![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dunmurderinThe Bechdel Test is a test adapted from the comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For by Alison Bechdel (it goes by other names, including the Mo Movie Measure, Bechdel's law and the Bechdel/Wallace Test). In the strip in question, one of the characters is talking about how she only goes to see movies if they meet the following criteria:
1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something besides a man.
Apparently, this has become something of a litmus test in certain circles for determining whether a movie, book, play, etc. has a non-sexist portrayal of women. Particularly, as Charlie Stross points out inhis blog about the test, you expand the last point to "about something besides men or marriage or babies"
Now, on the whole, I'm a big fan of litmus tests and non-stereotypical images of women in the media. But litmus tests should be used as guidelines, not as an iron-clad set of rules for How Things Must Be Done. Mary Sue Litmus Tests spring to mind -- I love reading them as a way of seeing what's considered cliche in different fandoms and/or genres but I think people put way too much weight behind whether or not a character or a story idea scores low or high and not enough weight behind the story's execution. And I can see the same thing happening with this test, if it hasn't already.
Keep in mind, in the original strip the character who talks about the test says that the only movies she'll go to are ones that pass this test. Again: only movies that have female characters talking about something other than men are of interest to that character -- which is fine and dandy when you're talking about one person's individual tastes, but trying to turn one person's tastes into some sort of a guideline for how other people should respond to and create fiction is more problematic.
Look at my DVD shelf and you're going to find a LOT of stuff that doesn't even register on the Bechdel Test. I like a lot of action movies, 80s cartoons and general science fictional/fantasy/horror stuff. Oddly enough, some of the 80s stuff scores high on Bechdel -- GI Joe features several female characters who talk to each other about stuff other than men. And Jem and the Holograms scores a full three out of three. No, really. The show‘s cast is predominantly female and they spend a LOT of time talking to each other about things other than men, babies and marriage. Jerrica Benton doesn't just play the role of Jem, she also runs the music company that helps promote Jem and the Holograms and supports twelve foster daughters.
But other stuff, not so much. One of my favorite movies is The Dirty Dozen which, except for a few hookers, is a complete sausage fest, as is The A-Team (on AND off screen, apparently) Monk features only one main female character. In Jeeves and Wooster women are generally trying to trap or use poor Bertie -- even his nice aunt thinks nothing of calling on him to perform some task that inevitably gets him into trouble.
In some of these cases, the lack of female roles are understandable -- women weren't allowed in the Special Forces in the 1970s so it makes sense that there's no permanent female member of the A-Team (Amy was replaced by Tawnia who was replaced by Eddie). In 1920s England, a single man would probably be unlikely to have a female servant -- particularly one who works as closely with him as Jeeves does with Wooster. On the other hand, why couldn't Monk's police contact couldn't be Captain Linda Stottlemeyer instead of Leeland? Psyche has a female police commissioner, after all and nobody makes a big deal about it in the show.
The Bechdel Test: A Closer Look:
1. It has to have at least two women in it: Great! But what if I'm writing a story where there would logically be no women around? A story set in a men's prison like Stephen King's "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" where women would be unlikely springs to mind or a gay romance where the two characters are in bed together and not about to be inviting in company. Or even just two guys out driving around having some guy time together?
Characters should fit the scenario that they've been placed in. I'd say that in nine out of ten cases, female characters can fit into most scenarios and fit as something other than as plot devices and supporting characters. One of my favorite movies is "Streets of Fire" which features a character named McCoy who was intended to be played by a man but the role went to a woman. Unfortunately, as I recall, the movie would only rate about a one or a two on the Bechdel test since while it does feature several female characters none of them really talk to each other. McCoy gets most of the screen time and she is busy working with the hero rather than confabing with the girl they're both trying to rescue.
2. Who talk to each other: When I first read this test, this line bugged me but now, on reflection, I'm not sure why. I think it was because I initially got a vibe like 'talk to each other' meant 'must get along' since I'm not exactly in the habit of talking to people I don't like. But now, I'm not getting the same feeling.
In the original strip, the character mentions that the last movie she'd seen was Alien which passed her test since the two women talked about the monster.
I think what bugs me is the idea that the women have to talk to each other. Why? I guess the idea is that women shouldn’t exist solely to dance attendance on the men in the story, which I agree with. I remember being at a family dinner with my fiance (his family, btw) and his brother‘s girlfriend asked me if I wanted to make Jeff a plate and I stared at her like she‘d grown a second head. IIRC, I think Jeff‘s mom did too.
3. About something besides men or marriage or babies Okay, this? Bugs me, probably the most of any of these points. From the original comic, I presume the idea is that the women in question who are talking about men are talking about them in terms of romantic and/or sexual relationships and Stross's addition seems to carry that home but where does the line get drawn? What, exactly, constitutes talking about men/marriage/babies? If the stereotypical Strong Female Character who has otherwise been shown Kicking Ass and Taking Names Literally and/or Figuratively flips through an issue of Bride Monthly or makes a quick phone call home to her man and/or kids, does she fail the test? Does the story fail the test if the two women characters are talking about the upcoming surgery they’re performing on a male patient? I mean, they’re talking about a man, after all and the test itself isn’t specific about what the conversations should be about.
Again, I realize the idea here is to avoid stereotypical plots where the woman in the story is concerned only with finding a man, getting married and having kids -- but on the other hand, DTWOF is a strip about a group of lesbian/bisexual women who do spend at least some time talking about their relationships which include marriages (or at least long-term committed relationships) and kids. I'm pretty sure people would say that Bechdel has passed her own test but as a lot of slash fans will tell you, stereotypical romance plots do not become inherently more interesting or less cliched if both participants are the same gender.
(Note: I’m not accusing Bechdel of writing stereotypical romance plots in her comic strip. From what I’ve read of it, which is admittedly not much, the characters are very well drawn and realistic.)
The problem I have with Stross's addition is the idea that talking about marriage and/or babies is a negative thing. Yes, the idea that women only want to get married and reproduce is one I personally find abhorrent. Personally, I love kids but when it comes to motherhood I make a great weird uncle. I’ve never had any real desire to have kids and I don’t see that changing any time soon. I’m also not in any kind of a hurry to get married (and wasn’t when I was with a man, either).
But…
I'm rather ashamed to admit that this took me a while to figure out, but being a mother and/or a wife does not make a woman any less of a person. Or any less interesting as a fictional character. Some of the strongest people I know in real life are wives and mothers. My grandmother, all of my aunts, my girlfriend's mother and a half a dozen co-workers -- all mothers and/or wives, all kick-ass ladies. None of them have ever (to my knowledge) defused a ticking time bomb or raised zombies or solved crimes but neither have most of the men I know either.
Recently, there was a bit of fan discussion about ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ female characters and the idea that we’re supposed to like ‘strong’ female characters (I.e. Ripley, Sarah Connor, Xena, etc) and dislike ‘weak’ female characters (I.e. the girl who screams and runs away from the terror instead of facing it, June Cleaver, etc.) and I think this portion of the test plays to that idea. The two women have to be talking about something other than a man, babies or marriage because talking about men, babies and marriage is, so the test tells us, wrong.
Again, I get the idea that this test is an attempt to fight the stereotyping of women but I don’t think we’re well served by replacing one stereotype for another. I’m honestly sick and tired of the ‘strong female who is so strong she can’t do anything the least bit feminine like change diapers or cook food! Look how ungirly she is!’ stereotype. Or the ‘hates to wear dresses or girly clothes‘ stereotype. And I say that as someone who a) didn’t change a diaper until she was in her late 20s and b) owns a grand total of one dress that may or may not fit. Just once I’d like to see a kickass female character who can whip up a gourmet meal AND blow your freakin’ head off from a mile and a half away with her sniper rifle.
And I also realize that this test was created in the mid-1980s which was not an enlightened time by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the whole premise behind Remington Steele was that the kick-ass female private investigator couldn’t get herself taken seriously so she had to create a fictional male boss -- and to add insult to injury? Originally the boss was supposed to stay fictional, but the studio said they needed a male lead so Pierce Brosnan got the role.
Times have changed, not enough to be sure, but I think some of that -- at least in fannish circles -- can be laid at our own feet. Tests like this value only certain kinds of female characters and really, I think we’d be better served by valuing well-rounded portrayals of women in all roles, not just those that seem coolest.
9 to 5 was about a group of women taking back their own from their skeevy boss (and included the backstabbing female suck up who is a character who is unfortunately all too realistic) without firing a shot (except in their pot-driven fantasies). Erma Bombeck became popular in part because she wrote about the absolute absurdity of the daily lives of women everywhere.
One of my favorite shows growing up was The Dick Van Dyke Show and one of my favorite characters on the show was Sally Rogers, played by Rose Marie. Sally was a wise-cracking single lady comedy writer who wanted desperately to get married (or so she said) but who never quite managed to settle down. She spent most of her time working with her male colleagues and was, essentially, one of the guys. I loved her. She was a wonderfully funny and strong woman who just so happened to want to be married but not so badly that she'd settle for just anybody.
Personally, as far as role models go, I’d choose Sally over a lot of supposedly ‘stronger’ characters out there. Sally was smart, funny and took no guff. She’s got most of the female leads in RomComs beat hands down.
By and large, I think the Bechdel Test is most useful as a reminder but I think just having two women talking about something other than men isn’t the end-all be-all of characterization.
So, How Do I Stack Up?:
Pretty crappily, to be honest.
I went through my own fics over at my InsaneJournal archive. Out of approximately 95 fics that I have posted there, I found a grand total of six that managed to meet at least one of the Bechdel Test requirements.
One Day 3 out of 3 -- and even that is shaky since Elita and Chromia end up talking about men, specifically the fact that Optimus Prime and Ironhide have come back from the dead. It’s not romance talk exactly.
Playing House 3 out of 3; two women (Daina and Paige Adams) talk and it is about something other than men, though they do end up talking to Low-Light and Beachhead.
Fear Factor 2 out of 3. Daina and Paige again, talking with each other but at least part of the conversation is about Low-Light, a man. And there’s talking about babies!
First Impressions 1 out of 3; the story has two women in it, but they don't talk to each other in the course of the story.
Something Going On 2 out of 3; there are multiple women in it and they do talk to each other, but it's largely about a man -- i.e. Techrat and his dating prospects.
An American Family 2 out of 3; multiple women but they do end up talking about babies -- specifically Low-Light's son. Justifiable, probably, since the point of the story was that said son was born, but it depends how you read the test.
Of the rest of my fics, sixty-four have entirely male casts for various reasons (not all of them slash related) and twenty-five feature at least one female character but don't meet any of the Bechdel Test requirements (i.e. the female character is the only woman in the fic or there are multiple women but they don't talk to each other for whatever reason).
These are, I'll admit, pretty bad odds but in most of the stories, I'll stand behind my casting choices. My original fiction stands up a little better, at least going by what I'm working on now, but I've got one female character who spends most of her time hanging out with her male co-workers.
1. It has to have at least two women in it,
2. Who talk to each other,
3. About something besides a man.
Apparently, this has become something of a litmus test in certain circles for determining whether a movie, book, play, etc. has a non-sexist portrayal of women. Particularly, as Charlie Stross points out inhis blog about the test, you expand the last point to "about something besides men or marriage or babies"
Now, on the whole, I'm a big fan of litmus tests and non-stereotypical images of women in the media. But litmus tests should be used as guidelines, not as an iron-clad set of rules for How Things Must Be Done. Mary Sue Litmus Tests spring to mind -- I love reading them as a way of seeing what's considered cliche in different fandoms and/or genres but I think people put way too much weight behind whether or not a character or a story idea scores low or high and not enough weight behind the story's execution. And I can see the same thing happening with this test, if it hasn't already.
Keep in mind, in the original strip the character who talks about the test says that the only movies she'll go to are ones that pass this test. Again: only movies that have female characters talking about something other than men are of interest to that character -- which is fine and dandy when you're talking about one person's individual tastes, but trying to turn one person's tastes into some sort of a guideline for how other people should respond to and create fiction is more problematic.
Look at my DVD shelf and you're going to find a LOT of stuff that doesn't even register on the Bechdel Test. I like a lot of action movies, 80s cartoons and general science fictional/fantasy/horror stuff. Oddly enough, some of the 80s stuff scores high on Bechdel -- GI Joe features several female characters who talk to each other about stuff other than men. And Jem and the Holograms scores a full three out of three. No, really. The show‘s cast is predominantly female and they spend a LOT of time talking to each other about things other than men, babies and marriage. Jerrica Benton doesn't just play the role of Jem, she also runs the music company that helps promote Jem and the Holograms and supports twelve foster daughters.
But other stuff, not so much. One of my favorite movies is The Dirty Dozen which, except for a few hookers, is a complete sausage fest, as is The A-Team (on AND off screen, apparently) Monk features only one main female character. In Jeeves and Wooster women are generally trying to trap or use poor Bertie -- even his nice aunt thinks nothing of calling on him to perform some task that inevitably gets him into trouble.
In some of these cases, the lack of female roles are understandable -- women weren't allowed in the Special Forces in the 1970s so it makes sense that there's no permanent female member of the A-Team (Amy was replaced by Tawnia who was replaced by Eddie). In 1920s England, a single man would probably be unlikely to have a female servant -- particularly one who works as closely with him as Jeeves does with Wooster. On the other hand, why couldn't Monk's police contact couldn't be Captain Linda Stottlemeyer instead of Leeland? Psyche has a female police commissioner, after all and nobody makes a big deal about it in the show.
The Bechdel Test: A Closer Look:
1. It has to have at least two women in it: Great! But what if I'm writing a story where there would logically be no women around? A story set in a men's prison like Stephen King's "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" where women would be unlikely springs to mind or a gay romance where the two characters are in bed together and not about to be inviting in company. Or even just two guys out driving around having some guy time together?
Characters should fit the scenario that they've been placed in. I'd say that in nine out of ten cases, female characters can fit into most scenarios and fit as something other than as plot devices and supporting characters. One of my favorite movies is "Streets of Fire" which features a character named McCoy who was intended to be played by a man but the role went to a woman. Unfortunately, as I recall, the movie would only rate about a one or a two on the Bechdel test since while it does feature several female characters none of them really talk to each other. McCoy gets most of the screen time and she is busy working with the hero rather than confabing with the girl they're both trying to rescue.
2. Who talk to each other: When I first read this test, this line bugged me but now, on reflection, I'm not sure why. I think it was because I initially got a vibe like 'talk to each other' meant 'must get along' since I'm not exactly in the habit of talking to people I don't like. But now, I'm not getting the same feeling.
In the original strip, the character mentions that the last movie she'd seen was Alien which passed her test since the two women talked about the monster.
I think what bugs me is the idea that the women have to talk to each other. Why? I guess the idea is that women shouldn’t exist solely to dance attendance on the men in the story, which I agree with. I remember being at a family dinner with my fiance (his family, btw) and his brother‘s girlfriend asked me if I wanted to make Jeff a plate and I stared at her like she‘d grown a second head. IIRC, I think Jeff‘s mom did too.
3. About something besides men or marriage or babies Okay, this? Bugs me, probably the most of any of these points. From the original comic, I presume the idea is that the women in question who are talking about men are talking about them in terms of romantic and/or sexual relationships and Stross's addition seems to carry that home but where does the line get drawn? What, exactly, constitutes talking about men/marriage/babies? If the stereotypical Strong Female Character who has otherwise been shown Kicking Ass and Taking Names Literally and/or Figuratively flips through an issue of Bride Monthly or makes a quick phone call home to her man and/or kids, does she fail the test? Does the story fail the test if the two women characters are talking about the upcoming surgery they’re performing on a male patient? I mean, they’re talking about a man, after all and the test itself isn’t specific about what the conversations should be about.
Again, I realize the idea here is to avoid stereotypical plots where the woman in the story is concerned only with finding a man, getting married and having kids -- but on the other hand, DTWOF is a strip about a group of lesbian/bisexual women who do spend at least some time talking about their relationships which include marriages (or at least long-term committed relationships) and kids. I'm pretty sure people would say that Bechdel has passed her own test but as a lot of slash fans will tell you, stereotypical romance plots do not become inherently more interesting or less cliched if both participants are the same gender.
(Note: I’m not accusing Bechdel of writing stereotypical romance plots in her comic strip. From what I’ve read of it, which is admittedly not much, the characters are very well drawn and realistic.)
The problem I have with Stross's addition is the idea that talking about marriage and/or babies is a negative thing. Yes, the idea that women only want to get married and reproduce is one I personally find abhorrent. Personally, I love kids but when it comes to motherhood I make a great weird uncle. I’ve never had any real desire to have kids and I don’t see that changing any time soon. I’m also not in any kind of a hurry to get married (and wasn’t when I was with a man, either).
But…
I'm rather ashamed to admit that this took me a while to figure out, but being a mother and/or a wife does not make a woman any less of a person. Or any less interesting as a fictional character. Some of the strongest people I know in real life are wives and mothers. My grandmother, all of my aunts, my girlfriend's mother and a half a dozen co-workers -- all mothers and/or wives, all kick-ass ladies. None of them have ever (to my knowledge) defused a ticking time bomb or raised zombies or solved crimes but neither have most of the men I know either.
Recently, there was a bit of fan discussion about ‘strong’ vs. ‘weak’ female characters and the idea that we’re supposed to like ‘strong’ female characters (I.e. Ripley, Sarah Connor, Xena, etc) and dislike ‘weak’ female characters (I.e. the girl who screams and runs away from the terror instead of facing it, June Cleaver, etc.) and I think this portion of the test plays to that idea. The two women have to be talking about something other than a man, babies or marriage because talking about men, babies and marriage is, so the test tells us, wrong.
Again, I get the idea that this test is an attempt to fight the stereotyping of women but I don’t think we’re well served by replacing one stereotype for another. I’m honestly sick and tired of the ‘strong female who is so strong she can’t do anything the least bit feminine like change diapers or cook food! Look how ungirly she is!’ stereotype. Or the ‘hates to wear dresses or girly clothes‘ stereotype. And I say that as someone who a) didn’t change a diaper until she was in her late 20s and b) owns a grand total of one dress that may or may not fit. Just once I’d like to see a kickass female character who can whip up a gourmet meal AND blow your freakin’ head off from a mile and a half away with her sniper rifle.
And I also realize that this test was created in the mid-1980s which was not an enlightened time by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the whole premise behind Remington Steele was that the kick-ass female private investigator couldn’t get herself taken seriously so she had to create a fictional male boss -- and to add insult to injury? Originally the boss was supposed to stay fictional, but the studio said they needed a male lead so Pierce Brosnan got the role.
Times have changed, not enough to be sure, but I think some of that -- at least in fannish circles -- can be laid at our own feet. Tests like this value only certain kinds of female characters and really, I think we’d be better served by valuing well-rounded portrayals of women in all roles, not just those that seem coolest.
9 to 5 was about a group of women taking back their own from their skeevy boss (and included the backstabbing female suck up who is a character who is unfortunately all too realistic) without firing a shot (except in their pot-driven fantasies). Erma Bombeck became popular in part because she wrote about the absolute absurdity of the daily lives of women everywhere.
One of my favorite shows growing up was The Dick Van Dyke Show and one of my favorite characters on the show was Sally Rogers, played by Rose Marie. Sally was a wise-cracking single lady comedy writer who wanted desperately to get married (or so she said) but who never quite managed to settle down. She spent most of her time working with her male colleagues and was, essentially, one of the guys. I loved her. She was a wonderfully funny and strong woman who just so happened to want to be married but not so badly that she'd settle for just anybody.
Personally, as far as role models go, I’d choose Sally over a lot of supposedly ‘stronger’ characters out there. Sally was smart, funny and took no guff. She’s got most of the female leads in RomComs beat hands down.
By and large, I think the Bechdel Test is most useful as a reminder but I think just having two women talking about something other than men isn’t the end-all be-all of characterization.
So, How Do I Stack Up?:
Pretty crappily, to be honest.
I went through my own fics over at my InsaneJournal archive. Out of approximately 95 fics that I have posted there, I found a grand total of six that managed to meet at least one of the Bechdel Test requirements.
One Day 3 out of 3 -- and even that is shaky since Elita and Chromia end up talking about men, specifically the fact that Optimus Prime and Ironhide have come back from the dead. It’s not romance talk exactly.
Playing House 3 out of 3; two women (Daina and Paige Adams) talk and it is about something other than men, though they do end up talking to Low-Light and Beachhead.
Fear Factor 2 out of 3. Daina and Paige again, talking with each other but at least part of the conversation is about Low-Light, a man. And there’s talking about babies!
First Impressions 1 out of 3; the story has two women in it, but they don't talk to each other in the course of the story.
Something Going On 2 out of 3; there are multiple women in it and they do talk to each other, but it's largely about a man -- i.e. Techrat and his dating prospects.
An American Family 2 out of 3; multiple women but they do end up talking about babies -- specifically Low-Light's son. Justifiable, probably, since the point of the story was that said son was born, but it depends how you read the test.
Of the rest of my fics, sixty-four have entirely male casts for various reasons (not all of them slash related) and twenty-five feature at least one female character but don't meet any of the Bechdel Test requirements (i.e. the female character is the only woman in the fic or there are multiple women but they don't talk to each other for whatever reason).
These are, I'll admit, pretty bad odds but in most of the stories, I'll stand behind my casting choices. My original fiction stands up a little better, at least going by what I'm working on now, but I've got one female character who spends most of her time hanging out with her male co-workers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-01 05:09 am (UTC)1. Most of my closest friends are guys, and
2. When I do talk to my female friends, we end up talking about their kids or their marriages/relationships or my relationship.
So... does that make me a tough kickass non-girly woman or does that make me a girly-domestic woman? =D
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-04 11:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-01 03:57 pm (UTC)Why do I have such a problem putting female characters in my stories? My brain just seems to default to male and even when I do get female characters in it's only one at a time. Fail, fish, fail ...
[Also, you have an error with your italics]
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-04 11:17 am (UTC)The other part is, I think, maybe a tendency to want to show that a woman can write male characters and have them be guys rather than the stereotypical idea that women turn all male characters into women (though, I did literally do that with Brawl).
And...at the moment, I have nothing more to add except that my head is full of sleep and thanks for the heads up on the italics. 8)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-05 01:35 pm (UTC)What I wish I knew is why in my original fic, and in everything I've written before getting into Transformers, pretty much all my female characters are kinda Token Female. All my narrators default to male without me even thinking about it.
It could be partly because pretty much as soon as you put a female character into the centre role people start asking questions - how does this character work as a portrayal of women? Is she a stereotype? Is she a cliche? - and so on and so forth.
