I’m sure many of you have been dying to hear my view on all this. All I ask is that you keep the trolling to a minimum.
- Games are art, and as such should be respected as a form of expression. You don’t have to support a given work of art if you don’t like it, and in fact are free to create your own. So in that regard, I respect her right to criticize, but that’s all she has the right to do.
If guys want to save princesses or look at scantly clad women that is their choice. If you want to see that as sexist fine, but that doesn’t mean you get to stop them.
- What is sexism? Sexism is a form of discrimination where prejudiced action is different based on sex. This seems like a pretty straight forward definition.
But is it sexist to write a story about a man saving a girl? Probably not, as we could argue that maybe the girl really was too weak to escape her situation and needed help. Girls, like all people, can be put in situations beyond their means.
But what if others use this same plot? Does it then become sexist after so many people use the same plot device to start a story? See, here is the problem with this line of thinking. If something can begin non-discriminatory, can it then become discriminatory if it’s used too often? And if so, at what point does it become sexist?
This could be applied to a lot of plot devices. Like if I used a black man as a villain, that’s probably not racist, as black men, like other people, are capable of being evil. But if everyone made their villains black guys, could it become racist?
I think this is the fundamental question here that shouldn’t be taken for granted. I think it would be difficult to posit that it’s NEVER ok to use a female in distress or to use a black villain. So if a plot device is ok to use in one story, why not another?
Even if you can argue that it is discrimination you still have to illustrate why you ought to have the right to censor another’s work.
- Personally, I think the whole damsel in distress thing is pretty played out. But ultimately, it’s not my choice what people choose to create in terms of games or movies. I’d like to see more games with a strong female lead, but instead of telling people they shouldn’t make certain types of games, maybe try and convince people that a female perspective could be different and fun.
In other words, instead of pushing people away from what they know, try to appeal to them with something fresh. You’ll receive a lot less resistance that way.
Also, it’s easy to point fingers and say what is wrong, it’s a lot harder to put forth constructive ideas about how things should be different. Being a critic is easy, especially when it comes to societal issues. Speaking of societal issues…
- What is the primary goal of a company or corporation? To make money. Trying to place the burden of social change on a company seems very unfair. They do market research and give the public a product that will sell. And clearly, big tits and saving princesses sell. Forcing them to lose money to try and sway public opinion isn’t fair from a monetary standpoint, it’s like trying to force someone to take up your cause and fit the bill for it.
If you want to change society, fine, trying to coerce Lego or Nintendo into making different products to match your agenda seems completely out of line. If you want those products made then change public opinion. I promise if big tits and saving princesses wasn’t profitable, companies wouldn’t be using them.
- As far as the videos themselves go, I saw quite a bit of hypocrisy. First off, when a game changed to become a Star Fox sequel and the lead was given to Fox McCloud, this was seen as sexist. And yet, when Doki Doki Panic became Mario 2 and one of the characters was taken out for Peach that didn’t count? Wait…WTF. It’s the same damn thing.
In both cases a game was changed to include characters from a more mainstream franchise. In one a female was taken from the lead and that’s bad, but in another a female was put into a lead and that doesn’t count? Biased.
I also love how she completely marginalizes any game where Peach took on a more active role, as if those games didn’t count. Like Smash Brothers where she’s a good (and even competitive character), that didn’t count because it wasn’t in the main line of games. Smash sold a veritable shit load of units and for many players is still very relevant today (like it or not it’s in EVO), but that just doesn’t count? Why? Because it doesn’t fit your point? Biased.
Oh, and then she completely ignores the fact Zelda had her own set of games on the CDI (thank you AVGN). Granted, the games were crap, but she still ignored them because again, they didn’t support her point. Biased.
It seems to me like she suffers from what we in scientific research call the Rosenthal effect. This is defined as the researcher’s knowledge influencing the data that is collected, which leads to sampling bias. In other words, you seek out only those things that support your hypothesis.
And while I would agree there are a ton of examples of damsels in games, I would posit that her minimizing and leaving out certain examples discredits her points. It makes her presentation seem much less objective and coming off with a biased agenda.
