If that film or book depicted her life, I really doubt that she would. Does she refuse to speak to female coworkers? Refuse to order from the woman behind the counter at the coffee shop? Refuse to ask the waitress whether the chowder is Maine or Manhattan style? If she gets in a cab with a female cabbie, does she get out again and wait for a male cabbie? If the doctor is female, or has a female nurse, does she cancel her appointment? In our world, women exist, all over the place--they're not inserted purely as plot foils for male-centered lives. Our world passes the Bechdel test.
Goes to show how stupid and pointless the test is. A movie about a bunch of guys and one chick could be done in a horribly misogynistic way, but still pass the test. And like Gallowglass pointed out: how can any form of art provide the female perspective?
Yep, it absolutely could. As far as I can tell, nobody's claimed otherwise. And I'm pretty sure that nobody's claimed that the Bechdel test assures the, or a, female perspective. As far as I'm concerned, the Bechdel test is not about presenting women well, or accurately, or with a feminist perspective, or with a female perspective. It's a statistical indicator of the extent to which women are present in fiction, and more specifically movies.
Was there even a single female in the movie Saving Private Ryan? Another movie that was big hit that Tom Hank's starred in was the one casting just him and a soccer ball on a desert island somewhere. Obviously, this test doesn't even count for Hollywood.
So, hold up here - you are claiming that a movie or book passes the test if there are two female characters, both are bimbos who do nothing but talk about men, BUT they're seen ordering a coffee from female clerk? You have completely missed the point: multiple female characters having a conversation. Every movie in the history of earth passes the test if all you had to do was show the female talking to an extra... Except for run lola run - haven't seen it but apparently she never talks to another woman. A list of movies that fail the bechdel test - In most of these movies, women talk to other women but they don't have a conversation.
This is getting stupid, because this could lead to us arguing where the line goes between a character and an extra. A character = a being involved in the action of a story. An extra = A supernumerary/spear-carrier or walk-on in a film or play A barmaid could be a character if she's got a name, lines, and some purpose in the story, but the story could still be [insert something unpleasant and/or unfair towards women] if the main cast is a bunch of guys and some chick (like your friend). Or it could be a very realistic and interesting portrayal of a woman. Depends on how one executes the story.
A bar maid could be the protagonist of a movie, but it doesn't make every barmaid a character. She could be a character who delivers some very poignant information or wisdom, she can also be someone who says two lines then serves the person a drink. If it is the latter, then the bechdel test is failed. This is becoming an issue of semantics. So ask yourselves this: If the bechdel test could be passed by a female character talking to an extra/not having a proper conversation. Would we be having this discussion? Also, the bechdel test isn't to determine whether or not a movie gives "the female perspective" it is to determine gender bias (first line of the wikipedia page). So it's not completely pointless. If everyone adhered to it, female characters would be given, albeit slightly, more depth because you'd see more of them and they'd be less concerned with the male characters in the movie... Like real women. It should also be noted (as I think someone else already said), it is a feminist method for critiquing films and not something writers consider when developing scripts. I think the main issue here is the OP made a mistake, and then chickenfreak forgot the first rule. There is a massive difference between determining gender bias and whether or not a movie shows a proper female perspective.
I am going to ask Alison Bechdel who is right. Says on her website that she is bad at answering e-mails so we'll see what happens.
This is actually what I said less eloquently in my first post to this thread. That you could use it as some sort of a framework for analyzing Work X. However, as for it determining the feminist perspective, I find it useless (duh, if that's not its point). But as you pointed out, the purpose of the test is to identify sexual discrimination and unequal/unfair treatment of the gender in question. But even if a movie (or a work of fiction for which this seems to be used as well) passed the test, it could still discrimanate or treat women unfairly in relation to the male characters, ie. contain sexism. Urgh, I'm being such a Captain Obvious now.
Okay. So what does that have to do with feminism? (You might have guessed by now, the word 'feminism' leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Anything reflecting a need to artificially impose rules and accords to make people treat others, any other, with basic human dignity leaves a bad taste in my mouth.) In my book, if a woman treats herself as "real people" and demands others do so as well, that ought to pretty much cover that issue. Period. (Yes. I know. In business - as well as ancient scifi - that is not always the case.) Essentially, in my opinion, as funkybassmannick already noted: "it's worthless".
Feminism simply means believing that women should have social, political and economic rights equal to those of men. It's a shame so many people feel a need to eschew the label.
But every movie _doesn't_. That's the point. That's why it's so embarrassing that so many movies fail the test - because the test is so, so minimal. I was looking at the site that you point to yesterday, and in the comments was discussion that, no, Run Lola Run does pass, because Lola tries to get change from a female casino teller. We are indeed talking about interactions that are that small, and even based on interactions that are that small, a huge percentage of movies fail. And in my book, that woman is probably a feminist, whether she uses the word or not. (And I really wish that she wouldn't fear the word.)
I agree with this! This is the very core of feminism. There are two types of feminists that rub non-feminists in such a bad way, that the non-feminists decide feminism is bad, or not worth their time. The first is the one I believe thewordsmith has encountered. They are feminists that believe that the only way to find equality is through strict social pressures. For example, they detest women who chose to be housewives and criticize them for not having a job like a man. My mom experienced this. There's nothing wrong with a woman choosing to be a housewife, the problem is when there are more housewives than househusbands, and it's not up to my Mom to correct that imbalance. The second type of feminist isn't actually a feminist at all (I'm not entirely sure the first one is, either). These are the ones that believe that women should rule the world because men only want power, money, and war. This isn't feminism, because it's asserting woman's power over man, the exact opposite of social, political, and economic equality. This is the opposite of misogyny – "misandry." My biggest issue is when people use these two types of self-proclaimed feminists as a "straw man" and say, "THIS is why I can't take feminism seriously." It's true that you can't take these two seriously, but you CAN take feminism seriously. Because it's about equality. My name is Nick and I'm a feminist. Have a nice day.
This view of feminism drains it of all specific meaning. Feminism becomes simply a division of classical liberalism, which holds that all humans have the same rights. There is no need for another 'ism'. Real feminism has political objectives. They want to empower women through various strategies to close the gap. I, personally, see this opposite social pressure for women to become powerful to be just a tad sillier than social pressure for them to be mothers. I don't like any group that is trying to mold society -- since to mold society, you must mold people. And you end up with a new set of people whose choices aren't respected.
You're right in that it's really no different than classical liberalism. It's not. The name "feminism" is a blessing and a curse because it brings with it a sense that it's "By women, for women." But there's also social pressures for men that are nearly as destructive, like how advertisements tell us we have no control over our urges. Or how we aren't supposed to show our emotions. Or how we need to be rugged and muscular. "Feminism" is just a word to describe social inequality from both sides, but it was started by women because they noticed it first. We should really pick a better word. And I don't understand your last point. If there is social inequality, how do we correct it if not by challenging it?
This test is silly. Since when did women become as important to a book/movie/play-write/McDonald's commercial as grammar? If a man, woman, dog, cat, Chinese fight rabbit, etc, doesn't belong in that part of the story then it shouldn't be there. If a woman is talking to her female cat would that count? Oh, yeah, woman, implies human. Dang it! I'm trying to stay in budget here and if we have to hire all the women then we will not be able to afford any special effects. What if it's a ghost story and Little Anna is talking to the ghost of her dead aunt Debra? Do ghost count as human? If not then there goes the tax credits for staying within the Bechdel Guidelines.
"we" do nothing. Individuals, if they're educated in critical thinking, will fix everything by themselves. If thinking individuals do not 'fix' what you think is wrong, then perhaps you are wrong. Don't treat women differently for no reason. That's obvious from very simple premises. If people are treating women differently, then they are either not thinking, or there is a reason. Another example: slavery. Only when individuals examined the reasons for the prejudice did it come apart. If you tried to convert a bunch of racists by preaching a result (all black people should be free) rather than a reason (black people are humans like you), you would fail. So instead of saying, "Woman and men should be in most types of jobs equally," ask people to justify their own desicions. If someone refuses to hire a woman CEO because she is a woman, then he isn't thinking. Encouraging blind faith in a new set of ideals (women can do everything men can) doesn't solve the lack of thought, it just gives people something else to not think about. Ask a teenage girl why women can do anything men can do. I'll bet she doesn't tell you that most labor is now non-physical and don't require muscles. Will my method actually change society? No. There is no way to impose lasting change from above. The idea of creating an 'ideal' society is silly and impossible. You can try to change yourself. You can say how things should be. But little else is realistic. The old man-centric culture came from a set of circumstances. The circumstances have changed, and we now want to change. For the most part, everyone has already recognized this and changed their behaviour (because they think). When the circumstances change again, who knows what the ideal beliefs will be. But I'm ranting a little. In short, I think that collectives change only when the right course is obvious. Feminism only arose recently for a very good reason.
Or that women can beat us senseless, both on a television screen and in real life, in the name of comedic entertainment. But, anyway, we're straying a little far from topic here.
I agree that we need to think more. By the way, my use of the word "To Challenge" doesn't mean to force anybody to do anything they don't want to do. I mean "to challenge" social norms by asking questions and start up a dialogue. But by challenging social norms, by questioning them and critiquing them, we encourage thought. If we don't challenge them, if we don't ask questions and raise our voices, no one will think about it. I agree. It's also disturbing how rape of a man is funny, like in Futurama's "Amazon Adventure," or how Monica manipulating Chandler into having sex is also a joke (Friends). I don't think it's off-topic, since the Bechdel test is about gender inequality in media. I think it's fine if our discussion goes to bigger, broader topics.
I think the real test of Bechdel's Test is how well it's converse represents men in fiction. Would we say that a work that: Has least two men in it, who talk to each other, about something besides a woman. represents the male perspective in a meaningful way? If so, Human Centipede, Plan nine for outer space, and Twilight all accurately represent the male perspective. As does The Color Purple (which is very balanced, as it also passes the Bechdel Test). This might be useful for Bechdel, in determining what movies she will personally watch, but it's not a useful test for determining the validity of characters in fiction.
