Thread: Hasidic paper breaks the rules by editing Clinton out of White House photo

Results 1 to 15 of 15

  1. #1
    Join Date Sep 2003
    Location Behind the curtain
    Posts 11,767
    Rep Power 149

    Default Hasidic paper breaks the rules by editing Clinton out of White House photo

    What do you think about this one? Before printing this picture in their newspaper, these folks digitally edited out both Hilliary Clinton and another woman in the background.





    Hillary Clinton's expression, right hand clasped over her mouth in astonishment, is largely responsible for making the above photo iconic--and, to at least one newspaper, sexually suggestive.
    In the photo, President Obama and his national security team are huddled around a conference table in the White House Situation Room, watching CIA director Leon Panetta narrate last Sunday's raid on Osama bin Laden's compound. The mood is clearly tense.
    When Women's Wear Daily consulted a coterie of photo editors and designers about why the image is "destined to be one for the history books," Clinton was foremost in their responses.
    "The Hillary Clinton expression is the one that holds the photograph fully," Time's photo director told the magazine. "You can see 10 years of tension and heartache and anger in Hillary's face," Conde Nast's Scott Dadich agreed.
    Turns out she was probably just coughing during that crucial moment captured by White House photographer Pete Souza. But nevertheless, the image still proved a bit too racy for at least one of the many newspapers that printed it.
    That would be the Ultra-Orthodox Hasidic broadsheet Der Tzitung, published in Brooklyn. The paper photoshopped Clinton, as well at the only other woman who could be seen in the room--Audrey Tomason, the national director of counterterrorism--out of the frame.


    "Apparently the presence of a woman, any woman, being all womanly and sexy all over the United States' counterterrorism efforts was too much for the editors of Der Tzitung to handle," noted the prominent women's blog Jezebel.
    Indeed, "The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive," Rabbi Jason Miller explains in The Jewish Week. Though he notes that the publication's "fauxtograpphing" may in fact be a graver act against their religious tenets: "To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g'neivat da'at (deceit)."
    Beyond that, Der Tzitung's editors apparently missed or blatantly ignored the guidelines stipulated on the official White House Flickr page, where the photo was released for use by news organizations: "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way."
    The White House has not issued a response on the altered image.
    UPDATE: The editors of Der Tzitung have apologized to the White House for altering the photo and responded to the Wasington Post with a comment clarifiying their position:
    "In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status... 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."

    By having no family … I inherited the family of humanity.
    By having no possessions … I have possessed all.
    By rejecting the love of one … I received the love of all.
    By surrendering my life to the revolution … I found eternal life.
    “Revolutionary Suicide”
    -Huey P. Newton
  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Le Libérer For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date Apr 2003
    Location In flux
    Posts 6,095
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    I think the commentary about clinton's expression being too sexually suggestive for these misogynistic, bigoted wackos totally misses the point: she wasn't deleted for the expression she was deleted for being a woman in a paper of a religion that undeniably (despite their ridiculous denial) holds women to be so vastly inferior to men that they have to be erased from the news.

    The sick irony of wanting to censor images of women on the notion that women, even in conservative patns suits, are just categorically sexually suggestive, is because they only see women as sex objects and not people - they only see their relevance to male sexuality (and reproduction).

    The more appropriate type of censorship would be to close down their paper and synagogues for spreading a male supremacist ideology as oppressive as the white supremacist ideology of the KKK.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to TC For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date Jul 2010
    Posts 2,471
    Rep Power 46

    Default

    Originally Posted by TC
    as oppressive as the white supremacist ideology of the KKK
    I was with you up until this point. I remember you going ape shit at the ginger guy who compared his problem to segregation in America, which is why I'm a little surprised to see you do a similar thing here.
  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Manic Impressive For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date May 2009
    Location Perth, Australia
    Posts 994
    Organisation
    Socialist Alternative
    Rep Power 19

    Default

    I was with you up until this point. I remember you going ape shit at the ginger guy who compared his problem to segregation in America, which is why I'm a little surprised to see you do a similar thing here.
    On the contrary, I think sexism is definately comparable to racism. It's certainly not as if its effects in society are any less horrific.
    'i would punch u in the jawside so hard it would lean more left than the ICC' - bailey_187 to AK
    "Now the states in the business of casually arresting successful protest groups at the end of fully automatics we really are going to have to be very clever about how we go about things if the far left movement grows. ("First they came for the half witted tossers")"
    - Comrade Joe on the arrest of EDL members
  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Chambered Word For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date Jul 2010
    Posts 2,471
    Rep Power 46

    Default

    On the contrary, I think sexism is definately comparable to racism. It's certainly not as if its effects in society are any less horrific.
    Ok but editing out women from photos is not the same as lynching someone. The point is that TC felt she had to justify her post by comparing it to the KKK's white supremacy while both are completely abhorrent I don't think it's necessary to start comparing forms of oppression in order to try to solidify a point. You could actually see it as using racism to try to make people be more shocked at sexism when we should oppose them both equally, it's just unnecessary.

    I have no desire to start comparing forms of oppression or derail this thread before it's started so will not comment again on the subject.

    edit: I also have no intention of undermining the rest of TC's post which was spot on in my opinion.
    Last edited by Manic Impressive; 10th May 2011 at 11:51.
  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Manic Impressive For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Location The Netherlands
    Posts 8,033
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    "in no way (...) lower status"

    Yes it does. It also applies different set of rules to women and men and how they should behave and function in society. Women apparantly should be hidden lest they upset the delicate and barely controlable hormonal functions of men. Apparantly women are sexual objects.

    For the largest part I am with TC on this one. Though I also agree with Manic on the side note to that.
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to PhoenixAsh For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date Aug 2010
    Posts 4,245
    Rep Power 89

    Default

    To be honest, I've never understood such Orthodox papers. It's true that they never show women, so any claim that it's specifically tied to the situation at hand and not wanting to show that women were somehow involved is perhaps wide of the mark. Despite this, I've never really bought into the extent to which they follow tznius and all that, none of which is necessary, and stinks of...some other reason, let's just say...however, one thing I'll just point out:

    they only see women as sex objects and not people
    This is much more applicable to Haredi Jews than it is to Hasidic Jews (though of course neither are homogeneous blocks, with a great deal of variation within the two groups). Plenty of Hasidic Jews read the story of Creation to suggest that women are spiritually superior to men, that is to say, as G-d's final creation, they are also the most divine and perfected creation, from a spiritual perspective. Rocks, oceans and the like < trees and stuff < animals < men < women. Just so y'all know
  14. #8
    Join Date Apr 2003
    Location In flux
    Posts 6,095
    Rep Power 56

    Default

    I was with you up until this point. I remember you going ape shit at the ginger guy who compared his problem to segregation in America, which is why I'm a little surprised to see you do a similar thing here.
    We're talking about a group that wants to segregate women from men and exclude women from all public life - whereas white supremacist southerners like the kkk want to segregate white people from black people and keep black people excluded from political life (the KKK are racist thugs, they are not however genocidal in ideology but rather Jim Crow apartheid advocates). If anything they have a slightly more extreme approach to sex segregation than the racial segregationists do to racial segregations.

  15. #9
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Location The Netherlands
    Posts 8,033
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    We're talking about a group that wants to segregate women from men and exclude women from all public life - whereas white supremacist southerners like the kkk want to segregate white people from black people and keep black people excluded from political life (the KKK are racist thugs, they are not however genocidal in ideology but rather Jim Crow apartheid advocates). If anything they have a slightly more extreme approach to sex segregation than the racial segregationists do to racial segregations.
    Fair enough argument.

    Though both the system of apartheid and mysogenistic segregation from public life share remarkable similarities they are derived from different ideological and "philosophical" origins and affect society differently...as such they are separate constructs on their own. One is not necessarilly more benign than the other and require their own approach to attack and deconstruct them.

    I also do not think they want to separate men from women. They want to make women completely insubordinate both through religious, political and social means by convincing them their role is as such prescribed by God and is in no way less important than that of a mans role....ofcourse this denies the fact and is belied by the fact that in Hasidic Judaism men thank God for not having made them women.

