The fact someone does/does not like a particular character or writer doesn't invalidate their point of view on other aspects of the show.

Amy scores poorly on the Bechdel test because she doesn't have a Mum and the other characters do and she has a husband when the other characters don't so her first point of conversation is with another man.

Maybe there is a point in the writing of the female characters in the Moffatt era, I certainly prefer Donna and Martha over Amy and River, but this test proves nothing because it's not designed to prove/disprove sexism as even the people who have an issue with the writing are quick to point out.

It all makes the original University Study into sexism in Doctor Who (using a method that is not appropriate or applicable) and this thread a total waste of time.

I think you're right in as much as the 'sexism' aspect of the report is a red herring. The Bechdel test is about gender bias, although I guess some might consider that a measurement of sexism. And I think you'd be hard-pushed to find a female actor who would disagree there is gender-bias in most film and TV writing. I think the Bechdel test simply reflects to what extent a particular show or film has that bias.

But there are plenty of Donna Noble stories where her mum does not appear and yet she still scores 100% against the criteria.

Likewise, there are plenty of Amy Pond stories which don't include Rory (or where his role is minimal) where Amy could have scored better.

I think what would be more revealing is if the study is extended to Clara after season 8.

I think it's a bit pointless really and has become one of things that some of the more extreme types try to use to prove something is sexist when it isn't really.

The article itself is pretty flawed in itself.

According to Wikipedia: "The Bechdel test asks whether a work of fiction features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The requirement that the two women must be named is sometimes added. Many contemporary works fail this test of gender bias. On average, films that pass the test have been found to have a lower budget than others, but of comparable or better financial performance."

I personally think its a very valid test. I'm not suggesting it is particularly scientific, but its a pretty poor show if any TV drama or film can't manage to have two named, female characters have a conversation about something other than a man. Do you think they would struggle to find at least two named male characters having conversations about something other than a woman?

Maybe. I don't know.

I do agree that female characters shouldn't exist as generic love interests/only talk about men etc either.

On Who though, they don't for the most part. I think this show can write well for women, even in Moffat's era.

Isn't the issue here that you are talking about a tv show which is really focussed around one character( I forget his name). If you flipped the experiment how many conversations with other men have Rory Jack et al had that weren't about the main character.

The comparison is not valid yet. They've compared Series 1-4 to Series 5-7A.
A fairer comparison would be Series 5-8 once Capaldi's first year is done.

Failing that, they should have just done Series 1 to 3 as an ongoing comparison. Doing something like this throws the results out and renders the test as an unequal comparison. Series 7B I suspect is a lot more successful in this test!

In response, I will quote my own post earlier:

"Overall, it is an odd "test". If I made a romantic comedy in which the women talk about men, the test considers it sexist if I don't have a conversation about shoes or whatever somewhere in there. However, if I make a porn film that completely objectifies women, but I have a brief conversation about shoes, then it is not as sexist as the romantic comedy. Alternatively, I can make a lesbian romantic comedy which is _exactly_ the same as the first one where the women are talking about women with whom they are having relationships instead of men, and, somehow, even if the script is exactly the same as the first one with an all female cast instead of women and men, then it is less sexist."

So, if two flibbertigibbet women (I am not saying that all women are flibbertigibbets, I am just using that as an example here) are sitting around talking about a man whom they both love, the movie is sexist. If two flibbertigibbet women are sitting around talking about a woman whom they both love, the movie is not sexist. How in the world does that make sense?

The "test" seems sexist in and of itself.

The "test" seems to reduce characters, whether they are well written, well acted, strong, good role-model characters and reduce them down to simply their gender. Who cares if men only talk about women? Who cares if women only talk about men? Who cares if they are talking about love? What does it matter if the love they are talking about is for a man or a woman? What should that matter for any "test"?

Establish a character and let them be. Ignore gender, ignore race. They are immaterial. They were not chosen by the character and, hence, they do not define the character. The character is defined by the choices that they make. This is what makes a character good or evil, interesting or boring, shallow or deep. Their gender and race, things that they did not choose and cannot control does not.

That you've equated female actors with porn stars is pretty shoddy and disrespectful.

Disrespectful to hypothetical actors in an analogy? I think you're missing the point

I have absolutely not made that connection. The first two examples were polar opposites. The actress and the porn stars were polar opposites. That was obvious.

The analogy was made, in fact, to show how absurd the "test" is. You would think that a proper movie would be more respectful to women. However, in the example given, it would fail the test. You would think that a porn movie would be less respectful to women. However, in the example given, it would pass the test. The examples were diametrically opposed, but, given a rational test, the results of which one was less sexist should have been the first example and not the second. I was simply showing the absurdity of the test.

I did not equate women in that way; you did.

Please don't project your views onto me. We are discussing the profile of female characters in Doctor Who, and you decided to bring porn actors into the equation. A very poor comparison and one that, for me, underlines how far female actors still have to go in terms of equality and gender bias.

Don't reject his point purely because he draws a comparison to porn - while it isn't the argument I would have chosen admittedly, (far from it!) those sorts of movies do have a higher chance of passing that test than most romantic comedies, romance dramas etc., sadly.

However the vast majority of Theophile's post is extremely intelligent. The test itself is extremely flawed, and partially exists to attempt to reduce TV to a checklist in this PC society. It should be about the story, not ticking boxes. Because once you start adhiring to what people want instead of what you feel should be done, that's when things get a bit ugly. (Such as the fact that Mary Whitehouse denied us an outstanding Season 15 to 17 because DW had to be more child friendly -_- )

Well, porn comparisons aside, I don't think anyone is claiming the Bechdel test is particularly scientific. Indeed, looking at where it originated it clearly isn't.

That said, I do think it is an interesting indicator of possible gender bias and although it seems to have been created as a way of judging films, I think it is more relevant for an on-going show (like Doctor Who). Particularly when that show changes its lead female character ever year or two.

That there is such a big difference between the likes of Amy and Donna is interesting. It might even be a reason (on some low-level, subconscious level) as to why Donna seems to score so highly in many of the 'favourite companion' polls.

I am not projecting my views onto you. I did not claim to know what your views were (although you seem to claim to know mine). I merely said that you were the one who saw two sentences in a row, one mentioning actresses and one mentioning porn starts, and that you were the one who equated the two.

(On a side note, while the third sentence mentioned lesbians, you don't seem to have made an equation between actresses or porn stars with the lesbians, but only equated the first two sentences together.)

Overall, I don't think that this tangential debate is helping out the main thread (or either of us) whatsoever, so I will drop it if you will. Although, I will still defend my original post and the examples which I gave therein because they are both valid and apropos.

Its a interesting point. Not totally convinced its particularly relevant though.

Problem with that kind of statistic is the way the style of Moffat's show. Russell's era seemed to make the Doctor's world bigger whereas Moffat's made it smaller.

Amy's character and that of River were totally dependant on the Doctor through their charcatisation so they were bound to fail this test.

I think it will be interesting to see how Clara's character works out now the 'impossible girl' story is over.

But that's the part that I find absurd. Highlighting gender biases, pointing out when a writer has fallen into trope and cliche, is a way of widening character choices, a way of making people think about how much more a character could be. Nobody is being told to write stories in order to pass some silly test.

This is exactly the same process that has gone through writing for all group that are represented as a minority in film and TV - ethnic minorities can't be heroes, disabled people as shown as objects of pity. There are twice as many male characters on our screens than female. And most of those women are defined by their relationships to men - no matter how 'feisty' the character, they are often there to be romantic foils. This is what the Bechdel test 'detects' - not whether it's sexist.

This is about taking characters out of pigeonholes, not putting them in.

What utter claptrap (the content of the link, not your post).

By not considering sexism going the other way, the "research" immediately loses what little credibility it had. As one example off the top of my head, presumably the author would have gone into meltdown had it been The Doctor calling River Song "sweetie" every 5 minutes?

There is (still) on ongoing issue in the entertainment industry about decent roles for female actors. Male actors simply don't face the same challenges.

No. Because, as Mulett says, men aren't consistently marginalised the way women are.
That's something quite different from the traits and mannerisms exhibited by those characters.

But that's not the point of what was being said - it's characters, nbot actors that are being discussed.

To ignore the fact that it can and does get presented the other way is disingenuous. It is, of course, to nowhere near the same degree. But surely the point is that it shouldn't be happening at all, to any character (unless that is the point of the story).

Oh please...

Why is it only an issue if it's consistent? Surely there should be no marginalisation for anyone at all?