every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
I've seen studies suggesting that most of the problem is that women are more likely to take maternity leave, spend hours with their families instead of working more than required, etc. If you look at per hour figures for single men and single women there's parity, or near parity anyway; then some of the women have kids, drop out of the workforce for a few years, and reap the detriments in lower salaries later.
It's less "the bosses determining salaries are all sexist" and more "the system is skewed towards the traditionally masculine work/life balance".
And they redid the studies, controlling for all those variables. Yet a wage differential remained.
Like, do you guys really think women getting lower pay and struggling in the workforce in the mid 1900s (and all the way to today) was because of corporate profit margins?
Well, yes, to be honest. Businesses will pay as low as they possibly can get away with, out of greed.
That they can get away with it does point to a larger societal issue, but for businesses, it is the bottom line yes. Oil companies don't fuck over the environment and spoil the ocean because they "hate nature".
They do it because its cheaper than the alternative and they can get away with it.
The free market has no conscience, it's a monster. So when we're trying to fix something that is market driven, the only way to approach it is to work at changing their bottom line so that they have to make the changes we actually want. They can't be shamed, unfortunately.
Or you can regulate them (which I am usually in favor of but sadly, I'm in a minority there).
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
Women are being paid less because they have 'always been paid less'. Companies don't like to change things they have always done if they can save money.
It's probably a mix of all sorts of things. Part of the wage gap is career choices of the part of women, so that women become hygienists and men dentists, part of it is sexism from twenty to forty years ago leading to delayed promotions for the older workers who have the widest wage differences (if a woman didn't get a promotion decades ago, she's behind for life), some of it is lost promotions because all the male coworkers are distinguishing themselves and earning raises and promotions while women are on maternity leave, and some of it is employers deciding that you don't deserve special rewards when you decide to stop showing up for work and never go above the call by taking overtime during crisis periods. There's probably current sexism, but I think it's smaller than all those factors.
As for the problems with maternity leave, it basically comes down to people thinking that they shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't showing up for work. It's also fairly unfair for women who do work-for-hire jobs like cleaning and dogwalking.
Actually, The Major - the bizarre way she wears panties with thigh-highs for battle situations - is one of the primary things that kept me away from Ghost in the Shell for so long. Which is a shame, because GitS is a really, really good show.
But even watching and accepting the show as presented, there is always a part of me laughing at Masamune Shirow or whoever's choice it was to dress The Major so clownishly. It takes me out of the show, because it's so gritty otherwise; it makes it difficult to take the character seriously.
It's a one-piece, not panties. I'm not sure if it even comes off. Functionally, it makes some sense, as she needs knee and leg protection but doesn't really have to worry about her upper thigh.
Meanwhile, there's the uniform from Bodacious Space Pirates, which is hilarious in its impracticality:
Note that she's wearing the skirt from her school uniform.
Ok, a onesie and thigh highs. It would still be more comfortable to wear a skin-tight bodysuit, wouldn't it? Still just as sexy (moreso, in my opinion), but the heroine doesn't have to constantly worry about her thigh-highs slipping while she's in battle.
As for whatever Bodacious Space Pirates is, I would assume from the picture that it's a comedy. Dressing clownishly for a comedy seems aight.
What gets me about GitS is that - well, it's like if McCoy from Law and Order wore a codpiece while everyone else on the show dressed normally. It's hilariously out of place.
Well, 2nd Gig did away with the Battle Teddy - she's either in a thermoptic camo battle uniform, a formal uniform, or appropriate civilian clothes.
Which if I remember correctly, was done so under kicking and screaming by the artist. I think?
The artist has a thing for underdressed (but strong) police women. I dunno if he objected to the change, but it wouldn't be surprising. His style is.. predictable. From what I understand.
The original creator actually didn't have much to do with the production of the TV series (that's what happens when you have a 15 year gap).
On the same note, the leggy outfit Kusanagi gets in the first season ultimately gets a pair of leather pants and a leather jacket--presumably Kusanagi channeling her inner Fonzie or something. The humorous thing is that it's just copying one particular panel in the original manga (in the manga). Technically, @Cambiata is wrong--she never wears it into "combat" situations, since it's her plainclothes outfit (basically what she wears when she gets into fights she expects to be extremely easy, and is right 90% of the time). The thermo-optics are the combat uniform. It's same for the whole cast--with the exception that you could easily argue that watching someone run around in a turtleneck is less "silly" than running around in a leather jacket, a one-piece, and/or leather pants. I guess it's about degrees, as @Bagginses mentioned.
Otherwise, she wears a military dress uniform (khaki). The optic camouflage suit (identical with the male cast, with the particular exception that she doesn't wear a crash vest, so she can take off the jacket) is more common, for obvious reasons. She has a long dark dress with a high collar that she wears Togusa's court case. In the second series, she gets a different "casual" outfit (actually, everyone does, with the exception of Aramaki and Pazu, who still looks like a gangster with shiny shoes), which is mostly just a futuristic fashion thing--white pants, a synthetic shirt that I can't really describe, and a mini-vest. I missed the leather jacket. Otherwise, same thing--uniform, camouflage. She also wears a MIB-style pantsuit when on secret service bodyguard duty, and a raincoat when London.
The most common clothes she wears between the two series:
(Both seasons)
(Both seasons)
(first only)
(second only)
There are also various vacation/infiltration outfits. She wears a cocktail dress when they infiltrate a big corrupt socialite-type event, when her male cast wears tuxedos. I would not claim it has nothing to do with titillation. In the first ending, for example, one of the final scenes is the Major, in leather jeans, with her back bare, drawing from her back holster. Besides saying "HEY! LOOK AT THAT SEXY BACK!" etc., it also has a practical plot point: namely, its one of the only times you can see the seems in Kusanagi's artificial body. Of course, you could do that some other way that invoked less sexual imagery.
They do this pretty often--deliberate titillation, but it's (also) a convenient way to bring up plot points--in that case, something the original creator talked a little bit, and the TV series writers wanted to look into further. Kusanagi uses an older body that used to be popular, adapted for military use. As such, her body is literally a commercial commodity (amplified by the fact that she, like some of her comrades, doesn't actually own her body--it's property of the government). Her hair and eye color are products her childhood--she became a cyborg at around the age of ten, probably younger, and made the choice then she wanted violet hair and bright red eyes. Kids, eh? The series deals with these particular issues that weren't really covered in the original material. She also has a pair of girlfriends (also what the series calls full-body cyborgs) who very seldom appear in the series, and seem to live with her on occasion. The implication is they knew each other before knowing Kusanagi. The point of this? Well, besides the whole lesbian military veteran thing, it sets up a memorable occasion when the plot explains that Kusanagi, like almost everyone with an artificial body in the series, doesn't have genitals, male or female. They're pretty rare among artificial bodies in this time period. Kusanagi is attracted to them, in part, because they're the same age as she is, and have the same level of cyberization, as well as other issues.
That's basically a few of the dozens of tiny little side-issue the series drops on. They're actually quite minor compared to the huge philosophical and political questions posed--more philosophical in the first season and political in the second one--along with the complications of a constantly networked society. You could absolutely get away without having them. That being said, I, being obviously a big fan, would miss the side-issues, especially since I love detailed world settings. I would also miss the diversity of clothing, but that's probably the part of my head that loves complicated details as well as lots of different colors. The series would certainly still work without them, and probably wouldn't even be that effected since the philosophical narrative is so overwhelming at times. That tends to put people off way more, since the series basically demands a lot of focus and a more than basic knowledge of history and political economy for East Asia but also the rest of the world.
Personally, I don't think the creator's were too worried about alienating people more generally--mostly because the series is 1) extremely violent (exploding head violent) and 2) way more sexual (since it deals with commoditization of sex through high technology and and the underworld. In the original material, there's a scene when the Major, in full combat fatigues, rags on a former cabinet secretary because he's living in a bunker in the far north (Etorufu), has gotten fat, alone except for a pair of sex gynoids that cost more than a Ferrari. The series even pokes fun at itself at times, like when male cast can't believe the Major actually agreed to wear a dress to the socialite party sting or the whole "Fonzie" thing. There's also the implication that, while she would never admit it, Kusanagi is actually a little vain--given that she got to decide what she looks like (she lost her original body as a small child), and has to contend with her body being attacked by things like gunship helicopters and anti-material rifles. It's actually a big improvement from the movie, where time and Oshii's direction meant the issue wasn't addressed except that the Major had to strip in order to used thermo-optic camouflage. That was kind of an unusual choice, since the manga basically operates on the same rules as the TV series.
