Is this sexist?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Hunger Games is clean. Context is important. It is a YA novel, written mainly for a female audience, with Katniss being an identifiable heroic protagonist. Yes, first there is conflict that forces her to fight, like in most stories. In fact, there are a bunch of stories wit the exact same plot type, The Running Man, Battle Royale, etc, with male protagonists being forced to fight each other in the same way.

In fact, I would say that even Battle Royale itself is more likely to be sexist against women, after all, there, the male hero's love interest was a wounded gazelle needed to be protected all along, while every second other girl in the class was in love with him, the only major female antagonist was entirely defined by her sexuality.

Compared to that, at lest Hunger Games continues to revolve around the female hero as a three-dimensional protagonist who is the cneter of her own story, makes her own choices, and has her own love interests (as opposed to be her being a love interest).

Lara, like Hunger Games, isn't a victim BECAUSE she's a woman, she's a victim who HAPPENS to be a woman. The protagonist could have easily have been male and their love interest could have easily been female and the same story could have been told.

There is one problem with that:

"She's definitely the hero but? you're kind of like her helper. When you see her have to face these challenges, you start to root for her in a way that you might not root for a male character."

- Ron Rosenberg, Tomb Raider producer.

Maybe that one guy way just an ass, and the rest of the writers well-intentioned. If he wouldn't have said that, I would agree with you, I would say that we can give the studio the benefit of doubt, that Lara just happens to be female.

But they sure aren't making it easy, with making comments about how her feminity is an important part of her needing to be helped.

As a general rule, it's not individual works that are sexist (unless they are very blatant), but trends. We can talk about how LIKELY a work is to contribute to sexism, based on how much it conforms to trends, but that's not the same thing as "the writers of this are horrible people".

A film is not sexist for failing the Bechdel test (it might just HAPPEN to have a lot of important male characters), but the trend that SO MANY movies fail the Bechdel test is sexist. A damsel in distress is not sexist, she might as well be a dude. But it is a sexist trend when "damsel in distress" is a well-established cliché, while a "dude in distress" is a rare, self-conscious subversion of it. It's not sexist to call out a female public figure for being fat/old/ugly, if you might as well say it about a male (Gabe Newell is fat, lol). But when any less-than-model-like woman appears in the news and there is a flood of comments judging her entirely through her physical attractiveness, that is a sexist trend.

In that sense, The Last of Us is also suspect of following a bad trend. Along with The Walking Dead (game), Taken (movie), and similar stories, that are all about a stubbled, middle-aged hardasses trying to protect a young girl. It seems to be a variation on the romantic "damsel in distress", replacing it with a daughter figure.

It doesn't CONFIRM that either of those are specifically sexist, it's only Tomb Raider that's producer was foolish enough to gloat about how consciously they are using a sexist trend. The rest of them are just suspicious.

What's shocking, or even offensive about that Ron Rosenberg quote?

We tend to value the safety of women more than we do the safety of men. That's something that is true. It doesn't have to be evil or sexist, it can just be true... something observable about our species. He's not an ass for noticing it.

Innate sensibilities and feelings trump cultural ideals that tend to be in flux. If you're trying to create a meaningful and evocative experience for the player, you'd be clever to consider our own nature whilst designing it... rather than the rantings of some loud-mouths who think they have shit sussed.

The "woman-warrior" trope is old-rope. It's something that most cultures have had their own version of. It exists precisely because it is a novelty. Mulan isn't nearly as effective if Mulan is a boy, right? Correct. You're bullshitting yourself if you think you believe otherwise. That's really what he said. That you might feel differently about Lara than you do about Nathan Drake, or whoever...

We seem to be becoming more and more delusional when it comes to gender. Consider how many collective-delusions sprouted up in the 20th century alone, and then with a straight face tell yourself that there is no way we could be existing in just another era of bullshit and lies. We're still fucking stupid.

 

[Yellowfish]

I was thinking about how Katniss in the Hunger Games Trilogy is painted as a victim. She has no control over the events and grudgingly enters the tournament to save her sister. She gives her self up for dead and prepares for the worst.

In my opinion, it's as sexist as you want it to be. If you really want to see those unfortunate implications - well, sure, why not. Though in my opinion there's absolutely nothing bad in making a character seem weak or desperate - you get more room for character development that way. Then again, I never read any of the Hunger Games books, so what do I know? If it's like Twilight of Fifty Shades of Gre(a?)y where the main character has all the depth and compexity of a piece of cardboard, then yeah, it's sexist and it kinda gives the young female readers wrong ideas.

Clairvoyant captcha: best seller

 

[Hagi]

Not really...

The Hunger games doesn't really make a good target for a sexism debate, it's pretty equal on that score.

If you're utterly determined I'd try it from the opposite angle, male sexism as the male characters are generally more stereotypical, but even then you don't really have any leg to stand on at all.

People are individuals first and foremost, if they're treated differently the first assumption should be that it's because they're different individuals, not because they're different genders.

 

[Hagi]

If it's like Twilight of Fifty Shades of Gre(a?)y where the main character has all the depth and compexity of a piece of cardboard, then yeah, it's sexist and it kinda gives the young female readers wrong ideas.

Clairvoyant captcha: best seller

That's not sexist. That's bad writing.

Every character in those books has the depth and complexity of a piece of cardboard.

The guy takes care of the gal physically, because apparently women are incapable of that.
The gal takes care of the guy emotionally, because apparently men are incapable of that.

The central theme in all those cheap romance books isn't just that the woman's life is empty and useless without a man to fill it. It's that both their lives are empty and useless without the other to fill it. That both of them are incapable of achieving anything remotely resembling happiness without someone of the other gender, a mutual all-consuming need in which your entire value as a person depends entirely on your partner.

 

[Heronblade]

A 14 year old is thrust into a dangerous situation in which they have little to no control, and have little chance of survival. A sense of helplessness is to be expected, regardless of gender.

If you wish to talk about sexism in the media, there are some other "traditional" roles for men and women you may wish to focus on. Such as the stereotypical damsel in distress who's only action is to stand around looking pretty while the male protagonist takes care of everything, even when given an opportunity to help.

 

[Gecko clown]

Wanna see sexism posing as feminism?

Twilight.

The 3 main messages are:

1) Marry early.
2) Abortion and sex before marriage are both evil.
3)stalking leads to true love.

Whereas The Hunger Games, while boring, poorly written and predictable, is not sexist. If its sexist to portray a woman as a victim then we might as well give up on creativity because it won't be long before characters are all bland, emotionless faces differentiated only by name.

 

[Cabisco]

I think you're looking to hard into it, you can find anything being sexist or homophobic or racist if you look hard enough for it.

 

[Entitled]

We tend to value the safety of women more than we do the safety of men. That's something that is true. It doesn't have to be evil or sexist, it can just be true... something observable about our species. He's not an ass for noticing it.

This is not an either-or situation, where a situation is either true or sexist. Most elements of sexism, just like other forms of negative prejudice and bigotry, are observable truths about our species.

For example, there is a measurable gap between how much less women get payed for the same job than men, or how more unlikely they are to get replies to the exact same resumé. This is one case of obvious sexism: it directly means that society values women less than men.

So if a company's CEO would get caught writing a next year financial plan where he already automatically listed all female workers in a separate coloumn where they get 5% less salary, would you say that: "It's not sexist, after all it's really something observable about companies that they pay less to women, he is not an ass just for noticing it." ?

It's the same here. First of all, there is a difference between noticing a trend, and joining it. Yes, people act more protective about women than about men. *I AM* noticing this trend too. But he isn't just noticing it. He is advertising a game at a marketing event, trying to sell it to critics, listing it's adventages, how they made it more gritty, more serious, how they wrote the protagonist to be more human, and then just casually drops that they wrote her in a way that her femaleness will be used to invoke feelings of protectiveness. That's on the same level as an action movie director commenting that "We wanted the villains to be more easily hateable, so we made them all arabs." Just because their target audience really does hate arabs, that doesn't automatically make it OK.

Second, you are moving the goalposts. Abomination had a specific excuse for why Tomb Raider is not sexist, because Lara "just happens to be a woamn", and that doesn't effect her presentation. I disproved that with a quote of a developer talking about how it effected her presentation. Now you are just arguing that having different expectations from women and from men, isn't really sexist. That's an entirely different discussion.

The "woman-warrior" trope is old-rope. It's something that most cultures have had there own version of. It exists precisely because it is a novelty. Mulan isn't nearly as effective if Mulan is a boy, right? Correct. You're bullshitting yourself if you think you believe otherwise. That's really what he said.

Stupid example. Mulan's story would be different, obviously. If she would have been male, she would have been raised differently, she would have been treated differently by the other characters. But Mulan being female was the whole point of the story, to comment on how foolish it is to think that men and women are innately different, even when they can act the same.

It would be the same as what Rosenberg said, If the original poet who wrote the story would have commented on how our "Innate sensibilities" make women completely different. But that's not what they did:

The male rabbit is swifter of foot, The eyes of the female are somewhat smaller.
But when the two rabbits run side by side, How can you tell the female from the male?

-The Ballad of Mulan

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

We tend to value the safety of women more than we do the safety of men. That's something that is true. It doesn't have to be evil or sexist, it can just be true... something observable about our species. He's not an ass for noticing it.

This is not an either-or situation, where a situation is either true or sexist. Most elements of sexism, just like other forms of negative prejudice and bigotry, are observable truths about our species.

For example, there is a measurable gap between how much less women get payed for the same job than men, or how more unlikely they are to get replies to the exact same resumé. This is one case of obvious sexism: it directly means that society values women less than men.

So if a company's CEO would get caught writing a next year financial plan where he already automatically listed all female workers in a separate coloumn where they get 5% less salary, would you say that: "It's not sexist, after all it's really something observable about companies that they pay less to women, he is not an ass just for noticing it." ?

It's the same here. First of all, there is a difference between noticing a trend, and joining it. Yes, people act more protective about women than about men. *I AM* noticing this trend too. But he isn't just noticing it. He is advertising a game at a marketing event, trying to sell it to critics, listing it's adventages, how they made it more gritty, more serious, how they wrote the protagonist to be more human, and then just casually drops that they wrote her in a way that her femaleness will be used to invoke feelings of protectiveness. That's on the same level as an action movie director commenting that "We wanted the villains to be more easily hateable, so we made them all arabs." Just because their target audience really does hate arabs, that doesn't automatically make it OK.

Second, you are moving the goalposts. Abomination had a specific excuse for why Tomb Raider is not sexist, because Lara "just happens to be a woamn", and that doesn't effect her presentation. I disproved that with a quote of a developer talking about how it effected her presentation. Now you are just arguing that having different expectations from women and from men, isn't really sexist. That's an entirely different discussion.

The "woman-warrior" trope is old-rope. It's something that most cultures have had there own version of. It exists precisely because it is a novelty. Mulan isn't nearly as effective if Mulan is a boy, right? Correct. You're bullshitting yourself if you think you believe otherwise. That's really what he said.

Stupid example. Mulan's story would be different, obviously. If she would have been male, she would have been raised differently, she would have been treated differently by the other characters. But Mulan being female was the whole point of the story, to comment on how foolish it is to think that men and women are innately different, even when they can act the same.

It would be the same as what Rosenberg said, If the original poet who wrote the story would have commented on how our "Innate sensibilities" make women completely different. But that's not what they did:

The male rabbit is swifter of foot, The eyes of the female are somewhat smaller.
But when the two rabbits run side by side, How can you tell the female from the male?

-The Ballad of Mulan

Ha...

I point at our nature... you want to focus on something as contrived as money. Not the same, not even close.

*Scrolls on*

Oh, I see that it's also like xenophobia and racism. Which it isn't.

I don't understand what your issue is. You seem to be agreeing that he's onto something that could be poignant, but then you ruin it by claiming that it's somehow immoral, because you didn't like what he said.

