why are there so few women directors in hollywood?
because, given the chance, this is the brickbats to the head that they put out.
shareBecause women are not very good at technical jobs. Mechanics, engineers, miners, oil drillers, IT workers, directors, sound engineers you name it and women are rubbish at it. They have had equal opportunities in those industries for 30-100 years in most cases. A lot of the industries in their current form don't even go back that far. They literally have no excuse, especially when they have all these programs to encourage women in these roles.
If you look at IT they have complete equal opportunity in that field as it is only 30-40 years old arguably. When i was in school i had girls sitting next to me in computer class. Did they spend all night and every night on their PC at home learning about computers? no. Were they prevented from going in to IT industry by anything? no. So why are there next to no women working in IT? it is because women choose not to do technical jobs. They want all the easier jobs (office jobs like marketing and admin and recruitment etc) and they want special treatment when they do the jobs as well, all while claiming patriarchal oppression. It is beyond pathetic.
Nice case you've presented there but you conveniently ignore the obvious (or at least one of many "obvii"): the socialization of females.
It's clear to me that you are male; I can tell by the conviction you have about the perspective that you could not personally experience. But by virtue of that very attitude and the generalizations you make, your very own words can be introduced as Exhibit: A against your own argument. Really, your opinion is so hardwired into your system that a comment about women in the field of DIRECTING initiated an entire rant about their abilities in mechanics, mining, and... sound engineering (?!?!)
Women are not inherently worse at technical jobs. Culturally, from birth, women just are not socialized to pursue those fields. Although it's also a generalization, I will use your feelings towards women for support: girls have to overcome what they are told about the limits of their aptitude in those fields. This isn't just psychological; it's systemic. Organizations like WiSE have done more to remove the obstacles for young girls and women who are inclined to pursue studies in science and math than encouraging girls who had no inclination for those academic areas in the first place.
Anyway, I'm sure most of this is meaningless to you and I don't expect to change your mind about any of this. But the next time you want to make the case about the lack of women in a particular field is NOT due to misogyny in the work place; try not to literally use misogyny as evidence.
This is incorrect. As i have stated, women have had the equal opportunity to go in these fields for 100 years and in some cases, not only equal opportunity, but complete equal exposure as well.
There is absolutely no social conditioning that i am aware of that has prevented women from working in IT. That is just an excuse that feminist use to explain why there are no women working in that field.
Women are inherently worse at technical jobs, this is not a cultural or social infliction. There has been nothing stopping all these female academics to go in engineering or other male dominated industries. What stops them is the technical work. There are many women in biology and medicine, why not engineering and IT? It is because they do not want to work as a mechanic or a rubbish collector or a electrician or a plumber. This is just the way they are biologically wired. Of course there are exceptions, there are both ways. In fact there are many women dominated industries as well, teaching, hospitality, nursing, social services and so on. Where is the feminist outrage for equal representation of men in those industries. Surely men are equally social oppressed at not wanting to go in to those industries as well?
The truth is that men are not socially oppressed to not become a nurse or a social worker, they just choose to do different jobs. End of the day if any person, not matter any characteristic can do a good job that profession will accept them like any other. If an individual is productive and capable economics has no other discrimination that comes first. Business is about the money, not about appealing to feminists delusions of patriarchy.
Feminist obsession with patriarchy is essentially female supremacy manifesting. Feminism is hypocritical.
Here watch this long but brilliant documentary on feminism.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE3ACFBB3E7EEB762
You will see that you literally have no idea what feminism is.
This is incorrect. As i have stated...
Oh, I'm sorry. As YOU have stated. There must be some empirical facts following this statement.
women have had the equal opportunity to go in these fields for 100 years and in some cases, not only equal opportunity, but complete equal exposure as well.
I was wrong. Stay tuned...
There is absolutely no social conditioning that i am aware of that has prevented women from working in IT.
Wow. "Absolutely"...
Well, let's set aside social conditioning for a second; we'll get back to it, don't worry. But consider, your argument is based on the idea that women's alleged lack of ability in science, engineering, and of course, directing are inherent. Not to put words in your mouth but I presume you mean there is a biological, physiological, or chemical trait that women inherit with their lack of Y chromosome that causes them to just not be good at math. I'm not going to ask you specifically what that genetic trait is but rather, what's more likely, that the under-representation of women in STEM jobs is external (society) or internal (genetic)? (Keep in mind your strong opinions and anecdotal evidence about women's capabilities vs. the lack of scientific support of those opinions).
That is just an excuse that feminist use to explain why there are no women working in that field.
