Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

General talk. News, religion, politics, your daily life, whatever, it goes here. Just keep it clean.
User avatar
Alunissage
Goddess
Posts: 7353
jedwabna poszewka na poduszkę 70x80
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:31 am

Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Alunissage »

Aaron wrote:Is it just me or do the Eastern cultures seem to want to emasculate males into some sort of androgynous-equal-to-women sort of thing? I don't want to derail my own topic but for me that is what it comes down to.
I suspect you have it backwards -- Western males are so afraid of seeming girly that they overexaggerate masculine traits to the point of absurdity. One aspect of which is illustrated by your wording ("emasculate males into some sort of androgynous-equal-to-women sort of thing") -- the need to assert superiority over women and denigrate the idea of women being equal, as you just did. Also the rejection of any traits commonly associated with being female (hence, probably, the fear of some hetero males of being hit on by other males, thus treating them in, they think, the same way they themselves treat women).

User avatar
Aaron
Blue Dragon Ninja
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: California

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Aaron »

Well everyone's perception is based on their own world view. As KF has pointed out.

Let me clarify myself. While my wording implies that men are supposed to be the tyrannical overlords of women, that is not at all what I mean.

I mean that men are not equal to women in that both sexes have their own gender specific roles that have been repeated in all cultures throughout the world. An obvious example is an effeminate, caring, nurturing mother being a woman. I do not see the need as I have observed in Japanese and even Asian cinema, to blend those established world gender roles.

I realize that this is all coming from my limited knowledge. But I feel that most people can recognize what my point is. Here is an example of an early villain in the anime Naruto:

Image
This boy's name is Haku

Even Zophar displays feminine traits in his final form. Probably to emphasize that he is a god and encompasses everything.

Image

And so that is basically what I am talking about.

User avatar
Sonic#
Pao Tribe Chieftain
Posts: 4678
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:27 am
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Contact:

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Sonic# »

I mean that men are not equal to women in that both sexes have their own gender specific roles that have been repeated in all cultures throughout the world.
We know what you're talking about. You think that femininity and masculinity are largely the same across cultures and across time. That is not true.

It isn't that the Japanese want to emasculate their males, because the Japanese do not conceive of masculinity in the same way. For them, there is no contradiction between masculinity and the images you just posted, or masculinity and the pitch of their voice as compared to an American VA. For us, who tend to judge long hair and soft-colored robes as feminine, we conclude (mistakenly) that the Japanese men are more feminine, when that was in no way intended. In the same way, we hear the higher Japanese male's voice and conclude that he's more womanly, which is again a mistaken assumption based on the crossing of two gender standards.

If you prefer a more manly voice from your culture's perspective, then more power to you. But you shouldn't then start painting other cultures as more or less feminine or masculine. (Bonus question: Must less masculine imply feminine, and less feminine imply masculine?)
Sonic#

"Than seyde Merlion, "Whethir lyke ye bettir the swerde othir the scawberde?" "I lyke bettir the swerde," seyde Arthure. "Ye ar the more unwyse, for the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde; for whyles ye have the scawberde uppon you, ye shall lose no blood, be ye never so sore wounded. Therefore kepe well the scawberde allweyes with you." --- Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

User avatar
Alunissage
Goddess
Posts: 7353
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:31 am

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Alunissage »

Aaron wrote:Let me clarify myself. While my wording implies that men are supposed to be the tyrannical overlords of women, that is not at all what I mean.

I mean that men are not equal to women in that both sexes have their own gender specific roles that have been repeated in all cultures throughout the world. An obvious example is an effeminate, caring, nurturing mother being a woman. I do not see the need as I have observed in Japanese and even Asian cinema, to blend those established world gender roles.
Making a big point of gender-specific societal roles while denying that you favor one gender lording it over the other is rather reminiscent of the "separate but equal" justification for discrimination. And of course you don't see the need for blending those "established" roles, being as you're in the quite obviously dominant, and dominating, one. The historical, established way is not necessarily the right and humane way, just as the established social scheme of slavery is no longer seen as acceptable. Why shouldn't gender roles be blurred? What are you trying to tell me that I should not be doing because it's outside of my established gender-specific role? What things do you think men have no business doing because they're men? Being caring and nurturing? Why the hell is that "effeminate"?

"Effeminate" is, by the way, a (generally negative) adjective used to describe a man with feminine characteristics, not a woman. Mother, however, is used only to describe a woman, so your sentence makes even less sense. (Note that I am not claiming that only a woman can provide nurturing, just that "mother" is actually specifically biological, unlike the purely societal constructs of nearly every other distinction between man and woman.)

User avatar
Aaron
Blue Dragon Ninja
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: California

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Aaron »

Lording what over who? And it sounds to me that you favor women, so do you? But anyway, how do you know that I am denying that I favor men? When I tell you I don't and you ignore me; then you already assume I'm a liar. Give me the opportunity to have this discussion with you.

I think you are confusing being a decent human being with categorizing people into roles/classes. A very masculine man can still be a caring, loving, nurturing person. Where I think it is strange is when people decide to cross dress or something like that and still maintain their role of a father figure or something to that sort. I think the picture of Haku is a good example. That is just strange to put in a children's show. Ironically, in that example and in the Zophar example, their status as villains is magnified and perhaps even considered confusing by their feminine features.

On the other hand if a man is a blithering, crying fool, who can't get through a tough situation without crying then they are perceived as weak especially by women. A good example of the roles being blurred to the point of stupidity are female fire fighters. There is no reason to have a female fire fighter unless she wants to be behind a desk.

There are times too when gender roles are blurred such as a single parent house holds. I think though that 99% of the time when the blurring occurs it results in some sort of confusion and even disability for the child. Perhaps they express it through acting out in school, or just a general sense of passiveness or even pacifism in the face of danger or extraordinary circumstance like a bully, or a car crash.

Ironically, as you push your call for acceptance for the blurring of gender roles you contradict yourself with the statement about mothers. Does that mean a gay male couple with an adopted son/daughter cannot provide motherly love. If that is in fact what you mean then you have proved my point that the genders are not equal and have their own time honored roles throughout the world. *NOTE* I am not talking about caring, nurturing love. I understand that you understand that males can provide that too.

Why shouldn't roles be blurred
Let men be men. Let women be women. Biologically we have "evolved" to accomplish different tasks for one and other. It makes sense on that basis to not have the roles blurred. But clearly as life becomes easier through technology the need for some of those roles is changing. For economic reasons a woman who is paid more then her husband might become the head of household leaving the husband to be a "stay at home dad". Are the children at a loss because their mother is the bread winner and the father is a caregiver? I don't believe so. But it is so circumstantial that I wouldn't want to endorse it nor condone it as a "progressive" lifestyle.

It also reduces the value of a man and the value of a woman by literally shunning the majority of the world who believes that the "traditional" roles are the best roles. It in effect creates a class of "highly educated" individuals who cannot comprehend why their perceived "lower IQ" peers choose a life that confines both sexes. Resulting in ridicule.

It really comes down to that. Personally, as a male I really, really enjoy the feminine aspects of women. And women, always, always choose the more masculine men, its biological. They all have a little check list of things they look for in a guy. All of them are traditional stereotypes of men otherwise we would have nerdy guys with women all the time.

***EDIT***
I forgot to add this in here somewhere:

I wanted to mention that in Asian cultures the roles of men and women are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more restricted then in Western and even Mid-Eastern cultures. So much so that Japanese women have a stereotype of being subservient. I would challenge you to find me a culture/country/people that do not have traditional roles. I'm nearly positive it doesn't exist.

Benevolent_Ghaleon
BANNED
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Benevolent_Ghaleon »

I don't know why people don't realize that it's possible to see things as being just different rather than one being better than the other.

I will admit that I had a pretty big LOL when I first saw Zophar and said "That's gay." And it did take away from how I saw him as a threat.

Single parent households work plenty but I don't think they should really be the norm. I think two parents is better, but the other doesn't ruin people.

Reduces the value by shunning them? It just means that things are changing and people who don't want to change their minds are frustrated. Big deal. They'll cope.

User avatar
Sonic#
Pao Tribe Chieftain
Posts: 4678
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:27 am
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Contact:

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Sonic# »

Aaron wrote:Lording what over who? And it sounds to me that you favor women, so do you? But anyway, how do you know that I am denying that I favor men? When I tell you I don't and you ignore me; then you already assume I'm a liar. Give me the opportunity to have this discussion with you.

I think you are confusing being a decent human being with categorizing people into roles/classes. A very masculine man can still be a caring, loving, nurturing person.
A very masculine man can be that. However, under the dominant rubric of masculinity in the US, a very masculine man has the tendency towards traits that run counter to caring, loving, and nurturing. (He can "still" be that, which implies he isn't any of those by default.) Already, a man has to be given the flexibility to bend his own gender somewhat. This is necessary, and why your insistence on fixed gender roles is naive and incorrect.
Where I think it is strange is when people decide to cross dress or something like that and still maintain their role of a father figure or something to that sort. I think the picture of Haku is a good example. That is just strange to put in a children's show. Ironically, in that example and in the Zophar example, their status as villains is magnified and perhaps even considered confusing by their feminine features.
You completely ignored the differences we stated between Japanese culture and our own culture. It's not cross dressing in their culture at all. That is commonplace. When seeing these images, you can only fairly judge them on the basis of where they come from. That is what they wear. Their masculinity has no rule against flowy robes, like ours does. It's called a Hakama, look it up! American and Japanese masculinities are different. (I'll let someone more knowledgable in the culture tell me how the requirements for a children's show are different.)
On the other hand if a man is a blithering, crying fool, who can't get through a tough situation without crying then they are perceived as weak especially by women.
A trait which is not biological, by the way, but conditioned at an early age, like nearly all gender traits. In studies, parents are shown to comfort a female child that is crying much more quickly than a male child, who is sometimes given negative reinforcement to discourage him from crying.
A good example of the roles being blurred to the point of stupidity are female fire fighters. There is no reason to have a female fire fighter unless she wants to be behind a desk.
Really? What can a male firefighter do that a female can't? The only stupid thing is denying anyone a position if they're able to do the job well. There are lots of females who are strong enough, rigorous enough, smart enough, and determined enough to be a firefighter, a police officer, or a soldier. Just as a very masculine man can still be caring and nurturing, a very feminine woman can still be all of these things. (I'm fortunate enough to be dating one right now.)

Even here, gender roles are nothing more than a status quo, an excuse for limiting options of expression for both men and women. It is already flexible, and that flexibility is a good thing. I wouldn't have the gall to check the gender of the person saving me from a fire.
There are times too when gender roles are blurred such as a single parent house holds. I think though that 99% of the time when the blurring occurs it results in some sort of confusion and even disability for the child. Perhaps they express it through acting out in school, or just a general sense of passiveness or even pacifism in the face of danger or extraordinary circumstance like a bully, or a car crash.
It's easy to make up that data. I'd have lots of friends that would be offended by that.

It is tougher for a single parent to raise a child, but lots of times the child grows up to be even more responsible than his or her peers, because they've had to help with siblings, had to help with household income, and so on. There are some issues that can arise with the lack of another strong parental figure, but that's due to there being only one parent, and can easily happen even with a mother and a father. The blurring of gender roles is insufficient alone to make your point.

And wait, what's wrong with pacifism? Also, pacifism is not a passive reaction to a situation, but a reaction to a situation where one precludes the use of force. There are ways of dealing with bullies that don't demand punching them in the face. (I've tried both approaches.) Your association of pacifism with weakness is telling.
Ironically, as you push your call for acceptance for the blurring of gender roles you contradict yourself with the statement about mothers. Does that mean a gay male couple with an adopted son/daughter cannot provide motherly love.
Not a contradiction. I quote the offending passage.

"Mother, however, is used only to describe a woman, so your sentence makes even less sense. (Note that I am not claiming that only a woman can provide nurturing, just that "mother" is actually specifically biological, unlike the purely societal constructs of nearly every other distinction between man and woman.)"

She means that a mother is a biological category - a mother is the one who gives birth to a child. That's pretty much just a female. You'll notice, though, that she said that nurturing (among other traits that provide motherly love) is separate. Nurturing is associated with gender, but gender is not a prerequisite. So a gay male, a straight male, a gay female, a straight female, an asexual male or female, and a bisexual male or female, or even a transgender male or female can provide nurturing to a son or daughter.

