Reply to Topic
Well, I've taken forever to respond again. A clear sign I do not have the bandwidth to do this conversation justice right now. Hopefully we're just about wrapping it up anyway. I think we probably (?) are.
The starting point of this line was you saying this:
I think that last bit is the real answer, personally: it's not a priority, which is another way of saying they don't really care enough to demand it.
Obviously there's structural inertia in all industries, but the compulsive force of unclaimed profits is incredibly powerful. We need a really, really good reason to posit that billions of dollars are being left unclaimed out of careless adherence to old ways of doing things, particularly in an industry that isn't rife with state intervention.
I can see that. Unfortunately we might be stuck, because I feel pretty strongly as well. Lots of things are potentially dangerous, and everything is the first step towards some unacceptable extreme if you just keep on going. All trajectories eventually crash into something.
That said, I disagree that it's even bad, let alone dangerous, to expect people in an ostensibly free society to assert their desires. Long-term, I think this expectation is the most empowering one, particularly when you consider that the alternative is agitating on their behalf and/or just trying to persuade the people in power to accommodate them, which implies that any underrepresented group can only rely on the beneficence of the same system that we're saying ignored them in the first place.
I think there's some subtle things here about desiring imprimaturs and cultural proxies for acceptance that are creeping into what otherwise would be a straightforward economic question, too. This disagreement obviously has lots of cultural and political implications so I'm not sure we can really see it through here and now, though.
Yeah, I think we mostly are. This clarification helps, thanks. 
I'll go ahead and risk that agreement by making a distinction about the above, though, in that there's also a difference between a movie exaggerating sex-specific traits and just flipping them entirely. Being unrealistic isn't a zero-or-one thing for most people: I think they expect their fiction (especially their actiony, blockbustery fiction) to stretch reality, but maybe not subvert it outright. A guy jumping 30 feet it in the air is unrealistic, and so up being down and down being up, but they're not the same kind of unrealistic. I think this probably explains some (though certainly not all) of the seemingly contradictory reactions.
The big glaring thing that seems to attract the trolls, though, is if they perceive an agenda behind the unrealism. And the pounce that happens when they see it is so angry and reflexive that I roll my eyes even when I agree with them. The debate has reached a very bad place where people are on high alert for this stuff. But I still think there's productive time to be spent in unpacking what the most reasonable version of it looks like, and I think it's something like the paragraph before this one: people are happy to suspend their disbelief for sheer entertainment or in a way that exaggerates reality, but less so for someone trying to convince them of something and/or subvert aggregate tendencies.
I think that's pretty easily explained by the fact that a) the finding might be politically controversial and they'd like to downplay that aspect, and more importantly b) they're probably proper scientists doing actual work and not trying to grab headlines, which means appropriate humility about the thing being measured. This is unfortunately rare, to the point where appropriate skepticism and hedging about a finding reads as backpedaling compared to all the confident declarations we're used to seeing in our clickbait summaries.
Anyway, I don't think the quote contradicts the underlying idea. We should expect to see huge variation within genders, that's what happens when you're measuring aggregate differences across large groups of people. Up close it's basically nothing, but altogether it's clear.
Not about individuals, but for these purposes that's okay. And obviously "not that big" is the statement that needs parsing. But really, the only thing I'm establishing is that it's to some degree expected and therefore not ipso facto evidence of bias (and, in fact, might actually be evidence of a lack of it). I have very modest goals: I'm really just trying to get people to stop comparing demographics to representation and acting as if they've made their point. I don't dare hope I'm going to get much further than that. 
If the next generation is having cultural arguments about people's choices instead of just running down checklists I'll consider it a win for the discourse.
I don't know, to be perfectly honest. But I think that's the problem with either side of the issue: what is an appropriate number to satiate people criticizing the industry? I can't imagine they really know, either. I'm not saying that invalidates their opinion. I don't think you need to be able to answer these questions: I'm saying neither of us can, and that's why we should mostly defer to people's actual, verifiable choices.
Basically, I think in an ostensibly free society, where clear incentives exist through profit motive to provide people with what they want, we should be very hesitant to assume that those people are being tricked or blocked or thwarted without really really good reasons to think so.
That makes a lot of sense.
It is, and I'm referring to blockbusters when I say that studios can release multiple films at the same time.
And even if we suppose that many or even most women don't care for action films or don't particularly care about a female lead in one, there are millions and millions of women in the US alone. If even 10% of women are interested in seeing a female lead, then it's a marketable strategy to make some films this way.The beginning of this would seem to preclude, by definition, the kinds of action blockbusters we've been talking about. I'm not sure if this line is worth pursuing (feel free to discard it), I'm replying more just to explain where I think things got off track. Obviously the discussion broadened a bit in some places and it might've leaked into others, if I can mix a metaphor.