Uh oh... "feminist". The biggest tip of the hand so far. Just a word of warning: I don't subscribe to the right-wing propaganda that has spent decades demonizing the word Feminism so just using that word doesn't imply something negative nor does it evoke fear. Just FYI; you may have to use facts to make a convincing argument.
Women are inherently worse at technical jobs, this is not a cultural or social infliction.
Now, with the entire Internet at your disposal, would you mind providing one piece of evidence that supports the idea that there is a genetic reason that women are worse at technical jobs? I mean, I hate to assign homework but I'm searching for something to support what you're saying because hey, you may be right. In the meantime, a link? A book title/author? The name of the protein, allele, or chromosome (if chromosomes have names) all humans have before they become male in the womb?
There has been nothing stopping all these female academics to go in engineering or other male dominated industries.
Nothing stopping females. If only there was something besides females keeping the dumb-dumb gene when they're gestating in the womb that made them different than males. While I think of what that is, I have a question: how many times in your entire life have you considered making a choice between your career field and starting a family? You say that the IT field has been wide open for 100 years. I say that at least in the US, there was no protection for women to not lose their jobs when they got pregnant until 1993 (and the protections they're given don't even guarantee income; just 12 weeks off).
But besides all that, let's reiterate that if you were the hiring manager. Not some faceless, nameless, hypothetical evil misogynist in a suit working for a made-up company. If YOU were the hiring manager and a female applicant interviewed for an IT job, she would be talking to someone who holds on to the belief that a woman cannot perform this job for which she is applying. Please, let's not lose sight of that very important fact.
Moving along...
What stops them is the technical work.
I'll give you that if you give me: a hostile work environment that men don't have to deal with. Honestly, could you imagine going into an engineering class with a class full of YOUs? You know, a bunch of people who are all telling you that you are inherently bad at math/science/sound engineering?
So that, and technical work... got it.
There are many women in biology and medicine, why not engineering and IT?
Good question!! Now we're going back to the socialization that we set aside. Biology and medicine, would you agree, requires at least a lot of discipline to master if not a lot of intelligence, right? But do you think it's more likely that as a little girl, their nurturing attributes are encouraged more than their analytical? Girls with aptitude in science a lot of times do go into medical and behavioral science fields but (and you can dispute this as anecdotal and a complete generalization... fair game) do you think it's likely that it's helped along by the perception that women are "care takers", "empathetic", or "gentle"? Most times, this equals "nurse" but if they're particularly strong-willed, they'll ignore that voice and say, "I'm going to be a doctor/psychiatrist/zoologist/etc.
These aren't usually considered to be positive attributes for boys. Again, a generalization but think about what's most likely to happen:
A girl playing with a doll being told she should be a nurse,
a boy playing with a doll being told he should be a nurse,
a girl playing on a computer being told she should be a programmer,
a boy playing on a computer being told he should be a programmer,
a girl playing on a computer being told she's strange,
a boy playing with a doll being told he's queer.
It is because they do not want to work as a mechanic or a rubbish collector or a electrician or a plumber.
I'm sorry, what makes you an authority about what THEY want to do?
This is just the way they are biologically wired.
Again, I'd love to know about how they're "biologically wired". I mean, what is the biology of that? I can tell you why someone is tall, why their hair is curly, why their eyes are blue, why their skin is freckled... but for the life of me, I can not find one scientific phenomena or even theory that explains the biology of learning science... or sound engineering.
Of course there are exceptions, there are both ways.
Well, thank God for exceptions...
In fact there are many women dominated industries as well, teaching, hospitality, nursing, social services and so on.
Now, why would that be? hmmmm...
Must be genetic.
Where is the feminist outrage for equal representation of men in those industries. Surely men are equally social oppressed at not wanting to go in to those industries as well?
Again, I see you've been sold this image of "the angry/outraged/unfairfeminist" and of course, your relationship with this character is adversarial. Let me guess: does the person you visualize have short hair? Does she have tattoos? No? She definitely wears glasses, right? Or maybe has her nose pierced. Either way, she wants to emasculate all men and make you pay for her birth control even though she's a lesbian who probably wants to shove her lifestyle in your face by getting married to her girlfriend? Am I at least in the ballpark?
Funny thing about the fear of the feminists and their agenda to emasculate men and be in charge: exactly the thing you fear is what women have been subjected to since the beginning of civilization. Yeah, on one hand you say that women shouldn't complain and everything is fine and fair but even at the perception that a woman... a feminist... is trying to treat you like a woman, then now it's a War on Men. Is that ironic? Who knows? Because I always use that word incorrectly.
Anywho...
The truth is
THE TRUTH!!!!!
that men are not socially oppressed to not become a nurse or a social worker, they just choose to do different jobs.
Is that so...
Really...
