Bechdel: Round Two

[Mindfire]

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.

Angry? Who's angry? I'm not. But its hard to read emotions over the internet. From now on I will make frequent use of emoticons to avoid confusion.

 

[Zero Angel]

I think the "double standard" argument is valid, but is frequently used as an "anti-feminism" tool. It's unfortunately got a "guilty-by-association" vibe.

Men and women ARE different. I don't think anyone debates that, and society in general does have different expectations of men and women. What we want to do is either use societal expectation in order to help characterization (as in, if a character is the "expected", then we don't have to describe them as much, or if they are the "unexpected", then they appear more prominently as long as they are not cheesy) or, if we do have political statements to make, help change societal expectation.

Now, it's taken me about 5 minutes to type this, so I probably have missed out on 123 posts in the discussion...
Edit: ooo, posts haven't picked up the velocity of the origination thread yet

 

[Jabrosky]

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).

I have to confess that I actually like "guy tries to win pretty girl over" stories. I have certainly found myself ogling beautiful women and wanting to date them, so I can identify with this type of plot. This doesn't necessarily mean reducing the girl to a passive "reward" who does nothing but wait for the hero to impress her; she can be a colleague in the action too.

 

[Devor]

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.

What would that look like?

When I first saw the Bechdel test, I rolled my eyes and thought, "Wow, you'd have to be shallow if every last woman in the book is a young adult swooning over the MC. Are there really many stories failing this test?" Well, apparently.

Even so, I think some of this is taken too far. Some stories keep things simple and don't have a lot of characters. And those coming-of-age, finding-a-girl stories are what a lot of young fantasy writers connect with. It's also the kind of story that sells because everyone has either gone through that stage of life or wants to go through it. I don't think failing the test is even a hint of misogyny - I think people who feel that way are similarly failing to empathize, in turn, with men in that stage of life.

When it comes to women (and a lot of other things people get offended about) in fantasy, I usually tend to dismiss a lot as just bad writing. The woman had no depth. Well, neither did the plot, or anything else about the story. It's more telling, to me, when the characters are complex, but the story still in some ways elevates negative qualities or miss-perceptions. I won't quote examples because I don't want to start that debate.

But "misogynist" is still far too strong a word. First, there's no end to the mistakes people make trying to divine what an author intended with his work. And second, your reading and writing represent only a sliver of a person's life and psyche. Let's reserve the strongest words for the strongest offenses, and not toss them about over every slight, real or imagined.

Still, my opinion remains the same. You have to put your story first, and tune everything else out. Sometimes you can ruin a good thing trying to force something that doesn't fit or that you're not skilled enough to handle. But if you really want to be an activist about it, the only thing you can do is to go write a story about the kinds of characters you want to see, and if it's any good, the consumers will do the demanding for you.

 

[BWFoster78]

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.

I'm not sure I agree with the logic here. The existence of a test doesn't prove anything other than that someone perceived a need for a test; it says nothing about the reality of their perception.

 

[BWFoster78]

Some stories keep things simple and don't have a lot of characters. And those coming-of-age, finding-a-girl stories are what a lot of young fantasy writers connect with. It's also the kind of story that sells because everyone has either gone through that stage of life or wants to go through it. I don't think failing the test is even a hint of misogyny - I think people who feel that way are similarly failing to empathize, in turn, with men in that stage of life.

This is an excellent point.

When it comes to women (and a lot of other things people get offended about) in fantasy, I usually tend to dismiss a lot as just bad writing. The woman had no depth. Well, neither did the plot, or anything else about the story. It's more telling, to me, when the characters are complex, but the story still in some ways elevates negative qualities or miss-perceptions. I won't quote examples because I don't want to start that debate.

Another well-thought-out, excellent point.

I guess that part of my problem with the test other than the ones I highlighted in the previous discussion is that I have no idea how the proposed "solutions" offered by the test offer any improvement to perceived misrepresentation.

If a author writes a strong, well-balanced woman, it's somehow bad because there aren't two women? Or am I misreading the point?

 

[Mindfire]

What would that look like?

It would look like something not called the Bechdel test.

But "misogynist" is still far too strong a word.

"Misogynist" is also a loaded word, and one I think we'd do well to avoid here. It literally means "woman hater". Yeah... I don't think the vast majority of writers who short-change their female characters actually hate women.

I think the "double standard" argument is valid, but is frequently used as an "anti-feminism" tool. It's unfortunately got a "guilty-by-association" vibe.

Maybe, but guilt by association is a fallacy. What's next, lambasting people for eating sugar because, well Hitler Ate Sugar!

(Yes, I realize the irony of using the slippery slope fallacy to criticize the guilt by association fallacy. However, considering my point to be false simply because I made use of a fallacy is also a fallacy, the fallacy fallacy. No, really. It is.)

Men and women ARE different. I don't think anyone debates that.

Oh you'd be surprised... -_-

Now, it's taken me about 5 minutes to type this, so I probably have missed out on 123 posts in the discussion...
Edit: ooo, posts haven't picked up the velocity of the origination thread yet

I'm sure things will pick up when Saellys gets back.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm not sure I agree with the logic here. The existence of a test doesn't prove anything other than that someone perceived a need for a test; it says nothing about the reality of their perception.

This is true. That said, there is a good deal of scholarship in the area, and I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.

 

[BWFoster78]

This is true. That said, there is a good deal of scholarship in the area, and I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.

I can't speak to modern science fiction as I don't read much of it.

Is this the case with modern fantasy? Someone I know from college wrote a thesis about how WoT represented a feminist viewpoint (not sure how strong her case was since I never got around to actually reading her paper). It certainly seems to me that most of the modern popular fantasy that I read represents women much better than the old sword and sorcery kind of stuff.

Truthfully, though, the comment was mainly addressed to the logic. If the point is to say that women aren't fairly represented, that point should be proved, imo, instead of presented as fact.

As I've said in so many threads that I've lost count, it helps to define terms. Are we talking early fantasy or modern? I tend to focus on modern epic fantasy, so I can't really speak to much beyond that.

 

[BWFoster78]

Yes, I realize the irony of using the slippery slope fallacy to criticize the guilt by association fallacy. However, discrediting my point entirely simply because I made use of a fallacy is also a fallacy, the fallacy fallacy. No, really. It is.)

Best statement on this thread. Bar none!

 

[Steerpike]

I think there has certainly been improvement among current fantasy writers as opposed to earlier writers. Much of the problematic aspects of representations in the genre seem to now reside in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books. Probably movies too, to be honest. There is a lot more diversity of work in written fantasy literature, and written fantasy literature isn't as heavily male-dominated, in terms of content creators, as the others.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

... I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.

I don't dispute this. Though, we should also note that the readership for these genres has traditionally been a heavily male audience. This may not be as skewed now as in the past but its still something to consider.

If you're writing only certain types of female characters and certain types of male characters, you're likely just not very good at writing well rounded & varied characters at all.

Truth is, reality presents us with all types. With females in our real world, we see as broad of a range as we do with males. We have the dizzy bleach blond stereotypes up through the independent and ultra-capable women, and every shade in between.

The same holds true for men. In reality we have plenty of competent, commanding men but we're also surrounded by the bumbling male idiots. How many of those bumbling male husbands exist as sitcom characters, or those in movies, men that couldn't tie their own shoes without the help of the woman in their life?

My point being, if you want to represent realism you probably need clear distinctions among all of your characters. Show the reader differences across the entire spectrum. Allow them to act as foils to one another. This holds true for all differences inherent in the human condition, ranging from gender to race to orientation and beyond.
You probably shouldn't need a test like this to strive for character distinctions, those that make your story's players come to life, but if you do, so be it.

I'd rather spend my energies making characters that are as realistic and distinct from one another as possible without referencing outside measures or tests. I do that because I want to engage the reader and make them care about the cast in the story, not because I'm concerned about representation. There's a lot more ground to cover there than appearance, creeds, and motivations when considering characterization. Still, all choices should serve the story and the story alone.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think there has certainly been improvement among current fantasy writers as opposed to earlier writers. Much of the problematic aspects of representations in the genre seem to now reside in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books. Probably movies too, to be honest. There is a lot more diversity of work in written fantasy literature, and written fantasy literature isn't as heavily male-dominated, in terms of content creators, as the others.

I thought I read two interesting facts in different places:

Women make up a significant percentage of the modern fantasy audience.
The self publishing phenomenom is drawing a bunch of women writers moreso than men.

It seems dishonest somehow to talk about the problems with historical fantasy in relation to a thread like this one (I have a lot of problems with classic fantasy that have nothing to do with depiction of any group), and this forum is specifically dedicated to fantasy, not scifi.

Therefore, it seems logical to discuss modern fantasy.

If there is a perceived problem with modern fantasy's representation of women, I wish someone would attempt to justify that viewpoint.

(Strictly from my personal viewpoint, I don't really care all that much what is happening in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books as I'm not much of a consumer of those services.)

 

[Steerpike]

If there is a perceived problem with modern fantasy's representation of women, I wish someone would attempt to justify that viewpoint.

Again, there has been some scholarship in this area. You can find at least one Wikipedia article with a bunch of references cited at the bottom, there are plenty of blog sites where people post on the issue, and so on. SFWA even had a panel on representations of women in science fiction and fantasy, which seems an odd thing to do if there is no issue to be discussed.

I suppose the topic could be diverted to arguing whether there is even a disparity in the first place, but personally I don't think there is a great deal of ground to debate on that particular question (a few quick Google searches will turn up a lot of material on the subject) and find it more interesting to talk about how to create good characters generally (male and female), and how to identify if you've unwittingly created a work where the male characters are developed but females are caricatures.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't dispute this. Though, we should also note that the readership for these genres has traditionally been a heavily male audience. This may not be as skewed now as in the past but its still something to consider.

Yes. This is why female writers adopted names like James Tiptree, Jr.

I agree regarding constructing realistic and distinct characters. I think that's another reason why asking "what would a male/female do in this situation" is a mistake from the outset. A lot of the problems we've discussed in these threads go away if you start viewing characters as people and not as genders (or, I suppose more accurately, sexes).

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think that's another reason why asking "what would a male/female do in this situation" is a mistake from the outset. A lot of the problems we've discussed in these threads go away if you start viewing characters as people and not as genders (or, I suppose more accurately, sexes).

I agree for the most part. However, there are instances where the expected differences between the sexes can be used to great effect as well. As much as it can be a mistake to focus on gender, it can also be limiting (in realism terms) to act like gender differences do not exist. Balance along the character cast is key.

 

[BWFoster78]

Again, there has been some scholarship in this area. You can find at least one Wikipedia article with a bunch of references cited at the bottom, there are plenty of blog sites where people post on the issue, and so on. SFWA even had a panel on representations of women in science fiction and fantasy, which seems an odd thing to do if there is no issue to be discussed.

I find it hard to comment on this without straying from the guidelines that Devor set for this thread, so I'll refrain.

find it more interesting to talk about how to create good characters generally (male and female), and how to identify if you've unwittingly created a work where the male characters are developed but females are caricatures.

Always a good idea to discuss good character creation. Seems to me, though, that if one simply follows the same procedure in creating male characters and female characters, I'm not sure why you would need any identification process.

 

[Zero Angel]

I thought we had progressed from talking about the validity of the Bechdel test to talking about how to create more interesting female characters?

Can we agree that the Bechdel test is a flawed test but the fact that there are so many egregious offenses of what the Bechdel test is trying to analyze troublesome?

Here's a question. How can we make our well-rounded characters not throw up red flags to people looking for things to be annoyed by?

Although we can say that we shouldn't care and that bad press is still press which is good, I know that I would be offended if specific characters were called out by feminists or masculinists or any other group as being an example of being anti-whatever they are (unless of course, they were supposed to be like that through their characterization!)

 

[Steerpike]

I agree for the most part. However, there are instances where the expected differences between the sexes can be used to great effect as well. As much as it can be a mistake to focus on gender, it can also be limiting (in realism terms) to act like gender differences do not exist. Balance along the character cast is key.

Yeah, but I still think it comes down to character. We might say that statistically, men are more likely to X and women are more likely to do Y, but our characters aren't statistics. I have a female friend who responds like a stereotypical male to everything she does; she grew up only hanging with guys; she was involved in athletics with guys far longer than most; she was in the Army and competed on the male PT tests. By the same token, I know some guys who are fairly effeminate by traditional standards.

So taking into consideration the amount of overlap between male and female reactions, it doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind to say "hmmm, what would a women do here?" For my specific character, it's more like "what would THIS woman do here?" which is the same as asking "what would this person do here?"

That's my general approach on it, at any rate. if you have a female character who acts in what one might consider a traditional, stereotypically feminine way, then that's already built into her character, so asking "what would this person do?" gets you to the same place.

Does that make sense?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Here's a question. How can we make our well-rounded characters not throw up red flags to people looking for things to be annoyed by?

While you're not going to please everyone, every time, well-rounded characters if they are truly well-rounded & distinct, will be much less likely to draw the ire of critics.