Is Dragon Ball a misogynist series?

[Zephyr]

Isn't the age one is considered an adult 20 in Japan?

I'm not sure, but that isn't relevant. Pedophilia denotes a sexual inclination towards the prepubescent, not the underage, which are very much no the same thing (though there is an overlap). But in all fairness this sub conversation isn't entirely relevant to the thread, so I guess I'll leave it at this.

[Fizzer]

I like how "women are physically weaker than men" continues to be used as an excuse when ki is metaphysical, resulting in things like 5'9 Goku one-shotting 7 foot tall muscle-bound freaks like Recoome, or King Piccolo losing to a kid that doesn't even come up this knee caps, or five year old Gohan smacking around the insanely buff and large Nappa.

Absolutely this. The difference in muscle between an adult and a child, between Pure Buu and Goku, or between Goku and fucking Reacoome is far greater than the difference between men and women, and those differences end up meaning nothing. Toriyama ALWAYS has small, thin/non-muscly people be surprisingly powerful and usually stronger than large or muscular characters. I'm 5'9'', like Goku. I'm pretty much completely untrained in the martial arts, and I'd rather be an untrained woman fighting me than be me fighting an untrained guy the size of Nappa. Other factors do absolutely overcome natural muscle mass in Dragon Ball.

[rereboy]

I like how "women are physically weaker than men" continues to be used as an excuse when ki is metaphysical, resulting in things like 5'9 Goku one-shotting 7 foot tall muscle-bound freaks like Recoome, or King Piccolo losing to a kid that doesn't even come up this knee caps, or five year old Gohan smacking around the insanely buff and large Nappa.

Absolutely this. The difference in muscle between an adult and a child, between Pure Buu and Goku, or between Goku and fucking Reacoome is far greater than the difference between men and women, and those differences end up meaning nothing. Toriyama ALWAYS has small, thin/non-muscly people be surprisingly powerful and usually stronger than large or muscular characters. I'm 5'9'', like Goku. I'm pretty much completely untrained in the martial arts, and I'd rather be an untrained woman fighting me than be me fighting an untrained guy the size of Nappa. Other factors do absolutely overcome natural muscle mass in Dragon Ball.

Sometimes physical differences matter in Dragon Ball, other times they don't. For example, being a Saiyan instead of a human? Matters. Being buff and big instead of small? Not necessarily, since Toriyama sometimes goes against the audience expectation in that regard so that he can add more flavor to the narrative. He even does the same, goes against the audience expectation, by making women powerful despite their gender and apperance (ChiChi and #18). But, like I said previously, he just doesn't do this very often because he chose not to go against the audience expectation and the tendencies of shonen manga very often in that regard.

[Fionordequester]

You are failing to understand the real issues of those people.

If someone is influenced by porn or cartoons or whatever to do something bad when normal people aren't, then something is up with those people. They might have a highly suggestible personality due to various factors, in which case they will get influenced negatively by pretty much anything... They might have a negative take on sex because their parents/family considered it taboo and a sin... They might have all sorts of prejudices and complexes due to a less of an ideal upbringing... They might have had some trauma in the past that made them susceptible... They might be very lonely and depressed people who eventually develop a slightly twisted view on reality... They might have a real mental decease or disorder of some sort... Etc.

THESE are some of the REAL issues of those people. The way to actually fight those issues is with prevention and identification of those issues and with real support of those people and their issues.

Censorship doesn't tackle those issues at all. Its merely a poorly made "band-aid" which tries to isolate a very small portion of the population who might react abnormally to that piece of entertainment, hoping that that's enough for them to never react abnormally to anything, instead of actually helping that portion of the population with their issues and the root of their problems.

You are indeed correct on what the underlying issue is. But I think what you're missing is that it's not one or the other that's the problem. It's BOTH! I mean, the attitudes you mention are obviously the biggest problem, but popular culture also reinforces those problems.

To give what might be an exaggerated example, let's say you're a child on some Island, alone, with you're only companion being some weird dude called Adolf Hitler, and he keeps espousing his ideas to you. Now, he's still an adult while you're still a child...but even so, odds are, I think we can say that the child's chances of going on a Jew killing rampage are...pretty low I'd say.

Now take that same child, but put him in Nazi Germany, where Adolf Hitler is ALSO shouting his same messages....as well as Superman...and Wonder Woman...and Sherlock Holmes...and Dora the Explorer...and the child's school teachers....and the child's friends....and the politicians....and their cousins...and Yusuke Urumeshi...and Joey Wheeler... and even....THEIR OWN PARENTS!!

Now are you starting to see the problem with sexist attitudes seen in any type of media, regardless of whether it's children's programming or whatever? I mean don't get me wrong, if Bulma wants to walk around in her underwear in front of Krillin and Gohan, that's her problem. It's when fricken Master Roshi is groping women every chance he gets, and yet is treated with, at best, passing annoyance from the women, and at worst, simply indifference from say, Krillin (to the point where he actually lives on Roshi's island WITH HIS WIFE!!), or when a woman's reaction to a 12 year old groping them is simply to blush, smile, and feel complimented that it starts to be a problem.

EDITED: I also find it interesting that you describe the idea of censorship as a "band-aid" to the problem. Band-aids, I'll remind you, while not the solution to medical problems, are usually fairly good about at least giving temporary relief. Don't you think that people that suffer as much as the kind you mention above deserve both?

(And yes, its obvious that the great majority of people don't react negatively to porn or cartoon or whatever. Most people aren't on the street raping or treating women like they are treated in porn, or trying to fly out of windows or eat as much as Goku or whatever.)

You are trying to blame random "triggers" for their behavior, which can be ANYTHING (if it wasn't porn or cartoons, with their issues, it would probably be some other random thing, like a movie or a videogame or some jerk they meet on the street), instead of actually blaming the REAL causes of their behavior.

What you don't understand though is that the issues are more complicated than just "X is responsible for this, and Y isn't". The problem is multifaceted!

As I said, that's completely the wrong mentality and doesn't fix anything, since you can't isolate those people from reality. If you truly have a Psychology major, you should understand this, and act according.

Well, if you happen to also have knowledge in this field, I'd be happy to talk with you about it. Otherwise, I'd have to say that you're making an assumption about a Psychology major SHOULD be saying without actually having been in the classes, which is bad.

[Ringworm128]

Except having having a scene where Roshi gets a blood nose or a scene where a girl is shown posing in her underwear isn't the same as the entire world going "it's ok to rape women" "women are for sex and nothing else" etc. You could put a boy in front of a screen that has a G-cup super model posing in an suggestive way in her underwear and the most he would get out of it is "girls are pretty"

[Fionordequester]

Except having having a scene where Roshi gets a blood nose or a scene where a girl is shown posing in her underwear isn't the same as the entire world going "it's ok to rape women" "women are for sex and nothing else" etc.

It is the same as "it's ok to objectify them", or for that matter, to look at them lustfully even when they don't want you to. There's a reason women don't generally like it when you peep on them you know.

EDIT: Note that a quick glance at a woman's beauty before going on your merry way doesn't count as "lustfully". All that is is "Eros".

[Ringworm128]

The whole "it objectifes women" excuse is BS, just because someone thinks a girl is hot doesn't mean they think "yep she's a piece of meat that's only good for sex." You have a point with the "women don't like you looking at them" thing but what they don't know can't really hurt them. And oggling chicks is something men have been doing for years, it's natural. I will have a seriously hard time believing you if you say that you've never once looked at someone of your preferred sex and thought "he/she looks pretty hot".

[Fionordequester]

The whole "it objectifes women" excuse is BS, just because someone thinks a girl is hot doesn't mean they think "yep she's a piece of meat that's only good for sex."

