nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is the Bechdel test sexist?

cantdecide

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]

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cantdecide

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

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

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

The what? Who gives a ****?

Reekwind

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"

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

[Deleted User]

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

Catari Jaguar

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

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

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

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

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

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.

tritium

Reekwind wrote: »

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

Nice way to ignore the question I posed and then reask the one I addressed. Here we go so for examples of movies that stereotype other groups.

I love you Philip morris: gay men
Die hard: one dimensional male stereotype
Sex and the city: unrealistic view of one dimensional male characters
One flew over the Cuckoos nest: view of mental illness
Home alone: children stereotyped as destructive imps
(See what I did there? Gee think ill make up a bull**** test now and become famous)

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

I think you'll find that's the op point- the test is sexist because it only considers if the women in a movie are stereotyped. I'm afraid you're violently agreeing with the op whether you realise it of not

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

It is sexist though (and dishonest) to use a pseudo scientific piece of voodoo to give you the answer you want to this question then whine that its clear evidence of a problem

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

I think you'll find that the most relevant aspect of Hollywood is the dollar sign. If this distresses you take your money elsewhere maybe? Just don't point to some hocus pocus self serving crap "test" as your reason, because its nonsense

kiffer

Just apply the rule and it's obvious male related equivalent to the next few films you watch...

Do any women talk to each other about anything other than a male character?
Do any men talk to each other about anything other than a female character?

I think you could be hard pressed in finding a film that would fail the second test...

I read through the thread and people were talking about stereotyping... it's not testing that sort of thing, you'd need a much more complex and subjective judgement based rule to work that out...

Imagine a scene, two women in torn clothes are fleeing a burning building with Hero McWalnutjaw, while go getter male solves escape puzzle in the next room, one woman cries out suddenly, "Gah! I've broken a nail!", the other replies, "when we get out of here let's get manicures", to which the first says "and pedicures! *te he he*".
This passes the test but doesn't mean they aren't stereotyped...
and just because Hero McWalnutjaw gets to solve every problem and kill all the bad guys and talk to men and women about the plot and the car parking and everything else doesn't mean he isn't stereotyped as a man with basically two modes, "killing/solving problems" and "time to get the ride"

tritium

kiffer wrote: »

Just apply the rule and it's obvious male related equivalent to the next few films you watch...

Do any women talk to each other about anything other than a male character?
Do any men talk to each other about anything other than a female character?

I think you could be hard pressed in finding a film that would fail the second test...

I read through the thread and people were talking about stereotyping... it's not testing that sort of thing, you'd need a much more complex and subjective judgement based rule to work that out...

Imagine a scene, two women in torn clothes are fleeing a burning building with Hero McWalnutjaw, while go getter male solves escape puzzle in the next room, one woman cries out suddenly, "Gah! I've broken a nail!", the other replies, "when we get out of here let's get manicures", to which the first says "and pedicures! *te he he*".
This passes the test but doesn't mean they aren't stereotyped...
and just because Hero McWalnutjaw gets to solve every problem and kill all the bad guys and talk to men and women about the plot and the car parking and everything else doesn't mean he isn't stereotyped as a man with basically two modes, "killing/solving problems" and "time to get the ride"

Really struggling from your post to understand which side of the debate you're aligning yourself with?

Anyway, on your first point, the analogous 'test' (I use the term loosely) doesn't simply replace 'woman' with 'man' (though sex and the city would likely fail your criteria)

To illustrate how flawed the test is let's expand your mcWalnutjaw example- do the Mexican looking baddies have deep meaningfuls about their children? Does mcWalnutjaws tough all american black ops team discuss their feelings in depth? Unlikely I'd guess.

Why? Because the bulk of a films cast are basically padding. You don't get character development in 90 minutes- and thats actually fine since they're peripheral to the main story. All we see of most characters is a simplistic snapshot. Hollywood thrives on putting stereotypes of every social group on the screen, and people go to see it and lap it up.

If you want to change the paradigm by all means make your own movies and see if the public want change. Just don't try to enforce social engineering on the back of a bull**** test and faux outrage.