Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
This video will be a response/analysis of the points and topics raised in Anita Sarkeesen's
Feminist Frequency; Damsel in Distress Part 2 video.
I apologise for the microphone there are captions below, but I felt this critique had to made
due to the misrepresentation of the topic, and to create a counterbalance to some of
the bias I observed in her video. Before I begin; I would like to say that I
dont disagree with her viewpoint or hate her videos; I am simply presenting another reason
for why such tropes exist and their purpose, and why Anita has misread or exaggerated these
tropes as misgonyistic and regressive to society.
A minor point I'll bring up regarding these tropes and games and one Anita addresses,
is that tropes are a result of lazy and cliched writing. This is extremely prevalent in fighting
and action-adventure games, which almost all of her examples come from. This is problematic
because it represents the worst of video game writing; where games are not praised or played
for their story. As Anita puts it; they are lazy justifications and shortcuts for gameplay,
unlike RPGs or Point&Clicks which are dialogue based. Although it does not diminish her main
points, it is not a complete representations of the video game industry. These are games
based on violence; thus as the genre states all problems will be solved by violence. Moving on
Lets start with what the Damsel in distress is supposed to represent. Say I presented
you with a choice; Defeat *insert obstacle here* to gain 1) glory; 2)treasure; 3)just
the sake of defeating evil 4)Or save a innocent life. As a society, we choose option 4 because
it is considered the most selfless thing to do. The damsel trope is based on rescuing
an innocent from harm; and young women are the default because, fortunately or unfortunately,
our society views young females as more imperative to be saved from peril than old men/women,
young men, young children, villages, humanity, animals, nature, etc. For this reason; I will
argue that a young woman is the lowest common denominator for this trope; and thus arguing
that 'damseling' degrades women is not as relevant as women are only the focus because
of society's biased importance of their value; not their weakness or insignificance.
And yes it does put women in a perpetual state of rescuing; but this is as contrived a plot
as giving the male protagonist blind morals so they can kill everything in their path;
all enemies attack you on sight and the villain being evil just to be evil. Neither are great
portrayals of people; but neither harm or reinforce stereotypes from a blatantly fictional
plot line; they are just lazy plot devices for gameplay. Because the damsel story is
so universally known and compelling as a 'true' hero's motive; the trope is used often; but
emphasis is placed on the strong feelings and selflessness of the protagonist and not
the helplessness of the damsel, and because women are used due to the lowest common denominator
effect for broad appeal, I argue that importance of gender in this trope is diminished.
I would also like to point out a disconnect between player and character. This simply
means that the player does not always agree or care about motivations of the protagonist.
Gamers play for various reasons; glory; competition; adventure, so what the player thinks and what
the protagonist thinks might be different. And although the reward of saving a woman
'suddenly' revealed to a player at the end of the game DOES imply that the woman is more
of a 'present'; and showing the woman captured at the beginning may seem like a stolen possession
which must be retrieved; this aspect of 'possession' is ignored by a player since it is of no consequence
to them but their safety becoming a goal to be achieved in the game; and most respectable
game narratives phrase this as a capturing of a loved one. The narrative is supposed
to state the stakes of the game when the loved one is shown to be captured and in peril;
and the player's reward is their 'safety' at the end. If the damsel was but a possession;
there would be no need for a dramatic cutscene showing their capture and their lives at threat;
the game would concentrate on the lack of privileged possession than the capturing of
it. Interpretation the damsel as a possession told through narrative is entirely plausible
and although I do not doubt Anita's viewpoint she fails to discuss what this trope is intended
to represent to the player. You see, I present both sides of the argument to show that I
have weighted the options and come to a conclusion; its basic rhetoric. When Anita fails to do
this in explanation of these tropes; at worst it seems ignorant and 1 sided.
I would also like to point out the difference between a game character and a real life comparison.
In a game; people start out as NPC's before they graduate to "characters". For clarification;
a NPC is a piece of code; a person shaped program of no emotional importance to the
player; and a character is an virtual person that a player DOES care about. I believe that
most people, especially gamers, can differentiate game fiction from reality and have a suspension
of disbelief when playing games.
NPC's are not equal to actual people; so her TRIGGER WARNING and acts of brutality are not as significant in a fantasy setting. Worse things occur in
both villains and protagonists in plenty of games, (God of War, MGS4) and you don't hear
people marching for the rights of the thousands of enemies slaughtered in every game imaginable.
For an NPC to become developed enough to be seen a character is a good thing; so undeveloped
characters such as practically every damsel mentioned is irrelevant to a player's connection
or understanding of women. I bring this up now because of Anita's interpretation
that ICO and Pandora's Tower represent 'vulnerable and dependent' women as 'desirable'. I claim
that this interpretation is incorrect; the purpose of making the woman 'vulnerable' in
this state is for the player to care about their safety. If I knew that someone was dependent
on me; and only me for their well-being; I would HAVE to care for their safety since
I am the only one who could; and therefore as a player I will have a stronger connection
with them; elevating her from NPC to a character. The role of having the woman as
the dependent one is another lowest common denominator role from society; but you can
see 'Enslaved: Odyssey to the West' for a gender swap and proof of how this framing
device is intended for bonding. Making a player care for the well-being of a game character
is a good thing; and games like ICO should be praised for this notion of getting the
player to care emotionally through mostly mechanics with little to no dialogue, not
shunned because the character is female and happens to be weak in order to enforce this
bond.
On to the Woman/Damsel in the Refrigerator. As I previously mentioned; using women as
shock value to advance narrative is again; a lowest common denominator tactic. However;
this trope has been here for generations; and as proof here is a WWI recruitment poster
that I'm sure you're seen before. The ape represents Germany; and the woman represents
America or Lady Liberty. Now why is America represented as a woman in a patriarchal society?
Simple; a dead man is seen as a causality of war; but a dead woman is seen as a causality
of the innocent. This makes it practically impossible to use a male in this same role
to achieve the same effect. You cannot say that the Woman in the Refrigerator depicts
violence against women when it is really depicting violence against innocence and the other gender
is unceremoniously excluded. Infact; I'll claim to say that this trope
is just as misandric when it shows thousands of men being killed to prove just how powerful
the enemy is. (Example Black Mesa) who was this guy? Who were these guys? No one knows,
no one cares; their lives are expendable (wave it off); look how powerful the enemy is killing
all those men without effort; but when its a woman we go through the trouble of explaining
their role and giving names because they are important. Like the damsel, their sex is mostly
incidental from our culture to dramatize the value of their death. I argue that women are
used in this role not because of sexist misrepresentation or dominance by men; but rather because society
prescribes men lives as forfeit and women's lives as valuable; or in one phrase "women
and children first". To mention why children are not used instead;
because it be seen as controversial cruelty rather than a beaten horse of a plot device.
This is a cheap emotional tactic to spur a player; but because these females are just
NPCs in a player's eyes their deaths are unimportant. Now Im not implying that female brutality
in real life is not real or not important. But in the sense of a game and an NPC that
the player is not attached to; this is a cheap way to dramatize a person's death by the writer
and using a woman for the highest possible shock value; and it is ignored for the trope
that it is.
(The Bionic Commando is humor on her part. It is neither important or indicative.)
Continuing on to the Mercy Killing; this is again a cheap emotional pull to 1-up the emotional
state of the player; but with the player/protagonist disconnect and an undeveloped NPC; it too
becomes unimportant. Women are again often used for this role due to the reason previously
mentioned; men are expendable and women are valuable; and young women are the lowest common
denominator for this situation. I hope you can see why I believe these misogynistic notions
do not hold up. It is true that they depict violence against women; but it is not 'because'
they are women that this violence occurs; it is because they are considered 'more' 'emotionally'
'dramatic'. This is why good writing relies on well liked and established characters for
effective use of this plot device. Like the damsel, its purpose is not a contrived
way to put a female in danger or to allow the male character to kill a loved one. The
point of the mercy killing is about mercy although it is often poorly executed. It is
supposed to be a last ditch effort and games often fail here because of underdevelopment
of character and the player is either not given the option to choose or is given a false
choice; so it seems forced and contrived. This trope is not about female subordination;
but the moral question of letting something you love go for a sake greater than your love
yet leaving with blood on your hands vs leaving them in suffering and greater consequences
where others may be affected; and that was a gross simplification. Women only fall into
this role occasionally because of these social views (Lowest common denominator) and (women
are valuable trope).
But then Anita says that 'Possession' as in loss of control due to other forces is used
as a justification for domestic violence against women.
Sigh... See Anita; this is where you jumped the shark. This is where I realised that you
have a complete misunderstanding of why these tropes are used and what they are meant; YET
FAIL to represent. This is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard; and let me explain
why. I can understand how someone can misread the damsel trope and the woman in the refrigerator
trope and the mercy killing trope to be misogynistic to women; because as a society we almost always
place women in these roles. However! You cannot claim that the possession is misogynistic
in any manner- because it is not aimed at women. I am clear that you, Anita, do not
understand what possession is used for here. Possession is about taking something you care
about and using it against you. You cannot fight it because you care about it; yet it
doesn't care about you because it is possessed or 'out of control'. Thus, violence against
it because a last-ditch effort; poorly executed and simplified but thats besides the point.
Anita; to say that this trope is misogynistic is a grave misstep because it demonstrates
your lack of understanding of its use; and it is even worse as you claim that it has
real world influence. Firstly if you cannot prove a connection between violence against
women in video games and violence against women in real life; you should not suggest
the topic as if they are related. Anyone who plays a game understands that the game and
its narrative are fiction and the trope is framed as a sort of necessary evil not to
be glorified, in good cases. And you claim that it is presented as violence against women
to save them? Ninja Gaiden, Kingdom Hearts, Kingdom Hearts Birth By Sleep, Kingdom Hearts
Chain of Memories, Super Paper Mario, Fire Emblem, Dragon Age II, Cave Story, Megaman
X, Megaman X 2, Megaman Battle Network 6, Megaman Network Transmission, most MegaMan
Star Force series, Final Fantasy Tactics, Summon Knight:Swordcraft Story 2, Soulcalibur
4, Dante's Inferno, I can go on- these are all games that use possession of MALES for
the same purpose as I stated above and these are just the ones I've played that I could
think of at the time of writing. The Half-Life series, Dragon Age: Origins,
Resident Evil series, the F.E.A.R. series, Fatal Frame, Legend Of Zelda, Summon Knight:Swordcraft
Story, The Walking Dead, every Zombie game and countless more; these are all games that
use possession indiscriminately across genders in this way and yet you claim domestic violence?
Can someone so gravely misread such simple plot thread as violence against the subject
of possession rather than the grief of not having a choice to fight what previously was
and maybe still is a loved one? I agree its a poorly used trope for a protagonist to fight
a loved one and to show the despicable-ness of the big bad but you- you suggest- you actually
claim that it promotes this sort of violence against women and uses possession as an excuse
and a justification??? I am speechless.
I am simply speechless.
All I've said to prove my argument is that the subject of misrepresentation in a trope
is not hated because the subject is not chosen to be used in these tropes for a hated or
demeaning purpose.(We hate you; thus we misrepresent you. We love you, thus we misrepresent you).
I also argue that that women are not chosen for these roles to be hateful; but to be exploitative
to maximize the effect of the intended trope and THERE ARE many other tropes that do not
use only women for the same exploitative effect; and thus their sex is unimportant to their
misrepresentation.But my argument isn't that tropes don't misrepresent women, but that
tropes are small snippets of plots from our biased culture, and not misogynistic in nature
because they are just archetypes of characters and do not claim to be real-life representations.
Anita, you mention that Wreck-It-Ralph's gender swap is so absurd that it is funny. But how
does it forward our representation of men or women using the 'man' in-the-refrigerator
trope? The truth is that it is just played for laughs; and cheap *** tension between
Fix-It-Felix and the Commander Calhorn. If we complain about these tropes are simply
being misogynistic; sure developers might change them; but they will just replace them
with other tropes and other subjects to misrepresent; which could be even worse.
If you understand tropes; you understand that they are just templates for poor writing and
the following are used because they allow violence to be an option. These tropes are
not 'for' violence to women; every trope misrepresents reality by only using a small sliver of it
and by nature mis-representative by broadcasting their subject from one cliched angle. Their
characteristics and roles are chosen because of our society's past; not to be cruel to
the subjects of the trope although they may play out this way. Its not about patriarchal
duty or societal expectation or loss of masculinity or women subjugation; its so people can have
an easy-to-digest story with cardboard characters and paper-thin moral and plot twists. The
damsel in distress; the woman in the refrigerator; other tropes and points brought up in your
video; these will disappear when gaming society moves past these 'lazy justifications' for
video games. We should be against tropes simplifying story arcs to simple checklists for the game
narrative; and not just the ones that apply to women.
But thats not to say every game has to be a writing masterpiece; this is not what games
are primarily for. Sometimes we are just given a half-assed reason to play the game. Sometimes,
we have a generic story like generic maiden is captured by generic villain and generic
hero must save her. And thats ok sometimes. We have a suspension of disbelief playing
games; we can overlook bad writing and misrepresentations from reality; and not read too much into them
when they are just tropes and side-attractions to what games are about: gameplay. While today,
action based games use tropes to bring together a semblance of story; we can ridicule it for
the terrible writing it is. When story-based games like RPG's and other genres begin to
push these roles as accurate portrayals of female characters and reality; then we can
call foul. As a counterpoint to why the games industry
does not primarily make stories about women; I believe is because of a negative stereotype
that 'girl games, meaning games marketed to girls; and you know the ones I mean' have
crafted so that it seems a female centered story is less 'core gamer appealing' than
a male centered one and forced a dichotomy between male-action games and female-cutsy
management games; and marketing strategies being a focus for the game creation rather
than creativity or storytelling. The reason why violence is a prime game mechanic; is
because our understanding of physics and science is much better than the understanding of our
own minds; and it provides great feedback for gameplay. And I'll argue that Dear Esther
is more a novel with an game environment; Passage is an excellent experimental game
and To The Moon is just 1 of the 2 RPGs you mentioned; all genres filled with great storytelling
and mechanics that you did not cover. But these are topics that deserve their own videos
and I don't have time to discuss.
In conclusion; I state that Anita's specific points on tropes, are over-exaggerated or
she has misread their purpose. As a gamer; and I'm sure many others agree with me on
this point; the gaming community can be misogynistic. Our community is harsh to women rather vocally;
and often games show a less 'than adequate' portrayal of women, as they do when they rely
on stereotypes or tropes to represent other aspects/issues of society. But I do not believe
that 'tropes' are "against" women. They are not misogynistic or regressive to society;
they are social 'boxes' that currently limit the roles that women characters can be in
gaming; similar to how men are limited to anger and violence. Anita says that games
affect society; and I agree and add that society affects games even more. These boxes are cliches
from a society that already looks past them in books and movies. Female Characters in
games are already expanding from these boxes and eventually society will condemn these
tropes as bad representations and they will become insignificant.
Anita, I liked that you answered some of your criticism and focused on modern games. I liked
that you were less confrontational and your points on exploitation of these tropes were
quite accurate. And there are a bunch of great points you have in your video which I agree
with; even if I disagree with parts of your main argument. I couldn't possibly cover the
spectrum of issues in the gaming industry in my video, or critique the representations
of women like you do from a feminist viewpoint. However I do appreciate your opinion (though
that domestic violence statement has me particularly critical of it) and look forward to your third
Dasmel in Distress video where we can look to positive portrayals of women in gaming.
I hope you and my audience understand the criticism I have leveled here and I thank
you for watching.