About 50% of students in film schools are women . So at least you need to accept that my claim of equal opportunity to study is correct.
Oh I agree that there is lots of progressive thinking on college campuses nowadays. And many schools know the importance and value of diversity in higher education. But I do wonder how much emphasis is put on females being actively guided to specific positions (and even making them aware of the prospect of these positions) rather than a more generalized "film education" approach and leaving them to figure out the next steps on their own. Networking is a very valuable tool in getting into and advancing in any profession. Probably even more so in the film industry.
[the] majority of film makers (regardless of sex) never get to make one of these. Getting there requires talent, hard work, most likely some sacrifices and even luck. It's not like men have an open highway for director's seat in the next Marvel.
Well as compared to the women they seem to. Since no woman has ever directed a Marvel film. And agree with all that you said about talent, hard work, luck, etc. But it doesn’t address my point about men generally getting tapped earlier in their career then women all things being equal.
1) Lack of effort which comes form the sense of entitlement. This is a fault of modern feminism.
This is garbage in my opinion (as Im sure you figured it would be). Im going to say you would be hard pressed to find ONE woman in the industry currently who would say they expected to get a position because they were female. Nor very many young women seeking positions who insist they should have the best ones without making any real effort. In fact I think most would say the very opposite. That they think being a female makes it extra hard for them to achieve in the film industry. And they therefore worked or feel the need to work even harder than the men in order to compete with them.
Im at a loss to see how you got that from the article you sited. The article in fact points out that “female film directors face a fiscal cliff in their careers after making a short film. For males opportunities grow, while for females, they vanish.” And the numbers drop from 28% to 4%. So where do you see the justification for this statement exactly?
Further, it notes that the study "puts statistical muscle behind what a lot of women filmmakers already know. That women directors face an uphill battle at every stage of their careers". And that it “gets progressively steeper as they transition from short films to features and from lower to higher budgets. The gate keepers in the film industry need to work actively against their own passive biases to give women the same opportunities as men." Sounds like exactly what Ive been saying here.
2) Differences in sexes. From the above link "A majority of study participants said that familial responsibilities (i.e., parenting) made their careers more difficult." This is major reason why many small business owners I know would rather employ equally qualified man than woman.
This is basically admitting that women have it harder than men because of social expectations on them. Which, again, reinforces my point. Why should employers refuse to hire women simply because they are the ones that get pregnant (which is illegal in the US by the way)? That’s clear naked sex discrimination. The fact that females happen to have wombs doesn’t mean they should be discouraged from producing art or doing anything quite frankly. And its also why we have seen an increase in child care opportunities built into employment contracts more and more recently (both for women AND for men by the way). Any business that offers no maternity leave option these days is undermining its ability to attract the best talent.
3) Sexism (to use a term you'll accept). Yes, I too think that this one has some effect. Some of it is real, some imagined and some even deserved (as a result of previous 1 & 2).
The fact that you think women "deserve" sexism to some extent speaks volumes about your bias on this issue.
What I don't agree with is the notion that studios would rather be sexist than make more money.
Which is not something I ever said. In fact when you implied this I specifically pointed out this is largely to be safe and not take risks. The status quo is ALWAYS easier to justify internally, even if it involves keeping an uneven playingfield. This has been true about other disadvantaged groups as well. But things changed. Why not with the women in film?
how many men are seeking these same positions? The problem with all these studies about the matter is that they only provide the least amount of information chosen to support their conclusion.
You are changing the focus now. You asked me to provide you proof that there were lots of women seeking positions because you didn’t believe there were very many out there to hire so I gave you an entire data base. This isnt a "study" its simply a resource showing who wants a job. Which answers your request and proves the point. But you have a reputation for just shrugging off answer after answer and then just asking more questions until you get to a point where the data is so microspecific that you can just say "see, its too hard to tell anything from the data". Well garbage. Just knowing that there are LOTS of women that want positions and very few who get them tells you a lot. Unless your notion is ALL of them are unqualified in comparison to ALL the men who have achieved these positions. Do you think that’s really more likely than its tougher for the women right now?
Also from the database I chose to seek narrative film director for action/adventure based in US and I get 12 results. Is that supposed to prove that there is a massive amount of talented women who are turned down from 150$M+ action film directing positions only because they're women?
I get 33. What did you plug in? And anyway you are talking apples and oranges here. The fact that NO women get tapped for big time blockbuster action movies (especially superhero movies) says way more than enough. Especially when you compare them to some of the men that get the nod for these movies and compare their body of work. But the notion is that women cant direct action movies just like the notion is that they cant be professional pilots or run police stations or many other things and all of those notions are quite wrong. But the myth persists.
Evolution does have lots to do with this. The fact that women give birth and thus have been largely responsible of raising children and taking care of home steers them towards different qualities than men who have hunted and waged war throughout history. These differences are partially genetic and partially cultural.
No, that’s not a relevant "genetic" difference though. A genetic difference would be clear proof that there is a functional difference between how men direct films and how women direct films that can be traced to their GENES that indicates that men are simply better at it. What you are noting here is fully cultural not partially cultural. And its fairly antiquated as Ive already noted. We no longer feel the need to relegate half our population to non work status (or gathering nuts and berries at most) simply because of their reproductive parts. Weve discovered that’s an enormous waste of potential talent and technology now allows us to minimize this issue as a deal breaker when it comes to seeking and succeeding in the job market. Welcome to the 21st Century...
Interesting numbers for women are these three: computer science 17.4%, engineering & technology 14.3% and architecture, building & planning 29.7%. I suppose these three are closest in abilities required for directing an action spectacle. Yes, they average higher than the number of film directors do but it's also perfectly understandable why large movie productions aren't the forerunners in this change - financial risk for 150$M+ mega production is huge.
I don’t think those numbers help me understand why we don’t hire women AT ALL for these positions. And Ive already noted the big studios would rather keep the status quo to minimize risk but I don’t see how that’s a good argument for what you are proposing since its yet more evidence that they DO discriminate.
Anyway, we now have a pool of 1 for 'Superhero Movies Directed by a Woman'. It proved to be very successful financially. So, based on the logic you are using here, should we expect ALL superhero movies to be directed by female directors going forward? I mean if its ONLY about the money...
Well, I know I haven't said that. I've always been in favor of picking the best person for the job.
And again, this approach is awfully convenient when one portion of the application pool has an advantage over another. It allows you to confirm and reinforce a biased system. Men have been given a head start. Why do you keep insisting they are the fastest just because of that?
No. I wanted examples where (at least in your opinion) a less talented man was chosen to direct a movie instead of a more talented woman.
Ok well I gave them later in the reply. Were those more along the lines of what you wanted? Also, after I wrote that I thought about Eliza Hittman who made a short then made <I>It Felt Like Love</i> which debuted at Sundance in 2013. Then she made <I>Beach Rats</i> for about the same budget. Was she hired for something with a bigger budget and with a better cast after that? No, she still had to keep her second job to make ends meet. But her male cinematographer Sean Porter was snatched away to make <I>20th Century Women</i> based on the positive vibe from <I>It felt Like Love</i> Why does he get promoted for the movie but the director doesn’t get a sniff? I wonder how it feels to have male staff working under you on YOUR movie grabbed up and promoted to bigger stuff while you stay where you are. Must be frustrating at the very least...
You can't make a claim that women aren't hired because of sexism without any data based on real examples.
Ive given a number of examples now. And the numbers to back up the trend. But lets not forget that this is largely passive and cultural not overt and purposeful. Using the term "because of sexism", while perhaps technically accurate, might lead you to assume Im suggesting theres a cabal of fat cigar smoking male executives sitting in some studio boardroom talking loudly how they need to keep the dames out at all costs. While there are certainly still a few bad actors out there dug in hard, for the most part I think this imbalance is largely due to culture and tradition and unconscious bias and simply that the infrastructure of Hollywood production is built in a way that favors males over females almost invisibly. So I hope we arent simply arguing over whether the only problem here is vicious sexist woman hating executives. I think the main issue is much more insidious and much more difficult to dig out of because its how the film world was built.
Yes, but how is that study contradicting my claims? First of all it says that diversity in the companies was low which implies that diversity itself hasn't been valued in those companies but choosing the best person.
Right. And then that (diversity focus) changed and their business did better. Which is the whole point, right?
Also, for one reason or another, all diversities seemed to cost more than they yielded (R&D intensity is higher than R&D efficiency). All in all to me this supports my idea of choosing upon merits.
R&D intensity is a proxy for "future innovativeness" and R&D efficiency is "innovative efficiency". Not sure where you get cost out of that. They do note that the only negative aspect of diversity in hiring is that it can lead to a decline in communication and trust. Which can be a problem of course. But for the most part that seems to reflect a learning curve and not a permanent decrease. And that ultimately, "successful innovation-driven firms become more and more diverse: Venture-capital funded Start-ups that succeed in the market have more than twice the average percentage of female employees than failed start-ups (Dow Jones, 2012). In addition, the stock market value of innovation-driven firms among the 1,500 largest publicly traded US firms increases with the number of women in top management (Dezsö and Ross, 2012)." So the worst you can say about it is that diversity works better for some firms than others (they mention it tending to work best in "high-tech/knowledge intensive sectors" as opposed to "traditional industries"). But ideally it is the best approach to take when you get it working correctly for you.
One minor issue I have with this study, by the way, is that it doesn’t seem to account for TYPE of diversity. It compares firms with heavy women staffing versus firms with lots of minority presence. And these may not all be perfectly apples to apples but I think for a general snap shot of positive effect of "diversity" its still quite useful.
In 2017 average percentage of women in these boards was 14% which, again, seems to fit quite nicely with my idea of choosing the best person.
Maybe the best person on an unbalanced playingfield. But weve been back and forth on that. Im curious though, on what basis statistically and scientifically makes you think 14% is just about right? Especially when this is showing higher diversity on boards means more profits. More and more I think this discussion is boiling down to you saying "the numbers reflect taking the best candidates" and me saying "the numbers reflect a dearth of opportunity for a specific sub group". Which I guess is progress but now we need to hash out just what would be "reasonable" and what still reflects bias toward men. Clearly, if studies are finding that diversity helps in many ways to make their businesses more profitable and more successful then it seems like we still have room to go before we reach the ideal balance where talent is best maximized without favoring one group over another or "watering down" the overall talent pool. Im trying to use your language here so mutual agreement on points is more likely.
