So we can all agree that 2015 was a particularly amazing year for female led films, and a particularly terrible year for male led films?
>>64681217
a dress is sexually revealing clothing?
They seem like pretty good percentages.
>>64681217
2015 was a shit year for movies.
Well at least I didn't spend much time watching flicks from that year so I could work on my watchlist of older movies instead.
>9.4% of men get partially naked
define that please. I'm sure there are more topless men in movies than women. There's a decent amount of guy ass too. Men can't be partially naked. You either have the cock out or you don't.
>>64681279
>2015 was a shit year for movies.
Oh completely, but the number of good movies staring women (like Brooklyn, Carol, Room) was much more than normal.
>>64681217
Women don't have to be in any movie part they don't want to. Nobody forced anybody at gunpoint to take a role or film a scene they didn't want to. Women have nobody to blame but themselves and they can fucking make their own movies if it riles them up so much because they have every freedom to do so.
>>64681428
*parp*
>>64681567
Don't ever fucking reply to me again unless your contributing to the thread.
>>64681428
You about to shit out your pants too or just your mouth?
>>64681670
D-do you think people shit out of their pants?
>7% of men wear sexually revealing clothing
>9.4% of men get partially naked
How does this make any sense?
>>64681788
we lost kid, i gave up 7 months ago
>>64681217
free market
nobody wants to watch those shitty movies with women babbling back and forth
also when they try to make a female character cool they are too afraid to give her flaws for depth so it's like you're watching a fanfic
>>64681788
You can go right from clothes to naked.
>>64681217
>Top 500 Movies
So, it's not all movies, but only the "top" ones probably from some list by a site like imdb or rottentomatoes?
Doesn't this implies that movies with less speaking women characters and balanced cast of males and females just aren't as good as imbalanced ones?
>>64681824
they don't even have characters that say nigger in movies anymore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKE8kU8fHI
>>64681858
Don't mansplain your facts at me.
>>64681824
Basically this.
>>64681824
>nobody wants to watch those shitty movies with women babbling back and forth
they already make these, and women go see them. Shit like Pitch Perfect are a huge box office success for studios. No one is complaining that there should be more strong male characters in those movies I don't understand why they are attacking different markets in the name of equality.
>>64681217
>>64681217
These statistics need to be attributed to the target demographic of those movies
>>64682780
I wish my strong male character was in there.
>>64681217
>Only 9.4% male actors get partially naked
Does that include shirtless? I'm certain a shitload of women have objectified Jake Gylenhaal's abs at the theatre.
>>64681217
>Somebody watch 500 movies over 5 years and counted how many times a woman was speaking and how many times she was wearing sexy clothes
>>64682946
Who hasn't objectified that handsome manlet?
>>64682946
>Does that include shirtless?
Probably not. It hasn't been considered scandalous for a man to go topless for eighty years.
>>64683307
Put a shirt on Randy.
>>64681217
>it's a sexually repressive feminazi episode
>>64683307
But it objectively counts as 'partially naked'
>>64684287
Only if the turkey neck is showing. Sideball is also acceptable.
AD FUCKING MIT IT
Even when these CLEAR FACTS ARE PRESENTED TO YOU, you still try so hard to deny them.
THIRTY PERCENT OF WOMEN ARE IN SPEAKING ROLES. Argue that. Woman are underrepresented in film.
>>64684329
Most movies are aimed at men though. Most movies are directed by men.
Not because it's a no girls club, but because women are women, they are literally only just starting to think for themselves. There is a reason why most philsophers are men.
Women biologically cannot care about anything more so than they do about having children.
>>64684329
>Unsourced /pol/-tier image
>Vague definitions
>Stupid cherrypick
Nah Senpai, there is no facts here.
>>64684329
Guess women should have invented the camera, and photography, and started studios, and production companies, and learned how to direct, and done literally anything in the last history of mankind.
I can't feel sorry for a gender that is numerically superior and hold male kryptonite in their panties, that manages to not leverage that into equality, and instead bemoans their perpetual self imposed victim-hood.
>>64684456
Counter-explanation:you have incredibly tiny hands.
>>64684438
Guess what? The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies. The industry DESERVES to help women out, since they've been in the SHITTER and DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for as long as humanity has existed. The fucking least Hollywood could do is add more females to it's stories.
