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

[Tony2077]

So, hi, first time in one of these threads. That was painful. I can't tell if people are being serious or not in their positive response to the video. That was sickeningly stupefying. Her points were terrible, her objectivity was terrible and her analysis was atrocious. She takes scenes out of context, out of relevance, and twists and mutilates them until they fit her point of view. That was not good. That was not balanced. That felt like a schoolchild's homework being read out to me. To then compare that to the endemic crime of domestic violence was grotesque and I truly cannot believe she's being taken seriously.

I don't want to join the group of people that resort to sexist slurs, but I certainly will not be joining the fanatics who support her.

i agree she seem to go off on a tangent sometimes there is a point there but sadly it wasn't the main thing she talked about

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I think we had the same idea, but I just thought "what the hell would be so bad about that?"

 

[Erttheking]

I just wish we could sit down for five minutes and talk like rational Human beings without blowing up over someone liking/not liking these videos. We Humans are a very diverse people, we're not all going to think the same thing.

I assume this is the part where you begin the rational conversation? After all, if you're going to point out a problem(more on this later), I assume you want to be part of the solution, correct? There is already at least one back and forth discussion going on about the video now and nothing is stopping you from making your own arguments and only responding to those that give you and your argument the forethought you and undoubtedly others come to expect from this discussion. (Edit: And because the internet is horrible with tone, let me qualify that there is not an ounce of sarcasm or flippancy in what I'm saying. I'm dead serious in inviting you to elevate the discussion, as is the rest of my post.)

As for the problem, the only thing* that could be said to be completely demonizing people that don't agree with the poster(whom I assume you mean Anita Sarkeesian, not IceForce who didn't actually given an opinion about the video) is the anger thrown at those at Youtube that spam reported her video. The worst they can be accused of is jumping to conclusions, unless you think spam reporting a video one disagrees with is a meaningful form of discussion?(This is neither sarcastic nor flippant either, some people do consider something like that to be a meaningful engagement) This is my roundabout way of saying "What demonization?"

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

What about the post above mine where he claims that because one person didn't like the video he's going to worry for our species and where he also claimed any hate for the video would be irrational?

 

[Kartoffelmos]

No, but it explains:

1) That these women's lives aren't more 'valuable' than men; these women are things that have been taken from men. That's one point nixed.

Which is a bizarre statement considering the argument you try to refute. Why is it women who are always taken from men and not men? Why would a dev choose to use a women to appeal to emotions instead of a man? It's because women are presented as being worth more.

Yeah, why wouldn't they use men? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the industry's issues with homosexuality, could it? As Anita said, a lot of these stories are about the main character recovering from a loss of masculinity because he failed to perform his patriarchal duty as a protector of women. Having the main character's love interest (who gets damsel'd) be a man conflicts with that particular idea because a) being gay is frequently seen as less masculine, and b) men are "supposed" to be the protectors, not the victims.

I sure as hell don't like it, and I wish we had more video game heroes who weren't straight, but there it is. It's the kind of situation that is both damaging to men and women, and it all comes from the same source. Trying to make the argument that only men suffer from this, and in a totally backwards way (that men are protrayed as less important? What?), is missing the point.

 

[Vegosiux]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I don't get it, why? Based on disagreements with Anita Sarkeesian? Why's that, in and of itself, to be demonized? I really don't think we should be polarizing here to that extent, that "disagreeing with A.S." should mean "bigoted scum of the earth".

 

[generals3]

These women aren't valued as people, they're valued as possessions, belonging to a man. Take that, along with the context of a history where women were traded and/or married off to men as possessions.

Which is a horrible assumption to make. The male protagonists doesn't cry because he lost a possession, he cries over the loss of a female he dearly loved. People tend to care more about people than objects and since the trope is used for optimal emotional responses the idea they are being assimilated to objects can only be the result of a severe negative bias. There is literally no reason whatsoever to assume the women are being portrayed as "possessions", so why would you make that assumption?

If feminism is the radical notion that women are people, misogyny would involve seeing a women as less than a person. Like maybe as a possession. See my previous comment.

See above.

You don't get extra points for being overly literal, it just makes arguing with you tiresome. You know what I mean: If there's a women in a video game, chances are she's a damsel in distress. Strewn about our cultural artifacts, does this trend say anything about how women are seen in our societies? I think it does. Is that message particularly friendly for women? Only if you consider patronizing women and taking away their agency 'friendly'.

My apologies about the little semantics remark.
You make an interesting point about how these tropes may be reflexions of our views in real life. However, this would also destroy Anita's pseudo-psychological activism considering it suggests a reversed causality. However, I think you're approaching this in the way which creates the most negative possible portrait of the trope/views of women. The reason why women are usually used as the victims is because women are generally physically less strong and thus in a violent video game setting less "powerful" (and thus most likely to be captured) and because the loss of a woman's life is still seen as more tragic as a man's (which has been a constant throughout history). However in Real Life violence is not the sole source of agency (unlike in those videogames) as such we shouldn't even draw a too negative picture about the views on women in RL on that aspect. I would even go as far as saying that this trope is more likely to damage men than women. (reference to how domestic violence is more likely to be blamed on men by the Justice System)

 

[DaedricDuke]

So, hi, first time in one of these threads. That was painful. I can't tell if people are being serious or not in their positive response to the video. That was sickeningly stupefying. Her points were terrible, her objectivity was terrible and her analysis was atrocious. She takes scenes out of context, out of relevance, and twists and mutilates them until they fit her point of view. That was not good. That was not balanced. That felt like a schoolchild's homework being read out to me. To then compare that to the endemic crime of domestic violence was grotesque and I truly cannot believe she's being taken seriously.

I don't want to join the group of people that resort to sexist slurs, but I certainly will not be joining the fanatics who support her.

It looked like she was trying to be the Amazing Atheist and try use elitist humor (That moment when face palmed was painful) instead of addressing why her view should be taken into consideration. And when she started talking about violence against woman? I just felt like saying "this is about video games not America".

There's too many fanatics already and it's good thing we don't have another.

 

[LetalisK]

*Though interestingly enough, ThrobbingEgo's response to your initial statement about the demonization could actually be seen as demonizing the people that don't agree with Anita, so you have one tally ex post facto.

Could be? I'd happily demonize the lot of them, if given half a chance.

I think we had the same idea, but I just thought "what the hell would be so bad about that?"

See, now I'm not sure if your "the lot of them" is referring to people who disagree with Anita Sarkeesian or those that thought it was a good idea to mass report her video. Perhaps I'm looking too much into this, but it's entirely possible for someone to share the same opinion as someone who would spam report her video(the in-common opinion being that Anita is wrong), yet does not support the action of spam reporting her video. I'm not sure if you're drawing a distinction between the two given your previous comment.

 

[generals3]

Yeah, why wouldn't they use men? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the industry's issues with homosexuality, could it? As Anita said, a lot of these stories are about the main character recovering from a loss of masculinity because he failed to perform his patriarchal duty as a protector of women. Having the main character's love interest (who gets damsel'd) be a man conflicts with that particular idea because a) being gay is frequently seen as less masculine, and b) men are "supposed" to be the protectors, not the victims.

I sure as hell don't like it, and I wish we had more video game heroes who weren't straight, but there it is. It's the kind of situation that is both damaging to men and women, and it all comes from the same source. Trying to make the argument that only men suffer from this, and in a totally backwards way (that men are protrayed as less important? What?), is missing the point.

Most male gamers are heterosexual and thus more likely to identify with the pain felt by the loss of a female partner than a male one. That's just marketing (making a story more likely to work with the main demograhic).

I also really hate how she twists "failure to protect a loved one" into "loss of masculinity". Everyone wants to protect their loved ones. It's not because it's a male protagonist that suddenly it's about masculinity.

And if you think i'm trying to claim these games are detrimental to men you're wrong. I merely stated that if you engage in poor pseudo psychology at least don't do it in the most twisted way and remain logical. I don't think games hurt anyone or any gender.

And yes, men's lives are portrayed as less important. That's quite obvious by how trivial a man's death is in games compared to a woman's death. (in general)

 

[klaynexas3]

Here's my major beef with her videos so far. She gives plenty of evidence that the trope exists, but then when she actually starts to even allude to a point, she jumps to her next part about the trope or a related trope. When it finally ends, I have no idea what her major point was, besides maybe that the industry lacks creativity. We got evidence last time, and had she done her job well, that evidence should have sufficed. It didn't because most of it was talking about just a few select series, so we got more evidence this time instead of a legitimate point. We could watch this video as a part 1, forget the last one, and most likely get the idea of the part in the series in which we actually get a total point to it all(which I'm doubting will be any time soon). Seriously Anita, I can't agree or disagree with your damn point until you get to the damn point.

 

[Eddie the head]

I've noticed something weird: the universe doesn't alter itself to make what I think less correct when I casually insult someone. Freaky, right?

What you mean like ignoring what I said, doesn't make what I said wrong? You're still using an "ad hominem" fallacy witch doesn't help your point at all. And your still being confrontational witch causes people to become stronger in there options. So at best you're not helping and at worst you're a causing harm to your own cause.

You're correct to say it doesn't make you any less right, but your not demonstrating your right with ad hominem attacks.

 

[LetalisK]

What about the post above mine where he claims that because one person didn't like the video he's going to worry for our species and where he also claimed any hate for the video would be irrational?

He was not pointing out to one person in that post, and in fact recognized their comment was tongue-in-cheek and actually in support of what would be considered his "side". Now, I would also point out that it's possible to be angry against irrational hatred for something, particularly when the subject at hand is the those that mass report a video because they disagree with it, without being angry at those that disagree but don't go to such lengths. However, I would admit I am also confused at this point how far he takes this demonization, as indicated by my previous post. Though, I think it is ultimately irrelevant as he is far from the only person in the chat who can and/or has attempted to start a conversation. The discussion is there, it's up to you whether or not you're going to throw the whole thread away as a lost cause or engage with someone. Perhaps I'll start this off with a question.

Did you find the examples she used in the video to be outliers of trends in gaming story telling? Can you think of a good game that involves women as non-protagonists but don't feature them in the Damsel in Distress trope or some variant thereof? I also ask this out of personal interest because, mind you, I'm not one to think Damsel in Distress is an inherently bad thing, it's simply a writing tool. My main complaint with it, if any, would be its overuse and I prefer a breadth of stories.

 

[generals3]

Can you think of a good game that involves women as non-protagonists but don't feature them in the Damsel in Distress trope or some variant thereof?

While one example doesn't prove anything (and i myself am not refuting the use of tropes) but a very popular game that comes to mind is MGS. Meryl in MGS4 is an independent character which only had to be saved in one instance (when her nanomachines were controlled by psycho mantis)(and after that she was in charge of keeping the enemies away from Snake so it kind of even outs). Naomi herself played on all sides and while at first she may have appeared as a damsel in distress it was all a little game she played to manipulate Snake and Otacon. But i guess my example also shows a typical problem with the tropes. The tropes are usually used to give a meaning to a story in a simplistic manner, MGS being extremely story intensive it doesn't need to rely on easy-to-make tropes to give meaning to the story. I guess what people should lobby for are less simplistic plots.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

I really liked this video and look forward to the third one. Truth be told, I wasn't a fan of her previous YT material as I felt it was lazy and lacked depth. However, I was impressed by her first Tropes v. Women in video games episode as it was clear she did her homework though my only complaint is that it felt too introductory and added nothing to the broader discussion. This one was just right A lot of great examples, good analysis and some interesting points. As I said, I look forward to the third video.

 

[ItouKaiji]

I thought the video was well put together and had some interesting points, but most of those points didn't make me think about sexism or misogyny, but think that story telling in gaming just kind of sucks right now. I'd probably have more to say but the last few minutes of the video where she even states she doesn't think it's anything malicious and generally gives a more balanced view clears up any concerns I had while watching it. And I don't really think anything she pointed out is anything more than developers using cheap devices to get a knee jerk emotional response out of players and the only response that gets out me is a wish for better writing in games which would be good for everyone.

 

[klaynexas3]

Did you find the examples she used in the video to be outliers of trends in gaming story telling? Can you think of a good game that involves women as non-protagonists but don't feature them in the Damsel in Distress trope or some variant thereof? I also ask this out of personal interest because, mind you, I'm not one to think Damsel in Distress is an inherently bad thing, it's simply a writing tool. My main complaint with it, if any, would be its overuse and I prefer a breadth of stories.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to participate in discussion also, so I'll take it upon myself to start a discussion rather than wait.

As an answer, I can think of a good game series that avoids the trope relatively well. The Jak and Daxter series. While I cannot remember entirely, I can only recall two points in all the games(and I'm only talking about the trilogy, not the other ones) in which you are actually out to even help a girl. One of the times you don't even know it's a woman until after the fact, and she either kicks some ass or saves yours during the encounter(memory is a bit fuzzy). The second time you only go to help out, and she helps too. Hell, at the points when there are legitimate kidnappings, it's happening either old men, and a woman is a part of the kidnapping, and the other time the hero himself is held captive, to only escape two years later after being rescued by a rodent. If there are any blatant moments in the games with the trope in it, please tell me as I may have missed those, but for the most part the series well avoided that trope.

 

[LetalisK]

Can you think of a good game that involves women as non-protagonists but don't feature them in the Damsel in Distress trope or some variant thereof?

While one example doesn't prove anything (and i myself am not refuting the use of tropes) but a very popular game that comes to mind is MGS. Meryl in MGS4 is an independent character which only had to be saved in one instance (when her nanomachines were controlled by psycho mantis)(and after that she was in charge of keeping the enemies away from Snake so it kind of even outs). Naomi herself played on all sides and while at first she may have appeared as a damsel in distress it was all a little game she played to manipulate Snake and Otacon. But i guess my example also shows a typical problem with the tropes. The tropes are usually used to give a meaning to a story in a simplistic manner, MGS being extremely story intensive it doesn't need to rely on easy-to-make tropes to give meaning to the story. I guess what people should lobby for are less simplistic plots.

I've never played the MGS series besides a long time ago when I was younger and I don't remember it much besides the camera alarm sound, so I can't really speak to this example. However, it's a side-topic, but would you recommend the MGS series for play today? Do all the games hold up or are there some that should be skipped?

Also, as far as this particular trope not being used, I would put up the Mass Effect series, which I have the feeling is going to cause consternation among some simply because it's Mass Effect, but since I'm about to go do laundry and go running, I'll get more into it when I get back. To give a short synopsis, I find that the games do some things that appear to be damsel in distressy, but either it's just a facade or it slips in and out of it in a way that makes it so it's not really being used as a trope.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I thought this video was excellent. She backed up her points with plenty of examples. I liked how she said that this trope isn't good for men either because it tends to normalize men using violence to overcome the feeling of being powerless.

I don't know if I would say excellent, considering she made only one real point and spent most of the time showing examples of it. What would be helpful is if in each video she at least provided her thoughts on how to improve the situation in general. Seeing as how we're probably in for a couple of months wait on it, because so far some people seem to think she's just targeting them and telling them off for using the trope (I get the feeling she thinks it shouldn't exist at all, that there's no place for it.) or playing games that have it and not at least addressing on how to improve it along the way.

If I recall, because her kick-starter got such a huge amount, she added to her list of videos one on the positive side of things. I still get the impression she more or less wants a one sided discussion, saying "This is bad, so you should feel bad if you have liked any of it." blocking comments is a surefire way to make people feel that way. Not addressing criticisms on her blog thingy, and instead deleting those comments is also is also not helping that at all.

 

[Batou667]

Just watched it. My first thought is that it doesn't need a trigger warning, it needs a damn spoiler warning. A whole fistful of games endings spoiled, many of them fairly recent, just to prop up Sarkeesian's often tenuous points. Not impressed.

Apart from that, I was fairly nonplussed. A few observations:

Almost all of the games that she casts her beady eye on this episode are unashamedly male power fantasies, almost all are action (read: violent) games, almost all are Teen/Mature/15/18 (whatever your classification is). And she then proceeds to berate them for being gory, violent, male power fantasies. Way to cherry-pick.

She notes that gaming doesn't exist within a vacuum - but fails to realise that this holds true both ways. Many of the games on her list can't help but reflect existing tropes as that's an integral part of their cultural legacy or source material. Max Payne is a homage to gritty noir films. Splatterhouse is a cheerfully OTT homage to the splatter genre of horror movies. These are games that exist to typify and reflect a genre, not to challenge stereotypes and push a progressive agenda.

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?

The ad-hoc suggestion that violence against women in games is in any way linked to domestic abuse is a cheap shot and needs a huge *CITATION REQUIRED* sign in flashing neon. I could use the same shitty logic to tar a genre with real-world grime to support an agenda. Watch:

The GTA series has sold nearly 100 million games[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_%28series%29#Sales[/footnote] (look, I'm citing my sources and everything, that makes me a respected academic, right?). These games glorify car chases, speeding in urban areas and vehicular destruction. Every 30 seconds, somebody is killed in a road traffic accident[footnote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate[/footnote]. Is this OK? Is this amusing entertainment? We feminists condemn this "Automobile death culture" and encourage games that promote safe driving, following traffic signals, and maybe even exploring non-vehicular modes of transport. Here's a great indie game about walking on a sidewalk and only crossing the street at designated crossing points, doesn't it look fun! I wouldn't know as I haven't played the cruddy thing, but neither have 99% of my viewership so nobody will call me out on it. Oh yeah, here's the donate button, peace out motherf*ckers, see you in another two months.

She calls the damsel trope an "easy default motivation" for the male protagonist. Yes, that's exactly what it is. However I don't agree with her conclusion that this taps into the male player's "desire" to possess, control, beat up or otherwise Patriarchally oppress women - isn't it more reasonable to think that maybe it provides the protagonist with a context for embarking on the perilous adventure (because caring about and wanting to protect your loved ones is, y'know, quite admirable) and handily demarcates the villain (because kidnap and murder are quite clearly bad things to do). It's like the lazy old gaming fallback of having the enemies be Nazis. Or zombies. Or Nazi zombies. It's a trope - storytelling shorthand - that allows the game to dispense with the grand backstory and character development and just let us get on with popping caps in asses. In a more story-driven game Sarkeesian might have a point. But in an action game? Expect the story and characters to be shitty, it's par for the course.

And finally - she's against "violence against women", but does she not realise the vast majority of violence in videogames is directed at males? She admits herself that in a game where the primary mechanic is shooting, slicing or punching, violence is going to be present. And if females are present then they're going to be part of that violent scenario (and of they weren't present, then you can guarantee she'd level charges of under-representation).

Perhaps the problem is that Sarkeesian is talking about a genre of games she just plain doesn't like - she's against male power fantasy, she's against violence - and she's unfairly finding ways to weave her own agenda in while criticising something that she just isn't the target audience of. She phrases almost all her "suggestions" in the negative (stop doing this, less of that) and presents scant few actual positive examples. But hey, I guess that's coming in Part 3.

 

[Erttheking]

What about the post above mine where he claims that because one person didn't like the video he's going to worry for our species and where he also claimed any hate for the video would be irrational?

He was not pointing out to one person in that post, and in fact recognized their comment was tongue-in-cheek and actually in support of what would be considered his "side". Now, I would also point out that it's possible to be angry against irrational hatred for something, particularly when the subject at hand is the those that mass report a video because they disagree with it, without being angry at those that disagree but don't go to such lengths. However, I would admit I am also confused at this point how far he takes this demonization, as indicated by my previous post. Though, I think it is ultimately irrelevant as he is far from the only person in the chat who can and/or has attempted to start a conversation. The discussion is there, it's up to you whether or not you're going to throw the whole thread away as a lost cause or engage with someone. Perhaps I'll start this off with a question.

Did you find the examples she used in the video to be outliers of trends in gaming story telling? Can you think of a good game that involves women as non-protagonists but don't feature them in the Damsel in Distress trope or some variant thereof? I also ask this out of personal interest because, mind you, I'm not one to think Damsel in Distress is an inherently bad thing, it's simply a writing tool. My main complaint with it, if any, would be its overuse and I prefer a breadth of stories.

I think in reality the majority of them were AAA games, and really the writing in those games are just considered to be shit in general, not just when it comes to women. People may praise those games, but it's not usually for the story, it's more about the gameplay.

Ok let me think. Well there's Mass Effect, Fallout, Skyrim, the Walking Dead (I guess you could count Clementine but I let her off the hook on account of being nine) the Halo games, the two Bioshock games, Persona 4, my friend has been showing me Suikoden II and so far I haven't seen anything like that there. It's funny because most of these games (I said most Skyrim) are the ones that tended to get praised for stories. Really I think the problem is less that there's a stigma against women in the industry (Although that one Jim episode showed that that IS a problem) I think it's just more of a problem of video games still being only a couple of decades old and many developers are still learning to write good stories. I don't like the Damsel in Distress trope either, but not because it's misogynistic. It's just plain lazy. I'm sure a talented writer could pull it off in an interesting way, but most AAA game writers kinda phone it in.