Anyone can pick up a camera and learn how to shoot, regardless of sex or race. However, if you examine the top tiers of the genre, that basic tenet seems to be less assured. Why is photography seemingly dominated by white males?
The Facts
Both Canon and Nikon have ambassador programs, whose primary focus is representing the brand and furthering photography education. Part of educating is passive; that is, educating is not just the act of passing forth information. It's also a matter of representation — the role model. Like it or not, we learn, both on a conscious and subconscious level, partly through mimicry and a constant feedback loop of comparison. This is particularly important for younger people and children, who lack some of the finer nuances of critical thinking necessary to separate ability, character, identity, and biology. Adults aren't particularly proficient at that either.
Let's look at the actual discrepancy first. Canon's Explorers of Light contains 41 ambassadors:
- Men: 34 (83 percent)
- Women: 7 (17 percent)
- White: 38 (93 percent)
- Black: 0 (0 percent)
- Asian: 2 (5 percent)
- Hispanic: 1 (2 percent)
Nikon's program contains 24 ambassadors:
- Men: 17 (71 percent)
- Women: 7 (29 percent)
- White: 23 (96 percent)
- Black: 1 (4 percent)
- Asian: 0 (0 percent)
- Hispanic: 0 (0 percent)
On the other hand, let's look at the U.S. population:
- Men: 49 percent
- Women: 51 percent
- White: 64 percent
- Black: 13 percent
- Asian: 5 percent
- Hispanic: 16 percent
A quick comparison of the ambassador program numbers to the U.S. population makes it immediately clear that white males are disproportionately over-represented, while women and minorities are underrepresented.
First off, the photographers who are represented by Canon and Nikon are all highly skilled and creative people and deserve the accolades bestowed upon them. That said, why are so many of them white males? Is it a top-down or bottom-up issue? Why does it matter?
Photo by Chelsey Rogers
Why It Matters
You might make the argument that when we look at photos, we're not looking at the photographer. We don't see the sex or race of the person who created that photo. That's true, but if you give 100 chefs the keys to a grocery store and tell them to prepare any dish and 95 of those chefs are Italian, do you think you'll get more pasta dishes or Pot-au-feu?
Photography is an art, and just like any other art, its individual instances of expression are subject to the eye of the creator, who carries with them the collective sum of their cultural experiences, along with other things. For example, my musical compositions are clearly derivative of the Western classical tradition as opposed to Eastern, African, or other music. That's because I was raised in an environment and culture where that was the music I was predominantly exposed to. I am a product of that culture and I exhibit that in the music I produce.
And thus, when we represent photography mostly by white males, we get mostly white male photography. That's not to say that the individuals within that group are inherently flawed, but rather that by over-representing that group, its collective culture becomes over-represented in its artistic output, which in turn perpetuates the illusion of said culture's prominence, which in turn influences the next generation of creators. In turn, other cultures and collective experiences become othered, and the idea of photography itself, the very intrinsic idea of the act, becomes misrepresented via disproportionate representation of its constituents. In photography's specific case, this has very real consequences beyond the idea of the photograph, the photographer, and the act of photographing.
Indeed, I simply Googled, "photographer," and the first six image results were white males. But photography is, like any other art, not self-contained; it is produced (for the most part) for consumption by those beyond its own practitioners. And while the misguided image of the photographer as white male is problematic enough in itself, the effects are far more reaching and influential when we consider the vehicle of photography itself: the photograph.
When photographs disproportionately carry the collective consciousness and culture of a specific group, they in turn disproportionately bias their consumers toward that group's ideas on anything from sexuality to social habits. Culture feeds into art feeds into culture. Culture feeds into advertising feeds into culture. Culture feeds into journalism feeds into culture.
This not only affects the outflux of culture, but also the influx. How can a company reasonably market the (what should be self-evident) idea that photography is as much for women as it for men when men represent their brand over women by a ratio of five to one? There's a critical mass – a bifurcation at which the cycle becomes self-sustaining.