So, yeah, you could potentially strip out the cheesecake/sexual imagery (and some of the humor, by extension), and you'd be left with an overly-substantial, even overbearing philosophical and political intrigue type story. In other words, the point of the two seasons and the film that followed (not the original one). Certain things important to the characterization wouldn't be broken in the least: like Batou is huge, Kusanagi and Togusa are supposed to both be very attractive, and Pazu is supposed to be an incredibly charismatic scuzzball. That wouldn't have changed that much. But you would have to directly address, through dialog rather than visual moments, the rather important issues of the transformation of human sexuality with the rise of the cyberbody, and the stark isolation the Section 9 people experience as a matter of their profession. But the series already has a LOT of longwinded rants and speeches, so it wouldn't be that hard to work around.
Synthesis on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Like, do you guys really think women getting lower pay and struggling in the workforce in the mid 1900s (and all the way to today) was because of corporate profit margins?
Well, yes, to be honest. Businesses will pay as low as they possibly can get away with, out of greed.
That they can get away with it does point to a larger societal issue, but for businesses, it is the bottom line yes. Oil companies don't fuck over the environment and spoil the ocean because they "hate nature".
They do it because its cheaper than the alternative and they can get away with it.
The free market has no conscience, it's a monster. So when we're trying to fix something that is market driven, the only way to approach it is to work at changing their bottom line so that they have to make the changes we actually want. They can't be shamed, unfortunately.
Or you can regulate them (which I am usually in favor of but sadly, I'm in a minority there).
The free market reflects the collective conscience of the people participating in it. It's not this autonomous thing that exists without people.
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
Women are being paid less because they have 'always been paid less'. Companies don't like to change things they have always done if they can save money.
It's probably a mix of all sorts of things. Part of the wage gap is career choices of the part of women, so that women become hygienists and men dentists, part of it is sexism from twenty to forty years ago leading to delayed promotions for the older workers who have the widest wage differences (if a woman didn't get a promotion decades ago, she's behind for life), some of it is lost promotions because all the male coworkers are distinguishing themselves and earning raises and promotions while women are on maternity leave, and some of it is employers deciding that you don't deserve special rewards when you decide to stop showing up for work and never go above the call by taking overtime during crisis periods. There's probably current sexism, but I think it's smaller than all those factors.
As for the problems with maternity leave, it basically comes down to people thinking that they shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't showing up for work. It's also fairly unfair for women who do work-for-hire jobs like cleaning and dogwalking.
Again, their are newer studies that control for all those variables, and show that there still is a wage gap.
Actually, The Major - the bizarre way she wears panties with thigh-highs for battle situations - is one of the primary things that kept me away from Ghost in the Shell for so long. Which is a shame, because GitS is a really, really good show.
But even watching and accepting the show as presented, there is always a part of me laughing at Masamune Shirow or whoever's choice it was to dress The Major so clownishly. It takes me out of the show, because it's so gritty otherwise; it makes it difficult to take the character seriously.
It's a one-piece, not panties. I'm not sure if it even comes off. Functionally, it makes some sense, as she needs knee and leg protection but doesn't really have to worry about her upper thigh.
Meanwhile, there's the uniform from Bodacious Space Pirates, which is hilarious in its impracticality:
Note that she's wearing the skirt from her school uniform.
Ok, a onesie and thigh highs. It would still be more comfortable to wear a skin-tight bodysuit, wouldn't it? Still just as sexy (moreso, in my opinion), but the heroine doesn't have to constantly worry about her thigh-highs slipping while she's in battle.
As for whatever Bodacious Space Pirates is, I would assume from the picture that it's a comedy. Dressing clownishly for a comedy seems aight.
What gets me about GitS is that - well, it's like if McCoy from Law and Order wore a codpiece while everyone else on the show dressed normally. It's hilariously out of place.
Well, 2nd Gig did away with the Battle Teddy - she's either in a thermoptic camo battle uniform, a formal uniform, or appropriate civilian clothes.
Which if I remember correctly, was done so under kicking and screaming by the artist. I think?
The artist has a thing for underdressed (but strong) police women. I dunno if he objected to the change, but it wouldn't be surprising. His style is.. predictable. From what I understand.
I'd say the main reason the Major is super sexualized is because the artist (Masamune Shirow) who made the GitS manga - in addition to being known for Appleseed and GitS - does ridiculously pornographic art.
Thankfully the anime series gets away from it's origins, but ...
Actually, The Major - the bizarre way she wears panties with thigh-highs for battle situations - is one of the primary things that kept me away from Ghost in the Shell for so long. Which is a shame, because GitS is a really, really good show.
