Interesting article on sexism in photography.

The only people it creates resentment in are those people that are happy to ignore all other forms of discrimination. It's essentially a taste of their own medicine.

Of course, it would be amazing if the day ever came that every group was fairly represented in all roles. But you have to look at the root cause of why there's a discrepancy.

It may be the case the photography as a whole isn't an appealing career to women in general. But it's more likely that women see it as a 'blokey' old-boys' club that's almost impossible to enter.

There is a definite aura of pervy old man about 'amatuer photographers' that I imagine puts many younger women off. The Nudes section on this site is probably a great example of that.

Your opening sentence... My God that's a sweeping, cruel and condemning generalisation and I'm sure you're wrong. Maybe after a bit of reflection you'll retract that.
 
How is it now sexist if men aren't allowed to attend?

Certainly on my degree course there were no male/female photographer/artist separations, just talking about the art.
I don't have the details ... but as I read it those speaking were all female but there was no preventing males attending...

Certainly the photos on https://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/latest/blog/women-in-photography-conference-2017/ show men in attendance.

(To wit: The first photo while its hard to tell as its taken from behind; on balance of probabilities the person in the front row 4th from the left appears to be male and the person standing to the left (stage right) holding a camera appears to be male to.)
 
Last edited:
I don't have the details ... but as I saw it those speaking were all female but there was no preventing males attending...

Certainly the photos on https://www.plymouthart.ac.uk/latest/blog/women-in-photography-conference-2017/ show men in attendance.

Wasn't what I was told about the september event as I was in the city working and thought about going. Next one is 8th Feb
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wome...nce-plymouth-2018-tickets-32640441439?aff=es2

If anyone is interested
 
Last edited:
Your opening sentence... My God that's a sweeping, cruel and condemning generalisation and I'm sure you're wrong. Maybe after a bit of reflection you'll retract that.

If someone can give me an live example of genuine resentment of positive discrimination in which the person with the grudge isn't in the new group that's being 'discriminated' against then I might reconsider it.

I think it unlikely in the extreme that someone would feel resentment if they'd been a campaigner for racial or gender equality for example. And as the old adage goes "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
 
Last edited:
Postitive discrimination, quotas or whatever you want to call them wouldn't be needed if the best person always got the job, unfortunately that isn't always the case. Many are over looked simply because of gender, ethnicity, age or sexual orientation. Until those issues are resolved them positive discrimination has its place.

Two wrongs don't make a right though, although I do find it strange why people will not go for the best. In all the recruitment I have done (and it must be over 50 by now) it has always been the best person for the job - these days there is so much pressure in the commercial world that by not going for the best person you are setting yourself to fail (and possibly lose your own job!).

Now there are caveats - it can be hard to determine between candidates so naturally personal rapport will come into it. So even with the best intentions we will warm to certain types of people and if you are working closely together that is an important requirement. I know that I was successful in interview once despite being weaker in certain skills, because the line manager thought I would fit in better and just preferred to work with me based on rapport. I believe that the other person was similar (I,e white middle age male) so no issue of discrimination but it could look like that?
 
I don't know. It could be down to how popular photography is? Am guessing for togs unlike most jobs it starts as a hobby and leads into a job. If the male to female ratio at hobby stage is for example 3:1 then its probably not unreasonable to see a similar ratio in work.

Do we know what the ratio is on TP. It certainly seems more male dominated.
Very true, although there are some top female photographers on flickr - https://www.flickr.com/photos/78925926@N08 - most women (probably all) I know are only interested in point and shoot cameras and don't want to spend any time thinking about it.
 
If someone can give me an live example of genuine resentment of positive discrimination in which the person with the grudge isn't in the new group that's being 'discriminated' against then I might reconsider it.

I think it unlikely in the extreme that someone would feel resentment if they'd been a campaigner for racial or gender equality for example. And as the old adage goes "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

So you would be happy to be told when going for your dream job that you are better than the other person but purely based on the fact they are in a group who are discriminated against you will not get it. Well, that would pee me off big style!

Quite simply - you employ the best people for the job. And you know what, those that don't will either fall by the wayside or not perform as well as they should!
 
Very true, although there are some top female photographers on flickr - https://www.flickr.com/photos/78925926@N08 - most women (probably all) I know are only interested in point and shoot cameras and don't want to spend any time thinking about it.
To be honest ... most men I know are only interested in point and shoot cameras.

Another example of a sexist comment. Now you're unlikely to be in a position to influence anyone with that statement ... but consider if the staff in Jessops or WEX have that attitude (and many do)!
 
If someone can give me an live example of genuine resentment of positive discrimination in which the person with the grudge isn't in the new group that's being 'discriminated' against then I might reconsider it.

I think it unlikely in the extreme that someone would feel resentment if they'd been a campaigner for racial or gender equality for example. And as the old adage goes "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

The 'problem' with positive discrimination is that it can actually exacerbate the problem it is trying to solve.

If someone is perceived to have been promoted / employed etc. for reasons other than ability, those 'overlooked' will feel resentment.

This is true whether the 'discrimination' is 'negative' or 'positive'.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right though, although I do find it strange why people will not go for the best. In all the recruitment I have done (and it must be over 50 by now) it has always been the best person for the job - these days there is so much pressure in the commercial world that by not going for the best person you are setting yourself to fail (and possibly lose your own job!).
I agree with you ... what can and should be done however is ensuring there is a good cross section of the population interviewed.

However I don't agree with your assessment that what you are saying happens... its not unknown for women to be asked "what if you decide to have a baby" (to state one example) - that immediately has put doubt in the mind of the interviewer over the suitability of the candidate. In addition women are a lot more judged on criteria such as their choice of clothings and their appearance - I'm not saying its a conscious thing, but subconsciously yes. And experiments have shown that if send the same CV to 100 job applications with a man's name at the top and you will get (significantly) more offers for interview than if you send the same CV to 100 jobs applications with a woman's name at the top. Such a process should be gender (and colour) blind.
 
The 'problem' with positive discrimination is that it can actually exacerbate the problem it is trying to solve.

If someone is perceived to have been promoted / employed etc. for reasons other than ability, those 'overlooked' will feel resentment.

This is true whether the 'discrimination' is 'negative' or 'positive'.
The truth is though all jobs go on part to the person that the employer "likes the look of" and "feels" will fit in with the company best. None of it is fully objective. And (when talking about internal promotion) there is always resentment when you don't get promoted, however most of it is unwarranted - you just have to get over it!
 
To be honest ... most men I know are only interested in point and shoot cameras.

Another example of a sexist comment. Now you're unlikely to be in a position to influence anyone with that statement ... but consider if the staff in Jessops or WEX have that attitude (and many do)!

Why is that sexist - was he not just saying that most women he knows are interested in p&s. No different to your mention of men you know being the same?
 
So you would be happy to be told when going for your dream job that you are better than the other person but purely based on the fact they are in a group who are discriminated against you will not get it. Well, that would pee me off big style!

So now you know how some women feel ALL of the time.
 
Why is that sexist - was he not just saying that most women he knows are interested in p&s. No different to your mention of men you know being the same?
Because he it's can easily be turned on its head and say "most men are only interested in point and shoot cameras". I was responding with rhetoric rather than dismissing all the fine male photographers (sorry if I needed to make that clearer).

Its sexist because it perpetuates the thinking that women aren't interested in cameras. It perpetuates it so that when women walk into camera shops they are treated like second class customers. You don't see the problem because you aren't a woman.

How about ... "Some women I know are interested in cameras" ... that is the same information, but puts a positive thinking on it and would encourage people to see women as equals not second class photographers. In fact don't say anything ... it was an unnecessary comment. It was a comment used to support the argument that there is no problem with sexism in photography.

Not related to my reply to Simon but here is another (similar) view to the original linked blog ... https://petapixel.com/2017/09/16/open-letter-sexism-feminism-industry-love-much/

The world is full of sexism ... yes its different
 
Last edited:
Picking someone who will fit in well with the team is an essential part of choosing the right candidate surely? Make the wrong choice and it can upset the whole thing and what happens to productivity then? Obviously the person has to be able to do the job to the level that's expected, but in a team situation it's how the person will fit in and work with the rest of the team that's just as important. Look at team sports for instance, you can have the most talented individual players in the world, but if they don't play well together as a team and don't get on with each other, then it's unlikely that team will become world-class.
 
To be honest ... most men I know are only interested in point and shoot cameras.

Another example of a sexist comment. Now you're unlikely to be in a position to influence anyone with that statement ... but consider if the staff in Jessops or WEX have that attitude (and many do)!
It was not meant to be sexist, I should have qualified by saying that my experience might not be typical (but I thought that was obvious). It was not an attitude either it was a statement of my experience. I was not implying that I think they are less able, just have less interested, FWIW I think my wife probably could get better photos from my DSLR than I do, if she wanted to - she doesn't want to though.
 
I agree with you ... what can and should be done however is ensuring there is a good cross section of the population interviewed.

However I don't agree with your assessment that what you are saying happens... its not unknown for women to be asked "what if you decide to have a baby" (to state one example) - that immediately has put doubt in the mind of the interviewer over the suitability of the candidate.
Isn't that illegal (quite rightly too)?
 
Because he it's can easily be turned on its head and say "most men are only interested in point and shoot cameras". I was responding with rhetoric rather than dismissing all the fine male photographers (sorry if I needed to make that clearer).

Its sexist because it perpetuates the thinking that women aren't interested in cameras. It perpetuates it so that when women walk into camera shops they are treated like second class customers. You don't see the problem because you aren't a woman.

How about ... "Some women I know are interested in cameras" ... that is the same information, but puts a positive thinking on it and would encourage people to see women as equals not second class photographers. In fact don't say anything ... it was an unnecessary comment. It was a comment used to support the argument that there is no problem with sexism in photography.

Not related to my reply to Simon but here is another (similar) view to the original linked blog ... https://petapixel.com/2017/09/16/open-letter-sexism-feminism-industry-love-much/

The world is full of sexism ... yes its different
I someone is interested they should be treated equally but I said most (probably all) aren't. Obviously someone who is interested should treated equally, I am surprised that any camera shop would treat people like they are not able and should not be buying. Money is money after all, you would have to be a very selfless sexist who advised a woman "Use a phone love, you are not capable of using a proper camera".

Saying that I am sorry if I offended anyone.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that illegal (quite rightly too)?
Well its not usually asked directly, HR people know what can and can't be asked legally. But it IS often in the mind of the interviewer and there have been cases where its asked directly, or is discussed casually rather than as part of your formal interview. Casually discussing family, etc.

Questions like ‘Do you have any current commitments which may affect your ability to do this job, or which may impact your attendance?’ can be asked (taken from Reed.co.uk website).

Discrimination doesn't usually happen in the open, its subtle.
 
I someone is interested they should be treated equally but I said most (probably all) aren't. Obviously someone who is interested should treated equally, I am surprised that any camera shop would treat people like they are not able and should not be buying. Money is money after all, you would have to be a very selfless sexist who advised a woman "Use a phone love, you are not capable of using a proper camera".
Again its not explicit, but staff can have those thoughts. They watch who comes through the door, who is more likely to get a sale from. If there is a couple, it will be the man who is addressed even if the woman initiates the conversation. None if this is in your face "you can't handle that camera" type behaviour. Its much more subtle.
 
Well its not usually asked directly, HR people know what can and can't be asked legally. But it IS often in the mind of the interviewer and there have been cases where its asked directly, or is discussed casually rather than as part of your formal interview. Casually discussing family, etc.

Questions like ‘Do you have any current commitments which may affect your ability to do this job, or which may impact your attendance?’ can be asked (taken from Reed.co.uk website).

Discrimination doesn't usually happen in the open, its subtle.
Well that is wrong, and sadly I have known people who do things like that.
 
Again its not explicit, but staff can have those thoughts. They watch who comes through the door, who is more likely to get a sale from. If there is a couple, it will be the man who is addressed even if the woman initiates the conversation. None if this is in your face "you can't handle that camera" type behaviour. Its much more subtle.
Well obviously that is not polite, has this happened often to you?
However it still does not mean that my observation - that most people I know who are interested in photography are men rather than women (saying that I have thought of one know and she is very capable, I had temporarily forgotten her as I don't see her that often the ratio is still much higher, depending on your definition of interested).
 
Because he it's can easily be turned on its head and say "most men are only interested in point and shoot cameras". I was responding with rhetoric rather than dismissing all the fine male photographers (sorry if I needed to make that clearer).

Its sexist because it perpetuates the thinking that women aren't interested in cameras. It perpetuates it so that when women walk into camera shops they are treated like second class customers. You don't see the problem because you aren't a woman.

How about ... "Some women I know are interested in cameras" ... that is the same information, but puts a positive thinking on it and would encourage people to see women as equals not second class photographers. In fact don't say anything ... it was an unnecessary comment. It was a comment used to support the argument that there is no problem with sexism in photography.

Not related to my reply to Simon but here is another (similar) view to the original linked blog ... https://petapixel.com/2017/09/16/open-letter-sexism-feminism-industry-love-much/

The world is full of sexism ... yes its different

But in life you have to make assumptions - call it profiling. One of my early jobs was at a car showroom and often would see people in the showroom looking over the cars. Now the dilemma was who to approach first and you would try to use your judgement as to who would be worth speaking too first.

I would say that based on the evidence I have seen (and am happy to be corrected if wrong) is that men are generally more interested in cameras than women. Based on 7 or so years on here, seeing people out and about and at events such as TLE and airshows. Yes, there are women who shot but the overall majority are men, so I do not believe its sexist to say that. So if I was working in Jessops and wanted to sell the most and I saw a man and a woman walking in, the law of averages would say I am better off talking to the man first as its more likely he will spend more (totally different to treating them like 2nd class).

Now if it was the opposite and most posters on here were women and I saw the majority at airshows were, then I would be better of talking to the woman first in that same scenario.
 
Last edited:
The car example is great.

My wife and I both have an interest in cars - me slightly more than her, but not by much. And the negotiations are interesting. She's far better at getting a good deal than me and will press the salesman (and it normally is a man) relentlessly.

Despite all this, they still address most of their conversations to me.

FWIW I collect old postcards and postcard books of ads. Some demonstrate just how we've come. Just because you can't find sexism in camera ads doesn't mean it didn't exist.

If I have time, I'll scan some of the worst and post them here.
 
Last edited:
But in life you have to make assumptions - call it profiling. One of my early jobs was at a car showroom and often would see people in the showroom looking over the cars. Now the dilemma was who to approach first and you would try to use your judgement as to who would be worth speaking too first.

I would say that based on the evidence I have seen (and am happy to be corrected if wrong) is that men are generally more interested in cameras than women. Based on 7 or so years on here, seeing people out and about and at events such as TLE and airshows. Yes, there are women who shot but the overall majority are men, so I do not believe its sexist to say that. So if I was working in Jessops and wanted to sell the most and I saw a man and a woman walking in, the law of averages would say I am better off talking to the man first as its more likely he will spend more (totally different to treating them like 2nd class).
YES ... AND THAT IS SEXISM You call it profiling, but it is making assumptions based on someones gender (or colour or general appearance).

The statements you and David are making are just reinforcing the assumptions you and others already hold; and they are the kind of statements which make women feel unwanted. Its like the argument that The Sun only prints what its readers want to read ... it does to a certain extent, but in reading that their (sometimes negative) views are reinforced. A self perpetuating thought. I believe psychologists would call it normalising thinking.

As I commented to David above ... the situation also happens when a male / female couple walk in together ... its the man the salesman often directs attention to even when the woman is the one actually interested in the camera.

Please not, I'm not suggesting it happens all the time, but it does happen enough that it is still an issue.

(On the cheerful side it does mean salesmen are less likely to crawl all over you with the hard sell :)
it still does not mean that my observation - that most people I know who are interested in photography are men rather than women [- was wrong].
I think you lost part of your sentence there so I've completed it with what I assume you were saying.

I wasn't intending to suggest your statement was wrong - what I was saying was that statements like that perpetuate the "sexist" myth that only (or predominately) men are interested in photography. I'm not suggesting that YOU personally feel that way; but it is a background thought which perpetuates and so influences people. I'm not saying that the answer is that 50% of all photographers should be female - as this thread has said perhaps there legitimately is a (say) 60/40 split in male/female interest in photography - but you cannot dismiss the fact that there is a sexist undertone in the photographic industry (which is what the original linked article was saying).
 
Last edited:
But in life you have to make assumptions - call it profiling. One of my early jobs was at a car showroom and often would see people in the showroom looking over the cars. Now the dilemma was who to approach first and you would try to use your judgement as to who would be worth speaking too first.

I would say that based on the evidence I have seen (and am happy to be corrected if wrong) is that men are generally more interested in cameras than women. Based on 7 or so years on here, seeing people out and about and at events such as TLE and airshows. Yes, there are women who shot but the overall majority are men, so I do not believe its sexist to say that. So if I was working in Jessops and wanted to sell the most and I saw a man and a woman walking in, the law of averages would say I am better off talking to the man first as its more likely he will spend more (totally different to treating them like 2nd class).

Now if it was the opposite and most posters on here were women and I saw the majority at airshows were, then I would be better of talking to the woman first in that same scenario.

Taking the Jessops example - if the man and woman were together, then surely addressing them as a couple would be better? "Good morning, is there any way I can help you today?" - whichever is the 'primary purchaser' is the one most likely to respond, and you can go from there.

If, on the other hand, two separate people have just walked into the store, that is when you need to make a decision on who to approach first.
 
Just because you can't find sexism in camera ads doesn't mean it didn't exist.
I'm sure it was discussed at length here Nikon's all male line up at the D850 event and the topless women at the Fuji event and thats just this year and without going into the models on stands at photo shows.

To think that the photography industry is immune to sexism is to have a head in the sand attitude. No, its not as bad as it was in the 60s/70s ... but it still exists and still more work needs to be done to level the field and root out (what is at the extreme) misogynistic attitudes.

PS. I should say I have no issue with glamour and topless and nude photography in its right context and environment and have looked at and commented on the "Nude and Glamour" forum.
 
As for not being treated right or 'stereotyped' in a camera shop, perhaps this can be taken care of in the opening sentence... "I'm using a Canon 6D at the moment but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5D mk4 as it's got a lot more cross-type AF points and might be better for me as I seem to be taking more action-based shots these days, what do you reckon, do you think I'd notice much of a difference, and how do the high ISO shots compare?".

This sets the scene, they'll know you know your stuff, so should pitch their reply accordingly. This should hopefully avoid any inappropriate references to the colour pink and fluffy kittens. Not that there's anything much wrong with either! :D
 
Last edited:
As for not being treated right or 'stereotyped' in a camera shop, perhaps this can be taken care of in the opening sentence... "I'm using a Canon 6D at the moment but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 5D mk4 as it's got a lot more cross-type AF points and might be better for me as I seem to be taking more action-based shots these days, what do you reckon, do you think I'd notice much of a difference, and how do the high ISO shots compare?".

This sets the scene, they'll know you know your stuff, so should pitch their reply accordingly. This should hopefully avoid any inappropriate references to the colour pink and fluffy kittens. Not that there's anything much wrong with either! :D
You’re right... it should...
 
Just a quick side note. I have had many discussions of this nature with friends and groups I am involved with and this is by far the most polite discussion on discrimination I have had the pleasure of reading. I much prefer reading people's opinions when the discussion is more rational and polite. I know large numbers of people that have had to deal with discrimination for various reasons and often when the discussion is brought up, it descends into name calling and abuse and very little genuine discussion about the problems and research into different aspects of it. This has given me further respect for the community of people here.
 
On a related note...

A friend of mine just launched a campaign revolving around Out Of Office replies.

Last Friday (10th of November) represents the day on which women effectively stop getting paid for the year due to the pay gap.

http://www.womensequality.org.uk/outofoffice
 
But in life you have to make assumptions - call it profiling. One of my early jobs was at a car showroom and often would see people in the showroom looking over the cars. Now the dilemma was who to approach first and you would try to use your judgement as to who would be worth speaking too first.

Always the wife? She normally controls the purse strings... at least in my family :D
 
.... its not unknown for women to be asked "what if you decide to have a baby" (to state one example) - that immediately has put doubt in the mind of the interviewer over the suitability of the candidate.

I think I'd dispute that as it's well known you can't ask that. That would open up the possibilities of a whole discrimination case.

Certainly as school governors it's not taken into consideration when employing teachers, even though around 20+% of the staff are off on maternity leave or about to take it. The desire of couples to have families does generally mean the woman takes some time off from her career and sometimes changes it as there are now other priorities. Our local primary has several job shares.
 
I think I'd dispute that as it's well known you can't ask that....

I have a friend who works as an HR director, who within the past year had to tell the other interviewer he could not ask that specific question to a candidate.
We were all a bit surprised when she told us, but it appears that photography is a shining example of equality compared to the shipping industry!
 
I have a friend who works as an HR director, who within the past year had to tell the other interviewer he could not ask that specific question to a candidate.
We were all a bit surprised when she told us, but it appears that photography is a shining example of equality compared to the shipping industry!

Blimey - Surprised!
 
I think it’s time we put some effort into removing gender from these debates, whilst we have to acknowledge it’s a factor, it’s only one factor. I work in an organisation where the vast majority of the workforce are female, and I could argue that female to male relations are just as bad, and there’s virtually no societal support. There’s hardly a week goes by I don’t hear how all men are aggressive drivers, or that they’re not able to multi task...

My son was bought a mug the other Christmas by his ‘colleagues’ and line manager (several women in their 50’s, he was in his mid 20’s) the slogan on the mug ‘best bum in the world’ o_O

I can’t think of any workplace where a group of older men would think that was an appropriate gift for a young female colleague. In fact I can’t think of a situation where all the men wouldn’t have been reprimanded. :police:

Why is a ‘dirty old man’ a disgusting thing but a ‘cougar’ is a badge of honour in modern society?
 
I can’t think of any workplace where a group of older men would think that was an appropriate gift for a young female colleague. ...

See my earlier post on the Shipping Industry - from my friends comments, some there might think it was!
 
Back
Top