The fallacy is not mine. It was a given from the start.
But I also don't think it's a fallacy. The name appears on the billboard. The director is the ultimate story-teller (how to tell the story, not what story to tell). The director is basically one of the very few who can lose a career from a bad movie. It's a good bet that you don't know the names of a single writer, but that you do know many directors.
Personally, I can list a few directors whose name alone has me buy a movie ticket. And while there are some movies that I like that have female directors, those names don't in-and-of-themselves demand my attention.
I don't know what more to tell you. I prefer approximately six directors, who all happen to be male, over all of the other directors. With those six, I don't need to know the movie plot, nor the actors starring. I know I'll enjoy the movie in one way or another, purely by their reputation. And at least two of them frequently do low-budget productions.
Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.
I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.
So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.
Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.
On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.
It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.
You said that you expect topless bar service to be dominated by females. I'm assuming that you consider this reasonable, based on clientele, and market forces.
It thus makes sense that topless bar service would hire more women than men. Men don't get to apply, it's women all the way, purely because the vast majority of the clientele prefers to stare at topless women than topless men. And that's fine.
Well, that's nothing more than a recreational preference of consumers.
You've also said that another recreational preference of consumers is to watch male hollywood directors instead of female hollywood directors. Same preferences, same market forces.
Then you're upset that female directors don't get as much work?
You don't get to suck and blow at the same time. Either it's okay that directors get money based on the shapes of the market, or it's not okay that topless bars hire more women than men.
Either businesses do pander for money, or they don't.
Like I said, equal access to school, great. Equal access to money is suicide for everybody.
I choose to believe that she's absolutely correct. And I won't bother considering that it gives her the opportunity to be judged better than the men if she's good at it.
But I'll focus on your comment directly. Women also require her to dress that way.
That means this has nothing to do with gender bias. Women want women to be judged that way.
This isn't gender bias. This is an individual (your writer) rebelling against her own group's chosen behaviours. That's allowed, I reject norms within my groups all the time. It isn't often easy.
Again, this has nothing to do with how I should change, nor how men should change. This has only to do with how this individual should change, or how her group should change.
You can't tell me to judge women differently than women judge women. In fact, it's considered polite to judge others according to their own priorities.
All your writer needs to do is change the way that women judge each other. Until then, why would any man (who doesn't know her) choose to judge her by her own individual priorities, instead of by her group's priorities? How is any man to know what her specific custom priorities are?
No, my money shouldn't be used to investigate, because most investigations fail in some way. I'm really sorry, but if you want to investigate something that you feel is against your interests, then you're going to need to spend your own time and money.
In this case, there are billions of women. I'm sure they could rally together to volunteer and donate to investigate whatever they want. They really don't need my time nor my money.
And hey, there's nothing saying that the cost of the investigation isn't a part of the fix. Most people sue for legal fees.
But I know you aren't suggesting personally funding everyone's investigations out of your own pocket, nor out of mine. And you can be doubly-certain that no one else is funding the investigations into my complaints.
I actually didn't buy music multiple times. I missed vinyl, starting out with cassette tapes (metal cassettes are still the best sound). When CDs came about, I had boomboxes with both cassette decks and a CD player. With digital, I simply ripped CDs and cassettes overnight, for $0.
I'm not a rebel, you're right. But I've never been slave to a music industry only because I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.
I would hate to spend my time learning which niche I like. Sure these days it would be easier to purchase, but I'm no where near the purchasing stage. I simply don't care.
But this all started as a very different commentary. I don't think spotify will get more paid subscribers by offering more free music. I never bought a shareware game either -- there was always another shareware title to enjoy.
Free content and previews have never convinced me to buy a product or service. My initial need does. If I don't have the need, then no amount of free will pull out my wallet. It's just that simple.
That's why I've never spent a dollar re-buying music. The cassette still plays. It still sounds the same. I don't need the same thing on CD.
Oh, let's make that very clear -- there certainly is a gender bias, and it's very much a problem I'll say nearly everywhere that it exists.
As for precisely quantifying it before we can even acknowledge it, I agree with that too, but that's exactly where I draw my line.
When it comes to actually solving the problem, or with discussing ideas about how to go about solving the problem, or even when it comes to specifically identifying the problem, I thing precisely quantifying it is vital.
And no, I don't mean "precisely quantifying it" in the data sense -- which I'm willing to admit is virtually impossible. Numbers don't lie, but that's because they rarely actually describe anything but themselves.
When I say "precisely quantify", I mean in terms of the relationships of those involved, and the goals that we wish to achieve.
Perhaps this is being over-concise, but the goal needn't be "equal representation". Perhaps it's "equal opportunity". In that case, it's totally possible for women to be given "equal opportunity" in being a hollywood director, and ultimately not enough women desire the position and hence there is no "equal representation".
If that were to become the case, I'm not saying that we should do away with the equal opportunity, but we should certainly stop complaining about the unequal representation.
And that's where I've drawn my line. I can be upset that women aren't 50/50 as directors. I can believe that there should be more women. But if women don't want it, then I shouldn't be forcing them to take it. And, in my mind, that means I shouldn't be pushing them either -- that covers marketing, hour-of-code promotions, women-only events, and other such let's-try-to-get-more-women involved.
In short, I'll push for equal opportunity all day and all night. I'll never push for equal representation. Horse to water, and such.
That is absolutely true, in every way. That is absolutely a problem, every time. That is absolutely not a problem caused/perpetuated by me; not in my business, and not in my life.
But that's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be proven, on a case-by-case basis, and it sucks that so many people lie in all directions. But you're asking for my money to solve the problem, then you're going to need to prove to me that it's my problem to solve -- what that means is a big matter of discussion, but in this conversation we can leave it open to whatever you decide that's a hell of a lot more than one-person-said-one-number.
Incidentally, and this is just out of curiosity, are you saying that it should be illegal for a group of 1'000 men (who all want to go bowling with other men, and who just want to hang around with men, and who don't want to hang around with women) to start a men-only bowling league?
And what of a men-only fitness gym -- of which there are plenty of women-only fitness gyms?
And what of a men-only music band? And what of a men-only construction company? Does it matter if they accept female clients? What if it's a side job? Or simply a paid-hobby?
Obviously stopping way short of anything governmental (where the job definition is public representation), where do you draw the line when it comes to personal preferences, private investing, and commerce?
When is it okay for boys to spend time without girls? What if I want my child to have a couple of hours each week where he doesn't need to know how to treat girls properly, and I want to send him to a boys-only club -- not to the exclusion of time with girls, but just in addition to it?
What if I train cheetahs at the zoo, and they tend to be more aggressive towards women? Can I hire men-only trainers, or must I train the cheetah to tolerate women?
Here's a big one that my beloved brought up yesterday. What if the air force drugs fighter pilots to enhance their flying skills, and said drug happens to make said pilots very sexually aggressive? Can I limit my air force unit to a single gender to solve the problem?
Heh, to your ghostbuster's point, VERY well said. I was referring to the fact that it was a complete failure at the box office, and wound up being criticized around here as a result.
But Ghostbusters is definitely a classic! Based on your comments, maybe I'll give the female one a chance.
To your point that women are rated on their appearance more than men are, I ask you this: if (and I'm saying IF) women rate women on women's appearance, then women are responsible for this cultural expectation (at least equally so). If women are responsible for the reality, then it's their collective choice to create/continue the current system. If women choose it, and it is so, then women are happy with it being so.
If women are happy being rated on their appearance, then it isn't discriminatory to do so. In fact, it's celebratory. They've told us how to judge them, and we follow their orders.
Taking that as a predictive rule, I'll ask you to consider the female director who wears girlie shoes. She highlights her appearance (with the shoes), and hence I should judge her by her own standards and say that she's pretty, and chooses to get attention based on her clothing. I can then say that clothing is a priority for her. I can then consider that maybe work-ethic is not a priority (not conclude, but consider). And if she looks as though she spends an hour a day putting-on-her-face, then I know she has one fewer hours every day for work. I'm allowed to consider that a waste of time. I'm allowed to think that a different applicant would spend more time working for me. I'm allowed to value that difference.
You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you don't want to be judged on your appearance, stop highlighting your appearance. It is my experience that people judge you based on a lot of things, and those things change based on what you choose highlight.
