[Lorric]

It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.

Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.

No. I don't even know if what you say is true, but assuming it is, many years before that, before the World could watch such things, white men fought to put an end to slavery. Fast forward to today, and voters in a country where the largest group is white people at over 70% of the populous, voted a black man into the White House for his second straight term. The sixties really did a good job of keeping the black man down, eh?

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.

Why?

Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.

[NGTM-1R]

Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.

You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.

In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.

[Lorric]

Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.

You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.

In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.

The bias is called common sense.

[Grizzly]

Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.

You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.

In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.

The bias is called common sense.

You may be dealing with an uncommon situation. Common sense may not apply.

[NGTM-1R]

The bias is called common sense.

This is the movies. Romeo and Juliet is a tale elaborated upon regularly. People in the military disobey their orders and nothing happens to them on a regular basis. A decent-sized city could be populated by the number of people who've chose to try and attack a character who has a gun pointed at them. We can fill skyscrapers full of apartments with the number of people who've deliberately picked a fight with Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, and Chuck Norris. (And we'll have a whole street several miles long for everyone who decided that today, they were going to pick a fight with The Goddamn Batman.)

Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.

[The E]

The bias is called common sense.

Yes, common sense says that these people must have a life outside of their function as a motivator for the protagonist.

However, we never get to see it. We never get to see how they deal with a crisis. We never get a glimpse at what they do outside of their interactions with the protagonist. They are not presented as complete characters. They are a cipher, and every hint of a deeper life these characters have is mostly in the mind of the viewer.

That is the core of the argument here. These characters, although they are presumably very important for the protagonist, never get fleshed out as well as he is. They're never treated as equals by the narrative.
There are a bunch of issues that arise from this. For example, while the MPDGs are generally totally interested in the protagonist, he never has to spend anywhere near the same amount dealing with her feelings, or helping her with her problems. It's not a balanced relationship, and that's a dangerous thing to portrait as something positive.

For a subversion of this trope, I recommend the film High Fidelity. In it, the protagonist is dumped by his long-term girlfriend, and tries to get out of the ensuing depression by dating a bunch of what he hopes will be MPDGs. However, as it turns out, all of them are much too complex, much too adult to actually fit the role (Not that they want to, them being actual characters and all that), and so he is forced to actually deal with the real issues he and his girlfriend were having. Now, while Laura isn't given anywhere near the same amount of screentime as Rob, it is still clear that she is a full person with needs and wants and a life of her own; something none of the characters commonly referred to as MPDGs are.

[Nemesis6]

[Lorric]

The bias is called common sense.

This is the movies. Romeo and Juliet is a tale elaborated upon regularly. People in the military disobey their orders and nothing happens to them on a regular basis. A decent-sized city could be populated by the number of people who've chose to try and attack a character who has a gun pointed at them. We can fill skyscrapers full of apartments with the number of people who've deliberately picked a fight with Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, and Chuck Norris. (And we'll have a whole street several miles long for everyone who decided that today, they were going to pick a fight with The Goddamn Batman.)

Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.

I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?

The bias is called common sense.

Yes, common sense says that these people must have a life outside of their function as a motivator for the protagonist.

However, we never get to see it. We never get to see how they deal with a crisis. We never get a glimpse at what they do outside of their interactions with the protagonist. They are not presented as complete characters. They are a cipher, and every hint of a deeper life these characters have is mostly in the mind of the viewer.

That is the core of the argument here. These characters, although they are presumably very important for the protagonist, never get fleshed out as well as he is. They're never treated as equals by the narrative.
There are a bunch of issues that arise from this. For example, while the MPDGs are generally totally interested in the protagonist, he never has to spend anywhere near the same amount dealing with her feelings, or helping her with her problems. It's not a balanced relationship, and that's a dangerous thing to portrait as something positive.

For a subversion of this trope, I recommend the film High Fidelity. In it, the protagonist is dumped by his long-term girlfriend, and tries to get out of the ensuing depression by dating a bunch of what he hopes will be MPDGs. However, as it turns out, all of them are much too complex, much too adult to actually fit the role (Not that they want to, them being actual characters and all that), and so he is forced to actually deal with the real issues he and his girlfriend were having. Now, while Laura isn't given anywhere near the same amount of screentime as Rob, it is still clear that she is a full person with needs and wants and a life of her own; something none of the characters commonly referred to as MPDGs are.

