‘Jessica Jones’ Hires All Women Directors for Season 2, Showrunner Says

Jessica Jones Emmy Race
Courtesy of Netflix

All 13 episodes of the second season of “Marvel’s Jessica Jones” will be directed by women, according to executive producer and showrunner Melissa Rosenberg.

Rosenberg discussed the all-female directing roster during her panel at Transforming Hollywood 7: Diversifying Entertainment, a conference held Friday at University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

Rosenberg said that in the second season of the superhero show, she had wanted to increase the number of female directors — a goal that Marvel was completely on board with, she noted. Given how in-demand many women directors are these days, she and her fellow producers had set their sights on booking women first, she said, and contracting male directors later in the pre-production process.

Related

Krysten Ritter Sam Heughan Actors on Actors

Krysten Ritter, Sam Heughan Find Value in ‘Jessica Jones,’ ‘Outlander’ Sex Scenes

But then someone else involved in the production — she didn’t specify who — floated the idea of booking only women as directors. Rosenberg was honest about the fact that she hadn’t contemplated that concept prior to that conversation, but she said she quickly jumped at the opportunity.

When it comes to behind-the-scenes personnel, hiring an inclusive array of people was “a conscious decision and it’s very important that showrunners do that,” she said.

That directing roster puts “Jessica Jones” in very rarified company, as one of the few one-hour dramas to have an all-female list of directors. Ava DuVernay’s “Queen Sugar,” which airs on OWN, also had only female directors during its debut season.

Rosenberg didn’t divulge any details about the second season of “Jessica Jones,” except to tell Variety before her panel that scripts were in the midst of completion and shooting was set for next year. With Henry Jenkins and Stacy L. Smith of USC, who moderated her panel, Rosenberg freely discussed drawing on a variety of perspectives when coming up with the story arcs of the New York-set Marvel drama. 

“When I interview a writer, I’m less interested in what you’ve been doing professionally than I am in where you’re from, what your parents do, what’s your life experience, what are you bringing to the table personally?” Rosenberg said. “I don’t want a bunch of people who look and sound [like me] and have the experiences I have.”

Rosenberg, who also penned the “Twilight” movies, in addition to her experience writing for other TV and film franchises, told her audience that persistence was one of the key attributes that aspiring creatives should bring to Hollywood, whatever their background, gender, or culture.

“I think the only reason I’m sitting here is because of tenacity. It’s a tough business. You really have to be able to take a hit,” noted Rosenberg. “I’ve gotten fired so many times, I can’t even count now.” 

“That’s the nature of the business, it’s really hard,” she added. Rosenberg said that “delusional optimism” had allowed her to survive. On the bad days, “you have to be able to pick yourself up and say that tomorrow is going to be better than today.”

The all-day conference featured an array of producers, writers, academics, and activists. Producer Effie T. Brown (“Dear White People,” “Project Greenlight”), Desmin Borges (“You’re the Worst”), Melissa Silverstein of Women in Hollywood, Javier Grillo-Marxuach (“The Middleman,” “Lost,” “Xena”), and Dodai Stewart, editor-in-chief of Fusion, were among the panelists discussing where Hollywood has made progress on screen and behind the scenes — and where that progress has stalled

But as Rosenberg and DuVernay proved — as has FX— changing directing stats is far from impossible.

In an earlier panel, Melissa Goodman, director of the LGBTQ, Gender and Reproductive Justice Project, ACLU of Southern California, noted that there were methods of increasing inclusion that have a strong track record of effectiveness in many industries — not just in Hollywood.

