AlexWinter said:
There's sexism in games. I don't think that specific trope really contributes to it much though. For example, if the damsel in distress isn't a character but something that happens to a character then does this mean that a game must have no instances of a female needing help for it to avoid being sexist?
For example, Tifa in FF7 is a badass pretty much the whole way through and the instant she needs help the game is sexist for using the damsel in distress trope? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here. If someone is captured, regardless of whether they need help or not, their loved ones are still going to try to help them. I don't really see how that's sexist. Why isn't it the same when another, male character needs help?
The problem isn't women needing help or having moments of being disabled or compromised. The problem is that it's a double standard where female characters are frequently portrayed as utterly powerless. Even if they are stated as having powers. Rarely do you see male "damsels in distress". And it generally slants to give male powers empowerment and not female characters. And gives the message that women are dependent upon strong men. It is also lazy characterization and even in games with poor characterization of characters across the board, generally gives even poorer characterization to the female characters than the male characters.
The fact the trope is called
Damsel in Distress and simply not "distressed person" is reflective of why this is a problem. It isn't about helping people or not ever having women in compromising or unempowering positions. But the reliance of putting women into these positions they wouldn't think to put men in.
As for Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy does indeed use a bit much of the damsel in distress trope to the point of inequality. Also Yuffie plays just as much into the damsel in distress trope just like Tifa. Situations the male characters are less put into. Containing sexism is not a death knell for a game, most games and movies and books contain a degree of the sexist standards society creates.
A lot of us are indoctrinated to believe that sexism is only that extreme misogynist. And that a racist is only that insane member of the Klu Klux Klan. In reality, most people have degrees of internalized racism and sexism. As these are both worldwide problems. Racists and sexists are not just these solitary demons who exist on the fringes of society. They are, to a degree, in all of us. It is hard to live on this planet and not internalize feelings which are sexist.
The same, most Final Fantasy games contain sexism. This does not mean they contain atrocious levels of sexism. But it is there. It should be noted that Final Fantasy video games tend to be better in their gender representation than many video games. Being better simply, however, does not equal perfect.
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Ferminism has loooong left the cause of gender equality, and has now shifted its gaze onto protecting the rights won for women (good) without any responsibility (bad) while systematically
silencing [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0] dissenting opinions, or engaging in bullying tactics [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HYbk5tqoU] when someone might dare suggest that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far.
There's also the problem where many Feminists believe that your rights end where their feelings begin (see: Donglegate)
This is a common anti-feminist argument, rhetoric, really, that continually ceases to be true. The fact that this which isn't true, is so commonly believed, I think reflects a lot of problems that still exist in our culture with sexism.
What most feminists believe has not changed much at all in recent year. Claiming that "feminism has long left the cause of gender equality" shows a lack of understanding of the history of feminism. In fact, some of the most extreme feminists exist during the early days.
Simone de Beauvoir made a claim that few feminists today do. And that is that heterosexuality and homosexuality are imperfect and not optimal sexual orientations because in a perfect world, everyone would be (bisexual/pansexual) attracted to all genders as both genders are capable of having good personalities. Simone de Beauvoir, born in 1908, challenged the legitimacy of both heterosexuality and homosexuality because of these sexualities are arbitrary limitations which limit the amount of people you date based upon looks rather than personality.
Her exact quote is thus:
In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.
That is radical thinking way ahead of its time. Simone de Beauvoir is not typically thought of as a radical feminist. But that is very much radical feminist thinking.
Also, so many MRAs would not be opposed by feminists if they weren't so opposed to the feminist cause. The fact that so many MRAs deny that the patriarchy exists, that male privilege exists, or are even outright anti-feminist misogynists is a part of the problem with the MRA movement. In fact MRAs are far more hostile to feminists and women than feminists are hostile to MRAs.
Most feminists agree strongly with what should be essential MRA positions. Like the sexism in drafting men into the military but not women. And the ideas that favoring women in the custody of children is sexist and should be done away with.
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
someone might dare suggest that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far.
It's a pretty wild suggestion in a society that is still very clearly patriarchal.
We're not even close to a Matriarchy and if we were, society would look radically different than it does now. Things which people considered to be "innate biological realities" by many people today, would be completely flipped on their head and disproven.
If the "pendulum swung the other direction", and we were in a Matriarch or anything close to it, the majority of rape cases would be female on male. Men would be seen as "asking for it", if they were raped, and men who are raped would be slut shamed. Men with a large sex drive who have a reasonable amount of sex with others would be slut shamed instead of praised, and treated as "used goods". A man would become less attractive dependent on how many men he slept with. The majority of domestic violence would be female on male and men would constantly have to fear violent women. Women would hold the majority of money and would be the highest paid workers. The majority of presidents, CEOs, and other powerful people would be women. And people looking for "leadership qualities" would favor to hire women over men.
Society is nothing like that now. The majority of CEOS, presidents, and powerful people, are men. Women are constantly under threat of rape and violence. The majority of those committing rape and violence are men. And women who show the same interest in sexuality as we expect men are slut shamed. Women are discriminated against and sexually harassed in the workforce. And there is a word for this. Patriarchy.
The pendulum isn't anywhere close to swinging the other way.
