Feminist Analyses

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

As a Norwegian, I do care how the Æsir is portrayed. true that Thor is completely different then his rl counterpart and Sif don't have golden hair. these things still matter to me.

As I am a Dane, I can sympathise here, but.. when it comes to Marvel Thor, I think we are at a point now, where we all must relax and acknowledge the fact, that the character was written and concieved by a man whom knew nothing about Norse mythology, and honestly didn't care.
Stan Lee had just heard about some kind of a viking god with a hammer, thought it sounded cool, and made a comic book out of it, without caring the least bit about it being a tribute to source material.

Hell, I very litterately heard him say this in a inteview.

"The greek gods were used all the time, and every-body knew what that was about, then I stumbled across the Norse gods and figured, no one knows any-thing about those! so I can just do what-ever I want with them! It's a fresh take where I can do what-ever I want."

.... urgh.. thanks douch. I love Stan Lee, but that statement made me cringe... all though it does explain every-thing about the conception of Thor, doesn't it? -_-;

If you want to point to some-thing in popular geek culture that is much more true to norse mythology.. Lord of the rings!

Because Lord of the rings was written by a man whom loved norse mythology, knew every-thing about it, and used it as a heavy influence in his books, pulling creatures, myths and ideas straight out of norse mythology to put into his works, while being highly respectful about it.

Lord of the rings is a much better fictional representation of norse mythology than Thor is.

But you know, removing all links from Thor to norse mythology and let it stand as its own thing, as it should... since it has nothing in common with norse mythology except some names.. then it's pretty decent.

Oh and if you want to read comic books which are much more true to Norse Mythology.
I recommend the serial. "Valhalla." it's great




As for gender-bending characters.. Yes! Yes I am all for the genderbending.

I would much rather have them gender-bend a character, so the character has a function and a reason in the story, and just happen to be a woman, then if you just add extra token women whom has nothing to do and just sort of stands there in the back-ground.



And guys, honestly... the best sort of female characters out there is when it doesn't even matter that they are female.
As soon as you don't have a second thought about them being female, then we really archieved some-thing.
When you think about it, then it's not really good enough yet.

And when it comes to animation.. it does become a little weirder to talk about when talking race. because you delibaretely end up designing characters.
When-ever casting life actors, I would say.
"I don't care what skin colour they have, I just want the person whom fits the character the most, and can play him/her best."

In "life of the living dead." the main character wasn't written particularly for a black man, a black man just ended up casting so well, and fit the part so well that he got it, which honestly is the way to do it.
And as some-one all-ready pointed out. "Alien." wasn't even written for a woman, the main character was compleately gender-neutral, and it was actually a last minute decision to say. "Hey.. what if we made him into a her?"

When it comes to animation though.. I don't know.. cast the voice actors first and then base the designs around the voice-actors actual ethniticity?
In either case, particular in this show, race is not a problem at all! the only actual white people we have seen is April, Kirby O'Neil, Bradford and Doctor Falco.

Rest is of other ethniticity, mutants or alien robots.

And I don't know how many are aware of it, but the reason why Stockman is white in the 80's show, is because it was still in those pre-racist time, and the show didn't want to get into trouble by having a black man being in the servance of a white man..
Which is sort of odd since Oroku Saki is asien not white, so it would be a black man working for an asian man and eventually an alien, but I digress.

[Candy Kappa]

Valhalla is a great comic. One explanation why Marvel Thor is so different, is that they change slightly each time Ragnarok happen.

[shuriken]

Originally Posted by Pterobat

Femnism isn't about making women superior. And movements need names so that everyone can identify with (at least some of) their basic ideas. It's not the fault of the movement that the wider culture has turned the name feminism into a curse word.

