I won't deny that One Piece contains elements of sexism, but I think Oda doesn't elevate that as an issue. Boa Hancock for example is in my opinion a caricature of herself/of a Tsundere/of sexism itself. Through her character, especially her arrogance, based on her overhelming beauty, her brutality and last but not least her kawaiish attitude, sexism as a social issue is made fun of. Oda has proven many times before, that he is in some way a cynical author. Take a look back at the FMI arc, how he introduced the subject of racism as a part of the FMI plot: It was sanjis nosebleeding caused by sexual excitment that led to the blood loss.
What do you think of the way women are portrayed in OP?
-
-
@CCC:
.gif of Grandpa Abe Simpson walking out the door that I posted earlier, forgive me!
When men crossdress, it's not because they're trying to achieve rights that they didn't have before. Rather, it's because of a perversion. But more important than the perversion is the fact that they are actively stripping themselves of all those positive traits in order to become something lesser- that is, a woman. It's seen as unnatural, and almost always played up as something comic. Such characters are rarely taken seriously as people.
This isn't me spouting radical, man-hating rhetoric (or me actually believing that nonsense about perversion); this is abbreviated from Feminism 101. Well-documented and understood.How does this apply to One Piece? On the one hand, we've got some "strong" crossdressing male characters. Bon Clay is a good person and a loyal friend, although his "perversion" rarely goes beyond a bit of makeup. He's not overly sexualized or obnoxious, and nothing about his… duality makes him any weaker or lesser. That's great. WB Commander Izou is just a normal badass with pistols... who wears lipstick and has a feminine hairstyle.
I also like the handling of the level 5.5 newkamas. Most of them are just wearing wacky outfits and are simply very bohemian about gender identity. Man, woman, who cares!? Sure, they love show tunes, but who doesn't? They even fight in the war.[/QUOTE
Your insight and assertions seem plausible though a tad convoluted. Nonetheless, why would bon clay or any okamas fashion sense be considered perverted? Is it because japanese are more conservative that they harbor such antiquated notions?
-
Also, what Koshiro said may make him something of a jackass, but it doesn't make him wrong. It may be harsh, but it's also grounded in reality. I mean, let me know the next time a women's world record in a track and field event is better than the men's. The argument that physical strength doesn't really matter at the top also doesn't fly for me, because that would ruin Koshiro's credibility. Sure there's a lot more to it, but it will always play a part. However, again, in the end, it doesn't make sense to bring it up and make a big deal out of it to begin with unless there's a plan to address it later. Until that plan becomes apparent, I will reserve judgement.
In conclusion, OP still has its sexist aspects (cough Hancock), but there's not yet enough information about the Koshiro/Kuina/Tashigi side of it to stress out over yet.
Fair enough. It's just odd to me how this particular aspect of the One Piece world is "grounded in reality" when we also have rubber men and people can punch magma with willpower. I mean, if you're going to go all out, go all out.
Maybe it was anime-only, but the strange thing about Koshiro is that he said that Kuina's rivalry with Zoro was her "chipping away at the limits of female swordsmanship". It really hasn't been brought up by anyone in the series, and I hope it is; it's disconnected from Koshiro's previous statements on the matter.
-
I might be late replying to this but…
I was honestly always puzzled why the depictions of the newkamas never evoked much controversy, at least from what I've seen around here. Kamabakka in general and their depiction as monstrous hedonistic rapists struck me as being way more offensive than anything Oda's done with his female cast.
I felt there wasn't a real reason to get up in arms over it, but it did irk me quite a bit. I didn't raise a stink then and I'm not raising one now, just making an observation, but the portrayal of gender Identity in One Piece being entirely treated like a one-note joke kinda wears thin after a while. It can honestly be upsetting because the way Oda portrays them is exactly how quite a few people view the trans community, so it just kinda reinforces that stereotype that all trans people just dress the way we do to trick men and then "Force our perverted lifestyles down their throats" which is literally what the Newkamas tried to do to Sanji (Chasing him day and night, trying to force him into a dress…)
As for the portrayal of women in OP, I would like to see Women who don't fit into the "Extremely Hot twig-waist and humongous boobs" (Nami, Robin) or "Comically ugly" (Kokoro) mold Oda seems to have created.
This series needs more Pre-New-52 Amanda Wallers actually. Someone like that would be awesome for the series. -
I might be late replying to this but…
I felt there wasn't a real reason to get up in arms over it, but it did irk me quite a bit. I didn't raise a stink then and I'm not raising one now, just making an observation, but the portrayal of gender Identity in One Piece being entirely treated like a one-note joke kinda wears thin after a while. It can honestly be upsetting because the way Oda portrays them is exactly how quite a few people view the trans community, so it just kinda reinforces that stereotype that all trans people just dress the way we do to trick men and then "Force our perverted lifestyles down their throats" which is literally what the Newkamas tried to do to Sanji (Chasing him day and night, trying to force him into a dress...)
As for the portrayal of women in OP, I would like to see Women who don't fit into the "Extremely Hot twig-waist and humongous boobs" (Nami, Robin) or "Comically ugly" (Kokoro) mold Oda seems to have created.
This series needs more Pre-New-52 Amanda Wallers actually. Someone like that would be awesome for the series.Otohime is the only woman that comes to mind who got fair attention and wasn't comically attractive or hideous. One of the reasons I liked her character so much.
And I think CCC's post regarding the okamas is one of the best posts I've read in a while.
-
Otohime is the only woman that comes to mind who got fair attention and wasn't comically attractive or hideous. One of the reasons I liked her character so much.
I just completely spaced Otohime… Good point. She was still portrayed as beautiful, but she wasn't an over-sexualized twig with humongous boobs, so yeah, she does break the mold.
Tsuru also comes to mind now that I think of it. I just wish these characters weren't the exception. -
Fair enough. It's just odd to me how this particular aspect of the One Piece world is "grounded in reality" when we also have rubber men and people can punch magma with willpower. I mean, if you're going to go all out, go all out.
Maybe it was anime-only, but the strange thing about Koshiro is that he said that Kuina's rivalry with Zoro was her "chipping away at the limits of female swordsmanship". It really hasn't been brought up by anyone in the series, and I hope it is; it's disconnected from Koshiro's previous statements on the matter.
Fiction is practically always grounded in reality (tweaked of course, but still based on it). Don't let a few special rules of a fictional world fool you. Water will still beat fire, rubber will still be resistant to lightning, and water pressure will still become increasingly more lethal the deeper you go.
And yeah, I don't think a line like that has ever appeared in the manga. Zoro's flashback in chapter 5 was quite a bit shorter than the delayed anime version.
-
America is the most "gender equal" country and also the one that has the worst marriages, the most degeneracy and so on.
Uh, no….it's joined with many 3rd world countries as the only country who still has yet to elect a female leader...
I'd say Switzerland or any European country is far ahead of you with that. Sorry. Even Canada has had a female prime minister, and when a female stands up for our local political position, she is not bombarded with constant reminders that she's a woman. She's reviewed based on her political standings...
-
Australia's current prime minister is not only a woman, but an Atheist. Makes me really want to go visit a friend of mine who lives there…
I'm glad women won so many seats in this last election, we need more representation in government.
-
@CCC:
.gif of Grandpa Abe Simpson walking out the door that I posted earlier, forgive me!
Given that most cultures/societies started out as patriarchies (many still are), crossdressing in literature plays a very different role for men and women. Women who crossdress do it to achieve something that they would not be able to otherwise. Even if "caught," the idea is that by emulating a man, they were at least trying to embody the positive perceived traits of masculinity; bravery, fortitude, reliability, etc. And isn't that natural? Who wouldn't want to be all those things? Disney's Mulan is a quick and easy example.
