Have you noticed the bigotry towards women in the photographic industry? It's there and I feel partly to blame. But some camera manufacturers and big photography businesses are the worst offenders.
Some while ago, I was approached by a moderately well-known photography business here in the UK. They wanted me to become a brand representative. I wrote back and said I would be happy to so long as there was equality within their ambassador team; I knew there wasn’t. Adding another white, middle-aged man to their ambassadors would do nothing to address that, and I didn’t want to be associated with a business that promoted inequality, even if it were passive and unintentional. I didn't hear back from them.
That made me look at other brands’ lists of ambassadors. The inequality across the board was shocking.
The person in this photo has incredible photographic talent. If she turned professional, she is likely to face absurd barriers for no other reason other than she is a woman.
Roughly comparing the split between men and women who are photographers globally, around 40% are women and 60% are men. I did a similar comparison ten or so years ago, and the percentage of women is increasing. I hasten to add it was not a scientific survey, just counting the members of each sex in photography social media groups, but it’s a reasonable guideline. Even so, we should be aiming for a 50/50 split between men and women in prominent positions as that is where the proportions of male and female photographers are heading.
In America there are thirty-nine women out of 141 photographers on Sony’s ambassador list, that’s just 27%. However, of their ninety-eight European ambassadors here in Europe, there are only ten women. In Asia only two of the fourteen ambassadors are women. Sony, you should be ashamed
Perhaps if powerful camera manufacturers perpetuate a culture of inequality, we should start to shun them.
Sony is not alone. Canon, for example, announced a list of ambassadors in the Philippines, and they were all male. A despicable act that, as far as I can see, they are not apologizing for. This, despite Alex Cooke’s article published here on Fstoppers highlighting the issue of over-representation by white men in the industry. That article was published over five years ago.
This really should not be an issue in the modern world. Snubbing women should have been eradicated along with the regimes that promoted misogyny, on top of their other evil practices, in the 1940s.
Does it bother you that Canon have shown what appear to be misogynistic decisions in their ambassadorial choices.
There really is no difference between the photographic abilities of women and men. In fact, when I count the most talented photographers I know personally, more than half of them are women. Furthermore, there are many internationally renowned female photographers. That is reflected in the Fstoppers photographer of the month that has an unintentional fifty percent split between the sexes. There are, of course, non-binary photographers too.
So, what is happening in the industry that gives us shameful statistics? Is it down to misogyny, or is there more to it than that?
There is an undeniable problem of men who hate women in the industry. One only looks at the despicable and sickening comments left on our women writers’ articles to know this is the case. There is a long history of internet trolls belittling, insulting, and bullying women. Read this excellent article by Kate G that highlighted the issue of discrimination against women, and then read the atrocious comments below. Thankfully, those making such foul statements are now removed from this site and their accounts closed.
There is little doubt in my mind that misogyny is to blame. Especially so when you hear the stories the women have had to face from men. Including this world-class sports photographer being passed over for promotion because of bigotry that was both highlighted and perpetuated by her manager.
There's no question you have the skill or the work ethic, but the guys would never go to have you as their boss – you know how they are.
Or when photographing a sports event she was told,
Put your camera down and go stand at the finish line. You're just here to be the reward for the racers.
Or
You don't look like a sports photographer.
Why am I keeping her anonymous? To avoid the hate she is likely to receive as a result.
Most brands have had or still have issues. On the Nikon website, only five of their twenty-five European ambassadors are women. In the Middle East, there are none. In the USA, they do much better. Of their thirty-four ambassadors, fourteen are women, which represents 40% of photographers, approximately in line with the number of female photographers there are currently. About a quarter of Lumix’s ambassadors are women.
One of the most talented and creative young photographic artists I know. Her ambitions within the industry are likely to be restricted unless we all work towards a cultural change within the industry.
Shockingly, I could count fewer than twenty women out of the hundred or so Magnum photographers.
I would even start to respect these companies if they held up their hands and admitted they had got it wrong and said what they were doing to redress that.
