It's not the assumption that no women were important, it's that people of the time would have thought a duchess less important than a duke. There's a reason Queen Elizabeth I gave the "I may have the body of a woman, but the heart and stomach of a king" speech. And it also depends what pieces of history you examine. If you focus on the large events, such as wars, it will typically be male dominated. If you focus on people's life styles, then you will get a more balanced view.
That can be said about a lot of aspects of general life in the real world. Look at the current argument in the UK during the Conservative's vote for a new leader. The race is between two women (now one has allegedly pulled out) but during the last week, the tabloids have not asked which candidate is the favorite to run the country, but rather, which one wears the highest heels, longest skirt, most make-up, has kids (or not), will ban the tax on ladies sanitary products ... all the things that are of no concern as to whether or not each candidate is up for running the country.
Again, though, I don't think anyone's advocating that the only worlds we portray in our fiction should be egalitarian worlds. We're hoping that the writing itself will be egalitarian - does that make sense? Like, just because the UK media is currently sexist and nonsensical doesn't mean that someone writing a story about these events should mirror that prejudice.
Really? Most I've seen is "Which one of these batshit insane fascist homophobic sociopaths is the least terrifying option?" Maybe we just read different papers.
Ugh. What a boring way to stifle writers. I think this whole thing concerning women is backfiring. Rather than inspiring great female characters we get over the top creations like Rey in the new Star Wars. Worse -- there's nothing in her character to suggest Rey is female. She could've easily been a man. There's nothing celebrating her gender.
What traits specific to her gender do you think should be celebrated in a Star Wars movie? She's a strong, resourceful character. If you have a male character like her no one complains that the author failed to celebrate maleness. It's a double-standard, and that's not even getting to the problem of decoding what is "female."
No, I'm just saying, that it happens in real life and that, actually, there is nothing wrong with writing a story that mirrors real life, but maybe there is something wrong with the way women are portrayed in general in real life and in fiction. Obviously, it doesn't happen all the time, but there will always be an element that looks upon women as the "little wife at home baking bread and wiping children's noses" kind of thing.
I... I'm kinda confused. But, yes, there is sexism in real life. And, no, there's nothing wrong with writing a story that shows this, but that story can be written in a way that isn't itself sexist. Right? Like, I could write a story about a female politician in which I focused on her family and her nurturing and her fashion choices, or I could write a story about the same female politician in which I focused on her ideals and her machinations and her compromises. The second story seems like a more respectful way to write about a female politician. But both of these stories could be set in a world where some media outlets focus on stupid aspects of the politician's life. I feel like this is another time when we're agreeing, but kind of talking around each other?
The criticism of female characters not being female enough is an insidious form of sexism (unintentional; product of patriarchy). What you have over hundreds of years of patriarchy are a set of traits that are valued as male - strength, resourcefulness, stoicism, etc. It can change from characterization to characterization, but there are basically a whole slew of traits considered traditionally male, and valued, as opposed to those considered traditionally female, and undervalued. When someone points to a female character having traditionally male traits and criticizes that character, they're buying into patriarchal notions of what characteristics are "male" and what characteristics are "female." What we see with Rey is a character who has traditionally valued characteristics being criticized as not being female enough because people have adopted the narrative that her characteristics are male, not female. That's a bad way to view those traits. There is nothing not-female about Rey. She works great as a female character. The truth is, both men and women run the entire spectrum of what we consider traditionally male and traditionally female, and often that can vary in a given person depending on context. When you look at Rey and see that she's strong, fast, resourceful, capable, and stoic, and then say she might just as well be a man, you're saying the aforementioned traits are male and not female. That's a mistake, in my opinion.
More than likely. (agreeing but talking around). I guess the main difference, the thing that makes this so relevant (whether it be in fiction or real life) is that if we were talking about men/men's roles, then this thread wouldn't even exist. Sort of, when the politicians are on tour touting for the public votes, we don't see headlines telling us which person is best based on which designers suits they buy, what car they drive or what their golf handicap is. So for me, the whole point of the test is to give women an "equal stake" in the story, to ensure that their role is just as important as it would be if their character was actually a man. The trouble with the test (as someone so rightly said earlier) is that all tests are flawed. So if you have a story which only has male characters, it shouldn't be ruled out simply because it doesn't pass the test. I understand that the test itself is a choice and not set in stone, so a lot of this thread is quite hypothetical.
