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

valiantt

So…in the end, nature itself say men and women are equal and need each other, but we completely fucked up the message.

um…what the hell are you talking about?

King Cannon

@The:

I was referring to her overpowered DF ability which her fighting style revolves completely around, as opposed to brute strength.

Hancocks best physical feats involve Perfume femur, which was used against fodder and completely impassive enemies respecively (and also directly utilizes her DF).

Oh boy, Kalifa was terrible about that. What happened to the whip?

Only Alvida comes to mind when I think about a nice-looking woman with great physical strength, but only because that club looks very heavy.

BernieCrane

@CCC:

I think so too?
I was more puzzled than anything. Why show a positive version of a demographic and then flip the script to demonize and show a grossly exaggerated and terrifying version of them that goes right in line with every negative stereotype ever? It's weird structurally, and "haha it's a joke just laugh because men with stubble and dresses are funny because that's what sitcoms taught me and lol sanji funnny" isn't satisfying in the least.

The "men with stubble in dresses" thing was really exaggerated in the scenes that involved sanji and the okama. My interpretation of that development was that we were viewing them from Sanji's distorted point of view, hence the negative stereotypes.

valiantt

@BernieCrane:

The "men with stubble in dresses" thing was really exaggerated in the scenes that involved sanji and the okama. My interpretation of that development was that we were viewing them from Sanji's distorted point of view, hence the negative stereotypes.

I'm pretty sure it was not shown from Sanji's pov. What we saw was…pretty much exactly that.

White Witch

I hope we get more female zoan users like Boa's sisters. They may have not been as dangerous as Luffy's previous opponents, but they were the first female characters that Luffy took seriously in a fight.

A mantis should be cool since these things are huge compared to their male counterparts.

BernieCrane

@valiantt:

I'm pretty sure it was not shown from Sanji's pov. What we saw was…pretty much exactly that.

Point I'm trying to make is that we never get a negative reaction (i.e. Sanji's reaction) from the other characters when they see okamas. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the others saw the two okamas in fishman island who donated blood to sanji, no one gave it a second thought while Sanji had the ridiculous reaction. So what we were seeing as exaggerated features was what Sanji was seeing. When we saw them during the war, they didn't look anything like that. I'm just saying that it was Oda's way of conveying to the audience how Sanji perceived them. Whether or not it was ok for Oda to do that to the okamas is a different matter. Yes it puts them in a horrible light. Yes it further promotes negative stereotypes of them. I'm hoping he did it on the good faith that people remember Bon Kurei and what the impel down okamas did for Luffy and realize how ridiculous Sanji's view of them is.

Unrequited

Lol what happened?

@Supernova122:

Interesting though that Sanji really wanted to beat Kalifa. Like he was blocking her attacks and launching kicks that would beat her but stopping short or just diverting at the last instant.

I find it pretty respectable that he basically kept at this until he was completely and utterly beaten. Again, here, it's obviously a better thing to do to just go somewhere else and let someone else beat Kalifa. If we take for granted that Sanji won't kick a woman ever, we should think it the more commendable option to switch out and fight someone else. But that's definitely not how I feel about it. He won't drop his principle not to kick a woman, even in this situation; but that he can't do it kind of makes him ashamed? So he keeps going at it. I think that is definitely the part of that clash that makes it 'cool' for Sanji, rather than the very fact he won't kick a woman, right?

Still inclined to disagree. Being extremely devoted to something isn't enough to warrant being cool, at least not to me. If it were the case then I'd probably end up praising Hodi for his own unyielding convictions. A dilemma is certainly presented, but I don't believe it worthy of moral quandary in the first place so I'm not just going to take that for granted. If Sanji wants to die for something silly like that all on his own, then hey whatever. It'd still be dumb but that's his choice I guess. But that wasn't the case.

"I won't kick a woman, even if I die!" Yeah, well there was more than Sanji's life riding on that one there. "I won't kick a woman, even if Robin dies," sounded more like it to me. And I'd give the same scrutiny for any other person in the crew. If Nami were to choose hoarding her money over trying to buy Caimie back. Maybe Luffy letting some jobber knock his friends around because that person might make a really good sandwich. Zoro abandoning a crew member to go fight some random swordsman. All these funny quirks and mannerisms are fine as jokes, not when they'd actively interfere with serious situations. To me there's nothing respectable about it, at all.

andre

@Unrequited:

Lol what happened?

Still inclined to disagree. Being extremely devoted to something isn't enough to warrant being cool, at least not to me. If it were the case then I'd probably end up praising Hodi for his own unyielding convictions. A dilemma is certainly presented, but I don't believe it worthy of moral quandary in the first place so I'm not just going to take that for granted. If Sanji wants to die for something silly like that all on his own, then hey whatever. It'd still be dumb but that's his choice I guess. But that wasn't the case.

"I won't kick a woman, even if I die!" Yeah, well there was more than Sanji's life riding on that one there. "I won't kick a woman, even if Robin dies," sounded more like it to me. And I'd give the same scrutiny for any other person in the crew. If Nami were to choose hoarding her money over trying to buy Caimie back. Maybe Luffy letting some jobber knock his friends around because that person might make a really good sandwich. Zoro abandoning a crew member to go fight some random swordsman. All these funny quirks and mannerisms are fine as jokes, not when they'd actively interfere with serious situations. To me there's nothing respectable about it, at all.

I personally think you, and quite a few people are being stubborn about the Sanji/Kalifa issue. He physically could not kick her, even though he tried. He just couldn't do it, and that was Oda's way of showing that it was a physical impossibility for him, no matter how much he tried. You can hate that he wasn't able to do it, but to act like it was a choice he was making to potentially screw over Robin sort of ignores what I believe Oda was trying to inform us, that not being able to kick Kalifa, even to save Robin, was completely involuntary.

Daz

Then it shouldn't be "I wont kick a woman" but "I can't kick a woman", which was not the case.

And if it was, then it would lose all mening as a conscious "chivalrous gesture" by Sanji, which it clearly is. All the dramatic "I…Will not do it!!" moments would be turned into Sanji essentially announcing a psychological defect for dramatic effect, lol

D.aelthasaar

@valiantt:

um…what the hell are you talking about?

Does animals make sex differences when they have to raise their progenies?
They make difference when the progenies is sick, not because of their gender.
Because they're both needed for the survival of the species.

Humans, with their biased culture, make difference when they have to raise and educate their children.
Biased society makes difference in relationing with males and females.
It's society that divided humankind into males and females.

Judaism, Christianity and Islamism pretty much destroyed the importance of women in the society, replacing a natural order with a supposedly divine order, that for men convenience put women in a lower level regarding to men.
It goes on from Eve, to the punishment to women committing adultery (but not men committing adultery), burqas and other shit in the same vein.

andre

@The:

Then it shouldn't be "I wont kick a woman" but "I can't kick a woman", which was not the case.

And if it was, then it would lose all mening as a conscious "chivalrous gesture" by Sanji, which it clearly is. All the dramatic "I…Will not do it!!" moments would be turned into Sanji essentially announcing a psychological defect for dramatic effect, lol

You're right; I was projecting my Sanji love onto the scene and forgetting what actually happened. I still think his chivalry serves the crew more than it hurts and its a bit overblown @AP, even though I don't endorse chivalry in the real world.

edit: Also, I think Oda put Sanji in the Kamabakka kingdom as a way for Sanji to sacrifice… something (his happiness, his freedom, being around biological women) like how Zoro sacrificed his pride in order to train under Mihawk. They are the only two who seemingly did things they would go completely against otherwise, to help the crew.

valiantt

@D.aelthasaar:

Judaism, Christianity and Islamism pretty much destroyed the importance of women in the society, replacing a natural order with a supposedly divine order, that for men convenience put women in a lower level regarding to men.
It goes on from Eve, to the punishment to women committing adultery (but not men committing adultery), burqas and other shit in the same vein.

Eer…what? I GUESS that makes sense. You know, Oda...a guy from Japan...a predominantly CHRISTIAN ahem (and Islamic) nation surely adheres to this perspective strictly as a result of this religion right? Try again and think FURTHER back by considering the motivations behind the manifestation of this perspective. Religion only put a divine spin on this perspective, but you know the perspective is not wholly religious but stemmed from a concern based on procreation and culture/society (which in itself is also tied with religion). It did NOT originate from Eve (that's only in the religious narrative that reinforced the idea, NOT the origin of the idea).

MetaMario

@CCC:

I was more puzzled than anything. Why show a positive version of a demographic and then flip the script to demonize and show a grossly exaggerated and terrifying version of them that goes right in line with every negative stereotype ever? It's weird structurally, and "haha it's a joke just laugh because men with stubble and dresses are funny because that's what sitcoms taught me and lol sanji funnny" isn't satisfying in the least.

See I was wondering more or less the same thing in my last post. It's a good question, don't you think? Bon Clay gets some of the best emotional moments in the series, then….we get okamas that chase Sanji and eat? Marines.

Was Oda trying to please a different crowd? Hmmm...

No Maam

@CCC:

I think so too?
I was more puzzled than anything. Why show a positive version of a demographic and then flip the script to demonize and show a grossly exaggerated and terrifying version of them that goes right in line with every negative stereotype ever? It's weird structurally, and "haha it's a joke just laugh because men with stubble and dresses are funny because that's what sitcoms taught me and lol sanji funnny" isn't satisfying in the least.

It's not just them being "funny" though, it's them being aggresive, to the point where the scene with then chasing Sanji and wanting to undress him, in a group, by force, pretty much seemed quite close to sexual assault.

And having them act as pseudo rapists doesn't exactly make me want to root for them.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@wolfwoof:

Now i feel guilty for laughing at all those 'allo 'allo episodes

Insert Crabtree joke to be filled in later

Also dat Von Smallhausen :ninja:

Panda Bear

@The:

In a story where people can THROW ICEBERGS, the most impressive physical feats out of any woman propably belong to Kalifa, when she managed to tug a train cart. Kalifa was the butt end of CP9, 7 times weaker than Lucci before Zoan induced power boost. But i guess being 14 times weaker than your male collegue is TOO STRONG for a woman.
Just look at Some of the most dangerous women in the series, Perona, Hancock, who fight using broken magic abilities rather than absurd physical strength.

Not to disagree with you here, Daz, but to be perfectly fair, Iceberg really didn't look like he weighed all that much.

@Monkey:

You say this like we were having a discussion!
When in reality you grabbed a random part of a post I made, a hypothetical directed at no one in particular.
Made a snarky comment at it, and I responded in kind. Which then you spun into your thoughts on Sanji that I don't give a shit about.

I don't owe you a fucking Sanji argument

I never said we were having a discussion, nor did I anywhere imply that you 'owed' me one. I simply pointed out, quite accurately I felt – especially considering you essentially admitting it within this post, now -- that you didn't seem interested in starting a discussion on something that was perfectly relevant to the topic of the thread. That's it; simply an observation. Valiantly crusading against idiots that spout baseless ignorance is as valid a contribution to the thread as any attempt to have actual nuanced discussion on the topic, I suppose, so you just keep on doing what you do, Monk.

Although if you want to be a little less aggressively petulant in your responses to me, should you make any more, that would be lovely.

Switching over to the topic of appearances, which I believe has come up a few times in this thread, I had a thought which I'm curious to get others' opinions on. In the context of this thread, does appearance actually matter, in and of itself, devoid of other context within the work? I'm not sure I managed to phrase that in a way that really conveys what I'm asking, so allow me to try to offer an example.

Let's say there were some hypothetical manga where all women were nearly literally clones of each other; far, far beyond the level of what we have in One Piece. Further, let's assume that the single design shared by every female character in this work was some slim, giant-breasted stereotype of what passes for beauty in the land of manga and anime.

However, this theoretic work in question would, in-story, devoutly ignore the fact that every single pair of women were identical twins. In fact, were it to comment about a given woman's appearance at all, it would just as likely be to comment on how ugly a given woman is, as to say how beautiful a different, seemingly identical woman is. The women would be treated as fairly as you could wish by the story, with excellent diversity of character, roles, and whatever else you could wish.

In this sort of context, would the matter of appearance be an issue? (Well, obviously it would be a glaring artistic issue, but I obviously mean on the level of sexism, or perpetuating stereotypes, or anything like that). I suppose I should point out, since I probably have to, that I don't mean to imply in any way that this hypothetical describes One Piece. I simply think it's an interested facet of the discussion, at a more general level, and am interested in anyone else's opinion, should they be interested in sharing.

(Also, those of you that owe me an opinion on this topic, it's time to deliver. You know who you are.)

D.aelthasaar

@valiantt:

Eer…what? I GUESS that makes sense. You know, Oda...a guy from Japan...a predominantly CHRISTIAN ahem (and Islamic) nation surely adheres to this perspective strictly as a result of this religion right? Try again and think FURTHER back by considering the motivations behind the manifestation of this perspective. Religion only put a divine spin on this perspective, but you know the perspective is not wholly religious but stemmed from a concern based on procreation and culture/society (which in itself is also tied with religion). It did NOT originate from Eve (that's only in the religious narrative that reinforced the idea, NOT the origin of the idea).

Well, it wasn't referred to OnePiece.
Sorry, me and others derailed from OP.
Obviously didn't stem from Eve…who does really believe in that?
That's the starting point of humanity in some religions, probably pretty pretty far from the truth.
Religions are fancy books written and used from people to serve their purposes.

Christianity is a messed concept in Japan, to say the least LOL and not to be considered a huge influence.

valiantt

@D.aelthasaar:

Well, it wasn't referred to OnePiece.
Sorry, me and others derailed from OP.
Obviously didn't stem from Eve…who does really believe in that?

Certain religious folks do, you insensitive ass.

That's the starting point of humanity in some religions, probably pretty pretty far from the truth.
Religions are fancy books written and used from people to serve their purposes.

Christianity is a messed concept in Japan, to say the least LOL and not to be considered a huge influence.

I'm not talking about religion you goof. I'm talking about the idea that is perpetuated behind SUCH religions you stated earlier. Religions are fancy books written and used from people to serve their purposes? Who the hell was talking about that? Way to completely brush off my comment. If you aren't going to even address my point, then don't even bother quoting me.

wolfwood

@No:

Crabtree's never in drag from what I remember, just wanting to remind you all Allo Allo is awesome

He's in drag a few time. Like in the one where the Gestapo tries to impersonate the British airmen

Y'know the one where they do the amazing impression of British English being spoken as fafafa fa fa

Aaronrules380

@The:

Then it shouldn't be "I wont kick a woman" but "I can't kick a woman", which was not the case.

