icirate said: Pretending sexual dimorphism doesn't exist when constructing such gender roles (which you will always inevitably do anyway) is nothing short of an attempt at cultural anarchy. What exactly do you mean by cultural anarchy, and why would it be undesirable? |
 |
| The real question is, should anime be a commercial product that seeks to make money by providing a product appealing to consumers, or should it be a bunch of SJW lecturing and moralizing about gender roles? Because I don't really think it can be both. And FWIW, anime already is more feminist than Japanese society as a whole. Sure, it's far from perfect (see: rape hentai, visual objectification, romantic subservience to men, etc.), but when it comes to women fighting, leading, and otherwise playing active story roles, anime's ahead of the curve. Heck, even many shameless ecchi harem anime pass the "Bechdel Test" of having more than one named female character who have a conversation about something other than a man. There are complaints that women are underrepresented in US movies and TV shows, which is obviously not a problem in anime when many shows have women outnumbering women 5:1, 10:1, or even Infinity:1 with all-female casts frequently appearing. (There are shows with all-male casts, but those are usually aimed at women in the first place.) While there are some problematic themes and titles that could be improved, anime's main mission should be to entertain and sell discs/books/merchandise, not to serve as a mouthpiece for the Western feminist movement. Speaking of which... What, exactly, do you mean when you say "American progressiveness" is bugging you? I'm all for progressivism, myself, but that doesn't mean I agree with the feminist culture wars. Women having the right to vote, drive, get educated, work (with reasonably equal pay), make reproductive choices, own property, and otherwise have equal protections and rights under the law? Sure, I'm totally on board with that. But when your movement has devolved to fighting against public transit sitting postures, strangers saying "hello" in the street, and video game character choices, or trying to criminalize male heterosexuality by branding all cishet dudes as rapists and pedophiles, maybe it's time to call it a day and put your cards on the table instead of overplaying your hand at every opportunity. |
ZalisJun 10, 2015 1:56 AM
on 
AttackOnTetris said: What exactly do you mean by cultural anarchy, and why would it be undesirable? The emphasis is being placed on 'deconstructing' existing gender roles. When I say cultural anarchy I use the phrase quite literally: The cultural precepts of what it means to be a 'real man' or a 'real woman' are being torn down, but nothing is being constructed in its place. It's analogous to demolishing a home you used to live in because you didn't like the conditions there. Great. Now you've gotten rid of that oppressive home, but you still need somewhere to take shelter from the elements, don't you? Similarly, if you are of a particular gender, you still want to have concepts of appropriate actions to take in specific situations. Saying that this or that action is no longer what an ideal person of your gender does only leads to confusion if you don't replace it with something else. One example of this could be the people that insist that all forms of courting strangers in public are unacceptable behaviour. Yes, they do exist. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
AttackOnTetris said: Learn to read context. Oh god the irony. Rebyuuu said: men and women aren't the same, so naturally being a man and being a woman are two different things. As demonstrated by this one sentence post, you don't really need to be a genius to understand how over the top some anti-sexist arguments are. Zalis said: anime already is more feminist than Japanese society as a whole. Let's not turn this into a feminism rant. I would probably use the word "more politically correct". And yes, plenty of anime do not portray gender norms, given how culturally strict society is there. There is a reason why anime is a popular medium. It constantly challenges and explores ideas outside of social norms. icirate said: Pretending sexual dimorphism doesn't exist when constructing such gender roles (which you will always inevitably do anyway) is nothing short of an attempt at cultural anarchy. A huge problem created by people who attempt to be way too politically correct to the extent of ignoring the obvious. So much of modern media is mass manipulated garbage pulled out of context to create some form of propaganda. So much so that the difference between a journalist, "scientist", politician and an actor is almost zero. |
 |
arthurhahm said: "you're a man, aren't you," are often used within anime. There's supposed to be something offensive about telling a man 'you're a man'? Ok. arthurhahm said: Should a man always be excessively strong and bulky, eat a lot, be assertive, and "man up?" Should a female always be passive, weak, wear frilly clothing, and be domineered over by men? What are you thoughts? No, but what does this have to do with anything? Opinion: I don't find it offensive to the point where I stop watching the animation, but I really wonder if it's okay to place gender roles on individuals How is anime 'placing gender roles on individuals? I shouldn't need to say this, but anime characters are not actually real. |
