What do you think of the way women are portrayed in OP?

[CCC]

@Supernova122:

You make it sound like people don't hold open doors for people, or pull out chairs either O.o

"…and laying jackets across puddles, [just for women]."
Those things are what traditional chivalry implies (also putting women and children on lifeboats first, before men, and that sort of thing).

As we've been over god knows how many times in countless topics in this forum, holding open doors and pulling out chairs for people are nice things that everyone should do for everyone else. When you only do those strangely specific and culturally-dictated nice things for one gender, that's problematic. Then you're only half a nice person, and a disingenuous one at that.

[Supernova122]

@CCC:

"…and laying jackets across puddles, [just for women]."
Those things are what traditional chivalry implies (also putting women and children on lifeboats first, before men, and that sort of thing).

As we've been over god knows how many times in countless topics in this forum, holding open doors and pulling out chairs for people are nice things that everyone should do for everyone else. When you only do those strangely specific and culturally-dictated nice things for one gender, that's problematic. Then you're only half a nice person, and a disingenuous one at that.

It's just that, you put two very normal things (done indiscriminately [except for grudges]) with a very very very dramatic thing …

[CCC]

I don't know if people ever actually laid jackets in puddles. I think most would just walk around.
That was an attempt at humor to evoke the stereotypical image of the classic "chivalrous" man. That's wonderful if you're so far beyond oldie-time chivalry to not even understand the old Looney Tunes-esque tableau I was trying to paint (I mean it. Not trying to be snarky)

[indigoink]

@Supernova122:

You make it sound like people don't hold open doors for people, or pull out chairs either O.o

Did you just contrast "women" with "people" instead of "men"…?

[CCC]

I don't think he meant that…

I just didn't make the gender distinction explicit in my original sentence because it was implied.

[indigoink]

^ lol I hope not

interesting discussion going on in here! I hope to have a proper read later today

[Foolio]

@Panda:

At the moment, though, I'm talking about Baby 5.

We can stick with Baby 5 for the sake of a focused discussion.

@Panda:

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.

Kind of. I'm roughly saying that any character with negative character traits that you want to actually acknowledge as terrible, has to be cast in a villainous light OR the other alternatives I mentioned (specific attention to that flaw for character development etc.). Maybe there are other ways to pull it off but off the top of my head that's about it.

@Panda:

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.

This does seem to be the main crux of the argument at this point. I don't really agree that it portrays things in a negative light. First of all, it is taking serious flaws (servility) and serious issues (murder) and reducing them to laughs. If nothing else, perhaps we can agree that comedy de-emphasizes the severity and seriousness with which anything is treated. This may or may not bother people (others have already said in this thread that they appreciate the humor, and that's fine) but I am arguing that it's taking something that if analyzed seriously is quite problematic, and making it okay because it's funny.

I do not believe this is a case of Oda making social commentary through humor that tackles hard issues (a valid justification for awkward comedy); rather I don't think he's really treating his character as problematic in any way. Yes we are laughing "at" Baby 5, but where does that leave you at the end? It might actually endear her to you. Is a negative impression really going to be the thing lingering at the end of the day? Would things be different if she were taken seriously? These are actually interesting questions and I'm not presuming to have the entire answer. I would also like to add that there is a difference between gag/joke characters, and characters who provide comic relief. Perhaps Baby 5 would "work" for me as a character if she were never portrayed seriously or meant to be taken seriously. But she is. She's honestly very serious when she gets down to it and fights and all that. She is as much a joke character as Usopp is. Once you allow someone to be taken seriously, you cannot argue that the entire premise is a gag. That's just another layer of frustration for me. She has this "down to business" serious style and is clearly made for battle, which is a great thing and it's what indigo was talking about when she brought up Baby 5 to begin with – but we just can't get that without a whole different set of issues.

Finally I'd like to say that you more or less ignored my point that all publicity is good publicity. Even if we're laughing at Baby 5, she exists. She is another character out there who dresses like a French maid and can't say "no" to a man. It would take a lot to justify that in my eyes.

[TheCrystalShip]

LOL, I missed a lot…

[kerronstw]

@Supernova122:

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 weapon g 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.

How the hell was that forced? Correct me if i am wrong (since i havent read skypiea for a long time) but since the time when merry was on that altar and Robin noticed something on the wall it was clear that upper yard has some historic monuments. She even beat the crap out of one of the goat fighters for stepping on a monument before she faced Yama. And his axe dials are clearly part of his fightinh arsenal since he used them against a shandian so i dont see your point. And tbh Nami having some sort of weather weapon to fight an expert fighter with a deadly df seems more forced to me than Robin getting angry over the loss of history.

Yeah, the length of this fight played a role aswell. There wasnt unnecessary conversation between Robin and Yama. Compare it to Nami vs Doublefinger where the latter just stood there whole nami wad trying to use her new weapon. That is no good. I would have prefered if Doublefinger went all out on her from the beginning and Nami manages to sneak around the small streets because of her experience as a thief (doublefinger even made a comment that she wasnt a complete amateur like she pretended to be)

I generally disliked namus fight because her opponents seem to forget that they are expert assassins and killers when facing nami

[TheCrystalShip]

@kerronstw:

How the hell was that forced?

I do agree with Supernova that the ruins thing was probably a way to prevent Robin from crushing him almost immediately (something we don't even get excuses for anymore), but you're right that it didn't come out of nowhere, and it was actually kind of a good way to set up the finisher.

@kerronstw:

I generally disliked namus fight because her opponents seem to forget that they are expert assassins and killers when facing nami

Kalifa literally DID forget that she was an expert assassin and killer.

[Supernova122]

@kerronstw:

How the hell was that forced? Correct me if i am wrong (since i havent read skypiea for a long time) but since the time when merry was on that altar and Robin noticed something on the wall it was clear that upper yard has some historic monuments. She even beat the crap out of one of the goat fighters for stepping on a monument before she faced Yama.

I don't mean that it came out of the blue or that it was out of character, but that that part of the fight was kind of force. Like "Oh no, I must protect the ruins with my body and there's no way at all I could attack you in this place, must struggle further away first (even though out of everyone I have the best suited attacks to killing someone with no environmental damage.)" Protagonist losing for a while, then winning with awesomeness is pretty normal. Thing is, it ought to feel convincing. Like Zoro struggles against Mr 1 because he literally can't cut him. And then he can. With some characters, we get them struggling because, uh, they're weaker, and they need to find the route to victory.

Basically, while it was all in character for Robin to behave the way she did, it's not a particularly convincing scenario. It feels like Oda made her feel like she had no choice but to take hits just to make the fight feel less one sided and have Robin take hits, rather than he struggle being organic to the situation she was in.

And his axe dials are clearly part of his fightinh arsenal since he used them against a shandian so i dont see your point. And tbh Nami having some sort of weather weapon to fight an expert fighter with a deadly df seems more forced to me than Robin getting angry over the loss of history.

Do you remember when that random guy attacked a Shandian? And said Shandian blocked with his shield? And it was irrelevant because random guy had an aze dial and slice all the way through? Yama's attacks are basically glorified body slams. They could just as easily be impact dials. Or like a softcore version of impact dials. The only reason it really even matters that they're dials is because Robin turns them around so Yama damages himself. Considering all the really good Sky Combat Oda put into that arc, it's pretty disappointing.

Yeah, the length of this fight played a role aswell. There wasnt unnecessary conversation between Robin and Yama. Compare it to Nami vs Doublefinger where the latter just stood there whole nami wad trying to use her new weapon. That is no good. I would have prefered if Doublefinger went all out on her from the beginning and Nami manages to sneak around the small streets because of her experience as a thief (doublefinger even made a comment that she wasnt a complete amateur like she pretended to be)

Those are called gags. They wouldn't work if Doublefinger was trying to spike her literally all the time she could. The same can be said to some extent for the fight with Kalifa, except the humour seems to be in large part at Kalifa's expense, and it makes her look stupid. No, her being stupid is actually one of the gags.

