Why aren't there more female directors?

[Beliyal]

Don't get me wrong, I think women are perfectly capable. I'm just wondering how much of a part human evolution had in the societal structures we see today. Why are men encouraged to do X and women encouraged to do Y? Why have "patriarchal societies" become the dominant type as civilisations became so much more vast?

This might sound like a ridiculous question but I'm just wondering if you (or anyone else reading this) knew, are there any historical instances of women being engineers and architects (the roles expected of males, mostly)? I'm sure there are and I might research it myself out of curiosity but I'm no historian, I wouldn't be certain where to look first (a Google search is probably not a bad idea).

As an archaeologist, I'm inclined to say that it is almost entirely a societal construction. Simply because if it were innate or biological, there wouldn't be many exceptions and all cultures would probably behave in an exactly the same manner. But they don't now and they didn't before. We have examples of cultures from the same time periods and almost the same locations that interacted with each other and yet were completely different in how they viewed social classes and gender relations.

As for why were men encouraged for one thing and women for the other, it's simple. When it all started, humans were at a constant threat of dying. Naturally, you will want to keep women secure because pregnancy and childbirth themselves were already extremely dangerous (number one cause of death for women was exactly that). Aside from being dangerous, they were also time consuming. Clearly, you won't send your few fertile women into battle. And when the survival rate of women was no longer an issue on a larger scale, humans were already so deep into traditions and preconceptions that we didn't question our cultural norms anymore. Women were weak and fragile, women were not capable of learning or ruling. Not because there was anything biological or evolutionary stopping them, but because society imposed those stereotypes and kept living by them. This negatively affected everyone, so men started acting in one way and women in the other, often encouraging their own negative stereotypes and internalizing them. Changing something as deeply ingrained as this basic human behaviour is incredibly difficult. Aside from the fact that women give birth to children, nothing else is biological. Even pregnant women can still do mathematical calculations, so there are no evolutionary remains stopping us. Patriarchal societies have some basis in the way human bodies work, but when we left the small tribal communities, it was no longer a biological issue, but it remained a societal one.

As for historical instances of women in male dominated fields, there were plenty. I recommend watching the Cosmos series where important women are mentioned several times, but they still have no recognition in mainstream media and consciousness. Also yeah, a Google search is not a bad idea, just check sources. This is another side of the medal, by the way. Even if women moved mountains to overcome societal pressures and outright bans (bans to knowledge), some managed to do stuff, but were left mostly ignored. There are a lot of important female historical figures, but they always get the second place or are presented as a curiosity. I mean, I study ancient societies and I keep getting surprised when I discover 15 new historical female figures who did badass and important stuff and were never mentioned in any of the school books or media. I often get sad by how much of possible scientific progress we missed because half of the population wasn't allowed to participate.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

A better question would be.

How many women are becoming directors compared to men?

 

[Vault101]

I know that, historically, writing was a boys club. As a writer, I find it interesting that this focused has shifted. Poetry was once a masculine pursuit, one that didn't welcome women. Today it's typically seen as feminine, and there's an idea that men should focus on mathematics and science, whereas women should focus on the arts. I can actually remember people saying that. I know that Mary Shelley, Jane Austin, Mary Wollstonecraft, the Bronte sisters, and others pushed the boundaries, and now writing is seen as a gender neutral pursuit.
.

if I recall poetry was considered "real" literature whereas novels were silly things women read (which made them go silly...cuz women) its pretty funny when you think about it

as for the arts in general weather or not its considered a masculine/feminine pursuit I think depends on the crowd you run with....note how hobbyist "arts and crafts" is considered feminine yet the "srs business" stuff is generally skewed in mens favour?


or for another example art in general is pretty gender neutral but most comic book artists are men...for example, so "it depnds" I wouldn't say its definitely one way or another

aside from the arts there's also the humanities, which in some cirlces have a certain amount of disdain...not just for their actual perceived "worth" as diciplines but their perceived worthlessness in finding one employment (which can go hand in hand) mention the arts on reddit and youll get a massive "LOL LE STEM LORD ENGINERS ARE THE BEST YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT LOL" circlejerk (but that's reddit which...yeah....reddit) I'm not sure that school of thought is in anyway related to the dislike of all things perceived "feminine" but it makes one wonder...

 

[Dizchu]

As an archaeologist, I'm inclined to say that it is almost entirely a societal construction. Simply because if it were innate or biological, there wouldn't be many exceptions and all cultures would probably behave in an exactly the same manner. But they don't now and they didn't before.

Wow, an archaeologist! I'm lucky to have someone who knows more about this than I do to fill me in on a few things. I think the "innate" part I mentioned relates to motherhood (which you go on to explain in the next paragraph so that's cool). However I strongly disagree with certain people who insist that men and women are biologically "meant to be" one way or the other and use it to justify sexism.

As for why were men encouraged for one thing and women for the other, it's simple. When it all started, humans were at a constant threat of dying. Naturally, you will want to keep women secure because pregnancy and childbirth themselves were already extremely dangerous (number one cause of death for women was exactly that). Aside from being dangerous, they were also time consuming. Clearly, you won't send your few fertile women into battle.

Yes I agree with you on this. The main difference between sexes relates to reproduction, and as a result they had (and still have) different perceived "values" in society. Though I will say that the testosterone in males was a purely biological factor that also encouraged them to be the "fighters". Or maybe it's the other way around. Or maybe like most things in evolution they developed together (environmental pressures result in biological differences that determine survival).

It's all quite fascinating, really.

And when the survival rate of women was no longer an issue on a larger scale, humans were already so deep into traditions and preconceptions that we didn't question our cultural norms anymore. Women were weak and fragile, women were not capable of learning or ruling. Not because there was anything biological or evolutionary stopping them, but because society imposed those stereotypes and kept living by them. This negatively affected everyone, so men started acting in one way and women in the other, often encouraging their own negative stereotypes and internalizing them.

Absolutely! You seem to have the same interpretation that I do, double standards that are seen as sexist today were what allowed prehistoric humans to survive. Obviously that doesn't justify sexism today, rather it gives it context (and hopefully a better basis in which to reduce its negative effects).

As for historical instances of women in male dominated fields, there were plenty. I recommend watching the Cosmos series where important women are mentioned several times, but they still have no recognition in mainstream media and consciousness.

I watched Cosmos ages ago, I might need to refresh myself. Sadly I'm aware that women in history get overlooked often. Even Cleopatra is mostly seen as "an exotic ancient queen" and not much else.

I mean, I study ancient societies and I keep getting surprised when I discover 15 new historical female figures who did badass and important stuff and were never mentioned in any of the school books or media. I often get sad by how much of possible scientific progress we missed because half of the population wasn't allowed to participate.

That sounds great, I too have noticed that any historical female "badasses" get overlooked (because a dick who chopped off his wifes' heads is such a better thing to study, right?) If I recall correctly, the Celts were proud of their female warriors.

Your response was really engaging, thank you. This is what I wish more discussions on gender focussed on.

 

[Schadrach]

They did do that while measuring financial risk aversion. IIRC, there is a correlation between high testosterone and more willingness to take risks, and vice versa regarding low testosterone, but that the correlation is between those levels alone, with no gender disparity in the actual effects (i.e. at low testosterone, men and women become equally risk averse).

It was mainly the "our ancestors specifically bred for x" argument (which testosterone levels don't answer) that made me raise my eyebrows, rather than the actual conclusion.

Is that absolute testosterone level, or relative to what is typical for their sex? Because if it's absolute, then I feel like it's necessary to point out that typical testosterone levels for healthy men and women are something like an order of magnitude apart.

I'm not sure how it doesn't answer the "ancestors specifically bred for x" argument though, if we're talking about a behavior that is testosterone linked and increases male but not female reproductive success, wouldn't that yield, in the long run, "breeding for" higher-T males and a wider gap between male and female T-levels?

What I find amusing is that I actually recognize the particular explanation Eddie mentioned because I was looking into a quote about gender of murderers and it turned out that the work they referenced was about aggression, hierarchy-building, and risk-taking behavior by gender that came to essentially the same conclusion. I found it amusing because it was a feminist article uncritically quoting something from an evo-psych article that they would have been wholly unwilling to accept any other point from.

That's...tremendously ironic, yes.

It was a feminist blog quoting a line from Scientific American that cited Anne Campbell (1999) in the quote itself. Anne Campbell (1999) referring to "Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women?s intrasexual aggression" ( http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/campbell.pdf ). Having given it a bit more of a read, I can find a few other points they'd probably be willing to quote, but not much. Largely because evo-psych tends to be a thing that disagrees with feminism on an ideological level sufficient to typically be dismissed out of hand, because the idea that there are biological components to any gender differences beyond genital configuration is anathema to the idea that gender is wholly socially constructed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't get me wrong, I think women are perfectly capable. I'm just wondering how much of a part human evolution had in the societal structures we see today. Why are men encouraged to do X and women encouraged to do Y? Why have "patriarchal societies" become the dominant type as civilisations became so much more vast?

This might sound like a ridiculous question but I'm just wondering if you (or anyone else reading this) knew, are there any historical instances of women being engineers and architects (the roles expected of males, mostly)? I'm sure there are and I might research it myself out of curiosity but I'm no historian, I wouldn't be certain where to look first (a Google search is probably not a bad idea).

One of the difficulties here is that matriarchal cultures tend to approach zero as we approach modern times. As such, there aren't many that, to my knowledge, would have included the likes of engineers (of the modern variety at least). However, this has never been the focus of my studies into history, so I'm not the best person to consult on it.

I'm more commenting on the idea of the male as the leader, or at least its necessity, being a relatively recent construct. A lot of psuedo-science has been used to prop it up in recent times, or adherence to debunked concepts (correlations of testosterone, at least direct ones, have been largely chucked out).

 

[Something Amyss]

if I recall poetry was considered "real" literature whereas novels were silly things women read (which made them go silly...cuz women) its pretty funny when you think about it

Novels were the period equivalent of television or video games. They rotted your brains, and I'm pretty sure that was gender neutral. Although women shouldn't be allowed to read, anyway.

*runs away*

 

[Dizchu]

One of the difficulties here is that matriarchal cultures tend to approach zero as we approach modern times. As such, there aren't many that, to my knowledge, would have included the likes of engineers (of the modern variety at least). However, this has never been the focus of my studies into history, so I'm not the best person to consult on it.

I'm more commenting on the idea of the male as the leader, or at least its necessity, being a relatively recent construct. A lot of psuedo-science has been used to prop it up in recent times, or adherence to debunked concepts (correlations of testosterone, at least direct ones, have been largely chucked out).

Matriarchy is not the most popular cultural export. You even have right-wing lunatics claiming that Sweden, the UK, Canada or bizarrely even the United States are "matriarchies" or "becoming matriarchies" because "those darn feminists are taking over and putting things in our water". Beliyal and I had a good discussion about female representation in history so don't sweat it.

I understand what you mean. Today's societies seem to have standards for authority figures that tend to favour men. While I thought the "Ban Bossy" campaign was absolutely ridiculous I can see WHY it happened. Men are unfortunately just taken more seriously in most cases than women (the only notable exception being when men and women are in danger, in this case it is women that are taken more seriously, this indicates a troubling dynamic).

To tie it in to the original topic, think of George Lucas. He's a director that in the last 20 years has had an uncomfortable distance from his production teams. He didn't engage in the directing process, he was just an authoritarian figure with a "vision" that he hired people with actual talent to achieve. Many leaders exhibit traits like these.

I think it's due to this that we don't have many female directors directing huge blockbusters. They seem to be a lot more welcome in either producer roles or in smaller productions, like Orange is the New Black as someone previously mentioned, where there is more of a collaborative approach. I do think the whole topic is related to gender disparity in leadership though.

 

[NeutralDrow]

They did do that while measuring financial risk aversion. IIRC, there is a correlation between high testosterone and more willingness to take risks, and vice versa regarding low testosterone, but that the correlation is between those levels alone, with no gender disparity in the actual effects (i.e. at low testosterone, men and women become equally risk averse).

It was mainly the "our ancestors specifically bred for x" argument (which testosterone levels don't answer) that made me raise my eyebrows, rather than the actual conclusion.

Is that absolute testosterone level, or relative to what is typical for their sex? Because if it's absolute, then I feel like it's necessary to point out that typical testosterone levels for healthy men and women are something like an order of magnitude apart.

Absolute levels. The conclusion reached was that it was the testosterone that correlated with the risk aversion, not gender itself. Bear in mind that men have on average around 8 times the level of testosterone in their bodies at a given time as women, but that testosterone levels are still determined by individual tendencies and circumstances, and fluctuate wildly over time.

Besides, I just brought it up as an example of your literal question. They did do a study like that, specifically applied to financial risk aversion (specifically, a large mixed-gender group of MBA students), and found that the correlation was to the testosterone specifically, not the gender.

I'm not sure how it doesn't answer the "ancestors specifically bred for x" argument though, if we're talking about a behavior that is testosterone linked and increases male but not female reproductive success, wouldn't that yield, in the long run, "breeding for" higher-T males and a wider gap between male and female T-levels?

It doesn't answer the question for three reasons off the top of my head. One is that testosterone levels aren't fixed (hence why they were able to find men and women with similar testosterone levels in that study), even within one sex, so if our ancestors bred for it, they did a piss-poor inconsistent job of it. Another is that testosterone is not unique to humans, and while we haven't measured risk aversion in mammals, we have found intra-mammalian comparable effects of the hormone in other areas (aggression and sexual levels). We would have to qualify the original sentiment to mean either "our proto-mammal ancestors" or "our proto-human ancestors bred themselves to express this exact average ratio of testosterone." And another is the assumption itself of "risk-taking" as measuring reproductive success.

Going by the article you link to, this is defined as "competition for mates" among males (and "competition for resources" among females) but even that doesn't make much logical sense. That's attributing quite a lot to biological selection pressures, and using that to extrapolate for increased risk taking ignores that A) the males who are taking lower risks are still breeding, and there's no way at all to tell what the relative numbers are (after all, high-risk males may be breeding more often, but they're also killing each other more often), B) individual genetics are actually not the be-all-and-end-all of natural selection (this is the concept behind "genetic altruism"). It's also kind of eyebrow-raising as a biological explanation for gender differences in violence (after all, outside the Y chromosome, men and women have the same genes), but if all else was equal, that would be a plausibility.

What I find amusing is that I actually recognize the particular explanation Eddie mentioned because I was looking into a quote about gender of murderers and it turned out that the work they referenced was about aggression, hierarchy-building, and risk-taking behavior by gender that came to essentially the same conclusion. I found it amusing because it was a feminist article uncritically quoting something from an evo-psych article that they would have been wholly unwilling to accept any other point from.

That's...tremendously ironic, yes.

It was a feminist blog quoting a line from Scientific American that cited Anne Campbell (1999) in the quote itself. Anne Campbell (1999) referring to "Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women?s intrasexual aggression" ( http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/readings/campbell.pdf ). Having given it a bit more of a read, I can find a few other points they'd probably be willing to quote, but not much. Largely because evo-psych tends to be a thing that disagrees with feminism on an ideological level sufficient to typically be dismissed out of hand, because the idea that there are biological components to any gender differences beyond genital configuration is anathema to the idea that gender is wholly socially constructed.

Given that evopsych frequently conforms to current ideology, tying into the bad habits of starting with conclusions rather than hypotheses, ignoring cultural pressures, and assuming that we know far more about prehistoric humanity than we actually do, taking along a few grains of salt in a reading shows pattern recognition rather than bias. You don't have to reject biological gender (transgender is a thing) to have that.

Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the author you cite is doing. It looks more like she's arguing that cultural pressures grew out of the initial biological pressure. Speaking as an ideological feminist who considers any suggestion that there are biological components to gender differentiation beyond genital configuration to be anathema, I mainly wonder why the initial assumption is that female aversions to violence are considered innate rather than conscious.

 

[BarkBarker]

" if we get more women in gaming, then better written female characters will emerge" bullshit. Females can be just as much of a hack at writing as men can, it is the effort to bother that current developers lack. They need somebody who knows what they talking about and has stories already written before they even pitch, or at the least mostly finished, else they'll just shit out something easy so they don't "waste money" and focus on DEM GRAPHICS, DA GAMEPLAY, THOSE GAMEPLAYS... story is just as pivotal to the end experience as all those others, SOME motherfuckers gotta get there heads around this.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

If woman had a passion for directing movies, then they would do it. Somehow making it seem sexist because there are not more female directors is stupid. People are going so over the top with this sexism stuff that soon there will be an outcry because only men have a penis and thats sexist.

 

[AgedGrunt]

There has been a lot of talk about women in gaming, about representation in gaming, and about the number of female protagonists in gaming. The simplest answer to these problems is that, if we get more women in gaming, then better written female characters will emerge.

That's not an answer, that's an assumption. Even "to emerge" is assuming, since that describes something that has become popular.

Seems what people really want are better pop titles. Big difference between changing an industry and changing what actually sells. Games, movies, music-- everyone knows the vast majority is engineered to appeal. And if you're not aware, there's literally science behind appeal to masses and creating addiction. Change of gender in entertainment industries won't change that, either.

There are plenty of industry and aspiring people that don't compromise their work. They are largely obscure and/or undiscovered. This really isn't difficult stuff, it's just made complicated. I get the premise and conclusion, and overall there are positives to having diversity in any kind of entertainment business, it's just too far with sexist views about how these businesses work.

 

[Kevin McGechie]

Some science on the issue: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741240/ and http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900067-6/fulltext These both suggest a link between testosterone and increased risk-taking, and as a result of men having higher levels of testosterone it appears that men are more willing to take the risks required to enter these high-level fields. However, What I take from this is that if you believe you can create great works or even have an interest in the field, then make the attempt. If you think that sexism will stop your progress you could always work under a pseudonym, in my experience, good work will be recognised regardless of the artist.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Some science on the issue: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741240/ and http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900067-6/fulltext These both suggest a link between testosterone and increased risk-taking, and as a result of men having higher levels of testosterone it appears that men are more willing to take the risks required to enter these high-level fields. However, What I take from this is that if you believe you can create great works or even have an interest in the field, then make the attempt. If you think that sexism will stop your progress you could always work under a pseudonym, in my experience, good work will be recognised regardless of the artist.

There's a couple of problems with the comparison, though. One is that there's more factors to account for in this instance that aren't present in the financial risk studies, particularly since film-making is a creative field (you'll find fewer people going into directing solely to make money, or into investment banking based on artistic vision). The other is that it doesn't account for the lower disparity in directing fields outside Hollywood (indie and non-American fields).

Not saying the science is irrelevant, but it carries the necessary qualification of "what makes this area of directing different?" It could possibly be that Hollywood is simply a riskier way to break in, so comparatively more men attempt it, though I'd personally note the path of society and attribute more to the fact that Hollywood has been a boys' club for a while.

 

[Kevin McGechie]

Some science on the issue: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741240/ and http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138%2808%2900067-6/fulltext These both suggest a link between testosterone and increased risk-taking, and as a result of men having higher levels of testosterone it appears that men are more willing to take the risks required to enter these high-level fields. However, What I take from this is that if you believe you can create great works or even have an interest in the field, then make the attempt. If you think that sexism will stop your progress you could always work under a pseudonym, in my experience, good work will be recognised regardless of the artist.

There's a couple of problems with the comparison, though. One is that there's more factors to account for in this instance that aren't present in the financial risk studies, particularly since film-making is a creative field (you'll find fewer people going into directing solely to make money, or into investment banking based on artistic vision). The other is that it doesn't account for the lower disparity in directing fields outside Hollywood (indie and non-American fields).

Not saying the science is irrelevant, but it carries the necessary qualification of "what makes this area of directing different?" It could possibly be that Hollywood is simply a riskier way to break in, so comparatively more men attempt it, though I'd personally note the path of society and attribute more to the fact that Hollywood has been a boys' club for a while.

Perhaps this is why we see a higher proportion ow women in indie film making, where artistic expression tends to surmount the desire for profit. Sexual dimorphism could be used to explain this too as women are aften more empathic and socially oriented than men. We see this in the number of individuals diagnosed as psychopaths (men far more than women) I'd argue that this comparison is appropriate as current research suggests psychopathy is biological in nature rather than psychological. Again, this could explain the trend of more women being involved in social enterprises and charity work.

Taking what you've said into consideration I would suggest that the "boy's club" is even more exclusive than it appears to be. The mantra "It's who you know" has been maintained longer than this industry has even existed: The issue is far more complex than mere sexism and I am alarmed at the number of people using the fact that they belong to a minority group to gain sympathy.