Um, you were wrong though, all of the details you were complaining about were wrong... I mean, yes, they don't do real piracy, but all of that stuff you were saying, about why the government allows them to attack people, etc... well, that's not really what's going on, and the show explains why.
Your defense here is apparently that you're focusing only on the bit you were sort of right about, but my point was that all of the things you were complaining about weren't accurate. If the complaint is that you wish they were real pirates, though, then sure, they aren't. But Space Pirates is the result of what you get when you mix a traditional sci-fi TV show with anime, so it shouldn't be surprising that the main characters are the good guys... (because, I mean, attacking random ships would be much more morally questionable of course.)
No, see, I don't know what you're arguing now. All I ever said is that in the show they're not presented or treated like Privateers and listed things I found weird. Like two of the pirates being school faculty, one of the pirates working at the space dock, the happy go lucky attitude of the school in regards to her being there or not, the school having a pirate ship, all I said is that this is a cozier relationship than what I'd consider the average realistic privateer enjoyed hundreds of years ago. That's all I was saying.
You go and explain the why's but that doesn't change the what, further you reminded me of their real job wich is like a glorified insurance scam that I had forgotten about which just further backs up my feelings that they're not really privateers in any sense of the word. So since we're not arguing the same thing I figure why even argue about it at all?
What, so you've never watched a bad anime? Hah... or is your excuse that you'd only watch a bad anime you think you could finish? Even so...
Excuse? My past? It's neither, I've seen bad anime, sure, but when you get right down to it I just don't want to watch something that I'm sure will suck and I really don't want to watch something that I think will suck and others are telling me to watch because they thought it sucked. I gain nothing in that scenario.
This is true, but the person on the show claimed that she was well trained.
Well by whos standards? If I'm not mistaken there was a period where the Soviet Union thought the Boy Scouts were a paramilitary group, some of them might have classified them as well trained! I'd also like to add that throughout history well trained warriors, soldiers and the like have been saved by ordinary people. Because someone is trained or the "warrior" in a scenario does not mean they always were going to win, always make the right choice and can't be saved by someone else. In fiction this becomes a problem because of poor writing. If you're a competent writer and you can make a believable scenario and believable characters, it works, if you're the author of Campione it doesn't work. Being that we're talking about at anime that has people fighting Gods it might be easy to forget or overlook this but remember that everyone is human. Just because I was in the Infantry for 5 years, for example, doesn't mean that I can't not get saved by a civilian. Heck it doesn't mean that I can't get saved by someone else in the military that's just not in a combat MOS that theoretically is no better suited to save me than a civilian.
Well, of course. That that difference exists is basically the definition of sexism, you know.
I don't think I'm getting my concept across.
As applied in that show, that's not "neutral sexism", if such a thing exists... no way. And I just won't accept "well because of the genre it's inevitable", that kind of acceptance of sexism does no good. And anyway, presenting women in stories as things which always must be rescued IS sexist, unquestionably. It's a negative stereotype, essentially.
This is what I'm saying:
You have a situation. The situation is not sexist. Guy saves girl. There's no sexism there. It's sexless. If you think that a guy saving a girl is always sexist no matter what then I don't know what to say. So when I read something along the lines of "and of course the guy saves the girl because it's sexist" I just kind of roll my eyes a little because, well, fucking really? One out of the only two possible scenarios of one human saving another is sexist by default? I don't fucking buy that.
So the situation may not be gender biased but it becomes sexist through context, the execution. Now in Campione it clearly is sexist. But it's not sexist because the guy saves the girl but because of why, how and the rest of the story surrounding that scene.
Now, in everything there is an undercurrent of sex, not sexism but sex, or gender if you must. These are what I consider inalienable truths. And it's because of this that I could imagine a person saying everything is sexist but then that's absurd. At some point you have to realize that we're all human beings, there are different sexes and that's that. So maybe to some people the guy saving the girl is hot. Ok. Maybe to me the girl saving the guy is hot, which it totally is, but you know, that's also sexist because it's driven by my personal tastes. So we're really going to say that both a guy saving a girl and a girl saving a guy is sexist? But what if it's written by a woman now? It's still sexist either way because now either her taste is showing through or, as some would say, her taste as conditioned by society is. So this whole problem is clearly not really a problem at all if there's no right answer and every human being suffers from it. And if none of them are right then there really can't be a wrong one either.
Which takes me back, again, to the real reason it's so easy to call any scene with a guy saving the girl sexist and that's prevalence. Again, if it were 50/50 no one would bat an eye at either scenario but since most of these mediums are still dominated by men we get the lopsided situation we have now. But, again, if the only reason a given thing is perceived as sexist is because it's not actually looked at individually but just when combined with the rest of mass media then that's not really a case of real sexism and can't, well shouldn't, be used as an argument for why it's sexist.
To me, once you've started removing the context of a given scenario and just start labeling the base scenario as sexist by default you've gone off the deep end. It's not sexist for a girl to be saved by a guy. It's not sexist for a girl to stay at home while the guy works. Nor are the opposites sexist. The only way they can really, truly be sexist is with the context around it. Like, is the woman staying at home because she wants to or because she has to? Is she in the kitchen because she wants to, forced to or rather because she just happens to cook better and doesn't want to cook but would rather cook herself than eat whatever shit the man would make? Context is what makes something harmful. So when you just blanket dislike empty scenarios irregardless of their context all I can think of is that you're being apologetic and that to me's a worthless state of mind. I think it cheapens the human experience and, if a sexist apologist had their way, really fucking gimps the amount of stories that can be told for no damn reason and completely fails in their purpose anyways.
There's that too, but the rescue scenes are the most obviously sexist ones.
This is insane. Everything they did to that girl's character after her rescue was far more harmful to her character as a woman than her getting saved. Her getting saved by a guy was the least sexist thing in the show.
And while the show never had a chance to really tell us, you know, there's no way to know if he really "saved" her in the first place. When you have a character that can jump ridiculous heights and fly with magic shoes who's to say she wouldn't have saved herself without him there? Who's to say she was even in danger in the first place?
Hey, I drop shows all the time... I certainly do not finish everything I start, not even close. Are there a few cases of shows I found really, unpleasantly sexist that I've finished? Yes, but not all that many... I generally try to avoid such things. Perhaps you are right that I watch too much of them despite that, but the problem is, sexism's so pervasive in anime that if I wanted to avoid it entirely I don't know if there'd be anything left...
There wouldn't. By your definition at least there wouldn't. By mine, heck there'd be not too many left either.
You quite exaggerate how often I watch particularly bad shows...
No, there's no exaggeration here. I mean you just got done with a huge defense of Angel Beats for Christ's sake.
Well yeah, my point there was that there's no logic to be found in analyzing scenes such as those.
I didn't analyze the scene or anything like that, it was so disjointed and sudden I thought WTF instantly.
like I said above, if stupid generic anime scenes got me to stop watching shows, I'd watch a whole lot less anime.
And this would be a bad thing? When you're watching shit like Angel Beats and Upotte I think you can stand to watch less personally.
And her character is kind of annoying and generic, and certainly stereotyped in negative ways that I don't like, but her character isn't not the type I dislike the most on sight, like, say, that first girl in the Imouto show is. I kind of like tsundere characters... (see: Rin Tohsaka, Naru in Love Hina, etc.)
Was she a tsundere? I don't think so. Not that I think they really gave enough of her character away for one to say.
That would certainly entirely redeem her character, but unfortunately I don't see that happening.
(It's usually too bad when the tsundere inevitably falls for the undeserving moron lead...)
Sadly I always do this. Whenever I'm presented a character that's broken because of the writers inability to write the character I go and impose some awesome devious trait to explain why the character is broken just to be let down further. Like Char in Infinite Stratos.
Arcana Famigila has way more characters, period, so there's no way you can make a fair comparison there.
And every one of them's a worse character than the two in Campione, hence worse show. Also more sexist too!
Yes, that is what I was thinking of. And my answer to that would be that hte answer is that anime fantasy isn't really set in the past at all, or if it is it's not set before the 1800s, so why should the modern world surprise her? Anime fantasy basically is modern in a lot of the ways that matter... of course as I made quite clear in that post I linked I really, really dislike that fact, but that IS how it is. So, I think that that element of Estetica is COMPLETELY, totally stupid, horrible, and represents awful writing, but I'm not surprised in the least. I wish I was, but I'm not at all.
It's set when it's set. The alternate dimension in Estetica though, that's fiction, no sense in getting worked up too much about it. There really is no telling how a civilization may spring up if left alone so comparing it to Earth's past is just as silly as taking it at face value in my opinion.
I'd say I definitely care more about world consistency than character consistency.
Such poor taste.
