|
I’m currently not that motivated to read or watch the most popular or trending things. I’d rather indulge in short, tropey, audience catering works, unless I have solid recommendations. Maybe this will change soon because I want to know the popular things like everyone else lol.
Issues that concern me in anime and manga in general are how women are portrayed, from their characterization to the way they are designed— hell, I even take issue with school uniforms and how unfair they are. To that end I am also against any anime or manga that promotes gender ideology, or the idea that you can “feel” like a male or female (what those adherents call “gender”).
All this has often been a subject of recurrent anguish, which might reflect in my reviews.
I like to read or watch anything with both important male and important female characters. That’s why I tend to avoid majority single sex media, unless it is Magical Girl because they’re cute.
I'm a huge fan of romance (yaoi/yuri/GL/BL, I'm not interested in). And I love seeing romantic relationships included and well-written in non-romance focused media. As such, I have my own standards for what a proper romance should look like. There should be...
-a level of physical attraction (such as increased heart rate with increased proximity),
-a bond beyond acquaintances
-jealousy when the love interest is with the opposite sex helps too but is not necessary
-other little things that I can’t think of right now
Otherwise, the feelings will be deemed platonic.
On that topic, I absolutely hate it when romantic relationships are depicted as the ultimate form of love, the most important relationship in one's life, and that you'll be lonely without one. That's why I love it when the story shows that there are people important to the couple besides each other (unless there are circumstances where this is not possible, as is often the case with yanderes and their backstories). But I do understand that in the romance genre, in order to make a romance interesting and memorable, the couple are often the most important people to each other and have a particularly unique, irreplaceable bond where they understand each other the most, which is fine, and also something I enjoy when executed correctly.
My favorite setting has got to be a historical setting that has a lot of influence from contemporary/“western” values, such as more positive views on women. Meaning, a setting that materially, is historically accurate, but in terms of select cultural and social beliefs, is not.
I don’t think your typical historical setting where “all women have to be submissive and pop out kids young” is a very useful read to me even if it is accurate, because what value is there in seeing that worldview pop up again? I say that because just the “small” misogynist ideas are never challenged. And contemporary settings are not my favorite because I am very environmentally conscious and too aware that the way we live our material lives, hell even our very social structures, are highly unsustainable. So certain tropes that are found in those stories remind me of those things.
That’s why the best setting is a mix of both— I’d like to live in a society like that, that’s got to be utopia. Lately though, I’ve been finding that setting more in VN’s.
I hate seeing depictions of children sexualized or seeing characters romantically or sexually attracted to them.
However, I do realize that this is a relative subject that I can’t set objective grounds on, but as for me, I will act on my own moral consciousness. For me, a “depiction of a child” is any character that registers as a child, which depends on the individual, so a character that I see as a child may not be so to you (though I will question if you really believe that if it’s a character that most people see as a child). I also follow “appearance over age” so yes I do not like 18+ year old lolishotas being sexualized, but I do not think being attracted to your average 16 year old character is wrong, nor do I think seeing them have romantic relationships with characters 5+ years older than them is wrong either.
I have a volatile relationship with the “it’s just fiction!” claim. On one hand, I do believe fiction affects reality to some degree, in the first place this is why I’m so concerned with misogyny and how women are depicted, so there’s no such thing as something just “being fiction and for pure enjoyment.” On the other hand, when it comes to subject matter, thisdoesn’t mean that every single thing that is wrong is real life is also wrong in fiction. For instance, back on the topic of age gap relationships with minor (non lolishota) characters. Why do we think this is wrong in the first place? Not because they’re literal children, they were never seen as such for millennia. It’s because that dynamic leads to a lot of abuse/only using the younger party for sex and dumping them for a newer model a few years later, both now and millennia ago. But in fiction, you don’t have to portray this dynamic, the readers can see both parties’ thoughts and be assured that they’re not going after each other for their age and/or status, you can actually see a chance of long lasting genuine love (which is even better in the non-misogynist ideal historical setting I described earlier where the older and younger characters are in the same life stage). That’s why this is one of the only places where the claim “it’s fiction!!!” applies.
Lately I’ve been realizing this, but I no longer want to read ongoing manga with no dedicated fanbase (JJK and AOT were great to follow on Reddit when they were releasing) which is a lot of the romance I’ve been encountering recently, it’s just tough to write reviews like that. Plus I forget everything.
How do I have time for all this?
|
All Comments (35) Comments
I recently wrote some articles in my university class covering a similar issue - the way in which portrayal of women has evolved within the manga industry and how the second wave of feminism got commodified and turned into tropes or fetishes. It genuinely made me upset because both anime and manga have really helped me change into a better person, and yet things like these make me wish that something would change.
I'm hoping to find something good to read over the rest of winter break while also exploring themes I'm not familiar with. Have a great week!
Hmm... so clearly marriage has been a thing for a while, so I think it depends on how you define romantic love. Are you perhaps saying that marriage was more for practical reasons rather than emotional ones? Would you consider the bonds shown in Shakespeare, like in Othello or Romeo and Juliet to be romantic?
The idea that children should be raised in extended families and close friends is an interesting one. I haven't thought about that before. Supposedly, parents have this biological urge to protect their children; they love their children simply because they are their children and they don't feel the same way about other people's children. This is supposedly what makes the biological parents ideal for raising children. But how much of this is just our society being individualist? I don't know. And I'm not sure how much close friends would actually care about the child enough to want to partake in raising them. Grandparents, aunties/uncles, sure.
The parents should probably at least not hate each other for a healthy family environment. I suppose in principle, as long as a child has at least two stable, caring guardian figures in their lives, it should be fine. The issue with the parents breaking up is probably more so the emotional distress that is caused by the break up. Like if the child has only ever known a stepdad, it'd be fine.
Now this is kind of ironic lol. A person who loves consuming romance but has lost hope in their own romance. Excuse me for prying, but I'm curious to know why you think you won't be able to fall in love again.
Let me know about any romance stories (preferably in the visual medium) that have a very strong bond beyond romance (a bond which I interpret to be friendship). I only know of the Before trilogy of movies.
I think whether or not having particularly strong bonds with multiple people is possible depends on how unique the individual is. I think some people are just broader and maybe they have compatibility with more people. However, if an individual has particular things about them, such as more extreme personality traits or some passions that are important to them, then a particularly strong bond for that individual would have to meet those traits or passions.
For Bersek yeah I wasn't a fan of what they did to Casca. I've been told that overall she's still treated respectfully because she gets an arc where she comes back from being a vegetable and I'll believe it when I see it myself. Especially since at the end of the day... she was still a vegetable for 30 years lol.
I have some more thoughts, and I think you have some pretty interesting perspectives on things, so I'd be interested in a Discord voice call. If you're down with that, I can send you an invite. If not, that's cool too.
Now for the purpose of raising children, husband and wife sticking together for at least 18 years is probably the most optimal. In terms of maintaining romantic love for a long period of time, I would agree that it's not as sustainable as we would like because of the aforementioned changes in society as well as the fact that people change, mature, grow, get worse, made the wrong read on their spouses to begin with, etc. It is a tall task to ask someone in their 20s with limited life experience to make a decision that is good for them for the rest of their life.
Now, the other, more progressive reason why this bond may not be sustainable is because, as taboo as it is to say, it is possible that people can form equally strong bonds with multiple other people they're attracted to besides their spouse. I am not fully supportive of polygamy or open relationships myself, but it does seem to be a missed opportunity for you to have to give up a really good relationship with someone just because you can only dedicate yourself to one person.
I don't want to harp on this point too much, but just to be clear, I'm simply saying that the series confuses two types of escapism- escapism from the giant robot situation and escapism from one's inner problems. When Shinji goes on the train in one of the earlier episodes, he tells himself he must not run away ,ostensibly referring to him running away from his giant robot responsibilities, but this supposed flaw is not the same as the flaw of running away from his personal demons. But maybe this is a nitpick. As for Asuka's quote, I would broadly agree that it's important to not be selfish in pursuit of validation and to learn to give as well. I still don't think the movie does a good job of substantiating Shinji's decision to reject instrumentality and still make it work, considering he's still at the bottom of his pit of despair by the end of the movie.
