Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron (indiewire.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: As science fiction finally earns mainstream acceptance in Hollywood, James Cameron believes the genre's awards drought will soon be over. "I predict that sometime in the next five to 10 years you will have a science-fiction film win Best Picture," he told reporters while promoting "AMC Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which premieres Monday. Films like "Arrival" and "Ex-Machina" have earned nominations, but as the older guard ages out of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Cameron believes that the membership's "prejudice" against sci-fi -- which he says "definitely exists" -- will fade. "They're definitely a red-headed stepchild when it comes to the acting, producing, directing categories," he said.

"Science fiction is kind of a commercial genre, it's not really an elevated dramatic genre. I would argue that until I'm blue in the face that science fiction is the quintessence of being human in a sense. We are technological beings. We are the only truly conscious species that we know of. We are struggling with ourselves over the issue of our own question for understanding, our own ability to manipulate the fabric of our reality. Our own technology is blowing back on us and changing how we behave amongst ourselves and as a civilization," he added. "I would argue that there's nothing more quintessentially human than dealing with these themes. But Hollywood tends to pull short from that."

But as Hollywood changes its perception of science fiction, Cameron stressed that the genre itself needs to continue to evolve from its origins of being too "stale, male and pale." "It was white guys talking about rockets," Cameron said of early sci-fi. "The female authors didn't come into it until the '50s and '60s and a lot of them had to operate under pseudonyms." But even now, "women are still unrepresented in science fiction as they are in Hollywood in general," he said. "When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified."

Comments

Who cares?

[alvinrod]

When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified.

The last time I had my alignment done I wasn't at all bothered that I couldn't find a female mechanic. Why should I care any more or less who's directing the movies that I watch?

Re:Who cares?

[saltydogdesign]

I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted. Who is to say there aren't women out there that could do a better job with a film than the male director that gets selected in part because of his sex? Making films isn't a cut and dried task — talent matters. We got Frankenstein (the novel) in spite of systemic sexism. What all did we miss?

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

Re:Who cares?

[rbrander]

Because a "good alignment" has the one clear definition but "good movie" does not?

Perhaps a female director could clarify for me how a female character feels about a male character by directing the cameraman to do a long, slow scan up the male's body, which a male director would not think to do, since he doesn't classify ogling males as entertainment. A female director could still direct "male gaze" shots because she's got a hundred years of past movies to study; "female gaze" shots she would have an instinct for.

But also, in general, any group that's been discriminated against becomes automatically the smart hire, because they have to be "twice as good to go half as far".

Re:Who cares?

[phantomfive]

I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing

Then point to that specific thing instead of making vague allusions. If there is a real problem, most of us are willing to help. The vast majority of us favor gender/race/human equality, but if you're just going to go around insulting people as "too white, too male, and too whatever" without even being able to identify a specific problem, I'm going to tune out.

Groups that are more interested in insulting than in fixing lose support.

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

Really? Which ones specially (names) were selected partially based on their sex? It should be easy for you to answer because you said "almost all of them". You can just tell us three.

Re:Who cares?

[phantomfive]

There isn't just one specific thing. Strawmen challenges are pointless. If there was just one specific thing, then the problem would have been solved long ago. Point to any specific thing, and watch the goalposts shift.

If there are multiple problems then point them out, and I will support solving them. But your vague allusions are empty. When you say, "watch the goalpost shift," do you mean, "watch the problem get solved?" Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

How many female directors wanted to work for Harvey Weinstein? As the other guy said "Almost all of them". What a dumb question. Do you think he didn't work with female directors? What does that have to do with my question anyway?

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

"But also, in general, any group that's been discriminated against becomes automatically the smart hire, because they have to be "twice as good to go half as far"

Simply astoundingly stupid.

Re:Who cares?

[alvinrod]

If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.

In one of the most progressive industries, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive countries in the world?

I'm somewhat skeptical that any such thing exists or at least not anything that would cause such a large gap or even the majority of it. Especially in a business that cares far more about revenue than it does about art. So if female directors could generate better profits, the studios would be tripping over themselves to hire them. Contrast this with other fields (accounting, veterinary medicine, etc.) that historically had no female practitioners (much like directing), but are now majority female, and you have to explain why this systemic something did not prevent women from breaking into those fields.

I'm not going to claim that Hollywood is a perfect or even a model example. It's quite obvious from recent history that there are plenty of sleazy assholes who were willing to use their positions of authority to coerce women, men, and children into sex. Perhaps Hollywood and the allure of fame makes this more prevalent, but it's hardly unique to the film industry either, so I'm not inclined to believe women in film have had to deal with anything that women in business, medicine, or any other field haven't also had to deal with.

If you know what this systemic something is, by all means share it. Otherwise you could just be tilting at windmills. But to my original point, did you ever stop to think about the fact that there's an even lower percentage of female mechanics? I'm guessing that the thought never crossed your mind, so I really have to ask why you should care in this instance but not in the other? I think you can realize that it really doesn't matter what sex your mechanic is as long as they do a good job, so why not be similarly unconcerned in this case as well?

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

Society will never be equal until the number of men attending college is equal to the number of women.

Re:Who cares?

[JBMcB]

A female director could still direct "male gaze" shots because she's got a hundred years of past movies to study; "female gaze" shots she would have an instinct for.

It sounds like you've never taken a serious film class. There is plenty of female, for lack of a better term, "fan service" to be had. Watch the last 50 years of soap operas on US TV, or Mexican Telenovellas, or any one of the slew of TV shows on BBC or ITV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There are entire TV shows based, more or less, around this one scene.

Re: Who cares?

[Insanity Defense]

How many customers are willing to pay for movies from female directors ? Everyone paid for Weinsteins movies. The product is that matters, not the personality of the products maker.

Relatively few people care who directs. The average person cares more about the stars of the movie. Until Weinsteins indiscretions came out recently I didn't know who he was and wouldn't have cared if someone told me. I couldn't name a single movie he was associated with. If your face isn't on the screen the typical person couldn't care. Have there been exceptions? Sure Spielberg for instance had his name associated with a number of hits and could draw people to films with his name. But he was an exception not the rule.

If I find out a woman directed a movie or TV show I want to see my response is SO WHAT and I promptly forget that fact and watch the show.

Re:Who cares?

[phantomfive]

The onus is on you to tell us

The onus is on the one who cares and wants change.

when did equality hit with such force that this is no longer an issue you should be fucking figuring out yourself

I have my own problems. I don't need to busy myself figuring out other people's problems for them, especially from people who want to insult me.

