Dragon Ball and the Bechdel test.

[Insertclevername]

I still don't see how that excuses them for not being progressive enough to have an abundance female characters. Instead of catering to masses; propagating antiquated trends, writers should be setting an example. Not by token characters mind you, since those are a waste.

[Vegard Aune]

The reverse of the Bechdel Test is not "hurr men not talking about sports/beer/etc/etc", it's:

1. Two male characters
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something other than a woman.

If you can find a movie that doesn't pass that test, I'd be impressed (ignoring, for the sake of warding off pendantry, movies with only 1 character). Why is there such an incredible imbalance here?

Well this is a Dragon Ball forum and so I'm gonna assume bringing up anime that do this is a valid response. And in that regard, this isn't too uncommon actually. Really, just look at any given Magical Girl anime and I would assume most of them pass the regular Bechdel Test, but the reverse one? Probably not.
Of course, this does remind me how TVTropes has a specific trope for the "Improbably Female Cast", where almost everyone of significance is a woman... Funny how that is in and of itself rare enough to notice when the opposite does indeed happen almost constantly.

Oh, and I saw some mentions of The Hobbit and Tauriel here... y'know, when me and my sister went to go see the movie a while back, she asked me after it was over "Tauriel wasn't in the book, was she?" and I was like "Nope, she was not," and she was like "Figured as much. She was completely pointless and only seemed to exist for the sake of a forced romance."
So I would hardly point to Tauriel as an example of a strong female character. I mean yeah, in the literal sense she was, in that she was a female character who kicks a lot of ass, but... throughout the entire movie, every time she was on screen, I was just thinking what a blatant Mary Sue she was.

[garnetjester]

No it doesn't. Just because a female character doesn't talk to another female character, that doesn't necessitate her only talking about a relationship. Sarah Connor barely has interactions with women and she doesn't discuss her love life; neither does Ripley. You failed to answer the question. Why are women required to talk to each other in film/TV. Bulma doesn't become a mother until deep into the story, and even then she's given stuff to do. Unfortunately the controller gets broken.

I understand that not every reader is a straight, white, male, but you don't have to be to understand what the characters are going through.

I'm sure a Wonder Woman movie can be successful but it won't be nearly as successful as male superheroes, even if it's great. I like Wonder Woman, and the DTV from DCAU was one of their best, but it didn't sell as well as many of their other titles. If there's a bias, it's not just from the writers or studios.

Again, it's not about an individual story needing the women to talk to each other, I don't think that's necessary to have a decent female character, but that's not the point. The point is that most instances of movies that don't pass the test aren't because there's only one woman kicking all kinds of ass and not interacting with another female like in your Sarah Connor example, but instead random female love interests with no proper personality like the character Megan Fox played in transformers where the only thing she was good for was being hot enough for the main hero. I don't think the Bechdel test is the most amazing tool for evaluating a film that treats women equally, for that matter. It just shows a trend about female characters in the industry. If you go on a case by case basis you could find many movies that don't fit with the test's criteria and aren't problematic, as much as you can find many that do and still portray women in a negative light.

About the Wonder Woman thing, I don't even know, because I don't read american comics at all. I was just pointing out that the treatment of women in the media isn't the same as the treatment of men, and that's why you get all those comments when someone tries to be "progressive" and have a woman lead character.

[ABED]

No it doesn't. Just because a female character doesn't talk to another female character, that doesn't necessitate her only talking about a relationship. Sarah Connor barely has interactions with women and she doesn't discuss her love life; neither does Ripley. You failed to answer the question. Why are women required to talk to each other in film/TV. Bulma doesn't become a mother until deep into the story, and even then she's given stuff to do. Unfortunately the controller gets broken.

I understand that not every reader is a straight, white, male, but you don't have to be to understand what the characters are going through.

I'm sure a Wonder Woman movie can be successful but it won't be nearly as successful as male superheroes, even if it's great. I like Wonder Woman, and the DTV from DCAU was one of their best, but it didn't sell as well as many of their other titles. If there's a bias, it's not just from the writers or studios.

Again, it's not about an individual story needing the women to talk to each other, I don't think that's necessary to have a decent female character, but that's not the point. The point is that most instances of movies that don't pass the test aren't because there's only one woman kicking all kinds of ass and not interacting with another female like in your Sarah Connor example, but instead random female love interests with no proper personality like the character Megan Fox played in transformers where the only thing she was good for was being hot enough for the main hero. I don't think the Bechdel test is the most amazing tool for evaluating a film that treats women equally, for that matter. It just shows a trend about female characters in the industry. If you go on a case by case basis you could find many movies that don't fit with the test's criteria and aren't problematic, as much as you can find many that do and still portray women in a negative light.

About the Wonder Woman thing, I don't even know, because I don't read american comics at all. I was just pointing out that the treatment of women in the media isn't the same as the treatment of men, and that's why you get all those comments when someone tries to be "progressive" and have a woman lead character.

Transformers isn't a great example because her character wasn't the odd one out, none of those characters were great characters, so it's not a case of the woman getting slighted.

You can keep talking about individual vs. collective, I get it, but the fact remains is the shift has to be natural, and not done via a quota. I think we are seeing a shift towards just having good characters regardless of gender.

[Puto]

The reverse of the Bechdel Test is not "hurr men not talking about sports/beer/etc/etc", it's:

1. Two male characters
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something other than a woman.

I wonder if Sailor Moon SuperS passes that?

[Kid Buu]

The reverse of the Bechdel Test is not "hurr men not talking about sports/beer/etc/etc", it's:

1. Two male characters
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something other than a woman.

I wonder if Sailor Moon SuperS passes that?

The anime version features the a male fashion designer (voice by Vegeta) talking to his brother about his work.

[VyeRo]

Transformers isn't a great example because her character wasn't the odd one out, none of those characters were great characters, so it's not a case of the woman getting slighted.

If you don't see a problem with how Megan Fox was treated in the Transformers franchise, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise. Megan Fox even said herself she was only there as eye-candy, and her most defining moment in the movies was her bending over a motorcycle (her words, not mine). She had a lot more 'depth' in the first movie, but in the second...ohhh boy, they could've replaced her with a blow-up doll and no one would be able to tell the difference. Could you say the same about Shia? Or Josh Duhamel or any of the male characters? And even if they could be replaced, they wouldn't be sexually objectified like Fox. And again, this is Michael Bay we're talking about, who is known to be very sexist both in and outside his movies.

I think your intentions are good and you make a fine argument; I just can't help but agree with Rocketman. I think his point has a lot of merit since it's an undeniable trend that females tend to not be properly represented in media. While I think that adding females into a story for the sake of diversity is essentially doing a bad thing for a good reason, I still feel our society is too male driven as far how we envision our lead roles. This may be in part of how we tend to be ambiguous as far as male roles go; while women are usually stereotyped in a few specific roles.

While I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with your statement of how "the quality of the story and characters is all that should matter", it just simply isn't. Stories have proved to have a huge impact on society, so it's treatment of specific genders, races, sexualities, etc, matter just as much as the merits of it's craftsmanship. This is especially true with children's shows as children are far more impressionable.

Basically I agree with all of this and had trouble putting it into words. Stories DO have an impact on people and it's not just stories, basically everything in media has an impact on society. It's not 'just' entertainment when people all over the world consume it in such huge numbers and when it influences how people view each other and themselves.

@ Hades: I don't agree with that at all. This isn't just 'something to protest about'. Are you saying gender inequality in media is something positive? Or any inequality in media? We should just basically let it happen? This isn't something that was made up by 'Tumblr feminists' or whatever in the last few years, it's been an ongoing discussion for however long it's been happening.

It's pretty strange and depressing to see a topic that could have been an interesting discussion on female characters turn into a discussion about whether gender inequality in media is a real thing yes or no and why it's (un)necessary that change happens and the right to complain about it.

[Hades]

@Vyero

1) I remember reading about when people were saying Iron Maiden promoted Satanism and that Judas Priest was accused of triggering suicides due to "backmasking", yet these allegations were swiftly disproven, which demonstrates that media's impact on society is exaggerated.

2) Why is "equal representation so important"?

[ABED]

If you don't see a problem with how Megan Fox was treated in the Transformers franchise, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise. Megan Fox even said herself she was only there as eye-candy, and her most defining moment in the movies was her bending over a motorcycle (her words, not mine). She had a lot more 'depth' in the first movie, but in the second...ohhh boy, they could've replaced her with a blow-up doll and no one would be able to tell the difference. Could you say the same about Shia? Or Josh Duhamel or any of the male characters? And even if they could be replaced, they wouldn't be sexually objectified like Fox. And again, this is Michael Bay we're talking about, who is known to be very sexist both in and outside his movies.

We get it, you're socially conscious, but not what I meant at all. I'm saying no one in that movie was done a service, so the idea that you are singling her out is ridiculous. The male characters may not have been eye candy but they weren't well written. First off, it's not bad when men or women are sexually objectified, it's bad when that's all they are. How you got "I don't see a problem" from "no one was written well" shows me that you care more for showing people you care than actually caring.

[DBZAOTA482]

If you don't see a problem with how Megan Fox was treated in the Transformers franchise, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise. Megan Fox even said herself she was only there as eye-candy, and her most defining moment in the movies was her bending over a motorcycle (her words, not mine). She had a lot more 'depth' in the first movie, but in the second...ohhh boy, they could've replaced her with a blow-up doll and no one would be able to tell the difference. Could you say the same about Shia? Or Josh Duhamel or any of the male characters? And even if they could be replaced, they wouldn't be sexually objectified like Fox. And again, this is Michael Bay we're talking about, who is known to be very sexist both in and outside his movies.

We get it, you're socially conscious, but not what I meant at all. I'm saying no one in that movie was done a service, so the idea that you are singling her out is ridiculous. The male characters may not have been eye candy but they weren't well written. First off, it's not bad when men or women are sexually objectified, it's bad when that's all they are. How you got "I don't see a problem" from "no one was written well" shows me that you care more for showing people you care than actually caring.

Yeah but that can just attribute to the fact that Michael Bay sucks as a writer.

[VyeRo]

@ Hades:

1) So all of TWO examples were disproven, it MUST mean media's impact on society is exaggerated? It's about the cumulative effect on people over years.

2) All people deserve equal opportunities and treatment in life, why should it be any different in media? People feel empowered when they see people like themselves (whether they be female, black, latino etcetc) represented through strong and relevant characters. The better question is, why shouldn't it matter?

We get it, you're socially conscious, but not what I meant at all. I'm saying no one in that movie was done a service, so the idea that you are singling her out is ridiculous. The male characters may not have been eye candy but they weren't well written. First off, it's not bad when men or women are sexually objectified, it's bad when that's all they are. How you got "I don't see a problem" from "no one was written well" shows me that you care more for showing people you care than actually caring.

Your exact quote was this:

"Transformers isn't a great example because her character wasn't the odd one out, none of those characters were great characters, so it's not a case of the woman getting slighted.

Except her character WAS the odd one out, because on top of the lackluster writing she was sexually objectified. Megan Fox's performance in Transformers is one of the most obvious current examples of sexual objectification in movies, because that's all her character was good for. If you can't see her case separately from her male counterparts, then yes, I think you have trouble seeing how women are treated differently than men in movies like this.

And...Wha? Your response is incredibly rude and uncalled for. Where am I trying to prove I'm socially conscious? And I think it's already established in this thread that I do care. I just disagreed with your view on the treatment of the characters in the TF franchise.

[ABED]

If you don't see a problem with how Megan Fox was treated in the Transformers franchise, then no one will be able to convince you otherwise. Megan Fox even said herself she was only there as eye-candy, and her most defining moment in the movies was her bending over a motorcycle (her words, not mine). She had a lot more 'depth' in the first movie, but in the second...ohhh boy, they could've replaced her with a blow-up doll and no one would be able to tell the difference. Could you say the same about Shia? Or Josh Duhamel or any of the male characters? And even if they could be replaced, they wouldn't be sexually objectified like Fox. And again, this is Michael Bay we're talking about, who is known to be very sexist both in and outside his movies.

We get it, you're socially conscious, but not what I meant at all. I'm saying no one in that movie was done a service, so the idea that you are singling her out is ridiculous. The male characters may not have been eye candy but they weren't well written. First off, it's not bad when men or women are sexually objectified, it's bad when that's all they are. How you got "I don't see a problem" from "no one was written well" shows me that you care more for showing people you care than actually caring.

Yeah but that can just attribute to the fact that Michael Bay sucks as a writer.

Which is part of my point, you can't single her out as an example of the bias against women. No one in that film was done justice to. It's a fun movie (the first one anyway), but it's not well written. None of the characters were great, males included.

[ABED]

We get it, you're socially conscious, but not what I meant at all. I'm saying no one in that movie was done a service, so the idea that you are singling her out is ridiculous. The male characters may not have been eye candy but they weren't well written. First off, it's not bad when men or women are sexually objectified, it's bad when that's all they are. How you got "I don't see a problem" from "no one was written well" shows me that you care more for showing people you care than actually caring.

She wasn't the odd one out, it's not like out of ALL the characters, she was written the flimsiest. Actually, she did help with the cars. So what if she's looked at as pretty, it's not like the other characters were looked at as much of anything. Your exact quote was this:

"Transformers isn't a great example because her character wasn't the odd one out, none of those characters were great characters, so it's not a case of the woman getting slighted.

Except her character WAS the odd one out, because on top of the lackluster writing she was sexually objectified. Megan Fox's performance in Transformers is one of the most obvious current examples of sexual objectification in movies, because that's all her character was good for. If you can't see her case separately from her male counterparts, then yes, I think you have trouble seeing how women are treated differently than men in movies like this.

And...Wha? Your response is incredibly rude and uncalled for. Where am I trying to prove I'm socially conscious? And I think it's already established in this thread that I do care. I just disagreed with your view on the treatment of the characters in the TF franchise.

Of all the things to be upset about, seeing a good looking chick in a film ain't high up on my list. My point was that none of the characters were done justice to, so why are you so upset that a female wasn't written well in a film where no one was written well? Because she was sexually objectified? So what if she's portrayed as sexy? If it was a well written movie and her character was just there as eye candy, the maybe I'd be bothered a little, but I'm not gonna put up a fuss that someone is pleasing to the eye. Just to put a button on this, I'm straight, but I don't mind seeing males being objectified either. Steven Amell has his shirt off in almost every episode, and I don't mind at all. He's a good looking dude with a nice physique. Fortunately, Arrow is also a very good show.

Your responses are all "look at me, I care that women are objectified". What's the issue if we objectify men or women? Seriously, what's the problem?

People feel empowered when they see themselves? Where'd you get that idea? Is it something you read, heard in a classroom?

[Hades]

@ Hades:

1) So all of TWO examples were disproven, it MUST mean media's impact on society is exaggerated? It's about the cumulative effect on people over years.

2) All people deserve equal opportunities and treatment in life, why should it be any different in media? People feel empowered when they see people like themselves (whether they be female, black, latino etcetc) represented through strong and relevant characters. The better question is, why shouldn't it matter?

1) People listen to heavy metal, yet we don't have satanic murders on the rise.

2) Tell me why artists should have quotas rammed down their throats just because "people feel empowered". Fiction is NOT reality and it shouldn't reflect that. I mean, should star trek have obeyed every law of physics?

[VyeRo]

Of course, none of the characters were written well, neither Mikaela nor Sam. But on top of the shitty writing, Megan Fox gets the extra bonus of getting to do nothing of importance, she just has to pout her lips and know how to bend over a motorcycle. Had they given her something to do that would contribute to the storyline, like with most of the male characters (they fought back as soldiers, Sam was essential to the storyline) it would be different. You said yourself that sexual objectification isn't really bad UNLESS it's all there is to a character. So what's the difference with Transformers? Why is it suddenly okay to have a character like Fox? Because of the shitty writing? Explain to me then why all of the male characters get to keep their clothes on and actually do something like fight back, despite the shitty writing.

But, Transformers is a special case because the movies are terrible and characters like M. Fox are to be expected in a Bay movie, so there is that. The fact is though that cases like this are very common in movies.

Sexually objectified ≠ portrayed as sexy. There's a difference. Especially when the only female character in a movie is reduced to only her body. The problem with male objectification is, most of the time the male in question has other attributes that make him a good character, so it doesn't matter if he's shown naked here and there. It's even the case in Dragon Ball if you're into that sort of thing. However, most of the time a female character doesn't get that treatment. Her body is the only attribute she has, and that makes it not 'sexy' but sexual objectification. I myself enjoy a good show now and then, and I can certainly appreciate a good-looking woman, but I side-eye movies where women are reduced to background props and don't actually have a voice.

