No job for a woman?

[Robin Smith]

<p>David,</p>

<p>It does take even more guts to work in such a paternalistic society as Afghanistan, that is for sure, but I have to say I don't think we know the women were killed because they were women, but I suggest it is more likely it was because they were Westerners covering the election preparations and presumably thought to be engaged in the distribution of ballots. The courage of these reporters is very impressive.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>I've never gotten the impression that the Middle East was any more dangerous for women than it is for men, and I agree with Robin's assessment. The article David sites gives no indication that the attack was based on the sex of the victims, and as Lex pointed out early-on, equally highlights other attacks that were made against men. I give any journalist who ventures into that part of the world an A for courage. Wisdom, not so much...</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I give any journalist who ventures into that part of the world an A for courage. Wisdom, not so much...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lacking in wisdom? I would perhaps say instead "imprudent," but I would not thereby infer lack of wisdom. Some noble causes are advanced by imprudent but wise and morally committed individuals. I think that in some cases such causes can be advanced by persons carrying cameras.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[wogears]

<p>Many have said this better than I, but it is <em>not</em> "political correctness" that is the issue here. Women are as capable as men of making decisions that affect their lives. Period.</p>

<p>Sarah: My father fought in WWII. He was fairly small, and could not lift two 50 lb ammo packs and carry them. However, he made OCS, became a first lieutenant, and saved the lives of his platoon. For this he received a Bronze Star,</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Placing women on the same 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>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, they can't add to this discussion.</p>

<p>I guess my views make me an old-fashioned, politically incorrect man to want to keep women safe. Placing women on the same life-and-death risk level as we place men diminishes their value to society, not increases it. They're just "another one-of-the-boys" and treated as such with less respect then they had, not more. And yes I'm all for equal pay for equal work. It's just that we should consider certain work left for men who are, frankly, more dispensable.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I guess my views make me an old-fashioned, politically incorrect man to want to keep women safe. ...

It's just that we should consider certain work left for men who are, frankly, more dispensable.

 

Why is it you don't you want to keep men safe as well?

[q.g._de_bakker]

Do the moderators know that the Off Topic Forum is continued here?

[jordan2240]

<p>Lannie,</p>

<p>'Wisdom' may not have been the best choice of words, but I do wonder what foreign journalists believe they can realistically accomplish in that part of the world. It's one thing to lose your life over a cause, and another to lose it over a story. Is there a cause in Afghanistan that can be advanced by anyone other than those who live there, and if one believes there is, is it worth the pain you might cause your loved ones if your life is lost to it?</p>

<p>How does that prayer go? "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Do the moderators know that the Off Topic Forum is continued here?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Discussing risks to photojournalists, both male and female, is not Off Topic. It may touch into political areas and social mores, but that doesn't make it Off Topic. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It's one thing to lose your life over a cause, and another to lose it over a story.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, I think the story and the telling of these stories IS the cause. Journalists have provided the world with important information and pictures. They bring to light what could otherwise remain hidden from sight. That, in itself, is a cause.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it you don't you want to keep men safe as well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd love to keep men safe. But there are certain professions that have to be filled in society that have risk - like combat. </p>

<p>In the past, societies felt that risking women's lives, both from instinctive feelings as well as practical societal results, understood that if a man loses his life, children could still be born from the women left at home. If a woman is killed, there becomes one less female available to produce children for that society. Likewise, if a man and women pair have children, children do better with their single mom than with their single father if one of them is lost in battle. It's why when we had the draft, women were exempt. Married men were further down the list to be drafted. Women volunteers weren't sent to Vietnam or Korea except in non-combat roles. </p>

<p>Did the woman reporter who was killed have a family?</p>

[Spearhead]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bill, I think the story and the telling of these stories IS the cause. Journalists have provided the world with important information and pictures. They bring to light what could otherwise remain hidden from sight. That, in itself, is a cause.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Exactly. Some people believe it's important to spread information. Others think it's important to stay safe all the time. Some are in the middle. How can people so easily judge others' priorities?

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Alan, your views about the priorities of sparing women for reproductive purposes would be spot-on within the limited context of a struggling population. However, the world is overpopulated (with humans, at least), and our reproductive potential as a society is not an important issue. What <em>is</em> at issue is a personal freedom -- the freedom to set one's own goals and to strive to achieve them. I support any person's right to do that.</p>

<p>Besides that, I think women have something unique to contribute to almost any human endeavor, whether as scientists, engineers, or photojournalists. Their approach is often a bit different from men's and is often very important for that very reason. We all lose something when women (or any other class of people) aren't encouraged to participate in this society to the fullest extent they desire.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>What if the woman who desires to take a dangerous job is also a mom? Shouldn't her family expect more? Or should her personal desires for fame and fortune take priority?</p>

[charleswood]

<p>"71 journalists were killed in 2013" http://en.rsf.org/71-journalists-were-killed-in-2013-18-12-2013,45634.html</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>2013 in numbers<br />Journalists killed: 71 (-20%)<br /> Journalists arrested: 826 (-6%)<br />Journalists threatened or physically attacked: 2160 (+9%)<br /> Journalists kidnapped: 87 (+129%)<br /> Journalists who fled their country: 77 (+5%)<br /> Media assistants killed: 6<br /> Netizens and citizen-journalists killed: 39 (-17%)<br /> Bloggers and netizens arrested: 127 (-12%)<br>

<br />Journalists killed:<br /> 39% in a war zone<br /> 8% freelance<br /> 4% women journalists<br>

<br />Media types<br /> Print: 37%<br /> Radio: 30%<br /> TV: 30%<br /> Website: 3%<br>

