Damsel in Distress... Women in games

[Jagos]

link

In almost every single game you can think of where there is a one-dimensional, “Damsel in Distress” character with zero purpose other than to be saved by the protagonist, you will find that the protagonist himself is a one-dimensional, unchanging and undeveloped character as well.The two most pervasive examples she harps on are The Legend of Zelda and the Super Mario games. In both of these, the main “Damsel in Distress” (Zelda/Peach) is a pretty faceless, boring character that doesn’t change or grow at all, and has only incredibly minimal influence over the actual plot of the game. However, to be fair, the protagonist of both games (Link/Mario) is equally boring. Can you honestly think of Link or Mario as anymore than one-dimensional characters whose sole purpose for existing is to save the aforementioned damsels? One could argue that their*raison d’être*is equally dehumanizing: they exist only to fulfill their role in freeing the captured woman. 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.

For reference: Anita's video

Personally, I read the article first and haven't seen the video yet. But I think the critique is pretty spot on. I can't shake the feeling that there are indeed some characters that defy the DID trope but it isn't being down to argue that a number of females aren't being represented in games accurately.

How about Samus in the same era?

Blaze in Streets of Rage?

How about Dixie Kong being given a game? Sure, she was a damsel but Diddy and Dixie were great in DKC 3. Further, the argument about character development in a game makes this critique fairly strong in showing where Anita needs to strengthen her argument if true. After I see the video, I'll share my thoughts.

[Locke cole]

Actually, Dixie was never a damsel in distress.

DKC1 was Donkey and Diddy, DKC2 was Didy and Dixie, with Donkey kidnapped, and DKC3 was Dixie and Kiddy, with Donkey and Diddy kidnapped.

[Jagos]

Wasn't she gone in 4? Or maybe it was Donkey Kong Land on the Game boy...

Still, that game really makes the argument against DID since DK was the strongest alter of his tribe and got kidnapped twice and even Diddy got nabbed once.

[Locke cole]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Wasn't she gone in 4? Or maybe it was Donkey Kong Land on the Game boy...

Still, that game really makes the argument against DID since DK was the strongest alter of his tribe and got kidnapped twice and even Diddy got nabbed once.

Pretty sure there wasn't a 4.

If I recall, there was Donkey Kong Countries 1, 2, and 3, then three Donkey Kong Lands, which were basically Game Boy remakes, then DK64 (in which Tiny did get kidnapped, but so did literally every playable Kong other than Donkey), then a buncha bongo games, King of Swing, and then Donkey Kong Country Returns.

[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

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I can't shake the feeling that there are indeed some characters that defy the DID trope but it isn't being down to argue that a number of females aren't being represented in games accurately.

How about Samus in the same era?

Blaze in Streets of Rage?

How about Dixie Kong being given a game? Sure, she was a damsel but Diddy and Dixie were great in DKC 3. Further, the argument about character development in a game makes this critique fairly strong in showing where Anita needs to strengthen her argument if true. After I see the video, I'll share my thoughts.

Defying the trope doesn't mean the trope doesn't exist or isn't a concern. It just means that those characters defy the trope.

[Grimpond]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Personally, I read the article first and haven't seen the video yet. But I think the critique is pretty spot on.

hahahaha what. Seriously?

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Grimpond

hahahaha what. Seriously?

I don't always agree with Anita's work. She tends to try to object from a scholarly POV which makes me skeptical of some of her claims. Call it my bias factor. She may have a point but sometimes, I don't come to the same conclusion.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Jagos

She tends to try to object from a scholarly POV which makes me skeptical of some of her claims.

Hahaha what?

"She tends to sound intelligent and educated and I don't trust that shit for a second."

[Grimpond]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I don't always agree with Anita's work. She tends to try to object from a scholarly POV which makes me skeptical of some of her claims. Call it my bias factor. She may have a point but sometimes, I don't come to the same conclusion.

The problem is that you are biasing your view of her based on some poor argument on a video you haven't watched by your own words. That is unbelivably unfair and really ass backwards

edit: grammarz

EDIT EDIT:

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Hahaha what?

"She tends to sound intelligent and educated and I don't trust that shit for a second."

jesus, I didn't even catch that. How the hell does....I mean, how?

How is that even a thing you can say