Thanks to Patterico, I saw this steaming load from the LA Times:
[A] new report from UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center . . . concludes that 69% of available acting roles are designed for white males, either explicitly or by unspoken consensus
Stop right there. No point in reading the rest, because we know this “report” is a pile of bovine manure. Let’s revisit that quotation:
[A] new report from UCLA’s Chicano Studies Research Center . . . concludes that 69% of available acting roles are designed for white males, either explicitly or by unspoken consensus
How, exactly, does one conclude how many roles are designed for white males (or frogs, for that matter) by unspoken consensus? Answer: One cannot conclude any such thing, if the decision is made by unspoken consensus. In other words, this is crap. Pure nonsense. Propaganda masquerading as “research.”
In a rare move, the LA Times printed a correction:
An article in Thursday’s Calendar Weekend about a report on race and gender in movie casting calls stated that 69% of roles were set aside for white men. It should have said the roles were set aside for white actors, including women.
It’s still a load of excrement. Then, of course, as Patterico states:
White Americans form 74.7% of the population in the country. If the movie industry is reserving 69% of the roles for whites, when whites are 74.7% of the population, it’s quite possible that the set-aside (if there really is one) actually harms white actors.
Indeed. And:
I’ll be away from the computer for a while, as I’m off to apply for an acting role. I need to get turned down for one before I can file my lawsuit.
Hey, there’s an idea …