Bill Gates's hair made him look like a programmer. I took that advice when I started my career as a programmer. It worked very well for me.
I think you've accurately demonstrated an infinite loop in your own disgust.
"I insist that all topless bar service be 50/50 male/female" is absolutely 100% identical to "I insist that all directors be 50/50 male/female".
The conflating of "industry-bias" with "consumer-bias" is absolutely valid, since each drives the other. Maybe, I prefer female barmaids and male directors. That can be my preference. It's a valid preference for how and where I spend my money. It can be as simple as "I like the spelling of their names" or as complicated as "I can identify with their perspectives".
The really interesting part is that the same conflation covers race, religion, lifestyle, must-love-dogs, and any other category imaginable. And since you aren't going to craft any law that tells me where I can and cannot spend my recreational monies, and you aren't going to be able to enforce any law that forces businesses to do something suicidal, then you really need to start figuring out another way to effect the change that you want.
Let me suggest the following, in-my-mind-obvious place for such change.
There are many places where equality (as we're discussing it here) has no negative costs.
You can have hollywood director schools that never turn away anyone based on any category. If a billion women sign up, then you'll get more women directors. That's not to say that they'll attract talent, nor that anyone will watch their movies, but that's back to the first point: you can't force people to straight-up lose money.
Similarly, in schools from elementary through secondary and post-secondary, you can have curriculum include all categories (to the extend that there is a practical/reasonable quantity).
The theme is very obvious. You can teach equally. You can accept equally. You can speak equally. You simply can't force anyone to spend money/time/effort equally. You can't force me to talk to you. I can't stop you from speaking your mind.
Well, to say that sexism is profitable for publishers, that wouldn't be much of a surprise. To say that men tend to read books authored by men, and that women also tend to read books authored by men, wouldn't be much of a surprise either.
I think you should check your own bookshelf. Do you evenly distribute your reading between gendered authors? Maybe you're the problem? I know it's not me, because I don't read books -- doing so is terribly anti-social as a form of recreation.
But hey. You can be the solution! Start your own publishing company, and publish an equal number of books from each gender.
Absolutely no one will stop you -- except maybe your wife, who wants you to make more money.
Okay, let's focus on things from your perspective. Let's talk about book publishing, and your "few years back" example.
First off, when a study says that coke is better than pepsi, and it's sponsored by coke, we don't take the numbers at face value. So we're going to start here with the very big assumption that your female author's study wasn't with biased data.
Second, we'll look at some of the other methods, as you've described. You said that she submitted the very same novel to the very same agents twice. It wouldn't be surprising if: a) agents tend to throw out duplicates; or b) agents tend to be more interested the second time they see something; or c) it's totally random and a sample-size of 50 is completely meaningless; or d) time elapsed and seasons matter -- maybe there was just a season of lots-of-female-publications; or e) "Andrea Smith" is female and boring but "Magnifico the Great Man" is male and exciting. Exciting can beat boring without gender. Maybe she made up a really cool pseudonym
But, let's pass all of that. Let's say that your example is 100% a gender bias. You're still incorrect in assuming that it's a gender bias in the book publishing industry.
If agents are responsible for predicting which book will sell better, then agents can be correct that more books will sell with a male author than with a female author.
In that case, you've exposed an readership gender bias at the consumer level, not an industry bias at the publisher level.
Now, I know for absolute certain that you aren't saying that consumers and purchasers of books should be forced to read an equal amount of books written by female authors as by male authors. That would be a huge affront to freedoms of choice, money, time, and just general recreational preferences.
Yes, when I -- or any data professional -- reads a number, we jump straight to coming up with ways to invalidate it. That's because numbers are very easily fabricated, very easily mistaken, are often presented without units, and are completely meaningless without context. It's really really difficult to prove anything with numbers.
And if you're going to use numbers to tell me that I've done something wrong, and that I should change, then you'd better as hell be sure that I'm going to make you defend those numbers to the hilt.
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.
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?"
You know what, I'm not sure. But I'll list a few attributes of what I think a hollywood director does, that in my experience most women in my life don't enjoy or actually can't do.
