JimB said:
Lightknight said:
No one has to get 'screwed.' John or Jane can get hired because they're the best candidate for the role and the one that doesn't get hired isn't hired because they weren't.
This is all getting very abstract. What specific role do you think John and Jane are qualified for but one more than the other for reasons that have nothing to do with either actor's sex?
Let's say one is a stronger actor or has more experience in a specific role than the other. It's all about qualifications and skill. Not all acting is the same.
If John is the more skilled actor but doesn't get hired because he's a dude, it's just as sexist as if Jane is the more skilled one and doesn't get hired because she's a female.
Of course, you may always have source material that specifies gender and the look of the character. Harry Potter casting "Jane" as Harry would then be a bit weird but not unethical/sexist if she was the best candidate. In most circumstances though, you'd assume that a male would do a better job at portraying a male (and vice versa with females portraying females). So it's at least a legitimate qualification in that scenario.
It can be if the formulae are such that only one woman per movie gets a speaking role.
Cool, you're pointing out another point of sexism. Doesn't detract from other instances of sexism, it just piles on.
I'm not saying either instance are acceptable. So you continuing to point out red herrings just isn't going to stick on me here.
Yes, because I, at least, am talking about the environment it's in. It's still fair to talk about global warming during a day when it's cold outside.
Look, these are two different statements:
Macro: Women aren't cast in proportionate numbers and deserve better representation.
Micro: John shouldn't be hired because he has a dick. Hire Jane instead because she's female.
The first comment is discussing the merits of equality. The second comment is just sexist discrimination.
More like social inertia.
Or, how about the fact that due to men getting pumped with testosterone we are more prone to enjoying action flicks while women aren't nearly as much and thus those kinds of movies are more catered to males?
That is social inertia, but social inertia isn't a bad thing as long as the thing causing it hasn't changed.
Males who have been castrated are less aggressive and do not tend towards violence.
It's likely, but I don't now of a study that breaks down castrated male preferences in movie genre.
Do you disagree that aggressiveness of the viewer increases the likelihood that said viewer will enjoy aggression in movies?
And are women more likely to see these kinds of movies out of preference, or because they're being sent signals of exclusion from the other genres?
Are women more nurturing because society encourages that or is it biological?
To know the difference you'd need to take a survey of action films in which women are the leads and pass the test. Figure out the average audience demographics and then compare with a comparable movie (similar budget, plot, etc) in the same genre that has a male lead and does/doesn't pass the test.
Until then, I only have studies showing differences in how genders respond to depictions of violence, women respond negatively and in the examples of something like video games even feel guilt over their actions.
Regardless, even removing the movies themselves and breaking them up into elements of film we find stark differences in what factors men and women prefer in their movies at all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8647544/Men-and-women-should-never-watch-films-together-research-shows.html
Here's a fascinating work on the difference between men and women regarding violence/aggression:
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/wZXD4ZASNg4bU/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231?siteid=arjournals&keytype=ref&
"Males and females differ in aggressive tendencies, especially in the most violent behaviors of homicide and aggravated assault. The ratio of male to female murderers in the United States is about 10:1 (FBI 1951?1999). Laboratory studies often show the same type of sex effect, but provocation dramatically reduces sex differences in physical aggression, and specific types of provocation differentially affect male and female aggression (Bettencourt & Miller 1996). The preferred types of aggression also differ for males and females. Males prefer direct aggression, whereas females prefer indirect aggression (e.g., Oesterman et al. 1998). Developmental research suggests that many of these differences result from different socialization experiences (White 2001). However, evolutionary explanations of some key gender differences also have received empirical support (Buss & Shackelford 1997, Campbell 1999, Geary 1998). For example, males are more upset by sexual infidelity of their mates than by emotional infidelity, whereas the opposite pattern occurs for females (Geary et al. 1995). In all of these examples, our understanding of sex differences in aggression is greatly enhanced by the discovery of differential affective reactions."
We are simply very different socially and biologically in regards to aggression. That's not a bad thing, both tendencies have their benefits and detractors.
Lightknight said:
To assume that every company is catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past is to disregard all the independent thinkers of the industry and the business savvy they've consistently displayed.
I didn't say that, but thank you for the cautionary tale, I guess.
To use your term against you: "Social Inertia". How is that not "catering towards men in the action films out of a sense of past"?
Lightknight said:
Quick Google definition: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
Definition of equal: the same as.
Cool. And yet we were discussing equality. Not quite as bad as confusing "object" with "Objectification" but close.
Equality includes fairness. Ergo it can be used synonymously with Equity.
Semantics are fun but in this particular discussion it isn't being productive.
Then I don't understand what you're arguing against, if you're saying one movie out of however many millions of movies that have been made to this point is restacking the deck.
Every instance of intentional sexism should be decried. Sorry if you don't think it should just because you agree with the outcome but that is exactly the sort of mentality that makes a fair playing field so hard to accomplish. The pendulum just keeps swinging to one side or the other and as long as people keep pulling it back and forth it has no opportunity to eventually even out. Shame on us, to try and fight inequality with inequality, sexism with sexism. No ever wins with this.