Aah, so you *do *understand DuVernay’s point. You just don’t like who it’s aimed at.
DuVernay is part of the scourge of sexual discrimination here. You get that, right?
The scourge of sexual discrimination is not ended by more sexual discrimination, it doesn’t matter who it is aimed at.
You can dress it up however you like and you can justify it to yourself in whatever way you think best, but if you are in favour of DuVernay’s policy then you are in favour of discrimination and you are part of the problem.
…there are people casually and proudly engaging in bigotry in this thread? Outrageous! That is reprehensible. Could you do us all a favour and can tell us who these people are?
In the meantime, I’m aghast at how willing some people are to casually compare a man who has been accused of violent sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, with a woman who had dedicated her life to sharing her privilege and creating opportunities for fellow women and people of colour.
…what problem?
Probably the same Dopers that hate good jobs reports just because Trump is President.
…I don’t normally engage in hypotheticals with such sparse information. There is no context here. Would you care to try again?
…your response appears to not be related to this topic, and doesn’t help in my quest to find out the names of the people in this thread who are engaging in bigotry. But thanks for trying!
No. Addressing an imbalance is not discrimination. A key part of what makes discrimination discrimination is that it be unjust or unfair. “Turnabout is fair play” is a principle even a 2 year old can be made to grasp…
See above. This is not discrimination, it’s rebalancing.
Sexism. If you support sexist policies you are part of the problem
No reference at all WRT any of them, then. Some references might be handy, would you like some for Spain? We’ve got situations such as very different gender balances in two majors which actually lead to the same jobs but which happen to have different social images.
From my point of view there is a huge difference between “that field attracts more people of type X than of other types” and “the people who get ahead in that field are almost invariably of type X”; then there’s that other extreme, “people who aren’t type X aren’t even allowed in that field”.
Sometimes the reasons for the differences come from definitions (with the exception of Victor or Victoria, the definition of “drag queen” kind of precludes a woman from being one, and frankly she was subdued enough that she barely made drag lady); sometimes they come from general social bents which may or may not need changing.
When there is as much of a difference between the ratios of type-whatever people in a field, and the ratios who actually make a living from it, or the ratios who get to advance, as there is in American moviemaking, too often it comes from prejudices which hold no water but which get reinforced day in and day out, not by experience but by repetition. And saying “you just need a level playing field” is disingenious at best when the field is constantly being made artificially uneven.
Oh, it wasn’t single-handed: time and again we’re told that we shouldn’t make waves, don’t exaggerate, it wasn’t so bad, oh but he’s such a nice guy… and then there’s it’s your word against his…
Lets not base a just world on what a two-year thinks shall we? “mine…mine…wantit!” is also something a two-year old would understand but it is not helpful in the least.
You are objectively wrong. You may make a case that you think this form of discrimination is OK because of a history of discrimination the other way but make no mistake. You are advocating and supporting sexist and discriminatory practices and by implication, validating the concept.
Your suggestion is akin to telling a two-year old that because someone took their pocket money it is fine to steal it off someone else. I suspect you could get a two-year old to grasp the natural justice of that but it remains a terrible idea.
I repeat, you are part of the problem.
…that’s a bit of a “wishy washy” answer, don’t you think? I outlined just a tiny fraction of the problems in Hollywood in post #22: and a lot of the problem isn’t just “sexism.” Do you actually understand how we got to this point?
Do you support “racist” policies?
By the standards you have set, do you think you might be part of the problem?
Not disingenous at all, I resent that. I’ve worked and hired many people in areas that have been traditionally female and male preserves. In both cases I am proud of the fact that my own policies have been based entirely on merit and have resulted in a diverse workforce comprised of the best talents and no discrimination of any type tolerated. Without wishing to make it seem like an amazing achievement I’ve had women going into traditionally male areas and vice versa, along with transsexuals and homosexuals at a time of much less tolerance and understanding than currently.
I’m not looking for a medal, in every case the only thing that matters to me is merit and talent and getting good people into the right position is a reward in itself.
So you’ll understand if I bridle at the term “disingenuous”
A level playing really is all you need with solid legislation to hold people to account and a willingness to allow the free choice of people to speak for itself.
By that I mean that you need to be willing to allow things to find their own level without crying foul.
It may be that film-making may never reach 50:50 or anywhere near it, medicine may skew to a higher proportion of females and who cares? As long as every single person, regardless of gender, has a fair and equal chance of pursuing their career and an understanding of what is possible for them, that is all that matters.
Supporting sexist policies and discrimination is a retrograde step, it is positively harmful, It is deliberately restricting your ability to recruit talent and reduces the chances of success for others.
Do you actually understand the point that I was making? If you ask me whether the issues of sexism in Hollywood is a problem and a complicated one I would respond “yes”. But that was not the point that I was responding to.
You seem to be supporting sexist policies, what is wishy-washy is when people pretend that what they advocate is not what it clearly is.
no, and you will not find a single post where I do.
no, I’m not and I don’t know how you can possibly think that based on the quotes of mine that you’ve shown there. They are saying exactly the opposite.
There is only one of us here that is supporting discriminatory policies and it isn’t me.
…do you actually understand the point Ava is making?
I asked you what the problem was. If you think the answer is just “sexism” then you really don’t understand the problem.
You seem to be supporting a normalised sexist environment that has existed for decades that limits opportunities for women and people of colour. In fact: unlike you I’m not going to be “wishy washy” about it: that is exactly what you are doing.
If you insist.
So you have no objection to all-women directing crews?
Who would that person be then?
I didn’t say it was a two-year old’s thought, I said it was a thought even a two year old can be made to grasp. Seemingly, it’s beyond some adults, though.
Oh, I’m “objectively” wrong, am I? Well, that’s, like, just your opinion, man. :rolleyes:
No, I’ve made a case that it’s not discrimination at all. You can disagree, but then* you’d* have to make a case that attempting to correcting the Hollywood gender imbalance is inherently unjust. Because it’d have to be, to be discrimination.
No. It’s telling a two-year old that if a gang of boys took your lunchmoney every day for the whole first 3 terms, it’s OK not to want to play with any boys the last term of the year. Even if “not all boys!” The issue isn’t one boy stealing the money, and it never was.
Nope, sounds fair to me.
No, you are.
Are you seriously saying that the current Hollywood situation could, in any way, shape or form, be called “a level playing field”?
Yes, and her response to it is to put in place further sexist policies.
No, I didn’t say it was “just” sexism, don’t put words in my mouth.
If you put in place sexist policies then yes, you are part of the problem of sexism
Nope, wrong again. I am against any sexist policies in hiring at all. You are *for *them.
That’s it? Now that’s a wishy-washy response. You previously seemed to imply that I do support discriminatory policies or environments.
Do you accept now that I do not?
No. Why would you think I would? My own quotes ( that you misinterpreted ) clearly show that I have no problem with the outcome of a a single race/gender/ethnicity being predominant in an artistic or business endeavor.
I do have a massive problem with how that might be engineered and I think that is the part that you are struggling with.
It is you, and you know it is you.
You think it is fine for someone to make a hiring decision based on gender. I do not.