# The Bechdel Test



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

EDIT: Rehaul of main post, due to confusion.

Wikipedia
TVTropes
Dedicated Website

There are two purposes to this thread. The primary purpose is to establish the prevalence of gender representation within a large sample of writers willing to discuss their own work. The secondary purpose is to spur discussion from there, provided that it is preceded by a clear answer to the question: *"Does your current project pass the Bechdel Test?"*

I've provided a template taken from my own work. It's not necessary to use the template (though it's recommended to get a feel for the work in question) but it is absolutely necessary to state whether your current project passes the Bechdel Test. As I've shown, "Maybe" is an acceptable answer, indicating that the work only barely skims the requirements.

Example:

Work: Puppets, Novel, 25,000 words (so far)
Two female characters: Melinda, Travel
Conversation length: Two lines of dialogue.
Conversation subject: Paranoia.


> I say to her, “Who can I trust?”
> [snip] ...she whispers, softly, barely audible, “Not even yourself.”


Verdict: *MAYBE.*


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

After reading up on the Bechdel Test I must say that it fails to pass the smell test, IMHO.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> After reading up on the Bechdel Test I must say that it fails to pass the smell test, IMHO.



Not what this thread is about.

*Template:*

Work:
Two female characters:
Conversation length:
Conversation subject:


> Evidence


Verdict:


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Not what this thread is about.



Well then why is this thread entitled: The Bechdel Test if it has nothing to do with the Bechdel Test?????


----------



## Fin (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> Well then why is this thread entitled: The Bechdel Test if it has nothing to do with the Bechdel Test?????



I am confused as to what you are talking about. Click the link in his post, or simply Google it. I don't see what it has to do with the smell of anything. It's a bit self explanatory. If your story has two females in it that speak to each other about something other than a man, then you pass. If not, you don't pass.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Sep 23, 2012)

They should give this Bechdel woman a job at the BBC. Who is she that makes her test so important? It's only a flickr page.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

Bilston Blue said:


> They should give this Bechdel woman a job at the BBC. Who is she that makes her test so important? It's only a flickr page.



EDIT: Further reading. [////EDIT]

Wikipedia
TVTropes
Dedicated Website

I linked to the flickr page because it was the only place where I could find the original source material. I'm a stickler for original source material.


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2012)

Admin note: Please avoid the personal comments.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 23, 2012)

Pretty sure my WIP fails to show two men talking to each other about something other than a woman.

On further perusal: Woo-hoo, found a scene with two women talking about pregnancy. One doing the other's hair. Not sure this makes me a paragon of feminist writing or anything.


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2012)

I couldn't care less if my writing fails to meet this requirement.  I'm interested in what fits in with the story, not aiming at politically correct gender requirements.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 23, 2012)

Maybe people should think a minute before dismissing something entirely. The Bechtel test is simply a device used to make a point -- and it’s an interesting one. Why do the vast majority of movies depict women only as they relate to men -- even if they’re strong characters? We have women in roles throughout society formerly dominated by men -- but that’s not really reflected in movies -- not in a way that shows them interacting, making decisions - and somehow not relying on men -- or considering men as love interests. Something that obviously happens in real life. The question is, why is that -- is it intentional -- if so, who’s driving it and why? It's not really about the test itself, which when taken too literally, doesn't really hold up.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

lasm said:


> found a scene with two women talking about pregnancy



So far this is the only text in the thread that actually addresses the purpose of the thread.

The purpose is in the original post, in huge text, followed immediately by a template for people to follow.

I'll make it larger. Gimme a second.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 23, 2012)

So actually explaining or prompting a discussion about the purpose of the test isn't important. People should just answer the questions in a vacuum. 

Boring.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

JosephB said:


> So actually explaining or prompting a discussion about the purpose of the test isn't important. People should just answer the questions in a vacuum.
> 
> Boring.



Alright, alright. Here we go.

What I'm trying to do is get a very fast and loose sense of gender representation for this kind of demographic (modern writers willing to discuss their work, generally leaning towards liberal from what I've seen in the debate thread). I think it's a good idea to start a discussion, but I think the discussion is less useful without a clear idea of where this is stemming from. What I'm asking, very clearly, is for people to examine if their current project passes the test. The discussion should stem from there, personalizing it.

I provided a template because I didn't want people dancing around the issue, winging and hoo-haaing and making excuses. Even my own example barely passes the minimum requirements.

Actually I'm going to paste this to the main post as well, to see if that'll explain things more clearly.

The vitriole regarding this whole thread is kind of shocking, to be honest.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 23, 2012)

I wouldn’t call it vitriol so much as a reaction to you not doing a very good job setting things up. You might want to remove the condescending,  giant type while you’re at it.

This is a discussion forum, not your personal research tool, so don't be surprised if people want to discuss things -- maybe in a way that doesn't go just as you planned.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 23, 2012)

Seems like it should take you about two seconds to figure out if it (your work) does or doesn't 'pass the test', and then another two to decide if it matters or not. It's interesting about _'_Hollywood' but unless you write for them, I don't see the relevance. It is kind of odd that a series that was extremely popular among women (_Sex in the City)_, and was all about woman, focussed entirely on what the test was against, but after reading the link I take it that Bechdel couldn't relate well to the subject of male/female relationships. I think if this test became the rule, then some might characterize it as an example of 'feminazism'. Currently I think of it as a form of social critisism, perhaps coming from a specific 'perspective'. Upon failing the test, I suppose you might ask yourself _if_ it proves that you are either obsessed about relationships and getting/keeping a man, or some sort of primitive misogynist. For me, the answers are 'no', and 'no'.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

What I find most interesting is trying to set up in my mind a scenario where the opposite was true - it's a female-dominated cast with only a few male characters that can't shut up about the female leads. Shows like Sex in the City I find to be particularly despicable, in that they're about women, marketed towards a female audience, and yet horrifyingly obsessed only with the main characters' relationships with men.

In my own work, despite having several female leads who are all completely uninterested in relationships, it passes the test only on the barest terms. I can make an easy excuse, such as "it's not relevant to the plot" (which it isn't) or "the story is more important" (which it absolutely is), but the fact remains that I could easily write as cohesive a story if some of the male characters were female.

Then again many of the minor characters are supposed to be represented as a bit thuggish, desperate to beat some sort of manliness into each other in a world that has literally made them sterile. None of them attack or harm women in any kind of gender-related violence, however, because the enjoyment of it doesn't compare to fighting each other. It's a bit like the guys from Fight Club in a loose sense, except in this case they're actually killing people and there's a higher purpose they use to rationalize their actions. It's very difficult to install female characters into that sort of conflict because traditionally, the frustration behind it isn't as clear-cut; there isn't a societal pressure to be virile and manly if you're a woman.

Another important issue that comes up often in the discussion of the Bechdel Test is the fact that often the two characters are mother and daughter, or similarly related. While the two characters mentioned in the template aren't related, and in fact had never met until that moment, the other main source of female interaction is between Travel and her ethereal little sister. None of their interactions qualify because most of it is communicated through either visceral emotion, or just through the narrative. They never physically speak to each other and no real words are ever exchanged.

Therefore, there are many limitations to using the Bechdel Test as an evaluation of a single work because of the nature of telling a story.

However, in evaluating a larger sample, it can help reveal the extent to which the larger body is dismissive in its representation of women.

*That's why I want people to use the template and to publicly self-evaluate. It's only effective in a larger sample, and I not only wanted to discuss it, but more importantly to get writers to think about their own work and the collective work of a group as a whole.*

EDIT: Original post should be a bit more comprehensible now.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 23, 2012)

_'s in the c' - _I think it proves that steriotypes can be true. It's like when you take away their toy guns, little boys will simply make toy guns out of sticks, and girls will do what girls do. 
 I do remember noticing  that in a lot of older movies the male leads were often fogies, and the females in their early twenties. Current t.v. commercials often cast the 'doofiest' of guys with women that are way too pretty for them. Perhaps this reflects the reality of the makers? (affluent+ugly = trophy..)


----------



## dale (Sep 23, 2012)

of course, this test was created by a homosexual. and it's always that way. all these idiotic feminist gender schemes
which try to portray people as "sexist" are always influenced, initiated, and produced by people who are gender confused
in the 1st place. women like this alison bechdel are the reason a lot of men just can't take women seriously. i mean, look
at her. this woman wants to BE a man so bad.....her little test is just an invented outlet to attempt to manipulate people
into being as confused as she is. i don't even care if this test labels me a sexist. i'll be a sexist, chauvinistic man. i rather
like myself that way. too bad alison can't be that too. because that's what she really wants.

