Is there a reason you have mentioned numerous times in the past few posts the gender difference in use of negative or transparency film? I only ask because while it may or may not be true - I cannot see it has any relevance. I agree that most 'serious' amateur photography was a male dominated pastime years ago - but that was because the man of the house probably controlled the purse strings and thought a compact type camera was plenty for the little woman and he should take share of the real pictures. Which is a huge shame. A very good friend of mine was in this situation until her husband died about 20 years ago. He would never let her use the 35mm camera. She took up 'serious' photography at the age of 55 and has since produced some outstanding work. Luckily digital photography has emancipated the female photographers at last and has democratised photography. Another female friend recently attained her Associateship of the Royal Photographic Society with a panel of prints shot on a Panasonic TZ compact camera. At last the limiting factor is imagination and creativity - not what type of camera you can afford.
I worked in photo retailing in the past. Though some
women had good equipment, most used the simplest and least expensive, and used color negative film, as their photos were mostly for family. Photography was not an end in itself. I bet 99% of 126 and 110 cameras were sold to women. The men customers tended to be serious hobbyists (most were doctors, dentists, professors or businessmen); they owned Alpas, Leicas, and Hasselblads. Most used transparency film and had projectors and screens.