So, When All The First-Choice Women Say No, They're Supposed To Ask The Second String Women, Just To Girl Up The Place?
Daniel Victor writes in The New York Times of an event by Nikon to promote a new camera. Female photographers were irate that there were no women among the chosen:
To promote a new camera, Nikon enlisted 32 photographers from Asia, Africa and the Middle East to try it out and tell their stories on the company's website.But Nikon couldn't -- or didn't -- find any women to participate. All 32 were men.
It was a baffling oversight to many female photographers, who have no shortage of challenges finding opportunities in a notoriously male-dominated industry. In photojournalism, for example, women are underrepresented in staff jobs, awards, front-page placements and on conference panels, among other areas.
Still, the Nikon slight had people wondering: Not a single woman? Not one?
Nikon's explanation, posted in a not-quite-apologetic statement on its Asia-focused Twitter account, cited a lack of "better participation from female photographers."
"Unfortunately, the female photographers we had invited for this meet were unable to attend, and we acknowledge that we had not put enough of a focus on this area," the company said.
This sounds to me like that infantilizing, patronizing thing where a company feels compelled to include women just because they're women.
Nikon, based in Tokyo, did not say how many female photographers it had invited to promote the camera, the D850 DSLR. But several women said it was the company's responsibility to make sure they were represented.
Why should women be "represented"? Feel free to explain that to me.
Victor's piece goes beyond women's complaint about this particular event. The tweet about the article pretty much nutshells it:
@nytmedia
In photojournalism women are underrepresented in staff jobs, awards, front-page placements, among other areas.
They (and the writer) not surprisingly fail to ask why this might be.
The reality is, though there are individual differences, male ambitiousness evolved because women seek it in male partners in a way men generally do not in women. Women tend to engage in hegemony -- marrying up -- while men often find it unappealing to date women who are more successful than they are or show them up in intelligence.
Also, women are far more likely to be the ones who care for children -- perhaps because that means a lot to them (as far as how they want to live their lives). I'm not one of these women; all I want to do is work (with some Gregg and friendtime in between), but I'm an outlier.
Here's a conversation that relates (about women including themselves out) that I had on Twitter with techno good guy @Jason (Calcanis): 
So...the blame here lies with whom?
July 19 1848: The birth of the suffrage movement
Nearly two centuries of feminism as of this year
At what point will women become responsible for their own free choices?
lujlp at September 14, 2017 11:54 PM
A couple years old, but see also, and further afield, unless it's farther. Let me know.
Crid at September 15, 2017 2:40 AM
Wow, Crid.
P.S. Further. Apple's dictionary is helpful in explaining.
More: http://grammarist.com/usage/farther-further/
Amy Alkon at September 15, 2017 6:50 AM
Women tend to engage in hegemony -- marrying up -- while men often find it unappealing to date women who are more successful than they are or show them up in intelligence.
Don't you mean hypergamy?
mpetrie98 at September 15, 2017 7:50 AM
This is similar to that article Amy posted years ago about a panel TV show that was criticized for not including more women. The producers tried to get women to appear, but they almost always had some excuse for not coming on and would typically refer them to male colleagues.
Fayd at September 15, 2017 8:42 AM
There is this puzzle that men seem to be the ones at the apex of most professions--why if not discrimination? A man in most cases will end up supporting multiple people: wife, 2, 3 or more kids, college expenses, maybe aging parents, responsible for saving for retirement. He can't get just any job, he needs to excel. Women assess whether a man can support her + kids. So the man is motivated to work really hard. Women do not have this pressure and thus will say no to invitations like this. They may end up supporting themselves and kids due to divorce but this is never their plan. By the way, the divorce rate I recently saw for engineers--the ultimate practical type of husband--is only 7%. Unverified statistic but for sure the divorce rate goes down with higher income for the husband and I am sure it is less than 20% in general for high income couples. But women just marry for love, uh huh.
cc at September 15, 2017 8:53 AM
Heh. Did they call Suze Randall, or perhaps her daughter Holly?
Radwaste at September 15, 2017 9:11 AM
Ha. Suze Randall was the first thing I thought of... she's probably shot more nudes (including some of herself) than anyone in the industry. Not sure what that says about me. Anyway...
"a notoriously male-dominated industry..."
I'd like to see some stats behind that assertion. I've met a number of pro photographers (I was one, once upon a time, briefly), and I'd guess about half of them are women. I don't doubt that in the news business, most photogs are men. You know why? Because they have to lug about a half ton of crap on their backs all over God's green Earth, being shot at in war zones, knocked down by hurricanes, bitten by poisonous spiders in jungles, and assaulted by mobs in riots, all while being expected to get the shot regardless.
Cousin Dave at September 15, 2017 11:09 AM
Like the disproven wage gap, this non-problem only goes to show that women have different priorities. If this writer has a problem with that, let her address an appeal to women to accept invitations such as this one.
jdgalt at September 15, 2017 12:25 PM
Leave a comment