Is the Bechdel Test Useful?

[Leoreth]

It's social commentary.
Next thing you will claim a documentary about forced prostitution is sexist by misrepresenting it as an endorsement?

Depends on how it's portrayed.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yet again: In the majority of movies that fail the test the "relationships" the men are forming are mostly about killing each other and/or exacting all sorts of brutality on each other, both of which is usually shown in a way that most of the audience would find unacceptable if it happened to women on the screen.

If audiences were particularly squeamish about women being horribly killed, the horror genre would be a very different place. Seen any Rob Zombie films lately?

 

[Crezth]

It's not consistant.
It's limited to movies that a) pander to an exclusively male audiences (movies about sports for starters), which have their female equivalent and b) movies that involve a certain degree of action violence and, well, brutality.

That these movies are in the majority, obtain the highest box office returns, etc. doesn't indicate a degree of consistency to you?

 

[metatron]

If audiences were particularly squeamish about women being horribly killed, the horror genre would be a very different place. Seen any Rob Zombie films lately?

I can't comment on that. I don't watch horror movies.

But i would hazard the guess that some of the expectations people usually have regarding any other kind of movies are suspended in that case.

That these movies are in the majority, obtain the highest box office returns, etc. doesn't indicate a degree of consistency to you?

No, not really. That these movies do that is mostly a result of the economic behind it.
There is no economic point to making a non-violent drama for a quarter billlion bucks.
Action movies demand concentration of ressources. There is no point in making 10 is you cn spend the money on just one and make it count.
This mechanic is what is artificially inflating their exposure and supposed popularity.

Sure, you could ask why they are popular at all, why making them is economically worthwhile at all. I couldn't really tell you, since i don't really care for most of them.

Depends on how it's portrayed.

Now it would be useful if you'd tell us what exactly you feel is sexist about Sucker Punch.
I can only guess (i do have plenty of ideas) and make some sort of strawman.

 

[Deaths Advocate]

I don.t think so no.

 

[_random_]

If audiences were particularly squeamish about women being horribly killed, the horror genre would be a very different place. Seen any Rob Zombie films lately?

Rob Zombie flicks are pretty niche, and I think that might be one of many reasons mainstream audiences aren't as receptive to them.

 

[Quintillus]

IZed's opposite number over in MI6 is M, James Bond's boss. The Bond movies have recently had Judi Dench as M. Now, there isn't any good reason why a woman shouldn't play a super spy's boss, but it is striking that Dench played the role simply because she is a woman. Third wave feminist critiques of portrayals of women in popular culture suggest that it shouldn't be a real shocker that a woman is in a major role of authority within a movie. That should happen just sort of automatically as women become the equals of men, but the Bechdale Test shows that this simply isn't happening.

I don't know the hiring reasons behind hiring Judi Dench to play M, but it's worth noting that she also does a really good job of it. Watching the movies, it certainly does not feel like she got the role just to have some diversity in the cast.

The test is interesting, but I think it's also worth considering how much it reflects society, and not just movie makers. And considering the subject material. I wouldn't expect a lot of war movies to pass this test, for example. But even in more commonplace films - there's a lot of professions that aren't particularly egalitarian. Are the professions of judges, doctors, and spymasters egalitarian in practice? What about constrution workers, plumbers, and police officers? Several of these are becoming more egalitarian than they were, but (aside perhaps from the spymaster category that I really don't know anything about) I wouldn't put any of them as being truly egalitarian in real life yet.

So the question partially becomes, are the movies representing the cast of characters in them fairly, for the timeframe they portray? It's true that half the population is female, but if the movie is about soldiers in Vietnam or construction workers in the 1920s, and doesn't focus much on the non-work lives of the characters, it makes some sense why it isn't fair and balanced.

There still may end up being an issue in films (and I'm sure this is the case in certain films), but it seems a bit convenient to assume that the problem is limited to the films themselves.

 

[Crezth]

No, not really. That these movies do that is mostly a result of the economic behind it.
There is no economic point to making a non-violent drama for a quarter billlion bucks.
Action movies demand concentration of ressources. There is no point in making 10 is you cn spend the money on just one and make it count.
This mechanic is what is artificially inflating their exposure and supposed popularity.

Sure, you could ask why they are popular at all, why making them is economically worthwhile at all. I couldn't really tell you, since i don't really care for most of them.

It seems like you're missing the point, though. You can go on about how these movies are of a particular sort, or that there is an economic impetus guiding their production, and so-on; but no matter how you slice it, they are a part of the larger paradigm that includes their development in a culture that encourages their production. The very fact that they are common, overwhelmingly popular, and tilt the scales as they do indicates a characteristic that is endemic in the system. It is not merely a bias towards violent movies or any other individual quality you may pick-and-choose from, but a bias towards all forms of popular fiction that emphasize males in a male world with females as secondary characters.

 

[metatron]

It seems like you're missing the point, though. You can go on about how these movies are of a particular sort, or that there is an economic impetus guiding their production, and so-on; but no matter how you slice it, they are a part of the larger paradigm that includes their development in a culture that encourages their production. The very fact that they are common, overwhelmingly popular, and tilt the scales as they do indicates a characteristic that is endemic in the system. It is not merely a bias towards violent movies or any other individual quality you may pick-and-choose from, but a bias towards all forms of popular fiction that emphasize males in a male world with females as secondary characters.

Yeah, if by "it" you mean that Orwelllian pretzel, then yes: i don't "get" it.
It's not a fundamental phenomenon of popular culture, media or cinema, but rather specific to certain genres.
The fact that you had to use the term "tilt the scales" should tip you off.

That doesn't mean it's "fine" or anything like that. But you don't get to misrepresent the problem to arrive at one of the usual convenient diagnoses.

 

[Crezth]

It's not a fundamental phenomenon of popular culture, media or cinema, but rather specific to certain genres.

These genres happen to be the most popular - I attribute this to a cultural bias towards these genres*. I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

*And, more generally still, towards fiction that centers around males and male problems.

 

[metatron]

These genres happen to be the most popular - I attribute this to a cultural bias towards these genres.

Erm... maybe humans are inherently interested in spectacular content (violence, fire, explosions, fast movement (like on horseback or in vehicles)) in media, particularly in visual media? As in some things actually being nature, not nurture.
Ever considered that possible?#
(Still wouldn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't try to change that.)

You know, as an alternative explanation to "the patriarchy did it" or whatever is supposed to be the nurture explanation here.
Not that there aren't even more possibilities.

I don't see what is so difficult to understand.

It's not about understand.
I disagree.

I can see how that's the same to "feminist" ideologues.

Edit:
*sigh*
As usual i find myself being hostile and stubborn and entangled in a debate with self-proclaimed "feminists" who i percieve as hostile and stubborn. This is sad in so far that we apparently share a common goal. We should find a mode of debate that has a chance of sharing meaningful thoughts regarding strategies to turn the status quo into what we are aspiring to.
Since we apparently absolutely cannot agree on the precise nature of the status quo (yet again: as usual) it may be fruitful if we'd switch our attention and the focus of debate on the outcome we are hoping for and try to work our way back from there.
I.e. maybe we should ponder positive examples, point out what exactly makes them good and speculate on what conditions would have to be met to have more of them.
Or something like that. I don't know.

 

[Crezth]

You keep strawmanning this feminist dialectic position out of me. Cut that out: it is obnoxious.

The only point I'm making is that it is likely that the culture which has a bias towards "spectacular" things which apparently can only star men because women can't fill action roles (sorry Buffy, Ripley, and Femshep) is a culture that has ingrained, sexist elements. This is not a novel claim. It is also not particularly conspiratorial.

Hitherto you have held that this genre is exceptional and, furthermore, that it is an irrelevant concern because women shouldn't star in violent movies anyway. You have yet to meaningfully substantiate the latter case, and when pressed on the former case fell back to claiming that it is human nature to like violent movies that must star men.

Indeed, however, the bias is hardly limited to violent movies. You have mentioned off hand, but scarcely proved, that if you subtract all the violent movies (a nebulous classification if ever there were one) the number of movies passing the bechdel test "probably" increases. Indeed, I would be very surprised if this was the case. But, furthermore, I'm sure it wouldn't even begin the address the general lack of strong female protagonists.

So, to summarize: why can't or shouldn't women star in violent movies, and if you cannot satisfactorily answer that, why then is the representation of men in violent movies and by extension all movies so skewed towards men?

 

[metatron]

I would have answered directly. But i was out of food - had to shop.

You keep strawmanning this feminist dialectic position out of me. Cut that out: it is obnoxious.

Yeah. Thanks. I'm doing my best. I enjoyed your ad hominem attacks, too.

The only point I'm making is that it is likely that the culture which has a bias towards "spectacular" things which apparently can only star men because women can't fill action roles (sorry Buffy, Ripley, and Femshep) is a culture that has ingrained, sexist elements. This is not a novel claim. It is also not particularly conspiratorial.

1. As i said above: I am not sure this is a 100% cultural issue.
2. You should probably explicitly state what you mean by "sexist elements". It's not clear whether you mean what i would call "sexist" and or what people would call "sexist" who believe sexism was a one way street of women being mistreated.
3. You'd consider Buffy a positive example? I wouldn't know.
I don't know the show. My impression was that it's mostly about an entitled girl having a mutually abusive romantic relationship with a demon (two factor theory of emotion *yawn*).

Hitherto you have held that this genre is exceptional

Plural. But yes.

and, furthermore, that it is an irrelevant concern because women shouldn't star in violent movies anyway.

• Irrelevant? No, not at all. I merely opined that the conclusions you guys are coming up with aren't as insightful, undisputable and conclusive as you apparently think.
• Women shouldn't star in movies? WTH? Where did i write that?

You have yet to meaningfully substantiate the latter case,

Not sure which of the two in the last sentence you mean. Since they are both strawmen it doesn't matter.

and when pressed on the former case fell back to claiming that it is human nature to like violent movies that must star men.

I was being somewhat ironic.
But, yes, it may be part of the explanation. As much as not more as "movie critics manipulate everybody - and when they are done they laugh and pet white cats."

Indeed, however, the bias is hardly limited to violent movies. You have mentioned off hand, but scarcely proved, that if you subtract all the violent movies (a nebulous classification if ever there were one) the number of movies passing the bechdel test "probably" increases. Indeed, I would be very surprised if this was the case. But, furthermore, I'm sure it wouldn't even begin the address the general lack of strong female protagonists.

I guess we have to agree to disagree on this.
We could examine this, maybe by going through some sort of sample. The 20 highest grossing movies in a single year may be such a sample. A shorter list over a bigger timeframe would yet again overrepresent action and crime movies.
I'd also like to remind you that a good deal of movies fail both the test and the reverse test simply for being really flat thematically or just plain lacking of non-inane dialogue.

The classification is not nebulous at all though. The definition of "violent" would be something along the lines of significant graphic brutality being displayed. Unlike in say murder/courtroom dramas where people's death is often displayed in a comparatively non-graphic fashion or happens entirely off screen.

So, to summarize: why can't or shouldn't women star in violent movies,

I have absolutely no objection to that. My claim that it is in part not done for chivalry's sake. And because men probably make up a majority of the target audience. Which may of course be just as much effect as it is cause. We could debate that.

Don't undererstimate this factor. For example: Due to the simple plots of action movies and the lower factors in human existance they appeal to, there is some incentive to have a hero and a villain of the same sex, even when they don't compete for some (ridiculously objectified) common romantic interest.
And female villains are problematic due to chivalry. For one they cannot be vanquished by the hero as visciously as a male villain (having a male hero instead of a female one doing so would be particularly problematic), and they are more difficult to draw in the first place. A male villain can be as ridiculous as your writers are bad and nobody really cares all that much. A female villain in the age of political correctness is one big HMS Iceberg Magnet.

By all means: This is not an excuse in all cases (technically it shouldn't be one at all). As i said i feel that Star Wars is actually an excellent example, where one, several or all of the male protagonists could be replaced by female characters that are for all other purposes absolutely identical.
There is the problem with Luke being a somewhat involuntarily submissive character due to him being somewhat naive and phlegmatic and as a result acting all through SW4 as a victim of other smarter and more assertive characters (i.e. every single last other major character).
That would in my view be survivable for a Lux Skywalker. I'm just pointing it out to remind you how easily one can run into problems...

and if you cannot satisfactorily answer that, why then is the representation of men in violent movies and by extension all movies so skewed towards men?

See above.

 

[Crezth]

Yeah. Thanks. I'm doing my best. I enjoyed your ad hominem attacks, too.

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks in this thread. You, however, entered this thread obnoxiously proclaiming that the posters therein were

2. Knights in shining armor who consider themselves pro-feminists coming up with shortsighted and superficial explanations as to why this is (which they would consider an insult to their otherwise high intelligence if the topic was any one but this one - thus demonstrating that rooting out sexism is more tricky than one might think).

So, yeah, that's a great foot to get off on. To the heart of the matter, then:

1. As i said above: I am not sure this is a 100% cultural issue.

Why not? It's occurring within a culture that encourages and perpetuates it. You alluded to economic factors several posts ago, but it seems that economic factors are only relevant insofar as cultural biases will sustain them. That is to say, I couldn't tell you that flea circuses were popular due to "economic factors," because flea circuses are not popular among erstwhile consumers. But if I could say that action movies were popular due to "economic factors," it'd only be because there was a culture that created a strong consumer craving for them.

It is the culture that creates and then consumes these movies. You can't really blame anything else.

