No movies, no roles, no winners: just BOOBS!

By Gabrielle Jackson

I’ve written about the Bechdel Test for films on this blog before, but I thought it was worth traversing the territory again in light of the Oscars performance yesterday. 

Of the nine films nominated for Oscars in 2013, not one of them was able to clearly pass the Bechdel Test for films.

The Bechdel Test for films is a simple equation set up to highlight the lack of women represented in film.  

It goes like this:

Does the film
1. Have at least two named women in it?
2. Who talk to each other?
3. About something besides men?
If the answer to all three questions is yes, the film passes the test.

The test aims to prove that the film industry is structured to make films about men for men.

Alison Bechdel introduced something called ‘the Rule’ to her cartoon strip, Dykes to Watch Out For, in 1985. One of the characters in the strip decided she would only see a film that met the three criteria above. She started a phenomenon. It is now a widely studied and acknowledged rule with its website currently rating almost 4,000 movies.

Even the Oscar-nominated films with female protagonists, namely Zero Dark Thirty and Beasts of the Southern Wild, aren’t clear-cut Bechdel Test winners. While some people on the Bechdel site have voted them in as passing, there is a strong debate going on, with many others disagreeing that these two movies pass the test.

Silver Linings Playbook comes the closest to scoring a pass, but even there, the conversation that happens between two women about something other than men comes down to one scene at which two men are present. Many disagree that this scene scores the film a pass, and so it is officially ranked as ‘dubious’ – a title also given to host Seth MacFarlane’s decision to sing a song about boobs as an opening number.

This is how far we’ve come, ladies and gentleman – just when we get some female leads in film and female directors being nominated, our roles have once again to be reduced to boobs. Just to keep us in our place. And if you don’t laugh and see the joke, you’re just a big fat bore. And probably a lesbian. 

In the interests of not wasting my energy getting angry about things that others have already got angry about, I finish my rant here and offer these two brilliant reviews of Seth MacFarlane's Oscars performance:

From Jezebel: Sexism Fatigue: When Seth MacFarlane Is a Complete Ass and You Don't Even Notice

From the New Yorker: Seth MacFarlane and the Oscars' Hostile, Ugly, Sexist Night 

(You might be happy to know that MacFarlance won't be coming back next year. But I think Tina Fey and Amy Poehler might be busy...) 

What's wrong with this picture? Looking for feminism on the internet.

By Katherine Burgdorf

 

 

If I asked you where in the world are people most searching the word 'feminism' online, what would you say? Would you guess it was a developed country, or a developing country? A country where feminism had a stronghold, or a country where equality for women is still an aspiration? Do you think the word is being searched for more, or less, in 2013 than in 2004? What do searches for 'feminism' in Australia look like, or Britain? And what happens when we replace the word feminism with 'rape'?

 

In a burst of inspiration last week I thought I'd use Google Trends to find out. All the usual data health warnings apply. These trends are based on Google searches around the world with limited flex on methodology. Sadly, we don't have the luxury of time to analyse or cross check the data to draw many conclusions or correlate data with socio-economic or political regimes but I bet any amount of money it throws up some interesting questions. It's a tiny, tantalising glimpse into the world's interest in one of the great movements toward human equality.

 

This first graph (below) shows the declining popularity of the search term 'feminism' from 2004 (the earliest data) to 2013. The number '100' in Google Trends represents the search peak, with all other numbers in relation to that peak. In this data set the peak looks to be in mid-2004. What's interesting too, is the very uniform peaks and troughs from 2006 onwards, as if the search term is seasonal. 

Trends in searches of the word 'feminism' on the internet 2004-2013.



 

The tool shows us that when people are searching for the word 'feminism' they are often also searching for terms like 'feminism definition', 'what is feminism' and 'feminism theory'. The terms 'first wave' and 'second wave' feminism are also common related searches suggests internet interest in the word might most often relate to academic study rather than a general interest in the subject. 

 

So which country do you think most of the searches for the word 'feminism' originated from in that period 2004-2013? Here's the answer:

 

 

Countries where the internet search term 'feminism' was most prevalent. Zimbabwe in top spot (2004-2013)

 

Nope, I didn't guess Zimbabwe either. But completely by chance on the day I started to look at Google Trends I also stumbled across a Bloomberg news story from January this year which said Zimbabwe may become the world’s first country to pass a law requiring that women hold at least 50 percent of posts in parliament and other government bodies, according to a new constitution. The timing of the search trends doesn't correlate with this political development in any way but it's an interesting pair of facts.

 

Three African countries appear in the top 10. I'm relieved Australia's in there. I'm not surprised to see the UK in the top 10, but I thought it would be higher up. I expected to see other Scandi countries in the top 10, but then, if you live by feminism ideals, why do you need to search for them? France is a flat-line when it comes to the search term, and I can see their Gallic shrugs saying, 'What do we need zis 'feminizm' for? We 'ave it already, every day.'

 

Now for the killer chart. Here's a heatmap showing where the word 'feminism' is searched for as an internet term in Australia. It does rather prompt the question: 'So what's wrong with this picture?' 

 

 

Yes, that's right. No one has searched for the word 'feminism' in the Northern Territory. Or, to be datapolitically correct, not enough people have searched for the term 'feminism' in the Northern Territory for it to be shaded even the palest blue. Perhaps we should write to them? 'Dear Northern Territory, It has come to our attention....' But maybe I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion. Territorian women are probably tough as nails and too busy wrestling crocs to need to look up 'feminism' on the internet. They've literally got bigger reptiles to fry. Or it could be the internet isn't on in the NT yet.

 

Here's the same view of the UK. Wales leads with the most searches, followed by England, Northern Ireland and Scotland.



 

 

If we switch to UK cities over the same time period, it looks like this:

 

 

 

While Wales leads the country charts, Cardiff, the capital city, only sneaks in at 10th place. Does this mean people in smaller Welsh towns are, collectively,  searching the term 'feminism' more than their capital counterparts? The cities on the list are not particularly surprising. Most have universities which could explain it. But it's the absence of one city which is interesting, and that's London. The political, media, cultural and financial heart of the UK isn't interested in looking up feminism. 

 

So what if we switch to the word 'rape'? Below is a chart of worldwide searches of the word rape from 2004 to 2013.

 

It's largely flat until the start of 2013 when it spikes significantly. The rise in line with the high profile rape of the 23-year-old student in New Delhi, India, on 16th December 2012. The letter 'A' on the same chart flags up the news coverage - just ahead of the Presidential elections - which followed US Congressman Todd Akin's comments that women's bodies knew how to avoid pregnancies from 'real rapes' which is why legal abortion wasn't needed (or welcome) in the US. At the time we weren't sure what we were so confused about...the wacky science from a politician sitting on a House science committee or the not so subtle subtext that 'real rapes' were different from other rapes which are .....not so bad? Or happen when the victim was drinking? Or were just plain fictional or...whatever. When the historians come in 3000 years time I do hope they know we thought this guy was a speciman crackpot in 2012.

 

Here's a chart showing the rise in the searches for rape in India over a two year period which includes the 2012 attack. The relative difference between the peak, in December 2012, and the historic 'steady state' search levels is considerable.

 

 

 

Here's the search trend for 'feminism' in India over the past 12 months. The peak comes in January 2013, at the same time as the trial for the now infamous attack.

 

 

Without doubt the saddest exercise of the week was looking at what related terms people searched for when searching for 'rape'.

 

 

Not much in the way of analysis needed there.

 

And so we have it - Google's internet interest in feminism. Is it all 'lies, damn lies and statistics?' Probably. And even with a hundred years of analysis I doubt data's ability to draw many useful conclusions, but I love it for provoking questions. Who is searching for feminism in Kenya? Will Zimbabwe take a leading step in insisting half its parliament are women. Is it conceivable that India will change? A country which had been led by a woman, but where other data in other media reports say a woman is raped every twenty minutes. It's only ever a window.

 

Whatever your view on data I didn't want to leave this blog on the sad trends of the last chart so here's a special set of charts on a subject close to the heart of Notthestylepages. I'm not so sure there isn't some good news in this set.

 

CHART 1. Popularity of the search term 'big pants' 2004-2013.

CHART 2. Regional interest in 'big pants'.

CHART 3. Top 10 city interest in 'big pants' ...

 

 

CHART 4. What related search terms to 'big pants' are on the rise?

 

It might be a man's world, but maybe they're coming around to our way of thinking after all.

 

 

 

A man’s guide to knickers

Men: if you see this, keep her (and thank M&S)

 

Speed Blog by Wendy Saunt

 

Men of the world, listen up - you might think you know your lady (gazed into her eyes (window to the soul? My arse)) or had a sneaky peak at the inside of her handbag (and then regretted it - yesterday’s knickers, a broken Rimmel compact and a half eaten Mars should never be seen in close proximity), but if you really want to understand her very being... check out her keks. Here are a few pointers: 

Split-crotch panties: A definite Readers’ Wives wannabe. Upside is full-throttle porn sex (this woman does not spoon); downside is that she wears highly flammable red polyester-mix keks while doing it. 

Re-enforced gusset and gut control: Desperately needs a shag but self-sabotaging as won’t let anyone within a two-foot radius of offending fortified underwear. Ideally, would prefer a bit of notice before getting her leg over. Like, two weeks. 

Cotton briefs with girlie details (rainbows, horses, fairies): Suffering from ‘little girl syndrome’. Check for any resemblance you may have to her father before proceeding. 

Figleaves: A dreamer. Has aspirations to wear them every day but do not be fooled – these are shag-pants only. Daywear is decidedly baggy and greying. Affections can be bought with the purchase of decent lingerie sets (this is not a judgement). 

Bling bling G-string: High-street and high-maintenance. Who wants a ton of zirconia decorating their arse? Moreover, who thinks their arse is worth decorating? Without doubt, going into Tulisa territory with this one. 

Commando: Either fancies herself as a bit of goer or is a hippy (check bikini line for details). 

Marks & Spencer: A keeper. 

Wendy Saunt is a interior designer, writer and art consultant. She lives in London. You can follow her on Twitter @Wendy__Saunt

 

The kids are alright...being old skool.

Harry, 11, sauntered into the kitchen yesterday to show us a piece of kit he'd bought for his laptop. He was puffed with pride. The laptop is still a fairly new addition to his life as a cool kid, a top dog, a soon-to-be-teen, a King Pin...or do I mean Donkey Kong? Because the kit in question was a mouse. A mouse...with a cord.

Yes, in this age of electroterrific genius and technofabulous development Harry seems to have bought the only, how shall we call it, cordful mouse left in the UK. Honestly, I've only just stopped laughing long enough to start typing. We paid him out for the whole day.

'I'd like to buy a mouse for my laptop, please.'
'Certainly Sir, and what did Sir have in mind?
'Well, something dashedly inconvenient with limited range, I should think. Yes, something I can really get tangled up in.'
'Sir, may I say you're a man of exceedingly good sense. Luckily, I have just the thing.'

The only surprise is he didn't also come home with the world's last thermal fax machine, or a typewriter. In fact we're certain he can qualify for misselling compensation, like those victims of the banks' Payment Protection Insurance scams. Harry insists he wanted a mouse with a cord because 'then I don't have to worry about installing it.' I don't think it's been neccessary to 'install' a cordless mouse for half a decade but as long as he's got what he wants then who are we to judge? Of course, it's possible this penchance for antique hardware runs in the family. His grandfather, a consultant investigator, only recently retired his thermal fax...because he can no longer find anyone who stocks the replacement paper anymore.

But I think it says more about the old school nature of kids these days. They don't smoke, they don't do drugs, they sing along to Lenny Kravitz. In their limited free time they watch re-runs of Dad's Army, Grand Designs and Rocky. Yesterday Charlie, 13, wore straight legged, grey jeans teamed with a grey jumper. If he isn't pining for the days of Chairman Mao I don't know what's going on. These are simple folk.

My own theory, dreamt up purely for the purposes of this blog, is that kids yearn for simpler things. They know, instinctively, there's too much choice available at too young an age. They know there are cordless mice, bluetooth mice, iMice. But they also know they don't need these things. What kids want these days are winter walks and hot chocolate. They hand craft Valentines Cards and actually send them to people they like. They hug their friends when posing for photos. They talk of owning pets and, for a fiver, they'll do a decent job of washing your car and be thankful for the job. All this flies in the face of the popular theory that all kids these days want to be famous without doing any work. I know that's true in some cases, but I have a hunch it's not the norm.

Psychologists also write about modern kids wanting boundaries. I think I've worked out this weekend they're right. They do want boundaries, preferably half a metre long with a plug at the end. The next time I'm mugged I'm going to dangle two pieces of kit in front of my attacker and see which one he goes for....my new iPad 4 or an Etch-a-Sketch (and I mean an original from, like, 1986).

While we find it tough sometimes to accept our kids' old fashioned, self-set limitations, I think they might actually be doing us a favour.. Their hesitation may be the only way we can maintain any kind of technical parity. So be thankful that it's still true, youth, and technology, is wasted on the young.


Katherine Burgdorf types this blog assisted by a cordless mouse.

Is it OK to bring a baby to a concert?

By Gabrielle Jackson

Last night I went to see Norwegian folk-pop duo Kings of Convenience at the Sydney Opera House.

Their first words to the crowd went something like this:

'Sitting backstage, we were saying, "We don't have a broken fingernail, our voices are totally OK, we don't have a broken arm. What could go wrong?"

'There's a baby in the audience.'

Then the other half of the duo piped up.

'As a father of two, I applaud your effort, but maybe you could sit somewhere that when the baby is happy you can stay and when the baby is bored you can go out.'

There was a bit of a nervous silence as the audience looked around for the offending baby/parent. Then the KOC star spoke up again.

'You can sit on the side of the stage! It's very accessible.'

More nervous silence.

'I'm serious. Sit here,' he pointed, and the offending mother got up out of her seat, with a baby strapped to her front, and made her way to the front of the theatre to applause from the audience. I believe an usher intercepted her and so I didn't see if she ever got to take her baby onstage, but I thought it was interesting in light of recent media beat-up about parents and mothers in particular.

First, there was the controversy over a Sydney man asking some parents whose baby had reportedly been crying for over 10 minutes to take their child for a walk or find another solution. A column about it generated 1200 comments. And then there was the Melbourne mum who rocked up to her friend's farewell drinks with her baby strapped to her - at 6pm - only to be told minutes later she had to leave, despite only intending to stay for an hour (and the baby being asleep).

Personally, I have no trouble with a mother going to a bar with her sleeping baby at 6pm. I'm sure I would do it if my friend invited me to her farewell drinks and I had a baby.

And to the man who confronted the parents, well I can't say, I wasn't there. Personally, I've never been in a cafe where parents have let their children run wild. I've seen parents trying to enjoy getting out of the house and struggling with children who'd rather run away than drink their babyccino, but never parents willfully ignoring disruptive children. But maybe these people had zero self awareness and deserved the rebuke. Or maybe the rebuker was just a curmudgeon. The thing is, judging whole sections of society (ie, parents who leave the house occasionally) based on second hand anecdotes serves no purpose other than to make way for the Murdoch press to step in as the obligatory Morality Police.

And look, I too applaud the woman's bravery (and good taste) in bringing her baby to Kings of Convenience, but let's be clear: KOC are folk pop. Their music is soft and willowy and makes you want to lie on the grass and close your eyes. Would you want to sit next to a baby at this show - where the audience's sole purpose is to sit silently so they can hear their favourite artists' art uninterrupted? Sorry, I think it's selfish: to the artists and the other fans. And silly, because - honestly - did that woman have a good time?

What do you think? Not just about babies at concerts but at pubs, cafes and restaurants - you know, places where 'people' go?