Addendum to the Bechdel-Wallace test

[jack]

Talking with Liv, I started suggesting addenda to the Bechdel-Wallace test.

* "is there a female (or other non-white-male-majority-culture) who you describe first in terms of what she does, rather than as 'this woman who...' or in terms of her sexual relationship to the main character?"

* "is there a prominent emotional relationship which is non-sexual?"

My questions would be:

1. Any more?
2. Is it sensible to suggest simplified heuristics for complex problems? (Upside: raise awareness. Downside: encourage simplistic evalutations and even worse, writing to pass the test rather than avoid the underlying problem)
3. Suggestions for names, possibly also webcomic-author related? (Should Shaenon Garrity have one? Should #1 be called after Ripley?

Comments

[naath]

*there will probably always be stories that have only one character who is a a fully-realised character (rather than "the cook" or "the gadget maker"). In a world where character genders were randomly assigned with 50/50 split these stories would pass a lot more often than they do (although of course not always).

*there will also probably always be stories that are, for one reason or another, set in single-gender societies (or a close approximation). At present almost all such stories that get told are man-stories, but there are woman-stories on this model! We should TELL THOSE STORIES. A better world would have those stories be told.