I keep on saying - the test is good stories.
LGBTQIA characters and Bechdel test
- Thread starter Mountie1988
- Start date
- Status
You may not give a shit, but other people do, and they have that right. They don't control the show or what stories it will tell. This is something the showrunners want to do. So what's your problem with it?
I think it's strange that you seem to be getting very hostile over an issue you "don't give a shit" about.
"An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender."
These figures are up against an (American) population of over 350 million people; however these collective percentages feel underrepresented in the media and portrayal of fiction.
"Modern television" demands this underrepresentation be accounted for, and forcefully brought to the forefront presumably to change hearts and minds.
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? Changing hardened hearts and closed-off minds.
You can present an idea to an open or closed mind, but you cannot force the idea.
Some television/movies/producers/writers are presenting; lots are forcing.
Don't force.
Just present and move on.
These figures are up against an (American) population of over 350 million people; however these collective percentages feel underrepresented in the media and portrayal of fiction.
"Modern television" demands this underrepresentation be accounted for, and forcefully brought to the forefront presumably to change hearts and minds.
And that's the bottom line, isn't it? Changing hardened hearts and closed-off minds.
You can present an idea to an open or closed mind, but you cannot force the idea.
Some television/movies/producers/writers are presenting; lots are forcing.
Don't force.
Just present and move on.
I think this is a typical "internet" discussion where the involved parties argue because they only read what they want to read in the posts. And I mean you in this case. What part of "I don't give a shit" do you not understand? Gay beings on the show or not was never my point.
Honestly I'd like to see some statistics on that. I've seen it happen before where men are assumed to be the majority of consumers of a media product and it turned out not to be the case.
Anyway, I don't see the problem people have with the Bechdel test. It's not supposed to determine conclusively if something is sexist or feminist, just shine a light on the way the media industry treats women. How many movies or tv shows can you think of where no two men ever talk about something other than a woman?
Last edited:
Suppose the crew of the Discovery comes upon an unenlightened society, and one of its representatives is brought on board and inadvertently sees two crewpersons of the same sex holding hands or passionately kissing in the corridor.
Next, the landing party is held prisoner by this society after it receives a disturbing report from its representative.
Does this constitute a good Star Trek story? Will the unenlightened society suddenly "see the light" before the final credits?
Will this satisfy certain sectors of the audience for Star Trek: Discovery?
Next, the landing party is held prisoner by this society after it receives a disturbing report from its representative.
Does this constitute a good Star Trek story? Will the unenlightened society suddenly "see the light" before the final credits?
Will this satisfy certain sectors of the audience for Star Trek: Discovery?
You're right, your intention was to attack others who might care about things you don't care about. You'll note I haven't told you what you should or shouldn't care about, just that you have no business policing others' priorities.
I agree with this.
Well, the answer here is pretty much all. Just for example, consider Perry Mason. Any episode that has Mason and Burger argue over a piece of evidence meets that criterion just right there. An episode last night had Mason and Drake discuss hot sauce. Check. And so forth. It's a very low bar.
---
Edit - Oops, my bad. For some reason, I overlooked the word "no" [now struck through], and answered the question: "How many movies or tv shows can you think of where two men ever talk about something other than a woman," which would have been the same as "How many movies or TV shows can you think of that pass the Bechdel test but with the sexes reversed," which when put that way is probably why my brain tricked me into misreading it.
Since you've replied about this below, to keep it simple, I'll continue in new posts.
Last edited:
I do. I want good, entertaining, interesting, thought-provoking, moving characters and stories. Having a diverse cast helps achieve just that.
I'm not. Like you, I'm voicing an opinion. So, please read the below before attempting to respond to this post.
I do not care if there are gays on the show or not.
I do not care if said gays on the show have active sex lives on the show.
I like the idea that Star Trek embraces diversity.
My whole point during all this was that a representation of such a small minority being a MUST THING seems silly to me. There are probably more KKK sympathizers in this country than gays, do we put them on the show as well? (That was just an example, I don't want to see that on Star Trek, unless of course they're the bad guys and get airlocked before the end of the show).
You are perfectly welcome to voice your opinion, and I am just as welcome to tell you that your opinion is patronizing, condescending, and trivializing toward people who actually do care about this kind of inclusion. And there is nothing wrong with people who do care about that inclusion, much as you consider it "silly."
What makes you think you have the right to mock other people's priorities and not be criticized for it?
I think it is a “MUST THING”, yes. We have 50 years of Star Trek acting like heterosexuality is the only thing that exists in the future. I think it's about damn time to include something that at least looks a little more like reality. I really don't think this is too much to ask.
I would be very surprised – and shocked – if this were true. Also, nice of you to put a perfectly healthy and normal way of life at the same level as a murdering, inhuman group of assholes.
OK then, not a problem. I would ask now, would it be OK to you to have a hateful anti-gay person on the crew who gets to voice his opinion as well? Diversity does come with a price you know. If fact, it could make for some serious dramatic character development. What do you think?
Sure, as long as it is used as a vehicle to demonstrate that such bigotry is unacceptable. You know, in keeping with Star Trek's core themes.
Sure, as long as it is used as a vehicle to demonstrate that such bigotry is unacceptable. You know, in keeping with Star Trek's core themes.
Well now, FINALLY we agree on something. Let's call this quits for now, I hate arguing with someone that I mostly agree with. Well, except for that thing we don't agree on.
I know you're not asking me, but I for one would welcome such a discourse in the series, yes. I'm not necessarily sure that it should be someone from the crew, as we are watching a supposedly “enlightened” crew of an utopian future, but conceptionally such a character would help the progressive image of Star Trek.
Last edited:
In what way would gay or lesbian characters help to create interesting stories? They are normal people. Their lives and relationships are just as mundane as everyone else's. In a Star Trek setting the sexuality of a character really shouldn't be the defining trait of that character. That society is supposed to have moved beyond such petty issues and biases.
Conflict between the characters. Always good fuel for drama. I'd like to see that.
- Status
Similar threads
