Inclusivity towards women in Dragon Ball?

[sebubibinman]

I'm not really a fan of this sort of topic, (DEI, more like "DE why?" amirite) but I would like to point out that Toriyama subverts the feminine very well with Ma Junior. See in Dr. Slump, Toriyama had already exploited/parodied the most feminine exercise of all, child birth, with Midori's pregnancy and the birth of Turbo. It was a novel way to introduce a new character and so by the time of King Piccolo the stage was set to twist this concept a little by taking what seemed to be a male character whose species details were indetermined (we later find out he's alien but at first viewers would have thought he was some Japanese mythological creature like a yokai or oni) and having him give birth to the next villain. It's suitable then, that his offspring Piccolo would also have a maternal instinct that would be out of character allowing Toriyama to subvert expectations again by putting this gruff character in charge of raising his enemy's son, and then allowing him to be arguably the best parent in the series. Nothing more feminine that child bearing and raising.

We know what Daimao is, he's a Mazoku. He didn't stop being one just because we later learn the being he split from was from abother world. His reincarnation wasn't one but that seemed to have something to do with the reincarnation process

Also maternal instincts? Nothing about Piccolo jr was maternal, he was very much stereotypically paternal towards Gohan (and that isn't a bad thing)

Also see Julie's point about male giving childbirth isn't some progressive win

The stereotypically paternal one here is Goku, the dad who leaves to follow his own interests while someone else cares for his child. And in the beginning, Toriyama may have had the spirit world bit planned but the audience wasn't in on it yet and he looked and acted like a yokai, or evil spirit.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I dont think sebubibinman is a feminist. sebubibinman thinks women are baby factories and little else.

[MasenkoHA]

[

The stereotypically paternal one here is Goku, the dad who leaves to follow his own interests while someone else cares for his child

There's a lot to unpack here, possibly involving a therapist, and I am far from qualified. Needless to say I guess it checks out with your terf rhetoric

.

And in the beginning, Toriyama may have had the spirit world bit planned but the audience wasn't in on it yet and he looked and acted like a yokai, or evil spirit.

Lol what? We knew of the Next World since Goku fought Grandpa Gohan. Piccolo Daimao and his children were defined as mazoku or demon clansman from the beginning when they were introduced.

It was a plot point that Krillin and the others couldn't pass on to the next world because they were killed by Mazoku. It was also a plot point that Raditz being able to go the next world to be judged by King Yemma was a sign the reincarnated Piccolo was no longer a mazoku

[Koitsukai]

Both are paternal figures, one more invested than the other, but Piccolo beats up and leaves Gohan out to starve for half a year, what's motherly about that? only Eminem's mother comes to mind. Mitsumasa Kido did the same thing and was never considered Seiya's mother.

Is Cell a woman because of the septuplets?

[sebubibinman]

[

The stereotypically paternal one here is Goku, the dad who leaves to follow his own interests while someone else cares for his child

There's a lot to unpack here, possibly involving a therapist, and I am far from qualified. Needless to say I guess it checks out with your terf rhetoric

.

And in the beginning, Toriyama may have had the spirit world bit planned but the audience wasn't in on it yet and he looked and acted like a yokai, or evil spirit.

Lol what? We knew of the Next World since Goku fought Grandpa Gohan. Piccolo Daimao and his children were defined as mazoku or demon clansman from the beginning when they were introduced.

It was a plot point that Krillin and the others couldn't pass on to the next world because they were killed by Mazoku. It was also a plot point that Raditz being able to go the next world to be judged by King Yemma was a sign the reincarnated Piccolo was no longer a mazoku

But mazoku are a japanese mythological creature, so I wasn't totally wrong, just off on the name. The egg laying part is something the audience would've been surprised about because the truth of him being a namekian and his alien heritage were still unknown. The audience would not have been expecting that from the mazoku. And the terf stuff, I don't get that, I know what it means sure, but to repeat it ad nauseum as a mantra is spooky, it doesn't make it true.

[NeoZ Duwang]

But mazoku are a japanese mythological creature, so I wasn't totally wrong, just off on the name. The egg laying part is something the audience would've been surprised about because the truth of him being a namekian and his alien heritage were still unknown. The audience would not have been expecting that from the mazoku. And the terf stuff, I don't get that, I know what it means sure, but to repeat it ad nauseum as a mantra is spooky, it doesn't make it true.

