# Nikon Picked 32 Men



## waday

Nikon Picked 32 Photographers to Promote a Camera. All 32 Were Men.

Interesting article.



> “We’re here. We’re working. We exist,” Daniella Zalcman, a photojournalist based in London who created a database of female photographers, said in an interview. “The problem is the organization not making the adequate effort to include us.”





> Though women are the majority in undergraduate and graduate journalism programs, few women work on assignment for the major international wire services, The Times reported in February.


----------



## zombiesniper

To be fair it's not like Nikon ONLY included men. They invited women that didn't show and by their own admission they could have asked for more women. Also we only know of the story from on slanted view.


----------



## cgw

Just another tone-deaf company.

BTW, where's the "slant" in the NYT article?


----------



## Tomasko

zombiesniper said:


> To be fair it's not like Nikon ONLY included men. They invited women that didn't show and by their own admission they could have asked for more women. Also we only know of the story from on slanted view.


Good one


----------



## pixmedic

did they invite any transgendered photographers? or gender neutral?
why are we still insisting on classifying everything in the same archaic male or female role? 


theres the slant...


----------



## Tomasko

Erm, what? Male/female are not "roles". Gender is not something the human society made up. That's given. Either you have one organ or the other. Of course, the way you feel about sexuality for instance can be different, but I don't think anyone said anything about sexuality, only that it's a bit weird Nikon managed to get only males for their advert, while there are so many female photographers out there. Just a little weird.


----------



## pixmedic

Tomasko said:


> Erm, what? Male/female are not "roles". Gender is not something the human society made up. No one said anything about sexuality, only that it's a bit weird Nikon managed to get only males for their advert, while there are so many female photographers out there. Just a little weird.



actually....
human society has spent thousands of years pushing "roles" onto genders. Society did not "create" genders, but society did create how we identify by them. but thats neither here nor there, and certainly not relevant to the article. 

my larger point on the "slant" was that a woman was complaining about an exclusionary oversight by Nikon, while at the same time excluding whole segments of the population herself. IE: those that do not identify with either male or female as a gender.


----------



## cgw

_my larger point on the "slant" was that a woman was complaining about an exclusionary oversight by Nikon, while at the same time excluding whole segments of the population herself. IE: those that do not identify with either male or female as a gender.
_
Obfuscatory blather. Re-read the NYT article and get clear on what Nikon did and their lame attempt at self-exoneration. Since when was being female an "identity" issue?


----------



## pixmedic

cgw said:


> _my larger point on the "slant" was that a woman was complaining about an exclusionary oversight by Nikon, while at the same time excluding whole segments of the population herself. IE: those that do not identify with either male or female as a gender.
> _
> Obfuscatory blather. Re-read the NYT article and get clear on what Nikon did and their lame attempt at self-exoneration. Since when was being female an "identity" issue?



oh, look who it is....
speaking of blather.
always right there when theres something against nikon, never around for anything else. 

not once did I try, in any way, to exonerate Nikon.
in fact, what I did say was calling Nikon even more exclusionary...so im really not understanding where you are getting this "nikon defense" from based on my comments.  maybe you should re-read what I said.
obviously you do not keep up on any current events excluding the downfall of Nikon.
gender has been an "identity" issue for some time now.


----------



## Designer

So the *New York Times* had a *MAN* write a story about a *JAPANESE* company *IN ASIA*, from the perspective of *WESTERN* sensibilities, about *WOMEN* not being included by the *PATRIARCHAL JAPANESE* company.  



BTW: The *WHITE* balance is off.


----------



## jcdeboever

Designer said:


> So the *New York Times* had a *MAN* write a story about a *JAPANESE* company *IN ASIA*, from the perspective of *WESTERN* sensibilities, about *WOMEN* not being included by the *PATRIARCHAL JAPANESE* company.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: The *WHITE* balance is off.


That's funny right there....


----------



## Bill The Lurker

am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way

pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.


----------



## zombiesniper

cgw said:


> BTW, where's the "slant" in the NYT article?



If you can't read the article as see that the writer doesn't want to see any side other than women got screwed then I don't know what to say.


----------



## pixmedic

Bill The Lurker said:


> am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way
> 
> pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.



I believe he meant angled, skewed, or biased.
lets not derail things in that direction please.


----------



## zombiesniper

Bill The Lurker said:


> am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way
> 
> pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.



No that was unintentional. Until you mentioned it I would not have thought of it this way and I do take offence to it being insinuated that I'm racist.


----------



## tirediron

It's a private company doing business as they deem appropriate.  Who cares if they invite 32 aardvarks?


----------



## terri

Bill The Lurker said:


> am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way
> 
> pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.


Oh, for pete's sake.   You seem to be looking for a bogeyman in the lightest utterance, and for some reason feel compelled to hint darkly that things won't go well for TPF if you don't point it out.  

But you're really reaching here.  Study up on journalistic terms: articles have "slants," news reporters can have "slants" - it's also referred to as a point of view or a bias. 

If you have some ax to grind with the forum, feel free to contact me or one of the site owners and get it off your chest.  Picking on a member's comments in this accusatory way isn't called for.   It's an article about Nikon.  Let's stay on topic.


----------



## Bill The Lurker

of course I know "slant" and "slanted" mean askew, good lord. zombiesniper's remark certainly can be and probably are intended exactly as they appear. tomasko's response was cryptic enough that almost any reading is possible, including a "reading in" of a slur. designer's  response seemed to evoke a general theme of race when the issue appears to be gender.

so i think i amjustified in wondering, but wondering is all i was doing.. i phrased by remark as a question on purpose, becuse it was a question. were i to insinunate that someone were a racist it would looke more like this: "<name>, you are a racist."

as for the dark insinuations they're not taht dark. i assume the owners of tpf would take pretty agressive action if the place became a safe haven for people wishing to make racist slurs. honestly its only a matter of time before they pull the plug anyways.


----------



## zombiesniper

Bill The Lurker said:


> zombiesniper's remark certainly can be and probably are intended exactly as they appear



Do you have a problem with me? If so spill it. This time it's a direct accusation. Lets get your issue out in the open.

Reported.


----------



## SquarePeg

tirediron said:


> It's a private company doing business as they deem appropriate.  Who cares if they invite 32 aardvarks?



Back on topic. 

To answer your question, I care. As a woman and as the mother of a daughter, I care that Nikon seems to think only men can evaluate their gear.  Female photo journalists everywhere care that one of the most  prominent camera makers doesn't think they're important.   If Nikon was using 32 North American landscape photographers for this and they had included no Canadians, and then said oh well we invited 2 but they couldn't make it...


----------



## zombiesniper

I'm going to approach this as logically as I can.

Now having no real numbers as to how many women vs men were invited this is still all just guessing so no real conclusion or solution could be derived without more information.

What do we know. Nikon stated they invited both men and women to the event. Numbers are unclear but we can assume the female numbers were pretty low since a company opportunity like this is pretty sought after. So I'm going to go with the a random number of 5. I choose this number to give the max value I think they could have invited and realistically have non show up. Slim but still possible.

So 32 positions and 5 females invited. Seems pretty low since even if all 5 accepted thats only 15% of the possible position.
From Nikons perspective they may have been trying to hit a realistic percentage balance based on their own male to female ratio which is currently just over 10%. Dunno but it's possible.
Would this be a good approach? Of course not. Nikon themselves have stated that they wish to up their female employee numbers closer to 25%.
So based on this, one would have thought that Nikon would have taken this opportunity to showcase their support of the female market by having a minimum target of 30% female representation.

That's what they could have done but obviously didn't.
Why they didn't will probably never be truly known.

What is known is that the whole photographic community will learn from this. The real question is though, what did they learn?

Did they learn what I think they should have learned? Fair representation of the market you are going for?
Or did they learn to include everyone  in every market just so they don't get the social media bomb again?

Hopefully they learned to look closer at the target market and adjust their practices for that market.


----------



## Tomasko

It's not really about representing the market. We're not talking about an industry aimed at a specific gender (like products for women).
It's about *not making differences* between genders, races etc.
Positive discrimination is as bad as the negative one. They shouldn't "aim for more female employees", they shouldn't care in the first place if you're white, black, green, female or octopus.

If you do an advert and out of 32 people NONE are of the opposite sex, something's probably off and it's a good thing this came to attention.

If they had at least few women in the group, doesn't matter how many, no one would talk about this at all.


----------



## zombiesniper

True but an advertising campaign is always going for a target market.


----------



## Braineack

zombiesniper said:


> True but an advertising campaign is always going for a target market.


that's racist.


----------



## waday

Just in case people didn't check, Nikon did respond, and admitted they didn't pay enough attention to female photographers.



zombiesniper said:


> True but an advertising campaign is always going for a target market.


Overlooking an entire sex is a pretty big oversight in any advertising campaign.


----------



## zombiesniper

Where did I say it wasn't?


----------



## Designer

zombiesniper said:


> True but an advertising campaign is always going for a *target* market.


Oohh, don't say the "T" word!  That's a trigger (oops, there's another!) and you shouldn't use it.  Burn your dictionary.


----------



## waday

@zombiesniper, I agree, you didn't say that. What I was responding to was your statement that "an advertising campaign is always going for a target market".

I agree that advertising campaigns always have a target market, the problem with this is then this leaves very little room for Nikon to wiggle their way out (which they didn't, IMO). 

The options are essentially:

They were only targeting men, so they purposefully left out women. Thus, they don't care about women; or,
They didn't think about an entire sex by overlooking them entirely. Thus, they don't care about women; or,

They thought enough about it to have some pitiful excuse to say they tried when they really didn't. Thus, they don't care about women.
Had Nikon simply "paid more attention" (using their words, not mine), they could have avoided this whole situation.

The excuse that they tried to get women involved but all the women said no is absolutely laughable.


----------



## zombiesniper

Fully agree. Nikon does fall under one of those three. They F'd up big time.


----------



## cgw

Great news for Canon stockholders!


----------



## pixmedic

great news for mirrorless!
DSLR's are on the way out anyway. old news.


----------



## SquarePeg

Designer said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> 
> True but an advertising campaign is always going for a *target* market.
> 
> 
> 
> Oohh, don't say the "T" word!  That's a trigger (oops, there's another!) and you shouldn't use it.  Burn your dictionary.
Click to expand...


Sorry I don't understand the point you are trying to make.  Do you have something against Target?


----------



## Braineack

this in news:  someone was offended by something.


