Ava DuVernay hiring only female directors

Great Debates
121

…what do you mean by “**further **sexist policies?”

I don’t think you understand her point at all.

Would you care to explain why you think she has done what she has done?

Your response was “sexism.”

Just sexism.

Nothing else.

If you are going to choose to respond with a single word answer then how on earth can you claim I’ve “put words in your mouth?”

If you want to give a nuanced response, then give a nuanced response.

I haven’t put any “sexist policies” in place: so I’m not “part of the problem then”?

I didn’t use the word “policies.”

And you are all for a normalised sexist environment that has existed for decades that limits opportunities for women and people of colour.

I didn’t imply anything! I simply asked a question. Any implication you felt is entirely in your own mind.

What part of “if you insist” do you want me to clarify?

So if Ava had simply said nothing, but hired 13 female directors for the next series of Queen Sugar, that would be okay with you? If she decided to hire 13 women, but didn’t tell anyone that she had decided to do this, that would be acceptable to you?

I’m not struggling at all. You are entirely happy to be complicit with a normalised sexist environment that has existed for decades that limits opportunities for women and people of colour.

Then just say it already.

How would you go about tackling the normalised sexist environment that has existed for decades that limits opportunities for women and people of colour?

122

:rolleyes: and we wonder why progress cannot be made…

not an opinion. If you refuse to consider hiring someone because they are the wrong gender (or race or sexuality or whatever) you are actively discriminating.

No you haven’t. You’ve declared it by fiat and in direct opposition to the plain fact that the policy is discriminatory, self-declared, unashamed discrimination.

That simply does not follow, I do not have make any case regarding the imbalance. I think the imbalance *should *be addressed, you 'd know that if you are paying attention. I think the imbalance in all spheres of life should be addressed. Where we differ is only in the manner we suggest for addressing it.

The practices that took place historically in Hollywood were discriminatory, the practices suggested by DuVernay are discriminatory. That has to be true otherwise you are changing your definition mid thought-process or engaging in doublethink.

(leaving aside that your analogy doesn’t work)That does not strike me as a thoughtful and lasting solution and sends the message that it is right to punish the majority of a group for the actions of the few.

And yet, and yet. As I said to Banquet Bear, one of us here is calling for discrimination to play no part in hiring decisions and one of us is fine with it. You are calling for discrimination, feel free to do so but at least have the guts to admit it.

123

No, let me state it again slowly and be very clear about it.

Hollywood is a sexist cesspit, full of nepotism, greed, back-scratching and a million other undesirable traits.

It currently does not have a “level playing field”

It should have a “level playing field”

There should be oversight and legislation and ramifications to ensure that there is a “level playing field”

Bringing in discriminatory hiring policies does not help bring about a “level playing field”

Clear now?

124

Seriously? did you read the OP at all? How can you have got this far in the thread and failed to grasp the main point. As a response to the historical sexist policies of Hollywood she’s put her own in place…

No need, she was perfectly clear about it, eloquently and passionately expressed and widely reported. I know “why” she’s done it, I just think it is a bad move.

It isn’t a difficult concept. I agree with her desire for a more equal society, I disagree with her methods.

I’ll leave it to the good people of the dope to re-read that exchange (if they have patience) and come to their own conclusion on what that exchange meant and who is slying playing with words.

If you support what she’s doing then yes, you are part of the problem, less so than if you acted in that way yourself, but part of the problem nonetheless.

Do you wan’t to take the opportunity to say clearly whether you do or do not support what she’s done?

no, I’m against it. I think it should change. That clear enough for you?

The process matters, the policy matters and the intent matters. I simply can’t say if it is unacceptable or not without further information and nor can you. If an equal opportunity was given to all-comers and 13 women resulted from a fair process then that would be wonderful.

How am I complicit? I am actively *calling *for change, I have *enacted *change and *been * the change and seen it work. You just don’t like my preferred methods.

Legislation, oversight, lawsuits, education, social pressure, financial penalties, waiting for the sexist and racists dinosaurs to die off…many options exist. I think promoting sexist policies to oppose sexism is idiotic and self-defeating.

125

Would it help if the policy were stated as, “I’m going to hire exclusively female directors until there is approximately parity between male and female directors in hollywood”?

126

Because some [del]people[/del]men don’t have the sense of fairness of babies? It’s no wonder to me.

Oh, I agree it’s discriminating (in a good sense) - but it’s not discrimination. Because it’s not unjust.

Discrimination *requires *it to be unjust. It is not, so yes, I have.

Ah, but you *have *made one (negative) case - that duVernay’s policy is not one that meets your approval.

No, I’m going by the common definition of “discrimination” that requires it to be unjust.

Works perfectly fine - better than yours, since no male producers are getting actively harmed by not being hired.

It’s so *sweet *that you think sexist men are the minority.

And not being hired is *not *a punishment in an industry where they are more likely to get hired on almost any *other production, just by virtue of being men. This is the same bullshit argument as “Why is there a Woman’s Day, but no Men’s Day”. Every other day is Men’s Day, every other month is White History Month, etc, et-fucking-cetera. Every other production company is Manland.

I’m cool with this, but this is not discrimination. This is justice.

You can keep saying it, doesn’t make this unjust in any way.

But also - 19 Nov - ignorant misogynists

127

Do you now see the problem inherent in such a policy?

Firstly, define “parity”. What does that mean? who defines it? 50:50? based on relative numbers film students? does it change with the demographics?
Then, what does “approximately” mean? near enough? +/-1%

But the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that, once “parity” is reached, you will need to either
a)keep swinging from sexist policy to sexist policy in order to balance the numbers b)put in place a policy that selects purely on merit and without regard to gender or other similar criteria.

Now if you think b) is possible then why not aim straight for that end policy right now?

128

Yeah, I get it - you expect things to just magically “find their level” without any real action - I mean, the oversight and legislation supposedly already exist, what doesn’t are the ramifications. But you oppose one of those ramifications, I can only guess because you’re not down with justice or something.

I take it you’re not down with affirmative action, Title IX, or any of the other measures used to address imbalances, then.

129

I’d say, the women in the industry do.

Parmenides, is that you?

Because justice.

130

When systems are unjust and unfair, people sometimes take unorthodox (or what appears to be drastic) action to try and correct the injustice and unfairness. I don’t know the letter of the law for DuVernay’s actions, but considering the unfairness of the system that chooses directors and decision makers in the entertainment industry, I can’t blame her for trying to work a bit of justice back in, in the little corner of the industry in which she has influence.

131

The context is what you said and what I quoted. You claimed that there was no injustice or discrimination in hiring only members of a certain group, providing all those hired were qualified. Do you stand by that statement, or not?

Obviously you are going to try to dodge the question, but that’s not the point of my post. A dodge is as good as an admission, and we all know that on some level.

Regards,
Shodan

132

These are all important questions to ask, but they mostly fall by the wayside here. Some 50% of film school grads are women. It’s not unreasonable to expect that a non-trivial portion of them are, like men, gunning for the most prestigious position in film, short of “movie star”. And the other questions may matter in the future, if this policy becomes the industry standard and it gets to the point where we’re anywhere near parity, to the point where fiddling about the +/-1% makes any sense, but at the moment we’re really not even close. Your concern seems to be largely hallucinatory.

I feel like there should be some kind of pithy, mildly derogatory term for this kind of thing - where a wildly underrepresented group gets a leg up through a technically discriminatory policy, and people start worrying about what happens if the wild underrepresentation stops and the policy continues and use that to argue against the policy, despite there being no indication that the underpresentation is about to stop any time soon - but I cannot, for the life of me, think of one. You’re putting the cart before the reverse horse? Nah, too clunky.

As for why we don’t start with b): because inertia is a thing.

133

We really are in 1984 territory here.

Now you are just declaring by fiat that it is not “unjust” where the hell do you pull that from?

Simple question. Under duVernay’s policy does everyone get an equal chance? If not, why not? If the reason is “because they are a man” then that is not a fair policy. It isn’t fair when directed at women and it isn’t fair when directed at men.

And though I don’t want to play dictionary top-trumps, what is the common definition of unjust?

I think that treating people as individuals and hiring on merit is the moral thing to do. Do you agree?

They don’t get to go for a job they want to do, how is that not being harmed?

What the hell do you think you are doing? The quote you replied to had fuck-all to do with sexist men and was a general point on the iniquities of punishing the many for the deeds of a few. Something I hope to god you agree with. Please don’t do that.

What does that mean?

134

No they don’t, not to any meaningful extent and if you think that is what I claim then it confirms my suspicion that you are not reading my posts in good faith.

135

Do they? I’ve not seen a figure mentioned…is it a special secret?

Don’t understand the reference, but evasion noted

and again

136

That’s a good article, full of good ideas about how to get more women behind the camera and breaking the sexist barriers in Hollywood. Yet nowhere does it advocate only hiring based on gender.

And the final sentence?

Amen to that, sounds familiar to me.

137

It’s World Toilet Day.

138

Justice is axiomatically not unjust. In this case, DuVernay is enacting a hiring policy specifically to counter previous injustice. And yes, it is possible to enact unjust responses to previous injustice. If Ava dropped every man she interviewed into a shark tank, *that *would be unjust.

This is not that.

No.

Because that cancels out the unfair advantage the men already start with.

Turnabout is fair play.

It’s entirely fair when it takes place in a broader context of existing anti-women unfairness.

“not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.” is the first definition that Google pops up for me. Seems to fit perfectly.

No. Not in an existing system of inequality.

Because they still have an advantage in the larger industry, which outweighs this particular position. Overall, they are still unharmed. You’d have a point if DuVernay were the only one hiring. She’s decidedly not.

This whole thread is about sexist men, and responses to them - I’m not going to ignore the broader context.

Oh, you were *serious *about the “few” bullshit? Well, that’s hardly worth responding to at all, then.

I don’t think we even agree on what “punishment” is. Because what DuVernay is doing is not it.

Google the date. It wasn’t directed at you, it’s an aside about ignorance. That’s why it was a footnote.

139

Well… Yeah. Now here’s a question - do you believe the actions of one producer on one TV show constitute such a severe case of discrimination that all of the non-obvious ways women get shunted away from directorial roles are overcome, leading to an unlevel playing field in favor of women?

As the cuckold said to his blind wife, I feel like you’re really missing the thrust of my point here. I don’t believe “I’m going to hire exclusively women for these positions until the representation is considerably less biased” is a bad position to hold. Any actual complaints about it are hypothetical complaints that will only matter in some far-flung future where such policies are no longer necessary, and that’s a future we’re nowhere near.

140

You’ll know when they stop being uppity.

Your lack of an understanding of logical fallacies is not my problem.

You not getting the answer is not evasion, it’s you not getting the answer.

Well, it’s such an apt answer, it’s worth repeating. That you call directly answering you is “evasion” is about as subtle a debating technique as all the accusations of arguing in bad faith.

Let me spell my stance out for you, though, so you don’t have to keep doing that: Women in the industry are fucking owed (just like Blacks are owed in America overall), and any (legal) means they use to address that are fair and just, because they’re correcting a a huge imbalance.

Also, morality is relative - preferential hiring in an equitable society would be immoral. So would continuing preferential hiring in an unequal society where such hiring reinforces the inequality. Doing so to fix that inequality, however, is moral. Because context matters.