Why do you think that so many directors are men?

A

alexpw

I was just thinking about this: it seems to me like an awful lot of directors are men in comparison to the amount of women in the profession, both in hollywood and in the indie circuit. Why do you think this is?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
bird said:
Yes, I assumed your question was rhetorical or you would have researched the statistics (had you really been interested) yourself. As for anecdotal postings in regards to this, or any other topic, well, this is a message board, that's pretty much all you're going to get, it's a valid form of communication, on-topic. The only high-risk vocation I've researched was the field of fine arts, which has a 1:1 ratio of men to women (Oh, and I still believe it's a far more risky economical venture than film). I think I can extrapolate a fair distribution of the same gender balance into the field of fine art filmmaking. Commercial filmmaking, probably not even close. I've already agreed that men would more probably 'live out of their car'.
Click to expand...
Okay, you got me. It's the evil man conspiracy keeping the sisters down. But don't cry to me when some scientist discovers that men have x more cc's of grey matter in the area MRIs show is crucial to directing. Or whatever. And certainly don't wonder aloud why the scientist was looking for something so taboo in the first place - you need only blame the "evil man conspiracy" theory for that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Joe Citizen said:
Okay, you got me. It's the evil man conspiracy keeping the sisters down. But don't cry to me when some scientist discovers that men have x more cc's of grey matter in the area MRIs show is crucial to directing. Or whatever. And certainly don't wonder aloud why the scientist was looking for something so taboo in the first place - you need only blame the "evil man conspiracy" theory for that.
Click to expand...

This is just plain silly, bordering on the hysterical, really, considering my post was pretty civil and objective. That time of the month, huh? :D
OP asked a relevant question, men and women of this forum gave their personal opinion . ...and may I add, some men noticed the same bias, while Dready experienced the prejudice of a woman.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm

The study shows women having more white matter and men more gray matter related to intellectual skill, revealing that no single neuroanatomical structure determines general intelligence and that different types of brain designs are capable of producing equivalent intellectual performance.

“These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior”
Click to expand...

Kinda what I alluded to in my post from 6 yeaaaaaaaaars ago, ie:
bird said:
" I might agree that men are 'hardwired' to tell linear stories and I think women may have an easier time making abstract connections. Men-a,b,c... Women-a,z, a- m,a-f. Kinda like classical cutting compared to montage".
Click to expand...



Continued from same article....
In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of – or connections between – these processing centers.

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.
Click to expand...

So, intelligence being equal, yet illustrated by 'a different pathway' determined by gender, one may assume that any bias would be cultural/ social.


As for 'blaming the man'. ? The only reason I won't be successful is if I fail myself. I think I've expressed all I want to in regards to this topic. Your last trifling post makes me believe you just want a fight. Sorry, not interested, but good luck with your filmic endeavours!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
WTF is "gray matter"?! Sounds like a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo. People forget that psychology is a Social Science, which is a very different thing from Science (and that's coming from someone who has a degree in a Social Science). Take that study with a grain of salt, and healthy pessimism.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
WTF is "gray matter"?! .
Click to expand...

Gary and white matter are, indeed, physical properties of the brain, and spinal cord.
Both the spinal cord and the brain consist of

white matter = bundles of axons each coated with a sheath of myelin
gray matter = masses of the cell bodies and dendrites — each covered with synapses.
Click to expand...
Cracker Funk said:
Sounds like a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo. People forget that psychology is a Social Science, which is a very different thing from Science (and that's coming from someone who has a degree in a Social Science). Take that study with a grain of salt, and healthy pessimism
Click to expand...
The quote I cited has nothing to do with third party perception of a subject's psychology, but rather the actual chemical reaction of neurons and their pathways.

Joe is arguing that there are more male directors because they have 'more gray matter'.....study suggests that men do indeed have more gray matter, but that women have more white matter....it also showed that the gray matter is distributed differently in both genders, hence...

This, according to Rex Jung, a UNM neuropsychologist and co-author of the study, may help to explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing (like mathematics), while women tend to excel at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions in the brain, such as required for language facility. These two very different neurological pathways and activity centers, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests.
Click to expand...

What I've suggested, and have been since the beginning of this thread, is that there is more than one way to convey a narrative rather than linear and the reason we (as a species) can *understand* more complex narrative forms is because of the different pathways in which our brains can process these. I didn't fabricate this reasoning nor did I originate it. So, given the, seemingly, 'equal but different' workings between a male and female brain, and it's capabilties for unraveling complex symbology...we can assume that both sexes are more than capable of directing/creating a film (or succeeding at any endeavour)...so, for me, the conclusion as to why there are less female than male directors? As I've said, many times in this thread....cultural/social bias. I cannot make my opinion any more clearer. :weird:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Dready
heart.png
Bird.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bird said:
Gary and white matter are, indeed, physical properties of the brain, and spinal cord.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear as to what I meant, to question the validity of that study.

I'm not saying that gray and white matter aren't actual physical properties of anything. However, the way in which you interpret this data, and how you apply it to any study of intelligence is inevitably going to be extremely biased, and very speculative.

This very example is exactly why I have a problem with psychology. It's the only social science that tries to paint itself as pure science, like physics or geology. No matter how much hard data you collect, psychology will always be very theoretical in nature. And I don't mean as in the oft-misunderstood scientific definition of "theory"; I mean in the colloqial use of the term, to say that it will always be (to echo my earlier statement) extremely biased, and very speculative.

To stay on-topic, the reason I point this out is to say that I don't think this article really belongs in a discussion about the genders of directors. I think it's a huge stretch for anyone to try and make this conversation scientific. In my opinion, personal anecdotes and pure conjecture are worth so much more in a conversation like this.

Besides, I'm on your side in this one; it's only the citing of a psychological study that I personally don't pay much mind to. Cheers!

P.S. Can I get in on this
heart.png
action?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear as to what I meant, to question the validity of that study.

I'm not saying that gray and white matter aren't actual physical properties of anything. However, the way in which you interpret this data, and how you apply it to any study of intelligence is inevitably going to be extremely biased, and very speculative.

This very example is exactly why I have a problem with psychology. It's the only social science that tries to paint itself as pure science, like physics or geology. No matter how much hard data you collect, psychology will always be very theoretical in nature. And I don't mean as in the oft-misunderstood scientific definition of "theory"; I mean in the colloqial use of the term, to say that it will always be (to echo my earlier statement) extremely biased, and very speculative.

To stay on-topic, the reason I point this out is to say that I don't think this article really belongs in a discussion about the genders of directors. I think it's a huge stretch for anyone to try and make this conversation scientific. In my opinion, personal anecdotes and pure conjecture are worth so much more in a conversation like this.

Besides, I'm on your side in this one; it's only the citing of a psychological study that I personally don't pay much mind to. Cheers!

P.S. Can I get in on this
heart.png
action?
Click to expand...


Of course the Funk can get in on the love. :D

It's certainly not the only research in this regards. I've been reading and hearing about this for years.
I do think any light on the subject of information processing, alongside other factors (social, political, cultural) which shape the life of a human being within a specific environment, are valid considerations when we discuss why one gender appears to excel in a field while another, doesn't. Considering this, I'm still of the opinion, as I've been throughout this thread, that certain cultural and social bias affect why women don't take certain career paths, and I have provided one personal example of prejudice, take what you will from it, I reckon.;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
P.S. Can I get in on this
heart.png
action?
Click to expand...

thumbsup.gif


bird said:
I'm still of the opinion, as I've been throughout this thread, that certain cultural and social bias affect why women don't take certain career paths
Click to expand...

This is why, while it sounds like a sexist statement, I think it's total bullshit that Take Our Daughters to Work Day has become Take Your Child to Work Day. This 'holiday' is not even 20 years old and while progress has been made, the reason it was just for daughters is still there.

Anyway...
m_soapbox2.gif
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For the record, my last comment that got deleted was sarcasm. I can't believe someone took that seriously, but no hard feelings.

To answer the question:

I think, in the past, women enjoyed watching films more than making them. Their desire to direct is relatively recent. And because it's so recent, you don't see too many of them. I don't think it has anything to do with men being better directors, I just think it's hard for a woman to get respect in the industry. I'm assuming that's why a lot of female directors stick to indie film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Apart from Social Factor, I think men are generally more technical driven

and women more intuitive to things.

Now this is a gross generalization as there's much overlaps.

But i think because how they are, the best of each professional crafts tends to be men. While those work with involves relations and organization such as PR and assistants tends to be women.

Technically driven = procedural work, and knowing knowlege

Intuition driven = ability to adapt, to sense, and to organize
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's been some good and interesting points so far :pop:

Sorry if this has been said already, but:
Change takes time...

Here's an interesting article:

http://golf.about.com/u/sty/golftips/junior-golf-tips/College-Golf-Scholarships-for-Girls.htm

If there's 1800 unused scholarships every year for girls, where are all the girls jumping at the opportunity?

Is it because men shun women in that arena? Is it because of ability? Is it because of the basic nature of males/females? Competitiveness? Tradition? etc, etc, what is it? :huh:

At some point or another its because of one or all of these reasons or the perception of them to be true. The same goes for film/directing. There are hundreds of factors that cumulatively influenced the industry towards men. Times are changing though (for the better!).

Repeat: Change takes time...

A bit of advice for anyone in a variety of situations:
For anyone experiencing a "Napoleon complex" type situation where you feel you are being held back by something out of your control and you need to fight harder in other aspects to overcome an obstacle: It's great, use it to drive you! But it helps if you don't overdo it and make it seem like its out of spite. In other words.. Don't let it seem like you want to direct just to prove you can. It's better received if it seems like you are doing it for love of the craft and against all odds you will keep your head high and fight to succeed.

Semi related fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV12k6k9W4Q
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Synia said:
Apart from Social Factor, I think men are generally more technical driven

and women more intuitive to things.

Now this is a gross generalization as there's much overlaps.

But i think because how they are, the best of each professional crafts tends to be men. While those work with involves relations and organization such as PR and assistants tends to be women.

Technically driven = procedural work, and knowing knowlege

Intuition driven = ability to adapt, to sense, and to organize
Click to expand...

But based on this rationale (which I don't really agree with), shouldn't we be seeing a whole lot more successful female directors? Directors are working with people, organizing a production, adapting to sudden changes, sensing when there's tension, etc. Directors, especially on bigger budget productions, aren't handling much of the technical aspects of filmmaking; they're delegating that to their DP, audio guys, grip, etc. So shouldn't women, therefore (again, based on the above logic), be excelling at directing while men flounder at it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There are more male directors it seems because women are too indecisive. Ever watch a girl getting ready for a night out? Bam! lol. Girls do geta bad rap though, I thkn they're just as creative as their male copunterparts. Film is still a new area of culture and at first was driven by men, its slowly breaking out of that stigma of male only directors and I think it's gonna keep going. Happy trails ladies! Keep on keepin' on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top