On Writers, Women, and the Sexy Lamp Test

Back when Joss Whedon was writing Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly and Dollhouse, he was repeatedly asked questions about why he wrote such strong female characters.  His answer, finally, was given in a speech he presented on equality, when he simply stated "Because you're still asking me this question."*

George R.R. Martin, author of the Game of Thrones books, was asked where his inspiration for complex, well-written female characters came from, and he responded that he "always considered women to be people."**

Most feminists and female readers know about the concept of the Bechdel test, developed by Allison Bechdel to determine whether a work gives a fair or even remotely non-sexist depiction of women.  The test has three parts: (1) Does this work include at least two female characters?; (2) Do these characters talk to one another?; (3) Is the conversation about something other than men?  If you can successfully answer "yes" to all three of those questions, congratulations, there is a chance you have written a remotely non-sexist piece.

However, Kelly Sue Deconnick, a writer and artist for Marvel comics, stated that the Bechdel Test may be expecting too much from us, and has proposed a test wherein "if you can take out a female character and replace her with a sexy lamp, you're a hack."***  My question, then, is when a large number of female characters fail both Bechdel's test and are replacable by a sexy lamp, why are we asking those few writers who write women who actually resemble people why they write them that way?

What does it say about the status quo for female characters when the noteworthy and novel thing is that they're written in three dimensions instead of just as a plot device?

I've often advocated for the need for strong female role models, and those are often hard to find in the real world.  But it's worrisome that they are nearly as scarce in the world of fantasy and fiction, and that those writers who create them are often questioned or criticized.

Isn't it time that, instead, we start asking, "I've noticed you've written a hollow shell of a human being and slapped a pair of breasts on her.  Why did you do that?" instead?

Curiously Yours,
Rachel Leigh

*http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/josswhedonequalitynow.htm
**http://hbowatch.com/20-minute-interview-with-george-r-r-martin/
***http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/20/kelly-sue-deconnick-talks-captain-marvel-pretty-deadly-and-the-sexy-lamp-test

On Looking for Trouble

So the other day, a few of my friends were arguing on a post on my Facebook page about a movie poster for The Avengers (Joss Whedon, if you're reading this, I love you).*  It had to do with the posing of the characters on the movie poster and their costumes.  At first, I didn't really respond, because, honestly, while I could see both sides to the points they were making, I really didn't take it seriously.  I saw no need to.  It's a movie poster.

And that got me thinking.  People get so riled up about things and, in all honesty, I think sometimes it clouds the bigger issue.  The world has enough REAL issues worth fighting about -- war, torture, famine, violence, marginalization -- that I don't entirely understand the point of starting arguments or looking for problems in places where, honestly, it doesn't matter.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good rant as much as the next person.  And when I find something to rail about, I will in a heartbeat.  I just honestly don't see the point in looking for arguments in places where there really aren't any...the world has enough things to fight about.

I've got shit to Avenge,
Rachel Leigh

* No seriously.  Joss Whedon, and fellow Whedon fans, understand my love here.  I was already psyched for The Avengers because, honestly, I'm a hardcore Marvel dork, but then JOSS friggin WHEDON.  Writing amazing characters and then breaking my heart with them** for years and hopefully for years to come.


** "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"