Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

1,051 to 1,100 of 3,118 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Oh! And mostly unrelated? I am looking forward to seeing "The Heat".

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Not really even then. All it does is falsely suggest something. Especially in a niche medium that is primarily focused at appealing to and being relevant to males anyway, but also in general when it comes to entertainment in any medium.
Caineach wrote:
So you consider "movies made for the US market" to be "a niche medium that is primarily focused at appealing to and being relevant to males anyway"? I didn't realize that movies were such a small market, or that women didn't go to them.

The test was meant to for comic books back in the day. (I thought it was just books, but someone else said comics, and that's what I'm going with)


The Test first appeared in a comic book; it was about the movies.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The trick with the Bechdel test is that

1) it measures something very precise

2) it is interpreted by many people at being very significant at describing a certain reality which obviously goes far beyond what it measures

3) any person saying that 2 is not correct is sent back to 1, with a condescending explanation of the theory linking 1 and 2 (and some implicit idea that if you do dare criticize the bechdel test, you are either a fool or, goddess forbids, a male chauvinist pig)

Really, people should realize that they do NOT help their case with this kind of non-arguments. It is very sad for topics such as gender/sex equality where a lot of progress still needs to be made.

Even if you feel strongly about something, especially if you feel strongly about something, arguing your case and being open to criticism will work better in the end than trying to bully others into submission or silence.

Shadow Lodge

Berik wrote:
If women are more likely to talk about their problems than men, then doesn't that make the Bechdel test more relevent, not less? Unless you're suggesting that all of a woman's problems are likely to involve men? In society women are generally seen as more 'chatty' than men as you suggest. One would think that would make it easy to find relatable female characters in movies talking about things other than men.

Not really if you view it through the lens of entertainment. Generally in a story format, the issues that are relevant to the overall story are highlighted. There is also the concept that in general it's a lot less ok to have female antagonists in the physical sense, but even more so for male protagonists. A male beating the crap out of a female BBEG isn't really seen as cool. A female beating the crap out of a female BBEG is sort of ok, but much better if it's a male BBEG. Tat sort of undercuts the test indirectly, especially if the dialogue that is focused on isn't even related to that at all.

Shadow Lodge

Jess Door wrote:
Um...saying it shows nothing when used as an aggregate measure of broad swaths of work, and then picking out a single movie is...sorta not proving your point. It's almost the opposite of proving your point.

Um, how isusing it as a single example, (that is to say I didn't want an even larger wall of text with a thousand examples) to show that such assumptions where just as likely to be wrong as right defeating my point exactly?

PS, it was actually more than one movie, too.

:)

Shadow Lodge

The black raven wrote:

The trick with the Bechdel test is that

1) it measures something very precise

2) it is interpreted by many people at being very significant at describing a certain reality which obviously goes far beyond what it measures.

That's much more the point I was trying to make.

Shadow Lodge

Goblin's pretending to be White Knights are chauvinist's!!!


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Um...saying it shows nothing when used as an aggregate measure of broad swaths of work, and then picking out a single movie is...sorta not proving your point. It's almost the opposite of proving your point.

Um, how isusing it as a single example, (that is to say I didn't want an even larger wall of text with a thousand examples) to show that such assumptions where just as likely to be wrong as right defeating my point exactly?

PS, it was actually more than one movie, too.

:)

Because the test isn't valuable in looking at a single movie.

Lets look at Zero Dark Thirty. There's two primary female characters, they have a lot of conversations, most of them about a man. Those conversations don't really follow the mold though of what a feminist might consider women talking about their man problems. (The movie does pass, because they talk about the ideological differences of the Cold War and the GWOT and flipping spies)

The test is imprecise in it's analysis of an individual movie. Instead, you should look at the statistics of the test and interpret what that means.

For example, I think the downward trend of movies failing the first criteria of the test is a good thing. And if you look at the peaks for each of the 3 criteria, more and more movies are passing over all. It doesn't mean that every woman in every movie is being portrayed in a non-sexist light though. All it means is that women are more present in movies, they're more likely to have dialogue and at least once talk about something other than men to another woman.

I do agree, it is not a terribly useful test, it doesn't directly lend itself to any sort of strong analysis. It's mostly intended to point out that a problem does exist, but it doesn't necessarily identify the root cause or nature of the problem in a precise manner.

It's meant to open your eyes and get you to ask questions about WHY movies might pass or not pass the test, and that we should even be talking about the presence of women in films at all.

Here's some more interesting data.


Berik wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Men tend to be a lot less "lets talk about my problems" than women, by nature (rather than nurture), and presenting men/women as such would probably lead a lot of people to simply find them offensive or unrelatable.
If women are more likely to talk about their problems than men, then doesn't that make the Bechdel test more relevent, not less? Unless you're suggesting that all of a woman's problems are likely to involve men? In society women are generally seen as more 'chatty' than men as you suggest. One would think that would make it easy to find relatable female characters in movies talking about things other than men.

Nor does it have to be "talking about my problems". The reverse test would just be "talk about something besides a woman". It could be sports. It could be gaming. Doesn't make any difference.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The black raven wrote:

The trick with the Bechdel test is that

1) it measures something very precise

2) it is interpreted by many people at being very significant at describing a certain reality which obviously goes far beyond what it measures

3) any person saying that 2 is not correct is sent back to 1, with a condescending explanation of the theory linking 1 and 2 (and some implicit idea that if you do dare criticize the bechdel test, you are either a fool or, goddess forbids, a male chauvinist pig)

Really, people should realize that they do NOT help their case with this kind of non-arguments. It is very sad for topics such as gender/sex equality where a lot of progress still needs to be made.

Even if you feel strongly about something, especially if you feel strongly about something, arguing your case and being open to criticism will work better in the end than trying to bully others into submission or silence.

The precise measure is: Are there multiple women in this movie, important enough that they are given a name, that have agency and interaction outside of their relationship to a man in the story?

Can you explain point number 2? For example, I believe that if a very large majority of movies, over a broad swath of genres (picking mostly romantic comedies, for example, would obviously skew results) fail the Bechdel test, it shows that women are often not given agency, except in how they relate to men, in the general view of the culture that produced the movies.

If the reverse Bechdel test shows vastly dissimilar results, where many more men have agency separate from the women characters, I think that also shows something about the default assumptions of the culture that produced the movies in question.

Let's throw imaginary numbers into the mix. Let's pretend 100 movies are released in one mass market theater in 1 year. Let's pretend 25% of movies pass the Bechdel test, and thus 75% don't.

This could suggest some cultural bias against women having strong character separate from men in stories. It could represent that this was a season that strongly featured historical war movies, and thus featured very few women. It could be simply an artifact of some trend in producing movies with only one named character or silent film without dialogue.

If a reverse Bechdel test on the same movies produced a 25% pass rate, and a 75% fail rate, that is interesting. It strongly suggests that the culture strongly favors mutual dependence between the sexes for their characterization, or that there is so little dialogue going on in the current crop of movies that it's difficult for anything to pass. Or one of any other number of explanations. Either way, the sexes are equally represented and equally share agency and interaction with their own sex here. If a reverse bechdel test on the same movies produced a 50% pass rate, and a 50% fail rate, it indicates there may be a tendency to view men as having more importance separate from women they may be related to in some way, or that the heavy preponderance of historical war dramas really skewed things this year. And a 75% pass rate, 25% fail rate could indicate a stronger cultural difference.

Is my interpretation of what the Bechdel test can tell you about a culture "obviously [going] far beyond what it measures"? If so, can you explain that a little bit more?

Ah, if you're referring to the Star Wars trilogy instead of just Star Wars, then yes, it is more than one movie. But it's one story. and it's far from a large aggregate. I'll repeat what I said before:

me wrote:

The Bechdel Test isn't a test that is useful in a case by case basis. There are plenty of reasons a particular work would fail the Bechdel test.

The Bechdel Test is useful in the aggregation of many its results on all works (or as many as anyone cares to rate, anyway), in that a heavy preponderance of failures in art says something about our culture - especially if the reverse bechdel test doesn't show a similar result set over the same group of works.

I don't see any bullying. Can you elaborate on this?


Pippi wrote:


The idea behind the Bechdel Test (outside of the initial idea that it was how one of the characters in Alison Bechdel's comic strip decided if she would watch a movie or not) was simply to demonstrate that the depths of female characters' stories and the range of their concerns were largely under-represented in movies.

And here you have problem 1: You're being horribly circular. You can't say that the problem exists because the Bechdel test says it exists so that shows the accuracy of the Bechdel test which shows that the problem exists.

Quote:
But this isn't something that happens too often, and I think the Bechdel test is useful, if only for sparking conversations like this, and helping people to thoughtfully consider the subject.

I think it has more to do with the difference between what men and women are looking for in movies*. Giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding are easy to show and easy to pitch to movie producers. Well done nuanced emotional drama.. not so much.