But even watching and accepting the show as presented, there is always a part of me laughing at Masamune Shirow or whoever's choice it was to dress The Major so clownishly. It takes me out of the show, because it's so gritty otherwise; it makes it difficult to take the character seriously.
It's a one-piece, not panties. I'm not sure if it even comes off. Functionally, it makes some sense, as she needs knee and leg protection but doesn't really have to worry about her upper thigh.
Meanwhile, there's the uniform from Bodacious Space Pirates, which is hilarious in its impracticality:
Note that she's wearing the skirt from her school uniform.
Ok, a onesie and thigh highs. It would still be more comfortable to wear a skin-tight bodysuit, wouldn't it? Still just as sexy (moreso, in my opinion), but the heroine doesn't have to constantly worry about her thigh-highs slipping while she's in battle.
As for whatever Bodacious Space Pirates is, I would assume from the picture that it's a comedy. Dressing clownishly for a comedy seems aight.
What gets me about GitS is that - well, it's like if McCoy from Law and Order wore a codpiece while everyone else on the show dressed normally. It's hilariously out of place.
Well, 2nd Gig did away with the Battle Teddy - she's either in a thermoptic camo battle uniform, a formal uniform, or appropriate civilian clothes.
Which if I remember correctly, was done so under kicking and screaming by the artist. I think?
The artist has a thing for underdressed (but strong) police women. I dunno if he objected to the change, but it wouldn't be surprising. His style is.. predictable. From what I understand.
I'd say the main reason the Major is super sexualized is because the artist (Masamune Shirow) who made the GitS manga - in addition to being known for Appleseed and GitS - does ridiculously pornographic art.
Thankfully the anime series gets away from it's origins, but ...
Because, as mentioned, he was mostly an advisor for the TV series. 15 years separates the original material from the first season, that's kind of a long time. In the mean time, Masamune also did Dominion, Orion, New Dominion and expanded a little on Appleseed--which are quite popular, and well-written. But then he got bored and decided to do softcore porn. The whole while, he did (and still does) promotional art for magazines, games, art books, other people's characters, etc., so it's not that much of a jump to either.
Oshii, on the other hand, wasn't called again because the first GitS film (which he directed) only barely resembled the original popular stories.
You know, I think I may be one of the few people who are more titillated by a khaki-uniform Kusanagi than skimpy Kusanagi. The former leaves more the imagination.
I decided that people are required to think that GitS is profound, when really, it's actually very poorly written and vague.
YOUR PLOT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THEME. DON'T NARRATE FOR 15 MINUTES. SHOW DON'T TELL. YOUR PACING SUCKS. WTF IS WITH THE RANDOM SYMBOLISM?
*eherm* Suffice it to say, I don't have very flattering opinions of Kusanagi being an upstanding female protagonist.
Like, do you guys really think women getting lower pay and struggling in the workforce in the mid 1900s (and all the way to today) was because of corporate profit margins?
Well, yes, to be honest. Businesses will pay as low as they possibly can get away with, out of greed.
That they can get away with it does point to a larger societal issue, but for businesses, it is the bottom line yes. Oil companies don't fuck over the environment and spoil the ocean because they "hate nature".
They do it because its cheaper than the alternative and they can get away with it.
The free market has no conscience, it's a monster. So when we're trying to fix something that is market driven, the only way to approach it is to work at changing their bottom line so that they have to make the changes we actually want. They can't be shamed, unfortunately.
Or you can regulate them (which I am usually in favor of but sadly, I'm in a minority there).
The free market reflects the collective conscience of the people participating in it. It's not this autonomous thing that exists without people.
Collectives of people behave differently than individuals, and when money is at issue individuals don't even show the shiny conscience we'd hope for.
Like, do you guys really think women getting lower pay and struggling in the workforce in the mid 1900s (and all the way to today) was because of corporate profit margins?
Well, yes, to be honest. Businesses will pay as low as they possibly can get away with, out of greed.
That they can get away with it does point to a larger societal issue, but for businesses, it is the bottom line yes. Oil companies don't fuck over the environment and spoil the ocean because they "hate nature".
They do it because its cheaper than the alternative and they can get away with it.
The free market has no conscience, it's a monster. So when we're trying to fix something that is market driven, the only way to approach it is to work at changing their bottom line so that they have to make the changes we actually want. They can't be shamed, unfortunately.
