No job for a woman?

<p>QG, your command "Get ye off.." follows from your earlier post that included an identification of some of us contributing here as the 'usual <em>suspects</em>.' And now in your most recent post you proceed to issue me a command to disperse, a command given by you from a position of no authority in an attempt to impose upon this forum your own personal concept of order. I don't see any humor in that.</p>

<p>I'm thinking we should have a complaints forum where QG can tell everyone to get off.</p>

Only the usual suspects, Sarah. Only the usual suspects.<br>That would be fine, yes.

<p>Boys and Girls.</p>

<p>Are girls some sort of sub species to be told what to think and do by boys.</p>

<p>Methinks not.</p>

<p>We seem to be stuck on what some are calling paternalistic attitudes. Let's take the male boss out of the equation. What gender considerations should a female boss make when she has to send a PJ to a place where a female PJ would be at greater risk than a male PJ? Same risk as a male?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Let's take the male boss out of the equation."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It changes nothing. The failure to recognize that reveals a lack of insight as to what the problem is.</p>

Photo conversations?

<p>Is this one still going? Jeez.<br>

I think it is quite clear that no civilised person would physically stop a woman from doing a job she wants to do and can do, having been made fully aware of the risk.<br>

Also, that the reluctance to send a woman to such a place as opposed to a man, would be directly proportionate to the individuals qualities of self-reliance and mental/physical strength of the two individuals and the risk involved.<br>

That nobody in their right mind believes that woman are treated equally in this Allah-forsaken place.<br>

That nobody would think it was a terrible, inexcusable or inexplicable thing if any man or woman refused to be responsible for paying someone, man or woman, to go to one of the worst places on earth to get in the faces of the Taliban, or for any man or woman to refuse to do it.<br>

That there is a statistical likelihood so high as to be a virtual certainty that any group of journalists would lose one or more of their number if they spent a significant time in this region.<br>

That nobody wants to be the one to call the wife/husband/mother/father of the person you kept in touch with by email saying "Good work! Get some more of these!", which then resulted in their death.<br>

That no amount of shocking footage is going to mean a difference to anybody who actully calls the shots, short of a complete filming of a gang-rape of a female soldier....and that this would probably only result in a change in personnel policy re the US Army.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That no amount of shocking footage is going to mean a difference to anybody who actully calls the shots, short of a complete filming of a gang-rape of a female soldier....and that this would probably only result in a change in personnel policy re the US Army.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know whether you're right about this point. I hope you're not. I hope these photojournalists don't put their lives on the line for nothing greater than entertainment (which is what news has mostly become).</p>

<p>I share your cynical view that the power brokers are going to do what they're going to do, but only to an extent. At some point, everyday people become so outraged by what they see on the tube every evening, and they stand up en masse to the powerful. And then a tedious titration occurs, whereby the power brokers get nervous about their future (especially in a democratic society), and they cede just enough ground to the masses to dissipate enough of their anger that they are no longer a threat.</p>

<p>I think we have seen this play out in American politics. We are NOT willing to go to war in other lands, and we are NOT willing to maintain our presence in the Middle East. Elections have been fought and lost over these issues, and the attitudes of the People have been powerful enough to shape our foreign policy, despite the worst intentions of our leaders.</p>

<p>And what is most important: We would probably not have become outraged -- and probably none of this would have played out the way it did -- without the Niedringhauses of the world who SHOW us what is happening through their lenses.</p>

<p><em>"Let's take the male boss out of the equation."</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It changes nothing. The failure to recognize that reveals a lack of insight as to what the problem is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a woman made the original comment, your paternalistic put-down would be considered sexist. Hmmm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a woman made the original comment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem was not defined by the gender of who made the comment but by the fact that the subject of the comment was defined by gender. So even if a woman would have made the original comment, it wouldn't have changed what the problem with the comment was. John's comment still applies:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It changes nothing. The failure to recognize that reveals a lack of insight as to what the problem is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that depends just what you think the problem is. If you think it's about equality of opportunity between the sexes, then that's one problem. If you think it's about different safety requirements between male and female photo journalists, then that's another problem.</p>

<p>Don't you think the world is big enough to consider both? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a woman made the original comment, your paternalistic put-down would be considered sexist. Hmmm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interestingly, that would make her a bit like Phyllis Schlafly (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly</a>), who I believe most women would consider a sexist of the same gender and most certainly an opponent to equal rights for women. Paternalistic? Yeah, even that, I suppose.</p>

<p>Sarah, I really cannot see how you could <em>possibly</em> come to the conclusion that you are "not willing to go to war in other lands, maintain a presence in the middle east" etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suppose you'd have to be an American to understand my comment, Stephen. There is enormous anti-war sentiment here in the US. We're tired of sacrificing our dollars and our young lives policing the world while everyone spits at us. And when I say "we," I don't mean all of us. Rather, I mean most of us.</p>

<p>I think we might be more eager to support our politicians and the defense industry in their militaristic ambitions if...</p>

<ul>

<li>photojournalists had not forced us to look at the human tragedy that results from any war.</li>

<li>journalists had not made us aware of the economic costs of warfare.</li>

<li>we had no way to "connect" in a personal way, through photography, through videography, through prose and spoken narratives, to what our young men and women are asked to endure.</li>

<li>we had not seen with our own eyes, through the lenses of photographers, how much our returning veterans have lost -- horrible injuries, lives torn apart.</li>

</ul>

<p>It was with great angst that we didn't go and rescue the Syrian people from themselves. It is with great angst that we watch Russia devour the Ukraine, knowing that we would be powerful enough to stop (and if necessary even crush) Russia in some enormous, horrific war. It is with great sorrow that we watch people plead for the US to come and save them, and we shake our heads. We have neither the financial resources nor the will to continue being savior-of-the-world/Great-American-Satan -- "we," of course, meaning most of us, not all.</p>

<p>So what I'm saying, Stephen, is that photojournalism DOES make a difference. It DOES impact foreign policy. Sometimes, if the People are sufficiently offended by some state of affairs, the politicians DO have to listen to us and moderate their policies at least somewhat, so that all the villagers don't break out their shovels and pitchforks. That's my only point. Whether or not you support what the photojournalists are doing, they do have a measurable impact, at least here.</p>

<p>There are differences in American self-interest between Syria and Ukraine on the one hand and the middle East on the other. The formers' problems have little effet on us. So trying to convince the American people to support war and intervention with their blood and treasure is over reach. The Middle East has a more direct effect on America due to oil and the after effects of 911. </p>

<p>I'd also like to remind our Western friends that what America did and does often protects them as well. We are allies in many of these actions. You're just as effected by oil problems and terrorism as America, maybe more. In fact, when it comes to Ukraine, if gas deliveries get cut off, that will effect Europe a lot more than America. What are you and other Europeans doing about the Ukraine? You did nothing about mass killings in Kosovo, Croatia and Serbia until we got involved. Why is it always America that has to be the world's policeman? You know, we Americans are getting tired of pulling your chestnuts out of the fire and then getting insulted afterwards after it was our money and lives that were lost. One day you're going to look for us to help again, and Americans will decide to stay home and enjoy their Bar B Q's instead.</p>

<p><b>Just a reminder that this is not the off topic forum and that the primary issue in this discussion should be relevant to photography, photojournalism, etc.</p>

<p>Comments that are solely political in content, or otherwise a digression, rather than connected to the primary theme may be deleted.</b></p>