Interesting. None of the definitions on dictionary.com include “unjust”. That said, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word used like that. But, whatever, just a semantic side-issue.
It’s a complicated issue, because things can be unjust at both a macro- and micro- level. I’m generally in favor of some amount of affirmative action in college admissions, for instance, because I think that will lead to greater justice and fairness overall. That doesn’t mean it isn’t still at a micro level unfair or unjust when a superficially more qualified candidate is turned down in favor of a less qualified candidate purely based on gender or skin color.
…which historical sexist policies are you talking about?
Was it a bad move for Demane Davis, Patricia Cardoso, Lauren Wolkstein or Maria Govan?
Before you can claim that “I am part of the problem” you need to be able to identify what the problem is: and its clear you really have no idea.
So just stop making that accusation already.
I support Ava 500% percent.
Are you sure? Because this response:
Is a vote for the status quo. Its a clear and unequivitable vote for things to continue on as they always have.
“Actively calling for change” in Hollywood?
You are posting on an internet messageboard, thats all. You aren’t even using your real name.
What a ridiculous assertion.
I would love your “prefered methods” to be the standard in Hollywood. But you don’t have a plan on how to make this happen. Its kinda like answering the question “how do we colonize Mars?” with “Build a spaceship silly!” Its like Elon Musk’s plan to help the homeless: “Make cheap bricks.”
You aren’t going to change Hollywood by being aspirational. You are going to change Hollywood by doing stuff.
Waiting for “waiting for sexist and racist dinosaurs” to die isn’t a viable strategy. Its a fucking ridiculous strategy. In the last series of Project Greenlight, Matt Damon said this: "And when we’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not in the casting of the show.” Matt Damon is the personification of all that’s wrong with Hollywood. And he isn’t going to “die off” soon.
Legislation exists. Oversight exists. What you don’t seem to understand is that everything is in place except one thing: the desire to change.
The problem isn’t just sexism. The problem is that people like to hire people who look and sound and act like themselves. Its why Steven Spielberg hired Colin Trevorrow. Its why when the Russo brothers talked about the other directors they are mentoring, all of them happened to be men. Its why in Project Greenlight, despite Effie Brown making a strong case that the more diverse team should have won through, they instead they went with what Damon characterized as the “best director”, which turned out to be a fucking disaster.
There are 13 people who have been in the film industry for decades with a huge amount of experience who have been crying out for the opportunity for a shot at directing who finally got that shot. How is that idiotic? How is that “self-defeating?”
Those 13 people now have directing credits under their belt who are much more marketable in an industry where they have to work several times harder than men just to get noticed. Ava didn’t do this to “oppose sexism.” She is using her privilege as a giant wedge to create opportunities.
…I have no need nor desire to “dodge your question.” If I wanted to dodge your question all I would have needed to do was scroll past your question. That I chose to engage you should be a clue that I’m not dodging your question: I’m attempting to answer it.
What you quoted has context. You know I am talking about Hollywood. You know the wildly disproportionate statistics, the culture of sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
The hypothetical has no context. If the situation you posed had a real-world analogue even a quarter as bad as the situation women find themselves with in Hollywood then absolutely I would support your hypothetical men. But that situation doesn’t exist. So no I doubt I could support such a premise: but if you want to add a bit of context then please, feel free to add it.
Absolutely.
And when the 97% or so of top companies in the US that are penisarchies actually have some level of equivalence in the number of men and women on the Board, in senior management, in middle managements and have equal pay for equal work then I promise to get outraged about Ava.
I think the result of this situation - more female directors getting opportunities - is a good outcome, but the messaging matters. “I support affirmative action as it is a pragmatic way to compensate for systemic disadvantages that certain races face” is different than “I support affirmative action because there are too many white and asian people in our universities” is different than “I support affirmative action because black people are genetically inferior and need a leg up” even if they all result in the same policy. That being said, from what I’ve read from Duvernay herself, the reasons for her hiring only women definitely are framed more around increasing opportunity for women within industry (fighting macro-injustice within the industry), as opposed to discriminating against men because of misandry.
Though, trying to address systemic injustices by acting unjustly towards the “ones in power” seems kind of like vigilante justice. Some people might see a vigilante shooting a cop who killed an innocent man as being justice - but there are probably more principled ways to achieve justice without resorting to vigilantism. Obviously this situation is much less extreme than vigilante killings, but I can definitely understand Novelty Bobble’s contention that fighting macro-injustices by enacting micro-injustices is not the best approach.
To many, the consistent application of rules is a key component of fairness. Some might argue it’s the only way to not be a hypocrite. If it’s wrong for mainstream Hollywood to discriminate when hiring, it’s wrong for independent directors to discriminate when hiring, etc.
A lot of people believe doping in sports is wrong. Are you confused if someone thinks its wrong for anyone to dope, whether they are ranked #1 or #1000, or do you think since #1000 doping doesn’t really cause anyone any harm (eg. he isn’t depriving anyone of prize money by being #1000 instead of #1400 through doping) they should be OK with weaker cyclists doping?
Okay, but why is it wrong for mainstream Hollywood to discriminate?
Like, it’s wrong to take money from people without their consent, right? And yet, every society in the world does exactly this to its members in the form of taxes. Is this hypocrisy, or is there something else at play here? Like, that the reason taking money from people without consent is usually wrong is a little more complex than “it just is”?
If Novelty’s argument was that this isn’t the best approach, they likely wouldn’t get as much argument. Their assertion is that this is a flat-out immoral approach, which, I contend, is bullshit.