Re:Who cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Which ones specially (names) were selected partially based on their sex? It should be easy for you to answer because you said "almost all of them".

I'll give you 98:

Here is a list of the first 100 film directors listed alphabetically. There are exactly two that are women. Now, do you really think that there is something about having a penis that is a requirement to direct a movie?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls05...

Before you answer, remember that there was a time when there was a similar discrepancy among published authors. You'd have maybe two women out of 100 published authors. There was a belief that men were just better writers, naturally. Today, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men. There is no affirmative action for authors. You have to produce sales or you don't get published. The free market in action.

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

So there are only two options. That pretty much sums up the stupidity of 2018.

Re:Who cares?

[alvinrod]

So women are too stupid to become mechanics, but not veterinarians? The systemic society won't trust them to fix its automobiles, but will turn over the care of the ledgers of the companies that fix those vehicles to them?

I think you've created one hell of a false dichotomy, and neither option seems to fit the observable world.

Re:Who cares?

[110010001000]

I didn't realize that Woody Allen was selected partially because of his penis, and not because he made successful movies. Do you have proof of your claim? And the whole "published authors" claim is BS. Anyone can publish a book in 2018. Finally, male authors are more commercially successful than females so your claim that the "marketplace preferred women" is complete BS and you are lying. But you are PopeRatzo and we expect that. My proof is here: https://pudding.cool/2017/06/b.... Please post proof to your claim about Woody Allen et al. I will wait.

Re: Who cares?

[c6gunner]

Today, there are more women published than men

Citation needed. As far as I can tell this is just something you made up. Male authors still dominate even if we count "romance" novels and "super-mommy" self-help books while discounting the entire "graphic-novel" industry.

I mean there is definitely a specialised industry of publishers who only publish works by female authors, whereas there's nothing similar for male authors, so really we should be seeing slightly more women being published than men. But I've yet to see any data which shows that to be the case.

Re:Who cares?

[Uberbah]

I'll give you 98

98 from an imdb list put together by some random shmoe?

The sauce is weak.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

Here is a list of the first 100 film directors listed alphabetically. There are exactly two that are women. Now, do you really think that there is something about having a penis that is a requirement to direct a movie?

Feminists certainly believe that there is something different about having a penis because men supposedly suffer from "toxic masculinity" and women supposedly listen and collaborate better. But, as it turns out, many of the traits that feminists claim to despise in men are traits that are actually important for leadership positions.

So, there is something about having a penis that is a requirement for succeeding in a cut-throat, competitive environment; for directing people with big egos under lots of stress and time pressure; for dealing with complex abstract concepts and spatial relationships.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

oday, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men. There is no affirmative action for authors. You have to produce sales or you don't get published. The free market in action.

The book market is anything but a free market, nor is it a gender neutral market. Women control much of the discretionary spending in our society, and women read a lot more than men. Women are highly subsidized as both authors and consumers of books by men and by the state. With all that, it's not surprising that women publish a lot, and even that they are read a lot. That doesn't prove that women are overall more talented at writing books, let alone that women are statistically as capable as men as producing great literature.

Danielle Steel is a commercially successful author, she is not an author of great literature, she doesn't write literature that appeals equally to both men and women, and she is certainly no science fiction author.

Re:Who cares?

[swillden]

Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

I think you don't understand what "systemic" means.

Re:Who cares?

[lucm]

Before you answer, remember that there was a time when there was a similar discrepancy among published authors. You'd have maybe two women out of 100 published authors. There was a belief that men were just better writers, naturally. Today, there are more women published than men, and the publishing industry is notoriously tough to crack and demands sales above all else. In other words, the marketplace just preferred women authors to men.

In your quest to portray yourself as an open-minded liberal, you in fact made the demonstration that you are full of shit.

See what the data about the NYT best sellers list shows:

"Books by women consistently made up about a quarter of the list in the 1950s. Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, female representation on the list fluctuated dramatically. The rate of books by women got as high as 38% in 1970, and as low as 14% in 1975. (Some of this was simple math: from 1963 to 1977, the New York Times capped the list to 10 books per week. This made the annual list of best sellers shorter and the gender ratio more sensitive to changes in the counts from year to year.)

This volatility didn’t result in permanent change: in both 1990 and 1950, 28% of the books on the list were written by women. In the 1990s, women finally made steady gains on the list over ten years. 2001 saw the highest ratio of all time: 50% women, 50% men, later dipping to 48% in 2016."

https://pudding.cool/2017/06/b...

Re:Who cares?

[another_twilight]

Here's a report that looks at female directors and compares their careers to male directors. One of the differences they report is that directors will often start with short films before moving on to longer or feature films. The initial disparity in numbers between male and female directors at the short film level then becomes even more stark. Female directors report difficulty in finding or attracting funding (not the only problem, sample size is small and selective). We're not talking about a situation where women don't want to become directors of feature films. They do. They can't. Your mechanic analogy is off the mark.

The problem with cultures is that they tend to be self-reinforcing. Women, knowing that their chance of being able to make a career beyond short film will make less of an effort in a direction that's unlikely to yield results. When putting together people to work on or with, people are likely to ask for people that they have worked with before and who they know they can work with, again.

It's complicated and complex, as many social structures are. Identifying biases are difficult and confronting. The numbers, alone, are a sign that there is _likely_ to be some kind of systematic bias or biases. Holding your hands over your ears and demanding proof before you'll act is childish. Let's investigate. There's smoke; maybe there's a fire. Maybe we'll find that it's just weird, but women really don't want to direct, but here's a list of qualified female directors talking about some of the different ways that they've experienced barriers to their careers based solely on gender.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

Feminists may say that women want wimpy, obsequious men. But feminists don't represent women. The only thing that ultimately matters is who women who reproduce choose to reproduce with, and the criteria there haven't changed much: they want competitive, successful alpha males. Women can't even overcome their preference for such superficial criteria as height in mate selection.

Re:Who cares?

[lucm]

women supposedly listen and collaborate better

Anyone who has worked in a sewing shop or in any other mostly female work environment (nursing, beauty parlors, etc) will tell you how untrue that is. There's endless drama, arguments over who spent too much time in the bathroom or who gets to work next to the window, nonstop backstabbing and whining, etc. It's as toxic as it gets and usually comes with a tsunami of harassment complaints, burnouts, bickering in the cafeteria, and so on.

Ask any trustworthy women around you, would she rather work for a man or a woman, you'll see.

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Men and women enjoy different content. Period.

The publishing industry knows this well. Magazines for men and women can't be more different. Look at a woman's Facebook feed and compare it to a man's. Also there, the content can't be more different.

