Thanks Rainbowraven and Hopallee. I wanted to point out whats wrong with water's comments but you guys did it better than I ever would. 99%?! Where did you pull that out of?
Suddenly I'm thinking we should have a cool battle cry all anime style... like "Thundercats HOOOOO!"
Most people are not racists, sexists or anti-semites. They're just people conveying ideas using words according to their modern, widely accepted, definitions. If you insist on saying that people intended a meaning that they obviously did not, that just sucks for you. If you insist on being offended when people are not trying to offend, you're not going to live a happy life. If you somehow think that subscribing the commonly held, if indeed un-Japanese, definition of a word means that I hate females, that's just a failing of logic you're going to have to live with.
Most people are not overt racists, sexists or just general bigots but subtle forms of racism, sexism and homophobia pervade our society. Any who says they completely lack bias is lying to themselves. We aren’t perfect. We all have stereotypes and we act on them when we shouldn’t. If the world only had a handful of bigots then our current disparities wouldn’t exist.
The reason offensive language is problematic is that it is a reminder that things are not yet equal. Words have power because they can represent such powerful and fearful concepts. I think the act of being offended is essentially the process of being frustrated because you were just reminded of the disadvantages that you are subject to for not being white, straight, male ect. No one likes to be reminded that they lack privilege and that’s what those words were created to do. Those words loose power over time because the disparity they represent is less, but they will not completely loose meaning or the ability to hurt until to societal problem the represent disappears.
Scott, I know you were seriously curious and you only made a mistake in how you asked. You know that Clarissa and the others do a lot of research into anime and they go solely by the Japanese definition of the things (with few exceptions). When you come to them using the word shoujo in your unique definition, of course they are going to get mad. It's like asking them how come the people in Sanctuary doesn't have big eyes. This doesn't mean that I think they are right for slamming you like this. But I understand where they are coming from.
The only thing I disagree with is that you say my definition is unique. My definition of shojo is not unique. At least, it is not unique outside of Japan. We are speaking English, not Japanese. I don't know about everyone here, but between Rym, myself and the crew at AWO you will not find people who live in Japan or are of Japanese descent. I used the word in the way that the vast majority of people in the US who know the word use it. It is AWO that is going against the grain.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Japanese definition of shoujo is a pointless distinction. Something is shojo if it is made for a female audience regardless of content? That's basically a pointless distinction. What if I made a manga just like First of the North Star and published it in a shojo magazine? Does that make Fist of the North Star shojo? If FotNS were published in a shojo magazine, would I be sexist for asking why it was marketed as shojo when it only contained fighting and gore?
You may successfully argue that in Japan the words shojo or shonen mean different things when pertaining to manga. I say that those meanings are basically useless. No work of art should be created with one of the two gendres as a target audience. No matter what you make, there will be both males and females who enjoy it. Telling me the intended audience is basically useless. Just describe the content.
To put it in perspective, let's look at another word AWO and ourselves agree on the meaning of. That word is manga. As far as GeekNights and AWO are concerned, manga means comics from Japan, usually by a Japanese creator. Why? Because that's the useful meaning of the word. But wait... The Japanese meaning of the word is just "comics" or "irresponsible pictures". If you were to go by the Japanese definition of manga, then Megatokyo IS manga! OMG! However, this meaning of the word manga is not useful in the English language. We already have the word comics. If we're going to use the word manga, we need it to have a different meaning. Therefore, in English, manga means Japanese comics. That is the only useful definition of the word. Just like, in English, the word shojo is only useful as a content descriptor.
I say it is unique because you said that you never mentioned an audience. It's quite clear over here that people believe shoujo is for girls. If you look at the Viz icon for shoujo, it has a girl on it.
It is not useless to create a work of art for a specific audience. You can make anything that is meant to appeal for any particular race, gender, disability. What you are doing is making a piece of work that person can relate to. It gives the artist/author focus on what to say. It lets the a/a know what the audience already knows so that they won't have to explain everything. If I were to make something that to relate to EVERYBODY then I'll have to explain every aspect of my message. It's like how penny arcade specifically entertains gamers, nothing wrong with that.
It's not a pointless distinction. It allows the people to know that what the intended audience is. It allows them to justify why are they going in a certain direction with a story.
It doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. It just means that it has a reason for being the way it is and what its meant for.
If Fist of the North Star was published in a shoujo manga then it would be a shoujo manga. You wouldn't be sexist for asking why it is considered shoujo. But saying it's not shoujo because it doesn't contain romance or pretty boys is sexist.
Banana Fish is shoujo but it's not the stereotype. It's about the mafia, friendship and violence. I think at one point there was a lecture on the drug trade in South America somewhere too. Also the style is weird. But yet it appeals to so many of my female friends.
I want to talk more but I have to get back to work.
It allows them to justify why are they going in a certain direction with a story.
Now this is where I find it all very interesting.
Technically, shoujo denotes the target audience by way of how a work was published. Justifying the way a story's direction unfolds implies that shoujo works tend to have certain kinds of stories. Indeed, works aimed at a particular target audience tend to have similar styles, themes, stories, character designs, etc...
So if a lot of shoujo shares similar characteristics (even just as a result of target demographics), then doesn't shoujo effectively become a sort of genre?
Take panels from 50 shoujo manga, 50 shounen manga, and 50 gekiga. Show them to an average anime fan and ask them what genre they're in. I'll wager that the majority of American fans could easily seperate shoujo and shounen, and they'd probably just call the gekiga shounen.
If works can be easily identified by common characteristics, then they by definition form a genre.
a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content
Now, if shoujo is a genre in addition to being a target demographic and publishing category, then it's by no means out of line to ask why something would be marketed as shoujo, or to notice if something called shoujo lacks these common elements.
The real issue here is how Clarissa went nuts over a fairly benign question, continuing to go nuts for several minutes about unrelated things. ^_~
To put it in perspective, let's look at another word AWO and ourselves agree on the meaning of. That word is manga. As far as GeekNights and AWO are concerned, manga means comics from Japan, usually by a Japanese creator. Why? Because that's the useful meaning of the word. But wait... The Japanese meaning of the word is just "comics" or "irresponsible pictures". If you were to go by the Japanese definition of manga, then Megatokyo IS manga! OMG! However, this meaning of the word manga is not useful in the English language. We already have the word comics. If we're going to use the word manga, we need it to have a different meaning. Therefore, in English, manga means Japanese comics. That is the only useful definition of the word. Just like, in English, the word shojo is only useful as a content descriptor.
The word manga does not exist in the English language and it's use by English speakers is to signify Japanese comics because that is what comics are called in Japan. This way English speakers automatically know that Japanese comics are being spoken about when they hear the word manga, and not any other comics. Manga could be seen as the lazy man's way of saying Japanese comics without so many syllables. Saying manga is basically the same as placing the word "Japanese" before the word "comics," because just comics would bring to mind Superman or Batman or whatever for most Americans. Comics would mean "American" comics even though American is not said. A similar example to this is how in any other country where footbal or futbol is soccer, football from the United States is call "American football" in whichever language, so as not to mix it up with soccer. Fundamentally, this does not change the definition of these words. It simply changes how they are said so that people don't mistake it for something else in their culture. Thank goodness for linguistics and anthropology.
In the shoujo discussion, the definition of shoujo is being changed and conflated with Amercian concepts of what should be in a girl's comic book. The definition is broader than this. And now a sweeping and exaggerated claim is being made that most anime fans understand shoujo to mean this warped definition. I always knew what shoujo meant and most anime fans I know do as well. Maybe newcomers to anime would make this mistake but it's a surprise to hear from apparent veterans.
And well maybe it is a "useless" and "pointless" system and perhaps they'll change it for any Americans who can't quite grasp it.
Moving on, I really hope they release Keiko Takemiya's Kaze to Ki no Uta manga after To Terra. That would be marvelous.
Edit:
Banana Fishis shoujo but it's not the stereotype. It's about the mafia, friendship and violence. I think at one point there was a lecture on the drug trade in South America somewhere too. Also the style is weird. But yet it appeals to so many of my female friends.
Wow. This is sooo wrong. I don't usually call someone wrong right out in a discussion but dear lord. Any up to date history or anthropology or sociology course or book shows otherwise. Gender, no matter what society, is a construct. There are societies that existed and that still exist which have three and four genders. There were societies where the women worked the field and tended the markets and the men dealt with political business. It was considered beneath men to do any physical labor. Physical labor was women's work. Social positioning of men and women over the centuries has had little to do with their physical and biological makeup. This is only used today as a justification of inequality. "It's natural." But then there were once "scientists" who stated that all the other races of the world where inferior to that of Caucasian. Read something people. Do some research on things. 99% of the time. Where did you get that statistic? Why is it that so many men seem not to fit this always stronger than women archetype worldwide?
Wow. I don't usually call someone out when they misunderstood me but Jesus fucking Christ! I was talking about many millennium ago when we just off shot from out common ancestor we share with apes. Not thousands of years ago when civilization had already developed.
Social positioning of men and women over the centuries has had little to do with their physical and biological makeup.
Wrong.
Let's talk about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Have you ever wondered why men have nipples? Well, in fact, men actually have fully functional mammary glands. This is because early in embryonic development all humans start off with a female biological template. It isn't until the Y chromosome kicks that men start releasing testosterone and develop male organs. Mammary glands are in place before this happens, so as a result, males actually have fully functional breasts. We could lactate if we really wanted too. Until puberty, men and women have very similar mammary organs, it isn't until the ovaries, adrenals, and pituitary gland releases these hormones do women start gaining size in their breasts. During pregnancy they further develop especially due to the hormone prolactin. The surprising thing is that if men were exposed to these hormones at the same time as well, it would impair the masculinizing hormones such as testosterone. There are even mutations in the genetic code that could cause a biologically male human to undergo this exact process. They would develop into apparently very convincing women, so convincing that you would never be able to tell the difference without "looking under the hood."
So why don't men nurse their young? The reason is evolutionary. In most mammalian species, the young are born and cared for by the female, with the male having no biological influence on development. Because of natural selection, the male who mates the most will most likely have his genetic code passed on. Because it takes so much time for a baby to develop and be born, the male has no evolutionary reason to stay around and wait. He is best served by having as many children with as many females as possible. Humans however, differ slightly. The male plays a role in development in other ways. These could be gathering food, fending off predators and creating a habitat. This would offset almost any evolutionary reason for men to nurse children. So you could see what I was getting at by saying that men over the millennium have evolved socially to be the providers of food and resources. The female, during her biological influence on a young's development could not physically perform these tasks. Hence, as time went on, this dogma of the men being providers was perpetuated by evolutionary occurrences.
As for societies which have three or four genders, WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you mean species? If so which? Are you talking about asexually reproducing species? Are you talking about those reptiles that can change gender depending on the temperature? As far as I know, there are no species which have three distinct genders which are all required for sexual reproduction.
Also, since you are so keen on sources, what specific societies were you referencing when you discussed women dominated cultures. Here are the ones I could find: * Mosuo people - Lugu Lake, bordering between Yunnan & Sichuan province, China.
* The people of Western Sahara (the former Spanish Sahara), occupied by Morocco retain semi-matriarchal customs.
* The people of the Bolama archipelago in Guinea-Bissau[2].
* Guajiro tribes - inhabitting the Guajira Department in Colombia and the adjacent region in the Caribbean coast in Venezuela, South America. Children are raised not by their father but by their mother's brother (avunculism).
^Taken from wikipeida.
Upon looking further into it, it seems that the definition of matriarchy is still up for contention, but if you could enlighten me, please do so. As for the feminist movement, it seems that they are more against a patriarchy more so then masculinity. But I will not go into that right now. And finally, your right I did pull that statistic out of my ass, I was in class and was rushed. But, I suppose I should have been more clear, men are much more predisposed to developing greater muscle mass due to its higher ratio of testosterone, an anabolic steroid, also known as an Androgen, which has about a 20 to 30 percent higher ratio in the male body. So by this knowledge I was generalizing that men have a much greater chance of being stronger that women. If you really want a study on how an increase in an Androgen can promote increases skeletal muscle mass, you can read about it here.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go play with my fucking G.I Joes.
