Is the Bechdel test sexist?

cantdecide · 27-12-2013 11:20pm #1

I've just had a row with my sister over this. I believe that since it's only a measure of whether movies incorporate and portray women in a particular manner and it doesn't afford men the same (or any) measure, I can't see how it can be viewed as a measure of gender bias.

If that be the case, a) is it appropriate that it is incorporated by the media mentioned on wikipedia? and b) is it sexist if it ignores any reference to bias that favours women?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

What is now known as the Bechdel test was introduced in Alison Bechdel's comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. In a 1985 strip titled "The Rule",[8][9] an unnamed female character says that she only watches a movie if it satisfies the following requirements:[4]
It has to have at least two women in it,
who talk to each other,
about something besides a man.[9][10]
Bechdel credited the idea for the test to a friend and karate training partner, Liz Wallace.[10][11] She later wrote that she was pretty certain that Wallace was inspired by Virginia Woolf's essay A Room of One’s Own, reproduced in part above.[12]

Mint Aero · 27-12-2013 11:24pm

No idea what you're asking me OP but arguing with your sister? It's Christmas?

Links234 · 27-12-2013 11:26pm

cantdecide wrote: »

I can't see how it can be viewed as a measure of gender bias.

It's a measure of representation and that's all, how the hell you've gotten an argument out of it is beyond me.

And is it sexist? Sure, whatever, why not, knock yourself out...

kneemos · 27-12-2013 11:26pm

Just some arbitrary criteria somebody drempt up,frankly my dear it's ridiculous.

cantdecide · 27-12-2013 11:29pm

Links234 wrote: »

And is it sexist? Sure, whatever, why not, knock yourself out...

So it's not then?

RDM_83 again · 27-12-2013 11:30pm

I don;t think its sexist as such but I also not an indicator of sexism, to me its a sensible enough idea, if somebody likes a film that centers around the interaction of female characters then the test makes sense.

I don;t think the fact that so many films fail it though indicates any inherent sexism in Hollywood, simply that they are in the business of making money and so they tend to make films that the most people will like at least a little.

I don;t think its fair to apply it too films not aimed at that demographic, my personal test that every film should feature at least one scene with at least 7 seconds of automatic weapons fire wouldn't be fair to apply to a RomCom.

kneemos · 27-12-2013 11:34pm

The quantity of tight tops and short bottoms might be a better indicator.

Links234 · 27-12-2013 11:36pm

cantdecide wrote: »

So it's not then?

It's focusing on something specific, and that is the representation of women in movies. It's "sexist" in the sense that it's focusing on women, but then it's really just splitting hairs isn't it?

cantdecide · 27-12-2013 11:37pm

Links234 wrote: »

It's focusing on something specific, and that is the representation of women in movies. It's "sexist" in the sense that it's focusing on women, but then it's really just splitting hairs isn't it?

Links234 wrote: »

It's a measure of representation and that's all

Not really. A movie can be about two women talking and if they mention a man, it fails.

Links234 wrote: »

how the hell you've gotten an argument out of it is beyond me.

She reckons the fact that some media in Sweden incorporating it into it's ratings is a very positive step for women. I disagreed. I thought it was a pointless and biased exercise that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

enfant terrible · 27-12-2013 11:37pm

The film Gravity fails the test because Sandra Bullock doesn't take to any other women in the film.

Reekwind · 27-12-2013 11:41pm

cantdecide wrote: »

I believe that since it's only a measure of whether movies incorporate and portray women in a particular manner and it doesn't afford men the same (or any) measure, I can't see how it can be viewed as a measure of gender bias

How does that follow? The 'test' should look at the portrayal of men to gauge whether the film's portrayal of women is sexist?

Links234 · 27-12-2013 11:41pm

cantdecide wrote: »

Not really. A movie can be about two women talking and if they mention a man, it fails.

Then you've misunderstood the rules. It means that they have to talk about something else at least once. Eg; their entire dialogue can't just be talking about a guy.

