The 'Woman' point of view

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 67219
  • Start date Start date
Laudrup said:
Sounds like the mumbo-jumbo you see on feminist tumblr sites. Has patriarchy been blamed yet? Whilst on the subject, what is the purpose of dissertations in soft subjects like photography?
Click to expand...

I don't read 'feminist tumbler sites' I'm afraid, so you're more knowledgeable than me on that point.

I've not 'blamed' anyone, but I did suggest reasons as to why this particular use of language could have come into play.

I'm not studying photography, and I would fundamentally disagree that photography or history of art are 'soft subjects'. However the purpose of a dissertation is to give the student the opportunity to demonstrate focussed and self-guided research skills into a topic. Something very valuable for either future research or many forms of employment.
 
StewartR said:
I'd just like to say how much I've been enjoying reading this thread. I don't have anything much to contribute - a couple of times I've read something that I think I can respond to, but then I've found that someone else has beaten me to it. (Maybe that's because all the thoughts which are in my head are so stereotypical?) But it's really refreshing to read such an intelligent debate that has stayed on topic and avoided personal sniping, despite the (apparently) widely differing opinions of some of the protagonists.
Click to expand...

That was my hope for the thread. Also the hope that perhaps by encouraging discussion around the cultural context of photography and photographs, more people might be inspired to think and perhaps write on the subject. I *love* reading peoples thoughts on aspects of photography. I'd *love* to read more. :)
 
simonblue said:
I don't know,what next you women will want to vote :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Gosh darn, I'll just go back to my brand-new, fancy kitchen appliances right now and make dinner for my imaginary hubby that I long one day to meet. ;-)
 
The thing I'd love to know is where the idea is that by asking for the opinion of a woman has suddenly become sexist as appears from this thread...that just doesn't make any sense to me, who is suggesting or honestly believes that the person asking the opinion or responding that its nice to get the view of a woman believes that a single woman can represent and entire sex, that's just moronic
 
CharlotteM said:
But that is my point. I am not 'a woman'. I am a person with a set of views that are particular to my time.
Click to expand...

When you have worked out what gender you are then please let us know.

What I was making the statement about is that I ask people that I believe may have different outlooks, values and opinions because I recognise that differences can and do occur, not because I believe that I do or do not have same but because they may have different or same.

Mike
 
CharlotteM said:
But that is my point. I am not 'a woman'. I am a person with a set of views that are particular to my time.
Click to expand...

But you *are* 'a woman'. You're also 'a student', 'a human', 'a young adult'... and many more things to boot. There is validity in getting your opinion on a subject as 'a young adult', recognising that you are just that - one of many; you may not be representative, but that's statistics for you. By inference there is also validity in asking for your opinion as 'a woman' so you can't just dismiss the term out of hand - it all depends on the context of the opinion being sought and I'm happy to concede that in terms of photography or art, biology is unlikely to have a significant impact, but conditioning might.

CharlotteM said:
Yes, this. The nuclear family forces men into an outdated view of what 'men' should be. Thus I have friends who are male househusbands who have found themselves ostracised from their friendship groups when they made that decision. One in particularly very selflessly gave up his career in order that his wife could chase her dreams, and yet he is told that he is somehow less of a man because he chooses to spend time with his children. The nuclear family suggests that men should be breadwinners, defenders of their wife's honour and protectors of the family home. It's simply outdated and encourages an awful lot of bad behaviour while too often not allowing women to pursue their own talents. It would be a better world if individuals could stand on their own feet and make their own decisions as to how they want to live their life, but we don't quite seem to be there yet.
Click to expand...

The nuclear family itself does not suggest this, any more than the fact you carry a uterus suggests that you must bear children and then dedicate your life to bringing them up. It is a 50, 40, 30 year old view of the world that perpetuates that. The view of the world my granddad had when he died was not the one he was born with; likewise, my father's view, initially informed by his parents, will have changed, similarly when I arrived on the scene, I learned by own behaviours from them, and they have developed and changed significantly as I've met my wife, had kids, brought them up, and experienced to world.

I'm a middle aged, desk jockey with a wife and three kids, a mortgage and a scattering of pets - I couldn't be more 'conventional' if I tried, but I don't know of anyone in my circle of friends who would hold the views you've outlined above. It just doesn't exist as a mainstream view any more - the economics don't allow it, society is adapting and changing. There's no judging going on, really very few care - I couldn't even tell you who is the main breadwinner out of my friends, it's just not a factor that comes up, but I'm certain it is far from always being the man.

There are aspects of the nuclear family that I personally think beneficial if we can perpetuate - having someone to share the burden of parenting with is a huge help to all. Similarly understanding that having kids is a life long commitment for both parents and the kids - both helping to create a relatively stable environment for the kids to develop. Of course it doesn't always work and individual environments can be toxic and hence worse off, but as a generalisation, the nuclear family - two parents together nurturing kids is not in itself 'toxic'.
 
Last edited:
I would argue that 'nuclear family' refers to a child-rearing arrangement without specifying who the breadwinners are.
 
droj said:
I would argue that 'nuclear family' refers to a child-rearing arrangement without specifying who the breadwinners are.
Click to expand...

Then you would be disagreeing with the conventionally held view of what a nuclear family is.
 
droj said:
I would argue that 'nuclear family' refers to a child-rearing arrangement without specifying who the breadwinners are.
Click to expand...
CharlotteM said:
Then you would be disagreeing with the conventionally held view of what a nuclear family is.
Click to expand...

I would argue that this little debate is going nowhere fast (except downhill) unless one of you can back up your assertions with some pretty strong independent evidence. And even that might not help.

Pretty much any term in the language, 'nuclear family' included, can mean different things to different people in different places at different times. The term probably originated in post-WW2 America, and in that place at that time it would almost certainly have had all the connotations which Charlotte ascribes to it; the father-as-breadwinner model was so overwhelmingly prevalent that very few if any people would have thought that 'nuclear family' could refer to anything else.
But times change and language changes. Clearly 'nuclear family' can these days have a wider or more flexible interpretation to at least some people. How many people that is will depend, I'm sure, on what population you're looking at.

It's probably not worth the argument.
 
CharlotteM said:
But that is my point. I am not 'a woman'. I am a person with a set of views that are particular to my time.

For instance, looking at the picture of Lindsay (I'm sorry Lindsay... forgive me for what I am about to say if I make inaccuracies...) we are both 'woman'. Therefore according to many people we will have 'a woman's point of view'. However it has been explored several times in several threads that we are extremely different people with extremely different cultural backgrounds.

We are different ages for a start, we're likely from different parts of the country, we probably have different values instilled into our personalities (for instance I get the impression that Lindsay is quite family oriented and I think she's mentioned her husband before, whereas I am opposed to the idea of marriage, children or even finding one partner for life). We almost certainly have very different educational backgrounds and we even like different things for breakfast.
.
Click to expand...

All right Charlotte, since we have not yet met, or engaged in any personal conversation, I will respond to what you have said. We are different ages, unfortunately I am indeed much older than you. You are wildly wrong in assuming I am family-oriented, quite the opposite in fact. Actually I am wondering if you're confusing me with someone else? I do not live a "traditional" role in any sense of the word, I am not a mother (by choice) and I have never wanted to be somebody's wife. I do not really have any contact with my wider family. I did get married a long time ago but was never comfortable with it, although I do not recall ever mentioning that because it has no relevance to any of the conversations I engage in. Nor am I clear regarding your comment about different educational backgrounds. And how do you know we like different things for breakfast? ;)

I think this may be a classic example of you looking at my picture and drawing some stereotypical assumptions! :eek: However, you would be very wrong .....
 
Charlotte I cannot help but feel that your comment about us having different educational backgrounds is very likely a suggestion that I am not as well read as you are? I have no idea how well educated you are, nor would I be so crass as to make any assumptions, especially publicly on a forum.

Edit: I've removed the references I've made to my academic background, because I don't want to sound like I'm being defensive. There should be no need for me (or any of us) to trot out our qualifications in order to set the record straight. In fact I changed careers from a scientific one to photography because, like many people, I had always wanted a more creative existence but did not have the means until later in life.
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
Has educational backgrounds anything to do with photographer ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Educational background is irrelevant (in my opinion). I think that's why photographers make an interesting and engaging group - they represent all sides of society. I've met photographers who are/were teachers, lawyers, mathematicians, bank managers, engineers, office workers, cooks .... All kinds of people. However, when it comes to being successful, the common denominator is usually an unshakeable work ethic and entrepreneurial flair.
 
CharlotteM said:
But that is my point. I am not 'a woman'. I am a person with a set of views that are particular to my time.
.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but unless you are actually a man , then this isn't true - Of course you are also an individual, but that doesn't preclude you having more experience of being female than a man has.

Equally I am an individual - but that doesn't mean I'm not a man , or that I don't have experience of a being male - difference is I'm not automatically defensive about it , because I accept that my gender is part of who I am.
 
