Regarding the Bechdel test.

[Tengu_temp]

Let's say it simply, because it seems some people still have trouble understanding it:

Passing the Bechdel Test doesn't make a movie better or more feminist.
Failing the Bechdel Test doesn't make a movie worse or less feminist.
People who say otherwise do not understand the purpose of the Bechdel Test.

/takes a shot

[Razanir]

Why? Serious question, not being facetious. It doesn't matter if Gravity, or any other individual movie, happens to pass or not.

The goal of the test, I think we can agree, is to measure the inclusion of women in Hollywood. However, the Bechdel Test, in my opinion, underestimates the number. So I think the test should be modified to prevent movies from being unjustly excluded.

Second question, how? Again, I'm not being facetious. The reason the Bechdel test works to an extent is that it's a simple, casual thought experiment. It's easy and unambiguos as to whether a movie passes or not. If you want a test that actually evaluates the diversity and inclusivity credentials of a given movie it's going to be much more ambiguous and difficult to define.

I propose 5 clauses to partially rectify it.

The Gravity clause: Movies with only 2 characters take an alternate test. 1) Is there at least 1 woman? 2) Does she get a substantial amount of screen time?

The one-woman show clause: Movies with a single character pass, as long as said character is female.

The Harry Potter clause: Series can take the test as a unit. (Named as such, because only 1 Harry Potter movie passes)

The Doctor Who clause (Alternatively, the Chosen One clause): It's fine if your female characters talk about a man if a similar conversation is had by other people. So for instance, two women can talk about the Doctor being secretive or about Harry's duties as the chosen one.

The porn clause: Porn fails the test. No one needs that staining the list of media that passes.

[Kalmageddon]

No, I don't agree. The goal of the test is to offer an extremely quick, easy, casual thought experiment to demonstrate the lack of inclusion of women in Hollywood by providing an incredibly low bar to clear and noting that most movies still don't clear it. It's not supposed to be a "measure" of anything. It's not really much more than a "hey, have you ever noticed that...?" conversation starter.

Exactly this.
How come that people are so eager to set their expectations and opinions based on what some random test tells them?

[sktarq]

/takes a shot

*pours a dozen more, because you'll need them*

[Razanir]

No, I don't agree. The goal of the test is to offer an extremely quick, easy, casual thought experiment to demonstrate the lack of inclusion of women in Hollywood by providing an incredibly low bar to clear and noting that most movies still don't clear it. It's not supposed to be a "measure" of anything. It's not really much more than a "hey, have you ever noticed that...?" conversation starter.

But it still seems unfairly biased. Ways a movie can fail:
*Too small of a cast.
*Being a romance, so ALL of the conversations involve love interests. (Also fails the Reverse Bechdel Test)
*All the conversations briefly mention a man, whether romantic in nature or not.

So I would at least propose addenda to pass small casts and allow non-romantically oriented conversations and/or conversations that only briefly mention a man.

Or even something like giving an honorary passing grade to movies that pass the Mako Mori Test:
1) At least 1 female character
2) Who gets her own narrative
3) That is not about supporting a man's story.

[Aedilred]

The Bechdel test is rather horrible at what it does. A few examples:

*Game of Thrones. I would say it passes the Bechdel test. Yes, the first female-to-female conversations that come to mind involve men. But it's discussing the politics of the Iron Throne, so I'm willing to exempt it, believing that the spirit of the law is "a romantic or otherwise stereotypical conversation about men". However, I wouldn't exactly call it empowering, because it's in the usual pseudo-medieval setting.

*Doctor Who. I think we can all agree his companion tends to be a strong female character. But due to the revolving nature of its cast, and that most characters disappear after an episode, when was the last time two girls talked to each other? And about something other than the Doctor, at that.

*And last, but certainly not least, the much hated 50 Shades of Grey. I've never read them, but according to the internet, ALL THREE books pass the Bechdel Test.

EDIT: No, one more example. Gravity. It fails because there are only 2 characters on screen in the entire movie, and only one is female. (Going off the Wikipedia cast list)

TV series are kind of a different kettle of fish because a conversation between female characters becomes much more likely simply by dint of quantity of footage and number of characters. Even a relatively short series (by American standards) like Rome still has the thick end of twenty hours of screen time, five times as much as even the very longest films, and a much larger cast. You can still use the test if you like, but it's a much lower bar to clear - although it depends, I guess: would you judge it by episode, by season, or by the entire run? Judging by the whole run, Game of Thrones and Doctor Who (post-2005) definitely pass. Who actually passes in the first episode, with interaction between Rose and her mother.

TV also tends to have a much narrower demographic target, which means a lot of the institutionalised problems of Hollywood are, if not absent, at least less apparent. Lots of shows are made primarily for women. Of course, a lot of shows are made primarily for men, as well, but they tend to be pretty unapologetic and open about that, whereas films are ostensibly for mass-market consumption and should really be trying to appeal to both sexes equally.

But it still seems unfairly biased. Ways a movie can fail:
*Too small of a cast.
*Being a romance, so ALL of the conversations involve love interests. (Also fails the Reverse Bechdel Test)
*All the conversations briefly mention a man, whether romantic in nature or not.

I still think you're missing the point of the test. It's not a scientific principle; it's a rule of thumb to be used to raise awareness of depiction of women in cinema. That's all it is.

[Kalmageddon]

But it still seems unfairly biased. Ways a movie can fail:
*Too small of a cast.
*Being a romance, so ALL of the conversations involve love interests. (Also fails the Reverse Bechdel Test)
*All the conversations briefly mention a man, whether romantic in nature or not.

So I would at least propose addenda to pass small casts and allow non-romantically oriented conversations and/or conversations that only briefly mention a man.

Or even something like giving an honorary passing grade to movies that pass the Mako Mori Test:
1) At least 1 female character
2) Who gets her own narrative
3) That is not about supporting a man's story.

You are missing the point of the test. It's not supposed to be reliable, it's meant to be thought provoking by making you reflect upon the role of women in movies. Nobody is supposed to seriously conform to it in order to be regarded as progressive, it's not important.
What's important about the test is the immediate reaction it causes the first time you hear about it. Which is "wow, I guess that if so many movies fail such a simple and basic test, women are underrepresented in this media!"

[Razanir]

You are missing the point of the test. It's not supposed to be reliable, it's meant to be thought provoking by making you reflect upon the role of women in movies. Nobody is supposed to seriously conform to it in order to be regarded as progressive, it's not important.
What's important about the test is the immediate reaction it causes the first time you hear about it. Which is "wow, I guess that if so many movies fail such a simple and basic test, women are underrepresented in this media!"

But I didn't have that reaction. And don't try to tell me that it's because I'm male and thus have always been represented. When people actually do take it seriously (and that includes, actually, my first exposure to the test), it's easy to realize "Hey, this test is kinda meaningless."

[Miriel]

One more time. We're gonna celebrate, oh yeah, all right don't stop the dancing.

Nobody cares (or should care) about whether some movie passes or not.

Great movies can fail it. Horrible movies can pass it. It's not the point.

Razanir, I wonder to whom you are talking. The people who argue in favour of the Bechdel test all say that it's not an indicator of quality or of feminism or of anything except perhaps the presence of women in movies. We have said several times that it does not matter if any given movie passes. It's a basic test that can be used broadly and relatively objectively to all movies. Even in the Swedish thing, that was the point: the director notes "that the rating doesn't say anything about the quality of the film". It's fairly clear that the intent is to show that vast numbers of movies fail a fairly easy test of women's inclusion, not that Gravity is a bad movie.

What is meaningful is the broad pattern, not the individual instances. For example, a movie about a boy's/men's sports team is likely to revolve around men, and it's perfectly normal and acceptable that any given movie of that sort wouldn't pass the Bechdel test. What is not normal, however, is that I remember a great number of movies about boy's/men's sports team, and none about women's/girl's sports, except cheerleader movies. It's the pattern that matters, not each movies.

You seem most interested in allowing Gravity to pass. It's really, really not the point. Most of my favorite movies fail. My stack of war movies all fail, except perhaps Battle of Britain (I'd have to check). The Tolkien movies all fail, same with Star Wars, at least the first two Monty Python movies (not sure about Meaning of Life, ), etc. I think the only passing movies in my favorites would be Lola Rennt and Kill Bill. Does it mean all these movies are anti-feminist, or mysogynistic, or something else? No. Do I like any of them less because of that? No.

[Razanir]

Gravity was just an example.