Your responses are all "look at me, I care that women are objectified". What's the issue if we objectify men or women? Seriously, what's the problem?
People feel empowered when they see themselves? Where'd you get that idea? Is it something you read, heard in a classroom?

This was really necessary? Rude tbh. We are having a discussion about female characters in this thread. Of course the subject of objectification and bias is going to come up once or twice. I'm giving my 2 cents or am I not allowed to speak about it? This is a discussion forum after all.

The problem is that sexual objectification isn't something that stops when the credits start rolling, it also happens, get this, in real life to women everywhere. You don't think it's harmful when women are being told all they are good for are their bodies? And then see it projected in 90% of the movies they see, perpetuating that stereotype? Or that they should be more attractive otherwise their actual important skills aren't important? I don't remember the details, but last year Marion Bartoli won the Wimbledon championship, a major achievement, but she got flack for her appearance because apparently she wasn't attractive. And I could go on and on and on.... If this sort of thing can be prevented (albeit in small steps) in movies, by simply writing engaging female characters, then why the hell not?

And yes, people do feel empowered, I've read quotes, I've heard it in marketing class. There is this quote (and I sadly can't remember who said it but it was a black celebrity), and it was about one of the first ever TV shows with black people in it and it had such an astounding effect on this person, because many years ago you didn't see black people on television. Like he/she called the entire family and they went nuts. I'm sure you can find some stats on it though.

Edit to include @Hades: I'm not a supporter of quotas. I''m a supporter of well-written male and female characters. So fiction is all about the white straight men? Because no one else actually exists besides that. Got it. It reminds me of people going beserk when Jamie Foxx was cast in Spiderman, because the character 'couldn't be black'.

Damn, I'm trying to prevent these long ass posts and here I am again.

[Hades]

Spider-Man was different because he was established as white for half a century. I'd imaging there'd be similar uproar if Hal Jordan was reworked as Korean.

[ABED]

I didn't say you weren't allowed to speak, I'm saying that given your responses, it sounds more like posturing and the musings of a college student. It's interesting that you brought up a marketing class because that's what you sound like to me, someone spouting something from a textbook. People are people, and seeing someone their color or gender doesn't mean seeing themselves. We aren't our color or gender. Personalities are far more important.

Again, you completely drop context. I didn't just say "why is objectification bad?" I said it's only bad when we boil it down to that being the only thing. Women and men can both be considered sexy and kickass, engaging characters. Though when they're not, and are just sexy, it's not high up on my list of things to worry about.

Sam was the main hero, did the military do much of anything? I remember Mikaela helping out bumblebee, and fixing a car. It's been a while since I saw the film.

is it suddenly okay to have a character like Fox? Because of the shitty writing? Explain to me then why all of the male characters get to keep their clothes on and actually do something like fight back, despite the shitty writing.

No, read my comments, I'm simply not offended by the treatment of the character because it's not a good film, so there are bigger issues with it. The visual noise of those movies bothers me FAR more than the image of her bent over. I wouldn't be using Fox's comments as proof of anything. First off, she's a grown woman, she knew what she was getting into when she took the role, two, without the role, she likely wouldn't be where she is, and third, she also compared Bay to Hitler. Bay may be misogynist and bad director, but Hitler is going WAY too far and cuts into the credibility.

Do you think taking clothes off is a bad thing? Or that if only a woman shows skin, that's somehow a bad thing?

She helped out in the fight, she drove Bumblebee around while he was immobile. I can't believe I'm actually in some way defending the film.

You don't think showing off bulging biceps (even if everything else is covered) isn't objectification of men?

My big point is that overwhelmingly when you see women as just props, the rest of the film is terrible as well, so it doesn't stick out as odd nor harmful. I don't see the harm. A mature, intelligent person should be able to see past this crap. Just because someone is told something doesn't mean they are powerless to believe it.

As to the spider-man point, that's typical internet BS. You can find ignorant remarks about damn near anything, including people complaining about how Wolverine doesn't have his yellow and blue costume, or Electro being blue instead of wearing his dumb comic book costume. And no, I don't think Electro is on par with Spider-man or even Green Lantern. I do think the backlash would be bigger.

