Forum - View topic

EP. REVIEW: Maria the Virgin Witch

The difference between the woman and the knight is that the knight gets agency and she doesn't. She is presented basically as this kind of loose woman who is easily seduced by Galfa (who seems like a pretty dirty, crude guy who's just constantly out having sex with prostitutes - you wouldn't think a woman of higher standing would be so easily transformed into just another of his prostitutes). After she has sex with him, she becomes a non-actor and disappears completely after the fight. ...That is a lot different than the woman, who is treated as just another of Galfa's quick lays.

In terms of what actions she does, yes, she cannot do anything because she's not allowed to, it's an obligated passive character, all the society treats her like an object without opinion... Maybe I'm reading too deep and I get what you mean (she has very little focus), but imo it has enough context about how she and the knight are treated and the focus of the episode, so it worked for me enough, that was the feeling I got with that episode. But different strokes I guess.

The sympathy for Galfa comes from his scenes before, not this one. It was when Galfa was drunk and telling his dreams, when he thanked Joseph's concern for him when he was on the edge, when he wanted to pay back Joseph no matter what because that's the way it works in the mercenary world and how to live in it, how Maria's actions basically make him have the blame for everything, etc. He has both good and bad qualities, and that's where some audience can sympathize with him despite not being a good fella. Back then, not with the discussion of the rape or when he killed his boss.

What you just wrote was far more condemning of her than the series was. Her agency was in choosing to sleep with him when he approached her. In a society where she was probably given to the knight as a status reward or power-brokering, rather than choosing him for herself, choosing Galfa was an act of defiance. It doesn't make her a "quick lay." As was already mentioned, she disappears because she got caught and that was the consequence of her choice in this society, especially after her "protector" committed suicide and left her essentially unmarriagable. I don't know what else you would have had them do with her character, but anything else (aside from suicide herself perhaps) would have been false to the setting and beyond the scope of her inclusion in the narrative. That is, to follow her further would have necessitated turning her into a main character to do her justice.

So, the best agency a woman can hope for in this show is to rebel against an arranged marriage by sleeping with a drunk, immoral man, who gives her absolutely no value and forgets her the moment she's out of sight?

I don't think the scenes you are referring to make Galfa very sympathetic.

So, the best agency a woman can hope for in this show is to rebel against an arranged marriage by sleeping with a drunk, immoral man, who gives her absolutely no value and forgets her the moment she's out of sight? That is what you call agency? I'm sorry, but that is just so weak imo. If that's the best women have to hope for then we have even less imagination than I thought. ... Having the freedom to sleep with an unscrupulous man is not enough agency to overcome her objectification in this instance, and I think makes it even worse, as it reinforces her identity as a sexual object.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

So, the best agency a woman can hope for in this show is to rebel against an arranged marriage by sleeping with a drunk, immoral man, who gives her absolutely no value and forgets her the moment she's out of sight?

In the context of this story, yes. That's supposed to be the point. This is a world where women do not have power. Witches have power, but they are damned heretics.

and when it comes to a tender topic like rape, I'm preeeeeeetty exhausted with having to go into threads and tell dude posters that maybe they don't have to talk like they have the answers on how it should and shouldn't be portrayed all the time...especially when they're usually arguing with women, 'cause there are multiple women trying to confront your stance on this one, and then it just gets ugly and nobody's happy, and this is a nice thread where everyone should be welcome and comfortable, dangit.

Again, so you agree that she's being objectified but

I never think it is a good method of argumentation to attack the person of the arguer or presume things about them (including gender) and use that as some way of trying to delegitimize the points they are making.

Arguing ad hominem on the internet is inherantly dangerous because you generally don't know who (or what) the hominem you're talking to actually is.

Rogueywon wrote:

Arguing ad hominem on the internet is inherantly dangerous because you generally don't know who (or what) the hominem you're talking to actually is.

I wouldn't bring it up if it wasn't details I knew for a fact based on past interactions with the posters in question. I'm not guessing anyone's gender, I'm stating things I know from past altercations. You're right that it shouldn't be relevant at all, except everybody decided they wanted to discuss gender issues today, and when that happens, yeah, it's extremely relevant.

Nope. She's not being objectified. She is acting out in a very small way against a system that leaves her no options, and she faces unjust consequences for it. That's not what the word objectifies means or has ever meant. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you "that's not what that word means," but it seems more and more like a big fat waste of my time, so I'll leave it at that.

Objectification:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In social philosophy, objectification means treating a person as a thing...

According to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, a person might be objectified if one or a selection of the following properties are adhered to:

Instrumentality - as a tool for another's purposes: "The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"

Denial of Autonomy - as if lacking in agency or self-determination: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in autonomy and self-determination"

Inertness - as if without action: "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity"

Fungibility - as if interchangeable: "The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type, and/or (b) with objects of other types"

Violability - as if permissible to damage or destroy (Violence): "The objectifier treats the object as lacking in boundary integrity, as something that it is permissible to break up, smash, break into"

Ownership - as if owned by another: "The objectifier treats the object as something that is owned by another, can be bought or sold, etc"

Denial of Subjectivity - as if there is no need for concern for their feelings and experiences: "The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account"

Besides, there are about three or four people directly telling you that's not what that word means, for several pages. You don't agree. That's all there is or ever was to this argument. Whatever. It would be really great if you just dropped it before I have to make babysitting rules for the thread again. I don't like babysitting rules. They suck. Cut the soapboxing. It's against the rules.

Literally all I said was, "You are a male poster, several people arguing with you are female posters. The topic is the objectification of women. Maybe take that into account." That is a fact followed by an opinion on that fact. It's not an attack and can't be remotely construed as one.

Rogueywon wrote:

Arguing ad hominem on the internet is inherantly dangerous because you generally don't know who (or what) the hominem you're talking to actually is.

I wouldn't bring it up if it wasn't details I knew for a fact based on past interactions with the posters in question. I'm not guessing anyone's gender, I'm stating things I know from past altercations. You're right that it shouldn't be relevant at all, except everybody decided they wanted to discuss gender issues today, and when that happens, yeah, it's extremely relevant.

Also, episode 8 marks a break with the historical realism that the show has gone with for its non-magical elements so far. The depiction of medicine is completely wrong, both in its effectiveness and in how it is administered. I'd accepted that a witch's medicine could sit outside those rules because of magic (the witches have, so far, sat alone outside the "realistic" world). But given that a major point of the series is that the Church doesn't actually have magic itself, the Bishop's medicine should have no such power.

Also, Galfa's prosthetic arm is centuries before its time. He's also back on his feet much, much quicker than somebody who has lost a major limb would have been with the medicine at the time (or indeed, with modern medicine).

And if Martha's medicine is on dubious historical grounds, then Galfa being fitted with a modern prosthetic and being back on his feet within a few days of losing an arm is much, much worse. At the very least, he would have faced a lengthy struggle against infection. The whole weaponised-prosthetic thing felt more in keeping with Full Metal Alchemist or something than this show. I was disappointed (not a criticism of FMA, which never tries to set itself within real-world rules in the same way Maria has).

In 1504, Berlichingen and his company fought for Albert IV, Duke of Bavaria. During the siege of the city of Landshut, he lost his right arm when enemy cannon fire forced his sword against him. He had two mechanical prosthetic iron replacements made, which are today on display at the Jagsthausen Castle. The second, more famous prosthetic hand was capable of holding objects from a shield or reins to a feather pen. In spite of this injury, Berlichingen continued his military activities. In the subsequent years he was involved in numerous feuds, both of his own and in support of friends and employers.