search results matching tag: technical talks

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (1)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (2)   

The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies

dannym3141 says...

Things i noticed:

- Isn't it a bit sexist of her to assume that the robots in transformers weren't their equivalent of female?
- Ditto District 9, though we couldn't pronounce their names nor tell if they were conversing.
- I thought there was a bit in watchmen where older/younger silk spectre spoke about something other than a man - at least for a bit.
- The bourne supremacy has 2 named women talking to each other about old assassination missions and capturing a rogue assassin. As does the third one because it follows directly on from the second. Does this qualify as 'talking about a man'? If so, that is a very arbitrary line to be drawn.
- Isn't wall-e about robots?
- Austin Powers are films lampooning the objectifying of women/the wallflower stereotype.
- The wedding singer has the two named sisters talking about the degree of tongue acceptable at weddings. Again, i say that if you can bend the rules to say that is technically 'talking about a man', then you could equally bend them another way in this and other examples.
- ^ Such as X-men where there are many group conversations involving named women. I'm not an expert on those films so i can't say for sure if there's a clear conversation between 2 named women, but group convo's with multiple named women there are.
- Interview with a vampire has a conversation between the child vampire (who is of course a woman trapped in a child's body, this is a big point in the film) and the woman selected to be bitten to be her mother, both are named.

If you make a film based anywhere in history past 50-60 years ago, you're going to hit the culture factor. You can't just manufacture women into places where they wouldn't have been in a time where women were not considered equal. You may as well complain about racism in a film taking place when black people were used in slavery.
- Shawshank
- Pirates
- Gladiator

There are films with a very powerful and strong female protagonist battling against the odds and coming out on top. Some of these films don't even pass the test - how can this be when it's basically saying "Women can be better/stronger than men?"
- GI Jane (vs. GI Joe) - fights against all the odds and eventually shows people how wrong they were.
- Fifth element - she saves him, he saves her, she saves the planet?
- Alien 3
- Tomb Raider
- Arguably 'Wanted'

^ It almost feels like she's mocking her own theory/criticism by naming these films. "Hey look everyone, even films with a super-strong female character kicking everyone's ass and showing how women aren't wallflowers........................is perpetuating the stereotype that women are submissive wallflowers!"

It's almost like naming examples of where the theory fails to be true. Which ...renders the theory useless?

I do think there's a point to be made, but i don't think it's as bad as they want to believe it is, and i certainly don't think that this is demonstrated by the films listed. Show films like pulp fiction, se7en, etc. even fight club. Those convince me. The others make me think "I don't think these people will be happy until we make 2 versions of every film with the sexes mirror'd."

If they can't value the fifth element, alien and tomb raider as films that fight against a stereotype, when exactly are they going to be happy?

9/11 Blueprint for Truth - Compelling Presentation

crotchflame says...

I keep waiting to see what's so convincing for the people here and I can't find it. But rather than counter-arguing I'll give my advice as a scientist to the people who present these things.

1) Quit talking about the "myth" and "official story." You should be proposing this as a hypothesis as an alternative to the standard hypothesis. Presenting the scientific method as a way to tell the truth from lies is a perfect example of this where they should have simply described it as a method for determining the truth. You're giving away an emotional conviction toward the conclusion of the study.

2) Quit mentioning that no building has collapsed due to fire before. It's irrelevant.

3) Almost all of the eyewitness accounts should be ignored - especially given the chaotic nature of the events that day and especially people claiming to have heard explosions.

4) The fact that the towers fell mostly on their own footprint is exactly what you'd expect from a building collapsing under the weight of the topmost floors. There's simply no source of momentum to force the tower to fall sideways. Building 7 is more interesting though and the video spent more time on this.

6) Too much of the analysis is based on small samples and having been done by this Dr. Jones alone. It seems as though there could be several other explanations for the thermite evidence Jones found that isn't presented. I'm not even saying they're better explanations, but I feel pretty certain someone has presented other explanations and this guy doesn't present them.

...Anyway, I'm getting bored. Basically, by the way this is presented I can't believe this guy, or any others I've seen, are being objective and so I can't shake the feeling that there's lots of data that isn't being presented here. I spend a lot of time listening to technical talks and you can quickly tell the difference between someone presenting scientific results and someone trying to sell you something.

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon