Damsel: Noun, A young unmarried woman. Synonyms: maiden, maid, girl, miss, lass, lassie. Root word is the french "demoiselle", meaning "Young lady."
Very well. I shall amend my statements to 'damsels and dudes' or 'characters in distress'.
I think you're missing the point. A character in distress is not gendered. The fact that such character is, 99% of the time, a female is why the character is called a Damsel in Distress. The fact that the gender determines the name of the role is the exact fact that makes this a feminist issue. If you remove that distinction from the debate, you aren't even having the debate anymore.
Damsel: Noun, A young unmarried woman. Synonyms: maiden, maid, girl, miss, lass, lassie. Root word is the french "demoiselle", meaning "Young lady."
Very well. I shall amend my statements to 'damsels and dudes' or 'characters in distress'.
I think you're missing the point. A character in distress is not gendered. The fact that such character is, 99% of the time, a female is why the character is called a Damsel in Distress. The fact that the gender determines the name of the role is the exact fact that makes this a feminist issue. If you remove that distinction from the debate, you aren't even having the debate anymore.
Can you really quantify that, though? I don't particularly care if it's a 'feminist' issue; I'm not a feminist. I don't want to look at this issue through an ideological less anymore than I'd want to talk about sex on television as a 'Christian issue'.
Replace "reward" with "motivator". A more morbid version of this trope is the Woman in the Refrigerator
So let's discuss a couple of alternatives for a second. If the hero or heroine decides not to save the captured party because of an ideological 'right' then what does that say about them? Or would you rather no one got captured in fiction to drive the plot? Or do you just not want to see any women captured in fiction because they're women?
You're not a "feminist?" So, you're not in favor of " defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women?"
The point is simple. It's almost always women in these passive be-saved roles. It's almost never men. You guys don't have a problem with that? There's no good reason for the disparity.
It's the use of the role, not the role, that's the problem. What is so hard about that to understand?
Can you really quantify that, though? I don't particularly care if it's a 'feminist' issue; I'm not a feminist. I don't want to look at this issue through an ideological less anymore than I'd want to talk about sex on television as a 'Christian issue'.
So go make a thread about bad writing in video games then. You're simply not participating in the same discussion as Anita Sarkeesian nor anyone else in this thread, so don't wonder why nobody has anything to say to you, nor why anyone doesn't take anything you're saying to heart.
If 90% of everything is shit, 90% of all characters in distress are written badly. Great! Well done. Good observation. It's just that some people want to address the fact that 90% of the badly written characters in distress are female, and 90% of the well written characters in distress are male.
You're not a "feminist?" So, you're not in favor of " defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women?"
The point is simple. It's almost always women in these passive be-saved roles. It's almost never men. You guys don't have a problem with that? There's no good reason for the disparity.
It's the use of the role, not the role, that's the problem. What is so hard about that to understand?
"You're not a Christian? So you're not in favor of Forgiveness, Charity, and Humility?"
I don't think there's inherently anything ill-intentioned in the use of the role. Of course it varies from case to case.
If you're limiting your view to only what makes sense in fiction, the hero avenging or rescuing his woman is perfectly natural; of course the hero would be enraged by the death of his beloved, of course the hero would rush to rescue his wife.
However, when you're talking about tropes, you're talking about the failure of the author not the characters in the story (the hero or his female motivator). If the author wants to have the hero motivated to do a thing there are lots of creative interesting things they can do other than putting a woman in a cage (or a meat grinder).
That is just literary criticism.
Now, the Tropes vs. Women series is going beyond literary criticism and talking about how lazy tropes that objectify women add to the general background radiation of sexism that permeates the culture; not only is it bad writing, it adds to the general pain in the ass that women deal with on a daily basis for no good reason.
So there are two levels that are being discussed:
1. relying on ANY trope is a sign of bad writing and should be avoided 2. relying on sexist tropes is not just bad writing but also adds to the overall sexism that exists in the world
Can you really quantify that, though? I don't particularly care if it's a 'feminist' issue; I'm not a feminist. I don't want to look at this issue through an ideological less anymore than I'd want to talk about sex on television as a 'Christian issue'.