- long hours, overnight hours, weird hours, we're filming a night scene at night, a morning scene in the morning, this actor is only available at this time
- constant travel, we're filming in egypt today, australia tomorrow
- spending all day correcting people, many of whom simply won't like you
- yours is the big name on the poster, "players win, coaches lose" so you take the fall
- being the only decision that matters, executive decision maker start to finish
- your reputation is a limiting factor in attracting talent at every level
Now, your experiences may vary, but in my life, the vast majority of the women that I know, have serious trouble with at least three of those bullets, and are entirely incapable of at least one of them.
So, I say again. I'm not restricting women from any such roles. I'm not hindering them. I'm not discouraging them. I'm not saying that anyone else should either. I'm just not going out and marketing to them.
On a very related note, I haven't heard of "hollywood director" ever being marketed to men.
As customers, it's way more than 50%. I'd wager 90%, based on the number of shoe stores in the mall, many of which don't even sell men's shoes. Also based on the amount of money [my] women spend.
But if you'd like to discuss the whole better-for-business tactic, then you'd better be willing to discuss whether or not women make better employees, in terms of loyalty, stability, availability, social compatibility, and a slew of other attributes. I'm willing to be that you aren't open to thinking of women as incredibly inferior in at least one attribute. This conversation ends until you are.
Since you mentioned movies, I'll say this. Ghostbusters broke out in the '80s (I presume) and became a huge cultural movie showcasing four men. Recently, it was remade with four women -- why? Because women decided to ruin a classic? Because women couldn't come up with their own content? I don't have the answer.
I am person, hear me roar. Policewoman, firewoman, huwoman.
"lack of female role models to get young girls interested" is, yet again, another example of women making a choice.
"good old boy's networks", well, those come in both good and bad, like most things. But if you're saying that because boys like to work with boys (which is a freedom of its own), and there's nothing stopping women from doing the same, but women refuse to work with other women, and instead demand to work with men, well, then women want a free lunch. So do I. I'd like to work with rich people on the top floor, not in the mail room in the basement. Alas, that isn't my option.
Tendencies don't concern me. It's direct restrictions that do. I don't hold anyone back. It's not my obligation to propel them forward, and I'm certainly not going to drag anyone forward.
I support every law that obliterates restrictions. I don't support any law that forces kindness.
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.
If my house-spouse cares for the house, while I go earn money at an office, then at 5:01pm, neither of us has anything to do, we both have a clean house, the kayaks are loaded onto the roof-racks, picnic dinner is packed in the drybags, and we're ready to go.
That's not hard to understand.
On the other hand, with both of us working, at 5:01pm, when we're done work, there's still a house to clean, kayaks stuck on the roof of the garage, and no food anywhere in sight.
I think you like to pay for stuff -- because you've been told to pay for stuff. There's no end of amazing stuff in this world if you want to pay more. The trick is to work less. That means paying for less.
Like I said, if you want to pay for stuff that generations have had for free, you can be the pioneers. I'm not going to start paying for what was always free.
Slashdot Mirror
The fallacy is not mine. It was a given from the start.
But I also don't think it's a fallacy. The name appears on the billboard. The director is the ultimate story-teller (how to tell the story, not what story to tell). The director is basically one of the very few who can lose a career from a bad movie. It's a good bet that you don't know the names of a single writer, but that you do know many directors.
Personally, I can list a few directors whose name alone has me buy a movie ticket. And while there are some movies that I like that have female directors, those names don't in-and-of-themselves demand my attention.
I don't know what more to tell you. I prefer approximately six directors, who all happen to be male, over all of the other directors. With those six, I don't need to know the movie plot, nor the actors starring. I know I'll enjoy the movie in one way or another, purely by their reputation. And at least two of them frequently do low-budget productions.
F**k. 1 dog, 1 cat, not married, but she moved in a few years ago; $100K of renovations later, and there's plenty more to go. Also no desire for kids.
Hi from the other side of the mirror.
My polarizing music is jazz. It's not heavy metal, but it polarizes my beloved just the same.
Okay, seeing as how we're so similar, I'm going to ask you this very pointed question about today's digital music streaming infinite everything options.
