Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Business > Producers, Production Companies, Studios & Networks
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-24-2013, 09:29 PM   #31
Manchester
Member
 
Manchester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,243
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

In advance, I apologize.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Tooke View Post
There's no question that the increasing studio focus on tentpoles is leaving lots of holes that smart producers/financiers can fill.
Paging Dr. Freud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emily blake View Post
A beautiful, smart woman who is interested in doing her best work and not in sleeping around? It's nice to see.
I see them all the time. (Offered in memory of the recently departed HH. R.I.P.)
Manchester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:32 PM   #32
WaitForIt
Regular
 
WaitForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcthomas View Post
Well sure. Us gals don't want to be CEOs, politicians, partners in law firms or scientists either. People of color also seem to have little interest in these occupations, since the only logical reason for a lack of diversity is lack of interest on the part of the under-represented.

Amazing how many careers are onlyappealing to white guys. Huh.
No, read that article before you assume that's what I'm saying. I'm speaking within that context. I don't mean less interested as in "I don't want that occupation," but less interested as in "I would be happy in that occupation but I don't want to go down that road and make certain sacrifices." Because there are sacrifices. Being a director is not a 9-5 job, we all know. I don't see the use in pretending the biological hardwiring is not there that might lead a woman to choose a road slightly more conducive to raising a family. And I'm saying that might be the reason we see fewer women in these roles. Read the article, it addresses this point much more gracefully than I'm capable of.
WaitForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:38 PM   #33
WaitForIt
Regular
 
WaitForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

The worst part is that having more women in these job roles would make it easier for women to go down these roads because women as leaders would help transform their fields away from the currently-standard practices that make things so stressful and life-consuming. But it takes women willing to make the sacrifices in order for us to get to that point. Maybe it will happen. But how much transformation of filmmaking schedules can happen?
WaitForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:41 PM   #34
bmcthomas
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 788
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitForIt View Post
No, read that article before you assume that's what I'm saying. I'm speaking within that context. I don't mean less interested as in "I don't want that occupation," but less interested as in "I would be happy in that occupation but I don't want to go down that road and make certain sacrifices." Because there are sacrifices. Being a director is not a 9-5 job, we all know. I don't see the use in pretending the biological hardwiring is not there that might lead a woman to choose a road slightly more conducive to raising a family. And I'm saying that might be the reason we see fewer women in these roles. Read the article, it addresses this point much more gracefully than I'm capable of.
1) Not all women want to have children
2) Many women have jobs and children that they manage both quite successfully
3.) Many women have children with men who actually participate in the care of said children.

It is a common, longstanding practice to rationalize the exclusion of women from certain professions with the argument that "they just don't want these jobs" - and yes, often the old "because they want BABIES!!!" is tacked on at the end.

And yet over and over and over history has shown that when previously prohibited occupations become open to women, the women show up, in droves, wanting those jobs. Even the women with babies.

ETA: what the heck are you talking about with this:

Quote:
But how much transformation of filmmaking schedules can happen?
Do you seriously think that the point of this new prodco is lighter schedules for the ladies?
bmcthomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:43 PM   #35
emily blake
Member
 
emily blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,721
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

"Woman" is actually not synonymous with "child bearer."

But to the point at hand, time and hard work will improve the situation. As more and more women prove themselves, as we are doing with every moment, so more women will be respected. It's lame, but it's how things work.


*looks like BCM and I had the same idea.
__________________
Chicks Who Script podcast
emily blake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:50 PM   #36
WaitForIt
Regular
 
WaitForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

I want to make it clear that I've got two X chromosomes and I've got babies, in case that might help anyone interpret my comments differently (although my gender shouldn't matter, should it? Humm.)

I'm saying might. Might. Might. The percentages of women vs. men are so drastically different. Are we prepared to assume that we're still so stuck in the Dark Ages that *that* many women simply aren't being let in? There are unfair difficulties due to our gender and dudes being in charge most of the time and having different priorities. It is a different ballgame. But I think we're more advanced at this point than the numbers imply if the prevailing assumption is that women aren't getting a fair shake. All I'm saying is perhaps starting earlier in the pipeline and trying to *get* more females interested might be a valid strategy. I won't ever argue that more women is a bad thing and I'll certainly do my part once I have the platform.

And really read that article. I don't think I'm being interpreted correctly. Oh, well.
WaitForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:52 PM   #37
WaitForIt
Regular
 
WaitForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcthomas View Post


Do you seriously think that the point of this new prodco is lighter schedules for the ladies?
Hahaha. No. Wheeee. That's the point. The schedules can't change, not really, not in this field. That's what I'm saying. IF a woman wants a family, this is harder time-wise than, say, being a math professor.
WaitForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 09:59 PM   #38
bmcthomas
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 788
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitForIt View Post
I want to make it clear that I've got two X chromosomes and I've got babies, in case that might help anyone interpret my comments differently (although my gender shouldn't matter, should it? Humm.)

I'm saying might. Might. Might. The percentages of women vs. men are so drastically different. Are we prepared to assume that we're still so stuck in the Dark Ages that *that* many women simply aren't being let in? There are unfair difficulties due to our gender and dudes being in charge most of the time and having different priorities. It is a different ballgame. But I think we're more advanced at this point than the numbers imply if the prevailing assumption is that women aren't getting a fair shake. All I'm saying is perhaps starting earlier in the pipeline and trying to *get* more females interested might be a valid strategy. I won't ever argue that more women is a bad thing and I'll certainly do my part once I have the platform.

And really read that article. I don't think I'm being interpreted correctly. Oh, well.
Yes.

It hasn't even been a hundred years since we got the vote, ffs. Just yesterday women were finally allowed to serve in combat units. My daughter asked me if I thought there would be a female president in my lifetime. I said no - maybe hers. If she lives a really long time.

Progress! It's glacially paced.

But you know what makes it even slower? When we do this sh!t to ourselves.
bmcthomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:08 PM   #39
WaitForIt
Regular
 
WaitForIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 437
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcthomas View Post
Yes.

It hasn't even been a hundred years since we got the vote, ffs. Just yesterday women were finally allowed to serve in combat units. My daughter asked me if I thought there would be a female president in my lifetime. I said no - maybe hers. If she lives a really long time.

Progress! It's glacially paced.

But you know what makes it even slower? When we do this sh!t to ourselves.
Well, I will chalk this up to a difference in perception. I think there are fewer barriers, which makes me happy. I can do what I want to do. Good luck to anyone who tries to tell me otherwise. If I fail it'll be because I'm not good enough.
WaitForIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2013, 10:35 PM   #40
bmcthomas
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 788
Default Re: New prodco to focus on female directors and "strong roles for women"

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaitForIt View Post
Well, I will chalk this up to a difference in perception. I think there are fewer barriers, which makes me happy. I can do what I want to do. Good luck to anyone who tries to tell me otherwise. If I fail it'll be because I'm not good enough.
Two posts ago you were arguing that women are biologically hardwired to prioritze babies and now you're Rosie the Riveter. Now that is progress.

I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.
bmcthomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker