No job for a woman?

<p>Equal rights for women in the workplace are a given for me, but even so I think it was not the best idea to send an all-female newsgathering crew to a country where a large number of men have a pathological hatred of women who do not veil themselves from head to foot and stay home and where firearm ownership and willingness to use same on anyone you disagree with are very high:<br>

http://www.dw.de/german-photographer-anja-niedringhaus-killed-in-afghanistan/a-17543218</p>

 

<p>As the story you linked to shows, the violence is not limited to women. Male journalists, including those who are not identified as "Westerners", and even their families have been targeted.</p>

<p>I follow various media-on-the-media sources included IFEX and all indicate that violence against journalists is on the increase worldwide and doesn't appear to target women any more often than men. However at least anecdotal evidence indicates that when the assaulted journalists are women there is some connection made in reference to their sex, if not always by the assailants. There seems to be a presumption that women journalists are attacked not because they are journalists covering an area where journalists are unwelcomed and targeted by terrorist groups, but because they are women. </p>

<p>I'm not sure whether any of the media watchdog groups such as IFEX have done enough analysis to determine whether women journalists are statistically more at risk. Such as study would be complicated by many factors.</p>

<p>"The way to hell is paved with good intentions."</p>

<p>You may have meant well, but you're just being offensive. First, nobody "sent" the all-female crew - they could have went elsewhere but they chose to take those assignments. Second, if you read your article until the end, it mentions two male reporters that were killed in separate incidents - being male doesn't make it safer for a reporter there. Finally, this kind of line of thought that you just demonstrated is exactly the kind of patriarchal patronizing nonsense that doesn't do any good to women.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to agree with Lex. The journalists were shot because of hatred of Westerners, not hatred of women. I do not know how these particular journalists were dressed when they were shot, but just about every female journalist and diplomat I've seen on camera in the Middle East adheres to local customs of dress, so as not to offend people. I would be very surprised if these women were dressed in miniskirts and halter tops.</p>

<p>I think it's also a good for us to recognize these sorts of acts are carried out by extremist elements. Afghanistan might have more than its fair share of extremists willing to kill Westerners for the glory of Allah, but that does not mean that mainstream Afghans are eager to kill us.</p>

<p>War is no place for anyone.</p>

<p>However, I have an impression that an awful lot of the BBC reporters, men and women, sent to dangerous places have Irish accents. Sometimes Indian accents; rarely Mayfair.<br>

Maybe they're the ones who accept the assignments?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=kathleen+carroll+AP">Kathleen Carroll</a> is the executive editor and senior VP at AP who presumably either authorized or arranged Anja Niedringhaus and Kathy Gannon for the assignment for their competence, commitment and dedication. The outcome is tragic regardless of gender.</p>

<p>Offensive? For asking a question? This is a process called “debate”. And offensive to whom? Just you? Furthermore, what makes you think I can’t read? Most certainly Afghanistan is a dangerous place for anyone, native or foreigner, male or female, but considering the extreme levels of misogyny present:<br>

<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meast/cnnheroes-jan-afghan-school/">http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meast/cnnheroes-jan-afghan-school/</a><br>

I reiterate – being a woman reporter in this country is not something I would advise to anyone</p>

<p>I do think that women photographers might tend to bring out the worst in some men in certain cultures, insofar as they represent the "liberated" women of the West--and some men in some cultures (including our own) seem to fear above all the "liberated" woman.</p>

<p>David's link in the preceding post demonstrates this very clearly, I think. Men have been trying to control women for as long we have the historical record, but in some cultures the degree of control is quite pathological.</p>

<p>Is it patronizing to women to say that? No. Over my forty years of teaching (come June), I have had quite a few women tell me how much resistance they have received from their husbands for trying to go back to school. Men tend to fear women who are not dependent on them. The Western educated woman can be some men's worst nightmare.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Wasn't a reporter raped right in the middle of the Cairo square where the Egyptian riots were going on a year or two ago? If I was the editor, I would think twice about sending a woman to an area where she would be in greater danger because she is a woman. </p>

<p>There's plenty of places for female reporters to go where gender is not an issue. There would be other places where no reporter should be sent. That's common sense not discrimination. Losing one of your reporters for any reason has to be hard enough.</p>

