What proportion of your ranked movies are by women?

[ShogunRua]

are you telling me men direct more movies than women? unreal!

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

[theficionado]

are you telling me men direct more movies than women? unreal!

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

Maybe, upon contemplating the fact that a disproportionately large number of films they've seen are made by men, some will make a conscious effort in the future to seek out notable female filmmakers?

[cagedwisdom]

Over 5%, bitches!*

We are gentlemen, after all.

Nice.

To contribute to the topic at hand, my number is fairly low at 30/1044. 2.8%.

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

No reason to be so harsh on it, what's the reason of any topic? It's just people posting about "how big a percentage of your raknings are ____", which has happened several times before and it's just, y'know, what's the problem even?

Thought I'd calculate my average rating for these 30 films, and it's pretty accurately 48. My overall average ranking is 50.5. A difference which is so negligible it's interesting for how uninteresting it is, so I thought I'd post it.

[ShogunRua]

are you telling me men direct more movies than women? unreal!

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

Maybe, upon contemplating the fact that a disproportionately large number of films they've seen are made by men, some will make a conscious effort in the future to seek out notable female filmmakers?

Oh, here I was under the impression that we should be making a conscious effort to seek out good films. That the quality of the movie was what mattered, not the reproductive organs of its director. Apparently theficionado disagrees.

By the way, seeking out films specifically directed by women? That's sexist.

No reason to be so harsh on it, what's the reason of any topic?

Well, if you compare it to the "what percentage of films are American" topic, at least there, we have some difference between Hollywood and non-Hollywood films. It indicates something about the person's choice, in other words. Also, there is a pretty wide distribution of values.

Here, with women, what does it indicate about choice? Nothing. And all the values fall between 2-6%,anyways.

[theficionado]

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

Maybe, upon contemplating the fact that a disproportionately large number of films they've seen are made by men, some will make a conscious effort in the future to seek out notable female filmmakers?

Oh, here I was under the impression that we should be making a conscious effort to seek out good films. That the quality of the movie was what mattered, not the reproductive organs of its director. Apparently theficionado disagrees.

By the way, seeking out films specifically directed by women? That's sexist.

Are you kidding me? If there weren't any obstacles to women entering the film industry, shouldn't we expect about equal representation of female directors? Since judging by this anecdotal example there very obviously is not, what I'm suggesting is merely an audience-centered corrective to address the systematic inequality. If that's sexism, I'm a proud sexist.

And it's not as though I'm saying seek out all films directed by women... Just make an extra effort to support great women filmmakers.

[cagedwisdom]

I personally can't really get behind that train of thought. Why should one make an "extra" effort to support great women filmmakers any more than one should with great male filmmakers? Being sexist in the other direction is no solution, and it's the kind of thing you generally see from feminists who don't realize they're actually only working against gender equality by trying to skew it the other way.

[theficionado]

I personally can't really get behind that train of thought. Why should one make an "extra" effort to support great women filmmakers any more than one should with great male filmmakers? Being sexist in the other direction is no solution, and it's the kind of thing you generally see from feminists who don't realize they're actually only working against gender equality by trying to skew it the other way.

Most people here (myself included) have two to six percent of their total films seen directed by women. How could that figure in any sense be considered anything close to "gender equality?" Considering the huge disparity, I don't really see how my suggestion counteracts that particular ideal. Why should one make an extra effort to support great women filmmakers over great male filmmakers? Because, historically, women filmmakers are underrepresented and their contributions are undervalued.

Of the last twenty movies I've seen, four were directed (at least in part) by women. Meaning 16 of 20 were directed exclusively by men. It's not even as if men are being left by the wayside.

Not to mention, occasionally, you might actually be subject to some material and ideas outside your worldview.

[cagedwisdom]

Most people here (myself included) have two to six percent of their total films seen directed by women. How could that figure in any sense be considered anything close to "gender equality?"

The Criticker database has 56538 films. The "female directors" collection we're sampling from has 1316. That's 2.3%. The fact that a lot of people have more than 2% just goes to show that hey, looks like not only do people watch a proportion of films directed by women that correlates completely with the amount of films directed by by women, they already watch more than.

If there's a problem with people not seeing enough films made by women, as you seem to imply, the problem must obviously lie in the fact that not enough women are making films, as we can clearly see that the proportion of films made by women people have seen correlates pretty well to the actual proportion of films made by women. I don't see how the work of female directors can possibly be viewed as undervalued or underrepresented in this case.

[ShogunRua]

Are you kidding me? If there weren't any obstacles to women entering the film industry, shouldn't we expect about equal representation of female directors?

There was a different topic started about this, but regardless of whether it was easy for women to break through as directors in the 70s and earlier, nowadays, they're afforded roughly the same opportunity as men. You can argue whether there is a tiny advantage for men or not, or an individual sexist here or there, but it's about equal. They're just not as interested in becoming directors.

Since judging by this anecdotal example there very obviously is not,

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.

Here, read this handy link if you don't understand the difference;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

I'm suggesting is merely an audience-centered corrective to address the systematic inequality. If that's sexism, I'm a proud sexist.

Rufflesack had an excellent response to this, but yes, that is the very definition of sexism.

Not to mention, occasionally, you might actually be subject to some material and ideas outside your worldview.

Now this is just silly. Women are such an exotic species, so utterly different from the other 50% of humankind, that they represent a fundamentally different "worldview" in the films that they direct? That's ridiculous, and I'm sure even you know better than that.

What's funny is that the premise is similar to what a lot of men argued in the 19th century with regards to women getting an education; they were completely different than men, and thus, the "strains" of an education would overwhelm their petite minds and constitutions. Yes, the conclusion is different, but the founding principles are identical to yours.

Anyways, unique ideas are created by great, creative people pouring their passion into a movie, not because someone was born with a different set of reproductive organs.

[theficionado]

Most people here (myself included) have two to six percent of their total films seen directed by women. How could that figure in any sense be considered anything close to "gender equality?"

If there's a problem with people not seeing enough films made by women, as you seem to imply, the problem must obviously lie in the fact that not enough women are making films, as we can clearly see that the proportion of films made by women people have seen correlates pretty well to the actual proportion of films made by women. I don't see how the work of female directors can possibly be viewed as undervalued or underrepresented in this case.

I agree entirely with this part. The smaller amount of women's films seen is largely a reflection of production. I imagine that there are two probable causes here: Women do not perceive filmmaking as a legitimate career choice and producers by and large do not seek out women to helm movies. I think where we part is that I think greater appreciation of women filmmakers' contributions will help usher in changes in patterns of production.

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.

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.

All I say is that because women make up a disproportionately small number of filmmakers, there is likely SOMETHING behind this phenomenon. You YOURSELF suggest a possible solution: That women do not see filmmaking as a viable profession for themselves. I think this is totally reasonable, though I imagine there are more than likely some structural obstacles in the mix. If this is the case, though, I think that women's lack of representation of filmmaking positions is something entirely fixable -- and fixable by the same procedure I argued for earlier.

Anyways, unique ideas are created by great, creative people pouring their passion into a movie, not because someone was born with a different set of reproductive organs.

The set of reproductive organs one is born with shapes the experiences of the individual. Different social roles, different expectations, different opportunities and obstacles. Which in turns shapes an individual's ideas. I'm not trying to argue for some sexual essentialism.