Trying to make sense of all of the problems

The Bielby Article came across in a way that makes me consider the implications of institutionalizing an industry. First I would like to comment on some of the problems I see with this type of approach of gathering data and using statistical analysis as proof to a model that doesn’t capture the whole picture. Statistical data is like content analysis. It can give you the numbers without giving you the implication behind these numbers. The cumulative disadvantage model involves premises that are rooted in statistical data, but then adds on a correlative property of causation relating to the institutionalization of the film and TV industry. I can see how this assumption can be made, but the evidence for making this correlation is not empirically evident from the statistical data. These models are introduced in a way that makes them seem like the only options regardless of the data information. I think that these models have been oversimplified and are over suggestive as they relate to the actual circumstances of gender inequality in the film/TV industry. I see it as more of an ideological problem that in itself doesn’t need numerical proof to be understood. Now back to institutionalization. The transformation of the film industry originally happened because of an, “ideology that valued men’s contributions across the board but considered women’s talent as appropriate only for a narrow range of genre’s”( Bielby 167). I think that this assumption is continues to be evident to a certain extent today. Now the problem with gender in the film and TV industry is structural. The business has grown into a high risk high reward arena in which producers feel more comfortable replicating the way things have always been instead of trying something new.  The problem of gender inequality in the TV/film industry is clearly there, but I think a solution will have to happen over a longer period of time. (or maybe I just have to much hope in my generation).