Masculinity/Femininity And The "Return Of Kings" (ROK) Complex: An Anthropological Perspective

I know, I'm sorry, I'll get to some topics that people are asking for eventually. I have several in my queue that I want to get published some time soon, but the large majority of them are going to be covered by Nick who, as I'm sure many of you have noticed, is MIA. I promise to keep things interesting, though, until that time comes; that is, I'm going to try (at least in this post) to give the attitude he may have, had he done this himself.

This is actually on behalf of a new friend of mine who will go unnamed for personal reasons. He's unfamiliar with typical Western culture and is confused easily by the way we approach issues, topics and ideas in general. Not so recently, he dug through my search history (I know, right?) and found a website that I'm pretty sure is going to inadvertently mentally scar him. This website is none other than Return Of Kings.

I have more game than Roosh V.

Return Of Kings (ROK), in my own words, is a misogynistic website filled with misogynistic people who have fringe, uninformed ideas of the way society (and people) operate. I'm fairly certain most of the stories told on that website are made up, or at least exaggerated, but that's beside the point. Its central focus rests on the concepts of masculinity and femininity, which they use as universal terms which only have one meaning. It's run by a guy who goes by the moniker "Roosh V," who has been dubbed the internet's most infamous misogynist. When I say misogynist, I mean the traditional definition of the word (not the meaningless semantics that surround its modern use): woman-hater.

Nothing particularly new or interesting here, so let's get to the point: what did my friend see that confused him so much? Well, it was this:

"Return Of Kings is a blog for heterosexual, masculine men. It’s meant for a small but vocal collection of men in America today who believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine."

He didn't understand what it meant for men to be masculine or women to be feminine; that is, he didn't realize that men could be anything but masculine, or women to be anything but feminine. I knew instantly what he was confused about: the difference between "sex" and "gender" in our culture (and all others), and how those roles can sometimes not be coincident with one another. For those of you unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, it's easily summed up in this way: sex refers to the biological differences between males and females, while gender refers to the interpretations and expectations of them prescribed by society. What ROK means by "men should be masculine" or "women should be feminine" is that the sexes of humans should maintain their "traditional" gender roles, which have been prescribed to them by their biological predispositions (or so ROK says). This is an issue that has been addressed exhaustively by people from many disciplines, but most recognizably by feminists.

I should be honest here: I'm not a feminist. I think that the goals of feminism, as it was originally intended, have long been achieved. I believe that the prejudices and discriminatory institutions/practices which may disenfranchise underprivileged groups are contingent upon complex social structures which hardly anyone actually understands (if you even understood that sentence, you're on the right track), and thus the remaining facets of the social movement are just about politics and shouting (or "critical analysis," cue laugh track). These kinds of topics normally aren't a huge focus of mine, because I'm not interested in them; quite frankly, I agree with the rest of the world that ROK should continue to be ignored, and that their idiocy is recognized by the majority of sensible people. It should really end at that.

Paraphrase: "Men should be masculine." - Cher

Someone accused me on my last post of writing specifically to apply social constructionism and "cultural determinism" to these topics; so I've figured out a way to tie this into my anthropological/psychological interests, namely by just examining their About page. Not only do I get the satisfaction of knowing that they're idiots, but I also get the joy of being able to incorporate an otherwise uninteresting topic (for me, personally) into something unique and cool. I don't think anyone else has taken the approach I'm about to take, and so this should be pretty exciting for some of you. For the rest of you, well... try anyway.

So here's what I actually figured out: the About page is, no duh, a representation of the premises the website is founded on. Rebut their premises, and you have dismissed their conclusions and insulted their ideas of masculinity and being douchebags. I don't feel like just saying that they're dumb -- I feel like explaining why they're dumb, rationally, so that other people can recognize their idiocy as well without sharing the kind of innate reactions I have to individuals/groups with behaviour similar to that of ROK. I'm going to do a point-by-point refutation of the seven premises that ROK is founded upon, and hopefully make a few people angry. Most importantly for me, however, I'm going to explain to my friend (who will, hopefully, read this post in its entirety) why none of what ROK says makes any sense given the knowledge we have, and why he may have been confused in the first place.

With that, let's begin.

1. Men and women are genetically different, both physically and mentally. Sex roles evolved in all mammals. Humans are not exempt.

