Writing Post: Damsels in Distress

Gonna start using this blog for just what ever interests me at the moment. Today, it's politics on literature-

The Damsel in Distress

For anyone who knows me, it's no surprise that I'm not a huge fan of feminism. However, for a long time, I did subscribe to a few of their literary critiques. I think however, it's time we re-examine a few feminist, shall we say, sacred cows. Things almost no one ever questions.

Are damsels in distress really destructive and reductive, teaching men that women are nothing more than wilting flowers to be I guess, owned and protected? If a girl “doesn't know she's beautiful” is that really a demonstration of women being pigeon holed into never openly enjoying their looks? Does it prove that men can't handle confident women? If a girl in fiction is put down for being overtly sexual, is this really “slut shamming”? Is there really a difference between violence against women and violence against men in fiction? And finally, the woman who seeks to “change” a man, is that really society encouraging women to stay with abusive men?

Let's open up by being honest. What we're talking about here is FICTION, and furthermore, we are then trying to look at it through the lens of sociology, a soft science, with theories that are often never tested and often so poorly defined, they're un-falsifiable anyway. This is more a discussion of ideas than well researched arguments.

Today, we're looking at, the damsel in distress.

https://feministfrequency.com/video/damsel-in-distress-part-1/

Defined as a situation where a female character is in a dangerous situation she cannot escape on her own, and rescuing her becomes the main drive for the male character. The idea is that she is simply a piece in someone else's story.

Let's examine a few of the claims made by Anita in this video about a “Damsel in distress”.

1- Is a damsel dis-empowered?

First off, let's examine Anita's examples.

The woman in King Kong is named Ann. By the end of the story the cast actually concludes that King Kong was the helpless one, drawn to her and unable to control himself. We know the desires of Ann and everyone around her, but we never truly know the thoughts and desires of Kong, we can only empathize. Truth is, Kong is the one having his story told by others.

Ann IS helpless, but who really wouldn't be? Say a young boy had been taken on the trip and the story was slightly altered so Kong was enchanted by the child's love of play? Kong then is seen basically wanting a friend, almost like a dog that can't be trained. Would we call young Tomas a “boy in distress”? Would we gloss over any characterization he received (which Ann did) and declare it all meaningless because he was dis-empowered by a fifty foot gorilla- which is apparently unreasonable-?

Another script change, say the woman brought her father along. The great ape turns out to be rather old and upon seeing the old man, they both suddenly feel a kinship. However Kong, again seeking friendship, doesn't understand the boundaries. He seeks to learn from the man and just to be with him, to watch the sun go down, as they both think back on their long lives- few things on this earth can do that with Kong, such as the tribesmen in the old village. But the old man doesn't understand and thinks the ape is threatening him- again the ape is killed. Is this a man in distress? Do we, again, skip all character he is given and just say it doesn't matter because he was dis-empowered?

Ya know what? Screw it! What if Kong was a female and Ann was Dan? To make sure that could actually be made in the fifties- he's Ann's adult son. The gorilla wants him as a strange partner and doesn't understand that this simply cannot be, the military being urged on but his mother to save her only son (not a bad sounding story now that I think about it). Again, would we boil all of Dan's character down to “man in distress”?

Jane from Tarzan... is a really bad example. Most versions of Tarzan I've seen she actually helped save Tarzan and his jungle home in her own way many times, Tarzan only saving her from more overt physical dangers. Flat out, sorry, I don't see how Jane was ever anything but a temporary damsel in distress and basically that means a female character can NEVER be in reasonable need of rescue.

The fact that those examining female characters from a feminist POV are so eager to discard character traits if a woman is in trouble... it drives some disturbing questions for me. But not about the writer/story/script/screenplay/what have you- more about the reader. Again, if the character in danger were anything but a woman, would this reader ignore their character traits and simply declare them in distress and say that's all that matters?

2- A damsel is not a hero, simply a passive victim in someone else's story- really?

Okay so a prime example of a damsel in distress is often declared to be Sleeping Beauty- the version given is the Disney classic movie so we'll be discussing that version.

So, the story is not about Aurora... how many people can actually name the prince in the story? If you can do that, here's a bigger challenge- name a character trait that isn't relevant to making him desirable as a female fantasy. Truth is, the prince exists for one thing, to be someone else's key to a happy ending. He barely has a name and all of his traits are just to make the happily ever after possible and as alluring as possible. There's a reason the story isn't called “Prince What's His Face”. The prince is an object. Aurora is given many different characteristics throughout the story and actively seeks solutions to her own problems, even if those solutions are help from others- and yes, a few of them catch up to her in the end and she needs help. It is flat out untrue that the story is about the prince who isn't even in the story until the third act.

So again, we are apparently ignoring the contributions of a female character in a story that is in fact HER STORY and assigning it to the nearest male character, even if that male character only exists to facilitate a happy ending- he's little more than an object.

3-Is a damsel objectified?

Is this at all unique to women, to be objects in distress?

Is a damsel “objectified”? First let's clarify something, despite the connotation, the term “objectified” is not sexual. A person being objectified means they have no real traits, they simply exist to serve a purpose in the narrative and beyond that, we really aren't meant to care about who they are- like the prince in Sleeping Beauty- or to be less poignant, the murder victim in an episode of CSI.

Suddenly being objectified is not at all unique to women is it? Yes, I would accept that Princess Peach in Mario is mostly not a character, simply a tool to facilitate informing the player that he is a hero.

An objectified character is often bad writing practice in general. If Mario was actually called “Queen Peach” and the story was of the Queen battling Bowser to save her son Mario- who only exists to yell “mommy save me!” in the background- yeah he's a pretty dumb character.

Best to not write ANY characters like this- unless said character is a corpse before the story begins anyway. If a character has a plight in the story, you really should try to make us give a hoot what happens to them. If a character has no interests, traits or desires of their own, beyond what's needed to service the plot, they're lifeless and boring. Why not write ANOTHER saving earth story, where the entire planet is at stake. At least that way the thing that's at stake that we feel absolutely no attachment to is at least big.

Honestly there's not much I can say to argue this point other than point out it's lack of uniqueness in bad writing. (Though I guess I am then saying, Sleeping Beauty is a bad story at least in a sense, as the prince is a poorly developed character at best.)

4- Does this frame women as a possession? Just an object to be fought over?

(Not much really seems to separate these two points in my mind to be honest.)

If a “damsel” is written well, she has her own desires in the story, or if say, she's unconscious, she had them at one point. Those desires often- maybe generally- involve wanting to get back to her home and her possessions- among those possessions, the people she loves.

I'm going to say something revolutionary. To possess, or to be possessed, to belong, is not a bad thing. I belong to my father, mother and sisters. I have no problem viewing myself as a possession of theirs. I belong to them. Not in the same manner as a toy or something easily tossed aside or with no desires of it's own, but still, I am theirs. And they are mine. It is not uncommon for people to list their pets among their most treasured “possessions” despite that they are animals with their own desires. Indeed to “possess” something doesn't at all imply a lack of agency.

There is a kind of way of referring to a person as a possession that implies slavery. Is that what we are looking at here? In this manner, they are a possession like a toy or piece of furniture. Not only do they not have feelings in your mind, the very idea that it would matter if they did is hilarious to you. If you acknowledge their feelings, they exist for your amusement.

I outline all this to ask a simple question. If Princess Peach did not want to be rescued, would Mario be trying to do it? Yes we've established the player probably wouldn't care, but let's be realistic. If that were the case, the entire character of the game would change. It would probably be a comedy as Mario is, apparently, constantly trying to save Peach from what I can only imagine is a series of elaborate games of foreplay with her husband Bowser- and Mario is probably getting on their nerves. You might still play anyway- in fact, story wise anyway, that would probably be a better game. However notice how the desires of this “possession” changes the entire nature of the story.

Peach, simply put, is NOT a mere possession, her feelings do matter, in a story breaking way. Her wanting to be with Mario or at least to not be with Bowser matters. It must be true or the story is ruined- or we have an entirely different story.

I agree the character Peach is objectified, but it is simply not true that an objectified character's feelings don't matter to the story, which means they can't really be a possession of the character, at least not in a slave sense. If Princess Peach was say, Mario's sex slave and we're never allowed to know if she wants to be with Mario... that would be an extremely different game.

The story of Mario and Peach can only remain as told if Peach is the “human possession” of Mario. It can only be as told if he cares for her and she for him. It only makes sense if, as far as each other is concerned, they belong.

If two people battling over the “human possession” of a person, rather than the “object possession” of a person is dehumanizing... I guess when a mother fights a kidnapper to save her child they're both dehumanizing the child. That's just dumb. The kidnapper is de-humanizing the child for sure, but the mother is not. She actually cares about the life, well being and feelings of her child. Someone fighting to save your life, whether in fiction or in real life, does not dehumanize you.

To give you an idea of why this is all bothering me- NO, needing to be rescued is NOT dehumanizing. It's something that happens in every day life! NO ONE IS A FREAKING ISLAND THAT DOESN'T NEED HELP... calming down. Let's look at the other points.

5- If she helps, does that really mean nothing?

If a person who is ultimately in need of rescue or help, reaches out to help their rescuer, who can't proceed without them, does that not matter? Especially if, like in many games or stories, the hero would probably die without the distressed person's help?

Seriously what in the world...? So if you're helping someone to save your life and likely saving their life or at least making it WAAAAAY easier in the process, because you happen to be in a worse fix yourself than them, you're actions are meaningless. Seriously? Do I even need to say what's wrong with that kind of reasoning?

7- Does being ultimately captured, mean someone is weak?

Um... no... no it doesn't.

Soldiers in the army are captured, I don't think their spouses would appreciate the implication that being captured makes you weak.

If when you read a story and a character is captured by an overwhelming force of arms or a terrifying monster, or just a brute with a club and you then say, “sounds like a weakling to me”... what is wrong with you, ya freakin' Darwinist? I think the Neo Nazis have openings and they would appreciate someone with your views on other people. Needing to be rescued, especially from overwhelming physical force does not make you weak... and am I allowed to say it? There are more kinds of strength than physical. If you're captured and forced to live in the cell of a monster and likely tormented, if you don't give up hope THAT IS STRENGTH! If you're incapable of seeing that... you have problems that merely explaining the nature of fiction won't help.

Seriously if you don't see the problem with assuming people are weak if they need help... check yourself into a ward I'm wondering if you're a danger to society.

To be blunt, is allowing a female character to be captured a way of showing women as weak? No. Why would that follow? If the beast of a castle, in ye olden tales, captured the best friend of a knight, and the knight rushes in to nobly save his friend, is that meant to say his friend is a weakling? No. So why would it be any different just because the person captured happens to be a woman?

Think about this. If losing a fight to someone means you're weak- that generally means the person or thing you lost to was weak. If they weren't, you losing is just normal, after all, not everyone can beat up a dragon, unarmed. So if the creature capturing the woman is something the hero can just drop kick... that's a really dumb story. I guess the end would consist of a one sided beat down and the hero trying to figure out what he's going to do with this incompetent twig, because I bet you anything if she's that pathetic, she's probably not attractive to him. Believe it or not, men are often turned off by women who can't do anything for themselves, even if they are lookers.

8- Would it be better to have more women heroes?

Good question. Better question- would it be good if we broadened our definition of hero? In Sound of Music, Maria doesn't punch anyone's lights out, but is she not a hero? She gives the captain the ability to be a stable man again so he can save his family. Save them physically that is. The family would have fallen apart anyway without her. Why is that not a hero?

Heroism is defined by sacrifice and risk, not just results. In fact, if there is no risk, you're not not a hero, you're just doing a job.

More a character in this category- Belle in Beauty and the Beast takes her father's place and eventually develops a relationship with the beast that, in some versions, brings an entire kingdom back from the dead. In fact, other than fight a few growling and angry wolves, what heroic thing does beast do in most versions of Beauty and the Beast anyway?

I DESPISE the character of Jasmine in Aladdin, but is she a hero? Jasmine leaves the palace out of selfish desire, however her kindness is what sets Aladdin down the path to save the kingdom in the first place. Her continued and genuine desire to be with him continues to drive him even when its likely he could lose to Jafar. Jasmine defies and deceives Jafar- if Aladdin doesn't win she's pretty much dead. She has no means of physically fighting Jafar and her defiance ensures he sees her as useless to him so most likely, he will kill her and maybe her father too. Jasmine risks everything and puts herself right on the front line. And no, it isn't like she doesn't have a choice. She can choose to bide her time and hold her tongue or even “try to like” Jafar, either way would be less risky for her. Yes, she is a hero.

(Sleeping Beauty... is a female fantasy. I'm sorry no one seems that well developed in Sleeping Beauty.)

Finally, Buttercup in Princess Bride tries to sacrifice her own life to save Wesley, vowing to marry a man she hates in order to save the life of a man she loves. Tell me, in what world is that NOT heroic?

I notice that a number of women in fiction who get labeled “damsel in distress”- frankly if they weren't in the story the man wouldn't be pursuing being a hero and even if by some chance he pursued it anyway, he would likely be dead. Yes the women are often in support roles if the story isn't a romance- but if it is we often don't even know the man's name, he's just a plot point or device.

Many times the woman does put a lot on the line and saves lives by doing so, but she doesn't land the killing blow.

She risks her life, she saves lives, she does admirable things, but because she doesn't kill or destroy she's not a hero... heroes aren't heroes unless they kill. That is a VERY dark way of looking at the world.

9- Girls need female heroes to look up to and are left behind if they don't.

Finally is the idea that girls need female heroes to look up to. Maybe I should just refer above and restate- you don't have to kill to be a hero (ya freakin' psychopath).

But really, if the hero of a story is male- just WHY can't a girl look up to him? What stops a Mexican girl from aspiring to be like Zorro? What stops a British girl from looking up to Sherlock Holmes? What forbids a Greek girl from wanting to be like Hercules?

Guess I should say the unspoken truth. What stops a child of the Nazi empire from looking up to Samson? Everyone knows the answer.

There's nothing wrong with a child looking up to whatever hero strikes their fancy. If a girl looks up to the Rockteer, there's nothing wrong with that, nothing that should stop it, and there are girls who actually do that. There were once young boys who looked up to Xena, Buffy, Rogue and there still are little boys who look up to freaking Twilight Sparkle.

Who in their right mind would deny this reality or not seek to encourage it, especially if they're supposed to promote “diversity”?

What kind of a person says you can only look up to people like yourself?

Let's lay it all out shall we? Because none of these women would be seen as “dehumanized” or “weak” if a woman was saving them, would they? Not by feminists anyway.

1. What kind of person says you're person hood doesn't matter if you have to be saved by someone different than yourself?
2. What kind of person views it as de-humanizing to be the “human possession” of a person different than themselves?
3. What kind of person sees supporting someone different from themselves as beneath them, especially if that person gets the glory?
4. What kind of person says you're weak if you're captured by the enemy and saved by someone different than yourself?
5. What kind of person says you can't be hero if you don't kill your enemy?
6. What kind of person says you can only look up to people like yourself?