women should be appreciated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like, and the Jewish laws of modesty are an expression of respect for women, not the opposite,” which I guess means that you can’t respect women if you accidentally look at them?
Also here:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/11/lady-problems/