This is not wrong at its face: the sexes naturally have their own physical/mental differences due to the fact that, as the nature of being male or female demands, they differ genetically. The error is in omission, or at the very least implication. Presumably, what they mean is that the sex roles found in humans (I will warn now that this is dependent on cultural context) are a result of genetic differences, and the physical/mental differences in males and females are genetic in origin. This is not the case. We hardly understand the nature of sex differences in many areas (as my last post shows), and so don't understand the origin of those differences, whether they be environmental, genetic, or a complex combination of the two. What's even more interesting is their admission that sex roles evolve in mammals. In fact they do, but these roles are not consistent with each other, and we often find "role reversal" among many species of mammals that is counter intuitive to what most people think, as many people believe that sex roles are the result of just having a sex chromosome.

Nobody denies sexual dimorphism.

Usually, one replies to these arguments by arguing Bateman's principle, which has generally been accepted as being true. It's important to note that Bateman's original experiment was flawed methodologically, although his conclusion appears to be true for most mammals, and the traditional argument that when sex roles are reversed in a species, so are other factors like reproductive success (RS) variance is not always the case. But is it true for humans? Not entirely sure, as reliable information is limited and human populations are quite diverse; however, analysis of what data is available brings some questions to Bateman's principles as applied to humans. This study has been batted around as both supporting and opposing Bateman's conclusions, but such debates should be suspect to scrutiny due to the fact that there were only 18 populations examined in the study. At present, as stated, we're not sure what the nature is of many complexities in the human species in terms of sex/gender differences. It is vital to remember, though, that the extent that culture plays a role in our species is unprecedented in any other species of mammal, and so the consequences are very possibly not what we'd expect.

2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them.

This is a peculiar claim. I'd venture to guess that the reason they included "if there are no incentives to engage in them" is that the people at ROK see monogamous marriage (i.e. to them, dedication to a woman) as a sign of weakness or inferiority in men, and so if they find themselves in this position, they can say "I had a logical reason to do this for my own benefit."

The reason it's peculiar, however, is that it's at odds with reality. While the majority of societies in the world do practice polygamy (about 83% of sampled societies), most people practice monogamy due to increasing industrialization and the fact that industrialized cultures have greater populations than pre-industrialized cultures. What I find funny about the argument, however, is that if we're speaking in terms of RS variance or just evolution, what incentive could be greater than having more children? Then I get confused, because it says they'll opt out of reproduction as well, which is antithetical to Bateman's principles and, well, evolution, which is (according to them) the cause of the differences between men and women that they so desperately want to preserve and declare. Maybe this is bad writing on the owner's part, but I think it's more likely that this is a result of stupidity.

Getting back to the argument, it could be countered that the "incentive" (or rather, the pressure) for more people to practice monogamy is industrialization; that is, to keep up with the status quo, men are practicing monogamy at "unnatural" levels. But societies change -- if we go back far enough, all of our ancestors were hunter-gatherers (H/G). These changes don't just occur as preemptive self-pressures from the future status quo, but as responses to many different pressures as a result of cultural adaptation, a unique phenomenon mostly exclusive to humans. It could be argued that this is "bad," but to what standard do we hold this to be true? Because it's assumed to be biological? This is an appeal to nature, as what's "natural" isn't always the best, and what's biological isn't necessarily the prevailing pressure on how we behave and think.

What's even more interesting about this is that our origins aren't even polygamous. Many H/G cultures did and do exhibit monogamy. This is because marriage systems only make sense in the context of culture, not as part of some evolutionary preference in our species.

3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a net benefit to the family unit.

Of course, but this is a universal statement for a multifaceted phenomenon. The structure of a family unit changes from culture to culture, from consanguineous to nuclear to polygamous to extended families dominating whatever given society, and so "traditions and rituals" (as vague as that is, but I'll go with it) "evolved" alongside human cultures in a way that these complex social systems make sense when combined together. Here, it's assumed that "traditions and rituals" holds no ambiguity and makes sense even when not given a particular time or space in which those traditions and rituals were found, but this is consistent with the assumed universality of all of the claims made on ROK as the basis for their beliefs. This one isn't too interesting, so let's move on.

4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men will cause them to be weaker and more feminine.

Here we get into the definition of masculinity. I can't make any assumptions based just on what I see here, but what I can say for sure is that "masculinity" changes, again, from culture to culture and has no set definition. Presumably what they mean is that their definition of "masculine" is the right one, and so that is the basis for their claims. Circulating testosterone levels are higher in males than in females and do result in the enhancement of sex traits, and to this extent I might agree with this premise. The difficulty to be found here, however, is the burning question: what is masculinity?

Notice how most of these effects are non-behavioural.