I just think that if you're going to make a thought experiment, that it should be a bit more honest. Which can even be as simple as also recognizing movies that come close to passing. Such as those where even if there aren't any conversations not about men, there at least aren't any about men as love interests. Or recognizing movies with bountiful female characters.

[Jormengand]

Imagine a culture where most stories are centred around only 3-4 heroes. Males and females are equally represented, yet most films fail the Bechdel and "Reverse Bechdel" tests.

Just because one film fails, just because a hundred films fail, it doesn't matter. The Bechdel test is not, and was never meant to be, an indicator of quality, whether of one film or all films.

Yep. Females are under-represented in films: news at 11. But the Bechdel test is a really flimsy way of showing that, because it was never intended to be used. I mean, it was made up as a joke, by a webcomic author - how long until we start using the Burlew test, based on a joke he made in OOTS? Come on, guys.

You can have an entire genre of one-person shows, and none of them will pass. Similarly, you can have an entire genre of movies that degrade everyone involved and have a lot of it pass. (As Dumbing Of Age pointed out, lesbian porn is practically guaranteed to pass)

Isn't it funny how none of these really good points have been addressed, except for one which was handwaved for an insufficiently explained reason?

Look, we get that it's not meant to be applied to any single film, but when you can have entire genres, or even entire cultures, where it clearly doesn't work, then something's gone wrong.

[Kalmageddon]

But I didn't have that reaction. And don't try to tell me that it's because I'm male and thus have always been represented. When people actually do take it seriously (and that includes, actually, my first exposure to the test), it's easy to realize "Hey, this test is kinda meaningless."

Who cares if you didn't?
The test is already well known, your lack of approval won't make a difference.
And of course some people won't care about it, or react the same way. We're not robots, you can't predict with perfect accuarcy how people are going to behave.

Also, what Caroline said. I like Gravity too, so who cares what kind of test it passes and how legit the test is? It won't make any difference to me or to anyone that liked it.

[Jormengand]

If there's an entire culture wherein no movies that involve women talking to each other get made then you're right, something's wrong. I'm just not sure it's the test that's wrong.

You know, if you go back up two posts above yours, you will see an example of:

- A culture where nothing passes the Bechdel test and that's okay.
- A genre where nothing passes the Bechdel test and that's okay.
- A genre where everything passes the Bechdel test but that's not okay.

The Bechdel test falls flat on its face in all three situations.

[Jormengand]

1) That hypothetical culture is not our culture.
2) That genre is not prevalent enough to skew the overall results to that degree.
3) I agree, porn is often (though not universally) problematic. It doesn't tend to get released in mainstrem cinemas for the most part and serves a fundamentally different cultural purpose. The Bechdel test isn't about porn.

1) Duh, that's why it's a hypothetical. My point is that the Bechdel test doesn't work, because if we use it on the hypothetical culture we see it fall on its face. Suppose humanity takes on the culture of small-casted films and a lot of them fail the Bechdel test. What does that say about the culture? Absolutely nothing. What do we think it says about the culture? That it's EvilBadWrong and we should change it.
2) Yes, but what if it was?
3) No, of course. The Bechdel test is only about genres which fail it often enough but not too much that you can hide the fact that it doesn't work.

[Jormengand]

Again, to clarify. The Bechdel test is not a means of evaluating the worthiness of any and all fiction that might ever conceivably exist. It was never meant to do so. That is not its purpose. Its purpose is to serve as a commentary on the modern Hollywood movie industry. Trying to claim the entire exercise invalid by constructing elaborate hypothetical scenarios is very drastically missing the point.

But if it can't serve as commentary on films in general, it can't serve as commentary on the current status quo. If it can't tell us what a good society would look like, because it pings a good society as a bad one (clearly, the good society is wearing Xykon's crown), and it can't tell us what a bad society would look like, as it could ping a far worse society as a far better society.

For the Bechdel test to say anything about our society, we have to be able to say:

Lots of stuff in our society fails the Bechdel test.
If lots of stuff in a society fails the Bechdel test, that society is EvilBadWrong.
Therefore our society is EvilBadWrong.

If you take out the second line, you are left with a non sequitur. You can say "Look at all these films which fail the test" and I can say "So what? You can't prove anything unless you can show that that means something."

