@indigo~ink:
angry Luffy is one of the more fearsome things in the manga
I will have to disagree and blame it on reading this manga for so long and knowing what's going on. He still looks like a young adult at best, having an angry face wouldn't intimidate most people if there was a irl version of that. It still looks awesome, but not really threatening Imo.
@Monkey:
Nun doesn't count, and subtract Vivi and Valentine for Luffy being a consistent anomaly in behavior, and that leaves us with Franky vs. Baby 5.
I have no idea what is being argued here but I'd like to add that time Franky tried to attack Califa at the warehouse under the bridge
no, those both examples just stand out and are different from other attitudes, in that sense they are both anomalies. Anomaly isn't defined by being positive or negative and certainly do not justify one another. Not that I think of those attitudes as anomalies, but I think if somebody decides one is anomaly they also need to acknowledge as the anomaly as well.
I'm not arguing with your definition of anomaly I'm just saying we're talking about the bad things, and other good things don't make the bad things less bad. But if you're trying to say there's no overall bias given the topic at hand then I definitely disagree. This is the distinction indigo is making between an exaggeration of the norm and a true counter-example.
I will have to disagree and blame it on reading this manga for so long and knowing what's going on. He still looks like a young adult at best, having an angry face wouldn't intimidate most people if there was a irl version of that. It still looks awesome, but not really threatening Imo.
It's not irl though. It's a panel, in a manga. What feeling is this panel designed to give you? You're not necessarily AFRAID when you look at him, especially since he's the main protagonist; you're more like dayum someone's going to get their ass whooped. When he is seriously angry, Luffy is drawn in a way that has determination and ferocity radiating from him. It's not really about whether he looks like a bodybuilder/mafioso/whatever you consider threatening. That's what I mean by an intimidating appearance. In general the protagonist is meant to be friendly-looking though as the reader is supposed to cheer them on, whereas you will often find villains have more intimidating designs and appearances which coincide with the feeling they are supposed to create of being a genuine threat to said protagonist. And this rant is related to the thread becaaaause I forgot. Oh yeah. I want a woman to look badass and threatening like that! Big Mom freaks me out but again she is in the 'ugly' category lol.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I have no idea what is being argued here but I'd like to add that time Franky tried to attack Califa at the warehouse under the bridge
lol I like your spirit
Well yeah, I was being silly :p But in fairness, Kalifa's power is at least as much silly as it is sexy (as it is portrayed). Funny that Kaku gets laughed at so much for being a giraffeman (which is a pretty cool power) and nobody takes the time to laugh at Kalifa. Soap Sheep!
I agree with you, actually, which I think plays right back into my point about the power, in and of itself, not being all that horribly bad. Still, the fact remains that, in addition to the silliness, there were the more, for lack of a better term, questionable aspects. To me, at least – and I won't try to speak for others here -- if the fight had involved purely moves like those 'silly' ones you listed, I probably would have found it an entertaining enough gimmick fight. As things stand, though, we have to accept the negative along with the positive, and it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the negative stands out more.
@indigo~ink:
No the difference is that Sanji is an exaggeration of the common attitude (women treated differently).
I'm going to preface what I'm about to say by saying that I'm fairly certain with the sentiment you're trying to express here.
That said, I'd actually have to say that I don't feel this particular is quite right. Once again, I'm going to raise what is perhaps a fine distinction, but in this case, I feel it is an incredibly important one. Speaking once again for myself, I feel that Sanji's attitude being the commonly accepted one of the One Piece world would, at the very least, be not nearly as bad as what we have; if that were the case, it would be something embedded at the level of the narrative. Someone choosing to craft a world that, for example, is dominated by dated sexist beliefs, does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.
However, I don't believe that's what we have here. Rather, the issue – in this case, for example, women not generally being physically attacked -- stems from a sort of meta-level. It occurs, more often than not, as a matter of contrivance, rather than from any established world-building or character traits. So, for example, as annoying as Sanji's attitude may be, at least when he refuses to attack a woman, it's because of a well-established trait; whereas, on the other paw, the only reason that Nami wasn't involved in a grueling physical fight with Kalifa is because the latter conveniently stopped using those moves nearly entirely -- a pure contrivance, not grounded in the story at all.
To touch on another topic, by way of example, and to hopefully get across what I'm trying to say a little better, take the issue someone had brought up earlier in the thread about the representation of women in the Marines. It is my belief, at least, that it would actually be an improvement if it had been established, in-story, that the Marines would only enlist men. This wouldn't have to be presented as a good thing, of course, but there would then be a solid, grounded reason for there not to be any women in the Marines. As things stand, though, there is the noted disparity between the number of women and men in the ranks, without any reason for that to be so short of that being how Oda has made it.
@indigo~ink:
I'm thinking of it based on their entire image and how this contributes to their portrayal of strength. This includes their appearance, costume, and the way they are drawn. For e.g. I think Mihawk's image has a suitable aura of mystery and power. I would say he is designed to be intimidating, particularly with the hawk eyes obviously, but that's not the full extent of it; everything from his threads to his cold demeanour to his creepy wee candlelit dingy counts towards this mysterious aura. Because of all this he seems like a powerful man and a threat.
I actually disagree about the Admirals, I think you can tell they are in positions of power from their designs. Especially the magma dude. Doflamingo is awesomely deranged, I especially love the way Oda makes his hands look so creepy. Croc you can tell he doesn't give a shit what anyone else thinks. But think of all the other OP men… it's so common for men to be presented as formidible. Zoro has had his fair share of "scary demon guy" panels when fighting. Sanji has his "badass attitude" style. And Luffy is shown to act like a stupid kid half the time, but when his straw hat is shading his face... you know shit's gonna go down, angry Luffy is one of the more fearsome things in the manga! It's just not often a female character gets this kind of treatment where they are shown with the same fierce determination and dominance.
I think you do have to consider it within the context of One Piece lol there are some crazy looking dudes in this manga so it's not too surprising if everyone is a bit quirky. Garp is meant to be friendlier so while he looks like an old battle-axe he's not really meant to be taken seriously as a threat. Sengoku.... not going to argue with you there, dude wears a seagull hat. Sure I think there's a balance of goofiness and intimidating looks for the OP men. I'd just like a few more women to be considered powerful enough to be given the "intimidating" treatment.
Anyway I think one's interpretation of character designs can be pretty subjective. I'm not going to argue the point if you or anyone else disagrees with what I'm saying. Just food for thought I guess?
There's a study that shows 90% of murders in the United States over a prolonged period of time (10 years?) were committed by men. You can't escape the reality of that statistic or the implications for how "formidable" an individual appears. It's essentially a matter of fact that men are more physically imposing than women (with a few interesting exceptions lol). Oda is writing with at least some notion of his audience, he is obviously aware that men (boys is probably more appropriate) are more likely to appreciate sexually charged female characters than those that would definitely contradict their perception of women. A more realistic portrayal may be more fair, but the entire point of this genre of manga is to transport the audience from reality.
@Panda:
I'm going to preface what I'm about to say by saying that I'm fairly certain with the sentiment you're trying to express here.
That said, I'd actually have to say that I don't feel this particular is quite right. Once again, I'm going to raise what is perhaps a fine distinction, but in this case, I feel it is an incredibly important one. Speaking once again for myself, I feel that Sanji's attitude being the commonly accepted one of the One Piece world would, at the very least, be not nearly as bad as what we have; if that were the case, it would be something embedded at the level of the narrative. Someone choosing to craft a world that, for example, is dominated by dated sexist beliefs, does not necessarily have to be a bad thing.
However, I don't believe that's what we have here. Rather, the issue – in this case, for example, women not generally being physically attacked -- stems from a sort of meta-level. It occurs, more often than not, as a matter of contrivance, rather than from any established world-building or character traits. So, for example, as annoying as Sanji's attitude may be, at least when he refuses to attack a woman, it's because of a well-established trait; whereas, on the other paw, the only reason that Nami wasn't involved in a grueling physical fight with Kalifa is because the latter conveniently stopped using those moves nearly entirely -- a pure contrivance, not grounded in the story at all.
To touch on another topic, by way of example, and to hopefully get across what I'm trying to say a little better, take the issue someone had brought up earlier in the thread about the representation of women in the Marines. It is my belief, at least, that it would actually be an improvement if it had been established, in-story, that the Marines would only enlist men. This wouldn't have to be presented as a good thing, of course, but there would then be a solid, grounded reason for there not to be any women in the Marines. As things stand, though, there is the noted disparity between the number of women and men in the ranks, without any reason for that to be so short of that being how Oda has made it.
This is what I meant in my original response to the issue, where I mentioned looking at Oda's writing from a more critical perspective:
@indigo~ink:
I'd say Luffy's behaviour is an anomaly, whereas Sanji's is an exaggerated personification of the prevalent attitude in the OP world. It's unusual for a man to straight up hit a woman (Luffy). It's not unusual to see differential treatment towards women (given they are "attractive enough to be treated as a woman"), both in the way male characters act towards them in-universe, and in the way Oda writes the characters' fights/appearance/abilities, from a more critical perspective. Sanji just goes far enough that he is seen as a joke; rather than someone who is necessarily going against the social norm.
By this, I was trying to get at what you termed the more "meta" aspects to the argument - that is, the author's inherent bias in how he represents women, and how this manifests in the characters' actions and attitudes.
At least Sanji is made to look like a bit of an idiot for his extreme views. However, the general attitude I feel is portrayed in One Piece is that beautiful women are treated with more care and exposed to less physicality, rather than being on the same level as men. So the way I see it, his chivalry is still in keeping with the general underlying attitude (for example Zoro refusing to fight women, women only fighting other women, yada yada) - extreme, yes, but unconventional? No.
Luffy on the other hand is emphatically even-handed in his judgement of people regardless of sex. It's an interesting point to question the reason why the protagonist is presented this way. Luffy's actions are in keeping with his straightforward nature and attitude to the world, that's for sure. But he is also presented as extremely clueless and uncultured in a lot of ways. What does this say about Oda's view on the issue, where this one character is the only one out of hundreds who can punch a girl and not have it be a big deal?
I hope this explains why I consider Luffy to be the exception to the rule in this case.
There's a study that shows 90% of murders in the United States over a prolonged period of time (10 years?) were committed by men. You can't escape the reality of that statistic or the implications for how "formidable" an individual appears. It's essentially a matter of fact that men are more physically imposing than women (with a few interesting exceptions lol). Oda is writing with at least some notion of his audience, he is obviously aware that men (boys is probably more appropriate) are more likely to appreciate sexually charged female characters than those that would definitely contradict their perception of women. A more realistic portrayal may be more fair, but the entire point of this genre of manga is to transport the audience from reality.
Any criticism in this thread is made with the acknowledgement that Oda is writing a manga for boys. Boys like boobs. So yes there's only so far you can realistically expect to hope for women to not be portrayed as sexual objects. Even with this disclaimer included, I maintain that this doesn't raise the overall issue above critical discussion.
I'm not sure where you are going with using a real world statistic (90% murders are by men), then shortly afterwards saying the genre of manga is meant to transport the audience from reality? Basically your post says 90% of the scary characters are men because 90% scary people irl are men; then that a mode of representation of women which is far from realistic is fine because the manga is fiction. Why so quick to accept that one thing is a particular way because it is based on reality but another is mighty skewed according to what boys like to look at…? Again, yes, manga for boys, no getting around that. I just don't accept that the particular examples you gave illustrate the points you think they do.
One Piece isn't constrained by realistic versus non-realistic. (seriously.) It's constrained by inherent bias on the part of Oda. If he had chosen to build a world where girls were physically powerful, fought dirty, and fought against men like equals, well, I doubt anyone would have pulled him up and said "what are you doing these girls are not feminine enough".
Man if only I were as dedicated to my essay writing as I am to arguing about One Piece...
Transport to a more idyllic reality for young guys.
Transport to a more idyllic reality for young guys.
I guess that comes back to the core critique of precisely what is considered "a more idyllic reality" - all the feminine women are aesthetic objects with boing.
I always wonder but is there a study about whether or not big boobs makes a shonen more popular?
@indigo~ink:
I guess that comes back to the core critique of precisely what is considered "a more idyllic reality" - all the feminine women are aesthetic objects with boing.
Sure. They're also portrayed as generally more intelligent. Nami and Robin are veritable geniuses. Usopp's love interest is studying to be a doctor and Dr. Kureha is something of a cynical intellectual. There are intelligent male characters as well of course, but most of them are pretty idiotic.
Edit: Vivi is another good example of an empowered female.
Sure. They're also portrayed as generally more intelligent. Nami and Robin are veritable geniuses. Usopp's love interest is studying to be a doctor and Dr. Kureha is something of a cynical intellectual. There are intelligent male characters as well of course, but most of them are pretty idiotic.
Another example of positive discrimination, or a girly trope; the female isn't useful for her brawn, so she has to have brains. It would be refreshing to see a dumb, physical, not-freaky-looking fighter female character - i.e. pretty much the "default" mould for a male character. Actually this is why I like Baby 5 as a character so far. Her outfit is ridiculous yep; other than that PRAISE THE LORD she transforms into weapons, leaps around like a real fighter and actually shoves guns in people's faces. More female characters who actually… fight in their fights, that would be great.
We aren't trying to take away the power or machismo of male characters, we aren't trying to take away boobs or sex appeal. I always get the feeling that this is what guys are really worried about when they argue against the validity of gender discussions. I mean, what's wrong with any of what you posted anyway? Why couldn't a woman defeat a powerful opponent? Why can't a female shichibukai be vicious-looking and dangerous? And why couldn't an attractive female character be beaten up by a male one?
I'd also point out that little boys don't actually care about these issues at all. The creators of Avatar: The Legend of Korra spoke about how, during focus testing, the target audience didn't care about Korra's gender, they just thought she was cool. It was the grown men at Nickelodeon that were worried about her being female, not the boys who were watching the show.
As far as the issue of identifying with characters being difficult for men too, look at what I originally wrote and reverse all mentions of gender. I mentioned that I'm an attractive woman who is prone to physical action and gets hurt in humorous ways occasionally. Think about how many men there are who fit that description in the story.