Alison Bechdel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

dale said:


> of course, this test was created by a homosexual. and it's always that way. all these idiotic feminist gender schemes
> which try to portray people as "sexist" are always influenced, initiated, and produced by people who are gender confused
> in the 1st place. women like this alison bechdel are the reason a lot of men just can't take women seriously. i mean, look
> at her. this woman wants to BE a man so bad.....her little test is just an invented outlet to attempt to manipulate people
> ...



Off topic. EDIT: _I feel that a discussion of the creator is not the most important thing to be focused on, because the test itself has moved beyond her influence, and also I do not believe that ideas should be discounted based on the perspective they were introduced from or the way they were expressed, in much the same way that I can personally condemn Julien Assange but yet still support the concept of Wikileaks._

Also, this deeply saddens me.
Not your opinions, but the _formatting oh my god what have you done_


----------



## dale (Sep 23, 2012)

lol. no. it has everything to do with the topic. this is basically like letting a schizophrenic design a psyche evaluation test.
it's flawed from it's very premise.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 23, 2012)

Don't shoot the messenger. It’s a pretty interesting thing to consider if you have an open mind. If.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 23, 2012)

Staff Deployment, the question you raise is actually really interesting to me, even if, as you and others say, the test itself is an obviously imperfect tool. Sometimes I think it's good to consider larger issues in one's writing, like, for example, how do I treat gender in my work? What assumptions do I have about men and women, what cultural roles do I assign them? Because whether we write with defined gender roles in mind or not, even if the plot has nothing to do with love or sex or anything, we're going to transmit some kind of idea of gender in our writing. 

Normally I find gender studies to be pretty reductive and uninteresting - I don't see people as determined by their particular assemblies of body parts and don't appreciate being thought of that way, either. But when I look at my WIP with this lens, I find there's quite a clear division between a male-dominated social structure and a female-dominated one, with valorization of the feminine. And I can see how in a way, I've set up this female MC with a choice between them. So I have to ask myself: Am I okay with this? Is this a message I want to send? Or do I want to change it?

Gender isn't the only topic I find problematic in my work, either. The way I depict violence and the people who use violence might be pretty messed up, really. My families are destroyed almost before they form. These are big issues that I think bear consideration.

However, my decision so far has been not to give this too much thought until I get the first draft fully written. For now, when I can, I'm trying to write without overthinking the politics and my own authorial position, but those things do matter to me and I think I'll need to confront them eventually.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

dale said:


> this is basically like letting a schizophrenic design a psyche evaluation test.



[snip, due to issues brought up]

I've openly discussed [the bechdel test's] limitations and expressed how it wasn't a reliable determinant for any one specific work, due its highly unspecific nature and vague relevance to the story itself.

But while we're on the subject...

Pretty much every single song ever created in the history of mankind fails the Bechdel Test.
As does this forum post.
As does the U.S. Constitution.
As does YOUR MOM. (You should inform your dad so your dad can beat up "As" and rekindle the spark of his marriage.)

Right that derailed pretty quickly.

Anyway, Lasm, I definitely appreciate all that. That's precisely the kind of thinking I was intending to spur.


----------



## Baron (Sep 23, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Off topic.
> 
> Also, this deeply saddens me.
> Not your opinions, but the _formatting oh my god what have you done_


Admin note: Please leave moderation to the staff.  

This is a discussion forum, as has been pointed out.  Any comment on the theme of the OP is therefore valid.  A waning has also been placed in this thread about personal comments.  I'm adding another about ignoring staff.


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

Baron said:


> I couldn't care less if my writing fails to meet this requirement.  I'm interested in what fits in with the story, not aiming at politically correct gender requirements.



Exactly, which is why this Bechdel Test doesn't meet the smell test. It is set up to get a predetermined result and not a reality-based result. For example, my first novel would fail this test. However, it has two very strong female characters in it - one is the leader of all of the planet Earth and the other is leading an assault on the protagonist. They are on two separate planets and never speak to each other nor need to to further the story.

Does that make me a gender-biased writer because there is no dialogue between them? I don't think so.

This test is so flawed as to be laughable and unworthy of the amount of time we have spent on it in this thread.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> Does that make me a gender-biased writer because there is no dialogue between them? I don't think so.



Well, but if you thought about your depiction of women and decided, for concrete reasons, that you're comfortable with it, then that sounds to me like a productive moment. Anything that makes you think useful thoughts is useful, even if the thing itself isn't great, at least that's my approach.


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

lasm said:


> Well, but if you thought about your depiction of women and decided, for concrete reasons, that you're comfortable with it, then that sounds to me like a productive moment.



I would think that if a writer needed a flawed "test" like this to figure out the answer to that question then he/she isn't that good at the craft to begin with. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## alanmt (Sep 23, 2012)

I fail the test, but it might actually be structural in my case, since I am writing a fantasy romance between two men at a remote and isolated location.  The main female in my project is a two year old girl, with a late appearance by an elderly woman, a flashback appearance by a dead young barmaid, an envisioned princess and a few background or flashback villagers, noblewomen, crone, etc.

I haven't delineated the sex of the pet hound, various wolves, lovecraftian horrors, pegasi, dragon and mountain cat.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> Exactly, which is why this Bechdel Test doesn't meet the smell test. It is set up to get a predetermined result and not a reality-based result. For example, my first novel would fail this test. However, it has two very strong female characters in it - one is the leader of all of the planet Earth and the other is leading an assault on the protagonist. They are on two separate planets and never speak to each other nor need to to further the story.
> 
> Does that make me a gender-biased writer because there is no dialogue between them? I don't think so.
> 
> This test is so flawed as to be laughable and unworthy of the amount of time we have spent on it in this thread.



Well let's take your piece, based on what you've let on so far.

You've created a huge sweeping space epic, with, I assume, intrigue and action and violence and drama and all that good stuff that people love. You've got a strong female character who leads men in battle against a person who, being a protagonist, has had the deck stacked in his favour from the start. To battle a hero takes real courage. You've also got a female character who literally rules Earth. Not a state, not a country, but an entire planet full of potentially billions of people.

This leader, the ruler of the world... does she have any advisors? To take on such a task would be impossible for any one person alone. Anyone who wants to rule the world without a constant supporting team of trusted advisors is certifiably insane. Considering that your work doesn't pass the Bechdel Test, this means one of three things: either she doesn't have any advisors, which would make her less a strong female character and more of an idiot, or you've chosen not to include any scenes with her advisors, which is passing up a very good opportunity for exposition and characterization, or, maybe, none of her advisors are female. That last one is a bit of an issue for obvious reasons.

And then you have your military commander. Are none of her subordinates female? Certainly talking about upcoming battles or troop movements or the logistics of moving a sizable force from one place to the next would be enough to pass the Bechdel Test. What you've most likely done is avoided these kinds of scenes. As I mentioned before, that's missing a great opportunity to provide info to your reader in a believable context, as well as a good place for characterization, e.g. she yells at her subordinates, or she sits down at eye level with them, or she murders those who oppose her, or she is romantically involved with someone of a lesser rank, etc etc etc.

You have to take into account that, especially in a science fiction novel, there are going to be loads and loads of diverse and interesting characters. Especially for people in a position of power, to avoid speaking with advisors or subordinates is foolish from their perspective and also from the perspective of a writer who wants to establish them as strong female characters. If all of these subordinates and advisors are male, then that's absolutely an issue that you can't simply ignore.

So, to recap, dismissing the test as unworthy of your time is absolutely a false assertion, because you can use it as a launching point to examine your own writing, and, hopefully, self-reflect.


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

You left out the small clan of mini polar bear-like creatures on Europa I created in your scathing riposte and they are quite cross with you over this slight.

But seriously, your Bechdel Test is flawed, no matter hard you try to spin it otherwise. Most writers I personally know, or have read up on, do a pretty thorough job of self-reflection when it comes to their work and need no PC test to tell them if the story/characters are lacking.

Perhaps the fatal blow for your test can best be delivered by Italian author Umberto Eco. Google the name and tell me that "The Name of the Rose" was not a great work of fiction because it had only one (and a minor character at that) female character in it?

And really, giving me an "unpleasant" in reputation because I simply disagree with the importance you placed on a dubious test? How petty.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> This test is so flawed as to be laughable and unworthy of the amount of time we have spent on it in this thread.


 It's not so bad to think about things like this, is it? What's a few minutes out of a lifetime? In the past I've been called to task about use the word 'retarded'. So I thought about it, researched it, etc. I _am_ from the _last century, _so it could be that I'm a bit old in my thinking. Turns out I'm perfect, but nevermind...


