After watching Anita Sarkeesian’s video about the tropes of women in video games I felt one thing in particular: how is this a thing? How is it that the only thing that seems to interest these game makers is the consistent objectification of women? It is little wonder that stereotypical images of gamers are male. Aren’t we bored of this stereotype?
One of the most interesting quotes I found in this video was when she said, “in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball.” To me, this really hit home. I feel like one reason boys may find games like this interesting have nothing to do with winning over a woman or winning her back, but rather to do with beating some other form of masculinity that stands in opposition to this male. Women have the unfortunate role of playing the pawn throughout history of humanities and literature simply because it is easier to imagine the woman needing saving while the men essentially can “punch through walls” to be their own saviors.Another thing I recognized about this trope was how subtle all of this patriarchy is. I never had noticed this in games growing up. I played the Legend of Zelda with my brothers growing up, and I never really thought too much about the damsel in distress until now. I remember waiting my turn to play the console wanting so badly to be as good as my older brother at this game. I do also recall, however, always wanting to have Zelda be my character when I played Super Smash Brothers so that I could quickly turn into Chic. I guess in some way this is a little bit of a redeeming quality of the game creators.
Overall watching all the compilations of the “damsel in distress” trope that Sarkeesian brings up in this video made me laugh out loud. I cannot believe how common this element is in every video game. For women, this is not a win, but I believe we can do better as we go forward trying to change this role. Women can be their own subjects and heroes rather than the objects to be acted upon.