[Aedilred]

Where has "EvilBadWrong" come from all of a sudden?

Edit: What Liffguard said.

[Mx.Silver]

3) No, of course. The Bechdel test is only about genres which fail it often enough but not too much that you can hide the fact that it doesn't work.

Porn isn't really a narrative medium. Most concepts designed around narrative mediums don't work very well when applied to other things so 'it doesn't work in porn' is a bit of a non-argument. Take the 'show don't tell' rule of good writing, for example. Most porn flicks follow that rule very well, but that doesn't invalidate it as a good rule of writing quality.


In regards to your culture point, besides the issue of hypothetical constructs as applied to pragmatic considerations, your problem there is that you aren't paying any attention to why it wouldn't work in those circumstances. Specifically being that it doesn't take into consideration the overall disparity between portrayals of men and the portrayals of women, which you seem to consider the more important underlying. You need to at least bring up that reasoning, because your point only works if everyone already accepts it and it generally isn't a good idea to leave that crucial a premise tacit.

[Knaight]

Imagine a culture where most stories are centred around only 3-4 heroes. Males and females are equally represented, yet most films fail the Bechdel and "Reverse Bechdel" tests.

Nonsense. Even if there are no side characters, with 3 heroes talking among themselves the stories are nearly guaranteed to pass at least one of the tests*. With 4 there's a decent chance of passing both.

*It depends on the level of portrayal of nonbinary characters, if everyone is either female or male and there's a decent amount of dialogue passing one test is nearly guaranteed.

[Jormengand]

I think this is where we're missing each other. The Bechdel test is a jumping-off point, not a conclusion. It is not saying "any society in which most movies fail this test is a bad society." What it's saying is "most movies in our society fail this very simple, very easy test. I wonder why that is?"

But...

That's a really clunky way of trying to find out anything. Okay, we've been wondering why that is, we know why that is, can we move on and stop talking about the Bechdel test now? I think we've officially jumped off the jumping-off point, we don't need to keep swimming back to it and jumping back off again.

[Jormengand]

Who's "we?" Portrayal of women in media remains a pertinent issue. Not everyone has heard of the Bechdel test. It's a useful example of consciousness-raising that can be used for people new to the discussion.

But it doesn't mean anything, and it confuses people as to what it means (Oh, it's not meant to test individual films, it's meant to evaluate all films... oh, did I say it was meant to evaluate all films? Silly me, I meant it was to get people thinking about all films).

It's causing far more harm than good, however noble Bechdel's intentions.

[Jormengand]

It's worth keeping around because it's simple, unambiguous and illustrative.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how you can read the contents of this thread, or any other thread about the Bechdel test, and say that with a straight face.

[SowZ]

But it doesn't mean anything, and it confuses people as to what it means (Oh, it's not meant to test individual films, it's meant to evaluate all films... oh, did I say it was meant to evaluate all films? Silly me, I meant it was to get people thinking about all films).

It's causing far more harm than good, however noble Bechdel's intentions.

It's a fairly salient point, and most people who take about it in an interview setting do mention movies in general. When people here, "You know half the movies in Hollywood? Not only do they not feature a female main character, but they don't even have two female characters talk to each other about anything other than a man." That's such an in your face point that people can't really ignore it. And as much as you may argue it is just a random coincidental fact, it is a cultural problem. Even if some movies not passing it is fine.

[Jormengand]

it is a cultural problem.

Really? Because some people are saying you shouldn't be using it to make judgments about all films, but it's instead a "Jumping-off point" not a conclusion.

If the right honourable members for the opposition could at least be consistent about what they believe, maybe I would understand your points better.

[SowZ]

Really? Because some people are saying you shouldn't be using it to make judgments about all films, but it's instead a "Jumping-off point" not a conclusion.

If the right honourable members for the opposition could at least be consistent about what they believe, maybe I would understand your points better.

It's like most things in statistics. It isn't very useful for examining individuals, but is useful looking at populations. That one movie doesn't pass the Bechdel test isn't a point of judgement, it may have been a specific type of movie where it is man centric and that is fine. Most movies aren't going to have a good excuse, but let's not look at that. Let's stick on Hollywood as a whole. That the large majority of Hollywood movies have a man for the main character, (in fact, producers will demand screenwriters rewrite movies with female protagonists. In the original Twister draft, there was no Bill. There was no divorce plot. There was just Helen Hunt leading a band of storm chasers.) is bad enough. But half of Hollywood movies don't even have two women talk to each other. The message could not be clearer. Men are more entertaining than women, therefore more interesting. And before you say I am jumping to conclusions, that is an attitude internalized by a very, very large number of both men and women across the country. (and world,) even if they don't realize it.

