A few months ago we blogged (here and here) about a research report we received from the See Jane organization, which highlighted the massive gender imbalance among characters in family films. We also cited a similar imbalance among our own creative ranks, with far more men than women working as story artists, directors, writers, and so on.
Those posts generated, by a wide margin, the biggest responses of anything we've ever put on this blog. It was clear that these related subjects needed to be followed up, and so we're co-sponsoring a panel discussion with See Jane on the subject of Where the Girls Aren't. . .
The panel will be Thursday, Oct. 12, from 6:30 to 9 pm, at the Buena Vista Branch Library at 300 North Buena Vista St. in Burbank*. We have a fantastic panel: Geena Davis, who started this whole ball rolling by founding See Jane; Brenda Chapman, Pixar story artist and director; Dean De Blois, co-writer and co-director of Disney's Lilo and Stitch; Jenny Lerew, DreamWorks story artist and animation historian; and Fred Seibert, president and executive producer of Frederator Studios (and possibly Jill Culton, co-director of SPA's Open Season, if she can make it to a DGA discussion of her film later that evening). I will be your humble moderator.
Frankly I think this will be a watershed event. I'm really not sure where it will lead, but I know it's important that we as creative professionals discuss these topics, and take the lead in whatever changes need to be made. So come on out and share your thoughts and energy as we discuss the whys and whereofs the lack of females in family films, and among the ranks of animation creators.
Posts
26 comments:
this whole issue is a ridiculous slippery slope of politically correct beancounting.
remember to ask just what all time classic animated films inspired those artists (along with countless people in the world) to fall in love with animation, and how they somehow escaped the neafarious influence of this preposterous perceived injustice of BACKGROUND CHARACTER demographics.
thruth be told this is bordering on an extreme feminist cause platformed by the union.
Let's suppose that after all the efforts succeed and you do get a parity of character gender in films, say, ten years from now or less...
I still think there will be less females interested in working in the animation field!!
Unfortunately...
Well, it's fun comments like these that make me wonder just how happy an audience we may get tomorrow night! Kevin--should I put an apple on my head? ; )
Look-the way I see it, this is nothing more nor less than an open discussion of interesting facts. We can ignore them, apply opinions and conclusions, or not...no one's forcing any type of agenda, for pity's sake. I have no agenda...but at the very least it's damned interesting that in a society(american)that's made up of 50-50 men and women, the film and animation industries AND the products of those industries show the world as being something like 7% female, all around,. It's just interesting. What's the problem with talking about the whys and wherefores and the "I don't knows" of it all?
I don't know if anonymous #2 is the same writer as anonymous #1, but anyway-#2: why do you think there will be less females "interested" in working in animation? I don't think the gender parity of the animated characters has anything to do with attracting more girls to animation as a career, they're two different deals, but the statement you make seems to suggest that "it will be ever thus" in the animation industry, and I wonder why one would think that is a given forevermore? Personally, I'd be happy to see the numbers of women employed in our business approach something above 20% at least...why not? But perhaps we'll talk about all that tomorrow night.
Jenny, I'm with you. It seems for some people that by simply calling attention to a patently unfair imbalance that we've crossed some line. While many people seem to have very reasonable reactions to the See Jane study data,and to the Guild's own employment data, it's responses like the first one that show us our society hasn't come nearly as far as we like to think.
Frankly, no one's ever called me a feminist, but I do have an acute sense of fairness, so tomorrow night I'm happy to put that apple on my head, too.
I encourage anyone who's being too quick to project their own issues onto this subject reread Jenny's second paragraph above. Reread it a couple of times. That's all we're doing -- discussing and exploring some surprising and interesting (and possibly important) facts. It's not about "extreme" feminism or setting up censorship boards to count characters.
Here are some of the crucial issues for me:
- Are there unintentional barriers that keep women from choosing animation as a career, or that keep them from rising to positions of influence once they get their foot in the door?
- Are there valid reasons that so many studios avoid using female characters, or that female stereotypes tend to prevail when female characters are used?
- Does the overwhelming gender imbalance in animated characters mean anything to the huge numbers of girls who grow up watching the shows we produce?
- Simply put, should we care about any of this, and if we should, where do we go from here?
I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do have some thoughts, and I know a lot of other people do too.
Finally, it distresses me that the reactions of many men tends to be the diametric opposite of most women when this subject is brought up -- that alone tells me that it's a far more important topic than many people want to acknowledge.
this isn't feminist at all, it's just a slice of life unfortunate truth. I don't percieve this as women trying to take over or men trying to keep them down. What matters most is the art and love of doing it. there shouldn't be any boundries gender or other wise.
Lets just make good films!
making good films is what we all want to do.
the problem is that when a political agenda for "fairness" is infused into the system and invariably restricts creativity, making good films gets harder and harder to do.
we already went round robin on this and i defy anyone to tell me that there aren't endearing, strong, lead female characters in animated movies during the last 25 years.
there are.
this study is obsessing itself with secondary and background characters in beancounting.
then we can look at the See Jane statement:
"This pattern may be teaching girls and boys that the lives of males and their stories are more important and valuable than those of females," Dr. Smith adds.
"Fortunately, this pattern is reversible," says Geena Davis. "At the See Jane Program, we look forward to working with writers and producers, directors and actors, animators and sponsors to encourage projects that more accurately reflect the real world our kids live in - a world shared by boys and girls, men and women."
^ if thats not forcing an agenda then idon't know what is.
here's my beef, if See Jane wants more movies with an unrealistic makeup of men an women...
(yes there is a 50/50 breakdown of genders in our society, but is there that ratio in crowds on the street? in everyday social circles? in every workplace? no)
...then they can go and make their own movies, fund their own projects, create content.
when they try to jump on the backs of creative people and second guess their passion with politically correct nitpicking is when i take offense. our industry should take offense because this kind of invasive quota creating is a slippery slope plain and simple.
whats next?
are we going to edit Dr. Seuss' books because there isn't an adequate gender breakdown? those books are read to children of formative age all over the world. are they responsible for furthering this percieved bias? does "Go Dog Go" fall be the wayside because there aren't enough female dogs?
and what about the makeup of female executives in the animation industry? its quite high you know...
with that in mind why do we need a 50/50 breakdown of talent that doesn't even enter into the major decision making process for characters...
am i allowed to ask for more male executives?
this whole issue is an intellectual foul ball
Thanks, Dave, for the balanced comments.
To anon, why is this "political"? I don't see it as such in any way. And why, when we bring this up, do some people jump to the idea that draconian, restrictive mechanisms will be inserted into the creative process? No one has suggested anything of the sort.
The issue also is not that there have never been any decent female roles in films, or that there have never been women in key creative positions in our field. Of course there have. They've just been amazingly rare given the 50-50 population distribution.
By the way, read the study again. It looked at lead roles, secondary roles, and background characters. To continually mischaracterize it the way you're doing I think betrays your own adgenda more than it offers valid criticism.
But hey, if you want to pretend this is about somebody subjecting you to some quota (which it isn't), or pretend that society isn't in fact made of up equal portions of males and females (which it is), then what can anyone say that will have an impact on you?
did it really look at lead roles? as the head of the animation union, do you REALLY believe that there is a glaring lack of fulfilling female lead roles in animated films?
because just off the top of my head....
little mermaid
pocohantas
lilo and stitch
beauty and the beast
princess monanoke
triplets of belleville(an entirely female cast)
spirited away
finding nemo
and i'm sure there's more i'm forgetting. there is a wealth of lead female roles in animated films. there are more than in any other genre of film and at any other time in the history of cinema.
you're the head of the union for crying out loud and you can't recount this simple fact?!!?! i think it reflects more poorly on you than on me.
and this IS a feminist issue. the end result of this issue is to push female roles into the creative process for the simpe fact that they are female roles. the study done by SeeJane does not cite any conclusive valid evidence that the percieved absence of female roles is detrimental to children, thats something you're just going to have to trust them on. (!) their goal is to have more women represented in a workplace that has a long and established history of hiring the best talent available. thats been our standard, but the gender breakdown goals will muddy that water.
the worst part about this is that its a feminist issue disguised as a children's issue, which painst anyone who disputes it as a bad guy.
if there was truly a stark and unsettling absence of female roles in animated films, then i would be right here supporting the cause, but what we have instead is a politically correct "nanny think" organization looking to subsidize the creative process and hiring practices with a study that is dubious at best.
SeeJane's longterm goals:
---------------------
"On average, half of all characters (both major and minor) in the most viewed media made for young children (under 11 years old) will be female."
"Both female and male characters will display a range of attributes/qualities and will not be limited by traditional gender stereotypes."
