Diversity and Gender Representation in Movies

[PDC1987]

I believe all men (as in, human beings) are equal. I don't fight for one gender/race/sexual preference over another.

Because you don't belong to any of the minorities that are not treated equal.

[Ezen Baklattan]

This is movie-centric website so most of my views have more to do with stuffs that involve movies and less to do with real world issue.

I have nothing against HUMAN equality in general. I'm not a fan of fighting for just one part of society especially when it involves fictional worlds/fictional characters in entertainment business. The constant complaining/finger-pointing at every misstep of female characterisation in movies is annoying and most of the time unnecessary. Getting all offensive when female characters not kicking enough ass or showing too much vulnerabilities doesn't truly represent 'girls power' but instead misrepresents females as more needy, over-sensitive and insecurity-filled gender.

Have you seen any men getting offended when male characters were reduced to powerless side-kicks in THG series, Underworld series or Resident Evil series? What about when drool-worthy male characters like the Wolverine, Supes, Thor or Cap had to go shirtless (or bottomless ) or wearing skin-tight outfits to show off their figure so female audience could have something to drool over? Men generally don't make the mistreatments of male characters a big issue because they don't feel as insecure about themselves the way women do.

People come from different backgrounds and their backgrounds effect their view in the world so I'm sorry for not fighting the war I've never needed to fight for in the first place. I grew up in a female-dominated household. I've been surrounded by strong women and not-so-strong men so please forgive me for seeing those larger than life male characters in movies as 'refreshing'. I love good female characters as much as everyone because they make a movie better not because I feel like I'm well represented. Jumping to a conclusion that I'm a woman hater or that I'm against the idea of women being equal to men in society just because I refuse to joint a group of political movement is unfair and goes against what you're trying to support. If I'm entitled to equal rights and equal pays, am I not entitled to watch movies just to be entertained without a baggage of gender insecurities and inferiority?

I don't need to see Wonderwoman kicking Superman's arse to make me feel empowered. I also won't be mad if Supes kicks her back harder, I'll just go and pay my own bill while my male family members mowing my lawn and preparing my meal to get even.

I understand that your experiences may have attributed to your beliefs, but I think you're not quite getting what some of the people are saying here. You have to realize that things like Resident Evil, The Hunger Games, and so on are the exceptions to the rule. Most films, especially in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre, still aren't the best at given women as compelling roles as men. Look at this chart for instance:

 

 

Let's not even dive into the conversation for female writers and directors. That just opens an even crazier can of worms.

 

Having said that, I don't think it's the end of the world when a popular movie presents female characters that may have concerning implications for some of its audience members, even if they're worth discussing rationally (not ignoring it completely, but not going onto Twitter and being like "go kill urself Joss"). I'd definitely say that considering how reasonably well written female protagonists are still not the norm, it's fair to assume that we should place more scrutiny in how they're portrayed. I mean, as an avid fan of Disney and Pixar (just look at my avatar), and a cisgendered male, I'm painfully aware of the design issues in animated men and women from that studio. Film, stories, music, and so in play a greater role in influencing our culture than you may think, so these are definitely issues that we need to grapple with.

 

Personally, I consider Feminism, and social justice for that matter, to rely on something of a spectrum, one with a side that does include radical and extreme interpretations of the movement. Unfortunately, like with most things, the radical side often gets the most exposure and ends up creating a seemingly negative portrait of feminism in the eyes of the public (while I don't think radical feminism is inherently bad, I do not align myself with it, and it does tread into more complicated and troubling grounds at times), and I think it's our job to be aware of the images that we are being presented with and understand that things are not a one-size-fits-all scenario. I wouldn't really say that feminism is a militant movement, at least not across its whole parts, but like I said, I am a cisgendered male. I understand that I am not the fairest authority to present my interpretation of feminism, but these are still my thoughts of the matter.

