>9.4% of men get partially naked define that please. I'm sure there are more topless men in movies than women. There's a decent amount of guy ass too. Men can't be partially naked. You either have the cock out or you don't.
>>64681217 Women don't have to be in any movie part they don't want to. Nobody forced anybody at gunpoint to take a role or film a scene they didn't want to. Women have nobody to blame but themselves and they can fucking make their own movies if it riles them up so much because they have every freedom to do so.
>>64681824 >nobody wants to watch those shitty movies with women babbling back and forth they already make these, and women go see them. Shit like Pitch Perfect are a huge box office success for studios. No one is complaining that there should be more strong male characters in those movies I don't understand why they are attacking different markets in the name of equality.
>>64684329 Guess women should have invented the camera, and photography, and started studios, and production companies, and learned how to direct, and done literally anything in the last history of mankind.
I can't feel sorry for a gender that is numerically superior and hold male kryptonite in their panties, that manages to not leverage that into equality, and instead bemoans their perpetual self imposed victim-hood.
>>64684438 Guess what? The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies. The industry DESERVES to help women out, since they've been in the SHITTER and DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for as long as humanity has existed. The fucking least Hollywood could do is add more females to it's stories.
It's not fucking hard. A writer could do it, a producer can easily change the script, and a director can say what he wants. They have the power, now is the trucking time to use it. For the sake of just being a moral and fair human being.
how the fuck was the study conducted? what do they mean by "top 500"? what did they define as a "speaking character" or "partially naked"? how rigid is the "half the characters are female" rule, if there 51% males is that sexist? is that counting war movies? 500 films means jack shit when it comes to cinema as a whole
Art reflects life. A large proportion of films are made about real events, based on real events, or inspired by real events...and guess what? Men have tended to be the people doing the majority of those significant things from inventing and fighting, to being famous thieves and murderers; so it's not surprising that more films have men in them.
I think this will change over time, but women were only emancipated 40-70 years ago.
It also doesn't help that the reason that men are more likely to do significant things is because of the way intelligence is distributed amongst the male population. Men are more likely to be geniuses or complete idiots, while women are more likely to be of a middle intelligence.
>>64684690 >Guess what? The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies. The industry DESERVES to help women out, since they've been in the SHITTER and DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for as long as humanity has existed. The fucking least Hollywood could do is add more females to it's stories.
Kek, I love this meme.
Womans job since the birth of man has simply been to birth men. Men knew this, men have always protected women with their lives.
Wars fought by men, tribes defended by men.
>Let the women and children leave first
Men have always got the short end of the stick when shit hits the fan, they have had it easy since for ever.
Just look at every other species out there, the males have to work for the females attention who just have to pick.
I honestly do not even know if you are trolling by implying a man should have to write females into his work simply for the sake of there being females.
>>64681858 Feminists are upset that the free market decided less woman the better. But their criteria for sexism is hilarious anyways. I mean what the fuck is sexually revealing clothing for men? An unbuttoned shirt? A g-string? And what is partially naked for men? Topless? Shit's retarded.
>>64684329 >THIRTY PERCENT OF WOMEN ARE IN SPEAKING ROLES. Argue that. Woman are underrepresented in film. You might want to read the picture again, you ignorant faggot. It says the top 500 films since 2007. As in the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS. THE AUDIENCE. NOT HOLLYWOOD. Do you understand now, you bag of shit?
>>64687703 >the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS >IT IS LITERALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE MIGHT CRITICISE A SOCIETY MAKING THOSE CHOICES >IT VERGES ON ACTUAL, LITERAL INSANITY TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE CHOICES REFLECT SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOCIETY >IT IS ELEVEN QUADRILLION TIMES WORSE THAN HITLER TO SUGGEST THAT A CHANGE IN THOSE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS DESIRABLE
Every time one of these threads pops up, I'm reminded of how stupid people are.