 |
BatoKusanagi said: arthurhahm said: "you're a man, aren't you," are often used within anime. There's supposed to be something offensive about telling a man 'you're a man'? Ok. arthurhahm said: Should a man always be excessively strong and bulky, eat a lot, be assertive, and "man up?" Should a female always be passive, weak, wear frilly clothing, and be domineered over by men? What are you thoughts? No, but what does this have to do with anything? Opinion: I don't find it offensive to the point where I stop watching the animation, but I really wonder if it's okay to place gender roles on individuals How is anime 'placing gender roles on individuals? I shouldn't need to say this, but anime characters are not actually real. Apparently according to these people if a character just happens to meet the expectations of patriarchal gender roles it means that these gender roles were forced on them and the anime is so sexist , lmao. If a character has any other kind of personality nothing was forced on them and it's all perfectly fine. Which in the end is nothing more than accepting these gender roles, lol. People should understand that character can be stereotypical without anything being forced on them. |
 |
DrCoppelius said: tsudecimo said: How.... Do people just drop common sense when it comes to HxH? Any other shounen thats popular with low female number would have been called sexist and shit. Whatever.. No, I've decided to stop consider HxH sexist for several reasons. To begin with, the girls are definitely not that few. There's Biscuit, multiple members of the Phantom Troupe like Pakunoda, this one woman whose name I forget (the ugly one with the really good hearing) and I would assume the Chimera Ants add more. All of these women are treated equally to the men. Anyway, a low number of character of a certain gender is only really an issue if there are no other shows of that genre with many characters of that gender. It would be a problem if there were a lot of adventure shows and they were all exclusively for boys. As it is, I do think there's a gender disbalance in battle shounen, but I think shows other than HxH should be blamed for that. There's nothing really wrong with an author that prefers focusing on guys, so long as he still treats the females well. Naruto has much worse treatment of its females. You say multiple, that imply many, but there is only 3 female members in the phantom troupe. You literally just counted 4 female characters in 70 something episodes, that have been even remotely relevant. How are they treated equally, by the gender giving very small relevance and importance in the story? the fact that there are only two physically strong female characters (Bisciut and Machi, and maybe Shizuku) So yes they are few. I have no idea, what are you even getting at, you are judging the sexist of a show, because of how it compares to other similar shows? preferencing the boys is sexism.. But HxH gets a pass, because it didn't even bother to include female characters in the story? Female character in Naruto are treated better than the extreme majority of any shounen series I've ever watched or read, and with all due respect, I don't think you have watched enough shounen, to make that statement about how the female characters are generally treated in shounen manga. |
 |
| People read far too much into it. "Sometimes as cigar is just a cigar." It's absurd to think that authors use more male characters to somehow empower males. How about the possibility that the author simply is better at writing male characters than female ones? Should he still go against his writing wishes, his preferences and his abilities just to satisfy some ridiculous "political correctness"? An author needs his artistic freedom, else there is no point for the author to create a story in the first place. |
Grey-ZoneJun 10, 2015 7:57 AM
 |
DrCoppelius said: Maybe not that many, okay. But I prefer writing female characters. I would assume Togashi prefers writing males. I'm not going to call that sexist, it's a personal writing preference in the same vein as Hiroyuki Imaishi favoring female characters over males. And yet I never see anyone complaining that KLK is sexist for not having as many relevant men as there are women (granted, the Devas do balance it out a bit, but they're not as important as Ragyo/Satsuki/Ryuko/Nui). Yes, I do think it's important to consider a whole genre before making statements of the sort. It's bothersome to me if I want to watch an adventure show with people of my gender and I find nothing. It's not bothersome to me if some series are moreso aimed at men, others moreso aimed at women and yet others aimed at everybody. I just don't want to be excluded from battle shounen overall. There are no good female characters in Naruto. I'm surprised you even think that. Sakura and Ino are annoying, shallow female stereotypes for most of the show. Hinata too, albeit a different one. I'd rather see some girls I can appreciate than a bunch of awful, stereotypical girls. Quality over quantity. I don't see anybody saying KLK treats both gender equally, or that the men in KLK are treated equally, because they are not, same goes for HxH. Don't get this paragraph, so I will just skip it. Quite a bold statement, from someone who doesn't have Naruto in his list, I will give the benefit of the doubt, and assume you watched it back then and dropped it. Sakura is definitely not a stereotype, she goes through a lot of development in the series, the author said, the point of Sakura was to present her as an unlikable person, and change her later on, which he did. Sakura is only a shallow person in the first arc on the series, which is done on purpose. She receives a lot of characterizations, and changes into a different person. I don't see what's the point in mentioning two minor supporting characters, and Hinata is shown to go through her fears, and believe in herself, while facing someone she feared, and knew won't beat, but did it anyway, because she wanted to change, if that's not an instance of a strong female mentality, I don't know what is. There are several great female characters in the series, including but not limited to, Sakura, Tsunade, Chiyoo, Kushina [best character in the series for me], Konan. It's not like I said, the female characters in Naruto are good because there is many of them, so I don't get what the point of that phrase, unless you are referring to HxH in comparison to Naruto, which I also disagree with, Only Pakunda is a good female character imo, the rest not so much, as they are fairly one dimensional/two dimensional. |
|
| If you're relying on anime to reassure you that all people were created equal, then your parents done f*cked it up. Not addressing anyone in particular here. Well, maybe a little bit. |
| What Kabaneri Did Wrong: - Edgelord protagonist - Special snowflake girlfriend - Giving humans powers - Failing to create a unique/memorable setting What Kabaneri Did Right: ... |
DrCoppelius said: Sakura is a terrible character. She's far weaker than any important male character. Giving her healer abilities is stereotypical and keeps her out of the fight most of the time. I don't remember her having an important role in an important fight aside from maybe fillers. Tsunade I'll give, but Biscuit is equal to her. Chiyo appears in only one arc and she's not really complex, so she's not better than any of the girls I listed. Kushina doesn't get much time either, although maybe more later on when I stopped reading. Konan is one villain out of... I don't even know how many. The whole of Akatsuki, especially Tobi and Itachi, Pain, Madara, Orochimaru and his fighters, etc. She doesn't even get as much attention as Pain. Hinata's character development takes way too much time. She stays fearful throughout most of the story. The best character development I saw for her was actually in filler and she might have been my favorite if it had stayed. But what the hell, it was filler. You keep repeating she is a terrible character, it would help the discussion if you explain why. This is a pretty terrible reason to call a character bad, just because she is not as strong as other characters? does that mean Kakashi is a bad character because Naruto and Sasuke are miles stronger than him, even though his is their teacher and older than them? While comparing her to the important male characters, you are forgetting she is stronger than other male characters, she is stronger physically than more than half the cast, she gets in the fights when she can. That's amusing considering she saved the lives of the protagonist and deturagonist in the second arc of the series, in the forest of death, she protected them, where they couldn't protect themselves. She took out a member of the strongest criminal organization in the ninja world, Sasori. She played a part in the demise of the final villain in the series. She is the reason Sasuke and Naruto met again, in the Kage summit arc, and she always tried to be there for Naruto in Shippuden, those are important roles. You say it's stereotypical that she is a healer, while ignoring her monster strength which is atypical for female characters if we go by your view on what's stereotypical. Tsunde is most definitely not equal to Biscuit. Tsunade was the first female hokage, it's the highest rank in the village, was Biscuit a strong figure in the HxH world? did she have development? was she active in the story, beyond training Gon and Killua? the answer is no to all these questions. She didn't have nearly enough screen time/relevance/importance, to be equal to Tsunade. She is a good representation of a female character, which is why I included her, how the fuck is she not better..she is an example of strong character in general, with an importance in the plot, that makes her better than Machi, Shiziuke. At this point, it would be easier, if you say your view on what qualifies as a good female character in the first place.. No shit, she doesn't get as much attention as Pain. Pain is not a random antagonist, he is the most important antagonist to Naruto's character (if you don't count Sasuke) I really don't feel like you remember the series at all. Konan is a good representation for a strong female character, which the point of mentioning her. I'm not sure how that's relevant to my point of Hinata, but again, that's wrong, she doesn't have enough screen time, for her to be fearful through most of it. Most of her screen time is dedicated to her wanting to improved. Considering you don't even remember the canon well, I will take that with a grain of salt. Her best development was her confrontation with Pain, as it made her one of the bravest characters in the series in general, male or female, which in my opinion, the ultimate sign of a strong female character, when a character is shown great focus and moments, that have nothing to do with their gender, they are good characters because they are good characters, period, that what equality should be like. Your thought and logical process and memory is heavily flawed imo. |
