Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

You keep denying sexist tropes exist, but have yet to provide a single shred of evidence against the existence or sexism of the sexist trope "damsel in distress", though you seem to think you have

because he doesn't need to prove it isn't sexist because it isn't and the idea that it is has the burden of proof.

When you say a trope is sexist you are saying that its use irregardless of context is sexist.

I even will retract the "Manwhore" as a sexist trope against men since it isn't. Does its use often proliferate the idea that all men want is sex and they will go after everything that moves? Yeah... but the trope itself doesn't suggest that the trope itself is about a man who sleeps around and the context of why is not part of the trope but aggrigates.

What does a Damsel in distress suggest? At its heart it says absolutely nothing about women as a whole. It is about a defenseless character who needs to be rescued. Gender even becomes unimportant as both males and females can fulfill that role (it is just a role traditionally given to women) and the women within those roles often are not combatants.

There is not a need to make sure that every female character is a heroic counterpart who is proactive and able to keep her own in battle. There is just a need to make sure that every female is NOT a helpless passive character who could be kidnapped by a sponge if someone glued it to her irregardless of her competency.

That is why the Trope ITSELF isn't sexist because it is a trope a device that has absolutely nothing to say about women or men. The idea to protect and be protected isn't an alien idea created by men but a fundemental one shared by all genders and cultures and its existance is based off of the idea of protecting one you care about.

In fact the Damsel's overproliferation is also destructive to men as well. Forcing them into the role of violently solving their problems and the idea that physical dominance is vital in order to fill a male role (Just watch the video: Violent Masculinity)

---

I actually find it interesting that within my own writing I really don't use damsels. Though that is because my females tend to be based on people I know about, none of which are people I'd consider passive.

[Mephansteras]

It's not so much that there are differences that are the problem, it's the socially designated roles that are the problem.

Men and women are different. That's just a fundamental part of biology, and there are certainly some mental aspects that are fundamentally different as well (such as brain usage). And, in fact, gender identity tends to be one of the first things that kids really latch onto about what makes them them. Which is fine, by itself.

However, those differences should be allowed to manifest themselves naturally. If boys tend to prefer trucks over dolls for whatever reason, that should simple be accepted. A boy who prefers to play with dolls or a girl who prefers to play with trucks should also be accepted.

The problem, really, is that such things are not accepted. The 'normal' set of toys is not only expected it is often enforced by adults. Like people said earlier, it's more often the fault of adults that kids who act outside the norm are ridiculed.

The real trick, I think, is not so much to strive for actual equality but to drive for equal acceptance. It doesn't matter if 90% of boys would play with trucks over dolls or if 90% of girls would rather play house than shoot nerf guns. We should accept what people choose to do for themselves.

Same goes for everything else, too. Most women may not want to be construction workers, but that's no reason to penalize the ones that do. And until we can get society past that mental block of 'but..but...women do X and men do Y and...and...we hate stuff that's different' equality is going to be a tough fight.

[alexandertnt]

What does a Damsel in distress suggest? At its heart it says absolutely nothing about women as a whole. It is about a defenseless character who needs to be rescued. Gender even becomes unimportant as both males and females can fulfill that role (it is just a role traditionally given to women) and the women within those roles often are not combatants.

It suggests a defenseless damsel (implying female), hence the name. The reason it is a trope, and the reason it is called that is because of how commonly women are used as the defenseless character.

Swapping the roles around isnt sexist because no such reverse-scenario trope exists, and the damsel topes existance (versus the absence of an equivelant male one) demonstrates the prevalence of defenceless women in media.

    "Sexism" as was thought of by the Women's liberation movement, has nearly ceased to exist and what does exist is dying off. We have put enough pressures on our society that being sexist or racist or whatever-ist is viewed as bad, and those pressures have succeeded in their goals to eliminate those problems. The feminist movement has already won, sexism is in it's dying throes. The modern generations don't do it in most cases, it is only the older ones that still do. Those who aren't sexist aren't learning to be so, and those who are are mostly entrenched enough to not change, regardless of what you say or do. Time is the only force left to act at this point, in the sense that as the old people die off sexism is removed. I mean we can already see a very large example of this with the group of MLP fans. They are a large group of people crossing the border of what we view as gender specific, and they've thrived. Or how about just a week ago there was a fairly large news story about a group of high school girls that wanted to play football, and the school district gave in and let them? IMO we are past the point where we need to argue about how sexist things are, since they are already changing, and nothing we do except wait will allow them to change faster.

firstly, those problems have not been eliminated. In order for sexism to be reduced first one has to identify what is sexist.

