Tropes vs Women in Video Gaming - Damsel in Distress

i'd like to point something out in this part only, telling a boy to stop being such a girl is an insult to everyone* not just girls. it's telling men that "haha, you're showing your emotions, you're weak, learn to suck it up." which is obviously not true and is part of the "male stereotype" (which... even more retardedly, is being kept mainly by men)

Which is precisely why, immediately before it and in relation to kids' toys, I said this:
It also supports the masculine stereotype for men, which essentially denies them access to these more "caring" and "cooperative" and "interpersonal" interests.

That's why I don't just support altering the female stereotype; I fully support altering the one available to men as well. I like it when the men in my life show emotions, and I like it when they talk about their problems rather than keeping them buried inside. Why? Because it tells me a lot about them ranging from who they are to how much they trust me, which then furthers our relationship on an entirely different level. I feel that way with every friend of mine; if you feel you have to hide yourself from me, I'm doing something wrong.

i'd like to point something out in this part only, telling a boy to stop being such a girl is an insult to everyone* not just girls. it's telling men that "haha, you're showing your emotions, you're weak, learn to suck it up." which is obviously not true and is part of the "male stereotype" (which... even more retardedly, is being kept mainly by men)

And that's the problem, using gender as an insult should not be a thing. A man is insulted when he is told that he is acting like a girl. Apparently showing emotion is a bad thing, and apparently so is taking on the traits of a woman because, in both cases, it shows signs of weakness. This is also why it's insulting to women, because it implies that being feminine is bad and it makes you weak.

So you're right, it's insulting to everyone, but not everyone is insulted by it for the same reason.

(To clarify, I wasn't arguing against you, I'm elaborating on your point.)

Which is precisely why, immediately before it and in relation to kids' toys, I said this:
It also supports the masculine stereotype for men, which essentially denies them access to these more "caring" and "cooperative" and "interpersonal" interests.

That's why I don't just support altering the female stereotype; I fully support altering the one available to men as well. I like it when the men in my life show emotions, and I like it when they talk about their problems rather than keeping them buried inside. Why? Because it tells me a lot about them ranging from who they are to how much they trust me, which then furthers our relationship on an entirely different level. I feel that way with every friend of mine; if you feel you have to hide yourself from me, I'm doing something wrong.

ok, coolios, just pointing out (what i'm sure it's obvious, but still) right now, but meh, that last line, it's not necesarily you who is doing something wrong :U

PD: how long are you gonna stay an electron? dammit!

edit: @above: yup, i understand you're not arguing against me there, and what you said is entirely my point too.

Well, this thread has turned into a gigantic feminism circlejerk. I'm out.

Well, this thread has turned into a gigantic feminism circlejerk. I'm out.

were you even in at some point?

also, something interesting that i didn't know here, from TVTropes "save the princess"

The defining Excuse Plot of the 8-bit era. [...] The trope derives from the ancient concept of "Princess and Dragon", where The Hero must save a woman from an invading monster. This is usually used as a metaphor for real-life conflict.

Pretty much a Dead Horse Trope these days; while video games still feature the occasional Damsel in Distress, rescuing them is only part of the overall plot; either that, or it's covered by the Grandfather Clause. In his book Power-Up: How Japanese Video Games Gave the World an Extra Life, Chris Kohler credits this progress to some Girl Gamers who wrote to Nintendo in The Eighties to say they were tired of saving princesses; Nintendo eventually announced they'd stop using it as a final goal except in the Super Mario series.

This plot has become quite a popular target for subversion or deconstruction in indie games, and newer references to it in popular culture can be classed with Pac Man Fever. For a similarly overused plot, see Fake King.

Named because it's often a princess. You know why.

What's funny is that Anita's actually addressed this in the past with the visions of what the media shows as 'being feminist.' Feminists are bad. But strong female characters who distance themselves from these crazy people who are seeking equal rights are good. It's called the 'Straw Feminist' trope; it happens all the time, and girls still do this in every day life. ("I support equality for women... But I'm not a feminist." -- Except, by definition, you are.) It's something that I've seen even before I saw her video on it, and it doesn't even need to be her saying it; it could be any other woman (or person), like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler (who have both pointed this out a number of times).
That's also why the media focuses on the extremists; they make it so easy to point out why "feminism is bad," when the fact is that feminism is good. Equal rights for members of society? Yeah, there's nothing bad about that (unless you're making your living and generating your power from systematically oppressing a group of people).