It's not fucking hard. A writer could do it, a producer can easily change the script, and a director can say what he wants. They have the power, now is the trucking time to use it. For the sake of just being a moral and fair human being.
>>64681217
Women's place is in the home, not working in show business.
>>64682987
this
how the fuck was the study conducted? what do they mean by "top 500"? what did they define as a "speaking character" or "partially naked"? how rigid is the "half the characters are female" rule, if there 51% males is that sexist? is that counting war movies? 500 films means jack shit when it comes to cinema as a whole
>>64684690
>affirmative action
Fuck off to your tumblr hugbox. Women should earn their place, not have it handed to them.
>muh empowerment
>>64684329
Art reflects life. A large proportion of films are made about real events, based on real events, or inspired by real events...and guess what? Men have tended to be the people doing the majority of those significant things from inventing and fighting, to being famous thieves and murderers; so it's not surprising that more films have men in them.
I think this will change over time, but women were only emancipated 40-70 years ago.
It also doesn't help that the reason that men are more likely to do significant things is because of the way intelligence is distributed amongst the male population. Men are more likely to be geniuses or complete idiots, while women are more likely to be of a middle intelligence.
>>64684690
>Guess what? The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies. The industry DESERVES to help women out, since they've been in the SHITTER and DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for as long as humanity has existed. The fucking least Hollywood could do is add more females to it's stories.
Kek, I love this meme.
Womans job since the birth of man has simply been to birth men. Men knew this, men have always protected women with their lives.
Wars fought by men, tribes defended by men.
>Let the women and children leave first
Men have always got the short end of the stick when shit hits the fan, they have had it easy since for ever.
Just look at every other species out there, the males have to work for the females attention who just have to pick.
I honestly do not even know if you are trolling by implying a man should have to write females into his work simply for the sake of there being females.
>>64685161
>Just look at every other species out there, the males have to work for the females attention who just have to pick.anglerfishants
>>64681314
Do you think Hollywood is purposefully putting all of their energy into female-centric films and letting male-led films die off?
Honest question desu senpai
>>64685153
>Art reflects life.
Oh you mean how 50% of the population is female?
>>64685955
Did you read the rest of the comment?
>>64685955
i like how you completely ignored the rest of what he said
how feminist of you
>>64681217
To be fair people flip out more over naked dudes for some reason.
>>64681217
>Women dress in revealing clothing in movies
But they do he same irl. It's not sexist if it's realistic.
>>64686035
no you dont understand women have to be nuns
nudity is oppressive
>>64681217
> Men and women will watch "blockbuster #3"
Maybe 60/40 split m/f actors
> Guys will not watch "my vagina is bleeding and i need to cry"
Maybe 5:1 f:m actors
Skewed data. If chick flicks were watchable by men, they may be in the top 500 too, significantly changing the statistics.
But they are not, so they are not, so it didn't.
Deal with it.
>>64681313
>>64684329
>Woman are underrepresented in film.
And what? Is this supposed to be a bad thing or something? I don't get this "representation" memeword.
>>64687370
I think its progressive to have equal representations of sex and race in everything regardless of qualifications now or something
>>64681217
90% of young women wear revealing clothes IRL, and get partially naked. But when films portray that aspect of women, it's misogynist.
>>64681858
Feminists are upset that the free market decided less woman the better. But their criteria for sexism is hilarious anyways. I mean what the fuck is sexually revealing clothing for men? An unbuttoned shirt? A g-string? And what is partially naked for men? Topless? Shit's retarded.
>>64684329
>THIRTY PERCENT OF WOMEN ARE IN SPEAKING ROLES. Argue that. Woman are underrepresented in film.
You might want to read the picture again, you ignorant faggot. It says the top 500 films since 2007. As in the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS. THE AUDIENCE. NOT HOLLYWOOD. Do you understand now, you bag of shit?
>>64687703
hold on youre going to get verbally berated for your taste in film being socially engineered
>>64687748
>everything is a social construct, including what movies you personally like
>>64681217
>2007-2012
I think it's better now. You're right, 2015 was a very strong year for women. I don't even remember many good male performances from last year.
>inb4 Leo
>>64687703
>the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS
>IT IS LITERALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE MIGHT CRITICISE A SOCIETY MAKING THOSE CHOICES
>IT VERGES ON ACTUAL, LITERAL INSANITY TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE CHOICES REFLECT SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOCIETY
>IT IS ELEVEN QUADRILLION TIMES WORSE THAN HITLER TO SUGGEST THAT A CHANGE IN THOSE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS DESIRABLE
Every time one of these threads pops up, I'm reminded of how stupid people are.
>>64687703
There is no choice.
>>64687969
so you think society is sexist for thinking those movies are good? maybe theyre just good films
>>64687969
>its not enough that women can do whatever they want
>men are sexist for not liking whatever tripe stars and or is written by then
wew lad
>>64684690
>The more men there are in movies, the less woman want to make movies
Yes I completely agree with this
But at the same time
If these women so easily get their dreams crushed then it's their own fucking fault
Like yes the culture pressures men into being successful and pressures women into not being succesful
But if women allows themselves to be put down like that it's their fault
>>64688126
I dont think women are as good as handling criticism honestly.
>>64688073
>so you think society is sexist for thinking those movies are good?
Is that what you think I think? Or was it just the nearest grammatically valid sentence that would allow you to express disagreement?
>>64688074
>men are sexist
Oh, not just men.
>>64688180
the funny thing about this statement is it is what this cuck would support as a reason any industry is sexist, women need to be coddled like children, but its actually sexist to think
>>64688235
I think hes trying to establish how fucking retarded you might bewhich is apparently incredibly so
>>64688235
you said society is at fault for those movies being rated so highly
so my question was me asking if thats what you were implying because thats what it sounded like
>>64688274
>you said society is at fault for those movies being rated so highly
No, that's not what I said.
>>64688272
I'm sorry you have become angry. You should try some deep-breathing exercises, then return to the apparently challenging problem of reading and understanding simple English sentences.
>>64688341
people can call you retarded with being mad, its crazy I know, but youre just another idiot on a message board so you make 0 impact on my day
>>64688341
>the top films THE AUDIENCE DECIDED TO MAKE THE TOP FILMS
>IT IS LITERALLY INCONCEIVABLE THAT ONE MIGHT CRITICISE A SOCIETY MAKING THOSE CHOICES
>IT VERGES ON ACTUAL, LITERAL INSANITY TO SUGGEST THAT THOSE CHOICES REFLECT SOMETHING ABOUT THAT SOCIETY
>IT IS ELEVEN QUADRILLION TIMES WORSE THAN HITLER TO SUGGEST THAT A CHANGE IN THOSE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS DESIRABLE
But that's pretty much exactly what you said, you're criticizing society for rating those movies highly.
>>64681217
>>>/shitmblr/
>>64681217
We need to push the men's numbers up for being naked or having sexually revealing clothing. Variety is fine if its equal.
Writers also have to find a way for female characters to pass the bechdel test without sounding like uninteresting assholes or complete information dumps
>>64681217
Things are like that because it's what people want to see and pay for
There is a not a sexist lord-emperor of hollymood that takes women off the street and forces them to strip for movies
I can't even imagine what sort of level 10 cuck wizard made this image
Pushing for diversity and inclusion in media is basically communism.
The market is colorblind and knows nothing of gender or sexuality.
content is produced with only one purpose, to make as much money as possible.
liberals need to stop trying to bend the world to their utopian fantasy.
>>64688422
>bechdel test
I get sad when anyone references it as a legitimate test that has any merit. You might be baiting but someone out there in the world isn't
>>64688364
I see that you are still angry. That's a shame.
>>64688384
>pretty much exactly
Weird, it seems quite distinct to me.
>you're criticizing society for rating those movies highly
Or am I criticising society for rating the other films as poorly as they do? Praise isn't fungible. Liking a film is not in itself a political statement. But you can view choices in aggregate and draw conclusions from that. If, as the image suggests, the conclusion is that films which primarily feature men, in which women are disproportionately sexualised, and in which women have significantly fewer speaking parts are favoured above other kinds of movies, that certainly suggests something about society, don't you think?
>>64688448
>The market is colorblind and knows nothing of gender or sexuality.
kek
>>64688460
It's perfectly legitimate, though only as an industry-wide litmus test. It's not something that should be applied to individual works as some kind of metric of quality or praiseworthiness.
>>64688500
I think it's based on box office, not IMDb or RT rankings.
>>64688500
I literally cannot exist we have arrived to a point in our society where someone like you exists
>>64688546
so members of the free market would turn town more money for the satisfaction of not employing members of some "oppressed class"?
>>64688554
>i have been reduced to reaction images
Well, OK.
>>64688581
>i have been reduced to exaggerated spluttering of feigned disbelief
Also OK.
>>64688584
It's more that market research is imperfect and studio executives are risk-averse. There's more to commerce than the like three axioms of free-market theory you're applying. The real world laughs at your first principles senpai.
>>64685321
I feel real bad for the male anglerfish.
>>64681217
Do people realize that real life situations aren't 50% male and 50% female?
>>64681217
The second one is extremely subjective and misleading. Women wear sexually revealing clothes ALL THE TIME in modern culture, even at work. It's fucking normal. That would actually be an accurate portrayal of culture.
But again, it's also very subjective because what someone considers revealing might differ from what another person considers revealing, so it should have been left off completely.
The other points I actually found interesting, though.
>>64688500
but women are like half the movie going audience, so it seems like women are contributing to this just as much as men.
I mean honestly I can't believe you think people rate male led movies higher because they feature men. Maybe a lot of them are just really good.
>>64688546
the bechdel test is written to be used on an individual basis. its honestly fucking retarded, dont call it a test if its supposed to be general. honestly this is why i cant take feminist seriously.
>>64688654
REAL LIFE SITUATIONS ARE SEXIST
WE MUST WORK TO MAKE THE POPULATION EXACTLY 50/50 AND ALSO MAKE EVERY EMPLOYEE AND STUDENT EVERYWHERE BE 50/50 BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
>>64681217
What kind of asshole crunches these numbers?
>>64688639
market research is meaningless when you have over a century of real world data to base your decisions on.
If making a movie starring a quartet of gay indian midgets would make as much money as casting Brad Pitt as the king of egypt, they would do it.
>>64688659
I'd personally like to know what they define as "partially naked". Men take their shirts off all the time.
>>64688689
THERE MUST ALSO BE A PERFECTLY EVEN DIVISION BETWEEN ALL RACES AND SEXUALITIES
>>64688709
Either lonely cucks trying to get a woman or feminists to post on their blog
>>64688676
>but women are like half the movie going audience, so it seems like women are contributing to this just as much as men.
So you can conclude, then, that when I said:
>>64688235
>Oh, not just men.
... I was both aware and prescient.
>>64688676
>I mean honestly I can't believe you think people rate male led movies higher because they feature men.
OK. Can you believe they rate female-led movies lower because they feature women? You're familiar with the term "chick-flick"?
>>64688676
>the bechdel test is written to be used on an individual basis
I'm trying to think of any similar test, which could be applied on an industry-wide level, which wouldn't involve the test being applied to individual films. I don't think it's possible.
What I'm saying is that it's entirely uninteresting if Das Boot fails the Bechdel test. It tells us nothing. It's equally uninteresting if Jessica Jones passes it.
Where it gets interesting is if we take the top 50 movies, the top 50 TV shows etc, and see how many of them fail the test... that starts to become potentially illuminating.
>dont call it a test if its supposed to be general. honestly this is why i cant take feminist seriously.
You strike me as someone who's been on a long journey in search of various reasons not to take feminism seriously. I hope this is one of your less impressive finds.
>>64688734
>market research is meaningless
>If making a movie starring a quartet of gay indian midgets would make as much money
Literal doublethink! That's always nice to see.
>>64681217
>manipulating data in a way that favors you
>correlation equals causation
This reminds me of a flyer I saw at my college that was claiming the film industry was racist and sexist based on who got academy awards
>>64681217
What redeeming qualities do women have besides their bodies? I'm not even trolling here.
http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2014.pdf
>Since 2010, tickets sold at cinemas have been evenly split by gender.
Women are going to see this movies just as much as men do.
>>64688822
Have you prepped your bull tonight?
>A study released last week by USC’s Annenberg School For Communication & Journalism provides some stats to put these high-profile titles in perspective. Examining 500 top-grossing films released in the U.S. from 2007 to 2012, the study considers some 20,000 characters and finds diversity is sorely lacking. “Across 100 top-grossing films of 2012, only 10.8 percent of speaking characters are Black, 4.2 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian, and 3.6 percent are from other (or mixed race) ethnicities,” the paper notes at the outset. “Just over three-quarters of all speaking characters are White (76.3 percent). These trends are relatively stable, as little deviation is observed across the five-year sample.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
>Non-Hispanic White 196,817,552 63.7 %
>Non-Hispanic Black 37,685,848 12.2 %
>Non-Hispanic Asian 14,465,124 4.7 %
>Hispanic or Latino 50,477,594 16.4 %
the only major disparity between film and actual american demographics are with hispanics, but those statistics can't be trusted because even the united states classifies most hispanics as white
>>64688872
>correlation equals causation
Can you explain the relevance of correlation not implying causation to the image in the OP?
>>64688734
Actually there were more female main characters in the 1920s and 1930s than nowadays.
>>64688848
>cutting off the second half of my sentence, thus completely changing the meaning of the statement
>>64688895
Nah, your mom said she was too tired.
>>64688905
and also most hispanics are not whiny cunts about being represented
>>64681217
Do you guys think anyone's ever pissed on themselves for warmth and then when there's no piss left they just jerked off and rubbed it all over for more warmth
And then shat themselves too
>>64688822
> >Oh, not just men.... I was both aware and prescient.
So you're claiming women are biased against women? Wow.
> Can you believe they rate female-led movies lower because they feature women? You're familiar with the term "chick-flick"?
You do realize art isn't like real life right? People don't have to enjoy things exactly in accordance with real life population ratios.
People hate chick flicks because they suck, like The Notebook. The term "chick flick" is used to refer to shitty romantic comedies usually. Its not because they star women its because they suck.
> > You strike me as someone who's been on a long journey in search of various reasons not to take feminism seriously
I dont have to look for reasons. Feminists themselves make the reasons very apparent.
>>64688752
I'm guessing ass, because shirtless men aren't considered nude. It's dumb, but I'm positive that's the case.
>>64688932
OK, I don't think it really did change anything, but let's go again:
>>64688734
>market research is meaningless when you have over a century of real world data to base your decisions on.
>>64688734
>If making a movie starring a quartet of gay indian midgets would make as much money as casting Brad Pitt as the king of egypt, they would do it.
Literal doublethink! That's always nice to see.Happy now?
>>64688937
Okay I know you're joking but honestly, this actually fascinates me. I have NEVER heard a Mexican complain about representation when logically speaking they're the most justified. Do they just not give a fuck?
>>64688957
>So you're claiming women are biased against women? Wow.
I know, right? Crazy? Hey, here's a mindblower - did you know that African-Americans are frequently biased against African-Americans? Who'da ever thunk? You'd nearly think niggers and cunts were PEOPLE, wouldn't you? Going around doing all things just like actual people do. Crazy.
>You do realize art isn't like real life right?
No, I had no idea about that, thanks for setting me straight.
>People hate chick flicks because they suck
Well, OK then.
>I dont have to look for reasons.
And yet you're clearly trying so hard! You should relax more.
>yfw the job of casting director is like 90% female
>>64681217
The top 500 seems to have a winning recipe, why mess with a good thing?
>>64689011
>I have NEVER heard a Mexican complain about representation
Be honest. How hard have you looked?
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/70608/20150807/latino-representation-hollywood-growing-report-finds.htm
>>64689047
I'm gonna be honest, I find it really weird how quick SJWs are to say the word nigger. Its almost like they're dying to say it and wait for some context so they can claim its ironic.
If women really want to watch female led movies then they need to start. I cant control women.
> And yet you're clearly trying so hard!
I'm not trying hard. Feminists constantly make themselves look retarded. I literally dont have to look for it, it just shows up on facebook.
>>64689095
SJWs online don't count. Actual Mexicans couldn't give less of a shit, and they see the most movies per capita of any ethnic group in the US.
>>64689095
I'm not claiming Mexicans have literally never complained but I'm saying it isn't common. I never seen complaints in the mainstream media. You had to dig up an article on a mexican-specific website.
>>64689136
That's a bold number you just pulled right out of your stinky pinata José.
>>64689117
>I'm gonna be honest, I find it really weird how quick SJWs are to say the word nigger.
I will also be honest: I strongly suspect that you have never before in your life thought anything of the sort.
>I'm not trying hard.
Ah, now. Lies make baby Jesus cry.
>>64689153
>I'm not claiming Mexicans have literally never complained but I'm saying it isn't common. I never seen complaints in the mainstream media.
I know, right? Imagine how deep their under-representation must go.
>>64681217
% of women writing, producing, funding, and spending years of hard work and effort on these movies? Maybe 1%
>>64688822
The movie aliens completely shits on your 3rd grade religion. Tipley might be the best action hero ever and her being a woman in no way affects that, negatively OR positively just like it should be. Compare furiosa from mad max to her and its just fucking sad. All your psycho babble philosophy about inclusion and statistics is just a masked beg for a handout and pity money. Feminism is basically political prostiution.
>>64689169
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/05/latinos-are-the-biggest-m_n_5097434.html
He's factually right
>>64689175
No, I have. I've seen SJWs use it similarly to how you did, where they claim its ironic but seem oddly comfortable saying it. It's rather strange to me.
> Ah, now. Lies make baby Jesus cry.
You're right, feminists are literally never retarded in public or in any form of social media. There is absolutely no reason I could ever dislike them. I rescind all my points.
>>64689209
>The movie aliens completely shits on your 3rd grade religion.
Wait, an outlier negates a trend? Tell me more about your theory of statistics, if you don't mind spilling the beans before you inevitably publish.
>>64688937
No they just arent cunts and understand hard work earns results in a way whining and begging doesnt.
>>64689230
>No, I have.
Mmm, no, I'm gonna stick with my gut and say you haven't.
>You're right, feminists are literally never retarded in public or in any form of social media. There is absolutely no reason I could ever dislike them. I rescind all my points.
You see that, man? What you just wrote? That there is TRYING, son. Trying really, really hard.
>>64689169
www.thewrap.com/how-hispanics-became-hollywoods-most-important-audience/
www.ew.com/article/2014/07/22/hollywood-latinos-summer
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/04/04/297285349/whos-boosting-box-office-numbers-report-says-latinos
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/latinos-movies_n_4221232.html
>>64689262
> Mmm, no, I'm gonna stick with my gut and say you haven't.
well, okay. I really dont know how to argue with the logic of "I experienced this" "No you haven't".
> You see that, man? What you just wrote? That there is TRYING, son. Trying really, really hard.
Not really. Typing a couple of sentences isn't really trying. Maybe it is to you though.
>>64689209
Its not a statistic faggot lrn2read i said ripley was possibly the most badass hero of all time because shes not a feminist charity case of a character. Shes just a well written character who happens to be a woman and forcing shit makes it bad.
I just don't take actresses seriously. I hardly even see a movie because of a leading lady, and I find ScarJo to be uninspired and just a slightly prettier Drew Barrymore.
Also they age like shit and only old British actresses are worth any screentime.
>>64689336
>I really dont know how to argue with the logic of "I experienced this" "No you haven't".
I know. Maybe you can rewind and address the point that was made, then? The one that made you go into a flap and reach for your smelling-salts because someone said a rude word. It's right there in >>64689047
>Not really. Typing a couple of sentences isn't really trying. Maybe it is to you though.
Ooooh, sick burn. But yes, again, you are definitely trying.
Id like to know what they consider partially naked and revealing clothes.
>>64689388
>Its not a statistic faggot
Yes, it is.
>>64689415
Amy Adams and Anne Hathaway are enough to convince me to see a movie, personally.
>>64689436
Your point was that women are biased against women. I dont think thats the case. What proof do you have that most women hate women?
> Ooooh, sick burn. But yes, again, you are definitely trying.
I wasn't trying to burn you, where did that even come from? Do you actually consider typing a couple sentences trying? I'm being serious, because all I did was make an offhanded comment. If I had written a paragraph, then you might have an argument, but it was just a couple sentences.
Honestly, why are you on 4chan if you're a feminist? Don't you know what this place thinks of you?
>>64689191
honestly though there really are hardly any Mexican characters
Name five movies made in the last ten years with Mexican leads. I honestly cant. I can name countless movies with black leads but Mexicans not so much.
>>64688906
There are actually no conclusions drawn in the OP image, but I think that poster was referring to the fact that people consider Hollywood to be sexist because of stats like those. People falsely think that if women aren't represented just as much as men, it could only be because people hiring them are being sexist.
>>64689538
>Your point was that women are biased against women.
Yup.
>I dont think thats the case. What proof do you have that most women hate women?
Get those fingers out of my mouth, man, I'm allergic to Cheeto-dust.
It won't let me post links because it thinks they're spam, but if you go ahead and google 'internalised sexism' and 'study' etc, you'll find plenty of stuff.
>I wasn't trying
Dude, the more you type, the more you try. The more frantically you assert your dispassionate indifference, the more obvious it becomes how deeply involved you are. This is basic self-awareness that should have been socialised into you at a very young age.
>Honestly, why are you on 4chan if you're a feminist?
I was here when all we did was laugh at people who cared about stuff. So a bunch of blow-ins decided to make it their personal hugbox - I'm leaving? Nah.And as a bonus, whole chunks of the site are now a place where, whenever I feel like a little light trolling, all I have to do is say exactly what I actually think. And people get HOPPING fucking mad over it. Fish in a barrel.
> It won't let me post links because it thinks they're spam
No they won't. There have been threads posted in this link before. I guess it depends on the source. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
>>64689950
> Dude, the more you type, the more you try
Could I not say the same about you? What do you want me to do, stop replying? Arguments work because people keep responding to one another.
>>64690100
*links posted in this tread
my bad
>>64690100
>No they won't. There have been threads posted in this link before. I guess it depends on the source.
I even tried subbing in 'dot' and 'slash' where appropriate, still no dice. But hey:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=internalised+misogyny+study
Results 6 and 7, both pdfs.
>Could I not say the same about you?
You could, and I'd agree - I'm definitely trying! See how easy it is? All you have to do is not proceed under a cloak of paranoia that prompts you to reflexively reject anything the other person says!
>>64690223
None of that last sentence really applies to me, I havent rejected anything. Ive simply disagreed. You sound more paranoid than I do.
You get on me for rejecting, but you're the one that flat out denied I had an experience that I know I have (of SJWs being liberal with the word nigger).
>>64690305
>None of that last sentence really applies to me
>>64690100
>No they won't.
>>64689538
>I wasn't trying to burn you
>>64689336
>Not really.
>>64689230
>No, I have.
>>64689117
>I'm not trying hard.
>>64688957
>I dont have to look for reasons.
kek
>>64690421
you do realize most of that was me disagreeing with accusations you threw my way? Did you expect me to just agree with all of it?
>>64690492
>you do realize most of that was me disagreeing with accusations you threw my way?
Most of it was you scrambling to deny that you were 'trying' to do anything, that you in any way cared or were emotionally engaged. As I explained to you, the very action belies the statement. But because you're so fixated on rejecting anything I say, you couldn't let go and even be like, OK, I'm in the argument, if nothing else. I'm actually engaged.
You couldn't seem to bring yourself to say that. It's pretty funny.
>>64690637
I mean if im engaging in a discussion then I guess im engaged. i would never think of some 4chan comments as someone being particularly engaged though.
i dont know what you want me to say
im not angry or anything
>>64690703
>I mean if im engaging in a discussion then I guess im engaged.
There you go.
>i dont know what you want me to say
Ideally, you'd say something like: "So I found those studies you mentioned - I see that internalised misogyny is, if nothing else, a theorised thing that many people believe exists in the real world. I haven't yet had time to review the evidence and fully consider the arguments, but I'll certainly work towards forming a concrete opinion on the matter in the near future."
It would be a bit much to expect you to add a coda about how you will, at least for the moment, stop pointing to audience gender ratios as prima facie evidence that no element of gender bias can be read into box office returns. But I'd be happy to infer that from the above paragraph without you having to come out and say it.
>be born a male
>understand maleness
>create art that reflects life of experience with uniquely male feelings and wisdom
>this art is catered to men and well received among them
>this is sexism and lessens the value of women
Could someone explain this to me?
>>64690930
Women are jealous creatures
>>64681217
>trusting these statistics
No thanks.
most movies with majority female casts are really boring and niche.
if people dont want to see the movies, then its just human nature.
>>64681313
This.
And OP's image is retarded.
>>64691461
b-but it has fancy graphics design
>>64681428
This guy speaks the truth.
>>64684329
Cause in >>64681217 it fucking cherry picks from 500 films in 2007 to 2012, no source, no links, no fucking list which must be extremely hard to complie since everyone's top movies changes from person to person.
Also I don't know if it includes foreign films which country it includes or not includes,sorry this study is shit, this pic is shit and get over it.
If they can't post the list they aren't confident and they haven't watch the fucking films at all.
