Hidden Layers of Gender Bias in Hollywood
Before starting this article, it’s important to clarify that gender bias is not limited to misogyny. There is a very limited critical discourse around cultural and systemic misandry. Many individuals who suffer from misandry are unaware of its nature. Sometimes, even proving that misandry exists is difficult, and many feminists have repeatedly claimed that misandry is not real.
Unlike misogyny, which often manifests through violence, discrimination, or exclusion, misandry tends to hide within cultural norms, humor, or seemingly progressive discourses. Since social structures define men as holders of power, any harm or exclusion they face is easily ignored or interpreted as a form of justice. When some feminists say misandry doesn’t exist, they often speak from a historical and structural standpoint—meaning men have historically been instruments of power, not victims. But this perspective can obscure the experiences of men who, in today’s structures, are victims of humiliation, exclusion, or gender stereotypes.
For example, a man who is mocked for his appearance, emotions, or non-stereotypical choices may lack the vocabulary to describe his experience, because misandry is not yet formally recognized.
When I first watched the Fifty Shades series, I told a friend: “Yeah, I wrote a negative review of this film.” She said: “Well, that’s normal. A lot of people don’t like this genre.” I replied: “No, my critique is that Fifty Shades contains a hidden form of misandry.” She laughed—and I’m sure she still finds it funny.
This film series is usually criticized for portraying a relationship with elements of male dominance and desire, not for its harm or humiliation of the male character. In Fifty Shades, Ana essentially takes control of Christian and involves him in parenthood against his deeper wishes. This happens despite a written agreement between them that Ana would avoid reproduction.
Ana not only disregards this agreement but quickly positions herself as a victimized mother and asks Christian not to question the sanctity of motherhood. The most tragic scene is when Christian returns home during a moment of temporary peace, and a conversation unfolds. When Christian gently expresses his discomfort about having a child, Ana reminds him that the child won’t be alone—and she plans to have more.
This angle is usually ignored in mainstream critiques. Most readings portray Ana as a victim of Christian’s dominant relationship. But if we reverse the lens, we can see how Ana uses the language of victimhood to gain control of the relationship and even impose critical decisions like parenthood against their initial agreement.
The cliché of motherhood’s sanctity becomes a tool to silence the man’s protest—even when he himself is a kind of victim. The final scene shows how the man’s agreement, desire, and psychological distress become irrelevant in the face of the motherly image. Hidden misandry doesn’t appear as direct violence but as the gradual erasure of male desire, voice, and choice.
If you only take a superficial look at the world, you’ll mostly associate evil with men. But perhaps male evil is simply louder. Evil is a universal trait that any human can express if they choose. Women may not be associated with blood and fire, but they are capable of mental control and psychological engineering.
Men are often recognized through physical violence, war, or displays of power, which makes their evil more visible, more recorded, and more condemned. But women—especially in societies that expect softness and care from them—often express their evil in invisible forms: psychological control, mental engineering, victim-making, or even using the language of empathy to erase others.
Evil Across Hollywood’s Decades
According to available sources, the decade from 2010 to 2020—especially the years 2014 to 2024—has been one of the most revealing periods in Hollywood history, with a collection of sexual scandals, abuse, and even murder cases. But this doesn’t necessarily mean these events are more frequent—it’s due to widespread exposure, media coverage, and social change.
These issues have always existed; only their media reflection has changed. What has changed is not the nature of the events, but the media frame, public sensitivity, and the possibility for victims to speak. In the past, studios had the power to conceal, media often served image preservation, and victims were not only voiceless but also speechless.
Today, with social media, narratives are published faster, more directly, and sometimes even ruthlessly. This makes us think violence has increased, when perhaps it has only become more transparent.
Just as when a system fails to provide sexual safety for women, you can be sure that the presence of “normal” women will gradually decrease. Gender bias in Hollywood contributes to the rise and empowerment of men involved in corruption and sexual misconduct.
