Can our next arc villian be a woman?

[Kanassa]

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, and male privilege ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

The idea that all women are delicate and must be protected, regardless of their deeds, is ingrained prejudice from the days when women were no more than the property of a man, it's discrimination based on sex and androcentrist view. Before you try and come at someone on social issues maybe you should do some research first.
And what the actual fuck are you talking about "making the previously in-power side less equal"? Who are you even talking to, because it sure as hell isn't me. Not treating all women as helpless beings that need to be protected isn't putting men any lower in society, unless your societal view of a man is one who protects women, in which case you are all kinds of messed up.

That definition makes me skeptical. The Justification segment of it is really long and arbitrary, like it's trying to make ANYTHING sexist. - and filled with buzzwords such as "patriarchy, and male privellage"


May I inquire what dictionary you got this from?

"Buzzwords" that explain what heavily affects modern media right? We can't pretend like all of this doesn't influence society. ESPECIALLY in a children's show in Japan. ( )

I'm a bit iffy on if this has any effect on Japan as from what I've seen, Japan doesn't seem to care. But, then again, I'm just some shit head whose never so much as stepped in japan.

[Boo Machine]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with. But if you don't then one can feel left out. Some people like to feel like they can compare themselves to a character they admire. You might not have to. I sure don't need to. But if I wanted to I have a large selection to choose from.

Not many people are asking for more males in Stuff like magical girl shows because there are way more popular shows that are on the Action/adventure side that feature Male leads more than there are ones that feature Female leads. We aren't exactly starving in that department. Even then Female dominated shows like The winx club and Steven universe still have Male characters that do things. (Side question. Can anyone tell me of any Female lead action shows that aren't magical girls shows? I'm sure they exist I'm just drawing a blank right now.)

This wasn't even about any of that. The original post was just asking something like, "Wouldn't it be cool if there were more strong Females Fighters in DragonBall?" Then it suddenly turned into a morality thing about Goku. The dude.

Including a stronger Female character in a show like this doesn't HAVE to be a PC issue. The 2 don't need be connected unless you want it to be. At most it's just asking for a little change up.

I'm thinking of shows like Avatar: The last Airbeder who had Female main characters who were front and center along with aang. People loved it. I think of Slayers. An adventure show where the main character, Lina Inverse, is a woman and fights along side her male companions. Great show. Why is this concept happening in dragonball such a big No no to some? I realize in these shows I mentioned there aren't many people throwing punches. But still.

[MozillaVulpix]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I've personally always wanted more male characters in magical girl anime. (Although Steven Universe now fulfils that for me.)

[A Man named RJ]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with. But if you don't then one can feel left out. Some people like to feel like they can compare themselves to a character they admire. You might not have to. I sure don't need to. But if I wanted to I have a large selection to choose from.

Not many people are asking for more males in Stuff like magical girl shows because there are way more popular shows that are on the Action/adventure side that feature Male leads more than there are ones that feature Female leads. We aren't exactly starving in that department. Even then Female dominated shows like The winx club and Steven universe still have Male characters that do things. (Side question. Can anyone tell me of any Female lead action shows that aren't magical girls shows? I'm sure they exist I'm just drawing a blank right now.)

This wasn't even about any of that. The original post was just asking something like, "Wouldn't it be cool if there were more strong Females Fighters in DragonBall?" Then it suddenly turned into a morality thing about Goku. The dude.

Including a stronger Female character in a show like this doesn't HAVE to be a PC issue. The 2 don't need be connected unless you want it to be. At most it's just asking for a little change up.

I'm thinking of shows like Avatar: The last Airbeder who had Female main characters who were front and center along with aang. People loved it. I think of Slayers. An adventure show where the main character, Lina Inverse, is a woman and fights along side her male companions. Great show. Why is this concept happening in dragonball such a big No no to some? I realize in these shows I mentioned there aren't many people throwing punches. But still.

1: Very disingenuous wording there
"I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with. But if you don't then one can feel left out."

With that wording you're telling me "I can only identify with a character IF THEY ARE FEMALE LIKE ME"

So you [second person] can't identify with a different Gender, but you're fine identifying with Aliens and Japanese/Chinese Characters in Anime - a medium dominated by Asian Characters? Double Standards Much?

I can Identify with as many female characters as male, because Gender isnt worth identifying with. I've written female leads in scripts that think the same way I do. You think their GENDER makes them any less relatable to me? The same can be applied to any well written character. I actually have a comic book who's main heroine is a White girl, I'm a Black man - and she's my favorite character to write scenarios for. Once my site is up and running I would love to share her adventures.

I can Easily identify with the likes of Max (Life is Strange) Bayonetta, Tracer, any LoL, Dota, Smite character, The lead in the Girl who Lept through time. hell, in wolf children my favorite characters were the Mom (Hana), and Yuki - Ame was a whiny little uninteresting piece of shit the entire film. Makoto Kusanagi is another great example, Lain from SE Lain, the lead in that series about exorcism with a catholic priest, a buhddist monk, and an actual excorcist. They're all good characters that i can easily relate to

And why is that? because they display human virtues and characteristics that make them easy to identify with.