So go make a thread about bad writing in video games then. You're simply not participating in the same discussion as Anita Sarkeesian nor anyone else in this thread, so don't wonder why nobody has anything to say to you, nor why anyone doesn't take anything you're saying to heart.
If 90% of everything is shit, 90% of all characters in distress are written badly. Great! Well done. Good observation. It's just that some people want to address the fact that 90% of the badly written characters in distress are female, and 90% of the well written characters in distress are male.
Why exactly do you think there are more 'good' dudes in distress than damsels?
In fiction it is easy to make the act of rescuing or avenging the woman justified; of course the hero would be enraged by the death of his beloved, of course the hero would rush to rescue his wife.
However, when you're talking about tropes, you're talking about the failure of the author not the characters in the story (the hero or his female motivator). If the author wants to have the hero motivated to do a thing there are lots of creative interesting things they can do other than putting a woman in a cage (or a meat grinder).
That is just literary criticism.
Now, the Tropes vs. Women series is going beyond literary criticism and talking about how lazy tropes that objectify women add to the general background radiation of sexism that permeates the culture; not only is it bad writing, it adds to the general pain in the ass that women deal with on a daily basis for no good reason.
So there are two levels that are being discussed:
1. relying on ANY trope is a sign of bad writing and should be avoided 2. relying on sexist tropes is not just bad writing but also adds to the overall sexism that exists in the world
Okay, so you'd rather a woman not be captured or killed in a story 'because' she's a woman.
Must we go into objectification and the state of gender in this culture? Because that's a whole other can of worms. What I will say is that I don't think common conventions are necessarily 'anti-woman'; just lazy, should they appear without variation or justification.
1. And if the writer uses the trope, unaware that it is a trope? 2. This seems like a fairly broad topic to go into, so I'd rather disregard it for now in favor of keeping the discussion focused.
1. And if the writer uses the trope, unaware that it is a trope?
The writer relying on a trope without realizing it speaks to normalization, and calling it out is the best way of making people aware that they've mentally drifted into a rut cut by hundreds of years of gender disparity.
I don't personally think you need to call those people "assholes" or "shitty bro rape fans" when you do it since people tend to stop listening when they feel like they're under attack, especially when they don't understand WHY they're being called out (but now I risk drifting into tone criticizing concern trolling and I wouldn't want to be called out for being sexist).
2. This seems like a fairly broad topic to go into, so I'd rather disregard it for now in favor of keeping the discussion focused.
Sorry, I thought this was the Anita Saarkesian thread about sexist tropes.
"You're not a Christian? So you're not in favor of Forgiveness, Charity, and Humility?"
Nope. Shit argument. Try again.
Christian is pretty solidly defined as involving a core set of specific beliefs. See the Nicene Creed (or its ilk). The things you mentioned may be commonly associated by Christians with Christian-ness, but are not part of any formal, academic, or even useful definition.
1. And if the writer uses the trope, unaware that it is a trope?
The writer relying on a trope without realizing it speaks to normalization, and calling it out is the best way of making people aware that they've mentally drifted into a rut cut by hundreds of years of gender disparity. I don't personally think you need to call those people "assholes" or "shitty bro rape fans" when you do it (but now I risk drifting into tone criticizing concern trolling and I wouldn't want to be called out for being sexist).
2. This seems like a fairly broad topic to go into, so I'd rather disregard it for now in favor of keeping the discussion focused.
Sorry, I thought this was the Anita Saarkesian thread about sexist tropes.
Would rather not go into the supposed gender disparity in favor of keeping focus, here. I understand the logic behind a use of 'distress' and 'fridge stuffing'; to elicit shock and empathy from the audience. I don't think they're inherently sexist concepts, though bare of variation or justification, they are lazy.
Am I not allowed to disagree with Anita? Am I not allowed to question whether or not certain tropes are sexist? Going into the extent that sexism exists in the world at large would almost certainly derail the discussion at hand. It seems far too broad a topic to explore here.
"You're not a Christian? So you're not in favor of Forgiveness, Charity, and Humility?"
Nope. Shit argument. Try again.
Christian is pretty solidly defined as involving a core set of specific beliefs. See the Nicene Creed (or its ilk). The things you mentioned may be commonly associated by Christians with Christian-ness, but are not part of any formal, academic, or even useful definition.
I'm simply attempting to point out that it isn't fruitful to conflate concepts themselves with ideologies that may lay claim to them.
I'm simply attempting to point out that it isn't fruitful to conflate concepts themselves with ideologies that may lay claim to them.
Every definition of "feminism" that rational people use is benign and seeks equality. The mere fact that you want to distance yourself from the term speaks volumes as to how necessary both the term and the movement are.
Your arguments seem to boil down to "it's not TECHNICALLY sexist because reasons!" You argue these ridiculous minutia and entirely miss the point of the discussion.
You say you "disagree." But what EXACTLY do you disagree with? Do you not agree that the majority of characters-in-distress are female, and that they are saved the majority of the time by male protagonists? In both cases, it is not a close majority, but a substantial one.
As much as I want to give Rym a high five for an inclusive and awesome definition of feminism, I'd contend it isn't a useful definition of feminism. I think feminism might require, or at the very least imply, some kind of acknowledgement of and opposition to the existence of patriarchal structure, in some form, even a vulgar recognition of systemic discrimination against women without using the term. Heck, your definition excludes female supremacists and separation feminists from feminism, which is shitty for the opposite reason.
Otherwise, p much everyone who isn't overtly a misogynist is a feminist. And when everyone's a feminist, no one will be.
I'm simply attempting to point out that it isn't fruitful to conflate concepts themselves with ideologies that may lay claim to them.
Every definition of "feminism" that rational people use is benign and seeks equality. The mere fact that you want to distance yourself from the term speaks volumes as to how necessary both the term and the movement are.
Your arguments seem to boil down to "it's not TECHNICALLY sexist because reasons!" You argue these ridiculous minutia and entirely miss the point of the discussion.
As far as I know, men don't have any rights women don't have in the western world. There's nothing I could do to effect change in other cultures; it's up to the people of those cultures to effect their own change. If I attempted to, it would likely be construed as a cultural invasion.
If the point of the discussion is to move towards a specific ending point rather than expressing different viewpoints in a civil matter then the discussion seems like it might not have been worth holding. Though I'll gladly participate if my opinion is received calmly and rationally. I'm simply attempting to view tropes as objectively as I can and discuss them accordingly.
The fact that you have to add the sex on the name of the ideology already has a problem of segregation, why not just Humanism? just equal rights for all, females, males, transgenders, etc. The problem with feminism is that as with all of those ideologies, the extremist penis hating ones are the more vocal ones and the ones that get most media coverage, so in most cases as soon as I hear "I'm a feminist" you've already lost me due to prejudice.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
The fact that you have to add the sex on the name of the ideology already has a problem of segregation, why not just Humanism? just equal rights for all, females, males, transgenders, etc. The problem with feminism is that as with all of those ideologies, the extremist penis hating ones are the more vocal ones and the ones that get most media coverage, so in most cases as soon as I hear "I'm a feminist" you've already lost me due to prejudice.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
Everyone I have ever talked to who has tried to identify as a "humanist" during the course of a debate on gender relations has always been maximum gross. It's pretty much always a way to concern troll.
Besides, nothing is stopping a person from being both a feminist and a humanist. I think of myself in similar terms.
If the point of the discussion is to move towards a specific ending point rather than expressing different viewpoints in a civil matter then the discussion seems like it might not have been worth holding. Though I'll gladly participate if my opinion is received calmly and rationally. I'm simply attempting to view tropes as objectively as I can and discuss them accordingly.