Study also points out that correlation doesn't imply causality.
And then they said "the findings nonetheless permit reasonable hypotheses on what is driving improved performance by companies with diverse executive teams and boards." When the numbers show diversity leads to profits I don’t see why we need to tie ourselves in knots trying to explain it away as something else coincidentally. If something makes money in business, generally smart organizations are going to pursue it as they have their stock holders or financial backers to think of. And when "there is a linear relationship between racial and ethnic diversity and better financial performance,” do you really need any other information in order to at least pursue that course in your business? If for nothing else than to at least remain competitive?
This looks a little weird. It starts with a notion "Although previous research on diversity in the workforce has suggested diversity's negative impact on group dynamics and communication, this study makes the case for diversity in clear financial terms" implying that its results are exception from other diversity studies. On the other hand, it seems to have a different point of view.
No no. As I noted before, there has been a study that shows that in SOME organizations diversity has lead to issues with communication and trust. If you ask me, I think that’s kind of a no brainer if that organization is changing from a non diverse model to a diverse one. But even considering this possibility, diversity is still the ideal approach for the average business in the long run.
It also deal with data from 1996 and 1997
Is that a serious problem? Do you think the data will have changed dramatically enough in 20 years to reflect the opposite conclusion? I would think you would see even better numbers now considering the culture today versus 20 years ago and considering many other studies Ive sited here have stressed the effectiveness of diversity. Take all this as a whole.
Also its conclusions are kind of wonky - it practically says that bigger businesses are bigger (I mean, isn't it obvious that a company with 100 employees is very likely less diverse than a company with 1000).
Again, Im not sure how this is relevant to the overall point. Nor where this becomes an issue for the results of the survey at all. Theres just a single sentence noting that larger companies (and those with more females in management) were found more likely to promote workplace integration. Not sure that’s a shock or why that’s relevant at all to the basic point. Unless you are referring to something else in there. If so, let me know.
I'm not claiming that women as a whole are this or that but I'm claiming that statistics, experience and science do support the idea that sexes in general have different tendencies.
That’s a very general and safe statement there. And doesn’t at all drill down as to WHY they may show different "tendencies". You seemed to imply that the answer was "because genetics" which I reject when it comes to the discussion of why women generally arent chosen for directing. If the answer is "because culture" then we are much more closely aligned. Of course, I feel this is an aspect of culture that needs to be changed for EVERYONES benefit. You feel this is an aspect of culture that has always worked traditionally and any deviations can be left to organic processes and active pursuit of better diversity is unnecessary. I think all the information Ive provided shows this is incorrect. The numbers don’t change all by themselves and diversity is a net positive achievement.
What I'm really interested in is the quality of "business cards" both male and female directors are using when applying for the high profile jobs.
Sounds like you should look into creating your own study because you are asking for a lot of micro detail you can only get by asking those questions of the people in question. My point of view is a lot of that is irrelevant because we know LOTS of men and LOTS of women would love to become directors or improve their status as directors (and other industry positions too). No reasonable imbalance in pool numbers would account for a virtual shut out in certain industry positions by itself. As to their qualifications, I have shown you examples of folks where men and women have similar qualifications (or the woman may even have better qualifications) and yet the men are chosen and the women are not even considered because of "inexperience".
Gareth Edwards did have a great "business card" to show that he's able to do an effect movies though. Also I do know that studios need to see something in these guys if they're putting them at the helm of their big budget productions.
But that was the point of that example. That Edwards had ONE microbudget indie and was tapped for a big hollywood blockbuster. Trevorrow had the exact same resume and was tapped for <I>Jurassic World</i>. There are hundreds of women who have at least the equivalent of what those two had. Yet they didn’t even consider any women due to "lack of experience". That seems like a raging double standard to me.
Also, do you consider these example to be the norm for young, starting male directors? Or is this more like ranting how sexist it is if a man wins a lottery?
If men are the ONLY ones winning the lottery (regardless of how many men DON’T win) then that indicates an issue doesn’t it? And its not "women just arent interested in playing the lottery".
Closed Thread
I think the very statistics Ive already cited (which were all above 0%) proves that I don’t believe that. And Im confused how saying theres a belief that women cant make action films is "worthless speculation" when you yourself note that ONLY ONE PERSON got the job! The fact that a well proven experienced director of award winning films like Patty Jenkins got a shot at directing THE most iconic FEMALE super hero role in comic book history and THAT’S THE ONLY TIME THAT’S HAPPENED shows just what ridiculous levels women need to reach to have a shot at what should really be a no brainer. And shows how much respect women get in Hollywood when it comes to directing big budget superhero films. Do you think she would have been tapped for a Batman or Superman movie? Ant Man even? Unlikely.
This is entirely semantic and it still amounts to the same thing. 
