Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sci-Fi Movies

Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron (indiewire.com) 796

Posted by msmash from the reckoning dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: As science fiction finally earns mainstream acceptance in Hollywood, James Cameron believes the genre's awards drought will soon be over. "I predict that sometime in the next five to 10 years you will have a science-fiction film win Best Picture," he told reporters while promoting "AMC Visionaries: James Cameron's Story of Science Fiction," which premieres Monday. Films like "Arrival" and "Ex-Machina" have earned nominations, but as the older guard ages out of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Cameron believes that the membership's "prejudice" against sci-fi -- which he says "definitely exists" -- will fade. "They're definitely a red-headed stepchild when it comes to the acting, producing, directing categories," he said.

"Science fiction is kind of a commercial genre, it's not really an elevated dramatic genre. I would argue that until I'm blue in the face that science fiction is the quintessence of being human in a sense. We are technological beings. We are the only truly conscious species that we know of. We are struggling with ourselves over the issue of our own question for understanding, our own ability to manipulate the fabric of our reality. Our own technology is blowing back on us and changing how we behave amongst ourselves and as a civilization," he added. "I would argue that there's nothing more quintessentially human than dealing with these themes. But Hollywood tends to pull short from that."

But as Hollywood changes its perception of science fiction, Cameron stressed that the genre itself needs to continue to evolve from its origins of being too "stale, male and pale." "It was white guys talking about rockets," Cameron said of early sci-fi. "The female authors didn't come into it until the '50s and '60s and a lot of them had to operate under pseudonyms." But even now, "women are still unrepresented in science fiction as they are in Hollywood in general," he said. "When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron More

Sci-Fi Is Still Working on Its 'Stale, Male, and Pale' Problem, Says James Cameron

Comments Filter:

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:33PM (#56526009)

    When 14 percent of all film directors in the industry are female, and they represent 50 percent of the population, that's a big delta there that needs to get rectified.

    The last time I had my alignment done I wasn't at all bothered that I couldn't find a female mechanic. Why should I care any more or less who's directing the movies that I watch?

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saltydogdesign ( 811417 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:42PM (#56526039)

      I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted. Who is to say there aren't women out there that could do a better job with a film than the male director that gets selected in part because of his sex? Making films isn't a cut and dried task — talent matters. We got Frankenstein (the novel) in spite of systemic sexism. What all did we miss?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )
        Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday April 29, 2018 @11:10PM (#56526631) Journal

          Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

          I think you don't understand what "systemic" means.

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by thewolfkin ( 2790519 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @10:07AM (#56529421) Homepage Journal

          Which male directors specially were selected in part because of their sex? Please elaborate.

          Um.. dude the whole point is that male directors weren't chosen for their sex. Female directors were. Male directors were chosen for their skills. Female directors were chosen to check a diversity box. As someone to hire so they can go back to hiring the regular (i.e. Male) directors.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:50PM (#56526085) Journal

        I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing

        Then point to that specific thing instead of making vague allusions. If there is a real problem, most of us are willing to help. The vast majority of us favor gender/race/human equality, but if you're just going to go around insulting people as "too white, too male, and too whatever" without even being able to identify a specific problem, I'm going to tune out.

        Groups that are more interested in insulting than in fixing lose support.

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Sunday April 29, 2018 @11:41PM (#56526737) Journal

          I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing

          Then point to that specific thing instead of making vague allusions. If there is a real problem, most of us are willing to help.

          The thing about systemic biases is that it's entirely possible that no one knows what, specifically, is the problem. Systemic biases can be deeply buried in common processes that no one realizes are favoring one type of person over another, often due to the way processes interact with characteristics of the categories of people.

          One of my favorite examples is observed variation in salary. Even when controlling for every factor that researchers could think of, and even when HR departments are doing their dead level best to ensure pay equity, we see women in professional positions getting paid less than their male counterparts. Finally, some researchers noticed that part of the typical professional hiring process was salary negotiation, and wondered if perhaps women didn't negotiate as hard, or if they negotiated less effectively. That led to a series of studies that found that (a) women generally don't negotiate as aggressively as their male counterparts, and (b) women who do negotiate aggressively are more effective at it than their male counterparts. Further studies delved into why women negotiated less aggressively and decided it's probably due to the cultural expectations of "niceness" and non-confrontationalism that women are raised with... and maybe even due to some inherent genetic bias in those directions.