[Goffe]

A lot of the defense of Joss Whedon after the latest blowup seems to amount to "but he's a feminist and he's done all these great things" as if that now excludes him of any further critique, especially if he's giving off some iffy messages.

the problem in discussion here wasn't whether people have the right to criticize Whedon, it was about those people who offended Whedon on Twitter and made him delete his account.

 

The reasonable feminists don't recognize that what the offenders did is wrong, some even try to defend them say it's understandable. That's what gives the movement a bad name, the reasonable ones not calling those crazy people out just because they defend the same flag, not the "evil right-wing media".

 

KATCH 22 summed it pretty well

Under normal circumstances we'd call them bullies and call what they do a social harassment but since they'd done all those things under a feminism flag their wrongdoings were justified somewhat

[KATCH-2D2]

Because you don't belong to any of the minorities that are not treated equal.

But I am.

 

You think I'm a white male? I'm neither.

 

@Spaghetti, you've made some good point. I need to go to bed so I'll have to reply to your post another time.

Edited May 7, 2015 by KATCH 22

[Lordmandeep]

The issue is feminists usually pick fights that attract little sympathy and seem petty in comparison to other causes.

Compared to lgbt and gay marriage and minorities and police brutality.

[BadAtGender]

 

the problem in discussion here wasn't whether people have the right to criticize Whedon, it was about those people who offended Whedon on Twitter and made him delete his account.

 

The reasonable feminists don't recognize that what the offenders did is wrong, some even try to defend them say it's understandable. That's what gives the movement a bad name, the reasonable ones not calling those crazy people out just because they defend the same flag, not the "evil right-wing media".

 

KATCH 22 summed it pretty well

 

 

 

If you think that there wasn't a lot of impassioned detraction of the criticism Whedon received within feminist circles, you're delusional. Because many of them are abundantly aware of how such things look and that the blowback will be a hundred times worse.

 

Whedon got some harsh criticism for some for one thing he's done. It'll dry up and mostly be forgotten in a short while.

 

Women and people of color will get harsh criticism constantly just for who they are. The bullying they receive is liable to be considerably worse than what Whedon received and for much longer.

 

Bullying sucks in all forms, but not all bullying is created equal. Joss Whedon is a straight, white, American man who has considerable wealth and influence. Attacks against him cannot be equated to those against other people.

 

But even so, yes, the attacks were criticized. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just meant you weren't part of the conversation.

[Goffe]

If you think that there wasn't a lot of impassioned detraction of the criticism Whedon received within feminist circles, you're delusional. Because many of them are abundantly aware of how such things look and that the blowback will be a hundred times worse.

 

Whedon got some harsh criticism for some for one thing he's done. It'll dry up and mostly be forgotten in a short while.

 

Women and people of color will get harsh criticism constantly just for who they are. The bullying they receive is liable to be considerably worse than what Whedon received and for much longer.

 

Bullying sucks in all forms, but not all bullying is created equal. Joss Whedon is a straight, white, American man who has considerable wealth and influence. Attacks against him cannot be equated to those against other people.

 

But even so, yes, the attacks were criticized. Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just meant you weren't part of the conversation.

Good post except for the part where you say that a white, straight, American, wealthy man is supposed to be more thick-skinned than minorities. I strongly disagree with that.

[Lordmandeep]

Yes it's called being a faux progressive.

[BadAtGender]

Sexism post.

Look I know the sexism debate is getting tired, but I have to ask: for all these radical feminists that want Joss burned at the stake...where were they with other movies? Why is AOU getting hated on so much?

What about Fast 7? Why was there no outcry over that and why werent girls demanding Wong eat their ass? Where were they with TF4 (and 1-3?). What about Neighbors? Every girl in that movie that wasnt Rose Byrne was a nag or a drunken bimbo. What about Sniper? There were no military women, all the other women were crying the whole time and helpless, or staying at home taking care of the kids while the man goes to work. What about Equalizer? All the women and that movie needed the man, worked for the man, was reduced to sex slaves and objects, and then were killed if they didnt perform. Why does Chloe need Denzel to go fight her battles? What about Don Jon? Where were they when that movie came out? All the girls in that either were sex objects or needed JGL for one reason or another. So where ya at?

