I found this after reading and responding to this post here about early Trek fans' prejudicial negative reaction to TNG. One of my responses (see here) was to point out that any fans of the progressiveness of Trek ought to have been mindful of the room for improvement over TOS, with female representation being an obvious issue. I posed the question "when did Trek start consistently passing the Bechdel test", thinking that it didn't start happening until Voyager, which those hard-line TOS fans would never have allowed to be made (along with TNG and DS9).
And of course, someone's done the analysis with graphs and everything! Awesome! (though note the links to tumblr posts at the bottom that are now behind a sign-in wall ... fun).
The results aren't surprising to me, generally. I expected TNG to do worse, but also thought it did a pretty good job with female guest characters so it might score higher than I thought. DS9, I expected to do better than TNG, which, to my surprise is only marginally true. But I didn't expect, from memory, how much of that is attributable to so many characters breaking off into (hetero, yes even Odo) couples. Voyager obviously does very well. And Enterprise ... well we shouldn't expect much of that ... honestly, for me, this cements the show's status as a blight on this era to lean so masculine straight after voyager.
And of course TOS shows its age, which, surely by 1987, good Trek fans should have been aware of?
Beyond that, I can't help but think of SNW here, which, IMO has a wonderful cast/crew that's well balanced and which I'd expect to be doing well on the Bechdel (as low and superficial bar as it is). But, as it starts to transition into a TOS prequel/reboot (as it is trending from S2 and as the show runners are indicating), all of those TOS characters are going to carry that 60s baggage with them. They'll all be men (Uhura is already there!) and all be special miracle workers. La'an's story has already been sidelined into a Kirk romance. Pelia the engineer was already somewhat substituted by Scotty the engineer. As it goes on (presuming it does), I think it could begin to look awkward once you squint.
EDIT: For those asking about new seasons/series ... I found this page/blog by the author of the parent blog post ... which provides data for some new Trek (Disco and Picard S3 and SNW S1 it seems).
Somewhat notably to me (though only one data point) ... the one episode of SNW S1 that (clearly) fails the test is the one with Kirk in it.
In a similar vein though, while Disco generally does well (best of all Trek so far it seems), the author notes that Season two had the most episodes that were close to the line, because Michael’s arc was so intertwined with her search for her brother, Spock. That is, the more new Trek leans into TOS nostalgia, the worse this gets.
Isn't this just a meme test to raise awareness? I see it often being failed because women talk about their straight romantic interests. I guess that's something most men could even do without in their entertainment. My takeaway is that more diverse groups of writers should be hired, to give us fresher stories.
It's a super low bar. The story just has to have two women talk about something other than a man. Troi telling Beverly how hot Yar was would technically pass the test, yes.
Correct conclusion though, more diverse groups of writers is definitely the way to go.
Yep, using it as a literal test seems to miss the point, namely that there is a significant %age of films and TV that fail to meet even that low a bar.
Not even one episode of season 1 TOS passed it. For shame. What were the 60s thinking?
Edit: /s by the way. I'm aware of the culture in the 60s.
I mean, it was another time. Their first pilot had number one, and that didn't fly. But that's the point, it was another time, and staying stuck in that time will always have drawbacks. As the article points out, the TOS Kelvin timeline reboots don't do well on the bechdel at all, and it's not a coincidence. If SNW heads toward more TOS prequel/reboot territory, you'll probably see it in bechdel data like this.
That's a bit of a low-resolution phrase.
Of course it obviously was a product of it's time - but it did push the boundaries as far as it could, and had to fight for some basic scenes.
Unlike many other "products of their time" that didn't even try and move the needle for positive representation.
I thought it was widely agreed that the bechedel test isn't a very good metric? Like lesbian porn passes, but a lot of very good ST episodes don't.
I think it's more accurate to say that it's such a low bar that it shouldn't ever be failed, unless the reverse bechdel test is also being failed in more or less equal measure. Passing it need not mean much. Failing it, regularly, means plenty.
Also, porn basically has no relevance to the assessment of gender diversity in drama.
IIRC Measure of a man doesn't pass, and thats the best episode imo. And imo, the test is mainly good for rage bait and not much more than that.
Sorry my friend ... that's a downvote from me.
Measure of a man doesn’t pass, and thats the best episode imo.
This isn't about single episodes or even whether an episode that fails can be good by other standards. Flipping this, would the episode have been worse if two women had a conversation about something other than a man? I'd imagine not at all, so why didn't it happen?
And imo, the test is mainly good for rage bait and not much more than that.
I haven't seen any rage here ... unfortunately, your post is the most angsty I've seen, which, I have to say, implies that you're uncomfortable with something like Trek or TOS being critiqued or diversity issues in general.
Beyond that, it's a simple "test" that anyone who actually uses or talks about will acknowledge is simple and flawed, but is also relevant in talking and thinking about gender diversity in how much it if failed. Just look at the graph of pass rates for Trek over time ... basically a steady increase (until ENT). That more or less shows that it's not a meaningless hollow test but actually measures something real.
If you don't care about gender diversity or don't think it's that important, would you care to explain why?
I think the story comes first. A diversity first approach just leads to a terrible story. Something like the Shawshank Redemption, thats a good story but it has no women. And when you have diversity first, you (generally speaking) don't get good stories. Its not impossible, to be sure, but it usually turns into gimmicks and token characters.
Something like the Shawshank Redemption
In the original Stephen King novella, Morgan Freeman's character is a white Irish guy. I look forward to hearing all about your newfound hatred of this forced diversity.
But it wasn't a gimmick. No one pointed to him and said "Look at our token! Hes black! Isn't that impressive?"
Could you please point me in the direction of the goalposts? I swear you had them right here a moment ago...
A diversity approach makes characters into gimmicks. A story first approach doesn't. How is that moving goalposts?
You're commenting this on a Star Trek discussion forum. A show that was founded on the idea that diversity is a strength. Gene Roddenberry specifically cast women in positions of authority, and non-white actors to be the crew of the Enterprise because he wanted to portray a future where humanity had moved beyond such petty bigotries.
A franchise which has persisted for 57 years, and is recognized the world over, founded on the "diversity first" approach you're lamenting.
But it wasn't. No one looked at Worf or Guinan and made their race part of the marketing.
Do you have an example of something where that is happening?
Easiest example is 2016 ghostbusters. The whole gimmick was that they gender flipped the original.
That's not how that movie was marketed though; it was marketed with a bunch of bad CGI and half-assed adlib because Paul Feig couldn't write an actually funny script even if he had Mel Brooks and Mike Judge puppeting him like marionette.
What you're talking about is the same thing I was talking about, the very conception of the idea. Star Trek from the very beginning in 1966 has been about pushing the boundaries of diversity on television.
I agree with you...to a point. Story should come first, but if a story fails the Blechdel Test, there should be a good, defensible reason for it, and there are good reasons to fail the test, e.g. a story takes place exclusively on a Royal Navy ship circa 1800; there were no women there, so it wouldn't make sense to pass. I'll buy it.
In Star Trek though, there are fewer defensible reasons because of the nature of the show. Off the top of my head, "Measure of a Man" could have Capt. Louvois discussing Android rights with Dr. Pulaski (without mentioning Data) or Troi expressing to Guinan how upsetting it is that these trials are necessary. Does the lack of a scene like that make the episode bad? No. It starts a discussion, though, which is the primary purpose of the test to begin with. In the case of "Measure of a Man," a scene like that would have probably been left on the cutting room floor to make way for a tighter story that just happened to not have women at the center of it.
Also, reasonable people can disagree on how important a particular scene could be, but the discussion of female representation is still an important one. The goal isn't to "pass" the test for everything, but there shouldn't be an overwhelming amount of failures of the test.
The test was never meant to be a metric for whether something is good or not. It’s meant to be a metric for representation of women in media.
The test is based on this 1985 comic from Alison Bechdel’s “Dykes to Watch Out For”:
Show
With that history in mind, I don’t think the fact that lesbian porn passes is a shortfall of the test. The test was created by lesbians, after all.
Article's from 2014. I'd really like to know how the more recent shows have faired.
Did a search and found this: https://trekkiefeminist.com/category/bechdel-wallace-test/
Maybe a separate post should be made to share ... seems like a good resource on this.
Nice one!
The question I was wondering: SNW passed with 9/10 episodes in season 1.
Disco was 93-100%, Picard 90-100%. They don't have Prodigy or Lower Decks, though.
For level setting, I would like to see the results of the "reverse Bechdel" test: a scene where two named male characters talk about something other than a woman.
