I think that it’s often difficult for people to understand or see the real struggles that female and nonbinary creatives face in the photography industry. If you’ve been keeping up with current news, Canon has faced some criticism recently. They aren't the first and won't be the last to make a huge diversity misstep.
On July 14th, Canon announced that they would be relaunching their Crusader of Light program in the Philippines. Once all of their brand ambassadors for the program were announced, many readers were shocked. Not a single member of the 11 Crusader of Light team is female, non-binary, or LGBTQ+. This is not the first time that this has happened with a big name brand, and if you look across most of their ambassador lists, you will find that they are mostly male.
According to an article on The Phoblographer, here are the stats:
Number of Female Canon Ambassadors
• Canon Philippines: 0/11 female ambassadors
• Canon Hong Kong: 1/14 female ambassadors
• Canon India: 1/10 female ambassadors
• Canon Mexico: 1/6 female ambassadors
• Canon Malaysia: 2/10 female ambassadors
• Canon EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa): 34/113 female ambassadors
• Canon Canada: 9/29 female ambassadors
• Canon USA: 12/38 female ambassadors
This is a real problem, and it is not just Canon; it is industry-wide and deep-rooted. In 2017, Nikon did the same thing when announcing the D850. They launched a campaign and made this statement: “Meet 32 creative individuals from Asia, Middle East, and Africa, and join them as they embark on an experience with the latest FX-format D850 in their respective genres of wedding, nature, commercial, and sports. With their expertise in photography and videography, the D850’s technology, and Nikon’s craftsmanship, this is one DSLR ready to set a new world of limitless creative imaging possibilities.”
Not a single photographer out of the entire 32 member ambassador team was female.
Olympus UK did the same thing in 2016 when they announced their Visionaries and ambassadors. Out of 13 photographers selected, only one was female.
DIY Photography made a whole article on this topic in 2016, listing all of the stats for the big brands' ambassador programs, and apparently, not much has changed.
As a female photographer, I can tell you as a matter of fact that the issue is not a lack of female photographers who are qualified and capable. Instead, it is pushback and a real choice made by organizations and companies in who they hire and promote.
In my life, I have had multiple occasions where I was not given opportunities that I felt were based on my gender or age. Here are a few examples.
There is a local photography club that I have been a member of on and off for many years. A client of mine told me that he once asked their president why, as a local photographer who has an arts degree, traveled and worked on large campaigns, and won international awards, I was never asked to speak for them. I was told that the response was “why? She has nothing to offer. What would she even have to teach?” My website then and still to this day lists my accomplishments, magazine features, articles, gallery features, and more, including my favorite, when I won the National Geographic Travel Chase Adventure Competition. The prize for that was a luxury vacation with National Geographic to any of their destinations. I chose to go to Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks with them. I still treasure my National Geographic badge and the gear that they gave me.
Well, in October 2020 the club reached out to me to speak for them, but said that speakers are not financially compensated. This was odd to me, as I know many photographers who have spoken for them and been paid. I reached out to a male photographer friend who had spoken for them and asked him if he was compensated for his lecture. He told me that they did pay him without issue. I went back to the club with this information and another board member contacted me to discuss it. I was told that they wanted me to do a Zoom presentation but “unfortunately, I don’t have the ability to pay you.” I politely declined. She apologized for any miscommunication and confusion. I just checked their website, and on the page listing the entire 2020-2021 speaker lineup, only two of them are females.
In October 2017, a large camera brand, who we will call Brand A, approached me to become an ambassador and instructor for them. I was so excited to have this opportunity to work with a well-known brand and felt like I was finally having a huge career breakthrough. In emails and then phone calls, we discussed the details of joining the program and made plans for me to start with a podcast and several photo workshops. They invited me to meet with Brand A team members at a large photography convention.
I met with the rep at the convention and was introduced to several other company reps where we discussed my upcoming work with them. It was then that I was invited to go to their convention afterparty, which was held at their main stage once doors, closed to the general public. This party was open to any member of the Brand A professional service program. This is one of those programs where anyone who owns their gear and is a professional can pay a yearly fee to join and get specialized gear service, loaner gear, discounts, and support. They had big banners advertising the member’s afterparty and prizes that would be given away at it, including a recently announced camera kit.
