Sexism in the Witcher Series [SPOILERS]

[gregski]

For me discussing Saskia's armour in the Sexism thread is rather absurd TBH. I gave one reason for it in one of my previous posts. Here are another.

If we treat sexism as seeing one gender being inferior to others, Saskia's armour is opposite of sexism, as it pictures Saskia as a warrior so skilled, brave and nonchalant that she can enter the battlefield even when her armour reveals her chest! I mean, all those strong, brave men wearing full plates look like a joke compared to Saskia. Weaksauce.

So, is Saskia's armour still sexism or maybe rather objectification?

If the latter, can someone please tell me why so many women I knew in my life rolled their eyes or even scolded me when I tried to point out that what they are just puttin on will not suit the weather/activity/audience they will encounter?

Errm, don't you think it's too cold for you to go out like that?
I don't care, I want to feel good in what I wear!

Hmm, maybe those shoes will not be too comfortable, we've got a long walk ahead of us
But I want to feel good when I walk!!!

Hmm, don't you think that dress might be a little too revealing?
Don't you tell me what to wear! I want to feel like a woman!!! Are you expecting me to wear a potato sack!?

So, yeah. Let's talk about logic right there. Or should we deny Saskia the right to underline her womanhood?

:hmm:

 

[Vincentdante]

That's not a man... is a child

Blame Japan. Have the prince instead then

 

[StaGiors]

For me discussing Saskia's armour in the Sexism thread is rather absurd TBH. I gave one reason for it in one of my previous posts. Here are another.

If we treat sexism as seeing one gender being inferior to others, Saskia's armour is opposite of sexism, as it pictures Saskia as a warrior so skilled, brave and nonchalant that she can enter the battlefield even when her armour reveals her chest! I mean, all those strong, brave men wearing full plates look like a joke compared to Saskia. Weaksauce.

So, is Saskia's armour still sexism or maybe rather objectification?

If the latter, can someone please tell me why so many women I knew in my life rolled their eyes or even scolded me when I tried to point out that what they are just puttin on will not suit the weather/activity/audience they will encounter?

Errm, don't you think it's too cold for you to go out like that?
I don't care, I want to feel good in what I wear!

Hmm, maybe those shoes will not be too comfortable, we've got a long walk ahead of us
But I want to feel good when I walk!!!

Hmm, don't you think that dress might be a little too revealing?
Don't you tell me what to wear! I want to feel like a woman!!! Are you expecting me to wear a potato sack!?

So, yeah. Let's talk about logic right there. Or should we deny Saskia the right to underline her womanhood?

:hmm:

I think its the result of misunderstandings over misunderstandings really..
Mostly lies on the assumption that someone creating a sexy female character (especially if that someone is a man) translates into that this creator is a person who thinks women are simply walking boobs. I am not denying that a lot of men did tend to think like this in the past. Can't really say the same about today though, as most people are provided with a sufficient amount of education. Also someone dressing sexy or even trying to be sexy is not a bad thing.It is a character trait. Sexism is a whole different story. Sexism is the idea that a person of the other sex is inferior to you, and it is not a character trait. It is a misguided idea, much like the idea that men want to see boobs, if they are going to let a woman lead.

Also, a lot women get really touchy when they are being criticized by a man on what they wear, since a lot of the times they wear certain clothes to impress said man. Rarely though is the other side portrayed. Men wear certain clothes to impress women the same way. Its just that men are never called whores for wearing a certain outfit.. But i think that is mostly in the past.

Finally, since I'm slowly but surely sailing out of topic, I'm goin to shut my trap

 

[wichat]

So, is Saskia's armour still sexism or maybe rather objectification?

Absolutly no! character created by CDPR is great, strong, alive, beautiful, coherent.... until she gonna to the batlleland in such disguise. I'm not saying is sexist, I'm saying is incongruent to the style of the whole game based in mature realism. Nothing more and nothing else.