To that point, I recently posed a question in a similar vein in another article, and literally every comment was from a male, most of whom said there was no problem. While they're certainly entitled to their opinions, it's tough to take any denial of any problem's existence as gospel when it comes from the mouth of those who benefit from or are at the very least unaffected by the imbalance, particularly when the imbalance is so severe as to effectively silence the other voice in many circumstances — a mathematical overwhelming. And while I can't claim to have conducted my own rigorous statistical studies, I can say anecdotally that I know more women with a legitimate interest in photography than I do men.
Photo by Paige Rosemond
Top Down or Bottom Up
So now, the question becomes: is it an issue perpetuated by a top-down approach or bottom-up? That is, are those who are the "gatekeepers" responsible for perpetuating this representation of photography, the photographer, and the photograph via their choices of whom to put in those positions? Or is it that the subset of the population that has cameras and then proceeds to achieve an elite status through their work with them is somehow skewed? Certainly, minorities and women are not less creative than white males. Furthermore, while racial and gender income gaps are statistically well documented, capable photography gear is more attainable than ever. Simply put, I don't buy the bottom-up reasoning.
Rather, I think what we're seeing is a third mechanism: top-down by proxy. The lack of diversity in professional fields and representation in culture is well documented in the United States. Simply put, women and minorities are often not represented at a proportion equal to that of their proportion of the total population. For many, it is normalized, and because of that, they may operate with the sense that the skewed proportions are actually representative.
I'm treading dangerously close to claiming to know individual intentions of those who appoint the likes of camera ambassadors, which I obviously don't; so I'll take this chance to mention that this again harkens to the idea of the collective consciousness. And because of that collective consciousness, we experience a diffusion of responsibility, a sort of unconscious meta-bystander effect within the collective consciousness — social inertia, if you will.
Conclusion
A disproportionate representation of a group in an artistic realm results in a cultural deficit of expression, and when that art form often informs, shapes, and literally is popular culture and journalistic dissemination, that deficit in turn skews the culture itself and rewires the collective consciousness of its members. Skewed becomes normalized, and the art form becomes culturally insular, while that which it outputs becomes single-minded by inclusion and othering by exclusion.
Even if the art form itself experiences this phenomenon not as an internal event so much as the projection of a wider culture onto its existence, that does not prevent those who participate in it from working to correct disproportionate representation; indeed, if that art form can be insular in its cultural expression, surely it can be insular (with respect to the wider culture) in its rebuttal of said insularity.
I hear what you're saying however there are plenty of qualified minorities in the photography industry. There is no shortage of talented women, blacks or anything else. I know this isn't an easy conversation but it is one that is needed. I don't think most people understand the power of inclusion..
Interestingly enough, I would use this EXACT argument regarding the lack of asians in prominent film and tv roles.. like asian lead characters in books becoming white when adapted for hollywood. But for the photography industry I just don't see it. That's only my limited view though.. I'm definitely not a big shot photo industry guy.
Interesting article, Alex. As an African-American in this society, we have to "whitewash" ourselves (and our artistry) in order to fit in main-stream commercial photography. When presenting our portfolios, we have to have that "correct" balance of genders and races in our books to even be considered, regardless of the quality we may put out. Undoubtedly when we embark on this photographic adventure, we have available to us for the most part people of our own race. When you first picked up the camera, you photographed those closest to you (which meant friends and family) to get your chops up. Then fast forward to "mainstream" if you weren't Caucasian, you now had to add more "diversity" to your portfolio. When I spoke with my Caucasian counterparts, they were never told to "diversify" (which is code word for "add more white people to your book.")
African-Americans already know that we are further down the proverbial ladder when it comes to almost every walk of life to succeed (be it corporate, political, medical, academia). Please refrain from the "at least you got sports and entertainment covered." (see last year's Academy Awards line up). So we inherently know that we have to work 3 times as hard for a quarter of the work that our white counter parts are receiving (regardless of talent).
