Hollywoods Feminism Agenda
-
love_cats_hate_dogs — 9 years ago(October 23, 2016 08:51 AM)
Why don't you comfort yourself in the fact that everything that women now have, equality, power, etc. was given to them by men because they chose to, because they were sick of listening to their whining about it, and they could take it back so very easily? That everything women can choose to give, if men weren't so nice, they could just takebut they currently choose not to?
Hitler was a dog person. -
geogan — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 03:37 AM)
This argument comes up over and over again. And the answer to it is maybe women generally are just not as interested in this line of work as some men are so don't put in as much effort to get to these "top-of-the-tree" positions.
Same way you don't see many men at the top of other industries that women are generally more interested in.
And by generally I mean what percentage of male/female are interested in a certain industry. So if the split of men/women interested in becoming a movie director is 80/20 then obviously the men are more likely to end up on top. That's not discrimination or some sort of inequality against women - it's basic maths! -
Smokey_T — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 10:59 AM)
Your basic maths is perhaps not as basic as you think.
80/20? Do you think that twenty percent of directors are women?
I'd put that number closer to 10%, or 5% of big production directors.
Women are much higher represented at lower levels of production. So your argument or maths goes no way to explain why most films have at least a quarter or third female participation at the ground level, but at the top level they are grossly underrepresented.
In Hollywood this can in part be explained by the director's list, the effect of bottle-necking work to go to known directors. Whatever the cause when you have a wide participation at low level, and under-representation at a higher level, that implies there is an unfair system at work. That's the simple maths. -
geogan — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:28 AM)
Christ, do you not understand the meaning of an example as in "IF it's 80/20 THEN"
When I was writing it I didn't expect some dumbass to take the numbers literally
There are lots of social reasons why all the women at lower levels don't want to get to top of tree - maybe they have no interest in it, or are too busy doing other things, like childcare. Men are expected to do one thing by society - make MONEY and WORK - until the day you die. Women are always let off this slave treadmill by society, and then they have the BALLS to claim this is discrimination in some way
There is no unfair system at work and if there was it is against MEN as in you can't get out of it! -
Smokey_T — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 01:09 PM)
Why would you use THAT number as your example? It just shows you are completely ignorant of the realities, and entering a debate without the first clue of what you are talking about. And if you aren't aware of the numbers involved why even discuss it, you can't contribute.
Oh, because you have an axe to grind. Your main paragraph makes it obvious.
Yes, yes women have it so easy. Men have it so hard etc etc. Insert other stupidity, like the upper case
BALLS
you added.
According to you women don't work, don't make money, but men do, and they presume to take men's place by
having a voice
. You're clearly a misogynist #@$#.
And there's nothing to be gained from arguing with an ignorant misogynist, you'll always be one and this is just your way of expressing yourself to the world and feeling less impotent.
Did the wife dump you? Good on her.