Dragon Ball and "Feminism"

[Polyphase Avatron]

I haven't seen anyone complaining about this issue in regards to the latest arc/episodes

[rereboy]

Entertainment media doesn't have to include political messages, which would basically be the case if DB went out of its way to include feminism. So, it's irrelevant to me.

[Zephyr]

I think apathy/ambivalence is itself a political position/message.

[ABED]

All SJW really means, in its widest scope, is someone cares deeply & passionately about something that isn't normalized enough yet.

This is a very naïve view. It's a bunch of college kids who will grab any rationale they can in order to get power. They scream and cry for teachers to be fired for daring teach views they oppose. They want to get yoga teachers thrown off campus if they aren't Indian. They are bigots of a different variety who will dismiss a person's ideas just because they are straight white males.

I'm more than fine with ideas and messages in art, but it has to be integrated into the artwork. One of the worst things a piece of art could do is to stop the story in its tracks to get didactic. Buffy is a great example of integrating its message into the story and characters. That said, not all stories need to serve the same function. Toriyama is more concerned with the action and humor. He should play to his strengths.

[VegettoEX]

This is a very naïve view. It's a bunch of college kids who will grab any rationale they can in order to get power. They scream and cry for teachers to be fired for daring teach views they oppose. They want to get yoga teachers thrown off campus if they aren't Indian. They are bigots of a different variety who will dismiss a person's ideas just because they are straight white males.

That's equally naive. I have been labeled and would happily accept the title of "SJW" (despite its pejorative intent). I haven't been in college for longer than I care to admit, so you're wrong right off the bat, nevermind the rest of your absurd description.

Judging from your posts thus far in this thread (which, interestingly, you actually created), I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation.

[ABED]

This is a very naïve view. It's a bunch of college kids who will grab any rationale they can in order to get power. They scream and cry for teachers to be fired for daring teach views they oppose. They want to get yoga teachers thrown off campus if they aren't Indian. They are bigots of a different variety who will dismiss a person's ideas just because they are straight white males.

That's equally naive. I have been labeled and would happily accept the title of "SJW" (despite its pejorative intent). I haven't been in college for longer than I care to admit, so you're wrong right off the bat, nevermind the rest of your absurd description.

Judging from your posts thus far in this thread (which, interestingly, you actually created), I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation.

I didn't create this thread and you consider me naïve because I have a dissenting view. And if you are going to label my description as absurd, it would be nice to have reasons why you think so. I wasn't using a precise definition, but more of a general observation. SJW's aren't limited to college kids, but it is a trend. I don't think these are kids that actually care about progress. Their methods show otherwise. Instead of conversation and trying to persuade people of their views, they want to silence any dissenters. Philosophically, they are very influenced by postmodernism.

You don't believe I'm equipped to have this conversation based on what posts? Other than this one, please be specific. I'd like to have a conversation instead of "you're wrong".

Never mind, I never get an answer anyway about this issue and I don't think this will lead to anywhere good, so I'm politely bowing out.

[VegettoEX]

Wow, I don't know how I flubbed that. Saw your name a few times and... I dunno, let's just blame the pre-coffee-cup-numero-dos. Anyway, it's clear I have some strong thoughts, so as challenged, let's share a few more. And I promise I wrap it all up back on-topic again regarding feminism in Dragon Ball.

Our world is... not great right now. Specifically in America, and specifically following the most recent election cycle, some really deep, angry, disgusting shit is popping back up again. And these folks think they have free reign. And they think they're in the right.

They're not.

We're living in a world where two people just lost their lives (and another was severely wounded) to a white supremacist in Oregon shouting and threatening Muslim women on a train. This person believes his terrorism to be "patriotism".

This is not OK.

This shit all starts at the top (bottom?) with easy little trivia like "actually, women are people, too". So I'll happily/begrudgingly take up the intended-as-a-pejorative mantle of "SJW" if this is what it means and this is what it takes. Yes, I feel strongly about this. No, I as Mike and we as the collective administrative entity of Kanzenshuu will not stand for and tolerate the dismissal and attack on any person for their intrinsic state of being.

So. Feminism in Dragon Ball.

You have to look at this in historical context, but of course it's worth examining with a modern lens. All things considered, and as a straight white dude living in America in the 21st century I don't know how worthwhile my analysis is here...

I... don't think it's actually too bad in Dragon Ball...?

