Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[jnWake]

Well, no... either you misunderstand my point or we have a very different understanding on the capabilities of wrenches. Mario still actually does things like running, jumping, throwing fireballs etc. Princess Toadstool only exists as a motivator for Mario to defeat Bowser, she doesn't actually do anything outside of that, that's why she's interchangeable with any kind of inanimate object that would be important to Mario, such as a golden wrench (since he's a plumber). Hence, objectification.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter what Mario is. Mario could be Peach's anthropomorphic pet dog or even Peach's sister and the games would be the same thing (without nose kissing at the ending probably ).

[Bleck]

Your whole post is a giant straw man.

calling an argument a straw man is in itself a straw man

[timaeus222]

calling an argument a straw man is in itself a straw man

dat syllogism, gotta love it. [/sarcasm]

Actually, in all seriousness, that wouldn't be a straw man to call an argument a straw man. You'd be debating the argument itself, so your own statement wouldn't be a straw man, but their argument would be. When you start a new argument, the realm of relevance changes, IIRC.

Edited March 10, 2013 by timaeus222

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

calling an argument a straw man is in itself a straw man

What I said is not a straw man by definition. My calling that straw man argument for what it is isn't misrepresenting the argument as a weaker version of itself for me to attack it. The other person's argument was a strawman because it did not address any argument any person in this thread actually made. It attacked a caricature of more well-reasoned arguments you could find all over the Internet and seemed mostly intended to badmouth feminists for no particular reason. I'd appreciate if you could contribute something actually substantive to the thread.

[Tensei]

Is it ever okay, or is it always sexist?

Prince of Persia 2008 handles this amazingly. Throughout the game you have a flying female companion called Elika. Ironically, SHE is typically saving YOU if you miss a jump or fail a QTE. Aside from that, she and the prince have pretty typical snarky back and forth banter, but they inevitably end up falling for each other.

Since it happens over a relatively long period of time (that is, the entirety of the game), and they actually go through a lot of ordeals together, the way in which their relationship develops is relatively believable. One of the key moments is when one of the bosses uses magic to conceal Elika from you, and you have to make a leap of faith off the tower in the hopes that she saves you.

The ultimate goal of the game is to seal up the evil god Ahriman, but at the end Elika reveals that *SPOILERS* she has to sacrifice herself in order to achieve that goal. Being fully committed to the cause, she goes through with this, but Ahriman promises the prince that he can bring her back if he undoes the seals again. This is not done through a cinematic, but the game actually makes you walk to each seal yourself. And then it ends.

So it's basically a complete subversion of the archetype. The prince 'saves' the girl by bringing her back from the dead against her will, and in doing so unleashes the evil god that they both were trying to stop for the entire game.

What I mean is that it doesn't matter what Mario is. Mario could be Peach's anthropomorphic pet dog or even Peach's sister and the games would be the same thing (without nose kissing at the ending probably ).

Okay, but what does that have to do with what I said? Again, my point is that Princess Toadstools only purpose in the game is to provide a motive for Mario to go through the levels. She doesn't really do anything outside of...existing and getting kidnapped. That's a role that can be filled by any desirable object, so the fact that they're using a female character for it is objectifying.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Tensei

[Native Jovian]

Your whole post is a giant straw man.

Yeah, implying that feminism is only a thing because women are jealous of fictional characters that are hotter than them is... pretty shitty. I wasn't saying that sexism isn't real or that feminism isn't a worthy cause, just that not everything that can be read as sexist (eg, damsel in distress) is actually sexist in all cases. If you get up in arms about relatively harmless things (like Mario saving Peach or Link saving Zelda), you can actually do damage to the overall message -- that some media is sexist and we shouldn't put up with that kind of shit -- by overreacting to every single example of something that isn't exactly gender neutral.

tldr, don't cry wolf. If you want to discuss the topic of sexism in games, find examples where it's blatant (or at least consistent throughout the work). If you have to work to convince your audience that yes, this example is actually sexist, then they're going to think that you're making mountains out of molehills. Bringing up things like Mario and Zelda, while useful because they get lots of name recognition, is ultimately unproductive because they're not actually particularly good examples of sexism.

