Search found 5 matches: Al White

mattorama12 wrote:

ShogunRua wrote:So in your view, there is a unique "perspective" to being a "white male heterosexual"?

In other words, a person's character, nature, and traits are completely defined by their race, genitalia, and sexual orientation? Again, you understand what you're arguing is deeply racist/sexist by its very definition, right?

Defining people solely by race is racist, and defining them solely though their genitalia is sexist.

This straw man is below you. You can't honestly believe that someone having a unique perspective because of some trait == being "completely defined" by that trait.

When one claims that genitalia, skin color, and sexual orientation defines a "unique perspective", he or she is stating that it's the dominant force behind one's thinking.

Not the content of that person's character. Not their education. Not their life experiences. Or a million other things that are more relevant. No, their freaking genitalia, skin color, or sexual preference.

Besides being incredibly primitive and small-minded, this is indeed highly racist/sexist.

mattorama12 wrote:By way of example, you would certainly agree that, as a scientist, you have a different perspective on the culture of the scientific world than I, as a nonscientist, might have. But I doubt you would agree that your "character, nature, and traits are completely defined" by the fact that you are a scientist.

Good example. I have a hell of a lot more in common with the average scientist, be they a black female lesbian or whatever, than I do with the average heterosexual white male.

mattorama12 wrote:The bigger point, though, is not that people have a unique perspective because of their genitalia. There's an unstated step in the logic chain there. Having certain traits leads to certain life experiences which in turn leads to a different perspective.

This is a strawman on your part. The range of life experiences among any large racial/sexual group is as vast and diverse as among the entire human race.

mattorama12 wrote:For example, being a Mexican immigrant in Arizona is more likely to lead to discrimination (state sanctioned even!)

It's off-topic, but it's a shame an intelligent, rational person like yourself believes that a simple 10-page law stating that a police officer can ask a motorist who is breaking the law in some capacity whether they have proof of citizenship is "state sanctioned discrimination".

In your own words, that's beneath you.

mattorama12 wrote:But to deny the fact that minorities or females may have a different perspective than white males, as an indirect result of those specific traits, is absurd.

Again, them being minorities or female is a relatively minor element in their perspective. Of course it has some influence, but less than their education, life experience, etc. Certainly not enough to define a "unique perspective".

Speaking of females and minorities, I have way, way more in common with my Hispanic girlfriend than I do with at least 95% of other heterosexual white males.

And keep in mind that the differences can probably be traced more to our different socioeconomic backgrounds, her growing up poor, etc., and not skin color or genitalia.

ShogunRua wrote:So in your view, there is a unique "perspective" to being a "white male heterosexual"?

In other words, a person's character, nature, and traits are completely defined by their race, genitalia, and sexual orientation? Again, you understand what you're arguing is deeply racist/sexist by its very definition, right?

Defining people solely by race is racist, and defining them solely though their genitalia is sexist.

This straw man is below you. You can't honestly believe that someone having a unique perspective because of some trait == being "completely defined" by that trait.

By way of example, you would certainly agree that, as a scientist, you have a different perspective on the culture of the scientific world than I, as a nonscientist, might have. But I doubt you would agree that your "character, nature, and traits are completely defined" by the fact that you are a scientist.

The bigger point, though, is not that people have a unique perspective because of their genitalia. There's an unstated step in the logic chain there. Having certain traits leads to certain life experiences which in turn leads to a different perspective.

For example, being a Mexican immigrant in Arizona is more likely to lead to discrimination (state sanctioned even!) than being a 4th generation white American living in the mid-West. That Mexican immigrant has a different perspective on race discrimination than the mid-Westerner. The inherent genetic differences don't cause the two to have a different perspective (that belief would be racist), but it indirectly contributed to different life experiences, which in turn lead to different perspectives. If the two of them made a film that took place in Laredo Texas, you think they'd each have the same focus?

Look, this isn't to say that either would make the better film. Who knows what talents and filmmaking experience they'd have. That's why I don't really seek out minority or female filmmakers. But to deny the fact that minorities or females may have a different perspective than white males, as an indirect result of those specific traits, is absurd.

Zepfanman wrote:I will gladly clarify my earlier statements.

I used the word "margins" because these are the people who are largely ignored in the movie industry. The vast majority of films are made and promoted by white male heterosexuals, and the subject matter of their films rarely ventures outside of that perspective.

So in your view, there is a unique "perspective" to being a "white male heterosexual"?

In other words, a person's character, nature, and traits are completely defined by their race, genitalia, and sexual orientation? Again, you understand what you're arguing is deeply racist/sexist by its very definition, right?

Defining people solely by race is racist, and defining them solely though their genitalia is sexist.

