For Men Only

[TheFlyingCamera]

female staff at camera stores makes perfect sense--the customers are mostly dudes and pretty chicks can sell dudes a lot better than other dork dudes that will bicker about what is superior like the comic book guy....

hot chicks sell the high end cars (also a product that targets men) and houses too, boy! You should see how perfect these supersaleswomen look!!! in the bugatti dealership and the high end downtown real estate--always PERFECT and dressed to the nines...nicer than moviestars and smell intoxicating....they can $ell a dude for sure.

Well now that's about as sensible as a tutu on an elephant. What porn flick have you been watching where all the high-end saleswomen are pretty and young? I'll give you the impeccably dressed bit, but most of the salespeople I know who handle exotic cars or high-end real estate are older, be they men or women, and they exude professionalism, not sex.

There used to be one woman at my local camera store who was my favorite salesperson there. She has since left, but in talking to her, she explained that she encountered frequent sexism from male customers who would ask for and wait for a male salesman because they felt she couldn't know enough to wait on them. She was actually one of the most technically accomplished photographers in the store. She helped me once, and was so good with her answer and her advice that I kept coming back, and we became friends. And she certainly wasn't going to be using her sexual wiles to seduce customers into buying gear by flirting with them- she's a flannel-and-hiking-boots wearing, hasnt-used-lipstick-since-junior-prom, mullet-sporting lesbian. She had no interest in flirting with the customers, male or female, as she was also happily partnered. And as I already mentioned, a damn fine photographer.

[SuzanneR]

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.

Women are absolutely capable of mastering the technical aspects of it. My former classmate did, and she is a very creative artist whose work I love. I respect her as a person and an artist. There are several women here on APUG and on the Leica users group and Rangefinderforum (other places I talk photography online) who also create magnificent work and have mastered the technical stuff too. Still, based on what I have seen, I think most women do not have the desire to do so or the drive to succeed as professionals. If that upsets women, they alone have the power to change it. Shooting the messenger might make you feel good, but it changes nothing.

I'm not interested in shooting the messenger, but I think the message is flawed. You're making some sweeping generalizations about women based on rather narrow anecdotal evidence, I'd say. So, I'll offer my own anecdotal evidence, and broad sweeping conclusion: I can't speak to my classmates from art school as I've lost touch with many of them, but if my experience as a photography editor at a national news magazine in the 90's is any guide, there were more men on staff, but an equal number of women working freelance. I hired, I'd say, about half the freelance assignments to women and about half to men. I expected professional and consistent results, and never found the women photographers I worked with to be less driven or ambitious than the men. And there are a lot of women photographers working today. Further, I think the reason more men had those coveted staff positions had a lot to do with the kind of institutional misogyny that pervades so many companies (and online forums) displayed here. I mean, look at this thread, we've had bad jokes, and people demeaning the type of photography that many women choose to do as being some kind of "chickening" out. These attitudes pervade almost every aspect in the field of photography.

In the years since I was working at a magazine, things have become harder for anyone (men and women) to make a living at photography. I don't think it's a lack of drive or discipline, but the economics of the marketplace being flooded with photographs, and I'm sure there are still many editors and curators whose dim (though misguided) views of women make it harder for women to succeed in this field. And of course, we all have our own personal choices to make regarding our responsibilities with our families... I'd think just as many men would give up the stress of the freelance life for a steady paycheck when he's responsible for a couple of kids... it's not an easy road for a photographer to support a family, and that's not just a problem for women.

and to the OP, I'd suggest he start going to photography shows as opposed to camera shows, then he'll see a lot of women who are actively engaged in the field of photography.

[himself]

Each camera show I have ever attended [...]

Why?

observer bias?

[Greg Davis]

3 to 1 ratio of what?

Three women for every one man enrolled.

[Diapositivo]

My general experience and sensation is very much aligned with what Helinophoto says. That is naturally based on personal experience and general, broad sensations. It's all too natural none of us have any scientific studies regarding the difference between men and woman in approaching things.

I'm very sorry to see that a very normal and legitimate opinion is taken as a pretext for the old same accusation of sexism. We'll end up we will not be able to say we don't like Chinese restaurants to avoid being politically incorrect toward the Chinese

I think, and again it is my sensation and my generalization, that really men have a more algorithmic, logic and punctual attitude toward things in normal day life matters (that exclude professional matters, of course).

What David says is, I think, perfectly adherent to my experience because it involves a hobby, not-professional attitude toward photography. Male non-professional photographers tend to obsess with gear much more than females, and in general much more than necessary.

When one starts talking about professional activity, behaviour between men and woman tends toward uniformity*. And that implies that professional woman will care more than non-professional woman about the technical aspect, the gear etc. and professional men will tend to obsess less about gear than non-professional men. In business you have to know the gear and you don't have to obsess about it either. Business is where male mentality and woman mentality meet half way.

That said, I don't have any scientific evidence for this, I don't consider what I wrote above "sexist", and I don't care if anybody considers it "sexist", either.

* That applies to school courses as well, if and when there is a professional interest. If a photography course is chosen just because it's an easy way to get "points" and avoid more difficult subjects, then we have a different situation.

[Helinophoto]

<snip>
and people demeaning the type of photography that many women choose to do as being some kind of "chickening" out. These attitudes pervade almost every aspect in the field of photography.

You are totally missing the point I was making.
If you pass on something because it is hard, even if you are able to do it, it's chickening out (or even lazy).
It goes for both sexes, just for clarifying that. (this thread was concerning women, sorry if I don't have a disclaimer before every statement)
- 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?

I use it all the time myself, jeez....

"Misogynistic", "demeaning to women", what the...

Whatever, I'm done with this thread, you're not even reading the text, you are reading between the lines (surprise, there isn't anything there).

[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.

[jnanian]

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.