See how fun that is, to analyze everything under a microscope? Yeah not fun at all. But AOU (and Kingsman, though much much quitier) were the only 2 recent movies I think of that got outcry over the "sexism", even though I saw it in neither.

You can find something sexist/racist/offensive/etc about every movie. I just watched Gremlins and the black guy died first. Thats racist. Or is it? No. Are Equalizer and Sniper really seixst? No. So why is AOU getting jumped on when Fast 7 just came out a month ago and the first 5 minutes was all female ass and wet t shirts and girls taking showers together? (for arousal, not cause they were dirty). So thats okay, but Joss showing that Widow has a weakness, like everyone, is not okay?

Thats why I cant take this serious, among other reasons. I know the fanbases are different, but still. If youre gonna give Joss shit, but let Wong skate by, then you should just shut up and go back to your cave. Joss had no ulterior motives. All the sexist stuff in tv and music too, but nooo. Katniss wastes a lot of time worrying about men, instead of being the strong hero, but no we hear no complaints. Hypocrites. Joss isnt setting us back, the radicals are. Just like people burning down Baltimore. Not helping our cause. So going on Twitter and telling Joss ti fuck himself, eat ass, give up movies, die, etc. isnt going to make Marvel make changes. Not at all. Just makes you (or your fan account) look like a dumbass.

Ok, bye.

 

Criticism does get applied elsewhere. But Marvel is the biggest thing on the block, and Avengers is their prime property. It gets a critical response in relation to its size. It doesn't help when the CEO is down on female characters in the franchise (http://comicsalliance.com/ike-perlmutter-thinks-female-led-films-bomb/) & apparently part of the lack of BW merchandise is the emphasis of Marvel as Disney's Boy Brand (can't find a link to the story at the moment. There's a lot of print spread about AoU right now.)

 

Besides that, you're going to get the critique of the things you're most interested in. If you have heightened interest in Marvel and CBMs, then the discussion surrounding those is what's most likely to filter down to you. But every property, big and small, is going to have this debate.

 

And it is a debate. Alyssa Rosenberg is a pretty outspoken feminist and writes for WaPo. She has a long defense of BW's portrayal in AoU: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/05/05/black-widows-feminist-heroism/

 

Like anything, critique is opinion, and there will be divergent views on how problematic something is or is not. This definitely isn't a case of "you must agree with X to be feminist" or "if you think Y you're sexist". It's just that people need to look at the issues at hand, weigh them, and come to a personal conclusion. But it's profoundly unhelpful to pick at an extremist few and say "because they're loud and angry, I'm against anything they're associated with."

 

Additionally, F7 did get a lot of critique for the butt shots, but it also gets a lot of praise because as a franchise F&F tends to treat the main female characters very well: they tend to have their own personalities and arcs, aren't sexualized, and are never (I think?) threatened with sexual violence. It's not perfect, but it's pretty great.

 

Good post except for the part where you say that a white, straight, American, wealthy man is supposed to be more thick-skinned than minorities. I strongly disagree with that.

 

I perhaps worded that poorly. It's not about being thin or thick skinned, it's about recognizing the inherent privilege in the position. Whedon is extremely privileged, which provides structural defenses against attacks that other people don't have.

 

Also, Whedon has an outsized audience compared to most people. If it's a question of why so many people attacked him, it's likely just a reflection of that audience size.

[Lordmandeep]

So according to you as an abused marginalized minority I have ever right to belittle white people? 

[Jandrew]

Good post Damien, but I dont care for ANY extremists, I dont care what the cause is about. Radical and extreme thiests, athiests, feminists, racists, liberals, conservatives, unionists, activists, whatever. You come off as more of an ass than someone with a strong view, and youre usually not as smart, accepting, or ideological as you think.