          In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.

          As a result of this observation, some employers have abandoned the salary negotiation process, and instead just calculate a take-it-or-leave-it offer based on experience and qualifications. This actually turns out to eliminate another systemic bias that lowers female pay, the salary history. Traditionally, employers ask for salary history and use that to choose a starting point for negotiation. Since women were typically paid less than men at their previous jobs, this downward bias is carried forward.

          Note that this is an example of a hidden, systemic bias that was uncovered and is now understood. But systemic biases can stay hidden for a very long time. They can be subtle and very hard to spot. The existence of bias is often very easy to spot, even when the reasons are not: Just look at outcome equality. If outcomes are unequal, there must be some reason.

          • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @11:58PM (#56526811)

            The thing about systemic biases is that it's entirely possible that no one knows what, specifically, is the problem.

            That is a big, juicy line of bullshit designed to never, ever be resolved because that would eliminate the complaint industry.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by vux984 ( 928602 )

            In this example, we have a hiring process that was established around male behavioral norms, in an era when this made sense because only men were in the workplace. As women were introduced, no one thought to re-examine the process to decide if was applicable to them as well. In some jobs, skill at negotiation is a key job requirement and it actually makes sense to pay those who are more aggressive and better at it more money. But in many jobs it's not, yet the process is still applied.

            This affects men too. Given a job where negotiation is not a required or relevant skill we see men who are better at negotiation being paid more then men who were not.

            Is that fair? Is this also a problem that society needs to fix?

            Is this really a systemic bias against women after all? since it affects a lot of men too, while some women who are aggressive negotiators are doing fine.

            Should we be looking for 'equal pay for women' or should be we looking for 'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate' ?

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              'equal pay regardless of how well you negotiate'

              That is how the majority of jobs are paid in the UK. Often there are pay scales for a job, so people can get increases based on time spent in the role, but basically everyone gets paid the same for that job.

              In jobs where people do negotiate salary the company usually states a range up front. Say they offer 50-60k for the role, and then the candidate can make their case based on experience and the like, but is extremely unlikely to get more than 60k. I find it's helpful because it helps filter companies that

          • Further studies delved into why women negotiated less aggressively and decided it's probably due to the cultural expectations of "niceness" and non-confrontationalism that women are raised with... and maybe even due to some inherent genetic bias in those directions.

            When you're working with top actors, and they are not performing according to your vision, you need to be able to be confrontational. It's an important ability to have as a director. If you can't even bring yourself to demand a higher salary in a private office one-to-one conversation, how are you going to tell Bruce Willis or Julia Roberts, that they're doing it wrong again after 5 takes ?

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:11PM (#56526191)

        If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted.

        In one of the most progressive industries, in one of the most progressive states, in one of the most progressive countries in the world?

        I'm somewhat skeptical that any such thing exists or at least not anything that would cause such a large gap or even the majority of it. Especially in a business that cares far more about revenue than it does about art. So if female directors could generate better profits, the studios would be tripping over themselves to hire them. Contrast this with other fields (accounting, veterinary medicine, etc.) that historically had no female practitioners (much like directing), but are now majority female, and you have to explain why this systemic something did not prevent women from breaking into those fields.

        I'm not going to claim that Hollywood is a perfect or even a model example. It's quite obvious from recent history that there are plenty of sleazy assholes who were willing to use their positions of authority to coerce women, men, and children into sex. Perhaps Hollywood and the allure of fame makes this more prevalent, but it's hardly unique to the film industry either, so I'm not inclined to believe women in film have had to deal with anything that women in business, medicine, or any other field haven't also had to deal with.

        If you know what this systemic something is, by all means share it. Otherwise you could just be tilting at windmills. But to my original point, did you ever stop to think about the fact that there's an even lower percentage of female mechanics? I'm guessing that the thought never crossed your mind, so I really have to ask why you should care in this instance but not in the other? I think you can realize that it really doesn't matter what sex your mechanic is as long as they do a good job, so why not be similarly unconcerned in this case as well?

