By how much male roles dominate Hollywood movies?

Tools    





Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
You can’t deny that it will be interfered with. How much that will limit freedom of expression...who knows.
I'm sorry to break your bubble but 'freedom of expression' is a very empty concept. From the moment a screenwriter puts the first word down to the marketing of a movie, the whole process is loaded with politics. Freedom of expression doesn't mean **** when that means that only men get their stories told in movies. It just means that the film world is an obvious manifestation of patriarchal structures. I think if we were truly free, that is, in a political vacuum, then maybe you can speak of freedom of expression. Besides, you'd never know if a movie was better with a white male. You will just speculate which shows bias from your side. If you like a movie, you like it. If you hate it, that sucks. But don't blame that on the cast unless they are legitimately bad actors/actresses.
So you acknowledge that the process is already loaded with politics and you’re fine with adding gender and race politics to it. I do agree with your last point though. I wouldn’t have a problem if the cast was good but if they’re added into the role because they are blank or white or male female and not suited to that particulsr role or story.....if they are in the role to please the equal representation statistics...then it interferes too much imo.



So you acknowledge that the process is already loaded with politics and you’re fine with adding gender and race politics to it. I do agree with your last point though. I wouldn’t have a problem if the cast was good but if they’re added into the role because they are blank or white or male female and not suited to that particulsr role or story.....if they are in the role to please the equal representation statistics...then it interferes too much imo.
I think you are just principally against it but the truth is that you won't notice it. White men have made bad movies. Quantitatively, they've made the most bad movies. You'll never know how something was supposed to be. And like I said, race and gender politics are already present. The past decades those were at the disadvantage of people of color and women. It's only the past years that people realize that inclusion = good and that's why movies have a more diverse cast. It's nothing unnatural or forced, it's just that the zeitgeist has changed. If only like 5% of people in movies are people of colour, then that's an obvious sign of systematic prejudices against people of colour, or at least not enough opportunities. so then a quota wouldn't be a bad thing. I just hope quotas won't be needed and people will gradually automatically include a diverse cast and pick the right person for every role. But that's easier said than done when we still have deep-rooted prejudices.
__________________
Check out my movie blog



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
So you acknowledge that the process is already loaded with politics and you’re fine with adding gender and race politics to it. I do agree with your last point though. I wouldn’t have a problem if the cast was good but if they’re added into the role because they are blank or white or male female and not suited to that particulsr role or story.....if they are in the role to please the equal representation statistics...then it interferes too much imo.
I think you are just principally against it but the truth is that you won't notice it. White men have made bad movies. Quantitatively, they've made the most bad movies. You'll never know how something was supposed to be. And like I said, race and gender politics are already present. The past decades those were at the disadvantage of people of color and women. It's only the past years that people realize that inclusion = good and that's why movies have a more diverse cast. It's nothing unnatural or forced, it's just that the zeitgeist has changed. If only like 5% of people in movies are people of colour, then that's an obvious sign of systematic prejudices against people of colour, or at least not enough opportunities. so then a quota wouldn't be a bad thing. I just hope quotas won't be needed and people will gradually automatically include a diverse cast and pick the right person for every role. But that's easier said than done when we still have deep-rooted prejudices.
I would like to see the right person for every role as you although I don’t believe they need to be racially and gender diverse. If they are great! But it should not be forced.



I would like to see the right person for every role as you although I don’t believe they need to be racially and gender diverse. If they are great! But it should not be forced.
Now it just seems like you're saying you don't care about equality. That's not something I can respect.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Don't create quotas on the number of blacks or women in the movies! Stop blackwashing! Don't give women a head start! If they are talented, let them play/direct, but don't let a black play Julius Caesar, don't let an Asian play Adolf Hitler, don't let a whitey play Nelson Mandela! Don't cast people of different race, religion, or sexuality only to meet some contrived idea of equality, because it doesn't have to be equality! A white, straight man can be more talented than a black woman! Or the other way around! Only the talent should decide, but politics are too much in the way! F*ck politics! Just sit at home and make found footage essay films ala Godard! Full freedom gained at last!
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
If you have to draw such an insanely stupid comparison like an Asian playing Adolf Hitler, then I guess you missed this post:

I don't think art dies if a black man plays the main role of a movie instead of a white man (except if the movie specifically calls for a white male)
And people are always too quick to throw judgment. Why is it more forced to put a black man in a role he might play just as well? When IS it not forced? How can you tell when they are not forcing diversity? Would you rather not have everyone get an equally good opportunity to do acting or direct? The problem is not that Hollywood is suddenly "forcing diversity", it's that people like you are making such a god-damn big deal out of it when it doesn't neccessarily affect the quality of the movie. I guess you're one of those who were against a black stormtrooper just because they wear white helmets.



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
I would like to see the right person for every role as you although I don’t believe they need to be racially and gender diverse. If they are great! But it should not be forced.
Now it just seems like you're saying you don't care about equality. That's not something I can respect.
What a pathetic assumption to make.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
it is often easy to know whether a person is male or female by their writing style. For instance, everybody knew I was a male here even though I didn't say it for years.

.
You're kidding, right? How can you or any of us know without a shadow of a doubt the person we are talking to online is who they say they are? Unless you meet them you cannot, and even then they could still be playing a game and send their best buddy to meet you and he/she knows all the quirks and such because two people have been trolling you the whole time. I am frequently 'accused' of being a male, sometimes a gay male, transgender etcetc none of which bothers me because I love the company of men, gay, transgender or otherwise, it they happen to be a nice person. .Even on here I have been 'accused' of being male. Infact, someone kissing your gluteous maximus only a few months ago sent me an irate PM, still thinking I was male. I ignored it so I'm not sure what on earth that person wanted. Maybe i am, infact, male and dont realise it yet, and that person is on the need to know basis and I am not

Thus endeth my lesson for the day.Resume normal broadcast.

Guapo, Hi how are you and it's good to see you back. I have always enjoyed (I'm not sure that's the word I really want to use to better describe how I feel about our banter, but it's all positive!) your posts, although I was rather perplexed by a comment in CR's mofie aawards thingy you made about me. Anyway, as I said it's good to see you back.

This is a very interesting thread. I'm enjoying it immensely, darrrlings.



There's talk about quotas in here, but I see nothing in either the data or this discussion here that has someone arguing for quotas (strict, loose, or otherwise). I also see talk about "forcing" diversity in various forms. And I see talk about how surely this will even out in time.

Re: Quotas
The reason this is bugging me is because there's no need to reach for a straw version of arguments not even present here. This is just data. It's likely symptomatic and not causal. No one really seems to be saying otherwise, but there's a lot of back-patting for standing up for freedom when I just want to ask: who are you arguing against?

You could probably find some random person on twitter that thinks that way, but then go argue with them on twitter. Why aren't we talking to the people present?

And that's not to say no one's doing that here. Obviously there's good back and forth too. Which I've appreciated.

Re: It will just take time
Let's look at this data, look over the decades. It gets a little more balanced over time, but in no way is it trending toward anything CLOSE to balanced within 10, 20, or even 30 years. If that's not a problem for you for x, y, z reasons, that's fine, there's arguments sure. But unless you can point to something that would cause a total tidal shift, assuming it'll just happen is not apparent from the data.

Re: Forcing diversity
Here's the meat, in my opinion. There's a spectrum between forcing quotas and forcing people to be cognizant of their bias or the bias around them. Right now lets assume the problem is not driven by individual bias (where sexist producer X says the film must minimize female speaking time just because) but rather aggregate bias (meaning the accumulation of slight unconscious biases of many people as well as structural bias). One compelling way to combat aggregate bias is raising consciousness about the issue. Cause it to be a thought in filmmakers' minds: does this part need to be male?

If there's a decent reason, sure, keep it male! But truly, there's a LOT of parts in films that just didn't need to be male, but often we don't have a female character unless they needed to be female.

If there's an unconscious bias, you can combat it with a conscious attempt to unbias. Just make it a consideration. That's really the bulk of the argument for me. I don't think it's that threatening.



Not everything is nurture no. There are clear physiological differences between men and women and our hormones work different. But the whole testosteron = aggression thing is a myth. Nothing about our hormones makes men better leaders than women. Men are just generally raised with different expectations.
So you agreed that there exists neurological differences?

I am not a specialist on gender differences so I don't have a well defined opinion on whether there are way more male directors is due to neurological differences as opposed to sexism.

I guess we should look at the most gender equal countries and see what's the proportion of movie directors in those countries. If even in countries like Norway there are more male directors than female directors then it might not be sexism.

I suspect it is a combination of both though.



So you agreed that there exists neurological differences?

I am not a specialist on gender differences so I don't have a well defined opinion on whether there are way more male directors is due to neurological differences as opposed to sexism.

I guess we should look at the most gender equal countries and see what's the proportion of movie directors in those countries. If even in countries like Norway there are more male directors than female directors then it might not be sexism.

I suspect it is a combination of both though.
YOURE COMPARING THE MOVIE INDUSTRY IN NORWAY TO HOLLYWOOD
PICK ME UP LOLLLL



Yikes. Guap just gave you a pretty reasonable, nuanced reply where he says sexism probably still plays a role, and your response is an all-caps mocking that seems to deliberately misunderstand the point?



So you agreed that there exists neurological differences?

I am not a specialist on gender differences so I don't have a well defined opinion on whether there are way more male directors is due to neurological differences as opposed to sexism.

I guess we should look at the most gender equal countries and see what's the proportion of movie directors in those countries. If even in countries like Norway there are more male directors than female directors then it might not be sexism.

I suspect it is a combination of both though.
Norway is not a uniquely gender-equal society.

That said, let's think about this more carefully. Suppose we have a society in which, to keep the example relevant, men tend to become successful film directors more often than women do. Why might this be? Let's presuppose, being that neither of us are misogynists, that we believe that women and men are, on average, equally capable of doing things that aren't physical labor in which the physiological differences in muscle mass between genders would create some biological barrier (for what it's worth, I think this concept is also dubious and worth exploring in more detail, but to avoid getting bogged down in gender science and focus specifically on the socioeconomic ideas, I'm going to ignore it).

Filmmaking is not a task that women are outmatched in physiologically, like, say, sports. So, it stands to reason that, in a meritocratic society, where men and women are on average equally capable at filmmaking, the very best filmmakers would be the ones that succeed, and the very best filmmakers would be comprised of, roughly, 50% men and 50% women (give or take a percentage point or two), because the hypothetical graph of 'potential filmmaking prowess' for men and women as a collective population would be roughly even, so there would be the same number of really great ones, who go on to succeed based on meritocratic preference.

This is not what we see in this society though. More men seem to be succeeding at the job than women are. Why? Well, either women are actually not equally capable of being great filmmakers on average, i.e. men are better than women at the thing, which is definitionally sexist, or, the society we are observing is not in fact a meritocracy, and there is some type of systemic block preventing women from achieving to the level they should be.

The effects of this systemic block, which is no doubt very complicated and more difficult to explain and confront than 'the people in charge are maliciously anti-women' which is likely not the case, can be seen through a number of possible perspectives. Perhaps less women go into the field in the first place, do to a work environment that is hostile to them where they face threats of harassment and assault by people in power with very little recourse to actually protect themselves. Maybe the larger society that consumes films tends to see women-centered projects a certain way, dismissing them as fluff or 'chick-flicks' and taking them less seriously, leading them to be less prestigious and potentially less profitable, or limiting those projects to very specific, profitable stereotypical 'feminine' genres that some women filmmakers aren't interested in, leading the one's that do enter the industry to lose interest in the profession, and also limiting the overall amount of opportunity they have to succeed relative to men if they do continue to try.

The underlying causes to all these problems are very complex, and the solutions will be as well. It will take a long time, and it will not be easy, to try and correct the underlying causes of this systemic inequality. In the mean time, accounting for the inequality by acting affirmatively *wink* to create more opportunity for women can be a great start as we attempt to solve the underlying issues so such action wouldn't be necessary. It'll be a lot of work, sure, but it will be worth it, both because creating a more equal society for all people is, at least to me, an intrinsically good thing, and more directly, because we'll get better art. Some of the best and brightest potential filmmakers in the world are women, and those women have great art in them, and every time a potentially great woman filmmaker doesn't succeed because they are pushed out of the industry due to harassment, or lack of opportunity, not only is her life negatively affected and that is awful and should be reason enough to want to fix it, but we also lose out on all the great art she could have made, and that just, idk, that kinda sucks.

(as a brief aside, I also think meritocracy is a somewhat dubious concept, because I am deeply skeptical of what, or more accurately, who, determines what merit is, and why they have the power to do so, but that is less relevant to this discussion so I suppose I won't dwell on it beyond this passing mention).

This could all be applied not just to filmmaking, or women, or some hypothetical society. This can be applied to our society, with any group that faces systemic oppression, be it women, LGBT+ people, poor people, people of color, etc., and in any profession. If we are not bigoted, and therefore believe that people of all types are equally capable of achieving something, then when the highest achievers of something aren't representative of the larger population, something isn't adding up, and we should want to fix it, both because it's the right thing to do to make sure all people have unfettered ability to pursue that which brings them happiness and flourishing in life, and because as a society we are better off when that is the case and people are free to do the best they can and accomplish what wouldn't have been possible otherwise. We, as people interested in film, have both an ethical and an artistic interest in creating a more equal industry that is more representative of the diverse people and experiences of the world. That's my take anyway.

(tl;dr if women aren't achieving something at as high a rate as men, then there kinda has to be some kind of societal reason for it, because the other possibility, that women are inherently on average less capable, is kinda inherently misogynist. We should want to correct for those reasons, because doing so makes the most people have the best chance to creating good lives for themselves, and also will consequently result in more people making better art. )

(also I apologize for the long-windedness of my posts on the subject, but this is an issue that, as an aspiring filmmaker—who is male fwiw—I am quite passionate about and have done a lot of research on and put a lot of thought into, so I felt the need to be as thorough as I could be)



You're kidding, right? How can you or any of us know without a shadow of a doubt the person we are talking to online is who they say they are?
That was not what I said. I said that it is possible to have a reasonable guess of wheter a person is male or female by the way they write. For example I always thought Zotis as male and I guess you are female right?

Unless you meet them you cannot, and even then they could still be playing a game and send their best buddy to meet you and he/she knows all the quirks and such because two people have been trolling you the whole time. I am frequently 'accused' of being a male, sometimes a gay male, transgender etcetc none of which bothers me because I love the company of men, gay, transgender or otherwise, it they happen to be a nice person. .Even on here I have been 'accused' of being male. Infact, someone kissing your gluteous maximus only a few months ago sent me an irate PM, still thinking I was male. I ignored it so I'm not sure what on earth that person wanted. Maybe i am, infact, male and dont realise it yet, and that person is on the need to know basis and I am not
I just guessed you were female and I was right!

Well I perceived you as female. Usually people who have a more gentle and agreeable style tend to be females. That is, females tend to try being in harmony with the world while males tend to be more assertive.

Guapo, Hi how are you and it's good to see you back. I have always enjoyed (I'm not sure that's the word I really want to use to better describe how I feel about our banter, but it's all positive!) your posts, although I was rather perplexed by a comment in CR's mofie aawards thingy you made about me. Anyway, as I said it's good to see you back.
I never left. If you check my animation thread you will notice that I have been posting there regularly.



Usually people who have a more gentle and agreeable style tend to be females. That is, females tend to try being in harmony with the world while males tend to be more assertive.



Yikes. Guap just gave you a pretty reasonable, nuanced reply where he says sexism probably still plays a role, and your response is an all-caps mocking that seems to deliberately misunderstand the point?
Are you serious? He's literally saying that the reason there are more male directors is because of neurological differences and that men are just more apt. I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone in 2018 can take that serious. Then he continues to draw comparisons to Norway. I have lived in Norway and I can tell you there is no film world at all. So it can not be used to prove anything about sexism in the film world. It just seems like a lame way of trying to prove his point. If there are perhaps 3 known film directors in Norway there is no way to have any reliable data about the sex division.

But anyways, I see that here it's all about the male circlejerk. If you legitimately believe that women are less apt to be film directors then you don't deserve my replies. I've been on all-male forums before. It's just the same old same old. Liking each others posts. Coming with crappy comparisons to someone 'prove' you're right and never once trying to see the female perspective. Yawn. Yikes. Guap get some chicken. Get some bread.




This is not what we see in this society though. More men seem to be succeeding at the job than women are. Why? Well, either women are actually not equally capable of being great filmmakers on average, i.e. men are better than women at the thing, which is definitionally (sic) sexist, or, the society we are observing is not in fact a meritocracy, and there is some type of systemic block preventing women from achieving to the level they should be.
(Emphasis mine.)

O.k... I am loving this debate. Partly because of the subject matter, but even more because this has to be the highest level of debate that I have encountered in an online debate ever.

While I am not attempting to lower the level of debate, it would seem to me that your statement here is suggesting that, should women simply be not as good as men at being directors (for whatever physiological reason), that it would be sexist. However, it would also be reality. (Not that I am saying that it is, but you give it as one of two possibilities here.) Are you suggesting that reality is and/or can be sexist?



Slightly on/off topic Edit: What if, due to physiological differences, film is simply a medium that appeals more to men. Thus, while women may love film for different reasons, the visceral tone of film simply works better for the male mind? Thus, while men may not be better at directors than women physiologically, it may be that the medium simply works better for males physiologically. And male directors (while not better at being directors simply due to being male) may simply know how to better connect with a male audience due to the fact that they are male. Obversely, It could be that the books work better for women physiologically and that is why women have made much larger strides as creators in the written word than they have in the visual medium because they will connect better with the women who connect through that medium better due to the female audience's physiological preferences. Thus, the physiological differences in the brain might have something to do with it, but for audience reasons, not for creator reasons.

(I really hope that makes sense because it is very late and I have been drinking wine.)

What do you think?



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Just look at the number of female film buffs. I have accounts on various movie rating sites, and also here, and I find women to be maybe around 10% of film buffs. And even that is a favorable estimate. Does it mean women are neglected and oppressed by patriarchial sexist male pig film buffs who do not let them develop their interests, or just that this particular field seems to, for whatever reason, appeal more to men?



Are you serious? He's literally saying that the reason there are more male directors is because of neurological differences and that men are just more apt.
Here's the post, emphasis added:

So you agreed that there exists neurological differences?

I am not a specialist on gender differences so I don't have a well defined opinion on whether there are way more male directors is due to neurological differences as opposed to sexism.

I guess we should look at the most gender equal countries and see what's the proportion of movie directors in those countries. If even in countries like Norway there are more male directors than female directors then it might not be sexism.

I suspect it is a combination of both though.
He specifically says he doesn't really have a strong opinion on why it is, but acknowledges sexism probably plays a role.

If you legitimately believe that women are less apt to be film directors then you don't deserve my replies.
If you legitimately believe your responses so far have been thoughtful and fair, then I don't want them. Because as currently constituted--rife with speculative disdain and reflexive condescension--you're quite right: I don't deserve them.

I've been on all-male forums before. It's just the same old same old. Liking each others posts. Coming with crappy comparisons to someone 'prove' you're right and never once trying to see the female perspective.
The funny thing about coming into discussions with this kind of attitude is that it's usually self-fulfilling.

So yeah, crash a thread sarcastically calling people "hun" and laughing at them for no good reason, and I daresay you'll get back pretty similar responses. But maybe try a couple of discussions where you don't talk to people like they're backwards sexist idiots (at least not right away!) and see if that leads to a different output.