What is the difference between Sexism/racism and things just being what they are?

[Redwall]

As for the Zelda example, I dont think thats entirely accurate. Sheik, in one previous scene (pre-shadow temple Kakariko) was shown getting the crap knocked out of him. Link got creamed in the same scene. What it showed was that both characters are on equal footing more or less.

It shows that the masculine-looking Sheik and the masculine-looking Link are on equal footing; I'm certainly not implying that male heroes are portrayed as being invincible.

When Zelda is revealed, shes not powerless. She and Link both get ambushed.

Yet only one of them gets magic-trapped by Ganondorf. Why does the victim happen to be the person who is more proficient at magic?

The only issue i tend to have with the OoT example when it comes to Zelda, is her more or less standing around during the fight against Ganon. (the final one) Because she showed us that she was capable during the flight from Ganon's Castle, so her standing around made little sense. (Until she blasts the fuck out of Ganon that is.)

Wind Waker (and later Twilight Princess) mitigates this by having Zelda take part in the final battles.

Not disagreeing with you here. Sarkeesian also mentions the WW bit.

In WW, its unfair to say she was simply kidnapped just because she became more feminine. Tetra is young and borked up a mission at the very beginning of the game. Part of the argument can be chalked up to Ganon(dorf)'s motives. The problem in WW isnt that she gets kidnapped, but that she must hide in Hyrule Castle for a good portion of the game. Thats cause for some side-eye. King of Red Lions explains the reasoning but it doesnt hold water if she could simply go back to being Tetra and the pirates helping Link in his quest to awaken the Master Sword.

It isn't just because she becomes more feminine that makes me think that the whole thing may well be a bit sexist; rather, it's the fact that Ganondorf spends his time hunting for Zelda (presumably with the intent of taking her Triforce of Wisdom) instead of, say, spending his time hunting for the Triforce of Courage, or spending his time looking for Link and stomping him (who IIRC has the Master Sword by the time Tetra's identity is revealed; for this reason, Ganondorf has good reason to hunt him down regardless of whether or not Link is the true Hero of Time). I'm not sure if you've read my other post in the thread.

Hiding in Hyrule Castle kind of makes sense; Zelda can't simply go back to being Tetra since Ganondorf knows what Tetra looks like.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Redwall

[Samias]

There's almost no video game set in my country and I don't see any problem with that, because I hate the few ones that are. If they're going to represent a group in a stereotypical and flawed way, it's better they don't represent it. That's the reason why I hate Max Paine 3, for example, because it shows my country in a bad way.

Then maybe you'll understand why women and non-white people dislike games that make them walking caricatures and only include them at the token level or as plot devices. However, we'd just like to see a better effort made to make the characters better instead of excluding women/non-whites just because they couldn't get it right the first time. You don't get better by avoiding what you find difficult. Even if we only had silent protagonist female characters like (pre Other M) Samus or Chell from Portal, it'd be hard to make an offensive female character. Or just include women in the major decision making at the publisher level, as the games industry has a distinct lack of women who have a say in a game's direction.

[Nobody]

Then maybe you'll understand why women and non-white people dislike games that make them walking caricatures and only include them at the token level or as plot devices. However, we'd just like to see a better effort made to make the characters better instead of excluding women/non-whites just because they couldn't get it right the first time. You don't get better by avoiding what you find difficult. Even if we only had silent protagonist female characters like (pre Other M) Samus or Chell from Portal, it'd be hard to make an offensive female character. Or just include women in the major decision making at the publisher level, as the games industry has a distinct lack of women who have a say in a game's direction.

Yes I understand, but sometimes people exaggerate, calling sexist games that really aren't. I don't know if you have played it, but there were plenty of people who called The Last Of Us sexist, just because Joel wanted to protect Ellie. That isn't sexism, he has a reason for doing that, and the game doesn't represent women in a stereotypical way, there are many strong women there and the leader of a important group is a woman. Sometimes people exaggerate when labeling something sexist which can be bad for the fight against the actual sexism.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Nobody

[Rehab]

That may happen, yes, but it's not entirely the same issue as there being relatively low number of nonwhite + nonbroski protagonists who aren't caricatures compared to the numbers of those people that exist in real life. Working on both issues also isn't necessarily mutually exclusive, and (I'd hope) it should get easier and less toxic to deal with as their representation increases.

