This first ran on Salon…and then Salon deleted it. Not sure why; I suspect a glitch. I tried to notify the editors, but they didn’t do anything…so what the hey, I figured I’d reprint it here, since they don’t seem to want it.
___________
Lately critics have piled on the chick flick “The Other Woman” for one specific reason: it doesn’t pass the Bechdel test— Alison Bechdel’s famous heuristic which asks whether a film has (a) two women who (b) talk to each other about (c) something other than a man. As Linda Holmes says in a particularly scathing review at NPR, “ “The Other Woman” is 109 minutes long, and at no time do any of these women—including Carly (Cameron Diaz) and her secretary (Nicki Minaj), who only know each other from work — pause for a discussion, even for a moment, of anything other than a series of dudes…” Vulture put a clever new spin on this argument by collecting all the lines Kate Upton says in the movie, which included: “I can’t believe he’d lie to me, I really thought we were soul mates” and “We could kick him in the balls!”
Having a film featuring three female protagonists who do nothing but talk about men is, the Bechdel Test suggests, unfeminist. Let it be known, though, that “The Other Woman” does technically pass the Bechdel Test: Kate (Leslie Mann) has a very brief conversation with Amber (Kate Upton) about how good Amber smells. Still, the films female friendships are all based on the women’s relationship with a single, caddish guy. Those applying the Bechdel Test say that this is a failure. But if a movie for women, with female stars, about female friendships and the evils of male infidelity can’t pass the test, maybe the problem isn’t with the film, but with Bechdel’s rubric.
The truth is that female genre fiction (whether movies or TV or books)— designed for and consumed mostly by women—not infrequently has difficulty passing the Bechdel Test, precisely because female genre fiction is often really interested in men. The Twilight films don’t do well. Neither do many romance novels, as romance novelists like Jillian Burns and Jenny Trout have acknowledged.
Tessa Dare’s 2012 Regency romance “A Week to Be Wicked,” for example, features as its heroine Minerva, a determined geologist who becomes a noted scientist in the teeth of contemporary mores while also showing an unexpected flair for passion and screwball comedy. There’s no doubt that the book is self-consciously feminist — the scientific community’s exclusion of female scientists is a major plot point, and one of the things that Minerva loves about the hero, Colin, is that he isn’t threatened by her accomplishments. But despite such support for female empowerment, “A Week to Be Wicked” doesn’t really pass the Bechdel Test. When Minerva talks to her beloved sister or to her mother, it’s about Colin. There are a few ensemble scenes in which Colin and Minerva fool a carriage full of women into thinking that they’re royalty on their way to a kingdom on the border of Spain and Italy — so that might technically count, if you were determined to make it. There’s probably another moment or two as well; books find the tests easier to pass just because they’re longer than films. But as with “The Other Woman” — or really even more than with “The Other Woman” — the story in “A Week To Be Wicked” is about the relationship between the female lead and the male lead. And that means that the female lead is generally either talking to the guy or talking about him. There’s not a ton of space for extraneous Bechdel-appeasing conversations.
A genre novel that fails the test even more spectacularly is Alex Beecroft’s “False Colors.” There are hardly any women in Beecroft’s romance novel at all. It’s M/M — a gay historical novel set mostly aboard ship with the British Navy. Despite the failure to pass the test, M/M novels in general are hardly anti-female. Beecroft is a woman, her readership (as with most M/M) is probably predominantly women, and the female characters we do see are treated with sympathy and surprising depth given how little screen-time they get. I particularly liked the fortiesh widow, Lavinia Deane, who flirts with one of the heroes and figures out (with no bitterness) why he won’t flirt back before he fully understands it himself (“Say you won’t try to be some sort of saint in the wilderness,” she says with earthy kindness, channeling the wishes of both author and readers. “I’d hate to think of you withering away untasted.”)
But such bright cameos can’t change the fact that, as far as the Bechdel Test goes, the novel fails big-time. I don’t think there’s a scene in which two women talk to each other, much less talk to each other about something other than men. As M/M writer Becky Black says about her own books and the Bechdel Test, “I personally usually structure the story so every scene will be from the Point of View of one or the other of the heroes. All of this means there isn’t much space for the female characters to have a chance!”