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 23, 2012)

Well, my stuff would almost all fail, I guess, mainly because I may have women in them but they rarely talk to each other, and it's mostly in passing. I just don't write women that much.

I do think one has to consider genre. I mean, take romance. That's almost the whole point - women's relationships with men - so two women getting together would obviously be talking about the men. So before one could say that novels (overall) pass or fail or have X percentage either way, it needs some factoring. Romances shouldn't even be included. SciFi - that would be interesting. Thrillers, too. So I think one has to look at the purpose of the writing, first, and then decide if this test is even applicable to it.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 23, 2012)

I prefer the Cadence test: Have you written the novel yet? Are you happy with it? If so, good.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 23, 2012)

While I don't really concern myself with the sexism aspect, I think the test is useful because it encourages one to look critically at their characters and what purpose they have for being in the story. Do they exist as individual characters (with goals, arcs, et cetera), or are they only there as an authorial tool?

You can adjust it to any scene, regardless of gender, and instead of asking if the conversation relates to men, you can ask if the scene is authentic to the characters, or if you are simply using the characters as plot devices.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 23, 2012)

All I care about is whether or not my work passes the Awesome test.


----------



## Nickleby (Sep 23, 2012)

The fact that so many people dismiss the whole point of this exercise is cause for concern. In the real world women talk to each other all the time, and only rarely about men to the exclusion of all else. If that's not being represented in fiction, it means that fiction is a poor mirror of the real world, that female characters are represented poorly, that there are few independent female characters, or all of the above.

I happen to be male, but the narrator in my current work is female. She talks to other characters, male and female, and only rarely about men. Why is this such a difficult concept? Why is it so hard to do?


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

Nickleby said:


> The fact that so many people dismiss the whole point of this exercise is cause for concern. In the real world women talk to each other all the time, and only rarely about men to the exclusion of all else. If that's not being represented in fiction, it means that fiction is a poor mirror of the real world, that female characters are represented poorly, that there are few independent female characters, or all of the above.
> 
> I happen to be male, but the narrator in my current work is female. She talks to other characters, male and female, and only rarely about men. Why is this such a difficult concept? Why is it so hard to do?



Changing your story for the sole purpose so that it fits the premise of this "test" is a major issue. And it is laughable to make the assumption that women are not well represented in fiction today. I could crash the server of this site if I were to post the strong female characters in fiction today. Of the 100+ novels on my shelf alone, all but three have strong female leads.

This test does nothing, NOT A SINGLE BLOODY THING, to improve the quality of your work. Its sole purpose is to validate an extremist agenda.

The only "test" that should apply to any work is:

Does what you have just written advance the story? 
Does it give valuable insight into the character(s) involved?

If you answered yes to either, you may proceed.


----------



## Eluixa (Sep 23, 2012)

I do have conversations between women, but I had to go look at one to be sure men were not mentioned. As it happens, a baby boy is mentioned and bathed and partly the conversation has to do with this. So, does that count? There are baby girls in the story too, just happened to be a boy. Another conversation is to do with sharing out cloth and sewing, but I did not check to be sure men did not enter that conversation at all. 
In another, a boy's name is mentioned before the conversation is interrupted. Later we will find out a young man was partly responsible for a disaster that might have been averted had he not neglected his post [because he was making out with a girl] and he interrupts it before his sister has a chance to mention him, because he is ashamed. My entire story is based on relationships, family, friend and sexual and they mix frequently. 

Our husbands come up in conversation when I am talking with friends, not all the time, but here and there. The longer the conversation, the more likely men will be included at some point. Men, boys, are a very big part of our lives, single, married, as a child with a father, as a grandmother with a grandson, just part and parcel.
Also, men in my story talk about women, to women, get interrupted by women, talk or argue on opposite sides of an issue... there is misogyny as well.
Your post did make me run through my WIP in my head though, so thanks for that and I'll continue to think about it too. 

Could be many men and women just have a disadvantage when writing about their opposite sex talking. Because if you are a male joining a female talk, that can immediately change any conversation you've entered between two women. Maybe less so with women joining a man's conversation, but there may be some changes made there as well. Not to mention some of the stuff men or women talk about just are not interesting to the other sex/person and are avoided or go unnoticed. 
I'm trying to write two main male characters and a female. Plus many others male and female. Could be I might check for a conversation between the men where women aren't mentioned? Cause I am not sure I have one yet. Not that I am going to add one, just saying.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> Changing your story for the sole purpose so that it fits the premise of this "test" is a major issue. And it is laughable to make the assumption that women are not well represented in fiction today. I could crash the server of this site if I were to post the strong female characters in fiction today. Of the 100+ novels on my shelf alone, all but three have strong female leads.
> 
> This test does nothing, NOT A SINGLE BLOODY THING, to improve the quality of your work. Its sole purpose is to validate an extremist agenda.
> 
> ...



Don't think anyone's proposed changing a story so that it will "pass" this test. What I and others have said is that this is something that one can use, if desired, as a jumping-off point for examination of how one writes gender. There are other ways to provoke that same process, sure. This is just one. And examination can absolutely help improve the quality of the work, regardless of how one approaches it.

In any case, not sure why you feel the need for caps there. I don't think the purpose of the test is to further an extremist agenda; it's just to ask the question. If you feel fine about how you answer the question, then more power to you.


----------



## RichardScribe (Sep 23, 2012)

My primary issue is washing a written work through any kind of PC filter, which is what this bogus "test" does. Look at how many works of the past would never have been printed if this kind of extremist, agenda-driven crap was in place to throttle the free flow of thought onto the printed page.

I'll drop out of this thread now. I've made my point. But shame on anyone who washes their work through this crap filter masquerading as a "test" and changes even a single word because of it.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 23, 2012)

RichardScribe said:


> But seriously, your Bechdel Test is flawed



Yes. The Bechdel Test is flawed, especially when used to evaluate only a single work. I myself have written about that in detail. In this thread.



RichardScribe said:


> And really, giving me an "unpleasant" in reputation because I simply disagree with the importance you placed on a dubious test? How petty.



What?

Regardless of whatever you're talking about here, I think it's odd that you disregarded the point I was trying to make, which is that it can be used as a stepping stone for a more objective self-evaluation. I think that it's legitimately very difficult for people in general to self-evaluate and this is very helpful.

I would definitely take a look at your representation of women because it seems like you subconsciously avoid them in your novel, from the brief description you've shown me. There were plenty of opportunities to pass the test but you didn't take advantage of them, which is very strange. I also pointed out how the scenarios in which you could very easily, and in a plot-related manner, pass the test would also help improve the characterization of your female cast, which should be very useful.


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 24, 2012)

Does my current work pass the Bechdel test?

I don't think so, but it could easily if I wanted it to.

Is it a problem? I don't really think so. There are more often than not going to be male protagonists or males involved in the main plot in some way, either as the main character,  partner, sidekick, or bad guy. That is going to skew the results a bit. Depending on the story, it could take some twisting to get two women together to talk about something unrelated to a man if a man is integral to the plot. Like, if the female lead has a male partner, I think it's going to bog down the story if you try to contrive a way to get him out of the picture and get some woman to replace him for the moment so they can talk about something, something that most likely is unrelated to the plot if the main problem involves a male bad guy. Remember that superfluous dialogue is usually first to be cut. I think it's better to work towards the best story you can muster whether it passes that test or not.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 24, 2012)

My novel absolutely passes the Bechdel test.  About half the characters in the story are female as a matter of course (not because I'm anything close to a feminist, but because, well, that's how the world is), and eight of them are involved in Bechdel conversations.  If my POV wasn't focused third-person with a male protagonist, it would've been higher; as it is, we tend to only see characters talking to him, not each other.

Here's a brief list of the conversations.  There may be more, but my novel is long and these are the ones I remember.

10 lines - two friends
10 lines - nurse and patient
15 lines - two friends
21 lines - officer and subordinate
26 lines - officer and subordinate
3 lines - coworkers



Staff Deployment said:


> As does YOUR MOM. (You should inform your dad so your dad can beat up "As" and rekindle the spark of his marriage.)



I laughed.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 24, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> Is it a problem? I don't really think so. There are more often than not going to be male protagonists or males involved in the main plot in some way, either as the main character,  partner, sidekick, or bad guy. That is going to skew the results a bit. Depending on the story, it could take some twisting to get two women together to talk about something unrelated to a man if a man is integral to the plot. Like, if the female lead has a male partner, I think it's going to bog down the story if you try to contrive a way to get him out of the picture and get some woman to replace him for the moment so they can talk about something, something that most likely is unrelated to the plot if the main problem involves a male bad guy.



Obviously the conditions of the test are not central to your story, nor necessary to telling a compelling story at all, which is one of the test's main criticisms.

However it does help reveal inherent preferences. For example, your story seems very male-dominated. You listed the following character types: Protagonist, partner, side-kick, antagonist, female lead, male partner. Of these, only one of them is a female role, according to you, and that role you indicated would be bogged down enough that it would be difficult to get her male partner away so she could have a conversation.

Think about that - you've described a character so dependent on the male figure in her life that even for the purpose of a story she can't let go of him long enough to talk to another woman about anything other than another male character. That in itself is grounds for what could be the foundation of a compelling story about gender roles and relationships.

As I'm aware, you introduced this Female Lead as a hypothetical - she might not even be in your story. Even if she is, you still inexplicably have a very male dominated cast. I'm not gonna suggest you change your story because that would be idiotic, as there are so many other things at play, but it's an interesting thing to keep in mind for future stories and projects, especially ones set in the modern world where these issues have become very vocal.


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 25, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> For example, your story seems very male-dominated. You listed the following character types: Protagonist, partner, side-kick, antagonist, female lead, male partner. Of these, only one of them is a female role, according to you, and that role you indicated would be bogged down enough that it would be difficult to get her male partner away so she could have a conversation.
> 
> Think about that - you've described a character so dependent on the male figure in her life that even for the purpose of a story she can't let go of him long enough to talk to another woman about anything other than another male character. That in itself is grounds for what could be the foundation of a compelling story about gender roles and relationships.



It's not so much that a hypothetical character would be dependent on her male partner, but that the situation in which they would be separated and she would find another women, and they would talk, and the topic would be something that doesn't involve men, just might not present itself because the nature of the plot just doesn't allow for it. It isn't necessarily gender bias in that case but rather a matter of convenience. For example, a strong female lead stuck in a situation with all men could be as feminist one wanted but it would still fail the Bechdel test, and a story that is as misogynist as one can get without being hate speech can pass with a token scene of two women stereotypes talking about something together. To me, it means the Bechdel test isn't a measurement of gender bias at the level of the individual story, and so it isn't really a measurement of the same thing when generalized to all stories as a whole.

My piece for example doesn't pass the Bechdel test because the main character is "male" (he is actually an android built to be male). Throughout the story, he meets various men and women with different sexual orientations and personalities, but because I've made the effort to put men and women together in the same roles (to show the gender equality of this society) it means that there is only one scene where he does not take part of a conversation (and instead overhears it) in which two women talk about solutions to a problem they're having with another character. In my story this character is male, so it fails the Bechdel test. But if the character were a woman - a purely superficial change in this instance - it would pass.

I guess I personally don't think the Bechdel test is a good measure of gender bias or gender equality, so one should write their story without regards to it, but that's just me. If one wanted to adhere to the Bechdel test and make it work then that's fine too.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 25, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> I guess I personally don't think the Bechdel test is a good measure of gender bias or gender equality, so one should write their story without regards to it, but that's just me. If one wanted to adhere to the Bechdel test and make it work then that's fine too.



I agree. Technically, the Bechdel Test is really just a punch line from a comic strip.

To be honest, though, most of the women in my life tend to talk about men. It's not _all_ they talk about, of course, but it's generally a common topic.

Why? Because most often people talk about people. It's rare that conversations will continue on about plants, or rocks, or hotdogs, for very long. Usually people are involved in some way. And Men are 50% of gender population that comprises of "people". So 50% of the time that the conversation involves people, women are going to be talking about men.

Failing the Bechdel Test is realistic. I think it'd be more unrealistc to have all your female characters avoid talking about men, in order to satisfy some feminist desire to portray women as being so independent that they don't consider men a part of their lives at all.

I consider the test as the strip author's way of pointing out that many female characters seem _dependent_ upon male characters in some form or another, as if the female characters only exist to be reactionary to men, and she doesn't agree that this should be the case. Which, I agree with as well.

But aside from that, I don't think the Bechdel Test has much practical use. Good for discussion, though.


----------



## Jamie (Sep 25, 2012)

My current work passes her silly, flawed test. Not that I care at all either way.


----------



## Kryptex (Sep 25, 2012)

It doesn't really matter does it? If it passes, it passes and you gain nothing except happiness you've passed something. If it fails, it fails and you are left with the decision to edit your work (*never*), or just leave it the way it is.

Personally, until this test has been proved & verified that it helps establish a book throughout Europe, Asia, USA etcetera, I wouldn't adhere to it, no.

And in regards to it, women *love* talking about men. Take Fifty Shades of Grey for example. Badly written, Hugely popular.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 26, 2012)

I'm kind of surprised that so many people are taking the Bechdel test as the definitive metric by which a novel is good or not, when it's clearly nothing of the sort.  It's simply out there to prove a point - most female characters in movies and books don't have independent enough roles to justify talking about anything other than men.

Or, to put the point of the test another way, if it's SO EASY to pass the test, or if the test is SO INSIGNIFICANT, why do so few works pass?



KyleColorado said:


> Failing the Bechdel Test is realistic. I think it'd be more unrealistc to have all your female characters avoid talking about men, in order to satisfy some feminist desire to portray women as being so independent that they don't consider men a part of their lives at all.



If it's so unrealistic for women to talk to each other without mentioning men, why is it so commonplace for men to talk to each other without mentioning women?


----------



## dale (Sep 26, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I'm kind of surprised that so many people are taking the Bechdel test as the definitive metric by which a novel is good or not, when it's clearly nothing of the sort.  It's simply out there to prove a point - most female characters in movies and books don't have independent enough roles to justify talking about anything other than men.
> 
> Or, to put the point of the test another way, if it's SO EASY to pass the test, or if the test is SO INSIGNIFICANT, why do so few works pass?



probably because it has nothing to do whatsoever with actual social reality. all it's really about is some gender-confused woman attempting to
pigeonhole her own twisted version of reality into some kind of invented "social norm" which doesn't exist through this manipulative pseudo-intellectual testing ploy.
the woman who came out with this test wants to be a man soooooooooo bad, that she's simply attempting to stack the deck to make people believe that
if they don't pass her silly little grade, that they're some kind of raging sexist. that's all it is.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 26, 2012)

dale said:


> probably because it has nothing to do whatsoever with actual social reality.



Isn't actual social reality that women talk to each other all the time without mentioning men?


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 26, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> If it's so unrealistic for women to talk to each other without mentioning men, why is it so commonplace for men to talk to each other without mentioning women?



Men have their own stereotypes to fulfill: talking about sports, fighting, or money.  Perhaps we need a Bechdel test for male characters to make sure these conversations don't happen in stories, either. Lol.


----------



## dale (Sep 26, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Isn't actual social reality that women talk to each other all the time without mentioning men?



not that i've seen. i mean yeah....they talk about other things. men talk about other things than women too when they're involved with
something else. but most of the time, women are either talking about men, or they're talking about some other woman they feel contempt
or jealousy over BECAUSE of men. very rarely do i witness my wife and her friends chatting about either us men, or things in relation to us men.
it's called human nature. kind of hard to get away from. just the same when me and my buddies get together, we talk about women most
of the time. so what? and why is it even considered "wrong" to do so? that's the REAL question that needs asked of this test. what makes
it wrong for women to talk about men? or vice-versa? this confused women obviously has some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder 
about the whole thing.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 26, 2012)

dale said:


> not that i've seen. i mean yeah....they talk about other things. men talk about other things than women too when they're involved with
> something else. but most of the time, women are either talking about men, or they're talking about some other woman they feel contempt
> or jealousy over BECAUSE of men. very rarely do i witness my wife and her friends chatting about either us men, or things in relation to us men.
> it's called human nature. kind of hard to get away from. just the same when me and my buddies get together, we talk about women most
> ...



That's funny, when I get together with other women we usually talk about work, books, movies and TV, music, restaurants, trips we're planning or have taken, etc. There's usually a little, How's Mr. Lasm? Oh he's fine, how's Mr. Friend? but no, the menfolk are not the main topic of conversation, not unless they've been up to no good.

Also, all Bechdel did was draw a comic strip. She's not trying to impose her worldview on anybody. Your continued attacks on her based on her appearance and sexuality are over the top and beside the point.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 26, 2012)

I looked at my current WIP through the eyes of this test and was surprised to find that I passed.  In the only situations where I have two women talking between themselves for an extended period of time they are discussing shopping.  So my work must not be gender biased.