Am I complaining? No. Because it forces me to not rest on my photographic laurels and push forward and excel as best I can, and in doing so forcing my African-American brothers and sisters to do so as well.
While I know I have the skill set to be an ambassador for any of the camera manufacturers, hopefully one day, they will see the talent and skill sets of all races and genders, because when it is all said and done, ALL our money is one color and we do spend extremely large sums of money on photographic gear, should we not be represented in the forefront as well?
Such a victim complex. The most successful photographer I know is a black woman. You know how she didn't get there? By viewing herself as a victim.
What's her name?
For the record, Bank, my response and my complex is far from victim. I am successful at what I do, I am not running the "I am not further along in my career, because I am black." However, you are lucky to know that you will NEVER know what my reality is merely because of my skin color. You have all the right to tout your angry white man rants. You have all the rights to bitch and complain about others who are not allowed to share your privilege. So on behalf of all of us who are not white-male privilege, please direct your anger elsewhere. This discussion is larger than Nikon/Canon ambassadorship.
Signed
No Victim Here.
I am not privileged. I grew up in poverty and everything I have, which is modest, I worked my ass off for.
So fuck off with your white privilege bullshit. It's devisive, hate fueled retoric and that's all it is.
You're also lucky to not know my reality. The difference is you get to bitch and complain and bash white people and I don't. White aren't allowed to complain because we have "privilege".
You can ALWAYS tell when you hit a nerve... All the profanity comes spewing out... I guess you told me... You may have grown up in poverty, but guess what, you still didn't grow up BLACK.
You win. Clearly nothing worse than being black. Congrats on that, guy who definitely doesn't have a victim complex.
Trust me, I didn't win... Thank you for not cursing me out again. We can agree to disagree without all the profanity.
This sums it up pretty much:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwA_4OamFhI
So true Dallas. I'm from outside of ATL and I mentor new photographers, and teach workshops. Sometimes I have to cross that bridge and tell black photographers the truth about why agencies aren't responding to their emails. They have to diversity their books.
thats a interesting question - i'd like to see more data. my own limited knowledge of my area tends to show the reverse - more women then men. then again i imagine it varys alot depending on the specifics. Id think women would have a advantage in certain fields like weddings and boudoir . def worth looking at
I like how people are making a comparison to the NBA being dominated by blacks as an issue but; overtime that happened. Photography has been around longer than any sports and today you only see less than a hand full of minorities then that could be the problem. It is not a racial thing when it comes to sports because the owner of the teams are white and just so happens they are choosing talent based more on tangible results. I can time an athlete to see how fast they are. How accurate they are with shooting the ball. You are left with little room to form an opinion of how good someone is but; when it comes to artistic work it is more objective and there is the problem. There are talented people of all races but; the representation is not diversified enough.
I'm a monster...
This shouldn't be a surprise to folks. If you break down socioeconomic status in childhood with artistic careers (yes, there is a racial correlation to socioeconomic status - even though this correlation is becoming less relevant as time goes on), you'll find that those who did not grow up in positions of means have a different set of priorities - ones that are usually tied to money, prestige, or power. As opportunity and economic circumstances change, we should see change in these statistics.
"A disproportionate representation of a group in an artistic realm results in a cultural deficit of expression"
I never thought of that in Photography. Very interesting article.
What difference does it make how many of each race are photographers? If someone likes photography, they pick up a camera and start shooting. Some take shitty pics and some are driven enough to learn and develop their talent and become awesome photographers, color be damned.
Maybe there aren't a lot of blacks who want to get into it, just like they might not like golf or whatever. To each his own. I've met some great black photographers and them being black didn't make a difference to me, all I wanted to talk about was what they were shooting with, you know, photography stuff.
