Magnus Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I've never understood why there aren't more female hero's in video games etc, the gender of the hero makes no difference to me, its good story telling & character interactions that matter to me, the latest tomb raider is rapidly becoming one of my favourite games the fact the hero is a woman makes no difference to me at all, i've come to love the character, the fact she has no floppy appendage between her legs doesn't affect me positively or negatively and i can't understand the thinking of people who do dismiss games that have a female protagonist Games can't even prominently feature a girl/woman on the cover without it negatively affecting sales, so apparently this is a huge deal to quite a few people. It boggles the mind.
Cube Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Games can't even prominently feature a girl/woman on the cover without it negatively affecting sales, so apparently this is a huge deal to quite a few people. It boggles the mind. Sony asked Naughty Dog to change the boxart for The Last of Us, moving the female character into the background. Naughty Dog said "no" and the final box art was what they intended it to be.
Agent Gibbs Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 It really does boggle the mind, i just can barely understand it, the only way that i can make sense of it is to think they have the mental and emotional age of a 4 year old - "ewww girls have kooties*" as for Naughty Dog they are amazing *what are kooties?
Mokong Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 $158,000 dollars. That's how much she values her time? What a self-righteous asshole. Think how much good that money could have done. Nope, she's making a few videos whilst essentially exploiting the issues so she can live the high life. Indeed. Just read the first page and watched the first video. Moving slightly away from the actual topic I'm wondering what she needed this 158,000 dollars from the kickstarter for? Production costs certainly wouldn't cost that much for the type of video it was. She needed a greenscreen... you could paint a wall...I use some green curtain cloth I bout for 10euro for my green screen. Lighting equipment was prolly the most expensive but looking at her channel she has done videos before so had this equipment already. Camera? Again she likely had already unless she bought a new one? Editing software? Again looks like she had that already anyway. So what the hell did she need 158,000 to fund this series for? Looking at her channel she already had all the video equipment she required to be able to make her videos. Surely she could do it with much less of an asking price for kickstarter funding? Or did she just want to be sure she wouldn't have to/need to work for a few years? EDIT To be fair she only ASKED for $6,000. The rest of the money was from supporters who WANTED her to have that money. Are you saying that you would have stopped excepting donations if people were genuinely willing to give it? I say go her! I would have taken the money that I'd earned! Ah ok only turned to page 2 now after making my post, haha Well then I guess that is fair enough. I thought she had asked for a 6 figure sum at the start. I don't follow Kickstarter projects too much. I always just assumed the person needing funding set a target and people helped them reach that and that was it.
Jonnas Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Okay, I did miss a lot! 1. Damsels in Distress - I think Anita overstates just how sexist this trope is in Videogames. Here, DiD is just a quick plot device to get the game/journey rolling, most of the time. Sure, the woman's role is small, but so is any other role that's not a main/playable character. This is pretty much why I think her points with Peach don't hold much water (though her point with SMB2 is valid, I think) That said, she brings up a very good point with Zelda: a woman can be a strong character and play an active role in the main story, only to turn frail when it's more convenient for the villain to use her as a tool, a bargaining chip, an object. She's still the trophy, the girl that the hero's going to get. She's not his partner in crime, she's his valet. It devalues the character and it is sexist because it never happens with men. (That said, I actually think OoT and PH are the undeniable offenders of this. Most Zelda games handle her character and role better than that) Krystal is also a fine point because... she has the tools to be a main character, and then drops everything so that Fox can take over and do everything she could, instead. Meanwhile, she's frozen so that Fox can oogle at her. So, why not have her participate more in the story, like being a mentor to Fox? Is her existence so disposable that it's worth trading off her presence for the sake of the DiD trope? In a nutshell, the main problem here is that people tend to understate the significance of being written off so that the man can steal the show. It's meaningless in Mario, but much graver in games where plot matters. 2. Anita's Project - I think it's a good project. She should definitely release the videos more often, because most men don't really understand the point she's trying to get across like this. 3. Feminism and Gender Roles - We have another thread for that already, right? I'll take a better look later. Hmm, well clearly this is quite a tricky issue. I'd say that men are represented quite one-dimensionally in games as well, yet no-one's complaining. I mean many male heroes are total meathead idiots, yet we don't really mind, as long as the action is good. I know Diageo already responded to this post, but... That stereotype is disgusting. Whenever I see it in movies or whatever, I just feel a bad taste in my mouth. It's violence for the sake of violence. Testosterone because MEN, YEAH! MUSCLES AND POWER! One thing I will say, though: even with this meathead stereotype that insults my intelligence due to my genders, at least it still lets men have an active role in solving the plot.
