Women and Photography

ThOnda

I'm a man :-)

Personally, I think that there is a little more male involvement in photography only because cameras are geeky toys, always were and always will be. That is complete opposite to drawing or painting. Seeing groups of painters on regular basis, following few blogs, I think that ladies are more creative than guys. I believe that their aim is more to content, not the means of getting it (producing it).

Anouilh

ThOnda wrote: »

I'm a man :-)

Personally, I think that there is a little more male involvement in photography only because cameras are geeky toys, always were and always will be. That is complete opposite to drawing or painting. Seeing groups of painters on regular basis, following few blogs, I think that ladies are more creative than guys. I believe that their aim is more to content, not the means of getting it (producing it).

I really enjoy the technical aspects of photography and cannot stand drawing and painting...

Gender confusion about to set in?

Ricky91t

lol at the number of views on this thread,Maybe lurkers were expecting something different?:pac:

melekalikimaka

ThOnda wrote: »

I think that ladies are more creative than guys. I believe that their aim is more to content, not the means of getting it (producing it).

i'd say the opposite, most the female photographers i know ( bar a few of course) aren't very creative at all... women in general almost have a set style the all follow

Anouilh

The Ladies Lounge have some ideas on this thread:

http://wwww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055612795

Looking at Boards.ie and the gender balance overall might be a place to start, as one poster thought.

My question about whether or not one can tell a person's gender by looking at a photo has not been discussed.

I think not, but whenever I see pages of footballers or cars, it is more than likely that the poster is male.

The area of creativity is very interesting, as many more men have access to media exposure and this helps them make a public persona.

Anybody can be creative, though the idea that started with the Romantic Movement still influences how many people think. Creativity is not a quality that hits a priveleged few, I think. It can be taught.

melekalikimaka

Anouilh wrote: »

My question about whether or not one can tell a person's gender by looking at a photo has not been discussed.

i think you can

KarmaGarda

Anouilh wrote: »

The Ladies Lounge have some ideas on this thread:

http://wwww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055612795

Sorry but I disagree. The ladies lounge are responding to "are ladies less technical minded" as you asked in your post. So I doubt any are even coming here and really reading what the discussion is about. i.e. Are females less represented in boards.ie forums as opposed to male photographers.

AnCatDubh

I've added a post over on the LL thread as I think it might be getting away from what is being considered here. To ensure we stay on track if discussion continues on this thread i've included the opening post which sets the parameters of the scene for discussion.

Thanks.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I've just been reading a piece over on burn magazine where David Alan Harvey ponders that the Magnum agency has a disproportionate ratio of men to women in their photographer 'stock'. He also comments that anecdotally from his experience of the workshops which he runs that it is usually the women which come to the top of the pile with the 'edge' and non linear progression. However that being said, this rarely translates into the later careers of the women, a point he can't figure out why.

Quite obviously on this forum we have incredibly talented female photographers (as indeed we do have the same of the male gender) and although this forum stops in terms of discerning or judging who is 'better' (and I don't want any ensuing discussion to follow that mantle), I am wondering how people feel - in particular women photgraphers, about the disparity.

If people don't mind, i've added a straw poll to gage the photographer population here on boards as a % breakdown among the sexes. This is optional - no one is forced to vote.

So, if you are ok with it, please vote in the poll and comment as appropriate - again - sticking away from the "women are better than men" or "men or better than women", type of BS.

Serious postings only - we're not afterhours

EDIT: The poll is anonymous - thanks.

Anouilh

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree. The ladies lounge are responding to "are ladies less technical minded" as you asked in your post. So I doubt any are even coming here and really reading what the discussion is about. i.e. Are females less represented in boards.ie forums as opposed to male photographers.

No need for any apology.

The thread here is now back on track and more people have posted to the poll. Perhaps spreading the word in other Fora could get more people involved in the Photography Forum.

I'm now wondering if Magnum is a particularly representative organisation. They seem to have frightful rows.

sineadw

@Silverfish - Without meaning to sound disrespectful, I think you've just gone a long way towards making yourself not be taken seriously here too. Its a discussion, equally aimed at the women on the forum as the men, and as a provocation of thought. You're the first to mention what's between anyone's legs.

You say you're new to photography. When you've been at it a while you'll realise that yep - people in general (and sadly, I'm including women in that) DON'T take you seriously as a photographer. You can see that in some of the replies here. So do we pretend then that that doesn't happen? Stick our fingers in our ears and go 'la la la' and not talk about it? Or get upset when someone tries to?

I think you're definitely misreading the intent behind the post.

@Mele - why would you think you can tell? Honest question - I'm not getting at you

KarmaGarda

Silverfish wrote: »

I avoided posting on this thread til now because to be honest, I couldn't see what the point of it was. It just seemed like another attempt at flushing the women out, in an attempt at a more mature version of 'Pics or gtfo'.
Out you come, show yourselves ladies, the men want judge you!'

I suppose this is why I am reluctant to reveal my gender anywhere, as instantly you are made to feel like an alien. Immediately I'm taken less seriously in whatever field as soon as my gender becomes apparent.
As long as people think I'm a bloke, its all cool.

Even the title. 'Women and photography'. Ho ho ho, what a crazy mix! Even the posts here - it seems to be insinuated by some people that women take pictures of babies, kittens and swans while men take pictures of..well, everything else.

Yesterday, I went and took several hundred pictures of cars. Then I come back, read this thread, and find out that if someone saw them, they'd sit back and go 'Oh well, those are CLEARLY taken by a man'. Why? What would make anyone assume that?


I am only new to this photography thing in fairness, but this is doing nothing to make me want to be a part of or contribute to this forum, - I've fought long and hard to be taken seriously in every other area, and now I've to start doing it here too.
So go on beating the bushes trying to flush out the women - but don't be surprised when none come out. They've probably already had enough.

I do apologise if I have taken this up wrong, and misread the majority of the posts, but my god does everything have to be about what's between your legs? Really?
Yes, there are more men than women on boards. If you look at many forums, the reason for this is apparent - women arent really that welcome.

Well, here comes my second apology of the day.

Sorry, but you just sound like you have chip on your shoulder. Even the original poster clearly specified that this was NOT what was intended.

Silverfish

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Well, here comes my second apology of the day.

Sorry, but you just sound like you have chip on your shoulder. Even the original poster clearly specified that this was NOT what was intended.

Well, when they felt the need to repost it in the ladies lounge and say it was because ladies are less technically minded, then yes, that will ruffle feathers, I can't see how it wouldn't.

I'm female and even I wouldn't presume to speak for all women.

KarmaGarda

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, when they felt the need to repost it in the ladies lounge and say it was because ladies are less technically minded, then yes, that will ruffle feathers, I can't see how it wouldn't.

I'm female and even I wouldn't presume to speak for all women.

And you've automatically presumed that person is male? You're as bad as the people you have a chip about so.

You've gone and ruined a perfectly good debate. <snip>

Silverfish

No its fine, I'll remove my opinion.

sineadw

Actually, the person who brought it to the ladies lounge is female..

An Cat - can we not lock it please? Its an interesting debate and I have a few more things to say, and I'd like to think we're all adult enough that we can actually have a discussion?

Morrisseeee

Yes, there are more men than women on boards

Maybe thats because women(girls) don't DO this forum lark, they are happy out in their social groups talking/discussing ALL maters, whereas men(boys) don't get to talk (within their social groups) about OTHER things, but give them an anonymous forum and they'll 'talk your socks off'.
/....just a wild theory from me anyway.
On the gender issue, if I see a WOW photo, I don't care if its a male or female photographer, its simply not an issue with me.
I do think the females have the edge in terms of being inovative, whereas the males will be looking out for the next superDouper L lens or next techno breakthrough. (Note: I'm generalising here!, there are exceptions to 'every' rule).

WindSock

May I request that this thread not be locked please? I think it is more about a difference in a womans style of photography rather than the subject matter, or the gender politics behind it all. In fairness to Silverfish, most of what is posted in LL is to do with the latter. After reading this thread I can see that it isn't and I'd be very interested to see the outcome.

KarmaGarda

Yeah, I take back that request! I think we've thankfully brought this back on track.

WindSock

As for not posting much in here, this is my post in LL

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61016921&postcount=12

But I don't think it is down to my gender on that one.

I don't know enough photographers or about photography yet to think that I could tell the difference of the person behind the lens though. However I am interested to know what is meant by 'non-linear' photography?

Anouilh

Here is the post I made at LL:

http://wwww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61012110&postcount=1

I asked a question, as careful reading will show, and it was in an effort to try to account for the fact that there are 100 men (at the moment of posting this) and 35 women who have answered the poll.

The two who are undecided (?) ... rather not say... are sensible, given the hot turn of events.

I was quite shocked to read (here) that some posters think that women are not techically minded in general, which confirms my view that, although the thread is an open one, there is a subtext that is trying to account for women's absence on the Photography Forum.

The only way to find out the answer is to continue the poll, see if it becomes more gender balanced over time and discuss, amicably, why there are less women than men here.

It's an interesting subject and since AnCatDubh presented it in the context of Magnum, perhaps looking at how that agency operates could bring some insight?

KarmaGarda

Anouilh wrote: »

I was quite shocked to read (here) that some posters think that women are not techically minded in general, which confirms my view that, although the thread is an open one, there is a subtext that is trying to account for women's absence on the Photography Forum.

Firstly, I may have missed a post someplace, but I only saw 1 other poster mention "technical" in respect to gender. The main person bringing that up is just you?

But, besides that, and back on topic, about 50% of my online contacts in regards to photography are in fact female. That may be an exception to the rule or it may be a smaller peice to disprove it all!

sineadw

@silverfish - please don't remove your post. It'll invalidate what you said. Maybe if you re-read the thread *without* the latter inclusion of technicality you might understand it better though?

As far as technicality is concerned (it's something I've been mulling over) - I think this is a common misrepresentation of women in gender roles. Most of the women I know are techie. My sister is an IT securities expert. I build and design websites. Most of the women here are in IT. It was the fact that photography is so technical that brought me to it in the first place - I'd always had a creative streak but my stupid hands wouldn't produce what I was willing them to whenever I sat down with paint or a pencil or anything. Then along came my first SLR and all of a sudden I could control it with logic and bring what my mind's eye saw out of it with optical science.

For what it's worth, I have a theory that's probably not going to go down very well about the gender imbalance here. Hear me out though :

Something I've noticed (a PERSONAL observation!!) on a lot of boards meets is that photographers tend to be quite a shy, socially awkward bunch. Not all, mind. But you can really see why some of them enjoy being on the sidelines at events, almost hiding behind their cameras. I've had this conversation with several other boardsies. I've just finished an interesting book which discussed the prevalence of extremely mild to moderate autistic tendencies in IT professionals. Its been discussed here many times how many of us here are also IT professionals. There is also a 5-1 ratio of males to females diagnosed with autism and its spectrum. Which is oddly enough, quite close to the poll results here. Maybe there's a correlation there? Maybe it IS that women tend to be more social and not need sites like this to interact? I don't mean men and women in general, just the more socially awkward ones.

Just wanted to throw that one in the mix. I'm not saying I believe it (so don't start jumping down my throat for diagnosing everyone here as autistic! - I don't mean that!) - its just something I've been thinking about and mulling over the last few days.

AnCatDubh

Ach - I hate putting one of these on a thread that I started but anyways...

Okay, this unfortunately may be going the absolute wrong way than what I had intended.

To lock or not to lock - there are valid opinions for both. I actually hate locking threads (although I have done so quite recently where I thought it couldn't get back on track, the OP of the thread had enough opinion to go on, and things were beginning to head south with it). I think we may be back on track so i'll leave open for now..

A couple of notes for people.

• Don't attack the posters. You may not agree but it is their opinion and they are entitled to it.
• It is ok to debate an opinion but don't digress too far.
• Again, please keep on track.

For reference (again) here the original post and matter which in this case I was seeking some opinion on;

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I've just been reading a piece over on burn magazine where David Alan Harvey ponders that the Magnum agency has a disproportionate ratio of men to women in their photographer 'stock'. He also comments that anecdotally from his experience of the workshops which he runs that it is usually the women which come to the top of the pile with the 'edge' and non linear progression. However that being said, this rarely translates into the later careers of the women, a point he can't figure out why.

Quite obviously on this forum we have incredibly talented female photographers (as indeed we do have the same of the male gender) and although this forum stops in terms of discerning or judging who is 'better' (and I don't want any ensuing discussion to follow that mantle), I am wondering how people feel - in particular women photgraphers, about the disparity.

If people don't mind, i've added a straw poll to gage the photographer population here on boards as a % breakdown among the sexes. This is optional - no one is forced to vote.

So, if you are ok with it, please vote in the poll and comment as appropriate - again - sticking away from the "women are better than men" or "men or better than women", type of BS.

Serious postings only - we're not afterhours

EDIT: The poll is anonymous - thanks.

I most certainly wasn't trying to bait the forum with controversy but thought we might have gotten a reasoned debate taking place and some practical feedback on the issue. I'm not sure if the other thread in the LL forum is helpful as it appears to have gotten off on the kind of debate that it wasn't intended to provoke, how and ever, I respect its intentions were good.

Anyhow, keep the faith folks - we'll try keep this one alive for another while.

Please, please, please accept that the original intentions as contained in the opening post (quoted) were good.

Thank you.

EDIT: This is a general note not referring to any specific post. Thanks.

KarmaGarda

I have to agree with that! I know a hell of a lot of IT professionals that are quite introverted, and some that are even completely socially inept. I'm interested to see what replies that will spark though!

trooney

Hmmmm, perhaps I'm being somewhat naive, but do people not just see other photographers? What does gender have to do with any of it? Isn't it imagination and the ability to press a shutter release that gives you the end result. I can't see that women are any less creative than men or men any less imaginative then women. Why are we making the distinction at all in the first place. Why re-enforce gender stereotypes by pandering to the idea that male and female photogs are different? There are too many area's where this is argued to death. Can't really see the merit in doing so in this instance.

sineadw

@trooney - agreed 100% - I have never seen a difference in womens work to mens. (Which is why I'm interested to know how Tom can tell the difference.) But the thread was about the gender imbalance in the profession at large. Which, whether you like it or not, is there. I think its therefore a very valid discussion..

joolsveer

Sex. vs. Gender - more
In the never-ending (and admittedly futile) battle to get journalists to use the terms sex and gender correctly --and not as synonyms, I offer this "cheat sheet" on Sex vs. Gender from a course on gender and language at Indiana University. (Update Sept. 2008: IU has now put those items behind a password-protected wall. Too bad, since they were among the more widely cited items on the subject on the Net. As a substitute, you might find this set of 1993 posts from a women's studies discussion group useful.)

Simply put: Sex is biologically based. Generally just male or female.

Gender: A social construct of what it means to be male or female. So we generally are not looking to determine a crime victim's "gender," as some reporter on TV said the other day. And while a case could be made that it's "gender discrimination" if it's based on a judgment that a person is too feminine or masculine (or not enough) -- generally we're talking about discrimination based on physical attributes. In other words, biologically based, or sex discrimination.
Labels: editing tools, gender, sex, usage

http://commonsensej.blogspot.com/2005/02/sex-vs-gender-more.htm

KarmaGarda

Jools.... your post has completely gone over my head. What point are you making here?

Anouilh

Here is an article that explores the OP's original idea:

http://www.burnmagazine.org/dialogue/2009/06/women-with-cameras/#comments

Without this thread I would not have found such an interesting site.

Many thanks.

DeVore

Welcome to my subject of choice. Statistics and how to really foul things up with them. This is a case study in that I'm afraid.

1. The study is self selected meaning people chose is they want to vote or not which invalidates much of its usefulness.

2. There is no control group. No group of similar professionals against which you can test a hyposthesis that there is something about "photography" specifically and not just gender bias in general. Conbined with 1, I'm sorry to say your poll is now of curiousity value at best.

3. Correction for bias in the sample pool: Boards has an inherent bias of people on it, as seen in our Census forum. About 70/30 male/female in fact. No correction has been made to take this into account.

4. Methodology not stated at the outset, question posed in a way which presume the findings to be tested, prior anecdotal evidence mixed into scenario etc etc etc I could go but I'm sure I'm boring the poor ladies who have to concentrate for even a shampoo ad (joke+heavy sarcasm at marketing people).

There are a million things wrong with trying to deduce anything from such a poll (not that I'm knocking the idea of debating prejudice in any profession). Sorry, pet peeve.

As for the topic at hand, I cant imagine why gender would be an issue for shooting nice photographs, consequently I would imagine it is outside interference like prejudice, gender bias, plain old sexism which would be at fault if a bias WAS found in the numbers.

Thats a big IF because nothing like that has been shown here or elsewhere conclusively imho.

DeV.