The strategies revolved around setting targets for hiring, and revisiting the progress toward those measurable goals at regular intervals. “Track the data and pay attention to it,” Goodman said. “It’s actually pretty simple.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 83

Leave a Reply

83 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Patrick P says:

    This is a deliberate attempt to give a voice to women directors. They’re coming out and saying that. Have women directors (or women in most fields) had an even shot at things like this in the past? If you think ‘yes’, you might want to talk to a few more people in the industry.
    I like the arguments I’m reading that go like ‘Discrimination doesn’t fix discrimination’. You’re so right. But I think folks comfortably in power (like white men, like me) can be better allies when we acknowledge the privileges we have and step aside once in a while. I’m white, male, cisgender, employed, housed, college educated. Where I live, I walk down the street and folks don’t clutch their bags more tightly, or cross to the other side. Police don’t stop me randomly. Success is expected, and I was never told to just marry a rich person instead of follow my dreams. I can use a standard bathroom. You bet I’m privileged.
    Doing something unusual for folks who are not is equitable, kind and humane. Good grief, let’s see what these directors bring!

    • Yeah … no.

      Privilege is just the modern gender version of original sin. The Catholics used to shame children into submission with this notion that they were born with sin, because of the actions of Adam and Eve, and would need to spend the rest of their life atoning to make up for it. Now, we shame men generally, and straight, white men in particular, for the actions of historical straight, white men (and only a tiny, tiny fraction of them at that), and hold that they must show proper obeisance and atone for the rest of their lives for the temerity of being born with a Y chromosome.

      And both versions unfairly smear these broad swaths of people for one simple reason: to shame them into being controllable. If people volunteer for the yoke or for self flagellation, so much the better. Every straight, white man that steps down voluntarily out of shame is another place that can be occupied.

      The reality is that “straight, white male” includes every socio-economic strata we have, from homeless people up to inherited wealth. It includes every educational strata we have from illiterates living in institutions to Post Docs that lead the world in their discipline. It includes every shade of morality, of sexuality, and of criminality that we have. It includes every political and religious philosophy, every mind set, every ethos, every ideology and every idiocy or fad. It includes every strata of capability from brain dead husks on life support to mountain climbers and Olympic athletes. It includes saints and sinners both.

      It doesn’t matter if you’re a benevolent sexist or a malevolent sexist, you’re still engaging in the *exact same thought pattern*. You think there’s a fundamental difference between smearing a black man with category based beliefs you have about criminality, and ignoring his individual context, versus smearing a white man with category based beliefs you have about historical privilege and ignoring his individual context? There isn’t.

      Stop it. I want a world where the only thing that matters when I apply for a job is my credentials, and that world is NEVER GOING TO ARRIVE as long as benevolent sexists like you or malevolent sexists like other people continue to make massively broad categories like “sex” matter more than the individual characteristics on that resume. I don’t care whether you think you’re being a nice guy and doing the right thing. I don’t even care that there’ s ton of misguided women that would cheer you on for being that benevolent sexist because they confuse preferential treatment with “equality”. Intentions don’t matter, the integrity of the process does.

      And the process you’re on? It’s rotten.

      • Pep says:

        I’m only picking yours to reply to because it’s close to the top. Don’t take anything personally.

        Listen if you think anyone in Hollywood gets hired cause they’re talented you’re delusional. There is NO SUCH THING AS MERITOCRACY. It never happened and it’s not gonna happen.

        Hollywood is run by pure cronyism and nepotism. Sure a few talented people get a shot but mostly it’s friends of friends. And it doesn’t matter if that friend is any good just that they are alive and can do the bare minimum. Even if that guy screws up and gets fired, he still has a credit and can use that for the next gig where he can be equally mediocre.

        Do you really think people are considering talent? Ha! ha! Nope! Just good enough will do. Think about it. if they really were only hiring the best of the best, we wouldn’t have so much crappy tv or bad movies. I bet you all can name about 20 bad shows without trying too hard. That’s based off the current model mind you of people hiring their friends and only a few good eggs squeaking through. If you’re bemoaning how things “used to be” just remember that that means a LOT a talented white guys got passed over just to hire someone’s friend. Maybe you never questioned it because the friend was white. Doesn’t matter cause the best guy for the job didn’t get the gig, some jerk’s friend did. I’m telling you talent only goes so far. It’s all a game only now women and minorities are getting in on it. Who are we to begrudge them that?

        If it’s in your mind to argue with me about merit and who should get what, don’t waste my time. If you want to talk about the reality of the situation with a bunch of Ziggy Sbototkas getting the gig over Nick then we can talk.