Quote:
But, at least in my experience, those times are likely to be on par with the accuracy of a home pregnancy test.

Thankfully i'm not in the market for those...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pippi wrote:


The idea behind the Bechdel Test (outside of the initial idea that it was how one of the characters in Alison Bechdel's comic strip decided if she would watch a movie or not) was simply to demonstrate that the depths of female characters' stories and the range of their concerns were largely under-represented in movies.

And here you have problem 1: You're being horribly circular. You can't say that the problem exists because the Bechdel test says it exists so that shows the accuracy of the Bechdel test which shows that the problem exists

You use the above quote. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Shadow Lodge

Irontruth wrote:

Because the test isn't valuable in looking at a single movie.

. . .

The test is imprecise in it's analysis of an individual movie. Instead, you should look at the statistics of the test and interpret what that means.

For example, I think the downward trend of movies failing the first criteria of the test is a good thing. And if you look at the peaks for each of the 3 criteria, more and more movies are passing over all. It doesn't mean that every woman in every movie is being portrayed in a non-sexist light though. All it means is that women are more present in movies, they're more likely to have dialogue and at least once talk about something other than men to another woman.

Here's the thing. My example wasn't just one movie, but 3+. Secondly, the only problem it shows that exists is that not all movies/comic/whatever include at least two named females, that also talk to each other, that also talk about something that is not men. It does not show, in anyway, that women are not showed in a dynamic light, or that they can not have multiple, meaningful problems, or that they can not be protagonists, or any number of other things that the test is taken to imply. I simply picked star wars because it was noted earlier as being one of the most influential movie series, and every single one of them failed the test. It's also, as far as I know, pretty much universally known, while I have not seen any of the Harry Potters, and I'm not sure that the other movies listed are as well known.


After checking out how Woody Allen scores on the Bechdel Test, I'm going to appraise how Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, Roman Polanski and Sam Peckinpah did.

I bet they all fail.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


Here's the thing. My example wasn't just one movie, but 3+. Secondly, the only problem it shows that exists is that not all movies/comic/whatever include at least two named females, that also talk to each other, that also talk about something that is not men. It does not show, in anyway, that women are not showed in a dynamic light, or that they can not have multiple, meaningful problems, or that they can not be protagonists, or any number of other things that the test is taken to imply. I simply picked star wars because it was noted earlier as being one of the most influential movie series, and every single one of them failed the test. It's also, as far as I know, pretty much universally known, while I have not seen any of the Harry Potters, and I'm not sure that the other movies listed are as well known.

Yeah. 3 is not nearly enough to be useful. 10 is not nearly enough to be useful. I would argue that my example 100 is still not enough to be very useful. This is about cultural trends, about the mythology, world view and self view of a culture. You have to have a HUGE aggregate. And even then, it needs to be taken with a large grain of salt. Because

thejeff wrote:

It started as a joke, but like many good jokes it points out something about the culture.

Again, you have to use if for the right purpose. It's not to say: Is this movie sexist or not?
It's to highlight how little our culture focuses on women. How often they're only relevant while interacting with men or talking about men.
There are many perfectly good reasons why a work will fail the test. A book with a first person male POV is almost certain to fail, for example.
Nonetheles, it should be a ridiculously easy test to pass. It only requires one scene. And that's what looking at the reverse Bechdel test highlights. The difference between the number of works that pass the Bechdel test and the number that pass the reverse test should reflect the difference in the focus on men and on women. Those that fail one or the other for good reasons should cancel out.

I'll repeat:

me wrote:

The Bechdel Test isn't a test that is useful in a case by case basis. There are plenty of reasons a particular work would fail the Bechdel test.

The Bechdel Test is useful in the aggregation of many its results on all works (or as many as anyone cares to rate, anyway), in that a heavy preponderance of failures in art says something about our culture - especially if the reverse bechdel test doesn't show a similar result set over the same group of works.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

Because the test isn't valuable in looking at a single movie.

. . .

The test is imprecise in it's analysis of an individual movie. Instead, you should look at the statistics of the test and interpret what that means.

For example, I think the downward trend of movies failing the first criteria of the test is a good thing. And if you look at the peaks for each of the 3 criteria, more and more movies are passing over all. It doesn't mean that every woman in every movie is being portrayed in a non-sexist light though. All it means is that women are more present in movies, they're more likely to have dialogue and at least once talk about something other than men to another woman.