These are differences based on individual selection.

What the film industry is trying to do is create content that appeals to two audiences. That part is logical and understandable given the financial realities of film.. But what isn't logical is to solve this problem by forcing women into traditionally male genres and male roles and then to attempt to market it to both genders. Needless to say this strategy produces content that neither gender likes particularly much. And this is what female directors and female run studios invariably try to do.

There are a few things going on here:

There first is that men grew up with sci fi and comic books and most women didn't. Pretending that female directors and male directors can do an equally good job because of directorial capacity (which is equal) while ignoring the differences in lifelong tastes is absurd. Yes, there are some female directors who did grow up with comic books and sci-fi... Not only is Hollywood terrible at finding these rate birds, but even if they could these are women who have traditionally male tastes. They run into the same problems as men do if they try to make content that appeals to two genders.

Another thing that's going on is that most female directors are products of liberal Western feminist thought. They are therefore desperately unqualified to represent gender on screen because they do not understand gender. In their minds men and women are interchangeable. Which is why portrayals of women in sci fi are mostly male roles played by women.

Remember men and women like different things. The solution is not to blur gender roles and try to pass off the result as universal content.

These efforts create awful hybrids like The Last Jedi which nobody sees twice.

Sci-fi is a genre that men have always clamored for more than women do. Yes, you can change the definition of sci fi to make it more female friendly... But then you've changed the nature of the genre to the point where most men are disinterested.

What's the solution?

Why does there need to be a solution? Let men and women enjoy their own content and stop whining about gender representation behind the camera for one specific male loved genre.

Re:Who cares?

[swillden]

I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing

Then point to that specific thing instead of making vague allusions. If there is a real problem, most of us are willing to help.

The thing about systemic biases is that it's entirely possible that no one knows what, specifically, is the problem. Systemic biases can be deeply buried in common processes that no one realizes are favoring one type of person over another, often due to the way processes interact with characteristics of the categories of people.

One of my favorite examples is observed variation in salary. Even when controlling for every factor that researchers could think of, and even when HR departments are doing their dead level best to ensure pay equity, we see women in professional positions getting paid less than their male counterparts. Finally, some researchers noticed that part of the typical professional hiring process was salary negotiation, and wondered if perhaps women didn't negotiate as hard, or if they negotiated less effectively. That led to a series of studies that found that (a) women generally don't negotiate as aggressively as their male counterparts, and (b) women who do negotiate aggressively are more effective at it than their male counterparts. Further studies delved into why women negotiated less aggressively and decided it's probably due to the cultural expectations of "niceness" and non-confrontationalism that women are raised with... and maybe even due to some inherent genetic bias in those directions.

In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.

As a result of this observation, some employers have abandoned the salary negotiation process, and instead just calculate a take-it-or-leave-it offer based on experience and qualifications. This actually turns out to eliminate another systemic bias that lowers female pay, the salary history. Traditionally, employers ask for salary history and use that to choose a starting point for negotiation. Since women were typically paid less than men at their previous jobs, this downward bias is carried forward.

Note that this is an example of a hidden, systemic bias that was uncovered and is now understood. But systemic biases can stay hidden for a very long time. They can be subtle and very hard to spot. The existence of bias is often very easy to spot, even when the reasons are not: Just look at outcome equality. If outcomes are unequal, there must be some reason.

Re:Who cares?

[Oligonicella]

Bullshit. An assertion on your part is meaningless. Provide some proof instead of signaling.

Re:Who cares?

[another_twilight]

In one of the most progressive industries

Sure, for old, white and male values of 'progressive'.

in one of the most progressive countries in the world

You're number 20 on this list and the number of first world countries you're ahead of isn't that high.

That you believe what you typed is one of the problem with systematic biases. They are hard to identify and confronting when they are.

Here's a study that takes a stab at 'why'. It's a small sample, but among other factors female directors who have been successful on short films find it harder to attract funding or investment in feature films.

Here's a list of successful female directors talking about the problems they have experienced based solely on gender.

I've found those from a quick google search and memory of some similar articles. You raise mechanics, but a similar search shows females interested in being a mechanic facing even more overt cultural pressure to not. You imply that maybe women don't want to be directors, but a trivial search shows considerable evidence that counters this.

Culture is self re-inforcing. Biases are hard to identify. There's a massive difference in gender among feature film directors. There's a marked difference in the usual path of successful directors (from short films and documentaries, to longer, feature films) based on gender. Small wonder that this means that less females choose a path where an equal amount of work does not result in an equal outcome, or have to have a backup plan for when they can't pick up funding or have to spend another decade getting 'experience' that their male colleagues don't seem to need.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Further studies delved into why women negotiated less aggressively and decided it's probably due to the cultural expectations of "niceness" and non-confrontationalism that women are raised with... and maybe even due to some inherent genetic bias in those directions.

As a result of this observation, some employers have abandoned the salary negotiation process, and instead just calculate a take-it-or-leave-it offer based on experience and qualifications. This actually turns out to eliminate another systemic bias that lowers female pay, the salary history.

Note that this is an example of a hidden, systemic bias that was uncovered and is now understood.

In other words there was no actual bias. Women were getting less pay because they failed to negotiate. Your SJW nonsense is legendary.

Re:Who cares?

[Oligonicella]

And I think you have a problem with "aspersion" and "assertion". Easy to throw around the word systematic. Remember that the assertion requires proof on the part of the asserter, not disproof by everyone else.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not-married (we married others in the past and figured out how stupid marriage really is, so we don't do it) to a quite excellent woman. She won't take shit from people but she won't fight over petty things like many women tend to do. She works for women but many of the customers and decision-makers she deals with are men. She strongly prefers dealing with men because men cut the bullshit and appreciate it when someone else is also willing to cut the bullshit. Women are the reason we have dumb shit like "compliment sandwiches"...yes, that's a real thing, go look it up and be as amazed at the level of intelligence insulting required to do it as I am. Women are biologically closer to the center of the intelligence bell curve. Women are genetically hard-wired (no opt-out) with nesting instincts and competitive instincts that target other women. Damore was fired for pointing out such realities, but no amount of Google HR panty-twisting changes the hard facts encoded in your fucking DNA.

Women that "live in the world of men" are the absolute best women. No walking on eggshells, no wondering where things stand, no wondering about her opinion of that thing you just said, no letting you slide when you falter and act like an idiot. She jumps your shit in your moments of stupidity because she cares.

And then there's most women, who would destroy the entirety of a business with their cunty catty horseshit behavior. Gee, which one would you pick to work beside? Hmm...things that make you go "hmmmm....."