I just had to point this out as it irks me.

No, just because you want equal rights for everyone doesn't auto make you a feminist. What would make you a feminist is if you wanted equal rights for all sexes AND you agree with the path that the current feminists take. What you said is the same thing as saying " In StarWars, Jedi and Sith are the same because they have the same end goal."- No they aren't and they clearly dont even like each other either.

But honestly by your definition of what makes a person a feminist most everyone is a feminist at face value. But when you talk to them about it why is that?

I think a lot and I mean a lot of men are not feminist simply of the group name is "feminist" and what that tells the person is that its a women only group. Just how if I had a group called "Black Society" that's goal was to keep blacks out of jail. Which should be a positive thing. Everyone who hears that name would think of it as a "black only group". And thus little to no non-black support for it.

Sorry if my Black Society example was bad/ ineffective. Most the time I suck at drawing parallels to other situations.

I just had to point this out as it irks me.

No, just because you want equal rights for everyone doesn't auto make you a feminist. What would make you a feminist is if you wanted equal rights for all sexes AND you agree with the path that the current feminists take. What you said is the same thing as saying " In StarWars, Jedi and Sith are the same because they have the same end goal."- No they aren't and they clearly dont even like each other either.

But honestly by your definition of what makes a person a feminist most everyone is a feminist at face value. But when you talk to them about it why is that?

I think a lot and I mean a lot of men are not feminist simply of the group name is "feminist" and what that tells the person is that its a women only group. Just how if I had a group called "Black Society" that's goal was to keep blacks out of jail. Which should be a positive thing. Everyone who hears that name would think of it as a "black only group". And thus little to no non-black support for it.

Sorry if my Black Society example was bad/ ineffective. Most the time I suck at drawing parallels to other situations.

i'd like to counter-point that just because the name gives the wrong idea doesn't mean the purpose is different. the example is good, the reasoning isn't. the goal of the black society is to keep black people out of jail, if people misinterpret the name it doesn't change what the group is actually for, using nikki's example:

"a white guy saying: i support blacks out of jail, but i don't consider me part of "black society"

i'd like to counter-point that just because the name gives the wrong idea doesn't mean the purpose is different. the example is good, the reasoning isn't. the goal of the black society is to keep black people out of jail, if people misinterpret the name it doesn't change what the group is actually for, using nikki's example:

"a white guy saying: i support blacks out of jail, but i don't consider me part of "black society"

But I think a lot of the not joining the support of the feminist from the male audience is they view it as a women's group who want equal rights. Even if they know its for equal rights. And you often hear the question "if they are for equal rights, why are they called feminist and not equalism( or any other non-bias name)?"

I don't fully understand your quote though. Since Nikka's example would say: "a white guy saying: i support blacks out of jail, so that makes me a part of 'black society'".

When It comes to social groups trying to make a change, I see 3 distent area's that define the group
1) The Goal
2) The method they choose to reach that goal
3) How people outside/not fully immersed, view the group.

Feminist take a hard hit because of the last one. This is my basis that their name causes some of the problems they have now.

But I think a lot of the not joining the support of the feminist from the male audience is they view it as a women's group who want equal rights. Even if they know its for equal rights. And you often hear the question "if they are for equal rights, why are they called feminist and not equalism( or any other non-bias name)?"

I don't fully understand your quote though. Since Nikka's example would say: "a white guy saying: i support blacks out of jail, so that makes me a part of 'black society'".

When It comes to social groups trying to make a change, I see 3 distent area's that define the group
1) The Goal
2) The method they choose to reach that goal
3) How people outside/not fully immersed view the group.

