As photographers and videographers, we deal directly with clients every day. That day-to-day interaction can be vastly different for women and men, however.
Martin R. Schneider and Nicole Hallberg were both working at a company that professionally edited and wrote résumés for clients , when one day, Schneider noted a client being "rude and dismissive" to him in an email. In investigating the interaction, he found that he had accidentally set his email signature to that of his coworker, Nicole Hallberg. This prompted the pair to decide to switch signatures for two weeks and see what happened. Schneider tweeted out his experience, which I've condensed into a single block quote here:
So here's a little story of the time @nickyknacks taught me how impossible it is for professional women to get the respect they deserve: Nicole and I worked for a small employment service firm and one complaint always came from our boss: She took too long to work with clients. As her supervisor, I considered this a minor nuisance at best. I figured the reason I got things done faster was from having more experience. But I got stuck monitoring her time and nagging her on the boss' behalf. We both hated it and she tried so hard to speed up with good work. So one day I'm emailing a client back-and-forth about his resume and he is just being IMPOSSIBLE. Rude, dismissive, ignoring my questions. Telling me his methods were the industry standards (they weren't) and I couldn't understand the terms he used (I could). Anyway I was getting sick of his sh** when I noticed something. Thanks to our shared inbox, I'd been signing all communications as "Nicole." It was Nicole he was being rude to, not me. So out of curiosity I said 'Hey this is Martin, I'm taking over this project for Nicole.' IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT. Positive reception, thanking me for suggestions, responds promptly, saying 'great questions!' Became a model client. Note: My technique and advice never changed. The only difference was that I had a man's name now. So I asked Nicole if this happened all the time. Her response: 'I mean, not ALL the time... but yeah. A lot.' We did an experiment: For two weeks we switched names. I signed all client emails as Nicole. She signed as me. Folks. It f***ing sucked. I was in hell. Everything I asked or suggested was questioned. Clients I could do in my sleep were condescending. One asked if I was single. Nicole had the most productive week of her career. I realized the reason she took longer is [because] she had to convince clients to respect her. By the time she could get clients to accept that she knew what she was doing, I could get halfway through another client. I wasn't any better at the job than she was, I just had this invisible advantage. I showed the boss and he didn't buy it. I told him that was fine, but I was never critiquing her speed with clients again. He conceded that battle, but found ways to hound us both on time in other manners, but again, that's a different story. Here's the real f***ed-up thing: For me, this was shocking. For her, she was USED to it. She just figured it was part of her job.
Hallberg eventually wrote her side of the story, "Working While Female," in which she details how the sexism she experienced with clients paled in comparison to that she experienced at her office, relaying a "compliment" her boss once gave her: "I wasn’t going to consider hiring any females, but I’m glad I did. You should be proud. I had thousands of applications, but yours stuck out to me and made me decide to give hiring a girl a try." After the email signature experiment was brought to that same boss, he replied: "There are a thousand reasons why the clients could have reacted differently that way. It could be the work, the performance. You have no way of knowing." Hallberg eventually left the job.
Nonetheless, it got me wondering what it's like for female photographers dealing with clients on a regular basis. So, I'm particularly interested in hearing from our female readers. Have you ever had such an experience? How often? How do you handle it?
[via Huffington Post]
Often when I bring a male assistant to a shoot, it's assumed he's in charge, even if it should be very obvious that I am as I'm the one doing all of the directing and talking!
That is really a sad fact of the matter. I hate when I go out with lead female photographers and they are asking me all the questions. I want to say: you hired her, why are you asking me.
exactly what I've experienced. I tend to just laugh it off, I don't know if my assistant has ever noticed. I've spoken about it to him...
I gave a thumbs down because this should not happen.
I did wonder about why there were the thumb downs!
I really can't relate at all to the experience of Nicole in this piece. I've worked in the competitive news industry and now as a videographer/photographer/drone pilot and 99.9% of my clients are respectful and treat me as a professional. I do agree that if a male is with me on a shoot, they tend to be viewed as 'the one in charge" in the eyes of the client. But overall, I don't think being female is a handicap in my field, and it certainly hasn't held me back at all. I get concerned that articles like this can make women feel like they're a "victim", or that they need to be defensive, always looking for sexism. That hasn't been my life experience at all. Go for it, and you'll make it, male or female.
"But overall, I don't think being female is a handicap in my field, and it certainly hasn't held me back at all. I get concerned that articles like this can make women feel like they're a "victim", or that they need to be defensive, always looking for sexism. That hasn't been my life experience at all. Go for it, and you'll make it, male or female."
