If, for whatever weird reason, they don't want to show women then they should not have used the picture at all. If women being in positions of power narrows their choice of visual aids, well that is their problem.

I think what's really going on is that someone has invented a time machine and has somehow prevented Clinton's parents from meeting.

Has anyone contacted the newspaper about this? Have they issued any statement?

I guess the photo artists weren't ortho jews too?

Thats... what would they do about Angela Merkel? pretend that the last chancellor is still in power?

Also, what do they do at Sec. Clinton's press conferences and international conferences? Would they just show an empty podium?

What on earth were you trying to accomplish by saying that?

What did these folks do about Golda Meir, I wonder?

There's something deeply unsavory about a Jewish publication working to rewrite history.

Um ... at least one of the women who was deleted was raised in the Jewish tradition.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time either - Yated Ne'eman removed images of Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver, members of the Israeli Cabinet from photos of their inauguration in 2009 stating issues of tzniut (female modesty). Specifically, showing images of women, whether in ads, photos, etc. is immodest.

Images (before/after) here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7982146.stm

Some charedim are moving more and more toward removing women from the public sphere altogether with segregated trains, buses, etc.

Curious, does the article mention that the photo is altered?

I'm a female who's had a lot of involvement in the Hasidic community. I can tell you that they are just as diverse in belief as any other group. Their attitudes toward women generally vary in the degree of marginalization by a large amount.

While I can't pinpoint exactly who or where, there are a few clues that we should take note of before making this an "ultra-Orthodox" issue alone.
First of all, the paper is printed in Yiddishe, not Hebrew. Most orthodox communities have moved away from Yiddishe as a community and religious vernacular, in favor of the language spoken in the political State of Israel. Communities who still insist on using Yiddishe do so to further isolate their members, hence, reading your news in Yiddishe will stop even many other hasidim from understanding their communal dialogue.
My second point, since we cannot verify any of the text (it very well may say that the photo has been manipulated to remove women, as many of these modesty alterations do), we should look at the other images we have access to. At the top of the banner there appears to be an image of the World Trade Towers smoking after 9/11, and a house styled in a similar way to the Israeli settler style (though, it is ambiguous). These are the fringe of the fringe-- the West Boro Baptist Church of Jews, so to speak ("Thank G-d for 9/11", type sentiment).

I'm an avid feminist, and a Jew, and while I appreciate the curiosity and analysis, I wonder if your analysis doesn't stem from some larger assumption that Jews are a monolithic, progressive, socially minded, excessively educated group that we see in popular American consciousness. It's unfair to passively examine a group that few people have ever been part of-- how can you usefully think about the sociological implications if you're not part of that sociological group?

As a Jewish progressive feminist I resent this focus on a very very small group of us Jews as it feeds all the anti-Semitism I and so many in the majority face Every single day more and more from my own experience. Focus on the majority press that only has 25% of articles with women writers' bylines.

First: Here is Der Tzeitung's "apology" basically for not reading the fine print of the photo publication.

The White House released a picture showing the President following “live” the events in the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden, last week Sunday. Also present in the Situation Room were various high-ranking government and military officials. Our photo editor realized the significance of this historic moment, and published the picture, but in his haste he did not read the “fine print” that accompanied the picture, forbidding any changes. We should not have published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and apologies to the White House and to the State Department.

The allegations that religious Jews denigrate women or do not respect women in public office, is a malicious slander and libel. The current Secretary of State, the Honorable Hillary R. Clinton, was a Senator representing New York State with great distinction 8 years. She won overwhelming majorities in the Orthodox Jewish communities in her initial campaign in ‘00, and when she was re-elected in ‘06, because the religious community appreciated her unique capabilities and compassion to all communities. The Jewish religion does not allow for discrimination based on gender, race, etc.

We respect all government officials. We even have special prayers for the welfare of our Government and the government leaders, and there is no mention of gender in such prayers.

All Government employees are sworn into office, promising adherence to the Constitution, and our Constitution attests to our greatness as a nation that is a light beacon to the entire world. The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. That has precedence even to our cherished freedom of the press! In accord with our religious beliefs, we do not publish photos of women, which in no way relegates them to a lower status. Publishing a newspaper is a big responsibility, and our policies are guided by a Rabbinical Board. 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.

We are proud Americans of the Jewish faith, and there is no conflict in that, and we will with the help of the Almighty continue as law-abiding citizens, in this great country of our’s, until the ultimate redemption.

Second: The paper is published in New York.

Who is the woman in the back?

If they're that set against publishing photos of women, couldn't they have cropped the photo just as easily removing the two women but still conveying the import...

The fact that they chose to leave the computers, coffee cups but take the women out seems like a lot more effort than was needed if all they wanted to do was not sexually arouse us by showing women... I can only assume that none of their readers ever get sexually aroused from photos of other things still visible in that picture.

Z.

Yes, it does erase women's role in history. This has been going on for centuries, though; it's not new. Disappearing women's influence and inventions has been pretty standard - it's one reason that some (very, very stupid) men can "argue" that women have never done anything of use.

It was the other way around. Women could never do anything of use because they're women; if it was of use, obviously a woman didn't come up with it.

Also, women are responsible for men's thoughts and feelings blah blah barf.

This is unacceptable plain and simple. I don't care what your beliefs are. Why do we accept freedom of religion as an acceptable reason for this behavior? How would people respond if a religious group said they believed another race was sexual and therefore could not be displayed in the pages of its newspapers. I find this deplorable.

Apparently, Der Tzitung never publishes pictures of women, as they could be considered sexually suggestive.

Wow. I don’t make a habit of criticizing other peoples’ religions, but that just seems wrong to me. It’s kind of dehumanizing to simply Photoshop the women out of the picture, as though they did not exist.

Besides, it isn’t even very logical. Would it be okay to publish a picture of a woman that NO ONE was sexually attracted to? Would they refuse to publish a photo of the Statue of Liberty if she was in a picture of New York City, or would they Photoshop the statue out of the picture?

What about the men in the photo? Those men might be sexually attractive to women or to gays, right? Come to think of it, people can find all kinds of things “sexually suggestive.” What if there was a material like satin somewhere in the shot? Some people might see it and that might lead them to thinking of satin sheets, which might lead them to thinking about sex…

The whole thing doesn’t make much sense to me. You can’t prevent people from thinking about sex.

A behaviour so close to funtamental Muslim way of thinking. I wonder......

The very image of a woman is sexually suggestive... The insanity of that is almost incomprehensible. It's right up there with putting women in burkas and not allowing them to walk around without male escorts. This terrible sexual power women have, just by existing, should be harnessed - it could solve all our energy problems. Instead of hiding women, rewriting history, and acting like it's faithful religious practice to do so... how about sorting out the men of the culture, so that they can be trusted around women? Don't hide the women - hide the men who are so vulnerable to such alluring outfits as tweed suits and so lacking in reason and any form of willpower that they need to be "protected." Hide them somewhere we won't ever have to deal with their insanity ever again.

I think the newspaper could have gone about this in a much different manner. As mentioned previously, a black censor box would have worked. I think they could have also captioned the picture, mentioning that the two women were photoshopped out, so as to not offend their religious beliefs and still communicate the truth.
This is one of those intersections of religion and gender, where despite my desperate want for equailty amongst men and womyn, I don't believe it is right to deny a group their cultural/religious beliefs.

However, they should have made an effort to be more honest, and a censor strip would have worked just as well.

What is the problem with showing a woman with power reacting in a normal way in a situation of horror?

I don't get it. So do the people in this subset of Judaism have a problem with seeing women on the street every day, or is it just the idea of photographing them that they find offensive (and what's the difference)? And where are they getting this from in the first place? It's not like photography is mentioned in the Torah (is it?).

The strange things people can come to believe continues to surprise me.

Speaking as a pretty ordinary guy, I find this both creepy and offensive. And downright *weird*. Are they so threatened by women that they have to literally erase them from a newspaper photo? It's just twisted, like Stalin's Russia where people who'd fallen out of favor were airbrushed out of pictures.

Martha said, "Yeah, cuz that is what so many people think of when they think of Hilary Clinton: pure. sex."

Yes, absolu- oh, wait. No, no no no no no no. As someone on SNL once quipped, "Hilary Clinton is where boners go to die."

