For Men Only

[dwross]

Both of our local photo stores are staffed by an equal number of men and women, and partially owned by women. I also meet a lot of photographers in the field, and I would give women the edge there. On other photo sites my contacts are about 50/50, with the women being far more productive. I don't think they're less into gear, I think they may be less into talking about it. Honestly, I think we tend to assume that we dominate photography and we act like it, and so the places we congregate, and the way we talk about it, can be off-putting to women. I think what I'm saying is that this question is more about us than them.

Yup.

And, I'm in awe of how Bethe and Suzanne have been able to respond to "Chriscrawfordphoto" and "Helinophoto". I tried, but just managed to sputter.

d
retired scientist, and photographer for 30-plus years

 

[shutterlight]

- I've NEVER once hinted that using natural light for photography is anything less than using flash-based light, where do you guys come up with these claims?

Really?:

They give up, or they shoot "only using natural light", which is chickening out in my book.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

You're just upset that you've been called out on your nonsense, which is usually the case when that happens to people.

 

[removed account4]

Women are (and please read this) IMO just as capable as men in the technical areas, but they have rarely that interest, their interest (my experience) lies in the creative aspect and they are put off by the logical and theoretical aspects of photography.

and it is unfortunate that most of the men who i know who are either working photographers, or forum frequenters
are only for the most part interested in gear and the technical aspects of photography. instead of making interesting photographs
about anything at all.

 

[Helinophoto]

Really?:



Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

You're just upset that you've been called out on your nonsense, which is usually the case when that happens to people.

No, I was pointing out if one use it as an excuse, to avoid learning theory and techniques, because it may seem hard or not that intersting.

 

[Helinophoto]

and it is unfortunate that most of the men who i know who are either working photographers, or forum frequenters
are only for the most part interested in gear and the technical aspects of photography. instead of making interesting photographs
about anything at all.

I don't disagree with that (and I am sure I fit right in there as well) ^^

 

[winger]

First, I agree with everything Sly and Suzanne have said. And I have a nearly 3-year-old who does his best to keep me from getting any photography done.

As far as this:

How many of those students stayed involved in photography after graduating or leaving school? As I mentioned, exactly ONE of the women in my college photo classes stuck with it after graduating. ONE. Out of 14 or 15. Out of the 10 men in the program, 6 are still doing photography. Four of us are fulltime pros. So is the one woman.

My classes were not part of any degree program. Everyone in the class was there to learn more about using the darkroom and to get better as a photographer/printer.

I also offer one huge reason why many believe women have little interest in learning the technical aspects - from an early age in school, girls are usually pushed towards the house stuff and boys are pushed towards the scientific and outside stuff. Studies have shown that this leads towards both sexes believing that girls don't understand the technical parts as well (just read an article yesterday, in fact). In school, boys are usually the ones who speak up, not the girls. Girls are taught to be quiet and listen. Boys are taught that being raucous is fine. Women who are used to being around groups of men can usually dish it out as well as take it, and will stand up for themselves (as we're seeing here). Just because you think women are shying away from the technical stuff by not posting relentlessly about it, doesn't mean we don't like the technical part. More women do need to be pushed towards science in school - any of you with girls had better be thinking about this, too. It takes overcoming a social bias, though. And apparently a world-wide one.

I'll agree that part of why you don't see many women in photography forums online is because of many of these attitudes from guys. But I do see 40-50% of local photo clubs being women. In person, the attitude doesn't come through as much. On the web, the anonymity lets the misogynistic attitudes come out. Also, I've read several posts here from guys who seem to be letting their wife do the cooking, cleaning and kid wrangling so they can do the photography. I know I'm doing all of that (plus 3 dogs and sometimes a deployed husband).

 

[David Lyga]

This thread is telling and potent and revealing. I have confirmed a lot here. Regard this:

Originally Posted by Alan W
"And yet all but 2 or 3 comments on this thread are from men.David's original question hasn't been fully answered."

First, my TITLE was geared to guarantee much 'looking' at what I had written. I did not want my post to be buried and insignificant. This thread is more important than the mere demographic aspect and this thread has so far proved that that assessment is all too correct. WHY?

There has been, with some, a mild inference that I just could be 'sexist' and even misogynist for having dared pose the question. The defense mechanisms are alive and well with us.

SuzanneR, the moderator, is correct when she says that there is a decided difference between photography shows and camera shows. Point well made, my dear, and I learned something from that, along with many other affirmations as to the predominance of the female sex at classes that teach photography. But, SuzanneR, I also sensed a bit of distress that I have not already SEEN (or perceived) that dichotomy and I did feel that, in your view, I fell handily into the category of being a "typical, insensitive male".

Is SuzanneR biased? Not particularly. She is evincing what most (male and female) are thinking about in today's politically correct environment by seeking, always, to uncloak a vestige of prejudice that must be 'outed' and dissected for benefit of public scrutiny. She is rather innocent but reflects a society whereby we have become afraid to offer our true thoughts for fear of ignominy.

Some have a hard time admitting the FACT that men are more prone to like gadgets more than women do. Yet, some see this vocal affirmation as proof that women are being 'put down'. My opinion was, and remains, that since the age of chivalry was assassinated by women's liberation we should welcome women as equals and support their rights on a level playing field; but a playing field that ALSO removes the previous advantages that 'made up' for their inequality in the past. Some are compelled to see that advice as improper paradigm and feel that the 'advantage' should remain (just like the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich!). But some see it as sexist.

One thing is for certain: this thread is causing inner feelings to foment and emerge into a formidable topic that seems to have less and less to do with my original, rather innocent query. - David Lyga

 

[eddie]

I think it's because women are too smart to chase "magic bullets"...

 

[pdeeh]

Point well made, my dear,

is that meant to be taken ironically?
(It could be taken as patronising)

 

[shutterlight]

This thread is telling and potent and revealing. I have confirmed a lot here. Regard this:

Originally Posted by Alan W
"And yet all but 2 or 3 comments on this thread are from men.David's original question hasn't been fully answered."

First, my TITLE was geared to guarantee much 'looking' at what I had written. I did not want my post to be buried and insignificant. This thread is more important than the mere demographic aspect and this thread has so far proved that that assessment is all too correct. WHY?

There has been, with some, a mild inference that I just could be 'sexist' and even misogynist for having dared pose the question. The defense mechanisms are alive and well with us.

SuzanneR, the moderator, is correct when she says that there is a decided difference between photography shows and camera shows. Point well made, my dear, and I learned something from that, along with many other affirmations as to the predominance of the female sex at classes that teach photography. But, SuzanneR, I also sensed a bit of distress that I have not already SEEN (or perceived) that dichotomy and I did feel that, in your view, I fell handily into the category of being a "typical, insensitive male".

Is SuzanneR biased? Not particularly. She is evincing what most (male and female) are thinking about in today's politically correct environment by seeking, always, to uncloak a vestige of prejudice that must be 'outed' and dissected for benefit of public scrutiny. She is rather innocent but reflects a society whereby we have become afraid to offer our true thoughts for fear of ignominy.

Some have a hard time admitting the FACT that men are more prone to like gadgets more than women do. Yet, some see this affirmation as proof that women are being 'put down'. My opinion was, and remains, that since the age of chivalry has been assassinated by women's liberation we should welcome women as equals and support their rights on a level playing field; but a playing field that ALSO removes the previous advantages that 'made up' for their inequality in the past. Some can see that advice as proper. Some see it as sexist. But one thing is for certain: this thread is causing inner feelings to foment and emerge into a formidable topic that seems to have less and less to do with my original, rather innocent query. - David Lyga

Just in case you were uncertain about it, you are definitely sexist.

Your post all but screams, "Can't we go back to those nice days when women knew their place?"

 

[SuzanneR]

Is SuzanneR biased? Not particularly. She is evincing what most (male and female) are thinking about in today's politically correct environment by seeking, always, to uncloak a vestige of prejudice that must be 'outed' and dissected for benefit of public scrutiny. She is rather innocent but reflects a society whereby we have become afraid to offer our true thoughts.

- David Lyga

I don't mean to suggest one can't offer their true thoughts, but being met with a challenge or disagreement is fair game in a forum such as this. I didn't find your initial post to be demeaning to women, but a few subsequent posts revealed attitudes toward women among some of the participants that are dismissive and demeaning, and I felt the need to challenge and disagree. As a moderator I almost just closed the thread last night because I was tired and annoyed, but I decided against it because it wouldn't have been very fair of me, even if I felt too many were presenting their opinions as facts.

 

[David Lyga]

No, indeed, I do not want 'women to go back to their place' but I do want the deference toward women to cease and desist. They are equals, period. They are JUST as worthy as being CEOs or Presidents as males. But what is highly disturbing, shutterlight, is that I actually think that you are NOT exposing hatred for me but are being very sincere. This bothers me because I honestly think that what I have written here is fair and just. Am I missing something? What did I say or infer otherwise?

It would be an ADVANTAGE to have women entering the 'gadget' field. We need MORE to be interested in analog. I offer no denigration; god knows that I have suffered enough in life with daring to be born queer.

Women, I want you to become a part of us and cannot think of a rational reason why you should be left out. Cannot be more open or sincere than that. - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Suzanne, I fully understand where you are coming from but my advice to you is to tolerate the dissent. If you do, if you acually persevere, I have a feeling that you will win in the end.

There is something about human nature where the cream eventually rises to the top. If you force this rise too soon you sully the mixture. If you wait patiently you just might force the more cognizant amonst us to herald the underlying virtue. - David Lyga

 

[SuzanneR]

I would be an ADVANTAGE to have women entering the 'gadget' field. We need MORE to be interested in analog. . - David Lyga

Threads like this, however, don't help to make women feel more welcome. I'm just saying...

 

[shutterlight]

The deference toward women? Where do you see this "deference" in society? I am interested in hearing about this.

Women, I want you to become a part of us

Right there. That is sexist. You are extending a hand from from this "us" out to "women," whoever "women" are. What is this "us" you speak of?

 

[Vaughn]

since the age of chivalry has been assassinated by women's liberation

Oh my! I guess I'll put away my shiny armor now. And besides, it was getting a bit dull from being a stay-at-home dad to a set of triplets.

And as far as the real knights in shiny armor -- from what I understand, they were usually mercenaries and castles were designed so that they could not have direct access to the lords' part of the castle as they could not be trusted.

 

[David Lyga]

Honestly, shutterflight, you MUST admit that there are MEN out there who think that women should be treated with special deference. I am not talking about the (usual) physical disadvantage in that the men usually are stronger physically. But I am talking about men who think that women are more prone to being mentally hurt, more prone to depression, thus more worthy of being 'protected' by men. I find this nonsense. Some of the strongest examples of strength in the human race have been women who have overcome all obstacles. Some have not and needed men to carry the weight. But what I am driving at here is that inner strength is owned by NO PARTICULAR SEX OR RACE. PERIOD.

And, shutterflight, "I want women to become part of us" is not being sexist on my part because, truthfully, 'us' in this context is a predominantly male circuit of camera shows as well as the apug.org 'population'. I find that predominance to be unnecessarily one-sided. I wish that to change.

Suzanne, in my book you are certainly not in the least subordinate. But I advise you duly: don't fall into the trap of presuming that worthy men (I stress 'worthy') are necessarily putting you down. You should not NEED continuous affirmation to affirm what you intrinsically are, already. And, lots of times, seemingly noble male deference toward women can really be an indirect way of 'saying' that you are inferior. Watch for that. We all need compassion and consideration, both men and women, but not one sex more than the other. - David Lyga

 

[ann]

Since I was bored I opened this thread and read up to 8 pages and gave up. Must be because I am a woman.

I love gadgets, handling cameras , but standing around talking about them is not my cup of tea. I would rather be out shooting.

I have been doing darkroom work for over 65 years and in the old days, that world was very male; but time does change and more and more of my students are woman. With my serious photography students it is about 50/50.

You all need to go out and make images, use that equipment !

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Since I was bored I opened this thread and read up to 8 pages and gave up. Must be because I am a woman.

I love gadgets, handling cameras , but standing around talking about them is not my cup of tea. I would rather be out shooting.

I have been doing darkroom work for over 65 years and in the old days, that world was very male; but time does change and more and more of my students are woman. With my serious photography students it is about 50/50.

You all need to go out and make images, use that equipment !

Thank you.

 

[Vaughn]

...You all need to go out and make images, use that equipment !

Some breakfast, then I am on my way! Some rain and some wind out there, so I may not get anything, but a walk in the redwoods will be good for me with or without an image to show for it!

Vaughn

 

[brucemuir]

well luckily "they have a way to shut that whole thing down"

but

I digress

 

[Valerie]

Well now, I feel like I came late to the party. So many comments to make (apologies for the rambling nature..still on my first cup of coffee).....!

First of all, I do teach analog photography at a communtiy college. And a class of 17 may have only 3 males.
To the comment about women not wanted to learn the technical or "hard" stuff--bullsh!t!! My (female) students come in WANTING to learn fstops, shutter speeds, the darkroom processes, etc. They know it is what is going to make them better, but no one has expained it to them properly. And since I am such a kickass teacher the majority are able to grasp those fundamentals and run with it.

I, too, am a female (in case you hadn't figured that one out) who loves gadgets and tools (grew up in a hardware store--tools were playtoys to me, and Dad taught me how to use them properly). But I don't have time to dither away learning about new tools unless they directly pertain to the work currently in the making (mom to 4 kids+teacher at 2 instututions=not enough hours in the day). I am a longtime regular at Apug but don't participate much because densitometer readings, minute differences in chemical formulas, etc do not interest me. And there seems to be a plethora of such threads. If that is your cup of tea, then have at it! What I really look for here are answers to a specific situation I may be encountering and the threads that deal with the MAKING (not taking) of images. Those threads are few and far between, but pure gold IMO.

I don't do camera shows, but I do attend photo shows..... there are easily and equal number of women and men being shown and in attendance. And there is an equal and fascinating exchange of ideas. Perhaps you should hang out at these instead, "my dear"..... I am sure there are a vast number of women who would run circles around you and give you new perspectives to consider.

 

[JBrunner]

When true equality has been achieved nobody will note gender, race, gender preference, or any of the other things that we use to divide ourselves into in groups and out groups any more than one would note any passive trait like eye or hair color. The fact that there are discussions like these, however appropriate or in appropriate, indicates to me that homosapiens still have a ways to go.

 

[cowanw]

In the 1910's there were 3500 professional female photographers in the USA; many owned the studios.
In the 1920's 45% of Camera club participants were female.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

I can't believe this thread, honestly. Who gives a rats ass what gender someone is when they are out making art? I know people of both genders who love tech stuff, just as I know people of both genders who are not.

Lets all get out there and make art and welcome everyone and anyone who is interested in shooting, film especially.