----------



## limr

Okay, folks. There have already been several reports on this thread. Keep snide comments to yourself and stay focused on the topic.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I don't know what the camera market is like on other continents or in other countries to know how off base this was. I don't think I'd be surprised if there might  be a relatively small number of women photographers in some places - or maybe not, I don't know. Certainly it seems like women were underrepresented in this and Nikon didn't seem aware how off base it is to have only male photographers included. I mean, this is the 21st century.


----------



## limr

Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch

Wow. When I read the article, I kept looking for a date reference. I googled the camera model and saw it is indeed a NEW release at $3300 for the body alone on one site. Pretty shocking that they made such an overlook in this day and time. I believe Zombiesniper is correct in thinking the 32 were chosen from a targeted group.


----------



## cgw

limr said:


> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.



How many women shoot for Magnum?

Magnum Photographers - Magnum Photos

Deborah Copaken Kogan's_ Shutterbabe _offered a rare glimpse into the issue.


----------



## limr

cgw said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many women shoot for Magnum?
> 
> Magnum Photographers - Magnum Photos
> 
> Deborah Copaken Kogan's_ Shutterbabe _offered a rare glimpse into the issue.
Click to expand...


I don't know. You've linked to the general Magnum site, which makes me believe that I am supposed to sort through the entire list of all Magnum photographers ever so I could distill how many living, active female photographers in order to know that number...and for what purpose? Just to know the number? How does that fit into the wider discussion? 

And _Shutterbabe_ is a book.

It would be easier if you just made your point.


----------



## cgw

limr said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many women shoot for Magnum?
> 
> Magnum Photographers - Magnum Photos
> 
> Deborah Copaken Kogan's_ Shutterbabe _offered a rare glimpse into the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. You've linked to the general Magnum site, which makes me believe that I am supposed to sort through the entire list of all Magnum photographers ever so I could distill how many living, active female photographers in order to know that number...and for what purpose? Just to know the number? How does that fit into the wider discussion?
> 
> And _Shutterbabe_ is a book.
> 
> It would be easier if you just made your point.
Click to expand...


Sorry you wandered past the obvious points of how _few_ women shoot for Magnum and that_ Shutterbabe _details how that came about. Adios.


----------



## limr

cgw said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many women shoot for Magnum?
> 
> Magnum Photographers - Magnum Photos
> 
> Deborah Copaken Kogan's_ Shutterbabe _offered a rare glimpse into the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. You've linked to the general Magnum site, which makes me believe that I am supposed to sort through the entire list of all Magnum photographers ever so I could distill how many living, active female photographers in order to know that number...and for what purpose? Just to know the number? How does that fit into the wider discussion?
> 
> And _Shutterbabe_ is a book.
> 
> It would be easier if you just made your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry you wandered past the obvious points of how _few_ women shoot for Magnum and that_ Shutterbabe _details how that came about. Adios.
Click to expand...


No, there was no obvious point that you made. You gave me to a link of EVERY Magnum photographer that ever lived and the name of a book. What point were YOU trying to make? Did you have one? So, there are fewer women who have shot for Magnum over its entire history. There's a book about this subject. Why did YOU bring these things up? What do YOU think they contribute to the discussion?

Do you have a point? Or am I supposed to do all the work for you?

Actually, no never mind. I really really _really _don't care.


----------



## jcdeboever

I use fujifilm and a lot of woman do to.


----------



## Gary A.

limr said:


> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.


What are you talking about?

1) What assignments are female photojournalist not getting?
2) How many women "actually" want assignments that the men are "regularly and consistently "getting?

What I was in school majoring in Communications (journalism), granted it was decades ago, but men far outnumbered women in that major.  I cannot remember any females studying to be a photojournalist. Just based on sheer numbers of qualified journalists, females would be underrepresented when compared to the general population. Having worked for newspapers and wire service, what few females photogs we had on staff, (when I was at the Times we had about 16 staff photographers with one female inclusive), was assigned the same stuff the men got.  She was not discriminated in any way on any assignment. The only exception I did see was when she was assigned to shoot the Academy Awards.  The men were provided a Tux Rental allowance and there was no allowance for gowns.  She protested, along with the most of the staff, and she was ultimately provided with the same Tux Rental Allowance as the men.  So, she rented a tux and wore a man's tux to the event. She shot sports, breaking news, fires, features, et al, no different than the men. (She did look better in her tuxedo than we did in ours.)

In war zones, the percentage of women to men was significantly less than Stateside work.  Reporting a war zone zone is volunteer work. Back then, females war correspondents were few and far between. Again, no discrimination as I could see and experienced.  I've seen women neck high in the same $**t I was neck high in.

The 32 photographers per Nikon's Web Site:

"Meet 32 creative individuals from Asia, Middle East and Africa, and join them as they embark on an experience with the latest FX-format D850 in their respective genres of wedding, nature, commercial and sports. With their expertise in photography and videography, the D850’s technology, and Nikon’s craftsmanship, this is one DSLR ready to set a new world of limitless creative imaging possibilities."

In summary, Nikon was wrong and guilty of discrimination, by general US standards.  (I can only speak of US standards, while I am sure other countries share similar equality standards.) I am confident there are plenty of exceptional women photogs shooting "wedding", "nature", "commercial" and "sports" in Asia, Middle East and Africa that Nikon could have called upon in the name of fair play and equality.

Interestingly enough, Nikon's highlighted 32 male photographers from "Asia, Middle East and Africa", yet Nikon included four photographers from Australia which is not part of Asia, Middle East or Africa.


----------



## Derrel

More baaaaaaaad marketing from Nikon!


----------



## Destin

Designer said:


> So the *New York Times* had a *MAN* write a story about a *JAPANESE* company *IN ASIA*, from the perspective of *WESTERN* sensibilities, about *WOMEN* not being included by the *PATRIARCHAL JAPANESE* company.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: The *WHITE* balance is off.




This. So much this.


----------



## Destin

Bill The Lurker said:


> am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way
> 
> pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.



He meant slant as in bias. Very clearly. 

Why does everyone take everything back to race?


----------



## Destin

They are a private company. They can hire whoever they want, and there is no mandate for them to hire equally. 

Why does anyone actually care about this? Don't you have more important things to worry about in life.. you know, the things that ACTUALLY affect you? 

Seems to me the whole world has too much time on its hands to worry about things like this. 

The world has never been a fair or equal place. You'll never make it one. Wasting a bunch of your energy and frustration on doing so is futile. 

This is just another NYT writer trying to run with recent trends and make a name for himself.


----------



## Destin

pixmedic said:


> great news for mirrorless!
> DSLR's are on the way out anyway. old news.



Fake news alert


----------



## limr

Destin said:


> Bill The Lurker said:
> 
> 
> 
> am I seeing racist "humor" here? i dont know if zombiesniper slipped the word "slant" in as a slur, but it sure looks like some people are subtly taking it that way
> 
> pretty sure racist slurs are not in keeping with tpf policy, nor with tpf's ongoing existence. tread carefully.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He meant slant as in bias. Very clearly.
> 
> Why does everyone take everything back to race?
Click to expand...


They don't. He was trying to rile people up on purpose.


----------



## waday

Destin said:


> Why does anyone actually care about this? Don't you have more important things to worry about in life.. you know, the things that ACTUALLY affect you?


As a man, these "things" do affect me. Adversely.

They affect my wife. They affect my mother. They affect my sisters. They affect my coworkers, colleagues, neighbors, friends. They affect doctors, engineers, lawyers, mechanics, nurses.

They will affect my soon-to-be-born daughter.

I don't want my anyone to be at a disadvantage, because men can't understand basic rights and equality.

Why would you not want women to have every right and chance to succeed as someone of the opposite sex, or another gender?


----------



## limr

Gary A. said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 1) What assignments are female photojournalist not getting?
> 2) How many women "actually" want assignments that the men are "regularly and consistently "getting?
> 
> What I was in school majoring in Communications (journalism), granted it was decades ago, but men far outnumbered women in that major.  I cannot remember any females studying to be a photojournalist. Just based on sheer numbers of qualified journalists, females would be underrepresented when compared to the general population. Having worked for newspapers and wire service, what few females photogs we had on staff, (when I was at the Times we had about 16 staff photographers with one female inclusive), was assigned the same stuff the men got.  She was not discriminated in any way on any assignment. The only exception I did see was when she was assigned to shoot the Academy Awards.  The men were provided a Tux Rental allowance and there was no allowance for gowns.  She protested, along with the most of the staff, and she was ultimately provided with the same Tux Rental Allowance as the men.  So, she rented a tux and wore a man's tux to the event. She shot sports, breaking news, fires, features, et al, no different than the men. (She did look better in her tuxedo than we did in ours.)
> 
> In war zones, the percentage of women to men was significantly less than Stateside work.  Reporting a war zone zone is volunteer work. Back then, females war correspondents were few and far between. Again, no discrimination as I could see and experienced.  I've seen women neck high in the same $**t I was neck high in.
> 
> The 32 photographers per Nikon's Web Site:
> 
> "Meet 32 creative individuals from Asia, Middle East and Africa, and join them as they embark on an experience with the latest FX-format D850 in their respective genres of wedding, nature, commercial and sports. With their expertise in photography and videography, the D850’s technology, and Nikon’s craftsmanship, this is one DSLR ready to set a new world of limitless creative imaging possibilities."
> 
> In summary, Nikon was wrong and guilty of discrimination, by general US standards.  (I can only speak of US standards, while I am sure other countries share similar equality standards.) I am confident there are plenty of exceptional women photogs shooting "wedding", "nature", "commercial" and "sports" in Asia, Middle East and Africa that Nikon could have called upon in the name of fair play and equality.
> 
> Interestingly enough, Nikon's highlighted 32 male photographers from "Asia, Middle East and Africa", yet Nikon included four photographers from Australia which is not part of Asia, Middle East or Africa.
Click to expand...


I was referring to the experiences described by female photographers, as reported in the article:

"She said she had worked for paternalistic editors who did not want to send a woman into harm’s way by giving her dangerous assignments. Other women have said they had to overcome sexual harassment, insular networks of men, and being pigeonholed into specific stories.

“Every opportunity I ever got at newspapers, I was fighting for and picking up the scraps of when my male colleagues turned them down,” Ms. Lyttle said."

I didn't say women got *no* assignments, but my point was that we don't know how many they *might* have gotten had they not run into attitudes such as expressed above. And if they did, what kind of representation would there be in the market - just 15% or would it be more equitable?

The lack of women in college classes: is that because they didn't want to be photojournalists? Or because they wanted to be but weren't accepted into the program? Or were discouraged from joining the program. We don't know.

_We don't know. _And that is my whole point. It's useless to talk about the "market" in a precise way unless we know the factors that affect that market. To say "Well, they picked men because of their target market" is spurious and ignores the fact that their market might not be what they think it is.


