levels of bechdel

[kaigou]

If you haven't heard of the Bechdel Test (where have you been), here are the requirements for a movie, television show, book, play, etc to get a passing grade.

1. It has to have at least two women in it.
   
2. Who talk to each other.
   
3. About something besides a man.

Given the plethora of dramas, movies, anime, and manga/manhwa I've watched or read in the past six months, I'm starting to think this just isn't enough. For instance, a lot of the k-dramas pass the Bechdel Test... on total technicalities. Women discuss: what they'll wear out that night; what make-up they use or their nightly moisturizing routine; doing housework; what kind of food to make or how to make it; how their current diet-fad works and whether it's working. It's a lot of women-are-talking ... about things that are stereotypically "okay" for women to discuss: all the things that, in one way or another, are part and parcel of the requirements society pushes onto women for being women.

Shorter version: there's a lot of Bechdel-Test-passing in which #3 is satisfied by conversations that, basically, revolve around the trappings of femininity. The resulting message is that if women aren't focused on men, then they're focused on what could make them attractive to men.

Thus, I suggest we need multiple levels of Bechdel. If the above three requirements are the Basic Bechdel, the following is the additional requirement that's sometimes added into the Bechdel Test and called the Mo Movie Measure.

1. It has to have at least two women in it.
   
2. Who are both Named Characters.
   
3. Who talk to each other.
   
4. About something besides a man.

In other words, an unnamed female cop talking to an unnamed female criminal about jail time, in the background as the hero walks past, does not qualify. Hell, it doesn't even qualify if it's in the foreground. Unless we're talking about Sergio Leone, unnamed characters are like Red Shirts: expendable, unimportant to the overall plot, and generally insignificant.

In general, it seems like the Mo Movie Measure is probably how most people do interpret the Bechdel Test (that it must be between two named characters). Despite that, being explicit is probably the best way to side-step anyone attempting to argue Basic Bechdel passing on a single conversation, frex, between a female customer and a female postal clerk. That's not a pass, if you ask me; that's a mockery.

The Advanced Mo Movie Measure would have these additional changes:

1. It has to have at least three women in it.
   
2. Who are both Named Characters.
   
3. Who are not related to each other.
   
4. Who talk to each other in pairs or in trio.
   
5. About something besides a man.

Per #3: I've seen a lot of dramas recently that would fail if you said the women must be something other than mother/daughter, grandmother/daughter, sisters, or aunt/niece, or even mother-in-law/daughter-in-law. Women talking to other women in the same family continues the women-as-domestic voices. If the goal is to demand stories in which women operate in the public sphere, then maybe we need to be explicit about demanding non-family discussions.

This is not to say that a woman talking to her mother about, say, financial planning would be bad. It could be a great scene. It should just not be the only scene that qualifies, across the entire story. Don't these women know anyone outside their own relations, or their husband's relations?

I think of the Mo Movie Measure (whether basic or advanced) is more focused on who the women are, and how many of them there are. We could probably consider the Mo Movie Measure to really be more like a two-part Intermediate Bechdel, in a way.

Problem is, that's just not enough, after the number of dramas I've seen that would even satisfy this much, rather easily. These dramas are often called women-centric, and they do have multiple named female character roles... but the discussions between remain topics like "what it means to be a mother" or "what makes a girl good" or "how to have fashion sense". It's not quite nail polish color, but it's close. For me, that's a fail.

In contrast, most Hollywood movies may pass the Basic Bechdel but fail the Advanced Mo Movie Measure because the movie only has two named female characters in the first place. Trying to push the edges of the definition, methinks, is the best (maybe only) way to make it obvious just how pathetically minimal the Basic Bechdel really is -- and how "naming the characters" may look good on the surface but could be just another Hollywood sop, if you really think about it. Because again, letter, but not spirit, baby.

Therefore, I think it's time we have an Advanced Bechdel.

1. It has to have at least two women in it.
   
2. Who are both Named Characters.
   
3. Who are not related to each other.
   
4. Who talk to each other.
   
5. About something besides a man or male-centric role.*
   
6. And focus on the women's personal goals, experiences, or opinions independent of male influence.
   
   1. career ambition or goals
      
   2. education ambition or goals
      
   3. work-related or school-related tasks or projects
      
   4. a non-traditionally-feminine topic or issue
      
   5. or just something that isn't gender-limited/defined
      

* If two women in the palace are discussing political machinations by the King, and they're both focused on what the King is doing and what the King plans... that passes the Basic Bechdel, but fails the Advanced Bechdel, because ultimately the women remain focused on a man. Yes, it's the "position of the King" or "the position of the CEO", but if the story otherwise posits that this position is masculine by default, it's still a conversation about a man. You might argue it's a generic man (in that the women would be discussing the role regardless of who fills it) but we're still at the letter and not the spirit, because the role is default male. Fail.

Note: this is not to say that such conversations shouldn't take place. Often, they're crucial to plot-development. It's when these are the only conversations women share in a drama, there comes a point where you have to realize it's passing the Basic Bechdel on a technicality right up there with "the conversation wasn't about a man per se, but about being pretty (for a man)".

I'm not sure how better to express #6. The idea is to take it beyond simply "not being about a man", and into the realm of "without repeating or being strongly influenced by a man". In other words, if two women are discussing financial investment and one woman's points are simply repeating what her boyfriend said... fail. She must be expressing her own perspective or opinion or conclusions, not parroting. In other words, a conversation where the women own their own perspectives.

It's possible. Plenty of men take in information, and can repeat it without feeling the need to Appeal to Authority, but when it's women discussing a traditionally non-feminine topic (car repair, bank loans, local politics, business development, police corruption, whatever), one of them will eventually do the Appeal to (Some Guy's) Authority. Because, y'know, he must be an authority. He's got dangly parts, after all.

Thus, the story might appear to satisfy #1 through #6, but fails on the substance of the sub-clauses for #6.

ETA: I added a final sub-clause, but wasn't sure how to express it, since (obviously) work and education aren't the sole extent of any person's life, regardless of gender. Basically, if two women are discussing their favorite hockey team, pass. If two women are discussing how to avoid holiday traffic, pass. If two women are discussing something that would stereotypically be considered objects of "feminine/womanly" interest -- like dieting, or doing one's hair, or how to apply makeup -- then, for me, fail. Because women just don't sit around all day and obsess about how to appear attractive to men, at least, not the women I want to spend my time knowing.

If you're wondering why these levels, it's partly because it's a lot easier to apply peer pressure when you can also sound like you're passing a judgment on the work -- which, in a way, the Bechdel Test does. To snark, "Yeah, it passed the Basic Bechdel, but it totally failed to achieve the Advanced," I think, implies that passing the Basic Bechdel isn't all that impressive. And the thing is: it's not, not really.

Instead of using the Bechdel Test as a positive, using the Basic Bechdel would be damning with faint praise. That fits for me, seeing how its barest minimum is pretty faint, comparatively. "Well, it had two female characters, who did talk about their work. For about thirty-seven seconds. In a movie that's a total of ninety-seven minutes. That's about .06% passing, but technically, it's passing!" Being able to proclaim that a movie passes the Advanced -- even the Expert -- would, in turn, be saying something more than simply, "the movie satisfied the barest minimum to remind the audience that half the world's population is female."

Which brings us to the Expert Bechdel. It's the Advanced Bechdel with some additional simple criteria, revolving around the differences between the women speaking (outside of familial relationships).

1. It has to have at least two unrelated women in it.
   
2. Who are both Named Characters.
   
3. Who are not related to each other.
   
4. Who talk to each other.
   
5. About something besides a man or male-centric role.*
   
6. And focus on the women's personal goals, experiences, or opinions independent of male influence.
   
   1. career ambition or goals
      
   2. education ambition or goals
      
   3. work-related or school-related tasks or projects
      
   4. any other non-traditionally-feminine topics or issues
      
7. Where the women differ in at least two of the following:
   
   1. culture
      
   2. race
      
   3. native language
      
   4. generation (age)
8. with bonus points for differing in:
   
   1. sexuality
      
   2. religion
      
   3. class
      

Just to make this clear, I don't mean minor differences. A five-year age gap is pretty much a nothing once you're through your mid-twenties, compared to an early-twenties college student having coffee with an unrelated woman who's sixty. An Episcopalian and a Lutheran are only marginally differing per beliefs, compared to a Taoist and a Jew. Two white middle-class women -- one urban, one rural -- will have some differences, but outside personal experience/personality, it's still not nearly as much as if the two women were a white working-class student who's a first-generation immigrant from Poland across the table from an upper-class Black woman from Chicago who's a generation older.

So: if the conversation is between a Brazilian-born Catholic and a lesbian Jew from Minnesota, and they're discussing concrete details of investing in a joint business venture, total pass on the Expert Bechdel. And if they're joined by another woman who's a middle-class African-American woman who's thirty years their senior and is an expert on the economics of transnational resource management, and none of them are related to each other, the Advanced Mo Movie Measure is also satisfied and I'd pay good freaking money to get to see that movie.

Especially if they then put down the ledgers and head out to kick some Bad Guy ass.

ETA: as usual, see comments for further discussion.