I love fantasy and romance. I want my Sun Mage Shadow knight dragan rider, to tell me how much he loves me mid battle, when I hop a guys head off and he calls over his massive Hell Hound to eat the evidence. Then he saves me from being shot by an arrow by smoking it in midair
But it doesn't 😅 In film/video, they have to be talking about something other than men for at least 30 seconds, and they start talking about men 25 seconds in 😅
@@SeannaTucker so I wasn't sure because I hadn't heard that before so I did literally the absolute bare minimum of research and found that you're objectively wrong as there is no time limit to the test whatever. More importantly this isn't a film and I highly doubt that one minute video format would be held to that standard even if it was a real requirement. I'm not sure where you got that from but it doesn't really matter because this is still a prime example of exactly why you shouldn't just believe everything you see hear or read on the Internet (or anywhere else for that matter) whether it was you or someone else who originally created that lie. It's still a lie even if you were a victim of it first.
Especially important when you remember she's a butch lesbian who wanted to see women depicted in film she could relate to, and it's also wierd how few things pass the 'test'
Exactly, the Bechdel test doesn’t dictate what is and isn’t a good piece of media, it’s mostly just something to keep in mind. The Princess Bride doesn’t pass the Bechdel test and probably doesn’t pass the Sexy Lamp test either, but it’s still my favorite movie
Romance is sometimes so focused on the love story that having friends talk about something other than the love interest can feel unnatural, sadly. I’m pleased that my current romance has a plot outside the love story
@@sakurablossoms94 No, it's very classic small town enemies to lovers romance. It's that the force that is bringing the characters together is a project they both need to work on so even though the love story is driving the plot, there's opportunities to talk about the project with friends.
@@sakurablossoms94 Chick lit can be great. One of my favorite series is the Shopaholic series and the main character and her best friend talk way more about other things than they do about men. Their parents, careers, finances, health, TV, and of course fashion.
I'm always so much more satisfied with a book if the main characters have a life outside of the ship, they just feel more grounded and more connected to their world that way.
They can talk about favorite books, movies, TV shows in their universe; family, food, all sorts of things that are only tangentially related to the love interest at best. For example: If 2 characters get into a fight & 1 brings the other a pomegranate to the other as a piece offering (explaining that whenever their sibling was mad at them they'd bring them a pomegranate to make up because their sibling loves pomegranates) that scene doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the love interest, yet adds character flavor to 1 if not both of the characters that were fighting earlier. The pomegranate is just an example.
But as someone who is dyslexic and uses a lot of mental energy reading,I don't want to slough through a conversation about something that isn't going to advance the story and is just there to be character development.
My favorite thing about the Bechdel test is that it's the easiest thing to pass--just,,, have a female character ask her mother about her sewing in passing or something. 😅 It doesn't even have to be a long thing.
@@blueberryf1nch969 So idk if you've ever written anything ever but there are some key factors that differentiates good writing from bad writing. One of these things is how you handle tangents and other events with minimal or no impact on the actual events in the story. You want to basically minimize non relevant things ENTIRELY. In a romance that would mean 95% of every day conversation would be minimised and any dialogue that gets written is eventually gonna lead to plot relevant topics aka the love interest or something related to them. Do mind that the Bechdel test refers to a scene, not just a conversation or part of a conversation. Of course you COULD throw in something completely meaningless at some point but then you've simply just done a tokenism and the best you can hope for is that nobody questions why you just have a page of nothing in your book or calls you out for adding a scene exclusively to pass this test and while you could intentionally write something that is both meaningful to the story or the characters involved but it just ends up on the cutting room floor because it might just not have fitted in with the pacing and direction of the story beyond the scene itself. Ultimately, if a passage, page or chapter in your book doesn't matter to the story or plot of that book, you should probably reconsider because it might end up being a distracting element rather than what you might have intended it to be. Imagine if you're watching an action movie and then suddenly there is a laugh track after a character says a joke and it only happens once, that would probably be the most memorable moment in the entire movie but not for any of the right reasons.
@@zanizone3617 Exactly, it would be like people taking “The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries” from Schlock Mercenary so seriously they were applying them in real life.
It's not the worst idea when you look at a medium overall, it becomes a bad idea when you try to apply it to any movie or other work of art individually and think it tells you anything about its quality. There's a saying in economics that when a metric becomes the goal it's a bad metric, and this is no exception.
right but it's not actually a measure of quality of the writing, or the story at all. Because tons of the classic films/stories of our history fail the test, but frequently really stupid things like actual pornos, or a lot of those cheesy 80s sexploitation movies pass the test. So having it as a check is just.....I mean ok? And? Is your story actually good? Is the conversation between the 2 women actually significant or important to the story? If not, then it's not really something I care about.
You guys are missing the point. It's not a measure of whether or not a story is artistically good. The questions are much too basic for that. It's a measure of how the story approaches women. And yes, there's more nuance to that, but also the questions are VERY basic.
As a writer of found family dramas, I have to say this test would be hilarious to use on any story other than a romance. Yes there are multiple female characters. No, they're too busy not dying at the hands of the cardigan-wearing serial killer to talk to each other
I mean the test is meant for all genres, not just romance. The absence of female characters, the absence of female characters who have any purpose other than to enhance the male characters story are constants throughout media. Romances actually should have it easiest to pass the Bechdel test. If a genre specifically focused on female lead characters can't have them have a conversation about something other than men then damn!
Are you sure? I'm speaking from memory here, but there doesn't seem two named female characters talking to each other in Star Wars. Or in Indiana Jones. Or in most westerns. Someone mentioned Agatha Christie probably wouldn't pass; same holds true for most detective stories. Most heist stories. Most redemption stories. Probably most horrors and thrillers, though I'm not sure - women make excellent victims, after all. Even Star Trek is filled to the brim with men, and that's supposed to be a utopia.
Honestly if I can respect one thing here it’s that they’re very open about how much they all love men. Sometimes you don’t need something to pass a bechdel test.
“I feel empowered when I get to talk about men” is exactly why I think the perspectives we’ve had on what is and isn’t female empowerment takes the empowerment out of the hands of women. Leave people alone to make their own choices and you’ll actually see empowerment.
@@nadiarey4196 Same, it's really not a hard ask lol. Men in fiction talk to each other about things other than women all the time, why is it so hard for women to get the same treatment?
@@juliagoetia Y'know, I think it's down to the interests some gal pals might share, whether in or out of fiction. My bff and I have talked about men, sure, but because we're both Witchy, paranormal types with certain abilities and interests related to Witchy stuff, we've definitely had conversations where romantic relationships with men were not the sole focus. This said, I've helped her get out of her head about romantic interests just as much as she's helped me get out of mine concerning my family. She couldn't believe I sat there on the phone and simply listened and offered patient feedback, allowing her to just ramble and talk things through with me as sounding board. I said "It's because it's what I've needed from others, unconditionally, no judgments." We might not always hang out, because we've got loads on our respective plates that leave us both too exhausted to hang out in person, but we're Soul Family. At some point, things will shift to where we can do that. It's all about Divine Timing. 🤷♀️
B*llsh*t. This is like saying, "Everything a woman does is feminism." (This is incorrect) NO! No its not "female empowerment" for a woman to feel empowerment in talking only about men.
I personally think the Bechdel test is important in HISTORICAL romance to counter the prevelent misconception women in the past had no life apart from men! If you're writing about a society your readers don't live in, you need to display its full complexity. My sister is writing a historical crime novel in which her detective hires three typists (all ladies, since it's the 50s!) to infiltrate the offices of three suspects (there is full backstory to explain how the detective knows the ladies are equipped to be investigators as that is not a normal part of a typist's job description), and obviously these typists talk about work and rent and sightseeing in London as well as men and scandal! 😅 And my last short story was about a housemaid whose conversations with the cook are NEVER about the male love interest, but the cook yelling at her to get on with her work! 😂 I don't think romance as a genre tends to need the Bechdel test because the whole POINT is the love story. I do like non-romantic subplots though; but I don't feel the MC needs another WOMAN to discuss topics other than men. I doubt most of my beloved Agatha Christie would pass the Bechdel test, but I would certainly consider her female characters enpowered because they are NOT just love interests. There's often more than one, but you rarely have them TOGETHER - you have one guy and one girl working on the case and talking about CLUES, not romance every second! Tommy and Tuppence are bloody MARRIED and spend more time talking about cases and money and even Tuppence's new hat (ANOTHER one?) more than they ever do emotions. But of course, this is England 😁
Yeah. But if you go through those Christie novels to see if there are any men talking to each other, I doubt there'll be even one that doesn't pass. Which tells you something. Not about Agatha's books specifically, but about our storytelling. And about the societies and culture we live in.
I like to think that, in a way, arms and hands are to women what legs and feet are to men. I have no idea if it's true, it's just that things like "send feet pics" are universally associated with men, and I've seen a lot of guys talk about their love of thighs, but have never in my life heard any women say they like men's feet or thighs, usually only gymbros care about the thighs of a man. Meanwhile in the same vein, I've heard a number of women talk about their love of good hands on a man or nice forearms and shoulders, but have never in my life seen a man show any kind of love for a woman's arms or hands. (Female armpits and male asses are exceptions to this trend though)
Fun fact the bechdel test has its roots in Jane Austen! Bechdel credited the idea for her comic to her friend who in turn got it from reading Virginia Woolf who in turn quoted Austen a novels as a piece of women’s empowerment for this very reason! Wrote about this in a chapter of my undergrad thesis 😊
Should be needless to say but the bechtel test isn’t like, a real film analysis tool. It wasn’t intended to be at least. It was just a simple little installment in her comic “dykes to watch out for” where one of the characters explained the parameters and remarked she had enjoyed it and hadn’t seen a movie since alien. It’s certainly not a nothing scale, but plenty of horribly sexist movies can pass where incredible movies fail.
I think while it was started as a joke it does still show some useful things to keep in mind. Basically if you made a reverse Bechdel test i.e two men who dont talk about women in one scene. You would have so many movies/books/etc pass it compared to the amount that pass the bechdel test. A movie or book or what have you failing or passing is not an indicator of quality or morality, but when there's a pretty large pattern it should be taken into account.
Of course plenty of sexist movies pass - it's an incredibly low bar. It's the fact that so many stories _don't_ pass that should be concerning. And the fact that so many incredibly _good_ stories don't pass? That's EXTREMELY concerning.
If it's useless and even damaging for individual works, including works written for women, by women, starring women, it's also useless for the body of works.
@@pubcle thats a pretty poor argument. let's say a movie has a black guy as the villain and a white guy as the protagonist. it ultimately means very little. however if the majority of villains in movies as a whole are black and the majority of protagonists are white. Then it becomes quite obvious there are some racial biasis. Its the same with the bechdel test. if in one movie a female character only EVER talks about men, no big deal. If thats the case in most moves then its again showing a case of sexual biases. Especially when you take into account that the opposite (male characters only talking about women) is much rarer.
I agree, I get so frustrated when tests like these are brought up like actual criticism. They are not here for that, there here to illustrate the creators point. In Bechtel's case, that's how man-centured a lot of stories are. It's not even necessarily to discredit the failures as it is to encourage more diverse options
I'd argue that it's still useful for analyzing individual works. Not as a way of judging if it's good, but as a way of asking certain questions. It's a good first step in analyzing the works approach to women. After that you can go deeper: No - why not? What roles do the few female characters play and why? I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons; I'm just saying the question is legitimate too. Yes - is it enough? How does it play out? Is it organic or an artificial insert of a few tokens? Is the interaction significant? Is there more than one? Does the book treat the women like fully-developed characters, or are they props to the setting and/or a male character's story? Literary criticism is asking the work questions; this is as legitimate topic for analysis as any other.
I have made this test for two my current AO3 novels which they are quite passed much. One is contemporary mystery harem romance, another is multiverse time travel dystopia adventure romance. The first one has over three dozen named female characters (10 of them is protagonist's love interests, because it is harem novel). Even there are plenty of chapters (with four books so far) where they have variety of topics to talk about: social issues with radical feminism, politic dilemma, murder mystery, video games / K-drama they have watching etc. They are not plain talking about their protagonist husband all time. The other one has four named female characters (so far, and counting) which there is one scene so far, two of them are talking about mineral exploration in apocalyptic Earth. Sooner or later, there will be more topics they will talked about.
