Headlines: Time Magazine Yells At Cloud

So, the Internet has been pretty busy with the controversy created by Joel Stein's article for Time Magazine about how the Millenial Generation (rougly, the people born in the early 80's to the mid 90's) is narcissist, lazy and entitled.

The reaction of the new media has been incredible: there we have it, a 41 years old man making such declarations about a whole generations of individuals who are living through one of the most complicated economic times in recent history woulnd't exactly pass unnoted, especially by a generation that domains and feels at home in the modern social plataforms like Facebook and Twitter.

Acussations were made: the article was either stupid because Time would be insulting one growing segment of buyers and consumers, or just plain insensitive to the reality of millions and millions around America (and hell: the majority of the Western world) that want a better job and want to achieve more in life but aren't in the best position to do it so due to high rates of unemployement...I'm not here to discuss that (it has been discussed enough by other, way better writers than me).

What I want to talk about is how, a journalist (an educated person), a member of the generation X could make such a big mistake: complain about how today kids are.

Bear with me, and see this funny experiment, because all those claims about how the youngers are lazy and self-absorbed are far from being something new. See this next Life magazine:

What's so special about it? It talked about the supposedly differences between the younger generation and the grown ups: among them, how these kids were lazy, unable to make a living and narcissists. The date of the magazine? May 17, 1968.

But that's far from the only one; meet, as Newsweek called it, the "Video Generation" (sounds lame, isn't?)

Just like their fashion sense

And on it talked about...yeah, the narcissism of this generation, willing to video-record every single banal thing crossing on their lives.

Moving to the 90's, we had...

An article about...guess what? How the Gen X was made almost completely by screwups, more "willing to hike the Himalaya" than in "climbing the corporate ladder".

Every generation in turn has been labeled that way...so, all those undesirible traits those publications described...could it be that is just older people forgetting how they behaved when they were our age? Or even funnier: maybe it has less to do with some generation in specific, and more with all youngsters of all ages?

As I read in a remote corner of the Internet: "As long as there's 20 somethings, there will be hipsters".

So, Mr. Stein; please, think more your words before you yell at that creepy cloud in the sky.

Shalom comrades.

The Bechdel Test (Or "So You Want To Write Female Characters?")

This is an interesting concept: it's sort of a litmus test for the representation of female characters in media. You see, this test (born on the webcomic "Dykes To Watch Out For", proving once again that no
webcomic will be seen soon in your newspaper, if newspaper are able tu survive nowadays, anyway) works like this:

* Your movie must have at least two female characters (Some argue that they should be NAMED characters; not just some background girl that held a little chat with one of the protagonists)

* Who have at least ONE conversation

* About something other than men, love and/or romance.

It seems easy, isn't? Well...it should be that way, at least, but that's kind of the point: once you apply the test
for some of the highest profile films of all time, it's surprising (and a li'l bit scary) see how many of these movies fail. It's not hard to understand why some classic films from other eras are unable to pass it (since, you know, all the sexism-thing) but it becomes really impressive and sad the more you advance in time, since
modern media are still struggling to make a fair representation of women.

Now, I want to make this clear: the fact that a movie fails the test doesn't mean isn't feminist, or that it's a bad movie, for that matter. Great films with awesome heroines like "Alien" don't pass it, yet, traditionalist, ol' fashioned in gender stereotypes ones like "The Sleeping Beauty" or "Cinderella" DO.

I actually admire Disney but..she won't be the face of feminism any time soon, isn't she?

And the point isn't to force female characters where shouldn't be logical or accurate (like a war film scenario where and when only men were allowed to be). Heck, maybe you could say that this isn't really against movies...at an individual level. Several of my favorite movies fail this little test, yet, while I do acknolewedge the need of change, that doesn't mean I can still apreciate the stories I know and love.

You're safe, Toto and Alfredo...you had me at...well, the whole FREAKIN' PLOT *-*

However, it does say something about us and we way we produce and perceive media. The fact that the great majority of movies can't success on such a (aparently) simple criteria isn't a criticism against one or two of them, but as the media as a whole. Why it is so hard for writers, directors and producers? It's hard do point out a single cause, since usually the fiction a society produces is a reflection of that society.

For the better or the worse...

It is true that there have been really great advances in gender equality , and that we're surely improving day by day, month by month, year by year, yet there's still plenty of work to do, as much in real life as in fiction. It seems that the old school "machismo" is mostly gone, but instead of having true balance, we're dealing now with some sort of "soft sexism": one concept that doesn't deny the fact that female characters exist and are competent, but still makes them "peripherical" to men and his interests and pursuits instead of follow the ones they really want.

But I don't want to sound too extreme or too political. I, for one, an amateur writer (trying to make my way to professionalism), applied the test for my own work. One of my books, "El Club de Hopewell" (The Hopewell Club; a teen comedy) passed the test...the other one, "Conozcan a Josh" (Meet Josh; about the life of a former child star), did not. I think the best way to deal with female characters is...not to make a big deal: you know, threat them and write them with her own dreams, fears, strenghts and flaws...like (wait for it), ANY OTHER CHARACTER.

We'll see more of female archetypes in the near future. For now, go, think on your favorite films, and put them to the test...let's see how many of them succeed.

Shalom comrades.