Where are all the women?

[GerrySiegel]

<p>It is still a boys' club. Tables for women on Saturday nights and during happy hours.. Mirrors our society of course. But, I am hopeful is slowly improving in representation over the years. Facebook shows that the feminine half are not shy and not easily offended by the testosterone towel snapping pack mentality we often retreat to. I have no data though on PN stats.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>I think I would have a hard time judging whether a comment I had made, as a woman, would be sexually offensive to a man. At least I wouldn't be nearly as good at judging it as a man probably would be. I think Kayam is asking a good question and trying to do the right thing. His heart's in the right place and I am glad to see it, and I'll go so far to say that Rebecca has posted to try to respond to that good thing. But Kayam, I don't think you're the one to say if your comments might be sexist, just like I am not in a position to say if my comments might be racist to a different race. Especially if they are in a gray area. Doesn't mean I am a racist, but it might mean I had not heard another perspective, or been challenged about it. Do you see what I mean, Kayam?</p>

<p>Bob is right. There is an undercurrent of sexism here, though it is not going to be helped if we women just leave and ignore it all together. I am glad Rebecca was able to produce some quotes that were specific. I hope she isn't pilloried for that. I don't think the answer is policing everything, because if we are politically correct all the time, good ideas or criticisms may be lost. I don't know what the answer is. As I said, I've worked in a mostly-male environment my entire professional life so maybe I am used to it. I have learned that the offhand innuendo and the sex jokes are ways that a lot of guys blow off steam. It's only when they call women stupid or shallow, or try pay them less for the same work that I get angry. I had a boss 12 years ago that asked me if my husband would "let" me travel for work, FGS, and he didn't see anything wrong with that question. It's a problem that is so big that society has been trying to change it for decades with only partial success. Shoot, it was barely 100 years ago in California that women stopped being legal property of their fathers or husbands. </p>

<p>Generally, I've had good experiences here at PNet. The people at the Large Format & CMC formats have been wonderful help to me in my amateur efforts at LF photography. Nadine and a couple of others in the Wedding forum have taken all kinds of time to help me with my fledgling business. People have been thankful when I have taken time to help them. OTOH I've had run-ins with jerks and know-it-alls too. You just never know what you're going to get. </p>

[ridinhome]

<blockquote>

<p>Kayam, I'm not trying to be a bitch, because I feel like you're interested in hashing this thing out, but you yourself made a comment that I would find exclusionary or off-putting but you obviously didn't. I don't think we're judging these boards by the same criteria for gender neutrality....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't get the impression you're trying to be a b****. And thank you for noting that I'm interested in hashing this thing out. Yes, I am. Like I said - if I'm contributing to an environment which prevents people from participating I'd like to know about it and do something about it. This was precisely my objective in starting this discussion - to get a better sense of what is offensive to the point of being exclusionary and what is not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but you yourself made a comment that I would find exclusionary or off-putting but you obviously didn't...I don't think it's egregious enough to cut into anybody's freedom of speech but it's enough to keep me and possibly other women from wanting to take part.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair point.</p>

<p>The way I think about it, as a standard of behavior seeking to avoid all offence is difficult because (leaving aside freedom of speech issues) people have different lines that may be crossed and often times interactions on the Internet are with people you have not had repeated interactions with so you don't know where the line exists. However I think either providing offence to the point that it drives someone away (irrespective of whether 99% of the population thinks your comments are acceptabe), or contributing to a generally exclusionary environment (even if you are not specifically providing offence) is a problem. In that light, I concede that my comment should not have been made. So even if I think that my comment is acceptable in the immediate interaction, or on a stand alone basis, I need to be cognizant of how it fits into the broader tone. I hadn't thought about that before. I'm not sure whether that's what you were driving at with your comments, but thank you for helping me think it through. I can't guarantee that my behavior won't provide offence going forward but I'll certainly try to avoid it, and will certainly seek to avoid driving anyone away from here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is becoming common among politicians lately, and it's not an apology. It's a non-apology. Either you think it's wrong and offensive and you are sorry, or you think it's fine to say but it might have offended, so you are only apologizing because someone might have seen it as offensive.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me restate my apology - as I said above I concede that my behavior was wrong, so I apologize. But I disagree that apologizing for giving offence is not an apology. When you do something which offends somebody it could be the case that what you did was not wrong, but it can nevertheless give offense <em>because there is no absolute standard of right or wrong</em>. Your behavior therefore needs to be apologized for. I've seen this very often with cultural "offenses". I'm from India and many times I've seen my countrymen, and myself, give offense for acting in a manner which is acceptable where we come from. It's not wrong, but it can give offense. The converse is true when people who are not Indian visit India - they given offense when acting a manner which is acceptable where they come from. I don't expect people to change the way they behave simply because they are in an alien cultural environment, but I do expect them to acknowledge the effect their behavior can have on others.</p>

<p>Just to clarify - I'm not trying to excuse anything I said on the basis of "cultural norms". It's not more or less acceptable to be exclusionary whether I grew up in India or not. I'm just pointing out that apologies for giving offense are not always non-apologies, they do have a purpose, in a context.</p>

[ridinhome]

<blockquote>

<p>Doesn't mean I am a racist, but it might mean I had not heard another perspective, or been challenged about it. Do you see what I mean, Kayam?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Jennifer - I see what you mean. IMO, it's hard to apply an absolute standard of acceptability. I do think it's worthwhile to have a discussion about what is acceptable every once in a while though, particularly if it gets people to at least question whether what they are doing meets a standard of behavior that they would expect other people to adhere to. </p>

 

[warren_wilson]

<p>Well there we go.</p>

<p>I am apparently an entirely insensitive male. I didn't even notice the lack of females. I guess that's because I don't take much account of the name, rather just read the text.</p>

<p>I so hate it when I find out once again I'm just a brute. Darn. I'm gonna get my camera and go outside. </p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Where are all these threads filled with sexual innuendos?</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Women generally are more interested in getting results than in discussing equipment to death.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, I know that every time I try to educate some non-native English speaker on P.net on the fact that women are women, and not "girls", I get jumped on my our more Neanderthal members for "political correctness".<br /> I've given up on the native English speakers, I figure that they either know they're being offensive and just don't give a damn or that they are beyond education through native inability or great age.</p>

<p>I always thought of myself as highly dedicated to equality of opportunity for all, but I have to say that even some fairly 'insensitive' men can become fairly ardent feminists when they see their <em>own</em> daughter having to deal with the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" crowd. Talk about consciousness-raising.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.<br /> Friedrich von Schiller</p>

</blockquote>

[steve_levine]

<p>There used to be many women in the wedding forum. I'm not to sure about now days?</p>

<p>As for making accusations that this site is sexist, racist, anti Semitic, etc. Anyone ,any where, can skew facts to fit their whining. The old adage "the teller, is always the victim", comes to mind.<br>

Rush Limbaugh makes millions doing this very thing. Of course another old adage comes to mind about "who's ox is being gored". I'm not a woman, so maybe I don't recognize the misogyny?</p>

[Palouse]

<p>Denial and innuendo aside (0r perhaps not), my 2 cents:</p>

<p>Why do we have to distinguish between male and female?</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>As for making accusations that this site is sexist, racist, anti Semitic, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The site is none of those things, but some of those participating here are. It only takes a few to poison the atmosphere. Anything blatant gets removed and those posting it get removed from the site, but there's low level stuff in the gray areas that gets by.</p>

<p>There probably are fewer women than men involved in the technical side of photography (and other technical hobbies) because of the culture we live in. Even, so, I suspect that women are under-represented here and that the low level "boys club" atmosphere at times is partly responsible for that.</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p><em>I'm not a woman, so maybe I don't recognize the misogyny?</em></p>

<p><em>Why do we have to distinguish between male and female?</em></p>

<p><em>I didn't even notice the lack of females. I guess that's because I don't take much account of the name, rather just read the text.</em></p>

<p>Translate to: It doesn't bother me, so why would it bother anyone else? Other peoples' perspectives and opinions aren't as important to me as my insulated, privileged point of view.</p>

<p>FACT: You're not the center of the universe and other people aren't wrong or <em>whining</em> for experiencing the world differently from you.</p>

<p><em>Women are generally less geeky.</em></p>

<p><em>Women generally are more interested in getting results than in discussing equipment to death.</em></p>

<p>Translate to: Women don't bother learning anything about cameras beyond "point and click" which is lucky because they wouldn't have anything to add to the conversation anyway.</p>

<p>FACT: A uterus does not preclude one from understanding f-stops or forming coherent sentences about same.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p><em>Women generally are more interested in getting results than in discussing equipment to death.</em><br /> Translate to: Women don't bother learning anything about cameras beyond "point and click" which is lucky because they wouldn't have anything to add to the conversation anyway.</p>

<p>Bad translation. Complete failure to understand. Female bull seeing red. Coloured lenses in spectacle frames. Unkown filter factor. I said not just "discussing equipment" but added "to death". What do those words mean? Nothing?</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p>Female bull? How does that work? Is 'hysterical' no longer sufficient to undermine a woman's assertiveness?</p>

<p>I understand, man. You think women don't participate because they have nothing to say. But you disguise that sentiment by adding what you think is a compliment. So, yes, those words mean nothing.</p>

[unangelino]

<p>This is as insoluble as Canon v. Nikon.</p>

<p>The more the pnet rank & file <em>try</em> to seem inviting toward women, the more insensitive, pedantic and patronizing they'll come across.</p>

<p>All any pneter can do self-police their tone and content and post with a humble keyboard.</p>

<p>It's worthy goal, yet one not easily attained.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Thank you. I am delighted to learn that I have a mind like a jalebi (though perhaps you will find pretzel easier to visualise).</p>

<p>Flinging abuse blindly, seeing hostility everywhere, these are actions which can legitimately be called signs of hysteria. Thank you for bringing up the word.</p>

<p>I stand by what I said, and I affirm, for anyone who cares to believe me, that I have no reason to disguise my ideas because it is far simpler to state them clearly.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>I think I like this place better when we avoid politics. If this site seems misogynistic, it is because it reflects our culture. Magazines, TV and all mass media tend to look at women as objects.</p>

<p>Personally I have never intentionally written any words that would be considered derogatory to anyone here. And quite frankly I don't read enough of this forum to get a biased gist, in any direction. But as I said early, my ox ain't being gored. So maybe the misogyny scoots beneath my radar?</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>Women who dare to ask technical questions are often patronized, and occasionally attacked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Threads by OPs with feminine names tend to get more responses, often treated more gently or with more enthusiasm. Not sure I would call that "patronized".</p>

<p>For the many issues brought up in this thread, I have always been a proponent for the use of Internet handles that do not disclose one's gender, ethnicity, age, and location, etc. For many topics, none of these should have any influence on what are being said. Sadly that is not the case in the real world when real names are necessary, or when we meet in a room. But in the cyberspace, such anonymity is perfect for filtering out the biases from the discussions.</p>

<p>Ironically, many forums and blogs are starting to ask for "real" names from their posters. The thinking is that "real" names will hold the posters accountable, and perhaps reduce flame wars. But few of them can verify the names are indeed "real", and that "Jane" is not "Joe".</p>

[DickArnold]

Some of you above, when you are in a hole stop digging. Rebecca and Jennifer make good points and so does Bob Atkins. I spent the last twenty years of my work life as an executive successfully advancing women in highly technical fields. There is still not pay parity in these fields and others and it is still difficult for highly qualified women to get through Randy White's Glass Ceiling.. There is still too way too much snide smirking innuendo and there are still way too many cat calls in the work environment. I have had direct experience in removing men from their positions who did not understand this and other forms of subtle discrimination. Rebecca's list is not unusual. The way to advance women is to recognize and reward achievement without bias and to quit sly, subtle demeaning stereotyping of anyone who is different. When this happens about women it is grown men acting like little boys.

