@Cas: Thanks for getting back on that one. I think I must have misrepresented myself, because I’ve never ceased to feel that the Bechdel Test is good for exactly the purpose you describe. On that, we agree.

I shall try to clarify – perhaps with a revision to the post – that I feel that I understand the value of the Bechdel Test and don’t generally attempt to use it as a litmus for any particular film, except in order to demonstrate the crudeness of the test. By demonstrating that a test is inaccurate on the small scale, we can extrapolate to what degree it is inaccurate on the large scale. In this case, the conclusion is still the same – women are underrepresented in film – but we have a more accurate representation of how much.

To summarise: the Bechdel Test is great to demonstrate to people that women are underrepresented in film, which is a worthy cause and one that I promote (using, among other things, the Bechdel Test). However – as we agree – it is not an accurate model for assessing the representation of women in any particular film. It is my belief that an approximation of such a model can be created using the Bechdel Test as a starting point, and that is my aim with this blog post. I have no intention of replacing the Bechdel Test for its best purpose – the one you describe – at which it excels.

Your second point disgusts and disappointments me so utterly that I am genuinely glad that you don’t want to discuss it.