By how much male roles dominate Hollywood movies?

Tools    





Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right


Society?
__________________
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.



Seriously? Sorry, if you said later you were joking or something because i stopped reading there. Dang, you're going to be a very valuable member of Society!
I mean, I'm 19, so a teenager but also technically an adult so

Also thank you! I just want to make good movies that make people feel things, hopefully I do that good and that will be enough



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.
The women in movies today are amazing. Men are usually portrayed as flawed (either no heart, no brain or no courage (the Wizard of Oz syndrome)).

I saw blockers the other day. There are three protagonists. The woman had heart, brains and courage (as they always do). Of the two men, one did not have courage (the smaller guy) and the big guy did not have brains. The woman's only flaw was that she cared too much. Why are men always shown these days as incredibly flawed while women are not? Why?

Men are always treated these days as inferior in movies (excepting the current run of superhero movies). Why?

And when you are talking about movies in general with or without bias, try to stick to this century. We are 18 years into this century, so don't allow the 1800's and 1900's movies to weigh down upon this century. In other words, we don't accept guilt for what those who have gone before us have done. Talk about the now, not the past.



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).
I'm not sure why you think we need to believe people are equally capable at all things to think they have an equal right to legal protection. Never go full gennaion pseudos.

But putting that aside, here's the question you were ostensibly responding to above:

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?
It's a fair question, and I don't think you've answered it. Surely if you're going to call something "sexist" you should be able and willing to define the term. Does it mean "an unfair generalization based on sex" or "something that we should say isn't true whether it is or not because it might harm society"? Because if one side of this issue is arguing about what's true and the other is arguing about what's useful to pretend is true, then there's obviously going to be a lot of frustration and wasted time. So please clarify.



I'm not sure why you think we need to believe people are equally capable at all things to think they have an equal right to legal protection. Never go full gennaion pseudos.

But putting that aside, here's the question you were ostensibly responding to above:


It's a fair question, and I don't think you've answered it. Surely if you're going to call something "sexist" you should be able and willing to define the term. Does it mean "an unfair generalization based on sex" or "something that we should say isn't true whether it is or not because it might harm society"? Because if one side of this issue is arguing about what's true and the other is arguing about what's useful to pretend is true, then there's obviously going to be a lot of frustration and wasted time. So please clarify.
I don't think you need to believe people are equally capable at all things to think they have an equal right to legal protection. My argument is that simply believing that people have an equal right to legal protection is necessary but not sufficient, because much of the injustice that people face is not a result of discrimination written into the letter of the law, but socioeconomic factors, like that women face a significantly greater threat of workplace harassment and sexual assault, or that their are fewer jobs available for women and those that are available are often limited to certain genres or types of movies that many women filmmakers may not be interested in, or that subconscious bias may lead producers and executives to choose a man over a more capable woman not because of overt bigotry or active, illegal discrimination, but because they see women as inherently less capable without even really being aware of that (as well all believe things and have bias towards or against things that we aren't aware of, because humans are flawed. It's not a moral slight against those execs, it's just a reality of the situation) lead them to be more inclined to choose male filmmakers.

Also, Studio execs may be more inclined to fund projects that are male-centric in the first place due to the belief that they are more commercially viable (which, thanks to a number of blockbusters over the last few years, is a myth that is beginning to become undone). None of this would qualify as active discrimination and therefore wouldn't be covered by legal protection, but it's still very impactful and needs to be addressed if you're concerned about providing equal opportunity to people, but the only reason you could even believe that this is a problem is if you believe that people are equally capable at the thing, otherwise you can dismiss these concerns and say 'they have equal legal protection, if women aren't succeeding it's simply due to them not being good enough.'

