I'm not arguing though, I'm really only in this thread at all because SQW angst is hilarious.

Ah so you're just here to instigate and troll then, that would explain your terrible logic.

That sure is one hell of a coincidence then! Any one of the statistical discrepancies I highlighted taken separately might be coincidental, but taken together they form a clear picture of one group being socially privileged. If you can't see that, at this point it's because you're consciously choosing not to.

Let me make it clearer for you as it pertains to film: believe it or not, it hasn't always been this way. There was a time when half of all movie directors here in the U.S., and 70% of the screenwriters as well were women. In fact, in the 1920s, some 70% of American moviegoers themselves were female as well. Film used to be, by many metrics, a female-dominated field. Before the modern studio system existed, that's how it was. Movies back then were pretty much all what we today call indies and the aforementioned balance of things was the result that spontaneously developed from that. What changed was that the Great Depression and the advent of "talkies" consolidated American filmmaking around major, male-owned studios over the 1930s. So it would appear that film isn't just a naturally male-dominated field, in other words, but rather that conditions have conspired over time to disadvantage women vis-a-vis the movie business.

Film isn't the only field like that either, by the way.

Nonsense. Female-directed movies have, on many occasions, been the most critically-acclaimed films of a given year and yet come away from the Oscars with far less. Two examples from the current decade that immediately leap to my mind just from the current decade alone are Selma (for 2014) and Lady Bird (for 2017). Selma was the most critically acclaimed film of 2014 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes and also earned a rare Cinema Score of A+ from moviegoing audiences, yet was snubbed for Best Picture. Perhaps even more strikingly, Lady Bird (which was a female-directed movie with a female lead) had the highest average review scores on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes for 2017, yet came away from the Oscars with absolutely nothing; not a single award for anything whatsoever. Those are just two recent examples that come to mind immediately. There have been plenty of other cases like these.

My point being that it's fairly obvious that the Academy does not reward films based on metrics of objective quality. Matter-of-factly, all one has to do to notice that is look at what films they nominate and don't for Best Picture and then compare their average review scores. Every year, many films that earn only modestly good reviews are nominated in this category, while more successful movies that were positively-reviewed are not. Let's take 2017 for example. Why weren't Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Coco nominated for Best Picture? At the time of the Oscars, both had received more critical acclaim than Darkest Hour, which was nominated. To highlight their average critic review scores on review-aggregating sites Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes as of the Oscars:

Metacritic

Star Wars: The Last Jedi: 85%
Coco: 81%
Darkest Hour: 75%

Rotten Tomatoes

Coco: 82%
Star Wars: The Last Jedi: 81%
Darkest Hour: 74%

And yet Darkest Hour is nominated for Best Picture and neither The Last Jedi nor Coco was! Why? Just because it's a redundant WWII movie with an R rating that fewer people saw and that made it better? Because concessions to conservative Oscar-viewing audiences had to be made? Because this tired sort of film is more appealing to the group of men probably old enough to remember WWII who form the Academy? I mean even Wonder Woman earned (marginally) better reviews: 76% on both MC and RT at the time! Just to illustrate my point about the lack of objectivity that goes into these choices. The same principle applies to evaluations of directoral quality in general, you'll find: there are certain transparent biases involved.

You do understand of course jaicee, that this idea that there needs to be more equal or even 50/50 percent distribution across media and other areas is what intersectionality is based on

Now you could argue that you are only for intersectionality where it applies to women under certain contexts such as representation in media, but other people are going to run with the same idea and push that, for example, trans women need to be represented as women in certain contexts... something which you have expressed disapproval to in the past and presumably you still hold that position

This is why I've made the claim to you before that the postmodernist deconstruction that has paved the way for the values you oppose is tightly linked to present day feminism as a whole because there is obviously legal equality so all that is left is attempting to gain social equality, but why would that stop there at just your preferred group? Obviously it wouldn't

This is also why we have certain people up and down this thread attacking "the status quo"... what does that mean exactly? Well it means tearing down the oppressive patriarchy so everyone may be equal(which is never going to happen because every person is fundamentally different and gifted in different areas) but why assume "equality" is going to be formulated in a sensible way? 

...What are you even arguing for here? Whatever it is, it's sufficiently abstract that I can't make heads or tails of what it is you're trying to say.

I'm saying that I've seen you in the past criticise the postmordenist deconstructions that have led to instersectionality

Intersectionality itself is rooted in the idea that various attributes people have - age, sex, gender etc etc etc if they are not valued by society stack and lead to some groups of people being far more oppressed than other people

Fundamentally intersectionality argues that these attributes should be disregarded and we should all be equal in society

Or in other words the patriarchy/status quo is oppressing many people because of age, sex, gender etc etc etc and so it needs to be destroyed to bring about equality

My point was I've seen you attacking intersectionality in the past, but your arguments in this thread are arguments derived from intersectional philosophy and to me there's a contradiction

*shrugs*

First of all, equality isn't simply prized by subscribers to Kimberle Crenshaw's particular theory of the case. Secondly, I'm not actually suggesting that all films or other artistic media require equal representation for everyone by any stretch of the imagination. But I am saying that, in a fair world, women (and people of color, non-heterosexual people, etc.) would be depicted on-screen both more often in aggregate and in more judicious ways. That is all.

Huh. The madman is here. I suggest no one give him any replies or attention. It's pointless.

Yeah, I think you're right, he doesn't legitimately have anything to say. Will ignore going forward.