By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
VGPolyglot on 26 May 2018
Edit Thread
Ka-pi96 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

1. Is it really about talent, though? Let's see... 

From the top 100 grossing films in 2017, women represented:

  • 8% of directors
  • 10% or writers
  • 2% of cinematographers
  • 24% of producers
  • 14% of editors

From the top 250 highest grossing films in 2017, women represented only 3% of composers.

If you look at individual cases, you might say that a woman wasn't hired because she wasn't as good as a male that was applying for the same role, but when you look at the bigger picture it's undeniable that women are not given the same opportunity. To say that females are not hired because of lack of talent stops making sense when you look at these numbers.

No, it doesn't. Firstly, it's entirely possible (however unlikely) that those stats do correlate with the quality of talent. But more importantly, what is the quantity of talent like? ie. if only 8% of applicants for director positions were female, then 8% getting the job is precisely representative of what they should have regardless of actual talent.

The figures of those that got the job alone really are meaningless without seeing the figures of those that actually applied too. Even then mere stats can't account for the quality of talent in each group. So even though those stats (when complete) could suggest that discrimination is taking place, they still couldn't prove it.

Well, if only 8% of applicants were female, the question would then have to be asked why that is the case?