This probably isn't very coherent as I seem to be progressing into a light fever or something.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-05 03:45 pm (UTC)It could be partly because pretty much as soon as you put a female character into the centre role people start asking questions - how does this character work as a portrayal of women? Is she a stereotype? Is she a cliche? - and so on and so forth.
I think that's exactly it -- or at least probably a large part of it. A few years ago, a friend of mine told me about a lecture he attended given by one of the creators of Sesame Street where somehow the subject of why most of the original puppets were male -- particularly characters with strong personality quirks like Oscar the Grouch or Cookie Monster -- came up. The reason the person gave was essentially that if a male character is a grouch or loves cookies to the point of mania, he's an individual and not seen as representative of all men. Whereas with a female character who is a grouch and/or has a case of raging bikkyphilia runs the risk of being seen as a representation of all wome, regardless of whether this is the intention or not.
It adds a hurdle to creating female characters, particularly for certain comcepts/personality types.
And as for sounding off, that's ok, I'm going on no sleep at the moment. Oi...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-06 11:21 am (UTC)I'm not too fussed about not writing female characters for Transformers simply because there are so very few in the canon, and a noticeably weird gender balance like that should be left as it is, but I do need to work on it in everything else.
That said, the best female Transformer I can think is Lunatron's Alkali, who turns into a truck-cum-*bar*. She rocks.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-03 03:59 am (UTC)This is not fair to fanfiction stories: we use mainly the canon characters who are either mainly male or, like TFs, at least characterized as male.
My original fic will probably fail, because the protagonist, who is a woman, will spend the book trying to find her missing (abducted) spouse, who is characterized as male (android).
I have one (count 'em: one) story idea in the TF universe that I haven't started yet that will be completely two females interacting. It will probably fail this test no matter how long or detailed I make it because it will complete the Devoted Service story line with Elita and her support (someone, maybe Chromia, maybe not) who helps her cope with the pain in her spark, pain of separation from half her spark, held by one Optimus Prime. So, the whole story will be due to a male.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-04 11:24 am (UTC)I don't think the idea behind the test is so much that ONLY women can appear in the story so much as it's aimed toward the idea that women can and should have active roles in the story as something other than an adoring plot point and/or motivation for the male characters in the story -- which I agree with wholeheartedly. The comic strip mentions that "Alien" passed the test because the two women in the story talked about the monster.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-08-17 06:38 am (UTC)Yeah, my role models growing up were Ellen Ripley, Morgaine (of CJ Cherryh's universe, not Arthur's) and Sygny Mallory (Captain of the starship Normandy, also a CJ Cherryh character). Come to think of it, both the Morgaine Cycle and the Union Alliance novels are rather like Alien, where all the characters' mental capacities are consumed by something other than 'normal' life (wherein most of our mental capacities are devoted to basic needs, either work or family/friends). Morgaine is on a mission to close a bunch of malfunctioning and mostly disused space-time portals; Sygny's ship is instrumental in a social and political upheaval. Like Ripley and the other women in her universe, they don't have any significant time to spare for hormones or sex, theirs or anyone else's.
Have to admit, I can't list many stories written by men (or put on TV or movies, which are mainly by men) wherein women are represented at better than that ridiculous 4:1 ratio mentioned in that article. Sadly, I think the problem is the same that Tolkien had when writing The Hobbit and LOTR for his nephew: they know very little about women outside of our dealings with them, and their hard-wiring deludes them to think that what they notice women doing must be all that women do.
Until I have finished my TF fanfiction 'verse, I'm not personally going to do a thing about this, except think about it when I notice yet another storyline with a token female stereotype. With TF, I work mostly with the canon character set, which makes females much more rare than 4:1, and with not much to work with.
I might get some mileage out of Quasar and Phosphora, but they were introduced by Jazz (What to Life for), so I only know them through him so far...might could get them to talk to me, though...plot bunny, in the hutch!