I might be wrong on that one, but as far as I know, there's no specific type of creature named 魔族/Mazoku, it's just a made up word for demon in japanese that works as the opposite of 神族/Shinzoku

I don't think the audience would that more surprised by a Mazoku spitting out an egg compared to an alien, since they're both concepts very open for an author to interpret however they want (and even if I'm missing something about the concept of Mazoku, you don't seem to know any more than I do. For all you know, Piccolo COULD have been based on a type of youkai that spits eggs and Toriyama would be just referencing that)

I also don't see how any of this makes Piccolo "mortherly", giving birth is not what makes a person a woman, or even a mother for that matter

[MasenkoHA]

[ And the terf stuff, I don't get that, I know what it means sure, but to repeat it ad nauseum as a mantra is spooky, it doesn't make it true.

"The ultimate expression of womanhood is their ability to give birth and raise children"

"WAH we can't even define what a woman is?"


"Piccolo is like a mother because he takes care of Gohan" (even if its a very authoritative kind of way but nevermind) Goku is paternal because he doesn't give a shit about his child (because males and females are slaves to your limited understanding of biology as brought to you by Terfology 101)


Be serious, you're not fooling anyone.

[VegettoEX]

This is classic TERF playbook rollout stuff, up through and including dismissing it as a spooky boogeyman. Indeed, it’s not fooling anyone… except perhaps you? I like to give the benefit of the doubt in all reasonable cases, so perhaps it’s true you’ve (to an earlier Kunzait point about a different user here) just been led astray. The bad faith actors planted seeds in your head. You’re not sure.

But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… then it’s probably a duck. We’ve seen a lot of ducks. We can spot them a mile away.

(The duck is a right wing TERF for those of you missing the metaphor.)

[DefinitiveDubs]

Corporations are not people.

Literally the very center-most core of a VAST chunk of our political problems is the societal and legalized perception of corporations as people.

And yeah: they're not people. At all.

And yeah, there is a VAST gulf of a difference between an individual, independent artist, and a corporate conglomerate. The former has nowhere NEAR the reach, impact, and power of the latter, and the latter is more than fair game for deeper criticism on an institutional level for its broader impact on society as a whole.

Conflating criticism of corporate art/product with criticism for random, small time artists eking out a living on their own is where a LOT of the misperceptions about this shit tends to stem from (and you see it in the political realm too, where too many people confuse and conflate criticism of a political party and its leadership writ large with criticism of the party's individual average voters and vice versa): and the reality is, they're NOT the same thing and never have been.

Not to say that individual, independent, small-scale creators are beyond criticism themselves of course: they certainly are not. But most of these broad, larger societal critiques of art and media's portrayals of minorities (or lack thereof) are generally and largely speaking about "art" in the sense of mass produced corporate product from heavily mass market corporate entities rather than random indie comic artist or what have you. Most of the time at least.

In other words, your random fanfic or indie webcomic or whatever is going to have nowhere NEAR the same outsized societal impact as the next Marvel/Disney monstrosity and the like: the latter is usually where the real meat of these sorts of fights lies.

So it's only ok to not be diverse if what I'm making is very small, independent, and self-published? Or maybe it's only ok if what I make isn't sold for a price at all? What if I suddenly become a best-seller and am very popular? Do the rules change and suddenly I have a responsibility to the world? What if I get a publisher and marketing, am I suddenly a "corporation" at that point? What about auteurs like Tarantino who are some of the biggest people in Hollywood but are allowed to do basically whatever they want and it's impossible to say that they make "corporate product"?

[JulieYBM]

Corporations are not people.

Literally the very center-most core of a VAST chunk of our political problems is the societal and legalized perception of corporations as people.

And yeah: they're not people. At all.

And yeah, there is a VAST gulf of a difference between an individual, independent artist, and a corporate conglomerate. The former has nowhere NEAR the reach, impact, and power of the latter, and the latter is more than fair game for deeper criticism on an institutional level for its broader impact on society as a whole.

Conflating criticism of corporate art/product with criticism for random, small time artists eking out a living on their own is where a LOT of the misperceptions about this shit tends to stem from (and you see it in the political realm too, where too many people confuse and conflate criticism of a political party and its leadership writ large with criticism of the party's individual average voters and vice versa): and the reality is, they're NOT the same thing and never have been.

Not to say that individual, independent, small-scale creators are beyond criticism themselves of course: they certainly are not. But most of these broad, larger societal critiques of art and media's portrayals of minorities (or lack thereof) are generally and largely speaking about "art" in the sense of mass produced corporate product from heavily mass market corporate entities rather than random indie comic artist or what have you. Most of the time at least.

In other words, your random fanfic or indie webcomic or whatever is going to have nowhere NEAR the same outsized societal impact as the next Marvel/Disney monstrosity and the like: the latter is usually where the real meat of these sorts of fights lies.

So it's only ok to not be diverse if what I'm making is very small, independent, and self-published? Or maybe it's only ok if what I make isn't sold for a price at all? What if I suddenly become a best-seller and am very popular? Do the rules change and suddenly I have a responsibility to the world? What if I get a publisher and marketing, am I suddenly a "corporation" at that point? What about auteurs like Tarantino who are some of the biggest people in Hollywood but are allowed to do basically whatever they want and it's impossible to say that they make "corporate product"?

Yes, you and your publisher have responsibilities.

Furthermore, Tarantino also has responsibilities. He's a big name, wealthy and powerful director. He has a responsibility to the other artists he works with, the publishers of his work, and to the audiences influenced by his work.

[sebubibinman]

This is classic TERF playbook rollout stuff, up through and including dismissing it as a spooky boogeyman. Indeed, it’s not fooling anyone… except perhaps you? I like to give the benefit of the doubt in all reasonable cases, so perhaps it’s true you’ve (to an earlier Kunzait point about a different user here) just been led astray. The bad faith actors planted seeds in your head. You’re not sure.

But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… then it’s probably a duck. We’ve seen a lot of ducks. We can spot them a mile away.

(The duck is a right wing TERF for those of you missing the metaphor.)

I thought the rules where we can't name call. Aren't you a moderator? And chanting terf terf like a slur is spooky.

[JulieYBM]

This is classic TERF playbook rollout stuff, up through and including dismissing it as a spooky boogeyman. Indeed, it’s not fooling anyone… except perhaps you? I like to give the benefit of the doubt in all reasonable cases, so perhaps it’s true you’ve (to an earlier Kunzait point about a different user here) just been led astray. The bad faith actors planted seeds in your head. You’re not sure.

But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… then it’s probably a duck. We’ve seen a lot of ducks. We can spot them a mile away.

(The duck is a right wing TERF for those of you missing the metaphor.)

I thought the rules where we can't name call. Aren't you a moderator? And chanting terf terf like a slur is spooky.

like a slur

Being that I've actually been called slurs for being the thing that TERFs hate (trans), please kindly fuck off with this comparison. Nobody is oppressing you, you're being criticized for saying offensive and inaccurate shit and then turning around and playing the victim when you're called out on it.

[Majin Buu]

I thought the rules where we can't name call. Aren't you a moderator? And chanting terf terf like a slur is spooky.

This is like when racists act as if being called racist is a slur.

[sebubibinman]

This is classic TERF playbook rollout stuff, up through and including dismissing it as a spooky boogeyman. Indeed, it’s not fooling anyone… except perhaps you? I like to give the benefit of the doubt in all reasonable cases, so perhaps it’s true you’ve (to an earlier Kunzait point about a different user here) just been led astray. The bad faith actors planted seeds in your head. You’re not sure.

But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… then it’s probably a duck. We’ve seen a lot of ducks. We can spot them a mile away.

(The duck is a right wing TERF for those of you missing the metaphor.)

I thought the rules where we can't name call. Aren't you a moderator? And chanting terf terf like a slur is spooky.

like a slur

Being that I've actually been called slurs for being the thing that TERFs hate (trans), please kindly fuck off with this comparison. Nobody is oppressing you, you're being criticized for saying offensive and inaccurate shit and then turning around and playing the victim when you're called out on it.

At least you didn't call me a terf this time. See you're learning.
You and me are gonna be best friends by the end of this, I can tell

[Cure Dragon 255]

Yeah no I dont think so. Au Revoir!

[Kunzait_83]

So it's only ok to not be diverse if what I'm making is very small, independent, and self-published? Or maybe it's only ok if what I make isn't sold for a price at all? What if I suddenly become a best-seller and am very popular? Do the rules change and suddenly I have a responsibility to the world? What if I get a publisher and marketing, am I suddenly a "corporation" at that point? What about auteurs like Tarantino who are some of the biggest people in Hollywood but are allowed to do basically whatever they want and it's impossible to say that they make "corporate product"?

I'm saying that one (giant corporations with a massive reach) is a much more larger concern, relatively speaking, than the other (random, no-name, small-time, indie creator, which a much tinier reach). I'm talking about proportionality and priorities, not an iron clad "one is right, the other is wrong".

This is edging very close to pedantry.

Though that being said:

What if I suddenly become a best-seller and am very popular? Do the rules change and suddenly I have a responsibility to the world?

I mean... yeah.

Yeah, that's actually correct, yes. How much power and reach you have directly dictates and is directly proportional to how much responsibility you have. Just like a little kid on the playground has WAY less responsibility than a Senator or President does.

When you're writing fanfiction online, you're the media equivalent of a kid on the playground: when you're head of a bigtime publishing or film production giant, you are now the media equivalent of a Senator or President.

Almost like "more power = more responsibility" is a super basic, elementary moral lesson that's meant to be understood by even small, small children.

Fuck, wasn't there some famous quote about "With great power comes great responsibility" that some small, obscure indie comic said once? Or am I misremembering that?

What if I get a publisher and marketing, am I suddenly a "corporation" at that point?

You are at the very least affiliated with them and a business partner of theirs. Meaning you are making use of their power and reach to further your own voice. Do the math from there.

What about auteurs like Tarantino who are some of the biggest people in Hollywood but are allowed to do basically whatever they want and it's impossible to say that they make "corporate product"?

See directly above.

stupidity

Shit, someone better get the memo out to any woman who's ever had a hysterectomy that they're no longer women and need to turn in their cards and club membership ASAP.

Fuck, wait a minute... my mom had a hysterectomy right after she had me. Oh shit, my mom hasn't been a woman anymore for my whole life now!

[Jord]

Ultimately money talks for companies. They don't make products to be inclusive.

Just look at Disney and how they're promoting minority characters and how they're being inclusive, only for them to downplay or cut those characters out of the movie for release in certain regions of the world. It's either cutting those characters out or lose money in those regions, which is a decision every company with worldwide distribution must make. Goed for TOEI as well

[NeoZ Duwang]

Ultimately money talks for companies. They don't make products to be inclusive.

I don't think anybody is going to disagree with you about companies only caring about money. It's just that alright representation done for money is better than terrible representation

[Basaku]

Ultimately money talks for companies. They don't make products to be inclusive.

Just look at Disney and how they're promoting minority characters and how they're being inclusive, only for them to downplay or cut those characters out of the movie for release in certain regions of the world. It's either cutting those characters out or lose money in those regions, which is a decision every company with worldwide distribution must make. Goed for TOEI as well

Red Letter Media had a perfect term for it - passive-progressivism. Disney is all talk (in the western media) that ends up in literally 1 second of screentime in the background.

Off-topic:
Star Wars sequel trilogy was the most hilarious example to me of this, where Disney execs went out of their way in Episode 9 to make sure people know that Poe is straight and a major lady playa playa at that despite:
- never showing any interest in any female character in Episodes 7 & 8
- having an obvious on-screen chemistry with with Finn instead which made many LGBT fans beg Disney to either make them a couple, or at least allow Poe to be showed openly as a gay character
- the actor openly talking during the various press tours that he played Poe as gay man in Eps 7&8

Nope, they couldn't even allow themselves to continue to queerbait the LGBT audience, or even leave it up to the fan imagination by not making any definitive statements about Poe in Ep 9, they had to add a sudden female love interest for him just in case someone had any 'suspicions' which was jarring even to many straight people

[Hellspawn28]

I thought the rules where we can't name call. Aren't you a moderator? And chanting terf terf like a slur is spooky.

Words like Terf, Karen, Honkey, etc aren't slurs. White people haven't been disparage as people. Not once in human history that white cis straight people have face hatred of, or prejudice for being cis hetero white. Cis hetero white women just want Terf and Karen to be view as slurs because they want to play the viticm card. By being like "OMG I'm so oppress because people on the Internet call me out for being a shitty person".

I dont think sebubibinman is a feminist. sebubibinman thinks women are baby factories and little else.

That's pretty much true. Terfs are feminist in name only. Calling them feminist is like calling Nazis "Socialist" or Korea Korea a "Republic".