Sexism in Hollywood?

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
cameron326
Posts: 153
1094 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:54 am

Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by cameron326 »

Just putting this out there. If so, to what extent?
A few observations and questions:

a) Apparently something like 83% of directors in Hollywood are male.
b) Male lead roles still far exceed female lead roles. Haven't got any figures but it's pretty clear.
c) Of the cinema going/ film watching audience, what is the male/female split? Does this effect the above?
d) Is you average A-list actresses more bland, uniformly attractive and younger than her male counterpart? Again, no data, but this is my impression. There are far more slightly average looking but quirky/different male hollywoood a-listers than their female.
e) Is it me, or is the IMDB top 250 a bit, well, 'macho', (as well as being obviously very youth orientated). Call me sexist but I seriously doubt that a woman's top 250 would have films like the Dark Knight and Inception in the top 10.

Anyway, as I said, just putting this out there. Would be interested to hear others opinions, impressions or observations.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by ShogunRua »

cameron326 wrote:a) Apparently something like 83% of directors in Hollywood are male.


So? How many aspiring directors are male, and how many are female? And which female directors are being unfairly shut out?

According to your warped logic, it's racism against whites that 76% of NBA players are black, while they only make up 13% of the population, right?

cameron326 wrote:b) Male lead roles still far exceed female lead roles. Haven't got any figures but it's pretty clear.


I don't even believe this is true.

But if it is, think it might have something to do with the source material, which are usually older films, comic books, or best-selling novels? Has nothing to do with Hollywood itself, since they make these adaptation decisions on the basis of money, and not because they happen to have more or fewer female roles.

cameron326 wrote:c) Of the cinema going/ film watching audience, what is the male/female split? Does this effect the above?


Very close to 50/50; perhaps something like 53% male.

cameron326 wrote:d) Is you average A-list actresses more bland, uniformly attractive and younger than her male counterpart? Again, no data, but this is my impression. There are far more slightly average looking but quirky/different male hollywoood a-listers than their female.


I don't even know what you're referring to here.

cameron326 wrote:e) Is it me, or is the IMDB top 250 a bit, well, 'macho', (as well as being obviously very youth orientated). Call me sexist but I seriously doubt that a woman's top 250 would have films like the Dark Knight and Inception in the top 10.


Firstly, I don't have a clue what the IMDB Top 250, which is voted on by random fans on the Internet, has to do with Hollywood.

Secondly, you should try to talking to girls for a change; they uniformly loved both "Inception" and "The Dark Knight" as much as any guys I have spoken with.

cameron326 wrote:Anyway, as I said, just putting this out there. Would be interested to hear others opinions, impressions or observations.


What exactly are you "just putting out there"? Which of your points above has an even tangential relationship to "sexism" within the film industry in Hollywood? All I see is a mess of fuzzy thinking and conjecture, some of it factually incorrect, and most of it irrelevant to the topic title.

Serious question; you know what sexism is, right?

cagedwisdom
Posts: 827
2090 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:44 pm

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by cagedwisdom »

ShogunRua wrote:
cameron326 wrote:b) Male lead roles still far exceed female lead roles. Haven't got any figures but it's pretty clear.


I don't even believe this is true.

But if it is, think it might have something to do with the source material, which are usually older films, comic books, or best-selling novels? Has nothing to do with Hollywood itself, since they make these adaptation decisions on the basis of money, and not because they happen to have more or fewer female roles.

Wow, I can't believe I made a lengthy blog post about this very thing coming up with those very figures just two weeks ago and I can already put it to good use. Great!

Whether or not you believe it is true is irrelevant because it is true.

What it means or doesn't mean is up for debate, it's certainly a prevalent issue in storytelling throughout history that the lead is male.

PS: I work at a cinema, and if the split between male/female is to be on any side of 50/50 it's probably on the side where it's 47% male and 53% female rather than the opposite. That's just my personal judgement, I haven't actually counted. Certain films have a larger discrepancy, the number of women who go see Black Swan far exceed the number of males, for instance.