  2. William G says:

    Always great to hire on gender rather than pure talent, swap the genders round and see how positive it sounds.

  3. Kmun says:

    Wow this is so great! Really exciting!

  4. Dean James says:

    Sigh.

    Nobody but a few people who care about these politics will ever know that all the directors were female. Cutting out half of the potential hiring pool of directors before they even consider their talent will adversely effect the series.

    Maybe it survives for only four seasons instead of five because the quality and ratings are just that little bit smaller because they excluded half of the directing talent. Do you know how much a single season of a series costs or how many people it employs?

    I’m old enough to remember when feminists used to use the argument of “Think of how much further we would be if we used the skills and brains of both sexes, half the population of the planet?” Now they push to exclude the other half of the skills and brains of planet.

    • Dean James says:

      And this is a pro-woman series and it’s going survive for less time because they won’t consider half of the talent. That isn’t going to do the movement any good. Viewers see the face of Krysten Ritter and that’s it. They don’t care about the people behind the scenes, including Melissa Rosenberg.

  5. Jordan says:

    Everyone who is mad about this is aware that basically every season of every other tv show is directed by all men, right? Just checking if you’ve been protesting that since the beginning of time? Or you’re just upset that maybe a show happened to find enough kick-ass female directors that each episode was able to have one?

    • andy says:

      The issue is that they openly only considered female directors.
      It’s still discrimination, dummy.

      • Women only make up 7% of active directors.

        This is like male nurses, knowing they are only 9% of all nurses, getting upset that most of the nursing stations at most of the wards in most of the hospitals are all female nurses. Only if they really don’t understand numbers do they think this is active discrimination by the hospitals, and only if they REALLY don’t understand numbers do they get upset that there’s not an all male nursing station.

        The solution is simple: graduate more male nurses so that percentage climbs closer to where men sit int he population.

        The solution is NOT to lobby a hospital somewhere to enact a hiring policy where they only hire male nurses. All that does is give that 9% access to 100% of the jobs in that hospital in sexist fashion. It’s doesn’t in any way raise the 9% to some other number. The number of male nurses doesn’t increase, so all you’ve done is create sexist policy.

  6. steve says:

    Ironic that a panel for diversification makes a sexist decision.

  7. Brian says:

    So it’s sexist when it’s all men, but just fine when it’s all women? The double standards are real, as is the sexism, against men.

  8. Considering that men (mostly) have all the other shows, this is a positive step for more inclusiveness for talented directors who likely get overlooked.

    • Milo says:

      If you are a talented director, by definition it is impossible to be overlooked because the quality of your work will ring true regardless of gender or ethnicity.

      This sexist policy deliberately overlooks talent and hires directors solely based on their gender for political reasons. It even discredits the career advancements of the women they hire and in the industry in the process as suggesting their only reason for success is political posturing.

    • You don’t end sexism by engaging in more of it in a different direction. This isn’t some zero sum game where you add up the sexism that benefits males and then subtract the sexism that benefits females and hopefully end up at zero.

  9. As long as at least 30% are in wheelchairs or are trans then this is good news!

  10. Jessica jones says:

    If you are a man and you decide to come here and complain, don’t. Shut the F up. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOU COMPLAIN!! YOU ARE LITERALLY HANDED THE ENTIRE WORLD. Walk. The. F. Away from this one.

    THESE REACTIONS ONLY SERVE TO PROVE HOW MEN DO NOT WANT TO SEE WOMEN SUCCEED. You are all pathetic and small.

    • Yup Men are privileged right!
      We’re the vast majority of the homeless
      Vast majority of suicides
      Vast majority of workplace deaths
      We’re the majority of rape victims but no one counts being made to penetrate as rape, including the legal system
      We’re made to pay child support if we’re raped and the female rapist falls pregnant
      We have little to no domestic violence shelters & support despite the fact that Men are 1/3 to 2/5 domestic violence victims.
      These victims can’t even defend themselves as society has a double standard about that
      In the US we can’t vote without agreeing to die and that use to be the case elsewhere
      We get longer sentences for the same crime
      We’re seen as criminals first, especially around children
      We’re falling behind in education due to how it’s designed
      Genital mutilation is legal against boys
      Who will receive less funding towards their healthcare throughout their lives

      If you think Men are privileged, would you like to swap ^?
      Also since when is discrimination in the hiring process not only right but not illegal? You’re not only delusional but in fact you are supporting criminal behavior.

