Justin Scott was nice enough to reply to both previous parts and I feel an explanation is in order. However, you will all have to excuse me for this being the final part of this particular thread, as I really need to be designing more and writing less.

I will quote all of Justin’s response and provide my answers. Note this is not done to mock or for whatever other nefarious reason. We’re having a conversation here.

Just wanted to say I love your work on The Vanishing of Ethan Carter.

Thank you.

However, you seem to be missing the context that you’re accusing Anita of missing. The first and oddest obvious way is that you compare fantasy characters to real-life people, in that you assume that a human female that is rescued by a male hero is the same as a female game damsel who is rescued by a male hero.

I do not compare fantasy characters to real-life people (I talk about a fictional work inspired by real-life events), but even if I did I would fail to see the problem. After all, fantasy people only work when they actually feel like real people.

A few days ago, a man saved a woman from being stabbed to death by her husband.

Let’s call this man John. John did good, right? Now, obviously John had a life before the incident. A writer reading the story of John saving a woman’s life immediately asks himself: why did John help her, when no one else did? Where did he get the courage to stand up to a maniac with a knife?

And the writer starts thinking about a story of John, a man who was a coward all of his life. His fear of life is overwhelming, his failures devastating. For the majority of the script we basically observe John’s descent into darkness, from a push over to a human wreck.

Near the end, John is thinking of suicide. He wonders how to do it, and walks aimlessly down the streets of his city. Suddenly, he can see a man stabbing a woman. John rushes to the scene but it’s not really to save the woman. Just as there is “suicide by cop”, John hopes that the madman does to him what he himself probably would not be able to do.

However, his will of life, up to this point entirely invisible to him, explodes and takes over. Unable to explain why and how, John overpowers the attacker and saves the woman’s life.

John visits the woman at the hospital. The wounds are too deep and her life is seeping away from her. Her struggle is over three days later, and John is there when it happens.

But John’s newly-found appreciation of life is not shattered, on the contrary. John realizes how precious a life is. How unimportant his parking tickets, loud neighbors and obnoxious boss really are, and, seen through the hospital window, how beautiful the city lights are at night.

Now, look what the writer did. Inspired by the real-life event he told a story in which he used a woman, damseled her, and then killed her in order to show a man’s journey.

This is what writers do. They bring characters to life, then sometimes kill them. Or maybe turn them into drug addicts, or have them win a lottery. All of that to make a certain point or to offer a different perspective. We tell stories in order to reveal some small and big truths about the human condition.

You have two options here. One is to understand this story as a tragedy that ultimately unmasks itself as an ode to life. A story of how we reveal our true nature in the most extreme of situations, and a story of quiet catharsis. The madman represents our fears and worries, the woman represents life, her death exposes its value.

The other options is see this story as normalization of violence against women, victory of misogyny via the victimization and death of a woman, and confirmation of the harmful stereotype that women are weak — all told through sexist tropes.

But understand this: if you wear those glasses, nothing will ever not be sexist again. I guarantee you, and I can bet everything I have on it, that I will be able to turn anything, literally any book or any movie, into a sexist orgy.

Let me give you a taste. Thomas Was Alone is often consider a great feminist game. Anita Sarkeesian included the character of Claire in her Five Feminist Moments in the History of Video Games.

Meet Claire.

Claire is the large blue square. She cannot jump very well, but she can swim, and here we see her helping out her friends to get to the other side.

How is that not a body shaming? A woman so large she is a basically a whale? Why cannot she be her own color, and has to be blue, the color usually associated with men (as opposed to women’s pink)? Why does this scene normalize women as under the foot of a man? Why is Claire stereotyped to a female sidekick who exists to help a man (Thomas) on his journey for greatness? Why isn’t it Claire Was Alone? And if it was, why does the title shame women who choose not to have a partner?

I can do this all day, with anything.

The biggest flaw is that you’ve neglected the entirety of the rest of the human person’s life. Humans are innately well-rounded characters — they have hopes, dreams, aspirations, flaws, goals, successes and failures. When that human female is rescued by a male hero, she goes on and lives the rest of her life, having effect and agency on the world around here. She had that agency before she was rescued as well. She could have a myriad of traits. She might be flawed — she might be terrible, but she’s still something. When Princess Peach gets rescued, the game is over, and she’ll immediately get kidnapped at the beginning of the next game, while wearing the same outfit, and probably making a cake. Unlike the human female, she has nothing else — she’s there to get captured, to provide motivation to Mario, and when she’s rescued, there’s a short denouement where she provides some sort of thanks for Mario’s effort, and that’s it. Her context is only in her relationship to Mario and Bowser (or another villain). Even when we do see her in captivity (in Paper Mario), it’s a creepy affair about a perverted robot and less about her. She could easily be replaced with a magic sword, a golden snitch, or any other McGuffin. It doesn’t matter, because she doesn’t really exist between kidnappings. The ironic thing is that when she’s actually allowed to go out on her own (in Super Princess Peach and Super Mario Bros 2), she’s arguably the best the character of the bunch. She actually saves Mario in Super Princess Peach (one of the very few examples of a female saving a male), and in Super Mario Bros 2, she’s arguably the best character with her hover ability.

You are talking about the game about two dimensional characters, and I mean that both figuratively and literally. You are talking about the game in which the kidnapper is a giant lizard dragon turtle. You are talking about the game in which the kidnapping turned from an incentive to play to a trademark wink.

People are generally able to distinguish between a cartoon princess and real life women. To muse whether Princess Peach has ever felt loss or if she is a libertarian does not seem like the wisest use of one’s time.

You are also contradicting yourself by saying she does not exist between the kidnappings then praising her stories as a game heroine.

The other major issue you seem to ignore is that this is video games. It’s a created medium, not life. People seem to love to utilize this argument when defending the effect it has on players (It’s just harmless fantasy), but never really acknowledge the other half — we’re not bound to any rules here. The genetic and physical limitations that define human sexes aren’t required in the video game world. We could easily make a game with all female soldiers, or all female cops, or anything else. There’s no reason we can’t strive for gender equity. The tropeyness is because we derive these stories from older stories, and those older stories from even older stories or ministel songs or plays, back when there was an incredible dominant patriarchy and the options for women were incredibly limited by society. Society has gotten considerably better (not equity, but certainly closer) and we could easily push video games into something more inline with a desired utopia.

Not sure what you’re proposing here. Despite the fact that core gamers are dominantly male, there’s already a great representation of women in video games. Much better one than in movies, for example.

Be careful with “desired utopia”. What is it? But whatever it is, it’s not the same for everybody. There are gender feminists and equity feminists, can they have their own utopias represented in video games or is there one everyone must apply to?

Now there are some games that are based on real life — for example, certain War games, and Sports Games always have some grounding in reality (except for odd bits like Blood Bowl). Nobody would expect gender equity in these. Games that recreate real life situations where a person is rescued wouldn’t qualify either.

What if someone’s fantasy is to “Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.”? Can they be Conan? Can such a game be made for them to enjoy?

I hope so, and I assume you agree. If you like games which resemble your world views and desires, by all means, make one, keep supporting developers who make such games, or keep asking them to go for one. I see no problem with that. Just be able to take no for an answer. You said it yourself: games are fantasy in which anything goes. Accept that some people have different fantasies to yours. Live and let live.

It’s also incredibly short-sighted to assume that all violence against women is inherently sexist. While you can make your Joss Whedon argument, I can counteract that argument by presenting that these characters are well-rounded, and could easily write a paper about how River Tam or Buffy are fully realized heroines with agency.

You seem to have misunderstood my post on Whedon entirely. I misrepresented Whedon’s work to make a point.

You could also present a counter-argument about Anita’s examples actually are fully realized and have agency, but Anita chooses her examples for the most part carefully. You missed the fact that a damsel in distress isn’t just a female character who is victimized for the benefit of male character motivation — it’s a character who’s purpose is to be victimized for the benefit of male character motivation.

First, it’s not Anita. It’s Feminist Frequency, and it has two writers. Judging by some facts, it’s possible that Jonathan McIntosh is the lead writer, but since it’s all circumstantial and it does not actually matter that much, I keep assuming both writers are entirely important. But to respect that, I discuss Feminist Frequency’s work, not Anita Sarkeesian’s work.

Second, the upcoming compilation of the critique of their work will show clearly how bad and manipulative Feminist Frequency is with choosing examples.

Third, “purpose” — you do not understand writing. Again, not mocking, it’s just reality. All characters in fiction are created to “serve a purpose”. That is why you have Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor.

Also, while tropes are definitely useful, continuous propagation of the same tropes can be harmful. Many tropes have become outdated or not used anymore because they’re harmful and not culturally significant anymore. This is why you don’t see “Mammie” or “Happy Negro” characters anymore. Not all tropes are worthy of preservation.

Not true. Tropes are tools.

Mammie — used in “The Help”, here’s a list of apparently undeserved accolades.

Happy Negro is a meme, based on a real person. If you mean Magical Negro, here’s the list. It is still used in respectable movies.

But I do agree that some tropes might lose their relevance or be harder to use in today’s world, and for a good reason. I just want to make sure everyone understands that tropes as such are not evil.

(moving on to the second reply)

However, it seems that this second scribing contains the same problems as the first — you cherry pick in order to make your points, and accuse Anita of the same problems you possess. This is interesting in and of itself — maybe it goes three deep and I’m unable to see my own flaws, but rather then make this some sort of Russian Nesting Doll of accusations, lets skip ahead. The first thing you ask for is proof as to the pervasiveness of the Damsel in Distress trope. This would require a heuristic analysis of all games made ever. This reeks of sealioning — suppose somebody did do a heuristic analysis of all games. What percentage would you require? You yourself said it didn’t matter if the trope was one hundred percent of early games. What about now?

Now I would care because predictable story-telling is not a good story-telling. That is why nearly no one uses Damsel in Distress without mixing it with other tropes or subverting it.

As for “heuristic analysis”, there are two options. One, do not say that Damsel in Distress was foundational and set a standard for the industry without being able to back it up with facts. Two, alternatively, choose a random sample large enough to provide a meaningful result. That’s how polls work, no one polls the entire nation to understand a trend. (Worth noting that the sample would probably be best made out of top selling games, not just all games — this would help understand the trope’s exposure to gamers).

Due to your misinterpretation of the trope’s meaning — you apply it to every woman who is ever rescued by a male as opposed to a female character who’s sole purpose is to be rescued by a man.

This is the definition of the trope straight from Feminist Frequency:

As a trope the damsel in distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest.

I don’t see how I misrepresented it. I did not discuss the trope itself that much, actually. More importantly, even if we update the definition of the trope to your likening, that does not change a thing: tropes are tools, and I already explained that everything in fiction is created to “support” or “serve a purpose”. Granted, good writers will always make sure that characters are as fleshed out and human as possible, but that’s to manipulate you, the recipient of their work, even more effectively.

You make a claim that I agree with — the usage of the trope was initially done because games had a limited amount of memory to allocate to story. This is similar to ministrel ballads or epic poems or any format required to condense storytelling to as limited a space as possible. However, once the limitations of memory were gone, shouldn’t the instaneous use of storytelling tricks designed for limited formats also be removed? It’s similar to walking around on crutches with two healthy functioning legs.

Okay? So in which modern games with heavy emphasis on story-telling have you seen the Damsel in Distress trope used in pure form as the core plot?

You are conflating the need to simplify story-telling with tropes being designed for simplified story-telling (which thing, to spice things up, does not exist). Some tropes are more powerful than others and that is why they were used for simplified story-telling in the past. But they will be kept in use exactly because they are powerful.

(here I have to skip the fragment about Big Lebowski because I have seen it so long ago I barely remember it except for all the scenes with Jesus).

That’s why it’s always Your Princess, Your Girlfriend, Your President (or his daughter.) That’s why You are the only one who can save her. There’s a possessive-ness of objects innate to young children (Mine!) and an innate protective-ness of women to the male gender. That’s why they never kidnap a random woman — they have to take something of yours. Something you need or want to possess. As she said, in Patriarchy, damsels are the ball, and you have to have the ball to win.

Okay, so we agree that we can have an emotional engagement with objects? Because in fiction everything is an object, a pawn in the creator’s hands who constantly, tirelessly objectifies (uses characters for a purpose). Also in life people objectify each other all the time, but that’s a lot longer story.

Also, when I say “my daughter” it does not mean “she is my property”. And they kidnap those dearest to us because otherwise we might not want to risk our lives. Sorry, you’re losing me here.

In Dying Light, they state it clearly. “Now I’ve taken something of yours.”

A bad guy said it. A villain. A villain in a badly written game.

Villains tend to be assholes.

Would you argue that something that set the standard for an industry is foundational to it?

Yes.

I’d be interested to know what you determine is the proper level of pervasiveness of a trope to be standard within an industry.

Discussed earlier.

Finally, let’s talk about water and excreta. In your previous entry, you brought up Josh Whedon, and since you’ve already shown some expertise in his works, let’s keep my example there. Suppose that Firefly had been cancelled after the very first episode. No movies, no comic books — the only medium being one singular episode of one singular TV show — what would be the characterization of River Tam? She’s functionally a damsel in distress — she’s in stasis, having been initially rescued by Simon Tam and later by Mal Reynolds by allowing them to flee the empire aboard his ship. Now add in the rest of episodes, where she wakes up, shows likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, and saves the crew on several occasions (most notably in the movie). She gains agency as the plot goes along — she experiences things, develops friendships and enemies and acts upon her environment and affects other characters. The presence of the trope in the series doesn’t affect River’s characterization because she changes over time via personal development. She’s acted upon, but also acts upon others. It is this agency that is essential and breaks her from the trope characterization. However, if you intentionally limit the scope to the first episode, she becomes a trope.

This is a first degree fallacy. No self-respecting writer would ever add a character with no resolve of their role in the story.

As such, the presence of a sexist trope in a game doesn’t make the game inherently sexist, because the scope may be limited both in time — the character may change and grow, or character limited — a singular character may be a trope, but other characters may be well-defined. Going back to Firefly, while River may be a trope in the first episode, Zoe, Inara and Kaylee are not.

Some characters might be a single trope, some might be a set of tropes and more. Nothing weird here. Depends on the character’s role in the story.

(Okay, my answers are getting shorter and shorter, so let’s skip a fragment that I feel will not tell us anything new and move right to the interesting ending)

As for your demand for proof, while I will agree that video game psychological analysis is in its infancy (and will change as games graphics, methods of interaction, and sensory feedback get closer to the “uncanny valley”), here is some analysis from other media fields: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/4925HomeComputer/Rape%20myths/Social%20Consequences.pdf http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neil_Malamuth/publication/257931662_Pornography_and_Sexist_Attitudes_Among_Heterosexuals/links/0deec5264a7cdbca0e000000.pdf There’s actually a fair amount of this type of research, but most of it is behind paywalls, so linking wouldn’t be helpful. These are static visual and audio mediums, and unless you believe that interactivity actually lessens the impact and response, they should be applicable. If you do believe that, I’d like to hear your rationale.

Note the bolded fragment.

First, since passive and interactive mediums are so different, we cannot really assume that what happens with one medium is applicable to the other. This is a good place to start understanding why.

Second, and this is where things are getting really interesting. This is a conversation I had on Twitter:

Interestingly I have seen studies that show passive consumption affects you a lot more. You absorb passively. When you have control you contextualise.

See the rest of it (and some links) here.

How about this article: ‘Bad’ video game behavior increases players’ moral sensitivity?

Have a good day. ☺

You too, thanks for taking the time to reply. I hope I clarified some things, but of course let’s keep the discussion alive on the net, these things — story-telling, tropes, player psychology, etc. — are all fascinating and we all need to keep learning.