Are some gamers and media obsessed with "strong, independant" women?

[fbs397]

I would like to compare Luigi with princess Peach. Luigi is a complete coward, is often treated as the laughing stock in his brother's shadow and even in his own Luigi's Mansion games, he's a very afraid character.

Imagine if Luigi was a girl, portrayed like that. Can you imagine the sheer rage from media and gamers who would tell Nintendo to stop portraying women as weak? Yet when it comes to Luigi, few people have ever complained about this specific issue.

And now princess Peach. Not exactly the strongest, most independant women in gaming there is. And lots of people have complained about that, and media too.

Today, it seems some media and gamers are completely obsessed with all women having to be "kickass", "badass" and "strong" and "independant". What's wrong with weak, submissive women? Aren't they allowed to exist in fiction anymore?

Personally, I like different kind of characters, but I do love the weak, submissive woman who you have to save at the end of your adventure. I can barely state that opinion in public today because people immediately tell me that "your view on women is rotten". That's not at all how it is. This is fiction and fantasy, yet some people seem to try to apply real world morals onto fictional fantasies.

Why is it like this? Why is it that media can't stand a weak female, but they have no problems with a weak male?

 

[JediLink]

If you go up to people and say "I like weak, submissive females" then I really don't know what kind of response you're expecting. You should try wording it a little better.

Also you've got to remember that although Luigi may be cowardly in Luigi's Mansion, he's still the hero of the game and he still saves his brother in the end, so he's not weak at all.

People dislike Peach because she's hardly even a character. She's just an object of desire for the hero. You could replace her with Mario's favourite wrench and the story wouldn't be any different, because she doesn't do anything. Of course, there are exceptions to this like all the games where she's playable, and the RPGs where she does actually have dialogue and a proper role in the story. (Damnit Nintendo, where's my Paper Mario 3?)

Contrast this with Princess Zelda, who is a well received character because she is a character. She has her own thoughts and feelings, she interacts with other characters in a meaningful way, and she's important to the story. She definitely still shows signs of being weak (e.g. OoT final boss, where for most of it she just stands there) but that's just one of her character flaws to offset her strengths, i.e. what makes a deep and interesting character. Peach has the personality of a brick.

 

[fitzawesome]

It's difficult to make a 'strong' woman in a video game. Most games these days are looking for the 'CoD audience, or the GTA audience'. These people want to play as an alpha male. If you place a woman into the story and she comes across as stronger than the man then the playerbase will mock him. So you have to have a love interest but she also can't be stronger than the protagonist. So the easy way out is to just make her timid or shy or a tech geek.

 

[Hulter]

The thing about Luigi is there's no stereotype about males being weak and timid, but rather quite the contrary. Luigi in this context is an interesting character because he goes beyond the expectations of a male protagonist and is defined by the contents of his character rather than by his gender. He's not necessarily weak either. He's constantly overcoming fears and achieving things, after all, which is the most quintessential bravery to me.

With Peach, however, it's as JediLink said. She's essentially the equivalent of a brick. She's defined by the tropes against women in popular culture rather than being a character with solid qualities in her own right. The problem lies in perpetuation of injurious stereotypes and limiting the spectrum of what is possible for people to be, based on said stereotypes.

The strong muscular men and weak submissive women are boring stereotypes which limit the depth of characters in favour of some strange idea of generalised gender identity. It's just dumb.

 

[LivewiresXe]

Wait...are people seriously getting into a crazy Feminist-style discussion over trivial things like that? Ouch.

 

[Hulter]

Wait...are people seriously getting into a crazy Feminist-style discussion over trivial things like that? Ouch.

What makes you call it crazy? What did you expect us to do when he kindly asked the question?

 

[finalark]

Why is it like this? Why is it that media can't stand a weak female, but they have no problems with a weak male?

I'm pretty sure this is your point right here. I have to agree with JediLink on this one and say that Luigi's Mansion isn't exactly a good example of a game with a weak, submissive male character. Yeah, Luigi is scared ****less of the mansion but overcomes his fears and saves his brother.

IMO the "tough, independent woman who is more comfortable throwing fists than cleaning kitchens" is just as annoying and lazy as the "meek, quiet kind girl who is pure of heart and would never harm a soul."

I want a game where the lady is kidnapped, but you spend the whole game playing as the girlfriend Metal Gearing your way out of the bad guy's castle while your coward of a boyfriend gives up hope and hides away at home. Now that would be interesting.

 

[fbs397]

If you go up to people and say "I like weak, submissive females" then I really don't know what kind of response you're expecting. You should try wording it a little better.

Also you've got to remember that although Luigi may be cowardly in Luigi's Mansion, he's still the hero of the game and he still saves his brother in the end, so he's not weak at all.

People dislike Peach because she's hardly even a character. She's just an object of desire for the hero. You could replace her with Mario's favourite wrench and the story wouldn't be any different, because she doesn't do anything. Of course, there are exceptions to this like all the games where she's playable, and the RPGs where she does actually have dialogue and a proper role in the story. (Damnit Nintendo, where's my Paper Mario 3?)

Contrast this with Princess Zelda, who is a well received character because she is a character. She has her own thoughts and feelings, she interacts with other characters in a meaningful way, and she's important to the story. She definitely still shows signs of being weak (e.g. OoT final boss, where for most of it she just stands there) but that's just one of her character flaws to offset her strengths, i.e. what makes a deep and interesting character. Peach has the personality of a brick.

So what does that make Mario in Luigi's Mansion? That's right, a weakling. What was Luigi's role in Paper Mario for the N64? He was constantly being in the shadow of his brother. If Luigi had been a girl in that game, people would surely complain about it, but because he's a guy, it's OK.

I don't think Peach has the personality of a brick at all. Just because she doesn't talk a lot and has to be rescued doesn't mean she doesn't have a personality.

And what's wrong with liking weak, submissive females?

The thing about Luigi is there's no stereotype about males being weak and timid, but rather quite the contrary. Luigi in this context is an interesting character because he goes beyond the expectations of a male protagonist and is defined by the contents of his character rather than by his gender. He's not necessarily weak either. He's constantly overcoming fears and achieving things, after all, which is the most quintessential bravery to me.

With Peach, however, it's as JediLink said. She's essentially the equivalent of a brick. She's defined by the tropes against women in popular culture rather than being a character with solid qualities in her own right. The problem lies in perpetuation of injurious stereotypes and limiting the spectrum of what is possible for people to be, based on said stereotypes.

The strong muscular men and weak submissive women are boring stereotypes which limit the depth of characters in favour of some strange idea of generalised gender identity. It's just dumb.

How is it dumb with gender roles in games? Please explain.

So if we had 100 Luigi characters the next 20 years, they too would become a "stereotype" (what's wrong with stereotypes anyway?) and you would dislike them for that?

Aren't you limiting things pretty much yourself by saying that girls shouldn't be like Peach? You too are limiting this spectrum that you talk about.

 

[Hulter]

So what does that make Mario in Luigi's Mansion? That's right, a weakling. What was Luigi's role in Paper Mario for the N64? He was constantly being in the shadow of his brother. If Luigi had been a girl in that game, people would surely complain about it, but because he's a guy, it's OK.

I don't think Peach has the personality of a brick at all. Just because she doesn't talk a lot and has to be rescued doesn't mean she doesn't have a personality.

And what's wrong with liking weak, submissive females?



How is it dumb with gender roles in games? Please explain.

So if we had 100 Luigi characters the next 20 years, they too would become a "stereotype" (what's wrong with stereotypes anyway?) and you would dislike them for that?

Aren't you limiting things pretty much yourself by saying that girls shouldn't be like Peach? You too are limiting this spectrum that you talk about.

"How is it dumb with gender roles in games?"

Because gender roles in games enforce gender roles in reality and cause boys and girls to be treated drastically differently and limit what people think they are supposed to be. How do you think girls feel about constantly being told they can't be heroes, but rather have to be the objects of desire to be fought over that you see in popular media? It's horrible.

"So what does that make Mario in Luigi's Mansion? That's right, a weakling. What was Luigi's role in Paper Mario for the N64? He was constantly being in the shadow of his brother. If Luigi had been a girl in that game, people would surely complain about it, but because he's a guy, it's OK."

I already explained this. I said "There's no stereotype about males being weak and timid, but rather quite the contrary", or in other words that there's not an overwhelming notion in popular culture telling boys they should be boring sodding damsels in distress to be saved, not taking an active part in adventures, not standing up for themselves and so on, which in turns means it's not a problem, which in turn means people won't complain about it. The problem arises when not as much as one out of a hundred mainstream games has a female protagonist.

It's not about indiscriminately making female characters Übermenschen. It's about at least some of them having some active role at all, which they don't in the absolute majority of cases in these games. Saying female characters shouldn't be limited by gender based tropes, like Peach is, is not limiting, no.

Your whole reasoning is just insane.

"Oh, yeah, but in this one game a male character is in the shadow of this other male character. Yeah, that'll give people the impression all males should be weak."

Nonsense.

 

[JediLink]

I was in the process of writing my own response, but I'm not going to anymore because you pretty much said it, man.

 

[fbs397]

"How is it dumb with gender roles in games?"

Because gender roles in games enforce gender roles in reality and cause boys and girls to be treated drastically differently and limit what people think they are supposed to be. How do you think girls feel about constantly being told they can't be heroes, but rather have to be the objects of desire to be fought over that you see in popular media? It's horrible.

"So what does that make Mario in Luigi's Mansion? That's right, a weakling. What was Luigi's role in Paper Mario for the N64? He was constantly being in the shadow of his brother. If Luigi had been a girl in that game, people would surely complain about it, but because he's a guy, it's OK."

I already explained this. I said "There's no stereotype about males being weak and timid, but rather quite the contrary", or in other words that there's not an overwhelming notion in popular culture telling boys they should be boring sodding damsels in distress to be saved, not taking an active part in adventures, not standing up for themselves and so on, which in turns means it's not a problem, which in turn means people won't complain about it. The problem arises when not as much as one out of a hundred mainstream games has a female protagonist.

It's not about indiscriminately making female characters Übermenschen. It's about at least some of them having some active role at all, which they don't in the absolute majority of cases in these games. Saying female characters shouldn't be limited by gender based tropes, like Peach is, is not limiting, no.

Your whole reasoning is just insane.

"Oh, yeah, but in this one game a male character is in the shadow of this other male character. Yeah, that'll give people the impression all males should be weak."

Nonsense.

There's zero proof that gender roles in games have such an effect in reality. ZERO. It's just assumptions and speculation.

I think girls are very capable of telling fiction apart from reality. I also don't think all girls have problems with gender roles - you're kind of trying to force your way of thinking upon me here.

Gender roles will always exist, just like norms in society will always exist. The popular gender role today IRL is that all girls should be independant and strong. Do you think all girls want to be like that? Do you think everyone want that kind of pressure? Feminists often assume they're speaking on the behalf of all women when they certainly are not.

I love the weak, submissive female in my games, but that doesn't mean I have anything against the strong, independant ones. Would you please leave people's imaginations and fantasies (created as fiction) alone and stop complaing about things you don't like because they merely exist?

 

[Hulter]

How are they gonna tell it apart from reality when they're treated the same way there? Boys at the kindergarten are spoken to rashly and roughly and are expected to be violent and self assertive and play war, whereas girls are spoken to lightly and softly and are expected to sit down playing with sodding barbies.

 

[JediLink]

Gender roles will always exist, just like norms in society will always exist. The popular gender role today IRL is that all girls should be independant and strong. Do you think all girls want to be like that? Do you think everyone want that kind of pressure? Feminists often assume they're speaking on the behalf of all women when they certainly are not.

