Men’s Rightser on the Bechdel Test: “Why do Women need to talk to each other ? I don’t get it.”

@Dvärghundspossen Joel Mchale’s Jeff is the main character, but Community is great ensemble sitcom that focuses plenty of time on the three flawed, quirky and very human three female characters.

Um, I know, I’ve watched it, that’s why I recommended it to others. 🙂 I was just surprised to find out that I seem to have over-estimated how much screen-time is given to women vs men. I’m not saying Community is bad or anything, it’s obvs far better than most sit-coms gender-wise, I just thought it was interesting that even a feminist as myself who knows all about research showing that people think men and women have been talking an equal amount of time when men have in fact been dominating the conversation and so on apparently falls into the same trap herself.

The color purple and Kill Bill both pass the test……So, was there a gotcha?

I’m not very familiar with the other 2 films though.

And second the mans test should merely be:

1. It has to have at least two [named] men in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a woman

Simple. I understand that it isn’t on the same level because men in films don’t have a problem with talking about something other than a woman, but to make it more complicated destroys the point of the test. This is a baseline. Honestly I’ve seen plenty of films that don’t even pass the first two parts with women.

The bechdel test isn’t proving that a film is feminist its just pointing out how many films don’t pass the test of basic human interaction.

I feel like I’ve become The Great Defender of the Bechdel Test. It’s like, it can’t ever be mentioned without people immediately pointing out that passing Bechdel doesn’t prove that the movie is feminist, failing Bechdel doesn’t prove that it’s sexist (despite the fact that nobody ever has claimed that this is the case, everyone feel obligated to point this out). Just the other day this movie critic in one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers made a long article that was essentially just about how Bechdel pass doesn’t prove that the movie is feminist and Bechdel fail doesn’t prove that it’s sexist, in response to the new Bechdel approval stamp that David’s article is about. AND IT MAKES ME SO TIRED.

It’s like people constantly point this out, and also the old tired “doesn’t say anything about the individual movie”, because they can’t admit to themselves how crappy media is when it comes to representing women.

Dvarghundspossen I hope you didn’t think I was saying that.

I think the bechdel test is great for seeing if women are portrayed as people.

I think it is weird that some folks think women only talk about men….there are so many other things to talk about: politics, movies, the fact that some companies lie about the thread count of their sheets, recipes, our health, work, our families, fashion, horse back riding ect.

Bechdel test does have a point, sure, but I really don’t put much value on it. Simply because it is a measure of only one thing, and movies that pass it might still be sexist garbage. And plenty of films that have no real problems with sexism (apart from the lack of female characters, which may or may not be excusable) can’t get a pass.
When I watch movies, I never really think of them in the terms of bechdel unless it’s blatantly obvious. I generally just think about each characters individual actions, characterization and any possible implications behind the writing, intentional or not.

Though it might be interesting to just have a checklist and just see if a movie passes while I watch it 😀
I guess I just prefer deeper analysis when it comes to my entertainment.
Now I am thinking how many games I love pass o_o (Not very many, probably, as most lady characters either don’t meet or talk about the main character the only time they are seen talking to each other – even when they are supposed to be friends. Of the top of my head, only one passes and only very, veryvery barely.)

I also personally prefer a film have no *oft excluded group here* than just resort to tokenism just to “avoid” not having any… Ofc it would still be preferable if people would just find writing in women, queer characters and POC etc. without having to think about it as some favor or some shit. Like, if the characters appearance or gender isn’t supposed to make some statement, why not making something other than a white cismale 😛
Put some variety in character roles, damnit!

Near-exclusively white cishetmale movie casts wouldn’t be a problem if they weren’t the great majority of everything that mainstream media pushes out. I so wish people who complain about feminists and POC talking about these issues would just understand that. The problem isn’t necessarily on the insistence of tokenism and certain tropes, but the problems arise from the fact that they are overused to the exclusion of everything else 🙁

[quote] [quote]It refers to a personal ability or mode of behavior that pushes you through hardship, physical or mental. Usually expressed as “you have sisu/it was done with sisu”.Some people might give more specific definitions, but those might not be commonly agreed on. Some people like to pretend sisu is something Finns are especially good at, or something foreigners cannot understand.[/quote]

I’m fascinated by the words in different languages that relate to their cultural identity (eg, virtus in Latin, sophrosyne in ancient Greek). American English has no such word that I know of. Because we have no culture.[/quote]

Another Finn here, I think “vigour” is a good translation for “sisu”:

Good, did you actually SEE Kill Bill? The women in the film don’t actually spend all of their time talking about Bill.

Here’s the screenplay:

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Kill-Bill-Volume-1-&-2.html

Yes, I saw Kill Bill. No, I have never given the movie the Bechdel test and I have never combed through the screenplay. Likewise, I never said that the women in the film spend all of their time talking about Bill.

I pointed out a movie that “clearly” passes the Bechdel test and compared it to movies that don’t clearly pass the test (though they may pass the test with a closer look) and pointed out something common between those that don’t, that being the presence of female protagonists dealing with male antagonists.

The film passes the Bechdel test by the second scene in which the main character and one of her female enemies stop fighting to talk to the woman’s daughter. Bill comes up later in the conversation, but the two women have a history of their own that they talk about.

Ok, thanks for the info.

Interesting selective memory on your part

What “selective memory” are you talking about? If I stated that certain movies don’t pass the test and one actually does, then that would mean that I was in error.

I don’t understand the snide response. Nothing I have stated here is in opposition to anyone else. I contributed a point of view to the discussion. Someone below asked why there are not more female antagonists in movies and my answer would be “good question”. Maybe society is more comfortable with portraying men as evil. I don’t know.

Have you two Finns ever done anything that required sisu?

(I have to spend five days in Texas with my in-laws; that might qualify…)

Ew, unfun, katz. Where in Texas?

Ah, yeah. I lived about half an hour north of Dallas for a year. I have no desire to ever return.

Yeah, poor Donald. Dude couldn’t soak damage worth a DAMN. (And I don’t actually have a favorite villain. I’m not really a villain kinda guy.)

@LBT, I had the same thought about how the second criterion (the men are not expected to overcome adversity) of the Vintermann test would put the men on the sidelines of any conflict or drama. Though maybe Mr. Vintermann likes his movies entirely adversity-free; just two hours of Middle Class Joe going to his cushy, well-paying job and being served dinner by his obedient wife and going on the occasional uneventful resort vacation.