| shikimori san has entered the chat (nah only seen 2 Eps so can't say for sure she stays like this always? But I just watched today and now I see this thread) |
 |
| I totally agree with you, actually I don't know what more to add. Never liked this trope on the first place anyway. |
| It's depicted both ways in anime. Men protecting women(typically in sword fighting anime) and women protecting men(typically in ecchi). That's the thing about artistic freedom and what makes anime great. |
 |
| Many of my favorite characters are women that did break that troupe...10+ years ago. You just need to pick anime that do it, there's plenty of those already... Personally I love female characters with strong personalities, even if they sometimes need to be saved, Winry and Nico Robin are famous examples...sometimes strong females don't need to be rescued but still need support, Casca after becoming leader of the Hawks needed that mental support(this usually happens to male characters, which the female of is usually the savior but no one cares about this role, since isn't flashy, despite being so important...) |
 |
| the solution is jus to have men be the damsel in distress too, pretty sure there's an ara ara fetish base that has yet to be tapped to its fullest |
| "I like young-girl sexual creations, Lolicon is just one hobby of my many hobbies," he says. I ask what his wife, standing nearby, thinks of his "hobby". "She probably thinks no problem," he replies. "Because she loves young boys sexually interacting with each other." |
Short_Circut said: EdgyLord666 said: Yeah, it's quite overused. There's literally an anime airing this season with this trope as the premise, Shikimori-san everyone? wat Shikimori-san is just 99 attack 1 defence, there's no "saving from villains" lmao Bruh, Izumi's bad luck is clearly the main villain of the series. |
| Nope. We don't need to pretend nature isn't real in fiction of all things. Objectifying objects is meaningless, as well. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
| Oldest trope in human history meet modern Anime fan. Lel. |
| Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? |
"Nobody could laugh at someone who's trying their hardest" -Machio- |
Yuu_Kanzaki said: Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? According to Google it means "degrade to a status of a mere object". But considering I don't see any reason why wanting to protect your loved ones could be a bad thing, it probably lost all meaning it ever had. |
 |
JaniSIr said: Ahhh I see. I guess 'objectifying women' is not a thing here where I live. Yuu_Kanzaki said: Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? According to Google it means "degrade to a status of a mere object". But considering I don't see any reason why wanting to protect your loved ones could be a bad thing, it probably lost all meaning it ever had. |
| "Nobody could laugh at someone who's trying their hardest" -Machio- |
_-_Sally_-_ said: I'm not "Edgy." I just don't like men, and I also don't understand how anyone could be attracted to men. sounds pretty edgy to me say someone said the same thing but replacing "men" with "women" or generally anything else would still be edgy |
  |
| Some type of conflict is a necessity for an interesting story and it gets the job done. Moreover, everyone no matter how strong physically, intellectually, or emotionally needs help at some point. Besides, people seem to hate the opposite situation even more. The invulnerable type who easily overpowers any antagonist and never needs help. |
KruszerMay 3, 2022 7:20 PM
| "Laws exist only for those who cannot live without clinging onto them." -Souske Aizen "Bleach"  |
| I can't stand a useless cowardly character that takes too long to develop. It happens commonly with women in anime and it's annoying. I'm already tired of Rishia from Shield Hero. Bitch literally walks around in a costume and doubts herself every five minutes. Her development is so predictable I'd rather her die in one of the waves. |
 |
| Well, this is not the only overused trope, and it's not the worst either. I actually like it when it's done well. Other than that, I feel very nonchalant about it. Wavey_Nooby said: I actually like Rishia, but yeah, I have had my bad moments with characters that are super slow to develop. They can be so annoying. I can't stand a useless cowardly character that takes too long to develop. It happens commonly with women in anime and it's annoying. I'm already tired of Rishia from Shield Hero. Bitch literally walks around in a costume and doubts herself every five minutes. Her development is so predictable I'd rather her die in one of the waves. |
 ~Vive La Miémorrina~ Play Lolita Caramel | Admire My Artworks Follow Me On Twitter | Read My Drawing Blog |
Aditya_Dobhada said: I completely agree. Even characters that are often cited as "strong" women have inward toes and their vulnerable moments in anime, where they break down into an unnatural W-sitting position used to indicate an infantile nature. I'm completely fine with characters showing vulnerability for development, but in these cases almost always a man steps in to save the day. Also, when male characters break down, they don't revert to being child-like. The disparity demonstrates that anime still views female characters as weak and deserving to be protected.I mean a strong, confident girl/woman more than capable of handling herself alone (in the given situation) finds herself, through unfair means, under the grasp of the villain and then enters the “hero” saving her from him in a supposedly “cool” way. I think this trope is outdated and is still being overused. The protagonist in 86 is an example of a strong girl that is actually a child with daddy issues, or at least what the fanservice wants to portray. |
katsucatsMay 3, 2022 7:55 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Have you watched Jujutsu Kaisen, or Kimetsu no Yaiba? If you have, then you know this trope isn't as influential as it was. It's not gone, but there is less of it. Plus it depends on the anime you watch, how often you see the trope. |
 |
TheMechaManiac said: The perfect situation for me is a couple that kicks ass together. Girl kicks ass, guy kicks ass, and both love each other tenderly. That's peak humankind right there. You must love Spy X Family then, right?! I'm loving it till now. As for my take on this topic, I haven't really seen an anime in which a STRONG woman needed to be saved but even if that happens, then nothing's wrong with it right? It can be done both ways. |
SofiaBulga said: You have to be kidding me.Have you watched Jujutsu Kaisen, or Kimetsu no Yaiba? If you have, then you know this trope isn't as influential as it was. It's not gone, but there is less of it. Plus it depends on the anime you watch, how often you see the trope. > name 2 standard battle shounen > says trope is gone Why? Because there's a girl that talks a lot of shit, and therefore must be a badass? A girl that's literally named "No bra" that gets saved by MC again and again? Psh. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I have always disliked it, even when I was a child tbh. My pet peeve with this isn't that a character needs help, but that usually these characters are weakened and in worst case their personality also lose things what made them stand out. Just so our mc can look better in the story. And it's more annoying when female character (usually love interest) is there as an emotional support for male mc, while he does all the physical work. Nah fuck that. Shounen series often also have the issue that they try to write a badass female character, but the show doesn't delivere on it. We still see everytime how she isn't as good and needs protection. And I don't much care for the opposite trope either, but it doesn't annoy me as much. |
 |
| Can we stop comparing irl with fiction? Seriously, this is so silly. |
| All weebs creatures of the galaxy, hear this message. Those of you who listen will not be struck by western animation. You will no longer know hunger, nor pain. Your Anime have come to lead you now. Our strength shall serve as a luminous sun toward which all intelligence may blossom. And the impervious shelter beneath which you will prosper. However, for those who refuse our offer and cling to their western animation ways… For you, there will be great wrath. |
Yuu_Kanzaki said: Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
BilboBaggins365 said: Probably one of the best fantasy adventure stories I have enjoyed in this medium is Yona of the Dawn where the MC at the start is a Damsel and it makes sense why she kinda is useless but over time finds competence while still often being saved by her hot male harem. That's fun and most female fans must enjoy it as it was a decently popular shojo manga. I don't think anyone has a problem with it as long as it makes sense within the plot. I love Akatsuki no Yona because I love her development as a character. When she starts out as a damsel it makes sense because of her sheltered upbringing, and once she becomes more capable, it also makes sense that she gets into problematic situations more often that she lacks the physical strength to solve herself - which then causes further development as she learns more clearly what she can do herself, what she needs to rely on others for (something a leader should learn anyways) and ways to solve situations that don't require direct, physical confrontation. It becomes frustrating when it goes AGAINST the supposed traits of the character though, as described in the OP's post. To give an example: I'm gonna be biased here and say I don't see this kind of stuff much in manga/anime created by women for the same demographic. In series like Fullmetal Alchemist or Katekyo Hitman Reborn, the female characters are ACTUALLY capable at their own stuff (like how Winry is a great automail mechanic, Hawkeye is a capable soldier, and Kyoko and Haru do their best to support everyone by taking over all non-combat duties, also I-pin being just as useful in a fight as Lambo), damsel in distress situations are rare if they exist at all and when they do, they make sense because the girl in question is a civilian with no combat inclinations. But in most works, it seems the creator liked the idea of a strong, cool woman so he added one in theory, but then was unwilling to actually allow her to be capable in the narrative, so you get all these SUPPOSEDLY hypercompetent ladies that ditzily fall from one rescue situation into another and it's just frustrating. |
LostSpectre said: I've held my breath, but maybe others can relate. This is literally one of the dumbest perspectives I've ever seen on this site, period. If fiction makes characters into objects, then plots can't exist because there are no actors. I've seen you repeat this same nihilistic idea over and over in multiple posts that just defeats the purpose of a character in the first place. You can't even call a moving blob of pixels a "character" -- something that represents a living, thinking being -- if you perceive them as merely object.Yuu_Kanzaki said: Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? Time to move on from that edgy 8th grade syndrome, dude. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: You missed the point, as usual. It isn't that you can't have empathy towards a fictional being, but it's still just a fictional being at the end of the day. The entire purpose of "objectification" is to criticize media/fiction in terms of a measurable real world impact on females, but this is nothing more than faulty logic, because an object cannot be objectified, only a human being can. The entire concept is literally sex-negative/sex shaming to women, which is completely on brand for modern feminism that's still rooted in an antiquated ideology. LostSpectre said: I've held my breath, but maybe others can relate. This is literally one of the dumbest perspectives I've ever seen on this site, period. If fiction makes characters into objects, then plots can't exist because there are no actors. I've seen you repeat this same nihilistic idea over and over in multiple posts that just defeats the purpose of a character in the first place. You can't even call a moving blob of pixels a "character" -- something that represents a living, thinking being -- if you perceive them as merely object.Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. Time to move on from that edgy 8th grade syndrome, dude. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
| Or is it men being objectified as something to protect women? |
 |
| Come on, it feels good to see a girl saved/protected by a guy. Does it make me a bad person that somewhere deep inside I have the desire to protect a woman from harm? (Don't worry ladies, if I ever hear you screaming for help inside a flaming building I will respect your agency and sit and do nothing while you burn to death.) |
 |
LostSpectre said: If you're empathizing with a fictional character, then you're not treating it as an object, but a subject (hence "empathizing"). So yes, characters -- subjects -- can objectify other characters, just like they could talk, walk, and protect their nakama. The fact that you fail at such obvious abstraction make me question whether you're an object.katsucats said: You missed the point, as usual. It isn't that you can't have empathy towards a fictional being, but it's still just a fictional being at the end of the day. The entire purpose of "objectification" is to criticize media/fiction in terms of a measurable real world impact on females, but this is nothing more than faulty logic, because an object cannot be objectified, only a human being can. The entire concept is literally sex-negative/sex shaming to women, which is completely on brand for modern feminism that's still rooted in an antiquated ideology. I've held my breath, but maybe others can relate. This is literally one of the dumbest perspectives I've ever seen on this site, period. If fiction makes characters into objects, then plots can't exist because there are no actors. I've seen you repeat this same nihilistic idea over and over in multiple posts that just defeats the purpose of a character in the first place. You can't even call a moving blob of pixels a "character" -- something that represents a living, thinking being -- if you perceive them as merely object. Time to move on from that edgy 8th grade syndrome, dude. The whole point of characterization is to recognize media/fiction in terms of real world experience. You can't possibly accept that fiction exists and at the same time not acknowledge the representations in fiction without contradicting yourself. Like I said, I don't think you'll ever get it, but if anyone else is reading this guy who professes to love anime and yet insist to argue that fiction doesn't exist and shaking their head... you're not alone. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Whether I treat it as an object or not doesn't change that it is in fact an object, and not a literal human being. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to comprehend. I'm not saying you can't criticize a fictional trope because "they're all objects, nothing matters" I'm discussing a feminist concept, and why it's hypocritical, nothing more. The idea that stuff like fanservice should be demeaning to real women, that's the type of "objectification" I'm talking about. Can you really not comprehend why a subject like this has direct parallels to feminist ideals, the OP is using clearly recognizable feminist language. LostSpectre said: If you're empathizing with a fictional character, then you're not treating it as an object, but a subject (hence "empathizing"). So yes, characters -- subjects -- can objectify other characters, just like they could talk, walk, and protect their nakama. The fact that you fail at such obvious abstraction make me question whether you're an object.You missed the point, as usual. It isn't that you can't have empathy towards a fictional being, but it's still just a fictional being at the end of the day. The entire purpose of "objectification" is to criticize media/fiction in terms of a measurable real world impact on females, but this is nothing more than faulty logic, because an object cannot be objectified, only a human being can. The entire concept is literally sex-negative/sex shaming to women, which is completely on brand for modern feminism that's still rooted in an antiquated ideology. The whole point of characterization is to recognize media/fiction in terms of real world experience. You can't possibly accept that fiction exists and at the same time not acknowledge the representations in fiction without contradicting yourself. Like I said, I don't think you'll ever get it, but if anyone else is reading this guy who professes to love anime and yet insist to argue that fiction doesn't exist and shaking their head... you're not alone. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
| Good and they better keep on doing it just to spite you because why should they change it if it works and is popular? Is nothing new how anime uses so many of the same tropes again and again. Strong, independent women who can fight and take care of themselves and are a lead of their own show at this point is a common trope too. Where's the complaints on this? Oh wait, equality is not real. |
LostSpectre said: It doesn't sound like a real issue to me. If we play by their rule, shouldn't the men be the ones objectified because they are expected to come and safe women? Yuu_Kanzaki said: Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. Yes it is overused. What is this 'objectified' term people use nowadays and why do people use the term so much these days? I don't hold such believe either way, but I'm curious as how the people that do think about my comment. |
| "Nobody could laugh at someone who's trying their hardest" -Machio- |
Yuu_Kanzaki said: It's absolutely not a real issue. Technically, all characters are "objectified" because they are fictional tools who are manipulated to entertain an audience, but feminists use the term to draw a correlation between how women in real life are perceived/treated based on how women in fiction/media are depicted. They condemn these depictions if they believe them to be sexist or "objectifying" to women, but people aren't objects, it's fucking nonsense to base sexism towards women on how a fictional object is treated.LostSpectre said: It doesn't sound like a real issue to me. If we play by their rule, shouldn't the men be the ones objectified because they are expected to come and safe women? Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. I don't hold such believe either way, but I'm curious as how the people that do think about my comment. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
| I 1000% agree that this trope is overused. |
| Didn't Sakura Haruno set us all a new precedent many years back? |
 Maybe try sleeping? |
Yuu_Kanzaki said: LostSpectre said: It doesn't sound like a real issue to me. If we play by their rule, shouldn't the men be the ones objectified because they are expected to come and safe women? Objectified is often short for 'sexually objectified', it's just feminist propaganda projected onto fiction, where the characters ARE literal objects, the irony. I don't hold such believe either way, but I'm curious as how the people that do think about my comment. I don’t agree. You can say that it’s presenting an antiquated gender role for men- which, sure, I agree- but it’s clearly a trope that favors men, and I think it would be silly to play the Uno reverse card and say it’s actually more sexist towards men. Putting aside the fact that it inherently presents a dichotomy of “man strong, woman weak”- so men are getting the positive trait assigned to them, while women get the negative one- as far as this trope is concerned, it’s much better to be a male character than a female one. That’s because the reason this trope is bad, sexism aside, is that taking agency away from a character you want your audience to be invested in is a pretty bad move; generally, it’s far more compelling to watch/read stories about people who do things, rather than people who have things done to them/have things happen in their general vicinity. And so this trope is fine for the male characters, the ones doing things, but is bad for the female characters, the ones being turned into window dressing for (for example) fight scenes, or stories about rescuing a princess, which wouldn’t functionally be any different if the princess was replaced by some other arbitrary thing like a bag of money, or a really nice bathrobe. That’s where the objectifying part comes in. It’s like turning your character from a verb, someone who does things, to a noun, something that is acted upon, a mere prop. It’s also why @LostSpectre ‘s take on the subject is a philistine’s, because it’s a problem with willing suspension of disbelief, and investment, and literary agency that make up the core of the problem, not whatever nonsense he’s going on about with feminism. If characters are really “just objects” in the way he’s suggesting, then there should be no difference between reading a story about a human being and, for example, a non-sentient vacuum cleaner. Yet for some reason, the former is incalculably more popular as a protagonist than the latter. I wonder why that might be? Hmm, maybe it’s because the writing advice “characters are tools” doesn’t mean “shout as loudly as possibly to your audience that your characters are nothing more than tools”. |
 |
| 100% agree with the op. It's incredibly annoying and just serves to put out this men to feel like they could save a girl as well and it just makes everything worse because that's not what women want jesus. Men and their storytelling can be so far removed from reality, it's bad. |
idk why I was here but I'm prob back to playing Dragon's Dogma 2 again when you read this |
| And people saying here that it is a "needed" trope. Please watch some anime where characters have decent development and are their own person, thanks. |
idk why I was here but I'm prob back to playing Dragon's Dogma 2 again when you read this |
LostSpectre said: @MoltenLemonMeta Oh look, it's another fucking clown that doesn't seem to understand that objectified is literally a feminist term, and that my answer only related to that, not your misinterpretation. It literally is not, my friend. Your obsessive hatred of feminism doesn’t mean any word in that shows up in discussions relating to it is automatically a “feminist term”, whatever that might mean. Please don’t talk to me about misinterpretation when you came into a thread where feminism/feminist values were not mentioned by the OP once, even in passing, and they exclusively expressed their distaste for this trope as a narrative device, going as far as to say they don’t think a gender swap would fix the issue, and then cry about feminism because your reactionary little brain has dispensed with bothering to actually absorb information presented to you, in favor of a programmed response to a scary word that offends you. |
|
| @MoltenLemonMeta - So, let me get this straight, the OP who is complaining about a trope they feel is sexist to women, while using feminist terminology, has nothing to do with feminism? Is that what you're telling me here? You seem to be oblivious to this fact, but "objectification" is almost exclusively a feminist term, most commonly assumed to be short for "sexual objectification". My points aren't in regard to the nature of story telling itself, it's in opposition to the hypocritical arguments that would claim "objectified" characters are literally sexist against women. Fictional characters are not human, a sleight against them is not a sleight towards the thing they depict. Sure, if you want to write a great female character, then don't make her a prize for a male character, but there's nothing that says a female character can't be a prize for the male character if that's simply what the author wants to give their audience, and it would be nonsense to try and read further into it. This is even more so for anime than literature, where anime characters are rarely intended to be viewed as realistic humans when it comes tropes, moe, etc. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
LostSpectre said: @MoltenLemonMeta - So, let me get this straight, the OP who is complaining about a trope they feel is sexist to women, while using feminist terminology, has nothing to do with feminism? Is that what you're telling me here? You seem to be oblivious to this fact, but "objectification" is almost exclusively a feminist term, most commonly assumed to be short for "sexual objectification". My points aren't in regard to the nature of story telling itself, it's in opposition to the hypocritical arguments that would claim "objectified" characters are literally sexist against women. Fictional characters are not human, a sleight against them is not a sleight towards the thing they depict. Sure, if you want to write a great female character, then don't make her a prize for a male character, but there's nothing that says a female character can't be a prize for the male character if that's simply what the author wants to give their audience, and it would be nonsense to try and read further into it. This is even more so for anime than literature, where anime characters are rarely intended to be viewed as realistic humans when it comes tropes, moe, etc. I’d love to argue these points, but here’s the thing: They literally never brought any of what you’re saying up. Your argument is a non sequitur because they never said anything remotely close to the position you’re supposedly arguing against. And why, I can only assume, is because you don’t know what the word objectification actually means, or why people use it, but you’ve decided it means something incredibly narrow and specific, which makes it incredibly easy to argue against the feminists who use it… if you’re willing to ignore all context presented to to you, and dishonestly present their arguments as strawmen you can easily beat with your… fascinating logic about how sexism isn’t sexism if it’s in fiction. I’m not saying it has nothing to do with feminism, I’m saying your interpretation of what form that feminism is taking is fucking ludicrous. |
|
