But before I do that, a disclaimer. This will not be a blog to dismiss everything that has been presented in these videos. In fact, these videos are very well put together and give some valuable information regarding the history of gaming, and how some plot devices are used repetitively. I'm not here to deny that concepts like the Damsel in Distress are being used. They are being used, and extensively so.
However, I am writing this to challenge the idea that this is somehow degrading women, or being used as solely power fantasies of men, and a few others. In other words, what is being presented is accurate, but, the conclusions are simply selective and have been tainted by false feministic perspectives, that d not represent reality. In fact, it reflects something a lot more tragic that most people from either gender do not see.
The feminist argument
Before I go on, I have to say that I will be writing this, assuming you've watched the videos, and that you know what the Damsel in Distress trope is and so on, even though I'll give a sort of summary below. Here are the two videos, Part1 and Part 2:So the first part starts out with the example of Krystal, a female character being a protagonist in her own unreleased game (Dinosaur Planet), that somehow got transformed into a Damsel in Distress in another game (Star Fox Adventures) with a male protagonist, due to Miyamoto (a game designer) 'joking' that it should be a Star Fox game. This is enough for Anita to conclude that women are being dis-empowered from heroins to objects of desire. Well... If you do a little research, you quickly find out that the main reason the game got transformed, was due to Krystal's game being too similar to Fox's (the main character of the other game), and thus creating two franchises with barely any difference, so they decided to keep the old franchise with the old hero. Aside from that, she fails to mention that Krystal became a full-fledged member of the Star Fox team, thus her actually ending up an equal to the rest. But, I'll go into more detail later,regarding the fact that even though it can be seen as the dis-empowerment of women, it actually is a compliment to women rather than anything else.
Basically, the rest of the first video gives more history, and a bunch of examples of the Damsel in Distress as a plot device. It comes down to the woman losing all the power, being a victim, and needing assistance of the hero to escape, giving the impression that she's incapable of dealing with the issues on her own. This prevents the women from becoming archetypal heroines themselves. And aside from that, she is being objectified, since she's reduced to a prize to be won, or a trophy. She's a possession that has been stolen from the male protagonist, making her the victim of competition between men. It's all about adolescent male power fantasies in order to sell more games to men. She goes on to explain that it's a sad fact that a large part of the world still clings to the deep sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected, and taken care of by men. Uhm.. Yeah.. Ok. I don't think this is true, but more on that later.
The second video goes on to argue how this is still being used today in modern games and that it hasn't gone away. Even though the female characters fight back more, ultimately they either lose anyway, or their 'pseudo-empowerment' moment comes after the battle has already been won and doesn't mean anything. The vulnerability of female characters is used to cause distress to the specifically male players (because female ones obviously wouldn't be distressed, oh wait...), and that somehow her vulnerability makes her desirable.
And then according to her, it gets worse when female characters are killed to move the story plot forward, since being dead is being worse than being captured, and thus it's again a fantasy of revenge and power for men. Usually, this is followed by having to rescue your daughter, shifting the trope to another female victim. And even worse, the females are turned into monsters that the player must himself kill. This according to her is somehow propagating violence against women, since it shows that women can be saved by beating them up, stabbing them, shooting them in the face, putting her out of her misery and so on. And all these different variations have been given different trope names. And this is (supposedly) blatant misogyny. And the killing of the protagonist's loved ones is oh so bad for women (because it can't possibly be the case that the man hates that situation, because he's so power hungry...).
The rebuttal
Let me say something real quick, before I get to the rebuttal. First of all, the gaming industry is an industry dominated (no pun intended) by male workers. They will be making stories that mainly males understand, and that's where the true tragedy is, as you will soon see.Ok. Now, I will show you how I can basically throw her whole argument in the garbage, with one small question. What about all the men that are in distress?
Let me elaborate. Let's put some things in perspective, so you get where I'm coming from. Look at the following two scenarios.
- The first one is the current one. Women end up in a helpless position, and end up being fought for and saved. If they are not saved, it causes distress, and some action should be taken to avenge what has happened to her.
- The second one, imagine if games were basically killing women off gruesomely left and right in helpless positions, and the protagonist moves on without a second look, like no one cares. No action is taken at all, no vengeance, no justice, she just dies, and the player goes on to something else.
Which is worse? I think we can all agree that the second one is a lot worse. Well.. Guess what. That's the position the male characters are in. I will not post a long list of videos or games to show how men have it worse in video games, but, I'll give you just one example, and let you do your own research on the rest.
In the first Halo game, there comes a point where Captain Keys is transformed into a monster, and you have to kill him. Here is the scene:
You might say that this is exactly the same as the examples given by Anita with women in place, but, this is actually worse. Why? Because when it's a woman, usually she is the one that asks you to kill her. She asks you herself to put her out of her misery. She is the one that decides. What do we see here? The poor guy isn't even given the chance to speak AT ALL. There's this female AI telling the player what he inevitably must do. She decides. Not the transformed man, not the player. A woman is the one deciding again and again in either scenario, whether she is the victim, or whether someone else is the victim. And then in this game Captain Keys gets punched to death, and the players walks away with no remorse whatsoever, because we have more important things to do. If this was a woman with a man giving the order without the woman giving her consent, I'm 100% sure our 'Feminist Frequency'-writer would've mentioned it in her video as the most awful misogynistic and sexist example in video game history.
Starting to wake up yet? There are countless of examples, and if you pay attention during your games, you'll see that these kinds of scenes are present way more often than the female versions. We just forget, because, no one cares about the men that die in these scenes. Men are inherently disposable. Think for yourself for a second. Name a male character that was helpless, died, and that we were fighting to save, either before his death, or saving his soul. Think whether we mourned for the rest of the game, or if it lasted one second, or if there was mourning at all. You know there are a lot of them that died, but none of them did we see as worth saving or to seek revenge over. Even if you can think of one, it's not even close to the long list of females we deem worth saving.
What this whole presentation of miss Sarkeesian is actually saying, is that women are worth saving, even when they can not defend themselves. It's giving off the message that women are worth fighting for, no matter what. When they can't help themselves, they should be helped. It's not the backwards conclusion she is spinning off of it, that women are being victimized, being turned into objects of desires and so on. Because every time a male character is killed in the exact same way, if not in a worse way, they are simply forgotten and not fought for. No one cares about a male character's death. And remember, this is the male perspective too since games are generally created by males. The man is not worth fighting for, he's not even worth being an object or a trophy. He dies, the protagonist looks away, and looks for a girl to save in the best scenario, and a gun or vehicle to save in the worst scenario, because basically, a man is only valuable when he is a hero. He is less valuable than that ship or that gun otherwise. If he's not a hero, we don't need him and we'll just let him die as fast as we can blink without a second thought.
And this ties in perfectly to her Krystal example. She is worth fighting for, despite her being a helpless girl, she ends up being on the team, while if she was male she probably would've been sent away for being incapable, IF she was saved in the first place.
And somehow, this is all being framed as a huge problem for women by the feminist perspective, when in reality, it's a much bigger problem for men, because they are being portrayed as so insignificant, that no one remembers them if they die. Games are currently not full of these Damsels in Distress because we are wanting to portray women as helpless, but rather, because we are portraying non-heroic males as useless. So useless, that they can't even drive a plot forward by themselves, but need some sort of information on them, or a gun.
Men are portrayed as only valuable when they are the hero, while the women are still valuable, even when they can not be the hero and are actually only a burden. And this perspective is not only shared by women, but also by men themselves, meaning that no one will stand up to protect men or their rights. Not on an individual level, and not on a mass level. And it shouldn't be this way. And even feminists should agree if they really are striving for equality, that one life should not be worth more than another.
That is the true perspective of this. Women and girls are always worth fighting for and saving, no matter how clumsy or retarded they might act. It's the same old cliche of a sinking boat, where the lifeboat is reserved for women, and the men are only saved afterwards if there's room. It doesn't matter how retarded, clumsy, evil or sadistic the woman is. It doesn't matter how smart, just, sensitive, and caring a man is. He's going to die, and she is going to live. And if she dies, she will be mourned by millions, while the man will not. The only time a man's distress or death is sad, is when he was already proven to be a hero. It's sad because we lost someone of value. With a woman, we're sad because she's a woman. She doesn't have to do anything, to be worthy, while a man does. Men unconsciously know this. Why do you think they love to be the hero? It's not for power, but rather because society only sees them as being worth something when they are heroes. Not a hero? You're a loser then. These games are about being something rather than being disposable, and not about domination. Believe it or not, men also have the desire to be useful in life.
And this is the hypocrisy of feminism. They talk about the men being power hungry, while they are the ones wishing for feminine heroines that have great power. If that power hungriness of the male heroes is so bad, why do you want female heroines? Actually, a lot of women even admit to actually wanting men to dominate. It all comes down to wanting the privilege of having all the benefits of being a man, but keeping all the drawbacks and responsibilities in the men's hands.
YouTube user girlwriteswhat has given a great example in one of her videos. If you're allergic to peanuts, it's not the responsibility of everyone else to ask you if you're allergic. It's unjust to make a waiter pay for all your hospital bills for the rest of his life if he gave you peanuts because you didn't pay attention to what you ate. If you're capable of becoming pregnant, it's not the man's job to avoid you being pregnant. It's your own job to take responsibility for your body, and thus it's unjust to make the men pay for your lack of responsibility. I'm not talking about rape, since that is another matter (not to mention men are also raped by women, but I digress), but about getting drunk and sleeping around, and then abusing the men for your own mistake. In the case of gaming, it's unjust to accuse the game industry of being misogynistic or sexist, when you are victimizing yourself towards something that isn't even true. Anita talks about not wanting women to be portrayed as victims and being incapable of taking care of themselves, but ironically the whole feminism movement is an extreme version of how women are such huge victims of men's actions. So extremely so, that they are completely blinded by the worse situations that men are in, and at the same time even believe that men have it better than them.
These two videos are the perfect example of that. We've even come to a point where showing real statistics will get you the misogynist label... And when you point these things out as a man, you're a whiner, and you need to suck it up, because you're supposed to be tough.
No matter what subject Feminism touches, be it movies, relationships or games, the arguments are always a combination of victimization and hypocrisy.
To finish... Yes. I do agree that we need more female heroines in gaming. We however do not need female heroines to save other females. That would only enforce the view that men are inherently worthless and only women are inherently valuable. We need heroines that save male version of Damsels in Distress. Because for too long, the average men have been portrayed as worthless. And that, would be sexist, and as a feminist, you are against being sexist. Right..? So I will end with the same simple question.
What about all the men in distress...?
