Working Group on Gender Diversity Quotas
If you’re going to do it, do it properly!
Quota demands that reflect the current era.
FAQs: Joining the Working Group
What is happening here?
In the Working Group on Gender Diversity Quotas, we are exploring how to demand a gender-equal quota in a scientifically sound, realistic, and meaningful way.
Often, political struggles demand reliable data, scientifically grounded arguments, and evidence. While it is possible to demand a gender-equal quota based on our sense of justice, this may not be very effective within the prevailing structures. Here, we discuss how we can still make gender-equal demands.
How and where is the quota demanded?
The quota refers to the Film Funding Act, which is revised every five years, most recently in 2025. ProQuote Film is advocating for quotas for gender-equal and diverse film funding. This means that quotas should apply to the allocation of film funding (i.e., the distribution of money and opportunities), so that previously underrepresented voices are given a real and effective chance.
In order to demand a quota in a law, it must comply with the rules and rights of Germany; otherwise, the demand would not be feasible. The sectors of distribution, production, directing, and screenwriting are prioritized in the Film Funding Act (FFG).
What has PQF demanded so far?
So far, PQF has demanded 50% women of 100% film professionals and 30% diverse film professionals of 100% film professionals. However, this demand is too binary, and the association wants to make it clear in its demands that reaching 50% women and 30% diverse film professionals is by no means the end of the road. However, data on, for example, working screenwriters or producers who are non-binary, is still missing.
What is a male quota?
Those who demand quotas in this country are often asked why, for what purpose, and on what demographic basis. This is something we’ve learned from our decades of experience in political struggle. However, it can be part of systemic inequality that there are few statistical figures available on certain population groups, and it is — rightly — legally difficult to collect certain characteristics widely in the workplace context. This makes it challenging to find the data to back up the demand for quotas. This is also true in the area of queerness and film.
It takes a lot of time and energy to collect, evaluate, and prepare scientifically reliable and valid data — in short, to conduct studies and surveys.
Why does this work often fall on those who already, due to structural discrimination, pour many resources, energy, and time into additional work and/or activism?
To avoid putting the marginalized group under “explanation pressure,” this working group proposes a kind of male ceiling quota.
This would place the burden on men to explain why, for example, nearly 70% of a particular profession (e.g., directing, see BVR Diversity Report) is held by men and not 48%. The task of proving why certain people are particularly suited for a job in the future would then fall on the group that, due to lack of marginalization, should structurally have more energy available. Wouldn’t that be fairer?
Who do I contact?
Subject: Working Group on Gender Diversity Quotas