Here's the thing. My example wasn't just one movie, but 3+. Secondly, the only problem it shows that exists is that not all movies/comic/whatever include at least two named females, that also talk to each other, that also talk about something that is not men. It does not show, in anyway, that women are not showed in a dynamic light, or that they can not have multiple, meaningful problems, or that they can not be protagonists, or any number of other things that the test is taken to imply. I simply picked star wars because it was noted earlier as being one of the most influential movie series, and every single one of them failed the test. It's also, as far as I know, pretty much universally known, while I have not seen any of the Harry Potters, and I'm not sure that the other movies listed are as well known.

Good. We agree then. Anyone who takes the Bechdel test to imply things about individual movies, or even short series of movies, is misusing it.

Much like many differences between men and women, to use a thematically related analogy, that are not necessarily valid in individual cases, but are meaningful if you look at a statistically significant sample.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:


Good. We agree then. Anyone who takes the Bechdel test to imply things about individual movies, or even short series of movies, is misusing it.

Much like many differences between men and women, to use a thematically related analogy, that are not necessarily valid in individual cases, but are meaningful if you look at a statistically significant sample.

Great minds. :P


BigNorseWolf wrote:
And here you have problem 1: You're being horribly circular. You can't say that the problem exists because the Bechdel test says it exists so that shows the accuracy of the Bechdel test which shows that the problem exists.

But that's not what I'm saying, Wolf.

I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think it has more to do with the difference between what men and women are looking for in movies*. Giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding are easy to show and easy to pitch to movie producers. Well done nuanced emotional drama.. not so much.

What makes you think women don't want giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding? What on earth does any of that have to do with having two named female characters talking about something besides men?

It's not about the idea behind the movie, it's about who is represented in those movies, how their stories are told, and why they do what they do.

I would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters. That would be neat!

But disregarding that, what could it possibly mean that a "man's" movie is easier to pitch to studios than a "woman's" movie? Does it mean that men are more important? Does it mean that "men's interests" are better? Does it mean that men spend more money on movies? Or does it say something about the mindset of movie producers, and society in general?

I wonder.


Berik wrote:
In society women are generally seen as more 'chatty' than men as you suggest. One would think that would make it easy to find relatable female characters in movies talking about things other than men.

Red flag dude, last time I used the word 'Chat' I was lambasted by the PC crowd who said it was a sexist term and wow did they howl and go on about it. They had to take it way out of context though, but that didn't stop them.

Bechdel Test:
Step-Up Revolution - "During Emily's audition for Olivia's dance company, they discuss her dance technique, etc"

PASSES

Yet GALADRIEL, the cornerstone of EPIC who tackles some of the biggest issues of Middle Earth and is in for BEATING THE FORCES OF FRICKING DARKNESS... The Hobbit

FAILS.

Maybe she should have had an aside conversation with some random NPC about the gravitas of her Elven line dancing steps or how pretty her macramé is or something.

I know which is the better example for young women, dancing all the way.


Pippi wrote:

But that's not what I'm saying, Wolf.

Its exactly what you're saying. Case in point...

Quote:
I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.

Try to follow this line of argument from the evidence to the conclusion. Draw it out. Its either circular or the Bechdel test is irrelevant.

You asked me why folks don't like it, that's why.

Quote:


What makes you think women don't want giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding?

The differences in ticket sales to men and women in movies featuring those topics.

Quote:
What on earth does any of that have to do with having two named female characters talking about something besides men?

It has to do with how many movies are made with male characters, which will determine how often female characters are on the screen, which will determine how often they talk to each other.

Quote:
It's not about the idea behind the movie, it's about who is represented in those movies, how their stories are told, and why they do what they do.

The idea presented effects a lot about who's in the movie. People (at least according to hollywood thinking, it might be accurate) want to see themselves in the protagonist. If your audience for Alien chainsaw masacre of lasery death 7: the slimeing is male, adding a female as the main protagonist makes it harder for most of the audience to connect with the character, which equals less people seeing it, which leads to a smaller box office. Even if its a small effect, the studio has no reason to swim against the tide (real or percieved)

Quote:
I would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters. That would be neat!

But for every one of you, how many teenage boys would rather see two women mecha pilots in completely unreasnable stripperific armor?

Quote:
Does it mean that men are more important?

If importance= lucrative then yes. If you're a studio exec that is the case.

Quote:
Does it mean that "men's interests" are better?

It means they're easier to put on the big screen, especially with computers.

Quote:

Does it mean that men spend more money on movies? Or does it say something about the mindset of movie producers, and society in general?

I wonder.

Since most producers are male the pitch of giant laser robots probably goes over better than the emotional drama.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:


What makes you think women don't want giant fighting robots, explosions, fights in factories lacking OSHA regulations, and zombie heads exploding?

The differences in ticket sales to men and women in movies featuring those topics.

Quote:
What on earth does any of that have to do with having two named female characters talking about something besides men?
It has to do with how many movies are made with male characters, which will determine how often female characters are on the screen, which will determine how often they talk to each other.
Quote:
It's not about the idea behind the movie, it's about who is represented in those movies, how their stories are told, and why they do what they do.

The idea presented effects a lot about who's in the movie. People (at least according to hollywood thinking, it might be accurate) want to see themselves in the protagonist. If your audience for Alien chainsaw masacre of lasery death 7: the slimeing is male, adding a female as the main protagonist makes it harder for most of the audience to connect with the character, which equals less people seeing it, which leads to a smaller box office. Even if its a small effect, the studio has no reason to swim against the tide (real or percieved)

Quote:
I would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters. That would be neat!
But for every...

Oh look, we agree.

Most producers are male and likely to go for male oriented movies. Check.
Men more important/lucrative. Check.
"how many movies are made with male characters, which will determine how often female characters are on the screen, which will determine how often they talk to each other. " Check.

Plus or minus a few nuances here and there, that's the point.

Shadow Lodge

So, the test suggests that producers should go out of their way to not make money's and instead make products most people will not like?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, the test suggests nothing.

The framing of the test suggests that someone sees a disproportionate lack of representation of one sex in movies, and a disproportionate number of the members of that sex that are characters in movies as being driven primarily by their relationships to characters of the other sex.

The test's results, over large groups of cross genre stories told, if highly negative, suggests that the culture that produces the stories told perceives women as not participating in the stories they feel worth telling as much as men, and as not having agency in those stories or interaction with each other as characters of importance - except in how they relate to men.

Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
So, the test suggests that producers should go out of their way to not make money's and instead make products most people will not like?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jess Door wrote:
Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

no, he's suggesting that although some would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, the vast number of people drawn to movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters are male, and therefore relate to males on screen.

Now if women start showing up in large volumes to watch movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters then I am sure we would see women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting the giant monsters.

These are the movies that make the most money.

The producers directors do not care whether you are male, female, socially awkward, a cannibal, black, white, brindle... they care about the money. If there is a magic formula for a blockbuster, they will keep using that formula over and over, but those films cost a packet and they (reasonably) want to be sure its a winner.

On the other hand they know there's a market that women will buy into, hence we get a range of 'chick flicks' that don't involve two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, we had that experiment already, you remember, the 1995 epic blockbuster Tank Girl.

Personally I would be up for two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, because I couldn't give a flying Crayola about the pilots, I am there to watch mecha fighting giant monsters.


Jess Door wrote:


Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
So, the test suggests that producers should go out of their way to not make money's and instead make products most people will not like?

Actually, in his defense, I don't think it does.

What it actually suggests and what the Bechdel test may also suggest, is that even women may prefer the slant towards stories focused on men.

Which doesn't mean anything more than that women also buy into the same cultural attitudes.
Comparing the stereotypical guy action flick with the stereotypical chick flick romance or romcom: The action flick has a male protagonist and antagonist and a female love interest. Most of the other minor characters will also be male. Little chance of passing.
Romance may have a female protagonist, but will be focused on the romance and thus the male love interests. Will likely have more female minor characters and thus a better chance of passing, but not guaranteed since much of the talk will be focused on the romance.

Good movies of course tend to transcend the stereotypes.


Shifty wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

no, he's suggesting that although some would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, the vast number of people drawn to movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters are male, and therefore relate to males on screen.

Now if women start showing up in large volumes to watch movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters then I am sure we would see women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting the giant monsters.

These are the movies that make the most money.

The producers directors do not care whether you are male, female, socially awkward, a cannibal, black, white, brindle... they care about the money. If there is a magic formula for a blockbuster, they will keep using that formula over and over, but those films cost a packet and they (reasonably) want to be sure its a winner.

On the other hand they know there's a market that women will buy into, hence we get a range of 'chick flicks' that don't involve two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, we had that experiment already, you remember, the 1995 epic blockbuster Tank Girl.

Personally I would be up for two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, because I couldn't give a flying Crayola about the pilots, I am there to watch mecha fighting giant monsters.

And again we agree. Remember I said near the beginning of this (and actually stole from some website somewhere): The reason so many films and novels fail the Bechdel Test is not that writers are evil, sexist jerks. It's because so many films and novels focus on men.


thejeff wrote:


And again we agree.

We do that from time to time :P

thejeff wrote:
The reason so many films and novels fail the Bechdel Test is not that writers are evil, sexist jerks. It's because so many films and novels focus on men.

And because it's a stupid test.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
Jess Door wrote:


Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
So, the test suggests that producers should go out of their way to not make money's and instead make products most people will not like?

Actually, in his defense, I don't think it does.

What it actually suggests and what the Bechdel test may also suggest, is that even women may prefer the slant towards stories focused on men.

I don't know, I think the interpretation that his post suggested that most people won't like movies that feature 2 or more women involved in a scene that contains a conversation between them that doesn't center on a male character in the movie also suggests that most people are male.

"Suggest" is a pretty low bar. :P

It would be less suggestive if he'd said:

"So, the test suggests that producers should go out of their way to not make money and not make movies most people will like?"

I think that statement would fit your interpretation better.


jess Door wrote:
I don't know, I think the interpretation that his post suggested that most people won't like movies that feature 2 or more women involved in a scene that contains a conversation between them that doesn't center on a male character in the movie also suggests that most people are male.

That is not what i meant.

That meaning is not there.

You need to read the entire sentence.

More people that see killer giant robot movies are male.


Shifty wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Your post suggests that most people are male, interestingly enough.

no, he's suggesting that although some would kill to see a movie about two women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting giant monsters, the vast number of people drawn to movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters are male, and therefore relate to males on screen.

Now if women start showing up in large volumes to watch movies about mecha pilots fighting giant monsters then I am sure we would see women mecha pilots dressed in reasonable armor fighting the giant monsters.

Just curious here...

You're saying a movie about female mecha pilots won't make money because it doesn't appeal to men.

Using that same logic, while would a movie about male mecha pilots appeal to women?


Jess Door wrote:

Ding! Exactly! The Bechdel test, applied in aggregate to large numbers of stories, hypothesizes that in our culture, by and large, women are defined primarily by their relation to men.

Women are relatable primarily in how they relate to the men, who are the protagonists of the story. Men are unrelatable if they define themselves in relation to the women in the story.

Well, I think that the way that women are viewed is significantly skewed in different media. In films I think it's absolutely true that women are defined by their relationship to men. No doubt.

What I think is that a reverse Bechdel test wouldn't be particularly useful, unless the third criteria were "talking about something other than a woman OR THE MCGUFFIN PLOT" because a plurality of movies have male protagonists. Who, let's be fair, are usually saddled with saving the damsel in distress.

This, of course, speaks to an entirely different problem with our portrayal of the sexes in mainstream media, but I just wanted to highlight the other side of it: men in a plot are usually perfunctory and/or there to be killed or be an antagonist. It's true that men are almost always the protagonist, especially in action movies; but men are EVEN MORE OFTEN the antagonist, even in non-action drama and comedies.

However, if the medium we're talking about were romance novels, I'd bet very few would pass the reverse Bechdel test.

Sovereign Court

There's nothing about the test the shows what people like. The test shows what people probably haven't noticed about the movies they like and watch. People don't like the movies because they pass or fail the test. It's a test with very simple criteria that one would expect most movies should pass. The fact that most don't is what's interesting about the test.


Irontruth wrote:


Just curious here...

You're saying a movie about female mecha pilots won't make money because it doesn't appeal to men.

Using that same logic, while would a movie about male mecha pilots appeal to women?

I'm not sure how you could be curious here, I thought it was pretty clear cut, it also suggests you skimmed the post instead of reading it.


Shifty wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Just curious here...

You're saying a movie about female mecha pilots won't make money because it doesn't appeal to men.

Using that same logic, while would a movie about male mecha pilots appeal to women?

I'm not sure how you could be curious here, I thought it was pretty clear cut, it also suggests you skimmed the post instead of reading it.

Okay, help me out please in really simple statements, what are you claiming?


I wouldn't expect most movies to pass the test, though I'm uncertain why it is important that they do or don't. I don't think it says much of anything, on its own, about the movie industry.

I think a lot of it is just feedback loops, art imitating life imitating art if you will. Any film or production based in a time before 1960, unless specifically about women (Jane Eyre, Little Women) is likely to fail the test, simply because women in that time period were forbidden from activity in any part of society about which an interesting film might be made. So, while modern productions, they reflect the mores of bygone eras.

