Don't Assume Masculine Contributions Are More Valuable

In a post titled “How Movies Teach Our Kids about Gender” at Everyday Theology, Marc Cortez summarizes a recent TED Talk given by Colin Stokes:

I’d never heard of the Bechdel Test, but it’s a way of gauging how a movie portrays its female characters. And it’s a pretty simple test.

1. Are there at least two women who actually have lines?
2. Do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
3. Is there conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?...

[Q]uite a few movies fail to achieve even this low standard. Either the movie has almost no significant female characters, or it fails to show them interacting with other women on issues unrelated to dating and/or marriage.

Although I always notice when a movie fails to have a significant female character, I’d never considered the importance of showing female characters talking meaningfully about important issues. The male characters do it all the time, and thus provide strong reinforcement that men can have those kinds of conversations. Even if it’s becoming more common for female characters to engage in the same conversations, we rarely see them having those conversations with each other, reinforcing the notion that women don’t talk about those things. I certainly don’t want my girls growing up thinking that they have to sit at the guys table if they want to talk about politics, theology, and other important issues (like football).

The problem I have with this analysis is that he’s made an assumption that’s never challenged, and it’s this: the macro issues are what’s really important.

Imagine if someone had created the opposite test in order to bring attention to how rarely Hollywood shows a group of men talking about issues relating to dating and/or marriage, chastising Hollywood for reinforcing the notion that men don't talk about these things. Do you ever hear concern expressed about that? No, because there’s an unspoken assumption that of course everyone should be like men.

I appreciate that this man thinks he’s helping women, but he’s actually devaluing them because here’s what he’s saying: “Men are better than women because we focus on macro issues (politics, nation, etc.—notice how he refers to these as the “important issues”) and they focus on micro issues (relationships, family, etc.). Therefore, to help women, we must encourage them to become more like men.”

If our culture valued micro issues, then women would feel more free to invest themselves in them without feeling guilty they’re not acting like men, and our society would be much better off. Just think how different things would be if our culture valued motherhood as highly as involvement in macro issues. Think of the sacrifices families would make to have and care for more children. Think of how issues like abortion and low marriage and birth rates (with all their accompanying societal problems) might be improved. There’s a macro cost to devaluing micro strengths.

I don’t fit in well in women’s groups because I do tend to focus more on macro issues. I don’t know how to do crafts, or create beauty, or entertain small children, or most anything that women usually excel at, but heaven forbid I should look down on those women and think they should be more like me! On the contrary, I know I’m womandicapped—lacking something truly good. I honor the unique contribution of women, and we should be encouraged to excel in all these micro things.

And I hate to tell him, but we usually do have to “sit at the guys’ table” if we want to talk about macro issues. If more than two women are together, we don’t tend to gravitate towards macro topics. That’s just reality. Why not celebrate what women have to offer rather than turn every table into a “guys’ table”?

Comments

[Erkki S.]

I don't think this is quite the point of Bechdel test. The qualifying aspect is not "women talk about guys they like" or relationships in general, it is "women talk about something else then men", any man, father, brother, son, lover, fiancee, etc. The whole point is not really micro/macro issue, rather then that women are solely focused through the lens of their relationship with men, rather then as individuals in their own right. The way I understand it, two women talking about their hobbies passes the Bechdel test. Basically:

1. Two women talking about knitting a sweater passes the Bechdel test.

2. Two women talking about knitting a sweater for their boyfriends to wear does not pass the Bechdel test.

Your reverse Bechdel test sounds interesting, although I do recall quite a lot of films and TV shows that would pass it.

[d]

@Amy,

Perhaps the real issue isn't the idea that a particular demographic tends to talk more about "macro"-issues vs. another demographic trending more toward "micro"-issues. I think the problem is that we as Christians don't challenge those cultural-norms in the first place.

What I mean is this: I totally agree that there is a cultural norm of certain topics being considered macro-issues and others as micro-issues. If I read society right, however, I think the implicit assumption is that because those are the cultural norms in today's society, then those issues must be correctly aligned into their respective categories.

What about the idea that maybe society has it all wrong? In other words, what if the things that we as a culture consider to be "macro"-issues are really nothing more than "wood, hay and stubble?"

I think this quickly runs into the idea that as Christians, we are very much in a real sense called to be "supra-cultural", for lack of a better term. We are called out, holy people who are set apart by God for His gracious and glorious purposes. In practical terms I think this means training ourselves to stop allowing society to dictate to us the battleground of the mind.

For example, instead of thinking about things in light of your comment:

If our culture valued micro issues, then women would feel more free to invest themselves in them without feeling guilty they’re not acting like men, and our society would be much better off.

I would tend to not think about "macro" vs. "micro" issues in terms of gender-demographics, but rather in terms of what are the macro-issues in the Scriptures, and I think that perspective totally absorbs gender-demographics and frames truly important issues in light of Biblical principles.

[Erkki S.]

My reading comprehension sometimes just sucks. I just realized after writing my original comment that micro/macro-issues referred to the content of the analysis, not about the (somewhat incorrectly articulated) content of the test itself.

[Louis Kuhelj]

I am all for women being more like men as long as they become more like gay men.

[Jane]

Have you noticed that more men than women call in to STR on Sunday? Is there a difference in how each is treated?

If a woman sits at the "guys table" it no longer is a "guys table".

Shalom
God loves us, pray for us to love one another. God bless the Church.

[Jane]

Three women and one man were at the foot of the cross when Jesus died.
Four women were first to meet the Risen Lord on His Resurrection.

Being at the right place at the right time!

Shalom

[squallybimbadine]

I think people make movies based on what they think will help them capitalize on their investments. They are trying to predict what will be appealing to the audience and then deliver that. I feel it has more to do with money than male vs. female roles. Unless, of course, that has something to do with making money.

[Jim Pemberton]

I think squallybimbadine makes a good point here. Because of the need to turn a profit, there is certainly an element where art imitates life. In other words, in order for the movie to draw a significant audience, it needs to resonate with the self-identity and sensibilities of the audience.

I think there is also a factor in most movies to one degree or another where the movie-makers hope that life will imitate art. That is to say that they desire to shape society by informing people with a fictional narrative to be taken as normative. This is the substance behind all propaganda throughout the ages.

Taking this into consideration, we must observe that a significant percentage of people are comfortable with the understanding that men and women are sociologically different, and that some of the same would not consciously agree with it in principle. Otherwise, the Bechdel Test would have no purpose.

Therefore, the tacit call is either for people to become less comfortable with the difference between men and women or to cow more movie-makers into using their art to shape society in this area rather than accurately reflecting societal norms.