[–]FingerSmoke21 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i think the issue is that movies targeted at men (e.g., action films or movies based off comic books, among many many others) don't portray women as anything other than stock characters, like "the girl for the hero to get" or "the sexy but vicious evil villain."

movies targeted at women, like romantic comedies, actually often pass the bechdel test. a good example is the recent movie A Fault in Our Stars--the entire movie is aimed at preteen girls, literally revolves around a relationship, yet passes the Bechdel test.

the point of the test is to reveal the fact that women often aren't given dynamic roles in popular films--they're just there to fulfill the purpose of being a man's ultimate goal ("getting the girl") or as a sexual temptation/moral dilemma for a man.

talking about relationships isn't the problem--male characters often talk about female characters (think about the movie 500 Days of Summer--literally all Joseph Gordon Levitt does is talk about women), but male characters are still given purpose, depth, and characterization beyond those relationships.

[–]FingerSmoke3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i think the issue is that movies targeted at men don't portray women as anything other than stock characters, like "the girl for the hero to get" or "the sexy but vicious evil villain."

There are a shit ton of movies which fail the bechdel test that have interesting and/or badass female leads, and in most of those films the men are relegated to stock characters as well.

movies targeted at women, like romantic comedies, actually often pass the bechdel test.

You would have to try awfully hard to get a romantic comedy to fail the bechdel test.

the point of the test is to reveal the fact that women often aren't given dynamic roles in popular films--

Underworld, the fifth element, columbiana, the point of no return, avatar, the bone collector, star wars, serenity, the hunger games, aliens, crouching tiger hidden dragon, constantine, the matrix, iron man, x-men, the dark knight trilogy, skyfall, resident evil, hellboy, terminator 2, pirates of the carribean, kill bill, crocodile dundee, shrek, the fast and the furious, the losers, mad max beyond thunderdome, wanted, zombieland, silence of the lambs, harry potter, percy jackson, jurassic park, inception, etc.

That's just off the top of my head, and the women in these films all brought something to the table, whether they were protaganists, antagonists, or supporting characters. How can feminists be so willfully ignorant when it comes to acknowledging all of the popular movies and tv shows in which the female characters are well developed and/or kicking ass?

they're just there to fulfill the purpose of being a man's ultimate goal ("getting the girl") or as a sexual temptation/moral dilemma for a man.

What role do men play in the genres that cater to women?

[–]rbbrks-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are a shit ton of movies which fail the bechdel test that have interesting and/or badass female leads, and in most of those films the men are relegated to stock characters as well.

That's kinda the point--in a movie where a woman is the lead, is a total badass in every way, she still doesn't talk to another woman about anything other than men. yes, men are stock characters in such films (obviously stock characters exist in both genders, "henchman #1" is probably going to be a male" but it's the fact that even a highly dynamic, important female character is such a novelty (or seen as "enough"--"hey, the lead is female, why do we need any more useful women in this movie??") that she can't even talk to another female in her own film that's a problem.

You would have to try awfully hard to get a romantic comedy to fail the bechdel test.

i don't think so, romantic comedies revolve around relationships--i.e., a woman's relationship with a man. so it's not crazy to think that most of the film would be either the female lead talking to the male lead or talking about the male lead to someone else.

Underworld, the fifth element, columbiana, the point of no return, avatar, the bone collector, star wars, serenity, the hunger games, aliens, crouching tiger hidden dragon, constantine, the matrix, iron man, x-men, the dark knight trilogy, skyfall, resident evil, hellboy, terminator 2, pirates of the carribean, kill bill, crocodile dundee, shrek, the fast and the furious, the losers, mad max beyond thunderdome, wanted, zombieland, silence of the lambs, harry potter, percy jackson, jurassic park, inception, etc.

the point of the bechdel test isn't to say women don't ever have dynamic roles--of course they do! the original comic even mentions Alien. it's just to point out that often times, they don't. yes, that's quite the list you've composed, but a) i'd disagree on a number of those (the dark knight trilogy? what major female characters don't also serve as romantic interests for bruce wayne?) and b) i could create a list just as long of movies that don't have dynamic females. it's not willful ignorance on the part of feminists, it's also willful ignorance on the part of the rest of the world because they see progress and think the job is done.

What role do men play in the genres that cater to women?

more dynamic roles than "love interest." friends, for example. or bosses. or mentors. or father figures. anything. obviously that is a list of stock characters, but those are normal stock characters that have nothing to do with those men's sexuality. female stock characters, in some way, usually depend at least partially on their sexuality to have purpose in a film.

[–]Xiseria2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Films are especially bad for this issue since they're remarkably short. 1.5 to 2 hours isn't a lot of time, all things considered. Compared to a novel, TV show or a video game, it's honestly only about a tenth of the space to work with or less in terms of how much can be devoted to useful character information.

As a female character needs a vastly more intricate and thorough backstory to get away with harming them in any way at all, or to bypass the need to harm them through other means, in comparison to a male character, it's simply inefficient to write more than one convincing female character. It chews through far too much of the limited time you have, and that time is a painfully finite resource.

Let's consider the dark knight trilogy, since it was brought up - let's look at the dark knight rises in particular, or more specifically, Talia al Ghul contrasted with Bane.

Talia does... virtually nothing in the entire movie, yet her backstory drags out for about twenty minutes of screen time as they keep coming back to it over and over, implying it's Bane's backstory, but then they go "Surprise, it's Talia's instead!" and that's just so she can get smacked around a bit at the end, because she's proven herself tough enough to take it.

Whereas Bane's backstory, after you find out that it's not the one you kept being shown constantly, is summed up in about three short sentences.

Talia does almost nothing for the whole movie, and Bane's the main antagonist, yet their backstories are severely slanted in Talia's favour to make her viable.

They wasted nearly half an hour of the movie on her, making her a waste of space. The movie literally would've been better without her in it because of how much time she chewed up needlessly that could've been spent on a character that mattered.

