@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

And you are right in that people do need to speak up when there is a problem, and Sarkeesian has every right to criticize video games or anything else for that matter. The solution to the problem should come from reasoned debate of the issues, not just playing yes man to feminist ideologues.
I do agree that more diversity in games and other forms of media can only benefit both the industry and the consumers. So I don't see any reason why women shouldn't go forth and make those games where the princess rescues the prince, or rescues herself, or whatever, and if it's a good game I'll buy it.
At work today I was reminded of the incredible diversity you can find in Manga, almost everyone reads them over in Japan and as a result they can cover a mind boggling array of topics. I read stuff like Shirow Miwa's 'Dogs', or anything by Masamune Shirow (Appleseed, Ghost In The Shell), and Tsutomu Nihei (Blame, Biomega, Knights Of Sidonia). Many people of course would think of all the hentai sex books out there, that's what gets most of the press after all, not stuff like 'With the Light' which was about the struggles of a mother raising an autistic child, ran from 2000 to 2010. It's probably not my bag but it's an example of where two wildly different things can exist in the same ecosystem.

I thought the solution was rather obvious, actually.

You fix things by making games where people are portrayed as... people. Not trophies to be acquired, not sexual objects to be drooled over, and not stereotypes.

You couple that with continued criticism of games that continue to rely on sexist, racist, or homophobic tropes.

And guess what? That's already happening. People have been saying that games need to change for a while before Sarkeesian showed up. Bioware acknowledged the issues and started trying to include more realistic characters in its RPGs years ago--and caught flak for it even back then.

To address your other... points?

My daughter asked me the other day why she can't play as the princess in Super Mario Galaxy 2 (or any of the other Mario games we own). And I had to tell her it's because the Princess got kidnapped. Her response was to ask if she could play as the Princess once we freed her from Bowser. And I had to tell her no.

There is something wrong with that!

After having that conversation with my daughter I fired up Torchlight, where I'm currently playing as a Vanquisher. Vanquisher's are rogue-like ranged characters and can only be female. If you want to be a warrior ("Destroyer" in game terms) or magic user ("Alchemist" in game terms), sorry--it's a men's only club. And not only that, but Vanquisher's--regardless of the armor they wear, must bare their midriff and wearing a mini-skirt showing lots of leg and cleavage (do a google image search for Torchlight Vanquisher to see what I'm talking about). Apparently you can't be a Vanquisher without being a sex pot too.

There is something wrong with that! (To be fair, they got better with Torchlight II and allowed any class to be any gender and allowed the women to cover up with armor OR choose to be sexy).

Society doesn't just change by itself. You're right, society is becoming more accepting of diversity--because people are fighting very hard for it.

Take America's attitude towards homosexuality. Look at the strides made in the last 20 years. That didn't just magically happen. There were TV shows that portrayed homosexuals as human beings worthy of respect. There were lawsuits. There were marches and protests. There were speeches. There were YouTube campaigns like "It gets better." A lot of people worked fucking hard to get the message out that bigotry is not okay.

Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter.

The solution to these problems is not to lambast the people pointing them out. Nor is the solution to sit back and do nothing and hope it all works out for the best. One solution, as I've already stated, is to be openly critical of the messages contained in ALL media (including games). Another solution is to be vocal about the need for more realistic and diverse portrayals of people in ALL media (including games).

You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying.

Yes, she's great at pointing that out.

What's the solution?

Quota's of protagonists sex? Replacing "damsel" with "prince" in distress? Getting rid of chainmail bikinis?

Oh, and how do we propagate that to the entire entertainment industry?

There is nothing wrong with playing a prince and rescuing a princess. There is nothing wrong with the princess being helpless. There is nothing wrong with Femmeshep kicking the shit out of the reapers and saving every being in the known universe, one of the most badass female protagonists around. More female protagonists = great, bring it on, but that's no reason to throw out a trope as old as time (incidentally, a trope enjoyed by a great many women who like to watch sappy romances where the charming fellow rescues the woman from her crappy life...).

Her series predicates on the concept that players are too fucking dumb to understand the difference between real life and the game. That if you play Duke Nukem, you'll walk around slapping girls tits and saying the most inappropriate things you can think of.

It's exactly the same tripe that Jack Thompson was peddling back in the day, games change how you think. And, for most people (ie. the mentally stable...), it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Your upbringing and parental guidance, and the relationship your male role models have with women, are far more likely to determine whether or not a man is likely to be sexist/misogynist than a few games with scantily clad girls needing a big strong man to save them... Society has changed to become more accepting of race, creed, sexual orientation and, of course, women, and it will continue to become so even if the old trope of the princess is in another castle hangs around. It may take generations before inequality dies out, if it ever does. It's not something you can fix by complaining about games.

Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism by FCKH8. has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Potty-Mouthed Princesses Drop F-Bombs for Feminism PARODY has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

@Barseps
seriously? you never saw star wars?
princess leia to governor tarkin?

im sorry my friend,your geek card is now revoked.
hand it over bub!

" To paraphrase my favourite princess, the more you tighten your grip, the more it will slip through your fingers"

Sounds like my type of woman........... umm...... where is this quote from exactly?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I do feel for your predicament, I can tell you put a lot of hard work into this.

Seem to me though that the clever marketing move would have been to go with the flow on this. To paraphrase my favourite princess, the more you tighten your grip, the more it will slip through your fingers.

I so want him to have the voice from the giant infested boar in Princess Monoke

She used to be his little elf princess, but then marriage, mortgage and two kids happened.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'princess, bride, best, movie, ever, 6 fingered man, mandy patinkin' to 'princess bride, best movie ever, 6 fingered man, mandy patinkin, Inigo Montoya, sword' - edited by eric3579

Ah, ya caught me, I'm undone... X D

Doesn't actually change anything though, does it? Your established "facts" (ie. made up stuff) do not require any significant research to debunk. You've provided no supporting evidence other than your own beliefs anyway (what, a google search too hard for you? =)

I punched in "Islam is homogenous" and surprise surprise, the entire front page were articles saying it's not. And the next page. And the next... Professors, clerics, scholars, philosophers, random comments, books, absolutely nothing to support your contentions. Hell, I couldn't even turn up one of those classy Euro-white power type pages.

How embarrassing. Even the open and unashamed bigots don't seem to support you...

But it doesn't actually matter if the evidence comes from a simple google search looking for articles, or from noted and lauded professors who have spent their lives researching the issue. You are a classic fundamentalist, as bad as any Muslim or Christian extremist. Your world view is uncompromising, based on belief and completely resistant to alteration when factual information is presented that undermines your propaganda.

I loved this line though...

It's tedious to have to continually restate the case against islam in every discussion where the lazy and dishonest leap to the defence of an ideology they've failed to adequately research.

Oh ya poor bloody princess, do you need a lie down?

What I'm opposing is rampant bigotry dressed up as intellectualism. As an atheist, as long as they do no harm, they can believe whatever the hell they want to, it doesn't bother me. You can also believe whatever you want to, but actively promoting the idea of Muslims as one big group who share responsibility for the acts of the minority can do harm. It makes innocents a target for reprisal, and ironically drives moderates towards extremism.

Im moving to Connecticut at the end of this year. I am looking forward to joining (one of) the local groups there, now that I know of the sport. Fencing and Kendo have always been too 'restrained' for me. This is most likely due to not understanding certain, set customs on my part, but from my perspective if my nature, and what I perceive as natural, oversteps some organizations predefine ruleset, I can't see it as a test of actual ability. You can most certainly find examples for and against that, but that's how I look at a particular structure prior to empirical evidence.
If I were to translate that to human understanding it would probably be: In the majority of competitive events throughout my life, when questioned on the 'why' of rules, 'just because' has been the overwhelming answer, rather than a rational understanding/explanation of the sport.
Anyway, I'm going to longsword some mother-fuckers in a few months, and I can't wait for that final joust and the claiming of the princess, silhouetted against that raging castle fireplace (Defender of the Crown reference, FYI).

From a dude that's had cancer twice, the doctors at Princess Margaret's Hospital are pretty confident in saying I was cured of my first instance. It required some major surgery and a ton of radiation therapy, but the odds of it coming back are below 7%. In their books, that's a cure. =)