I can't quite take the video seriously unless I see the whole game again with these points in mind, because I hear a ton of arguments and "theories" like this that seem to make perfect sense until you see the game again and are like "Yeah, no. That perfectly good sounding point was actually way off on further review." I'm not dismissing it, just treating it skepticism until I can think about it more and review the facts.
Typically speaking, selfish abusive sociopaths (and yes, the video very much paints Adam as being sociopathic even if it doesn't say it) don't really sacrifice themselves for the good of the galaxy, so that's a pretty glaring contradiction. If Adam really was that psycho, he would've gotten one of his people to do it and then used the "tragic and heroic death" of his comrade to elevate his own position in the eyes of his superiors. Taking the role of the "fake hero" only really helps you if you're alive to enjoy it. Then again, it was the only part of the plot that was set in stone due to Fusion, and everything else was up to the writer,
so the only thing that really redeems Adam off the top of my head is the part that isn't up to the storyline of Other M. Which is kindof sad, really, and kindof meaningless since Sakamoto was in charge of both.
He also makes the point that, if the genders were swapped, this would instead be a horrifyingly terrible femdom story that people would clearly dispise. Weeeeell it's all well and good to claim that, but historically that's not the case. Femdom is actually seen as "pretty hot", and not "horrifyingly abusive" as he claims.
Examples: Rachael Alucard, Bayonetta, Pretty much any dominatrix ever, and the only reason there's even a complaint about Samus's whip and heels
is because of the prevalence and general acceptance of the femdom fetish.
Not trying to justify it, but it's right there. I'm looking at it, it's right there.
Right there. Don't try to tell me it isn't or pretend to me that this isn't a commonly accepted thing. Should we question it? Maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, but acting like
we would all be up in arms over a creepy femdom fantasy is just... well... no. No we would not be. I can confidently assert this because, historically, aside from a few isolated cases we haven't been complaining at all. Don't try to tell me that Rachael Alucard is somehow a completely different story, because it really isn't. She is comically and outright admittedly as abusive as this video merely speculates Other M's Adam to be. If for some reason you don't see it, go ahead and look up what an "abusive relationship" actually is. There are tons of resources that are all too happy to inform you.
While I do kinda believe in some points that modern gamer-feminists make, such as the desire for equal or near-equal gender representation (there needs to be some leeway for creativity), I have to point out one thing: It's incredibly hypocritical for feminists to ask for heroines who have roles that are specifically feminine (in order to pull away from the Ms. Man trope),
cite motherhood as being such a role that they'd like to see more of, and then suddenly get up in arms when someone actually gives them exactly that. Now, I'll agree that Other M probably was not the best medium through which to explore these themes, and Nintendo doesn't exactly have a history of respectfully handling potentially pro-female games *coughSuperPrincessPeachcough*, but
I can't help but feel like this particular point damages the credibility of the person making the point, along with damaging the credibility of people claiming to want more heroine-mothers to begin with. That said, I can't really blame them for that, because again Nintendo isn't exactly stellar when it comes to gender politics.
There are other arguments I could make, but I don't believe that M:OM (I can't unsee it. Thanks random youtuber.) really deserves a strong defense. I will say this about Sakamoto: If we assume the worst case and assume that Sakamoto sees this kind of abusive relationship as healthy, possibly due to how his real relationships are handled, who says he's the Adam of that relationship? Who says he isn't the Samus? After all, Samus is the main character and therefore the one meant to be identified with, but Samus never sees a real problem with this relationship either. Nor does Sakamoto, because he paints Adam up as being a self-sacrificing hero and not some nutcase who ultimately betrays Samus. Granted, at this point we're speculating about a total stranger's personal life so I don't want to go too far down that road, but since the video did bring it up as an attack on Sakamoto's character I felt it needed to be addressed.
On the other hand, while I sometimes frown at Nintendo for a few inconsistent cases of disrespect to gender equality,
I can't really take gender politics as a whole seriously either, because:
1) If MRAs and Feminists were both after the same thing (gender equality), which is what they claim, then they should be getting along famously. If they don't get along every single time, they should
at least be getting along once in a while. They do not. At all. MRAs viciously attack feminists and feminists pretend that MRAs don't really exist.
2) The label of "Feminism" has paradoxically been used to justify the most misogynist stuff out there. No, I'm not misusing that word.
- Every time a female heroine gains some recognition, they find ways to tear it down as "not good enough", regardless of whether these heroines have it worse or even better than comparable heroes, which in the end is pretty discouraging to see for a developer trying to develop female characters, thereby undermining the very thing they claim to want. Why try pleasing a fanbase that doesn't want to be pleased?
- No one complains about a guy in the kitchen but a girl in the kitchen is terrible. While I understand the historical context of why that is, Isn't the logic that "It's okay when a guy does it but when a girl does it it's awful" kindof provably and inherently sexist against women?
- Let's face it: The only Samus that the fake feminists didn't complain (as much) about was a silent protagonist. Said another way, the only currently acceptable Samus is a Samus who is seen and not heard.
- Even then they still complained about Samus being sexualized only to turn around and say "it's okay for a man to be sexy so it should be okay for a woman to be sexy, too". Well which is it? Is it shameful and demeaning to be sexy or is it not? IMO you can only complain about Samus's heels after Little Mac puts a shirt on and Marth cuts his hair.
Example for the first bullet point:
When Sailor Mars (or any other senshi) saves Sailor Moon with an ocean of fire, Mars is using teamwork and showing that she can be tough and reliable and certainly isn't doing anything to damage Moon's credibility, but when Tuxedo Mask throws a little rose around and, in spite of hype, plays a role that is
little above the cats in terms of actual combat relevance he's suddenly an evil overbearing male who single-handedly sucks all of the female empowerment out of the series faster than a Youma can steal your energy. (The guy has an interrupt and a melee non-killing damage option for crying out loud. Mercury could do better
and she gets upgrades later on. Tuxedo Mask for cat tier.)
To put this in better context, let's compare Tuxedo Mask to, say, Princess Zelda.
-Both of them are the main character's love interest. (This was slightly arguable in early LoZ games, but Skyward Sword and Minish Cap pretty much remove all doubt.)
-This relationship is hindered and torn apart by life and circumstances, usually by the "main threat" (Ganondorf/Vaati or Beryl/Ali+En/Future Tux Mask/Sailor Galaxia: Take your pick)
-This relationship is also based upon a love in a previous life, and the feelings of that relationship continue into following lives.
-Both of them provide assistance to the main character that the main character arguably couldn't succeed without, but not enough assistance to really make the story about themselves more than the main character.
-Both of them are significantly outpowered by the main character, at least by the end of the story.
-Both of them get damsel'd. More than once.
-Both of them get mind controlled into fighting the main character at some point.
-Both of them get put in the fridge, though Spirit Tracks is kindof an edge case there. If you argue that ST doesn't count, then Mask actually has it worse than Zelda because
his case is in no way an edge case.
-Both are admittedly attractive to people who are into their respective genders.
-Both of them are wiser and more mature than their hero/heroine counterparts.
-Both of their series's respective main characters start out weak (3 hearts
is weak. You can't really argue that.) but get stronger over time. (StarS Usagi is a lot different than Season 1 Usagi, and I'm not even talking about the combat upgrades).
And yet, between Link and Zelda, who is considered to be the stronger character? Link. Between Moon and Mask, who is considered stronger? Paradoxically, it's Tuxedo Mask, for exactly the same reasoning used to argue that Zelda is weak. Seems to me like we're just claiming that the men are stronger, more dominant, more dependable, more respectable, and more valid. Meanwhile, the women are weaker, submissive
because totally Zelda submits to Link, like... ever, amirite?, unreliable, lacking in respectability, and completely invalid. What's the only real discernible, meaningful difference? The chromosomes.
People try to tell me that this kind of mindset is called "feminism", but I'm
pretty sure it's called "sexism" or more specifically "misogyny".
3) I could probably make a similarly damning list about MRAs, but they aren't common enough or influential enough for everyone to be sick of them yet. Probably because men don't really have it all that bad and therefore there's very little to complain about and very little traction gained when something complaint-worthy is actually found.
On the
other other hand, I can't really ignore gender politics outright, because some of the sexist **** that I see every day is incredibly stupid and it needs to stop. We just... need to seriously stop and consider what is and is not truly "sexist" and actually apply these standards to both genders, instead of merely claiming to in order to cover up the fact that we're being incredibly sexist. There is no "gender equality for men" or "gender equality for women". There's only "gender equality", and it goes both ways. People who don't understand that simply should not be listened to.
'd: what the heck did i just type?