As far as the second issue, I think I may have accidentally led you to believe I was presenting some false dichotomy, that one of those things is true and one of them isn't, and it's about which one. That is not what I'm saying. Practically speaking, it is impossible to really know whether or not the truth is that women are inherently less capable at things or people are equally capable on average, because capability is an abstract thing that is the result of a complex web of factors that humans are not going to be able to reliably measure. So to me this isn't an argument about what is actually true, because nobody can be right on that, since there's no way of knowing that. Whether you believe women are equally capable on average as men or you don't, you are choosing to believe something that may or may not be true. So to me, this is not an argument about what is true, but what we should choose to believe, and if that is the conversation, then we need to talk about why one should believe thins and what the reasoning for and effects of those beliefs are. It is probably my fault for even referencing the idea of truth in my argument without clarifying this, but that's more accurately what I mean, and I believe I've already described why I think the belief that men and women are equally capable on average is important and the better, more well-reasoned position, but I'd be happy to elaborate further elaborate if you have any questions on that front specifically.

Also, as a brief aside, when I use the word 'believe' here, I don't mean in it the religious 'belief in god' kind of way. Believe her, as opposed to 'know', is simply a way of describing the taking of a position, which, being that is not a matter of overwhelming scientific consensus, isn't knowable to a reasonable degree of certainty. We can't "know" that men and women are equally capable on average (at least not with the information humanity has available at this point in history), but we can look at evidence and consider the moral and ethical and logical reasons for that belief, and choose to hold that position (though also, for what it's worth, I don't think this is how people necessarily choose their beliefs in practice, I ultimately think it's a much more emotional, subconscious process, like I don't think people think all that deeply about how to construct their values and beliefs all that often, but that's the idea, and belief here is not a substitute for reasoning).

Now, as for the sexism aspect specifically, the dichotomy between 'an unfair generalization based on sex' and 'something that we should say isn't true whether it is or not because it might harm society' is not one I care for. I've already made the point that this isn't about truth, it's about value positions and reasoned beliefs, so that rules out the second position because whether or not it's true in reality is not entirely relevant (chances are that the more reasonable belief is closer to the truth, but that's not a certainty). I would define sexism/misogyny as 'actions or beliefs that are harmful to women' which encompasses both the overt bigotry and hatred that generally comes to mind when the term is used, and also subtler things that I've talked about earlier in the thread that I don't feel need repeating right now. Systemic sexism/misogyny (see also: patriarchy) describes the systems and institutions of power and oppression that enable these actions (and are upheld by these actions). The worst aspect of sexist/misogynistic action/belief isn't just that I personal consider it to be morally questionable, but that it contributes to larger systems of oppression that have real-world negative impacts on people. The belief that women are not equally capable to men is a belief that is harmful to women and contributes to the systemic oppression of women (as I described in my equal protection argument above and in many other cases) is therefore sexist under this definition.



The women in movies today are amazing. Men are usually portrayed as flawed (either no heart, no brain or no courage (the Wizard of Oz syndrome)).

I saw blockers the other day. There are three protagonists. The woman had heart, brains and courage (as they always do). Of the two men, one did not have courage (the smaller guy) and the big guy did not have brains. The woman's only flaw was that she cared too much. Why are men always shown these days as incredibly flawed while women are not? Why?

Men are always treated these days as inferior in movies (excepting the current run of superhero movies). Why?

And when you are talking about movies in general with or without bias, try to stick to this century. We are 18 years into this century, so don't allow the 1800's and 1900's movies to weigh down upon this century. In other words, we don't accept guilt for what those who have gone before us have done. Talk about the now, not the past.
Apparently we don't learn from those who have gone before us either.

It's important to talk about the past so we don't repeat the mistakes of previous generations and can spot the coming trends and pitfalls.

The reason men are being portrayed poorly and women are being put in more of a positive light is probably because they are trying to correct the perceived sexism that's allegedly causing the inequality. It’s all based on the assumption that inequality must be caused by injustice and equality of outcome is a goal worth striving for.

Edit: Generally I haven't noticed this trend in the portrayal of men and women. Maybe we're just watching different movies. But I have noticed a lot of women thrust into the lead roles of action movies. That at least seems like a clear attempt to subvert the "inequality."

Whether you believe women are equally capable on average as men or you don't, you are choosing to believe something that may or may not be true. So to me, this is not an argument about what is true, but what we should choose to believe, and if that is the conversation, then we need to talk about why one should believe thins and what the reasoning for and effects of those beliefs are.
Can you give me one good reason why I should believe anything that isn't true? I just can't think of any.