I moved no goal posts. I wasn't interested in what abomination had to say, I was interested in what you had to say. That's why I quoted you. I guess I could understand the confusion, but it's neither here nor there, and not something I'm willing to accept responsibility for.

Mulan example - What? What are you talking about? The difference would be in the way the audience perceives the story. If she's not female, there is no novelty value. She grows up to do something very masculine, despite the unlikeliness of that happening... That's really the shtick of it.

I don't need you to quote poetry at me. Poetry is often wrong, and in this case it's irrelevent.

"Now you are just arguing that having different expectations from women and from men, isn't really sexist. That's an entirely different discussion."

Why is it?

 

[Entitled]

I point at our nature... you want to focus on something as contrived as money. Not the same, not even close.

Treating women as subjects of protection, has as much to do with "our nature" as not wanting women to work or not respecting them for it.

You seem to be agreeing that he's onto something that could be poignant, but then you ruin it by claiming that it's somehow immoral, because you didn't like what he said.

Stalin* was onto something poignant when he said that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". It might hold a truth about our nature/culture, but that doesn't mean that I'm cheering on him for employing it for mass murder. The observation itself is not immoral because "I don't like it", it is it's immoral usage that makes me recognize it as a fault in human nature/culture, that needs to be fixed.

Yes, Rosenberg was onto something poignant, about how we tend to treat men and women differently. Yes, we do. And it's a bad thing. Not the observation itself, (that many sociologists already made), but it's usage to justify double standards that are immoral on their own.

(*technically it wasn't him who said it, but the analogy works better this way)

Mulan example - What? What are you talking about? The difference would be in the way the audience perceives the story. If she's not female, there is no novelty value. She grows up to do something very masculine, despite the unlikeliness of that happening... That's really the shtick of it.

I already quoted you the shtick of the original Mulan ballad, and you called it "wrong, and in this case it's irrelevent"

You might want to read the whole story [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ballad_of_Mulan]. It's not long, just 62 lines, and it's all mostly just buildup for these last two lines, a moral about how men and women are basically the same. Mulan being female is not a "novelty" element of the story, it was the whole POINT of the story, to discuss how much bullshit it is that she is supposed to be treated differently.

I moved no goal posts. I wasn't interested in what abomination had to say, I was interested in what you had to say. That's why I quoted you. I guess I could understand the confusion, but it's neither here nor there, and not something I'm willing to accept responsibility for.

"Now you are just arguing that having different expectations from women and from men, isn't really sexist. That's an entirely different discussion."

Why is it?

I wrote my first post to reply to Abomination's claim that the works discussed in this thread, are not sexist because they are only coincidentially female, NOT by writer malice or subconscious prejdice. If that's our main definition of whether or not something is sexist, then like I said, most individual works can't be proven to be sexist, because we are not mind readers. Tomb Raider is just a special case, where the writer revealed that their used gender stereotype roles are not coincidential.

If, on the other hand, you try to claim that conforming to some gender stereotypes is not sexist, then there can be a wide range of works that's interpretation we disagree about. Ad absurdum, even if we would talk about some religious fundamentalist tract about how men are supposed to be the head of the family, and women be submissive, and you could say that "well, it's not sexist, she only wrote the truth about an observation, since people really do think that way".

So first of all, let's define why to you think that this particular stereotype, that women need to be protected more than men, is not the same as gender stereotypes and prejudices in general? What makes it so special, that treating half of humanity differently because of it, is morally justified?

 

[Lt._nefarious]

1) I don't think they are weak, scared and helpless because they're women. But I get you... Although The Hun ger Games was a fucking terrible film, it wasn't sexist.

2) Not really getting your wording, I assume you mean in general and not just in terms of THG. I think as long as the characters are portrayed as more than just damsels in distress it doesn't matter what purpose they serve, as long as they are good, interesting characters...

3) No...

 

[aba1]

Ok just gotta say this. IT IS ONLY SEXIST IF IT BECAUSE THE PERSON IS SAID GENDER. I a woman gets dragged through mud by a bunch of men it is only sexist if they did it because she is a woman else wise it is a separate issue.

Also while were at it basic story telling dictates that there has to be a problem to work through so generally if your protagonist is going to go through a bunch of crap irregardless of gender.

Drives me insane that people call things sexist so arbitrarily. The second a woman has a hard time it is a big question of whether is sexist or not. Just because a girl has a hard time doesn't make it sexist is only sexist if they are having a hard time because they are a girl.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I point at our nature... you want to focus on something as contrived as money. Not the same, not even close.

Treating women as subjects of protection, has as much to do with "our nature" as not wanting women to work or not respecting them for it.

You seem to be agreeing that he's onto something that could be poignant, but then you ruin it by claiming that it's somehow immoral, because you didn't like what he said.

Stalin* was onto something poignant when he said that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". It might hold a truth about our nature/culture, but that doesn't mean that I'm cheering on him for employing it for mass murder. The observation itself is not immoral because "I don't like it", it is it's immoral usage that makes me recognize it as a fault in human nature/culture, that needs to be fixed.

Yes, Rosenberg was onto something poignant, about how we tend to treat men and women differently. Yes, we do. And it's a bad thing. Not the observation itself, (that many sociologists already made), but it's usage to justify double standards that are immoral on their own.

(*technically it wasn't him who said it, but the analogy works better this way)

Mulan example - What? What are you talking about? The difference would be in the way the audience perceives the story. If she's not female, there is no novelty value. She grows up to do something very masculine, despite the unlikeliness of that happening... That's really the shtick of it.

I already quoted you the shtick of the original Mulan ballad, and you called it "wrong, and in this case it's irrelevent"

You might want to read the whole story [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ballad_of_Mulan]. It's not long, just 62 lines, and it's all mostly just buildup for these last two lines, a moral about how men and women are basically the same. Mulan being female is not a "novelty" element of the story, it was the whole POINT of the story, to discuss how much bullshit it is that she is supposed to be treated differently.

I moved no goal posts. I wasn't interested in what abomination had to say, I was interested in what you had to say. That's why I quoted you. I guess I could understand the confusion, but it's neither here nor there, and not something I'm willing to accept responsibility for.

"Now you are just arguing that having different expectations from women and from men, isn't really sexist. That's an entirely different discussion."

Why is it?

I wrote my first post to reply to Abomination's claim that the works discussed in this thread, are not sexist because they are only coincidentially female, NOT by writer malice or subconscious prejdice. If that's our main definition of whether or not something is sexist, then like I said, most individual works can't be proven to be sexist, because we are not mind readers. Tomb Raider is just a special case, where the writer revealed that their used gender stereotype roles are not coincidential.

If, on the other hand, you try to claim that conforming to some gender stereotypes is not sexist, then there can be a wide range of works that's interpretation we disagree about. Ad absurdum, even if we would talk about some religious fundamentalist tract about how men are supposed to be the head of the family, and women be submissive, and you could say that "well, it's not sexist, she only wrote the truth about an observation, since people really do think that way".

So first of all, let's define why to you think that this particular stereotype, that women need to be protected more than men, is not the same as gender stereotypes and prejudices in general? What makes it so special, that treating half of humanity differently because of it, is morally justified?

I'm not envoking a stereotype. I'm saying that innately, the urge to protect females is stronger than the urge to protect my fellow male. I fully suspect that I will feel more deeply for the plights of a female character than I would for a male character. The way I see it, right and wrong has fuck all to do with it. It's just there. Something that's been true since long before the idea of stereotyping was developed. If I understand correctly, it's been fairly pivotal to the survival and success of our species.

That's what makes it special, and that's why I think it could be powerful in this game. Because up to this point, Lara has been all swagger.

You could argue whether or not it's "good" or "bad" to envoke it until you're blue in the face and not have a satisfactory answer come up(I'm not interested in doing that).

By the way. I do understand that Mulan being female is the point of it, I thought I had expressed that in no uncertain terms. The selection of that particular fable was only really because it's what came to mind. Google will turn you up countless examples of similiar fables of female warriors if you ask it to.

Also :

"Treating women as subjects of protection, has as much to do with "our nature" as not wanting women to work or not respecting them for it."

If you say so...

The game is going to control exactly like every other 3rd person shooter out there. If we're coddling Lara, we're coddling Nathan Drake and Snake too.

"Stalin was onto something poignant when he said that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". It might hold a truth about our nature/culture, but that doesn't mean that I'm cheering on him for employing it for mass murder. The observation itself is not immoral because "I don't like it", it is it's immoral usage that makes me recognize it as a fault in human nature/culture, that needs to be fixed."

Stalin, really? Am I being trolled?

"Yes, Rosenberg was onto something poignant, about how we tend to treat men and women differently. Yes, we do. And it's a bad thing. Not the observation itself, (that many sociologists already made), but it's usage to justify double standards that are immoral on their own."

Not so much "treat" differently, so much as "think of" differently(it's a game, remember). Again, "good" or "bad"...whatever. He's saying it can be used as a powerful plot device, and I think he's right. I also don't think there is anything here that justifies panties getting twisted.

 

[Entitled]

I'm not envoking a stereotype. I'm saying that innately, the urge to protect females is stronger than the urge to protect my fellow male.

Same difference. You, as an individual, are a collction of culturally and biologically carried attitudes that effect your every decision. If you suddenly attack and murder someone, the jury won't ask whether it was your innate urges that made you violent, or your cultural backround made you hate that person. Mostly because it can't be decided, every act is the result of several factors combined.

The same is true for stereotypes. It doesn't matter whether you believe that you are only listening to your monkey brain when you make up a stereotype, or you are invoking a cultural idea, the end result is the same. Stories are not written for monkeys, they are written for humans, who might have certain biological urges, but also have a conscious mind that can rule it. If you support a stereotype, you are morally responsible for it's implications.

You could argue whether or not it's "good" or "bad" to envoke it until you're blue in the face and not have a satisfactory answer come up(I'm not interested in doing that).

Finding satisfactory answers is easier than you would think. Does it encourage exclusive gender strereotypes, and a negative treatment of women? If it does, it is sexist, and sexism is bad.

And yes, finding excuses for why sexism isn't all that bad are easy as well, but I'm not interested in doing that.

I do understand that Mulan being female is the point of it, I thought I had expressed that in no uncertain terms. The selection of that particular fable was only really because it's what came to mind. Google will turn you up countless examples of similiar fables of female warriors if you ask it to.

And it continues to be a shitty example. The whole genre. Yes, a "female warrior" story is fundamentally different from a "male warrior" one, based on the fact that the characters are treated differently in-universe, as they would be in a real sexist society. That has nothing to do with writer's intention to evoke a certain feeling.

Not so much "treat" differently, so much as "think of" differently(it's a game, remember). Again, "good" or "bad"...whatever. He's saying it can be used as a powerful plot device, and I think he's right. I also don't think there is anything here that justifies panties getting twisted.

Thinking can be a part of treatment, by definition. If you are thinking of women as subjects of protection in a game, that that in itself is treating them as subjects of protection.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I don't think the girl form Last of Us was painted as weak or helpless (At least from the E3 trailer) she seemed to be really competent.

Putting someone in a situation they have no control over isn't sexist either.

I think you're reading too much into it.

 

[Trivun]

I was thinking about how Katniss in the Hunger Games Trilogy is painted as a victim. She has no control over the events and grudgingly enters the tournament to save her sister. She gives her self up for dead and prepares for the worst. I drew some connections to what I'd see from the trailers for "The Last Of Us" where the young woman (I don't know character names yet) seems scared and powerless. A victim. I don't think they are weak characters by any means (and I have high hopes for The Last Of Us to do something with the female lead) but I can't help but see a similarity. Is this a bad thing that studios, publishers, etc might be doing (weakening female characters simply because they are female, rather than for artistic effect) or am I reading too deep into this, thinking it will make a generation of women weak, and coming out looking like a sexist?

1) Do you think this a trend or has this always happened?
2) Do you think it's a bad thing or could some good come of it?
3) Is it sexist to think this may influence young women looking for role models?

I'm kinda tired so if this is too "all over the place" I apologize. I'll clean it up if it's a problem.

1. It has always happened. At the end of the day, sexism was always institutionalised until the time of Suffrage and feminism, through to the present day. It took, and still takes, most media a while to catch up to modern thinking. There is now a strong bias in favour of strong female characters in fiction, not just in books and games, but until then women were always the victim. Look at some of the most influential and classic novels and novellas of the past couple of centuries. Dracula - Mina and Lucy are both preyed upon by the villain. Frankenstein (written BY a woman, no less) - Elizabeth is killed by the Monster. Carmilla - the villain is female, and preys on a young woman too. Heart of Darkness - the main characters are all male, but the woman at the end is lied to, purely to preserve her innocence.

2. I think trends that paint women, or men, as victims, are bad. Why do we need to continue the aforementioned institutionalism of sexism, whether it be against men or women? Equality is what I want and strive for. The newly arriving attitude of equality in media for women and men alike is nothing but a good thing, I feel.

3. Young women are influenced by a lot of things, as are young men. I don't think it's sexist to assume that something like this trend will influence young women, I just think that it's natural. The key is to get other things influencing young people of all genders instead, that work against things like sexism, and let nature take its course otherwise.

Also, for the record, I can't comment on The Last Of Us because I don't know enough about the trailers - however, bear in mind that, if I recall correctly (please feel free to tell me if I'm wrong), the developers are trying to make her less of a standard 'escort' character who you have to defend, and more of a stronger person who helps and works alongside the protagonist. As for The Hunger Games, you couldn't be more wrong. The entire point of the series is that Katniss is a strong person, and has been forced to become strong when her father died - she provides for her family (admittedly with her male best friend's help), she defies the Capitol in the first Games and is responsible for many of the events that lead to both her and Peeta surviving, she stands up for herself and her friends against numerous people, including the President himself, she inspires (albeit unintentionally) a revolution, and becomes the symbol of the Resistance in the third and final book - including defying the leaders of said resistance in order to pursue her own agenda and specifically avoid being used by everyone. She is anything but a victim, and there is nothing in the series to paint Katniss as a victim in any sense of the word, save for being a victim of bad luck...

 

[GangstaGeek]

As much as sexism still exists, hunger games is a really, really bad example. Katniss pretty much single-handedly became "the man" of her house as some may call it. She as seen as much more powerful than many of the other male characters in the series. Yes she plays the "victim" role, but if you read the book you realized she was made took look like a victim to almost every character in the series using society's assumption for "female with emotion = weakness" and uses it to her advantage to help her survive in the arena.

At first glance, you can say yes she is a victim, but when you really look at it she is actually much better protagonist as a female. Mostly because unlike most testosterone filled basket of emotionless muscle who ate a Starman from the Mushroom Kingdom to turn every villain into Ray Charles with a machine gun or stereotypical female protagonists who can't get men off their minds long enough to come up a well developed personality;

She is able to kill, hunt, feed her family and save the world all while reflecting on each option emotionally, thus making her way more human than most protagonists.

Honestly, I think we should put more time into trying stop sexism in less ambiguous cases, such as politicians thinking about what's "legitimate" or not.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I do want to call you out on the last of us...

The girl in question is a minor, for one. For two, the world is populated with monsters and crazy people. And lastly, she isn't afraid to use guns/knives/heavy bricks to defend herself and the person helping her. Yes, she's going to be weaker than the grown man with combat experience.

If she was an adult and had about the same level of experience as Joel seems to have, they'd be about par. It's not like the devs are going "duurrr, woman = weak, she useless" or anything.

I see no sexism in that game. So far, anyway. It's always possible that the final game is very different and the controversy is much bigger in the end *nods to Resident evil 5*

 

[corneth]

Eh... sort of? I understand the people (digitally) rolling their eyes at this thread, but in a world where Team Ico is saying that they can't have girls climbing because girls wear skirts, I think it makes sense to err on the side of caution.