tsudecimoJun 10, 2015 8:59 AM
|
| My fault for taking you seriously. |
|
| Yes, large portions of anime promote gender roles that fit in with traditional japanese stereotypes. What else is new? |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| Writing posts about series I like about is never a waste of my time, I like to write in length when I can. I just feel a tad frustrated because you are wrong about Naruto and in general about your concept of strong female characters and won't admit it, which happens 90% the time of online argument but oh well. I feel like I argued with you before on female characters, a sense of deja vu, but I don't remember. |
|
| Why must any discussion about "sexism" in any popular culture hinge on and completely revolve around whatever it is the female characters are doing? Everyone's so quick to denounce the damsel in distress trope, yet they're the ones tripping over themselves to project it onto every female character. |
 |
| lol what a discussion XD drcoppulius: naruto has no good female characters because naruto sucks and hxh does because I like it tsudecimo: :( |
 |
ichii_1 said: lol what a discussion XD drcoppulius: naruto has no good female characters because naruto sucks and hxh does because I like it tsudecimo: :( You should have intervened and told us the truth. That Bleach is where the great female characters are at, am i right or am i right? |
|
DrCoppelius said: ichii_1 said: lol what a discussion XD drcoppulius: naruto has no good female characters because naruto sucks and hxh does because I like it tsudecimo: :( This post is unfortunately true. I'd like to apologize. I have issues with the way Sakura was handled in some places. The arc with Zabuza in particular, where I felt that Sasuke has places where he shone, as did Naruto, and their relationship was developed whereas Sakura felt like she was the 'technically good' character but didn't actually do much. However, you are right that Tsunade is a strong female character equal to others in the show, especially Jiraiya. Hinata I can't speak for very well--I remember her getting very minimal development in like, the last chapter I read, but that was it. Either my memory is lacking or I haven't read it. I got through Pain though, so I guess my memory is lacking. I do wish she'd gotten developed earlier but that's an issue I have with most Naruto characters, not with specifically female characters. Konan I stand by to an extent. There were more important male antagonists than female antagonists and I think it would have been nice, since they put one in, to actually give her as much time as Pain had. Naruto is fine then, for the most part. My apologies. I was wrong. Well that takes good character to admit that, thanks for being polite. I have my issues with how Sakura was handled but they are different than yours. |
|
tsudecimo said: You should have intervened and told us the truth. That Bleach is where the great female characters are at, am i right or am i right? Of course you're right :) Here's one example The famous "Kurosaki kun!" from Orihime. http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1373812 |
|
| Wow, this thread tho! With this sort of mentality, just about everything produced before the 2000s is sexist to some extent. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
tsudecimo said: Yoruichi god tier female character.ichii_1 said: lol what a discussion XD drcoppulius: naruto has no good female characters because naruto sucks and hxh does because I like it tsudecimo: :( You should have intervened and told us the truth. That Bleach is where the great female characters are at, am i right or am i right? |
 |
| What? Is science the religion of the new age? Because if so, I am very much "anti-science". AttackOnTetris said: MintPanda said: Why? It's okay to completely ignore factual biology? Damn, this is a new level of ignorance. Not only did you not even take 30 seconds to read his post which wasn't even that long, you continued to assume he was being some sexist poster even after he blatantly pointed out you didn't read. Learn to read context. Obviously physiology mentioned by the other poster is uncontroversial science, but the conclusions that gender-role-enforcers draw from it are bogus and unscientifically derived, so I am saying it doesn't matter in that context. Engineering society from premature airheaded conclusions (jumping from point A(science) to point B (supposed knowledge of ideal gender roles)) these