Testosterone can be linked to a suite of traits, including muscle growth and efficiency, alcoholism and aggression (although the evidence for the latter is up for scrutiny); yet I wouldn't start calling a man less "masculine" for not being an alcoholic or being able to control his temper. This is because masculinity is up for interpretation, and testosterone is not the only thing which influences this trait. For example, one might consider it gay for men to be hugging and kissing in a bar, yet this is quite common in Spain and Italy after a celebration or a winning football game. It might be considered feminine for men to be shy and timid, avoiding direct eye contact in America, but this is the norm in Japan. Gender roles are culturally constructed, and so to say that hormones cause men to be "masculine" is only one perspective. It would be more accurate to say "testosterone is important in the expression of sex traits in males and females, and some attributes of those traits, such as increased muscle or more hair, are considered 'masculine' in American society." There are no universal claims to be made here, however.

5. A woman’s value significantly depends on her fertility and beauty. A man’s value significantly depends on his resources, intellect, and character.

This seems contradictory to the "men will opt out of reproduction" claim, unless of course "beauty" is the incentive to marry and reproduce... but then what is beauty? There are different standards of beauty around the world, again: probably the most well known example of this is the 'peculiar' tradition of women of the Kayan tribe in Thailand to add gold rings to their neck when they're young and keep adding to stretch out their necks. Another example might be self-scarring in the Karo tribe of Ethiopia, which is seen as a beautiful trait for women. This same habit of self-scarring is seen among the Nuer of southern Sudan, only it is also seen as a sign of maturity and masculinity among the men (the boys receive gaar on their foreheads to enter manhood, while the women have their skin plucked to create bumps on their skin).

So we see that beauty has different definitions; but whatever the case may be, is it true that fertility and beauty are what women are valued for universally? This is not so. Women in many horticultural societies with bride-wealth systems of marriage exchange are seen as valuable purely for the fact that once they are married off, they receive wealth from the groom, and this wealth is shared with their brothers so that they are able to marry. A woman's value in these cultures, then, is dependent on their ability to get their brothers married as well. A woman's wealth is her value in systems where the marriage exchange is through a dowry, as (although this is unintended) her wealth is then transferred to the husband's possession (unless the woman is smart enough to bury it, or something).

So, a woman's beauty is subjective, her fertility should be irrelevant according to ROK, and neither of these are necessary/sufficient conditions for her to be seen as valuable. What of men? Is their value dependent on their resources, intellect and character?

"Beauty" to the Nuer.

Notice how these three traits enable the man much more leniency than the woman. ROK sets strict standards for beauty and denounces many things which may be seen as beautiful to other people from other cultures or backgrounds, such as piercings or tattoos. Their fertility is not up for interpretation. A man's character, intellect and resources, however, are all up for interpretation, with the former probably having the strictest conditions of the three. What makes a man intelligent? I doubt they ask for a man's IQ upon meeting him, or expect women to do so. I also doubt that their only condition for intellect is "think like us" (though this wouldn't surprise me). What is "character," too? Confidence? Is that it? Who knows? I certainly don't, but I can say quite easily that a man's value can be dependent on other things as well.

Consider the Nuer again. A man's value in their culture is the beauty, strength and health of his cattle, which he worships as being his connection to God. Could this be considered a resource? Perhaps, but you could say then that everything is a resource: beauty is a resource if used correctly, as are power tools. Resource is a vague term, and so if this is the standard of value for men, men have a lot of leeway; and coming from ROK, it's not hard to see why this may be the case.

6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.

We've already discussed how the family unit is also a cultural construct, but what of this claim that if "traditional sex roles" are eliminated, and unlimited mating choice is promoted, that women will become promiscuous? This is also not so, but this is by their own admission. As we've seen, a woman's value is dependent on her beauty and her fertility. If, then, a woman is "ugly" and infertile, she can try to be as promiscuous as she wants and violate all the traditional sex roles that they want her to have; her desires will not come to fruition, and "true men" will shun her as being low in worth and not appropriate for marriage. Also, what family formation do they see as being desirable? Presumably not one contingent on monogamy, but then what is their standard for the family unit? Polygamous marriage and subsequent creation of an "odd" family unit in America, for example, would be antithetical to personal liberties and individualization which marks industrialized societies.

Let's get past that, though. Do women become promiscuous if sex roles are destroyed and unlimited mating choices are granted to them? Apparently not, as the fertility rate (according to them) drops when these things occur, as we will see in their final premise. In addition, as one of the articles reveal, they find this perfectly acceptable and go out of their way to benefit from such behaviour.

So their arguments are contradictory, we get that, but I know that someone is going to say "contraception!" So, assuming contraception is available to all women, and they meet the qualifications again, does their promiscuity increase? Again, it is not so. If this were the case, we should expect that women who are more promiscuous would use more contraceptives to counter their behaviour, but this isn't the case. Women who use contraceptives are no more likely to engage in promiscuous behaviour than their counterparts. At every facet of this argument, it falls apart. Now, for the final point.

7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.

I wanted to make a post about this in the past, but since it has come up here, I'll just state the facts. First off, the concept of "cultural Marxism" is a joke. Secondly, there's no connection between socialism and fertility (otherwise the United States TFR would be skyrocketing, and Sweden's TFR would be plummeting, but they're comparable). There's also no connection between feminism and fertility (otherwise Japan's TFR would be skyrocketing, and America's TFR would be plummeting, but America's TFR is higher than Japan's). We've already gone over the family unit, and socialist nations are by far not the most impoverished states in the world. Fertility rates are dropping because of economic downfall, higher rates of education, government policy actions (i.e. China, India), etc. This is not too interesting to talk about since the data is out there and readily available. It's just wrong.

Fertility rate by country. No signs of socialist interference here.

We're finally done. For those of you who kept up with all of this, good job. Now it's time to talk about the Return Of Kings Complex. As we've observed ROK seems to set standards that are much more lenient on men than on women, and do so without any backing. They are also contradictory in their stances, and so will say that one thing (feminism) causes fertility rates to fall, but will also cause promiscuity to rise. We know this to not be the case. Another example was that they claim promiscuous behaviour is bad and destroys the family unit, and yet they indulge in it.

So what are their motivations? Why is it that they make so many contradictory claims, and are so strong about how they think men and women should behave, when they have little-to-no support for their views? Let's consider a combination of things they believe:

1: Women will be promiscuous if given certain pressures, and this is bad; however, they're okay with it.
2: Men will not engage in monogamy unless given incentive to, yet the family unit (presumably the nuclear one) needs to be preserved.
3: Feminism is causing the destruction of the family unit and the fertility rate.
4: Women are only valuable because of their fertility and beauty, nothing else.

What can be inferred from each of these beliefs?

1: Women shouldn't be promiscuous, but men should be promiscuous and thus it's okay to be promiscuous with women who are promiscuous, so long as they're beautiful.
2: Men will naturally want more than one wife, but the family unit is being destroyed by women.
3: Empowering women and bringing them up in society causes the destruction of fertility rates and the family unit.
4: Women are not valued for anything besides how useful and appealing they are to men.

The motivation? No shit, they just really don't like women (but love them) and really love men (but they're not gay) and want men to be in charge (they like it like that). The conclusion?

The folks over at ROK are bisexual misanthropes who like to take it doggy style. This is the ROK Complex.

Thank you all very much for reading.



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir

The Legend of Zelda and Feminism: An Insult to Writers (And Women)

In the shadows of the internet and in the light of my hiatus, my focus in terms of what political issues I follow has narrowed its way down to two topics: atheism and feminism. I, without hesitance, identify myself as an agnostic atheist, because it is a statement of my belief and my method of arriving at that belief, rather than my personal philosophy and political views.

Feminism is much different. Feminism carries this air of uncertainty, and can be misconstrued in many ways; and in my opinion, it just seems to be a pointless moniker when "gender equality" is not so ambiguous, and is preferable in every way for the sake of clarity. That being said, while I don't identify myself as a feminist, many of my views can be seen as aligning with the feminist movement.

I make strong statements on my blog, and in some cases, it's very easy to tell under what banner I might be standing when an all out war of religion/politics/race rises out of the murky shadows of humanity's contempt for one another. But above any potential alignment with any political or social movement in existence, there is one identity that blankets my soul greater than anything else; and it is, from the perspective of my infinite wisdom, a force so powerful that only the most courageous of heroes could vanquish it. For those of you who are video game fans, hardcore or casual, you know exactly what I'm referring to.

Oh the pleasant, socially uninformed memories.

In August of 1993, The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening was released in North America -- and I was born -- setting my fate as a diehard Zelda fan beyond all else; although the first Zelda game I ever played was, well, the first one. If we count all gameplay totals, then weeks, maybe months of my life have been invested in playing every Zelda game that has reached the market; but this doesn't even come close to counting the extra steps I've taken in dedicating myself to the Zelda franchise, to the point that I have, in my possession, at least four copies of Hyrule Historia (in unique formats), made unnecessary investments such as converting my Zelda games on the Famicom (because who doesn't love imports?), learned how to ride on horseback, and much more. The only thing that's left is a cosplay, which my friends have been begging me to do, but that's not what my interest is. My personal investment is in the story, the content, not my derivations of such. I don't write fan fictions, for example -- I appreciate the original story with all my heart.

So when the scope of feminism decided to encroach upon the Legend of Zelda, you can imagine how much I was frothing at the mouth, sharpening my claws and teeth, preparing to rip apart the leader of the crusade on what has to be my most favorite video game franchise of all time... My paleo-instincts targeted none other than Anita Sarkeesian.

Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist, media critic and blogger, author of Feminist Frequency, which seeks to deconstruct the portrayals of women in video games and other media using feminist philosophy. Just this year, she was awarded the 14th annual Game Developers Choice Awards, and was nominated for Microsoft's 2014 Women in Gaming Awards. Her work has been widely praised for allegedly standing up to the virulent misogyny of popular media through her 'critical analysis.' She has become, for all intents and purposes, the poster woman of feminism in media and gaming, and many people have bought into the dissemination of her 'analyses.'

How duped they have been.

Anita Sarkeesian

I have no issues, personally, with Anita Sarkeesian. She seems to be genuinely trying to do what she thinks is right, and I have no issues with strong minded women vocalizing themselves. With all this in mind, I think Ms. Sarkeesian has gone beyond the reaches of the good she could have done, and is now bringing a bad name to the feminist movement she is a representative of. Her work inspires people to think more critically about what they see in media, but on a case-by-case basis, her analyses are very uninformative, and sometimes just seem downright crazy.

But it would take forever to look at everything she's ever said, and honestly, I've never had any desire to. However, the moment she hammers a nail into the Legend of Zelda and says "this is what I want to look at," oh boy do the gloves come off, and the stilettos on. This is actually over a year late, but if you want to find where all of this is coming from, refer to her first episode of "Damsel in Distress." Now, without further ado, let's begin.

In her first criticisms, Ms. Sarkeesian notes that in every game in the series, Zelda has been kidnapped, possessed, turned to stone, or otherwise been taken advantage of/incapacitated, hence her "damsel in distress" role. Of course, the reason behind this is explained in much detail, both throughout the games, and in the external sources of information. Simply put, whoever the goddesses decide will possess each piece of the Triforce, those people become destined to carry certain... destinies. The Triforce of Courage is bound to the hero of legend, who will always become one incarnation of Link. The Triforce of Wisdom is bound to the princess or queen who shall inherit the throne of Hyrule, who will always become one incarnation of Zelda. The Triforce of Power is bound to the man who will use his power to seek the entire Triforce, who will always become the reincarnation of Demise. These roles are revealed in many separate places in Hyrule Historia, most notably with the origins of the legend: the War of Hylia.

Ganondorf: AKA "Big Dick"

But why, you would then ask, would Shigeru Miyamoto or Eiji Aonuma decide to make the "damsel in distress" the crux of the legend, or at least the games in the series? Why not change it? We'll get to that later: however, it should be noted that the person who is always the evil villain bent on ruling the world in the series, consistent with many other game series as well, is a man. Something for you to think about. For now, let's continue on with Ms. Sarkeesian's criticisms.

She continues on by stating that Zelda has always been in the role of either assistant or sidekick in the game series, and was only ever a crucial part of the story when she transforms into Sheik in Ocarina of Time, but is then captured by Ganondorf 3 minutes after she turns back into Zelda. Well, once again, this was explained.

In the events of Wind Waker, Ganondorf sends a gigantic bird across the Great Sea to hunt down girls told of in legend to possess the Triforce of Wisdom: blonde haired girls with pointy ears. This allows the bird to confuse the true identity of Zelda for many different characters, including two girls from Windfall Island and Link's own sister. The characters within the story are just as aware of the roles that the characters play as we are, because it is the legend of their own land, and Ganondorf seems to have been alive for many different games in the series to act on his own personal knowledge.

Thus, we can safely conclude that Zelda, being aware of the legend, since she's the daughter of the King of Hyrule, will also be aware of the legend, and therefore would have to disguise herself not only as a Sheikah, but as a male Sheikah who does not reveal his long, flowing hair in order to prevent Ganondorf from accurately figuring out her identity. In fact, Ganondorf includes another telling fact about the situation in his kidnapping speech, but we'll get to that in a moment. Her disguise actually works, because even Princess Ruto confuses Sheik for a male. How do we know that Sheik, canonically, is supposed to be a female though? Because Eiji Aonuma said so.

Now, for Ganondorf's telling fact. Ganondorf states, while kidnapping Zelda in Ocarina of Time, that if he followed Link, who he knew to be in possession of the Triforce of Courage, he would find the person who possessed the Triforce of Wisdom. The Triforce of Courage prevents Ganondorf from using his magic to kidnap the person wielding it, so instead he simply followed Link around until he found Zelda. That's why she was kidnapped immediately. Not because she revealed herself to be a woman, but because everyone was in full knowledge (except Link) that Zelda was in disguise specifically to protect herself from Ganondorf. If anything, once again, blame Ganondorf from being the stereotypical power hungry, sexist man that he is.