<p>Alan, are you familiar with the story of Anne Smedinghoff? She was 25 years old when she died in a car bomb blast in Afghanistan working as a foreign service officer escorting Afghan journalists to a school. <br>

<a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=Anne+Smedinghoff">https://www.google.ca/search?q=Anne+Smedinghoff</a></p>

<p>She volunteered for the assignment. </p>

<p>In my understanding it was a personal wish of the reporters to work in countries like Afganistan to report about the situation and I also think it is important to have a female view on the situation. Women journalists may get better access to women in these countries and therefore are able to report issues that sometimes are not accessible for men. It is a tragic loss, but I have respect for the courage of men and women who don't want to accept the hatred of extremists and therefore share their reasons for killing.<br>

Thanks for the debate, David. But you didn't ask a question, you made a comment.</p>

<p>The employer or commissioning client has a responsibility to assess risk and judge whether that risk is worth taking or should some other means be used to gather news. If it decided it is a risk worth taking then the journalists should be briefed accordingly so that they understand the risk they are accepting. They then decide whether they wish to accept those risks. Each individual will assess risks differently depending on their personal circumstances but if they accept the risks then I don't see gender comes into it. These people are adults who knowingly undertake dangerous jobs. In the end it is their choice</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their contributions.<br>

<em>Risk assessment </em>– a basic task of every manager in charge of staff. In the case of Afghanistan, one would have to say there is a high baseline risk applicable to everyone present – it’s a dangerous place. Above and beyond this, there are aggravated risk factors applicable to all Westerners (same for M and F), newsgatherers (also same for M and F) and self-assertive women (obviously F only). If we assume for lack of evidence to the contrary that all these 3 factors should have equal weighting, it follows that female newsgatherers face a 50% higher risk than their male colleagues. I think this is beyond dispute – the question is what to do about it.<br>

<em>Patriarchal ... patronising ... </em>– I am of course aware that there is a school of thought which says 100% equality for women includes 100% freedom to take bad decisions and expose themselves to any risk. At the same time it is necessary to recognise that some women in dangerous professions are “on a mission” and feel they must push themselves to the limit and beyond and take any risk, no matter how extreme, to prove themselves against male competitors. I am not and never have been in a position of sending out staff into battlefield conditions, merely into hazardous and potentially fatal industrial environments – it is my proud boast that I have never had personnel for whom I have been responsible killed or seriously injured, and, given a choice between political correctness and maintaining this record, I would cheerfully throw the PC out the window at any time!<br>

For the real answer to this question, we’d need to ask the companies that sell reporters life insurance (obviously for very high premiums!). If one of these companies refused insurance on the grounds of excess danger (which they would, I imagine, do via the “back door” of offering a sky-high quote which no one would accept), this would be a warning to take seriously. It would be nice if editors refused to deal with journalists who were uninsured, but the chances of a hot story from an uninsured journalist being refused in the certain knowledge that it would go straight to a rival are probably very low!</p>

<p>Going into "trouble spots" is a guarantee of getting good shots..<br>

It also gets one into extreme danger.<br>

I covered certain areas in South Africa during the "unrest".<br>

I was shooting pix for the need of power,running water,sewerage and other amenities<br>

I re-examined my being there after a friend was killed.<br>

I had already been in a midst of events.<br>

Not sure if the police, the rioters,the demonstrators and pure thugs, would take me out.<br>

I have a daughter,son and wife.<br>

The things i worked for on behalf of squatters really did happen.<br>

Going to a place where no foreigner is safe...<br>

Oh! I realized i'd prefer living elsewhere.<br>

I emigrated.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Women are as capable of making decisions about taking/rejecting an assignment as men. It is paternalism to say, "Now, now little lady, that's not for you" as it ever was.</p>

<p>+1 for Conni.<br>

<br /> Anja Niedringhaus and Kathy Gannon were two intelligent and experienced journalists who had worked in Afghanistan for years. They knew more about the dangers and about staying as safe as possible than most of their colleagues. I wish they had not been there on that day. But for any of us to presume to say that they shouldn't have gone because they were women is, as said above, paternalism.</p>

