The title of this post is guaranteed to make at least one person extremely nervous (should she see it) and any number of others darkly curious...but I confess outright that it is little more than shameless clickbait. I will be introducing a mother-in-law eventually, but not my one (not that I would struggle to find lots of wonderfully positive things to say, but I suspect that she would prefer to be spared even that).
I was rather intrigued, the other day, to stumble on the concept of the Bechdel test -- a set of criteria for assessing gender bias in works of fiction. To pass, a film or book must have 1) at least two women in it, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something besides a man. The idea (and the name) come from a 1985 comic strip by American cartoonist Alison Bechdel: a character who has made this the guiding principle for her own cinema-going laments that the last film she was able to see was Alien..."the two women in it talk to each other about the monster". Although not originally intended as an actual tool of analysis, it has become, it would seem, surprisingly influential in the world of film criticism, whilst in Sweden (according to Wikipedia) it has even been incorporated into ratings systems by some cinemas and a cable TV channel.
Gut feeling and a cursory glance at the evidence suggest to me that it's not actually very good at detecting what it is trying to test for. This nice little Telegraph piece highlights some particularly embarrassing "false positives" (e.g. The Hottie and the Nottie, Bride Wars, Sex and the City 2) and "false negatives" (e.g. Gravity and Fill the Void). But still, I find it an insightful reflection on what it means for women to be healthily represented in media/cultural content, as summarised by a quote from Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own (which had a roundabout influence on Bechdel's cartoon):
Naomi is an Israelite woman who has lived in Moab for ten years -- ever since her husband Elimelech decided to migrate the family in order to escape the famine in Judah. But Elimelech and their two sons have all died, leaving her destitute in an alien land with no-one left her but her sons' Moabite wives. She opts to return to her old home in Bethlehem, where there is now food, and tearfully parts with one of her daughters-in-law along the way, sending her back to the protection of her family and the hope of a second marriage. But Ruth is stubborn in her devotion to Naomi: she is going with her to Judah, and whatever the future holds for them there, they shall face it together.
So already in the opening chapter (it's a short book -- there's only four total) we have two prominent, well-drawn female characters, sharing a deep connection which specifically endures above, and independently of, their (currently non-existent) relationships to men. That's the first couple of 'Bechdel' criteria ticked off -- how about the third? Well, in such conversations between them as the book records, Naomi, in her deep concern for her much-loved daughters-in-law, is pretty determined to bring the subject back round to men as often as she can. She knows that the best thing for both of them is to re-marry, to go back to their own country and find husbands to restore their fortunes. It is too late for her; she is loath to lose them from her already sorrowful life but she cares too much for them to bring them down as well...
[1] Another striking theme of the book is the abundant, compassionate provision of the Mosaic law in protecting the most vulnerable in society (widows, orphans, resident foreigners, anyone destitute -- at least three of which categories Ruth belonged to). These included laws obliging landowners to leave the left-overs and corners of a field during harvesting, to be freely gleaned by those with no other source of supply (Deuteronomy 24:19-21); laws obliging the brother of a deceased man to take his widow as a wife and enable her to continue a family in her first husband's name (levirate marriage; see Deuteronomy 25:5-6); and laws about merciful treatment of debtors, and redemption of people and land (Leviticus 25)...
[Thumbnail image cc from Horia Varlan on flickr].
I was rather intrigued, the other day, to stumble on the concept of the Bechdel test -- a set of criteria for assessing gender bias in works of fiction. To pass, a film or book must have 1) at least two women in it, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something besides a man. The idea (and the name) come from a 1985 comic strip by American cartoonist Alison Bechdel: a character who has made this the guiding principle for her own cinema-going laments that the last film she was able to see was Alien..."the two women in it talk to each other about the monster". Although not originally intended as an actual tool of analysis, it has become, it would seem, surprisingly influential in the world of film criticism, whilst in Sweden (according to Wikipedia) it has even been incorporated into ratings systems by some cinemas and a cable TV channel.
Gut feeling and a cursory glance at the evidence suggest to me that it's not actually very good at detecting what it is trying to test for. This nice little Telegraph piece highlights some particularly embarrassing "false positives" (e.g. The Hottie and the Nottie, Bride Wars, Sex and the City 2) and "false negatives" (e.g. Gravity and Fill the Void). But still, I find it an insightful reflection on what it means for women to be healthily represented in media/cultural content, as summarised by a quote from Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own (which had a roundabout influence on Bechdel's cartoon):
All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple. [...] And I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. [...] They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen's day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman’s life is that (Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own, 1929)If contemporary culture is observably lacking in rich and enriching depictions of female characters, one would hardly expect a bunch of so-charged "illiterate bronze-age goat-herders" to do any better. But, as ever, the Bible is full of surprises. Take the book of Ruth for example -- a beautiful, multi-layered, and literarily refined narrative involving two women left 'manless' in a time (c. 3000 years ago) and place where the worth, protection and sustenance of women was typically derived from their relation to men as wives, daughters or mothers...