On the notion of the "white male" being discussed here as well in the country right now, I think it's freaking idiotic to be made to feel ashamed to be a white male. I didn't ask to be born white, or male, but I'm damn proud to be me, and so should all of you to be who you are, white, black, brown, red, purple or whatever.
We all need to stop the classifications and just be humans and be respectful to one another. The world is sometimes a shitty place made that way by shitty people. The world needs peace and we can all do our part to make that happen.
Alex, great article. I wish I had the time to read all these comments too. Keep challenging people
His article does have some very strong points & those stats are sad & unfair numbers. These strong points can also be applied to the literary or journalistic worlds as well. I do commend his writing about this important topic.
This is a presupposition, because I do not know Alex's race: one could only wonder, had a Black man or woman written this piece, would it had been published?
I do not want my point to take away from his writing. I do want my point to explain that our basis (Black photographers talking about this white American or white European domination of photography) go as far back as Roy DeCarava's, Committee to End Discrimination Against Black Photographers activism in the 20th century. Even Julia Margaret Cameron, a white British woman had to meet the discouragement of white men telling her not to copyright her photography in the 19th century. She disregarded their discouragement & went ahead & had her work copyrighted.
There were many women whose work was credited to their husbands; especially Black women photographers who worked with their husbands in the 19th century. Yet, again, it appears that this white men domination or overrun spirals into any creative field, where the outcome is dependent on the distribution powers that are beyond our (Blacks worldwide) approval or rejection.
Not sure about you, but its the opposite in many genres like family, newborn, seniors, basically non-commercial work. Not saying its a bad thing. I am thinking geeky techie male photographers are not usually the best with social skills and being extroverts than a female when its more obvious natural skills. Again, not a bad thing, just saying.
The question should be, why is both Canon and Nikon a lot more white males than anything else? Who knows if its metric system they're simply following or personally like x, y, and z white male photographers more than other options...right? In genres that isn't commercial, its dominated by females from what I've seen. Especially in the IPS sector of the photography industry.
What do you want white males to do? What are we supposed to do with our lives that is acceptable to anyone who isn't a white male? Would the world be a better place if we all just removed ourselves from the human gene pool?
Silly article
I have to say you make a number of great points in this article. Living in Houston, I guess I see a lot less of this issue in my day to day life. The majority of popular and successful photographers that I personally know are people of color and / or female. I'm not offended by the article (why would I be?!), but I think I can hazard a guess as to why a majority of these commenters are upset. I think it's safe to assume that the majority of Fstoppers readers are average folks that feel powerless to affect change around them on a societal level, especially concerning race, as it's currently the ultimate social hot potato. That's just a guess, who the hell knows really.
I do get that it's hard to be judged on the merits of your work, when those standards of merit are based solely on a societal bias stuck in a feedback loop. How do you break the loop? You bang on the doors of those who sit atop the tallest piles of money. My part in all of this? I do my best to portray everyone and everything around me in the most beautiful way I can dream up. I love all my friends, and they're the most colorful bunch around.
(crossing my fingers and hoping I'm not roasted to death for this)
I've seen a lot of photos and amazing work, and I could probably say I've seen the faces of maybe ten photographers. I had never even considered race to be a part of photography, because I consider it a worldwide hobby that so many have access to.
You're a doctoral student and setting up kafka scenarios for a comment section. I feel like you wrote this article to purposely drum up some attention, which is a shame.
Nope. I'm a doctoral student in math, and my job is to recognize patterns in numbers. I saw a numerical pattern and I asked questions about it.
I referenced your student status as to say you're educated.
Did you find the same patterns anywhere other than the two ambassador groups?
I stuck with the ambassador groups mostly because the point I was getting at is that these are (according to their own company's descriptions) the people who are supposed to represent photography to the broader culture and promote its education, yet numerically speaking, they don't seem to match the demographics of the broader culture. It was more a "are these the appropriate role models?" question.