@@kyliecowan3879 Right? I'm sorry by mm romance is not good with passing this test at all. I read a ton of them and I'm happy just to have a woman as a featured character in them most of the time.
Bechdel's test was never about any individual piece of media, plenty of pro feminist pieces fail, it's a criticism of media as a whole in that the passing percentage of the test is problematically low over the full body of available work.
Yeah, a piece of media can have a majority of female characters who talk to each other and still fail. The thing is that it's a relatively low bar to clear, all it needs is a single scene where two women talk about a shared interest or plot development without mentioning a man. At the time of its conception, very few movies passed the Bechdel test, and it was just one of the signs that women were badly represented in the medium as a whole, while individual movies may still have been stellar and great (either as movies or in passing the test).
A lot of Japanese harem animes that are targeted at men tend to do that My personal opinion of this: I read romance novels to fulfil my sexual fantasies and my sexual fantasies do not involve women
If you're not into gacha games then you'll probably not be familiar with all this drama but men often complain about there being too many male characters in a banner when they literally released 15 female characters and only 4 male characters
@@emilyemily9831I'm a gay guy. And I usually don't make friends with people void. Identify, ask gay, that's some form. Other than dates obviously. Nothing against them which is usually done like the same things or agree on the same things.
@@DrGreen-oo3ei All im saying is that as a lesbian, I find it weird when I read a gay romance novel where the two main characters have no lgbt friends or any community of people around them. Like most lgbt people know at least one other person who is also gay. It wouldn’t be strange to have one male character in a mlm romance novel spend time with two women. Like he grabs a drink with a friend and her new girlfriend to get advice on his crush.
@@emilyemily9831 I'm also a gay man, just because you have surrounded yourself with people that are LGBT doesn't mean that everyone else in the rainbow does too. Most of us just, yknow, meet people and then make friends. It's not exactly the default experience to explicitly try to surround yourself with people that are going to agree with you, especially for people with less free-time or ability to go out and seek out these more concentrated groups. Being LGBT is rare, and its important to recognize that. Also the Bechdel test is just garbage and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yeah, a lot of amazing books and movies don't pass the test. And not so amazing too. Most of them, in fact. That's the whole point. That's the problem this test is pointing out. Anyway. I agree that it's an important way to analyze stories. And a good thing to have at the back of your mind when writing one - then if you decide not to pass it it will be a conscious decision instead of dumb bias-following.
The bechdel test is useful on a large scale, so if like 90% of all movies fails it, that shows there is probably a systemic problem of some sort, but it is basically useless when looking at individual movies that way because there are tons of good reasons a movie can fail the bechdel test. Several of the most feminist movies I've seen fail the bechdel test (e.g. Gravity) but that doesn't actually mean anything on its own
In my opinion, the Bechdel test is not for qualitative data (It is not for judging individual bits of media)but does make a good quantitive data eg what percentage pass the test
i think anyone ever talking about the bechdel test should be legally required to look up its origins and history and at the very least read the original comic strip before they're allowed to say anything because the amount of people who miss the whole point is staggering **this is not about OP but rather the comments AND general discussions you see around about the bechdel test and how it has been completely skewed to be some percieved mark of 'good feminist media'
The Bechdel test was never meant to criticize individual works. The point of it was that, despite how simple the test seemed, most movies at the time were failing it, which highlighted a problem with the *industry*
The Bechdel-Wallace test is less of a pass fail for feminism and more just a tool for examining sexism inherent in media. Like a movie or book can be feminist and still fail the test, it's more to point out that so much media can't pass these simple criteria. Also, have the genres considered inviting Sapphic Romance if they want to pass the Bechdel-Wallace test?
They also have to be NAMED female characters. Two female characters, with names, who talk about something other than a man, just ome time. It's brilliant because it's such a low bar to pass and still things fail
Honestly when i was first heard about the test. it felt like an invention came out of a disdain for an the oversaturated love triangle plot of woman cat fighting over the leading men back in the day. Where the romance was the subplot in tv series. I think this where the discourse come from about how there should be more stories about woman supporting woman. Honestly i don't like love triangle in any form but I just suck it up for k drama romance 😅.
I agree the Bechtel Test doesn't apply to everything, but why are people so opposed to the idea of two female character having ONE conversation that's not about men? Literally just one short exchange. Betty: Hey, I like your jacket! Diana: Thanks, I made it myself! I could tech you, if you want. Betty: Wow, that would be great! They could never have another conversation again, and it would count. They could talk about men in all their other conversations and it would count. It's that simple.
Because tacked on writing is atrocious writing. Art is a form of communication. The job of an author is to colorfully characterize ideas and themes. Utterly arbitrary irrelevant material is generally an atrocity on writing for your story.
Yeah, I probably wouldn't pass the test with my writing... Actually, no! I do have an entire chapter that is basically just a group of girls texting eachother about the last member of their school group. That last member is a girl, and they are talking about putting her in her place. The only guy in the chapter is their teacher who gave them an assignment and then promptly no longer matters to the chapter. They don't even talk about him after. I was sort-of surprised because, with the rest of the chapters I have written for the story, I don't have the girls separate enough to fulfill the test. I almost forgot about the chapter when I went to make my comment.
Sweet, my book passes. Multiple female besties that like to talk about girlie things, magic, their days, shops, and complaining about the annoying guy that ends up being side villian
Literary criticism isn't just about judging the quality of the work. It's not even _mostly_ about that. It's mostly about understanding said work and literary trends around it. For which this test is an excellent tool.
@@weareallbornmad410 I'd argue you're describing literary analysis. Criticism is the process in which art is interpreted with the goal of determining it's value as a product or service. Analyzing To Kill a Mockingbird is to break down the metaphors used to portay the ideals of both racism and growth, whilst critizing it is to highlight the emotional highs and lows that make it such a heartfelt read.
@@firelordeliteast6750Alright. There's an argument to be had there, but it's pointless so let's not. Bechdel test isn't there to determine the quality of your story. It can help with that, because most of the time if all your female characters are props on your MC's journey - that's bad writing. Bechdel test can be a good first step on assessing how developed your characters are. But it's mostly there to point out a systemic problem and measure female representation, both in individual works and in stats. And it's a brilliant first-step tool for that.
@@weareallbornmad410 I mean, that is certainly something you can do, but I can't help but feel like the distillation of representation and cultural attitudes to the presence and specific actions of female characters may or may not degrade the quality of work by those who specifically seek to benefit from being a "Progressive" artist, regardless of their art is notable, or even has good representation beyond the vague notions pushed by media. Hence, the Bechdel test is best off as a joke. Trying to take it seriously will result in twisting yourself in knots trying to fulfill it rather than just writing compelling female characters.
@@firelordeliteast6750 Like I said elsewhere - writing a bad book because a test exists is on the author, not on the test. Taking it seriously doesn't mean taking it without nuance. _How_ you approach representation is your own question. You're perfectly free to do it in a way the test didn't predict. You're also perfectly free to choose not to have it and tell a man's story instead. Their stories are still worthy of telling. This is a tool; how you use it is your own discretion.
I have a document of over 100+ original fantasy characters and 80% of them are female and love talking about spells, potions, historical events, time travelling, friends & family, vacations. All the "normal" stuff you would talk about in a modern fantasy world
Men are hot and there's nothing I can do about it 😭 On a more serious note, as a straight woman, the way I appreciate men's beauty vs women's is very different. For me, women are beautiful like a sunset is beautiful. It's aesthetically pleasing but I don't want anything to do with it. But if men are beautiful like a vast blue ocean, then I want to drown in them
I lived with a lesbian as a roommate for a year. And all she did was talk about guys. Show mainly she was complaining Showed mainly she was complaining about her dad or her boss. But it's basically the same thing.
@@DrGreen-oo3ei i mean, fair. My point was I pass the bechdel test, but I too occasionally complain about the men in my life. But that's usually my father.
The test came from an era of almost no representation and was originally made to show that while male friendships can often be read as gay in certain contexts, Lesbians often dont even have women friendships in media that they could read as something more. So yeah, your book passes.
Certainly. The test is based on a cartoon from Alison Bechdel’s first _Dykes To Watch Out For_ book (published 1986),in which two women, apparently on a date, are trying to decide whether to watch a movie together, and finally decide to just go home together instead.
I think a lot of romances DO pass the test. Usually the heroine has a career or a duty or something else she's trying to accomplish. A mystery to solve. Because it's not that you can't talk about men at all, it's just that you have to sometimes talk to other women about a subject other than men.
The women also need to have names and its talk each other about things other than men or children. The idea is that women often exist just to serve as bit parts in men's stories. It's like the sexy lamp test, if a woman could be replaced with a sexy lamp and it would have no impact on the events of the story. Its about the representation of women (or rather lack there of).
I kinda want Queer romance to be added to the romance genre person lineup and made a comment saying that Queer romance would have been the only one to pass the test, lol!
There's also the Mako Mori test if you only have one lady in the story: Have at least one female character, and this character has an independent plot arc and that the character or her arc does not simply exist to support the male character's arc. It comes from Pacific Rim.
While my book, which i am curently wrighting, passes that test with flying colours. I have multiple female characters, to a point that there are more fenmales in the story than men. They do not really talk about a man in a way of wanting a relationship with him. The main person they talk about if they talk about a man is the villain and they then talk about figuring a way out to stop him for good. Also, two of them are lesbians. So that also helps with passing this test. 😅
I mean, the romance genre, theoretically should have no trouble. Allison bechel, lesbian extraordinaire, was trying to make a point of “lesbians are so rare in media, women can only talk about men”
For example in the case of the Dresden files, mab(queen of winter) and winter lady are implied to converse and its implied not to just about harry Dresden but about tactics in the conflict
The Bechdel test is funny because while it has no real indication of any individual work’s quality or views on women, it does have pretty large implications when looked at from statistical standpoint.
Yes is my answer to this. My main female is Ali and she is in love with Ry and her bestie, other than Ty, is Rys foster sister, Laura. Then she has a hateful relationship with a female coworker when she takes advantage of Ry when he lost his memory, but in the end, Ry got his memory back and the lady married Rys foster brother Michael Aland they've been good friends. Even babysitting their children when the go kill the dark lord.
This speaks to me as a straight woman. 😂 (Speaking of orientations, what happens when a type of queer romance enters the room? I bet she's neat, whoever she is.)
For the book I’m writing Yes (two of the main characters are girls) Yes (they are roommates so yes) Yes (the most they talk about men is of the men that kidnapped them as that happened or that betrayed them but there is just mainly a lot of teasing and planning.)
So, the thing about the bachdel test is that it didnt actually start as a tool exploring womans empowerment - it started as a tool specifically from the perspective of a lesbian who wantsd to be able to see herself in the media she watched.
As a fanfic reader who doesn't actually read novels, ever, I'm not sure how I ended up here. I can't remember one story over 5k words that I read that can fail this test
The Bechdel test is actually about being able to headcannon lesbians, and later became a tool of analysis for women’s empowerment, except it’s not a great tool on individual works ( Grease passes the Bechdel test, but not Portal ) so it’s more useful to make a general diagnosis of the state of women’s place in media.
PC Cast’s A House of Night series has 2 named women to talk to each other about stuff other than men. Like, Rae and Zoey talk to each other about Neferet manipulating everyone and being horrible, about their interests, about Zoey having her fully filled in Mark even though she hasn't gone through the change, and about Aphrodite (character, not deity) *finally* reforming from bully to joined The Nerd Squad. also cats, since that's usually the form their familiar appears to them in. i think some have dog familiars but idk A house of night is about a form of vampires that has to do with Wicca and “making the change” which you either die bc your body can't take it OR you do make the change and the crescent moon that forms on their forehead gets filled in with little trailing tattoos off their forehead. It has a lot to do with Nyx (like. A different version of her in the books but yeah), “vampyres", and Zoey looking like she's Changed but. she hasnt actually yet and that's has to do with her and Nyx's gifts to her for the sake of balance.althoughbe aware it was made in the 2000s and Zoey has some outdated thought processes, like how she believes goths are moody emo kids, and she describes skin tones in terms of chocolate, caramel, etc. some dont like it but many POC have read the book series and made reviews about loving how she described people. I read it when i was in Middle to High school so im used to how she behaves in the books but not everyone will be a fan of Zoey
Honestly... I'm a female & none of my works pass that test. I'm too busy figuring out the dynamics of fae & fiend culture in my world building & whether gravity's a thing for this lmao. But seriously: human male specimens aren't too shabby.
