Protecting the Matriarchy

In every iteration of The Legend of Zelda or Mario, you are a lonely disposable man who received little recognition, and your primary goal is always to restore an inept matriarchy to power. Repeatedly. What do you think of this?

I think you should stop posting.

Really makes you think.

Aren't you the chosen one in LoS?

Why don't you show me how not posting works for a few months, then I'll try it too.

It certainly does.

...

If Link were a real man, he would have used the Triforce to rule Hyrule forever and maintained peace. Instead of repeatedly giving power back to a Princess who repeatedly can't even protect her own castle.

Link is a fucking fairy tbh.

Why am I not surprised a shitposting newfag needs handholding?

Ther is usually a justification.
In Ocarina of Time Gannondorf used the triforces powers to conquer the kingdom, in Twilight Princess he used Zants army. Bowser just usually shows up, kidnaps Peach and messes up the kingdom with whatever magic he happens to have at the time.
It's just plot convenience, and because the target audience is men it makes sense for them to be rescuing a woman. If the target audience were women they would have them lay the princess, but dissatisfied with their life, only to be kidnapped by an attractive, emotionally in touch, long-haired villain who makes their life interesting. Just look at mills and boons.

Came here to post this imo tbh

Your head canon doesn't count.

No, if the head of the entire society is nearly always a woman it is a matriarchy. Also who heads the families is never addressed in most Zelda games. It obviously isn't anywhere near Drow levels, but it doesn't have to be to be a matriarchy.

Perhaps you are mistaking this for a Zelda hate thread. I like the series, so you can stop crying. Otherwise you are upset because you don't wish the topic of a matriarchy being discussed, even if it is plainly obvious in dozens of Nintendo titles.

Your head canon doesn't either, moron.

...

Nice argument

Well, that's not really true that Link doesn't get much recognition. He has a whole bunch of tacky statues erected in his honor in Dynasty Warriors and Wind Waker.

I think Mario got one too at some point.

And dies off screen, never to be referenced again.
Saria, maybe. Malon and Zelda? Not really. Nothing clearly showing any kind of attraction. Ruto gets rejected by Link. The point is a reciprocated relationship. Not just shit you interpret in your headcannon.
Subject to the Hylian royal family (i.e. Zelda), so not really relevant.
The Gerudo are not a matriarchy. They are a bizarre race of females that births a male to lead them once and a while. No shit it isn't hard for a man to take over an entire race of females. He then goes on to conquer the matriarchy Link fights to restore in every game.
When was the game called bad? Take a deep breath son, it will be okay.

Midna is the only Princess who matters.

You mean Zelda's father. I guess that makes every single developed nation in Ocarina of Time a patriarchy. Also the two strongest characters in each game are men, with the exception of maybe two or three games (where Link is still the strongest by merit of being the main character).

Yes, the one who dies, and leaves her in charge. You do remember that right? In every zelda (save LTTP) Zelda is the one in charge by the end of the game.
And? We aren't discussing feminism here if that is what you thought, or at least not hard feminism. The hero and villain are both the strongest and male, that is a true fact. Not the point I was making.

But user, I thought you said that Link was disposable, which is wrong from both a gameplay and a narrative aspect. Not to mention Zelda never had a chance to rule in Ocarina of Time and can't be an 'inept' monarch, as we're never shown her leadership, while in Twilight Princess she willingly surrenders a losing battle to spare the lives of her guard, who would have died defending her. If she had fought to the death then there would have been no chance to save the world.

So what was your point exactly?

Designated shitting thread

yeah but I gotta do something between rounds

He is disposable. He wins and gets told to fuck off. His efforts do not benefit himself, while risking his life. It isn't his desire for a reward sure, but the lack of one from those who should be grateful shows how disposable he is.
If not for Link they would have just waited for another hero who probably wouldn't have shown up, since only three people can actually do anything in Hyrule.
Link puts Zelda back in power, and he fucks off back to obscurity every time. Never does he become King Link or get his own County to rule as thanks for saving every fucking body.

Conflicting statements.

Not conflicting, you are just retarded.

...

...

Liar.

Fun fact: if you look closely enough, you can actually see nipples on this particular image of Zelda. Remember actually fapping to that on the strategy guide my brother borrowed back when we had no fucking internet.

How big is Bowser's cock?

You could just admit that you were wrong.

B-but Zelda is my favorite game character, he fights ganondorfs and doesn't afraid of anything!