[spoiler]Another example: two interpretations of the same character The main character of the Little Mermaid. Hans Christian Anderson's version (the original) is much more interesting, she's forced to make tough choices, such as the value of one life to her own in light of a mistake, and a warning to anybody about the dangers of investing too much in one-sided love. Disney's version is "a princess who want's more and get's it - oh and Ursula."[/spoiler]

Their Gender isnt what should be the deciding factor in whatever character resonates with you. If that is the only thing that makes a character interesting, then there is a problem with YOU. Dont get me wrong, I'm all for media diversity, but People also love to underplay the massive roster of awesome female characters that exist in media (as well as bad female characters) not just as protagonists but as deuteragonists, and supporting characters.


2: People criticizing the politics of decisions doesn't mean they necessarily disagree with them in their entirety - the execution however is a very excellent discussion - and SHOULD BE HAD. If the writers go with this concept, you had better believe they'll be having this EXACT same discussion. Like in Arched's case Yes, thinking that women being hit onscreen is distasteful may technically be "Misogynistic" and treat them like delicate flowers But you also have to take into account viewer backlash, and public sensibilities, and Tv censorship. YOU may think it's fine to do that, but the people who complain about these things the most are loud and have every bit of power to pull things off air. Buisness dont want to be associated with "HEY THAT'S THE SERIES THAT THINKS BEATING UP ON WOMEN IS COOL" And to demonstrate this I bring you..... a fucking billboard - advertisements that got extreme backlash, and usually by people (In this case people forget that half of the NPCs you can kill are male) who otherwise are completely unfamilliar with the material.

This is always something to be weary of. Just because YOU personally think it's fine doesnt mean the crybullies of the internet think so.

3: you answered your own question.

4: Bullshit! Maho Shojo series like Precure, or Sailor Moon wouldnt be going on nearly as long if it werent for a dedicated fanbase of it's targeted demographic, and it's secondary demographics. But another thing to note is the demographics of the people watching these series. On Average Different genders and age groups consume media differently and have different tastes. The demographic most likely to PAY for the product is the one most commonly aimed at. Men are more likely to consume action series, so that's who they're targeted at, women tend to go for the mushy romantic stuff. That's the entire point of SHONEN (Boys Manga) and SHOJO (girls Manga) those are demographics - people make this mistake all the time, and treat them like genre's which they aren't.

This isnt sexism, it's lierally just buisness. If you want more of these things to pop up, then go and find the obscure stuff, and support it. There is a lot of obscured gold that needs YOU to bring it to light. This is Product Marketing 101. One of the first things I learned in film/animation school from it's business classes are to always have a demographic in mind. This comes from YEARS of study that continues to this day, and will never stop. Media is also run off a supply/demand model. and if the Higher Ups think an investment may be too risky either due to lack of interest or massive public backlash - they wont do it.

EDIT:
[spoiler]

"Buzzwords" that explain what heavily affects modern media right? We can't pretend like all of this doesn't influence society. ESPECIALLY in a children's show in Japan. ( )

None of what you just said makes any coherent sense because it has no sentence structure to speak of. Articulate please or I'm not even going top bother engaging.

A patriarchy is a thing - yes but it doesnt explain how western society (And Japan does meet that criteria) is one, and how men are the sole dominators.

"Male privellage ideas": Dont even know where to begin with this. Privellage is such a BS term anyway. It's the perfect example of the cherry-picking fallacy. It's basically saying "I see some successful people of this demographic therefore all in that demographic receive these benefits"

"Sexual objectification" Again relies on the idea of demoting somebody to that of an "object" because you merely think of them sexually. However this is also BS. In order for the average person to be sexually attracted to something - say an inanimate object, it has to be personified first. By this metric, by the way literally ANYTHING and everything can be an object - not just a sexual one. In order for something to be an "Object" it has to be created to fufil a specific desire, well, most if not ALL characters in media exist to fill a specific desire and role.

Another issue with 'Objectification" is how subjective the meter is. I've seen women (mainly feminists) argue that Bayonetta is a "sex object" while I've seen women say she's empowering, cool, sexy, stylish etc. But nobody bats an eye at the likes. and while we're at it, if simply picking out women to be sexy, as their only quality is a sign of "a hatred of women" then what the hell are ANY fashon Ads? What about women who rely solely on their looks to get by? Need I remind you which gender and class runs the fashion industry? You think people like THESE are picked out for their personality, and interesting life story? No, they're picked out for their looks and more often than not there are women judges for this kind of thing. Dont worry, there are male counterparts. [Does that make this Misandry?]

Throwing that word in there means any person male or female who hires female models for their looks HATES WOMEN. Anybody who thinks they should have something (and they happen to be male) HATE WOMEN. Can you guess what that definition makes one skeptical?[/spoiler]

[fadeddreams5]

I haven't read every post here, but I'm confused over some I have read. Have some people completely forgotten about Android 18? Vegeta tried his best to beat the shit out of her, but got his arm broken instead. Future Trunks annihilated his version of Android 18 with no fucks given.

And don't give me the excuse that she was an android or cyborg because no DB villain, male or female, is going to be some ordinary human.

If we look at Naruto, the main villain there was a female who they needed to team up to defeat.

Where is some of this morality talk coming from? If it's heavily frowned upon in society for a man to hit a women, it's because they're naturally weaker; it's cowardly. It is perfectly fine for men to beat the crap out of an evil, universe-threatening woman, as we have seen in anime, including DBZ. : )

[Yomi]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with.

Making a lot of assumptions here, and to think that the entire response is based on that assumption.

