There are many, many things wrong with Hollywood. But among them is the “diversity” aka anti-White male craze. One of the more notable things to come out of the Hollywood Reporter story on the American Humane Association covering up animal cruelty and deaths from abuse and neglect by film-makers Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and many others is the complete absence of White males in the entire organization. This is not unusual.
Disney’s new Frozen animated film is entirely the result of female animators and directors. Women have many virtues. Being rebels, breaking with the herd, bucking trends, and challenging group-think is not one of them. For better and worse, if an industry and organization needs whistleblowers, mavericks, rebels, and challengers of the status quo, they need men. Specifically, White men. Diversity is a guarantee of herd-like behavior.
Hollywood, being corporate (just read the SEC Edgar 2012 Disney 10-K report showing $42 billion in annual (gross) revenue), loves women and “diverse” employees. Why? First, it gets the government, laywers, Jessie Jackson, NOW and other pressure groups off their back. Straight White males, not having pressure groups that punish (by making the government go after companies that fail to pander to them) are screwed over in the spoils war over preferences and pressure groups. But even more, women (and “diverse” people like gays and non-Whites) are better employees for the purposes of management. Which is, it must be noted, in empire building and maintaining their unchallenged position NOT making a profit.
Women in particular are not as ambitious as men, and the kind of women Hollywood attracts, bright but not terribly driven, attractive but not the greatest beauties, respectable but respectable in the mode of conventional, liberal, Mencius Moldbug “Cathedral” respectability (i.e. Harvard-Yale-Stanford-Media liberalism) are perfect for Hollywood.
Women won’t turn into Jim Profit, a machiavellian scheming murderer. Their ambition within places like Disney is to advance but not to the highest level, seeking better relationships over pure money. After all, a woman’s advantage in the most important aspect of her life, finding a father for her children, depends more on looks than status, power, and position. Where it is the opposite for men. Case in point: Giselle Bundchen aka Mrs. Tom Brady, versus say, Ric Ocasek.
Men are more risk-friendly while women are more risk averse. A man not born with status, power, and looks must take on risk to attract a mate. A woman need merely be pretty and marginally enhance her beauty or simply not detract from it. And while men can massively raise their mate value (see Mr. Ocasek) women cannot. This means for managers, women are unlikely to form a pool of challengers to the status quo and thus upend a comfortable lifestyle in senior management.
Yes, caveat, there exists and always has a very small pool of unorthodox women who challenge the status quo. But proportional to the population of women, this group of challenger women is much, much smaller than that of men. And White men form the most risk-friendly, most gambling, most challenging group of people. Believe me, this gets noticed. Most managers view challenges to the status quo as the Black Plague. And select accordingly.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, the AHA wanted most of all to be pals and associates with Hollywood and in particular major Hollywood players like Spielberg and Jackson. While men are not immune to this, major players and people in the know understand the built in incentives. A guy known for taking down a major player gains status and admiration far more than one who just becomes another suck-up courtier. Edward Snowden faces all sorts of real physical risks of assassination, from a President who boasts he’s “really good at killing people” with drones. But he also is admired for courage and integrity, for doing the right thing.
And here’s the thing. Men and women alike admire and respect courage in men. Snowden has pulled himself up to Obama’s level of fame just by the courage of keeping his convictions, that the US should not spy on everyone. And sacrificing a lot to make that public. To repeat, Snowden by courage alone has become famous, respected, and admired. Meanwhile his ex-girlfriend posts racy semi-naked pictures of herself online.
For non-White men, again their position is not one based on their success in risk taking, but simply being not White. Thus, their incentive is to not rock the boat and support the group-think that got them hired and promoted in the first place.
This is not to say that an organization comprised mostly of White guys is inoculated against group think and herd behavior. But having lots of White guys around ready to advance themselves by challenging received wisdom and big shots is necessary but not sufficient for avoiding lemmings off the cliff. Men like this need to be rewarded when they succeed. Not punished. But without the risk takers in the first place, no rewards system will work. All you get is hot dancers posting semi-naked pictures of themselves. Useful for lonely internet nerds perhaps but not of any use to an organization.
What is wrong with Hollywood is diversity. Pure and simple. The female-gay-non-White nexus promotes the very worst of organizational behavior. Fame worship and enabling, on the level of Dr. Conrad Murray. Group think and lemming behavior. A lack of any understanding of risk and rewards. Entrenching senior management which is good at empire building and protecting itself but not much of anything else. The same can be said of course of publishing, corporate America and the West as a whole, and government.
Steve Sailer wondered where all the technological improvements went. Since the 1980’s personal computer revolution, improvements in technology have been marginal. No flying cars, but crucially no real improvement in battery technology, in solar technology, and the like. No advancements in materials science other than marginal improvements. Nothing order of magnitude better. The way the gasoline engine was orders of magnitudes more powerful and lighter than a steam engine.
In this I think the influx of women into the workforce and the bias of corporate masters for non-risk friendly women and non-Whites has had a major influence in the slowing to a snails pace of technological decline. Advancements in technology require risk, and for every success about ten failures. Just as Hollywood has become risk averse to the point of disaster, preferring the situation where a few mega-blockbusters bomb to potentially sink a studio, to having lots of small projects that COULD be blockbusters, half of which fail to no great loss and half of which succeed, so too has much of corporate and government in the West.
People matter. And the kinds of people who run things in corporate and government America matters. You will never find risk and advancement through diversity.