cam
the need for speed
that sounds like my boyfriend...
lorenbliss
Member
As a former instructor, very surprised by 100:6 ratio
As a former instructor, very surprised by 100:6 ratio
When I was teaching photography (1975-1981) as a part-time instructor in both a two-year and four-year college, the vast majority of my students were women -- the female:male ratios in my classes were typically 10:1 -- and these women were aesthetic revolutionaries as well: in total, unanimous and often deeply thoughtful rebellion against the assertion that “if you photograph people, it's exploitation not art" -- the core shibboleth of the Ansel Adams cult that rules the Puget Sound region and to this day cripples photography in the Pacific Northwest.
(The “Ansel” cult, by which I suspect Adams himself would have been appalled, is so venomous in its demand for absolute aesthetic and ideological conformity, its members actually shouted down Gene Smith when, during a 1976 visit, he tried to talk about the socioeconomic and political realities of photographing the human condition. Hence these women who were my students were truly brave; I was notorious not only as a defiant social-documentarian but -- since the "Ansel" cult is as hatefully xenophobic as it is relentlessly orthodox -- as an outlander too, indeed someone even worse than a "Californicator": a "Manhattanizer" from "Jew York.")
In any case, I always assumed -- not just from my classes in the Puget Sound area but from the fellow working photographers I knew in NYC -- that by the 1980s there were at least as many women in the field as men. (I also noted that the women in my classes seemed to have an almost instinctive grasp of the principles of visual geometry, light and color. This was something the majority of men sadly lacked, whether due to simple human genetics -- the biological fact females experience colors more vividly than males -- or the overwhelming "art-is-sissy" anti-aculturation typical of U.S. boyhood outside the greatest cities.)
As to why there are so few women here at RFF, my guess is that it has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the form: in terms of user controls, this is the most difficult site to operate I have ever encountered. Indeed it seems that to be competent at it, one must have a PhD in computer science or the equivalent in experience. A female friend well versed in IT operations had enormous problems with it while helping me post my mugshot as an avatar, and my once-and-future-wife (we met 42 years ago in Manhattan, wed in 1967, divorced in 1974 and reconnected in 2006) has extreme difficulty navigating this site too -- and she wrote the entire computer-training program for the staff of the New Jersey school district she administered before retirement.
The possibility it's the technology of this particular site and not its content is substantially bolstered by the impression given by local and national media (especially The New York Times): that most of the people now teaching traditional photography are women, whether at the secondary-school (grades 6-12) level or in colleges, typically in fine art departments.
I wonder: are there any national statistics, by gender, on usage of film versus digital? Or on the gender of photography teachers by preferred technologies?
Meanwhile, major-league kudos to Natalia for initiating this very-interesting discussion.
As a former instructor, very surprised by 100:6 ratio
When I was teaching photography (1975-1981) as a part-time instructor in both a two-year and four-year college, the vast majority of my students were women -- the female:male ratios in my classes were typically 10:1 -- and these women were aesthetic revolutionaries as well: in total, unanimous and often deeply thoughtful rebellion against the assertion that “if you photograph people, it's exploitation not art" -- the core shibboleth of the Ansel Adams cult that rules the Puget Sound region and to this day cripples photography in the Pacific Northwest.
(The “Ansel” cult, by which I suspect Adams himself would have been appalled, is so venomous in its demand for absolute aesthetic and ideological conformity, its members actually shouted down Gene Smith when, during a 1976 visit, he tried to talk about the socioeconomic and political realities of photographing the human condition. Hence these women who were my students were truly brave; I was notorious not only as a defiant social-documentarian but -- since the "Ansel" cult is as hatefully xenophobic as it is relentlessly orthodox -- as an outlander too, indeed someone even worse than a "Californicator": a "Manhattanizer" from "Jew York.")
In any case, I always assumed -- not just from my classes in the Puget Sound area but from the fellow working photographers I knew in NYC -- that by the 1980s there were at least as many women in the field as men. (I also noted that the women in my classes seemed to have an almost instinctive grasp of the principles of visual geometry, light and color. This was something the majority of men sadly lacked, whether due to simple human genetics -- the biological fact females experience colors more vividly than males -- or the overwhelming "art-is-sissy" anti-aculturation typical of U.S. boyhood outside the greatest cities.)
As to why there are so few women here at RFF, my guess is that it has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with the form: in terms of user controls, this is the most difficult site to operate I have ever encountered. Indeed it seems that to be competent at it, one must have a PhD in computer science or the equivalent in experience. A female friend well versed in IT operations had enormous problems with it while helping me post my mugshot as an avatar, and my once-and-future-wife (we met 42 years ago in Manhattan, wed in 1967, divorced in 1974 and reconnected in 2006) has extreme difficulty navigating this site too -- and she wrote the entire computer-training program for the staff of the New Jersey school district she administered before retirement.
The possibility it's the technology of this particular site and not its content is substantially bolstered by the impression given by local and national media (especially The New York Times): that most of the people now teaching traditional photography are women, whether at the secondary-school (grades 6-12) level or in colleges, typically in fine art departments.
I wonder: are there any national statistics, by gender, on usage of film versus digital? Or on the gender of photography teachers by preferred technologies?
Meanwhile, major-league kudos to Natalia for initiating this very-interesting discussion.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I might disagree with this, particularly from the gender perspective.
This site uses a very "vanilla" implementation of Vbulletin, which is one of the most common web-board systems. I consider the interface and layout of this one here on RFF to be more attractive than most other Vbulletin sites. The default "skin" is distinctive, but does not distract from the purpose.
As a comparison, I would use APUG, a site which has many cross-over members from RFF. It also uses Vbulletin, but their interface is far more cluttered and "busy" than the one here at RFF.
They also have a similar gender survey on line:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum47/44189-apug-gender-balance-you-male-female.html
As of the time of this posting, we're running 18.65% over there, which has been fairly consistent for some time, as has been the ~6% here.
Those who use web boards frequently are very familiar with the Vbulletin systems, as all of them have the same general look and feel to them. Vbulletin and Phpbb seem to be the most common web board systems, and I've never had any trouble navigating either of them. They both, in my not so humble opinion, do what they are intended to do and do it well, and don't clutter up the communication with needless whizbang or try to be all things to all people, as is the case far too many times with web-based applications.
I don't know about formal statistics, but I do know what I see among my friends and associates. Of those I know who use film regularly, all of them are male except one, and she is intending to "go digital" soon.
Of all of my girlfriends who take photos regularly, most of them use those various nondescript P&S digicams or {biting tongue} cam phones.
I'm really the only one in my circle who is a film fan, and I also seem to be one of the few remaining active women here on RFF.
T
tedwhite
Guest
I had the same experience as Loren Bliss - not with this website but with my photography classes. I taught photography at Blackburn College (IL) from 1970-74 and 60% of my students were women. At Cochise College (AZ) from 1980-82 and again from 2002-05 the percentage of women students was above 90%. These were strictly black and white film classes and there were always more students trying to get into the classes than we could accept.
At first I thought it was due to my brilliant teaching. Then I learned that my class had recently been allowed to fulfill a humanities credit. As the word got around among students that they could take Photography and avoid the Greeks, the makeup of the classes changed profoundly - from 12 students passionately interested in learning photography to 10 completely uninterested students and 2 who wanted to learn photography. When I tried screening students for the introductory class I was accused of discrimination. Ultimately I quit teaching it.
At first I thought it was due to my brilliant teaching. Then I learned that my class had recently been allowed to fulfill a humanities credit. As the word got around among students that they could take Photography and avoid the Greeks, the makeup of the classes changed profoundly - from 12 students passionately interested in learning photography to 10 completely uninterested students and 2 who wanted to learn photography. When I tried screening students for the introductory class I was accused of discrimination. Ultimately I quit teaching it.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I taught photography at the community college back in the seventies and the class was about half and half. Over the years I've had a number of people, students and others, want to use my darkroom and with two exceptions they've ALL been female. I still have the darkroom if anybody is interested and lives close to North Miami, FL. preacherpop42@aol.com
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Of all the young photographers I have ever met in the SF Bay Area whether in photo classes, public darkrooms, South of Market art studios, etc., over 90% were female. I guess men tend to hang out online and women less.
jody36
Well-known
My daughter uses a konica S2 but she is to busy with school to hang out online.
BTMarcais
Well-known
The majority of students where I went to college were male (Rochester Institute of Technology)... but in the art programs it was much more equal male to female. And in the photography department it was probably a bit over 60% female. Considering the university as a whole was about 70% male, that was a big change from the other programs...
minoltist7
pussy photographer
Poll is not representative, because most women are not so much internet-addicted... they spend more time for shooting , while men bragging about their equipment 
T
tedwhite
Guest
Minoltist7 - indeed, you do have a point. One wonders how many women photographers (beginners, intermediates, professionals, etc.) are even aware of RFF.com? Probably not many. In fact, when I told my students in 2005 about the site I subsequently learned during a question/answer session that only a few had bothered to visit it.
I see you are in the Ukraine. I frequently visit ARAX photo site and chat with Gevorg. By the way, you have listed some excellent cameras. Anyway, check out Gevorg's website. Very, very interesting. It appears that the cameras he produces get nothing but rave reviews.
I see you are in the Ukraine. I frequently visit ARAX photo site and chat with Gevorg. By the way, you have listed some excellent cameras. Anyway, check out Gevorg's website. Very, very interesting. It appears that the cameras he produces get nothing but rave reviews.
oftheherd
Veteran
Sad, but I think I understand. My first try at teaching was an introductory class in Police Science. I had some who wanted very much to learn and some I have no idea why they were there. Two only attended the first class and the two test nights. I gave them each an F as they failed the tests.
The school didn't like that a put a lot of pressure on me. I finally agreed to give them each an I (like a D), with the idea that it satisfied the school (an overseas campus of the old LACC), but gave them no credits they could transfer. When they didn't ask me to take another class I wasn't sad.
Then I had to take over another more advanced class in investigations, in the middle of the term. Introductory classes had done their job of culling students who shouldn't be in that field, and it was fun to teach students who wanted to learn.
Much later, I was invited to teach at a University and one of the classes was forensic photogarphy. It was fun as again, I had students that wanted to learn. Although students not in the police studies wanted in the class, it was hard as those in police studies got first choice. Those few who did wanted to learn. Still fun to teach.
If that was the reason you didn't like teaching those students just there for the "non-geek" class, I understand. It is so much fun teaching those who want to learn, and because of that, put in the time studying and learning. It is no fun otherwise.
Kent
Finally at home...
Poll is not representative, because most women are not so much internet-addicted... they spend more time for shooting , while men bragging about their equipment
Guess you're right!
Lilserenity
Well-known
Wow, only 5% women here.
Jeee I knew that there would be some difference. Mind you I hardly ever see any one with a Leica, and come to think of it never seen another girl with a Leica.
However I'd say photography is fairly equal with a slight male bias perhaps, it depends where you are shooting.
As to how this all figures on the final negative/slide -- I couldn't say, I just shoot as and when and what begs me to.
I've got a pretty quirky interest in what I shoot anyway, not many people spend what is now a couple of years photographing a town in preparation for a photo book -- that being Milton Keynes (and if you know it, you might now be wondering what on earth I've spent 2 years doing...) --- hmm yeah. Odd like I say but I totally dig what I'm doing, that's the main thing
Jeee I knew that there would be some difference. Mind you I hardly ever see any one with a Leica, and come to think of it never seen another girl with a Leica.
However I'd say photography is fairly equal with a slight male bias perhaps, it depends where you are shooting.
As to how this all figures on the final negative/slide -- I couldn't say, I just shoot as and when and what begs me to.
I've got a pretty quirky interest in what I shoot anyway, not many people spend what is now a couple of years photographing a town in preparation for a photo book -- that being Milton Keynes (and if you know it, you might now be wondering what on earth I've spent 2 years doing...) --- hmm yeah. Odd like I say but I totally dig what I'm doing, that's the main thing
dee
Well-known
Lone voice in the wilderness - can we have a choice of '' un-deeciced '' or '' miss aligned , miss-taken ?
Yup , the sole mixed up [ certified ] near miss in the forum - and you gals thought that you are in the minority !
Just like my playmates and mentors , I was simply a Tomboy , with a box camera , no question or confusing , it's just that others saw me as being on the other side of the divide . OOPS ! Of course , from 11 ... it wasn't so simple ..
indee'd my dee'rangedfinders help me contain the relentless wrongness .
Any other Tomboys around ?
dee
Yup , the sole mixed up [ certified ] near miss in the forum - and you gals thought that you are in the minority !
Just like my playmates and mentors , I was simply a Tomboy , with a box camera , no question or confusing , it's just that others saw me as being on the other side of the divide . OOPS ! Of course , from 11 ... it wasn't so simple ..
indee'd my dee'rangedfinders help me contain the relentless wrongness .
Any other Tomboys around ?
dee
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I've gotten emails and private messages from women with questions about techniques, and even gear at times. The impression I get is that they tend to be more private people than men and think that some of the sarcasm and nastiness on internet fora will be directed at them, possibly even BECAUSE they are women. The stay out of the boys' club syndrome.
On another tack, if you ever read any of the so called "Womens' Magazines" there is some prety good photography illustrating the articles, but what are the articles about? Some of them are about babies and children for sure, but it's mostly slanted towards how to attract a man, how to catch a man, and how to keep a man. That's the justification for the articles about gourmet cooking in a jiffy, the latest hair styles and make-up trends, the best skirt style for your figure, what spike heels do to make your legs look sexier (and on rare occasion, what they do to ruin your feet), how a man's astrological sign afffects his being attracted to certain perfume scents but not others, and in the last couple of decades, how to be the hottest lover your guy has ever experienced.
Now let's examine the demographics of a forum like this one. It's likely not as skewed towards males as the postings seem to indicate, but there are a lot of guys here. They either use Leicas or at least appreciate the finer things in life. They're not likely to be a total klutz when it comes to replacing a light bulb, or maybe even the broken switch in your grandmother's prized hand painted porcelain table lamp. After all, they know how to change a lens or put on a lenshood. Some of them even like to keep things looking spiffy and spend tons of money on "clothes" for their Leicas, keeping Luigi busy.
They're a bright bunch, mostly college educated, and many having advanced degrees. They know how to tie more than one kind of knot in a necktie and feel comfortable when they put on one of their suits and know when they'd be a bit overdressed in anything more than an open collar shirt with a sports jacket. They probably earn more than average and have better job security than most guys.
But I suspect that the females lurking here already know all that. That's part of the reason why they're here lurking. The other part is because they enjoy photography and are eager to learn all they can about it.
On another tack, if you ever read any of the so called "Womens' Magazines" there is some prety good photography illustrating the articles, but what are the articles about? Some of them are about babies and children for sure, but it's mostly slanted towards how to attract a man, how to catch a man, and how to keep a man. That's the justification for the articles about gourmet cooking in a jiffy, the latest hair styles and make-up trends, the best skirt style for your figure, what spike heels do to make your legs look sexier (and on rare occasion, what they do to ruin your feet), how a man's astrological sign afffects his being attracted to certain perfume scents but not others, and in the last couple of decades, how to be the hottest lover your guy has ever experienced.
Now let's examine the demographics of a forum like this one. It's likely not as skewed towards males as the postings seem to indicate, but there are a lot of guys here. They either use Leicas or at least appreciate the finer things in life. They're not likely to be a total klutz when it comes to replacing a light bulb, or maybe even the broken switch in your grandmother's prized hand painted porcelain table lamp. After all, they know how to change a lens or put on a lenshood. Some of them even like to keep things looking spiffy and spend tons of money on "clothes" for their Leicas, keeping Luigi busy.
They're a bright bunch, mostly college educated, and many having advanced degrees. They know how to tie more than one kind of knot in a necktie and feel comfortable when they put on one of their suits and know when they'd be a bit overdressed in anything more than an open collar shirt with a sports jacket. They probably earn more than average and have better job security than most guys.
But I suspect that the females lurking here already know all that. That's part of the reason why they're here lurking. The other part is because they enjoy photography and are eager to learn all they can about it.
Lilserenity
Well-known
I think the bottom line is it doesn't bother me whether it's dominated to one side, or if I'm the smaller segment of the user market -- what I do know is I enjoy photography and shooting a Leica.
As for women's magazines, I flick through them in the dental surgery and I used to buy them on the odd occassion but I think it was more to do with the thing to be seen doing.
I never really could abide by them, a bit too saccharine for my tastes! I'm not a tomboy or butch, but I'm more interested in stretching my mind than reading the same pap (although the odd interesting recipe doesn't hurt) -- my current read is this: http://tinyurl.com/mkbook[url] -- a...s I'm just good at being a pain in the ass :)
As for women's magazines, I flick through them in the dental surgery and I used to buy them on the odd occassion but I think it was more to do with the thing to be seen doing.
I never really could abide by them, a bit too saccharine for my tastes! I'm not a tomboy or butch, but I'm more interested in stretching my mind than reading the same pap (although the odd interesting recipe doesn't hurt) -- my current read is this: http://tinyurl.com/mkbook[url] -- a...s I'm just good at being a pain in the ass :)
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Wow, only 5% women here.
Jeee I knew that there would be some difference. Mind you I hardly ever see any one with a Leica, and come to think of it never seen another girl with a Leica.
However I'd say photography is fairly equal with a slight male bias perhaps, it depends where you are shooting.
As to how this all figures on the final negative/slide -- I couldn't say, I just shoot as and when and what begs me to.
I've got a pretty quirky interest in what I shoot anyway, not many people spend what is now a couple of years photographing a town in preparation for a photo book -- that being Milton Keynes (and if you know it, you might now be wondering what on earth I've spent 2 years doing...) --- hmm yeah. Odd like I say but I totally dig what I'm doing, that's the main thing
The one and only time I've been to England the place that really sticks in my mind is Milton Keynes ... I thought I was driving through the world's largest supermarket car park!
I also spent about a week in Gosport staying with a business aquaintance ... I've never seen so many pubs in such a small place in my life ... and we drank at nearly all of them and only got thrown out of one!
Lilserenity
Well-known
The one and only time I've been to England the place that really sticks in my mind is Milton Keynes ... I thought I was driving through the world's largest supermarket car park!
I also spent about a week in Gosport staying with a business aquaintance ... I've never seen so many pubs in such a small place in my life ... and we drank at nearly all of them and only got thrown out of one!
Milton Keynes is a very deceptive place, I don't live there and am not sure I could live there (I would, but I'm right on the South Downs here which I love to bits) it's a pretty big place but a pretty misunderstood one which is why I'm doing a photo study of it. I can't think of many other cities that are as green as MK is but there again, it stands out so much because it is so utterly unlike anything else in England. I like it because it is such a green environment to live in and it has a wonderful segregated cycle/pedestrian route system, away from the grid roads (which are awkward to get onto by foot, only to have traffic rushing by at 60-70mph!) and the lakes and canals are wonderfully integrated I find. I've always found myself to be at odds with suburbia but something about MK does it for me, and with the wonderful road system as a driver, I don't think I've ever been in a traffic jam. And finally, the central area is completely different to anything in Britain, and in fact though people liken it to little Los Angeles, it bears little resemblance to that either (I've been to both.)
Anyway I don't wish to hijack the thread, I'm hoping when I'm done, I won't end up with a book that changes what you think, but at least communicates how I see it shall we say. And if it changes how you view something, then so be it, but I think it's quite rare to do that, I think it's better to communicate your own understanding of a subject.
And going back to the original ethos perhaps of the subject, I think that is common to any photographer, whatever their gender.
In part, I'm also trying to understand something that has capivated me since I was barely 3'6" -- at a young age, when you have only ever lived in small villages replete with duck ponds, thatch and cob and then visit this place wrought out of glass, green trees lining boulevards and concrete, wide roads and the architecture like you would only have seen on a sci-fi tv programme, it somehow grabbed me and I've been fascinated by the place since.
Anyway, that's enough of me waxing lyrically about the world's largest supermarket car park