How many comics and cartoons pass the test, /co/? And no, only human characters count (non-human don't. No matter how humanoid they look). And you have count for every episode and every issue seperatly, not just as a whole
Who gives a shit?
>>81479319
I do. Tumblr does. reddit does. the liberal media does. college classes do. other feminists who don't hate women do.
>>81479241
Doesn't Suckerpunch pass this test?
>>81479241
I read romance comic and manga. They fail by default.
>>81479399
>Tumblr does. reddit does. the liberal media does. college classes do. other feminists who don't hate women do.
>They are all one person with a single opinion
>>81479241
I want to deliberatly don't pass on this test for some strips of my webcomic, just for the first time that I pass this test, will be with the female character painting out how stupid this test is.
>>81479451
Well Suckerpunch is a good movie so it doesn't surprise me.
>>81479399
I am from tumblr, you are full of boogers.
>>81479520
That's pretty sexist, anon
>>81479241
Does it count if it's a conversation between two women and a man? What if a man is present in the scene but doesn't make a meaningful contribution to the conversation?
>only human characters count
So all comics/cartoons that don't feature humans never count? All comics that only feature one human character of either gender never count?
And what about comics/cartoons with a perspective gimmick going on, like they follow one character's point of view the whole way through. Won't any of them that follows a man fail automatically and any that follow a woman probably pass?
What counts as a "conversation"? What counts as "about a man"? If two female superheroes talk about how they need to stop dr. evilman's monster, does that count as talking about the monster or about dr. evilman? Do only human men count? Does it need to be a meaningful conversation? Does it count if it's some totally sexist drivel about buying shoes and getting their hair did, so long as it's technically not about a man?
Asking how many pass is good as an overall measure of how the industry is treating women, but using it to test what media you actually personally consume is pretty stupid. Failing the test is only one flaw a piece of work can be said to have, and lots of important, entertaining stories have lots of flaws.
>>81479520
The Bedchel Test is supposed to be the absolute bare minimum and people still don't meet it.
>>81479241
Who the hell are they to define what a "woman" is?
This comic is backwards, outdated, and quite frankly, offensive. Don't post it again.
>>81479610
Minimun for nothing. Pissing on the test doesn't mean shit when regular lesbian porn pass it. It's arbitrary.
>>81479610
maybe because it doesn't matter? if you're still making a good film but failing to meet the bare minimum maybe the element you're lacking is just that unimportant?
>>81479582
>If two female superheroes talk about how they need to stop dr. evilman's monster, does that count as talking about the monster or about dr. evilman?
dr. evilman
>>81479532
Go fuck yourself Snyder
I know an anime that has a scene where all the girls get naked in a hot spring and talk about their boob sizes.
>>81479710
It's true, even Moviebob and Benzaie liked it.
The funny thing is Bechdel just wrote this as a funny observation and moved on. She's a little confused by how some people treat it like scripture.
>>81479582
>Does it count if it's a conversation between two women and a man?
No, of course not. Why would you think that?
>What counts as a "conversation"? What counts as "about a man"?
Jesus Christ anon.
>>81479241
Does it have to pass the test even if there's no way it reasonably could without being blatant tokenism? Like, say, a story set in a historical military scenario, a roman legionary battle or a viking raid or the like?
>>81479399
>feminists who don't hate women
No such thing
>>81479610
It's also meant to be used on a general trend level, and not for individual movies. It's a statistical thing, not meant to be applied to specifics.
>>81479241
"Slut Girl" passes it in every issue.
>>81479901
anon isn't wrong. Do groups of men count? implied but not specified men? nonhuman men?
Only narcissistic women child care about such thing.
>>81479890
This. The Test was never meant to be a pass/fail rating for the quality of a movie. Just an observation of a strange phenomenon in hollywood movies.
>>81479922
the test is just a suggestion or something we can use to inspect a deeper trend, whether or not a particular movie passes it doesn't reflect too much on it
two girls in a hot springs episode of an anime talking about their tiddies counts as passing the test
>>81479973
What about transwomen?
>>81479582
>So all comics/cartoons that don't feature humans never count?
Yep
>All comics that only feature one human character of either gender never count?
Yep
Only humans matter. Beastiality is gross.
>>81479241
Any test that K-On can past with flying colors, but The Great Gatsby fails doesn't really mean shit in terms of quality.
>>81479901
>Jesus Christ anon.
You didn't answer the question.
Does "hey, nice day today" "yeah" count as a conversation? Does one woman soliloquizing at another while the other just goes "hm" and "uh-huh" count as a conversation?
Does "about a man" include underage male children? Does it count one kind of transsexual, or both, or neither? If only one, which one?
If you're going to subject your media to a very restrictive qualifier then you need to be prepared to offer definitions, Anon!
>>81479890
It s crazy how influential this one strip was. Dykes to watch out for is a newspaper comic or something, right?
It doesn't fucking matter if anything passes that retarded test. It never will matter.
>>81480039
transmen? passing cross dressers who aren't yet revealed to be a woman? vice versa?
>>81479922
It was an observation of a general trend made in a comic. If you're doing a story set in a boys boarding school, attempting to pass this test just because it exists would be kind of dumb.
>>81480073
>Does "about a man" include underage male children?
Yes
It was the weirdest thing. I think it like 2-3 weeks ago, but on the same fucking Monday, 3 (live action, not /co/-related) shows that I watched all referenced the Bechdel test.
Super fucking weird. I mean, Jane the Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend both doing it on the same day? OK, kind of reasonable, I suppose...But then The Magicians ALSO has a Bechdel test reference on the same day? That's just weird, man.
>>81480058
But the Great Gatsby was a mediocre book and an awful movie.
>>81479241
>only human characters count (non-human don't. No matter how humanoid they look).
Do you use same kind of logic when you argue that Maus wasn't about jews during second world war and that it doesn't count when talking about comics which deals with historical events?
>>81480212
Yeah, it's not as good as Suckerpunch
>>81479901
>No, of course not. Why would you think that?
Well, what about three women and a man? Four women and a man? Five? If a comic is nothing but 12 women in one room bitching at each other about the state of economy for 20 pages, while one guy sits in the corner with his chin on his hands occasionally saying that he hates them all and they respond saying "we know", that doesn't count? What counts as the man taking part in the conversation? What if one of the women is having a conversation with two people at once, responding to them in turn, and one is a woman and one is a man?
Like, if we leave aside the human qualifier, for now. I saw a review of Zootopia recently that complained the only reason it passed the test was one scene of the police trainer shouting at Judy (which apparently counts despite Judy not saying anything) and the brief chat we hear from the shrew girl and her friends about buying clothes. But later scenes where Judy and Bellweather talked to each other apparently don't, because there was a male character in the background who was barely taking part in an exchange that clearly focused on the two females. How would you rate that, Anon?
>>81479399
>I do. Tumblr does. reddit does. the liberal media does. college classes do. other feminists who don't hate women do.
So nobody important.
>>81480241
I'm not really defending the test so much as pointing out that you have shit taste in books.
>>81479610
No. It's a observation. If you use it as law or rule then you limit creativity.
>>81479950
I don't think so. They usually talk about fucking.
>>81479890
It's a sad indictment of the modern world that the personal opinion of a character in a comic strip is taken so seriously that people actually think it's some sort of objective gauge.
>>81479319
First post best post.
>>81479241
>How many comics and cartoons pass the test, /co/?
A few. For example IN-DG's Emo Cocktail (1 and 2) both pass, and they're a real tour to force.
>>81480122
It's not a retarded test.
>>81479241
How would she even know what movies passed her bullshit test without watching them through all the way first?
>>81480073
>Does "hey, nice day today" "yeah" count as a conversation?
No.
>Does one woman soliloquizing at another while the other just goes "hm" and "uh-huh" count as a conversation?
Sure.
>Does "about a man" include underage male children?
Yes.
>Does it count one kind of transsexual,
Yes.
>or both, or neither?
No.
>If only one, which one?
Transmen, obviously.
I don't really understand why people lose their shit here. It's a really basic criteria by any standard of reasonableness. It's not very restrictive at all, although there are obviously films (e.g. 'If', or 'Tribe') that won't necessarily meet it.
I know you think you're stretching the limits of the test here but it's super fucking simple.
>two women
>conversation
>not about a man
Getting hung up on the definition of 'conversation' or 'about a man' only shows how crazy hung up you are on the idea this should even be a measure.
>>81480084
Yeah, it's a newspaper comic about dykes and politics. It was storytimed on April Fools. >>81344839
>>81480642
>Transmen, obviously.
That seems a little transphobic if you ask me.
>>81480715
How so?
Put the brakes on your story so that two women can stop and talk about shoes and suddenly is a feminist masterpiece.
You broads are dumb.
>>81480762
>Put the brakes on your story so that two women can stop and talk about shoes and suddenly is a feminist masterpiece.
That's not what the test is intended to be in any way. It's about female characters getting the same essential consideration in stories as male ones. That's it. It doesn't speak to the quality of the story or the pace of the narrative at all.
>>81480560
Yes it is.
>>81479241
Man, I hate shit like this. Controlled prompts not meant to explore a topic but to prove a point. What do you expect to accomplish asking a question you already know the answer to?
The thing is, I think the Bechdel test is really not that much to ask for. I think it's a good rule. If anything, for the sake of more interesting characters. It's really shitty when it's propped up just to shit on people's preferences in comics and cartoons. Entertainment, and the viewership of it, should not be limited creatively by any means ever.
So Tumblr, reddit, and all of these slacktivist feminists can go fuck off and stop messing with all the comics I love so much for their shitty agenda, unless you want to ignore this statement and the reality that your "movement" can only afflict entertainment and not fix real issues because it is weak.
>>81480824
The test does not specify this.
What if your story does not feature any female characters? Is there a similar test for movies with overwhelming female casts and how the male characters interact or not?
>>81480642
What if it's a silent comic? If it only has women in it but they don't talk, it would automatically fail, wouldn't it?
>Getting hung up on the definition of 'conversation' or 'about a man' only shows how crazy hung up you are on the idea this should even be a measure.
Well, considering that it's a measure that doesn't at all accurately measure what it's supposed to be measuring, that is, whether or not the story in question is treating women as actual people, then maybe one should "get hung up on it"?
And if you want to assert that it's just a measure of general trends, then if you're applying it to a medium that has such a high proportion of sci-fi and fantasy stories, you need to not apply that stupid "human only" restriction. Like, any Supergirl comic would take a huge hit to its chances of passing because she's technically kryptonian. Nor could you pass, like, a dungeons and dragons comic about an adventuring party that has two female members who have plenty of good conversations but, whoops, one of them has pointy ears? Come on.
>>81480340
Sucker Punch wasn't based on a book you cunt.
What if it's a movie about two female doctors trying to save a male patient's life?
>>81480824
>It's about female characters getting the same essential consideration in stories as male ones
Surely what matters is characters being well developed, not their specific actions within the narrative.
Why is it so important to see women talk to other women? Should it be the same for every group, should a black person in a film always have a conversation with another black person that isn't about a white person, should a gay person always have a conversation with another gay person that isn't about a straight person?
>>81480375
Almost every issue opens with the protagonist meeting an old female friend, they talk about life, then talk about fucking, then they fuck the dude.
>>81480874
>The test does not specify this.
Nigga, what is WRONG with you. What are you looking for here? That is the merit of the test, that's it. There is nothing specified because it originates from a humorous comic strip written by a dyke comic artist. Is your attack that that isn't a rigid enough, proof-driven basis for a test to be applied? It isn't Bechdel who's driven it being applied, so you'd have to look elsewhere and at other people's assessment of why the test is valuable. Which will sure as hell hit upon the point I just made.
>What if your story does not feature any female characters?
Fine. Some narratives won't.
>Is there a similar test for movies with overwhelming female casts and how the male characters interact or not?
Invent one! You'll see the imbalance yourself in how many fail the Bechdel test and don't fail the Ledhceb one.
Why is /co/ so easily triggered and offended?
>>81480924
>What if it's a silent comic? If it only has women in it but they don't talk, it would automatically fail, wouldn't it?
Sure. If we're going to be this autistic about the words "talk" and "human" I don't see any merit in continuing THIS conversation.
You fail or attack this on any number of grounds if you like, and you want to ignore the sincere point at the heart of it.
>>81480642
>not about a man
I think it's implied that it's a love interest. Because women are often used as a plot devices for the main guy.
Conversations are about people (only aspergers can talk about tains or something). So talking about her son, a lazy plumber, some politician doesn't count.
The test should be easy to make but isn't. (For lazy writer reasons)
>>81480996
If the artist of the comic didn't give a shit about this test actually be applied in anyway then why should we? Why would anyone else?
Whether you like it or not there are people who use this thing as a test of a piece of media's quality and that is stupid.
You could make the case that even this Bechdel comic itself doesn't pass its own stupid test if you tried hard enough.
>>81481037
Why do people confuse offence with anger at people's stupidity?
Oh right, it's to bait.
>>81481037
why are you?
>>81480874
The concept of "the movie has at least two men, and they talk about something other than a woman"? People usually call it just reverse Bechdel test. Most movies pass it.
>>81481080
what exactly do you think offense means?
>annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one's standards or principles.
let's take this one comic from a daily strip that's pointing out a problem in media and then pretend it's a statement of purpose and a test to run everything through
>>81481140
We're discussing things. It's what adults do. Simmer down tubby.
>>81481072
>If the artist of the comic didn't give a shit about this test actually be applied in anyway then why should we? Why would anyone else?
Because like I just said, some people have found it valuable.
>Whether you like it or not there are people who use this thing as a test of a piece of media's quality and that is stupid.
It doesn't speak to the quality of media. It's a rule of thumb, generic test which gives a general assessment of the consideration given to female characters in a piece. There are always exceptional instances where it will fall short or be false to apply, like any test of this sort.
I'm not disagreeing with you here about it not being an indication of quality, but I'm also not throwing out the test. There are not a lot of creative works that fail the opposite of this test! It seems fine to me, as a guide to giving consideration to female characters, if people use this where it is sensible to apply.
It's also completely legitimate if some people don't want to see movies that don't meet this test. I'm not one of them but w/e, people can have whatever grounds they like for rejecting media (and other people can think what they like of that).
>You could make the case that even this Bechdel comic itself doesn't pass its own stupid test if you tried hard enough.
You would be being delusionally contrarian but sure, you could.
>>81479241
What if the movie was about a gay male couple?
>>81481204
See, nothing you're saying here speaks as to why this thing has any validity.
>>81481041
>You fail or attack this on any number of grounds if you like, and you want to ignore the sincere point at the heart of it.
Oh, we're attributing motivations to each other, now. Ok, so you want your "test" to be vague and subjective enough that you can arbitrarily say almost any comic/cartoon passes or fails it depending on how you want to define its terms. You want the ability to complain about things because it makes you feel superior. Am I doing it right? Isn't this an enlightened conversation, where we're actually trying to effectively convince each other of something instead of just trying to win the argument? We're friends now, we are, me and you. Best friends.
Gimme a hug, best friend.
>>81479744
tenchi?
>>81479451
So does Bikini Carwash.
>>81481252
I have no argument to make on that beyond:
>>81480996
>>81480824
I'm also mostly in agreement with >>81480861. Reject or accept that as you like senpai.
>>81481290
I actually just missed out 'can' in that sentence, but sure, I'm fine with attributing the motivations you are displaying to you.
>>81481041
Can't help but notice you didn't acknowledge the complaint about the "non-human" qualifier, there, chum.
>>81481338
And I'm fine with attributing the motivations you are displaying to you. We sure are getting along well.
>>81481388
>If we're going to be this autistic about the words "talk" and "human"
>>81479241
>I won't watch movies that don't adhere to my arbitrary requirements
>>81481436
Right, get you. So, is it autistic to point out that making something so subjective that you can choose for yourself whether something passes or fails, and then argue about infinitely with people whose own subjective decision isn't exactly the same as yours, would be generally a bad idea?
I only watch movies where there are at least 15 minutes of scenes where the dialog revolves around ducks. Also the scene must take place on a Thursday. This is important it show a bias against other days of the week or something.
>>81480824
Your right, the problem is if a male gets brought up in any way the conversation is immediately disqualified. Two female cops chasing a male prep nope. He'll Age of Ultron failed because Black Widow and Hawk Eyes wife talk about her unborn male child.
>>81479241
According to this I can watch a movie about two chicks fisting and pissing on each other while talking about how much they love pissing and fisting
>>81481760
That's the height of feminist-enlightened media that is.
>>81479241
What is this shit? Did you copy and paste your gender studies coursework so we could do it for you? Fuck outta here
>>81481306
Every anime with more than 3 girls in the cast ends up at the beach or a hot springs talking about their tits. Sometimes its in a bath house which is just a modern hot spring.
>>81481760
that shows how low the standards of the rule is, and yet, so many movies fail to pass it
>>81479241
I've never seen a strawman comic destroy it's own argument as it's making it so definitly.
If woman don't want to watch Rambo meets Godzilla then they shouldn't have the right to open their mouths, much less vote.
>>81481898
that shows how useless the rule is, you could follow it rigorously and still see only the most sexist crap while missing a ton of strong feminist movies
>>81481898
The standards of the test do not indicate quality whatsoever. One of my favourite movies is 12 Angry Men and that fails the test. Still a great movie.