"Entertainment creators will make these goals integral to the projects they choose to produce."
"Parents and educators will actively demand and selectively purchase media products that meet the first two goals."
thats a lot to swallow right there.
a mass homogenization of children's entertainment that puts a premium on gender above all other attributes.
i hope animators reading this website have pitches that follow that framework or it might be frowns all around from SeeJane's 9 woman (and one man) advisory board.
Did the study look at lead roles? Don't take my word for it -- you're free to read the study yourself. There's a reason the study was done the way it was (i.e., looking at the top 101 G-rated films released in the last 15 years and counting ALL the leads, ALL the secondary characters, and so on) -- because to do as you're doing, and trying to prove a case by citing a tiny handful of memorable examples, is inherently biased.
And your examples are interesting. Of the 8 films you listed, 3 were made outside the US, and had virtually zero box office in here (by the way, I think you may have seen a different version of Triplets, since the one I saw had a male lead and plenty of male characters). Those same three films were also rated PG or PG-13, and so weren't included in the study by See Jane. (Finding Nemo also had two male leads -- it was the story of a father and his son.)
See Jane could have done as you're doing, and cited 8 films with zero female roles, or only the most paltry stereotyped female roles. Would that have proven their case?
What they did do was examine at every recent G-rated film they could get their hands on. I'm sure there are films in there that have great female roles. It's inevitible. But if it's only a small fraction of those films, as they found, doesn't that seem like an imbalance? Do you really think that's fair and reasonable? Shouldn't we also make films for our daughters as well as for our sons?
It's also interesting that you cite our industry as having "a long and established history of hiring the best talent available..." That might come as news to the many women who were told a few decades ago that their only animation job option was ink and paint. I know, I know, that's ancient history. I do believe our industry is almost entirely a meritocracy now, but it hasn't been that way for terribly long. I've talked to some of the women who made careers in animation in the 60s and 70s -- it wasn't easy, and only the most determined and talented ever were allowed to get the best positions. You may be of the opinion that that kind of bias disappears in a generation, but talking to women in our industry today, I'm not so sure.
Interesting that you think AVOIDING stereotypical portrayals leads to homogenized entertainment.
Frankly, I find the way we've been doing things recently has produced remarkably homogenized animated films.
Kevin...
"There's a reason the study was done the way it was (i.e., looking at the top 101 G-rated films released in the last 15 years and counting ALL the leads, ALL the secondary characters, and so on) -- because to do as you're doing, and trying to prove a case by citing a tiny handful of memorable examples, is inherently biased."
wrong. i'm giving consideration to movies that were blockbusters and seen by the most kids. the 101 TOP g-rated films in 15 years??? is that a joke? what are the films that didn't make the cut?
were there any? in 1994 were there even 6.6 animated films released?
pay attention, because this is one of the many instances that make this study questionable right from the get go.
i would contest that what they are doing is calculating every release as having an equal audience and THAT is inherently biased. perhaps the study could have been executed in a more intelligent manner. but that might have skewed the results...
imagine if they actually considered ticket sales for "Mulan" with GASP! a female lead.. they couldn't sound the alarm bells quite as loudly.
"And your examples are interesting. Of the 8 films you listed, 3 were made outside the US, and had virtually zero box office in here"
tut tut TUT Kevin... you just said box office doesn't matter! we are considering 'ALL the leads, ALL the secondary characters, and so on'. you can't have it both ways.
"by the way, I think you may have seen a different version of Triplets, since the one I saw had a male lead and plenty of male characters"
did you seriously just write that?
from IMDB:
--------
When her grandson is kidnapped during the Tour de France, Madame Souza and her beloved pooch Bruno team up with the Belleville Sisters to rescue him.
you're wrong AGAIN. rent this movie because you obviously haven';t seen it. its very good and worth your time.
"Finding Nemo also had two male leads -- it was the story of a father and his son."
"Finding Nemo" is built on the relationship between a boy fish and a girl fish in search of a kid. the pathos, the story structure, the character development and everything about the movie venters on a male and a female lead. if there was ever a movie that SeeJane would praise for ideal gender based roles it would be "Finding Nemo".
