The Bechdel Test

[Ireth]

Realistically speaking, most writers write about the kind of romances they personally find attractive. Since most people are born heterosexual, of course most writers will write heterosexual romances. That includes yours truly. That doesn't mean a straight writer can't or shouldn't write a gay romance if they so desire, but odds are they won't enjoy it as much as a gay writer would (assuming the gay couple is the same sex as the writer in question of course).

Exactly. I started out Low Road with a deliberate choice to make the hero asexual, or at least not interested in romance. I wanted to add a heterosexual romance between the MC's sister and his best friend, but that didn't work out. Instead, the best friend wound up falling for the hero. I didn't even consider trying to force a hetero romance back onto the characters, but took what I had and ran with it. And I think the story is (or will be, as it's not yet finished) better for it. For the record, I'm a female, and the gay couple in question are male. I also have gay and bi characters of both genders in other works of fiction.

 

[Jabrosky]

P.P.S. Posted this before I saw the last post. That is a LOT of vitriol. Maybe we should all take a break and calm down.

If this is referring to my post, I don't see the vitriol. It is disagreeing with saellys and your position to be sure, but I've seen much uncivil. Notice the absence of insults, cursing, or threats.

 

[Feo Takahari]

If this is referring to my post, I don't see the vitriol. It is disagreeing with saellys and your position to be sure, but I've seen much uncivil. Notice the absence of insults, cursing, or threats.

Edited to say "the last few posts. Sorry. Yours was fine.

(I can't keep up with this thread anymore . . .)

 

[Jabrosky]

Edited to say "the last few posts. Sorry. Yours was fine.

I understand, and you are right, we all need to relax before continuing this discussion. There is a clear lack of communication here.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'd also like to clear up that I'm not Saellys, although judging from her thanks, Saellys might be me. I don't want her blamed for everything I've been saying. (Similarly, BWFoster seems to be making different arguments than T Allen Smith.)

 

[saellys]

You see, we have two different valuations of stories. You seem to place values on stories that meet some kind of social criteria of inclusion. (I deduce this statement from your use of the word "lack," which strongly indicates that something needs to be included for it to be "whole" in your view.)

Me, I don't care about that at all. I judge a story's value based on (1) it's ability to engage me and (2) it's ability to evoke an emotional response. That's all. (Not saying that anyone else has to follow, or even should follow, my valuation system. It's a pretty subjective kinda thing.)

We have the same values regarding a story's quality, with the difference that a lack of female characters talking to each other about something other than men makes an otherwise high-quality story less enjoyable for me.

And I would state that it completely pointless in that it has nothing to do with (1) the ability to engage or (2) the ability to evoke an emotional response.

Of course it has to do with the ability to engage. If your characters act realistically, people are more likely to engage with them. Depending on the content of a conversation, an emotional response can be invoked. These are all linked.

Even more reason for me not to worry about this "test."

Sure, whatever you say.

Truthfully, I despise this kind of thing. How I interpret this is, "My cause is the All Important Cause. Everyone must write their stories and do whatever they have to do to make me feel better."

The truth is: I am not responsible for how you feel. You are responsible for how you feel. If you feel a certain way, change it. Don't tell me to write something different.

I've sang this song a lot, so you probably know the words by now. Join in: you are responsible for what your story perpetuates.

I literally laughed at this. If that's not an agenda, what is? I'm confused.

Equality? The baseline factor in being a decent human being to other human beings?

It's different because you're artifically introducing an element that has nothing to do with the story. Introducing such elements can cause harm untold.

Increased diversity is harmful. Gotcha.

Seriously, if you're even a remotely decent writer, adding something new to your story is not a problem.

Which is your cause.

Maybe the confusion here, on my part, is that you see a distinction between not asking me to believe in your cause and promote it as long as I fall in lockstep with what your cause demands?

Another refrain now: equality. The baseline factor in being a decent human beings to other human beings. Not a cause. Not a beat to march to. I'm not oppressing you by asking to treat people equally.

And I've still yet to see any cogent argument as to why I should include this particular issue in my own ethics over any one of a hundred other issues. Personally, I feel that advocating for not including excess speech tags is far more important. I should introduce a character who is a writer who espouses that viewpoint at length. Except that that character would have no real purpose in the story, so, even though I'm passionate about the topic, I think I shall have to leave said character out.

It's not an either/or prospect. Your personal code of ethics can and probably does include a whole lot of issues: grammatical, social, and beyond. It's not hard to care about more than one thing at once. I do it every day. I have yet to see a cogent argument for not including this particular issue in a broad and well-considered code of ethics, and we've been doing this for ten pages now.

I'm aware that this post probably came off as a bit snippy, and I do apologize if it's taken as me being too harsh. It really is hard for me to properly convey just how much I do not care for the arguments expressed in the quoted sections. I do hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack as I meant it to be a pointed attack on the arguments and not on any person.

EDIT: Tried to remove some of the stuff that might make this sound too harsh...

At this point I'm just tired of repeating myself in response to the same statements over and over, and I'm running out of means to convey my frustration at apathy for what is, in every possible way, a really simple thing to implement in your writing. It doesn't hurt you or your writing or anyone else. Your creative process can proceed apace. Just stop and think, at some point, about what you're putting out in the world. Seriously. Please. Okay?

EDIT: I guess I jumped in too late to see the vitriol, but if this was less harsh, I can't imagine what it looked like before.

 

[Mindfire]

Fair enough. I agree with your statement insofar as you'll get more mileage out of encouraging minorities to create fiction if you're in a position to help them get that fiction out there. Being an enthusiastic reader is also super important, but as Jabrosky mentioned, there are more obstacles than that. Since encouragement is only worth so much, it is absolutely no burden to us writers to contribute to the effort by diversifying our stories as well. I'm not trying to project a "white people have to do this to help the poor maligned minorities" thing--just a "we can, so why don't we" attitude.

Your idealism is commendable. And believe it or not, I'm a sucker for idealism. But I think in this case, the more useful approach is the DIY approach.

And I see the "women like it, so it can't be that bad!" argument all the time. Just because someone likes something doesn't mean it isn't also problematic (pardon the double negative). I adored Sherlock in spite of all the problems I saw for a long time, but finally it was just too much for me.

Okay, I asked for that rebuttal. Calculated risk. But my point is this: you were offended, other women weren't. Why? Taste and perception. How do you know that your opinion is the right one?

I see it when it's there. Trust me, I'm not making this up, and I'm not the only one who's noticed. I've seen more than enough of Moffat's work and read enough interviews to label his statements and his work problematic and misogynist.

I am not accusing you of inventing anything. And I have read other feminist critique of Moffat's work. I remain unconvinced.

Are you actually trying to tell me that "The Blind Banker" wasn't a gross mishandling of Asian characters? The Karachi execution was more silly than anything, but coupled with the weird "fighting a guy in a turban" scene at the beginning of "The Blind Banker," it left a pretty sour taste in my mouth and was just one more thing on a pile of bad decisions by the show's writers.

I do not think the Asian characters were mishandled. They weren't portrayed as bad just because they were Asian. They were members of organized crime! Are you saying that admitting Asian crime families exist is somehow tantamount to racism? And I liked the fight with the masked guy. He was essentially a re-skinned ninja.

The gay man I was referring to was Moriarty's "Jim" persona; Sherlock called him out primarily to mess with Molly. A snappy exchange between Donovan and Sherlock would have been a nice way to establish her hate-on; the slut-shaming was unnecessary.

Well Jim is different. First, he's not actually gay, so there's that. Second, that exchange wasn't about him. It was about Molly. In short, it was Sherlock's way of saying "You're dating this guy in a pathetic attempt to rattle my cage, but you couldn't even pick someone of the right orientation." And as for Donovan, are you saying that a woman should never be criticized for unethical sexual behavior? I think the point of that was to out her as a hypocrite, condemning Sherlock for being a deviant while violating anti-fraternation policy.

 

[BWFoster78]

Saellys,

Truthfully, it's difficult to continue a conversation with someone who says, "I want you to do things my way in order to promote the way that I think things ought to be" and, then, in the next breath says, "This isn't an agenda. It's about promoting equality."

I'm pretty sure that we'll never get past that concept.

I'm positive that you honestly don't see what you're doing as "promoting an agenda." I can't see it as anything but.

Sorry, but I absolutely refuse to "stop and think, at some point, about what" I'm "putting out in the world" in response to the kind of arguments you're putting forth.

Really, and I'm being completely serious here, as much as the lack of positive female respresentation in fantasy offends you, the arguments you're putting forth offend me just as much. I'm pretty positive that we'll never reach an understanding where you understand just why this is the case.

Sorry if I've caused stress to your day.

I, in no way, form, or fashion, think of you as a bad person or think poorly of you in any way; we just happen to disagree strenuously on a subject about which we both feel strongly.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Feo Takahari]

Let's approach this from another direction:

Suppose a story involves a group of adventurers. Early in writing the story, the writer realizes that two of the characters haven't spoken to each other at all. He then decides to write a conversation between them, showing how they interact with each other. Even if this conversation doesn't appear in the final draft, it's bound to help the writer figure out those characters' personalities, and ultimately make for a better story.

Now, we realize that those two are probably the two women, and from there the Bechdel Test sees part of its purpose.

Yes, two lines about mutual enjoyment of shoes won't solve anything--it takes actual effort from the author. And yes, the story will probably still be good even if these two women only talk to men. (In fact, you can build some great stories out of one woman being in a situation where she can ONLY interact with men.) But I still think the test can potentially serve a purpose in making a story even better.

 

[saellys]

Saellys,

Truthfully, it's difficult to continue a conversation with someone who says, "I want you to do things my way in order to promote the way that I think things ought to be" and, then, in the next breath says, "This isn't an agenda. It's about promoting equality."

If you actually think I've said anything remotely like the first quote, I sincerely doubt you've bothered to read anything I've posted.

I'm pretty sure that we'll never get past that concept.

I'm positive that you honestly don't see what you're doing as "promoting an agenda." I can't see it as anything but.

Sorry, but I absolutely refuse to "stop and think, at some point, about what" I'm "putting out in the world" in response to the kind of arguments you're putting forth.

Really, and I'm being completely serious here, as much as the lack of positive female respresentation in fantasy offends you, the arguments you're putting forth offend me just as much. I'm pretty positive that we'll never reach an understanding where you understand just why this is the case.

What I've gleaned from your posts thus far is that stopping and thinking about what you're putting out in the world would compromise the integrity of your creative vision. I don't understand how those two things are connected in any way, and thus far I've seen nothing but the most general descriptions of how it would happen ("harm untold"). Sorry if I missed something concrete in there. Like I said, you're a great writer--I promise you can create something that passes the Bechdel test (on purpose, no less!) and still meets your standards for good storytelling and creative vision. The only argument I've seen to the contrary in this whole thread is "You can't tell me what to do!" Okay. I can't. Can we move on now?

Sorry if I've caused stress to your day.

Well, I had to go hug my kid and brew some tea to calm down, but I'm also ill and haven't slept in three days, and you know, we women get so emotional anyway.

(Winking smiley. WINKING SMILEY. Not implying that anyone has said anything like this last phrase anywhere in this thread.)

Mindfire, I'll be back to talk more Sherlock with you soon. It's snack time.

 

[BWFoster78]

Let's approach this from another direction:

Suppose a story involves a group of adventurers. Early in writing the story, the writer realizes that two of the characters haven't spoken to each other at all. He then decides to write a conversation between them, showing how they interact with each other. Even if this conversation doesn't appear in the final draft, it's bound to help the writer figure out those characters' personalities, and ultimately make for a better story.

Now, we realize that those two are probably the two women, and from there the Bechdel Test sees part of its purpose.

Yes, two lines about mutual enjoyment of shoes won't solve anything--it takes actual effort from the author. And yes, the story will probably still be good even if these two women only talk to men. (In fact, you can build some great stories out of one woman being in a situation where she can ONLY interact with men.) But I still think the test can potentially serve a purpose in making a story even better.

I don't typically write scenes just to learn about the characters, and I rarely write scenes that don't end up in the book.

I also don't typically write scenes that don't advance the plot.

If I have a plot reason for two females to discuss something that advances the plot, I have no problem doing so. I would never, however, seek to include such a conversation to fulfill some kind of (trying to avoid the word "agenda" but I can't think of an adequate synonym).

I'm sorry; I just cannot see what good adding that conversation would be from my perspective. The only reason I would be doing it would be to try to please a certain segment of the population, and I just don't see that as a valid reason to change my writing.

 

[BWFoster78]

If you actually think I've said anything remotely like the first quote, I sincerely doubt you've bothered to read anything I've posted.

But that's exactly the problem. I am interpreting what you're saying exactly as I wrote, and, believe me, I've read your posts.

Again, I see you as promoting an agenda while steadfastly refusing even to acknowledge that it is an agenda.

On the other hand, I firmly understand that you do not believe it is an agenda. Doesn't change my perception in the least.

The only argument I've seen to the contrary in this whole thread is "You can't tell me what to do!" Okay. I can't. Can we move on now?

Once I encountered the above stated obstacle, I figured it was kinda pointless to try to express rational arguments. Really, if we can't agree on whether or not you are promoting an agenda...

Well, I had to go hug my kid and brew some tea to calm down,

Yeah, sorry about that. I can be kinda intense with my arguments.

Sorry we couldn't come to an understanding.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Feo Takahari]

@BWFoster: Maybe I'd need to read some of your stories to see where you're coming from. For me, the characters are the story, so I try all sorts of exercises to develop them. I don't understand where you're coming from when you say that you wouldn't try such exercises, and that means I'm probably missing something fundamental about your writing style.

(I have school and then work, so I'll be gone for a while. Hopefully, I won't come back to five pages of unread posts.)

 

[Ankari]

I think the resistance you see in this thread is the inclusion of the Bechdel yest. Had it only been about creating strong women in stories, you would find a more receptive audience.

 

[saellys]

But that's exactly the problem. I am interpreting what you're saying exactly as I wrote, and, believe me, I've read your posts.

Again, I see you as promoting an agenda while steadfastly refusing even to acknowledge that it is an agenda.

On the other hand, I firmly understand that you do not believe it is an agenda. Doesn't change my perception in the least.

So if I were to change my mind and say that equality of every human being on the planet is an agenda, that would change what, exactly? Just curious.

 

[saellys]

I think the resistance you see in this thread is the inclusion of the Bechdel yest. Had it only been about creating strong women in stories, you would find a more receptive audience.

Yes, because everyone can agree with abstractions ("strong female characters" can mean and gets used in reference to anything and everything), but concrete things like "do your female characters talk to each other?" is apparently a lot stickier.

 

[saellys]

Your idealism is commendable. And believe it or not, I'm a sucker for idealism. But I think in this case, the more useful approach is the DIY approach.

Even if one is the more useful approach, what prevents us from doing both?

Okay, I asked for that rebuttal. Calculated risk. But my point is this: you were offended, other women weren't. Why? Taste and perception. How do you know that your opinion is the right one?

"Right" and "opinion" don't go together. If people don't choose to acknowledge that harmful representation in media is a problem, there isn't anything I can do to convince them. (See also: this entire thread.)

I am not accusing you of inventing anything. And I have read other feminist critique of Moffat's work. I remain unconvinced.

Okay. My husband reported that there was nothing misogynist in Skyfall. In both situations, I think it's a matter of blind spots. That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.

I do not think the Asian characters were mishandled. They weren't portrayed as bad just because they were Asian. They were members of organized crime! Are you saying that admitting Asian crime families exist is somehow tantamount to racism? And I liked the fight with the masked guy. He was essentially a re-skinned ninja.

I feel unqualified to get into the nitty gritty details of this, so I'm going to sum up by saying that the adaptation felt to me like less of a modernization of the bare bones of a story the way other Sherlock episodes were and more of a presentation of Victorian ideals somehow transplanted into the modern world.

Well Jim is different. First, he's not actually gay, so there's that.

How do you know?

Second, that exchange wasn't about him. It was about Molly. In short, it was Sherlock's way of saying "You're dating this guy in a pathetic attempt to rattle my cage, but you couldn't even pick someone of the right orientation."

I still don't see why it was necessary, particularly after two episodes where being mistaken for a gay man was the basis of several jokes about Holmes and Watson.

And as for Donovan, are you saying that a woman should never be criticized for unethical sexual behavior? I think the point of that was to out her as a hypocrite, condemning Sherlock for being a deviant while violating anti-fraternation policy.

Fine. The problem was that it was the first introduction (apart from the very short press conference) to Sergeant Donovan, and for the next five episodes it was all we knew about her. Her entire character development amounted to "haha, she's an antagonistic slut!" That was all we got with regard to one of only three recurring female characters on the show, up until "The Reichenbach Fall" when she finally developed some agency (which was unfortunately Moriarty-directed, just like Irene Adler's agency). Her antagonism with Holmes was never explored, even though that would have been super interesting. Her professional relationship with Lestrade is nothing more than tantalizing glimpses. For half a second it looked like she might have ended up being friends with Watson, but that didn't pan out either. The only thing we knew about Donovan was that she slept with Anderson. That's not a well-developed character.

 

[Mindfire]

Yes, because everyone can agree with abstractions ("strong female characters" can mean and gets used in reference to anything and everything), but concrete things like "do your female characters talk to each other?" is apparently a lot stickier.

Actually, I think you were a lot closer to the mark with the "people don't like being told what to do" thing.

 

[saellys]

Actually, I think you were a lot closer to the mark with the "people don't like being told what to do" thing.

Well, yeah, the Bechdel Test implies taking some kind of action (ideally) if your story doesn't pass it. But again, it's predicated on the basis that someone who fails the Bechdel Test actually gives half a crap about this being a problem and wants to contribute to the solution in their own work. If you* don't give a crap, that's one thing and I can at least respect your honesty. If you're covering up not giving a crap by saying your creative process or sacred vision is being damaged by the Bechdel Test, that's something else.

* Hypothetical.

 

[BWFoster78]

So if I were to change my mind and say that equality of every human being on the planet is an agenda, that would change what, exactly? Just curious.

It would at least give us a starting point for understanding.

EDIT: Though, honestly, since you are the one who is trying to get others to change their behavior, you should be offering rational arguments as to why we should do so. My pursuit of such is what started my participation in this discussion.

I've heard that you want us to change our behavior because equality of all is the All Important Good Thing We Should All Strive Toward, but, to me, that is a personally held strong belief of yours, not a rational argument.