Is it sexist to have characters such as Faye or Camilla?

[KliffIsTheOG]

I got into this debate in another thread, where a user had asserted that these characters were examples of sexism. Here is their post:

Spoiler

"One thing I will say on behalf of Faye is the same thing that saddens me about Camilla: she seems very much like a victim of the sexism of the writers. In Camilla's case this comes in the form of her character development and plot involvement being sidelined for fanservice (her violent tendencies are never proven to exist by anything in the writing, which makes her seem like less of a threat or presence than she should be), and in Faye's case it comes in the form of her being a female character who exists only to worship a male character-- and while infatuation is a very normal, natural thing that can happen, and yeah it's a part of life and romance, it's pretty insulting to women when that's her sole defining characteristic."

I counter-argued this:

Spoiler

"Given the fact that there are strong women in this game, and in the series (Lyn, Celica, May, the priestesses, etc.) I argue that the writers are not being sexist. Considering the fact that there are women in real life who have these characteristics, would it not be sexist to ONLY include strong women, while ignoring and not representing those who are imperfect? "

They counter-argued with this:

Spoiler

 

"The problem with this argument is that Faye is the ONLY new character in this game-- Celica had her character more or less established years ago, and is simply being adapted and updated for now. Considering how many women of both varieties there were in Awakening (Lucina, Say'ri, Flavia, and Tiki all being characters with a lot of plot agency, positions of political significance, or both, while you have Lissa being a constant passive presence in a good way and delicate characters like Olivia treated with respect by both the game and the characters in it), I find it rather telling and questionable that there are virtually no female characters in Fates with comparable power and agency (none of the princesses are treated with as much importance as the princes are by the plot; even Hinoka, who's presented as the most likely to take action among the female royals, barely does anything substantial in the plot at large), and now we have Faye, a female character whose sole defining character trait is her thirst for Alm. 

That isn't sexist HOW exactly?

And your feeble argument of 'hurdur it'd be sexist to ONLY have strong women' trying to turn things around back on me-- first of all no, it wouldn't be, and second of all that's neither what I'm asking for nor what Fire Emblem has ever done-- they've always been pretty good at having a balance of women who are strong active characters as well as nice, passive ones-- both varieties having examples that are both flawed and good characters in their own right-- UNTIL RECENTLY, and THAT is the point I'm making. Bad writing is bad writing, regardless of whether a character is strong or passive. "

 

I counter-argued with this:

Spoiler

 

"

  2 hours ago, BANRYU said:

And your feeble argument of 'hurdur it'd be sexist to ONLY have strong women' trying to turn things around back on me-- first of all no, it wouldn't be, and second of all that's neither what I'm asking for nor what Fire Emblem has ever done--

A very good example of argumentation finesse. Rather than being mature and providing a respectful counter-argument, they instead decide to make fun of their discussion partner. This is a sure-fire way to convince the other person that they are wrong!  Another thing to notice is that the substance of your counter argument is, and I quote, "no it wouldn't be". Because you provide nothing of substance to support that claim, it holds no value. Please be more conscientious of your actions in the future.

For the sake of argumentation, let us look to the dictionary to see the definition of sexism: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." Let's break it down in how it relates to Faye and Camilla.

Prejudice is, according to the dictionary, "a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." The defining characteristic of Faye is that she pines for Alm. Because there are females who have crushes and pine for people, this is a character that can be based on reason or actual experience, and is thus not prejudiced. Now, let us look at Camilla. The main reason that people say that Camilla is sexist id due to her fanservice nature. Is it prejudiced? No. Due to the fact there are conventionally attractive and shallow women in real life, and the game does not imply that all women are like Camilla, it is not prejudiced.

Stereotyping is, according to the dictionary, "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing." Faye and Camilla are not stereotyped because there are other women in their same games who do not share the undesirable characteristics of obsessive love, and physical appearance (Celica, Tatianna, Sonia, Delthea, Silk, May, Peri, Beruka, Setsuna, Reina, Severa, etc.).

Discrimination, again, according to the dictionary is, "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." Are Faye and Camilla discriminatory to women? No, because their "category of people" (women) are not receiving prejudiced treatment based upon their category, as shown by the other women in their own games (the aforementioned Celica, Tatianna, Sonia, Delthea, Silk, May, Peri, Beruka, Setsuna, Reina, Severa, etc.).

I have just systematically laid out why your argument that the writers are sexist is invalid. If you would like to counter-argue, feel free to do it in a mature fashion."

 

They responded:

Spoiler

 

"

  1 hour ago, KliffIsTheOG said:

[way too much that says very little]

...-sigh- I don't have time for this... jeezus... Listen dude, if you're just gonna take a small cut-out of my argument at large thatactually already addressed most of the shit you're saying, then I don't see why I should waste any more time discussing it with you, so maybe you wanna actually read and/or address that instead of laying out nebulous definitions that you think prove your point but don't actually address the topic at hand at all. I ain't got much else to say on it. 

So forgive me for thinking that the assertion that 'making all women characters strong would be sexist' was ridiculous enough on its own that I didn't need to elaborate on why. "

 

(I guess they didn't get the memo that being condescending and name calling does not win arguments. I guess they also forgot that for something to be sexist it needs to comply with the definition of sexism, making my definitions the very opposite of nebulous)

Here, I stopped because I did not want to derail the thread any further than it already had. Because there seemed to be interest in the argument, I decided to start this thread to continue the debate.

What is everyone's thoughts?

Edited April 16, 2017 by KliffIsTheOG

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

First off, you might want to edit one of those spoilers if you want him to be anonymous lol.

[eclipse]

This isn't what this subforum is for.

If you want to continue the debate, do so via PM.

EDIT: And since this is in the SoV subforum, the other person wouldn't be anonymous anyway.

Edited April 16, 2017 by eclipse