[Boo Machine]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with.

Making a lot of assumptions here, and to think that the entire response is based on that assumption.

That's why I said "If". Because I don't know if you do.

Everything else wasn't targeted at you.

[Shin]

[spoiler]

"Buzzwords" that explain what heavily affects modern media right? We can't pretend like all of this doesn't influence society. ESPECIALLY in a children's show in Japan. ( )

None of what you just said makes any coherent sense because it has no sentence structure to speak of. Articulate please or I'm not even going top bother engaging.

A patriarchy is a thing - yes but it doesnt explain how western society (And Japan does meet that criteria) is one, and how men are the sole dominators.

"Male privellage ideas": Dont even know where to begin with this. Privellage is such a BS term anyway. It's the perfect example of the cherry-picking fallacy. It's basically saying "I see some successful people of this demographic therefore all in that demographic receive these benefits"

"Sexual objectification" Again relies on the idea of demoting somebody to that of an "object" because you merely think of them sexually. However this is also BS. In order for the average person to be sexually attracted to something - say an inanimate object, it has to be personified first. By this metric, by the way literally ANYTHING and everything can be an object - not just a sexual one. In order for something to be an "Object" it has to be created to fufil a specific desire, well, most if not ALL characters in media exist to fill a specific desire and role.

Another issue with 'Objectification" is how subjective the meter is. I've seen women (mainly feminists) argue that Bayonetta is a "sex object" while I've seen women say she's empowering, cool, sexy, stylish etc. But nobody bats an eye at the likes. and while we're at it, if simply picking out women to be sexy, as their only quality is a sign of "a hatred of women" then what the hell are ANY fashon Ads? What about women who rely solely on their looks to get by? Need I remind you which gender and class runs the fashion industry? You think people like THESE are picked out for their personality, and interesting life story? No, they're picked out for their looks and more often than not there are women judges for this kind of thing. Dont worry, there are male counterparts. [Does that make this Misandry?]

Throwing that word in there means any person male or female who hires female models for their looks HATES WOMEN. Anybody who thinks they should have something (and they happen to be male) HATE WOMEN. Can you guess what that definition makes one skeptical?[/spoiler]

Yikes you think privilege doesn't exist AND you're being elitist? Nevermind, no need to engage in discussion with you!

Anyway

I haven't read every post here, but I'm confused over some I have read. Have some people completely forgotten about Android 18? Vegeta tried his best to beat the shit out of her, but got his arm broken instead. Future Trunks annihilated his version of Android 18 with no fucks given.

And don't give me the excuse that she was an android or cyborg because no DB villain, male or female, is going to be some ordinary human.

If we look at Naruto, the main villain there was a female who they needed to team up to defeat.

Where is some of this morality talk coming from? If it's heavily frowned upon in society for a man to hit a women, it's because they're naturally weaker; it's cowardly. It is perfectly fine for men to beat the crap out of an evil, universe-threatening woman, as we have seen in anime, including DBZ. : )

I totally forgot about Naruto's main antagonist. That's another good example.

[Yomi]

That's why I said "If". Because I don't know if you do.

I said I don't care about gender.(Implying it's not a big deal) You said.

"I guess it's not a big deal If you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with, but if not you feel left out"

I'm sorry, but how else was I supposed to read that? In context it sounds like you're just telling me I identify with most characters because they have balls.
Anywho, don't care enough to argue about it, slap some boobs on the next villain, so that little girls everywhere can be inspired or whatever. IDK.

Also, the Majority of anime characters are female. Just because shonen isn't, doesn't mean that Seinin, Shoujo, and all that other lame crap doesn't exist.
you can't even fathom how much Shojo and high school girl, and magical girl shyt there is out there, compared to "Naruto and Goku"

[Viewtiful Jess]

I haven't read every post here, but I'm confused over some I have read. Have some people completely forgotten about Android 18? Vegeta tried his best to beat the shit out of her, but got his arm broken instead. Future Trunks annihilated his version of Android 18 with no fucks given.

And don't give me the excuse that she was an android or cyborg because no DB villain, male or female, is going to be some ordinary human.

If we look at Naruto, the main villain there was a female who they needed to team up to defeat.

Where is some of this morality talk coming from? If it's heavily frowned upon in society for a man to hit a women, it's because they're naturally weaker; it's cowardly. It is perfectly fine for men to beat the crap out of an evil, universe-threatening woman, as we have seen in anime, including DBZ. : )

Thank you!!!

[Alruneia]

This thread has really changed character since when I posted, wow. There's even some posts in here I could call offensive. I don't usually care about misogyny at all, I just don't like the "delicate flower" notion, because, like... we're really not. Women can be terrible people too. We abuse, steal, even kill... Everything despicable a man can do we can also do. So why can we suddenly not have a female villain in Dragon Ball when there are already many in real life? I know that though some of the Z Fighters might, Goku and Vegeta wouldn't care about their opponent's gender, instead focusing on relevant information such as how strong or evil the villain is.
Dragon Ball has no problem with having strong female characters. Between Champa's introduction in the manga and around episode 40 of the Super anime when Zen'ou was revealed, Vados, a woman, was the strongest person we knew. Let's not forget about 18 either, about how Future 18 was a merciless monster who killed for fun and was eventually obliterated by Future Trunks without any outrage. There really aren't any roadblocks when it comes to having a strong female villain, because it all lies in the execution.

