A.M.P has an excellent point. Many stories are romance based, which won't do anything to pass the bechdel test. Let's look at a few other very popular subjects in film. War, violence, and politics. At least in U.S, women have never been forced to fight, so it's not so shocking to see depictions of war lack female roles that don't include men. Many feminists, including some on this very forum, have defended the draft excluding women by pointing out that men have had more roles in politics and are more often more prone to violence than females. Therefore,based on feminists own defenses, I would not be surprised if political situations and violent ones in general failed the bechdel test. This in no way accounts for all films, but I think it does for a lot. Then we have to consider all the chick flick romances, which may not pass the bechdel test, but are certainty not geared toward men. Of course, the argument there might be, why does a film geared toward women have to revolve around men always, which is a very valid question, and at that point, I'd agree we'd have to look at social conditioning.
Ooh, I see what you mean But no, I didn't mean that way. Although, I do like seeing those kind of chicks. Like the Chief of Police in Futurama But, I meant that I worried little about the fact they have lady bits. If I write a male character, I give him backstory, reasons, beliefs, desires and so on. For the females I do the same. So, I think very little of them as females except when it comes to clothing basically. I don't bother differing my males and females because the only real difference for me would be "Males are less emotional" and "Females are more emotional". I don't believe that to be true 100% of the time so when my female characters flesh out, they sound more like people then girls. I'm sure it's not the perfect or best way to write a female character but it works well enough. Sprinkle in a few girly things and yay! female characters
The visual depictions get especially absurd in gaming and graphic novels, where you see a lot of women with dislocated spines so you get a full on ass and boob shot in the same anatomically comical pose.
Not enough incubi and scantily clad men in chain mail armor. But yes, I am tired of having female tanks wearing bikinis to block dragon breath for me.
I heartily agree. Look, if you can fantasize dragon breath, you can fantasize bikinis that block dragon breath. Right? Right. (I have my best bikini designers working on that right now.)
True but my fantasy worlds require logic and structure. Unless it's a fire shielding bikini made by a critical roll by a wizard, it doesn't make sense! Besides, no self-respecting woman with the skill to take down a dragon would wear so little in the middle of battle. Unless you snuck up on her while she slept.
If you think it just romance that explains the deficit, try reversing it. Find movies that have two or more named males that talk to each other about something other than women. You can even throw in, and don't talk about war and conquering some entity. See what you get. There are a lot of discussions online about the reverse test but I'm not seeing one with an easy list to check. If someone else doesn't find one, I'll try again later.
The problem with discrimination is that actually, most of the time they don't realise it. Talk to a racist, for example - I dare you to find me one racist who'd say, "Yes, I'm a racist." I'm Chinese-born and raised in England, now living in the Czech Republic, I've come across my fair share of racism, and in my experience, even the most educated and actually, non-racist people unwittingly protect racism precisely by ignoring its existence. My own friends dismissing my stories when I tell them there's racism at work, and these are my friends - I mean, people who'd happily be friends with a Chinese immigrant are probably not racist. The scary thing is even these people fall for the trap. I have one Czech student, and she was trying to tell me exactly why it's in a Roma person's nature to steal and commit crime, and when I said that's rather racist, she said she's not racist, it's just a fact. The same sort of lack of awareness in the most educated and actually nicest people can be said of gender discrimination, and others who just outright refuse to acknowledge that they are sexist. The thing is, discrimination has become popularly known as something that is only with a hostile intent, and it's not. It's simply when anything is not treated equally for no good reason. You're right to say that a movie writer should write whatever he/she wants, just as a regular writer should also. I guess the deeper issue is that it's still very deep in our psyche that says, "Men are more interesting/better/more capable" and whatever else. It's not a conscious thing, but that doesn't mean it's not there. (for example, why do we prefer to watch stories about men? Yes, of course there's some personality at play here, but now we're down to the nature/nurture debate and we all know nurture plays as big a role as nature) Gender inequality does exist, and if we don't tackle entertainment and mass media's portrayal of said genders, then we're never gonna make a move on changing it. You're a writer, you know full well that words, and visual arts, DO affect popular opinion and societal opinion, and as such, I can only see the Bechdel test as a very good move forward. It's a simple test and not foolproof at all, but anything that makes people think about gender inequality and how men and women are portrayed is a good thing - by portraying women as equal as men, you are in fact (if done right) also treating men as equals. It's a hard burden to bear to feel as though you have to keep everything running, support everyone who relies on you 100% all the time with no space for failure, to keep all your emotions under the lid and be capable at every physical task. Give some of this responsibility and ability to women, teach men they can rely on women too, and suddenly the load is halved. The point is not to see either gender in absolutes - not ALL men are good at leading, sports, loves adventure, and not ALL women dislike such things, to give a very simple example. Discrimination is, I guess, when you act upon and treat others according to stereotypes. And when all you see are gender stereotypes in movies, that needs to change. Gender stereotypes is not the only stereotype that's still commonly acceptable - watch Rush Hour 3 and you'll see what I'm talking about - but its existence does not make it a good or harmless thing. It shapes the way you see a group of people, and thus affects the way you treat them, and we end up treating each other like caricatures instead of real human beings because we're so wrapped up in what we think we know we're not even willing to think twice about it - worse, don't even realise we needed to.