So you can hate the gags-in-fights thing if you want. But that fight (vs Doublefinger) had a lot of meaning behind it and actually had a couple of pretty powerful moments. Robin vs Yama on the other hand? It was just another skirmish in the woods, really. With a bit of actually not all that compelling character drive behind it. And combatively it was a million times less exciting than, say, Zoro versus Braham.

I generally disliked namus fight because her opponents seem to forget that they are expert assassins and killers when facing nami

Doublefinger's a bit lazy, I suppose, but she goes for the kill when she attacks, and she only really seems to humour ami because of her 'weapon' apparently being nothing of the sort.

With Kalifa, that's kind of true. I like that her fight kind of shows her gradually using a better mix of Rokushiki and her new power, as if she's on a learning curve, and would have perfected it had she not been beaten by Nami. But that's probably not intentional at all.

Annnnd, with Hotori, you have no point whatsoever :p

[Crossword]

There was one point during the Kalifa fight where she had Nami immobilized on the floor and went in with a Shigan…only to hit her in the shoulder just because the fight would've been instantly over had she fought intelligently. At least I always felt that Ms. Doublefinger was always going in for the kill.

[Monkey King]

i liked the Doublefingers fight

[TheCrystalShip]

@Monkey:

i liked the Doublefingers fight

The Doublefinger fight was good. At the time, it was REALLY good, because I was like… "YES, finally! Nami is gonna get to have fights, at least in the big arcs, just like the boys!" I don't know if the fight has become worse, knowing that was just a hopeless pipedream... Or if it's become better, compared to the shit we have to deal with now, LOL.

[wolfwood]

@CCC:

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.

My line of thought was more around that while everything will eventually change to deal with new needs, like the Japanese economy trumping the cultural needs, it might not take forms that will be viewed as acceptable or even expected from western eyes.

So it was more a thing about women's issues sometimes feels like it's being handled out from a western way of thinking, and a sort of assumption that what works with us can just be transplanted and reproduced like an ikea sofa or something

This was of course just my mind wandering of on it's own again, so i'm sure you'll have some nice more thought out counter-arguments handy lol

@Monkey:

Culture is not set in stone, and it is always always open to examination and criticism, as it should be.

Absolutely. I was more thinking that without having some deeper understanding of what makes for intance Japan tick, one is just projecting ones own thought process onto a foreign body, and thus maybe that critique wouldn't really have that much grounding, or use rather

So i was more thinking that in the end there needs to be some nationally grounded and/or adapted version of an ideology for it to take off. Once again just spit balling so be gentle with me folks

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.

When i think the west it envision it as this group of nations who have a shared historical, cultural and ideological base

Which probably seems terribly silly, not that accurate, and probably full of flaws to a geography major like you lol

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.

Nah they'd never rip on an other nations religion. Protestant christianity can fuck off up it's own ass and die, but all other religious denominations are shimmered in this holy light. Same with culture really. They'd probably say you are fat and ignorant, and that capitalism is the devil yadda yadda proletariat Karl Marx, but that's about it as far as vitrol goes. The US doesn't really have a bad gay rep in Sweden.

[Monkey King]

@wolfwoof:

When i think the west it envision it as this group of nations who have a shared historical, cultural and ideological base

Which probably seems terribly silly, not that accurate, and probably full of flaws to a geography major like you lol

It's one of those things that makes the less sense as you zoom in yeah.
It's mostly wierd because on the one hand we're talking a specific country with a homogenous culture like Japan, and comparing it to this massive vague nebulous concept like "the West". In some regards Japan can even be counted as part of the West if you want it to. While you could exclude say the Ukraine.