I've watched different animes that feature female leads protecting men that you can in a way classify as weak. There has never been an instance where i ask the question how come there is no men going balls to glory. There is nothing wrong will those things I posted at the same time, there is nothing wrong if they aren't happening. It's just a story.
The only part of the argument I agree with is females are underrepresented in OP. Personally, I feel Oda should have more women, especially in Marines. All those debate about feminine devil fruit, range fighters, Hancock, Nami boobs are just unnecessary nit picking. If Oda decides to preach women protection over women brutality, there is no way I will disagree with that. If am taking a walk in the park with my wife at night and we get jumped by four people. I'm not going to tell my wife to get the two on the left while get the two on the right just to proof gender equality. I will tell her to stand back, if they want to beat her up, they can do that after am dead or passed out.
There's a study that shows 90% of murders in the United States over a prolonged period of time (10 years?) were committed by men. You can't escape the reality of that statistic or the implications for how "formidable" an individual appears. It's essentially a matter of fact that men are more physically imposing than women (with a few interesting exceptions lol). Oda is writing with at least some notion of his audience, he is obviously aware that men (boys is probably more appropriate) are more likely to appreciate sexually charged female characters than those that would definitely contradict their perception of women. A more realistic portrayal may be more fair, but the entire point of this genre of manga is to transport the audience from reality.
I'm not really sure what being physically imposing or formidable is supposed to mean in this case since you'd have to look at method of murder. Which is mostly/typically by gun, which does not take a physically imposing person to use.:ninja:
@indigo~ink:
Another example of positive discrimination, or a girly trope; the female isn't useful for her brawn, so she has to have brains. It would be refreshing to see a dumb, physical, not-freaky-looking fighter female character - i.e. pretty much the "default" mould for a male character. Actually this is why I like Baby 5 as a character so far. Her outfit is ridiculous yep; other than that PRAISE THE LORD she transforms into weapons, leaps around like a real fighter and actually shoves guns in people's faces. More female characters who actually… fight in their fights, that would be great.
In the context of the one piece universe, it sort of makes sense to consider that "positive discrimination" (it's definitely true that there are very few relevant females). At the same time, it doesn't seem to fit the agenda of a chauvinist to make the most admirable (in real-world terms) characters female.
Lucky for us he didn't do it that way…
What makes you say that? I wouldn't expect there to be 50/50 girls/guys in a manga aimed at guys, but why would it be a bad thing for anyone if the girls that were there actually posed some recognisable level of threat? What negative effect would that have on the manga? I am genuinely baffled, please do enlighten me.
In the context of the one piece universe, it sort of makes sense to consider that "positive discrimination" (it's definitely true that there are very few relevant females). At the same time, it doesn't seem to fit the agenda of a chauvinist to make the most admirable (in real-world terms) characters female.
Depends what you consider admirable. It's sorta like, men are considered a threat or admirable when they are very physically strong. This argument is that women are considered a threat (or admirable) under a different set of criteria i.e. intelligence. Why can't they be lumped in with the guys and present a physical risk also? I accept that in general in real life men are built to be more physically powerful. Yes. But even given that the ratio of male strength to female strength represented in the manga is soooo shoockingggly overbalanced. Like, the top fighters in every arc are consistently, every time men. With a token female thrown in for Nami to fight. That is problematic to me. It's not that there isn't a half/half split, as I say; it's extent to which women are underrepresented.
Actually, if you're talking about the strength of their dreams, I think the characterisation and originality of both Nami and Robin's backstories is done extremely well, and they are shown to be very mentally tough. So thumbs up on that one Oda.
@indigo~ink:
What makes you say that? I wouldn't expect there to be 50/50 girls/guys in a manga aimed at guys, but why would it be a bad thing for anyone if the girls that were there actually posed some recognisable level of threat? What negative effect would that have on the manga? I am genuinely baffled, please do enlighten me.
Depends what you consider admirable. It's sorta like, men are considered a threat or admirable when they are very physically strong. This argument is that women are considered a threat (or admirable) under a different set of criteria i.e. intelligence. Why can't they be lumped in with the guys and present a physical risk also? I accept that in general in real life men are built to be more physically powerful. Yes. But even given that the ratio of male strength to female strength represented in the manga is soooo shoockingggly overbalanced. Like, the top fighters in every arc are consistently, every time men. With a token female thrown in for Nami to fight. That is problematic to me. It's not that there isn't a half/half split, as I say; it's extent to which women are underrepresented.
Actually, if you're talking about the strength of their dreams, I think the characterisation and originality of both Nami and Robin's backstories is done extremely well, and they are shown to be very mentally tough. So thumbs up on that one Oda.
Yeah, I think they have the strongest backgrounds (although the moment when Sanji realizes Zeff gave him all the food gets me deep). In any case, I hope at least that the introduction of a burly, passionately stupid, conventionally "unattractive" female (not meant to be mocking) would satisfy you as much as it would dissatisfy me (although I usually enjoy Oda's characterizations) haha
Lucky for us he didn't do it that way…
In any case, I hope at least that the introduction of a burly, passionately stupid, conventionally "unattractive" female (not meant to be mocking) would satisfy you as much as it would dissatisfy me (although I usually enjoy Oda's characterizations) haha
I'm going to have to echo Indi here in expressing confusion at the fact people are expressing this attitude. It's one thing, I think, for someone to say that they don't take issue with the way One Piece is, and don't have any problem with the fact that, for example, there are no female characters as described by Indi. To actively say that that type of character existing in the manga would actually detract from your experience, though? I find that more than a little difficult to understand, frankly.
@Panda:
I'm going to have to echo Indi here in expressing confusion at the fact people are expressing this attitude. It's one thing, I think, for someone to say that they don't take issue with the way One Piece is, and don't have any problem with the fact that, for example, there are no female characters as described by Indi. To actively say that that type of character existing in the manga would actually detract from your experience, though? I find that more than a little difficult to understand, frankly.
At least physically attractive one dimensional characters are physically attractive. An aesthetically displeasing one-dimensional character of the sort I described is worth even less (please understand, I don't mean as human beings. I simply wouldn't understand her presence logically). As I said though, Oda has introduced all sorts of strange characters and managed to move your sympathies to their favor (Bon Clay for example)
Yeah, I think they have the strongest backgrounds (although the moment when Sanji realizes Zeff gave him all the food gets me deep). In any case, I hope at least that the introduction of a burly, passionately stupid, conventionally "unattractive" female (not meant to be mocking) would satisfy you as much as it would dissatisfy me (although I usually enjoy Oda's characterizations) haha
lol I see what you're saying, but you misunderstand in terms of aesthetics etc. What I want is a woman character, who is portrayed as being a threat, and strong, in the way they would be if they were a man; without any particular bias as to their appearance. That means…
Does that make sense? I want a woman in the story to be as strong as a man, or as much threat as a man, without actually being represented to be strong/threatening BECAUSE she is masculine i.e. manly. I think that green-haired Boa sister is a good example of what I think is a good female character - her appearance is feminine not masculine or freaky looking, her body shape is not the traditional boobs on a stick, AND most importantly, she's a threat because of her physical strength and fighting capabilities.
