|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Signed up: |
6 years ago (6/11/07)
|
|
|
Last signed in:
|
4 months ago
|
| |
|
|
|
Block |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edit History
I love what this photo says about modern war. Everyone is watching the video feed except the military officer, who is doing ??? on a computer. Also, the picture itself reflects the role of propaganda: it tells you nothing but what they want you to know. The screens are off, photo blurred, walls blank. Absolute control of information. They also issued instructions with the photo that it is not to be altered before being published by media sources.
Anyways, according to Jewish media sources, Hillary Clinton is obscene and must not appear in photographs:
Lulz. I just love this so much. It's one of those situations where it's not about who is wrong, it's about who is more wrong. The White House for attempting to control information in an arguably unconstitutional (and certainly inappropriate) way, or this newspaper for clinging to concepts of modesty that have no place in this millenium?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Watch
Invite to Group
Most likely because of the same cultural rules that require women to wear full body coverings. The concept of purdah (translated as "curtain"), itself derived from namus (translated as "chastity" or "honor" - particularly the honor of a man) lists off a number of gender segregation rules, most notably that women are not to be seen by men, or men are not to see any woman except for those who are closely related to them.
It is also worth reinforcing that "namus" is a patriarchal concept. For instance, if a woman is raped, it is her family - and her father in particular - who are dishonored. Recommended methods of cleansing include ritualistic suicide and ritualistic femicide.
In fact, the very fact of giving birth to a daughter (as opposed to a son) is considered dishonorable to a family's "namus". If I had to guess, I'd say this is likely because it brings about more opportunities for the patriarch to lose control of the women under his responsibility.
So yeah. That's why Clinton et al were censored, more or less.
p obvs edit if you ask me
So, +1 for White House being more wrong, eh?
I dunno... I don't know why they would require it to be an unaltered picture, but I also don't see it as being unconstitutional to want it unaltered. Seems more like it'd be more wrong to alter the picture. But that doesn't mean I agree with your assessment of modesty being outdated.
An absence of a religious exemption to their rule on alteration would be unconstitutional.
Modesty itself is not outdated, but the idea that unrelated women cannot be seen in polite company (that they are, by definition, not polite company), was an antiquated idea when photographs first invented, let alone now.
No, because there was no requirement to republish the picture in the first place. So there doesn't need to be an exemption for doing so.
Just because *you* feel it's an antiquated idea does not mean that others can not rightfully hold to their ideals and values.
Late reply is late.
So since the Jewish media are not required to reprint the photo, it's okay for the White House to restrict expression of the photo that would force the Jewish media to violate their religious principles if those restraints were followed?
Of course others can rightfully hold to their own ideals and values; I wouldn't be arguing that the White House's policy was inappropriate due to a lack of a religious exemption if I thought otherwise. But I have the right to hold the opinion that a belief is, well, stupid. I feel the same way about many Christian, Muslim, Voodoo and Zoroastrian beliefs. So I would never say that conservative Jewish people can't hold such a stringent concept of modesty, but protection of religious beliefs doesn't equate to protection against criticism of those beliefs. I can respect adherents of a organization and their rights and still think some of their organizational edicts are silly.