That is fair. There would be nothing wrong with looking at two set groups and questioning how it matches with demographics.
But "Is Photography Overrun by White Males?"
That is quite a heavy title for the small scale you're looking at. It is hard for me to believe you didn't have any slight intention of drumming up attention.
Of course I want to drum up attention if there is an inequity in the world, particularly in the industry I work in. That being said, my intention was not to drum up attention in the sense of sensationalizing or pitting people against each other, merely to get a conversation started.
But the ambassador programs does not define the industrie! you have better talents or equals to those who are ambassador that will maby never get the chance of being one! Just surf on instagram i see people doing mind blowing work with less then 5000 followers and others doing ok to great images with 150 000 and more ! But maby you are right also look at Fstoppers :p all white dudes running it :P haha
But to me this subject is like saying .. is the NBA overrun by black men, or is the NHL overrun by white men! In canada most people are white.. its like that so there is a great chance more of everything will be white someone doing it!!! its just plane logic to me and not a racial thing ! and i think its a lot easier for a female to get started then a men. when i was young i did not have 20 female friend wanting there portrait taking a loving to pose... i had m ale friends playing hockey. nore of them gave sh....t of getting a picture. i had more chance getting into a fight :P versus the girl with her female friends.... in general women are more likely to want a picture.. anyways where i live its like that :P
Looks like I'm late to the party, but I'd like to add my two cents even if Alex is the only one to see it.
Firstly, this is a complex situation, and it is hard to judge the effect that anything has on demographics. So talking about it in articles like this is totally fine by me - we may never figure out the truth, but by discussing it we can at least learn more.
But I do see a problem with the idea that having disproportionate representation causes a stagnation in creativity and cultural value. The reasoning behind that is that race and gender are the key factors in culture and creative thinking, which I feel is off base and possibly even harmful.
This same thinking is why companies have diversity goals for hiring. And even though the black person they hire grew up in the same neighbourhood as everyone else in the company, went to the same schools, and has the same experience, the company thinks that they'll bring diversity just because they're black, or just because they're a women. In reality, your race and gender are only a small part of your identity. A white male who grew up in a different country, came from different schools, and worked different jobs will almost certainly have more diverse opinions.
Judging people primarily by their race or their gender seems to me to be a dangerous choice, where people are generalized and stereotyped further, and we value the appearance of being diverse over the actuality of being diverse.
Photography is a learned art, and the style of any particular photographer is something they've honed over years of practice. Personally, I think that that experience has a greater influence on that photographer's art than their race or gender ever could.
If you scroll to the bottom of F-Stoppers website & look under the ABOUT section. From there, click on the Meet the Writers tab, you will clearly see the lack of diversity there that can be a reflection of the data included with this article. A lot of those editors & writers are photographers as well. Aside from this, Maurice Berger has written extensively about Black Photographers for the New York Times, & he is a white man. Therefore, it all points back to the whole world's perception of Race being discussed, when it becomes important enough to those who benefit from it. If you are non-white, chances are you won't benefit from it or have a fair voice in contributing to it.
If a Black man or woman had written this article or had a Lens Blog position at the NY Times like Maurice, he or she would be titled, angry with an always talking about Race or not admitting that we as a human race has come very far kind of tag on their writings.
Sometimes, to comprehend the seriousness of a situation (such as racism, sexism, inequality, poverty), those that benefit from having the proper outlets to be published (white men talking about the imbalances in the professional world), should let those who are on the front line of those particular struggles, speak first & then they (the white establishment) should listen. They do not need to edit it, critique it, become inspired by it, or translate it. Just listen to those who are a part of it. I am writing specifically about the topic of Race, & how these articles, opinions, or essays are delivered to this world, when the dialogue of racism is given a popular view: it is a popular view that does not always include those of us who know from firsthand experiences, what oppression, racism, discrimination & systematic inequalities consist of.
Black photographer here!
This is a very thoughtful and much needed article Alex, but its focus is a little problematic. Whenever we talk about any race 'overrunning' anything we're going to get people's backs up. Nothing wrong with that sometimes- not everything has to be said in a way that makes people feel comfortable, but I'm not sure this argument needed to put people on edge. There aren't enough black photographers, there needs to be more avenues, there should be more promotion of brilliant black photographers such as Pulitzer Prize winner John White.
Could institutional racism and cultural hegemony in an overwhelmingly white art world play a part in who does and doesn't get promoted on the big stage? Undoubtedly.
I don't know if you chose your title for click bait, but these type of finger pointing titles need to stop. How could anybody who is white not be angered by the idea this title promotes? No matter how much truth is in the body of the text, nobody will want to hear about it because you've essentially called people who, I don't know, started taking pictures because their Grandad had an old camera and would take them out on Sundays, part of a problem that isn't really their fault. You could have said almost everything you said simply be reframing the question: 'Is there enough black representation in the photography world?'.
This achieves two things. Firstly, it doesn't seem to shout (ala MTV's white male resolution bullshit) at people who aren't doing anything wrong, even if they may be part of a wider issue of privilege and cultural/economic power. It's important white people know about the stats you just posted- you want them to READ it and think about it, rather than assume a defencive position from the off.
Secondly, putting black photographers in the title would mean the lead hook of the article is about black people, not white people, who you're saying are taking centre stage too much.
Just my thoughts. Overall though, thank you for bringing the issue to light. A good read!
All best,
Johny Pitts
Thank you. While I disagree that there is any conspiracy of any kind to keep non white, non male photographers out, I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said. Absolutely on point.
I don't think there is a direct, focused mission to discriminate against black photographers, and I'm certainly not suggesting anything connected to that ridiculous 'illuminati' idea. What I'm saying is- take Tate Modern in Britain- directly built from Tate sugar plantation money in the West Indies, as with so many galleries and museums across the world. Those institutions are going to pass control down to family members who will hire friends and will promote their own tastes, naturally. In an increasingly diverse and egalitarian society, those bastions of arts and culture have failed to keep up with what is happening in 21st century creative communities. There is this huge though silent power behind what drives what a huge portion of the world calls aesthetically beautiful. And very often the roots of that power were formed by Empire and exploitation. There are no easy answers- I like what I like formed by my own experiences. But it is definitely important people are made aware of this power balance, and that where possible we prevent collective amnesia about how this power imbalance came to be.
That's fair, and you're clearly more versed of that aspect of the industry than I am, so I won't argue.
On the other hand I question just how relevant these old institutions are in today's world anyway. Certainly the internet must have made them less important and diminished their influence?
And even the hoopla over the brand ambassadors? Who really pays attention to these people anyway?
So John, with you being a black photographer and all (and we are living in this world of political correctness), how should the article been titled? This is not a troll question. It's a honest question. If It were worded "Not Enough Black Photographers in Decision Making Positions" the next argument would be, of course, Blacks are whining, complaining and playing the victim's card.
Bottom line: In today's society there IS no proper way in order to address racial issues without someone getting bent out of shape.
The problem with the title is it sort of suggests "hey white men, you're overrunning photography- just stop taking photographs okay" and the only logical response to that, if you are white and male is to say 'fuck you'. It's why the messages here have turned into debate instead of dialogue. Whereas if the message conveyed the affirmative, it might suggest "hey black people, hey white people, wouldn't photography be a much richer, more exciting place if we had more voices from cultures not getting enough exposure in photography?
I know it came from a good place, but it's this type of anger-making, divisive, seperationist clickbait title that gifted Trump the presidency.
We may have trouble abrewing in the next presidency (another place for another time). The one thing I DID enjoy about this entire campaign was this: Racisim has ALWAYS been there (regardless who the current president was and all the strives we made since the civil rights movement yada yada yada). And with him running for president, it brought up all the things we (as black people) have been going through since Jim Crow.
Racism isn't meant to be pretty. Discussing racism isn't meant to be nice. We are in a world of super sensitive people who cannot discuss or handle the truth without getting angry, nasty and name calling. When you call a spade a spade (no pun intended), accept the fact and deal with it. If we cannot have an open, honest discussion about racism (in fear of hurting feelings), nothing will ever get solved.
Feelings will get hurt. It is what it is.
I agree with you about the current political climate bringing out issues that have been latent in American society and I have no problem with honest discussion, but I have every problem when it isn't sensible honest discussion. You white people this, you black people that. It's where America goes wrong, and why American democracy / freedom of speech is all over the place. Nobody seems to understand that it comes with responsibility.
John, I'm mobile, so excuse my brevity. With all due respect, all I can do is continue to affirm that the single world in my title that so many people are obsessive over was used by the very dictionary definition I've provided multiple times: "to be present in large numbers." I can't defend it anymore beyond continuing to tell you my intentions and that the fact that so many people are reading that much into a word that I frankly don't find to have a negative connotation, which is also supported by its rather neutral definition instead of digesting and commenting on the 1,500 words that follow says a lot to me. If all it takes is an ambiguous word relating to mathematical proportions that isn't even part of a declarative statement, my question to you is: why are people so ready to be offended?
Also, I truly appreciate your thoughtful comments and perspective. It's very much a learning process for me; I always try my best to talk about these things in a way that draws the attention I feel these issues need but without sensationalizing.
You win with that stupid, provocative clickbait! I created an account just to say this:
It's such stupid assumption that you should be ashamed to even post this. What will be next? I got a headline for you!
Is Canon racist? Designing expensive, sharp, rigid telephoto in white color, while cheap plastic blurry lenses are black! We weren't able to contact Canon for info about Asian lenses.
It's just... too stupid to even comment properly.
EDIT: This comment by me was way out of line, and assumed way more than actual article. For everyone who felt wronged or offended I apologize. I will leave it as a proof of my past mistakes.
I didn't assume anything. I found statistics and asked questions about them. In fact, I went out of my way to say "I don't know" what the individual intentions are.
If you are writing an article then you can write in two basic ways. That's objective and subjective. If what you wanted to say is 'here are statistics, look' then it would be OK, and the title would be something like 'Photography: age, gender, and race - 2016 statistics from numerous sources" or something along those lines. By constructing your title like you did, fully knowing the statistics, you basically asked a reader a rhetorical question. Not only that, usage of the pejorative [overrun] is affirming that you wanted to add your take without maybe being too obvious.No one is overrun here, no one is oppressed, no one is making decisions about how can enter the field. Those things add up and end up as being a slap in the face to every other gender and race, because of how you worded it, in my opinion - intentionally.
The assumption is that white males are actually blocking the way for any other human being, as stated above.
"Overrun (verb): spread over or occupy (a place) in large numbers."
I asked a question of numerical proportions. You're welcome to your opinion as to my intentions, but you're also speaking to guy who wrote this, and I'm telling you straight up that those were not my intentions. That's why I left the question open-ended and simply talked about possible implications if it were true. If I wanted to make a statement, the title would have been just that, a statement.
You could feel more secure by wrapping it and leaving it as a question, that's for sure, and although it could be worded less 'hostile' [no other word comes to mind, not native and all that], I am sure that even if you wanted to make a statement it would have far more fallout, this is why I am thinking that no matter your thinking [intentions], you couldn't just write it, because people would slam you for bias and/or racism.
And just as PS, when I translate word 'overrun' has only one meaning in my language: "To seize the positions of and defeat conclusively"Every time it is used as pejorative. So it could really go both ways with no definitive way to confirm one version or the other.
I owe you an apology, after thought and chat it seems you raised the right question. What more can I say? I feel stupid, sorry.