Sometimes in life you have to make choices. People like Mathide Dratwa don't understand that.

You can have a career and family, but each will constrict the time and effort you can apply to the other one. And, at various points in your life, one will demand to be primary.

One of the greatest lies ever told was this: men have it all.

If you're in high demand, I imagine Hollywood would bend over backwards to provide the child care you need just to get you on the set.

However, if you're trying to get your foot into the door, child care is going to be your responsibility.

Parenthood is about sacrifices. You had the kids; you care for them. Maybe that means that you can't put in the 15-hour days that Hollywood requires. But the idea that an industry that makes demands (that you knew about before you chose to break into the industry) has to change its entire system of rules just to accommodate your three-year-old is ... so wildly entitled that it needs its own word for it.

How do I describe this? Imperious? Delusional? Narcissistic?

"Setting schedules that take family life into account would especially increase the number of women over age 40, a demographic that desperately needs more representation on and off screen."

I don't know how they figure that will help... women over 40 don't generally have young children.

Hollywood could, and should, help mothers juggle parenthood with their careers by providing child-care on set or shortening work hours (which, incidentally, would provide safer and saner conditions for all; working 12-15 hours a day, which isn't unusual, leads to frequent accidents).

Yes, because those stars we're paying $12 million to be in the movie will have no problem filming over 6 months instead of 3, just so the director can have quality time with her child.

And the producers who want this movie to hit the summer blockbuster season in order to take advantage of current movie trends (superheroes, vampires, whatever) won't mind the movie being pushed back to fall when the trend is passé just so the director can have quality time with her child.

Those same producers will happily pay for the delays so the director can have quality time with her child. I mean, so what if the city permit said this street should be clear by Tuesday and the crew haven't finished filming by Wednesday. The director got to spend time with her child. Cut a check.

That said, child care on set is not that bad an idea. After all, production companies blow thousands on uneaten food, set dressings that end up on the cutting room floor, and unreasonable star demands (specific brands of bottled waters, green M&Ms only, etc.). But no one goes to see a Mathilde Dratwa movie. Stephen Spielberg or Martin Scorcesse, on the other hand.

The 'green M&M' thing was actually brown M&Ms and it was in the contract rider for Van Halen.
Stupid requirement? Not really. It was a way to see if the people signing the contracts for the venue were paying attention to the more important details.

Be that as it may, it still costs money and production time, drcos.

In addition, that was only one example hastily pulled from memory.

And you can't tell me that all of these are tests to see if someone read a contract rider.

Besides, we're talking about movie production, not concerts. I doubt that movie stars are using M&M colors to test concert lighting at multiple venues on a tour. There is a lighting director who handles lighting for various filming locations.

If the studio is paying for all of these, surely an on-site or nearby daycare is not too much of a stretch to the budget and use of a production assistant's time (to set up, not to babysit, which retries a license in most states).

"complicated access to healthcare"
I realize it is not a very romantic - nor modern - notion, but you could consider marrying the father for his benefits.

Keep in mind that although I'm saying it's not a bad idea for the studio to provide on-site daycare, I'm not agreeing with Mathilde and her economically-naive reasoning.

Companies that provide on-site daycare report positive returns as far as employee retention and overall career satisfaction, not things studios which tend to assemble teams of contract workers for each project are spending big chunks of their HR budgets to figure out. However, recent changes to labor laws mean that many members of a film crew must now be classified as employees not contractors, so that may change.

However, on-site daycare also costs money. Patagonia reports that its on-site daycare costs over $1 million per year. Daycare is a complicated and highly regulated industry with high downsides in terms of lawsuits and regulatory penalties. It is also labor-intensive with high labor costs.

Most arguments in favor of on-site daycare are emotional and moralistic rather than economic, as are Mathilde's.

Yes, because those stars we're paying $12 million to be in the movie will have no problem filming over 6 months instead of 3, just so the director can have quality time with her child.

Exactly.

I'm all for women doing whatever they want with their lives, but I learned a Spanish proverb from the late therapist Nathaniel Branden: "Take what you want, but pay for it."

No, that's not, "Take what you want, and then whine that other people should pay for it."

Providing child-care, shortening long work hours and supporting mothers and fathers who re-enter the workforce after a parenting hiatus...

"Supporting" mothers and fathers who have taken significant time off = discriminating against those who were there and did the work.

I note that the bio line at the end of her editorial said "Mathilde Dratwa is a film director." Based on her IMDB credits, a conscientious editor might have changed that to
"aspiring film director."

How many men have paid the price of working their asses off to provide, only to end up divorced and estranged from their kids because he was "never there."

Now women can enjoy that shit sandwich, too.

Oh, lordy, more o' that good ol' eekwalitee. The laydeez be gettin' that good and hard now!

After all, motherhood is something you can do in your spare time, right? The kids will never resent being treated as inconvenient accessories, either.

Pathetic.

She has no particularly impressive credits and I doubt that she's a DGA member. Another LAT op-ed without credentials.

My mom worked part time after I was born, until my brother was 2 (5.5 years). By the time I hit 11, she got a huge promotion, and earned so much that between my dad's job's parking, taxes, and child care, my dad was only earning enough to cover those things. So he quit, and my mom worked full time and then some. I'll admit I'm a lot shorter with my patience with my mom because she wasn't there a lot than I otherwise would be. Part of that is that my personality and hers are too similar, but part of it is that she was so busy all the time when I was growing up.

So what's the solution? Go back to an economic system where one salary can support a family? How would you go about making that happen?

It's not just women, historically fathers have been paid more and gotten more promotions because "they need to support a family".

KateC at June 28, 2017 9:26 PM ☑

"Setting schedules that take family life into account"

Perhaps the planet could just agree that being a woman is THE HARDEST THING EVER and give her a bazillion dollars and free pedicures for life.

Would that be sufficient?