Bechdel Test Blues

The point of the Bechdel Test was to point out the very small amount of movies where women are part of the plot besides one token love interest, and do more than revolve around the men in the cast. The gag of the original strip that introduced it was that there hadn't been one since Aliens came out in 1986.

A Reverse Bechdel Test is unnecessary and somewhat MRA-y because male is the default gender for most characters in fiction, and especially in film.

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great

I rather like the alternate to the Bechdel test that's presented on our Bechdel Test page, the "Mako Mori test":

Since it doesn't use a second-degree indicator of agency or centrality (as the Bechdel test does with conversations), it seems likely to produce a more reliable measure of female representation in a movie.

It perhaps also helps that it's stricter than the Bechdel test, if I'm not much mistaken: the Bechdel test can be passed via a brief, irrelevant conversation, while this test requires that at least one female character get a degree of narrative focus, and that her arc doesn't revolve around supporting a male character.

(I do realise, as has been reiterated, that the Bechdel test is an indicator of a trend rather than a judge of an individual work—indeed, I think that the "Mako Mori" test is perhaps better used that way as well.)

edited 6th Aug '14 3:25:47 PM by ArsThaumaturgis

My Games & Writing

You might say that the Bechdel test is a good tool for critics and a bad tool for writers. It addresses symptoms, not the underlying cause (which may or may not make it a bad story). The Mako Mori test seems to be a stronger tool for writers in that regard.

Pretend I make a more elaborate argument regarding the letter of the test and the spirit of the test here.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

Well, overhearing or listening in on a conversation is pretty much the only way to pass the Bechdel Test with a male protagonist in a first-person POV story. But without that, it's impossible.

Random thought.

If a man and two women are having the relevant conversation, does it still count as passing?

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!

My inclination is no.

Nous restons ici.

No, a man and two women having a conversation does not pass.

I'm much more fond of this so-called 'Mako Mori test'.

Hmm, I've been planning out a plotline in a book I'm writing with a female fighter pilot, with a male wingman. Would that still pass the Mako Mori Test? As in, the GUY revolves around HER plot?

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley

Technically, that would depend on what he does in the plot, not just his job (if someone were to write about a very powerful woman in a matriarchal society having an affair with her male slave and made both she and the story focus on how he feels about the situation and what he's getting out of it, it wouldn't pass) but does it really matter if the plot passes a test if both she and he are well-developed?

edited 22nd Nov '14 9:39:51 AM by CrystalGlacia

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

Well, I'm planning on having him get shot down a few chapters in, and then she goes full Red Baron on the bad guys for it; it's really HER plot that just happens to have a guy in it. Now that I think about it, in my Loads And Loads Of Characters, I actually have seven other female characters who are the captains of their plotlines; one is a soldier who gained a wizard's powers after killing him, one is a teenage girl who joins La Résistance to avenge her father's death, one is the leader of a separate resistance cell, one is an FBI agent who infiltrates the enemy side, one is the President's daughter who's now kicking ass, another is a female Marine who was captured by the enemy, and the last one is a downed bomber pilot who's fighting back with her crew. I don't want to say the work is overall feminist, because it's not, but I don't have ANY weak, needs-a-male female characters.

edited 23rd Nov '14 5:48:16 PM by Dublin

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley

It sounds pretty feminist to me.

Of course, don't you know anything about ALCHEMY?!- Twin clones of Ivan the Great

Not really; I still have more male characters than female. I just didn't want it to be "man in one corner, sexbot who contributes nothing except about the men in the other." So I made it realistic, with men AND women having interesting stories.

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley

Feminist stories are not defined by the number of characters with a certain set of genitalia, they're defined by what happens in the story. And what you're doing in the story sounds feminist.

"Jack, you have debauched my sloth."

Not really; I'm just saying that women can do all the things the guys can do. (Then again, that could be NORMAL feminism; it's definitely NOT "crusading against the war on women" type of feminism- I actually bash that type a bit in the story, with the criticism coming from the female characters themselves)

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley

Are you sure? Because crusading against the war on women seems to be a fairly typical feminist thing-to-do to me. There's been a lot of action on the fight for reproductive rights in the past few years.

Or is this something else you're thinking of?

yey

I'm not sure why you seem afraid of your work being considered feminist to begin with.

I'm not sure why you would try to divide feminism into types either. This usually smells like No True Scotsman at best.

Nous restons ici.

Because feminism is divided into types. Just go to the feminism ppage on The Other Wiki to see how many different movements of feminism there are.

edited 27th Nov '14 1:03:50 PM by shiro_okami

Because citing wikipedia as a reliable source-you know the rest.

Seriously though, feminism is at its core an idea that women are equal to men. It may manifest itself in different spheres or different ways but that's the only meaningful descriptor one requires for it and the only meaningful test to be applied.

Somebody will of course harp on "radfem"/political lesbianism/some other thing that's usually labeled as feminist but really isn't. I repeat the statement above about the only meaningful descriptor and the only meaningful test.

Nous restons ici.

Now who is the one talking about No True Scotsman? I guess it all depends if by "feminism" you are talking about the basic idea or all the details involved. Your definition maybe the best, but I doubt everyone agrees on it.

edited 27th Nov '14 1:12:00 PM by shiro_okami

Nobody, because it's not a matter of simply not fitting the definition of feminism anymore; it's also a matter of fitting the definition of a different ideology like gender segregation. The assignment to a "feminist" ideology is not false because "no feminist could believe that"; it is false because they are something other than feminist.

No True Scotsman is purely exclusionary; it removes people from the group based on action without assigning them to any other. When someone is assigned to a different group from the one they are identified or self-identified with, that's an evidentiary matter, not a fallacy.

edited 27th Nov '14 2:05:12 PM by Night

Nous restons ici.

Okay, guys, gals, simmer down. I don't want to turn the Bechdel forum into a flame battlefield, alright? I'm not afraid of my work being feminist, but I don't want it to be BLATANTLY, anviliciously feminist either. I just want believable female characters who say things other than "Wow, Clark is SO sexy" and "Ugh, I've got so much cooking to do," that's all. In fact, I'd prefer it to be "Damn, Clark might be better than me with that Barrett" and "Shit! I'll cover you from the kitchen window!" Nothing more to it, okay?

You may fire when you are ready, Gridley

So, basically you are saying that people who call themselves "feminists" but add to or stray from feminism's definition are liars? Just asking for some clarification.

Fuck it. I had something I'm going to say, but nah, killing it. This thread has flown far off topic, and it's clear nobody in this debate — including myself — is in any way, shape, or form an expert, or even more than fundamentally educated, on feminism and its complexities.

edited 28th Nov '14 6:59:09 PM by KillerClowns