[facepalm]

Looking at the movies with > 60% male lines, a lot of them seem to be action or war movies. I don't think it is unfair if not 50% of war and action movies have a female heroine, because there are reasons men are more likely to go to war or do dangerous jobs (and no, that reason is not lack of role models in popular entertainment).

I don't think an analysis like this is very useful at all. What matters is that all demographics get to see the films they like. It doesn't hurt one demographic if another demographic has more films made for.

Take women's magazines for example - while I haven't counted, it seems there seem to be an awful lot of them. Would it hurt men if there were more women's magazines than men's magazines? I'd argue it wouldn't hurt men at all.

So if you can show that there is a significant population that doesn't get to see the movies they want, I think you could get a better response.

[tomlock]

The idea that you trust your judgement on the magazine ratio is probably one of the reasons that this analysis is useful. Are you sure that you aren't just biased against noticing men's magazines? Or perhaps there are a lot of magazines with language specifically gendering the reader as male that you consider neutral...

[facepalm]

I am sure there are certain media that cater primarily to women. For example, at least in my country, there is a whole genre of romantic novels about physicians.

The main point is that it is not a problem if some product category caters primarily to a specific demographic. What would be an issue would be a significant part of the population being neglected. However, there is no reason why that shouldn't be fixable by the market alone.

I can think of several TV series that cater specifically to women, with lots of women talking.

How can we be sure that the 2000 movies the article talks about randomly selected movies, not movies cherry picked to show the desired result?

Even if we pick random scripts that are available online, there might be an inherent bias? For example, maybe older scripts (from the 50ies) are more likely to be online?

[tomlock]

I encourage you to do some quantifiable analysis that you judge to be free from bias and see if you get a different result.

You seem to be immediately dismissing this analysis as not useful, while only providing anecdotal evidence and questions. Do you feel like your points are more/less useful than the quantified analysis in the article?

[facepalm]

In what way do you think my comment is biased (given that I explicitly marked the women's magazine as a guess and an example)? In what way do you think the analysis is useful?

I think an analysis like that can be amusing. I am not convinced that it is useful, as I explained in my previous comments.

As for doing the research myself, I may, but it is expensive. I don't have a gender studies grant or anything to pay for it.

[tomlock]

I think you're biased because you're dismissing this article without any evidence. I encourage you to post some research about the topic. As for the gender studies grant comment, do you have any evidence to suggest that the authors had such a grant?

[facepalm]

I didn't dismiss it, I question it's usefulness. The article itself doesn't provide any evidence for it's usefulness.

[cm2187]

Depends if DIY, Cars and Computer magazine count as male magazines or not...

[janekm]

Not to mention fishing, guns, hifi, photography... Mostly clearly targeted at a male audience as is evident from the adverts in them.