>>64684690 >The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies Yes I completely agree with this But at the same time If these women so easily get their dreams crushed then it's their own fucking fault Like yes the culture pressures men into being successful and pressures women into not being succesful But if women allows themselves to be put down like that it's their fault
>>64688341 >the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS >IT IS LITERALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE MIGHT CRITICISE A SOCIETY MAKING THOSE CHOICES >IT VERGES ON ACTUAL, LITERAL INSANITY TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE CHOICES REFLECT SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOCIETY >IT IS ELEVEN QUADRILLION TIMES WORSE THAN HITLER TO SUGGEST THAT A CHANGE IN THOSE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS DESIRABLE
But that's pretty much exactly what you said, you're criticizing society for rating those movies highly.
>>64681217 We need to push the men's numbers up for being naked or having sexually revealing clothing. Variety is fine if its equal. Writers also have to find a way for female characters to pass the bechdel test without sounding like uninteresting assholes or complete information dumps
>you're criticizing society for rating those movies highly
Or am I criticising society for rating the other films as poorly as they do? Praise isn't fungible. Liking a film is not in itself a political statement. But you can view choices in aggregate and draw conclusions from that. If, as the image suggests, the conclusion is that films which primarily feature men, in which women are disproportionately sexualised, and in which women have significantly fewer speaking parts are favoured above other kinds of movies, that certainly suggests something about society, don't you think?
It's more that market research is imperfect and studio executives are risk-averse. There's more to commerce than the like three axioms of free-market theory you're applying. The real world laughs at your first principles senpai.
The second one is extremely subjective and misleading. Women wear sexually revealing clothes ALL THE TIME in modern culture, even at work. It's fucking normal. That would actually be an accurate portrayal of culture.
But again, it's also very subjective because what someone considers revealing might differ from what another person considers revealing, so it should have been left off completely.
The other points I actually found interesting, though.
>>64688500 but women are like half the movie going audience, so it seems like women are contributing to this just as much as men.
I mean honestly I can't believe you think people rate male led movies higher because they feature men. Maybe a lot of them are just really good.
>>64688546 the bechdel test is written to be used on an individual basis. its honestly fucking retarded, dont call it a test if its supposed to be general. honestly this is why i cant take feminist seriously.
>A study released last week by USC’s Annenberg School For Communication & Journalism provides some stats to put these high-profile titles in perspective. Examining 500 top-grossing films released in the U.S. from 2007 to 2012, the study considers some 20,000 characters and finds diversity is sorely lacking. “Across 100 top-grossing films of 2012, only 10.8 percent of speaking characters are Black, 4.2 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian, and 3.6 percent are from other (or mixed race) ethnicities,” the paper notes at the outset. “Just over three-quarters of all speaking characters are White (76.3 percent). These trends are relatively stable, as little deviation is observed across the five-year sample.”
OK, I don't think it really did change anything, but let's go again:
>>64688734 >market research is meaningless when you have over a century of real world data to base your decisions on. >>64688734 >If making a movie starring a quartet of gay indian midgets would make as much money as casting Brad Pitt as the king of egypt, they would do it.
>>64688937 Okay I know you're joking but honestly, this actually fascinates me. I have NEVER heard a Mexican complain about representation when logically speaking they're the most justified. Do they just not give a fuck?
>>64688957 >So you're claiming women are biased against women? Wow.
I know, right? Crazy? Hey, here's a mindblower - did you know that African-Americans are frequently biased against African-Americans? Who'da ever thunk? You'd nearly think niggers and cunts were PEOPLE, wouldn't you? Going around doing all things just like actual people do. Crazy.
>You do realize art isn't like real life right?
No, I had no idea about that, thanks for setting me straight.
>People hate chick flicks because they suck
Well, OK then.
>I dont have to look for reasons.
And yet you're clearly trying so hard! You should relax more.
>>64689095 I'm not claiming Mexicans have literally never complained but I'm saying it isn't common. I never seen complaints in the mainstream media. You had to dig up an article on a mexican-specific website.
>>64688822 The movie aliens completely shits on your 3rd grade religion. Tipley might be the best action hero ever and her being a woman in no way affects that, negatively OR positively just like it should be. Compare furiosa from mad max to her and its just fucking sad. All your psycho babble philosophy about inclusion and statistics is just a masked beg for a handout and pity money. Feminism is basically political prostiution.
