By how much male roles dominate Hollywood movies?

You feel offended by the word 'hun'
that's some fragile masculinity right there.

__________________
Check out my movie blog

I don't think you could offend me if you tried. But it's sarcastic and condescending, and you don't have to be a man (fragile or otherwise) to think that's lame.

It sure is conspicuous how often you go for some weird, forced insult when people try to respond to what you're saying seriously. Kinda seems like you're not interested in having an actual discussion, but just in scoring cheap points with some imaginary cheering section.

> using "fragile masculinity" as an insult while also preaching "equality" and everybody's right to be the way one wants

__________________
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.

the whole point of fragile masculinity is that it enforces gender roles that men should be strong manly all the time. when someone pushes back so hard to girly things it is because they don't want to be associated with 'feminine' things, hence 'fragile masculinity'

Right, you were fighting against gender roles when you told a dude to toughen up and not be so easily upset.

I feel like we just had this whole "women cant direct because vaginas" discussion just a week ago in this thread. Seeing a lot of the same misconceptions here though.

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Yeah, but the hyperglib responses and gendered put-downs to those perceived misconceptions is totally new!

No you misunderstood. Being called 'hun' is not a bad thing or derogatory. I call my female friends hun too. Is it weird because it's a man? It shouldn't be.

Nope, it's not bad or weird at all, provided you're saying it as a term of endearment. But not if it's being used sarcastically or condescendingly, obviously.

Here's a crazy theory, could interest be a factor? As in other multilayered statistical alanalyses that have been done on the subject of gender gaps in various industries, it always comes down to interest. This is old boring news, but maybe this time it'll be different... The number of women employed as directors probably correlates to the number who applied to, got accepted for, and graduated from film studies. It's simply a matter of interest. There is no conspiracy of systemic prejudice.


Okay look, do any statistical analysis of any category of human beings and you will find remarkable inequalities. Equality is not a goal to be striven for. We do not need one person of each category in each field, we simply need the best qualified person regardless of their gender or nationality, or any other category. If more women want to be film makers nothing is holding them back in Western society, if anything they have more opportunity.


You know, it reminds me of a cherios commercial. Two little girls argue over who has more so the dad eats some to make it even. Of course it's never even until there are only 2 cherios in each bowl... but then one has more milk...

Systematic prejudice is no conspiracy..
And if you'd read the thread you'd see that it's not always prejudice inside the film world but that it's not easy for women to enter the film world at all because it's such a man's club. So maybe a lot of women won't even try because they feel intimidated. Or they are not socialized to think of being a film director as their option. It's all these factors that play a role that are due to the inequality between the sexes. That's why we need female directors as role models like we have Tarantino and Scorcese.

Not everything is as simple as statistics. We need to look at the bigger picture.

Have you all considered the fact that maybe the reason you all have not interacted with as many female film buffs is that many male-dominated film circles feel hostile to women? Personally most of the film people in my area are women (while I am not). I don't think the problem is lack of interest, I think that women tend to not enjoy being surrounded by men because the conversation tends to turn hostile towards women (as it arguably has here with all the men in this thread trying to argue that it's possible that women are just kinda worse at filmmaking, or some point adjacent to it). I would say if a group of predominantly-male film buffs have a problem attracting women t join the conversation, it would be better for them to look inward at why, rather than projecting lack of interest outward onto the women, because I can tell you, there are plenty of women interested in film. This is like the nerd's "girls don't like video games" argument. Girls love video games, they just don't like gamers, who, while may not be personally misogynistic, allow a misogynistic culture to grow in their community. For film it is the same (for MOST male dominated things, it is the same. Most of us are not openly sexist, but most of us are more tolerant of other people's sexism and do sexist things on a subtler, sometimes subconscious level).

Sure, lack interest could be a factor (though I'm skeptical). But why would it be a factor? What is leading women to be less interested? Either it would have to be biological differences (which to me seems like, if not as overtly sexist as the capability argument, at the very least a justification for a lack of action that comes from a position of subconscious bias) or there has to be some cultural factors at play leading women to not develop an interest in film or lose interest in it (which again, I would point back to the hostile work/hobby environments, lack of opportunity/publically successful women relative to men, that limitations on 'feminine' genre filmmaking, the fact that many films are so male dominated that women tend not to find their experiences represented and therefore don't grasp onto the medium the way men and and they would have if there had been more women-led films, etc).

I'm going to jump past the wage gap point because I have a feeling we probably have very different perspectives on that issue and I feel like getting bogged down on that would be detrimental to the conversation.

Yes, true equality will never really be achieved. However, you're arguing for meritocracy, which, while I'm not myself a pure meritocrat (because I think 'best qualified' is a vague term and the standards for which are mutable by people in positions of unjust power), within the context of meritocracy, I've already made an argument for why the society we live in is very clearly not a meritocracy, and if it were, the most successful people in any given field would more closely (though not perfectly) represent the larger population. Feel free to read my previous post for a more detailed explanation.

Right now women do not have equal opportunities to become filmmakers. They face threat of harassment, lack of opportunity to create artistic products that don't fit the mold of what 'women's films' or 'chick flicks' can be commercially, etc. on a level that men simply don't. The idea that the reason we don't see more successful women filmmakers isn't because something is holding them back and it's because not enough of them are trying hard enough is extremely presumptuous as well as being kind of condescending and also kinda sexist. Not that you are sexist, you seem like a decent person, but decent people sometimes fall into bad thinking patterns by accident because the larger society has work to do on a given issue.

I'm suggesting that the belief that women are less capable on average as filmmakers (or anything) whether or not it is true, is sexist. The idea that women are equally capable as men on average should not even be a matter of debate. It's why in my argument I presupposed that fact, because to me, to construct a fair and just society, you have to believe that people are equally capable on average regardless of demographic. To do otherwise would be to construct a society that is inherently unfair and unjust (I do believe the society we live in now, unfortunately, is unfair and unjust).

Film is more visceral because men made it that way. If more films were made by women, people of color, etc. that haven't had the opportunity to do so, their films may be very different (not because of physiological differences, but because they have a different perspective because society treats them differently and they therefore have had different experiences). The assumption that men are predisposed to be better at the medium due to the medium's conventions (which were invented by men, and could have been different) is just the physiology argument with extra steps, and to me is still kinda sexist.

There is no shortage of interest from women in film. Film is the definitive art form of American culture. The reason women aren't going into the industry as often or succeeding as often does not come from that, it comes from systemic problems in our society, from the more psychoanalytical (socialization) to more concrete threats (hostile, harassment-prone work environments) to inherent problems with the body of films that exist (predominantly made by men, and specifically white men fwiw). The reason men might 'connect' with film more easily than women is because the majority of films are made by, for, and starring men (as the data at the beginning of the thread suggests). If there were more women films (by, for, and/or starring women) women may be drawn to the medium more often as well.

Anyway, in general it seems like for a group of people that wants to claim itself to be not sexist, so many of us in the film buff world and in the film industry are so quick to look for ways to avoid thinking about systemic problems in the industry, and just want to say 'hey, maybe the women are just worse' which seems like, at the very least, people are subconsciously fine with the idea that women are less capable, and that to me stems from sexism (which is admittedly a product of our society). Someone else in the thread said that unconscious bias needs to be met with a conscious attempt to unbias. I agree. I think a lot of men are just not willing to actually do the work of thinking about this issue, of researching, of genuinely and empathetically listening to women, because it's easier to just say that things are fine and the complaints are invalid and just SJW feminist squabbling. But things are not fine, and people will keep trying to fix it, so you can either try to help, or be seen as part of the problem. Personally, the idea of being part of the problem disturbs me, I would hate the be the one that puts a woman in an uncomfortable situation without realizing it, or tolerating hostile stuff in my community that I don't really agree with. So I try not to be. I hope all of you will too, even if I know it won't be the case.

I don't care about a lot of movies that are deemed masterpieces by BFI or whatever. Most movies in history are made for the male gaze. Spring Breakers? It's a cult classic. But I wonder why.. I turned it off the second I saw how much it was aimed at the male gaze. And I've seen all the 'woke' reasons why it's a good movie. Don't lie to yourself. It's boobs.
And since most movies tell male stories (except romantic comedies which should not even qualify as movies), i can see why there are more male buffs than female buffs. Isn't that kind of logical? That is exactly why we are having this conversation in the first place. More female directors. More movies where women are smart and capable without being overly sexual all the time. Where women are great because of how they are, not of how they make a man feel (MPDM) or whatnot.

I've agreed with most you've said so far, but you are kinda reaching here:

Mentioning how you turned it off quickly before trying to see what the movie was trying to do doesn’t support your point well. Maybe you would have changed your mind if watching it all the way through.

What does this even mean?

This is simply not true. Any male film buff I asked would be more than glad to meet/interact with a female who is into movies. That's hot!
Yeah, you're right! Every time I encounter a female film buff I instantly tell her straight in her face that she is a nobody and will never be as great a film aficionado as me. Well, actually I say this to every person, no matter the sex.
Yes and no. On a world scale - yes, but compared to the number of male film buffs - no.
Here's my take at explaining it. Just a fair warning - this is a generalization and is not to be taken as a depiction of all women, or men, and also with a grain of salt. Just something I observed that might be the reason in some cases. Generally, I'd say there are many more no-life men than women, and while having no life does not really equal being a film buff, it might be adjacent to it. There are many more men who are into listening to & rating obscure albums on RYM too. Getting there most of the time takes a certain amount of thousands of hours spent on the computer, that many girls simply don't do. They'd rather use their phones and be online on Facebook 24 hours a day, and apart from that do girly things like shopping, going outside (I kid you not, girls ARE bigger normies than men) and what not. I feel an angry feminist attack coming in 3... 2... 1... . It's also cultural. Girls are mostly brought up with several ideas in mind: fashion, looking nice, impressing boys and other girls etc. Most men are not, so they don't give a flying damn about them and just waste away their lives in their caves. Women care about themselves much more. I think that actually the problem lies in this very cultural/bringing up thing. Nobody's saying "you can't be into films/become a filmmaker!" when you are 18, but people, TV etc. all tell you how you should be as a woman, and that corrupts girls' minds and makes them as dumb as many of them are. Now, don't think I'm sexist - many men are freakin' stupid too. Well, at least that's true among my friends and acquaintances. I don't think your explanation that films are made for men and therefore women are not into them is right. It's just like saying a film on a straight couple would make a gay person totally uninterested in it. Well, I identify myself as a failure, but have no problem enjoying films on successful people.
Well, on average women are less capable of lifting and moving around heavy objects on a contruction site, so it's obvious a boss would rather hire a 200 lbs strapping young lad than a petite gal. She is simply not capable of performing this kind of job. Women are capable of performing all mental jobs as good as men, though.

That I'm just tired of how toxic the relationships are in romcoms. All a woman cares about is finding love, then she finds mr. perfect who does something completely out of line, then shows up with roses or some big proposal and everything is ok. A lot of them normalize toxic relationships. Give me movies like (500) Days of summer or Roman Holiday and I'm good.

"That's hot." Boiling down the presence of women in a conversation to sex appeal, even as a joke, is part of that hostile environment. Hostile doesn't have to be overtly threatening or aggressive, it can be simple, benign stuff that makes people feel unwelcome, and having your hypothetical introduction already being based around sexualization, is part of the problem.

"Women are capable of performing all mental jobs as good as men though" yeah, and filmmaking is a mental job. I should have said 'everything except athletics or manual labor' because those two things are more complicated (though even there it's not as cut and dry as we'd like to believe—I'm sure a really buff girl would be far more useful on a construction site than I would, as a really reductive, individualistic example)

As for that whole paragraph in the middle, it's a little incoherent and I'm not really sure how to engage with it in a way that wouldn't boil down to a sentence by sentence breakdown of like, everything I find wrong with it and why, and i've already written over 2000 words in this thread trying to craft a sound argument, and that just seems like more work than I have the patience to do right now, so I'm just not going to comment further, but I do think the other two things stand.

I've heard good things about 500 Days Of Summer, but I'm more of the sentimental type. Frankie And Johnny, Modern Times, When Harry Met Sally and Amélie are great romantic comedies which feel more real since they don't resort to most of the dumb clichés you see in some of them (especially newer ones).

Wait, isn't this what all people ever care about?
Sorry, but I perceive this as being too touchy. If a girl said she finds male film buffs hot, you would not talk about hostile environments, would you? Sexuality is a part of our lives, and I find it only natural that somebody is attracted to people who share one's hobbies.
Same here. But in this case I'd like to think of myself as the boss.

Sure, maybe it is touchy, and chances are a girl isn't gonna see one guy on one forum call her hot and be like 'welp no more movies for me'. It's not that simple. It's more of a collective thing. Little things like that aren't what make them leave, but it makes them uncomfortable and when you hear these things all the time, when you're distilled down to your sex appeal all the time, when your opinions are taken slightly less seriously because of the way they are perceived, not by overt bigotry but by slight, subtle biases people have. All that stuff adds up over time and leaves them with an overall sense that they don't really belong in that space, because the people there haven't treated them with the respect they seem to give other men. I hate to be the one here melodramatically soapboxing on behalf of women or whatever, especially since I shouldn't have to because women have been saying this stuff for literally ever and instead of dismissing them as touchy maybe we should just listen and do better. It's really not that hard to just be a decent person.