Newspaper erases women from White House Osama raid photo

Why? Because Hillary Clinton was sexually suggestive.

Quote :

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.

...

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.

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)."

Oops.

So, wait, looking at any photo of a woman could be suggestive? How do these guys even live? They'd have to look at women walking around on the street and in businesses, wouldn't they? The horrors!

Quote :

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"In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status...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."

But they can publish photos of men... that's not at all suggestive... I guess women don't care about looking at men.

....
....
....
....
Okay, so the Secretary of State and the national director of counter-terrorism are heavily involved in this situation. They are very important figures in our country. The national director of counter-terrorism especially was very important in this picture. And you...shopped them out. Because you believe men are so sex-obsessed they can't even look at a picture of two women, two fully-clothed women mind you, sitting at a table waiting anxiously for news, without being wildly overcome with lust?

I can't even figure out who that insults more.

Lapin wrote:

I can't even figure out who that insults more.

The men, IMO. They must be so stupid, and so ill-controlled that even the sight of a woman is too much for them. Four year olds in most normal societies have better impulse control than than they're being credited with.

What in the world will they do if a woman is elected president?

Lady Anne wrote:

What in the world will they do if a woman is elected president?

The front page will be blank most of the time?

I wonder how far this extends. Do they photoshop Michelle Obama out of pictures taken of her and her husband? Do they refuse to print pictures of their daughters? Female members of Congress and the House?

Honestly, if I were a man, I'd find the idea that I was so sexually aggressive merely LOOKING at a photo of two fully-clothed woman would cause me to go out and commit rape repugnant to the extreme.

Lady Anne wrote:

What in the world will they do if a woman is elected president?

Wander around banging into things, apparently.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone working at this newspaper HAVE to look at the icky ladies (and look at them rather closely) in order to remove them without the picture looking like complete shit? Or do they hire heathens for that noble cause? Because if not, this is some screaming hypocrisy there (or is this a case where the image editors pat themselves on the back for nobly sacrificing their virtue? 10 bucks say it is).

Malganis wrote:

Why? Because Hillary Clinton was sexually suggestive.

Hillary sexually suggestive? I can think of a certain ex-White House intern who might find that hard to believe...

Saleha wrote:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't someone working at this newspaper HAVE to look at the icky ladies (and look at them rather closely) in order to remove them without the picture looking like complete shit? Or do they hire heathens for that noble cause? Because if not, this is some screaming hypocrisy there (or is this a case where the image editors pat themselves on the back for nobly sacrificing their virtue? 10 bucks say it is).

Well you've gotta give the plain women jobs.