----------



## limr

Destin said:


> They are a private company. They can hire whoever they want, and there is no mandate for them to hire equally.
> 
> Why does anyone actually care about this? Don't you have more important things to worry about in life.. you know, the things that ACTUALLY affect you?



It's not up to you to decide what is important to other people. And yes, this does ACTUALLY affect people, so why shouldn't they worry about it? Even in just the narrowest sense, representation in the media = exposure = potential new work assignments or business.



> Seems to me the whole world has too much time on its hands to worry about things like this.
> 
> The world has never been a fair or equal place. You'll never make it one. Wasting a bunch of your energy and frustration on doing so is futile.



Y'know what? Not even going to bother. Some things are worth it. This isn't.


----------



## runnah

I will say this. On my team I have a young 20 something female photographer who I am hesitant to send out alone to some of the places that we work. 

Is it me being sexist or do I not want to send a young attractive woman out to a dangerous job site in a large city at night with thousands of dollars worth of gear. Her getting robbed is probably the best case scenario.


----------



## Gary A.

limr said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the difficulties in even determining what the 'market' is. For example, if they are looking at that market of photographers who typically work for wire services, then it could look artificially skewed towards a male demographic - not because there aren't women doing that kind of work, but because they are not being given those assignments nearly as often as men are. If as many women who wanted assignments actually got those assignments more regularly and consistently (like the men are accustomed to getting), their market representation could be a lot higher than the 15% mentioned in the article.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 1) What assignments are female photojournalist not getting?
> 2) How many women "actually" want assignments that the men are "regularly and consistently "getting?
> 
> What I was in school majoring in Communications (journalism), granted it was decades ago, but men far outnumbered women in that major.  I cannot remember any females studying to be a photojournalist. Just based on sheer numbers of qualified journalists, females would be underrepresented when compared to the general population. Having worked for newspapers and wire service, what few females photogs we had on staff, (when I was at the Times we had about 16 staff photographers with one female inclusive), was assigned the same stuff the men got.  She was not discriminated in any way on any assignment. The only exception I did see was when she was assigned to shoot the Academy Awards.  The men were provided a Tux Rental allowance and there was no allowance for gowns.  She protested, along with the most of the staff, and she was ultimately provided with the same Tux Rental Allowance as the men.  So, she rented a tux and wore a man's tux to the event. She shot sports, breaking news, fires, features, et al, no different than the men. (She did look better in her tuxedo than we did in ours.)
> 
> In war zones, the percentage of women to men was significantly less than Stateside work.  Reporting a war zone zone is volunteer work. Back then, females war correspondents were few and far between. Again, no discrimination as I could see and experienced.  I've seen women neck high in the same $**t I was neck high in.
> 
> The 32 photographers per Nikon's Web Site:
> 
> "Meet 32 creative individuals from Asia, Middle East and Africa, and join them as they embark on an experience with the latest FX-format D850 in their respective genres of wedding, nature, commercial and sports. With their expertise in photography and videography, the D850’s technology, and Nikon’s craftsmanship, this is one DSLR ready to set a new world of limitless creative imaging possibilities."
> 
> In summary, Nikon was wrong and guilty of discrimination, by general US standards.  (I can only speak of US standards, while I am sure other countries share similar equality standards.) I am confident there are plenty of exceptional women photogs shooting "wedding", "nature", "commercial" and "sports" in Asia, Middle East and Africa that Nikon could have called upon in the name of fair play and equality.
> 
> Interestingly enough, Nikon's highlighted 32 male photographers from "Asia, Middle East and Africa", yet Nikon included four photographers from Australia which is not part of Asia, Middle East or Africa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to the experiences described by female photographers, as reported in the article:
> 
> "She said she had worked for paternalistic editors who did not want to send a woman into harm’s way by giving her dangerous assignments. Other women have said they had to overcome sexual harassment, insular networks of men, and being pigeonholed into specific stories.
> 
> “Every opportunity I ever got at newspapers, I was fighting for and picking up the scraps of when my male colleagues turned them down,” Ms. Lyttle said."
> 
> I didn't say women got *no* assignments, but my point was that we don't know how many they *might* have gotten had they not run into attitudes such as expressed above. And if they did, what kind of representation would there be in the market - just 15% or would it be more equitable?
> 
> The lack of women in college classes: is that because they didn't want to be photojournalists? Or because they wanted to be but weren't accepted into the program? Or were discouraged from joining the program. We don't know.
> 
> _We don't know. _And that is my whole point. It's useless to talk about the "market in a precise way unless we know the factors that affect that market. To say "Well, they picked men because of their target market" is spurious and ignores the fact that their market might not be what they think it is.
Click to expand...

I missed the last article and didn't read what Sara Krulwich wrote. The management of the papers where Krulwich worked was much different than the management of where I worked. When I worked at the Times, we had one black photographer, one Latino photographer and one Asian/female photographer. We were all treated equally, the exception being longevity.  The photogs near retirement, were given preferential treatment. The ol' farts were semi-retired, were given the easy stuff, no out-of-town assignments, they worked 9-5 and lounged around doing crossword puzzles in ink.  I was hired during a time of transition at the Times. The ol' farts were making way for a new generation of young a$$holes, (as the older crowd affectionately called us). Roughly during the same time as Krulwich started her journalistic adventure. I suspect the same 'time-of-transition' was industry-wide, slowly occurring across the country as the All White Boy club of newspapers was being uprooted by a new generation. When I first started, the ol' farts still wore ties, sport coats and some even donned fedoras as their daily working uniform.  The young a$$holes wore blue jeans and running shoes. 

Most, if not all of the full-time journalism professors had no real journalism experience and I doubt if the gender discrimination of the newspaper's Boy's Club ever filtered-down and infected professors and college administrators who never worked in the field.  I never heard from fellow students of any discrimination policy based on gender.  In the School of Communications, I'd say a 50% or more were females, in journalism less than half were females.  In photojournalism, none. These numbers/percentages were pretty much reflected at the companies where I worked. But, I only worked for California companies and things are different here than in other parts of the US. 

Where I worked, we were all equals, all considered to be professionals. Assignments were given out, more-or-less, on a rotational basis and weekend/night work was also rotated. So if you had a weekend, you're shooting sports.  If the president comes to town on a Wednesday and you're working Wednesday, you're shooting the president.  If nothing is scheduled for you, then you're given a feature to research and shoot.


----------



## Destin

waday said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does anyone actually care about this? Don't you have more important things to worry about in life.. you know, the things that ACTUALLY affect you?
> 
> 
> 
> As a man, these "things" do affect me. Adversely.
> 
> They affect my wife. They affect my mother. They affect my sisters. They affect my coworkers, colleagues, neighbors, friends. They affect doctors, engineers, lawyers, mechanics, nurses.
> 
> They will affect my soon-to-be-born daughter.
> 
> I don't want my anyone to be at a disadvantage, because men can't understand basic rights and equality.
> 
> Why would you not want women to have every right and chance to succeed as someone of the opposite sex, or another gender?
Click to expand...


We just had a female come very close to becoming president of the US. We have female politicians. Female doctors, lawyers, and police officers. Females are allowed to work in any career they would like without restriction, at least in most countries. Women can vote. They can go to war. 

The actions of a private company's advertising campaign have no detrimental effect on the average woman, or any of the women in your life. 

Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US. Does everyone believe this should be the case? Of course not.. but people are allowed to believe whatever they want. And if they own a company, they can run that company according to their beliefs if they so choose. 

The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.


----------



## Gary A.

*sigh*


----------



## terri

Destin said:


> We just had a female come very close to becoming president of the US. We have female politicians. Female doctors, lawyers, and police officers. *Females are allowed* to work in any career they would like without restriction, at least in most countries. Women can vote. They can go to war.
> 
> The actions of a private company's advertising campaign have no detrimental effect on the average woman, or any of the women in your life.
> 
> Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US. Does everyone believe this should be the case? Of course not.. but people are allowed to believe whatever they want. And if they own a company, they can run that company according to their beliefs if they so choose.
> 
> The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.



There's so much that's wrong with your post, it's difficult to focus on one single thing.   But I did highlight your (to me) most odious comment.   

Think about why you (unthinkingly) worded your sentence that way.    "Females are allowed..."   

_Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US.      _Except in equal pay for equal work - for starters.   

_The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.    _Yeah, and in 100 years we'll all be dead.   Fatalistic thinking like this basically guarantees nothing will change.   It also allows those who perhaps don't want things to change to shrug it off.    "It doesn't affect me; therefore, it cannot be important."

You're wrong.


----------



## terri

runnah said:


> I will say this. On my team I have a young 20 something female photographer who I am hesitant to send out alone to some of the places that we work.
> 
> Is it me being sexist or do I not want to send a young attractive woman out to a dangerous job site in a large city at night with thousands of dollars worth of gear. Her getting robbed is probably the best case scenario.


Are they aware of the risks?   Did they accept certain risks when they were hired - like any other employee?    

If you're worried about the *equipment,* then perhaps sending a 2-person team out would be better in these circumstances, regardless of gender.    Your implication that a woman could get raped as well as robbed doesn't mean a man couldn't get beaten as well as robbed.    Either is unacceptable - I agree you should think about protecting your staff, minus the gender bias.


----------



## cherylynne1

When trying to determine whether or not something is sexist, I just turn it around. 

If 32 women has been selected, don't you think that would have been a little strange? "What was this, a retreat just for women? Is there going to be one for men? Couldn't they find a single qualified man?" 

We've become used to the idea that when a man speaks, it's a message for everyone, but when a woman speaks, she's only speaking to other women. That, I think, is the underlying issue with Nikon. They assumed that a man's perspective would be interesting to everyone, while a woman's perspective would only be interesting to women. The point of the article is to say that many people would be interested in hearing both perspectives.


----------



## Destin

terri said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just had a female come very close to becoming president of the US. We have female politicians. Female doctors, lawyers, and police officers. *Females are allowed* to work in any career they would like without restriction, at least in most countries. Women can vote. They can go to war.
> 
> The actions of a private company's advertising campaign have no detrimental effect on the average woman, or any of the women in your life.
> 
> Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US. Does everyone believe this should be the case? Of course not.. but people are allowed to believe whatever they want. And if they own a company, they can run that company according to their beliefs if they so choose.
> 
> The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much that's wrong with your post, it's difficult to focus on one single thing.   But I did highlight your (to me) most odious comment.
> 
> Think about why you (unthinkingly) worded your sentence that way.    "Females are allowed..."
> 
> _Women achieved equality long ago, at least in the US.      _Except in equal pay for equal work - for starters.
> 
> _The world will never be a perfectly fair and equal place. Ever. No matter what.    _Yeah, and in 100 years we'll all be dead.  Fatalistic thinking like this basically guarantees nothing will change.   It also allows those who perhaps don't want things to change to shrug it off.    "It doesn't affect me; therefore, it cannot be important."
> 
> You're wrong.
Click to expand...


... oh don't play if off like I used the word "allowed" in a negative way. I won't sit here and argue semantics. 

Name one thing in our (western) society a female is unable to do that a male can do. Seriously.. the doors are all open to females in western society. There are no careers off limits to females. They have every opportunity to advance themselves in the same way males do. My doctor is a female. There are female police officers, paramedics, and firefighters I interact with daily. I have a friend who is a female and in the army. If a female wants to be something there is nothing stopping her. 

This is a prime example of the PC/equality police just wanting to stir the pot and make a big deal out of soemthing that is essentially a non-issue. 

If you want to talk about female inequality let's at least talk about eastern or middle eastern countries where they still don't have the right to vote or go to college in many places, much less have a career. Now there's a fight I can get behind all day! 

But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.


----------



## terri

You're wrong, and you are clearly unable to appreciate it.    I would hardly expect you to agree with my comments; they chip away at your comfortable narrative.



Destin said:


> This is a prime example of the PC/equality police just wanting to stir the pot and make a big deal out of soemthing that is essentially a non-issue.



Whoops, there it is!    Another piece of BS to hide behind.    There's no shortage of platitudes like this to make you feel better.


----------



## Destin

terri said:


> You're wrong, and you are clearly unable to appreciate it.    I would hardly expect you to agree with my comments; they chip away at your comfortable narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a prime example of the PC/equality police just wanting to stir the pot and make a big deal out of soemthing that is essentially a non-issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops, there it is!    Another piece of BS to hide behind.    There's no shortage of platitudes like this to make you feel better.
Click to expand...


That's your *opinion* and I've shared my own. We can agree to disagree, that's fine.

But we are both sharing nothing but opinions based on anecdote, as there is no way of truly quantifying this with hard data.


----------



## SquarePeg

Destin said:


> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.



If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).

Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.


----------



## Destin

SquarePeg said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).
> 
> Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.
Click to expand...


How many females vs males run for those congressional seats though? Probably significantly less than men as well. If it was 50-50 in the races and then 80/20 in the end it would be unfair. If it's 80/20 in the races and 80/20 in the end then that's equal. Regardless, those spots are chosen by public opinion.. aka peoples' beliefs. People's beliefs can be skewed however they so choose, but that doesn't mean that there are *legal* inequalities that actually hold women back. Can a company refuse to hire someone because they're female? Sure. But that female will sue and win. Because there are already laws in place to protect equality. 

Maybe in some places women earn less than men. I can tell you that at every company I've ever worked for the pay scale is the same regardless of gender. 

While we're on the topic of sexism and bias.. there is a local college program I applied to that accepts 83% females and 17% males despite a nearly even rate of applications. So there are certainly places where women have the upper hand as well, it goes both ways. But did I call a reporter and cry about it? Nope. Pulled up my bootstraps and continued applying to other schools.


----------



## SquarePeg

Actual research, not made up opinion:  5 things to know about the gender pay gap


----------



## benhasajeep

Clearly they picked all Men because they wanted to keep everything secret!  




I'll be leaving now.


----------



## Designer

He might have chosen to write: "Not disallowed in the U.S." as women are in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

Besides; I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been locked yet.


----------



## SquarePeg

Designer said:


> He might have chosen to write: "Not disallowed in the U.S." as women are in Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, etc.
> 
> Besides; I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been locked yet.



He might have chosen to write that, but he didn't.  That in itself is telling about our culture in many ways.  

What would be the reason for locking the thread?  There is nothing wrong with debating and having different opinions - it's how we all evolve.  As long as personal attacks are not made and the discussion stays non political...despite the efforts of some people to make it about politics, is disregarding half the population really a political issue?  I see it more as a cultural issue.


----------



## limr

Destin said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).
> 
> Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many females vs males run for those congressional seats though? Probably significantly less than men as well. If it was 50-50 in the races and then 80/20 in the end it would be unfair. If it's 80/20 in the races and 80/20 in the end then that's equal. Regardless, those spots are chosen by public opinion.. aka peoples' beliefs. People's beliefs can be skewed however they so choose, but that doesn't mean that there are *legal* inequalities that actually hold women back. Can a company refuse to hire someone because they're female? Sure. But that female will sue and win. Because there are already laws in place to protect equality.
> 
> Maybe in some places women earn less than men. I can tell you that at every company I've ever worked for the pay scale is the same regardless of gender.
> 
> While we're on the topic of sexism and bias.. there is a local college program I applied to that accepts 83% females and 17% males despite a nearly even rate of applications. So there are certainly places where women have the upper hand as well, it goes both ways. But did I call a reporter and cry about it? Nope. Pulled up my bootstraps and continued applying to other schools.
Click to expand...


Aw, bless your heart.


