Hillary Clinton Photoshopped Out of Situation Room Photo

Media • May 2011 • Views: 8,244

Ultra Orthodox Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung is telling its readers like it isn’t- by editing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the now-iconic Bin Laden raid Situation Room photo. Oy vey.

The religious paper never publishes pictures of women, as they could be considered “sexually suggestive.” 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.

While saving precious vulnerable men from being driven mad with desire over the image of a woman may be in line with Der Tzitung’s editors’ ideas of piety, Jewish Week’s Rabbi Jason Miller points out that the altered image violates a central tenet of the faith.

—-

Source

Recent Pages by Lidane:
Republicans File Pro-Marriage Equality SCOTUS Brief Senate Dems Condemn House GOP Version of Violence Against Women Act BREAKING: Tsunami Alert for Indian Ocean After 8.7 Quake Hits Indonesia Quinnipiac: Santorum Leads by 7% in Ohio Anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church to protest at slain Powell boys' funeral

Jump to bottom

34 comments

theheat Sun, May 8, 2011 9:51:02am

I don't care which religion(s) follow this kind of stupidity, and subsequently brainwash their followers, it's fucking ridiculous. Doing it under the guise of religious freedom makes it no less stupid, regressive, paranoid, or damaging to ones intellect.

These are the kinds of people I openly and unabashedly mock.

Achilles Tang Sun, May 8, 2011 9:57:19am

A lot more in common between some Jews and some Muslims than any of them would like to admit.

SpaceJesus Sun, May 8, 2011 10:24:10am

that's a cute way to spell the word zeitung i guess

barry123 Sun, May 8, 2011 10:27:25am

What did they do when Golda Meir was Prime Minister?

FreedomMoon Sun, May 8, 2011 10:33:06am

Because nothing screams "suggestive sexuality" like a picture of Hillary Clinton...

Sionainn Sun, May 8, 2011 10:35:47am

They took out the woman who was in the very back as well. What a stupid thing to do.

Fenris Sun, May 8, 2011 10:58:54am

Indeed, because whenever I think sexually suggestive, Hillary Clinton is the first person to come to mind.

She is usually holding a comically oversized bike horn.

Aye Pod Sun, May 8, 2011 10:59:49am

re: #2 Naso Tang

A lot more in common between some Jews and some Muslims than any of them would like to admit.

Fundies from all the Abrahamic religions have a lot in common. They are basically people who prefer the social attitudes of people who lived thousands of years ago to those of the modern world.

Fenris Sun, May 8, 2011 11:01:03am

Indeed, because whenever I think sexually suggestive, Hillary Clinton is the first person to come to mind.

She is usually holding a comically oversized bike horn.

What, me worry? Sun, May 8, 2011 11:37:25am

This is what I would call a clash of cultures. It's not unusual to see, apparently, even in religious Israeli papers.

Two comments from the Jpost explains it like this:

The removal of Clinton and a female staffer was purely an issue of modesty. It’s inappropriate for religious men and women to sit between each other. I’m sure the paper is just presenting picture which is culturally neutral and is keeping in mind the high standards of its readership. In my shul the people are very careful about their conduct. When someone of one gender walks down the hallway those of the other gender move to one side. This regardless if it’s a man or woman passing through. We are holy nation and its great to see that readers have options.

and

There are people who believe that men should not look at any photographs of women, that it is inherently objectifying to do so. It seems likely that this was the intent of deleting the secretary of state and the staffer from the picture. It reflects an editorial policy of not printing pictures of women. This is par for the course in many charedi publications. I don't think we need to ascribe the worst intentions to this. But it was a bad decision to run the photo altered. Sometimes a chumra needs to be weighed against other factors. It's not as though this paper needed to run the photo at all.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

For me, better to not post the picture at all than alter it, but then again, I'm a feminist. And this:

Other hareidi papers didn't use this picture, understanding it would be offensive to use an altered version. Not going into issue of avoiding all female pictures-very debatable. But photo chopping such a picture is unethical.

kreyagg Sun, May 8, 2011 11:51:40am

re: #10 marjoriemoon

Of course men must be protected from those inherently dirty women...

How can you defend stupidity like that?

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, May 8, 2011 1:10:03pm

They should have not used the photo at all, if they weren't prepared to show it unedited, IMHO.

As for what they did when Golda was PM, when Golda was PM you didn't see so much nonsense like this. This is very modern, this superheated piety.

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, May 8, 2011 1:12:21pm

re: #8 Jimmah

Fundies from all the Abrahamic religions have a lot in common. They are basically people who prefer the social attitudes of people who lived thousands of years ago to those of the modern world.

What I'm fond of saying about some of the nuttier types from my own community: "My great grandparents didn't do this, and neither did theirs."

It's bullshit to say this is about the social attitudes of 'people who lived thousands of years ago'. This is a modern development, in both Judaism and much of Islam.

All those women walking around Gaza with face veils? It was incredibly rare to see one of those up until ten years back.

nines09 Sun, May 8, 2011 1:21:37pm

They say a picture can say a thousand words. There is your proof.

sagehen Sun, May 8, 2011 1:31:43pm

re: #12 SanFranciscoZionist

They should have not used the photo at all, if they weren't prepared to show it unedited, IMHO.