That's the thing, though: that's not the point of the test. There's no 'point' to the test - like @ChickenFreak was trying to explain before, it's sheerly descriptive. It was made to highlight the minimal roles / some of the tropes women are/were subject to and to point out the incredibly low bar of "is there more than one token girl and do they interact in a way that doesn't revolve around a guy?" (the Mako Mori test and Sexy Lamp test cropped up later on to comment on other tropes). It doesn't measure characters' importance, because a two-line exchange two random characters have that's just "wow, nice weather today" "isn't it?" could pass as long as they're both women. The rest of the movie could have no women or treat the one(s) it has horribly, but it would still 'pass'. 'Passing' the test doesn't mean a movie's good, or even treats women fairly, and not 'passing' doesn't mean it's bad or treats women unfairly. Deciding that that's the point of it misunderstands the test. It's not that the test is flawed, it's that people widely misapply it - because it's not meant to be applied. In the original comic, it was just an observation. If you only wanted to watch movies in which women talked to each other and not about men (surely not a draconian standard), your options were limited. Alison Bechdel herself even said, “I feel sort of funny about that whole thing because it wasn’t like I said, ‘This is the Bechdel test, and now you must follow it.’ [...] It’s not conclusive or definitive. It’s not meant as a serious metric. You can certainly have a feminist movie where there’s only one woman — or no women.”
But...what? 1) That's not the point of the test. 2) Why would a character be more important if they were "actually a man."? ...what?
But...she also could've easily been a woman. As she was. I don't see the issue here, at all. If she's over the top, so is Luke Skywalker, so... OK, I'm ending a lot of my posts with ellipses today.
Well, that depends on which part of the war you mean. There was plenty of war in Gone with the Wind, for example. Edited to add: And war affects a lot more than the government officials, the commanders, and the soldiers with weapons in their hands. Women have always been involved in almost every other aspect--and they have been some of those solders, though probably pretty much always a minority.
Ugh. This to me seems another one of those weird feminism-related things that are being impliment/pushed/accepted/etc... Sometimes I wish this entire feminism/sexism/patriarchal issue didn't exist. I have seldom seen a well constructed opinion about it that is not sexist (e.g the entire thing, feminism, why is not called equalism? and if it championing the rights or feminine rights, which would suit the name and it would be fine, but then who promote male rights such as the lack in certain aspects (violence towards men, family rights, say/opinion on abortion - it is their kid, not entirely hers)). If only the bickering about respecting each other and all that ended, and people actually treated each other with respect.... but that's never gonna happen. Anyway, excuse me for this little ran (got that off my chest). I don't see the purpose of either of the tests. In theory, they bring an interesting idea and definitely try to reinforce, or at least promote equalism. But in my opinion, they don't really do either well in practice simply due to the vast differences in opinions and possible settings/stories/characters inside any kind of story of any form. For instance, we often consider the medieval world as sexist and any storyline that takes place within a medieval setting (like most fantasies), often include aspect of this. However, the main flaw with this is that we are comparing today's society with a previous society. It's a bit like telling someone who's culture has done cannibalism for thousands of years that it's wrong. Certainly it is by our standard, but it is not our society/culture, so we cannot judge theirs by out societies/culture's standards. I think the same principle applies. Anyway, just saying that I personally wouldn't give this too much thought - I'd rather go for presenting an 'equal' world/setting/character than strive to meet a set of possibly irrelevant (to the story) rules/tests.
Hence the typically, and the dominated, not entierly, and I meant of the frontlines. I understand the great logistical and sometimes defensive pressure that was put on women during that time.
Actually, I think that the frontlines had a fair number of women there, too, but in a support position that didn't get much glamor. But the fact that war stories have usually been about the weapon-carriers on the front doesn't mean that they NEED to be about them.
I, for one, just don't want to be invisible. It's not about feminism. It's about leaving a record that you existed.
I feel that you're confusing two elements here. We're not talking about pretending that sexist societies weren't sexist. We're talking about writing stories that include women. That sexist world did include women. They lived lives and had experiences. The fact that they didn't have ruling authority doesn't mean that they don't have stories. There seems to be a bit of a vibe now and then in this thread that stories must always be about the rulers. Yes, men tended to be the rulers. But there's no reason why stories need to be about the rulers.
What @ChickenFreak said. It may very well be that the women were there, but we don't have much record of the roles women played in wars.