    I digress...the point is the origins and the way they manifest are different. They can not be labelled the same and each need their own approach to tackle.
  16. #10
    Join Date Sep 2003
    Location Behind the curtain
    Posts 11,767
    Rep Power 149

    Default

    I just google searched this story. And this thread is second only to the original story.
    By having no family … I inherited the family of humanity.
    By having no possessions … I have possessed all.
    By rejecting the love of one … I received the love of all.
    By surrendering my life to the revolution … I found eternal life.
    “Revolutionary Suicide”
    -Huey P. Newton
  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Le Libérer For This Useful Post:


  18. #11
    Join Date Jan 2010
    Location United Snakes of America
    Posts 173
    Organisation
    CPUSA
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    There are some very conservative religious jewish groups who seem to be being influenced by the Wahhabi(dominant theology in Saudi Arabia) school of islam. Some jewish women in Israel have been walking around in Burqa's(full body covering) but instead of calling them Burqa's they call them Frumka's. The Burqa is not even required by the Koran or mainstream muslim theology. Although on the other hand maybe this sect of judaism was always this gender-segragationist because I do know that in some very conservative religious communities make women and men sit separately during the synagogue services and they have always been doing this.
    http://dlshq.org/download/brahmacharya.htm

    There is only one race, the human race. End all racism against all people whether they be called black, white, red, yellow, or brown. Humanity is a rainbow.

    Abolish all healthcare institutions and return to folk medicine.
  19. #12
    Join Date May 2010
    Posts 3,617
    Rep Power 68

    Default

    I disagree with the point that TC made. I don't think that this was so much of an issue of considering women categorically sexual but rather this paper has a problem with seeing women in power. And national security team is something which even by name sounds like something of chief importance. The national security team is at the top of the reactionary food chain, and of course a paper who believes that women are inferior to men despises the very notion that the oppressive system that they defend has a women in a position of oppression-- at a level which they will never achieve. Its jealousy ultimately that I see as the motive and of course the irony that a system which discriminates against women and oppresses women has a woman at the top level of oppression.
    “How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
    "In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
    -fka Redbrother
  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Ocean Seal For This Useful Post:


  21. #13
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Location The Netherlands
    Posts 8,033
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    well....seeing as they claimed they did it because of modesty....and the practice of not portraying women and segregating them in Temple because of the sexual effects and influences on men....pretty much give you the reason right there.

    That does not mean however that your notion that they do not want to see women in a position of power is incorrect.
  22. #14
    Join Date Sep 2003
    Location Behind the curtain
    Posts 11,767
    Rep Power 149

    Default

    well....seeing as they claimed they did it because of modesty....and the practice of not portraying women and segregating them in Temple because of the sexual effects and influences on men....pretty much give you the reason right there.
    But doesnt removing them from pics because men are influenced sexually blame women for the mens inability to keep their dick in their pants, sexist in itsself?
    By having no family … I inherited the family of humanity.
    By having no possessions … I have possessed all.
    By rejecting the love of one … I received the love of all.
    By surrendering my life to the revolution … I found eternal life.
    “Revolutionary Suicide”
    -Huey P. Newton
  23. #15
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Location The Netherlands
    Posts 8,033
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    But doesnt removing them from pics because men are influenced sexually blame women for the mens inability to keep their dick in their pants, sexist in itsself?
    Thats not even debateable. Its sexist to the very core anybody who doubts that it is...really, I'd like to see what crazy reasoning they can dream up.

    As TC said... Its reducing women to some sexual object which needs to be hidden until used. The secondary implication I see is, that it reduces men to some sexual beast which can not control himself because he is a man...which supposedly women are to blame for. But the fact that women need to be hidden means they are seen as inferior to men and should not be treated the same.

    My argument is however that what TC said and what RedBrother said are not mutually exclusive. I think they are both right in their analysis.
  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PhoenixAsh For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22nd February 2009, 05:00
  2. [Common Dreams] House Sues White House Officials
    By RSS News in forum Newswire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th March 2008, 18:00
  3. Ever wonder what goes on at the White House?
    By Edward Penishands in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17th June 2004, 08:12
  4. Photo editing, Once in the USSR now in the media - Editing p
    By Hayduke in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 4th September 2002, 02:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts