Print

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

[Reelya]

Have you read her college thesis, it's interesting reading, pretty much demolishes every strong female protagonist out there as actually regressive. It makes her overall point even more confusing, since she takes the boot to strong, independent women in the thesis, just for being strong and independent.

That's one thing i have a problem with, with specific people's writings, when they cover all possible avenues as negatives with different things they wrote, it goes from being a "how to fix it" to a "you can't win" situation which people won't pay any attention to.

===

To clarify, she argues that traits like "strong" and "in charge" or "taking initiative" shouldn't be seen as a positive trait, because they're gendered-values, so showing strong characters succeeding by being strong reinforces gendered values, regardless of whether the strong character is male or female.

That's all well and good, have more weak protagonists winning battles and stuff, but the thesis gets awful close to this cultural relative thinking where being good at things should be seen as equally valid as being bad at things, and it's elitist and sexist to show characters succeeding because of personal merit.

But, really in the thesis she's arguing for the complete overturn of the narrative structure itself: fundamentaly shes asking why can't the main character have the traits of a supporting character? Why does the main characters always act a certain way regardless of gender? She wants other people to make shows without a main character, or the entire focus is on characters who have side character traits, basically.

But, she can't even list a single example from the entire body of human literature of how this idea could be made to work, she just "expects" people to "fix it" based on her abstract charts.

[Neonivek]

I didn't mostly because I honestly have held some pretty childish beliefs in the past and she more then could have evolved from there.

I am sure there are things on that paper that she is embarrassed about today.

That's one thing i have a problem with, with specific people's writings, when they cover all possible avenues as negatives with different things they wrote, it goes from being a "how to fix it" to a "you can't win" situation which people won't pay any attention to

What is odd is she offers a "fix" to the damsel problem... but she does it by completely missing the point as to why the Damsel is desirable in the first place in almost every sense. Her fix is that "Damsels shouldn't be damsels", that their capture should be a call to action for them to be heroes in their own right.

While is a fine narrative, but a damsel who ceases to be a damsel... isn't a damsel. As well the part that really irked me the wrong way is I feel she dismissed the positive qualities the damsel archetype typically has. There is a reason my favorite Zelda character, is Zelda and not Link.

After that I honestly wanted to make a videogame where a Damsel, put in that situation due to her own fault but still, gets captured and must escape using only her abilities as a Princess. I didn't attempt this because I didn't have the guts even when told that apparently it wasn't sexist.

Don't get me wrong, a Princess who gets captured and feels so helpless that she finally gets fed up, takes up the sword and dismissing the draping of a princess that held her down, and frees her own dang self as well as restoring the kingdom? That sounds like a cool game (Heck, Eternal Daughter is sort of like that... albeit she is entirely reactionary), she just isn't a Damsel nor does she retain Damsel qualities.

But I feel someone else highlights this better then I can.

[scrdest]

To clarify, she argues that traits like "strong" and "in charge" or "taking initiative" shouldn't be seen as a positive trait, because they're gendered-values, so showing strong characters succeeding by being strong reinforces gendered values, regardless of whether the strong character is male or female.

o.O

And she accuses other people of being sexist?

[nenjin]

I want to see these stories of weak people succeeding by being weak. Because historically, that's worked out well so far.

No one tends to enjoy a story for long where the character of interest is constantly abused by chance and fate and does nothing but whine about it, until suddenly, victory?! Or maybe that's exactly what she wants, based on her thesis. She wants someone to declare it valid despite no real actual evidence to support it.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Or possibly an alternative; "strong" characters surviving by being [or feigning] weak[-ness]. Is this not a type of strength, in terms of willpower, though?

[Rolepgeek]

To clarify, she argues that traits like "strong" and "in charge" or "taking initiative" shouldn't be seen as a positive trait, because they're gendered-values, so showing strong characters succeeding by being strong reinforces gendered values, regardless of whether the strong character is male or female.

o.O

And she accuses other people of being sexist?

Everyone's a hypocrite, it's just a matter of what you're a hypocrite for.

[Graknorke]

Neonivek, what are you defining "damsel qualities" as in this case? I'm not really sure what that would include and is positive.

[nenjin]

Or possibly an alternative; "strong" characters surviving by being [or feigning] weak[-ness]. Is this not a type of strength, in terms of willpower, though?

I'd qualify that as enduring, which is its own kind of strength. I understand weak to mean: is incapable of affecting their situation. Whether that's physically weak, or emotionally weak (as in an inability to deal emotionally with something, to mentally prepare oneself to do or confront something), "can't" generally doesn't make for as interesting a story as "can." Limitations can be interesting...but limitations aren't really weakness.

It's why survival games are fun but they have nothing to do with weakness. Imagine a survival game where you've got cerebral palsy, or can't deal with the stress of being alone and shipwrecked and gameplay consists of 5 hours of your character crying and asking why things are the way they are.

[Rolepgeek]

A lot of stories are actually about a weak character becoming strong, so...

There's that, for one thing.

[nenjin]

A lot of stories are actually about a weak character becoming strong, so...

There's that, for one thing.

It's the start of all heroic fantasy. But that's not the point. The point is, weakness in and of itself isn't a state anyone finds enjoyable for long, and the goal is to get away from weakness. I don't see a context in which weakness is a virtue and a state to be maintained, let alone made the basis of stories and fiction.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I don't see a context in which weakness is a virtue and a state to be maintained, let alone made the basis of stories and fiction.

If I could play devil's advocate, I'd like to say this is essentially what IS expected of the 'damsel in distress' archetype, and what many people find ridiculous [myself included, Sheik was the best thing to happen to Zelda's character] about the notion.

[Rolepgeek]

That's fine and all, but I don't think Anita ever said that she wanted female characters to be weak. She just didn't want them to be male characters with breasts.

I, on the other hand, feel that a character should be written without a gender, unless it's truly crucialnto the plot for a real reason, and then you flip a coin to see which gender they are, and go from there.

[Reelya]

Anita's Thesis, link

Female roles in science fiction and fantasy television that are viewed as strong and empowered embody many masculine identified traits, maintaining a patriarchal division of gender roles. For example, values adopted by female characters in the television shows I will examine in this major research paper maintain that traditionally masculine attributes such as rationality, cool-headedness and physical strength are superior and preferred over traditionally feminine attributes such as cooperative decision making, and being emotionally expressive and empathetic.

Umm, I prefer my female protagonists to be rational, thanks, and don't think it's sexist.

For example, masculine identified traits such as being strong and in control are valued and feminine identified traits such as being weak and out of control are devalued.These essentialist gender stereotypes of men and women have been discredited bygender theorists but are still maintained in mainstream television. Even though men and women in reality are far more complex than a list of traits, television show writers and viewers still celebrate “masculine” values as positive and tend to be dismissive of those deemed to be “feminine.”

Yeah, this is the part I have a problem with, "out of control" is expressly worse than "in control" in just about any value system I can imagine.

[Rolepgeek]

I prefer to think of it as those traits typically being considered masculine and therefore we should change them. From being purely masculine, that is.

Besides, all the books and shit I ever read had rationality and sense as a feminine trait...

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I prefer to think of it as those traits typically being considered masculine and therefore we should change them. From being purely masculine, that is.

I think this is essentially the crux of the issue. Some see an independent, non-capitulatory female as being 'masculine' in traits as opposed to, you know.. just a 'strong' character. Is a male character who shows 'cooperative decision making, and being emotionally expressive and empathetic' a 'feminine' character? In most cases games with male characters of 'strength' who shows these attributes are considered *better* due to it, stronger because of their willingness to empathize with their companions/soldiers/etc or 'the people'. The inverse is viewed as 'manning up' a 'female' role, a role that should be saved for a damsel. There is almost a fear of true, well rounded female characters. As if charisma and strength are male traits, which they're not.