[Samias]

The people who call The Last of Us sexist are really the people reaching too hard to find sexist things about the game. Joel is a selfish and flawed person and I think all the characters in that game really have a purpose. Ellie is vulnerable because of her age, not because she's a girl, and in reality she's really strong for her age. If you think that "The Last of Us is sexist" is a widely held position among gaming feminists, it's... not. However, there are so many other examples of games that feature women as plot devices. Even though I love Zelda, it's hard to overlook how often Zelda gets captured despite logic dictating that grabbing Link at the same time is probably a better plan than nabbing the princess and asking Link to go fetch her.

[uguu]

Indeed, which is something that severely grosses me out with some people who label themselves feminists. The radical sorts who dont want equality, but want men to be viewed as lesser or people who must be oppressed because of privilege. In my eyes, thats rather vile.

Radical Feminists are feminists insofar as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democracy, republic, or owned by the people. You do not mention radical feminists in a discussion about real feminists any more than you would bring up north korea in a discussion about democracies or republics. Also, Sarkeesian is not a radical, before you even try to say anything.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Hikarasuman

[amadeuscho]

The problem with underrepresentation is in my sig.

But agreeing with Samias above, women are used as plot devices far too often. Although I love the Zelda and Mario series, I think its about time they retire the rescue the princess trope and try a different method of storytelling (like Super Mario 3D World).

[BrightBow]

Man, this talk of Zelda brings back memories.

Even as a kid, I was irritated how Ganondorf had this "indestructible prison crystal with infinite range" spell but it never occurred him to use it on the hero. Instead, he plays tennis against him..

Then in Wind Waker. They decide to leave Zelda under the ocean for no reason. Words cannot describe how underwhelmed I was to find out that Ganondorf napped her.

I have to say: I did notice back then that Zelda got napped twice right after she put on the pink dress. It just seemed so silly. Like the dress was cursed.

And Tetra's sudden personality shift was nothing short of creepy.

And that game got a sequel: Phantom Hourglass. And with that game, I was nothing short of pissed.

Knowing that this was going to be a Wind Waker sequel, I was hoping we would be seeing more of the pirates. I really liked them and Link ended up traveling with them. So they had to have more of a presence.

But of course, Link and Tetra get separated from them in 2 minutes and the pirates are never seen again until the ending cutscene.

But hey, at least Tetra was still around... except that she got kidnapped and the only thing she does is to scream "Link, save me!" literally every time the game is loaded.

Until she gets rescued, except she was turned into a statue before Link got to her. So she spends the rest of the game as an inanimate object in the ships cargo hold.

I still don't get why the game was even a Wind Waker sequel If the whole game takes place in another world and Link's ties to his own world don't matter at all.

It could have been just another Link in another world as usual.

The only thing Tetra's inclusion has over any other NPC or object was that a player would have already an attachment to her...

But at least for my part, that attachment just meant that I was pissed that she technically wasn't in the game.

Edit:

I am sorry for pestering you with that pointless Zelda rant.

If I might try to retroactively give this post a purpose, I would like to claim that all these games' stories would have better Zelda wasn't kidnapped. it was always predictable, annoying and silly.

The problem I see with the trope in general is that there is no reason to care about a character that isn't developed. And a character who is developed, is simply wasted in that position.

Edit: Okay, I really can't save that one. I am really sorry for the trouble. Move along please.

Edited August 27, 2013 by BrightBow

[Loki Laufeyson]

It shows that the masculine-looking Sheik and the masculine-looking Link are on equal footing; I'm certainly not implying that male heroes are portrayed as being invincible.

Yet only one of them gets magic-trapped by Ganondorf. Why does the victim happen to be the person who is more proficient at magic?

Not disagreeing with you here. Sarkeesian also mentions the WW bit.

It isn't just because she becomes more feminine that makes me think that the whole thing may well be a bit sexist; rather, it's the fact that Ganondorf spends his time hunting for Zelda (presumably with the intent of taking her Triforce of Wisdom) instead of, say, spending his time hunting for the Triforce of Courage, or spending his time looking for Link and stomping him (who IIRC has the Master Sword by the time Tetra's identity is revealed; for this reason, Ganondorf has good reason to hunt him down regardless of whether or not Link is the true Hero of Time). I'm not sure if you've read my other post in the thread.

Hiding in Hyrule Castle kind of makes sense; Zelda can't simply go back to being Tetra since Ganondorf knows what Tetra looks like.

Unfortunately, Link is the player character so he couldnt get ambushed. You do have a point. If he had received a magical blow (like he did earlier in the game) while Ganondorf nabs Zelda, more sense would have been made.

As for WW Ganondorf, im really going to chalk that one up to Fridge Logic. Srsly, it enters less into the realm of "THATS SEXIST" and is more into "Goddammit, Ganondorf, why didnt you just go this route."

BrightBow, PH was just an assy game.

Also, Sarkeesian is not a radical, before you even try to say anything.

I was talking about radicals in general. I have no idea who this Sarkeesian person is.

[Blademaster!]

I have no idea who this Sarkeesian person is.

Anita Sarkeesian is someone who works for the feminist frequency that makes You Tube videos about women in gaming. She has been heavily criticized by the community for having almost no idea of what she is even talking about, and considering she gets most of her footage for video games from Let's Play videos, she has also been called into question about whether she plays video games at all. She's someone you arguably shouldn't take seriously.

As for the topic at hand, the line doesn't exist. People will always say that they are being denied/harmed for reason X when they don't get what they want or have things go their way.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Blademaster!

[Redwall]

Anita Sarkeesian is someone who works for the feminist frequency that makes You Tube videos about women in gaming. She has been heavily criticized by the community for having almost no idea of what she is even talking about, and considering she gets most of her footage for video games from Let's Play videos, she has also been called into question about whether she plays video games at all. She's someone you arguably shouldn't take seriously.

As for the topic at hand, the line doesn't exist. People will always say that they are being denied/harmed for reason X when they don't get what they want or have things go their way.

I like the part where you made an actual evidence-based argument.

[Rehab]

What exactly are you saying about racism and sexism again? I don't get if you mean they don't exist, or that they are of no consequence.

[Phoenix Wright]

The fact that females are used as plot devices are also stereotypical on the male end, too people. Most dudes are not courageous, brave, and willing to sacrifice everything for the people we love or want to love us. But we'd like to be. Lots of men feel an obligation to be The Protector, even though it isn't necessary.

Actually, people have lost their careers over even suggesting the possibility that this is true. As someone who truly gets off on being the Devil's Advocate this rustled my jimmies. This man was lambasted a few years ago for coming out with the statement that while we shouldn't twist data to fit our worldviews, we also shouldn't instantly discount the possibility of any number of things that we hate being true, in this case racist stereotypes.

Agreed. I just happen to passionately believe that blacks do not commit crimes because it's their nature. I've heard it too often and believe it to be 100% false. That being said, I'd rather discuss it than disregard it and treat people poorly because of it.

[Snowy_One]

Unfortunately, Link is the player character so he couldnt get ambushed. You do have a point. If he had received a magical blow (like he did earlier in the game) while Ganondorf nabs Zelda, more sense would have been made.

As for WW Ganondorf, im really going to chalk that one up to Fridge Logic. Srsly, it enters less into the realm of "THATS SEXIST" and is more into "Goddammit, Ganondorf, why didnt you just go this route."

BrightBow, PH was just an assy game.

I was talking about radicals in general. I have no idea who this Sarkeesian person is.

That's sort of the problem, the difference between something simply just being plot, and something being outright sexist. Look at a game like Dragon's Crown (which got panned for it's sexism) and compare it to some other games and it's clear that sexism simply isn't as overt anymore.

IMO, gaming has become a LOT better about sexism, but there has also been a backlash as some men feel that their 'domain' as men has been infringed on, hence games with overly sexualized women also appearing like Evony.

Here's the ultimate problem. Anything sexist against women is also sexist against men. Yes, Peach is helpless, but Mario is expected to drop EVERYTHING to go and save her and is a monster if he doesn't. There are two sides to the sexism coin to be sure.

[Redwall]

The fact that females are used as plot devices are also stereotypical on the male end, too people. Most dudes are not courageous, brave, and willing to sacrifice everything for the people we love or want to love us. But we'd like to be. Lots of men feel an obligation to be The Protector, even though it isn't necessary.

Here's the ultimate problem. Anything sexist against women is also sexist against men. Yes, Peach is helpless, but Mario is expected to drop EVERYTHING to go and save her and is a monster if he doesn't. There are two sides to the sexism coin to be sure.

You guys are missing the point, which is that some stereotypes are empowering (as PW points out, "we'd like to be" courageous and self-sacrificing), and some aren't; as you would probably agree, male characters receive empowering portrayals at a very disproportionate rate. So the question becomes whether it's reasonable for one gender to receive so many more empowering portrayals than the other.

As for WW Ganondorf, im really going to chalk that one up to Fridge Logic. Srsly, it enters less into the realm of "THATS SEXIST" and is more into "Goddammit, Ganondorf, why didnt you just go this route."

I don't know about that; like Samias said (more succinctly than I did), Ganondorf could have just kidnapped Link as well as Zelda. Instead, he simply lets Link roam free and power up his Master Sword; it doesn't take the Triforce of Wisdom to realize that's a bad idea.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Redwall

[Phoenix Wright]

You guys are missing the point, which is that some stereotypes are empowering (as PW points out, "we'd like to be" courageous and self-sacrificing), and some aren't; as you would probably agree, male characters receive empowering portrayals at a very disproportionate rate. So the question becomes whether it's reasonable for one gender to receive so many more empowering portrayals than the other.

This could be worse, though. It's a different kind of frustration. Male characters are empowered and escalated to a degree that we know we'll never be, whilst females are made into characters they already know they're not. But no, I understand the point clearly and I agree that it is unfair. It's unfair to both genders in many ways.

I don't know why I'm beating around the bush so much with the point that I want to make. Men, women, blacks, whites, no matter your opinion, all experience discrimination and/or racism. Collectively. For every stereotype women have, men also have some stereotype. So, why focus on any one group like feminism or civil rights? We, as in all of us together, should focus on fighting for human rights and equality.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Phoenix Wright

[Samias]

This could be worse, though. It's a different kind of frustration. Male characters are empowered and escalated to a degree that we know we'll never be, whilst females are made into characters they already know they're not. But no, I understand the point clearly and I agree that it is unfair. It's unfair to both genders in many ways.

I don't know why I'm beating around the bush so much with the point that I want to make. Men, women, blacks, whites, no matter your opinion, all experience discrimination and/or racism. Collectively. For every stereotype women have, men also have some stereotype. So, why focus on any one group like feminism or civil rights? We, as in all of us together, should focus on fighting for human rights and equality.

Which is why modern feminism isn't just about stereotypical roles for females, it's also about empowering men to be able to act as they want as well. By compartmentalizing traits that women are "emotional" and that men should be strong and emotionally detached harms both parties. However, at the current point in time, the male stereotype is one of power, and ultimately the men who fit into that stereotype are promised success. Women who fall into their stereotype are supposed to hang off the arms of men and act like objects more than people. Men should have the flexibility to take on domestic tasks as much as their female counterparts, and women should have the freedom to be able to take whatever jobs they want without the spectre of family rearing hanging over them. "Feminism" is still a good word for the movement, as it removes the stigma of "feminine" traits as a weakness.

[uguu]

First of all: feminism includes fixing the problems with men's rights by definition because it is impossible for a society in which men are made out to be objectively dominant to not have women as objectively submissive, which is what women are fighting against.

Also, it's your privilege as a white man to see things that way. You don't have to worry about the same absurdist oppression and fight explicitly for your own rights. Certainly, there are huge issues there, but it isn't nearly as overt and disgusting as it is with women, or indeed blacks, or any other oppressed groups. The one thing about that position that is right, though, is that there is a tendency for members of oppressed groups to discriminate against other oppressed groups. It is true that, while it's fine for someone to focus primarily on their own rights, they have to understand that there are other groups that are also being oppressed and that they are on the oppressive side, even if those groups contain members that are oppressive towards them in other ways, and oftentimes these groups don't recognize that fact. Some gay men are sort of infamously mysoginistic, some feminists are racist (ex: why #solidarityisforwhitewomen was even a thing), some black people are sexist, etc.

The biggest problem with what you're suggesting, though, is that, even in groups that claim to be humanistic all around (SKEPTICS), there's a huge amount of mysogyny and hatred of feminists abound. If you try to create an all-encompassing group, it's only inevitable that something will end up getting left out for one reason and another, and inevitably when it's pointed out that was left out the response is always "NO WE'RE GOOD HUMANIST PEOPLE WE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SEXIST YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A MATRIARCHY!" or whatever.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Hikarasuman

[Nobody]

The problem with humanity as a whole is that people lack empathy. In the end most people only care about themselves and the ones close to them. I can say i'm guilty of that to some extent and so are most people, if not everybody.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

Also, it's your privilege as a white man to see things that way. You don't have to worry about the same absurdist oppression and fight explicitly for your own rights. Certainly, there are huge issues there, but it isn't nearly as overt and disgusting as it is with women, or indeed blacks, or any other oppressed groups. The one thing about that position that is right, though, is that there is a tendency for members of oppressed groups to discriminate against other oppressed groups. It is true that, while it's fine for someone to focus primarily on their own rights, they have to understand that there are other groups that are also being oppressed and that they are on the oppressive side, even if those groups contain members that are oppressive towards them in other ways, and oftentimes these groups don't recognize that fact.

Some gay men are sort of infamously mysoginistic, some feminists are racist (ex: why #solidarityisforwhitewomen was even a thing), some black people are sexist, etc. The biggest problem with what you're suggesting, though, is that, even in groups that claim to be humanistic all around (SKEPTICS), there's a huge amount of mysogyny and hatred of feminists abound. If you try to create an all-encompassing group, it's only inevitable that something will end up getting left out for one reason and another, and inevitably when it's pointed out that was left out the response is always "NO WE'RE GOOD HUMANIST PEOPLE WE CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SEXIST YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO CREATE A MATRIARCHY!" or whatever.

Well, I'm Middle-Eastern, one of the most openly hated groups in the United States today. And I live here. I may have white skin, but that doesn't really say anything about me beyond that. Because I also grew up in an almost entirely black neighborhood. I have a very weird upbringing, and have a very weird perspective on things because of it. Mostly one of ignoring people's words and protect yourself if people try to get violent. I've never had to experience the latter.

There's pros and cons to both, I happen to believe that the pros of a humanistic group outweighs the pros of split groups.

[uguu]

Well, I'm Middle-Eastern, one of the most openly hated groups in the United States today. And I live here. I may have white skin, but that doesn't really say anything about me beyond that. Because I also grew up in an almost entirely black neighborhood. I have a very weird upbringing, and have a very weird perspective on things because of it. Mostly one of ignoring people's words and protect yourself if people try to get violent. I've never had to experience the latter.

There's pros and cons to both, I happen to believe that the pros of a humanistic group outweighs the pros of split groups.

Oh, shit, sorry about that. Though, wrt to the last sentence: I don't think that feminists would or should agree, considering how they've been treated by "humanist" groups thus far.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Hikarasuman

[Redwall]

Though, wrt to the last sentence: I don't think that feminists would or should agree, considering how they've been treated by "humanist" groups thus far.

I don't think that's what he means by "humanist." Correct me if I'm wrong, PW, but judging by your posts, it sounds like your definition of "humanist" is qualitatively the same as the definition of "feminist" Samias presented: basically used to describe a belief system in which people of any gender/race/etc. can do as they please.

[amadeuscho]

This could be worse, though. It's a different kind of frustration. Male characters are empowered and escalated to a degree that we know we'll never be, whilst females are made into characters they already know they're not. But no, I understand the point clearly and I agree that it is unfair. It's unfair to both genders in many ways.

I don't know why I'm beating around the bush so much with the point that I want to make. Men, women, blacks, whites, no matter your opinion, all experience discrimination and/or racism. Collectively. For every stereotype women have, men also have some stereotype. So, why focus on any one group like feminism or civil rights? We, as in all of us together, should focus on fighting for human rights and equality.

I don't think those empowerment/disempowerment stereotypes are in any way similar. The empowered male character reflects the patriarchal nature of the society and gives into the idea that men are stronger. While the female stereotype group gives way to incorrect notions about women in society. It's not about whether individuals know they are different than these characters; it's that these characters exist in mediums over the course of hundreds of years that reinforce gender roles and stereotypes. Video games are just another form of media in which this problem exists.

Additional, neither gender knows that the characters shown are things that they aren't. If we are talking about video games, they are often consumed at the formative stages of one's life, so children don't necessarily have that basis of what a male or female is.

Racism (or sexism) can be defined broadly in two ways really: 1) discrimination to others on the basis of race (or gender). 2) systems or structures in society that advantage a dominant race (or gender) over all others. So in the first case, all individuals may experience in their lifetimes. While in the second, by definition, only oppressed groups can experience it. So "split groups" exist to combat these systems of power, but not at the expense of other groups. Any group that does that really ignores the spirit of what they are trying to accomplish. And a true feminist group aspires toward a more equitable society.

[Samias]

Generally the groups fighting for rights (LGBT, POC, feminists, etc) want to be integrated into a society where they aren't treated significantly worse than straight male counterparts. For example, under feminism, women want rape to be discouraged at the perpetrator level, and men also want to be taken more seriously as victims of sexual assault. It's a feminist goal to reduce sexual violence overall. It is a form of humanism. Of course, you hit roadblocks from people who don't want to tear themselves away from ingrained stereotypes that women are weak, and that harms both men and women.

Racial profiling, gender profiling, and sexual profiling is tackled by different groups who can focus their efforts better on specific issues, but you aren't restricted to following only a single school of thought, either. Generally a feminist will support the rights of men that aren't actively inhibiting women's rights (ie the right to be taken serious on matters of sexual assault), the right for LGBT to marry and share the same civil rights as any other couple, and the rights of people of colour to not find themselves disproportionally targeted by law enforcement, among other things.

[Phoenix Wright]

Oh, shit, sorry about that.

Though, wrt to the last sentence: I don't think that feminists would or should agree, considering how they've been treated by "humanist" groups thus far.

It's alright. :)

I wouldn't expect them to, nor try to force them to. Like I said, there are pros and cons to each. I just stand on a different side of the fence. Don't get me wrong, I think both approaches work.

I don't think that's what he means by "humanist." Correct me if I'm wrong, PW, but judging by your posts, it sounds like your definition of "humanist" is qualitatively the same as the definition of "feminist" Samias presented: basically used to describe a belief system in which people of any gender/race/etc. can do as they please.

And yeah, this is how I'm defining it. To me, humanism is simply universal equality amongst all humans.

I don't think those empowerment/disempowerment stereotypes are in any way similar. The empowered male character reflects the patriarchal nature of the society and gives into the idea that men are stronger. While the female stereotype group gives way to incorrect notions about women in society. It's not about whether individuals know they are different than these characters; it's that these characters exist in mediums over the course of hundreds of years that reinforce gender roles and stereotypes. Video games are just another form of media in which this problem exists.

You just feel that the male stereotypes are better. Men also have that pressure that they've got to be stronger, a reason why many, many males don't act how they actually are. My real point is that they're both frustrating.

To me, there are pretty much no roles genders have because our intelligence as humans allows us to reason that we don't. There's no reason a mother should be the caretaker and food cooker. I may be horribly mistaken, but it's true that in nature it is typical of the female to be the caretaker, yes? I think it would have remained this way for humans, but again, our intelligence allows us to move on from such primitive behaviors.