<p>You want to put women in high topped shoes, bustles, ankle-length skirts and 30 pettyicoats. Then you will forbid them to drive a car, be seen in public without a male relative, and to wear a burka. And taking photographs would be unladylike. A little afraid of competition, are we? You need to start by acknowledging women can actually make up their own minds for themselves and they do not need to have such a masterly (male) presence as for instance yourself to get something through their silly little heads.</p>

<p>If women didn't go to places where it is a lot more dangerous for them than for men, they'd have to stay home . . . except that's where most domestic violence occurs. Where, pray tell, should they go?</p>

<p>Maybe paternalism is the tendency to see women always against the backdrop of men, as in the statement above that many women . . .</p>

<p><em>"feel they must push themselves to the limit and beyond and take any risk, no matter how extreme, to prove themselves against male competitors"</em></p>

<p>What if it turns out to be a genuine desire to push themselves as human beings and not to prove themselves against anyone?</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>What if it turns out to be a genuine desire to push themselves as human beings and not to prove themselves against anyone.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>Exactly. That was one line that really caught my eye. Could define sexist attitudes in a nutshell. As if nobody else has any reason to try to prove themselves for any other reasons, or that this is the only reason a woman would do it.</p>

<p>I agree with Conni, Lex and others. There have been women journalists or photographers who have been working in dangeous areas of the world for years, if not decades, and only when they're killed does anyone argue they shouldn't have been there because they are women, yet nothing is said of men who are killed more than the circumstances of their death and their career, only for women when they die when they're not working in a dangerous country.</p>

<p>Independent, educated, non-Muslim Western women are a particular bête noir for the Taliban and their ilk - I don't think there is much argument about this. But it would be difficult to get statistics because the number of female journalists in Afghanistan is presumably a lot lower than the number of their male colleages. Myself, I doubt they target women particularly, because, although they may in many ways particularly resent/fear/hate what they represent, even they may have more qualms about killing women - men are always more acceptable targets. In a perverse way, of course, the media coverage of female journalist's deaths are always more prominent than the death of "equivalent" male colleagues which heightens the impression that selective killing of women is going on.</p>

<p>In a related news item, as covered by one of the major networks last night or the night before (can't remember), the US military is currently studying the feasibility of deploying female soldiers in combat environments, measuring whether they have the physical strength required, for instance, to hustle ammo boxes around and pull a 175 lb fellow soldier to safety. Some women seem to have what it takes for this sort of duty, and some men actually don't.</p>

<p>It is completely foreign to my way of thinking why ANYONE, male or female, would want to insert him/herself into such an environment, but I'm not going to be the one to tell women they can't. If they can, they can, and barriers should not be put in their way!</p>

<p>Now I know a woman can run, hide, lift a camera, and do damned competent work. If a woman is insane enough to want to do that work, then she should be allowed. You think women go into these situations naively?</p>

<p>I think I saw a figure somewhere that over 100 photographers have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I shook my head in disbelief. I cannot imagine doing this sort of work, but I am grateful for the news coverage.</p>

<p>EDIT: Just a thought to chew on: When Afghan girls see Western women working as war correspondents, what message do you think they take home? Isn't that worth something?</p>

<p><em>You want to put women in high topped shoes, bustles, ankle-length skirts and 30 pettyicoats. Then you will forbid them to drive a car, be seen in public without a male relative, and to wear a burka. And taking photographs would be unladylike. A little afraid of competition, are we? You need to start by acknowledging women can actually make up their own minds for themselves and they do not need to have such a masterly (male) presence as for instance yourself to get something through their silly little heads. </em><br>

Wayne, if you want to know what I want, try reading my post! It contains not one word of your total BS response. What I am saying in very simple terms is that it makes no sense for women journalists to work in an environment in which they are very apt to be shot on sight and without warning by someone they cannot even see for simply being a woman.</p>

<p>Amelia Earhart should have stayed home.</p>

<p>Right.</p>

<p>"Some women climb a mountain. Some women swim the sea. Some women fly above the sky, they are what they must be. . . ." (paraphrase of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4moK6L1yE4"><em><strong>"Baby, the Rain Must Fall," Glenn Yarbrough</strong></em></a>)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>