I'm 38, with a house, and a specific friend is similarly situated. Every few weeks, we get together for a day of "cooking-for-the-freezer". We basically look for recipes that benefit from more prep, can be done in bulk, and frozen (vacuum-packed) long-term, with a very quick, or at least very easy on-the-day effort. The idea is to be able to easily cook wonderful meals for family.
So, we do things like 20 pounds of seasoned ground lamb, ready for easy-bbq kebobs, marinated chicken thighs, flat-packed for quick thaw and instant bbq, falafel pate ready for frying, cheese blintzes that need nothing more than 20 minutes in the oven unattended, meatballs already cooked and sitting in sage broth, ready for the perfect meatball sub on-demand, that sort of thing.
Obviously, with a big 12-hour day of cooking, we put on some music. I like to simply turn on one of the random music channels on cable, and ignore it for the day. He's got six different music streaming subscriptions. So he prefers to plug his phone into my speakers, and stream whatever.
On the face of it, it's all the same to me. But in reality, every few minutes, he's changing the feed, switching songs, adjusting the volume, reconnecting, whatever.
It's the classic problem of the power to choose. When you have it, you use it. And it's just the dumbest distraction.
In my opinion.
Your infinite loop is here:
You said that you expect topless bar service to be dominated by females. I'm assuming that you consider this reasonable, based on clientele, and market forces.
It thus makes sense that topless bar service would hire more women than men. Men don't get to apply, it's women all the way, purely because the vast majority of the clientele prefers to stare at topless women than topless men. And that's fine.
Well, that's nothing more than a recreational preference of consumers.
You've also said that another recreational preference of consumers is to watch male hollywood directors instead of female hollywood directors. Same preferences, same market forces.
Then you're upset that female directors don't get as much work?
You don't get to suck and blow at the same time. Either it's okay that directors get money based on the shapes of the market, or it's not okay that topless bars hire more women than men.
Either businesses do pander for money, or they don't.
Like I said, equal access to school, great. Equal access to money is suicide for everybody.
I choose to believe that she's absolutely correct. And I won't bother considering that it gives her the opportunity to be judged better than the men if she's good at it.
But I'll focus on your comment directly. Women also require her to dress that way.
That means this has nothing to do with gender bias. Women want women to be judged that way.
This isn't gender bias. This is an individual (your writer) rebelling against her own group's chosen behaviours. That's allowed, I reject norms within my groups all the time. It isn't often easy.
Again, this has nothing to do with how I should change, nor how men should change. This has only to do with how this individual should change, or how her group should change.
You can't tell me to judge women differently than women judge women. In fact, it's considered polite to judge others according to their own priorities.
All your writer needs to do is change the way that women judge each other. Until then, why would any man (who doesn't know her) choose to judge her by her own individual priorities, instead of by her group's priorities? How is any man to know what her specific custom priorities are?
That's just unfeasible.
No, my money shouldn't be used to investigate, because most investigations fail in some way. I'm really sorry, but if you want to investigate something that you feel is against your interests, then you're going to need to spend your own time and money.
In this case, there are billions of women. I'm sure they could rally together to volunteer and donate to investigate whatever they want. They really don't need my time nor my money.
And hey, there's nothing saying that the cost of the investigation isn't a part of the fix. Most people sue for legal fees.
But I know you aren't suggesting personally funding everyone's investigations out of your own pocket, nor out of mine. And you can be doubly-certain that no one else is funding the investigations into my complaints.
I actually didn't buy music multiple times. I missed vinyl, starting out with cassette tapes (metal cassettes are still the best sound). When CDs came about, I had boomboxes with both cassette decks and a CD player. With digital, I simply ripped CDs and cassettes overnight, for $0.
I'm not a rebel, you're right. But I've never been slave to a music industry only because I've never cared about music that way. I really don't care if I get the niche, or the pop, or the crazy. I go to live concerts as a part of a theatre subscription, and I see/listen to whatever they bring in -- it's a small local theatre, and all of the acts are world experts at whatever. If I like it, I buy it in the hopes that they come back. Same with live music at a restaurant. The music is so background to my life, that it just doesn't matter to me.
I would hate to spend my time learning which niche I like. Sure these days it would be easier to purchase, but I'm no where near the purchasing stage. I simply don't care.
