Bechdel: Round Two

[Devor]

As some of you have been waiting for, this thread follows up a previous discussion on The Bechdel Test about the role of women in your fantasy stories.

In a nutshell, the test reads:

The Bechdel Test:
1. Is there more than one character in the movie that is female who has lines?
2. And do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
3. And is their conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?

I want to remind everyone here that modern politics is a banned subject, except as it relates strictly to fantasy storytelling, and nobody should have any expectations about changing that policy. If you have comments about our policy regarding politics, take them to the linked thread. Posting them here is probably the fastest way to derail the discussion.

We come to Mythic Scribes to focus on our writing, and politics are only a distraction towards our work because many of us have strong feelings about the subjects at hand. We want Mythic Scribes to be a motivator for our writing, and not a deterrent. This isn't the place for activism, venting, or debating.

One last thing. We ask that you respect other members of our community and not try to characterize somebody else's mindset. This isn't the place to imply that somebody is a misogynist or else suffers from a "victim mentality." You're only seeing a very narrow strip of somebody's opinions in a conversation like this, which may have nothing to do with their broader mindset or with how they live their lives. If you're getting those kinds of vibes from somebody, just assume that you're only seeing fatigue from the discussion and leave it alone.

So again, please keep it on topic:

How should we portray women in fantasy?

 

[Steerpike]

Awareness is key

If you fail this test and it brings awareness of issues you haven't thought about, then great. If you look at the story and determine it's just how you want it, that's fine as well. But if it can prevent a writer from unwittingly creating a work that has bad characterization, then it has benefits. I think it is a particularly good baseline if you have female primary characters. The test is such a low bar that if you have female characters you see as primary, and you don't pass it, you've got a good indication that the characters are not well developed. Looked at in that context, as a way to get thinking about things, I think it can only be helpful.

 

[Chime85]

On a most basic level, with the same integrity as a writer would any other character. At the end of the day, why include a character if the writer is going to simply gloss over the traits of that person. I don’t mean they should necessarily keep clear of stereotypes, rather, to keep in mind that people very rarely fall into those categories. Or at least, they would show many other traits along with them.

On the other hand, they should also be written accurately within the socialisation of the world created. Of course, it is often the odd ones out that make for interesting characters, but they should still reflect (whether they be for or against) the values of society around them. A small but clumsy example would be for instance; if a society placed women as the dominant of the genders, I would imagine the female characters would often be the decision makers. However, if a female character was a good twenty years younger than a male counterpart, there could very well be a conflict of power and opinion on that matter.

 

[Chilari]

Well timed rejuvenation of the topic, given that today is International Women's Day.

I think one way to approach character creation to ensure that each character has been developed to an appropriate level regardless of gender would be to create genderless characters from the outset, and only later assign them genders as appropriate. I have heard it said that this was done with Ripley in Alien - a character written without gender being part of the character's actions, and later cast with a female actor, the incredibly awesome Sigourney Weaver.

But really, as long as the female characters aren't cliched then you can't go too far wrong. What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won, female characters with no female friends, or where the only female characters are either family members or love interests to main male characters. As long as writers don't do that, I'm generally happy.

 

[BWFoster78]

How should we portray women in fantasy?

They should be portrayed to fit the demands of the story, as should the male characters and any other type of character.

 

[Steerpike]

I think one way to approach character creation to ensure that each character has been developed to an appropriate level regardless of gender would be to create genderless characters from the outset, and only later assign them genders as appropriate. I have heard it said that this was done with Ripley in Alien - a character written without gender being part of the character's actions, and later cast with a female actor, the incredibly awesome Sigourney Weaver.

This is generally my approach. When people say "I don't know how to write a woman" or "I don't know how to write a man," my answer is "write a person." If you're going out of your way to say "what would a woman do in this situation," you're already heading down the wrong path. The right question is "what would my character do in this situation?"

 

[Zero Angel]

May I propose a stronger Bechdel tests for fans of the first? I call it the Bechdel Test for people that read like Steerpike. It reads:

1. Is there more than one character in the movie that is female who has lines?
2. And do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
3. And is their conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?
4. And does all this happen outside of the prologue?