Nah they'd never rip on an other nations religion. Protestant christianity can fuck off up it's own ass and die, but all other religious denominations are shimmered in this holy light. Same with culture really. They'd probably say you are fat and ignorant, and that capitalism is the devil yadda yadda proletariat Karl Marx, but that's about it as far as vitrol goes. The US doesn't really have a bad gay rep in Sweden.

So these guys would be like "yo don't criticize the pope" (ignoring that the current pope is awesome) and assume Catholics for instance don't shit on the vatican all the time?
That's actually a good example of what I was talking about actually!

[wolfwood]

Dismissing or questioning a foreign nationals way of life like that would be considered unspeakably racist

One should expect a couple of columns about how the writer now hears the brown boot stamps of Nazism outside his window

[Arcadia080]

Has Chivalry in Japan ever existed? The sanji kind where you open the doors and dote on them during a date?

[DarkFalcon]

Ah, Baby 5, what a selfish character she is! She does do everything for self gratification of being needed without any regard to reason. Even though it's clearly shown, that she only hurts herself and others. Her behavior isn't just laughed at or criticized by other characters.
Many people and mostly, or at least stereotypically, women seeks their validation in feeling of being needed and or acknowledgement of being needed presenting Baby 5's characters fails this attitude showing how selfish it actually is and how harmful it is when done without thinking about consequences.
It definitely is relatable, at least for me, as I few times went out of my way to do things, just so I could felt needed by others, gladly I'm not such an idiot, who would do things that actually could hurt me… Thank you Oda for showing me this character. Thank you for showing people that feeling needed isn't the same thing as being needed. Thank you for showing, that building you actions at such shallow feelings and not thinking them thoroughly would only hurt you.
I'd say characterization of Baby 5 is very satisfying as a person, a woman and a villain. At least given that the is minor character so far.
Plus she is sexy but looks quite threatening and one of the male heroes fights with her and shes treated in same humiliated way as her male companion.

[carcanclaw]

Everyone in this thread who either: A. Wants to see more awesome female characters in anime or B. Wants to know what a good example of such a character is needs to stop what they're doing and immediately go watch the first few episodes of Kill la Kill.

The fights are gorgeous and hilarious, the characters are interesting and it has the perfect balance of emotion, slapstick and fanservice. At least for me, this show perfectly exemplifies what I'm looking for from a character from OP.

Matoi Ryuuko, the female main character of the show, both gives and receives plenty of brutal attacks. She's loud and boisterous like Luffy, a skilled physical fighter like Zoro or Sanji, and does it all while maintaining the sex appeal that male viewers seem to believe would be sacrificed by placing female character in physical roles.

[Monkey King]

Anyone demanding sex appeal from ever character is a vapid moron who shouldn't be pandered too.

[carcanclaw]

@Monkey:

Anyone demanding sex appeal from ever character is a vapid moron who shouldn't be pandered too.

I wish anime producers felt the same way, but unfortunately the pandering is what seems to get BD/DVD sales these days. Hopefully, if Kill la Kill's fantastic critical reception translates into profits for the producer, we'll see more shows like it being made.

[Daz]

@DarkFalcon:

Ah, Baby 5, what a selfish character she is! She does do everything for self gratification of being needed without any regard to reason. Even though it's clearly shown, that she only hurts herself and others. Her behavior isn't just laughed at or criticized by other characters.
Many people and mostly, or at least stereotypically, women seeks their validation in feeling of being needed and or acknowledgement of being needed presenting Baby 5's characters fails this attitude showing how selfish it actually is and how harmful it is when done without thinking about consequences.
It definitely is relatable, at least for me, as I few times went out of my way to do things, just so I could felt needed by others, gladly I'm not such an idiot, who would do things that actually could hurt me… Thank you Oda for showing me this character. Thank you for showing people that feeling needed isn't the same thing as being needed. Thank you for showing, that building you actions at such shallow feelings and not thinking them thoroughly would only hurt you.
I'd say characterization of Baby 5 is very satisfying as a person, a woman and a villain. At least given that the is minor character so far.
Plus she is sexy but looks quite threatening and one of the male heroes fights with her and shes treated in same humiliated way as her male companion.

Er, the characterization of Baby 5 is most certainly not supposed her convey her bringing pain to her surroundings. The Baby 5 joke is that people abuse her surpreme selflessness and servility for their own gain. Her running gag is lecherous old men hooking up wih her because she can't say no. If there is pain delt its only to her, only is it really "pain" when she's hopelessly devoted to the creeps?
As a joke I find it crude and lame, but humor is subjective as has been discussed earlier in this thread.

However, I find it a shame that the entirety of Baby 5 is modeled after a completely gender specific gimmick. The Baby 5 joke only works because
A) She's a smoking hot young woman, which
B) Is diametrically opposed to the disgusting men, whom she is unable to refuse despite great personal strength, and
C) She wears a stereotypical sexy french maid outfit to underline her extreme servility.

Its a shame because Oda can do so much better such as- and here I'll probably surprise some people- with Monet. Now the resolution to her fight was absolute horseshit, and she was lacking in the personality department, but by not doing certain things she did some things right.

In terms of design, she was a standard issue attractive OP girl clone, but the wings and Bird feet tweaked the design slightly. And at least the altered limbs made for a design that didn't sexualize her appearance, unlike the outfit of Baby 5. The one time Monets appearance was remarked on she blushed for half a second, and proceeded to get down to business of eating marine shoulders.
As a character she did not have any woman-specific quirks (or much quirks at all), but was in the end a surprisingly straightforward evil minion. She was presented as competent, her DF was completely non-gender specific, and she utilized it for hands-on brutality. She did not degrade into Califa style pandering bullshit incompetence. She did absolutely unforgivably evil things without remorse, and no concessions were made towards her; she was not forced or deluded, or anything but unforgivably evil.
The complete and utter disregard of this by some parts of her fanbase in favor of "she's such a mysterious cutie pie with and her quirk is being flirtatious and blushing with complimented and she was forced into doing evil things by Doffy and will join for sure" was what made me clash with the character.

Viewed by herself, Monet is not objectified, has no gender specific quirks or powers, was unapologetically evil, and was presented as competent and dangerous…at least up until the fights conclusion.

So Oda: More of that. And more designs a la Boa Sandersonia.
Less Baby 5.

[Foolio]

I honestly don't even see how you can compare Kill la Kill to One Piece. Every single character in KlK is completely over the top. It's incredibly fast-paced and chaotic and is driven more by that, and the ridiculous premise, than actual character development (though through the excellent animation there is a large amount of visual character exposition). Ryuuko's over-sexualization only works because it is so exaggerated and satirical (and against her will basically). I wouldn't exactly call the show a satire overall but I don't think you can just copy and paste a Ryuuko into One Piece.

[carcanclaw]

@Foolio:

I honestly don't even see how you can compare Kill la Kill to One Piece. Every single character in KlK is completely over the top. It's incredibly fast-paced and chaotic and is driven more by that, and the ridiculous premise, than actual character development (though through the excellent animation there is a large amount of visual character exposition). Ryuuko's over-sexualization only works because it is so exaggerated and satirical (and against her will basically). I wouldn't exactly call the show a satire overall but I don't think you can just copy and paste a Ryuuko into One Piece.

You're right, you can't copy and paste her. I'd argue that Luffy, Zoro and Sanji are all similarly over the top when compared to Ryuuko, all are eccentric powerhouses who are still able to acknowledge the even more bizarre things transpiring around them. The supporting cast of KlK is what really reaches a different level of insanity.

As for the sexualization, you're right about it being satirical, but that's only half of it for me. What really makes it work is just how often Ryuuko's battle damage and face faults are entirely not sexy. The creators are willing to really rough her up in both comical and serious ways, which is quite effective in preventing the audience from objectifying her. She's pretty, but she doesn't have to be pretty 100% of the time.

