Yeah, Reelya was just trying to present how the author could be wrong within her own logic.
That it was a protagonist focused storylines that could be resulting.
That's exactly what i was saying, and i even admitted that there being too many males as protagonists itself was an issue - but a separate issue than the bechdel thing. Some of the things I've written in this batch of posts include:
"I always thought it was passive sexism" - clearly i'm admitting there are sexism issues here, ok???
"It's much more likely a by-product of the way scripts and characters are crafted " <= this is more structural issues I was alluding to, remember it was in response to the claim that execs specifically sit down to chop scenes that pass the bechdel test, PURELY because they pass the bechdel test.
"Makes me feel that the criticisms were actually about keeping the narrative focused on the protagonist, and the "talk about the men" bit is more a consequence of the mostly-male leads, and teaching the young writers to keep the narrative focused on the protagonist's story." <= here, i'm saying that the focus on a single protagonist (a structural issue) combined with most protagonists being male (this is the sexism I was alluding to), and villains probably, combine to cause many movies to fail the bechdel test. what makes it "passive sexism" is that failing the bechdel test isn't some conscious conspiracy to prevent females chatting on screen, but an indirect consequence of the other factors.
"Sure, there are issues". Nowhere did i state approval of the excess of male leads in film.
Vector chose to take that all out of context and paint me as a frothing anti-female-protagonist neanderthal, and draw a long line to a bunch of conclusions that are not even hinted at in anything I've written. The need to cartoonishly demonize anyone who "thinks out of line" is a worrying trend, that people have to express "group think" or they're ideologically suspect.