The_Valeyard · 27-12-2013 11:41pm

Bit pointless really.

27-12-2013 11:42pm

OP it's not supposed to be a way of clearing a film of any gender bias. It's supposed to be an indicator of the way women are portrayed in media. It's not even taken as seriously as that by most people, it's more usefully/appropriately used now as merely a point of interest, a way of pointing out that there's a shockingly small number of films that can pass it.

If a film doesn't pass the test, it doesn't mean it's sexist.

As for trying to say that the test itself is sexist, that just sounds like a desperate attempt at belittling the problem it's pointing out.

Edit: While I disagree with you about the point of your post, I would agree that Sweden treating it so seriously on a film-by-film basis is silly.

Links234 · 27-12-2013 11:43pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

The film Gravity fails the test because Sandra Bullock doesn't take to any other women in the film.

So would Moon with Sam Rockwell. So would an absolute load of other really, really great films. It's not meant to be taken as a measure of quality.

enfant terrible · 27-12-2013 11:44pm

true-or-false wrote: »

OP it's not supposed to be a way of clearing a film of any gender bias. It's supposed to be an indicator of the way women are portrayed in media. It's not even taken as seriously as that by most people, it's more usefully/appropriately used now as merely a point of interest, a way of pointing out that there's a shockingly small number of films that can pass it.

If a film doesn't pass the test, it doesn't mean it's sexist.

As for trying to say that the test itself is sexist, that just sounds like a desperate attempt at belittling the problem it's pointing out.

Well Sweden are rating films by the test now so we should probably follow suit too.

Sweden is a role model for all of us.

Reekwind · 27-12-2013 11:47pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Well Sweden are rating films by the test now so we should probably follow suit too.

Sweden is a role model for all of us.

I think you mean "a few cinemas in Sweden"

27-12-2013 11:47pm

Men tend to be the centre of the action in a movie, women on the periphery as relatable spouses or love interests to give the men depth and context. Women lead roles are few in anything other than romcoms and those are all about the love interest of a man.

Movies like Alien or Gravity are the exception. In fact Gravity and Bridesmaids are the only recentish movies I can think of where women relate to each other without constant reference to husbands/boyfriends/children as the motivation.

So yes, I think it can be used as a good indication of women being stereotyped, but it's not definitive.

ETA: Gravity is a bad example, as has been pointed out the lead character doesn't interact with any other women.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-12-2013 11:47pm

http://lby3.com/wir/women.html

Not every woman in comics has been killed, raped, depowered, crippled, turned evil, maimed, tortured, contracted a disease or had other life-derailing tragedies befall her, but given the following list (originally compiled by Gail, with later additions and changes), it's hard to think up exceptions:

kneemos · 27-12-2013 11:47pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Well Sweden are rating films by the test now so we should probably follow suit too.

Sweden is a role model for all of us.

They must all live in a Utopia up there.

The_Valeyard · 27-12-2013 11:49pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Well Sweden are rating films by the test now so we should probably follow suit too.

Sweden is a role model for all of us.

I suppose those riots in the summer are not an indication of deep social problems bubbling to the surface.

cantdecide · 27-12-2013 11:49pm

true-or-false wrote: »

OP it's not supposed to be a way of clearing a film of any gender bias. It's supposed to be an indicator of the way women are portrayed in media. It's not even taken as seriously as that by most people, it's more usefully/appropriately used now as merely a point of interest, a way of pointing out that there's a shockingly small number of films that can pass it.

If a film doesn't pass the test, it doesn't mean it's sexist.

true-or-false wrote: »

As for trying to say that the test itself is sexist, that just sounds like a desperate attempt at belittling the problem it's pointing out.

I'm absolutely for the spirit of the test. I just think that it's inherently flawed and using it in anger, as has happened in Sweden, actually would permit a movie with the exact reverse gender bias to pass. Maybe sexism by omission is what I'm angling at: a test that measures gender bias but only against women.

