The new Tron: Ares got me thinking just how common Hollywood sex offender blockbuster stars are, compared to women in leading roles. Then I realized the same is true for directors, producers and whatnot. Then I realized that's probably true as well for all official or otherwise roles of responsibility in companies, churches, any sort of union and everything else.

It's insane our society looks like that.

top 52 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60 points 1 year ago (21 children)

I wonder if this could be proven with data.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    None of those links do anything to discredit the claim, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    That's if you automatically assume the claim is true without evidence, though. Which wasn't the original commenter's position. The original position was whether you could prove OPs titular claim with data.

    Thus far? The answer seems to be "Nope."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That's because thus far no one has provided any data that's relevant to either side of the argument.

    Aggregated lists of the "best" blockbusters with women leads are irrelevant to the discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Then why take it as given that the claim needs to be proven false, rather than the other way around? Your mind seems to be made up before any reliable proof has even been presented.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I did no such thing. That's you extrapolating incorrectly.

    Literally all I said was that the provided information isn't relevant to the discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, you said it doesn't prove that the claim is false. Which isn't even what they did. They expressed doubt and provided links supporting their doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And my point was that their links didn't support their doubt.

    Pointing out someone's argument is flawed doesn't mean you support the other side of the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Did it not? It showed, at the very least to them, that there were a large number of female led blockbusters. To have more sexual predators in lead roles than that would take quite a significant amount. Certainly leads to doubt in my mind.

    Why, in your opinion, is their opinion invalid because of this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Of course it does. The links show there's a huge number of blockbusters with women leads. So the onus is on the person making the original claim for it to be believed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    But a high number of blockbusters with female leads still doesn't contradict the claim.

    The claim wasn't that there aren't any blockbusters with female leads, it was that there are more with men who are also sexual predators.

    And those links don't even show that there's a high number of blockbusters with female leads. They're just an aggregated list of the best profitable movies with female leads. You need to have the grand total of blockbusters, and the total number of blockbusters with female leads to draw that conclusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    So youre saying it doesn't prove anything, and thus OPs original claim is yet to be proven false. Or more importantly, proven true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes, I'm saying the data provided has no relevance to the discussion one way or the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You mostly seem to be saying that OPs claim is absolute truth until proven otherwise. Which is a wild stance to take when, thus far, no proof has been given.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Please provide a quote of me making a statement regarding the validity of either side of the claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But a high number of blockbusters with female leads still doesn’t contradict the claim.

    Why do they need to contradict a claim you purport not to support?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I answered that in the comment you quoted.

    You need to learn that criticizing the validity someone's argument isn't support for the other side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You need to learn to figure out what an argument is after you read a comment. They never purported to prove that OPs assertion was absolutely false, as you claim, it was to express doubt that it was real.

    Your argument was as valid as the argument you imagined they had was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    You need to learn what an argument is.

    Saying you doubt a claim and providing evidence for your doubts is an argument against the validity of the claim.

    My saying that the evidence you provided doesn't support your doubt is a valid criticism and doesn't mean I support the claim you're doubting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    wait until you find out about billionaires and presidents

    if women want to be equal in society, then why do they lead fewer criminal pedophile conspiracies?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Pizzagate was a wild leap forward in social equality " is one hell of a take

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 55 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Respectfully and gently, this sounds like confirmation bias. Do we have any non-anecdotal supportive data? Or anything more substantial than "this just feels kind of right"?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yup this is truthiness rather than truth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Agreed but it is just a shower thought; I'm not sure we need to hold shower thoughts to a high standard of capital T Truth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Anything presented as a factual claim needs to be true. OP didn't pose it as a shower thought, they presented it as if it was a fact. A shower thought would be "I think there might be..."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    What "comm" are you referring to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "Comm" generally refers to "Community", roughly analogous to a "subreddit" or "subforum". It refers, in this case, to the /c/showerthoughts community we're currently in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    K, and what's your point? You apparently haven't read the other comments on this page

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    My guy, I'm just letting you know what they meant by "Comm" because you seemed to be confused by it. I think their argument is generally fallacious at best, and disingenuous at worst.

    Though, I suppose it's understandable to feel attacked when that seems to be all people want to do in here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Executive producers usually have overall control of the process, including cast selection in which they can override the casting director and pick their bias actor.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I think having an easy time to get girls can cause a guy to treat them badly. Probably the same for girls, but girls dont have the physical capability to hurt a man the same way.

    If they did, we would see the same thing i believe. Its not really about gender, its just that men are physically stronger. Women are just as bad as men when it comes to being evil. Its actually more obvious today due to social media also.

    The days when girls were seen as little loving beautiful princesses are pretty much over today. They treat men like garbage just as much as the other way around.

    I guess its human nature for some people to become evil.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    The sex predator gender?

    Oof, it doesn't sound so good when you complete that thought out loud...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    You being a bigot twoards men only helps maintain the patriarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Good people are too busy to become celebrities.

    Think of the drama/music losers in high school, then think what they would do if they were popular all of a sudden.

    You can say the same about athletes but they’re usually popular already and just pricks.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)