"What they did do was examine at every recent G-rated film they could get their hands on. I'm sure there are films in there that have great female roles. It's inevitible. But if it's only a small fraction of those films, as they found, doesn't that seem like an imbalance? Do you really think that's fair and reasonable? Shouldn't we also make films for our daughters as well as for our sons?"
the study itself is what doesn't seem fair and reasonable. it seems consummately subjective and slanted with twisted perceptions of what is a good female role and what is a bad one. its a stacked deck. here's my problem with this study:
it was conducted by an organization with a point to prove.
that is the number one tell tale sign of bad research. there is no other red flag bigger than that. it upsets me that the animation union has invested so much time and energy eagerly investing 100% faith in study that would set off alarm bells in any thinking person's brain.
its not an objective study.
its not a valid study.
"That might come as news to the many women who were told a few decades ago that their only animation job option was ink and paint. I know, I know, that's ancient history. I do believe our industry is almost entirely a meritocracy now, but it hasn't been that way for terribly long. I've talked to some of the women who made careers in animation in the 60s and 70s -- it wasn't easy, and only the most determined and talented ever were allowed to get the best positions. You may be of the opinion that that kind of bias disappears in a generation, but talking to women in our industry today, I'm not so sure."
your overwhelming guilt and regret about sins of the past in our industry is palpable, but i don't care. your job as union chief is not to put effort into a soft spined reparations angle on hiring. you represent workers in the here and now and while you are to remain vigillant against current gender bias in hiring practices, you seem obsessed with hand wringing over past discrimination. in this aspect you are not representing your union members, but misusing your position and being blinded personal feelings. keep past discrimination as histroical fact worthy of our attention and not a resurrected issue you are trying to pay a penance for - because i didn't discriminate against female workers and neither did any of the union members you represent.
your attitude increasingly suggests that you are treating your position as a right and not a privilige.
"Interesting that you think AVOIDING stereotypical portrayals leads to homogenized entertainment."
i think forced parity of genders equals stagnation. i understand that some stories have more men than women and vice versa and i don't want my creativity to be constricted by a NONcreative organization unrelated to my industry who justify their intrusion with a biased study.
"Frankly, I find the way we've been doing things recently has produced remarkably homogenized animated films."
in some manners you might be correct but you lack the foresight to see what the sanitized directives above will bring.
I've only read the first few paragraphs above, and they are so full of gross misrepresentations of the See Jane study and of the statements I've made that I don't see the point in continuing this exchange.
true, it is a lot to read.
then let me restate just this:
here's my problem with this study-
it was conducted by an organization with a point to prove.
that is the number one tell tale sign of bad research. there is no other red flag bigger than that. it upsets me that the animation union has invested so much time and energy eagerly putting so much faith in study that would set off alarm bells in any thinking person's brain.
As someone with a Ph.D. who has published peer reviewed research, I can tell you the study in question is extremely straightforward. The results speak for themselves. Since See Jane has published the list of films they studied, you can verify their results easily enough (not that it wouldn't be time consuming . . .).
here's my problem with this study-
it was conducted by an organization with a point to prove.
that is the number one tell tale sign of bad research. there is no other red flag bigger than that. it upsets me that the animation union has invested so much time and energy eagerly putting so much faith in study that would set off alarm bells in any thinking person's brain.
I'm hard pressed to think of any study anywhere that doesn't have a preconceived point to prove. Heck, Anonymous, you obviously have a preconceived notion about women in entertainment, in that you think everything's hunky dory. Though I'm not particularly alarmed at the lack of creative women in the animation field, I do think it's interesting that there aren't a whole lot of them out there.
You can take the See Jane study at face value, or you can look at what See Jane says, then look at what's going on in the animation industry, maybe even talk to women about it, and then come to a conclusion. Hopefully one that doesn't sound as knee-jerk reactionist as what you've been posting.
The evening went very well, and I have to give a HUGE thanks to our panelists, and our audience, for making this such a success.
Thanks to Geena for founding See Jane and sponsoring the research that got us all thinking (and for being a pivotal part of some great films).
Thanks to Jenny and Dean for putting yourselves out there with your experiences and thoughts on a subject too many people don't want to address.
Thanks to Fred for giving the perspective from TV and shorts production -- you gave some crucial counterpoints to much of the discussion.
Special thanks to Brenda for coming down from Emeryville (and for being such a pioneer at such a young age), and to Jill for putting such importance on the topic and this event that you came despite having your own film sceening at the same time at the DGA.
Thanks to Crystal and Nancy and the See Jane folks for helping put this together.
