Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Unless your protagonist is Mulan, it's piss easy to pass the Bechdel test. Which is why it's annoying when people ignore it for no good reason.

Of course, there are medias where feminism isn't relevant (i.e. James Bond) but then there are medias where it won't kill the writer to just throw in a couple strong female characters. It's like trying to bake a normal cake and insisting that you'll only put flour in and nothing else.

Throwing in token characters is generally a waste of resources, and will often piss everyone off, your usual fanbase included. This is true of all forms of media.

The fact that you're using the term "token character" to refer to half the world's population might be the problem here.

The Bechdel test is a thing because so, so many things fail it. It's not a test of "is it good?" It's more like "Is this actually plausible?" because is it so hard to write a script where to women can talk to each other about things other than men for at least a little bit of time?

I was referring to "but then there are medias where it won't kill the writer to just throw in a couple strong female characters."

This could easily be achieved by throwing in "strong" characters who, while technically passing the Bechdel test, add absolutely nothing to the story or anything else productive except for existing.

Edit: It is, of course, also entirely possible for a film, video game, or whatever to pass the Bechdel test with flying colors and also be sexist as all hell. It's also possible for a story to take place without women, in a setting such as the front lines of a warzone, an all-male space mission, or a game world like Minecraft's, without being sexist in the slightest. This makes the Bechdel test of limited usefulness at best.

[Neonivek]

There is such a thing as a "Token Male character". A character is token when they seem to exist purely only to fill in a demographic.

But lets say the Main character is male and the villain is male... and the story is about how the main character needs to defeat the main villain who is about to destroy the world.

Now I want you to frame a conversation that isn't about either of them using only minor characters that furthers the plot without being about a man.

Easy right?

Don't compare passing that test to how easy it would be in real life. It actually requires... well... writing to pass.

" This makes the Bechdel test of limited usefulness at best."

It is used academically to view fiction as a whole and not individual cases. Applying it to a singular movie or piece of fiction is against the intent.

And even then the Bechdel test isn't a "Test of sexism".

[hops]

I don't see why women shouldn't be in the war zone.

Although I suppose that having a hyper-competent cynicak Mary Sue is a cliché.

[Neonivek]

I don't see why women shouldn't be in the war zone.

Although I suppose that having a hyper-competent cynicak Mary Sue is a cliché.

Historically? or modern day?

Because one of the larger concerns right now is that sexism is so systemic in military culture that it is better for women to be in their own independent platoons then to intermix them. One of the same reasons why the first mission to mars will not include any women onboard, because the men can't control themselves.

Or that because they will be raped if captured that they should be kept away from that.

Not that I believe in either of those, but that is usually the modern day thinking.

---

Also the Female character Mary Sue's usual problem isn't so much that she is incredibly competent.

But because they basically go "She is incredibly competent... FOR A GIRL!"

Or they just make her REALLY unconvincing at her job.

---

This is enough sexism discussion for me. I want to get out before the polarizing people come.

[scrdest]

Unless your protagonist is Mulan, it's piss easy to pass the Bechdel test. Which is why it's annoying when people ignore it for no good reason.

Of course, there are medias where feminism isn't relevant (i.e. James Bond) but then there are medias where it won't kill the writer to just throw in a couple strong female characters. It's like trying to bake a normal cake and insisting that you'll only put flour in and nothing else.

Throwing in token characters is generally a waste of resources, and will often piss everyone off, your usual fanbase included. This is true of all forms of media.

The fact that you're using the term "token character" to refer to half the world's population might be the problem here.

Token-ity (-ism? -isbeingificity?) has nothing to do with the population proportions; various ethnic minorities are also a significant portion of the population, but it's no less grating when you see a non-white character whose role amounts to 'be a minority or people will complain about insufficient diversity'.

[Morrigi]

There is such a thing as a "Token Male character". A character is token when they seem to exist purely only to fill in a demographic.