Whee! Usually I post inflammatory messages to spur discussion where it might otherwise be slow. Sometimes, you get 30 messages in three hours.
Let me attempt to sum this up:
Steve: You're a cock.
Hopallee: You're very right, and your arguments are well-worded.
Scott: You're also right, and your arguments are worded in the normal Scott manner. It's got its ups and downs.
Clarissa: Is wrong, and overreacting.
People with a trait: Should learn to not be offended when someone points out the trait.
People who are insecure: Should try not to get uncomfortable when someone uses words that might be naughty, like "nigger", "fem-nazi", or "fuck the fucking mother fuckers". You will not be assumed guilty by association should someone offend somebody else with the words.
Shojo: Is for girls.
Stuff for girls: Can be enjoyed by anyone.
Stuff for boys: Can be enjoyed by anyone.
Boys: Are allowed to make fun of boys for liking stuff that girls like. Even if they secretly like it too. Girls: Vice versa.
This argument: Is pretty much done.
(P.S.: Where did you buy fucking G.I. Joes? Man, that would be an awesome toy! What kid would have needed dirty magazines with those around?)
Social positioning of men and women over the centuries has had little to do with their physical and biological makeup.
Wrong.
The fact that women can have babies and have different hormones than men hasn't stopped them from running countries, going to war or doing much else in this world that has been framed as being part of the man's domain. You did not say anything that disproves what I said about their social positioning.
As for societies which have three or four genders, WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you mean species? If so which? Are you talking about asexually reproducing species? Are you talking about those reptiles that can change gender depending on the temperature? As far as I know, there are no species which have three distinct genders which are all required for sexual reproduction.
All right, time to break it down. I dug up some information just for you.
I actually did research a while back on this subject in a course that focused on, among other things, sex, sexuality, gender and the spaces they occupy in Latin America. I do not trust wikipedia for everything but in this case a paragraph in the it's Gender articule coincides with research I did. To be clear gender and sex are not the same although the two words have come to be synonymous in certain instances. Sex refers to the biological sex while gender has to do with masculinity and femininity.
Here you go:
"Many societies categorize all individuals as either male or female — however, this is not universal. Some societies recognise a third gender[6] — for instance the Two-Spirit people of some indigenous American peoples, and hijras of India and Pakistan[7] — or even a fourth[8] or fifth.[9] Such categories may be an intermediate state between male and female, a state of sexlessness, or a distinct gender not dependent on male and female gender roles."
Two-Spirit people were the third gender I was referring to. As for the fourth gender, I will explain. When I read about this, it was specifically about the Andean cultures of indigenous peoples in South America during pre-colonial and early colonial times. I will talk about the Incas. I had to write a paper on this and initially it was hard to understand let alone write down. It reminded me of an analogy someone made about understanding 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions etc. The best and simplest way for me to describe this in English (it was described using an indigenous language) is that in Incan society, there were male men, male women, female men and female women. You could not have two of the same gender placed together, such as a male man with a male woman but you could have a male man with a female man or female woman and you could have male woman with female man or a female woman. Apparently placing two of the same gender together would cause problems. There was a whole complex ideology and cosmology behind this. This was their concept and construct of gender. This was how people were paired off together so that they would be able to live harmoniously. The author spoke of other Andean cultures and their concepts of gender as well.
Upon looking further into it, it seems that the definition of matriarchy is still up for contention, but if you could enlighten me, please do so. As for the feminist movement, it seems that they are more against a patriarchy more so then masculinity. But I will not go into that right now. And finally, your right I did pull that statistic out of my ass, I was in class and was rushed.
Matriarchy is a society where the power lies with the mother and women rather than in a patriarchy where the power lies with the father and men. The authority figures in a matriarchy are women and the authority figures in a patriarchy are men. A matrilineal society is where blood and lineage is traced through the mother and women and a patrilineal society is where blood and lineage is traced through the father and men. Living in a matrilineal society doesn't mean that it is a matriarchal society which is a mistake commonly made.
And yeah, I guessed about the ass-ful statistic.
Now I'm going to check about this fifth gender in Indonesia.
