Posted to Jewish News on
|

Going Too Far? Hamodia Edits Out Womans Shoes

Ynet

Is it going to far? The Jerusalem Fire Department released a photo of baby trapped in room by drawer blocking door; the Hamodia daily ‘edited out’ a pair of woman’s shoes from picture due to ‘modesty concerns’.

The Hamodia daily, one of the United Torah Judaism party’s official journals, decided to “erase” women’s shoes from a picture of a shoe drawer published in a news report, likely due to “modesty concerns.”

The haredi sector’s daily newspapers, which operate under the strict supervision of a “spiritual committee,” have an old tradition of refraining from publishing pictures of women. In the past, they even avoided mentioning women’s first names.

Sometimes, due to the great sensitivity of the issue, new restrictions are formed – as in this case.

Hamodia published a report about a baby who opened a shoe drawer, which blocked the door to the room he was in. He got trapped inside the room and fell asleep – before being rescued by firefighters and emergency forces.

A member of the rescuing force, Asaf Abres of the Jerusalem Fire Department, took a picture of the baby with the drawer and distributed the photo to the media. In the haredi paper, however, it was only published after the graphics department deleted a pair of women’s shoes which were in the drawer.

A source in the newspaper confirmed that Hamodia permits the publication of accessories like bags but censors feminine items like clothes and shoes.

This isn’t the first case of strict censorship in Hamodia. Several months ago, the newspaper reported that the cause of a fatal road accident near the Tapuach Junction in the West Bank was a car’s collision with two “wild other things,” referring to wild boars which are not mentioned by the haredi public as they are not kosher and a symbol of impurity.

33 Comments

  • 4. Concerned in MA wrote:

    Enough already! There’s a big difference between modesty and fanaticism. Perhaps if the shoes were were over the knee length boots they’d be acceptable?
    Then again….

  • 5. anonymous wrote:

    i would think an old bubby is living there taking one look at those shoes.. and actually IS tznius bc i dont think any frum average women would wear those!!LOL

  • 6. Buford Greenstein wrote:

    That’s awesome. Is going to far listening to Yalili 400 times, even though there is no meaning to the song at all?

    check yourself before you wreck yourself.

    Moshiach Achshav

  • 7. photoshop wrote:

    Im a photoshop artist and i can tell you that the oicture photoshopped was the one to the left
    in other words
    they added the shoes

    • 8. real photoshop artist wrote:

      seriously?? i dont think you’re familiar with photoshop at all if you’re saying that.

  • 9. OMg wrote:

    THIS IS SOOOO FASCINATING. I REALLY COULD NOT THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE MY DAY MORE INTERESTING AND IN NO WAY MORE BORING! THANK YOU CROWNHEIGHTS.INFO

  • 10. WHO CARES?!?! wrote:

    why is this newsworthy- whether they did or didnt block out the shoes? it doesnt add or detract and if thats their policy- kol hakavod that they actually follow it!

  • 11. mom of 5 ka"h wrote:

    I’m more interested in what happened. how exactly did the drawer block the door. what precautions should we take in the future.. How long was the baby there before help arrived…perhaps you can post the full article?

  • 12. How about this....? wrote:

    Going Too Far? Some of the pictures posted on these supposed “Chabad” websites…

    Some of the stuff posted in this site and the other site (which will remain nameless) are MUCH WORSE than editing out some woman’s shoes.

  • 15. crazy!!!!! wrote:

    this is crazy! women should be respected no less than men. there is nothing wrong with women’s shoes. This is pure discrimination against women!

  • 16. Been there done that wrote:

    I am more concerned with the disproportionate amount of his shoes to her shoes. At first glance he seems to have more shoes than her and his are more in style than her’s are.

    However at second glance, after analyzing the picture, there are only 3 for her, an odd number, and all her shoes seem to be for the right foot only.

    This can only mean that she must be an amputee. She only has her right foot that needs an actual shoe and her left foot must not have been fitted for a prosthetic yet.

    With this understanding of the situation it makes perfect sense why Hamodia edit out her shoes, and it has nothing to do with modesty at all.

    Because of Hamodia’s strict guidelines that it follows, only printing news that is fit for an entire family to read, if it would have left the pictures in than any ben chomesh l’mikra would have noticed the disparity amongst the male and female shoes and would have wondered why there was one. They would check their parents shoe total and in most cases would have seen that the mother has way more shoes than the father. So now it would have piqued their curiosity to no end and they would stat searching for a reason why that family is so different than theirs.

    If the kids would have an open relationship with their parents they would have asked them and the parents would have given them an answer, most probably not the true one about missing a leg, because the missing leg answer would be too traumatic for the children. In most cases the children would have accepted that answer.

    If the kids don’t have that kind of an open relationship with their parents they would have gone over to a friend’s house, gone on the internet (chas v’shalom) and would have done their own research. Once they are on the internet, who knows what they might have seen when they googled their question. Who knows what kind of sites may have popped up when they asked “why does a woman need 3 right foot shoes and no left foot shoes”.

    We should all thank Hamodia for having the foresight to realize the possible terrible consequences by leaving the picture the way it was, and having the siyata deshmaya through the daas torah that they are in constant contact with to edit out the woman’s shoes.

    Mi keamcha Yisroel. Boruch Hashem for such enlightened papers like Hamodia.

    • 19. amutee?? wrote:

      that is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch, person!! Just because the other shoe is missing does NOT mean the person is an amputee, C”V!! It means that the person lost their shoe in the cupboard, or somewhere around the house. This happens all the time everywhere so before you jump to ridiculous conclusions, think!

  • 20. Been there done that wrote:

    Being that it is hard to see the comment in it’s entirety before submitting it, I inadvertently made some spelling mistakes and typos as well.

    I apologize.

  • 21. To 15 wrote:

    The last shoe goes on the left….
    there can be a perfectly Innocent reason why there are 3 shoes. for example, the ones on top of each other are a pair and the last ones pair is outside the drawer because the baby was playing with it or something…

  • 23. Cynical wrote:

    They should have also photoshopped a Yarmulka on the boys head while they were at it.

    We’re no strangers to photoshop. We added some material to the Rebbetzin’s dress because it was too low……because we’re obviously frummer than the rebetzin.

  • 24. Anonymous wrote:

    I think this news is of no importance and I’m not sure why it was posted. These people didn’t harm anyone by doing that so who cares if they edit women’s shoes. The news here is about the baby.

  • 25. all coments but personaly i think thats crazy and inapropriate! wrote:

    9. OMg wrote:

    THIS IS SOOOO FASCINATING. I REALLY COULD NOT THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO MAKE MY DAY MORE INTERESTING AND IN NO WAY MORE BORING! THANK YOU CROWNHEIGHTS.INFO

    February 7, 2013 12:50 pm
    Reply
    10. WHO CARES?!?! wrote:

    why is this newsworthy- whether they did or didnt block out the shoes? it doesnt add or detract and if thats their policy- kol hakavod that they actually follow it!

    February 7, 2013 1:02 pm
    Reply
    11. mom of 5 ka”h wrote:

    I’m more interested in what happened. how exactly did the drawer block the door. what precautions should we take in the future.. How long was the baby there before help arrived…perhaps you can post the full article?

    February 7, 2013 1:54 pm
    Reply

    15. Been there done that wrote:

    I am more concerned with the disproportionate amount of his shoes to her shoes. At first glance he seems to have more shoes than her and his are more in style than her’s are.

    However at second glance, after analyzing the picture, there are only 3 for her, an odd number, and all her shoes seem to be for the right foot only.

    This can only mean that she must be an amputee. She only has her right foot that needs an actual shoe and her left foot must not have been fitted for a prosthetic yet.

    With this understanding of the situation it makes perfect sense why Hamodia edit out her shoes, and it has nothing to do with modesty at all.

    Because of Hamodia’s strict guidelines that it follows, only printing news that is fit for an entire family to read, if it would have left the pictures in than any ben chomesh l’mikra would have noticed the disparity amongst the male and female shoes and would have wondered why there was one. They would check their parents shoe total and in most cases would have seen that the mother has way more shoes than the father. So now it would have piqued their curiosity to no end and they would stat searching for a reason why that family is so different than theirs.

    If the kids would have an open relationship with their parents they would have asked them and the parents would have given them an answer, most probably not the true one about missing a leg, because the missing leg answer would be too traumatic for the children. In most cases the children would have accepted that answer.

    If the kids don’t have that kind of an open relationship with their parents they would have gone over to a friend’s house, gone on the internet (chas v’shalom) and would have done their own research. Once they are on the internet, who knows what they might have seen when they googled their question. Who knows what kind of sites may have popped up when they asked “why does a woman need 3 right foot shoes and no left foot shoes”.

    We should all thank Hamodia for having the foresight to realize the possible terrible consequences by leaving the picture the way it was, and having the siyata deshmaya through the daas torah that they are in constant contact with to edit out the woman’s shoes.

    Mi keamcha Yisroel. Boruch Hashem for such enlightened papers like Hamodia.

  • 26. So What's it Your Business? wrote:

    Anything to deride religious people. So careful not to mention anything about colored or other ethnic groups but, apparently, political correctness does not apply to your average Jews. THEY are a fair target for anyone. Tolerance and just plain old politeness doesn’t apply to THEM, or so it seems. Nice priorities when people who, as a rule, don’t do drugs, assault, murder, burglarize etc are considered the crazy ones. Not a good reflection on the writer or the blog.

  • 27. This article wrote:

    This article is a chilul Lubavitch. HaModia is a good newspaper and much better than the Jewish Press, which does not portray Jews in a positive light in general. HaModia is classy and is a good example of a frum paper, without yentishe shtick that’s 100% assur (a la the Jewish Press). Did they go overboard? Who cares and we should be concentrating on the lack of tznius and proliferation of “Jewish Press” ethics in the frum world rather than concentrate on this. Chabad is Halacha, lest we forget.

  • 30. We Are Lubavitchers wrote:

    As Lubavitchers we should have ahavas yisroel not only for people who are less frum but also for people who are more frum than us. I don’t find it funny that we laugh at other frum Yidden it saddens me.
    The rebbe wanted us to be the most frumeh and learned Yidden today. Close-mindedness to frumkeit and Torah’s point of views does not equal open-mindedness.
    Become real Lubavitchers.

  • 33. Milhouse wrote:

    The article also makes fun of Hamodia for following the common Jewish practice of using the euphemism “dovor acher” instead of “chazer”. That just shows how alienated the author is from any authentic Jewish feeling. So if you sympathise with the author about the shoes, how do you feel when he turns around and makes fun of what we do as well?

×

Comments are closed.