      Well done.

      • Brian says:

        Well said Richard. Agree 100%. Let’s not forget that women live longer, so men have all those “privileges” for less time than women.

  11. B.B. says:

    What ever happened to hiring someone based on their qualifications, not skin color, sexism or whatever. This is ridiculous! Fing Political correctness running amok again in Hollywood. Give me a break. If the person is the best for job then they should be hired for the job period, end of story.

  12. Seriously, do all of you menchildren cry in parking lots about disabled spaces too? This is so incredibly pathetic.

    • Bob Cat says:

      “Men-children” like myself don’t believe that women have an intellectual handicap, so no.

      Between your casual sexism and comparing being a woman to being handicapped, I can only commend you on the apologetically truthful representation of your illiberal ideology.

      • That’s certainly the justification that SJW thinking provides itself on the topic. Yes, we’re engaging in sexist practice, but in this case, sexist practice is OK because it’s righting a “historical wrong” or it’s “compensating for sexism elsewhere”.

        That’s always been baloney.

        Does engaging in sexist hiring practices on this project raise the number of female directors one iota? No, it just gives privileged access to these specific jobs to the 7% of female directors already in the market. The only solution is to work with film schools to make directing more appealing to women. We already graduate more female students than male in most film schools, but they simply don’t go into directing and opt for supporting positions, instead.

        Until that 7% changes, most directors will be male, and most projects will have male directors. It’s that simple.

      • Brian says:

        Sara, the current status quo is that women are seen as perfect, infallible creatures and men are just dumb brutes who screw up everything. The perception has gone to the complete opposite. Women are handed every opportunity in the world (what they do with those opportunities is another story), and are valued far more than men ever have been. I don’t expect you to notice it, as people with privilege don’t recognize their own privilege.

      • Yup, women certainly aren’t disabled creatures needing their hand held through everything. Is everyone missing the fact these people are breaking laws? It’s illegal to hire/fire people because of their gender much like it is for their skin colour.

      • Sara says:

        The point is and has always been, not that women are inferior or less valuable, but that those in power view us as such. Anything that serves to move that perception in the other direction and gives women a more level playing field in the mind of those used to the old ‘status quo’ is a good thing.

  13. Well, that cements it. All the SJW retcons of iconic characters in the comics led me to cancel my subscription to Marvel Unlimited, and now we have another Marvel product intentionally engaging in sexist hiring practices because they’ve decided that it’s “positive sexism” and that’s OK. Bigotry is bigotry, and sexism is sexism. All the rest is just rationalizing to yourself why you’re engaging in behavior you’d never tolerate in reverse.

    • well, i better fucking hope you were this furious about Daredevil only having men directors in it’s first season. Why didn’t you cancel then? Or Game of Thrones season 5 and 6? Did you attack that with a foaming mouth too? Somehow I doubt it.

      • @ Sara

        Most women in film school, and they are a majority of graduates, opt to go into the industry in other positions than directing or producing. There might be discrimination out there to fight, but the lion’s share of their issue is of their own making.

        This is no different than a bunch of Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Fine Arts and Gender Studies grads stamping their feet that women are under represented in Engineering, despite the fact they all had the marks to get into Engineering but chose the Humanities and Arts, instead.

      • Victoriah says:

        @Sara
        I’m glad you agree that women are less talented and specifically need help and special treatment to achieve success in life.

      • Sara says:

        @Bob Cat And do you think that the needle is so firmly pointed in the male direction because only 7% of the people who want to or are any good at directing? No. The reason is because there is a lack of opportunity for women to thrive in this business. A few more opportunities for women to do good work and add to their resumes is a good thing. If it helps other directors get rid of their even unconscious biases when hiring directors, even better.

