There have been times I’ve wanted to discuss the topic of feminism and male chauvinism in the games industry. Most often I’ve held my tongue and, in the few cases I have discussed it, have often held back and cut myself off before digging too deep. I especially try to avoid it now as I get older, as I’ve already said enough ignorant things on this eternal network of wired and wireless connections. Those statements will never go away, and at best I can try to bury them in my shame. Yet someone has read them, and even if I have changed my thoughts to a more enlightened view now, that person could already have made their mind up about me.

Yet I couldn’t hide from this topic forever. Anita Sarkeesian’s first video for Tropes vs. Women in Video Games has released, and I have an opinion on it. I could keep that opinion to myself, but that would be no different than plugging my fingers into my ears, closing my eyes and going “LA LA LA LA LA” while everyone else argues about this topic around me.

In truth, though, I feel it necessary to critique Anita Sarkeesian’s videos not because of the media circus around her, or because I really feel her voice is that much more important than anyone else’s. It is that people paid her money to create this series, and as a result she should be taken seriously enough that any holes or issues in her argument needs to be pointed out. She isn’t doing this as a job, and she’s not putting the videos online for free. She took the money of a lot of people, and now I expect more out of her than your typical YouTube personality making a video. It would be more irresponsible of me to hold my tongue than to risk sounding like a smacked ass trying to point out flaws in her argument.

Which is where my problem lies. When I finished watching the video I had too many questions. I felt like there were other aspects of the trope worth discussing. Most of all, it took some reflection to understand what her point actually is.

Anita Sarkeesian’s point in her first video is that video games have been built on a tradition of women being a thing that needs to be saved. Yes, a thing. The woman is the prize at the end, a reward for conquering the evil foe. Of this I agree, and I also agree that it can be a bad thing.

The problem is Anita spends so much time discussing Princess Peach and Zelda specifically that it’s too easy to get sidetracked. You lose sight of what point she’s trying to make, and in the end I think she does as well. As she was discussing Princess Zelda’s role in Wind Waker, I could only think of how much more I enjoyed the very same argument as presented by Matthew Matosis. In fact, Matthew even did a better job tackling Skyward Sword, mentioning how interesting it was that Zelda was technically the driving force of the story with Link trying to catch up, and yet you barely got to see how. He wasn’t even tackling the subject in terms of feminism either, just as a failure on Nintendo’s part to effectively tell the story.

Instead, as I watched Anita’s video, I became way too focused on what she wasn’t discussing and considering. That these early games were a reflection of what the developers enjoyed growing up. This is why these sorts of discussions always become such a never-ending vortex. To discuss why this trope was so prominent in video games you have to look at why the creators chose it. They chose it based off of other influential media, which leads to questioning why it was so popular in those stories, so on and so forth. What you’re looking at is something embedded deeply into our subconscious. The idea that a woman in distress must be saved, or longs to be saved, by a brave knight willing to face those demons.

Anita does go into a brief history lesson by starting with Perseus and Andromeda, but she doesn’t really go anywhere with it. She merely states this is an old trope that’s been going on for years.

Again, this is a problem. If you’re going to try and tackle a trope such as the Damsel in Distress, you should try and figure out why it exists in the first place. A conversation that, quite frankly, is too large for the realm of video games alone.

Instead, Anita merely describes it as objectifying the female and treating her as an object to be won. She is merely a ball constantly tossed between two males in their constant struggle. Is this an inaccurate interpretation? Certainly not.

However, not all tropes are created equal, and Anita fails to address other purposes that the trope serves. At its most basic the Damsel in Distress represents a cause or goal for the hero to fight for. Sometimes that goal is love, and doesn’t necessarily play out in your typical “locked in an ivory tower” manner. Shrek 2 is technically a story about a Damsel in Distress, but Shrek’s wife Fiona is never aware that she’s actually in any distress at all. Even so, Shrek’s love for Fiona provides the inner drive for him to fight against all preconceived notions of what is right in order to prove himself worthy of Fiona’s hand in marriage.

Would you say Shrek 2 devalues Fiona as an independent woman because of this? Technically Fiona’s love is being treated as a reward, it’s just the rest of the characters that Shrek has to prove himself to. He may not do it by slaying a dragon, but he still has to prove his worth. Is Shrek 2 a sexist film?

The Damsel in Distress is also a trope that an audience can easily relate to. What if the person you loved was taken away from you? There’s a reason a film like Taken is so successful, even though it is essentially a Damsel in Distress story. It’s just one where the King himself goes to rescue his daughter instead of relying on some knight in shining armor. In a modern age where parents are constantly worried about what could happen to their children, it is easy to see how such a film could be so successful.

I’d also like to note Disney’s Beauty and the Beast as a good subversion of this trope. It is unfortunate that the film can also be viewed as a sort of stockholm syndrome, capable of teaching a young girl that she can turn an abusive man into a charming prince, but that doesn’t stop Belle’s altruistic actions for being admirable. Instead of being stolen as the Damsel in Distress, she volunteers for that position. She takes her father’s place as prisoner so that he can go free. This sort of self-sacrifice is admirable in anyone, let alone a female character. Throughout the film Belle also manages to be strong emotionally, refusing to yield to the Beast just because he demands she be submissive.

I’m not arguing that all uses of the trope are fine, good, positive, or what have you. I’m just arguing the trope itself is not inherently bad. Simultaneously, all of the games Anita references are not necessarily bad themselves. They are merely a reflection of the culture, and at the time they were made a lot of designers wanted to take their favorite films or books and recreate them in an interactive setting. It’s similar to how a love of science fiction and heavy metal influenced the creators of Doom.

The problem that Anita is trying to point out is that these tropes have been planted deeply into our subconscious. I agree, and I agree that young children can be subconsciously programmed to assign gender roles based on exposure to such things.

Whenever this topic comes up, however, my primary answer is always the same. The problem is that we don’t have good writers.

However, it seems that issue is also outside the scope of Anita Sarkeesian’s video. Before she wrapped her first video up, I was left wondering about how modern games were handling this trope and any good examples. It seems these will be coming up in future installments of her show. Yet I’m still left wondering what she’d think if a game featured, say, a lesbian who was out to rescue her damsel in distress girlfriend. Would this be progressive or regressive? Or would it, in fact, depend on how the characters are portrayed? If that’s the case, then why doesn’t character portrayal really matter in the examples she already provided?

Once again, context is always important. I understand why Anita chose Princess Peach and Zelda specifically, but at this point the roles of Peach and Zelda are more dictated based on tradition, or even ritual, than anything else. In terms of Zelda, I wonder if Miyamoto wouldn’t mind things being changed up? Or is it merely that Nintendo is afraid of changing things too much? They’re in a sort of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” spot where changing things up too much will be met by derision by fans, yet adhering too closely is also met with anger and rage.

I’m not sure any such excuse exists for Peach, but only because being captured by Bowser is just window dressing. The reason they make a Mario game is so they can make a Mario game. Even so, I’d say Super Paper Mario is a great way to try and progress beyond your average Mario game and tell an effective story. Also, you can play as Princess Peach!

The rigorous adherence to tradition is something video gamers are highly guilty of, though. Trying to convince the games industry, or individual designers, to change things up is one thing. Trying to convince gamers is another.

Unfortunately, Anita is not the person for the job. I don’t know why so many other male gamers dislike her. It has to be for greater reason than she is a feminist. However, this first video gives me doubts that she is capable of treating this topic with the level of analysis it requires. She barely gets her thesis across in her first video, and by the end it sounds like she was merely complaining that this trope exists in the first place.

Hopefully there are other smart viewers that are able to provide strong, real critique and analysis, though. Hopefully, Anita is willing to listen to such critiques. I want to keep watching these videos, and I want to watch her arguments improve. It is, after all, too early to call her efforts a failure.

At its current state, though, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games isn’t going to convince many people of anything. Those that agree with her already agree, and any that don’t haven’t heard any real reason to reconsider their stance. It’s easy to say “things need to change”. It’s more valuable to try and provide ways in which to do so.