The criterion doesn't require a conversation with no men present, at least as I read it. It just requires that two women are having a conversation that is not about a man.

Again, look at female-protagonist single-POV novels and ask if they pass the reverse Bechdel. They do, in general. It's not hard.

Some quick examples just from memory (mostly from single-POV novels with a female POV character, two from multi-POV novels but from sections written with a female POV):
-The female protagonist watches while a male officer confronts the subordinate who betrayed him (by trying to get him killed so he could take his job, it was nothing to do with women), and offers him a second chance.
-The female protagonist (a noblewoman) listens to her two male bodyguards discussing the likely tactics of the enemy troops they're pursuing.
-The female protagonist stands at the counter while her husband bargains over a car rental with the male clerk.
-The female POV character and two major male characters plan an espionage operation together.
-The female protagonist is saddling her own horse, while a male character lifts a little boy up into the saddle and banters with him.
-The female protagonist is at a party with one man, another man comes over and asks her date about his recent business venture.
-The female protagonist walks in on an argument between a male blacksmith and a male warrior, with the latter complaining about the cost of shoeing his warhorse.

And yes, these scenarios should still work just fine when you flip the genders. The gender-flipped versions just don't seem to happen much, in practice. (And yeah, part of this is just paucity of female characters overall.)



Also a good question, but I don't feel that it gets at the question of relationships between women in the way the Bechdel test does.

The vast majority of your examples have the main character present, and if the main character participates in the conversation, it isn't going to pass the Bechdel test. That character might not be the quiet type. A three way conversation with two women and one man doesn't pass the test, the reverse is also true. And for many of those examples, as an author, I wouldn't write out the conversation. It's likely not plot worthy enough or interesting enough, though it might be in the right scenario or right kind of movie, of course. (I would of been happy to watch the cast of Big Lebowski barter over a stick of gum for five minutes, for example.) Anyway, mentioning that the character is witnessing a conversation isn't enough. Sort of staying quiet or eavesdropping, the male POV novel has a harder time passing the Bechdel test than a film. Of course, they have more room to do it so could easily throw in a meaningless exchange somewhere he accidentally overhears just to pass the test. But I know I don't put in things I know I could cut. So I think it is more fair to talk about representation in novels than how many pass the Bechdel test. As for the reverse Bechdel, I imagine my novel passes it but not very easily. I'll check and get back to you.

[Jormengand]

It's like most things in statistics. It isn't very useful for examining individuals, but is useful looking at populations.

Yes, but when I addressed that argument, Liffguard started talking about how it was really something different.

Can the advocates of the Bechdel test please get their ducks in a row and decide whether it's an interesting tidbit, a jumping off point into something different, or a conclusion in and of itself?

[Razanir]

It's like most things in statistics. It isn't very useful for examining individuals, but is useful looking at populations. That one movie doesn't pass the Bechdel test isn't a point of judgement, it may have been a specific type of movie where it is man centric and that is fine.

But is it even useful for populations? It says nothing about the quality of the movies. What does it matter that women get more represented, if some of those movies do nothing to help them? How would you feel about other tests if they resulted in a lot of false positives?

But half of Hollywood movies don't even have two women talk to each other.

Is that wrong, though? What if you have a majority of female characters, but they all live in different parts of the world or in different time periods, and thus never meet? Or, on a similar note, what if every conversation they have involves a man, despite none of those conversations being romantic?

[Knaight]

Can the advocates of the Bechdel test please get their ducks in a row and decide whether it's an interesting tidbit, a jumping off point into something different, or a conclusion in and of itself?