And thanks to the audience, which was filled with some real industry stalwarts and pioneers and up-and-comers, for supporting the event, and for making some great comments during the discussion.
I felt a real energy buzzing through people as we were ushered out, and I think we planted some seeds that will germinate soon.
Anonymous #1,2,3,4 et al - Are you worried a woman might take your job? Is that why you're putting up such a stink?
I don't feel at all threatened about loosing my job to a person of the opposite gender. You're such a looser for thinking this way.(thinking that I'm a bigot and afraid and such)
Like I said, it is unforunately that there are so few women in the field.
Let me put a little more clear. I'm a single dude, and I don't have many oportunities to meet single ladies outside work.
Ok,ok, I know about dating in the office and such...some people have rules agaisnt that, and quite frankly it's not the topic of this blog. But hey, it doesn't help when there are no single ladies around either...
Anonymous#2
anonymous #1 here -
are you suggesting people in our industry hire people based on their sex?
because i don't see ANY evidence of that being the case. none.
there are more male doctors than female doctors too - should we get a study together on that? because there has just GOT to be some kind of wrong being done for that to happen right?
same with mechanics, animal trainers, merchant marines, and countless other professions that don't have an "adequate breakdown" of genders.
and to be fair, i'd like to know why there aren't an equal number of men represented in the largely female dominated fields of fashion design, real estate agents, and preschool teachers.
where do i level my outrage at this unfair discrimination!
let me be clear:
men and women are DIFFERENT.
i'm not saying this from some old fashioned mentality, i'm saying it from accepted science and proven research. we are different genders and like every other animal on the planet we have different unique talents, perceptions intuitions and physical attributes that are sex specific.
does that mean women are better than men at some things? yes and no.
does it mean me are better than women are men at some things? yes and no.
it means in any field we should expect a varied and lospided ratio of men to women because everyone is an individual and all we can hope for is that men and women do what they love and are not discriminated against because of their sex. if we do this we will DEFINITELY NOT have an equal breakdown of men and women in any field of employment. there will be a random smattering of the sexes throughout that represents the pasions of people.
when SeeJane asks to strive for an equal breakdown of genders in our workplace, they are putting talent behind gender quotas and many of the best qualified people for the job will be left out because of their sex.
thats bullsh*t.
SeeJane is making the giant fraudulent leap in judgement that the lack of female characters in animation is caused by the lack of female input in the studios and that is a load of mularcky.
i think that any lack of female characters in the stories in animation is representative of the lack of strong female characters in the wide array of classic stories that influence and define our storytelling landscape.
Homer's Illiad, Melville's Moby Dick, the Catcher In The Rye, Animal Farm...
these are the stories that influenced all those after them and unfortunately they lack the female roles that SeeJane is demanding. i think our industry has an exemplary record in formulating stories with more strong women than the classic they are derived from.
another leap of judgement is that because women are not in certain workplaces, that they have been denied access to those workplaces.
thats conjecture.
in the last 15 years there have been a giant upswing in female CEOsand lead executives in companies.
the thing is - more than half of all those women left their positions to opt for raising kids having a family.
that is no less of an endeavor that running a company (i'd argue it is more difficult) and the irony here is that the loud voices of feminist causes that demand equal ratios in the workplace are they themselves belittling the role of a woman as a mother. her choice to stay home and raise a family. our society will be less sexist when that choice stops being seen as a woman conceding her worth to that of men. its judging women from a male perspective. its idiotic.
there is no evidence in our workplace today that women are discriminate against. i've never seen it.
if someone thinks a lesser percentage of women in studios is indicative of discrimination, then thats what they WANT to believe because they are thinking simplisticly and are ignorant of the many other unique factors surrounding the attraction to drawing cartoons.
Kevin, thanks for asking me. I was honored to be included.
One thing I meant to say before the Q&A got going was that I'd felt trepidatious about being at the panel at first. But then I went down to lunch with my crew as usual--all guys--and floated the possibility of the panel thing. "GREAT! You've gotta do it!" said all of them. They completely encouraged me and said it was cool and that I needn't feel funny about addressing this topic, when I was wondering if it wasn't perhaps a minefield best avoided. I really owe them for the support they give me every day--that we give each other. I really do believe that we all have the same goals in our sights, as far as these films are concerned.
Thanks again for putting it together!