I wasn't really trying to say that though. I'm not sure where you got the impression that that's what I was thinking.

You have a point with the "women don't like you looking at them" thing but what they don't know can't really hurt them. And oggling chicks is something men have been doing for years, it's natural. I will have a seriously hard time believing you if you say that you've never once looked at someone of your preferred sex and thought "he/she looks pretty hot".

That's not really the same as "oggling" them though. That's just more "eros". Of course I've looked at women and thought they were pretty hot. Still do. But it's not to the point where I'm wanting to go up to them and rub their privates, or something stupid like that. And when someone doesn't want you to do something, does it really matter whether or not YOU don't think there's any harm to it? Seems to me like it shows a lack of respect for their wishes.

EDIT: That said, I want you to please tell me when you think I'm getting too close to offending you or anything. I tend to be a bit...zealous when I have something I want to argue, and my people skills are, admittedly, not the best.

[Ringworm128]

If someone looks at someone and thinks of rubbing their private parts it's because they're just an extreme pervert, most likely due to a bad upbringing and possibly being that way naturally not because of Roshi.

[Fionordequester]

If someone looks at someone and thinks of rubbing their private parts it's because they're just an extreme pervert, most likely due to a bad upbringing and possibly being that way naturally not because of Roshi.

I don't think you can deny that, as far as Dragon Ball Z is concerned at least, and seemingly most anime, it doesn't seem to come down terribly hard on it. I will grant you that Roshi alone most likely won't do anything bad to children, but he does exhibit what I see as a negative trend in anime, and he sure as heck isn't going to be helping the problem.

[Roland_ELoG]

Do your part by not molesting children.

Thank you.

[rereboy]

You are indeed correct on what the underlying issue is. But I think what you're missing is that it's not one or the other that's the problem. It's BOTH!

No, blaming individual triggers never works out because those people can be set off by possibly anything. You can't remove those people from reality which is a far worse, cruel, stressful and twisted place than any entertainment world.

You would only succeed in censoring entertainment and culture without actually achieving anything measurable in regards to what you were trying to achieve.

Your viewpoint is wrong and, worst of all, a very dangerous viewpoint to a free society.

[The Monkey King]

If you're raised well, no immoral acts in fictional media will have a profound effect on you.

[Zephyr]

It is the same as "it's ok to objectify them"

I have a question here actually. Is it actually intrinsically immoral to objectify someone? And if so, why?

I'd argue that the objectification is not immoral, but that some of the potential consequences of it are. If the objectification occurs without said negative consequences, I see no cause for concern. If the negative consequences we're talking about are the little-boy-who's-watching-a-cartoon-filled-with-adventure-and-beating-guys-up somehow being influenced to think of women's rights/well being as unimportant (or having their plight seen as overall trivial), then I'd argue we're not talking about something realistically influenced by Dragon Ball, especially if the parents are competent at raising their children to understand the differences between what they see on TV and what's in the real world.

I feel as if this will ultimately boil down to he whole censorship debate. Where one side argues that we shouldn't allow people to see potentially harmful things, and then the other side points out that what is seen as "harmful" can vary depending on person to person, can change over time, or throughout different cultures, and is thus impossible to realistically do on such a grand scale, making it more productive to simply raise children in a way that prevents them from being harmed by these "potentially harmful" things.

[Fionordequester]

I'd argue that the objectification is not immoral, but that some of the potential consequences of it are. If the objectification occurs without said negative consequences, I see no cause for concern. If the negative consequences we're talking about are the little-boy-who's-watching-a-cartoon-filled-with-adventure-and-beating-guys-up somehow being influenced to think of women's rights/well being as unimportant (or having their plight seen as overall trivial), then I'd argue we're not talking about something realistically influenced by Dragon Ball, especially if the parents are competent at raising their children to understand the differences between what they see on TV and what's in the real world.

I can't really think of a scenario where objectification would happen without the implications that you bring up, so unless you can explain to me how that can happen, I would argue that the objectification IS immoral, especially in the context of a children's show.

EDIT: That said, I just realized yesterday that I made a mistake. I don't almost have my major, I just almost have my Associate's...not sure how much of a difference that makes.

[Zephyr]

I'd argue that the objectification is not immoral, but that some of the potential consequences of it are. If the objectification occurs without said negative consequences, I see no cause for concern. If the negative consequences we're talking about are the little-boy-who's-watching-a-cartoon-filled-with-adventure-and-beating-guys-up somehow being influenced to think of women's rights/well being as unimportant (or having their plight seen as overall trivial), then I'd argue we're not talking about something realistically influenced by Dragon Ball, especially if the parents are competent at raising their children to understand the differences between what they see on TV and what's in the real world.

I can't really think of a scenario where objectification would happen without the implications that you bring up, so unless you can explain to me how that can happen, I would argue that the objectification IS immoral, especially in the context of a children's show.

Well, speaking from my own experience at least, for the sake of example, I watched Dragon Ball growing up. I witnessed this objectification. And I don't think that women's rights/well being is unimportant, nor do I see their plight as overall trivial (at least not in comparison to anyone else's plight). I can also bring up that my parents very clearly established, far before I ever watched Dragon Ball, the differences between reality and non-reality (TV, video games, movies, etc). You can take that to mean that the objectification either doesn't automatically have a negative effect, or you can take that to mean that, with half-decent parenting, the negative effect that could be caused by the objectification wouldn't occur.

If the former is how this is taken, then I would repeat the question of "why is objectification in and of itself wrong"?

If the latter is taken, then I would reiterate that it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure they actually raise their own children, because that's far more efficient and productive than trying to cater to what every single person is harmed and/or offended by. Encouraging personal responsibility should take precedence over babysitting for the irresponsible.

[rereboy]

Objectification can be offensive. It doesn't have to actually cause direct harm. However, there's things considered offensive with good reason and there's things considered offensive with no reason or hardly any reason. Not everything is the same.

[Fionordequester]

It can however be a sign of something much more malevolent.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2 ... -&at_pos=5

Tells the story of a foreign woman who was twice abused by a man (one of em' presumably wanting to rape her), but had no one help, and had the police outright dismiss her. Normally, I wouldn't include a newspaper source as proof that there's a problem (you know how the media is), but the comments are extremely good and insightful I feel. There's even a Japanese person in the comments who not only does nothing to dis-confirm that Japan has a problem, but even says that he feels embarrassed by his country on this front.

If nothing else, it's fairly revealing on why Japan's rape rates seem so low compared to other countries (turns out, the police don't properly document them)!

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/r ... 1/art00004 (you can't read it...but I have a PDF of it saved if you want me to try to upload it somewhere).

Reveals that sexist behavior such as groping and masturbating in front of women on trains is actually SO BAD that Japan actually institutionalized special female only trains just so females could not be harassed! I'll do my best to get this uploaded should you wish for me to do so.

[UltimateHammerBro]

Reveals that sexist behavior such as groping and masturbating in front of women on trains is actually SO BAD that Japan actually institutionalized special female only trains just so females could not be harassed!

My gosh. I take the train twice a day, and I think that the worst I've seen is a guy groping a girl's butt one day the train was full. The girl quickly noticed and turned around, but she didn't know who had been, and the guy left in the next stop.

I mean, I find it impossible to imagine someone doing what you describe. I mean, there are pervs in every country, but even the most pervert person in the world would have to be pretty retarded to be that conspicuous.

[Rocketman]

Reveals that sexist behavior such as groping and masturbating in front of women on trains is actually SO BAD that Japan actually institutionalized special female only trains just so females could not be harassed! I'll do my best to get this uploaded should you wish for me to do so.

Which, of course, led to perverts saying that if a woman doesn't ride on the female-only train, she obviously wants to be groped.