      • So, they explicitly set out to hire only men? If you can prove they intended to hire in sexist fashion, I’d be glad to join you to call them out for it. But we both know you have no frigging clue whether they actually discriminated.

      • Bob Cat says:

        The two situations are not remotely equivalent, unless they actually set out to discriminate by refusing to hire women.

        Given that the recruitment pool is split roughly 7%/93% women/men, a season comprised of only male directors is well within statistical norms, but a season comprised of only female directories could only be the result of explicit gender discrimination.

  14. MKS says:

    They aren’t ONLY hiring the female directors because they’re women, you whiny, sexist manchildren. These women have been considered because of their notable talent. It’s an opportunity for talented women storytellers to create stories about women, for other women to enjoy–not that men can’t enjoy them too but its very obvious that you weak crybabies can’t handle television if its not catered to your and your delicate egos. Women being chosen to direct women-centric stories is important. Women creating stories for other women to relate to is important.

    Cry harder.

    • “They aren’t ONLY hiring the female directors because they’re women”

      Oh, yes, they have to actually be directors, so they aren’t just grabbing random women off the street to do the job, but that doesn’t change the fact that being a woman was made a prerequisite. This is plain and simply sexist hiring practice and you’re engaging in rationalization and justification of practices you’d never tolerate if they were excluding your own demographic.

    • PxO says:

      >she and her fellow producers had set their sights on booking women first,

      Hmm that seems a bit contradictory with what your saying. But if you’re going to label everyone who disagrees with it as “manchildren”, I’m not sure what I expect

    • RLN says:

      Maybe it’s just that you’re so concerned with equality here (at the top), but don’t give a crap about homelessness, suicides, college attendance rates, high school graduation, job deaths, health spending, incarceration, sentencing, DV services, government services and all the areas that favor women, massively.

      • Yes, it’s all around known that if you are happy about progress being made in one field of life, you are a terrible person, for not crying about everything else going shit in the world. Everybody knows that WWF starting capaigns to help endangered spieces is bullshit, when they could be crying about all the dogs being hit by cars.

  15. Victor says:

    I guess women can’t make it on their own. It’s a shame there are so many untalented, inept women that Marvel has to resort to these tactics so women can work.

  16. Ian Hazzard says:

    Don’t think I’ll even bother watching to be completely honest. This just tells me that they care more about sending a social message than creating a show that’s actually good. If that were the case, they would be looking at talent not the genitalia between someones legs.

    • Did Daredevil care more about sending their message, than the actual show when they only cast men to dirrect in their first season? On game of thrones when they did for their 4 and 5? Or American Horror Story for 5 whole seasons?
      At least cut the shit and say you will not watch because it doesn’t particularly cater to you.

      • You’re supporting discrimination and criminals. Yet they’re a terrible person? Do you not get the difference between intent and result when it comes to the hiring process?

      • Or, is there vastly more male directors available and those all-male directorial groups are a natural result of that overwhelming superiority in numbers? It’s not discrimination until they INTENDED to hire only men. You know, like these bigots did.

  17. Pike says:

    Why aren’t black men, Latino men, white men, Asian men, gay men, trans men, and Arab men considered at all?

    Rejecting someone from a job because of their gender is illegal.

    • qwertz says:

      > Rejecting someone from a job because of their gender is illegal.

      Only if non-white non-males are rejected based on their gender or race. The other way around it’s called social justice. Just look at whitewashing. If they cast whites as non-white characters like Egyptians in that movie with Gerard Butler it’s called racism, if you cast black actor as Norse god in Thor it’s called equality for minority. We got black version of Julius Caesar but we don’t have white Roots.

  18. God what a terrible decision. Just hire the good directors; the ones that can bring the vision to life; sigh, when will this world learn?

  19. Milo says:

    “Equality for me, not for thee.”

    • Brian says:

      Like all you fembabies cried when you didn’t have someone that looked like you directing?

