Animated Movies Give Women More Leadership Roles, Study Finds 動畫片提供女性 更多出頭機會
The movie business has been famously tough on women, who have found themselves excluded from key roles throughout the decision-making and creative processes.
But in parts of the animation industry, women have thrived. Women hold half of the leadership positions at the major film animation companies, new research has found. And, of the top 120 animated films over the last dozen years, nearly four in 10 had female producers, which is more than double the number of women who produced live-action films in that time.
Still, the study, released by the Annenberg Inclusion Initiative at the University of Southern California, showed a mixed bag, especially for women of color, who accounted for just 5 percent of producers on those top animated films.
Women also remained the minority in a slew of key roles elsewhere in animation.
As cherished as such animated characters as Moana, Elsa (“Frozen”) and Judy Hopps (“Zootopia”) are, they are also rarities. Less than a fifth — 17 percent — of the 120 top animated movies from 2007 to 2018 had female leads.
The figures stand in contrast to the number of women who are clearly hoping — and training — to rise in the business.
According to the study, about two-thirds of the students enrolled in animation programs at several top feeder schools in recent years were female. Women also directed roughly half of the animated shorts at several major film festivals in the last few years.
Probing further, researchers found that many women trying to work their way up in the animation business reported that their workplaces heavily favored and promoted men, and left them feeling less valued and recognized.
The researchers said their findings indicate that the animation industry, as with so many others, is governed by a culture of “homophily” — employers’ “birds of a feather” tendency to prefer people who are just like them.
“In this case, the male-dominated nature of animation means that women feel excluded,” the report said, adding, “If the respondents to our survey and interviews are to be believed, the animation industry privileges stereotypes over skills.”
The Gerrymandering Ruling and the Risk of a Monopoly on Power 美最高院挺選區自劃 一黨壟斷風險升
At some point or another over the last decade, Democrats have won the most votes but lost national elections for the presidency, the House and the Senate.
Partisan gerrymandering is just one of the reasons the Democrats are at such a disadvantage. But the Supreme Court’s decision on gerrymandering last month came as long-term political and demographic trends threaten to put Democrats at an even greater disadvantage in the Senate and perhaps also the presidency.
It’s even possible to imagine a future in which Republicans could effectively claim a monopoly on federal power despite continued weakness in the national vote.
Sustained minority rule — within the bounds of the Constitution — is not an imminent peril. After all, Democrats recaptured the House in November despite partisan gerrymandering. But the risk is real, and even if it does not materialize it might strain American democracy.
So on one hand, the ruling — which said federal courts can’t bar partisan gerrymandering — merely preserves the status quo. But it also closes off one way, arguably the easiest way, that the risk of minority rule might have been reduced.
Over the last few decades, American politics has become increasingly polarized along geographic lines. Cities now overwhelmingly back Democrats; the countryside increasingly backs Republicans, although by less lopsided margins.
These biases can be unintentional. Democrats, for instance, lost the 2016 election by the margin of the Florida Panhandle and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, and the 2000 election by the margin of the Panhandle. It’s an accident of 19th-century history that these regions did not end up being part of Alabama and Wisconsin instead.
But even more consequential shifts can result from the intentional manipulation of district lines for partisan gain.
Either party can benefit from partisan gerrymandering. But Republicans generally have an easier time of it than Democrats, who waste millions of votes by winning lopsided margins in urban districts that pad their popular vote tallies without yielding additional seats. The GOP, in contrast, wastes fewer votes in the countryside, where Republicans generally win by smaller margins.
There is no guarantee that this bias will persist. If Republicans keep gaining in rural areas and Democrats keep gaining in the suburbs, Republicans might find themselves at an underlying disadvantage in the House.