When men crossdress, it's not because they're trying to achieve rights that they didn't have before. Rather, it's because of a perversion. But more important than the perversion is the fact that they are actively stripping themselves of all those positive traits in order to become something lesser- that is, a woman. It's seen as unnatural, and almost always played up as something comic. Such characters are rarely taken seriously as people.
This isn't me spouting radical, man-hating rhetoric (or me actually believing that nonsense about perversion); this is abbreviated from Feminism 101. Well-documented and understood.How does this apply to One Piece? On the one hand, we've got some "strong" crossdressing male characters. Bon Clay is a good person and a loyal friend, although his "perversion" rarely goes beyond a bit of makeup. He's not overly sexualized or obnoxious, and nothing about his… duality makes him any weaker or lesser. That's great. WB Commander Izou is just a normal badass with pistols... who wears lipstick and has a feminine hairstyle.
I also like the handling of the level 5.5 newkamas. Most of them are just wearing wacky outfits and are simply very bohemian about gender identity. Man, woman, who cares!? Sure, they love show tunes, but who doesn't? They even fight in the war.Then we have the newkamas of Kamabakka Kingdom. Monstrous, grotesque, extremely masculine in their features (stubble and square jaws), but with freakish voices and rapacious natures. Of course they didn't "actually" try to rape Sanji. This is a comic for children. But Oda could not have come any closer to that implication if he had tried. They chase after Sanji relentlessly, trying to physically turn him into one of them. For a short while, they succeed (in the cover story) by putting him into a dress. Theirs is a lifestyle that they're trying to spread, almost virally, to any unlucky sod that lands on their island, whether that person likes it or not. This is so incredibly offensive that it borders on ironic (like, "Ha ha, wow. Well there's no way Oda ACTUALLY believes ___ people are like this, so whatever! It's just funny!") and is easily overlooked. The marine-eater was the cherry on top, painting these people as nearly literal monsters. I'm personally not ok with it (I don't see how it's different than blackface in minstrel shows), but I'll state the same conclusion that I arrived at in the 687 thread: Japan (and, yes, other countries too...) are way behind the times with these issues, and we have to take that into account when judging Oda's writing. Being gay or a crossdresser or a gender confused person in Japanese society is not nearly as "easy" as in other more progressive countries, and the public's stereotypical image of such men that deviate from the norm often includes something like that of the OP okamas or Hard Gay. Gay men, sadly, often marry women and have completely loveless marriages (complete with kids), just to keep cover, because they feel they have to. At the very least, people hide such things from their workplaces at all costs. That is the reality that we have to understand when looking at Oda's decisions.
One more interesting thing to note about how the 5.5 newkamas and the Kamabakka newkamas are so different. We've got people of both genders in 5.5, and they're constantly swapping thanks to Ivankov. Everything is very fluid, mixed, and easy-going. No one is attacking anyone else or trying to impose a lifestyle. The message is "acceptance." Kamabakka is a different story. The only residents seem to be super masculine men parading around in dresses. There are no "real" women, and Ivankov doesn't even use his hormones to change them into women. It's all very rigid and one-sided, and they aggressively try to "turn" outsiders into one of them. There is no broad mindset of acceptance. The difference is stark and puzzling.
As far as women crossdressing as men in OP...? There was a little girl in movie 4, I think, who, iirc, wasn't even crossdressing for any particular reason. It was an accident. She just had a naturally boyish voice. Not really that interesting.
Well written post! I enjoyed the read thoroughly.
However, it rubs me the wrong way when you allege that women impersonating man want to earn something positive while man impersonating women (and I quote you) "are actively stripping themselves of all those positive traits in order to become something lesser- that is, a woman". I must apologize if what I
m going to type down goes through as rude but that simple phrase reeks of sexism. So far I haven
t met the first person that dresses up so that others can mock at him/her nor to lose an specific trait (unless you are an actor or a clown then there’s the whole make up, smoke and mirrors); therefore if a transvestite chooses a dress over a pair of jeans and a shirt there should be a reason to it and not only because he wants to strip from positive traits. Instead, maybe said person is longing for a trait that seems out of his reach and in his mind he feels a sense of comfort by dressing up as a woman. Im no psychologist but dressing up in order to lose something seems rather absurd.( then again if you
re running away from your wealthy but filthy parents as Sabo was then you could dress up as a panhandler and run away). Wow this topic is complex the more I think about it the grayer it seems. -
CCC isn't saying that's what he believes. He's saying that's what he thinks OTHERS believe if I'm reading that right.
It doesn't have to be about trying to lose or gain something. Some people just know that their gender doesn't match their sex.
-
@ doppleganger and STP
As Autumn said, that's obviously not my personal opinion. That's the analysis that most academics agree on when it comes to how society has traditionally viewed the issue of crossdressing, at least in literature. I'm trying to explain why we have so many male okama in One Piece (usually used for humor) with very few crossdressing females (because they would be playing entirely different roles). I would never call someone like that perverted, nor would I praise the imagined virtues of masculinity. Double standards are never good, and I was just explaining why we have this one.
But for people without that prejudices (or fighting within themselves with those prejudices) it isn't seen as perversion.
Additionally affirmation of malecrossdressers is by extension affirmation of female gender role and affirmation of differences. If we affirm females and see them as equals with males there is no longer reason to see something perverse in men trying to act into that gender role.Right. This too.
-
I agree with CCC's assesment of the Kamabaka Okamas. I have little issue with the Okamas from ID, aside from Ivankov, but the way they were demonstrated makes them extremely unlikeable and unsympathetic.
-
@CCC:
.gif of Grandpa Abe Simpson walking out the door that I posted earlier, forgive me!
When men crossdress, it's not because they're trying to achieve rights that they didn't have before. Rather, it's because of a perversion. But more important than the perversion is the fact that they are actively stripping themselves of all those positive traits in order to become something lesser- that is, a woman. It's seen as unnatural, and almost always played up as something comic. Such characters are rarely taken seriously as people.
This isn't me spouting radical, man-hating rhetoric (or me actually believing that nonsense about perversion); this is abbreviated from Feminism 101. Well-documented and understood.How does this apply to One Piece? On the one hand, we've got some "strong" crossdressing male characters. Bon Clay is a good person and a loyal friend, although his "perversion" rarely goes beyond a bit of makeup. He's not overly sexualized or obnoxious, and nothing about his… duality makes him any weaker or lesser. That's great. WB Commander Izou is just a normal badass with pistols... who wears lipstick and has a feminine hairstyle.
I also like the handling of the level 5.5 newkamas. Most of them are just wearing wacky outfits and are simply very bohemian about gender identity. Man, woman, who cares!? Sure, they love show tunes, but who doesn't? They even fight in the war.[/QUOTE
Your insight and assertions seem plausible though a tad convoluted. Nonetheless, why would bon clay or any okamas fashion sense be considered perverted? Is it because japanese are more conservative that they harbor such antiquated notions?
It's not about fashion sense (or CCC personal vies). Especially being crossdressing man was and unfortunately is seen as perversion, because they aspired to be women, that is something lesser in sexist world view dominant even in our world. But for people without that prejudices (or fighting within themselves with those prejudices) it isn't seen as perversion.
Additionally affirmation of malecrossdressers is by extension affirmation of female gender role and affirmation of differences. If we affirm females and see them as equals with males there is no longer reason to see something perverse in men trying to act into that gender role.Fair enough. It's just odd to me how this particular aspect of the One Piece world is "grounded in reality" when we also have rubber men and people can punch magma with willpower. I mean, if you're going to go all out, go all out.
Maybe it was anime-only, but the strange thing about Koshiro is that he said that Kuina's rivalry with Zoro was her "chipping away at the limits of female swordsmanship". It really hasn't been brought up by anyone in the series, and I hope it is; it's disconnected from Koshiro's previous statements on the matter.
There is a simple answer to that. Creating world without differences between genders (and may are remind that differences between people are something to be affirmed as beneficial to all) is more counterintuitive than making fantastic things like rubber man and ice person, magma guy or island in the sky. It's because gender is most basic aspect creating our society. Al through history humans believed in visions of the world that by our modern standards would be put into fiction, and they were acting upon them, you know like world being inside big cosmic egg, surrounded by giant, inhabited by creatures that we are not able to see, people without heads living in far away countries. Or existence elixir of eternal youth, all those things and more were deemed possible, however existence of gender is something so fundamental to construction of society, that it was unthinkable. The situation where balance of gender roles was different from what was known at area, like domination of women, was deemed as one of the wonders of foreign, even most naive utopian writers, like Thomas Campanell weren't able to deny it completely (in fact, like many other utopian writes his visions have little to do with equality), in fact only book, where it was claimed that it was done I have read is "Men like gods" by H. G. Wells, but the author is actually faking it, the only women from the other that appears in the story is portrayed as shallow (for their standards) and less active in her life (well J Ringo, "There will be dragon's" also did it at begging, but everything went downhill once the technology has been canceled, that is at the begging of the story) so I don't thing society without differences between gender was ever portrayed anywhere. Even making women physically stronger than men is more counter intuitive than making them exactly the same.
In fact equality between genders can't be achieved by unification of gender (making visual differences only differences), but by fairness, acceptance of differences, affirmation of both genders (and not only one, as it is in sexism), dialog and possibility for people to choose their identity. In similar way as equality between cultures can't be achieved by unification end reducing differences between them to visual aspects (like fashion and architecture) - Like making Japan second America in terms of axiology and costumes of everyday life only allowing Japan to keep different fashion and architecture - some fractions were opted for doing that after WWII.
There can be no equality either in this world or in fictional one if we don't cherish differences.
-
Oh yeah Otohime, she was a great female character (it's funny that the people who cry about OP being extremely sexist never remember her). Also I don't see why people are whining about One Piece not having enough/important female characters. It's a comic book targeted at young/teenage boys. What else was expected?
-
Oh yeah Otohime, she was a great female character (it's funny that the people who cry about OP being extremely sexist never remember her). Also I don't see why people are whining about One Piece not having enough/important female characters. It's a comic book targeted at boys. What else was expected?
I find that to be a odd line of reasoning. Boys aren't allowed to have important female characters within their stories? That's something only reserved for girls?
-
In fact equality between genders can't be achieved by unification of gender (making visual differences only differences), but by fairness, acceptance of differences, affirmation of both genders (and not only one, as it is in sexism), dialog and possibility for people to choose their identity. In similar way as equality between cultures can't be achieved by unification end reducing differences between them to visual aspects (like fashion and architecture) - Like making Japan second America in terms of axiology and costumes of everyday life only allowing Japan to keep different fashion and architecture - some fractions were opted for doing that after WWII.
There can be no equality either in this world or in fictional one if we don't cherish differences.
This is very concise and really an amazing notion, but it will never really go beyond that sadly.
There are cultural stereotypes that are far too strong that we'll never break. A man is supposed to be manly, the Alpha, the hunter. Woman is supposed to be a gatherer, the homemaker. That's why you have the often joked about "Get back in the kitchen" mentality which, while we laugh about it now, there are still people who think that way in a sub-conscious way. My MOTHER is like this, yes, mother. She believes a woman should have the right to work, but if the man makes enough money, it's the woman's job to be a home maker and take care of the kids.
Breaking these norms is not an easy thing to do. Even some people who think of themselves as progressive thinkers, will tend to default to some of these when they're challenged to the breaking point. If someone steps out of the heavily guarded lines that separate the genders, it can start to make even the most outwardly liberal person start to get uncomfortable because it's not what they were raised to know about Man or Woman. And that's not even bringing Religion into the discussion. If I had a dime for every time I've been told I'm going to burn in hell, I could retire.
-
I find that to be a odd line of reasoning. Boys aren't allowed to have important female characters within their stories? That's something only reserved for girls?
They can but they will ultimately be outnumbered by the amount of important male characters in the story.
-
They can but they will ultimately be outnumbered by the amount of important male characters in the story.
Why? And also I don't find that to be overly true. Or are harem type anime not directed at boys? Because those have an over abundance of women usually. And from some of the shows I've seen, it's a fairly equal boy to girl ratio. I think Soul Eater has more female cast members and most of those being power houses.
I think One Piece has a fair amount of women, but the ones we see don't happen to be fighters but town fodder. There's like a handful of Marines ladies, and well, a whole damn island of women a decent chunk of em pirates. They don't really have to be outnumbered and they can be important in the story too as much as the men.
-
My take on it and I think what DarkFalcon is trying to get at: do what you want. Be a homemaker, work 80 hours a week, whatever. Macho man, effeminate guy, butch woman, feminine lady, whatever, who gives a fuck, you are who you are and nothing can change that. People are more than labels. Wear what you want, love who you want, try your best at whatever you do, and don't tell someone they can't do something until you see them try.
-
There are cultural stereotypes that are far too strong that we'll never break. A man is supposed to be manly, the Alpha, the hunter. Woman is supposed to be a gatherer, the homemaker.
That's where what is probably the greatest mystification of our whole culture starts.
It isn't just man=hunter, woman=gather. That distinction is smaller part of the problem actually. The bigger part is hunter=more valuable, gatherer=less valuable, with equation from first sentence it gives us ma=more valuable, woman less valuable. However when, man=hunter, and women=gatherer is strongly based in trends that actually existed, notion than hunter is more valuable to the community is a lie. Hunter-gatherer communities mostly support themselves from gathering, not hunting, of course it plays essential role providing protein and fat as well materials such as hides, bones and antlers, but it is by no means more important than gathering. If due to the climate hunting gets more important, both genders usually participate. The problem begins when hunting is given more symbolical space (being them or more myths and tales, being depicted in art) than other forms of activity. It makes hunting symbolically more important than they actually are. It get worse when economical model of economy changes into agrarian and/or pastoral and when role occupied by hunters is taken by warriors. While hunters profit society in obvious ways, warriors profit no one but themselves. To ensure their status in society, they create meta-narration that glorifies war and their (manly) physical strength as essential to community. Soon all non warriors are deprived from right of taking part in public and political life, as they are not as valuable to society. But we know, that they are in fact valuable to society, they are just seen as less valuable - "the lie reaped thousand times becomes truth". Than for tusands of years that ideology has been uphold and elaborated on to be more sufficient for newer times.That's basically how sexism and social stratification started. Not by people being active in different ares of life - being divided into gender roles, but due to improper evaluation of their roles.
That is simplified picture of course, but I think it give you the idea.That's discourse of power and domination. It is seen in vast majority of modern media. It is also present in One Piece to some extent (for one thing fights are given a lot of space). It is also present in many post in this thread, witch is very worrying, as here is no way to treat women fairy within the very discourse that caused the inequality in the first place. Yes, the very people who earnestly argued for female equality and condemned sexism were doing it within meta-narration, that by it's nature denies any equality. Hattori's post is splendid example.
And that's why I'm putting so much stress on evaluating characters outside context of fight.
-
I think you and Hattori actually agree on the problem, but just are approaching it from two different angles.
- It's not cool that traditionally feminine occupations are treated as less important than traditionally masculine occupations <– this is you
- It's not cool that women aren't allowed to exceed at traditionally masculine occupations and men at traditionally feminine occupations <-- Hattori
A simplification sure, but that's the general gist I'm getting from the previous posts.
-
I think you and Hattori actually agree on the problem, but just are approaching it from two different angles.
I came to think this too. I agree that the female characters, based on individual personalities and achievements alone, are up to par with the males. That's why I bring up examples like Zoro's flashback and Big Mom. The females in One Piece are as capable as the men, but Oda doesn't treat them as such. He's letting his own subconscious tendencies seep into his otherwise sound writing. What do you call different treatment of two otherwise equal things? A double standard.
-
I think you and Hattori actually agree on the problem, but just are approaching it from two different angles.
- It's not cool that traditionally feminine occupations are treated as less important than traditionally masculine occupations <– this is you
- It's not cool that women aren't allowed to exceed at traditionally masculine occupations and men at traditionally feminine occupations <-- Hattori
A simplification sure, but that's the general gist I'm getting from the previous posts.
statement 2) comes directly from 1).
Women aren't allowed to participate in men's activities (in traditional societies), because they are so unworthy it would soil sacred masculine activity, men are not aloud to take part in feminine activity, because it would soil their honor. And it's all because femininity is seen as less valuable. However with his/her post and discussion with him/her I've seen diametrically different reasoning from my own. Hattori have chosen to never investigate sources of sexism, and due lack of that knowledge made some wrong assumption about nature of the problem.Hattori deficits things in discourse of power and domination, that's a problem for me. He/she interprets ambition of dominated others as bigger than peaceful ambitions. Another problem is that he/she sees equality as sameness not as fairness. Fair treatment doesn't implicates that everyone has to be treated the same way (it's unfair to demand from older person to adapt to changes as soon as youths, from children to posses necessary life knowledge, from Eastern Asian to participate in drinking contest with Eastern European as well at is to demand from woman to chase after values that have been assigned with high status by someone else, namely male dominated society).
He/she wants female shown taking traditionally masculine activity to make picture of women more valuable by association with masculinity. While I think that women can take participate in male activity, but even if they don't they are equally worthy because feminine activities are. Demand that females should be portrayed in exact same way as males are is unfair one as it denies us our identity and puts unfair demand on females in real life to be exactly as the men - and even if in fiction women can be the same, they can never be in real world - fiction is one of the sources we take models of behavior.
Very often women want to be treated the same as men and participate in same activities, because that treatment mean higher prestige and those activities are seen by society as better - it's what CCC written about crosdressing girls. Only modern girls all aloud to keep their clothes, instead to be regarded as valuable as men they have to agree to participate in mens dominant culture on mans rules (functioning on different rules would automatically made them less valuable in social view). Treating females in ways traditionally assigned for females is now often seen as disrespectful, because it links females to their femininity, and femininity is less valuable than masculinity (in social view). Now people are aloud to be bodily female (body is not that important now-a days, due to development of technology and mind/body dualism, so it is no longer bounding factor) and take active part in public life, as long as they are socially male - the world is strange.
That's the source of demand to depict women in fiction in exactly same way as men. It comes from domination of males.
I don't want such a portrayal, what I want is fair portrayal of women, in other world, portrayal that would do us justice.
We still have so much to do about equality of genders and operating within meta-narration of domination is counterproductive as it enforces inequality. Equality seen as sameness is actually illusion of equality, hiding truth about being one absolute world view for all - it is "make everyone the same as we are" - it negates diversity, unables dialog (we need differences between people for that) and as a result stops development.It's hard to fight with modern sexism, because it's hidden like that.That's why I was urging him/her to investigate sources of sexism. He/she is just not aware of foundations of his/her world view, and I'm sure consciously wouldn't agree to to them.
The only point on which we agree is: sexism is harmful, Oda is sexist, there are sexist tendencies in One Piece and Kuina should pursue her dream. However our reasons to agree with each of those are far apart.
-
I take issue with "to demand from woman to chase after values that have been assigned with high status by someone else," because some women–including me!--do genuinely want to partake in traditionally 'masculine' occupations, just because it just happens to mesh with our personalities. I for my part won't shame any woman that wants to be a housewife, as long as it was a choice she herself made (and I hope she'd do the same for me). It'd be wrong to tell me I'd be happy as a stay-at-home mother, just like it'd be wrong to tell the hypothetical housewife she'd be better off as a childless career woman (and also wrong to tell people off for wanting kids and a fulfilling career, although the way our society is set up makes that very difficult). But the issue I believe you're bringing up is that people, for example, value being a housewife less than being a career woman, correct?
The example I think of that people can relate to is modern clothing. Women are allowed to wear both skirts and trousers, but men can only wear trousers unless it's a special event and you can wear a kilt. The same sort of thing. Why can't men wear skirts too, shaped for their body type? Because it's degrading somehow and being feminine is a Bad Thing that real men avoid.
But to bring this back to One Piece (I'll get that thread up sometime this weekend, it's the sort of thing that deserves a crazy-long opening post with lots of information and numbers): I can think of plenty of women that succeed at traditionally male activities: Kuina, Hina and Tsuru, Kalifa, Tashigi sort of, Big Mom, Bonney, Whitey Bay… But I'm really scratching my head to think of any men that do traditionally female things that aren't roundly laughed at by the narrative. Cooking doesn't count, because while domestic cooking is primarily female-dominated, professional chefs are nearly all male and it's a sexist industry from what anecdotes I've been told. (That's a whole other tangent though; home cooks female, professional chefs male; wizards good, lowly witches bad?)
-
A very valid point, although it's a bit lengthy and somewhat condescending, especially the bit with "He/she is just not aware of foundations of his/her world view", considering it's his/her world view …
But yea, that aside, I very much agree with you.
@Autumncomet: personally it does irk me that when women do traditionally manly activities, people justify it as a good thing for them to do to fit in the world, but guys doing traditionally womanly things is psychosis, wrong and perverted.
It's like people take it as a fact that it's a man's world in which women have to catch up and earn freedom and respect, instead of realizing it's a human world and both men and women need to realize we're on the same level and deserve the same freedoms.
-
But I'm really scratching my head to think of any men that do traditionally female things that aren't roundly laughed at by the narrative.
I can hardly even think of any women who do traditionally female things. There's… Makino. And Rika's mom I guess?
It's hard to ask men to fill a role that practically doesn't even exist in the first place.
-
Forgot to add Belle-mere and Dadan to my previous list.
Banchina too (homemaker), probably Vivi since the princess saving her kingdom is a pretty common thing.
But that just raises the question why there are so few traditionally female roles to be filled in the first place? (Because it's a pirate manga. So why did Oda choose to draw a pirate manga? Because he wanted to appeal to young boys and it's the sort of manga he would have liked to read when he was the same age. So why don't boys like traditionally female things? Now we're back where we started. Aaaaaaaaaaah)
-
I take issue with "to demand from woman to chase after values that have been assigned with high status by someone else," because some women–including me!--do genuinely want to partake in traditionally 'masculine' occupations, just because it just happens to mesh with our personalities. I for my part won't shame any woman that wants to be a housewife, as long as it was a choice she herself made (and I hope she'd do the same for me). It'd be wrong to tell me I'd be happy as a stay-at-home mother, just like it'd be wrong to tell the hypothetical housewife she'd be better off as a childless career woman (and also wrong to tell people off for wanting kids and a fulfilling career, although the way our society is set up makes that very difficult). But the issue I believe you're bringing up is that people, for example, value being a housewife less than being a career woman, correct?
The example I think of that people can relate to is modern clothing. Women are allowed to wear both skirts and trousers, but men can only wear trousers unless it's a special event and you can wear a kilt. The same sort of thing. Why can't men wear skirts too, shaped for their body type? Because it's degrading somehow and being feminine is a Bad Thing that real men avoid.
But to bring this back to One Piece (I'll get that thread up sometime this weekend, it's the sort of thing that deserves a crazy-long opening post with lots of information and numbers): I can think of plenty of women that succeed at traditionally male activities: Kuina, Hina and Tsuru, Kalifa, Tashigi sort of, Big Mom, Bonney, Whitey Bay… But I'm really scratching my head to think of any men that do traditionally female things that aren't roundly laughed at by the narrative. Cooking doesn't count, because while domestic cooking is primarily female-dominated, professional chefs are nearly all male and it's a sexist industry from what anecdotes I've been told. (That's a whole other tangent though; home cooks female, professional chefs male; wizards good, lowly witches bad?)
You know, as a female studying (and for some time working in traditionally male field of activity), I can tell you that they would also expect you to see things from their many perspective - or if you try to incorporate your feminine view of things you face the danger of being ridiculed - it's getting better now, but the situation is far from perfect. It isn't only about engaging in activities that are traditionally seen as masculine, it's about taking them from your cultural experience of being women. Actually applying your womanly perspective to traditionally many field can only enrich the general view not to mention it would enable you to realize your goals and by extension your freedom , but if you wouldn't blatantly put on the sidetrack or ridiculed, at least you patters of manly thinking and perspective would be presented to you at the begging of your career as the ones to strive for. You may work on traditionally masculine field, but you don't need to follow traditional, many directives to resolve problems, you may act in away more comfortable for your identity, you in your field of work you may choose you niche, that had been empty since, because men didn't thought about it or thought it's unworthy for some reasons - that's how gender studies started in humanistic - from applying feminine perspective on traditionally masculine field. You get my meaning? Majority of professions is traditionally male dominant, either way.
It isn't only about females on traditionally many fields, it's about female themselves on those fields. -
Forgot to add Belle-mere and Dadan to my previous list.
Banchina too (homemaker), probably Vivi since the princess saving her kingdom is a pretty common thing.
But that just raises the question why there are so few traditionally female roles to be filled in the first place? (Because it's a pirate manga. So why did Oda choose to draw a pirate manga? Because he wanted to appeal to young boys and it's the sort of manga he would have liked to read when he was the same age. So why don't boys like traditionally female things? Now we're back where we started. Aaaaaaaaaaah)
Interesting, now I want to see Oda draw a manga about homemakers living out their lives at home. I actually think it would make a pretty hilarious premise/concept if it were over the top.
-
A very valid point, although it's a bit lengthy and somewhat condescending, especially the bit with "He/she is just not aware of foundations of his/her world view", considering it's his/her world view …
But yea, that aside, I very much agree with you.
@Autumncomet: personally it does irk me that when women do traditionally manly activities, people justify it as a good thing for them to do to fit in the world, but guys doing traditionally womanly things is psychosis, wrong and perverted.
It's like people take it as a fact that it's a man's world in which women have to catch up and earn freedom and respect, instead of realizing it's a human world and both men and women need to realize we're on the same level and deserve the same freedoms.
the foundations of world view and world view itself are two different things. So I won't be surprised when Hattori objects, and say those are not his/her ad I've take them out of nowhere. In fact I don't think he/she upholds totalitarian ideas of that sort. But they are present and hidden in modern cultural discourse, and influence his/her way of thinking. Again it isn't something that most of people are aware off and would never put it into words the way I did.
-
Interesting, now I want to see Oda draw a manga about homemakers living out their lives at home. I actually think it would make a pretty hilarious premise/concept if it were over the top.
It might turn out to be something like this:
!
-
You know, as a female studying (and for some time working in traditionally male field of activity), I can tell you that they would also expect you to see things from their many perspective - or if you try to incorporate your feminine view of things you face the danger of being ridiculed - it's getting better now, but the situation is far from perfect. It isn't only about engaging in activities that are traditionally seen as masculine, it's about taking them from your cultural experience of being women. Actually applying your womanly perspective to traditionally many field can only enrich the general view not to mention it would enable you to realize your goals and by extension your freedom , but if you wouldn't blatantly put on the sidetrack or ridiculed, at least you patters of manly thinking and perspective would be presented to you at the begging of your career as the ones to strive for. You may work on traditionally masculine field, but you don't need to follow traditional, many directives to resolve problems, you may act in away more comfortable for your identity, you in your field of work you may choose you niche, that had been empty since, because men didn't thought about it or thought it's unworthy for some reasons - that's how gender studies started in humanistic - from applying feminine perspective on traditionally masculine field. You get my meaning? Majority of professions is traditionally male dominant, either way.
It isn't only about females on traditionally many fields, it's about female themselves on those fields.What exactly is a 'feminine' or 'masculine' point of view though? I'm not convinced men and women see the world all that differently. Are they brought up to view the world differently, oh yeah, but that's a whole other issue.
Unless you mean that I ought to make sure that their methods of problem-solving and outlook on the world aren't predisposed towards that of/benefitting solely heterosexual (white) men, then yeah, absolutely. I can't tell you how many discussions I've had where it's some variation on:
! Me: You know, maybe we should have more women characters than just the prostitute and the love interest.
Other person: That's not interesting.
Me: I think that'd be very interesting!
Other person: It wouldn't sell.
Me: I'd buy it. :sad: And a lot of people would.
Other person: Yeah, but most women wouldn't take this seriously anyway (or some other vaguely sexist/racist dogwhistle that implies I'm a Good One/credit to my race whereas those othersluts and colored peoplewomen and minorities don't really get it)
! And part 2 goes:! Me: That's pretty sexist/racist, what you're implying there.
Other person: No it's not! You're just being oversensitive. :w00t: (Bonus points if they use "hysterical")It might turn out to be something like this:
!
Nami, why do you have to beat up on your friends like that? :sad:
Also, funny that Tashigi was randomly there, you'd think Vivi would be a good choice.
-
Interesting, now I want to see Oda draw a manga about homemakers living out their lives at home. I actually think it would make a pretty hilarious premise/concept if it were over the top.
It might turn out to be something like this:
!
maybe we should suggest it Oda-sensi to do it one he'll finish One Piece. :D People would read it.
-
the foundations of world view and world view itself are two different things. So I won't be surprised when Hattori objects, and say those are not his/her ad I've take them out of nowhere. In fact I don't think he/she upholds totalitarian ideas of that sort. But they are present and hidden in modern cultural discourse, and influence his/her way of thinking. Again it isn't something that most of people are aware off and would never put it into words the way I did.
-_-' … the tone is ... still there ... eh, forget it, it's not important.
It might turn out to be something like this:
!
Huh, that was weird. Still a bit bothersome in the sense they're mostly caricatures of a particular female stereotype … and in the sense that Sanji was creepy as hell.
-
What exactly is a 'feminine' or 'masculine' point of view though? I'm not convinced men and women see the world all that differently. Are they brought up to view the world differently, oh yeah, but that's a whole other issue.
Unless you mean that I ought to make sure that their methods of problem-solving and outlook on the world aren't predisposed towards that of/benefitting solely heterosexual (white) men, then yeah, absolutely. I can't tell you how many discussions I've had where it's some variation on:
! Me: You know, maybe we should have more women characters than just the prostitute and the love interest.
Other person: That's not interesting.
Me: I think that'd be very interesting!
Other person: It wouldn't sell.
Me: I'd buy it. :sad: And a lot of people would.
Other person: Yeah, but most women wouldn't take this seriously anyway (or some other vaguely sexist/racist dogwhistle that implies I'm a Good One/credit to my race whereas those othersluts and colored peoplewomen and minorities don't really get it)
! And part 2 goes:! Me: That's pretty sexist/racist, what you're implying there.
Other person: No it's not! You're just being oversensitive. :w00t: (Bonus points if they use "hysterical")Nami, why do you have to beat up on your friends like that? :sad:
Also, funny that Tashigi was randomly there, you'd think Vivi would be a good choice.
World view comes greatly from cultural experience. Cultural experience of being woman is different from cultural experience of being man.
there are also differences in activity of different parts of the brain and need to accommodate to different body type and biological rhythm. And there are issues addressed by evolutionary psychology all those things play some minor part
but those are minor details that are important both in human life and in nature. If in universe that we know, change one tiny detail, by tiny bit like value of force holding atoms together, instead of universe we know with galactics, solar systems and intelligent life would be just big cloud of hydrogen, so I can't say small differences in nature aren't important ones.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
-_-' … the tone is ... still there ... eh, forget it, it's not important.
you mean, "I know better what you think than you" tone? I shouldn't do that, that's bad habit.
-
Forgot to add Belle-mere and Dadan to my previous list.
Wait, are you considering these to be female characters with feminine roles? Because they were a Marine and a leader of a group of bandits respectively, that both wound up having to raise kids. It's really no different than the situations of Zeff, Hiluluk, and Tom, but with different professions for each one. Koshiro raised kids by choice (granted by teaching them to be swordsmen).
Even Brook put himself in a position of raising a baby whale and singing to it every day. Imagine how that situation would be viewed and discussed if he was a female.
Banchina too (homemaker), probably Vivi since the princess saving her kingdom is a pretty common thing.
I don't think Banchina got a single panel in which she wasn't on her death bed, so it's hard to say how she lived her life. Vivi was really pretty ballsy in how she approached the BW problem. I think we'd expect the same type of approach from a protagonist prince in a similar situation.
Are you sure your own sex bias isn't playing a role in judging these characters?
Because it's a pirate manga. So why did Oda choose to draw a pirate manga?
Let's not get to a point where we're criticizing Oda over his own personal interests. It'd be a massive stretch to associate his love of pirate adventures with sexism.
-
You mean Oda didn't write this comic with a private agenda to bash on women? My whole world has been turned upside down.
-
@CCC:
@ doppleganger and STP
As Autumn said, that's obviously not my personal opinion. That's the analysis that most academics agree on when it comes to how society has traditionally viewed the issue of crossdressing, at least in literature. I'm trying to explain why we have so many male okama in One Piece (usually used for humor) with very few crossdressing females (because they would be playing entirely different roles). I would never call someone like that perverted, nor would I praise the imagined virtues of masculinity. Double standards are never good, and I was just explaining why we have this one.
Right. This too.
Thanks for clearing this up for me. Now that I got my 7 hours sleep time I can clearly see you were speaking about the general view by society in regards to the topic.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------@ Darkfalcon, auttomcomet, doppelganger and other great posters.
After reading your posts, there seems to be a factor that we haven´t discussed about which is starting to surface. The RISK factor. As stated directly or indirectly by many; human society has been molded since the caveman era. At that time the hunter= men and the women=gatherer had clear roles and chores to live up to. Now let´s suppose we travel back in time who knows how many million years and live for a week as they did. Let’s say we are set somewhere near a savanna along the base of a mountain range. We set our bonfire, harvest a certain kind of wheat, and hunt for the living; Once again let’s suppose the main source of food is "boar". But to take down the animal, hunters need to move into a dense forest on the other side of the savanna. Beware!, there are some hungry lions, hyenas and god knows what creature of said era. Hence, those willing to go and succeed will need to be fast, agile and strong. They will also be recognized as Protein bringers; we need to realize that meat and fish may well be one of the food sources that provides the most energy, supplements and proteins which in turn enhances development. Now, on the other hand the gatherers are people who are manually skilled and apt for multitasking having to do many things at a same time; nonetheless their work involves less risk since the direct contact with the wild is reduced. The latent danger is there but it’s not aimed at the one gathering unless there´s a fierce beast preying on the camp.Considering patriarchal societies begun since the time of the example given above, I believe that risk was one of several aspects that involved said recognition. At that time men were seen more capable of protecting the "tribe" against outside dangers (more precisely predators). As time changes so do society, no one expects to see a Big Cat in the centre of Madrid or a Jaguar in the Rio de Janeiro Carnival. Instead Human´s biggest predator became its own race. As a result of said change gender equality appeared; it seems to be a natural progression as we keep changing the world we live in.
-
Wait, are you considering these to be female characters with feminine roles? Because they were a Marine and a leader of a group of bandits respectively, that both wound up having to raise kids. It's really no different than the situations of Zeff, Hiluluk, and Tom, but with different professions for each one. Koshiro raised kids by choice (granted by teaching them to be swordsmen).
No, I meant they were examples of women in traditionally male things (military and head of a bandit group respectively).
Even Brook put himself in a position of raising a baby whale and singing to it every day. Imagine how that situation would be viewed and discussed if he was a female.
Not really? Being a musician was the highlight of his flashback and that's a pretty gender neutral thing, I would think.
I don't think Banchina got a single panel in which she wasn't on her death bed, so it's hard to say how she lived her life. Vivi was really pretty ballsy in how she approached the BW problem. I think we'd expect the same type of approach from a protagonist prince in a similar situation.
Are you sure your own sex bias isn't playing a role in judging these characters?
I could've sworn Banchina was a housewife. Maybe its my own bias, I don't know. I'll stand by Vivi though, because I really can't think of any work with a protagonist prince in the same situation, I really can't.
Let's not get to a point where we're criticizing Oda over his own personal interests. It'd be a massive stretch to associate his love of pirate adventures with sexism.
…it was a joke. Am I not allowed to make fun of the thread? Thought the "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah" bit made that obvious, oh well.
You mean Oda didn't write this comic with a private agenda to bash on women? My whole world has been turned upside down.
Thanks for missing on the entire point of the conversation? No one here's said that, I guess I'm just bad at levity?
-
…it was a joke. Am I not allowed to make fun of the thread? Thought the "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah" bit made that obvious, oh well.
Thanks for missing on the entire point of the conversation? No one here's said that, I guess I'm just bad at levity?
The fact that these two comments are adjacent to each other makes this somewhat of a comical response. Then again, since English isn't your first language I suppose I should have wrote my post with comic sans font. (In other words, yes you are bad with levity, but you expected others to interpret your post as a joke too? C'mon~)
-
Nah, it's cool, I just shouldn't make bad jokes in a thread about such a hot-button topic, I guess.
-
Thanks for clearing this up for me. Now that I got my 7 hours sleep time I can clearly see you were speaking about the general view by society in regards to the topic.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------@ Darkfalcon, auttomcomet, doppelganger and other great posters.
After reading your posts, there seems to be a factor that we haven´t discussed about which is starting to surface. The RISK factor. As stated directly or indirectly by many; human society has been molded since the caveman era. At that time the hunter= men and the women=gatherer had clear roles and chores to live up to. Now let´s suppose we travel back in time who knows how many million years and live for a week as they did. Let’s say we are set somewhere near a savanna along the base of a mountain range. We set our bonfire, harvest a certain kind of wheat, and hunt for the living; Once again let’s suppose the main source of food is "boar". But to take down the animal, hunters need to move into a dense forest on the other side of the savanna. Beware!, there are some hungry lions, hyenas and god knows what creature of said era. Hence, those willing to go and succeed will need to be fast, agile and strong. They will also be recognized as Protein bringers; we need to realize that meat and fish may well be one of the food sources that provides the most energy, supplements and proteins which in turn enhances development. Now, on the other hand the gatherers are people who are manually skilled and apt for multitasking having to do many things at a same time; nonetheless their work involves less risk since the direct contact with the wild is reduced. The latent danger is there but it’s not aimed at the one gathering unless there´s a fierce beast preying on the camp.Considering patriarchal societies begun since the time of the example given above, I believe that risk was one of several aspects that involved said recognition. At that time men were seen more capable of protecting the "tribe" against outside dangers (more precisely predators). As time changes so do society, no one expects to see a Big Cat in the centre of Madrid or a Jaguar in the Rio de Janeiro Carnival. Instead Human´s biggest predator became its own race. As a result of said change gender equality appeared; it seems to be a natural progression as we keep changing the world we live in.
Do you want to know my professional opinion on the matter? As archaeologist I'm entitled to give it, right?
First of, women may have been banned from hunting or certain types of hunting only after hunting gained special status, maybe in order to ensure domination of one group over another. We can't go back and observe how it really was. There are anthropological analogies to historical hunter gatherers communities and bunch of speculations basing on theoretical approach, like structuralism, Marxism and so on. We pretty much can legitimately assume that hunting have high status, because there are animals depicted on the walls- symbolical space - of many caves and basing on anthropological analogies. I don't think there is any researcher who would argue high status of hunting. However, while hunted animals are often depicted, hunting itself is not. At the beginning it wasn't probably that important who did the hunting. We know, that men are better suiting for that task, however they may have been female hunters as well. Notion man=hunter only began when humans started to observe general trends and in some point of history got established so strong that it denied woman right to participate in hunting or at least in certain hunting activities. Notion of men=hunter is both consistent with trend, that existed and has it's place in meta-narration that established inequality of gender, but there is no way to check, if it was regarded as absolute must by early hunter-gatherers societies. It may have spread earlier with coming of agrarian and most importantly pastoral societies, the latter are especially blamed for that, as pastoral societies are usually most biased towards men. Hunter-gatherers societies are likely to be much more equal, even if they have strongly assign traditional gender roles (having gender roles, and unequal treatment aren't synonymous). However if two types of societies meet some migration of ideas happen between them, so hunter-gathers societies known from written history may have come to the idea of different social status of genders from contact with societies of different type.
Due to lack of data it's hard to be talking about domination of one gender over the other till about fifth-fourth millennium B. C. - bronze period.To the danger factor. In early societies everyone is in danger. Big dangerous animals are far from only danger. Small animals can kill you as well - like snakes or venomous insects. Danger of hunger have to be considered as well. Hunting depends on luck to much greater degree, than gathering, so for saving people from that danger when hunter couldn't due to bad luck gatherer should gain some recognition. Further more accidents during hunting aren't happening as often - those people know what they are doing and how not to get spotted touched by their game - it can happen of course - bad luck - but not as often as situation when hunter don't catch the game.
There is also set of specifically female dangers - percentage of death in childbirth is quite high. Bearing new babies = ensuring that community will continue, and that there will someone to care about people when they will grow old. Just as necessary as hunting, even more dangerous.
Not denying the importance of men-protectors - that role isn't more essential to early societies, than other areas of activity.That's the basis, no witch any researcher (save maybe for really wacky ones - like those who claimed that world started 4004 B. C. or those who think man and dinosaurs walk the earth together 75 millions years ago - yes, those exist, are serious about that and publish books) would agree. The rest is more advanced and less backed with data theoretical speculations.
-
No, I meant they were examples of women in traditionally male things (military and head of a bandit group respectively).
Ah, I see. I was confused to what it was responding to I guess.
Not really? Being a musician was the highlight of his flashback and that's a pretty gender neutral thing, I would think.
It goes with the whole "moms singing to their kids" shtick. I'm not saying you'd complain about it necessarily, but someone would.
I could've sworn Banchina was a housewife. Maybe its my own bias, I don't know. I'll stand by Vivi though, because I really can't think of any work with a protagonist prince in the same situation, I really can't.
We know literally nothing about Banchina beyond her taking care of Usopp after Yasopp left and supporting his decision. Even Oda forgot that he even drew her at one point.
It's understandable that you can't think of a prince in the same situation. After all, I can't think of another princess, either. Even if it is some cliche princess role that I'm not aware of, that would be… princessism? Oda reworks common themes to his own liking all the time. That would just be a case where a girl happened to be involved. The things she did certainly aren't typically feminist.
…it was a joke. Am I not allowed to make fun of the thread? Thought the "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah" bit made that obvious, oh well.
I wasn't really sure either way, to be honest. Well, no worries, my bad.
-
Do you want to know my professional opinion on the matter? As archaeologist I'm entitled to give it, right?
First of, women may have been banned from hunting or certain types of hunting only after hunting gained special status, maybe in order to ensure domination of one group over another. We can't go back and observe how it really was. There are anthropological analogies to historical hunter gatherers communities and bunch of speculations basing on theoretical approach, like structuralism, Marxism and so on. We pretty much can legitimately assume that hunting have high status, because there are animals depicted on the walls- symbolical space - of many caves and basing on anthropological analogies. I don't think there is any researcher who would argue high status of hunting. However, while hunted animals are often depicted, hunting itself is not. At the beginning it wasn't probably that important who did the hunting. We know, that men are better suiting for that task, however they may have been female hunters as well. Notion man=hunter only began when humans started to observe general trends and in some point of history got established so strong that it denied woman right to participate in hunting or at least in certain hunting activities. Notion of men=hunter is both consistent with trend, that existed and has it's place in meta-narration that established inequality of gender, but there is no way to check, if it was regarded as absolute must by early hunter-gatherers societies. It may have spread earlier with coming of agrarian and most importantly pastoral societies, the latter are especially blamed for that, as pastoral societies are usually most biased towards men. Hunter-gatherers societies are likely to be much more equal, even if they have strongly assign traditional gender roles (having gender roles, and unequal treatment aren't synonymous). However if two types of societies meet some migration of ideas happen between them, so hunter-gathers societies known from written history may have come to the idea of different social status of genders from contact with societies of different type.
Due to lack of data it's hard to be talking about domination of one gender over the other till about fifth-fourth millennium B. C. - bronze period.To the danger factor. In early societies everyone is in danger. Big dangerous animals are far from only danger. Small animals can kill you as well - like snakes or venomous insects. Danger of hunger have to be considered as well. Hunting depends on luck to much greater degree, than gathering, so for saving people from that danger when hunter couldn't due to bad luck gatherer should gain some recognition. Further more accidents during hunting aren't happening as often - those people know what they are doing and how not to get spotted touched by their game - it can happen of course - bad luck - but not as often as situation when hunter don't catch the game.
There is also set of specifically female dangers - percentage of death in childbirth is quite high. Bearing new babies = ensuring that community will continue, and that there will someone to care about people when they will grow old. Just as necessary as hunting, even more dangerous.
Not denying the importance of men-protectors - that role isn't more essential to early societies, than other areas of activity.That's the basis, no witch any researcher (save maybe for really wacky ones - like those who claimed that world started 4004 B. C. or those who think man and dinosaurs walk the earth together 75 millions years ago - yes, those exist, are serious about that and publish books) would agree. The rest is more advanced and less backed with data theoretical speculations.
What a well structured post. I envy you bacause even if I would love to write in such a manner I would fail badly.
Anyway, thank you for the archeological insight on the topic. Data is sure to be important to gain relevant knowledge from the past; moreover, it seems there are roots and reasons that will hardly be retrieved ever. Yet, your point of a mix society back in the beginning seems quite logical.I came to wonder how big an influence was size when depicting danger in said society. Would they actually notice that rattlesnake venom might be lethal, or would they just endure it as a small bite and chop the snake´s head off. The first antivenom for snake bites was produced by Albert Calmette in 1894, so I do wonder how an African man in the Bronze period would deal with a black mamba´s bite (the swiftest snake on earth which also has deadly venom). Here is a short tale about Mawu (I just named a girl like this to give some perspective to the story)
-Mawu is a fisher who lives near a crystal stream in a paradisiac African field full of wildlife. One day, as any other, while she was heading out to bet some luck at fishing she was approached by a black mamba. The nimble snake sensed the heat source and dug its fangs into poor Mawu´s ankle spreading pain in a flash. Noticing the attack, the brave little girl with unwavering determination shakes the snake off her limb and takes a stick that was lying next to a half-withered bush. Gathering all her forces, her arm swung the wooden weapon with that killing instinct of a mighty lion slaying the ophidian on the spot. What will happen to Mawu?"
a. She will go back and tell her clan that she was bitten while preparing her coffin
b. She will go back indifferent and oblivious of the fate the future has in store for her. Dying badly with the worst symptoms possible
c. She makes a tourniquet and cuts her leg , because at least she knows the venom will fail to reach her upper body and chances of surviving will increase
d. She goes fishing and dies. Her society will blame the Wrath of a God fish for eating one too many.
e. Another choice, your choice.
So what do you think it will happen? -
Women in this manga actually stand a fighting chance. I can't really complain, they are treated much better here than they are in certain other manga.
Charlotte Linlin
Boa Hancock
Catalina DevonThese are all women who're monstrously strong and can hang with the strongest of their male counterparts.
Then you have women like Hina, Laki, Bellemere, and Robin who are just complete bad asses.
-
What a well structured post. I envy you bacause even if I would love to write in such a manner I would fail badly.
Anyway, thank you for the archeological insight on the topic. Data is sure to be important to gain relevant knowledge from the past; moreover, it seems there are roots and reasons that will hardly be retrieved ever. Yet, your point of a mix society back in the beginning seems quite logical.I came to wonder how big an influence was size when depicting danger in said society. Would they actually notice that rattlesnake venom might be lethal, or would they just endure it as a small bite and chop the snake´s head off. The first antivenom for snake bites was produced by Albert Calmette in 1894, so I do wonder how an African man in the Bronze period would deal with a black mamba´s bite (the swiftest snake on earth which also has deadly venom). Here is a short tale about Mawu (I just named a girl like this to give some perspective to the story)
-Mawu is a fisher who lives near a crystal stream in a paradisiac African field full of wildlife. One day, as any other, while she was heading out to bet some luck at fishing she was approached by a black mamba. The nimble snake sensed the heat source and dug its fangs into poor Mawu´s ankle spreading pain in a flash. Noticing the attack, the brave little girl with unwavering determination shakes the snake off her limb and takes a stick that was lying next to a half-withered bush. Gathering all her forces, her arm swung the wooden weapon with that killing instinct of a mighty lion slaying the ophidian on the spot. What will happen to Mawu?"
a. She will go back and tell her clan that she was bitten while preparing her coffin
b. She will go back indifferent and oblivious of the fate the future has in store for her. Dying badly with the worst symptoms possible
c. She makes a tourniquet and cuts her leg , because at least she knows the venom will fail to reach her upper body and chances of surviving will increase
d. She goes fishing and dies. Her society will blame the Wrath of a God fish for eating one too many.
e. Another choice, your choice.
So what do you think it will happen?Thank you
Firstly, there was no bronze period in Africa. There was bronze period on this continent, but not in what we recognize today as specifically African culture. We have bronze period Mediterranean and I'm thinking especially about Egypt here, but not in Sub-Saharan Africa. They went straight from stone age to iron age and rhythm of changes there is vastly different from Europe and Asia.
The area I know best is Europe, for once I'm European. The other reason most research had been conducted in Europe.
The most competent person to answer your question would be cultural anthropologist or better yet person who is both archaeologist and anthropologist and who specialists in African Culture.
I can try to answer you, because Archeology is interdisciplinary and each archaeologist has to know some basis of cultural anthropology. However what I know are mostly generals, whitch may not apply to well to African specific.Lets estimate that she lives around 3rd millennium B. C. by the time people would see connection of being bitten by poisonous snake and dying. However they are likely to explain in different way than we with our science would do. Magical thinking dominates. There is no distinction between symbolical and practical spheres of life. The directive for that situation would be doing something, that we would describe as rite. There would be certain activities required of her and people she would contact to do in that situation. I can't tell, what would be specific directives because they different in different cultures and for us coming up with that sort of activities is counterintuitive, if we don't know how they develop and if we don't understand what world view was basis for them. Directive, that for us is completely bizarre and inappropriate in situation is thoroughly logical within different world, like different description of mechanism that happens after being bitten by snake. She wouldn't probably cut her leg off, because she wouldn't be aware that venom is spreading via blood vessels - I can't say when people acquired that knowledge. She may as well be think that she will die, because spirits chosen her to and bite isn't cause of demise, but sign that she was chosen (to die) - in that case there are certain directive to honor that choice. Or she may think it' a curse, that can be undone by fulfilling certain directive.
-
-
I will say this. The bath scene in Thriller Bark was extremely triggering and I wish Oda had written it differently. I can't look at a picture of Absolom with out feeling sick. I wasn't happy with the way Oda drew it. We should not have had a view of Nami's body. In Alabasta, when she flashed the male characters, we did not see her body. I actually liked that scene because Nami was in full control of her sexuality. However, in Thriller Bark when we were invited to view her body as she was being sexually assaulted, no that was not ok. What's worse was that she never got propper revenge. It was implied that the only reason she beat Absolom was that Sanji had fought him first and she was tired.
The scene with Smoker unbuttoning Tashigi's shirt while in her body was also triggering and showed that he had absolutely no respect for her. What he did was essentionally sexual harrassment and worse that her subordinants had to see her body in that state.
And I'll say this. It is ok to include sexy woman in your story. Heck, it's ok to include sexy woman who dress in little clothing. However, when it is practically every woman, well then it becomes to much. Nami and Robin should be enough sexiness for the male viewers. We don't need nearly every other female in the story to be sexy.
I have also lost all respect for Sanji with him peeping in on Nami and later exploiting her body when they switched. (I haven't finished that arc yet as I have been very busy)
I thought that Oda started out very strong with his female characters. Nami was great, she had short hair, smaller breast, intelligent, and still considered sexy. Robin was over 25 and was still desirable and not treated like a Spinister. Alabasta was great as far as the portrayl of gender. But starting with Enies Lobby, I am a bit disappointed with how they are progressing. Shame since Oda started out so strong.
It would be nice to see more capable women in the manga. In a world where people can gain amazing abilities from eating a fruit, there is no reason why a woman can't be as capable as a man. (They don't at all need to be as physically strong. Nami could be one of the most powerful members with her climatact, physical strength isn't needed)
-
The scene with Smoker unbuttoning Tashigi's shirt while in her body was also triggering and showed that he had absolutely no respect for her. What he did was essentionally sexual harrassment and worse that her subordinants had to see her body in that state.
Agree, I also thought that scene was really inappropriate. And after rereading the whole arc I noticed how Tashigi got humiliated by Law, (indirectly smoker), Vergo and zoro in a row. Poor girl.
Dont really like the route oda has chosen in the last time in regards to protrayal of strong woman. I only hope, that we will see a strong female fighter in the next arc.