[Shin]

This thread has really changed character since when I posted, wow. There's even some posts in here I could call offensive. I don't usually care about misogyny at all, I just don't like the "delicate flower" notion, because, like... we're really not. Women can be terrible people too. We abuse, steal, even kill... Everything despicable a man can do we can also do. So why can we suddenly not have a female villain in Dragon Ball when there are already many in real life? I know that though some of the Z Fighters might, Goku and Vegeta wouldn't care about their opponent's gender, instead focusing on relevant information such as how strong or evil the villain is.
Dragon Ball has no problem with having strong female characters. Between Champa's introduction in the manga and around episode 40 of the Super anime when Zen'ou was revealed, Vados, a woman, was the strongest person we knew. Let's not forget about 18 either, about how Future 18 was a merciless monster who killed for fun and was eventually obliterated by Future Trunks without any outrage. There really aren't any roadblocks when it comes to having a strong female villain, because it all lies in the execution.

Yet somehow saying "I want a well written female villain in Dragon Ball for once!" got misconstrued as "I want a female villain in Dragon Ball just because it's a girl!" or "I want male DBZ characters to beat up women!"

[Boo Machine]

[spoiler]

This kinda feels like asking for more Male characters in Magical Girl animes, or High School animes.
Do we really need to share genitalia to identify with a character? I didn't think we did...

I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with. But if you don't then one can feel left out. Some people like to feel like they can compare themselves to a character they admire. You might not have to. I sure don't need to. But if I wanted to I have a large selection to choose from.

Not many people are asking for more males in Stuff like magical girl shows because there are way more popular shows that are on the Action/adventure side that feature Male leads more than there are ones that feature Female leads. We aren't exactly starving in that department. Even then Female dominated shows like The winx club and Steven universe still have Male characters that do things. (Side question. Can anyone tell me of any Female lead action shows that aren't magical girls shows? I'm sure they exist I'm just drawing a blank right now.)

This wasn't even about any of that. The original post was just asking something like, "Wouldn't it be cool if there were more strong Females Fighters in DragonBall?" Then it suddenly turned into a morality thing about Goku. The dude.

Including a stronger Female character in a show like this doesn't HAVE to be a PC issue. The 2 don't need be connected unless you want it to be. At most it's just asking for a little change up.

I'm thinking of shows like Avatar: The last Airbeder who had Female main characters who were front and center along with aang. People loved it. I think of Slayers. An adventure show where the main character, Lina Inverse, is a woman and fights along side her male companions. Great show. Why is this concept happening in dragonball such a big No no to some? I realize in these shows I mentioned there aren't many people throwing punches. But still.

1: Very disingenuous wording there
"I mean, sure, I guess it's not a big deal if you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with. But if you don't then one can feel left out."

With that wording you're telling me "I can only identify with a character IF THEY ARE FEMALE LIKE ME"

So you [second person] can't identify with a different Gender, but you're fine identifying with Aliens and Japanese/Chinese Characters in Anime - a medium dominated by Asian Characters? Double Standards Much?

I can Identify with as many female characters as male, because Gender isnt worth identifying with. I've written female leads in scripts that think the same way I do. You think their GENDER makes them any less relatable to me? The same can be applied to any well written character. I actually have a comic book who's main heroine is a White girl, I'm a Black man - and she's my favorite character to write scenarios for. Once my site is up and running I would love to share her adventures.

I can Easily identify with the likes of Max (Life is Strange) Bayonetta, Tracer, any LoL, Dota, Smite character, The lead in the Girl who Lept through time. hell, in wolf children my favorite characters were the Mom (Hana), and Yuki - Ame was a whiny little uninteresting piece of shit the entire film. Makoto Kusanagi is another great example, Lain from SE Lain, the lead in that series about exorcism with a catholic priest, a buhddist monk, and an actual excorcist. They're all good characters that i can easily relate to

And why is that? because they display human virtues and characteristics that make them easy to identify with.

[spoiler]Another example: two interpretations of the same character The main character of the Little Mermaid. Hans Christian Anderson's version (the original) is much more interesting, she's forced to make tough choices, such as the value of one life to her own in light of a mistake, and a warning to anybody about the dangers of investing too much in one-sided love. Disney's version is "a princess who want's more and get's it - oh and Ursula."[/spoiler]

Their Gender isnt what should be the deciding factor in whatever character resonates with you. If that is the only thing that makes a character interesting, then there is a problem with YOU. Dont get me wrong, I'm all for media diversity, but People also love to underplay the massive roster of awesome female characters that exist in media (as well as bad female characters) not just as protagonists but as deuteragonists, and supporting characters.


2: People criticizing the politics of decisions doesn't mean they necessarily disagree with them in their entirety - the execution however is a very excellent discussion - and SHOULD BE HAD. If the writers go with this concept, you had better believe they'll be having this EXACT same discussion. Like in Arched's case Yes, thinking that women being hit onscreen is distasteful may technically be "Misogynistic" and treat them like delicate flowers But you also have to take into account viewer backlash, and public sensibilities, and Tv censorship. YOU may think it's fine to do that, but the people who complain about these things the most are loud and have every bit of power to pull things off air. Buisness dont want to be associated with "HEY THAT'S THE SERIES THAT THINKS BEATING UP ON WOMEN IS COOL" And to demonstrate this I bring you..... a fucking billboard - advertisements that got extreme backlash, and usually by people (In this case people forget that half of the NPCs you can kill are male) who otherwise are completely unfamilliar with the material.