It ended up being a pretty big event and very crowded. I was super nervous. I didn’t personally know many of the people there. In the corner, by the stage, I saw a familiar face. It was a well-known photographer that I had met a few years prior. As a member of the Brand A service program, I had borrowed a camera from the local sales rep. After my project was completed, I let the rep know, and he asked me to return it at a video shoot that they were having. It was there that I met this photographer, had a brief friendly chit chat, and then left. So now, years later, at the party, I approached him, relieved to see someone that I kind of knew in a sea of complete strangers.
I was surprised to be met with immediate disdain. When I approached, I said hello and got looked at funnily right away. I thought that he didn’t recognize me. Fair enough, we had only spoken for a few minutes one time before. I reminded him of my name and that I had met him a summer or two ago at the video shoot. He said that I was wrong on the year, that it was three years ago, which is more than several, which means two. Okay.
He asked me why I was there and how I deserved to be there. I referenced being invited by the manager of their instruction program because they were hiring me. He didn’t believe me. He wanted to know my credentials. It felt like an interview where I had to prove myself. I always feel like a jerk if I say things that I have won or done. I am not sure how to bring up accomplishments without coming across as boasting, so I usually just don’t. However, there are times like in this article or at that moment it is relevant, such as when I am directly asked. So, I listed some recent competitions that I had won. I also referenced winning another photo competition by another company that he also works with so maybe it would click for him. I also reminded him that the party was open to any member of the pro service program. I did not understand why this mattered to him or why I was being interrogated.
I was straight up told, loudly: “you don’t belong here.” I was so embarrassed. People were staring. He told me that he was going to text the other company to try to get proof that I wasn’t “lying about winning” and pulled out his phone to do so. I literally went to another country with this brand as the prize. I still have all the emails and photos. I was so shocked that in minutes, this man was trying to tear into me just for being invited to a brand afterparty. I didn’t understand his angle. Why be so nasty to me? He said that the company didn’t text back right away to confirm my story. I said okay and that I wasn’t lying and didn’t understand what his problem was. I walked away into the crowd, feeling so small.
I should have stood up for myself more, but I just avoided him for the rest of the party. I didn’t know this person well, and he is a long-time ambassador of Brand A. I saw no reason for him to react this way to me saying hi to him at an event. I went from being so nervous and excited meeting with the brand and being invited to the party to being completely crushed.
Not long after the convention, I got an email that the brand “was a little behind” and they wanted to reschedule our plans. I was informed that they were having a different division schedule me to speak in California instead. I was told to wait to hear from the Ocean County division. I never received contact from that division and reached out to follow up with no response. I still have all of the emails. They just ghosted me.
In December 2020, I decided to be bold. After years of hearing nothing from Brand A, I reached out to the manager that I had been working with. I asked him directly for any insight into why things didn’t work out. I wasn’t sure that I would get a response or what it would be, but it was something that haunted me. In March 2021, he emailed me back. He was very frank and open that it boiled down to the company getting wrapped up in the mirrorless announcements, “so we kept booking people we already had in the system.” He apologized to me and explained that over the years since that happened to me, the brand had downsized its educational division until it was completely dissolved.
So, why does this matter? If you reference the statistics that I listed for the big brands, you will see that existing talent for their programs is very heavily male-dominated. So, if the choice is to keep and recycle the same people over and over, it is obvious who that leaves out.
There are also many instances when in polite company, someone asks what I do, I reply photographer. They assume instantly that I photograph weddings, and I explain no, I'm a nature photographer. They ask to see my work. They look at it and are skeptical — flat out do not believe me. I get the same comments from random strangers online: "you took all of these photos? These are really yours?” They are shocked, but I have grace towards them and gently explain that it is all my work. More often than not, I am asked to prove it, so I send them a video or a photo of me in the field. Usually, they don’t respond or block me after receiving a video showing me photographing. People don’t like when you prove them wrong.
Why do non-male genders always have to prove ourselves? Why do people not believe that females can be photographers? I have learned from this to say: “I am a nature photographer. All of the work on my site and in my portfolio has been taken by me in my travels over the years. In reality, it isn’t as luxurious as it sounds. When you see a photo of an animal in the snow, I am out there freezing, but I love what I do.”
