Reply to Topic
Because, assuming that it even exists in the first place, it is not nearly as much of a problem as toxic masculinity. As with the Bechdel test, not everything automatically requires an opposing counterpart to exist.
Because men can take it.
Besides, I still get the impression that it's less a trend and more the result of you having some really precise requirements for liking a film and its characters that a lot of films just don't happen to meet for whatever reason.
Based on his pre-election promises and post-election actions, he doesn't even match your Wizard of Oz standard for a good man - and that was before he made the swamp worse and came under investigation for felonies himself. It'd be one thing if it had just been an unqualified man winning, but he has repeatedly shown himself to be worse than that.
I figure it's worth questioning why these concepts exist rather than just complaining about them existing. Maybe men get considered expendable because of the idea that only men are truly capable of doing dangerous jobs like fighting wars while the women have to stay home and raise families. This also brings into question exactly how women are treated as valuable in society, namely how much of that is dependent on what men want from them and how badly they can be treated if men do not consider them valuable (or even if they do).
That may well be your perception and I can't necessarily convince you to change that, but given what you've written I wonder what your criteria for a character you can identify with would be. A character doesn't have to be unambiguously good to be relatable - sometimes seeing parts of ourselves reflected in characters who are notably flawed or villains is meant to be part of what the film is trying to communicate. The characters in Colossal are all flawed to one extent or another, but I can still find reasons to sympathise with or even relate to some of them and I've made those reasons clear in answering this thread because I try to accept what the film is doing beyond whether or not it meets an arbitrary expectation of mine.
The Bechdel Test itself isn't a double standard, it was created in response to a double standard for reasons that I have already listed. You can't "look at it the other way" for the same reason you can't ask why there's no Straight Pride parades or no White History Month - because it would be completely and utterly redundant. As I said before, not everything needs a counterpart.
We've. Been. Over. This. Correlation does not equal causation. All the villains happening to be men is not meant to indicate that all men are bad. We are talking about a movie that's named after its male lead hero who has multiple male allies, after all. Is Star Wars prejudiced against men because its sole female character happens to be on the good guys' side? No, it is not.
If there are 50 women shown and all of them (or almost all of them) are on the side of the good guys, then you can only come away with the impression that women are all inherently good. If every single bad guy (or nearly every single bad guy) is male, then you can only come away with the impression that evil is inherently equated with men.
P.S. We still need to break this up into smaller posts. This post very unwieldy at this point.
