A Brooklyn based Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung ran the now instantly recognizable photo of Obama et al in the Situation Room, waiting to hear about the success of Operation Geronimo, and somehow thought that deleting Hillary Clinton from the picture wouldn’t be noticed. Clinton (along with the director of counterterrorism Audrey Tomason) were photoshopped out of the picture because, according to the editors, they never run pictures of women. Why? Because pictures of women make men think about sex.
The editors stated: 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.
Rewriting photographic history to undercut the involvement of women? Who could POSSIBLY be offended by that?
And Hasidic men are so horny that in an article about the death of bin Laden, they’re going to look at the photo and not think, “Boy, Obama looks focused” or “Oh look, Biden’s awake,” but instead, “Whoa, check out Hillary; I want me some of THAT.” Seriously? Shouldn’t thinking that Jewish men are so unable to prioritize be considered offensive to men?
I wonder if Hillary is flattered that a single picture of her threatens to send Hasidic Jews into paroxysms of lust. Did she find out about this and say, “I’ve still got it, baby.”
If sexual suggestiveness is that much of a concern, they may want to consider changing the name of their paper, because it could be read as “Titztung,” which sounds like “Tits Tongue,” which summons up mental images that could possibly corrupt young Hasidic minds.
PAD
• 
About two decades of hearing one complaint about Hillary Clinton after another, I think this is the first time I’ve heard “too dámņ sexy” as one of them.
I do wonder though, how many shiksappeal jokes will we all hear in the coming weeks?
.
Wow… Just… Wow…
.
I really can’t even begin to describe how stupid this is on every level.
But you’re more than welcome to try! 😀
They musta figured since it wasn’t a burqua or veil, they could get away with it.
And it’s quite possible that they’re violating the terms of usage of that image by manipulating it away from the original.
Oh, it’s not just possible. They are. The White House was very clear that the image was not to be altered.
.
PAD
In fact, they admmitted that in their half-assed apology. But that was all the wrongdoing they admitted to.
I like this version:
.
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd38/ollerom_photos/Funstuff/VWuwQ.jpg
I prefer the one of Obama playing XBox.
Well, that’s just silly. What’re Captain America and Spider-Man (not to mention Spawn) doing with the Justice League?
It’s a crossover. Duh. 😉
I shared this photo with some friends, and they were totally confused. None of them had seen the original photo or knew what it meant.
I gotta get smarter friends.
*Hebrew school/Torah teacher hat on*
It’s like the morning blessing that thanks G-d for ‘not making me a woman’. At first glance it’s horribly sexist and against women. At second glance, it’s horribly sexist, but it’s against men. Look at all of the things women are responsible for: giving birth, and traditionally, raising the children, keeping the house clean, cooking, blah blah blah… aren’t men so happy that they don’t have to do all of that? (Plus there’s the whole, men have certain biblical obligations that women don’t, and that just gives men more chances to fulfill a commandment, and aren’t they lucky?) In the meantime, men, when they say that blessing, are admitting that they aren’t as good as women.
Also, women have to be separated from men in the synagogue and have to pray quietly. Why? Because the sound of a woman’s voice will cause a man to go crazy with sexual desire.
Men have no self-control in traditional Judaism. They see a woman, they think about sex. They hear a woman, they think about sex. And in ultra-orthodox communities, where one is supposed to think of G-d at all times, that means only one thing:
Pretend women don’t exist so that you can only think about sex in its time and place. Keep them as covered as possible in public and don’t let them sing.
Which is stupid. Because I’m pretty sure men have more self control than that. But I’m not a man, so I can’t speak for them.
I’m also a cantorial soloist, and I’ve yet to have a man jump me while leading a congregation in prayer. So there is that.
Okay, if we’re keeping with Judaic law, isn’t altering a photograph bearing false witness, and a violation of the Ninth Commandment?
I certainly thought that when I posted that same observation two days ago…
.
PAD
I’m not going to argue against that at all. I think that the newspaper should not publish photos at all if they won’t publish photos of women.
(Though, if they’re going to follow the 9th commandment Judaically, it might be hard to publish a newspaper at all. It’s not something I’ve ever looked into, though. The laws concerning Lashon Harah — all forms of gossip — start there, and even telling true things can fall into that category.)
So, do the folks at Der Tzitung treat *any* image of women like pornography? “Did you see the hot babe on this month’s Reader’s Digest? Hubba hubba!”
To me, this raises the big question: If Hilary Clinton got (or a future female candidate gets) elected president, do they strictly avoid running any pictures of that president — maybe with a stick figure drawn in their place?
Sexism is treating someone different (usually, though not always, worse) based on gender. If Der Tzitung wasn’t such a miche publication, Hilary would have good reason to be insulted at being omitted from a historical moment. As it stands, I think it reflects on the shameful beliefs of the paper, which apparently wants to alter objective (visual) facts to meet their belief system. What a shame.
AN online comment said: “And what did they do when Golda Meir {i’ve spelt that four different ways and the all look wrong} was Prime Minister?”
Yes, James – any woman, any image. It’s fear of the slippery slope. Today it’s a photo of Hilary, tomorrow it’s Sarah Palin in a short skirt, and before you know it, it’s Baywatch.
It’s the belief system that binds their community together – that’s pretty much ALL they have. They cut themselves off from the ‘secular’ world as much as they can – and what they can’t cut off, they cut out.
Gets better. Blanking out Hillary is one thing, but they also deleted counterterrorism director Audrey Thomason, who for my money is miles cuter and more likely to make me think of sex. Except, like Xander Harris, linoleum makes me think about sex… The whole thing’s silly as hëll, and does nothing but show how out of touch these Hasidim are with the times and reality. Like Miriam says, it’s insulting to women, men, and Jews in general. The backlash is gonna be fun to watch. Assuming that anybody bothers.
Uh, yeah, Miles, I know they blanked out Thomason. I said so in the posting.
.
PAD
Eep. Sorry, Evil Twin, I missed that. Mea culpa.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I disagree. Hasidic thought does consider showing women (especially ones with uncovered hair) to be slightly pornographic. To them, hair is ervah, an area that is meant to be covered. I spoke to some people who work for the newspaper, and it’s women running quite a bit of it. They pointed out that just as many newspapers would refuse to post topless shots, they refuse to offend the modesty of women by posting what they consider naked women. Is it a good idea? Doubtful, I think they are wrong, but I think mocking them isn’t going to help much. I think we need to reach out and Haskala-ize, and expose them to the wonders of modern Orthodoxy, where you can keep the Torah without being seen as fringe.
While your blog is fantastic, other coverage on it on other sites has turned pretty anti-semitic, if you look at the comments.
Yes, I mock them, they’re freaking crazy.
.
We are more insane than cultures like indigenous cultures that allow women to go topless. Hasidic dudes that don’t allow their women to show hair are more insane than us. Muslim dudes that only allow women to show their eyes are even more insane.
.
I judge them. I judge the hëll out of them. We need at least other 2.000 years to recover from the psychic scars the three Abrahamic faiths inflicted on human sexuality.
That they don’t allow their women? Have you actually spoken to these women, many of whom are my family, and it’s their choice. It was my mother’s choice to cover her head, against my father’s wishes. It was my grandmother’s choice to cover her head, against my grandpa’s wishes. It was my other grandma’s choice not to cover her head, against my grandpa’s wishes.
Why don’t you do more research before you throw around insults? I’d be happy to provide info if you’d like.
To quote another Jew, judge not, yest ye be judged.
He wasn’t really throwing around insults, considering that he said EVERYONE (save perhaps for “indigenous cultures”) is insane. And while you’re right, that it’s often the woman’s choice to cover up (same with burkhas), his point still stands. We have many immature and backwards shame-based customs regarding clothing and exposed flesh that we really need to evolve past.
Some of those indigenous cultures (I can’t speak for all) don’t allow their women to show their legs at all. Breasts, no problem, but ankles aren’t allowed.
The issue I see isn’t what the women are wearing… it’s who chooses what the women are wearing. A woman covering her hair so only her husband can see — and it’s her choice? I see the power in that. It’s one more thing that’s special between them. (Muslim or Jewish, I don’t really care on that one.)
When the men start dictating what it is that women (plural now) can wear and can’t wear in a general public setting, then there’s a problem. I don’t see a whole lot of evidence of this happening in the Chasidic world.
I believe the Micronesians allowed breasts, but not legs. At least I’ve read about this occuring on Yap Island (as recently as the ’80s– it may still be the case as far as I know). But there may be other places like that, too. There aren’t many traditional cultures left that haven’t been influenced by missionaries or national governments in this matter, though. So a lot of the old nudity standards have disappeared in recent decades.
I don’t know if this is still the case, but at least until recently, the Tuareg, who are Sahelian Muslims, permitted women to show bare arms and breasts in public, but the men wore long robes and veils. Which shows how much religion will adjust to local culture.
I agree to a certain extent. But they aren’t even following Torah law in this. A non-Jewish woman isn’t held to the same standards as a Jewish woman. (And a non-married Jewish woman has different standards even then.) If they just refused to publish ANY pictures of people, I could believe they were following Halacha. (At least in the, ‘people are made in G-d’s image, no images of G-d’ sense. Although I don’t know if there are any current rabbis who teach that, I know there have been in the past.)
At some point in time, pointing out the absurdity of certain traditions and practices is the best way to move past them. There are fringe elements of all religions. Honestly, if photoshopping is the worst that happens, things aren’t too bad. While it would be nice if the Chasidim would go to modern Orthodoxy, I don’t see it happening any time soon.
(And I hope this doesn’t turn antisemitic, because that’s for sure not my intention.)
Now, that’s a better question. Are they following Halacha? That I’m willing to say is completely a fair point and I would agree, they are not.
And of course not, I doubt PAD would allow antisemitism here, I’m enjoying learning from you, Miriam.
How about the Ten Commandments? Are they big on following those?
.
Thou shalt not bear false witness. In changing the photograph, they are lying to their readership. Anyone who looks at that photograph thinks that there were no women in the room. The newspaper is printing a falsehood.
.
I think the word of God trumps everything else, don’t you?
.
PAD
Conversations don’t “turn” antisemitic. No one who is a free thinking individual is going to be magically transformed into an antisemite just by reading something stupid that a newspaper did. People who are already antisemitic will simply take whatever opportunity they can to spout their hatred. But I’m not going to live in fear of them and be afraid to discuss something critical of Jews if I feel it’s warranted.
.
PAD
I meant no disrespect for Jews that I also don’t feel for all of us, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, for some pretty insane beliefs regarding sex and the human body, and the use of shame and self-loathing for purposes of control.
.
