Discussion in 'Articles of Interest' started by waday, Sep 17, 2017.
They don't. He was trying to rile people up on purpose.
As a man, these "things" do affect me. Adversely.
They affect my wife. They affect my mother. They affect my sisters. They affect my coworkers, colleagues, neighbors, friends. They affect doctors, engineers, lawyers, mechanics, nurses.
They will affect my soon-to-be-born daughter.
I don't want my anyone to be at a disadvantage, because men can't understand basic rights and equality.
Why would you not want women to have every right and chance to succeed as someone of the opposite sex, or another gender?
I was referring to the experiences described by female photographers, as reported in the article:
"She said she had worked for paternalistic editors who did not want to send a woman into harm’s way by giving her dangerous assignments. Other women have said they had to overcome sexual harassment, insular networks of men, and being pigeonholed into specific stories.
“Every opportunity I ever got at newspapers, I was fighting for and picking up the scraps of when my male colleagues turned them down,” Ms. Lyttle said."
I didn't say women got no assignments, but my point was that we don't know how many they might have gotten had they not run into attitudes such as expressed above. And if they did, what kind of representation would there be in the market - just 15% or would it be more equitable?
The lack of women in college classes: is that because they didn't want to be photojournalists? Or because they wanted to be but weren't accepted into the program? Or were discouraged from joining the program. We don't know.
We don't know. And that is my whole point. It's useless to talk about the "market" in a precise way unless we know the factors that affect that market. To say "Well, they picked men because of their target market" is spurious and ignores the fact that their market might not be what they think it is.
It's not up to you to decide what is important to other people. And yes, this does ACTUALLY affect people, so why shouldn't they worry about it? Even in just the narrowest sense, representation in the media = exposure = potential new work assignments or business.
Y'know what? Not even going to bother. Some things are worth it. This isn't.
I will say this. On my team I have a young 20 something female photographer who I am hesitant to send out alone to some of the places that we work.
Is it me being sexist or do I not want to send a young attractive woman out to a dangerous job site in a large city at night with thousands of dollars worth of gear. Her getting robbed is probably the best case scenario.
I missed the last article and didn't read what Sara Krulwich wrote. The management of the papers where Krulwich worked was much different than the management of where I worked. When I worked at the Times, we had one black photographer, one Latino photographer and one Asian/female photographer. We were all treated equally, the exception being longevity. The photogs near retirement, were given preferential treatment. The ol' farts were semi-retired, were given the easy stuff, no out-of-town assignments, they worked 9-5 and lounged around doing crossword puzzles in ink. I was hired during a time of transition at the Times. The ol' farts were making way for a new generation of young a$$holes, (as the older crowd affectionately called us). Roughly during the same time as Krulwich started her journalistic adventure. I suspect the same 'time-of-transition' was industry-wide, slowly occurring across the country as the All White Boy club of newspapers was being uprooted by a new generation. When I first started, the ol' farts still wore ties, sport coats and some even donned fedoras as their daily working uniform. The young a$$holes wore blue jeans and running shoes.
Most, if not all of the full-time journalism professors had no real journalism experience and I doubt if the gender discrimination of the newspaper's Boy's Club ever filtered-down and infected professors and college administrators who never worked in the field. I never heard from fellow students of any discrimination policy based on gender. In the School of Communications, I'd say a 50% or more were females, in journalism less than half were females. In photojournalism, none. These numbers/percentages were pretty much reflected at the companies where I worked. But, I only worked for California companies and things are different here than in other parts of the US.
Where I worked, we were all equals, all considered to be professionals. Assignments were given out, more-or-less, on a rotational basis and weekend/night work was also rotated. So if you had a weekend, you're shooting sports. If the president comes to town on a Wednesday and you're working Wednesday, you're shooting the president. If nothing is scheduled for you, then you're given a feature to research and shoot.
We just had a female come very close to becoming president of the US. We have female politicians. Female doctors, lawyers, and police officers. Females are allowed to work in any career they would like without restriction, at least in most countries. Women can vote. They can go to war.
The actions of a private company's advertising campaign have no detrimental effect on the average woman, or any of the women in your life.
Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US. Does everyone believe this should be the case? Of course not.. but people are allowed to believe whatever they want. And if they own a company, they can run that company according to their beliefs if they so choose.
The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.
There's so much that's wrong with your post, it's difficult to focus on one single thing. But I did highlight your (to me) most odious comment.
Think about why you (unthinkingly) worded your sentence that way. "Females are allowed..."
Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US. Except in equal pay for equal work - for starters.
The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what. Yeah, and in 100 years we'll all be dead. Fatalistic thinking like this basically guarantees nothing will change. It also allows those who perhaps don't want things to change to shrug it off. "It doesn't affect me; therefore, it cannot be important."
Are they aware of the risks? Did they accept certain risks when they were hired - like any other employee?
If you're worried about the *equipment,* then perhaps sending a 2-person team out would be better in these circumstances, regardless of gender. Your implication that a woman could get raped as well as robbed doesn't mean a man couldn't get beaten as well as robbed. Either is unacceptable - I agree you should think about protecting your staff, minus the gender bias.
When trying to determine whether or not something is sexist, I just turn it around.
If 32 women has been selected, don't you think that would have been a little strange? "What was this, a retreat just for women? Is there going to be one for men? Couldn't they find a single qualified man?"
We've become used to the idea that when a man speaks, it's a message for everyone, but when a woman speaks, she's only speaking to other women. That, I think, is the underlying issue with Nikon. They assumed that a man's perspective would be interesting to everyone, while a woman's perspective would only be interesting to women. The point of the article is to say that many people would be interested in hearing both perspectives.
... oh don't play if off like I used the word "allowed" in a negative way. I won't sit here and argue semantics.
Name one thing in our (western) society a female is unable to do that a male can do. Seriously.. the doors are all open to females in western society. There are no careers off limits to females. They have every opportunity to advance themselves in the same way males do. My doctor is a female. There are female police officers, paramedics, and firefighters I interact with daily. I have a friend who is a female and in the army. If a female wants to be something there is nothing stopping her.
This is a prime example of the PC/equality police just wanting to stir the pot and make a big deal out of soemthing that is essentially a non-issue.
If you want to talk about female inequality let's at least talk about eastern or middle eastern countries where they still don't have the right to vote or go to college in many places, much less have a career. Now there's a fight I can get behind all day!
But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
Separate names with a comma.