They are not all bad. Leica shows ten photographers on their UK website, six of those are women. Fujifilm is highlighting that they are making their X-Photographer program more diverse and inclusive. I approached OM Systems, they are undertaking a complete reorganization too, and I look forward to seeing the results of that as it's the brand I use the most.
I spoke to Tianna Williams, the Nikon Z Creator here in the UK, another amazing talent whose work I admire. She is quite optimistic that things are changing.
There is a certain change moving through the industry but in terms of recognition I think there is work to be done. There can still be a feeling of photography being an ‘old boys club’ and some genres such as sports and wildlife continue to convey that. However I think if we look hard enough and in the right places, there are incredible female photographers doing their thing! That is always a joy to see.
Is it always deliberate and active prejudice by the organizations? Not wanting to appear hypocritical, I checked the numbers here at Fstoppers. Sure enough, there were far fewer women writers than expected. I found it strange because I know this is at odds with the nature of our community of writers and editors. They are amazingly supportive of everyone, and misogyny and prejudice of any kind are universally abhorred here. So, I asked Alex Cooke, our Editor-in-Chief, and he told me that it is difficult to keep women writers because of the nature of the comments that happen in the articles.
It’s a constant struggle for me. I try to hire as many women as possible, and we actually had several more a year or two ago, but they unfortunately left. I’ve been told at least once that the atmosphere in the comments and the like have discouraged someone from continuing. I simply don’t get a lot of applications from women, which makes it tremendously difficult.
I then looked at several other major photography websites, and women are greatly outnumbered on all except DXOMark. Interestingly, they don’t give the name of the writer of their articles. Consequently, the women cannot be targeted by sexist bullies as they have been elsewhere.
Are you and I to blame for this bigoted culture? Yes! Why? Even if we all despise that form of hatred – most people do – how many of us read bigoted comments and bother to challenge them?
I did on that one of Kate's, but I am sure there must have been comments I’ve seen in the past that I have not challenged.
Historically, all the brands have failed when it comes to equality. There have been improvements, but there is a long way to go. Do you check the ethical credentials of the gear you buy? Would you help pressure them into helping build a fairer world? If not, you have a problem.
So, this is a request to all the good people out there, the ordinary readers who find those comments as abhorrent as I do. Let’s start calling out the bigots and bullies and showing them that their attitude is unacceptable. Not just on this site, but everywhere. Report their comments and reply to them showing them up for their ignorance. If their comments are illegal, and many are, report them to the Police. Unless we all tackle this head-on, it won’t go away.
If you are attacked online because of any status, don't be afraid to ask for help. There are plenty of people who are prepared to make a stand. Additionally, remember that those who come out with those kinds of comments are usually doing so to compensate for their insecurities and inadequacies.
We should make sure we go out of our way to offer support to all photographers, especially women. Let’s work on this until the imbalance is redressed.
Maybe we should also start voting with our feet too. Until they have actively addressed their anti-female fascism, I intend to discourage my clients from buying products made by those businesses that continue exhibiting discrimination. Manufacturers should start to feel the pain in their pockets. Maybe that is the only way to change their behavior.
I also urge my fellow writers not just here at Fstoppers, but at Petapixel, DPreview, DXOMark, and others, to highlight this and other ethical issues in their gear reviews. Talk about it on your YouTube channels, write about it on your blogs. When you review the latest release of a particular camera or lens, amongst the advantages and disadvantages we should also rate them on their equality and ethical standards.
This should not stop with the mix of sex and gender. Racial and ethnic prejudice exists in the industry too. Most ambassador schemes are split into continental blocks. So, the race and ethnicity of ambassadors in each area should roughly reflect that of the part of the world it serves. That could be a whole new article in itself.
Let us demand that the manufacturers meet the same ethical standards that most reasonable-thinking photographers have. Let us also shame those in the industry who perpetuate any kind of bigotry, especially those of us who stand by and let it happen. Finally, let's see zero tolerance of all bigotry in our own online communities.
It is definitely not a non-issue to all the women photographers I spoke to before writing the article, nor to those who have messaged me on different platforms to tank me for writing it. This includes one top photographer who suddenly lost a job because the person procuring her services had misread her name and thought she was male. It's also an issue for the women photographers who are assaulted on wedding shoots. So too for the women working in studios who are bypassed for promotion.
That you think it is a non-issue is a big part of the problem
Check this data and ask yourself how you would feel if instead of it being women underrepresented, it was you and people who looked like you.
https://www.womenphotograph.com/data
Well, I truly was not well enough informed before opening my mouth.
Did you bother to research the ratio of women to men in the industry as a whole? Of course not. That would probably interfere with your "equity" narrative. Wouldn't it?
People should pay close attention because shill articles such as these are used to set a foundation for a future attack on an industry. But I thank you for letting us know your game plan in advance.
What exactly do you lose from women receiving equal representation, bud?
Who is paying Ivor to write an article in pursuit of their agenda, which would make him a shill? A shill for what, exactly? Are you positing that the Global Association of Women is paying him to write a propaganda piece?
What “attack” is he making, exactly? An attack on your ego?
Ivor should do his research because it would “probably” interfere with his thesis? Tell me you didn’t do any research yourself without actually telling me, lol.
Get out your google fingers and you’ll find that the ratio of women to men in photography ranges from a slight female majority to a slight minority, as he represents in this article. Go ahead and prove me wrong, because I guarantee you didn’t make the above comment with any empirical support in hand. And I won’t bother doing it for you, because I can tell you wouldn’t except even the most iron-clad evidence that you’re wrong. Because you aren’t interested in truth.
The truth being that there’s a feedback loop. If you only market to men, your market will be predominantly men. If you market equally to men and women, you can capture both markets, make twice as much money, and there’s literally zero downside.
And don’t bother with the merit argument. Marketing is not a meritocracy, companies don’t (and shouldn’t) sponsor only the absolute best photographers. How would one even decide on that based on the subjectivity of photography as an artistic pursuit. They should sponsor the photographers who are the best marketers, because then the companies get their money’s worth and then some.
And absolute mountains of marketing, sociological, and psychological research back this up: if you want to capture a market, you have to advertise directly to it. And no, painting it pink doesn’t cut it.
Being a female also plays a roll in how you are treared at Camera shops as well. The never endi f condescending comments and looking down on me.
Are men or women the most affected by camera GAS? Whose influence would these individuals be (from a historical marketing perspective) be most receptive to? It's all about the most efficient marketing and MONEY!
Exactly. Men are more prone to GAS when it relates to such equipment. And more prone to imagine themselves climbing a mountain and roughing it up in the wilderness. Camera companies want more sales, they'll try to appeal to men more. Women will quickly realize that 30 megapixels are enough, and that'll hurt sales.
For the same reason that companies that make pastel curtains and shoes will try to appeal to women more. Not exclusively, but "more".
And these also vary between regions. In Southeast European restaurants, women are the most cooks and men the most waiters. The exact opposite in America.
We don't need to bring up such subject every time 6 months before elections.
It has to do with marketing choices too. A lot of camera gear such as long lenses and heavy sets becomes more attractive if associated with the image of a man who has to fight in a Lord of the Rings scenery in order to photograph a cute little bird. The "rough adventure" marketing style is associated mostly with men (willing to spend a boatload of money each year competing for more specs).
But I do not believe that women are excluded from the majority of the professional world of photography - even on YouTube, some women photographers have an enormous following, while their photographic result is in the same league as men with less than 10% of that number of subscribers.
--------------------------------------------
At least not as much as men are intentionally pushed out in my non-photography field: In my industry women are about 90%, and project managers about 95% and almost all of them ages 22-30. The change from a more balanced workforce happened in the last 10 years. I have had cases where even when the end-client specifically asked for me (by name), but the project was given under the table to a woman not even specialized in the subject, by another woman project manager. Fighting this situation is impossible (as I have discovered). I just stopped thinking about it.
If a marketing dept sees men buying more than women they will most likely add budget dedicated to reaching women and keep the same level of spending to the general budget.
The idea is not taking away from men, it is increasing sales to women making a bigger overall sales pie.