There are things I wish could be handled better (namely keeping at least ONE of the strong female fighters around to the end of the series rather than shoving them to the side in favor of popping out kids), but considering what type of author Toriyama is and what kind of medium he uses and what kind of publication it was in and what kind of era it was serialized in... wow, it's not too shabby maybe? I think the one-off ignorant depictions of racial stereotypes (Black, Popo) and homosexuality (Blue) could be massaged a little bit and are more damaging (particularly in the anime), and while their historical context doesn't excuse them, it at least helps explain it.

One of our oldest podcast episodes (back in 2006) examined gender roles in the series. I'd be curious (and slightly terrified?) to go back and listen to that to see what Mike of 11 years ago might have said. I'm assuming we discussed the "Good Wife / Wise Mother" idealized role, and most specifically with regard to Chi-Chi the "kyōiku mama" (or "education-minded mother"). I think if you're going to have a a conversation about feminism in Dragon Ball and you're not aware of either of those two items, you're not as well-equipped to have that larger, more-nuanced conversation here.

Entertainment media doesn't have to include political messages, which would basically be the case if DB went out of its way to include feminism. So, it's irrelevant to me.

You assume that what you're reading doesn't have it, likely because you don't recognize it (and further likely because it already lines up with your world view). Granted, Toriyama is NOT that kind of writer (he very specifically and in great detail explains how he wants his work to be pure entertainment without any deep thought behind it), so it's easiest with Dragon Ball to say "I don't want politics" and consume this specific series.

But OF COURSE there are politics and world views in everything anyone's ever written. We all have preconceptions and experiences and narratives to pull from that — consciously or otherwise — are represented in our work. Toriyama is no exception, as much as he claims the contrary.

I think apathy/ambivalence is itself a political position/message.

Powerful, important, relevant, and accurate single-sentence point. Well said.

[sintzu]

This shit all starts at the top (bottom?) with easy little trivia like "actually, women are people, too".

So I'll happily/begrudgingly take up the intended-as-a-pejorative mantle of "SJW" if this is what it means and this is what it takes.

Everything starts in the home, if someone is brought up with the mind set that Women and life in general matters then nothing politically will change that. unfortunately a lot of parents let TV and other forms of media raise their kids for them.

Calling yourself an SJW is selling yourself short. If SJW's were fighting the real issues like the one you brought up then no one would be making fun of them. Most of them just attack media they don't like or people who have different opinions (harmless opinions) than them.

[TheQuazz]

@VegettoEX I don't think it's right to say that white supremacists have only now been let off their leashes because of the recent election. I think that scumbag would have done what he did regardless of who was sitting in the whitehouse. I also don't believe that Trump is much of a trigger for these people to begin with, and it's foolish and short-sighted to think that he's significantly altered the standards for decency in the country in a significant way (and might I add, quite foolish to bring such a thing up in a Dragon Ball forum).

In regards to "Femenism" in Dragon Ball;
I don't think it's sexist. Not by a long shot, nothing contained within encourages sexist thoughts towards women and there was and is definitely no intention to portray women negatively at all. However, in my opinion, it does do a terrible job at representing women.
I don't have any issue with some characters becoming baby-spawners, (Chi-chi and Bulma) since it is definitely within their pre-established characters to want that to become people like that. But when 18 is re-introduced only to pop out a baby and sit around at Kami's, and then Videl (previously a brash, arrogant, strong-willed fighter) suddenly forgets about all the traits she had up until Boo appears and just sits around fawning over Gohan and then later just becomes a Chi-Chi herself, it really does show that Toriyama really had no interest in making females out to be as influential or important as the males are. I understand that females in Japanese media, even to this day, are often little more than either eye-candy for the viewers or simple two-dimensional housewives, but it still feels like a massive missed opportunity to have a female actually stand up on her own and contribute something to the story in one of the most popular series of all time. Hopefully Super can remedy this by giving some females more empowering roles, although it's far too late for Videl unfortunately.

[sintzu]

That scumbag would have done what he did regardless of who was sitting in the whitehouse.

Of course he would have, the way someone turns out as an adult is based on the enviornment (home, school, etc.) they were brought up in as a kid. I'm a Trump supporter but I'd never do what that...thing did to that woman and brave men.

[ABED]

I don't think it's sexist. Not by a long shot, nothing contained within encourages sexist thoughts towards women and there was and is definitely no intention to portray women negatively at all. However, in my opinion, it does do a terrible job at representing women.

I know I seem wishy washy, but since Mike engaged in the conversation respectfully (I'm aware some will think that's an ironic comment coming from yours truly), so I feel free to reingage on this issue. I'll try to steer clear of the SJW issue beyond saying I don't believe in the concept of social justices or any other justice. I just believe in justice. The white supremacists threatening someone is wrong, plain and simple. Pointing that out doesn't make someone in favor of social justice.

