Women in Film: The Bechdel Test

Maya Owen

The Bechdel test is a test which rates films based on three simple criteria. Its not a test of whether the film is a feminist one, or whether it is a good film, but simply if there is female presence in it.

Criteria: A film must have...
1. At least two (named) female characters in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something other than a man.

A film passes the test if all three are achieved which, looking at them, surely can't be hard?

You'd be surprised at how many films fail.

The films below are a small sample of those which failed the test.
- The Amazing Spider-Man 2
- The Grand Budapest Hotel
- How to Train Your Dragon 2
- The Boxtrolls

Both 'How to Train your Dragon 2' and 'The Boxtrolls' are children's animated films that portray women in a certain way.

And if young girls are presented with female characters who only talk to each other about men or who only ever interact with men then they will instantly connect this with reality.

If they are not shown that women can be as strong and as independent and as heroic as the other male protagonists that so many films show, then what is to become of their desire to do this themselves; to count themselves as equal to men?

Equally, if young boys are constantly shown these images of strong male heroes always saving the 'damsel in distress' then they will begin to judge and measure themselves against these images and expect certain behaviour or attitude from women.

You could say the entire film industry is built upon creating films that cater to and are about men, but this is changing.

Films like 'The Hunger Games' and 'Divergent' show strong female protagonists and have become so popular.

Evidently, the film industry needs to change its tune.

Women make up half of the world. Shouldn't their bravery and strength make up half the films as well?

Below is a link to the Bechdel test web page where you can see all the films that have been tested and whether they failed or passed.

http://bechdeltest.com/

Women in decision-making - what the Charlie Hebdo march photoshopping really showed us

Read the full article here

A HuffPost review - Annie Thomas

           This is a really interesting article. These publications were released following the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, and focus on the political identities featured in the Paris march. 

           Moving past the political elements of the separate publishers’ decisions to release the images, the pictures alone highlight the absence of female political leaders in governments and decision-making roles today.            The troubling reality of the unequal and low representation of women is shown brutally in the first image, and truly highlights the problems faced by professional women in a male-dominated society.

           However, the controversial act of the HaMevaser Israeli newspaper cutting out the women from the photograph seems only to have drawn attention to the women’s cause, in contrast to what its image would have purported, that NO women have a role to play in federal legislation within governments.

           The satirical images that follow, in particular the one showing the ‘Million Merkel March’ is, in a feminist’s eyes, hyperbolic genius in protest to these narrow-minded newspapers, and fits the purpose of gaining ever-increasing support for the advancement of women’s professional and political involvement at higher levels.

           If you have a chance to read it, it’s an interesting visualisation of where women stand internationally in decision-making positions, and also gives an insight into different media’s interpretations on the roles of women to boot.

The Imperfect Woman

Kathryn McGrotty

Nowadays it is a crime for women to be anything other than perfect, yet nothing short of being computer-modified is perfect by the media's standards. Images of women are composed, constructed and contorted to make them seem flawless, but can you really be perfect in real life?

A few weeks ago, I read an article about a woman who was criticised for being too “skinny”, her response was how she has always been naturally slim and eats healthily but has never needed or followed a diet to keep her slender figure.

I find it ironic; the media constructs images of women to make them thin, but when a woman is like that in reality she is abused and condemned for “being unhealthy” and “promoting dieting and eating disorders to young women”.

Unfortunately, if a woman is overweight they are presented as being lazy and unattractive.

There is no way for us to succeed in meeting the criteria.

Magazines, television, video games and even children’s media engross themselves in images of the “perfect woman” and this utter obsession with this portrayal of women, and men, is having a lasting effect on younger generations, who will soon grow up living a body-obsessed life.

81% of 10 year olds are afraid of getting fat.

53% of 13 year old girls are unhappy with their bodies, and this number increases to 78% as they reach 17.

These statistics are outrageous and things must change.

Why should we allow the media to construct the lives of women today? The “perfect woman”, apparently, has to be skinny, tall, tanned, toned, curvy, petite and elegant, all at the same time. In reality, this must make everyone imperfect, because no one can match up to the form that the media request.

The definition of perfect is: ‘having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be’

But who really decides what these ‘elements, qualities’ and ‘characteristics’ should be? The media has plucked imaginary ones out of thin air in order to create a standard for women to live up to in the 21st century, but personally I think it’s time for a change and time for a new rule-book of standards for woman.

Number one: being, not computer-modified, but simply yourself.

A New Media Image

Olive Jackson

            Trawling through images of women in adverts, from Gucci to Aldi, across the covers of Vogue and Cosmo, you can't help but question, "Who the hell comes up with this stuff?!"

Cosmo advertising a woman's body
              as the focus of their front page...

            The idea of a woman bending in a confusingly contorted position, wearing nothing but a thong, purely for the purpose of advertising this new fragrance or that new shampoo, is truly out of my grasp.

            Yet this seems to be the norm wherever you look - the objectification of women within the media has become commonplace, and, despite all the advances in women's rights elsewhere, we seem to be slipping in this essential area.

            As a feminist, a woman and an optimist for change, I see this as another area where women can and will strive for change.

            Women, as much as men, have equal rights to power, dominance and their own dignity. 

...whereas it's completely acceptable for a man
to be shown in a shirt and geeky bow-tie

            However this is not seen in the media, where women are seen for their bodies, whilst men are seen for their skills and intelligence. This, in turn, is having a poor effect on the younger generation, meaning girls are focussing on appearance over intelligence and skills.

            I'm not saying men aren't also subject to this prevalent objectification - the images of overly muscular bodybuilders are also rampant.

            My point is that the presentation of body, weight and shape is affecting the population, and not for the better. 

Even in 8-10 year-old girls, 80% admit to have dieted; a shocking amount at such a young age.

 But what can we actually do about this media barrage of the "perfect" look? Sit back as models get thinner, buffer, and more unrealistic?

  We, as a society and a population, must make a change. We must show the companies, the advertisers, the media barons, that: We. Do. Not. Agree.

  We need realistic standards for both us and the younger generations, and the freedom to look, wear and weigh what we want.

   We need change, and we need it now.

No More Page 3

Gemma Welsh

            In case you have been living in a blissful, Page 3-less bubble, for the last 44 years the third page of The Sun been reserved solely for showcasing a half-naked woman - its largest photo of a female in the entire publication. 
           
            For me, it is important to make this issue crystal-clear.             

  
            The issue with Page 3 is not about pornography, nor being “prudish” about women’s bodies, or taking away women’s sovereignty over their bodies. It is not about hating breasts, hating men, or hating The Sun, although as it stands I’m not the biggest fan.

            It is not even about the women who feature on it who, many argue in justification of the page, may choose that career and be treated well.

            The reason why it is so imperative that we rid the world of Page 3 is, actually, about freedom, and about context.

1. The context in which the images are presented: a “family” NEWSpaper, and the message that sends.
2. And the freedom of people to choose whether or not they see these images in public places.

To quote the campaign, NEWS not BOOBS

No More Page 3

           In 2014, women should be represented with respect - in the same way that (ahem, the disproportionately represented) men are.

           The selling of these images in a NEWSpaper, sends the unrelenting daily message to the readers, and to the many who unwittingly see it littered about their daily lives, that regardless of all of the progress made in the last 44 years, the primary contribution of women in today’s society is to strip off, force their chest out, and pout coquettishly for the gratification of men.

          On the day that Jessica Ennis-Hill won her Olympic gold medal for Great Britain, she earned an image which could, with a large stretch of the imagination, be generously termed half the size of the woman on Page 3.

           If you’re not a white, conventionally “beautiful”, size ten, with perfect, D-cup breasts, on average aged 22 ½, you merit virtually no consideration by The Sun. The average woman is represented in the paper (I use the term extremely loosely) by no woman, with a picture even ⅕ of the size of the image on Page 3. Even those who are all of those things, are rewarded by the declaration of their value as the sum total of those attributes, and nothing more.
          Oh and, by the way, of the 22% we’ve managed to wangle into Parliament in the past 97 years, the chances of any of them, or - god-forbid - their policies, being discussed in The Sun (besides critiquing their clothing and physique) is second to none.

Freedom of choice

          It is the consumer’s choice to view pornography or not, just as, yes, it is the consumer’s choice whether to buy The Sun or not.
          But the issue of Page 3 is not just about the message presented to readers of The Sun. This is as much, if not more, about the countless women, men, and children who do not choose to view it.
          The many people every day who are forced to watch the man next to them on the train linger on Stacey, 21, from Newcastle’s breasts, and see her submissively contorted, nude, strewn across café tables.
           I very much doubt that the vast majority of people would feel it acceptable to whip out a copy of Playboy or Nuts on the way to work, or stream a snippet of a porn video on their tablet on the train. The key difference he being that virtually the same content is miraculously deemed acceptable to view, and force others to view, precisely because it is in newspaper.