    • Bob Cat says:

      You’ve just provided yet another example to trot out when feminists try to claim that feminism is really about equality.

      • You respect them enough to use a gender based slurs, ie. manbabies. Clearly, you are a paragon of wisdom, virtue and equality.

      • Bob Cat says:

        So you’re saying you respect men as long as they conform to your sexist viewpoint? No different from a patriarchal sexist man claiming to respect women as long as they know their place.

        As for “white men”, your casual racism certainly complements your casual sexism.

      • Because I laugh at (mostly) white dudes who constantly try to play the victim in various comment sections? Sure.
        I respect and love a great number of men. Just none that spends his time whining and playing victim on the internet for people with less opportunities than him being helped and raised up.

  20. Mari says:

    Female chauvinist…boycott anything she does from now on. I may be a woman but I do believe in equal rights, and equal opportunity.

  21. wow. that’s so sexist.

  22. thekeenguy says:

    It’s sad how a bunch of guys come out to complain about this, having never batted an eye at seasons of TV shows that were directed by 100% men (like, say, Daredevil Season 1… but they finally let a woman direct one episode in season two! See? Equality.).

    In the face of such vast inequity in this field, making a conscious decision to hire more women is not bias, it’s progress.

    • “In the face of such vast inequity in this field, making a conscious decision to hire more women is not bias, it’s progress.”

      Only if several factors are true: a) that there’s equal numbers of women and men in directing, and b) the distribution of talent in those pools is roughly equal, and c) they all roughly have equal access via the market to these positions and aren’t regionally concentrated. If any one of those is NOT true, then this is bald-faced sexist hiring practice.

      Intentionally hiring only women is every bit as odious and ridiculous as intentionally hiring only men.

      Only to social justice warriors and their bass-ackward logic can you “fix” sexism by engaging in sexism on another project in reverse.

      • thekeenguy, You do not gain liberation by adopting the same methods as your oppressor and using those methods to even the score. (i.e. deliberately hiring female directors only)

        I hope the show fails. I was going to watch season 1, now I won’t even bother.

      • thekeenguy says:

        Well, surely you recognize how ridiculous that statement is. “If your oppressor has weapons, you can’t use weapons! You’ll never achieve liberation using their methods!”

        It’s impossible to solve inequality if one side is always the one to accept the deficit.

      • Yeah I’m going to go ahead and not even address that nonsense. If that is all you got from that statement, then you are part of the problem.

      • I mean, seriously … oppression? We’re talking Hollywood directors, in the US, with college educations, in a liberal democracy, competing to helm a comic book franchise mini-series. We’re not talking film makers working underground with cameras from 3 generations ago, hand developing their film in bathrooms and smuggling their films out because they will cost them their lives if they are found.

        Oppression … that’s frigging hilarious. Talk about a rampant sense of entitlement.

      • “If you can’t see the difference of acting on behalf of the oppressed and on behalf of those who regularly benefit from oppression, well, that’s your ignorance showing.”

        And if you can’t see that this is nothing more than a mumble jumble of half-assed justifications so that you can sleep at night, then there’s no help for you. It doesn’t magically stop being bigotry and discriminatory practice because you’ve decided to engage in some mental gymnastics to soothe your conscience.

      • thekeenguy says:

        Equality will never be achieved if the pendulum only ever swings in one direction.

        I understand how the oppressing class may get all riled up as they lose the smallest amount of ground that they stole in the first place, but I’m not losing a wink of sleep about it.

      • “Attempting to restore balance to a discriminatory industry is justifiable, further engaging in discrimination is not.”

        Except you’re doing the latter, but claiming to do the former. Like I said, only in SJW’s screwy mindset and backwards logic do you get less sexism by engaging in it.

      • thekeenguy says:

        If you can’t see the difference of acting on behalf of the oppressed and on behalf of those who regularly benefit from oppression, well, that’s your ignorance showing.

      • thekeenguy says:

        False equivalence.

        Attempting to restore balance to a discriminatory industry is justifiable, further engaging in discrimination is not.

    • Blue Silver says:

      Chiming in is NOT complaining..just stating the obvious. You don’t solve the issue of sexism by switching talent/vision for a particular gender just to “check the box “. That is NOT the way it’s supposed to work, They are only encouraging more of the same behavior all around.

    • Tim says:

      Progress would be if there was a sizable portion of female directors clamoring to direct episodes of hit tv shows, but producers continually pass them over in favor of men, and so this show takes advantage of that by hiring female directors NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER, but because they are the right person for the job.

      I have yet to be convinced this is the actual state of hollywood. Instead, what I’m seeing is women, by in large, don’t tend to go for directing positions. Why? I dunno. Therefore, there is just an massive imbalance in the director pool when it comes to women. And so those shows that hire 100% male directors for it’s episodes? That’s mostly because the pool they were drawing from is 99% male directors. So if we assume they’re hiring NOT BASED ON GENDER AT ALL, but instead for who is right for the job, odds are pretty high in their favor that’s it’s gonna be an all-male lineup and maybe one woman there too.

      If you want more female directors in hollywood, encourage more women to go out there and be directors. Or if you are a woman yourself, go be a director. I guarentee you’re gonna little resistance, if any at all, solely because of your gender.

      • thekeenguy says:

        Funny how you blithely state your ignorance for why there’s an imbalance in those going out for director’s jobs. Maybe if you actually read up on the causes for that, you’ll have an informed opinion to share on this subject next time.

  23. TJM says:

    Isn’t only hiring women for a certain position in fact sexism?

  24. Spider says:

    I hate how these producers are promoting diversity by “flipping things around” and yet, they end up with the same damn problem . …All female directors?……….. What about those visionary male directors and talented newcomers that just got the door shut in their face? They need to focus on the RIGHT PERSON for the job, period!

    • MKS says:

      These poor oppressed men directors will just have to go get hired by the other companies that make nothing but stories for men. Because its not like 99.9% of directors are men anyways, right? What makes you think these women aren’t right for the job? Aside from you being a misogynist. These women ARE right for the job and yes, they happen to be women which is important because the creators want women’s perspectives for a change. Not EVERYTHING has to be a story written from man’s perspective. Are you going to throw a hissy fit every time a talented women takes the place of a man’s job? They’re getting the job for a reason. They aren’t not picked “just because they’re women” they are picked because the creators can see them as a good fit for their show. Lmfao.

    • Flora Reese says:

      I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom’s complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at…

      follow this link…..★★★◕◡◕◕◡◕◕◡◕
      ❥❥❥❥❥❥❥ Spacial~Job AtHome.

  25. Jim says:

    Pushing forward an agenda that gender, race, etc. should be the primary factor in hiring decisions simply perpetuates discrimination, etc. Also,so-called “diversity” is not supposed to be here’s an all-female show, this is an all African-American show, there is an all-Asian show. That’s similar to segregation, Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, etc. and a lot of people fought to put an end to that stuff in the 60s.

  26. Harlon Katz says:

    I would have preferred theyed focused on the directors’ capabilities instead, like what is done when a male director is hired. Guess it will be safe to skip this season since they went for something other than skills this season

  27. magruber says:

    So what do they want? A medal? Nobody cares what’s in the pants of the directors. They only care if the episodes are directed good.

  28. BillUSA says:

    “Jessica Jones” is a sexist production. Their (the sexist’s) efforts to become equal to men is a sham, but being that they won’t soon go away, they stoop to the same methodology as the racists out there which is to use sexism/racism to combat sexism/racism and cry about the ongoing existence of either. Not for equality, but domination. Equality is fine – but don’t lie about it.

    • The Truth says:

      Hires based on sex are unconstitutional. Women legally deserve an equal opportunity with men, but nothing more. All employment decisions should be meritocratically based on skills, knowledge, and abilities, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and age. While there’s no question that the denial of equal opportunity to women in the entertainment industry has been and continues to be a serious problem that must be diligently remedied, prejudicial hiring policies that sexually disqualify men are not the answer.

More TV News from Variety

Loading