Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.
I didn't down-vote you (and can't), but it may not be that people "are incapable of understanding" you, and instead objecting to your claim that a method for reviewing/appraising one aspect of a film is "designed to enforce slave morality on creative people".
Using less wildly provocative language may be more conducive to a rational discussion.
My language is not more "wildly provocative" than your use of the the phrase "wildly provocative". It's only "wildly provocative" to you because you didn't bother to understand it. The whole point of the Bechdel test is to promote a slave morality (in this case feminism). Insisting that nobody embellish their language a little is unworkable, as you illustrated by embellishing your own language.
Given that your first comment is a hysterical argument labelling your opposing philosophy as 'total degeneration' and 'slave morality', I think most people would be hard-pressed to believe you were actually interested in discussion over soap-boxing. It's reinforced when you call people too stupid to understand you. What possible value can come out of engaging you?
Feminism is a slave morality by definition. I didn't invent the term. You're welcome to reject advances in Western Philosophy if you like. The value that comes out of engaging me is talking to someone who is interested in more than mere gossip. I mean, look at your comment: no more than questioning my credentials, in response to a comment of mine suggesting that maybe people put forward some _actual content_. Amazing
Despite your clumsy attempt at flowery terms, you're clearly a troll. Anyway, this exchange is exactly why the HN guidelines state: Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Because patriarchy is the slaving morality of the status quo?
You've never thought that the fact these little tests exists is because the level of male domination in social discourse is so high that it causes reactions such as yours when it is challenged?
You used the phrase, but perhaps if you want to not be a smartass, let's be clear about this in a way you haven't in the previous posts:
Male-dominated thinking is so prevalent in society that it is second nature. As a general rule, female leads are fewer than male leads, male roles have more significance than female roles in anything that's not romance and comedies, and there are significant differences in that which go beyond a mere reflection of society or properly-reasoned discrimination in the current world.
Thus, a couple of Swedes think it would be a good idea to let people know that this goes on, a lot, without any pretention of doing much more than pointing it out.
Replace "woman" with "racial minority", or "poor", and it still makes sense, although the points of contention are different. Minorities are underrepresented in most movies (that is, they are proportionally less prevalent than even reality in the roles they cast), or in the case of, for example, black people, are cast into very clearly-defined stereotypes which do not necessarily match reality, and worse, give no possibility to the fact that black people can be anything else other than a stereotype.
Keeping with the example of black in movies, although this has been changing, such changes can also happen in the unnatural role where a minority is purposefully put into a role that breaks stereotypes. That may be fine, but there is a broad spectrum of character diversity between stereotype roles and main characters put in place to "make a point" about diversity.
Even then, positions of patriarchy are still so embedded that the way in which minorities are represented, even with the intention of breaking stereotypes, can be flawed.
That is what this test is about, with regards to gender equality, and I fail to see anything surprising about it.