La La How The Life Goes On

I’m Too Sexy for this Pic

Posted on: May 9, 2011


Saw this on FB today via a friend. Oh, where to begin! It has all of my favorite irritations tied up in one super excellent little package of emotional and theological retardation. Huzzah!

If you can’t click (or be bothered to) the short-story-long is this: Ultra-orthodox newspaper removes the United States Secretary of State and the Director of Counterterrorism at the NSC from the now-iconic photo of the situation room during the killing of Osama bin Laden. Why? Because they are women, and as such, cannot be featured in an ultra-ortho newspaper in the belief that women a) should not be in leadership roles and–this is the best one–b) photos of women can be sexually arousing for the men who read the paper.

1. It’s laughable. Let’s get the obvious joke out of the way first for those of you who are desperate to hear or make it: When I think of “sexually arousing,” your mileage may vary, but my mind immediately goes directly to that Secretary of Smut, that former Senator from Sexiness, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Thank God the good people in the ultra-orthodox community are being saved from the society-rending results of seeing two smart women in suits. Suits under which they are naked. Mmmm….naked.

2. It’s offensive to Judaism. This newspaper, as the article says, is practicing deceit. You’ve heard of deceit; explicitly prohibited by God from what I gather. Implicitly prohibited by God, even. Absolutely prohibited under any reading of the Torah whatsoever. There are several other commandments (Jews have 613 btw [JewFAQ] in addition to the standard Ten C’s of Charlton Heston/Yul Brynner fame. Or was that Kirk Douglas?) Either way, it is not the job of a newspaper to be Cecil B. DeMille.

3. It’s offensive to history. You don’t like a story so you change it? What are they? Fox News? Why don’t they just put a big black blob over the women’s images and be honest: “Redacted for your protection” Or would the knowledge that, just under that blob sits a fully-clothed woman at the highest echelons of power, in and of itself cause feelings of “sensuality” among their readership? How can a publication simply alter the facts of history to suit their own biases? *Cough! Fox News! Cough!* It’s a disgrace. Say what you will about Hillary Clinton (and I myself have said much), she has earned her place at that table. But some emotionally retarded religo-freak decides she didn’t exist and -blam- she’s gone? Dreadful and wrong.

4. It’s offensive to…men. Aw, you thought I was gonna revert back to my days of shall we say “exuberant feminism” in college, didn’t you? That I was going to rally with my womyn friends holding my Pussy Power sign for Hillary and Audrey? Nope. They can obviously fend for themselves here, being that they were part of the operation (and by some accounts more committed to it from the start than Obama) that brought down public enemy number one for our country. No indeed, those women do not need the help of a smut-mouthed blogger from the burbs. Rather, what this newspaper’s practice does say is that men are such neanderthal animals that even looking at a woman in any form may immediately trigger dirty thoughts that they will be unable to control. Who raised these fuckers?

Okay, I will grant that the earlier part of the sentence may indeed happen to men frequently. You know you’ve thought about HRC sexually, even if only to register a “not” in the online hot or not contest. So I get that dirty thoughts may be triggered among the males of the species rather more frequently and inadvertently than in the female. Settle down, boys! But to then take the next step and say that this requires men and women to never interact or view each other because those poor men will be overcome by the rampant feminine sensuality of public figures is well beyond preposterous. It demeans men to create an editorial policy based on the belief that a) sexual thoughts are bad and b) they cannot be managed and dealt with appropriately by an adult.

5. Okay, I will go there. It’s offensive to women. I’m no giant HRC fan, as Starspangledhaggis readers will recall. Mostly because of what I consider(ed) to be the gross mismanagement of her campaign and message. We are reminded, sadly, that the Birther controversy originated not with some Palin nutcake but with a Hillary supporter who vowed to do anything to prevent the Democratic Party’s nomination of Barack Obama. We recall the dog whistle stuff she and her husband said at various seemingly-opportune times in the campaign. It was a rough time for me, having been Billy’s former girlfriend and all. But I moved on from the hurt when seeing how HRC was kicking it as Secretary of State. Brother, please. YOU KNOW Hillary was all about knocking OBL’s dick in the dirt from minute one of Panetta’s briefing. And then some emotionally-retarded, closed-minded worshipper of not God, but the Law decides she was not there and removes her from history? That there is a beating from me and my pack of angry bitter man-hating womyn.

Unless, of course, that turns you on.


1 Response to "I’m Too Sexy for this Pic"

Hey you… send me your email address to bethhunt **at** carolina **dot** rr **dot** com. I have something hilarious to send to you…
Seriously funny.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 422 other followers

%d bloggers like this: