Why aren't there more female directors?

[Eddie the head]

Don't worry. It's inevitable that someone has already used an argument like that as justification for sexism, but it's also bad science, so there's no harm done. Basically, the only way that could work is if "risk-taking" were some sort of specific gene located only on the y-chromosome, because that's the only genetic source that's (mostly) specific to men. And for that matter, it would have to be some kind of super-dominant gene, because it would have to somehow overwhelm the "safety first" x-chromosomes men get from their mothers.

Put another way, be wary of evolutionary explanations for sex-contrasted phenomena. Especially behavioral phenomena.

Yeah. I don't think you understand evolution, genetics, or epigenetics. (Ok I don't, but I understand it better then this) Because it's not just the genes you have it's also the genes you body uses. And to what degree it's used. Perhaps "used" is the wrong word "expressed" is better.

How your genes are expressed is, at least in part, due to your hormone levels. And would you look at that the Y chromosome dose have some sort of overriding authority on this. The Y chromosome pretty much exclusively increases your testosterone levels. And testosterone has been shown to increases aggressive risk taking behavior. It also effects how some parts of the body develop most notably the genitals. The genetic information for a penis and a vagina is in both males and females testosterone effects witch one is expressed. Similar things happen in the brain as well, but to such a degree. So yeah the Y chromosome dose do exactly what you said it would need to do. All be it indirectly. And with other factors.

I also fail to see why it's so absurd to think that evolution could help explain human behavior. It helps explain how other species behave. Our nervous system at it's core is no different for a earth worm, it's just more complex. Hell that's what the whole field of evolutionary psychology is about.

I'll reiterate this it's not the only factor, but it is a factor. It's not "bad science" because you fail to understand it. And even if it was most "lies" start form an iota of truth. You should try and find that iota regardless of if you trust the conclusion.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Don't worry. It's inevitable that someone has already used an argument like that as justification for sexism, but it's also bad science, so there's no harm done. Basically, the only way that could work is if "risk-taking" were some sort of specific gene located only on the y-chromosome, because that's the only genetic source that's (mostly) specific to men. And for that matter, it would have to be some kind of super-dominant gene, because it would have to somehow overwhelm the "safety first" x-chromosomes men get from their mothers.

Put another way, be wary of evolutionary explanations for sex-contrasted phenomena. Especially behavioral phenomena.

Yeah. I don't think you understand evolution, genetics, or epigenetics. (Ok I don't, but I understand it better then this) Because it's not just the genes you have it's also the genes you body uses. And to what degree it's used. Perhaps "used" is the wrong word "expressed" is better.

How your genes are expressed is, at least in part, due to your hormone levels. And would you look at that the Y chromosome dose have some sort of overriding authority on this. The Y chromosome pretty much exclusively increases your testosterone levels. And testosterone has been shown to increases aggressive risk taking behavior. It also effects how some parts of the body develop most notably the genitals. The genetic information for a penis and a vagina is in both males and females testosterone effects witch one is expressed. Similar things happen in the brain as well, but to such a degree. So yeah the Y chromosome dose do exactly what you said it would need to do. All be it indirectly. And with other factors.

The only male-exclusive effect of testosterone is initial sexual differentiation. Even going by an indirect "Y Chromosome induces testis development, which might account for higher levels of testosterone in men," it's an oversimplification to associate it with testosterone alone, given that the hormone is also produced in the ovaries and adrenal glands (and the Y chromosome does other things, but sperm production and increased risk of certain developmental disorders aren't relevant at the moment).

Either way, while the relationship between testosterone and risk aversion is pretty well supported, its connection to evopsych is...I'm trying to come up with a nicer word than "laughable" (if only because I worry about coming across as personally insulting), but nothing's coming to mind. Again, the idea put forth by the book you cite could only work if there was something exclusive in the genetics of the "successful risk-taking males" that was passed only on to male children without being counteracted by a different selected gene in the "risk averse females." Since this can't be chalked up to testosterone's effects alone (as we see similar effects in mice and rats), this would require, like you hint towards, a gene that is dormant unless expressed with a certain amount of testosterone in a human system that only shows up in men. Or possibly that testosterone affects male and female bodies in different ways other than levels (levels of testosterone show effects that are consistent between genders; i.e. low levels of testosterone induce in both women and men the same level of risk aversion). Far as I'm aware, neither idea has been tested yet.

Setting aside biology, I'd also question the logic of the sentiment. I assume you were paraphrasing, and that there was an actual definition of what "chances taken" are being talked about. But what causes the assumption that human males who take fewer risks and remain unkilled will breed in significantly lesser numbers than successful risk-taking males (especially in numbers significant enough to affect the Y chromosome, the most resistant to change)? Given their greater survival rate, one would think it'd be the other way around. And for that matter, why would risk-taking females be dying in significant enough numbers to affect human genetics? Evolution as a process doesn't treat "no reward" adaptations near as seriously as "harmful" adaptations, and a genetic expression is usually only "harmful" after the fact (in other words, if a change in environment causes enough death for its expression to disappear or be displaced).

I also fail to see why it's so absurd to think that evolution could help explain human behavior. It helps explain how other species behave. Our nervous system at it's core is no different for a earth worm, it's just more complex. Hell that's what the whole field of evolutionary psychology is about.

Evolutionary psychology is also very prone to making untestable post hoc rationalizations (not to mention it's the go-to discipline to invoke when one needs to argue for some gender determinism in support of whatever cultural behavior the arguer ascribes to). I'd call it the most, but I haven't spoken with many regular psychologists, so I can't compare. Either way, I find suspicion of the discipline justified.

I'll reiterate this it's not the only factor, but it is a factor. It's not "bad science" because you fail to understand it. And even if it was most "lies" start form an iota of truth. You should try and find that iota regardless of if you trust the conclusion.

We already started from the iota of truth (there are fewer female directors in Hollywood than male).

...that said, I can see the point of your original second paragraph. Different levels of risk aversion could be some kind of factor in the thing. I overreacted to the tie to evopsych, and I apologize.

 

[Schadrach]

I was reading a book talking about human sexuality in one of the chapters they talk about what role evolution plays in how the sexes interact. Basically we are the offspring of men who took chances, and well succeeded. Women could take chances, but there was no benefit to it so we're mostly the offspring of women who didn't take chances.


I could see that having an influence on things. If you play it safe you'll likely never be a big director. Really though it's not just one factor. I'm sure a grate deal of it is just sexism. Witch is one of the reasons I almost hesitate to say this. I'm worrying someone will see this and use if as justification for sexism.

Don't worry. It's inevitable that someone has already used an argument like that as justification for sexism, but it's also bad science, so there's no harm done. Basically, the only way that could work is if "risk-taking" were some sort of specific gene located only on the y-chromosome, because that's the only genetic source that's (mostly) specific to men. And for that matter, it would have to be some kind of super-dominant gene, because it would have to somehow overwhelm the "safety first" x-chromosomes men get from their mothers.

Put another way, be wary of evolutionary explanations for sex-contrasted phenomena. Especially behavioral phenomena.

Or, alternatively, it could be linked to testosterone. Which would be measurable if you compared high-T and low-T people of each gender and see what correlates to testosterone within the gender.

What I find amusing is that I actually recognize the particular explanation Eddie mentioned because I was looking into a quote about gender of murderers and it turned out that the work they referenced was about aggression, hierarchy-building, and risk-taking behavior by gender that came to essentially the same conclusion. I found it amusing because it was a feminist article uncritically quoting something from an evo-psych article that they would have been wholly unwilling to accept any other point from.

 

[The Lunatic]

Because most of the "Big Name" directors are old guys.

They simply come from an age in which more males worked, males were preferred in those roles and many other out-dated forms of sexism. And thus had time to build up their careers and become reputable and well-known.

It's the same with most "Senior" jobs.

They simply work on a slower time scale due the age of people involved. Careers take a lifetime to build. And if women weren't able to start those careers at a younger age then they'll simple be behind.

Give it time.

 

[Adam Lester]

My personal assumption is because until the rise of second wave feminism it was male dominated, and breaking through whatever norms were expected of one's gender became more of a "thing", it goes without saying director leads were held exclusively by males. The silent film era actually saw a few female directors such as Alice-Guy Blache' and Eloyce Gist, who were a minority in the field but still worth mention.

Bringing genetics into the argument has some merit, but by the same respect humans are a bit of a wild card within the animal kingdom because we're not restrained to whatever our gender entails in a physical or even psychological sense.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I was reading a book talking about human sexuality in one of the chapters they talk about what role evolution plays in how the sexes interact. Basically we are the offspring of men who took chances, and well succeeded. Women could take chances, but there was no benefit to it so we're mostly the offspring of women who didn't take chances.


I could see that having an influence on things. If you play it safe you'll likely never be a big director. Really though it's not just one factor. I'm sure a grate deal of it is just sexism. Witch is one of the reasons I almost hesitate to say this. I'm worrying someone will see this and use if as justification for sexism.

Don't worry. It's inevitable that someone has already used an argument like that as justification for sexism, but it's also bad science, so there's no harm done. Basically, the only way that could work is if "risk-taking" were some sort of specific gene located only on the y-chromosome, because that's the only genetic source that's (mostly) specific to men. And for that matter, it would have to be some kind of super-dominant gene, because it would have to somehow overwhelm the "safety first" x-chromosomes men get from their mothers.

