The Nexus discussion

I was reading what Jim C. Heines had to say about the popular show "Big Bang Theory", here:
http://www.jimchines.com/2012/02/big-...

In the comments section,someone asked if this show would pass the Bechdel Test.
Naturally, I had to look it up which brought me to this site:
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/feat...

It stated: "The Bechdel Test, if you’re not familiar with it, is a benchmark for movies developed by Alison Bechdel in 1985. For a movie to pass The Bechdel Test, it must contain just one thing - a scene in which two or more named female characters have a conversation (that is, back and forth dialogue) about anything at all besides men. Anything, even if it’s something stereotypically feminine, like shopping or shoes. It could be about dog poo. It doesn’t matter."

The article then goes on to describe why 10 popular movies fail this test which includes favorites like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, The Social Network and Avatar!
What do you think this tells us? How important, if at all, do you think this test is? If applied to our favorite books, how many do you think will pass?

Bechdel Test is something that has floated around in various sci-fi/fantasy fandom circles for years, if only because the idea of female marginalization has traditionally been a hot topic among that crowd.

Well, it does tend to suggest that a lot of popular things may marginalize women, in a way, by only fixating on them as they relate to men. In that sense, it reflects general cultural trends.

Until recently in most places, women, after all, were valued in so far as their interactions with men.

Consider this. In Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life (1939), the horrible fate envisioned for Donna Reed's character in the alternate timeline was that she became ... an unmarried librarian.

The Social Network is an interesting case because there actually were more women involved with early FB and what not in various capacities, including Zuckerberg's GF, but the movie writers choose to write them out/exclude them so they could present the FB narrative in a certain way. So, the Bechdel Test does somewhat highlight the attempt by the writers to make things more male-oriented and exclude women.

I like plenty of works that fail the Bechdel Test, but I do think it's still an interesting tool that highlights certain cultural realities.

Now, perspective and POV can mean a lot. Some stories just are inherently gendered stories. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong or sexist or anything, though.

Of course, one way to flip this around is to also argue that a woman in a scene talking with a man about something other than romance can be interpreted as an equality thing too.

Sure, Harry's the lead and what not but Hermione does tons of heroic stuff and is vital to the success. She's less of a "side-kick" in a lot of ways than Ron.

So, would HP be better, for example, if there were two girls and two guys, and the two girls occasionally went off and had adventures absent that? Probably not. Would it be a bit more "equal"? Arguably.

and would we have liked HP as much, if that had been the case?

I'd argue there's more dramatic tension inherent in the three-person band formation (or if expanded the five-person band) because it does eliminate the possibility of de facto factionalization and thus strengthens the group as a storytelling unit.

A smaller unit (3 vs. 5) concentrates the storytelling ability as well.

So, yeah, I think it would have made for a weaker story overall.

Ok this is the first time I heard about this test. First is isn't outdated and should be improved.
Secondly Is this really used a lot because I agree on the points about HP. There needs to be balanced, but remember there was other female characters that did kinda equal it out

Are you talking about the movies or the books?

This may be deviating from the main point a bit, but Hollywood is the absolute when it comes to sexism. That fact that there even is a Bechdel Test supports that point. Look at the difference between actors and actresses. An unattractive actress has about as much chance of success as a snowball in hell. Compare it to unattractive actors and it's amazing. Taken a step further, it is demonstrated in the ages of successful actresses vs actors. Once a woman reaches her 50's, she just about has to hang it up. Yes there are a few exceptions, but for the most part, it's true. And actors that hit their 50's seem to thrive and are paired with actresses that are in their 20's. That even extends to TV, which is one of the reasons I don't watch it much. They call it "Reality TV" and I call it BS!
So, I'll quit ranting on this and it's just my opinion for whatever it's worth.
Oh and one last thing...what a curse it would have been to be a single librarian! LOL

Respectfully, A.M. I have to disagree with you Hollywood at it's core is a business, they exist to make money. Are they guilty of sexism...probably. But we as consumers need to take some accountability for that. I am a woman and an educated one at that and I do consider myself a feminist but at the same time when it comes to entertainment I would much rather go see a HP movie than Eat, Pray Love. If I am going to spend my money at the box office or watch my tv I will watch what I like same with the books I read. The truth is I strongly dislike the stuff that is produced for women, I'd rather see things blow up. It's fantasy and I want to escape from reality that is why I watch it. Is a show that is male centric automatically make it sexist...I would like to think we are smarter than that. Do I think the Bechdel test has any value... no not really because the irony is that while HP fails the Bechdel test without women fighting for equality the books/movies would have never been so successful after all it was written by a woman. End of my rant...lol.

Oh, I agree with you Lauren on many points. Hollywood is a business and sexism or whatever it's termed definitely sells. I watch movies for the pure entertainment factor. Some of them are sexist and some aren't. I like the exploding ones as well. (LOL) My point was simply an observation and that is women will always be placed in this position. No matter how far we get, it will always come back to this...good or bad, however it's deemed. Sex sells, beauty sells, and it always will, be it in movies, TV, books or what have you. And honestly, even if a movie does pass the Bechdel test and it includes a scene where women are discussing makeup or shoes, would it necessarily improve the movie? It would probably make it worse! Can you just picture Hermione and Jenny discussing the latest hairstyles or shoes? LOL

Well, the Bechdel test doesn't say that women have to be discussing "girly" stuff or whatever, just that it shouldn't be about men. They could discuss geopolitics, the Death Eaters, why Estonian wizards rock, or whatever.

Ironically enough, J.K. Rowling goes by J.K. because her publishers worried her books wouldn't sell well at first if she was using an obviously female name.

didn't know that about J.K.Rowling. Does this kinda thing still happen today, Jeremy?

Interesting conversation.

Well, depends on the publisher and target market, I suppose, but I honestly don't know.

Of course, the flip side of this is many male authors have (or do) use female pseudonyms in genres that are more explicitly targeted at women.

weird that Rowling's publishers thought that. I mean this is post Tamora Pierce and Ilona Andrews etc, isn't it?

I'm guessing you're thinking of someone else RE: Ilona Andrews. Magic Bites didn't come out until 2007, and IA doesn't write any YA or MG stuff to my knowledge.

Tamora Pierce's reader demographic tends to skew more female, and initially the publisher was thinking HP as more a "boys" book. You have others like Diana Wynn Jones as well that I suppose if one squints you could make the same argument. Of course, publishers initially thought the first book was too long, et cetera.

Of course, men, women, boys, and girls have all embraced it.

So a lot of this just indicates that publishers don't know as much as one might think about readers. Heck, very few publishers even do anything as fundamental as market research.

Interestingly enough, Harlequin does, which is why so many different lines pop into existence and wink out of existence. They are trying to ultra-target niches and stuff.

true! statistics can't really predict everything!

Hmmm. Interesting idea. I'll have to take a look at the books I am currently reading. Two of the last 3 books I have reviewed would pass this test - 'Go No Sen' , has a few places where Emily and either Wendy or Connie talk and in 'The Goat and the Heathen' Aja and Olivia talk. I can also think of a few novels that would pass this test as well.

I think as women it says a lot about us that we do see those sort of conversations in print and on the big screen; to often I still see young ladies who shy away from talking about something they find is important because they don't see that in movies or in their books. As a SAHM, I go CRAZY if I do not get my 'girl time', time to talk with girl friends aka sisters about anything - books, kids, the weather, politics, etc. Just us girls conversing without male input.

Since I tend to read romance novels, I think quite a few would pass this test, not all, but a large number, I might be wrong on that one.

As women and these young girls who are growing up, I think we need to see more and more strong women in print and in movies/tv etc; it helps the new generation of ladies to see that fictional media in whatever form does have women in who converse and who want and do converse with eachother without male influence regardless if males are in the 'room' or not.

My afternoon would pass this test, I'm getting my nails done and rarely are men around and as ladies know, what gets said in the salon, stays in the salon.

J.A. wrote: "Of course, one way to flip this around is to also argue that a woman in a scene talking with a man about something other than romance can be interpreted as an equality thing too.

Sure, Harry's the..."

The first book may not pass this test, but there are actually parts in at least one of the HP books where two named females characters are talking, and not about boys

I know several books outside of romance that would pass this test.

Namely



Both have female leads. They have conversations with women all the time without talking about men except it clinical terms for a case.

Midu wrote: "Are you talking about the movies or the books?"

Books

This is a very interesting conversation. What I find odd is the test that says women must converse with other women in order to feel important and powerful. I'm in my late 30's and most of my friends, dearest friends, happen to be men. Is this wrong? Do I need to meet more women?

