Forum - View topicChicks On Anime - Female Crossdressers in Media
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
konkonsn
 Posts: 172 Location: Illinois |
|
|||||||
Nope, I didn't take it that way, I was just pointing out the nuances of your argument. But I do think you're still wrong about what it means to be a feminist. It sounds to me like you're listening to those who have only grazed the surface of feminism and haven't thought it through. Feminists do not want to become men; they very, very much love being women and want everyone else to love them for being women. I highly recommend this site: feministing.com |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
WinterAyars
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||||
Actually, i would definitely go for Haruhi over Tamaki. The twins would be pretty tempting, though 
I agree Kino doesn't really belong in there, but... in the anime at least (i still am trying to track down the books) Kino is definitely gender-deviant in some way and is presented as such by the show. (Only hints of Kino's "real" sex are given... although for the Kino anime it's pretty heavy handed  )
I think Kino is androgynous in a way very few other characters are. Most characters start off androgynous, but then "find" their true gender... whereas Kino (in the story) goes the other way around: starting as gendered and then "finding" androgyny. (Almost by accident, it seems.) The adoption of the name, the clothes, the rigorous martial training (to the point where Kino dominates a whole string of trained killers at one point--very few female characters, even ones who are supposed to be great in combat, get shown doing things like that), the pronoun troubles, objecting to being called a boy and also objecting to being called a girl, the quasi-romances, etc, all point to androgyny rather than "crossdressing girl" or even just "normal girl". Of course, Kino being somewhat young helps out somewhat...
I was going to say something along these lines myself. For most of the time i would even say Kino is passive--purely an observer, rather than someone who moves the story or what have you. But of course, when action is called for... I think Kino does sort of "violate gender norms" in this sense, but not in the exact way that was mentioned. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
maaya
Posts: 976 |
|
|||||||
You do have a choice, because you chose the school you want to attend (many students chose a school based on the uniform  ). There are quite a few schools without "uniform obligation" in Japan (and increasing in number) or schools that will let you chose between pants or skirts (according to wikipedia about 10 % ).
And in fact, the uniforms are quite popular even at schools where you do not have to wear them, especially among the girls  (From what I can find on the net, the majority of students wears one.) Chosing clothes every morning is annoying, when wearing the uniform, at least you can be sure that you are dressed properly and you only get to wear that uniform when in school and never again after (it's a privilege) etc.
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Joichiro Nishi
Posts: 163 |
|
|||||||
Don't forget Ayanojyo Aburatsubo of Mahou Tsukai Tai. He was an androgynous character and even he has a crush on Takeo, the geek president of the Magic User's club (Think in Mr Burns and Smither). Ayanojyo was very popular among girls but he wasn't interested at all, spoiler[even after a love confession in the first season.] But it's implied that he changed his mind in the second season spoiler[because he started to have feelings for Nanaka.] I usually don't like these kind of twists. It's similar to Hollywood's position with "dark" main characters, they have just enough token flaws to be cool, and, in true Hollywood fashion, loses them all by the time the movie ends. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
LordPrometheus
|
|
|||||||
I think you pretty much nailed it. Modern feminism is no longer about "Women are not second class citizens!", but has become "Let's act like men and call that equality". I call it gross. I don't want a "manly woman" for a girlfriend/wife, I want a girl who acts like one! We need to knock off the BS and realize that men and women are fundamentally two different sides of the same human coin, and not just from a biological standpoint. Some things men are better suited for, and some things women are better suited for. It's not an issue of "oppression" or "chauvinism", but rather common sense. Men and women are different, folks, and always will be. Get used to it. |
||||||||
Eruanna
 Posts: 451 Location: Canada |
|
|||||||
aaabsolutly, and bravo 
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Jadress
 Posts: 807 Location: Seattle. It purdy and nerdy! |
|
|||||||
I disagree with your assessment of modern feminism and I find your statement a bit irritating. I actually considered myself an "anti-feminist" for most of my life (thinking that feminism was too extreme, responsible for the horrible "GrrlZ rOoL" t-shirts I saw for sale at department stores, and no longer fighting for equality, but special treatment). I even made an anti-feminist speech for my high school speech class. Boy, was I wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Long having an interest in equality and gender, in college I began reading women-geek blogs, which eventually led me to prominent feminist blogs. Having been a reading this stuff for only the past 2 years or so, I can tell you that modern feminism is definitely not about "being a man," it is about freedom and choice for women. For instance, I grew up hating the color pink because it was the "girl color," and I couldn't associate with anything "for girls" when I was young. And so I hated pink, "girly" things. But not too long ago after reading these blogs, I realized that it was just a color- the reason I hated it was not because feminine/girly things were stupid (which was pretty ingrained in my brain), but it was because that color was forced upon me because of my gender. Sorry for the length of this response, and I hope it was coherent. But I just wanted to say I take issue with you're "men and women are different, get over it" response. Yes, we are different, but the problem is that this has been used as an excuse throughout history to deny women from doing things. Sure, *most* women don't have the physical strength of a man, but if a particular woman does, should she not be allowed to become a firefighter? I just think people care too much about what is masculine and feminine. We're all people, and we should get to do whatever we want. :p |
||||||||
|
||||||||
Cait
 Posts: 503 |
|
|||||||
Thank you. You've taken the words out of my mouth. What I would like to hear from these "men and women are inherently different and we should all just accept that" is for them to explain exactly how they are different (outside the obvious biological differences, of course) and why that should even matter. Just because most women don't grow as big or strong as most men doesn't mean all women should be excluded from activities that require a person to be big or strong. There are numerous big and strong women in the world, but they are denied the opportunity to play in sports like football because of their gender and for no other reason. If a person can perform at the level required of the task, that person should bre allowed to perform it (I am 5'2" and I'm a carpenter because I can do the job). It's gender stereotyping otherwise and the reason Title IX exists in schools (to require sports teams to let women play on the "men's" teams when there is not an equivalent women's team). It's the reason that feminism came into being in the first place: equal opportunity for women. It was never meant to force women into the roles of men, only allow them to participate in the world outside of making babies and doing laundry, if they so chose. I personally take issue with the idea that "pants" are a masculine article of clothing. I would argue that they are a gender-neutral and utilitarian article of clothing, which is practical, not "for men." I also take issue with the assumption that you are being "masculine" if you are not "dressing like a girl," as in, dressing so that everyone knows you are female, or intentially dressing in order to draw attention to the fact that you are female. The example already stated of Kino in Kino's Journey is the best anime related one I can think of in relation to this argument. Why is everyone always so obsessed with differentiating between the genders? Why is it so important to separate people like that? It's this breeding ground of "us and them" mentality that has been the bane of equal treatment of all peoples for the whole of human civilization. It irritates me that gender has to be culturalized like that. As if, if I do not act "like a woman" that it makes me somehow less female. Seriously, short of getting a sex-change, I am always going to be female, by biology. Nothing is going to change that: not the way I dress and not the way I act. It doesn't matter, and it shouldn't affect the ways people treat each other. If you like what is considered "girly" things, good for you. No one should tell you you can't like those things, but trying to throw them into an arbitrary category as if a social custom was an absolute truth about gender is not only incorrect, but a detriment to the whole of society. That is what feminism is about: tearing down the walls that are keeping people from treating each other as equals based on preconceived "gender roles." |
||||||||
|
||||||||
ArthurFrDent
 Posts: 466 |
|
|||||||
|
"Why is everyone always so obsessed with differentiating between the genders?" -Cait
There is a difference between obsession with and acceptance of. You can't change the us versus them mentality by saying we are all the same when we are not. The obvious biological differences cannot be minimized in this way. My kid sister is 5'1" and is a motorcycle mechanic, forklift driver and various other things. She is not only very strong, but has the will and intent to be so. What would happen if the motorcycle shop she was working at had to think fast when their star mechanic went out on maternity leave for 3 months? It would be a BIG deal to them because they'd have to hire another mechanic, and then potentially let that mechanic go. It's a 3 mechanic shop, what are the options? What would happen to you as a carpenter if you got pregnant? On the one hand everybody accepts this as a cool an supergood thing that women can do and men can't. Provisions are made, things are adjusted, you work till you can't anymore, and take the leave. You come back after having the kid, and work again. Or you quit an maybe stay home for a year if that's your thing. Guys don't do that, don't ask for that, and have no law passed to protect it. This is one of MANY examples when we are inherently NOT equal, and it isn't a bad thing. It's supposed to be that way. How we deal with that difference is terribly important, but you can't make it go away. By accepting it, and celebrating the sheer amazingness of the event, the inequality is minimized. Several times in my career I have had my workload double