Put another way, be wary of evolutionary explanations for sex-contrasted phenomena. Especially behavioral phenomena.

Or, alternatively, it could be linked to testosterone. Which would be measurable if you compared high-T and low-T people of each gender and see what correlates to testosterone within the gender.

They did do that while measuring financial risk aversion. IIRC, there is a correlation between high testosterone and more willingness to take risks, and vice versa regarding low testosterone, but that the correlation is between those levels alone, with no gender disparity in the actual effects (i.e. at low testosterone, men and women become equally risk averse).

It was mainly the "our ancestors specifically bred for x" argument (which testosterone levels don't answer) that made me raise my eyebrows, rather than the actual conclusion.

That said, if what Johnny Novgorod and Vault101 say is true about that the gender disparity shrinking or vanishing when examining the set of indie directors or directors in places other than the United States, a physiological explanation feels unlikely at best, distracting at worst.

What I find amusing is that I actually recognize the particular explanation Eddie mentioned because I was looking into a quote about gender of murderers and it turned out that the work they referenced was about aggression, hierarchy-building, and risk-taking behavior by gender that came to essentially the same conclusion. I found it amusing because it was a feminist article uncritically quoting something from an evo-psych article that they would have been wholly unwilling to accept any other point from.

That's...tremendously ironic, yes.

 

[sageoftruth]

If Yahtzee is to be believed, then Hollywood is set in its traditional ways. Considering Hollywood traditional is basically my grandfather's childhood, I imagine that would not be very inclusive to women.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Not to derail this thread completely, but I have a question: Why do people so frequently ask "why aren't there more female directors/game designers/CEOs/Engineers/Scientists/(fill in your choice of male-dominated field)", but no one ever seems to ask "why aren't there more female sanitation workers/oil field workers/coal miners/construction workers/janitors/pipe fitters/electricians/fishers"?

 

[mecegirl]

Not to derail this thread completely, but I have a question: Why do people so frequently ask "why aren't there more female directors/game designers/CEOs/Engineers/Scientists/(fill in your choice of male-dominated field)", but no one ever seems to ask "why aren't there more female sanitation workers/oil field workers/coal miners/construction workers/janitors/pipe fitters/electricians/fishers"?

Because half of those jobs, like sanitation workers and janitors, aren't that exclusive to men. Women, especially women who are not White, have always worked in jobs devoted to cleaning up others messes. Especially when it comes to being a janitor, we just call it housekeeping instead. And because with jobs like coal miners and construction workers women have historically been turned away from those professions. Like in some cases banned from even applying. Even now people would discourage a woman from becoming a construction worker.

There is the idea that since certain jobs are physically taxing that women can't do them, and so they are generally not groomed to consider those jobs as an option. Sure the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. But it's not as if every woman is a size zero with noodle arms or something. However, with jobs like a game designer there are no physical limitations.

Also, as a society, Americans have a bit of a bias against blue collar jobs. Unless they happen to be a tradesman themselves, no one dreams that their son will become an electrician, but rather an electrical engineer. It's more likely to think that someone settled to become a janitor. It's not exactally the type of job that anyone is encouraged to pursue while they are children, its only considered a viable option once you are an adult without whatever qualifications are needed to land a white collar job.

 

[Something Amyss]

pop singers...to me a just one cog in the record label machine, sometimes I imagine they have a say but other times..I dunno if I wanna be cynical they'd be replacable with a vocaloid were the technology good enough (and if it were the case that would be a record studios wet dream)

So folk. Country. Rock. Pick a genre. I think there are more prominent women in rap than there are in either gaming or Hollywood. Rap is not the most progressive of genres when it comes to women.

I imagine you'd actually find more lesbians with equivalent credits in the AAA music equivalent than you would women directing at the Hollywood level, and I'll expand that to producers.

I think it's a fair question.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The odd thing is that this only seems to be a directors thing, because on the producers side it's a lot more evenly split. Still mostly men, but you still have your Kathleen Kennedy's and your Gale Ann Hurst's ('s).

In the 90's we still had Penny Marshall, but she was at best a Chris Columbus-caliber director and I can't remember the last time she made a movie.

American Psycho was also directed by a woman. I don't know what she ever ended up doing.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Not to derail this thread completely, but I have a question: Why do people so frequently ask "why aren't there more female directors/game designers/CEOs/Engineers/Scientists/(fill in your choice of male-dominated field)", but no one ever seems to ask "why aren't there more female sanitation workers/oil field workers/coal miners/construction workers/janitors/pipe fitters/electricians/fishers"?

Because most of those are shitty jobs with strength requirements that no little kids dream of having.

 

[thanatos388]

There are a ton of female directors but mostly outside of Hollywood in foreign countries and in the indie scene. Actually I've noticed a lot of documentaries I watch have female directors. Hollywood is old, slow, and creaking and quite honestly we are all just quietly waiting for it to die so we can see how the inheritence will get split between it's offspring.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Rap" isn't a genre though. Unless you consider "singing" to be a genre.

If you wish to be pedantic, but weirdly enough we haven't seen any actual market confusion. Kedollarsignha is still charting on pop charts, even when she's paired with rappers. Or "rappers," if you count Pitbull.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Not to derail this thread completely, but I have a question: Why do people so frequently ask "why aren't there more female directors/game designers/CEOs/Engineers/Scientists/(fill in your choice of male-dominated field)", but no one ever seems to ask "why aren't there more female sanitation workers/oil field workers/coal miners/construction workers/janitors/pipe fitters/electricians/fishers"?

Funny thing about that.

Women had to fight for the right to be coal miners. Women wanted to be coal miners for the same reason that men did - not because it was glamourous, but because it paid well, sometimes as much as five times more than typical domestic employment like being a maid, and they could suppor their family with that increased wage. Women often had to pose as men to get work in coal mines, just like, in, say, the military, or in writing *cough* Bronte "brothers" *cough* and most other fields of employment. Who do you think were in the coal mines during World War II? They certainly didn't get to keep their jobs when men came back from war. They didn't get health benefits when they developed black lung. Women had to fight to be coal miners. They had to fight to be construction workers. They had to fight to work on oil rigs, and I know that last one is true because I know a woman who works on an oil rig, and she does not get treated well by many people there.

That still doesn't answer the question. I got it that, historically, women had to fight to get those jobs (and possibly still do), my point is that we constantly see articles about how "women only make up 20% of game designers", "women only make up 10% of CEOs", "women only make up 15% of Engineers", etc., with the basic point of the article being that this is something that needs to be 'fixed', but have you ever seen article pointing out that women make up 5% of Pipe Fitters, or 2% of coal miners, or 5% of oil field workers, and then saying that this is something that needs to be fixed? If there are I've never seen one.

And you are absolutely right (as some other people don't seem to realize), those jobs actually pay very, very well. I work in the HVAC industry, a tech willing to work 50 hours a week easily makes over $100K a year, and this is someone without a college degree.

So again, the question is: why is there so much hand-wringing and complaining about the lack of female game designers, but no one seems to care about the lack of female electricians?

 

[Dizchu]

It actually bothers me how there aren't many female "auteurs" when it comes to film and music (and game design, however I am personally more aware of examples of great games directed/fully developed by women).

Let me explain. When it comes to music, how many men can you think of that:

a) Write all the music and lyrics?
b) Play all/most of the instruments?
c) Arrange their own songs?
d) Produce/co-produce all of their music?
e) Master their music?

Any combination of those. You can find plenty of male musicians and an extremely smaller proportion of female musicians (Bjork, La Roux and Chelsea Wolfe are goods example of very hands-on musicians).

But more often than not, women in the music industry just sing, write a few songs, play an instrument or two and have a production team and session musicians sort the rest out. When women do everything on their own, often their music has a minimal setup (acoustic guitar + vocals or piano + vocals).

I'm curious to know why this is. Do women have a tendency to prefer a more focussed approach (interestingly this runs contrary to the "woman are the only people that can multi-task" stereotype)? Are women discouraged from being hands-on? Are men too eager to help out?

I know the thread is about film directors but as a musician I am more familiar with how the creation of music works, and there's parallels between the two industries.

EDIT: Before anyone accuses me of sexism, I acknowledge the exceptions! I'd like to know more of them, in fact. It's just as far as I can tell, the exterior of the music industry has plenty of women but the interior has a much smaller ratio.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Not to derail this thread completely, but I have a question: Why do people so frequently ask "why aren't there more female directors/game designers/CEOs/Engineers/Scientists/(fill in your choice of male-dominated field)", but no one ever seems to ask "why aren't there more female sanitation workers/oil field workers/coal miners/construction workers/janitors/pipe fitters/electricians/fishers"?

Partly because the jobs in the second list don't have nearly the same amount of exposure as in the first list.

And partly because those jobs aren't considered as societally aspirational - in fact, they're more like the things our parents threatened we'd become if we didn't work hard enough to become directors/CEOs/engineers/etc. - and therefore the gender disparity there doesn't come as immediately to peoples' minds. People have to be kickstarted in remembering that there are any people who want those jobs before being reminded that some of those job seekers are women.