Talk:Alison Bechdel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lesbian?[edit]

She's on List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people - but is she lesbian, bisexual, or maybe even straight? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyRedDice (talkcontribs) 22:55, 17 September 2003.

She is most assuredly a lesbian. Good heavens. (If you need more specific proof than, well, her entire oeuvre, check out The Indelible Alison Bechdel.) - Montrealais
The article makes no mention of her sexuality. Although she is listed in several lesbian categories, this is very unclear for a casual reader who may not be familiar with Bechdel.--ZayZayEM 07:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does say that she married her partner Amy Rubin. Not many guys named Amy. That said, where do you think it would be appropriate to say this explicitly? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 15:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
They would have to be so casual as to only read every fifth word. -- 98.108.203.177 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

She's Lesbian but bisexual women can and do marry and have partnerships with women too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.42.81 (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Info on AB's partner[edit]

Since this bit of information has apparently become an issue, we need to answer a few questions: (1) what is it's source? For example, is it common knowledge that AB freely makes known in interviews? (2) How relevant is it to the article? (3) Do other entries list a writer's (or artist's) partner? --Galliaz 11:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Since marriage history is a normal part of biography, I added Ms. Bechdel's. I was surprised that I couldn't find a wikipedia article about the San Francisco weddings to link to, incidently. At least there is a gay marriage link. --Jaibe 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah. In a recent Guardian article AB says she recently lost her long-term partner. That may account for the thrashing in on this page last July. Marriage histories are often documented in Wikipedia (see Richard Dawkins) and I think the fact the two of them were married in the SF event is still an interesting bit of history. But I'm not sure how to handle this more recent bit of news. Maintaining an up-to-date relationship history seems morbid and invasive. On the other hand, she documented her marriage on her blog and credited Rubin in many of her books, and she has now publicly documented the end of the relationship. --Jaibe 20:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly a delicate issue, I agree. Just for the record, I thought I'd provide a link to the 10.16.06 Guardian article. [11]--Galliaz 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have this page on my watchlist in July, so I missed the fireworks. But I'd say that marriage history is appropriate biographical information for a Wikipedia article, and since Bechdel has mentioned it in an interview I think it would be fair to mention it in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is AB's comment about relationships from the Guardian article: " 'I am quite distanced on my own life, she concedes. 'I fit the life in around the work. I don't really have a life apart from my work. I have no kids, no partner. I actually just broke up with my partner of 13 years, partly because all I do is sit in my basement, drawing.' " Just to clarify the nature and context of her statement.--Galliaz 12:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I read the linked article. I think that as long as we cite things properly, it should be OK to mention this briefly. If this were a notable heterosexual cartoonist, who was saying "I have no kids, no wife. I actually just divorced my wife of 13 years, partly because all I do is sit in the basement, drawing", would we be debating whether or not to include the information? I understand the desire not to be invasive, but it's not like we'd be revealing anything AB hasn't revealed herself. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
actually I'd feel exactly the same way about discussing anyone's current relationship issues. Just because they were mentioned once in the press doesn't make them encyclopedia material -- I certainly have regretted things I've apparently said that I've read in the press. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be a soap opera I don't think. I agree that the Rubin relationship and marriage are significant enough to be mentioned in a bio page, but I think there should probably be a "cooling off period" around major relationship events before they get written up in any detail. I think we should leave this part of the article as it is now and come back to it in a couple years. Or maybe in the current mention of Amy Rubin replace "long-term" with "partner since 1992". But I'd rather leave out the "then partner"-type business until there is more water under the bridge.--Jaibe 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that sufficient water has flowed under the bridge now, especially since Bechdel and Rubin have both posted on the DTWOF blog confirming the break-up. It's unarguably in the realm of "public information", and it would be misleading to continue to remove it. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

cat, books[edit]

Ha! I thought from the history / change notice someone had bio-ed Alison's cat, but no, it was fixing a category. By the way, some more obsessive fan than me should make pages for all the books besides Fun Home... --Jaibe 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bechdel Test[edit]

Ought the "Bechdel Test" be referenced on this page? It's mentioned on the DTWOF entry, but since it bears Bechdel's name (that's how I've most often heard it termed), should it be mentioned here? I actually came to this article looking for the precise formulation of the test, and was confused not to see it mentioned. Thought for a moment I'd gotten the name wrong.89.125.85.107 (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There used to be an article on the Bechdel Test, but it was deleted in 2006 for not establishing notability. The test has been widely discussed since then, most recently in a feature on NPR, so it wouldn't be difficult to establish notability now. I agree that the rule should be mentioned here, but I'm not sure what's the best place to mention it: the idea giving it its own section doesn't seem right, somehow. I suppose the best thing would be to re-create the article (probably under Bechdel Rule, since that's what NPR called it, and the original strip was titled "The Rule"), and put a link to it here in the "see also" section. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure it has enough independent notability (i.e. how often is it written about in articles that are not also about Bechdel herself?) to require a separate article. I think it makes the most sense as a section in the DTWOF article (as an example of the series' cultural impact), with a mention (and link to that section) in this article. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the NPR piece (and associated blog) were about the rule, not about Bechdel in any significant way. And it's also been a frequent subject for discussion across the blogosphere in recent times... including this blog by Christopher Shea of the Boston Globe, which seems a bit notable. There's also this site, which rates recent movies according to the Bechdel Test. None of those pages are primarily about Bechdel or Dykes to Watch Out For — they're about the rule, and applying it to various cultural works.
My point? Back in 2006, according to this old prod, "Bechdel test" got only 20 Google hits. Today it gets 5,280, plus another 5,520 for "Bechdel rule". It clearly didn't have sufficient independent notability back in '06, but I'd maintain that it does now.
Tell you what, sometime over the next few days I'll whip up a short article in my userspace. Until then, if you can find a neutral way to work it into this article, please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)