Lindsay D said:
Educational background is irrelevant (in my opinion). I think that's why photographers make an interesting and engaging group - they represent all sides of society. I've met photographers who are/were teachers, lawyers, mathematicians, bank managers, engineers, office workers, cooks .... All kinds of people. However, when it comes to being educational backgrounds, the common denominator is usually an unshakeable work ethic and entrepreneurial flair.
Click to expand...

Depend on how you measure being successful,one of to me greatest photographer of all time Eugene Smith nearly bankruptcy the Magum photo agency and die with $15 in his bank acc,but he did have an unshakeable work ethic :)
 
CharlotteM said:
Yes, this. The nuclear family forces men into an outdated view of what 'men' should be. Thus I have friends who are male househusbands who have found themselves ostracised from their friendship groups when they made that decision. One in particularly very selflessly gave up his career in order that his wife could chase her dreams, and yet he is told that he is somehow less of a man because he chooses to spend time with his children. The nuclear family suggests that men should be breadwinners, defenders of their wife's honour and protectors of the family home. It's simply outdated and encourages an awful lot of bad behaviour while too often not allowing women to pursue their own talents. It would be a better world if individuals could stand on their own feet and make their own decisions as to how they want to live their life, but we don't quite seem to be there yet.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that you have some very odd friends who are not typical of society , and thus you are generalising from a very small and unrepresentative sample - The "nuclear family" doesn't in fact force any of those views - all it basically promulgates is that a family is composed of two parents and 2.4 children. (In that view it is out dated because a single parent family is still a family, as is a couple without children )

The hard fact in the economic climate of today is that in the majority of cases both parties have to work to make ends meet. There are also lots of men who take on child care duties - sometimes as house husband and some times in addition to a job - in the unlikely cases that they are ostracised by a friendship group then it illustrates that their friends are morons and not worthy of the title, and they will simply form a new friendship group more accepting of their social situation.

For example one of my colleagues is a single father (actually a step father - he married the children's mother, who then died, and he has brought all three kids up single handed as if they were his own, their biological father being a complete waste of space ) No one thinks this makes him less of a man, and it wouldn't even occur to him to think about that
 
Lindsay D said:
I think this may be a classic example of you looking at my picture and drawing some stereotypical assumptions! .
Click to expand...

Lol - I looked at your picture and assumed it was of a model (as many TP members have in their avatars). It was only recently through this thread that I realised you were female ( Lindsay being a name that men can have also) - this hasn't changed how I view you or your work .
 
Lindsay D said:
Educational background is irrelevant (in my opinion). .
Click to expand...

I agree , as I said in a different thread I probably have significantly more academic experience than Charlotte (Given that I have an MSc and am halfway through an MBA) , but this doesn't mean that I share her opinions or world view. I have no knowledge of your educational qualifications and it would make no difference to me whether you had none , or were an Oxbridge Dphil.
 
MWHCVT said:
The thing I'd love to know is where the idea is that by asking for the opinion of a woman has suddenly become sexist as appears from this thread...that just doesn't make any sense to me, who is suggesting or honestly believes that the person asking the opinion or responding that its nice to get the view of a woman believes that a single woman can represent and entire sex, that's just moronic
Click to expand...

Exactly - I mean I understand the theory , ie that it dehumanises that person because they are seen only as a member of that group , rather than as an individual - however in application that's b*****ks, because there's no suggestion that in the real world anything of the sort is suggested. Also even if it were true (which it isn't) in order for it to be sexist it would have to be happening to one gender but not the other ... which although charlotte suggests is the case is again total rubbish because men are frequently asked for a male perspective on a range of issues and topics.

At the end of the day some people go looking for things to get wound up about , in this case I'd suggest that although "gender inequality" and sexism are worth getting excited about , it undermines the credibility of the feminist argument to focus on trivial non issues rather than areas where discrimination is actually happening
 
big soft moose said:
It was only recently through this thread that I realised you were female ( Lindsay being a name that men can have also) - .
Click to expand...

Pete, for that reason on virtually every forum I have taken part in there has been the presumption that I'm male, until evidence arises to suggest otherwise. Not that it should make a difference, as you say.

I have no idea how my academic background stacks up against Charlotte's, but I've got a good degree and I'm an ex-clinical scientist. Specifically raising educational differences can be an effective way of categorizing someone, which is why I would not go down that road in the way that Charlotte did. Likewise making presumptions about lifestyle. The whole "you're a (female?) conformist and I'm above that" argument seems pointless, or at the very least tiresome.
 
big soft moose said:
I agree , as I said in a different thread I probably have significantly more academic experience than Charlotte (Given that I have an MSc and am halfway through an MBA) , but this doesn't mean that I share her opinions or world view. I have no knowledge of your educational qualifications and it would make no difference to me whether you had none , or were an Oxbridge Dphil.
Click to expand...

