Defining Terms: Damsel In Distress
The archetypal (and often overused) “Damsel in Distress.” in our modern culture is met with much derision. Those who hold disdain for the archetype view it as a means of relegating women to a subservient role in a narrative at best, and a simple object to be won at worst. While I agree that these negative aspects of the archetype can be enhanced through bad storytelling, there are positive traits to the archetype that I believe that are inherent to the archetype itself, and are displayed in many stories we know and love.
In its most charitable light the traditional damsel in distress trope conveys the idea that men are to value and protect women from those who do evil and value them as the object of adoration. This is not a statement that says women CANNOT help themselves, but rather a that the person who typically has more physical prowess in a situation that calls for it, should watch out for, protect and value the one who has less physical prowess. To state it another way with biological sex aside, the physically strong should value and protect the physically weak, especially in a situation where physical strength is paramount. Because of the way our species is, men typically fall into the role of protector, and women typically fall into the role of protected. The question now is if this trope has been so present in myths going back thousands of years, why is it that we find men often oppressing women throughout history? The answer is that this trope is an ideal that stands in contrast to the selfishness of human nature. Myths, fables, legends and parables persist for a reason. They speak idealistic truths to humanity that often contradict our natural tendencies. To put it simply, the writers of damsel in distress myths either intentionally or unintentionally sought to communicate that men should protect women because they saw the opposite happening in society. This is the most charitable reading of this trope. There is a dark side to this trope, and how that dark side comes about has everything to do with motivation.
As an example let us look at Gaston from The Beauty and The Beast. Gaston desires Belle in Beauty and the Beast. Not because he loves her, or has a sense that she is being wronged in some way but simply because she is the prettiest girl in the village. To Gaston, Belle is a trophy that he can show off to everyone. Gaston is entirely motivated by selfishness. The selfish powerful character applying the damsel in distress trope will exhibit strong misogynistic tendencies and actions. Beast on the other hand is motivated by love, an entirely selfless motivation. The selfless powerful character applying the same trope will uplift the weaker character and view them as the object of praise, adoration, and more precious than any physical treasure because of who they are. Beast is willing to die for Belle. Gaston does end up dying for what he desires most, but that which truly desires is his own self gratification. Belle is simply just a means to attain that gratification.
The point I’m getting at is that character motivation is everything when it comes to determining if the damsel in distress trope should be seen in a positive or negative light. This says nothing of course of the actual character portrayal of the said damsel. The damsel might simply be a plot device mentioned only a few times in the story, like Princess Zelda in the first few Zelda video games. Or she might be a well developed character whose actions directly drive and affect the narrative despite being the one who needs saving, like the Princess Zelda portrayed in the most recent Zelda game: Tears of the Kingdom. Both types of damsels serve the same purpose in this trope: the key object of praise and adoration worthy of the protagonist laying down his life for should the need arise. I think our modern western society would be a lot more benevolent if the strong valued the weak in this way.
