The Bechdel Test

[saellys]

Sorry, but I refuse to do anything to encourage the victim mentality that pervades our society. Each group sees themselves as a member of a group and can only be happy when everyone acknowledges the "specialness" of that group. The argument then is, "You don't understand; you haven't suffered the oppression that we've suffered."

Again, this whole thing disgusts me.

Actually, the argument I'm making is that despite your privilege, you're totally capable of understanding. If you choose to deny your own privilege or the problem of representation or anything else concerning this subject, that's your choice alone--please don't pin it on a "victim mentality" of any particular group.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I can understand if someone considers these issues and says "OK, that's not the story I'm writing." Fine. Write the story you want.

I can't speak for everyone but this is all I'm looking for...that's not asking much & I believe that we reached this point ages ago.

But something is seriously amiss, in my view, if you get to the point of despising the very idea of it. A lot of writers use these techniques in important ways, and the written story as a vehicle for social commentary and teaching has a long history indeed. Do we really want to relegate all of fiction to mindless action stories that are read and immediately forgotten?

I agree with everything here. Writers often make conscious choices for many reasons. Understand though, any time people feel forced into a direction, many will revolt against that pressure.

 

[BWFoster78]

Welcome back! I hope it was a good trip and the slots treated you well.

Thanks. It was a good trip. I actually didn't gamble a dime; went to visit an old friend and did a lot of sightseeing.

I and others have made several rational arguments about why it benefits you directly to represent more in your work. I haven't seen any direct response to any of them; just a continued refrain of "I shouldn't have to care". If you don't know which arguments I'm referring to, go back and read them. I'm through with repeating myself.

The only argument that I remember is that it may make some of my audience feel better. I've stated before and will state again, it is not my responsibility to make my audience feel better.

I read over everything you wrote. I did not see a single cogent argument as to why your cause should be treated as any more important than any other cause.

It certainly seems to me that the conversation goes something like this:

You: "This cause is the most important thing in the world, and all authors should consider changing their works to promote it."
Me: "Why?"
You: "Because it self evidently is that important."
Me: "Why?"
You: "It's about universal equality."
Me: "And why is that important?"
You: "I'm tired of repeating myself."

Truly, this is my honest interpretation of this conversation.

 

[BWFoster78]

Actually, the argument I'm making is that despite your privilege, you're totally capable of understanding. If you choose to deny your own privilege or the problem of representation or anything else concerning this subject, that's your choice alone--please don't pin it on a "victim mentality" of any particular group.

But the victim mentality is exactly what is pervading all your arguments. The man is keeping you down and you want all our help to make your feel better.

 

[Steerpike]

Again, this whole thing disgusts me.

Bizarre to me that such negative emotion would be associated with minorities or under-represented groups expressing a desire to see greater representation in media. You can explain it as many different ways as you like, but it's not a sentiment I'm going to be able to grok so I suppose we'll just have to let it rest there.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

And those groups would find it harder to empathize (understand and share the feelings of others) why, exactly?

You're reading things into my statement that aren't there. I never said it HAS to be harder to empathize, only that its natural to have empathy for those you identify with. However, it is realistic to understand you won't find the same level of empathy (level meaning ratio not amount of concern in an individual) among people not directly self-identified with that group. That's just logical & realistic. It says nothing about whether or not you should try to reach those people.

Not much at all, by your own logic. "Don't care; can't be arsed" leaves it up to someone else, and if people who don't identify this way are resistent to empathize, the choice for those who feel underrepresented is "deal with it yourself," or "be happy with what you've got," or both. Please feel free to fill in any options I missed.

The potential for how an individual could relate are myriad. Someone feeling they don't want to champion a cause they're not passionate about doesn't equate to "deal with it & be happy with what you've got".
The arguments aren't so absolute as "You're either supporting this view and actively working for the cause or you're against us." - There's a lot of middle ground.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with everything here. Writers often make conscious choices for many reasons. Understand though, any time people feel forced into a direction, many will revolt against that pressure.

I don't think force is even an option, though. I guess people can perceive it that way. The way I look at the various arguments around the issue, or something like the Bechdel Test, is from a standpoint of 'awareness.' There are two situations here (well more than two, but two I want to distinguish):

1) Author is self-aware and aware of the work and says "Yes, I understand what people are saying about these social points, but that's just not what this story is about, not what I want it to be about, and I'm going to write it my way."

2) Author as a product of society has grown up reading about and seeing the standard majority depictions in fantasy and science fiction, or -insert genre-, and without thinking about it or consciously realizing it, produces work that mimics (in terms of representation) what author has seen and heard his whole life.

In the case of #1, OK. I don't know what else to say about it - you write your story your way.

In the case of #2, you can really broaden the writers thinking and make them at least start to consider issues they'd never thought about before. This is probably more useful with young, starting writers because hopefully as we grow older we mature into people who are at least cognizant of the world around us. But if you've spent any time working with high school and college kids, I think you'll agree that something simple and seemingly less than valuable to an older, more established person can turn on a light bulb in the mind of a kid or young adult.

As with most things in writing, if you've thought things through and are doing something intentionally, then great. Write what you want, how you want. That's your prerogative as an artist.

On the other hand, if you're stumbling through various aspects of writing, with no real idea or awareness of what you're stumbling into and why, you've got a problem. It goes not only for representations, but for things like POV, overall style, word usage, rule-breaking, etc.

Write what you want in the way you want, but do it from a place of understanding of what you're doing and why. If you get to that point, I think you've reached the appropriate end point.

 

[Ankari]

I think the opposition of this test can be summarized into this:

Nothing is more important than the story itself. Any external influences can, and will, modify the story. It is up to the author to decide what the story is and preserve it.

Another point, and this is where Brian (I'm sick of writing BWFoster78) and I agree. If you allow such tests to help determine the quality of your story, when will it stop? Another test, called the Poverty Test, will gauge how well your represent the poor and destitute. Another test, the PETA Test, will judge how you portray the cruelty of animals. Then we'll have the Patriot Test, that will qualify if you're painting the "Right Side" in the same light as your nation of origin. How about the Democracy Test, making sure you a majority of your governments closely resemble a modern democracy and are painted in a positive light.


When will it end?

 

[Steerpike]

I think the opposition of this test can be summarized into this:

Nothing is more important than the story itself. Any external influences can, and will, modify the story. It is up to the author to decide what the story is and preserve it.

Another point, and this is where Brian (I'm sick of writing BWFoster78) and I agree. If you allow such tests to help determine the quality of your story, when will it stop? Another test, called the Poverty Test, will gauge how well your represent the poor and destitute. Another test, the PETA Test, will judge how you portray the cruelty of animals. Then we'll have the Patriot Test, that will qualify if you're painting the "Right Side" in the same light as your nation of origin. How about the Democracy Test, making sure you a majority of your governments closely resemble a modern democracy and are painted in a positive light.

On the other hand, none of those issues are necessarily bad things to have thought about when writing, which gets back to the awareness point I tried to make.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

But that's not what I'm getting out of this thread. I've stated a bunch of times that I have no problems considering what I'm writing and why I'm writing it.

What I'm getting is that some participants of this thread have a cause that they feel is so important that it's self evident that we all must pay attention to their cause and bow to it. All this without any justification other than "it will make certain people feel better."

Maybe they have, but I feel like you might have overcorrected in your response; you keep coming off as "I don't care about this particular issue and I don't have to." I'm pretty sure that's not how you actually feel, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Today's Sinfest is especially apropos of this thread: Sinfest

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

But the victim mentality is exactly what is pervading all your arguments. The man is keeping you down and you want all our help to make your feel better.

Do you really think that women in our society (talkin' U.S.A. here) aren't oppressed at all? That there is no pervasive social bias against them? (Note that pervasiveness and severity are orthogonal.) They aren't after just "feeling better." They want to stop being oppressed. They want to be able to feel like they can walk down the street at night without undue fear of being assaulted. They want to be given the same consideration in professional contexts that men are. Feminism, as it's been said, is simply the radical notion that women are people and, by extension, deserve to be treated well.

As a white man myself, I completely understand the feeling that it seems like a lot of groups want special treatment. The thing is, they want that special treatment because of decades of abuse. They're not just making it up for fun.

 

[saellys]

I agree with everything here. Writers often make conscious choices for many reasons. Understand though, any time people feel forced into a direction, many will revolt against that pressure.

I would not dream of oppressing anyone by forcing them to make particular creative decisions regarding their own work. I've tried to present compelling points about how we writers can do this, and how it will benefit ourselves, our readers, and fantasy as a whole if we do. No matter how lofty I make my reasoning, however, all anyone seems able to say in response is "Don't tell me what to do!" It's like playing blocks with my sixteen-month-old daughter--I can build a tower as tall as she is, but she always goes for the bottom block first. "I shouldn't have to care" attacks the very basis of this whole discussion.

So, for final clarification and in the hope that maybe we can move on to other aspects of this issue, I'm not telling you how or what to write. Only some examples of how you can, if you choose to, and what the benefits could be, if you do. Okay?

Thanks. It was a good trip. I actually didn't gamble a dime; went to visit an old friend and did a lot of sightseeing.

Nice. I bet Nevada desert weather beats the heck out of the yo-yoing here in Missouri right now.

The only argument that I remember is that it may make some of my audience feel better. I've stated before and will state again, it is not my responsibility to make my audience feel better.

I read over everything you wrote. I did not see a single cogent argument as to why your cause should be treated as any more important than any other cause.

It certainly seems to me that the conversation goes something like this:

You: "This cause is the most important thing in the world, and all authors should consider changing their works to promote it."
Me: "Why?"
You: "Because it self evidently is that important."
Me: "Why?"
You: "It's about universal equality."
Me: "And why is that important?"
You: "I'm tired of repeating myself."

Truly, this is my honest interpretation of this conversation.

I told you in at least two posts that this doesn't have to be the most important issue in the world to you (or me) for you to adopt it as part of your work in some measure. Furthermore, abdication of responsibility for what your work perpetuates can lead to a backlash like that I mentioned in the post about Sherlock. Also:

It is your world. You can do whatever you want. Just be aware that if you choose to present a female-excluding story, or a story that normalizes some harmful stereotype, you are likely to hear the opinions of your audience, and how you respond to those opinions will determine whether they remain your audience.

As for why it's important:

Here's the thing, though: you are affected by the problem. If you were to make your work--that tiny little sliver of the fantasy genre as a whole--more welcoming to people who are overwhelmingly marginalized, more readily able to be accepted as the pure entertainment you want it to be, your readership could expand dramatically. That's money in your pocket, to put it callously.

And one that was actually a response directly to you:

One rational argument I've offered concerns increasing the breadth of your readership and not alienating particular groups who are tired of not seeing themselves represented favorably in a genre they otherwise really enjoy. If you write it, they will come. You may insist that you're not responsible for people's feelings when they read your book, but if you gave them that much more to relate to, they might come back and read your next book, which translates to money in your pocket.

Another rational argument I've been meaning to throw in here, but haven't found the opportune moment, is challenging yourself as a writer. That happens when you get out of your comfort zone and write things you normally wouldn't (hypothetical "you" once again).

-----

But the victim mentality is exactly what is pervading all your arguments. The man is keeping you down and you want all our help to make your feel better.

That is a very twisted, dismissive, and overly personal interpretation. I wouldn't be here, writing a fantasy novel and discussing fantasy novels, if I had a victim mentality and felt personally mistreated by the genre. I am still capable of recognizing that something in this genre I love is broken, and that it will take a lot of people to fix it. It's not about making me feel better. It's about making fantasy broader and richer.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

So, for final clarification and in the hope that maybe we can move on to other aspects of this issue, I'm not telling you how or what to write. Only some examples of how you can, if you choose to, and what the benefits could be, if you do. Okay?

Yes. We'd already come to this understanding. I mentioned it again, only because it was raised again. The comment wasn't directed towards you specifically.

 

[Ankari]

On the other hand, none of those issues are necessarily bad things to have thought about when writing, which gets back to the awareness point I tried to make.

With the exception of PETA, you're right. They are more social awareness issues. But you can get the point I'm trying to make. And another point, why do you think there is a problem as discussed in this thread?

You have to apply this concept to the world at large. Should white, heterosexual males go to Japan and China and demand better representation? There are white, heterosexual men living there. Should Latin Americans go to Russia and demand better representation in Russian fantasy?

This is similar to the issue raised a few years ago where a man sued Hooters because he wasn't allowed to work there (as a server). Is everyone in agreement that such a case isn't going to far? Would women be OK if most employees in Victoria's Secret were white, heterosexual males?

 

[saellys]

You're reading things into my statement that aren't there. I never said it HAS to be harder to empathize, only that its natural to have empathy for those you identify with. However, it is realistic to understand you won't find the same level of empathy (level meaning ratio not amount of concern in an individual) among people not directly self-identified with that group. That's just logical & realistic. It says nothing about whether or not you should try to reach those people.

So you were using a blanket statement about empathy and identification only to justify your own lack of interest in the issue after we narrowed down everything that could potentially inspire your individual concern? I'm trying not to just assume things here--that's the course the discussion took, and I can't help but draw connections when I say "I just want a little help" and you reply with "You need to be realistic about who you ask for help" (i.e. not you).

The potential for how an individual could relate are myriad. Someone feeling they don't want to champion a cause they're not passionate about doesn't equate to "deal with it & be happy with what you've got".
The arguments aren't so absolute as "You're either supporting this view and actively working for the cause or you're against us." - There's a lot of middle ground.

One does not have to be working for a cause to naturally write diverse characters, as your own example illustrates. But saying, in approximately so many words, "I don't care about this enough to do anything intentional in my own work" falls where in that middle ground, exactly?

 

[BWFoster78]

Bizarre to me that such negative emotion would be associated with minorities or under-represented groups expressing a desire to see greater representation in media. You can explain it as many different ways as you like, but it's not a sentiment I'm going to be able to grok so I suppose we'll just have to let it rest there.

I haven't expressed the why of it well. Let me make a, hopefully, better attempt:

Let's say that there exists in our population a group with purple eyes. Let's say that I included a character with purple eyes in my novel, and I get an email that says, "I couldn't help but notice your purple-eyed character and that you depicted him as smart and good. I'm concerned about the menace that purple-eye'd people represent. To me, they're all evil and stupid. If you could see your way clear to depict them as such, I'm sure I can rally support to your book."

I think that everyone on this forum would be morally disgusted by such a request to change a character's attributes.

I simply don't see a difference between that request and the request that is being made on this thread. Both are asking me to change a character based solely on that person's race, religion, gender, or physical characteristics. In my worldview, if the hypothetical request made in the fictitious email is wrong, so is the request for "positive" changes.

Does that make a little more sense?

 

[Ankari]

They want to be able to feel like they can walk down the street at night without undue fear of being assaulted. They want to be given the same consideration in professional contexts that men are.

A) No one is. This is a much great issue than gender discrimination.

B) In my life, I haven't seen evidence of this. I worked at a call center, retail outlet, and now, run a business. My staff is made up of 70% women and 30% males.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

With the exception of PETA, you're right. They are more social awareness issues. But you can get the point I'm trying to make. And another point, why do you think there is a problem as discussed in this thread?

You have to apply this concept to the world at large. Should white, heterosexual males go to Japan and China and demand better representation? There are white, heterosexual men living there. Should Latin Americans go to Russia and demand better representation in Russian fantasy?

That's a nice straw man you've got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it...

Kidding aside, your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Half the U.S. population is women; they're already here, and part of our society. Them hoping for fair representation isn't remotely like people of one nationality going to another country and demanding representation.

 

[BWFoster78]

Maybe they have, but I feel like you might have overcorrected in your response; you keep coming off as "I don't care about this particular issue and I don't have to." I'm pretty sure that's not how you actually feel, but that's what it sounds like to me.

Today's Sinfest is especially apropos of this thread: Sinfest

It's more like the assumption that this particular issue is so much more important than any other issue bothers me.

There are few issues that are Universal Truths.

Causes are based on personal experiences and opinions. The attitude that your personal experience and opinion is more valid than the causes that led me to advocate for my causes bothers me.

 

[Steerpike]

You have to apply this concept to the world at large. Should white, heterosexual males go to Japan and China and demand better representation? There are white, heterosexual men living there. Should Latin Americans go to Russia and demand better representation in Russian fantasy?

I think places like the U.S. and U.K., to use two examples, are much more heterogenous. But to get to the broader point, I don't think 'demand' is right. I don't have a problem with them using their speech to say "Hey, we should have better representation." A writer is a private individual and can do what she likes at the end of the day. Likewise, with Hooters or Victoria's Secret, I think they can hire who they want within some broad limitations, and that a wholly private club shouldn't even have those broad limitations so long as we're all talking about adults. But that gets pretty far afield.

I think, yes, everyone has the right to say "I would like to see better representation." If you don't want to do it, as an author, then OK. But what's the problem with people asking for it?