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).

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.

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".

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.

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)

As far as I can tell, those words mean practically the same thing. "Condone" is modernly generally only used in the negative sense, and thus people may be confused into thinking it means something akin to "endorse" or "support". In actuality it means something much more akin to "tolerate".

"pluralism" and "relativism" are harder words to nail down. One way might be to say the relativism says that all moral systems are equally valid while pluralism says that there are more than one valid moral system.

Here, I think "pluralism" is being presented as its own moral virtue (rather than as a philosophical stance): tolerance of other moral systems and beliefs is good.

> pluralism in general tries to leave people alone to pursue their own ends as long as they’re willing to play nice with others. Part of playing nice with others for pluralism is not trying to coerce others into adopting your truths, values, and ethics, even if you think you’re right and the other party is wrong. That live and let live attitude may be the same practical result as relativism, but it is reached by starting at a different philosophical standpoint.

http://blogs.bu.edu/dscott/2011/06/24/pluralism-vs-relativis...

So I guess the point being made is that while a lot of sexism is bad, especially where it is imposed unwillingly, there there may be acceptable sexist moral systems that limit that sexism to voluntary participants of that moral system.

However, the choice of voluntary participation in the moral system is usually suppressed in sexist moral systems which makes them unacceptable from a pluralist stance.

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.

Whether there are laws on the books that could be applied to this case, or whether there should be, I am not a lawyer or a politician, but American pluralism doesn't require blind acceptance of any practice of another group, even religious practice (polygamy, for instance?). The core of our shared system provides mechanisms for deciding whether a behavior is acceptable, prohibited or obligate.

I think this is a net positive. I believe when people advocate for expanding the scope of what beliefs and behaviors government can enforce, they lack the imagination to wonder what could happen if you find your beliefs in the minority one day.

But the price of living in a society with diverse communities is that we occasionally have to hold our noses when people embrace shitty ideas. In fact, we have to defend their ability to do so.

Sexism should be highlighted. Many of the comments here are trying to rationalise injustice.

Personally, I would side with her view regardless of what kind of religion or publication type it may be.

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.

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".