Posted in History & Literature

Bechdel-Wallace Test

What makes you want to watch a movie? There are various factors to consider: how original the idea is, pacing of plot, quality of acting, emotional engagement, suitable score… Out of all of these factors, one of the most interesting is the Bechdel-Wallace test.

In 1985, cartoonist Alison Bechdel wrote a comic strip called Dykes To Watch Out For, where one of her characters states that she only goes to see movies that satisfy three conditions.

  1. First, the film must have at least two women in it. Modern adaptations of the rule state that these women must be named characters.
  2. Second, the women must have a conversation with each other at some point in the film.
  3. Lastly, they must talk about something other than a man.

It is quite easy to pass this test. Even a simple conversation between two women, such as about the food they are eating or what happened at work count. As simple as it sounds, the test is surprisingly powerful. 

Upon review of all movies listed in major databases, it has been shown that only 50 to 70% of all movies pass the Bechdel-Wallace test. The most common reason is the lack of any conversation between two named women characters. This suggests that a large proportion of female characters are put in the movie as a romantic interest or support character for the male, or they are the “token woman”, such as a sole female soldier in a special forces unit.

The Bechdel-Wallace test initially started as a joke in a comic strip, but it highlights the depressing fact of how poorly women are represented in films. There is a strong tendency for women to be portrayed only as a damsel in distress, a love interest for the (male) protagonist or someone who helps the (male) protagonist develop their character, such as their mother. This may be an extension of the fact that the overwhelming majority of directors, producers and screenwriters are men – a gender gap commonly known as the “celluloid ceiling”.

The scariest part is that many movies only passed the test because of a single, short scene where two women have an extremely trivial conversation. It is almost as if those scenes are inserted by moviemakers to tick a box saying that they are not sexist.

The test has many flaws due to its simplicity. For example, it does not account for movies with very few characters, such as those focussed around a female protagonist who does not interact with many other people, or movies focussed purely on one woman and one man conversing with each other. 

Nonetheless, it sends a powerful message regarding the rampant inequality women have to face in day-to-day life.

Posted in History & Literature

Ignorant Masses Policy

Democracy is a fair system that gives the people the power to run the country. This also weakens the politicians’ grip on the people. If you were a leader of a democratic nation, how could you gain more power? The obvious answer would be to become a good leader who gains the people’s trust and rules a government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, if you want to rule against the wishes of the masses yet not lose their trust, you can use the Ignorant Masses Policy.

The Ignorant Masses Policy is a type of policy that makes the people foolish to make ruling them easier. It was used by Imperial Japan to try make colonising Korea easier in the 1930’s, while also being famous as the policy of choice by Nazi Germany. The most classic example is the 3S Policy used by Japan and Korea in the 1980’s. “3S” stands for mankind’s never-ending interests: sex, screen and sports. The Policy uses these to enthuse the public and making them naturally lose interest over social issues. For example, in the 1980’s, the president of South Korea, Chun Doo-hwan (who rose to power through a coup d’état) hosted the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, while establishing pro baseball, pro football and pro ssireum (Korean wrestling). Furthermore, he installed colour television on a national level, lifted the curfew (promoting prostitution) and lessening censorship on sexually suggestive dramas and movies.

The Ignorant Masses Policy oppresses the people in the complete opposite way to the reign of terror seen in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Instead of destroying freedom, it provides even more freedom and information to drown out interest for the more important field of politics. This policy was well-represented in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. A government that oppresses its people with pleasure and distractions is far more formidable than a government that uses pain and control.

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Goethe

Posted in History & Literature

Watchmen

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who will guard the guards?

One of the most basic instincts of a human being is to doubt. We do not easily extend our trust to strangers. This is a natural response that is very beneficial for your survival from an evolutionary perspective (consider the overfriendly dodos that were wiped out by humans). As civilisation has progressed and the size of societies grew, people devised legal systems to lower their vigilance against each other. This was because instead of wasting time being suspicious of others, we devised specialist roles who would do that for us, allowing us to live in peace with each other. These specialists who stay alert and guard us enforce the law and stabilise our society. However, what would happen if the people that protect us from evil become evil? Is it not a scary thought to think that there is no one that watches the watchmen?

Emperor Qin Shi Huang who united China to form the Qin dynasty divided up his people, setting up a mutual guard system to enforce his rule. Informing became a civil obligation. To not report illegal activities was illegal in itself. The system of informing was as follows: five families form a group with each group being watched by an official warden who reports on them. This official warden is carefully observed by an unofficial surveillant. Five groups come together to form a tribe. If it is found that at any level something was not reported, the blame was turned on every member of the group. Thus, a circle of surveillance is formed.

This method was extremely effective and Emperor Qin’s rule of terror was unstoppable. Crime rates plummeted while productivity rose. The problem was that the people’s quality of life was pathetic. Emperor Qin’s system of watching was later adopted by Nazi Germany. The people under the rule of the Nazis had to live in fear of being reported by their neighbours. This method is also seen being used by Big Brother in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Is this truly the best system to keep peace? Laws are put in place for the happiness and safety of the people, yet over-surveillance is an ironic concept that exists for those who hold power rather than the people.

How much should we trust another person? And who will watch the watchmen?

Posted in Psychology & Medicine

Hypocrisy

Often in life, we find that other people can be idiots, evil or both. Whether it be the girl working in the cafe that forgot your order, or your girlfriend who says she was late because of traffic, or the bastard that takes the last slice of pizza. But then, when we do that exact same thing that annoyed us so much when someone else did it, we somehow always find an excuse that rationalises our act.

This can be explained by the phenomenon of special pleading. Instead of acknowledging the fact that what you did was incredibly rude or obnoxious, your brain automatically creates an exception to the rule. You forgot that customer’s order because you were having a bad day. You were actually late because of traffic. You took that last slice of pizza because you did not have as much as the others and everyone else looked full. This phenomenon rids us of feeling guilt after an “immoral” act and also enables our hypocrisy.

The best part is that we do not consciously know of our hypocrisy. The brain quickly devises a clever reason to explain why you are the exception to the rule, while everyone else is not. The reason is, as with so many other psychological phenomena, cognitive dissonance. The brain cannot comprehend that you would do something you find so detestable when someone else does it, so it forces itself to believe the reason it pulled out of the air to not feel guilty, as it is the only reason the brain can think of that explains your behaviour. Furthermore, as sometimes the excuses are true, our hypocrisy is reinforced and we continuously disobey the golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Perhaps the more realistic, platinum rule should be: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…UNLESS”. It may not be a good moral system, but it sure explains the human condition of being an ass.

(Source: http://this-is-the-life2905.deviantart.com/art/the-only-exception-205009607)

Posted in Life & Happiness

Eleusis Game

The victory condition for this card game, named after an ancient Greek city, is quite simple: discover the pre-determined law via induction.
This game needs at least four people, with one person acting the position of God. God decides on a certain law (in the form of a single statement) and writes it down on a paper, thus creating the way of the universe
Next, the deck of cards is split evenly between the other players, then one person places a card in the centre. After “the world begins to exist”, God looks at the card and says “This card qualifies” or “This card fails”. The next player also places a card in the centre and the God judges whether it fits the way of the universe.

Players carefully study which cards qualify or fail to try discover the way of the universe. If someone thinks they figured the law out, he or she proclaims themself as the prophet, who begins to take over the role of God to announce whether the cards qualify or not. If at any point the prophet is wrong, he is dismissed. If the prophet correctly judges ten cards in a row, he states his hypothesised law and compares it to the piece of paper. The prophet wins if the two laws coincide, but is dismissed if it is not. When all 52 cards are played without a successful prophet, God becomes victorious.

However, as this is a game, the way of the universe cannot be too complex. To make it fun, the God player must devise a law that is simple yet difficult to discover. For example, the law “Alternate a card higher than 9 and a card lower than 9” is tricky as players tend to focus on picture cards or the colours of the cards. Also, laws such as “Only red cards qualify, except the tenth and thirtieth cards are disqualified” and “Accept all cards that are not the 7 of Hearts” are illegal, as they are too detailed. A God who comes up with such ways of the universe that cannot be found using logic and the scientific method loses his right to play the game. Ergo, the God must seek simplicity that is not easily conceived.

So what is the most successful strategy for this game? Even if there is the risk of being dismissed, proclaim yourself as the prophet as soon as possible for the best chance of winning.

(Sourcehttp://iraka.deviantart.com/art/Playing-his-cards-right-55647521?q=boost%3Apopular%20in%3Aphotography%20playing%20cards&qo=21)