Is the reason most directors are male because of patriarchy and sexism in the film industry or because men are more...

Is the reason most directors are male because of patriarchy and sexism in the film industry or because men are more creatively talented and intelligent?

Ask the Jews that run Hollywood.

I think men are usually more of the type of aggressiveness and energy to pursue that type of work.

But women are often quite intelligent too and many of my favorite artists are women, so it's not anything to do with creative talent.

I only saw one video with her. Are there any others?

>Jews
I think you mean whites buddy :^)

It's because of the male gaze

Why are women superior when it comes to film editing ?

They aren't tho.
It used to be considered a menial task. More like tailoring and not actual art.

All I've ever seen her in was that one ECG video. Too bad, she had a great body.

They is tho, bro

women are stupid /thread

How many women do you see writing scripts, doing serious cinematography or going to film school?

The answer is the same as the wage gap lie.

They aren't.

They aren't.

Men like looking at women. Women, straight or gay, also like looking at women. Women who direct can either look predominantly at men, and lose straight men; look predominately at ugly women, and lose straight men and straight women, or look predominantly at beautiful women, and lose gay women. (This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's true - to make beautiful films is to be trivial to lesbians, who puritanically divide art and pleasure as they divide their lives into sex and relationship.)

Also, most women literally don't know the difference between having an idea and getting someone else to do it for them.

Directors are better if they're cunts from my experience. My aunt was a director before me but she was too nice so she never really got anywhere

>Also, most women literally don't know the difference between having an idea and getting someone else to do it for them.

I should clarify that the reason that this matters is that, if a producer or financier admires a film a woman has directed, they are both less likely to be able to replicate its style by hiring the director and no other crew members, and less likely to need to hire the director in order to replicate that style.

An auteur can maintain the continuity of their vision across totally different production circumstances, and make the same aesthetic happen whichever technicians happen to be working with them. Women are less likely to be auteurs because, tending to seek consensus and spin what ideas they have off of the ideas of others, they are unable to attain this same autonomy. Not only can they not recreate the aesthetic, they may not even be able to work out how they got it in the first place. Not for nothing has the culture in which women are preferentially hired to write professionally on culture coincided with the rise of the question "what were your influences?" as a standard opener from culture journalists of both sexes to directors - a question which usually means "who did you rip off?"

No, it's Jews and it has always been Jews and rightfully so.
Whites used to run the theater which was considered high entertainment and Jews used to run movies and then later TV which were considered shit tier.

What do you direct

There are a lot of great films on which none of the major executive roles (editor, designer, director, etc.) were occupied by women. There are none on which none of the major executive roles were occupied by men.

I think women are held back by their culture of conformity. They don't nerd and sperg away. They stop playing at a much earlier age than boys.

The latter would make sense if even half of movies made were intelligent or creative

I think that user was memeing about the acceptance of Jews as "white" in recent years. That having been said, you're right, Jews took on the disreputable arts and made something of them.

They're intrinsically designed to "make a sale" of themselves as competing copies of the same object, whereas men, hunting in differing and changeable conditions, are designed to "make a sale" of their capacity for problem-solving. Mothers act the same way the world over; working men work entirely differently, to rhythms and with skills that are nowhere identical. Men need to be inventive, women need to perform a more restricted range of functions. This is detectable even among women artists - most women interested in art like Cindy Sherman and Frida Kahlo, because their art is about looking pretty or making something high-status out of failing to look pretty, while pitying oneself for one's feelings about looking pretty or not. Both did something easy to do and did it repeatedly, without having to stray far from self-regard and self-monitoring - properly the main activities of female cognition.

All movies are intelligent and creative, because all involve thinking and problem-solving. Most films by women don't hold together even as the elaboration of a train of thought - there's an entire academic industry devoted to rationalizing their ineptitude. Even a straight-to-video T&A thriller indicates more capacity to keep one's mind on the job and invent within its restrictions than most films by women.

Big shame she didn't do more, especially for a mother

>All movies are intelligent and creative
Yeah, no.

It's probably because more men want to be directors.

Feminists seem to forget this simple fact. They fight for women to have science jobs, and CEO positions, but most women don't want that. So when, after fighting for years, they look at the numbers of women in those jobs, they are shocked that they haven;t gone up much. Of course, that is the fault of the patriarchy, not because there aren't enough women going for those jobs.

>This is detectable even among women artists - most women interested in art like Cindy Sherman and Frida Kahlo, because their art is about looking pretty or making something high-status out of failing to look pretty, while pitying oneself for one's feelings about looking pretty or not.

I took some art history classes college and it always stuck out that every female artist made multiple self portraits. Even the ones that don't paint many self portraits, like O'Keefe, still end up painting flower vaginas. Kahlo and Cassatt both stick out as selfie painters to me.

Also, male painters rarely make themselves look good in self portraits. The pieces are more about haggardness, form, and line, than looking pretty.

The only true post

it's because most women don't like the pressure that gets put on you as a director. It's not that they can't take it, it's just that 90% of them prefer not to

How are people still not getting it? Chicks just don't generally find certain fields interesting. You don't see many women trying to join the military, or trying to be welders, or construction workers. Because there are so few women trying to make it in those fields, they have less of a chance to actually become well-known and accomplish shit. You might as well ask why mexican people don't show up in irish media. It's not oppression nor other such limiting shit, it's just less numbers means less accomplished members.

Women and minorities SHOULD have such aspirations, but they generally just don't want it. Even incentives hardly do shit.

>women are quite intelligent too

People need to stop thinkimg in terms of male and female when it comes to shit like this. It's PEOPLE, not a gender. People are either stupid or normal or intelligent. Sex is irrelevant to how smart you are. Now emotion, drive/motivation, and values, those are things different in genders.

Films/comics/games are visual. Men are more visually stimulated than women.

really makes me think. Also explains why when a woman makes a film it is usually a terrible directed and staged amateurish coming of age mumblecore piece of shit.

No, it's partially intelligence because men tends to thing abstractly and women, personally. So it is intelligence because you're making a choice without seeing the issue in the right context so your choice would ultimately be unintelligible. This meme needs to die. There are glaring differences between sexes. Only progressive nu-males like yourself pretends otherwise.

It's not about creativity, it's about how you channel it. Directing involves a lot of enforcing your will over other people, refusing to back down and yelling. It's naturally going to mainly draw people with high testosterone. Not exclusively, and we're seeing more female directors and I expect that trend to continue, but I also expect it will always be majority male.

it's because of thousands of years of telling women they cant do shit so they actually believe it subconsciously the absolute madwomen

>directors
>talented and intelligent

Theres 100s or thousands of noteworthy male composers/artists for every bottom of the barrel woman.

Ignore human biology at your own peril.

The "issue" that a lot of people bring up, is why that is the case.

If it could be proven that it's just what they're biologically predisposed to do, then whatever.

However if it's just a learned behaviour/cultural thing, it's another issue.