Diablo Cody article

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Diablo Cody article

    Originally posted by figment
    I agree the discussion went off the rails around page 2.

    Though, I think the Fempire article in which four "pretty" female screenwriters are photographed together on a bed and quoted as saying things like: "We've all seen each other naked," DOES enter the discussion of public persona AND bias.
    I agree. After reading the above, I went back to read the article and it seems these women, and especially Cody, know how to work the press.

    Originally posted by figment

    Because if your public persona is that you are hot and sexually free -- does that help or hurt you as a writer in the long run? Does that create a favorable bias that gets you opportunities for work or does it create an unfavorable bias that destroys opportunities for work?
    I think it helps to a point because the saying -- all press is good press -- is very true. And I say that as someone who's day job is marketing. It keeps your name front of mind in the minds of decision makers.

    As a writer who sometimes ghosts press articles, I have to say the Fempire article was strategically crafted. If you read through it a second time, you see a pattern of titillating comments (like the naked comment and porno comment) sprinkled in between comments about their skills and accomplishments. However, that article is 6 years old.

    The question is, what happens when you start to age out of the "hot and sexually free" label. When you're no longer, as Cody described, driving around in a limo drunk with your besties? What happens when that public persona has been tempered by having three kids and simply maturing as we all do? I don't know.
    Last edited by sc111; 08-23-2015, 01:23 PM.
    Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Diablo Cody article

      Originally posted by sallain View Post
      I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but I, too, will chime in because I think this misunderstanding boils down to lack of reading comprehension. This is what Geoff said:

      "And yet, I will say, without any data to back this up, that I think female screenwriters are more attractive than male screenwriters. Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work."

      What I read was that this attractiveness bias--that we've established is pretty ubiquitous--is not in play as much for male screenwriters. They don't have to dress up for meetings, or get a pedicure, or worry about their looks, and it doesn't seem to matter. Maybe it wouldn't matter for us female screenwriters, either, but for some reason it appears to. Perhaps it's even self-imposed; the first time I had to go to LA for meetings I spent at least as much time worrying about what to wear as I did what to say.

      I do not think what Geoff said is at all out of place, nor is it irrelevant. I found it interesting. And he even said he was "not saying they are succeeding because of their looks" so he was never claiming that female screenwriters' attractiveness got them jobs, or that he even knew why this state of affairs existed, but that this was a phenomenon even so.

      I think those who took offense at his statement did not really read what he wrote, but read into what he wrote.
      Female screenwriters are more attractive than males. This may indicate a bias.

      All it would have taken were a few extra sentences (maybe even just one) to make it clear that the bias was against women, not for them. Even Geoff's follow-up post did almost nothing to negate that interpretation. And from there he only became combative.

      But you're right, I must have failed English, because I'm clearly the one whose posts have to be dissected to figure out what I'm trying to say, and ultimately need others to come explain what I meant.

      Men are more outgoing than women in the workplace. I'm not saying they're succeeding because of their confidence, but even there a bias may be at work.

      Now tell me what I mean by that.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Diablo Cody article

        Originally posted by sc111 View Post
        You don't need a "new way" to read it, he explicitly said: Not saying they are succeeding because of their looks but even there, a bias may be at work. By adding the word 'may' as a qualifier he is not making an absolute statement about Cody or any other woman writer. Using the word 'may' more than implies it's just as likely it 'may not' be a factor.
        I recently had an issue with a coworker when she started a sentence with "I'm not a racist or anything, but..." and I stopped her and said "If you're starting your sentence with that, you're probably about to say something really racist." She continued, and sure enough made an incredibly negative and broad comment about black people.

        Now, if I continued this post by saying "I'm not saying Geoff is a sexist, but..." you'd of course accuse me (and rightfully so) of calling Geoff a sexist.

        Which I'm not. I'm stating, and demonstrating, that when you use the word "but," you generally communicate a reversal of your statement. Thus, "I'm not saying people voted for the President because he's black, but..." would indicate that the end of this sentence will actually support the opinion I claim not to be making. Id est, "I'm not saying people voted for the President because he's black, but even there a bias may be at work."

        (Do I need to make it clear I'm not actually making that statement?)

        My point this entire time has been merely that it's unfair to attack Unequal's intentions, much less his reading comprehension when the post he was responding to is structured in a way that doesn't communicate what Geoff intended it to communicate, unless (and I stand by this) you're reading between the lines with a favorable bias toward Geoff. A "benefit of the doubt," if you will.

        If any random troll had come into this thread and made that post, you would have raised hell over it. If you really try to say you wouldn't, we've got nothing to discuss here because your credibility would be in the gutter at that point.

        I would have jumped on that post if it weren't for Geoff having made it. I didn't hold back because of who Geoff is or what position he holds in Hollywood, but because I've seen his posts elsewhere and he didn't seem the type to actually be making the assertion that women were succeeding because of their looks. So I waited, as I've said, for clarification. You can even see Unequal holding back in his initial responses, saying only that he hopes it's a joke, and then Geoff made no attempt to clarify, which others finally called him out on, at which point his response was essentially "I don't need to be clear, people should know what I'm trying to say."

        Originally posted by sc111 View Post
        Well, if you've read Sallain's post, it seems Geoff's bootlicker's club is growing. Or... or could it be you and Unequal actually did misread the original post in question. Could you even concede it's possible?
        Again, I've never argued that a misunderstanding didn't occur. I've never argued that Geoff claimed that women are succeeding in Hollywood because of their looks. I've stated quite clearly that Geoff worded his initial post very poorly, and when it was interpreted under nothing more than the weight of its own context, he offered no clarification, and reacted poorly. And now others (yourself included) have come in to attack the reading comprehension of anyone who wasn't predisposed to support Geoff.

        Originally posted by sc111 View Post
        Sad - though - that you had to accuse me of compromising my principles (i.e. kissing butt) and supporting Geoff only because he's a manager. I think you could have found a way to support Unequal without casting doubt about my character.
        It's not your character I doubt, it's human nature.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Diablo Cody article

          Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
          Female screenwriters are more attractive than males. This may indicate a bias.

          All it would have taken were a few extra sentences (maybe even just one) to make it clear that the bias was against women, not for them.
          I don't think Geoff thought he had to explain the bias was against women, because no rational person would ever believe that a bias for women, attractive or otherwise, exists in Hollywood. That's why it seemed odd to me that people arrived at that interpretation from his remark.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Diablo Cody article

            Originally posted by sallain View Post
            I don't think Geoff thought he had to explain the bias was against women, because no rational person would ever believe that a bias for women, attractive or otherwise, exists in Hollywood. That's why it seemed odd to me that people arrived at that interpretation from his remark.
            But this is the internet. How many times have people come into film review threads, discussions of female screenwriters, etc. and made statements exactly like that here? We had trolls ranting about whether Bond could be black for threads longer than the Bible. If you make a statement that vague, you can't expect people not to take it at face value.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Diablo Cody article

              Originally posted by sc111 View Post
              If you read through it a second time, you see a pattern of titillating comments (like the naked comment and porno comment) are sprinkled in between comments about their skills and accomplishments. However, that article is 6 years old.
              I chose it because it was (I think) the first article -- that actually explained what the Fempire was, and because it was The New York Times and not an indie or trade publication.

              But if you google Diablo Cody and Fempire, it is still in use (by her) and has been throughout her career, often being referenced in subsequent articles.

              In my OP that's what I was asking -- because it sounds like she might regret it, or at least regrets that level of attention. Thus my OP -- do you get Diablo's opportunities without being "Diablo."

              However, now I no longer care.

              Though I think it's a good lesson, to be careful about what you put out there because it will follow your a$$ for the rest of your career, should you be lucky enough to have one.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Diablo Cody article

                Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
                And now others (yourself included) have come in to attack the reading comprehension of anyone who wasn't predisposed to support Geoff.

                It's not your character I doubt, it's human nature.
                Thanks for mainsplaining it to me.
                Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Diablo Cody article

                  Originally posted by figment View Post
                  I chose it because it was (I think) the first article -- that actually explained what the Fempire was, and because it was The New York Times and not an indie or trade publication.

                  But if you google Diablo Cody and Fempire, it is still in use (by her) and has been throughout her career, often being referenced in subsequent articles.

                  In my OP that's what I was asking -- because it sounds like she might regret it, or at least regrets that level of attention. Thus my OP -- do you get Diablo's opportunities without being "Diablo."

                  However, now I no longer care.

                  Though I think it's a good lesson, to be careful about what you put out there because it will follow your a$$ for the rest of your career, should you be lucky enough to have one.
                  I agree.
                  Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Diablo Cody article

                    Originally posted by sc111 View Post
                    Thanks for mainsplaining it to me.
                    Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law. Bye.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Diablo Cody article

                      Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
                      Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law.
                      This wasn't aimed at me, but I don't think you're sexist in the least. Any sampling of your posts reveals you are, in fact, anti-sexist. Is that a word? Though... I don't think Geoff is either. And I think everyone knows that, too.

                      I don't even know what people are disagreeing about anymore, but I think after 9 pages we can all just agree to disagree. I'll just proclaim myself to be right and that'll be the end of it. Viola!!
                      Last edited by figment; 08-23-2015, 04:35 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Diablo Cody article

                        When a SJW is accused of mansplaining, an angel gets its wings.

                        Geoff's point was very clear to me, FWIW.

                        And back to OP, I used to read Diablo's blog (Pussy Ranch, if memory serves) for a long time before she broke into screenwriting. She had a great voice and it was a fabulously entertaining read. So I don't think the thing that got her attention was that she was a stripper; it was that she was a stripper who was a phenomenal writer. At the level she writes at, I think there are a lot of jobs she could have written about that would have gotten her attention.
                        Last edited by JeffLowell; 08-23-2015, 05:24 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Diablo Cody article

                          Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
                          And then out of nowhere comes this kind of confusing post from Geoff that doesn't really seem to be in response to anything anyone else was saying...and if anyone else had posted that, the entire thread would have heaved a collective, confused "here we go again" sigh. But instead it just got weirder.
                          My thoughts exactly.... I'm sure a lot of us wanted to post something along these lines, but frankly, this thread wasn't that hot to begin with, so, not worth the effort.

                          Or it might just be me. I have been posting here for almost 12 years and have never once PM'd anyone or kissed up to anyone, and so I might be overly-sensitive to inferring it from others.

                          Aside from that, I always thought that Diablo took a lot of heat (mostly from other writers) for the same reason that Kevin Smith and Tarrantino did... ie. the perception that they were overnight successes who left behind the same crappy jobs (the Quick-Stop clerk, the video store nerd, the blogger/stripper) that all struggling artists have at one point or another.

                          But given the fact that none of Diablo's last 4 movies have set the box office on fire, I'd say there is definitely a positivity bias at work here.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Diablo Cody article

                            Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
                            Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law. Bye.

                            Godwin's law? Seriously? Here we go again. You're reading into something yet you're so woefully off base.

                            If I thought you were sexist, I'd tell you I thought you were sexist.

                            I used the word, "Mainsplaining" because I thought the meaning of the word applied to what you were doing in this thread. See definition and note it doesn't say "sexist."

                            manĀ·splain
                            manˈsplān/
                            verb informal
                            gerund or present participle: mansplaining
                            (a man) explains (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
                            I found you to be condescending and patronizing when you entered this discussion, analyzed the thread from post one, told everyone, in no uncertain terms, why the thread went awry and what various parties "really" meant, and then decided to, and continued to, label those who said they understood Geoff's post as butt-kissers because you know human nature. That's mainsplaining.

                            I don't know if you're a sexist. If or when I find evidence you may be sexist in your views, I'll say so. But you did show, in this thread, a tendency to lecture everyone -- all of us adults who, rightly or wrongly, were talking it out in our own way -- as if we were idiots who needed you to step up and clarify why your opinion is the only valid opinion; why your take on Geoff's post, is the only valid take on Geoff's post.

                            ETA: BTW. this comment, from you to me, was especially annoying:

                            If any random troll had come into this thread and made that post, you would have raised hell over it. If you really try to say you wouldn't, we've got nothing to discuss here because your credibility would be in the gutter at that point.
                            What makes you the expert on what I would have said? What makes you the arbiter of my credibility? You don't even know me.
                            Last edited by sc111; 08-24-2015, 07:59 AM.
                            Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Diablo Cody article

                              Not directed at anyone in particular, I think the word Mansplaining is one of the most passive-aggressive and offensive terms to be born from the new American cop-out rhetoric.

                              By automatically dismissing any idea out of hand that doesn't align with your own personal worldview and interpreting it as hostile (eg. 'Mansplaining', 'Victim Blaming', 'Trolling', etc), you are sending out a message to everyone, consciously or not, that there is no real point in engaging with you at all on any level, which is unfortunate if you are the one trying to change other people's minds.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Diablo Cody article

                                Originally posted by Eric Boellner View Post
                                There's no new angle from which I can read Geoff's original comment and not, based solely on that comment and not on his subsequent attempts to explain it, come to the conclusion that his original comment, as worded, makes claims that women screenwriters are succeeding because they're attractive. In the context of the thread up to the point of his original comment, that would mean Diablo Cody.

                                What's funny is that we all agree here. My understanding from Unequal's posts is that he knows there's an unfair bias against unattractive women. Geoff said that, you said that, I've said that elsewhere.

                                But because Geoff's original post was confusing to the point of being nonsensical if "These women screenwriters are succeeding because of their looks" wasn't his point, it became an argument. But instead of you or anyone else saying, Hey Geoff, I get what you're saying - that unattractive women are at an unfair disadvantage - but you've gotta understand that your original post clearly doesn't communicate that, and so you really can't say that UnequalProductions is being 'ridiculous' in his response., instead you're following along in what is essentially a non-argument.

                                Literally the only difference between the two "sides" in this thread that I can see from the sidelines is that Unequal doesn't think we should focus on the negative effects of a bias, and instead focus on creating work that succeeds in spite of that bias.

                                But that bias wasn't the original topic, which seems to be why Unequal has had such a hard time understanding why Geoff brought it up. The original topic was having a public persona as a screenwriter.

                                For the record, yes, you were one of the people I was talking about. For the record, I don't have a dog in the race here either - I don't know Geoff or Unequal.

                                I'm just disappointed no one else stepped in to point out that Unequal's "misunderstanding" of Geoff's original post was actually a very fair interpretation based on what was written. You'd have to be predisposed to agree with Geoff to not have read his comment that way. For myself, I knew from Geoff's posts elsewhere that he couldn't have meant what he said the way that he said it, so I waited for clarification. It took a few posts, but it eventually came. Unfortunately, so did a lot of harsh and unnecessary rhetoric against Unequal, who took the comment at face value.

                                And I don't think that's a fair response when the fault was in the original communication, not the interpretation of it.
                                Here's the thing Eric. You seem to object to my treating UP like an idiot. If you go back and reread UP's first few comments you will see that they were in fact idiotic at best and snarky potshots at worst with no real interest in engaging on the topic. UP first says "I hope this is a joke". Not an attempt to engage. UP then says that I am obviously an embittered male screenwriter concerned about losing jobs to women, wrong and corrected on all counts. In my book this equals a dipshit on the end of the line, so I treated UP like a dipshit.

                                If you think you may not understand a persons initial statement then, if you want a real exchange, you ask questions. Or, you can just be a dipshit, UP initially chose the latter.

                                Beyond that, why not argue your own points rather than try and claim that other's opinions are motivated by an agenda--which by the way you did very selectively, aren't your own opinions on the topic strong enough?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X