Why so few women doing macro?

[Beatsy]

It does appear to be a male-dominated pursuit - by a very large proportion.

[Chris S.]

I've wondered this myself, and once asked a friend who is a psychologist. He said: "I can't explain it either--but I'd have predicted it."

Same deal with the audiophile community--which I find has a surprising amount of overlap with the macro community.

--Chris S.

[dolmadis]

Sir Thomas Browne was an exalted mystic [whose mysticism] owed much to his literary style. Style, in his sense, did not merely mean sound, but an attempt to give some twist of wit or symbolism to every clause or parenthesis; when he went over his work again, he did not merely polish brass, he fitted in gold. This habit of working with a magnifying glass, this turning and twisting of minor words, is the true parent of mysticism; for the mystic is not a man who reverences large things so much as a man who reverences small ones, who reduces himself to a point, without parts or magnitude, so that to him the grass is really a forest and the grasshopper a dragon. Little things please great minds.

-G.K. Chesterton, The Little Things, from The Speaker, December 15th, 1900.

[ChrisR]

Dopamine.
Men are more visually-stimulated than women.
Psychs (some!) say that "Seeking" and "Lust" systems are both part of Freud's "Libido". Men's motivational pathways have more connections to the subcortical reward system than women's.
An active Seeking system is antithetical to depression, and good levels of testosterone are associated with enhanced intelligence and mental longevity.

So it's a natural instinct, and it's OK, as long as you keep it under control, even if your wife only calls it "playing".
_________________
Chris R

[hero]

I can't speak for the motivations of others, but I can speak for my own experience and why I enjoy macrophotography.

As a preface, I should note that most people, irrespective of gender, who have seen my work, although fascinated and impressed, do not themselves express an interest in doing the same type of photography.

To me, it seems to stem from a desire to reveal some aspect of the natural world which is not easily perceived or seen, and in the process, inspire wonder. Secondary to this motivation is the appeal of the peculiar synergy of the artistic and technical aspects of such photography: the challenges intrinsic to selecting the proper camera settings and equipment, the use of computational processing techniques such as focus stacking, and the way these play a role in the resulting aesthetics of the image, provides an artistic environment that is rich with reward and satisfaction.

A common theme in my artistic endeavors is my lifelong fascination with mathematics, specifically geometry; and in this regard, macrophotography has much to offer. I find the discussion of geometric optics to be interesting, as well as the geometry of the subjects I choose to photograph. Previously, I photographed small lifeforms--mostly insects, but also plant structures; presently, my focus is on mineral specimens as collecting and studying these are fascinating in their own right. Thus I find the interdisciplinary nature of these pursuits--the exposition of geology, chemistry, entomology, physics--to be mind-expanding.

[Beatsy]

[ChrisR]

Alice Roberts maintains that behavioural dimorphisms are entirely learned, not anatomical. That's a bit ambiguous because we're born with our ancestors' learned behaviour, coded into our epigenetics. I dunno, but I suspect hormones play a part in ways yet to be worked out.
_________________
Chris R

[anoldsole]

I think a big part of the reason is that a large portion of subjects we shoot are insects. Even if you don't take pictures of bugs, you will still have to look at many detailed pictures of them as you learn. Most of the women I know have a fair strong "ewww bugs!" response, especially at high magnification!

[Beatsy]

[hero]

[MarkSturtevant]

I have the opinion that the answer is related to similar questions like why so few men choose to work in primary education or in nursing.
There was a large study done about a year ago which asked why there were fewer women in STEM programs (science, technology, engineering, math). By following a large # of girls over a period of many years, and by interviewing them, the central conclusion of the study was because they are simply less likely to be interested in those subjects. The finding that I am describing seems aligned with views described above.
_________________
Mark Sturtevant
Dept. of Still Waters