And if it was, then it would lose all mening as a conscious "chivalrous gesture" by Sanji, which it clearly is. All the dramatic "I…Will not do it!!" moments would be turned into Sanji essentially announcing a psychological defect for dramatic effect, lol

Actually, I think Oda said that was his intention in the sbs, and that there may have been some editorial meddling involved that led to what we got

CCC

@No:

It's not just them being "funny" though, it's them being aggresive, to the point where the scene with then chasing Sanji and wanting to undress him, in a group, by force, pretty much seemed quite close to sexual assault.

And having them act as pseudo rapists doesn't exactly make me want to root for them.

I don't disagree with you. I was just dismissing the "humor" explanation (which, although it wouldn't be any more palatable, would be more believable if we hadn't just seen 5.5).

DoctorPhil

Not to disagree with you here, Daz, but to be perfectly fair, Iceberg really didn't look like he weighed all that much.

Who, Iceburg?

! I'm in your forums, killing your jokes

Let's say there were some hypothetical manga where all women were nearly literally clones of each other; far, far beyond the level of what we have in One Piece. Further, let's assume that the single design shared by every female character in this work was some slim, giant-breasted stereotype of what passes for beauty in the land of manga and anime.

However, this theoretic work in question would, in-story, devoutly ignore the fact that every single pair of women were identical twins. In fact, were it to comment about a given woman's appearance at all, it would just as likely be to comment on how ugly a given woman is, as to say how beautiful a different, seemingly identical woman is. The women would be treated as fairly as you could wish by the story, with excellent diversity of character, roles, and whatever else you could wish.

In this sort of context, would the matter of appearance be an issue? (Well, obviously it would be a glaring artistic issue, but I obviously mean on the level of sexism, or perpetuating stereotypes, or anything like that).

What

Aaronrules380

@Aaronrules380:

Actually, I think Oda said that was his intention in the sbs, and that there may have been some editorial meddling involved that led to what we got

Found it
From Volume 50 SBS

Here's my question: on p. 80 of Volume 42, Sanji says "I was raised to never kick a woman." Would that have been a lesson from Zeff the Chef? Would that mean Zeff is very soft on women, as well? Tell me. from Ariga-san

O: Oops, this one's from the same person as the last one. This is a good question though, so I'll answer it. When I drew Sanji vs Kalifa (Chapter 403), some people lauded Sanji's stance, and some people felt sorry for him. The truth is, I didn't really want to write those lines. Sanji doesn't have a "policy" of not kicking women; the truth is that he actually CAN'T kick them. He is a very proud man. I think he was really frustrated at that. think Nami recognized that, and chose to praise him for once. It's a scene that I hope will resonate with male readers, but everyone's free to take it as they wish. Also, Zeff is just a man among men.

DARK_RITUAL

@The:

Then it shouldn't be "I wont kick a woman" but "I can't kick a woman", which was not the case.

And if it was, then it would lose all mening as a conscious "chivalrous gesture" by Sanji, which it clearly is. All the dramatic "I…Will not do it!!" moments would be turned into Sanji essentially announcing a psychological defect for dramatic effect, lol

Are you ignoring the part that Sanji said "I was taught/raised not to kick a woman"? Even in the real world, when kids are raised with a specific rule/law they end up following that law/rule when their grown, nor matter if its good or bad they can't just disobey that moral rule/code that was imposed in them since childhood. True that it doesn't happen to most kids but there is still a high percentage of kids it happens to, so as long as there is 1% of kids in this world things like this happens to then Oda can justify Sanji chivalry with the -he was raised like that-.

D.aelthasaar

@valiantt:

Certain religious folks do, you insensitive ass.

LOL, fair, fair.
Fortunately the majority of religious people I know, understand the limits of religions.

I'm not talking about religion you goof. I'm talking about the idea that is perpetuated behind SUCH religions you stated earlier. Religions are fancy books written and used from people to serve their purposes? Who the hell was talking about that? Way to completely brush off my comment. If you aren't going to even address my point, then don't even bother quoting me.

Didn't see how I brushed off your comment you zoophile.
(Seems like people in this forum always needs to call names without reasons)
People writing the books on which religions are based wanted to give a divinity spin or divinity bless to certain situations.
They wanted to keep their society with women not equal to men and legitimate that with "God wants it that way"
If you read the Ancient Testament, it's a friggin' mess of sexual deviations where incest is just one of the things.
Something that some conservatory modern day Jews incredibly still do today.
I won't put links, but you can google enough.

But I still don't get what you mean.
Are you implying that men considered themselves superior because they went to hunt dinosaurs, then clubbed their "wives" when they got back home?
And they legitimate it with a fairy book?
Probably so…

But it wasn't like this anywhere.
Even if there wasn't complete equality, Norse women were much more important in society.
And had way more "rights" than a Mid-East woman.
Still, please, explain yourself better instead of reacting like a dbag.

