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?
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).
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...
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.
(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?
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.