Can We Actually Talk About Godot's Misogyny?: A Short Essay
Part 1 - Busting a Myth
So, there are few things I hate more than misinformation that results from a game of telephone, and gets repeated to try and shut down interesting or important conversations.
"Godot's conversation with Franziska was mistranslated/poorly localized." Is a frustrating example of this. Mainly because you would think this would be easy to fact-check! And yet people continue to repeat this claim (with no source) despite it being entirely false and incredibly easy to debunk. At least, it is if you speak a little Japanese and know how to use jisho.org.
Okay, so let's actually get to the evidence. Here is the exchange in question, with Godot's lines in both English and Japanese (my translation was made using jisho.org and my own knowledge of the language):
*jisho.org's definitions of ăăăă錏 is "an unmanageable person (esp. a woman); shrew; stubborn tomboy". So this is very much an gendered term. It also includes the word for horse, which is probably why they translated it as "wild mare".
PHOENIX(english): This is Ms. von Karma. She was the acting prosecutor in your absence today.
Translation: I'm only going to say this once. Go home!
So yeah, actually I think that was a pretty good translation. Certainly got the same meaning across. You might think that some of Godot's lines sound less aggressive in Japanese. That's because I'm doing a very literal translation. A better translator than me, who is actually fluent in Japanese, would be able to capture the tone of the sentence in a way I didn't here. English doesn't have any equivalent of particles like ă, so in order to preserve the meaning, people use their writing skills. They add small bits that weren't literally there, but help convey the tone. Anyway, my point is that there really isn't anything less misogynistic about the Japanese version. I don't know where that myth comes from, but it is a myth.
And you can have your opinion or whatever, but I think it's fair for people (especially people who have experienced a lot of misogyny) to dislike Godot based on these lines alone. No other major character says this kind of shit. There's no double standard because no one else does this! I'm absolutely sympathetic to Racilalized people who believe Godot is being unfairly maligned due to racism/colorism. I have no doubt that it is a factor in the amount of vitriol people have for him! At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that Godot really is unique in his misogyny. And it really frustrates me that people use the fact that he's darker skinned than most major Ace Attorney characters to shut down these conversations all together. The fact that people (including white people) are saying that the only reason you could possibly think Godot is misogynistic is because of racism, is just ridiculous! Go back and read those lines again and tell me I just think he's a misogynist because it's a stereotype associated with Latino men! Give me an example of another Ace Attorney character who says he hates women who talk too much! I'll wait!
I'm a woman. I know what misogyny looks like. Godot is not the only misogynistic character in Ace Attorney. Even Phoenix has a couple of weird lines! But here's the thing about Godot's misogyny that nobody talks about. Godot's misogyny has consequences.
Part 2 - Can We Actually Talk About Godot's Misogyny?
I actually do think the "Is Godot misogynistic? (and the implied, is it moral/immoral to like/dislike him?)" debate is indeed a bit pointless. People are buying in to Ace Attorney's mentality of people being "Guilty" or "Not Guilty", to the point where they try to apply this framework to one of the most nuanced characters in the series. And so we just get people yelling about how "He's just an evil misogynist!" or "He actually did nothing wrong! Edgeworth's just as bad!" and no one is actually talking about what Godot did. No one is talking about how Godot's misogyny, unlike characters like Edgeworth, had real consequences. See, that's the big difference between him and Edgeworth, and why I think it doesn't really make sense to compare the two. You can remove Edgeworth's misogyny and still have the same character and story. Edgeworth's misogyny is incidental. But you can't remove Godot's misogyny. Because his ideas about gender sit right at the core of his motivations.
Now, I don't really know how to explain this to people who think Godot doesn't have a sexist bone in his body. But let's start with something I think people can more easily agree on: Godot is a really good example of how toxic masculinity can lead to self-destruction (and destruction of others, but I'll save that for later).
First, let me give a few examples of how Godot performs toxic masculinity, so that we're all on the same page.
One of the most consistent things toxic masculinity demands of men is dominence. (Especially over women.) Godot clearly has a desire to dominate others, which he demonstrates through the way he takes control of the courtroom, taunts and "tests" Phoenix, and perhaps most clearly through his exchange with Franziska. He needs to feel like he's in control, and he decides the way to do that is to be the most masculine and domineering person in the room.
Stoicism in another important aspect to toxic masculinity. Weakness is not an option for men like Godot. When men like this feel threatened, they channel their fear ("weakness") into anger and aggression, lashing out at those around them. Sound familiar? Men trying to perform toxic masculinity also tend to idealize protecting or providing for others. Especially women and children. And when they are unable to do this, they feel that failure deeply. It gnaws at their soul, and they yearn for a way to prove themselves again. This might cause them to turn to more destructive expressions of masculinity as they try to take back their sense of self.
I think I've demonstrated that Godot is a toxicly masculine character. But does that make him misogynistic? Automatically? No. But in this case, yes. Toxic masculinity is one of the driving forces behind individual mens' misogyny. Because one of the ways men can prove their masculinity is by being misogynistic. There's a reason Godot chooses the words he does when talking to Franziska. He's using misogyny to leverage his power as a man to shut her up. Not only does this work to help him control the situation, it also feeds his ego. Because he dominated a stubborn, talkative woman. He put her in her place, like a strong, masculine man. Toxic masculinity is the reason he's misogynistic. It's also the reason he does everything he does in Bridge to the Turnabout.
When Godot wakes up from his coma, he learns that he's been asleep for years. In that time, he lost everything that mattered to him. But most importantly, he lost Mia. And he feels a lot of guilt about not being around to save her (because he thinks it's his duty as a man to protect her). Unable to face this guilt, and with no sensible target for his anger â both Redd White and Dahlia having been convicted of their crimes â Godot ends up directing all of his anger and grief towards Phoenix. The way he rationalizes this is that Phoenix, who was not in a coma, was the one who actually failed to save Mia. I find it interesting that he frames Phoenix as having had a responsibility to save Mia. To be the hero, the protector of women. It seems like he's projecting his toxically masculine ideals on to Phoenix because he was a man who was close to Mia. The idea of Godot or Phoenix's responsibility to save Mia seems inherently tied to their manhood, and indeed her womanhood. And once Mia is gone, Godot decides that there's a new woman he's responsible for; and that's Maya. And when he finds out her life is being threatened, he dreams up this fantasy of saving her, and in doing so making up for his failure to save Mia.
And what does Godot do? He doesn't destroy the note so Pearl couldn't read it. And he doesn't tell Maya. In his own words, "I let you walk right into a situation that I knew was dangerous." He didn't consider the idea that Maya should have any agency in this situation. Because Maya is a young woman. Don't believe me? Think it had nothing to do with gender? Well here's my proof, because Godot still doesn't get it. Even at the end, he says this:
Godot: Are you listening, Maya? If I had really wanted to save you... ...then there's one person that I should have gone and talked to right away.
Maya: Wh-Who would that be...? Are you talking about Nick?
Godot: But I didn't do it... I tried to get the help of Iris and your mother... But I closed my eyes to the most important man involved.
Man. Man! The most important MAN involved! Couldn't be the most important person involved, because that would obviously be Maya! But Godot still sees Phoenix as being responsible for the women in his life! It's paternalism, plain and simple. He doesn't see Maya as a person with agency! And the consequences of this paternalism were catastrophic! Maya, Pearl and Phoenix are forever traumatized, Godot and Iris are going to jail, and Misty Fey is fucking dead! That's what I mean when I say you can't remove Godot's misogyny from his character. If you try, the entire narrative collapses! And you can talk about other characters all you want, but the fact remains that Edgeworth's misogyny never got anybody killed.
And all of this is interesting! I don't think it's "problematic" to like this game or this character, and I certainly don't think it's "problematic" to talk about them. I think it's great actually! I like media analysis! This isn't about "canceling" this fictional character, or anyone who likes him. It's not about getting on a high horse and talking down to everyone like I'm the first person to notice this shit. All I'm trying to say is that it really frustrates me to see so many people ignore, dismiss and downplay this aspect of his character. It makes me feel insane when people talk about this conversation like it's all made up by bigots or that it's a minor thing getting blown way out of proportion. And frankly I hate that it's become routine to shut these ideas down with whataboutism and thought-terminating cliches! I hate it because this is a real part of the game and the character that we could be having really interesting and nuanced conversations about. Heck, I haven't even touched on the question of whether the writers even knew they were writing a narrative about misogyny! Or whether the narrative itself is misogynistic! I haven't even talked about the way Dahlia is framed, or the way Mia's opinion about her relationship with Diego is is pretty much entirely omitted from the text! There's so much more here, because Trials and Tribulations is fascinating to examine from a feminist perspective! But no one is talking about it. No one is actually talking about Godot's misogyny.
At this point, like, Iâm sorry if you find the terms TMA/TME genuinely useful, but theyâve been fully tainted by people using them as an excuse to discount the marginalization of trans men, mascs, enbies, intersex people, etc. and lump us all in with gender conforming pericis people.
Iâve seen these terms widely used to separate trans people into two groups:
The TMAs, trans people who would never do anything wrong ever so youâre not allowed to criticize them.
And the TMEs, who are evil and you can never trust them. They either have male privilege so they canât ever really be oppressed, or they have, like, AFAB babygirl privilege? and canât ever really be oppressed.
Even if youâre mtf or mtx, the main groups which the users of these terms claim to really care about, if you criticize the terms or the ideology at all you are immediately shoved into the tme category.
Idk Iâm just so frustrated at the state of transfeminist tumblr rn.
I guess Iâm just trying to explain why, even if I think you probably mean well, if you use the terms tma/tme, I donât trust you.
If you have anything you think would be important to add here, please do. But if you try to demonize any group of trans people I will block the shit out of you.
I thought we made fun of MRAs because they are misguided and misogynistic for believing that feminism is against their interests and they need a movement apart from it. I thought we made fun of them for not understanding that feminism is in favor of men's liberation from the oppressive patriarchal binary as much as women's.
But some of you are actually making fun of MRAs because you think men have no problems to complain about, and feminism ISN'T for men, because they don't need anything, and the patriarchy isn't the enemy, men are?
Oooh I don't think we've been laughing at the same thing. You have lost the plot.
I thought we made fun of people who said "not all men" in response to women discussing sexism because while they are correct that not all men [insert bad behavior here], saying so in certain conversations is just a defensive knee jerk reaction that distracts from the point.
But some of you are actually making fun of any men who ask to be taken seriously and have their needs met and issues heard, even though they aren't talking over women? Some of you are making fun of marginalized men for talking about the experiences at their unique intersections of identities and asking for justice because you actually DO think "all men [insert bad behavior here]?"
Oooooh you are failing feminism 101. You do not understand what the patriarchy even is. You do not understand where its power comes from, who benefits from it, and who is harmed by it. You have not progressed beyond "cooties" level discourse. I am not laughing with you.
This is why you sound like a clown if you call transmasculine people talking about their issues "TMRAs." If you hear men discussing the ways they are harmed by the existing system and the only thing you can think of is obnoxious MRAs, you're telling on yourself. You're broadcasting the fact that you haven't spent enough time engaging with broad feminist viewpoints to know that men's liberation ideas (NOT the same as MRA) are a part of feminism and have been for a long time.
This is why you sound like a clown if you say "trans men who want feminism to be for them are misgendering themselves" and "trans men benefit from the patriarchy because all men benefit from the patriarchy" and "trans men experience no unique injustices because misandry isn't a systemic axis of oppression" and "trans men have male privilege so they can't be oppressed."
Because even if you take "trans" out of these statements, they're still incorrect. Feminism is for people of all genders. Men can be harmed by the patriarchy. The ways in which men are harmed by the patriarchy are different from the ways others are harmed by the patriarchy. Having certain "privileges" in certain contexts doesn't negate the harm of a rigid social structure that punishes nonconformity.
Men can oppose the patriarchy because they want justice for others AND for themselves. There's nothing wrong with that. Giving them shit for talking about that is NOT helping take down the patriarchy.
The patriarchy is not a war of men against women where men are given all the advantages. That's not what feminism is up against.
The patriarchy is a system where ALL people have rigid roles imposed upon them. All else being equal, certain advantages are more likely to be given to men (or masculine people, or people AMAB, or people with male sex characteristics, depending on CONTEXT). But all else is RARELY equal and even when it is, the range of experiences is vast, and the system is rigged against almost everyone.
Because the goal most individuals have, and the right all individuals deserve, is to be themselves, and to do so by choice. And no matter who you are, the patriarchy stands in opposition to this goal. It tells you who you're allowed to be, who you're not allowed to be, what you're allowed to do, and what others are allowed to do to you. This is an injustice for people of all genders.
We're ALL trapped. This system can only be dismantled if we understand the WHOLE thing. Which means we need to listen to everyone when they talk about the harms the system is causing them, from where THEY'RE stuck in it.
How are you going to escape the torture mansion if you don't understand vast swathes of it because you've mistaken your brother for the enemy and closed your ears to him? He's shouting from the torture chamber next to yours, trying to tell you the layout of the room he sees so you can plan your escape together, and you're refusing to listen because he's been given more food and water than you? How do you not see that this attitude is only to the benefit of the torture mansion, not its victims?
janainaart
annaxmalina
baratheonpilled
kianamaiart
blakekathryn
snowghoul
