Just M-W-F strips this week, folks. Sorry, this is where the bronchitis I got three weeks back caught up to me.
I try to maintain a three week buffer as a rule not just out of OCD, but because these strips are much more complex to draw than my usual fare, and not having that sense of “OH MY GOD I NEED TO DRAW TOMORROW’S NOW” urgency lets me relax and do them perfectly.
(Even still, you can probably still tell that this week’s strips weren’t drawn on my best days.)
Loading ...
I bet people at YALE would have made a better test.
Nah. The Bechdel test is very very very basic and VERY easy to pass.
Some stories are exempt from it because of circumstance (like a story of a lumberjack who is the only character in the story )
but otherwise if something fails the test its very very bad.
At least twilight has a female lead protagonists who literally forces an entire community of powerful beings to do as she wills simply because she is open minded and humble and thus they like her, despite her having no physical power to manipulate them. And the most powerful thing about her before she gets that Upgrade in the last book is her MIND, and how unstoppable it is.
Not to mention the symbolism of her power manifesting in vamp form as a manifestation of her want and need to protect those she loves…which she has been doing since book 1.
I’m still wracking my brains trying to figure out at what point Twilight Eclipse passes the Bechdel test yes females talk but I don’t remember any time in the later books that it wasn’t about a guy.
I’m guessing they talk about vampire… stuff? Do guys still count against a positive result if you consider them food instead of sexual objects?
Wait, Leslie’s seen Twilight? Is she a fan or just likes to familiarise herself?
My guess is that it was a “familiarize yourself” thing.
Or because Alice is hot.
I would guess that she would review it to teach her class, it is a very modern media example of gender stereotype, and is popular with women despite placing them in very anti-feminist gender roles.
Yeah, kind of like how I said “I shouldn’t mock Twilight unless I’ve read the books.”
BTW, turns out your eyes can heal after you try to claw them out. Glad I found that out.
I felt that way too, then I read the first two pages and I couldn’t read anymore. It was just not interesting.
You were wise to stop.
I made it through a couple chapters. I think I stopped shortly after the alleged teenager protagonist complained about getting a free truck.
I think that’s about how far I made it too.
And yes, “Wait, Leslie has seen ‘Twilight’?” was my first thought upon reading this as well.
I read all four of them. I had to see for myself. Worst books I ever read. Each book is worse than the previous one. The fourth one involves the sparklepire dude turning the dumb chick into a sparklepire and then biting thru her uterus to get their baby out. And then the werewolf dude falls in love with the infant. Somehow, the movies are worse than the books. I only watched them cuz the Rifftrax was pretty funny.
Yeah, Twilight is pretty much the worst thing ever.
The last book ramps the “sick and twisted” up to 11. I’m not sure which is worse, cesarean by fang or a grown man saying he’s romantically in love with an infant.
*shudders*
I read it…but I did it for the horror and blood…and the cool powers- not the romance. That torture scene at the end of book one was fantastic, but you’d be right in saying it was one of the only good things about it.
The other parts I liked reading were the different Cullen members pasts…but again, you can get that sort of violent storytelling anywhere…and without the shallow lovey vomit to boot.
The twilight series did suck, but “The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner” was pretty good, it had all the elements of the Stephenie Meyer vampire concept, but they were actual vampires who hunted humans. And there was no “sparkly vampires in wuv” bull.
I read it through hoping it would grow into something suitably vampiric and bloodthirsty and dark. It did not. It was sad. Though if you think about the fact that the primary relationship shows nearly every kind of bad relationship cues, it’s a bit better. Anne Rice still wins no contest.
This has happened to me several times with Moby Dick. So boring, but Patrick Stewart made the end sound sooooo good.
One day white whale!!!!
If you want a synopsis, search for Mark Reads Twilight So You Don’t Have To. Think of it as a chronicle of the descent into near-madness of a blogger who once asked himself: “Well, let’s see what all this Twilight fuss is about, anyway.”
I understand he’s now gone on to do some other books that aren’t as mind-wrenchingly bad.
Blogging Twilight with Dan Bergstrom on sparknotes is also hilarious, and he’s gone through all the books.
You are now possibly my favorite person now (next to Dan, of course.)
Yeah, all my friends were bongoing to me on how I shouldn’t bash twilight cuz I hadn’t read it. So I tried. And discovered that there is such a thing as hell on earth. Ever since I have turned to Dan’s blogging to get me through the rest, and I’ve spent many a day debating with women in their 40’s about the literary pox that is Twilight (I’m 16, and feel ashamed of them.)
Once I thought, “Well, there has to be SOMETHING good about them, hasn’t there?” and flipped through the first one… straight to the part where he shows off how he sparkles in the sun.
STRAIGHT BACK ON THE SHELF
THIS. THIS is how you treat infamous books. Don’t give them more sales!
It’s probably a good idea for Leslie to be aware of where her students are getting their ideas of gender roles, and Twilight is bound to have influenced some of her students. (It wouldn’t surprise me if she’d watched, say, Jersey Shore for the same reason.)
Want the scarier revelation?
This means David has seen Twilight: Eclipse.
(or just cheated and went to the bechdel test site, either/or)
I watch Twilight movies just to MST3K them to death. Seriously, my whole family sat down and watched it and made fun of it.
I love family gatherings.
You know they still make stuff? I just realized awhile ago but they have a website where you can download mp3s of them commenting through movies. They have all of the Twilight series and they are hilarious. Tis called rifftrax
OLD NEWS BRO
But yeah, I’ve known about em for a while now.
Personally I’m more disturbed and dismayed by the notion that the only way Leslie could know these things is if WILLIS knows these things. He’s been risking life and sanity to see what is universally considered the worst movie in a series of pretty damned terrible movies, all for the sake of a comic strip! My heart goes out to you sir.
Joyce, hon, Yale hasn’t been considered liberal since people wore buckles on their shoes and hats.
True perhaps, but what about Indiana University, where this comic takes place?
Wait, Willis, how do you know that Twillight: Eclipse passes the test…?
Internet: http://bechdeltest.com/
mind you, that’s also the site that ADDED “named” to the character requirements, something not in the original test.
It’s sort of implied by the original formulation, though; making it explicit just cuts down on quibbling over meaningless edge cases like “this film has one scene where two nameless female extras are briefly visible conversing in the background, therefore it TOTALLY passes the test”.
Except for the fact that an important character can go unnamed in a film, or an important conversation can be between two characters, one of which is not named.
A “named” character in a film means a character with a film credit at the end of the movie. ‘Woman Driving Taxi’ is a named character, and is acknowledged by that name in the closing credits crawl.
The test of whether or not it ‘counts’ comes down to if it’s important enough a part to give the actress in question her own credit line at the end of the movie, in other words. It doesn’t mean it has to be “Felicia Throckmorton IV.”
(Another reasonable ‘test’ for whether something counts or not is if the part counts towards SAG membership, but that would be a touch obtuse. Though I have to imagine someone would create a website tracking it. Or at least a field on IMDB. 😉 )
Except for the fact that the website doesn’t count characters whom are named in the credits, or whom are given “non-name” names. Hence several scores on there.
“Woman driving Taxi” would not count as a character under the website’s version even if she were the protagonist.
That’s an eminently sensible way to parse the requirement, and quite possibly the intent, but looking through the site, there are a number of movies where people argue they fail because a character’s only named in the credits, or only by their role. (The Adjustment Bureau and I Am Legend come to mind immediately. To be fair, both these movies are listed as passing.)
Ah – I see. You don’t know what the term “named character” means. The phrase has a specific meaning in film jargon – it doesn’t mean that the character literally has to have a personal name that’s spoken on-screen.
See my response to him. It’s not about film jargon it’s about 1. what the original rule was, and 2. What they’re doing on the site.
If the character is important to the plot, even if she is never given a name, that is very different from someone having a role so minor that their only credit is as “woman screaming at urinating dog.”
Think of Fight Club, Ed Norton’s character. Would he count toward an “inverse” Bechdel test? He is unnamed, yet a hugely important character. “Named,” as interpreted by that site, might not mean “credited,” but it also doesn’t mean “explicitly given a name.”
Besides which… That site has numerous people arguing over whether or not Black Swan passes. The more blatantly a film passes this test, the deeper people will dig for technicalities on which they feel it doesn’t. I doubt the community’s use of “named” is particularly consistent.
The original rules aren’t some founding document whose creator(s) are dead or part of a holy book that was divinely inspired at the time it was written. The person who first popularized the list seems to agree with its current form.
I really need to stop reading the comments on the Bechdel Test website. Some of the people posting there seem to have a need to flaunt their lack of reading comprehension by posting on every single movie that passes that it’s “STILL SEXIST.” Sometimes I wonder if I’m just addicted to getting angry at the internet.
I love leslies “screwing with the student” face in panel three.
FAAAAAACE!
I’m pretty sure screwing students as a lecturer is against school policy.
….
Oh wait you meant THAT. Never mind.
Sadly, I bet Dorothy is very wrong about that…
Really? Twilight? Passing the Bechdel Test? >_>
…Okay, I’m just going from what I hear, but STIIIIIILL…
Honestly almost any character with a female lead will pass this test, unless she’s literally the only woman in the movie. Eventually she’s GOTTA have a conversation with her mom, buddy, aunt, whatever, and it won’t be about a dude.
Save for Bella, whose every thought is “Edward Edward Edward Edward…”
@ Jetstream: Not necessarily. Neither Tomb Raider film passes the test.
“unless she’s literally the only woman in the movie.”
That’d be why.
It would be surprising if the Twilight movies didn’t pass. They were written as dark romance novels for a young adult audience — i.e., for tween/teen girls. In order to establish Bella as a geeky outcast who feels excluded from the world, you pretty well have to have her interacting with other high school students, particularly other girls and teachers.
Really, the Romance genre — at least, the old school, highly non-feminist (or even antifeminist) examples — pretty much all pass the Bechdel test. They were written for women, with an eye to what was understood women wanted out of a book. Find a Mid-seventies Harlequin about a Barbary Coast pirate kidnapping a Governor’s Daughter and carrying her off to a cheerful and happy libertarian pirate colony where she can cast off her self-imposed bonds, break the chains of wretched obligation tying her to Percy Whitebottom of her Majesty’s Navy, and devote her life to pleasing her man, and you’ll find a good six wise old nannies, saucy but kind barmaids, standoffish ex-lovers of the pirate who learn to like our heroine for herself and stand by her side, and so on….
(Note I say ‘understood’ what women out of a book above because most of the time, women can’t be pigeonholed so easily, but I digress.)
That is kinda what pisses me off about Twilight. This is all rehashed romance crap. Woman torn between the high class but aloof lover and the passionate and earthy but dangerous lover is pretty much the oldest goddamn story ever told, and yet people seem to think its innovative when you make them vampires and werewolves. Sigh.
does she know bechdel-passing movies by heart, or did she just pull that off the top of her head? either way its impressive
Twilight is a very popular franchise, that has been widely critiqued in feminist circles. I’d have been shocked if she hadn’t known anything about it.
Joyce is way too excited about her movie passing the Bechdel Test.
Oh, Joyce.
Yay!
Thank you thank you thank you Willis! Now that she made the point that the test isn’t an instant perfect indicator of feminism, and I know that you have a surprising amount of sway among us geeks, I can die happy.
Well, not die. I can sit here comfortably and be happy.
I’m not dying for you, Willis.
Wait, put down the knife!
oh, no.
Actually, she’s not even using the original test, so her point becomes a little more interesting.
Everybody at Yale is on Team Jacob.
Apparently, Team Riker is big among Massholes.
As opposed to Team Worf? I am confused. Who are the players? What is the trophy?
Man, it’s sad to be all alone on Team Nog.
Come on, Bella — big ears, big heart, right? And he’s Ferengi, so culturally he’ll strip you naked, prevent you from reading, have you pre-chew his food and have you spend hours rubbing his ears. So it’s already a step up!
Sweet! A trekkie conversation!
Erm, Joyce, not a good way to come across as a Christian, just saying.
So he’s from Georgia?
So does this mean all that crap from the comments on last strip will stop?
Hah, I’m only fooling, I know the internet can never not argue when it comes to feminism.
You say crap. I say fertilizer.
I say “maize.”
And on a triple word score too. Well done.
I’m surprised no one in the class mentioned shoujo anime, many shows og that genre pass the test with flying colours.
As a side question, what sort of colours are flying colours anyway?
Sky blue with a rainbow-colored mane and tail.
Incidentally, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic passes the Bechdel Test.
In every episode!
Flags?
No, seriously, the more I think about that expression the more I realize it only makes sense if “colors” is defined as “flag”, but I’m too lazy to Google it.
Yes, ‘colours’ in this case, means ‘flags’.
‘We came off with flying colours.’ George Farquar, ‘The Beaux’s Stratagem . Victorious; extremely successful. The term comes from the practice of a victorious fleet sailing into port with flags flying from all the mastheads. By 1700 or so it was being used figuratively, signifying any kind of triumph.” From “Fighting Words: From War, Rebellion, and other Combative Capers” by Christine Ammer (NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, Ill., 1989, 1999).
And now you know.
(which is half the battle.)
Dankeschon! I know I should have wikied or googled the question, but it’s nice to have someone answer it at times.
GI JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEE
They weren’t trying to pass the test. They were naming their favorite movies.
They didn’t even know what the test was going to be (unless they guessed, which was harder for them since we knew the title and she just kinda sprang that question on them out of nowhere).
How does Twilight pass?? Most of the convos are “Blah blah blah Edward!”
“Most”, but obviously not all. Hence Leslie’s point.
Actually most of the convos are “blah blah blah Bella”. I’m not sure it would pass the Reverse Bechdel test.
Anyway, it passes the normal Bechdel because it fulfills the three rules mentioned by Leslie.
“Blah blah blah Bella,” has me reimagining the whole franchise with someone playing Edward as a bad impression of Bela Lugosi impression. Preferably someone felt, like Count Blah.
Huh. Naming the protagonist of a story featuring vampires Bella. That’s almost funny. A pity it wasn’t set in Lugos, France.
The hell Dorothy? Yale only likes feminist movies? Bah, I’ve never liked the concept of feminism anyway … you can’t make one gender out to be better and then start asking for equality. Doesn’t work that way.
This fake version of feminism you made up sure sounds terrible and wrong!
It’s a fake version of feminism that a lot of people have adopted, sadly.
Good feminism: “Everybody is equal, so women should be treated equally.”
Bad feminism: “Womyn are better than pig-men. KILL THE PIG-MEN!”
The problem is that, like with pretty much any political, religious, social, ethnic, or gender group, it’s the crazy extremists who get to define it for everybody else.
The vast majority of the people who have adopted the bad version are people who hate feminism and are deliberately lying about what it really is (example: Rush “Oxycontin” Limbaugh).
Good feminism = feminism
Bad feminism = radical feminism
Sort of like how:
Good Catholicism = Catholicism
Bad Catholicism = Pedophilia
Let’s not confuse terms, people!
Exactly.
Good Muslim = Islam
Bad Muslim = Suicide Bomber
Good Christian = Christian
Bad Christian = that nutjob who alwyas gets on the news
Good Nerd = has interesting interests
Bad Nerd = feels up girls in the comic shop
Good Burger = Bad film
Bad Burger = Nonexistent film
Good Cop = Plies info out of you while pretending to restrain his buddy
Bad Cop = Pretends he can cut off your fingers, but can’t.
and yeah, most of the bad feminists I’ve met genuinely believe it. Like, I consistently run into people who believe that “It isn’t abuse if it’s a woman hitting a man. Ever. It’s a blow for equal rights!”
Sadly, I always lose those debates, too.
Have you tried violence?
Violence against women is BAD.
Even if they’re “womyn.”
I now want a movie named bad burger.
Arguing against crazy is a losing proposition. You’re using logic and they’re using the phases of the moon. It’s like trying to talk to someone who doesn’t speak English, then trying to speak louder and louder assuming that will help.
“Welcome to Good Burger! Home of the Good Burger! Can I take your order?” XD
DANG IT. ^^;;
Dude, radical feminism is awesome, and I say this as a guy with a penis and everything.
I agree with David Willis’ characterization of good versus bad feminism wholeheartedly.
One of the important aspects of feminism for me is that people are able to make life choices free from judgment. Radical feminism, in my experience, involves LOTS of judging women’s life choices.
I’m impressed with how well you summarized that, noting that one is about people and the other about women.
Yes, precisely. 🙂
Damn shame about the terms employed, really. The word itself sounds like it means ‘FAVOURING women over men’. If you have to do some study to realise that it actually means ‘considering women EQUAL to men’, it’s not surprising so much misunderstanding pervades the debate.
I’d rather use a term like ‘egalitarian’, but that carries irritating unrelated economic connotations too. Ah hell, maybe one day I’ll just be able to characterise myself as ‘a person’ and be done with it. Here’s hoping.
It’s mainly because while sexism can hurt anyone it just happens to women more and is more serious. Also the first movements were getting women rights and choices because they had and have much fewer than men. Men can get sexism too, but the ones women encounter are wider ranging and more engrained and has more of a history to it. While racism isn’t exactly the same the fact racism can happen to white people from minorities- still sucks but there’s less of an implication and less of a sordid history when say a minority mouths off a white person on race than the other way around. Said people are still jackasses but it’s more of the history and implications behind it overall. Hence raising womens position is concentrated on because their need is simply greater and men are in a more privlidged position anyway. Plus eventually it can help men in the bargin to stop the ‘labeling’ of specific work being for specific genders etc.
I mean it sucks that a man feels he can’t be a house-parent for example (because of society and the idea of ‘machoism’) but it’s much worse if that same role the -only- choice a woman has which is usually more law based instilled in the past or in societies around the world. Rather than in the mens case which is an unfortunate by-product of society and forcing women into these roles to begin with. “Womens work” not being for the man or the untruth that it somehow makes him less of a man to be a house-parent or nurse or whatever.
However some things do need more concentration on specifically- like the bullshit that a man not being able to be raped by a woman for example. Or that beating up and abusing men is a-okay if you’re female or that such victims are ignored as ‘weak’. ALL domestic violence has to be fought against no matter the genders of the perpetrators and victims.
“ALL domestic violence has to be fought against no matter the genders of the perpetrators and victims.”
Okay, see, I’ve tried using that argument, and it always fails, and I lose when I do. The ONE problem I can see with this subject is that, so far, I haven’t seen a “well-reasoned, intelligent” argument why it’s still abuse if done to a man. It has to be something that answers all counter-points and cannot be attacked or discounted in any way, or it’s simply not proof enough.
Saying “That’s stupid” loses you the debate.
Saying “Well, people should be equal” loses you the debate, because it’s a FACT that men have enjoyed positiiong of high-power abuse for centuries, so beating on them thus counts as “Equality” (according to this mindset).
I use those arguments, but I always end up losing the abuse debates. I’d kind of like to find something that proves abuse is abuse no matter who does it and no matter who the target is, but it’s kind of difficult.
A woman beating a man because men have, historically, hit women is not equality. It’s revenge.
Equality is NO ONE getting hit, because that is not a good thing to do to ANYONE, regardless of gender, age, or culture.
I tried using that argument, and it got countered with:
“What, so you’re against all revolutions? All slave uprisings? You never want the oppressed to stand up against their oppressors?”
This putting me in the position where I can only defend my position if I condemn every time people rise up against oppressors.
How so? The prior examples were provoked by oppressive cultures. A case where a completely objective observer would determine a woman attacking a boyfriend or spouse was not in self-defense is an entirely different thing.
Radical feminism != misandry (hatred of men). I’ve never met a misandrist who wasn’t a straight woman in a bad relationship who understood the concept of feminism well enough to get that it wasn’t just “women are awesome but sometimes are victims of cultural sexism.” The ones I’ve met all hate their husbands/boyfriend and think that all men are XYZ. Feminism hates stereotypes based on gender.
I’m probably on a radical end of feminism. I’m against little boys picking on each other over who’s a sissy, or little girls feeling like that have to behave certain ways just because they’re girls. I’d rather our culture treat individuals as individuals, not as men or women. That’s what radical feminism is, it’s egalitarianism to the root of our society and culture.
I mean “a straight woman in a bad relationship who understood the concept of feminism only well enough to get that “women are awesome but sometimes are victims of cultural sexism” but not well enough to understand that sexism hurt men too”
Interesting. If I told you that a lot of the misandry I hear comes from a straight woman in a good relationship (he worships her, would so absolutely anything for her, and will attack anybody who speaks negatively of her), how would that influence things? I mean, the guy lives for her and nothing else, but she very firmly and vocally believes that it’s okay for a woman to hit her husband, as “it’s not abuse. Men have had it coming for a long time, and it’s never wrong when a woman does it.” I don’t believe she’s been in any bad relationships, either.
People tend to pick up their worldviews like a dog picks up fleas – sometimes they just sort of accrue even without something like a bad relationship to define them.
And now I have to play the devil’s advocate:
Can you disprove the above statement concerning domestic violence/abuse and support your “sexism hurts men” statement? Can you do so logically and soundly, without resorting to “this is stupid?” Can you provethat discrimination against men even IS sexism, and not simply causing equality by making up for lost time? I’m asking this because I’d really like to have the answerrs, as I always horribly lose these kinds of debates.
It’s easy. Sexism (not feminism) teaches men that they aren’t very affected by physical pain, that their pain is invalid/not serious business. Men should just man-up if a woman hits them. Because of this sexist belief about what a man feels, domestic abuse against a man is trivial. A feminist knows that men and women aren’t very dissimilar, save some biological differences (which can be argued away by accepting transgendered persons as the gender they identify with), and cultural differences (we’re all products of our culture to a certain extent), which they are raised with socially. I agree that violence against men should be taken very seriously, and isn’t a joke. Luckily men aren’t as likely to wind up in the ER or morgue, but it’s hard for them to get social support to leave their abusive spouses. It’s a problem, I can’t even begin to brainstorm what a workable short-term solution for it is sadly.
I’m a lesbian. I like most men I meet. I haven’t had a perfect history with men (abusive dad, ex-boyfriend before I came out who thought consent was optional), but I believe the men who did me harm do not represent all men, or even most.
The person I know who hates men the most has a bad relationship with her husband, where he ignores that she’s got health problems and saddles her with all of the childrearing, etc.
I always thought Bad Catholic= Raising your daughter to be a psychopathic telekinetic who gets bullied at school until she snaps and goes on a murderous rampage at the prom after she’s covered in pig’s blood.
This sort of stereotyping is why I don’t identify as a feminist anymore. I say I’m a gender equalist.
It’s the kind of feminism my high school English teachers were pushing way back when. Oh, all the times they droned on about how men were slobbering savages and the world was so much better in the distant past when women ruled everything, before the men tore it all down… So yeah. Not a day passed when those of a vagina deficient state weren’t reminded about how awful we were for having penii.
Heh, your post reminds me of the episode of Sliders I recently watched; the one where women ruled over men. Those views were brought up, in pretty much the same words.
The thing I found most entertaining about it was imaging a how the women took over. They stated explicitly that the men were power hungry, violent brutes who went to war endlessly. And that women were peaceful pacifists who took over when they got tired of it all.
I think they missed a step in the story. What usually happens when people without guns and who never practice violence try to take absolute power away from people with guns and a long history of murdering anyone who challenges them?
Those sort of ideas come up more often than I think any of us are really comfortable with. Take any point of disagreement and you can end up having an “us vs them” situation. People forget what they’re arguing about and fixate on “winning” and “losing”.
Predjudice is idiotic from any direction. Folks who try to wrap theirs in some sort of noble flag are more disgusting to me than those who are just idiots.
You are 31 flavors of awesome Ser Willis
What the poop, this isn’t where I stuck this reply, IGNORE ME
Please take a women’s studies class, because what you just described isn’t feminism. It’s an exaggerated distortion of feminism that has never existed, except possibly in the minds of idiots.
I’ve met my share of lunatic extremist feminists (see below). But the vast majority of feminists I know are, like my mother, totally sane and in favor of equality.
It’s just that when you meet a crazy person of any stripe, you never forget them. I mean come on, how many people here think that all Republicans are nazis, or all Democrats are commies?
Well yes I know what feminism is supposed to be … I just haven’t met any true feminist … only the poptart and radical ones.
Hmm. Yes. Tell us all about these radical feminists you’ve met.
Sure thing. In every case when I heard these, they were part of a conversation that ultimately proved the person who said them to NOT BE JOKING AT ALL.
People at university:
“I think they should take away the male right to vote. They’re just animals, anyway.”
“I disagree. You can’t rape a man.”
“You’re just saying that because you’re male, and your brain can’t function properly.”
“If there were no men in the world, there would never be any wars.”
“There is no such thing as female-on-male physical abuse. When a woman hits her husband, it’s like the little kid who always gets picked on standing up to his bully. it’s a good thing, and everybody cheers him on.”
“Did you hear? Scientists have finally figured out a way to reproduce without men! Won’t that be awesome! We can get rid of the bastards!”
“Women are closer to the goddess, and thus are truly divine. Men are foolish creatures made from the soil, and cannot be trusted.”
“I voted for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman, and women are always good leaders. I hate Obama, he’s so anti-woman!”
“I think that women should be given preferential treatment in the workplace. You should hire a woman above a man every time if you have a choice.”
Now granted, there is always a ton of misogyny directed against women. But I just want to point out that the rabid “feminazi” actually isn’t a complete lie. They exist, and they make good feminists look bad.
Are you saying that you’ve met more “bad” feminists than good? Because, by definition, aren’t most people feminists?
Yes, but a lot of people don’t think of that.
Most people don’t consider themselves feminists, even if they actually are by definition.
Nope, I’ve met far more good feminists than bad. Lots and lots more good ones. It’s just that I have met a few lunatics, and it’s important to point out that they do exist, spoiling the thing for everybody.
Hell, I’m a good feminist. I want absolute equality.
It’s important to point out that they do exist, spoiling the thing for everybody
Why? No really, why does that become a central theme every time feminism is mentioned on the internet?
It’s like if I made a post about how tasty cupcakes are, and someone went “Ew! Cupcakes! They taste like charcoal and give you food poisoning!” Then when I pointed out that really, that only happens if you burn them horribly in which case, they a) aren’t really cupcakes and b) aren’t what we’re talking about at all, other people suddenly chime in on how they once ate a burnt cupcake and it was awful.
Now imagine that I’m a cupcake vendor and thus discuss cupcakes a lot. And I’ve noticed that EVERY TIME cupcakes are mentioned on a site not specifically dedicated to cupcakes and cupcakes alone (and sometime even then), people derail the conversation towards burnt cupcakes. And then defend themselves by explaining that burnt cupcakes are really unpleasant and thus need to be discussed. It gets a little frustrating.
Especially since in this case, cupcakes = my basic right to social and legal personhood.
Yes. Burnt cupcakes are gross. People being sexist against men is wrong. But the former have nothing to do with decent bakeries and the later have nothing to do with feminism. And they’re both a tiny, definitionally irrelevant minority. So why do we have to keep. Talking about it. Every time someone mentions feminism on the internet.
I don’t mean this as a personal attack – I’m happy that you’re a feminist! – but it all gets really old, really fast.
But I don’t like cupcakes that much.
But yeah, simply – it’s important to recognize that they do exist because way too many people say, “DUR! NOBODY IS THAT EXTREME! EXTREMISTS ARE ALWAYS ON THE OTHER SIDE, NOT MINE!” And that’s how you set yourself up for amssive failure. Understanding that there are extremist loonies on all ends o fthe spectrum helps you weather the attacks when people think your entire side is made up of ’em.
Well, it’s good to remember that loonies are on all sides, but it’s really frustrating when that shoves into a dark corner the 99% of people that aren’t jerkholes and daily experience the problems that society needs to fix. I kind of think you’ve singlehandedly done this for us here. Congratulations. There’s one jerk out there. You’ve pointed them out. Can we talk about the other 99 now, or do you gotta beat us over the head some more in the interest of “fairness”?
Nah, I think this thread sufficiently explained that yes, there are insane people out there. The one guy trying to blame all feminists for it gave a pretty good opportunity. I promise you, I’m not going to bring it up after this one, since we’ve done it to death now. The wekeend was full of Bechdel funniness, today was full of anti-feminist extremists. What will tomorrow bring?
(Probably more Twilight)
That’s not feminism. That’s people misapplying sexist concepts and calling it feminism. My anti-feminist parents tried to convince me that all men were animals (had no control) when it came to sex. Anti-feminists are harder on men than feminists are, feminists at least understand cultural influences that can pressure men to behave badly, just as our culture influences and pressures women to behave in ways that seem stupid or crazy.
How many of the people who said those things were straight women with a bad relationship history?
I didn’t check everyone’s relationship history, but at least a few were straight women with “good: relationship histories:-P
I dunno if it’s good to use bad relationship history as a way to justify it. It’d be like saying “Oh, he’s only a mysoginist wife-abuser because he had a bad relationship.”
“If there were no men in the world, there would never be any wars.”
Oh, there’d still be wars, it’s in the human blood. We’d just never know why. France would suddenly bomb Sweden and Sweden would be like, “What the hell?!” and France would reply, “You KNOW why.”
If you know what feminism is supposed to be, why did you characterise it totally incorrectly?
On an entirely different note, OH MY GOD THE DINAS ARE MULTIPLYING RUN FOR YOUR PUNY LIVES
OH SHIT GET THE BUG SPRAY
THE BUG SPRAY FAILED
USE YOUR WEAPONS OF VIOLENCE
I like Fist of the North Star. Does that count?
(coincidentally, Fist of the North Star passes the Bechdel test more than once, despite being one of the manliest of he-man womyn-hating animes out there. Lin and Mamiya talk about non-men, yuria and Toh have one non-man conversation, Rin and Lui talk about how they’re long-lost twins and heirs to an empire, Lin and Sayaka talk about the nation of Shura, and I think there are even a few more non-guy conversations. The anime added a female fighter in one episode who talked with her mother about how hard that career decision was, and how violence might not be a good idea, too))
Because he couldn’t think to use the words “radical” or “extremist” or “bad.”
Also, he said feminism itself was about making women better than men.
Yeah, and that’s just not right. I have met proportionately far fewer looney bad feminists than good feminists, but it’s important to acknowledge that the crazybad ones do exist. They’re a low minority, but they are so loud and crazy that it’s hard to ignore. He’s probably met a lot of them, and gotten burned. I’ve met several, but I still believe in good feminism.
“Poptart Feminist” sounds likes an awesome band name.
Poptart Feminist is an art-rock band composed of four women, all named Sarah Wittington. They’ve had limited pop success, with their erotically charged single ‘That Is Not My Cake’ reaching #99 in Australia. Their fanbase is small, but very, very vocal – as in literally, one of their concerts made into the Guiness World Records as ‘Loudest Norweigian Art-Rock Indoor Concert’.
Wait, seriously? This exists?
This world just got a little more awesome.
Oh, wait, that was a joke. Duh.
I was half-hoping that you’d fall for that XD 😛
*Applauds*
I was hoping it was real. The world is less awesome now.
Also, I shouldn’t comment on webcomics at two in the morning.
“Well yes I know what feminism is supposed to be … I just haven’t met any true feminist … only the poptart and radical ones.”
Really? Everyone you’ve met who isn’t a radical feminist thinks it’s totally cool for women to be paid less for the same work, since they shouldn’t really be working anyway? Because if they don’t believe that, they’re feminists.
The thing is, these days most of the tenents of “non-radical feminism” are things that most people believe – or at least, say they believe – so it’s just the radicals who get noticed. It’s interesting the way perceptions change; watch some 1970s Doctor Who, where “radical feminism” means “not making the tea”.
A BIIIG part of this is how much effort those supporting the status quo have gone to in order to make feminism a bad word.
Consider how often someone will say, “I’m not a feminist, but…” and go on to express basic feminist ideals.
(IME, anyone who says “I’m not X, but…” is about to say something very Xish.)
And to support your point, ‘X’ is usually something bad (‘I’m not racist’, ‘I’m not sexist’, ‘I’m not homophobic’), so ‘feminist’ getting lumped in with it is telling.
The difference is “I’m not racist, but” is followed by racism (bad) whereas “I’m not feminist, but” is followed by actual feminism (good).
The people who are saying it clearly think it means something bad, though.
Your point has popped up a few times now. I find it interesting because I haven’t seen the word used the way to describe it.
I personally believe that women should receive equal treatment, that the societal expectations on women are unfair, and that there’s a whole shitload of stuff women deserve that they don’t get. I don’t consider myself a feminist though because I’m not actively engaged in attaining these things for women. I don’t go to any rally’s or protests. I don’t put together petitions or send letters to my congressman. I’m just a person who believes that we as human beings should be able to expect a certain level of treatment in society regardless of sex, race, or other factors of birth.
Is that not how it’s used? Always thought you had to be part of the feminist movement to be a feminist.
Nothing left of that dude but straw and splinters!
The major problem I have with feminism (the good kind, as defined by David Willis) is that it’s supposed to support gender equality, but it’s name implies that feminism does nothing to support men and the gender stereotypes associated with them. That’s why I have to call myself a Feminist and a Masculinist, just to make it clear that I actually care about both genders and their issues.
The word was chosen in a climate that purported to recognize equality, with the intent of highlighting one group that got left out. It’s acquired even more baggage since that time, but then so has egalitarian. (Reign of Terror, anyone?)
Everybody gets their name chosen by their enemies. Want proof? Look at the abortion debate. They WANT to be called “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life,” but INSTEAD they are called “Anti-Life” and “Anti-Choice,” respectively. This means that the pro-choice people can’t argue women’s liberation, and the pro-life people can’t argue sanctity of life/when life starts. Both sides are screwed immediately.
Likewise, “feminism” is an inappropriate term for an “equality” movement, but whaddaraya gonna do?
I’ve never actually heard “anti-choice” or “anti-life” used as common vernacular. “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” seem to be the most common names for both movements respectively. Maybe some pro-life people call pro-choice people “anti-life” (and the reverse), but I cannot recall a single person in my life who has done so.
That said, the names chosen by both sides are kind of skeezy in their own right, as each immediately makes the other side seem insane and irrational by association. If a movement is called “pro-choice,” the average person is going to assume its opponent is anti-choice, which is an oversimplification of the other side.
It’s kind of the opposite of the misconception caused by the name of the feminist movement, really.
Mmm, that’s not proof. No one calls George Washington a terrorist now, but that’s the word King George III used to label him.
Maybe “egalitarian” is a word you may want to use?
Call yourself a gender equalist like me. Spread the word.
There’s some weird lighting going on with Dorothy’s face here, specifically her top lip. I keep thinking she’s got a chocolate milk-stache.
I know! Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t un-see it.
Thank god, I thought I was the only one.
Do we have enough members to found a “Traumatised by ‘Stache of Dorothy” support group that would qualify for tax breaks of pretty much any form yet?
Or, at the very least, a charity for the victims of the “Coco-Stache Incident ’11?”
Ok, I’m done. That horse is as dead as it gets and then some.
And alas, my wood for Joyce is shattered.
Well thats an image I will take to my grave.. Thank you
Perhaps Liberal31337 should have used one of the irons instead?
Also, the execrable newish Red Riding Hood movie would pass this test.
….Oh god, is someone going to slap Joyce soon? Please? I’ll give you money…
Somewhat relatedly, did “Roomies!” pass the Bechdel Test? I can’t remember a conversation between two females that wasn’t about Danny.
About a month and a half in: http://www.itswalky.com/d/19971027.html
Mind, female-to-female conversation was still pretty limited. I think it happened again later between Billie and Mary.
I’ve got a few minutes. Let’s depress myself by how seldom I passed the test:
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19971030.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980202.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980203.html (sans the last panel)
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980204.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980205.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980424.html < ---haha meta http://www.itswalky.com/d/19980923.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19981217.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19990101.html
http://www.itswalky.com/d/19990104.html
…actually, I’m gonna stop there, and end with a note that Sarah totally saved my ass in the Bechdel department.
To help your depression further, some of those conversations can’t count because a male’s brought up in the last panel. More than just the one you remarked about. :p
Mr. Bear is just a stuffed toy!
The one with Sarah and her sister is invalid because at the end she mentions Jimmy Wilson. I’m kind of surprised that you thought the one where Joyce got a new computer passed. At the end she mentions Danny…
And then in Dumbing of Age… the first panel.
DoA WIN.
mwahahahaha
Digimon also passes the test. So does Power Rangers. (Just saying now, Don’t judge me! LOL)
Digimon is the shit. It passes every test.
Huh? Yeah. Joyce and Sarah talked about not-dude stuff.
Why does Dorothy have a chocolate milk mustache? Now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it. 🙁
Hey, maybe she likes chocolate milk!
Relax. It just means she’s not a natural blonde.
^^;; Joyce’s taste in movies isn’t helping her win any of her previous fans from Roomies over, is it?
Hurry up and acquire Walky’s love (or well, it seemed to relieve Joyce of the severity of her flaws to me, at least….)
You know, at this point I think Leslie is the only character nobody has requested violence against 😛
…someone should totally slap leslie
…(sigh), no they shouldn’t, I tried, but I like leslie to much to sugest violence against her, even for the sake of contrariness.
Hey, if she’s into consensual violence, that’s her business.
Roz should slap Leslie. On the ass.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, but Joyce is Republican? I guess it makes sense, given how much of a Christian she is. I’m just surprised she pays enough attention to politics to be associated with a political party. If that’s the case, I like her much less now.
There is more than one Republican in this comic.
Well, Sal, of course. But she doesn’t really count since she’s more of an economic conservative and social libertarian.
And there’s Galasso too. He is the poster boy for unalloyed capitalism, after all.
I think he might mean there is a positive republican in there.
Mary, I presume.
These days, when I’m framing a story, I make it a habit to include characters with opposing viewpoints to my own. I find it makes the story less stock sounding, and forces me to expand my own consideration of other peoples’ beliefs.
Sadly… as near as I can tell this just reinforces my liberalism.
How is that sad? Isn’t liberalism supposed to be based on an understanding of differing view points and value systems?
You might be doing it wrong, no offense. It might be good if you go about it backwards, figure out why people would believe XYZ. You’ll end up with characters with diverse backgrounds “IE Sally Sue is a Republican because her father built their family up through a business which is fiscally suffer from regulations, and she cares about her parents but doesn’t know much about environmental science, or thinks the benefits outweigh the risks, or maybe she feels that she wasn’t protected from XYZ and doesn’t feel harmed by it so why should other people need to be?”
I grew up with conservative parents. If you accept their basic beliefs, the philosophy is very logical.
Danny seems like he might be one, he wants a very traditional life.
A lot of people her age don’t pay attention to politics, they just go with how their parents vote.
And I guarantee that in an INDIANA college, there are quite a few Republicans. If you dislike people purely for political beliefs, you’ll end up hating half the country. There’s lots of reasons Joyce should be hated, why do it because she supported McCain?
She really kind of strikes me as the sort who would register as Republican because both her parents are Republicans. It’ll probably be a few years at least before she has enough understanding of politics to choose a political party based on her beliefs rather than her family, at which point she might still decide to remain a Republican.
Seriously? Twilight actually had the female characters have conversations that weren’t about boys? That doesn’t sound right for some reason.
I took a look at the comments on the Bechdel test site, and it apparently passes, but only barely. Like one comment with some female wampire about what it’s like being a vampire, and a senior asking about a graduation speech or something like that.
But by the fact people were arguing about it, I think those were the only instances of it passing.
I love Joyce blowing the raspberry. It reminds me of why I liked her character in the first place when I first archive-binged Roomies and It’s Walky! forever ago. Even if she is a lot more obnoxious here.
For a goodie-goodie christain like Joyce, watching Twilight would be like forbidden fruit to her.
Well yeah. It was written by… (looks one way, looks the other, whispers) a Mormaaaaan.
I imagine that’s part of why she likes it. It’s as close as she’s come to rebellion. It’s something good that’s a little bad.
Sort of like Sal’s motorcycle.
I like how david refers to his characters as if he didn’t create them.
I think a lot of writers do that. I’m no where near the level of David, I write short stories and have tried writing novels, nothing that big. For me, after I describe a character, when they are fully formed in my mind, what decisions they would make/thought they would have, seem to belong to them and not me.
Everyone giving the “worst book” treatment to Stephanie Meyers (Twilight and its sequels) should recant. Or don’t you remember Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code[grimace]. Digital Fortress [SHUDDERS])? Or, for that matter, Varney the Vampire — admittedly predating all of us, but the author had difficulty maintaining continuity within paragraphs.
Stephenie. Until I saw that name, it never dawned on me that we typically feminize Stephen by way of feminizing Stephan. Funny how the “ph” can be replaced by an “f” in both cases, but only guys get the “v”.
As for the matter of worst book, I’d guess that part of the reason it gets nominated is because it owes much of its popularity to the very things so many people loathe about it. It makes me think of the unedited version of S. Morgenstern’s classic The Princess Bride.
I’d be interested to see if a William Goldman treatment might work for Twilight. It seems unlikely.
William Goldman wrote the Princess Bride. S. Morgenstern was a framing device, not the true author.
Please don’t explain the obvious to me. I have owned four copies of the book and recall well Spider Robinson’s campaign to get people to read it back before there was a movie. I am well aware of what William Goldman’s name on the cover signifies, and why S. Morgenstern’s is absent.
Next you’ll be telling me that Stephen King isn’t Florinese.
To be frank, if you knew that then why did you state it was written by S. Morgenstern? This is coming from someone who doesn’t understand wth this “framing device” bit is about.
Humour just goes right over your head, doesn’t it?
Well I AM 5’1.
Well played.
My apologies for the belligerence. It was inappropriate in both cases.
On the subject of bad books, Lord of the Flies (YIKES!) Brave New World (AiYiYi!)
The difference there is that both LotF and BNW are intended to show deeply flawed societies and the consequences thereof, whereas Twilight never makes any effort to rectify or even acknowledge the basic badness of the premise.
Are you kidding? Those are treasured classics you have there.
You’re kidding, right?
You may not like the books, but that’s different from saying they’re bad books. They’re extremely well written and present they’re points flawlessly within the story. They’ve deserved their spot as great classics of world literature.
Nope. Read both authors and Meyer is definitly worse. Also while Dan writes like he’s on crack at least it’s vaguely interesting crack at points even if it’s not great.
It’s bad. But it’s not Meyer bad.
Ugh, Dan Brown.
uggggggggggggggggh.
How about “Panda Ray”? My god, that ending – “Yes, if you might be a threat someday, it’s perfectly all right for your mother to oppress you and remove your soul. Just pretend to be powerless and soulless for the rest of your life and everything will be okay.”
Wait, wait, wait. Who are these two Twilight girls who talked about something not boy-related, and what was this topic?
http://bechdeltest.com/view/1234/the_twilight_saga:_eclipse/
Man I’ll be so glad when the Internet finally gets tired of bashing Twilight all the time.
A ha! The Last Starfighter passes the Bechdel Test! That is, if you count crazy trailer folk.
As for Eclipse, yeah… I guess it should avoid some bashing. Constantly bringing it up in conversation only makes the knowledge of its existence worse. The more you talk about it, the more it leaves the realm of “Batman and Robin” stupidity to cultural acceptance.
Every time Joyce makes an appearance she becomes more and more attractive to me.
The only problem is that she probably believes in creationism but I would hope that I might be to convince her in Theistic Evolution.
I just wish I could meet a real girl like her.
You know, I’m actually surprised that Leslie has seen Twlight: Eclipse. She doesn’t seem the sort to want to watch such a film. And not just because of the fact its primarily guys walking around shirtless…
Well, maybe she just checked the site to make sure it passed.
Or maybe she watched it for class, knowing that it would come up.
I honestly don’t understand the value of the Bechdel test. It seems a misguided effort to promote feminism…along the lines of proclaiming ‘Strong Female Roles’ as Valuable fodder for actresses.
It’s not a perfect world. Making up rules of thumb is just begging to have them subverted. Why do we seem to need them so desperately?
I have to scratch my head when people say this. Especially when they come into the comments where this has been explained already.
It’s not to promote feminism so much as to get people to question the way society looks at gender. You may think that’s the same thing, but honestly. Women talk about all sorts of things other than dudes all the time and even the most sexist commercials where they go on and on and on about shoes and make up and fashion can pass the damned test. So why do movies that don’t have a specific context that would provide a good explanation for the failure not pass?