Lou.m · 27-12-2013 11:49pm

It is not really identifying gender roles or a bias where they might be against gender equality.

A work can pass the test and still contain sexist content, and a work with prominent female characters can fail the test.

A work may fail the test for reasons unrelated to gender bias, such as because its setting works against the inclusion of women (e.g., Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, set in a medieval monastery) For these reasons, the Telegraph film critic Robbie Collin criticized the test as prizing "box-ticking and stat-hoarding over analysis and appreciation", and suggested that the underlying problem of the lack of well-drawn female characters in film ought to be a topic of discourse, rather than films failing or passing the Bechdel test.

I think what you are saying is that the test presumes the role of fiction is to represent women in a certain way rather than presuming fiction's role is whatever agenda the creator may have. And the question then becomes is that sexist? I don't know.

I think this type of test might actually be very damaging to film or fiction though potentially. It might be an interesting exercise now and again Well real life is sexist. And fiction should not be 'tested' with an agenda.

I am a writer myself I find this interesting. Instead of rejecting the Bechdel test or adopting it critics should focus on the obvious. What does it mean that, in film, women can barely be imagined to have important things to say to each other? Does this have anything to do with implicit criteria of quality and taste? Why not take the challenge to push one's imagination outside the conventions that come most easily to mind?

It just seems lazy and not to address a certain lack of character development.

Links234 · 27-12-2013 11:53pm

Reekwind wrote: »

I think you mean "a few cinemas in Sweden"

Googling a few sources for this story, I found this, and supposedly:

A group of four movie theaters in Sweden have adopted a new rating system to expose gender bias--if a film passes the Bechdel Test, it gets an A rating.

I expected this to have been a mountain that had been made out of a molehill, but this takes the biscuit as far as Daily Mail-style faux outrage goes. Wow, 4 threaters decided to rate films. Yeah...

27-12-2013 11:53pm

cantdecide wrote: »

I'm absolutely for the spirit of the test. I just think that it's inherently flawed and using it in anger, as has happened in Sweden, actually would permit a movie with the exact reverse gender bias to pass. Maybe sexism by omission is what I'm angling at: a test that measures gender bias but only against women.

What kind of gender bias against men do you think it could promote? I don't think I'm following.

Reekwind · 27-12-2013 11:55pm

cantdecide wrote: »

I'm absolutely for the spirit of the test. I just think that it's inherently flawed and using it in anger, as has happened in Sweden, actually would permit a movie with the exact reverse gender bias to pass

1) No film has been banned or restricted in Sweden on the basis of this 'test'. Some cinemas have chosen to use it to publicly rate the films they show, in order to raise awareness of sexism in cinema

2) What films do you think display "the exact reverse gender bias"? I struggle to think of any mainstream release that could be considered sexist towards men

tritium · 27-12-2013 11:57pm

true-or-false wrote: »

If a film doesn't pass the test, it doesn't mean it's sexist.

As for trying to say that the test itself is sexist, that just sounds like a desperate attempt at belittling the problem it's pointing out.

I'd suggest given some of the examples other posters have given, that the test looks to create a problem and then screams about bias etc. To put it another way, a test with an excess of false positives isn't a very good test.

So movies use stereotypes- wouldn't have guessed that. Any reason why we should care more about how they stereotype women than every other section of society?

hatrickpatrick · 27-12-2013 11:58pm

Yes, it is discriminatory (as is any measure which seeks to further the equality of one particular group rather than of everyone) and no, it's not worth getting into an argument about.

enfant terrible · 27-12-2013 11:58pm

Reekwind wrote: »

1) No film has been banned or restricted in Sweden on the basis of this 'test'. Some cinemas have chosen to use it to publicly rate the films they show, in order to raise awareness of sexism in cinema

2) What films do you think display "the exact reverse gender bias"? I struggle to think of any mainstream release that could be considered sexist towards men

I know even thinking a movie could be sexist against men is a ridiculous idea.