If you want to argue that despite the story solidly explaining why all of this happened, it sends a psychological message that associates feminine Zelda with "damsel in distress," then you need to talk to yourself and the people who think Zelda is an object, not Eiji.

She then goes on to criticize the Tetra/Zelda portrayal in the Wind Waker. Well... this one is a bit more telling of Ms. Sarkeesian's point of view than that of the game developers. To summarize, her issue with the Tetra/Zelda portrayal was that the moment Tetra transforms into Zelda, she's ordered to not accompany Link in his journey, and to stay in the temple in order to be safe. First of all, if you think about it in reality, I don't see what the issue is. Tetra and Zelda were the same person, both were female, it's just that when Tetra becomes the "more stereotypically feminine" Princess Zelda, she's ordered to stay behind. Up until that point, Zelda (who was then called Tetra) was fully capable of herself.

Tetra isn't feminine enough to be a woman!

Wait... is she saying that Tetra isn't feminine enough to reconcile for that? Why does she get to decide what femininity is? Isn't the whole point of the critical analysis of female portrayal supposed to be about deconstructing the idea of stereotypical femininity? What issues does she have with "tomboyish" Tetra, then? Just because her appearance didn't conform to the feminine appearance she would've preferred Tetra to have? Just because Tetra wasn't "stereotypically femine?" Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? That the female isn't necessarily portrayed as a girly girl princess? I'm sorry, but that's sexist, not the Zelda franchise.

I actually had my own criticisms of the Tetra/Zelda paradigm for my own reasons, that had more to deal with the color of her skin. What, white women can't be the heroes? Why did she have to lose that awesome tan?

(Mostly joking).

But beyond that, her criticism, within the realm of the story, is flawed for another reason. It was established that the moment Link pulled the Master Sword out of the pedestal, he granted Ganondorf his full potential -- all of his magic and evil powers came back. The temple was the only safe place for anyone who wasn't impervious to Ganondorf's magic, and so Zelda was asked to stay there, but even that didn't work.

Zelda wasn't the only victim of this: 3 great spirits, a bunch of fairies, and hundreds of people across the Great Sea fell victim to Ganondorf's evil as well. And, as established before, Ganondorf was now fully aware of who Zelda/Tetra was, and so she had to stay on the DL in order to not get royally screwed. At least, that's what they thought it would accomplish. Turns out Ganondorf is still the stereotypical male asshole.

So, yes, Zelda and Tetra are the same person, and Tetra was fully capable of herself. As even Ms. Sarkeesian noted, Zelda/Tetra even helps you fight Ganondorf in the final battle. She even helps rescue you from Ganondorf's grasp earlier in the game when you pay your second visit to the Forsaken Fortress. Talk about a damsel in distress, huh?

Ms. Sarkeesian's last criticism of the franchise is of Zelda/Tetra's portrayal in Phantom Hourglass, where she's kidnapped, turned to stone, then kidnapped again, but to explain the reasons why this criticism is invalid would just be to repeat the points made vastly above. Later in the video, she says she wants Zelda to be the protagonist in a story, and even makes it a point of saying "and I'm not talking about the DS games. I'm talking about full on console adventures." In this statement, Ms. Sarkeesian has just expressed two sentiments:

1: That DS installments in the Zelda series are somehow lesser games than the console installments; and,
2: That she has no appreciation for Hyrule lore.

So now ignoring Spirit Tracks (and Wand of Gamelon if you want to include the CD-i games), #2 brings us back to that really irritating question: why don't they just change the legend so that Zelda isn't perpetually screwed and forced to be in this position?

Well, simply put, you're an asshole for suggesting that.

Eiji Aonuma has already made it crystal clear that he doesn't wish to establish Zelda as a damsel in distress, because he acknowledges that the fans prefer a female that's more helpful, engaging and involved, like Zelda was in Ocarina of Time or in Wind Waker (although I would strongly argue that she is a very powerful woman in almost all of the Zelda series). To ask him to change his story otherwise is just beyond insensitive. As a writer, I can appreciate how much one can be invested in their own story. It can be their passion, even their life, and to have someone say "change this because I don't like it" can be the greatest insult to your person that anyone could ever offer.

I would fuck her.

The story writers are not obligated to change their story just because social activists don't like it. They've already made an attempt to appease their fans, and beyond that, we should all be excited for the upcoming Hyrule Warriors, where we get to play as Zelda and see how fully capable she is of kicking ass in her princess getup (actually, even better: Zelda in Hyrule Warriors is a queen). We also got to see that in Super Smash Bros. To ask them to change the entire foundation of the story, to change the legend, and to make all of the events of the previous games totally worthless is just unappealing for everybody.

But then it begs the question: why was Zelda the damsel in distress in the first place? Why did they decide that was a thing?

Honestly, that would be the best argument you could go for. Somehow, this whole idea that the depiction of Zelda in the games is sending us messages that she's useless isn't settling with me, because I can see how, in so many games, she has shown herself to be probably more powerful than Link, all things considered.

Consider how she kind of saved Midna's life using magic in Twilight Princess, and how she could teleport and render Ganon incapacitated in Ocarina of Time, or how she was actually a goddess in Skyward Sword. Also consider how in all of these games, Link needed some kind of assistant (Navi, Tatl, Fi, Ezlo, King of Red Lions, etc.), while Zelda often found herself without needing one, even when she was on her own. For goodness sake, she was the captain of a pirate crew and could kick grown ass men around in Wind Waker, despite her small stature.

The only thing you can really go for would be "why did they make this the story at the very, very beginning?" To criticize the game's repetitive nature thereafter is pointless, and to criticize the fact that the game writers haven't changed the lore to accommodate your needs is just plain insulting.

NEEDS MORE/LESS FEMININITY!

I think it was important to go through this for a few reasons, but the biggest thing is that it can be applied to many stories. Even when the female isn't being portrayed as the Damsel in Distress, Anita Sarkeesian will almost always have some kind of criticism of their depiction, such as Samus in the Metroid series. There is no winning play. There's always going to be something wrong. What we have to keep in mind while looking at these things is that, despite how some people may perceive the characters in the story, the fact remains that the story writers have sole agency in deciding what happens, and in most cases, they're willing to appeal to their fan base.

But at what point did we decide that it was okay to tell story writers what they can and can't do? Asking them to completely tear apart the foundations of their story and readjust the well-established, consistent lore, thereby making every single preceding game absolutely pointless in terms of the plot, simply to accommodate for your preferences is just, in my opinion, a disgusting insult, both as a writer and as a gamer.

Thank you all very much for reading.



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir


 EDIT:

I've decided that the comments I've received have produced a lot of strong arguments in defense of the Legend of Zelda series, so whenever I receive one that I think is good, or come up with another on my own, I'll include it in the list below. These will mostly not be direct responses to the contentions brought up by Anita Sarkeesian, but instead will simply extract information from Zelda lore in defense of the series as a whole.

Extra arguments:

- The Triforce of Wisdom is always granted to Zelda, symbolizing the female role as being mentally strong. (Courtesy of Nick T.)

- The name "Zelda" comes from the Teutonic word for "gray haired battle maiden," i.e. a female warrior. (Courtesy of Nick T.)

- "Princess Zelda" is not legitimized by being married to a prince, but instead is a single, female matriarch, even when she gains the status of "Queen." (Courtesy of Nick T.)

- The Gerudo race is made up entirely of warrior women, with the exception of a single male born every 100 years, who are able to survive despite the harsh environment that is the Gerudo Valley -- a place that is so horrific and deadly that even Ganondorf himself was envious of the land of Hyrule for that reason, thus is his motivation (explained in Wind Waker). (Courtesy of Nick C.)

- While the most powerful being in the land -- the one who holds the Triforce of Power -- is the reincarnation of Demise, every other powerful being in the game (the Great Fairies and the Golden Goddesses) are females; in fact, Din is the one who grants the Triforce of Power to whomever it goes to in the first place. This goes for all pieces of the Triforce as well. These powers are contingent on the decisions of women.

- Almost all of the main villains (Ganondorf, Demise, Vaati, Yuga, Ghirahim, Zant, etc.) are depicted as men. (Courtesy of Termina Knight)

- The seven sages in A Link to the Past were women, while five out of seven of them in Ocarina of Time were also women. (Courtesy of Termina Knight)

- At Lon Lon Ranch, there are only three people: Malon, Talon, and Ingo (Ocarina of Time). Talon runs the farm, but is found asleep in two separate scenarios, neglecting his deliveries. Ingo is the farmhand who exiles Talon and usurps control over the farm in order to appease Ganondorf. Malon, the only female, is kindhearted, helpful, and attentive. (Courtesy of Termina Knight)

- In Skyward Sword, in Zelda's speech to Link, it's revealed that Hylia had been manipulating Link's care for Zelda in order to have him follow her and to fulfill their destinies. Zelda was never in any danger, as she had Impa to protect her (powerful woman), but Link didn't know this. Even Zelda says "I used you," showing that the "damsel in distress" was never really in distress, but was actually (well, her goddess identity was) manipulating the protagonist. (Courtesy of Anonymous -- 7/25)

BanBossy... and Everything Else

So a recent phenomenon has risen from the depths of the feminist movement, now riding the title "BanBossy." I'm always skeptical of media hyped attempts to raise awareness of different activist movements, but this really takes the cake. BanBossy is the most ridiculous of any censorship attempt I've given witness to since I was born.

First, let me be clear. I support equal rights and representation for all people. This does not mean I think everyone is inherently equal, but that I think that a program of "equality of opportunity" should be promoted in any case where it is applicable, within reason. That can be ambiguous, but clarifying what I mean isn't important to what I'm talking about here. Let's examine what's become of the BanBossy phenomenon.

The BanBossy movement is being sponsored by the Girl Scouts Organization and by COO Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook. This being said, one can easily imagine that the movement will gain much recognition. This in itself is dangerous, because such a viral, direct movement can completely jump the hurdles of rationality or critical thinking. This is upheld when I see that, on the BanBossy website, there are many claims, but no peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to back up the claims and statistics. This immediately hits me as being something that is untrustworthy and nothing more than activist hype.

*Note, after this post was made, a friend of mine alerted me to the fact that one of the most pushed stats -- that up to a third of girls are afraid to become leaders out of fear of being seen as bossy, or something like that --  actually does have a source. It's from a 2008 survey... by the Girl Scouts. Incredible.*

Beyond that, it actually doesn't take much to realize that this whole movement is very ineffective in terms of practicality, although it could definitely change some individual minds. With that in mind, what is the ultimate goal of BanBossy?

I found this a difficult question to be a difficult question to answer. The BanBossy website, which I refuse to link to, only gives links to Facebook and Twitter, saying how you can promise to "BanBossy." What does this practically do, however? Is the goal to simply change minds -- to raise awareness? Are there any intentions for policy implementations? I find it ridiculous to imagine that as punishment for calling a girl "bossy," Billy is just going to lose his pretzels and juice time after school. Or perhaps we could put a "misogynist" label on his permanent record. That'd be effective, right?

Another, more trivial question is: what if somebody really is bossy? Where do we draw the line before we decide that somebody is being unreasonable in calling a person bossy? More importantly, who decides where that line is drawn? I feel that with the intense support of celebrities and international organizations, the role of this assignment is being taken away from the educator, and more to the uneducated masses who will ride the wave of anything that sounds supportive and kind-hearted.

Or perhaps, "BIG SISTER"

Let me give an example. I were to assert that BanBossy is, well, bossy, am I proving their point, or am I raising a legitimate complaint? You can't really tell, because it largely depends on what side of the argument you're on. If such a debate relies purely on values, and not on any extensive, empirically verifiable data, then there's not much of a point in having the argument, is there?

Now I can go on and on asking these questions to raise criticism about this movement, but I think the most important issue to address here is censorship. Is it the answer? Should we not, instead, encourage women to feel proud of themselves as a counter to being accused of being bossy? In fact, the direct impact of the word might suggest that the individual is simply asserting herself as a boss, not a follower. What would Beyoncé have to argue with that?

The problem with attempting to censor specific words in our language is the fact that language is very liquid. It can't be controlled because every day, new words and new phrases are being conceived of to generate the same impact or to suggest the same ideas and concepts. That's what the beauty of language is. The only solution that was ever suggested was an Orwellian one -- that we should create a dictionary of approved words by the government, and if anyone were to deviate from those specific words, they could be punished for Thought Crime. This dictionary could be updated whenever needed to delete any word that could somehow suggest an idea or concept that would be threatening to the government or the establishment thereof.

What kind of society are we leading ourselves towards? Most importantly, what kind of fools are we to try to suggest to ourselves that something so fluid like language can be controlled to have a socially positive outcome? Now, I understand that the supporters of this movement have suggested that their aim is not to simply ban a word, but to ban the thoughts that discourage women from being leaders. This being said, not only is this aim incredibly vague and impossible to grasp, but it further proves my point. This is not an issue of banning a word; this is an issue of suggesting to people that unrealistically attempting to ban a word or thought is the best resolution to this problem.

Against my better judgments, however, I am going to allow all comments through for this particular post (although it'll still say it requires approval), which is a change from my others. The reason is to prove a point, but not the point that people will think. I want my potential readers and seldom commenters to feel the freedom of uncensored speech and criticism. I don't care if you call me a bitch, an idiot, or even the scare word of the week, "bossy." I have far outgrown the limitations of immature rebuttals to simple detraction. That being said, I want to see what complaints can be brought to the table against my comments here, both legitimate and illegitimate.

So as always, thank you for reading, and I look forward to any feedback. Oh, but don't forget:

#BanBanBossy



Follow me on social media!

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AlexisDelanoir
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+AlexisDelanoir0/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/AlexisDelanoir