Haddayr, I think you're reading a dogmatism into the tests that is not intended... at least not by me, and I don't think by their authors either. They are both originally presented in a relatively tongue-in-cheek fashion (let's just have popcorn at home!) and certainly no one has suggested, you know, a boycott or anything (even the original cartoon character is merely expressing a personal aversion).
They're funny, acerbically funny, precisely because the bar is so low: DTWOF is ONE conversation not about a man ANYWHERE in a film between ANY two women. FTM asks for at least as many non-prostitutes as prostitutes in the oeuvre of a given author. The result of the failing the tests, as shown on the FMT link, is not "bad nonfeminist author who shall be reviled forever". It is "WTF?" It seems to me that "WTF?" is a useful reaction.
I, at any rate, am not suggesting that every story, or every author, should pass these tests even in an ideal world. I don't think "The Old Man and the Sea" or Chabon's "Gentlemen of the Road" or many a grim-jawed 1940s war movie would be strengthened by the inclusion of conversations sufficient to pass DTWOF. And certainly I would be against a roving vigilante squad (real or internalized) which pops up over authors shoulders to cavil "have you included your two women talking about something other than a man?" like a Victorian governess demanding you take your cod liver oil. No one would want, I trust, to saddle Patrick O'Brian, say, with the requirement of passing either test.
Nonetheless, I'm not crazy about living in a world in which the vast majority of the fiction sidelines women. And I learned in software that you get what you measure. It is very easy to go on blithely failing to change, or to address, or to notice things that you have no metric for.
If I had been writing stories set in Nelson's navy or among inquisitive medieval monks or in 1950s boardrooms, stories grappling with what happens to men when they are exluded from the company of women, or even just retro-pulp boys' adventure tales, then those stories failing DTWOF would come as no surprise and would be no cause for concern. If I knew, as a matter of self-knowledge, that I found women alien and mysterious and that I was no great shakes at writing them and thus tended to make characters male whenever possible for my own convenience, there would similarly be no surprise.
What's interesting about the tests is not whether a work passes them, but whether that information is new. The interesting thing is that I, as an explicitly feminist author, setting stories exclusively in contexts where a multiplicity of genders are present, writing often with a feminist agenda, and flattering myself personally that I understand women as well as men, still write a plurality of androcentric stories. What's interesting about this is not that it's somehow damning about my character (because it's not), but that it makes visible the cultural pull.
In software, we make schedules. Now, there are always tiresome engineers who resist ever giving an estimate of how long things will take, and tiresome project managers who, an estimate having been given, act with shock, dismay and moralizing drama if the estimate turns out to have been wrong. But the point, as I always say, of a schedule, is not that you are a bad person if you fail to stick to it, or that it somehow guarantees or even really promises anything to anyone. The point is that it captures your expectations, so that you know when the universe turns out to differ from them. The point is that it promptly makes visible the consequences of a divergence from expectations, and allows you to understand the impact.
The engineers who resist scheduling with both hands and both feet are mistaking (or correctly assuming their project managers mistake) a diagnostic tool for the creation of an enforceable law. I think that (colored by your disenchantment with feminism in our current primary season), you are making a similar mistake.
As far as the whiteness of feminism: sure. Lord knows many feminists run around exercising pukeloads of white privilege. But there's a funny thing about a privileged group that, oppressed even temporarily in some regard, develops or adopts an ideology of liberation, which is that, like the slaveholders of the American colonies in 1776, they change from being mere possessors of power to being hypocrites. And it is precisely that hypocrisy which holds the seeds of redemption.
Freedom is like that. In the process of developing tools to free yourself from what's keeping you down, you inevitably make those tools available to everyone else -- even those who you might prefer would refrain from using them just yet. Thus, I think you can also use these idea of applying rigorous quantitative diagnostics to stories -- just to see where you are -- to other issues than gender. Feminism at its best uses gender issues to develop tools of general liberation, and that, in my view, is actually a useful thing to do with white privilege.