Jimoslimos · 28-12-2013 12:01am

Not too familiar with Ms Bechedel's work, but I wonder how many middle-class straight white males feature in her comics. Not anything wrong with that, it's simply satisfying her fringe target audience, which is exactly what the big Hollywood studios also do for a larger audience. Pointless box-ticking exercises aren't what the public want.

I also wonder why the conversation has to be between two women (other than say between a man and a woman) to be valid. Two women talking about babies, shopping or getting their hair done would pass yet a man and a woman discussing something (non-relationship) plot-driven doesn't.

tritium · 28-12-2013 12:01am

Reekwind wrote: »

1)

2) What films do you think display "the exact reverse gender bias"? I struggle to think of any mainstream release that could be considered sexist towards men

The test effectively looks for stereotyping of female roles. Can you really not think of a single movie that stereotypes male roles?

cantdecide · 28-12-2013 12:01am

Candie wrote: »

What kind of gender bias against men do you think it could promote? I don't think I'm following.

I don't think it promotes male stereotyping, I think it's just too one-sided to be fair. I don't understand how it can be regarded as a measure of gender bias when it ignores the potential for men to be stereotyped.

Reekwind wrote: »

1) No film has been banned or restricted in Sweden on the basis of this 'test'. Some cinemas have chosen to use it to publicly rate the films they show, in order to raise awareness of sexism in cinema

2) What films do you think display "the exact reverse gender bias"? I struggle to think of any mainstream release that could be considered sexist towards men

1) Defo

2) None afaik, tbh.

The point is the test could have a single weak male character that speaks about the female protagonist and still pass the Bechdel test. How is it fair and how is then a measure of gender bias.

The reason for the thread is because I was berated for calling the test irrelevant, one-sided (sexist) and ridiculous. Am I wrong?

kneemos · 28-12-2013 12:03am

Reekwind wrote: »

1) No film has been banned or restricted in Sweden on the basis of this 'test'. Some cinemas have chosen to use it to publicly rate the films they show, in order to raise awareness of sexism in cinema

2) What films do you think display "the exact reverse gender bias"? I struggle to think of any mainstream release that could be considered sexist towards men

Haven't seen it so guessing Sex in the City.

Links234 · 28-12-2013 12:13am

cantdecide wrote: »

The point is the test could have a single weak male character that speaks about the female protagonist and still pass the Bechdel test. How is it fair and how is then a measure of gender bias.

The reason for the thread is because I was berated for calling the test irrelevant, one-sided (sexist) and ridiculous. Am I wrong?

You're wrong because you seem to be missing the point of the test

Conmaicne Mara · 28-12-2013 12:14am

The what? Who gives a ****?

Reekwind · 28-12-2013 12:15am

tritium wrote: »

The test effectively looks for stereotyping of female roles. Can you really not think of a single movie that stereotypes male roles?

Name me a mainstream film that is sexist in its portrayal of men. I honestly can't think of one

cantdecide wrote:

The point is the test could have a single weak male character that speaks about the female protagonist and still pass the Bechdel test. How is it fair and how is then a measure of gender bias.

The presence of a male character is irrelevant: the 'test' looks at the roles that female characters have in the film to gauge (roughly) how the latter portrays women. That's all

The reason for the thread is because I was berated for calling the test irrelevant, one-sided (sexist) and ridiculous. Am I wrong?

Yes. First of all, the notion that the 'test' is "sexist" because it's "one-sided" is silly. This is not some scientific examination as to the fender balance of a film; it's a rough pass/fail guide to sexist portrayals of women. It's not sexist to call out sexism in the film industry

You probably didn't do yourself any favours by suggesting that the latter (sexism in Hollywood) is "irrelevant"

28-12-2013 12:20am

cantdecide wrote: »

Maybe sexism by omission is what I'm angling at: a test that measures gender bias but only against women.