This is all a really longwinded way of saying I want a female character to show up, look like your average girl (not too ugly, not overly sexualised), and kick some ass.
@indigo~ink:
lol I see what you're saying, but you misunderstand in terms of aesthetics etc. What I want is a woman character, who is portrayed as being a threat, and strong, in the way they would be if they were a man; without any particular bias as to their appearance. That means…
- They stand out for their physical strength, rather than getting compensation brownie points for being smart; AND
- They are portrayed as feminine, not masculine or ugly enough to "not count" as a woman.
Does that make sense? I want a woman in the story to be as strong as a man, or as much threat as a man, without actually being represented to be strong/threatening BECAUSE she is masculine i.e. manly. I think that green-haired Boa sister is a good example of what I think is a good female character - her appearance is feminine not masculine or freaky looking, her body shape is not the traditional boobs on a stick, AND most importantly, she's a threat because of her physical strength and fighting capabilities.
This is all a really longwinded way of saying I want a female character to show up, look like your average girl (not too ugly, not overly sexualised), and kick some ass.
I think it's part of Oda's style to make powerful characters more extreme physically. Post-TS Zoro is significantly "buffer" than pre-TS Zoro, and Shanks' neck expands to three times it's normal width some time between the war and his introduction. The admirals are extremely tall etc. etc.
It's a question of aesthetic then to determine what extreme you want a character to be taken to. For female characters, Oda almost draws with a directly proportional relationship between sexiness and strength (going further, he gives provocative characters provocative devil fruits). Big Mam is an exception, but her character is extreme as well. Oda could apply the same physical standards to both sexes, but I think that would be quite strange
@indigo~ink:
What makes you say that? I wouldn't expect there to be 50/50 girls/guys in a manga aimed at guys, but why would it be a bad thing for anyone if the girls that were there actually posed some recognisable level of threat? What negative effect would that have on the manga? I am genuinely baffled, please do enlighten me.
If there's 50/50 girls/guys in OP world, and posed some recognisable level of threat, it will makes Sanji's character become useless/not connected with the manga, and there will be no issue on how the women treated in this manga.
You should see this manga from the boys eyes, especially those who live in Asia (I don't know the situation in other continent). You can't talk about discrimination (against women) when the violence (against women) is still going strong (and justified).
@indigo~ink:
lol I see what you're saying, but you misunderstand in terms of aesthetics etc. What I want is a woman character, who is portrayed as being a threat, and strong, in the way they would be if they were a man; without any particular bias as to their appearance. That means…
- They stand out for their physical strength, rather than getting compensation brownie points for being smart; AND
- They are portrayed as feminine, not masculine or ugly enough to "not count" as a woman.
Does that make sense? I want a woman in the story to be as strong as a man, or as much threat as a man, without actually being represented to be strong/threatening BECAUSE she is masculine i.e. manly. I think that green-haired Boa sister is a good example of what I think is a good female character - her appearance is feminine not masculine or freaky looking, her body shape is not the traditional boobs on a stick, AND most importantly, she's a threat because of her physical strength and fighting capabilities.
This is all a really longwinded way of saying I want a female character to show up, look like your average girl (not too ugly, not overly sexualised), and kick some ass.
16 chars of Hina?
I think it's part of Oda's style to make powerful characters more extreme physically. Post-TS Zoro is significantly "buffer" than pre-TS Zoro, and Shanks' neck expands to three times it's normal width some time between the war and his introduction. The admirals are extremely tall etc. etc.
It's a question of aesthetic then to determine what extreme you want a character to be taken to. For female characters, Oda almost draws with a directly proportional relationship between sexiness and strength (going further, he gives provocative characters provocative devil fruits). Big Mam is an exception, but her character is extreme as well. Oda could apply the same physical standards to both sexes, but I think that would be quite strange
So you're saying the stronger the male character, the more exaggerated the muscles (male power trip fantasy); the stronger the female character, the more exaggerated the sex appeal (decoration for male eyes). My question is why can't you have a strong female character with the same emphasis on formidibility rather than on sexiness? That's something I think is a problem.
If there's 50/50 girls/guys in OP world, and posed some recognisable level of threat, it will makes Sanji's character become useless/not connected with the manga, and there will be no issue on how the women treated in this manga.
You should see this manga from the boys eyes, especially those who live in Asia (I don't know the situation in other continent). You can't talk about discrimination (against women) when the violence (against women) is still going strong (and justified).
As I said a few times on this page, I'm not campaigning for a 50/50 split. Rather my problem is the severity of the under-representation of women. It can be improved without going "all the way". I also don't see how gender equality would make Sanji's character useless…? For example you can still have a "chivalrous" character. Having a character who is sexist is having a character with a flaw. Having a whole manga full of inherent bias based on sex is just... well, sexist... and it's more problematic this way because it's the status quo, presented as normal, and not challenged. In fact if he were more of an anomaly, the ridiculousness of this trait would be more apparent as he would be rubbished even more for his old school views.
Violence against women is not unrelated to the overall issues of sexism, but in my opinion, I'm struggling to see the particular relevance to this discussion. I'm not entiiirely sure what you meant about that last part, how you said violence against women is justified, I'm assuming that's not what you meant....?
16 chars of Hina?
See yesterday's episode of Indigo Rants About Everything:
@indigo~ink:
[…] It can't really be compared with the fact that it's a struggle to find a woman who is both attractive, and treated as of equal power, on merit of her own physical abilities, to men. Or even a woman that shows the same gutsiness and willingness to get her hands dirty. Robin I feel is close, but her power is still stand back and attack from afar. Hina I feel might be close? But we haven't seen much of her in 15 years… The Boa sisters and Boa Hancock I think are good examples of what I would like to see more of. Yes Hancock's ability is ridiculous but I mean the part where she actually started kicking Smoker and revealed that she is physically strong and capable of holding her own in a fight without using Mero Mero.
So yes, I noted her as a possible example of Oda doing good stuff. How many times have we seen her in the 15 years that the manga has been running though? She isn't exactly a hugely influential character, so it's kind of sad that she is a better example of a strong yet feminine female char in OP.
@indigo~ink:
As I said a few times on this page, I'm not campaigning for a 50/50 split. Rather my problem is the severity of the under-representation of women. It can be improved without going "all the way". I also don't see how gender equality would make Sanji's character useless…? For example you can still have a "chivalrous" character. Having a character who is sexist is having a character with a flaw. Having a whole manga full of inherent bias based on sex is just... well, sexist... and it's more problematic this way because it's the status quo, presented as normal, and not challenged. In fact if he were more of an anomaly, the ridiculousness of this trait would be more apparent as he would be rubbished even more for his old school views.
Violence against women is not unrelated to the overall issues of sexism, but in my opinion, I'm struggling to see the particular relevance to this discussion. I'm not entiiirely sure what you meant about that last part, how you said violence against women is justified, I'm assuming that's not what you meant....?
Well, if you're asking for quota, i guess the lack of number is normal for this type of manga.
Can you tell me what country you live?
Well, if you're asking for quota, i guess the lack of number is normal for this type of manga.
Can you tell me what country you live?
New Zealand. Why do you ask?