Practically speaking, it is impossible to really know whether or not the truth is that women are inherently less capable at things or people are equally capable on average, because capability is an abstract thing that is the result of a complex web of factors that humans are not going to be able to reliably measure.
Why do you think that complex abstract concepts can't be reliably measured by humans?
Why do you think that capability is such a complex abstract concept?
Don't you think sexism is a complex abstract concept?
If I took fifty women and fifty men of various different ages, builds, cultures, and muscle masses, and got them all to try and lift a set of objects of various weights, do you think it could measure which gender is more capable of lifting heavy objects reliably? What if I did that study and then compared it with another study where I took men and women of a specific age, build, culture, and muscle mass? What if the results of both of those studies were almost exact? And what if I did hundreds of these studies all over the world and got relatively consistent results?

In my life I've often heard the words, "I can't." I can't open this jar, I can't solve this puzzle, I can't walk all the way there, etc... and usually if I tell them to try again, try harder, or try another method, it turns out they can. I discovered their capability and all I had to do was ask them to try and then observe the results. I have found in my experience that men are generally more capable of opening jars then women, because when they try they accomplish it more often, in fewer tries, and with less expended energy. I have also discovered that some women are more capable of opening jars than most men, but more men are more capable than most women at this particular task in my experience. The reason is probably simply because men have way more testosterone. I've also noticed that many people, despite being perfectly capable of opening a jar that's hard to open, perceive themselves to not be able to and therefore don't even try. A little coercion goes a long way to discovering the capability of people too stubborn to even try. My most preferred method to discovering people's capabilities is to not do it for them or make it any easier. I have found that the vast majority of tasks that people think they aren't capable of turn out to simply require a little effort or a different method that they hadn't thought of yet.

My friend has a gate up to keep his young daughter from going into the kitchen. She wanted some toast, and I was already in the kitchen. I said, "Okay, come and get some." She said, "I can't open the gate." I said, "Try." Then she opened the gate with a little effort. Now I know beyond any shred of doubt that it is true that she is capable of opening that gate. It was not too complex or abstract for me to discover the truth of her capability.


So to me this isn't an argument about what is actually true, because nobody can be right on that, since there's no way of knowing that. Whether you believe women are equally capable on average as men or you don't, you are choosing to believe something that may or may not be true. So to me, this is not an argument about what is true, but what we should choose to believe, and if that is the conversation, then we need to talk about why one should believe thins and what the reasoning for and effects of those beliefs are. It is probably my fault for even referencing the idea of truth in my argument without clarifying this, but that's more accurately what I mean, and I believe I've already described why I think the belief that men and women are equally capable on average is important and the better, more well-reasoned position, but I'd be happy to elaborate further elaborate if you have any questions on that front specifically.


Taken from the Oxford dictionary, “Believe – 1. Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof. 2. Accept the statement of (someone) as true.”

When you try to remove truth from the definition you come across as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about and isn't being completely honest. You also have some misunderstanding around the word “sexism." If something is true it is just reality, and the universe doesn't discriminate. For example, it's not sexist that women have breasts and men don't. What would be sexist is saying that women's breasts don't ever interfere with their ability to do some tasks as well as men. There are some tasks that breasts will get in the way of, and there's nothing sexist about that. What’s actually sexist is trying to force more women into a job they don’t want or trying to emasculate men for being better at something. If you see an inequality and try to fix it by making it easier for a particular minority group to get the job than someone who belongs to a particular majority group, then you are discriminating, and it makes the work force of that particular field less skilled since they don’t have to work as hard as others to get in. In the name of equality we have pushed many unqualified people into careers they didn’t truly desire and prevented many passionate people from pursuing their dreams just because of their demographic. Western civilization is becoming racist towards white people and sexist towards men. At least I see it a lot in America and Canada, but I haven't looked as closely at Europe, Scandinavia, or the UK.

I would define sexism/misogyny as 'actions or beliefs that are harmful to women'
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sexism

What it actually means is prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping based on sex. You should really use the dictionary more. You can actually harm women without being sexist or misogynistic. For example, by accidentally bumping into a ladder a woman is standing on causing her to fall. Are accidents sexist?