Hopefully we have gone pass this,but it does seem to be making an comeback :(
 
Lindsay D said:
Pete, for that reason on virtually every forum I have taken part in there has been the presumption that I'm male, until evidence arises to suggest otherwise. Not that it should make a difference, as you say.
Click to expand...

I probably should have said "realised definitively you were female" - I wouldn't say it was something I'd given a great deal of thought either way, my perception is of a talented photographer that talks a lot of sense , which gender that photographer is doesn't make a great deal of difference to me.

I don't generally assume peoples avatars are them - shockingly I'm not Hugh Lawrie , nor am I soft, or a moose.

Lindsay D said:
Specifically raising educational differences can be an effective way of categorizing someone,
Click to expand...

Indeed , its also gender stereotyping at its worst - "you are a pretty blonde therefore you must be academically unaccomplished" which is of course total rubbish , and if a man had assumed it I'm sure charlotte would be the first to shout sexism - so as inkiboo pointed out the irony of her making that kind of baseless assumption in a thread complaining about other people(men) making gender stereotypical baseless assumptions is pure genius.

There is at present an unfortunate drift in TP for some members who are university based to assume that this makes them the elite and thus able to talk down to us peasants (who doubtless spend our days picking cow dung from our navels). As someone who comes from a university focussed family ( I'm the 'thick' one - both my parents are Oxford Dphil , and my sister is a post doctoral research fellow at Perth (aus)) this drives me up the wall - having had considerable contact with people at universities , I'm confident to say that they are no different from the rest of us.
 
Lindsay D said:
Many (if not most) of the cleverest and most successful people I have met never had a formal education. However I have met several idiots with PhDs.
Click to expand...

Indeed - my friend Alan left school with 3 CSEs - he's now a self made millionaire , and LSE MBA graduate.

The thing about some Phds (and university people generally) , though of course not all - is that while a PHD usually indicates mastery over ones subject , that's all it indicates - far too many think it somehow gives them special insight into politics, the arts, social theory and so forth.
 
big soft moose said:
As someone who comes from a university focussed family ..... both my parents are Oxford Dphil , this drives me up the wall - having had considerable contact with people at universities , I'm confident to say that they are no different from the rest of us.
Click to expand...

In my family, my parents were from very poor backgrounds (mining families in the North East) and none had access to university education. My father also believed that girls did not need to be educated, since their duties were domestic. Ambition was laughed at, and quickly quashed. I went to university as a mature student (although not particularly mature - 26), my academic achievements were never acknowledged by my family perhaps because they felt it made me some kind of an elitist - unfair, certainly. Understandable? Perhaps. It meant we no longer had anything in common.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Indeed - my friend Alan left school with 3 CSEs - he's now a self made millionaire , and LSE MBA graduate.

The thing about some Phds (and university people generally) , though of course not all - is that while a PHD usually indicates mastery over ones subject , that's all it indicates - far too many think it somehow gives them special insight into politics, the arts, social theory and so forth.
Click to expand...

Off topic but just curious as to why your friend did an MBA. I did one to advance my career but that was as an employee, and all the other MBA students I talked to at Manchester Business School were employees as well. It didn't really seem the course for entrepreneurs to me and more suited to corporate types who wanted to fast track their careers. Not criticising....just interested.
 
Lindsay D said:
Charlotte I cannot help but feel that your comment about us having different educational backgrounds is very likely a suggestion that I am not as well read as you are? I have no idea how well educated you are, nor would I be so crass as to make any assumptions, especially publicly on a forum.

Edit: I've removed the references I've made to my academic background, because I don't want to sound like I'm being defensive. There should be no need for me (or any of us) to trot out our qualifications in order to set the record straight. In fact I changed careers from a scientific one to photography because, like many people, I had always wanted a more creative existence but did not have the means until later in life.
Click to expand...

Then I'm sorry, I must be confusing you with someone else that I've had discussions with in the past. I'm currently on mobile internet and can't spare the bandwidth to go searching back through old posts. However we *are* very different people, extremely different people, and to assume we have the same point of view would be wrong...

But for the record, I had assumed that you had a much better education than me - it's my default assumption because I have had a very poor education. My default assumption is that most people around me have at least a degree, usually a Masters - because most people in my social circle do and most people in my age group have at least a degree due to the way we're all pressured to go into further education now.

ETA: I thought you were someone I'd discussed baby/children photography with before and how you got into it, which is why I made those assumptions about having a family. However I have the worlds worst facial recognition skills (a 'skill' many photographers I know seem to have!) and my ability to not remember names accurately is absolutely second to none.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lindsay D said:
Many (if not most) of the cleverest and most successful people I have met never had a formal education. However I have met several idiots with PhDs.
Click to expand...

I work with a lot of people, generally all degree qualified and in the main the ones with the PhDs are the least able to apply their knowledge.

Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Charlotte, you have indeed confused me with someone else. Edit: the only discussions you and I have had were in two or three recent threads regarding business matters (copyright infringement, the nature of photographic tradeshows, and a marketing discussion about head shots).

Direct personal comparisons, on a forum, can be counter-productive - quite likely because you appeared to be saying that the person you thought I was fell into the kind of stereotype which might be broadly repellent to you as a feminist and as an individual. Given the context of this discussion, the person in question may well feel as I did, if she were to read that!

You say you've had a poor education, yet you are clearly not poorly educated. Maybe you did not have the benefit of the best schools or the opportunities afforded to others, but you have clearly taken a proactive approach to your learning. That is equally important, in my view.
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
it's my default assumption because I have had a very poor education. .
Click to expand...

Huh ?- you said you were a student at Brookes. - you may not have had the best education money can buy, but being a degree student and allegedly a journalist does not make you urban grimshaw
 
Steve said:
Off topic but just curious as to why your friend did an MBA. I did one to advance my career but that was as an employee, and all the other MBA students I talked to at Manchester Business School were employees as well. It didn't really seem the course for entrepreneurs to me and more suited to corporate types who wanted to fast track their careers. Not criticising....just interested.
Click to expand...

The short version is 'because he can' - the slightly longer version is that having left school with b****r all in the way of useful qualifications , he felt he was looked down on by various people he interacted with in his business life (he runs a house renovation business) e.g bank managers, loan officers, accountants, planning officers and such , and gaining a masters in busisness administration from the London school of economics was his way of redressing this , with the side effect that he learnt all the jargon so he no longer sounds like a poor boy made good.

I'm doing mine (Extramurally) to enhance my career - I'm currently a head of department but aspire to be a general manager and eventually an assistant director of operations - MBA is a good way to help fast track that promotion
 
I have no idea how well educated you are,
Click to expand...

heck I cant imagine why as it always appears to be the first thing she mentions in her posts
 
I've read through this whole thread and can't help but feel that people would enjoy life a whole lot more if they stopped getting offended where no offence was intended. (Sorry, that sounds like a dig at Charlotte - it's not, just a general thought)

As a female, I can't say that I can ever remember one incident where I've felt I've been slighted, overlooked, undervalued, or whatever, just because I'm a woman. Maybe that's because I've been lucky, maybe it's because of the way I come across, or maybe it's just because I'm not looking to take offence at every turn.
 
melaniejane said:
I've read through this whole thread and can't help but feel that people would enjoy life a whole lot more if they stopped getting offended where no offence was intended. (Sorry, that sounds like a dig at Charlotte - it's not, just a general thought)

As a female, I can't say that I can ever remember one incident where I've felt I've been slighted, overlooked, undervalued, or whatever, just because I'm a woman. Maybe that's because I've been lucky, maybe it's because of the way I come across, or maybe it's just because I'm not looking to take offence at every turn.
Click to expand...

A very sensible comment, it's very easy to be offended if you live life looking for offence but what a sad life that would be, there are things life that its is righteous to get offended at and fight to change...but asking for a woman's point of view is really not one of them IMO
 
Funnily enough I couldn't be arsed to read all of the above (maybe that's just me being male) - but - and at the risk of hate-mail aplenty - I often ask my wife, daughter and any other female I can find and whose opinion I value for their opinions on things BECAUSE they are women !!! There said it

I work in a field where women rule the decision making process so appealing to women (generically I accept) is a vital part of how I write things, create informative PDFs, even choices for the order of photos & type of photos on my slideshows - I run EVERYTHING past women for their guidance on what appeals to women and they usually do make changes to everything I've done - it works :)

I can't believe that could be offensive to anyone, in the same way I'd not be offended if I was asked for my 'male' opinion

Dave
 
big soft moose said:
The thing about some Phds (and university people generally) , though of course not all - is that while a PHD usually indicates mastery over ones subject , that's all it indicates - far too many think it somehow gives them special insight into politics, the arts, social theory and so forth.
Click to expand...

Really? Is this a British thing, because I've never come across it. My daughter has a PhD (science), I've met a lot of her colleagues, who are mainly at doctorate or masters level, and most of her friends are graduates. Generally speaking, they're bright, funny, articulate and very normal people, and good to have around. I can't think of a single "know all" amongst them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top