The mechanisms that limit men may not resemble those that limit women, but their power is undeniable.
Jack Quaid is one of the actors increasingly attacked for having famous parents in Hollywood. Gender bias operates not only through exclusion but also by shaping paths of power and harm.
The phrase “fewer normal women” means that when sexual safety is absent, the space shifts from diversity to survival—for those who are either immune to harm or forced to adapt.
What’s commonly referred to as “nepo babies”—or what I prefer to call second-generation faces—may have greater power to preserve their psychological safety in Hollywood. You deal with people your parents know and have worked with. This psychological safety model applies to all professions: safety comes from familiar networks, not just job opportunities.
When your parents have worked with producers, directors, or major actors, you enter a space that already knows you—not just because of your name, but because of implicit trust, memory, and even protection. This means you’re less exposed to abuse or exclusion and more likely to experience empathy.
This psychological safety is a form of capital—not easily measurable, but deeply influential in one’s career path.
Meanwhile, first-generation faces often have to endure anxiety, distrust, and hidden industry violence. Second-generation actors enter with a kind of psychological shield that allows them to focus more on creativity, choice, and even resisting industry pressure.
Dennis Quaid, Jack Quaid’s father, gained popularity due to his alignment with the avatar of the classic American hero. Figures like Dennis Quaid were Hollywood’s ideal men. Especially in the 1980s and 1990s, with his rugged yet warm voice and roles that combined bravery, humor, and vulnerability, he became one of the avatars of Hollywood’s ideal man.
In films like Innerspace, The Right Stuff, and Frequency, he often played a man who was both heroic and empathetic—not cold and emotionless, nor overly fragile. This perfectly matched Hollywood’s desired image of a man: someone who can save, love, joke, and ultimately be trusted.
This image mattered not only to audiences but to the industry itself. Actors like Dennis Quaid were emotional and moral pillars of mainstream films. And now, when Jack Quaid enters the same industry, he’s unconsciously compared to that shadow—not just because he’s a nepo baby, but because of differences in tone, appearance, and role choices.
In fact, new-generation men who don’t align with the classic avatar may face more attacks. This means the ideal man still plays a role in exclusion—and it’s not limited to women.
The ideal woman or man is an image born from systemic gender bias and societal expectations. Depending on how closely you align with the ideal traits, society will justify your presence.
These images are products of societal gender bias—not based on individual complexity, but on fixed patterns that determine who is acceptable or admirable.
Conforming to these traits allows individuals to be socially justified—not because of ethics, but because of alignment with the desired image. The ideal woman must be soft, independent, attractive, and motherly. The ideal man must be strong, moderately vulnerable, humorous, and trustworthy. Anyone who deviates from this image pays a price—whether woman, man, nepo baby, or first-generation.
You can find second-generation faces—commonly called nepo babies—who are accepted not necessarily for skill or experience, but because they resemble Hollywood’s preferred feminine and masculine patterns. These individuals not only fit into the industry but receive minimal criticism. Many fans don’t even know they’re second-generation Hollywood artists.
The social atmosphere around these individuals shows that the problem isn’t necessarily being a nepo baby—it’s the illusions society holds about the ideal man and woman.
Hollywood has so many aspiring actors that it doesn’t need to accept someone just because they’re second-generation. But it’s so dependent on money that it still prioritizes those who fulfill gendered expectations.
Liberal Hollywood—especially Netflix—has turned to a formulaic and surreal mix of cultural diversity to attract victims and minorities. But this approach hasn’t had much positive impact and seems to increase societal tension. Addressing these issues isn’t inherently bad—it’s just that liberal cinema’s method of engagement is often inefficient.
Conclusion
The fight against gender bias has mostly remained a one-sided image shaped by feminist thought. Continuing this trend may lead to imbalance. Perhaps it’s time to accept that misandry does exist.
Hollywood still loves the short-haired, muscular Superman—and those who embody exaggerated traits of femininity or masculinity are more likely to escape controversy and criticism.