Not that user, but stop being a baiting cuck

None of this is bait faggot. Stop calling anything that you don't like bait.

no you fucking cuck

first of all, in ALL of the zelda games, it's a monarchy, which means one person rules all.
it's also a dynasty of sorts, where one family (I.E. the Royal Family) rules the kingdom. Zelda, for example in Twilight Princess, has power simply because her father is not present, nor is there any other ruler TO rule. She would have the same power and ability as a man than a female. In this way, the zelda games represent a egalitarian monarchy, sometimes seen in history, where the ruler has absolute power, gender is not in question.
Just because the person on top happens to be female, does not mean that it is a matriarchy. Germany is far from a matriarchy, and that country has Merkel on the top.
Quite frankly, you could make a better case about the Zelda games being the opposite, as we have yet to see a notable mother figure for Zelda. (read: queen)
Additionally, I wouldn't say Zelda is a inept matriarch, because one, I already disproved the matriarch part, and second, Zelda not only has the literal genes of a goddess, but in a few iterations she does somewhat show she has what it takes to be a leader, like in Twilight Princess she is obviously capable of some military skill.

so OP, how about you play the fucking games and get the fuck back to plebbit?

Well I wouldn't go that far, but she is pretty great.

Zelda is only the ruler in three of the games, Twilight Princess, Spirit Tracks and Hyrule Warriors. In all the others, she either has a father who rules or was recently deposed.

OKAY I'M EATING THE BAIT

Normal Midna > Short stack Midna.

It's the truth and you know it.

How about we discuss the real heart of the problem. Such as zelda being a heartless bitch.

I think both have their charms.

No wonder all Nintenyearolds are such a bounch of beta cukcs

Why don't they just kill Ganon?

Good thing that's only ever been true in a couple of Zelda games.

After the first few times he destroyed the Kingdom they probably figured he'd just reincarnate, so trapping him is smarter than waiting for him to randomly pop up.

I think you need to stop browsing fir a month. Take some time off.

I think Link needs to blow a load in Zelda and raise his son to slaughter Ganon and take his piece of the triforce, thus ensuring eternal peace in Hyrule.

Or he could just do it himself?

There's got to be a way to get that piece of the triforce back.

Can one person embody more than one aspect of the triforce?

i wish there were more lewds of her human form

This is all I got.

Ocarina of Time alone whom has Ruto (Link actually became engaged to her and she actually wanted to follow through with that), the farmer girl, and the sand nigress but only one of them lives to the end.

Shortstack Midna is and always will be superior. Big Midna is nice and all but terribly generic.

I don't have much either, but I can at least fill more than 5 attachments.

...

That's her best looking form tbh. Adult Midna looks fragile and I hate her silly hat.

Where's the futacock?

i came running as fast as i could, did someone mention midna's futa cock?

yes

'cause i got it right here

...

...

i would go deep into imp midna, and it'd mean a lot to me.

hope that was enough for you f39764

honestly did it as a joke but thanks anyways user

>futa with balls
****

all futas should have balls, otherwise its just some weird anime garbage that shouldn't even be working in the first place.

When Link isn't there to save the day in Ocarina of Time, the Knights of Hyrule just fill his role instead. The only difference is that in the timeline where Link personally defeats Ganon, he comes back and ruins things so hard the gods have to flood Hyrule. In the timeline where Link doesn't do shit and the Knights save the day, the kingdom expands its territory many times over, until it becomes ridiculously huge in Zelda II.

Debatable. Western society in general could be argued to be one.

They do a few times. He always finds a way to use some magic to come back to life. And Four Swords Adventures is actually a different reincarnation of Ganondorf who goes through a different process to become Ganon.

...

all western civilization is cucked beyond salvation. no amount of trump or future republican candidates will heal the damage that the women rights marxist movement has done. its like cutting a limb off, it doesn't grow back.

At the end of every one that she wasn't the ruler of except LTTP, you have put her back in power. Stop lying.

some beautiful nipples right there

in general, germany is not really a matriarch society.
in general, western society isn't really a matriarch society.
sure, women do have advantages that place them higher than men, but that doesn't mean a man can't achieve most, if not all, the same feats a women can.
"Matriarchy is a social system in which females hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property at the specific exclusion of men, at least to a large degree."
or
"form of social organization in which the mother or oldest female is the head of the family, and descent and relationship are reckoned through the female line; government or rule by a woman or women."
neither are prevalent in either german or mainly western culture.
there are a few exceptions like sweden, but so far no country is near a matriarchy just yet. (with exception of, again, sweden, but they're cucks and mostly brown anyway.)

you forget everyone collectively loses their shit and a massive war breaks out just to seal ganondorf, which, spoiler alert, he breaks free from.
you clearly haven't played any of the games.
fuck off back to tumblr.

