The Bechtel Test and other things
Jan. 8th, 2009 10:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesI was reading a rather interesting dissection of the urban fantasy genre by Carrie Vaughn (who wrote Kitty and the Midnight Hour amongst other things) and in item number #6 of her "When Things Go Wrong" list, she mentions the Bechtel Test.
Brief recap: the Bechtel test states that for a movie should have:
a) At least two women
b) Who talk to each other
c) About something other than men
I think the Bechdel Test is a good thing, but I can't help but thinking that's it's sort of horribly inadequate when it comes to giving authors, viewers, and other participants in popular culture a rule of thumb when deciding if something is actually offensive/dismissive of women or not.
My first problem is with the "at least two women" clause. Because I can think of many movies, TV shows, and other creatures that have two or even three women, and thus pass the letter of the Bechdel Test, but not the spirit. I think rather, the number of women should be proportional to the number of men, relative to the situation. Meaning? If there is a cast of eight main characters, I think at least four should be women. Women make up a smidge more than half the population of Earth, so there really isn't any place where there aren't women involved somehow. Their situations and treatment varies, but women are always there. Even in the most repressive, misogyny laden cultures, women are there and they are integral to life as people know it. They may be repressed and abused, but they're there dammit, and they're important and they have stories, too.
Not to mention that the only requirement of the women's actions is that they talk to each other about something other than men. That doesn't fly with me. I've sat through far too many movies and TV shows and read far too many books that also seem to pass the Bechdel test, but it's clear that the female character has one purpose for their existence, and that's to be a romantic counterpart to the male protagonist. Sometimes, there are even more than one of these characters, who may coincidentally talk about work or fashion or something - but it doesn't make them any less frustrating, stereotypical, or demeaning.
In addition, the test doesn't state how much talking or interaction these women should have and what kind. Sorry, but male-centric "lesbian" (there's gotta be another word for this type of situation, because my understanding of lesbian is not it) scenes with horny cheerleaders making out with each other does NOT constitute scoring an A on the Bechdel test, thanks much. I'm not sure that's what the creator had in mind.
Third, just not talking about men is not enough. I don't think a piece of cinema or literature should score points for having two women talk about washing dishes or dresses or hairstyles. Not that it's wrong to show women talking about this, but when that's all you do, you're still not following the spirit of the test.
I propose a better test one that requires that
1) There be a proportional number of women to men in the leading cast. 50/50 is a good start.
2) Who have a proportional number of scenes/lines to the men in the cast. Again, 50/50 and tit-for-tat (no pun intended) is a good place to start
3) Who have not only substantive, important, relevant conversations with each other about things other than men, but relationships of all kinds (sexual, platonic, familial) with each other. They can't just talk to each other on a bench in one scene. They have to interact meaningfully.
4) Who have plotlines, plot points, or actions that are not solely based on a romantic or sexual relationship with a man (ie, they are not just there to be the girlfriend or love interest) and who are allowed to go on outside of a relationship with a man
5) And who are not kept from any action that men are allowed for any reason, textual or subtextual, excepting historical story lines where it is perfectly valid to show that, for instance, women were not allowed to vote once upon a time.
Except, when I look at my own rules, I realize that there are still things I'm leaving out, or works which wouldn't meet my criteria, but that I would consider to be perfectly acceptable from a feminist stance. I think there are even shows which are mostly female shows which still horrify me and demean other women. I think sometimes the things we women say are for us, by us are still working against us - but that is a whole other entry.
The point is, it's about not just checking a list, but about quality. Not to mention that I'll trade a movie that has one outstanding female character for one that has ten horrible, stereotyped, underdeveloped, insulting ones.
Which is what I think was mostly Carrie Vaughn's point about Urban Fantasy. It isn't just about having a heroine which checks the boxes, but actually stands up to close reader scrutiny. It isn't just about having physical prowess, but about possessing actual strength and power, some of which stem not from being able to shoot or punch someone's lights out, but from being able to deal with your own issues.
Brief recap: the Bechtel test states that for a movie should have:
a) At least two women
b) Who talk to each other
c) About something other than men
I think the Bechdel Test is a good thing, but I can't help but thinking that's it's sort of horribly inadequate when it comes to giving authors, viewers, and other participants in popular culture a rule of thumb when deciding if something is actually offensive/dismissive of women or not.
My first problem is with the "at least two women" clause. Because I can think of many movies, TV shows, and other creatures that have two or even three women, and thus pass the letter of the Bechdel Test, but not the spirit. I think rather, the number of women should be proportional to the number of men, relative to the situation. Meaning? If there is a cast of eight main characters, I think at least four should be women. Women make up a smidge more than half the population of Earth, so there really isn't any place where there aren't women involved somehow. Their situations and treatment varies, but women are always there. Even in the most repressive, misogyny laden cultures, women are there and they are integral to life as people know it. They may be repressed and abused, but they're there dammit, and they're important and they have stories, too.
Not to mention that the only requirement of the women's actions is that they talk to each other about something other than men. That doesn't fly with me. I've sat through far too many movies and TV shows and read far too many books that also seem to pass the Bechdel test, but it's clear that the female character has one purpose for their existence, and that's to be a romantic counterpart to the male protagonist. Sometimes, there are even more than one of these characters, who may coincidentally talk about work or fashion or something - but it doesn't make them any less frustrating, stereotypical, or demeaning.
In addition, the test doesn't state how much talking or interaction these women should have and what kind. Sorry, but male-centric "lesbian" (there's gotta be another word for this type of situation, because my understanding of lesbian is not it) scenes with horny cheerleaders making out with each other does NOT constitute scoring an A on the Bechdel test, thanks much. I'm not sure that's what the creator had in mind.
Third, just not talking about men is not enough. I don't think a piece of cinema or literature should score points for having two women talk about washing dishes or dresses or hairstyles. Not that it's wrong to show women talking about this, but when that's all you do, you're still not following the spirit of the test.
I propose a better test one that requires that
1) There be a proportional number of women to men in the leading cast. 50/50 is a good start.
2) Who have a proportional number of scenes/lines to the men in the cast. Again, 50/50 and tit-for-tat (no pun intended) is a good place to start
3) Who have not only substantive, important, relevant conversations with each other about things other than men, but relationships of all kinds (sexual, platonic, familial) with each other. They can't just talk to each other on a bench in one scene. They have to interact meaningfully.
4) Who have plotlines, plot points, or actions that are not solely based on a romantic or sexual relationship with a man (ie, they are not just there to be the girlfriend or love interest) and who are allowed to go on outside of a relationship with a man
5) And who are not kept from any action that men are allowed for any reason, textual or subtextual, excepting historical story lines where it is perfectly valid to show that, for instance, women were not allowed to vote once upon a time.
Except, when I look at my own rules, I realize that there are still things I'm leaving out, or works which wouldn't meet my criteria, but that I would consider to be perfectly acceptable from a feminist stance. I think there are even shows which are mostly female shows which still horrify me and demean other women. I think sometimes the things we women say are for us, by us are still working against us - but that is a whole other entry.
The point is, it's about not just checking a list, but about quality. Not to mention that I'll trade a movie that has one outstanding female character for one that has ten horrible, stereotyped, underdeveloped, insulting ones.
Which is what I think was mostly Carrie Vaughn's point about Urban Fantasy. It isn't just about having a heroine which checks the boxes, but actually stands up to close reader scrutiny. It isn't just about having physical prowess, but about possessing actual strength and power, some of which stem not from being able to shoot or punch someone's lights out, but from being able to deal with your own issues.
