6 ms·

This is pretty much flamebait, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm all for every sexual orientation, but if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f *

This is pretty much flamebait, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm all for every sexual orientation, but if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people. Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class. Do you really want to live in a perfectly politically correct world where nobody can make a joke about anything because they might offend somebody? As George Carlin said: "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." That said, dissociating yourself with gamers because many of them have a juvenile sense of humor is kind of silly. It is like saying "I am going to stop calling myself a movie watcher because half of all movie watchers like straight male-oriented action movies." Edit: Uh oh, hit the beehive. To clarify, there is a very clear difference between hatred and joking, most people can make the distinction. I understand the trauma that a lot of orientations go through (I have watched my friend's parents disown him for being gay and read the countless stories of people being murdered for being whatever orientation). Nonetheless, I do not believe at all in censorship and I never will. I do believe in being polite and respecting others. Humor is a way of bridging gaps, hatred or making fun of somebody cruelly is a different beast.

aaronem 13y ago
Careful there, Citizen. You're courting accusations of reactionism with regressionist talk like that.
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  Heheh ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
patdennis 13y ago
> Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class. The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed. This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing". These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc. Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing the damage. Conflating jokes with beatings, and assuming that incidence of one has an effect on incidence of the other, does no good for anyone subject to either -- I also don't remember, in any of the cases where people beat the shit out of me, wishing someone would step in to stop them making jokes about me. I'm also curious: What about kids who get beat up, not because they're gay or trans or what-have-you, but just because they're nerds? I was one of those, too, as it happens, and that bought me more beatings than being gay ever did. Those beatings are of less concern, in the realm of social justice, than the ones I got for being gay. Why? Certainly the latter didn't hurt worse than the former, nor did it particularly matter to me which was which. Based on that experience, it seems to me less reasonable to consider that the reasons behind any given beating are the problem, than that the beatings are the problem; worrying specifically about gay kids getting beaten, or trans kids getting beaten, or what-have-you, seems roughly as risible as worrying specifically about guns being used to kill people, rather than about people killing each other.
  - patdennis 13y ago
    Of course violence has to be targeted and stopped, regardless of the reason. But cultural change is important. Lynchings were bad because of the violence, but just as bad was the culture that lead to such violence being sanctioned. Gay bashing is horrible, but the culture that sanctions it is also horrible. Same with trans bashing, but there has been less progress at targeting that culture. Include nerds in the targeted groups, there. Sure, maybe you don't agree that targeting the culture that sanctions violence is important, but a lot of people disagree with you there, including me.
    - aaronem 13y ago
      But you're not talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence. You're talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence against the protected groups of your choice. There's a substantive difference there; the latter proposition has holes in it which I'd argue are, if not dangerous, then at least compromising to the goal of reducing violence, period. I'll grant that not getting beaten up for being gay would've fetched me fewer beatings, and fewer would've been better than more. But no matter how thoroughly you manage to instill "don't beat up people because they're gay", fewer beatings is all you'll ever achieve by it. Considering that, if your movement has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people because they're gay" social engineering project, it also has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people, period" social engineering project, aiming for a lesser goal than you can attain seems to me a bit crass. (As it happens, I don't think your movement has the power to succeed at either project, so for me the question is academic. But you think otherwise, so, for you, I should think it'd be a matter of some import.)
nicolethenerd 13y ago
Minor nitpick, but calling them "transgenders" is kind of like referring to straight people as "straights" - it just doesn't really make sense. I think the appropriate term would be "trans people."
mcv 13y ago
> if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people. It's not quite the same thing. Some people are more vulnerable than others. Transgendered people in particular have often taken a long time coming to grips with who they are. Many are traumatized by a lifetime living in a body that wasn't "theirs". I sincerely hope you can see the difference between mocking a vulnerable minority and mocking the dominant majority.
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  In my eyes we are all equal, regardless of whether we fall into to big group or some small group defined by some arbitrary trait. That said, we must learn to respect each other (many humans seem innately inclined to hate what is different). Mockery tends to denote making fun of someone, perhaps with cruel intention. On the other hand, saying "Wario got a sex change" is not really in any way cruel, and I cannot see it shattering the self image of any transgender person.
ebiester 13y ago
Comedians also have another saying: "Punch up." Don't take the easy targets. Trans men and women are still being murdered with obscene regularity.
ebbv 13y ago
I accidentally up voted this comment and feel like now I need to respond to it. Kids online yelling "Haha die you faggot nigger." are not making a joke. It's not funny. It's not something to just laugh at and move on. It's awful, childish, stupid behavior.
- Joona 13y ago
  And how many of these kids will read these blog posts about the issue? None.
  - ebbv 13y ago
    Of course they won't, and the blog post is stupid. But that doesn't mean the comment I was responding to makes any sense.
- gavanwoolery 13y ago
  I agree - to clarify, there is a difference between a joke and hatred laced with a "joke" - not really a joke in the example you pointed out, more of a derogatory statement, but I get what you are saying.
aestra 13y ago
1) I don't think there's really a movie watching culture in the same way there is a gaming culture. The author wishes to disassociate with a cultural movement he disagrees with. and 2) There is also a movement to point out that many movies (as well as other works of fiction) are written/directed by men in the male perspective for a male audience and don't portray women in the same way they portray men. Ever heard of The Bechdel test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test only 56% of the movies listed on http://bechdeltest.com/ http://bechdeltest.com/ pass. There's really nothing wrong with simply pointing any of this out.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  The Bechdel test is severely flawed and not indicative of anything. Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion. It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip. Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not. You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
  - aestra 13y ago
    It's like BMI, taken as a measure of one film it isn't that valuable, however taken as a whole it is a measure of societal trends. It is one metric, of many. >Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie? >It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too. >It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license. No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way. More data: http://www.seejane.org/research/ http://www.seejane.org/research/ Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946. Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males. Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female. From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce. All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism Gender in Media: The Myths & Facts MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television. FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over. MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters. FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways. MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera. FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1. MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts. FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations. MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time. FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64). and finally, an antidote: http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/ http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit... Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters). At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”

aaronem 13y ago

Careful there, Citizen. You're courting accusations of reactionism with regressionist talk like that.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
Heheh ;)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

patdennis 13y ago

> Stop treating everything like its holy ground, and learn to laugh at a joke, whether or not it targets your minority or majority class. The main reason people get upset about transphobic jokes isn't that they don't have a sense of humor. It's because trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence because of their orientation. People get beat up, people get killed. This is pretty serious, and a lot of people think part of the problem is a cultural sense that demeaning trans people is ok. You can call them "it", or a "thing". These people aren't going to be mad if you make a joke around your trans friends. But they see it as a problem when a whole generation of 12-13 year olds are being culturally conditioned to treat trans people as lesser, as an other, etc. Not to mention the effect this culture has on young trans kids. They already have a much much higher risk of suicide than the average person. Change has to start somewhere.

aaronem 13y ago
Having grown up as a gay teenager in the 90s, I don't really remember having had my bones broken by any jokes people made about me. I did get my ass kicked pretty good a few times, but in those cases, it wasn't words doing the damage. Conflating jokes with beatings, and assuming that incidence of one has an effect on incidence of the other, does no good for anyone subject to either -- I also don't remember, in any of the cases where people beat the shit out of me, wishing someone would step in to stop them making jokes about me. I'm also curious: What about kids who get beat up, not because they're gay or trans or what-have-you, but just because they're nerds? I was one of those, too, as it happens, and that bought me more beatings than being gay ever did. Those beatings are of less concern, in the realm of social justice, than the ones I got for being gay. Why? Certainly the latter didn't hurt worse than the former, nor did it particularly matter to me which was which. Based on that experience, it seems to me less reasonable to consider that the reasons behind any given beating are the problem, than that the beatings are the problem; worrying specifically about gay kids getting beaten, or trans kids getting beaten, or what-have-you, seems roughly as risible as worrying specifically about guns being used to kill people, rather than about people killing each other.
- patdennis 13y ago
  Of course violence has to be targeted and stopped, regardless of the reason. But cultural change is important. Lynchings were bad because of the violence, but just as bad was the culture that lead to such violence being sanctioned. Gay bashing is horrible, but the culture that sanctions it is also horrible. Same with trans bashing, but there has been less progress at targeting that culture. Include nerds in the targeted groups, there. Sure, maybe you don't agree that targeting the culture that sanctions violence is important, but a lot of people disagree with you there, including me.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    But you're not talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence. You're talking about targeting the culture that sanctions violence against the protected groups of your choice. There's a substantive difference there; the latter proposition has holes in it which I'd argue are, if not dangerous, then at least compromising to the goal of reducing violence, period. I'll grant that not getting beaten up for being gay would've fetched me fewer beatings, and fewer would've been better than more. But no matter how thoroughly you manage to instill "don't beat up people because they're gay", fewer beatings is all you'll ever achieve by it. Considering that, if your movement has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people because they're gay" social engineering project, it also has the power to succeed at the "don't beat up people, period" social engineering project, aiming for a lesser goal than you can attain seems to me a bit crass. (As it happens, I don't think your movement has the power to succeed at either project, so for me the question is academic. But you think otherwise, so, for you, I should think it'd be a matter of some import.)