One time, I was at a gallery opening where some of my pieces were displayed among other local artists. A woman recognized me and approached me. I knew of her as a local college art teacher. She said to me: “Don’t you think it is interesting how if you are attractive but bad, you can just get into any gallery?” I said: “What? Do you mean me?” She laughed in my face. I said: “Well whoever you mean, this was a blindly judged jury to get in here.” I let her know that this was my first time in that gallery, that multiple artists were represented on the walls, and that I had never met them in person before being selected. She just laughed again and left.
Apparently, even when you work hard and earn things, even some of your own gender just assumes it has to do with anything but your own skill. It is not the first time that a stranger has made a nasty comment when they see that I earned something — “oh it’s because she is female.” My Instagram has 273 posts, 5 of them show me, usually in the far distance. I am not advertising my body or self-image to get ahead. I am actually self-conscious and usually hate photos of myself. It is something that I am working on and has nothing to do with gender, yet people find it hard to believe that a non-male can be “good” at photography, so they just make a sexist comment.
I am speaking on my own experiences, but I have heard similar stories from other female or nonbinary photographer friends. I won't speak for them, as their stories are not mine to tell, but I will address the facts and reality of a deep-rooted issue in our industry.
When I enter photo contests or gallery competitions, most of the time, there is an impartial jury. They are shown the artwork and know nothing of who created it. They select and award their favorite based on the judging criteria and merit, and that is that. Wouldn't it be great if the ambassador programs, directors of photography, outlets, news agencies, etc. had blind hiring based solely on your portfolio?
Overall, it is difficult for women to be taken seriously and hired. What strikes me as odd is that according to CareerExplorer.com, in the United States “65% of photographers are female and 35% are male.” There is a huge disconnect here.
It is not just big brands holding onto old boys' club values making misogynistic choices time and time again, it is magazines and news outlets who hire for covers and photo stories. An entire website, Women Photograph, exists to hold accountable the companies who hire photographers and where they are choosing to give their money. There are spreadsheets of data month by month and year by year of facts showing the dismal numbers. Women Photograph looked into EOY tallies: “At the end of every year, news outlets compile galleries of their favorite images from that year.” In 2019, only 21.31% of the photographs were taken by women. Why does this keep happening every single year?
In 2018 Photoshelter looked at gender equality and compared magazine covers that year to see the percent taken by women:
• National Geographic: 0/12 (0%)
• Sports Illustrated: 0/12 (0%)
• TIME: 2/12 (16%)
• Cosmopolitan: 1/12 (8%)
• Vogue: 5/12 (41%)
• Condé Nast Traveler: 3.5/12 (29%)
• Entertainment Weekly: 0/12 (0%)
• AARP: 0/12 (0%)
The first comment to that thread reads “Don’t care.”
Look, I get it. A lot of people just do not care. This does not affect them directly, or the system as it stands works in their favor. Well, this is not for you then, this is for everyone else who does care and wants to see real change.
The industry as a whole is not giving non-male creators a fair chance.
I am just one person. I am not a well-known photographer or big name. I can only speak on my personal experiences and the statistics and ask for change. I challenge the big brands to catch up on representation, pay rates, and opportunities for nonbinary, females, POC, varied age groups, and all people. I am no one to ask, but I do so anyway. Those who refuse are making a choice for all to see. Rather than after the fact apologies when you get caught making clearly misogynistic choices, choose the COVID times to revamp your programs and hiring practices. It is 2021, and this is a time of change.
If you are reading this and care, please raise your own voice so that the outlets, brands, and companies know that you want this change. As a female creator, the 65% want to be heard. If you are a member of an underrepresented group, let them know you exist.
If you are a non-male professional photographer, have a resume of work, and want to be hired by any of the big companies, brands, or outlets, post your portfolio in the comments below. Let’s show them that there are candidates ready and waiting. There are so many talented, awesome people who deserve a chance. Don't let them have any more excuses.
What you're missing is that while nobody will ever say "This woman will make my company lots of money, but I'm not hiring her because I don't like women" there are plenty of CEO's who will think "This person won't be able to make my company lots of money because woman are not as good as men at leadership, being decisive, using their logic rather than emotions, maintaining staff respect, or because she might get pregnant and have to prioritize her family, or any number of other reasons".
