Does it count as passing the Bechdel test if...

[capri0mni]

The two women in a TV Series or movie are talking about a murder suspect, and/or the suspect's motives, if that suspect happens to be a man?

Comments

[trouble]

I always classify that as "talking about their job".

[capri0mni]

Okay. Yeah, I'll take that.

[jekesta]

No! It really doesn't. They have to be talking about something other than a man. It's not just talking about men they fancy, or men they know, it's all men. I feel very strongly about this one, because people find all kind of ways that women talking about men doesn't really count as them talking about men, but it always does.

[pedanther]

Mu.

The point of the Bechdel Test isn't whether any given work passes or fails; it's about drawing attention to the overall pattern where far too many works fail and not nearly enough pass. There will always be arguable edge cases, but they don't affect the pattern greatly, and you don't need to know precisely where the edge lies to see that it's a long way off from where it should be.

[capri0mni]

See? This is the argument I have with myself all the time... Some days, my brain makes trouble's argument. And other days, it makes your argument. On the one hand, adult men make up about 49.5% percent of people in the American population (all the shows I watch are set in America, so...). So just talking about people will end up being about men at least that often. On the other hand, even when all the cops or doctors in a scene are women in authority, being business-like, and competent, the plot and action and decisions, and all, are still following the lead of whatever a Man is doing...

And it goes back and forth in my head... and never stops. So I decided to get it out of my head into my journal/s.

[capri0mni]

But the overall pattern is reinforced by individual choices of individual consumers deciding whether or not to support a movie or TV show with their dollars and their eyeballs.

If television and movie producers, writers and other execs get it into their head that consumers are judging the quality of individual works based on whether or not it passes the Bechdel Test, then, over time, the pattern will change.

[jekesta]

just talking about people will end up being about men at least that often

But if you watch tv and try to find scenes with two men talking about something that is not a woman, those scenes are magically everywhere, and apparently that is not a struggle, or an oddity, and you don't have to write in extra clauses or excuses. Because men are so much the default. At all levels of character, from lead to guest to minor to extra. If you take away the 'talking about something other than a man' from the test, it is just a test of whether there are two women interacting, which is a different thing, and takes away the importance of the focus of the stories being told. (I see quite a lot of people who seem to think the test is that they shouldn't be talking about a man in a romantic way, which I think misses the point as well.)

I don't think the Bechdel test tests whether tv is good, or worth watching, like someone under me said, it's pretty much just about having a way to identify and point out the pattern. So I think it's important to acknowledge that something isn't passing the Bechdel test unless it's genuinely passing it.

[capri0mni]

I don't think the Bechdel test tests whether tv is good, or worth watching, like someone under me said

:-) That was I. ;-) I was basically going back to the original comic episode where that test originated (one character telling another that she only goes to see movies if it follows those three rules). And no. The Bechdel test is not, in real life, the only rule which determines what is good or not. But as I said to pedanther, below, individual choices do matter in creating and changing long term cultural patterns, so pointing out shows that do pass the test, and giving them our eyeballs/money does matter.

[jekesta]

Yes! I think that's sort of why I feel like it should be judged as an absolute sort of thing, I think. Because if we're kind of slightly using it to determine what is doing well at changing that pattern, then I think it has to be genuinely changing that pattern.

[pedanther]

I still think that, as long as an overwhelming number of individual works inarguably fail the test, it doesn't much matter which side of the line you put the relatively few arguable cases on.

That said, I wouldn't give this conversation a pass. As jekesta says, the letter of the rule is explicit that if the conversation is about a man, it fails; so if it passes, it's got to be by an appeal to the spirit of the rule. And I'd say the spirit of the rule is to point out that there's room for improvement, so an arguable case shouldn't be given full marks. If the show really supported the principle underlying the Bechdel Test, it wouldn't be arguable -- there'd be at least one conversation that unambiguously passed the test, probably only one of several conversations between women in the show.

(I see in your reply to scarfman you mention that the specific show you had in mind has multiple conversations between women, and at least one of them is a clear pass. There you are.)

[capri0mni]

Ayup.

BTW, do you know this site: Bechdel Test Movie List? I only found it last night, when I was Googling to find the right spelling of "Bechdel," so I haven't poked around it at all. But it looks like it might be an interesting tool if you're in a pattern-changing sort of mood.

[capri0mni]

Yeah... it passed for this episode. But, frankly, I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

All this cop's angry outbursts scenes feel to me like the writers are trying to give her angsty, season-long story arc. And I'm betting, based on this show's history, that the central arc will end up being about this cop's relationship with her father... Could be wrong, though. I hope so.