In fact, the genders now appear more blurred here than before, since anyone can be nurturing, and anyone can be strong. Anyone can be a firefighter. It is mainly our culture that encourages our gender distinctions.
If that is in fact what you mean then you have proved my point that the genders are not equal and have their own time honored roles throughout the world. *NOTE* I am not talking about caring, nurturing love. I understand that you understand that males can provide that too.
Of course genders are unequal, which is why it's good that they're flexible, and I'm hopeful that they will change in time to be more equitable.
Why shouldn't roles be blurred
Let men be men. Let women be women.
Who says we haven't? I'm all for letting people choose.
Biologically we have "evolved" to accomplish different tasks for one and other.
I'll say you're half right here. If gender, the collection of clothing, accessories, personality traits, and so on, is cultural, it's not biological. Thus the dominant roles may have evolved in the way that cultures evolve, but it's not hardwired, which is why there are so many flexibilities, so many exceptions that they nearly seem to form their own little genders.
It makes sense on that basis to not have the roles blurred.
Evolution, even biological evolution, is never a best-case scenario. It is only a change into what works sufficiently well in a particular environment. In the case of cultural evolution, where there is some degree of choice, what works well appears to be flexibility in gender, and what works best for many people can be anything from a traditional role to nothing resembling it. What makes sense, in our pluralist society, is allowing each person the choice.
But clearly as life becomes easier through technology the need for some of those roles is changing. For economic reasons a woman who is paid more then her husband might become the head of household leaving the husband to be a "stay at home dad". Are the children at a loss because their mother is the bread winner and the father is a caregiver? I don't believe so. But it is so circumstantial that I wouldn't want to endorse it nor condone it as a "progressive" lifestyle.
And if that is your stance, and you are married to a wife who agrees to it, more power to you. But these roles are changing, and there are already many different gender roles already, in different parts of the world and in different points of our past. The only thing left is to decide what to do with the time that is given you.
It also reduces the value of a man and the value of a woman by literally shunning the majority of the world who believes that the "traditional" roles are the best roles. It in effect creates a class of "highly educated" individuals who cannot comprehend why their perceived "lower IQ" peers choose a life that confines both sexes. Resulting in ridicule.
There are some who do the ridiculing, but in a lot of cases they wish to point out the flaws with the hope that the gender roles improve for both men and women. They are also reacting from being ridiculed by those gender roles. The onerous guilt goes both ways.

And I don't see how the value of men and women is reduced. If anything it is heightened, by disentangling men and women from a zero-sum game where typically only one at a time can have value.

The majority of the world may appear, at the surface, to have the same traditional roles. But they do not. It is slowly getting more difficult to see with the advent of globalization, but even a hundred years ago the differences would've been more readily apparent. A majority is not always right, and a majority is not always a majority.
It really comes down to that. Personally, as a male I really, really enjoy the feminine aspects of women.
Cool, I guess.
And women, always, always choose the more masculine men, its biological.


It's primarily social, with some biology thrown in there. They don't always choose the more masculine men. Sometimes they choose other kinds of men. Sometimes they choose women. Sometimes they choose... I've done this before. So your statement is wrong on several counts.
They all have a little check list of things they look for in a guy. All of them are traditional stereotypes of men otherwise we would have nerdy guys with women all the time.
That's a wrong generalization again. And that's why we don't rely on stereotypes to make overarching statements about everyone!
***EDIT***
I forgot to add this in here somewhere:

I wanted to mention that in Asian cultures the roles of men and women are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more restricted then in Western and even Mid-Eastern cultures. So much so that Japanese women have a stereotype of being subservient. I would challenge you to find me a culture/country/people that do not have traditional roles. I'm nearly positive it doesn't exist.
Perhaps somewhat more on topic. I'll ask Alunissage or Kizyr to talk about detailed roles of men and women. I would only say that, before interference from the West, and perhaps persistent even today, the gender roles are somewhat different from ours, and somewhat similar.

Your question is difficult, because the concept of traditional roles is nebulous. It's an easy thing to say, but not easy to do.

An extreme example, but let's take Classical Sparta. The women from a young age are trained to be warriors. They are hardly nurturing, dashing the skulls of infants onto the rocks if they are born malformed. The boys, from the age of seven, are raised in communal barracks to be soldiers. They are made to marry a woman when they are old enough for childbearing purposes, but they often have sexual relationships with other men, which is not seen as effeminate at all. I'd say we're breaking several traditional rules here, that homosexuality is effeminate, that women are nurturing, that men and women always lust after one another, that women are weak and incapable of wielding weapons, etc.

I know there are matrilineal tribes where the women have several men as sexual partners. This is not seen as promiscuous or in any way degenerate. It is perfectly normal to both the men and the women.

While in Western society doctors have by and large been male until the past 50 years or so, in RUssia the opposite was true. The medical profession was the domain of women.

There are many Native American cultures where women held a large amount of power, whether as leaders, visionaries, or so on.

Gender distinctions were not as firm in the Middle Ages as we might imagine them today. There are many late medieval images of Jesus which feature feminine imagery. This was not emasculating or otherwise degenerate in any way, but was a normal way of depicting Jesus as the wounded body on the cross, and Jesus as the mother of humankind.

And of course, our own culture should be able to count.
Sonic#

"Than seyde Merlion, "Whethir lyke ye bettir the swerde othir the scawberde?" "I lyke bettir the swerde," seyde Arthure. "Ye ar the more unwyse, for the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde; for whyles ye have the scawberde uppon you, ye shall lose no blood, be ye never so sore wounded. Therefore kepe well the scawberde allweyes with you." --- Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

User avatar
Aaron
Blue Dragon Ninja
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: California

Re: Japanese voice actors have nothing on English voice actors

Post by Aaron »

Japan
At first glance the Hakama is easily identifiable as male clothing. For hundreds of years the Scots have worn kilts, judges have traditionally worn robes. The Merchant class usually wore robes too. In the middle east robes are also worn. My point is, wearing a dress is not feminine. It's the way you act, the way you behave, the way you want to be that makes you feminine.

There really is no difference between the ideal/perfect male in Japan and the perfect male in the USA. They both ascribe to the ideals that encompass Bushido. They both are to be leaders. They both are to compassionate yet firm. These are common goals for every society.

Sparta
Besides the clearly selfish desires that the Spartan lifestyle promoted, who raised the kids? Before they were sent to the "barracks" who raised them, women or men slaves? I bet you it's a woman. I would argue that their whole society was built upon conquest and the desire to do whatever you wanted when you wanted how you wanted. Oh and by the way, the "good life" was reserved only for Spartans...which is akin to what I was talking about earlier. How people look down on others for not thinking the way they do.

On male jobs
Female firefighters will never be equal to a male fire fighter. That probably just melts your brain hearing that but its true. A female cannot ever be physically stronger then a male of the same size. Even smaller males are generally stronger then women. Again, it's biological. This point is compounded by the fact that there are so few female firefighters despite the encouragement of numerous politicians, schools, and doctrines. The fact is women just cant fight fires and operate with 50-100 pounds of gear on their backs. They cannot pass the physical exams without some sort of special circumstance.

Female soldiers do not do the patrols. I've never heard of a woman being killed in combat unless they were ambushed. That is because they just are not sent into battle. There are plenty of other roles that they are capable of serving in.

Oddly, the only good examples of gender blurring involve homosexuality. Perhaps that is a prime motivator in the desire to see gender roles reversed/flip-flopped. The homosexual nature of gender blurring is probably at the root of the discussion here. Men who want to be women, and women who want to be men. That is the heart of the reason why most people do not want to see gender lines blurred, they don't want that lifestyle accepted or condoned or permissible in public institutions for their kids to acknowledge as legitimate.

Pacifism and Masculinity
The problem with Pacifism is that in the face of true evil/wrong. You need someone to stand up to it. Pacifism requires you to not do anything that involves violence. Meaning the evil goes unpunished and unchecked in its desire to see its will done. Example: A bully tormenting someone for no reason for years. A pacifist wouldn't try to act on it but merely talk to it.

This is where the masculine gender role shines. We take action, end of story.

Too many times in history evil has rampaged the earth because good men and women did nothing.

User avatar
Kizyr
Keeper of Knowledge (probationary)
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 7:36 am
Location: Marius Zone
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Kizyr »

Topics split

There's too much crap here to respond to right now. But...

Bonus Question! What common thing is wrong with all these statements?
Aaron wrote:Is it just me or do the Eastern cultures seem to want to emasculate males into some sort of androgynous-equal-to-women sort of thing?
Alunissage wrote: Western males are so afraid of seeming girly that they overexaggerate masculine traits to the point of absurdity.
Sonic# wrote: the Japanese do not conceive of masculinity in the same way. For them, there is no contradiction between masculinity and the images you just posted, or masculinity and the pitch of their voice as compared to an American VA.
KF
~Kizyr (they|them)
Image

User avatar
Alunissage
Goddess
Posts: 7353
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:31 am

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Alunissage »

I'm sure you know perfectly well that I was responding with a blatant generalization only to turn around his blatant generalization and show how absurd it was. I figured that that was so obvious that it didn't need to be temporized; you know I avoid generalizations on principle.

Of course, further events in this thread have shown assuming something is obvious relies on a few other basic assumptions which are not always borne out.

User avatar
Kizyr
Keeper of Knowledge (probationary)
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 7:36 am
Location: Marius Zone
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Kizyr »

Alunissage wrote:I'm sure you know perfectly well that I was responding with a blatant generalization only to turn around his blatant generalization and show how absurd it was. I figured that that was so obvious that it didn't need to be temporized; you know I avoid generalizations on principle.
I know this. You know this. Does your target know this?

But yes, it was the generalizations. It's a bit of an irritation whenever I hear someone go on about how "the Japanese" do this, or "the Japanese" are like that. Even if it's still well-intentioned, it's still premised on the assumption that everyone in a given culture is the same. Of course, I suppose it's at least marginally better than assuming that everyone in a given culture is identical to your own.

By the way, I don't mind the irony in Alun's statements. I needed a trio of quotations though. KF
~Kizyr (they|them)
Image

User avatar
Aaron
Blue Dragon Ninja
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: California

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Aaron »

Whats wrong with generalizations? So a minority of people don't act the way most people do, so what? That doesn't make the generalization wrong. It just means there are exceptions.

Generalizations are great, they simplify conversations. They are even used in Science. Many formulas are only applicable at a standard common everyday temperature, yet you move that temperature and that generalized formula no longer works.

But then there are incorrect generalizations, like racial ones. A good generalization is to say something like most of the wealthy people are white. While that is true, it is also true that most poor people are white. The reason being, they are the ethnic group with the largest number of people in the United States.

Separating the lies and correcting the false generalizations is what is fleshed out in most conversations.

User avatar
Theta
Nanza Bandit
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:25 am

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Theta »

If anything it is good that people can choose their roles. In addition to aiding in progresion, it shows human intelligence over instinctive roles.
For example, elephant herds follow the eldest female, who serves as a group mother. On the other hand, gorillas are dominated by the strongest male. Our blending of rules shows advanced thinking, rather than unintelligence.

While not homosexual, I do try to be forward thinking and open minded.

And Aaron, nice Edmund Burke quote.
Dokken does not like chicken, and wants to destroy it. Protect your chicken from Dokken.

User avatar
Kizyr
Keeper of Knowledge (probationary)
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 7:36 am
Location: Marius Zone
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Kizyr »

Aaron wrote:Whats wrong with generalizations? So a minority of people don't act the way most people do, so what? That doesn't make the generalization wrong. It just means there are exceptions.
The more fundamental problem is, your generalizations are incorrect and largely based on Naruto and other anime. Basing your knowledge of Japanese culture on anime is about as ridiculous as basing one's knowledge of American culture on Hollywood horror movies. The more you know about a culture, the more you're aware that it can't be boiled down into simple generalizations.

It's very easy to say that generalizations aren't wrong when you've never been affected by faulty generalizations. When you encounter those kind of generalizations on a regular basis ("you're a terrorist", "you can't speak English", "you think women are inferior", etc.) then the question of "what's wrong with generalizations" is as stupid as saying "what's wrong with racism?" KF
~Kizyr (they|them)
Image

User avatar
Sonic#
Pao Tribe Chieftain
Posts: 4678
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:27 am
Location: Here, there, everywhere
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Sonic# »

Kizyr wrote:
Alunissage wrote:I'm sure you know perfectly well that I was responding with a blatant generalization only to turn around his blatant generalization and show how absurd it was. I figured that that was so obvious that it didn't need to be temporized; you know I avoid generalizations on principle.
I know this. You know this. Does your target know this?

But yes, it was the generalizations. It's a bit of an irritation whenever I hear someone go on about how "the Japanese" do this, or "the Japanese" are like that. Even if it's still well-intentioned, it's still premised on the assumption that everyone in a given culture is the same. Of course, I suppose it's at least marginally better than assuming that everyone in a given culture is identical to your own.

By the way, I don't mind the irony in Alun's statements. I needed a trio of quotations though. KF
I apologize. I knew I was combatting someone who was wrong, but I also kind of knew that I might be wrong... and with a generalization like that, I probably would be.
Female firefighters will never be equal to a male fire fighter. That probably just melts your brain hearing that but its true.
You're almost always wrong when you use the words "always" or "never." And though I would dispute your point about strength as well, the issue is not who they are stronger than, but that they are strong enough (and smart enough) for the job. And there are some women who are.
Female soldiers do not do the patrols. I've never heard of a woman being killed in combat unless they were ambushed.
They are not sent on patrols due to military policy. And it's an archaic rule. "Unless they were ambushed" amounts to a lot of the deaths.
Sonic#

"Than seyde Merlion, "Whethir lyke ye bettir the swerde othir the scawberde?" "I lyke bettir the swerde," seyde Arthure. "Ye ar the more unwyse, for the scawberde ys worth ten of the swerde; for whyles ye have the scawberde uppon you, ye shall lose no blood, be ye never so sore wounded. Therefore kepe well the scawberde allweyes with you." --- Le Morte Darthur, Sir Thomas Malory

"Just as you touch the energy of every life form you meet, so, too, will will their energy strengthen you. Fail to live up to your potential, and you will never win. " --- The Old Man at the End of Time

User avatar
Aaron
Blue Dragon Ninja
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:44 pm
Location: California

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Aaron »

Kizyr wrote:The more fundamental problem is, your generalizations are incorrect and largely based on Naruto and other anime. Basing your knowledge of Japanese culture on anime is about as ridiculous as basing one's knowledge of American culture on Hollywood horror movies. The more you know about a culture, the more you're aware that it can't be boiled down into simple generalizations.

It's very easy to say that generalizations aren't wrong when you've never been affected by faulty generalizations. When you encounter those kind of generalizations on a regular basis ("you're a terrorist", "you can't speak English", "you think women are inferior", etc.) then the question of "what's wrong with generalizations" is as stupid as saying "what's wrong with racism?" KF
Okay, I didn't base my knowledge of Japanese culture on anime nor one other aspect of Japanese culture. I based it on the whole of my knowledge about the history the traditions, the way people are. Just because I use anime as a reference (because it is a good one) doesn't mean I am wrong. It means I used anime as a reference. By the way, cinema is an art, therefore it is a projection of the nuances in their society.

Wow, Kizyr as someone who clearly sees himself as a exemplary bastion of peace and love, I have to tell you that is one of the most racist things I have ever heard. Why the hell do you assume people haven't made generalizations about me? How about you making one about me. How about the generalizations about white people being honkies, recknecks, or corrupt. Or in your very racist mind, never bothered by racists because white people aren't discriminated against. Wow, I'm so speechless right now. Unbelievable. Really.
Sonic# wrote:You're almost always wrong when you use the words "always" or "never." And though I would dispute your point about strength as well, the issue is not who they are stronger than, but that they are strong enough (and smart enough) for the job. And there are some women who are.
Irony...

***EDIT***
Ironically most of the "generalizations" made here come from a Sociology class. Ironically, that whole pseudo-science is based on generalizations.

User avatar
Werefrog
Dragonmaster
Posts: 2047
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: Loch Tess, Winters

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Werefrog »

While I didn't study the "pseudo-science" of sociology, I feel that you are misrepresenting the role of generaliztions in the social sciences. In psychology (a social science that I have familiarity with), we often try to represent the "standard," which can be viewed as a generalization. However, we do not forget that there are individual differences (in fact, our statistical models depend on these differences).

Also, there's a difference between making a generalization after casual observations and sociologists who empirically (to the best of their ability) study a culture. I think generally in this line of study researchers freely admit to individual differences.

Also, you seem to use the fact that the scientific method uses generalizations to be a strength of generalizations. I think that this is actually a weakness of the scientific method which tends to reduce things to simplistic atomic levels that don't actually exist in the real world where things are more complicated.

Okay, I'll get off this topic before Kizyr has to split the topic again. 8-)

Anyway, I was originally going to discuss this topic, but I think that Sonic has covered pretty much everything that I would have said.

Benevolent_Ghaleon
BANNED
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:43 pm

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Benevolent_Ghaleon »

This is a great thread.

Image

User avatar
Kizyr
Keeper of Knowledge (probationary)
Posts: 8315
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 7:36 am
Location: Marius Zone
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Kizyr »

Aaron wrote:Okay, I didn't base my knowledge of Japanese culture on anime nor one other aspect of Japanese culture. I based it on the whole of my knowledge about the history the traditions, the way people are. Just because I use anime as a reference (because it is a good one) doesn't mean I am wrong. It means I used anime as a reference. By the way, cinema is an art, therefore it is a projection of the nuances in their society.
It's fair to say that I have a greater understanding of Japanese culture than you. So, yes, your previous observations regarding perceptions of femininity are wrong. The main cause for that that I can see is that your main reference is anime. Anime isn't an accurate representation of typical Japanese society. You can keep trying to justify this, but it's a losing battle.

In the Learning Japanese thread started by Nobiyuki way back, I also specifically went into how anime is a horrible source for learning the Japanese language, because the dialogue presented in it is so stilted and unusual.
Aaron wrote:Wow, Kizyr as someone who clearly sees himself as a exemplary bastion of peace and love, I have to tell you that is one of the most racist things I have ever heard. Why the hell do you assume people haven't made generalizations about me?
Ah, the "no John, you are the racist" argument.

Whites are in a position of privilege, the same way men are, or anyone who's historically been in a dominant position in society. The amount you're going to be affected by negative generalizations due to your race is really, really miniscule compared to anyone who isn't white. The difference is that negative generalizations for whites usually result in a few insults here and there. Negative generalizations for other races can result in far worse things.

I'm not really bothered by accusations of being racist (namely because of how utterly ridiculous that kind of a claim is--recognizing racism and its causes doesn't qualify as being racist). But, justifying generalizations (and stereotypes, which is a kind of generalization) is one of the hallmarks of racism itself. Additionally, I wasn't referring only to racism, but to bigotry in general.

EDIT: I didn't actually answer your question, though. I never said you haven't heard negative generalizations, I said you've never been really affected by them. That's evidenced by how comfortable you are justifying the application of generalizations to other people--anyone who's been affected by negative generalizations throughout their life wouldn't go to great pains to justify something so inherently harmful.

Consider this: I don't make the same kind of claims about other people on this board, and until your last post I had no knowledge of (or interest in) what race you were. I based my earlier comments entirely on the comments you've provided me with thus far.
Aaron wrote:Ironically most of the "generalizations" made here come from a Sociology class. Ironically, that whole pseudo-science is based on generalizations.
Werefrog wrote:Also, you seem to use the fact that the scientific method uses generalizations to be a strength of generalizations. I think that this is actually a weakness of the scientific method which tends to reduce things to simplistic atomic levels that don't actually exist in the real world where things are more complicated.
To clarify Werefrog's point further, Aaron, you're using the word "generalizations" the same way creationists misunderstand the word "theory". A generalization in science isn't the same thing as a generalization applied to people. (Generalizations applied to people is typically referred to as prejudice.) Generalizations in science are typically in the pursuit or application of a particular theory. KF
~Kizyr (they|them)
Image

User avatar
Shin Otaku III
Red Dragon Priest
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 2:17 pm
Location: At Keyboard
Contact:

Re: Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

Post by Shin Otaku III »

And women, always, always choose the more masculine men, its biological.
Right, that's why the skinny guys with the tight pants, eye-liner, and straightened hair that can hit notes higher than some women get more ass than a toilet.
Aaron wrote:
Sonic# wrote:You're ALMOST always wrong when you use the words "always" or "never." And though I would dispute your point about strength as well, the issue is not who they are stronger than, but that they are strong enough (and smart enough) for the job. And there are some women who are.
Irony...
To truly understand the message of a sentence, one must pay attention to ALL of the words it contains. Those pesky adverbs... :roll:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests