Making up for my lack of posts by squeezing TV, movie and fic rambles into this one

[kattahj]

Wow, it's been a while since I wrote, hasn't it? I haven't written much fanfic either. (irmelin? I have... uh... two sentences. This may take a while.) I've been better at RPG-ing, but mostly this week has been me mainlining Brothers & Sisters - I started Sunday and have now watched the entire show. It's pretty soapy, but the acting makes up for a lot. I

Comments

[kattahj]

Yeah, it's a fun film.

[likeadeuce]

A bit of a tangent, I'll be honest that I've never really understood the principle behind the Bechdel test. I certainly agree that the possibilities for these kinds of stories/scenes are often overlooked. But it seems like a huge leap to assume that female characters who are primarily shown to interact with men are automatically weaker/less interesting, etc. I don't think I've ever written a story that passes, myself and, while I ought to brainstorm ideas and put them on a to-do list for the coming year, I've discovered that I can't force it. There really ought to be gen fic about Rogue and Jean in XMM, for instance. But does that mean they're not allowed to talk about Logan at all? If Buffy and Willow bring up Xander or Giles or Spike, for whatever reason, is there somehow something less valid about the scene?

Am I reading this too narrowly? I feel like I'm being dense about something, but it always confuses me.

[kattahj]

I don't think the Bechdel test is meant to imply that anything that doesn't pass is by definition bad or less feminist. (If I were to rate these stories according to how they treat gender issues, the ratings would be different.) But I think it's still important as part of a discussion, because mainstream stories are primarily male-focused, with male characters talking to other male characters about things that have nothing to do with women. Meanwhile, stories that are supposedly female-focused will largely have women talking to men, or talking to other women about men. It's more a question of balance than anything else - if there were plenty of stories in which men play little or no part and these stories were lauded as being "universal", the Bechdel test would be pointless.

So no, there's nothing invalid about Buffy and Willow bringing up Xander, Giles or Spike. But if all Buffy and Willow can talk about is Xander, Giles or Spike, it could be put into question whether they're actually the focus of their own story.

[likeadeuce]

I think what throws me is that in the original context of the test, it's phrased as "I don't see movies that don't do this." So that's not really about balance at all, but it seems to be saying "A is better than B." I do realize you're not actually applying the test this way, but on its face, that's what it says.

I also realize that I've been misreading the test as saying "the man can't come up in the conversation" instead of "they talk about other subjects besides men" -- which probably makes my own record a little better.

I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption that a scene involving one man and one woman -- or a scene including women that is narrated from a male point of view -- is no longer "about" the woman. (I'm not saying that it's your assumption, but it is one that I've seen making the rounds before.)

[kattahj]

I think what throws me is that in the original context of the test, it's phrased as "I don't see movies that don't do this."

Yeah, I can't speak for Bechdel herself, obviously. I just think it's tragic that so many movies don't pass, because really, in a two hour movie, how hard is it to have one scene that has two women talking about something that's not related to men or dating: A parking ticket, a hotel reservation, where to find the fish in the supermarket!

I also realize that I've been misreading the test as saying "the man can't come up in the conversation" instead of "they talk about other subjects besides men" -- which probably makes my own record a little better.

I think sooner or later a man probably would come up in the conversation, but I think there's a difference between "We need to kill the vampires, where's those stakes Xander made" and "Have I talked to you about what Xander did lately? We should really try to help Xander with his issues!"

I'm still uncomfortable with the assumption that a scene involving one man

[lilacsigil]

Yay for the Bechdel Test! Since I started rating shows with this, I've noticed a strong increase in the number of shows passing it. I think Mulan might be a unusual case, like your description of "Immediate Boarding", as she explicitly rejects the conversations about men and marriage then spends most of the movie in an all-male environment passing as a man.

Once you start looking closely at the charming and entertaining Pixar films, they have some real gender problems. Toy Story is one of the worst offenders - it reminds me of when I was little and watched Transformers, and decided that certain Transformers were in fact female. When girly pink female Transformers showed up, I was horrified!

[likeadeuce]

Oh, God, the scene in Toy Story 2 where the female toys stand waving at the window while the men go out on a rescue mission makes me want to throw things.

As I mentioned above, I'm uncomfortable with the Bechdel test because I feel like it isolates/privileges certain kind of interactions and devalues female roles in heterosocial situations; but if it's used -- as in this post -- as an analytical tool rather than "a test that will determine which movies I am willing to watch," I think it's really interesting.

[lilacsigil]

I would be uncomfortable with the Bechdel Test if it, say, worked on a points system - giving points for homosocial female interaction and taking points away for talking to men. That would be isolationist. But if there's no room in your show or movie for two female characters to talk about the mission or the weather or politics or another woman, then yes, I think there's a problem (explicitly all-male environment excepted). In a short fic, there may only be two characters total, so I wouldn't find the Bechdel test a useful tool there. I don't decide which movies I will watch based on the Bechdel test, but I do find a pretty consistent link between media that passes the test and media I enjoy. It also helped me work out the major reason why I don't like Fantastic Four in any incarnation ever!

[likeadeuce]

In a short fic, there may only be two characters total, so I wouldn't find the Bechdel test a useful tool there.

I can see that this really does work better for longer/visual media than for shorter/written ones. (Do the Harry Potter books pass in any meaningful way? I'm not sure they do, but the books are almost completely from Harry's POV; we may be told that Ginny and Hermione are chatting about their schoolwork or a DA meeting, we just don't necessarily get a scene about it). On the other hand, if I've written 100 fics and 6 of them arguably pass this test, I think it's saying something; I hope it's not saying that I'm not writing fairly about women, but I don't know what it is saying.

It also helped me work out the major reason why I don't like Fantastic Four in any incarnation ever!

And, see, I like stories about 'the girl' who is the only girl, and how she deals with that. I know perfectly well that's not "the point" of FF, or the original X-men; I'm reading against the text a bit, but it adds to my enjoyment of them.

[love2loveher]

I used to Watch B&S rather regularly, but I got really aggravated with the little brother's storyline when he returned from Iraq. "Take the painkillers! Take the painkillers!" and totally ignoring all other options.

When he took the painkillers, I said "If this immediately turns into him dealing with his drug addiction because he took the painkillers, I'm not watching anymore."
And it did, so I stopped.

BUT I believe that when Kevin made that statement about "Bi now, Gay later," he was speaking strictly of boys. I would have to agree - WITH MEN. Bisexuality with gay men has been proven pretty ragularly to simply be men unwilling to go against society's push for them to be with women. So they try to compromise by being "bi" when all they really want is other men.

I know that some of the information that I have seen about it in print has been in articles about the spread of HIV, particularly in the black community in the US. I'll see if I can't find soem of the articles.

[kattahj]

When he took the painkillers, I said "If this immediately turns into him dealing with his drug addiction because he took the painkillers, I'm not watching anymore."
And it did, so I stopped.

I think the TWoP recapper was right (wow, how often does that happen?) in pointing out that Justin shouldn't be taking the painkillers on his own, but that Nora or someone else should be in charge of monitoring them.

I found the fact that he could suddenly bend his knee 90 degrees without repercussion ludicruous, because even if there's no pain, it'd cause damage to do that if the body isn't ready.

BUT I believe that when Kevin made that statement about "Bi now, Gay later," he was speaking strictly of boys. I would have to agree - WITH MEN. Bisexuality with gay men has been proven pretty ragularly to simply be men unwilling to go against society's push for them to be with women.

No, it hasn't. There has been one study that's been going through the media, and it was poorly executed - men that failed to be turned on by lesbian porn were deemed

[love2loveher]

A Study of bisexual men not being aroused by women

Another article about the same study

[kattahj]

One of many many critical articles from the bi community about that study.

Honestly, Rhi, this is like waving a red sheet in front of a bull. Sorry.

[love2loveher]

I haven't studied bisexuality that much, but I know you are active in the community. The studies I reference say that 1.7% of men identify themselves as "bi" - is that number what you would agree with?

I guess what I'm pondering at the moment is how it really matters. I know why Kevin's comment matters - to have a television show stating something like that makes a lot of people (you included) look as though they are not really what they are. Whatever anybody tells me about their sexual orientation, I'm going to believe. Because it doens't matter what the science says, or who I believe they will end up attracted to in the long run - I'm not going to question what somebody else says they are attracted to, pure and simple.

... but I'll just stick with that I personally believe that many of the ment hat identify themselves as "bi" are just not completely comfortable with themselves yet.

[kattahj]

The studies I reference say that 1.7% of men identify themselves as "bi" - is that number what you would agree with?

I wouldn't know, and I don't tend to ask. Statistics are hard, because what's being measured varies so greatly - Identification? Experience? Arousal, as in the case of that study? Fantasies? The Swedish GLBT movement is small enough that everyone gathers together, and I don't even know if half of the people I know are gay, bi, or other. It's not seen as a very polite or relevant question for the most part.

I do think, based on what I've heard, that men tend to stay closeted longer than women; there are plenty of men who have girlfriends at home yet regularly go cruising without telling anyone, while women will be more willing to declare themselves bisexual. There's even an opinion among certain men that as long as you're the one doing the penetration it doesn't "count" and you're still straight. So I think getting a man to come out as anything at all is a huge step forward