Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Tests A Software That Judges Hollywood's Portrayal of Women

Posted by EditorDavid on from the don't-be-evil dept.

Slashdot reader theodp writes: Aside from it being hosted in a town without a movie theater, the 2016 Bentonville Film Festival was also unusual in that it required all entrants to submit "film scripts and downloadable versions of the film" for judgment by "the team at Google and USC", apparently part of a larger Google-funded research project with USC Engineering "to develop a computer science tool that could quickly and efficiently assess how women are represented in films"...

Fest reports noted that representatives of Google and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy appeared in a "Reel vs. Real Diversity" panel presentation at the fest, where the importance of diversity and science to President Obama were discussed, and the lack of qualified people to fill 500,000 U.S. tech jobs was blamed in part on how STEM careers have been presented in film and television... In a 2015 report on a Google-sponsored USC Viterbi School of Engineering MacGyver-themed event to promote women in engineering, USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals of women. As for its own track record, Google recently updated its Diversity page, boasting that "21% of new hires in 2015 were women in tech, compared to 19% of our current population"....

24 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/

    1. Re:Morons by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

      As usual, we can get the answer from The Simpsons:
      It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything.

    2. Re:Morons by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that is really quite simple to answer.

      While you keep the general masses divided over issues where they can point the finger at each other as being at fault..
      And while you can, as central government, say 'oh no! that is terrible! let me make some new regulations to help' without impacting your own plans..
      The sheeple are just so much easier to heard.

      Then throw in a nice big serving of 'mass media profit is maximised when content gets an emotional reaction' (just about any reaction will do).

      And not to mention a little 'my life is actually very easy and I feel inside I am achieving nothing, but if I yearn for a cause, I am moving the world!'

      Does that answer your question?

    3. Re:Morons by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do people think things like the Bechdel test are worth more than a fart in the breeze/

      Because you think the Bechdel test is a poor measure of female portrayal in movies, or because you don't think having substantial female characters is important?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure.

      Put away your clipboard and stop running a tally on dicks vs vaginas, and what color they are.

      If women want roles of substance, they will pay for those movies and capitalism will make it happen. To date they haven't, because it isn't what they actually want, so stop trying to force your fucking agenda down everyone's throats.

      Don't watch movies you don't like. The end. Fuck off.

    5. Re: Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about some male stereotype tests? Does this movie contain:

      A male action hero who isn't good looking?
      A male nerd who is good at talking to girls?
      A fat guy who isn't the comic relief?
      A cop who is happily married?
      A gay action hero?
      An asian guy who is a stud and doesn't know martial arts?

    6. Re: Morons by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. It's a religion of and by itself. At the very least it has all the traits usually associated with religious nuttery.

      1) Claims the moral high ground.
      2) Claims to have the authority on truth.
      3) Presents no substantial proof to support their claims.
      4) Labels anyone daring to disagree as "evil".
      5) Is absolutely unfazed by any kind of logical argument.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re: Morons by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Are you talking about SJWs, anti-SJWs, MRAs, anti-feminists, liberals, leftists, the alt-right or some other group? I can't tell from that description.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. So THAT'S what he was doing during Benghazi... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    >> USC reported that President Obama was kept briefed on efforts to challenge media's stereotypical portrayals

    Aha - so THAT'S what he was doing when the terrorists overran Benghazi... :)

  3. Algorithm leaked by Time_Ngler · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only acceptable algorithm the program could give would be:

    10 PRINT "THIS SCRIPT PORTRAYS WOMEN POORLY."
    20 GOTO 10

  4. How women are portrayed in movies by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More beautiful than average, and more extreme in one trait or another.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:How women are portrayed in movies by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to watch a lot of older movies. Men have been the butt of jokes forever. And there's certainly good reason for it, you make fun of the ones at top not at the bottom.

      Though in the past there were some strange oddities, amazingly sexist to very fair and balanced. I saw one about the first female president, a comedy about the husband trying to cope with being number two, and it ended when the president got pregnant and resigned, thus restoring order to the family.

  5. So, how does this work exactly? by Derekloffin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously? Trying to say X is a good portrayal of anything seems like a completely subjective thing to me and further practical impossible on any single element. Any portrayal can potentially be bad if it is overused, while at the same time any portrayal can potentially be fine so long as it is used in appropriate balance, but you can't determine either of things looking at an individual production. Likewise the standard for what exactly is a good or bad thing are basically totally subjective, especially in fiction. A complete cold bloodied murderer can be an excellent character, while a total altruist and general humanitarian can be a terrible character.

  6. Jobs Are Jails by alternative_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's time some women stopped bitching about not being in the same positions as men, and started asking whether men's positions are something they want to be in.

    And maybe at that point we can ask if we could find a better use of our time than endless jobs, shopping, commuting, television...

    Jobs are generally miserable, but the biggest misery is (1) you are judged on appearances (2) while doing work that is most of the time not essential or not really a positive contribution in any sense.

    It's like something Solzhenitsyn would come up with. The prisoners count beans and file TPS reports, and if they do not, they get half the ration of borscht for the day.

    --
    Alternative Right.
  7. More hyper-liberal stupidity by Sqreater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, let's have history-changing, gender-leveling gender-pandering required in every movie, just like in "Halt and Catch Fire". We CAN propagandize our way toward filling those 500,000 tech jobs. We just have to lie about reality strongly enough and long enough to change it to suit us.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  8. Bechdel Test by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All this talk about the Bechdel test reminds me of the Galbrush Paradox, a related mess that was codified during GamerGate. During a discussion of noted con artist Anita Sarkeesian -- who has managed to run TWO wildly successful Kickstarter scams stealing close to half a million dollars from rubes -- and her completely unobtainable standards for female characters:

    Absolutely not. If you can't tell a two bit con artist from one of your own, you really need to clean up your movement before you start 'suggesting' anything.

    But maybe you're just naive and don't understand the problem. Do you know why there's so many white male characters in video games? Especially leads? Because no one cares about them.

    A white male can be a lecherous drunk. A woman can't or it's sexist. Sexualizing women and what all. A white male can be a mentally disturbed soldier who's mind is unraveling as he walks through the hell of the modern battleeld. A woman can't or you're victimizing women and saying they're all crazy.

    Consider Guybrush Threepwood, start of the Monkey Island series. He's weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. He is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

    Now let's say Guybrush was a girl. We'll call her Galbrush. Galbrush is weak, socially awkward, cowardly, kind of a nerd and generally the last person you'd think of to even cabin boy on a pirate ship, let alone captain one. She is abused, verbally and physically, mistreated, shunned, hated and generally made to feel unwanted.

    Now, you might notice that I've given the exact same description to both of these characters. But here's where things deviate. While no one cares if Guybrush takes a pounding for being, for lack of a better term, less than ideal pirate, Galbrush will be presumed to be discriminated against because of her gender. In fact, every hardship she will endure, though exactly the same as the hardships Guybrush endured, will be considered misogyny, rather than someone being ill suited to their desired calling.

    And that ending. She goes through ALL that trouble to help, let's call him Eli Marley, escape the evil clutches of the ghost piratess Le Chuck, it turns out he didn't even need her help and she even screwed up his plan to thwart Le Chuck. Why, it'd be a slap in the face to every woman who's ever picked up a controller. Not only is the protagonist inept, but apparently women make lousy villains too!

    And that's why Guybrush exists and Galbrush doesn't. Men can be comically inept halfwits. Women can't. Men can be flawed, tragic human beings. Women can't. And why? Because every single female character reects all women everywhere.

    The horrible truth ls you and Sarkeesian want to craft a box into which you can force every female character into. Some idiotic 'ideal'. Putting aside the stupidity of exchanging one unobtainable role model for women with another, this has the added problem of making all female characters exactly the same. And when all characters are exactly the same, that's boring And boring characters do not sell video games.

    And when applied to film, this is why the Bechdel test fails. Because writing female characters is an identity politics minefield, and trying to give them any character development other than talking about the characters you ARE allowed to take risks with or write as less than perfect gets you in trouble with idiots writing for The Mary Sue or Jezebel, who then rile up a lynch mob at you.

    1. Re:Bechdel Test by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aside of her collecting money for movies she didn't make, and then ask for more dough? Nope.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bechdel Test by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She made some "tropes vs women" videos. Then had a kickstarter to make "Trops vs Women in videogames" initially promising 5 videos of length 10-20 minutes. After receiving $160,000 instead of the requested $6000, she bumped it up to 12 videos, of which she has made 14 of a longer length than promised and it appears that production is still continuing so there will likely be more.

      But anyway because you consider yourself a rationalist, I invite you to back up your assertion. Provide evidence. And I don't mean random partisan blog posts. You can see the kickstarter page. I bet the wayback machine has older copies too.

      If there's actual real evidence, not wishful thinking from the blogosphere, you can find it.

      You have made the claim of fraud, it is up to you to back up that claim with evidence.

      I don't however expect you to trouble yourself with such trivial matters of backing up allegations. I expect you to change tack or move the goalposts and start complaining about something else she did (e.g. having an opinion you dislike on the games themselves), leaving your unfounded claim of fraud just dangling there in the breeze.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  9. It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technology to analyze and transform gender disparities in media
    Problem

    Women are outnumbered by men three to one in the U.S. media and five to one in careers behind the camera. Additionally, women are six times more likely to be depicted in sexually suggestive clothing or partially nude in family films. Over the long term, these negative images can contribute to poor academic performance, body image issues, and less promising life choices.

    Soo...
    Woman showing skin in movie is presupposed as negative. Female skin is skin of evil.
    Skin of evil "contributes" to bad grades, "body image issues" and will fuck up lives of people who see it.

    Basically... women are witches who should be wearing burkas so as not to ruin people's lives, cause bad grades or mental issues with "body image".
    It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:It's not Bechdel - it's puritan test by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read it again. They don't say "female skin is evil".

      Generally speaking there are lots of diverse roles for men in movies. All sizes, good looking, average, and they are generally not required to be provided some eye candy for a presumed straight male audience.

      On the other hand it really looks like to succeed as a woman in Hollywood you have to be hot and willing to flaunt your sexuality. Nothing wrong with doing that per-se, but when it becomes a virtual requirement...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. "A software" by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on, editors, really? Shall I say to my friends, "Today I saw an interesting news on slashdot."

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Interesting to quantify if possible by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be very interesting to find a way to quantify bias in media. I don't know if its possible, but it sounds hard. OTOH, self-driving cars sounded hard as well and they seem to be becoming a reality.

    Last time I posted a req for a high level RF engineer, I got ~100 applications from men and 2 from women. If only for selfish reasons I'd like more women learning the skills that I need.

    I've been working in a high tech field for a quarter century now and I do see a problem the way women are treated in many places. The problems are not universal, and there is a lot of variety, but it exists. It difficult to separate cause and effect but more information would be helpful.

  12. And what if they find there is no problem? by inhuman_4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The central problem with projects like this is the result is already determined. They've already decided that movies are horribly sexist before the first line of code was written. Think about it. What if, after detailed analysis, it was determined that there is no problem, that women and men are treated roughly equal? What happens then? It can't happen, it wouldn't be acceptable. The funding would dry up, and they would be shutdown. It would be like the NRA releasing a study saying guns are bad. And good luck getting funding in the future, if you can't produce results that affirm what we "know to be true" then clearly you are a terrible researcher.

  13. Re: Idiots Rule The World by skegg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that's a phallucy !