 

[Mindfire]

What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won.

So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay?

For example, many Avatar fans thought Aang's marriage to Katara was unearned and reduced her to a trophy (mostly just because they were bitter Zutarans), but later on those same fans were frothing at the mouth and DEMANDING that Korra get Mako as a trophy because she "deserved him".

 

[Steerpike]

So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay?

I don't remember Chilari saying that in her post. Maybe you can quote the portion that says it?

 

[Mindfire]

May I propose a stronger Bechdel tests for fans of the first? I call it the Bechdel Test for people that read like Steerpike.

Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether? As I see it, the Bechdel test is a loaded gun. Its so strongly associated with feminism and gender politics that it's more of a distraction than a tool, as we saw in part 1 of this discussion. I say ditch it and make something without all the connotations.

 

[Steerpike]

Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether?

There are plenty of other characterization tests. The Bechdel test is specifically about portrayal of female characters. If you change it to be about something other than the portrayal of female characters, you've missed the point entirely.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't remember Chilari saying that in her post. Maybe you can quote the portion that says it?

I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I thought relevant to this discussion.

I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.

 

[Steerpike]

I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say.

Well, she also didn't say unicorns exist. You could have just written "So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but unicorns exist?" and it would have follow just as well. :tongue:

Arg, I should be trying to work!

 

[Zero Angel]

What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won.

So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay?

For example, many Avatar fans thought Aang's marriage to Katara was unearned and reduced her to a trophy (mostly just because they were bitter Zutarans), but later on those same fans were frothing at the mouth and DEMANDING that Korra get Mako as a trophy because she "deserved him".

I also dislike this as poor characterization. Also, why would the guy necessarily *want* the girl as a reward? Because he's shallow? If the characters and their relationship have been significantly developed, then the girl won't be seen as just a reward and the coupling will be natural and organic. Having a character exist as a reward in general is bad whether it's done for girls or guys (unless you're writing something where having a character exist as a reward is saying something in and of itself).

 

[Mindfire]

There are plenty of other characterization tests. The Bechdel test is specifically about portrayal of female characters. If you change it to be about something other than the portrayal of female characters, you've missed the point entirely.

It would still be about female characters, it just wouldn't be the Bechdel test with the Bechdel label on it.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm not a fan of passive damsels in distress either. It's one thing to have a man rescue a woman, but I can't accept a woman losing all agency in the situation unless the story provides a good explanation. Besides, I like women who can take care of themselves and work as equals with their man.

That said, I will admit that I prefer to write romantic situations from the man's point of view. I am a guy after all, so I have a more intimate understanding of male than female desires and feelings about that sort of thing. In all other circumstances, however, I have no problem with a female character's perspective.

 

[Mindfire]

Well, she also didn't say unicorns exist. You could have just written "So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but unicorns exist?" and it would have follow just as well. :tongue:

Arg, I should be trying to work!

I was just trying to bring up a related issue. Geez. Crucified for one shaky transition.

 

[Zero Angel]

I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I indeed relevant to this discussion.

I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.

It seemed that you were bringing in your frustration over the double standard from another source. Chilari always seems pretty level-headed in discussions, please try to keep the conversation polite and avoid angry retorts to imagined slights or this thread will not exist long at all before being closed.

I always recommend when making points that we establish where they are coming from and why we believe them. Remember we are not necessarily trying to debate, but rather discuss the role of female characters in novels.

 

[Steerpike]

It would still be about female characters, it just wouldn't be the Bechdel test with the Bechdel label on it.

Oh, I see what you mean. I misunderstood you!

 

[Chime85]

I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I indeed relevant to this discussion.

I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.

Well there are two points to be made about this. The Betchel test is meant to eliminate double standards, placing female characters on par with male characters. The fact this test exists highlights they are not. Of course, there are examples of female characters being very well written (Ripley, as exampled above) but that number is dwarfed by the number of women in stories who are closer to a prize (like Bilbos trasure!) than a person.

As you say, female villains being let "off the hook" does highlight a double standard. A standard many women wish to see changed.

Edit: Personally, I would love to see a female villain get her "come up-ence"