And which part of that statement is offensive and why? Actually, Kevin used a neutral term "anyone," not "women," but I'll grant you that your inference is possible, for the sake of the argument. Photography has become easier for everyone, men or women, black or white, yellow or brown, so should everyone who entered the field in the digital era be offended by that statement? The fact that, historically, there were (some) women working as photographers when it was really, really hard (physically, chemically, time, etc.) does not negate the fact that today there are much more women (and other categories) who are photographers. What's so offensive about that?
I'm not that guy that is going to parse every word and look for a reason to be offended about something - as you said, there's far more than enough of that going on already. What I think we have here is largely a case of good intent that was worded in a clunky manner, but what's important to understand is that to some people, the fact that the clunky phrasing is the default *is* the problem. True - Kevin said "anyone," not "women," but I'm going to assume that when contrasting the "male dominated" field of the 70s/80s/90s with a field that has "changed," and when the article is clearly *about* women, the change he is referring to is fairly clear, the use of "anyone" notwithstanding.
Pair that with the suggestion that the field changed (i.e. women became more involved) because photography got "a lot" easier, and you can certainly see why someone might draw the conclusion that the author believes women were less capable of being successful when the discipline was more difficult, and thats a bad assertion. (In addition to being suspect on the surface, as others have pointed out, I'm not sure it's even factually correct to state that men dominated the field -certainly women have been prominent in the field, if not dominant, for decades.)
As a practical matter, nothing I've seen from Kevin here (or anywhere) would imply that he views women as "second-class" photographers, and please understand that I'm not saying that. I think that it's far more likely that in trying to find and write a intro to his article, Kevin chose some unfortunate verbiage and created a contrast he did not really intend to. Certainly I wouldn't "pull *my* subscription" over such a thing, but then again I'm not of a class that sees slights that are woven into the fabric of society regularly directed at me.
Bottom line - I think Kevin intended to highlight some women that are doing great work. I think in the process of doing so, he inadvertently illustrated a part of a society that still sometimes views women's accomplishments through a lens (sorry
) of exceptional by virtue of being from women (or despite being from women, if I am being less charitable), as opposed to simply being exceptional. Do I think Kevin believes that? No. Do I understand why Darr could draw the conclusion? Yes.