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by another_twilight ( 585366 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @11:23PM (#56526665)

          Here's a report [usc.edu] that looks at female directors and compares their careers to male directors. One of the differences they report is that directors will often start with short films before moving on to longer or feature films. The initial disparity in numbers between male and female directors at the short film level then becomes even more stark. Female directors report difficulty in finding or attracting funding (not the only problem, sample size is small and selective). We're not talking about a situation where women don't want to become directors of feature films. They do. They can't. Your mechanic analogy is off the mark.

          The problem with cultures is that they tend to be self-reinforcing. Women, knowing that their chance of being able to make a career beyond short film will make less of an effort in a direction that's unlikely to yield results. When putting together people to work on or with, people are likely to ask for people that they have worked with before and who they know they can work with, again.

          It's complicated and complex, as many social structures are. Identifying biases are difficult and confronting. The numbers, alone, are a sign that there is _likely_ to be some kind of systematic bias or biases. Holding your hands over your ears and demanding proof before you'll act is childish. Let's investigate. There's smoke; maybe there's a fire. Maybe we'll find that it's just weird, but women really don't want to direct, but here's a list [thewrap.com] of qualified female directors talking about some of the different ways that they've experienced barriers to their careers based solely on gender.

          • You should celebrate this shouldn't you ? You just discovered a business opportunity. Every one in the world is ignorant about it, so you could quietly fund a woman director and you become very rich due to the awesomeness of affordable women directors.

            Why are you spilling your beans ?

        • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

          by another_twilight ( 585366 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @11:48PM (#56526769)

          In one of the most progressive industries

          Sure, for old, white and male [theatlantic.com] values of 'progressive'.

          in one of the most progressive countries in the world

          You're number 20 on this list [wikipedia.org] and the number of first world countries you're ahead of isn't that high.

          That you believe what you typed is one of the problem with systematic biases. They are hard to identify and confronting when they are.

          Here's a study [usc.edu] that takes a stab at 'why'. It's a small sample, but among other factors female directors who have been successful on short films find it harder to attract funding or investment in feature films.

          Here's a list [thewrap.com] of successful female directors talking about the problems they have experienced based solely on gender.

          I've found those from a quick google search and memory of some similar articles. You raise mechanics, but a similar search shows females interested in being a mechanic facing even more overt cultural pressure to not. You imply that maybe women don't want to be directors, but a trivial search shows considerable evidence that counters this.

          Culture is self re-inforcing. Biases are hard to identify. There's a massive difference in gender among feature film directors. There's a marked difference in the usual path of successful directors (from short films and documentaries, to longer, feature films) based on gender. Small wonder that this means that less females choose a path where an equal amount of work does not result in an equal outcome, or have to have a backup plan for when they can't pick up funding or have to spend another decade getting 'experience' that their male colleagues don't seem to need.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • If a woman does what a feminist wants, it means feminism is working.

          If a woman does something a feminist does not want, it is systematic patriarchy.

      • Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
        You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
        And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
        In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
        But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
        Men and women have very dif

      • This is the problem with current day "Gender Studies" feminisim. Unlike "classic" feminism they completely disregard actual differences between men and women. You know, the actual reasone we call men men and women women?

        A-Level Hollywood directing is competitive at a level most humans can't even comprehend. You need every edge you can get to succeed and you have to be so convinced about your vision that you will squish anyone questioning it on sight and inmediately. Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Luc Besson,

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Austerity Empowers ( 669817 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @07:23AM (#56528369)

        I think you're missing the point. If there's something systemic that is preventing women from breaking into directing, that's potentially a huge pool of talent wasted. Who is to say there aren't women out there that could do a better job with a film than the male director that gets selected in part because of his sex? Making films isn't a cut and dried task — talent matters. We got Frankenstein (the novel) in spite of systemic sexism. What all did we miss?

        As a stale pale male I'm pretty happy with the genre as it is, and don't care. What I'm tired of is bad sci-fi that has been ruined in some vain attempt to locate an audience that doesn't appear to be very interested. Turn on the SciFi channel and mostly get spammed with a lot of bad.

        The sad parts are when they do a really good season one of something, and then go off the rails in season 2, searching for that broader audience. It's maddening.

