[Krylo]

While it’s true that the Damsels themselves have no agency or influence over their own actions, the agency that the protagonist has over himself is still incredibly limited as*every single action*he partakes must ultimately lead to the salvation of said Damsel.

This is incredibly ridiculous, and I don't feel I should need to explain why, as it is pretty self-evident.

It's also basically this person's entire argument for that whole section.

Further:

The problem, according to Anita, is that “this is a form of objectification because as objects Damsel women are being acted upon, most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found or a goal to be achieved. The brief intro sequence accompanying many classic arcade games tend to reinforce the framing of women as a possession that’s being stolen from the protagonist.” Well, “reduced” is a very strong word. I would argue that women are used in place of objects or trophies in order to avoid said “reduction” into an object: people inherently care more about rescuing people than objects, it’s just human nature.

Let me just pull out the relevant bit here: "I would argue that women are used in place of objects or trophies"

Like this entire section of the argument is just "I don't actually understand what objectification is." Again it should be self evident why this argument falls apart here.

Let's add another quote:

Anita claims that “the hero’s fight to retrieve his stolen property then provides lazy justification for the actual game play.” This is true,

Where he's missing the point, while simultaneously admitting that the one she is making is right. Again, lets just take out the important bit, "his stolen property."

The fact that it's lazy story telling is entirely secondary to the fact that it makes the female character a possession of the hero that he wishes to retrieve. It's a male power fantasy: Beat up the bad guy, get the girl. If you don't understand why 'do a, get woman' is sexist and objectifying then I don't know where to start with this.

Why inject so much subtext into such a mind-numbingly simple narrative?

Because constantly presenting a person as an object reinforces societal and cultural norms of objectifying that type of person.

This is like. . . isms 101.

“I’ve heard it said that, in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team, they are the ball.” How is Peach at all relevant in any of the Mario games, ever? A ball is a highly active an integral part to every athletic event involving a ball.

I don't. . . I don't even understand how he could miss the point of this metaphor. The ball is integral, but it's not highly active. It moves from player to player as it is acted upon. It does nothing on its own.

In the same way Peach goes from Mario to Bowser to Mario to Bowser between each game. They each attempt to keep the other from having her. She's a Basketball. Bowser has stolen her from Mario, and now Mario must steal her back. This. . . isn't difficult.

Either this writer is doing this on purpose or he has no business writing anything.

“The popularity of their save the princess formula” did not “set the standard for the industry,” as Anita says. The GAME PLAY is what set the standard for the industry. If the game play had faltered in any of these games, they would quickly be forgotten. The trope of “Damsel in Distress” was never a driving force behind the popularity of any of these games, instead it was merely a crutch used since the developers didn’t deem it necessary to pen a complicated back-story for their action/adventure games.

Again, he's missing the point. The fact that this story worked so well with these games to provide plot justification for game play has caused it to cascade outward.

I mean just look at how many there are. This tumblr goes forever. It includes both new and old games.

Another aspect that Anita addresses is that “distilled down to its essence, the [Damsel in Distress] plot device works by trading the disempowerment of female characters for the empowerment of male characters.” How are any characters being empowered or disempowered when there are hardly any characters any way? What is the character development or plot growth that occurs in Zelda where Link becomes empowered as a developed character? Sure, he gets more items, and you can control him and move through dungeons with new toys and gadgets, but as a living, breathing character, Link remains undeveloped and stagnant in terms of personality for the entire duration of the game. How is that empowering at all?

Link saves the world, saves the girl, defeats the bad guy, and gets the girl at the end. How is that empowering at all? Compared to losing all your sweet ninja powers within three minutes of dressing like a princess instead of a man, and being locked away? Compared to doing the same as soon as you take off your pirate pants and put on a dress?

Like I'm just gonna stop quoting here.

I think I've made my point