Tropes vs Women SECOND VIDEO - "Damsel in Distress: Part 2"

[Angus]

"That's why misogynistic tropes get perpetuated, because the game industry is convinced its audience will reject anything that is not the same old safe tropes that have proven to succeed in the past"

I dont agree with this at all. Its probably just seen as misogynistic for the same reason the "euthanized damsel" is supposed to generate emotion- Our innate want to protect women. It makes sense evolutionary, and especially in males- the majority of gamerkin. To euthanize the damsel actually gives a twist to the whole trope. You failed to save her!

If theres something even remotely misogynistic, trust on men to find it. In fact, in the most masculine groups in sweden, and in the toughest enviroments(prison for example) thats where rape and beating women is the most looked down upon.



To even be able to reason otherwise, you have to look at guys that dont even see themselves as "a super macho guy" but as an equal to women- such as many weak nerdy dudes not really buying the "man killing bad men to save innocent girl" trope.

 

[XMark]

The big thing I'm getting from this video series so far is that game writers are falling too much into tired old cliches, and a good potential solution to get more interesting and original storylines would be to start by subverting tropes which we now recognize as misogynistic.

 

[Darken12]

"That's why misogynistic tropes get perpetuated, because the game industry is convinced its audience will reject anything that is not the same old safe tropes that have proven to succeed in the past"

I dont agree with this at all. Its probably just seen as misogynistic for the same reason the "euthanized damsel" is supposed to generate emotion- Our innate want to protect women. It makes sense evolutionary, and especially in males- the majority of gamerkin. To euthanize the damsel actually gives a twist to the whole trope. You failed to save her!

If theres something even remotely misogynistic, trust on men to find it. In fact, in the most masculine groups in sweden, and in the toughest enviroments(prison for example) thats where rape and beating women is the most looked down upon.

It is not innate. It is not evolutionary. It is a completely arbitrary social more that was agreed upon and then passed down as a tradition.

The euthanised damsel is not a twist. It is the same tired trope: an attack on the character's perceived masculinity. As you have said yourself, the message is "you failed to save her", which is a message built upon archaic and patriarchal notions of males as protectors. This is not a twist. This is not progressive in any way. Chivalry is sexism (benevolent sexism, yes, as opposed to hostile sexism, but sexism nonetheless), and it is just as much of a problem as hostile sexism. The idea that men are benevolent protectors of women is harmful, because it is built upon the notion that women need protection, and that therefore men are allowed to perform certain acts for their own good (such as euthanise them).

 

[General Twinkletoes]

snip

Uh... are you talking to me? Nothing either of us said was about the video itself, or feminism, or anything about games. It was about how in most controversial threads instead of having a calm discussion, he posts how shitty the argument is and then wishes it could be better. Neither of us even said our opinion about the video.

 

[Angus]

"That's why misogynistic tropes get perpetuated, because the game industry is convinced its audience will reject anything that is not the same old safe tropes that have proven to succeed in the past"

I dont agree with this at all. Its probably just seen as misogynistic for the same reason the "euthanized damsel" is supposed to generate emotion- Our innate want to protect women. It makes sense evolutionary, and especially in males- the majority of gamerkin. To euthanize the damsel actually gives a twist to the whole trope. You failed to save her!

If theres something even remotely misogynistic, trust on men to find it. In fact, in the most masculine groups in sweden, and in the toughest enviroments(prison for example) thats where rape and beating women is the most looked down upon.

It is not innate. It is not evolutionary. It is a completely arbitrary social more that was agreed upon and then passed down as a tradition.

Do you really think that something completely arbitrary would be present in 99% of cultures?

And how is it misogynistic?


The beloved charachter asking for a mercy killing because its "the right thing to do" is usually a strong willed beloved male carachter- the epitome of "how a man should be" in the face of death in macho-culture.
To have a woman in that role is refreshing.


And to say that this is motivating violence against women- the most macho-cultures in Sweden, and especially amongst the most violent of swedish men(in prisons etc) rape and violence against women is worse than murder. "Att slå en tös/dam" is amongst the lowest of the low.


Killing the female love-interest or companion is a shock-factor. Try replacing the female lead with a loveable male charachter. It would still work, but it wouldnt be nearly as shocking emotionally.

 

[Batou667]

She criticises that many video game damsels aren't real female characters in a meaningful sense, they're just stereotyped and two-dimensonal caricatures of femininity that serve as a plot device. I agree. But this also holds true for the male characters, often including the damn protagonist. Video games, especially FPS and action ones, aren't known for their intelligently and meaningfully-developed characters. Surely a "lifelong video game buff" like Sarkeesian realises this?

