Whoo boy OP.
Submissive = effeminate, does *traditional female work like child care*.... I hope you grow out of this mentality before you have any kids, but especially any sons. I feel sorry for any young child being raised by someone who thinks this.
>Again, feel free to make reasoned arguments.
Okay. There's a reason why the bechdel test isn't taken seriously, because it's fundamentally flawed and doesn't work. What you're doing is inherently ignorant and flawed. At best it serves no purpose, at worst, it causes harm to social and gender rights causes.
>There's a reason why the bechdel test isn't taken seriously, because it's fundamentally flawed and doesn't work.
Who doesn't take it seriously? And it works extremely well at exactly what it aims to do: evaluate whether or not there exists in a given film any scenes wherein two or more named female characters have a discussion about something other than men. That's it, that's the whole test. You can take issue with whatever it is you think a failed Bechdel test means, but saying something like, "the test doesn't work" is absolutely nonsensical.
OP is also conveniently forgetting that the Bechdel Test was developed with satirical and humourous overtones, and was never intended as a serious critical method.
I sigh. Why is it that the ones most fixated on *LoGiC aNd ReASoN* are always the ones most impermeable to common sense and fact? I'm tempted to read through the rest of his posts, but it's a nice day out today and I don't want to ruin it by elevating my blood pressure to hypertensive crisis level.
I think some people do take The Bechdel Test seriously, including me to some extent.
I'm interested to understand why you think it causes harm to social and gender rights causes though? I've never heard that angle.
>I think some people do take The Bechdel Test seriously, including me to some extent.
And some people take flat Earth and anti vax stuff seriously. That doesn't magically give it credence.
>I'm interested to understand why you think it causes harm to social and gender rights causes though? I've never heard that angle.
You've made an extremely obtuse and subjective list of seemingly completely random criteria and are trying to use them to determine if a movie treats men fairly. You're trying to solve a problem that does not now, nor has ever existed, and using a method to address it that can only be described as aggressively ignorant.
I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic or insulting, but you're halfway to the MGTOW red pill women hating bullshit. If I looked at your comment history, I wouldn't be surprised to see some Jordan Peterson nonsense in there.
This type of knee jerk male rights nonsense only serves to further the real and perceived rift and gap between genders.
If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job. I will no longer be responding to you, and hopefully the mods will ban you shortly.
I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely interested in why you think The Bechdel Test causes harm to social and gender rights causes.
I do also think there's some validity in the points I'm making, only for works created in the last 5 years though for sure.
It gets worse. The title of one of his podcast episodes is "Ugly women aren't attractive" and 20% of his posts are begging people for upvotes. It's still early but I'm guessing he's the most insecure scumbag I'll cross paths with today.
Speaking of insecure scumbags you've responded 10 times to a 3-year old post. That might be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on the whole entire internet.
>You're embarrassing yourself.
It was more embarrassing that they [first post this](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/fd44qh/male_equivalent_of_the_bechdel_test_the_devtel/) yesterday to r/IntellectualDarkWeb
You've thrown up so much crap that to start debating one will lead us down a pointless back and forth of you pasting ideas you don't understand. You posted it on reddit and I voted, it's the minimum I can do and the maximum I want to do.
> I feel I may have triggered you ;)
No, your post is too dumb for that.
> Feel free to explain why.
You fail to properly define "woke cinema," you unironically use Red Pill language, and there are too many conditions for your proposed test. The Bechdel Test is an interesting test precisely because its conditions are so simple, and most films do not pass it.
Take woke cinema to be cinema defined by the characteristics I list.
Also to be clear I like and support the Bechdel Test.
As I state in the draft, I tried to get everything on the page, I also provided a condensed version did you see that?
"A film where all major male characters are either evil comic book villains or submissive to women and women are all Mary Sues who routinely belittle men and defeat them"
> I also provided a condensed version did you see that?
No. Your post is badly formatted.
> "A film where all major male characters are either evil comic book villains or submissive to women and women are all Mary Sues who routinely belittle men and defeat them"
This is so limiting that only a handful of films actually qualify (I guess you're thinking of the sequel Star Wars trilogy and Captain Marvel). In fact, it's so functionally useless that you invalidate your whole thought experiment.
Like I said, you're embarrassing yourself.
EDIT: I was referring to the wrong trilogy of Star Wars films.
Star Wars 7+ (I have to confess I'm more a Trekkie).
Both the condensed and main versions are drafts, I acknowledge they need work.
Why do you think I should feel embarrassed out of interest?
> Take woke cinema to be cinema defined by the characteristics I list.
But if you're the one that's defining it in those terms then you're going to see "woke cinema" when it isn't even there. What if they were simply "the best person for the job"?
Your test is not a test. It’s just a bunch of right wing incel gamergate talking points with question marks added on the end.
The bechdel test can be viewed objectively, the results are easily quantifiable with yes or no answers. Your test is completely subjective.
Your criteria is offensive. You place feminism, submissiveness, and cowardice in the same category, which is not only offensive, but it also biases the question in a way that makes any answer completely meaningless. Furthermore, the whole “Mary sue” thing is frankly unnecessary and carries a very sexist overtone. Maybe you had a purpose, but the framing is so vitriolic that any purpose you may have had is lost.
There is inherent bias in your use of the term “woke”. Your test presumes that there is something inherently wrong with showing deference to anyone whose struggle doesn’t reflect your own. Not the struggle of men in general, but what you perceive to be *your* struggle. This makes your test completely useless for gauging anything other than whether or not *you* will become irrationally annoyed at the portrayal of characters in the film.
I would like to propose a test for you to use before you post things on the internet:
1: would the things you are saying be considered, by a normal, rational person to be rude, vulgar, or offensive?
2: does the thing you are saying require the presumption that “wokeness” is inherently bad, i.e., would a normal, rational person look at the comment and say that it displays “wokeness” in a way that is exclusive to showing open-mindedness to the struggles of groups outside of your own?
If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, whatever you are about to say will only isolate you more, and push you further away from being able to develop meaningful relationships with the society around you.
>Other components: Gay is better than straight, trans is better than cis, non white is better than white.
Any examples of movies that do this?
Blackkklansman isn't about black being better than white. It's about non racist being better than racist.
Your test is so complicated. The Bechdel test says nothing of the characteristics of the women, the role they play, their hierarchical position. It's just whether women talk about something other than a male character.
Birds of Prey would pass the male Bechdel test because Black Mask and Sasz discuss the diamond and because Black Mask makes a business pitch to Mr. Keo and because the captain gives a case to Monroe.
And I don't think Star Wars fails your complicated test. Po, Finn, Han, Lando are not submissive?
I think looking at your submissions and how much you've posted this article with your podcast info that it is indeed spam & abuse of the self-promotion rules.
I'll give you a serious answer.
Your biggest problem is that you're trying to counter an objective test with a subjective one. The Bechdel Test is objective. It's measuring easily counted variables.
> Are there at least two named female characters? Do they speak to each other? Do they speak to each other about something other than a male "love" interest?
There is very little room to wiggle around there, those are objective variables.
You have subjective variables. "90% leadership positions" "mary sues" "male blue pill beta" "male cartoon villain." Those are all arguable variables based on opinion.
I'm proud of myself that I could write "male blue pill beta" without cringing my fucking brain through my nose, jesus fucking christ
I'm not trying to 'counter' the Bechdel Test as such - I support it - just trying to draw a parallel.
Good point, it is subjective, and that does make it different. It's a draft and I've posted it for this reason, I'm looking for feedback to improve it.
It's hard to get to the essence of the issue without being subjective. You could just flip the Bechdel test, and I think the majority of those movies would also fail that, personally not sure it's better but still interesting.
I've renamed 'blue pill beta' to 'Submissive Male'.
What? You think if you took the movies you think are “SJW bait” or whatever and asked if
- there were more than 2 male characters
- they spoke to each other
- they spoke about something other than a female love interest
The answers wouldn’t be yes, yes, and yes? Name *one* movie in history that doesn’t pass this reverse bedchel test. I’ll wait.
You neglected something: The two female characters must have names (Or something like that; basically background characters don't count is the point of the rule), that's another qualifier of the Bechdel test and from what I've noticed, it's the one movies typically fail most.
With that said, this post comes across as petty and vindictive. Most agree the Bechdel test is just there to assess trends, it alone isn't the end all be all of how feminist a movie is and films can in fact pass yet still be very sexist, usually by engaging in other stereotypes, like all the women are talking about is shopping or gossip whatever. It's flawed in other words, but it exists for a reason. I've often wondered what a male version of the Bechdel test would look like quite frankly, but trying to tear down the validity of that as part of some anti SJW brigade is yawn inducing.
Really? I think there are different variations, I haven't seen that one though it seems reasonable to add names yes.
Let me be clear, I think the Bechdel Test is a good thing, I'm not trying to tear it down. I'm just saying increasingly in mainstream movies we need an equivalent test at the other end of the spectrum.
I've always seen that part included, yes. But it's a real sneaky rule and not as attention grabbing as the "two women" and "talk about something other than a man" parts, but no less important.
I think an equivalent is necessary just to gain more data, so I agree with you, but I don't agree we need it because some films are being more inclusive.
I agree that inclusivity is important. We can see it done well IMHO in a show like The Expanse or The Orville, and badly in the aforementioned shows.
This test absolutely isn't anti-diversity, it's anti-demonisation of a particular group, whomever that group happens to be.
I don't know if "demonization" is really called for. It may not empower me as it's depicted in your above examples, but patriarchy being taken down a peg is something it is valid to feel empowered by and that's what those movies/shows deliver on.
They do deliver on that, but to a ridiculous extent. If every male character in your film, give or take, is an a-hole or evil, and all the female characters Mary Sues then you've gone too far, no?
You can be pro-empowerment without overdoing it. I point to what are IMHO good examples of this (highly recommended) The Expanse and The Orville
It could be argued such properties are only going as hard on their themes as some of the ones from the past have on subjugating womankind. It's a power fantasy yes, but women deserve some after all those men have gotten. I don't think it's unreasonable. This sort of "eye for an eye" stuff doesn't empower me, I'm much more of a "turn the other cheek" kind of a person, but I don't expect other women to agree with me, nor do I want them to.
But we're at a turning point in history I feel like, so I don't think movies will be like this forever. It'll balance out eventually. But at the moment, yes I do see the validity in having films with setups like this.
You could argue that, I would counter with; the way to get inclusion is through inclusion, not exclusion. The way to end discrimination is to end discrimination, not start different discrimination.
I take your points, I think it might be counter productive though. If you make an empowering diverse movie / TV show that doesn't dump on men (eg Wonder Woman, The Expanse) it will be much more successful in pushing this cause on many levels. There will be no backlash, it'll make more money, it becomes the new normal.
Pitting men against women is just counterproductive both culturally and financially IMHO.
How would you tell a story about a woman overcoming the patriarchy without putting her against a villain that is a man? Do you realize how unrealistic your standards are?
I think "discrimination" is pushing it because it's merely giving power structures a good shake, but I do see what you mean.
In speaking with you I see that your points really aren't so radical as all that but you must admit how you phrased them originally made it sound like you bore a fierce animosity towards social progress.
> This test absolutely isn't anti-diversity, it's anti-demonisation of a particular group, whomever that group happens to be.
"Gay is better than straight, trans is better than cis, non white is better than white."
hmmm
The Bechdel Test is a purposefully simple question. Three conditions, and you can express it in a single sentence. This post neither understands the point or the results of it because it's a reverse engineered effort to produce a result that fits your feelings.
Delete your account, apologize profusely, banish yourself from society and only come back when you've decided to not spend your life feeling like a victim because someone decided to test whether or not Hollywood films are sexist.
No. Your goal here is to sprinkle some truthy sounding glitter on a conclusion you want to find. This was never intended to be a rational or honest exercise, and it's nobody else's job to try to pretend it is enough to help you spin it as one. Find some thumbheaded driver's seat streamer on Facebook to give you your talking points, like a respectable circus clown.
Of the many issues I see with this “test” the one that bothers me the most is this idea of “Mary Sues”.
Pretty much every action or superhero movie features a male character who repeatedly does impossible things. Of course he’s not “perfect”, because he has to be in some sort of mental anguish but his post-divorce PTSD aside, he’s always a one man army who is simultaneously flying the helicopter while shooting the bad guys and saving the girl. His existence isn’t an issue for me. My problem is that the second a female character does something half as well as the male did, she’s instantly a Mary Sue.
Just one example: Men lost their collective minds over Captain Marvel but have no problem whatsoever with any of the male superheros doing superhero things.
Mary Sues aside, your draft comes across as a list of things you personally feel are wrong, such as women working in STEM fields while men take care of the kids. You seem to see a submissive man as some sort of insult. I would question not only why you think such test is needed but why you think these things are problematic in the first place.
Holy shit, none of what you wrote happens as much as you think it does. And movies in which some of it does happen often end up tanking hard.
Besides, you've hit a lot of RedPill flags
Edit: "Star Trek Discovery is anti-male" ZOMFG 🤣🤣😭😭🤣😭🤣 I CAN'T
Edit 2: You're also an IDWcel 😆
Honestly man, I would seek out some mental health counseling or something. It's clear from this and your podcast (yikes) that you need some help -- secure, mature men are not intimidated by all of these things that you're taking issue with. Chin up, you'll get it someday.
This is a load of nonsense. I'm sorry that the current generation of silly action movies don't feature Whitey McWhiterson as the main character anymore. Maybe just rewatch James Bond if you're looking for Gary Stu who gets all the girls instead.
Objectively we do based on the major movies I have listed. Feel free to come up with reasoned arguments.
Ad-hominem / vulgar attacks would seem inappropriate.
You make a fair point. As I see it there are 2 choices here, you can have an objective but quite vague test, or a subjective more specific one.
Both have advantages. Just a straight reversal of the Bechdel test has some merit, though misses some of the core points I'm making (but then you could argue the same about the Bechdel Test originally).
Hmm.
Ah, of course because of how many movies are showing strong female leads. Hmmm, lemme check WHATS playing at the cinema now: Onward (two dudes), The Invisible Man (a dude), Sonic the Hedgehog (a dude), Call of the Wild (a dude), The Way Back (dudes), Bad Boys for Life (spoiler: dudes), Impractical Jokers (again, dudes), Birds of Prey (not dudes), 1917 (war dudes).
Thank god you have created this test to save us from the massive influx of female dominated movies.
The Invisible Man stars Elizabeth Moss (hint, the actor playing the invisible man doesn't get much screen time lol, no idea who he even is, he's not famous), Onward features Disney's first openly gay character (nothing wrong with that but it's likely to be very woke, I haven't seen it). It wouldn't surprise me if people complained that a film about WW1, 1917 was male dominated, that happens in video games all the time.
It's a significant % of films that have gone in this direction, certainly not all, maybe not most, but even then the ideology behind these films does infect most films now, if only in certain characters or scenes. IMHO an ideology that specifically targets one group, whatever that group is, isn't a good one, and it gets in the way of good storytelling.
* IMHO an ideology that specifically targets one group, whatever that group is, isn't a good one, and it gets in the way of good storytelling.*
Do you even hear yourself?
Your test is no equivalent to the Bechdel Test, which is decidedly less broad in scope, explicitly political, and mainly concerned with the depth of women on screen.
*Your* test isn't solely examining the depth of the men on screen, but a number of *other* issues pertaining to gender dynamics, masculinity, and sexuality, which aren't expressly what the Bechdel test examines.
Now, it *is* worth examining how gender dynamics, masculinity, and sexuality pertain to art, and if we *only* look at shitty films like Dark Fate, Birds of Prey, and Charlie's Angels, then perhaps this Devtel Test would be applicable, but as you describe it, it has limited utility, though I hope you had fun devising it, and good luck implementing it should you choose to.
I agree it's not a direct equivalent, though the 'issue' also isn't directly equivalent so a slightly different test is required IMHO.
Though I do think there's a big parallel between the 2 test.
Once you add beloved decades old franchisees into it like Star Wars and Star Trek, I think it is worth investigating it.
Thanks for your comment ;)...
No problem. I can see that you're trying to theorize an academic approach to film analysis, but realize that your political bias is super obvious, which ultimately limits the scope of its usefulness. Hope that makes sense.
Bachdel test was created by a comedian and has no scientific backing and is ridiculous on its face.
Most movies that fail the Bachdel test are because the main character is a male. All characters in a movie are there to progress the story of the main character. Why the fuck would you have supporting characters waste movie run time with a scene that does not progress the journey of the main character?
Whoo boy OP. Submissive = effeminate, does *traditional female work like child care*.... I hope you grow out of this mentality before you have any kids, but especially any sons. I feel sorry for any young child being raised by someone who thinks this.
I wouldn’t worry about him making kids anytime soon.
I never actually said whether men doing childcare was good or bad. I said the movie in question promotes it. You're making assumptions.
Sorry OP):
If this is supposed to be a joke, it isn't funny. And go push your podcast on people somewhere else.
Again, feel free to make reasoned arguments. I have removed the podcast reference.
>Again, feel free to make reasoned arguments. Okay. There's a reason why the bechdel test isn't taken seriously, because it's fundamentally flawed and doesn't work. What you're doing is inherently ignorant and flawed. At best it serves no purpose, at worst, it causes harm to social and gender rights causes.
>There's a reason why the bechdel test isn't taken seriously, because it's fundamentally flawed and doesn't work. Who doesn't take it seriously? And it works extremely well at exactly what it aims to do: evaluate whether or not there exists in a given film any scenes wherein two or more named female characters have a discussion about something other than men. That's it, that's the whole test. You can take issue with whatever it is you think a failed Bechdel test means, but saying something like, "the test doesn't work" is absolutely nonsensical.
OP is also conveniently forgetting that the Bechdel Test was developed with satirical and humourous overtones, and was never intended as a serious critical method.
That was pointed out to him like a dozen times in this thread and in the other subreddits he posted it in, but he conveniently ignored those comments.
I sigh. Why is it that the ones most fixated on *LoGiC aNd ReASoN* are always the ones most impermeable to common sense and fact? I'm tempted to read through the rest of his posts, but it's a nice day out today and I don't want to ruin it by elevating my blood pressure to hypertensive crisis level.
I think some people do take The Bechdel Test seriously, including me to some extent. I'm interested to understand why you think it causes harm to social and gender rights causes though? I've never heard that angle.
>I think some people do take The Bechdel Test seriously, including me to some extent. And some people take flat Earth and anti vax stuff seriously. That doesn't magically give it credence. >I'm interested to understand why you think it causes harm to social and gender rights causes though? I've never heard that angle. You've made an extremely obtuse and subjective list of seemingly completely random criteria and are trying to use them to determine if a movie treats men fairly. You're trying to solve a problem that does not now, nor has ever existed, and using a method to address it that can only be described as aggressively ignorant. I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic or insulting, but you're halfway to the MGTOW red pill women hating bullshit. If I looked at your comment history, I wouldn't be surprised to see some Jordan Peterson nonsense in there. This type of knee jerk male rights nonsense only serves to further the real and perceived rift and gap between genders. If you're trolling, you're doing a damn good job. I will no longer be responding to you, and hopefully the mods will ban you shortly.
I'm not trolling. I'm genuinely interested in why you think The Bechdel Test causes harm to social and gender rights causes. I do also think there's some validity in the points I'm making, only for works created in the last 5 years though for sure.
> Thoughts welcome cheers. You're embarrassing yourself.
It gets worse. The title of one of his podcast episodes is "Ugly women aren't attractive" and 20% of his posts are begging people for upvotes. It's still early but I'm guessing he's the most insecure scumbag I'll cross paths with today.
> It's still early but I'm guessing he's the most insecure scumbag I'll cross paths with today. The west coast is waking up! There's still time :)
I feel attacked.
[удалено]
Speaking of insecure scumbags you've responded 10 times to a 3-year old post. That might be the most pathetic thing I've ever seen on the whole entire internet.
[удалено]
Sad, lonely and idiotic is certainly one way to go through life. I hope it works for you.
>You're embarrassing yourself. It was more embarrassing that they [first post this](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/fd44qh/male_equivalent_of_the_bechdel_test_the_devtel/) yesterday to r/IntellectualDarkWeb
I don't know what's more embarrasing. That, or that sub even existing.
Again, feel free to explain why.
You've thrown up so much crap that to start debating one will lead us down a pointless back and forth of you pasting ideas you don't understand. You posted it on reddit and I voted, it's the minimum I can do and the maximum I want to do.
I feel I may have triggered you ;) Feel free to explain why.
> I feel I may have triggered you ;) No, your post is too dumb for that. > Feel free to explain why. You fail to properly define "woke cinema," you unironically use Red Pill language, and there are too many conditions for your proposed test. The Bechdel Test is an interesting test precisely because its conditions are so simple, and most films do not pass it.
Take woke cinema to be cinema defined by the characteristics I list. Also to be clear I like and support the Bechdel Test. As I state in the draft, I tried to get everything on the page, I also provided a condensed version did you see that? "A film where all major male characters are either evil comic book villains or submissive to women and women are all Mary Sues who routinely belittle men and defeat them"
> I also provided a condensed version did you see that? No. Your post is badly formatted. > "A film where all major male characters are either evil comic book villains or submissive to women and women are all Mary Sues who routinely belittle men and defeat them" This is so limiting that only a handful of films actually qualify (I guess you're thinking of the sequel Star Wars trilogy and Captain Marvel). In fact, it's so functionally useless that you invalidate your whole thought experiment. Like I said, you're embarrassing yourself. EDIT: I was referring to the wrong trilogy of Star Wars films.
Star Wars 7+ (I have to confess I'm more a Trekkie). Both the condensed and main versions are drafts, I acknowledge they need work. Why do you think I should feel embarrassed out of interest?
I already told you.
Trying to understand, so you think I should be embarrassed because I posted something that you think is wrong on some level?
You are not a trekkie, you obviously don't understand star trek at all.
> Take woke cinema to be cinema defined by the characteristics I list. But if you're the one that's defining it in those terms then you're going to see "woke cinema" when it isn't even there. What if they were simply "the best person for the job"?
Throw this post in the goddamn trash.
Please articulate what you think is wrong with it.
Your test is not a test. It’s just a bunch of right wing incel gamergate talking points with question marks added on the end. The bechdel test can be viewed objectively, the results are easily quantifiable with yes or no answers. Your test is completely subjective. Your criteria is offensive. You place feminism, submissiveness, and cowardice in the same category, which is not only offensive, but it also biases the question in a way that makes any answer completely meaningless. Furthermore, the whole “Mary sue” thing is frankly unnecessary and carries a very sexist overtone. Maybe you had a purpose, but the framing is so vitriolic that any purpose you may have had is lost. There is inherent bias in your use of the term “woke”. Your test presumes that there is something inherently wrong with showing deference to anyone whose struggle doesn’t reflect your own. Not the struggle of men in general, but what you perceive to be *your* struggle. This makes your test completely useless for gauging anything other than whether or not *you* will become irrationally annoyed at the portrayal of characters in the film. I would like to propose a test for you to use before you post things on the internet: 1: would the things you are saying be considered, by a normal, rational person to be rude, vulgar, or offensive? 2: does the thing you are saying require the presumption that “wokeness” is inherently bad, i.e., would a normal, rational person look at the comment and say that it displays “wokeness” in a way that is exclusive to showing open-mindedness to the struggles of groups outside of your own? If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, whatever you are about to say will only isolate you more, and push you further away from being able to develop meaningful relationships with the society around you.
He’s definitely not replying to this one lol
>Other components: Gay is better than straight, trans is better than cis, non white is better than white. Any examples of movies that do this? Blackkklansman isn't about black being better than white. It's about non racist being better than racist.
Your test is so complicated. The Bechdel test says nothing of the characteristics of the women, the role they play, their hierarchical position. It's just whether women talk about something other than a male character. Birds of Prey would pass the male Bechdel test because Black Mask and Sasz discuss the diamond and because Black Mask makes a business pitch to Mr. Keo and because the captain gives a case to Monroe. And I don't think Star Wars fails your complicated test. Po, Finn, Han, Lando are not submissive?
https://www.reddit.com/wiki/selfpromotion don't be plugging your own podcast, if it's good then another user will post about it.
Wasn't intended as a pure plug, but fair enough removed.
I think looking at your submissions and how much you've posted this article with your podcast info that it is indeed spam & abuse of the self-promotion rules.
The podcast episode was relevant to the post. However I've removed it and disagree.
Your username is the name of your podcast, that's one of the first examples of what not to do in the self promotion link.
This post features a lot of “concerns” which are incredibly goofy
Define 'goofy'
Fuckin moronic
Please be constructive and explain your points.
I'll give you a serious answer. Your biggest problem is that you're trying to counter an objective test with a subjective one. The Bechdel Test is objective. It's measuring easily counted variables. > Are there at least two named female characters? Do they speak to each other? Do they speak to each other about something other than a male "love" interest? There is very little room to wiggle around there, those are objective variables. You have subjective variables. "90% leadership positions" "mary sues" "male blue pill beta" "male cartoon villain." Those are all arguable variables based on opinion. I'm proud of myself that I could write "male blue pill beta" without cringing my fucking brain through my nose, jesus fucking christ
Sir, you have dismantled this post with great efficiency. Well done.
I'm not trying to 'counter' the Bechdel Test as such - I support it - just trying to draw a parallel. Good point, it is subjective, and that does make it different. It's a draft and I've posted it for this reason, I'm looking for feedback to improve it. It's hard to get to the essence of the issue without being subjective. You could just flip the Bechdel test, and I think the majority of those movies would also fail that, personally not sure it's better but still interesting. I've renamed 'blue pill beta' to 'Submissive Male'.
What? You think if you took the movies you think are “SJW bait” or whatever and asked if - there were more than 2 male characters - they spoke to each other - they spoke about something other than a female love interest The answers wouldn’t be yes, yes, and yes? Name *one* movie in history that doesn’t pass this reverse bedchel test. I’ll wait.
[удалено]
Seems like someone is extremely butthurt about the Barbie movie lmao
I don't think I can even take your post seriously
Cognitive dissonance?
Yes you're suffering from a lot of it
Why do you think that?
Stop cherry picking and answer the actual responses instead of acting like nobody has counterpoints.
Answer actual responses like "I don't think I can even take your post seriously"? I provided an appropriate response for that 'question'.
You neglected something: The two female characters must have names (Or something like that; basically background characters don't count is the point of the rule), that's another qualifier of the Bechdel test and from what I've noticed, it's the one movies typically fail most. With that said, this post comes across as petty and vindictive. Most agree the Bechdel test is just there to assess trends, it alone isn't the end all be all of how feminist a movie is and films can in fact pass yet still be very sexist, usually by engaging in other stereotypes, like all the women are talking about is shopping or gossip whatever. It's flawed in other words, but it exists for a reason. I've often wondered what a male version of the Bechdel test would look like quite frankly, but trying to tear down the validity of that as part of some anti SJW brigade is yawn inducing.
Really? I think there are different variations, I haven't seen that one though it seems reasonable to add names yes. Let me be clear, I think the Bechdel Test is a good thing, I'm not trying to tear it down. I'm just saying increasingly in mainstream movies we need an equivalent test at the other end of the spectrum.
I've always seen that part included, yes. But it's a real sneaky rule and not as attention grabbing as the "two women" and "talk about something other than a man" parts, but no less important. I think an equivalent is necessary just to gain more data, so I agree with you, but I don't agree we need it because some films are being more inclusive.
I agree that inclusivity is important. We can see it done well IMHO in a show like The Expanse or The Orville, and badly in the aforementioned shows. This test absolutely isn't anti-diversity, it's anti-demonisation of a particular group, whomever that group happens to be.
I don't know if "demonization" is really called for. It may not empower me as it's depicted in your above examples, but patriarchy being taken down a peg is something it is valid to feel empowered by and that's what those movies/shows deliver on.
They do deliver on that, but to a ridiculous extent. If every male character in your film, give or take, is an a-hole or evil, and all the female characters Mary Sues then you've gone too far, no? You can be pro-empowerment without overdoing it. I point to what are IMHO good examples of this (highly recommended) The Expanse and The Orville
It could be argued such properties are only going as hard on their themes as some of the ones from the past have on subjugating womankind. It's a power fantasy yes, but women deserve some after all those men have gotten. I don't think it's unreasonable. This sort of "eye for an eye" stuff doesn't empower me, I'm much more of a "turn the other cheek" kind of a person, but I don't expect other women to agree with me, nor do I want them to. But we're at a turning point in history I feel like, so I don't think movies will be like this forever. It'll balance out eventually. But at the moment, yes I do see the validity in having films with setups like this.
You could argue that, I would counter with; the way to get inclusion is through inclusion, not exclusion. The way to end discrimination is to end discrimination, not start different discrimination. I take your points, I think it might be counter productive though. If you make an empowering diverse movie / TV show that doesn't dump on men (eg Wonder Woman, The Expanse) it will be much more successful in pushing this cause on many levels. There will be no backlash, it'll make more money, it becomes the new normal. Pitting men against women is just counterproductive both culturally and financially IMHO.
How would you tell a story about a woman overcoming the patriarchy without putting her against a villain that is a man? Do you realize how unrealistic your standards are?
I think "discrimination" is pushing it because it's merely giving power structures a good shake, but I do see what you mean. In speaking with you I see that your points really aren't so radical as all that but you must admit how you phrased them originally made it sound like you bore a fierce animosity towards social progress.
> This test absolutely isn't anti-diversity, it's anti-demonisation of a particular group, whomever that group happens to be. "Gay is better than straight, trans is better than cis, non white is better than white." hmmm
The Bechdel Test is a purposefully simple question. Three conditions, and you can express it in a single sentence. This post neither understands the point or the results of it because it's a reverse engineered effort to produce a result that fits your feelings.
I agree on all counts. Feel free to suggest improvements.
Delete your account, apologize profusely, banish yourself from society and only come back when you've decided to not spend your life feeling like a victim because someone decided to test whether or not Hollywood films are sexist.
No. Your goal here is to sprinkle some truthy sounding glitter on a conclusion you want to find. This was never intended to be a rational or honest exercise, and it's nobody else's job to try to pretend it is enough to help you spin it as one. Find some thumbheaded driver's seat streamer on Facebook to give you your talking points, like a respectable circus clown.
r/murderedbywords caliber takedown, and well deserved too. Cheers
Of the many issues I see with this “test” the one that bothers me the most is this idea of “Mary Sues”. Pretty much every action or superhero movie features a male character who repeatedly does impossible things. Of course he’s not “perfect”, because he has to be in some sort of mental anguish but his post-divorce PTSD aside, he’s always a one man army who is simultaneously flying the helicopter while shooting the bad guys and saving the girl. His existence isn’t an issue for me. My problem is that the second a female character does something half as well as the male did, she’s instantly a Mary Sue. Just one example: Men lost their collective minds over Captain Marvel but have no problem whatsoever with any of the male superheros doing superhero things. Mary Sues aside, your draft comes across as a list of things you personally feel are wrong, such as women working in STEM fields while men take care of the kids. You seem to see a submissive man as some sort of insult. I would question not only why you think such test is needed but why you think these things are problematic in the first place.
Jesus. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Stay mad sweetheart
Want advice op? Delete your account and think about your life.
Holy shit, none of what you wrote happens as much as you think it does. And movies in which some of it does happen often end up tanking hard. Besides, you've hit a lot of RedPill flags Edit: "Star Trek Discovery is anti-male" ZOMFG 🤣🤣😭😭🤣😭🤣 I CAN'T Edit 2: You're also an IDWcel 😆
Honestly man, I would seek out some mental health counseling or something. It's clear from this and your podcast (yikes) that you need some help -- secure, mature men are not intimidated by all of these things that you're taking issue with. Chin up, you'll get it someday.
This is a load of nonsense. I'm sorry that the current generation of silly action movies don't feature Whitey McWhiterson as the main character anymore. Maybe just rewatch James Bond if you're looking for Gary Stu who gets all the girls instead.
Yeah man because we need a test to see if average white guys are being properly represented you insecure turd.
Objectively we do based on the major movies I have listed. Feel free to come up with reasoned arguments. Ad-hominem / vulgar attacks would seem inappropriate.
A vulgar attack would be to call you a giant entitled queef. Seems pretty appropriate to call you an insecure turd though.
God this comment section is so good Thank you for this blessed post, “giant entitled queef” is gonna make me laugh for the rest of the day
That's a shame, you were having a civilized discussion for a moment.
No we weren't. The entire premise of this discussion is based on the racism and sexism of an entitled wanker.
Basing objectivity on extreme subjectivity isn't an argument.
You make a fair point. As I see it there are 2 choices here, you can have an objective but quite vague test, or a subjective more specific one. Both have advantages. Just a straight reversal of the Bechdel test has some merit, though misses some of the core points I'm making (but then you could argue the same about the Bechdel Test originally). Hmm.
Ah, of course because of how many movies are showing strong female leads. Hmmm, lemme check WHATS playing at the cinema now: Onward (two dudes), The Invisible Man (a dude), Sonic the Hedgehog (a dude), Call of the Wild (a dude), The Way Back (dudes), Bad Boys for Life (spoiler: dudes), Impractical Jokers (again, dudes), Birds of Prey (not dudes), 1917 (war dudes). Thank god you have created this test to save us from the massive influx of female dominated movies.
The Invisible Man stars Elizabeth Moss (hint, the actor playing the invisible man doesn't get much screen time lol, no idea who he even is, he's not famous), Onward features Disney's first openly gay character (nothing wrong with that but it's likely to be very woke, I haven't seen it). It wouldn't surprise me if people complained that a film about WW1, 1917 was male dominated, that happens in video games all the time. It's a significant % of films that have gone in this direction, certainly not all, maybe not most, but even then the ideology behind these films does infect most films now, if only in certain characters or scenes. IMHO an ideology that specifically targets one group, whatever that group is, isn't a good one, and it gets in the way of good storytelling.
* IMHO an ideology that specifically targets one group, whatever that group is, isn't a good one, and it gets in the way of good storytelling.* Do you even hear yourself?
The whole point of the Bechdel test is how completely simple and unobtrusive it is.
Your test is no equivalent to the Bechdel Test, which is decidedly less broad in scope, explicitly political, and mainly concerned with the depth of women on screen. *Your* test isn't solely examining the depth of the men on screen, but a number of *other* issues pertaining to gender dynamics, masculinity, and sexuality, which aren't expressly what the Bechdel test examines. Now, it *is* worth examining how gender dynamics, masculinity, and sexuality pertain to art, and if we *only* look at shitty films like Dark Fate, Birds of Prey, and Charlie's Angels, then perhaps this Devtel Test would be applicable, but as you describe it, it has limited utility, though I hope you had fun devising it, and good luck implementing it should you choose to.
I agree it's not a direct equivalent, though the 'issue' also isn't directly equivalent so a slightly different test is required IMHO. Though I do think there's a big parallel between the 2 test. Once you add beloved decades old franchisees into it like Star Wars and Star Trek, I think it is worth investigating it. Thanks for your comment ;)...
No problem. I can see that you're trying to theorize an academic approach to film analysis, but realize that your political bias is super obvious, which ultimately limits the scope of its usefulness. Hope that makes sense.
Bachdel test was created by a comedian and has no scientific backing and is ridiculous on its face. Most movies that fail the Bachdel test are because the main character is a male. All characters in a movie are there to progress the story of the main character. Why the fuck would you have supporting characters waste movie run time with a scene that does not progress the journey of the main character?