4 ms·

> Gellhorn’s story ran in the August 5 issue with the headline “The Wounded Come Home.” No mention was made of the fact that she was the only female journalist

by kleiba 2y ago

> Gellhorn’s story ran in the August 5 issue with the headline “The Wounded Come Home.” No mention was made of the fact that she was the only female journalist on the ground at Omaha Beach. As it shouldn't, as her sex is hardly relevant for the story she wrote. Likewise, it doesn't matter for the story to mention that Gellhorn was arrested by military police for traveling to Normandy without permission after she returned to England. It's interesting for this article, but why should any information surrounding the author be mentioned in her “The Wounded Come Home” piece?

Aeolun 2y ago
> Why should any information surrounding the author be mentioned in her “The Wounded Come Home” piece? Publicity? They were happy enough to use her husbands name and image in a previous issue, so it’s not like they’re ethically opposed to doing so.
sed3 2y ago
Her sex is quite relevant for her writings. Any man was fair target for guns. She wrote from undisturbed safety of her privilege. Even her treatment by military police after arrest was different.
- yfirnerf 2y ago
  [flagged]
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  "As a female war correspondent, Martha Gellhorn was not allowed to accompany the Allied invasion force .... and so, the night before the invasion, she finagled a spot on a hospital ship by telling military police she was there to interview nurses. Once aboard, Gellhorn found a bathroom, locked the door and hid until the ship was on its way to France on June 6, 1944." "I had been sent to Europe to do my job, which was not to report the rear areas or the 'woman’s' angle.” https://www.military.com/history/how-martha-gellhorn-became-only-female-journalist-d-day.html https://www.military.com/history/how-martha-gellhorn-became-... Despite the so far unanimous invalidation you are experiencing in this thread, I would say that Martha Gellhorn would have agreed with you
  - dang 2y ago
    No doubt, but I dare say she'd have agreed with us about low-value internet comments too.
- nradov 2y ago
  What safety? Hundreds of US servicewomen were killed in WWII. Bombs and artillery don't discriminate by gender. https://www.uso.org/stories/3005-over-200-years-of-service-the-history-of-women-in-the-us-military https://www.uso.org/stories/3005-over-200-years-of-service-t...
- dang 2y ago
  We've banned this account for trolling and ignoring our request to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 2y ago
I think you might be on the wrong side of this guideline here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Unless I'm missing something, the author isn't saying it should have been mentioned; only that it wasn't.
- kleiba 2y ago
  Ok, thank you, dang. I honestly think I wasn't breaking the guidelines but I think this case really is up to interpretation, and do I understand where you're coming from. My interpretation of the part I quoted was that the author of the article included that second sentence with the intention of it being interpreted as "...but it should have been mentioned". But you're right, that's my reading, nowhere does it say explicitly that that information should have been mentioned. In any event, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to troll.
  - dang 2y ago
    That's a fine reply and settles the moderation point, so I don't mean to pile on—I hope that's clear! But I want to say some more about that guideline because this is a useful example. You and I came up with different interpretations of this line: "No mention was made of the fact that she was the only female journalist on the ground at Omaha Beach": Interpretation #1 (yours*): the author thinks the article should have mentioned that, and is perhaps implying something about sexism. Interpretation #2 (mine): the author just finds it interesting that a striking fact was omitted. Both our interpretations are plausible—I dare say equally plausible. But the guideline includes a "tie-breaker" for such cases: the word "strongest". This means that when there is more than one plausible interpretation, you should choose the one that makes for the strongest counter-argument to your criticism**. In this case, #2 is clearly a stronger answer to the criticism "her sex is hardly relevant for the story she wrote" than #1 is, so the tie-breaker would favor #2. This assumes that the commenter (you in this case) actually thinks of both #1 and #2 in the first place. Often this is not so. But at a meta level the guideline is also saying: "please think of as many interpretations you can and then choose the strongest one etc." * I might not have phrased this fairly and in that case you can invoke the same guideline against me :) ** This is sometimes called "steelmanning" or "principle of charity".

by kleiba 2y ago

Aeolun 2y ago

> Why should any information surrounding the author be mentioned in her “The Wounded Come Home” piece? Publicity? They were happy enough to use her husbands name and image in a previous issue, so it’s not like they’re ethically opposed to doing so.

sed3 2y ago

Her sex is quite relevant for her writings. Any man was fair target for guns. She wrote from undisturbed safety of her privilege. Even her treatment by military police after arrest was different.

yfirnerf 2y ago
[flagged]
yieldcrv 2y ago
"As a female war correspondent, Martha Gellhorn was not allowed to accompany the Allied invasion force .... and so, the night before the invasion, she finagled a spot on a hospital ship by telling military police she was there to interview nurses. Once aboard, Gellhorn found a bathroom, locked the door and hid until the ship was on its way to France on June 6, 1944." "I had been sent to Europe to do my job, which was not to report the rear areas or the 'woman’s' angle.” https://www.military.com/history/how-martha-gellhorn-became-only-female-journalist-d-day.html https://www.military.com/history/how-martha-gellhorn-became-... Despite the so far unanimous invalidation you are experiencing in this thread, I would say that Martha Gellhorn would have agreed with you
- dang 2y ago
  No doubt, but I dare say she'd have agreed with us about low-value internet comments too.
nradov 2y ago
What safety? Hundreds of US servicewomen were killed in WWII. Bombs and artillery don't discriminate by gender. https://www.uso.org/stories/3005-over-200-years-of-service-the-history-of-women-in-the-us-military https://www.uso.org/stories/3005-over-200-years-of-service-t...
dang 2y ago
We've banned this account for trolling and ignoring our request to stop. Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 2y ago

I think you might be on the wrong side of this guideline here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Unless I'm missing something, the author isn't saying it should have been mentioned; only that it wasn't.

kleiba 2y ago
Ok, thank you, dang. I honestly think I wasn't breaking the guidelines but I think this case really is up to interpretation, and do I understand where you're coming from. My interpretation of the part I quoted was that the author of the article included that second sentence with the intention of it being interpreted as "...but it should have been mentioned". But you're right, that's my reading, nowhere does it say explicitly that that information should have been mentioned. In any event, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to troll.
- dang 2y ago
  That's a fine reply and settles the moderation point, so I don't mean to pile on—I hope that's clear! But I want to say some more about that guideline because this is a useful example. You and I came up with different interpretations of this line: "No mention was made of the fact that she was the only female journalist on the ground at Omaha Beach": Interpretation #1 (yours*): the author thinks the article should have mentioned that, and is perhaps implying something about sexism. Interpretation #2 (mine): the author just finds it interesting that a striking fact was omitted. Both our interpretations are plausible—I dare say equally plausible. But the guideline includes a "tie-breaker" for such cases: the word "strongest". This means that when there is more than one plausible interpretation, you should choose the one that makes for the strongest counter-argument to your criticism**. In this case, #2 is clearly a stronger answer to the criticism "her sex is hardly relevant for the story she wrote" than #1 is, so the tie-breaker would favor #2. This assumes that the commenter (you in this case) actually thinks of both #1 and #2 in the first place. Often this is not so. But at a meta level the guideline is also saying: "please think of as many interpretations you can and then choose the strongest one etc." * I might not have phrased this fairly and in that case you can invoke the same guideline against me :) ** This is sometimes called "steelmanning" or "principle of charity".