I recently discovered Feminist Frequency, a series of YouTube videos on women and pop culture. They were brought to my attention through a Kickstarter campaign funding another group of videos that will be added to the collection examining women and video games. I am incredibly excited to see how these turn out, as this subject is continually of interest, both academic and personal, to me. However, while I wait in great anticipation for those additions, I want to talk about this video about the Bechdel Test.
In short, the Bechdel Test is an indicator of the presence of women in movies. To satisfy the criteria of the Bechdel Test a movie must have two named female characters, who talk with each other, about a topic other than a male. I think my favorite thing about this video is that it highlights that the Bechdel Test should not be used as something that a given movie passes or fails. Wonderful movies such as Wall-E and UP may not satisfy the Bechdel Test, while a movie that exploits or reinforces stereotypes about women may just happen to have two female characters chat with each other. Rather, the Bechdel Test is meant to be an indicator of the presence of women in the industry overall.
However, the one major point of disagreement I have with the video is where the creator says that there is no need for a Reverse Bechdel Test, or a Bechdel Test for male presence, because there isn't a problem with male presence in the media. Specifically she says, "the test is meant to indicate a problem, and there isn't a problem with a lack of men interacting with each other... and since there's no problem with men and men's stories being underrepresented in films the reverse test is useless and irrelevant." If the test is indeed meant to indicate a problem we ought not assume that there isn't a problem with men's representation in films and instead apply the test to determine if there truly isn't a problem; I imagine that there is not. However, I think the point that she is making is that if one applies the Reverse Bechdel Test to specific films there may be those that fail, such as Wall-E. However, the existence of some films that do not meet Reverse Bechdel standards does not imply that men are being "left out" or "oppressed."
The thing one would wish to do is gather a large selection of popular movies and then apply both Bechdel and Reverse Bechdel standards to all the movies. To get results look at the proportion that do not stand up under the Bechdel Test, then compare that to those that don't satisfy the Reverse Bechdel Test. The comparison of these percentages should provide insight into the relative presence of men and women in movies.
Another good point the video makes is that there are other situations in which Bechdel-like Tests can be useful. The creator suggests using the test for racial minorities. I would be interested to see how books fare under the Bechdel Test, although I would imagine they will do better, as their plots are not so condensed I conclude with a quick look at the Star Wars movie series under the Bechdel Test.
A New Hope: I can't think of any named female characters other than Aunt Bereu and Princess Leia, and since one dies before the other enters the action (except for as a flickering blue hologram), not much chance of passing the Bechdel Test. Since Luke and Uncle Owen discuss evaporators and droids it certainly passes the Reverse Bechdel, and does so easily.
The Empire Strikes Back: Are there any female characters other than Princess Leia? ... ... ... The iconic confrontation between Luke and Darth Vader at the end certainly qualifies it to pass the Reverse Bechdel.
Return of the Jedi: No, Jabba does not count as a named female character. So, just Princess Leia again? I'm willing to disallow Jabba as a male character, but Luke's conversation with Obi-Wan about truth and perspective should satisfy the Reverse Bechdel.
Ok, the original trilogy was filmed quite a while ago, before women became widely established in the public sphere. Perhaps the prequel trilogy will do better, although if they do it will be the first time I think.
The Phantom Menace: Queen Amadala and Shmi Skywalker, at least we have two named female characters. Do they speak with each other... I don't know. The movie opens with Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon bantering, a clear Reverse Bechdel pass.
Attack of the Clones: I think someone may have mentioned the name of the shape-changing assassin that goes after Senator Amadala, but that might just have been in the book. Either way, although she tries to kill Senator Amaala, they do not talk. I guess Shmi is back in this movie as well, but she only has a brief conversation with Anakin before dying to further his plot development, and path to the dark side. Plenty of Obi-Wan and Anakin banter in the assassin chase to satisfy the Reverse Bechdel.
Revenge of the Sith: I believe we are back to one named female character, how sad. Obi-Wan, Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine, and Count Dooku chat it up on General Grevious' flagship, but we actually pass the Reverse Bechdel even sooner, as Obi-Wan and Anakin banter their way through the rescue flight.
Please do not misunderstand me, I absolutely love the Star Wars movies, and the franchise as a whole played a large role in my childhood. But women did not play a huge role in the movies... or in my childhood for that matter ;-)
Showing posts with label comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comparison. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Cycle of Life
While in Arizona, my sister graciously let me borrow her book, enabling me to avoid finishing my own before the plane ride to Oregon. She is reading Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Unfortunately it is less a book about history, something which I find quite interesting, and more a book about teaching history, something which I find less interesting, but it still had nuggets of interest which kept me reading through the first half of the book. And, as is my wont, I got to thinking.
One of the author's, James Loewen, theses is that history is edited to portray advances through time as an inexorable development. Supporting this point he mentions the suppression of oceanic crossings prior to Columbus, which would indicate that reaching the "New" World was, in fact, old news. He also argues that portrayals of Native Americans as primitive peoples stems from urge to portray history as directed toward continual advancement, otherwise known as a teleological interpretation of history.
If the native peoples were uncivilized, then their eradication and assimilation into European culture can be explained as progress towards increasingly civilized society. However, if there were already societies as complex and, in some ways, more advanced than European societies then one runs into dual problems of justification. Without appealing to a notion of "advancement," how can one justify the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans, and how valid is the notion of "advancement"?
It is interesting to note that one can examine these questions separately. Consider the "noble savage" narrative, whose attraction we can observe in the popularity of the movie Avatar, the one about the blue Indians, not the one about the final airbender. Although such interpretations condemn European aggression, they still portray Europeans as more technologically advanced. This seems to send the message that European victory was barbaric and unjustified, but technically predetermined, still in keeping with a teleological interpretation of history.
So then, one might ask how accurate a linear perception of human achievement truly is. Arguing against this notion are things like the pre-Columbian landings which did not lead to colonization, indicating that some factor other than technical know-how spurred European aggression in the late 1400's. One might also remark on the tragic losses of knowledge and local "dark ages" which seem to counter-indicate a linear growth of human civilization. One might remark how common life remained for the most part unchanging over vast stretches of human history.
The modern person has strong motivation to interpret history as linear advancement, not only are we the, current, culmination of said advance, we are always being told of steadily advancing technology. However, one might give some consideration to how true this steady advance is. Certainly advertising agencies have motivation to convince us that technology is improving, whether or not it is even changing. Take, for example, the e-Reader; whenever airlines announce that all portable devices, readers, et al. need to be shut off, I simply smile into my book and continue reading. While an e-Reader is certainly a "high-tech" (notice the way that term alone implies the continual improvement of technology) form of book, one can certainly ask if it is superior. It's very electronic nature places limitations on its usage, on planes, in places without electricity, that do not constrain books. Furthermore, producing e-Readers is more resource and technique intensive than producing printed books. The first first point leads one to question whether the e-Reader is actually technology worse suited to modern realities than the printed book. The second raises issues of privilege, what societies can produce e-Readers and which people can employ them.
Another interesting place to consider "progress" is computer/video games. Although graphics have gotten "better" without question, where "better" simply means that they have become more accurate portrayals of what we actually perceive and one lesson we may learn from art is that more accurate portrayals aren't necessarily better, one can question whether games themselves are improving. Insofar as games are intended to provide an alternate reality plagued with problems possessing obvious solutions into which we may escape to avoid dealing with the problems without obvious solutions plaguing our current reality, I suppose better graphics do lead to a better game. However, if one takes the somewhat less cynical view that games are intended to provide fun, I would like to see evidence as to improvement in current games. Of course, since new games need to be bought, and "better" graphics require "better" hardware to be purchased, there is a large incentive for new games to be touted as ever improving, so we may find older games disappointing now, the right question to ask is whether we were having any less fun when they were "cutting edge" (again implying continual advancement) than we are now with current new releases. And, of course, the continual consumption of new games and hardware presents the same resource and technique requirement questions as the e-Reader.
I am not pretending to present answers in this post. I just wish to highlight the, I believe, interesting question of whether our modern lifestyle does constitute an actual improvement over historical lifestyles and, if so, for what reasons? Furthermore, if one discards the notion of historical advancement then practices and beliefs from historical societies become sources for suggestions of ways we could improve our current society back to lost standards, a curious notion for a progressive like me to be espousing, I know.
One of the author's, James Loewen, theses is that history is edited to portray advances through time as an inexorable development. Supporting this point he mentions the suppression of oceanic crossings prior to Columbus, which would indicate that reaching the "New" World was, in fact, old news. He also argues that portrayals of Native Americans as primitive peoples stems from urge to portray history as directed toward continual advancement, otherwise known as a teleological interpretation of history.
If the native peoples were uncivilized, then their eradication and assimilation into European culture can be explained as progress towards increasingly civilized society. However, if there were already societies as complex and, in some ways, more advanced than European societies then one runs into dual problems of justification. Without appealing to a notion of "advancement," how can one justify the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of Europeans, and how valid is the notion of "advancement"?
It is interesting to note that one can examine these questions separately. Consider the "noble savage" narrative, whose attraction we can observe in the popularity of the movie Avatar, the one about the blue Indians, not the one about the final airbender. Although such interpretations condemn European aggression, they still portray Europeans as more technologically advanced. This seems to send the message that European victory was barbaric and unjustified, but technically predetermined, still in keeping with a teleological interpretation of history.
So then, one might ask how accurate a linear perception of human achievement truly is. Arguing against this notion are things like the pre-Columbian landings which did not lead to colonization, indicating that some factor other than technical know-how spurred European aggression in the late 1400's. One might also remark on the tragic losses of knowledge and local "dark ages" which seem to counter-indicate a linear growth of human civilization. One might remark how common life remained for the most part unchanging over vast stretches of human history.
The modern person has strong motivation to interpret history as linear advancement, not only are we the, current, culmination of said advance, we are always being told of steadily advancing technology. However, one might give some consideration to how true this steady advance is. Certainly advertising agencies have motivation to convince us that technology is improving, whether or not it is even changing. Take, for example, the e-Reader; whenever airlines announce that all portable devices, readers, et al. need to be shut off, I simply smile into my book and continue reading. While an e-Reader is certainly a "high-tech" (notice the way that term alone implies the continual improvement of technology) form of book, one can certainly ask if it is superior. It's very electronic nature places limitations on its usage, on planes, in places without electricity, that do not constrain books. Furthermore, producing e-Readers is more resource and technique intensive than producing printed books. The first first point leads one to question whether the e-Reader is actually technology worse suited to modern realities than the printed book. The second raises issues of privilege, what societies can produce e-Readers and which people can employ them.
Another interesting place to consider "progress" is computer/video games. Although graphics have gotten "better" without question, where "better" simply means that they have become more accurate portrayals of what we actually perceive and one lesson we may learn from art is that more accurate portrayals aren't necessarily better, one can question whether games themselves are improving. Insofar as games are intended to provide an alternate reality plagued with problems possessing obvious solutions into which we may escape to avoid dealing with the problems without obvious solutions plaguing our current reality, I suppose better graphics do lead to a better game. However, if one takes the somewhat less cynical view that games are intended to provide fun, I would like to see evidence as to improvement in current games. Of course, since new games need to be bought, and "better" graphics require "better" hardware to be purchased, there is a large incentive for new games to be touted as ever improving, so we may find older games disappointing now, the right question to ask is whether we were having any less fun when they were "cutting edge" (again implying continual advancement) than we are now with current new releases. And, of course, the continual consumption of new games and hardware presents the same resource and technique requirement questions as the e-Reader.
I am not pretending to present answers in this post. I just wish to highlight the, I believe, interesting question of whether our modern lifestyle does constitute an actual improvement over historical lifestyles and, if so, for what reasons? Furthermore, if one discards the notion of historical advancement then practices and beliefs from historical societies become sources for suggestions of ways we could improve our current society back to lost standards, a curious notion for a progressive like me to be espousing, I know.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Wealth of Our Nation
Today was going to be a post about talking with my grandmother, but a timely post relating to it being the observed anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birth seemed appropriate. Prompting this topic change, a friend of mine from high school, whom I believe is a German currently living abroad in London, posted this article reflecting on the state of the races in public education. To sum it up, we are more segregated today than we were at the time of King's assassination, we are not doing enough to reverse this trend, and there is evidence that this is quite harmful to our education system.
Fortunately for you, my dear reader, I abhor doom and gloom calls to action. If forced to confront something horrible, say in an ad on Hulu, I am quite likely to make an internal joke about it in order to maintain my sense of self worth, such as it is, in the face of tragedy that I feel I can do nothing meaningful to ameliorate. So, rather than lament about racism in modern America, let us look at the richness that we have available to us.
It should not be news to you that the US has a long and sordid history of inter-racial interaction. To hit some lowlights, there was the acquisition of our geographical location from people who happened to already be living here, the enslavement and subsequent suppression of a rather large people group, concentration (I mean internment) camps, eugenics, and human experimentation, to list the worst ones to come to mind. However, keep in mind that our nations particularly vile history is, in big part, due to our rich diversity in people groups.
There is a correlation between how uniform a nation's population is and how much unrest it experiences. From this fact one can draw one of two conclusions, segregationists are justified and we ought try to keep races separate, or we here in the United States have a great opportunity to learn to coexist, a skill critically important as the world's far flung regions become more closely intertwined. Since I am not so much for segregation, I favor the latter.
How unique is our situation? I didn't look through the entire CIA world fact book, but here are some highlights. The UK, which appears to have a much more urbane view on racial equality, about 90% European. The data for France is less clear, since they have laws forbidding racial identification in census data, but working it out from a Wikipedia article, I estimate their European population to be at least 90% of the total. Germany is also at about 90%, as is Russia. In Sweden, that Western European socialist paradise, Swedes and Finns already make up 90% of the population between them. Consider the US, which is only 80% white, and here even the white population is more diverse than in a typical Western European nation. It is only natural that we have rockier racial relations, although this does not absolve us the responsibility to work through them.
The only other country with an 80-20 split that I found, South Africa. There was one nation that had an even smaller majority population, which was Canada. While we all no Canada is pretty much a Utopian dream state, another factor in their rather low atrocity to racial diversity ratio is their cultural view on race. Consider that, of the 34% of their population that is non-European, 26% is listed as mixed background. In the US only about 1.5% is listed as mixed background, and I seriously doubt these two numbers are measuring the same population.
In the US there has been a strong push to fit into neat categories, much to the detriment of inter-racial families, not that there weren't other factors mitigating against them. Consider our president, often called the first black president of the US. Calling him the first interracial president of the US somehow lacks the same kick in our society. Furthermore, the US census does not have a separate neat category for Latina/Latino peoples, so they tend to be in that 80% white. If one considers them to be, in some way, separate from white Americans, then it is projected that by the year 2050 whites will be a minority in the US, albeit the largest one at slightly less than 50%, but a minority nonetheless.
But wait, which nation has the low atrocity to racial diversity ratio, that's right, Canada. I think that there is much to be copied from their approach. Continuing the move away from a dichotomous classification of one's racial identity is an important step. If we cannot acknowledge that two races can equitably coexist inside one person, it seems a grim potent for their peaceful cohabitation of our nation. To take this a step further, I think that it is important to deprioritize racial affiliation. This does not mean ignoring unpleasant facts like the disproportional poverty levels in one people group over another, but rather examining if confounding factors like economic class of one's parents are better indicators than race. In short, I worry about our future if we continue to wrestle with the problem of inter-racial relations, but if we reframe the question as one of intra-humanitarian relations, keeping in mind the historic context which includes race without giving it undue significance, then I think we can forge ahead to a better future.
Fortunately for you, my dear reader, I abhor doom and gloom calls to action. If forced to confront something horrible, say in an ad on Hulu, I am quite likely to make an internal joke about it in order to maintain my sense of self worth, such as it is, in the face of tragedy that I feel I can do nothing meaningful to ameliorate. So, rather than lament about racism in modern America, let us look at the richness that we have available to us.
It should not be news to you that the US has a long and sordid history of inter-racial interaction. To hit some lowlights, there was the acquisition of our geographical location from people who happened to already be living here, the enslavement and subsequent suppression of a rather large people group, concentration (I mean internment) camps, eugenics, and human experimentation, to list the worst ones to come to mind. However, keep in mind that our nations particularly vile history is, in big part, due to our rich diversity in people groups.
There is a correlation between how uniform a nation's population is and how much unrest it experiences. From this fact one can draw one of two conclusions, segregationists are justified and we ought try to keep races separate, or we here in the United States have a great opportunity to learn to coexist, a skill critically important as the world's far flung regions become more closely intertwined. Since I am not so much for segregation, I favor the latter.
How unique is our situation? I didn't look through the entire CIA world fact book, but here are some highlights. The UK, which appears to have a much more urbane view on racial equality, about 90% European. The data for France is less clear, since they have laws forbidding racial identification in census data, but working it out from a Wikipedia article, I estimate their European population to be at least 90% of the total. Germany is also at about 90%, as is Russia. In Sweden, that Western European socialist paradise, Swedes and Finns already make up 90% of the population between them. Consider the US, which is only 80% white, and here even the white population is more diverse than in a typical Western European nation. It is only natural that we have rockier racial relations, although this does not absolve us the responsibility to work through them.
The only other country with an 80-20 split that I found, South Africa. There was one nation that had an even smaller majority population, which was Canada. While we all no Canada is pretty much a Utopian dream state, another factor in their rather low atrocity to racial diversity ratio is their cultural view on race. Consider that, of the 34% of their population that is non-European, 26% is listed as mixed background. In the US only about 1.5% is listed as mixed background, and I seriously doubt these two numbers are measuring the same population.
In the US there has been a strong push to fit into neat categories, much to the detriment of inter-racial families, not that there weren't other factors mitigating against them. Consider our president, often called the first black president of the US. Calling him the first interracial president of the US somehow lacks the same kick in our society. Furthermore, the US census does not have a separate neat category for Latina/Latino peoples, so they tend to be in that 80% white. If one considers them to be, in some way, separate from white Americans, then it is projected that by the year 2050 whites will be a minority in the US, albeit the largest one at slightly less than 50%, but a minority nonetheless.
But wait, which nation has the low atrocity to racial diversity ratio, that's right, Canada. I think that there is much to be copied from their approach. Continuing the move away from a dichotomous classification of one's racial identity is an important step. If we cannot acknowledge that two races can equitably coexist inside one person, it seems a grim potent for their peaceful cohabitation of our nation. To take this a step further, I think that it is important to deprioritize racial affiliation. This does not mean ignoring unpleasant facts like the disproportional poverty levels in one people group over another, but rather examining if confounding factors like economic class of one's parents are better indicators than race. In short, I worry about our future if we continue to wrestle with the problem of inter-racial relations, but if we reframe the question as one of intra-humanitarian relations, keeping in mind the historic context which includes race without giving it undue significance, then I think we can forge ahead to a better future.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Round 2
Studying Math vs. Studying Philosophy
Qualifications: Lifelong affirmation of my math skills, BS Mathematics, BA Philosophy, first year in Math PhD program, deep love for and interest in philosophy, and an interest in (and perhaps love for) math.
Arguments for Studying Math:
Questions often have answers. (+5)
Develops logical thinking skills applicable to more relevant fields. (+3)
Teaching kids math is important for our future. (+3)
The triumph of the proof, safer than mountain climbing but same rush. (+4)
Astound cashiers. (+1)
Good job market. (+2)
Arguments for Studying Philosophy:
Questions often have real world implications and significance. (+4)
Encourages critical thinking crucial for a functioning democracy. (+3)
Humanities purpose, relation with the world, and moral obligations require contemplation. (+4)
Will call into question every single belief you have ever held. (+5)
Facilitates discussion with amazing thinkers and doers. (+3)
Quoting Hume sounds impressive. (+1)
It seems that I would prefer to be studying philosophy, something I certainly feel at times here. However, I think that two flaws exist in my analysis, boiling both sides down to 6 arguments oversimplifies things, and I may have weighted two things differently when I made my decision to apply in mathematics. Firstly, while I don't care too much about the status of the job market at the moment, it is likely that I will be very interested in it at some point in my life, so this future weight played into my decision. Secondly, while philosophy does have more real world implication and significance in my opinion, it is precisely that which scares me at times. I feel inadequate to live up to the obligations which I believe that philosophy reveals to me. On the whole, I do think studying philosophy is more enjoyable though, except those darn papers, *wink*.
Qualifications: Lifelong affirmation of my math skills, BS Mathematics, BA Philosophy, first year in Math PhD program, deep love for and interest in philosophy, and an interest in (and perhaps love for) math.
Arguments for Studying Math:
Questions often have answers. (+5)
Develops logical thinking skills applicable to more relevant fields. (+3)
Teaching kids math is important for our future. (+3)
The triumph of the proof, safer than mountain climbing but same rush. (+4)
Astound cashiers. (+1)
Good job market. (+2)
Arguments for Studying Philosophy:
Questions often have real world implications and significance. (+4)
Encourages critical thinking crucial for a functioning democracy. (+3)
Humanities purpose, relation with the world, and moral obligations require contemplation. (+4)
Will call into question every single belief you have ever held. (+5)
Facilitates discussion with amazing thinkers and doers. (+3)
Quoting Hume sounds impressive. (+1)
It seems that I would prefer to be studying philosophy, something I certainly feel at times here. However, I think that two flaws exist in my analysis, boiling both sides down to 6 arguments oversimplifies things, and I may have weighted two things differently when I made my decision to apply in mathematics. Firstly, while I don't care too much about the status of the job market at the moment, it is likely that I will be very interested in it at some point in my life, so this future weight played into my decision. Secondly, while philosophy does have more real world implication and significance in my opinion, it is precisely that which scares me at times. I feel inadequate to live up to the obligations which I believe that philosophy reveals to me. On the whole, I do think studying philosophy is more enjoyable though, except those darn papers, *wink*.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)