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.
I don't particularly understand why. I'm not championing the use of the 'distress' trope, but it's never going to disappear. So the best anyone could reasonably hope for is that, when used, the distressed character be likable and interesting.
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.
I'm not explaining why the damsel in distress is sexist. I'm saying that good writers like to subvert tropes. George Lucas (and all those who helped him write Star Wars) and Laurence Kasdan wrote some of the best loved characters and stories of all time, and so their "dude in distress" story is, of course, going to be better than all the shitty "damsel in distress" stories written by all other shittier writers. But even their version of the "damsel in distress" story is way better than all the shittier writers versions of the same story.
The whole point of bringing up this point isn't to discuss numbers or do literary criticism. The point is consciousness raising. We want everyone who creates or views traditionally sexists and/or misogynist stories to be aware what they are creating or consuming. We want them to be aware that 50% of the population doesn't appreciate being put in boxes, both literally in fiction and figuratively in society.
That you are fighting against the idea that this trope is sexist means you are the target for this exact consciousness raising project. You and your thoughts ARE the goal.
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.
I'm not explaining why the damsel in distress is sexist. I'm saying that good writers like to subvert tropes. George Lucas (and all those who helped him write Star Wars) and Laurence Kasdan wrote some of the best loved characters and stories of all time, and so their "dude in distress" story is, of course, going to be better than all the shitty "damsel in distress" stories written by all other shittier writers. But even their version of the "damsel in distress" story is way better than all the shittier writers versions of the same story.
The whole point of bringing up this point isn't to discuss numbers or do literary criticism. The point is consciousness raising. We want everyone who creates or views traditionally sexists and/or misogynist stories to be aware what they are creating or consuming. We want them to be aware that 50% of the population doesn't appreciate being put in boxes, both literally in fiction and figuratively in society.
That you are fighting against the idea that this trope is sexist means you are the target for this exact consciousness raising project. You and your thoughts ARE the goal.
So this discussion was rigged? It wasn't actually a civil, open discussion of differing thoughts and ideas? That makes me pretty sad.
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.
If the majority of "characters in distress" throughout all of fiction were Korean, would it start to seem racist?
I'm sure putting one character in danger to have another character come and save them didn't start off as people trying to be sexist, but when most of them are female who don't offer anything else to the work that they're in other than to be bait, it starts to be a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit more than a little bit sexist.
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.
If the majority of "characters in distress" throughout all of fiction were Korean, would it start to seem racist?
I'm sure putting one character in danger to have another character come and save them didn't start off as people trying to be sexist, but when most of them are female who don't offer anything else to the work that they're in other than to be bait, it starts to be a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit more than a little bit sexist.
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.
If the majority of "characters in distress" throughout all of fiction were Korean, would it start to seem racist?
I'm sure putting one character in danger to have another character come and save them didn't start off as people trying to be sexist, but when most of them are female who don't offer anything else to the work that they're in other than to be bait, it starts to be a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit more than a little bit sexist.
I'd say it depends on the context.
The context is fiction as a whole.
Most of the time when the trope is used, it's to put a female into a cage (sometimes hypothetical, often times not) and have her exist just to make the main male character miffed and come to save her. She is an object. A motivator. Sure, maybe she has enough emotions built in to feel sad that she's in a cage, but a story that uses the trope is often trying to make us root for the guy to save her and not for the girl to get out.
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.
If the majority of "characters in distress" throughout all of fiction were Korean, would it start to seem racist?
I'm sure putting one character in danger to have another character come and save them didn't start off as people trying to be sexist, but when most of them are female who don't offer anything else to the work that they're in other than to be bait, it starts to be a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit more than a little bit sexist.
I'd say it depends on the context.
The context is fiction as a whole.
Most of the time when the trope is used, it's to put a female into a cage (sometimes hypothetical, often times not) and have her exist just to make the main male character miffed and come to save her. She is an object. A motivator. Sure, maybe she has enough emotions built in to feel sad that she's in a cage, but a story that uses the trope is often trying to make us root for the guy to save her and not for the girl to get out.
I take this trope on a case-by-case basis. I'm consistently intended to feel empathy for the damsel/dude; I'm aware this trope can be used incredibly lazily and I'm aware this trope can be used in an incredibly sexist manner. But I don't think the trope itself is inherently sexist. The framing is what matters.
There's a proper word for that, guys - Egalitarian. It's basically the same definition as Rym quoted for feminism before, but with "everybody" rather than "Women." Also, Humanisim and Humanist are kinda already taken.
That said, sketch is right, just like misusing the term humanist, there's no shortage of gross fuckin' people who put themselves under that banner, usually thinly-disguised MRA shits. No shortage of perfectly good people either, make no mistake, but that's the particular flavor of fucking gross human being that the label "Egalitarian" attracts, just in the same way that Feminism attracts the occasional Andrea Dworkin-style feminists, or Tumblr-Feminists. Really, we should be familiar by now with the idea that no sociopolitical movement is without it's fuckin' shitbags, to be honest.
There's a proper word for that, guys - Egalitarian. It's basically the same definition as Rym quoted for feminism before, but with "everybody" rather than "Women." Also, Humanisim and Humanist are kinda already taken.
That said, sketch is right, just like misusing the term humanist, there's no shortage of gross fuckin' people who put themselves under that banner, usually thinly-disguised MRA shits. No shortage of perfectly good people either, make no mistake, but that's the particular flavor of fucking gross human being that the label "Egalitarian" attracts, just in the same way that Feminism attracts the occasional Andrea Dworkin-style feminists, or Tumblr-Feminists. Really, we should be familiar by now with the idea that no sociopolitical movement is without it's fuckin' shitbags, to be honest.
'Egalitarian' is the label with which I identify. But I'm hesitant to vocalize it; most times when I have in discussion with feminists, I've had my comment reframed.
I take this trope on a case-by-case basis. I'm consistently intended to feel empathy for the damsel/dude; I'm aware this trope can be used incredibly lazily and I'm aware this trope can be used in an incredibly sexist manner. But I don't think the trope itself is inherently sexist. The framing is what matters.
I don't think you're seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, on a case-by-case basis it doesn't seem so bad, but when you pan out a bit and see the trope repeated ad-nauseum throughout culture it's fairly obvious that the vast majority of the uses are lazy and the vast majority show the "damsel" in a very one-dimensional light.
What most people are arguing in this thread is that this is kind of a shitty thing, and that we (as a society) should make some effort to either:
I take this trope on a case-by-case basis. I'm consistently intended to feel empathy for the damsel/dude; I'm aware this trope can be used incredibly lazily and I'm aware this trope can be used in an incredibly sexist manner. But I don't think the trope itself is inherently sexist. The framing is what matters.
I don't think you're seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, on a case-by-case basis it doesn't seem so bad, but when you pan out a bit and see the trope repeated ad-nauseum throughout culture it's fairly obvious that the vast majority of the uses are lazy and the vast majority show the "damsel" in a very one-dimensional light.
What most people are arguing in this thread is that this is kind of a shitty thing, and that we (as a society) should make some effort to either:
1. Stop using this trope, or
2. Use it in a smart way (see: Star Wars)
And I'm saying it's never going to disappear. The concept is timeless and objectively appealing on a very basic level. The best anyone could hope for is that it's used well; that the distressed character is likable and interesting. That the empathy the audience feels be justified.
Except that, in the civilized world, a lot of once very common tropes and stereotypes have disappeared. Black servants, the "mysterious/scheming Oriental," a lot of Christian tropes about purity, virginity, and marriage, etc. Just because some meme is popular (and has a tradition behind it) doesn't mean it will continue throughout the entirety of human existence. Just because a character is likeable doesn't negate the inherent injustive of a trope.
Except that, in the civilized world, a lot of once very common tropes and stereotypes have disappeared. Black servants, the "mysterious/scheming Oriental," a lot of Christian tropes about purity, virginity, and marriage, etc. Just because some meme is popular (and has a tradition behind it) doesn't mean it will continue throughout the entirety of human existence. Just because a character is likeable doesn't negate the inherent injustive of a trope.
I'd argue that there isn't an inherent injustice to the 'distress' trope. The basic concept is that we, the audience, want to see someone we like rescued and want the hero or heroine to rescue them because it brings stakes to the story, as well as setting up a fair amount of positive stimulus for when they're reunited. It's a very simple form of personally driven altruism that we, as the audience, can easily relate. Depending on the framing, there is no moral guilt attached to a story of rescue.