It's not a test to measure gender bias though. It's a test to point out that while women may be part of a movie, they're often only tools being used to bulk out the male-centred plot. The reason that it looks at this, and not at the converse, should be glaringly obvious.

cantdecide wrote: »

The reason for the thread is because I was berated for calling the test irrelevant, one-sided (sexist) and ridiculous. Am I wrong?

Yep. If it were a measure of sexism, then you'd be perfectly justified. But that's simply not what it is.

cantdecide · 28-12-2013 12:23am

Reekwind wrote: »

Name me a mainstream film that is sexist in its portrayal of men. I honestly can't think of one

Grand

Reekwind wrote: »

The presence of a male character is irrelevant: the 'test' looks at the roles that female characters have in the film to gauge (roughly) how the latter portrays women. That's all

Yes. First of all, the notion that the 'test' is "sexist" because it's "one-sided" is silly. This is not some scientific examination as to the fender balance of a film; it's a rough pass/fail guide to sexist portrayals of women. It's not sexist to call out sexism in the film industry

What about how the test is used by the media. Is it fair to use the rating where no test exists of negative male stereotyping?

Reekwind wrote: »

You probably didn't do yourself any favours by suggesting that the latter (sexism in Hollywood) is "irrelevant"

Never said that. Not once. The proof is why would I say something I didn't believe? I said it was an irrelevant test that proves very little about how sexist or gender biased (against women) a movie is and how well represented women are using extremely narrow parameters. The issue of sexism in Hollywood is huge. I agree with you.

Karl Stein · 28-12-2013 12:34am

Candie wrote: »

Men tend to be the centre of the action in a movie, women on the periphery as relatable spouses or love interests to give the men depth and context.

Almost every Tom Cruise movie.

errlloyd · 28-12-2013 12:39am

Bechdel test is fascinating but also really flawed. It's amazing how many films fail it, despite it being such a low burden, but many of the passes are worse than the fails.

For example.

Portal 1 (the video game) has two characters, the player is a female mute called Chell, the antagonist is a robot with a female personality.

Because Chell never speaks it fails the Bechdel test, despite being arguably the most gender favourable (from a female perspective) video game ever. Like two pretty strong characters, no tits.

On the flip side, breaking bad passes the Bechdel test within about 30 seconds of episode one. Goes on to spend 5 seasons portraying the two female characters as the ****ing annoying **** boring **** domestic nightmares of anti marriage propaganda. They're naggy, useless, dependant and generally no banter.

cantdecide · 28-12-2013 12:43am

errlloyd wrote: »

Bechdel test is fascinating but also really flawed. It's amazing how many films fail it, despite it being such a low burden, but many of the passes are worse than the fails.

For example.

Portal 1 (the video game) has two characters, the player is a female mute called Chell, the antagonist is a robot with a female personality.

Because Chell never speaks it fails the Bechdel test, despite being arguably the most gender favourable (from a female perspective) video game ever. Like two pretty strong characters, no tits.

On the flip side, breaking bad passes the Bechdel test within about 30 seconds of episode one. Goes on to spend 5 seasons portraying the two female characters as the ****ing annoying **** boring **** domestic nightmares of anti marriage propaganda. They're naggy, useless, dependant and generally no banter.

+1
Begs the question of whom the test actually serves doesn't it?

Lou.m · 28-12-2013 12:47am

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Almost every Tom Cruise movie.

Ah yeah but the bigger elephant in the room is the lack of Tom's actual penis.

Scientology made it fall off.

He went from maybe homosexual to asexual then it just fell right off :eek:

shruikan2553 · 28-12-2013 12:49am

This test is as valid as one where a woman must hold a gun or 2 men must give each other a high five.No idea how anyone could take it seriously.

Karl Stein · 28-12-2013 1:16am

Lou.m wrote: »

Ah yeah but the bigger elephant in the room is the lack of Tom's actual penis.