MoltenLemonMeta said: It's completely fucking irrelevant whether the OP was trying to make this a feminist issue, the concept of being "objectified" is almost exclusively used in regard to women, and that is why it's a feminist term, whether you understand it or not. Therefore, I'm completely justified to reply to someone's comment by exposing the hypocrisy of said term, and how it is most commonly used. I'm well aware of what it means, but clearly you do not if I have to explain to you how it relates to feminism. Of course, to understand my position you would actually have to understand the inherent hypocrisy of feminism itself. There's tons of sexism in fiction against both women and men, it's simply the natural result of sex-based differences, stereotypes, gender roles, etc. LostSpectre said: @MoltenLemonMeta - So, let me get this straight, the OP who is complaining about a trope they feel is sexist to women, while using feminist terminology, has nothing to do with feminism? Is that what you're telling me here? You seem to be oblivious to this fact, but "objectification" is almost exclusively a feminist term, most commonly assumed to be short for "sexual objectification". My points aren't in regard to the nature of story telling itself, it's in opposition to the hypocritical arguments that would claim "objectified" characters are literally sexist against women. Fictional characters are not human, a sleight against them is not a sleight towards the thing they depict. Sure, if you want to write a great female character, then don't make her a prize for a male character, but there's nothing that says a female character can't be a prize for the male character if that's simply what the author wants to give their audience, and it would be nonsense to try and read further into it. This is even more so for anime than literature, where anime characters are rarely intended to be viewed as realistic humans when it comes tropes, moe, etc. I’d love to argue these points, but here’s the thing: They literally never brought any of what you’re saying up. Your argument is a non sequitur because they never said anything remotely close to the position you’re supposedly arguing against. And why, I can only assume, is because you don’t know what the word objectification actually means, or why people use it, but you’ve decided it means something incredibly narrow and specific, which makes it incredibly easy to argue against the feminists who use it… if you’re willing to ignore all context presented to to you, and dishonestly present their arguments as strawmen you can easily beat with your… fascinating logic about how sexism isn’t sexism if it’s in fiction. I’m not saying it has nothing to do with feminism, I’m saying your interpretation of what form that feminism is taking is fucking ludicrous. |
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
| Well theres not a lot of female writers writing battle shounen manga/anime like that I guess? You could also just look harder because theres plenty of strong women characters in anime. They just arent battle shounens. Got a problem with that, write a popular action story with a female not being "objectified as something to be protected by the men" yourself. Or whatever the fuck you're implying with that title lol. |
 |
| @LostSpectre It's completely fucking irrelevant whether the OP was trying to make this a feminist issue, the concept of being "objectified" is almost exclusively used in regard to women, and that is why it's a feminist term, whether you understand it or not. Let me try to dumb down my point so you can understand it more easily: It’s a term that is used commonly within feminist dialogue, yes. It by no means refers to only women as you’re saying, and is commonly used in discussions of the portrayal of men, as well. The problem is that you’re attaching all this baggage about sexism and sexuality to it. You’re creating entire imaginary arguments from a word based on your incorrect assumption of what it means. It can mean denying a person their autonomy, treating them as replaceable, or as a tool, or so on; the reason feminists use this term is because it’s an apt way to describe the state of female characters in media, not because they’re conflating sexist attitudes in fiction being directly equivalent to sexism towards real women, or whatever you’re peddling. Therefore, I'm completely justified to reply to someone's comment by exposing the hypocrisy of said term, and how it is most commonly used. Here, let me fix your sentence for you: “Therefore, I’m completely justified in completing ignoring the points presented by someone in favor of making up my own argument about what the feminists think, and fighting against that. Take that, feminists.” Of course, to understand my position, you would have to understand the inherent hypocrisy of feminism itself. No, in order for me to understand your position, you’d need to actually present a compelling argument. As it stands, you’ve yet to offer a so much as a compelling excuse for your ignorance, so I’d suggest you work on that first. There's tons of sexism in fiction against both women and men, it's simply the natural result of sex-based differences. Yes, indeed. I wonder why some people might not like sexism being so ubiquitous in fiction? Hmm, it must be because they believe sexist attitudes in fiction are literally the same as calling a woman a slut in real life or men being shamed for crying. Yep, that’s the only conceivable reason someone might argue against it. |
|