The belief that women are not equally capable to men is a belief that is harmful to women and contributes to the systemic oppression of women (as I described in my equal protection argument above and in many other cases) is therefore sexist under this definition.
But earlier you said there's no way of knowing, didn't you?

So to me this isn't an argument about what is actually true, because nobody can be right on that, since there's no way of knowing that.
It sounds like you're contradicting yourself when you say no one can know and then state your conclusion as if it's a fact.

Edit: Okay wait, so you're saying we can't know if it's true, but even if it's true it's sexist to believe it. So, even if it's true it's harmful and we should believe a lie instead because that will be better? That is some seriously bizarre logic.




Edit: Generally I haven't noticed this trend in the portrayal of men and women. Maybe we're just watching different movies. But I have noticed a lot of women thrust into the lead roles of action movies. That at least seems like a clear attempt to subvert the "inequality."
Have you seen Annihilation? It is a great movie (it reminded me a lot of 2001). It was pretty much an all woman cast and it was a smart, science fiction movie. I love it. I have no problem with good, strong women in movies. My problem is when men are all shown as incredibly flawed, but women are not shown that way. Try keeping an eye out for this in the future. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it happens a lot.



Now, as for the sexism aspect specifically, the dichotomy between 'an unfair generalization based on sex' and 'something that we should say isn't true whether it is or not because it might harm society' is not one I care for. I've already made the point that this isn't about truth, it's about value positions and reasoned beliefs, so that rules out the second position because whether or not it's true in reality is not entirely relevant (chances are that the more reasonable belief is closer to the truth, but that's not a certainty). I would define sexism/misogyny as 'actions or beliefs that are harmful to women' which encompasses both the overt bigotry and hatred that generally comes to mind when the term is used, and also subtler things that I've talked about earlier in the thread that I don't feel need repeating right now. Systemic sexism/misogyny (see also: patriarchy) describes the systems and institutions of power and oppression that enable these actions (and are upheld by these actions). The worst aspect of sexist/misogynistic action/belief isn't just that I personal consider it to be morally questionable, but that it contributes to larger systems of oppression that have real-world negative impacts on people. The belief that women are not equally capable to men is a belief that is harmful to women and contributes to the systemic oppression of women (as I described in my equal protection argument above and in many other cases) is therefore sexist under this definition.
Pardon me, I am trying to follow you here, but I need to clarify for my own edification.

Call me daft, but are you saying that, even if women, men, old, young, whatever race or whatever disposition or whatever type of person were not as good at something as a different category of person, you don't want to know the truth, but would prefer to believe in a lie that everybody is equally capable at everything?

So, if the truth of reality was "Men are better chess players than women", "Young people are more creative than old people" and "Germans are more efficient than Italians", you would simply want to believe that every category of person is equally capable of playing chess, every category of person is equally creative and that all groups of people are equally efficient?



Have you seen Annihilation? It is a great movie (it reminded me a lot of 2001). It was pretty much an all woman cast and it was a smart, science fiction movie. I love it. I have no problem with good, strong women in movies. My problem is when men are all shown as incredibly flawed, but women are not shown that way. Try keeping an eye out for this in the future. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it happens a lot.
Yeah I saw Annihilation three times and made a crap video about it. I liked the cast and the demographic of casts in general is something I generally don't consider or put much importance on. A movie can have a cast of all Hispanic dwarves for all I care as long as it's well made. I definitely see the feminist trends more in Hollywood movies and on TV, but I prefer movies where all of the characters are significantly flawed because all people in reality are significantly flawed and it's actually a lot of hard work to get your life in order (and even then people have skeletons in their closet). The last movie I watched, Thumper (2017) had a female lead who's life was a mess and everyone else had all kinds of personality quirks. To me those kinds of movies celebrate life more than the superficial movies that try to make their heroes seem so perfect. Those movies don't celebrate life, they actually reject or ignore reality by trying to create a more ideal universe or by not researching their subject matter and making movies about things they don't understand.

I've done a fair amount of play by post roleplaying online, and I've noticed that a lot of people will write their characters with all the things they want to see in a person and they won't spend any time at all on the character's flaws. Their non-player characters may have tons of flaws though, and that's often to create the kind of situations they want their character to have to deal with. However, in the act of roleplaying flaws inherited from the author will seep into the character, it's just that the author doesn't understand their own self enough to recognize that those are flaws. That's why I refer to a lot of Hollywood movies as sixteen-year-old fanfics.