Discrimination doesn't work the way you're thinking in most cases. Most discrimination happens in the form of assumptions that cause people to see their discriminatory behavior as logical based on false assumptions they make.
I am living in Switzerland too. I know of female postmen since many decades. My question to you simply is: Are you in a position to hire photographers or have you ever done it? If not, please mind your own business.
Jan...you open a business. Do you hire the best people to make your business a success?
David, the answer is obvious, but that is not the topic of this article. Please let's be fair here. Alexander, what was the purpose of your remark regarding female postman?
Of course, but one of the issues with bias is that people will make unfair assumptions based on their biases that make them think that the female candidate won't be best for the business. In their mind, they think that they're making the rational choice, but the reasoning may be based on faulty assumptions. That's why bias is such an insidious thing. Nobody is purposely looking to make bad decisions or be unfair to people.
I agree! Some are weak minded and allow biases to hamper making smart decisions. I can't help that. When someone comes up with a solution to biases in hiring, the business world will be a much better place and that person that comes up with the solution will be on a beach somewhere sucking down a mai tai. ;-) I sleep well at night knowing that when I hired someone, it was a good choice based on my needs, not satisfying some statistical study.
Jan...unfortunately, it's not obvious in plenty of minds. My whole reason for replying to this is that there is an inference that hiring should be done with a bias in mind and that bias is to look at any applicant beyond the male applicant. If the non male applicant is the best, than that's the choice. Don't make it about satisfying some sort of number. A choice of the best applicant gives one a much better chance to build a successful business. Hiring to satisfy a number may make one feel good, but it is less of a chance for success.
On the contrary, there should be no(!) bias. Kate's article was pretty clear about that. Can't see why you took it the other way.
First of all, I would like to express my admiration for your courage to come forward so publicly. I had a strong mother and have a strong wife with a leading job in a man's world and am myself a computer scientist in a majority male-dominated environment. This systematic discrimination against women can be found everywhere at all times. And unfortunately it does not only affect women, which is simply the biggest group, but also all other groups, such as LGBTQ+ members, immigrants, poor people from lower social classes, those of other faiths, etc.
What shocks me the most is that these obvious injustices are reflexively and loudly defended (as is partly the case here) and when you have nothing really to say about it, you play on the person.
Many others have already spoken out about the reasons for these discriminations. We know it, could know it, but we don't overcome it. Maybe it's all very simple: this way you (as a man) can easily keep half of humanity at bay as competition and if you add the other groups mentioned above, it's probably 90%.
For you and all the other women or member of discriminated groups it's harder, you have more to prove and you have to defend yourself all the time.
I have two daughters, teenagers: My message to them: Don't put up with it! But don't wear yourselves out in this fight either.
And Kate, your portfolio is impressive. You have nothing to hide! Thank you very much for your important article.
(I am staying in Rome right now, where your last name is very famous).
Gran mensaje
Well said, Jan.
Sorry honey, I'm tired of including people because they are different, but excluding those who are actually better because they are a (white) male.
IF all these men are actually better than other applicants who are "different" in a way, like women, gay etc, etc, they are deservingly so on their spots. Not even going to bother to read the rest of the article because it's most likely just bitching from someone who wants both have the cake and eat it, while putting minimal effort to deservingly get the cake.
Congratulations for supplying supporting evidence that misogyny is alive and kicking in the industry.
So who decides what constitutes better exactly? A (white) male point of view probably. Actually, most of the very financially successful male photographers I know aren't the best photographically or socially by anyones standard.
When it comes to something as subjective as photography, how are you going about determining who is "better" at the highest levels?
Sorry, sweetie, YOU are part of the systemic problem by thinking you can start off with a belittling term to start your attack.
Nox Vega, just so that you are aware calling a female, especially one that is a stranger or colleague is known as a form of sexual harassment. It is demeaning and a power play way for males to put down a woman as inferior. That you say you didn't read my article does not help your point.
Here are some resources for you about sexual harassment, I doubt that you will read them either:
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
"Examples
VERBAL
• Referring to an adult as a girl, hunk, doll, babe, or honey"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-never-ok-to-address-a-woman-this-w...