That your mother and grandmother voluntarily chose to cover their heads only goes to show that they internalized these insane rules. But hey, my family is no better, my Mom was a repressed Catholic with a collection of neurosis. None of us are better. We’re all f***-up in the head together.
Do you understand where these philosophies come from? They are steeped in revisionist thinking that was developed for the purpose of survival hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
.
Once upon a time, there were no rules in Judaism that segregated women from men. Women could worship side by side with men. Women could even be rabbis. This, however, put Jewish thinking in opposition with the repressive attitudes toward women that were, and are, part of Arab philosophies. Consequently, Jews–especially Jewish women–were targeted by angry Arabs who were outraged by such scandalous behavior. As a matter of survival, Jews started adopting the repressive views of their neighbors. And these codified over time and women were transformed into second class citizens.
.
Times have changed and there’s no longer any excuses. I think mocking them is exactly the right response.
.
PAD
It makes one think that too many people still believe the year is 11 AD, not 2011 AD.
Can I ask what period you’re talking about, where there was no mechitzah and women could be rabbis? It seems you’re talking about Sephardic history, which isn’t my area of expertise, so I’d love to know more to where I can find out more about what you’re talking about?
From my understanding, the transition started around the second century AD. I found this out from a fascinating book about the history of women in religion.
.
PAD
Do you remember any other details of the book to make it easier to find? I’d love to read it and its sources.
El Hombre–he said “Arabs” not “Muslims”.
Actually… he did. I’ve seen both words used as equivalent so many times I misread. I also clicked on the wrong “reply” link.
.
Mea culpa. See? I am a man driven by his passions, blind to the truth…
I find this interesting for the dichotomy of Judaism being matrilinear.
.
Just Saying.
.
TAC
Matrilinearity doesnt have much to do with matriarchy, sometimes it is the opposite. The Portuguesse, as far as I know, are matrilinear and very much a patriarchy. The Basques were (and in some ways are) a matriarchy yet patrilinear.
.
Matrilinear heritage in fact can put a burden on the woman, since the man can whørë around outside the tribe without having to care for the resulting children. Its kind of a perverse form of profilaxis if you think about it.
.
If they simply didn’t show the image, that would be fine. If Clinton and Tomason had been removed from the image at their own request, I’d likewise be sympathetic, despite what the law says.
Cutting them out of the image is not acceptable.
If they didn’t want to be mocked for this action, they had a simple solution – don’t run the photo. They got themselves here.
PAD, if the transition started in the 2nd century AD I would put the “blame” on paleo-christians. Many christian sects were pretty intolerant of pre-existing religions and their customs, and quite violent too. Islam appeared 4 centuries later and it took almost a thousand years until Christian countries (the other enviromental neighbour for jews) became more tolerant toward women than Islam. More than that in some countries. Regarding modesty laws… veils, burkas or hiyabs are mostly a cultural (arab, pashtun and magrebi) thing, rather than a religious one. It turned into a big deal only when the house of Saud found that black goo was actually worth something.
.
(I know I allways come out as some kind of devil’s advocates whenever Islam is mentioned but… it’s actually kind of a hobby by now)
I’ve seen old Saudi magazines that just covered over hair and other offending body parts with a magic marker. (I haven’t seen recent ones, so I don’t know if they do it digitally now.) But at least the faces remained, so nobody is erased from history. Photoshopping seems much worse, since the alteration isn’t visible. (But for all know, the Saudis or other Muslim extremists might do it too, now.)
.
The news article I read about this called the paper, Der Zeitung, which is the usual German spelling. I don’t know if Yiddish has a regular system of transliteration, or if the transliterators are supposed to just follow their own speeling preferences. Does anyone know?
Yiddish has no established system of transliteration that I know of. It’s not an academic paper, and English translations aren’t a big priority.
I think it might – I frequently see yiddish-fluent folk transliterating the gutteral letter chet with a “kh” instead of a “ch” like everyone else does. So it’s not “Chanukah”, but “Khanuke”. Check with yivo.org, might be a good place to start.
The Taliban, when they ruled Afghanistan, banned cinema and most (if not all) TV broadcasts. All because of the way they understood the whole “no false idol” rule in the abrahamaic religions.
.
(See? I dont defend ALL kinds of muslims)
Reminds me of the pilot episode of The West Wing:
.
Fundamentalist: “Show the average American teenage male a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.”
.
Toby: “Show the average American teenage male a lug wrench and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.”
Mmmmm. Lug wrench.
…I’m sorry, did you say something?
I hate to shatter the illusion of the peope running that newspaper, but according to stereotypes, pictures of paint drying make men think of sex.
Actually, for several years now the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue has included a feature where the models wear “swimsuits” made of body paint (and the occasional accessory, like a zipper or string, meant to add to the illusion). There’s even a terrific collection dedicated to these painted-on suits called IN THE PAINT (my review is at http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2008/08/sports-illustrated-in-paint.html )
So there’s that.
Yeah, I know. SI subscriber for 25 years here.
If they deem any photos of women as inappropriate, and if photos are not allowed to be (and should not be) altered, then it seems to me that the logical solution would be to simply not run *any* photos that have women in them.
If that makes it too difficult for them to have photos to go with their articles, then hopefully that would serve as a wake-up call to get with the times.
I heard the publication originally planned to just draw a goatee and moustache on her with a sharpie.
Well, it’s not surprising, considering those are the same people who have managed to make some buses in Israel segregated, with women forced to sit in the back. Sounds familiar? (and BTW, it’s true. I saw a report on that on TV. And woe be to the woman who dares to sit in the front. An Israeli Rosa Parks is sorely needed there.)