By the way, the book I read with the chapter about Andean cultures was called Infamous Desires: Male Homosexuality in Colonial Latin America. The chapter was called "Toward an Andean Theory of Ritual Same-Sex Sexuality and Third-Gender Subjectivity," and was written by Michael J. Horswell.
That's an interesting concept. I suppose it really just comes down to what you believe effects gender the most, biological or social constructionism. Personally, I am going to go for the former. It appears that most of the world's societies depend upon a binary gender system. I would be interested in hearing what possible reasons Horswell identifies for the Two-Spirit phenomenon. Reading through the Two-Spirit wikipedia article, it seems that Two-Spirits, which were not just limited to Andean cultures but most of North and South Native Americans, were not the norm and mostly served a socio-spiritual purpose rather than a sexual pairing purpose. It seems much more plausible that the Two-Spirits would evolve out of a need for spiritual yearning (which is a totally different subject) and mix of homosexuality. They seem very similar in nature to our transgender classification of today. Multigender societies may just be societies which classify homosexuals and transgenders as individual genders, a stance not very prominent in western culture, at least to my knowledge. Homosexuality is a very interesting subject in evolution and I feel that it plays a large part in these multigender societies.
That brings up another point, how do feminists feel about transgenders? They seem to be very centered on a binary view of genders, what is their stance on the multigender humans in today's society?
The fact that women can have babies and have different hormones than men hasn't stopped them from running countries, going to war or doing much else in this world that has been framed as being part of the man's domain.
When was the last time an army of women invaded a country? Hell even in our own society women have only recently begun to enter the political domain.
Social positioning of men and women over the centuries has had little to do with their physical and biological makeup.
Well then what did? Did the evil man-beast demand women were their slaves?
Well, I now know who the "new" members on the forums.
Those who thought my "making babies or making dinner" line was real are obviously new around these parts! I am already married and out numbered by females in my own home...
Now, if shoujo is a genre in addition to being a target demographic and publishing category, then it's by no means out of line to ask why something would be marketed as shoujo, or to notice if something called shoujo lacks these common elements.
I agree. It is not wrong to ask that sort of question.
What sparked my ire and theirs is when Scott said that a straight up sci-fi manga can't be a shoujo or even shounen unless it had stereotypical shoujo/shonen traits. Like I said before, it's like asking them how can Fist of the North Star be anime when they don't have big eyes and colorful hair.
And in the end it turned out that To Terra was a shounen.
But saying it's not shoujo because it doesn't contain romance or pretty boys is sexist.
I take this last quote back. I wouldn't say it's sexist-- ignorant would be the better word.
This'll be my final comment on this. I've been taking too much time on this thread.
I just got To Terra at Borders (*gasp* IT WAS IN STOCK), and I didn't see how it was shoujo...
Like you said, the art was a little shoujo-ish, but not that much...
Clarissa seems to have issues with you... I listen to aWo and have noticed that whenever she talks about you, it either involves clown pistols or the word "fuck" and "sexist".
Actually, Boarders has usually a lot in stock ^_^; My local Boarders has two long, full aisles of manga and they usually have at least one of every volume in a series. Perhaps this is just my local one, but Boarders always seems to have an unprecedented amount of manga and comics.
Our Borders usually has a good stock, but I've found that they always had the oddest volume numbers... like I'll be looking to get a series and they'll have books 3, 7, and 8... 0.o I was looking for DMZ, and they only had volume 2... DX
I drew a picture of aWo vs. Geeknights and sent it into the Geeknights e-mail... but I don't know if they got it. Rym is fighting Clarissa... hehehe...
Actually, Boarders has usually a lot in stock ^_^; My local Boarders has two long, full aisles of manga and they usually have at least one of every volume in a series. Perhaps this is just my local one, but Boarders always seems to have an unprecedented amount of manga and comics.
Yes, but To Terra is one of the stranger manga. It's published by Vertical which is a company that translates and publishes high brow Japanese books. Seeing this on the shelf at Borders is like seeing Mazinger on the shelf in Best Buy.
Comments
... but wait... that's already taken, heehee.
