Here is the thing, if you have to say "X doesn't exist in a vacuum" you are pretty much admitting the problem isn't with X, it is with the stuff surrounding X. In this case, it isn't with the tropes, but instead the requirement of their use. As such, don't attack X, you won't solve anything, instead focus on the stuff surrounding X, in this case publishers, developers and consumers.
Erm, this is simultaneously absurd and misrepresenting the whole debate.
When the social context of an act makes that act abhorrent
you avoid that act.
In this case the social context around the use of a particular plot point makes the use of that plot point sexist. So people (like Anita and myself) are saying maybe we should at least think twice before using that plot point.
As for not focusing on the stuff surrounding X,
in the case of a trope the trope is it's own context. I'm still trying to find a way to phrase this that you will acknowledge, but when the social context is in no small part shaped by how a trope is used and how common it is then criticising and discussing the trope is a central aspect of changing that social context.
I would say anybody having problems or issues with a book just because a gay guy is killed off is a moron.
What, suddenly homosexuals are except from the same plot as any other character? Suddenly they are too special to die in a work of fiction? There are gays on this forum, ask them if they want some sort of mythical special treatment where as gay characters must always be unkillable, I would be surprised if they didn't find it a little patronizing.
And you have completely missed the point.
Killing gay characters off at a higher rate than straight has a historic and social context going back to the Hays code. It's still surprisingly common today. It's a trope that has harmed people in the past, through either explicit attacks on homosexuals (by showing them getting punished for their sexuality) or simply removing gay characters from the public eye by having them die out of stories. As such if you are trying to write a story that is accessible to gay people you probably want to think twice before shoving your only gay character into a fridge. At least if you are going to do it
understand the context and why it is very likely to piss a lot of people off.
It's akin to having a horror film and killing off all the people of colour leaving just your white hero and heroine at the end. Sure, the story might naturally flow that way. But the historical context are going to make people view it a certain way, and you had damned well better be aware of what you are doing.
Could you explain something for me? You're saying that a trope's usage is an inherent part of the trope; that the "Damsel In Distress" trope is not only about distressed damsels, but also requires that damsels be in distress in like every other work. (This IS what you are saying, yes?) Does this imply that if the trope was used without the cultural framework, it is not actually the trope? If a game in which a lady gets into a pickle and must be rescued by the protagonist was made in a society where this was not particularly prevalent, would this count as an instance of the trope? If the trope became less popular, would it in fact cease to exist, being replaced by a different trope about women in peril but only occasionally? What would you call such a trope?
I think others have answered this somewhat, but I want to riff on it for a little bit.
The trope can't be separated from it's social context because its social context is largely created by its use, especially when looking entirely within the media. Using a damsel in distress in a video game is playing off the history and abundance of the trope. It's a shorthand that gamers will understand from the dozens of other games they have played where it's used. The individual use of the trope is shaped by the history of the trope and you can't entirely separate any single usage from the past examples.
For those who have read Dawkins, think of it as an
extended phenotype. Animals shape the environment they live in even as that environment shapes the species' evolution. In the case of stories the use of tropes shape the future perceptions of those same tropes, which then change how those tropes are used, and so on ad nauseum.
Problematic tropes come about due to those social interactions with the central premise. They can stop being problematic (or become less problematic, or more) depending on how those interactions change. In the same way that beaver evolution might be shaped by how generation after generation shape their own environment with dams, the use of tropes will shape the future nature of the tropes.
The central element of the damsel in distress trope that makes it problematic in the current social context is the woman being denied agency. This is problematic due to both the general lack of female characters who have agency - or who have their agency stripped away by such tropes - in video games
and the general cultural attitude that is hostile towards women who demonstrate agency in the real world.
Sure, these things are changing. The recent freak out over
female bread winners had a bigger backlash against the freak out. But they are still there and underlie both the games industry and society in general.
The two parts feed off of each other. Narratives where women are assumed to be passive and dependent are more popular when they re-enforce assumptions already present in the wider world, while general attitudes are (at least partially) shaped by the narratives we use to describe and address the world around us. Making certain narratives the default or making certain narratives taboo/off limits can shift how people look at the world.
Today the assumptions about women's place in the world and general lack of female agency in common narratives are pervasive. Any re-enforcement of those assumptions and trends is problematic. It's not to say it should never be done, but doing so should be done with full awareness of what you are doing. And that means that people who are aware of the problems should talk about the problems and point them out where they see them. Which is what Anita is doing.
I think it's more obvious with the Euthanized Damsel trope, where games are playing directly into common domestic violence narratives. They are re-enforcing the stories told where women are deserving of the harm done to them. The stories that are already present and pervasive in our society, but that doesn't mean that repeating them and increasing their visibility uncritically isn't harmful. Can such events have a place in good stories? Sure. But a part of that would require being aware of the danger surrounding those narratives and addressing that in some manner in the story. Otherwise it's just a repetition of a narrative that we should be discrediting and marginalising for the harm it does.
Author
Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' (Read 312151 times)