From a photojournalism perspective, it is Clinton that makes the photograph significant - her stance and her stance alone conveys the gravity of the situation. Without her, the photo is just a bunch of people around a table.

Mike hit it square on the head; it is precisely like Stalin's Russia to "disappear" people. And it is precisely like the Taliban when they maim and kill girls for the "sin" of going to school. Their lame excuses are the same as the islamists. Basta!

It is sickening that Christians are unable to rid themselves of the slime like the Westboro Baptists in their midst. The greatest threat to Islam's very existence is islamists. Will Jews allow the ultra-orthodox to drag them into the pit as well?

A doctored photo of a doctored photo, I'm out of this discussion.

During the height of the Nazi regime many photos of historic importance were photoshopped to remove prominent Jews from them, it is indeed funny how history seems to be repeating itself.

"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."

TRANSLATION: "Because of our kooky belief in our special magical guy in the sky, we have the right to denigrate women, minimize or nullify their accomplishments and even their very existence, and we get to do it because our magical guy says it's okay!"

Sorry, as a non-practicing, non-believing Jewish male, I just don't buy it. And "justifying" it with some rule from a 2,000-year old magical fairy tale doesn't cut it with me. As a (lapsed) Jew, I find this very, very embarrassing and disheartening. :(

Well, there wasn't Photoshop during the Nazi regime...maybe you mean "airbrushed?"

And, yes, it's pretty weak for the official excuse to be that the graphic designer was so hurried to not read the fine print but had ample time to do a pretty decent Photoshop job--including building up the male bodies actually obscured by the offensive female bodies (instead of, say, sticking a potted plant or two over the gaping hole...hope I didn't arouse anyone just then).

Maybe if these orthos actually lived up the their claims of gender equality instead of just seeing the female of our species as jerk-off vessels, their long-winded defensive statements would be a bit more believable.

If ultra orthodox men are so easily distracted, are they really that suitable as leaders for anyone else? I bet an ultra orthodox woman wouldn't forget her duties just because there are some hot payot around.

...And this is why I'm not a fan of organized religion. None of them escape the crazy and there seems to be a culture, especially in the US, of letting people get away with things in the name of religion that no one would ever tolerate if they just said they were doing them because they felt like it. If your religion is spreading into the public sphere, as is the case when you're publishing a newspaper, you should be held accountable. I'm glad to see most of the commenters here agree, on that last point, at least.

(Full disclosure: I was raised Jewish - though not anywhere near the Orthodox side - but I reject all organized religions including my family's and tend on the belief scale to float somewhere between deism, pantheism, and agnosticism.)

Why are there any practicing adult female Jews, (or Muslims, Mormons, Roman Catholics, or Born Again Christians for that matter)? What is in it for you to be faithful to a god that denies you a soul, or relegates you to the role of cook, dishwasher, and sacred baby making vessel? And why would anybody take seriously a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, yet terrified of menstrual blood? Come out of the caves, people!

If you're looking for examples HaModia, Brooklyn, NY would be a far richer source.

At first I was fine with this only as a default position: if I don't know anything, how can I judge? So I went researching about, particularly of communities this newspaper is probably for. Came to the conclusion that it doesn't matter if they're a minority population of Jewish people, what they are doing is wrong. Orthodox Judaism I got nothing against (and there are differing levels of extremism even within Hasidism), but extremism shouldn't be tolerated. Extremism brings a whole shebang of problems. Think they don't have any influence? Well, they do in Israel. I understand the concern that generally people can't separate extremists from the rest and this just contributes to antisemitism, but perhaps such extremes shouldn't be tolerated by the Jewish community at large either. Yes, Jews should tolerate different practices, but is there not a point where too far is too far?

Separate, but equal can go ahead and suck it. Writing the above was super awkward because I count myself as only interested in conversion.

Totally random, but why is a word that is female in German (newspaper= die Zeitung), male in Yiddish (newspaper= der Tzitung- pronounced the same way as the German slightly diff spelling)???

For those who haven't seen this yet...

Here is a good response to all of this. The people at FreeWilliamsburg took this same photo and Photoshopped all the men out of it. Hey, fair is fair, innit?

http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/citing-modesty-concerns-hipster-website-removes-sexually-suggestive-male-images-from-sit-room-photo/

That newspaper should be burned.