I don't, actually.Originally Posted by @Keo
For what it's worth, it was also an honest question.
Perhaps so, but the arcs for male characters in "Zero" were very different from the ones for female characters.
I don't, actually.
For what it's worth, it was also an honest question.
Perhaps so, but the arcs for male characters in "Zero" were very different from the ones for female characters.
Yeah, and the arcs are also very different for the Masters and non-Masters, the Servants and the humans, and the backstory vampires and not backstory vampires.
Localizationing stuff
at least odd died doing what he loved, can't even-ing.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
I mean, that's the answer - 'women are treated badly by men' I don't consider a good argument for having a women problem on the writer's part if all the men have problems being men.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Hm. That's actually an interesting view. I can agree with it for some characters, like Kariya and Kayneth, but I don't think it really applies to Kiritsugu, for instance - his arc is a much more general commentary on the humanity condition than anything gender-specific, I'd say.
And yet, out of all those oh-so-different arcs, the only female character who has an arc of her own and doesn't solely orbit around other, male characters is Saber - and that could be attributed to her not being Urobuchi's creation in the first place. Not to mention all the various other little things, such as how he reproduces part of the whole "it's awful that A GIRL had to sacrifice her humanity to try and be the 'perfect king' " from the original VN, or how the male characters tend to be victimised by themselves or the circumstances, while the female characters tend to be victimised by male characters, for instance.
General human condition? As a surface reading, Kiritusugu's problems are a messiah complex and stoicism to the point of the absurd - you can talk about utilitarianism with him but to my eye the particular brand of stern 'doing what must be done' is extremely gendered.
Let's be honest here, man, the God-damn truth: women are victimised by men. This has only been not true for a very small period of time - depending on your definitions, only within living memory - for a small part of the world. Is it somehow more progressive to make women victims of themselves, and not of their lovers, their fathers, their husbands? To not write a woman who'll never be happy because she'll never be more than a mistress, an accessory? Who has nowhere else to turn out of her horrific married life?And yet, out of all those oh-so-different arcs, the only female character who has an arc of her own and doesn't solely orbit around other, male characters is Saber - and that could be attributed to her not being Urobuchi's creation in the first place. Not to mention all the various other little things, such as how he reproduces part of the whole "it's awful that A GIRL had to sacrifice her humanity to try and be the 'perfect king' " from the original VN, or how the male characters tend to be victimised by themselves or the circumstances, while the female characters tend to be victimised by male characters, for instance.
I read it more as an issue of naiveté, myself. In the end, Kiritsugu was still very much like a child - trying to apply simple solutions to complex problems -, and confronting the Grail (as well as the disaster caused by it) forced him to grow up, so to speak.
That said, I see your point - the ethos of "doing what must be done" tends to be associated with men, and even in the context of "Zero" and "Fate" it's brought up how awful it is that a GIRL (Arturia) adopted such a way of life.
I'd say so, yes, because then they would have arcs of their own, instead of their arcs centering on others (as it tends to happen).Is it somehow more progressive to make women victims of themselves, and not of their lovers, their fathers, their husbands? To not write a woman who'll never be happy because she'll never be more than a mistress, an accessory? Who has nowhere else to turn out of her horrific married life?
It's not as if those or similar themes can't (and haven't) been approached skillfully in fiction, but they are sort of prevalent for female characters, and I'd disagree that Urobuchi handled them well (for instance, I found the narrative too unsympathetic to Sola-Ui).
I think it's more how messed up that kind of self-(and in Kiritsugu's case, other)sacrificing ideology is in itself, whether applied by male or female.
In any case, it's hardly sexist to point out that women needing to sacrifice their femininity to be taken seriously is a load of BS.
Congrats on repeating his original point back to him.
I thought by emphasizing 'GIRL' Spoony was implying that Uro thought the problem was only women taking on a 'masculine' ideology, rather then the ideology itself being inherently bankrupt.
Men also have to sacrifice their femininity to be taken seriously so it's perfectly fair.
No, that was me agreeing with Keo that there is an element of genderisation in how the philosophy of "doing what must be done" (a.k.a. "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few") tends to be portrayed in fiction.
Also:
Neither Urobuchi nor Nasu point that out. Remember the whole "Fate" route in "Stay Night"? :-)
People take me very seriously.
Hmm? It may be presented jankily, but wasn't the whole idea of Fate that Saber having to sacrifice her femininity to be a 'perfect, ideal' king was wrong? It didn't end with her giving up on kingship to be a woman (which would have been truly sexist) but accepting her nature as once and future king of Britain and a woman in love with Shirou Emiya. She fully insists on her pride as a king right up into the end, and in fact the climax of that route has one of the most poignant affirmations of such I can recall.
