Geena Davis was quite certain that there weren't enough roles for women in film and was tired of getting poo-pooed by studio executives who denied that there was a problem. So, she sponsored her own academic study and found that her suspicions were correct.
So, Davis set out to find data. She founded the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media in 2006 and sponsored an academic study — enlisting professors at the U.S.C. Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism to analyze the content of 101 children’s movies released between 1990 and 2004. Last year she followed up with an analysis of films from 2004 to 2009. Both reached the same conclusions. Of the 5,554 speaking characters studied, 71 percent were male and 29 percent were female. That’s a 2.42 to 1 ratio, which has not changed much in 20 years.
Not only were female leads in short supply, researchers found, but in crowd scenes and group scenes only 17 percent of characters were women. In addition, female characters were far more likely to be “hypersexualized” — 25 percent were wearing tight , provocative, revealing clothing, compared with four percent of males — and physically attractive (14 percent versus. 3.6 percent). The female characters were younger than their male counterparts, and the sole goal of the females was usually to find romance. Not one of the animated female characters had a shape that was possible in real life.
Women only compose 17 percent of characters in group scenes. What?? We can't even mill about mindlessly in the background of a shot? That's just crazy.
My buddy, Erin, (Marketing, Media, and Childhood) attended the SPARK conference in New York a few weeks ago. Davis was the keynote speaker; Erin was very impressed with her. Here's her blog post about the event. While you're there, read Erin's post about gendered toys.
Apt. 11d 
AWESOME!!! That’s basically what I did in my dissertation. Counted how many women writers from Brazil were translated into English, and then, counted, as best as I could, how many women writers were published there in the first place. I think my results are very unique (publication rate in Brazil from the 16th century to today — 16%, very close to percentage of women in scenes). Nobody CARES for the work I did, though. And I’m not rich and famous, so I cannot just find a way to make my findings well known if the academics don’t really care for them.
My idea was that quantitative studies should be made of everything gender related (particularly in literature) — since some people argue that we’re in a post-feminist world. Has anyone bothered to find out exactly how many women write books as opposed to men, over time? I wrote a research proposal for that, for a fellowship at Penn. There were 350 other people competing for 5 slots so I obviously didn’t get in, but I knew I wouldn’t, from all the blank stares I’d been getting at conference presentations (big conferences, international conferences in my discipline, presenting next to the Princeton dept. chair).
Anyway… COOL. I should go try and find myself a sponsor so I could continue my research. I do want to create a website to put all my data out there… but it would be nice if I had some kind of academic affiliation first. Maybe in a couple of years.
Sorry for the long comment, but as an academic (and one who cares for gender issues), I’m sure you’ll understand my frustration. Thanks for the post.
LikeLike