Or you can regulate them (which I am usually in favor of but sadly, I'm in a minority there).
The free market reflects the collective conscience of the people participating in it. It's not this autonomous thing that exists without people.
Collectives of people behave differently than individuals, and when money is at issue individuals don't even show the shiny conscience we'd hope for.
And...?
Nothing you've said runs counter to what I'm arguing.
You know, I think I may be one of the few people who are more titillated by a khaki-uniform Kusanagi than skimpy Kusanagi. The former leaves more the imagination.
I decided that people are required to think that GitS is profound, when really, it's actually very poorly written and vague.
YOUR PLOT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THEME. DON'T NARRATE FOR 15 MINUTES. SHOW DON'T TELL. YOUR PACING SUCKS. WTF IS WITH THE RANDOM SYMBOLISM?
*eherm* Suffice it to say, I don't have very flattering opinions of Kusanagi being an upstanding female protagonist.
You're entitled to your bad opinions and uniform fetish.
I kid, of course. Opinions are just that--I remember when people at this forum refused to believe that I didn't love Gurren Lagaan.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
Women are being paid less because they have 'always been paid less'. Companies don't like to change things they have always done if they can save money.
It's probably a mix of all sorts of things. Part of the wage gap is career choices of the part of women, so that women become hygienists and men dentists, part of it is sexism from twenty to forty years ago leading to delayed promotions for the older workers who have the widest wage differences (if a woman didn't get a promotion decades ago, she's behind for life), some of it is lost promotions because all the male coworkers are distinguishing themselves and earning raises and promotions while women are on maternity leave, and some of it is employers deciding that you don't deserve special rewards when you decide to stop showing up for work and never go above the call by taking overtime during crisis periods. There's probably current sexism, but I think it's smaller than all those factors.
As for the problems with maternity leave, it basically comes down to people thinking that they shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't showing up for work. It's also fairly unfair for women who do work-for-hire jobs like cleaning and dogwalking.
Again, their are newer studies that control for all those variables, and show that there still is a wage gap.
IIRC, the remaining wage gap (that either comes from variables we haven't yet identified or actual "fuck you, woman" sexism at the salary stage) is significantly less than the "system is stacked against people who have/raise children" gap. Not that we shouldn't fix both, but I'm not sure how to go about fixing the former.
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
Women are being paid less because they have 'always been paid less'. Companies don't like to change things they have always done if they can save money.
And why were they paid less to begin with?
Because they were considered to be less valuable and capable than men
-> because religion said they were
-> because they were needed to stay at home
-> because men were worried they would end up raising other guys kids
-> because they were especially worried about doing so alone
-> because women often died in childbirth and didn't live to become tribal elders and make the rules.
Nowadays women aren't considered less valuable and capable, but companies love saving money and women are currently in a class that they have managed to finangle into taking low pay.
The pushback against equal pay and family leave is supported by American corporations, and is greed based, not based on hatred of women. If the situation was gender reversed, corporations would be doing the same thing to men, for the same reason.
I think there's a very real historical precedent that runs contrary to what you are claiming here.
I am pretty sure that the pushback is not because of a desire to pay women less, neither due to greed nor due to hatred of women, but rather a fear of allowing yet another legal basis that corporations will find themselves continually in court over, in situations where 90%+ of the time it will just make sense for them to settle rather than to fight, even though the legitimacy of the claims will be much less than 90%.
Let me be clear about this: I don't for a second believe that anyone thinks, "Let's pay all the women in our company less."
But women are not getting paid equally for the same work. This is a fact. I ask you and everyone else in this thread one question: why?
Why is it okay for this to happen? Without offering hypotheticals, you need to have an explanation that makes sense.
Women have been undervalued in the workplace in America since they entered it. They've been objectified there, and in pretty much all of the media. To claim that this is just "trying to save the company money" ignores this.
Women are being paid less because they have 'always been paid less'. Companies don't like to change things they have always done if they can save money.
It's probably a mix of all sorts of things. Part of the wage gap is career choices of the part of women, so that women become hygienists and men dentists, part of it is sexism from twenty to forty years ago leading to delayed promotions for the older workers who have the widest wage differences (if a woman didn't get a promotion decades ago, she's behind for life), some of it is lost promotions because all the male coworkers are distinguishing themselves and earning raises and promotions while women are on maternity leave, and some of it is employers deciding that you don't deserve special rewards when you decide to stop showing up for work and never go above the call by taking overtime during crisis periods. There's probably current sexism, but I think it's smaller than all those factors.