The fact that you have to add the sex on the name of the ideology already has a problem of segregation, why not just Humanism? just equal rights for all, females, males, transgenders, etc. The problem with feminism is that as with all of those ideologies, the extremist penis hating ones are the more vocal ones and the ones that get most media coverage, so in most cases as soon as I hear "I'm a feminist" you've already lost me due to prejudice.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
Everyone I have ever talked to who has tried to identify as a "humanist" during the course of a debate on gender relations has always been maximum gross. It's pretty much always a way to concern troll.
Besides, nothing is stopping a person from being both a feminist and a humanist. I think of myself in similar terms.
So if the bad apples of humanism spoil the term for you, then why don't the bad apples of feminism spoil the term? Have you simply never met a kind humanist?
Why exactly do you think there are more 'good' dudes in distress than damsels?
The very fact that an author (or game designer) is aware of the sexism in the damsel in distress trope and wants to either subvert it or avoid it, and then writes the male as the one in distress and the female rescuing the male... well, this is one sign of a non-shit writer!
A writer who doesn't notice or care about the trope is one sign that they aren't a non-shit writer.
Think Star Wars. The guys go to rescue the Princess, but almost immediately she is the one getting them out of the prison, and clearly takes control.
In Empire, Luke plays the hero in going to save Leia, fails gets fucked up.
In Jedi, Leia is just one of the team who goes into save Han Solo, who in this case is the dude in distress.
It's not an accident that Star Wars is considered great work, and that it is subverting the common trope. It's this very subversion that makes Leia and the guys such dynamic characters.
Meanwhile, nobody is saying you have to agree with this analysis. All we're saying is the language and approach you are using is EXACTLY the same language and approach that more sexist and/or misogynist debaters use. You are displaying the very mindset that others in this thread don't feel comfortable with, and the kind of mindset that continues to view sexist stereotyping as nothing harmless.
The fact that you have to add the sex on the name of the ideology already has a problem of segregation, why not just Humanism? just equal rights for all, females, males, transgenders, etc. The problem with feminism is that as with all of those ideologies, the extremist penis hating ones are the more vocal ones and the ones that get most media coverage, so in most cases as soon as I hear "I'm a feminist" you've already lost me due to prejudice.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
Everyone I have ever talked to who has tried to identify as a "humanist" during the course of a debate on gender relations has always been maximum gross. It's pretty much always a way to concern troll.
Besides, nothing is stopping a person from being both a feminist and a humanist. I think of myself in similar terms.
So if the bad apples of humanism spoil the term for you, then why don't the bad apples of feminism spoil the term? Have you simply never met a kind humanist?
Because humanist is a useful term outside of gender discussions, but inside them it's meaningless. At the very best, it's like entering a political debate with "I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an American. Can't we all just be Americans?" By the nature of these debates, though, most of the time it's like doing that... at the Democratic National Convention.
It's basically a snub disguised as an attempt to moderate, AKA concern trolling.
Why exactly do you think there are more 'good' dudes in distress than damsels?
The very fact that an author (or game designer) is aware of the sexism in the damsel in distress trope and wants to either subvert it or avoid it, and then writes the male as the one in distress and the female rescuing the male... well, this is one sign of a non-shit writer!
A writer who doesn't notice or care about the trope is one sign that they aren't a non-shit writer.
Think Star Wars. The guys go to rescue the Princess, but almost immediately she is the one getting them out of the prison, and clearly takes control.
In Empire, Luke plays the hero in going to save Leia, fails gets fucked up.
In Jedi, Leia is just one of the team who goes into save Han Solo, who in this case is the dude in distress.
It's not an accident that Star Wars is considered great work, and that it is subverting the common trope. It's this very subversion that makes Leia and the guys such dynamic characters.
Meanwhile, nobody is saying you have to agree with this analysis. All we're saying is the language and approach you are using is EXACTLY the same language and approach that more sexist and/or misogynist debaters use. You are displaying the very mindset that others in this thread don't feel comfortable with, and the kind of mindset that continues to view sexist stereotyping as nothing harmless.
That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm attempting to approach this rationally. I'm not saying the 'damsel' trope can't be used lazily or that it's never used in a sexist work. I understand how the audience could experience discomfort as a result of its use. But I don't think it's an inherently sexist concept. I'm starting to feel that you think I'm a 'sexist'. That makes me uncomfortable.
The fact that you have to add the sex on the name of the ideology already has a problem of segregation, why not just Humanism? just equal rights for all, females, males, transgenders, etc. The problem with feminism is that as with all of those ideologies, the extremist penis hating ones are the more vocal ones and the ones that get most media coverage, so in most cases as soon as I hear "I'm a feminist" you've already lost me due to prejudice.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
Everyone I have ever talked to who has tried to identify as a "humanist" during the course of a debate on gender relations has always been maximum gross. It's pretty much always a way to concern troll.
Besides, nothing is stopping a person from being both a feminist and a humanist. I think of myself in similar terms.
So if the bad apples of humanism spoil the term for you, then why don't the bad apples of feminism spoil the term? Have you simply never met a kind humanist?
Because humanist is a useful term outside of gender discussions, but inside them it's meaningless. At the very best, it's like entering a political debate with "I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an American. Can't we all just be Americans?" By the nature of these debates, though, most of the time it's like doing that... at the Democratic National Convention.
It's basically a snub disguised as an attempt to moderate, AKA concern trolling.
Interesting comment. I don't identify as a 'humanist', though I do think humanism is a valid label to identify with.
That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm attempting to approach this rationally. I'm not saying the 'damsel' trope can't be used lazily or that it's never used in a sexist work. I understand how the audience could experience discomfort as a result of its use. But I don't think it's an inherently sexist concept. I'm starting to feel that you think I'm a 'sexist'. That makes me uncomfortable.
Protip: Having your views called out is only an insult if you get all defensive and make it one. What it is is a potential learning experience, a chance to maybe go "Huh, I guess maybe I don't have the definitive perspective on this." If you stick to your guns and try to double down on your shitty views, then yes, at that point, you might just be a bigot.
I kinda hate how our society has managed to make accusing another person of bigotry more taboo than actual bigotry.
That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm attempting to approach this rationally. I'm not saying the 'damsel' trope can't be used lazily or that it's never used in a sexist work. I understand how the audience could experience discomfort as a result of its use. But I don't think it's an inherently sexist concept. I'm starting to feel that you think I'm a 'sexist'. That makes me uncomfortable.
We are starting to feel you are sexist. We want you to feel uncomfortable.
That sounds like a double standard to me. I'm attempting to approach this rationally. I'm not saying the 'damsel' trope can't be used lazily or that it's never used in a sexist work. I understand how the audience could experience discomfort as a result of its use. But I don't think it's an inherently sexist concept. I'm starting to feel that you think I'm a 'sexist'. That makes me uncomfortable.
Protip: Having your views called out is only an insult if you get all defensive and make it one. What it is is a potential learning experience, a chance to maybe go "Huh, I guess maybe I don't have the definitive perspective on this." If you stick to your guns and try to double down on your shitty views, then yes, at that point, you might just be a bigot.
I kinda hate how our society has managed to make accusing another person of bigotry a greater social ill than actual bigotry.
Is attempting to understand both sides of an issue what passes for bigotry these days?
Comments
The point is simple. It's almost always women in these passive be-saved roles. It's almost never men. You guys don't have a problem with that? There's no good reason for the disparity.
It's the use of the role, not the role, that's the problem. What is so hard about that to understand?
If 90% of everything is shit, 90% of all characters in distress are written badly. Great! Well done. Good observation. It's just that some people want to address the fact that 90% of the badly written characters in distress are female, and 90% of the well written characters in distress are male.
I don't think there's inherently anything ill-intentioned in the use of the role. Of course it varies from case to case.
However, when you're talking about tropes, you're talking about the failure of the author not the characters in the story (the hero or his female motivator). If the author wants to have the hero motivated to do a thing there are lots of creative interesting things they can do other than putting a woman in a cage (or a meat grinder).
That is just literary criticism.
Now, the Tropes vs. Women series is going beyond literary criticism and talking about how lazy tropes that objectify women add to the general background radiation of sexism that permeates the culture; not only is it bad writing, it adds to the general pain in the ass that women deal with on a daily basis for no good reason.
So there are two levels that are being discussed:
1. relying on ANY trope is a sign of bad writing and should be avoided
2. relying on sexist tropes is not just bad writing but also adds to the overall sexism that exists in the world
Must we go into objectification and the state of gender in this culture? Because that's a whole other can of worms. What I will say is that I don't think common conventions are necessarily 'anti-woman'; just lazy, should they appear without variation or justification.
1. And if the writer uses the trope, unaware that it is a trope?
2. This seems like a fairly broad topic to go into, so I'd rather disregard it for now in favor of keeping the discussion focused.
I don't personally think you need to call those people "assholes" or "shitty bro rape fans" when you do it since people tend to stop listening when they feel like they're under attack, especially when they don't understand WHY they're being called out (but now I risk drifting into tone criticizing concern trolling and I wouldn't want to be called out for being sexist). Sorry, I thought this was the Anita Saarkesian thread about sexist tropes.
Christian is pretty solidly defined as involving a core set of specific beliefs. See the Nicene Creed (or its ilk). The things you mentioned may be commonly associated by Christians with Christian-ness, but are not part of any formal, academic, or even useful definition.
Am I not allowed to disagree with Anita? Am I not allowed to question whether or not certain tropes are sexist? Going into the extent that sexism exists in the world at large would almost certainly derail the discussion at hand. It seems far too broad a topic to explore here.
Your arguments seem to boil down to "it's not TECHNICALLY sexist because reasons!" You argue these ridiculous minutia and entirely miss the point of the discussion.
You say you "disagree." But what EXACTLY do you disagree with? Do you not agree that the majority of characters-in-distress are female, and that they are saved the majority of the time by male protagonists? In both cases, it is not a close majority, but a substantial one.
Do you disagree that this specific point is true?
Otherwise, p much everyone who isn't overtly a misogynist is a feminist. And when everyone's a feminist, no one will be.
If the point of the discussion is to move towards a specific ending point rather than expressing different viewpoints in a civil matter then the discussion seems like it might not have been worth holding. Though I'll gladly participate if my opinion is received calmly and rationally. I'm simply attempting to view tropes as objectively as I can and discuss them accordingly.
It's a shame that Anita is "the face" of geek feminism as she isn't really a likeable person.
Besides, nothing is stopping a person from being both a feminist and a humanist. I think of myself in similar terms.
Good luck to the rest of you.
A writer who doesn't notice or care about the trope is one sign that they aren't a non-shit writer.
Think Star Wars. The guys go to rescue the Princess, but almost immediately she is the one getting them out of the prison, and clearly takes control.
In Empire, Luke plays the hero in going to save Leia, fails gets fucked up.
In Jedi, Leia is just one of the team who goes into save Han Solo, who in this case is the dude in distress.
It's not an accident that Star Wars is considered great work, and that it is subverting the common trope. It's this very subversion that makes Leia and the guys such dynamic characters.
Meanwhile, nobody is saying you have to agree with this analysis. All we're saying is the language and approach you are using is EXACTLY the same language and approach that more sexist and/or misogynist debaters use. You are displaying the very mindset that others in this thread don't feel comfortable with, and the kind of mindset that continues to view sexist stereotyping as nothing harmless.
It's basically a snub disguised as an attempt to moderate, AKA concern trolling.
I kinda hate how our society has managed to make accusing another person of bigotry more taboo than actual bigotry.