As for what they did when Golda was PM, when Golda was PM you didn't see so much nonsense like this. This is very modern, this superheated piety.

And I suppose, in keeping with their avoidance of any suggestion of women's sexuality... they don't celebrate Purim?

Aye Pod Sun, May 8, 2011 1:34:51pm

re: #13 SanFranciscoZionist

It's bullshit to say this is about the social attitudes of 'people who lived thousands of years ago'. This is a modern development, in both Judaism and much of Islam.

I don't think it's as simple as that. Although it's certainly true that there has been a recent rise in fundamentalism among followers of all three major abrahamic religions, and that their understanding of their own fundamentals may often be highly questionable, there is nevertheless no doubt that the ancient world was very different to that of today's, especially with regard to attitudes about women and sexual equality, and that fundies do feel more comfortable with that world.

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, May 8, 2011 2:07:21pm

re: #16 Jimmah

I don't think it's as simple as that. Although it's certainly true that there has been a recent rise in fundamentalism among followers of all three major abrahamic religions, and that their understanding of their own fundamentals may often be highly questionable, there is nevertheless no doubt that the ancient world was very different to that of today's, especially with regard to attitudes about women and sexual equality, and that fundies do feel more comfortable with that world.

Or, what they imagine it might have been.

I think you're actually making it far too simple. The ancient world was a complicated place, and in many times and places, women's status was quite a bit better than it would be later on.

This obsessive fear of women's sexuality may be projected into antiquity, but the origin of modern customs tend to be more complex and recent than that.

A note: the Biblical text says that Dvorah, the prophetess, 'judged Israel'. A modern interpreter from an extremely conservative school will tell you this cannot be taken literally, since later Jewish writing says that a woman cannot act as a judge, and therefore, we are to understand that Dvorah was instructing judges in their task, rather than herself acting as a judge.

Who is more benighted here? The 'ancient world', or the modern interpretation?

Bob Levin Sun, May 8, 2011 2:09:01pm

re: #16 Jimmah

I don't think the ancient world would be very comfortable with them. The paradox of the modern world, with so much technology to make everything easier, is that it's also easier to be so narrow in your actions and thinking to be totally disconnected from the real world.

This picture was photoshopped because the editors did not think their readers were sophisticated enough to be able to tell the difference, to see another version of the picture. And yet, they were also tone deaf to the possibilities that this would be seen around the world--and end up giving their entire culture a black eye.

This is a completely modern phenomenon.

Aye Pod Sun, May 8, 2011 2:56:51pm

re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist

Or, what they imagine it might have been.

I think you're actually making it far too simple. The ancient world was a complicated place, and in many times and places, women's status was quite a bit better than it would be later on.

This obsessive fear of women's sexuality may be projected into antiquity, but the origin of modern customs tend to be more complex and recent than that.

A note: the Biblical text says that Dvorah, the prophetess, 'judged Israel'. A modern interpreter from an extremely conservative school will tell you this cannot be taken literally, since later Jewish writing says that a woman cannot act as a judge, and therefore, we are to understand that Dvorah was instructing judges in their task, rather than herself acting as a judge.

Who is more benighted here? The 'ancient world', or the modern interpretation?

Cherry-picking aside, women's rights have improved vastly since biblical times. Fundies who want to see progressive social attitudes marched back know this.

Sheila Broflovski Sun, May 8, 2011 3:06:39pm

Let's get all outrageously outraged at each and every one of the 40 stupid people who subscribe to this crapsheet.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Sun, May 8, 2011 3:11:52pm

Okay, maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet Bill finds her incredibly attractive when she's being the power woman.

I would be surprised if anyone else did.

S.D. Sun, May 8, 2011 3:29:55pm

...
That's just stupid...

Bob Levin Sun, May 8, 2011 4:16:23pm

re: #19 Jimmah

I didn't mention this in my previous post because I wasn't comfortable with my command of the facts--but, I would recommend Ivan Illich's book entitled Gender in order to get a clearer picture of ancient times.

My impression is that the times were incredibly difficult and people really didn't have time to get to the idea of rights, given that simple survival was so precarious. There were enormous problems, such as birth--both the mother and child surviving, lack of sanitation, finding drinking water, cultivating food, and continuing the family for future generations. I believe that people did what they could do best, because survival demands this type of attitude.

I think that we take for granted the room we have to think about everything but survival. This too is a modern luxury--perhaps only 60 years old. And there are parts of the world right now who are still trapped in worlds where survival and sanitation are not givens.

Kronocide Sun, May 8, 2011 6:55:34pm

re: #14 nines09

They say a picture can say a thousand words. There is your proof.

A modified picture tells a thousand different words.

laZardo Mon, May 9, 2011 5:37:59am

re: #4 barry123

What did they do when Golda Meir was Prime Minister?

Golda Meir was never Prime Minister

/wooeeeooooweeooo~

What, me worry? Mon, May 9, 2011 6:43:16am

re: #21 EmmmieG

Okay, maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet Bill finds her incredibly attractive when she's being the power woman.

I would be surprised if anyone else did.

That comment surprises me coming from you.

It's not about attractiveness. First of all, ugly women get married too. Second of all, Hillary isn't an ugly woman. Third of all, ugly has zero to do with this. It's about modesty not beauty. And for some of the Orthodox sects, women aren't to be seen alongside men in photos.

I don't know that chasidic magazines didn't start doing this until recently. Does anyone here know that? As far as I'm aware, it's always gone on in Israel in certain chasidic publications, but not all. In such a case, I would imagine Golda Meir, when depicted, was depicted alone without men near her.

I don't have to agree with my religion's modesty rules and I don't, but I can respect them and I do. I also, btw, respect Muslims women who wear a head scarf and wear modest dress, although, I think a burka is going too far.

What, me worry? Mon, May 9, 2011 7:00:08am

re: #13 SanFranciscoZionist

What I'm fond of saying about some of the nuttier types from my own community: "My great grandparents didn't do this, and neither did theirs."

It's bullshit to say this is about the social attitudes of 'people who lived thousands of years ago'. This is a modern development, in both Judaism and much of Islam.

All those women walking around Gaza with face veils? It was incredibly rare to see one of those up until ten years back.

I'd have to disagree that it wasn't common among my grandmothers' generation (one was born in 1890, the other in 1905). I probably have as many pictures of them them wearing scarves outside the home as I have where they aren't. I suspect some of it was culture related, but mostly it was probably to keep the wind from blowing those up-dos around.

Of course, the scarf/cap style was quite popular in the 60s (think Jackie O).

Image: 57bc9db5.jpg

Image: headscarf.jpg

Decatur Deb Mon, May 9, 2011 7:17:35am

re: #27 marjoriemoon

I'd have to disagree that it wasn't common among my grandmothers' generation (one was born in 1890, the other in 1905). I probably have as many pictures of them them wearing scarves outside the home as I have where they aren't. I suspect some of it was culture related, but mostly it was probably to keep the wind from blowing those up-dos around.

Of course, the scarf/cap style was quite popular in the 60s (think Jackie O).

Image: 57bc9db5.jpg

Image: headscarf.jpg

Until the 1960s, rigid custom (but not theology) required that Catholic women wear a head covering any time they entered a church. There are still vestiges around the world

garhighway Mon, May 9, 2011 7:38:44am

This is the kind of silliness you get when you take social customs from thousands of years ago (that might have made sense back then) and set them in concrete forever. Each major religion has stupidity like this, they just choose slightly different flavors of stupidity.

What, me worry? Mon, May 9, 2011 7:55:43am

re: #28 Decatur Deb

Until the 1960s, rigid custom (but not theology) required that Catholic women wear a head covering any time they entered a church. There are still vestiges around the world

Indeed. It was a sign of modesty through many generations. The hippies and the women's movement broke through all of that which was a good thing. I like the breaking down of stigmas as a general rule.

Sheila Broflovski Mon, May 9, 2011 10:44:51am

re: #26 marjoriemoon

I don't know that chasidic magazines didn't start doing this until recently. Does anyone here know that? As far as I'm aware, it's always gone on in Israel in certain chasidic publications, but not all. In such a case, I would imagine Golda Meir, when depicted, was depicted alone without men near her.

I don't remember Haredi newspapers and magazines in the '70's and '80's airbrushing women out of photos, but, I don't recall that the Yiddish press back in the day contained any photographs at all, except for the adverts.

The Haredi websites, like Vosisneias and Chabad.org, include pictures of women and make fun of this new phenomenon.

Likewise, everybody sat together on the bus and nobody complained about it.

Sheila Broflovski Mon, May 9, 2011 10:47:13am

There are over 1000 comments on this thread at HuffPo (I have not read them, I don't read the HuffPo comments, ever) which suggests a greater magnitude of outrageously outraged than the original number of readers who actually buy this little rag.

Lidane Mon, May 9, 2011 10:58:51am

re: #32 Alouette

But is it really an outrageous outrage? The Secretary of State was taken out of an iconic photo solely because she's a woman. That's hardly on the same level as the outrageous outrages about Obama spending $200 million a day in India or whatever. It's a real question.

Why go with this photo if you're going to have to remove not just Hillary, but the other woman in the back of the photo? Why not just publish the photo of Obama announcing Bin Laden's death and avoid any problems altogether?

Sheila Broflovski Mon, May 9, 2011 11:14:13am

re: #33 Lidane

But is it really an outrageous outrage? The Secretary of State was taken out of an iconic photo solely because she's a woman. That's hardly on the same level as the outrageous outrages about Obama spending $200 million a day in India or whatever. It's a real question.

Why go with this photo if you're going to have to remove not just Hillary, but the other woman in the back of the photo? Why not just publish the photo of Obama announcing Bin Laden's death and avoid any problems altogether?

It's an outrageous outrage because the number of nutbags who actually read this paper (other than to make fun of and laugh at) is minuscule compared to the number of people who got outraged about it.

It's like getting outraged over the Phelps cult newsletter.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!