I'll admit that I'm not the biggest sports fan. And while that may be a huge understatement, when I do watch sports, I usually notice that the photographers on the sidelines tend to have a Y chromosome. The women shooters are few and far between. So, on International Women's Day, I'd like to shine a small spotlight on a new internship offered by Getty Images to get women into the sports photography arena.
I can feel it in the comments already. Some will make quips about it being akin to Affirmative Action. Some will call it discriminatory against men. Some will wonder why a guy wrote the article instead of a girl. (Hey ladies — apply to be an Fstoppers writer!)
Whatever.
All I see is a great opportunity for women, who for too many reasons are generally absent from the press pits at sporting events, to get their hands on a full Canon kit for a year and work alongside Getty Images photographers and staff. They'll get a taste of the photo side of things, but also of the editorial and assignments parts of the game, and gain an incredible amount of experience. I see it as a great learning experience that could prepare them for a great career in sports photography.
Diversity in images is what we want, so diversity in the field is what we need. Props to Getty Images for taking this on, even if it's just one person at a time.
Applications close on March 31. Get it, girls.
[via It's Nice That]
"I usually notice that the photographers on the sidelines tend to have a Y chromosome."
That's because women aren't as interested in sports as men are. It's that simple.
"So, on International Women's Day, I'd like to shine a small spotlight on a new internship offered by Getty Images to get women into the sports photography arena."
This is madness. Is there an International Men's Day? If women were as interested in sports as men are then they would go into such a career field on their own, as they do in many other career fields, some of which are dominated by women.
"I can feel it in the comments already. Some will make quips about it being akin to Affirmative Action. Some will call it discriminatory against men...Whatever."
It is obviously both of those things. And "whatever" doesn't dismiss sexism.
"Diversity in images is what we want, so diversity in the field is what we need."
Need and want are two very different things. Social engineering is all about what certain people "want." What we "need" is simply equal opportunity!
How did I know you would be the first to comment, who are you!?
Plenty of women are interested in sports, just like plenty of men are interested in makeup. So no, it's not "that simple."
No there's not an international men's day, because every day is international men's day. And while I don't necessarily agree with just a day for us lowly females, yeah there are a few career fields dominated by women, but look at those fields and see who runs them. Most of the time it's gonna be a dick, I'm sorry, a male.
It's not sexist. You're just easily offended. And a hidden figure who trolls almost every post.
The only thing I agree with is we NEED equal opportunity. And opening an INTERNSHIP to females is slowly creeping that way, but still isn't the same.
*edit removed a curse word
Who I am is irrelevant. Please just stick to addressing whatever I say.
I didn't remark on women not being interested in sports. I simply said "women aren't as interested in sports as men are." The key words being "as interested."
Every day is men AND women's day!
You use defensive terms like "us lowly females" and "it's gonna be a dick," encouraging and perpetuating sexism against men and I'm simply for fairness and natural outcomes based on equality of opportunity and somehow I'm the one "easily offended"? Really?
A special day just for women is of course sexist. Funny how the supposed oppressed, whether by sex or race, thinks it's ok for them to be sexist and racist.
Opening a job based on sex, in other words sexism, is moral and logical train wreck. The same goes with resorting to racism to try and accomplish the same thing.
You say you removed a "curse word," but I have to ask why even state that? Is that just a roundabout way of insulting me? Don't worry; I can take it. Unlike what you claim to think, I'm not "easily offended."
As I have said before about black people, I say the same about women. You people are your worst enemies.
I put the edit so that you know what I edited as it shows when a comment has been edited on the site, not trying to say you can't take a curse word. I wasn't necessarily offended as much as I was tired and I did what everyone says not to do, and that is feed the troll. I won't comment anymore, not because I don't have something to say, but just because it's a waste on you.
Ah, the troll card. So much for liberal discourse.
Let me ask you a question. Why is it that people that identify as liberal and progressive, which you no doubt do (and that would be a good thing), always try and shut down opposing views by doing that, and by generally attacking the person rather than their argument? Think about that, because that is the norm.
Let me give you some advice. I'm very much older than you (I'm afraid to say) so try and take it as a bit of concerned fatherly advice. Contrary to what you might think, most men in the West are not out to subjugate women. Most of us don't give a damn that you are a woman if you are capable of doing the job as well as a man, and especially if are you are capable of doing the job without a feminist chip on your shoulder.
You may not believe that but it's hard for women to believe anything else when they continue to confine themselves to feminist echo chambers. You want to prove yourselves as capable as men in whatever you do, great, then do it because you can, not because you're a woman. Then you'll have that equality that so many of you claim to be denied. You'll also have men cheering you on.
Mr. Brody I will respond via Private Message as now our conversation has nothing to do with photography.
And yes, I call you a troll because you're constantly commenting on articles (thanks for reading) but yet have zero information about yourself or your photographic career on your profile. You're an instigator.
Our conversation certainly had to do with the topic of this article. When you resorted to calling me a troll is when it went off topic.
As for communicating via private message, I have no interest in that. I like discussing topics, which is why I post a lot, something you strangely have a problem with. After all, isn't that what this site is for? This site could certainly use more people posting their comments.
My post count and lack of personal and professional information doesn't logically equal me being a troll. You called me a troll because you are simply intolerant of my opposing views being expressed and/or deep down you knew you couldn't attack the message so instead you went after the messenger. It's a common way to try and shut down liberal discourse, ironically from those that like to present themselves as liberal and progressive.
And yes, I am an "instigator." I'm an instigator of liberal discourse. Look up the meaning of that word. It isn't inherently negative and insulting, unlike your intended usage, along with calling me a troll.
One last thing. I hope one day you can progress to being able to thank me for commenting and not just for reading.
Fair enough, you win.
Chelsey, it isn't about winning. It's about engaging in and enjoying truly liberal discourse. I'm not under any illusion that I'm going to get someone that disagrees with me to change their mind. Truly liberal discourse (not calling people trolls and instigators) will simply help those that aren't decided to decide for themselves. Hopefully they can also do that intellectually and not emotionally.
Oh boy, Chelsea.. (sorry, should I say "Oh girl, Chelsea"?).
You should watch more sports than those you see in America. If you watch the English Premier League or some other international sports you will definitely see many female photographers. I have worked alongside a few of them myself covering things like cricket, rugby and even motorsport. There are NO barriers to entry into freelance sports photography. If you have the chops you will have the clients.
The great irony of your message is that you want to use discrimination to fight a perceived discrimination that (honestly) doesn't exist. That is just really sad.
Haha, I do actually watch EPL - and that's great for Britain, glad to hear there isn't as much there, at least perceived by a male. It's very difficult to speak on these topics for sure (well for me) because I do get a little emotional about it. I guess it's just hard to explain to people who don't have to deal with certain "discrimination."
Also my name is Chelsey, with a "y" not with an "a" like that horrid FC!!! :P
No worries. 😎
BTW, I'm not British, just an English speaking South African Gen-X'er who's done a bit of pro sports in the past.
We've been through all sorts of discrimination here in SA, and it's horrible, I know. But the thing is, the more you try to push people into a mindset, the more they will push back. That is I believe the core of what Peter is trying to say, and which I agree whole heartedly with. No matter who you are, you have to trade on your merits. You can't expect the world to fall in line with a certain way of thinking just because it suits a certain agenda.
Anyway, peace! ✌🏼
No I actually agree with that as well, and I lined out some different things in the private message I sent to him that he doesn't want to read. Anyways.
Sorry for assuming, you mentioned EPL and I just though ah, a Brit! ;) Peace for sure !
It's the only football I will watch these days. 😀 I'm an Everton supporter, so you should know I am always coming in for abuse from Liverpool nutters. 😜
The thing that defines sexism, racism, etc. is intent. I would also include lack of thought as a lack of intent. When someone encourages an individual or group of individuals in a way that doesn't negatively impact others, it's not -ism (for the sake of brevity).
As an example, "Mother's Day" is clearly not sexism and, traditionally, Women's day (or whatever it's called) has not been sexism. Encouraging women to stay home from work, presumably to make men realize how important they are, IS sexism. It seeks to promote women at the intentional expense of the men who depend on them.
Scholarships/Internships/etc. at first glance seem like -ism but those responsible for creating them, did so for that purpose. If not for that situation, there wouldn't be a scholarship or internship available for anyone. And, yes, anyone could create those same opportunities for men or any other group. It's not a zero sum game. And finally, telling someone what they can or can't/should or shouldn't do with their resources, is just as bad as -isms.
"And finally, telling someone what they can or can't/should or shouldn't do with their resources, is just as bad as -isms."
Hogwash. Criticizing those that are obviously being sexist or racist is a good thing. This **women only** internship is clearly sexist.
What is obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to others and in some cases, people might disagree with you entirely. It's difficult to accept but it happens...even to me! ;-)
By definition of the word sexist, it is in fact sexist to offer a job to someone based on their sex.
Some people are more concerned with their feelings rather than facts, but facts don't care about your feelings.
I couldn't find "Sexist" but, according to Merriam-Webster, "sexism" is defined as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex".
While you may be technically correct, I think, connotatively, we're talking about negative prejudice or discrimination which is not the case here.
As an example, I don't feel at all sexist by only having considering women for marriage. Again, it may meet your definition but these days, people rarely mean the exact definition of words. If that were the case, and I do lament the fact, there might be a more exact term for negative sexism.
I have to thank you. While we disagree quite often, you make me consider the subjects more carefully than I might otherwise do.
If a job is limited to women only then it most definitely is a negative to any man interested in that job.
Your marriage analogy is flawed as that involves biological realities.
"...people rarely mean the exact definition of words."
A huge problem today. That kind of thinking and reasoning shouldn't be encouraged, for if anything can mean anything then when does anything truly mean something?
"I have to thank you. While we disagree quite often, you make me consider the subjects more carefully than I might otherwise do."
I appreciate that Patrick. That's a rare thing these days. The feeling is mutual, by the way.
I don't know but I'm guessing the job was created for this purpose and, again, wouldn't have been available to a man in any case.
The proper use of language and the meaning of words in particular seems like something we completely agree on.
My marriage analogy was in recognition of same sex marriages. Like it or not, it's the law. :-/
Why wouldn't it have been available to men? It is not available to men because they made the decision to not make available to men.
The definition of marriage involves a man and a woman. Those who practice political correctness ar once again trying to change the meaning of a word.
Because, from my reading, it was created for women. I don't believe they said, 'we need an intern. Oh! I have an idea...let's only make it available to women!'
I believe it was more like, 'Let's do something to increase the number of women in our industry...'
It doesn't matter what led up to this job being offered. What matters is that in the end the job is open only to a woman.
Increasing the number of women in anything is social engineering politicallly correct nonsense. The goal should be to simply provide equal opportunity. Women will then be naturally represented based on what they are interested in, not on what society thinks they should be interested in.
We'll have to agree to disagree. While I agree with you in principle, there are always exceptions based on circumstances.
Sexism is wrong no matter which
gender
practices it. Intentions are irrelevant if in the end sexism is the result.
Your definition of "sexism" is too broad.
Sexism does not have a relative meaning.
I didn't
say it did. I just disagree with your definition since the dictionaries is not specific enough.