Nice to see someone gets it. For some reason Feminism seems to equate sexism towards males. And that's just foolishness.
2k3 had a much stronger female presence at this point with Angel Sidney and April. But it's still early on, hopefully we'll see some female mutants/ sexually ambiguous mutants.
Donnie's infatuation with her is just that, an infatuation. It could be anyone really, I just think it's funny that Donnie has it that bad for April to the point he doesn't know how to react. April knows Donnie is crushing on her and just doesn't try to make a big deal of it.
Karai on the other hand is just screwing with Leo which is awesome. She is playing him pretty easily.

[The Big Bad]

I just discovered what the Multi-Quote icon does. The power...THE POWER!!

In any case, I don't have the time or the ability to answer everything, so here's a random sampling of responses.

Originally Posted by Konchadunga

For all that has been written about the chauvinism of male cartoons (and it's not entirely invalid), I'd argue that a lot of these shows are more progressive than girl-centric shows, in that they at least had a few strong females. Superfriends had Wonder Woman, the original feminist heroine. Transformers had Arcee. G.I. Joe had Scarlet and Lady Jaye. By contrast, a lot of stuff made for girls actually reinforces female stereotypes propped up by chauvinism, like pink stuff, tea parties, lack of conflict, etc.

I would disagree.

Those shows you mention are not as helpful as you seem to think. Yes, it's good for shows to argue that women are just as capable as men at things that are traditionally coded masculine (although the argument in these cases is usually that only exceptional women are capable, which is a sexist fallacy); however, this is only half the battle. The other half is asserting that those things coded as feminine "parties, pink stuff, tea parties, lack of conflict" can be just as important as those things that are coded as masculine, and in the end shouldn't be coded at all.

This is the main importance of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and the brony phenomenon. Its peripheral fandom is a good sign that that message--that "girly" things are important things--is getting through.

Originally Posted by TheSkeletonMan939

The reason TMNT doesn't have females is because females are really just love interests on TV shows. And the idea of a giant walking turtle falling in love with a human is creepy. The Nick show tries to make it look cute, but it's pretty disturbing if you think about it.

Like people have said, even if this is the case, why go with the flow? Why can't the show strive to be better than that?

Originally Posted by demonsweat

I find nothing sexist about this show. The TMNT story is about four male mutant turtles - that's the story being told here. Any other character is going to be a supporting character and won't have as much focus. I find it strange that some people think that the amount of female characters vs. the amount of male characters in a show determines whether or not it's sexist.

Yes it does, because the less characters belonging to a group you have, the less chance that they will be treated as individual people rather than tokens. What's more, less diversity makes it considerably easier for the show to inadvertently send problematic messages.

Lets take our two women, April and Karai. One is coded as a good guy, and other other is, for now, coded as a bad guy. One, April, has been so far played as asexual; the other, Karai, has been portrayed as one who is aware of her sexuality and is confident about it--she flirts easily, and she has little problem expressing interest.

Now, female sexuality, despite what conservatives say, is not a bad thing. One can be a good person and still be confident, and flirty, and openly sexual. However, because this version of the TMNT has only two women in it, that message can't really be made properly. As fine as it is for April to be asexual and for Karai to be sexual, a universe in which all good women are asexual and all bad women are sexual, and which therefore conflates female sexuality with morality, is not fine.

I actually do find it offensive when some people go looking for sexism in things like this. There are plenty of things out there more deserving and it really just hurts the whole feminism cause, to be honest. Nitpicking this show is missing the forest for the trees - these females aren't making sammiches for the turtles, they're fighting them and cracking wise.

Well, you're welcome to be offended, but that won't stop any of them from talking about what they feel is important (which is usually all of it).

I like TMNT. I don't want it to promote sexist ideas. Therefore, I will rail against its sexism when I see it. This does not mean I won't rally about any of the many many forms of sexism when I decide to do so.

Sure April and Karai were given "the girls the guys had hots for thing" but April doesn't seem to be interested and Karai seems to be just trolling Leo while showing off she's independent. She had the foresight to look at the Kraang and defying her father.

The problem with them both being love interests is that until Ms. Campbell, it seemed like the only way we'd get female characters is by making them love interests.

Think of it this way. What reason is there for Kirby O'Neil, Snakeweed, Spiderbytez, Carlos Chiang O'Brien Gambe, Murakami, Pigeon Pete, the Purple Dragons, Bradford, Xever, and the default Kraang body to be men? There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't have been women, and yet every time they decided to make that decision, they decided to make them men. Until Ms. Campbell, the only two characters that didn't get made men were the two who absolutely could not have been made into male characters, for reasons having to do with historical precedent (although that's less important than most people suggest and is, to a degree, irrelevant) and because of their roles as love interests for the turtles.

So, a double standard is established: male characters don't need to have a reason to exist. Until Ms. Campbell broke the trend in episode 15--and she may yet prove to be only an outlier--female characters invariably did.

Originally Posted by Shredded

At this point the 2k3 also only had two women! April and Angel, and that was it at this point.

Actually, no: we also had Nano's creator, Quarry/Sydney, and the various extras with specific contexts, establishing that women were a part of the world could and were gang members, bank tellers, partygoers, homeless, kidnapping victims, etc. Plus, by this point, the series had rallied against the fallacy of thinking of men as the default (Sydney), established that women need not be maternal to be considered "good", and although far from perfect, generally heads and shoulders above this one when it came to women.

The fatal robot did not have to be a woman, that was a decision the writers made.

Yes, once. When it came to all of the other original characters, they went the other way. It's hardly commendable--it's doing the bare minimum.

I've argued for more women before on this forum, and it's by conciouse choice that I never use the word. "Feminism." as I rather give solid arguments beside it.

OhmygoshIgettoquoteThePrincessBride! I don't think [in fact, I'm pretty darn sure] that word means what you think it means. If you'd like, I can help you with that.

Originally Posted by Cipher

IDK about Donatello being a "nice guy" though. At times it borders on problematic and creepy, but the whole improbability of it all (which is obvious to the viewer) and the extent to which it does represent how a lot of childhood crushes work (and they are children) take a lot off it. That, and I really think it's going to blow up in his face or he's going to have to get over it in some way.

Were he actually successful, that would be a huge problem (also an act against whatever god you believe in).

I don't quite agree, for reasons I explain in the post and shan't repeat again--this is long enough already. Plus, I don't think Don's success or failure has any bearing on the trope's problematicness. After all, just because women don't often go for Nice Guys doesn't mean they aren't being dehumanized, or that their agency isn't being disrespected. And realistic or not--and I agree that it is--I feel the show could be doing a considerably better job of showing how his behavior is wrong than it actually is. They're still presenting it as romantic and harmless, when it is neither.

[Avatar Yuffie]

establishing that women were a part of the world could and were gang members, bank tellers, partygoers, homeless, kidnapping victims, etc. Plus, by this point, the series had rallied against the fallacy of thinking of men as the default (Sydney), established that women need not be maternal to be considered "good", and although far from perfect, generally heads and shoulders above this one when it came to women.

Ah, that's actually 2D vs 3D thing. The Nick show can't afford to create extras because of the budget, 2K3 didn't have that problem.

Why do you think people complained about the empty streets?

Think of it this way. What reason is there for Kirby O'Neil, Snakeweed, Spiderbytez, Carlos Chiang O'Brien Gambe, Murakami, Pigeon Pete, the Purple Dragons, Bradford, Xever, and the default Kraang body to be men? There's absolutely no reason why they couldn't have been women, and yet every time they decided to make that decision, they decided to make them men. Until Ms. Campbell, the only two characters that didn't get made men were the two who absolutely could not have been made into male characters, for reasons having to do with historical precedent (although that's less important than most people suggest and is, to a degree, irrelevant) and because of their roles as love interests for the turtles.

Being love interests doesn't demean nor lessen their worth as female characters. I kinda got over that years ago.

Think of it this way: theoretically remove Don or Leo out of April or Karai's life. Would they be incomplete because they were absent? Would they be unable to live their goals because they were so dependent on them? Karai certainly isn't, and I frankly have not seen enough of April to make an assertion.

Even w/o being the Turtles' crushes... I can see April and Karai's roles in the show would still be the same. I guess the romance angle was added in to "humanize" the guys and enforce that they are teenagers. Hormones does that after all.

I'm actually looking forward where Don/April would go for both of their characters. Leo/Karai is doomed, IMHO. He's not gonna date a girl who wants to harm his family.

[The Big Bad]

Originally Posted by Avatar Yuffie

Ah, that's actually 2D vs 3D thing. The Nick show can't afford to create extras because of the budget, 2K3 didn't have that problem.

Why do you think people complained about the empty streets?

Oh, I know, and I'm not blaming them for that. However, the fact that they couldn't display diversity with extras means doing so with their named characters becomes all the more important (not that it's ever not). It'd be a minor thing, except it's amplified by the more general failure.

(Don't have time to really respond to the rest right now.)

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by The Big Bad

OhmygoshIgettoquoteThePrincessBride! I don't think [in fact, I'm pretty darn sure] that word means what you think it means. If you'd like, I can help you with that.

Feminism is a movement that started back in the sixties and seventies with the explicit purpose of giving men and women equal rights and oppertunities in our society.

Particularly are the red socks a known feminism group whom ralied for women to have equal job oppertunities to men.

The original intend with feminism clearly was "Equality." not "Superiority." and I don't think any-one would really argue against that, that men should suffer or any-thing.

How-ever in our modern day now, fifty years after this fact, the world has become much more complicated.
Persay, feminism means. "Equality." but it's still very vague, there's no real rule books, no real laws and no-one to say. "Stop." which is why the terms has been used so loosely the last fifty years and is so easily abused.

The word itself has transformed, and is so vague now, due to the different uses over these past fity years. You can use it for any-thing and demand that people listen, cause if you don't listen. "To the feminist." you are automaticly "Sexiest."

And that's a problem since that is keeping us from having actual two-sided discussions, using the word. "Feminism." is kind of stopping people from argue against it.

And I don't really see why I should have to call myself being part of any group to speak about how I want more interesting female characters.

I am not speaking for a group, I don't want to speak for a group.
I am speaking for myself, as the twenty-three year old woman that I am, whom was not around at the time "Feminism." were actually a neccesity to make a point.

Now, the movements in the western culture has out-lived its own usefullness (or at least it should have.) and we must be logical individuals, speaking for our here and now present needs. As times has changed vastly since the seventies, and hopefully will continue changing.

And of cause when we bring the word into entertainment media it's just going to be even more convoluted as the word wasn't created for entertainment media, but for the job marked and reguluar society.
When-ever some-one brings the word. "Feminism." when talking entertainment media, they are not talking about actual feminism, they are talking about their own opinions on the topic, just using some word that sounds fancy and you can't argue with.

[Avatar Yuffie]

Originally Posted by The Big Bad

Oh, I know, and I'm not blaming them for that. However, the fact that they couldn't display diversity with extras means doing so with their named characters becomes all the more important (not that it's ever not). It'd be a minor thing, except it's amplified by the more general failure.

(Don't have time to really respond to the rest right now.)

You mean how the Utroms had female models vs Kraang's all male ones?

Again, animation limitations. It's cheaper for Nick to use one model. Same can be said with the extras (which is probably why the fish vendor/Mitten's owner, that cop who looks like Chris with altered mustache, is painfully reused, because apparently the neighborhood the Turtles in are pretty small). The recent episodes tried to fix that though.

Anyways I'd appreciate it if the complaints about random extras would put out of the table, since it's been already explained why. If we have to compare female characters between previous TMNT shows, use the recurring ones in the first season.

Lack of female mutants IS a bummer in light of OC Snakeweed and Spiderbytez, but hey, I'm willing to wait for that.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Avatar Yuffie

You mean how the Utroms had female models vs Kraang's all male ones?

