So many, unnecessary shots at Kidman … why?
It’s a movies community and so many people are rude.
Three things combined: woman, money, female empowerment. Most of the replies probably don’t even follow this comm, they just have to share their lukewarm thought about a woman encouraging female empowerment, by being negative.
Lemmy has a big problem with incel-like behavior/thought patterns. Has since I joined going on 2 years ago. The wave I was part of managed to drive off the majority of female users in under 6 months. Just like Reddit but without the popular-platform-userbase that allows some of that shit to be drowned out.
There’s a very large subset of users who don’t like women and want them to stfu and go away. And we female types see that in this sort of post, which is why the new exodus had to create or resurrect -any- femme-focused comm.
And if we keep this shit up they will be driven off in 6 mths again.
I would happily invest in unknown female filmmakers but there’s a small problem because I don’t seem to have any piles of investment money lying around.
Do you have enough to pay for a theatre ticket, if so then go to the theatre for something other than just Minecraft and MCU movies now and then. Thats support enough
You’re not a financial mentor then are you?
Sometimes a mentor is teaching you by example what not to do. So, y’know… You’re welcome.
That’s the thing. You’re supposed to start out with rich parents, that way you can invest and lose multiple times and not be bankrupted.
There’s onlyfans, but I don’t think that’s what you OR Nicole Kidman meant.
Combine that with getting rid of celebrity actors, this would be great. Need fresh faces.
Seriously, I don’t know any new actors anymore. It’s it just me getting old, or have all the kids gone into streaming and not acting?
Financial mentors are notoriously open to appeals to emotion, morality, and risk taking as a result.
Now, Mrs Kidman, I do have a solution, if I may call you Comrade Kidman.
Is it wierd for me to not want people to be chosen for a responsability that has nothing to do with gender (unlike actors and actresses, were the character being played usually is gendered) based on their gender?
If there is a gender inequality problem in this, I bet it’s the same as a lot of other areas with a similar kind of gender inequality: were people are given opportunities based on who they know and who their parents are - i.e. Cronyism - and those networks of mates mainly contain people of the male gender because of the enviroments were the form and the profession currently being dominated by that gender. However such an environment doesn’t explicitly disciminate against women, it discriminates against anybody who isn’t friend with the “right people” or doesn’t have the “right parents”, quite independently of them being male or female.
Maybe “Financial Mentors” should invest in Unknown Filmmakers in a gender agnostic way and “Take a Risk” - I bet that a lot of great new filmmakers who aren’t part of the “mates network” and happen to be female would gain from it, right alongside those who happen to not be female.
Honestly, “gender shouldn’t be relevant when it’s not relevant” is in the same vein as “all lives matter.”
Yeah. No shit.
Is it weird
Implying those statements are contentious is either ignorant or in bad faith.
Nepotism is a problem, sure, but racism and misogyny are also problems.
We should fix all the problems, and that’s a fight on many fronts. We should support anyone fighting for equal treatment.
The article itself clearly and unambiguously wants gender-specific hiring, so clearly some people believe that the problems of Discrimination are solved by Discriminating in a different direction.
The way I see it, more Discrimination with different beneficiaries is not an easy shortcut to fix the problems of Discrimination and the only way to fix it is the hard work of cracking down on the causes of Discrimination.
Judging not just by this Article and also by many discussions I’ve that view is definitely contentious, often because people think that “counter”-Discrimination will correct the effects of past Discrimination, which at times it does, only it does so by moving the problem around as the new Discrimination is itself unfair for both people who were never victims of the past Discrimination and don’t deserve the gains they will now get and for those who never gained from past Discrimination and are now unfairly sidelined by the new Discrimination.
This is not “past” discrimination. This is happening today.
We are CURRENTLY in a situation where women are discriminated against, and that’s a problem. Men who are less qualified are being hired over women who are more qualified. Denying that is either ignorance or bad faith.
The solution to that problem is to hire more women.
What risk is she talking about? When the world is running out of problems we need to create new ones once in a while…
Financial risk from investing in unknown filmmakers vs investing in something like a Steven Spielberg movie.
Funny thing is, it’s not a risk.
Nicole, blink three times if you want another film with a woman director.
I havnt watched anything noteworthy with her in a while
Wow, all your comments are this dumb. You should maybe get a real hobby.
