Earlier this year, YouTube user Anita Sarkeesian, also known as “Feminist Frequency” released a multi-part segment on the “damsel in distress” trope in video games. Soon after posting the video, the user received other opinions that are interesting to examine in comparison – in particular, a response to the original video, by user Sarah, also known as KiteTales. Analysis of these videos suggest two opposing views of the trope “damsel in distress,” as well as perceptions of femininity in modern society.
This article will conclude that both authors operate with assumptions pertaining to their audiences – but both seem to have a different idea of what their audience is. This leads to a questioning of how gender roles are depicted through video games, and what it says about wider society. If traditional and stereotypical femininity is seen as negative, but adopting traditional and stereotypical male qualities is also anti-feminist, what roles are the audience and wider society really expecting women to fulfil? Both arguments will be analysed with regards to the ways in which the authors attempt to persuade their audience.
These two videos may then provide a window into attitudes towards female roles, reception and representation in video games. Anita addresses her presentation to the “modern feminist”, or modern society as widely understood, and to those wishing to annihilate perceptions of female weakness and inferiority within games. The piece begins with an introduction, encouraging the viewer to consider her presentation as being “from a systemic, big picture perspective” – alluding to the ad populum nature of her argument.
She intimates more than once that the “stereotypically feminine” is a backward suggestion that has no place in the modern gaming world due to the negative repercussions of perceptions of women offline. Anita speaks humorously at points so as to mock the unfortunate situations some female characters find themselves in as a result of the damsel in distress trope, encouraging her audience to feel the same. At the same time, she attempts to present her video with the belief that she has authority to speak on the matter and for her voice to be accepted as fact – shown through her introduction where she briefs the audience on her previous videos regarding gaming. Anita used a ‘kickstarter’ funding program to launch a series of videos regarding gender tropes in video games in 2012, and has since gained media attention.
It is interesting to note that while Anita is speaking from her own perspective and opinion, she often fails to assert this fact, preferring to neglect referring to herself within the presentation. Her language is often evaluative, but while Sarah takes a clear stance and takes great consideration into asserting herself as the author, Anita’s is a mix of factual and authorial-based content, which may be misleading to the reader. That is to say, some of her arguments contain hasty generalisations.
It is useful to first outline what the authors believe constitutes a strong female character, to then analyse the ways in which they go about this in their presentations.
Agency, aggression, self-sufficiency and playability feed into Anita’s view of what makes a strong female character in a game. On the one hand, Anita reveals the disturbing tendency for female characters to be placed in positions of great distress with limited agency, but in doing so she often downplays the achievements of existing female characters, even after acknowledging them. Anita employs humour, inclusive terminology, factual evidence and examples, appeal to authority, visual representation and a mostly implicit authorial attitude throughout her presentation.
Contrastingly, Sarah believes strong female characters in games need not have such gregarious qualities, but could simply be kind, helpful, respected leaders and survivors. Her vlog is presented in a way that encourages the traditionally feminine as something to be desired, even respected, in a character. Her response is from the outset she presents her personal perspective, rather than implying her word is fact and unbiased. Sarah positions herself “as a gamer, and as a female” suggesting she believes she holds a sense of authority on her topic. She uses the support of emotive language, humour, factual evidence, and analogy as well as an explicit authorial attitude.
Let’s begin with an examination of Anita’s “Damsel in Distress: Tropes vs women in video games.” From the outset, it is clear that Anita operates with the assumption that strong female characters should “be” a certain way, through exposing these parameters with an example. “She was strong, she was capable and she was heroic.” These positive attributes are then combined with an interposal of her own opinion, “pretty cool, right? Well, it would have been.” Anita poses the rhetorical question to the audience before providing her own response and continuing, thus silencing space for opinion and interpretation. It is interesting to note that Anita has also closed the option for comments under the video itself. Already, the audience is invited into a point of view that has decided strong characters are capable and heroic. Throughout her presentation, she carries the theme of assuming her audience shares her values through inclusive lexis, such as, “we have to remember [that…].” She likewise assumes that the game that was never produced is a game that her audience would have liked to play. Through the inclusion of this particular example, Anita implies that potential appropriately strong female characters have been silenced – that this is an injustice her audience should share.
Anita’s argument begins as clear and critical, raising some valid points about the mistreatment of certain characters. Her claim that the damsel in distress trope “disempowers female characters and robs them of a chance to be heroes in their own right” is backed by the justification within the examples she has used. She goes further to illustrate her point by examining the sexualisation of the character of Krystal in Star Fox Adventures once she is “damselled.” A short clip is shown in the presentation, and Anita makes use of humour to state the ridiculousness of the image, “… ‘Crystal clear’ that she is now an object of desire.” Humour is used as an affiliation strategy throughout the presentation, trusting that her audience will find the trope so ridiculous in modern games as to be laughable – despite the alleged popularity of said trope.
