Women 'struggling' in Hollywood, according to new study - Polidicks

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;39323608]Women make up roughly 50% of the population, which all things being equal means they should be filling about the same percentage of acting/directing/producing jobs. When they are not then it's fair to ask why not? Is someone really going to say "women don't want to direct"? I don't think so. It's closer to the truth to say they people who do the hiring don't want to hire them. You can't put your name into consideration to direct a blockbuster movie if you can't show a previous hit film on your credits. But guess what, you can't have a previous hit film unless someone hires you to direct it. This is where programs like affirmative action come in. People say it's reverse discrimination, or giving people 'special' treatment, and things of that nature. [B]But what do you call it when someone gets a job cause his dad or uncle works there and gets him in?[/B] No one bats an eye when that happens. What happens when men only hire men because they are only comfortable working with men(as in seeing them as equals)? Sometimes people have to be forced to change their behaviors, even if you can't change their attitudes.[/QUOTE] That's very low-level and individual though; and it's always requested by the recipient. Giving [B]all[/B] women special opportunities is very different; it's giving an entire gender special treatment, which isn't equality in any sense of the word

[QUOTE=Paramud;39323740]Okay, here's an actual counterpoint to your post. A perfectly even distribution would be a statistical anomaly the size of a fucking house considering the fact that female directors are apparently rarer than a platypus-yeti hybrid. So yes, it's entirely coincidence. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Or would you like us to implement affirmative action for award nominations?[/QUOTE] so you are saying the reason why [i]0%[/i] of the nominations were made by women filmmakers is some big giant coincidence? 50% of the population is women, up to 20% of the filmmakers are women, but they just coincidentally didn't make any movies worthy of recognition last year?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39324091]so you are saying the reason why [i]0%[/i] of the nominations were made by women filmmakers is some big giant coincidence? 50% of the population is women, up to 20% of the filmmakers are women, but they just coincidentally didn't make any movies worthy of recognition last year?[/QUOTE] Yep. I think it is. EDIT: And besides, it's not like no women ever has gotten an award. I mean, go look at Kathryn Bigelow. She already has an Academy Award for Best Director for Hurt Locker, and is possibly picking up another award for Zero Dark Thirty.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39324091]so you are saying the reason why [i]0%[/i] of the nominations were made by women filmmakers is some big giant coincidence? 50% of the population is women, up to 20% of the filmmakers are women, but they just coincidentally didn't make any movies worthy of recognition last year?[/QUOTE] Since they weren't randomly pulling film titles out of a hat, yes. Even if they were randomly chosen, a deviation of 4 people is not indicative of some ulterior motive. Take off your tinfoil hat.

There's also that films can just not be received well even if they are decent or even good films. There are some films that don't get the recoginition they deserve, not due to their creators but their content or thematics aren't quite fitting at the time or the panel of judges is of one opinion or another. There is a lack of female directors this is for sure, and this is changing as we go forward, we'll see it be more common.