M/M romance, and associated genres like yaoi manga and slash fiction underline the limits of the Bechdel Test. It’s true that a book like “False Colors” doesn’t have many female characters — but that’s because the author fully expects the audience to identify, and fantasize, across genders. In “False Colors,” both leads play the role of damsel in distress, and both play the role of heroic rescuer. The Bechdel Test assumes that men are men and women are women. But questioning that assumption can be a feminist project in itself.
The point here is simply that — as many of the romance authors I’ve linked say — the Bechdel Test has some limits. Alison Bechdel has said she doesn’t use it as a “filter” for herself , as her character Mo did. The test can be a useful way to think about how gender works in films or books, but alone it can’t tell you whether something is good or bad, or feminist or unfeminist.
It’s also, though, worth thinking about the way that the Bechdel Test fits a bit too neatly into cultural and feminist prejudices against genre fiction. Mo is a lesbian, so it makes some sense that she wouldn’t be interested in the kind of stories where women are focused on heterosexual romance (even though there certainly are lesbians who enjoy het romance.) But should that really be turned into a general rule suggesting that women’s interest in heterosexual relationships is somehow unfeminist, or a sign of aesthetic failure?
From Nathaniel Hawthorne’s sneer at “that damned mob of scribbling women” to Lisa Jervis’ assertion that chick lit is responsible for the “evacuation of feminist politics,” men and certain strands of feminism have long been united in seeing female genre fictions as weak, foolish, corrupt, and even corrupting. Using the Bechdel Test as a way to chastise women for enjoying the wrong, insufficiently highbrow, unfeminist thing — whether that be The Other Woman, or “Twilight,” or romance novels — seems like it fits into that unfortunate tradition of gendered scorn. The Bechdel Test remains a useful lens for looking at art. But it’s important to remember that Bechdel’s Rule is, itself, a cultural and aesthetic product. If Bechdel’s comic can be used to test romance, or chick flicks, then romance, or chick flicks, can be used to test Bechdel as well.
It seems to me that the Bechdel test is so full of exceptions that it’s of limited utility (similar to Body Mass Index). Inglorious Basterds, Fury, and Dead Poets Society seem structurally set up to fail, and Mona Lisa Smiles is similarly designed to hit a home run.
I think how women are portrayed overall is more complex and more important than this one set of criteria. For example, my wife and I are catching up on the Gotham series. There’s one episode where an early prototype of the Joker and his crew are trying to set fire to a group of high school cheerleaders on a bus. This large group of mostly teenage girls does nothing to try and fight back or get away while they are doused with gasoline, the villains step off the bus, and the villains begin struggling with a lighter. The scene would have been more entertaining, more realistic in post 9-11 America, and far more feminist if the girls had used the delay to start filing out the emergency exit. It would have complicated the villains’ problem and added to the humor without really relieving much tension.
Of course, my wife is the one who spotted the flaw first, but at least I was able to heartily agree. We take whatever victories over internalized misogyny we can get.
So if male/male romance really poses a problem for the Bechdel test, why should we be concerned by a shortage of men on Orange is the New Black? Certain premises will disadvantage a given gender, well how about that.
I think this piece kind of misunderstands feminism, which wasn’t ever except in the imagination of its opponents or its fringiest fringes about how women shouldn’t be interested in men, just that their lives can be about more.
The Bechdel test is enlightening not just because of how many fail, but how many pass the reverse. It shows you something fundamental in how our culture looks at women.
Pointing out that Alison Bechdel doesn’t base her viewing decisions on it is like objecting that Charles Schulz was never that patient with a football. The comic strip was a joke with a punchline, not an instruction that we should all do like Mel.
“If Bechdel’s comic can be used to test romance, or chick flicks, then romance, or chick flicks, can be used to test Bechdel as well.”
Not sure how that would work exactly…
Alex, what do you mean by “pass the reverse”? I’m coming up with too many ways though reverse it.
“Not sure how that would work exactly…”
It would work the way it works in this article. That’s what I’m doing here.
“The comic strip was a joke with a punchline, not an instruction that we should all do like Mel.”
Yep, this is one of my points in the piece.
“I think this piece kind of misunderstands feminism, which wasn’t ever except in the imagination of its opponents or its fringiest fringes about how women shouldn’t be interested in men, just that their lives can be about more.”
