Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[zircon]

Having 90% of the stories being written feature male heroes and female damsels is an argument that sexism exists on the cultural level, yes

That's the video is saying. That's what we're all saying. With such an overwhelming flood of games that use this trope it's indicative of less-than-balanced attitudes toward gender roles.

[Native Jovian]

And I'm certainly not arguing against the idea that sexism is a thing that actually happens or that video games could use some more balanced characterization in terms of gender.

What I'm saying is that the use of the Damsel in Distress trope is not indicative of sexism, and that calling something sexist purely because it uses that trope -- particularly if it has other, anti-sexist elements -- is damaging to the message being delivered (that sexism is real, is bad, and should be avoided when at all possible) because labeling something with an overall positive message with regards to gender equality sexist due to one element taken in isolation is shooting yourself in the foot.

Edit -- I'm also not suggesting that the video was saying "Damsel in Distress == sexist", either. At the very end, she points out that simply having a Damsel in Distress in a game doesn't make the game sexist. I sort of wish that she'd mentioned that a little sooner and gone into it a bit deeper rather than saying "oh, by the way, after talking about Damsels in Distress and sexism for 20 minutes, I should point out that they're not always sexist", but I understand that she didn't want to lose the larger point of the video. I was mostly just reacting to MC Final Sigma's blanket attitude that any use of the trope is sexism, forever, period.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Native Jovian

[RiverSound]

Is it sexist to say that males, when compared to females, are more physically efficient and muscular, and thus are more suitable, for example, as sword-wielding heroes in rpg's?

[Drachefly]

Women are more physically efficient. Men have much higher peak power output.

[Native Jovian]

I don't think it's sexist to say something like "men are, on average, physically larger and stronger than women". That's simply a biological fact. Where it crosses into sexism is when you move from talking about groups to talking about individuals. "Men tend to be stronger than women" isn't sexist, but "you're weak because you're a woman" is.

[RiverSound]

Women are more physically efficient. Men have much higher peak power output.

I think that's incredibly debatable. If we go to muscle biology, it all depends on so many variables. That's why I generalized with the broadest brush possible. Like saying females tend to be prettier than males. I don't think anyone should have the need to argue about that. Everybody knows that there are and always will be exceptions.

Native Jovian: I agree. And, acknowledging that fact, it would feel obvious why male protagonists are preferred to female ones in instances where the protagonist is supposed to be an action hero of sorts.

I know people who think that alone is sexist. I don't get that.

Edited March 10, 2013 by RiverSound

[MC Final Sigma]

Is it sexist to say that males, when compared to females, are more physically efficient and muscular, and thus are more suitable, for example, as sword-wielding heroes in rpg's?

No, but since when have videogames had to obey the rules of biology? Can Italian plumbers really jump ten feet in the air and shoot fireballs? I mean, Link is practically a 10-year-old in many of his games, so why couldn't a woman do what he does? Sexual differences aren't as developed that young. And many games have pulled off female sword-wielders effectively. A great example is Riven from League of Legends, who is a totally OP bruiser (not a mage, which is a fairly evenly gendered category, and not a support, which is mostly female because of women's stereotypical gender roles as nurturing and motherly):

http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Riven

I was mostly just reacting to MC Final Sigma's blanket attitude that any use of the trope is sexism, forever, period.

Dude, I've addressed this over and over. It's not that men saving women is sexist, but the PROPORTION of female damsels to male "damsels" swings overwhelmingly in the female direction, and that PROPORTION is what makes it sexist.

In addition, in many games, the only ways of being female are to be a helpless damsel. Consider the Marioverse: until maybe Rosalina, your options are Peach, Daisy, Pauline... all damsels. And that constant reinforcement implies that all women are powerless.

Allow me to put it to you another way. If I wrote a show where the only black character was an illiterate dumbass criminal who has like 16 children by different mothers, is a deadbeat, etc. etc., would that be racist? By your logic, it would be hunky dory because it's just one black guy, I'm not saying all black men are like that, etc. etc. But that black character exists in a context, a context in which those attributes are stereotypes, stereotypes that are/were widely attributed to black men in real life. And to reinforce them in this way, where the only type of black person in my story conforms to the stereotype, is racist. I think you can do the math and see that representing the women in your story according to their stereotypes is sexist in the same way. Or do you think videogames and other cultural narratives spontaneously arise from some alien, context-less void?

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.

Now, I don't really understand your position. You're saying that use of the DiD trope in games is not sexist, even though the lack of female heroes is sexist, and that the DiD trope is a product of a sexist society and reflects the fact that sexism exists in our culture? So I guess videogames as a whole are sexist products, but individual games are not? Okay, man. Whatever. My opinion is that if DiD existed in a vacuum, it would not be sexist, but adding fuel to the fire is irresponsible and reinforces sexist readings.

And let me quote myself to answer another of your points:

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

[Garpocalypse]

I think that's incredibly debatable. If we go to muscle biology, it all depends on so many variables.

Women are more physically efficient. Men have much higher peak power output.

Is it sexist to say that males, when compared to females, are more physically efficient and muscular, and thus are more suitable, for example, as sword-wielding heroes in rpg's?

Where the heck did this thread go since last night? This is just getting weird now guys. BS opened a pandoras box that no one can...really seem to deal with actually.

[RiverSound]

Where the heck did this thread go since last night? This is just getting weird now guys. BS opened a pandoras box that no one can...really seem to deal with actually.

hehe, I know I derailed the topic a bit when addressing sexism in general. Don't sweat it man I'm not gonna take it further.

[MC Final Sigma]

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.

It's still Zelda being made powerless, and her only salvation comes from a man. It's almost more reprehensible because of Zelda's history as a damsel and the fact that even the strongest woman can't save herself.

Possession, by the way, is as disempowering as you can get, because you can't even control your own body. Fun fact: no male is ever possessed in the Zelda universe. The closest we ever get is impersonations of the King of Hyrule in MC, but it's established that he's not actually possessed, he's locked away in the basement. For women, though, we have Nabooru in OoT, Zelda in Tp and ST, and Impa, Nayru, AND Ambi in OoA... There may be more, I'll have to think on it.

[Brandon Strader]

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 don't know who said this, but this was an incredible point.

[Radiowar]

even if it was true that, taken individually, instances of the "damsel in distress" trope were harmless, the fact that these individual instances are so ubiquitous throughout video games is indicative of a larger pattern, and it is the pattern that is harmful. does it mean people should never play mario bros. again, or feel guilty whenever they do? probably not. but like i said before, this is not about video games, it's about the kind of art our culture produces, and really getting to the bottom of what it says about us.

[EC2151]

What did it 'say about us' back in the '80s when our movies and video-games often starred machine-gun toting musclemen who spouted one-liners at every given opportunity?

Clearly we've lost something valuable to our collective conscious over the last 30 years.

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

I don't know who said this, but this was an incredible point.

It is, at best, a subpar point that really sounds more like concern trolling. There may be perfectly valid reasons for characterizing these games as sexist that other people might disagree with and dismiss. People will always disagree, and that's their prerogative, but that's no reason to say one shouldn't legitimately argue something has sexist undertones if a person think it does.

[Garpocalypse]

What did it 'say about us' back in the '80s when our movies and video-games often starred machine-gun toting musclemen who spouted one-liners at every given opportunity?

Clearly we've lost something valuable to our collective conscious over the last 30 years.

Expendables 2! Awesome movie! I never thought i'd miss that stuff but these days in our Steve Carell, Seth Rogan, Angry Video Game Nerd society. Yea, i kinda do.

[Native Jovian]

Dude, I've addressed this over and over. It's not that men saving women is sexist, but the PROPORTION of female damsels to male "damsels" swings overwhelmingly in the female direction, and that PROPORTION is what makes it sexist.

If that's what you're saying (the fact that the majority of damsel in distress plots have a man saving a woman is indicative of the existence of sexism in the wider culture), then I don't disagree. What I was arguing against was comments like these:

It doesn't matter why game developers use this trope, the trope is toxic in and of itself.

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

...which I took to mean that each, individual use of the trope made the work that used it sexist. You seemed to be saying that the trope itself is inherently sexist, regardless of anything else. As in, any work that used that trope automatically became sexist, even if the same work had other, anti-sexist elements (like strong, independent female characters). If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

If I wrote a show where the only black character was an illiterate dumbass criminal who has like 16 children by different mothers, is a deadbeat, etc. etc., would that be racist? By your logic, it would be hunky dory because it's just one black guy, I'm not saying all black men are like that, etc. etc.

No, that's not what I've been saying at all. I'm saying if one negatively-portrayed black character existed in the same work as a bunch of positively-portrayed black characters, you'd be silly to call the entire work racist. In other words, it's possible to have a negatively portrayed member of a group without it being a negative reflection on that group as a whole -- whether you're talking about gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.

You're saying that use of the DiD trope in games is not sexist, even though the lack of female heroes is sexist, and that the DiD trope is a product of a sexist society and reflects the fact that sexism exists in our culture?

I'm saying that looking at trends can reveal the existence of sexism on a large scale, but when talking about individual works you have to look more closely. Having a male hero rescue a female damsel in distress isn't inherently sexist -- there's nothing wrong with wanting to tell a story about a male hero with a female love interest that he must protect, especially if other female characters are stronger, more positive portrayals. But if the vast majority of stories being told are about male heroes with female love interests that they must protect, you have to ask why no one seems to want to right about female heroes, or male heroes with capable, independent love interests, or anything besides male heroes with disempowered female love interests. The answer to that question may well be sexism.

In other words, it's a lot easier to say that "this trend is indicative of sexism" than it is to say "this specific work that contributes to that trend is sexist".

[Brandon Strader]

It is, at best, a subpar point that really sounds more like concern trolling. There may be perfectly valid reasons for characterizing these games as sexist that other people might disagree with and dismiss. People will always disagree, and that's their prerogative, but that's no reason to say one shouldn't legitimately argue something has sexist undertones if a person think it does.

That's racist.

Expendables 2! Awesome movie! I never thought i'd miss that stuff but these days in our Steve Carell, Seth Rogan, Angry Video Game Nerd society. Yea, i kinda do.

I heard Nicolas Cage is going to be the star of Expendables 3, as the villain. I never watched the Expendables series because I thought it objectified men and sexualized them, but if that is true I will DEFINITELY be seeing this one.

[EC2151]

I was actually pretty appalled when Sigourney Weaver (a strong independent woman in her own right) had to be rescued by Bill Murray, a man, in Ghostbusters.

They really made her incapable of defending herself against Gozer.

But wait, is it ok that she was possessed by Gozer, who is herself a strong competent female (evil) entity?

Or is that even worse because Bill Murray destroys Gozer? But Gozer turns into the StayPuft Marshmallow Man. But marshmallows are not strong and independent!

I am very confused. Am I supposed to hate Ghostbusters for the patriarchy it shoves down my throat (why aren't there any Ghostbustrixes?) or admire it for the fact that the villain is a strong, motivated female? Help me!

[MC Final Sigma]

If that's what you're saying (the fact that the majority of damsel in distress plots have a man saving a woman is indicative of the existence of sexism in the wider culture), then I don't disagree. What I was arguing against was comments like these:

...which I took to mean that each, individual use of the trope made the work that used it sexist. You seemed to be saying that the trope itself is inherently sexist, regardless of anything else. As in, any work that used that trope automatically became sexist, even if the same work had other, anti-sexist elements (like strong, independent female characters). If that's not what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

OK, I see the confusion. Let me keep quoting you first, for things I agree with, and then I'll clarify my thoughts.

No, that's not what I've been saying at all. I'm saying if one negatively-portrayed black character existed in the same work as a bunch of positively-portrayed black characters, you'd be silly to call the entire work racist. In other words, it's possible to have a negatively portrayed member of a group without it being a negative reflection on that group as a whole -- whether you're talking about gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever.

I already conceded SS, and I'll go ahead and explicitly concede your point: one damsel does not spoil a bunch of strong female characters, in theory (I think that the context/history of Zelda being a classic videogame damsel does sour her brief disempowerment in SS, but it's a relatively small gripe). BUT that's not what happens in most games, especially in the games Anita was talking about in her video. As I've been saying over and over, you very frequently see ONLY damsels in games that use this trope; the only women are damsels. And THAT is problematic, no? Examples like SS are actually quite rare when stacked against the huge list of damsel-only titles.

I'm saying that looking at trends can reveal the existence of sexism on a large scale, but when talking about individual works you have to look more closely. Having a male hero rescue a female damsel in distress isn't inherently sexist -- there's nothing wrong with wanting to tell a story about a male hero with a female love interest that he must protect, especially if other female characters are stronger, more positive portrayals. But if the vast majority of stories being told are about male heroes with female love interests that they must protect, you have to ask why no one seems to want to right about female heroes, or male heroes with capable, independent love interests, or anything besides male heroes with disempowered female love interests. The answer to that question may well be sexism.

In other words, it's a lot easier to say that "this trend is indicative of sexism" than it is to say "this specific work that contributes to that trend is sexist".

I agree it's difficult to indict any particular work, but let me be clear: I think the first time the DiD trope was used, it wasn't sexist. Same goes for the second, third, maybe fourth time as well. But today, this trope is literally thousands of years old, and it's disappointing that game makers CONTINUE to use it. It supports many stereotypical and misogynistic ways of viewing women, and it's irresponsible at best for game makers to keep using it. So today, I would indeed consider the trope toxic in and of itself, even though on the abstract level I concede that it's not inherently, without context, a sexist trope.

[EC2151]

'Irresponsible'? Really?

Better burn all our copies of Grimm, folks. The only permissible cultural inculcation material will be Shrek 3.

[Brandon Strader]

Let's all become stay at home husbands and teachers and send our wives out to work in construction plants, steel mills, etc... only then will we truly have equality!

Ask a woman you know "Have you ever considered working in a Steel mill?" and post their answer here... I might try this... hmm

[MC Final Sigma]

'Irresponsible'? Really?

Better burn all our copies of Grimm, folks. The only permissible cultural inculcation material will be Shrek 3.

Yuk yuk yuk. These are straw men, and pretty weak ones at that. There's a difference between asking for voluntary, principled self-"censoring" and mandatory censorship like book burning. I'll use another race example b/c it's actually a very similar civil rights issue. I don't want to see historical racist documents burnt, but I also don't wish to see modern people espousing racism or telling new, pro-racist narratives, even if they claim it's somehow "traditional." I think it would be best if everyone agreed that racism is bad and that we should leave it (intact) in the dustbin of history.

[MC Final Sigma]

Let's all become stay at home husbands and teachers and send our wives out to work in construction plants, steel mills, etc... only then will we truly have equality!

Ask a woman you know "Have you ever considered working in a Steel mill?" and post their answer here... I might try this... hmm

Lol. Way to out yourself as a person who doesn't understand feminism. It is for equal rights, not a reversal of existing power structures. And since women have been socialized (just as men have been) to prefer certain things, you can't use that as evidence that the gender roles are somehow natural.

[EC2151]

How is it voluntary when you are clearly implying that it should be the societal norm, with clear pressure put on individuals? And please, don't bring up racism, because a) you don't understand it, and we aren't talking about it.

[Native Jovian]

I don't know who said this, but this was an incredible point.

That was me, back here.

even if it was true that, taken individually, instances of the "damsel in distress" trope were harmless, the fact that these individual instances are so ubiquitous throughout video games is indicative of a larger pattern, and it is the pattern that is harmful.

Agreed; this is what I was trying to get at, from the other direction (ie, "even if the pattern is harmful, instances of the damsel in distress trope taken individually can be harmless").

It is, at best, a subpar point that really sounds more like concern trolling. There may be perfectly valid reasons for characterizing these games as sexist that other people might disagree with and dismiss. People will always disagree, and that's their prerogative, but that's no reason to say one shouldn't legitimately argue something has sexist undertones if a person think it does.

I wasn't saying that people shouldn't discuss what works are sexist and which aren't. I was saying that if you completely flip your shit over every instance of a maybe-kinda-could be sexist element in a work (like the damsel in distress trope), which aren't individually a big problem, then people are going to tune you out because you're making a big deal over small issues.

Put another way: save your effort for the big issues. People have a limited attention span and most of them don't take well to being preached at, so if you actually want to reach a wide audience, you have to concentrate your effort. Instead of saying "everything's a little bit sexist", start with something that's blatantly sexist -- which makes it hard for people to dismiss it as "eh, that's no big deal" like they can with small examples -- and then pull out to show how this is indicative of the wider industry, and how even games that don't seem nearly as bad at first can still have problems.

Really, the video seemed less like "sexism is a problem in the gaming industry and here's why you should care" and more like "a brief history of institutional sexism in the gaming industry". It approaches the topic as if its viewers already agreed that sexism was a big problem in video games and simply wanted to learn more about the issue's history. That's a no-good way to convince people that it is an issue in the first place.

Of course, it's possible that that's exactly how she's approaching the series -- "you already know that sexism is a problem, so here are some details". There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not going to convince many people that don't believe in the problem to begin with that there is a problem at all.

As I've been saying over and over, you very frequently see ONLY damsels in games that use this trope; the only women are damsels. And THAT is problematic, no?

Definitely. No disagreement there.

It supports many stereotypical and misogynistic ways of viewing women, and it's irresponsible at best for game makers to keep using it. So today, I would indeed consider the trope toxic in and of itself, even though on the abstract level I concede that it's not inherently, without context, a sexist trope.

That's where we disagree. Certainly tropes like the damsel in distress has the potential to be misogynist, and a writer using the trope should guard against that, but suggesting that no one should use the trope because it's inevitably sexist seems overly simplistic to me.