Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
On March 7th, 2013,
Anita Sarkeesian released the first video in her "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" series.
The video is part one of the damsel in distress topic,
and focused on the history of the term and its earliest appearances in video games,
along with in-depth examinations of two of the most iconic character examples of this plot device in gaming.
In my response, I'm not seeking to devalue Anita's views nor discredit any of her research.
I'm simply offering a counter viewpoint from my own perspective as a gamer, and as a female.
I hope to bring some positive considerations to this topic and look at the other side of the conversation.
With that being said, let's begin.
My immediate concern with the project was that she approached this topic
with the intention of finding material that would support her preexisting conclusions
rather than first examining the evidence and then making her case.
A presentation that may have had the chance of being an informative and unbiased view
of the history of the damsel in distress trope and its development,
quickly becomes a one-sided argument against what she believes to be a negative formula
that should be completely retired from use.
Anita states that;
"The Damsel in Distress trope disempowers female characters
and robs them of the chance to be heroes in their own rite."
The big problem I have with this statement is its implication that
a single act of misfortune upon a female character somehow disempowers her entire being
and invalidates any opportunities to be considered a hero.
A character may face an instance of turmoil, in which she must await the aid of her male companion,
but that should not make her any less important.
By implying that actions upon a character are an appropriate measure to gauge their worth,
you deny all of their other aspects from consideration when evaluating their importance.
Anita repeatedly states that the damsel in distress trope is a negative one because she believes it disempowers women.
But isn't that only based on her own perception of what makes an important character?
If she views strength and physical capabilities as the only measures of importance, then yes,
they are by that definition disempowered.
But what if we view a character's importance as something more than just a physical attribute?
What if we see strength not as a physical capability,
but rather the determination not to give up hope in times of great distress?
What if we view those who have to rely on others for safety as brave individuals,
rather than calling them victims?
And if implying that being a victim overshadows all other positive traits of a character,
what message are you truly sending?
That times of turmoil will negate all positive traits you have?
That you ought to be recognized as a victim above all else,
despite the importance you hold in the eyes of everyone around you?
Speaking on the requirement as to what is needed to qualify for this damsel in distress category,
Anita states the following:
"All that is really required to fulfill the damsel in distress trope
is for a female character to be reduced to a state of helplessness from which she requires rescuing
by a typically male hero for the benefit of HIS story arc."
Using her consistent examples of Peach and Zelda
I want to use her characters as well in my reply to this claim.
If we test for this credential while deciding whether or not these two princesses meet the damsel in distress requirement,
we cannot make a very strong argument for it.
While they are momentarily faced with a state of helplessness and await the aid of a male protagonist,
they are not being rescued to satisfy the desires of Mario and Link,
but rather to return order to their respective kingdoms.
You see, when they are captured, the land is subject to a reign of evil.
The antagonist's minions are roaming free.
And chaos is inevitable at the hands of the all-powerful bad guy.
The princesses in their safety symbolizes state of peace,
and it cannot be said that the male protagonists are rescuing them solely to benefit their own story arc.
One of the most common traits of any good protagonist character is their selflessness.
Any love we assume they have for the princesses is only secondary to their duty to do the right thing.
And sometimes that means reinstating the monarchy with its rightful leader.
Anita goes on to say that;
"The hero's fight to retrieve his stolen property
then provides lazy justification for the actual gameplay."
The protagonists of these stories are not rescuing these characters to bed them.
There are no intentions of treating these characters as prizes.
And in the rescuer's eyes, they're never viewed as property.
Princess Peach and Princess Zelda, political figureheads of their respective kingdoms,
will always be more important individuals to their subjects than Mario and Link will ever be.
It turns out that the only people who do not value them with any worth are the critics
who reduce them to just another example of a plot device and refer to them as "property."
But don't think I wouldn't call Princess Peach a damsel in distress,
because she is certainly the most iconic example of this character type.
She's a little ditzy, lovably dainty, and the stereotypical helpless princess in need of her hero.
And there is nothing wrong with this.
That's what her character is in her wonderful Mushroom Kingdom universe.
To her friends and her Toadstools, she is the respected and well-loved figurehead of the kingdom.
They don't look down upon her nor think any less of her, despite her repeated episodes of kidnapping.
The only negative implication that exists is the one we ourselves attribute to her character through our own bias.
Only to the critical viewer is she someone of less importance.
The love that people have for Peach isn't based on what happens to her,
but rather as her significance as one of the most iconic figureheads of Nintendo.
Anita remarks that;
"Peach does of course appear in many spin-offs such as the Mario Party, Mario Sports and Mario Kart series
as well as the Super Smash Brothers Nintendo Universe crossover fighting games.
However all of these spin-offs fall well outside the core Super Mario series of platformers."
While Anita so easily disregarded Peach's appearance as a playable character in the numerous Mario titles,
her availability should mean a lot more to her than it apparently does.
Just because she may not be available in every Mario title,
this should not overshadow the numerous times she makes playable character appearances,
nor discredit those games as somehow less significant.
You cannot judge a character's playable availability based on your bias of how you view a title's importance.
You may think that games in which Peach is a playable character are less significant
than platform titles that feature Mario as the main character,
but take a look at these figures on Nintendo GameCube game sales:
Super Smash Brothers Melee and Mario Kart: Double Dash,
both games in which Peach is a playable character,
each outsold Super Mario Sunshine by over 2 million copies.
Coming in first and second place as the most sold games for the console.
Mario Kart Wii, which features Peach as a playable character,
outsold New Super Mario Brothers Wii by 6.4 million copies.
It's a myth that Mario games outside of the Super Mario vein are somehow less significant,
because the numbers clearly point out otherwise.
Don't be quick to judge Princess Peach on her situations of being indisposed
as somehow more relevant than her appearances in other games.
Be fair to her character, and evaluate her honestly and objectively.
In short; give the girl some credit.
Or give her some coins.
She might appreciate the coins more.
And Anita, as complex of a character as Princess Zelda is,
as a character with so much rich history,
and one of the most positive female characters in gaming that exists,
I couldn't understand why so much of your expose focused on her as a negative example of your trope.
You nearly disregarded everything her character is
simply because she happens to face a different type of turmoil than her male counterpart.
While Zelda is well known and admired in the gaming community for being one of the greatest examples of unfaltering wisdom and elegance,
you instead presented her as just another ordinary example of the damsel in distress cliche.
To you, she's just another statistic of a character type you'd like to see less of.
To me; she's a leader of the sages, the embodiment of wisdom, the backbone of Hyrule,
and the princess I will continue to help Link rescue for as long as he may need to.
Over 25 years of history and creation, of new identities and backgrounds,
of new designs and new characterizations,
Princess Zelda in her many different incarnations does not deserve to be reduced to a category.
The misfortunes characters face shouldn't determine their entire existence.
An instance of kidnapping shouldn't discredit their crucial role in the story.
Isn't it the actions of a character that should speak for their worth, and not what happens to them?
And shouldn't we ourselves be judged for what we say and what we do rather than the times of turmoil we face?
As a political figure of Hyrule,
Zelda is always going to be subject to the evil of those who seek to bring down the kingdom.
That's a burden she is born with as a princess, not as a female character of Nintendo.
Her worth shouldn't be reduced to what she's wearing, or whether she's the main playable character of the story.
Just because she wears a dress rather than a tunic doesn't mean she isn't a hero.
Just because she is not a playable character does not mean she isn't just as equally important as Link.
Whether she's a princess that gets kidnapped or not,
her grace, wisdom, and great sense of morality should be praised, not disregarded or made second place.
The male protagonists do not ever see these characters as the victims, so why do we?
It isn't always the female characters that find themselves in need of a helping hand.
Here are a few examples for the records:
In Donkey Kong Country 2,
Donkey Kong gets kidnapped by Kaptain K. Rool, and Diddy and Dixie as a team have to save him.
In Donkey Kong Country 3,
both Donkey Kong and Diddy get captured, and Dixie is on call yet again to rescue them.
Halfway through Chrono Trigger,
Crono (the male protagonist) perishes, and must be rescued by his party.
Including teammates; Ayla, Marle, and Lucca.
And what about Pocky & Rocky?
Pocky is a young shrine girl that is called on to help rescue her Nopino Goblin friends
because they have all gone insane. And guess what, that wasn't the first time she had to save them.
In Disney's Magical Quest 2: The Great Circus Mystery,
Donald and Pluto go missing, and it is up to Mickey and Minnie to save them.
In Final Fantasy VII,
Cloud suffers toxic levels of Mako poisoning, and falls completely out of commission.
It is up to his childhood friend Tifa to save him, and bring him out of this comatose state.
In Parasite Eve,
Aya Brea isn't just a police rookie saving a couple of people,
she's saving the entire city of New York.
And happens to be the only person that can stop the impending destruction of a really... ugly baby.
Anita concludes that;
"The Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic,
patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."
While she so certainly presents such statements as facts,
it must be pointed out that without quantitative evidence to support her conclusion,
it's really nothing more than an assumption.
I understand that her motives are to seek out and expose something she views as problematic,
but I'm not convinced she is approaching this in the right way.
Though she says that these examinations are done from a systemic, big picture perspective,
it rather feels like it's done from a very limited, narrow view of what are unacceptable representations of these characters.
You can't forget that this is a business...
The people developers should have in mind are the gamers - the consumers.
Not the social commentators and the pop culture critics.
While it is okay for you to use video games in your discussions for the purposes of critical analysis,
you have to remember that at the end of the day, it's really about the video game as a successful product;
something that is going to earn money to pay the many individuals that worked on it.
Above all else; it is still a business.
Just as publishers realize that they will never fully please all demographics and appeal to all players,
we need to realize that not every single aspect of a game is going to be one that we enjoy or agree with.
And that's where you could benefit by sharing games that other women with your mindset can appreciate,
or asking other female gamers to share their favorite games with you.
Approach this topic positively, and the outcome will be the same.
I do not want to invalidate anything Anita has presented.
She is a well spoken individual that is speaking on behalf of the double-X chromosome family I belong to,
and I do not what my opinions to be misconstrued as attacking her views in any way.
She has as much right to hold her views and speak on behalf of what she believes
as much as I have a right to represent the other side of the discussion.
Whether or not Anita tends to adequately supplement her critical examples of characters with just as many positive examples,
the overall intention should be to move forward rather than backward.
Leave viewers feeling hopeful, rather than upset and dejected.
Don't let the shortcomings drive the bulk of the project.
If two women, within the same age range, who both grew up playing the same games as kids,
can have two completely opposite views of these games today,
it really makes you wonder how much of this study is solely based on personal interpretation.
Do you think Robin Williams would have named his beloved daughter after Princess Zelda
if she is universally interpreted and understood as a weak character?
If you want to create a project that encourages critical analysis of these games,
I feel you should do so in a way that leaves room for positive discussion
rather than ending in ultimatums that don't encourage people to think for themselves.
Let's analyze our beloved video games,
but let's do so honestly without letting our bias dictate what we choose to report.
Be fair, be objective, be positive,
and hopefully the two warring sides of this ongoing discussion can meet somewhere in the middle
and move forward together.