Hollywood is in the business of making money and I don't particularly care for the empowered girly movies they put out. I enjoyed all of the HP books and movies, didn't care what the target market was because it was simply brilliant writing. The Bechdel Test is more of a tool for marketing. Hollywood wants to make money. The test is a way to gauge if couple are willing to see the movie together. It's likely easier for a woman to go along with a 'shoot them all' theme than with a 'sappy love' theme for the men. Even I can't stomach anything written by Nicholas Sparks.

I think the key thing about the Bechdel Test is how you're using it. If you apply it to a single film or book in an attempt to find out whether the story is worthwhile, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's not designed to show or say anything about whether a story has strong female characters. Terrific movies with strong female protagonists might fail the test, and terrible movies with fainting violets in all the female roles might pass.

What the test can do is tell you something about institutions and perhaps about individual filmmakers or authors with substantial bodies of work. If only two of the Best Picture nominees pass the Bechdel Test, or if a novelist has written 10 books and none of them pass, you can begin to feel justified in saying that the deck has been stacked against female characters -- particularly if a Reverse Bechdel Test (two male characters talk about something other than a woman) generates significant positive test results from the same body of work.

A.M. wrote: "This may be deviating from the main point a bit, but Hollywood is the absolute when it comes to sexism. That fact that there even is a Bechdel Test supports that point. Look at the difference bet..."

I have to weigh in and say that I agree 100% with Annie!

Midu wrote: "didn't know that about J.K.Rowling. Does this kinda thing still happen today, Jeremy?"

I would say that it still effective even in today’s market. In my opinion (which is worth less than a hill of bad beans) woman are expected to write fluff chic-lit. If a woman dares venture off she is scrutinized beyond belief.

Fascinating discussion. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure my books would pass this test. Something to consider for the future...

J.A. wrote: "Well, the Bechdel test doesn't say that women have to be discussing "girly" stuff or whatever, just that it shouldn't be about men. They could discuss geopolitics, the Death Eaters, why Estonian wi..."

It does in the GLBT Romance books. Alot of women write them but they go by initials to make them seem like the books are written by men.

As for the test, what purpose does it have except to point out there is no conversation between two women on screen? Do people stop watching the movies that don't have this? Nope, the movies that fail still are successes.

Just asking, but aren't most urban fantasies about strong women? The woman takes care of herself, and romance is a subplot, isn't it? Would most of them pass the Bechdel test? I can think of a few scenes when Jane Yellowrock talks to other women. It happens in the Mercy Thompson books, too, but she spends most of her time surrounded by men--and still comes across as strong.

One thing to consider about the original test is that it was formulated almost thirty years ago (originally formulated in 1985). Whether one thinks the test is relevant or Hollywood is still super-sexist, there has has been definite changes in the presentation of females across all types of media.

I think the Bechdel test is very revealing, but probably mainly of the number of books (or movies) with female MCs. If the MC is male, there just aren't going to be that many opportunities for named female characters to speak together at all, much less about something unrelated to the MC. If the MC is female, lots more opportunities present themselves for named female characters to speak.

The question we ought to ask is why there aren't more movies about women, and especially movies that aren't romantic comedies (since there are few opportunities in romances for any characters to speak about anything other than love interests). I'm pretty sure there are lots of conversations among named female characters in "The Iron Lady" that aren't about men.

@Alana:
But Voldemort is a boy too! lol

I forget which female- but a girl talked to Luna about her radish looking earrings

and Mrs. Weasley talked, well verbally sparred with, Beatrix (and fighting, so love Ms. Weasley dish it out!)

might have been Ginny

I do believe Ginny pointed out the radish earrings, but Hermione also pointed out her necklace at the beginning of the book.

Most of the books I read have very strong female MCs or it has multiple MCs some guys, and a girl. And I think I can say with confidence that the girls in these books do not talk to other girls about guys. I can think of a few where there's maybe a paragraph of "He's cute" or "Are you guys romantically involved?" But then it quickly goes back to the action.

Another thing though is I don't really think this test is relevent. I have never heard of it before, and not that I have I still don't care. I happen to like chick flicks such as Eat, Pray, Love and He's Just Not That Into You, if only to laugh at the idiots and determine beforehand who's going to end up with whom. Even my boyfriend didn't mind going to The Vow with me during Valentine's, a movie which was based on a true story and still wouldn't pass this test. I also like adventures and shoot 'em ups. In movies like Indiana Jones there is still a strong female even if she isn't MC and she doesn't talk about men to other women. I don't know, maybe I'm just very selective in what I watch, but I'm also attracted to movies/shows with strong females.

