Female photographers

[george013]

And an interesting and relevant snippet from another reputable source (Fortune, from this March).

Dorothea Lange, Annie Leibovitz, and Cindy Sherman are household names to the art-friendly. But while women have trained as great photographers since the turn of the 20th century, photography has been a predominately male profession. In 1983, only 20% of photographers were women. Today, the gender balance in the job is about 50/50, according to a 2012 Bureau of Labor Statistics report. That 50/50 split does not extend to pay, though. According to a report released in 2008 by the National Endowment for the Arts, the median income for male photographers, as of 2005, was $35,000. The median income for female photographers was less than half as much, $16,300.

Now that is pause for thought. The proportion of women working as a photographer has increased wildly in the last thirty years, yet the pay gap is HUGE! That is on one side heartening, and on the other depressing.

The same source that supplied that article also stated that 60% of photographers under 35 are women. This means that, in decades to come, it is likely that female professional photographers will outnumber male.

I am not sure I can find info on the UK, but will look.

When Hillary Clinton just anounced to go for president, one of her items was equal money for man and woman. It's not only photographers.

In a traditional household it's the woman that takes care for the cooking. All professional cooks I've seen are male. Same for tailors.

You're mentioning art-friendly. But there is also another group of photographers, documantary, news, war.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...-war-reporting.
One of the first female war photgraphers was Gerda Taro, compaignon of Rober Capa. She died in Spain during the civil war.
There're a lot of good female photgraphers, and more bad male photographers.

George

[Max von MeiselMaus]

When Hillary Clinton just anounced to go for president, one of her items was equal money for man and woman. It's not only photographers.

That is very good news. My understanding is that they have state-by-state anti-discrimination laws, but no federal ones yet. Is that right?

As well as European human rights requirements (which our current government is attempting to dismantle), we also have national anti-discrimination legislation. We still have a gender-related pay gap of about 9%, but that is less than it was 30 years ago. The US has a gap of 23%, but that is decreasing by year on year. So, all moving in the right direction.

And, yes, there are good and bad photographers of both genders, but I found it heartening that women are pushing ahead in this particular discipline.

[William W]

I am realizing that in this very discussion only males have taken part so far...

Interesting comment. But not statistically relevant unless other data are incorporated, for example, but not limited to: the ratio of Females/Male Readers/Members and the amount of time each group spends on-line at CiC.

Without any empirical measurement, I've loosely observed that the Female Readership/Membership at CiC is way less than the Male constituent.

Secondly it appears to me that the Females spend more time in the "Photo Commentary and Competitions" section than in the "Tips and Techniques".

Taking 0nly those observations as a premise on which we might expand: then depending upon what technique each Member uses to search the CiC website for new threads, it could be possible that many (%) Female Members will not even read this thread.

WW

[Max von MeiselMaus]

it could be possible that many (%) Female Members will not even read this thread.

That is quite possible and, whilst the discussion has obvious relevance to female photographers, it is a human issue, not one restricted to a particular gender, so anyone's thoughts are relevant.

[chauncey]

Female Members will not even read this thread.

That might be because they find it insignificant in the grand scope of human problems.

[PhotoByTrace]

I'm reading
Not especially surprised at the stats that have been put forward and think there have been some interesting contributions to the discussion. I could speak in general terms about my own limited experiences as an enthusiast, but have no reliable data to add on the "why" of success nor participation by female photographers. Thought provoking thread though.

[William W]

That is quite possible and, whilst the discussion has obvious relevance to female photographers, it is a human issue, not one restricted to a particular gender, so anyone's thoughts are relevant.

I concur, but the point I was making was not about whose thoughts were relevant.

WW

[Krawuntzel]

That might be because they find it insignificant in the grand scope of human problems.

Or maybe they go out to make pictures rather than dwelling on questions like the one originally asked.
Erwin

[James G]

Max, this is not quite on point for the thread, but I have just done a quick check of the 'split' in membership of a private (photography) group that I'm a member of on Facebook.
Rough count indicates that 147 out of 341 members are female. There are probably upward of 10-15 more since I 'discounted' names that are ambiguous in respect of gender.

What is interesting in the context of this thread, is that the group has only one criteria for membership...

Self Taught Photographers: This is a group for photographers who have had no college or uni training. To join the group you should have no qualifications in photography and have had no paid tuition. The idea of the group is to encourage and show others that photography is a skill from within.

I'm wondering if there is something to do with 'accreditation' for want of a better word which 'keys' into the reason for lower numbers of women in any 'elite' category.

ps I would in no way suggest that 341 is a statistically 'significant' sample to be drawing too many conclusions from, but it is the 'largest' group I'm likely to find for comparisons....

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Or maybe they go out to make pictures rather than dwelling on questions like the one originally asked.
Erwin

One can take photographs and still have intellectual curiosity. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That's interesting, James. So, roughly equivalent membership of that group, with women being slightly underrepresented, but not by a huge amount. Not going to do a statistical analysis on it and, as you say, small sample, but not a vast difference. Now we need the equivalent for a painting group.

It is likely that the lower number of women than men succeeding in photography is the same reason that has always applied; the glass ceiling. However, women photographers seem to be smashing it, as compared to painting. And that has to be a good thing.

[Krawuntzel]

One can take photographs and still have intellectual curiosity. The two are not mutually exclusive.

My answer did not posit that making photographs and intellectual curiosity are mutually exclusive - on the contrary: without curiosity - which is always intellectual - you can not make pictures that are "worthwhile" to contemplate. But this goes far astray of the original question.
My simple mind just said: women are doing it, adapt on the fly, men are "thinking it over and over again" and then stick to THE answer found for a long time (= positively: consistent; negatively: stubborn) - and this may have to do with your original question; the freedom from stubborness in arts, dictated by stubborn and wealthy men, has increased.
Erwin