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.
I'm not explaining why the damsel in distress is sexist. I'm saying that good writers like to subvert tropes. George Lucas (and all those who helped him write Star Wars) and Laurence Kasdan wrote some of the best loved characters and stories of all time, and so their "dude in distress" story is, of course, going to be better than all the shitty "damsel in distress" stories written by all other shittier writers. But even their version of the "damsel in distress" story is way better than all the shittier writers versions of the same story.
The whole point of bringing up this point isn't to discuss numbers or do literary criticism. The point is consciousness raising. We want everyone who creates or views traditionally sexists and/or misogynist stories to be aware what they are creating or consuming. We want them to be aware that 50% of the population doesn't appreciate being put in boxes, both literally in fiction and figuratively in society.
That you are fighting against the idea that this trope is sexist means you are the target for this exact consciousness raising project. You and your thoughts ARE the goal.
So this discussion was rigged? It wasn't actually a civil, open discussion of differing thoughts and ideas? That makes me pretty sad.
This discussion isn't about specific tropes and if you think they are sexist. This thread is about consciousness raising, if Anita Saarkesian is doing a good job of it or not, and about the responses to her efforts.
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.
I'm not explaining why the damsel in distress is sexist. I'm saying that good writers like to subvert tropes. George Lucas (and all those who helped him write Star Wars) and Laurence Kasdan wrote some of the best loved characters and stories of all time, and so their "dude in distress" story is, of course, going to be better than all the shitty "damsel in distress" stories written by all other shittier writers. But even their version of the "damsel in distress" story is way better than all the shittier writers versions of the same story.
The whole point of bringing up this point isn't to discuss numbers or do literary criticism. The point is consciousness raising. We want everyone who creates or views traditionally sexists and/or misogynist stories to be aware what they are creating or consuming. We want them to be aware that 50% of the population doesn't appreciate being put in boxes, both literally in fiction and figuratively in society.
That you are fighting against the idea that this trope is sexist means you are the target for this exact consciousness raising project. You and your thoughts ARE the goal.
So this discussion was rigged? It wasn't actually a civil, open discussion of differing thoughts and ideas? That makes me pretty sad.
This discussion isn't about specific tropes and if you think they are sexist. This thread is about consciousness raising, if Anita Saarkesian is doing a good job of it or not, and about the responses to her efforts.
The original post only specified that the thread be related to Anita. And I am discussing the premise upon which I reject her assertions. This is a response to her 'efforts' if you will. It seems unwise to discourage the expression of dissenting opinions in an open forum.
Although it would seem wise to discourage bad arguments. Dude, in her third video she discusses many of the ways that people have undermined the trope and she addresses your criticisms.
If I were to make a critisim it would be lack of information density. The third entry was my favourite and I found the initial vidoes were more establishing shots. The panorama of the forest as it were.
Although it would seem wise to discourage bad arguments. Dude, in her third video she discusses many of the ways that people have undermined the trope and she addresses your criticisms.
If I were to make a critisim it would be lack of information density. The third entry was my favourite and I found the initial vidoes were more establishing shots. The panorama of the forest as it were.
I don't necessarily think the trope needs to be 'undermined' to work. It can be played straight; how well it works does and has always been about the way it's framed.
Just so you know, the longer you go on like this, the more you come off as sexist. It's already clear that 90% of everything is shit, so pointing out stuff in the 9% that is good or the 1% that is great won't help your cause at all, even if someone asks you for it. There's nothing you can post here that will convince us that females aren't massively over-represented as powerless objects to be saved or won. That is the point. There is no discussion to be had about that point. If you think there is, then you are sexist.
On the other hand, if you really think that having a discussion about "dudes in distress" here on this forum will lead to any better works of fiction, or any better video games, then you are deluded. Nothing you post here will change the quality of any work of fiction.
However, this discussion may help people like you, who are obviously a decent enough person, but are otherwise happy to let some sexist tropes slide without comment or criticism. If enough people say "hold on a minute" when sexist shit pops up in video games (or movies, or other entertainment) then such entertainment will improve over time. This thread is to encourage everyone to notice that shit and say "hold on a minute!" You notice this shit and say "it'll always be there, and I happy with that." We're calling you out on that point.
I have missed this joke. (I also don't eat rice, though I highly doubt that is actually relevant/related to this conversation)
It was a real weird argument on the forum, a multi-page argument about how we cook rice and the relative merits of rice cookers Vs other methods. Just a dumb joke playing off the statement that Luke summed up the crux of every argument.
Just so you know, the longer you go on like this, the more you come off as sexist. It's already clear that 90% of everything is shit, so pointing out stuff in the 9% that is good or the 1% that is great won't help your cause at all, even if someone asks you for it. There's nothing you can post here that will convince us that females aren't massively over-represented as powerless objects to be saved or won. That is the point. There is no discussion to be had about that point. If you think there is, then you are sexist.
On the other hand, if you really think that having a discussion about "dudes in distress" here on this forum will lead to any better works of fiction, or any better video games, then you are deluded. Nothing you post here will change the quality of any work of fiction.
However, this discussion may help people like you, who are obviously a decent enough person, but are otherwise happy to let some sexist tropes slide without comment or criticism. If enough people say "hold on a minute" when sexist shit pops up in video games (or movies, or other entertainment) then such entertainment will improve over time. This thread is to encourage everyone to notice that shit and say "hold on a minute!" You notice this shit and say "it'll always be there, and I happy with that." We're calling you out on that point.
So If I disagree with you and I think the trope is worth discussing objectively, then I'm a sexist. I have no problem 'calling out' sexism; I don't think the 'distressed' trope is inherently sexist. Whether it works or not is all in how the trope is framed. I see value in criticizing media; but it should be done fairly and rationally. Every side should be taken into account. Incidentally, your post was absolutely dripping with condescension, and I find that rather disheartening.
Comments
The whole point of bringing up this point isn't to discuss numbers or do literary criticism. The point is consciousness raising. We want everyone who creates or views traditionally sexists and/or misogynist stories to be aware what they are creating or consuming. We want them to be aware that 50% of the population doesn't appreciate being put in boxes, both literally in fiction and figuratively in society.
That you are fighting against the idea that this trope is sexist means you are the target for this exact consciousness raising project. You and your thoughts ARE the goal.
I'm sure putting one character in danger to have another character come and save them didn't start off as people trying to be sexist, but when most of them are female who don't offer anything else to the work that they're in other than to be bait, it starts to be a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit more than a little bit sexist.
Most of the time when the trope is used, it's to put a female into a cage (sometimes hypothetical, often times not) and have her exist just to make the main male character miffed and come to save her. She is an object. A motivator. Sure, maybe she has enough emotions built in to feel sad that she's in a cage, but a story that uses the trope is often trying to make us root for the guy to save her and not for the girl to get out.
That said, sketch is right, just like misusing the term humanist, there's no shortage of gross fuckin' people who put themselves under that banner, usually thinly-disguised MRA shits. No shortage of perfectly good people either, make no mistake, but that's the particular flavor of fucking gross human being that the label "Egalitarian" attracts, just in the same way that Feminism attracts the occasional Andrea Dworkin-style feminists, or Tumblr-Feminists. Really, we should be familiar by now with the idea that no sociopolitical movement is without it's fuckin' shitbags, to be honest.
What most people are arguing in this thread is that this is kind of a shitty thing, and that we (as a society) should make some effort to either:
1. Stop using this trope, or
2. Use it in a smart way (see: Star Wars)
If I were to make a critisim it would be lack of information density. The third entry was my favourite and I found the initial vidoes were more establishing shots. The panorama of the forest as it were.
On the other hand, if you really think that having a discussion about "dudes in distress" here on this forum will lead to any better works of fiction, or any better video games, then you are deluded. Nothing you post here will change the quality of any work of fiction.
However, this discussion may help people like you, who are obviously a decent enough person, but are otherwise happy to let some sexist tropes slide without comment or criticism. If enough people say "hold on a minute" when sexist shit pops up in video games (or movies, or other entertainment) then such entertainment will improve over time. This thread is to encourage everyone to notice that shit and say "hold on a minute!" You notice this shit and say "it'll always be there, and I happy with that." We're calling you out on that point.