• GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ah thank you for the correction. However they were not questioning the intelligence, they were questioning the morals of the comment op, as shown by their use of “actually

    Another correction, sexuality has nothing to do with the article. It’s specifically women, trans, and nonbinary people. Which is not targeting everyone except straight males.

    What is targeting straight males is the hiring departments in Hollywood. If you read the article, it said less than 6% of directors are women. That’s messed up. A third of speaking roles are women, trans, or nb. They are underrepresented by a long shot.

    Empowering is what the goal of this all is. It’s in the title.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I read different into their use of actually, but this is a peril of internet text based discussions.

      Make no mistake, I fully agree that Hollywood is sexist and racist. My issue is how quick we swing from “its not ok to hire based on race and gender” to “let’s focus on hiring and development based on race and gender”. Did one group get better off in the past - absolutely. But where is the line of it being acceptable to be racist and sexist - is it never ok or is it what society is ok with, putting us right back 30 years ago?