>>81481991
>If woman don't want to watch Rambo meets Godzilla then they shouldn't have the right to open their mouths, much less vote.
Cross Ange passes, as usual anime is more progressive.
>>81481760
>>81481791
Yes, porn can pass the test. It's about character interactions, not content.
>>81482004
the original bechdel test was never meant to be whether or not you can watch a movie or not, nor was it an indicator of whether a movie is good or not. It's just highlighting the lack of interesting women characters in media who have their own story.
>>81479848
Both of them are fags.
>>81479848
>Moviebob
I'd be more inclined to believe anything movieblob likes is probably shit
>>81481991
It's not a strawman. Most movies revolve around men.Women are good as plot devices and love interests. Of course the lesbians in the comics are bored by that.
>>81482116
>the original bechdel test was never meant to be whether or not you can watch a movie or not
Despite the fact that the character in the comic uses it as a method to filter the movies she can and not watch?
>>81482753
Well Die Hard wouldn't have worked if John were Jane McClane.
>>81479241
I don't care about women plots. But I watched some chicks flicks and TV shows for 20yo girls and I was bore to death. I can see they are ok from a technical point of view but there was nothing I can relate to. Alien Kabuki theater about tax declaration couldn't be worse.
I think I can understand how lesbians feel about normal movies.
>>81479241
>And no, only human characters count
That's just pointlessly arbitrary.
>>81479890
>>81480013
>>81480084
It's an example of how ideas are memetic, they take on lives of their own once they're out there. A much more data-driven observation about the representation of women in movies was provided a few years ago by actress Geena Davis, whose foundation examined family movies (defined as movies rated G through PG-13) and found that there was a consistent five male to every one female speaking part since 1946. Taking that into account, Bechdel's best use is really as a tool for writers, to ask them "are my women characters actually interacting?" Writers tend to compartmentalize female characters for some reason. Women tend not to meet, or if they do, they don't speak directly with one another. Take Daredevil Season 2 - Karen & Elektra only come face to face once, briefly, and never talk. Claire never meets either of them. For the record, the reverse seems true about Jessica Jones - Ruben, Malcolm, Luke & Nuke are all similarly separated from each other.
>>81481066
>I think it's implied that it's a love interest.
It is. Or it should be, but the context got lost along the way. It's pointing out that the only time women are given to talk in many scripts is regarding romantic prospects. It's been turned into a gotcha clause that really makes the whole thing an exercise in futility, though.
>>81483711
>For the record, the reverse seems true about Jessica Jones - Ruben, Malcolm, Luke & Nuke are all similarly separated from each other.
Is there another writing problem? Side characters interact with the protag but rarely with each other.
>>81479241
save the world, gas the dykes
>>81483669
Go yiff yourself, Furry
>>81482753
oh gee, please take the fucks I give. oh wait, I have none.
>>81479610
>fat girl
just like you don't meet the bare minimum to be in good shape
the lack of females interacting or talking about men tells me that women should really work on producing their own media. Movies,games tv, etc, I'm tired of the essays and blogs, take some action, take Hollywood back.
I've read porn that passes the test. They talk about their boobs a lot, but not about guys.
>>81482089
Cross Ange has other flaws with its writing, but yeah, passing the Bechdell test isn't one of them.
>as usual anime is more progressive.
In some ways, yes, particularly in not being afraid of creating shows with primarily female casts.
>>81484437
>take Hollywood back
Hollywood is cancer, the indie film scene is where it's at.
Invalidating non-human characters in a thread about comics and cartoons is even more retarded than the original idea behind the test, which is in fact pretty retarded.
>>81484402
You do or you wouldn't reply.
>>81484838
>particularly in not being afraid of creating shows with primarily female casts.
Right but often as fan service devices.
>>81485170
Thats debatable given their demographic based system.
>>81485429
You mean the Moe shows are actually watched by girls and not by adult loners?
>>81484944
Most intellegent feminist People aren't Furries like you, anon
>>81486124
>intellegent feminist
Is this an oxymoron thread now?
I can't think of any others besides jumbo shrimp.
>>81486116
I mean that given the demographic system it's obvious when a cast of women is meant to appeal to men, and when it isn't or when it doesn't matter. They even have all male stories meant for women
>>81486454
Go back to furaffinity
>>81486569
>>81486116
Yes