This is always something to be weary of. Just because YOU personally think it's fine doesnt mean the crybullies of the internet think so.

3: you answered your own question.

4: Bullshit! Maho Shojo series like Precure, or Sailor Moon wouldnt be going on nearly as long if it werent for a dedicated fanbase of it's targeted demographic, and it's secondary demographics. But another thing to note is the demographics of the people watching these series. On Average Different genders and age groups consume media differently and have different tastes. The demographic most likely to PAY for the product is the one most commonly aimed at. Men are more likely to consume action series, so that's who they're targeted at, women tend to go for the mushy romantic stuff. That's the entire point of SHONEN (Boys Manga) and SHOJO (girls Manga) those are demographics - people make this mistake all the time, and treat them like genre's which they aren't.

This isnt sexism, it's lierally just buisness. If you want more of these things to pop up, then go and find the obscure stuff, and support it. There is a lot of obscured gold that needs YOU to bring it to light. This is Product Marketing 101. One of the first things I learned in film/animation school from it's business classes are to always have a demographic in mind. This comes from YEARS of study that continues to this day, and will never stop. Media is also run off a supply/demand model. and if the Higher Ups think an investment may be too risky either due to lack of interest or massive public backlash - they wont do it.

EDIT:
[spoiler]

"Buzzwords" that explain what heavily affects modern media right? We can't pretend like all of this doesn't influence society. ESPECIALLY in a children's show in Japan. ( )

None of what you just said makes any coherent sense because it has no sentence structure to speak of. Articulate please or I'm not even going top bother engaging.

A patriarchy is a thing - yes but it doesnt explain how western society (And Japan does meet that criteria) is one, and how men are the sole dominators.

"Male privellage ideas": Dont even know where to begin with this. Privellage is such a BS term anyway. It's the perfect example of the cherry-picking fallacy. It's basically saying "I see some successful people of this demographic therefore all in that demographic receive these benefits"

"Sexual objectification" Again relies on the idea of demoting somebody to that of an "object" because you merely think of them sexually. However this is also BS. In order for the average person to be sexually attracted to something - say an inanimate object, it has to be personified first. By this metric, by the way literally ANYTHING and everything can be an object - not just a sexual one. In order for something to be an "Object" it has to be created to fufil a specific desire, well, most if not ALL characters in media exist to fill a specific desire and role.

Another issue with 'Objectification" is how subjective the meter is. I've seen women (mainly feminists) argue that Bayonetta is a "sex object" while I've seen women say she's empowering, cool, sexy, stylish etc. But nobody bats an eye at the likes. and while we're at it, if simply picking out women to be sexy, as their only quality is a sign of "a hatred of women" then what the hell are ANY fashon Ads? What about women who rely solely on their looks to get by? Need I remind you which gender and class runs the fashion industry? You think people like THESE are picked out for their personality, and interesting life story? No, they're picked out for their looks and more often than not there are women judges for this kind of thing. Dont worry, there are male counterparts. [Does that make this Misandry?]

Throwing that word in there means any person male or female who hires female models for their looks HATES WOMEN. Anybody who thinks they should have something (and they happen to be male) HATE WOMEN. Can you guess what that definition makes one skeptical?[/spoiler]

[spoiler][/spoiler]

1. Yeah. I agree that Gender isn't the only thing to find relation with. That's why I said I don't do this either. But some find it helpful. I may not need it. You may not need it. But we can't expect to hold everyone to our standards and I won't tell them what they shouldnt relate with. This may be my fault for not including race, beliefs, moral code, or what have you, when I said that.

2. I'm aware of the backlash this kind of thing gets. Can't really be on the internet without noticing it. I know they have to think about that thing. Which is why in another post here I said I understood the apprehension to go through with certain things. I dont feel like I've called out any company or executives for not doing what I think they should. But I may have forgotten if I have.

3. Well I guess I did. (I'm not entirely sure which question because I ask a lot, but I'm certain I know the one.)

4. I'm also aware of target demographic . I know certain groups consume different things. I'm not sitting here watching Dragonball thinking it's aimed at me or someone like me. I agree with all of this.

Judging from another response I've gotten I think I may have come off snarky in my last post but I'm not entirely sure if that is the case and what caused this long response. I mean it sounds like an argument but I agree with a lot of what you've said and am aware of the facts you have thrown at me. So I don't feel like I can argue back. So I guess you win?

Edit: I also appearntly dont know how spoiler tags work.

[Boo Machine]

That's why I said "If". Because I don't know if you do.

I said I don't care about gender.(Implying it's not a big deal) You said.

"I guess it's not a big deal If you already have a ton of characters you can identify and have something in common with, but if not you feel left out"

I'm sorry, but how else was I supposed to read that? In context it sounds like you're just telling me I identify with most characters because they have balls.
Anywho, don't care enough to argue about it, slap some boobs on the next villain, so that little girls everywhere can be inspired or whatever. IDK.

Also, the Majority of anime characters are female. Just because shonen isn't, doesn't mean that Seinin, Shoujo, and all that other lame crap doesn't exist.
you can't even fathom how much Shojo and high school girl, and magical girl shyt there is out there, compared to "Naruto and Goku"

well if it matters, Sorry If I came off like I was attacking you. I was just trying to be a part of the discussion and I guess I'm not good with words.

[Viewtiful Jess]

Man... this thread really did go to hell. It's like mere mention of the words "DB" and "Women" in a sentence alongside "strong" somehow got read as "I wish dragon ball had a feminist agenda, I need a reminder that we still live in the 1950s where women are vastly inferior. Please confirm this in the replies below."

Like wow. Really WOW! One bad joke from someone who hasn't posted in pages turned into this? I can't believe this? How is this really a thing that can be thought of in any other way than "Yeah that'd be cool here's why" or "Yeah that'd be cool but here's why not".

Anyway I guess it'll probably continue this way? Oh well, back to the idea of a tournament fighter, I'd personally like it if one of the others GoDs had a few women on their team. Or a whole team. Just something simple since a villian seems to be too much.

[A Man named RJ]

[spoiler]

"Buzzwords" that explain what heavily affects modern media right? We can't pretend like all of this doesn't influence society. ESPECIALLY in a children's show in Japan. ( )

None of what you just said makes any coherent sense because it has no sentence structure to speak of. Articulate please or I'm not even going top bother engaging.

A patriarchy is a thing - yes but it doesnt explain how western society (And Japan does meet that criteria) is one, and how men are the sole dominators.

"Male privellage ideas": Dont even know where to begin with this. Privellage is such a BS term anyway. It's the perfect example of the cherry-picking fallacy. It's basically saying "I see some successful people of this demographic therefore all in that demographic receive these benefits"

"Sexual objectification" Again relies on the idea of demoting somebody to that of an "object" because you merely think of them sexually. However this is also BS. In order for the average person to be sexually attracted to something - say an inanimate object, it has to be personified first. By this metric, by the way literally ANYTHING and everything can be an object - not just a sexual one. In order for something to be an "Object" it has to be created to fufil a specific desire, well, most if not ALL characters in media exist to fill a specific desire and role.

Another issue with 'Objectification" is how subjective the meter is. I've seen women (mainly feminists) argue that Bayonetta is a "sex object" while I've seen women say she's empowering, cool, sexy, stylish etc. But nobody bats an eye at the likes. and while we're at it, if simply picking out women to be sexy, as their only quality is a sign of "a hatred of women" then what the hell are ANY fashon Ads? What about women who rely solely on their looks to get by? Need I remind you which gender and class runs the fashion industry? You think people like THESE are picked out for their personality, and interesting life story? No, they're picked out for their looks and more often than not there are women judges for this kind of thing. Dont worry, there are male counterparts. [Does that make this Misandry?]

Throwing that word in there means any person male or female who hires female models for their looks HATES WOMEN. Anybody who thinks they should have something (and they happen to be male) HATE WOMEN. Can you guess what that definition makes one skeptical?[/spoiler]

Yikes you think privilege doesn't exist AND you're being elitist? Nevermind, no need to engage in discussion with you!

There is a very common tactic among the far political left and right - one so common in fact, that I can explicltly identify the person's political and socio/economic standings with it. Instead of attempting to explain their position and back it up with logic or reasoning. They will instead decide to mock their opponent - declare them to be whatever "ist" fits their world-view and then refuse the argument.

This here, is the sign of a dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt individual. You cannot back yourself up, so you avoid it altogether. I'd actually bet a fair bit of money that this is because you cannot come up with new ideas on your own, rather you have to parrot the opinions of like-minded individuals.

Instead of simply going through what I said, breaking it down point by point, and trying to prove me wrong, and potentially "make the world a better place" by shifting that person's opinions on the politico-sphere, you instead opt to toss in an ad hominem [You're wrong, because you're this], and call it a day "Argument won"

You're trying to win the argument, not by being more correct, but by being more moral than the other person. Instead of contemplating or daring to juggle the idea that there are in fact people with different world perspectives either through experience of once believing what you did, you simply toss it all aside. You then through some interesting mental gymnastics have to forcibly associate that person with another group of people (or an ideology) you disagree with. How am I an elitist? Well, we'll never find out. you dont want to add context to what's being said - again this is just you trying to take the moral high-ground.

A funny tendancy that people have when they're endoused in the auroma of their own ideological hive-mind (a group of likeminded individuals shouting the same opinions back in fourth almost like an echo), is that they'll simply make an argument no matter how subjective an exact truth. there is no room for compromise on that idea. On the religious Right, they call people who disagree "Devil-worshippers", on the Left they call those who disagree "Sexist, racist, homophobic, elitist, etc etc etc." In other words these are practiced only by idealouges. Those who may object are infidels.

If you arent willing to engage in this, you're a very dishonest psuedo-intellectual.

Whenever I speak to people, I speak with the assumption and respect that they are in fact equal to me. Those who argue (or simply state their derogatve) based off preconcieved notion, do not, they argue as if the person is below them. As if they know all the answers - or at the very least like they YEARN to be correct, and the only way to mentally compensate is to make anybody who disagrees an enemy

You claim this isnt worth debating, and yet you took the time out of your day to read everything i said and come to that small conclusion.


Why bother saying all of this? Simple really, It's something to consider before doing something like that again. What you have just done is hand me a giant "I have lost this debate, and i have no clue of what i'm talking about" sticker. You could have opted to simply ignore it, but you felt the need to respond to it anyway. This tells me a lot about you, and it tells others a lot about you. Particularly your willingness to project yourself onto other people.

Man... this thread really did go to hell. It's like mere mention of the words "DB" and "Women" in a sentence alongside "strong" somehow got read as "I wish dragon ball had a feminist agenda, I need a reminder that we still live in the 1950s where women are vastly inferior

You mentioned it here, but there is a lot of context to all of this. Keep in mind, not every response is a direct response to YOUR IDEA SPECIFICALLY, rather simply the ideas floating around the thread at the time of posting. That bad Joke that you remembered caused the discussion to switch from just "female antagonist" to "sexism as well" there was an entire sub-debate on the definition of mysogony as well. These are topics traditionally moaned about by feminists. It's only natural it went this way.

MY concern is simply avoiding writing a character to pander, and just be a good character, others may be closer to yours and slightly more feminist. That's just how threads go.

Have a nice day.

[Shin]

[spoiler]None of what you just said makes any coherent sense because it has no sentence structure to speak of. Articulate please or I'm not even going top bother engaging.

A patriarchy is a thing - yes but it doesnt explain how western society (And Japan does meet that criteria) is one, and how men are the sole dominators.

"Male privellage ideas": Dont even know where to begin with this. Privellage is such a BS term anyway. It's the perfect example of the cherry-picking fallacy. It's basically saying "I see some successful people of this demographic therefore all in that demographic receive these benefits"

"Sexual objectification" Again relies on the idea of demoting somebody to that of an "object" because you merely think of them sexually. However this is also BS. In order for the average person to be sexually attracted to something - say an inanimate object, it has to be personified first. By this metric, by the way literally ANYTHING and everything can be an object - not just a sexual one. In order for something to be an "Object" it has to be created to fufil a specific desire, well, most if not ALL characters in media exist to fill a specific desire and role.

Another issue with 'Objectification" is how subjective the meter is. I've seen women (mainly feminists) argue that Bayonetta is a "sex object" while I've seen women say she's empowering, cool, sexy, stylish etc. But nobody bats an eye at the likes. and while we're at it, if simply picking out women to be sexy, as their only quality is a sign of "a hatred of women" then what the hell are ANY fashon Ads? What about women who rely solely on their looks to get by? Need I remind you which gender and class runs the fashion industry? You think people like THESE are picked out for their personality, and interesting life story? No, they're picked out for their looks and more often than not there are women judges for this kind of thing. Dont worry, there are male counterparts. [Does that make this Misandry?]

Throwing that word in there means any person male or female who hires female models for their looks HATES WOMEN. Anybody who thinks they should have something (and they happen to be male) HATE WOMEN. Can you guess what that definition makes one skeptical?[/spoiler]

Yikes you think privilege doesn't exist AND you're being elitist? Nevermind, no need to engage in discussion with you!

There is a very common tactic among the far political left and right - one so common in fact, that I can explicltly identify the person's political and socio/economic standings with it. Instead of attempting to explain their position and back it up with logic or reasoning. They will instead decide to mock their opponent - declare them to be whatever "ist" fits their world-view and then refuse the argument.

This here, is the sign of a dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt individual. You cannot back yourself up, so you avoid it altogether. I'd actually bet a fair bit of money that this is because you cannot come up with new ideas on your own, rather you have to parrot the opinions of like-minded individuals.

Instead of simply going through what I said, breaking it down point by point, and trying to prove me wrong, and potentially "make the world a better place" by shifting that person's opinions on the politico-sphere, you instead opt to toss in an ad hominem [You're wrong, because you're this], and call it a day "Argument won"

You're trying to win the argument, not by being more correct, but by being more moral than the other person. Instead of contemplating or daring to juggle the idea that there are in fact people with different world perspectives either through experience of once believing what you did, you simply toss it all aside. You then through some interesting mental gymnastics have to forcibly associate that person with another group of people (or an ideology) you disagree with. How am I an elitist? Well, we'll never find out. you dont want to add context to what's being said - again this is just you trying to take the moral high-ground.

A funny tendancy that people have when they're endoused in the auroma of their own ideological hive-mind (a group of likeminded individuals shouting the same opinions back in fourth almost like an echo), is that they'll simply make an argument no matter how subjective an exact truth. there is no room for compromise on that idea. On the religious Right, they call people who disagree "Devil-worshippers", on the Left they call those who disagree "Sexist, racist, homophobic, elitist, etc etc etc." In other words these are practiced only by idealouges. Those who may object are infidels.

If you arent willing to engage in this, you're a very dishonest psuedo-intellectual.

Whenever I speak to people, I speak with the assumption and respect that they are in fact equal to me. Those who argue (or simply state their derogatve) based off preconcieved notion, do not, they argue as if the person is below them. As if they know all the answers - or at the very least like they YEARN to be correct, and the only way to mentally compensate is to make anybody who disagrees an enemy

You claim this isnt worth debating, and yet you took the time out of your day to read everything i said and come to that small conclusion.


Why bother saying all of this? Simple really, It's something to consider before doing something like that again. What you have just done is hand me a giant "I have lost this debate, and i have no clue of what i'm talking about" sticker. You could have opted to simply ignore it, but you felt the need to respond to it anyway. This tells me a lot about you, and it tells others a lot about you. Particularly your willingness to project yourself onto other people.

Have a nice day.

Or you're missing the point of the initial topic and I don't wish to keep saying the same thing countless times for you to understand. This isn't a case of groupthink, I assure you. Instead of mocking me off a very sloppy post I had made, you could've carried on with more of your straw man argument and I would've responded accordingly, but that wasn't the case.

This whole post is just a hypocritical mess too. There really is no point in going on and on about it when other people besides myself have tried to explain to you what the original subject matter was about. No one was purposing some feminist agenda to be inserted into the show, the OP didn't say they wanted a female lead antagonist in Super so they can relate to her, none of that.

[A Man named RJ]

Or you're missing the point of the initial topic and I don't wish to keep saying the same thing countless times for you to understand.

You're doing it again. Vaugeness is not a way to get a point across.

"This isn't a case of groupthink, I assure you."

yeah, it is. I've been around the bin long enough to know who holds the "privellage theory" ideology. Simply observing a pattern within a movement and groups of a movement and then being able to back it up, isnt the same as some blind accusation.

Instead of mocking me off a very sloppy post I had made,

Mocking you? I asked you to clarify your post. I genuinely could not make heads or tails of it because of how jumbled the setence structure was. If i cannot understad your question or thoughts how am I supposed to reply to them, accordingly?

you could've carried on with more of your straw man argument and I would've responded accordingly, but that wasn't the case.

I dont think you know what that means. A straw-man is an argument that is extremely hollow when you look at it upon closer inspection. I've demonstrated how ridiculous the concepts of "privellage theory" is simply because it is an example of the cherry picking fallacy. So once again, you're making a broad statement, but you NEVER SPECIFY. What did I say specifically that was a strawman? instead of maybe showing me something i glossed over, you insted broaden the argument by saying "it's just a strawman" I cant tell if you're doing this on purpose or if you're aware of it.

This is an example of the argument type I mentioned before. Along with that comes a tendency to try and pull the opposing side down via redirected mockery. The problem with yours is just how broad it is. Notice how I'm dissecting each sentence of yours? That lets me keep a grip of which segment of your argument I'm responding to. That way you know what my thoughts of your words are - and WHERE THEY APPLY. This is one of the key rules when debating people

"There really is no point in going on and on about it when other people besides myself have tried to explain to you what the original subject matter was about."

Yes I'm aware that there is an original post - what you seem to fail to realize is that people have the ability to respond to posts WITHIN A TOPIC.

This whole post is just a hypocritical mess too.

broad accusations again. If you're going to accuse somebody of something DEMONSTRATE WHY!! Did you notice that i took upwards of 5 small paragraphs breaking down your 1 line of text? this is because of clauses, justifications, varying other things that pull the point together.

the OP didn't say they wanted a female lead antagonist in Super so they can relate to her, none of that.

Nobody said the OP did. again this was in response to a person in the thread, NOT OP! When I typed that out i made sure to mention that my post was written in the second person.


Again what you fail to realize, is that people can respond to the IDEAS presented already within a thread - not just the OP's. There were already ideas related to feminism presenting themselves. Speaking on that isnt an attack on the OP, it's a broad response within a thread on one's own personal thoughts. INSTEAD of simply reading through that, you based your entire platform off misunderstanding my posts.

Op's post is reasonable, at no point have I said "this is a bad idea" in fact I'm completely indifferent to the idea of it happening - it would be cool if it did (granted, it's already happened). I gave a quick chat about avoiding designing her as a sort of feminist token symbol and focus on making her an actually good character. That is ALL. The reason I said to avoid this has been explained already - go back and reread if you havent.

[HeroR]

Man... this thread really did go to hell. It's like mere mention of the words "DB" and "Women" in a sentence alongside "strong" somehow got read as "I wish dragon ball had a feminist agenda, I need a reminder that we still live in the 1950s where women are vastly inferior. Please confirm this in the replies below."

Like wow. Really WOW! One bad joke from someone who hasn't posted in pages turned into this? I can't believe this? How is this really a thing that can be thought of in any other way than "Yeah that'd be cool here's why" or "Yeah that'd be cool but here's why not".

Anyway I guess it'll probably continue this way? Oh well, back to the idea of a tournament fighter, I'd personally like it if one of the others GoDs had a few women on their team. Or a whole team. Just something simple since a villian seems to be too much.

Well, it's also culture too. Most of the time when dealing with subjects like this this, it's mostly western fans trying to place their value or ideas into another culture. The same happened when someone asked for more females in video games. While game makers in the US and other westerns country are trying to be more diverse, with various results, Japan game makers don't feel the need to be more diverse.

I think the reason why most of the important characters in Dragon Ball is male is for the simple reason that Toriyama on default makes characters he design male unless he consciously decides to do a female. In other words, when he thinks of a new character, it will most likely be a man, unless he goes into with the mindset, 'I want to make female character'.

[Swifticuffs]

My lord the topic went to hell in a hand basket all because someone dare not agree with the SJWs here. Lovely.

A female villain would be cool, yes. But it isn't needed. Doesn't need to be a 10 page article about feminism vs japanese culture vs patriarchy vs whatever else bothers you.

So back on topic, yes a female villain would be cool, but it probably will not come to pass. I presume we'll probably see another very strong "good" female, kinda like Vados, because this is a japanese anime with a very traditional and old creator. Just a wager, certainly nothing set in stone.