[VyeRo]

Posturing? LOL again. Maybe it sounds like that because English is not my first language. All of what I'm saying here is my honest opinion. And honestly, even if I sound like a textbook, does it make my words any less true? Most of what I'm saying here doesn't come from a textbook btw, just accumulated knowledge and my own eyes. Itsounds to me like you're just trying to discredit my views because I'm supposedly 'posturing'. Why even bring it up? Discuss the topic at hand, not my way of talking tyvm.

People are people, and seeing someone their color or gender doesn't mean seeing themselves. We aren't our color or gender. Personalities are far more important.

This...couldn't be more wrong, I'm sorry. In an ideal world, gender and color shouldn't mean anything, but it does. I've given you a direct example of someone that is empowered by seeing someone like themselves in a medium, yet you ignore this? I'm bummed I can't give you the direct quote, but what it comes down to is that yes, people do feel empowered. If personalities are far more important, then why does racism still exist? Sexism? Prejudice? Why don't you tell me where you've read that people are not empowered by things they see themselves in?

You asked me a direct question: What's the issue if we objectify men or women? Seriously, what's the problem? and I gave you an answer.

Mikaela had a much bigger role in the first one, in the second Michael Bay used her solely for the fanboys to drool over. And I used Megan Fox's quote to imply that she was only there as a sex bomb, which she knew and accepted, and seriously there's nothing wrong with that, I don't blame her for taking the role. And people were taking her comments about Hitler way too far. Even M. Bay himself said she was just joking (if you really believe she was fired from TF3 because of her Hitler comment, then I suggest you do some research).

Like I said before, I enjoy a good show and I can appreciate a woman's fine ass, so no I don't think taking your clothes off is a bad thing. However, it happens to significantly more women than men in movies, why is that? And a woman can show her skin, but it she doesn't offer anything else as a character.....
Where did I say showing off their biceps isn't objectification? You're putting words in my mouth. It is, but in most cases there's more to the men, they are actual fleshed-out characters. In a woman's case, not so much.

Some movies where women are used as props are not viewed as terrible, which is the problem.

I don't see the harm. A mature, intelligent person should be able to see past this crap. Just because someone is told something doesn't mean they are powerless to believe it.

You don't see the harm in sexual objectification? Not even in daily life?

[ABED]

does it make my words any less true?

Maybe, maybe not, but it makes you sound disingenuous, and not like it's what you truly believe. It sounds like posturing.

I don't care enough about T2 and 3 to look into the exact reasons why she was fired. I heard it was because Spielberg heard those comments and took offense. Maybe I'm wrong, doesn't matter. I still think joking about someone being like Hitler in a joking manner is too far, it undercuts and trivializes the seriousness of his atrocities, and shows that someone can't keep things in perspective.

You're putting words in my mouth.

No I'm not, I'm asking. It wasn't used rhetorically.

This...couldn't be more wrong, I'm sorry. In an ideal world, gender and color shouldn't mean anything, but it does.

This isn't be some floating abstraction, it's true, a healthy person wouldn't see themselves as their color. It means something, but to the people that it does, they're ignorant. I also wouldn't be looking to celebrities for quotes, their ignorance knows no bounds.

If personalities are far more important, then why does racism still exist? Sexism? Prejudice?

That's your argument? Racism and sexism exist because unchosen characteristics are more important than a person's character? I never said there weren't jerks in this world, but that doesn't mean someone's self worth should be determined by some jackass who can't see past those things. Prejudice exists because many people have collectivist tendencies. Racism and sexism are just two ugly manifestations of that.

Why don't you tell me where you've read that people are not empowered by things they see themselves in?

Not what I said at all. I think people can feel empowered seeing themselves on screen, but that's not limited to physical characteristics. I like watching The Big Bang Theory because I love comics and geeky stuff as well. I loved Xander on Buffy because I felt at times that I could relate to a guy who didn't know where he was going in life. I've felt like The Zeppo.

Lastly, define "empowering" in this context.

[Hades]

You don't see the harm in sexual objectification? Not even in daily life?

I remember reading in The Guardian about how Lad's Mags were tomes of Slaanesh that turned men into bestial mentalities wrt women - oh wait.