This makes my brain hurt. Like really, this is borderline troll logic here. Being strong and independent are both inherently good qualities. Of course all girls should be independent and strong, because all people should be independent and strong, as well as being wise, humble, just, open-minded, etc. It's the ideal that all humans should strive for, which for so long, women were discouraged from achieving and is finally being overturned. But apparently it's a gender role now. What the hell am I even reading.

Let me tell you some things, sir.

First of all, the damsel-in-distress trope is thousands of years old and people are tired of it. "Peach gets kidnapped again" is not an interesting story and it'd be nice if Nintendo could try something new every once in a while.

Secondly, no one said that all female characters have to be badass. Fluttershy is the total opposite of a badass but she's massively popular. Pinkie Pie is still best pony though

Thirdly, if you think Princess Peach is a good character (outside of the RPGs) then you are kidding yourself. She isn't.

And like I said before, you can't just go around telling people that you like weak, submissive females. It implies that you believe women are inferior and should serve and obey you. That's probably not what you really mean, but that's what people will hear when you say that. Again, like I said before, I suggest you try to word things a little better. "Weak" and "submissive" are both words with negative connotations so of course people are going to tell you your view on women is rotten.

 

[Substitution]

...At this rate. I don't even know anymore...

 

[fbs397]

How are they gonna tell it apart from reality when they're treated the same way there? Boys at the kindergarten are spoken to rashly and roughly and are expected to be violent and self assertive and play war, whereas girls are spoken to lightly and softly and are expected to sit down playing with sodding barbies.

I don't know where you live, but that's certainly not how it is where I live. But you know what? In a British study on newborn babies, it's shown that girls and boy ARE DIFFERENT BY NATURE. These little newborn babies had no influence from society norms, yet girls chose different toys to play with than boys. The female newborns preferred toys with human featurs, such as eyes and faces. This has been proven scientifically (look up Norwegian documentary "Hjernevask" with English subtitles). What has feminism proven? NOTHING. They assume a lot, tell people a lot, but they have no proof what-so-ever for what they say.

This makes my brain hurt. Like really, this is borderline troll logic here. Being strong and independent are both inherently good qualities. Of course all girls should be independent and strong, because all people should be independent and strong, as well as being wise, humble, just, open-minded, etc. It's the ideal that all humans should strive for, which for so long, women were discouraged from achieving and is finally being overturned. But apparently it's a gender role now. What the hell am I even reading.

Let me tell you some things, sir.

First of all, the damsel-in-distress trope is thousands of years old and people are tired of it. "Peach gets kidnapped again" is not an interesting story and it'd be nice if Nintendo could try something new every once in a while.

Secondly, no one said that all female characters have to be badass. Fluttershy is the total opposite of a badass but she's massively popular. Pinkie Pie is still best pony though

Thirdly, if you think Princess Peach is a good character (outside of the RPGs) then you are kidding yourself. She isn't.

And like I said before, you can't just go around telling people that you like weak, submissive females. It implies that you believe women are inferior and should serve and obey you. That's probably not what you really mean, but that's what people will hear when you say that. Again, like I said before, I suggest you try to word things a little better. "Weak" and "submissive" are both words with negative connotations so of course people are going to tell you your view on women is rotten.

OK, so what do you tell people who don't fit in your league of perfect, strong and independant humans? What do you tell the girl or boy who is submissive by nature, who wants to live with a dominant man/woman? Do these people have any place in your ideal world? In mine, they have - just like strong and independant people.

Why should all humans strive for it? Because you think it's so good? It sounds like you think that these values and ideals are the only right ones, and no one can think differently. That's the first small steps towards communism and opression of free minds, just saying.

How do you know people are tired of it? Have you made a huge survey? Or do you simply move your own opinion/ideal onto others?

You sound exactly like the typical feminist who can't accept people with different viewpoints, who can't accept that someone think that Peach is a great character - because she simply isn't. No one can think otherwise.

You think you have discovered the perfect ideals and values in feminism, and you're so sure of this that no ther arguments or opinions or values are valid in your little world. You seriously need to stop being so extremely narrow-minded and open up to more viewpoints and values than just feminism.

 

[finalark]

I have to leave for class in about ten minuets, and if I had more time I'd punch out a better repose. But the reason why people hate meek, submissive females is the same exact reason why you hate meek, submissive males.

EDIT: I was going to give a more detailed repose, but after reading more of OPs responses I've come to the conclusion that he's a butthurt troll who doesn't know a goddamn thing about feminism and uses circular reason and sexist stereotypes to back up his opinion.

 

[lordvaati]

A plot about a girl in captivity who uses her own skill to escape? Well.....

 

[Hulter]

We all know of portal, but indeed it is pretty sick.

Imagine if Link was female. That'd be marvelous.

 

[finalark]

We all know of portal, but indeed it is pretty sick.

Imagine if Link was female. That'd be marvelous.

The sad thing is that the the goddamn CDI games were more progressive with Zelda than Nintendo was until Spirit Tracks came out. I've always wanted a Zelda game where you actually play as Zelda and get to solve puzzles and fight monsters using her magic that her SSB incarnation has but we never see in the main series Zelda games. Oh well, at least Nintendo has been moving Zelda away from distressed damsel role ever the years.

 

[Overtaken]

The OP's is giving away his hand almost immediately. you're complaining to us the new feminist wave of badass, stong, independent women is encroaching apon the traditional trope of the weak, helpless woman who needs to be rescued. You went as far as to say 'but isnt this just as limitin?' Therein lies the hypocricy; the strong independent female protagonist was inspired precisely to offer a new aspiration and ideal for women, where previously women were limited to seeing weak, timid females.

I wouldn't say that there can't be any weak women in fiction, but there can't only be weak women in fiction.

And to fbs' swipe at 'communism', don't you find that using social pressure to characterize womens role in society as weak and dependent to be precicely what it is you're trying to object to?

 

[JediLink]

You guys can continue, but I'm done with this thread. OP is whack.

 

[fbs397]

I have to leave for class in about ten minuets, and if I had more time I'd punch out a better repose. But the reason why people hate meek, submissive females is the same exact reason why you hate meek, submissive males.

EDIT: I was going to give a more detailed repose, but after reading more of OPs responses I've come to the conclusion that he's a butthurt troll who doesn't know a goddamn thing about feminism and uses circular reason and sexist stereotypes to back up his opinion.

I don't hate weak, submissive males at all. My example about Luigi was just to show how differently people react to weak/scared males and females.

Oh yeah? That's the easy way out when you're out of arguments. I reply to every single argument made against me here, but you choose to call me names instead. That's a mature way of discussing things...

The sad thing is that the the goddamn CDI games were more progressive with Zelda than Nintendo was until Spirit Tracks came out. I've always wanted a Zelda game where you actually play as Zelda and get to solve puzzles and fight monsters using her magic that her SSB incarnation has but we never see in the main series Zelda games. Oh well, at least Nintendo has been moving Zelda away from distressed damsel role ever the years.

What's wrong with the damsel in distress? Could you actually specify what's wrong? I understand if you don't like it, but what's WRONG with it?

The OP's is giving away his hand almost immediately. you're complaining to us the new feminist wave of badass, stong, independent women is encroaching apon the traditional trope of the weak, helpless woman who needs to be rescued. You went as far as to say 'but isnt this just as limitin?' Therein lies the hypocricy; the strong independent female protagonist was inspired precisely to offer a new aspiration and ideal for women, where previously women were limited to seeing weak, timid females.

I wouldn't say that there can't be any weak women in fiction, but there can't only be weak women in fiction.

And to fbs' swipe at 'communism', don't you find that using social pressure to characterize womens role in society as weak and dependent to be precicely what it is you're trying to object to?

I think you misunderstand me then. It's not me wanting strong females to go away, it's you wanting weak females to stop existing. Even though I don't like them very much, I have no problems at all with strong women in games.

What I'm saying here is that ALL kinds of women should be able to exist without the feminists hunting away the weak, submissive ones. The feminists are the ones who don't want different kinds of women in games, they only want the strong, independant woman who never needs a man. All other women have no places in their ideal worlds. That's the difference between me and feminists.

What kind of social pressure are you talking about now? Please eloborate.

I should explain myself that I live in Sweden. I can guarantee you that feminism in Sweden has progressed a lot further than in any other country in the world. Because of this, I'm very used to these discussions, and I'm also very used to feminists who leaves the debate as soon as their thin arguments runs out, and then start calling you names such as "troll". I already know all feminism arguments, and I know how to meet them - because all feminists constantly use exactly the same arguments over and over again - all of them. This is likely because someone has teached them this (they have not learned it through their own life experience or through philosophy).

There's ZERO proof that social pressure is the one single factor that affects women so much they have nu choice but to follow it. ZERO PROOF. It's just speculation and assumptions.

So let me make this clear: today, feminists gamers and media are obsessed with strong, independant women in games. If a woman is depicted as weak, submissive or if she needs a man, the character is immediately slammed down as "sexist", "bad" or other negatives. See, feminists don't want all kinds of characters to exist. They don't want different ideals to exist either. They only want their own ideals, values and female characters to exist. They're not tolerant at all to variation. That's why I compare them with communists, because communists only see ONE ideal too, and do not accept other ideals or viewpoints. They are so sure their own is THE best, why would ANYONE need something else?

We've already had one person in this thread saying "you can't think Peach is a great character, because she simply isn't". If that's not the perfect example of this narrow mind, then I don't know what it is.

 

[Hulter]

Op is a troll. Report.

 

[fbs397]

Op is a troll. Report.

I put forth argument after argument, trying to debate, and you call me a troll (because you lack arguments?).

Now, who's the real troll? Me or you?

 

[Hulter]

I put forth argument after argument, trying to debate, and you call me a troll (because you lack arguments?).

Now, who's the real troll? Me or you?

No. I'm just not going to repeat everything I say a hundred times just because some tithead refuses to read it.

 

[finalark]

What's wrong with the damsel in distress? Could you actually specify what's wrong? I understand if you don't like it, but what's WRONG with it?

It objectifies women and turns them into rewards rather than people.

 

[fbs397]

It objectifies women and turns them into rewards rather than people.

What's so wrong with objectifying? This may come as a shock to you, but some people LOVE to be objectified and to receive attention for their beauty or their sexiness. And some women dream of a man to come rescue them. Does that sound "old fashioned" to you? I bet it does, but you have to understand that it's not women in general who dislike the damsel in distress, it's feminists in general who dislike it. You'd be a fool to think that NO ONE likes it.

I think games today have plenty of different character types, so the variation is not a problem. The problem is that some feminists can't accept the mere existance of certain character types. I know IRL women who love the thought to be rescued by a handsome man, it's not just a (as feminists call it) a "male power fantasy". It's a female fantasy as well, but one that feminists don't want to admit exist.

And of course, not all feminists are like that, there are plenty of feminists who live their lives according to their beliefs, without trying to force other people to share their ideals and values.

No. I'm just not going to repeat everything I say a hundred times just because some tithead refuses to read it.

Try to come up with actual arguments instead of calling me names.

 

[finalark]

So what you're saying here is that by disliking the damsel in distress plot, I am forcing my viewpoint onto everyone else and taking away their toys?

Now hold on a second, first of all, feminists aren't a bunch of angry women who want to take away your toys. Maybe the more extreme she-woman man-haters are, but that's just the vocal minority. Believe it or not, 4chan is not the best place to learn about feminism.

Now lets back peddle a few steps and look at your original point: Luigi's characterization in Luigi's Mansion. You say that had Luigi been a female character, people would be up in arms over showing a woman as a coward. Well, I believe this is just wrong. From a feminist view point, a woman overcoming her fears and saving a man is actually a rather progressive story. To give the ultimate counter example, I give you Jill Valentine from Resident Evil. She's alone in a mansion filled the the brim with the undead and science gone wrong. Admittedly she's not as defined as Luigi was in LM, but one scene in RE that sticks out for me in particular is the part where you're in the bathroom. You may have Jill drain the tub only to find a disgusting soaked corpse sitting at the bottom. What does Jill do? She runs to the toilet and vomits. And there is nothing wrong with this scene, her being nauseated by the sight of a decaying corpse doesn't make her weak, it makes her human.

As for the damsel in distress plot, maybe you're right. Maybe there are some shallow women out there that want a big, sexy man who lusts after said woman's sexiness to rescue them. But it doesn't have to be only that, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year door does the damsel in distress plot better than any other game I've ever seen. There are parts of the game where you play as Peach (who is actually characterized as competent and not an airhead) and must do everything in your power to sabotage your captors. As a feminist, I believe this to be a very good and even empowering take on the age-old story. I'll be honest, most games that have a "save the princess" kind of set up I just play and don't even think twice about. Its just nice to see some games put effort into making women more than just objects, because believe it or not, some women want to be treated as people.

To conclude, I believe that your anti-feminist views are highly misguided. Understand that feminism isn't about taking anything away from men, its about women being treated as equals and abolishing gender roles. Its not about giving women special privileges or anything like that, its about equality. Yeah, some feminists take it too far and warp into a philosophy of **** hate, but I guess you can't have an ideology without someone taking it too far.

 

[fbs397]

So what you're saying here is that by disliking the damsel in distress plot, I am forcing my viewpoint onto everyone else and taking away their toys?

Now hold on a second, first of all, feminists aren't a bunch of angry women who want to take away your toys. Maybe the more extreme she-woman man-haters are, but that's just the vocal minority. Believe it or not, 4chan is not the best place to learn about feminism.

Now lets back peddle a few steps and look at your original point: Luigi's characterization in Luigi's Mansion. You say that had Luigi been a female character, people would be up in arms over showing a woman as a coward. Well, I believe this is just wrong. From a feminist view point, a woman overcoming her fears and saving a man is actually a rather progressive story. To give the ultimate counter example, I give you Jill Valentine from Resident Evil. She's alone in a mansion filled the the brim with the undead and science gone wrong. Admittedly she's not as defined as Luigi was in LM, but one scene in RE that sticks out for me in particular is the part where you're in the bathroom. You may have Jill drain the tub only to find a disgusting soaked corpse sitting at the bottom. What does Jill do? She runs to the toilet and vomits. And there is nothing wrong with this scene, her being nauseated by the sight of a decaying corpse doesn't make her weak, it makes her human.
As for the damsel in distress plot, maybe you're right. Maybe there are some shallow women out there that want a big, sexy man who lusts after said woman's sexiness to rescue them. But it doesn't have to be only that, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year door does the damsel in distress plot better than any other game I've ever seen. There are parts of the game where you play as Peach (who is actually characterized as competent and not an airhead) and must do everything in your power to sabotage your captors. As a feminist, I believe this to be a very good and even empowering take on the age-old story. I'll be honest, most games that have a "save the princess" kind of set up I just play and don't even think twice about. Its just nice to see some games put effort into making women more than just objects, because believe it or not, some women want to be treated as people.

To conclude, I believe that your anti-feminist views are highly misguided. Understand that feminism isn't about taking anything away from men, its about women being treated as equals and abolishing gender roles. Its not about giving women special privileges or anything like that, its about equality. Yeah, some feminists take it too far and warp into a philosophy of **** hate, but I guess you can't have an ideology without someone taking it too far.

No. I'm not saying anything about you personally, but when some people say that "You can't think Peach is a great character, because she simply isn't", then it's time to inform people that feminism is not the only acceptable value in life. If you hate Peach for her damsel in distress character, that's fine with me. But don't tell everyone that "you can't think that character is good, because no one can think so". And this doesn't apply to you personally.

I'm never at 4chan. I've learned feminism in Sweden, and I've learned it inside and out. I've also seen how feminism has evolved over the last decade. From the start, it was just about equal rights. But now, when feminists see that men and women keep choosing different professions, that women keep stay at home with the child more than the man - and all this by their own free will - then they're trying to force people to live in a certain way to achieve perfect equality, whether people actually like it or not. That's what feminism evolves into.

Come on. You compare Jill with Luigi? Jill is a lot tougher, Luigi is almost constantly shaking with fear, jumping at the slightest scare. There are many big differences between these characters when it comes to how weak they are. Luigi is almost always portrayed as the coward version of Mario, and Mario sometimes even make fun of him. Have you played NES Remix? In one game, your mission is to kill Luigi! XD Nintendo is clearly making fun out of him. No one complains. Now look at the Peach situation... I bet that if Peach was Mario's male friend, no one would complain that he was a character in need of help.

"Shallow" women? Do you notice how you immediately put a negative word on these women, as if they're worse than other women? They're not worse, just different. Just like how non-aggressive feminists are not worse than other people.

Of course some women don't like it. But that doesn't mean it's automatically bad. People who love strong characters have plenty of games to play today.

Also, I don't see anything wrong with gender roles. You don't have to follow them if you don't want to. There are clear gender roles for men too, but they never bother me a bit.

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

Finalark and Hulter are on my list of favorite people right now omg

fbs, im sorry you have such a skewed view of what feminism is trying to accomplish, because the movement is meant for equality - not empowering women over men. Feminists aren't trying to force strong female archetypes down your throat....we are honestly more interested in educating young women on personal issues (school systems in America do not properly prepare teenage girls for teen years in my honest opinion), speaking out against sex crimes that are committed against MEN AND WOMEN, empowering youth, breaking down bad stereotypes (women always have to be weak and fragile and sexy, men have to be tough and aggressive, etc)....etc etc etc.