In the Deen anime that's even accompanied by flashbacks of he and Saber's romantic moments together interspersed with shots of her valiantly leading an army and fighting various other Servants. Hard to make it much clearer then that. Though I won't deny that Fate has a lot of problematic elements in terms of sexism (mainly regarding Shirou), but at the end it's pretty obvious he loves Saber as a knight and as a woman, rather then one or the other.
Last edited by RoydGolden; August 26th, 2016 at 01:07 AM.
Reverse that, and boy do you have an inordinate amount of male characters that sure can't get past dem women.
I mean sure you can say that but there's all of two major female characters. Minor characters like Maiya and Aoi don't particularly have arcs of their own just like it'd be kinda dumb to point out that yeah, Assassin and Glen Mackenzie don't have stories that don't revolve around male characters!
Yeah, coming from misogynistic Gil and hypocritical Iskandar, that sure frames it as a good thing!and that could be attributed to her not being Urobuchi's creation in the first place. Not to mention all the various other little things, such as how he reproduces part of the whole "it's awful that A GIRL had to sacrifice her humanity to try and be the 'perfect king' " from the original VN,
No, I'm pretty sure Rin is victimized by being Rin.male characters tend to be victimised by themselves or the circumstances, while the female characters tend to be victimised by male characters, for instance.
Localizationing stuff
Indeed. In a cast of... Let's see, thirteen plot-relevant characters (Kiritsugu / Irisviel / Saber, Kayneth / Sola-Ui / Diarmuid, Waver / Iskander, Tokiomi / Kirei / Gilgamesh, Ryuunosuke / Gilles), only three of them are women.
Actually, at least in the anime, Gilgamesh and Iskander don't bring up Saber's gender at all regarding that; it's Kiritsugu (or rather, Irisviel acting in his stead) who does. Whether or not it's framed as a good thing - at the very least, it's not framed as a bad thing - isn't the point, but rather, how unnecessary it is to bring gender into the discussion in the first place. I mean, one could easily have made the same argument - as indeed Iskander does - in more general terms.Yeah, coming from misogynistic Gil and hypocritical Iskandar, that sure frames it as a good thing!
Also, "hypocritical"? Iskander?
Because Rin is such an important character in "Zero".No, I'm pretty sure Rin is victimized by being Rin.
"Jankily". Heh. The problem is that the narrative equates her humanity (which is actually the point) with her femininity; as in, the only way for Saber to have a life of her own is for her to be a woman (as defined by a traditional mindset). This is only reinforced by their roles in... ..."Last Dream", I think?... ...where Saber - the woman - takes the traditional, passive role of "eternally waiting", and Shirou - the man - takes the traditional, active role of "eternally pursuing". A few lines at the end about how Shirou finally accepts that she was King Arthur first and foremost (even as he thinks she would have been happier living a different life), after she spent most of the route telling him exactly that, does not erase everything that came before it.
Or, to put it in different terms: I agree with you that Nasu may have intended that, but he botched the execution.
Considering groundwork had already been lain in SN for Kiritsugu, Waver, and Tokiomi and their Servants. You only have the Kayneth, Diarmuid, Ryuunosuke, and Gilles slots that Gen could have played around with.
If you were to flip Kayneth, you'd either need to turn Sola into a man or make them lesbians. Fine, I guess.
So you're main argument would be "why aren't ryuunosuke and gilles a female team instead."
And the answer to that is Jack and Reika were put in Apo.
Not that fair of a question to ask when most of the cast was already gender-locked to begin with. Unless you want genderbent Alex.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
Please refer once more to episode 15 before you say something false about the anime.
Yes, it's unnecessary. It's like they're unlikable and hypocritical or something!Whether or not it's framed as a good thing - at the very least, it's not framed as a bad thing - isn't the point, but rather, how unnecessary it is to bring gender into the discussion in the first place. I mean, one could easily have made the same argument - as indeed Iskander does - in more general terms.
Please refer to both the book and the anime in which a guy who only dreams about things he feels in his heart is critical of another person who only dreams about things she feels in her heart.Also, "hypocritical"? Iskander?
exactlyBecause Rin is such an important character in "Zero".
Localizationing stuff
well if king arthur was a dude and he was gay with shirou it would be the same scenario. If King Arthur was a dude and Shirou was a woman it'd be the same scenario as well.
This isn't a case of "Saber is eternally waiting because she is a woman and that's what women do," she's eternally waiting because she's stuck in avalon because that's the legend King Arthur is based on.
TM has no qualms going the other way around either. See the Apo ending.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