There are lots of strands of feminism. Some feminism has definitely been queasy about female genre literature, and its focus on relationships with men.
“So if male/male romance really poses a problem for the Bechdel test, why should we be concerned by a shortage of men on Orange is the New Black?”
Male/male romance is about cross identification. OITNB critiques prison by suggesting that women don’t belong there. The first scrambles and challenges gender stereotypes, the second reinforces them and therefore fails to confront the prison system it claims to be challenging.
The Bechdel test can be enlightening. It can also substitute for actual critical engagement, and in some instances can perpetuate contempt for female genre literature and the women who enjoy it.
The Bechdel Test is a test and thus, can be passed or failed, but passing the test means nothing, individually, and failing the test similarly, means nothing, individually
“Male/male romance is about cross identification. OITNB critiques prison by suggesting that women don’t belong there. The first scrambles and challenges gender stereotypes, the second reinforces them and therefore fails to confront the prison system it claims to be challenging.”
This kind of seems like smoke-blowing. Any prison drama is going to suggest that prison isn’t the best thing for its characters. You devoted three grafs here to explaining that certain premises aren’t going to pass the Bechdel test by their nature. That’s unremarkable. Nobody would argue that a movie about men in prison should think harder about how to pass the Bechdel. This made me think of your Atlantic article because OITNB, by its nature, will give short shrift to the plight of men in the prison system… and that common sense consideration of premise is showing up here instead of there, where it’s needed. It’s also being deployed to argue in favor of representing men, again, and to explain that women can identify with men in fiction, which they’re called on to do all the time.
“There are lots of strands of feminism. Some feminism has definitely been queasy about female genre literature, and its focus on relationships with men.”
Feminism has always been about how women don’t have to be defined by men. Of course it’s going to look critically at traditional institutions of femininity. And taking on genre is going to happen with a broad social critique. “It’s popular and people like it” doesn’t disqualify criticism.
The critics of The Other Woman were saying that the specific premise of that movie should have allowed for some kind of plot or character development that wasn’t relentlessly focused on men. They weren’t going after all romance or imposing a pass/fail regime on all new releases.
John,
What I meant by a reverse Bechdel would be a movie where two men talk about something other than a woman. The sheer volume of movies that pass that test and the difficulty of thinking of movies that pass the original version is what makes the Bechdel test revealing. (Not that Alison Bechdel doesn’t follow it herself, or it won’t tell you if a movie is good or bad, or that it would be prohibitive on a WWII submarine….)
OITNB is a cutesy sitcom about prison. It’s able to be a cutesy sitcom about prison because of its stereotypical take on gender. That was my problem with it, not the fact that it had no men. The book it’s based on doesn’t have many men in it either, but isn’t beholden to stereotype in the same way, and so actually manages to critique the prison system.
The problem here is that I didn’t say what you wanted me to say and therefore your analogy doesn’t work.
“Of course it’s going to look critically at traditional institutions of femininity.”
The “of course” there is taking on a lot more work for you there than it’s capable of. What you mean is, “I am nervous about femininity, and therefore it seems natural to me that feminism would be too.” But not all feminists are, and there’s a pretty big debate about femininity and the approach to female genre literature. I’d suggest you start by reading Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl.”
The fact that you’re not familiar with both sides of this debate is not evidence that the debate doesn’t exist, nor is it a knock out demonstration that the side you’re familiar with is correct.
“It’s popular and people like it” doesn’t disqualify criticism.”
Yep. Thus criticism of the Bechdel Test is legitimate.
“The critics of The Other Woman were saying that the specific premise of that movie should have allowed for some kind of plot or character development that wasn’t relentlessly focused on men. They weren’t going after all romance or imposing a pass/fail regime on all new releases.”
I didn’t say they were imposing a pass/fail regime. I was asking folks to think about what it means for romance if genre literature focusing on discussions of men by women is seen as illegitimate. Your response seems to be to just say, these two things aren’t precisely the same, and therefore I don’t want to extrapolate at all. Which is fine, but not exactly an argument.
Like, the other woman is dumb in a lot of ways, but it’s also really explicitly feminist. It’s about women banding together to beat the shit out of this guy. So then people use the bechdel test to say, hey, the film is all about women banding together against patriarchy, but they talk about patriarchy all the time, therefore it’s not feminist.
I think that suggests that there’s maybe some problems with using the test in this way.
fwiw, the big problems with the Other Woman imo are outright transphobia and tacit racism and heteronormativity. These are pretty common flaws in pop empowerment feminism. It’s also not especially well written, and the gross out humor is going to be offputting, if you’re put off by that sort of thing.
It’s a mediocre film. But it’s also quite consciously feminist, and part of the way it’s feminist is that it is focused on patriarchal privilege and power, which means the women talk about men.
It’s interesting to note maybe that there’s a fair amount of feminist theory which would have difficulty passing the Bechdel Test. Eve Sedgwick’s oeuvre would be in trouble. Does that mean that Eve Sedgwick is insufficiently well rounded? Or does it mean that studying the patriarchy and the way men exist and function within it is a valid feminist concern?
Listen, you patronizing Feminism 101 correspondence course certificate waver. This
“What you mean is, “I am nervous about femininity, and therefore it seems natural to me that feminism would be too.” But not all feminists are, and there’s a pretty big debate about femininity and the approach to female genre literature. I’d suggest you start by reading Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl.” The fact that you’re not familiar with both sides of this debate is not evidence that the debate doesn’t exist…”
is not how you respond to criticism. Nobody voted you the alpha male of feminism. You are not psychic. Reread my words. What I said was that feminism holds traditional institutions of femininity up to criticism. Criticism doesn’t mean it stands as their undying enemy until the day it burns them and salts the earth. It means critical thinking, debate and dialectic. As staggering as this may be to you, it is widely known that feminists can disagree. And disagreement no more exempts a genre from criticism (again, that is its nature) than “lots of women like it.” Feminism isn’t just about what men do (that’s part of it, and the Bechdel test wasn’t about theory; where will you ramble next?) but also deeply and complicatedly about women.
“As staggering as this may be to you, it is widely known that feminists can disagree.”
Sure. That’s why I’m disagreeing with some feminists about the Bechdel test.
“is not how you respond to criticism.”
That’s a funny thing to say as you completely lose your temper.
“What I said was that feminism holds traditional institutions of femininity up to criticism.”
Yep. And I said that this isn’t necessarily or always the case, and defining feminism this way shows that you’re unfamiliar with a bunch of feminist theory.
Criticizing femininity is something feminists have often done. But there’s also a strand of feminism (or several) that points to femininity as a site of resistance, rather than as something imposed by patriarchy.
“and the Bechdel test wasn’t about theory”
No. It wasn’t about prose either. It wasn’t about a universal test; it was about one particular character’s particular interests. I think it’s relevant that feminist theory often talks about men when thinking about what the Bechdel theory means. You for some reason don’t; not sure why.
For what it’s worth, I thought your original comments were condescending and blinkered, and I got irritated. I was trying not to get too nasty, but I seem to have failed. So I’m sorry for that; I should have restrained myself better, since I think it was an interesting conversation, and my goal was not to insult you personally, nor to make you feel you were under attack.
Hi Noah, I think the confusion is that you’re defining criticism as entrenched opposition to something, as in for or against, love it or leave it, and Alex is defining it as critical thinking more generally. Leaping from “criticism of femininity” to accusations of nervousness and ignorance verges on investing those customs with intrinsic virtue and correctness. They are open to criticism, and that’s not the same as denouncing women who shave their legs as traitors to the sisterhood or whatever the feminists in your imagination do.
“Leaping from “criticism of femininity” to accusations of nervousness and ignorance verges on investing those customs with intrinsic virtue and correctness.”
I don’t think it does so. Anything’s open to criticism, but criticism of femininity has a history in feminism which is very weighted, and very often involves charges of false consciousness. Not all feminists criticize femninity in that way…which was my point. I suggested at least one feminist (not in my imagination) who’s talked thoughtfully about femininity as a potential form of resistance, and about how misogyny often works through attacks on femininity.
Having said that, I think the accusation of nervousness was a bridge too far, which is why I apologized for it.
“criticism of femininity has a history in feminism which is very weighted, and very often involves charges of false consciousness.”
Sorry, that’s not very helpful. Charges of false consciousness aren’t self-evidently bad any more than traditional constructions of femininity are self-evidently good.
“misogyny often works through attacks on femininity.”
It can, and it also works through suggestions that women who seek equal status with men are being insufficiently feminine.
“Sorry, that’s not very helpful. Charges of false consciousness aren’t self-evidently bad any more than traditional constructions of femininity are self-evidently good. ”
Attacks on femininity by feminists have been part of how sex workers and trans people have been used as scapegoats and excluded from feminist communities. It also links to feminism’s struggles around issues of motherhood, and therefore to feminist flirtations with eugenics.
False consciousness is something that needs to be handled extremely carefully, imo. “I understnad your experience better than you do” is a quick route to policy prescriptions which are punitive and cruel. That has in fact been the case with some feminist treatment of trans women, of sex workers, and even of people who read romance novels. (The reason feminist criticisms of these things have had such power, of course, is that those criticisms replicate the general prejudices under patriarchy. And on the other hand, defenses of sex workers, of trans women, and of romance have often been formulated by feminists.)
“It can, and it also works through suggestions that women who seek equal status with men are being insufficiently feminine.”
Sure. Women are in a double bind. Seeking equal status makes them too masculine, but expressing femininity is seen as unequal, unserious, repulsive, etc.
Or, shorter, I think false consciousness arguments should be treated with a lot of suspicion, and this particular false consciousness argument has a particularly ugly history.
Also, it’s fine to use a pseudonym, but we ask that you stick to one here. It looks like you’ve been someone else in the past; if you’re going to comment here regularly, please pick a handle and stick with it, if you would.
You’re stacking the deck with tenuous, loaded comparisons. Skepticism toward traditional femininity is far from the driving force of prejudice toward trans people or sex workers. Sentimental constructs of womanhood are more relevant. Motherhood is one of those ideals, like femininity, that a woman’s movement should struggle with; that’s not a brief for race suicide. If you look hard enough in the history of anything you might find flirtations with eugenics, but that’s still so far afield as to remain a standard internet Nazi analogy. I’ve never heard of “punitive and cruel policy prescriptions” against readers of romance novels. Maybe on a commune somewhere?
There’s a sliding scale of false consciousness arguments. Collapsing them all into one and characterizing it by the most aggressive, dystopian version imaginable is as relevant to feminism as it would be to any social movement.
“Sure. Women are in a double bind. Seeking equal status makes them too masculine, but expressing femininity is seen as unequal, unserious, repulsive, etc.”
Well, more like femininity in patriarchy is a self-reinforcing construct that confirms women’s unsuitability for roles reserved for men, and failure to achieve the ideal is considered repulsive. All the more reason to question and challenge it.
“Skepticism toward traditional femininity is far from the driving force of prejudice toward trans people or sex workers”
It’s a really big driving force, actually. Again, Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl” is a book length discussion of the way that prejudice against femininity and against trans women has been historically intertwined. Feminism’s ambivalence around romance is discussed in Maya Rodale’s “Dangerous Books for Girls.” Anti sex work arguments tend to be based on the idea that sex workers enforce traditional feminine roles and hurt all women; therefore women are justified in advocating that sex workers be arrested. (There’s a famous Julie Bindel quote in which she fantasizes about shooting sex workers following the feminist revolution.)
Romance readers aren’t a persecuted group through laws like sex workers and trans people. They do face a lot of sneering and ridicule, though, not infrequently from some femininists (though there’s also feminist defenders of romance novels.)
I’m providing some pretty specific arguments and references. You’re response is consistently, “no, I don’t think so.” Which doesn’t seem super convincing to me.
“femininity in patriarchy is a self-reinforcing construct that confirms women’s unsuitability for roles reserved for men, and failure to achieve the ideal is considered repulsive.”
You’re cutting out half of the double bind. Women who do fulfill feminine roles are also sneered at and attacked. You’ve admitted that femininity itself is a target for misogyny, but you keep waffling on it. Is femininity a patriarchal imposition, so that women who read romance novels and wear make up or otherwise present in some way as feminine are dupes collaborating in their oppression? Or is the insistence that femininity is artificial and dangerous itself a part of the way in which women are policed, and a reflection of a misogynist culture in which “male” gender expression is seen as more valid than female gender expression?
You’re continuing to conflate criticism with violent oppression, which is not super convincing to me either. Rhetoric of siege and existential threat is often used to justify the very measures you’re describing, and is way out of proportion to a debate about a dumb romantic comedy. I don’t think feminine women are dupes and collaborators, I think being pretty, charming and agreeable only opens certain doors and the fear of failing to be such at all times is an internalized obstacle to womens’ advancement. If you ever felt prompted to critically re-examine your own habits, predispositions and assumptions then you attempted a little consciousness-raising. But now we have the internet to teach us that a pan of the new Star Wars movie is a vicious, cowardly attack on the fabric of our society.
So, wait, are you Freddie deBoer now?
“But now we have the internet to teach us that a pan of the new Star Wars movie is a vicious, cowardly attack on the fabric of our society.”
I haven’t seen the new Star Wars movie, but I strongly suspect it sucks.
“You’re continuing to conflate criticism with violent oppression, which is not super convincing to me either.”
So, feminist criticism of trans women for being parodies and dupes of femininity was actually used as a way to roll back legislation allowing trans women access to health care. Criticism has actual effects in the real world; if it didn’t, and words did nothing, there would be no reason to say anything, right?
Denigration of femininity has real world effects. It’s one lever that is used to get men to go to war, as just one other example. The connection between words and actions can be complicated, but it exists. You can’t come bopping into my comments section saying, “your criticism of the Bechdel test is dangerous!” and then turn around and say, hey, you know what? Criticism doesn’t matter. You want me to take you seriously, you need to elevate your game, at least to the point where you’re not working quite so hard to refute yourself.
If you think the debate is dumb, go away. If you think that the issues matter, then engage with what I’m saying, without the ridiculous handwaving about Star Wars and rhetoric of siege. I’ve given a number of concrete ways in which the denigration of femininity is used to hurt women (and not just women.) The original article points out that the Bechdel Test can be used in ways which also denigrate feminine genre literature, and suggests that that’s a reason to think carefully before applying the test in those instances. What part of that do you disagree with?
Edited to remove unnecessary snark.
“You can’t come bopping into my comments section saying, “your criticism of the Bechdel test is dangerous!” and then turn around and say, hey, you know what? Criticism doesn’t matter.”
I never said anything of the kind! Am I getting some kind of Berlatskybot now? I did respond to your cherrypicked, alarmist examples, and I’m saying, as I’ve been saying, that their relevance to feminist criticism is ten-u-ous. But you know what, I was trying to figure out what your “this general topic has a sinister history” not-really-an-argument reminded me of, and it just hit me…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cc_wjp262RY
I’m glib, I’m glib!
I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve laid out a pretty straightforward argument, and given a bunch of examples. In response, you’ve given me basically nothing, except your repeated assertion that you can’t follow my reasoning. I can agree that that appears to be the case. I guess I’ll just have to live with it.
Oh what the hell, I’ll try one more time.
The reason to use the Bechdel test is because it shows something about how the world works, right? It’s an effort to draw awareness to how women are seen as secondary or lesser. Why does that matter? Well, because it connects to real world issues, including the lack of women in positions of political power, the denigration of reproductive rights, etc. You yourself are talking about the way that femininity can be used as a trap for women. These aren’t apocalyptic outcomes; at the same time, you could see someone (an MRA, say) announcing that representation in film of course doesn’t have anything to do with any of this and you’re a fear monger for saying so. To which presumably you’d reply that the connection between ideas and actions can be tricky, but still, it exists.
That’s all I’m saying in discussing how attacks on femininity can hurt women. The denigration of art associated with women is part of a denigration with femininity, which can be used against women just as the exclusion of women from central narrative roles can be used against women.
If you think the Bechdel Test is worth using as a way to criticize art, I don’t really get your objection to criticizing the Bechdel Test. The issues I’ve raised are no more apocalyptic or fear-mongering than the ones you’ve brought up in talking about why you think femininity can be dangerous.
If you don’t have the time or inclination to read the books I’ve recommended, you could check out Julia Serano’s short discussion of some of these issues in relation to trans rights here.
https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2014/06/performance-piece/