I absolutely agree that philosophies and world views are always present in a writer's work, even if only implicitly. There are many things we all take for a given and it seeps in to our work. I don't think it's neccessarily a bad thing.

As for Quazz's comment, I agree in part. I think Toriyama doesn't do a particularly good job with female characters, Bulma being an exception for a long time. I like good writing and don't care what sex they are. Why any writer would intentionally or subconsciously shoot themselves in the foot by making one sex less interesting than the other. But my issue with your comment is the last sentence. Characters should just be characters, not representations of some group.

[TheQuazz]

I don't think characters should be representative of a group either. If I did, I'd probably think Dragon Ball *is* sexist, as it would represent women as nothing more than trophies and child-makers for the men a lot of the time. However, I just think that it's a pity Dragon Ball doesn't have many well-written female characters, as one of the most popular pieces of Japanese fiction is lacking something that could really have been a positive influence on future works.

[Kojiro Sasaki]

I have a couple of questions and opinions.

We're living in a world where two people just lost their lives (and another was severely wounded) to a white supremacist in Oregon shouting and threatening Muslim women on a train. This person believes his terrorism to be "patriotism".

In Europe, we have fanatical politicians, who mass import hostile civilisation, which openly says that it wants to decapitate us all. People are dying in terrorist attacks. We have states of emergency in various countries, solidiers on the streets and people are afraid to go out at night. The following drawing explains the situation:

(Trump = evil right, Clinton = other, bigger problems)

There are tons of much bigger problems than evil patriarchy, rape culture, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, white supremacism, fascism and they actually exist outside of the leftist minds.

There are things I wish could be handled better (namely keeping at least ONE of the strong female fighters around to the end of the series rather than shoving them to the side in favor of popping out kids), but considering what type of author Toriyama is and what kind of medium he uses and what kind of publication it was in and what kind of era it was serialized in... wow, it's not too shabby maybe? I think the one-off ignorant depictions of racial stereotypes (Black, Popo) and homosexuality (Blue) could be massaged a little bit and are more damaging (particularly in the anime), and while their historical context doesn't excuse them, it at least helps explain it.

I think that everything should be handled as the original author intended. I don't feel like using my preferences and views to instruct an author how to write his story. Freedom of expression is the most important thing here.
Speaking about “era it was serialized” - are you trying to say that freedom of expression is more restricted today? As to stereotypes - we are dealing with extreme brutality, vulgar language and heavy demoralization is movies, music, games etc. Do people go out and mimic characters from those movies/games? Same goes for everything else. Education is what we need. Limiting free speech to prevent things does not work. It can do more harm than good.

Political correctness and so-called “hate speech” are very similar to Article 58 of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Penal Code, Article 58:10, “propaganda and agitation that called to overturn or undermining of the Soviet regime”, was punishable with at least 6 months of imprisonment, up to and including the death sentence in periods of war or unrest. Soviet regime accused everybody they didn't like of “anti-Soviet agitation”, just as the left does today. I don't think that anybody wants to introduce Soviet laws in the West.

But OF COURSE there are politics and world views in everything anyone's ever written. We all have preconceptions and experiences and narratives to pull from that — consciously or otherwise — are represented in our work. Toriyama is no exception, as much as he claims the contrary.

The point is to make artists do what they want, as long as they aren't breaking existing law.

So, generally speaking, I am extremely happy that Toriyama wrote Dragon Ball in the 80's. He might not have written it as he did today. I personally like all the politically incorrect stuff in DB.

[Ajay]

<snip>

I think there's a world of difference between what you're describing and what ABED is.

"SJW" is a bit of a silly term, really. It shouldn't really be a bad thing to be considered someone who fights for social justice, but unfortunately, there are a group of people - typically young people - who twist, warp, and exaggerate progressive ideologies to the point where they're actually regressive. They're not interested in equality and fairness whatsoever, instead they're interested in tipping the scales in the opposite direction, which doesn't actually solve a thing. There's no, "I want the best person for the job in X position", it's "Everyone should be represented because!!!" There's no, "This offends me, maybe that's okay, or maybe I should have a conversation about this", it's "Shut it down! I don't wanna hear it! Nope!!!" These people aren't fighting for fairness, freedom or rights, they're looking to create a society that cares far more about skin colour and gender than skill, and one that silences dissenting opinions because they don't want to hear it. None of that is taking the world in a better direction, and as such, "SJW" has become a pejorative due to how horrendously widespread this has become. Which is of course a shame as now you're accused of being an "SJW" if ever you want to discuss these subjects in a reasonable manner.