But lets say the Main character is male and the villain is male... and the story is about how the main character needs to defeat the main villain who is about to destroy the world.

Now I want you to frame a conversation that isn't about either of them using only minor characters that furthers the plot without being about a man.

Easy right?

How much plot are we talking about? Movies have a lot less time than TV shows, video games, or whatever. In addition, it's not necessary for the conversation in question to further the plot to pass the Bechdel test, which makes it of questionable usefulness. If it did, the whole thing would be subjective, because what furthers the plot and what doesn't is often debatable.

All that said, a trivial conversation would be between two administrators/doctors/random people of any profession about some sort of supply problem/their personal lives before [insert crisis here] occurred/something in the news unrelated to the villain, but still of some importance to the story because of whatever/someone being hurt or killed who isn't a man/etc.

They would then be greeted by name by another character, ending the conversation.

I don't see why women shouldn't be in the war zone.

Although I suppose that having a hyper-competent cynicak Mary Sue is a cliché.

Historically? or modern day?

Because one of the larger concerns right now is that sexism is so systemic in military culture that it is better for women to be in their own independent platoons then to intermix them. One of the same reasons why the first mission to mars will not include any women onboard, because the men can't control themselves.

Or that because they will be raped if captured that they should be kept away from that.

Not that I believe in either of those, but that is usually the modern day thinking.

---

Also the Female character Mary Sue's usual problem isn't so much that she is incredibly competent.

But because they basically go "She is incredibly competent... FOR A GIRL!"

Or they just make her REALLY unconvincing at her job.

Generally speaking, it's not a question of whether women should or shouldn't be on the front lines or not, but whether they're allowed to be in whatever military is being depicted, for the sake of accuracy. As for Mars missions, the rationale is generally that, with a mixed crew, there's a risk of conflict regarding two of them getting romantically involved and a third person getting jealous. Love triangles are a risk factor that, in an extreme circumstance, could theoretically jeopardize the mission. That said, the ISS has been doing just fine with mixed crews, so I doubt it's as much of a problem as people think. However, astronauts are only on the ISS for a few months at a time, as opposed to a Mars mission which would probably be two years at absolute minimum.

[Neonivek]

How much plot are we talking about? Movies have a lot less time than TV shows, video games, or whatever. In addition, it's not necessary for the conversation in question to further the plot to pass the Bechdel test, which makes it of questionable usefulness. If it did, the whole thing would be subjective, because what furthers the plot and what doesn't is often debatable.

All that said, a trivial conversation would be between two administrators/doctors/random people of any profession about some sort of supply problem/their personal lives before [insert crisis here] occurred/something in the news unrelated to the villain, but still of some importance to the story because of whatever/someone being hurt or killed who isn't a man/etc.

They would then be greeted by name by another character, ending the conversation.

because if it was a completely unimportant conversation then you are weakening your movie for the sake of passing the Bechdel test.

Also the people you mention wouldn't be named. What did our hero meet two named doctors?

As for Videogames... The Bechdel test is kind of... really not fit for videogames... It just gets scrambled.

What is kind of odd about the Bechdel test is how it relies on female characters to speak to eachother on their own. I never understood why that was a necessary component... (Ignoring that the Bechdel test was never created as a test. It was a anecdote from a comic)

[Morrigi]

What is kind of odd about the Bechdel test is how it relies on female characters to speak to eachother on their own. I never understood why that was a necessary component...

Because if they're talking to a man they're clearly being oppressed for the sake of upholding the Patriarchy... or something...

[Neonivek]

What is kind of odd about the Bechdel test is how it relies on female characters to speak to eachother on their own. I never understood why that was a necessary component...

Because if they're talking to a man they're clearly being oppressed for the sake of upholding the Patriarchy... or something...

Well ignoring the origins of the Bechdel test.

The intent of the Bechdel test isn't to test just the importance and frequency of women in the plot but also the depths of their concerns.

I can only guess because if it is a female and another female it can't POSSIBLY be to advance a male's story.

