Hint: It’s got two legs and a vagina.
- Nothing to see here…
A Brooklyn-based Orthodox Jewish newspaper scrubbed the images of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the tiny, tiny head of National Security team member Audrey Tomason from the “Situation Room” photograph taken during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Here’s one rabbi’s reasoning as to why:
As a rule, Der Zeitung does not run images of women that could be considered “sexually suggestive,” Jewish Week writer Rabbi Jason Miller said. Miller speculated in a column that the newspaper may have edited out Clinton because its editors “don’t like the idea of a woman with that much political power.”
I find both explanations equally depressing.
Oh religion, you are just the worst.
I wonder which of the One True Gods is it that isn’t scared shitless of women.
I guess the Nazis thought them nothing.
People tend to overlook Judaism when it comes to religious idiocy in favor of bashing on the (admittedly much larger in scale) crimes and blunders of the other Abrahamic faiths, but man, orthodox Judaism has really got some whoppers.
Cool, now we can bash Judaism the way we bash Islam for its misogyny, attributing to non-practicing, liberal, and moderate Jews the attributes and values of the small percentage of radical extreme Jews who exist.
What would news stories look like if we could have a week without religion?
What if she had become President? Would they even acknowledge her?
I don’t think I like the idea of them not liking the idea of a woman with political power. Do I trump them?
fucking imbiciles.
Er…four legs and two vaginas — Audrey Tomason, director of counterterrorism, was also shopped out.
In case anyone thought that Christians had some kind of monopoly on reality-denying bullshit.
What did Hasidic newspapers use to replace images of Golda Meir, 1969-1974 Israel PM: a question mark, or a grey silhouette?
And does this mean a federal workers slutwalk?
@12 I Imagine it would be something like the old Doonesbury depictions of Bush Sr. or Quayle… 🙂
Also, I really wish you hadn’t made me think about Hillary Clinton’s vagina. Gah.
I’m not sure it’s about power, or “sexually suggestive” in the sense normal people mean.
Orthodox Jews just don’t believe that adult males and females should sit together at public events. Their synagogues have separate sections for the genders. It’s incredibly quaint and old-fashioned, and stupid, but I don’t think it’s malicious. It’s just one of a half a bazillion arcane rules they’ve constructed for their lives.
It’s not that they hate, or even disrespect women, it’s just mixing the sexes in some settings is awkward to them. The other major strains of Judaism are outstandingly egalitarian. Conservative and Reform congregations have no problem with women rabbis, and even the Orthodox have begun ordaining women rabbis. So, as antique as they might be in their social mores and seating patterns, the Orthodox are far ahead of the Catholic Church in women’s participation.
@11: Did anyone think that?
@16 – So it’s awkward. Why show the picture at all, then? Why choose to erase women?
More proof, if any were needed, that religion is a form of mental illness.
@5: i’ve been doing that for all 3 monotheisms since 9/11/2001. i don’t discriminate: they’re all stupid.
@5 We shouldn’t be so easy to stereotype, agreed, but it is the non-practicing, liberal, and moderate cultists of cult X who give the ultra crazies of cult X the necessary deference for their crazy bullshit to flourish in a given society.
What’s up, Stalin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
you hate male authority cienna.
just kidding.
what @10 said. And she’s really cute, so she was missed …
@13 sriously hillary should have a slutwalk. solidarity!
I don’t quite see this as depressing exactly. Bizarre? Yes. Shockingly out-of-touch? Absolutely.
But…I can’t believe any thinking, feeling person can possibly agree with religious nuts who think like this. I do think it’s good to spread the word about their strange views – to “out” them for their anachronistic, head-in-the-sand, insecure views of women. Religious bizarros only further marginalize themselves with intentionally-provocative dung flinging like this.
Going back 2000 years, to the patriarchal bigots who wrote the Bible, this kind of hateful nuttiness has been going on for hundreds of years. Orthodox Jews, evangelical Christians & extremist Muslims all continue to perpetuate the hate, and they expose their own willful ignorance & especially their deep-seated insecurities about women.
Fortunately, young women today – at least in western society – have real prospects, and can look to many female role models in influential positions to inspire them to be their best …which further frustrates the religious freaks who want to continue to subjugate them.
@ 10, Thanks for the name of the cute one who had to look over/around all the tall guys. I had a moments crush on her in that photo just because she had to look around all the tall guys and none of them would let here squeeze to the front. What a bunch of rude tall advisors.
Keep in mind, these are Jews who don’t put an orange on the Seder plate.
I totally get their point. I mean, what’s hotter than an elderly person in a fluorescent lit meeting room? I just wish they had taken Biden out as well, because it’s just too erotic. I could hardly concentrate on the news story after seeing that.
@7 — FYI, Der Tzitung supported Hillary for Senate and for President. They just have a thing about printing pictures of women.
The news here is that somebody at Der Zeitung thinks that Hillary Clinton is “sexually suggestive.” Get somebody over there quick before he hurts himself.
Good, Hillary shouldn’t be in that picture to begin with. Everyone else (men) in that picture looks determined and focused, Hillary looks like a school girl watching her first horror flick. Fucking worthless hole.
Now I wish they were all dead.
@32: She’s twice the man you’ll ever be, asshole.
@30: Here’s an idea: if they don’t want to publish pictures of women, don’t publish pictures that have women in them. Choosing not to print a picture because there is a woman in it is an editorial decision. (A stupid one, but nonetheless.)
Printing a picture that has a woman in it, but photoshopping her out, isn’t an editorial decision. It’s a negation of her as a person. It is presenting a picture of an event that happened with her present, and erasing her. It’s fucking horrible.
Trust me, there’s nothing ‘sexually suggestive’ about Hillary Clinton. Ask Bill.
There is no such thing as a sexually suggestive picture of Hillary Clinton.
I’m with 35. If you don’t want to print pictures of women you’re an idiot but you’re an idiot who absolutely has the right not to print pictures of women. If you edit a woman out of a picture like this you’re a fraud. A fraud and a liar.