----------



## dale (Sep 26, 2012)

lasm said:


> That's funny, when I get together with other women we usually talk about work, books, movies and TV, music, restaurants, trips we're planning or have taken, etc. There's usually a little, How's Mr. Lasm? Oh he's fine, how's Mr. Friend? but no, the menfolk are not the main topic of conversation, not unless they've been up to no good.
> 
> Also, all Bechdel did was draw a comic strip. She's not trying to impose her worldview on anybody. Your continued attacks on her based on her appearance and sexuality are over the top and beside the point.



no. they are completely on point. her gender confusion has everything to do with this test and her biased conclusions drawn from it.


----------



## dale (Sep 26, 2012)

Terry D said:


> I looked at my current WIP through the eyes of this test and was surprised to find that I passed.  In the only situations where I have two women talking between themselves for an extended period of time they are discussing shopping.  So my work must not be gender biased.



actually, i don't know how this woman's test would pigeonhole my current work in progress. it has 3 characters...2 female and 1 male.
the dominating figure is 1 of the women. the male is her twisted kind of house-servant. the other woman is a kidnapped victim
of the dominant woman. the man serves her also, but he also does devious things to her at the request of the dominant woman.
 but at the very end, the male servant does kill the dominant woman. maybe ms. bechdel can find away to grade that one.
i can't and really won't even bother trying to hard to do so.


----------



## Kryptex (Sep 26, 2012)

Dale you seem agitated over something so trivial.

If people want to conform, let them. If you don't want to - don't.


----------



## dale (Sep 26, 2012)

Kryptex said:


> Dale you seem agitated over something so trivial.
> 
> If people want to conform, let them. If you don't want to - don't.



just bored and discussing a topic. i love these whacked out liberal concepts these people have.
they're fun to mock. i'm not agitated. i'm having a good time, actually.

edit: oh, and btw, by "these people", i meant radicals like bechdel herself, not anyone on this forum.


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 26, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Or, to put the point of the test another way, if it's SO EASY to pass the test, or if the test is SO INSIGNIFICANT, why do so few works pass?



Because of convenience. Our job as writers is to write a story. Sometimes that story doesn't have two women talking to each other because it doesn't happen in the plot, or because of the sex of the protagonist, 1st or 3rd person, etc. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but the test really doesn't consider how women themselves are portrayed, what roles they take on, and/or what problems they face as women. I consider it a slap in face to women that the measurement of gender bias would be as trivial as two women talking about something other than a man. That is just so... shallow.


----------



## Nickleby (Sep 27, 2012)

I'll admit it, political correctness can go too far. Without some context, the Bechdel Test doesn't make much sense. The implication is that, if your work doesn't include at least two fully realized female characters, you've failed at writing.

That's not the point, though. There are similar tests for Mary Sues, for fantasy cliches, for various other characteristics. Your work isn't necessarily bad if it doesn't pass one of these tests, and it's not necessarily good if it does pass. What the tests do is make you conscious of potential flaws. Nobody who wants to be taken seriously will write a Mary Sue story, so we avoid the characteristics of Mary Sues. A character may have one or two traits that a Mary Sue has, but that doesn't make the character a Mary Sue.

What the Bechdel Test does is make you conscious of your female characters. Don't have any female characters? Rather than complain about the test, you should think about why that is. If your story involves a WW2 infantry unit, then it's very possible you wouldn't have any women. In the real world, it's hard to avoid them.

Purely from a marketing standpoint, it's not wise to focus on men exclusively. You're alienating half of your potential audience.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 27, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> I consider it a slap in face to women that the measurement of gender bias would be as trivial as two women talking about something other than a man. That is just so... shallow.



But that's exactly the point.  If it's so trivial, why it is so rare?

I agree that the gender of the protagonist is probably the biggest contributor to this.  My own story only has a handful of Bechdel interactions because the MC is male.  But then we have to ask the question, why are so many protagonists male? Is it because of male writers? Male audience? Males being the only ones with stories worth telling?

Any way you look at it, the Bechdel test reveals an imbalance, and that's really its sole purpose.


----------



## Mutimir (Sep 28, 2012)

I have a story with a female MC having conversation involving a male. The male is asking the female about a female. Do I win anything? Like a feminist flag pin?


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 28, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> But that's exactly the point.  If it's so trivial, why it is so rare?



It being trivial or not has no basis on whether the test succeeds in what it sets out to do. And I didn't say the test itself was trivial, but it's standards by which it measures gender bias are quite trivial, so trivial that women should find it insulting that gender bias can be distilled down to whether two women talk to each other.

It fails on what it sets out to do, plain and simple. No matter what representation of creative works pass or fail, those results are irrelevant if the test itself is flawed in the first place. A million wrong answers don't add up to one correct one.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> But then we have to ask the question, why are so many protagonists male? Is it because of male writers? Male audience? Males being the only ones with stories worth telling?



I'm reminded of the old adage, dig deep enough and you'll always find worms. Look into something enough and you're going to find some kind of imbalance somewhere.

I'm pretty sure that women read more than men. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there are more women writers. I also wouldn't be surprised if more recently published books had more female leads and more female stories than "male" ones. Obviously women's stories are worth telling because there's a whole set of genres that deal with them.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 28, 2012)

It's like stealing food to feed your family. When one person does it, you can easily sympathize with them and possibly forgive them due to the circumstances.

But when a huge number of people start doing it, then there are obviously some much bigger issues at play. You can still provide excuses for each individual incident but when there are a thousand such incidents you might want to take a closer look at the preexisting conditions at play.


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 28, 2012)

That analogy doesn't really work. If want to measure something and your measuring device isn't accurate, then taking a thousand, million, or billion wrong measurements and putting them together isn't going to give you a one correct one. Two women talking about something isn't really a good indicator of strong women characters or whether women's stories are being told. Taking numbers of results using that same flawed criteria isn't going to give you anything but similarly flawed conclusions.


----------



## Baron (Sep 28, 2012)

The way that the PC brigade are trying to influence art is as bad as the Vatican at the time of the inquisition.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 28, 2012)

Baron said:


> The way that the PC brigade are trying to influence art is as bad as the Vatican at the time of the inquisition.



I... don't think that anyone has died for this. If they have it's because they're a nut job.
The Spanish Inquisition killed a _lot_ of people. From a purely objective viewpoint, the statement that a movement for political correctness is as bad as the Inquisition cannot be an informed assertion.

I support the idea that some words are specifically designed to spread hatred and that we should avoid that kind of vocabulary in everyday conversation. However I also support the idea that art shouldn't be censored just to appeal to a more liberal group. However again, I also don't like the way that some modern works step over the boundaries in a desperate plea to appeal to that mindset (for example, Dexter, particularly in the second season, had precisely one gratuitous shot of breasts per episode, in an almost clinical approach). I've seen many amateur works which spam the f-word in an attempt to appear more dark and mature, but in the end just seeming childish and in serious want of attention.

Which means that the issue is a lot more complicated than censorship, because in a cultural push against it, sometimes works that can afford to disregard censorship are surprisingly worse because of it. We're just not very good at taking advantage of this sort of thing. Give someone freedom to write what he wants and he'll create a detailed account of the main character getting raped, then raping the rapist in revenge and tattooing "I am a rapist" on his chest.


----------



## dale (Sep 28, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Give someone freedom to write what he wants and he'll create a detailed account of the main character getting raped, then raping the rapist in revenge and tattooing "I am a rapist" on his chest.



that was a good movie. does it not pass the bechnel test?


----------



## Baron (Sep 28, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> I... don't think that anyone has died for this. If they have it's because they're a nut job.
> The Spanish Inquisition killed a _lot_ of people. From a purely objective viewpoint, the statement that a movement for political correctness is as bad as the Inquisition cannot be an informed assertion.
> 
> I support the idea that some words are specifically designed to spread hatred and that we should avoid that kind of vocabulary in everyday conversation. However I also support the idea that art shouldn't be censored just to appeal to a more liberal group. However again, I also don't like the way that some modern works step over the boundaries in a desperate plea to appeal to that mindset (for example, Dexter, particularly in the second season, had precisely one gratuitous shot of breasts per episode, in an almost clinical approach). I've seen many amateur works which spam the f-word in an attempt to appear more dark and mature, but in the end just seeming childish and in serious want of attention.
> ...


Well, personally I'd rather read James Joyce or D.H Lawrence, real fiction, than something that's written to pursue a politically correct agenda.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 29, 2012)

dale said:


> that was a good movie. does it not pass the bechnel test?



