Erasing Women from History

[wendymr]

I think hardly anyone can have missed seeing that 'iconic' photograph from the White House Situation Room that was released last week. It's been dissected and deconstructed so many times that the discussion would fill millions of column inches. What was so significant to me about the photograph was the appearance of two people in particular:

Comments

[maniacalshen]

I was about to tell you this was a repost, but then I realized you weren't someone on wtf_sexism. We're "enjoying" this story over there as well, and a few of the comments are quite good. (Some less so.

What gets me is the utter ignorance of the people on this newspaper. "We don't mean to put women on a lower status or disparage them! We're just looking out for their modesty!" Because putting half the population on a pedestal for their own good, regardless of their opinions, is totally not disparaging or harmful. And definitely not insulting to men, either. After all, they can't be expected to control their own urges or thoughts. The illogic, it burns.

[wendymr]

Thanks for the link - heading over there right now!

And, yes, how insulting. In both directions.

[othermewriter]

You know it's times like these that I really like being a Christian. At least in the bible I read it recognizes women as being people, and just like the guys there are women in it that make both good and bad decisions. We are NOT things to be objectified or vilified just because we don't have outside plumbing.

*Climbs down from soap box*

[wendymr]

One of the points I made in passing, though, is that you can find extremists with crazy (and offensive) views everywhere. Christianity is by no means excluded.

Sure, mainstream believers in any religion, in general, are sensible and decent human beings. But look at what some Christian fundamentalists are up to, trying to deny women the right to control their own bodies even to the point of preventing access to basic contraception. There's a lot more besides, but that's just for starters.

[taffimai]

Judaism has plenty of amazing celebrations of women. The books of Ruth and of Esther are entirely focused on women who made incredible sacrifices for their people and their families.

You should try to learn a little about our culture and our religion before you judge it.

[lindenharp]

This.

[kaffy_r]

I have numerous friends who are believers of one sort or another, and I'm also a believer in the "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" philosophy. So I'm always trying to muzzle myself when it comes to religious strictures, commandments and such that discriminate against women.

But honestly, one of the reasons I can't deal with organized religion - ANY organized religion - is that they all, to one extent or another, do just that; discriminate. I can't think of a single religion that doesn't back the inherent inequality between genders, with the possible exception of Bahai'ism and I'm not even certain there

[wendymr]

But honestly, one of the reasons I can't deal with organized religion - ANY organized religion - is that they all, to one extent or another, do just that; discriminate. I can't think of a single religion that doesn't back the inherent inequality between genders, with the possible exception of Bahai'ism and I'm not even certain there.

Yes. So very true. That is one reason why I'm no longer a part of any organised religion; I just can't take the institutionalised sexism and homo-negativity. I started to drift away from the Anglican church over the ordination of women and the appallingly sexist comments made by many of the opponents - who completely refused to accept that what they were saying was sexist in the extreme.

I was reining in my own rage as I wrote the post because, like you, if I got started it would not be pretty :(

[un_sedentary]

Because saying a woman with religious views must have STOCKHOLM SYNDROME in order to have them, is not misogynist at all.

[kaffy_r]

I should have said that such is my belief. I should not have stated it as a statement of fact.

[taffimai]

I grew up in that community and I completely believe and understand their explanation. I know it's hard to understand if you're not part of the community, but it's worthwhile to try to do so.

[wendymr]

Thank you for standing up - metaphorically speaking - and saying so. It's not easy to be the lone voice when everyone else is raging and ranting.

I'm of a mind with kaffyr: I want to respect opinions and beliefs that are different from mine. I work in a role where I come into contact with people from different cultures and beliefs all the time, and at times individuals I meet do express perspectives I don't agree with. It's my job to be respectful and understanding, though occasionally also to point out (gently) why certain attitudes or behaviours may hinder the person's chances of being successful - in this context, in finding a job

[taffimai]

There's always going to be a time when one person's freedom abuts another person's rights. Should religious freedom trump women's legal (let alone moral) right to equal status?

And how is this in play here? What did they do to deny anyone their rights? They didn't cause either of those women any harm. Didn't demand they be fired from their position. All they did was edit a photograph that was only intended for consumption by a community that would understand the reasons for it.

If this were another organisation and the black man in the room had been airbrushed out by a white supremacist group - or, say, if there were two men in the room wearing yarmulkes and a fundamentalist Christian newspaper airbrushed them out on grounds related to religious beliefs, how would that look?
I think the first example is a false comparison. White supremacist groups are hate groups so by definition, everything they do is motivated by hate and deserving of condemnation. If fundamentalist Christians did that? I'd try to understand why and if it was

[wendymr]

But they printed a photograph which represents a significant moment in history, and they chose to remove the two women from that photograph. That's my problem with it. I realise that what struck me as particularly significant about the photograph - that there were women present at all - will not have had the same impact on members of this community, who practise very different cultural beliefs and way of life (which I freely admit that I do not understand and could never sympathise with, but that's beside the point). But they took that picture, and erased from it the two women in there. Erased them from their hard-fought positions in public life. Erased women from public positions

[neadods]

You blow right over the part that has me going from seeing red to white-hot rage: the part of the apology that explains that ERASING WOMEN is totally not meant to demean them!

Well, that means BEING REMOVED FROM REALITY is totally okay, then, as long as the people literally wiping you away say it's not lowering or disparaging... but it's not like you should be seen in public, you little whore, if you can't think of your modesty, they're going to have to do it for you. you slut

WTF. Seriously, WTFingF is that not pouring gasoline on the fire?

[wendymr]

ERASING WOMEN is totally not meant to demean them!

Oh, yeah, that absolutely had me raging as well. I was reining myself in, which is why the post isn't four times longer than it is. For the first ten minutes after reading the article and watching the video, I was quite simply staring at the web page in disbelief - did I really just read that? And that? And that? Did the editor actually say that?

And I doubt very much that apologists would be saying that we should respect their beliefs if the people airbrushed out were black.

[neadods]

And I doubt very much that apologists would be saying that we should respect their beliefs if the people airbrushed out were black.

... or Jewish.

I've seen a comment from someone I (otherwise) respect saying that if you're not part of the culture, you really don't understand that this was meant to be respectful. And nope, sorry, still canNOT wrap my head around it. If it's offensive to show photos of women, then don't run the photo in the first place.

Women have fought so long and so hard to be taken seriously, and some idiot literally erases two of them from one of the most serious moments of modern time and doesn't think that's "lowering"? That it's not just a tad offensive to both impose your culture's strictures on someone who is not a member of that culture and to excuse it as looking out for their modesty... as if that doesn't have the double-barrelled message that the women aren't capable of protecting their modesty and that apparently even in the war room woman=fucktoy?