I don't know... I just don't like the idea of a test that means nothing if it is passed or failed. It is why I always considered the Bechdel Test FAR superior as a "Thought Exercise" than as a test. Because as a test it just doesn't work because in the end you still have to analyze the entire piece to come to any conclusion and even when applies to "media as a whole" there is no possible way to know what ratio is the "right ratio". But as a thought exercise it is a avenue of thought and discussion about a piece and brings up many questions about its narrative and use of female characters (if any).

[Gentlefish]

What is kind of odd about the Bechdel test is how it relies on female characters to speak to eachother on their own. I never understood why that was a necessary component...

Because if they're talking to a man they're clearly being oppressed for the sake of upholding the Patriarchy... or something...

Nah. It's because it's suprisingly rare for it to happen in many major motion pictures.

[Neonivek]

What is kind of odd about the Bechdel test is how it relies on female characters to speak to eachother on their own. I never understood why that was a necessary component...

Because if they're talking to a man they're clearly being oppressed for the sake of upholding the Patriarchy... or something...

Nah. It's because it's suprisingly rare for it to happen in many major motion pictures.

Hasn't this been proven to be untrue? 56%

In fact more movies pass the test then movies that have "Two named females talking about men only" and "A named female talking to a man about something that isn't about a man only" movies combined.

And this is why I like my test more. It has far less fair passes and unfair fails.

---

For example right now I am watching a show with a female character who is a martial artist.

And she found this guy who is getting training from her father who basically abandoned her. Meaning she has a lot of investment in this plot.

Yet the one who is going to be defeating this guy, and thus finishing her own damn arc, is going to be the male hero.

Why can't she be the one who ends up beating up this guy?

So... She is a competent character, Who has her own storyline separate from the main character's, who isn't the one who completes her own arc... and this show does pass the Bechdel test. Yet which one more strongly indicates a problem with the show? (she is slowly becoming incompetent... but it hasn't happened JUST yet)

Honestly I HATE when a female character has more investment in the plot and more of a reason to solve the plot... Yet it is relegated to a male character who has NO connections beyond this female character to the plot.

Of my Five rules the 5th needs fixing up. Since rules 1-4 are good and easily understandable and applied without obvious exceptions.

[Darvi]

Some people conceived a variant of the Bechdel test based on Pacific Rim. Basically if there's a) a female main character who b) has a plotline of her own which c)isn't about men, the test is passed. In this case I think the plotkine was about murdering giant monsters out of revenge for her family.

[MagmaMcFry]

Here's another explanation for the Monty Hall Problem (for those who aren't sick of it yet): Let's consider a game with a modified set of rules. First, you choose a strategy (stay or switch). Then you choose a door, then the moderator opens a goat from another door, then your choice of door gets modified according to your previous choice of strategy, then all doors open. This game looks different, but is entirely equivalent to the original Monty Hall game.

Choosing to stay gives you an obvious probability of 1/3 to win the game, because then you just have to pick the right door to win. And since you win by choosing to switch exactly when you'd lose by choosing to stay, switching gives you a probability of 2/3.

[PanH]

Learnt about Carlists stuff yesterday 

[Neonivek]

Some people conceived a variant of the Bechdel test based on Pacific Rim. Basically if there's a) a female main character who b) has a plotline of her own which c)isn't about men, the test is passed. In this case I think the plotkine was about murdering giant monsters out of revenge for her family.

It seems rather flawed and even in my version which is VERY similar to that I state that the female character must resolve her plot.

As well it breaks down rather quickly if the plot is ABOUT finding a man. Nuking the Romance genre from orbit.

Where as in my version if her Plotline is about finding a man, and she finds one under her own power...

So my rule is: A) Is competent within the sphere of the show or movie, B) Has her own Plotline, goal, or interest, C) That she resolves under her own power but not necessarily solo... With two optional rules which are... D) Remains competent, E) Isn't thrown under the bus