[The E]

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.

Umm, I'm not sure how to say this, but are you aware that there are multiple readings possible for any given piece of art? That there usually isn't a single definitive interpretation for a given work?
The problem with your interpretation is that it is perfectly valid, but only if you view each film in isolation of each other, not as part of a greater metacultural dialogue. Films create and reinforce stereotypes, and those stereotypes shape how we approach situations (Yes, even if we've never actually seen any of the source material).

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.

Why? Seriously, watch High Fidelity. The character of Rob has a lot of screentime while he works through his issues with the way he approaches relationships, but every female character he meets (Lauren especially, but even the women he just tries to reconnect with over a single date) is a fully formed person, with issues and wounds and a life. That life isn't actually shown on screen; but we get enough actual hints (as opposed to something the viewer has to imagine) as to their normal lifes. Hell, the fact that Lauren is a complete character and that Rob has to learn how to deal with that is the entire point of the movie! And yet, it's a very lean and fast-paced movie with little filler material.

If you take a typical romcom script and just bolt on pieces to make the female role more interesting, then yes, you'd get a boring movie. Which is why a good filmmaker will not do that, but write his script with full characters from the outset.

[NGTM-1R]

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

Depression or other causes of "requiring" ('cuse me, throwing up, better now) a Manic Pixie Dream Girl are very common and are always shown in loving detail.

The woman having an exterior life or any kind of exterior desires is not.

This argument is insufficient on its surface.

Indeed, if I were to posit a scenario where she were to bring the guy back to life through introducing him to something she loves, the movie would not get made. I refer you to the fact no such movies exist. (This is despite the fact it is a very plausible scenario.)

This argument is insufficient upon closer examination. The existence of no-life-or-desires-of-their-own is integral to the story. And that is, at minimum, very creepy.

[General Battuta]

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 right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like

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

don't win out.

This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.

[Lorric]

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.

Umm, I'm not sure how to say this, but are you aware that there are multiple readings possible for any given piece of art? That there usually isn't a single definitive interpretation for a given work?
The problem with your interpretation is that it is perfectly valid, but only if you view each film in isolation of each other, not as part of a greater metacultural dialogue. Films create and reinforce stereotypes, and those stereotypes shape how we approach situations (Yes, even if we've never actually seen any of the source material).

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.

Why? Seriously, watch High Fidelity. The character of Rob has a lot of screentime while he works through his issues with the way he approaches relationships, but every female character he meets (Lauren especially, but even the women he just tries to reconnect with over a single date) is a fully formed person, with issues and wounds and a life. That life isn't actually shown on screen; but we get enough actual hints (as opposed to something the viewer has to imagine) as to their normal lifes. Hell, the fact that Lauren is a complete character and that Rob has to learn how to deal with that is the entire point of the movie! And yet, it's a very lean and fast-paced movie with little filler material.

If you take a typical romcom script and just bolt on pieces to make the female role more interesting, then yes, you'd get a boring movie. Which is why a good filmmaker will not do that, but write his script with full characters from the outset.

Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.

Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.

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

Depression or other causes of "requiring" ('cuse me, throwing up, better now) a Manic Pixie Dream Girl are very common and are always shown in loving detail.

The woman having an exterior life or any kind of exterior desires is not.

This argument is insufficient on its surface.

Indeed, if I were to posit a scenario where she were to bring the guy back to life through introducing him to something she loves, the movie would not get made. I refer you to the fact no such movies exist. (This is despite the fact it is a very plausible scenario.)

This argument is insufficient upon closer examination.

Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"

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 right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like

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

don't win out.

People who fight against real sexism, good luck to them. Are you honestly saying my second quote is not true? It is true. It's as true as saying men are physically stronger than women. I'm not saying it applies to every single woman and every single man if that's what you're thinking, people should be taken as they come, but when you lump them all in together, it's true.

[General Battuta]

It is factually untrue. There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.

What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.

I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:

This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.

[The E]

Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.

And thus it is better if you have films, games, scripts in general that are unequivocal in their approach to these things. By leaving ambiguity, by inviting possible readings that degrade everyone and everything involved, these negative stereotypes are reinforced and kept alive. That is something that should not happen.

Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.

The general tenor of Sarkeesians videos and the discussion we're having now is not "Stop having fun!", or "stop making mindless movies", it's actually "Make better movies." Movies that do not treat their characters, or their circumstances, with contempt. Movies that, even if they do not change the world with the brilliance of their insight, do not insult the viewer's intelligence while being entertaining.

[stinkyFeet]

It's weird that they included Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, when that character explicitly said that she wasn't that. The confirmation bias is strong in this one, not that she's wrong.

I think the problem is that most guys don't want to identify with a woman when the inverse tends to be fine.

[Lorric]

It is factually untrue. There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.

What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.

I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:

This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

I am perfectly behind equality. Holding either gender back is just squandering potential.

Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.

And thus it is better if you have films, games, scripts in general that are unequivocal in their approach to these things. By leaving ambiguity, by inviting possible readings that degrade everyone and everything involved, these negative stereotypes are reinforced and kept alive. That is something that should not happen.

Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.

The general tenor of Sarkeesians videos and the discussion we're having now is not "Stop having fun!", or "stop making mindless movies", it's actually "Make better movies." Movies that do not treat their characters, or their circumstances, with contempt. Movies that, even if they do not change the world with the brilliance of their insight, do not insult the viewer's intelligence while being entertaining.

Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.

She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?

[General Battuta]

It is factually untrue. There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.

What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.

I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:

This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

Obviously wrong? You're conceding the point? That women are not inherently more empathic than men? Because that's what I'm showing you scientific proof of.

Or is it obvious that women are inherently more empathic than men, the same way it's obvious the sun moves around the earth?

[The E]

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

What. There's proof right there that your opinion is unfounded and not based in fact. What exactly gives you the authority to declare your version of reality to be the only one?

Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.

No.

She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?

As was pointed out in the other thread, pointing out deficiencies and making them public is constructive. Getting people to think and talk about these issues is constructive.

[Lorric]

It is factually untrue. There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.

What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.

I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:

This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

Obviously wrong? You're conceding the point? That women are not inherently more empathic than men? Because that's what I'm showing you scientific proof of.

Or is it obvious that women are inherently more empathic than men, the same way it's obvious the sun moves around the earth?

Oh wait, I didn't realise those were links with the way they were split up. I shall read them.

[Lorric]

You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.

What. There's proof right there that your opinion is unfounded and not based in fact. What exactly gives you the authority to declare your version of reality to be the only one?

Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.

No.

She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?

As was pointed out in the other thread, pointing out deficiencies and making them public is constructive. Getting people to think and talk about these issues is constructive.

See above for what happened there.

Hmmm. Well, what do you mean? Can you give an example? I am worried it would be the kind of thing that is blatanlty obviously there to tell the World "we're not ***ist" when such things should not be necessary. It also feels like holding people's hand too much when I don't think they need it and it would just be insulting their intelligence. Can you get round that too? On a consistent basis, since this would be required for every movie, not just one?

Well she goes about it in a terrible way.

[General Battuta]

She goes about it in a pretty useful and constructive way if she's getting people thinking about it. She has every right to be angry. Video games in general are badly written and sexist and they need to be called out and, hopefully, improved.

[The E]

Can you give an example?

I mentioned a film that does it right in my opinion several times. I recommend you watch it.

Well she goes about it in a terrible way.

In your opinion. And given how forceful you are reacting, it is obviously hitting a note.

[NGTM-1R]

Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"

How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices.

[Mr. Vega]

Is there room in feminism to believe that there might be such a thing as masculinity and femininity as real, inherent things, but that our culture's definition of them has no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing and in reality they are incredibly complex and mysterious animals? That some of your favorite fictional characters are individuals that, if you listed their personality traits, would look completely at odds with what someone of their gender was "supposed" to be, and yet instinctively seem the most masculine or feminine of all (I can come up with much better examples of this but the first characters that come to my head are Vash the Stampede for masculinity and pre-Other M Samus Aran for femininity)? I consider myself to be a rabid feminist but this may disqualify me in some of your eyes.

[haloboy100]

Pardon my side note, if you may;
Is it unusual that I don't find these kinds of girls the slightest bit attractive?

Am I supposed to according to hollywood? Is that what's supposed to make this "trope" so affective?

[Lorric]

She goes about it in a pretty useful and constructive way if she's getting people thinking about it. She has every right to be angry. Video games in general are badly written and sexist and they need to be called out and, hopefully, improved.

Hmmm, big links. It would take too long to read them properly now. I may read them later sometime when I am relaxed and ready to take in the information at leisure rather than hunting through for bits of information, as it is something which genuinely interests me. *You'll be happy to know I cut off the stream of consciousness at this point*

The gist it seems is that men and women can perform equally, but only if motivation is in place. If not, women do it better, right?

So it's a case that men have it in them, but women use it more and better. So it seems to a movie maker, it still applies, and in general life it still applies that women use it more. Curious quirk. But for your movie director you can't blame the director for targetting females in this way. Perhaps it's kind of like how women like shopping but to men it's just a job.

I'm all for improving video games, but I believe there's nothing wrong with gameplay first, story second, if at all, games. Generic story, one dimensional characters, cliches, stereotypes, but awesome gameplay? Take my money!!!

Can you give an example?

I mentioned a film that does it right in my opinion several times. I recommend you watch it.

Well she goes about it in a terrible way.

In your opinion. And given how forceful you are reacting, it is obviously hitting a note.

I was thinking more about the MPDG trope for an example. I'm not promising anything, it's not a genre I pay any attention to, but I'll keep it mind.

A most discordant note.

[Lorric]

Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"

How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices.

I have a question for you, Battuta and E. Do you find it difficult to enjoy games and movies? Or perhaps more accurately, find games and movies you enjoy?

[Grizzly]

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.

Hi.

I want to chime in here with one single pointer: No matter what happens, you will NEVER *snap* out of a depression. A depression can take years to build up, and it can take even more years for the person to actually notice that he is in a depression as those negative thinking spirals make you hate everything that you think caused the spirals to trigger, whilst the actual problem (the negative thinking spirals of doom themselves) flies under the radar. Just meeting the right person, or indeed, being transported to a much better enviroment feeding the positive thinking spirals, does not change the fact that you will still have bad days, as the causes of your depression are still embedded in your mind, and it takes a lot of time to actually mend those. In fact, you will always still be more prone to otherwise unexplainable anger and sadness then others.

I won't say that getting into the right enviroment doesn't help (it certainly does). It simply does not go as easy as you say it could be. Ocasionally, it can even make it worse (fear of losing that enviroment, or the change being too rapid triggering "I don't deserve this" thinking).

Is there room in feminism to believe that there might be such a thing as masculinity and femininity as real, inherent things, but that our culture's definition of them has no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing and in reality they are incredibly complex and mysterious animals? That some of your favorite fictional characters are individuals that, if you listed their personality traits, would look completely at odds with what someone of their gender was "supposed" to be, and yet instinctively seem the most masculine or feminine of all (I can come up with much better examples of this but the first characters that come to my head are Vash the Stampede for masculinity and pre-Other M Samus Aran for femininity)? I consider myself to be a rabid feminist but this may disqualify me in some of your eyes.

Cdr. Shepard springs to mind.