Or can you imagine Geralt or any warrior in the battle front wearing a suggestive shirt under rain of arrows and bolts? (sorry, I cannot find an image of an warrior without his torso/chest protected ritghly, Why could it be?)

 

[ReptilePZ]

We really bringing up Saskia's armour again? She's a dragon, she can take a tree through her chest, she doesn't need armour. Men are pretty horny (in the games too). She needs to attract the peasants under her cause. She can also afford to wear revealing armour, because she doesn't care about being wounded. 2+2=4 etc. etc.

 

[Sirnaq]

The fact that so many female gamers have said so many times that they consider the Witcher sexist, while games like Tomb Rider or anything by Bioware are empowering to them, should be enough of a clue that something's wrong with the portrayal of female characters in the witcher games, which isn't there in some other games, even if it's hard to pinpoint what that is, precisely.

As much as I love the games, I can't help but notice a certain pattern in the portrayal of male characters, compared to female characters, which I don't like very much. The problem isn't with them being sexual or discriminated against in their society, but in the role they play in the plot and how it compares to that played by male characters.

When male protagonists suffer, they do so in a way that makes them look impressive and tough, not pitful and humiliated (compare Geralt's torture in the prologue with that of Mary Luise La Valette). When they die, they die a noble, respectable death (compare Aryan La Valette's death, or Cedric's death, to that of any of the female characters in the game)). When they're wronged in some way, they take a bloody revenge (compare Roche, or Geralt, to Ves). Male characters are not only capable of protecting themselves just fine, but also able to protect others (compare any of the male protagonists in the witcher to any of the female protagonists). With the exception of villainesses, male characters actively drive the plot. Female characters don't act, they react. For majority of the game, plot happens as a result of Geralt, Roche, Iorveth and Letho's actions. Female characters are either incapacitated in some way for large parts of the game, or stand aside, waiting for male characters to do something they can react to. With Triss kidnapped, Ves raped and gone, and Saskia poisoned, while none of the male characters got the same treatment, I had the impression that the reason for this was that the writers just didn't know what to do with female characters and looked for ideas to quietly remove them from the plot.

Jesus christ, this whole damn post... It's not even funny.

Let's get it over with.

The fact that so many female gamers have said so many times that they consider the Witcher sexist, while games like Tomb Rider or anything by Bioware are empowering to them, should be enough of a clue that something's wrong with the portrayal of female characters in the witcher games, which isn't there in some other games, even if it's hard to pinpoint what that is, precisely.

How many female gamers and how many times? Who are those people exactly and what source do you have to support that claim? Have you ever considered that those people you are referring to may just not like the game because they prefer the kind of games from those other companies for obvious ideological reasons? You realize that witcher games are mainly ideologically neutral so of course extremist groups would consider them evil. I am not talking here about feminists only but all the other religious or social warriors, EVERY group lead by strong ideology. It is obvious that if i show the game to bunch of old catholic priests, they will consider the game work of satan because it let your character commit what they call sins. Is that the reason enough to start extremist pandering? Should we make geralt into pious catholic living in celibacy because otherwise we hurt religious sensiticvities of other people?

As much as I love the games, I can't help but notice a certain pattern in the portrayal of male characters, compared to female characters, which I don't like very much. The problem isn't with them being sexual or discriminated against in their society, but in the role they play in the plot and how it compares to that played by male characters.

When male protagonists suffer, they do so in a way that makes them look impressive and tough, not pitful and humiliated (compare Geralt's torture in the prologue with that of Mary Luise La Valette). When they die, they die a noble, respectable death (compare Aryan La Valette's death, or Cedric's death, to that of any of the female characters in the game)).

[video=youtube;-atXCUEMj1w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-atXCUEMj1w[/video]

Uh, yeah very noble indeed. I wonder how those feminist circles would react to female character being castrated and executed by vernon roche...

