Brooklyn-based newspaper pretends women don't exist

Discuss

162 Responses to “Brooklyn-based newspaper pretends women don't exist”

  1. bkad says:

    When will this cliche be exhausted and no longer trotted out, every time a discussion about misogyny takes place? My guess: never. It’s always got to be about men for some of you guys, doesn’t it. It reeks of privilege, and it is so fucking tiresome.

    Well, it’s the first I’ve heard this ‘cliche’ (assuming you’re referring to the idea that rules limiting women’s appearance might be demeaning to men as well). I appreciated the contribution, at least.

  2. Sork says:

    Better than being replaced by a random man, like the Israeli ministers.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7982146.stm

  3. teapot says:

    Women covering their hair may seem strange to you – it isn’t oppressive or sexist.

    A rule that applies to one sex? That seems a little sexist.

    Women don’t wear giant coats in the middle of the summer

    I didn’t say they did. If you follow the verb order of my sentence, it is perfectly clear. Are you suggesting I’m also claiming they make their wives edit women out of photographs? That’s some strange reading comprehension you got there.

    It was an action taken by them alone – and does not reflect hasidism, Orhtdox Judaism or religion as a whole.

    They did it for reasons of religious belief, but it doesn’t reflect religion?

    they’ll see the truly offensive things are their own presumptions and prejudices.

    No, religious piety is what is truly offensive.

    • JoshuaZ says:

      Teapot, I’m not sure you actually believe that rules should be identical for both sexes where clothing is concerned. Do you think there’s something unacceptable with societies that decide that it is ok for males to be topless in public but not females? If yes, how do you draw the line between that and hair covering?

    • Aloisius says:

      A rule that applies to one sex? That seems a little sexist.

      It is socially acceptable for women to wear both men’s and women’s clothing in western society while men are restricted. Is that sexist? Probably. But you can yell at the majority of society all day long and it’ll still be socially unacceptable for a man to wear a sundress.

      I’m not sure I see much of a difference between it being socially unacceptable for women to not wear head coverings and men being forced to wear pants. Now once you get the the full body suit that turns a person into an object, then you’re definitely crossing a boundary, but a simple veil? A nun’s habit? Meh.

      No one lives in a perfectly equal gender-neutral, race-neutral, *-neutral society and frankly, it is very likely that no such society has ever existed.

      • IronEdithKidd says:

        …and it’ll still be socially unacceptable for a man to wear a sundress.

        Damned shame, too. Men have no idea how much more comfortable a sun dress is over shorts on those scalding hot summer days. Linen shorts are the closest Western men will get to that level of comfort.

        • Master Pokes says:

          Straying off topic: I’m a fairly manly dude.I’ve been attending various festivals, including Burning Man, for years. I’ve worn sarongs, but wore my first skirt last year. OMG. The love and appreciation my nether-regions have for “women’s clothing.” SO much more comfortable. Maybe I’ll try a sundress this year. Why the hell not.

          Back on topic..I have greatly enjoyed this thread and the picking apart of multiple cultures’ treatment and attitudes toward women with lots of thought and a nice big splash of irony, some intended, some hilariously not so.

          Carry on.

        • robulus says:

          Actually Aloisius, I followed my own link, and Rob Moodie DOES think men are forced to wear pants. In fact he compares the male business suit to a burqua. So I couldn’t really have picked a worse example to counter your argument. I’m a bit of an idiot.

          Its funny because when I watched that doco I didn’t come away with that impression of him, but he’s a complex character so there you go. And he certainly sees constraints on male self expression in Western society much the same way you do!

      • teapot says:

        No one lives in a perfectly equal gender-neutral, race-neutral, *-neutral society and frankly, it is very likely that no such society has ever existed.

        That doesn’t mean I can’t live by such ideals. I’d probably be more inclined to befriend a man in a sundress than some jerk in an expensive suit…. the sundress people usually turn out to be more interesting.

        If you think that sexism isn’t related to rules which apply only to one sex, you need to refresh your understanding of the word:

        sex·ism
        n.
        1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
        2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

      • Anonymous says:

        It is socially acceptable for women to wear both men’s and women’s clothing in western society while men are restricted. Is that sexist? Probably. But you can yell at the majority of society all day long and it’ll still be socially unacceptable for a man to wear a sundress.

        Well, yeah. Nobody is saying that there’s no discrimination against men; in particular, there’s very strong discrimination against men who act in ways imagined to be homosexual. It’s not quite discriminatory against heterosexual men the same way that forcing all women to cover themselves is, though.

  4. Teller says:

    Their version of Queen of Outer Space is remarkable.

  5. kjulig says:

    Just a note on the paper’s name: It’s די צייטונג, which, for English speakers, could be transcribed as something like “Di Tzeitung”. Both the definite article and the vowel in “tzeitung” somehow got butchered along the way.

  6. g0d5m15t4k3 says:

    Totally late to the show but wow. Just wow.

  7. noen says:

    “When will this cliche be exhausted and no longer trotted out, every time a discussion about misogyny takes place?”

    It works for racism too. Donald Trump is the least racist man who has ever lived. He is so not racist that he once let a black man win his little celebrity narcissist reality show (I think that’s what it’s called).

    People who are in a privileged social class often cannot see their own privilege. That is, after all, the whole point of being on top in the first place. What good is it being the most wonderful thing in the universe if you have start paying attention to lesser lights? Sheesh.

  8. Teller says:

    I for one am happy this religious group can practice its religion and that they can print a newspaper with any variation they want and that we can be aware of this activity and communicate it everywhere – all without interference. This is a great country.

    • Gulliver says:

      One can logically be glad that they CAN do it while still being disturbed by the fact that they DID do it. Being in favor of the right of others to say or print things you vehemently disagree doesn’t remove the disagreement, or the complementary right to criticize what was said or printed…or the right to praise their ability to say or print it (meaning I’m not assuming that your happiness that they could print it was tantamount to agreeing with them), or my logical ability to point out all of the above while still not assuming you disagree with the first sentence.

    • Ned613 says:

      Di Tzeitung is NOT free to do what ever they want. The paper violated the terms of use as stipulated by the white house. The white house forbids the picture to be altered in any way. I imagine this term is required so no one puts the document to nefarious uses. You can use your imagination.

      http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-orthodox-newspaper-apologizes-for-altering-white-house-photo-1.360824?localLinksEnabled=false

  9. bjacques says:

    I’m pretty sure this thread has been G_dwinned.

  10. Modusoperandi says:

    You should see their Swimsuit Issue.

  11. rebdav says:

    Lets say that the photoshopping was a weird thing from lets be honest is a weird culture that doesn’t have the intense meaning many desperately want it to. The few really hateful ignorant statements people have come up with in this thread are more than a little frightening.

    • Anonymous says:

      Lets say that the photoshopping was a weird thing from lets be honest is a weird culture that doesn’t have the intense meaning many desperately want it to.

      As a Jew who is not part of this sect, this has intense meaning for me. The reason is that these groups claim that their cultural customs derive in some way from Judaism, which they emphatically do not. These practices have as much to do with Judaism as the wearing of fur hats and long black coats. They hide their backward cultural practices behind greater Judaism, and that is deeply offensive.

      The richly deserved mockery stems from the fact that they’ve lost their way so badly, that they allow their cultural mores to supersede a direct commandment from god not to disseminate lies. They could have had their cultural mores without the lying, but they chose not to. Because they have lost their way.

      And that’s all fine. They can go about their deluded ways to their heart’s content. But when they wrap their delusion in the cloak of Judaism, then they need to be taken to task.

  12. 2k says:

    10 Religion is like Tax Law.
    20 The more you revise it; the more you revise it.
    30 Goto 10

  13. BB says:

    A lot of religions worship or elevate “man” (in the gender sense); let’s face it, it’s not about a god, but more about control, power and domination. If you can’t participate, you are not equal, you are subordinate. If you can not be seen, you are not equal, you are inferior.

  14. Anonymous says:

    They seem to be as conservative as the taliban. Should we invade them too?

  15. BrendanBabbage says:

    “Oy, Vey!”…as perhaps might be appropriate…

    They really are feeding those who re-gurge the “Protocol” stuff here;

    It’s essentially being rabidly for massive social ‘degradation’ (XXX stuff, cultural and race mixing) of other cultures but for protection and preservation of their own culture. Tangent this with the ADL speaking out against any anti-illegal immigration laws in today’s news also.

    But, beyond that, it’s just crazy and stupid.

  16. emo hex says:

    Um, how about they just um photoshop her hair shorter and um change her um name to
    Clint Hill. Um that should um about do it.

  17. Deidzoeb says:

    I tried to read your captions and the comments below it, but I couldn’t hold back from abusing myself as soon as I saw photos of human females. Even the knowledge that females exist is too much, forgive me, I have to go now…

  18. Dave Faris says:

    Doubleplusungood.

  19. Jack says:

    I am completely fascinated and repulsed by Brooklyn, NY Ultra Orthodox groups. Makes me happy I grew up as a Yid.

  20. semiotix says:

    Actually, the woman in the back, Audrey Tomason, looks vaguely photoshopped in. I think the actual distance between her and the men in front of her makes her head look too small for the apparent distance. (Also, I can tell from the pixels.)

    No, I’m not really suggesting that this is what happened here. But there have been White Houses I wouldn’t have put it past!

  21. Anonymous says:

    They could have preserved their cultural mores and not published a lie simply by pixelating the women or covering them with black boxes. This way it would be obvious that women were there and what parts of the image were doctored to not show them, with their identities revealed in the caption. If the picture is manipulated to make it seem like women were not there at all, then the picture is a lie.

    The irony is that the fervor with which a rabbinical directive is being followed causes a violation of a direct commandment from god.

  22. Jonathan Badger says:

    Not to support their point of view, but I have to love Yiddish. I totally get the name of their paper: Tzitung = Zeitung

  23. SheikYerbouti says:

    these comments are confusing me.

    when i get on boingboing, am i supposed to be respectful towards people’s silly superstitions or am i supposed to mock them?

    • Anonymous says:

      “these comments are confusing me.

      when i get on boingboing, am i supposed to be respectful towards people’s silly superstitions or am i supposed to mock them?”

      If you’re American consult your constitution. I guarantees the right of people to have their silly superstitions and you the right to express your opinion of them.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Here’s an idea, if you don’t print photos of women— DON’T PRINT PHOTOS WITH WOMEN IN THEM.

    Instead of using Photoshop to remove them entirely from history.

  25. Anonymous says:

    where did all that arm and neck come from?

    • Anonymous says:

      Right!? What if there hadn’t been any women in the first place?
      Now the weird differences in sharpness of the people seen in the original make me ponder.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Such a deletion only serves to strengthen the myth that their population is propagated by “dating” or interacting frequently with young boys. If women are not to be seen or considered as sexual beings how else will the population grow or continue to exist. Oh, yeah, sexual slavery. I forgot.

  27. EH says:

    So if this actually happened, why is there only this one crappy photo that is being show everywhere? Are people from the Internet prohibited from touching the paper, too?

  28. Anonymous says:

    That is a lot of effort to go to without a serious agenda. What a strange thing to do.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Besides violating good sense/taste/reality, this “edit” also violates the terms of use on the photo:
    “This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.”

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/in/photostream

  30. Matt Volatile says:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/hillary-clinton-audrey-tomason-go-missing-in-situation-room-photo-in-der-tzitung-newspaper/2011/05/09/AFfJbVYG_blog.html

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

    Errr… yes it does.

    “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…”

    The “impression” of disparaging women? Seems to me that these “modesty laws” certainly disparage women — and I’m amazed at how little self-awareness is held by whoever wrote that statement. You can’t have it both ways, can you? Either you stand by the implications of your beliefs, or you should reject them. I have no idea how someone can logically and with a straight face simultaneously believe that women should not be seen in print, and that the removal of women from photographs is *not* disparaging…

  31. Anonymous says:

    This is a Chassidish paper. Chassidim believe for modesty reasons that pictures of women should not be published. They avoid pictures with women in it, but if they feel the picture is important or historical then they edit the women out. They’ve been doing this for years. It’s hardly news. They are not pretending women don’t exist, if that were true then they wouldn’t refer to female politicians in the text, which they do. Ironically the paper, and the Chassidish community in general, has endorsed Secretary Clinton in all her Senate runs and voted for her by huge margins.

    • EeyoreX says:

      “They avoid pictures with women in it, but if they feel the picture is important or historical then they edit the women out.”

      Journalism ethics aren’t universal in any sense of the word, but there is one thing that almost everyone in publishing agrees on: if you have to “edit” news footage for whatever reason, you may blur it, mask it or crop it to obscure the offending or libelious part of the image. You do NOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever, subtract things from a news image in Photoshop and then present it as the truth. Then it ceases to be a news image and is just a fake.

      So the “modesty” argument holds no water. Religion doesn’t enter into it, this magazine is just spreading lies and misinformation, simple as that. I hope the White House throws the book at them.

      • Kimmo says:

        “They avoid pictures with women in it, but if they feel the picture is important or historical then they edit the women out.”

        Journalism ethics aren’t universal in any sense of the word, but there is one thing that almost everyone in publishing agrees on: if you have to “edit” news footage for whatever reason, you may blur it, mask it or crop it to obscure the offending or libelious part of the image. You do NOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, for any reason whatsoever, subtract things from a news image in Photoshop and then present it as the truth. Then it ceases to be a news image and is just a fake.

        So the “modesty” argument holds no water. Religion doesn’t enter into it, this magazine is just spreading lies and misinformation, simple as that. I hope the White House throws the book at them.

        This. The excuse given is beside the point.

    • teapot says:

      Chassidim believe for modesty reasons that pictures of women should not be published.

      They also fuck their wives through a hole in a sheet. Crazy, much?

      • Mottel says:

        Teapot – that ancient myth has been proven false time and again. Ignorant much?

        http://www.snopes.com/religion/sheet.asp

        • teapot says:

          My bad… I had heard from a fairly reliable source that it was practiced in some Lubavitch communities. Nonetheless, I am willing to adjust my comment:

          They demand their wife wear a wig everywhere outside their bedroom, wear giant coats in the middle of summer AND EDIT WOMEN OUT OF IMPORTANT HISTORICAL PHOTOS! Crazy, much?

          • Mottel says:

            It’s not done anywhere. Period. Women covering their hair may seem strange to you – it isn’t oppressive or sexist.
            Women don’t wear giant coats in the middle of the summer. Photoshopping Hillary out was stupid and wrong. But it wasn’t motivated by religious obligation – but rather social mores of the community that published the article. It was an action taken by them alone – and does not reflect hasidism, Orhtdox Judaism or religion as a whole. Anyone who would construe it otherwise is using it as an ax to grind some other vendetta.

            Perhaps those here would be better suited to do a little research before commenting – they’ll see the truly offensive things are their own presumptions and prejudices. Try jewishwoman.org as a start for a little info.

      • emilydickinsonridesabmx says:

        The having sex through a hole in the sheet thing isn’t true. For several years I lived in Boro Park, which is one of the most Hasidic neighborhoods in Brooklyn. My roommate, who is a close friend, is basically a “Hasid Girl Gone Bad”, and she gave me the lowdown on many things. There are a lot of strange things about this strain of Judaism, but this one has no basis in fact.

      • Irene Delse says:

        > Chassidim believe for modesty reasons that pictures of women should not be published.

        > They also fuck their wives through a hole in a sheet. Crazy, much?

        Not the Chassidim. But that one was true in certain parts of the Christian world up to the 19th century. Old Catholic Europe could be very, very prudish and repressive.

  32. deckard68 says:

    Now I wish Hillary had won the presidency, just to confound the front page of this rag.

    • Padraig says:

      LOL

      Oh, we can only hope that happens.

      You can just see a photo showing the US President meeting someone and all you’ve got is the visitor holding out their hand to a space next to them.

      That would be tooooooooooo funny!

    • Snig says:

      That’s pretty funny. I can just imagine the young Hassid’s growing up thinking the president was invisible, or at least unseeable.

      • Anonymous says:

        Two words, one name:

        Golda Meir.

        How did they handle that? No picturz eva? Could they attend a political event without a blindfold?

        • faithmanon says:

          There is really no reason for a Charedi paper to print photos of the 4th PM of Israel. Their support of the State of Israel is tenuous at best and at worst go here: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2011/05/israel-independence-day-in-williamsburg-part-2.html.

          Rebdav – it is, in fact more intense than you might want to believe. Photoshopping women out of photos, especially when the community does not get its news from any other sources allows girls and boys within the community remain ignorant of the world around them where women do, in fact, have power not allowed within this insular community. It is harmful and you are shortsighted by not acknowledging this.

  33. Zadaz says:

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

    They why didn’t they put a box over them or pixelate them. Photoshoping them out, even badly, is a bunch of hard work that undermines any tattered remnants of ‘journalism’ that they may have had left.

  34. ill lich says:

    It’s the Jewish version of purdah.

  35. ill lich says:

    Hmmm. . . what if Hillary was president. . . and they had a photo entitled “President Hillary Clinton addresses nation”, would it show an empty stage with a lone microphone stand in front of a room full of reporters?

    Or “President Clinton meets with Sarkozy” and it showed Sarkozy shaking hands with. . . nobody.

    The modern world is really mucking up their worldview.

    • tempo says:

      “Hmmm. . . what if Hillary was president. . . and they had a photo entitled “President Hillary Clinton addresses nation”, would it show an empty stage with a lone microphone stand in front of a room full of reporters?”

      That would be great- they could airbrush her out, and then use a feather to represent her, ala Doonesbury.

  36. Modano says:

    Isn’t this actually disparaging to men? The implication is that a man can’t see a photo of a woman without flying into a horniness-induced fit of some kind and he must be protected against his own weak nature, right?

    • Anonymous says:

      And, here it is- the obligatory ‘but what about the menz’?? No. Just, NO.

      This is disparaging against WOMEN, by ERASING them from historically significant images.

      When will this cliche be exhausted and no longer trotted out, every time a discussion about misogyny takes place? My guess: never. It’s always got to be about men for some of you guys, doesn’t it. It reeks of privilege, and it is so fucking tiresome.

      • Modano says:

        Oh wow, Anon, I was totally kidding. Sorry if the sarcasm didn’t translate, I didn’t think anyone could have taken that seriously.

        • Padraig says:

          I don’t think you’re wrong.

          Their religious beliefs are that men lack self-control and are so easily manipulated that they will be readily influenced by seeing pictures of women.

          They think men are so gullible and stupid that…oh, well I guess they’re members of a religion that thinks that so I suppose it’s self-referential and obvious.

          The men in that religion are obviously weak-willed, spineless and lacking in self-control. They said it themselves.

          • Blaatann says:

            I couldn’t say it better myself.. For anyone to defend these actions, you would have to pretty ignorant of history.

        • Anonymous says:

          Oh, that was sarcasm? I saw no /s at the end, or any other indication of sarcasm. Plenty of people say that exact same thing completely seriously. I am surprised (and a bit skeptical) that you were not.

          • RandomGameR says:

            @Anon… besides, it’s double-disparaging to women. Why do they just assume that women don’t go into a sexualized rage at the sight of men? Women can be pigs, too.

  37. Antinous / Moderator says:

    The story of a guy who was vanished from his high school reunion photos for dating a(n obvious) shiksa.

    Orthodox Paradox Warning: this will use up one of your free NYT article views.

  38. Mark Frauenfelder says:

    “They avoid pictures with women in it, but if they feel the picture is important or historical then they edit the women out.”

    Ah, I see. They had no choice but to revise history. Never mind, then.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Well, no woman has ever done anything historical or important. You can tell because they aren’t in any of the pictures.

    • Jack says:

      Don’t even try to understand the logic of Orthodox culture. Growing up in Brooklyn I knew at least 4 girls growing up who were “allowed” to go to regular public schools but who then—upon graduating from high school—were forced into an Orthodox housewife life. Making babies and wearing wigs.

      I gotta write about this stuff.

  39. Jack says:

    That being said, those opportunist turning the foolishness of Di Tzeitung into an excuse to bash Observant Jews – is libelous and disgusting.

    It’s no worse than criticizing the behavior of Fundamentalist Christians or fringe Islamic groups.

    The U.S.A. allows nonsense like this to be freely published and the U.S.A. allows folks to criticize nonsense when one sees it.

  40. aaronlyon says:

    Anon wrote, “They’ve been doing this for years. It’s hardly news.” Nevertheless, it’s news to me, and it’s FASCINATING! Holy Moses!

  41. ill lich says:

    “It’s commonplace in ultra-orthodox papers that pictures of women are not shown (including Israeli foreign minister Livni and US Secretary of State Rice), to prevent impure thoughts in the minds of the readers.”

    Yeah. . . that’s gonna stop men from having “impure thoughts”, sure. G_d forbid they should walk out on the street and see some scantily clad teen; maybe they shouldn’t be living in the den of sin that is New York City.

    But hey, if that’s your religion, and you’re not actually hurting anyone, fair enough.

    • Mark Frauenfelder says:

      “But hey, if that’s your religion, and you’re not actually hurting anyone, fair enough.”

      Exactly. They can create whatever kind of reality they wish to dwell in. I just think it’s really interesting that they remove women from all the photos they publish.

      • Susan Oliver says:

        “But hey, if that’s your religion, and you’re not actually hurting anyone, fair enough.”

        NO!

        WTF?

        IF they’re not hurting anyone?! IF?!

        There’s no “if” about this. All women suffer when other women are edited out of history.

        • Padraig says:

          Of course all women are minimised and marginalised by such stupidity.

          Sorry, I appear to speaking the bleedingly stupidly obvious…it’s just that some people are so bleedingly obviously stupid.

        • Mark Frauenfelder says:

          “All women suffer when other women are edited out of history.”

          Of course they do. I was trying to make a point by being sarcastic. I showed the photo to my wife and daughters and they were rightfully upset.

    • mausium says:

      “you’re not actually hurting anyone, fair enough.”

      I can’t imagine how “neither heard nor seen” could be emotionally healthy for women.

  42. rebdav says:

    Sigh…
    OK, I am an American Jew in Israel who happens to be living in one of the most orthodox communities in the world partly by circumstance.
    My wife is educated and happens to work from her home office but is at least as chutzpah as any East Coast liberal.
    I don’t endorse everything that happens, I think it is weird that the woman on the Cheerios box is covered with stickers.
    This is called clash of civilization and cultural myopia, it would take an educational effort around the size of the wine compatibility layer libs to explain everything.
    There is no more hatred for women than in the cherished American liberal bastions, ask my smarty pants wife.
    We dont use a sheet for sex, that is a weird old antisemitic myth.
    Big Sigh, this is the problem when one culture spends too much time naval gazing, it can’t interact well with any other that cant be shrink wrapped with an English labeled instructional decal.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      this is the problem when one culture spends too much time naval gazing

      So which culture spends too much time navel gazing, the whole BB commentariat or the Hasidic community? Because I’d say that Hasidic communities are pretty far down one side of the inward-focused and insular continuum. These are the urban Jewish version of those Christians who live in compounds and have wives who all have the same humongous hairdo and wear the same dress.

      • Mottel says:

        Some of them also happen to read Boing Boing and comment on it.

      • rebdav says:

        Antinous,
        You wouldn’t believe the level of naval gazing here, it throws off visible fractals in the local gravity waves.
        Just saying that BB readers mostly consider themselves the most culturally portable humans but then so often epically fail to understand anything outside US-Anglo-Euro university culture.
        Chasidim, if I had a choice I probably wouldn’t live in the deepest chasidic trench in the world, but I do right now, they never claimed to be uber tolerant of other cultures.
        The Chasidim are not bad people, actually most are quite nice although very distracted by interference from the real world. Better to think of them as married ascetics with piles of kids, trying to tune out the physical world, including all women except their wife.
        Listen, to be honest they drive me nuts too but I am sensitive to outsider attacks by people who have nearly no insight into the issue other than applying own their world view.
        I have the same issue when we talk here about Muslims or right wingy American Christians who I have also had plenty of interaction with.

    • Anonymous says:

      “There is no more hatred for women than in the cherished American liberal bastions”

      So they don’t hate women but they coincidentally want them erased from photos or covered up by stickers? Like someone was just pulling rules out of a hat and they were like “this one says ‘women aren’t allowed to be seen in photos’… ha ha wow that’s kind of awkward seeing as we’re all as liberal as the cherished American liberal bastions… Whoopsidaisy!”? If it’s not something like that, what is it that they feel towards women other than hatred (or something milder on the dislike-hate continuum) that would make them want to photoshop women out of photographs?

    • Jack says:

      There is no more hatred for women than in the cherished American liberal bastions, ask my smarty pants wife.

      Really? You consider that most Orthodox Jewish women are (1) house-bound (2) forced to squeeze out as many children as possible (3) wear wigs because their head is shaved (4) take ritual baths once a month because their menses is “dirty” and the list goes on and on.

      And FWIW, when my mom was briefly hospitalized due to stroke related trauma in a hospital that caters towards Brooklyn’s Jewish community, I was shocked to see that the vast majority of patients in the ward were not old or suffering from a physical ailment. The vast majority of ward patients were girls and between the age of 12-15 or so. Why were they there? Many were simply “acting out” against their families after finding out about their arranged marriages. Apparently their normal “What the fuck?!?!” reaction was considered a mental breakdown.

      I consider all of that very clear hatred of women and fear of change.

      Also, be a mensch and stop using that ridiculous “American liberal” nonsense. What does being a “liberal” have to do with criticizing sexism and archaic behaviors?

      • rebdav says:

        Jack,
        That is a very ignorant and nasty spin on everyday Jewish life, clearly approaching zero understanding of the issue but informed by some antisemitic rumor.
        Your score:
        1-wrong
        2-most do it by choice 0.5
        3-wrong
        4-wrong, but laughably spun to very nasty negativity, yuck!
        so 0.5 of 4.

        Most Heradi women are actually pressured to enter the skilled work force and are encouraged to seek college education in higher numbers than men.
        I make the crack at liberal orthodoxy because for all the insistence to the contrary it is just as closed and has as many rules to follow as any Midwestern church town. Be liberal, most of the progress in our modern world is thanks to real liberals with open minds, but learn to think outside a cultural shell and actually attain liberalism, not left wing conservative orthodoxy.

        There are problems just as severe as faced by any other culture just different, truthfully how well are women actually treated in your culture?

        As for the others, why does being different in this way spawn such vitriol? Is praying to the Kotel really so disgusting to you, and why?
        It should be mandatory that any uni student spend a year positively interacting with a dissimilar culture or two in addition to studying their philosophy, culturally monolithic education creates the conditions for the train wreck I am witnessing today.

        You don’t have to agree but you also don’t have to hate.

  43. Anonymous says:

    people, you got it wrong, all of you.

    this is a different photograph, shot a few seconds later. hillary clinton just went out to the bathroom, don’t ask me why, just look at the expression on her face.

    and what about audrey tomason? well, i have stopped wondering a long time ago why women never go to the loo alone.

    .~.

  44. MarkM says:

    The 2007 NYT article cited above offers some interesting insights:

    A local physician addressed an assembly at Maimonides yeshiva on the topic of the challenges that a modern Orthodox professional may face. The doctor addressed the Talmudic dictum that the saving of a life trumps the Sabbath. He explained that in its purest form, this principle applies only to the life of a Jew. The rabbis of the Talmud, however, were unprepared to allow the life of a non-Jew to be extinguished because of the no-work commandment, and so they ruled that the Sabbath could be violated to save the life of a non-Jew out of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities

    Depending on how you look at it, this ruling is either an example of outrageously particularist religious thinking, because in principle it values Jewish life more than non-Jewish life, or an instance of laudable universalism, because in practice it treats all lives equally. The physician quite reasonably opted for the latter explanation. And he added that he himself would never distinguish Jewish from non-Jewish patients: a human being was a human being.

    This appealing sentiment did not go unchallenged. One of my teachers rose to suggest that the doctor’s attitude was putting him in danger of violating the Torah. The teacher reported that he had himself heard from his own rabbi, a leading modern-Orthodox Talmudist associated with Yeshiva University, that in violating the Sabbath to treat a non-Jew, intention was absolutely crucial. If you intended to save the patient’s life so as to facilitate good relations between Jews and non-Jews, your actions were permissible. But if, to the contrary, you intended to save the patient out of universal morality, then you were in fact guilty of violating the Sabbath, because the motive for acting was not the motive on the basis of which the rabbis allowed the Sabbath violation to occur.

    Later, in class, the teacher apologized to us students for what he said to the doctor. His comments, he said, were inappropriate — not because they were wrongheaded, but because non-Jews were present in the audience when he made them. The double standard of Jews and non-Jews, in other words, was for him truly irreducible: it was not just about noting that only Jewish lives merited violation of the Sabbath, but also about keeping the secret of why non-Jewish lives might be saved.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E6D61631F931A15754C0A9619C8B63

  45. Dicrel Seijin says:

    I don’t mean to go off-topic, but is it just me or are those the Twin Towers burning in the left-hand side of the newspaper’s title?

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t mean to go off-topic, but is it just me or are those the Twin Towers burning in the left-hand side of the newspaper’s title?

      And the picture on the right looks like the top of Osama bin Laden’s compound! It’s almost as if there’s some hidden meaning!

  46. Gulliver says:

    @ Anon #21

    > And, here it is- the obligatory ‘but what about the menz’?? No. Just, NO.

    > This is disparaging against WOMEN, by ERASING them from historically significant images.

    So then it can’t be disparaging to both? Because erasing human beings from history seems pretty disparaging to human beings, but I guess I’m old fashioned.

    @ Anon #58

    > Just wondering, and believe me when I say this is a totally honest question coming from a non-American.

    > Would it be legal in America today for a newspaper to say “In accord with our beliefs, we do not publish photos of colored people”, and then either photoshop them out or digitally change their skin color from pictures it published?

    Some jurisdictions might try to challenge this as hate speech, but if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court the Supremes would likely interpret it as being protected under the First Amendment. Generally speaking, you have to prove specific material harm – for example committing fraud or advertising for a hitman – as opposed to say moral outrage, before freedom of speech can be abridged.

    Constitutionality aside, the only thing worse than bigotry is censorship. If you don’t let people show their true nature by speaking their mind, you won’t know what is in their hearts. Silencing a problem does not make it go away.

    > Note that I am not asking whether this would be accepted by the general community, but whether there is a law against it.

    Accepted by the general community is what it should not be. If a society has to pass a law to stop people from exchanging a view like that, that society has deeper problems rotting its foundation that won’t be fixed by censorship.

    @ Teapot

    > Why would anyone shame 300+ million people for the actions and beliefs of a couple thousand?

    Um, have you meant the human race? Millions, even billions, are routinely held accountable for the asininity of even just one person. Almost as often as one person is scapegoated by mobs.

    @ JoshuaZ

    > Teapot, I’m not sure you actually believe that rules should be identical for both sexes where clothing is concerned. Do you think there’s something unacceptable with societies that decide that it is ok for males to be topless in public but not females? If yes, how do you draw the line between that and hair covering?

    Dress codes are among the least rational (and luckily also mostly harmless) idiocies pervasive among virtually all human cultures. That individuals cannot wear, or not wear, whatever they want, is pointless.

    @ Aloisius

    > No one lives in a perfectly equal gender-neutral, race-neutral, *-neutral society and frankly, it is very likely that no such society has ever existed.

    Yup. We have the bell curve to thank for that. For everyone who thinks things through and values reason and egalitarianism, there are ten or more knee-jerk fools who think a person’s value depends on the circumstances of their birth. Not that I’ve taken any surveys on the distribution, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess I’m not underestimating the rationalist/moron ratio.

    For my part, I’m not sure which is more worrying, that the “news” media turned a cough into a harrowing tale of ten years heartache, or that there are Jews whitewashing specific people out of history.

  47. Anonymous says:

    “…and it’ll still be socially unacceptable for a man to wear a sundress.”

    Funny thing is you’re right, it’s sexism. Because god forbid a man act or dress in a feminine way, feminine is bad and below men! Men have to be manly and macho (read:superior) don’t you know? Go go internalised gender roles etc. Sure, the hypothetical dress-wearing dude is feeling the effects of sexism, but in actuality it all boils down to misogyny in the end.

  48. Jenonymous says:

    No, yr doing it wrong. You see, if you just put in the word “Muslim” wherever the word “Jewish” is, treating women like crap becomes miraculously OK because you’re being an intolerant bigot if you point out that Islam relegates women to subhuman status.

    However, you still get to wear your Che Guevara T-shirt with pride if you instantly ascribe blame to any aspect of life even remotely tracealbe to Judaism (I remember some Sparticists back in college who took great pleausre in defacing posters for a local Yom HaShoah service because they were “Zionist Propaganda.”).

    Not that I agree with womens’ roles or lack thereof in Orthodox Jewish life. However, the Left in the US seems to have a huge blind spot and double standard when it comes to religious oppression of women. If white folks do it, it’s evil, if brown folks do it, it’s “cultural relativism” and we don’t have any right to interfere.

    It’s one of the more revolting aspects of being liberal in the US IMHO, and one that sadly does not have to be.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I find it somewhat more concerning that whenever there’s a post about Christians or Jews or Mormons or Hindus or whoever doing something horrible, somebody always shows up to yell, “What about the Muslims?!?!?” Maybe the phenomenon that you’re describing has something to do with a national political discourse that sounds like Germany in the 1930s, where one single group is responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to anybody.

  49. freshyill says:

    How about instead of dancing around the issue, you call it a Hasidic newspaper instead of a “Brooklyn-based” newspaper? This is a stupid religious thing, not a Brooklyn thing. If it were a shitty British tabloid, would you call it out for that, or would you call it a “London-based” newspaper?

  50. spriggan says:

    “fail to understand anything outside US-Anglo-Euro university culture.”

    It works both ways.

    Well, we’re happy enough to march forward and leave them with their noses firmly planted in a dusty old book nodding at a wall in the desert.

  51. mondojohnson says:

    Religious people are breathtakingly stupid.

  52. mausium says:

    “Ironically the paper, and the Chassidish community in general, has endorsed Secretary Clinton in all her Senate runs and voted for her by huge margins.”

    Surely it’s because she’s a woman and not for her pro-israel stance. Surely.

    • JoshuaZ says:

      Mausium, actually it doesn’t have anything to do with her stance on Israel. In fact, many of the chassidim aren’t pro-Israel at all. (In general, when you get to be sufficiently ultra-Orthodox, they start actively disliking the state due to the belief that there shouldn’t be a Jewish state until the arrival of the messiah). The main reason they’ve supported her is because she’s has brought federal funding to their neighborhoods. Everyone, even the very religious Jews, like pork.

  53. neurolux says:

    Thanks to Photoshop, a generation of ultra-orthodox Hassidic kids will grow up thinking all women are vampires because they don’t show up on film/digital images.

    It would have been more honest to just show black silhouettes in place of the women — or would that have been to suggestive?

  54. Jack says:

    That is a very ignorant and nasty spin on everyday Jewish life…

    Based on first-hand knowledge of a child of Holocaust survivors who was raised in a secular Jewish culture and watched first-hand how Jewish Orthodoxy and zealotry has destroyed lives.

    …clearly approaching zero understanding of the issue but informed by some antisemitic rumor.

    I love you! Anytime anyone in Jewish culture criticizes the more archaic aspects of Jewish culture, it becomes “anti-Semitic.” That and “liberal” are the straw-men that are repeatedly tossed out at any critics. As a Jew, to deny criticism of archaic nonsense is simply denial.

    There are problems just as severe as faced by any other culture just different, truthfully how well are women actually treated in your culture?

    Yes, women are treated better outside of Jewish Orthodoxy. For example, here in the “liberal” U.S. many women were allowed to vote for the first black President who then appointed a woman as Secretary of State who worked together to track down and kill a global terrorist and they did this by working together.

    • rebdav says:

      Actually the antisemitic bit was the vulgar trashing of things like going to the mikveh. I did not say you were knowingly antisemitic but the attitude in your comments is certainly not culturally enlightened.
      If you think western culture is the true bastion for womens freedom from manipulation I can’t even begin help you.

      • Jack says:

        rebdav, what you are engaging in that time-old tradition of passive-aggressively acting out against anyone who dares question Jewish Orthodoxy despite the fact there are some very valid criticisms out there if you would actually stop saying “liberal” and “anti-Semitic” every other sentence.

        I also like the fact you dance around the issue by saying:

        If you think western culture is the true bastion for womens freedom from manipulation I can’t even begin help you.

        Western culture has issues, but they are at least 21st century issues. Orthodox culture is mired in keeping the flame of 19th century nonsense alive and the “women’s issues” faced in Jewish Orthodox culture is really only marginally better than those of women in Islamic cultures.

        And in the case of this Hasidic newspaper, it is designed not to “be modest” but to control a micro-society that exists in the middle of the most media-saturated cities on Earth. Heaven forbid a Hasidic woman sees Hillary Clinton or Audrey Tomason be on the same level as the President of the U.S. during a profoundly historic moment in U.S. history. She might start getting ideas that would stand in the way of home-making, baby-making and being a good wife! Hospitalize her immediately!!!

      • Mithras says:

        If you think western culture is the true bastion for womens freedom from manipulation I can’t even begin help you.

        This is gonna get good, I can tell.

  55. Ned613 says:

    Boy what an obnoxious double standard. The white house photo was itself shopped. The picture in front of Hillary was pixelated priopr to release. Tzifung is a private operated newspaper so if people are offended by their editorial policy then don’t read it.

    • BB says:

      The double standard would have occurred if the men were removed via photoshop and no one objected. If you are removing facts, by eliminating parts of a photo, then you have no business calling yourself a “news” paper. At the least, it is editorializing, and not reporting news. At worst, it is rewriting history, or current day events (news).

      • Ned613 says:

        All newspapers eliminate parts of photographs. Its called cropping. Indeed, there probably were men removed from the photo through this process. (Note the elbow on the right border and the back of the head in the lower left corner.) Only a very naive person would believe there is never editorializing in cropped photographs (though I am not implying any such intent in the white house photo). But by your logic all newspapers editorialize by editing photographs and hence there are no “news” papers.

        • Brainspore says:

          Cropping is about selective presentation of information, which all journalism does. Otherwise every newspaper would require (to borrow from Douglas Adams) several inconveniently large buildings to carry it around in.

          Digital alterations like the ones above are fundamentally different. They don’t present a selective view of reality, they present a false view of reality. A real news organization, even one that believed women should never be seen in public, would have either cropped everyone out of the right side of the photo or just blacked the women out.

        • BB says:

          When a photograph is digitally altered to completely remove *pertinent* facts included within a photograph, and not simply extraneous noise removed by cutting the frame down, or making a more artistic presentation through cropping, in real newspapers, you are required to designate and caption that photo as ‘editorial’. That said, an editorial photo is generally used in an opinion piece, trend piece, feature, or a story where there would be no image available otherwise. This is not employed when the story is a direct reporting of facts of a specific event. In fact, photojournalists are encouraged to use full frame images when submitting them to editors.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Balance demands this photo with all the men removed instead:
    http://www.stickfigurehamlet.com/hillary-tomason.jpg

  57. Mottel says:

    I’m no fan of photoshopping people out – all the more so that it’s a relatively modern invention – and by far more a result of certain mores in certain segments of the “Ultra-orthodox” community than anything truly based on religious law.

    That being said, those opportunist turning the foolishness of Di Tzeitung into an excuse to bash Observant Jews – is libelous and disgusting.

    • teapot says:

      That being said, those opportunist turning the foolishness of Di Tzeitung into an excuse to bash Observant Jews – is libelous and disgusting.

      What did they think would happen? They shouldn’t be fools if they don’t want to be called on it. As others have mentioned, there is an easy crop they could’ve made which would include Obama and maintain the impact of the image. It’s their retarded rules they are following, so they should do so in such a way that it does not offend 50% of the population.

      In any case, who is bashing observant jews?? I can see only a few comments regarding Judaism, none of which are offensive. One compares this BS to purdah, which seems to be an apt comparison.

      Over-reaction, much?

      • Mottel says:

        They did not see the repercussions because I doubt they thought it through. Most likely this small subset of a minority enclave don’t use the internet themselves, and never imagined someone outside their community would see it. I agree it should have been cropped or blurred if it bothered them – but statements purporting that it’s about “owning [women] sexually in particular …[only] their husbands have total ownership of “their” womens’ visual/social (sexual) being” has no basis in Jewish belief. As I said do some research – nothing could be further from the truth.

        Comparing my comments to defending – and thus by proxy comparing chasidim – to the KKK is reprehensible.

        Making ignorant assumptions about wholes in sheets and summer coats – more disinformation is the same . . .

        It’s offensive and ignorant – and just as uncalled for as, if not worse than, the photoshopping.

        • spriggan says:

          “Exactly! Just like when we call all members of the KKK racist, just because of the cross-burning and lynchings and stuff.”

          “Comparing my comments to defending – and thus by proxy comparing chasidim – to the KKK is reprehensible.”

          You mean they’re not a German nationality historical LARPing group? Shit. I always wonder why people looked at me funny when I wanted a Germanic Pride weekend festival.

        • hungryjoe says:

          I was going to ask you to clarify the difference between the Zionist movement in Judaism and the White Power movement in the US (in the sense that it advocates the United States as a white Christian country, and excludes everyone else). But I learned from Wikipedia that while there are Hasidic Zionists, Zionism is not fundamental to the Hasidim. So I guess you get a pass…this time.

        • teapot says:

          As I said do some research – nothing could be further from the truth.

          You’re just a cranky jerk who has a problem with anything that offends your life choices. I’ve seen a documentary, talked at length with my Jewish friends and there happens to be a Lubavitch community in the suburb in which I used to live… That’s more research than probably 99.5% of the population has done into the subject.

          Comparing my comments to defending – and thus by proxy comparing chasidim – to the KKK is reprehensible.

          I didn’t do this. Pick your fights with the appropriate people.

          Making ignorant assumptions about wholes in sheets and summer coats – more disinformation is the same . . .

          It’s tempting to make a joke about how you accidentally misspelled “whores” instead of “holes”, but instead I will point out that I accepted my original comment was false: “My bad” < - remember that? Lubavitch are characterised by wearing jackets & coats all year round, so don’t call disinformation on something that’s true.

          Go on, tell me I’m wrong.

          • Avram / Moderator says:

            Teapot, calm down. Mottel has an excuse for being cranky, seeing as how you’re insulting her religious community and spreading myths. You have no equivalent excuse.

            Also, you’re wrong. While Hassidic men do wear jackets all year round, just like most men used to in the 19th century, and businessmen still do today, they don’t wear heavy winter jackets in the summer. I live right near the main Lubavitcher community in Brooklyn, and the men I see wear lightweight jackets in warm weather, and heavy coats only when it’s cold.

          • lorq says:

            “Teapot, calm down. Mottel has an excuse for being cranky, seeing as how you’re insulting her religious community and spreading myths. You have no equivalent excuse.”

            True only up to a point. Mottel came flying out of the gate with terms like “libelous,” “disgusting,” and “opportunist” *before* Teapot spoke up, and before anything *specifically* ignorant had been said by anyone else.

