6 ms·

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention

by Geeek 7y ago

As someone who grew up Hasidic (and spoke only Yiddish until 17) I am also not sure what the article is attempting to do here. Is she trying to bring attention to the sexist attitudes of the Hasidic community? They wanted something, she wanted something else, they paid as per the new conditions. End of story.

mikorym 7y ago
I think the point of the article is that taking away someone's identity because she happens to be a woman is something that she has the right to oppose, especially if she is that woman. Also, they were dishonest. Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.
- Geeek 7y ago
  So again, is she trying to bring awareness? Is she trying to show how she morally disagreed with something and then...nothing happened? I am no longer Hasidic and I absolutely side with her stance regarding the name used but I still do not understand the point of the article.
  - lazerwalker 7y ago
    I mean, this is a short blog post on her personal blog, right? I don't know if there's that much more to it than "here's an interesting story that happened to me, including being happy to tell you about how I was able to donate $500 to some good organizations".
celticninja 7y ago
Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.
- Geeek 7y ago
  No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.
  - telesilla 7y ago
    It was, in my view, an article about where copyright and ethics meet. An interesting take.
    - Geeek 7y ago
      I hear you. Still a very subtle take on things.
- Veen 7y ago
  I'm entirely on Kaplan's side in this, but the way you express it gives me pause. "All sexism is bad" is true from my perspective, but it clearly isn't true from the perspective of the community concerned. In the interests of pluralism (not relativism), I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to universalise social norms in that way.
  - roel_v 7y ago
    "In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)
    - Veen 7y ago
      What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.
Veen 7y ago
What they wanted was unreasonable by her standards, and she said so. The end of the story is not the transaction because our interactions with other people are not governed by exclusively transactional concerns, even when they are in large part transactional in nature.
bigiain 7y ago
They weren't the photographer's "new conditions". The original agreement said she wanted credit for he photos with her full name. Quite reasonably in my opinion, especially given the zero price offered under those conditions. After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. They paid according to new conditions imposed by them. (Apparently with poor grace on the part of the editorial communications, but with at least outward signs of professionalism and good manners on the part of the author.) End of story, sure. But it was an interesting story none the less. I'm glad she told it (and appreciate whoever posted it here).
- nkurz 7y ago
  After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. From my reading of the article, I don't think this is accurate. The original agreement was between an independent writer and the photographer. The editors had never agreed to publish her name. While I strongly disagree with their editorial policy, I don't think it's fair to consider them bound by an agreement made by a third party without their consent.
  - bigiain 7y ago
    Yeah - fair call. From the photographer's point of view though, she'd negotiated a deal with the author. That deal was then rejected (by the author's editors, who the photographer had no agreement with), and a new deal had to be negotiated. That should have always been a problem between the author and the editors (which is sounds like is where it ended up, with the author paying the price of the newly negotiated deal). Going back to the photographer and asking nicely if she'd reconsider the details of the attribution is reasonable - but the editors pushing back when she said "no" with "WE APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE (KNOWING THAT NO OFFENSE IS INTENTED ח”ו). THANK YOU" is, at least in my opinion, offensive - perhaps not maliciously/intentionally so, but certainly obliviously careless in assuming their religious traditions need to be understood and accepted by everybody else. I think the end result was appropriate. I'm less certain the manner in which it was arrived at wasn't poorly handled and an attempt to pressure the photographer into a worse deal than agreed upon - even though that deal was "zero dollars, just credit me by name".

by Geeek 7y ago

mikorym 7y ago

I think the point of the article is that taking away someone's identity because she happens to be a woman is something that she has the right to oppose, especially if she is that woman. Also, they were dishonest. Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.

Geeek 7y ago
So again, is she trying to bring awareness? Is she trying to show how she morally disagreed with something and then...nothing happened? I am no longer Hasidic and I absolutely side with her stance regarding the name used but I still do not understand the point of the article.
- lazerwalker 7y ago
  I mean, this is a short blog post on her personal blog, right? I don't know if there's that much more to it than "here's an interesting story that happened to me, including being happy to tell you about how I was able to donate $500 to some good organizations".

celticninja 7y ago

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

Geeek 7y ago
No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.
- telesilla 7y ago
  It was, in my view, an article about where copyright and ethics meet. An interesting take.
  - Geeek 7y ago
    I hear you. Still a very subtle take on things.
Veen 7y ago
I'm entirely on Kaplan's side in this, but the way you express it gives me pause. "All sexism is bad" is true from my perspective, but it clearly isn't true from the perspective of the community concerned. In the interests of pluralism (not relativism), I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to universalise social norms in that way.
- roel_v 7y ago
  "In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)
  - Veen 7y ago
    What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.

Veen 7y ago

What they wanted was unreasonable by her standards, and she said so. The end of the story is not the transaction because our interactions with other people are not governed by exclusively transactional concerns, even when they are in large part transactional in nature.

bigiain 7y ago

They weren't the photographer's "new conditions". The original agreement said she wanted credit for he photos with her full name. Quite reasonably in my opinion, especially given the zero price offered under those conditions. After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. They paid according to new conditions imposed by them. (Apparently with poor grace on the part of the editorial communications, but with at least outward signs of professionalism and good manners on the part of the author.) End of story, sure. But it was an interesting story none the less. I'm glad she told it (and appreciate whoever posted it here).

nkurz 7y ago
After having agreed, and right towards the end of the publication process, the editors refused those originally agreed conditions. From my reading of the article, I don't think this is accurate. The original agreement was between an independent writer and the photographer. The editors had never agreed to publish her name. While I strongly disagree with their editorial policy, I don't think it's fair to consider them bound by an agreement made by a third party without their consent.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Yeah - fair call. From the photographer's point of view though, she'd negotiated a deal with the author. That deal was then rejected (by the author's editors, who the photographer had no agreement with), and a new deal had to be negotiated. That should have always been a problem between the author and the editors (which is sounds like is where it ended up, with the author paying the price of the newly negotiated deal). Going back to the photographer and asking nicely if she'd reconsider the details of the attribution is reasonable - but the editors pushing back when she said "no" with "WE APPRECIATE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE (KNOWING THAT NO OFFENSE IS INTENTED ח”ו). THANK YOU" is, at least in my opinion, offensive - perhaps not maliciously/intentionally so, but certainly obliviously careless in assuming their religious traditions need to be understood and accepted by everybody else. I think the end result was appropriate. I'm less certain the manner in which it was arrived at wasn't poorly handled and an attempt to pressure the photographer into a worse deal than agreed upon - even though that deal was "zero dollars, just credit me by name".