Naomi is an Israelite woman who has lived in Moab for ten years -- ever since her husband Elimelech decided to migrate the family in order to escape the famine in Judah. But Elimelech and their two sons have all died, leaving her destitute in an alien land with no-one left her but her sons' Moabite wives. She opts to return to her old home in Bethlehem, where there is now food, and tearfully parts with one of her daughters-in-law along the way, sending her back to the protection of her family and the hope of a second marriage. But Ruth is stubborn in her devotion to Naomi: she is going with her to Judah, and whatever the future holds for them there, they shall face it together.
So already in the opening chapter (it's a short book -- there's only four total) we have two prominent, well-drawn female characters, sharing a deep connection which specifically endures above, and independently of, their (currently non-existent) relationships to men. That's the first couple of 'Bechdel' criteria ticked off -- how about the third? Well, in such conversations between them as the book records, Naomi, in her deep concern for her much-loved daughters-in-law, is pretty determined to bring the subject back round to men as often as she can. She knows that the best thing for both of them is to re-marry, to go back to their own country and find husbands to restore their fortunes. It is too late for her; she is loath to lose them from her already sorrowful life but she cares too much for them to bring them down as well...
...“Turn back, my daughters; why will you go with me? Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands? Turn back, my daughters; go your way, for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say I have hope, even if I should have a husband this night and should bear sons, would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the LORD has gone out against me.” Then they lifted up their voices and wept again. And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. (Ruth 1:11-14)But Ruth is determined to stay, and determined to change the subject away from the search for a Moabite husband. She talks travel, and friendship, and housing, and community, and their now-shared faith in God...and, *ahem*, successfully (and affectionately) 'shuts her mother-in-law up', it would seem...
And [Naomi] said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the LORD do so to me and more also if anything but death parts me from you.” And when Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more. (Ruth 1:15-18)And so they return to Bethlehem together, and find ways of making things work in their difficult situation. There's quite a few 'conversations about men' from then on, as they meet and petition a possible 'kinsman redeemer' -- a male relative legally entitled to reclaim the land and property belonging to Naomi's family and at the same time to take the widows under his protection -- in particular, to marry Ruth and continue the family line. But the commitment of Ruth and Naomi to one another plays an ongoing role in motivating and enabling this plan: they each want to honour and bless the other, and it is a practical reality of the cultural and legal setting of their story that securing male guardianship is a means to achieve this. Whatever feelings we might have about fairness or rightness of this reality [1], the book does not deal with such questions, but with the perseverance and integrity of the characters within it, their repeated demonstrations of loving-kindness (hesed), and the honour and goodness of Boaz -- the relative to whom they appeal, who receives Ruth with gratitude and validating love, and joyfully carries out his duty to them both with yet more hesed. So we see men and women working together...honouring one another...bringing out the best in one another. And, woven through the entirety of the inter-personal plot lines (which I've barely touched on -- do read the book!) is the sovereignty, and grace, and loving-kindness of God -- in transforming their personal situation, and in actioning the massive, over-arching redemption plan for which this beautiful story of love and friendship is a richly prophetic precursor. That's too big a subject for me to get into right now (this summary overview explains in brief, while this rather lovely literary analysis goes into a bit more depth), but it is poignantly indicative to note that Ruth and Boaz together get a named mention when Matthew traces the line of descent from Abraham to Jesus...
[1] Another striking theme of the book is the abundant, compassionate provision of the Mosaic law in protecting the most vulnerable in society (widows, orphans, resident foreigners, anyone destitute -- at least three of which categories Ruth belonged to). These included laws obliging landowners to leave the left-overs and corners of a field during harvesting, to be freely gleaned by those with no other source of supply (Deuteronomy 24:19-21); laws obliging the brother of a deceased man to take his widow as a wife and enable her to continue a family in her first husband's name (levirate marriage; see Deuteronomy 25:5-6); and laws about merciful treatment of debtors, and redemption of people and land (Leviticus 25)...
[Thumbnail image cc from Horia Varlan on flickr].
Comments