The reason offensive language is problematic is that it is a reminder that things are not yet equal. Words have power because they can represent such powerful and fearful concepts. I think the act of being offended is essentially the process of being frustrated because you were just reminded of the disadvantages that you are subject to for not being white, straight, male ect. No one likes to be reminded that they lack privilege and that’s what those words were created to do. Those words loose power over time because the disparity they represent is less, but they will not completely loose meaning or the ability to hurt until to societal problem the represent disappears.
In addition, I would like to point out that the Japanese definition of shoujo is a pointless distinction. Something is shojo if it is made for a female audience regardless of content? That's basically a pointless distinction. What if I made a manga just like First of the North Star and published it in a shojo magazine? Does that make Fist of the North Star shojo? If FotNS were published in a shojo magazine, would I be sexist for asking why it was marketed as shojo when it only contained fighting and gore?
You may successfully argue that in Japan the words shojo or shonen mean different things when pertaining to manga. I say that those meanings are basically useless. No work of art should be created with one of the two gendres as a target audience. No matter what you make, there will be both males and females who enjoy it. Telling me the intended audience is basically useless. Just describe the content.
To put it in perspective, let's look at another word AWO and ourselves agree on the meaning of. That word is manga. As far as GeekNights and AWO are concerned, manga means comics from Japan, usually by a Japanese creator. Why? Because that's the useful meaning of the word. But wait... The Japanese meaning of the word is just "comics" or "irresponsible pictures". If you were to go by the Japanese definition of manga, then Megatokyo IS manga! OMG! However, this meaning of the word manga is not useful in the English language. We already have the word comics. If we're going to use the word manga, we need it to have a different meaning. Therefore, in English, manga means Japanese comics. That is the only useful definition of the word. Just like, in English, the word shojo is only useful as a content descriptor.
It is not useless to create a work of art for a specific audience. You can make anything that is meant to appeal for any particular race, gender, disability. What you are doing is making a piece of work that person can relate to. It gives the artist/author focus on what to say. It lets the a/a know what the audience already knows so that they won't have to explain everything. If I were to make something that to relate to EVERYBODY then I'll have to explain every aspect of my message. It's like how penny arcade specifically entertains gamers, nothing wrong with that.
It's not a pointless distinction. It allows the people to know that what the intended audience is. It allows them to justify why are they going in a certain direction with a story.
It doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. It just means that it has a reason for being the way it is and what its meant for.
If Fist of the North Star was published in a shoujo manga then it would be a shoujo manga. You wouldn't be sexist for asking why it is considered shoujo. But saying it's not shoujo because it doesn't contain romance or pretty boys is sexist.
Banana Fish is shoujo but it's not the stereotype. It's about the mafia, friendship and violence. I think at one point there was a lecture on the drug trade in South America somewhere too. Also the style is weird. But yet it appeals to so many of my female friends.
I want to talk more but I have to get back to work.
Technically, shoujo denotes the target audience by way of how a work was published. Justifying the way a story's direction unfolds implies that shoujo works tend to have certain kinds of stories. Indeed, works aimed at a particular target audience tend to have similar styles, themes, stories, character designs, etc...
So if a lot of shoujo shares similar characteristics (even just as a result of target demographics), then doesn't shoujo effectively become a sort of genre?
Take panels from 50 shoujo manga, 50 shounen manga, and 50 gekiga. Show them to an average anime fan and ask them what genre they're in. I'll wager that the majority of American fans could easily seperate shoujo and shounen, and they'd probably just call the gekiga shounen.
If works can be easily identified by common characteristics, then they by definition form a genre. Now, if shoujo is a genre in addition to being a target demographic and publishing category, then it's by no means out of line to ask why something would be marketed as shoujo, or to notice if something called shoujo lacks these common elements.
The real issue here is how Clarissa went nuts over a fairly benign question, continuing to go nuts for several minutes about unrelated things. ^_~
In the shoujo discussion, the definition of shoujo is being changed and conflated with Amercian concepts of what should be in a girl's comic book. The definition is broader than this. And now a sweeping and exaggerated claim is being made that most anime fans understand shoujo to mean this warped definition. I always knew what shoujo meant and most anime fans I know do as well. Maybe newcomers to anime would make this mistake but it's a surprise to hear from apparent veterans.