Re:Who cares?

[Peter P Peters]

You're citing soap operas and garbage like that youtube clip as "female fan service"?

I feel like the case you're making here is the opposite of what was intended.

Why not? Just because your favourite mode of entertainment is a feature film doesn't mean that is the chosen mode for others.
Men have hunter origins, ie go out do something, come back with reward. Women have social origins, stay in, interact, be rewarded. So it may just be that TV is their preference.
Note: I'm not claiming one way or the other, but the idea that just because you don't like something shouldn't rule out the possibility that other people do. Which I think is the GP's point

Re:Who cares?

[Oligonicella]

The straw is in the assertion that there's something systemic. Keeping it vague and sans examples is a tactic.

Re:Who cares?

[Oligonicella]

The thing about systemic biases is that it's entirely possible that no one knows what, specifically, is the problem.

That is a big, juicy line of bullshit designed to never, ever be resolved because that would eliminate the complaint industry.

Re:Who cares?

[Peter P Peters]

I think the issue is that most Sci-Fi is absolute trash. It's my favourite genre, but just about every movie has some gaping plot hole or poorly thought out MacGuffin that makes it unworthy of any credibility. Outside of 2001 and Blade Runner, I'm struggling to think of a Sci-Fi film I'd even consider worthy. Interstellar maybe?

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to be a SJW than to be an asshole, don't you agree?

Personally I'd much rather be an asshole than an SJW. SJWism is a clear sign of mental illness. Being an asshole is a skill / choice not a mental condition. Would much rather have a fully functioning brain.

Re: Who cares?

[Type44Q]

Perhaps we need NAMBLA to address gender and age-based imbalances in the babysitting and nannying industries.

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

We will not stop until we have forced males and females to like the same content. Anything less than that is injustice.

Re:Who cares?

[PopeRatzo]

Danielle Steel is a commercially successful author, she is not an author of great literature,

Brad Thor is Danielle Steele for men.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

That's why I was saying "supposedly". That is, feminists agree that there are differences between men and women when it comes to leadership and cooperation, they simply don't understand the implications of those differences. Typically female behaviors are toxic for large organizations and leadership; women who succeed at the top of organizations do so by adopting typically male behaviors.

Re:Who cares?

[vux984]

In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.

This affects men too. Given a job where negotiation is not a required or relevant skill we see men who are better at negotiation being paid more then men who were not.

Is that fair? Is this also a problem that society needs to fix?

Is this really a systemic bias against women after all? since it affects a lot of men too, while some women who are aggressive negotiators are doing fine.

Should we be looking for 'equal pay for women' or should be we looking for 'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate' ?

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

So you admit then that book sales are dominated by mediocre, formulaic authors who write gender specific books. So, the fact that female authors do so well is not a reflection of talent or skill, but simply that there are a lot of single, horny, bored women with lots of disposable income out there. That is, women know what turns women on. Not exactly an argument for gender equality.

Re: Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Female directors working with unfamiliar genres that they themselves didn't watch growing up, just for some social Marxist view of equality is a recipe for terrible films.

And *that* is unfortunately provable.

Re:Who cares?

[religionofpeas]

Further studies delved into why women negotiated less aggressively and decided it's probably due to the cultural expectations of "niceness" and non-confrontationalism that women are raised with... and maybe even due to some inherent genetic bias in those directions.

When you're working with top actors, and they are not performing according to your vision, you need to be able to be confrontational. It's an important ability to have as a director. If you can't even bring yourself to demand a higher salary in a private office one-to-one conversation, how are you going to tell Bruce Willis or Julia Roberts, that they're doing it wrong again after 5 takes ?

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate'

That is how the majority of jobs are paid in the UK. Often there are pay scales for a job, so people can get increases based on time spent in the role, but basically everyone gets paid the same for that job.

In jobs where people do negotiate salary the company usually states a range up front. Say they offer 50-60k for the role, and then the candidate can make their case based on experience and the like, but is extremely unlikely to get more than 60k. I find it's helpful because it helps filter companies that definitely can't afford me or who are just hoping to get someone with lots of experience for cheap, and as we all know whoever says a number first loses.

Re:Who cares?

[Roodvlees]

Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Who cares?

[Roodvlees]

Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

And it's the same that I listed: "physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive".

No, being physically strong, unsentimental and assertive is not toxic masculinity. It's the expectation that men must be those things to be masculine that is toxic.

demand that outcomes between men and women (at the CEO level, as movie directors, as whatever) should still be equal

They are asking for equality of opportunity, with the assumption that it will lead to more women in those roles, based on how it has done so in other areas in the past.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

No, being physically strong, unsentimental and assertive is not toxic masculinity. It's the expectation that men must be those things to be masculine that is toxic.

Specifically, they erroneously believe it is a societal ideology, which then leads them to making this meaningless distinction. In reality, it isn't society that has these expectations, it is women that have these expectations of men. Furthermore, these expectations aren't ideological in nature, they are biological. Statistically, men carry genes for being physically strong, unsentimental, and assertive because statistically women carry genes that make them prefer such men.

The problem with our society is not that it produces such men, but that it fails to produce such men. Women have taken over the raising, supervision, and education of men, and because they are doing so based on feminist ideology rather than biology, they are raising increasingly dysfunctional men.

The article itself admits the biological nature of these gender differences because it observes that "toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures"; if it were a societal ideology and harmful, it wouldn't be a cultural universal: British men didn't conspire with Hottentots, Australian aboriginees, and Samoan warriors to impose a patriarchy on the globe, these gender roles naturally and independently developed in many societies because they are part of our biology and because they work.

They are asking for equality of opportunity, with the assumption that it will lead to more women in those roles, based on how it has done so in other areas in the past.

Women already have equality of opportunity in almost all fields in life, so the assumption is wrong. Women are underrepresented as CEOs, directors, and in STEM fields because statistically fewer women possess the traits necessary to compete successfully in those areas. In fact, in many fields, gender imbalance tends to increase, rather than decrease, the more freedom and equality women have.

To rephrase the final statement of that article: The bottom line is feminism harms all genders. It promotes a culture of victimhood, dependency, single motherhood, and multi-generational poverty, while raising dysfunctional and violent men.

Re:Who cares?

[ganjadude]

Can you imagine the outrage if someone said something was "too black"???

but "too pale" gets nothing????

Re:Who cares?

[ganjadude]

that isnt the question. the question is do they get it BECAUSE they are men. and i would wager the answer is no

Re:Who cares?

[bingoUV]

You should celebrate this shouldn't you ? You just discovered a business opportunity. Every one in the world is ignorant about it, so you could quietly fund a woman director and you become very rich due to the awesomeness of affordable women directors.

Why are you spilling your beans ?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the MRAs had actual problems they could point to, then maybe they could gain some support.

What, like the massive bias toward women in divorce and family court that sees women get the kids 9 times out of 10, whether or not she's on drugs and dating a child molester?

Re:Who cares?

[Austerity Empowers]

I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted. Who is to say there aren't women out there that could do a better job with a film than the male director that gets selected in part because of his sex? Making films isn't a cut and dried task — talent matters. We got Frankenstein (the novel) in spite of systemic sexism. What all did we miss?

As a stale pale male I'm pretty happy with the genre as it is, and don't care. What I'm tired of is bad sci-fi that has been ruined in some vain attempt to locate an audience that doesn't appear to be very interested. Turn on the SciFi channel and mostly get spammed with a lot of bad.

The sad parts are when they do a really good season one of something, and then go off the rails in season 2, searching for that broader audience. It's maddening.

I personally don't care who made the thing I watch, male or female, black or white. I don't even bother to look, as far as I know they are female. But the content I care about, and if it requires turning things I care about into things I don't care about to bring in women, or blacks or whatever, then it's futile. I'm no longer interested. The same goes double to bring in a larger male audience, a lot of sci-fi I used to like has been ruined in the past 15-20 years to make them more action packed and war-mongery. No thank you.

Re:Who cares?

[AmiMoJo]

In reality, it isn't society that has these expectations, it is women that have these expectations of men.

That's a meaningless distinction. Half of society is women, women live in and are shaped by society. Two sides of the same coin.

It just suits you to frame it that way so that you can blame women and biology, which is rather unhelpful.

Re: Who cares?

[Opportunist]

Most SJWs I met are absolutely capable of being both. Why do you insinuate that SJWs cannot be as great an asshole as any toxic masculine MGTOW? Are you assuming their abilities?

Re:Who cares?

[Opportunist]

Didn't you get the memo? What you want isn't important, you MUST establish equality, if necessary against better judgement or the collective will of the affected.

I wonder what Kurt Vonnegut would say about it...

Re: Who cares?

[jm007]

well fuck me, spot on comment, wish I could give mod points

Re:Who cares?

[argStyopa]

Is that the same "systemic" thing "preventing" women from becoming programmers?

Because last time I checked, by the same method of analysis (ie simple demographic comparison) "something" is "preventing" women from becoming ditch diggers, trash haulers, and construction workers.

Re: Who cares?

[NeoMorphy]

I think you nailed it. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to talk about this in public without being vilified.

Re:Who cares?

[tbannist]

You can just tell us three.

Oh, I think I know this one. We can start with Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, and Jason Friedberg.

Because, can you honestly find any other reason they were ever (and at least one case, still is) allowed to direct movies?

Re:Who cares?

[thewolfkin]

Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

Um.. dude the whole point is that male directors weren't chosen for their sex. Female directors were. Male directors were chosen for their skills. Female directors were chosen to check a diversity box. As someone to hire so they can go back to hiring the regular (i.e. Male) directors.

Re:Who cares?

[chispito]

You can just tell us three.

Oh, I think I know this one. We can start with Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, and Jason Friedberg.

Because, can you honestly find any other reason they were ever (and at least one case, still is) allowed to direct movies?

Michael Bay has made studios a lot of money. That's what keeps the wheels moving, not maleness, staleness, or paleness.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

Okay, so you don't talk to feminists

What makes you think I haven't talked to feminists? I'm a gay man and former progressive.

, but you have no difficulty in telling us what they say?

I go not just by what they say in discussions, but more importantly by what they write.

There can be an unjust patriarchal power grab that's caused by male competitiveness.

If men are competitive and women are not, then men naturally end up in power and at the top of dominance hierarchies. I don't see anything unjust about that; it's the natural outcome of biological differences. Why do you think it's "unjust"?

You seem to think that people should get power even if they don't compete for that power. And I agree that's what feminists want. But what would be just about such a system?

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

No, the very basis of modern feminist theory, the most fundamental aspect of it, is that the issue is the patriarchal nature of society. Not men, not ideology, the system we live in that is mostly shaped by historical factors.

Yes, we agree that that is the basis of modern feminist theory. There is no disagreement on that.

What you fail to provide is evidence that modern feminist theory is true or even plausible.

The very facts feminists themselves cite ("toxic masculinity exists throughout cultures") show that this is not a result of historical factors, because it it found across many cultures that share no history.

Furthermore, attempts by feminists to change this since the 1960's have failed to produce the predicted effects.

Feminists have an incorrect theory, and it's not surprising that they derive incorrect and harmful policy prescriptions from it.

Re:Who cares?

[ooloorie]

The phrase may be misleading, but it describes some unpleasant behavior, which includes establishing dominance over women for the sake of establishing that dominance.

Yes, men try to establish dominance, over each other and over women. I'm sorry you find that "unpleasant", but it's biologically normal, adaptive behavior for men. It's also essential for the proper function of large, complex organizations. Even the most progressive organizations are rigid dominance hierarchies.

Women are perfectly welcome to compete in those dominance hierarchies on equal terms, and there is a small percentage of women who have the skill and psychological makeup to do it, and others can learn it if they force themselves to. But it doesn't come naturally to most women and most women simply choose not to do it because, like you, they find it "unpleasant".

Re: Who cares?

[david_thornley]

There first is that men grew up with sci fi and comic books and most women didn't.

That's WAY overgeneralizing. Most boys back in my high school were't interested in science fiction, and some of the girls were. Comic books were much more heavily boy-oriented, but even today there's lots of science fiction movies that have nothing to do with comics. Over the past decade or so, Marvel has been coming out with a lot of quite successful comic book movies, but there's still been other science fiction movies.

Another thing that's going on is that most female directors are products of liberal Western feminist thought. They are therefore desperately unqualified to represent gender on screen

In other words, there's absolutely nothing unbiased about this post. You're assuming that you're right, and that a statement that liberal Western feminist thought is completely wrong, to the point where you think you can toss it out there unquestioned.

In their minds men and women are interchangeable.

In which case you haven't been reading female-written fiction or watching female-directed movies or paying attention to any actual liberals or feminists, because that's not true. The quote 'Very few jobs require a penis or a vagina, and the others should be open to anyone" refers to equality of opportunity in employment.

Re:Who cares?

[david_thornley]

Does anybody with mod points understand the first thing about sexual harassment and rape?

