Author: Catreece Macleod
So,
what
is
the
Bechdel
Test,
and
why
does
it
seem
to
be
so
surprisingly
difficult
to
pass
such
an
apparently
simple
set
of
criteria?
The
Bechdel
Test
is
a
straightforward
method
to
determine
whether
a
work
of
fiction—such
as
a
movie,
book,
video
game,
or
other
piece
of
media—can
meet
absolute
bare
minimum
feminist
standards.
The
concept
is
that
if
you
can’t
even
pass
such
an
easy
test,
you
really
can’t
be
trying
that
hard.
The
test
comprises
three
criteria:
-
There
must
be
at
least
two
or
more
women
(no
men) -
Who
talk
to
each
other -
About
something
other
than
a
man.
Huh.
Well,
that
really
does
sound
easy,
doesn’t
it?
So
why
do
so
many
works
fail
the
Bechdel
Test?
Is
it
some
conspiracy
against
women?
Is
it
some
awful
sexist
portrayal
in
which
women
are
only
entrusted
to
talk
about
boys
and
have
no
valuable
thoughts
in
their
head
otherwise?
Is
it
due
to
female
characters
with
speaking
parts
being
so
low
in
number
that
they
rarely
even
pass
the
first
rule?
The
answer
is
a
lot
more
complex
than
the
question
itself,
as
with
pretty
much
anything
that
involves
human
interaction.
There
are,
in
fact,
some
minor
sexist
undertones
to
the
problem,
but
probably
not
the
ones
you’d
expect,
and
oddly
enough,
feminist
ideology
is
actually
at
fault
for
several
of
the
underlying
problems,
so
let’s
explore
this
for
a
bit.
What
is
a
man?
Nothing
but
a
pile
of
secrets!
Wait,
hrm.
No.
Well,
maybe.
Still,
the
question
we
have
to
ask
before
we
begin
is
what’s
the
difference
between
a
man
and
a
woman
when
it
comes
to
fiction?
Obviously,
there’s
a
difference,
real
or
imagined;
otherwise,
the
test
wouldn’t
be
problematic
in
the
first
place.
For
this,
we
need
to
understand
that
there
are
a
few
key
things
about
human
psychology
that
affect
the
thought
process
behind
how
we
view
men
and
women.
Women
are,
by
their
very
nature,
deemed
to
be
valuable.
A
woman
is
important,
special,
something
of
value
without
needing
to
be
anything
more
than
a
woman.
She
need
not
be
especially
intelligent,
charming,
or
even
particularly
useful
to
fulfill
the
role
of
“nice
to
have
around.”
A
woman
can
be
an
arrogant,
stuck-up
waste
of
flesh,
but
as
long
as
she’s
a
woman,
that’s
good
enough.
Men,
in
contrast,
are
worthless
in
and
of
themselves
unless
they
prove
themselves
to
be
somehow
valuable.
A
man
must
actually
do
something.
You
respect
women
for
being
women,
but
men
need
to
earn
that
respect.
They
have
to
somehow
help
the
collective,
or
a
woman,
or
otherwise
be
handy
to
have
around
in
a
mechanical
sense.
A
man
who
can’t
slay
a
dragon
is
not
a
man
at
all.
Due
to
this
dichotomy,
we
have
a
problem
already.
People
tend
to
strive
to
prove
themselves
only
when
there’s
a
need
to
prove
themselves.
This
goes
for
all
of
humanity
in
general,
with
one’s
gender
irrelevant
to
the
discussion—people
get
up
off
their
butts
and
get
stuff
done
when
it’s
required
for
survival
or
love.
Without
hoops
to
jump
through,
we,
as
a
species,
tend
to
quickly
grow
lethargic
and
stop
putting
much
effort
into
anything.
As
such,
we
have
our
first
issue:
the
objectification
of
women.
Men
do
stuff;
women
simply
are.
Not
because
women
are
incapable
of
doing
stuff,
but
they
just
don’t
have
any
need
to
do
stuff
to
be
a
woman,
while
the
same
is
not
true
for
men.
This
is
a
case
where
positive
discrimination
can
have
negative
connotations—as
long
as
women
are
deemed
to
be
more
valuable
than
men,
women
will
never
be
as
valuable
by
their
deeds
because
they
simply
don’t
have
that
gun
against
their
back
for
failure
to
be
useful.
Equality
has
to
start
from
the
ground
up:
equality
in
value
and
equality
in
responsibility.
So
as
long
as
a
man
has
more
responsibility
and
less
value,
he
will
forever
be
forced
to
be
“better”
than
a
woman,
whether
he
wants
to
or
not,
in
order
to
be
deemed
worth
keeping
around.
It
doesn’t
help
that
double
standards
such
as
this
are
insulting
to
everyone,
as
both
men
and
women
suffer
when
this
kind
of
thing
is
enforced
by
society.
Just
keep
in
mind,
it
doesn’t
stem
from
a
hatred
of
women—it
stems
from
trying
to
put
women
on
a
pedestal
and
failing
to
consider
the
indirect
consequences
tied
to
that
action.
So
what
does
this
have
to
do
with
the
Bechdel
Test?
Quite
simply,
it
funnels
back
to
character
design
and
motivations.
If
you
have
a
female
character,
you
have
to
provide
some
awfully
compelling
reasons
(note
the
plural)
for
her
to
do
pretty
much
anything.
With
a
male
character,
it’s
simple—he
wants
to
be
valued,
either
by
a
woman,
or
by
society,
or
by
other
men.
This
is
the
easiest
out
there
is
because
it
means
a
male
character
can
always
be
thrown
together
in
record
time.
Just
give
him
a
group
that
looks
down
on
him
for
not
being
manly
enough
and,
ta-da,
you
now
have
a
male
character
who
can
move
the
plot
forward.
For
a
female
character,
it’s
a
lot
more
difficult
from
the
start
since
if
she’s
going
to
do
anything,
you
can’t
just
have
a
group
that
wants
to
oust
her
from
society
for
the
sake
of
being
useless—that
would
be
deemed
sexist.
A
woman
who
is
useless?
Throw
her
out!
Wait
…
no,
that’s
violence
against
women!
Yeah,
so
you
can’t
do
that.
This
means
that
writing
a
female
character
involves
a
more
complex
backstory
to
make
her
do
pretty
much
anything.
As
such,
this
pretty
much
rules
female
characters
out
almost
entirely
from
being
a
background
character.
Toss
in
that
violence
against
women
is
deemed
evil,
while
violence
against
men
is
perfectly
acceptable,
and
you
basically
have
written
women
out
of
90%
of
the
possible
roles
they
could
fill
already.
With
that
in
mind,
suddenly
we
see
how
easy
it
is
to
fail
the
Bechdel
Test;
most
movies
can’t
even
get
past
the
first
rule
of
having
two
or
more
women
with
speaking
parts,
and
if
they
do
toss
in
a
female
with
a
speaking
part,
it’s
often
just
a
background
character
who
gives
a
generic
report
or
informs
someone
of
something,
yet
she
doesn’t
say
anything
that
a
man
couldn’t
say,
nor
does
she
actually
influence
the
plot
in
any
relevant
way.
Ah,
and
you
thought
it
was
over
there?
No.
No,
no,
no.
I’m
afraid
not.
The
rabbit
hole
goes
much
deeper,
unfortunately.
If
it
were
just
a
matter
of
female
characters
being
more
difficult
to
write
and
requiring
more
time
for
backstory,
it
would
still
mean
most
quality
written
works
would
have
lots
of
well-written
female
characters
as
they’d
be
a
great
incentive
for
the
writer
not
to
rely
on
lazy
writing
techniques
like
they
can
with
male
characters.
So
…
why,
then,
are
female
characters
still
so
sparse
in
general,
even
among
well-written
works?
Well,
there’s
a
few
more
issues
at
fault
here,
some
of
them
we’ve
lightly
touched
on
already,
some
we
haven’t.
For
instance,
the
whole
“women
are
special
for
being
women”
thing
rears
its
ugly
head
yet
again,
and
we
find
that
making
a
unique
male
character
is
actually
pretty
easy—give
him
a
whacky
personality,
tons
of
flaws,
just
dress
him
up
with
absurd
attire,
it’s
all
good.
Men
absolutely
have
to
strive
to
stand
out
from
the
crowd,
so
making
a
male
character
who
is
unique
is
pretty
easy
since
men
will
tend
toward
extremes,
even
risky
ones
that
people
would
think
are
strange
or
stupid,
much
more
readily.
Bad
attention
is
still
attention,
after
all.
Let’s
take
an
example:
Alex
Louis
Armstrong
from
the
famed
Fullmetal
Alchemist.
He’s
got
an
absurdly
large
mustache,
muscles
all
over,
and
prances
about
in
a
silly
manner
with
sparkles
and
glitter.
Seriously,
I’m
not
joking
here.
He
stands
out
as
a
character
not
only
because
his
character
has
been
passed
down
the
Armstrong
family
line
for
generations
but
also
because
he
takes
his
masculinity
to
absurd
levels
of
silliness
and
it
works.
Now,
let’s
consider
the
reversal:
a
female
character
who
has
large
breasts,
a
voluptuous
body,
and
is
a
grease
monkey.
In
this
case
(not
Winry
Rockbell,
as
she’s
actually
well
written
and
isn’t
a
supermodel),
it’s
cry
after
cry
of
objectification
and
sexism;
she
can’t
take
her
body
to
ludicrous
levels
without
being
considered
only
an
object,
even
if
she
has
a
traditionally
masculine
role
to
offset
it.
With
male
characters,
you
can
do
so
much
more
with
them.
A
man
can
be
defined
as
any
male
who
provides
a
useful
service
to
society.
Giant
minotaur?
No
problem
as
long
as
you’re
friendly!
What
about
a
female
minotaur?
We-ell,
no.
Unfortunately,
she’s
now
deemed
ugly,
unless
she’s
vastly
more
anthropomorphic
than
the
male
variant,
as
was
found
back
in
the
World
of
Warcraft
many
years
ago,
when
both
male
and
female
players
insisted
they
didn’t
want
Tauren
women
to
look
so
bestial.
Turns
out
even
women
don’t
like
playing
ugly
female
characters
and
don’t
associate
monsters
with
being
female.
Women
in
the
media
are
a
bit
limited;
sure,
they
get
more
options
for
clothing
and
how
to
pretty
themselves
up,
but
in
the
end
they’re
limited
to
types
of
prettiness
since
they
have
to
maintain
the
aspect
of
womanhood—a
woman
must
look,
sound,
and
act
like
a
woman
to
be
deemed
a
woman.
Pvt.
Vasquez
in
Aliens?
Not
a
woman.
Sure,
she
had
breasts
and
made
some
gender-based
jokes,
but
she’s
considered
too
butch
to
count
as
feminine
and
therefore
the
rules
for
men
apply
instead
of
the
rules
for
women.
The
strong,
independent
woman
isn’t
what
people
want,
not
even
feminists,
or
they’d
be
praising
her
constantly
over
Ellen
Ripley,
who
was
largely
useless
except
for
when
her
motherly
instinct
kicked
in.
Ripley
tried
to
be
useful
a
few
times
but
was
largely
viewed
as
“I
guess
you
can,
if
you
want,
but
you
don’t
have
to.
You’re
valuable
without
being
useful,”
except
by
the
soldiers
who
viewed
her
as
exactly
that—useless
until
she
provided
some
useful
information.
Jenette
Vasquez,
however,
was
“one
of
the
guys”
precisely
because
she
was
useful
all
the
time
and
acted
with
the
male
mindset
of
having
something
to
prove.
Regardless,
I
digress;
we
have
more
to
cover.
Much
more.
Sexism
is
a
problem,
even
when
it’s
positive,
as
we’ve
already
seen.
“You
wouldn’t
hit
a
girl,
would
you?”
is
a
major
issue
in
particular.
Consider
the
idea
of
harming
a
woman
for
a
moment
…
now
consider
the
idea
of
harming
a
man.
It’s
not
the
same,
is
it?
Harming
anyone
should
be
abhorrent,
yet
that’s
not
what
we
see
in
practice.
A
woman
being
harmed
is
supposedly
far
worse,
and
even
the
feminists
can
agree
with
me
on
this
because
they’re
the
ones
screaming
that
it’s
okay
for
a
woman
to
hit
a
man
but
not
for
a
man
to
defend
himself
from
a
woman
who’s
attacking
him.
Indeed,
check
any
media
and
you’ll
see
this
played
out
time
and
again.
You
don’t
get
a
horror
movie
because
a
man
was
hurt.
It’s
no
big
deal,
so
who
cares?
It’s
horror
because
a
woman
was
hurt.
This
is
how
we
know
the
villain
is
evil
as
well:
he
hurt
a
woman.
How
dare
he.
In
fact,
let’s
consider
the
mere
concept
of
killing
a
woman.
You
will
never
see
this
unless:
-
It
is
a
horror
movie
(killing
a
man
is
not
horrible
enough
to
make
it
a
horror
movie). -
She
is
shown
not
to
be
a
“real
woman,”
thereby
undoing
her
special
right
as
a
woman
to
protection.
That
is,
she
is
an
alien
(e.g.,
Aliens,
Blade
Runner),
she
has
all
the
negative
characteristics
of
a
man
(Aliens),
or
she
is
an
out-and-out
protagonist
who
is
clearly
crazy
and
a
murderer
(e.g.,
Misery,
Fatal
Attraction). -
She
threatens
the
life
of
an
innocent
woman
(Shining
Through,
Fatal
Attraction,
and
Total
Recall). -
She
has
been
seen
in
no
more
than
three
scenes
(we
have
not
gotten
to
know
her—she
is
not
a
“real
woman”
to
us). -
The
rest
of
the
movie
is
focused
on
avenging
her
death
(Death
Wish),
making
it,
in
essence,
a
morality
film
showing
us
that
a
woman
killed
leads
to
a
man
killed.
The
above
list
is
word
for
word
from
a
class
headed
by
a
female
scriptwriter
and
is
quite
literally
the
rules
that
writers
use
in
the
industry
on
how
to
handle
female
characters’
deaths.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
you
can’t
hurt
a
woman,
nor
can
you
kill
her.
If
you
do,
you
must
adhere
to
strict
limitations
as
to
what
is
acceptable;
otherwise,
it’s
viewed
as
cruelty
and
sexism
toward
women.
Which
is
odd,
because
treating
a
woman
like
a
man
is
equality—yet
it’s
cited
as
sexism.
Go
figure.
Even
Anita
Sarkeesian
is
quite
adamant
about
these
things,
pointing
out
that
women
are
not
allowed
to
be
harmed
in
any
way,
shape,
or
form
in
video
games
or
it’s
sexist.
Sure,
going
into
a
restaurant
and
murdering
the
all-male
staff
is
fine,
but
kill
a
stripper
and
you’ll
get
penalized
for
it.
Unfortunately,
this
“harm”
is
so
broadly
defined
that
it
covers
too
much
to
do
much
of
anything
with
a
female
character.
You
can’t
even
criticize
a
female
character
or
you’re
demeaning
a
woman
and
treating
her
as
stupid,
and
therefore
are
being
sexist.
You
can’t
have
her
face
the
consequences
of
poor
decisions
or
actions,
nor
can
you
really
hurt
her
in
general.
Here’s
a
little
secret
to
writing—conflict
exists
in
virtually
all
forms
of
storytelling,
with
the
four
standard
types
classified
as
Man
against
Man,
Man
against
Society,
Man
against
Nature,
and
Man
against
Self.
You
may
notice
that
little
stipulation
about
it
being
Man
in
conflict—the
reason
for
this
is
that
conflict
isn’t
there
for
the
purpose
of
there
being
conflict,
it’s
just
the
surface
element
that
is
used
to
push
the
real
purpose
behind
it
forward:
suffering.
In
all
storytelling,
everything
in
the
story
must
have
a
purpose:
every
description,
every
action,
every
element.
There
is
always
a
purpose.
In
the
case
of
conflict,
the
purpose
is
not
to
have
an
action
scene
but
rather
to
wound
the
protagonist.
Why
wound
the
protagonist?
It’s
the
easiest
and,
arguably,
the
only
method
of
character
growth.
A
character
who
is
harmed
must
strive
to
better
oneself,
to
overcome
the
pain,
or
to
solve
the
problem.
Without
harming
a
character
physically,
emotionally,
psychologically,
or
in
some
other
manner,
that
character
is
unable
to
grow
and
become
better
than
they
are.
This
is
exactly
why
Mary
Sue–style
characters
are
so
bloody
boring;
they
never
face
a
challenge,
they’re
never
on
the
losing
side,
never
the
underdog—they
never
have
to
fight
for
survival,
nor
do
they
suffer.
The
audience
never
generates
any
sort
of
sympathy
for
them.
This
is
a
large
part
of
why,
for
example,
you’ll
notice
that
Superman
is
not
the
core
of
any
Superman
movie,
comic,
or
other
media
centered
around
him.
He
can’t
be
hurt.
He’s
essentially
perfect.
As
such,
the
point
isn’t
that
conflict
exists
in
relation
to
Superman
himself
but
rather
that
conflict
matters
to
those
around
Superman.
Everything
that
happens
that’s
of
interest
happens
to
the
characters
surrounding
Superman;
he’s
a
setting,
a
backdrop,
a
framework
for
the
narrative,
but
he
isn’t
the
true
protagonist.
To
generate
character
development,
you
absolutely
have
to
harm
the
character,
and
conflict
is
the
most
common
method.
With
a
female
character,
since
you’re
not
allowed
to
harm
them,
you
can’t
make
them
grow
or
better
themselves
in
the
vast
majority
of
situations.
You
can’t
cut
off
a
woman’s
hand
for
being
a
thief,
then
expect
the
audience
to
be
okay
about
that
as
they
would
about
a
man
receiving
the
same
treatment.
You
can’t
injure
her,
hurt
her,
harm
her,
or
kill
her.
She’s
limited
by
our
protection
of
women,
and
as
such,
she’s
largely
useless
as
a
protagonist
or
antagonist
since
she
not
only
has
no
motivation
to
do
anything,
but
you
also
can’t
give
her
a
motivation
to
do
anything.
If
you
look
at
this
in
practice,
you
get
movies
like
Frozen,
in
which
the
protagonist,
Elsa,
doesn’t
really
learn
anything,
never
really
grows,
and
never
really
suffers.
She
freezes
her
entire
kingdom,
nearly
kills
her
sister,
and
generally
does
a
lot
of
terrible
things,
yet
these
are
never
allowed
to
truly
harm
her.
She
becomes
withdrawn,
yet
fails
to
really
take
responsibility
for
her
actions.
Which
segues
into
yet
another
issue—responsibility.
Women
in
the
media
are
not
allowed
to
take
responsibility
for
their
actions,
even
if
they
want
to.
It’s
always
someone
else’s
fault,
always
some
other
issue
causing
them
to
act
a
certain
way,
always
some
external
force
acting
upon
them.
A
woman
is
pure,
without
evil,
unless
evil
is
introduced
to
her
artificially,
or
at
least
this
is
the
narrative
that
has
been
forced
upon
us,
and
one
that
writers
are
forced
to
work
with.
You
can’t
make
a
woman
suffer
the
consequences
for
her
actions
or
take
responsibility
for
things
she
did
wrong
as
something
that
was
her
choice.
If
she
screws
up,
it’s
only
because
external
factors
forced
her
to.
Unfortunately,
Spider-Man’s
Uncle
Ben
had
it
wrong—it’s
not
“with
great
power
comes
great
responsibility,”
but
rather
the
reverse.
By
accepting
great
responsibility,
you
gain
great
power.
When
you
say
that
you
could
have
done
something
different,
you
accept
the
power
to
make
that
choice
differently
the
next
time.
If
a
woman
is
raped,
she’s
told
that
she
could
do
nothing
to
have
changed
it,
and
she
has
zero
responsibility
for
the
situation
leading
up
to
such.
In
reality,
all
this
does
is
shelter
her
from
her
true
capacity
for
power—to
make
a
decision
that
could
protect
her
in
the
future.
This
overprotection
from
responsibility
prevents
her
from
ever
truly
growing
as
an
individual;
the
conflict
occurs,
but
the
character
growth
(even
if
it’s
in
reality)
fails
to
be
gained,
defeating
the
purpose
of
the
conflict
in
the
first
place
in
a
work
of
fiction.
A
character
absolutely
must
be
capable
of
saying
they
screwed
up
and
accepting
the
consequences
for
such
if
they
are
to
be
useful
as
a
primary
character
in
a
storyline,
regardless
of
medium.
Without
this
capacity,
the
character
simply
can’t
be
a
protagonist.
And
without
the
ability
to
hang
the
burden
of
responsibility
around
their
neck,
they
can’t
be
the
antagonist.
As
such,
the
vast
majority
of
female
main
characters,
both
protagonists
and
antagonists,
are
largely
weakly
written
characters
with
no
real
purpose
or
value
to
the
storyline.
When
excuses
have
to
be
made
up
for
their
failings,
they
fail
to
be
valuable
in
telling
the
story
and
cease
to
be
worth
writing
about
at
all.
And
therein
lies
the
true
problem
of
the
Bechdel
Test—any
half-decent
script
must
have
all
its
elements
exist
as
an
intentional
addition
with
a
purpose
behind
such.
This
means
you
can’t
just
have
two
random
female
characters
who
have
no
value
to
the
plot
having
a
conversation
that
doesn’t
relate
to
the
plot;
otherwise,
it’s
simply
bad
writing
and
will
fall
to
the
editing
floor
because
it’s
pointless.
Therefore,
the
plot
must
be
referenced,
and
as
we’ve
just
covered,
female
characters,
due
to
the
limitations
of
such,
make
for
remarkably
poor
protagonists
and
antagonists,
so
you’re
going
to
have
either
a
male
or
a
monster,
which
is
assumed
to
be
male
by
default.
As
such,
the
vast
bulk
of
conversations
about
the
plot
almost
invariably
must
include
reference
to
either
the
protagonist
or
the
antagonist,
and
by
which
action
causes
the
work
to
fail
the
Bechdel
Test.
In
fact,
the
very
things
that
are
harmful
to
men
are
also
the
very
things
that
make
them
stronger:
pain,
suffering,
being
ostracized
from
a
group,
having
no
innate
value,
being
required
to
prove
themselves,
being
expendable
…
the
list
goes
on
and
on.
Yet
these
all
lead
to
the
same
path:
strife
generates
character
development.
It
doesn’t
necessitate
positive
character
development,
but
it
does
ensure
that
some
sort
of
character
development
is
at
least
possible.
Someone
who
is
comfortable
with
their
position
in
life
will
never
rise
to
the
challenge
if
there
is
no
challenge
to
rise
to,
so
they
have
to
actively
put
themselves
into
risky
positions
so
as
to
artificially
generate
that
challenge.
Regardless,
what
this
means
is
that
female
characters
are
heavily
crippled
just
as
actual
women
are
by
our
overprotective
society.
Until
a
woman,
or
a
female
character,
has
the
chance
to
seriously
harm
herself,
she
can
never
truly
become
more
than
she
currently
is,
much
less
become
an
important
part
of
the
plot.
Plot
is
what
moves
the
story
forward,
it’s
the
march
of
change,
the
journey
from
one
state
to
another,
and
without
harm
or
threat
of
harm
as
a
catalyst
for
change,
there
can
be
only
stagnation.
So
interestingly
enough,
what
will
make
more
movies
and
video
games
pass
the
Bechdel
Test
is…
equality.
Actual
equality.
Treating
women
as
poorly
as
men
are
treated
and
telling
them
to
woman
up
is
what
forces
them
to
do
their
best,
and
pulling
away
all
the
safety
nets
to
save
them
is
what
ensures
that
most
will
succeed—they
can’t
afford
to
fail.
The
downside
is
…
some
will
be
lost
in
the
process.
Some
will
fail,
and
some
will
fall,
and
they
will
make
quite
the
unpleasant
“splat”
as
they
greet
the
concrete
below.
Until
we’re
willing
to
let
women
fail,
in
reality
and
in
fictional
media,
we
simply
won’t
see
the
Bechdel
Test
passed
with
any
sort
of
consistency.
Because
of
this,
there
are
remarkably
few
ways
to
successfully
pass
the
Bechdel
Test
due
to
the
nature
of
what
we
deem
to
be
acceptable
culturally.
Most
of
those
methods
involve
cop-outs,
such
as
writing
a
scene
that
has
no
place
of
value
in
the
script
as
it
doesn’t
have
any
relevance
to
the
plot;
having
an
arbitrarily
decided
upon
all-female
cast
that
largely
fails
for
the
reasons
above;
or
ignoring
the
cultural
rules
and
creating
a
truly
strong,
empowered
female
character—the
kind
that
feminists
would
absolutely
abhor
with
the
burning
passion
of
one
thousand
suns
because
she
would
get
the
absolute
crap
kicked
out
of
her
and
would
actually
confess
to
screwing
up
so
as
to
cause
the
beatdown
in
the
first
place.
So,
oddly
enough,
the
ideal
method
of
passing
the
Bechdel
Test
with
good
writing
…
is
to
write
a
cast
of
characters
that
the
very
people
who
complain
about
things
not
passing
the
Bechdel
Test
would
be
screaming
about
being
sexist
because
the
alternative
options
simply
lead
to
bad
writing.
And
now
you
know
why
the
Bechdel
Test
is
so
hard
to
pass.
It’s
not
culturally
acceptable
to
pass
it
unless
you
resort
to
bad
writing
techniques
to
bypass
the
positive
discrimination
in
favour
of
women
that
prevents
them
from
being
able
to
be
employed
as
useful
characters
in
the
plot.
In
fact,
the
only
way
to
pass
it
with
even
vaguely
competent
writing
is
to
add
things
that
are
considered
sexist
or
misogynistic,
which
defeats
the
whole
purpose
of
passing
it,
so
it’s
not
like
there’s
any
real
incentive
to
want
to
pass
it
in
the
first
place
since
it’s
not
going
to
actually
make
anyone
happy
anyway.
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)