It is a movie. There isn't enough time. If there was and they showed it 24/7, the female lead would be seen watching TV or on the phone to a friend, or updating her Facebook profile. All the little mundane things that we would have no interest in seeing. It would be referred to as filler.

The male will surely be more fleshed out so you can see the change in him as the female works her magic upon him. A series would be interesting using this trope. Then they could both have their ups and downs and be fleshed out. However, I think the assumption, looking at these girls, is she has no problems. Look how happy they all are. They probably have great lives to be so happy. The relationship will become balanced after the male's problems have been eliminated. Then he'll be free to take his interests from the problem/s that plagued him, and put them on the MPDG. Then the relationship will be free to develop into a healthy and mutual one.

[Polpolion]

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.

Why?

Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.

If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.

It's like you're not even reading what you're quoting.

Does it really not occur to you that there is a problem with the fact that the only female character in a movie is completely devoid of any life beyond that of the male character? Is that really what female viewers are supposed to relate to? Arguing that it's not sexist because the female character has a life that's not present in the movie is probably one of the worst claims I've seen you make. That's not how film works (or any kind of narrative, for that matter) and you know it.

[Mikes]

So what if I actually know a woman that would actually do several things of the things that this video makes out as "impossible/unrealistic examples" ... to the point where I better do not show her that video unless I want to see that kind of behavior right afterwards (just to embarass me ).

Of course that woman has her own job and life and ambitions and is a real person....  but she also likes being silly for sillyness sake and poke fun at people and be a smartass because that s what she does.


At the same time I myself, while not being female, do often get accused by my fellow beings of being "way too happy for my own good way too much" as well.

/shrugs



Ergo: I kinda emphasize with the motivation behind the video.... but at the same time I do have to wonder if it's not trying a bit too hard to the point of where it's - at times - sort of blacklisting real human behavior found in both females and males in order to further its agenda.

[Lorric]

And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.

Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.

Why?

Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.

If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.

It's like you're not even reading what you're quoting.

Does it really not occur to you that there is a problem with the fact that the only female character in a movie is completely devoid of any life beyond that of the male character? Is that really what female viewers are supposed to relate to? Arguing that it's not sexist because the female character has a life that's not present in the movie is probably one of the worst claims I've seen you make. That's not how film works (or any kind of narrative, for that matter) and you know it.

It's supposed to be a nice, light, feel-good story. You're not supposed to make these sinister conclusions from it.

People have minds of their own. People dream of what they want to be from a young age. A movie isn't going to stop them.

I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane.

So what if I actually know a woman that would actually do several things of the things that she uses as "impossible/unrealistic examples" in that video to the point where I better do not show her that video unless I want to see that kind of behavior right afterwards (just to embarass me ).

Of course that woman has her own job and life and ambitions and is a real person....  but she also likes being silly for sillyness sake and poke fun at people and be a smartass because that s what she does.

/shrugs

I bet there are some real life MPDGs out there.

[The E]

I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane.

Now here's the part which you seemingly do not understand. Popular culture does not happen in a vacuum. Films, games, TV shows, novels, music, all of that isn't just entertainment. It informs how we think about the world, what we expect from other people. By showing female characters who are so goddamn perfect that they have no worry in the world except to help That One Guy, the idea that it is perfectly OK for a relationship to be asymmetrical to a major degree gets planted in the minds of the watchers (Not to mention the idea that depression is something one can just snap out of if the right companion is found, which I believe to be one of the more unhealthy things these movies can teach).

There's this idea, very common in nerd circles, that all it takes for you to "get the girl" is to be real nice and understanding, and if you are really good at this, then a relationship will inevitably happen. Why does this idea exist? Because years and years of romantic comedies and TV shows have shown that that's how it works. There are people who do not, on a fundamental level, understand that women do not work that way, that women are not vending machines that you fill with kindness until sex pops out.

You're basically saying "What's the big deal, it's just a movie". We're saying that movies, even silly little inconsequential romcoms, are more important than that, that their impact is felt far and wide even though it is largely unnoticeable, and that as a result, we need to be aware of what these things are telling us, and how it affects us.

[NGTM-1R]

I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?

Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case? Most people don't commit to a statement they don't have some kind of evidence for. You treat it as an article of some kind of religious faith that this exists, as if you need to believe it's true.

It would do you good to examine why you need to believe that.

It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.

[Lorric]

I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane.

Now here's the part which you seemingly do not understand. Popular culture does not happen in a vacuum. Films, games, TV shows, novels, music, all of that isn't just entertainment. It informs how we think about the world, what we expect from other people. By showing female characters who are so goddamn perfect that they have no worry in the world except to help That One Guy, the idea that it is perfectly OK for a relationship to be asymmetrical to a major degree gets planted in the minds of the watchers (Not to mention the idea that depression is something one can just snap out of if the right companion is found, which I believe to be one of the more unhealthy things these movies can teach).

There's this idea, very common in nerd circles, that all it takes for you to "get the girl" is to be real nice and understanding, and if you are really good at this, then a relationship will inevitably happen. Why does this idea exist? Because years and years of romantic comedies and TV shows have shown that that's how it works. There are people who do not, on a fundamental level, understand that women do not work that way, that women are not vending machines that you fill with kindness until sex pops out.

You're basically saying "What's the big deal, it's just a movie". We're saying that movies, even silly little inconsequential romcoms, are more important than that, that their impact is felt far and wide even though it is largely unnoticeable, and that as a result, we need to be aware of what these things are telling us, and how it affects us.

Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.

If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.

I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?

Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case? Most people don't commit to a statement they don't have some kind of evidence for. You treat it as an article of some kind of religious faith that this exists, as if you need to believe it's true.

It would do you good to examine why you need to believe that.

It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.

It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?

[Polpolion]

It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?

I strongly suggest taking a course on literature and/or film. Something where you critique some piece of narrative fiction. Even one you'd take in your first year at secondary school would do.

[The E]

Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.

I do not doubt that it is possible for some people to meet some other people who can help them get over a difficult time in their life.

But.

By presenting the idea that female companionship is a cure-all for depression, a film implicitly degrades both the actual severity of depression as a sickness (I do not know how many depressives are untreated because they lack awareness of their condition and instead ascribe it to "just not feeling well") as well as relationships as a whole. Friends can help you through a depression, yes. But that is not their raison d'etre (Unlike the MPDGs in the trope), and treating them as such is a surefire way of ending those relationships.

If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.

I generally do not like RomComs as a genre, because of the various tropes surrounding them (and me being rather sensitive to bad plotting and script contrivances). But that does not mean that I do not appreciate well done entries in the genre (Like, say, High Fidelity, or Out of Sight), as long as the films treats its principal characters with verisimilitude, a quality not often found in the RomCom genre.

[Lorric]

It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?

I strongly suggest taking a course on literature and/or film. Something where you critique some piece of narrative fiction. Even one you'd take in your first year at secondary school would do.

Are you going to pay for it?

How would this benefit me?

[NGTM-1R]

It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?

It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.

Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.

[Lorric]

Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.

I do not doubt that it is possible for some people to meet some other people who can help them get over a difficult time in their life.

But.

By presenting the idea that female companionship is a cure-all for depression, a film implicitly degrades both the actual severity of depression as a sickness (I do not know how many depressives are untreated because they lack awareness of their condition and instead ascribe it to "just not feeling well") as well as relationships as a whole. Friends can help you through a depression, yes. But that is not their raison d'etre (Unlike the MPDGs in the trope), and treating them as such is a surefire way of ending those relationships.

If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.

I generally do not like RomComs as a genre, because of the various tropes surrounding them (and me being rather sensitive to bad plotting and script contrivances). But that does not mean that I do not appreciate well done entries in the genre (Like, say, High Fidelity, or Out of Sight), as long as the films treats its principal characters with verisimilitude, a quality not often found in the RomCom genre.

Now why do you make this broad assumption that that is what it teaches? To me it would teach me that two people, two individual people with no bearing on the rest of the human race, met and made a connection.

Same for the friends, if you're a good friend, you'll know about your friend. Why would you suddenly think you could push their boundaries?

I have this vision of movies edited by you having lots of filler material in them that the critics would tear apart, saying things like it serves no purpose and breaks the flow of the movie needlessly.

[Lorric]

It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?

It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.

Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.

Thus not showing something common like leading an everyday life in the film.