Forum - View topic

ANNCast - All-Star Supernerds

The protests are specific to depicting female vulnerability--particularly when the product is aimed at adult males who have little familiarity with actual female concerns--in a fetishized manner to where there are no nuances to the characters. It's a cliché to mention Kanon and K-On, but they are still useful as popular reference points. The girls in those types of shows bear no real resemblance to reality. That in itself isn't a problem however, as plenty of stories rely on stereotypes and archetypes and are successful.

Of course, the criticisms to deliberately moe-planned characterizations can still be made with this in mind. The overriding one as it relates to social concerns--and as much as some would like to pretend to, you cannot separate fiction from reality, because the former is in some way a reflection of the latter--is that these female characters are not actual girls with their own strengths and weaknesses in their own rights, but rather heavily idealized, romanticized pets. They give viewers the same feelings as those who watch cute cat/dog/bunny/penguin/llama videos. They're reduced to infantalized, cute objects.

"It's a cliché to mention Kanon and K-On, but they are still useful as popular reference points. The girls in those types of shows bear no real resemblance to reality.

Of course, the criticisms to deliberately moe-planned characterizations can still be made with this in mind. The overriding one as it relates to social concerns--and as much as some would like to pretend to, you cannot separate fiction from reality, because the former is in some way a reflection of the latter--is that these female characters are not actual girls with their own strengths and weaknesses in their own rights, but rather heavily idealized, romanticized pets. They give viewers the same feelings as those who watch cute cat/dog/bunny/penguin/llama videos. They're reduced to infantalized, cute objects.

I would say to you that your problem is how the FANDOM has developed around these series rather than the depictions themselves. I think K-On is the parfect example of what I mean. First an foremost, K-On is basically Azu Manga Daioh with musical instruments. Both are 4-koma that make general jokes that are intended to be easily digestible rather than full of deep insight. I don't know about now, but I know when it came out, AzuManga was basically considered an anime sitcom rather than "moe". I don't see why stylistic art changes should convert something basically from "harmless, fluff amusement" to "society destroying mysoginy". Heck, take off the "magical girl" component and Yui from K-On is basically Usagi from Sailor Moon (a clumsy, sometimes lazy girl who is not good at school but tries her best and is strongly devoted and affectionate with her friends). Who else is basically the same character: Miaka (Fushigi Yuugi), Ahiru (Princess Tutu), Fein&Rein (Futago Hime), and probably 50 others from popular GIRLS shows I'm not aware of or can't remember off the top of my head. I think part of the problem people have with the backlash" is that detractors carpet-bomb against it and basically lump all titles they don't like (unless they are so clearly NOT "moe", like a bad hentai or naruto-filler, for example) into "moe" because they are artistically similar and many FANS choose to view them that way. To give the difference IMO, Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu is "moe" (the character is painfully constructed to appeal to a moe fanbase, altho the show has the most picture perfect Akihabara depiction I can think of) whereas K-On is not. They are stylistically similar, and many fans may "treat" the characters the same, but the characters are totally different.

"Moe" as a concept is also not really understood by most (all?) westerners (including myself). Pick up one of the later volumes of Genshiken, one of the guest mangaka bits is a bonus in the back with the caption "Madarame is the most 'moe' character in Genshiken (yes, I'm serious)" (or something like that). But I don't think anyone would call Genshiken a "moe" manga/anime. Which reminds me of an interesting point, is "moe" any more harmful in terms of objectification than "BL"? I ask because much is often made of how perverse and mysoginistic male otaku are for crafting these fantasy characters (moe) and how awful it is that all (exagerrated) anime is being made to cater to moe-fans. But (granted, maybe I'm not reading the right discussions) little is made of how a large percentage of female targeted anime/manga is obsessed with the objectification of men as "pretty" dolls for the girls to play with. (I note this considering the recent turn of the Genshiken manga and it's depiction of fujoshi combined with my own experience with female targetted doujinshi, plus a small touch of the "Twilight" phenomenon)

I would counter-argue that what you just described here is more or less the definition of what a character in a work of fiction IS.

Your comment about fiction being inseparable from reality ignores a critical point: Of course there is a connection, and it's relevant to explore critically, but there's a big difference between objectifying actual, living women, and female characters in a work of fiction.

Characters are meant to be objectified.

I would say to you that your problem is how the FANDOM has developed around these series rather than the depictions themselves.

I think K-On is the parfect example of what I mean. First an foremost, K-On is basically Azu Manga Daioh with musical instruments.

Heck, take off the "magical girl" component and Yui from K-On is basically Usagi from Sailor Moon (a clumsy, sometimes lazy girl who is not good at school but tries her best and is strongly devoted and affectionate with her friends). Who else is basically the same character...

I think part of the problem people have with the "moe-backlash" is that detractors carpet-bomb against it and basically lump all titles they don't like (unless they are so clearly NOT "moe", like a bad hentai or naruto-filler, for example) into "moe" because they are artistically similar and many FANS choose to view them that way.

"Moe" as a concept is also not really understood by most (all?) westerners (including myself). Pick up one of the later volumes of Genshiken, one of the guest mangaka bits is a bonus in the back with the caption "Madarame is the most 'moe' character in Genshiken (yes, I'm serious)" (or something like that).

Which reminds me of an interesting point, is "moe" any more harmful in terms of objectification than "BL"?

Huh.. I guess I should inform my friend who claims she acts exactly like Azusa then and relates a lot to her.

People keep using that word, but no one actually bothers explaining what they mean. How does Yui not act similar to real life girls? How is she infantalized? Because she can't really take care of herself out of laziness and clumsiness? Then what do you call Ui who CAN take care of herself (and her sister to boot, which is kind of one of the jokes of the show)?

Does that make shounen sexist because the typical 'too dumb to live' stereotype like Luffy or Goku exist? Or displays an unrealistic amount of determination that give guys an insecurity or false sense of standards to live up to? How are Goku and Luffy not 'infanalizied' as you put it but Ritsu and Ui are

I suppose the way some people in the west complain about those shows is the exact reason we don't really have any shows starring females here (or good female characters in general.. even in the boy shows the girls tend to be awful) We're too obsessed with being 'PC' that networks don't even bother making cartoons starring girls anymore (well unless it's Barbie or My Little Pony or whatever)

Which reminds me of an interesting point, is "moe" any more harmful in terms of objectification than "BL"? I ask because much is often made of how perverse and mysoginistic male otaku are for crafting these fantasy characters (moe) and how awful it is that all (exagerrated) anime is being made to cater to moe-fans. But (granted, maybe I'm not reading the right discussions) little is made of how a large percentage of female targeted anime/manga is obsessed with the objectification of men as "pretty" dolls for the girls to play with. (I note this considering the recent turn of the Genshiken manga and it's depiction of fujoshi combined with my own experience with female targetted doujinshi, plus a small touch of the "Twilight" phenomenon)

Quote:

Your comment about fiction being inseparable from reality ignores a critical point: Of course there is a connection, and it's relevant to explore critically, but there's a big difference between objectifying actual, living women, and female characters in a work of fiction.

No, I'm fully aware of that. But while there's no moral issue about objectifying characters--since no actual living thing is being harmed--that doesn't really devalue complaints about the specific objectification we're talking about.

Quote:

Characters are meant to be objectified.

In the strictest sense, yeah. But that doesn't mean there can't be a gulf of nuances between them. Black characters really shouldn't be reduced to Amos n' Andy depictions, for example.

Objectification of women is sexist because it demeans women into unrealistic ideals, if she does not fulfil your sexual fantasy, she's not a person.

Not merely in the strictest sense, but literally in every aspect! That's literally what any character in a work of fiction is: A shorthand imagined representation of a real person, deliberately constructed by the author to invoke certain reactions from readers.

Whether it's a moeblob anime character pandering to male otaku, or an empowered career woman character written to appeal to someone with sensibilities more like yours, in the world of fiction both are equally objectified representations of womanhood. There's no way to get rid of that objectification, because they aren't real people. There's no oppressed identity behind the character to free from the stereotype, because all of it is completely imaginary.

The male audience is the default and the objectification of women is everywhere. Marketing towards women, especially the fujoshi demographic, is a niche market (within the already niche anime market). Fanservice towards women is the exception, and you can for the most part avoid it completely.

I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna touch the rest of this if you're going to make the argument that the fujoshi demographic is a "niche" but "moe" is the norm. That's just ridiculous.

You can see this all over American culture, but it's not nearly as... passionate as some parts of the Japanese and much more specifically the otaku culture, see the recent massive otaku shitfit over the revelation that a female idol was not in fact a virgin. Dear god, how dare she have a sexuality all her own that prevents us from projecting our fantasies onto her.

But it seems every single one of them has some panty shot or close up on a woman's breasts, unless the series is actually noted for avoiding fanservice.

You can see this all over American culture, but it's not nearly as... passionate as some parts of the Japanese and much more specifically the otaku culture, see the recent massive otaku shitfit over the revelation that a female idol was not in fact a virgin. Dear god, how dare she have a sexuality all her own that prevents us from projecting our fantasies onto her.

Uh, which is why the attractive woman is frequently married/attractive to a not-as-attractive, frequently dumb man (see: The King of Queens, nearly every Adam Sandler movie ever made, etc.)?

The reason why you have trouble getting main female leads isn't being we're "PC" or due to feminism or whatever: it's because those in charge of putting the shows out are still incredibly sexist against females.

I'd rather they be treated normally than seen as non-existent or evil like in western cartoons where you're lucky if the animators even acknowledge girls have boobs and draw a little cleavage line.

Yeah, stuff like that. Guys can be dumb, stupid, ugly, but women have to be perfect/hot/smart. Women will always be right. End of story.

Banden wrote:

Not merely in the strictest sense, but literally in every aspect! That's literally what any character in a work of fiction is: A shorthand imagined representation of a real person, deliberately constructed by the author to invoke certain reactions from readers.

But not all shorthands are equal...

I don't think anyone harbors illusions that women in Japan will have their problems solved if female characters are treated equally in the cartoon and live-action series. But it's regressive to say that it cannot be critiqued and considered symptomatic of a larger issue of how many men view women.

(feminist argument/rant full of straw man arguments and unexamined assumptions (I disagree with) about how society should be organized)

Second: What is wrong with women wanting some male objectification? Why is it a bad thing that women want shows with an all Bishonen cast?
It's not. And in theory neither is wrong with men wanting female objectification, if all things were equal. But it's not. Japan, America, and the world at large have a culture that is relentlessly paternalistic and sexist. Female objectification is everywhere and omnipresent.

Jessica Hart wrote:

I'd rather they be treated normally than seen as non-existent or evil like in western cartoons where you're lucky if the animators even acknowledge girls have boobs and draw a little cleavage line.

Well, normal would be treating nudity and revealing clothing as just another fact of life, rather than having the hero STUMBLE AND NOSE BLEED AND STUTTERING ARGH.

Of course not. My stereotypes of you are regressive, but your stereotypes of me are entirely progressive, I think is how that line of thinking usually goes? Of course, people generally go to extreme lengths to avoid owning up to manifestations of their own prejudices, agreed?

My point is that all fiction is stereotype or objectification to one degree or another, and that in the absence of characters who are real people with real personalities that can evolve without some creative team's guiding hand, the only thing you can to do in an attempt to change that would be for you to replace other people's stereotypes with your own, effectively placing yourself in the role of objectifier-in-chief. You seem to be decidedly unreceptive to my point of view.

Sewingrose wrote:

(feminist argument/rant full of straw man arguments and unexamined assumptions (I disagree with) about how society should be organized)

Yeah ok.

Yeah, that's why it's ok for Palestinians to fire rockets at Israeli citizens, but not ok for Israelis to fire rockets at Palestinian citizens.

I hypothesize that, for adolescent Japanese school boys (which most of the protagonists in such shows are), this is a realistic way of responding to an attractive naked girl.

Keeping mind that the nose bleed is just an artistic shorthand for showing sexual arousal, since it's a lot easier (and more acceptable to the Broadcast Standards guys) than zooming in on a boy's crotch.

einhorn303 wrote:

Sewingrose wrote: (feminist argument/rant full of straw man arguments and unexamined assumptions (I disagree with) about how society should be organized) Yeah ok.

Uh, I don't get how pointing out historical and continued inequality and privilege relates to that at all. And that you include "feminist argument" (with all of the connotations that includes when guys say something like that) is rather alarming.

Quote:

Yeah, that's why it's ok for Palestinians to fire rockets at Israeli citizens, but not ok for Israelis to fire rockets at Palestinian citizens.

Did you really have to invoke that?

Banden wrote:

Of course not. My stereotypes of you are regressive, but your stereotypes of me are entirely progressive, I think is how that line of thinking usually goes? Of course, people generally go to extreme lengths to avoid owning up to manifestations of their own prejudices, agreed?

Okay. Maybe it's because I'm distracted at the moment, but this reply seems to have insinuations that I don't get. Perhaps if you could be more direct in clarifying...?

Banden wrote:

My point is that all fiction is stereotype or objectification to one degree or another, and that in the absence of characters who are real people with real personalities that can evolve without some creative team's guiding hand, the only thing you can to do in an attempt to change that would be for you to replace other people's stereotypes with your own, effectively placing yourself in the role of objectifier-in-chief. You seem to be decidedly unreceptive to my point of view.

In basic terms: the black characters depicted in Do the Right Thing should be considered just as valid and objectified as the black characters in The Birth of a Nation.