EDIT: "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo"

I was referring to the book. I've read the book and seen the American movie, but not the Swedish movies.

I know the American movie and the book both pass the Bechdel test. In the book Lisbeth talks with a newspaper lady about some photographs related to her case, and in the movie she speaks with the archives supervisor about staying in past lock-up time. There might be some dispute about named characters, but I know for certain in the book the lady's name was mentioned and there was a clear history of contact. I'm working from memory, though.

EDIT: Oh yeah, she also talks with her off-and-on girlfriend, about sex.

What this shows is that a work can still be very problematic in its depiction of women (it was originally titled "Men Who Hate Women,") and yet still pass the requirements, which is a further limitation to the test.

On an unrelated note, Baron's use of the phrase "real fiction" seems like he's deliberately setting up a response. The most obvious response would be that there's no such thing as fiction that is more real than others, and the attempt at defining some works of fiction as "real" over others was a concept that earlier critics of the Bechdel test in this thread specifically condoned in the context of evaluating a work based on political correctness. The argument was that you couldn't define works as better or worse based on gender representation, which is a legitimate claim and a very valid representation of the limitations of the test. But with that in mind, why would any other factor be acceptable to define fiction as "real" or not?

(Condensed down: the word choice confuses me and seems arguably inconsistent with other points raised.)


----------



## JosephB (Sep 29, 2012)

Have to wonder why some people seem so uncomfortable by the idea of fiction with women characters who interact and think on their own. What’s so threatening about depicting realty? That’s the primary goal of my fiction -- so I looked at the question as a welcome challenge. Nothing to fear, folks. All the big bad feminists aren't going to somehow force you to change your story.


----------



## Mutimir (Sep 30, 2012)

I must say this, if my work did not pass this test I would be ashamed. Calling it trivial is foolish.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 30, 2012)

Mutimir said:
			
		

> I must say this, if my work did not pass this test I would be ashamed



I'd consider the reasons before jumping to conclusions!

Most popular Romantic Comedies I've seen fail the Bechdel test. There's nothing to be ashamed about. They are part of a fan-favorite and highly successful genre.

There is even a specific scene devoted to the RomCom's, where the female lead is given a pep-talk by her female best-friend about how she's going to lose the guy if she doesn't wise up.

(Note that in some films/stories this is reversed and the male lead is given a pep-talk by his male best-friend about how he's going to lose the girl if he doesn't wise up.)

Either way, I consider that scene common, and arguably necessary, to the genre.

So the Romantic Comedy writers can say, "Bechdel who? I'm sorry, I can't hear you over my hordes of screaming fans."


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

Mutimir said:


> I must say this, if my work did not pass this test I would be ashamed. Calling it trivial is foolish.



i'd actually be ashamed if my work passed this test. it would mean i'd be watering down and diluting my stories
all in the name of some gender confused agenda which has zero to do with reality.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

dale said:


> i'd actually be ashamed if my work passed this test. it would mean i'd be watering down and diluting my stories
> all in the name of some gender confused agenda which has zero to do with reality.



Right. It isn't reality. Because women never talk about anything except men.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 30, 2012)

dale said:


> i'd actually be ashamed if my work passed this test. it would mean i'd be watering down and diluting my stories all in the name of some gender confused agenda which has zero to do with reality.



I'm gonna be honest with you, dale, I kind of look forward to reading your posts. I especially like this one.

The main point you keep bringing up is that work shouldn't be censored based on any sort of agenda imposed on its creators. However, right here you imply that you would purposefully structure a story so that it avoided this trope (by saying that you would be ashamed if you included it).

Isn't..... isn't that just exactly the same but in reverse? What if you write a brilliant story that hinges on one female character telling another that, I dunno, the terrorists planted the bomb in Supply Truck D or something? You would have to actively restructure the story, or leave the story entirely, just to avoid those two talking to each other.

Isn't that kind of cheating yourself? Isn't that exactly the kind of thing you oppose the Bechdel Test specifically to prevent, in terms of integrity?


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> I'm gonna be honest with you, dale, I kind of look forward to reading your posts. I especially like this one.
> 
> The main point you keep bringing up is that work shouldn't be censored based on any sort of agenda imposed on its creators. However, right here you imply that you would purposefully structure a story so that it avoided this trope (by saying that you would be ashamed if you included it).
> 
> ...



no. i said i would be ashamed to pass it because it would mean i would be purposely watering down my stories for fear of offending
a bunch of politically correct clowns who mean nothing to me. my mind probably does work in ways which people like bechnel consider
"sexist". why? because i love the feminine nature of women. it shows in my writing the way i personally feel about women. if the women
in my stories began exhibiting characteristics according to the agenda of this test? it would prove i was purposely thwarting my plot,
narrative and dialogue for fear of offending people i really don't care about. to me, not only is the feminist clinically insane....but any
man who supports the feminist agenda is like something akin to a black person who supports the KKK. they may as well just go out and
lynch themselves and get it over with.


----------



## Baron (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Have to wonder why some people seem so uncomfortable by the idea of fiction with women characters who interact and think on their own. What’s so threatening about depicting realty? That’s the primary goal of my fiction -- so I looked at the question as a welcome challenge. Nothing to fear, folks. All the big bad feminists aren't going to somehow force you to change your story.


The only consideration that matters is what fits the story being written.  If fitting in with someone else's political agenda doesn't suit what's being said then that agenda is not a factor in deciding the story content.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

dale said:


> because i love the feminine nature of women. it  shows in my writing the way i personally feel about women.



There is more to women than their “feminine nature.” They’re capable of considering things and acting without deference to men. That's reality. I’ll go out on limb here and say there is some, bigger underlying resentment and insecurity at the root of the opposition to this simple little test that is less about creative freedom and more about feeling threatened by the idea of a strong, independent  woman.


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> There is more to women than their “feminine nature.” They’re capable of considering things and acting without deference to men. That's reality. I’ll go out on limb here and say there is some, bigger underlying resentment and insecurity at the root of the opposition to this simple little test that is less about creative freedom and more to do with feeling threatened by the idea of a strong, independent  woman.



well hey. some men might like a manly woman. that's a matter of taste, i suppose. and my wife is a very strong-willed woman
with a mind of her own. she's just smart enough to know where her power lies......in her feminine nature. that's the way it is with
all real women. that woman could bat me over the head with a lead pipe during an argument and still not shut my mouth. but if
she happens to bat those beautiful eyes at me during an argument? i'll melt like butter. that's power.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 30, 2012)

Baron said:


> The only consideration that matters is what fits the story being written.  If fitting in with someone else's political agenda doesn't suit what's being said then that agenda is not a factor in deciding the story content.



What I was specifically suggesting was this: If fitting in with someone else's political agenda DOES suit what's being said, then why would you avoid it? Dale would feel ashamed if he passed the test - but if this was merely about the pitfalls of censorship, then specifically avoiding two women talking, out of a sense of personal shame, is in itself stifling creative freedom.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Baron said:


> The only consideration that matters is what fits the story being written.  If fitting in with someone else's political agenda doesn't suit what's being said then that agenda is not a factor in deciding the story content.



I’m capable of considering the test on its own, not within the framework of some largely obsolete and imaginary agenda. The world has changed and I’d like to depict that reality in my fiction. You’re free to do what you want. No one is forcing you to do anything.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Sep 30, 2012)

Do I feel ashamed that all of my so-called "good" characters are cold-blooded killers without a moral compass, ignorantly slaughtering their way through those less powerful than them in a quest of which they're only barely aware of the details? Do I feel ashamed that one of the most central messages of the piece is that sometimes a guy's just gotta die to make a point? Do I feel ashamed that the only legitimately strong and independent woman in the work is a borderline pedophilic lesbian, and the rest are mostly crazy? Well kind of for that last one, but not really! It's totally crucial to the plotline you don't even know.

So why would I be ashamed that during this epic journey through small towns and forests and forgotten underground mines, two female characters speak a few lines to each other about paranoia (and then later, about sex)? You certainly can't call me a feminist, and you certainly can't call me a person who avoids sensitive topics to appeal to a PC brigade of concerned suburban soccer moms.

The point being, if you're gonna raise the argument about creative freedom, _for the love of god be consistent._


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

dale said:


> well hey. some men might like a manly woman. that's a matter of taste, i suppose. and my wife is a very strong-willed woman
> with a mind of her own. she's just smart enough to know where her power lies......in her feminine nature. that's the way it is with
> all real women. that woman could bat me over the head with a lead pipe during an argument and still not shut my mouth. but if
> she happens to bat those beautiful eyes at me during an argument? i'll melt like butter. that's power.