Again, animation limitations. It's cheaper for Nick to use one model. Same can be said with the extras (which is probably why the fish vendor/Mitten's owner, that cop who looks like Chris with altered mustache, is painfully reused, because apparently the neighborhood the Turtles in are pretty small).

The recent episodes tried to fix that though.

Lack of female mutants IS a bummer in light of OC Snakeweed and Spiderbytez, but hey, I'm willing to wait for that.

Wouldn't it be awesome if a woman obsessed by her looks and her image (perhaps a beauty queen?)
Turned into a big ugly mutant, and was the next pop up monster, whom just hated the turtles for taking every-thing away from her.

[Avatar Yuffie]

I want a Tempestra/Viral character make a comeback actually.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Avatar Yuffie

I want a Tempestra/Viral character make a comeback actually.

A villain whom magically escaped from a video game in the new nick show that the turtles has to hunt down???

okay.. admittedly that concept sounds awesome!

Though, I don't really see that happening as this show doesn't really do filler episodes any-more.
Yeah they did in the beginning, but I can even tell you why, I was at the London Exspo con panel with the show creators last May, and what they very specifically said, I remember this, was some-thing like.

"In the beginning we tried to make it so it should be a couple of stand-alone episodes, then a episode that changes status quo, then a couple of filler with new status quo, and then changing it again with a new episode. But we eventually found out it actually didn't work for us, so it will be more story arching where every single episode comes together."

And you know, as cool as a renegade video game villain sounds.. in this univers that sonds more like a filler episode than a part of a story arch. unfortunately, does sound cool though.

Though, what would be even cooler would having her being some kind of an insane commando instead of tempress, like the Mayor in Wreck it Ralp! I loved her.

[Donnie]

Nick should do something with Tempestra. That would be awesome.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Shredded

Feminism is a movement that started back in the sixties and seventies with the explicit purpose of giving men and women equal rights and oppertunities in our society.

Particularly are the red socks a known feminism group whom ralied for women to have equal job oppertunities to men.

The original intend with feminism clearly was "Equality." not "Superiority." and I don't think any-one would really argue against that, that men should suffer or any-thing.

How-ever in our modern day now, fifty years after this fact, the world has become much more complicated.
Persay, feminism means. "Equality." but it's still very vague, there's no real rule books, no real laws and no-one to say. "Stop." which is why the terms has been used so loosely the last fifty years and is so easily abused.

The word itself has transformed, and is so vague now, due to the different uses over these past fity years. You can use it for any-thing and demand that people listen, cause if you don't listen. "To the feminist." you are automaticly "Sexiest."

And that's a problem since that is keeping us from having actual two-sided discussions, using the word. "Feminism." is kind of stopping people from argue against it.

And I don't really see why I should have to call myself being part of any group to speak about how I want more interesting female characters.

I am not speaking for a group, I don't want to speak for a group.
I am speaking for myself, as the twenty-three year old woman that I am, whom was not around at the time "Feminism." were actually a neccesity to make a point.

Now, the movements in the western culture has out-lived its own usefullness (or at least it should have.) and we must be logical individuals, speaking for our here and now present needs. As times has changed vastly since the seventies, and hopefully will continue changing.

And of cause when we bring the word into entertainment media it's just going to be even more convoluted as the word wasn't created for entertainment media, but for the job marked and reguluar society.
When-ever some-one brings the word. "Feminism." when talking entertainment media, they are not talking about actual feminism, they are talking about their own opinions on the topic, just using some word that sounds fancy and you can't argue with.

Very little of the above is accurate.
Try these instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/where-to-start/

Originally Posted by Shredded

Wouldn't it be awesome if a woman obsessed by her looks and her image (perhaps a beauty queen?)
Turned into a big ugly mutant, and was the next pop up monster, whom just hated the turtles for taking every-thing away from her.

Not really, no.

Also problematic is the dichotomy of the two female characters we do have. April and Karai fall into the classic female tropes of Madonna/Whore. One is good, sweetness, and light. The other bad, sarcastic, flirty, and of course in need of rescuing from a white knight.

Again, the show is still quite new and just trying to find its feet. My hopes is that these tired tropes will be subverted into something fantastic. Though, I can't for the life of me wonder why it is that we've never even seen April's Aunt once. Maybe next season.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Very little of the above is accurate.
Try these instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/where-to-start/

Cause every-thing you read on the enternet is true right?

Look, I got my information from Danish school books, the term "feminism." is not only used differently from media to media, but also nation to nation and culture to culture! my social-liberalistic culture is way different from your liberalistic culture, so different that we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around it.

Also, the very first thing that wikiepedia article says is this.

Depending on time, culture and country, feminists around the world have sometimes had different causes and goals. Most western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves.

Which is what I said, just formulated differently.

Also.. that most feministic historians thinks that all things that works to give women equal rights, even if the movements themselves doesn't want to be associated with feminism... that's kind of out there.

"I want to believe in the bible without being associated with the christian church."
NO! Can't! ... why? it's weird to me.

And the second link you gave me doesn't even lead to any description of what a supposed feminist is!
And it's a "Word-blog." page, owned by a private person, kind of like a Blog-spot, it could be who-ever who wrote that, not necesarily a historian nor activist.

Feminism is a very vague word, and that's the problem. It doesn't mean any-thing specific.

Other than.. some-thing about women and equal rights.

And Feminism DID play a large role back in time, where there really were rallies, groups and so on, it's much different today and doesn't even apply the same way.
Back then, it was a revolution! now we are dealing with the after-effects.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Casey should not be anything but white and male.

Mind explaining why?

[Dirty Blond]

Originally Posted by Shredded

Cause every-thing you read on the enternet is true right?

Look, I got my information from Danish school books, the term "feminism." is not only used differently from media to media, but also nation to nation and culture to culture! my social-liberalistic culture is way different from your liberalistic culture, so different that we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around it.

Also, the very first thing that wikiepedia article says is this.



Which is what I said, just formulated differently.

Also.. that most feministic historians thinks that all things that works to give women equal rights, even if the movements themselves doesn't want to be associated with feminism... that's kind of out there.

"I want to believe in the bible without being associated with the christian church."
NO! Can't! ... why? it's weird to me.

And the second link you gave me doesn't even lead to any description of what a supposed feminist is!
And it's a "Word-blog." page, owned by a private person, kind of like a Blog-spot, it could be who-ever who wrote that, not necesarily a historian nor activist.

Feminism is a very vague word, and that's the problem. It doesn't mean any-thing specific.

Other than.. some-thing about women and equal rights.

And Feminism DID play a large role back in time, where there really were rallies, groups and so on, it's much different today and doesn't even apply the same way.
Back then, it was a revolution! now we are dealing with the after-effects.

It's all identity politics. Feminism, Zionism, La Raza and on and on and on. It's pure sophistry used to divide us as individuals.

[Hannah]

Originally Posted by Dirty Blond

It's all identity politics. Feminism, Zionism, La Raza and on and on and on. It's pure sophistry used to divide us as individuals.

Your stupidity is astounding. You've already made your opinion known. Stop wasting everyone's time by repeating yourself.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Hannah

Your stupidity is astounding. You've already made your opinion known. Stop wasting everyone's time by repeating yourself.

I don't know, I thought he had a point.

And.. calling other people stupid is not really a nice thing to do. If you can't make up actual arguments for actual debate.
You don't really make yourself look that smart.

[plastroncafe]

Yes, but you also believe that men and women are completely equal in culture and law and thus the need for feminism is at an end.

So...there's that.

Repeatedly attempting to derail a discussion is not the same thing as actively participating in it.

And to get things back on track:
I hesitate to speculate on whether or not Leonardo will realize he can't save Karai.

[Dirty Blond]

I'm a Stupid-American. I know my rights!