Daz

@DARK_RITUAL:

Are you ignoring the part that Sanji said "I was taught/raised not to kick a woman"? Even in the real world, when kids are raised with a specific rule/law they end up following that law/rule when their grown, nor matter if its good or bad they can't just disobey that moral rule/code that was imposed in them since childhood. True that it doesn't happen to most kids but there is still a high percentage of kids it happens to, so as long as there is 1% of kids in this world things like this happens to then Oda can justify Sanji chivalry with the -he was raised like that-.

At the end of the day though, Sanji uses the word "won't" instead of "can't", implying a concious choice. Considering the SBS question Aaron posted its a shame; If Oda had actually gone through with his concept he could have milked Sanjis frustration for some serious drama, and maybe even have him overcome his disability for Robins sake, in a glorious character developing moment.

But what we got was Sanji being prideful, and Oda hoping Male readers would relate to Stupid Pride for Prides sake. If the scene was supposed to make us feel bad for a massive physiological hangup of Sanji, Nami would not have praised him.

Aaronrules380

@D.aelthasaar:

LOL, fair, fair.
Fortunately the majority of religious people I know, understand the limits of religions.

Didn't see how I brushed off your comment you zoophile.
(Seems like people in this forum always needs to call names without reasons)
People writing the books on which religions are based wanted to give a divinity spin or divinity bless to certain situations.
They wanted to keep their society with women not equal to men and legitimate that with "God wants it that way"
If you read the Ancient Testament, it's a friggin' mess of sexual deviations where incest is just one of the things.
Something that some conservatory modern day Jews incredibly still do today.
I won't put links, but you can google enough.

But I still don't get what you mean.
Are you implying that men considered themselves superior because they went to hunt dinosaurs, then clubbed their "wives" when they got back home?
And they legitimate it with a fairy book?
Probably so…

But it wasn't like this anywhere.
Even if there wasn't complete equality, Norse women were much more important in society.
And had way more "rights" than a Mid-East woman.
Still, please, explain yourself better instead of reacting like a dbag.

I'd like to point out that muslim women were originally far better off than most women for their time, and one of mohammed's wives was even a merchant. It wasn't until the religion was adopted by huge, macho empires that they started to be super oppressive to women. And no, there wasn't much if any inequality in the old hunter-gatherer tribes. It's something that evolved as people got stuff, and wanted to pass said stuff to their children. ANd because men wanted to make sure it was really THEIR kids, and not some other guy that there wives were cheating on them with, they started to enforce rules that were oppressive to women in order to restrict them. It's the same reason women are taught to be more pure and looked down on more for being super sexually active. It's also the reason there was a huge virgin thing going on: If a women is a virgin, than you know no other man had slept with them before you could, which increases the odds of a child really being yours

DARK_RITUAL

@The:

At the end of the day though, Sanji uses the word "won't" instead of "can't", implying a concious choice. Considering the SBS question Aaron posted its a shame; If Oda had actually gone through with his concept he could have milked Sanjis frustration for some serious drama, and maybe even have him overcome his disability for Robins sake, in a glorious character developing moment.

But what we got was Sanji being prideful, and Oda hoping Male readers would relate to Stupid Pride for Prides sake. If the scene was supposed to make us feel bad for a massive physiological hangup of Sanji, Nami would not have praised him.

I get what your saying but how sure are we that the wording of the word "won't" is the same exact word Oda wrote himself? You know like how translating japanese words to English is complicated, sometimes it doesn't make sense in English but does in Japanese. We can ask a Japanese speaking person if it is indeed true that that's how Sanji words sounds in JP cuz if its true then Oda is contradicting himself here.

valiantt

@D.aelthasaar:

LOL, fair, fair.
Fortunately the majority of religious people I know, understand the limits of religions.

Didn't see how I brushed off your comment you zoophile.
(Seems like people in this forum always needs to call names without reasons)
People writing the books on which religions are based wanted to give a divinity spin or divinity bless to certain situations.
They wanted to keep their society with women not equal to men and legitimate that with "God wants it that way"
If you read the Ancient Testament, it's a friggin' mess of sexual deviations where incest is just one of the things.
Something that some conservatory modern day Jews incredibly still do today.
I won't put links, but you can google enough.

But I still don't get what you mean.
Are you implying that men considered themselves superior because they went to hunt dinosaurs, then clubbed their "wives" when they got back home?
And they legitimate it with a fairy book?
Probably so…

But it wasn't like this anywhere.
Even if there wasn't complete equality, Norse women were much more important in society.
And had way more "rights" than a Mid-East woman.
Still, please, explain yourself better instead of reacting like a dbag.

Much better but once again, I don't get why you refer to it as an overarching religious phenomenon when you keep referring strictly to the Christian example whereas OP is written by a JAPANESE man. REGARDLESS…

I have read the cough OLD Testament and I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to context and incest, sexuality whatever so yeah, you ought to drop it before you make a bigger fool of yourself by trying to make connections between points you are not wholly familiar with. AND ONCE again, I ask, WHAT is the motivation behind doing this? Ask yourself what the motivation might be in accomplishing this? Making themselves feel better that they have a penis? No, there is something more grounded than that. Once you discover this, therein lies the answer to why the Christian/Islam religion perpetuates this (though I don't understand why we're even BOTHERING with Christianity when you first started with an overarching statement about religion diminishing women but can only provide evidence of Christianity/Islam/Judaism which is remarkably telling of your insight into this topic).

The whole notion of women being diminishes is perpetuated BY religion and not a complete manifestation from it. The ideas are perpetuated within religion for a particular reason that you would PROBABLY grasp if you actually knew exactly what you were talking about (hence the whole reason to keep women "inside" and docile rather than having them run around). I'll give you a hint: BABIES.

And fairy book? Really? You truly are an uncultured idiot.

D.aelthasaar

@Aaronrules380:

I'd like to point out that muslim women were originally far better off than most women for their time, and one of mohammed's wives was even a merchant. It wasn't until the religion was adopted by huge, macho empires that they started to be super oppressive to women. And no, there wasn't much if any inequality in the old hunter-gatherer tribes. It's something that evolved as people got stuff, and wanted to pass said stuff to their children. ANd because men wanted to make sure it was really THEIR kids, and not some other guy that there wives were cheating on them with, they started to enforce rules that were oppressive to women in order to restrict them. It's the same reason women are taught to be more pure and looked down on more for being super sexually active. It's also the reason there was a huge virgin thing going on: If a women is a virgin, than you know no other man had slept with them before you could, which increases the odds of a child really being yours

Muslim women before Mohammed weren't Muslims LOL, but I get your point
And what you say makes sense because they were women in smaller communities in harsh envyronments.
Historically the more the culture is based on the clan, the more the women figure is important.

About macho empires…the greek-roman culture were more about pedophily and homosexuality than loving women.
That to imply the superiority of one of the 2 guys.
So I don't get what you mean by macho-empires.

knceng

I don't see anything wrong with Sanji's action, can't understand the hate for him…
He probably the reason One Piece's still running in my country...

Aaronrules380

@D.aelthasaar:

Muslim women before Mohammed weren't Muslims LOL, but I get your point
And what you say makes sense because they were women in smaller communities in harsh envyronments.
Historically the more the culture is based on the clan, the more the women figure is important.

About macho empires…the greek-roman culture were more about pedophily and homosexuality than loving women.
That to imply the superiority of one of the 2 guys.
So I don't get what you mean by macho-empires.

I wasn't talking about before mohammed. I was talking post-mohammed, pre-huge empire. And Greece and Rome were huge on their oppression of women for the most part. Sparta was a bit of an exception, but it was always an odd duck among the Greeks. Athens had tons of rules and behaviors that were enforced upon women

No Maam

I see the word "Mohammed" in this conversation.

A bit worried where the conversation might go.

Aaronrules380

Not to mention Greece was never really an empire, at least not until Alexander the great came around (And he was technically not Greek, but whatever)

D.aelthasaar

@valiantt:

Much better but once again, I don't get why you refer to it as an overarching religious phenomenon when you keep referring strictly to the Christian example whereas OP is written by a JAPANESE man. REGARDLESS…

I have read the cough OLD Testament and I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to context and incest, sexuality whatever so yeah, you ought to drop it before you make a bigger fool of yourself by trying to make connections between points you are not wholly familiar with. AND ONCE again, I ask, WHAT is the motivation behind doing this? Ask yourself what the motivation might be in accomplishing this? Making themselves feel better that they have a penis? No, there is something more grounded than that. Once you discover this, therein lies the answer to why the Christian/Islam religion perpetuates this (though I don't understand why we're even BOTHERING with Christianity when you first started with an overarching statement about religion diminishing women but can only provide evidence of Christianity/Islam/Judaism which is remarkably telling of your insight into this topic).

The whole notion of women being diminishes is perpetuated BY religion and not a complete manifestation from it. The ideas are perpetuated within religion for a particular reason that you would PROBABLY grasp if you actually knew exactly what you were talking about (hence the whole reason to keep women "inside" and docile rather than having them run around). I'll give you a hint: BABIES.

And fairy book? Really? You truly are an uncultured idiot.

Again, because as I told you I DERAILED from the topic, that's why I was talking about Christianity.
Funny how you pick me on OLD Testament.
As far as I recall it was translated in Greek and Latin when it's respectfully called "Ancient" instead of "old"…
Anyway...I didn't understood you were talking about "progenies", but something else, since I mentioned progenies in another post, that maybe you skipped to read.

Fairy books, yes.
Something written in metaphores to explain things to people with limited intelligence/knowledge.
Just like Aesop's Fables.

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Aaronrules380:

Not to mention Greece was never really an empire, at least not until Alexander the great came around (And he was technically not Greek, but whatever)

Yup, from Macedon.
Though both Rome and Greece gave the Oracle spot, (people able to speak with Deities) to women, giving them a high place in the society.

Fact is, the women position in history has never been either black or white.
Surely women have been oppressed for long time and unfortunately still are.

Foolio

@Panda:

Switching over to the topic of appearances, which I believe has come up a few times in this thread, I had a thought which I'm curious to get others' opinions on. In the context of this thread, does appearance actually matter, in and of itself, devoid of other context within the work? I'm not sure I managed to phrase that in a way that really conveys what I'm asking, so allow me to try to offer an example.

Let's say there were some hypothetical manga where all women were nearly literally clones of each other; far, far beyond the level of what we have in One Piece. Further, let's assume that the single design shared by every female character in this work was some slim, giant-breasted stereotype of what passes for beauty in the land of manga and anime.

However, this theoretic work in question would, in-story, devoutly ignore the fact that every single pair of women were identical twins. In fact, were it to comment about a given woman's appearance at all, it would just as likely be to comment on how ugly a given woman is, as to say how beautiful a different, seemingly identical woman is. The women would be treated as fairly as you could wish by the story, with excellent diversity of character, roles, and whatever else you could wish.

In this sort of context, would the matter of appearance be an issue? (Well, obviously it would be a glaring artistic issue, but I obviously mean on the level of sexism, or perpetuating stereotypes, or anything like that). I suppose I should point out, since I probably have to, that I don't mean to imply in any way that this hypothetical describes One Piece. I simply think it's an interested facet of the discussion, at a more general level, and am interested in anyone else's opinion, should they be interested in sharing.

(Also, those of you that owe me an opinion on this topic, it's time to deliver. You know who you are.)

I think the scenario you're describing comes with a whole set of issues, but essentially yes it'd still be a problem because art is still a form of expression. I'm not sure why you would think people wouldn't take issue with every woman portrayed in an entire work being an exaggerated pre-teen's wet dream, visually. Writing them amazingly doesn't change that fact. Would people complain LESS? Probably, since (aside from the weird fact that every woman is identical) it wouldn't be worse than a lot of stuff out there even visually. Now of course the people to whom it would "matter" (and the severity in their eyes) may be reduced compared to, say, the people complaining in this thread, but if visual stereotypes bothered you before then I would expect them to still bother you in isolation. To me your question seems somewhat akin to asking "if I built 500 schools in Africa, would people still have a problem if I killed a black person?"

Monkey King

@D.aelthasaar:

Again, "ucronic".

No, I know what the word means, and it absolutely doesn't fit One Piece.
Is this seriously all you have to say on the history crap? A shame, that's the only part of this I cared to continue.

Or dystopian if you prefer.

And there's a word YOU don't understand lol.

I start seeing what you do…but I see how you fail.
Mentioning Berlusconi to picture the flaws of Italy is merely an act of sheer ignorance

Or unlike you I'm trying to keep current instead of imagining 60-50 years ago is directly relevant to today. Like you Mr. JFK.

Third world Italy is the whole Italy in my book, not the south.

Italy is not third world (or the south, since I meant over 100 years ago), and trying to pretend you are is pathetic, not to mention insulting to actual places below that high living standard. What's the poorest country you been to? Please.

I don't discriminate between my Countrymen or other populations,

Just 50% of the world lol. No big.

What does that mean, we can't erase history because it's where we come from.

I mean it has no relevance to ANYTHING today. This is ridiculous talk lol.
Once upon a time things were one way, now they aren't that way. 50 years is a long long time.
50 years ago South Korea was an (actual) third world dictatorship.
Today it's a first world democracy.
Would you tell a South Korean "Hey! Your country is bad because of your constant military coups and poor sanitation!!! In the sixties!!!".
Like what are you even trying to say lol. It doesn't mean anything.

Like here I'll flip it on, you let's do 70 years. Hey you! Italians! Stop gassing Ethiopians!

Denying our history saying that "we changed" it's bullshit.

Alright hotshot, tell me with a straight face that Barack Obama would have been elected president in 1963 lollll.
Or that gay rights would be the current hugely growing success story in 1963 with 12 states with gay marriage and counting.
Or to get obscure on you, that the South would be voting republican in 1963.

We must acknowledge our errors and keep them in mind any single day.
But America is a place that doesn't learn.

What is even the lesson of "Some crazy guy shot JFK" lolll.
And then he got shot himself by a distraught dude.
Improve domestic security? Yeah, we did that. XD
Hell right now we have the OPPOSITE problem of TOO MUCH domestic security.
Boy 1963 sure has lots of lessons to teach us!

Because calling him misoginist for fictional characters makes sense, innit?

It's almost like stories reflect reality or something! Such as the values and visions of the author! And in turn impress upon the audience!

Vash The Stampede

How many major battles have Nami and Robin had themselves?

Nami: Ms Double Finger, Kalifa

Robin: Yama…

Chrissie

@Aaronrules380:

Not to mention Greece was never really an empire, at least not until Alexander the great came around (And he was technically not Greek, but whatever)

Byzantium you uneducated fool.

Monkey King

@Aaronrules380:

Not to mention Greece was never really an empire, at least not until Alexander the great came around (And he was technically not Greek, but whatever)

Byzantium says hi.

Chrissie

Nyope! Totally not a Greek Empire O.O

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@D.aelthasaar:

It's fun you posted the lion mating pic, which is obviously the first image that would come to mind, but you forgot a Black Widow or a Praying Mantis as an example of gender equality.
I seriously hope, that it was just an anger reaction, and not your true stance about sex equality.
We should thought of penguins a bit more for a example

I was not posting that picture as an image of gender equality, but the opposite. I thought it was obvious, what with all of my sarcasm written all over it. :U

Supernova122

@Foolio:

I'm not sure why you would think people wouldn't take issue with every woman portrayed in an entire work being an exaggerated pre-teen's wet dream, visually.

Not sure pre-teens can get wet dreams.

Porcelainpot

I feel stupid for saying this but I thought Byzantium was based in Turkey. It included parts of Greece, but also loads of other places so I'm not sure if that makes it a Greek empire. Unless I'm missing something.

Chrissie

@Porcelainpot:

I feel stupid for saying this but I thought Byzantium was based in Turkey. It included parts of Greece, but also loads of other places so I'm not sure if that makes it a Greek empire. Unless I'm missing something.

Omg What do they teach you nowadays at schools? Oh damn!

Yep! The Orthodox Christian Empire of Byzantium was Turkish.

Monkey King

@Porcelainpot:

I feel stupid for saying this but I thought Byzantium was based in Turkey. It included parts of Greece, but also loads of other places so I'm not sure if that makes it a Greek empire. Unless I'm missing something.

Greece isn't a random name for an area of land, same with Turkey lol. Those words have very much more involved!

Cyan D. Funk

@Porcelainpot:

I feel stupid for saying this but I thought Byzantium was based in Turkey. It included parts of Greece, but also loads of other places so I'm not sure if that makes it a Greek empire. Unless I'm missing something.

Culturally Greek (or Hellenic if you want to be pendantic.) A lot of Greek and Macedonian rulers.

It's actually really ironic when you think about it.

CCC

Although god knows there are some who deserve it, let's keep the namecalling and personal insults to a minimum (they'll get theirs in the end, somehow). This is too good a thread for that

Chrissie

Really simplified history lesson: Byzantium was Roman Empire turned Greek culturally. It fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 with them conquering Constantinople (modern Istanbul) first. And with that the Ottoman empire expanded.

Porcelainpot

@Cyan:

Culturally Greek (or Hellenic if you want to be pendantic.) A lot of Greek and Macedonian rulers.

It's actually really ironic when you think about it.

Huh, ok. A bit off-topic (well, very), but I had thought that Byzantine was branched off of the Roman Empire so …. it was influenced by the Greek culture its territory included? Or did it change rulership at some point? EDIT: Well, that was answered anyway.

@Monkey King: I assume you mean the culture of the countries, as Cyan pointed out. But then again, you left your answer pretty ambiguously, so no?

Monkey King

@Porcelainpot:

Huh, ok. A bit off-topic (well, very), but I had thought that Byzantine was branched off of the Roman Empire so …. it was influenced by the Greek culture its territory included? Or did it change rulership at some point?

The Greek cultural territory was the core, and the capital of Eastern Roman Empire. Not a Latin one.
Though at first it may have been more distinctly Roman, it eventually was unquestionably a Greek entity culturally. Greek was the languages, Greek were the rulers, nobility, and core population. Greek was the church it swayed on.

@Monkey King: I assume you mean the culture of the countries, as Cyan pointed out. But then again, you left your answer pretty ambiguously, so no?

You wouldn't know those places as Greece or Turkey if it weren't because of the people who live there currently.
The purely geographical name for what you're calling Turkey is "Anatolia" or "Asia Minor" anyway.

Chrissie

@Monkey:

The Greek cultural territory was the core, and the capital of Eastern Roman Empire. Not a Latin one.
Though at first it may have been more distinctly Roman, it eventually was unquestionably a Greek entity culturally. Greek was the languages, Greek were the rulers, nobility, and core population. Greek was the church it swayed on.

You wouldn't know those places as Greece or Turkey if it weren't because of the people who live there currently.
The purely geographical name for what you're calling Turkey is "Anatolia" or "Asia Minor" anyway.

The Romans turned out to be the absolute Otakus lol