Suppose an actress was presented with the choice of having a good role and sex with Weinstein, or neither. Having sex with Weinstein and then reporting him for rape seems to me the worst of both worlds. It's hard to prove rape.

You could consider the actress a prostitute, I suppose, but consider what that means about Weinstein, that he'd force women into prostitution for the sake of their careers. That's the sort of thing bad pimps do, and I didn't notice you blaming him.

Re:Who cares?

[nitehawk214]

If a woman does what a feminist wants, it means feminism is working.

If a woman does something a feminist does not want, it is systematic patriarchy.

Re:Who cares?

[swillden]

The thing about systemic biases is that it's entirely possible that no one knows what, specifically, is the problem.

ok, well find out then. I'm not going to help you fight spectres. If you want a research grant I can probably support that.

The only thing I would ask is that you do the same thing I do, which is to agree that the imbalance indicates the potential presence of systemic bias, and be open-minded about causes and solutions. Don't just reject out of hand that there may be a legitimate problem, merely because no one can precisely articulate its cause.

50% of which population?

[holophrastic]

This notion that every industry, every hobby, and every interest ought to be equally populated by women is perhaps the biggest error imaginable.

Who ever said that women are interested in the same things as men? I've never met a woman who likes using a urinal. Should we organize funds to teach women to get on-board?

There's nothing wrong with a reality where women don't prefer to be directors. I'm not interested in convincing women to avoid being directors, and I'm not interested in convincing women that they should be.

Give women the freedom to choose, and then let them follow their own choices.

Just like with every other thing in life, you'll find that women don't want to be everywhere. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, having a choice and making one, especially one that defies statistical likelihoods, is the very definition of free choice.

Re:50% of which population?

[chispito]

Give women the freedom to choose, and then let them follow their own choices.

The point is they don't have freedom to choose.

Citation needed.

Re:50% of which population?

[another_twilight]

There's nothing stopping women from being independent film directors

Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men. Up to about the short film direction, male and female directors have a similar path - then female directors have a harder time getting funding.

There's a world of films between mainstream Hollywood blockbuster and self-funded, and females find greater barriers to entry than do males.

You're correct when you say people don't get the job because they are male. They don't get rejected because they aren't female. It ranges from the not-so-subtle 'I won't be directed by a female' through the, 'there's a lot of egos and males are just better at making things work' through to unconscious biases like yours that assumes that there isn't a problem because no-one's hiring males just because they are males.

The thing about all the 'work hard, wait for your chance' rhetoric is that it ignores that not all work is rewarded equally and not everyone gets the same chance.

Re:50% of which population?

[Roodvlees]

"Just having free choice doesn't seem to work!"
Maybe not in terms of getting the results you want.
But as feminism got more influence in the west, women got less happy.
So there's no evidence what you want is actually good.

"they spoke out about it!"
Some people did, that tells us very little about most people or most women want.
You're really quick to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:50% of which population?

[Roodvlees]

"Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men." Citation needed. Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
The reality is women aren't willing to do the hard work to get there, good for them, raising a family will make you much happier than directing a film.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:50% of which population?

[Roodvlees]

Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:50% of which population?

[holophrastic]

Excuse me, I'm not sure that I understand. You want me to be forced to hire people who are specifically not interested in the job, just because they want money? That's kind of the first interview question: "why are you interested in this kind of work?"

Re:50% of which population?

[holophrastic]

Women aren't a race.

And, once again, not encouraging someone to do something isn't mean. I'm not hindering, I'm not discouraging, I'm not restricting. What I "sound" like doesn't matter. I'm not.

But I certainly don't spend my time and effort going out and convincing people to do things that they don't choose to do. No one set up marketing pushes to convince me to do what I do. In fact, most people tried to convince me that my industry was a fad. Good thing I took my decisions into my own hands and did what I wanted.

Re:50% of which population?

[be951]

This notion that every industry, every hobby, and every interest ought to be equally populated by women is perhaps the biggest error imaginable.

Not sure if you just didn't understand the article/summary, or you are just extrapolating what was actually said to "every industry, every hobby, and every interest" because that's easier whine about? What Cameron actually said is that in Hollywood in general, 14% of directors are female. And it's not like we don't know gender bias exists in the entertainment industry. Book publishing provides an easy example. A few years back, a female author submitted her novel to the same set of 50 literary agents under her own (clearly female) name, and under a male pseudonym. As a female, she got 2 manuscript requests. Under the male pseudonym, 17. For identical submissions, except for the name of the author. If your first inclination is to try to come up with a way that that doesn't show bias, maybe it's time to just admit that sexism is just fine with you? And 14% to 86% is a bit less, but similarly lopsided. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask why there is such a large split, instead of suggesting that there is no industry bias, and that women probably don't want to direct?

I've never met a woman who likes using a urinal.

In what way is directing a film specific to male anatomy? It is obvious that using a urinal is, but I really don't get why you think standing up to urinate is analogous to directing a film?

Dear James Cameron

[Kohath]

People like you who obsess about race and gender are the problem. Drama isn't a race. Entertainment isn't a gender. Your audience does not care about the social justice identity bonafides of your characters. Except a very tiny, tiny fraction of that audience. And no on can ever make that fraction happy, regardless of anything anyone does, because that fraction regards complaining about race and gender as a sort of religious sacrament.

Get back to us when you're trying to entertain. Until then, you are entirely useless.

Re:Dear James Cameron

[skam240]

Men and women come from very different life experiences. Likewise for non whites from whites. Is it really such a stretch of the imagination that it would be good to have more variety in who directs in such a culturally dominate medium such as cinema?

Whats so wrong with male and pale?

[AHuxley]

Should every new work of art pass some art test to see if it can be published?
An author has to go back and add in more diversity just to get published?
Books to be considered for new movies and series will all have to have a mandated set amount of diversity?
Once work is approved as been within a "male and pale" limit will further revisions be needed to remove more "male and pale" before a movie can be made?
Will an artist have a say in how their work is further corrected?
An artist freedom is now reduced to filling a quota of characters who are not "male and pale"?
Will past art get rewritten to remove most male and pale roles?

Is winning an Oscar Relevant/Important?

[mykepredko]

I guess it is to Mr. Cameron, but in reality, does it matter if a Sci-Fi movie wins an Oscar (for anything)?

We're living in a golden age of TV; CGI and more liberal rules regarding stories and content allow for longer, more engaging stories to be told that appeal to more specific audience. Movies are tied into a shorter time base with more restrictions on content with the expectation that there needs to be a definite punch that knocks the viewer out of their seat and is tweeting to their friends that they must see this movie NOW.