Now imagine having two characters like her in the same movie... kind of like... catwoman. Oh. Another character that didn't do very much but had a large amount of screen time devoted to her to explain why she does what she does, trying desperately to portray her as a sympathetic character so that you excuse all her flaws, since you can't have a female character who's flawed without a mile long list of excuses for why it doesn't count as a bad thing.

With a male character, people generally aren't that picky. "He's just kind of a jerk because someone killed his father and he wants revenge." is more than enough to satisfy most people. For a female character, you typically need to invest vastly more time and effort into excusing their behaviour for the audience to accept it.

What this means is that, with the strict limitation on how much time you have to spout exposition, most movies simply can't realistically support two dynamic female characters. Almost every generic female minion winds up with ridiculous amounts of time devoted to them, such as is showcased painfully in "The Spirit" from 2008. In that particular example, every female character in the movie gets more time devoted to excusing their behaviour than either the protagonist or antagonist.

Now, if you could just spit out a female character and be like "She's got a stick up her arse because daddy issues." and be done with it there, without pissing people off and being called misogynist for doing so, you'd be able to fit a lot more female characters into a movie by relying on stereotypes, tropes, and other forms of shorthand writing where the audience understands a much more complex concept off of a few very sparse comments because they've seen the idea before. This would simply mean more female characters with interesting roles, and therefore more female characters that can have conversations with each other, or be useful in general.

Regardless, your average male stock character simply gets shoved out with some very terse excuse for why they exist, and typically are a one-trick-pony based off their brain (scientists often are portrayed as useless outside of a lab for instance), or their brawn. If it were effective to use a man's sexuality for an excuse for stock characters, it'd be used just as often, but it's not.

For that point, it's not a matter of exploiting women for their bodies, so much as having an idiot-savant useless-outside-a-lab stock scientist character isn't typically allowed if they're female, since it makes them look bad. As do almost all other stock character examples. Stock characters typically aren't all that sympathetic for the most part, and generally have limited backstories to them, so you're just not going to find many female variants of them as what's allowed for a male character is decried as abhorrent for a female one.

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

interesting. honestly, that's a good point--you need to spend a lot more time convincing an audience to be partial to seeing a woman be injured (at least by a man). that's the nature of our society.

however, i disagree that women in general have to be highly characterized in order to be beaten up--think about bellatrix lestrange in the harry potter films. she's barely characterized, she's just given the "crazy killer bitch" vibe from the beginning (scary hair and eyes, black clothes, murderous/torturous past mentioned in a few sentences), and nobody has any problem seeing people kick her ass (even Sirius Black and Harry himself). You just have to make it clear that the woman in question is dangerous and unhinged--granted, you don't need to do this as much for a male character (or at least you don't have to make the "crazy" characterization so obvious to convince someone it's okay to beat up a guy), but you still need to do something to show that the man in question deserves being beaten up.

all that is just to say that yes, you do have to spend time making an audience okay with the idea of your hero hurting someone else--often that's done by showing the person/persons getting hurt in a negative light. true, you have to spend more time on this for women, but it's not like batman could just walk into a room and kick every man's ass and people would be like "well, that's fine, they're dudes!" time spent characterizing individuals should be done carefully and with purpose (i agree, in the dark knight rises, talia al ghul is a bit of a waste in terms of characterization--but let's remember why she's really there, after all: for bruce to have sexual tension with! and hey--the same kinda rings true for cat woman! weird! can't believe that they didn't spend more time focusing on how to make those characters dynamic and important to the meat of the story!)

further, and my biggest problem with your point is here: what about female characters who don't need to get beaten up at any point in time? or why aren't there more movies like Kill Bill, with a strong, well-developed exposition for a female lead who does need to get beaten up? why did the writers of the dark knight rises clearly spend zero time giving catwoman and talia al ghul more purposeful roles and well-written backstories, despite their excellent potential?

[–]Xiseria2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And now you're getting into the real problem: it's not that people are sexist (intentionally, at least); it's that most writers suck, especially in movies where it's highly visual.

How many action movies do you go to for the plot? I just (finally) got to see Pacific Rim the other day, and I can guarantee you, I didn't go into it expecting a good story. I expected horrible plotholes, a complete lack of understanding of the mechanics behind how the mechs worked, and I expected to see giant robots punching monsters in the face.

I was not disappointed. On all counts.

The fact of the matter is simply that you don't need to be a good writer to be a movie scriptwriter. It certainly helps, but it's most certainly not a prerequisite for the position.

As female characters are more complex to write than male ones due to what we've been talking about, and most scriptwriters are valued more for their ability to add in fight scenes than they are concise, elegant dialogue and exposition, what do you think the average scriptwriter is going to gravitate towards?

In video games, the writer is valued even less. Most of the time they don't even hire a writer, they just ask around the office if anyone ever wrote fan fiction in high school. As such, again, what kind of quality writing do you expect to get out of that?

If we really want things to change, we have two main options on what we can do about this:

1: We make it so that female characters aren't required to be more difficult to write so the average writer can actually write one as well as a male character.

Or,

2: We stop throwing money at people like Michael Bay.

Since the latter isn't going to happen any time soon, that leaves us with the former to work with. Option 1 involves female characters being written as badly as male characters. Option 2 involves actually hiring people who are competent enough to write female characters under the restrictions that are present.

Personally, I'd prefer to go with Option 2 in this case. It's kind of frustrating to realize that the vast majority of games that are remembered for decades tend to have remarkably good writing. There's a reason Planescape: Torment is on virtually everyone's "Top 10 Games Of All Time" list, and trust me, it's not for the gameplay.

Note as well that Torment also happened to have some remarkably interesting female characters as well, such as a succubus with no interest in sex who opened a brothel for intellectual pursuits such as chess, debate, and so on, and she got basically kicked out by the other succubi for being defective. There are other great examples, but I always kind of loved the idea behind Fall-From-Grace as a character design.

A good writer can bypass all the issues we've discussed. Under our culture, however, the average individual who pays money doesn't want to see good writing, though. They want to laugh at a guy tripping on a skateboard and falling into a pool, or to see stuff blow up, and that's exactly what they're given.

If people actually wanted good writing in general in their media, or if they wanted actual equality instead of this animal farm "some are more equal than other" BS we see in practice, there wouldn't be a problem. Either one of these would solve the issue we see here, and yet... well, Michael Bay still breaks the box office every time he kills your childhood just a little more, doesn't he? And yet we keep on paying him for that dubious "privilege" to continue.

Seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you. I flat out want to see better written female characters in the media. I happen to like high quality writing. I'd absolute adore it if they got someone like Michael A. Stackpole to write the next Star Wars trilogy that's coming out, but that's not what we're going to be given in practice.

I'm not saying the status quo we have is good - it's not. I'm simply saying that the problems that we have aren't the ones people think that are there. I'm saying that the root cause of the issue isn't because of patriarchy or institutionalized sexism against women or anything, but rather I'm saying it's because we've been chained to a ridiculous set of asinine requirements for writing female characters. I'm saying that we can fix the problem by instituting actual, true equality, and by hiring better writers instead of merrily shutting off our brains and finding that acceptable.

What I'm really saying, is I enjoyed Pacific Rim, but it failed the Bechdel test because there was only one relevant female character, and that this wasn't because they hated women - it's because they handled her with kid gloves the whole way through the movie, gave her twice the backstory of even the protagonist, and simply didn't have a good writer in the first place.

I want to see another Pacific Rim, but with a competent writer behind it. If that were the norm, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If we really want things to change, we have two main options on what we can do about this: 1: We make it so that female characters aren't required to be more difficult to write so the average writer can actually write one as well as a male character. Or, 2: We stop throwing money at people like Michael Bay.

I think both of those options would be great. I think a lot of the reason, however, that screenwriters have trouble writing complex female characters is because a lot of screenwriters are male. I know that's an old notion, that men can't write women, but I think there's truth to it. Take Callie Khouri--screenwriter for Thelma and Louise. She wrote a great film with two female leads, and those leads both got in their share of scary/violent situations. Also Diablo Cody, whose character in Young Adult is fantastic and complex (a female "anti-hero" of the Walter White/House/Dexter vein) but whose film was largely ignored because---why? Because the world doesn't like a complex female antihero? Who knows. But the point is, females have an easier time writing complex female characters, which makes sense, and perhaps some of the reason complex female characters are underrepresented in cinema is because female screenwriters are underrepresented.

Now--I get it. Male screenwriters get hired because our culture likes and pays to see movies written by men. To the film industry, it's a working system, so why mess with it? My answer to that question is: because the world can handle it, and will like it (because at the end of the day they'll like, or at least buy, anything you give them, they have no other choice)--you just have to give them the chance to do so. So give the world more movies written by female screenwriters, let the world show you it'll buy anything you tell them is cool, and in the process give little girls people to look up to who are more complex and badass than Snow White and the Little Mermaid.

If people actually wanted good writing in general in their media, or if they wanted actual equality instead of this animal farm "some are more equal than other" BS we see in practice, there wouldn't be a problem.

See, I disagree. I think maybe in film you're right--people watch movies to see things blow up and crazy stuff like giant robot fights. But there's a reason TV shows like True Detective and House of Cards were nominated for All The Emmys this year--those shows have excellent writing. People are able to engage with those shows because of their expositions. It's good-quality media, and its wildly popular. I'd argue film is moving in a similar direction--people criticize the shit out of action movies that have poor writing. Yes, they pay to see them regardless, but once a good action movie with good writing comes into play, that's the new standard (I'd claim that The Dark Knight was the first-ish film to do this, that is, combine good writing with modern badass explosions and make an absurd amount of money).

I'm saying that the root cause of the issue isn't because of patriarchy or institutionalized sexism against women or anything, but rather I'm saying it's because we've been chained to a ridiculous set of asinine requirements for writing female characters.

I agree with what you're saying, really--I know screenwriters aren't sitting in a room saying "well, no, that female character has too much depth! shut it down!" I know the industry is just built around a certain standard for female characterization. But that standard, when you get down to it, is based off a time when women really were victims of institutionalized sexism--the turn of the century, or the advent of film. Back then, women characters didn't have any depth because society didn't see women as having much depth--and the system worked, people went to the movies. So why change anything? That characterization system still works in 1930. And 1940…and 1950...

screenwriters and filmmakers, through all the amazing progress they have made in terms of technology and complexity of writing and plot, have still retained those old tropes. And the tropes still work, which is what we're seeing today. But it is still based off and has its roots in an old, sexist system. doesn't change anything, not at all, but it's worth recognizing why things are the way they are.

I want to see another Pacific Rim, but with a competent writer behind it. If that were the norm, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

agreed. who doesn't want to see megarobots kick the shit out of each other and then also have some mindfuck-style subplot going down too? Give me Memento…but with monsters, goddammit

[–]Xiseria2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marlospkm15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminists have this problem where they forget that Bechdel test is meant as a thought experiment. It brings up some very interesting issues TO DISCUSS.

Unfortunately they skipped the discussion part, and went straight up into social control.

Perhaps feminists should actually let everyone voice their opinions on why things are the way they are. There's things called "MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS".

From that you get a THEORY.

After that you TEST your theory. (Because you know, if something is true you can test it.)

Unfortunately none of feminisms theories have any objective science to them. Its a combination of taking outcomes and ascribing the causes so they can fit into a narrative.

It's no different than the stuff out of our ancient myths where gods held up the sky, or we lived on the back of a turtle.

Scientific method provides us a framework in which to test and discover THE EXACT CAUSES.

Instead Patriarchy exists because "I DEFINE PATRIARCHY TO BE THAT LED TO THIS OUTCOME, THEREFORE IT IS!"

THIS IS WHY IT'S A THEORY.

There's a lot of other theories on the causes of outcomes. Could you perhaps DISCUSS shit with us first, WE DEBATE SHIT, FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY KNOW AND WHAT WE CAN'T KNOW, before actually enacting some very fucked up shit?

You know, DISCUSSION.

Followed by TESTING OUT OUR HYPOTHESIS?

[–]rbbrks-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marlospkm2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i mean, in bechdel's eyes (probably), it's a problem. to feminists, it's a problem. to others, maybe not. it's true that just because one group thinks something is a problem doesn't mean others have to or should necessarily agree.

that being said, i think many non-feminists could agree that a more dynamic, less sexualized representation of women could exist in modern film and television. there are many reasons why it does not (all of which boil down to, essentially, sexualizing women works and makes money--why change anything? film is business), but i think people like bechdel are just trying to make a pointed effort to expose the moral flaw in thinking about human beings in such a calculated, business-oriented way, especially considering how much of our culture is influenced by the films and shows we watch.

[–]marlospkm2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]marlospkm1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The amount of dynamic men in film compared to non-dynamic isn't that far off from the dynamic women part.

i disagree. i think we might be using the word "dynamic" to mean different things, though--yes, there's shitty, undeveloped characters on both ends of the gender spectrum. but when i say "dynamic" i mean "important/interesting for any reason other than sex appeal/romantic interest." there are so, so many male characters in so, so many movies that are important, interesting (and exist) for reasons other than their potential sex appeal or value as a romantic interest.

Except they're not stuck, the world values them constantly

the world values them for what, though?

and this is not actually a fact but a result of how you're subjectively viewing the content

i disagree. if we were to somehow poll the movie-going world, do you think most people would honestly say that women aren't sexualized more on film than men are? would you honestly say you don't think women are sexualized more on film than men are?

Try paying more attention to the diversity within female characters within firm and television.

there are tons and tons of women on film, and tons and tons of films. obviously no claim is going to hold up to every film. but here, let's take a look at the top four grossing films of all time and examine their lead female characters:

1, Avatar: fairly good in terms of female characters. Zoe Saldana's character, though, the female lead, exists as Sam Worthington's love interest and, arguably, is motivated towards the end of the film by her love of Worthington's character more so than anything else. Her character changes fundamentally after finding a man. Sigourney Weaver's character is great, though! Strong, intelligent, dynamic, and generally good characterization in terms of backstory and motivation. This is the kind of character the Bechdel test fails to give enough credit to; just because she talks to men doesn't mean she's not important to the story.

2, Titanic: Come on, now. Rose is about to kill herself before a nice handsome boy comes and charms her. Then she constantly makes life-threatening decisions because she fell so hard for someone she barely knew. She might be a "rebel" in the sense that she doesn't particularly enjoy her posh life and hopes to escape it in the beginning of the film, but that's hardly dynamic characterization--it's an old trope. Further, major plot points are centered around her beauty/body (the nude drawing scene). Granted, Jack did the same thing (in terms of acting dangerously after falling quickly in love), but one could attribute that more to a sense of honor (an obligation to protect "his" girl by any means) than to a lack of individualism.

3, The Avengers: Black Widow is clearly mostly around for sex appeal. And Colbie Smulders' character isn't much more dynamic than that; no real characterization. Smulders is barely even a major character--I'm really stretching to include her. Third highest grossing film of all-time, and the only female lead is highly, highly sexualized.

4, Harry Potter 7, Part 2: Very few female characters of major importance, aside from Hermione. Hermione is, of course, characterized extraordinarily well throughout the series and has a dynamic role in the story (the "brains" behind most of Harry's plans), but at the end of the day--she ends up with one of the male leads, Ron, before the Battle of Hogwarts is even over (also, Ron's insecurity about her romantic interest towards him is one of the main reasons Ron abandons Harry and Hermione in the first part of the 7th installation).

I'd include #5, Frozen, but I haven't seen it and therefore can't judge its characterization. Somethingggg tells me the female characters aren't sexualized, but from what I can tell, the whole "true love's kiss" trope is utilized, which is a really good way of detracting from the agency and individuality of two potentially wonderful female characters, Elsa and Anna.

So there you go. Five major movies, all with some good (save maybe The Avengers), all with some bad--but all with questions, for certain. Note that only in Frozen do the stories revolve around female relationships/dynamics--and only does so through the "princess" trope. Hard to argue that anyone branching out with that.

Female stories aren't the mainstream, not by a long shot. Hell, when Bridesmaids, one of (at least in my opinion) the funniest movies of the past five years, came out, it was still given the "really funny…for girls! and isn't that so cool, girl power rocks!" kind of reviews (and note that the female lead in that film is single, a mess, and insanely jealous of her best friend's other friend--hardly a positive or unique female character).

[–]marlospkm1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

there are so, so many male characters in so, so many movies that are important, interesting (and exist) for reasons other than their potential sex appeal or value as a romantic interest.

And for every one of those, there's a hundred or so men who's sole purpose is to die in the film.

This is a case of apex fallacy. You're paying attention to the men with the spotlight and ignoring all the multitude of men who are disposable.

the world values them for what, though?

Their existence.

See: Because I am a Girl campaign.

i disagree. if we were to somehow poll the movie-going world, do you think most people would honestly say that women aren't sexualized more on film than men are? would you honestly say you don't think women are sexualized more on film than men are?

Yes. We're using different criteria for what sexualized is in all honesty.

My criteria recognizes that women find different things sexually attractive than men.

but here, let's take a look at the top four grossing films of all time and examine their lead female characters:

This is definitely a terrible test to prove a point regarding females being sexualized in film.

Yes they are the top grossing films.

Yes, this content was consumed more than other content.

This is not the artists fault.

This is not the consumers fault.

This is no one's fault.

Because there is no problem.

I do not get upset when I order a hamburger and french fries and my meal is not 50% hamburger and 50% french fries.

I don't get upset if someone wants 75% french fries and 25% hamburger, or any combination that isn't my ideal combination.

People are consuming a product, and consumers will consume whatever they desire regardless of some sort of moral good that would come from it.

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And for every one of those, there's a hundred or so men who's sole purpose is to die in the film.

That's true--but female characters are also disposable. think about any disaster movie. women are among victims, too. also, think about any movie where a character is made out to be evil or sadistic--usually that character will target females. Buffalo Bill wouldn't have been half as scary if he was trapping men in that well.

Their existence.

okay, then why most of them happen to be objectively attractive? if it's just existence, why do looks matter?

My criteria recognizes that women find different things sexually attractive than men.

fair enough. women aren't as visual as men, it makes sense that women in media are depicted more sexually than males. however, i still don't think it's good practice. it certainly will never, ever change, but i happen to dislike it.

This is not the artists fault. This is not the consumers fault. This is no one's fault.

you're right in the sense that blame can't be attributed to any individual--however, someone somewhere decided that Kate Winslet should be topless for part of Titanic, and I'll guarantee that that person wasn't thinking about artistry. They were thinking about tickets. I think using sexuality for commercial gain is kind of gross, personally, and yeah, I realize 100% that nobody gives a damn about my personal thoughts. however, i think many women will agree that when they look onscreen and struggle to find female characters who are genuinely worth something more than their bodies, it's demoralizing. it's sad that the major female characters from my favorite childhood movies were snow white and the little mermaid--both of whom were essentially silent, waiting for a man to give them worth, while my brother got to watch Die Hard and see John McClane take down a building full of terrorists singlehandedly. That's all.

I know it's a consumer-driven world we live in, but you have to understand that media, in effect, controls culture. many, many things we think we know about this world come from us simply watching movies and shows about those things--for example, when we think about doctors and cops (unless we are a doctor or cop) we default mentally to what we've seen on TV. we don't know anything about real police procedure or what it's like to work at a hospital, but we think we do. when we think about guns, we think about how automatic rifles can shoot nonstop for minutes on end in a movie--not realizing how terribly inaccurate that representation of automatic weapons is. so when we heavily represent women through sexuality onscreen, we help create a culture that sees women first as sexual beings. and that's a problem.

if movies really were just movies, i'd be fine. but they're not. pop culture has an extraordinary influence over our daily societal culture. it needs better, more positive representations of people in general (this goes for the violence thing too) if we want a better, more positive society.

[–]marlospkm1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's true--but female characters are also disposable.

Yeah, that's like saying 1 is better than 0. ;)

Men make a massive majority of disposable characters.

Here, in this famous movie scene 88 men are killed without being given any characterization.

However all the women killed are given way more characterization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3aFv8IQb4s

however, someone somewhere decided that Kate Winslet should be topless for part of Titanic, and I'll guarantee that that person wasn't thinking about artistry.

I thought that scene was about the artistry though considering how famous that scene has become.

People remember well how she wanted to be drawn like one of his French girls.

Art can be shocking. It can be crude. It can be anything.

it's sad that the major female characters from my favorite childhood movies were snow white and the little mermaid--both of whom were essentially silent, waiting for a man to give them worth, while my brother got to watch Die Hard and see John McClane take down a building full of terrorists singlehandedly.

I'm guessing you had an older brother? Die Hard isn't really a thing little kids should be watching.

I mean, if you wanted action stars you could have watched Terminator 2 for Sarah Connor.

Alice, from Alice in Wonderland is also pretty strong in my opinion. I mean if I was stuck in the psychedelic trip world of Wonderland at her age, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived.

Heck, even Penny from Inspector Gadget was strong considering how often she saved her uncle Gadget.

There are strong women everywhere in pop culture, but you have to be willing to look for them. They might not be your favourite characters.

if movies really were just movies,

They are just movies though.

i'd be fine. but they're not. pop culture has an extraordinary influence over our daily societal culture. it needs better, more positive representations of people in general (this goes for the violence thing too) if we want a better, more positive society.

I disagree. I feel like pop culture taking a positive spin on representation is a great way of ignoring all the horrible people in the world. You talk about a "better" society, but I don't see how putting on rose-tinted shades makes things better or better informs the public. Endless positivity is not how the world works.

Pop culture is best when anyone can contribute whatever they wish, and is free to do so. Because the freedom of individual creative expression makes for a much "better" society in my opinion than what you are proposing to be "better".

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, that's like saying 1 is better than 0. ;)

Touche.

I think you're right, honestly--it's interesting to me that men are the only ones who can be randomly massacred by a hero and have it be acceptable. I guess the difference in my mind is that yeah, a bunch of men just got killed over there, but hey, look! there's a complex, developed male character standing right over there. with women, sexualization is the norm, even for lead characters, so there's little to no escape from the ways in which women are slighted on film.

I thought that scene was about the artistry though considering how famous that scene has become. People remember well how she wanted to be drawn like one of his French girls. Art can be shocking. It can be crude. It can be anything.

Fair. But that aspect of Jack and Rose's relationship--the nervous sexual tension, the idea of Rose wanting to be wilder than her posh upbringing ever allowed her to be, the raw talent of Jack, so on--doesn't actually require elongated shots of Rose's breasts. The scene could easily have focused on Jack's face, camera set behind the couch where Rose lay, never showing her body, letting the sight of her naked beauty be Jack's and Jack's alone. It would have, at least in my opinion, been more tasteful in that way, and given the intimacy of that moment more poignancy. But it's more fun to look at boobs than to not look at boobs, so the filmmakers show the boobs, and they apply more "purposeful" meaning to why they did later.

I'm guessing you had an older brother? Die Hard isn't really a thing little kids should be watching.

Yes, he's older, haha but either way in my family we all probably watched movies too young. Part of the "eh, you'll figure this stuff out eventually" let-them-play-in-the-dirt kinda parents I had. No complaints about it. True about Sarah Connor, but that movie wasn't targeted or marketed at girls (not to say Die Hard was targeted at boys, but it certainly targeted males), so why would I ever ask my parents if I could see it? I'd never heard of it.

Alice, from Alice in Wonderland is also pretty strong in my opinion. I mean if I was stuck in the psychedelic trip world of Wonderland at her age, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have survived. Heck, even Penny from Inspector Gadget was strong considering how often she saved her uncle Gadget.

true! Both good examples. Ellen Ripley is another wonderful female character. But the problem isn't that good female characters don't exist; they do. The problem is that good female characters aren't the norm. the problem is also that a "good" female character just means that a female character isn't oversexualized and has some relative depth, whereas it's expected that male characters aren't oversexualized and have relative depth. an "acceptable" male character is the equivalent to a "good" female character in many cases.

I disagree. I feel like pop culture taking a positive spin on representation is a great way of ignoring all the horrible people in the world. You talk about a "better" society, but I don't see how putting on rose-tinted shades makes things better or better informs the public. Endless positivity is not how the world works.

I think you're underestimating the power of pop culture. Seriously, think about anything in this world that you haven't experienced firsthand. What does Paris look like? What did the clothes in ancient Greece look like? What is it like to be a teacher, or an astronaut, or very wealthy, or very poor? What's it like to use hard drugs? What is it like to go to Catholic school? What is it like to be a rock star?

You probably have some idea of what all those things are like, in your mind--a image flashes when you read all those words. But unless you've seen those things firsthand, all those images are based off of media, things you've consumed or seen through the filter of a screenwriter's interpretation of what it feels like to do heroin or be in a touring rock band. We have no idea what those things are like in reality, because most of us have never experienced them in real life. But we still have this notion of what all those things mean. There's something to be said for that. Movies are just movies, you're right--when you ask anyone if they think movies are realistic representations of the world, they'll say no. But they'll also probably tell you that they think astronauts only eat dehydrated food, or that silencers actually make guns quiet.

Pop culture is best when anyone can contribute whatever they wish, and is free to do so. Because the freedom of individual creative expression makes for a much "better" society in my opinion than what you are proposing to be "better".

I know endless, mindless positivity is unrealistic. I'm a realist. However, I'm also hopeful--I know how the world works, yet I hope it can change. And I know that aiming for perfection is the only way to end up with something simply better than what we have. that's all i'm getting at.

[–]marlospkm1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I guess the difference in my mind is that yeah, a bunch of men just got killed over there, but hey, look! there's a complex, developed male character standing right over there. with women, sexualization is the norm, even for lead characters, so there's little to no escape from the ways in which women are slighted on film.

For men, it's a constant reminder if you're not that complex developed male in real life, you're as good as dead.

There's no escaping that.

Even in real life, this is a standard most men are forced to live.

Fair. But that aspect of Jack and Rose's relationship--the nervous sexual tension, the idea of Rose wanting to be wilder than her posh upbringing ever allowed her to be, the raw talent of Jack, so on--doesn't actually require elongated shots of Rose's breasts. The scene could easily have focused on Jack's face, camera set behind the couch where Rose lay, never showing her body, letting the sight of her naked beauty be Jack's and Jack's alone. It would have, at least in my opinion, been more tasteful in that way, and given the intimacy of that moment more poignancy. But it's more fun to look at boobs than to not look at boobs, so the filmmakers show the boobs, and they apply more "purposeful" meaning to why they did later.

I guess? I really didn't like Titanic to be honest.

For me at the time, the boobs being showed was the only way I could actually understand that the two were becoming intimate.

Though I understand why this is now. For me, I require physical intimacy and praise to feel loved by someone.

Other people feel love through different means.

Feelings are complex and different for all sorts of people. For some people that kind of thing is the only thing that makes sense to them.

The problem is that good female characters aren't the norm. the problem is also that a "good" female character just means that a female character isn't oversexualized and has some relative depth, whereas it's expected that male characters aren't oversexualized and have relative depth. an "acceptable" male character is the equivalent to a "good" female character in many cases.

I'm not really sure what an "acceptable" male character is?

Something like Hannibal Lector? Or Hitler?

I for one would like to see more women on film like them as I feel it'd better reflect the fact that women are just as capable of committing atrocities as men.

I think a lot of the reason women are so "undeveloped" in film is that film makers for whatever reason rarely show how terrible women can be as human beings.

Much of the "complexity" of male characters comes from their negative character traits. In well written female characters, they're not afraid of showing this.

Though I do hear they made a Margaret Thatcher movie so...

I think you're underestimating the power of pop culture. Seriously, think about anything in this world that you haven't experienced firsthand. What does Paris look like? What did the clothes in ancient Greece look like? What is it like to be a teacher, or an astronaut, or very wealthy, or very poor? What's it like to use hard drugs? What is it like to go to Catholic school? What is it like to be a rock star?

Never been to Paris, but I've used google street view. Never been to Ancient Greece. I've taught, though not at a formal school. Never went to space. Done more than my share of hard drugs. Not catholic. Done a bit of rockin' in my day. :p

I don't actually trust the media, and I spend most my time avoiding it.

When I watch TV when I visit my mother, I'm in awe at the raw amount of messages and propaganda in it though.

To me it's completely unrealistic.

And I know that aiming for perfection is the only way to end up with something simply better than what we have. that's all i'm getting at.

I'm not sure that I am down for your idea of perfection to be honest. My ups in downs in my imperfect life have allowed me my own unique experience, and I'm happy they've been able to make me who I am.

Perfection is certainly something Plato strived for with his Theory of Forms. It's certainly something Confucius strived for.

But there's a lot of problems with their theories as far as I'm concerned.

[–]rbbrks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For men, it's a constant reminder if you're not that complex developed male in real life, you're as good as dead. There's no escaping that.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Every living person has a highly developed "backstory" in the sense that they've been alive and have memories and depth…nobody in the world is actually just a nameless henchman. what do you mean "if you're not complex and developed?"

Feelings are complex and different for all sorts of people. For some people that kind of thing is the only thing that makes sense to them.

I suppose that's true--but in the context of the story, at least to me, it would have made more sense to keep the nudity only for jack's eyes. the whole point of the scene is that she's giving herself to him in a way, bearing all because she's breaking free from her societal status. it seems to cheapen the connection the two share by giving everyone else a look at what is only meant for jack in the most intimate of moments (their love in that scene is clear, despite the fact that there is no physical intimacy between them).

I'm not really sure what an "acceptable" male character is? Something like Hannibal Lector? Or Hitler?

Acceptable in the sense that they're given enough backstory and characterization to not seem pointless, i.e., they're not just stock characters. a "good" male character goes a step beyond that--they're extraordinarily well developed, have depth and purpose and relatable motivation. honestly, hannibal lector is a great character--his psyche is explored, his past, his thoughts and moral code, his goals and ambitions are all laid out in a purposeful way that's integral to the story.

female characters, however, to be deemed "good" by most people, simply fit the bill of having relative depth and a clear backstory--in other words, they're just not the oversexualized female stock character. to me that's an imbalance of standards.

either way, negativity is just one way of showing complexity. seeing someone be morally conflicted and making the right decision is humanizing, and a great characterization tool, but is still positive. there are tons of ways of showing this. further, i don't think filmmakers are afraid of showing women in vicious roles: think bellatrix lestrange, catherine tramell (basic instinct), alex forrest (fatal attraction). all women, all vicious and dangerous (alex forrest is actually killed by michael douglas' character, and nobody in the world would ever think twice about it because she was a crazy murderous bitch, how's that for being afraid to have men assault women on screen).

To me it's completely unrealistic.

that's wonderful, i'm glad you have the experience and healthy skepticism to not believe everything you see. sadly, most people in the world aren't the same way. a LOT of people use pop culture as a reference point for the world at large.

I'm not sure that I am down for your idea of perfection to be honest. My ups in downs in my imperfect life have allowed me my own unique experience, and I'm happy they've been able to make me who I am. Perfection is certainly something Plato strived for with his Theory of Forms. It's certainly something Confucius strived for. But there's a lot of problems with their theories as far as I'm concerned.

no, i get that. perfection is unattainable; that's why you strive for it. because the nature of striving (and the failure that comes with it) is what makes for the "ups and downs" that give us character.

[–]realplayafs3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's all borne of the same nonsense, gobbledygook, and pop-psychology that the media just loves to eat up these days.

The world will stop calling women gossipy, catty to each other, focused on things that generally hold little interest to men the minute they stop being gossipy, catty to each other, and interested in things that men really don't care about.

Considering that women are the ones catered to by the media, it never ceases to amaze me how much flack men get for catering to women. It ain't us watching re-runs of Oprah, holding the numbers up for Survivor, or demanding yet another singing contest. We're also not buying Cosmo, going to see movies with names such as "Girl Interrupted", or listening to K-Pop.

Frankly, a better test would be to ask whether anybody would buy any of this shit if it were done otherwise.

[–]SkyGuppy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Rape-Apologist-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ParanoidAgnostic4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ParanoidAgnostic3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xiseria1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I have to go with ParanoidAgnostic, here. It is a problem, the test just misses what the problem actually is.

And it's not because of misandry at all, it's just that people are trying to be nice to women in particular. They're not trying to be assholes to men, they just don't try to give an unfair advantage to men is all.

There's not some active campaign to try to beat the shit out of men in media, there just isn't a campaign to stop it, is all.

But therein lies the problem - because the "average person", as a collective group, tries to be nice to women, it ends up hurting them indirectly in the long run.

And yes, the article is long-winded; I try to keep them self contained. If you need to know C for B to make sense, and B is required to support A, then I'll branch off and cover both B and C, rather than just assume everyone understands them. Unfortunately, when you start getting into more advanced concepts, be they literary in nature or otherwise, you tend to run into things like that a lot. This tends to mean either you have multiple sections which are only tertiary in relevance, or your argument is weak because it relies on a large amount of extra data that's not included.

Most people "fix" this problem by citing sources that no one reads anyway. I just prefer to handle it by explaining the reasoning behind a source within the base article itself rather than pointing to twenty other sources that don't quite word it in the way that's necessary to understand the topic I'm currently on.

It just means it leads to longer articles which appear to be somewhat rambling, but the purpose is essentially the same as listing off sources, just without the need to leave the article is all.

[–]yummyluckycharms3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're missing the point though....the test is something that is made up to prove a non-existent point or problem.

If there aren't any women in movies or media, then the problem isnt the movies, but the consumers who are watching them. The media business makes products that sell - if they dont sell - they dont make them. Furthermore, if an audience is important, then other channels will arise to meet the demands from that consumer base.

Lets take this point further and see what happens when we look beyond movies. TV network broadcasting has seen an exodus of male viewers as more and more shows have devolved to being skewed towards women. Men, not seeing the value in network tv migrated towards cable tv channels such as AMC, FX, and Comedy Central.

Now lets take this fact one step further. Lets say the government forced quotas on the media as they do in some scandinvian states so that there was more female oriented media content in both movies and film. Men would simply just avoid that content and would migrate to entertainment channels such as online gaming, internet, etc. The media companies would suffer, the govt goal of increasing female role models that the population is familiar with would fail, and I would add, probably film quality and creativity would suffer as well.

In essence, the Bechdel test is irrelevant for as as soon as there is an imbalance in an important consumer segment, it is quicky solved by other competitors. If the government tries to force a solution onto an industry, it only makes a problem worse as the targeted consumers would simply exit that industry all together.

[–]guywithaccount1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yummyluckycharms1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]yummyluckycharms1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xiseria2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with you, honestly. The Bechdel test isn't meant to check the quality at all, it'd be like complaining that your fuel gauge on your car doesn't do anything to describe your speed... because it's not supposed to, you have a different tool sitting right next to that for that task called a speedometer. It's almost like that's why it's called a speedometer. =P

Now, to answer a few other people who have replied to you, however... the Bechdel test does actually show a problem, it just isn't the problem that it thinks it does.

I can, and have, worked around the Bechdel test before, and also have written some great female characters. The thing is, though, that it takes a lot more finesse to write a great female character than a male one because there's so many extra pitfalls to step into.

What it inadvertently is showing, is that we really don't have equality of the sexes after all, and that the problems stem from trying to be nice to women, not from a hatred of them. Treat women as actual equals, for better and for worse, and the problem disappears.

[–]guywithaccount1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xiseria1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pretty much, yes. Rather than try to beat them over the head, it's easier to lead by example. Hence... my female characters when I write content trend towards being quite in depth and realistic, including having flaws and having to take accountability for their actions. One of the easier methods I've found is to have them create a problem for themselves, and then have to live with the consequences of such and fix it themselves - in this way no one can say a guy had caused it, or that a guy had to save them or anything like that.

However, I am but a single writer, and I can't change the world by myself by being subtle. To that end, I now have a tool I can simply link people to when talking about writing useful and actually strong female characters to say "this is why it hasn't worked for you so far." If you know what's wrong, you then have the option to fix it. It doesn't mean everyone actually will, but it's much harder to correct something when you don't know what's wrong.

The core problem that needs to be addressed is just that writers have to be willing to treat female characters with the same hostility they do to male characters. This is why the old writing description for how to write a female character goes "just write a male character, then go back and change the name and pronouns to female" - it doesn't work that well in practice, since it lacks the feel of a truly feminine character, but it's the easiest way to bypass the problems associated with treating a female character as something that needs to be coddled and cared for.

Regardless, I agree that we should be putting more effort into writing better female characters, but so long as they're tied down to the burden of not being allowed to be harmed, it's just not going to happen. Hence why this kind of article is so badly needed. It's not there to beat people's heads in and say "Rawr change your mind!", it's there to showcase what the problem is, explain it logically, and thereby allow people to bypass the problem entirely.

That the audience gets to read it as well is more of just a happy bonus - the article's more directed towards aspiring writers than the readers or viewers they write for, since the whole point is to give up on trying to live up to the Bechdel test - you'll pass it by default if you don't write female characters with mittens on them so they don't hurt themselves.

[–]FartsMalone-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rbbrks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xiseria1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Already covered under "monstrous" women, or those women who harm other women. So long as a woman looks like a woman and is cruel to only men? She's given a pass as a "real" woman. As soon as she harms another woman, or if she started out not looking like a stereotypical woman, then she's expendable in media.

The thing to note, is if at any point during the movie she started out looking like a "real woman", then she retains that aspect even if she turns monstrous (Shrek), or if she changes into a "real woman" it's applied retroactively to when she wasn't.

The same holds true even for fertility - if you have a pissy old grandmother who hates everyone and shows truly abhorrent behaviour, it's still a pass because she was already fertile at one point and it's applied retroactively - you should respect her because she WAS fertile. She's a mother, and mothers command respect, no matter how abusive or terrible of characters they are.

Not in my opinion, and likely not in yours, either, but in terms of the industry and the average viewer who provides ratings and money it is, sadly, all too true.

[–]Deansdale0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The most chilling point of the article is this:

To generate character development, you absolutely have to harm the character, and conflict is the most common method of doing such. With a female character, since you’re not allowed to harm them, you can’t make them grow or better themselves in the vast majority of situations.

This is not only true in fiction, but also in real life. By shielding women from harm, we essentially make sure they never have to develop their character. That is why western women seem so shitty: they don't have any hardships, and grow into adulthood staying the little princessess and spoiled brats they are in their childhoods. We as a society must let them face the consequences of their own actions, because "protecting them" went way too far and threatens our very existence.

[–]regents-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]What_a_dumbshit2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]regents-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlexReynard3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]regents0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Xiseria1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is, of course, simplified; when you're working with large groups, you have to.

Clearly, myself and others on this board, or the bulk of those who will read the article, are unlikely to harbour that same opinion, but we're in the minority.

The majority are those who watch the media, the ones who pay for it with admission fees, tickets, popcorn, cable bills, advertisements and so on, and for this group, they do in fact tend to think in this manner.

It's not really cynical to make a statement that "the majority of people act this way, and because we want to make profits, we cater to them.", it's simply an admission of reality in that case.

Content creators do what sells, typically. There are those who cater to niche audiences, but for the average, mainstream media, you can consistently expect the lowest common denominator to be fed what they want simply because they have more money as a group.

The point is, it's not so much a bad thing in and of itself - failing the bechdel test doesn't mean you're a bad writer, or that you hate women, it just means you're restricting yourself to what makes money consistently.

What is problematic is that it takes a significantly higher standard of writing to pass the test without offending people by harming women in the process. Equality means... equality. Across the board. Not "some are more equal than others" animal farm BS. If women weren't held on a pedestal, you'd get more media which could use them as actually viable character concepts.

Most people don't mean to be sexist, though; they honestly don't even realize they're doing it. They might grasp the idea that overprotection is a form of abuse if you stifle someone from experience needed to survive, but most people won't recognize that they apply that to women in general on a regular basis because of how normalized it is.

So yeah, the bechdel test actually does show sexism, but not the kind you'd think. It's not because people hate women, it's because they love women and don't think through their actions. We, as a species, tend to do things that seem like a good idea at the time without thinking through the full ramifications of our actions is all. The trick to making better decisions is just to realize that you have a decision to make in the first place, since we're built to run on autopilot and instinct the vast majority of the time. Once you know you have a choice, you can make it.

By pointing out the mechanics behind why most content fails the test, those who read the article can now actively make a choice to avoid the same pitfalls that they probably didn't consciously recognize existed before.

I dunno, I guess I just don't consider it cynical to state that you can't truly make a choice you don't know you have.

[–]AlexReynard1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]What_a_dumbshit1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel-9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women are, by their very nature, deemed to be valuable.

So valuable you can't think of anything they'd talk about besides men for a minute, without cheating?

You're an incredibly unimaginative hack.

A woman is important

But often has her opinions dismissed.

special

Single mothers struggling with mental illness? They can feel the love.

something of value without needing to be anything more than a woman.

And they love being valued for just having a pair of breasts.

This is why sane people avoid /r/thepussypass.

She need not be especially intelligent, charming, or even particularly useful to fulfill the role of “nice to have around”.

It's amazing how low standards will fall, if all you're looking for is life support for a vagina.

A woman can be an arrogant, stuck up waste of flesh, but so long as she’s a woman, that’s good enough.

Maybe for you. Try having a little self-respect?

This kind of toxic bullshit is why I can't take half of men's rights seriously.

[–]rgeek6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why the Bechdel test is useless

Comments

Title	Why the Bechdel test is useless
Author	Imdefender
Upvotes	19
Comments	59
Date	September 28, 2014 8:14 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2hq3ct/why-the-bechdel-test-is-useless/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-the-bechdel-test-is-useless.1621481 https://theredarchive.com/post/1621481