What proportion of your ranked movies are by women?

[cagedwisdom]

Oh man, that was a rare occurrence. You posted something I slightly disagreed with, I made a reply, you replied to mine and I now find that I agree with you pretty much completely. I'm not sure who convinced who but I'd love it if discussions worked out like this more of the time. Nicely posted.

[ShogunRua]

Yeah, because that's all the evidence we need to slam a huge group of people as evil bigots; an "anecdotal example" which is nothing more than correlation, not causation.

First of all, that's one hell of a straw man you got there. Whom did I slam as evil bigots? All I said was the fact that women's films making up no more than 6% of most people's (once again, may I reiterate, myself included) films is an indication of the women's lack of equal representation in the film industry. In other words, women make fewer films than men. I don't see any way that this could be a controversial statement.

When you strip it down to such banal terms, of course I have to agree with you.

But the point is, you're a moving target; what you were writing in your earlier posts was very different from what you're writing now. There, you were claiming that we needed an "audience viewing corrective", and that the movie industry is intrinsically prejudiced against women, even today.

Secondly, Jesus Christ, it's not a peer-reviewed article. I am aware of the difference between causation and correlation -- thanks for condescendingly posting that wikipedia link, though -- which is the precise reason why I called it anecdotal. Criticker data is intrinsically flawed: It doesn't have a full list from which to sample and not all works by female filmmakers in Criticker are listed within the collection. Labeling it anecdotal evidence was merely trying to be as transparent as possible in my argument.

It's not any type of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, which is why I brought it up.

All I say is that because women make up a disproportionately small number of filmmakers, there is likely SOMETHING behind this phenomenon.

You didn't say "something"; you specifically mentioned "systematic inequality". That's what I was responding to.

If you would like to change your view, you're more than welcome to do so, but it's not what you were arguing originally.

The set of reproductive organs one is born with shapes the experiences of the individual.

It does, but not to the extent you're arguing, where we're talking about something fundamentally different in terms of "world-views" and "ideas".

In fact, I'm curious what exactly you mean. What is this "women's world-view", and how does it permeate films made by female directors? Personally, I think it would be hard to say that there is something common to the world-view of 3 billion different people, and that it's fundamentally different than the world-view of 3 billion other people.

[theficionado]

I'm not arguing anything different. Perhaps I'm a bit clearer now that I've laid out my premises but I think I've remained consistent throughout.

the movie industry is intrinsically prejudiced against women, even today.

I never used the word prejudiced. I emphatically do not think that the movie industry intentionally keeps out women because they think they are less skilled, intelligent, etc.

All I say is that because women make up a disproportionately small number of filmmakers, there is likely SOMETHING behind this phenomenon.

You didn't say "something"; you specifically mentioned "systematic inequality". That's what I was responding to.

I still think there is a systemic basis for the patterns of inequality: that is, that they are more than the sum of a bunch of individual choices. For instance, if women do not perceive the profession of filmmaking as viable or available to them, what prevents them from seeing it as such? There are social forces underlying this sexual division of labor. Of course, as I've mentioned, I'm also extremely skeptical that women's preferences is the only thing contributing to their lack of representation, but I don't think it is willful or malicious sexism (though I'm sure instances of that still arise occasionally). I imagine that much of it is a result of the type of films produced, which cater to male adolescent audiences.

audience-centered corrective:

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).

The set of reproductive organs one is born with shapes the experiences of the individual.

In fact, I'm curious what exactly you mean. What is this "women's world-view", and how does it permeate films made by female directors? Personally, I think it would be hard to say that there is something common to the world-view of 3 billion different people, and that it's fundamentally different than the world-view of 3 billion other people.

Well, gender being a historically and culturally contingent social construction, I would absolutely agree with you there. But within these discrete chunks of time and space, gender subtly gives rise to differing patterns of behavior. I think gender can create difference not only in perception and interpretation but, considering how it affects language use, probably the use of cinematic language as well.

[cagedwisdom]

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.

[ShogunRua]

You know, I think the gender of the director is the last thing people take into account when deciding whether to watch a movie or not...

Usually, you watch a film, and if you like it, look up the director and keep an eye out for their future work. Or, if you know and like the director already and see his/her name by a movie, you're more likely to check it out. But gender never factors into either one.

[cameron326]

My percentage is 3.3%, or 3.333333333333% (to 12 decimal places).

Shogunrua:

Exactly; what's the point of this topic? Just an opportunity for everyone to post a meaningless number and percentage

Here's a thought: If a topic is uninteresting or unappealing, how about, oh I don't know, ignoring it?

You know, I think the gender of the director is the last thing people take into account when deciding whether to watch a movie or not...

Not for me. From now I'm only going to be watching films made by ethnic minority, dyslexic, lesbian, asylum seekers. If they're liberal democrats and/or related to Michael Moore as well then so much the better.

[cameron326]

Joking aside, I don't think there's anything wrong with actively seeking out women directors. Just as there's nothing wrong with actively seeking out more Chinese directors, homosexual directors, 1920s directors or whatever.

Different people have different ways of seeing the world due to different cultures and different life experiences, etc.
And that is likely to be apparent in and inform their filmmaking.

If i decide I want to eat Chinese food today, and watch a film by a Chinese director, are people seriously implying that constitutes racism?! Of course not.

And consider this http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/29/gender.books
Four out of five men said the last novel they read was by a man, whereas women were almost as likely to have read a book by a male author as a female. When asked what novel by a woman they had read most recently, a majority of men found it hard to recall or could not answer. Women, however, often gave several titles. The report said: 'Men who read fiction tend to read fiction by men, while women read fiction by both women and men.

Most men explicitly avoid works of fiction written by women. Are they being sexist, or do they just prefer the themes and writing style of male authors? Is having a preference sexist? I dont' think so. Is having a sexual preference for women sexist against men?

Likewise, to suggest that actively seeking out films directed by women constitues sexism is laughable.

[iconogassed]

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.

you should be embarrassed to hold this opinion

[ShogunRua]

My percentage is 3.3%, or 3.333333333333% (to 12 decimal places).

Shogunrua:

Exactly; what's the point of this topic? Just an opportunity for everyone to post a meaningless number and percentage

Here's a thought: If a topic is uninteresting or unappealing, how about, oh I don't know, ignoring it?

How about using that same reasoning to ignore my post, hypocrite? Anyways, this is called a "message board" for a reason. If you don't like people expressing their opinions, then feel free to "ignore" the forum and not visit.

Not for me. From now I'm only going to be watching films made by ethnic minority, dyslexic, lesbian, asylum seekers. If they're liberal democrats and/or related to Michael Moore as well then so much the better.

Yeah, I know; it shows in your thinking and posts.

[prowler]

rufflesack you're wrong. every step ever taken towards gender equality could be interpreted as sexism against the then-status quo.

it's pretty damn simple, we have two sentences:

x has as much potential as y.
y has 95% more exposure than x.

if you agree both sentences are true, then the logical conclusion is x needs more exposure, and you as an audience member should do your part

of course i'm a total hypocrite on this as i don't really pay attention to this shit except when posting in threads like this



or wait maybe broads just don't WANT to make movies [/pickcopket]