gender enforcers are the anti-science ones. I still heavily doubt you read the entirety of my post, because everything in your reply had very little to do with what I was saying save for the part I quoted in my response to your reply, which was indeed addressed, and if you had actually read the post like I mentioned you would see that I didn't actually contradict what you said- that not all women want to have children and that not all women want to be housewives. I talked about these specific examples explicitly and I didn't make them out to be a problem, yet you choose to reply to me with that as though I had not acknowledged it. I never spoke against free will even slightly. Even so, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't making a fool of yourself. However, if I assume that you did read and comprehend my entire post, then that makes your case all the worse because you aren't even arguing gender roles or sexism anymore. Instead, you're using said topic as a proxy to promote social relativism or really (as another poster called it) social anarchy, the idea that "nothing" regarding society is true, that there are no appropriate social or societal standards to be held to. It's only "whatever someone wants". Let me break down (again) what I am actually saying. I am saying that nature, specifically biology enforces "gender roles" in their most basic and simple sense. The mother nurtures the child (since her own body is engineered to do so) and the father (by process of elimination) protects the mother/child. You yourself have acknowledged this much; where you branch off is when you say "it is no longer relevant [in modern society]". This is why I brought a child's development into the picture. I am not talking about science here. Science cannot comprehend free will or the mind. It can only understand the physical and tangible. When you try to use "science" to explain thought processes, mental development, and relationships between people, it is no longer truly science. It is just a mindset trying to use "science" (as a concept) as the method of acceptance, because "if it's scientific, it's true"- or so goes the popular mentality. This is why I accused it of being a "religion"; stamping "science" on a viewpoint has become an all too popular and (sadly) effective means of indoctrinating people with whatever claims those who use it make. My argument is very simple. Nature provides the base "gender role" with the body parts you are born with. You are or you aren't born with the tools to perform a certain function (such as feeding a baby). This is science. However, everything beyond that is not true science. What you make of these tools, the conclusions you draw from their presence, is fundamentally disconnected from science. Science tells us what is there. It does not tell us why it is there (in the "mental", "societal", or "spiritual" sense). I did make some claims that were not based on science. This does not make the claims correct or incorrect in and of itself, because science isn't meant to be applied to everything. Science has boundaries of application, and human thought along with appropriate behavior is outside of its scope. Is it not you who is "anti-science" by degrading its name in the pursuit of pushing your own worldview? Going back to my argument, my one scientific remark was that men and women are provided with different bodily tools that are better suited to specific functions. A man cannot feed a baby with his body. This was my foundation, something that everyone can and should be able to acknowledge. Where I branched out (and away from the subject and use of science, which cannot be applied beyond that base claim) is when I started talking about a child's development. I say, a child needs a mother and a father. The role of a mother and the role of a father are distinct and equally necessary for a stable childhood. I'm saying that if one of these roles isn't present, or if one of them isn't fulfilled properly, it leads to disenfranchisement. Children need to feel important. They need to be loved. They need to be taught how to behave properly. They need to know the difference between right and wrong. They need to feel safe. They need a proper foundation and environment to develop in. To deprive a child of one role, or if the role(s) aren't fulfilled properly (be it through divorce, neglect, or what have you) is to rob them of the opportunity to (easily) become stable and mature adults. You can say all of that is wrong, but you can't say that it's scientifically wrong. Nor can you refute my claim by saying it isn't scientific, because we aren't talking about science. We're talking about relationships and their affect on people's lives, of which I am claiming the parental relationship is very important. I am saying because nature provides two distinct roles when it comes to children (both in birth and care), then these roles are both important and necessary even if they aren't as emphasized by the need of physical labor. The first half of that statement (pre-comma) is about science; the second half (post-comma) is about relationships. I am not mixing the two. I am also saying that free will is separate from this necessity of parental roles. I never said that a woman must be a mother or that a man must be a father. There is no requirement to have children if you don't want them. I also never said that, if a man and woman do become parents, that the woman must stay at home and the man must go out to provide money. I am simply saying firstly that one should focus more on "providing" as a role and one should focus more on "nurturing" as a role, and secondly that both need to be present. If a man wants to tend the home and nurture the kids and the woman wants to provide income, then that's okay. However, and I did not say this in my last post (just so you don't misunderstand), I do think that men tend to be better at providing and women tend to be better at nurturing. (I really shouldn't have to point this out, but this is [obviously] an opinion.) If a burglar attacks a household, I think it's normal and appropriate to assume the man should be the one to deal with it because the tools nature has provided him with makes it easier for him to do so. This isn't to say it is inappropriate for a woman to do so or that a woman can't do so; it's just not "typical". I also think it's fair to say that most women would want a man to protect them/take care of them (barring some improper childhood experience) and most men would want to protect/take care of a woman. Again, however, I'm not saying that this needs to be enforced. There's nothing wrong with a man or woman following their aspirations/dreams/goals in and of itself, even if this means they do not fall within this commonality. For example, a woman might want a partner yet still want to pursue her personal aspirations, meaning she would be better suited with a man who wants to raise up a family and doesn't mind not being the provider to do so. At that, there's nothing saying a man or woman needs to desire a partner at all. It's just common for this to be true. I will only make objection when you attack the family as a unit and say these "gender roles" do not play a part in raising children, or that they are not important in raising children. I do not think the family unit's importance to society and culture can be underestimated, even to the point of calling it the foundation of society. I do not take this lightly. However, it is a completely separate topic from sexism. Sexism and gender roles are not the same. To mostly quote a user above, should "women have the right to vote, drive, get educated, work (with reasonably equal pay), make reproductive choices, own property, and otherwise have equal protections and rights under the law? Sure, I'm totally on board with that." Women and men are both human, and they both possess free will. Even so, do not take your arguments against sexism so far that they encroach upon the importance of the family unit, which has nothing to do with sexism. That is all. If you skimmed my post the first time, please do not skim it this time. More to the point of this thread, I don't think "gender roles" are taken to into sexism territory very heavily in anime, at least given what I've seen. |
TripleSRankJun 10, 2015 2:32 PM
| @DrCoppelius Can you tell me your problem with the way female characters are treated in SNK? I can kinda understand for Naruto but SNK? You told me last time that the series was fine in that aspect so what gives? |
| Well as far as HxH, it's not just about female characters, although I would like to say that Melody, Zazan and Canary are underappreciated and represent something far deeper than "strong female character". Pitou at least looks female and plays a story role which is reserved for males 99% of the time. However, the way it treats the biologically male characters is where it really shines, which is unlike any anime that I know of. |
|
| I didn't actually think about it until hana's VA pointed it out in an interview but mitchiko and hatchin is pretty empowering to women. |
 Anime is good, fucking deal with it. |
DrGeroCreation said: tsudecimo said: Yoruichi god tier female character.You should have intervened and told us the truth. That Bleach is where the great female characters are at, am i right or am i right? Not really but I like her, and the green arrcannar as well. |
|
tsudecimo said: Isn't the stereotypical super strong female relies more on speed than strength, is adept at espionage, stealth and infiltration, is the only shinigami that doesn't need a zanpaktou to be a threat because she can rely on her mastery of shunko and shunpo, one of the rare female senseis (mainly guys act as senseis for the mc in battle shonen), loyal leader considering she gave up her position in the Onmitsukidō. and her captain position to help her former subordinate (Urahara) to escape from being prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. To me that is sufficient for her to be considered a god tier female anime character.DrGeroCreation said: Yoruichi god tier female character. Not really but I like her, and the green arrcannar as well. |
|
| Okay... |
|
tsudecimo said: I like Nel too but I wouldn't consider her that great of a female character like Yoruichi.Okay... |
|
DrCoppelius said: Agafin said: @DrCoppelius Can you tell me your problem with the way female characters are treated in SNK? I can kinda understand for Naruto but SNK? You told me last time that the series was fine in that aspect so what gives? I don't have an issue with it, I just don't think it has really well-developed female characters. I've seen various people bring it up as being oh-so-feminist and I don't really see that. It's a good show and there's not a disbalance, but people praise Mikasa for being a Strong Female Character unlike other shows, and I don't think that's warranted since she doesn't get a lot of character development. There are better examples if you really want good, well-developed, strong female characters. Essentially: not calling it sexist, calling it average in its portrayal of characters, including female ones. Okay, I get your point and I'm happy that you don't consider it sexist. Sure the females are not that developed but the same can be said for males, so it's more about the fact that it was just one season and so didn't have time to develop characters (besides my man Jean) than it is about gender. If what I heard about season 2's potential content is true, then all that will change probably elevating it to HxH or FMA's level when it comes to gender equality. |
Zalis said: The real question is, should anime be a commercial product that seeks to make money by providing a product appealing to consumers, or should it be a bunch of SJW lecturing and moralizing about gender roles? Because I don't really think it can be both. And FWIW, anime already is more feminist than Japanese society as a whole. Sure, it's far from perfect (see: rape hentai, visual objectification, romantic subservience to men, etc.), but when it comes to women fighting, leading, and otherwise playing active story roles, anime's ahead of the curve. Heck, even many shameless ecchi harem anime pass the "Bechdel Test" of having more than one named female character who have a conversation about something other than a man. There are complaints that women are underrepresented in US movies and TV shows, which is obviously not a problem in anime when many shows have women outnumbering women 5:1, 10:1, or even Infinity:1 with all-female casts frequently appearing. (There are shows with all-male casts, but those are usually aimed at women in the first place.) While there are some problematic themes and titles that could be improved, anime's main mission should be to entertain and sell discs/books/merchandise, not to serve as a mouthpiece for the Western feminist movement. Speaking of which... What, exactly, do you mean when you say "American progressiveness" is bugging you? I'm all for progressivism, myself, but that doesn't mean I agree with the feminist culture wars. Women having the right to vote, drive, get educated, work (with reasonably equal pay), make reproductive choices, own property, and otherwise have equal protections and rights under the law? Sure, I'm totally on board with that. But when your movement has devolved to fighting against public transit sitting postures, strangers saying "hello" in the street, and video game character choices, or trying to criminalize male heterosexuality by branding all cishet dudes as rapists and pedophiles, maybe it's time to call it a day and put your cards on the table instead of overplaying your hand at every opportunity.Best post in this thread. I see more subversion of gender roles in anime than just about any other medium. I should know, as I usually enjoy inversions of gender tropes. I'd love more anime where the women are the strong meathead fighters and the guys are the weak but smarter supporting cast. But as it is there are already plenty of anime where women are the aggressors, be it in romance or fighting. Like with fighting I prefer women being the aggressors in romance too, so I notice when that happens too. How many western TV shows are there where women are the fighters and/or the sexually aggressive party? Some for sure, but probably not as many. There's also WAY more passive men, for better or worse (sometimes it can add to the series, sometimes it's just a drag. Depends on context and execution). It's still easy to take issue with gender representation despite this, but you really have to go looking for it. It's easy to tear apart anything when you put it under a microscope and dissect it. If people did that with male representation they could also find a lot wrong. But generally people don't. Only female representation gets dissected, and so only it generally gets complained about. Then ridiculous shit like this can happen: A good way to look at things it to picture how it would be received if the genders were reversed. With this one, if a shirtless hunk was going around slaughtering women I highly doubt anyone would consider it sexist against men. On the contrary it would still likely be considered sexist against women by many. It's not an exact science, but one can make assumptions based on the general public's past reactions to things. |
hydroJun 10, 2015 9:25 PM
| Even anime I like this season has this problem: Ore Monogatari Kekkai Sensen JoJo (at least it's kinda a parody with a god damn dog and the plot making no sense whatsoever, but...) It sucks, but there's parts of American culture that sucks ass too. Worship corporations, fuck the poor, prison system, bad elections, war machine, religious control, etc... |
| How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored? |
Crimefridge said: Even anime I like this season has this problem: Ore Monogatari Kekkai Sensen JoJo (at least it's kinda a parody with a god damn dog and the plot making no sense whatsoever, but...) It sucks, but there's parts of American culture that sucks ass too. Worship corporations, fuck the poor, prison system, bad elections, war machine, religious control, etc... If I may ask, which demographic (Shounen, Shoujo, Seinen and Josei) do you think is the worst offender of this? Most people will say shounen but are shoujo really any better? |
Agafin said: If I may ask, which demographic (Shounen, Shoujo, Seinen and Josei) do you think is the worst offender of this? Most people will say shounen but are shoujo really any better? Seinen are usually the ones least likely to offend, but all of them do it over half the time. If I compared Shoujo and Shounen, then Shounen would be more sexist because Shoujo has more depictions of less-masculine men, breaking more stereotypes. Therefore, as expected, Shounen is most gender offensive. |
| How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored? |
Agafin said: Crimefridge said: Even anime I like this season has this problem: Ore Monogatari Kekkai Sensen JoJo (at least it's kinda a parody with a god damn dog and the plot making no sense whatsoever, but...) It sucks, but there's parts of American culture that sucks ass too. Worship corporations, fuck the poor, prison system, bad elections, war machine, religious control, etc... If I may ask, which demographic (Shounen, Shoujo, Seinen and Josei) do you think is the worst offender of this? Most people will say shounen but are shoujo really any better? Shoujo girls usually act feminine with the exception of few like Mafuyu in Oresama Teacher. |
 |
Crimefridge said: Even anime I like this season has this problem: Ore Monogatari Kekkai Sensen JoJo (at least it's kinda a parody with a god damn dog and the plot making no sense whatsoever, but...) It sucks, but there's parts of American culture that sucks ass too. Worship corporations, fuck the poor, prison system, bad elections, war machine, religious control, etc... Are you implying American culture don't have a lot of sexism, gender roles, etc? The only difference I see between anime and Western TV in that regard, is that western tries to acknowledge and force the idea that there is no sexism (i.e bunch of female characters being aware of sexism) which doesn't change anything because at the end of the day the sexism is still there, pointing at something, doesn't make it go away or change at it's existence. |
|
| I like how everyone think they are competent enough to make all of these sweeping generalizations around demographics, when they watched a couple of hundred anime at most, and barely any manga. The idea of sexism in fiction is fundamentally stupid, and misguided, due to the herd of idiots, who like to scream sexism at anything they don't like. |
|
tsudecimo said: Are you implying American culture don't have a lot of sexism, gender roles, etc? No, I am not implying that. I'm just saying its cultural imprint sucks. |
CrimefridgeJun 11, 2015 2:24 PM
| How do people get to 2000 hours when I'm already this bored? |
Crimefridge said: Agafin said: If I may ask, which demographic (Shounen, Shoujo, Seinen and Josei) do you think is the worst offender of this? Most people will say shounen but are shoujo really any better? Seinen are usually the ones least likely to offend, but all of them do it over half the time. If I compared Shoujo and Shounen, then Shounen would be more sexist because Shoujo has more depictions of less-masculine men, breaking more stereotypes. Therefore, as expected, Shounen is most gender offensive. Hmmm, true about seinen. I also think the same applies to Josei. Anyway, as far shounen goes, I have the impression that some people mistake a character being sexist with a show being sexist. A good example being Ray Penber x Naomi Misora couple. Some people called DN sexist because he denied his wife's help and told her that she "will forget everything about her former job (FBI agent) once they will get married and have a lot of kids for her to take care of". That was Penber being sexist, not the whole series since it was later shown that she was even a better agent than her husband and among DN's most intelligent chars. On another note, nothing beats light novels when it comes to sexism. |
More topics from this board
» Best Trap Character in Anime? ( 1 2 )GoatPieceLuffy - 3 hours ago |
67 |
by GoatPieceLuffy
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Why male characters tend to have more interesting personalities than female characters?Alpha_1_Zero - Yesterday |
37 |
by Oshieteoshiete4
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» Which, out of all your favorites, would you be least inclined to recommend to others? ( 1 2 )WatchTillTandava - Yesterday |
67 |
by Oshieteoshiete4
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Visual Novels — General ThreadShizuna - 9 hours ago |
29 |
by Jackson1333
»»
28 minutes ago |
|
» Criticism You Don't Understand. ( 1 2 )Alpha_1_Zero - Yesterday |
66 |
by LSSJ_Gaming
»»
28 minutes ago |