To sum up that story, what tipped me off was that whenever
film students pointed out how movies/shows for, by or about
women had indeed profited, film professionals wouldn’t hear
it.
The author doesn't understand opportunity cost. There may be plenty of opportunities to profit by making movies that feature women, appeal to women, etc. But Hollywood (that is, the big, well-heeled studies) aren't just interested in any kind of profit; they're interested in huge profits.
Warren Buffet could stand on a street corner selling loosies (individual cigarettes) and turn a profit. But that would be a waste of his time. He could make far more money doing other stuff.
Take into account opportunity cost and you can understand how somebody could turn a profit but still effectively be losing money. And why professional filmmakers would ignore the students' seemingly bullet-proof argument.
And that's ignoring other issues like volatility, consistency, etc.
I'm not saying there's not systemic, irrational discrimination in Hollywood. But the author isn't going to get anywhere with her critiques until she understands the problem better.
And if she and the rest of us don't understand these issues better, if we don't become better adept at untangling our various motives, we're going to continue having a tough time not only addressing discrimination, but having constructive discussions about it.
That's it in a nutshell. They know they can make hundreds of millions of dollars with yet another superhero movie. Why bother with something that's going clear at best single-digit millions and has a good chance of losing money?
Wow, if ever there was an article contorted by an agenda, it's this one. An application of Hanlon's razor surely wouldn't hurt (and fits well with the hair cutting "example").
She even admits that laziness or inertia is a pretty good explanation for the hair phenomenon - but clearly, "it is a side effect of Western racism"! While there certainly has been issues for minorities because of the dominance of Western beauty ideals, this is a pretty lazy argument in itself. Especially since some ethnic haircuts were a successful, direct response to this.
And, oh yeah, it must be "the industry" colluding against everybody - never mind that most barbers and hairdressers are just people making a living. Maybe the solution is to stop going to a "stylist" in a city and find a local hairdresser in your neighbourhood - but that, of course, takes effort.
From there on, it just keeps getting worse with the unfounded paranoia, e.g. asserting that "TV advertisers don’t seem to want to know [...] what types of ads women respond to" without any facts. I'm going to call BS.
Warren Buffet could stand on a street corner selling loosies (individual cigarettes) and turn a profit. But that would be a waste of his time. He could make far more money doing other stuff.
Take into account opportunity cost and you can understand how somebody could turn a profit but still effectively be losing money. And why professional filmmakers would ignore the students' seemingly bullet-proof argument.
And that's ignoring other issues like volatility, consistency, etc.
I'm not saying there's not systemic, irrational discrimination in Hollywood. But the author isn't going to get anywhere with her critiques until she understands the problem better.
And if she and the rest of us don't understand these issues better, if we don't become better adept at untangling our various motives, we're going to continue having a tough time not only addressing discrimination, but having constructive discussions about it.