2. You should probably explicitly state what you mean by "sexist elements". It's not clear whether you mean what i would call "sexist" and or what people would call "sexist" who believe sexism was a one way street of women being mistreated.

Regardless of whether or not sexism goes both ways, you cannot seriously assert that the issues of prejudice that men and women face in our society are equivalent. Or, if you did, you'd have to do so on the grounds that any form of gender expectation at all was a form of unjust prejudice, and you'd be expressing a third-wave feminist position.

Women shouldn't star in movies? WTH? Where did i write that?

Women shouldn't star in violent movies. If you didn't say so explicitly you implied so ferociously, as you have later on in the quoted post with dinosauric references to chivalry.

A shorter list over a bigger timeframe would yet again overrepresent action and crime movies.

This is the part it seems like you keep failing to grasp. It's not "overrepresenting" anything if action and crime movies are the most popular and by a wide margin.

This is the statement I was referring to that you should justify in some meaningful way:

As i said: Substract everything that has sports, organised crime, graphic violance or direct combat in war in it and you get pretty close.

I have absolutely no objection to that. My claim that it is in part not done for chivalry's sake. And because men probably make up a majority of the target audience.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! That is sexism, champ. It is a bias on the part of the industry towards male audiences and male characters. That these movies are overwhelmingly the most-popular, the highest-grossing, and in the greatest number is not circumstantial evidence to be dismissed on a whim. It is the reason that the Bechdel test is applicable, and thus of utmost relevance.

 

[Leoreth]

I think you have to cut metatron some slack here. Even if, say, war movies were equally liked by male and female moviegoers (which should be a goal for people who desire an end of gender norms?), they would still feature predominantly male casts, since many war movies are set to actual historical or contemporary events, where the majority of characters are by necessity male. You can't just gloss over that fact.

Other genres are less constrained, though, and therefore harder to excuse.

 

[Mise]

What I understand from men discussing women on the internet is that sexism is only ever a cultural problem when it's happening in India, Pakistan, the Middle East or Africa. In the West, we do things because it's profitable to do them: we take a giant steaming dump on women because it's profitable to take a giant steaming dump on women, and not because our culture has deeply ingrained historical biases against them.

 

[Camikaze]

Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction both pass.

Mentioning Reservoir Dogs seems relevant.

 

[Crezth]

I think you have to cut metatron some slack here. Even if, say, war movies were equally liked by male and female moviegoers (which should be a goal for people who desire an end of gender norms?), they would still feature predominantly male casts, since many war movies are set to actual historical or contemporary events, where the majority of characters are by necessity male. You can't just gloss over that fact.

I understand the point he's making, believe me. But even if I were to accept that some genres require majority-male or majority-female casts, you'd need to convince me how that makes them exceptional when they are the most popular, the highest grossing, and top the charts in the greatest number.

 

[metatron]

I haven't made any ad hominem attacks in this thread.

Yes you did. It speaks volumes if you didn't even realize it.

Or, if you did, you'd have to do so on the grounds that any form of gender expectation at all was a form of unjust prejudice, and you'd be expressing a third-wave feminist position.

I do.

That i do criticise the occassional incredibly boneheaded application of something by people who apparently haven't read the manual doesn't mean i believed it to be fundamentally a bad thing. (I don't necessarily mean you.)

Since you seem to have chronic problems with spoting my irony, let me inform you: I almost physically hurt my eyes at "occasional".

Women shouldn't star in violent movies. If you didn't say so explicitly you implied so ferociously, as you have later on in the quoted post with dinosauric references to chivalry.

I agree with you - presumably - that society in general is rabidly sexist, to a point that we are virtually living in Jurassic Park so to speak.
If that angers you to the point of bold, i can't help it.

This is the part it seems like you keep failing to grasp. It's not "overrepresenting" anything if action and crime movies are the most popular and by a wide margin.

Popularity can be measured in various ways. Going by the box office earnings may be easy but not necessarily optimal or definitive. We could care about the total number of hours spent watching movies of genres A, B, C.
Or things like that.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! That is sexism, champ. It is a bias on the part of the industry towards male audiences and male characters.

Yes it is sexist. That doesn't mean you have to titulate me.
It doesn't mean that you can cite that as basis for a bunch of arguments that are rather non sequitur either.

That these movies are overwhelmingly the most-popular, the highest-grossing, and in the greatest number is not circumstantial evidence to be dismissed on a whim. It is the reason that the Bechdel test is applicable, and thus of utmost relevance.

I do not dismiss it. Well i do in part dismiss it but i still feel it's very relevant.
I just disagree with your conclusions on why it is and presumably also on what to do about it. But we didn't manage to get to that so far, since you are not done making pointless accusations about me supposedly not understanding, yet.

What I understand from men discussing women on the internet is that sexism is only ever a cultural problem when it's happening in India, Pakistan, the Middle East or Africa. In the West, we do things because it's profitable to do them: we take a giant steaming dump on women because it's profitable to take a giant steaming dump on women, and not because our culture has deeply ingrained historical biases against them.

No.
Well, yes and no.

Action movies and movies about organised crime and so on are to some degree sexist. And that is for cultural reasons. (Understand "some degree" as "quite a bit" - i am merely upholding the qualifications i have made so far, which apparently have been understood as complete dismissal).
My main complaint here is that this sexism is a lot more complicated than the arguments you guys fielded explicitly or implicitly claimed.
That's the yes part.

Those movies are popular (this is debatable and it's a dubious term in this context to begin with: see above) for a number of reasons, some of them are sexist, most of them are not, but entirely practical and economical.
That's the no part.

Of course you can assign some blame to the audience for watching movies they genuinly like ignoring the sexism or being oblivious of it. But i am not sure how far that does get you.
I do believe that there is a lot more ignoring than being oblivious. A lot of people watch these movies while subscribing to the judgement of these movies being very stupid (in general). So i don't believe it's a stretch to suspect those people would readily admit:
"Yeah, the movie is somewhat sexist, but i don't care, i like all the stuff exploding. The way X crashed into Y! That was awesome!"

And as i said just two paragraphs ago: The reason people go along with the sexism and some of them actually demand it (a minority in my view) are a lot more diverse and complicated than a bunch of douches going like "We don't want female agency in our action flic. That would be threatening."

I understand the point he's making, believe me. But even if I were to accept that some genres require majority-male or majority-female casts, you'd need to convince me how that makes them exceptional when they are the most popular, the highest grossing, and top the charts in the greatest number.

I hate to return the favour you so generously offered but the second sentence proves that the first sentence is incorrect.
This may be my fault, since i have apparently overestimated my ability to convey such a thing as tone in written form in order to differenciate between my view, the audiences view and what the audiences view ideally should be.

Anyway... no the movies don't require such casts, short for era war movies and things like that and even there could be more diversity. I'm kind of missing the quarter billion dollar production about Ukranian women blowing up Nazis and stuff for example.

The audience expects such casts in action movies and movies about organised crime (the latter are actually worse in my view). Some of the reasons for that are not sexist. Most are. They are just not as simple as you guys made it sound.

You may very well end up in a situation were you have a female character in a movie and decide to replace them with an otherwise identical male character because you expect some part of the audience will percieve the character as inappropriate for for one reason or another (illadvised politcal correctness can be just as guilty as jurassic sexism, mostly for being the exact same thing in a different gown in the first place).
That's of course understandable given the scarcity of such characters. None the less it's not the characters job. The character has to be sound and interesting etc. not appropriate. If you want the character to be both you might end up making them male, simply for a male character having to conform way less in order to be acceptable.
Of course, as i said before, the fact that many characters in action movies are a) not acceptable and b) super flat to begin with doesn't help with that.

*sigh*

So, yeah, that's a great foot to get off on.

I could easily comment on the tone you guys use as a default in any thread that has anything gender or identity in it more explicitly.
I just hope you don't believe it will win over actual conservatives...

 

[Mise]

@metatron: I won't speak for Crezth, but I don't accuse action films of being sexist (I mean, they are, but that's not really my main beef). Rather, the prevalence of male-oriented films is symptomatic or a society that has deeply ingrained historical biases against women.

Imagine as a thought experiment a society that was matriarchal rather than patriarchal, where women were sole (or at least main) bread-winners throughout history, where stereotypically "male" qualities like physical strength and aggression were derided, and where women's needs and desires dominated the economic/capitalist/consumerist landscape. Would this hypothetical society have such a large number of violent/criminal/war/etc films in its top 40 list? From what you are saying, I think you would agree that the answer is obviously "no". So can you see how, in this hypothetical society, the prevalence of "female-friendly" films (and dearth of male-oriented films) arises from deeply ingrained cultural attitudes that prize "feminine" qualities and female needs above male qualities and male needs?

All I'm saying (and it may seem trivial to you) is that the prevalence of "male-oriented" films in the top 40 is symptomatic of a culture that is itself male-oriented. That art holds a mirror to society, as they say. That the reason that there are economic incentives to produce male-oriented films is because society has historically taken a massive dump on women.