And well maybe it is a "useless" and "pointless" system and perhaps they'll change it for any Americans who can't quite grasp it.
Moving on, I really hope they release Keiko Takemiya's Kaze to Ki no Uta manga after To Terra. That would be marvelous.
Edit: BANANA FISH! Yay!I remember that manga!
Let's talk about it from an evolutionary standpoint. Have you ever wondered why men have nipples? Well, in fact, men actually have fully functional mammary glands. This is because early in embryonic development all humans start off with a female biological template. It isn't until the Y chromosome kicks that men start releasing testosterone and develop male organs. Mammary glands are in place before this happens, so as a result, males actually have fully functional breasts. We could lactate if we really wanted too. Until puberty, men and women have very similar mammary organs, it isn't until the ovaries, adrenals, and pituitary gland releases these hormones do women start gaining size in their breasts. During pregnancy they further develop especially due to the hormone prolactin. The surprising thing is that if men were exposed to these hormones at the same time as well, it would impair the masculinizing hormones such as testosterone. There are even mutations in the genetic code that could cause a biologically male human to undergo this exact process. They would develop into apparently very convincing women, so convincing that you would never be able to tell the difference without "looking under the hood."
So why don't men nurse their young? The reason is evolutionary. In most mammalian species, the young are born and cared for by the female, with the male having no biological influence on development. Because of natural selection, the male who mates the most will most likely have his genetic code passed on. Because it takes so much time for a baby to develop and be born, the male has no evolutionary reason to stay around and wait. He is best served by having as many children with as many females as possible. Humans however, differ slightly. The male plays a role in development in other ways. These could be gathering food, fending off predators and creating a habitat. This would offset almost any evolutionary reason for men to nurse children. So you could see what I was getting at by saying that men over the millennium have evolved socially to be the providers of food and resources. The female, during her biological influence on a young's development could not physically perform these tasks. Hence, as time went on, this dogma of the men being providers was perpetuated by evolutionary occurrences.
As for societies which have three or four genders, WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Do you mean species? If so which? Are you talking about asexually reproducing species? Are you talking about those reptiles that can change gender depending on the temperature? As far as I know, there are no species which have three distinct genders which are all required for sexual reproduction.
Also, since you are so keen on sources, what specific societies were you referencing when you discussed women dominated cultures. Here are the ones I could find:
* Mosuo people - Lugu Lake, bordering between Yunnan & Sichuan province, China.
* The people of Western Sahara (the former Spanish Sahara), occupied by Morocco retain semi-matriarchal customs.
* The people of the Bolama archipelago in Guinea-Bissau[2].
* Guajiro tribes - inhabitting the Guajira Department in Colombia and the adjacent region in the Caribbean coast in Venezuela, South America. Children are raised not by their father but by their mother's brother (avunculism).
^Taken from wikipeida.
Upon looking further into it, it seems that the definition of matriarchy is still up for contention, but if you could enlighten me, please do so. As for the feminist movement, it seems that they are more against a patriarchy more so then masculinity. But I will not go into that right now. And finally, your right I did pull that statistic out of my ass, I was in class and was rushed. But, I suppose I should have been more clear, men are much more predisposed to developing greater muscle mass due to its higher ratio of testosterone, an anabolic steroid, also known as an Androgen, which has about a 20 to 30 percent higher ratio in the male body. So by this knowledge I was generalizing that men have a much greater chance of being stronger that women. If you really want a study on how an increase in an Androgen can promote increases skeletal muscle mass, you can read about it here.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go play with my fucking G.I Joes.
Let me attempt to sum this up:
Steve: You're a cock.
Hopallee: You're very right, and your arguments are well-worded.
Scott: You're also right, and your arguments are worded in the normal Scott manner. It's got its ups and downs.
Clarissa: Is wrong, and overreacting.
People with a trait: Should learn to not be offended when someone points out the trait.
People who are insecure: Should try not to get uncomfortable when someone uses words that might be naughty, like "nigger", "fem-nazi", or "fuck the fucking mother fuckers". You will not be assumed guilty by association should someone offend somebody else with the words.
Shojo: Is for girls.
Stuff for girls: Can be enjoyed by anyone.
Stuff for boys: Can be enjoyed by anyone.
Boys: Are allowed to make fun of boys for liking stuff that girls like. Even if they secretly like it too.
Girls: Vice versa.
This argument: Is pretty much done.
(P.S.: Where did you buy fucking G.I. Joes? Man, that would be an awesome toy! What kid would have needed dirty magazines with those around?)
I actually did research a while back on this subject in a course that focused on, among other things, sex, sexuality, gender and the spaces they occupy in Latin America. I do not trust wikipedia for everything but in this case a paragraph in the it's Gender articule coincides with research I did. To be clear gender and sex are not the same although the two words have come to be synonymous in certain instances. Sex refers to the biological sex while gender has to do with masculinity and femininity.
Here you go:
"Many societies categorize all individuals as either male or female — however, this is not universal. Some societies recognise a third gender[6] — for instance the Two-Spirit people of some indigenous American peoples, and hijras of India and Pakistan[7] — or even a fourth[8] or fifth.[9] Such categories may be an intermediate state between male and female, a state of sexlessness, or a distinct gender not dependent on male and female gender roles."
Two-Spirit people were the third gender I was referring to. As for the fourth gender, I will explain. When I read about this, it was specifically about the Andean cultures of indigenous peoples in South America during pre-colonial and early colonial times. I will talk about the Incas. I had to write a paper on this and initially it was hard to understand let alone write down. It reminded me of an analogy someone made about understanding 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions etc. The best and simplest way for me to describe this in English (it was described using an indigenous language) is that in Incan society, there were male men, male women, female men and female women. You could not have two of the same gender placed together, such as a male man with a male woman but you could have a male man with a female man or female woman and you could have male woman with female man or a female woman. Apparently placing two of the same gender together would cause problems. There was a whole complex ideology and cosmology behind this. This was their concept and construct of gender. This was how people were paired off together so that they would be able to live harmoniously. The author spoke of other Andean cultures and their concepts of gender as well. Matriarchy is a society where the power lies with the mother and women rather than in a patriarchy where the power lies with the father and men. The authority figures in a matriarchy are women and the authority figures in a patriarchy are men. A matrilineal society is where blood and lineage is traced through the mother and women and a patrilineal society is where blood and lineage is traced through the father and men. Living in a matrilineal society doesn't mean that it is a matriarchal society which is a mistake commonly made.
And yeah, I guessed about the ass-ful statistic.
Now I'm going to check about this fifth gender in Indonesia.
By the way, the book I read with the chapter about Andean cultures was called Infamous Desires: Male Homosexuality in Colonial Latin America. The chapter was called "Toward an Andean Theory of Ritual Same-Sex Sexuality and Third-Gender Subjectivity," and was written by Michael J. Horswell.
That brings up another point, how do feminists feel about transgenders? They seem to be very centered on a binary view of genders, what is their stance on the multigender humans in today's society? When was the last time an army of women invaded a country? Hell even in our own society women have only recently begun to enter the political domain. Well then what did? Did the evil man-beast demand women were their slaves?
Those who thought my "making babies or making dinner" line was real are obviously new around these parts! I am already married and out numbered by females in my own home...
What sparked my ire and theirs is when Scott said that a straight up sci-fi manga can't be a shoujo or even shounen unless it had stereotypical shoujo/shonen traits. Like I said before, it's like asking them how can Fist of the North Star be anime when they don't have big eyes and colorful hair.
And in the end it turned out that To Terra was a shounen. I take this last quote back. I wouldn't say it's sexist-- ignorant would be the better word.
This'll be my final comment on this. I've been taking too much time on this thread.
Like you said, the art was a little shoujo-ish, but not that much...
Clarissa seems to have issues with you... I listen to aWo and have noticed that whenever she talks about you, it either involves clown pistols or the word "fuck" and "sexist".
I drew a picture of aWo vs. Geeknights and sent it into the Geeknights e-mail... but I don't know if they got it. Rym is fighting Clarissa... hehehe...