All this from one little sarcastic cartoon of two women discussing movies and one saying "I'd like to see a film where two women discuss something other than men ..."
I think that's a pretty ambiguous statement, but in either case it's not relevant to the Bechdel test. The women who interact don't have to be main characters by any means, nor do they need to have any real impact on the storyline. That's why it's so frightening that so many books and movies don't pass. Edit: Just realised you're talkinga bout the Mako Mori now. Anyway, your clear statement is certainly no clearer for me! I don't see how your example could not be one of supporting the male's story, since her call is simply a catalyst for things to happen to him. I don't know, it's all pretty simple to me.
Well, it's better than trying to decide what counts as "supporting." But yeah, it doesn't require female main characters. Just that they are seen talking. I am wondering how Strange Days could pass, since I decide to go with only Isaiah scenes because it's less of a character drama and more of thematic journey. I presume it will eventually but I haven't imagined any scenes yet that do...
The cartoon isn't actually what caused any of this. What caused this was the fact that there weren't any scenes like that in the vast majority of published stories, despite it being stupidly easy to write one, which raises the question of why the vast majority of published stories go out of their way to fail. In my Doctor Who fanfic, I passed the test within the first 2,000 words. In my new Urban Fantasy WIP, I only have one male POV character (whereas my DW story has 5 POV characters and started with my two females for the first chapter), and I still managed to pass the test in the first 10,000 words. In my 3 short stories, I passed the test in both of the 5,000 word stories written from female POVs, and only failed in the 3,500 word story written from a male POV. This is a stupidly easy test to pass, and the vast majority still go out of their way to fail. I'm not going to apologize for my unwillingness to put in the required conscious effort to fail as consistently as almost everybody else does.
The rules, if you want to call them that, are quite clear. 1. At least two women. 2. That talk to each other. 3. About something other than men. So you could have a conversation about the color of tampax packets and pass. The confusion comes when people start to interpret each rule. Should the characters be named or does an un-named passer by count? What if one of the women is an alien? What if they talk via a third person? What if they are talking about a man's work, but not about the man? What if they are discussing a boy rather than a man? (Harry Potter) What if one of the characters is a robot? That last one by the way, Gypsy Danger, the name of the robot Mako and Raleigh pilot, has a female name and a female voice, which no doubt, Mako converses with, I believe she also converses with the female pilot, Lt. A. Kaidanovsky. And, (although I'm not totally sure about this one,) wasn't there a flash back showing Mako with her parents that may have had her speaking to her mother ...? (must get the DVD off the shelf and watch it again) So maybe the whole argument is too centered on our interpretations of the so called rules.
I do find it odd that the people in the thread opposed to the test for whatever reason are the ones who find the test unclear. Those who don't have a problem with the test also don't have a problem understanding it. Interesting.
Yep. Thing about people. No matter how strict you make it, unless you lay out every single example that qualifies then people will find a way to debate over what fits particular wordings of any definition.
Simplifying a little. I have both supported and questioned the test. And find it both clear and debatable at the same time, depending on what aspect you look at in that the main three are easy but the finer details are not agreed on. I do think that's kind of the point though. One of the main reasons you might be skeptical is fiddlyness. I think that's a third of the complaint.
By this logic if all DC and Marvel comic superheroes were men you wouldn't notice the problem there. I would say you might want to reconsider what you think the Bechdel test is actually about.
Yeah, that's one reason arguing over technicalities about what counts or doesn't misses the point entirely. Even when taking the broadest possible view, erring on the side of saying a work passes, a great number of works do not. As for agents or publishers wanting work that passes - they're private entities who get to decide what kind of work they want to deal in. If a publication wants to publish only equine unicorn-fantasy porn featuring Shetland ponies with prosthetic horns, they can publish that. If someone wants to adopt a much broader category limiting only by something easy like the Bechdel test, they can do that too. And no, the Bechdel test is not predictive or restrictive when it comes to good stories. We all realize there are good stories that won't pass and wherein that's not an issue.
I would think agents and publishers are looking for work that fits the markets they sell to. Harlequin is not looking for War of the Worlds. If an agency is looking for work that expands female characters, it's almost certainly because that is what the readers are looking for.
I agree with your first and last two points. That some people don't understand what is being measured doesn't mean the results aren't clear and measurable, it means some people don't understand what is being measured.
There are a few things like this, as soon as things like racism or sexism are addressed, there will be people who view the matter from extreme POVs even when that is not the case. The Bechdel test becomes about feminist activists when in reality it was just a tool to show something that was otherwise invisible.
Bingo. You can make the test as stupidly easy as possible short of it being simply "You Pass," and the vast majority of works will still invent ridiculous excuses for going out of their way to fail. Sounds like a big part of feminism to me
I keep returning to Orphan Black. Even though they're primarily statistical tools, the Bechdel test and the reverse Bechdel test are useful for "seeing" just how very female-focused that single work is. It's exploding with Bechdel-passing moments; rather than evaluating whether it has any such moments, the temptation is to calculate what percentage of the conversations don't pass Bechdel. I'd guess that more than half of them do pass, while very few, possibly zero, conversations pass reverse Bechdel. I count Tony as a man for purposes of reverse Bechdel, so I'd say that it does pass, but it's a narrow squeak, because most of the Tony/Felix conversation is still about women. (Hmm. This past season, there's more time with Felix and Donny. I'll have to see if they ever talk about anything but women.) (OK, there's the time that Art shows up with coffee and Felix says, "You're already the best date I ever had," but I think that Art talks about Sarah immediately before and immediately after that remark, and he's there and bringing the coffee due to something about Sarah. So that's a Bechdel-passing exchange, but I don't think I could call it a conversation.) And that could be the sort of thing that that agency is doing: If they want female-focused stories, but there's not even one Bechdel-passing moment...there's a really good chance that the story is not one that they want. Sure, there are plenty of stories with a single important strong complex etc. female character in a male world. But if they don't want those stories, they don't want those stories. If they want stories where not just one character, but the world, strongly represents the existence of women, then a Bechdel-failing work is not likely to be what they want. It might be great, just as an historical novel might be great. That doesn't mean that a house that focuses on science fiction wants that historical novel.
Importance and extremism are not the same. I'm very big on visibility. When my two fiction novels are finished I plan to write the real history of nursing, showing the accomplishments of one of the most invisible professions. Yes, everyone knows about the caring nurse, but to this day far too many people don't know nursing is an independent profession, not made up of women who are there to carry out doctors' orders. I consider myself a feminist. Yet I disagree with a group of feminists I consider extreme. (Google Elevatorgate to get a glimpse into that can of worms.) On the other hand, some of us have been cautioned not to use the word, feminist, because it's interpreted to be some extreme version of believing women have yet to reach gender parity in this society. Mention that an underlying current of sexism colors how Clinton is perceived or that an underlying current of racism colors how Obama is perceived and you'll get immediate backlash for accusing people of being sexist or racist. It's either all of none, and depending on your side of the fence, truth or bullshit. I thought the Bechdel test was incredible when it was introduced. The results were shocking. Looking back at the last couple years of Bechdel analysis, it has had a positive effect. The top box office movies are not one sided. But look at some reactions to the test: It's unfair, it's forcing authors to write things they don't want to write; you name the complaint and you can probably find people making it. So are they threatened by a measure that simply makes the invisible, visible? Why the reaction to something so benign? Why the negative reaction to admitting our society is not free of sexism? Why is simply describing elements of that underlying sexism seen as radical? So, yes, it's definitely about feminism. I am a feminist. I will fight battles I think further the cause of feminism. But I am not an extremist for holding that position. I can point people to the extremists if they have questions about the difference. And in that sense, Bechdel is merely a tool bringing something to light. It's not an activist method forcing feminism down anyone's throats.
@GingerCoffee Fair enough. [RANT]I've just always felt that if a large number of good people shouldn't use labels because a small number of people misuse those same labels, then good people would never be able to use labels. Should the people who opposed slavery in the 1860s have not called themselves "Abolitionists" because John Brown was an axe-murdering Abolitionist, and people didn't want to shove the word "abolitionism" down anybody's throats for fear of being seen as axe-murderers? Should the people who don't believe in a God or gods not be expected to call themselves "Atheists" because Joseph Stalin murdered tens of millions of people in the name of an Atheist philosophy, and they don't want to shove the word "atheism" down anybody's throats for fear of being seen as mass-murdering totalitarians?[/RANT] By the way, do you ever watch Doctor Who? Rory Williams from seasons 5-7 was one of the most popular characters in the new series, and it was as much because he was shown to be a capable nurse - from beginning to end, if not always as frequently as I would've liked - as it was because he eventually became more and more action-hero as the seasons went on. He was also notorious for not letting The Doctor boss him around
I actually just went on Google to show you some links, but according to http://bechdeltest.com/statistics/ : 3865 of the 6686 movies they've collected (57.8%) pass the complete test. And that includes all the years where every movie failed: the 2010s more specifically look closer to the 60-65% range Huh. ... OK, a 35-40% failure rate is still absurdly high for a test that "Jane asking the waitress for a glass of water" would pass, but yeah, turns out that 35-40% does not actually refer to a "vast majority" under most systems of base-10 arithmetic