I'll agree with LeoBass and Gauldar - there's nothing wrong with finding someone great and sticking with them. The idea of 'seeing what's out there' is great for food, cars, houses, etc., but why complicate your life with a laundry list of ex's and the baggage that comes with it (most of the time)? If someone's shooting for a committed relationship or marriage (even in the long term), wouldn't it make more sense to hold on to someone that you appreciate and are appreciated by?
Another thought occurred to me. Why are we treating this test as though it has any real sociological significant? After all it was posited in a comic book, right? Scientific testing has a few more criteria for validity than 1- it was popular, and 2- it fits a specific point of view.
I will agree that the sample used IS heavy on action movies and movies that were quite clearly developed for the male demographic. Something I would be interested in is how many movies with a female lead don't pass.
Another point I'd like to make is that we are talking about art. Since when does art have to be unbiased? I realize completely that the argument being made is the abundance of what they claim is male-centric, but really? Does this whole concept keep women out of good jobs or remove upward mobility in society? I'm sure you could perform similar tests on literature, music, theatre, and visual art and find that some of the most highly acclaimed works fail this test.
I see their point and it's an interesting one, but how big of a deal is it anyway?
My all time fave!
I'll agree with LeoBass and Gauldar - there's nothing wrong with finding someone great and sticking with them. The idea of 'seeing what's out there' is great for food, cars, houses, etc., but why complicate your life with a laundry list of ex's and the baggage that comes with it (most of the time)? If someone's shooting for a committed relationship or marriage (even in the long term), wouldn't it make more sense to hold on to someone that you appreciate and are appreciated by?
Another point I'd like to make is that we are talking about art. Since when does art have to be unbiased? I realize completely that the argument being made is the abundance of what they claim is male-centric, but really? Does this whole concept keep women out of good jobs or remove upward mobility in society? I'm sure you could perform similar tests on literature, music, theatre, and visual art and find that some of the most highly acclaimed works fail this test.
I see their point and it's an interesting one, but how big of a deal is it anyway?