I’m not sure “forced” is the right word. Those buses go through predominatly if not entirely religious neighborhood, where everyone – men AND women – believe in separation of the sexes. Now, if you’re a female tourist wanting to board that bus, then sure – you’d be forced to sit in the back. But that’s the way the community wants it, which is why they’re allowed to have it that way by the State.
From what I’ve heard in that report, they don’t have permission from the state. In fact, such things are illegal in Israel, just like they are in the United States and in France.
It’s funny, somehow, how religious fundamentalists the world over, whatever their religion, have the same views about women. Islamists and fundamentalist jews hate each other’s guts, but they agree that women are second class beings, despite the fact that they wouldn’t even exist if not for women.
Ah, wikipedia tells me they very recently became illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egged
I didn’t know they had stuff like that in Israel. Makes me sad that this is the beacon of liberalism and democracy in the Middle East.
Ultra-Orthodox Jews are as representative of Israel as Extreme evangelicals are of America. They are a minority, but with significant political power.
Some Ultra-Orthodox tried to have separation between men and women in buses. But they did not succeed. Meanwhile I see Ultra-Orthodox Jews ride on regular buses on a daily basis.
In Judaism married women are required to cover their hair, not women in general. Some Ultra-Orthodox women wear wigs. Some rabbis felt that it defies the purpose and wanted to abolish wigs, but women put their foot down and wigs are still the norm. Moreover, even married women do not hide their hair completely, they just wear a (large) variety of head coverings that leave some of the hair in view (hats, scarfs etc.)
It should also be pointed out that this Hassidi paper is in Brooklyn, not Israel.
Golda Meir was a secular Israeli-Jewish woman. This is a Ultra-Orthodox American newspaper. What does she have to do with anything.
It should also be pointed out that we are talking here about a paper serving a community that is one of many subsections of the Jewish people. Unlike the Taliban or the Iranian government, these guys don’t have the legal authority of any state.
Well, the main reason I’m 100% on Israel’s side is that I will never be able to overlook the barbarian way many Muslims treat their women. To me that is the big deal, and I dislike it that many Liberals downplay it or try to defend it.
.
So, to me, it’s particularly disappointing to discover that Israel has some gender segregated buses. And not as bad as Iran is faint praise.
Rene, you really shouldn’t support Israel if your primary motive is dislike of Islamic practices.
In any case, Israel is a democratic free society, which is why segregated buses were ruled illegal. however, like most free democratic countries — such as America — Israel also has a conservative religious segment of the population, that sometimes is more sexist. Israel is no different in that regard. So not as a bad as Iran is a label you could place on most democratic countries. And in this case it’s American Hassidim anyway.
When the Ultra-Orthodox tried to get buses with male female separation they presented two arguments. (1) They only want it in buses that only serve their communities. (2) Apparently there are some (not Muslim) countries in which there is separation between the sexes in public transportation because of the issue of sexual harassment. They claimed that they don’t want to separate because they view women as inferior but because of modesty. However, these arguments didn’t work for them and there is no segregated buses, at least not legally or by any of the public bus companies.
as a person who uses buses daily I can tell you that buses where i live are anything but segregated. They are very multicultural.
Perhaps, it’s not a very reasonable position, but I just can’t help myself. Widescale mistreatment of women really gets to me. I’d put it up there with slavery. My sympathy for Israel in any conflict with neighbours is visceral.
.
Thanks for the explanations.
You know, I hate to say it, but it seems that in the most strict of muslim societies, I get the feeling that men are so not in control their own libidos so much that they must force their women to wear the completely covering Burqas (so that only the eyes are showing).
That’s the way I see it too. No matter how you try to justify it, it seems like the burden falls on women to not “provocke” the men.
I don’t think it’s that they can’t control themselves but look at what a sweet* deal they have concocted; they get to keep their women in subjugation AND they get an excuse to molest any women who fail to tow the line.
.
* (By “sweet” I mean sweet if you are a primitive screwhead with, um, lets just say, “issues”. I dislike the tendency among some to diagnose latent homosexuality in anyone they oppose but you have some of these guys who seem to regard women with an almost visceral loathing. Mohammed Atta, 9/11 ringleader, made it clear in his will that no woman should be allowed to touch his dead body or appear at his funeral, a peculiar concern for someone who was about to spend an eternity in Hëll. You have to wonder. The Burqa doesn’t seem like something a heterosexual would have come up with, just saying…)
No need to invocke latent homosexuality. There are plenty of men that have sexual desire for women, but also despise women. Sometimes the level of hostility is proportional to the level of twisted, ashamed desire.
Fun fact:
.
The burqa is a pashtun piece of clothing that predates Islam (as in, it was there when Alexander visited that area). This would mark the pashtun as kind of a strict, prudent and pious people but…
.
…in fact they are not. They have a rich and lasting tradition of homoerotic poetry. The “not trying to hide it” kind. Goat herders who composed long poems about how grand it was to spend a night under the stars with your best friend. They were kind of like the rednecks of deliverance but a bit more tender. Then came wahabbism. The End.
See, I just don’t buy the excuse that the burqa (by which I mean the strictly enforced wear it or we beat you variety–if someone WANTS to wear one, knock yourself out, who am I to judge) as anything to do with sexuality. It isn’t to prevent women from “provoking” men or keep men from being turned on by women. It’s just creepy, it makes all women look the same, invisible, their individuality erased.
.
Is it to make it so all guys can pretend that their wives are no worse looking than any other guys? (which might be significant in a society where the top males can grab more than their fair share of the best looking women). Or just a simple matter of doing it because they can. Reading the hadiths (which are not the same as the Qur’an though many seem to miss that) you see a not unexpected strain of primitive sexism throughout (which makes Islam not any different from the other religions or philosophies of the time). Women making up the majority of those in hëll, for example.
.
The problem Islam seems to have with its fundamentalists, as opposed to Christians and Jews is that the Judeo-Christian religions seem better able to adapt to the times better. So I can happily disregard Leviticus and eat all the lobster I want with my gay, tattooed friends, happily telling myself that if God were here at the table (and whose to say he isn’t) he’d be a-ok with it. Lobster was a poor culinary choice indeed back when there were no refrigerators and melted butter but time marches on.
.
It seems to be more difficult for Islam to do that, either by the nature of the religion’s premise or the fact that the fundamentalists have more power to enforce by the club their own interpretation of how things should be. I wonder though, if their days are numbered–the young of Iran seem to be primed for a reformation of their own. It will be interesting to see where all this goes. It’s safe to say the future is not with the wahabbists.
Bill, I dont think its a problem of adaptation but instead one of self determination. As a culture and as individuals. Let’s remember very few independent muslim states existed before WWI, and that some Gulf states got their independece as late as the in 70s. Their form of goverment is both a consecuence of the traditions they had before becaming subjects to other countries and whatever those countries decided it should be after they left. Their main problem is less religion and more tirany and the use it makes of religion. It was self determination and political rights what delivered us from Leviticus, not any kind of intrinsic adaptability of judeochristian religion.
.
And still… 9 of every 10 muslim women live under no legal obligation to wear a burqua, veil or hiyab. The two longest self-determined muslim nations, Turkey and Persia (prior to Iran) developed civil societies and some level of individual self determination that is/was better than many judeochristian countries, my own included. There is much more to modern, present day Islam than the arabian peninsula
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if women choose to wear the burqa. If I’m understanding this correctly, they’re inculcated into a mindset that says that the mere sight of women unveiled is enough to provoke men into thoughts of lust. And rather than say that men should just learn to control themselves, they hide.
.
So basically they spend their lives covering up lest they be sexually assaulted, yes?
.
Sounds wonderful.
.
PAD
No PAD, what I tried to say is not all that many muslim women wear burquas, veils or hiyabs. Only in a few countries is mandatory and the more democratic/self determined the country is, the more chances the individuals have for self advancement, the less cultural pressure there is for them to wear it.
.
The point beign that it’s not religion but political self determination what will deliver them from “Leviticus”.
I’m a little concerned that Turkey seems to be slipping more toward extremism. Ataturk would be spinning in his grave.
.
The middle east Muslim country that best embraces full religious freedoms and modern views on the value of women, gays and religious minorities will leave the others so far behind that I think it will point the way for all to follow. The people are capable. It’s like the Chinese; if they ever get rid of that corrupt repressive government and the philosophy they espouse they will be well nigh unstoppable. It will be their century and rightly so.
Actually, more than extremists, what Turkey is seeing is the “normalization” of Islam in politics. The governing party is very similar to what you’d call demochristian in Europe (or paleoconservative in the USA I think). Right not the backlash comes from radical, kemalism, like the Grey Wolves.
.
I think that events like those in Egypt or Tunis have less to do with following anyone else’s path than trying to find their own. There are many factors but there is one I havent seen anyone in the media mention; the generation that is uprising is the thirdsince the decolonization struggles ended. Much of the political credit of tyrants there came from their role in the emancipation of their countries. For younger generations that means less and less.
That’s a good point, and it’s clear that the tyrants have no idea how the internet in general and facebook in particular has changed the game. So much of their success lies in convincing people that they are in the minority in hating the regime and being willing to do something about it. When it becomes clear that this is not the case it can go pretty badly for the tyrants, as Nicolae Ceaușescu found out in the last stupid moments of his wicked life.
Women cannot be in photos?
Ah, and people wonder why I hate religion and consider it the root of all evil…
The problem isn’t religion; it’s extremists. Extremes of anything–be it religious beliefs, political beliefs, whatever–are generally not a good thing.
.
PAD
Yes. This.
|
It’s also why I refuse to drink Mountain Dew, the most “EXTREEEEEME!!!” of the soft drinks.
I used to describe myself as a Fundamentalist Agnostic — “I’m SURE that I don’t have all the answers!” until I read the book RELIGION GONE BAD: THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT (detailing many of the religious Christian Fundamentalists in America, written by a former ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson). That scared me so much I didn’t even jokingly want to associate myself with Fundamentalists.
True.
.
But religion seems to lend itself more easily to a sort of extremism that brooks no discussion. Fear of mortality, search for the meaning of life, a sense of community, and faith being more important then reason or proof, you got a very powerful cocktail there.
.
Also, people are often indocrinated into religion from early childhood. The same isn’t as common with politics. But it’s true that for some people politics fulfills all the functions of religion (particularly common with Marxists).
.
But I don’t hate religion. They’ve done plenty of good too.
Whom do you count as being extreme on the left? If any.
That’s why I converted to Pastafarianism, aka the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We only discriminate against those who are unwilling to use reason and civility in discourse, and even then we keep some trolls around just for the entertainment value.
Ted Rall comes to mind, Steve.
What ticks me off even more, Peter, is that this happened…in the 21st century. You would guess that this crap would be something more in line with Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China, but…
And I agree with you about extremists.
I think what you’re asking, Marc, is why these beliefs haven’t changed with the times. Those who do believe in these strict rules (such as those for modesty) also believe that its those rules that’s kept their people/families/sect alive for thousands of years (which is a Big Deal, when you consider history). So they’re not going to surrender them so easily.
The thing is, if they were treating it like “pornography”, then the way to do it is to black out the parts of the image that they feel they can’t show. That way, you know someone/something was there, and the caption can explain who/what is being covered.
To just photoshop the people out, as if they never existed, is so insulting, telling the world, “they were never here and will not be missed. Their presence was irrelevant”.
While blacking them out would at least acknowledge their presence and existence.
Not that either is good. But ‘shopping the out is just so wrong.
And thanks to Photoshop (and similar apps), our entire history and future history are brought into question…
Isn’t it interesting that, in so many faiths and cultures, what may have intended to exalt and protect ends up oppressing instead? In most faiths that speak to it, modest dress among women was a requirement so that women did not become sex objects. As the years pass, it just becomes another tool to keep women down.
There’s a very thin line between elevation and denigration. Both require someone to regard someone else as fundamentally different than themselves. Quite a slippery slope.
The thing is, whenever males try to “exalt” and “protect” women, they usually have serving reasons from the beginning
.
Males forcing their wives to dress discreetly: are they really worried about their loved ones happiness, or just afraid that other men will make cuckolds out of them?
The families that didn’t want their daughters to show off their bodies: are they primarily worried about their daughter’s well-being, or with their ability to marry them off to their own advantage?
The families that didn’t want their daughters to show off their bodies: are they primarily worried about their daughter’s well-being, or with their ability to marry them off to their own advantage?
.
Well, speaking as a dad, I’d like to think we reserve the right to say to our daughters, “You are NOT going out dressed like that, young lady!” without it being self-serving. We should be able to set SOME limits, right?
.
PAD
Well, if that limit is set to your standarts of prudence and modesty and not hers… Say you go to France or Spain and your daughter wants to go topless on the beach (wich seems to be a big deal for americans since its a scenario plated multiple times in movies and TV shows).
.
If you ordered her not to your logic and moral ground would only differ from those who order their daughters to cover their hair or face in degree. And maybe not even that.
.
If you asked her not to, you would be putting pressure on her to follow your cultural modesty standarts. And if she didnt do it even if you never asked, she would simply be living happily in accordance to those standarts.
.
And if I passed by and threatened to fine you if your daughter doesnt bare her breasts, I would be Nikolas Sarkozy. On the bright side I would be married to Carla Bruny.
PAD, you don’t live in a country where arranged marriage still exists. So, if I may hazard a guess, I’d say your decision to impose limits is completely out of concern for your daughter’s well-being.
.
Whereas in more traditional societies, you don’t have to be cynical to imagine that controlling how your daughter acts, talks, and dress is also a way to asure she won’t become embarassing damaged goods and will still be of service to the family.
I feel that you’re stretching the analogy too much in order to defend Muslims, El Hombre.
.
The analogy would be more exact if PAD’s family were emigrating to France. And if baring female breasts on the beach were the norm among ALL French women, instead of merely an option. Also, if France were composed only of beaches.
.
Sorry, but there is no comparision between forcing your daughter to wear the top of her bikini in a hot weekend on the beach and forcing her to cover herself head to toe at all times in all situations.
.
I will agree that the sentiment ultimately arises from the same demonization of the human body inculcated by religions, though. But it’s like the difference between lightly slapping someone and opening their skull with a baseball bat. Both agressions, but to compare them is to ridiculously diminish the later.
Obviously, I exageratted the analogy, but I dont think it’s so much of a stretch. What I mean is that the logic behind both parental behaviors is the same.
.
The real difference is in the parents that use violence to enforce such views. And those are more numerous the less advanced in individual rights that society is in general, so it’s less of a religious trait than an indicator of that society’s advancement in rights.
.
I could say present day Uganda or 1940s Portugal are a reflection of christianity but it is’nt.
PAD, you don’t live in a country where arranged marriage still exists.
.
Actually I’m pretty sure it still does in certain areas or social strata, but that’s neither here nor there.
.
So, if I may hazard a guess, I’d say your decision to impose limits is completely out of concern for your daughter’s well-being.
.
Pretty much. Like it or not, people judge you by the way you attire yourself. (“Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” –Mark Twain.) If you dress seriously, people treat you seriously. If you dress like a šlûŧ, people treat you like a šlûŧ. As a parent you want to try and impart that lesson. Either that or have her watch “Working Girl” so she can see how Tess’s attire changes in the course of the film as she works her way up the corporate ladder.
.
Regarding Hombre’s comparison, it’s a matter of time and place. If my daughter really wanted to go topless at a European beach where that’s the custom, well…okay. If she’s really comfortable with that, that’s up to her.
.
PAD
It’s one thing to tell your daughter how to dress when she’s a child or even a teenager (if you can). It’s another thing completely to tell your daughter how to dress when she is an adult and up until she’s married and then her husband tells her how to dress.
That’s the difference between being a father and being part of patriarchy.
Well said, Micha.
.
