Dad Alters Donkey Kong for His Daughter - With Pauline as the Hero

[NoeL]

And, before you accuse me of ignorance, I think you might want to check on my knowledge first.

Given you listed no sources I decided to look for myself... and yeah, doesn't look like your knowledge checks out, so you'll have to provide me with some sources.

Since around 500 CE, the reason for the trope has been to keep women out of positions of power. This was implemented by the Catholic Church to increase the power of the Pope and provide an excuse to execute strong women (aka "Witches"). Only passive women, who sit and wait to be rescued, were proper women. Strong women who could rescue themselves were "witches" and needed to die.

Source? I can find no record of this. There were a few councils scattered through the middle ages where this happened, but for the most part witch hunts were condemned and outlawed by the church - their official stance being that witchcraft doesn't exist. In fact the anti-witchcraft laws tended to come from the secularists, not the Catholics. And around 385 CE Priscillian (a man) became the first heretic ever sentenced to death by Christians for practicing witchcraft, meaning these laws didn't specifically target women at all.

From trusty Wikipedia:

Altogether it may be said that in the first thirteen hundred years of the Christian era we find no trace of that fierce denunciation and persecution of supposed sorceresses which characterized the cruel witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly in the Protestant areas of Europe and America.

By 400 years ago, it was a trope because it had always been a trope. And then things started to get a little better for a while. The Catholic Church lost power after the Reformation, women started being able to speak their mind (a bit more anyway) under (some of) the new churches.

Ok? What does this have to do with the damsel in distress?

And then around 200 years ago, that came crashing back down again. Not only were weak women glorified, causing the rebirth of this trope as a Courtly Bard trope, but DEAD women became a thing. That's what led to the "dead mother" trope for female protagonists.

Most of our fairy tales were written down during the Victorian Era by courtly bards and writers. That's why so many use tropes like this (and other anti-woman tropes) - because they were popular in society then.

You're not giving me any context. WHY did womens rights come crashing down? WHY were weak women glorified? WHY did dead women become a thing? WHY is the trope "anti-woman"? I get that it paints the woman as an object, etc. but how is it different to any other stereotype inserted to tell the hero's tale? The woman is desired for her beauty, the wise old man is desired for his knowledge and wisdom. Does that mean Star Wars is "anti-old guy" because Obi Wan or Yoda can be reduced to a tome? Or is being wanted for your beauty just more offensive than being wanted for your brains? Why? Why is being physically desirable a bad thing? Why is being fair and passive a bad thing? Why should a woman HAVE to be an ass-kicking dragon slayer to be a "strong female character"? But eh, I'm digressing.

Disney brought a lot of these back into popularity during the 1940-60s with their early movies (feature length, not shorts) like Snow White and Cinderella. There are actually three versions of Cinderella - the bloody German version, the polite French version, and the other French version where Cinderella fights with a sword and kills Ogres because she's fucking awesome. Disney took the Polite and German versions and mixed them (removing the blood) to create their version.

Yeah - and little girls loved the shit out of those movies. Again, why should a female character have to be a warrior to skirt accusations of sexism? In those two cases I agree with you though, as the women overcome their problems through no effort of their own, and instead rely on secondary characters to do it all for them. Not a particularly interesting protagonist or good role model in my opinion, but it panders to that sense of fantasy we all have where we just wish shit would instantly be better. I mean, in those movies Prince Charming is hardly more than a wallet with a chiseled jaw, representing the "better life". Painting men as a free ticket to liberation (if they're pretty enough) isn't any better than painting women as lazy.

The point is, yes, the trope was created thousands and thousands of years ago by early tribal humans where everyone was treated like property. If you won a war in that time, the losers were your slaves. Your soldiers got to rape all the women so that the next generation would be all your kids. Do you really want to use that bloody, awful time period as a defense for modern tropes?

You're misunderstanding me. You've given examples of the trope existing but haven't provided any reasonable explanation as to WHY the trope exists. Both you and Ms. Sarkeesian just seem to imply "this exists, it paints a (in my opinion) negative picture of women, therefore men are to blame for it". I presented the origins of the trope (which you agreed with) to try to explain WHY it exists - and it's not because men are jerks.

We've evolved as a society since then. Is it that much to ask that we don't treat people as property? As a prize to be won?

**facepalm**


Sources: (sorry, I don't know how to use footnotes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Middle_Ages
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.php

 

[Smeatza]

Am I the only one who finds this story entirely underwhelming?
A father did a nice thing for his daughter, is that supposed to be impressive?
A dude created a simple mod for a very old game, is that supposed significant?

The only reason I can think of to even publish this story is because it will start sexism debates. Outside of that I see no value in it.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

You're misunderstanding me. You've given examples of the trope existing but haven't provided any reasonable explanation as to WHY the trope exists. Both you and Ms. Sarkeesian just seem to imply "this exists, it paints a (in my opinion) negative picture of women, therefore men are to blame for it". I presented the origins of the trope (which you agreed with) to try to explain WHY it exists - and it's not because men are jerks.

Actually I never accused men as being "to blame" for it. Neither did Ms. Sarkeesian in her (new, KS funded) videos either. If you see me blaming men in general for this, anywhere, you are imaging an attack that does not exist. I might blame a specific man (the Pope, Walt Disney) but never men in general. And never did I suggest that men used this trope because they hate women (well, maybe the Pope, but certainly not Disney).

What I (and she) blame are lazy writers. These writers needed a quick prize, an easy goal to frame their game, and most of them went with "helpless woman" and that isn't right. Were the creators of these games woman hating sexist assholes? No. They were lazy guys stealing an old Disney trope (or old Victorian trope before that) and slapping it into their game because it was quick, easy, and required no original thought.

You want to know why? Fine.

In the 1940s-60s, Disney did it because the current movement in society was to get women out of the factories (where they were needed during the Second World War) and back into homes (ie, the Kitchen) so that the menfolk could have their jobs back. It is the same reason that toys at the time broke into different toys for boys and girls (prior, most toys were generic to both genders).

And since out of work veterans is a bad thing, that part almost doesn't bother me. However, it started a trend - getting women out of factories only took a few years, but the trend went on for a decade and a half. It became part of "Americana" or "American Culture" or "The American Dream" - the father working, the mother staying at home with the kids. The nuclear family, in their little suburban home. It became a market, so advertisers and media in general pushed this idea that women had to stay home while men worked. It pushed the idea that young girls had to prepare for marriage from the time they were 5 years old.

There is a reason that the older Disney films involves female characters who only dream about being brides. That changed when Disney left that era - for a while, Disney didn't use Prinesses, and when they brought them back, the Princesses were focused on other things. The Little Mermaid is considered to be the beginning of the Disney Renaissance - she was a Princess who wanted freedom and legs so she could go explore the surface world. The Prince was more or less incidental - a means to an end. That was Disney adapting to a modern audience where a woman existing ONLY for marriage would have been off-putting and upsetting.

So yes, even modern Disney (and by modern, read anything made since Little Mermaid) recognizes the Damsel trope as bad. That's why they stopped using it.

Anyway, if you want me to go farther back into the past, PM me, because really we're getting seriously off topic here.

One last thing, your Star Wars comment. Um, no. Obi Wan could not be replaced with a book. He offers encouragement and mentorship aside from training. In fact, it's questionable how much training he actually provides (that's mostly Yoda). A book couldn't have told Luke to "use the Force" at the end of the first movie.

So no, your idea that Obi Wan is objectified is absolutely laughable. Did not happen. And, while Leia is captured, notice I don't mention her as a Damsel trope - because she picked up a blaster and HELPED rescue herself. She was not helpless - she is able and competent (for the most part) throughout the three movies.

I don't care much for Star Wars in general, but one thing it did right was not objectifying anyone. Even when Leia wears her metal bikini, she still manages to be competent. (And, pointedly kills the one objectifying her - by strangling him with the leash he held her with.)

Ahem.

Once again, this thread is about an Awesome Dad who did something nice for his daughter. He showed how simple it is to make a game fair and equal. So why not answer me this - why do you find equality offensive?

 

[SD-Fiend]

Well then, looks like another person who just doesn't get it. Pauline was already the hero in the original game.
Basically the story behind is this: Donkey Kong is Mario's abused pet who finally got sick of Mario's shit and decided to run away. Him grabbing Pauline is him taking the one good thing in his life away with him.

Also, this has been done before and was talked about on these forums, so people who are acting like this is a new thing, stop it, it isn't a new thing.

How does that make her the hero though? it's not like in king kong where the heroine was friendly with the Gorrilla. heck she doesn't even like DK very much.

This is cute and all but i think it would've been more impressive if he put his daughter into the game.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

OK, so maybe we've seen more impressive feats of modding throughout the years but this is still a lovely gesture from father to daughter. I, for one, find myself cheered up by this bit of news.

 

[Darken12]

I love how the anti-feminists got all up in arms before any of the actual feminists they were griping about made it to this thread.

What that man did was wonderful.

Now I will rejoice in my go-grrrrrl-powah moment. Mmmmmm girl power. Delicious, delicious girl power.

 

[Sargonas42]

I've noticed a lot of "oh god feminism has run rampant and gone too far!" raging over this in some places. (not really here, but I mean the internet at large.) It's sad really, 'cause this couldn't be further from the truth. Mike is an acquainted of mine (albeit not a close one, I just know him as a college of a good friend of mine from Wired) and this was literally just a case of "Daddy can I be a girl?" followed by "Sure kiddo, why not! Just give me a day or two.". Super sweet, with no ulterior motive or message. Parenting at it's finest!

One reason I think this is getting so much more press than normal is that it happens to fall when it does within the whole "feminism bubble" going on right now because of Anita, and because Mike is actually well known in classic gaming circles.

 

[Frezzato]

snip

You're right. When Mike Mika modded Donkey Kong he was only doing what parents do, which is to say: anything and everything for their child.

His daughter is only three years old.
In retrospect I should have originally pointed that out.

 

[Sargonas42]

snip

You're right. When Mike Mika modded Donkey Kong he was only doing what parents do, which is to say: anything and everything for their child.

His daughter is only three years old.
In retrospect I should have originally pointed that out.

No worries

Not to mention, for a developer like Mike, re-engineering a 20 year old game is probably EASIER than trying to explain to her why she can't play as a girl!

 

[Darken12]

I've noticed a lot of "oh god feminism has run rampant and gone too far!" raging over this in some places. (not really here, but I mean the internet at large.) It's sad really, 'cause this couldn't be further from the truth. Mike is an acquainted of mine (albeit not a close one, I just know him as a college of a good friend of mine from Wired) and this was literally just a case of "Daddy can I be a girl?" followed by "Sure kiddo, why not! Just give me a day or two.". Super sweet, with no ulterior motive or message. Parenting at it's finest!

One reason I think this is getting so much more press than normal is that it happens to fall when it does within the whole "feminism bubble" going on right now because of Anita, and because Mike is actually well known in classic gaming circles.

I actually really dislike this attitude, because at the end of the day, it's still validating all the anti-feminist crap feminism has to put up with. Saying "no no guys, this awesome feminist thing has nothing to do with feminism! the person who did this wasn't a feminist! in fact, they never had a feminist thought in their heads! they just did it for X reason, I swear!" perpetuates the notion that feminism is always bad, always the enemy, and incompatible with things we can all sympathise with, like good parenting or love for your children.

Why can't we celebrate both things at the same time? Why can't we say "this is a great example of a father's love for his child" AND "this is a great moment for feminism"? Why do we have to systematically exclude feminism from any positive, harmless depiction of equality or female empowerment? By denying feminism association with positive things that harm nobody and make people happy, such as this game mod, we are supporting the idea that feminism only wants to destroy and harm, and that it is somehow incompatible with positive, harmless change.

 

[lapan]

Yeah, seriously. I hate the idea that, and I paraphrase:

"Everyone can relate to a male protagonist, but only women relate to a female protagonist."

That belief, held by SO many game producers (and producers of pretty much ALL media - this is why movies with female leads are (almost) always assumed to be directed at women while movies with male leads are assumed to be directed at everyone) is absoutely toxic and entirely incorrect. As noted by Toastiest Zombie and most other male gamers I've spoken with, most male gamers really don't care if their avatar is male or female.

I actually often prefer a female character to male musclehunks i can't relate to anyways.

 

[MagunBFP]

I've noticed a lot of "oh god feminism has run rampant and gone too far!" raging over this in some places. (not really here, but I mean the internet at large.) It's sad really, 'cause this couldn't be further from the truth. Mike is an acquainted of mine (albeit not a close one, I just know him as a college of a good friend of mine from Wired) and this was literally just a case of "Daddy can I be a girl?" followed by "Sure kiddo, why not! Just give me a day or two.". Super sweet, with no ulterior motive or message. Parenting at it's finest!

One reason I think this is getting so much more press than normal is that it happens to fall when it does within the whole "feminism bubble" going on right now because of Anita, and because Mike is actually well known in classic gaming circles.

I actually really dislike this attitude, because at the end of the day, it's still validating all the anti-feminist crap feminism has to put up with. Saying "no no guys, this awesome feminist thing has nothing to do with feminism! the person who did this wasn't a feminist! in fact, they never had a feminist thought in their heads! they just did it for X reason, I swear!" perpetuates the notion that feminism is always bad, always the enemy, and incompatible with things we can all sympathise with, like good parenting or love for your children.

Why can't we celebrate both things at the same time? Why can't we say "this is a great example of a father's love for his child" AND "this is a great moment for feminism"? Why do we have to systematically exclude feminism from any positive, harmless depiction of equality or female empowerment? By denying feminism association with positive things that harm nobody and make people happy, such as this game mod, we are supporting the idea that feminism only wants to destroy and harm, and that it is somehow incompatible with positive, harmless change.

It wasn't an awesome feminist thing, it was just an awesome thing andit actually had nothing to do with feminism... it was an awesome dad going something awesome for his daughter. Full stop, end of discussion. He wasn't doing it for any reason more then he wanted to give his daughter something special.

Saying that he didn't do it for feminist reasons doesn't say anything about the value of feminism and it definitely doesn't say feminism is bad, just that it wasn't involved. By saying this is a win for feminism (when it had nothing to do with it) you cheapen the actual message you should be getting out of this which was a little girl wanted to be the hero and her dad said ok, celebrate that without being co-erced or obligated to in anyway he saw no reason why Pauline couldn't be the one saving the day. Thats what the fight is about, congratulations you now have proof that society is changing.

 

[Darken12]

It wasn't an awesome feminist thing, it was just an awesome thing andit actually had nothing to do with feminism... it was an awesome dad going something awesome for his daughter. Full stop, end of discussion. He wasn't doing it for any reason more then he wanted to give his daughter something special.

That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. It doesn't matter if the man did it out of feminism or not, we can still celebrate this as a step in the right direction for feminism in the videogame industry. But no, the attitude seems to be that associating this awesome act with feminism is somehow diminishing it, that we can't have both a great act of parenthood and a victory for feminism simultaneously.

 

[MagunBFP]

It wasn't an awesome feminist thing, it was just an awesome thing andit actually had nothing to do with feminism... it was an awesome dad going something awesome for his daughter. Full stop, end of discussion. He wasn't doing it for any reason more then he wanted to give his daughter something special.

That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. It doesn't matter if the man did it out of feminism or not, we can still celebrate this as a step in the right direction for feminism in the videogame industry. But no, the attitude seems to be that associating this awesome act with feminism is somehow diminishing it, that we can't have both a great act of parenthood and a victory for feminism simultaneously.

So what you're saying is that regardless of if feminism has anything to do with it or not we should go yay feminism? If the man was religious could we also be going yay god even if god didn't tell him to do it? Riding on the tales of someone elses achievements doesn't make you any better, and not getting involved in something doesn't make you any worse. Can't this just be a thing without claiming that your cause was involved.

 

[Darken12]

So what you're saying is that regardless of if feminism has anything to do with it or not we should go yay feminism? If the man was religious could we also be going yay god even if god didn't tell him to do it? Riding on the tales of someone elses achievements doesn't make you any better, and not getting involved in something doesn't make you any worse. Can't this just be a thing without claiming that your cause was involved.

What's the problem with a religious person going "yay god" at this? If that's what they believe in, who are we to tell them they're wrong? Under their beliefs, god may well be responsible for what happened, and therefore it makes perfect sense for them to praise god for such an event. Just because I would never think of doing so doesn't mean I should begrudge them the act.

So, in short, if someone wants to take this as a victory for feminism (or god, or Cthulhu, or whatever else), let them. This is a very good thing for feminism, as it proves that we can have feminism in games without taking anyone's toys away or harming anything people care about. This does a lot to prove feminism can be a force of good in the industry, and that it's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I think it was a great gesture by a gaming parent to their child.
I wish my parents could do the same (not now, back then), but it looks like I'll have to be the one doing it for my kids.
Being tech savvy in the VG regard tends to depend on what era you're born.

That's what I've got to say about that.
Sans the Apophenia that will inevitably be spewed out (and already has).

 

[Darken12]

If the content creator said 'yay god' after doing something that is different than what you are doing.

This is like the pope saying 'yay god!' after an atheist did something. God was not in any way related to what the person did its just the church riding on the guys coat tails because its convenient.

Why does Feminism, or god, or Cthulhu need to take someone else's unrelated work as a victory? Cant they just stand on their own by their own merits without co-opting people that have no relation to them?

If an atheist did something to further religion (even inadvertently), I think the pope has a right to say "yay god" because the act itself has something to do with religion, even if the actor doesn't.

Also, nobody is saying that feminism can't stand on its own, what IS being said is that you can take examples like these to show the gamer community that feminism isn't a negative, harmful thing that wants to ruin videogames and fun. It's examples like this that can foster understanding between feminist gamers and the rest of the community by showing them that feminism can create positive things that increase fun and make videogames richer and more varied without harming anybody. Disassociating positive things like this one from feminism only serves to further the narrative that feminism is evil and out to destroy all you love.

 

[MagunBFP]

If the content creator said 'yay god' after doing something that is different than what you are doing.

This is like the pope saying 'yay god!' after an atheist did something. God was not in any way related to what the person did its just the church riding on the guys coat tails because its convenient.

Why does Feminism, or god, or Cthulhu need to take someone else's unrelated work as a victory? Cant they just stand on their own by their own merits without co-opting people that have no relation to them?

If an atheist did something to further religion (even inadvertently), I think the pope has a right to say "yay god" because the act itself has something to do with religion, even if the actor doesn't.

Also, nobody is saying that feminism can't stand on its own, what IS being said is that you can take examples like these to show the gamer community that feminism isn't a negative, harmful thing that wants to ruin videogames and fun. It's examples like this that can foster understanding between feminist gamers and the rest of the community by showing them that feminism can create positive things that increase fun and make videogames richer and more varied without harming anybody. Disassociating positive things like this one from feminism only serves to further the narrative that feminism is evil and out to destroy all you love.

If the athiest saved someones life, which doesn't actually have anything to do with religion, would the pope still be entitled to say "yay God"?

What did feminism actually do that was a part of this? For the record I am specifically asking for some direct involvment not along the lines of "feminism is out there and making things better for women so without it existing this couldn't have happened"

What twisted logic did you use to derive "good thing" - "feminism" = "perception that feminism is the devil"? Just you weren't apart of it doesn't say negative things about you. What does say negative things is the desperation you seem to be showing by saying that "feminism has to be able to claim this or you'll hate us"

 

[kailus13]

I think it was a great gesture by a gaming parent to their child.
I wish my parents could do the same (not now, back then), but it looks like I'll have to be the one doing it for my kids.
Being tech savvy in the VG regard tends to depend on what era you're born.

That's what I've got to say about that.
Sans the Apophenia that will inevitably be spewed out (and already has).

Sadly by saying this, you may be drawn into this debate. Thank you giving me a new word to learn though. (is your avatar a weetabix or a burlap sack?)

 

[Darken12]

If the athiest saved someones life, which doesn't actually have anything to do with religion, would the pope still be entitled to say "yay God"?

What did feminism actually do that was a part of this? For the record I am specifically asking for some direct involvment not along the lines of "feminism is out there and making things better for women so without it existing this couldn't have happened"

What twisted logic did you use to derive "good thing" - "feminism" = "perception that feminism is the devil"? Just you weren't apart of it doesn't say negative things about you. What does say negative things is the desperation you seem to be showing by saying that "feminism has to be able to claim this or you'll hate us"

You'll find that female characters in videogames have a lot to do with feminism- at least as far as feminism in gaming goes. I do not find that analogy accurate in the slightest.

Also, you completely missed the point of what I'm saying. I never claimed that feminism did anything (I readily acknowledged that the man's actions had nothing to do with feminism whatsoever), what I claimed was that this is a positive example of how feminism can improve the gaming industry without harming anybody. If a feminist did something like this for another game, we would have improved diversity in videogames without harming anybody. That's the entire point of what an example is, taking an instance or event and saying "see, we can do something like this".

As for the last paragraph, you are vastly overreaching with your tortuous rationale. Nobody said that "feminism has to claim this or you'll hate us." What was said was that this would be a great example of how feminism can improve the gaming industry without harming anybody. That's all.