Action movies, even those with female protagonists (HA!), are still adolescent male power fantasies, or are trying to do something more in a genre that is dominated by AMPFs; see: Inception, Watchmen. They're going to have more male characters. It's really down to lazy writers, but it nonetheless reflects 2013 culture's gender roles, which is you can be heroic, but you can't punch a guy's heart out like Iron Man (or something).

Which leaves us with contemporary films that are comedy or drama without action setpieces. By the time our media started catching up our culture re-the status of women, we were well into the blockbuster age and television is much better at telling nuanced, long-term stories. What movies have come out lately that weren't superhero movies? Action shlock dominates the box office.

So in conclusion: all things being equal, yes, the movie industry is woefully behind the times. That said, I would suggest that the VAAAAAST majority of televised drama and comedy, even on an episode to episode level, will pass the Bechdel test...with the exception of action shlock and period productions.


You aren't using the same logic, not at all.

The point, and I am going to really oversimplify this one for you to illustrate the gist - Women, in general, are not interested in paying their hard earned dollars to go see movies about mecha fighting giant monsters, whether you put men in as pilots or other women, let me repeat this one for you Women, in general, are not interested in paying their hard earned dollars to go see movies about mecha fighting giant monsters.

Now of course that has oversimplified things and I have even stripped it from a broader context, so if you decide to take umbrage with this then we will have to defer back to my original post rather than this stripped down version.

I hope that clarifies.


Shifty wrote:

You aren't using the same logic, not at all.

The point, and I am going to really oversimplify this one for you to illustrate the gist - Women, in general, are not interested in paying their hard earned dollars to go see movies about mecha fighting giant monsters, whether you put men in as pilots or other women, let me repeat this one for you Women, in general, are not interested in paying their hard earned dollars to go see movies about mecha fighting giant monsters.

Now of course that has oversimplified things and I have even stripped it from a broader context, so if you decide to take umbrage with this then we will have to defer back to my original post rather than this stripped down version.

I hope that clarifies.

Okay, but we aren't just talking about movies of mecha fighting monsters. We're talking about THOUSANDS of movies.

Do you have a claim to justify why men should have 2/3's the speaking roles in movies?

Also, in regards to mecha fighting monster movies, how do we KNOW women would never find such movies appealing? The movies have been targeted towards a male audience for 40 years, so obviously there is no (or little) female audience for the genre.

But it still isn't an excuse to be EXCLUSIONARY.


Irontruth wrote:
Do you have a claim to justify why men should have 2/3's the speaking roles in movies?

I don't think there's a justification, but I think there's an explanation.


Irontruth wrote:
Okay, but we aren't just talking about movies of mecha fighting monsters. We're talking about THOUSANDS of movies.

You might not be, but we are, and when polled, so is the cinema going public.

Irontruth wrote:
Do you have a claim to justify why men should have 2/3's the speaking roles in movies?

It doesn't have to be 'justified', they are simply appealing to what the audience is prepared to pay for, market demand.

Irontruth wrote:
Also, in regards to mecha fighting monster movies, how do we KNOW women would never find such movies appealing? The movies have been targeted towards a male audience for 40 years, so obviously there is no (or little) female audience for the genre.

Because the paying public says so, and because when polled, those women say so. When the rubber hits the road they gravitate towards Romance and Rom-Coms, and that is what they say they want to see, and more importantly, that is what they pay to go and see. Guys are maybe not so keen to go see Bridget Jones Diary at the same rate as women, and even if they put in some more male protagonists they still wont go see it, and women likewise attend Sci-Fi at approximately half (or less) the rate of men.

Irontruth wrote:
But it still isn't an excuse to be EXCLUSIONARY.

See here's the thing, they don't care, and they don't have to justify it to you, they only have to justify outcomes and profits to financial backers, and that is driven by customer satisfaction. When there is sufficient demand, and we aren't talking about "I DEMAND!" and a lot of footstomping, but demand BACKED UP WITH MONEY, you will get the change you want and you will see a shift in the movies.

Right now, you don't have the numbers, nor the numbers that matter $$$$$.


meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Do you have a claim to justify why men should have 2/3's the speaking roles in movies?
I don't think there's a justification, but I think there's an explanation.

At the moment I'm more interested with whether people think it's justified, and why.

I just want to get off the point of having to defend the presence of women in movies.


Irontruth wrote:
At the moment I'm more interested with whether people think it's justified, and why.

Who cares what you or I think? It's the business reality.