"It’s also illegal. Terms of endearment are defined as an example of sexual harassment by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Civil Rights, which cites “honey,” “dear” and “sweetheart” among the unprofessional expressions, even if the speaker means no harm in saying them. “The effect is the primary issue rather than intent,” it explains. “Even if the person ‘means nothing to you’ or you have ‘used the term for years’ you should be aware that such expressions are inappropriate.”
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1f7f8c0b-b225-4b19-a9f7-d...
"Firstly, using sexualising terms like “babe” could form the basis of a sexual harassment claim, as using such language may constitute unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. In 2006, a NSW tribunal found that calling a female employee “babe” and “honey” constituted sexual harassment. These days, it’s difficult to envisage circumstances where calling your female colleague “babe” during a meeting or at the office would be welcome.
The consistent use of gendered language could also precipitate an unlawful discrimination complaint. "
Fantastic article, Kate. I actually tried a few years ago to raise this very issue on a live photography forum, where participants questions were answered. Every other question apart from mine was addressed.
Everything you have written is true, and you've justified with empirical evidence that can't be argued with.
It astounds me that in so many ways the world has progressed, yet issues such as this still exists in our liberal democracies. However, one only has to read some comments in this article to see that misogyny, and other discriminatory opinions, are deep-rooted in society.
My observation though is that it is becoming less so with younger generations, and maybe there is hope for the future. But change needs to happen now. So, let's hope that those who defend the status quo realize that their regressive attitudes are counter to what is essential for modern democracies to function: equality. Also, that others will help tackle diversity.
Thank you for your bravery in speaking up against a real issue.
Soy hombre y heterosexual, pero durante años he llevado el pelo largo y en España eso también es motivo de discriminación, de echo con 47 años he tenido que cortar la melena por un problema con la ley (esa ley tan justa que depende de la imagen ( ironía))
Creo que los prejuicios no se dan solo y en exclusiva en el ámbito de la fotografía ni tampoco solamente en el ámbito laboral.
Creo que nadie que viva en estos tiempos llegará a ver un cambio real.
La sociedad avanza muy lentamente y creo que dentro de 100 años seguirá habiendo discriminación, podemos luchar contra ella, podemos no ser partícipes, pero el cambio en la sociedad es muy lento.
Creo que no es cuestión de números y creo que un gran avance debería ser eliminar los datos físicos y sexuales del ámbito laboral, es decir evaluar el trabajo, no a quién está detrás, los currículum deberían ir sin foto ni datos personales, tan solo una matrícula y una vez que haya alguien elegido se verá lo que es y será inamovible.
No se si sera la forma más correcta pero hay que intentar acelerar ese cambio.
Mucho ánimo, no todos somos iguales.
Soy padre de una niña y sea como sea, mientras sea una buena persona estaré orgulloso de ella
Si educarse a mi hija en la interioridad por ser mujer, me sentiría fracasado como padre.
(I used an online translator). Yes, removing any references to gender, origin, etc. would be very helpful. And where this is already happening, the results show that it works. When applying for a job, women are often asked if they have children to take care of, while male applicants are never asked such a question. In Switzerland, women applying for a job are allowed to lie when asked about pregnancy.
Unsurprisingly most comments here are flat out are illustrating the problem instead of being supportive of a just opinion of much needed major change in photography and throughout society: How we treat women and our LGBTQ peers. If you're male and/or white and hetero learn to sit back and listen to those voicing their concerns instead of trying to voice critical questions. It is not your stage. If you're opposed to preferred treatment of women, LGBTQ, black etc etc - delve into your history of privileges and preferential treatment you never knew you enjoyed. It's about time to balance the scale. For more than half of the population being treated equally is not a given. I have had privilege just for being male. I have endured instant distrust and racism and had to prove myself harder just because I'm half asian. I have made the same mistakes I condemn here in my own ways, just by being male and following accepted conventions. And I should have know better having endured a part of the mechanisms myself. I will listen and not question or criticise any woman, black, colored, non binary, LGBTQ sharing their story. I believe in being critical and discussion, but this one doesn't need another male voice.
Thanks for writing this, Kate. As a trans woman I’m so wary of all the heteronormativity and male privilege that permeates the photography industry. I’m no longer comfortable posting in male-dominated forums and even ones run by cisgender women feel a bit risky for that matter. There’s a lot of progress still to be made!
