The most common narrative of mainstream films is patriachal an disadvantageous to females over male.

Thank you for accepting and I really look forward to this debate. Good luck! So firstly, I say the narratives are patriarchal because overall they contain significantly fewer females, and those females are of significantly less importance. This for me, is almost the definition of patriarchy. I ask my opponent to explain why such a narrative is not partiachal. Secondly: I will atteempt to explain why, or in what way, I think women are disadvantaged by mainstream films, as this is the main argument. How women are disadvantaged: 1. They have less role models. 2. They have less positive role models. 3. They are encouraged to feel like looks are the most important asset they have. 4. The role models are typically beautiful and beyond the average persons physical attractiveness, effecting the self image girls have due to social comparison. 5. Do to a lack of respectable female role models, males aren't encouraged to respect women very much, resulting in females finding it harder to earn respect from their male acquaintances. This results in difficulty getting jobs/promotions, domestic violence and sexual violence towards women, which is widespread and a 'mans issue', not a women's issue. 1. Less role models: Have you heard of the Bechdel test? If I was to ask how many films had more than two male characters that talk to each other, you would rightly say every single one. Now, the Bechdel test asks three questions regarding the role of women on films: 1. 'Is there more than one female character with lines?' : 2. 'Do the two talk to one another?' : 3. Is it about anything other than their men?' Sounds extreme doesn't it? Well 42% of films fail this test (1). Writer Charles Stross noted that about half of the films that do pass the test only do so because the women talk about marriage or babies (1). This test illuminates to a degree, the extent to which females are underrepresented in films. 2. Less positive role models results in lower self-esteem. This is due to people not 'seeing themselves' in people they admire. According to the looking glass self theory, people learn a lot about who they are through observing others and essentially copying the behaviour of those they admire, whilst specifically not doing that which undesirable characters do. Having people on screen that are both relatable and courageous, encourages one to copy that behaviour to be like the person they admire-in an attempt to be admired. Women cannot relate to male characters in the same way men can, and vice versa. So when the vast majority of films have no courageous, relatable and positive female role models, and a disproportionate number of male characters are positive and relatable, you may find that females are disadvantaged over males due to lack of self-esteem though lack of positive role models. I know there are some courageous and 'good' female role modes in some films, but apart from being scarce, they are nearly always supermodels and 'tougher than men' as you put it, and so less realistic or relatable. Indeed, further distancing the 'ideal' woman from an achievable reality. 3. Most female characters and almost all 'respectable' female characters, are far beyond the average woman's physical attractiveness. The representation is incredibly unrepresentative of reality. This fact, and the fact that female characters are defined by their relationship with the male characters, further encourages the obsession with looks. 'Looks' are women's (and mens) efforts to appear worthy. Because many males in films are not particularly attractive, but still offer some positivity (e.g. 'Brains', master villain, wise old man or the funny guy), it suggests to men that looks aren't the 'be all and end all'. However for women, the picture is different. Un attractive women are very rarely used in films, unless on the contrary, to ridicule such people (not necessarily on the basis of their looks, 'low-status' representations of people are often portrayed by 'unattractive' characters). Ugly women are nearly always dopey, clumsy, no-fun and strict, or just lacking in social skills. This lack of female role-models-that are honoured for traits other than their beauty or their relationship with a special man-doesn't offer any encouragement to be good at anything, except being attractive. Unattractiveness for women, is linked purely with negativity, where for men, its not entirely the case (Ricky Gervais, countless 'hard-men', Jim Carey). For they rarely see any positive, relatable role models exhibiting, or being uniquely respected for, traits other than beauty. If we don't show females to be respectable for being wise, funny, good leaders, uniquely talented e.t.c then they are far more limited than men in their efforts to be successful. I know the T.V doesn't literally force anybody to do anything, but stories provide a cultural narrative that influences our self-image significantly. If that narrative is that women don't play any role, other than their relationship with males, then females are less encouraged to do anything else of value. This is disadvantageous to them because they are less encouraged to do anything of value, and manipulated to obsess over their physical appearance. A statistic showing that more importance is given to women's attractivness than men's is: 40% of women in films considered 'sexy attire' compared with 7% of men. (3). 4. Because the few positive female role models are unreprestivitve of normal women in respect to their physical attractivness, this can have a detrimental effect on women's self esteem. For instance, just reading a magazine for 60 seconds reduces self esteem in 80% of women (3). This is not film, but the factor effecting self esteem is considered to be the social comparison with the unreachable role model and the inadequacy felt at not reaching this standard. So those few positive female role models, may largely be detrimental to women's self esteem in some respects. So for instance, a family might watch Star Wars: the little boy dresses like a Jedi and see's himself (somewhat unconsciously) as a person capable of saving the universe. The girl however might be considered strange if she dressed like the Jedi, but the only woman is the queen who essentially is the Jedi's 'prize' for saving the universe. What can she play? I know its not scientific, but I ask the readers to consider for a moment what they would do if they where this girl. Rebuttal. First text : I think you make two points here: the first is about the necessity of the inclusion of violence for 'entertainment', but this is not relevant to the debate (I don't think you meant it to be so, I was just pointing it out because I would absolutely love to debate this with you another time and I would love to debate more with you about your views on feminism, but il talk to you in comments). It was however relevant to the point I made regarding men, but this was not really relevant anyway I think (if you think it was just say next round and il respond). The second point, and I think your only intentional point (correct me if I'm wrong), was that women are treat less violently than men and so are more revered. This may be true, but it does not necessarily encourage female respect. It may encourage the idea that hurting women is bad, and this is good. But consider the other people who would not typically be violently killed: the elderly, children and invalids perhaps? All these people are not necessarily spared out of respect, I think it's more likely because they are considered less capable of defending themselves. They are considered 'to fragile', for it to be fair to treat them equally. One should instead be honourable and 'feel sorry' for women, and have mercy on the weak. It's good to encourage non-violence towards women, but it also encourages a feeling of superiority over women, in that they (men) should 'go easy' on them. You say "most women are not killed like men in action movies": I agree, this suggests that this idea of 'going easy' on women is widespread. Your next point is that in recent years there has been loads of positive female characters. I agree that some films break the mould; but I'm arguing that their is even a mould, and that its shaped thusly! Haha. But check out this headline: "Films that pass the Bechdel test plummet in 2014". According to the Guardian, only 54% of films in 2014 passed this ridiculously simple test(2). So yes, Frozen and some more films might be better, but half the films made didn't have two proper female characters in. I don't know if I need say more. Does this not shock you? Your next point is that many box office films (Alien, SOL, Titanic) have positive female role models. I don't agree that 'many' box office films do, but some clearly do, but is this not too few? According to Mark Harris of Entertainment Weekly, "if passing the (bechdel) test were mandatory, it would have jeopardized half of the 2009 Academy Award for Best Picture nominees" (1). My argument is not that there is no positive female role models at all, its that there are significantly less than male ones and they are of less calibre. (1)http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.theguardian.com... (3)http://www.themarysue.com...