Feminist take a hard hit because of the last one. This is my basis that their name causes some of the problems they have now.

i forgot the bold, i meant:

a white guy saying: i support blacks out of jail, but i don't consider me part of "black society" -- Except, by definition, you are

the goal of feminism i already addressed the last page, back when men had nothing to envy on women, they wanted equality, today feminism STILL wants equality, but due to how they've gained benefits in certain areas that men now don't really have (or didn't want back then) the name confuses people.

how people view the group is dependent on information. how informed the masses are doesn't change what the group is for. feminism was made for equality, if the media starts portraying feminists as ax-crazy she-devils that want to castrate and humiliate all men, is that the feminist's fault, or the media's fault for fake info? (along with the public fault for not researching properly)

the name does cause a bit of problems, and in a way in our current age and time is also wrong. back then, women had nothing, so they wanted rights, rights that all the men had, nowadays there's some with that very mentality, which isn't wrong or bad, but rather naive so to speak, let me go grab a quote from wikipedia i saw, sec...

EDIT: here we go, everything summed up quite nicely in one phrase:

Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, bell hooks, among other feminists, has argued that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.[18]

I just had to point this out as it irks me.

Rebuttal time. We're going to pick up a dictionary (because those are fun) and define what feminism is:

Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Bam. So, logically, any human being who supports equal rights between the sexes and supports women's rights and interests is a feminist. Regardless of their gender. And it's not a girls-only club. Now, if we pick apart various organisations who claim to be feminist, that's where the goals of the societies fall apart. It's not the fault of the definition; it's the fault of the media representation and the people who perpetuate the myths. (And, to be fair, there are women's groups that are anti-feminist. So it's not just "an organisation of women.")

So be irked by it, but semantics and logic are going to trump your belief.

I think a lot and I mean a lot of men are not feminist simply of the group name is "feminist" and what that tells the person is that its a women only group. Just how if I had a group called "Black Society" that's goal was to keep blacks out of jail. Which should be a positive thing. Everyone who hears that name would think of it as a "black only group". And thus little to no non-black support for it.

Except there are a ton of civil rights groups that are for furthering the equal rights of people of colour that also happily accept support from white people (and I often like to hope that the number of non-racist white people outnumbers the number of racist ones). Same logic applies in the LGBT community.

I go to LGBT functions, and I support people in that community. If I have money to spare, I donate it to groups that challenge society to provide them with equal rights. Am I LGBT? No. I'm straight. Does that matter? No. And the same thing goes for my inclusion in supporting the Latin American community (both in and out of their respective countries). I'm not saying this to make myself sound superior; I'm giving you a real-life example of a person who is not fundamentally a part of a community (I'm not LGBT, and I'm not Latin American) but who still works with them and wants to support their cause. And if they had a word to describe their supporters, I would gladly adopt it.

So if there is a man who supports the equal rights of women? Sorry, he's a feminist. Now, does he belong to the specific organisations? Maybe, maybe not. But if he supports women, he is one. (PS: Follow Wheaton and Whedon for great examples of Male Feminists. Seriously. They try to be incredibly supportive of all people. When they make mistakes, they own up to it and make it right. And I love them for it because that shows that they both care and are human. Neil Gaiman is actually another great one, too.)

Like I said, if you support equality for all, the world gets better for everyone.

Since Nikka's example would say

... I want to cry.

I just had to point this out as it irks me.

No, just because you want equal rights for everyone doesn't auto make you a feminist. What would make you a feminist is if you wanted equal rights for all sexes AND you agree with the path that the current feminists take. What you said is the same thing as saying " In StarWars, Jedi and Sith are the same because they have the same end goal."- No they aren't and they clearly dont even like each other either.

But honestly by your definition of what makes a person a feminist most everyone is a feminist at face value. But when you talk to them about it why is that?

I think a lot and I mean a lot of men are not feminist simply of the group name is "feminist" and what that tells the person is that its a women only group. Just how if I had a group called "Black Society" that's goal was to keep blacks out of jail. Which should be a positive thing. Everyone who hears that name would think of it as a "black only group". And thus little to no non-black support for it.

Sorry if my Black Society example was bad/ ineffective. Most the time I suck at drawing parallels to other situations.

She was talking about those who want gender equality but don't call themselves a feminist. I see it a lot, a lot of people avoid calling themselves feminists while believing in equality for women because of the negative misconception the media and radfems gave the word. Denying what you are by definition because you think it means something negative without actually researching it is really close-minded.

EDIT: Whoa, I was ninja'd big time.

While the dictionary is a good start it is not nearly enough. The term feminism itself is steeped in so many meanings and values that it is on its way to become toothless and perhaps unusable for the purpose it orignialy held. Every time the term is used a clarification is needed to show what kind of feminism you are addressing.
The main problem is that a good many self proclaimed feminists seems to be confused about the goal or path to get there. They turn men, as great big ugly whole, into the enemy. So many feminist do this that it has infested the whole term itself, so of course the uninitiated have issues even relating to feminism. It is not just the vocal extremist miniority as seen in the media either, the foremost gender researchers in the academic world tend to fall for this too.

The definition as stated by nikki most of us would gladly call ourselves supporters of, but feminism today holds more than that, and it is important to be aware of the pitfalls.

Rebuttal time. We're going to pick up a dictionary (because those are fun) and define what feminism is:

Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Bam. So, logically, any human being who supports equal rights between the sexes and supports women's rights and interests is a feminist. Regardless of their gender. And it's not a girls-only club. Now, if we pick apart various organisations who claim to be feminist, that's where the definition might fall apart. (And, to be fair, there are women's groups that are anti-feminist. So it's not just "an organisation of women.")

Your definitions do not invalid mine. Your first one just states that it exists as a theory so doesn't apply to individuals. The 2nd one specific says "organized activity". Therefore if there is no "organized activity" on the behalf of the individual then they are not a feminist even if they like the idea of women's rights.

Also I know it is not a girls only club. But I hope you can see that it can be easily miss interpreted as a girls-only club. Just how in my example it was portrayed as a black-only club. Even though in reality it wasn't a black-only club.

Like I said, if you support equality for all, the world gets better for everyone.

I never said anything about not supporting equality. I support equality 150% of the way. It's just that "feminist" aren't going to get there. Not because of their goal, Not because of their method, But because they choose to continue call themselves by a name that everyone sees as bias when they first hear it. Just how when you first heard of the word "suffrage" you probably didn't think "I wonder what this word means. But instead though "This word has something to deal with the word 'suffer'". Yes when people are more informed it changes but as a society that wants "equality for all" MUST realize that not everyone will be on the same education level. So First impressions on people and ideas and VERY IMPORTANT.

As for your LGBT allance. The full name of that is a bunch of letters that stand for all sexual orientations you can be, including straight. And for your guy, yes he is a feminist if he wants to be and can right stories about whatever he wants to write stories about. Sorry if I miscommunicated that men couldn't be feminist.

[MENTION=2135]MariaColette[/MENTION];

Its not that I deny it because of its definition the media gives it, Though that is fair in a sense since words change meaning, But I think feminist trying to create a movement now is point less in the US. Where the differences are all based on norms of companies to create profit. Not like when it was partial government based where they sometimes make the choice that is fair but doesn't create profit. For something of this nature you need the vast majority of people, specific those that control the types of products, to at least agree with your idea's. As such you are going to need a lot of men to support your ideals which are also theirs. And as being a joint conscience having the name only reflect one half of the party isn't attractive to the other half.

For me personally I support the ideal's and goals feminist has. But joining them seems like it would be beating a dead horse. especially when I think I can see a perfectly good one next to me.

Quick question though. Is there a difference between the feminist group and feminist belief or is it all rolled into one?

All right, just so you guys know, this wasn't supposed to be a discussion on the definition of feminism. Don't deviate from the original topic too much.

When we talk about feminism, we're talking about the actual term, not the term that the media goes by.

All right, just so you guys know, this wasn't supposed to be a discussion on the definition of feminism. Don't deviate from the original topic too much.

True, but the main topic is at best fragmented and at worst uncomprehensible without the term, hence it is necessary to be extremely clear about how we use it.

As a last thing to say, since topic deviation:

Your definitions do not invalid mine. Your first one just states that it exists as a theory so doesn't apply to individuals. The 2nd one specific says "organized activity". Therefore if there is no "organized activity" on the behalf of the individual then they are not a feminist even if they like the idea of women's rights.

Would you rather I pick up the OED, then? That link annoys me, so I'll use an image I caught from the OED.com, which I can only access via my university. I figured I'd take the pleasure for source's sake, since it says essentially the same thing.

Feminism is defined as:
Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this.

(Note that definitions 1 and 2 are considered disused and rare, which means they're going out of fashion.)

Done. Therefore, again, it still includes non-organised efforts. Sorry, but you can't discount the fact that all people who advocate for these things just because you don't believe it. It's not about what your definition is; it's about what the actual definition is. Therefore, I do think it invalidates your definition in terms of reality.

Also I know it is not a girls only club. But I hope you can see that it can be easily miss interpreted as a girls-only club. Just how in my example it was portrayed as a black-only club. Even though in reality it wasn't a black-only club.

I understand it, which is why I argue against it and am trying to make people realise that it's not. Whose fault is it that they don't understand the definition? It's not mine; I'm not the one in control of the media. But wait, who is? Now take a step back and wonder why it is that people have an odd belief about what feminism really is. Who has the primary control over these institutions? Because it sure as hell isn't women.

Even shows that were mostly aimed at young girls, like Powerpuff Girls, take jabs at feminism. The latter was done through the character Femme Fatale, who brought up legitimate and real concerns. The problem is that the universe it occurs in? It's a carefully constructed universe that has no discrimination of any sort. What does this do Femme Fatale? Makes her come off as some sort of psychotic woman who saw problems where there were none.

Sorry, but it's not on my shoulders if someone doesn't understand the definition of what feminism is. It's on the shoulders of the people who continually perpetuate the myth through their use of entertainment and media. It's on the shoulders of every person who continues thinking feminists are psychotic people rather than stable and rational human beings; it's on the shoulders of every person who perpetuates the myth that we're looking for more than equality. The only thing I can do is to continue to fight against that misinformation, and the only other thing I can do is hope that other people join me in breaking that chain of misinformation.

It's very ignorant and stupid of me but i've learned when it comes to pop culture and society and things, book definitions hold very little ground. But by book-definition you are correct in your statement. I will say that the definition you just gave is no way I could fully support because it lost that "equality" when it continued on to the second statement. But I feel like this discussion is getting nowhere in terms of enlightening either of us thus far. So I'll just ask two questions. One is for my knowledge and one is for yours.

For me:Is there a difference between the feminist group and feminist belief or is it all rolled into one?

For you: Think about why men don't like joining feminist groups. Is it only because of the media's portrait of feminists and radfems, or is there something else that may also contribute?

If I was tasked to save a guy, what do I get in the end? Penis?! I DONT WANT PENIS GUYS.

But i do '-'

CATER TO THE MASSES THOUGH RIGHT?

Let's also be reminded that she stressed that she was focusing on the main franchise, not the games that were developed outside of it by companies that had licensed it to create them.

No, she's picking and choosing games and ignoring anything that even slightly goes against her ridiculous views. She picked mario and zelda as examples of bad portrayals of women in video games: She couldn't have picked worse examples to support her points. No, the Mario RPGs aren't developed outside of nintendo, they're made by two of nintendos studios, Alpha Dream (Who only make Mario & Luigi games, as well as hamtaro games for Japan) and Intelligent Systems (Who only make lots of different Nintendo games, including Paper Mario, Fire Emblem, Advance Wars,Pushmo and Warioware).

Even on a temporary basis, it's not a fallacy. I even addressed this using Yuna in FFX. It's fitting, even if she has a strong presence and is being helpful later. (Hence the creation of 'The Helpful Damsel,' which doesn't preclude someone from being of use at one point and then being damsel'd in another.)

Oh pineapple, you got me started. I didn't say "Hey give me some non zelda exmples", I said "don't get me started on why zelda is a fallacy of a damsel in distress.

Lets go through the main Zelda games she mentioned then, shall we?

Ocarina of time? She knew Ganondorf was evil before anyone else, warned the king and got laughed off, then tells you how to get the other pieces needed to obtain the master sword while she continues to spy on him. Then, upon Ganondorf making his move she takes one of the sacred items needed to get into the sacred realm (The Ocarina of time) and attempts to escape from the castle with it so that Ganon can't get into the sacred realm, because link wasn't back in time. Then she manages to haphazardly throw link the ocarina because he has the other 3 keys to the sacred realm, and she's being chased by Ganondorf. Link then screws up and lets ganondorf into the sacred realm and dissapears for seven years, all the while zelda manages to evade capture while undermining actively undermining ganondorfs rule. When link finally comes back, she helps him with all the information she gathered over the 7 years, and ganondorf never even suspects she has the triforce piece and is zelda, despite searching for both of those things the entire time.

Then, at the very end, she drops her disguise right next to Ganondorfs castle and is captured. Link, being right next to the castle, follows in after to try and kill Ganon (ultimately only sealing him in the sacred realm). You think that's an example of feminism? You need to read hyrule historia: If Link fails and dies, Zelda seals him instead with her magic power. She just didn't have enough time to escape on her own before link got there. Also of note, the ONLY reason ganondorf didn't immediately capture link in the same way is because he had the master sword on him at that point, which inherently prevents any dark magic affecting the person holding it (It was not, in fact, Links penis that stopped him being captured), which unlike Zelda who managed to evade capture for 7 years, was down to complete damn luck more than anything, because if it didn't work like that, link would have been dead the moment he stepped out of the temple of time in the future.

Wind waker?
Zelda is the captain of a pirate ship, one of the first conscious acts you see her doing is stopping link killing himself (by running off a cliff) leads an attack, TWICE on ganondorfs fortress, with the second time she arrives just as link is about to be killed by Ganondorf and prevents him from killing Link, but unfortunately results in him discovering that Tetra is zelda and has a piece of the triforce. Yes, they do then leave her in old hyrule, because it just became abundantly clear that they cannot stop Ganondorf, and if she stays anywhere else, he WILL kidnap her. That he does eventually make it into old hyrule is because link fucked up again, not because zelda couldn't do anything. But yes, he kidnaps her when he finally gets down there (again, just before link returns)

Then you catch up to him, oh, and what's this? He beats link up to the point of near death, again. And then Zelda joins in with her magical light arrows and suddenly they're able to fight him. The entire point is that neither of them can fight Ganon alone, but then people make this a gender issue?
Links sister would be a better example of an actual damsel in distress in the game, but she's like , 4 years old and kidnapped by a monster bird. I think ANY 4 year old would find themselves unable to do anything in that situation (again, NOT a gender issue!)

Twilight princess:
You see zelda grand total of three times in the 40+ hour game. And never is she kidnapped nor do you ever save her. Yes, she's imprisoned in hyrule castle for the length of the game. But that's because she was the leader of hyrules ARMY and had just lost the war against the twilight army, and Zant was going to start razing hyrule to the ground if she didn't surrender. However, her magic and the triforce of wisdom make it clear she's already the strongest human: She is literally the only person who isn't transformed horribly when the twilight falls over the castle (And most of hyrule!), regular people become ghosts and can't interact with the real world anymore, and even Link gets forced into his wolf form which knocks him completely unconscious and captured (Where he couldn't escape without Midnas help). Without Midna, link would have been stuck
Zelda just maintains her human form, but does nothing despite being absolutely able to because she doesn't want to get the entire population of her country killed (Because she's actually the queen at this point, but her ceremony got delayed because of the war).

The last time you see zelda, she helps you fight Ganon. She's not important at all in the game, but still, Link wouldn't have been able to kill Ganon on his own.

And then we move on to Midna. The fact that her Video completely disregards that the main character of the game is to push her own agenda is bullshit (I can't put that any other way). She is literally the twilight princess (yeah, sorry if anyone didn't want the games ending spoiled ), she saves link when he gets trapped in the twilight , when both her and Link are attacked by zant , and she ends up near death after Zant forces her to exist in the light world (which is as poisonous to twilight realm people ,as the dark world is to light world people) them, with link stuck in his wolf form, rather than begging for help, she demands that link goes to zelda (for the second time in the game) so that she can tell zelda how to change link back before Midna dies.

Fortunately, at this point, zelda realises who Midna is and gives her the triforce of wisdom she has been carrying (Essentially condemning herself to death to save midna, and you don't see her again until the very last boss fight), to save Midnas life, because she thinks that Midna can stop the evil roaming the land. Again, not link, midna.

It would take far too long to go through everything Heroic that Midna did throughout the entirety of TP, because like I said, she's the main character in TP, not link or zelda. Disregarding her just to make the ridiculous assertion that the game is against women, or displays that they need protection is making me angry.

And Skyward sword. Oh man, skyward sword. First time you see Link and zelda interact, she save slink from falling to his death (Admittedly, she pushed him off, but still), then (as shown in the credits of SS) she goes on her own adventure through hyrule, travels to the past and seals the evil god for hundreds(thousands?) of years while waiting for link to hurry up and get the triforce (which zelda created! Oh, did I not mention, she is a reincarnation of god? Definitely a weak women who needs protecting, that!), and does get grabbed at the end, because link fucked up and was followed by the games main bad guy (Whom he should have included in the triforce wish to get rid of...), and that apparently using your sealing magic continously for hundreds of years makes you easy to kidnap. Oh, and he hit both link and zelda with the same magic attack, and it left the pair of them barely able to move. If Link had happened to be the god there, he would have been taken and not zelda. It's just that he is a worthless nobody compared to the god of the land.

Since I'm willing to be educated, I'd like more examples outside of the Mario universe. You've picked up on Luigi's Mansion (and I even pointed out Mario is Missing, which is disgustingly horrible). But this is only a handful of games that I'm seeing out of thousands that exist, which still makes it that much more problematic to me.

You want more examples? k. But I'll keep these examples more brief.

Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia. Shanoa is sent to kill dracula because her male counterpart is too weak and useless to do it, as well as an attempt to save him from using getting himself killed and using the spell that is required for a non-belmont to be able to kill drac.
Obviously every metroid game has you playing as Samus.
Golden sun : Lost age. When you finally catch up to the other party, from the first game, the bad guys deliberately seperate the only female of the group (Mia) from Isaac and Garet because her magic would be much more dangerous to them than issacs or garets, adn the two of them can't defend themselves, and your characters have to go save the two.
Pokemon: Pick to play as a female character; go save the world., including often specific people who can't defend themselves at various points in thegame (E.,g team rocket threatening head of silph co.)
Chrono trigger: Main character, Chrono becomes the "damsel" part way through after the first real fight against the final boss, with the majority of female party (3 females, a robot and 1/2 males depending on if you let magus join) then going on a quest to save him.
Xenoblade: Sharla. Her dumbass brother repeatedly runs off into trouble where he can't possibly deal with the situation, his sister then has to go save him (with the party). The moment the 7th party member (who is female) shows up, she repeatedly saves the party from horrible imminent death.
Beyond good and evil: Multiple times where Jade has to save Pey'j and the other later partner, whose name escapes me.

So then that begs a class-related issue. Where are your lower and middle class girls?

Uh? First, they're "your" lower and middle class girls, because you're the one bringing that up as something important (I don't think it is). There are tons of games where you can play as heroic -not princess- girls "saving the day". See above for a few examples. Someone already posted the 2 tv tropes pages with a bunch more examples. Read those if you really need more.

But yes, I'm out of this thread too. It's all pointless circular arguments on the internet about something ridiculously useless, and will never change anything. (Yes, the irony is not lost on me ending a huge post with this).

If you all feel so strongly, you should go join actual feminist groups and protests,etc, all this circlejerking (both by the people who think it's a problem, and by the people who think it isn't) as zelokva put it is going to change exactly zero peoples point of view, especially on a site as small as southperry.

Admittedly, I stopped following the argument since I wasn't looking to debate about feminism when I was trying to look from a standpoint where video games could be improved if females were marginalized less often than they currently are. I also think picking on Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker was a bad example because Zelda is integral to Link's victory there and not simply a Damsel in Distress even a Helpful Damsel.

Her point about Zelda being kidnapped as soon as she drops the disguise is not a valid nod towards the trope simply because Ganondorf did not know she was Zelda until then and she also happens to have a piece of the Triforce, so she could have been a prince or god or whatever and still be kidnapped by virtue of having a Macguffin, being the plot device of the scene and not being who the player controls. If it were up to me I would have picked Minish Cap as a more direct example of DiD but eh, nitpicking about the Legend of Zelda wasn't a good move in the first place since the story has nearly always been less about saving the girl and more about saving the world.