Scientology made it fall off.

He went from maybe homosexual to asexual then it just fell right off :eek:

I guess I should have said the roles Tom Cruise plays!

28-12-2013 1:19am

I think it sounds interesting from a "did you know" kinda perspective and that's about it

Catari Jaguar · 28-12-2013 1:29am

errlloyd wrote: »

B
On the flip side, breaking bad passes the Bechdel test within about 30 seconds of episode one. Goes on to spend 5 seasons portraying the two female characters as the ****ing annoying **** boring **** domestic nightmares of anti marriage propaganda. They're naggy, useless, dependant and generally no banter.

Massively disagree here.

The point in the Bechdel test is to see if the females are objectified or if they actually have PERSONALITY. Any traits they are given humanise them and raise them above the level of T & A which is pretty much how most female characters were portrayed in mainstream media before say, 5 or so years ago.

Skyler becomes like a mob wife - hypocritical, cold, calculating, controlling. Her character development is great. Marie is a good wife, sweet, loyal, bit manic, desperately maternal - kind of ends up becoming the opposite of Skylar, and a mirror of whet she ends up becoming.

Then you have Jane, Lydia, Andrea... Plenty of female characters with different personalities and purpose. Not just pretty faces or there to be rescued or guide/ assist the male protagonist on his manly quest.

Edit: Not condoning how women are represented in Breaking Bad, plenty of misogyny, with all the **** that happens them, but they do have personality.

Maximus Alexander · 28-12-2013 1:31am

This is weird. I just came across this thread about two hours after two friends of mine also had an argument about the Bechdel test, although for different reasons.

The Diabolical Monocle · 28-12-2013 2:29am

cantdecide wrote: »

I've just had a row with my sister over this. I believe that since it's only a measure of whether movies incorporate and portray women in a particular manner and it doesn't afford men the same (or any) measure, I can't see how it can be viewed as a measure of gender bias.

If that be the case, a) is it appropriate that it is incorporated by the media mentioned on wikipedia? and b) is it sexist if it ignores any reference to bias that favours women?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

If (a) refers to unknown condition (b) on the sexuality bias of the aforementioned, then naturally (b) [in reference to the test itself] [on condition of knowing the test] would be a measure of (c) the bias of making no fvcking sense whatsoever. In which case question = sh

CrabRevolution · 28-12-2013 3:22am

Would the vast majority of films not instantly fail this simply because of their subject matter?

Any war film will be nearly all men, especially a historic one, so just about all of those will fail. A film about soldiers in Stalingrad or D-Day would have to deviate a lot to suddenly include 2 womens conversations. (Downfall might pass the test actually)

Same for superhero/fantasy films, like how would you work these female characters into Lord of the Rings or the Hulk? Is it token characters that are needed?

Films about politics/politicians? About 95% of politicians who ever lived have been men. Sports films and films about rock stars are again nearly totally male dominated areas. Where would you write these female characters and their conversations into these films?

Maximus Alexander · 28-12-2013 3:25am

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Would the vast majority of films not instantly fail this simply because of their subject matter?

Any war film will be nearly all men, especially a historic one, so just about all of those will fail. A film about soldiers in Stalingrad or D-Day would have to deviate a lot to suddenly include 2 womens conversations. (Downfall might pass the test actually)

Same for superhero/fantasy films, like how would you work these female characters into Lord of the Rings or the Hulk? Is it token characters that are needed?

Films about politics/politicians? About 95% of politicians who ever lived have been men. Sports films and films about rock stars are again nearly totally male dominated areas. Where would you write these female characters and their conversations into these films?

It's pretty clear that the Beshdel test is worthless. Gravity fails it, for example, despite the entire film being about a strong female character.

Ficheall · 28-12-2013 3:38am

I watched a short film the other night, centring on two women who had some intercourse, with no men involved in the film at all. I don't think it struck any blows for feminism though.

Is the Bechdel test sexist?

Comments