Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
QC and the Bechdel test
ReindeerFlotilla:
--- Quote from: TRVA123 on 12 Mar 2015, 18:42 ---
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 12 Mar 2015, 07:25 ---Well that came off rather snide.
You're the administrator. You got admin stuff to do. Did you see me saying you were wrong?
--- End quote ---
It seems like you tend to jump down people's throats a bit, RF. Maybe try giving people the benefit of the doubt that they're not attacking, insulting, or otherwise negatively commenting on you.
Whomever started the thread, people are evidently finding it interesting enough to keep it alive. If you are no longer interested in it, there is no reason to read or respond to it.
--- End quote ---
It's physically impossible to jump down throats.
If you have a reading of "Don't fuss," that isn't infantilizing, I'd like to hear it. I don't see any other reading of that other than snide or dismissive.
I believe there was recently a moderator post stating that the WCDT thread, and the Comic Forum were not the places for personal discussions. What I may or may not seem to do sounds like it would qualify under that injunction.
Thrillho:
Whether we were to accept that point or not, you calling it infantilising is an apt choice given that your response seems to be 'he started it.'
If you think someone is being an ass (and I sincerely doubt that pwhodges was being an ass, intentionally or otherwise) that doesn't give you carte blanche on here to respond in kind.
Mlle Germain:
--- Quote from: Schwungrad on 09 Mar 2015, 07:58 ---The Bechdel test isn't a valid tool to judge the quality of a particular work, but the sheer amount of works that don't pass it speaks volumes about the limitedness of female roles.
--- End quote ---
I think this is the important point to make here!
--- Quote from: Gareth on 11 Mar 2015, 14:05 ---So basically the Bechdel Test is the BMI of feminism.
--- End quote ---
This is a very nice analogy!
It is also important to note that when looking at a number of works of art at once, the question how exactly to interpret the last rule isn't really that relevant. Because if you need to argue over whether this one conversation in a 120 minute or longer movie (or several hundred page novel or whatever) makes it pass the test or not, and when this happens for lots of works of art, this is a sign that there is probably a problem -- I mean, if women were as well-represented as men, this discussion would just not arise.
That being said, QC undoubtedly passes the Bechdel test as a whole, and I very much doubt the usefulness of evaluating it page by page. Month by month or year by year is more interesting, and my feeling is that it would fail only rarely on those time scales as well.
Here is an article about films and how passing the Bechdel test influences how much money they make: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-dollar-and-cents-case-against-hollywoods-exclusion-of-women/
TLDR: The number of films passing the Bechdel test hasn't significantly changed over the past years and is still shockingly low (around 50%).
And films with women in leading roles get by far less funding, but usually earn more money per dollar spent, i.e. are more profitable.
Here are two videos that explain the Bechdel test and also look at how the Oscar-nominated films fare with respect to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8JuizIXw8
I think these highlight very well how the movie industry is primarily showcasing men's stories and does not give women's stories nearly the same weight. Women-centered stories are still rare.
ReindeerFlotilla:
And here's the reason I am not happy with this thread.
There's an actual metric that is absolutely fair, and an actual logic to why I find the question interesting. I have stated it, and I recall a mod post about repeating the same statements over and over, so I invite you to look up thread.
But between the fact that this is a snipped thread, unavoidably missing context, and the the generic title, the subject keeps roaming down the same path.
You can't have everything, a wise man once said. Where would you keep it?
On the other hand, it's not under my name any longer.
It seems to me that the objections to applying the test in any interesting manner boils to "but we know QC isn't sexist."
But of course we know that. Is it sexist isn't an interesting question, IMO. That's not interesting because QC is sexist. And queerphobic.
These are things that totes happened in the strip. It got better.
So, do we judge the strip based on a handful of examples where sexist evaluates to true, or do we assume that some of those things are character and others are the result of things Jeph didn't know?
People want a litmus test. They want a simple thing that they can point to and say "see?" But the questions the Bechdel test tries to resolve are too big for the test. There's a reason Bechdel isn't find of her own test.
But the fact that a hammer is terrible at carving turkey doesn't make it useless. Even everyone thinks it's a turkey carvers. Even if the inventor thought it might be a good way to carve turkey.
It will still drive a nail.
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: ReindeerFlotilla on 13 Mar 2015, 11:11 ---That's not interesting because QC is sexist. And queerphobic.
--- End quote ---
what
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version