Who doesn't feel bad that Mario still has to pay taxes even though he rescued princesses countless times.

you already contradicted yourself. accept it. your ancestors cucked themselves and all of their future generations forever until there is a gender war, or a cataclysmic natural event that forces men to put women back in their place.

and this wasn't "the joos" that did it, this one thing cuckold western white males did it themselves. because they're weak and submissive, like white genes are recessive instead of dominant.

That definition of Matriarchy you use would be okay, if Patriarchy weren't defined much more broadly. If we take the definition of Patriarchy that I'm sure all the people running western governments (not to mention universities and other institutions) use, and just swap out the masculine words for feminine, then Matriarchy would apply much more aptly.

But I digress, this isn't the point of the thread. We all know what OP was talking about, and arguing semantics is missing the point.

What the fuck are you even talking about? tumblr wouldn't say any of the shit I said. And how is citing all this lore from the games showing I didn't play the games? Wars happen after Ocarina of Time in all three timelines, just at different points. You're acting like everything's fucked beyond belief in the timeline from the original games, but Link to the Past Hyrule seems to be doing just fine. Zelda I does look much more desolate, but then Zelda II seems to show that this was largely just graphical style and the choice not to show many NPCs, because there are still plenty of lively towns full of happy people in Zelda II, and it just so happens that Hyrule has expanded its borders exponentially, which it isn't able to do in the other timelines (even the one other timeline where it survives).

The timeline where Link isn't there to save the day ends up being the best one for Hyrule in the long run.

The bottem left portion of Zelda II's map is where the original game is supposed to have taken place. It really isn't that Hyrule expanded in the single year between the two games, it is that the first game takes place in a small portion of Hyrule. That is also why there aren't a lot of people, because it is a treacherous area to live in.
The rest of the maps are just from Nintendo reinventing the wheel and not giving a shit about canon. They also screwed the pooch by making LoZ and Zelda II at the end of their timeline (and now just at the end of a particular timeline.) when they are the most primitive in terms of civilization.

You are clearly retarded.

Naw, I posted the images in that order on purpose. The Link to the Past map does match up decently well with the Zelda I map, and the Ocarina of Time map matches up decently well with the Link to the Past map. Interestingly, each is missing portions of the map before it (but of course is more detailed, to make up for it), but if you put this in chronological order, what you see is Hyrule expanding over time, with the smallest iteration being Ocarina of Time. It makes sense to say that Hyrule was already huge in Zelda I, and we just didn't see the whole thing until Zelda II, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Ocarina of Time or Link to the Past are supposed to just be small portions of Hyrule at the time.

Then we have Twilight Princess which famously tries to show that it is essentially the same map as Ocarina of Time, but much more detailed (and therefore larger in gameplay, but not in story). It adds the snow area, so once again Hyrule is getting larger, and everything else matches up pretty closely, except Death Mountain and Zora's Domain have switched places. But in the other timeline, not even that happens, everything stays pretty consistent.

Even where there are changes, they're things that can be explained. Lon Lon Ranch from OoT is in the location where the Castle is in LttP, and by Zelda I it's become the first dungeon. Meanwhile, the castle from OoT is where the Sanctuary is in LttP, and is also a dungeon in Zelda I. OoT Kakariko Village is roughly where the Graveyard is in LttP (and a grey area full of grey statues in Zelda I), and this is interesting because LttP Kakariko Village is in the same location where the Graveyard is in Zelda I. OoT Lost Woods is roughly in the location with a bunch of brambles and skeletons in LttP, and LttP Lost Woods is in a location with a bunch of dead trees in Zelda I. And of course we have things that are more obvious, like Death Mountain always being in the same location relative to a waterfall that runs south in a circle around the middle of Hyrule and then turns back south, to where the lake is (except in Zelda I where we don't see quite that far south.

Hyrule's map is very consistent, and it shows that the kingdom's domain grew much larger in the timeline where wasn't actually around to beat Ganon.

I want to have sex with Bowser tbh

YOU ARE COMPLETELY RETARDED
A patriarchy is a society in which the father is the head of the family unit; if the family unit breaks down, he thus receives custody of the children. This used to be the case in the Western world, but one of the first feminist campaigns destroyed this social norm. In the early 19th century, Caroline Norton, a prominent British feminist, campaigned for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton had undergone a divorce and the custody of the children had been awarded to their father. She worked with the politicians of the time and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to give mothers rights over fathers.
The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven. In 1873, Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached 16. The doctrine spread, then, to the majority of the other nations, as England was controlling a global empire. Mothers are now considered the de facto head of the family unit. During marital breakdown, they receive custody of the children and the family home.
Western society is a matriarchy.

Does anyone even really care about the overarching story line? Individual stories in the Legend of Zelda series are full of inconsistencies, the overarching storyline is a can of spaghetti, can't you just enjoy individual games and ignore other titles when talking about the story of an individual. The timelines thing is a bad joke and needs to die.

Here's the Breath of the Wild map, it has changed significantly since it was first shown at the VGA's in 2014, I should probably annotate the location of the games 7 towns on the map too.

There's a thing where Link goes to the Twilight verse to stay with Midna. I liked that, I liked Princess Zelda, Peach, Rosalina, and Daisy a lot I'll never have a blue eyed girlfriend ever, best I get is a mutt with brown eyes.
As far as it goes Midna is a favorite because she's unique and sort of dangerous to me but sly, and cute too.

forgot my image

That's fucking gay holy shit.

No, because each individual entry barely has a story.

If you just play each game, practically every one makes clear where it takes place in relation to at least one other title. It's not hard. You just need to actually play the games. It's especially easy if you play them in release order.

Honestly, the timelines are what happens if you take every story at face value. It's easy to fudge details, just chalk it up to the legends not exactly matching reality, and say it's all one timeline. And even then, the story still works out decently well and in mostly the same order. It doesn't even change things that much. Just Wind Waker and its sequels would have to take place at the end of the timeline, and Twilight Princess would probably be before Link to the Past but after Ocarina of Time.

Of no value when you can just add in a new timeline or when a game retcons large portions of other games. You can fit You can as much fit in Zelda storylines as you can merge two completely different games with something minor in common like Deus Ex and System Shock.

But they don't. Especially if you use the timelines. The timelines take each story at face value, no retcons. You only make minor retcons if you're ignoring the timelines. Like Ocarina of Time would have presumably retconning the part of Link to the Past where it says Ganon was defeated by the Knights of Hyrule. And honestly that would have been a very minor retcon. But it's not even that, because actually it's a timeline where the Knights did do it after Link lost. Wind Waker makes very clear it takes place after Ganon was sealed away by Link, and Twilight Princess makes quite clear (but not as much as Wind Waker) that it takes place when Ganon is defeated in the other timeline.

I'll give you one thing though. I think it's a cop out to just say Link died fighting Ganon in the original timeline from the first games. If anything, I think it would make more sense to say that's the timeline that's created when Link goes back in time as part of gameplay, which only actually needs to be done once, and would leave that future with no Link to defeat Ganon.

It's hard to say they don't connect when Ocarina of Time is very clearly just playing out the backstory that was explained in Link to the Past. It's a very direct prequel. Wind Waker then very clearly references a whole bunch of shit from Ocarina of Time. They're good enough to do it in a way that you don't absolutely need to play every game to get it, but if you do, the links are very concrete.

I respect that Aonuma and pals have TRIED to work in easter eggs and meta concepts to suggest there's a bigger single universe, but the fact that each game takes the same basic concept and spins a new version of it with a drastically different aesthetic and mechanics are the thing I find most appealing. Trying to tie all the pieces together actually makes it less fun for me - and I'm usually the first autist to groove on that dumb bullshit.

Capeshit is the only other genre that tries to create an evolving continuity with the same big ideas, but capeshit is still somehow infinitely worse than Nintendo telling baby's first Germanic myth over and over again. It's all cucked to shit now, but it was always stupid regardless.

I didn't argue that those two were small portions. I said the small area in Zelda II's map was LoZ entire area. And I wouldn't agree that their maps match up well. Lake hylia moves in every single one of them (except LoZ to Zelda II). Death Mountain also moves in them. So if you take Ocarina as the first with its temple of time being the resting place of the Master Sword, well then Death Mountain is in the wrong area in LTTP. Also the Lost Woods moved and although that could just be a new forest with a traditional name it begs the question why it turned into a hilly/platau area.
There are similarities, but not clearly enough to project that Hyrule expanded its borders. Nintendo just didn't care much about continuity as much as vague similarity and naming conventions.
Also I was ignoring towns like Kakareto, or Hyrule Castle moving since those can be explained by war/migration.

and here I thought they were trying to resolve continuity errors

...

wew lad

Where is Termina?

Mario is truly the modern Cincinnatus.

Fuck you. It ruined lore and it had shit game play.

Wrong. Minish Cap you restore her father, in Wind Waker, you destroy her Kingdom.

Shit taste fam

Also, in Ocarina of Time you prevent her father from being deposed. Have you actually played any Zeldas?

wtf i hate zelda now

I guess we should count the CDI games too.
Link does not get the credit for Hyrule being destroyed.

When she's still a child, yeah. You put her in power in the future.

This is horrible bait.

Why did you bother replying?

I think your premise isn't quite accurate. Let's start with "lonely" as a descriptor to Link or Mario. Is Link lonely? He often has a family or a village that he's at least somewhat attached to before he goes off on whatever adventure he's got to go on, despite the fact he's a functional mute. However, he is certainly more distant to the people around him than Mario. Mario is a well-known celebrity in the worlds he travels, everyone knows him and most people love him. He's chummy with all the citizens, he's got a great relationship with his brother, and he's got peach. This isn't even including all the parties he's constantly included in. So, maybe you could call Link lonely but Mario? No fucking way.
Now, onto "disposable." Link, the hero of time, is certainly not disposable. He's a legendary hero, he's also got some kind of mantling nonsense associated with him. He's not some "literally who" that you can just replace if he fails. His failure means everything gets all fucked up. I don't see how you could consider that disposable. I think I've probably already touched on why Mario isn't disposable, but in short he's basically the only one with the skill and perseverance to get anything done - with a few exceptions of course. Luigi has all the skill (and perhaps more, considering Mario gets outskilled by ghosts at least twice, requiring Luigi to help him out) but none of the perseverance or motivation to do anything really heroic.
As for a lack of recognition, that's pretty much entirely false. Mario and Link are both celebrated by their respective people. (Though with Link it tends to be before and after his time, and during his time he tends to be somewhat obscure.)

Your bit about the inept matriarchy is probably about right, for Peach at least. There is no indication that Peach even does anything other than exist in a castle, write Mario letters and go hang out with her friends. Zelda usually has actual duties though, plus she's tangled into the whole nonsense mantling thing that goes on in Hyrule so it's not so easy to just say she's an "ineffective matriarch" and toss her character aside. Besides, I don't think we've ever really even got a good look at the inside of the politics in either kingdom. Perhaps they are in regency, perhaps the power lies with a parliament or with some other form of aristocracy. It's entirely possible (though it would be a cop out) that Peach and Zelda are simply national symbols with no real power of governance.

TL;DR: Those Heroes are at least somewhat sociable, fairly precious to their lands, and celebrated. The women are also not as worthless as you insist.

You're making a bunch of assumptions to justify your butthurt.

You don't know what disposable means. Disposable does not mean it doesn't have a use. Disposable paper plates have a use, even if the end result is to pitch them in the trash. Link has a use, up until Ganon or whatever threat is defeated. Then he is treated as disposable. It is the degree of indifference afforded him after successfully saving everything. You would think at the very least he would be in the employ of the kingdom as a royal agent with a title and land. However at best he has received a shield once (majora's mask) and gotten with the princess once. Every other time that I can think of he's returned to being a nobody, hence disposable. Wind Waker doesn't count. In fact I barely count it as a title at all since it basically started the retarded timeline problems. People like to blame Ocarina for that, but Ocarina had an established canon outcome of Hyrule being saved in both timelines, and continuing the Child timeline in Majora's mask (hence the other timeline is just an alternate universe now that doesn't matter), but here comes Wind Waker where we got to flood everything just so Miyamoto can have his sailing gimick, and we have two timelines invented to explain why Hyrule is flooded in one and not the other. Then they asspull another timeline if "link failed".
In any case, Link is treated as generally disposable once his use is over with. Link also most of the time puts Zelda back on her throne, alone, for no reward. That is some beta shit. Not once does it end up as King Link at the end of the game. Why not? If they are all separate timelines, why doesn't one of them have at least one King Link in it? The reason is that would sub-ordinate Zelda to him. Link must remain beta for reasons unknown.

Oh, and yeah the princess he got with once was actually one that had been asleep for centuries. Not the one he fucking saved from Ganon's lair itself. You would think she might be grateful for that, but nah Impa had to throw him a bone with a quest to restore a totally different sleeping Zelda instead.

You're 100% retarded

You have no proof there isn't, and no proof that most Links don't become ruler of Hyrule. You're using your fanfic as facts.

Because futas are a concept that make perfect sense

Being celebrated when you are dead isn't exactly taking away his disposability. You do realize some military personal are treated as disposable as well right, even though they have a purpose, even though they do well, and even though they get a medal. You do not know what disposable means and yet you call me retarded. You should be ashamed, but I know not to expect something as noble as shame for being shameful from you.

Headcanon again? Don't you ever tire of having to complete Nintendo's stories for them?

Matriarchy is a society wherein females are the leaders of the household, which is arguably most western societies at this point.