If you decide to spare aryan, he do the most idiotic thing he came up with at the time. Luckily for him he somehow survives. If you decide to kill him, well he charges on your blade and get's killed, Aryan is young, reckless and not very thoughtful. Also what do you mean by "that of any of the female characters in the game".

Male characters are not only capable of protecting themselves just fine, but also able to protect others

Sure, just like triss protecting geralt, vernon and king foltest at the very beginning of the game or later in the forest against elven arrows, or that time when she helped geralt with drowners near kayran nest. Don't forget how philippa saved the day multiple times protecting everyone in the mist act 2 and later acting as a wise woman that figured everything out. Remember how sile was incapable of doing anything when she single handedly tracked and eliminated Serrit ? No? I thought so...

With the exception of villainesses, male characters actively drive the plot. Female characters don't act, they react. For majority of the game, plot happens as a result of Geralt, Roche, Iorveth and Letho's actions.

Except those "vilanesses" are not exactly vilanesses, they are just characters in the grand web of scheems and obligations. The funny thing is that saving triss in act 3 makes bigger impact on chapter 3 than vernon or iorveth route. Both "male options" result in the bloodshed and barely anything is different, when you chose triss though, she acts and acts well enough to prevent the masacre. Not to mention that whole plot of assasins of kings could not happen without ambition of FEMALE characters.

With Triss kidnapped, Ves raped and gone, and Saskia poisoned, while none of the male characters got the same treatment, I had the impression that the reason for this was that the writers just didn't know what to do with female characters and looked for ideas to quietly remove them from the plot.

You mean like vernon doing fuck all on the countryside in chapter 2 that resulted with his conspiracy being exposed and his men killed? Or iorveth doing nothing except waiting for saskia to wake up? Saskia led the whole upraising and is only capable leader on iorveth side, she is also awesome dragon that can singlehandedly change the result of the battle. Ves on the other hand is the best among vernon's men and only one that survived, didn't it crossed your mind that vernon might have some special task for her, like going to visima and report that his mission failed?

In short, you see what you really want to see, by cherrypicking you can prove everything.
Ill leave you with a picture just to stimulate your grey matter.

 

[wichat]

We really bringing up Saskia's armour again? She's a dragon, she can take a tree through her chest, she doesn't need armour. Men are pretty horny (in the games too). She needs to attract the peasants under her cause. She can also afford to wear revealing armour, because she doesn't care about being wounded. 2+2=4 etc. etc.

Seems stupid trying to hide her nature of dragon and acting like this. Absolutely incoherent for an intelligent criature. So You're telling me that an intelligent being needs to fall down in vulgarity and use its sexappeal to convince oprimed people? ? ? In a fairy tale of course, the easy way is always the most simple. For a story about mature and intellgents characters it doesn't fit. And to me TW is a Story with mature and intelligent main characters.

And isn't it sexist call men horny and use this excuse as the main treat of men?? Sadly sad... really.


But as always say THIS IS MY OPINION

 

[TemerianGirl]

Played in TW games many times and didn't seen any sexism there. Apparently something is wrong with me, huh?

 

[EmperorZorn]

Played in TW games many times and didn't seen any sexism there. Apparently something is wrong with me, huh?

People can find sexism anywhere if they are looking hard enough for it.

 

[Sirnaq]

We really bringing up Saskia's armour again? She's a dragon, she can take a tree through her chest, she doesn't need armour. Men are pretty horny (in the games too). She needs to attract the peasants under her cause. She can also afford to wear revealing armour, because she doesn't care about being wounded. 2+2=4 etc. etc.

You see Reptile, those guys are fine but saskia having slightly unzipped armor (it's not like her armor can't be zipped ) is wrong.

 

[EmperorZorn]

You see Reptile, those guys are fine but saskia having slightly unzipped armor (it's not like her armor can't be zipped ) is wrong.

Well, maybe they have bodies of steel and swords break on contact~
Then it makes perfect sense for them to wear so little armor, it's very restricting anyway.

I hope this trend continues and we'll be ambushed by muscle men wearing
pink string tangas when wandering through the forests in TW3.

And I don't know why this joke reminds me of the Honey Bee Inn in Final Fantasy VII...

Oh... right.

 

[Geraltie-Poo]

If you want to find out if the game is sexist, replace all the sexy clothing from every female character with a brown sack. Are they worth any less to the story or side-plots?

Of course not. That would be silly. Even Margot - a whore In Flotsam - has a place in the story. She tells you about Triss's use of the megascope and is plotting against Loredo. All female characters - just like all male characters - have a purpose in the Witcher, good or bad.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Seems stupid trying to hide her nature of dragon and acting like this. Absolutely incoherent for an intelligent criature. So You're telling me that an intelligent being needs to fall down in vulgarity and use its sexappeal to convince oprimed people? ? ? In a fairy tale of course, the easy way is always the most simple. For a story about mature and intellgents characters it doesn't fit. And to me TW is a Story with mature and intelligent main characters.

And isn't it sexist call men horny and use this excuse as the main treat of men?? Sadly sad... really.

But as always say THIS IS MY OPINION

It's not stupid. She's, as far as the peasants know, a legendary dragon slayer, she's already unnatural in the eyes of the people so there's already some mystique surrounding her. It's precisely because she's intelligent that she uses sexuality as a tool to gather the peasants around her (and, if you pay attention to things like the peasant's dream etc, it's clearly a working strategy). Her using every opportunity she gets to aid her cause does not make her an idiot. The world of the witcher is sexist, and Saskia's just taking advantage of it. She would be foolish not to do it.

You can either view it as sexist, or you can view it as the writers showing how easily people can be fooled by looks and why sexism is stupid. If they really wanted to exploit her sexuality, they could have just let Geralt have sex with her. But they don't, because it would compromise her image. So, that leads me to believe that there's more to her armour than pure fanservice. It's just a political tool she uses to solidify her position, taking advantage of people's prejudices.

 

[wichat]

It's not stupid. She's, as far as the peasants know, a legendary dragon slayer, she's already unnatural in the eyes of the people so there's already some mystique surrounding her. It's precisely because she's intelligent that she uses sexuality as a tool to gather the peasants around her (and, if you pay attention to things like the peasant's dream etc, it's clearly a working strategy). Her using every opportunity she gets to aid her cause does not make her an idiot. The world of the witcher is sexist, and Saskia's just taking advantage of it. She would be foolish not to do it.

You can either view it as sexist, or you can view it as the writers showing how easily people can be fooled by looks and why sexism is stupid. If they really wanted to exploit her sexuality, they could have just let Geralt have sex with her. But they don't, because it would compromise her image. So, that leads me to believe that there's more to her armour than pure fanservice. It's just a political tool she uses to solidify her position, taking advantage of people's prejudices.

Then if this is her readon CDPR portrait men as stupid primitive.... Man... youre argue saying that there's sexism in the witcher.... sexism against men! Wow I never seen it this way. So there is definitively sexism in TW..... :hmm:

 

[ReptilePZ]

Of course the theme of sexism is present in the game, just like many issues in our society, that's different from the game being sexist though. You can do that. It's called art. You tackle a subject without actually holding or pushing those beliefs.

The peasants being so easily influneced is supposed to make you realise how silly it is. Her cleavage is so obvious - hell, it's even bronzed up, it's obvious Saskia's exploiting it. It's part of that whole charactes are complex thing we were talking about. She's fighting for a worthy cause, but she's okay with exploiting the masses to achieve her goals.

 

[GuyNwah]

Interestingly, the RL Joan of Arc seems to have been careful not to flaunt her sexuality. This is probably because she had as much to fear from her own troops as the enemy. She dressed in men's clothing, in a style that was difficult to remove by force. The English used this against her at her trial.

 

[ReptilePZ]

Yep, it's possible that it also has something to do with the fact that she wasn't a dragon that could survive being impaled through her chest on a tree.

 

[Blothulfur]

Why would Joan of Arc need any armour? She never once fought in any battle of the Hundred Years War and was proud to state that she had never taken a single life, I suppose she might have worn some ceremonial piece while inspiring the troops but I can't remember this being stated in any history i've read.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

But I always think that a very few female armour is sexist by its a warlike incongruence AND THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION which can never and ever labels this great game as sexist.

Well...
But if you argue about beuatiful women in sexy clothes in video games are OK let me ask for men in sexy clothes too. Because it's a long time ago women also are good users of videogames (not simcities at all)
I don't care is Saskia shows her skin, but she doesn't need wear this armour to get non-humans listen her and follow her blindly (I don't thing non-humans are so primitive, I rather believe their are mature people who don't need any kind of view of skin to follow a great leader), I find inmature to portrait a warrior leader like a sexy barbie in a game which devs always say that they want portrait a realistic and grey world... not a fanboy legendary sexy dragon. Sexy armours in WarHammer? OK. In TW?.... not easy to me find its room in it. On the contrary with Sorceresses, they use their looks to the limit, so here sexy dressed are versemblants.

This is the only black sheep I found in TW2.

But THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION

@gregski Of course, she has the right to wear sexy, but for the battle? OMG where is her sanity as a warrior who hide her dragon nature?

Again, what is sexism?

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.[1] Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles,[2][3] and may include the belief that a person of one sex is intrinsically superior to a person of the other.[4] A job applicant may face discriminatory hiring practices, or (if hired) receive unequal compensation or treatment compared to that of their opposite-sex peers.[5] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence."

1. "Sexism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-webster.com. August 31, 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2013.
2. Matsumoto, 2001. P.197.
3. Nakdimen KA The American Journal of Psychiatry [1984, 141(4):499-503]
4. [Doob, Christopher B. 2013. Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.]
5. Macionis, Gerber, John, Linda (2010). Sociology 7th Canadian Ed. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.. pp. 298.
6. [Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven]

So, how exactly Saskia's or Ves' armor presents her as INTRINSICALLY INFERIOR? So, I guess, when you use "sexism" you mean something else, and what you consider being wrong is a presentation of women, any women, both weak and powerful, leaders or followers, as the objects of sexual desire.

But, you know, probably CDPR consider young heterosexual males a big part of their target audience, and they provide this kind of fan service. Also hetero are still a waste majority of the population. If gay community ever creates its own game studio, they will present very sexy males in order to cater to their audience. None of it discriminates against anything, or presents anyone as intrinsically inferior.

You know, I like to see naked sexy women, or women is sexy clothing. So I like Saskia's armor, on some primal, sexual level, and so, I guess, a lot of other people. But it does not mean that just because I like it, I somehow believe that women exist only for our pleasure, or something.

I guess it may be the same fear in some like with guns - today people shoot in video games, and tomorrow they will shoot people on the streets BECAUSE video games made them do it. People see sexy clothing and nakedness in video games, tomorrow they will go around, harass, demeanor, and rape women BECAUSE the video games taught them so. Well, I do not buy it in in either case.

Or may be it is just traditional, catholic upbringing is speaking, where cleavages and nakedness are sinful. Bu they are NOT sexist.

Should this kind of fan service exist, and to what extent, it may be discussed to death. But this kind of a debate would not be about any gender discrimination, but similar to a debate about perception of sexuality in the society, pornography, acceptable and unacceptable images of human body, such as full frontal nudity treated as Adults-only content, and so on.

 

[dragonbird]

If they really wanted to exploit her sexuality, they could have just let Geralt have sex with her.

And (as we've dumped spoiler tags) they'd have made her naked for a short time in the two scenes where she transforms from Dragon to Human in front of Geralt's eyes. With strategically placed rocks or foliage, no doubt.