Also, no one says it’s “needed” or even that it’s desperate. Sounds like you’re making up a use for the test. 😉
Maybe I am making up a use for it. It’s just that I’ve tried reading the comments and I haven’t been really enlightened. I just don’t understand the test. If something passes or fails the test…then what?
Am I obligated to avoid watching things that don’t pass the test? What am I missing here? I feel like I should be seeing something that makes me think deep thoughts about the way society looks at gender, but I don’t.
Am I a bad person if I don’t really care if something passes the test or not? Movies, like books, are written in the framework of the author’s perspective. If he/she doesn’t shoehorn a conversation between two women in there, there could be any number of reasons why…and only a small percentage of them are related to feminism in any way.
So again, I’m left feeling stupid for not seeing the point.
The test it’s self is meaningless beyond showing a trend. It’s more of a “Hmmm” thing to think about then actually stress over.
The most sexist tripe imaginable can pass it with one conversation and a truly feminist movie can fail it. You are certainly not obligated to watch movies that pass or a bad person for watching things that fail it.
Whether a movie passes or fails says very little about the movie. It’s the statistic of total passes and failures that you’re ment to be looking at.
The problem might be you’re over thinking it.
For the billionth time:
The Bechdel test says absolutely NOTHING about individual movies.
A movie is NOT automatically bad (for ANY definition of “bad”) because it fails the test.
A movie is NOT automatically good (for ANY definition of “good”) because it passes the test.
There are many good reasons why a movie might fail the test. For example, a movie with only one character automatically fails the test.
The Bechdel test is only relevant when you look at HOW MANY movies pass or fail the test.
To be truly relevant, this should be compared with how many movies pass or fail the reverse Bechdel test. To pass it, a movie has to feature at least one conversation between two men about something other than a woman.
The Bechdel test and the reverse Bechdel test show that it’s a lot more common for male characters to be the main focus of a movie than it is for female characters, even when the basic premise of the movie doesn’t make this necessary.
Again, this doesn’t say anything about the individual movies. Indiana Jones is not bad because Indy has a penis. Tomb Raider is not good because Lara Croft has boobs. The tests are simply an observation that there are more Indys than Laras, that the people who matter in movies are more often male than female.
(I just want to point out that I used Indiana Jones as an example *before* I saw the cover of Shortpacked! Book 4 :D)
Real mature, Joyce.
Nice bit of hypocritical humour there.
When it said there will only be M.W.F strips this week, I read it as there will be only N.S.F.W. strips this week.
Its not nice to get my hopes up like that.
I read all four books for the sole purpose of correcting the grammar and surprisingly, even spelling issues with a highlighter and sending them back to the publisher
I hate Twilight with a burning passion >> It makes us gals look pathetic. …. Warcraft 3 is more feminist << Least Tyrande and the other ladies kick ubermuch ass
Warcraft 3 passes the Bechdel test too.
Hm. Evil Dead 2 ALMOST passes. I know it had two named female characters, I’m pretty sure they talked to each other and that it wasn’t about a man, but, at the same time, this was not an exclusive conversation, so it probably doesn’t count.
Manos: The Hands of Fate passes, though. XD
Dorothy’s on an emotional rollercoaster, love it.
Panel 2: Woohoo!
Panel 4: What?
Panel 5: Life is pain.
Addendum to Panel 5: Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
All this from one “Dykes To Watch Out For” strip…
That is a HORRIBLE test of pro-feminism…. especially since porn DOES pass the test O.o
I bet Bechdel was a man >.>
My test of pro-fem movies:
1: Is there more than one female character?
2: Does the main female character NEVER truly depend on the main male character to survive?
3: Is there a female main villain? Bonus points if she doesn’t turn good or fall in love with the main male.
Question 3 shows that a woman is allowed a position of power where she can very strongly affect the plot. Bonus points are because that female character has a strong will to the end.
Before anyone goes pointing out that Disney movies pass my test. No they do not. The guy almost ALWAYS saves the girl in the end. Especially Little Mermaid, the arguably most anti-feminism movie Disney made.
That’s… not a particularly good test either. Sorry. Any movie which doesn’t have a villain (yes, there are movies like that) will fail, as it doesn’t have a female villain.
And I can still think of some lesbian porn that passes.
NEVER rely on a man? What if they’re traveling together alone as platonic adventure buddies and she falls down a well? Invent some magic to float her out of the well so she doesn’t have to accept help from some -shudder- male.
Yeah was going to add that as well. Any movie about teamwork in the face of adversity will fail unless it has an all female cast.
This kid has some hard life lessons ahead of her.
Bechdel’s a woman. Google “Dykes to Watch Out For.” (Hint: It’s her comic and it’s good). Then, I don’t know, read the comments here explaining what the test is actually about? It’s not about whether a movie is feminist or not, it’s about looking at trends in society and how few movies pass. The character in the comic who originally made these rules up just didn’t want to watch yet another movie about dudes, so they ended up renting “Steel Magnolias” over and over again because at least it was about women talking to each other for a change. That was the joke that the original test came from. Ok?
Man, I don’t think any of my favorite movies passes the test. Blues Brothers, Jurassic Park, Harvey, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World… I’m a poor excuse for a girl.
I have a problem with this test. Think Star Wars 4. 2 females. Never talk to each other. Therefore, Star Wars doesn’t pass that test. The only one that does is 1.
well the entire trilogy only had two named female characters and one only get three lines before dying (look’s aunt, i can’t remember her name. Mon mothma’s name for that metter naver come up in the movies).
But what’s important to remember is that the test is not meant to showcase how progressive a single movie is (remember twillight have movies that passes) but rather the state of the entire industry.
What Dreigan said- I’m a girl who likes action flicks- I regularly describe my taste in movies as “when things go boom”- on the other hand, I’m fairly certain that action flicks also count as soft-core porn for girls- so maybe I’m actually very girly. In fact, I’m not entirely certain I can think of a movie I like that passes the Bechdel test. Wait- I think Pride and Prejudice has some conversations about dresses- does it count?
OMG is this referencing liberal crime squad? That’s flippin amazin if it is! and… even more weird if joyce knows what it is
Man you can really tell how people hate on twilight just cus its popular, or went into “investigating it” with prejudice.
Here is a hint. If you watch/read something thinking you wont like it, then every thing you dont like much or dislike will seem that much worse.
A good sign is if you are hating on it aftewords.
for example. I dont like Cybill, like AT ALL. But i dont judge it negetively. And i go out of my way to point out redeeming factors.