@indigo~ink:
Actually this is why I like Baby 5 as a character so far. Her outfit is ridiculous yep; other than that PRAISE THE LORD she transforms into weapons, leaps around like a real fighter and actually shoves guns in people's faces. More female characters who actually… fight in their fights, that would be great.
The thing with Baby 5 is, she dresses like a maid and is the worst possible exaggeration of a submissive who will do anything for the validation of feeling useful and needed.
The thing with Baby 5 is, she dresses like a maid and is the worst possible exaggeration of a submissive who will do anything for the validation of feeling useful and needed.
Can't win 'em all 
lol so true
@Monkey:
You mean The same statues that the Strawhats had very high difficulty in defeating even just one of them in the Sabaody arc? And Boa Hancock one-shotted two of them at the same time with pure leg strength? Yeah how dare I use them as example to prove than women in OP can be strong?
1: You used the example in response to "why can't women be vicious, and defeat strong opponents". Beating up statues, even very sturdy ones, does not qualify as that.
2: Actually watching the clip, its damn anime filler. In the actual manga, THIS is all we saw. Note that its shown from the back, making the actual damage unclear, and also note that perfume femur failed to KO fodder early in the war.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also, Baby 5 is, to me, one of the most dreadful things Oda has created, and I'm really surprised she hasn't been brought up more in this thread. I mean, her running gag is that she can't say no to disgusting old men because "they need me <3", and we saw her firsthand ready to marry a man litterally made of snot -a man she was shown to find disgusting- who proposed as a joke. Add to that her being a bombshell in a french maid outfit, and...eugh.
! > I also don't see how gender equality would make Sanji's character useless…? For example you can still have a "chivalrous" character.
! > If he had chosen to build a world where girls were physically powerful, fought dirty, and fought against men like equals, well, I doubt anyone would have pulled him up and said "what are you doing these girls are not feminine enough".
! It's a world where i doubt the chivalrity is exist, pretty much kill Sanji's character.
Sanji: "I will protect you"
Woman A: "Back off dude, i can handle this"
! > Violence against women is not unrelated to the overall issues of sexism, but in my opinion, I'm struggling to see the particular relevance to this discussion. I'm not entiiirely sure what you meant about that last part, how you said violence against women is justified, I'm assuming that's not what you meant….?
! @indigo~ink:
! > New Zealand. Why do you ask?
! The sexism issues in this manga mainly come from the author's cultural/traditional background and the manga target age.
! And i think we all in here agree that One Piece is not your usuall shonen manga. It's a manga that makes raftel, technique, or DF became the issue when you 13, and then make you start questioning justice, morality, violence, racist and even religion when reading newspaper (or internet) became your daily activity. It's clear that Oda doesn't want to approach women's discrimination issue, and choose to questioning his reader also share his view about the violence against women.
I say this manga is a good read for boys (in asia), and it's better for them to grow up reading this.
! The sexism issue can have different respond depend on where do you live. You may have objection about tha way Sanji treating women, but in the country where the government doesn't provide a safe house for women, where the law can do nothing against custom(?) law, Sanji's character must be their ideal/dream man.
Sanji's chivalrity or Zoro's bushido maybe a bad thing for women in Europe/USA, but not in Asia.
This Baby 5 talk just brings me back to what I was saying about Sanji earlier; the difference being, I suppose, that I hold to my part far more firmly with Baby. Her attitude is in absolutely no way whatsover portrayed as a good thing, and, in fact, is called out as being a problem pretty much as soon as we are introduced to it. Perhaps I merely lack sensitivity, but I cannot see where the issue lies.
It's a world where i doubt the chivalrity is exist, pretty much kill Sanji's character.
Sanji: "I will protect you"
Woman A: "Back off dude, i can handle this"
Honestly, I think a scene like this would be amazing. For one thing, it would be hilarious. Beyond that, though, rather than somehow 'killing' Sanji's character, I feel like, if done seriously, it could provide an excellent source of development for him, or at the very least serve as a wonderful foil.
As for your talk of differing cultures and views in different places on the world, I fear it misses the mark on a couple levels. First, I think everyone understands that things in One Piece are shaped by Oda's views, which are in turn shaped at least in some part by the culture of his nation. That can, perhaps, allow for some understanding of why things are the way they are, but that should not mean that we have to also judge them by those same standards. If I may be allowed to use a horribly trite saying, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; that doesn't mean, however, that the rest of the world has to think of that one-eyed man as having impeccable vision.
@Panda:
I agree with you, actually, which I think plays right back into my point about the power, in and of itself, not being all that horribly bad. Still, the fact remains that, in addition to the silliness, there were the more, for lack of a better term, questionable aspects. To me, at least – and I won't try to speak for others here -- if the fight had involved purely moves like those 'silly' ones you listed, I probably would have found it an entertaining enough gimmick fight. As things stand, though, we have to accept the negative along with the positive, and it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the negative stands out more.
I am in that superminority (ie probably just me) that thinks Nami vs Kalifa is a pretty decent fight, but that's neither here nor there . . .
@Panda:
As for your talk of differing cultures and views in different places on the world, I fear it misses the mark on a couple levels. First, I think everyone understands that things in One Piece are shaped by Oda's views, which are in turn shaped at least in some part by the culture of his nation. That can, perhaps, allow for some understanding of why things are the way they are, but that should not mean that we have to also judge them by those same standards. If I may be allowed to use a horribly trite saying, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; that doesn't mean, however, that the rest of the world has to think of that one-eyed man as having impeccable vision.
Well, i just shared my opinion for why it's a good thing that Oda didn't make 50/50 for the gender quota and have discrepancy for ability, so the boys can see the difference and Sanji's character can make sense to them.
As for the talk of differing cultures and views in different places on the world, i'm just saying, living in a place that has chivalrity's history background is a good thing. Maybe i'm wrong but i think that kind of act/code in the past that allow/create a situation in this days where women can fight for their right. For example, in my country (a place that have no chivalrity's history), there's a province planing to make a regulation for how women should pose(?) when ride/sit in motorcycle. Fortunately, it's rejected by central government. That kind of reality (knowing there's such attempt by local government) that can make me say women in Europe/USA are blessed for having chivalrity's history.
!
| | |
Final words, "the way women are potrayed in OP" is just fine as it is.
For example, in my country (a place that have no chivalrity's history), there's a province planing to make a regulation for how women should pose(?) when ride/sit in motorcycle. Fortunately, it's rejected by central government. That kind of reality (knowing there's such attempt by local government) that can make me say women in Europe/USA are blessed for having chivalrity's history.
Chivalry is NOT aligned with women's rights or promoting progressivism/equality. It's just another form of subjugation and making one gender into the lesser of the two.
It's not the opposite of oppressive religious ideology that would seek to control how women sit; it's a different version of the same evil, on the same side of the spectrum.
Women in the US/Europe are "blessed" for Seneca Falls, their countries' respective voting rights acts, Roe v. Wade type legislation, etc.
Not now long-outdated customs of pulling out chairs, holding open doors, and laying jackets across puddles.
@indigo~ink:
But think of all the other OP men… it's so common for men to be presented as formidible. Zoro has had his fair share of "scary demon guy" panels when fighting. Sanji has his "badass attitude" style. And Luffy is shown to act like a stupid kid half the time, but when his straw hat is shading his face... you know shit's gonna go down, angry Luffy is one of the more fearsome things in the manga! It's just not often a female character gets this kind of treatment where they are shown with the same fierce determination and dominance.