----------



## Destin

limr said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).
> 
> Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many females vs males run for those congressional seats though? Probably significantly less than men as well. If it was 50-50 in the races and then 80/20 in the end it would be unfair. If it's 80/20 in the races and 80/20 in the end then that's equal. Regardless, those spots are chosen by public opinion.. aka peoples' beliefs. People's beliefs can be skewed however they so choose, but that doesn't mean that there are *legal* inequalities that actually hold women back. Can a company refuse to hire someone because they're female? Sure. But that female will sue and win. Because there are already laws in place to protect equality.
> 
> Maybe in some places women earn less than men. I can tell you that at every company I've ever worked for the pay scale is the same regardless of gender.
> 
> While we're on the topic of sexism and bias.. there is a local college program I applied to that accepts 83% females and 17% males despite a nearly even rate of applications. So there are certainly places where women have the upper hand as well, it goes both ways. But did I call a reporter and cry about it? Nope. Pulled up my bootstraps and continued applying to other schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless your heart.
Click to expand...


Aw, I love how our moderators shut down any thread that has even the slightest hint of politics..

... until one comes along that they themselves feel strongly about. Then they go to making childish remarks in the thread like, "aw, bless your heart."

It's super professional and unbiased *eyeroll*


----------



## limr

Destin said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).
> 
> Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many females vs males run for those congressional seats though? Probably significantly less than men as well. If it was 50-50 in the races and then 80/20 in the end it would be unfair. If it's 80/20 in the races and 80/20 in the end then that's equal. Regardless, those spots are chosen by public opinion.. aka peoples' beliefs. People's beliefs can be skewed however they so choose, but that doesn't mean that there are *legal* inequalities that actually hold women back. Can a company refuse to hire someone because they're female? Sure. But that female will sue and win. Because there are already laws in place to protect equality.
> 
> Maybe in some places women earn less than men. I can tell you that at every company I've ever worked for the pay scale is the same regardless of gender.
> 
> While we're on the topic of sexism and bias.. there is a local college program I applied to that accepts 83% females and 17% males despite a nearly even rate of applications. So there are certainly places where women have the upper hand as well, it goes both ways. But did I call a reporter and cry about it? Nope. Pulled up my bootstraps and continued applying to other schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless your heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, I love how our moderators shut down any thread that has even the slightest hint of politics..
> 
> ... until one comes along that they themselves feel strongly about. Then they go to making childish remarks in the thread like, "aw, bless your heart."
> 
> It's super professional and unbiased *eyeroll*
Click to expand...


Are you upset? Don't be so emotional.


----------



## Destin

limr said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But telling me that females aren't equal to males in modern western society is laughable. Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were true, there would not be inequities in pay (women earn 20% less in the same job) and in representation (current Congress is 19.4% female).
> 
> Sorry to spoil your party with hard data.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many females vs males run for those congressional seats though? Probably significantly less than men as well. If it was 50-50 in the races and then 80/20 in the end it would be unfair. If it's 80/20 in the races and 80/20 in the end then that's equal. Regardless, those spots are chosen by public opinion.. aka peoples' beliefs. People's beliefs can be skewed however they so choose, but that doesn't mean that there are *legal* inequalities that actually hold women back. Can a company refuse to hire someone because they're female? Sure. But that female will sue and win. Because there are already laws in place to protect equality.
> 
> Maybe in some places women earn less than men. I can tell you that at every company I've ever worked for the pay scale is the same regardless of gender.
> 
> While we're on the topic of sexism and bias.. there is a local college program I applied to that accepts 83% females and 17% males despite a nearly even rate of applications. So there are certainly places where women have the upper hand as well, it goes both ways. But did I call a reporter and cry about it? Nope. Pulled up my bootstraps and continued applying to other schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, bless your heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, I love how our moderators shut down any thread that has even the slightest hint of politics..
> 
> ... until one comes along that they themselves feel strongly about. Then they go to making childish remarks in the thread like, "aw, bless your heart."
> 
> It's super professional and unbiased *eyeroll*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you upset? Don't be so emotional.
Click to expand...


Upset? Not at all. I'm calm as can be editing photos and responding to other threads on here simultaneously.

Do I think the moderation on this forum has been a bit of a laughing stock lately? You betcha.

And it's things like these two last posts from you that make it extremely apparent. You're intentionally trying to bring out emotion on a political thread when your job here is to stop the political threads and emotions from being present.

Again.. I'm just voicing my opinion on this matter. You're the one trying to draw out my emotional side and doing the exact opposite of what for forum rules dictate you should be doing.


----------



## limr

That's not what I was doing, but you'll believe what you want to no matter what I say.


----------



## Tomasko

Yep, sometimes responding is a waste of time unfortunately.


----------



## Destin

limr said:


> That's not what I was doing, but you'll believe what you want to no matter what I say.



Ah. And yet the most downward spiraling political thread this forum has seen remains active. 

I'm out. I tried civilly agreeing to disagree several posts ago, and apparently nobody else here is adult enough to do so.


----------



## benhasajeep

Sometimes it's not men causing the problem.  I have first hand information of one situation.  My mother has owned her own furniture stores in MI for 32 years.  The ONLY other female that ever worked for her was a lady that did custom sewing as a contractor, and my sister for one summer.  Even though she competed with males all her life in sales before she opened her own stores (4).  She did not hire women for sales or any other position.  She has had every race, persuasion, and even people with records working for her.  But just the 1 woman who did custom sewing. My sister did work 1 summer but that was it.  Why, I have never asked.  But she was in total control.  No partners or anyone else with equal say.  She just recently sold out to another company and is working part time for a contracted period.  And then plans to retire full time.


----------



## Overread

As this thread is generally getting a bit heated and also doesn't seem to be settling down at all its closed.


----------