But this all started as a very different commentary. I don't think spotify will get more paid subscribers by offering more free music. I never bought a shareware game either -- there was always another shareware title to enjoy.
Free content and previews have never convinced me to buy a product or service. My initial need does. If I don't have the need, then no amount of free will pull out my wallet. It's just that simple.
That's why I've never spent a dollar re-buying music. The cassette still plays. It still sounds the same. I don't need the same thing on CD.
Oh, let's make that very clear -- there certainly is a gender bias, and it's very much a problem I'll say nearly everywhere that it exists.
As for precisely quantifying it before we can even acknowledge it, I agree with that too, but that's exactly where I draw my line.
When it comes to actually solving the problem, or with discussing ideas about how to go about solving the problem, or even when it comes to specifically identifying the problem, I thing precisely quantifying it is vital.
And no, I don't mean "precisely quantifying it" in the data sense -- which I'm willing to admit is virtually impossible. Numbers don't lie, but that's because they rarely actually describe anything but themselves.
When I say "precisely quantify", I mean in terms of the relationships of those involved, and the goals that we wish to achieve.
Perhaps this is being over-concise, but the goal needn't be "equal representation". Perhaps it's "equal opportunity". In that case, it's totally possible for women to be given "equal opportunity" in being a hollywood director, and ultimately not enough women desire the position and hence there is no "equal representation".
If that were to become the case, I'm not saying that we should do away with the equal opportunity, but we should certainly stop complaining about the unequal representation.
And that's where I've drawn my line. I can be upset that women aren't 50/50 as directors. I can believe that there should be more women. But if women don't want it, then I shouldn't be forcing them to take it. And, in my mind, that means I shouldn't be pushing them either -- that covers marketing, hour-of-code promotions, women-only events, and other such let's-try-to-get-more-women involved.
In short, I'll push for equal opportunity all day and all night. I'll never push for equal representation. Horse to water, and such.
That is absolutely true, in every way.
That is absolutely a problem, every time.
That is absolutely not a problem caused/perpetuated by me; not in my business, and not in my life.
But that's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be proven, on a case-by-case basis, and it sucks that so many people lie in all directions. But you're asking for my money to solve the problem, then you're going to need to prove to me that it's my problem to solve -- what that means is a big matter of discussion, but in this conversation we can leave it open to whatever you decide that's a hell of a lot more than one-person-said-one-number.
Incidentally, and this is just out of curiosity, are you saying that it should be illegal for a group of 1'000 men (who all want to go bowling with other men, and who just want to hang around with men, and who don't want to hang around with women) to start a men-only bowling league?
And what of a men-only fitness gym -- of which there are plenty of women-only fitness gyms?
And what of a men-only music band?
And what of a men-only construction company? Does it matter if they accept female clients? What if it's a side job? Or simply a paid-hobby?
Obviously stopping way short of anything governmental (where the job definition is public representation), where do you draw the line when it comes to personal preferences, private investing, and commerce?
When is it okay for boys to spend time without girls? What if I want my child to have a couple of hours each week where he doesn't need to know how to treat girls properly, and I want to send him to a boys-only club -- not to the exclusion of time with girls, but just in addition to it?
What if I train cheetahs at the zoo, and they tend to be more aggressive towards women? Can I hire men-only trainers, or must I train the cheetah to tolerate women?
Here's a big one that my beloved brought up yesterday. What if the air force drugs fighter pilots to enhance their flying skills, and said drug happens to make said pilots very sexually aggressive? Can I limit my air force unit to a single gender to solve the problem?
Heh, to your ghostbuster's point, VERY well said. I was referring to the fact that it was a complete failure at the box office, and wound up being criticized around here as a result.
But Ghostbusters is definitely a classic! Based on your comments, maybe I'll give the female one a chance.
To your point that women are rated on their appearance more than men are, I ask you this: if (and I'm saying IF) women rate women on women's appearance, then women are responsible for this cultural expectation (at least equally so). If women are responsible for the reality, then it's their collective choice to create/continue the current system. If women choose it, and it is so, then women are happy with it being so.
If women are happy being rated on their appearance, then it isn't discriminatory to do so. In fact, it's celebratory. They've told us how to judge them, and we follow their orders.