nicolethenerd 13y ago

Minor nitpick, but calling them "transgenders" is kind of like referring to straight people as "straights" - it just doesn't really make sense. I think the appropriate term would be "trans people."

mcv 13y ago

> if someone makes a tame joke about transgenders, who the f * * k cares? We make jokes about straight people all the time. My friends who are gay make jokes about gay people. It's not quite the same thing. Some people are more vulnerable than others. Transgendered people in particular have often taken a long time coming to grips with who they are. Many are traumatized by a lifetime living in a body that wasn't "theirs". I sincerely hope you can see the difference between mocking a vulnerable minority and mocking the dominant majority.

gavanwoolery 13y ago
In my eyes we are all equal, regardless of whether we fall into to big group or some small group defined by some arbitrary trait. That said, we must learn to respect each other (many humans seem innately inclined to hate what is different). Mockery tends to denote making fun of someone, perhaps with cruel intention. On the other hand, saying "Wario got a sex change" is not really in any way cruel, and I cannot see it shattering the self image of any transgender person.

ebiester 13y ago

Comedians also have another saying: "Punch up." Don't take the easy targets. Trans men and women are still being murdered with obscene regularity.

ebbv 13y ago

I accidentally up voted this comment and feel like now I need to respond to it. Kids online yelling "Haha die you faggot nigger." are not making a joke. It's not funny. It's not something to just laugh at and move on. It's awful, childish, stupid behavior.

Joona 13y ago
And how many of these kids will read these blog posts about the issue? None.
- ebbv 13y ago
  Of course they won't, and the blog post is stupid. But that doesn't mean the comment I was responding to makes any sense.
gavanwoolery 13y ago
I agree - to clarify, there is a difference between a joke and hatred laced with a "joke" - not really a joke in the example you pointed out, more of a derogatory statement, but I get what you are saying.

aestra 13y ago

1) I don't think there's really a movie watching culture in the same way there is a gaming culture. The author wishes to disassociate with a cultural movement he disagrees with. and 2) There is also a movement to point out that many movies (as well as other works of fiction) are written/directed by men in the male perspective for a male audience and don't portray women in the same way they portray men. Ever heard of The Bechdel test? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test only 56% of the movies listed on http://bechdeltest.com/ http://bechdeltest.com/ pass. There's really nothing wrong with simply pointing any of this out.

vezzy-fnord 13y ago
The Bechdel test is severely flawed and not indicative of anything. Most great films fail it miserably, so you'll be missing out on the greatest works of human cinema if you use it as a serious criterion. It's very idiotic. It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. Yet any film at all, no matter how great or even progressive in its themes, will fail because of a brief four-second quip. Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman? I'll tell you how many. A metric fuckton. Human sexuality is a pivotal motif in the arts and is a fundamental part of our lives. Whether you like it or not. You can easily make a very misogynistic and hateful film that positively portrays wife beating, gay bashing and oppression while passing the Bechdel test. Fact of the matter is, the Bechdel test completely ignores any context. It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license.
- aestra 13y ago
  It's like BMI, taken as a measure of one film it isn't that valuable, however taken as a whole it is a measure of societal trends. It is one metric, of many. >Tell me now. How many films have a scene where two or more men discuss a woman Yea, but is that all those men do? Is that the entire point of having them in the movie? >It implies that there's something wrong with having a scene where two women discuss a man. No it doesn't. It says that is all women are for, is the male leads. Their sole purpose in film and life is and object for the males around them. They don't have personality, they have men. They can of course talk about men, but they should talk about other things too. >It's very narrow and to impose it on people is a violation of artistic license. No it doesn't. Nobody said all moves had to pass. It shows a societal trend that half don't, that 50% of the population is female but many writers can't figure out how to write women into their scripts in a meaningful way. More data: http://www.seejane.org/research/ http://www.seejane.org/research/ Males outnumber females 3 to 1 in family films. In contrast, females comprise just over 50% of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946. Females are almost four times as likely as males to be shown in sexy attire. Further, females are nearly twice as likely as males to be shown with a diminutive waistline. Generally unrealistic figures are more likely to be seen on females than males. Females are also underrepresented behind the camera. Across 1,565 content creators, only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. This translates to 4.8 males working behind-the-scenes to every one female. From 2006 to 2009, not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in law, or politics. In these films, 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real world statistics, where women comprise 50% of the workforce. All facts are supported by research conducted by Dr. Stacy Smith, Ph.D. at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism Gender in Media: The Myths & Facts MYTH: Boys and girls are equally represented in film and television. FACT: Even among the top-grossing G-rated family films, girl characters are out numbered by boys three-to-one. That's the same ratio that has existed since the end of World War II. For decades, male characters have dominated nearly three-quarters of speaking parts in children's entertainment, and 83% of film and TV narrators are male. The Institute's research indicates that in some group scenes, only 17% of the characters are female. These absences are unquestionably felt by audiences, and children learn to accept the stereotypes represented. What they see affects their attitudes toward male and female values in our society, and the tendency for repeated viewing results in negative gender stereotypes imprinting over and over. MYTH: Family entertainment is a safe haven for female characters. FACT: Astoundingly, even female characters in family films serve primarily as "eye candy." Female characters continue to show dramatically more skin than their male counterparts, and feature extremely tiny waists and other exaggerated body characteristics. This hypersexualization and objectification of female characters leads to unrealistic body ideals in very young children, cementing and often reinforcing negative body images and perceptions during the formative years. Research shows that lookism still pervades cinematic content in very meaningful ways. MYTH: Things are looking great for females behind the camera. FACT: Females behind the camera fall far behind their male contemporaries and are at a distinct disadvantage in the entertainment industry. Only 7% of directors, 13% of writers, and 20% of producers are female. With such a dearth of female representation in front of and behind the camera, it's a struggle to champion female stories and voices. The Institute's research proves that female involvement in the creative process is imperative for creating greater gender balance before production even begins. There is a causal relationship between positive female portrayals and female content creators involved in production. In fact, when even one woman writer works on a film, there is a 10.4% difference in screen time for female characters. Sadly, men outnumber women in key production roles by nearly 5 to 1. MYTH: Girls on screen compare favorably to their male counterparts. FACT: Messages that devalue and diminish female characters are still rampant in family films. Gender stereotyping is an inherent problem in today's entertainment landscape, and children are the most vulnerable recipients of depictions that send the message that girls are less valuable and capable than boys. The Institute's research illustrates that female characters who are lucky enough to garner speaking roles tend to be highly stereotyped. From 2006 to 2009 not one female character was depicted in G-rated family films in the field of medical science, as a business leader, in the law, or in politics. 80.5% of all working characters are male and 19.5% are female, which is a contrast to real-world statistics of women comprising 50% of the workforce. With repeated viewings, young audiences may fail to realize this lopsided view is not, in fact, reality and believe there is no need for gender parity or industry change. Today's children will be our future business leaders, content creators and parents and the ones who need to lead the charge for future generations. MYTH: Gender imbalance issues have gotten better over time. FACT: Statistically, there has been little forward movement for girls in media in six decades. For nearly 60 years, gender inequality on screen has remained largely unchanged and unchecked. Without an educational voice and force for change, this level of imbalance is likely to stay the same or worsen. Only through education, research, and advocacy both from within the studio system and entertainment industry, and with parents and kids, can we effect real change in this heavily gender-biased media landscape. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/elb9501.html Tannis McBeth Williams (1985) conducted a study in Canada to examine the impact of television on a community which had previously had no television reception. She tested the sex role attitudes of a number of children who lived in a community where they had no television reception shortly before television was introduced to the community, and again two years after. He found that children in a community where there already was television were more sex stereotyped than the children in the community who had no television reception, and also found that those who had been introduced to television were, two years later, significantly more stereotyped in their attitudes towards the sexes than they had been before. This type of evidence suggests that, "in the long term, television has the potential to shape children's sex-role attitudes." (Gunter and McAleer, 1990, page 64). and finally, an antidote: http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/ http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwrit... Only to learn there was still something wrong with my writing, something unanticipated by my professors. My scripts had multiple women with names. Talking to each other. About something other than men. That, they explained nervously, was not okay. I asked why. Well, it would be more accurate to say I politely demanded a thorough, logical explanation that made sense for a change (I’d found the “audience won’t watch women!” argument pretty questionable, with its ever-shifting reasons and parameters). At first I got several tentative murmurings about how it distracted from the flow or point of the story. I went through this with more than one professor, more than one industry professional. Finally, I got one blessedly telling explanation from an industry pro: “The audience doesn’t want to listen to a bunch of women talking about whatever it is women talk about.”