I wish more women were like you!
This is exactly correct. I think that there is probably a difference in the experience men have from the experience women have working with clients. In some situations things benefit the men, other times things benefit women. In a situation like this such as presumption of skill it seems to be benefiting the man, no doubt. But on the flip side female photographers never have to deal with the presumption that they are predators or worry about being labelled "creeps". At the end of the day respect is earned, so earn it, once a photographer does any preconceived gender/race/age biases go right out the window.
That's a false equivalence. You're equating the threat of physical violence, of which there are many documented examples in this industry, with the possession of skill as inherent to gender, of which there is not a documented example of in photography.
On the contrary, there are many documented cases of incompetent photographers. Many of whom are female (and many of whom are male). They are still representative of a small minority though, especially in the professional sphere. Incompetent male photographers aren't necessarily more infrequent, rather, they are more likely to be stubbornly confident in the face of their incompetence being discovered which is likely why there is less of a stereotype towards men in this case.
Very similar goes for predatory photographers, the number of actual professional photographers who are predatory is a tiny minority. Without any actual data I'd be willing to bet that the number of incompetent male photographers VASTLY outnumbers the number of predatory male photographers. Yet the presumption of male photographers being predators is far more prevalent than the presumption of male photographers being incompetent.
Both are cases of assuming that the action of a tiny minority are representative of the actions of the majority. Both are false. And ultimately it is up to the individual in question to overcome and prove those stereotypes wrong.
I'm on my phone, so forgive the brevity. Of course there are many documented cases of incompetent photographers; however, there is no statistical evidence for an inherent difference in innate skill based on gender. There is, however, plenty of data on female assaults, and even assuming that the rate of those isn't higher amongst the photographer subpopulation, the risk is very documented and very real. Also, you're right, there are likely more simply incompetent male photographers than predators, but which do you think a female model should be more concerned about: bad pictures or physical assault?
I'm not saying that people never falsely attribute actions of a smaller group to the larger, but we're talking documented physical risk, of which it makes sense to be wary (even if overly so, in whomever's opinion thinks that is possible) versus perceived, but statistically unfounded differences in skill with a camera. In my opinion, one instance is being cautious. The other is stereotyping.
"That's a false equivalence. You're equating the threat of physical violence, of which there are many documented examples in this industry, with the possession of skill as inherent to gender, of which there is not a documented example of in photography."
I didn't read what he wrote as him trying to equate anything. I thought Ryan's first post made good sense. After that I am lost at what either of you are trying to say. 😁
Articles says: "My technique and advice never changed. The only difference was that I had a man's name now"
That doesn't necessarily indicate a sexist bias on the client's part. Perhaps she was not so good and hearing that he was now dealing with someone taking over for her it changed the clients attitude even if the advice was the same.
As for the subsequent trial it does not make clear if he was again taking over clients she had already interacted with and vice versa. She could have also developed a bad reputation that was known to those clients.
Peter, the article doesn't say he took over her clients. He had his own clients but used her name. The first time he used her name was an accident. Then on purpose for a couple of weeks.
Lack of sleep. I edited and clarified my response to better address what I was trying to say.
I used to work as a telephone operator. Often if a caller was aggressive or frustrated my female co-worker and i would tell the caller that we were going to transfer them to our supervisor. Then we'd just transfer to the other operator. The responses from our callers was almost always positive. Sex of the operator wasn't a factor. It was mostly that they got an opportunity for a fresh start to the interaction. I do believe that a woman and a man would experience the same job differently and it does sound like the boss in the article was a bit sexist. However, every person will be affected by a job differently regardless of sex because we are all unique individuals. Having a sexist or racist boss would exacerbate a marginally bad experience. That's what this sounds like to me.
Yes! A "fresh start" with someone new is one of two things I was trying to point out.
I think the table turns for retail consumer photography (and maybe for photography in general). Statistically, more than 80% of retail consumer choices of photographer are made by females. As a man, I don't even bother talking to most husbands and fathers. Even if a man brings up, "I think we need some family pictures," I'll ask him for his wife's contact info. I haven't seen women photographers have any problem at all relating to the brides and mothers they're selling to.
Thank God, all this time I been cussing myself but now I can dump the blame on GENDER ASSUMPTION. I am male, first name Robin.
Depending on the photography I have seen female photographers excel where males tend to have less success. Or maybe it is the area as well. I have seen female photographers do much better in areas such as infant, maternity, boudoir, a lot of one on one and I can carry on the list. Now; that might depend on the area as I said. It also can depend on the photographer.