<br />178 journalists in prison (on 16 December 2013)<br />37 journalists have been kidnapped or have disappeared (on 18 december 2013)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chris Hedges, veteran war correspondent: "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years." http://www.amazon.com/War-Force-that-Gives-Meaning/dp/1400034639</p>

<p>I express in one word each and every personal reasons prompting either man or woman to cover armed conflict : folly, a word that is also synonymous with the word war.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Discussing risks to photojournalists, both male and female, is not Off Topic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, but the issue isn't really about photojournalists per se. There are other activities giving rise to the same dangers where people are projecting themselves in to cultural activities and governance there. It may be 'on topic' but in an incidental way to the broader issue. That it is dangerous for just about any westerner working in Afghanistan. But we were only asked about females going there for some mysterious reason.<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>What if the woman who desires to take a dangerous job is also a mom? Shouldn't her family expect more?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking of only asking about females going to Afghanistan for some mysterious reason, what if the man who desires to take a dangerous job is also a dad? Shouldn't his family expect more?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of only asking about females for some mysterious reason, what if the man who desires to take a dangerous job is also a dad? Shouldn't his family expect more?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Not only his family expects more and deserves more, but society as a whole feels he has more value staying home with his family. That's why we didn't draft married men during the Vietnam War, only single men. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>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>

</blockquote>

<p>People are not being shot in Afghanistan "for simply for being a woman". <br /><br /></p>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>Some people believe it's important to spread information. Others think it's important to stay safe all the time. Some are in the middle. How can people so easily judge others' priorities?</blockquote>

<p>I don't believe I was judging the priorities of anyone, but merely questioning the wisdom and motivation behind them. Obviously people are free to set their own priorities in life (at least those of us who live in free societies are), and I would not label mine any more important than theirs. The spread of information in itself though is not a noble pursuit. It can be done for a cause, and it can be done for profit, notoriety, or any number of other non-altruistic reasons. And while people are free to do it for whatever reason they see fit, one might be inclined to question it when it results in tragedy. </p>

[peteraitch]

<blockquote>

<p>Bill, I think the story and the telling of these stories IS the cause. Journalists have provided the world with important information and pictures. They bring to light what could otherwise remain hidden from sight. That, in itself, is a cause.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1, Fred. As I've written elsewhere, the photos that I have seen from Anja Niedringhaus are more eloquent than anything I can add. She was a highly skilled and experienced professional, who knew the risks and accepted them. Her gender is incidental to the "pictorial dialogue" - we are the poorer for her loss and the richer for her willingness to risk her life. I trust that we will use her work to inform our attitudes to this situation and not waste it considering side-issues.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>People are not being shot in Afghanistan "for simply for being a woman". </em><br>

If I say "being a self-assertive woman", does that make more sense to you? The CNN story I linked confirms that "uppity" Afghan girls are facing poison and acid attacks - the shooting of the two female journalists appears to be in much the same vein.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>David, don't you think the Taliban might feel differently about Afghan women and girls than Western women? Do you really think they care what social and professional roles Western women assume? I doubt it. To them, a Western woman is a Western man is an infidel is an enemy of the Taliban and their medieval social agenda.</p>

<p>You appear to believe that these two women would not have been shot if they were men. I disagree, but I suppose we will never really know who is right.</p>

<p>-----------------------------</p>

<p>@ Alan: If these women were moms of minor children (and they might have been, for all I know, although I doubt it), I think they should have a duty to their children not to put themselves into danger. I hold the same standard for men. IMO, no Westerner raising children has any business in Afghanistan or any other war region. But I suspect that's a separate issue.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>We have plenty of journalist's pictures, film, and writings from past wars whose lessons are as lost to us as are the dead.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Tagore: "If in its [civilization's] place [the British (Read the Americans)] have established, with baton in hand, a reign of ‘law and order’, in other words a policeman’s rule, such mockery of civilization can claim no respect from us. It is the mission of civilization to bring unity among people and establish peace and harmony."</p>

<p>The proper role of a journalist isn't to just repeat the lies of those in our country who hold the baton in their hands, nor is their proper role to bring us images of exactly how we wield that baton. It is the proper role of a journalist to call a war of choice just that, to not repeat the lies at home, but to uncover them. That proper journalistic role takes more courage than to run off to a battle and 'cover' it.</p>

<p>Don't bother troubling too much over the barbarism of the Taliban, the mind reading, the hand wringing and outrage, the tales of horror: don't bother because it is into that very barbarism that we ourselves have descended.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>People are not being shot in Afghanistan "for simply for being a woman". </em><br /> If I say "being a self-assertive woman", does that make more sense to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course. But it doesn't amount to much since any westerner getting involved in activities there is essentially a target. More so, perhaps, than it is for the random "self assertive woman".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The CNN story I linked confirms that "uppity" Afghan girls are facing poison and acid attacks - the shooting of the two female journalists appears to be in much the same vein.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its possible that gender related behavior was a motivation but, considering the nature of other journalist attacks and who conducted this particular attack, it is mere speculation for that to be so. Indeed, those other cases cited are clearly identified with only being about gender based conduct. Then you use those as a comparison to conduct <strong>which also has other non-gender based risk associated with it.</strong> That gets you in to logical fallacy territory.</p>

<p>Moreover, your example also cites fairly common attack methods against non-submissive women and compares that to a shooting which, by common practice, is more gender neutral. Had it been an acid attack on the western women, a more intriguing correlation could have been made.</p>

<p>So far, we have not been provided with any reliable evidence presented here showing that western women are at a substantially higher risk of an attack than western men. You seem very eager to assert that there is nevertheless. My guess, since we don't have much to really go on, is that any elevated risk is moderate at best. We also seem to be moving well beyond the journalistic relevance here since this is about women per se with no journalistic aspect.</p>