I'm sure male homoeroticism was prevalent but I'm not familiar with the sentiment that male-male relationships were better than male-female relationships. I mean, for Berserk, going off the anime, sure there arguably are undertones between Guts and Griffith but that's not the same as saying that such a bond is preferable to that between Guts and Casca.
It's definitely not an airtight argument and it's not the first one I'd levy against Eva.
It's true that there is an in-universe explanation for Shinji having to pilot the robot, but the story is trying muddling two different conflicts. The whole point of Eva is to use the giant robot battles to shed light on the personal struggles of its characters. When we're talking about the personal struggles of teenagers, sure escapism from reality is bad because they're not dealing with their problems. But the series is conflating this escapism from escaping from a toxic situation. 14 year olds are not supposed to be having the fate of the world on their shoulders, least of all emotionally damaged 14 year olds. Maybe someone watching it really is in a terrible environment but Eva would be telling them to stick it out, that it's their fault, when it's really not. So it's not an issue in-universe, but rather in relation to the show's message.
My memory is a bit fuzzy on what Asuka told Shinji. Maybe you can point me to a timestamp. I know from the final two episodes of introspection that the quote is "One who truly hates himself cannot love, cannot place his trust in another." So basically you can't love others if you don't love yourself. My issue is that apparently, the solution to Shinji's problem is that he has to connect with other people so that he can realize that they don't actually hate him lol. It took me a while to understand that this was what the series was saying, and if you want to go down that rabbit hole I have the transcript of the lines from the final two episodes.
About the Kaworu thing, I really don't see this scene under the lens of sex/gender, perhaps because I haven't seen this sentiment of "relationships between men are better than relationships between men and women". I am not knowledgeable about the history, and if that history pertains to the culture and time period Anno was in, nor can I think of this trope being in media off the top of my head. Other than that one Boondocks episode parodying a gay rapper lol. Also, it seems like Shinji and Asuka are supposed to make it work at the end of EoE, so maybe the series isn't saying this?
However, I am similarly disgusted that Shinji is so pathetic in his need for validation that he'll attach to anyone who gives it to him. He might have even turned gay if it meant getting that validation. Now, is it realistic? 1000%. I've seen people do this. But what's more troubling is that the series might actually believe that an external source of validation is what Shinji needs. The other issue I have with this is they give Shinji hope via Kaworu only to use it to further traumatize him with Kaworu's death. And this is in line with the series just not giving its characters a break and being determined to spiral its characters further into depression. Which is pointless because we already understand these characters' problems, so exacerbating them isn't really doing anything other than producing more angst. The series opts to do this instead of you know, actually spending time building these characters up a bit so that it can actually substantiate its message that there's hope and that life is worth living.
Lastly, I would think the more misogynistic part of Eva is the fact that all the women are weak to men and/or have daddy issues. Like Misato has daddy issues so that's why she attaches herself to Kaji. Asuka also attaches herself to Kaji, though in this case it's because of mommy issues. Both Ritsuko and her mother fall for the same toxic ass man in Gendo. Like seriously, the female characters' lives all revolve around men. And Rei... Rei is treated like shit, keeps getting killed off, has no agency, and has almost no character... and ofc she's a slave to Gendo.
That's funny because that's the exact time I dropped it too lol. I dropped it at the library scene because it was clear the characters didn't know that they had to kill Johan to keep him from killing more people. The story is completely ignorant to the fact that killing Johan would save lives. But yeah I do think the show doesn't really further the discussion on the ideas it introduces.
Let's disagree now lol. What's your take on Eva? I think it does a good job explaining the problem, but it does so in a very repetitive way featuring characters that are extreme case studies of the problems. For how much it harps on the problem, it also barely offers any constructive answers, with the message at the end of the series also being kind of wrong. Shinji thinks he has to reach out to others but this ignores the importance of internal validation and also this doesn't work when he's surrounded by similarly unhealthy people. Furthermore, the message is anti-escapist, which isn't inherently wrong, but given Shinji's context, children should not be made to pilot giant robots for the fate of the world. Shinji kind of has a right to escape but he also kind of doesn't because if he does so the world is doomed. So I think the message is muddied at best.