If there are enough people who demand it, it will change, but pushing people to justify their tastes and preferences borders on arrogance.

Irontruth wrote:
I just want to get off the point of having to defend the presence of women in movies.

I didn't realise the presence of women in movies is 'under attack'. 'Under represented', sure, 'under attack', really?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking roles for women are on the decline.

If you don't want to talk about gender issues, you don't have to click on this thread.


Irontruth wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Do you have a claim to justify why men should have 2/3's the speaking roles in movies?
I don't think there's a justification, but I think there's an explanation.

At the moment I'm more interested with whether people think it's justified, and why.

I just want to get off the point of having to defend the presence of women in movies.

Well I know I half interrupted a convo between you and shifty, but for me, no I don't think it's justified. But the industry is not run on ethics or morality or a sense of fairness, but the cold calculus of the market. I think that trying to apply the term "justification" which more than insinuates a moral or ethical dimension to the state of things, is sort of missing the point.

(So you're not confused, the following is not a response to any of your statements but just a musing of my own.)

Hollywood is more liberal than most towns, and I think we can agree that, Michael Bay aside, the state of women in entertainment media is not driven or sustained by misogyny. Businesses are inherently conservative; they don't want to mess with what works. Inasmuch as Hollywood produced a cultural product, it pings as social conservatism, but I think it's something much more pernicious. Systems that function are, understandably, reticent to change. The hollywood system's function is to make money, and it does so very well. The bigger the system, the more prevalent this will appear.


Irontruth wrote:
If you don't want to talk about gender issues, you don't have to click on this thread.

I can't say I found that article to be terribly well balanced nor thought through.

Yes, the women were wearing skimpy outfits, but tell me, were they more or less skimpy than say...

Magic Mike (and this is the 'classy' shot

Jacob

Wolverine

$$$$'s talks, that is what drives who says what in which movie - what the audience will pay for. Hollywood is just a dealer selling you whatever the market asks for.

Sovereign Court

meatrace wrote:

I wouldn't expect most movies to pass the test, though I'm uncertain why it is important that they do or don't. I don't think it says much of anything, on its own, about the movie industry.

I think a lot of it is just feedback loops, art imitating life imitating art if you will. Any film or production based in a time before 1960, unless specifically about women (Jane Eyre, Little Women) is likely to fail the test, simply because women in that time period were forbidden from activity in any part of society about which an interesting film might be made. So, while modern productions, they reflect the mores of bygone eras.

Action movies, even those with female protagonists (HA!), are still adolescent male power fantasies, or are trying to do something more in a genre that is dominated by AMPFs; see: Inception, Watchmen. They're going to have more male characters. It's really down to lazy writers, but it nonetheless reflects 2013 culture's gender roles, which is you can be heroic, but you can't punch a guy's heart out like Iron Man (or something).

Which leaves us with contemporary films that are comedy or drama without action setpieces. By the time our media started catching up our culture re-the status of women, we were well into the blockbuster age and television is much better at telling nuanced, long-term stories. What movies have come out lately that weren't superhero movies? Action shlock dominates the box office.

So in conclusion: all things being equal, yes, the movie industry is woefully behind the times. That said, I would suggest that the VAAAAAST majority of televised drama and comedy, even on an episode to episode level, will pass the Bechdel test...with the exception of action shlock and period productions.

I agree with most of this. But I tend to think that the bar for the test is quite low so I was surprised to see so many movies fail. Though I would suspect that action adventure movies would garner the most fails.

Sovereign Court

Shifty wrote:
$$$$'s talks, that is what drives who says what in which movie - what the audience will pay for. Hollywood is just a dealer selling you whatever the market asks for.

No, they're selling whatever they think the market wants. These are the same people who blamed slumping movie attendance on piracy rather then crummy movies. They don't have a magic ball. Something does well they try to offer more of the same. If they were actually giving the audience what they want there wouldn't be any slumps in the movie sales. They like sticking to formulas and are pretty scared of deviation.


Guy Humual wrote:
No, they're selling whatever they think the market wants.

You don't think Market Research is a tool they actually use?

Sovereign Court

Shifty wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
No, they're selling whatever they think the market wants.
You don't think Market Research is a tool they actually use?

You think that's a flawless tool?


Guy Humual wrote:
You don't think Market Research is a tool they actually use?
You think that's a flawless tool?

Sure, any tool can be flawed.

I suspect their tool is more reliable than your sweeping assertion of baseless supposition though.

They are making record profits

Clearly they are doin it rong.

1,051 to 1,100 of 3,118 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards