By how much male roles dominate Hollywood movies?

Tools    





Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
One place where I agree we need less male dialogue and more female dialogue: Pornography.

please read up on every book of the 21st century because it seems you took a psychology class in 1950 and never opened your eyes for anything ever since.
people like you who keep perpetuating the myth that women are neurologically inherently different than men are what keeps humanity from evolving. have you never heard of the nurture vs nature debate hun
__________________
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.



please read up on every book of the 21st century because it seems you took a psychology class in 1950 and never opened your eyes for anything ever since.
people like you who keep perpetuating the myth that women are neurologically inherently different than men are what keeps humanity from evolving. have you never heard of the nurture vs nature debate hun
Actually the evidence is very strong that there are big neurological differences between men and women.

In Wikipedia's page about Neuroscience of sex differences:
Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
However, in 2013, researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania mapped notable differences in male and female neural wiring. The study used diffusion tensor imaging of 949 individuals aged 8–22 years, and concluded that in all supratentorial regions of the brain inter-hemispheric connectivity was greater in women's and girls' brains, whereas intra-hemispheric connectivity was greater in the brains of men and boys. The effect was reversed in cerebellar connections.[13] The detected differences in neural connectivity were negligible up to the age of 13, but became much more prominent in the 14 to 17-year-olds.[13] In terms of the potential effect on behaviour, the authors concluded, "Overall, the results suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes".[13]
I find it quite obvious that males and females have different traits on average as 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.

Of course that doesn't prevent males or female from acting in ways that are often associated with the opposite gender. It's only "typical" of one gender and not an iron rule.



people like you who keep perpetuating the myth that women are neurologically inherently different than men
The idea that women are inferior is a myth. The idea that they're different is not. That's why diversity is so valuable in the first place; there'd be little point to it if there were not marked differences between groups.

have you never heard of the nurture vs nature debate hun
I've heard of it, and I'm pretty sure the evidence didn't end up coming down on the "everything is nurture" side.
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.



Simply comparing aggregate data to demographics is a pretty facile way to try to demonstrate systemic bias. It assumes aggregate choices across demographics are constant, even though they manifestly are not in pretty much every way we can measure.
Hopefully you're not referring to the dataset or the commentary on the link provided, because that's certainly not facile. They're pretty good about not layering too much personal interpretation on this.

(for the record I don't think you are doing this, but I'm confirming it as a way to bridge the discussion)

Additionally, I'll often hear the complaint that talking about certain examples of a film that has a biased depiction is cherrypicking/biased and they'll say "we need a larger dataset". Well here it is.

If this data isn't good at showing that there IS a bias, I don't know what would. Now certainly there's a lot of interpretation to be done around the causes of the bias, but this really appears to be a pretty evenhanded way to show that bias exists.

Yeah, a study like this needs to be done for just this decade.
Go to the bottom of the page, there's tabs for the 80's, 90's, 00's, and '10s. The described bias still exists in the 2010's.



Also, personal views aside, I'm not sure debating the neuroscience piece is important for the purpose of arguing for a better balance; if there are salient differences, we need diversity in film because those differences deserve to be depicted and if there are not salient differences the discrimination is, by definition, arbitrary.

For the record, I think this is fascinating data. Thanks for sharing, I missed it when it came out.



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Yeah. In fact, the whole aggression myth has only done harm. There's a societal pressure in society that men have to be more aggressive and not show too much vulnerability that many feel they are afraid to be sensitive. Just because they have to adhere to masculine stereoypes. I've been told to "man up" sometimes if someone says something hurtful I feel sad over, and it's annoying.



Yeah. In fact, the whole aggression myth has only done harm. There's a societal pressure in society that men have to be more aggressive and not show too much vulnerability that many feel they are afraid to be sensitive. Just because they have to adhere to masculine stereoypes. I've been told to "man up" sometimes if someone says something hurtful I feel sad over, and it's annoying.
Which is harmful to you and society that’s why we seek to get rid of these gender roles. Sure, many women are sympathetic and many men are aggressive but once you start ascribing that to their sex it becomes problematic for all the people who aren’t that way. As a man youre never expected to smile and As a women you’re seen as trailer trash or a psycho bitch if you even show the slightest bit of aggression or ambition. It’s sickening



Not everything is nurture no.
There are clear physiological differences between men and women and our hormones work different.
Cool, glad we can agree on that much.

But the whole testosteron = aggression thing is a myth.
I suppose the idea that they have a perfect one-to-one relationship is a "myth," but the correlation between testosterone and aggression is really high.

Nothing about our hormones makes men better leaders than women.
Agreed, but I think it probably does make them different types of leaders, particularly given how broad that term is. "Leader" can encompass everything from someone charging into battle with a sword drawn to negotiating workable compromises between mostly peaceful groups, and it seems pretty clear that the ideal people to do each of those wildly different tasks are unlikely to have similar testosterone levels.

Leading means making decisions for other people, which is an inherently domineering thing. I don't think there'd be an even gender split even in a perfectly neutral culture, and I don't think it's necessarily to mens' credit that they inhabit those roles disproportionately.

Men are just generally raised with different expectations.
Sure, but cultural expectations tend to heighten or amplify real differences.

Maybe you think that amplification is bigger than I do; that's probably hard to suss out. The salient point for the purposes of the topic is simply that there's no reason to expect an even 50/50 split in each profession or form of representation, and thus a 60/40 split (or even a much more dramatic one, in some cases) is not necessarily evidence of a problem.



60/40 split is fine by me I never said we have to have a 50/50 split but when it comes to women behind the camera theres not even a 90/10 split and that one dude said it’s because men are just better directors an that misses the point completely.



Hopefully you're not referring to the dataset or the commentary on the link provided, because that's certainly not facile. They're pretty good about not layering too much personal interpretation on this.
Aye. I'm saying some of the interpretations of the dataset can be facile. Specifically, the idea that any gender imbalance is ipso facto evidence of some deliberate or harmful bias, rather than a product of aggregate differences in choice.

If this data isn't good at showing that there IS a bias, I don't know what would. Now certainly there's a lot of interpretation to be done around the causes of the bias, but this really appears to be a pretty evenhanded way to show that bias exists.
Probably important to note the distinction between "bias" in a statistical context, and the "bias" in a political one, which usually implies something unfair or nefarious. I feel like you're using it (correctly) in the former sense.

Also, personal views aside, I'm not sure debating the neuroscience piece is important for the purpose of arguing for a better balance; if there are salient differences, we need diversity in film because those differences deserve to be depicted and if there are not salient differences the discrimination is, by definition, arbitrary.
I'm not sure if it's wise (or even feasible) to try to artificially even up any gender imbalances that arise. It's easy to imagine professions where it'd be kinda absurd and counterproductive.

That said, I completely agree that the differences between the sexes are precisely why this stuff matters, which is why I always feel the need to speak up when someone tries to downplay those differences. They think they're striking some blow for equality, but in reality they're completely undermining the value of diversity.



60/40 split is fine by me I never said we have to have a 50/50 split but when it comes to women behind the camera theres not even a 90/10 split and that one dude said it’s because men are just better directors an that misses the point completely.
I have a hunch that there's lot more future women directors in the pipeline, (going to film school and just starting out). I bet in 5 or 10 years time the percentage of women to men directors will be close to even.

And I'm happy about that! I generally enjoy films made from a women directors perspective. Those films often are more introspective, deeper character studies and more rewarding to me. I personal don't care for action-thriller-CG blockbusters, or super hero films... all of which seem to still be the domain of men.



Totally agree, CR. My operating theory here is that world-class directors are basically obsessed with the craft and that it takes a really long time to reach those heights, so there's probably a lot of lag time. IE: if we achieved some kind of perfectly gender-neutral culture right now, it'd still be a couple of decades for that to be reflected at the absolute top of the art form. Probably true of any especially competitive profession.



60/40 split is fine by me I never said we have to have a 50/50 split but when it comes to women behind the camera theres not even a 90/10 split and that one dude said it’s because men are just better directors an that misses the point completely.
I have a hunch that there's lot more future women directors in the pipeline, (going to film school and just starting out). I bet in 5 or 10 years time the percentage of women to men directors will be close to even.

And I'm happy about that! I generally enjoy films made from a women directors perspective. Those films often are more introspective, deeper character studies and more rewarding to me. I personal don't care for action-thriller-CG blockbusters, or super hero films... all of which seem to still be the domain of men.
Im always on the lookout for movies like that. Ive seen maybe 2 Marvel or DC movies altogether. Not my thing. TDK is def the exception.



Interesting data set that regretfully gets/will get used by the left to promote the idea of "quota".

I always become extremely sceptical whenever the cultural debate drifts towards identity politics. The moment we're going to add quota on art will be the moment art dies.
__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019



Interesting data set that regretfully gets/will get used by the left to promote the idea of "quota".

I always become extremely sceptical whenever the cultural debate drifts towards identity politics. The moment we're going to add quota on art will be the moment art dies.
I agree. Unfortunately the Hollywood quota system --although unofficial-- has been in place for a number of years. Now, evidently, misguided souls like Frances McDormand want to make it official. As it is we've been getting "managed" art.

~Doc



I agree. Unfortunately the Hollywood quota system --although unofficial-- has been in place for a number of years. Now, evidently, misguided souls like Frances McDormand want to make it official. As it is we've been getting "managed" art.

~Doc
As soon as we reached Peak CGI Hollywood is just asking to be disrupted.



Interesting data set that regretfully gets/will get used by the left to promote the idea of "quota".

I always become extremely sceptical whenever the cultural debate drifts towards identity politics. The moment we're going to add quota on art will be the moment art dies.
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). You're just exaggerating.
__________________
Check out my movie blog



Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
Interesting data set that regretfully gets/will get used by the left to promote the idea of "quota".

I always become extremely sceptical whenever the cultural debate drifts towards identity politics. The moment we're going to add quota on art will be the moment art dies.
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). You're just exaggerating.
You can’t deny that it will be interfered with. How much that will limit freedom of expression...who knows.



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.