By how much male roles dominate Hollywood movies?

This one was hilarious though.




At least you arent calling yourself Steve anymore.

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

this suddenly became the best thread on the board. Thanks, guys. Belly laughing turned into a band of kookabuburas. Blessed be.

evenmy spellink cant annoy me today

It's a policy I am proposing where the government will force all movie studios to have at least 50% of their movies directed by a woman. That is, ANY movie studio will need to produce and release at least one movie directed by a woman for each movie directed by a man that they decide to make and release.

In Brazil ANY scripted TV show produced by a Brazilian company has to have at least 25% of the cast composed of black actors. If the show doesn't have it is ilegal to air it on TV.

By the way, in Brazil only 7.6% of population identifies as black: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a...city_in_Brazil)

Also, in Brazil they were also studying a policy to force all (including cable) TV channels to have at least 25% of all their TV shows made in Brazil. That is, Animax, a channel spealized in Japanese animation, would need to fill up 25% of that channel's programming with Brazilian TV shows in some way.

I guess in the US regulations are light. I was talking about a hypothetical law to force film companies to achieve gender parity for women in terms of directing.

72.6%, according to a poll that someone made up.
















It was me, I made it up.

Oh okay, sorry I misunderstood. What if there was a policy where instead of picking a female or male director, the Hollywood producer, when picking a director is forced to watch movies by directors they do not know are male or female, and pick the director who thought made the best past movies, not knowing the gender. Then the director is therefore, picked for her/his work and talent, rather than gender.

Would that work?

Just because x made the best movie in the past does not mean he/she is a fit for what the producer and the investors want.

Once again, when is enough enough? At what point will it all have leveled out? In what year can we simply stop worrying about gender or race or whatever and just hire the best person?

I dont think its so much about restrictions on hiring (thats why I dont really buy the sky is falling quotas rhetoric). Its more about the back end. Creating programs specifically for females in film schools. Exposing them to whats possible and encouraging them with scholarships and internships and networking systems throughout the career process. Creating a film industry culture thats no longer male only or male dominant. Then, over time, from that kind of overt consistent effort you will have talented females available for hire and a film culture that sees them as as solid an option as a man. Then the art will only improve based on the expansion of the talent pool. Too many people are seeing women in the industry as a diminishing of the art. They should in fact see it the opposite since the more you broaden your personnel options the better the likelihood youll see better output (and better profits mind you). This has been proven over and over again in corporate settings.

I agree with the bolded statement but continue to disagree on how to reach it.

I just fail to see how schools being open to anyone isn't enough. Why would we need extra opportunities for women (or for anyone) when there already is an equal opportunity to apply? If women are on average 1) equally talented and 2) equally interested in making films equal opportunity will eventually correct the situation. Attempts to quicken the process artificially is far more prone to weaken the talent pool (it becomes a tempting choice for people who didn't get to study what they actually wanted).

I do agree that women should be considered as solid options as men but only when they really are equally talented. Making it easier for women to get into schools and into industry is not going to help with the respect - in my opinion it does the opposite. Let women fight for the same spots in the sun as men, that's my idea of equality.

but your definition of "artificially" is actually removing barriers that have been in place forever. Is that really a bad thing? Removing barriers? Because what I was pointing out there is how to EVEN THE PLAYINGFIELD so that men and women can have the same fair shot. That doesnt mean they wouldnt still need to go through the process of making themselves worthy for consideration.


The TRUE "idea of equality" is equal competition on an equal playingfield. Otherwise its not equal competition is it?

Amen to that.

What barriers exist for women who wish to go to film schools? How doesn't "Creating programs specifically for females" mean that "they wouldnt still need to go through the process of making themselves worthy for consideration"? Why doesn't the playing field even itself out with time without special programs and quotas when both men and women can apply to same schools on equal terms?

is your implication here that a focus on offering particular courses and networking opportunities and other means of encouragement and support would by definition make them unworthy for consideration? We have been doing that for men in particular all along.

Power imbalance tends to resist "evening itself out" at all costs. Which is why overt action has always been needed to make changes in all social dynamics be it civil right movements or suffrage movements or labor movements or you name it. Those with the power tend to resist giving up that advantage either consciously and aggressively or by means of unconscious bias.You cant have real progress without effort. Enjoying the fruits of stacked odds and then refusing to unstack those odds isnt being equal.

No. My implication is that courses and networking opportunities for women already exist. Why do you think that going back to sex segregation would somehow create equality now when it obviously didn't do that in the past?

Sigh. The odds have already been unstacked. Suffragettes didn't get voting rights to women by demanding double votes based on the old oppression and civil rights movement wasn't fighting for white slavery. Labor movement was slightly different especially after communism took root and it's no wonder that feminism (and multiculturalism) appeals mostly to same people as communism (I'm not saying that labor movement was bad - it wasn't - but it was abused by people with questionable agendas). Just like your examples feminism has in most parts already achieved its agenda and just like labor movement in the past it's now being abused to completely different ends.

Ah so your notion is that this is all solved? that everything is equal now? then whats your explanation for why women make up only 7% of all top level film directors? And that number actually went DOWN from 2015 so the notion that the playingfield will "fix itself" doesnt seem to work. And what about 13% of writers, 17% of executive producers, 17% of editors, 5% of cinematographers, etc? What is your theory why those numbers are all so low if everything is solved and equal now? Is it simply something about the women?

Well isnt that up to all of us to start treating humans like human beings and not a piece of meat friends of Harvey can swing their penis (what is the plural of penis?Penii doesnt really work, does it?!). in their faces.Well thats being going on since jesus was crucified. Right there. Yup.
Worshipping at the altar of the penis. Is this quickening happening to get to all minority group in power and men relegated to snd place ie the first of the losers who sit at home and joyfully bury their sadness by chiomping on chocolates and drinking martinis over and over just like hedgehog day.

At times you're saying it's not about quotas but it all comes down to percentages anyway. For me the facts are:

1) women have the same opportunities to apply to film schools
2) women have the same opportunities to make their self-produced indie titles
3) money doesn't care about gender

With equal opportunities to get education and equal opportunity to devote their lives to art of film it really comes down to women themselves to close the gap. Also by fixing itself I don't obviously mean 50/50 split but whatever split that naturally follows from equal opportunity (whether it's 50/50, 90/10 or 10/90, I don't really care).

Have you ever even considered that maybe women in general aren't as interested in making movies? After all there's a damn long time of human evolution that has steered sexes into different directions. Differences do go deeper than penises and vaginas.

The people loudest about the greatness of diversity have the lhe most one track minds right now.

You just side stepped my entire question. Why is that?

and yet WOMEN ARENT GETTING HIRED as is reflected in the numbers. Again WHY IS THAT? Why refuse to answer that question other than a coy "chicks just arent interested in movies" as if "human evolution" directly effects womens desire to create film art but not engage in say engineering or technology or science fields ALL of which have seen female percentage numbers slowly start to grow in those MUCH more traditionally associated MALE dominated fields. And you know why? Because there has been made a concerted effort to attract females to these fields that until recently women were almost entirely unrepresented in. Was it because they were "uninterested" in that intellectual guy stuff? No. It was (and still is) largely because they feel like society doesnt want or expect them to engage in such jobs. Not to mention because they werent given the same opportunities for access and consideration for these positions as men were. So YES it required ACTIVE PURPOSEFUL AND SUSTAINED engagement of women in education, post-education and in hiring to move the needle on those fields. And the result? Not the death of engineering and science and technology as men were "kept out" and unqualified women were brought in, but in fact MORE talented people working in these positions. Not less... And bigger profits for the corporations that hired them.

Well since you wont answer the question I pose about why the numbers are the way they are, let me offer a few possibilities myself:

1. The belief that women only want to do small "indie" movies and arent interested in taking on anything of significance. Well women themselves say otherwise. They would like to get paid too. Get notoriety also. But that operating in the boys club in Hollywood is difficult and for many not worth the effort. Meanwhile, plenty of male industry talent have happily taken the studio leap from art house obscurity to the big time and its presumptuous to think that their female counterparts wouldnt want that same sort of security and career opportunity.

2. The notion that Hollywood makes it money on action films and that women are incapable of making action films. The truth is women are not given the opportunity to make action films. Patty Jenkins is the exception that quite clearly proves the rule. And guess how that worked out? A lot better than most of the action movies made by men. So why not more opportunity for women to do more big budget action movies? My guess is they almost certainly could have done a better job than some of the weaker Marvel movies weve seen.

3. Its generally believed women arent ready to direct when compared to men even when all factors are exactly equal. In fact what we find is that men are much more likely to be brought on to direct major Hollywood blockbusters with minimal experience then women are with even more experience. So once again NO EQUAL PLAYINGFIELD. Women must be MUCH more qualified for a position to be considered ahead of a man. Thats exactly the kind of thing that doesnt just "fix itself".

I have other reasons as well but I figure thats a good start. I'll let you give me your reasons you are aware of for women not being represented in these jobs that only have to do with the women themselves and have nothing to do with inherent biases in society and in the industry which according to you no longer exist.

Did I really? Your question was why the percentages aren't equal. My answer was "With equal opportunities to get education and equal opportunity to devote their lives to art of film it really comes down to women themselves to close the gap."

You are offering one number on this thread; the amount of women in certain film industry positions. Please, link me some numbers that show for men and women how many of each are applying to those positions and we have something really to talk about.

So to you evolution is some unimportant and phony plot to mask patriarchal oppression? And yes, numbers for women studying engineering and technology have risen but still there is a very clear trend that shows women applying more to humanistic and social studies while men apply more to engineering / technology.

Also if these numbers have evened out on some fields but not on other why is the only logical conclusion that this one field is so misogynist in nature that it repels all woman influence? Especially when the field in question, unlike science to some degree at least, is all about money and profit. What makes you think that studios would rather take less profit by choosing a man instead of going for the biggest win with more suitable female option (even more so today when feminism is such a rampant topic and woman directing could be used as a marketing ploy)?

Attract is not the same as quota. Attracting more diverse type of people to any field is good but it takes more than interest to get somewhere.

I don't know in which country you live in but in here this kind of thinking is at least decades away. Also can you give some pointers to actual facts? You keep repeating that women have been denied access and even consideration for vast amount of positions solely because of their sex. Any examples with proof from, lets say, last couple of decades?

I'm sure you can point me to some actual data about women increasing corporate profits, diversity of Nobel prize winners and, of course, to my post where I've said that all women in previously male dominated fields are inferior to all men and they were hired just as a publicity stunt?

Your style of discussion is typical of your stance in these questions: you spam one angry wall of text after another, pull more and more "facts" from nowhere, skip everything you don't have an immediate answer, create straw men for you to attack and try "win" the debate by tiring the offense.

I answered but you failed to understand or accept the answer.

Worthless speculation without numbers.

Worthless speculation based on one person who actually got the job (which according to you couldn't have happened).

Again you're just spewing "facts" to the table. You don't want to discuss, you want to preach your "truth" to the masses. Point us to facts and statistics that prove your point, I already know what you think.

See my previous post.

I'm not interested in wading through posts like this so unless you bring some actual facts to this discussion I'm done replying to you. Consider it as another "victory" if you like, I don't really care.