It's tough to discuss something with someone who adamantly refuses to actually consider what the other person is really saying. See Jane has never called for an equal breakdown of genders in the workplace. See Jane (and the Animation Guild for that matter) has never made the "fraudulent leap" that the lack of female characters is caused by the lack of female input (though at this point we have gotten lots of anecdotal evidence, from some of the top creatives in our field, that that IS a major part of the problem).
It's too bad (considering the amount of time you've devoted to this) that you didn't come to Burbank last night to be part of the discussion. Because that's what it was -- an open minded discussion.
You would have likely been surprised by what real female coworkers of yours actually experience (I know they love it when you speak with such authority about their experiences), and you would have been surprised by the focus of the discussion. You would have been surprised that no one was complaining about discrimination. Or that no one was calling for quotas. Or that no one was making up statistics about gender in the workplace.
What we WERE talking about was the changing landscape of our industry and of the films we make, and how we can be positive agents of change -- for women who want to work in our industry, for men who want to work on a full range of stories and characters, and for ALL of our audience, who deserve better than we've been giving them.
Kevin, with all due respect, you do think that the lack of female characters is a direct result of so few female employees in creative positions.
At10/11/06, Kevin Koch
"A few months ago we blogged (here and here) about a research report we received from the See Jane organization, which highlighted the massive gender imbalance among characters in family films. We also cited a similar imbalance among our own creative ranks, with far more men than women working as story artists, directors, writers.."
At 6/16/2006 03:12:59 PM ,Kevin Koch
"I suspect ... that a lot of the gender bias isn't really out of economic concern, but out of unconscious tendencies by mostly male creators/writers/directors/designers."
At 6/16/2006 07:00:25 PM ,Kevin Koch said...
"I do think the male character bias can improve even with so many males in creative positions, but it will take conscious effort. And, of course, we already know there's no reason to have such a pronounced bias in creative positions, so that needs to change also."
At 6/18/2006 03:08:47 PM ,Kevin Koch said...
"the fact is that the long legacy in our industry of women not being allowed in creative positions has affected hiring up to the present. That we may be in an era where much of that bias may finally decrease or even disappear doesn't for a moment suggest that that bias, both overt and unconscious, hasn't been a huge factor for decades."
when you are put on the spot, you'll back off from coming out and saying there needs to be changes in the employee landscape but time and time again you have directly and indirectly revealed to anyone who reads these threads that that is how you feel.
i wish more women worked in animation... but they don't. i don't see a lot of women at comic books stores either. i don't see a lot of women at Stanley Kubrick film festivals and i don't meet a lot of women who love the Marx Brothers. I'm not going to read into it. I'm not going to view the issue politically, but thats whats happening here because the well being of our blessed children has been vaulted forward by Geena Davis' organization's biased study.
i'll say it again: because there are not a large number of women working in animation does not mean that there has been any wrongdoing. i think it is the end result of many many factors. why the animation union feels it needs to do something about it or mention it over and over again as a pressing issue makes me think they have lost sight of their ture use to union members, which is to look out for their well being regardless of their gender.
I don't know why I still bother, since you absolutely insist on misrepresenting what has actually been said, but here goes again:
You made some other false statements about what See Jane reps have said or done. I pointed out you were misrepresenting them. To defend yourself, you come back with a bunch of MY quotes. Do you see why this is a pointless discussion?
You seem to be a fan of making "straw man" arguments. No one from See Jane or the Guild are talking about "wrongdoing," or quotas, or anything relating to "extreme feminism." You are.
You're also seem to think that if the Animation Guild cares about it's female members, that it must therefore not care about it's male members. You're the one who sees this as a zero-sum game.
Since we seem to be having entirely different discussions, I don't see any point in continuing with you.
yes, it must be me....
i'm concerned when the head of the union states time and time again that a major issue facing our industry is the disparity of male to female employees.
that sets off a red flag for me. call me crazy.
but with healthcare costs, self destructive studio trends, a startling lack of variety, greedy CEOs and the exporting of labor to other countries, i get a little flustered when one of the union heads representing an esteemed workforce is buying lock stock and barrel into a study that proved exactly what it wanted to prove.
thanks for your posts. i hope a lot of the union members have read them. they are very revealing.
My last comment here to you:
As someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time, I have no problem worrying about healthcare costs, self-destructive studios, greedy CEOs, labor outsourcing, gender bias, and quality animation, all at the same time. Sometimes it costs me some sleep, but like most people I really am able to carry more than one thought in my head at a time.
Post a Comment