when a co-worker went out on maternity leave. We hire a temp replacement to help, but they can't replace the knowledge, nor learn it in such a short time. I don't get paid extra for that, and my wife then howled about all the overtime, but I thought it was a good thing. It is the price that must be paid to have an integrated workforce. I don't know if I can make it clearer than that without a long conversation, but equality is about treating people equaly before the law, while understanding that everyone is different. Different as individuals and different in gender, orientation and so forth. To make people all the same is to lose those differing qualities, and impossible to boot. So how do you figure it out? You have to be careful. You talked about Title IX. In my past life as a photographer, I often shot HS and College sports, and I have seen several women hurt badly trying to wrestle men. I can tell you as a former HS wrestler that it can be painful and having any bits that stick out is an invitation to have damge done to them. For the boys there is a cup, and some moves made illegal. What are you going to do when the part to be protected is half a person's chest? Let them wear armor that can then be used as a weapon? Wear armor that can be turned against you by driving the edges into your skin? That isn't to mention that weight for weight, many girls are still not as strong that way as boys. Their musculature is entirely different. Against those same boys in another sport? Maybe the field would be more level. What is the answer there? To simply take wrestling away because we cannot be made the same? Title IX has been used as a club in a lot of places because it intends to make things equal instaed of intending to serve everyone. Show me a 6'tall 300lb. girl who can run a fast 40 and isn't afraid to run full speed into someone else to stop them, and you may have a football player. But just how many of them are there? So you can find a girl that is a fair kicker, and you can force her to be the ONLY girl on the team. How is that integration? A token female? What purpose does that serve? If her acl is blown because of a tackle against a much larger opponant what is the purpose there? There are lots of questions of equality, but there isn't any one way of answering them all. The law of unintended consequence is lurking around every corner as well. After the last wrestling injury I saw [black and blue on left side of ribcage, and torn interconnecting tissue to the pectoral muscle] several coaches simply started forfeiting matches against girls, and that girls' parents sued the opposing wrestler for hurting her. It really cratered her young life. She had to have reconstructive surgery. The boy learned that people often say one thing "you have to wrestle her just like you would a guy" and then when he did just that, he hurt her and got sued for it. PLUS he gets to deal with the guilt of hurting someone he has been told his whole life to protect. Sometimes the question is really cut and dried, and sometimes it isn't. Demanding that it always be approched the same way, is sometimes a problem. There are equalities I'd love to see, like all women have to register for selective service when they are 18, and serve everywhere in the armed forces [since they do defacto anyway]. I'd love it if when people divorce the court decides who should get the kids instead of assuming it should be the woman. Heck, I'd love it if when I open a door for someone she wouldn't assume I'm doing so because she can't, and rather relaize that I'm doing so because I want to. If I get to the door first I open it for anyone anyway, but some women get REALLY touchy about that. I dunno if this furthers the thread or not... I hope it does a little. we have to meet in the middle somewhere, since we cannot see through each other's eyes... |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
konkonsn
Posts: 172 Location: Illinois |
|
|||||||
Guys should be asking for it, though. You're right in that maternity leave is one of those areas in which women actually have an advantage over men (in America). But the sexism inherit in the idea that a man won't want to stay home and take care of the child while the woman will take three months off work to start raising their child hurts both parties. Men don't get to spend time with their kids, and sexists don't hire women because they don't want to "lose" an employee to maternity leave.
Why do I feel like nobody is reading my posts? -_- Modern feminism says we are different, but that society says traditionally womanly traits are considered inferior to traits attributed to men. We need to acknowledge that womanly traits have their benefits and aren't inferior. Seriously, why is nobody getting this? |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Cait
Posts: 503 |
|
|||||||
|
ArthurFrDent, I understand your argument to a point, but I still don't see how it relates to my argument. I know that most women won't stack up physically to most men, but should the ones that do still be excluded simply because they are female? In the case of football players, the padding already covers the breasts. In fact, they make special body armors specifically for sports that are shaped for them for women. Otherwise, that part of the anatomy in most sporting situations is not exactly an issue (can't see how it is in baseball, basketball or soccer, which aren't exactly contact sports). Hockey poses a bit of an issue, but again, hockey players, like football players, wear a lot of padding already, so there isn't really an "unfair advantage" for women to be allowed to wear them.
I have to question your wrestling example as well. I understand that there are weight classes, but I have to wonder in that kind of situation if this girl was put in the right one based on her physiological differences to the average man (bodyfat percentages are different between men and women, I know, and I would say that makes a difference in a sport like wrestling, which is all about physical mass and strength). I would also question whether these types of injuries were just as common among men and just being treated more seriously because it happened to a girl, but also whether this girl was being singled out because she was the only one there and was roughed up more than she would have been if she were a man. I can't remember what movie it was that had a female college football kicker in it, but she was intentionally singled out by the opposing team's players because she was female and they resented her presense there, so to prove a point about how she "shouldn't" be there they intentionally injured her. There's as much a difference in treatment based on perception (some guys are not secure enough to understand that a woman doing the same work amongst them does not lessen their manhood). My position is that that attitude is what needs to change, and not "solving" the problem by excluding women entirely. There's a big billboard with Jackie Robinson on it that I pass every day when I come home from work. I have to question whether there are as many parallels with the integration of blacks and whites in sports like baseball as there are between women and men. Of course, today we think of segregation as something that was ludicrous, but at the time there were all kinds of arguments about the supposed "differences" between the races that made it impossible for them to play in the same leagues together. Everyone should be held to the same standard. It is when we hold people to different ones that inequality breeds. If women can't succeed in wrestling because of physiological differences that will never be overcome, then they will simply not succeed and their presence will diminish on its own. There is no need to force the issue by intentionally excluding them. People should take the risks knowing that they are taking risks and accept them. It smacks of patronizing women otherwise, by telling them they are being excluded "for their own good." Your example about maternity leave is also a question. Any injury, like a sudden car accident, could put any person, male or female, out of service for months. At least with pregnancy the company would (hopefully) know months in advance of the woman's need to take time off and make the necessary arrangements/preparations for her temporary or permanent absense. We have a carpenter who started here last year, who became seriously ill only a couple of months into the job (during a particularly heavy work period, to add stress to all our lives). It turned out he has Crohn's Disease, which is a chronic and serious disorder that will continuously lay him up and out of service intermittently. When he does, we all carry on and try to put in the extra effort in the face of the added chaos to our work lives. Taking a different job somewhere else would cause the same chaos (as it did when my boss' boss left last year). To me, the idea of a potential pregnancy (and in my case it would only be unplanned if it happened) is no different than any other medical or personal reason that a person could suddenly have to leave work for. Perhaps it is one added concern about women that is not one that would be had by a man, but to me that is an issue that is often overstated in these kinds of situations. When Tony Blair's wife gave birth I remember he actually took paternity leave. I know it isn't quite the same thing as depending on the job a woman might have to stop working earlier than others for physical reasons, but the recovery time after birth isn't all that significant, especially when the woman wants to get back to her career. When my old boss' boss had her kid she stayed at work until just before term and was back at work the following week after delivery (and her husband was the stay at home one with the baby). We have come a long way from "woman gets married and has to give up career as soon as children come." It isn't the cultural assumption anymore than women give up their careers in the face of having a family. It has been proven that a woman can have both, and proven that a man can take care of a baby just as well as the mother (technological advances in the form of breast pumps and the like have helped greatly in this manner). As for military service, divorce and all the rest, I completely agree with you. I never seriously considered military service (when I was young enough to do it, that is), partially because I would have been excluded from many of the options that would have appealed to me most. I was also always pretty insulted that women were held to a lower physical standard than men. If doing the same job in the army required a certain degree of physical ability, then everyone performing that job should be held to that same minimum, regardless of gender (if women could still perform the duty at a lower standard then the men shouldn't be held to a higher one). I do know now that part of the reason the difference existed was because the army was actually having female retention problems and made it easier for women to serve (and they do need and want women to serve, considering right now the US military is still all-volunteer, and recruiting gets harder and harder the longer an unpopular war is waged). As for getting dirty looks when you hold a door for a woman, that's an unfortunate product of women resenting being treated like delicate flowers. If you are doing it for everyone as a basic courtesy (and good for you) and not specifically for women, I can agree that you didn't deserve to be treated that way. The problem is that women who react that way do so because they don't want "special" treatment simply because they are women. The issue is complicated further when other women react exactly for the opposite reasons, and actually want super-special treatment simply because they are women (the "feminists" that everyone hate). I think my biggest concern and my basic complaint is that people regard all women based on a set of arbitrary cultural standards. When they see some women doing something, they assume all are like that, and the same for the perceptions of men, and my position is that that is the wrong way to think. People are individuals and should be treated for their own merits, not based on what set of genitalia they have. The differences between the genders exist, but to me, and under most circumstances, they are irrelevant to the way we live our lives and should not be regarded in the least. In the situations where they can be an "issue" I argue that the issue is as much a product of cultural stereotypes as actual concerns. The sooner we can strip those stereotypes away, the sooner we can actually look objectively at those differences for the actual concerns and issues they raise, and not the fabricated ones that people want to believe are there. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
fuuma_monou
 Posts: 1817 Location: Quezon City, Philippines |
|
|||||||
Does "oops, dropped your soap" ring a bell? Homosexual experiences for straight guys are usually tied to prison rape, rightly or wrongly. Then there's pedophile priests if you're Catholic (cf. the ALTAR BOY magazine gag from Airplane 2: the Sequel). In Sarah Paretsky's Hard Time, women turning to lesbian relationships in prison is presented in a positive light. (The bit about most women in prison not deserving to be there, unlike men, I can overlook as the character V.I. Warshawski, and not Paretsky, talking.) Mother Jones had an article about the plasticity of sexual orientation. As in you may be able to change from heterosexual to homosexual, and vice versa. Of course it's a little hard to believe the "ex-gay" movement, though they also had a psychologist who studied women "swtiching", though she was quick to add that it took months or years, so it's not Willow saying "Gay now." Can't recall the name of this professor who studied romance in Ancient Greece. Basically he said he didn't study homosexuality; it's just that all eros in that time and place happened to be homosexual in nature. Marrying women was for the purpose of having children. "A boy for love, a woman for children," which ties in the origin of the term "beard" for a woman married to or in a LTR with a gay man. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Joichiro Nishi
Posts: 163 |
|
|||||||
Marriage never was about love, it always was about children. Men always practiced bisexuality, not only in Greece. It was common even in the Western world. It's curious that all girls boarding schools are related to lesbianism in anime because homosexuality usually was presented in military boarding schools. It's well know that in past centuries many young boys practiced homosexuality when they were appart of women, usually in boarding schools, seminaries and even the Army. Later they usually left the homosexuality and got married. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Chronomaster
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||||
|
I have to disagree with the thought of women being less sensitive to gender roles than men are... but I may be biased, by study.
I believe that the idea of sensitivity is related to a person's interests more than one's gender. As I stated earlier, the study of MMO gamers has shown that there's a higher ratio of crossplay in the male sex than there is in the female sex. Thus, it may relate to culture more than one's gender. Which makes my point moot, I guess. In general, women are probably less sensitive to taking on an opposite gender role than men. I just believe there's a strong variance when you look at subgroups. Also, I don't see gender as a power factor, but that's just me, I guess. I see it more as an aesthetic; something you should be able to choose because you want to be a part of it, because it more closely resembles you. To me, it's an exterior, an alignment with no true value. One's gender should have no bearing on position, it should only serve as a container. I should stop rambling and get some sleep before I make less sense. I'm probably derailing something important too, or not contributing anything so much as starting another fork. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||
|
Fascinating topic -- I'd love to weigh in with a lengthy post, but I'm on a public computer here, with limited time, so I'll have to contain myself. I would like to offer one observation, though, on the topic of tomboys:
The Japanese word for "tomboy" is ontemba, and derives from the Dutch ontembaar (literally: "untameable"). It's interesting to note that the word is an import -- clearly, the concept was sufficiently foreign to require the adoption of a foreign word. That the Dutch word was chosen could be a happenstance, an artifact of the historical period when Japan's only foreign contact was with the Dutch traders at Dejima -- or it could reflect a similar attitude to tomboys that the Dutch word embodies. The English word "tomboy" implies that such a girl is playing at a masculine rôle, that she is attempting to be masculine. It carries the rather chauvinistic assumption with it that liberated and energetic behaviour is the precinct of males, and a female adopting such behaviour is trying to cast herself as male -- but look at the Dutch/Japanese word. It carries a strong connotation that the girl being described is out of control. She is breaking the rules, as it were. Worth thinking about. - abunai |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group