Taking that as a predictive rule, I'll ask you to consider the female director who wears girlie shoes. She highlights her appearance (with the shoes), and hence I should judge her by her own standards and say that she's pretty, and chooses to get attention based on her clothing. I can then say that clothing is a priority for her. I can then consider that maybe work-ethic is not a priority (not conclude, but consider). And if she looks as though she spends an hour a day putting-on-her-face, then I know she has one fewer hours every day for work. I'm allowed to consider that a waste of time. I'm allowed to think that a different applicant would spend more time working for me. I'm allowed to value that difference.
You can't suck and blow at the same time. If you don't want to be judged on your appearance, stop highlighting your appearance. It is my experience that people judge you based on a lot of things, and those things change based on what you choose highlight.
Bill Gates's hair made him look like a programmer. I took that advice when I started my career as a programmer. It worked very well for me.
I think you've accurately demonstrated an infinite loop in your own disgust.
"I insist that all topless bar service be 50/50 male/female" is absolutely 100% identical to "I insist that all directors be 50/50 male/female".
The conflating of "industry-bias" with "consumer-bias" is absolutely valid, since each drives the other. Maybe, I prefer female barmaids and male directors. That can be my preference. It's a valid preference for how and where I spend my money. It can be as simple as "I like the spelling of their names" or as complicated as "I can identify with their perspectives".
The really interesting part is that the same conflation covers race, religion, lifestyle, must-love-dogs, and any other category imaginable. And since you aren't going to craft any law that tells me where I can and cannot spend my recreational monies, and you aren't going to be able to enforce any law that forces businesses to do something suicidal, then you really need to start figuring out another way to effect the change that you want.
Let me suggest the following, in-my-mind-obvious place for such change.
There are many places where equality (as we're discussing it here) has no negative costs.
You can have hollywood director schools that never turn away anyone based on any category. If a billion women sign up, then you'll get more women directors. That's not to say that they'll attract talent, nor that anyone will watch their movies, but that's back to the first point: you can't force people to straight-up lose money.
Similarly, in schools from elementary through secondary and post-secondary, you can have curriculum include all categories (to the extend that there is a practical/reasonable quantity).
The theme is very obvious. You can teach equally. You can accept equally. You can speak equally. You simply can't force anyone to spend money/time/effort equally. You can't force me to talk to you. I can't stop you from speaking your mind.
Well, to say that sexism is profitable for publishers, that wouldn't be much of a surprise. To say that men tend to read books authored by men, and that women also tend to read books authored by men, wouldn't be much of a surprise either.
I think you should check your own bookshelf. Do you evenly distribute your reading between gendered authors? Maybe you're the problem? I know it's not me, because I don't read books -- doing so is terribly anti-social as a form of recreation.
But hey. You can be the solution! Start your own publishing company, and publish an equal number of books from each gender.
Absolutely no one will stop you -- except maybe your wife, who wants you to make more money.
Okay, let's focus on things from your perspective. Let's talk about book publishing, and your "few years back" example.
First off, when a study says that coke is better than pepsi, and it's sponsored by coke, we don't take the numbers at face value. So we're going to start here with the very big assumption that your female author's study wasn't with biased data.
Second, we'll look at some of the other methods, as you've described. You said that she submitted the very same novel to the very same agents twice. It wouldn't be surprising if:
a) agents tend to throw out duplicates; or
b) agents tend to be more interested the second time they see something; or
c) it's totally random and a sample-size of 50 is completely meaningless; or
d) time elapsed and seasons matter -- maybe there was just a season of lots-of-female-publications; or
e) "Andrea Smith" is female and boring but "Magnifico the Great Man" is male and exciting. Exciting can beat boring without gender. Maybe she made up a really cool pseudonym
But, let's pass all of that. Let's say that your example is 100% a gender bias. You're still incorrect in assuming that it's a gender bias in the book publishing industry.
If agents are responsible for predicting which book will sell better, then agents can be correct that more books will sell with a male author than with a female author.
In that case, you've exposed an readership gender bias at the consumer level, not an industry bias at the publisher level.