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

I think a lot of the sexism comes from the context that a vast majority of video games are one-sided with men saving women who lack deeper characterization. If you had a massive outpouring of games where the opposite were true, or if men were saving men or women were saving women such that you wouldn't notice the classic DiD trope anymore, the trope would lose a lot of its sting.

I'm also wary of saying Mario or Zelda are not good examples of sexism because they are still rooted in an historic male fantasy of saving the girl. There are surely more overt examples, but it makes me very uncomfortable to say something to the effect of "well this isn't real sexism/misogyny." I feel even more uncomfortable with saying that when actual women who play games say the games are problematic.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Ab56 v2 aka Ash

[MC Final Sigma]

Now, we all know the trope is a bloody pulp by now. But my other main issue with her generic statement, is that the tropes use is still valid (lazy, but valid). It's not a sexist, degrading stereotype toward women in and of itself. It's how the female is treated and portrayed before and after capture, and how the hero sees/treats her, that will make it sexist/demeaning/objectifying, or not.

The trope has nothing to do with how the game characters view the woman - it's all about how we, the players, view the woman. It is degrading to women because this trope intimates 1) that women are helpless, and 2) that women can only be saved by men. It doesn't matter if these women are beloved wives, sisters, grandmas, what have you - they're still pitiful wimps who can't escape their situation (although male characters always can).

And I simply don't agree that the simple act of a woman being captured in a video game, and unable/unwilling to fight back or escape, is degrading, or somehow bolsters the idea that women are weak in any tangible, realistic way. Only the weakest of minds would watch Zelda get kidnapped and say, "See? I told you women are weak," or use it as an stepping stone to rant about how supposedly helpless and needy women are. The rest of us know that the woman being kidnapped in that individual game is a single, fake woman... not a representation of all real women.

You're right that individual instances of the DiD trope are not necessarily sexist on their own, but what makes the DiD trope sexist is that it's a trope. It is legitimate for female characters to be rescued by male characters some of the time - say, half of the time - but when 90% of the time it's a man rescuing a woman, even the "weakest of minds" can see that trend (consciously or not, mind you). By continually reinforcing a narrative in which a woman is rendered indefinitely helpless and can only be saved by a man, it becomes sexist. Period.

That the games Anita spoke of only focused on that kind of woman for their simplistic fairy tale-like stories is unfortunate. But again, it's a simple tale for simple games that chose to focus on the "rescue your love/the woman" as the only linear plot line. That's not a defense by me, it's just why it was used; for simplicity's sake. It's not proclaiming that real women are like the woman in the game, telling you to treat women like they're helpless, or backing up how other countries see women as lesser individuals. So slamming the real world history of women (be it in America, or other countries) into the game's painfully basic story just comes across as over analyzing what what's being presented, and allowing personal biases/stances/agendas to color the story in unintended ways (on either side of the issue).

It doesn't matter why game developers use this trope, the trope is toxic in and of itself. To repeat, the trope suggests through constant repetition that women are ultimately weak, feeble, and helpless - even supposedly strong ones like Zelda. Only men can bail them out, but men can help themselves. It may be interesting for historical reasons to discuss why the trope was used or became popular, but it does not exonerate these games from the charge - the trope is fucking sexist.

I wasn't saying that sexism isn't real or that feminism isn't a worthy cause, just that not everything that can be read as sexist (eg, damsel in distress) is actually sexist in all cases. If you get up in arms about relatively harmless things (like Mario saving Peach or Link saving Zelda), you can actually do damage to the overall message -- that some media is sexist and we shouldn't put up with that kind of shit -- by overreacting to every single example of something that isn't exactly gender neutral.

I fail to see how the literal dis-empowerment of women in hundreds of digital narratives is somehow "relatively harmless." What it's doing is amplifying sexist tropes in "real" life and preparing young boys and girls who do play these games to think in gendered ways. Or how do you think gender is learned - an instruction manual? Stories are a huge deal, especially when 90% of them agree that women are powerless and men are not.

[Native Jovian]

I fail to see how the literal dis-empowerment of women in hundreds of digital narratives is somehow "relatively harmless." What it's doing is amplifying sexist tropes in "real" life and preparing young boys and girls who do play these games to think in gendered ways. Or how do you think gender is learned - an instruction manual? Stories are a huge deal, especially when 90% of them agree that women are powerless and men are not.

My point is that you're the one saying that, not the story. Using Skyward Sword as an example again, the story is saying "Zelda needs to be protected because the dark forces of ultimate evil are after her and she's not a trained fighter like other characters are", not "Link needs to protect Zelda because he's a strong, powerful male and she's a weak, frail female". Other characters in the game who are both female and fighters kick significantly more ass than Link does. Impa actually berates Link when she has to step in and save Zelda, because that's supposed to be his job (as "the chosen hero of the Goddess", not as "a man"). Both Impa and Faron (separately) fight Ghirahim to a standstill at a time when Ghirahim could easily kill Link (but doesn't, because he prefers to toy with him instead). There are background characters (like the female Knight Academy student) that show women in strong positions, as well, and it's never remarked that this is unusual or anything like that.

If you have one element of the story that may be construed as sexist if you look at it a certain way, versus a variety of definitely non-sexist elements (showing women as strong, positive characters), then calling the work as a whole sexist is ridiculous. It does more harm than good, because if you cry "sexism!" at every little thing, then people will tune you out -- so when you try to discuss a major issue, people will still ignore you.

And let me ask again: when, if ever, is it acceptable to have a portrayal of a "weak" female character? Must all females in fictional works be presented as exactly equal in every way with males? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable storytelling and what's sexist?

Edited March 10, 2013 by Native Jovian

[Bleck]

If you have one element of the story that may be construed as sexist if you look at it a certain way, versus a variety of definitely non-sexist elements (showing women as strong, positive characters), then calling the work as a whole sexist is ridiculous. It does more harm than good, because if you cry "sexism!" at every little thing, then people will tune you out -- so when you try to discuss a major issue, people will still ignore you.

And let me ask again: when, if ever, is it acceptable to have a portrayal of a "weak" female character? Must all females in fictional works be presented as exactly equal in every way with males? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable storytelling and what's sexist?

this is a good post

[MC Final Sigma]

My point is that you're the one saying that, not the story. Using Skyward Sword as an example again, the story is saying "Zelda needs to be protected because the dark forces of ultimate evil are after her and she's not a trained fighter like other characters are", not "Link needs to protect Zelda because he's a strong, powerful male and she's a weak, frail female". Other characters in the game who are both female and fighters kick significantly more ass than Link does. Impa actually berates Link when she has to step in and save Zelda, because that's supposed to be his job (as "the chosen hero of the Goddess", not as "a man"). Both Impa and Faron (separately) fight Ghirahim to a standstill at a time when Ghirahim could easily kill Link (but doesn't, because he prefers to toy with him instead). There are background characters (like the female Knight Academy student) that show women in strong positions, as well, and it's never remarked that this is unusual or anything like that.

Bravo for SS. I can point to countless more examples where this is not the case - not to mention that SS exists in a context in which Zelda is an oldschool damsel. What would have been truly refreshing is to see her as consistently strong, which would have been a truly significant change for the series.

If you have one element of the story that may be construed as sexist if you look at it a certain way, versus a variety of definitely non-sexist elements (showing women as strong, positive characters), then calling the work as a whole sexist is ridiculous. It does more harm than good, because if you cry "sexism!" at every little thing, then people will tune you out -- so when you try to discuss a major issue, people will still ignore you.

This episode of Tropes vs. Women was about oldschool games, in many of which the only woman is the damsel. It will be interesting to see how the next episode addresses modern games with more characters in general. Also, you've yet to show why constant disempowerment of women is a "little thing."

EDIT: Also no one said the whole games are sexist; they're only sexist insofar as they participate in the trope.

And let me ask again: when, if ever, is it acceptable to have a portrayal of a "weak" female character? Must all females in fictional works be presented as exactly equal in every way with males? Where do you draw the line between what's acceptable storytelling and what's sexist?

I already addressed this in my last post (a part not directed at you).

Edited March 10, 2013 by MC Final Sigma

[AngelCityOutlaw]

this is a good post

I do agree.

Also, I don't know if this has been brought up, can't remember...

But in the new Tomb Raider game, Lara sets out to save "Sam" the damsel in distress held hostage by the bad guys.

Is it sexist because there is a damsel in distress, or does it balance out since she is to be saved by another woman?

[jnWake]

Bravo for SS. I can point to countless more examples where this is not the case - not to mention that SS exists in a context in which Zelda is an oldschool damsel. What would have been truly refreshing is to see her as consistently strong, which would have been a truly significant change for the series.

Zelda is constantly strong in SS in the sense that she is always brave. She always accepts her fate of "godess" even with the consequences it has. Getting captured by Ghirahim at the end of the game doesn't make her weak, especially because Ghirahim is a very strong villain. Link only manages to defeat him because he uses the super powerful Master Sword, not because he's some sort of super strong male. In fact, Link's grand (and possibly only) strength is his courage.

[MC Final Sigma]

Zelda is constantly strong in SS in the sense that she is always brave. She always accepts her fate of "godess" even with the consequences it has. Getting captured by Ghirahim at the end of the game doesn't make her weak, especially because Ghirahim is a very strong villain. Link only manages to defeat him because he uses the super powerful Master Sword, not because he's some sort of super strong male. In fact, Link's grand (and possibly only) strength is his courage.

I think we're getting sidetracked here. I will concede SS for the sake of argument, but it's still only one Zelda game that doesn't use this sexist trope. I see your SS and raise you TLoZ, AoL, ALttP, OoT, WW, OoA/OoS, MC, FSA, TP, PH, and to a lesser extent ST.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

TLoZ, AoL, ALttP, OoT, WW, OoA/OoS, MC, FSA, TP, PH, and to a lesser extent ST.

Is that English or the periodic table of elements or something similar?

[MC Final Sigma]

Is that English or the periodic table of elements or something similar?

Here's the chart I'm working from:

http://zeldawiki.org/Timeline_Abbreviations#Main_Games

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Here's the chart I'm working from:

http://zeldawiki.org/Timeline_Abbreviations#Main_Games

Oh.

Well, I still wanna know about the whole Lara saving Sam and whether or not that's sexist.

[MC Final Sigma]

Oh.

Well, I still wanna know about the whole Lara saving Sam and whether or not that's sexist.

I won't speak for the whole Tomb Raider series, which I've never played (although I know its reputation). But from what you've indicated, I would say, "No, it is not." And to repeat myself from earlier, even single instances of men saving women are not sexist - it becomes a problem when that's the gender relationship the huge majority of the time.

[Native Jovian]

Bravo for SS. I can point to countless more examples where this is not the case

Then talk about them, specifically, instead of painting the entire medium of video games with the same brush.

Also, you've yet to show why constant disempowerment of women is a "little thing."

Because I'm not saying that disempowerment of women is a little thing -- I'm saying that disempowerment of a single character who happens to be female amidst a whole host of strong, positive female characters doesn't constitute disempowerment of women as a whole. It's treating "disempowerment of a single character" as if it were "disempowerment of an entire class of people" that's turning a small thing into a big thing.

I already addressed this in my last post (a part not directed at you).

Which part? To save time, I'll just respond to both:

It is legitimate for female characters to be rescued by male characters some of the time - say, half of the time - but when 90% of the time it's a man rescuing a woman, even the "weakest of minds" can see that trend (consciously or not, mind you). By continually reinforcing a narrative in which a woman is rendered indefinitely helpless and can only be saved by a man, it becomes sexist. Period.

So, it's only okay to write a story with a damsel in distress as long as I get together with (at least) one other writer and make sure they're working on a story that doesn't have a damsel in distress? Or if I write at least one non-DiD story for every DiD story I write? That's silly. If something is bad, it's bad regardless of how often it's said. Yelling out "women are weak and powerless!" is bad even if I (or someone else) immediately follows up with "women can be strong and independent!". Of course, that doesn't actually address my argument, which is that having a damsel in distress doesn't automatically translate to "women are weak and powerless" in the first place.

It doesn't matter why game developers use this trope, the trope is toxic in and of itself. To repeat, the trope suggests through constant repetition that women are ultimately weak, feeble, and helpless - even supposedly strong ones like Zelda. Only men can bail them out, but men can help themselves. It may be interesting for historical reasons to discuss why the trope was used or became popular, but it does not exonerate these games from the charge - the trope is fucking sexist.

So, what's the alternative? Men can never save women? Men can only save other men, but women can save both men and women? How is that any better? The message "women don't need men's help, ever" is just as bad as the message "women always needs men's help for everything". There's nothing wrong with needing help from someone (regardless of your gender, or the helper's). Sexism is when you make judgments of someone based on their gender, rather than as an individual. Saying that men somehow aren't allowed to help women because it's disempowering for women to be helped by men is just as sexist as saying that women always need men to help them because women are incapable of helping themselves.

Sexism is an attitude, not an event. If you have a cast full of strong, positive female characters, and one of them is rescued by a man one time, that's not sexist, and saying that "they used the Damsel in Distress trope, therefore that entire work filled with strong positive female characters is sexist!" is ridiculous. If everything were precisely equal, then men would still be rescuing women 25% of the time (it would be split evenly between man rescues woman, man rescues man, women rescues man, and woman rescues woman). Of course, it's not precisely equal -- largely because it's "hero rescues love interest", which (for most people) is going to be the opposite gender. Of course, it's still "man rescues woman" more often than any of the others, because men are the hero more often than women -- which is a problem and I absolutely think there should be more female heroes. But that doesn't mean that having a male hero, or even having a male hero rescue a female love interest, is inherently in-and-of-itself sexist.

[Rozovian]

Without considering player actions, the other characters will either be active or inactive, story-wise. Town npcs? Pretty much all inactive. Maybe they tell you important stuff if you talk to them, maybe they give you stuff if you talk to them, maybe they provide a service (eg shops) if you talk to them. They're inactive. Cutscene characters that show up to block your path, characters that stop your free roaming for a cutscene to let you know there's a ship in the docks that'll take you to whatever, or give you a mission or something. They're active, at least at that time.

So then the damsel in distress, be this male or female, it's an inactive character that has the distress happen to her/him. It's an inactive character. Another character, or story element, is the active element here. The bad guy kidnaps the girl? The bad guy is the active one there. This justifies the player's action - making the player active.

What's sexist is the prevalence of female inactive characters in the role of the distressed. The complaint is that it's so often a female character in distress to justify male player characters' actions, and/or that the main female character is an inactive character. Mirror's Edge and Beyond Good and Evil have female protagonists and other characters in distress, so they're not guilty of this. Eg Zelda games where Zelda is an active character and/or has a role in the game mechanics (Spirit Tracks?) aren't either.

So maybe it's more a matter of active vs. inactive rather than the distribution of female and male distressed characters.

--

Come to think of it, Seiken Densetsu 3 has some pretty interesting motivations for each character.

[Tensei]

Nobody is saying that writers should be forced to keep an exact 50/50 quota on male/female rescue missions. The goal of these videos isn't the creation and enforcement of some arbitrary rules or quotas on videogame writers, but an attempt to generate awareness within the community, so it will hopefully 'fix' itself.

I'd wager that 99% of the appearances of the damsel in distress aren't in any way intended to be malicious, but really are just a perpetuation of age-old gender roles that exist in the collective consciousness. In many ways it's also a call on writers to stop being lazy.

It's SOMEWHAT excusable in NES games where a throwaway plot was the norm, but what I've been trying to say in my previous posts is that by repeatedly using the trope and playing it completely straight, it does perpetuate some harmful stereotypes. Of course it's not so bad on a case-by-case basis, and of course it's not a huge deal that Mario has to save Princess Toadstool, but all the little things eventually start adding up and lead to genuinely awful things like the recent fighting game community incident.

Jovian, if you want to see what I think is a good and refreshing example of a guy saving a girl in a videogame, read what I posted about Prince of Persia a few posts up.

[MC Final Sigma]

Then talk about them, specifically, instead of painting the entire medium of video games with the same brush.

Here's a list:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamselInDistress?from=Main.DistressedDamsel

Because I'm not saying that disempowerment of women is a little thing -- I'm saying that disempowerment of a single character who happens to be female amidst a whole host of strong, positive female characters doesn't constitute disempowerment of women as a whole. It's treating "disempowerment of a single character" as if it were "disempowerment of an entire class of people" that's turning a small thing into a big thing.

It stops being the disempowerment of a single character who happens to be female when it's single characters who happen to be female getting disempowered 90% of the time. Makes you think that they don't just "happen to be female," huh?

So, it's only okay to write a story with a damsel in distress as long as I get together with (at least) one other writer and make sure they're working on a story that doesn't have a damsel in distress? Or if I write at least one non-DiD story for every DiD story I write? That's silly. If something is bad, it's bad regardless of how often it's said. Yelling out "women are weak and powerless!" is bad even if I (or someone else) immediately follows up with "women can be strong and independent!". Of course, that doesn't actually address my argument, which is that having a damsel in distress doesn't automatically translate to "women are weak and powerless" in the first place.

Look at it this way. If two candidates apply for a job, one black, one white, and the white guy gets the job, that's not necessarily racist. But what if the black guy never got the job, or only 10% of the time? We have 2 options - either racism is afoot, or black people are, in fact, almost always inferior applicants (i.e., racism is justified and true). Which do you support?

Put another way: actions exist in context. There is nothing inherently wrong with some things, like a swastika, but in our current context, it's an extremely offensive symbol. Likewise with this trope - one instance is not offensive, but writers are recycling a trope in a market already glutted with instances of that trope. That context makes the trope offensive by suggesting that all women are helpless because the huge majority of major female characters in videogames are disempowered.

So, what's the alternative? Men can never save women? Men can only save other men, but women can save both men and women? How is that any better?

Can you read? I literally just addressed this in the quote you just responded to. Anyone can save anyone, but when the gender relationship moves in one direction the vast majority of the time, it creates the impression that one gender is stronger than the other. It's not rocket science.

Sexism is an attitude, not an event. If you have a cast full of strong, positive female characters, and one of them is rescued by a man one time, that's not sexist, and saying that "they used the Damsel in Distress trope, therefore that entire work filled with strong positive female characters is sexist!" is ridiculous.

Review my previous posts. Your skimming is ridiculous.

If everything were precisely equal, then men would still be rescuing women 25% of the time (it would be split evenly between man rescues woman, man rescues man, women rescues man, and woman rescues woman). Of course, it's not precisely equal -- largely because it's "hero rescues love interest", which (for most people) is going to be the opposite gender. Of course, it's still "man rescues woman" more often than any of the others, because men are the hero more often than women -- which is a problem and I absolutely think there should be more female heroes.

So because 25% of the time seems oddly precise, it should be allowed to be 90% of the time? And yes, the lack of female heroes is significant as well, and rather serves as a corollary to this trope. This trope disempowers women, whereas the male hero trope empowers men (and, thus, not women).

But that doesn't mean that having a male hero, or even having a male hero rescue a female love interest, is inherently in-and-of-itself sexist.

I've agreed to this several times. The problem is the distribution greatly favors male power, not female power.

[MC Final Sigma]

Nobody is saying that writers should be forced to keep an exact 50/50 quota on male/female rescue missions. The goal of these videos isn't the creation and enforcement of some arbitrary rules or quotas on videogame writers, but an attempt to generate awareness within the community, so it will hopefully 'fix' itself.

Well said, I second that.

[Native Jovian]

Jovian, if you want to see what I think is a good and refreshing example of a guy saving a girl in a videogame, read what I posted about Prince of Persia a few posts up.

I did read it (and actually started typing up a reply on it before I noticed the thread was moving on). It does sound like an awesome twist to the same old trope, but what I'm trying to argue here isn't that the damsel in distress trope can be tweaked to be non-sexist, it's that the damsel in distress trope, even if played completely straight, isn't inherently sexist in the first place.

Here's a list:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamselInDistress?from=Main.DistressedDamsel

Begging the question isn't a good way to argue your point.

It stops being the disempowerment of a single character who happens to be female when it's single characters who happen to be female getting disempowered 90% of the time. Makes you think that they don't just "happen to be female," huh?

Which ignores the point I was making about all of the other, nondisempowered female characters in the same games that have damsels in distress. If one game has most or all of its female characters disempowered, then I'd agree that it's sexist. If a game has one disempowered female character amid a bunch of nondisempowered female characters, then I don't see how you can call that sexist, since it has a lot of strong, positive female characters on one hand, and a single disempowered female character on the other. You can't just ignore all the good parts and point at one supposedly bad part as evidence that the whole thing is bad.

Look at it this way. If two candidates apply for a job, one black, one white, and the white guy gets the job, that's not necessarily racist. But what if the black guy never got the job, or only 10% of the time? We have 2 options - either racism is afoot, or black people are, in fact, almost always inferior applicants (i.e., racism is justified and true).

That's true, but it's not an analogous situation. You're saying that because damsels in distress are overwhelmingly women, all examples of a female damsel in distress is sexist. I'm arguing that the trope, by itself, is not sexist. For your racial analogy to fit your sexism argument, you'd have to get rid of the part about "a single instance of a white guy getting hired over a black guy isn't necessarily racist".

Likewise with this trope - one instance is not offensive, but writers are recycling a trope in a market already glutted with instances of that trope. That context makes the trope offensive by suggesting that all women are helpless because the huge majority of major female characters in videogames are disempowered.

Except that when the same game has plenty of counterexamples to "most female characters in video games are disempowered" and just one example of a female character being disempowered, I don't see how you can paint the whole thing as sexist. When you add together a bunch of things that are definitely not sexist with one thing that may be sexist, the end result isn't sexist.

Anyone can save anyone, but when the gender relationship moves in one direction the vast majority of the time, it creates the impression that one gender is stronger than the other.

Right, but I'm talking about individual examples. Say that I'm a writer and I'm writing a story. I don't have any control over what anyone else writes. So when is it okay for me, individually, to use a damsel in distress? Do I have to wait until the entirety of the writing world has evened itself out to 50/50 male and female damsels?

Review my previous posts. Your skimming is ridiculous.

I'm not skimming and I'm not deliberately ignoring you. If I'm not responding to something you feel you've already explained, it's because either I didn't understand your response or you didn't understand my question. Telling me to go back and reread isn't helpful to anyone.

So because 25% of the time seems oddly precise, it should be allowed to be 90% of the time?

That's not what I said, at all. I'm not even defending the fact that 90% of the time it's male heroes rescuing female damsels. I'm just saying that a male hero rescuing a female damsel is not, in and of itself, sexist. Having a male hero rescue a female damsel does not make a story sexist. Having 90% of the stories being written feature male heroes and female damsels is an argument that sexism exists on the cultural level, yes -- but you can't point at a specific story that's otherwise not sexist and say "it's got a male hero rescuing a female damsel! That makes it sexist!" -- especially if that story contains other elements (like strong, independent, empowered female characters) that are the opposite of sexist.

[Dexie]

I think we're getting sidetracked here. I will concede SS for the sake of argument, but it's still only one Zelda game that doesn't use this sexist trope. I see your SS and raise you TLoZ, AoL, ALttP, OoT, WW, OoA/OoS, MC, FSA, TP, PH, and to a lesser extent ST.

I'd argue for Twilight Princess at least partially averting the trope. Zelda's not 'kidnapped', she's imprisoned in her own castle. In the cutscene showing the taking of the castle, it also shows her entire royal guard failing to stop Zant and his forces.

Yes, she ends up in Ganon's clutches towards the end of the game, ending up literally possessed by him, but only after she's sacrificed herself to save Midna.

Then, after you break the possession, it's Midna that brings her back to life, then she immediately joins you in fighting off Ganon for the next part of the final fight. There's very little weakness shown in Zelda throughout the game, and personally I'd argue TP is the strongest representation of her as a character in the series.