Why the LA Times Refuses to Show Women in Hijabs

Does not compute.

That was a phrase made popular in science-fiction decades ago. You’ve certainly seen it in a movie or a TV show at some point in your life. An evil computer or robot is given an illogical problem, causing a cognitive dissonance inside the mind of the inhuman being. This leads the machine to fizzle out and self-destruct.

The modern liberal has figured out how to avoid such self-destruction by simply avoiding cognitive dissonances. For example: The clash between third-wave feminism, and the trans movement. One argues that there is no difference between the male and female brain, and the other that there is a difference, and that difference is significant enough to require surgery to mold the body to the mind.

These are two opposing ideas. Given that, it’s not out of line to assume that one idea would win, and the other would lose. Two antithetical ideas such as these cannot coexist. But they do. How is that? Where’s the fizzle and self-destruct? It’s eliminated by simply ignoring the conflict.

The left’s favorite dismissive phrase is “That’s apples and oranges!” Any time multiple liberal narratives clash, rather than self-examine, seeking an answer to the conflict, liberals just close their eyes and turns their heads, avoiding a mind-melt.

New example.

Breitbart’s Julia Hahn reports that an LA Times cover story about Syrian refugees–which includes more than a dozen photographs of a refugee family–never once shows an adult woman. Adult women in the family wear hijabs. Let me clarify. While the men and young daughters are featured prominently, we only see only the backs of the heads of two hijab-wearing women.

In a brilliant twist, the women in the image are taking pictures of the men–the ones whose faces we’re allowed to see. It’s like a slap in the un-photographed face.

While the LA Times wouldn’t respond to requests for comment, Hahn notes that according to CBS, the father didn’t want adult female family members in the pictures. Why? I’m not sure. He doesn’t seem to have an issue with his family being exposed, including young girls, so why would he insist on excluding adult women?

Hahn notes:

“[This] necessarily raises editorial questions about why the paper’s front-page story, which sought to report on the cultural transition process for Syrian refugees, would accept such strict conditions from its participants about what can and cannot be depicted…Presumably there are other Syrian refugee families in the United States who would have been willing to allow their entire families to be pictured and profiled…”

The answer to Hahn’s implied question is this: The left cannot allow its narratives to clash. That’s rule number one in the liberal playbook. All at once, the LA Times wants to support Obama’s Syrian refugee plan, but they cannot show a bunch of women wearing oppressive clothing because it goes against the feminist narrative. So, rather than confront the opposing ideas, they simply ignore them.

This is in the same vein as the leftist media not seeming to care that the Clinton Foundation accepted donations from countries where women aren’t allowed to drive, and gays are tossed off tall buildings. Or how the leftist media eviscerates any conservative who suggests marriage should be left up to the states, but doesn’t make a peep about Muslim nations mutilating and brutally executing homosexuals.

In the world of liberal dissonance, Islam is peace, but women and gays should also have basic human rights–like not being immolated or decapitated. Since these two things cannot coexist, they are swept under the rug. The LA Times can’t show women being oppressed because it violates their tenants, but their other tenant is “Islam is Peace,” so what’s the solution? Show Islam without all the oppressed women!

As the snake eats its own tail, it will eventually have nothing left to swallow. When that time comes, “apples and oranges,” and looking the other way will no longer suffice. What then? I’ll tell you: Self-destruction.