It’s a pun.
wtf.
This thread has gone from ‘Orthodox Jew’ bashing to ‘let’s make fun of how some powerful women look’.
Pot, kettle?
Also, I don’t read Yiddish, but can anyone tell me if she’s mentioned in the caption? I tried to find out online, but every main newspaper that’s running this quotes the bloggers or ‘speculations’ by other newspapers on what the Yiddishe newspaper was thinking.
Since when is that respectable journalism?
The newspaper apologized. Let’s make a story out of nothing. :rolleyes:
This is a minority Jewish newspaper that doesn’t publish photos of *any *women. It’s circulation is probably pretty low. shrug There’s so much mobility in Judaism that if you don’t like it, you’re free to move to another sect.
Yeah, that’s silly, but I don’t understand what the hooplah is about.
For one, it’s only one post, and, two, in what world are the two things equivalent? Making a joke about how someone looks isn’t anywhere near the same as pretending like someone doesn’t exist because your belief system says they shouldn’t.
There’s a big hooplah because you don’t modify historical images to remove people you don’t like. It’s what the USSR did.
The “hooplah” is that, rather than not run the photo at all (which would have been understandable) they chose to photoshop the women out entirely, which suggests that they were not there and had no role in the matter. Even pixelating them would have been better; at least that would acknowledge their presence.
Furthermore, one of the things praised about the image was that it showed diversity, and they intentionally removed it. They took a patriotic symbol of what America means and desecrated it. And they didn’t apologize for that. We’re not too big on people who do that shit right now.
As BigT points out, no they didn’t. They apologized for editing a picture that the White House had requested they not edit. They didn’t apologize for making it appear that there were no women involved in capturing bin Laden. Which is what people are actually pissed off about, here. They’re not being pitted for insulting the integrity of Peter Souza’s photography.
No, they didn’t. They made an “I’m sorry you don’t like it” non-apology, insinuated that opposition to their censorship was an example of religious intolerance and accused their critics of slander and libel.
No one was pretending like the Secretary of State didn’t exist. They don’t publish photos of women. Even artistic renditions of women. That’s their policy.
Yeah, they edited a photo they didn’t have the right to. They said sorry. But why would you expect them to apologize for a longstanding policy?
Again, I’d like to know what the article actually said…but since so far we’ve just had speculation, I’m going to withhold judgment. It’s a tiny community paper that caters to the community. It is not ABC.
Why would they apologize? It’s their policy. Again. Who are you to determine their religious beliefs? If the women of the community don’t like it, they’ll make note. Why do you care? You can’t even read Yiddish!
Do we freak out when a blog posts doctored photos and trumped up op eds? shrug
It’s not your paper. Why do you care? The Hasidic communities are well aware of Senator Clinton’s existence.
yeah, I love how this thread was ‘misogynist assholes!’ to ‘let’s make fun of a woman’s looks!’
The paper just proved my point.
So the paper makes an error in removing her from a photo when it should not have (since they didn’t have permission).
People here (and everywhere I’ve seen this online) jump on the Secretary of State’s* looks *!
shakehead
Because it’s deeply sexist, and incredibly offensive.
I’m not “determining” their beliefs at all. They’re free to believe whatever the hell they want. But putting an action under the umbrella of religious belief does not render that action immune to judgment.
Can you explain the relevance of any portion of this?
Yes, generally speaking, when a blog (or any other media outlet) that presents itself as a legitimate news source doctors elements of a story, it will also be criticized.
It’s not your paper, either. Why do you care?
Again, that was one poster.
Oh, hey! It’s okay, folks! They say they aren’t sexist! Go ahead and ignore their actions - if they say they aren’t sexist, that makes whatever they do okay!
What “people?” It was one person. One.
You’re kind of an idiot, you know that?
“…and that’s why women should wear Burkas.”
You laugh, but there are Muslims who make that argument.
CitizenPained, the paper did not make an error. They did something manipulative and dishonest in keeping with a policy that is idiotic and sexist.
I don’t think he was laughing.
And I apologize for being a jerk.
Whatever. Go and Orthodox Jew bash, Clinton bash, or whatever it takes to inflate your dicks. :rolleyes:
What do you mean, “dicks?” I’m the only person in this thread who’s insulted you. Everyone else in this thread has (miraculously enough) treated you seriously. You really have trouble with this whole “counting” thing, don’t you?
ETA: Actually, I’ve taken you seriously as well, in so far as I actually rebutted your arguments. Something you’ve failed entirely to do in this thread to anyone else.
Who was bashing Clinton?
And are we bashing all Orthodox Jews, or just those that refuse to print pictures of women?
So what’s your opinion, then? These guys have their beliefs, therefore they didn’t act like dicks? That pretending the Secretary of State doesn’t exist because she’s a woman isn’t sexist?