I mean, humans don't have souls either

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
whetstonefires
steveyockey

image

you people will just. say anything

Keep reading

steveyockey

#Tbf tho the bechdel test is pretty shitty #Like dgmw this is a stupid take but it’s a lame test anyway

okay but do you understand that liz wallace made the bechdel-WALLACE test because she was a dyke who wanted to go to movies and pretend the characters were dykes and her friend alison bechdel happened to put her silly little litmus assessment into a comic strip and then the rest of everyone else decided it was a bona fide way of means testing media for Feminist Content? do you know that? it doesn’t sound like you know that

steveyockey

image

some of you are the dumbest motherfuckers alive

spooky-someone

i am going to explain the bechdel test for people such as those in the tags

here is the original comic strip:

image

what the bechdel-wallace test is not:

  • an academic analysis of media
  • a bar that determines whether or not a movie is “bad” or “good” (by which i mean if a movie doesn’t pass the bechdel-wallace test that doesn’t make it bad, and if a movie passes the test the movie is not automatically good)
  • supposed to be taken seriously

what the bechdel-wallace test is:

  • a personal litmus test created by a lesbian who was, presumably, frustrated with the fact that women could not exist in the movie without a relationship to a man

it is not a way to “police what women speak about” because it does not apply to real people. it applies to fictional characters. also, the bechdel-wallace test does not stipulate that there can be no conversation about a male love interest. the women just have to talk about something other than a male love interest.

the reason the male love interest stipulation is there is because like… this test was created by a butch lesbian woman to determine whether or not she wanted to watch a movie. removing that part of the test violates the spirit of the test. it’s silly because it’s not supposed to be serious.

tl;dr stop misinterpreting the bechdel-wallace test you losers. op is right. goodbye

beatrice-otter

As a woman who is not a lesbian, I think the Bechdel-Wallace test is incredibly valuable. But not to judge individual pieces of media on. Because it says nothing about quality of that media, and there’s a lot of other ways that media could be feminist or woman-positive. For example, two female doctors talking about a male patient is still, technically “two women talking together about a man.”

I find the Bechdel-Wallace test important as a way of talking about the state of media. Because any individual work may not pass the Bechdel-Wallace test for a variety of reasons. But when you look at how many works fail it, that tells you something about the representation of women in media. It tells you two things: that there aren’t many female characters, or at least not as many as there are men, and they’re not in leading roles (and thus not getting as many conversations per piece of media), and that when they do talk it tends to be about the men in their lives, whether romantic interest or not. Whether or not any one movie or book or TV show is good or bad is irrelevant. What’s important is the overall pattern.

And talking about the Bechdel-Wallace test gives a good shorthand for starting to talk about the patterns of how women are portrayed in media.