[ SECRET POST #3144 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3144 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Grace Kelly, Judy Garland]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.
[Soragumi, Shizuki Asato]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #449.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sarillia]

I feel the same way about The Bechdel Test. It's not meant to be a checklist that measures whether or not a film is feminist or not. Any time there's some point made about a trend across a lot of media, people immediately want to turn it into a litmus test where it makes each individual movie or show good or bad, pulling it away from the original point of looking at media as a whole to instead get caught up in arguments about whether one individual case is justified or not.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree. Some of the best feminist films and literature don't pass the Bechdel Test. However, I think the Bechdel Test and the Sexy Lamp test are great for pointing out how shit a shitty movie is to people who don't get it.

[thezmage]

Sir Mix-A-Lot's song "Baby Got Back" passes the Bechdel test. It opens with two girls talking about butts.

[(Anonymous)]

Such a beautiful comment.

[(Anonymous)]

* Another girl's butt.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, that's a good point...

[(Anonymous)]

that song is a work of beauty and a gift to all mankind. this proves the bechdel test truly works.

[(Anonymous)]

But they aren't named characters?

[(Anonymous)]

Becky has a name. Idk about the woman asking Becky to look at that girl's butt. I don't think she has a name.

[(Anonymous)]

Some versions of the Bechdel Test require the female characters to have names.* I don't think that's a requirement in the very original, though.

*The reason being that the characters need to be important enough to be named, so like, a background conversation between two random women the main characters are sitting behind in a restaurant or something wouldn't count. But that seems to be trying to scrape past the "bare minimum" requirement, and besides, there are some things where really important characters don't have names.

[thezmage]

In the original, there's no mention of names being required.

And you certainly can't argue that Becky and the girl talking are unimportant.

[kallanda_lee]

Same. And, technically, within the confines of the Bechdel test, you could still write women in a terribly sexist way (bu not have them talk about men).