>>64689209 Its not a statistic faggot lrn2read i said ripley was possibly the most badass hero of all time because shes not a feminist charity case of a character. Shes just a well written character who happens to be a woman and forcing shit makes it bad.
>>64689336 >I really dont know how to argue with the logic of "I experienced this" "No you haven't".
I know. Maybe you can rewind and address the point that was made, then? The one that made you go into a flap and reach for your smelling-salts because someone said a rude word. It's right there in >>64689047
>Not really. Typing a couple of sentences isn't really trying. Maybe it is to you though.
Ooooh, sick burn. But yes, again, you are definitely trying.
>>64689415 Amy Adams and Anne Hathaway are enough to convince me to see a movie, personally.
>>64689436 Your point was that women are biased against women. I dont think thats the case. What proof do you have that most women hate women?
> Ooooh, sick burn. But yes, again, you are definitely trying.
I wasn't trying to burn you, where did that even come from? Do you actually consider typing a couple sentences trying? I'm being serious, because all I did was make an offhanded comment. If I had written a paragraph, then you might have an argument, but it was just a couple sentences.
Honestly, why are you on 4chan if you're a feminist? Don't you know what this place thinks of you?
>>64688906 There are actually no conclusions drawn in the OP image, but I think that poster was referring to the fact that people consider Hollywood to be sexist because of stats like those. People falsely think that if women aren't represented just as much as men, it could only be because people hiring them are being sexist.
>>64689538 >Your point was that women are biased against women.
>I dont think thats the case. What proof do you have that most women hate women?
Get those fingers out of my mouth, man, I'm allergic to Cheeto-dust.
It won't let me post links because it thinks they're spam, but if you go ahead and google 'internalised sexism' and 'study' etc, you'll find plenty of stuff.
>I wasn't trying
Dude, the more you type, the more you try. The more frantically you assert your dispassionate indifference, the more obvious it becomes how deeply involved you are. This is basic self-awareness that should have been socialised into you at a very young age.
>Honestly, why are you on 4chan if you're a feminist?
I was here when all we did was laugh at people who cared about stuff. So a bunch of blow-ins decided to make it their personal hugbox - I'm leaving? Nah. And as a bonus, whole chunks of the site are now a place where, whenever I feel like a little light trolling, all I have to do is say exactly what I actually think. And people get HOPPING fucking mad over it. Fish in a barrel.
>>64690492 >you do realize most of that was me disagreeing with accusations you threw my way?
Most of it was you scrambling to deny that you were 'trying' to do anything, that you in any way cared or were emotionally engaged. As I explained to you, the very action belies the statement. But because you're so fixated on rejecting anything I say, you couldn't let go and even be like, OK, I'm in the argument, if nothing else. I'm actually engaged.
You couldn't seem to bring yourself to say that. It's pretty funny.
>>64690703 >I mean if im engaging in a discussion then I guess im engaged.
There you go.
>i dont know what you want me to say
Ideally, you'd say something like: "So I found those studies you mentioned - I see that internalised misogyny is, if nothing else, a theorised thing that many people believe exists in the real world. I haven't yet had time to review the evidence and fully consider the arguments, but I'll certainly work towards forming a concrete opinion on the matter in the near future."
It would be a bit much to expect you to add a coda about how you will, at least for the moment, stop pointing to audience gender ratios as prima facie evidence that no element of gender bias can be read into box office returns. But I'd be happy to infer that from the above paragraph without you having to come out and say it.
>be born a male >understand maleness >create art that reflects life of experience with uniquely male feelings and wisdom >this art is catered to men and well received among them >this is sexism and lessens the value of women Could someone explain this to me?
Cause in >>64681217 it fucking cherry picks from 500 films in 2007 to 2012, no source, no links, no fucking list which must be extremely hard to complie since everyone's top movies changes from person to person.
Also I don't know if it includes foreign films which country it includes or not includes,sorry this study is shit, this pic is shit and get over it.
If they can't post the list they aren't confident and they haven't watch the fucking films at all.
Thread replies: 155 Thread images: 10
Thread DB ID: 395687
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.