MoogleViper Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I know Diageo already responded to this post, but... That stereotype is disgusting. Whenever I see it in movies or whatever, I just feel a bad taste in my mouth. It's violence for the sake of violence. Testosterone because MEN, YEAH! MUSCLES AND POWER! Yeah but apparently that's just a male power fantasy. It doesn't matter that we all find it disgusting, we just need to get over it.
Diageo Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 It's a lot of males' power fantasy. There's a very large market that thinks it is cool or else it wouldn't sell.
Jonnas Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 And like I said, it's still better than any one-dimensional female stereotype, because at least stuff gets done with them. No matter what our opinion of the manly men is, they get a lot more exposure than the damsel.
pratty Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) 1. Damsels in Distress -.... she brings up a very good point with Zelda: a woman can be a strong character and play an active role in the main story, only to turn frail when it's more convenient for the villain to use her as a tool, a bargaining chip, an object. She's still the trophy, the girl that the hero's going to get. She's not his partner in crime, she's his valet. It devalues the character and it is sexist because it never happens with men. Absolutely a woman can be a strong and active character, but I think there's a difference etween could and should. Whatever capabilities Zelda might have, she's simply not as capable as Link (at least physically), their characters are different. Yes Nintendo made the characters that way, but is it really sexist? Aren't there frail women in real life, aren't women kidknapped in real life? Why can't Zelda be one of them? Or in order to not be sexist must the media always portray women as strong. I watched a movie the other day where a woman got beat up by a man, should I have said "there's sexist Hollywood reinforcing the stereotype that woman are weak again"? I think "equality" is a problematic term, I think it's too simplistic to simply say women must be equal invideo games. I agree women should be given equal opportunities in real life etc but if I race a woman over 100 meters it isn't sexist if I win, and if the race was fictional, it wouldn't necessarily be sexist for the author to portray a man beating a woman either, it's entirely plausible, and with all other things being equal probably likely. Men and woman should have equal basic rights and opportunities, but sometimes (and probably more often than not) men and woman are not the same, just as not every man is the same, or every woman is the same. People are different so why should Link and Zelda be the same? The Legend of Zelda is about a relatively physically capable man and a less physically capable woman, just as both exist in real life. Yes they could have done it the other way round, or made them exactly equal, but I don't think it's sexist that they didn't. Typcially in these adventure games we're dealing with protagonists that do physical and violent stuff and I don't think Nintedno are defying realism to portray the characters that way. Obviously though not every woman is weak, frail and unskilled in combat, and Nintendo have expressed the more physically capable female aswell. It just so happens that instead of portraying that female character type in The Legend Of Zelda, they did so in Metroid instead. And it makes sense, who's more likely to kick ass, a monach or a bounty hunter? And then other games have inverted the damsel in distress, such as Beyond Good and Evil. But if we're saying that games such as Metroid and BGAE are non-sexist video games and that we need more female protagonists, are we then saying all male protagonist games are inherantly sexist because the developer choose to depict a male protagonist rather than a female? Or that a characters of opposing sexes should not rescue each other? By the way that's not all just aimed at you Jonnas mate. It's just you brought up Zelda and I'm not convinced it's sexist, so I quoted you. Edited March 19, 2013 by pratty
Eenuh Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Yeah but apparently that's just a male power fantasy. It doesn't matter that we all find it disgusting, we just need to get over it. Not everyone finds it disgusting though. I have seen plenty of men who just reallllllly love that type of character. But they seem to be the "Grwaaaaah, I'm a man and I am gonna punch you" type. The ones who like being all masculine and showing off their muscles and whatnot. =P Zelda discussion I think the problem isn't that Zelda is "weak", the problem is more that she is actually a very strong character as Sheik/Tetra, but then as soon as she is transformed (back) into Princess Zelda, she becomes a weak character who suddenly has lost all her personality and gets herself kidnapped. This is mostly apparent in WW, where Tetra was a cool and stubborn character with her own strong will, but then as soon as it is revealed she is Princess Zelda, she becomes a frail little human being. It doesn't really make sense. Beyond Good and Evil is a good example of a strong female character (I used her in my paper too haha), but it is kinda sad that it is one of the very few ones out there. I am sure Anita will focus more on these type of characters too in the future, but the conclusion will probably be that there aren't enough or they still have flaws.
Agent Gibbs Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 I think the problem isn't that Zelda is "weak", the problem is more that she is actually a very strong character as Sheik/Tetra, but then as soon as she is transformed (back) into Princess Zelda, she becomes a weak character who suddenly has lost all her personality and gets herself kidnapped. This is mostly apparent in WW, where Tetra was a cool and stubborn character with her own strong will, but then as soon as it is revealed she is Princess Zelda, she becomes a frail little human being. It doesn't really make sense. That has always grated me, its as if that Dress she wears somehow saps her strength and makes her a different character, it would have made more sense for Tetra to rip the bottom half of the dress off and chase after link to help him. I suppose you could argue she's following the king's orders.....but again i refer back to my point, i still think she'd have ripped the skirt off the dress and followed Ocarina of Time is a little less blatant, she is strong and powerful as sheik and then to reveal herself dons the outfit link (and the audience i suppose was Nintendo's intention) would recognize. At this point Gannon launches his capture spell imprisoning her in the gem, in theory the same could have happened while in her disguise, but it certainly looks bad that once in the dress she's captured. In both cases she does get involved in the final fight (albeit minutely in OoT) so thats slightly redeeming, i don't think its intentional sexism, but its certainly sexist due to the fall back to the lazy plot twist of having a "damsel" be captured Phantom Hourglass is the worst though, Tetra didn't stand a chance it that one
pratty Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 I think the problem isn't that Zelda is "weak", the problem is more that she is actually a very strong character as Sheik/Tetra, but then as soon as she is transformed (back) into Princess Zelda, she becomes a weak character who suddenly has lost all her personality and gets herself kidnapped. This is mostly apparent in WW, where Tetra was a cool and stubborn character with her own strong will, but then as soon as it is revealed she is Princess Zelda, she becomes a frail little human being. It doesn't really make sense. But isn't that more because she's a princess than a female. If anything the Windwaker example suggests it's portraying princesses as frail, rather than the female gender as a whole. And even then her weakness is only relative. Beyond Good and Evil is a good example of a strong female character (I used her in my paper too haha), but it is kinda sad that it is one of the very few ones out there. I am sure Anita will focus more on these type of characters too in the future, but the conclusion will probably be that there aren't enough or they still have flaws. I agree there's nothing wrong with having a few more female protagonists, but I wonder if it's purely a numbers game to redress the balance. How many female protagonists do we need to get to a point where video games aren't going to be considered a sexist meduim? I think it's fair to say that with everything else (training, opportunity etc) being equal, men are more physcially capable then women. So if we say we want the same number of ass kicking female protagonists in the name of fairness, then does that really reflect the real world where women generally aren't as physically capable as men? If video games portrayed a world where women are exactly equally able to fight as well as men then doesn't that depict an equally false representation of real life? As it seems that the likes of Jade, Samus, Lara Croft etc are the exceptions in video games, aren't the women that can compete with their male peers in combat in real life the relative exceptions as well? If not why aren't the women fighting men in UFC etc? As I said earlier in the thread, couple that with the fact that more men play these kinds of games and prefer to indenity with male protagonists, and it's hardly surprising that so many developers go with male protagonists. As such I think Nintendo deserve more credit for making Samus female, rather than people regard it as some pathetic token gesture.
Eenuh Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 That has always grated me, its as if that Dress she wears somehow saps her strength and makes her a different character, it would have made more sense for Tetra to rip the bottom half of the dress off and chase after link to help him. I suppose you could argue she's following the king's orders.....but again i refer back to my point, i still think she'd have ripped the skirt off the dress and followed Ocarina of Time is a little less blatant, she is strong and powerful as sheik and then to reveal herself dons the outfit link (and the audience i suppose was Nintendo's intention) would recognize. At this point Gannon launches his capture spell imprisoning her in the gem, in theory the same could have happened while in her disguise, but it certainly looks bad that once in the dress she's captured. In both cases she does get involved in the final fight (albeit minutely in OoT) so thats slightly redeeming, i don't think its intentional sexism, but its certainly sexist due to the fall back to the lazy plot twist of having a "damsel" be captured Phantom Hourglass is the worst though, Tetra didn't stand a chance it that one To be honest I have completely forgotten the story in PH. =P OoT didn't bother me that much because it kinda made sense in that storyline for Zelda to be captured then. Her character didn't change massively either, she was quite strong as young Zelda and kept that personality as Sheik. But Tetra just completely changed and it kind of annoyed me. Not so much because it might be sexist, but more so because she got stripped off her personality when she put on that dress. It felt quite disappointing (though it was cool that she would help you out in the end fight and I am glad that is something Nintendo try to do a bit more, like they did in TP).
Cube Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists Some publishers weren't interested in Remember Me because of the female main character. Here are some of the things the publishers said: Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that You can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward
Agent Gibbs Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists Some publishers weren't interested in Remember Me because of the female main character. Here are some of the things the publishers said: what are they twelve? or called Alf Garnet?
Mr-Paul Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 At the end of Ocarina of Time, Zelda wasn't captured just because she was in a dress. She was captured because she was no longer disguised, and Ganondorf wanted the Triforce that she had. I guess you could argue that he could have captured Link in the same way, though, but that wouldhave taken away the whole of the last dungeon, and wouldn't be as fun!
Jonnas Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 @pratty: Your posts are big, and quoting single paragraphs doesn't work (since you're not dividing topics, your general message is spread out), so I'll try to address your points in a general manner A good female character needs not be physically strong. My point about Zelda is not that she's weaker than Link or Ganondorf, it's about her role in the story, and her characterization. Take Skyward Sword, a game with one of the weakest Zeldas in physical strength, but definitely one of the most active characters in the game. She's not self-sufficient, she needs a bodyguard, and she's easily captured by the villains when the time comes. But then, the DiD trope really works because you know she's frail, she's been running the entire time, after all. Furthermore, her characterization gives her a strong will and personality, which means she's still a strong female character, even though she's a frail girl. Meanwhile, in OoT, Zelda has been masquerading as a Ninja for years, now. Even though her kidnapping made sense at that point in time, she suddenly becomes frail even after she's rescued. What happened to the suave Ninja that would disappear like she was Batman? Why was she replaced with a woman who can't run fast, defend herself or even throw Link his sword during a battle? The character that we saw, that was built up, was discarded in favour of the DiD role. Like Eenuh said, a similar thing happens in Wind Waker, with someone who's been fighting and swashbuckling for way longer than Link has, no less. At least I think it makes more sense there, because she still joins the fight as soon as she can. She didn't become that frail. Then comes Phantom Hourglass and makes her be kidnapped like a chump and not matter for the entire game. In Twilight Princess, Zelda actively sacrifices her safety and well being, and actually has good reasons to stay quiet. Her role is minor in that game, but well written (and another bonus: the actual Twilight Princess, Midna, goes down fighting most of the time, instead of being relegated to a frail damsel). In Spirit Tracks, Zelda is frail and easily kidnapped, but she's still an active character in the plot. The most active, in fact. For another good example of a damsel that's still likable and relevant to the plot without sacrificing characterization or forcing them into an action girl role, take Peach in the Paper Mario series. Or even in the Mario&Luigi series (the first two, at least). Basically, OoT and PH played the trope wrong. They play up action girls only to force them into the damsel role, even though they should, at the very least, be taken kicking and screaming. Every other game I mentioned in this post did it right (though the case is ambiguous in WW). In a nutshell, Anita has a good point about Ocarina of Time and Starfox Adventures, because those games sacrifice characterization and good writing for the sake of a DiD trope: something that's easy to present, even though it goes against what was established about those characters. It's a bad use of the trope, and yes, it's sexist because almost no male characters get shoved into an unfitting damsel role* like that. Using your "100 meter race" analogy, the problem is not that the woman would lose against the man: it's that, according to these examples, she wouldn't even try to win. *(By which I mean, male characters with strong oraggressive personalities suddenly being easily kidnapped and sitting while waiting for someone to come to them. The only exception I can think of is DK and Diddy being kidnapped in the DKC trilogy)
MoogleViper Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 Not everyone finds it disgusting though. I have seen plenty of men who just reallllllly love that type of character. But they seem to be the "Grwaaaaah, I'm a man and I am gonna punch you" type. The ones who like being all masculine and showing off their muscles and whatnot. =P And equally there are plenty of women that find the damsel in distress idea to be romantic, say they want a man to protect them and look after them, and want a knight in shining armour. So why is it that one is sexist, and the other is what men want?
Debug Mode Posted March 19, 2013 Author Posted March 19, 2013 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists Some publishers weren't interested in Remember Me because of the female main character. Here are some of the things the publishers said: Bloody hell, and we're sat here arguing about tropes presented in games like Mario? Surely this is the real issue with video gaming?
pratty Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 In a nutshell, Anita has a good point about Ocarina of Time and Starfox Adventures, because those games sacrifice characterization and good writing for the sake of a DiD trope: something that's easy to present, even though it goes against what was established about those characters. It's a bad use of the trope, and yes, it's sexist because almost no male characters get shoved into an unfitting damsel role* like that. Interesting points, and I agree with some of them to an extent, but also disagree some too. I agree that the damsels in distress limit the character and influence of the damsel. Though you say it's sexist because they wouldn't place men in a passive and disempowered position against their character, but is that really happening with Zelda? The trouble is someone's abilities are only relative. You correctly point out in Ocarina that Zelda was some kind of ninja-like character, but does that establish that she could kick Ganondorf's ass? Clearly she was never beyond capture or she wouldn't have been captured. So is there such a thing as an unfitting damsel in distress? The very fact they are in distress suggests that no matter how capable they might have been, they still weren't up to the job of of preventing their capture. You could even argue that if you are going to use the trope perhaps it's better to depict a typically capable and active woman, as being caught off guard and captured "on a bad day", than to reinforce the usual stereotype of the damsel always being feeble and useless. I agree that a female character need not be as physically able as the male, and that having a character like Zelda be more integral to the action can be of benefit to the story. But equally in my opinion there is no need for her to be. Contrary to what Anita seems to think, I wouldn't say The Legend of Zelda is really about Zelda's character. She's sort of a maguffin type character, we learn enough about her to understand why she's important to Link, but (while it might be a better story if she did) it isn't necessarry that she play an active and integral role. For example you could still have the Saving Private Ryan story if Private Ryan was injured and unable to move, maybe unable even to speak, and was a totally passive character. It might not be as good a film but the story would still be about the soldiers and their sacrifice to save him. Similarly the story in Zelda is mainly about the protagonist saving the day, any help from Zelda herself is welcome icing on the cake. I think would be sexist if Nintendo simply said women cannot be heroes, but they're not saying that, and if anyone doubts them they have a strong female hero in Metroid. And despite the fact that the Zelda series is actually about a male hero, the Zelda character does still play an active role some of the time, and is occasionally depicted as a fairly capable, strong willed and active character. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists Some publishers weren't interested in Remember Me because of the female main character. Here are some of the things the publishers said: Quote: "Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that." To be fair the the publishers themselves probably didn't phrase it quite like that, and they probably just meant male characters stand a better chance of financial success, and that by contrast female protagonists aren't worth the risk to them, which is different from saying females are incapable of being protagonists. If it's true that having a female protagonist does pose more of a substantial risk, then surely that says more about gamers than the publishers themselves?
Magnus Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 The way you talk about the story in Ocarina of Time makes the sequence of events sound so absolute - like Zelda gets captured because she just wasn't a good enough fighter, and not because Nintendo wrote the story that way.
pratty Posted March 19, 2013 Posted March 19, 2013 The way you talk about the story in Ocarina of Time makes the sequence of events sound so absolute - like Zelda gets captured because she just wasn't a good enough fighter, and not because Nintendo wrote the story that way. No I am aware of that, I think I did say in earlier posts that Nintendo could have written the games differently.
Jonnas Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 You correctly point out in Ocarina that Zelda was some kind of ninja-like character, but does that establish that she could kick Ganondorf's ass? Clearly she was never beyond capture or she wouldn't have been captured. So is there such a thing as an unfitting damsel in distress? The very fact they are in distress suggests that no matter how capable they might have been, they still weren't up to the job of of preventing their capture. The issue I had with her portrayal in OoT is not that she was kidnapped. That part actually makes a lot of sense, and no, she most definitely could not (and should not) have done anything against Ganondorf. The issue is how she's portrayed after she's been rescued. She's suddenly filling the role of the "damsel with slight gameplay benefits". She can't fight the Stalfos, she audibly gasps with every obstacle, she sits on the sidelines doing absolutely nothing to help Link fight Ganon... Basically, she becomes a generic damsel in behaviour. She may need to rely on Link, but there's no reason for her to turn so meek. She's the runner who sat down as soon as the shot was heard. You could even argue that if you are going to use the trope perhaps it's better to depict a typically capable and active woman, as being caught off guard and captured "on a bad day", than to reinforce the usual stereotype of the damsel always being feeble and useless. Action girls are the worst possible choices for the damsel, I think. First, because even though they may be caught in a bad day, the fact of the matter is that a damsel will have to sit and wait to be rescued. If a girl is active, can you expect her to sit instead of trying to escape? Second, if she's an action girl, building her up as one, when her role requires her to stay quiet while the hero does all the work is a bit counterproductive, from a writing standpoint. I'm not denying that an action girl might be overpowered and captured, it's just that she's not a damsel, and should not be suddenly written as such just so that the protagonist can have a prize. She's sort of a maguffin type character, we learn enough about her to understand why she's important to Link, but (while it might be a better story if she did) it isn't necessarry that she play an active and integral role. I agree. I don't think Peach and Zelda's early appearances are a bad use of the trope at all. It's just bad writing I have an issue with, and games with no writing do not fall victim to this. I think would be sexist if Nintendo simply said women cannot be heroes, but they're not saying that Oh, absolutely, Nintendo isn't sexist like that. But they did employ the DiD trope in a sexist way, even if unintentionally. Ultimately, I believe this is what Anita's video series is about: tropes that are (mis)used in sexist ways, even if it wasn't their original intention. They ultimately reflect unconsciously sexist attitudes from the writers and society in general. The main issue here is that female characters can easily be forced into damsel roles whether they fit them or not. If Zelda is not a good example of this, what about Starfox Adventures? No damsel was ever needed there, Fox already had a goal, and Krystal could easily be a mentor or sidekick to Fox. And if Krystal's original concept was a male character, could that hypothetical Kristoph have been pushed into the damsel role?
Cube Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 There was a male main character in Dinosaur Planet, as the game was designed with both female and male main characters. The male one was replaced by Fox and Krystal was moved to the damsel position.
pratty Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Action girls are the worst possible choices for the damsel, I think. First, because even though they may be caught in a bad day, the fact of the matter is that a damsel will have to sit and wait to be rescued. If a girl is active, can you expect her to sit instead of trying to escape? Second, if she's an action girl, building her up as one, when her role requires her to stay quiet while the hero does all the work is a bit counterproductive, from a writing standpoint. I'm not denying that an action girl might be overpowered and captured, it's just that she's not a damsel, and should not be suddenly written as such just so that the protagonist can have a prize. To be honest I really can't remember Ocarina all that well, I can't really remember how she acted after capture, however could it be that you're overestimating the capabilities of Zelda? She was a Sheikah, or at least pretended to be, and the gossip stones do refer to her as a tomboy, but prior to her capture does the game actually depict her has handling actual danger the way you expect her to? After all she is fearful of Ganondorf, if she was so supposedly bad ass why not just take him on? The game does say that she is more than her "elegant image" but I'm not convinced her character does a complete 180 degree shift when she is captured. She's no delicate flower but equally no fearless warrior, and being captured by Ganondorf and made to feel helpless will certainly knock the confidence out of someone. Ultimately, I believe this is what Anita's video series is about: tropes that are (mis)used in sexist ways, even if it wasn't their original intention. They ultimately reflect unconsciously sexist attitudes from the writers and society in general. The main issue here is that female characters can easily be forced into damsel roles whether they fit them or not. Even if Zelda is made to fit the damsel role against an established un-damsel character, is it really sexist? It's easy to hypothetically say the games wouldn't depict a male character the same way as Zelda, but why would they, if the game has a male protagonist, typically played by a male player? I think we have to remember the trope is about motivating the typically male player. I can see why people view it as the somewhat capable female having to take a step back for a more capable male, but if the progonist is male, then an active female (Zelda) must be somewhat disposed of for him to have a purpose, otherwise just let her deal with Ganondorf. It might be bad writing, but the more helpless and needy the damsel becomes the more motivated the player is. Is that sexist? I'm not sure it is. Just because a game has an active male hero and a passive female damsel, it isn't making the sexist statement that woman cannot be heroes. It's simply saying on this occasion the hero is male, and the absence of an active female companion/damsel isn't sexist either. And it would actually be far more simple for the Nintendo to just depict Zelda as weak and frail from start to finish, so I think it's actually to Nintendo's credit that they don't. As you said it's not sexist that women can't win the race, it's that sexist that they're not given the opportunity to run. Now I would say that not showing a woman running isn't the same as saying women cannot run, however, to me Nintendo do show Zelda (and Krystal) as a fairly active and capable character ("running the race" so to speak) prior to the events of the game where they are captured, it is at this point where the male protagonist takes over from her. Zelda may well unintentionally appear to reinforce a general pre-existing notion that women are ultimately incapable of looking after themselves without the help of men, but what are we do? Never have woman rescued by man ever again, for fear of reinforcing a stereotype? Better to counter that notion in other games, which Nintendo do with Metroid. If Zelda is not a good example of this, what about Starfox Adventures? No damsel was ever needed there, Fox already had a goal, and Krystal could easily be a mentor or sidekick to Fox. And if Krystal's original concept was a male character, could that hypothetical Kristoph have been pushed into the damsel role? It's true no damsel was needed, but as I explained it's a device used for motivation, so adding a damsel increases motivation, it's lazy and overdone but it seems to work. I do think there's a greater case with Starfox Adventures to be made about the objectification of the damsel and the female as prize, because they make it clear that Fox fancies her. It's a very simple and un-subtle motivation, but I do wonder how harmful and sexist it really is. Would they hypothetically depict a male character like Krystal against a female protagonist? Perhaps not, but then again maybe men and woman are motivated by different things. I don't believe that the decision to replace Krystal with Fox itself was a sexist one. I think they just saw an opportunity to use an established IP, and then subsequently built the game around the male protagonist of Fox instead. They might well have also concluded that a male protagonist would be better suited for the market, but I think if Fox was woman they might well have still replaced Krystal. But hey I could be wrong, I've enjoyed the debate, it's cool if we differ and can agree to disagree. Edited March 20, 2013 by pratty
Recommended Posts