Queda mucho por hacer y tenemos que hacer todos juntos indiferentemente de cómo seamos
The vast majority of ordinary people don't think the way that the trolls and bigots do, Rebecca. It's just sad that it's the latter group that make the most noise; it's always been the case that those full of hate do. I wish more people were brave and stood up against it.
If it's any consolation, those who make negative comments are just a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of people who read the articles.
Can't say I'm surprised by the misogyny in the comments. Very good article, incredibly valid points. Sexism in the industry is both systemic and systematic and permeates every single level, from the heads of companies, right down to commenters on photography blogs.
Excellent. I could not agree more, Darien.
Las mujeres no son más débiles , las mujeres tienen más trabas, si los hombres tuvieran las trabas de las mujeres igual alguna mujer haría el mismo comentario de los hombres, la pena es que la fotografía sea una industria para la forma de pensar que estás mostrando.
Ha habido grandes, grandísimas reporteras de guerra, tu opinión las degrada, el incluso ha habido grandes mujeres militares.
Mujeres que han demostrado ser tan fuertes como los hombres , incluso más , habiendo superado trabas que los hombres no tienen.
Y con la orientación sexual pasa lo mismo.
Another great example that proves the point of the article.
FY, I'd say. I doubt you'll ever understand what it is about.
IMHO your portfolio is more pathetic, but what can we expect based on your personality.
Thanks, Borat. I loved your first movie the most. The second one was okay. I haven't seen the third yet.
No puedo cambiar la sociedad de golpe, pero si puedo aportar mi parte de lucha simplemente tratando a todos por igual y educando a mi hija en la igualdad.
Cada uno puede ser un pequeño cambio si no participamos en los prejuicios de la sociedad.
Permitir es participar
There is a blatantly sexist attitude among mostly the pale, stale male sector of some industries, especially professional photography!
Unfortunately it's something that had its roots in the Victorian era where women were regarded as weak and only good for being barefoot and pregnant!
It's time it stopped!
There are many exceptional women photographers such as Annie Leibovit, Anne Geddes, Heather Angel etc.
But these old farts are intimidated but the fact that a mere woman could come anywhere near them as a photographer!
It's time these people were either put out to pasture or have the fact that in art it doesn't matter whatever gender you associate with as creativity doesn't know that given to them in simple one syllable words!
Gender has absolutely no place in photography especially the professional side!
Maybe the culture in Asian countries is different but we are in a global world now and it's time those countries upped their game!
And it's up to the big players in the industry to be proactive because people look up to them!
Come on Canon, Nikon etc start hiring purely on the basis of merit etc without blithering about gender!!!
I don't believe there is any systematic thing going on in the west against women. I recently migrated to Canada, working in senior position for years in IT. Yet, it's hard to convince the hiring managers that I am excellent in what I do just because I am not 'seen' in the senior circle here in Canada. I could simply say that 'its a white country and they don't hire brown.', but I don't see evidence for that (the people I have met so far are helpful).
I know it's takes a some more years of work in mid-level jobs here before I am noticed by the Canadian market (to develop that invisible and yet important trust factor).
Women who advertised their work (same as how men advertise theirs) find good work irrespective of the industry. With the equity programs that's rampant here in the west, it is going to hurt that economy as whole because the cost of hiring a worker is much higher than elsewhere due to these overheads (salary is not a deal breaker).
Companies are going to hire remote workers, or move their photoshoots overseas to countries where meritocracy is still a thing and less gov intervention and get their job done. Because, ultimately consumers are not going to bear the additional cost on them (we want things affordable).
We still should let meritocracy decide. We have the laws that can be put to use when you see unfairness (with evidence of course). Diversity and equity programs are going to cost the west a lot of jobs.
So if it's not systemic, you think women represent such a low percentage of the top jobs because... they're not as good? Do you have any evidence of that? Or are you suggesting there's something else at play here that hasn't been mentioned, that just happens to also break down along gender lines?
Talent isn't enough these days. You need to be seen and identified with the target buyer. It has always been this way in a free market. There are unseen things like culture, who knows you in 'their' network, etc... influence your attractiveness more.
Figure out what your buyer wants in a given market and work hard to make you an attractive proposition.
Longest version of "No, I have no evidence of my claim whatsoever" I've ever seen...
In my market, low cost is the primary driver. The typical first question asked isn't about availability, but about cost.
Doesn't that mean, that in your market, this would prove that men are willing to work for less than women, and that's what explains their over-representation? This again, seems like something that's unlikely for you to be able to prove as a cause here.
In my industry (the translation industry) it's the opposite - a very strong anti-men "sexism", with 98% project managers females, and with the male translators having to fulfill very high standards, while the females just have to send a resume (any resume). I thought I was exaggerating, until I discovered the reason: The Upper Management is 90% males, and they prefer females to work with, because they are not good price negotiators (they agree more easily to very low rates). But that is not a gender trait - female translators tend to come from wealthier families in most European countries (not rich, but very comfortable), and they don't really "need the money", while the majority of the project managers are H1B visa holders and they will do what the male master says.
So, I think you need to research what happens in your industry a lot deeper than just stopping at the stage of stereotypes.
Hope I helped.
"If you are a non-male professional photographer, ...." - What a way to end an article decrying gender discrimination.
The funny thing about the BrandAmbassadorInfluencerYouTuberMasterofLightSpokesmodelCarnyBarker positons is that it is not some sort of meritocracy choosing the "best photographer", it's a marketing program.
For some reason many camera companies are ignoring a lot of potential buyers by having so few women in their promo programs.
Marketing 101 says that people like to buy stuff from people who they can relate to or respect.
Of the portfolios that I have seen from the various ambassadors there are a lot better than average run of the mill pictures, but few spectacular images. I have seen some very good work but not alot and considering they are part of a corporate marketing plan to sell cameras not scare away buyers with cutting edge work.
But considering the M/F ratio here on FS it makes sense to skew the M/F ratio of marketing ambassadors to reflect difference in the photo world rather than the 49:51 M/F ratio of the real world.
You are correct, it's bad marketing. These are Japanese companies though. She's complaining against Japan. Different culture.
I mentioned the cultural thing in my first post. You might want to start there. Japan isn't North America.
After reading through a lot of the comments here, I think there's a bit of misunderstanding among some people about how bias works and why it's such an insidious thing. There are very few people who will be like "Rebecca is absolutely the best candidate for the job, but she's a woman so I'm going to look somewhere else." That's not really how bias works in most instances. What ends up happening is stuff like "Rebecca is good, but what happens if I promote her and then she gets pregnant and has to take care of her family?" or "Rebecca is so nurturing so I really think she should focus on baby photography instead of something as strenuous as conflict photography" or "Rebecca has some good work, but she's a bit emotional so I don't know if she would be an effective leader." Because of these things, Rebecca starts to seem in your mind like not the best candidate for something and when you pick someone else over her, you think you made the rational best choice. Sometimes you may be correct in your evaluation of Rebecca and sometimes you may be wrong, but few people will challenge their decision-making on that level. People will look at a list of Pros and Cons and weigh them all day, but few people take the extra step to examine that list and ask whether those Pros and Cons are valid in the first place.
This is also why the whole "meritocracy" idea of selecting candidates falls a bit short. Few things in life are truly a meritocracy. People are boosted or dinged constantly on any number of assumed traits based on whatever schema the person doing the evaluation is operating under. To be fair, this isn't just something that happens in photography and it isn't something that only negatively impacts women. As some have pointed out, the same type of issues work the opposite way in certain female-dominated fields. I don't think that we need to find some perfect 50/50 distribution just for the sake of it, but when the stats are ever skewed extremely one way or another, I do think that it's worth exploring why exactly that is and not being lazy about it by simply assuming that the people who aren't represented were simply not good enough.
The oddity about the "women are emotional" argument, is it ALWAYS referring to women's cycles and that they "get angrier" during that time, yet the hormone that is elevated causing the "strong emotions" is testosterone, the hormone that makes males male. Considering that males have far higher levels of testosterone than a woman "at her worst," why are women thought of as being the overly emotional ones?
It's really males who are overly emotional on everything, as demonstrated by so many small tooled males offended by this article.
When men get emotional (which plenty do) there's a higher chance of it being framed as them being passionate, which would be a positive trait. By contrast, if a woman gets emotional they get told to chill out, stop making a scene, and go take a Midol or something. The double standards are real...
Yeah. I've seen the same thing, and it's disgusting.