What you're describing sounds so far from what people mean when they say "SJW", though. Speaking out against a horrendous hate crime doesn't make you a maligned "SJW". That's just being a reasonable and good person. To demonstrate the difference: as a reasonable person, I imagine you would be open to discussing the problems with Islam at its core, or how it's been twisted for evil, much in the same way that anyone would talk about the issues with Christianity, and how they've been warped for similarly messed up actions. The type of person people generally mean when they say "SJW" wouldn't be interested in that. You'd be called an Islamophobe for even daring to open up the floor, and that's the critical difference. You are interested in open discussion.

These types of people are doing genuine harm. Their extremity only fuels the other side of the coin, or turns reasonable folk against genuinely progressive ideas. I think Mass Effect Andromeda is a great example of this unfortunate trend. That game launched and there was a huge influx of people calling it a "SJW game". The game has genderless aliens, characters with varying sexualities, and tackles a whole variety of difficult subjects in its narrative. It doesn't flaunt it, it doesn't make it a big selling point, it's just how its world is. It genuinely is a progressive game. Instead of that being celebrated, it's mocked, and that's a terrible thing, and it's why I'm so vehemently against these poisoned values. Again, by looking to flip the scales instead of balancing them in the name of fairness, you're only inverting the issue, and turning those people against what should be a good thing if applied right. Again, you're don't make real progress for anyone if it comes at the cost of other people.

I suppose what's most frustrating is that the term is so nebulous now, and has pretty much lost all meaning. People use it as an excuse to shut off when difficult subjects are brought up - "Oh I'm not interested in that SJW crap!" - regardless of what's being said. So now you can't reasonably identify those damaging people or have a good conversation. You sure are right, "Our world is... not great right now."

[Kanassa]

Wanna complain about sexism in the series? Go after Toei. After all they created Maron, Pan (GT), and Yurin.

I'm... I'm not seeing the connection here.

[ABED]

I don't think characters should be representative of a group either. If I did, I'd probably think Dragon Ball *is* sexist, as it would represent women as nothing more than trophies and child-makers for the men a lot of the time. However, I just think that it's a pity Dragon Ball doesn't have many well-written female characters, as one of the most popular pieces of Japanese fiction is lacking something that could really have been a positive influence on future works.

That's fair. The problem I have with using the term "representation" is I think it can lead to people thinking characters have to represent some group, especially minority/underprivilaged characters. I want well written characters, whatever that means. Just like male characters can be sad, happy, brave, scared, depressed, principled, gutless, friendly, curmudgeonly, etc., female characters should also be as wideranging. For instance, there's nothing inherently wrong with a character like Chichi. It's the execution that's the issue, but in essence, I think there's nothing wrong with a character like her who isn't the cliched "strong female character" which these days means they don't need a man to save them and they kick ass against a bunch of guys.

Wanna complain about sexism in the series? Go after Toei. After all they created Maron, Pan (GT), and Yurin.

I like Pan. There I said it.

I suppose what's most frustrating is that the term is so nebulous now, and has pretty much lost all meaning. People use it as an excuse to shut off when difficult subjects are brought up - "Oh I'm not interested in that SJW crap!" - regardless of what's being said. So now you can't reasonably identify those damaging people or have a good conversation. You sure are right, "Our world is... not great right now."

That happens all the time. It happened with terms like Socialism and Communism. People who aren't good at articulating their point or use the terms in an emotional manner and so people stop listening to anyone who uses them. Another great example is bringing up Hitler. It almost doesn't matter how cogent one's point is, the second you bring him up, people stop listening.

[VegettoEX]

< snip >

I'm having a difficult time parsing your questions, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding or seemingly-avoiding anything. That's not my intent.

What it sounds like is that I'm being questioned about (accused of?) being ignorant of non-American, larger-scale crimes against humanity in favor of more-localized, smaller-scale "attacks". That's just not true, and if that's the implication, I kinda resent that. I'm as aware of the Chechnya LGBT attacks as I am the Oregon attacks. Of course I don't know everything happening in every country, but I like to think I have a halfway decent understanding of current events.

My point in bringing up the Oregon event was to tie-in with my "actually yeah women are people too" point: that is to say, start on a more-local, smaller scale (and I don't mean that in any way to trivialize the sacrifice these men made in standing up for justice and equality, and I likewise would never equate my running a stupid cartoon discussion board that doesn't allow gay-bashing to somehow be some bit of sacrifice and martyrdom).

And yes, I agree that Dragon Ball is a product of its time and I wouldn't want it any other way (warts, scrapes, bruises, etc. included). I can simultaneously take a step back and say "hey maybe unintentional blackface is kinda awful huh guys".

< snip >

Thanks for elaborating on the "what does this SJW term even mean anymore". I wanted to get into that a little bit, thought it wasn't particularly worthwhile, but it turns out it DOES need to be explained with how meaningless it's become.

At the same time (and going back to Kojiro Sasaki's point about not limiting speech)... I mean... like... I'm not willing to have a discussion about what merits there are to white supremacy. There's no debate to be had. It's not getting equal consideration time. That's getting shut down. Immediately. Is that limiting free speech? OK. Good. (Also: a Dragon Ball discussion board does not have any free speech guarantee. We're not your actual government.)

This all being said, like many of these deeper discussion threads, we tend to stray from what we'd actually like to discuss in favor of larger issues, losing sight of how they relate to the original topic. I hoped my sidelines wouldn't take us too far away as I related them back to the original point, but I can see how they would and did. Let's try to pull it back around (myself included!). I'm a little concerned with some of the viewpoints I see shining through, but overall it's still a decent conversation going on. With this post and with reference to the prior podcast episode I noted, I don't know that I really have much else to add at this point.

[TheQuazz]

That's fair. The problem I have with using the term "representation" is I think it can lead to people thinking characters have to represent some group, especially minority/underprivilaged characters. I want well written characters, whatever that means. Just like male characters can be sad, happy, brave, scared, depressed, principled, gutless, friendly, curmudgeonly, etc., female characters should also be as wideranging. For instance, there's nothing inherently wrong with a character like Chichi. It's the execution that's the issue, but in essence, I think there's nothing wrong with a character like her who isn't the cliched "strong female character" which these days means they don't need a man to save them and they kick ass against a bunch of guys.

Again, I don't have a problem with Chi-chi either. From the moment her character was introduced, who she was was pretty well-defined and every role she takes in the series is well-written and justifiable given her established attitudes and beliefs. I only take issue when almost every damned woman in the story becomes a housewife, regardless of what personality they had when introduced. That's when I think they start representing something. I know that it's perfectly fine to have some women assigned "weak" roles, but Dragon Ball's imbalance has always urked me a bit, especially given Videl's wasted build-up.

[rereboy]

You assume that what you're reading doesn't have it, likely because you don't recognize it (and further likely because it already lines up with your world view).

When something develops naturally from the story/characters, it's almost never noticeable/awkward because the series isn't going out of their way to include a political message. Rather, whatever views that might exist in the series (political or otherwise) that develop in those circumstances (aka naturally), are views that the author didn't go out of his way to include and that he might not even be aware he included in his work because they exist in it as an indirect reflection of his inspiration for that series.

On the other hand, when it doesn't develop naturally from the story/characters, when the author goes out of his way to include a political message, it's almost always noticeable/awkward and frequently detracts from the work itself.

The discussion of the inclusion of political messages like feminism is, therefore, to me, a non-issue, because the only situation that I like from the two situations I described is the first one. In other words, when talking about feminism in entertainment works, what I want is feminist views that develop naturally from the story and characters that are a indirect reflection of the author's inspiration for the series, without the author going out to his way to include it and often not even being much aware of it. And for that there's no need for a discussion about its inclusion. Either the author will naturally develop/include those views in his work or he won't, often not even being very aware that he is including such views. A discussion about its inclusion would make more sense regarding the second situation, when people go out of their way to include such views/messages, but, like I said, I don't like those situations, nor do I think they are actually worthwhile in a entertainment series. There are other places for direct and clear expression of political messages/views than entertainment series and going out of one's way to include such things in entertainment series only hurts them.

[ABED]

Immediately. Is that limiting free speech? OK. Good. (Also: a Dragon Ball discussion board does not have any free speech guarantee. We're not your actual government.)

I know you just made the point about getting diverted from the original topic but I just have applaud this because I don't see it too often. Thank you for understanding the concept of freedom of speech! It refers to government action, not individuals. This point can't be stressed enough. Even people I might otherwise agree with don't seem to understand it.

When something develops naturally from the story/characters

Not saying you don't understand it, but I simply want to say that a work of art can include political ideas if the story is about that sort of issue. It doesn't have to be implicit to be organic to the story and the characters.