A family newspaper

           I vividly remember the awkward nervousness of delivering The Sun on my paper round, aged 13, to the “pervy” man who answered the door every Saturday in a string vest to receive his copy of The Sun.
           Aged 13 I had no idea of feminism, of gender issues, or of the message that the images sent. But despite not knowing any of that, walking hurriedly away from the flat, I felt uncomfortable. Vulnerable, even. And that is not the way that children, or anyone, should be made to feel.
           To ask the question, “Mummy, why is the girl on Daddy’s paper naked?”. How would you answer that? “Because Daddy likes to look at young, pretty ladies naked while he catches up on current affairs, darling.”?!

           If this wasn’t enough there is an overwhelming amount of evidence from an enormous range of sources which attest the negative impact that exposure to this kind of content can have on mental health and all aspects of life for girls, boys, women and men; the link for which is below.
           A recent survey by the Girlguiding (The Guide Association) found that 70% of girls aged 13-18 have been sexually harassed in school, 62% (and 76% of young women aged 16-21) have been shouted at in the street.

The real message behind Page 3

           Whether the comment is “Smile, it might never happen.” “You’d get it.” a minimalistic, “Alright, love.” or, a particularly pertinent “Get your tits out.”, cat-calling, as just one form of the barrage of sexualisation women and girls are confronted with, is not limited to whether a woman fits, even, the archetype which Page 3 says they should.
            It is hurled at any female, based on the primitive principle which underpins Page 3: they are women, therefore it is somehow acceptable/expected/their role to be considered solely as a sex object for others’ gratification.

Sexual objectification
            
             Page 3 reminds people, and women themselves, of a woman’s “place”. 
             You only have to look at a handful of the horrendously, explicitly threatening tweets received by Caroline Criado-Perez. Her crime? Simply raising the view that, when choosing a new British figure to be celebrated on banknotes for their achievements, it might be nice to have one (of the four) notes celebrating a woman for something she’d achieved in the few centuries we’ve been kicking around.
              A massive proportion of the tweets threatened sexual violence - misleadingly termed, as it is nothing to do with sexual gratification or enjoyment. Rape is a tool of control, intended to disempower, to terrorise, and to oppress.
              While we still live in a society where a woman who “dares” to use her voice is threatened in this, or any other, way we have to ask ourselves why that is.

Why bother?
              So while some may say, “Why does it matter? There are bigger issues to be fighting against.” Yes, there is an enormous array of inequities today which directly impair women’s lives, perhaps in a more "obvious" way. But Page 3 is a remnant and a reminder of the views of 1970 which continue to plague society, albeit in a more insidious way than they may have done then.
              If nothing above has persuaded you of the danger of Page 3 and the morals in our society that it represents, consider why it is that in the same Girlguiding survey 87% of girls said that they believe women are judged more on their appearance than by their merit. Or ask Jessica Ennis-Hill.

             Finally, then - if you haven’t already - please sign the petition to David Dinsmore, winner of the ‘Sexist of the Year, 2014’ Award, and editor of The Sun, to help end Page 3. 
Better 44 years late than never.

 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

If you’re still not convinced, or would like to find out more, here are some great links, for all occasions:
I highly doubt that:
Page 3 makes people feel uncomfortable on a daily basis. Why would it?!

• see the 200,000+ people who have signed the petition

It damages anyone; people are just getting all P.C. about a bit of fun.

• To delve into a hearty collection of evidence from experts, the European Parliament, government-commissioned reports, and non-governmental organisations which reveal the ways in which exposure to sexualised content affects both men and women of all ages, in terms of self-confidence, mental wellbeing, aspirations, social skills and in many other ways.

Cat-calling and sexual harassment is that big an issue. Maybe the odd comment, but you’re waaaay over-exaggerating:

• www.everydaysexism.com, a fantastic website, set up by Laura Bates, which has provided women with a forum to share a downright demoralising but incredibly useful archive of the harassment which goes on every day.

Anyone apart from you and a few other fools believe this!

• Under supporters, here’s a (pretty mahoosive) list of all of the organisations who have said, “yanno what NMP3? You’re just a teensy bit right.”