True, they have to consider that. Unfortunately though, if you check on YouTube, the channels that get most views are not those talking about artistic aspects, but those talking about impressive gear, even if it's 95% B-roll of a dude walking around with a big backpack. It makes me think that camera companies do not want to risk another approach for now. Bazooka lenses or spying-style street cameras sell a lot more cameras than color matching profiles.
124 comments; four women commented, one of whom is a staff writer.
Alrighty then.
Yup, the evidence I collected suggested that a lot were too intimidated to comment. Plus, maybe they are out taking photos while a lot of men are ranting and denying misogyny exists.
I've been a bepenised professional photographer and videographer for over ten years and no brand has offered me anything. When is sexism going to work for me?
None of this is meant to be rude, I’ve been told I can be quite abrupt:
A built-in advantage doesn’t guarantee success, it merely confers an advantage: on average. I get that your comment wasn’t sincere, but knowing absolutely nothing about you here are some possibilities as to why no camera brand has offered you a job as a social media marketer/ambassador:
-You’re old and/or un-relatable
-You bring the luck side of the equation (being male) but not the hard work side of the equation from the statement “success equals luck plus hard work”
-You’re unpersuasive. Your attempt at a comment bears this one out.
-Your work is below the minimum acceptable quality.
-You’ve never sincerely tried to gain a position as a social media marketer/ambassador
-You work in an unprofitable or unpopular photography niche
-You’re unlikeable or awkward to interact with.
I could go on but that would be belabouring things.
Perhaps you could reflect on what exactly it is that you lose from women having proportional representation in areas of the Photographic industry, such as Ambassadors, aka: under-paid social media marketing
What do you lose from women being treated with respect?
What do you lose from men (being compelled to?) considering opinions other than their own?
What is so threatening about the idea that women are currently in an unjustly diminished position in society and that they may be elevated? What do you lose if they rise?
This one’s rhetorical, it’s well established what you’d lose. Deep down you’re likely driven by a fear that you can’t actually compete, or that your general status in society would decline below the new average. After all, as more capable people from under-represented groups occupy the higher tiers you’d perhaps experience a decrease in status, importance, or power in society. At least that’s what experience tells me.
A man, especially a white man, has several undeniable advantages in society. He’s less likely to be hurt or killed by law enforcement. He’s less likely to experience unconscious gender-based bias. He’s more likely to benefit from higher pay rates. All this stuff has been studied, it’s not up for debate.
So what’s driving you?
HES GONNA NEED SOME ROSEMARY FOR THAT ROAST
I'm resigned to the fact that you can't change oppressive behavior In a society. You have to build a new one. It's why people who work so hard to maintain oppression are so scared. They know there's no place for them. I'm a first generation Nigerian, my parents have been here for 40 years and are still F.O.B. It's like living in 3 different worlds at all times. It also helps me recognize there's a lot of layers to this. Concordantly, the broad strokes are still pretty clear.
A previous commenter mentioned how photographers of his island are done by people with no reverence or respect for the history. That's the secret - if women were accurately represented in ambassadorships for camera companies people would discover that they are just as good if not better than men (not really a secret). They... know that. Just like photos taken by people who truly experience a location are bound to be better... But then how would you perpetuate this cycle of sending middle-aged white men to photograph the natives? They couldn't. It's the black quarterback narrative just in different form.
I asked Unsplash why they didn't have a lot of brown faces in the editorial section, or brown photographers in the editorial section for that matter. To paraphrase their response - "we don't determine what's submitted"
The blissful ignorance of the layman is astonishing. Just like the brand ambassadors, it's not about what's submitted - it's about what you chose. The problem is that accurate representation would require more work than most people are willing to do. It also requires the realization that cisgender white male constructs probably aren't as good, intelligent, or destined for greatness, as society has led you to believe. After slavery was abolished the vast majority of skilled workers in the south were black. So with continued hard work and dedication. The African American community would thrive, right? The idea that America is a meritocracy was destroyed in Tulsa.
Even if the majority of ambassador submissions were female, we would still see a majority male lineup. Regardless of the talent level. It's the same reason why I watched white quarterbacks be mediocre for 25 years and thought that their level of play was the standard. I also was under the impression that there weren't many young black kids trying to play quarterback. Both of those things were assumptions created based solely on the myopic evidence I was receiving.
My rule of thumb is simple but not foolproof when trying to check myself. If I can replace the pronouns in a sentence with the n-word and sound like a white supremacist, I'm probably perpetuating oppression in some form?
"Well, how many females applied?"
" That's a man swimming against girls, it's unfair!"
"Are you sure You want to date a disabled person?"
"Miss Ketanji Brown, How would you define woman?"
That's a fabulous first comment here. Thank you for that. I hope to see more erudite comments from you in the future.
"Scandal"? Really? Click-bait titles are not a good starting point for respectful discussions. How exactly are internet brand ambassadors (aka influencers, youtubers) representative of an entire industry?
Read the rest of the article, that was just one example. You don't think that women suffering widespread prejudice and bullying in the industry is a scandal? Have you considered that might make you part of the problem?
"The scandal that's ruining the photographic industry". - No, sorry, nope, noway. Keeping track of race, religion, gender, political party, etc.. only means something to those folks that judge others by "labels." You sir, are apparently a respecter of "labels".
When I purchase something, use something, patronize a business, I look at product, price and performance. That's it. Nothing beyond that. No counting numbers and political correctness.
So for all those folks fighting crusades about "labels", it is time to live that life as you were created, treated others the way you want to be treated and stop fighting windmills like Don Quixote!
Yet women are not being treated as I would want to be treated - with fair equality. What you propose is suggesting we ignore the oppressed by not allowing people to identify those who suffer prejudice. That's a tactic used by oppressive governments, remove the ability to measure opression. So, I have t disagree with you.
Not even worth commenting on.
….and yet here you are?
There is simply more men in photography and because thats the case there will be more top male photographers. Why are so few men in nursing and teaching and few women plumbers and roofers.
The split between male and female photographers is about 60/40. The ratio in top positions is far greater. Plus women suffer abuse within the industry.
You don't have that data, how can you give those figures, can you publish the sources, honestly I'm a bit in shock with everything I'm reading in this post. You do it to generate engagement right?
Yes, that's the point. He wrote a controversial post using poor arguments so readers would jump into the comments section. Then, he went insulting who disagreed with him so they came back and engage. I reached the conclusion that it's just a way of generating Internet traffic, although not an ethical one.
That was my question, like were is this data coming from. Also what's the data on target market of new camera purchasers vs used or 2nd tier generation purchasers. And all I got from him was a down vote
Where are all these stats coming from, sorry for the side path but I'm reading anywhere from 20 - 60% are women? Where do these stats come from, what are the stats on new camera buyers and not just the gender of the photogs? Are the people who are most likely to buy a new camera vs used male, because that is the key for deciding who should be the ambassadors for the companies.
Also let us not forget the countries these camera manufactures come from and their biases, you might have to convince a Japanese board of executives to add more women to the programs and that can easier said then done.
If you bothered following and reading the links you would see the data showing that women are hugely underrepresented in leadership roles within the industry. So far, I've received 27 messages and emails from women who have faced discrimination in the workplace and have thanked me for highlighting this. I've also been thanked by some prominent named on social media. So maybe it's an issue with your argument that is at fault.
The film and movie industry, which overlaps the photography industry, have just issued a report stating the misogynistic issues it faces.
Furthermore, the worldwide population is split approximately 50/50 between men and women. That there is a big discrepancy between those in top jobs in photography, a discrepancy that used to exist in many other industries but has been addressed in some. Why would photography be any different.
You are denying it is happening but provide no evidence at all to back up your claim. Falsely accusing me of exactly what you are guilty of. So, the question remains why would you do that? What is the cause of your attitude and denial of misogyny. I think that will be evident to anyone else reading this, and your thin arguments trying to discredit a fight against bigotry pretty much help prove the point of my article.
I've clicked your links which then you have to click those links and we get a google drive spread sheet and the women's photog site but their pdf is only byline driven by women in the industry.
I'm not denying anything, maybe your should re-read my question and stop being a condescending twat. I'm asking if there is a market reason for the displacement. You know like like if you want to sell a children's toy then you should have kids in your adverts. Same principle apply for camera gear.
So again where are the numbers for the overall purchases of cameras specked out by gender for new and used?
How virtuous this must make the author feel. What a complete joke. I love how "fascism" made it into the article also. The authors patronizing mansplaining was heard loud and clear.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thank you for that constructive addition to the argument. Your mother would have been proud.
I appercieate you. As a woman, I have learned the hard way that men who are as defensive as the ones in the comment sections are the kind of men to avoid. They are defensive for a reason and us women shoulder all that responsibility for somereason.
Thank you, Teresa. It's funny how so many men are going out their way to make comments that demonstrate what this article is highlighting.
They are at least making it easy to help us know who to avoid. I doubt they have ever been talked down to when trying to purchase camera gear. That experience alone drove me to only shopping online.
Whew, I have a lot of thoughts about this as a woman, and not enough time to really put it down in writing. But I have some theories, beyond just the misogyny of the photography community. Let me preface this with, I know some really amazing and kind male photographers!
I've noticed–at least on the socials–that men seem to care more about the gear and tagging gear manufacturers than women do. Everyday in the camera users groups on Facebook, for example, I find men arguing about which camera or lens is better. In the groups dominated by women, this pretty much never happens. So are men just getting noticed more because they are louder than we are?
As women, we also tend to shrink ourselves to accommodate others around us. On a whole, I think the issue is bigger than just ambassadorship, but that is a much larger conversation.
That said, it doesn't excuse the manufacturers from at least trying to show representation in their ambassadors.
Hi Jennifer, thanks for the great comment. I just used the ambassador schemes as an indicator of the problem, which is much wider. The data in the articles I linked shows this.
I agree that there are lots of male photographers who are kind. However, on only has to read the comments here and on the other articles that try to address this problem to see that misogyny is rife.
I'm just curious where in the world you are? I have noticed since moving to Japan that Japan has its own ambassadors team completely separate from the United States version. So it may be dig a little and I saw Korea had the same each a little different. I guess I'm saying that most people in these forums seem to base everything around the United States, but there's a much bigger world out there. I'm not trying to say this is you by any means. By the way, I'm just reading an article and curious your location so I can understand where you're coming from?
Hi Eric, I'm currently in the UK, but have lived in several countries around the world, although never in the USA. But looking at the published data, the issue exists there as much as anywhere. This website is US-based but has an international following.
Hi everyone, I've been a long time reader of Fstoppers, however I've signed up now just to reply to this post. The first thing to say is that I don't like how you use the term "white man" you seem a bit racist to me, you do it on several occasions and in a certainly derogatory way.
Regarding the substance of the matter, I also don't like the way you play at being God, and to say how many people are dedicated to what seems good to you. I have to tell you that in my circle, for example, although there are women, most of the fans are white men, as you call us, there are women and some very good ones, but in general I think they are less interested in this hobby.
That said, because it does not ask for the equality of Instagrammers, most of them are women and earn more, the same happens with photography models, they are more and earn more, there are also many more nurses, school teachers, etc. I don't know who told you that you should choose what women should do, they will do what they want, not what you tell them, they will be interested in what they want, not what you choose for them, and the brands are companies, if Sony knows that its potential audience is 85% white male (I have never used this term before since I consider all men equal) then it will seek to enhance its brand with ambassadors according to its audience, which is the one who buys its cameras.
Have a nice day.
Hi Andre, racism is about a dominant group oppressing another based on their race, not the other way around. If I have referred to white men, that can hardly be racist as I am one. I've three times lived in countries where I have suffered racial abuse by small elements of the dominant population.
I take from your comment that, as you are not in support of equality between men and women. It would be interesting to hear your reasoning behind that. It seems odd that you accuse me of playing at being a god, when you are in turn imposing your own personal point of view. Don't you see that as being a bit hypocritical?
There is a significant danger in applying your own personal experience worldwide. I teach photography and 75% of my clients are women, so there's a big difference from your personal experience. More of my female clients than men have been professional photographers or gone on to take it up professionally. But that is my personal experience and, other than showing you that you can't apply your personal experience universally has little relevence to there being prejudice against women in the industry.
That prejudice is something that is demonstrated by empirical data and the experiences of women photographers. That's not playing god, nor stating opinion, it is verifiable fact.
What we know is that there is inequality in key positions in the photographic industry. It is an issue that is being addressed by some businesses, but there is a long way to go.
Your example of Instagrammers is a red herring. They are mostly working for themselves, running their own businesses and have become very successful at it. You mention nurses, but if you look at the numbers of women who have been able to access the top position, such as consultants, there are far fewer.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, but I have to disagree with your opinion.
Whatever you say, female models earn more money and are more, just like influencers, they are hired by more brands and better paid, and this happens in many other segments, what you propose is that in the segments in which the "white man" as you call us in a derogatory way, earn more because you have more interest be equalized by force, but I do not see that you ask that jobs where thousands of men die, such as building buildings, roads, bridges, be equalized, I do not I am talking about management positions or photography ambassadors, I am talking about real jobs, those that move the world, there I do not see anyone asking for equality, they want us to do the work of donkeys, and management positions for women, it does not matter if they are trained or not, or if they have earned it. Think that the woman who deserves to be an ambassador will be, I'm sure, but for that the one that must change is the woman, not the companies, they have to be leaders and win that position, not impose it by parity as a mere quota, it's insulting. You are very wrong, the only thing that is in your power is to be or not to be an ambassador, it is not up to you to tell any woman that she is, or that there is an equal proportion, because as I tell you in many other sectors, women get paid more, they are more, and it is because they are interested and they like it, if there are fewer people in the photograph it is not because of an issue of inequality.
Andre, I am not using "White man" in a derogatory way. It is purely descriptive of a group of people, of which I am a member. You are choosing to read it that way. Why is that?
If you read the article again, it's about women being denied access to top positions.
I could have talked about other industries where there is a glass ceiling for women, but you may not have noticed that this is a photography site. I could also have talked about businesses where women are not held back and are more successful because there are no misogynistic barriers in their way. But they exist in this industry and we should recognize that and address it.
What you are suggesting as an alternative is positive discrimination, giving people jobs solely based on their status. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about equality where people are not discriminated against because of any group they belong to. I have messages from women photographers who have been told they would not get a promotion because the men would object, that they are just there to be an incentive for the runners to cross the finish line and those who suddenly lost a contract because the procuring manager realised she was a woman; he had been calling her by a male name in emails. I have also had women tell me about sexual harassment and even threats of violence. Another lost her offer of an ambassadorship because a male ambassador complained that she was getting it because she was a woman.
This isn't about giving any one group an advantage - the advantage that we men have at the moment - but giving equal opportunities to everyone. Treating people fairly. I am not sure whether you do not understand the difference, or whether equality for everyone is against your own personal belief.
Part of the problem with misogyny is people denying it is happening or throwing distractions and irrelevancies into the argument. This is usually a tactic used by bigots to justify their beliefs.
Women make more money as models because men and companys cant stop objectifying and sexyalizing them for their own benefits. I wouldnt use that as a point to your argument.
Love either the low quality work or absolutely no work of the men in the comment section who were offended.
I'm glad to know they curate the comments. Kindness is key to encourage people in all types of work.
The barrier appears not limited to female professional photographers but workshop attendees as well. I often noticed and experienced getting significantly less attention from the leaders, intentionally or unknowingly. I often go out of my way to call leaders to help whatever I might need help with a given moment. This doesn’t always work. Leaders abbreviate their response, quickly move on to male attendees spending considerable amount of time. Very frustrating.
75% of my workshop attendees are women. I always give my clients an equal share of the pie.
I certainly noticed this before I retired. As an old man I try to encourage women in their photography. I also have noticed that women photographers do not always use pretty young women to show off their portrait skills. I tire of that sort of thing.