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

Thanks, Tommy.Having fewer of something does not mean much of anything at all. However, I'd like to see what genres you're talking about where females aren't represented nearly as much as men. Action movies I can understand men usually making up the majority of the cast considering it's mostly men going to see action movies, and men tend to be more physically fit to be able to perform some of the extreme stunts involved in these movies. And keep in mind, the directors and Hollywood and the movie industry in general makes movies to appeal to the general audience of that genre. It's understandable that action movies contain more men than women, this has nothing to do with a "patriarchy" or something showing that men are superior or anything degrading to women. I'm sure Hollywood would rather make money than make arguably boring movies by representing every single group of people equally.Regarding other genres, romance, horror, comedy, crime, fantasy, etc... women are actually represented quite well.Romantic films [1] - Women play the lead role in most of these, and almost all have a strong female cast. That is because women are the target audience for romance films.As you can see from here [2], men and women have a pretty different taste in movies. For the men, five of the entire list of 25 movies are not action movies, whereas the first five movies of the women's list are not action movies. This tells us something; men like action movies more than women. So it would make sense for the producers of action movies to have a mostly male cast, so the male audience can relate.Same for women. The movies geared toward females - The Devil Wears Prada, The Notebook, The Princess Diaries, etc, have a mostly female cast.I think the main thing to keep in mind regarding cast is that the narrative of the movie is not "patriarchal" if the cast consists of mostly men. Men simply fit the roles of the movie more than women, and people in general still end up liking the movie. Action movies are just very popular, and the demographic that watches action movies are mainly men, so it makes sense to have a relatable cast. This is not, in any way, reflective of a patriarchal narrative. And if you watch most of these movies, the women in these movies tend to be smarter and better combatants than most (if not all) of the men. So if anything, being a minority only shows that it takes one woman to outsmart and outfight the men. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what you're trying to point out.Now let's get to business.How women are not disadvantaged:1. "Less role models" is both wrong and irrelevant. There are over a million on IMDB alone, and although there are over two million males, with numbers like these, and taking into consideration of the types of popular movies (action/adventure) there are plenty of each, and I can guarantee there are enough female role models and male role models. Having more male characters in movies does not make the movie industry or movie narratives "patriarchal." Also, women talking to each other or not does not automatically make the movie's narrative patriarchal... Take Edge of Tomorrow [3] for example - there's pretty much only one woman in the whole movie (there's more than one), but she's right away shown to be far superior both physically and mentally than all the men in the entire movie. Last time I checked, having a woman be superior in pretty much every way to every single man is not really part of the patriarchy at all.2. Same as before. Less does not mean patriarchy. It simply means there aren't as many female roles in movies, and again, seeing as the most popular movies are action movies, it makes sense that there aren't. Female movie-goers still have plenty of female role models to choose from, and if we take action movies out of the picture, something that isn't top priority to most women anyway, I can guarantee that number balances out pretty quickly.3. This is just wrong, and the exact same thing could be said about guys. Most male characters are ripped, have a chisseled jaw, and are more physically fit than most men in general. Two of the top three movies mentioned in your (extremely biased) link are The Dark Knight and Iron Man. I would say these are not "chick flicks," so this is Hollywood's way of attracting the attention of males, who are the leading movie-goers to these types of movies. And regarding Twilight, whatever his name is has his damn shirt of every five seconds, and there's no real reason he has to do that other than getting the attention of the female audience. Face it, either way, men and women in movies are attractive, and in some cases unrealistically attractive. Considering this happens to both men and women, it is not disadvantageous strictly to women, and therefore not patriarchal.4. Taking into the simple fact that men are also portrayed as "overly attractive" in most media sources, it would make sense to relate the two. Women's self esteem is shown to drop when she sees the attractive woman, well so do men's when they see the attractive man. Once again, this is a aspect that "affects" both men and women, and is therefore not patriarchal. I suck with Star Wars, but look at what you said. You bring all your attention to the girl, saying she can't dress like the male Jedi. Then you go on to say the only character she can dress as is the queen, because it fits her "gender stereotype" per se. You completely leave out the boy's side. What if he wants to be the prize, rescued by someone? He can't dress up as the queen just like the girl can't dress up as the Jedi. It's equal, and once again, not patriarchal. One more thing - if you look at the newest Star Wars movie, [4], you'll see there's several more female cast members. And let's not forget that chart I brought up a while ago, [2], where was Star Wars on the women's side? Tied for number eleven. Where was it for the men? Number one. So once again, it makes sense to have a few more male cast members, considering it's males that tend to like this movie.5. Unfortunately I fail to see a correlation between women in film and a lack of respect from their male acquaintances. However the points you brought up, domestic violence, sexual violence, and difficulty getting jobs/promotions, is definitely not a "man's issue," as it's basically plastered on every major media outlet that women make 77% of what men make, that there is help hotlines and hundreds of women's shelters to very few (if any at all) men's shelters. So no, it's not a man's issue, it's listed as a women's issue, when it should just be an issue in general, not specific to one particular gender. However I fail to see how the media, or lack of female representation in movies, plays a role in this.Rebuttals to your rebuttals!The reason I brought up violence and entertainment is to just point out that violence is entertaining to men. And most violent films are watched by males, and therefore have a male cast (asides from Kill Bill, Divergent, Lucy, Salt, The Hunger Games, Colombiana, Tomb Raider, Charlie's Angels, The Heat.... you get the idea).You make good points, showing how it may seem like the lack of violence against women may show that men are "going easy on the weak," but then you have to ask yourself a question... which is it? When women are killed in movies, it's a horrible scene, and people are outraged (I know this isn't a movie, but take a look at GTA5 being banned in Australia for having the option to kill females...), and if they aren't killed, then men are "going easy on the weak." However, I think it's reasonable to believe the common narrative to movies which involve a man and woman fighting is not that "women are weak, therefore go easy on them," but more along the lines of just "it's generally wrong to hurt a woman." ...Even if she's trying to kill you. Which may sound ridiculous, but that's the feeling I get whenever watching a movie where a man has the option to kill a woman and he doesn't. Movies in general not passing this test is (in my opinion) irrelevant to a patriarchal narrative. What exact movies did not pass? Django? The Expendables? The Last Stand? Machete? In other words, mindless action movies that men tend to like? I wonder what the results were to be if I found out how many romance movies have male cast members only for eye candy or for women to fight over? Once again, men like action movies, and having more of a male cast is more relatable, therefore drawing in the target audience. If you take out every action movie, I can guarantee you that percentage of movies that pass the Bechdel Test would skyrocket.Although I do agree there are less female cast members, they are not of less calibre than the males, and this is shown in the movies I've listed above (Salt, The Hunger Games, etc).I see a recurring point - the Bechdel Test. This test states that only a little more of half the films of 2014 have two females who talk to each other about something other than men. There's a couple things I don't like about this test.1. It does not state a single movie that failed the test. Looking at the top films of 2014 [5], I can guarantee the first page (50 movies) only have a couple that failed, and that's because they're mindless action movies geared toward men. I don't watch a lot of chick flicks, but I can guarantee plenty of those don't have two hot guys discussing something other than women.2. Movies geared toward men won't have dialogue like this just like movies geared toward women won't have two men talking about something other than a woman.Well thanks for a good first round, looking forward to the rest![1] http://www.imdb.com...[2] http://web.calstatela.edu...[3] http://www.imdb.com...[4] http://www.imdb.com...[5] http://www.imdb.com...