    • Rob says:

      I’m no fan of photoshopping people out – all the more so that it’s a relatively modern invention

      It’s what, about 50 seconds older than photography? It’s been done since the beginning by modifying the negatives. It’s only gotten easier, that’s all.

    • snakedart says:

      Exactly! Just like when we call all members of the KKK racist, just because of the cross-burning and lynchings and stuff.

      When are we going to stop judging people based simply upon how they treat other people? Sheesh.

  58. peterbruells says:

    Couldn’t they just photoshop a big mustache, long beards and sideburns on any woman in the news? Or better yet everyone, so they appear to be unbiased?

  59. Anonymous says:

    By altering reality this newspaper does its readers a serious injustice and should be condemned for doing so. Did they caption the photo as saying Hilary Clinton was also present? On another note, why didn’t they just crop the picture slightly to the side of the man in uniform (much easier than PSing people out)?

  60. emilydickinsonridesabmx says:

    The headline for this post makes me sad. Yes, Der Tzitung, is a paper published and created in Brooklyn, but it isn’t a Brooklyn paper. It represents just one extremist sect of Hasidic Judaism.

    The rest of us Brooklynites are living in the 21st Century. If you think this is bad, look up Kaparot…(or don’t because it’s weird and kind of scary).

  61. Crashproof says:

    Actually, I do find it disparaging to men. Just *more* disparaging to women.

    • Anonymous says:

      there’s plenty of disparaging to go around, we don’t need to sit here and say no MY team is more offended NO MINE!

  62. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Please keep it civil, gentlemen.

  63. Irene Delse says:

    >#17: Modano
    >Isn’t this actually disparaging to men? The implication is that a man can’t see a photo of a woman without flying into a horniness-induced fit of some kind and he must be protected against his own weak nature, right?

    >#21:
    >And, here it is- the obligatory ‘but what about the menz’?? No. Just, NO.

    FYI, what Modano was doing was using a tactic often used by feminists and their allies when they want to educate people (especially men) who don’t feel there’s a problem with a misogynistic society as long as it doesn’t affect them. Maybe you assume all BB commenters already have had their consciousness risen on the topic feminism, but a look at further comments by rebdav and others proves you wrong.

  64. teapot says:

    Just another bunch of stupid religio-fucks promoting their retarded world view…. and I thought beardy-wizard bin laden’s religion was supposed to be the one that discriminated towards women.

    Bottom line: Ridicule assholes with unbalanced world views. They can believe whatever they want, but I want them to know that the world at large thinks they are loons and that when they die, all the time they spent devoted to the-non-existent-guy-in-the-sky was a complete waste.

  65. Tdawwg says:

    Are men the primary sheltered audience for this, or women? Like, is it less about men getting all horny for Hillary and more about Orthodox women getting the “wrong idea” about their minds and bodies, gender relations, and all the rest?

    Imagine the lesson this farce teaches the young women in those communities. For shame.

  66. awjtawjt says:

    Thanks for this. Now I have successfully edited Chassidim out of my personal reality.

  67. lorq says:

    I suspect the “modesty” argument for deleting women out of photographs isn’t just broadly and crudely about omitting women from history. Like the Muslim purdah, it’s about men owning women, and owning them sexually in particular. Muslim women wear burqas because only their husbands are entitled to have access to them; their husbands have total ownership of “their” womens’ visual/social (sexual) being. Same here. You’re not allowed to see Hillary Clinton because only Bill is entitled to see her. The rest of the world can’t see her because Bill “owns” her. It’s an expression of patriarchal ownership.

  68. adamnvillani says:

    I’d say it’s pretty civil to allow this guy to keep digging his rhetorical pit.

  69. francoisroux says:

    In replay to “Anon in reply to Modano”

    Let me just state that I have a huge problem with the removing of the women from this photo. I have a huge problem with chauvinism. I have a huge problem with misogyny.

    Naturally I also have a huge problem with feminism and misandry. Both of which you obviously display clear traits of.

    Seriously, grow up!

    • lknope says:

      You cannot have a problem with both chauvinism and feminism. You need to pick one. Feminism is a belief in sexual equality. If you have a problem with that, you are a chauvinist.

      • francoisroux says:

        I stand corrected. My view of what feminism means might have been eschewed somewhat by the greater concentration on equal rights for women, since they’ve been treated far less equal in the past, and the incorrect use of the term to describe misandry.

        So I’m therefore probably a feminist myself.

  70. Neon Tooth says:

    Now imagine if this was an American Muslim paper…..

    All the usual talking heads would be having a field day.

  71. hungryjoe says:

    I’m surprised there are no anti-American comments here. This is a messed-up thing perpetrated by a bunch of ultra-conservative Americans in America against other Americans, and yet no one is here to say America sucks.

    • spriggan says:

      American sucks. .. oh wait no. Religous people be acting crazy. So I guess America is jus’ doin’ America.

    • teapot says:

      This is a messed-up thing perpetrated by a bunch of ultra-conservative Americans in America against other Americans, and yet no one is here to say America sucks.

      Why would anyone shame 300+ million people for the actions and beliefs of a couple thousand?

      • hungryjoe says:

        I know, right? Seems crazy to me, too. But the second someone posts about some crazy thing the Minute Man Militia did, everyone screams about how bad the US sucks. And we have even fewer Minute Persons than we do Orthodox Jews, I bet.

        Hopefully the hateful edges of this particular group will wear off after a few more generations, as will all the other groups’ hateful edges.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      and yet no one is here to say America sucks.

      Are you new here? People say that about a hundred times a day.

  72. Tatsuma says:

    The anti-semitism in this thread is really disturbing.

    Oy vey!

  73. Anonymous says:

    Just wondering, and believe me when I say this is a totally honest question coming from a non-American.

    Would it be legal in America today for a newspaper to say “In accord with our beliefs, we do not publish photos of colored people”, and then either photoshop them out or digitally change their skin color from pictures it published?

    Note that I am not asking whether this would be accepted by the general community, but whether there is a law against it.

    • Aloisius says:

      Would it be legal in America today for a newspaper to say “In accord with our beliefs, we do not publish photos of colored people”, and then either photoshop them out or digitally change their skin color from pictures it published?

      Yes. Bigots are granted freedom of speech in the US just like everyone else.

  74. Nicky G says:

    “Everyone, even the very religious Jews, like pork.”

    HAHAHAHAH! Oh man, that was rich. :-)

Leave a Reply