The numbers will surely be higher than for the standard Bechdel, but I doubt they are 100%: for example, any episode primarily about heterosexual romance will risk failing both tests. TOS seems like it should hit that mark pretty reliably, but the prevalence of episodes where Kirk gets stuck on an alien world and spends most of his time chatting up a lady cut into the odds. (Likewise if we were to take literally Kirk's absurd characterization of the Enterprise as a woman, but... no). DS9 and TNG will run into problems with their volume of mixed-gender conversations, and for TNG especially the prevalence of significant female guest stars who male characters are likely to be discussing will cause some failures. Etc, etc.
To be clear, we know damn well that Star Trek has had problems with sexism, with instances both subtle and gross (Qpid and clay pots, anyone?). The Bechdel test also seems to be accepted as both a ludicrously low bar and an unreliable measure, but I have yet to see it put in appropriate context against the reverse test. What does it tell us if 98% of Trek episodes pass the reverse Bechdel? or if "only" 75% do? Does Voyager's 86.9% standard score exceed or fall flat relative to their reverse Bechdel? Etc, etc. I would posit that the relationship between the Bechdel and reverse Bechdel should tell a pretty strong story about the level of subtle sexism in how the show is written, while an aggregation of the two scores is mostly just a measure of how (in)frequently the characters are chatting about their coworkers.
I take your point. DS9, as the linked article's author points out, scores worse on the bechdel over time because characters get paired off into couples more and more, which would arguably show in the reverse bechdel too.
Given the numbers and the low bar of the bechdel, some quick sampling could probably be done to get a picture. Select 10 episodes that pass the bechdel test and 10 that fail, maybe some from TNG ans some from voyager, and we here collectively try to see if they pass/fail the reverse bechdel test in a group effort?
My personal bet is that until the bechdel pass rate goes up into ~90%, your point won't really fly and the reverse will be passed all of the time ... still interesting to find out.
Test definition
- Two named men
- Have a conversation
- about something other than another woman
My personal bet is that until the bechdel pass rate goes up into ~90%, your point won’t really fly and the reverse will be passed all of the time … still interesting to find out.
In the era of "just asking questions", I certainly understand any implicit assumptions that I'm oh-so-cleverly concealing some ill-conceived "point" about feminism. Certainly a case can be raised that by presenting a possible removed in the supporting evidence of your post is an inherently disruptive and destructive act; clearly your broader point about closet bigotry affecting fan biases is both correct and worth emphasizing. I'd far rather strengthen your argument than tear it down. I hope that's ultimately what I'm doing here.
Given the numbers and the low bar of the Bechdel, some quick sampling could probably be done to get a picture. Select 10 episodes that pass the Bechdel test and 10 that fail, maybe some from TNG ans some from voyager, and we here collectively try to see if they pass/fail the reverse bechdel test in a group effort?
I don't think I would trust the results of this, unfortunately, as there's probably a reverse correlation between the Bechdel and reverse Bechdel tests; in a sample this small that would pollute the results. For example, take any episode where two characters of the same sex are stuck together in some sort of trouble. That episode will surely pass one of the tests (Bechdel for two women, reverse for two men) but has an increased chance of failing the other because much of the dialogue for the rest of the characters is likely to revolve around the plight of the imperiled pair.
...which isn't to say that what you suggest isn't worth the attempt. Certainly raising an issue and then shooting down a proposed solution to it isn't very helpful. Episode transcripts are out there; maybe there's a software solution here? Automatic identification of conversations between two characters would be imperfect but manageable, running that dialogue up against a list of names of male/female characters and then manually checking up on the episodes that missed to avoid false negatives would probably be the most technically efficient way about this?
Circling back on your actual point, though... You are absolutely and unambiguously correct that TOS did a horrible job with gender representation, much worse than TNG did (or could have been expected to by fans when it was about to air). It's also clear that Voyager did much better than it's contemporaries, and ENT was a pretty harsh step backwards. You don't need to know the base rate to establish if one number is bigger than the other, only to draw more nebulous, general conclusions about how well shows are doing with gender representation.
"I posed the question “when did Trek start consistently passing the Bechdel test”, thinking that it didn’t start happening until Voyager, which those hard-line TOS fans would never have allowed to be made (along with TNG and DS9)."
Which is why you don't listen to the angry parts of the fanbase for your input/feedback, or else you get really bad results.