Another obvious point where the analogy just doesn’t work. Like Noam Chomsky would say, PAD’s authority over his daughter is of the justified kind, because kids really need supervision.
.
Whereas a conservative Muslim male’s authority over his adult daughter or wife is immoral and unjustified. She could do without.
Patriarchy is actually a fine way to describe it. But patriarchy is a cultural construct, not a religious one. It usually predates religion and influences wich one actually spread. Its not easy to disseminate an idea if it contradicts what you believe to be normal.
.
Our societies are also patriarchies, yet violent enforcement of that trait is now the exception rather than the norm. If we compare one muslim country to another, we find the patriarchy to be more opressive in the countries with fewer chances of personal grow worse access to culture. Egypt is worse than Chad. And urban Chad is worse than rural Chad.
.
My flatmate (28) is from a big town but a town non the less and she has a whole set of clothes se cant wear when she visits her folks. Nor a lot of words she cant use. Her mother doesnt fully understand her need to have a career and leave town instead of finding a good man and every now and then they have huge fights about it over the phone. Patriarchy in action. They are evangelical, but she says this is what most girls her age and socioeconomic level had to endure in her town, regardless of their faith.
.
So, Rene, is not that I try to diminish the crimes of muslim men against women. Is that I think those crimes doesnt have to do with them beign muslim.
I am not sure I understand the distinction you’re making between culture and religion. It’s not like I buy the idea that religion is truly dictated by supernatural beings. And I’m not sure you do either.
.
If we accept that religions, myths, legends are created as a way to teach people how to act in the “right” way, then yeah, religion isn’t the root of patriarchy, but it’s still the loaded gun that allows you to commit the robbery.
.
How do you justify patriarchy without religion, anyway? Religion is such an splendid way to justify injustice, because how do you beat “God commanded it”? You don’t even need to make sense.
Of course religion is a great influence in mantaining the status quo, but in a free society it has as much power over people as people decide to concede it. The moment there is a dislocation between religious dogma and the way people live their lives, religion loses… unless there is a political authority willing to use coercion to enforce the dogma.
.
If you can take two diferent muslim societies and observe different levels of patriarchy depending on the level of freedom and maturity of their political system, any inherent link between Islam and patriarchy cant be defended unless you also defend that the less free, the better muslim you are. Wich is kind of like agreeing with the extremists.
.
This doesnt deny or diminish the fact that many muslim societies opress their women. It just deny that them beign muslim is the problem.
.
If 50+ years into the future hashidic extremism becomes the norm among world jewry, a lot of people would be talking about how Jews opress their women, yet those of us who still live by then would know that not to be true. Far fetched hypotesis, I know, but I kind of like those.
A reality check here, Hombre: You do realize that YOU’RE the one who brought up Muslims, right? No one here was drawing a one-to-one link between Muslims and oppressing women until you, thinking that I had done so, brought it up. You’re fighting an argument that you yourself started.
.
I’m not sure that anyone here has stated that being Muslim automatically equates with subjugating women, any more than anyone broadly said that being Jewish automatically equates with subjugating women even though it was a Jewish newspaper in question. So I honestly don’t know what you’re going on about.
.
PAD
Yes PAD, not only do I realize that but I also aknowledged it.
.
But in this particular thread of conversation I made an analogy in wich I didnt mention Islam at all, I just talked about different levels of modesty and what our particular stance regarding them would put us. The mentions to Islam came after that, I didnt even mentioned it until my third or fourth comment on this line and as an awnser to Rene.
.
And for the most part, my main argument has been that these things have little to do with religion. I though that was pertinent to the subject nut as I said before, this is your blog, I’ll stick to non-halal venues if you think it’s for the best.
.
Realize, PAD, that I read your blog and its comments because I often learn something and I enjoy the conversation, not because I want to bug you. It’s just that with most subjects covered here I prefer to just read and learn (or ask a question) and in others I think my point of view can be of interest.
How do you justify patriarchy without religion, anyway?
.
pretty easily. Some of the most beastly sexists I’ve known were not religious by any stretch of the imagination. Ditto homophobia–I hardly think religion explains the ways gays have been treated in, say, Cuba.
.
Who needs a reason to demand power of others? Power is its own reason, its own justification.
.
If we compare one muslim country to another, we find the patriarchy to be more opressive in the countries with fewer chances of personal grow worse access to culture.
.
Kind of a chicken and egg scenario–which is the cause and which is the effect? Does poverty and ignorance lead to oppressive patriarchy or is it that any society that throws away the potential of fully half of its population is one that will be forever doomed to ignorance and poverty?
.
As I said before, the middle eastern country that best allows its women and minorities to contribute to its growth will be the one that will leave the others in the dust (of course, Israel has a long record of allowing its women to contribute to the best of their abilities, right up to being prime minister. You’d think maybe its regional enemies might note that fact and consider adopting similar wisdom.)
.
Rene: “How do you justify patriarchy without religion, anyway? Religion is such an splendid way to justify injustice, because how do you beat “God commanded it”? You don’t even need to make sense.”
.
Dude, seriously…
.
How about just the flat sexism that’s born from the same prejudices that people carry and attack everything else with.
.
Woman are smaller and weaker.
.
Women are too emotional to be rational beings.
.
Women can’t be expected to be dependable parts of the labor force because they have to leave for almost a year at a time for to have babies.
.
Women aren’t smart enough to be leaders and managers.
.
Women can’t serve in combat, because you have to get dirty in combat and every thirty days they’re going to get an infection.
.
I’ve heard all of that and more and none of that is based on the concept of God saying so. Now, some of that thinking was reinforced by various religions, but religion isn’t the source of it. That’s just petty human nature.
Jerry and Bill, those things can be argued, and are often disproved daily. “Women aren’t good leaders because they’re too emotional” takes a hit whenever a woman proves herself to be a good leader. Now religion is an awesome way of justifying patriarchy, because it’s indisputable that the first woman gave the first man the forbidden fruit, right?
.
And I never said ALL sexism derived from religion. All the things Jerry listed make for fine bar conversation among beer-drinking, wife-beating neanderthals, but I just have my doubts that you can support a whole patriarchic system efficiently on this stuff alone. I can see a godless society where warrior cred is the basis of it, and men are judged superior simply because of greater upper body strength and aggression, but that is not very likely with our level of technological advancement.
Jerry and Bill, those things can be argued, and are often disproved daily.
.
“Disproved”? As though logic matters. Every negative stereotype is disproved every single day in the myriad acts of decency and kindness performed by people of every race, creed, color, sexual orientation, political persuasion, etc and it has not, does not and will not matter a dámņ bit to those who wish to believe otherwise.
.
The desire to see oneself as better than others is a pretty powerful driving force. Give a lot of people a reason–any reason at all!–to think themselves better than fully half of the population and there will be those who will eagerly grab at it.
.
And not just the men. Some of the most vile examples of women abuse occur from women. Their society may keep them below the men but it also offers them the opportunity to lord over other women. Thus, the abused wife can hope to have a son who will marry a woman that she will be able to treat as a slave, as her mother in law did to her.
.
If a time machine were invented tomorrow and we were able to prove that every single religious event was a case of honest error, exaggeration and outright fraud, I think we would see frighteningly little change in the status of women in the developing world…unless it went to something even worse.
I stick to materialistic anthropology on this… religions that stick usually validate their follower’s way of life. Only in the case of imposed foreign religions you can see major dislocations between dogma and the general lifestyle. Like christian missionares trying to cover the breast of any amazonian woman they found. And even in the most forceful trasnplantations, the religion also changes and adapt to it’s new followers. Catholic sincretism is the main reason for it’s success and I think someone mentioned here certain african muslim tribes where women show their breasts but cover their ankles.
.
Its a phenomenon so old and common we dont even notice it, but its behind us celebrating Chrismas every year.
Yes, but my point wasn’t that religion was the reason for patriarchy or for the mistreatment of women. But that religion was the building blocks to keep the edifice standing.
.
Prejudice and nasty feelings are the fuel. But you need to justify the structure. And religion does a dámņ fine job of that.
.
I often see people in my own country full of sexism and homophobia, believers in all the bone-headed things mentioned by Jerry, but when it comes to defend sexist positions when a court gives a ruling benefiting women or gays, they don’t have the structure to properly frame their opposition, because religious reasons aren’t unanimously accepted here in Brazil anymore. So they flail around spitting venom and unmask themselves.
.
Bill, prejudice isn’t enough. If you want to enshrine prejudice, you need to make it look good and acceptable. Religion is one of the best ways of doing that.
I meant SELF-SERVING reasons.
The problem is that what can help in some situations winds up hurting in others. Many years ago, someone explained that some of the Muslim traditions for women — being veiled in public, walking ten steps behind a man — were enacted because, thousands of years ago, nomads would raid the villages of Muslims, kidnapping their women. Veiling the women made them less attractive targets, while keeping them ten steps behind a man made them less vulnerable to being alone and easily picked off. It made great sense then. Unfortunately, not so much now.
I also can’t help but think of Shirley Jackson’s story “The Lottery,” where killing a random member of a community might be a necessary evil when food was scarce — but seems barbaric when there’s no objective reason for it.
Just to pick a nit, James, but Islam is only about 1400 years old, not ‘thousands’.
Speaking of Leviticus; I understand the reasons for most of the laws written down in that book. The sexual laws, the dietary laws, they all made sense for the times in which they were written. The one I don’t understand the logic of is the one about wearing clothing made from different kinds of thread. What’s up with that?
Leviticus could easily be renamed “How to Establish Xenophobia in Your Society”. Its pattern of instructing people, “Don’t mix x with y,” was meant to reinforce the idea that you should not associate with any of the neighbouring peoples.
The one I don’t understand the logic of is the one about wearing clothing made from different kinds of thread.
.
That’s actually a mistranslation. It has nothing to do with clothing; it was a prohibition against thread drift in discussions. Don’t turn a thread about gardening tips into a political argument; that kind of thing.
.
PAD
The one I don’t understand the logic of is the one about wearing clothing made from different kinds of thread. What’s up with that?
.
One common understanding is that it discouraged the creation and distribution of low quality fabrics. Fabrics made from a mixture of animal and plant fibers would wear unevenly and not last as long. Of particular concern may have been people who would try to pass such fabrics off as higher quality pure textiles.
The Bible is full of laws, for sure. Some make sense in order to establish societal rules (Don’t steal, Don’t kill). Some exist in order to acknowledge an event (Keep the Sabbath, Eat Matzah). And some… well, there’s no real reason given. Shatnez, the combining of wool and linen in one garment, is one example. There are many others – Don’t cook a baby (animal) in its mother’s milk is a classic.
It’s religion, remember – so it’s not 100%, you have to add some faith in there as well.