Another thing I just thought of: what makes talking about men to other women a bad thing? In NCIS, Ziva could be talking about men with Abbey, but it's usually from a strong independent standpoint, and quite frankly making fun of men. So yes it would fail the test, but does that really say anything about the show? In most cases Ziva is stronger and tougher than Tony and Abbey smarter than McGee.

Also, all these things doesn't affect how I speak to other women. I'm sure there are girls out there more easily influenced than I am, but they are also the ones wearing skanky clothes and having babies at 15. So I think it depends on whether those girls would pay attention to this test to help them make a decision about movies. My mom has always made sure that I stay independent and while some of our conversations do contain males, since I have both a dad and a boyfriend, the conversations are just generally about life itself. If you ask me, teenage girls, teenagers in general but I'll stick to girls, need more education about about this kind of thing. Otherwise they're going to make the same mistakes because they're so easily influenced.

And now my rant is over. :)

I just saw how long that was. SORRY!!

Is the purpose of the Bechdel test to show how females' roles have changed over time or how females are perceived in different time periods? There have always been strong women, and these women have had many interests beyond men, but when I think about Elizabeth I or Maid Marion in Robin Hood or kick-ass female leads in urban fantasies, the women still have to prove themselves in a man's world and end up dealing with men more than women. I'm trying to think of a movie or novel that shows ALL women handling difficult situations and tasks on their own. Okay, maybe THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA comes close. But is that even a realistic goal? Do a few conversations really show how much women have grown or not grown in society? I'm thinking of PRETTY WOMAN, and Julia Roberts has a very telling conversation with a snotty sales girl, but she still ends up with Richard Gere.

Interestingly enough an agented author friend of mine recently related that she was pressured by her agent to use a male name (she writes political and espionage-related historical fiction set in Georgian England).

She settled on initials as a compromise.

That's easy to believe. Publishers think of thrillers and espionage as "male" fiction. And they'd assume men would be more willing to buy from male authors. It's all about marketing.

Many apologies for taking so long to comment – I am king of the Procrastinators (Never do today what you can put off forever!)

I have to say, though I am Lord of the Geek, I had not heard of the Bechdel Test before now (Thank you Midu for enlightening me on this).

I was trying to think of a movie that might pass the test, and one that comes to mind is the 1945 version of Mildred Pierce, but I am not 100% sure about it. I believe there is a scene where Joan Crawford (Mildred Pierce) & Eve Arden (Ida Corwin) are discussing Ann Blyth (Veda Pierce) - but they may also discuss men in the same conversion. (My wife and I adore older movies, and I am embarrassed to admit I have still not seen 'The Seventh Seal'). We own a copy, but I am not a big Joan Crawford fan (Thanks to Blue Oyster Cult every time I see her this little ditty is playing in my head - http://tinyurl.com/24qts85 ).

It does not surprise me that Hollywood would minimalist the presence of women in certain movies, they are incredibly bias. They use a formula, and you dare not deviate from the formula even though it is patently wrong! Sure, if your target audience is 20-something males who enjoy potty humor then the formula is golden.

AM (comment 8) is dead on! Have you ever watched a sequel? In most cases the male lead remains, but the female lead in movie 1 has passed puberty and no longer considered an appropriate lead for our geriatric epitome of masculinity, so they either kill of the female lead between movies or recast the part with a bright, eager, surgically augmented Stepford fetus. And while Laurie: Urban Fantasy (comment 9) is correct, it is a business and they want to make money – it is guided by their biases, prejudices, and traditions. I also agree we, as the consumers, need to hold ourselves accountable for the crap they churn out and expect us to swallow because as long as we continue to consume this pablum they will continue to spoon it out.

I was aware that J.K. Rowling used the initials for marketing reasons – nothing new under the suns I fear. I am not a fan of the practice (I don’t care who writes the book as long as the book is good). Most publishers are just like their Hollywood ilk – guided more by bias than fact (which is why ebooks and self-publishing are killing them!).

I do agree that, as a single metric, the test means nothing. Good movies and books can fail, horrid ones pass. Its interesting, but that is all.

Don't get me started on unReality TV – showcasing and giving fame to the worst in humanity.

Be well my friends.

Thanks for participating! I had a lot of fun reading everybody's comments.