Anita goes further to justify her argument, utilising factually-based evidence in an appeal to authority. She approaches the term “damsel in distress” etymologically, picking apart the terms “damsel” and “distress” to clarify her point. Following this explanation, she identifies several groups of women who are “traditionally” placed in the role as justification. Through the sequencing of her argument, she leads her audience to assume that this trope is most universally used on women from all ages and groups in society. There is an underlying assumption that the victimisation occurs mostly, if not entirely with regards to female characters – without considering the consequences or meaning of the lack of a male equivalent. In being exclusively critical of female characters, Anita is failing to mention what a subversion of the trope would entail – perhaps reinforcing the harmful notions of female victimhood within games that she wishes to break free of. In addition, she often offers hasty generalisations in an attempt to justify her thoughts, “a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men,” “the damsel in distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalise extremely toxic, patronising and paternalistic attitudes about women.”
In Sarah’s response to ‘tropes vs women’, she directly notes the problematic nature of Anita’s shaming of victims within video games. Using an analogy to real world abuse victims, she poses the question of “if implying that being a victim overshadows all other positive traits of a character, what message are you truly sending?” Making use of emotive language and repetition of rhetorical questions, Sarah brings the argument further from its roots in video game culture and closer to reality – asking her viewers to question the legitimacy of Anita’s statements in the context of modern society. Sarah operates with the assumption that her audience believes female characters do not necessarily have to hold the parameters of outward strength that Anita outlines – that there is more than one type of strength and these are less overt, but still important.
Anita consistently characterises the notions of passivity and helplessness – whether by the character’s own fault or not – as indicative of unworthiness as a character in their own right.
“All that is really required to fulfil the damsel in distress trope is for a female character to be reduced to a state of helplessness from which she requires rescuing by a typically male hero for the benefit of his story arc.”
She operates under the assumption that her audience will agree – perhaps revealing socially ingrained victim blaming. Interestingly, Anita does provide her audience with examples of certain characters who are occasionally active, playable and helpful within games. However, they are quickly dismissed for neglecting to be enough of an active character in Anita’s own opinion. She uses Princess Peach as an example of the damsel in distress trope before circling back to state that she is, “kinda, accidentally playable” in Super Mario Bros 2. Therefore it can be said that this is an informal fallacy, wherein in actuality, Peach does often fit into the parameters of a “strong female character” – active, playable, heroic – that Anita identified at the beginning of her presentation. Anita uses humour in her wording here to justify herself to her audience, or to cover up the fallacy.
Sarah, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to convince her audience of the benefits of these “damselled” characters. Using descriptive language, she tells of the chaos that surrounds the game once the princesses have been captured, and by way of justification states that this proves their importance to their respective communities. She uses the assumption that her audience believes good leadership and peace outweighs drama, action and violence. “The princesses and their safety symbolise a state of peace, and it cannot be said that the male protagonists are rescuing them solely to benefit their own story arc.” To justify her opinion to the audience, Sarah admits that part of the damsel trope is for the benefit of the protagonist’s story arc – however, it is also reductive to see a female character simply through a trope.
Interestingly, although Sarah claims in the introduction of her presentation that “I’m not seeking to devalue Anita’s views,” there is a subtle ad hominem argument within the presentation. “It turns out the only people who do not value [Princess Peach and Princess Zelda] are the critics who reduce them to just another example of a plot device and refer to them as ‘property’.” In doing so, she shames the opposing argument for devaluing what she believes to be strong and inspirational female characters. She goes further to list the positive qualities of Princess Peach, perhaps renewing feelings of nostalgia in her viewers for what she acknowledges to be “beloved” characters in a persuasive strategy to win her audience. She admits that Peach is “stereotypical” in her femininity, and holds the belief that “there is nothing wrong with this.” Her defensive stance is backed up by her impassioned terminology to state that Anita’s view is, in her view, incorrect.
Indeed, Anita and Sarah are at odds with the basic premise of female “strength” – Sarah being more focused on the idea that stereotypical femininity does not warrant a negative response. Sarah’s argument centres on the use of emotive language and an appeal to the audience for support of what is clearly the author’s opinion – proving to the audience that she is protective and passionate about characters she believes to be misinterpreted and misunderstood in modern culture. She carries the underlying assumption that she is defending these characters to a largely hostile society that views the stereotypically feminine as weak and backward in modern times.
In conclusion, both videos present views pertaining to female representation in games and roles in wider society that are deeply conflicting. This suggests that Anita, a popular and outspoken vlogger, is somewhat representative of a large group of people who have no qualm with tearing down traditional or stereotypical femininity in a fictionalised environment with little thought to the real world repercussions. Anita states she is concerned with presenting women as victims within video games because it makes them appear weak and unworthy of praise even for what they do provide to the narrative. Sarah, on the other hand, defends these characters partially on behalf of real world abuse victims, suggesting that perhaps Anita’s argument could do with some revision. Overall, they are addressing an audience that is receptive and – evident through Anita’s need for closing the comments section of her video – critical, of the messages they are being told, but it is impossible to come to a formal conclusion based on the data of two videos. It can, however, be said that the audience could perhaps be rooted in internalised misogyny based on Sarah’s need for emotive appeal and Anita’s aggressive attack on some peaceful, helpful, but victimised, female characters.
Anita Sarkeesian (FeministFrequency): Damsel in Distress: Tropes vs Women in Video Games Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q
Sarah “KiteTales”: More than a Damsel in a Dress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek
ivorytosteel.wordpress.com 