Well, I'll be honest. I didn't like the list of movies used by the OP. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars....those movies could almost fail a test where two humans share a scene not involving non humans. However, thinking of what I consider to be a very good, very well rounded , new film, Silver Lining's Playbook, I'm not even sure that movie passes the bechdel test (please tell me if I'm wrong.) If it doesn't, I think that's very, very interesting.
I just found this - a documentary exploring how mainstream media under-represent women in positions of power etc: http://film.missrepresentation.org/
I watch movies where the story seems interesting, regardless of the gender of the characters. I write my stories and if a female shows up, she shows up. If my stuff fails the 'test', it's not going to keep me up at night. I just wish writers (and especially women writers) would learn the difference between a strong female character and a bitch. Oh, interesting aside (to me anyway) - a few years ago I attended a panel where women in the movie/TV industries were discussing the lack of female directors, producers, etc. along with this female character bit. They were full of praise for the few women (at that time) who had "fought their way" into their positions. In the next breath, they were whining about not having enough mentors to "help women" get those positions. I found the irony almost suffocating.
I'm not condemning Miley, I like her. But I don't have to agree with her behavior ( I think that's practically a mandatory stance to have for any celebrity ) and if you're looking for women to be taken seriously, she doesn't help any more than Madonna ever did. I don't believe talent ( be they singer, artist or writer ) should ever rely on stunts that goes for man or women. Robin Thicke as her male counterpart for me is far worse for his song - Blurred lines and yet he seems to have flown under the radar. The trouble with him is he's sneaky - he has the nice family, and he himself doesn't do the butt-shaking he pays someone else to do it. He looks the very part of the artist detached from his work. The trouble with Miley and even Madonna both feel like like they're just promoting regressive ( rather than progressive ) behavior - exposing underwear, streaking ( Miley mentioned she wants to get nude for one of her concerts ) picking their crotch when company is present - all toddler behavior. Don't worry the gents have their counterpart in some hair bands - with their crotch thrusting, let's-try-on-mommy's wig hair and obscene hand gestures. Jennifer Lawrence stands up as a better role model. If you want to make role models out of stars. Most don't but it just sort of happens. And though Hunger Games doesn't always have the best ideas ( kids killing one another - in this day and age ), Katniss is a good character for girls to relate to. But it does bear some money-making traits with Twilight ( mainly one plain girl with two guys to pick from ) and one wonders what the book might have been - just the initial book not the sequels - if there had been no romance. What if Peeta had been a girl and the girls had to bond together against the more aggressive males. It certainly would've had some interesting theme possibilities and might've been the first nearly all girl movie that didn't feature a slumber party.