I know more female photographers than I do males photographers anymore. The one thing I have found is as great as these gals are, and I mean their work is outstanding and that isn't a friend talking that is as a photographer talking; they second guess their work much more than I see males do. Drives me crazy.
Kirk did say it straight up though. I never talk to the male when it comes to setting something up. Worse move a photographer can make. The mother, grandmother, wife, etc... is going to make the decision almost every time.
Women have a lot more going for them in the field. There is the break the good ol' boys syndrome that is still out there, but don't second guess yourselves. If you have the skill people will see it. Showcase you as well as your work.
By the way.... if you would have been a man, the conversation would have been to talk you down in price.
Female photographer here. Many a time, they assume my male assistant is the one in charge, even when I'm the one talking, they would sort of look at him and lean towards him for response, sometimes totally ignoring me and they talk to him only. At the print shop, the guy who handles printing laughed when I told him I'm a professional photographer. A condescending laugh and gaze. He sort of looked me up and down with a "she's kidding right?" expression, then laughed.
No offense intended but maybe he was not impressed with your work?
Don't feel too bad, I've gotten dirty looks just for holding a door open for women.
I'm curious but why the need to add the word "professional" to what your profession is?
I know what you mean, but it wasn't that.
LOL your second question, are you serious? Ok well.... the word Photographer doesn't denote profession/professional. It's not the same as saying "I'm a doctor" "I'm a lawyer". Photography has all levels of people who identify as photographers, many of whom aren't doing it as a full time profession. So typically whenever I'm asked what I do or if I need to tell it I say "Professional photographer" - to indicate that I'm a full time professional photographer who makes their living only from photography. I find it important to distinguish from people who aren't earning their living from photography. I find it to also be a good way for people to take it/me seriously, especially when it comes to clients. In my city, there are more non pros than pros. The students/non pros try to infiltrate the professional market. I'm surprised I had to explain this lol.....
Can we please remove this feminist BS off the site?? Seriously there's been a few articles from you now Alex. Get rid of the victim attitude.
Here is the authoritative, comprehensive list of possible Fstoppers articles that readers unanimously agree should be allowed to be written:
/end list
Yes, it's a nice sentiment but it's quite obvious that isn't what I meant and you know it. These articles are NOT about photography at all. They are political garbage pretending to articles about photography. Stick to articles that are actually about photography and that aren't just excuses to push your agenda.
If I wanted to push an agenda, I would have concluded with a definitive statement about the politics of photography instead of open-ended questions asking for other's experiences. Also, I can't really have a "victim attitude" about male-on-female sexism when I myself am a male. Thanks for your thoughts!
Your opening paragraph reads: "As photographers and videographers, we deal directly with clients every day. That day-to-day interaction can be vastly different for women and men, however."
Do you honestly think you are proposing a neutral article when you open with this?
"Also, I can't really have a "victim attitude" about male-on-female sexism when I myself am a male."
In this article you give one example of a male being a douche bag. In all likely-hood the rest of the clients weren't all male. Attributing this then to male on female sexism is a complete stretch at best. Also I wasn't calling you a victim but suggesting that you are pushing a victim attitude agenda. Basically it says that all my problems are because I'm x and therefore I'm oppressed. It takes a complex scenario and erroneously applies a simple equation to find a solution.
I really wouldn't have cared but you've been doing this a lot lately. Political articles disguised as photographic articles:
https://fstoppers.com/originals/photography-overrun-white-males-160839
https://fstoppers.com/news/washington-post-makes-egregious-cover-photo-e...
https://fstoppers.com/pictures/genderless-nipples-account-fights-equaliz...
https://fstoppers.com/portraits/womens-work-uses-photography-break-down-...
and more...
Anyway that's just my 2 cents.
Cheers,
Ben
Four kinds of Fstoppers articles and the predictable trolling responses (non exhaustive list):
1. Topic : Gear
Response : This is just marketing BS
2. Topic : Photographers' experiences
Response : This is just political BS
3. Topic : How-to guide
Response : Your example photos are BS
4. Topic : Humour
Response : I take myself too seriously to want to read funny BS
The common denominator is that its about BS....from the trolls. I'd love to see some of these keyboard ninjas have a go at writing an article and asking one of these big photography websites to publish it, and find out for themselves what it's like on the other side of the fence. It's too easy to sit back and fire shots in the comments.