She does realize this and points it out in her video. She says that the idea that many games seem to imply that the only way males can cope with grief at the lost of a loved one is with unbridled rage and 'revenge', as if the loss somehow damaged their masculinity. She explicitly stated that the trope is also harmful to men and does so at around the twenty minute mark. She also says that a lot of games simply use them as an easy way to set up a narrative without putting a lot of thought into the plot. Games don't do this maliciously in an attempt to make everyone to woman haters. The problem is that so many do it, it almost seems 'normal' and expected of a game to use these tropes that dis-empower woman.

What I'm saying is that Sarkeesian already covered this particular issue in the video.

She covers all her bases, that's true enough. She makes a point, expounds it for five minutes and shows a dozen supporting video clips, then hastily makes a little disclaimer like "Of course there's no direct link between videogame and real-world violence" or "of course, men die too in games" or "well, that's not to say that men in games are well-written either" and then happily moves on to the next thing, as if her point is still standing strong.

It's not that she doesn't have a point, it's that she disingenuously cherry-picks to support her existing opinion and the narrative that her feminist/gender studies leanings have constructed. She brings up violence against women and mutilation and mutation of women to "up the stakes" - but makes no mention of the many, many times this happens to men. She mentions how Maria is the "euthanised damsel" in Gears of War 2 and yet completely fails to mention how Adam Fenix is "damselled" and then bumped off in Gears of War 3. Or how Dom gets "fridged" to drive the plot and Marcus' character development. What's telling is the number of exceptions to her "rules" that she chooses to omit for the sake of convenience.

 

[NoeL]

I thought that was quite good - much better than part one.

Now, time to read some of these comments and find out why I'm completely wrong!

... I hate The Escapist sometimes.

 

[maninahat]

My only real disagreement with her is about her condemnation of plots where a daughter is a damsel in distress, I would say that has little to do with sexism against adult women since a child would naturally come under the protection of the hero, regardless of gender.

You might be right, but the father rescues daughter thing is a weirdly specific trope: we have lots of fathers protecting daughters, and its rare that we have a dad trying to save their son. Rarer still is a mother trying to save a son. The only story I can think of that even features such a relationship is Belleville Rendezvous. Perhaps that is the reason why it is an issue? That we aren't expected to sympathise with a boy being kidnapped in place of a girl, and that only a father would want to rescue their kid? It fits rather nicely into her argument that games depict males are proactive, and females are submissive.

EDIT:

ON The video itself. I liked it, I thought it was good. It is a shame however that she has to add a ridiculous number of qualifying and disclaimer statements, to avoid her arguments getting misinterpreted. She has to say lots of obvious things like "not every game is like this" or "gamers don't automatically copycat everything they see in games", just because she knows that if she didn't take the time to make it clear, someone will inevitably accuse her of implying "games must never have violence against women!" or some such nonsense.

 

[Darken12]

Do you really think that something completely arbitrary would be present in 99% of cultures?

Religion. Philosophy. Mathematics. Law. Written language. Semiology.

Need I go on?

The beloved charachter asking for a mercy killing because its "the right thing to do" is usually a strong willed beloved male carachter- the epitome of "how a man should be" in the face of death in macho-culture.
To have a woman in that role is refreshing.

Watch the examples again. The woman is not stoically asking to be killed so that she can preserve her dignity and honour. She is tearful, broken and pleading, and the unstated implications (which are conveyed through aesthetic choices, instead) are that she is to be killed because her purity and innocence have been corrupted. This is not refreshing. This is not new. The woman is not given the heroic death of a soldier.

And to say that this is motivating violence against women- the most macho-cultures in Sweden, and especially amongst the most violent of swedish men(in prisons etc) rape and violence against women is worse than murder. "Att slå en tös/dam" is amongst the lowest of the low.

Anita never said that it motivates violence against women. She said that it trivialises it. That it treats it callously, disrespectfully. The abuse of the trope treats violence against women callously, uses it as a tool to stir emotion in the male character/player, it never actually shows us (beyond a token, superficial reaction) how the woman deals with the violence inflicted against her. It's never about her, who is the person most affected by the violence inflicted. No, it's always about how what happens to her makes the male protagonist feel. We're told by the game that we're supposed to empathise with him, not with her. With the overuse of the trope, women become tools in the service of the male-centred narrative.

Killing the female love-interest or companion is a shock-factor. Try replacing the female lead with a loveable male charachter. It would still work, but it wouldnt be nearly as shocking emotionally.

And that's exactly the problem. The problem, as you have accurately stated, is that changing up the genders would somehow not achieve the same effect, which is patently false. A woman would feel exactly the same if her husband was kidnapped and murdered. A gay man would feel the same way about his husband, and a lesbian would feel the same about her wife. The genders are completely irrelevant, but society (and the game industry) still clings to archaic, patriarchal notions that perpetuate gender-based differences.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

The video was actually alright. While I hate the overuse of the usual buzzwords, I feel that she brought up some pretty reasonable points, in that these tropes are overused and a worrisome when looked at at a certain level. I wouldn't go so far as to link issues in bad video game narratives to real world issues like domestic abuse and murder. While there may be underlying social issues at play, considering most of the examples covered were likely a result of narrative autopilot, they are more indicators than causes. I disagree heavily with her use of crime statistics though, mainly her focus on crimes against women, when crime affects everyone equally, with the exception of rape and domestic abuse. Hell, the murder rate, if we're looking at the US, is astronomical no matter which way you cut it.

 

[FreakofNatur]

All right... I'm watching it currently (as I type this) and will refute or agree with points as I see them.

These are my opinions. I'm not painting them as anything but.

1. Of course the trope isn't a product of "its time." It's been a part of literature since...hell, since literature began.

2. Yes. The trope is trite. It's a trope specifically because it's trite and uncreative on the part of the folks employing it. I'm not seeing the argument against it so much from a feminist point of view as a creative one.

3. The "damsel"s efforts to escape proving futile...makes sense from a narrative standpoint, obviously. If she could just kick her captor's ass and waltz out, sight unseen, then it sort of takes the plot out at the knees. It's also lazy and again, this sounds more like an argument for a broader depth of character traits/actions/plot with feminist stuff peppered in.

The moments in which the "damsel" aids the protagonist or, in Ico for example, outright saves him in the end are not simply "symbolic." Hell, from that angle, one could make the argument that the entire story is "symbolic." These events show a much greater deal of agency and capability on the part of the character than is being expressed in the video.

Considering that people tend to remember the beginning and ending of stories rather than the "core," I would argue that having those sorts of moments at the end, beginning, or at big points in the narrative, does not trivialize them in any way, shape, or form.

And the words, "it feels like" are not indicative of anything other than opinion on the part of the video maker.

4. Building emotional attachment to characters is not a negative thing. The females in the examples are weak. I'll give her that. However, I don't believe that to be the chief component in the romance element of the narrative. I'm not seeing this power imbalance idea either. "It feels like" she's projecting a bit here.

5. There really isn't anything wrong with the Max Payne, GoW, and etc. hook. I'd argue for a gender inversion of the trope. Again, it reeks of a lack of creativity more so than anything else.

Calling it "insidious" is alarmist. -.-

6. I agree on the lack of maturity in the medium. I disagree with the line about misogyny.

7. Surprise! They were dead the whole time! Lack of creativity, again... ex. see cop shows.

8. Again. Having the kill the damsel is just indicative of a lack of creativity. Male characters are subjected to this sort of thing too. Personally, if I were turned into a horrible monstrosity or something, I'd welcome and even ask for death too.

Side Note: The GTA example was funny. It would have been funny if it'd been your cousin in GTA4 too.

9. Duke Nukem Forever is not a good example of anything, save failure, let alone gaming.

10. ...She seriously compared this to domestic violence. How in god's name do you come to that conclusion?

11. Hey. She actually gave some recognition to the fact that it IS a trope which is perpetrated by all mediums.

12. Again, the comparisons to real life statistics. And...encouraging violence against women? In reference to #10, it's encouraging violence against the "other" which has taken said character, be it male or female, in an effort to save them. This is not a corollary for domestic violence. You only see that sort of thing if you're looking for it.

13. The developers haven't given it much thought because the ideas being presented aren't necessarily negative or "insidious."

14. She tacitly admits that media consumption does not lead to action...and then goes off the rails again.

15. The implication is not that the woman/daughter is a "possession." The implication is that they are a loved one and they've been taken from the protagonist. "Taken" meaning killed or abducted not that they've been absconded with like a loaf of bread.

16. I don't view failing to protect a loved one as being a failure or loss of masculinity. It's a loss of a loved one and guilt over failing to protect them. I'd imagine women feel the same emotion when a loved one has been taken from them. The need to protect those we care about is a decidedly human thing and is not limited to gender.



I...I got through it all. Woo! According to some of you posters, I'm open-minded by default for having done so.

Once again, these are my opinions. I don't expect others to share them. I also haven't asked for a kickstarter contribution for said opinions. >.>

(I do acknowledge your sarcasm) Being paid, and asking to be paid so that she can go into this "professionally, full-time" is fine. Her efforts are earnest at least, though I feel they are no less biased than a lobbyist against violent video games. I can ask for sponsorship but I won't get any because I am no figure of attention nor argument. Anita's playing it smart for asking for said sponsorship because not only can she focus on creating these videos alone, she is comfortable in doing so(no need to worry about her material needs) (/flavor)

That said, I am utterly disappointed in part 2 having watched it thrice over now. Examples are from games that are obviously exploitative in nature for the sake of cheap entertainment and draws(attracting audience). I think she honestly needs to dig deeper for how long her videos take to make, rather than taking convenient examples. I have not seen any convincing example to see that women are truly marginalized in each video game they are portrayed in, rather it is more of a nitpick rather than actual concern.

Are children really so impressionable? If I was I would've beat up my bullies instead of just ignoring them since I played streets of rage when I was young. Her arguments are multi-faceted in relevant factors that dilute her concerns because negative female portrayals/subordination in games don't translate well into reality as said portrayals are clearly fantastical. Anita should turn her comments section back on and not moderate it, instead perhaps pulling arguments out for consideration with regards to her next video.

 

[generals3]

It is not innate. It is not evolutionary. It is a completely arbitrary social more that was agreed upon and then passed down as a tradition.

The euthanised damsel is not a twist. It is the same tired trope: an attack on the character's perceived masculinity. As you have said yourself, the message is "you failed to save her", which is a message built upon archaic and patriarchal notions of males as protectors. This is not a twist. This is not progressive in any way. Chivalry is sexism (benevolent sexism, yes, as opposed to hostile sexism, but sexism nonetheless), and it is just as much of a problem as hostile sexism. The idea that men are benevolent protectors of women is harmful, because it is built upon the notion that women need protection, and that therefore men are allowed to perform certain acts for their own good (such as euthanise them).

But no, due to the smaller physical stature of women men are expected to take up the role of the protector. It makes sense, in a couple with a highly educated person and poorly educated one the highly educated one would be expected to earn the bread. The latter example is defined socially (your level of education is not determined by biology) however the former has been pretty much defined by biology. It's also why adults are expected to protect children.

Secondly, while the role of protector is naturally bestowed on men the desire to protect your loved ones is universal. As such having a closed one euthanised isn't an attack on masculinity (Unless you assume women don't give a shit about the loss of their closed ones), it's an attempt to create emotional response to the loss of a loved one.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Not perfect, but a lot of interesting ideas. (...) I also felt like she used the word "misogynist" a little too liberally with certain examples, but it's good that she clarified exactly what she meant by "violence against women".

And with that, I am outta here, because I have a feeling that this thread is going to be painful to my mental health. ;-)

Nothing to add for me. And after fulfilling my civic duty of making a supportive statement, I better be going too.

Edit: Oh, and Anita's video was shut down temporarily because the haters abused the flagging function? Yet another time, quite telling.

 

[Darken12]

But no, due to the smaller physical stature of women men are expected to take up the role of the protector. It makes sense, in a couple with a highly educated person and poorly educated one the highly educated one would be expected to earn the bread. The latter example is defined socially (your level of education is not determined by biology) however the former has been pretty much defined by biology. It's also why adults are expected to protect children.

There are several studies that show that the differences in size and height between males and females are the product of child-rearing (and, obviously, familial genetics), and not something innate to our species's biological sex. I will PM them to anyone interested, but I don't want to derail the thread. So no, it's all very much social. The role of protector is not "innately" or "naturally" male.

Secondly, while the role of protector is naturally bestowed on men the desire to protect your loved ones is universal. As such having a closed one euthanised isn't an attack on masculinity, it's an attempt to create emotional response to the loss of a loved one. (Unless you assume women don't give a shit about the loss of their closed ones)

You're not getting the point. The games are stating, implicitly or explicitly, that the loss of the female loved one is an attack on the male protagonist's masculinity. She cites the examples in the video. There's even one case where the bad guy actually states, as he holds the woman, "now we take from you", as if she was actually his possession; and another case where the bad guy taunts the male protagonist about his inability to protect the kidnapped/dead woman. This is something that the games are stating, not me or Anita.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

And this is why people gave her $160,000? Out of all the problems that women face in this world, she thinks that spending $160,000 talking about women in games is a good idea. She really is a clueless fuckin' idiot.

And how can people claim that this is a good video? Her research is completely unscientific. She already has the end result in mind and she's actively looking for evidence that support only her point of view. She ignores everything else and a lot of times she misses the obvious points because all she can see is misogyny.