Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:11:19 -0500, Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> wrote: >Wow! I think we read different reviews. I went back and read it again and >nowhere does Reitman mention Kogan giving it all up to become a mother. I >didn't get the feminist angle at all - just that Kogan had betrayed the >photojournalists' code (male included) by naming names. Amazing how >different we read things - Venus and Mars! > >Tina Here's the motherhood line I was referring to: "Kogan, who left photojournalism for TV news in 1992, and then left journalism altogether in 1998 to become a full-time mom, is not, contrary to the media buzz around the book, some kind of neo-fem heroine to women journalists." This one left me with the "feminist polemic" feeling" "I'm grateful to the women who took me under their wing, pointing out how nice those khakis and that sensible, and loose, white T-shirt looked on me, sharing their contacts and giving me assignments. Women, not men, taught me how to interview soldiers and how to hide, and then run, when someone is shooting at you." To me this reads as a two-level argument. On the surface it's sensible - women do need to support each other, especially in male-dominated professions. On another level, because she's reviewing Kogan's book and by implication her actions, she seems to be saying "Kogan was not grateful to the women in her profession. She did not seek them out to accept or provide support. Instead she sought to emulate the men. Her masculine sexual promiscuity proves who she really sided with, and it wasn't us." Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I still want to read the book and form my own opinions. From Mars, Paul