Tropes vs Women SECOND VIDEO - "Damsel in Distress: Part 2"

[FreakofNatur]

All right... I'm watching it currently (as I type this) and will refute or agree with points as I see them.

These are my opinions. I'm not painting them as anything but.

1. Of course the trope isn't a product of "its time." It's been a part of literature since...hell, since literature began.

2. Yes. The trope is trite. It's a trope specifically because it's trite and uncreative on the part of the folks employing it. I'm not seeing the argument against it so much from a feminist point of view as a creative one.

3. The "damsel"s efforts to escape proving futile...makes sense from a narrative standpoint, obviously. If she could just kick her captor's ass and waltz out, sight unseen, then it sort of takes the plot out at the knees. It's also lazy and again, this sounds more like an argument for a broader depth of character traits/actions/plot with feminist stuff peppered in.

The moments in which the "damsel" aids the protagonist or, in Ico for example, outright saves him in the end are not simply "symbolic." Hell, from that angle, one could make the argument that the entire story is "symbolic." These events show a much greater deal of agency and capability on the part of the character than is being expressed in the video.

Considering that people tend to remember the beginning and ending of stories rather than the "core," I would argue that having those sorts of moments at the end, beginning, or at big points in the narrative, does not trivialize them in any way, shape, or form.

And the words, "it feels like" are not indicative of anything other than opinion on the part of the video maker.

4. Building emotional attachment to characters is not a negative thing. The females in the examples are weak. I'll give her that. However, I don't believe that to be the chief component in the romance element of the narrative. I'm not seeing this power imbalance idea either. "It feels like" she's projecting a bit here.

5. There really isn't anything wrong with the Max Payne, GoW, and etc. hook. I'd argue for a gender inversion of the trope. Again, it reeks of a lack of creativity more so than anything else.

Calling it "insidious" is alarmist. -.-

6. I agree on the lack of maturity in the medium. I disagree with the line about misogyny.

7. Surprise! They were dead the whole time! Lack of creativity, again... ex. see cop shows.

8. Again. Having the kill the damsel is just indicative of a lack of creativity. Male characters are subjected to this sort of thing too. Personally, if I were turned into a horrible monstrosity or something, I'd welcome and even ask for death too.

Side Note: The GTA example was funny. It would have been funny if it'd been your cousin in GTA4 too.

9. Duke Nukem Forever is not a good example of anything, save failure, let alone gaming.

10. ...She seriously compared this to domestic violence. How in god's name do you come to that conclusion?

11. Hey. She actually gave some recognition to the fact that it IS a trope which is perpetrated by all mediums.

12. Again, the comparisons to real life statistics. And...encouraging violence against women? In reference to #10, it's encouraging violence against the "other" which has taken said character, be it male or female, in an effort to save them. This is not a corollary for domestic violence. You only see that sort of thing if you're looking for it.

13. The developers haven't given it much thought because the ideas being presented aren't necessarily negative or "insidious."

14. She tacitly admits that media consumption does not lead to action...and then goes off the rails again.

15. The implication is not that the woman/daughter is a "possession." The implication is that they are a loved one and they've been taken from the protagonist. "Taken" meaning killed or abducted not that they've been absconded with like a loaf of bread.

16. I don't view failing to protect a loved one as being a failure or loss of masculinity. It's a loss of a loved one and guilt over failing to protect them. I'd imagine women feel the same emotion when a loved one has been taken from them. The need to protect those we care about is a decidedly human thing and is not limited to gender.



I...I got through it all. Woo! According to some of you posters, I'm open-minded by default for having done so.

Once again, these are my opinions. I don't expect others to share them. I also haven't asked for a kickstarter contribution for said opinions. >.>

(I do acknowledge your sarcasm) Being paid, and asking to be paid so that she can go into this "professionally, full-time" is fine. Her efforts are earnest at least, though I feel they are no less biased than a lobbyist against violent video games. I can ask for sponsorship but I won't get any because I am no figure of attention nor argument. Anita's playing it smart for asking for said sponsorship because not only can she focus on creating these videos alone, she is comfortable in doing so(no need to worry about her material needs) (/flavor)

That said, I am utterly disappointed in part 2 having watched it thrice over now. Examples are from games that are obviously exploitative in nature for the sake of cheap entertainment and draws(attracting audience). I think she honestly needs to dig deeper for how long her videos take to make, rather than taking convenient examples. I have not seen any convincing example to see that women are truly marginalized in each video game they are portrayed in, rather it is more of a nitpick rather than actual concern.

Are children really so impressionable? If I was I would've beat up my bullies instead of just ignoring them since I played streets of rage when I was young. Her arguments are multi-faceted in relevant factors that dilute her concerns because negative female portrayals/subordination in games don't translate well into reality as said portrayals are clearly fantastical. Anita should turn her comments section back on and not moderate it, instead perhaps pulling arguments out for consideration with regards to her next video.

 

[generals3]

It is not innate. It is not evolutionary. It is a completely arbitrary social more that was agreed upon and then passed down as a tradition.

The euthanised damsel is not a twist. It is the same tired trope: an attack on the character's perceived masculinity. As you have said yourself, the message is "you failed to save her", which is a message built upon archaic and patriarchal notions of males as protectors. This is not a twist. This is not progressive in any way. Chivalry is sexism (benevolent sexism, yes, as opposed to hostile sexism, but sexism nonetheless), and it is just as much of a problem as hostile sexism. The idea that men are benevolent protectors of women is harmful, because it is built upon the notion that women need protection, and that therefore men are allowed to perform certain acts for their own good (such as euthanise them).

But no, due to the smaller physical stature of women men are expected to take up the role of the protector. It makes sense, in a couple with a highly educated person and poorly educated one the highly educated one would be expected to earn the bread. The latter example is defined socially (your level of education is not determined by biology) however the former has been pretty much defined by biology. It's also why adults are expected to protect children.

Secondly, while the role of protector is naturally bestowed on men the desire to protect your loved ones is universal. As such having a closed one euthanised isn't an attack on masculinity (Unless you assume women don't give a shit about the loss of their closed ones), it's an attempt to create emotional response to the loss of a loved one.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Not perfect, but a lot of interesting ideas. (...) I also felt like she used the word "misogynist" a little too liberally with certain examples, but it's good that she clarified exactly what she meant by "violence against women".

And with that, I am outta here, because I have a feeling that this thread is going to be painful to my mental health. ;-)

Nothing to add for me. And after fulfilling my civic duty of making a supportive statement, I better be going too.

Edit: Oh, and Anita's video was shut down temporarily because the haters abused the flagging function? Yet another time, quite telling.

 

[Darken12]

But no, due to the smaller physical stature of women men are expected to take up the role of the protector. It makes sense, in a couple with a highly educated person and poorly educated one the highly educated one would be expected to earn the bread. The latter example is defined socially (your level of education is not determined by biology) however the former has been pretty much defined by biology. It's also why adults are expected to protect children.

There are several studies that show that the differences in size and height between males and females are the product of child-rearing (and, obviously, familial genetics), and not something innate to our species's biological sex. I will PM them to anyone interested, but I don't want to derail the thread. So no, it's all very much social. The role of protector is not "innately" or "naturally" male.

Secondly, while the role of protector is naturally bestowed on men the desire to protect your loved ones is universal. As such having a closed one euthanised isn't an attack on masculinity, it's an attempt to create emotional response to the loss of a loved one. (Unless you assume women don't give a shit about the loss of their closed ones)

You're not getting the point. The games are stating, implicitly or explicitly, that the loss of the female loved one is an attack on the male protagonist's masculinity. She cites the examples in the video. There's even one case where the bad guy actually states, as he holds the woman, "now we take from you", as if she was actually his possession; and another case where the bad guy taunts the male protagonist about his inability to protect the kidnapped/dead woman. This is something that the games are stating, not me or Anita.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

And this is why people gave her $160,000? Out of all the problems that women face in this world, she thinks that spending $160,000 talking about women in games is a good idea. She really is a clueless fuckin' idiot.

And how can people claim that this is a good video? Her research is completely unscientific. She already has the end result in mind and she's actively looking for evidence that support only her point of view. She ignores everything else and a lot of times she misses the obvious points because all she can see is misogyny.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Ignoring all the Sarkeesian hate, I think what I took away from this video is that video game writers need some new material.

 

[generals3]

You're not getting the point. The games are stating, implicitly or explicitly, that the loss of the female loved one is an attack on the male protagonist's masculinity. She cites the examples in the video. There's even one case where the bad guy actually states, as he holds the woman, "now we take from you", as if she was actually his possession; and another case where the bad guy taunts the male protagonist about his inability to protect the kidnapped/dead woman. This is something that the games are stating, not me or Anita.

First "taking from you" doesn't imply possession. That's just a really twisted way of looking at this. It's a typical phrase used in this context, the typical cry over the loss of a loved one is a plea to God "Why did you take him/her from me". I doubt everyone who'd ever make such a plea regards the lost person as a possession.

Again, everyone wishes they could protect their loved ones. Think of all those female characters in movies or whatever desperately trying to convince their husband not to go to war (it's a non-physical way to protect someone, convincing them to avoid danger). You could tell anyone "you failed to protect X" to add some extra pain. If the game said "See, you're not a man, you can't even protect anyone", that would be an attack on masculinity.

 

[maninahat]

It is not innate. It is not evolutionary. It is a completely arbitrary social more that was agreed upon and then passed down as a tradition.

The euthanised damsel is not a twist. It is the same tired trope: an attack on the character's perceived masculinity. As you have said yourself, the message is "you failed to save her", which is a message built upon archaic and patriarchal notions of males as protectors. This is not a twist. This is not progressive in any way. Chivalry is sexism (benevolent sexism, yes, as opposed to hostile sexism, but sexism nonetheless), and it is just as much of a problem as hostile sexism. The idea that men are benevolent protectors of women is harmful, because it is built upon the notion that women need protection, and that therefore men are allowed to perform certain acts for their own good (such as euthanise them).

But no, due to the smaller physical stature of women men are expected to take up the role of the protector. It makes sense, in a couple with a highly educated person and poorly educated one the highly educated one would be expected to earn the bread. The latter example is defined socially (your level of education is not determined by biology) however the former has been pretty much defined by biology. It's also why adults are expected to protect children.

Secondly, while the role of protector is naturally bestowed on men the desire to protect your loved ones is universal. As such having a closed one euthanised isn't an attack on masculinity (Unless you assume women don't give a shit about the loss of their closed ones), it's an attempt to create emotional response to the loss of a loved one.

There's a lot of generalisations in your argument:

1) Games don't actually have to be about warriors, fighters, protectors, or roles in which physical strength (and thus "being male") is a priority. They just choose to be about shooting guns and disembowelling monsters. Arguably, a large part of the problem with games is that they are so narrowly focussed on violence and action in the first place. By doing this, they implicitly favour male characters, who are stereotyped as being strong and heroic. Realistically, most men's physical strength and heroism doesn't play a role in day to day life. It is only in the narrow context of these games were such qualities are put to the forefront.

2) Perhaps in ancient times, wherein you needed to be strong to weld a club, your argument that men being taller and stronger might have had some weight. But we live in a modern society in which women are soldiers, police officers, criminals, and in all kinds of roles which employ physically pro activeness or violent behaviour. Even in a historical context, there are still plenty of strong females, female warriors, and women who are more than capable of wearing the pants.

3) These are fictional games we are talking about. There is very little pretense towards realism when you have a pill-chugging, Brooklyn cop killing hundreds upon hundreds of criminals in the space of a single evening. So why is it any more of a stretch to put a female in these exact same roles?

4) When writers don't put women in these dominant roles, you also avoid putting men in the submissive ones. That's why these plot devices have issues - in and of themselves, they shouldn't be a problem, but the dynamic of strong man protects weak woman is so prevalent, it becomes a stereotype - one that is negative for both, but definitely more so for the one being portrayed as the weakling.

 

[NoeL]

That said, I am utterly disappointed in part 2 having watched it thrice over now. Examples are from games that are obviously exploitative in nature for the sake of cheap entertainment and draws(attracting audience). I think she honestly needs to dig deeper for how long her videos take to make, rather than taking convenient examples. I have not seen any convincing example to see that women are truly marginalized in each video game they are portrayed in, rather it is more of a nitpick rather than actual concern.

Wait, what? She provides numerous examples of the trope in video games and your response is "Nice try Anita, but how about you give us some examples that AREN'T those games that are perfectly fair examples of the trope being employed in video games? What's that? You got nothing? How disappointment..." What do you want from her? To pick a game where the trope DOESN'T exist to show people where it does? Huh?

I would like some help on this, because I'm confused and in pain.

This is the third time I've started to type a response to this thread and each time I've stopped and deleted it on the personal grounds of 'I do not engage with people who I perceive as idiots'. A kind of personal 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'. But of course this is untrue. That is simply the first step in negotiation.

Why do her videos make me so unhappy?
Why do I feel a physical need to enlighten her?

Why are there people who say this is a good video? Do they simply enjoy it for hearing an exploration of games from a viewpoint they agree with? Does she speak to the hearts of people who, like me, are dissatisfied at times with some games that seem to be made by engineers, some of which seem to lack artistic or worse social sense?
But how come it doesn't speak to me? Why does it make me angry to hear her ideas?

I have trouble comprehending this and would like to request your thoughts on this.

It's because you're a misogynist, duh.

 

[maninahat]

I would like some help on this, because I'm confused and in pain.

This is the third time I've started to type a response to this thread and each time I've stopped and deleted it on the personal grounds of 'I do not engage with people who I perceive as idiots'. A kind of personal 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'. But of course this is untrue. That is simply the first step in negotiation.

Why do her videos make me so unhappy?
Why do I feel a physical need to enlighten her?

Why are there people who say this is a good video? Do they simply enjoy it for hearing an exploration of games from a viewpoint they agree with? Does she speak to the hearts of people who, like me, are dissatisfied at times with some games that seem to be made by engineers, some of which seem to lack artistic or worse social sense?
But how come it doesn't speak to me? Why does it make me angry to hear her ideas?

I have trouble comprehending this and would like to request your thoughts on this.

You can find people's thoughts and and opinions, and the answers to those questions, by reading the comments. What's your personal opinion?

 

[Darken12]

First "taking from you" doesn't imply possession. That's just a really twisted way of looking at this. It's a typical phrase used in this context, the typical cry over the loss of a loved one is a plea to God "Why did you take him/her from me". I doubt everyone who'd ever make such a plea regards the lost person as a possession.

Again, everyone wishes they could protect their loved ones. Think of all those female characters in movies or whatever desperately trying to convince their husband not to go to war (it's a non-physical way to protect someone, convincing them to avoid danger). You could tell anyone "you failed to protect X" to add some extra pain. If the game said "See, you're not a man, you can't even protect anyone", that would be an attack on masculinity.

Nobody's saying that the characters believe women to be possessions. What is being said is that the use of the phrase, in the context of the trope (a woman being disempowered and victimised for the sake of driving a male character's narrative) is very problematic.

The example you cite is nowhere near comparable. Nobody implies, for a second, that the woman failed because she couldn't protect her husband. And also, please note how it very rarely happens with the genders reversed. We rarely see a man pleading his wife not to go to war. The closest we get to that is with female police officers or female paramedics, but even then it's quite a rarity.

And again, we also almost never see an inversion on the damsel in distress trope. We rarely see a woman as the protagonist and a man being held hostage, unless that man is her son or someone she has a mother-child relationship with. And even then, it's still quite rare.

The tropes are not gender-equal, and that's very much a problem.

 

[FreakofNatur]

I would like some help on this, because I'm confused and in pain.

This is the third time I've started to type a response to this thread and each time I've stopped and deleted it on the personal grounds of 'I do not engage with people who I perceive as idiots'. A kind of personal 'we do not negotiate with terrorists'. But of course this is untrue. That is simply the first step in negotiation.

Why do her videos make me so unhappy?
Why do I feel a physical need to enlighten her?

Why are there people who say this is a good video? Do they simply enjoy it for hearing an exploration of games from a viewpoint they agree with? Does she speak to the hearts of people who, like me, are dissatisfied at times with some games that seem to be made by engineers, some of which seem to lack artistic or worse social sense?
But how come it doesn't speak to me? Why does it make me angry to hear her ideas?

I have trouble comprehending this and would like to request your thoughts on this.

Because as humans we all have different opinions. A poorly substantiated point might appear idiotic to you, but perhaps simply ignore them and discuss the better points others have instead?

If her videos make you unhappy, then perhaps it's a symptom of what I call "dominant viewpoint broken by a poor argument" in which you feel a truth that you hold has been challenged by what you feel is an inept attempt at discussion. Granted some of Anita's(read: most) of her evidence lack context and situational awareness and perhaps all you can see is a feminist screaming at you:EQUALITY! EQUALITY! EQUALITY!

Put that all behind you and argue the validity of her evidence. After all, that is what her video is based upon:video evidence of video games portraying women as helpless, subordinate, sometimes willing, "damsels"

 

[verdant monkai]

The Turgid woman gives a load of shameless spoilers with no warning. But remember guys she's a huge gamer! I say she's turgid because I haven't played dishonoured yet and now one of its twists is ruined.

The Green Lantern bit made me cringe. If a woman gets killed to develop a character Sarkeesian is there getting offended. When say Jason Todd Robin is murdered by the joker making Batman a darker character Sarkeesian is fine with it.

Think about how many fathers/father figures die to develop characters. Off the top of my head: Obi Wan, King Vegeta, Marth's father from fire Emblem, your dad in hand of the heavenly bride and Dan Hibiki's dad from street fighter.

Its an acceptable way to develop a character and it is in no way exclusive to women, Sarkeesian just needs to get over herself.

 

[generals3]

1) Games don't actually have to be about warriors, fighters, protectors, or roles in which physical strength (and thus "being male") is a priority. They just choose to be about shooting guns and disembowelling monsters. Arguably, a large part of the problem with games is that they are so narrowly focussed on violence and action in the first place.

No, but what is the point? If it sells, it sells. And let's not forget there are lots of non-violent games out there. But the specific category of games discussed happens to be filled with violent videogames. That's actually the worst part about this discussion. people make generalizations on games based on a specific segment. Tetris isn't violent, Wii Fit isn't violent, Guitar hero isn't violent, Fifa isn't violent, etc. It's like looking at action movies and complain about the prevalent cheap violence in the movie industry. If you primarily buy/play violent videogames with a cheap story you shouldn't be surprised that that is what you get...

2) Perhaps in ancient times, wherein you needed to be strong to weld a club, your argument that men being taller and stronger might have had some weight. But we live in a modern society in which women are soldiers, police officers, criminals, and in all kinds of roles which employ physically pro activeness or violent behaviour. Even in a historical context, there are still plenty of strong females, female warriors, and women who are more than capable of fighting.

I never said there were no strong females. However in general men are stronger. That's why they have lower physical standards in the army for women. That's why they have separate Olympics, and so on. The general expectation is still that a man is stronger, until proven otherwise. Our society has opened itself to the idea that stereotypes aren't universal, but that doesn't mean they aren't generally true.

3) These are fictional games we are talking about. There is very little pretense towards realism when you have a pill-chugging, Brooklyn cop killing hundreds upon hundreds of criminals in the space of a single evening. So why is it any more of a stretch to put a female in these exact same roles?

No but when you're trying to appeal to emotions you want to make scenarios which the player can identify himself with. Having a husband lose his wife is a great way to appeal to emotion in a segment dominated by men.

4) When writers don't put women in these dominant roles, you also avoid putting men in the submissive ones. That's why these plot devices have issues - in and of themselves, they shouldn't be a problem, but the dynamic of strong man protects weak woman is so prevalent, it becomes a stereotype - one that is negative for both, but definitely more so for the one being portrayed as the weakling.

It is actually done for marketing purposes. The target being primarily male you want to make the story more appreciable to them. And on top of that up to this day it is expected among both men and women that a man should be the protector (when violence is the only defence)(which makes the story even easier to relate to). There is a reason why women tend to like having a male at their side when walking down shady alleys at night.

 

[FreakofNatur]

That said, I am utterly disappointed in part 2 having watched it thrice over now. Examples are from games that are obviously exploitative in nature for the sake of cheap entertainment and draws(attracting audience). I think she honestly needs to dig deeper for how long her videos take to make, rather than taking convenient examples. I have not seen any convincing example to see that women are truly marginalized in each video game they are portrayed in, rather it is more of a nitpick rather than actual concern.

Wait, what? She provides numerous examples of the trope in video games and your response is "Nice try Anita, but how about you give us some examples that AREN'T those games that are perfectly fair examples of the trope being employed in video games? What's that? You got nothing? How disappointment..." What do you want from her? To pick a game where the trope DOESN'T exist to show people where it does? Huh?

You've misinterpreted my comment. It's not what your paraphrase is. That said, quantity of examples is not equal to quality of examples, which is what she lacks and thus covers up for with numbers. 3 or 4 would have been fine if there were very, very strong examples, but choices to portray women in certain sense was not purposeful, rather abusive of convention and ease of access. You can't blame gaming for what is already common.

 

[generals3]

Nobody's saying that the characters believe women to be possessions. What is being said is that the use of the phrase, in the context of the trope (a woman being disempowered and victimised for the sake of driving a male character's narrative) is very problematic.

Why? In a game about a hero you usually have a victim, which de-facto is disempowered. The wife or daughter just happens to be the best victim because of the emotions attached to it. And the phrase is actually often used in the context of losing a loved in RL. Why would it be problematic in a game in such a scenario? Because some people look way too hard into things and see things that aren't there?

The example you cite is nowhere near comparable. Nobody implies, for a second, that the woman failed because she couldn't protect her husband. And also, please note how it very rarely happens with the genders reversed. We rarely see a man pleading his wife not to go to war. The closest we get to that is with female police officers or female paramedics, but even then it's quite a rarity.

Actually it does sometimes happen. I distinctively remember bits in movies where bad guys would blame the woman for not putting enough efforts in trying to keep the male protagonist out of harms way.

Well off course you'll see less males pleading his wife not to go to war. Ever been in the army? It's dominated by men despite positive discrimination. The scenario of a woman going to war is not only less likely but the idea the man disapproves of the idea of going to war is also much less likely. This is why such a scenario won't be used, it would make the viewer/gamer think it's supposed to be ironic. (It wouldn't get the desired emotional response out of the viewer/gamer)

And again, we also almost never see an inversion on the damsel in distress trope. We rarely see a woman as the protagonist and a man being held hostage, unless that man is her son or someone she has a mother-child relationship with. And even then, it's still quite rare.

The tropes are not gender-equal, and that's very much a problem.

Marketing and the idea that usually a man is de-facto set in the protector role by nature. And no, tropes don't need to be gender-equal. Nothing actually needs to be gender equal except rights.

 

[NoeL]

You can't blame gaming for what is already common.

Why the hell not? In fact, if you're going to criticise anything, why wouldn't you use common examples?

I guess I'm a little confused as to why you don't think the examples she gave a good examples. Are they or are they not examples of the DiD trope (and its variations) in modern video games?

 

[freaper]

I have a mixed feeling about these videos.

First of all I don't agree with her on the part of games having problem portraying women, because some of my favourite games (Baldur's Gate, Guild Wars, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Final Fantasy X, Skyrim, World of Warcraft, Bioshock, Silent Hill series etc.) include so many well written female characters. Also games that defines the industry in terms of story (many of these titles), don't have the stereotypical depiction of women as Anita depicts (I admit some characters of her analysis IS present though).


All the games she exemplify are medicore or even bad in terms of writing - and most of them haven't struck as "classics" - those who have are done so more by graphics and gameplay rather than story.

Secondly; simply because I as a male gamer, while maybe not as directly as Anita, simply find the "damsel in distress" plot device rather overused, bland, repetitive and uninteresting. It's predictable and boring.

Because I feel this way, I have a hard time agreeing with her, simply because she spends more time examplifying the bad games, while leaving only a few screenshots of games she considers "good" for a short while.

The industry have more aspects too it, and I get her point. Now I just want to see that she actually have a love for video games, and can actually respect the games that goes beyond poor writing (or development).

It is a bit grim and depressing to see half of modern gaming in this video, and I agree that more recent, "mature" treatments of the damsel in distress have been worse in many ways than they were in the 80s and 90s.

What I'm really looking forward to is the third video. Up until now, this project has mostly been "gaming, exposed", and hasn't provided positive examples or offered a solution.

We think alike

She actually says right at the end that she'll be covering the good examples in the next instalments.

OT: I liked, I liked the previous one, I also liked the commentary people submitted to her. She's doing a great job as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Xyebane]

I thought it was pretty good. It would be useful to have more constructive feedback and solutions I think. Personally, I think that the focus on male stories is due to a disproportionate number of game developers being men. But that's just my opinion.

 

[80sboy]

The problem I see with Anita Sarkissian's arguments is she doesn't really - in my opinion - focus on what's really wrong with women's portrayal in gaming. Speaking against what is shown in gaming, and not speaking for what should be.

You know, this all sorta reminds me of an old stand-up comedy film I saw from Eddie Murphy. Back in the 80s, he had two of the biggest stand up comedy acts in America, one of it was called Raw. In the early portion of his stand up, he talks about a real story of how he had received a call from Bill Cosby, and how he was berated by him. Supposedly, Bill Cosby had call Eddie Murphy to tell him he shouldn't be cussing in his acts, for it was making the image of black people in America - as a whole - seem like uneducated degenerates. Painting a negative image. Of course Eddie Murphy wasn't pleased with this call, and he spoke about it in his act and how he was going to continue cussing in his stand up as much as he wants.

The whole Damsel in Distress thing is suppose to paint an ugly imagine of women in gaming - right?

Well, personally I don't see that. This isn't the problem, the problem is there isn't more character diversity in female roles. Asking for women not ever be displayed in games as damsels in distress is like asking developers or even film makers to never make black people gang members in games/film also. That would be racist and painting the wrong imagine. Plus, why stop there. There should never again be Asians in games/movies shown as knowing martial arts because that would be stereotypical and also racist. Homosexuals shouldn't be painted as being flamboyant or effeminate because not all of them are.

What you're doing here is setting up limitations and trying to enforce control of what we see when you should be asking for is growth.

There was a time in movies where such control was placed on the media to "protect" the viewers opinions. Movies could never show police officers being in the wrong or corrupt, and criminals had to also be punished for the wrong they had committed. Plus, criminals could never be sympathized with. Police officers, on the other hand, were made out to be super humanly good and righteous. Obviously the fear was, to do otherwise, might install suspicion in viewers of the American system.

Going against the archetypal damsel in distress is going in the wrong direction of what needs to be done in the portrayal of women in the media. We don't need limitations and control here, we need diversity.