Jeez, you know, why didn't you lead with this? Because we sure as hell could have skipped a lot of the BS. The good news is that there is no War on Men since they're not socially oppressed. Fair enough.
But, on a totally unrelated topic. Have you ever heard of a nurse? A basketball player? A police officer? A teacher? You probably have an image in your head when someone tells you a story about someone in those professions.
How many times have you heard a story about a nurse and it had to be qualified as "a female nurse"? The same with a basketball player? Has anyone said, "the PE class was run by an ex-basketball player from UCLA... I'm sorry: a MALE basketball player." Do people qualify police officers as male or teachers as female? No, they don't. But they do when the gender is opposite. You emphasize "male nurse", "female cop", "male teacher", "female athlete". Why? Because the accepted norm is for women to be nurses and men to be cops, etc.
Anecdote time!
Do you think it's most likely that a 5-year old girl get fake plastic six-shooter, holster, and cowboy hat for her birthday or a princess tiara, a pink tutu, and fake diamond slippers? Is it any wonder that little boys have this idea that they want to be cowboys when they grow up and then girls want to be princesses even though those aren't even real professions? You think that type of socialization ends at 5? (I'm going to guess that your answer is "yes"... so I'll preemptively concede on that topic.)
End of the day if any person, not matter any characteristic can do a good job that profession will accept them like any other.
Right! Only thing is that we're talking about the BEGINNING of the day. You know, girls pursuing science and math in grade/high school. Young women getting into technical universities. Young women getting a fair crack at jobs in technical fields. At the END of the day, I hope they're already there.
But still... RIGHT!!!
If an individual is productive and capable economics has no other discrimination that comes first.
Hmmm... I'm sure there's a punctuation missing in there but I think this is one of those arguments that "the free market cures all social ills". I could be totally wrong, but is this where you're going?
Now how in the wide, wide world of capitalism (or any econom-ism) could there still exist discrimination AND a free market? God knows that's never been the case, ever. We're sold this myth of cronyism, nepotism, sexism, and racism in the business world but that's not true at all.
No. Capitalism absolutely rewards all individuals by their talent and their potential, especially when it comes to hiring practices. I mean, it's a fact: capitalism is a system where revenue is generated strictly in direct proportion to the quality of a product or service provided by said business. Just ask McDonald's; they make the most money so they must have the best hamburgers. Comcast is one of the biggest corporations in the world and they are notorious for their quality customer service. And don't get me started on Wal-Mart. Whenever I think of the best availability of quality books, movies, music, tires, clothing, cereal, camping equipment, board games, fine china, and furniture, I look no further than that place. But yes, whenever a resume rolls across their desk I'm sure they never think things like "women are inherently bad at business/science/math/IT/etc." No, who would think let alone SAY a thing like that?
Business is about the money, not about appealing to feminists delusions of patriarchy.
Yes, business is about the money. Too bad there are so many female business people who make hundreds of millions if not billions that completely makes this point 100% moot.
Feminist obsession with patriarchy is essentially female supremacy manifesting. Feminism is hypocritical.
Again, it's funny this fear of "supremacy" when it comes to Feminism or women in general; you seem to be okay with one group being supreme over another as long as that superior group includes you. If everything was equal on both sides, it wouldn't matter to you if you were to switch societal roles with a woman because, hey: there has been equal opportunity for the last 100 years!
Here watch this long but brilliant documentary on feminism.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE3ACFBB3E7EEB762
I got through the "feminism in a nutshell" part before I continue on through the rest of this series. One thing I'm not impressed with is the lack of any empirical data and the narrator's comfort with using absolute terms like "all", "never", and "always". But beyond that, he just makes these absolute statements punctuated with a period and moves right along. "Feminism has disrupted family life resulting in a negative effect on children and relationships." Excuse me?! First of all, that statement implies that women are all going to be mothers and be in a relationship (with men). Second, Feminism is about empowering choice; not pushing women into the workplace. I defy you to find one statement made on behalf of Feminism that implicitly states any of the claims this makes in his video.
You will see that you literally have no idea what feminism is.
Oh, really. (God, I hate using this word but...) this video is a propaganda film. Sorry. It's not researched. Every sentence is expressed absolutely. And worst of all, it's fear mongering.
Look, you have your mind made up. Great. Let's just pray for all our sakes you don't have to work around women and God forbid you raise children. But for every point we disagree on, I would at least hope that you see that your attitude about women is what women have been dealing with and STILL deal with in school, the workplace, and life in general. You can't make the types of statements you do about women and still have an attitude that the world is a fair place for half of humans on Earth. No sane person can reason both of those things as true and keep in mind, I'm using YOUR attitude about women.
share