Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

Literary examples from ancient societies where women were regarded as possessions have famously employed what is now known as a trope (for some reason) of a damsel in distress being "rescued" by heroic men. The whole reason I'm in this thread really was the butchery of the Iliad!
Heh. Moving on, the argument that this is inherently sexist is lost on the Iliad. To be sexist there would have to be some preconceived notion of the damsel based on their gender, in this case to be relevant, one portraying the Damsel to be weak or defenseless. The knight in shining armour would have to express the qualities of the heroic generic-muscle-type and fight the BBEG or equivalent to save the Damsel in distress.

Another bad example present in her video. The problem we have isn't with her, it's with her choice of examples and her failure to connect them to anything concrete.

Also keep in mind that yes, it is fully possible to define a trope in such a way that it is impossible to use in a non-sexist manner. If you want to define the "Damsel in Distress" trope specifically as "a female who would normally be able to escape is able to be captured and therefore becomes a simple objective reward in order to further a heroes story" then yes, you could claim that was sexist and we couldn't argue with you. If you want to define the "Damsel in Distress" trope as "a person who is put into the position of needing rescue (regardless of if they free themselves or someone else does)" then you could state that, claim it was non-sexist and we couldn't argue with you either. The discussion here we are having is not around whether the trope itself is sexist or non-sexist, but rather about the exact definition of "Damsel in Distress" as thought of by society at large and whether or not her video agrees with that definition.

[Neonivek]

Since a trope is solely about the tradition/convention governing the recurrence of a specific pattern, this makes the person being a woman the exact opposite of superfluous, for the purpose of this discussion.

Once upon a time. Yet the fact that this role has become more and more unisex it has expanded to exclude the female requirement almost altogether.

If you want to define the "Damsel in Distress"

Hmm I didn't think about that. Hmmm.

Though I still wish Anita compared male and female damsels... rather then Male heros with female damsels.

[GlyphGryph]

Can you expand on that? Because I'll be honest, I've not scene a convention in the game industry that the gender of the damsel doesn't matter. Some examples, perhaps?

[Loud Whispers]

LoudWhispers, I notice you are exclusively referring to literary tropes now. It's an improvement. We might want to actual do that, explicitly refer to resonating vs. literary. And I do actually agree with you about the Iliad - despite being a damsel in distress, I don't believe it's an example of the trope being described, because the resonance just isn't there. No one nowadays does it the way the Iliad does. It's not really the tradition.

I thought I was always referring to literary tropes? Ah well, I shall take any compliments. Progress!

It is one traditionally deligated to a woman

Since a trope is solely about the tradition/convention governing the recurrence of a specific pattern, this makes the person being a woman the exact opposite of superfluous, for the purpose of this discussion.

If its not a woman, it is not, by your own words, an example of the trope - it is, after all, breaking with the tradition. It is INFLUENCED by the trope, it is SIMILAR to the trope, and it may, if it gets enough cultural penetration, eventually EXPAND, or even REPLACE the trope, but it is not, in and of itself, any longer an example of the trope.

If we are simply referring to the belief that a character has to embody and be defined by their cultural gender role (i.e. Damsel = weak, passive woman), well then yes isn't that the very definition of sexist? Rather quick discussion if it ends there.

[Neonivek]

Kings Quest has the hero Rosella of Daventry. She is generally saving a male character who cannot save themselves who take the role of damsel. (The series is interesting in that... Princess Rosella is the female version of King Graham... and Prince Alexander is the male version of Valanece... oddly enough people hate Alexander for his soft spoken nature)

Elaine from Monkey Island is a parody of the damsel in distress in that... she isn't. The main character keeps thinking she is in danger messes up her plan to save the day (forcing him to instead) to the point where she has to save Guybrush. The ONLY time she was in genuin danger was Guybrush's own stupid fault (they both get kidnapped after he saves her... and she frees herself and saves him). Essentially Guybrush (a main character) is the Damsel in their relationship.

Heck Wally is almost completely a Damsel in Monkey Island. Needing to be saved over twice in the series across two games. (which is all his appearances)

Luigi in any game he isn't immediately playable, needs to be saved at one point in a rather embarassing and pathetic way.

If we are simply referring to the belief that a character has to embody and be defined by their cultural gender role (i.e. Damsel = weak, passive woman), well then yes isn't that the very definition of sexist? Rather quick discussion if it ends there

The difference is how we were defining damsel in distress. It turns out we weren't taking about the same thing.

I was refering to a more general damsel in distress. While he was refering to a very specific damsel in distress.

[Max White]

Well this is a clusterfuck... Worth reading over?
Does anybody think anything that has happened in the last six or so pages has any value? Don't be a cynical smart ass and smugly just say 'Nope, all bullshit!' just to try and look better to the clusterfuck, it won't work. Does anybody care about any point they have recently put forward?

[penguinofhonor]

Uh, there's a lot of semantics and disagreeing on basic definitions. That tends to not be productive.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm referring the specific convention, the specific resonating trope being discussed.

Your examples seem to be explicit subversions, and... well... exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, and all that. Subversions have supplanted tropes and become resonating tropes in their own right, but in this case you seem to describe them as exactly that: subversions and exceptions.

I thought I was always referring to literary tropes? Ah well, I shall take any compliments. Progress!

But no one else was, which is why I brought up the fact that we all seemed to be talking past each other or discussing different topics.

If we are simply referring to the belief that a character has to embody and be defined by their cultural gender role (i.e. Damsel = weak, passive woman), well then yes isn't that the very definition of sexist? Rather quick discussion if it ends there.

Yes! That is exactly the issue, the belief (and it's social convention, the industry standard that has arisen out of it) that Anita and most of her defenders here are talking about, and why so many of them seem confused at all the opposition. It does feel pretty clear cut. If the issue really is just coming down to using different definitions of the word, well...

Yeah. I guess it's at least pretty good we've figured that out. o_o

Well this is a clusterfuck... Worth reading over?
Does anybody think anything that has happened in the last six or so pages has any value?

The amount of confusion and talking past each other would indicate... no, it isn't worth reading over. It did have value, but that value can be summarized. A good chunk of the was based around around thinking we were discussing literary tropes rather than resonating tropes (genre and industry motiffs, conventions, and traditions).

The tropes Anita is critiquing are the resonant kind, not the literary kind. And there you go, six pages of value.

[Loud Whispers]

Well this is a clusterfuck... Worth reading over?
Does anybody think anything that has happened in the last six or so pages has any value? Don't be a cynical smart ass and smugly just say 'Nope, all bullshit!' just to try and look better to the clusterfuck, it won't work. Does anybody care about any point they have recently put forward?

Oh yeah, plenty of incredibly good points from everyone. It just appears that for around 200 posts people may not have been talking about exactly the same thing. Good read.

[Neonivek]

Uh, there's a lot of semantics and disagreeing on basic definitions. That tends to not be productive.

It is nessisary when a single word has multiple definitions.

The only way around it is for people to define their terms. We got through it and found that my definition of Damsel in Distress is not the same as the person who said "Damsels in distress are sexist".

Semantics is not "unimportant" because at its heart it is "Say what you mean".

[Max White]

Eeeeh... I had wading through people arguing definitions rather than somebody just accepting somebody elses definitions and using that as common ground.
Fine, I'l read your damn clusterfuck.

[scriver]

In short, some people said tropes was defined by all the ways a trope theoretically could be invoked, while the other group said tropes are defined by how they have actually been used in practice.

No conclusion was reached, but there was at least understanding of eachother's standpoints.

[Descan]

Personally I think the trope is a red herring. People seem to get caught up in it.

To me, the video, despite using the terminology, was more talking about "A lot of women in games, and nearly every culturally major woman in games, could be replaced with a "You are Winnar!" trophy and it would not change the story at all. They're just a prize to be won at the end. And that's terrible." rather than "This trope is bad and you should feel bad."

[Fenrir]

Women as MacGuffin?

[Neonivek]

My major issue with that section (Women being objects for example) was that she should have developed it more.

I mean of COURSE anyone who doesn't fall under main character or villain is going to essentailly be used by the hero and only be characterised by their relationship with the hero and villain.

It often felt like she was more criticising narrative structure as a whole which is what made it rather difficult to sit through because I kept wanting to say "Look Anita, everyone who isn't the hero or the villain tends to be acted upon rather then act upon". Her arguements get weak whenever you can just say "The existance of a character who is not a major part of the narrative automatically brings about this irregardless of gender... So what are you talking about?" which is what I think she is going to get into in Part 2. Since as people noticed she doesn't really make arguements in this video or really go into any depth.

I mean interestingly enough the Statue of Liberty would count, by definition, as a damsel in Turtles through time. Afterall the entire conflict is about the turtles trying to get the giant statue of a woman back who has no ability to save herself.

Mind you it is all coincidence but ehhh.

It is kinda what I said about Anita's video. I agree with most of what she says but her examples are poor.