Dont take my post as literal, I was aware of F7's criticsm, and Im aware they do more for women than hurt, its my favorite series, but to me, ass shots are worth complaining about more than Black Widow showing interest in a green dude. Theres alot worse issues in the world than Black Widow's storyline. And I understand Marvel has a big base, but if youre a fem and youre wanting change across the board, then you should call for change across the board.

Alot of people want police brutality to end. We're not calling for new laws in just California or New York or Missouri, we're calling for new laws across the board. Theyre not giving cops body cameras in just cities where there have been incidents, theyre giving cops body cameras everywhere. So if youre a fem and you want less objectification, call for it across all media, and all brands, not just one, and dont call out one person. Dont go listen to Ke$ha and then call out Lil Wayne. Hypocritical.

And again, do it in a meaningful way. Saying "im concerned about how much cleavage Widow shows. Is it necessary though?" may make Marvel think "hmm, is it necessary?" Saying "FUCK YOU MARVEL AND JOSS, EAT MY ASS AND SUCK A DICK, I HOPE SATAN --- YOUR ASSHOLE, PIG GIVE UP MOVIES AND LIFE" is not going to get you anywhere and theyll just eye roll you away. You can defend those poeple if you want, but in my opinion they need to get a life and maybe help. Theres a way to do everything and promote change. Going to extremes is not one.

[water]

i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminists. complaining about straight cis white female characters in hollywood blockbusters is like, the opposite of radical. it's still valid complaints of course but like, just because it annoys you doesn't make it radical. radical is talking about literally bringing down western capitalistic patriarchy. you can't take everyone who uses caps lock and put them in this "radical" box and say "i don't have a problem with normal feminists, just the radical ones." how quiet or loud / polite or angry a feminist is doesn't determine how radical they are. and it's kind of messed up if you "have a problem" with loud angry women. like it absolutely baffles me that you think people yelling about black widow on twitter are "extremists" i'm not trying to be harsh but like try reevaluating why you're categorizing them like that. it probably has to do with how society teaches us as males to discredit women who speak out against the status quo, and we have to unlearn that.

 

for example to poke a hole in your argument: you call these complaints "first world problems" except women in the third world are disappointed by media representation of them just as much or probably more than women in the first world.

 

P.S. @DamienRoc you are so on point with all your posts keep on spreading the truth!!

Edited May 7, 2015 by water

[BadAtGender]

So according to you as an abused marginalized minority I have ever right to belittle white people? 

 

Y'know? I'm not going to say that you don't.

 

Power and privilege vectors apply. If someone who's a minority says something like "all white people can go to hell" it doesn't have any systemic weight behind it. It's not going to apply the same as someone saying "black people are thugs". (Or apply whatever rhetorical means you'd like to either statement.)

 

It's part of the reason that something like #NotAllMen was so misguided when it came out last year. It conflates two things that may seem similar on the surface but are really very different because where something is coming from and where it's directed matter. These things do not exist in a vacuum. Racism and sexism have a system that provides force behind them, which means that the anger of one black person against all white people is vastly different from the anger of one white person against all black people.

 

Of course, there's the further factor that many acts of racism and sexism aren't overt, but rather just playing along with the power structures and behaviors that the system encourages. Something like http://shitpeoplesaytowomendirectors.tumblr.com/ may document terrible acts within the movie industry that are overt, but it also shows us that there's a wider underlying problem that says to these people (men) that such behavior is okay.

 

If you're a minority, you don't have that power structure behind you. Your acts against the people who are privileged by the system aren't at all the same as their acts against you, even if the might seem similar at first glance.

 

So, sure. Belittle white people, if you like. Part of me understanding my privilege is that 1) if someone says a broad complaint about my race or gender, it does not necessarily apply to my own behavior (although I may self-examine due to it... we do many things unconsciously) and 2) Even if they hate everyone like me, that doesn't make their behavior wrong, nor does it suddenly make me oppressed.

[Jandrew]

i think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of feminists. complaining about straight cis white female characters in hollywood blockbusters is like, the opposite of radical. it's still valid complaints of course but like, just because it annoys you doesn't make it radical. radical is talking about literally bringing down western capitalistic patriarchy. you can't take everyone who uses caps lock and put them in this "radical" box and say "i don't have a problem with normal feminists, just the radical ones." how quiet or loud / polite or angry a feminist is doesn't determine how radical they are. and it's kind of messed up if you "have a problem" with loud angry women. like it absolutely baffles me that you think people yelling about black widow on twitter are "extremists" i'm not trying to be harsh but like try reevaluating why you're categorizing them like that. it probably has to do with how society teaches us as males to discredit women who speak out against the status quo, and we have to unlearn that.

 

for example to poke a hole in your argument: you call these complaints "first world problems" except women in the third world are disappointed by media representation of them just as much or probably more than women in the first world.

 

P.S. @DamienRoc you are so on point with all your posts keep on spreading the truth!!

Look, I dont really care. I wasnt trying to get in a debate about this, I just wanted to state my support for Joss. I have feminists friends (I go to a liberal arts college), and theyre fine. But I have also seen radicals, and they are not fine and give me neadaches. I know the difference. I dont need to dive deeper than that.

Ps another reason im not continuing this, I never said anything about first world problems, angry women, or caps lock this and that . And I never said complaining is radical, feel free to complain. I said saying you hope satan [molests] someones asshole is radical. Im not going to defend that. If youre putting things in my mouth then you obviously didnt understand what I said. No thanks.

[Lordmandeep]

However the issue is that you see all 'minorities' as marginalized groups.

 

Most just want to work hard and earn their way, and not be paternalize by liberals suffering white guilt. 

[RobinHood26]

Hunger games, Ya movies, Star Wars, tomorrow land, starting to get women superheroes soon.

I think we are heading in the right direction. I'm not worried about this subject at all actully

[Kalo]

I believe everybody should have complete equality, but there are some instances of feminism that go too far. there are a lot of women who consider themselves feminists who actually consider themselves better than men and even carry hatred towards them, as well as men who are feminists who think just because they are men that they are below women. and that reasoning is not right either. I understand why there is feminism because so many women are mistreated and degraded and thought of as inferior to men, which is completely wrong, but in a perfect world there would be no need for it. because we would all be equals. 

[JohnnY]

This is movie-centric website so most of my views have more to do with stuffs that involve movies and less to do with real world issue.

I have nothing against HUMAN equality in general. I'm not a fan of fighting for just one part of society especially when it involves fictional worlds/fictional characters in entertainment business. The constant complaining/finger-pointing at every misstep of female characterisation in movies is annoying and most of the time unnecessary. Getting all offensive when female characters not kicking enough ass or showing too much vulnerabilities doesn't truly represent 'girls power' but instead misrepresents females as more needy, over-sensitive and insecurity-filled gender.

Have you seen any men getting offended when male characters were reduced to powerless side-kicks in THG series, Underworld series or Resident Evil series? What about when drool-worthy male characters like the Wolverine, Supes, Thor or Cap had to go shirtless (or bottomless ) or wearing skin-tight outfits to show off their figure so female audience could have something to drool over? Men generally don't make the mistreatments of male characters a big issue because they don't feel as insecure about themselves the way women do.

People come from different backgrounds and their backgrounds effect their view in the world so I'm sorry for not fighting the war I've never needed to fight for in the first place. I grew up in a female-dominated household. I've been surrounded by strong women and not-so-strong men so please forgive me for seeing those larger than life male characters in movies as 'refreshing'. I love good female characters as much as everyone because they make a movie better not because I feel like I'm well represented. Jumping to a conclusion that I'm a woman hater or that I'm against the idea of women being equal to men in society just because I refuse to joint a group of political movement is unfair and goes against what you're trying to support. If I'm entitled to equal rights and equal pays, am I not entitled to watch movies just to be entertained without a baggage of gender insecurities and inferiority?

I don't need to see Wonderwoman kicking Superman's arse to make me feel empowered. I also won't be mad if Supes kicks her back harder, I'll just go and pay my own bill while my male family members mowing my lawn and preparing my meal to get even.

 

There's nothing wrong with being a woman and an anti-feminist, I know many girls that are. I'm gay and while I don't consider myself an anti-LGBT movement, I definitely don't sympathize with them. Being anti-feminist can't mean you disagree with all feminist ideas because feminism can't claim exclusivity on all these ideas. Feminists want to end the wage gap, but that doesn't mean you're automatically a feminist if you want to end the gap, therefore, being anti-feminist doesn't mean you want the wage gap to exist. Plus, you can agree with someone's goal, but disagree with their methods, preventing women abuse and reducing pay inequality aren't bad things, that doesn't mean there's only way to fight for these things.

 

There's an worrying obsession about diversity representation in movies today, throwing female and gay characters in movies to make an statement is like you're wanting people to replicate their behaviour. A movie (just like any other media) can instigate a personal reflexion about many issues, but a simplistic representation in a fictional world doesn't mean bullshit, so what if there's a succesful gay guy in a movie? Should this be enough for me to change my thoughts towards gay people? What am I, a puppet, a copycat? 

 

People are obsessed about media representation because they are getting over the top with two theories: society as a human product (They try to shape human culture in a way that it will affect back people and change their way to view the world) and egalitarianism (their obvious goal). I don't support minorities movements because I disagree with these both ideas, not because I am a bad person. Sometimes bad behaviour is just bad behaviour, abuse is abuse, aggression is aggresion, and you don't need to break it down in multiple sub-sections like they are socially-constructed monsters that needs to be defeated. Unless you support "gender is a social construct" kind of thing, if so you're just trying to replace reality with an artificial anarchy.

 

I don't know if you're on the same line of thought as me, but I though this was worth posting.

Edited May 9, 2015 by JohnnY

[KATCH-2D2]

I understand that your experiences may have attributed to your beliefs, but I think you're not quite getting what some of the people are saying here. You have to realize that things like Resident Evil, The Hunger Games, and so on are the exceptions to the rule. Most films, especially in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre, still aren't the best at given women as compelling roles as men. Look at this chart for instance:

Let's not even dive into the conversation for female writers and directors. That just opens an even crazier can of worms.

Having said that, I don't think it's the end of the world when a popular movie presents female characters that may have concerning implications for some of its audience members, even if they're worth discussing rationally (not ignoring it completely, but not going onto Twitter and being like "go kill urself Joss"). I'd definitely say that considering how reasonably well written female protagonists are still not the norm, it's fair to assume that we should place more scrutiny in how they're portrayed. I mean, as an avid fan of Disney and Pixar (just look at my avatar), and a cisgendered male, I'm painfully aware of the design issues in animated men and women from that studio. Film, stories, music, and so in play a greater role in influencing our culture than you may think, so these are definitely issues that we need to grapple with.

Personally, I consider Feminism, and social justice for that matter, to rely on something of a spectrum, one with a side that does include radical and extreme interpretations of the movement. Unfortunately, like with most things, the radical side often gets the most exposure and ends up creating a seemingly negative portrait of feminism in the eyes of the public (while I don't think radical feminism is inherently bad, I do not align myself with it, and it does tread into more complicated and troubling grounds at times), and I think it's our job to be aware of the images that we are being presented with and understand that things are not a one-size-fits-all scenario. I wouldn't really say that feminism is a militant movement, at least not across its whole parts, but like I said, I am a cisgendered male. I understand that I am not the fairest authority to present my interpretation of feminism, but these are still my thoughts of the matter.

I know there're 2 sides of the story and you've made some valid arguments based on the evidences that support your view.

However, I don't think numbers and statistics above tell the whole story. For starter, why people keep bringing up the genres that are more NATURAL to feature male protagonists as an evident to support gender equality? Instead of being bitter about how dominant male roles in these movies, we should consider the fact that those roles had been given to men because they fit the stories better. Take LOTR, could Frodo character work if he was a girl? Would a weaker and more vulnerable Frodo somehow serve a story better? Not to me. Could Aragorn be a female hair and somehow lead the armies? Maybe she could but it wouldn't be as credible and it would be harder to pull off with minimum change in quality. That isn't sexism, it's being logical.

Ripley kicked ass in Alien franchise and Sarah Connor rocked in T2. Their characters became more memorable because they broke the norm and it worked. However, their role hasn't become more regular because it's still easier to follow the norm than breaking it. Asking Hollywood to regularly give away what would be considered a male role to women is like letting political correctness to get in the way of natural storytelling.

I believe if they did the same number breakdowns using female-friendly genres like YA, fairy-tale, chick-flick or rom-com we'd have totally different results. What about using the most neutral genre like drama? Because those genres aren't normally produced mega budget blockbusters and being in bigger movies is what the feminists want to see, not just ANY movies. Reasonable well-written female protagonists are the norm in some certain genres the same way that well-written male protagonists in fairy-tales are hard to come by. The problem is, male-centric genres (SH, action sci-fi, etc) are more mainstream and more popular and women seem to play second fiddle in these movies hence women take what should be just the norm as a prove of gender disparity.

As for the lack of female creative teams, movie-making business is one shallow and greedy business where the powers that be always support whatever brings them the most profit. They don't give a damn about political correctness but they're going to get behind female writers and directors in a heartbeat if they can bring them more money. Do these women got rejected because of their gender or because they simply hardly come up with potentially money making projects? It doesn't help that the most successful directors in Hollywood happen to be all men. Can you blame the industry for choosing proven history over political correctness?

Got a few more to say but I'm hungry so off to have dinner.

Edited May 9, 2015 by KATCH 22

[BadAtGender]

I know there're 2 sides of the story and you've made some valid arguments based on the evidences that support your view.

 

However, I don't think numbers and statistics above tell the whole story. For starter, why people keep bringing up the genres that are more NATURAL to feature male protagonists as an evident to support gender equality? Instead of being bitter about how dominant male roles in these movies, we should consider the fact that those roles had been given to men because they fit the stories better. Take LOTR, could Frodo character work if he was a girl? Would a weaker and more vulnerable Frodo somehow serve a story better? Not to me. Could Aragorn be a female hair and somehow lead the armies? Maybe she could but it wouldn't be as credible and it would be harder to pull off with minimum change in quality. That isn't sexism, it's being logical

 

There's nothing more natural about a character being male. Frodo would work just fine as a girl. There's nothing inherently weaker or more vulnerable about being female. Aragorn could be female. It would be perfectly credible. It is sexism. You are not being logical.

 

I believe if they did the same number breakdowns using female-friendly genres like YA, fairy-tale, chick-flick or rom-com we'd have totally different results. What about using the most neutral genre like drama? Because those genres aren't normally produced mega budget blockbusters and being in bigger movies is what the feminists want to see, not just ANY movies. Reasonable well-written female protagonists are the norm in some certain genres the same way that well-written male protagonists in fairy-tales are hard to come by. The problem is, male-centric genres (SH, action sci-fi, etc) are more mainstream and more popular and women seem to play second fiddle in these movies hence women take what should be just the norm as a prove of gender disparity.

 

If you think that it's genre specific, you'd be wrong. Studies have been made across wide swaths of films and have found that, as a whole, women make up about 30% of all speaking roles and 15% of protagonists. This has been pretty much flat for years.