True enough. I'd love to see more of Robin snapping when someone damages artifacts
I think you do have to consider it within the context of One Piece lol there are some crazy looking dudes in this manga so it's not too surprising if everyone is a bit quirky. Garp is meant to be friendlier so while he looks like an old battle-axe he's not really meant to be taken seriously as a threat. Sengoku…. not going to argue with you there, dude wears a seagull hat. Sure I think there's a balance of goofiness and intimidating looks for the OP men. I'd just like a few more women to be considered powerful enough to be given the "intimidating" treatment.
I'd like to see some more goofy women too. Y'know dancing the chopstick dance on the table with 'Sopp and Luffy
There are far to many completely dignified women
@Panda:
As for your talk of differing cultures and views in different places on the world, I fear it misses the mark on a couple levels. First, I think everyone understands that things in One Piece are shaped by Oda's views, which are in turn shaped at least in some part by the culture of his nation. That can, perhaps, allow for some understanding of why things are the way they are, but that should not mean that we have to also judge them by those same standards. If I may be allowed to use a horribly trite saying, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king; that doesn't mean, however, that the rest of the world has to think of that one-eyed man as having impeccable vision.
I don't know why but i've always found the view that the west is somehow further along the inevitable path that everyone shall eventually wander really uncomfortable. Feels kind of colonial, in that oh you'll eventually get what we already know when you grow up kind of way
I mean i grew up in the west so obviously i lean pretty heavily toward our way of thinking, but the whole universally accepted ways of thinking thing always throws me for a loop. But then again i live in the country that breathes cultural relativism
@wolfwoof:
I don't know why but i've always found the view that the west is somehow further along the inevitable path that everyone shall eventually wander really uncomfortable. Feels kind of colonial, in that oh you'll eventually get what we already know when you grow up kind of way
I mean i grew up in the west so obviously i lean pretty heavily toward our way of thinking, but the whole universally accepted ways of thinking thing always throws me for a loop. But then again i live in the country that breathes cultural relativism
I suppose I can see how using that particular saying could have had connotations along those lines, but that wasn't actually my intention. I didn't mean to imply that the Western view on the topic was necessarily the 'correct', or better one. (I'm also not saying, by the way, that it is not, before anyone decides to jump on me for that – I simply wasn't making a comment on that at all.)
The point I was trying to illustrate was simply that, while it can certainly be important to understand the context in which something occurs, and the way that might lead to things being the way they are, ultimately, one can only judge something from the position of their own standards; expecting them to do otherwise is nonsensical.
@wolfwoof:
I don't know why but i've always found the view that the west is somehow further along the inevitable path that everyone shall eventually wander really uncomfortable. Feels kind of colonial, in that oh you'll eventually get what we already know when you grow up kind of way
I mean i grew up in the west so obviously i lean pretty heavily toward our way of thinking, but the whole universally accepted ways of thinking thing always throws me for a loop. But then again i live in the country that breathes cultural relativism
This is an interesting point worth mentioning, and obviously one that I thought a lot about during the past two years when I lived in rural Japan.
Cultural relativism (that is, saying "Different peoples do things differently and no one is better than the other, and that's ok") is definitely applicable when talking about the biggest divides between Japan and the west, which concern collectivism vs. individualism, ambiguity in language vs. straightforwardness, prioritization of stability and conservatism vs. encouraging change. It's not as if Japan is further behind on the timeline and will catch up to understanding the merits of individualism in X number of years. For one, that's never going to happen, and secondly, there's no reason it should. Apart from their failing economy, graying of the population, and looming depopulation crisis, Japan is doing just fine. Favoring community-mindedness has served their society for hundreds of years. It's a valid way of doing things and shouldn't be viewed as inherently inferior.
But then there are more stark social issues. I don't think cultural relativism is an acceptable excuse for countries where women can still be stoned to death for looking at the wrong man or for being raped themselves (that's obviously not Japan). That DOES represent an inherently inferior… situation... that has to play a bit of catch-up so that it can emerge from the dark ages and join the so-called civilized world. I understand your point about how this feels "colonial," but colonial attitudes were entrenched with ideas of racial superiority and complete disregard for every element of the other's culture (including the sort of stuff in my first paragraph). I'd venture to equate what I'm talking about here with human rights issues, where I don't see any problem in expecting/hoping other cultures to eventually get the message and start treating all its citizens equally.
And the fact is, we do see such a "catch-up" timeline in Japan. Women have begun to be integrated into the workforce, despite heavy resistance from the old guard and society overall. Traditional gender roles, too, are loosening ever so slightly (also with much resistance). Whether this is because Japan wants to simply imitate the West or because of Western media influence or because of political higher-ups recognizing that remaining a viable world power requires more full utilization of 50% of the population (PM Abe recently spoke on this), it's happening. The colonists aren't forcing the teacups and derby hats into their hands, so I don't think that we have to characterize it as something to feel squeamish about when further progress of this nature is almost... expected. And it's hugely relevant to these issues in One Piece, considering that OP is by far the most popular and widely-read comic at the present, influencing and inspiring multiple generations of (mostly) young people.
tl;dr: There aren't a ton of things that "should" be universally accepted, but treating men and women as equals is one of them.
@CCC:
http://media.tumblr.com/1c729bcfb2eb758a05a9ba58728457a7/tumblr_inline_mp1zixZpKP1qz4rgp.jpg
Chivalry is NOT aligned with women's rights or promoting progressivism/equality. It's just another form of subjugation and making one gender into the lesser of the two.
It's not the opposite of oppressive religious ideology that would seek to control how women sit; it's just another form of the same evil, on the same side of the spectrum.Women in the US/Europe are "blessed" for Seneca Falls, their countries' respective voting rights acts, Roe v. Wade type legislation, etc.
Not now long-outdated customs of pulling out chairs, holding open doors, and laying jackets across puddles.
That's mean i'm wrong then, i'm guessing chivalry was used in the past to see women, children and elders as human who can't defend themself. I mean, there's must be something wrong in that era that makes chivalry's exist. Forget about voicing opinion when in reality their life is worthless(?) like in Arlong Arc. That why i think Sanji's "refuse to kick a woman" is a part of chivalry act/code is important, though it's not what liberate Nami's village.
@Panda:
This Baby 5 talk just brings me back to what I was saying about Sanji earlier; the difference being, I suppose, that I hold to my part far more firmly with Baby. Her attitude is in absolutely no way whatsover portrayed as a good thing, and, in fact, is called out as being a problem pretty much as soon as we are introduced to it. Perhaps I merely lack sensitivity, but I cannot see where the issue lies.
Maybe I didn't understand your point before when it was about Sanji, but are you saying that if it's not portrayed in a positive light then it's okay? I think this goes back to my point about "any publicity is good publicity." Creating a character to begin with is a choice, and offers everything about that character to the public. Adding some disapproval into the mix from other characters doesn't negate the representation that character gets, especially since once it reaches the audience it will take on a life of its own through fan art, fiction, idealization, comedy, and of course merchandise. But focusing on what we concretely have from Oda, I don't see your take on it as valid unless the character in question is thoroughly framed as a villain that is supposed to be hated, or perhaps if the character is used to clearly make a point to the audience about the flaws they embody (or maybe the point is made to another character for character growth purposes).