I think the problem is you are interperating sexism to imply some form of personal malice, where someone makes a sexist game to be offensive or for some sort of political purpose. However, the entire argument is that the medium is heavily saturated with images and concepts that whilst not meant to be harmful individually, end up painting a view of women in video games that is less then flattering. The issue is with the use of women in gaming in general.

nothing we do except wait will allow them to change faster

Why? Ignoring the problem will hardly make it go away. Time alone does not make problems go away.

[Neonivek]

It suggests a defenseless damsel (implying female), hence the name. The reason it is a trope, and the reason it is called that is because of how commonly women are used as the defenseless character.

Swapping the roles around isnt sexist because no such reverse-scenario trope exists, and the damsel topes existance (versus the absence of an equivelant male one) demonstrates the prevalence of defenceless women in media.

The reverse of the Damsel in Distress is... The Damsel in distress. There is no reverse because whenever we talk about the reverse we still use that term.

Or rather the "Reverse-scenario trope" is the original scenario trope.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that the EXISTANCE of the switched trope is an indication of there being MORE sexism...

[Loud Whispers]

Swapping the roles around isnt sexist because no such reverse-scenario trope exists

Tropes do not exist! Tropes are abstract concepts in of themselves! They are easily definable basic themes and elements! Gra.

[GlyphGryph]

You keep denying sexist tropes exist, but have yet to provide a single shred of evidence against the existence or sexism of the sexist trope "damsel in distress", though you seem to think you have

because he doesn't need to prove it isn't sexist because it isn't and the idea that it is has the burden of proof.

"He's right because he's right and you're wrong." Really?

When you say a trope is sexist you are saying that its use irregardless of context is sexist.

That is not what I'm saying. In fact, that is EXPLICITLY not what I'm saying. I have, in fact, said the very opposite of that.

Pretty much everything else you say is functionally agreeing with the entire premise while denying vehemently that you are agreeing with it, so... well... I dunno. You just seem to be building up a strawman, one base around semantics, and attacking that while actually agreeing with Anita and her supporters actual points. You're just coming off as confusing... or confused.

Tropes do not exist! Tropes are abstract concepts in of themselves! They are easily definable basic themes and elements! Gra.

Well, this confirms it. Everyone else is talking about something other than what you are. You are using a different definition of the word trope and trying to signify that everyone else is wrong because they don't agree with your definition - despite the fact that it isn't what any of those you're arguing with are actually talking about.

It's kind of an absurd stance to take, since its unlikely to get you anywhere...

[10ebbor10]

Swapping the roles around isnt sexist because no such reverse-scenario trope exists

Tropes do not exist! Tropes are abstract concepts in of themselves! They are easily definable basic themes and elements! Gra.

Yup, a trope is just a building block, a little part of a story, and hence doesn't have any inherent value*. Giving tropes certain values, (like for example being sexist), is one of the worst generalizations that can be made. Overuse of certain tropes can be an indication of sexism though.

As for the rest of the debate, I have a feeling this is being way overblown.

*Technically not true when we get to the wierder tropes, but anyway

[Neonivek]

You just seem to be building up a strawman, one base around semantics, and attacking that while actually agreeing with Anita and her supporters actual points.

I actually mostly agree with Anita on almost all of her points. It is her examples that are poor.

As I said she is weak when it comes to talking about Marketing and Story Structure.

[GlyphGryph]

Giving tropes certain values, (like for example being sexist), is one of the worst generalizations that can be made. Overuse of certain tropes can be an indication of sexism though.

Except all of the arguments and discussions of the trope are based on their existence as cultural objects and industry standards.

A trope isn't a building block, it's a convention, at least as used here. We should be more exact - what's being discussed here are not literary tropes which, yes, are just mechanics, and describe basically everything in a story.

We are are talking about resonating tropes, the cultural conventions and standards that are built up around the medium. These are essentially cross-work motiffs, created by environments, industries, and genres rather than by individual authors or contained within individual works.

And those can most definitely be sexist.

[Neonivek]

Except the Damsel is just a defenseless character who needs to be saved.

Everything else is aggregates. To be a Damsel you have to be in a situation that you, yourself, cannot get yourself out of.

[GlyphGryph]

Except if you aren't using a woman, a "damsel", you are breaking with convention, and thus you are no longer using the trope. Because convention, as it stands at the moment, is that the damsel in distress is a female.

Would you say there are exceptions to this rule/convention?

[Neonivek]

Except if you aren't using a woman

Women is completely superfluous for the trope. It is one traditionally deligated to a woman but it isn't nessisary for that role to be fulfilled.

A male in that role is still the damsel in distress.

[i2amroy]

You just seem to be building up a strawman, one base around semantics, and attacking that while actually agreeing with Anita and her supporters actual points.

I actually mostly agree with Anita on almost all of her points. It is her examples that are poor.

I think this comes back to my earlier statement that the problem with her video isn't that she is making bad points. The majority of our society agrees with her that sexism is "wrong" and needs to be eliminated. The problem is that in her current video she doesn't actually make a solid point. She just states "these are sexist" and then moves on without providing any sort of conclusion to them. This makes it very difficult to respond to, as your problem doesn't lie with her argument, but rather with the particular examples and methods she used to present it.

I think that is also one of the big problems with this thread. We can't actually argue against her because she is basically just stating facts. At best we can reply with "so what?" but other then that you can't argue against her because she hasn't provided anything to argue with. She is simply stating a bunch of facts without using them to establish a proposal or idea. There isn't a solid "and this all means X" or "and this is the reason why Z" in her video, so it is impossible to argue for or against her. The end result is that we end up running in circles because the people who don't like her aren't attacking her facts, they are attacking the way she is presenting them and the instant they do that the other group calls "strawman" and claims that it invalidates what they are saying.

The truth is that something like 70-90% of the people I've seen in this thread so far agree with what she says in that "there is sexism in the gaming industry". The problem is that a large number of people don't like her methods for stating that fact.

[Loud Whispers]

You keep denying sexist tropes exist, but have yet to provide a single shred of evidence against the existence or sexism of the sexist trope "damsel in distress", though you seem to think you have. At this point, I am only able to realistically interpret what you are saying as "I do not know what a trope is, nor do I understand what sexism is." And okay, maybe that's true. But let's be clear - you appear to be operating from a position of ignorance. There are valid arguments you could actually be making here, if you really do want to oppose this line of thought, but you're going to have to actually understand the topics being discussed before you can get to those...

Apologies, missed this out.

Literary examples from ancient societies where women were regarded as possessions have famously employed what is now known as a trope (for some reason) of a damsel in distress being "rescued" by heroic men. The whole reason I'm in this thread really was the butchery of the Iliad!
Heh. Moving on, the argument that this is inherently sexist is lost on the Iliad. To be sexist there would have to be some preconceived notion of the damsel based on their gender, in this case to be relevant, one portraying the Damsel to be weak or defenseless. The knight in shining armour would have to express the qualities of the heroic generic-muscle-type and fight the BBEG or equivalent to save the Damsel in distress.

None of this, not even the trope itself would make it sexist. When the archetypal gender roles are reversed in whatever way any prejudices based on the character's gender is irregardless to the actual literary trope being employed.

[GlyphGryph]

It is one traditionally deligated to a woman

Since a trope is solely about the tradition/convention governing the recurrence of a specific pattern, this makes the person being a woman the exact opposite of superfluous, for the purpose of this discussion.

If its not a woman, it is not, by your own words, an example of the trope - it is, after all, breaking with the tradition. It is INFLUENCED by the trope, it is SIMILAR to the trope, and it may, if it gets enough cultural penetration, eventually EXPAND, or even REPLACE the trope, but it is not, in and of itself, any longer an example of the trope.

LoudWhispers, I notice you are exclusively referring to literary tropes now. It's an improvement. We might want to actual do that, explicitly refer to resonating vs. literary. And I do actually agree with you about the Iliad - despite being a damsel in distress, I don't believe it's an example of the trope being described, because the resonance just isn't there. No one nowadays does it the way the Iliad does. It just plain doesn't match with the modern convention we are discussing, and the video guy who brough it up was wrong to do so. Yes, the Illiad literally uses the literary trope of a damsel that is (arguably) in distress. But that is not the resonant trope that is currently referred to as the Damsel In Distress trope, which comes with a lot more baggage.