Inclusivity towards women in Dragon Ball?

[sebubibinman]

Sorry, Cure.

Anyways, are we gonna talk about female inclusivity in dragon ball or what?

Akane Kimidori. I know she's only in like 3 episodes but what a character. Tomboyish, hates cooking and is surly and very smart. And likes to stir up trouble. Quite an interesting choice for Toriyama-sensei. He treats her as a damsel in distress in one adventure, she isn't afraid to fight back, but it's hard for a normal powered character against guns. She has a few adventures as lead, the time she gets ahold of the time stop watch, and when she thinks she's asleep dreaming and talks the others into ransacking the village. Toriyama does marry her off, but to her love Tsukutsun, and they're seen working in her parents shop in the future. (Maybe they own it now?)

Why she isn't your standard treatment of a woman character: Bad tempered, hates cooking/cleaning, leads instead of follows, prankster.

[sebubibinman]

Yeah no I dont think so. Au Revoir!

Hey, Cure. You were supposed to sign back in as julie before replying. How's the Dr. Slump discord doing, btw?

This is not funny. Furthermore, any insinuation that I am a man (i.e. Cure) is really insulting. I am a woman, and I will be referred to as such.

You had me at furthermore. I like how you're so pushy. Makes an impression.

[Kunzait_83]

You mean the quote intended for the actually powerful, IE police, politicians, parents with their kids, superheroes, etc? Not random everyday people just trying to get by? This isn't black or white where suddenly a line gets crossed and you suddenly need to start trying to change the world.

I mean, you cited earlier in your previous post Quentin Tarantino as an example: Tarantino, with a net worth of somewhere around $120 million dollars, owns his own production company, and who has long established business connections with some of the biggest, most powerful producers in all of Hollywood.

Quentin Tarantino: noted "random, everyday person, just trying to get by".

And sure, once upon a time, Tarantino WAS a random, everyday person just trying to get by (he literally worked in a video rental store). But that was a LONG time ago: he hasn't been that guy for decades and decades now. He's got wealth, influence, and power now. That comes with success: you no longer get to carry around the "I'm just a random, everyday person just trying to get by".

This doesn't just apply to Tarantino either of course: this applies to people like Robert Iger (CEO of Disney), David Zaslav (CEO of Warner Bros.), Jim Morris (CEO of Pixar), Steven Spielberg (one of the single most powerful and influential directors in Hollywood history), Kevin Feige (one of the most powerful producers in Disney and head of the MCU), and so on and so forth.

There's no such thing as someone who is both hugely, top of the world successful in entertainment and media (like to A++ list levels) AND is also still just "a normal, everyday person just trying to get by". That concept is an oxymoron. Its like being a sexually promiscuous virgin: you can't be both in this case, you can only be one or the other. You can start out as one and end up as the other over time... but you can never be both at once.

So once again: no one here with regards to this topic is talking about (nor frankly cares about) actual average, everyday people just trying to get by. You're an office cubicle drone making barely above minimum wage who writes Lord of the Rings fanfic in your spare time? That is an ACTUAL average, everyday person just trying to get by.

You're a working actor who largely does small, bit player parts, and also tends bar and waits tables in between gigs to pay the bills and make ends meet and who lives off of residuals? That's an actual average, everyday person just trying to get by.

You're an amateur author who's just self-published their very first book, and is just starting to get some good reviews and buzz? You're still an average, everyday person just trying to get by.

No one is scrutinizing these people, insofar as these sorts of topics go.

If you're a CEO of a major film studio? Or run a major publishing firm? If you're an A list movie star who has massive connections to all the most influential producers? If you ARE one of those influential producers? You're not an average, everyday person just trying to get by. If you ever were before that, you're not anymore. You don't get to claim that title anymore. You have power. You have influence. Both of which come with responsibility. You're not average anymore. At all.

And yes, at a certain level, some of these people DO achieve a level of power and influence that's comparable to that of a politician. In our society, money = power. Money can buy political influence, no matter WHERE you got said money from or what industry you came up from (even entertainment).

Major Hollywood power players have VERY notable and substantive political connections and influence (Alan Horne, George Clooney, Robert Redford, Harvey Weinstein, Haim Saban, etc.): some transition seamlessly from movies and entertainment into politics (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Bono, Trump, etc.), and wouldn't have had the ability to do so without their success and influence in the former.

