> > John Francis: > > >The complaint is just as bad as the original ad - possibly even worse. > >A long list of *female* photographers? Why is there this assumption > >that only females might find the advertisement offensive, or that only > >the opinion of female photographers is worth reporting? > > The photographers that have written and signed the article all happen > to be women. I see no assumption that only women might find the > advertisement offensive, though. > > No-one has said that only the opinion of female photographers is > worth reporting, either. This particular group of female > photographers submitted their opinion to the magazine, and it > published the letter, that's all.
I would still suggest that a group of individuals who all happen to be female is using that as their primary selection criterion, not the fact that they are all photographers. The ad is tacky and tasteless - I'm not trying to defend it. But I don't share the opinion that the protesters are photographers first, and just coincidentally *happen* to be women. Mind you, I'm still disappointed that *anyone* could be stupid enough to run this ad in Sweden. I visited Sweden for six months in 1974. Before I went I spent a couple of weeks in the USA getting training. This was in the heyday of the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, so I got quite a lot of news coverage of the ratification process. The US was busy slapping itself on the back, and congratulating itself on jusy how enlightened it was. Then I got to Sweden. Equality didn't seem to be something you needed to talk about - it was just accepted as a way of life. Perhaps 40% of the working population were women (even the welders at the shipyard). Paternity leave for childcare of newborn infants was normal - a couple of the male programmers I worked with took leave in the time that I was there, as well as one of the females.