Because a lot of industries have built-in assumptions about what the consumer wants or what will be marketable, and sometimes they are wrong. There are plenty of stories out there about writers or filmmakers being told that their ideas wouldn't sell. There's a lot of "conventional wisdom" out there that is either outdated or just wrong. And for some groups who are dealing with more serious oppression, spending emotional energy on trying to change movie demographics might not be high on their priority list.
Obviously there's structural inertia in all industries, but the compulsive force of unclaimed profits is incredibly powerful. We need a really, really good reason to posit that billions of dollars are being left unclaimed out of careless adherence to old ways of doing things, particularly in an industry that isn't rife with state intervention.
The part I'm saying is dangerous is defaulting to assuming that inequality must be the fault of the people who are unequal and not on the system that perpetuates the inequality. In this case the equality is the direct offense. I'm not closed to the possibility that there's a lack of interest/investment from certain groups in seeing themselves represented in film--maybe most women genuinely don't care about the gender of the lead. It's certainly the case that people who are gay or transgender are very vocal about enjoying films in which they are represented--and will support such art--yet it has taken a long time for positive or nuanced depictions of gay people to be something you see in mainstream media.
It's just something I personally feel pretty strongly about.
It's just something I personally feel pretty strongly about.
That said, I disagree that it's even bad, let alone dangerous, to expect people in an ostensibly free society to assert their desires. Long-term, I think this expectation is the most empowering one, particularly when you consider that the alternative is agitating on their behalf and/or just trying to persuade the people in power to accommodate them, which implies that any underrepresented group can only rely on the beneficence of the same system that we're saying ignored them in the first place.
I think there's some subtle things here about desiring imprimaturs and cultural proxies for acceptance that are creeping into what otherwise would be a straightforward economic question, too. This disagreement obviously has lots of cultural and political implications so I'm not sure we can really see it through here and now, though.
Because we're switching back and forth between talking about movies as a whole group and movies with leading women, it's hard to keep track. I thought that you were speaking specifically about female-led films. But if you're speaking generically about movies then we are in agreement. If you look back at what I originally wrote, I was saying it would be silly to decry a woman punching a man as "unrealistic" and then turn around and be cool with some guy out-swimming an explosion or something. I often hear this angry critique that "girls can't really do that", but it comes from the same people who have no problem with incredibly unrealistic feats from male leads. As long as you take the same attitude toward unrealism in both, we're on the same page.
I'll go ahead and risk that agreement by making a distinction about the above, though, in that there's also a difference between a movie exaggerating sex-specific traits and just flipping them entirely. Being unrealistic isn't a zero-or-one thing for most people: I think they expect their fiction (especially their actiony, blockbustery fiction) to stretch reality, but maybe not subvert it outright. A guy jumping 30 feet it in the air is unrealistic, and so up being down and down being up, but they're not the same kind of unrealistic. I think this probably explains some (though certainly not all) of the seemingly contradictory reactions.
The big glaring thing that seems to attract the trolls, though, is if they perceive an agenda behind the unrealism. And the pounce that happens when they see it is so angry and reflexive that I roll my eyes even when I agree with them. The debate has reached a very bad place where people are on high alert for this stuff. But I still think there's productive time to be spent in unpacking what the most reasonable version of it looks like, and I think it's something like the paragraph before this one: people are happy to suspend their disbelief for sheer entertainment or in a way that exaggerates reality, but less so for someone trying to convince them of something and/or subvert aggregate tendencies.
I find the reporting a little odd in that article, and especially the way that the researchers themselves qualify their own findings: "While these findings were statistically significant, Hermle cautions that the size of the effect is not that large" and "For each of these preferences, “there is a huge variation within genders,” he said. “If you randomly take a woman or man from the U.S. or some other country, knowing this person’s gender would tell you very little about their preferences.”"
Anyway, I don't think the quote contradicts the underlying idea. We should expect to see huge variation within genders, that's what happens when you're measuring aggregate differences across large groups of people. Up close it's basically nothing, but altogether it's clear.
I completely agree that in an equal society you will still see gender variation (at a statistically significant rate) in certain traits or behaviors. But even the authors of the study say that the effect size is not that big and that there is so much variation that it's not strong enough to make decent predictions.
If the next generation is having cultural arguments about people's choices instead of just running down checklists I'll consider it a win for the discourse.I think you misunderstood my meaning. I was merely asking how one might quantify a disparity as being "huge." I agree that you'll probably never see a career that is exactly 50-50, and my question was just what you think of as a "huge" disparity. Even the research article you cite notes that there is a lot of variation with each gender.
Basically, I think in an ostensibly free society, where clear incentives exist through profit motive to provide people with what they want, we should be very hesitant to assume that those people are being tricked or blocked or thwarted without really really good reasons to think so.
I think that stereotypical depictions are only harmful if they are the only (or virtually) the only ones. The irony is that when you have more varied representation of any group, a single representation becomes less loaded because it's not part of a large generalization of a group. Depictions of chipper, stay-at-home moms lose
their sting if they are just part of a spectrum of women being presented.
their sting if they are just part of a spectrum of women being presented.