MoltenLemonMeta said: That's just not true, it's used almost exclusively to women. It is not commonly used to discuss portrayals of men. @LostSpectre It's completely fucking irrelevant whether the OP was trying to make this a feminist issue, the concept of being "objectified" is almost exclusively used in regard to women, and that is why it's a feminist term, whether you understand it or not. Let me try to dumb down my point so you can understand it more easily: It’s a term that is used commonly within feminist dialogue, yes. It by no means refers to only women as you’re saying, and is commonly used in discussions of the portrayal of men, as well. The problem is that you’re attaching all this baggage about sexism and sexuality to it. You’re creating entire imaginary arguments from a word based on your incorrect assumption of what it means. It can mean denying a person their autonomy, treating them as replaceable, or as a tool, or so on; the reason feminists use this term is because it’s an apt way to describe the state of female characters in media, not because they’re conflating sexist attitudes in fiction being directly equivalent to sexism towards real women, or whatever you’re peddling. Therefore, I'm completely justified to reply to someone's comment by exposing the hypocrisy of said term, and how it is most commonly used. Here, let me fix your sentence for you: “Therefore, I’m completely justified in completing ignoring the points presented by someone in favor of making up my own argument about what the feminists think, and fighting against that. Take that, feminists.” Of course, to understand my position, you would have to understand the inherent hypocrisy of feminism itself. No, in order for me to understand your position, you’d need to actually present a compelling argument. As it stands, you’ve yet to offer a so much as a compelling excuse for your ignorance, so I’d suggest you work on that first. There's tons of sexism in fiction against both women and men, it's simply the natural result of sex-based differences. Yes, indeed. I wonder why some people might not like sexism being so ubiquitous in fiction? Hmm, it must be because they believe sexist attitudes in fiction are literally the same as calling a woman a slut in real life or men being shamed for crying. Yep, that’s the only conceivable reason someone might argue against it. I'm not attaching any baggage to the term, feel free to actually google "objectification" and tell me what you see. There's no imaginary argument, google "objectified" and you will find definitions expanded to sexual objectification, not to mention that most examples will be about women. See, all of the things you seem to think objectified means aren't necessarily true at all. You're listing Nussbaum's properties of objectification, but that isn't what being "objectified" actually means in common usage, which is more or less to be degraded to the status of an object, most commonly a woman, and most often being sexual in nature. Also, note how you said person, that means an actual human, and not a fictional character. Feminists applying this term to fiction/media is hypocritical, because they try to apply the same logic for an object (fiction, picture, video, etc.) that they would for a person, and they deem this offensive to real women. If it was only offensive to the objectified state of a woman, and not a real woman herself, there would be no issue. If this weren't true then there wouldn't have been such a feminist outcry in past years against objectification in magazines, games, comics, movies, etc. You seem hung up on this issue of my point not relating to the OP, but it's irrelevant, "objectified" is a feminist term, I explained why this term gets thrown around a lot, I don't need to make up anything about what feminists think, I'm very familiar, and I'm willing to wager that I'm far more researched on the subject than you are. I'll admit, I didn't quite elaborate on my point, but feminist "objectification" is not a valid concept. Why would I present an argument based on the inherent hypocrisy of feminism to someone who can't even seem to comprehend that the comment I replied to was only in regard to the feminist interpretation of the word, you actually tried to argue as if my point was that it's nonsense to approach fiction with realism or thought just because the characters are all "objects". It doesn't matter why you don't like something in fiction, but when the subject is based on perceived sexism against women, AND commonly recognizable feminist terminology is used, don't be surprised if that subject gets brought up. It would be great if we could discuss these sort of tropes as they pertain to fiction/writing, and for that to not draw upon feminist ideology, but that's a pipe dream. Oh, and you have the wrong idea about how "objectification" is viewed. The point is not that fictional sexism is literally as bad as "calling a woman a slut" it's that this fictional sexism literally translates to real sexism against women. Meaning, that something like sexy comic book heroines aren't just a bit of fun, but that they normalize the dehumanization of women, and therefore this portrayal should be viewed as offensive to women. Which is of course just a roundabout way of sex-shaming women through fictional characters. |
LostSpectreMay 5, 2022 1:03 AM
| If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that. |
More topics from this board
» What Will It Take for You to Quit Anime? ( 1 2 )Dragevard - May 4 |
83 |
by tectacles
»»
32 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » suspension of disbelief and difference between reality and fiction, or too much fiction can make you delusionaldeg - 6 hours ago |
19 |
by KryzakamiHrybami
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
» Digitalization of the modern world and animeRobertBobert - Today |
34 |
by RobertBobert
»»
51 minutes ago |
|
» What are your thought on Ecchi anime?RedTea33 - Yesterday |
35 |
by MadanielFL
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» What is the biggest problem in the world of anime in your opinion?castle2001 - Yesterday |
49 |
by Yuu_Kanzaki
»»
1 hour ago |