Just goes to show that dudes are stupid. :P

cameron326
Posts: 153
1094 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:54 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by cameron326 »

@ShogunRua

I was merely raising a topic for discussion - not trying to prove a point. Whether or not you believe that women get a tougher deal in the film industry, it is clear that some people do. Surfing the net recently, I ran across an article about Catherine Hardwicke applying to direct The Fighter. This is why I made my original post. She said:

“Even after the success of ‘Twilight,’ there was a very interesting film that had two guys in it and it was a lot of testosterone and was a really intense drama and I said, ‘Oh I’m interested in directing that.’ And the word came back, ‘No, they won’t even meet with you because it’s got to be a guy directing it.’ I’m like, ‘Wow, OK.’


There have been so many ‘girly movies,’ like ‘Sex and the City’ or this or that, that people have no issues with a man directing. But I couldn’t even get in the door. ... You keep hoping things will change. The person they hired for that particular job I’m thinking of has had, like, three bombs in a row, but he’s a guy. It’s just kind of weird. Hopefully the high-profile status of Kathryn’s last movie can help change that and bust open a couple of doors. We can only pray, you know?”


Don't get me wrong I don't think she would necessarily have done a good job with the Fighter. Twilight is maybe not the best film to have on you CV. But if that was the reason given - that she was a woman - that suggests an attitude more befitting of Victorian Britain than 21st century America.

Again, Shoguan - the above quote neither proves anything one way or another. It could be an isolate example. But, then again, it could be the expereince of every female director trying to move up the ladder. But you're dismissal of a whole topic hardly helps move the debate forward. I won't stop debating it because of your slightly aggressive, dismissive tone, and ill-considered argument which ignores clear as day facts of the kind Rufflesack pointed out:

male: 83%
ambiguous male: 4%
female: 5%
ambiguous female: 4%
ambiguous: 4%

The fact that you actually thought that women have as many lead roles as men would suggest that your powers of observation in other areas are perhaps to be taken with a pinch of salt also.

Anyway, as I said, I was merely raising a topic - not arguing a point. If you have a certain opinion or refute of the points and statistics I raised I would be interested to hear them.

A) WHY are male lead roles more in demand? Hollywood follows the money. I get that. But why does the public want to see male lead roles rather than women?

B) If, as you suggest, fewer women aspire to be diretors - why is that? Why is it that if 50% of the movie going audience are women, and there are thousands of professional actresses, but only a minority of women consider becoming directors?

Anyway, Rufflesack I enjoyed readig your blogpost.

ShogunRua: The intention of my post was merely to raise a topic for debate. Please try to be a bit more constructive in arguing your point.

According to Meriam-Webster, sexism is:
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

JohnSandwich
Posts: 42
3677 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 4:07 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by JohnSandwich »

ShogunRua wrote:
cameron326 wrote:a) Apparently something like 83% of directors in Hollywood are male.


So? How many aspiring directors are male, and how many are female? And which female directors are being unfairly shut out?

According to your warped logic, it's racism against whites that 76% of NBA players are black, while they only make up 13% of the population, right?



What do you mean to say with this analogy? I'm tired and tilted but it seems like it's saying something you don't mean to say. This might not be the case and I might see that ShogunRua is indeed infallible tomorrow - still, though, U MAD?

cameron326
Posts: 153
1094 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:54 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by cameron326 »

What do you mean to say with this analogy? I'm tired and tilted but it seems like it's saying something you don't mean to say. This might not be the case and I might see that ShogunRua is indeed infallible tomorrow - still, though, U MAD?


I think the point he's making is that unequal statistics don't necessarily imply bias/prejudice/exclusion. Which is a fair enough point. However, sometimes they do.

Suggesting that an 83% to 17% bias in terms of the sex of directors MIGHT be in part due to, to quote Meriam Webster, "prejudice or discrimination based on sex" or "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex", is according to ShogunRua "warped logic".

In ShogunRua's mind, we live in a world where there is no possibility of bias, prejudice, or genuine disadvantage suffered by any group whatsoever. Why are there more male directors? Because more men aspire to be directors. Why are there more black people in NBA? Because black players aspire to be basketball players. Why are there more black people in prison as a % of the population than whites? Because more black people aspire to be criminals of course!

What a wonderful, simple world we live in. We coud solve every great social, political, and human problem ever posed by tomorrow morning at this rate!

pilgermann
Posts: 44
1637 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:12 pm

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by pilgermann »

cameron326 wrote:What a wonderful, simple world we live in. We coud solve every great social, political, and human problem ever posed by tomorrow morning at this rate!


That Shogun fella's got all the answers!

JohnSandwich
Posts: 42
3677 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 4:07 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by JohnSandwich »

From now on I will always read Shogun's posts with hammer in hand and clown shoes on, so as to fully grasp his perspective. I imagine it will spare me much brain-ache.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by ShogunRua »

Rufflesack wrote:
ShogunRua wrote:
cameron326 wrote:b) Male lead roles still far exceed female lead roles. Haven't got any figures but it's pretty clear.


I don't even believe this is true.

But if it is, think it might have something to do with the source material, which are usually older films, comic books, or best-selling novels? Has nothing to do with Hollywood itself, since they make these adaptation decisions on the basis of money, and not because they happen to have more or fewer female roles.


Whether or not you believe it is true is irrelevant because it is true.


And if you would have read closer, you would have realized that what you wrote in your blog and what I was talking about above are two completely separate things.

See, I was responding to cameron's statement about "lead roles"; typically, there are about 3-4 such characters in a movie. You, on the other hand, were writing about "focal roles", of which there is only one in a movie.

Rufflesack wrote:PS: I work at a cinema, and if the split between male/female is to be on any side of 50/50 it's probably on the side where it's 47% male and 53% female rather than the opposite. That's just my personal judgement, I haven't actually counted.


Or, instead of relying on personal anecdotes, we can look at the numbers online. While the percentage differs from year to year, typically, there is a slightly higher percentage of males going to see movies. It's very close to 50/50, though.

Rufflesack wrote:Certain films have a larger discrepancy, the number of women who go see Black Swan far exceed the number of males, for instance.

Just goes to show that dudes are stupid. :P


I would say it makes them very smart, considering that film freaking sucked, and was a lousy, third rate horror film version of "Perfect Blue", which Arronofsky purchased the US rights to so he wouldn't get sued for "Black Swan".
Last edited by ShogunRua on Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ShogunRua
Posts: 3449
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 3:18 am

Re: Sexism in Hollywood?

Post by ShogunRua »

cameron326 wrote:Giant Post


So your concrete example of "horrible sexism" is that Catherine Hardwicke, a shitty, talentless director whose biggest movie was "Twilight" wasn't allowed to ruin "The Fighter"?

Of course "we need a man to direct it" is subterfuge; it's a polite excuse the studios use, instead of "you suck, we don't need you." Now, if Katherine Bigelow wanted to direct "The Fighter", and she was refused, then you might have a point!

cameron wrote:A) WHY are male lead roles more in demand? Hollywood follows the money. I get that. But why does the public want to see male lead roles rather than women?


Probably because it's a hell of a lot less believable when a woman is a soldier/professional fighter/gunslinger/superhero, etc? And those tend to form the majority of roles?

cameron wrote:B) If, as you suggest, fewer women aspire to be diretors - why is that? Why is it that if 50% of the movie going audience are women, and there are thousands of professional actresses, but only a minority of women consider becoming directors?


Why do fewer straight men aspire to be fashion designers? Why do more men than women aspire to be scientists? Why do more women aspire to be models?

That's a completely different topic than anything to do with "sexism". Unless you're arguing that biology is intrinsically sexist.

cameron wrote:ShogunRua: The intention of my post was merely to raise a topic for debate. Please try to be a bit more constructive in arguing your point.


Hard to do considering you didn't argue a point at all, but just plopped a vague, meandering, irrelevant post down, and asked people to respond to it....respond to what?

cameron wrote:Suggesting that an 83% to 17% bias in terms of the sex of directors MIGHT be in part due to, to quote Meriam Webster, "prejudice or discrimination based on sex" or "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex", is according to ShogunRua "warped logic".


Then you have to show it.

As any schoolboy knows, correlation does not imply causation.

Otherwise, we would get ridiculous conclusions like "76% of players in the NBA being black means the league is racist and exclusionary towards whites!"

How many guys versus girls go to film school, for instance? It's about 80% male. If you think there is some evil sexism going on, and not a simple question of an industry more males are interested in, the onus is on you to show it.

pilgermann wrote:That Shogun fella's got all the answers!


Only to the really simple questions!

Post Reply