[sallymack]

I post when I have something to say but, except when I have technical, mechanical problems, I'm not interested in the

geeky details. <br>

<br>

Since I'm also not interested in purchasing new equipment that lets me out of a lot of the discussions about technicalities of

new bodies/lenses. And I have NO interest in manipulating digital images and how to do it. Although my interest in

photographs is wide-ranging, my interest in the technical details isn't.<br>

<br>

I may be unusual in being happy with the equipment I use (Hasselblad 500 C/M film camera) and interested in how to use it

better but not necessarily in reading about how other people's technical problems/quests.<br>

<br>

The different fora do have different "personalities." The Hasselblad forum welcomes women, questions are answered in

detailed and helpful ways, differences of opinion among posters notwithstanding. There are other fora on which I won't post

due to snide gender-based comments (later removed by PNet editors) from some posters.<br>

<br>

Weren't 80% of the respondents of the recent PNet survey male?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I have always been a proponent for the use of Internet handles that do not disclose one's gender, ethnicity, age, and location, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photographers have photos. Usually they post photos with their name, it's especially useful for self-promotion, copyright violations, and other types of discussions. Forum warriors use "handles". Two different cases.</p>

<p>The issue isn't anonymity, because one then has no identity as anything other than a forum warrior, it's how people are treated on the forums.</p>

[dlw]

<p>Wow, unbelieveable. While it's true most of the photographers on PN are men we are also blessed to have some outstanding photographers who happen to be women. A few who who immediately come to mind are Jennifer Meighan, Jeanne Hauschild, and Carolyn D(Santa Fe). While I seldom go into the galleries, I frequently view the No Words forum as well as some others. These three women never fail to impress me with their photos. Photo Net would be a much poorer place without their creative vision. I think the women on PN say more with their photos than most of us ever could by words alone. It's a shame we as men don't make women feel more welcome and it's something we need to work on. Cheers.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>What a lot of dribble here, one cliche after another. Truth be told though it's been a fun read although I do mind the political correctness here.</p>

<p>For the past thirty+ years I've worked (and still work) in an environement that is dominated by women and so I can tell you this:</p>

<ul>

<li>people like to be taken serious, there is no difference between men and women</li>

<li>professionalism has nothing to do with gender</li>

<li>women like political incorrectness as much as the next guy. Some profoundly so</li>

<li>I've met great technicians along the way, both men and women. On the whole though women have no fetish about it like some guys do</li>

<li>and on and on and on</li>

</ul>

<p>Political correctness would lead me to state that I've met a great deal of very talented female photographers (which is actually true) but honesty would lead me to say that I've met a great deal of talented photographers (which is more accurate)</p>

<p>let's stop pussyfooting around here and celebrate political incorrectness. Women have a great sense of humour and can take as much as they can give.</p>

<p>There is just one problem here and that has nothing to do with gender. It's the fact that we miss out on tone of voice and bodylanguage. It's that what creates the most misunderstandings, not the difference bewtween men and women.</p>

<p>End of sermon</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Anybody ever read the Viz comic...</p>

[rebecca_l]

<p><em>It's the fact that we miss out on tone of voice and bodylanguage. It's that what creates the most misunderstandings...</em></p>

<p>That means you think the offense caused is the woman's fault. Like, I would have found that comment about women buying cameras as fashion accessories super hilarious if only I had heard the gaiety in his voice or seen the twinkle in his eye. </p>

<p>Gender-neutral handles aren't necessary and wouldn't make a difference. Hiding the fact that I'm a woman wouldn't make any of the above comments less sexist. And why should women hide the fact that they're women by using a handle? These comments aren't being made because the person knows he's identified as male and he's talking to other men. They're made because the person is being a jackass. </p>

<p> </p>