Baby 5 doesn't really fit any of this. Yes, she is a "bad guy," but she is not portrayed as evil, or disgusting, or anything like that. Her personality (and clothing, which is not portrayed as negative in any way!) is not used to make a point or help a character develop, though I suppose there's room for that in the future (but I doubt it). Rather, and I think this is true in lots of cases including Sanji's, her extreme, shall we say "flaws," are clearly meant as some kind of comic relief. We're supposed to find it funny that Dofla has to keep killing her husbands because she can't say no to someone who "needs" her. It's never portrayed negatively in a serious way, you see. If other characters comment about her being ridiculous, it's to be funny. Even with Sanji in PH I feel this was mainly the case. The one point I feel Sanji was lectured on his idiotic chivalry in earnest was upon losing to Califa. But it doesn't even go anywhere. Sanji refuses to change (a quality that's actually painted quite positively; this "stick to your moral code and never compromise" attitude), and if it gets boring to see him refuse to fight women there will probably be nosebleed gags to save us.
The thing with Baby 5 is, she dresses like a maid and is the worst possible exaggeration of a submissive who will do anything for the validation of feeling useful and needed.
It's her flaw/quirk and I happen to find it pretty funny.
@TheCrystalShip:
You do realize that we're never going to see anything like this again right? At least not from Nami.
I like how you can tell the future.
O.o that was a really really average fight at best. Actually probably even bad? It's strongest redeeming feature is that it's Robin's only proper fight. Since versus Pell can hardly count …
You barely get to see a female getting a 1vs1 a fight (not to mention a male vs female one) and this is clearly the best. No one gave a shit about gender, no one cared for the other and they fought with all their power relentlessly. Yama just wanted to kill her and didnt hold back: he smashed everything in front of him, the momnuments, trees, even Robin herself. He clearly didnt hesitate to use violence on her while Robin did the same thing: smashed him against the tree, used his own dials against him leaving him in a bloody mess, broke his fingers, threw him off the cliff and broke his back before he even made contact with the ground. Its like he already said: "short, neat and brutally effective".
It is really rare to see such a fight nowadays in One Piece.
The problem with Cultural Relativity is culture changes.
I think any given American Millennial can first hand describe the still ongoing rocketing profile and civil rights issues of LGBT folks in the US.
I mean even just using ten years as a barometer the transformation on that one social issue has been massive.
George Bush more or less won his re-election by scaremongering his base with gay rights boogiemen. That's right, Bush was relected largely on getting the vote out because of that.
LESS than ten years later in 2013…and yowza.
Different universe. I can't turn on the radio without hearing Same Love, the current president declared support for gay marriage before his own re-election.
Shows with leading gay characters went from HBO shows about the downlow and separate lives like Queer as Folk, to the premier sitcom in the country (Modern Family), the domain of suburban mainstream America.
Culture is not set in stone, and it is always always open to examination and criticism, as it should be.
@Wolfwoof:
I don't know why but i've always found the view that the west is somehow further along the inevitable path that everyone shall eventually wander really uncomfortable. Feels kind of colonial, in that oh you'll eventually get what we already know when you grow up kind of way
I mean i grew up in the west so obviously i lean pretty heavily toward our way of thinking, but the whole universally accepted ways of thinking thing always throws me for a loop. But then again i live in the country that breathes cultural relativism
It only looks like that when you frame it like that.
If something sucks, something sucks. It's got nothing to do with region X being better than region Y.
I generally find those kind of region cut ups really unhelpful ways of looking at the world.
Like the "west" being what?
All of Europe + former English colonies? Non-former communist Europe?
Like Greece and Italy are in Europe and they suck a big one on gender in similar ways to Japan. Even France is kinda crappy about it sometimes. Parts of the US can be.
And the main problem as I just described, is it sucked in Sweden etc too at one point. It used to be like Japan or Italy, hell, used to be like Somalia even.
But it changed. Why did it change? Is it really the culture? Or is it because fundamentally there is something that just makes no sense and is quite wrong about it.
You can argue the culture can make that change harder or easier, but I definitely think that the culture isn't the reason itself for the change. People are people everywhere. Women are people everywhere. In Brazil and Germany a woman is clearly capable of leading the entire nation. Are women in Saudi Arabia incapable? No, they the same exact women.
That never changes no matter the culture.
I mean Cyprus is quite a ways behind Connecticut or Sweden on gender, Chrissie already shared some of that "fun". I think we've both already mentioned how parents still treat the daughter as sort of not being her own full person until marriage, including grabbing from her money if they need it. Probably similar to Japan, as Cyprus is certainly similar to Greece or Italy. Is that their culture? Technically yeah it's as much their culture as Japan's issues are. Does that make it alright? HELL no. And you know who will tell you as much? Chrissie herself.
You know what we did? We announced the engagement when away from the entire family (both sides), my side reacted like Swedes would, they were happy and that was that.
The Cypriots were confused and some were angry, her dad wanted me to have asked permission.
But Chrissie did not want to go through that game. Why should she?
Is "Culture" an argument in of itself?
I honestly think it's MORE colonial era mindset to treat "other" cultures like some sort of different species of people, especially on issues as fundamental to universal human experience as gender relations and family matters. It's non-intervention sure, but it's still extremely condescending to think of the Japanese or the Cypriots as stone faced natives with mysterious iron cultures that surely would never see debate or change like us over here in the dynamic west?
Probably you hear cultural relvatism from lots of these same Swedish leftists about the US even lol. Like we're naturally gay bashing, uber-religious, war mongers by culture XD.
Heck I remember Scandinavia in the World having this cartoon, and I was like "uh that's exactly how it is here lol, we're very private about it in New England anyway, kinda have to be".
The other folks Over There, wherever that may be, are always way more complex and just as dynamic as where we live.
Maybe I didn't understand your point before when it was about Sanji, but are you saying that if it's not portrayed in a positive light then it's okay?
That might be a slight oversimplification, but more or less, yes, that is my argument. Perhaps I'm simply naive, or overly optimistic, but I don't feel that people will automatically assume a certain sort of behavior is acceptable if they are not explicitly told it is bad. Obviously, this goes beyond simply saying 'Well, nobody has explicitly said that this behavior is good, within the story, so there's no problem!" Everything has to be taken together to determine what sort of light a certain behavior is portrayed in. That's why, for example, it's a far less clear-cut issue with Sanji. I still feel, on the whole, that it is not presented as unambiguously good, but there are scenes such as you mentioned with the post-Kalifa moment, or the fact that people are perhaps more accepting of his behavior than they should be; a sort of tacit approval, one might argue.
At the moment, though, I'm talking about Baby 5. First of all, your mention of the fact that she is not portrayed as 'evil' is somewhat odd to me. I don't feel like this is what you would be saying, but it honestly rather comes across as though you believe someone with any sort of glaring negative character trait should be cast as a card-carrying villain, as it were. More to the point, though, you go on at some length to say that her personality is used as a gag for comic relief. I agree with that, as I assume anyone would; where I will differ from your view, it seems, is in that I would argue that that is, in fact, portraying it in a negative light. If people laugh at it, they are laughing at Baby 5, not with her; I don't believe that there is anybody that would think something that causes one to be a source of ridicule is a good thing. It's not treating it seriously, of course, but I don't see why that should have to be the case.
Interestingly, as a woman, and one who is interested in and aware of these issues, I must say elements that are clearly played for laughs are in general not things I have found particularly offensive. For example Baby 5. Her outfit is a bit ridiculous, but that's a given in One Piece; and I found the gag funny rather than feeling offended by any potential implications. Same with Sanji in Nami's body, I wouldn't expect him to react any differently, and I thought the idea and how it played out was funny.
The things I actually have a problem with are the more insidious gender equality issues which are presented with ambiguity or shown in a positive light; such as Zoro's sexism towards women, the fact that pretty women are treated differently compared to ugly women or masculine women, the fact that it is very rare for women to be a captain, or in the marines, or in a position of power, or able to hold their own in a fight through their own physical strength, and so on.
@CCC:
And it's hugely relevant to these issues in One Piece, considering that OP is by far the most popular and widely-read comic at the present, influencing and inspiring multiple generations of (mostly) young people.
You know what was the most popular comic in Japan 2 decades ago? Dragon Ball, and I don't remember reading any evidence of children having sexist beliefs after reading Dragon Ball, a series where the only important female is only important for gadget making, pervert humour and fanservice. And It's obvious DB is as or even more sexist than One Piece (If you deny this I don't know what to say), why should we act as if people are certain to get their views and treatment on different genders influenced from comic books? Oh and One Piece isn't that mainstream in Japanese society, out of the 120 million people of Japan, only 4 million regularly buy One Piece volumes, so any alleged influence would be minimal at best.
@Monkey:
You know what was the most popular comic in Japan 2 decades ago? Dragon Ball, and I don't remember reading any evidence of children having sexist beliefs after reading Dragon Ball, a series where the only important female is only important for gadget making, pervert humour and fanservice. And It's obvious DB is as or even more sexist than One Piece (If you deny this I don't know what to say), why should we act as if people are certain to get their views and treatment on different genders influenced from comic books? Oh and One Piece isn't that mainstream in Japanese society, out of the 120 million people of Japan, only 4 million regularly buy One Piece volumes, so any alleged influence would be minimal at best.
Japan has always been hugely sexist. Of course Dragonball didn't do anything to change that, haha.
Volumes of OP at this point get initial printings of over 3 million volumes. They then exist in all major bookstores forever with enough reprints to always keep shelves stocked, and in dentists' waiting rooms, and in Coco's Curry restaurants' manga libraries, and so on. A campaign last year to boost the spirits of children in the northeast (where the earthquake/tsunami/radiation disaster occurred) even saw Shueisha donate collections of the entire OP series (volumes 1 to 67 at the time) to any public elementary school that applied for it. That is, One Piece specifically. For free. For all elementary school libraries.
And that's just the volumes, which only account for a small portion of OP readership. Millions of kids (and adults) buy weekly Shonen Jump in convenience stores (which doesn't contribute to volume sales, obviously) and tons just stand in the store and read the magazines, without buying.
Every single one of my 330 middle school students in rural nowheresville was acquainted with the story and characters of OP, with a very large portion being devoted weekly readers.
"Minimal at best"? You're severely underestimating its influence, and the fact that it reaches _children_ in such large numbers is not to be overlooked. There is no singular comparably popular and pervasive cartoon/comic equivalent in the West. Star Wars as a franchise might come close, but that's a reputation built over four decades. OP built a veritable empire in 15 years.
@Monkey:
You know what was the most popular comic in Japan 2 decades ago? Dragon Ball, and I don't remember reading any evidence of children having sexist beliefs after reading Dragon Ball, a series where the only important female is only important for gadget making, pervert humour and fanservice. And It's obvious DB is as or even more sexist than One Piece (If you deny this I don't know what to say), why should we act as if people are certain to get their views and treatment on different genders influenced from comic books? Oh and One Piece isn't that mainstream in Japanese society, out of the 120 million people of Japan, only 4 million regularly buy One Piece volumes, so any alleged influence would be minimal at best.
It's almost like popular media is part of a mosaic of influential things, and that given that power it can either contribute to the pile of bad, or go against the flow.
You are going to lose badly arguing with CCC about One Piece in Japan, considering he just spent multiple whole years living there lol.
You're just horribly wrong about everything. Media matters, Oda has power that he isn't taking advantage of in this ONE regard, he's obviously really fucking aware of his influence on children and on other issues such as race/ethnicity he's actually really good (especially for Japan).
When horribly xenophobic stuff like Gintama is still popular we have Oda taking the children of one of the most homogenous and home obsessed countries on a world tour through a fictional but real world resemblant list of cultures and countires, with a cast of no nationality, multiple races, and soley comprised of nails that stick up.
Oda is making POINTS, Oda is political, Oda is actually really friggin good on almost every other issue.
And he even made an arc where the ultimate ENTIRE point was "the children are watching".
So yeah, what are you even talking about? Because the author obviously doesn't even agree with you. And you're doing the most disrepect by far to dismiss his role and his comic as inconsequential fluff that has no influence on anything.
One Piece is more relevant to serious social effects than collegiate garbage like Waking Life or Donnie Darko.
All the more because of it's audience.
You barely get to see a female getting a 1vs1 a fight (not to mention a male vs female one) and this is clearly the best. No one gave a shit about gender, no one cared for the other and they fought with all their power relentlessly. Yama just wanted to kill her and didnt hold back: he smashed everything in front of him, the momnuments, trees, even Robin herself. He clearly didnt hesitate to use violence on her while Robin did the same thing: smashed him against the tree, used his own dials against him leaving him in a bloody mess, broke his fingers, threw him off the cliff and broke his back before he even made contact with the ground. Its like he already said: "short, neat and brutally effective".
It is really rare to see such a fight nowadays in One Piece.
It wasn't really very good though. Because it wasn't very interesting. For me, the whole "ahhh, I need to protect the ruins so I can't fight here" thing felt a bit forced just for a reason why Yama could manage to hit her a bit, and to give Robin a reason to be angry. Not to mention the fact that Yama may as well not have had axe dials for that fight … really not very good.
If you are going to say "hey it's good because it's the best 1 on 1 fight with a woman in it!" it's kind of saying it's the best of just a tiny minority of fights? And in what world Robin vs Yama beats Nami vs Doublefinger I don't know. Unless you just really hate fights and are glad Robin vs Yama is over faster or something.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
@CCC:
Not now long-outdated customs of pulling out chairs, holding open doors, and laying jackets across puddles.
You make it sound like people don't hold open doors for people, or pull out chairs either O.o
@CCC:
Women in the US/Europe are "blessed" for Seneca Falls, their countries' respective voting rights acts, Roe v. Wade type legislation, etc.
Not now long-outdated customs of pulling out chairs, holding open doors, and laying jackets across puddles.
I will likely quote this outside of this forum at some point, really well put.