Now, I know for absolute certain that you aren't saying that consumers and purchasers of books should be forced to read an equal amount of books written by female authors as by male authors. That would be a huge affront to freedoms of choice, money, time, and just general recreational preferences.
Yes, when I -- or any data professional -- reads a number, we jump straight to coming up with ways to invalidate it. That's because numbers are very easily fabricated, very easily mistaken, are often presented without units, and are completely meaningless without context. It's really really difficult to prove anything with numbers.
And if you're going to use numbers to tell me that I've done something wrong, and that I should change, then you'd better as hell be sure that I'm going to make you defend those numbers to the hilt.
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.
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?"
You know what, I'm not sure. But I'll list a few attributes of what I think a hollywood director does, that in my experience most women in my life don't enjoy or actually can't do.
- long hours, overnight hours, weird hours, we're filming a night scene at night, a morning scene in the morning, this actor is only available at this time
- constant travel, we're filming in egypt today, australia tomorrow
- spending all day correcting people, many of whom simply won't like you
- yours is the big name on the poster, "players win, coaches lose" so you take the fall
- being the only decision that matters, executive decision maker start to finish
- your reputation is a limiting factor in attracting talent at every level
Now, your experiences may vary, but in my life, the vast majority of the women that I know, have serious trouble with at least three of those bullets, and are entirely incapable of at least one of them.
So, I say again. I'm not restricting women from any such roles. I'm not hindering them. I'm not discouraging them. I'm not saying that anyone else should either. I'm just not going out and marketing to them.
On a very related note, I haven't heard of "hollywood director" ever being marketed to men.
Fill in the blank: "Hello, my name is _______"
As customers, it's way more than 50%. I'd wager 90%, based on the number of shoe stores in the mall, many of which don't even sell men's shoes. Also based on the amount of money [my] women spend.
But if you'd like to discuss the whole better-for-business tactic, then you'd better be willing to discuss whether or not women make better employees, in terms of loyalty, stability, availability, social compatibility, and a slew of other attributes. I'm willing to be that you aren't open to thinking of women as incredibly inferior in at least one attribute. This conversation ends until you are.
Since you mentioned movies, I'll say this. Ghostbusters broke out in the '80s (I presume) and became a huge cultural movie showcasing four men. Recently, it was remade with four women -- why? Because women decided to ruin a classic? Because women couldn't come up with their own content? I don't have the answer.
I am person, hear me roar.
Policewoman, firewoman, huwoman.
"lack of female role models to get young girls interested" is, yet again, another example of women making a choice.
"good old boy's networks", well, those come in both good and bad, like most things. But if you're saying that because boys like to work with boys (which is a freedom of its own), and there's nothing stopping women from doing the same, but women refuse to work with other women, and instead demand to work with men, well, then women want a free lunch. So do I. I'd like to work with rich people on the top floor, not in the mail room in the basement. Alas, that isn't my option.
Tendencies don't concern me. It's direct restrictions that do. I don't hold anyone back. It's not my obligation to propel them forward, and I'm certainly not going to drag anyone forward.
I support every law that obliterates restrictions. I don't support any law that forces kindness.
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.
...and you can blame Christianity for that -- it was a 4-hour work day back in agricultural times, before the seven deadly sins; i.e. "sloth".
But you can probably blame northern climates for making it possible to work without the afternoon heat's siesta, and insect pestilence.
You know, you're absolutely right.
There are so many more bits that I do enjoy, than time I have to enjoy them. We're no where near the list of bits that I don't enjoy.
Clearly, you don't have a house.
If my house-spouse cares for the house, while I go earn money at an office, then at 5:01pm, neither of us has anything to do, we both have a clean house, the kayaks are loaded onto the roof-racks, picnic dinner is packed in the drybags, and we're ready to go.
That's not hard to understand.
On the other hand, with both of us working, at 5:01pm, when we're done work, there's still a house to clean, kayaks stuck on the roof of the garage, and no food anywhere in sight.
I think you like to pay for stuff -- because you've been told to pay for stuff. There's no end of amazing stuff in this world if you want to pay more. The trick is to work less. That means paying for less.
Like I said, if you want to pay for stuff that generations have had for free, you can be the pioneers. I'm not going to start paying for what was always free.