With all the hubbub going around about Anita Sarkeesian, I thought it was time that I sat down and watched her videos of Feminist Critique of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. So I sat down with Mrs. The Boots (@lochnessie82) to check them out. What followed was an interesting and, at times, uncomfortable analysis of my favorite hobby.

But that's ok. It's good, even.

Together, we watched the videos analyzing the Damsel in Distress trope, and how it has morphed into something altogether more vile and dangerous, and it really made me think about how my gender views have shifted as I've gotten older. I agree with virtually all of what she said in those videos, but at the same time, my perspective as different. Which is one of her points, I think.

When it comes to damsels in distress, I have to say that I like it. It's designed for me. I am a male and I like the notion that I can rescue a woman and it makes me feel masculine to protect my wife, which in turn helps my self-esteem. Living out fantasies like this is one of the things interactive media do best. Not only do I think that this is okay, I don't think Sarkeesian really objects to men getting to play games where we rescue women. She certainly critiques it, but her point has less to do with the notion of getting to save the girl and more to do with the way that it's implemented in virtually every scenario.

If there a few situations where women were helpless and had to be rescued, it would be a plot device and that would be the end of it. When virtually all stories involve a woman as helpless, it's not defining a story narrative, it's reinforcing an entire cultural narrative. In short: when a portion of the stories deliver a particular message about the role of women in society, it's just that-- a portion. Sarkeesian does a great job of showing that it isn't a portion. It's the norm. And when you normalize the concept of a helpless woman who can't do anything to save herself without a man, it delivers a message that any woman who experiences the story in either an active or passive role is being told countless times that she is powerless. Now I know that if everyone I encountered kept telling me that I was powerless, I'd lose hope pretty quickly. It's only natural that people are frustrated by this.

The second episode is a lot more problematic, but the general thoughts above still apply. In that video, Sarkeesian highlights modern, more "mature!" (hah) uses of damsels in distress, where the damsel does not survive her distress. She is either killed by the antagonist, or even sometimes by the player himself(intentional use of gendered word there). I feel like it's an exploitative and disgusting reinforcement of violence against the female character. It draws on the male desires to protect women. If it were one or two things, it would still be bad, but it wouldn't be a systemic endorsement of the concept. When it's as widely spread and common as Sarkeesian paints it, it (just as above) becomes a normalizing force that tries to legitimize violence against women. The most painful part of the video was when she rightly points out the parallels between the hero's heartbreaking decision to kill his loved one "for her own good" and the disgusting justifications used to justify domestic violence.

The thing that men have to remember is that while we face being occasionally called out for the things we do, society in general focuses on empowerment. Men who are not powerful are repugnant, so were are driven to power. Sarkeesian notes that the overwhelming forces that video games exert on women drive them towards powerlessness. They cannot help themselves. They cannot save themselves. They cannot even decide whether they themselves live or die. That power lies with men. And this is the norm, not the exception.

The exceptions are nearly nonexistent.

Sarkeesian seems to me to want to limit or eliminate the more violent abuses of this trope not by censorship, but by pointing out how much it reinforces some of the worst aspects of gender in our society. I think she's right.

What I don't think she's doing is saying that us boys can't dream of being able to rescue a girl, and be strong and masculine. We can still rescue the princess and get a smooch, guys. Relax.

She seems to be saying that women should be allowed to be heroes, too. Women should get to be powerful. Women should be allowed to rescue people in need. They shouldn't need a man, woman, or anyone's permission to act. They should stand in opposition to evil and face it down.

Sarkeesian wants to be able to be a hero too.

In my opinion that's exactly what she's doing.