Nicole Kidman Has Now Worked With 27 Women Directors in 8 Years; She Urges ‘Financial Mentors’ to Invest in Unknown Female Filmmakers and ‘Take a Risk’ : movies

[-] [email protected] 29 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So many, unnecessary shots at Kidman ... why?

It's a movies community and so many people are rude.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Aye the trinity of Lemmy Echochambers: Anti-woman, Anti-religion and Linux.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Replies to the upvoted call-out comment.

"Fucking echo chamber"

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Echochamberception

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

I was calling your comment dumb.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

echochamberdumbception

[-] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

You’re not a financial mentor then are you?

[-] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago

Sometimes a mentor is teaching you by example what not to do. So, y'know... You're welcome.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

There's onlyfans, but I don't think that's what you OR Nicole Kidman meant.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago

Combine that with getting rid of celebrity actors, this would be great. Need fresh faces.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

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?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Those are incredibly impressive numbers I had no idea she was even in that many things over the last few years. Statistics from the article are promising too, women directed features are up from 4% to 13%. Hopefully that trend continues. There also seems to be lots of opportunity on the TV side as well. Mythic quest has been promoting lots of women directors in the last two seasons.

[-] [email protected] -4 points 3 weeks ago

Funny thing is, it’s not a risk.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

We are CURRENTLY in a situation where people from the "wrong" social groups are discriminated against, and that’s a problem. People who are less qualified are being hired over people who are more qualified. Denying that is either ignorance or bad faith.

The solution to that problem is to hire people ON MERIT ALONE

Gender is not merit and is not competence, and yet here you are claiming unironically that to "solve" the problem that people are chosen on the base of gender, people should be chosen on the base of gender.

How about making sure that people are not being chosen on the basis of gender?!

Your "solution" just moves the unfairness around, still hiring because of chromosses they were born with some people who didn't deserve to be hired and not hiring because of the chromossomes they were born with some other people who did deserve to be hired, fully preserving the unfairness of gender-based hiring, but being unfair to different people (and not those individuals who gained from previous unfairness, which would be just, just those who happen to have been born with some chromossomes similar to some otherwise totally unrelated individuals who benifited from the previous direction of Discrimination).

As I wrote earlier, you can't Discriminate your way out of Discrimination.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Which people, motherfucker??

Again, no shit. Everyone thinks we should be hiring on merit alone.

We can't just wave a magic wand and say "don't discriminate." We need to identify WHO is not being hired based on merit and then take real actions to make sure that they're hired fairly.

The subtext of anti-DEI is that white men are being discriminated against. The evidence for that is that many white men are struggling financially. And I agree, white men are struggling!

To fix that problem, we need to understand the cause of it.

White men are not struggling because of DEI. They are not struggling because of programs designed to fix discrimination. There are plenty of cases where folks overcorrected, and they shouldn't have, but those programs do not cause the systemic problems that white men are dealing with. Ending those programs will not help white men, because they are not the cause.

White men are struggling because they live in a system where their bosses want them to work longer hours for less pay. Every product they buy is designed to maximize shareholder ROI, so prices are jacked up. You no longer own things, you subscribe to them, even houses. White men, along with everyone else, are being squeezed on all sides by corporations seeking maximum profits.

Ending DEI is the wrong solution to a real problem. It is a distraction.

The corporations that run this country don't want you to think they're the real cause. They need you to believe that maximizing profits is good, actually. They've built up a mythology that keeps you from seeing them as the cause of your suffering.

If they're fucking people over, "it's just business" and we stop asking questions.

They need you to believe that your suffering is caused by something else, ANYTHING else, because people WILL fix their problem.

DEI. Woke. Immigration. Nobody wants to work anymore. Feminism. Welfare queens. Trans folks. Abortion. Please, dear god, anything but capitalism.

Bernie Sanders got the closest. His campaign resonated with millions of people because he was accurately identifying some of the worst symptoms of capitalism. And Democrats killed his campaign to run Hilary, because they would rather lose than help people.

The two parties work together to advance capitalism. Republicans are the party of throwing wrong ideas at the wall and seeing which ones stick with people. Democrats act outraged at the ideas that don't catch on, and quietly concede the ones that do (e.g. immigration). It's the ratchet effect, and the result is that political news is inundated with arguments about things that don't matter.

Capitalism is the cause of the problems that people have. There are many solutions, but labor unions are easy to recommend to almost everyone.

[+] [email protected] -11 points 3 weeks ago

I havnt watched anything noteworthy with her in a while

[-] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Wow, all your comments are this dumb. You should maybe get a real hobby.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

fuck you german nazi cunt, Dont you have another genocide to support?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

[+] [email protected] -13 points 3 weeks ago

What risk is she talking about? When the world is running out of problems we need to create new ones once in a while...

[-] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Financial risk from investing in unknown filmmakers vs investing in something like a Steven Spielberg movie.

[+] [email protected] -14 points 3 weeks ago

Nicole, blink three times if you want another film with a woman director.