        I personally don't care who made the thing I watch, male or female, black or white. I don't even bother to look, as far as I know they are female. But the content I care about, and if it requires turning things I care about into things I don't care about to bring in women, or blacks or whatever, then it's futile. I'm no longer interested. The same goes double to bring in a larger male audience, a lot of sci-fi I used to like has been ruined in the past 15-20 years to make them more action packed and war-mongery. No thank you.

      • Is that the same "systemic" thing "preventing" women from becoming programmers?

        Because last time I checked, by the same method of analysis (ie simple demographic comparison) "something" is "preventing" women from becoming ditch diggers, trash haulers, and construction workers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rbrander ( 73222 )

      Because a "good alignment" has the one clear definition but "good movie" does not?

      Perhaps a female director could clarify for me how a female character feels about a male character by directing the cameraman to do a long, slow scan up the male's body, which a male director would not think to do, since he doesn't classify ogling males as entertainment. A female director could still direct "male gaze" shots because she's got a hundred years of past movies to study; "female gaze" shots she would have an inst

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 )
        "But also, in general, any group that's been discriminated against becomes automatically the smart hire, because they have to be "twice as good to go half as far"

        Simply astoundingly stupid.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:20PM (#56526227)

        A female director could still direct "male gaze" shots because she's got a hundred years of past movies to study; "female gaze" shots she would have an instinct for.

        It sounds like you've never taken a serious film class. There is plenty of female, for lack of a better term, "fan service" to be had. Watch the last 50 years of soap operas on US TV, or Mexican Telenovellas, or any one of the slew of TV shows on BBC or ITV.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        There are entire TV shows based, more or less, around this one scene.

    • Pale == Too white (Score:5, Insightful)

      by execthis ( 537150 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @10:33PM (#56526521)

      Pale? That means: Too white.
      Funny, no one would ever say that a genre is "too asian" or "too black" or too any-other-race. Only white.
      This is blatant anti-white racism.
      Fuck you Slashdot.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Peter P Peters ( 5350981 )
      I think the issue is that most Sci-Fi is absolute trash. It's my favourite genre, but just about every movie has some gaping plot hole or poorly thought out MacGuffin that makes it unworthy of any credibility. Outside of 2001 and Blade Runner, I'm struggling to think of a Sci-Fi film I'd even consider worthy. Interstellar maybe?

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @06:28AM (#56528077) Homepage
      Can you imagine the outrage if someone said something was "too black"???

      but "too pale" gets nothing????

  • 50% of which population? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:44PM (#56526049)

    This notion that every industry, every hobby, and every interest ought to be equally populated by women is perhaps the biggest error imaginable.

    Who ever said that women are interested in the same things as men? I've never met a woman who likes using a urinal. Should we organize funds to teach women to get on-board?

    There's nothing wrong with a reality where women don't prefer to be directors. I'm not interested in convincing women to avoid being directors, and I'm not interested in convincing women that they should be.

    Give women the freedom to choose, and then let them follow their own choices.

    Just like with every other thing in life, you'll find that women don't want to be everywhere. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, having a choice and making one, especially one that defies statistical likelihoods, is the very definition of free choice.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by be951 ( 772934 )

      This notion that every industry, every hobby, and every interest ought to be equally populated by women is perhaps the biggest error imaginable.

      Not sure if you just didn't understand the article/summary, or you are just extrapolating what was actually said to "every industry, every hobby, and every interest" because that's easier whine about? What Cameron actually said is that in Hollywood in general, 14% of directors are female. And it's not like we don't know gender bias exists in the entertainment industry. Book publishing provides an easy example. A few years back, a female author submitted her novel to the same set of 50 literary agents under

  • Dear James Cameron (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:46PM (#56526061)

    People like you who obsess about race and gender are the problem. Drama isn't a race. Entertainment isn't a gender. Your audience does not care about the social justice identity bonafides of your characters. Except a very tiny, tiny fraction of that audience. And no on can ever make that fraction happy, regardless of anything anyone does, because that fraction regards complaining about race and gender as a sort of religious sacrament.

    Get back to us when you're trying to entertain. Until then, you are entirely useless.

  • Whats so wrong with male and pale? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:46PM (#56526063) Journal
    Should every new work of art pass some art test to see if it can be published?
    An author has to go back and add in more diversity just to get published?
    Books to be considered for new movies and series will all have to have a mandated set amount of diversity?
    Once work is approved as been within a "male and pale" limit will further revisions be needed to remove more "male and pale" before a movie can be made?
    Will an artist have a say in how their work is further corrected?
    An artist freedom is now reduced to filling a quota of characters who are not "male and pale"?
    Will past art get rewritten to remove most male and pale roles?

  • Is winning an Oscar Relevant/Important? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @08:50PM (#56526089) Homepage

    I guess it is to Mr. Cameron, but in reality, does it matter if a Sci-Fi movie wins an Oscar (for anything)?

    We're living in a golden age of TV; CGI and more liberal rules regarding stories and content allow for longer, more engaging stories to be told that appeal to more specific audience. Movies are tied into a shorter time base with more restrictions on content with the expectation that there needs to be a definite punch that knocks the viewer out of their seat and is tweeting to their friends that they must see this movie NOW.

    Yesterday I saw "Ready Player One" and, despite not loving the book, the movie is engaging and fun - it is a true Spielberg movie that keeps your attention, gets a few smiles but won't make me think about it much afterwards. I can't think of anybody (including Mr. Cameron) that could have done it better. It will make a few hundred million dollars (like the latest Avengers or Star Wars) but non of them are worthy of any accolades (other than box office records).

    In the current world, I don't think Sci-Fi should be shooting for an Oscar as a standard for being good. I thought "Arrival" was very good with an interesting twist at the end - but I know of very few people who really understand what had really happened at the end with regards how Any Adams' character's perspective on everything had changed (left vague to avoid spoilers). The movie did win an Hugo and that's probably what Sci-Fi movies should shoot for - great Sci-Fi makes the reader/viewer think and challenge their views and perspectives on things.

    These are things I don't think movie execs/suits want.

    • Re:Is winning an Oscar Relevant/Important? (Score:4, Informative)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:01PM (#56526145) Journal
      I don't think the complaint is really accurate. Gravity won several academy awards and had a female lead. Passengers had a female star and was nominated for two academy awards. In the fantasy-science-fiction genre, Avatar had blue people and won multiple academy awards. TBH I don't really know what he is looking for......more science fiction romance? If you include science-fiction-fantasy as science fiction, then science fiction is fully mainstream now (Avengers for example).

  • Who cares about race and gender? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:08PM (#56526185)

    Does a story become good or bad because of the race or gender of the author?

    Does a movie become good or bad because of their race or gender?

    Does a piece of music become good or bad because of the race or gender of the player, the singer, the writer... whatever?

    It is irrelevant.

    The only issue here is "stale"... not pale or male. A white guy can write something everyone loves or write complete garbage. A black woman can write something everyone loves or complete garbage.

    No one really cares who you are. We care what you did.

    Now, on the issue of Cameron personally... Ironically he "IS" stale.

    Anyone see Avatar? The movie is dogshit on so many levels and its all his fault.

    The movie had top tier special effects which people loved. Great. Very pretty. But Cameron really didn't have anything to do with that besides getting money in the special effects budget.

    Terminator 2 is a cult classic as well as a huge commercial success. Titanic was a very popular romance movie.

    Avatar is whilst successful on release is widely regarded to be a bad movie and I don't see it having any legs in time.

    Cameron is stale. Not because of his race or gender. He just got old and lazy.

  • We need to fix those statistics! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:24PM (#56526249)

    Because a single number from a statistic tells the whole story, right? And when it comes to gender, everything must be 50:50, obviously. Hence I hereby demand that women stop giving birth to children, because that is the only way to fix that so far 100% of people giving birth are female! That cannot go on and obviously is an extreme problem!

    In other news, people that look at numbers without understanding are still morons.

    • Well, it is quite funny to see an american made serial playing in the early middle ages, like "Beowulf", and high percentage of woman in the "wrong jobs" as smith e.g. but much more funny is that 30% are black or asian. In the european middle ages! When you get used to it, it does not change the story much, but well, if I would made a movie about King Richard and Saladin, I make sure all europeans are as white as they can (or contain some spanish or italian warriors) and all of Saladins warriors are "arabic

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Well, the next step is revisionist history. That is if this does not already qualify. The stupidity of some people is staggering.

  • The sad puppies or whatever they were, were right. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday April 29, 2018 @09:36PM (#56526305) Journal

    The simple fact is that there is a dogmatic push to lay accolades on women and minorities having anything to do with science fiction.

    If there's filtering going on, ACTUALLY keeping them out of the field, that needs to stop.
    But what I strongly suspect - like sexism, racism, etc today - is that people are reacting to the way it was more than the way it IS.

    I personally feel handing someone an award preferentially because she has a vagina is as sexist and stupid as NOT handing it to her for the same reason. I think to assert that somehow the canon of Science Fiction literature is corrupted by the fact that it's mostly male and white is a sort of Stalinist revisionism. Yes, women shouldn't have been kept out (if they even were; I don't recall any ACTUAL evidence to that fact, imo) but that doesn't make the greats any less great, or mean we have to have X years of opposing bias to 'counterweight' the canon.

    How about we just enjoy books that we enjoy, and not give a shit about the chromosomal makeup of the author at all?

  • I chose SciFi b/c of story, not authors genitalia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gotan ( 60103 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @05:43AM (#56527965) Homepage

    My preferred SciFi authors are Iain M. Banks (Culture), C.J. Cherryh (Alliance, Chanur), David Brin (Uplift), Alan Dean Foster (Flinx, Spellsinger), Neal Stephenson. I like Stanislaw Lem and Arkadi and Boris Strugatzki for their unique style. Douglas Adams is a category for himself, as is Terry Pratchett. Films I very much liked are Bladerunner (after P.K. Dick) and Dune (Frank Herbert), Neuromancer (W. Gibson (Cyberpunk)), Enders Game (Orson Scott Card). I also like good fantasy, e.g. Mists of Avalon (Marion Zimmer-Bradley), Earthsea (Ursula .K. Le Guin).

    And sure, there are lots of authors not mentioned since I don't have all day.

    As evidenced above I really don't care if an author has a penis or a vagina, neither would I care if an author had both or neither. I don't care about an authors skin-, hair-, or eye-colour, ethnic background, lineage, weight or height.

    What I care about is the story. Does it interest me, is it well told.

    What I definitely don't want: Political correctness bullshit forced down my throat or a "quota" in my fiction.

    The ghostbusters reboot debacle is an indicator, that I'm not the only one with that sentiment. And no, not wanting to be fed pc-bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with "misogyny", but very much with not wanting to be served a heap of pure political propaganda with the transparent intention to "educate" the audience.

    There's no problem with fiction containing a "message", "1984", "Brave new world" and "Farenheit 451" are prime examples, but most SciFi includes a "vision" how society should or shouldn't be in the future. But it has to be put in a good, enjoyable story, leave me room to think for myself and avoid today's uptight pc bullshit.

  • Standard hyper-liberal thinker (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sqreater ( 895148 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @07:10AM (#56528289)
    Instead of females creatively aggressing their way to equal numbers the hyper-liberal thinks we have to artificially level the percentage participation. All that will do is allow a politically correct level of mediocrity. And "pale?" Wow. Does the hyper-liberal EVER perceive racism in himself? Can one say there is too much "dark" in rap? Of course not. Cameron is just another mindless male sociopathic feminist and a POC (person of color) racist fellow-traveler.

  • More women for manual labour (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syril ( 4954359 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @08:18AM (#56528621)
    We need more women working manual labour, I'm thinking a 50/50 distribution on construction, garbage truck duty, oil rigs, etc. this gross inequality has gone on far too long and women deserve their spot in the industry.

  • Fuck inappropriate social justice (Score:4, Informative)

    by strikethree ( 811449 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @09:38AM (#56529169) Journal

    Men and women are not the same. Both genders are "people", but there are interests and motivations that are different between the genderds. That being said, there is no reason to expect a 50/50 distribution of genders in any particular activity.

    Remove any active discrimination and let the cards fall where they may. The line of thinking that says that things must be 50/50 or they are unfair is only applied to areas where people might possibly see an advantage. This is unethical and discriminatory... the EXACT opposite of what all this bullshit is about.

    Just stop.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.

Close