Zepfanman wrote: I'm not saying that the films of this majority are better or worse than the films of those in "the margins," but for the simple sake of diversity, I believe it's important to promote the films of the latter (but notice the asterisks point below **).

I would go back through this topic and read Rufflesack's responses almost 3 years ago.

Your argument essentially boils down to "racism and sexism is awful and wrong. I'm going to correct this ill...with more racism and sexism!"

How about taking Rufflesack's advice and simply not being racist/sexist, and instead watching movies regardless of what genitalia, skin color, or sexual preference the director has?

Zepfanman wrote:- ** "I loathe the idea of being hired because of my gender and I shudder at the thought that one day I show up on set and half of the crew thinks, 'Here comes the quota hire.' "
- "To those who have promised to 'work diligently' on increasing those abysmal, embarrassing statistics, I'd like to say this: If you find yourself stuck, hopeless, seemingly willing but utterly unable to remedy this gender disparity, head to this website the Swedes generously created for the public called Include Gender."

Awesome, she contradicts herself with those two points. The statistics are "embarrassing" and need to be altered, but she is against quotas.

Someone should tell that idiot director that it doesn't work that way.

Zepfanman wrote:In summary, isn't it a bit suspect that women (for example), who make up half of the US population, only directed 2 of the top 100 grossing films in 2013? Clearly their efforts are being largely ignored by the powers that be in the movie making industry.

Is it "suspect" that women make up the vast majority of the people working in veterinary medicine, and men make up the vast majority of IT? Are both of those signs of horrible discrimination one way or the other? Or is it that, shocker of shockers, men and women actually have different interests and life passions?

Have you ever considered the idea that women don't want to be film directors in the same numbers that men do?

I will gladly clarify my earlier statements.

I used the word "margins" because these are the people who are largely ignored in the movie industry. The vast majority of films are made and promoted by white male heterosexuals, and the subject matter of their films rarely ventures outside of that perspective. I'm not saying that the films of this majority are better or worse than the films of those in "the margins," but for the simple sake of diversity, I believe it's important to promote the films of the latter (but notice the asterisks point below **).

As for the the article (by Lexi Alexander, Oscar-nominated film director) I linked to, here are some of the key facts and arguments, particularly from the Directors Guild of America Women's Steering Committee:

- The number of women directors in TV and film is decreasing.
- "TV continues to hire 80% white males. The number of first-time directors breaking into TV is actually acceptable. Unfortunately, it's only white males who do it."
- "The studio tried to put the blame on the DGA and its own small number of female members, but the negotiation committee reminded the executives that a woman can only become eligible to join the guild if she gets hired by a signatory company."
- ** "I loathe the idea of being hired because of my gender and I shudder at the thought that one day I show up on set and half of the crew thinks, 'Here comes the quota hire.' "
- "To those who have promised to 'work diligently' on increasing those abysmal, embarrassing statistics, I'd like to say this: If you find yourself stuck, hopeless, seemingly willing but utterly unable to remedy this gender disparity, head to this website the Swedes generously created for the public called Include Gender."

In summary, isn't it a bit suspect that women (for example), who make up half of the US population, only directed 2 of the top 100 grossing films in 2013? Clearly their efforts are being largely ignored by the powers that be in the movie making industry.

theficionado wrote:Yes, I still endorse this. By fostering greater appreciation for women's contributions to film, audiences can create a culture more conducive to women's entering the industry. An audience-centered corrective, meaning fostered by consumption rather than production (e.g., the imposition of a system of quotas).

I'm sorry man, but I do abhor this idea. It's really just taking the idea of imposed quotas (which is horrible) down to an individual level. The moment you start watching a film because it has a female director you're being just as sexist as you are if you start watching a film because it doesn't.

Again, this is just being sexist in the other direction, which despite math doesn't really work with real life issues. You don't solve the problem of a disproportionate amount of black people being in jail compared to white people by randomly jailing white people until you get a proportionate amount. In a warped mind it makes sense in theory, but in practice you've just made things doubly bad.

The act of choosing specifically to watch films made by women is obviously not on the same level as that, but more sexism is sure no way to solve sexism.

You're obviously free to watch whichever films you want. If you want to watch films made by women because you honestly find them to be (generally, from your experience, etc) more to your liking for whatever reason, that's cool. If you seek out French films because you like French films, that's not a problem. But prioritating films made by women over films made by men to the point where you ignore films of "better" quality made by men because you feel you're exercising some kind of vigilante justice in the area of sexism is really not something I agree with. I fail to see how that's different from for instance certain university programs having a much lower GPA requirement for women than for men, simply because fewer women apply and they want to have as many women as possible for the sole reason that women generally don't apply. It's horribly sexist.

The only way to have a completely nonsexist society is to not actually consider gender in matters where it's not for obvious reasons necessary. Once you do, you're contributing to the problem.