Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ryanjacobberger, Jaquelinramos16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ehatcher. Peer reviewers: Elinafelt, Thesaramarie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sejone13. Peer reviewers: Zcrow16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcaff1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2018 and 11 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MikeMovie98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shan24680.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! I found this to be an interesting start to a good page. There is not much information on the page because Im assuming it is new but it seems very informative and neutral in tone which is good. I was able to check some of the sources and I did cross reference some of your sources. This page has a lot of potential especially since there is not much out there about it. I am interested in seeing what else will be added. -Jackie 173.244.12.142 (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

173.244.12.142 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquelinramos16 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC) 

Thank you for saying that it's starting off well, and I agree that there's lots of room for improvement. Someone brought up the Institute in an unrelated discussion, and I suggested that she create an article about it. She declined, saying she was too busy. I became interested and created it myself, but I don't know much about the topic. I thought about asking for help in expanding it, but I eventually got sidetracked by other stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

This is a good beginning to an article. Although there is not much to go on for right now you stick to the facts and keep a neutral tone that's awesome! You did a great job with referencing nearly everything that you have stated so far in your article. There is a lot more that can be put into this article for instance what specific studies does this organization do? The links below are just two studies that the Geena Davis Institute were involved in on gender in the media.

• https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/full-study-gender-roles-and-occupations-v2.pdf
• https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b6e2/7ea50c4902d0a952d1ac340c3a8a635d8fbc.pdf

Ryanjacobberger (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Most of this article is cited sentence by sentence from twenty-three direct sources, talking about the foundation, and the studies of female leads in media.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

They come multiple websites that include sources from vulture and The Guardian, and also it has trade publications like Variety. Sites that give interviews with Davis, the actress and founder of the institute tend to align more on her views and goals of achieving more awareness to sexism, and imbalanced roles which are of the women gender in all types of media, especially ones that are made for children.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? What perspectives are missing?

It tends to be, but the article I felt has one big factor of distress in its is information that tends to range from all over the place. Like I tend to think that the information gathered from this article didn’t at all succeed into thinking of Geena Davis herself, this is a big hole of itself that none of this article has no mention of her acting and her prior contribution to the roles of what the company stands for. Davis is an accomplished Oscar-winning actress. She starred in what some view as to be one of the most durable and most iconic works of film, and Feminism, Ridley Scott’s Thelma and Louise, for which she co-starred with Susan Sarandon. The whole foundation of itself built on improving the strong bias of Hollywood that women have to face due to the ways of how females tend to not get as many offers for a leading role in a film. The whole of the article is neutral, but the subject matter surrounding can optionally; be viewed as not being so due to how you see how Hollywood works as a whole. The goal of this foundation and in the article states that there are more roles featuring leads that are females than ever. Where are the examples? Jennifer Garner (Peppermint), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born), Meryl Streep(The Post), Julia Roberts (Ben is Back), Reese Witherspoon (A Wrinkle in Time), Jennifer Lopez (Second Act), are all not where to be found with their contributions in recent years of being in theatrically released movies that have a female in the lead.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? I feel that the statistics in the article under the important studies part, itself isn’t as strong as it should be, and there is a lot that can be added to that particular issue. For example, this article feels like it hasn’t been edited in such a long time that it doesn’t even talk about the Hollywood gender wage pay gap between female and male actors. Especially when actress Jennifer Lawrence brought up this issue, which brought it into the mainstream news in 2015 when she addressed this issue head-on. Lastly, I feel that the article gives off examples of movies that are from a couple of years ago (circa 2012), and it would fit better if we’ve added more modern examples of Hollywood films that have female leads.

Contribution

Hi I'm looking for feedback on this potential contribution.

