Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency has released her newest video critique of popular culture, this time on the Bechdel Test and the 2012 Academy Awards.

The Bechdel Test was popularized by Alison Bechdel in her 1985 comic, “Dykes to Watch Out for.” It is a device used to gauge women’s relevance to a movie plot and the general presence of women in Hollywood movies. To pass the test, a movie must satisfy three rules. The movie must (1) have at least two named female characters (2) who talk to each to each other (3) about something other than a man.

In her newest video, Sarkeesian applies this test to the nine movies nominated for the upcoming Academy Awards. Here is what she finds:

The Academy of Motion Picture Sciences released their nominations this morning for the 84th Annual Oscars, to be held February 24th in Hollywood, CA. This year they voted 9 films into the Best Picture category, ranging from the popular (The Help) to the lesser seen (like The Artist). None of the nominees were written or directed by a woman and only one, the aforementioned The Help, features a woman in the starring role and only one, War Horse, has a female producer. (Kristin Wiig and Annie Mumolo were nominated for Best Original Screenplay for Bridesmaids).

Best Picture Nominess:

The Artist

The Descendants

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

The Help

Hugo

Midnight in Paris

Moneyball

The Tree of Life

War Horse

The full list of nominations is available here.

So the question becomes, of the 9 anointed films, which do you think displays the best portrayal of gender? Which of them, if any, passes the Bechdel Test? Are any of them particularly offensive or positive? Let us know in the comments below!

We'll be tracking the Academy Awards over the next few weeks, so stay tuned for more in-depth analysis and reporting.

Intern Angela Sells tracks the missteps of ABC's Work It, episode by episode. 

Work It: Episode 2 and Even Worse

The second episode centers around Lee and Angel attempting to sell their pharmaceuticals to doctors. As women, Lee and Angel attempt to seduce the doctors rather than sell their product in a professional manner. Lee, quite knowledgeable of the medications, does not fare as well as Angel, who endears the doctor with "her" ignorance of the drugs and their possible side effects. In attempt to sell as much as Angel, Lee "becomes more womanly" by acting ditzy and stripping in front of the doctor to reveal a red bra and red thong, implying that the only real thing a woman can sell is herself. Most offensively, the advice to wear red lingerie comes from Lee's wife, who admits to wearing a red bra at her job (as a nurse) to get promotions. Not only does this cheapen the view of a woman's career life by underscoring her body parts and dismissing her mental acuity. 

Also, by attempting to get ahead at the job through use of one's body, the very real and harrowing problem of the ever-booming sex-industry is ignored.  For example, the consequences of prostitution, sex slavery, pornography and Playboy are that women are made to feel that their value lies in their (arbitrarily defined) aesthetic quality and are encouraged to reinforce very specific male-oriented power dynamics.  Speaking of power dynamics, the most infuriating segment of this episode occurs when Lee, out of his female clothing, and Lee (still in his "work attire") pretend to be a couple to ward off one of the doctor's advances on Angel. Lee plays the abusive, angry and violent boyfriend to Angel's passive helplessness. When asked why Angel stays with Lee, Angel answers "I can't help it. I'm addicted to the drama." By reducing domestic violence to the butt of a joke, Work It not only encourages the notion that dysfunctional and traumatic relationships are an acceptable source of "fun," but Angel iterates a very damaging and disempowered model to young girls who may be watching the show. 

Having said all of this, Work It does in fact speak to a larger societal crisis in the attempt to re-define masculinity and femininity in a culture where biological gender need not dictate one's career and lifestyle choices.  With so many shows this past fall centered on the "decline of the man," a deeply insecure truth is revealed: the need to retrograde into past traditional gender roles so as to avoid, deny and suppress the rise of female equality. Woman is so feared because her freedom marks an end to an oppressive patriarchy and Work It expresses the great discomfort and resistance to the change occurring.  Work It's stereotypically harmful image of an insipid, inferior and incapable woman is the equivalent to the chrysalis that is supposed to support the butterfly's beautiful transformation but instead chooses to prevent its growth and let it die a stifled caterpillar. 

“The battle of the sexes is over on television. Now viewers get to pick between his or her sexism.”

In a January 10^th article for the New York Times Arts section, Alessandra Stanley tackles the ubiquitous trend of sexist television sitcoms. Stanley’s article differs from conventional attacks on the sexist treatment of women, however. She looks, instead, at a new kind of comedy that has been making great strides in the entertainment and Hollywood sphere: women making crude, offensive jokes about men and sex.

Looking particularly at the new comedies “Are You There, Chelsea?” and “Whitney,” both of which star female comedians known for their raunchy humor, Stanley wonders whether their material is enough to distinguish them “from the pack.” Explains Stanley:

"Encouraged by the success of “Bridesmaids,” television executives have welcomed comedies that showcase boozy single women who talk roguishly about masturbation, venereal disease and menstruation.

With the influx of female-driven raunch comedy, Chelsea Handler and Whitney Cummings may not be bringing much of anything new (or feminist) to the table.  Their material, rather than pushing back against sexism on TV, seems merely to be offering it in a different form. Stanley also discusses another part of the equation—the new sitcom “Work It,” which centers around two men who dress in drag in order to snag jobs during a “mancession.” This show has been lampooned by the media and attacked by The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) for its blatant mockery of the transgender community.

The most interesting point Stanley raises in her article, if indirectly, is that TV comedy still relies on stereotyping gender for laughs. Sure, now we have a new gender trope of the crude single gal who drinks tons of alcohol and sleeps around. The problem is, it’s still a stereotype steeped in gender bias and it still portrays women as creatures whose lives revolve around finding a man.  

Intern Angela Sells tracks the successes and failings of ABC's new drama Pan Am, episode by episode. Check back weekly for updates...

The Best of Fall’s Mediocre Lineup? (Episodes 1-3)

Pan Am is pretty good. For a show based on a privileged and select group of the 1960's elite (an approach that reinforces Hollywood's systematic exclusion of minorities and the LGBTQ society), Pan Am is palatable. The stewardesses are a multi-lingual group, some involved in the CIA and others interested in politics or bucking the traditional wedding institution. However, stereotypical gender stereotypes are still imposed and the women are often made to grin and bear overt sexism displayed by passengers as well as the captains. The choice to focus on the upper white class without juxtaposing at least a bit of the racial and civil stirrings is predictable, but disappointing. While not nearly as gruesomely offensive as fellow 60s-centered The Playboy Club; Pan Am is at least notable for a largely female cast and seasoned leads like Christina Ricci.

Three weeks in, Pan Am's trips around the world appear as exciting distracters from the fact that the show is still a glamorized idealization of a very segregated, conflict-ridden and gender-role confining time.  It pains to say that even The Playboy Club enlisted more minority actors and was at least attempting to incorporate the gay community with a lesbian bunny. It is becoming all too exhausting to have shows flaunt their racial and gender hierarchies, only to be excused and justified by attributing everything "to the times". Television is indeed a mode of escapist relaxation and should sometimes simply serve to be a source of pleasure, but too much is beginning to feel like filler and superficial fluff.  One must ask the question: How will the media's denial to confront uncomfortable issues and its refusal to reflect today's society affect (and determine) a culture so influenced and inundated by the images and behaviors depicted on the screen? 

This comedy is in no danger of being sexy. The main character, Jess, despite being played by the talented and gorgeous Zooey Deschanel, is completely desexualized through a series of awkward and “quirky” behaviors meant to render her relatable. She is portrayed as clueless, graceless, and pathetic to prove that this beautiful woman is “flawed” just like you. Jess tucks her skirt into her larger-than-life underwear. She sings to herself in public. She cries and watches Dirty Dancing “six or seven times a day.” She is just a regular girl! This leads me away from the absence of “sexy” and the prevalence of sexism in New Girl.

We love The Good Wife. We also have high expectations for one of the few TV shows with a dynamic female lead. 

Yesterday, we sent out the message below to our Sexy or Sexism? Campaign supporters:

Something happened to Tim Allen since his 1990s hit ABC sitcom, "Home Improvement."

In that show, which drew consistently high numbers of viewers, Tim Allen, an affable and often-confused host of a home improvement television show, with his wife raised three rambunctious sons.

In Allen's latest project, "Last Man Standing," Mike Baxter and his wife are raising three daughters -- one of whom is a single parent, with her toddler son in tow. Baxter works at an outdoor sports store.