There are more than two points of view on the subject, asking that everyone that isn't you hold the same one is unreasonable. I'd consider the test a reasonable way to draw conclusions about movies as a whole, based on the existing cultural knowledge of the rarity of films involving a one person cast or even a very small group cast. The genre case doesn't even seem all that strong to me, as the emergence of genres that only involve members of one gender - such as lots of history - are often based on sex segregated societies and that much of historical fiction on said societies focuses exclusively on the activities of one sex is indicative of a problem in and of itself. I'd also consider it more than reasonable for the vast majority of TV series, which tend to run long and have lots and lots of dialogue. Short stories? That gets it more into tidbit areas.

[Jormengand]

There are more than two points of view on the subject, asking that everyone that isn't you hold the same one is unreasonable. I'd consider the test a reasonable way to draw conclusions about movies as a whole, based on the existing cultural knowledge of the rarity of films involving a one person cast or even a very small group cast. The genre case doesn't even seem all that strong to me, as the emergence of genres that only involve members of one gender - such as lots of history - are often based on sex segregated societies and that much of historical fiction on said societies focuses exclusively on the activities of one sex is indicative of a problem in and of itself. I'd also consider it more than reasonable for the vast majority of TV series, which tend to run long and have lots and lots of dialogue. Short stories? That gets it more into tidbit areas.

Right, okay. But the Bechdel test can't both be a conclusion per se and not be a conclusion per se. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and all. It's simply not possible that you're all correct. You're just helping prove my point that the Bechdel test is doing more to confuse people than it is to help the situation in any way.

In any case, if the Bechdel test can't speak for one film, I don't see how it possibly thinks it's going to go around speaking for all films.

[Razanir]

The genre case doesn't even seem all that strong to me, as the emergence of genres that only involve members of one gender - such as lots of history - are often based on sex segregated societies and that much of historical fiction on said societies focuses exclusively on the activities of one sex is indicative of a problem in and of itself.

Why is that a problem, though? Historical societies were more more segregated sexually than modern society. And since the interesting bits of history are the wars and battles, because of that segregation, anything set it history is naturally going to have a hard time passing the Bechdel Test. But that's not indicative of a gender problem in modern society. That's just a long-term effect of the sexism in historical societies.

[Knaight]

Right, okay. But the Bechdel test can't both be a conclusion per se and not be a conclusion per se. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and all. It's simply not possible that you're all correct. You're just helping prove my point that the Bechdel test is doing more to confuse people than it is to help the situation in any way.

No, it's not possible that we're all correct. That would be why there are disagreements between us. It also doesn't prove your point - the test is useless for particularly advanced discussion, but the basic level has such questions as "is there even a gender imbalance in movies" debated, and it's a pretty decisive piece of evidence there.

In any case, if the Bechdel test can't speak for one film, I don't see how it possibly thinks it's going to go around speaking for all films.

There are a whole bunch of tools that are really useful at a population level and absolutely useless at an individual level. Take the entire field of chemistry - essentially nothing in it predicts the result of an individual collision between molecules. A whole bunch predicts the behavior of gigantic groups of molecules (and even a small scale experiment will generally involve 10^20 molecules or more). Take epidemiology - the "does this person smoke" test doesn't necessarily tell you if a particular person has lung cancer. Some smokers never develop it, some non-smokers do. At a population level, the "does this person smoke" test gives some pretty strong evidence that smoking is a major risk factor for lung cancer.

The Bechdel test is the same way. Plenty of deeply sexist movies pass, and plenty of totally OK movies don't. That doesn't mean it's useless at the population level, where a "population" is a particular industry. It's also specific to certain populations, which is really common for basically any test. The "does this person smoke" test is applied to people, and while there is ample reason to believe that tobacco smoke inhalation is dangerous to a number of animals, it's obviously pointless for single celled organisms. Going back to a chemistry example, phenolphthalein is a useful acid base indicator in an aqueous environment, trying to use it in something that happens in diethyl ether would just be stupid. Similarly, the Bechdel test doesn't necessarily transfer well to other mediums - short stories, pornography, small cast plays, etc.

Why is that a problem, though? Historical societies were more more segregated sexually than modern society. And since the interesting bits of history are the wars and battles, because of that segregation, anything set it history is naturally going to have a hard time passing the Bechdel Test. But that's not indicative of a gender problem in modern society. That's just a long-term effect of the sexism in historical societies.

Our culture generally finding the wars and battles the only interesting parts seems like a pretty glaring cultural flaw to me. Historical societal developments are interesting, there's plenty of conflict other than just warfare, and yet we basically only get war movies.