The crowdfunded video series Tropes vs Women in Video Games has a new episode online today, furthering the discussion around the portrayal of women in games with a second look at the Damsel in Distress trope:
In this instalment we look at "dark and edgy" side of the trope in more modern games and how the plot device is often used in conjunction with graphic depictions of violence against women. Over the past decade we've seen developers try to spice up the old Damsel in Distress cliche by combining it with other tropes involving victimized women including the disposable woman, the mercy killing and the woman in the refrigerator.
The video comes with a spoiler warning for some games as new as last year, and for the time-constrained a full transcript and more details are available here on the feminist frequency website. Watch the full video below.
Future instalments are expected to discuss: The Fighting F#@k Toy, The Sexy Sidekick, The Sexy Villainess, Background Decoration, Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress, Women as Reward - Video, Mrs. Male Character, Unattractive Equals Evil, Man with Boobs, Positive Female Characters!, and Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games.
I would actually like this if she had done her research and acted in a professional and unbiased manner.
So much of it is picking and choosing just to fit her point - most of the material that is used are obscure games, and in particular picking on Japanese games which have very structured and stereotypical narratives (culturally and across all media).
Japanese games can be down right dodgey compared to the rest of the gaming world. Asif single them out. In fact it is kinda against her point if that is the case. The rest of the world thinks it is too much..
I didn't watch the video, does she really do that?
I would actually like this if she had done her research and acted in a professional and unbiased manner.
Thats my problem with so many games "journalists" these days. They want to behave and sound like academics, but when someone pulls them up over the quality of their research and reporting they just hide behind the whole "Oh its just games, and the medium is in its infancy".
Cite references, remove emotions and bias, test null hypotheses. Don't just recite anecdotes and reach your conclusions in a vacuum.
Bill Gates talks about poverty and ways to improve the world.
Someone wants attention because they're not happy with how girls are portrayed in video games.
It's so hard to take seriously with her Beyonce earrings, plucked eyebrows, and then the Farmer Joe flannel just to remind you she's not someone to be sexed with. I mean is she going to be in an R&B video or is she plowing a field?
(You know it's surprisingly hard to come up with descriptions of things people do on a farm without it sounding like innuendo.)
The Damsal in Distress is not some hateful, ignorant, or lazy trope thing. It is something that is found to work in story writing because of human psychology.
The concept of psychological archetypes was advanced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, c. 1919. In Jung's psychological framework, archetypes are innate, universal prototypes for ideas and may be used to interpret observations. A group of memories and interpretations associated with an archetype is a complex ( e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype). Jung treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution.[8] Jung outlined five main archetypes: The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation, The Shadow, the opposite of the ego image, often containing qualities with which the ego does not identify, but which it possesses nonetheless, The Anima, the feminine image in a man's psyche, or The Animus, the masculine image in a woman's psyche, The Persona, the image we present to the world, usually protecting the Ego from negative images (like a mask), and considered another of 'the subpersonalities, the complexes'.[9] Although archetypes can take on innumerable forms, there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images[citation needed]: The Child The Hero The Martyr The Sky Father The Great Mother The Wise old man or Sage The Wise Old Woman/Man, archetypes of the collective unconscious The Damsel in distress The Trickster or Fox The Devil or Satan The Scarecrow The Mentor The Warrior The Threshold Guardian, a test to test the Hero.
Jung also outlined what he called archetypes of transformation, which are situations, places, ways, and means that symbolize the transformation in question. These archetypes exist primarily as energy and are useful in organizational development, personal and organizational change management, and extensively used in place branding.
This of course is something from long before Jung wrote about it, something pervasive that has been evident in story writing through all of history. So to suggest it is a product of the sexist 70s and that there is a disturbing recent trend to re-use the damsal is just ignorant.
The Damsal in Distress is pretty much a constant throughout history and will be for eternity. It is burned into our minds. Your bulls*** feminism is the blip on the radar of our time, and perhaps feminism is the thing that society should have matured beyond already.
Bill Gates talks about poverty and ways to improve the world. Someone wants attention because they're not happy with how girls are portrayed in video games.
haha and last but not least: In a politics thread somewhere, someone called someone else a c***.
So to suggest it is a product of the sexist 70s and that there is a disturbing recent trend to re-use the damsal is just ignorant.
Where did she suggest it was a product of the 70s? The rest of your post is just argument from tradition wrapped up in evolutionary psychology bulls***.
listen screwball I'm not watching it again, but she did say exactly that Yes my argument is based on science.... problem? If you say some s*** like you're Freudian, not Jungian, then you know what... I can't be bothered getting into it, the point is many people who get into story writing 100% believe in this because of books like "Hero With A Thousand Faces" and so if they use a Damsal in Distress they're not doing it to offend women, they're doing it because they believe it is a real concept that pushes the right buttons in the human brain. Lots of psychologists believe it. I believe it too. Stories that use archetypes and the monomyth tend to be more successful. Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, The Matrix. I don't need much more to be convinced there is something to it.
hahaand last but not least: In a politics thread somewhere, someone called someone else a c***.
Sprayed my screen with saliva lols.
And lols @ the hoop earrings comments. Ive always thought big ass hoop earring were worn by chicks, both IRL and in media, that want to ooze sex appeal.
Comments disabled on her youtube vid page? So much for encouraging discussion.
Disabling youtube comments is smart because it would just be a bunch of angry sexless shut-ins calling her names and missing the point. Pretty much the same thing that is going to happen in this thread except about 100x worse.
Evolutionary psychology is controversial, especially when people try to explain abstract or high level behaviour with it. RationalWiki has a decent article on it that'll save me writing a wall of text: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
The "damsel in distress" idea is based on having something important stolen from you and wanting it back (so it could be your car, your laptop, or your dog). It adds a human element to that by making it an important person (so it could be your father, your brother, or your son). But why does it specifically choose women (it's not always a romantic interest, as there are examples involving mothers, sisters, and daughters)?
I can't be bothered getting into it, the point is many people who get into story writing 100% believe in this because of books like "Hero With A Thousand Faces" and so if they use a Damsal in Distress they're not doing it to offend women, they're doing it because they believe it is a real concept that pushes the right buttons in the human brain. Lots of psychologists believe it. I believe it too.
I think this is your problem, you can't separate intent from effect. People don't set out to hit people with their car, but if they do they can (usually) accept responsibility for the result.
ok lets pretend you didn't say the thing about the car, because then we'd be playing the s*** analogy game
The damsel in distress is a beautiful woman in need of masculine intervention. There is a basis to that in how humans operate, that's what makes it an appealing and easily understandable story element. Just like the hero is often an orphan. Just like the wise old man / wizard character never fights the hero's battle. There's just something about it that works.
You can flip it around on it's head and make the damsel in distress an effeminate man, or the hero a very tough woman - but the damsel will always represent the fragile and feminine side and the hero will have the masculine characteristics.
There are plenty of movies where someone has to go and save a military man or someone that can otherwise look after themselves. But these stories never resonate with people in the same way. The character isn't a damsel, and so it just doesn't work on that level.
I don't claim that this has anything to do with evolutionary psychology. Maybe God did it. All I know is that it works, and it has been a subject of psychological inquiry, but more importantly if you take story writing classes they will tell you that a damsel in distress is a tried and true character that people will instantly recognize (and that it is not just because they've seen such a character in fairy tales, but because it makes sense).
Feminists are just being difficult and dishonest. They didn't see a Disney movie as a kid and think "gee that feels wrong to me". They were taught by man-hating b****** to find these 'problems' everywhere they look despite the fact that the things are perfectly normal and sensible and come from a good honest appreciation for life and the differences between men and women and the roles we play in the natural world. I'm not talking about the world where women wear flannel and men wear eyeliner because their alcoholic dad left and now they are confused about gender.
In real life, the damsel in distress thing happens all the time. It might not be a big adventure like on TV, but on a small scale chances are a lot of guys have had a damsel, and a lot of girls have had a hero. It is real, and nobody gets insulted, or says they've been hit with a car.
Sprayed my screen with saliva lols.And lols @ the hoop earrings comments. Ive always thought big ass hoop earring were worn by chicks, both IRL and in media, that want to ooze sex appeal.
I see hoop earrings as things worn by dumbasses who want their ear lobes torn off. I don't find them sexy at all. They're like a big pair of dangly testicles. Lady testicles.
I saw that thunderf00t video that "tore her apart" and he steadily didn't get it for 20 minutes. His opening rebuttal was laughably moronic.
I think she outlines valid concerns, and the fact that it just 'works' doesn't really cut it in my book. That's like saying "gee you know what, slavery is wrong, but boy did they move cotton."
Feminists are just being difficult and dishonest. They didn't see a Disney movie as a kid and think "gee that feels wrong to me". They were taught by man-hating b****** to find these 'problems' everywhere they look despite the fact that the things are perfectly normal and sensible and come from a good honest appreciation for life and the differences between men and women and the roles we play in the natural world. I'm not talking about the world where women wear flannel and men wear eyeliner because their alcoholic dad left and now they are confused about gender.
This is the attitude that is the issue. It's very easy to be flippant about something that isn't being done to you. Feminists do of course get it wrong, and can at times s*** me up the wall, but it doesn't mean that they are categorically wrong, or not identifying legitimate issues.
Taking the example of a Disney movie take a look at Beauty and the Beast. The chick is portrayed as independent and intelligent but ultimately gets to chose between two rapists as a potential partner. Expecting a three year old to pick up on that is boarding on the absurd, but it doesn't mean that a fundamentally sexist attitude isn't on display.
With all of that said she does present her case a bit too axe to grindy.
I have to say, I found the farm shirt mixed with the facial features such as earrings, makeup and plucked eyebrows to be somewhat incongruent. This based on a single look at the still image supplied.
In a way it seems like the Streisand Effect, in that by wearing the farm shirt she is intentionally reducing her possible sex appeal to highlight stuff amount feminism, kind of trying to censor it. It only serves to bring to my dirty perverted mind that she could be sexy and that there is nothing wrong with women being sexy, because they just plain are. Surely you can be a sexy woman and still be a formidable opponent. In fact, it seems a little silly to say otherwise.
The latest Lara Croft imagining for instance, totally hot, totally tough. Ripley from Aliens, same kind of thing, and motherly too. If my daughters end up like that I'd be a proud daddy indeed.
Posted 10:08am 29/5/13
Posted 10:54am 29/5/13
Posted 11:05am 29/5/13
So much of it is picking and choosing just to fit her point - most of the material that is used are obscure games, and in particular picking on Japanese games which have very structured and stereotypical narratives (culturally and across all media).
Posted 11:11am 29/5/13
I didn't watch the video, does she really do that?
Posted 11:14am 29/5/13
Thats my problem with so many games "journalists" these days. They want to behave and sound like academics, but when someone pulls them up over the quality of their research and reporting they just hide behind the whole "Oh its just games, and the medium is in its infancy".
Cite references, remove emotions and bias, test null hypotheses. Don't just recite anecdotes and reach your conclusions in a vacuum.
Posted 11:16am 29/5/13
Bill Gates talks about poverty and ways to improve the world.
Someone wants attention because they're not happy with how girls are portrayed in video games.
Posted 12:18pm 29/5/13
Posted 01:09pm 29/5/13
(You know it's surprisingly hard to come up with descriptions of things people do on a farm without it sounding like innuendo.)
The Damsal in Distress is not some hateful, ignorant, or lazy trope thing. It is something that is found to work in story writing because of human psychology.
This of course is something from long before Jung wrote about it, something pervasive that has been evident in story writing through all of history. So to suggest it is a product of the sexist 70s and that there is a disturbing recent trend to re-use the damsal is just ignorant.
The Damsal in Distress is pretty much a constant throughout history and will be for eternity. It is burned into our minds. Your bulls*** feminism is the blip on the radar of our time, and perhaps feminism is the thing that society should have matured beyond already.
Posted 01:09pm 29/5/13
If there was some sort of crowdfunding project where, if funded, she would keep her feminazi e-pinions to herself, I would gladly contribute.
(Disclaimer: there is the possibility I may have already made both above comments in a previous thread)
Posted 01:15pm 29/5/13
haha
and last but not least: In a politics thread somewhere, someone called someone else a c***.
Posted 01:18pm 29/5/13
Posted 01:39pm 29/5/13
The rest of your post is just argument from tradition wrapped up in evolutionary psychology bulls***.
Posted 01:52pm 29/5/13
Yes my argument is based on science.... problem? If you say some s*** like you're Freudian, not Jungian, then you know what... I can't be bothered getting into it, the point is many people who get into story writing 100% believe in this because of books like "Hero With A Thousand Faces" and so if they use a Damsal in Distress they're not doing it to offend women, they're doing it because they believe it is a real concept that pushes the right buttons in the human brain. Lots of psychologists believe it. I believe it too.
Stories that use archetypes and the monomyth tend to be more successful. Star Wars, Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, The Matrix. I don't need much more to be convinced there is something to it.
Posted 01:54pm 29/5/13
Sprayed my screen with saliva lols.
And lols @ the hoop earrings comments. Ive always thought big ass hoop earring were worn by chicks, both IRL and in media, that want to ooze sex appeal.
Posted 02:17pm 29/5/13
Posted 02:26pm 29/5/13
The "damsel in distress" idea is based on having something important stolen from you and wanting it back (so it could be your car, your laptop, or your dog). It adds a human element to that by making it an important person (so it could be your father, your brother, or your son). But why does it specifically choose women (it's not always a romantic interest, as there are examples involving mothers, sisters, and daughters)?
I think this is your problem, you can't separate intent from effect. People don't set out to hit people with their car, but if they do they can (usually) accept responsibility for the result.
Posted 02:35pm 29/5/13
i watched the first video & didn't really disagree with most of what she said... i just didn't care, at all.
Posted 04:40pm 29/5/13
Posted 05:19pm 29/5/13
The damsel in distress is a beautiful woman in need of masculine intervention. There is a basis to that in how humans operate, that's what makes it an appealing and easily understandable story element. Just like the hero is often an orphan. Just like the wise old man / wizard character never fights the hero's battle. There's just something about it that works.
You can flip it around on it's head and make the damsel in distress an effeminate man, or the hero a very tough woman - but the damsel will always represent the fragile and feminine side and the hero will have the masculine characteristics.
There are plenty of movies where someone has to go and save a military man or someone that can otherwise look after themselves. But these stories never resonate with people in the same way. The character isn't a damsel, and so it just doesn't work on that level.
I don't claim that this has anything to do with evolutionary psychology. Maybe God did it. All I know is that it works, and it has been a subject of psychological inquiry, but more importantly if you take story writing classes they will tell you that a damsel in distress is a tried and true character that people will instantly recognize (and that it is not just because they've seen such a character in fairy tales, but because it makes sense).
Feminists are just being difficult and dishonest. They didn't see a Disney movie as a kid and think "gee that feels wrong to me". They were taught by man-hating b****** to find these 'problems' everywhere they look despite the fact that the things are perfectly normal and sensible and come from a good honest appreciation for life and the differences between men and women and the roles we play in the natural world. I'm not talking about the world where women wear flannel and men wear eyeliner because their alcoholic dad left and now they are confused about gender.
In real life, the damsel in distress thing happens all the time. It might not be a big adventure like on TV, but on a small scale chances are a lot of guys have had a damsel, and a lot of girls have had a hero. It is real, and nobody gets insulted, or says they've been hit with a car.
Maybe the feminists should be hit with a car.
Posted 05:21pm 29/5/13
I see hoop earrings as things worn by dumbasses who want their ear lobes torn off. I don't find them sexy at all. They're like a big pair of dangly testicles. Lady testicles.
Posted 06:32pm 29/5/13
I saw that thunderf00t video that "tore her apart" and he steadily didn't get it for 20 minutes. His opening rebuttal was laughably moronic.
I think she outlines valid concerns, and the fact that it just 'works' doesn't really cut it in my book. That's like saying "gee you know what, slavery is wrong, but boy did they move cotton."
This is the attitude that is the issue. It's very easy to be flippant about something that isn't being done to you. Feminists do of course get it wrong, and can at times s*** me up the wall, but it doesn't mean that they are categorically wrong, or not identifying legitimate issues.
Taking the example of a Disney movie take a look at Beauty and the Beast. The chick is portrayed as independent and intelligent but ultimately gets to chose between two rapists as a potential partner. Expecting a three year old to pick up on that is boarding on the absurd, but it doesn't mean that a fundamentally sexist attitude isn't on display.
With all of that said she does present her case a bit too axe to grindy.
Posted 06:36pm 29/5/13
In a way it seems like the Streisand Effect, in that by wearing the farm shirt she is intentionally reducing her possible sex appeal to highlight stuff amount feminism, kind of trying to censor it. It only serves to bring to my dirty perverted mind that she could be sexy and that there is nothing wrong with women being sexy, because they just plain are. Surely you can be a sexy woman and still be a formidable opponent. In fact, it seems a little silly to say otherwise.
The latest Lara Croft imagining for instance, totally hot, totally tough. Ripley from Aliens, same kind of thing, and motherly too. If my daughters end up like that I'd be a proud daddy indeed.
Posted 06:38pm 29/5/13
DON'T YOU JUDGE ME!
Posted 06:26pm 31/5/13
Posted 01:05am 04/6/13
Oh wait, it's probably gone the make up and accessories she likes to show off in her videos. Way to prove a point Anita!
Posted 01:18am 04/6/13