Can we find Objectivity in Photography?

In class, we spent some time discussing war and the differences (if any) of a female's perspective vs. a male's perspective in the coverage of war. During that lecture we also spent some time talking about objectivity in journalism.

The more I thought about it, the more I related this to photojournalism. I was interested in knowing whether we'd find a distinct difference in the types of photographs a female would produce in conflict situations vs. her male counterparts.

In terms of objectivity, I'd like to think we would not be able to tell. So here are two images I pulled up:

When you look at both of these photographs what comes to mind? Is there a particular detail that leads you to believe a woman took either of these photographs?

I found an interesting post in Lens, a photography and visual journalism blog for The New York Times.   Photojournalist Lynsey Addario discussed what it's like to be a woman covering conflict situations. 

If a woman wants to be a war photographer, she should. It’s important. Women offer a different perspective. We have access to women on a different level than men have, just as male photographers have a different relationship with the men they’re covering.

Addario addressed the negative feedback she'd received from many people who were against women covering wars of any sort. While she does address how much of an advantage she feels women have in these situations, for the most part, she seemed to adopt a gender neutral perspective. "Why isn't anyone saying men shouldn't cover war?" she says. "Women and men should do what they believe they need to do." The work Addario and other photojournalists do is very important, but as she explained, it is not for the faint at heart.

So as we look back on both the images I posted earlier in this blog, how important do you think it is for women to cover war? Do they bring in a certain kind of sensitivity men don't have? Or can we easily say objectivity holds true in the realm of photojournalism?