And why does the industry need strong female characters? Because for every batch of strong male characters, there are not as many females. As much as I want to say 'well i dont care ill just play a dude', it gets kind of old. When I was growing up, sure we had Samus and Lara...but there were MANY MANY more strong male leads. I would have loved to see more strong women in games because to me that says 'man! i want to be just like ____(character) someday!' i didnt want to play a female character because she was sexy, or because she would have a prince to rescue her....i wanted to be able to put myself in the shoes of the character and experience what she experiences through the game. its an awesome feeling to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the character you are playing as.

and feminism is not trying to get rid of this damsel in distress trope you are defending so adamantly. this is just a sign that times are changing and society is growing up a bit. as finalark said, this trope had a problem with treating women as a prize. but by exploring stronger archetypes, hell, you can still improve the damsel in distress trope! sure, some women aren't aggressive or strong or whatever, but doesnt the same apply to men? that doesnt mean women should be looked down on for wanting these characters.

And do not even get me started on Luigi because honestly he is a well rounded character. Kudos Nintendo.

(sorry if my thoughts are a little jumbled, im trying to build a level for a class on little sleep while knowing little to nothing about UDK....the woes of being a concept artist in a 3D heavy major ; -- ; )

 

[Hulter]

Finalark and Hulter are on my list of favorite people right now omg

fbs, im sorry you have such a skewed view of what feminism is trying to accomplish, because the movement is meant for equality - not empowering women over men. Feminists aren't trying to force strong female archetypes down your throat....we are honestly more interested in educating young women on personal issues (school systems in America do not properly prepare teenage girls for teen years in my honest opinion), speaking out against sex crimes that are committed against MEN AND WOMEN, empowering youth, breaking down bad stereotypes (women always have to be weak and fragile and sexy, men have to be tough and aggressive, etc)....etc etc etc.

Why shouldn't men be allowed to be proper men and aggressive and tough? Why are you trying to force your point of view down others' throats? What's wrong with men being encouraged to be violent? Actually explain why that is bad.

JIMMIE ÅKESSON TJALALALALA! JIMMIE ÅKESSON TJAAAAAALALALALALA!

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

HULTER YOU CAN BE WHATEVER YOU WISH
except a wizard

not allowed.

 

[fbs397]

Finalark and Hulter are on my list of favorite people right now omg

fbs, im sorry you have such a skewed view of what feminism is trying to accomplish, because the movement is meant for equality - not empowering women over men. Feminists aren't trying to force strong female archetypes down your throat....we are honestly more interested in educating young women on personal issues (school systems in America do not properly prepare teenage girls for teen years in my honest opinion), speaking out against sex crimes that are committed against MEN AND WOMEN, empowering youth, breaking down bad stereotypes (women always have to be weak and fragile and sexy, men have to be tough and aggressive, etc)....etc etc etc.

And why does the industry need strong female characters? Because for every batch of strong male characters, there are not as many females. As much as I want to say 'well i dont care ill just play a dude', it gets kind of old. When I was growing up, sure we had Samus and Lara...but there were MANY MANY more strong male leads. I would have loved to see more strong women in games because to me that says 'man! i want to be just like ____(character) someday!' i didnt want to play a female character because she was sexy, or because she would have a prince to rescue her....i wanted to be able to put myself in the shoes of the character and experience what she experiences through the game. its an awesome feeling to be able to put yourself in the shoes of the character you are playing as.

and feminism is not trying to get rid of this damsel in distress trope you are defending so adamantly. this is just a sign that times are changing and society is growing up a bit. as finalark said, this trope had a problem with treating women as a prize. but by exploring stronger archetypes, hell, you can still improve the damsel in distress trope! sure, some women aren't aggressive or strong or whatever, but doesnt the same apply to men? that doesnt mean women should be looked down on for wanting these characters.

And do not even get me started on Luigi because honestly he is a well rounded character. Kudos Nintendo.

(sorry if my thoughts are a little jumbled, im trying to build a level for a class on little sleep while knowing little to nothing about UDK....the woes of being a concept artist in a 3D heavy major ; -- ; )

But America hasn't experienced evolved feminism like Sweden. What you're doing today, Sweden did years ago. And you know what? Feminism evolved into "if you still live by old gender roles by your own free will, then we will force you to change"! That's what feminism leads to down the road. Trust me. You'll probably experience that yourself in a few years.

You say "breaking down bad stereotypes". What is "bad"? Who has the right to define what a bad stereotype is? Will you teach the girl who dreams of becoming a housewife that she should rid her mind from such bad thoughts, or will you let her live her life in the way she chooses?

That's because more men play videogames than women. Men have a greater interest in gaming in general, and spend more money on them. Gamer girls are in the minority, and thus, have to accept that most games are not tailored made for them. This applies to all industries and businesses.

Heh, you're talking about damsel in distress as something bad, as something that should be improved or "growing up". It's just about change. Not good or bad change - just change.

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

Breaking down stereotypes =/= getting rid of the positive actions that may come with them. it means breaking down the stereotypes as the 'one true way' to live and to empower people to make choices on what they want to do. be a housewife/husband? Sure! CEO? kick butt, my friend.

The stereotypes, though they may have good in them, are being used negatively towards many people. Yes, the women who want to be housewives (kudos to them. thats a lot of work) are the 'societal norm', but theres a lot of pressure to women wanting to go into male dominated fields or to men who want to be stay at home dads. By breaking down stereotypes, you empower both groups - stay at home parents won't be judged for their choices, women won't be judged for wanting to advance their work careers, men and women won't be judged for going into fields that aren't 'typical', etc. Sounds idealistic, sure, but please do not try to skew my words.

47% of gamers are women. And before you give me the 'social games don't count' argument, hardcore gamers are a small percentage of gamers. Just because we are the most vocal audience doesn't mean we have the most say. More and more women are playing games every year. that does NOT mean you just get to leave out a chunk of a largely growing audience. that would just be a moronic choice by industry professionals. Trust me.

I never said it was something bad. it was just a very one dimensional trope. making it more dynamic by changing won't be a bad thing. trope = / = bad, just means a common theme/idea used in media.

edit: fixed problematic grammar, etc

 

[Hulter]

I don't know where you live, but that's certainly not how it is where I live. But you know what? In a British study on newborn babies, it's shown that girls and boy ARE DIFFERENT BY NATURE. These little newborn babies had no influence from society norms, yet girls chose different toys to play with than boys. The female newborns preferred toys with human featurs, such as eyes and faces. This has been proven scientifically (look up Norwegian documentary "Hjernevask" with English subtitles). What has feminism proven? NOTHING. They assume a lot, tell people a lot, but they have no proof what-so-ever for what they say.

Ok, lad. Look. I don't think anyone here is unaware of Simon Baron-Cohen's findings on that matter, but what you're not realising is that it's completely and utterly irrelevant and null and void in this argument.

You're drawing the most ridiculous conclusions. I watched the documentary when it originally aired, and If I remember correctly it featured a few of sketchy sociologists who held roughly the beliefs you describe and harboured these sentiments that you unrightly project onto general feminists.

A couple of sketchy sociologists are not representative for the entire equality advocating community. I hope you can grasp this concept.

Explain to me what relevance the preferences of professions has to the objectifying of women and malicious stereotypes and stigmas that corrupt society.

Removing arbitrary boundaries for what people are allowed to do is NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM limiting freedom or imposing anything upon anyone.

Maybe if you'd watched more than one documentary in your life you'd have the common sense to tell radical idiots apart from feminists.

I put forth argument after argument, trying to debate, and you call me a troll (because you lack arguments?).

Now, who's the real troll? Me or you?

You're not putting forth any arguments of any considerable significance or indeed seemingly seriousity. "what's bad about being a sexist ****?" is not an argument for perpetuating malevolent norms.

Edit: thanks to the mod for merging the posts.

 

[Trick or Treat]

Sorry to jump in, but hi.

I just hate how gender is even a thing people focus on, especially in games and media. Like saying a "strong woman", a "weak woman", "weak male", etc. Why can't we just look at characters and see "strong character" or "weak coward" or whatever.

But still, I'm not forcing anyone to change as long as it's their own free will. Like the housewife example, for one. Me and my best friend, who's a guy, have actually talked about this before and neither of us likes the idea of the woman staying home while the man works. UNLESS, however, it's by choice. If the woman wants to do that, why tell her it's a bad thing? I wouldn't be caught dead living that life, myself, but if someone wants to, whether male or female, what's wrong with that?

The problem is that there are some women who still feel like they have to. Or, more accurately, that they're 'supposed' too. They'd prefer otherwise, but once they get into a relationship they just accept that new role because it's rather expected. That's what I don't like.

But I'm going off track.

Today, it seems some media and gamers are completely obsessed with all women having to be "kickass", "badass" and "strong" and "independant". What's wrong with weak, submissive women? Aren't they allowed to exist in fiction anymore?

Again, gender should just be irrelevant. I love the badass female characters, but I like them just the same as I like badass male characters. I also like weak female characters, just as I sometimes like weak male characters. It's just pointless for people to even make a huge note of the gender.

Personally, I like different kind of characters, but I do love the weak, submissive woman who you have to save at the end of your adventure. I can barely state that opinion in public today because people immediately tell me that "your view on women is rotten". That's not at all how it is. This is fiction and fantasy, yet some people seem to try to apply real world morals onto fictional fantasies.

But the thing is, again, why does it have to be a woman all the time? Unless you didn't mean that. But if I liked the weak, submissive type you had to save, I'd like it whether it was a male or a female, same goes for the hero character.

Anyhow, not every game should have to have a badass female character. We don't need to all of a sudden turn Peach into Lara Croft in the next Mario game.

P.S. I feel like I've most likely missed the point of this whole discussion so I apologize if I wasted your time with this post.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I've read this thread and avoided posting in it for the sake of my own sanity, but I want to address this point in particular.

Sorry to jump in, but hi.

I just hate how gender is even a thing people focus on, especially in games and media. Like saying a "strong woman", a "weak woman", "weak male", etc. Why can't we just look at characters and see "strong character" or "weak coward" or whatever.

The following is a paraphrase of a section from this article. The article is about racism (specifically, how to counter "colorblind" people), but I feel that with some adjustments, the argument works well to explain why being "gender-blind" is a problem as well:

Gender-blind

What they say:

“People are just people.” ”I don’t see gender.” ”We’re all just human.” “Character, not gender, is what counts with me.”

Response:

“Gender-blindess” negates the cultural values, norms, expectations and life experiences of different genders. Even if an individual of one gender can ignore another person’s gender, society does not.

Claiming to be “gender-blind” can also be a defense when someone is afraid to discuss sexism/misogyny, especially if the assumption is that all conversation about gender is sexism. Gender consciousness does not equal sexism.

Gender and gender roles are social constructs, which claim to have their root in biology (men/women act like X because of nature). In reality, all expectations for men and women, and even the very terms "men" and "women," are socially constructed and loaded with meaning which privileges one group (in this case, men) over and at the expense of another (women).

In theory, the ideal world would be one where biological sex and social gender would not matter. However, we don't live in an ideal world. In practice, ignoring gender leaves entrenched attitudes and practices un-examined, and allows them to persist under the guise of equality. Ignoring gender at this point in history ignores everything built into the idea of "man" and "woman," and doing such would leave gendered women at a distinct and perpetual disadvantage.

Whether we recognize the gender of the character or not, the behaviors of those characters are still referred to in gendered terms. Behaviors recognized as weak are coded as women's behavior, while strong behavior is synonymous with men. Those types of attitudes have to be actively challenged if they're to change (the types of attitudes some people in this thread have expressed, for instance). Ignoring them only makes it that much harder in the end.

 

[Trick or Treat]

I've read this thread and avoided posting in it for the sake of my own sanity, but I want to address this point in particular.



The following is a paraphrase of a section from this article. The article is about racism (specifically, how to counter "colorblind" people), but I feel that with some adjustments, the argument works well to explain why being "gender-blind" is a problem as well:


Gender and gender roles are social constructs, which claim to have their root in biology (men/women act like X because of nature). In reality, all expectations for men and women, and even the very terms "men" and "women," are socially constructed and loaded with meaning which privileges one group (in this case, men) over and at the expense of another (women).

In theory, the ideal world would be one where biological sex and social gender would not matter. However, we don't live in an ideal world. In practice, ignoring gender leaves entrenched attitudes and practices un-examined, and allows them to persist under the guise of equality. Ignoring gender at this point in history ignores everything built into the idea of "man" and "woman," and doing such would leave gendered women at a distinct and perpetual disadvantage.

Whether we recognize the gender of the character or not, the behaviors of those characters are still referred to in gendered terms. Behaviors recognized as weak are coded as women's behavior, while strong behavior is synonymous with men. Those types of attitudes have to be actively challenged if they're to change (the types of attitudes some people in this thread have expressed, for instance). Ignoring them only makes it that much harder in the end.

Just to be clear, I know that you're right about all that. I was mostly just speaking idealistically in what I was saying.

Anyhow, the only issue I can see with actively challenging it so much is, like one of the people here said, it makes it seem like being 'submissive' or 'weak' is always a bad thing. It's not. You have to find the perfect way to challenge the attitudes, while also maintaining that being weak or submissive isn't necessarily bad or wrong.

 

[Rabbattack]

I don't hate weak, submissive males at all. My example about Luigi was just to show how differently people react to weak/scared males and females.

Oh yeah? That's the easy way out when you're out of arguments. I reply to every single argument made against me here, but you choose to call me names instead. That's a mature way of discussing things...



What's wrong with the damsel in distress? Could you actually specify what's wrong? I understand if you don't like it, but what's WRONG with it?



I think you misunderstand me then. It's not me wanting strong females to go away, it's you wanting weak females to stop existing. Even though I don't like them very much, I have no problems at all with strong women in games.

What I'm saying here is that ALL kinds of women should be able to exist without the feminists hunting away the weak, submissive ones. The feminists are the ones who don't want different kinds of women in games, they only want the strong, independant woman who never needs a man. All other women have no places in their ideal worlds. That's the difference between me and feminists.

What kind of social pressure are you talking about now? Please eloborate.

I should explain myself that I live in Sweden. I can guarantee you that feminism in Sweden has progressed a lot further than in any other country in the world. Because of this, I'm very used to these discussions, and I'm also very used to feminists who leaves the debate as soon as their thin arguments runs out, and then start calling you names such as "troll". I already know all feminism arguments, and I know how to meet them - because all feminists constantly use exactly the same arguments over and over again - all of them. This is likely because someone has teached them this (they have not learned it through their own life experience or through philosophy).

There's ZERO proof that social pressure is the one single factor that affects women so much they have nu choice but to follow it. ZERO PROOF. It's just speculation and assumptions.

So let me make this clear: today, feminists gamers and media are obsessed with strong, independant women in games. If a woman is depicted as weak, submissive or if she needs a man, the character is immediately slammed down as "sexist", "bad" or other negatives. See, feminists don't want all kinds of characters to exist. They don't want different ideals to exist either. They only want their own ideals, values and female characters to exist. They're not tolerant at all to variation. That's why I compare them with communists, because communists only see ONE ideal too, and do not accept other ideals or viewpoints. They are so sure their own is THE best, why would ANYONE need something else?

We've already had one person in this thread saying "you can't think Peach is a great character, because she simply isn't". If that's not the perfect example of this narrow mind, then I don't know what it is.

Feminists want to be equal to men, not stronger. Every healthy, capable person should be able to take care of themselves, not just women. You are saying all feminists act the same way, which is wrong. Those who are offended by every little thing about women they see are overreacting. You're just forcing a stereotype about feminists right now, and I don't care if I'm late on the discussion.

 

[TimeSmash]

Jumping in to talk about overanalysis of something, which many authors on the internet tend to do. There are obvious forms of inequality in some games, or just falt out sexism (Dead or Alive xtreme beach Volleyball...really?), and I think that some sites (Zooey Deschanel's HelloGiggles blog comes to mind) that make a big deal out of nothing, or something that no one even knows/talks about. The whole ZSS heels thing was somewhat understandable, because it was such a random addition, and boots could have been used instead, and would arguably be more practical and believable. But ZSS caused controversy way before that anyways, and Other M was a huge hit to Samus' somewhat ironclad personality. But that begs the question, why do we only want Samus to be a badass? She could have moments of frailty, which is completely understandable for any character, regardless of sex. (granted I haven't played all of Other M).

Like other posters have said in this debate, I believe there's a time and place where a woman being weak works, and is even beneficial to the story. Games like Tales of Symphonia show that people (Raine Sage is a prime example) can overcome their past and go on to do great things, and if they need to confront something later, they're stronger and are a better person for it. Maybe the gaming industry uses the whole captive princess thing still because it's been reinforced in movies, books, games, and even film for such a long time. So yeah, every princess shouldn't be a damsel, but at the same time, (especially for simpler games), that context can work fine and isn't really sexist

I would say though as a side note games are getting more progressive overall in terms of character development for women. (Oversexualized, yes, but that's a whole nother topic). I've been playing through Mother 3, and Kumatora honestly defines the typical princess role in all means of the word. I could also talk about how drag queens (or basically drag queens) are in that game and are somewhat stereotypical, so you see both the improvement of one minority and the ignorance of another in the same game (still playing through Mother 3, but the portrayl of Magypsies so far is just ridiculous haha. Granted they are supposed to be somewhat silly).

Those types of attitudes have to be actively challenged if they're to change (the types of attitudes some people in this thread have expressed, for instance). Ignoring them only makes it that much harder in the end.

Definitely, yeah. I think oversexualization is a huge issue, and kind of plays into how the industry and players depict women. Companies need to (and many actually are) make women that defy the norm to challenge the notion that so many women in games are weak. And some of that is all about fighting gender roles, as well. The more we start to realize that it's peoples' actions that define who they are, the better.