Yesterday I saw "Ready Player One" and, despite not loving the book, the movie is engaging and fun - it is a true Spielberg movie that keeps your attention, gets a few smiles but won't make me think about it much afterwards. I can't think of anybody (including Mr. Cameron) that could have done it better. It will make a few hundred million dollars (like the latest Avengers or Star Wars) but non of them are worthy of any accolades (other than box office records).

In the current world, I don't think Sci-Fi should be shooting for an Oscar as a standard for being good. I thought "Arrival" was very good with an interesting twist at the end - but I know of very few people who really understand what had really happened at the end with regards how Any Adams' character's perspective on everything had changed (left vague to avoid spoilers). The movie did win an Hugo and that's probably what Sci-Fi movies should shoot for - great Sci-Fi makes the reader/viewer think and challenge their views and perspectives on things.

These are things I don't think movie execs/suits want.

Re:Is winning an Oscar Relevant/Important?

[phantomfive]

I don't think the complaint is really accurate. Gravity won several academy awards and had a female lead. Passengers had a female star and was nominated for two academy awards. In the fantasy-science-fiction genre, Avatar had blue people and won multiple academy awards. TBH I don't really know what he is looking for......more science fiction romance? If you include science-fiction-fantasy as science fiction, then science fiction is fully mainstream now (Avengers for example).

Re: Is winning an Oscar Relevant/Important?

[phantomfive]

He is looking for a best picture academy award for his next few avatar movies.

He should pay off some people.

Who cares about race and gender?

[Karmashock]

Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?

Does a movie become good or bad because of their race or gender?

Does a piece of music become good or bad because of the race or gender of the player, the singer, the writer... whatever?

It is irrelevant.

The only issue here is "stale"... not pale or male. A white guy can write something everyone loves or write complete garbage. A black woman can write something everyone loves or complete garbage.

No one really cares who you are. We care what you did.

Now, on the issue of Cameron personally... Ironically he "IS" stale.

Anyone see Avatar? The movie is dogshit on so many levels and its all his fault.

The movie had top tier special effects which people loved. Great. Very pretty. But Cameron really didn't have anything to do with that besides getting money in the special effects budget.

Terminator 2 is a cult classic as well as a huge commercial success. Titanic was a very popular romance movie.

Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie and I don't see it having any legs in time.

Cameron is stale. Not because of his race or gender. He just got old and lazy.

Re:Who cares about race and gender?

[UnknownSoldier]

1. Correlation != Causation.

2. Rotten Tomatoes measures how popular something is. Using it as a exclusively as "proof" of measurement of "quality" is shows you don't understand point #1 nor #2.

Now there is (some) overlap between a movie that is popular AND good, but there are at least 4 permutations you seem to be ignoring:

RT / Quality
=========
High / Good -- i.e. Baraka
High / Crap -- i.e. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Spy Kids, Jurassic World, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Prometheus, etc.
Low / Good -- i.e Silence (2017), Underrated movies on RT, Ace Ventura (*)
Low / Crap -- i.e. Battlefield Earth, far too much crap to list.

Legend:

High = high popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Low = low popular score on Rotten Tomatoes
Good = Great characters, plot, world building, story telling, or funny / satire / parody.
Crap = Who the fuck wrote/directed this shit???

We can ignore the High/Good (both > 90%) and Low/Crap (both < 40%) since in those cases it can generally be agreed upon that RT's score of popularity DOES equal quality. It is the two OTHER ones High/Crap, and Low/Good that demonstrate RT's score is based on popularity, not quality:

* High/Crap = movie might be over-rated
* Low/Good = movie might be under-rated

(*) I thought Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls was funny as hell, but only a deluded fan would think it was "good" -- how should it be rated then??? Good from an Entertainment value? Crap from a Story perspective?

Beside, IMDB's Top 100 is a better correlation of good movies then RT. But again, this is still mostly a list of popular movies.

Even "better" is a combined RT and IMDb -- but even that must be taken with a grain of salt.

3. There is a HUGE disconnect between the RT's "Critics" and "Audience" score.

Spy Kids has a 93% from critics (WTF?!), yet only a 46% from the audience.

More crap like this can be seen with SW:TLJ, critics rate it 91%, yet the audience score is closer to 24% (**) -- ignoring the animated Clone Wars (2008), it is the LOWEST Star Wars film to date.

(**) RT currently shows the audience score as 47%, but this leads me to my next point.

4. Rotten Tomatoes pull shenanigans like this: They don't count half stars!

The Last Jedi ACTUAL Rotten Tomatoes popcorn score is 24 percent - Mark Sargent

Ignoring the data doesn't make it go away.

The problem is people like you conflate "popular" == good, or RT "high score" == good, when that simply isn't the case.

We need to fix those statistics!

[gweihir]

Because a single number from a statistic tells the whole story, right? And when it comes to gender, everything must be 50:50, obviously. Hence I hereby demand that women stop giving birth to children, because that is the only way to fix that so far 100% of people giving birth are female! That cannot go on and obviously is an extreme problem!

In other news, people that look at numbers without understanding are still morons.

Re:We need to fix those statistics!

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, it is quite funny to see an american made serial playing in the early middle ages, like "Beowulf", and high percentage of woman in the "wrong jobs" as smith e.g. but much more funny is that 30% are black or asian. In the european middle ages! When you get used to it, it does not change the story much, but well, if I would made a movie about King Richard and Saladin, I make sure all europeans are as white as they can (or contain some spanish or italian warriors) and all of Saladins warriors are "arabic" with perhaps a few mixed in Nubians.

Re:We need to fix those statistics!

[gweihir]

Well, the next step is revisionist history. That is if this does not already qualify. The stupidity of some people is staggering.

The sad puppies or whatever they were, were right.

[argStyopa]

The simple fact is that there is a dogmatic push to lay accolades on women and minorities having anything to do with science fiction.

If there's filtering going on, ACTUALLY keeping them out of the field, that needs to stop.
But what I strongly suspect - like sexism, racism, etc today - is that people are reacting to the way it was more than the way it IS.

I personally feel handing someone an award preferentially because she has a vagina is as sexist and stupid as NOT handing it to her for the same reason. I think to assert that somehow the canon of Science Fiction literature is corrupted by the fact that it's mostly male and white is a sort of Stalinist revisionism. Yes, women shouldn't have been kept out (if they even were; I don't recall any ACTUAL evidence to that fact, imo) but that doesn't make the greats any less great, or mean we have to have X years of opposing bias to 'counterweight' the canon.

How about we just enjoy books that we enjoy, and not give a shit about the chromosomal makeup of the author at all?

Re:The Shape of Water? ?

[ShanghaiBill]

Is The Shape of Water not considered a sci fi film ? It just won Best Picture and Best Director .

Indeed. In addition to winning plenty of Oscars, Sci-fi has been the most financially successful genre over the last 40 years. Of the 10 highest grossing films 8 are sci-fi. Saying that sci-fi doesn't have "mainstream acceptance" is absurd.

Pale == Too white

[execthis]

Pale? That means: Too white.
Funny, no one would ever say that a genre is "too asian" or "too black" or too any-other-race. Only white.
This is blatant anti-white racism.
Fuck you Slashdot.

Re:Pale == Too white

[Rakarra]

Pale? That means: Too white.
Funny, no one would ever say that a genre is "too asian" or "too black" or too any-other-race. Only white.

Why, it's almost as if "white" was the default (and for a huge history of the medium, required) and asian/black/any-other-race had to deal with being pushed out or ever left in. I wonder why the white man could be what's focused on. What a big mystery this is..

Re:Dear James Cameraon

[dmomo]

I sort of thought his comments were exactly that; laying the PR seeds early in the production of his long-term films. "I predict that sometime in the next five to 10 years you will have a science-fiction film win Best Picture". So, basically he's trying to sway the opinions of the Academy, using a time frame that happens to coincide with the next few Avatar film releases. He goes as far as saying, "I would argue that there's nothing more quintessentially human than dealing with these themes. But Hollywood tends to pull short from that.", practically daring Hollywood to applaud his efforts.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I chose SciFi b/c of story, not authors genitalia

[gotan]

My preferred SciFi authors are Iain M. Banks (Culture), C.J. Cherryh (Alliance, Chanur), David Brin (Uplift), Alan Dean Foster (Flinx, Spellsinger), Neal Stephenson. I like Stanislaw Lem and Arkadi and Boris Strugatzki for their unique style. Douglas Adams is a category for himself, as is Terry Pratchett. Films I very much liked are Bladerunner (after P.K. Dick) and Dune (Frank Herbert), Neuromancer (W. Gibson (Cyberpunk)), Enders Game (Orson Scott Card). I also like good fantasy, e.g. Mists of Avalon (Marion Zimmer-Bradley), Earthsea (Ursula .K. Le Guin).

And sure, there are lots of authors not mentioned since I don't have all day.

As evidenced above I really don't care if an author has a penis or a vagina, neither would I care if an author had both or neither. I don't care about an authors skin-, hair-, or eye-colour, ethnic background, lineage, weight or height.

What I care about is the story. Does it interest me, is it well told.

What I definitely don't want: Political correctness bullshit forced down my throat or a "quota" in my fiction.

The ghostbusters reboot debacle is an indicator, that I'm not the only one with that sentiment. And no, not wanting to be fed pc-bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with "misogyny", but very much with not wanting to be served a heap of pure political propaganda with the transparent intention to "educate" the audience.

There's no problem with fiction containing a "message", "1984", "Brave new world" and "Farenheit 451" are prime examples, but most SciFi includes a "vision" how society should or shouldn't be in the future. But it has to be put in a good, enjoyable story, leave me room to think for myself and avoid today's uptight pc bullshit.

Re:What makes the best movie?

[turp182]

Obviously you are referring to Smokey and the Bandit.

Many "inept cops chasing cool criminals" movies owe their central concept to this movie.

And beer sales and distribution regulations and laws were certainly impacted, major waves across the industries.

I call bullshit. Sort of.

[Qbertino]

This is the problem with current day "Gender Studies" feminisim. Unlike "classic" feminism they completely disregard actual differences between men and women. You know, the actual reasone we call men men and women women?

A-Level Hollywood directing is competitive at a level most humans can't even comprehend. You need every edge you can get to succeed and you have to be so convinced about your vision that you will squish anyone questioning it on sight and inmediately. Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Luc Besson, George Lucas, JJ Abrahams, Steven Spielberg and the likes are extremely competetive vision-driven super-nerds that mostly got into total- all-out filmmaking in their early teens. Look at the hours Cameron puts into his projects. It's basically insane.

Have a whomb and some hormones that curb that insanity and have you tend to direct a part of your passion and love to little humans you squeeze out (in general a more sound perspective on life IMHO) and you're just about out of the game. The only two women in that lineup I listed above are Kathreen Bigelow and Leni Reifenstahl (yeah, the 'Nazi Movie Chick'), and both were fighters, total non-prissies. Riefenstahl was avantgarde, spend weeks sleeping on the cutting room floor and had a fan in Hitler and bigelow carved herself out a niche of compareatively cheap quasi-independant formats and acutally does seem to know that filmmaking is 99.5% planing and .5% execution. And she only does a film every few years.

The truth is quite simple: At the very very top in every field the environment is so extremely competitive that simply having a whomb is a measurable disadvantage. Steve Jobs said it pretty clearly to Bill Gates in their last long talk: Without our wives we'd probably would've gone insance. Yeah, you have women like Bigelow, Bettencourt or Madama Curie you are up there along with the extreme boys, but the truth is that the extreme are made up of boys so much because they feel the competitive pressure way stronger than the ladies and have on average more of the motivation to walk over dead bodies if the need be.

I do think we need more women in art and especially more women getting a hold on shaping it and I'm also pretty shure their share will increase. But there are aspects of current day art production that have demands that - at the very top - favour every advantage. And that is also having traits generally regardes as male.

Call that conscious "discrimination" and I call bullshit.

My 2 cents.

Standard hyper-liberal thinker

[Sqreater]

Instead of females creatively aggressing their way to equal numbers the hyper-liberal thinks we have to artificially level the percentage participation. All that will do is allow a politically correct level of mediocrity. And "pale?" Wow. Does the hyper-liberal EVER perceive racism in himself? Can one say there is too much "dark" in rap? Of course not. Cameron is just another mindless male sociopathic feminist and a POC (person of color) racist fellow-traveler.

More women for manual labour

[syril]

We need more women working manual labour, I'm thinking a 50/50 distribution on construction, garbage truck duty, oil rigs, etc. this gross inequality has gone on far too long and women deserve their spot in the industry.

Fuck inappropriate social justice

[strikethree]

Men and women are not the same. Both genders are "people", but there are interests and motivations that are different between the genderds. That being said, there is no reason to expect a 50/50 distribution of genders in any particular activity.

Remove any active discrimination and let the cards fall where they may. The line of thinking that says that things must be 50/50 or they are unfair is only applied to areas where people might possibly see an advantage. This is unethical and discriminatory... the EXACT opposite of what all this bullshit is about.

Just stop.