Mendick discusses in her article the ways in which men and women are represented in science and engineering fields online. Her article focuses on the main issues with these fields being male dominating and not as female inclusive, she states one problem is: “scientific and technological knowledge is becoming increasingly crucial to active citizenship, for engaging in issues ranging from climate change to new reproductive technologies.”(1)

In Oggins journal, she explains the lack of representation of women in American Anthologies. She states, “Congruent with a norm that home is a woman’s domain whereas men’s domain is outside the home, female reporters tend to be assigned to cover local stories (Zoch andTurk1998) on family,education,and health care (Van Zoonen 1998).” (2) Oggin continues to say, “male reporters are more likely to cover state, national and international stories (Zoch and Turk 1998) on finance, the economy, defense, institutional politics, international relations, and justice policy (Van Zoonen 1998).” Because of society’s set gender roles and norms, the issue of misrepresentation in writing for men and women must be addressed.

Simon and Hoyt speak to the impacts of representation of women in media on female viewers. Their journal states, “Geis, Brown, Walstedt, and Porter (1984) found that women who viewed traditional commercials mentioned more homemaking than achievement themes compared to men in the same condition.”(3)

(1)Mendick, Heather, and Marie-Pierre Moreau. "New Media, Old Images: Constructing Online Representations Of Women And Men In Science, Engineering And Technology." Gender & Education 25.3 (2013): 325-339. Academic Search Elite. Web. 1 Dec. 2016.

(2)Oggins, Jean. "Underrepresentation Of Women Writers In Best American Anthologies: The Role Of Writing Genre And Editor Gender." Sex Roles 71.3-4 (2014): 182-195. Academic Search Elite. Web. 3 Dec. 2016.

(3)Simon, Stefanie, and Crystal L. Hoyt. "Exploring The Effect Of Media Images On Women’S Leadership Self-Perceptions And Aspirations." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16.2 (2013): 232-245. Academic Search Elite. Web. 3 Dec. 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielleFiandaca (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My first reaction when I read that is, "Who is Mendick?" It assumes a familiarity with the source material that probably doesn't exist. I did the same thing after writing a different Wikipedia article. After reading many articles in academic journals, each of which was written by the same few academics, I felt like I knew each professor personally. This bled into my writing a bit, and I forgot to introduce who they are. It doesn't have to be fancy; just say, "Academic X of University Y says". Second, I haven't read the cited articles (I have access to JSTOR, so I'm hoping they're archived there), but this doesn't seem to directly tie into the Geena Davis Institute. It seems more about gender representation in general, which is more applicable to another article. Can you tie it directly to the Geena Davis Institute? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

history

1: Geena Davis: she became inspired base on the picture she printed on her head. born January 21 1956, the inspired of the lack of women not being put in the media for different characters beside, sexual, the involes the sale of sex for cash. inspired her to become a film producer, by this she could inspired other females, see them self and become what ever they want too. 1:@ https: seejane.org/ 2: Tasker, Yvonne. Working Girls, edited by Yvonne Tasker, Taylor and Francis, 1998. ProQuest Ebook Central, ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/buffalo/detail.action?docID=170428. 2: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheumegn (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

mission

3:she believe that women should have equal representation in the film. base on her own research she take a statistics wat to have the film industry by inspiring them that women can do anything. by creating a children enterainment. 4: https:amysmartgirls.com smart-girls-understand-geena-davis-institute-on-gender-in-media-913d91dc57b6 also her mission was so make people see that women are not just sex objects, and show not be harass , abuse, violence, cyber sexism is rampart @Poland, Bailey. Haters, edited by Bailey Poland, Potomac Books, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http: ebookcentral.proquest.com lib/buffalo/detail.action?docID=4690661.

research

she not only inspired, females every way in the world, but also have accomplish a lot, for example, make women tough, popular, in this culture. helping them escape the traditional gender role expectations, even stereotypes. @ Inness, Sherrie A.. Action Chicks, edited by Sherrie A. Inness, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http: ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/buffalo/detail.action?docID=307560.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheumegn (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC) 

Feedback

As an assignment for my Media Literacy class, I am providing feedback on this article.

Each fact appearing in the article is from an appropriate and reliable reference as all of the sources used are news organizations or credible media outlets. While there were two instances where the official website was cited as the source, the information provided was purely factual as it provided the location of the headquarters, the CEO of the organization and the research results. Almost all of the citation links are properly working, except citation link number 26 which leads to the main page of the official Arkansas Tourism website instead of the article. Also, while there is an article documented for citation 5, the link to the article is missing. After comparing the wording of the article with the text in the articles, I could not find any close paraphrasing or plagiarism.

All the information comes from established news outlets or other official websites. The one source that could be considered biased is the Geena Davis Institute which is used in a few citations. However, the information coming from the official website is about the organization’s location and the research studies that the institute conducted.

All of the information is relevant to the article topic and provides important information and context about the organization. Also, the article is written from a neutral perspective, only provided fact-based information about the organization. There are no biases towards a particular position and no perspectives missing from this article.

While the information is not out of date, the last study mentioned in the “Significant studies” section was from 2016. The institution conducted multiple significant studies since then including a study about gender and race representation in top 2017 films and another one on the representation of STEM women in media. Shan24680 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Contribution

Hello, I'm looking for feedback on this potential contribution.

In partnership with the Lyda Hill Foundation, the institute released a 2018 study of the media representation of female characters in the science, technology, engineering and math career fields. The study showed that men depicted 62.3% of all STEM characters, while women accounted for 37.1%. (1) In a survey of girls and young women, the majority of participants acknowledged the impact of female STEM characters in the media. (2) Particularly influential characters were April Sexton (Chicago Med), Addison Montgomery (Private Practice) and Temperance Brennan (Bones). (3) In addition, the study revealed that female STEM mentors as well as personal connections to female STEM professionals and supportiveness contribute to more girls choosing a career in the field. (4)

(1) ("Portray Her:". See Jane. Retrieved 2019-02-28.)

(2) (Marotti, Ally. "Men outnumber women nearly 2-to-1 in STEM roles on TV and in movies. That may discourage girls from tech careers". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2019-02-28.)

(3) (Hill, Catey. "12 badass characters that inspire girls to get into STEM". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2019-02-28.)

(4) (Mullen, Caitlin. “https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2018/10/too-few-women-in-on-screen-stem-roles.html?page=all”. bizjournals.com Retrieved 2019-02-28.) Shan24680 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Work place harassment service industry

Want to know an untold story of how to survive the pandemic as a single mother and in the service industry 2601:240:4500:C0D0:212F:DFEA:85B3:64FA (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of undisclosed payments

On 21 February 2023, this article was marked by User:Viewmont Viking as "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" using template Undisclosed paid, with the edit summary "Paid editing". This is a serious accusation which requires a discussion on the Talk page. Every page can be improved, but I do not see any obvious signs of paid editing. I am removing the Undisclosed paid flag until the accusation has been explained here with specific points for attention. Masato.harada (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft review

Hello, I'm posting this request as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of the Geena Davis Institute. I've declared my conflict of interest here and on my User page and will not make direct changes.

Request: Review my drafted rewrite of this article and provide feedback or implement if appropriate. Typically, I would not post a full rewrite in a single request. In this case, however, it seemed most logical to show a full picture of the changes I'm proposing. The link above is a diff between my draft and the current article.

Reasons:

• The Research impact and Significant studies sections are similar in content type and could be combined.
• The Current partnerships section should be changed to be past-tense and also overly detailed.
• The organization has dropped "on Gender in Media" from its name.
• Significant portions of text rely on the organization's own reports for verification.

In my draft, I've reworked the organization to group like-content together. I have also made changes to the text and added information based on what's received the most coverage in secondary news sources, rather than the organization's own reports. I think this gives a better picture of the institute overall from a third-party perspective, and will be more accessible for readers and easier for editors to maintain going forward.

Please feel free to leave feedback here or on my draft's Talk page. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction changes

Hi editors, as part of my work for Beutler Ink on behalf of the Geena Davis Institute, I'm proposing the following change to the introduction:

Extended content

− After watching children's TV with her young daughter, Geena Davis noticed that the large majority of these television shows and other media lacked a large number of female characters. + The Geena Davis Institute (GDI) was founded in 2004 by [[Geena Davis]]. She founded the Institute to gather data on gender representation in media after noticing an imbalance in the representation of male and female characters in children's television while her daughter was a toddler. GDI later expanded its research to include other types of representation, including by [[sexual orientation]], [[disability]], age and body type. GDI was founded in 2004 by Geena Davis. She founded the Institute to gather data on gender representation in media after noticing an imbalance in the representation of male and female characters in children's television while her daughter was a toddler. GDI later expanded its research to include other types of representation, including by sexual orientation, disability, age and body type. References

Reason: I think this clearly establishes a timeline for the creation of the Institute and explains why it was made in a more encyclopedic manner. It also sticks more closely to the source's explanation for the Institute's founding.

In the Draft review section above, I've posted links to my full draft if anyone would like to see all my proposed changes together in context. I'll be splitting that draft into smaller requests for ease of review.

Please let me know if there are any questions. Cheers BINK Robin (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: thanks! If you're interested in continuing to work through the article with me, I've posted a new request below. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

History update 2

Hi editors, continuing with the update requests based on my draft, for my next request I suggest changing the second paragraph to focus more on the history of the organization rather than the studies linked, and removing the now redundant reference to the founding. I did not include study findings because in my draft, I've moved information about studies and findings to a "Research, advocacy, and impact" section, and focused on those that received the most secondary news coverage.

With that in mind, I propose adding a sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the History section and changing the second paragraph to the following:

Extended content

− GDI was founded in 2004 by [[Geena Davis]]. She founded the Institute to gather data on gender representation in media after noticing an imbalance in the representation of male and female characters in children's television while her daughter was a toddler. GDI later expanded its research to include other types of representation, including [[gender identity]], [[sexual orientation]], [[disability]], age and body type. Davis sponsored research on this type of entertainment, conducted by Stacy L. Smith at [[USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism|USC's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism]]. One study by Smith found that three times as many males as females appeared in children's films while in children's television 1.67 males appeared for every 1 female. Another research study from Smith's group showed that in G-rated films, characters in the workplace were 80.5% male and only 19.5% female. In other research sponsored by the Institute and conducted by Smith on 122 "[[Motion Picture Association of America film rating system|G, PG, and PG-13 films]] theatrically-released between 2006 and 2009,” “only 29.2% of all speaking characters are female,” and these women are more sexualized than the men. As “children are engaging with media up to 7–10 hours/day,” the representation of women in children's television shows and films has a major impact on how young girls believe they should act and how they view themselves. Davis subsequently founded the eponymous Institute in 2004. + GDI was founded in 2004 by [[Geena Davis]]. She founded the Institute to gather data on gender representation in media after noticing an imbalance in the representation of male and female characters in children's television while her daughter was a toddler. GDI later expanded its research to include other types of representation, including [[gender identity]], [[sexual orientation]], [[disability]], age and body type. Davis' operating assumption was that more data was needed to effect change and generate more equal representation. In 2010, GDI and the [[Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Foundation]] partnered to create an award presented at the [[Emmy_Awards#Student|College Television Awards]], recognizing student productions for displays of diversity and [[gender equality]] in their work. The winner also receives <span style="white-space: nowrap">US$</span>5,000. The organization worked with [[Ford Motor Company]] in 2017 to create a video series called #ShesGotDrive, which aimed to "(challenge) stereotypes in media targeted at children". GDI received a [[Governors Awards|Governors Award]] in 2022 from the [[Academy of Television Arts & Sciences]] for its efforts to improve equal gender representation in entertainment. Fully rendered, it looks like this: GDI was founded in 2004 by Geena Davis. She founded the Institute to gather data on gender representation in media after noticing an imbalance in the representation of male and female characters in children's television while her daughter was a toddler. GDI later expanded its research to include other types of representation, including by sexual orientation, disability, age and body type. Davis' operating assumption was that more data was needed to effect change and generate more equal representation. In 2010, GDI and the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Foundation partnered to create an award presented at the College Television Awards, recognizing student productions for displays of diversity and gender equality in their work. The winner also receives US$5,000. The organization worked with Ford Motor Company in 2017 to create a video series called #ShesGotDrive, which aimed to "(challenge) stereotypes in media targeted at children". GDI received a Governors Award in 2022 from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences for its efforts to improve equal gender representation in entertainment. References

Please let me know what you think. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Thanks for reviewing and implementing! I'm dropping the next request below and welcome your continued collaboration if you're interested. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Request 3: Research impact, Current partnerships, and Significant studies consolidation

Hello, now that the History section is cleaned up, I'd like to propose consolidating the Research impact, Current partnerships, and Significant studies sections into one smaller section titled Research, advocacy and impact. The reasons are:

• These sections largely include similar types of information.
• Current partnerships is not an appropriate section title because of the potential for content to be out of date and therefore misleading.
• The information in the current sections is overly detailed, a good deal of which might be more suitable to other articles.

Like with the History section changes, I've rewritten this to focus on what received the most secondary coverage. Below is my proposed replacement.

Extended content

Research, advocacy, and impact GDI publishes annual research on the representation of various groups in media. Topics have included general representation of male and female characters in media, occupational surveys of characters, and speaking roles of male and female characters. In 2012, GDI received a US$1.2 million grant from Google. The same year, the organization released the Geena Davis Inclusion Quotient video and sound recognition software with algorithms that identify the gender and screentime of characters in media. While examining films released in 2014 and 2015, the software found male characters were present on screen approximately twice as often as female characters. By 2019, the software found that gender representation in children's television was approximately equal, with female roles slightly exceeding male roles. GDI launched the Global Symposium on Gender in Media internationally in 2015 at the BFI London Film Festival. In 2017, 21st Century Fox commissioned GDI to research The Scully Effect. The organization found that 63 percent of women in STEM fields attributed their career to The X-Files character Dana Scully. The following year, GDI and the Lyda Hill Foundation conducted a study on representation of women in STEM careers in media. They found representation of men in STEM fields was approximately double that of women, and that this imbalance in representation may discourage girls from pursuing STEM careers. GDI and the University of Southern California's Signal Analysis and Interpretation Laboratory partnered to create Spellcheck for Bias, artificial intelligence software that analyzes screenplays for "stereotypes and other problematic choices", including gender, race, disability status, and sexual orientation. Disney began using the software in 2019 to examine gender representation in its productions and Universal Filmed Entertainment Group began using it in 2020 to identify representation of Latinx characters in its productions. After seeing the results of a survey conducted by GDI and commissioned by The Lego Group (TLG), TLG announced in 2021 changes to its toy lineup to remove gender stereotypes. GDI, Rose Pictures, and Besties Make Movies partnered to create the documentary Nothing Fits, announced in 2023. The film will analyze the intersection of media, the fashion industry, and body image. The same year, it was announced that GDI would co-produce a Canadian adaptation of the documentary This Changes Everything. References Note: Sources 2 and 3 ("Variety4" and "NYT2") are already named in the live article, I've just included them here for visibility.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for reviewing! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Done! Solidly improves the page, thank you. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Likeanechointheforest: Thanks so much! Really appreciate the time you've put into these reviews and moving content over. I have a few more miscellaneous changes to wrap thing ups, posted below if you're up to take a look. Cheers! BINK Robin (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: general changes

Hi editors, for my final request, I have three suggestions. First, in the Overview section, I suggest adding a short section for operational details, titled "Operations" with the following content:

Extended content

GDI is a nonprofit organization based in Marina del Rey, California, led by President and Chief Executive Officer Madeline Di Nonno and chaired by Davis. It operates on a philosophy of gathering and sharing data instead of blaming studios for lack of equal representation in an effort to effect change. References Note: the missing references are the Washington Post and NYT sources already cited in the article.

Second, I suggest moving the page to "Geena Davis Institute" as that is the name currently used by the organization as demonstrated by their website.

Finally, I suggest removing the Bentonville Film Festival section. GDI was not involved in the film festival. Geena Davis was involved in its founding, but GDI did not play a part in it.

Please let me know what you think! Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with you about removing the film festival section. I'd love to hear other editors' thoughts about the move! Done, otherwise! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)