Oh wow, a darker grittier version where the males are creeping around in the night in a blood frenzy, and the lighter but more level headed females have to stick together, find a way to outsmart them. Yes that sounds very watchable
I get what you're saying, you make some good points but the thing is that not having enough women in film is still such a petty and silly problem. I don't understand why waste breath on a "problem" like this. You're a writer, you know full well that words, and visual arts, DO affect popular opinion and societal opinion, and as such, I can only see the Bechdel test as a very good move forward. Yes, books and movies affect popular opinion,etc. but I disagree that not having enough women affects it. There are three reasons in my opinion. 1.) Well first of all, most people don't notice and don't really care if the boss in the movie is a woman or not. It won't change their view on women, because we aren't that dumb. And the people who are that dumb, definately won't notice that the boss is not a woman. 2.)If the boss was a woman and say she was a mean bitch, would we all think now that all women are like that? No, we know its a story. 3.) We see women everyday. If men and women got seperated for 200 years, and all we had of the opposite gender were movies where the women do nothing useful and are just dumb blondes then that is what we would believe and expect. But the truth is we see them everyday, we know what they really are. I'm sure most of us know successful women, who have done great things,etc. Will women being misrepresented in movies suddenly change what you think of her? I don't think so. Also to gingercoffee, as I'm not sure how to multiquote. What does it say? How else do you explain it if it's not saying women don't count? Women rarely count in the historical record, they are absent from so many books and movies that have no reason to leave them out, how do you explain that? Women make up a little more than half the population. How are they missing from so many stories? Why would they be such shallow characters when they do show up that they don't so much as have a conversation with each other except conversations about men? I'm willing to consider your point of view, but it lacks any rationale that I can consider to weigh it's validity. If it were random, it should reflect the gender distribution. If it doesn't then it's not random. If it's not random, what do you think explains it? The reason for movies and books leaving them out for no reason? The reason is that there is no reason to put them in same as there is no reason to put men in. I've got no important female characters in my story. Do you think I think that women don't count? I've never said its random. There are many influences and such but they are not that women don't count. Very little people still believe that, many times women are actually thought to be more valuable than men. Just because they are less represented in movies, there is no proof that it has anything to do with if people think women are important or if it actually makes people think that, and you're just assuming that it does. You're probably never going to get solid proof as it is very much a correlation doesn't equal causation kind of situation. But what my biggest problem with the bechdel test is that people think its important. How is it important? It doesn't hurt you if women are less represented in movies or books, doesn't affect you, doesn't change anything in your life.
I think this is a bit too limiting. Sure, for any given person a sudden change in depictions might have limited effect. Maybe they're already set in their ways. But I think society as a whole, from kids growing up to those already grown, do have attitudes that are shaped over time by such depictions. The under-representation (and/or negative representation when it is there) of women in media, given a society that is so entrenched in media, stands to reason to have an impact over time, and that's what people can try to address, not whether any given person whose mind is made up will be swayed.
And I guess this is generally where we stand on different ground. I believe that pure entertainment (books or movies that don't obviously try to send a message) will not affect society much if at all. I'd rather we focused on more important issues. And I also don't like where the Bechdel test might lead, such as restrictions where stories have to be written with enough female representation or else they won't be allowed to be released. Thats ofcourse just speculation, but I really hope it doesn't come to something like that.
Redreversed - check out the 40's, 50's and 60's if you don't believe there's been agenda's at play. Sounds long ago and the games have been changed a bit but media/movie/art manipulation has always been there. In the 40's because of the war, women had to work the factories. The clothing style changed to smart suits and big shoulder pads to reflect this. Movies featured strong women ( Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Ann Sheridan ) in stronger roles usually as business woman. When the war ended the men had to reclaim the work force. Not an easy task. Suddenly clothing got ultra feminine - long skirts, kid gloves, blouses. And ads pushed the housewife in pearls. Movies focused on suburban life or landing a man and the working woman became practically nil. This all came to a crash in the 60s. But not everything worked out, everything was in flux woman weren't too sure how to represent themselves. And the freedom resulted in a focus on warped sexuality aggressive or juvenile. A good many become either liontamers ( Bridget Bardot ) or lolita's ( also Bridget Bardot. ) Take a good look at any magazine nowadays - all models are airbrushed, this creates faulty expectations, low self esteem, and unreal goals. How in the world can anyone compete? It used to be somewhat easy you bought the lipstick. Nowadays you buy the nosejob. Americans spent 11 billion in plastic surgery in 2012- http://www.naturalnews.com/040164_plastic_surgery_breast_augmentation_botox.html Sounds to me like a lot of people are airbrushing themselves.
But many books and movies do try to send a message. Roddenberry, for example, was very definitely trying to send messages with Star Trek. And I think that fiction is a huge portion of our shared culture. A lot of people who don't pay a bit of attention to news, politics, or other elements of the Real World, do enthusiastically absorb TV, movies, comic books, and books. Whether those works intend to send a message or not, they send one. On the more serious "classic" side, it would be hard to argue that, say, To Kill a Mockingbird has had no influence. On the more popular side, I think that a lot of people have been inspired to enter technical and science careers by science fiction such as Star Trek. Uhura as a black woman on the bridge of a major ship, even if she was in a mini-dress and performing the least military role on that bridge, was not a trivial thing. Fiction has an influence, IMO a huge influence. And as a woman, I see nothing wrong with observing whether fiction depicts women in a realistic and meaningful way. No, of course I wouldn't want to see regulation, either legal regulation or industry regulation that effectively has the force of law. But if orgnaizations opinionate about fiction, and if that opinion has an impact on the financial success of tha fiction, and if that motivates the creators of fiction to incude women in their world in a meaningful way...that's fine with me.
Exactly. And how about the books that don't mean to send a message but do. It's been hinted that Ian Fleming had major issues with his controlling mother. Interesting that the new movies cast M as a woman. Instead of keeping the issues repressed they sneak out and invade his 007 books. Nobody bats an eye cause it's cheesy entertainment. And his jaundice view of women suddenly becomes in vogue. I'm not saying avoid 007, just be aware of what's going on. Too many people dismiss things as Great! without really turning it around looking at it from all angles and seeing author/singer/artist intent or just plain fiction/song/movie intent.
I'm sure you've heard of subliminal messages. No, most people don't notice, and that's precisely why and how even governments, entire empires invested in visual culture depicting issues and identities in exactly the way they wanted the people to see them. Governments down the centuries didn't burn art and books for no reason - it is because it does affect people, and the most dangerous part about it is that 99% of the population don't even realise they're being affected. (99% is hypothetical - I basically mean what I perceive to be the majority - but considering your claim, and you seem like an educated person who thinks and has his own mind, it proves my point that people don't notice they're being affected) If you really think it doesn't matter, just look at advertisement, marketing - you don't think it affects people? No, to say it has no effect at all is to be blind. Those who don't see the manipulation being done are also the ones most likely to be manipulated, in my opinion. If this Bechdel Test makes the audience question some long-held beliefs and stances, I say why not. It won't be everyone, but there're some who may genuinely respect women and yet not know they harbour disrespect in the way they see them, thinking it as normal. Those who are bigots will be bigots, but there's a whole bunch of people who, if only they were made aware, would move towards treating women, whom they already respect, with even more respect. Change is gradual. Of course if you see a couple of films portraying women badly you wouldn't change your mind. But imagine a whole generation of films all depicting women in a similar light. Things don't often change in one generation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention just because it's not now. I remember watching some B&W movies and noticing how sexist the portrayal of women was then - I'm sure people of that generation saw it and thought nothing of it, just as we now watch our films and think nothing of it. It's only once people have progressed, THEN they see what sort of messages they had really sent with their media. But this progression can only be gradual. However, does any of that make the Bechdel Test "important"? No. The test itself is not important. Awareness of gender inequality and looking to portray them more equally is, and how can such an intent be a bad thing?
Anyone else get tired of hearing how we just don't know how screwed up our thinking is? And always from people who disagree with us? Not pointing fingers at any individual because there are several in this thread, but man, I seriously do get tired of that.
So people should force in female characters so they can pass a test? honestly i know a lot of books i loved that do not pass this on the sole part that their where too few female characters to pass. adding female characters into a setting where their would be none, just to pass a test, makes no sense.
No. People should be aware that, hey, y'know, hey, hey, look, who knew, who could possibly have known, there are women in the world! Look! There are so many it's like, it's like, it's almost like there are as many women as men. Oh, my *God*! Where did they all come from?! And when they're casting a work buddy or a friendly barista or the person behind the security desk who's the main character's nemesis, they could allow that thought to remain in their minds. They could cast some of those roles for women even when the script doesn't call for flirting, or partial nudity, or a blond hair flip, or any of those other important female plot elements. When they have a 'default human' role, they could realize that the 'default human' does not *always* have to be male. They could abandon the "male unless there's a good reason for a female" trend. And when another female character speaks to that default human, those two women could talk about (gasp) something *other than men*. Two women, talking about something other than their relationships with men. Talking as if women have interests other than men. As if they have interests like men do. As if they're people in their own right. (Patrick, from Coupling: "In many ways, they are.")