When it comes down to making important decisions, my wife and I are a team. As beguiling as she is, it takes a lot more to persuade me than her batting her eyes. That speaks more to a man’s weakness than a woman's "power." I would certainly expect more of her or any woman.


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> When it comes down to making important decisions, my wife and I are a team. As beguiling as she is, it takes a lot more to persuade me than her batting her eyes. That speaks more to a man’s weakness than a woman's "power." I would certainly expect more of her or any woman.



i realize men have weaknesses the same as women. i realize women have strengths the same as men. i'm speaking from my own
personal viewpoint. and i'm not going to let some silly manipulative test distort anything i write for any reason. that's my only point
in this whole thread. this test was designed to manipulate people into believing there was something wrong with their artistic
creativity if it didn't pass this unrealistic standard. it's hogwash, pure and simple.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

So in your fictional world, woman talking to each other about something other than men is unrealistic. OK, it’s not my cup of tea, but fantasy is a perfectly good genre, if you're into that.

Meanwhile, my wife is texting her college roommate and they're talking about SEC football. I must be having some kind of strange dream.

PS -- wait, the players are men. Never mind.


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> So in your fictional world, woman talking to each other about something other than men is unrealistic. OK, it’s not my cup of tea, but fantasy is a perfectly good genre, if your into that.
> 
> Meanwhile, my wife is texting her college roommate and they're talking about SEC football. I must be having some kind of strange dream.



no. actually, in the novella i'm working on, the women don't really talk about men, whatsoever. they've only talked about art, music, and
"pleasantries" so far. but......i can guarantee this story wouldn't pass the feminist guidelines for what is or is not "sexist" for various reasons.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Congratulations! You passed -- except for your own imaginary criteria that no one else is talking about or considering. Good job.

Later.


----------



## dale (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Congratulations! You passed -- except for your own imaginary criteria that no one else is talking about or considering. Good job.
> 
> Later.


lol. that's funny. like anyone with a brain to think can't look at this woman and look at her test and see through her transparent little
ruse in proving HER OWN imaginary world is real. the test itself has a more of a fictional foundation than anything i write as actual fiction.


----------



## Baron (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I’m capable of considering the test on its own, not within the framework of some largely obsolete and imaginary agenda. The world has changed and I’d like to depict that reality in my fiction. *You’re free to do what you want.* No one is forcing you to do anything.


I tend to do just that.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Me too. Right after I clear it with my wife.


----------



## Man From Mars (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I’ll go out on limb here and say there is some, bigger underlying resentment and insecurity at the root of the opposition to this simple little test that is less about creative freedom and more about feeling threatened by the idea of a strong, independent  woman.



Would it be fair to say that people defending the test have some resentment or insecurity of their own? I don't really abide by ad hominem thinking no matter which side it comes from. Trying to guess what psychological motivations someone has for taking a position is just unproductive at best and petty at worst. And most people don't have a degree in psychology. I do (undergrad but whatever - I at least have enough education to know that most people don't know what they're talking about).

The root of the opposition for me is that I strive to be as gender unbiased as I can. It's hard work for someone to realistically write a gender that is completely unfamiliar to them and give the opposite sex a fair representation of their problems and their own personal struggles when you've never had to personally deal with them. And yet here is this test that doesn't take into consideration any of that, like who these characters are, how they interact, what kind of problems they have, or what kind of stereotypes are being avoided. No, all it takes into account is if two women talked to each other. It doesn't have to be relevant to the plot or integral to their characters. It doesn't even have to be the main characters at all. It could be two stereotypes talking in cliches and whoop de do, it passes. Or you can have the story with a well rounded and independent female character in a cast of all men. Sorry, no matter how much work you do to develop her as a character, or to realistically show the personal problems she faces as a woman, it fails. But hey, if you add a token stereotype and have them talk about shoes or something for all of one paragraph then it's all good. Pass. Yeah, I'd say that's a slap in the face to writers who put in the work to make realistic representations of the opposite sex and who sometimes fail at putting two women together to gab. It's just a bad test from a comic strip back in the 80's. It was supposed to be a joke. We should reject it and move on. Yeah I'm mad.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> Would it be fair to say that people defending the test have some resentment or insecurity of their own?



Sure it would be fair. And I’d ask you what those might be, but I guess that would be "ad hominem" and you don't do that. Oh well.

Gamer24 already pointed that out how you’re really missing the point of the “test.” That the bar is so low, and the test is so trivial underscores that women are often not depicted in a realistic way. Think about it – only TWO conversations per book or movie, yet so many don’t meet those basic requirements.  And yes, I am considering that the test doesn’t take into account the nature of the conversations, or the plot or any of the other criteria you mentioned. Again -- anyone who understands the bigger point knows why they aren't.



Man From Mars said:


> It's hard work for someone to realistically write a gender that is completely unfamiliar to them and give the opposite sex a fair representation of their problems and their own personal struggles when you've never had to personally deal with them.


 
I hope you're not presuming to speak for all male authors. Despite the nifty book title, women and men aren’t really from different planets. It’s really not that hard for me, and I suspect it isn’t that hard for a lot of people to write the opposite sex in a realistic way. It’s really more about empathy, listening and paying attention than anything else. 

As I said on Page 1, the Bechtel "test" is simply a device used to make a point -- and it’s an interesting one. There no are penalties if your work "fails" and no one is forcing you to change it. I welcomed the opportunity to consider my work in a different way.  That you are "mad" suggests that you're the one attaching too much importance to it -- and that's your problem, not mine. Anyway, all this has been covered -- and I can’t think of anything new to add that I haven’t said in previous posts.


----------



## The Backward OX (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Maybe people should think a minute before dismissing something entirely. The Bechtel test is simply a device used to make a point -- and it’s an interesting one. Why do the vast majority of movies depict women only as they relate to men -- even if they’re strong characters? We have women in roles throughout society formerly dominated by men -- but that’s not really reflected in movies -- not in a way that shows them interacting, making decisions - and somehow not relying on men



Thelma and Louise?

Aliens?

Steel Magnolias?

The First Wives Club?

Gorillas in the Mist?

Silence of the Lambs?


et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Good for you. You’ve managed to come up with some movies made in the last three decades that may pass. I'd have to check, but I'm betting _Thelma and Louise, First Wives Club _and_ Steal Magnolias_ are iffy. There’s actually a database that lists more, but the number pales in comparison to the number of films that don’t. Like I said, the vast majority, not ALL.


----------



## Baron (Sep 30, 2012)

I didn't think the Cosmo "new" male really existed.  You've proved me wrong, Joe.


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Don’t knock it. It’s a sure-fire way to bag chicks. They fall for it every time.


----------



## Baron (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Don’t knock it. It’s a sure-fire way to bag chicks. They fall for it every time.


With your wife's permission, of course...


----------



## helium (Sep 30, 2012)

Isn't this test as trivial as adding a "token" character in your book just for the sake of diversity? Someone needs to make a test for minority characters that avoid everything having to do with their cultural origin


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 30, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Don’t knock it. It’s a sure-fire way to bag chicks. They fall for it every time.



It's true. Being treated like an equal - god, I just lose all those little feathers I call a brain! he thinks I'm smart, he really do!! 

O wait, better give 'im the puppydog eyes, lest he think me less feminine, or suss out my wicked castration agenda...


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

Baron said:


> With your wife's permission, of course...



Heh. Of course!


----------



## JosephB (Sep 30, 2012)

helium said:


> Isn't this test as trivial as adding a "token" character in your book just for the sake of diversity? Someone needs to make a test for minority characters that avoid everything having to do with their cultural origin



I'm pretty sure I'd pass that one too. One of my main characters is a half-black, half-Asian lesbian. Another is a homosexual Hispanic Jew. They only talk about golf and ice-hockey.


----------



## Comrade Yuri (Sep 30, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> There are two purposes to this thread. The primary purpose is to establish the prevalence of gender representation within a large sample of writers willing to discuss their own work. The secondary purpose is to spur discussion from there, provided that it is preceded by a clear answer to the question: *"Does your current project pass the Bechdel Test?"*



I've seen this test before, and other people have appropriated it for examining ethnic diversity as well. Personally, I just consider it just another instrument in my toolbox. I wouldn't slavishly follow it, but I wouldn't purposely avoid its advice either. It's another way of looking at things, so I appreciate the fresh perspective. 

My current work probably fails. 

Right now I'm using five primary characters, four of which are male. The female, however, is the lead. She's the voice of reason in the group, and holds her own against the four guys. She's not romantically involved with any of them, and is the youngest of the bunch. The other female character I've introduced shows up a bit later. I'm at about 15,000 words so far, and her dialogue is substantial and meaty. 

Frankly, I don't know what Bechdel would think about it. She'd probably ask me "where are the rest of the women?"

-Yuri


----------



## Mutimir (Oct 1, 2012)

dale said:


> i'd actually be ashamed if my work passed this test. it would mean i'd be watering down and diluting my stories
> all in the name of some gender confused agenda which has zero to do with reality.



I find it hard to believe that properly developing female characters somehow dilutes a story.


----------



## Man From Mars (Oct 1, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Sure it would be fair. And I’d ask you what those might be, but I guess that would be "ad hominem" and you don't do that. Oh well.



I think it's rude to psychoanalyze the motivations for why someone is speaking rather than to address what they say. I personally don't tolerate it. If the topic were reversed I would still say the same thing. Nothing personal.



JosephB said:


> Gamer24 already pointed that out how you’re really missing the point of the “test.” That the bar is so low, and the test is so trivial underscores that women are often not depicted in a realistic way.



I do think there is some merit in what the Bechdel test tries to show, but the test is just a bad way to do it. I understand that the Bechdel test is trying to be the low bar to see what can jump over, but if we're really trying to judge how well a work "jumps", then we need an effective bar. Analogies. I'm tired... It's not that I don't like what the Bechdel test tries to do, but rather that it fails to do so and the meme keeps getting passed around. It just won't die so that something better can take its place.



JosephB said:


> I hope you're not presuming to speak for all male authors. Despite the nifty book title, women and men aren’t really from different planets. It’s really not that hard for me, and I suspect it isn’t that hard for a lot of people to write the opposite sex in a realistic way. It’s really more about empathy, listening and paying attention than anything else.



I can understand writing characters in a realistic way, sure, but to get into someone else' head and think in a way one has never thought before is a challenge, at least for me, and I suspect that's the case for a lot of other people. All that work to be brushed off by a triviality... Yeah it stings when it happens, and yeah I take it personally when I try my best to put the work in and fail. Not all the time, but some of the time. Maybe that's my fault for getting too emotionally invested I guess. But I don't buy the reasoning that the test when applied to your work is just there so you could consider it in a different way, that you don't really need to "fix" it if you don't want to, and yet its conclusion, which your work contributed to, is not so trivial.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Oct 1, 2012)

Comrade Yuri said:


> I've seen this test before, and other people have appropriated it for examining ethnic diversity as well. Personally, I just consider it just another instrument in my toolbox. I wouldn't slavishly follow it, but I wouldn't purposely avoid its advice either. It's another way of looking at things, so I appreciate the fresh perspective.



Hey Yuri, and welcome to page 8 of this thread. It's good to see a fresh perspective from this end, too.

Some major points of contention that have been brought up are the issues of censorship and creative freedom, the issue of suitable gender representation, and a very clear divide between a moderate approach to the test (there are useful values, but severe limitations) and a radical approach (there are no values). I'm pretty sure we have yet to come to any sort of universal agreement on any of these points, so feel free to jump in.



Man From Mars said:


> I do think there is some merit in what the Bechdel test tries to show, but the test is just a bad way to do it. I understand that the Bechdel test is trying to be the low bar to see what can jump over, but if we're really trying to judge how well a work "jumps", then we need an effective bar. Analogies. I'm tired... It's not that I don't like what the Bechdel test tries to do, but rather that it fails to do so and the meme keeps getting passed around. It just won't die so that something better can take its place.



Well with that in mind, what kind of bar would be effective? In the least confrontational manner possible, what kind of litmus test could take its place, as a general measure of gender representation? I like your train of thought here, and it deserves expansion.

I would initially think of a holistic measure, something along the lines of _"Would it be possible to replace the most prominent female character with a male character, and vice versa?"_ but that has its own _very_ obvious problems.

Any other suggestions?


----------



## Comrade Yuri (Oct 1, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Hey Yuri, and welcome to page 8 of this thread. It's good to see a fresh perspective from this end, too.
> Some major points of contention that have been brought up are the issues of censorship and creative freedom, the issue of suitable gender representation, and a very clear divide between a moderate approach to the test (there are useful values, but severe limitations) and a radical approach (there are no values). I'm pretty sure we have yet to come to any sort of universal agreement on any of these points, so feel free to jump in.
> 
> Well with that in mind, what kind of bar would be effective? In the least confrontational manner possible, what kind of litmus test could take its place, as a general measure of gender representation? I like your train of thought here, and it deserves expansion.
> ...



While I think that people should write whatever they want — choices matter.  If we choose to poorly or under represent certain types of people, then the foreseeable consequence is limiting our readership. If we don't care about that, then "okay," carry on. We're already limiting our readership by the genre we choose, our language use, and other factors. Why create unnecessary or unintentional barriers? 

Personally, I'd like inclusiveness to characterize what I write. I don't find the development of female or ethic characters limiting in any way. While I don't expect everyone to read my stories, I certainly don't want to drive anyone away by not making a simple concession. I'm not so emotionally involved in my own little world that a few simple changes would completely destroy the artistic integrity of my story. No hand-wringing here. 

Maybe part of what's at stake here is the definition of our goals. If I'm writing for personal enjoyment, then I may produce whatever I'd like.  If I'd like to make a wide variety of people feel included, then I may consider writing accordingly. 

Right now, I'm considering changing the gender of one of my five primary characters. Maybe I will, and maybe I won't. Considering the possibility prompts me to think of my story in a different way, so ultimately I benefit. My readers may benefit also. 

Comrade Yuri


----------



## dale (Oct 1, 2012)

Mutimir said:


> I find it hard to believe that properly developing female characters somehow dilutes a story.



maybe my females properly develop by ripping eachothers clothes off in a vat of strawberry jello. should i have them talk about the weather?


----------



## Nemesis (Oct 1, 2012)

I find that image highly amusing =)


----------



## JosephB (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't know why you want to ruin it with Jello. Does anyone actually like Jello?


----------



## Nemesis (Oct 1, 2012)

Could use colored astroglide instead (but only because I like the image of a bunch of chicks wrestling in red gunk while conversating about the weather =p)

But really, it does make you think more about your characters, specifically the female ones and how they relate to each other. That isn't so bad right?


----------



## Eluixa (Oct 1, 2012)

All of us have WIP's that have been started, I think, and many worked on for a long time. I've just seen this test for the first time in this thread, years after I started my story. My story passes. Has nothing to do with diluting or changing anything I've written, cause it was already there, but is still worth thinking about.
Really, are we so afraid to stop and consider another perspective than our lonesome brilliant self pounding away at the keys, sans other influences? I want to learn. I want to think about other perspectives, other ways. It is why I'm here. Otherwise, why even bother coming to WF if not to share and think and whoa, possibly reconsider. Why ask for crits if we want nothing to impinge upon our creative genius?


----------



## Man From Mars (Oct 1, 2012)

Staff Deployment said:


> Well with that in mind, what kind of bar would be effective? In the least confrontational manner possible, what kind of litmus test could take its place, as a general measure of gender representation? I like your train of thought here, and it deserves expansion.
> 
> I would initially think of a holistic measure, something along the lines of _"Would it be possible to replace the most prominent female character with a male character, and vice versa?"_ but that has its own _very_ obvious problems.
> 
> Any other suggestions?



I'm not sure what a good test would be. Gender bias, representation, whatever you'd like to measure is a grey-scale; I don't know if you can examine it binary terms with a pass/fail in a litmus test. One could take a qualitative assessment for each piece, examining the characters and what qualities are acceptable on a case by case basis, but I don't think one could get a big picture view out of it. It's a good question and I'm stuck on thinking of an answer.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 1, 2012)

Man From Mars said:


> I do think there is some merit in what the Bechdel test tries to show, but the test is just a bad way to do it. I understand that the Bechdel test is trying to be the low bar to see what can jump over, but if we're really trying to judge how well a work "jumps", then we need an effective bar. Analogies. I'm tired... It's not that I don't like what the Bechdel test tries to do, but rather that it fails to do so and the meme keeps getting passed around. It just won't die so that something better can take its place.



Well, relative feminism is very subjective.  The amount of works that represent women significantly enough to have two talk to each other is very objective.


----------



## Mutimir (Oct 2, 2012)

dale said:


> maybe my females properly develop by ripping eachothers clothes off in a vat of strawberry jello. should i have them talk about the weather?



Depends. Do they want to be competing meteorologists?


----------

