NYT reporter says she would boycott Masters until women allowed at Augusta

buck, about the only way you can draw a parallel between the two is if you're referring to an employee byline strike. And even that's different than choosing not to cover your assignment.

The reasons behind striking and doing what Ms. Crouse is proposing -- they are quite different.

 

What is she proposing? She never said she wouldn't cover the event, or wouldn't cover it to the best of her abilities.

 

Read the thread title.

 

Read her quote.

 

That's not what you were defending. You're shifting the playing field. You were defending her right to do just that, regardless of her quote.

 

As a woman, she and everyone like her are actively being discriminated against by that club. Damn right I'm defending her right to protest that discrimination.

Being a journalist does not mean you stop being a human being.

 

Is there truly no distinction between wishing doing your job didn't entail X and refusing to do your job?

If so, can someone clarify for me which is the generation who lost nuance?

 

It's also misleading, to say the least, to categorize this theoretical idea from the headline, rather than the actual quote, as "not wanting to do your job." It might technically be true, again, for a hypothetical, but it certainly puts the emphasis on a point that is not the key one.

It makes it sound like the person simply doesn't want to work. I think a more accurate emphasis would be the person "wanting to stand up for a principle she feels strongly enough about to miss work." Or "wanting to be a human being who recognizes discrimination instead of just being a worker bee."

You shouldn't need to be female to understand this, though I understand why 21 would like some more posters of that gender on here at this specific time. This discussion, in general, makes a good case for the importance of diversity on staffs.

 

Read it again. She said she'd "just as soon not cover" ANOTHER Masters. To which she has not yet been assigned.

 

IJAG, if she's at the event and saying she'd "just as soon not cover" that event again, you don't think that somewhat compromises her position as the NYT's voice at the event?

Understand, I empathize -- no, I agree -- with her outlook on it. This is totally about her role as a newspaper employee. This, to me, is totally NOT about her role as a "her."

And I also understand buck's viewpoint that sometimes your personal moral compass may need to supersede your role as an employee. And that is what I disagree with for the most part. I don't believe that you wave your personal flag while representing your newspaper.

 

It's a shame you are so unable to engage in actual discussion.

And also that whoever is feeding you information regarding my career is so sadly mistaken. Thought for sure you would have acquired better sources by now.

Alas.

Hahahaha, you edited out the falsehood.

Wise!

 

It doesn't matter. This isn't about you. Nothing's about you. You impose yourself into these things and take away from what people are talking about.

Last word or pointless picture in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...