News

Jewish newspaper publishes ‘modest’ photo of Clinton

Jewish newspaper publishes ‘modest’ photo of Clinton

An Orthodox Jewish newpaper based in Monsey, New York, has become the target of scorn after it published a photo of Hillary Clinton with her face obscured.

According to this report, OnlySimchas.com, an Orthodox dating website, reacted to the Yated Ne’eman picture by saying:

History is made as Yated Ne’eman publishes a picture of Hillary Clinton, a woman! Well almost.

And a woman wrote on the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance Facebook page:

This is disgusting. I cannot even entertain any reasoning why a women’s face could not be seen.

Haredi Orthodox publications often ban images of women, especially their faces, in what editors describe as upholding of tradition and modesty. The ban is applied to all women, including world leaders and major public figures like Clinton.

Columbia University journalism professor Ari Goldman wrote last year in The Columbia Journalism Review.

It’s not just her politics that worries these publications, although they are far to the right of Clinton on most issues. More troublesome is her gender.

One editor told Goldman that a Clinton victory in November might force papers to change the policy. Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter, the Executive Editor of Ami Magazine, said:

I think we’re going to have to rethink it.

Not to do so, he said:

Would be disrespectful.

Last year, the Washington Post reported that the haredi Orthodox Israeli newspaper HaMevaser blurred out women world leaders in a photograph of a solidarity parade in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.

Hat tip: BarrieJohn

12 responses to “Jewish newspaper publishes ‘modest’ photo of Clinton”

  1. AgentCormac says:

    The religiots’ subjugation of women is so all-consuming that they can’t even bear to see a photograph of a woman’s face? These pre-historic monsters need to go the same way as their dinosaur predecessors.

  2. Paul says:

    I sincerely hope these people ‘breed’ themselves to extinction, or rather, are simply unable to breed.

  3. L.Long says:

    “….This is disgusting. I cannot even entertain any reasoning why a women’s face could not be seen….” What??? Never heard of isLame!!!! This aint new the desert tribes are all full of BS.

  4. barriejohn says:

    Here’s the old pub bore again, so switch off now if you’ve had enough of me, because I’m going to tell you a story (as Max Bygraves used to say):

    When I was with the Brethren, we used to have an annual meeting of the Sunday School teachers, where a review was given of all classes held at the church. Each teacher or leader (depending on the activity) would give their account of what had happened during the year, EXCEPT FOR THE WOMEN. In their case, they were asked to WRITE DOWN their review on paper, and hand this to the leading brother, who READ OUT THEIR ACCOUNT FOR THEM. Now do you see why the archaic and ridiculous behaviour outlined above doesn’t surprise me in the least? Can anyone explain how someone writing down her thoughts and having them read out publicly in her presence differs in any way from actually expressing those thoughts audibly herself, because even at the time I could see how stupid such an arrangement was, but it satisfied their requirement that the women should “keep silence in the churches”.

    PS Some of the Brethren are so strict that they don’t even allow female Sunday School teachers!

  5. barriejohn says:

    Just in case anyone thinks that I am making things up:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/08/21/church-says-women-shouldnt-teach-sunday-school-classes-to-men-cites-bible.html

    No one does stupid as well as the religious.

  6. Daz says:

    “PS Some of the Brethren are so strict that they don’t even allow female Sunday School teachers!”

    Well, they’re half-way there. If they would only disallow male ones as well, much spreading of bullshit would be avoided.

    (Sorry, I couldn’t find anything, “valid point” or otherwise, to contradict.)

  7. Robster says:

    Given the ladies are “seen” as something not to be seen, how is it these middle eastern tribal types are able to reproduce with an efficiency rarely seen amongst others? They spit out babies with monotonous regularity but seem to do it in the dark. Perhaps this may explain the high birth rate of these religious groups, they simply can’t find the condoms.

  8. Trevor Blake says:

    Their paper, their rules.

    Don’t like it, don’t buy it.

    But a little pointing and laughing will brighten any day.

  9. barriejohn says:

    Trevor Blake: It goes deeper than that, though, because it reflects the way that they see (no pun intended) and treat women, and women born into their communities and societies are brainwashed into seeing themselves in the same light.

  10. Newspaniard says:

    I see little wrong in blanking out THAT crook’s face.

  11. Broga says:

    They may not have to put up with Clinton. I see Trump’s wife is telling the world that we have got her husband all wrong. He is really respectful of women and was misled into saying naughty things by a TV man. So they can all vote for Trump after all.

    She didn’t the allegation that Trump crawled under tables to inspect women’s knickers. But hell, nobody’s perfect.