Hell, even J.K. Rowling has used much of her money (at one point in time she was a billionaire, and still might be) and influence towards (incredibly odious and corrosive) political and public policy ends.

I don't know if you genuinely believe this or not (I hope not), but broadly speaking, genuinely believing that it is somehow possible to reach the mountain heights of success in art and media (where you're worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, where you have incredible, mountain-moving connections, incredible social and cultural influence, own your own studios and companies, etc.) and still somehow maintain the status of someone who is "just a down to earth, average, everyday person just trying to make it in the world (even though you already HAVE made it a zillion times over)" is a dichotomy that is possible to maintain, for literally ANYONE on this planet... that's the kind of belief that is the textbook definition of naive.

And bear in mind: when we talk about "corporate art and media", when we talk about the likes of Disney, Marvel, Toei, Fox, Pixar, Warner Bros., and so on... we're talking about corporate entities who are at THIS obscene level of influence and power. We're NOT talking about "young, hungry, up and coming talent" or "hobbyist who likes to draw fan art and write fanfic in their spare time".

I presume that you're an actual "average, everyday person just trying to get by". Clearly you come across strongly here as someone who has big dreams and aspirations of "making it" as a media content creator, and perhaps someday standing shoulder to shoulder with the heavy hitters in entertainment media.

If (IF mind you, I'm taking a shot in the dark here) the root of this fairly weird indignation you're expressing here about this topic is that you're personally identifying and empathizing with Disney/Pixar/Feige/Spielberg-tier giants in the entertainment industry and you're vicariously placing yourself in their shoes because you see yourself as someday being one of these guys?

Then I'm saying this in the most sincere, earnest, pleading way possible... please come back to reality. Allow me to invite you back to your actual life here and now. You are not on the same playing field as these guys. You are not them, they are not you. You are a normal dude with no power and no influence, and they are not normal and have WAY more power and influence than you or I ever will.

And real talk? Vegas odds probability, you will most likely NEVER be one of these guys. Ever. Sorry.

And if I'm wrong, and someday in the future you beat the odds somehow and you DO make it, and you're someday running a multi-gazillion dollar studio and are playing with $500,000,000+ in your personal piggy bank, and have the ear of and a direct line to all the most powerful TV, film, and generalized media producers in the world?

Just remember Uncle Ben's mantra then. And also, that you can no longer go around proclaiming yourself "just an average, everyday person trying to make it". You made it. You're not average anymore. You've got power. So use it wisely and have some respect and acknowledgement for the responsibility that comes with it.

Also, maybe we'd come to an understanding if you weren't such a passive-aggressive douche to anyone who even thinks about being even slightly hesitant to accept your ideas without any second thought or debate. This is the biggest issue with this kind of topic: by default, you automatically label anyone who starts asking questions to be an utterly despicable human being who deserves utter contempt, even if that person could easily be an ally with the right persuasion.

I'm getting to be a broken record at this point, and I'm genuinely sick of having to repeat this over and over and over again in these threads:

Nobody. Here. Including. Me. Ever. Said. Any. Of. The. Shit. You're. Claiming. Was. Said. About. You.

I don't think you're "an utterly despicable human being who deserves utter contempt". I never even came VAGUELY close to even so much as insinuating or hinting you were these things at ANY point in this thread. You have WHOLLY invented a conversation we never had inside your head.

I don't think anything that comes VAGUELY close to that about 98% of the people who post in this forum: and the 2% I do think that about are the ones who are proven right wing trolls who continually get banned from time to time.

Hell, I don't even think any of this vile shit (utterly despicable human being who deserves utter contempt) about that Mireya guy (contrary to what he seems to think)!

Calm the fuck down. Come down off the cross. Nobody insulted you. Nobody thinks you're a terrible person. Nobody's persecuting you here.

I don't think you're being anything at all close to a contemptable, horrible person: I think you're just being simply goofy and ridiculous right now.

Looking back at my previous post, most of what I said there was... pretty dryly and plainly stated. Other than the Uncle Ben/Spider-Man joke. Which was just... an Uncle Ben/Spider-Man joke. Which makes how it is you pulled ALL this insulting, sneering shit out of that one post... incredibly mystifying.

It's like you WANT a second Civil War, just so you have an excuse to kill TERFs in the streets.

........



I got nothing I can possibly say to this deranged, ludicrous absurdity other than this might be useful for you.

It's not like that at all. If someone becomes president, they chose that and the responsibilities that come with it. If an author becomes popular, that's not necessarily of their choosing. It's a possible consequence of putting their work out their for public consumption, but it in no way creates any further obligation on their part. This is a false equivalency.

1) We're not just talking about singular authors here: we're talking about giant corporate media empires. Hardly just the result of a mere "Oh gosh golly, you all picked ME?!" lucky break befalling one blessed individual.

2) And even when individual authors hit a certain threshold of success and wealth, they can become MASSIVE, socially influential juggernauts.

Just look at the aforementioned J.K. Rowling for a prime example of that. When you get to J.K. Rowling levels of success and wealth, that comes intrinsically with a LOT of power and influence, and thus responsibility.

Rowling is at this point a cautionary tale of a random, ordinary author who came into such MASSIVE success, wealth, and prestige that it eventually drove her absolutely around the fucking bend; and she's since gone on to use her wealth, power, and influence for horrifically grotesque, abhorrent, and harmful political ends that has helped to further a movement that endangers an entire minority group.

3) Certainly there are plenty of people who go into art and media who have no real ambitions and are just shooting their shot, hoping for the best but not expecting much. But conversely, there are also a LOT of people who are VERY ambitious and get into art and media wholly with the full intent of acquiring influence, money, and power from it.

I don't want to use the word "naive" again, but... thinking that all or most people who go into creative media are all across the board just starry-eyed, pure of heart ingénues straight off the bus from a small town with just the purest of intentions (and sure, definitely there are plenty of those out there too as well)... I don't know what else to call that other than naive.

4) There's also a LOT of nepo-babies at the highest echelons of media (creative/artistic and otherwise). LOTS of successful, powerful people at the top of the entertainment world got to be there solely because their parents (and possibly grandparents) were there to begin with. Lets not for a second pretend otherwise.

5) Even in cases where a normal, everyday person comes into success as an artist to a point where they're then blessed with great wealth, influence, and power: what they do with that power after that point going forward is ENTIRELY on them.

And hell, they could also just, you know... walk the fuck away from it if they realize that they aren't equipped to handle the responsibility that comes with it. There's nothing set in stone that says you HAVE to keep and wield all the money and all the influence that you attain in a given profession.

Any successful artist that attains "power" has one responsibility to the audience - don't abuse your power.

For the level of corporate monoliths we're discussing here, there is no quotations around power: they have genuine power.

And yeah, no one here is arguing otherwise to that final point: don't abuse your power.

I would argue though that carelessly promoting regressive or harmful stereotypes of minorities in a given work would qualify as an abuse of that power.

Again: this does NOT apply nearly as much to rando amateurs and hobbyists.

[DefinitiveDubs]

*bullshit*

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was calling huge Hollywood bigwigs "average everyday people". I genuinely don't know where you got that. I brought up Tarantino in the context that he wasn't some corporate shill pumping out mass-produced crap like Marvel or Star Wars; he does pretty much whatever he wants. That was an entirely different topic and context in which I brought him up.

I also don't know where you came up with the idea that I have lofty, naive dreams of being a huge Hollywood star. What? No. What? What kind of person do you take me for? Squidward Tentacles?

I was talking about just finding moderate success. The same kind of moderate success that a lesser-than-Toriyama manga author might enjoy. And I brought up corporations because, it's a little fucking hard to find success with your art, without being attached to some kind of fucking publisher. There is a colossal, monumental, unfathomably, cartoonishly large difference between being the CEO of Disney, and being the director of a film that happens to be produced by a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Disney.

I was trying to find out where the line is for where it's no longer ok to not write a diverse cast of characters in your story. The question was at what point, at what level of success does it become problematic to write a story with a non-diverse cast? At what level of success should I be expected to "force diversity" into my narrative? Am I not allowed to personally be in a better place than the lower middle-class without having to try to make the ENTIRE WORLD a better place? Motherfucker, I just want to grill for god's sake.

[Kunzait_83]

I was talking about just finding moderate success. The same kind of moderate success that a lesser-than-Toriyama manga author might enjoy. And I brought up corporations because, it's a little fucking hard to find success with your art, without being attached to some kind of fucking publisher. There is a colossal, monumental, unfathomably, cartoonishly large difference between being the CEO of Disney, and being the director of a film that happens to be produced by a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Disney.

I was trying to find out where the line is for where it's no longer ok to not write a diverse cast of characters in your story. The question was at what point, at what level of success does it become problematic to write a story with a non-diverse cast? At what level of success should I be expected to "force diversity" into my narrative? Am I not allowed to personally be in a better place than the lower middle-class without having to try to make the ENTIRE WORLD a better place? Motherfucker, I just want to grill for god's sake.

I'll keep this nice and simple then:

For a moderate, mid-range level creators (to the extent that those are even allowed to still exist in the current landscape)?

You're under no obligation to fill some sort of "diversity quota". That's silly and dumb.

It IS however just a simple common courtesy and show of basic-most humanity and decency to not have your work promote and perpetuate harmful, negative stereotypes of minorities, should minorities happen to be included in your work.

For a moderately big-time, mid-range level creator, I think that that's a more than fair and reasonable expectation. That you don't HAVE to have minority representation, but IF you do, don't be a fucking moron or shitty about it. Simple. Not difficult.

Even as a mid-range creator, you still have SOME responsibility in how you treat and handle your work. Not on the same level or degree as the mega giants (as its all proportional to reach and influence): but its certainly more responsibility than if you were just some fanfic author doing this shit for fun.

I mean, if you don't want to have ANY responsibility of ANY kind at all whatsoever, then that would require you living in a cave or on a deserted island or something. If you want to live in the world with the rest of us humans and participate in society, you kind of have to understand and respect the reality that the shit you put out into the world can/will have consequences and will impact other people, for either good or ill.

Nothing exists in a vacuum or without friction.

[sebubibinman]

*bullshit*

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was calling huge Hollywood bigwigs "average everyday people". I genuinely don't know where you got that. I brought up Tarantino in the context that he wasn't some corporate shill pumping out mass-produced crap like Marvel or Star Wars; he does pretty much whatever he wants. That was an entirely different topic and context in which I brought him up.

I also don't know where you came up with the idea that I have lofty, naive dreams of being a huge Hollywood star. What? No. What? What kind of person do you take me for? Squidward Tentacles?

I was talking about just finding moderate success. The same kind of moderate success that a lesser-than-Toriyama manga author might enjoy. And I brought up corporations because, it's a little fucking hard to find success with your art, without being attached to some kind of fucking publisher. There is a colossal, monumental, unfathomably, cartoonishly large difference between being the CEO of Disney, and being the director of a film that happens to be produced by a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Disney.

I was trying to find out where the line is for where it's no longer ok to not write a diverse cast of characters in your story. The question was at what point, at what level of success does it become problematic to write a story with a non-diverse cast? At what level of success should I be expected to "force diversity" into my narrative? Am I not allowed to personally be in a better place than the lower middle-class without having to try to make the ENTIRE WORLD a better place? Motherfucker, I just want to grill for god's sake.

Create your work on your own with others you trust, put it on youtube or what have you, and self-promote. That's the line. If you need/want backing from the industry, first you have to join the club and show you're loyal. Making it in the hip-hop world has tons of stories about this, from the boss dangling you over a balcony, beatdowns and worse, and then when they know you'll tow the line they'll make you concede to whatever nonsense they want to put in your work at any given time period. You have to go without the system to be able to make your work "a la carte."

[ABED]

You all keep bringing up JK Rowling but it's still the same issue - don't be an asshole. Doesn't matter if you are successful or not. It's not fundamentally different when you are dealing with one person or a mass audience.

[Mireya]

I wonder if Pulp Fiction did misrepresent women... Sometimes I do think it did, but sometimes I think it did so intentionally as a means of provocative reflection... Would need to watch again, tho I lean towards the former.

A series based off in old times having characters employing sexist phrases isn't to be counted though, I'd say. Like in Berserk we had Griffith saying Casca should warm Guts since that's a women's duty, at least when I was watching the old anime with its subs, and my female friend watching with me rolled her eyes. I think in those cases tho, the author has the freedom since he's depicting the culture from the time of the taken place story. My opinion.


On another note, Sanji from OP... I don't know if his attitudes may imply sexism, as he's the women's defensor and their ultimate protector who won't lift a finger even when it's a powerful enemy... But that notion of putting women in the condition of being protected, of needing a gentlemen to protect them, can be seen as a reinforcement of a harmful stereotype too.

[Jord]

Regarding Sanji, there's a difference between wanting to protect women and women that need to be protected.
It's all onto the individual if that's a bad thing or not.
To me, wanting to protect a woman isn't bad, as long as you respect how that woman feels about it.

[Mireya]

Yeah. Sanji's behaviour perpetuate from my PoV stereotypical gender roles, though if that's necessarily harmful will depend on how it's done. It may be argued to perpetuate women as needing a men's protection, for more that Oda's reasons were putting Sanji as a really considerate character that legitimate cares for them, but that's a complex issue and will vary from people to people. In the case of Sanji tho, his background and nuances, his learned from Jeff behaviour of respecting women and not sexualizing them (tho One Piece does that a lot lol) add layers to why he does it, rather than being an off case and limited gender stereotype, I'd say. But still, debatable. I can see from both sides.


Edit: and the fact the women he defends can't defend themselves due to lack of power should be considered too. Could them be made as powerful to protect themselves? Yeah. But that would take away from the story unless the part of him "I feel a women in danger" were erased.


Also, I watched once a very cool perspective from a Brazilian female YouTuber (feminist) that the incentive for women to dress as they want and ppl who push the "it's your body, your rules" can be in some ways done with harmful intentions too. Not that they can't dress as they want, they can, have every right, but that many times that gets explored into sexualizing commercials with women being sexualized when eating for example a sandwich... And that the narrative can be shaped from power holders that such is ok because they are doing with their body what they want,though many times that leads and is a form of exploration, a systemically one, since that right will be shifted so their exploration and sexualization can be "more easily justifiable" for example from media who profits over people drooling at their bodies... And sadly, someone sexualizing them from the way they dress is more prone to happen to poorer and more marginalized women... Implying a deep rooted systemic issue that would explore this apparent freedom (which is in no way discouraging or telling them how to dress) of dressing that way in profiting of it, specially with women with more needs for financial aid.

[Kunzait_83]

You all keep bringing up JK Rowling but it's still the same issue - don't be an asshole. Doesn't matter if you are successful or not. It's not fundamentally different when you are dealing with one person or a mass audience.

Couple things about this:

First off... the reason that J.K. Rowing keeps coming up is because she became something far, FAR worse than just "an asshole".

If all she did was hold stupid, ignorant, retrograde views on trans people and maybe did a few online rants expressing those views: that would indeed make her just a common, garden-variety asshole then, sure. Hardly anything to care too much about.

But that's NOT the case with her. In her case, she took things far, FAR further than that.

Being one of the single most celebrated, successful, and acclaimed children's authors in all of Britain in the last 25+ years and with a small media empire of her own... she not only has attained immense wealth, but also a LOT of important, incredibly high level connections, both in the media and in politics.

Rowling's transphobia is SO all-consuming with her, that she has parlayed a significant portion of her wealth, media reach, and high society/political connections (all of which she attained once again from her immense success as the Harry Potter lady) towards actively helping to heavily publicly promote, and to a degree even finance, actual anti-trans political organizations (most notably Let Women Speak (Formerly Standing For Women), Women's Declaration International, Get the L Out, and the LGB Alliance) and figures (including some SERIOUSLY out-there lunatic right wing whackos like Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, Erik Rohde, and Chaya Raichik, to name just a few) dedicated to ostracizing trans people from society: not just socially, but also legally/legislatively/politically.

Rowling isn't just some "random anti-trans shithead": she's been throwing all of her financial and influential weight attained from her Potter success behind helping and promoting actual political groups and figures dedicated to outlawing trans people from society. Some anti-trans legislative moves in the U.K. that she's supported include the blocking of a bill that would allow trans people to legally change their gender, as well as protesting the inclusion of trans people as a protected group within a bill that seeks to ban gay conversion therapy (meaning trans people would be made an exception as an allowable group for "conversion therapy").

So lets get that giant elephant in the room out of the way: she's not simply "an asshole". She's used her wealth and influence to promote herself to full on genuine monster and full-blown lunatic at this point, who is - to one extent or another - an active and tangible danger and public menace to the rights of trans people as a collective whole.

Secondly, and this feeds directly into that previous point about Rowling:

This idea you're putting forth that there is little to differentiate some average rando with shitty social/political views and an immensely powerful public figure with shitty social/political views is just... again this word keeps needing to come up here, is SERIOUSLY naive.

I honestly am having trouble here understanding how its such an unreachable leap to understand the CLEAR and (to borrow DevinitiveDubs' own wording from earlier) cartoonishly large difference between like... some guy on a street corner who works an over the counter job at Subway that's also trying to break into writing or acting on the side and who happens to think that gay people are gross and icky, and someone like Rowling, or even someone with a similar degree of pull and influence (though not necessarily the same retrograde views as her or our hypothetical Subway employee) like Oprah Winfrey or Ellen DeGeneres or Jane Fonda or Clint Eastwood or George Clooney...

...successful artists and media figures who not only have a political point of view (for good or ill), but also have the money, the connections, the media reach, and the high society influence to put real, tangible action and outcomes behind them.

Unless I'm somehow mistaken here, you seem to be drawing some kind of laughably non-existent equivalence between an average rando trying to make it as an artist and who has NONE of the money, power, media reach, or connections to make jack shit happen in the real world with regard to their political or social views, and a massively successful, wealthy, and well connected established international celebrity artist who... well, who CAN make things happen out in the real world among people of importance and influence with regards to their own social/political views. Rather frighteningly easily in some cases.

In other words, you're basically drawing a comparison and an equivalence between someone with the social/financial equivalent of a pocket knife and someone with the social/financial equivalent of a long range, bunker busting, guided missile.

Like... you understand the COLOSSAL difference between someone like my dad - who has some fairly stupid views on some things, but is a total nobody with zero money, influence, or media reach - and someone like a Joe Rogan, who also has some fairly stupid views on a whole bunch of things... but also, thanks to his connections and money made from his MMA, stand up comedy, and acting careers, has grown for himself one of the single largest media platforms on the planet (his podcast for the longest time was/is the single most widely listened to podcast IN THE WORLD) and is able to reach and influence MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of people with his stupid shit, right?

Like... these things are not comparable or equivalent to one another. At all. Its the clear and stark difference between being just a regular asshole, and being an asshole who has the influence, power, and media reach to be an active threat (or benefit!) to people's lives.

For good or ill, once you have money, high social connections, and media reach - all things you can potentially attain via success as an artist, if you're one of the lucky ones - then like it or not, you have at least some measure of real power now: power that can positively or negatively impact the lives of a LOT of people beyond just yourself and your immediate circle.

As such, you then no longer get the luxury of seeing yourself as just some random, anonymous guy who's actions don't have wide ranging repercussions on others like the rest of the normal, average world does (to one extent or another). Whether you like it or not, you automatically forfeit and give that up with the attainment of success, money, fame, influence, and reach. And the reality of that impact you have doesn't give two shits whether you personally choose to see it and believe that its real.

All I'm simply arguing here is that if you succeed your way into that kind of power, reach, and influence, even as an artist: then you have a moral, ethical, and humane responsibility to understand and respect that power, to take it seriously and take seriously the very real, tangible impact it can (and likely will) have on the lives of others out in the world.

[ABED]

My big point of conjecture was you equivocating an unchosen consequence (fame) with a chosen profession like politics. And if we're talking about bad political views, while I don't have as much fear of some random asshole on the street with a terrible political POV, I don't think this fundamentally changes anything. Even though it's one vote, that rando may very well have the ability to vote which can have real consequences. Hell, even on the micro level, they could be passing their awful beliefs to their child and in many cases, their ignorant views on sexuality and gender could be doing real psychological and physical harm to their child.

I think we agree more than you might have assumed based on my colorful and terse response. I'll leave it at that.

[JulieYBM]

damn, i wish i didn't have to fear men on the streets

i personally don't really care for comparison stuff, because i think that misses the forest for the trees (bad things are bad, no matter how rich and powerful you are or are not).

also, jk rowling can go fuck herself

[sebubibinman]

damn, i wish i didn't have to fear men on the streets

i personally don't really care for comparison stuff, because i think that misses the forest for the trees (bad things are bad, no matter how rich and powerful you are or are not).

also, jk rowling can go fuck herself

You're so surly, I love it.

[Jord]

Politics aside, JK Rowling is an extremely succesful female writer and I think that's due to her eye for details. She did create an interesting world, with good written characters, both male and female. It's mysterious and cohesive. And it's an amazing world to explore, as evidenced by the recent Hogwarts's Legacy game, which was very inclusive to boot. I'm glad it sold very well, we need more of these kinds of games. When comparing HL to Kakarot, which is probably the most open world-ish DB game, Kakarot definitely fell flat. Imagine a more fleshed out Dragon World, that would be amazing for games as well as other media.

That world building and cohesion is something I sometimes miss in Toriyama's writing. It feels more like a bunch of places instead of a world, rules are arbitrary and characters, both male and female often feel underwritten and easily fall into stereotypes. With the huge succes of the HP franchise, especially in Japan, it would be wise for whoever "controls" DB now to take a page out of the book from the HP team.

[Kunzait_83]

You had me at furthermore. I like how you're so pushy. Makes an impression.

You're so surly, I love it.

You're striking me here as precisely the kind of asshole who'll question and cast doubt on real-world statistics on how much street harassment trans people receive day in, day out... exactly at the same time as you yourself engage in the online equivalent of said-harassment, like you're doing in this very fucking thread right now.

Between your clearly stated views on trans people and now these creeper-ass posts towards Julie (when she's not even talking to you no less)... no one here just fell off the turnip truck. We all know EXACTLY what you're trying to do with these sorts of posts aimed at a trans member here. Its not cute, its not funny, and its for damn sure not subtle: its just creepy and sick and reeks of a psychotic fixation.

Knock it the fuck off and leave her alone. Like right now.

Better yet, why don't you just go fuck off on out of here altogether? You're just another ban waiting to happen at this point. You're not making any kind of grand point or statement here: all you're accomplishing here is making yourself into a huge scumbag.

(See folks: THIS is what it looks like when I'm ACTUALLY insulting a user here. I'm not subtle either.)

[Majin Buu]

You're just another ban waiting to happen at this point.

I noticed him doing that transphobic condescending shit and reported him yesterday. The mods should get to the clean up when they see it.

[Jord]

Better yet, why don't you just go fuck off on out of here altogether? You're just another ban waiting to happen at this point. You're not making any kind of grand point or statement here: all you're accomplishing here is making yourself into a huge scumbag.

(See folks: THIS is what it looks like when I'm ACTUALLY insulting a user here. I'm not subtle either.)

Then you should know that insulting members is also against the rules here. If you want this forum to be a positive place you should always set the right example yourself. Insulting other users usually just leads to the topic getting messy. Please try to be a bit civil.

On-topic then:
I think a great way to put a positive spotlight on the women of DB is to produce one-shot specials, focusing on a specific character, other than Vegeta or Goku. It would be interesting to see more of the life of Bulma for example. Could be during action, could be slice of life-type stuff.
Perhaps a special akin to the Yamcha manga would be interesting, perhaps without the reincarnation part. These types of specials could be very interesting for the characters that get a little less attention during the main show. It could also allow for different art styles etc.

Same goes for the male characters btw. I would love to see the Yamcha manga animated but a special focusing on Tenshinhan or even Yajirobe could elevate those characters. DB has a lot of interesting characters. It's a shame they don't get used often.

[Kunzait_83]

Then you should know that insulting members is also against the rules here. If you want this forum to be a positive place you should always set the right example yourself. Insulting other users usually just leads to the topic getting messy. Please try to be a bit civil.

I follow civility rules no problem when we're talking about just... normal discussion about normal things.

But this is genuine bigotry from a genuine bigot we're dealing with. I didn't break the civility rule first here: the transphobic sack of shit that I was responding to did.

I don't believe in being civil to bullies or bigots: and sebubibinman is clearly both a bully and a bigot, who's disgusting behavior and attitude is neither deserving of nor warranting civility. Fuck him, plain and simple.

Here's two even better explanations outlining my rationale:

I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."

And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."

And i was like, ohok and he continues.

"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.

And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.

sebubibinman's goal here is clearly just to be a terrible piece of shit and to harass and belittle a transgender person simply for being outspokenly trans. sebubibinman isn't here to be civil, so he gets no civility in return. And my advice to sebubibinman is to not waste their or our time, and to just hit the fucking road and slime their way back under whatever TERF gutter they crawled out from.

If you genuinely care about "keeping this forum a positive place" then you need to not allow bigoted pondscum like sebubibinman the runway to spew their hateful garbage. And oftentimes, that means handling them without kid gloves.

[Majin Buu]

Then you should know that insulting members is also against the rules here. If you want this forum to be a positive place you should always set the right example yourself. Insulting other users usually just leads to the topic getting messy. Please try to be a bit civil.

The guy he's responding to is being openly bigoted towards another forum member.

At this point Kunzait is just giving back the shit this guy is throwing at Julie.