At the end of the day the simple solution is watch better movies. Less mainstream movies will generally have less trends.



Yeah I saw Annihilation three times and made a crap video about it. I liked the cast and the demographic of casts in general is something I generally don't consider or put much importance on. A movie can have a cast of all Hispanic dwarves for all I care as long as it's well made. I definitely see the feminist trends more in Hollywood movies and on TV, but I prefer movies where all of the characters are significantly flawed because all people in reality are significantly flawed and it's actually a lot of hard work to get your life in order (and even then people have skeletons in their closet). The last movie I watched, Thumper (2017) had a female lead who's life was a mess and everyone else had all kinds of personality quirks. To me those kinds of movies celebrate life more than the superficial movies that try to make their heroes seem so perfect. Those movies don't celebrate life, they actually reject or ignore reality by trying to create a more ideal universe or by not researching their subject matter and making movies about things they don't understand.

I've done a fair amount of play by post roleplaying online, and I've noticed that a lot of people will write their characters with all the things they want to see in a person and they won't spend any time at all on the character's flaws. Their non-player characters may have tons of flaws though, and that's often to create the kind of situations they want their character to have to deal with. However, in the act of roleplaying flaws inherited from the author will seep into the character, it's just that the author doesn't understand their own self enough to recognize that those are flaws. That's why I refer to a lot of Hollywood movies as sixteen-year-old fanfics.

At the end of the day the simple solution is watch better movies. Less mainstream movies will generally have less trends.

Good points about the role-playing. However, remember that in role-playing, you are usually playing heroes, so it can be forgiven if people want to play a more idealized version of themselves (or of whom they would want to be).

I agree with you about the part about caring about the movie much more than about the cast. I will forgive a lot of problems in a really, really good movie. However, in a mediocre to bad movie, the problems will be glaring. Annihilation was phenomenal, so I didn't care (and even celebrated) the all woman cast that pulled it off. I am going to buy that movie on Blu-Ray or 4K. However, a movie like the latest Ghostbusters which touted the reverse-gender from the original, all-woman extravaganza, I-am-woman-hear-me-roar in the movie and in all behind the scenes photos, advertising, etc., was so bad that it made me hate the flaws of reverse-gendering while unnecessarily remaking a classic movie a hundred times more.

As for people, yes we have flaws. However, most of the people that I know have a heart, a brain and a spine. Some of them might drink too much or might spend too much or whatever, but of those big three, I don't know too many people who don't have all three. To say that men overall cannot have a brain, a spine and a heart is lazy writing at best and incredibly misandristic at worst.

I am just fighting against the misandry.


Edit: P.S. If you find a movie featuring all Hispanic dwarves, I want to know about it and see it.



I've already written nearly 4000 words in this thread, and have thoroughly exhausted any desire I have to discuss this topic any further. I appreciate all your feedback, I disagree with those of you intent on mischaracterizing me as saying 'believe untrue things' which is not my position but it is a very lovely straw man, I find it incredibly disheartening how many of you so passionately want to believe that women are just worse at stuff, and I'm done with this thread.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I find it incredibly disheartening how many of you so passionately want to believe that women are just worse at stuff, and I'm done with this thread.
Well, they're pretty good at looking good.



There are no funny female stand-up comics.
Sure there are, what an asinine statement



I think that was the joke. But, provide him with some examples to prove him wrong.
It was a joke was it??? If that was the case then no examples would be required and I change my comment to "What a poor joke.".



Let the night air cool you off
It was a joke was it??? If that was the case then no examples would be required and I change my comment to "What a poor joke.".
I don't think it was a poor joke. Especially if it was in reference to the likes of Jerry Lewis who infamously doubled down on the claim, and it's a long-running stereotype that women aren't funny. When you consider the context of this thread, it's (hopefully) an ironic statement just meant to be silly. I appreciate it.

And since you won't provide any examples, I'll provide one: Christina Pazsitzky is funny.