Compare that to Nami, Robin, or just about any other attractive woman in OP. Even after they find themselves on the receiving end of some serious damage, they're still attractive, just slightly more scuffed up and bloody. There are no swollen eyes or broken teeth or other things that the male characters routinely experience.

Oda could write a character just like Ryuuko and she would fit perfectly into this universe. He chooses not to because, in my opinion, he places beautiful women on a pedestal and refuses to bring them down to a relatable level, even for a moment.

[DarkFalcon]

@The:

! Er, the characterization of Baby 5 is most certainly not supposed her convey her bringing pain to her surroundings. The Baby 5 joke is that people abuse her surpreme selflessness and servility for their own gain. Her running gag is lecherous old men hooking up wih her because she can't say no. If there is pain delt its only to her, only is it really "pain" when she's hopelessly devoted to the creeps?
As a joke I find it crude and lame, but humor is subjective as has been discussed earlier in this thread.
! However, I find it a shame that the entirety of Baby 5 is modeled after a completely gender specific gimmick. The Baby 5 joke only works because
A) She's a smoking hot young woman, which
B) Is diametrically opposed to the disgusting men, whom she is unable to refuse despite great personal strength, and
C) She wears a stereotypical sexy french maid outfit to underline her extreme servility.
! Its a shame because Oda can do so much better such as- and here I'll probably surprise some people- with Monet. Now the resolution to her fight was absolute horseshit, and she was lacking in the personality department, but by not doing certain things she did some things right.
! In terms of design, she was a standard issue attractive OP girl clone, but the wings and Bird feet tweaked the design slightly. And at least the altered limbs made for a design that didn't sexualize her appearance, unlike the outfit of Baby 5. The one time Monets appearance was remarked on she blushed for half a second, and proceeded to get down to business of eating marine shoulders.
As a character she did not have any woman-specific quirks (or much quirks at all), but was in the end a surprisingly straightforward evil minion. She was presented as competent, her DF was completely non-gender specific, and she utilized it for hands-on brutality. She did not degrade into Califa style pandering bullshit incompetence. She did absolutely unforgivably evil things without remorse, and no concessions were made towards her; she was not forced or deluded, or anything but unforgivably evil.
The complete and utter disregard of this by some parts of her fanbase in favor of "she's such a mysterious cutie pie with and her quirk is being flirtatious and blushing with complimented and she was forced into doing evil things by Doffy and will join for sure" was what made me clash with the character.
! Viewed by herself, Monet is not objectified, has no gender specific quirks or powers, was unapologetically evil, and was presented as competent and dangerous…at least up until the fights conclusion.
! So Oda: More of that. And more designs a la Boa Sandersonia.
Less Baby 5.

Well you have your character interpretation I have mine.
I can defend my interpretation. Baby 5 won't only say no to lecherous geezers, but to to any one, who, she thinks needs her. She gets in debt because of that, she feels hurt every time Doffy decides to kill her finances. She continues to make the same mistake, even thought by now she should have learned what the consequences of her action would be. She is not unable to refuse not because she lacks strength of will or because she is so devoted to others or gets too easily attached. If the later was the case, she wouldn't do things that would endanger them. She does those things for her own sake, by this point is clear that her action can't be considered as misguided devotion to others. She does things others ask of her because it feels good to be needed. She is a foil for characters who shows actual devotion and truly act with others in mind. She acts with only herself in mind, other people (maybe not counting her comrades) are just source of feeling of being needed. When she attacks Doffy upon her introduction she avenges her own hurt feelings, not people who were supposedly important to her. She is bad, poisonous, self serving woman. Nothing about her attitude spells selfless nor servile. Her attitude only changes when she is in situation when she expects gain for herself. Her attire is stark contrast with her normal attitude. She does things for her own gain, only that gain isn't anything tangible, but what she craves is an emotion. And that's why I like her as a villain.
In a way her "quirk" is humorous, but it's very dark kind of humour. It's mostly funny because of how short sighted she is.
Sure it plays on stereotype, but it is a deconstruction.

[Foolio]

@carcanclaw:

You're right, you can't copy and paste her. I'd argue that Luffy, Zoro and Sanji are all similarly over the top when compared to Ryuuko, all are eccentric powerhouses who are still able to acknowledge the even more bizarre things transpiring around them. The supporting cast of KlK is what really reaches a different level of insanity.

As for the sexualization, you're right about it being satirical, but that's only half of it for me. What really makes it work is just how often Ryuuko's battle damage and face faults are entirely not sexy. The creators are willing to really rough her up in both comical and serious ways, which is quite effective in preventing the audience from objectifying her. She's pretty, but she doesn't have to be pretty 100% of the time.

Compare that to Nami, Robin, or just about any other attractive woman in OP. Even after they find themselves on the receiving end of some serious damage, they're still attractive, just slightly more scuffed up and bloody. There are no swollen eyes or broken teeth or other things that the male characters routinely experience.

Oda could write a character just like Ryuuko and she would fit perfectly into this universe. He chooses not to because, in my opinion, he places beautiful women on a pedestal and refuses to bring them down to a relatable level, even for a moment.

I think Ryuuko is presented as attractive basically at all times, even when she's just gotten the crap kicked out of her. Even in OP when the male characters get beaten to a pulp, their swelling and everything else usually only lasts a few seconds, and is often used for comedic effect (especially with Usopp). But I don't disagree with your overall point here. Ryuuko's personality type and treatment, sans the satirization and exaggeration for the sake of exaggeration, could be transplanted into a strong woman in the OP universe.

[Universalshadow]

@The:

! Er, the characterization of Baby 5 is most certainly not supposed her convey her bringing pain to her surroundings. The Baby 5 joke is that people abuse her surpreme selflessness and servility for their own gain. Her running gag is lecherous old men hooking up wih her because she can't say no. If there is pain delt its only to her, only is it really "pain" when she's hopelessly devoted to the creeps?
As a joke I find it crude and lame, but humor is subjective as has been discussed earlier in this thread.
! However, I find it a shame that the entirety of Baby 5 is modeled after a completely gender specific gimmick. The Baby 5 joke only works because
A) She's a smoking hot young woman, which
B) Is diametrically opposed to the disgusting men, whom she is unable to refuse despite great personal strength, and
C) She wears a stereotypical sexy french maid outfit to underline her extreme servility.
! Its a shame because Oda can do so much better such as- and here I'll probably surprise some people- with Monet. Now the resolution to her fight was absolute horseshit, and she was lacking in the personality department, but by not doing certain things she did some things right.
! In terms of design, she was a standard issue attractive OP girl clone, but the wings and Bird feet tweaked the design slightly. And at least the altered limbs made for a design that didn't sexualize her appearance, unlike the outfit of Baby 5. The one time Monets appearance was remarked on she blushed for half a second, and proceeded to get down to business of eating marine shoulders.
As a character she did not have any woman-specific quirks (or much quirks at all), but was in the end a surprisingly straightforward evil minion. She was presented as competent, her DF was completely non-gender specific, and she utilized it for hands-on brutality. She did not degrade into Califa style pandering bullshit incompetence. She did absolutely unforgivably evil things without remorse, and no concessions were made towards her; she was not forced or deluded, or anything but unforgivably evil.
The complete and utter disregard of this by some parts of her fanbase in favor of "she's such a mysterious cutie pie with and her quirk is being flirtatious and blushing with complimented and she was forced into doing evil things by Doffy and will join for sure" was what made me clash with the character.
! Viewed by herself, Monet is not objectified, has no gender specific quirks or powers, was unapologetically evil, and was presented as competent and dangerous…at least up until the fights conclusion.
! So Oda: More of that. And more designs a la Boa Sandersonia.
Less Baby 5.

You just described what made Monet such a boring and forgettable character, I like Baby 5 more, her quirks make her funny and memorable.

[Str1077l1086k_]

This post is deleted!

[grunk]

@Kizuchan:

The joke gets a little old when so many new female characters are a joke or have a gimmick on how stereotypically female they are. It's annoying.

It's equal to how many new characters are "stereotypically male". How many characters in this arc are male and not a male stereotype? We've had an undefeated warrior woman so far.
You raving social justice folks will never be happy.

[Print Error]

@CCC:

Adults should be perfectly capable of discussing serious business without becoming emotionally upset because people disagree. This is why we have forums

Basically this, especially since this isn't an issue that personally affects any of us.

[Rogues' Gallery]

@grunk:

It's equal to how many new characters are "stereotypically male". How many characters in this arc are male and not a male stereotype? We've had an undefeated warrior woman so far.
You raving social justice folks will never be happy.

[TheCrystalShip]

This thread is amazing.

[CCC]

@TheCrystalShip:

This thread is amazing.

We are in a golden age, verily.

[Print Error]

Anyone want to join me in a social justice rave? I'll bring the glowsticks.

[Rogues' Gallery]

@Print:

Anyone want to join me in a social justice rave? I'll bring the glowsticks.

SOCIAL JUSTICE RAVE AT PRINT ERROR'S HOUSE~~~

[Sai-chan]

well, it IS halloween
why the fuck not

[MetaMario]

Can I make the picket signs?

[Aaronrules380]

I don't get how anybody who isn't entirely sexist themselves could claim Oda's treatment of women being better would be a bad thing. I do think he's better than most mangaka, but he still could afford to be way better and the manga would be much better off because of it. Ultimately I try not to focus in on it too much because Oda is still human, so he isn't going to be perfect. I honestly feel like in this respect he's more a product of the culture he grew up in than anything. I wish he was better about the issue, but I honestly don't see it happening any time soon. That said, I am kind of tired about people constantly moaning about it because it's always the same and it's been said a million times. At this point, I think anyone who might get it has, and those who still don't are probably fairly hopeless, and it won't be an internet conversation that changes anything. I just don't know the point of constantly talking about it unless you actually have something new to add

[1234entak]

This is the first forum that ive posted in, and I gotta say Im not disappointed by the discussions I find.

[Str1077l1086k_]

This post is deleted!

[Aaronrules380]

@Strеlоk_:

Why does never anyone complain about how men are treated?

Because men have never been treated in a single, negative manner. And don't say "But all the men are dumb brutes" because that's not even true. Sanji has shown himself to ve rather intelligent, Ben Beckman was said to be the smartest character in east blue followed by Kuro, Doflamingo and Crocodile (although he might very well be gender bent) are the biggest chessmasters of the series, Law is also portrayed as a major tactician. Usopp isn't that smart, but he's hardly a brute and violence is never his first answer to anything. and there are tons more examples where those came from

[Str1077l1086k_]

This post is deleted!

[Aaronrules380]

@Strеlоk_:

So I can provide examples of women who were ugly and/or evil and we can all agree that there isn't an issue?

I don't think you get what the issue is. Especially since Oda always makes ugly women super ugly as a joke, or evil

[Print Error]

I bet this is a guy who believes misandry is a thing.

[Str1077l1086k_]

This post is deleted!

[Aaronrules380]

@Strеlоk_:

The "issue" is that according to Oda all women are polite, kind and cute. So if I can prove the opposite we can all agree that there isn't an issue?

Uh, not quite. The issue is a lot deeper than that. And often sexist works will include women who have what we'd call progressive traits so that they can portray them as flawed or evil because of that.

[Str1077l1086k_]

This post is deleted!

[No Maam]

@Print:

I bet this is a guy who believes misandry is a thing.

I imagine it exists in some way or another.

There's so many wonderfull ways to hate others :D

[AlnaJames]

I'm glad that more people are stressing over this issue and I'm not the only one.

Also, we're not chewing on Oda for his silly joke in SBS, we're chewing on him for actually not joking about that in SBS and following the same course with the actual story.