As for the problems with maternity leave, it basically comes down to people thinking that they shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't showing up for work. It's also fairly unfair for women who do work-for-hire jobs like cleaning and dogwalking.
Again, their are newer studies that control for all those variables, and show that there still is a wage gap.
IIRC, the remaining wage gap (that either comes from variables we haven't yet identified or actual "fuck you, woman" sexism at the salary stage) is significantly less than the "system is stacked against people who have/raise children" gap. Not that we shouldn't fix both, but I'm not sure how to go about fixing the former.
It probably also wasn't limited to young people, which would be the best measure for current sexism and those without children. Of course, there probably are young people studies, but those probably show a small enough gap to be explained by a few outliers and the hygienist gap.
The best way to close the child gap is to have tax-funded maternity and paternity leave of the same length and government provided breast pumps (I'm of the opinion that the loss of mobility caused by pregnancy and nursing are what started male/female social dimorphism).
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
And we can be 100% sure that sexism or perceived sexism in media did not cause it.
Frankiedarling on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
@Synthesis Ha, that's quite an essay. The thing is I don't even mind the Major wearing sexy clothes, what particularly bothers me about the "battle teddy" is how ridiculous it is. Not sexy, but ridiculous. That's why I compared it to McCoy in a codpiece. There's all sorts of justification for this or that character to dress in an unusually sexy way, and yeah I swallow it like anyone else does if the writing is good otherwise. But the justification for wearing a codpiece is a little different. Even the most flamboyant of dressers wouldn't try to get away with wearing a codpiece to her police job, and staging the show in such a way that people just don't take notice of it is kind of weird. It brings me back to this comic:
Basically I guess what I'm saying is that if your one character's costume is that ridiculously out of place as compared to everyone else, that you have to make an elaborate background story for a bullet bra type situation, then yeaaaah that might be a little sexist.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
I'll help.
The wage gap in media is one of the reasons we don't see more stories from a female perspective.
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
I'll help.
The wage gap in media is one of the reasons we don't see more stories from a female perspective.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
I'll help.
The wage gap in media is one of the reasons we don't see more stories from a female perspective.
Discuss.
Anecdotally, no woman on the planet has ever left a chance to tell her story for a different career because of the wage gap.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
Nothing you've said runs counter to what I'm arguing.
To believe that Big Business is screwing over one group in particular is to believe that it isn't screwing everyone as hard as it possibly can at all times. To believe that it is selectively cruel based on demographic factors is to believe that it is also selectively lenient based on those same factors. I do not have such faith in the kindly nature, selective or otherwise, of large corporations.
They pay women less because they can. If they could pay women zero, they would. If they could pay men zero, they would. If shooting you in the head would make them a nickle's profit and they knew they could get away with it, they would.
Well this thread took an odd turn since last night. Somehow we're talking about the wage gap? Isn't that rather pointless, considering no one here disagrees that everyone should have equal pay?
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
I'll help.
The wage gap in media is one of the reasons we don't see more stories from a female perspective.
Discuss.
I'd like to hear your theory as to why.
I was being facetious, Frankie.
If the wage gap were only in media, then I think we could start to make that case, but as far as I know it's across the board. Out of curiosity I just did brief search and came across this interesting chart:
I never would have guessed that the construction industry was championing women's rights...
Yeah close the wage gap would pretty much be the most effective measure against sexism in video games because nothing says "pander to me" like big sweaty wads of cash
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
@Synthesis Ha, that's quite an essay. The thing is I don't even mind the Major wearing sexy clothes, what particularly bothers me about the "battle teddy" is how ridiculous it is. Not sexy, but ridiculous. That's why I compared it to McCoy in a codpiece. There's all sorts of justification for this or that character to dress in an unusually sexy way, and yeah I swallow it like anyone else does if the writing is good otherwise. But the justification for wearing a codpiece is a little different. Even the most flamboyant of dressers wouldn't try to get away with wearing a codpiece to her police job, and staging the show in such a way that people just don't take notice of it is kind of weird. It brings me back to this comic:
I can understand what you're saying, though it in this particular case, I wouldn't make the same connection.
Say, Jack McCoy--him and Lennie Briscoe were my favorites. But as it stands, it's about as accurate to comparing Jack McCoy to Cammy White from Street Fighter or Robocop. Yes, they are all protagonists. But that's about all they have in common. Section 9 is a weird combination of plainclothes police and questionably legal paramilitary. It doesn't help that the settings aren't similar in a broad sense. GitS actually has an analogue to Jack McCoy--it's Prime Minister Kayabuki (albeit without a motorcycle). She's Jac McCoy--that is, the moral, legal conscious and character of considerable authority. And she's treated as such, with a much more obvious connection.
I can understand the notion that a paramilitary commando/hacker being dressed like that is awkward or ridiculous, but in the end of the day, Kusanagi, like everyone else, is deliberately created as an amalgamation. That's why Pazu, a high-ranking police/counterterrorism operative, dressing like a gangster is pretty ridiculous, but it's a deliberate choice for the setting. More ridiculous than Kusanagi, who just dresses as a eccentric weirdo following the fashions of her world, I'd say.
Don't get me wrong--I wouldn't say that it's the only way they could do it. But I do think that particular analogy as some problems. Granted, you don't need it to be dissatisfied with an aspect of the show--that's just an explanation, and I think you have better complaints than that particular one. Yes, they do dress weird--and they could certainly get away for not dressing weird. But it's at the same time, we'd have to address the DEA from the first second, whose members dress from everything from hobos to military commandos to a ridiculous, intentionally unconvincing "sexy doctor". Dressing weird serves a purpose--not necessarily a good one, but it's there. And at the same time, not everyone is Jack McCoy, and not everyone is held to the same standard. Turning it around, I think suits look very nice--and while I'd like a game where I could play a character in suit, and I get to in some golf games, I understand why it's not considered fitting style. McCoy attorney is not fitting to Kusanagi paramilitary.
(I mostly just want to say I don't agree with that particular analogy, though I'm happy to acknowledge the show could do with less sexual imagery. Then again, I wouldn't mind if it there was more either, probably. But if it turns you off, it turns you off--that's just your own preferences, and a perfectly reasonable one at that. The exploding heads kind and people having their bones broken backwards with accompanying sound effects becomes the focus of "Wow, really?" to me, for example.)
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
I don't think anyone implied they were a good part of the movement, but instead that people have assosciated the whole movement together into one group rather than listening to the message from the center. Mainly because the message from the crazy side is so much crazier and being shouted in their face.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
I thought anyone who cared about the rights of women was a feminist.
I'm not going to go into "no true Scottsman" mode, but at least in my experience, modern feminism is about equality, options, and opportunity, and the rights of women being a focus is primarily because women and traits dubbed feminine are what lack support. Misandrists go against what many consider to be the feminist ideal.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
I thought anyone who cared about the rights of women was a feminist.
I'm not going to go into "no true Scottsman" mode, but at least in my experience, modern feminism is about equality, options, and opportunity, and the rights of women being a focus is primarily because women and traits dubbed feminine are what lack support. Misandrists go against what many consider to be the feminist ideal.
Wait a minute so feminism is actually the thing where stereotypically female characteristics and methods are better than what we have going on right now with all the violence and macho whatever?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
The best part is that she went through and cleaned up all the comments to make it look like everyone responding to the piece is on the same insane page as her.
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
I thought anyone who cared about the rights of women was a feminist.
I'm not going to go into "no true Scottsman" mode, but at least in my experience, modern feminism is about equality, options, and opportunity, and the rights of women being a focus is primarily because women and traits dubbed feminine are what lack support. Misandrists go against what many consider to be the feminist ideal.
Wait a minute so feminism is actually the thing where stereotypically female characteristics and methods are better than what we have going on right now with all the violence and macho whatever?
What?
No.
The idea is that stereotypically female characteristics and methods are ALSO VALID.
Feminism of the sort I advocate allows for men to be stay-at-home dads and to crochet and to talk about their feelings without getting crap for it.
The best part is that she went through and cleaned up all the comments to make it look like everyone responding to the piece is on the same insane page as her.
Yeah. The article is clearly the work of someone who is in need of therapy. Once you start talking about luring people into alleys you need some serious couch time.
I never would have guessed that the construction industry was championing women's rights...
Unions.
Construction has a lot of unions, and often very good ones.
Good unions are beautiful.
It's partly that, but also the fact that jobs in that segment don't have the higher end positions where you actually see a wage gap.
Like, do you really think Walmart pays female cashiers less? Of course not, they all get the same shitty wage. The disparity doesn't come into play until you start looking at who gets promoted to an actual managerial position.
Well, construction is a whole lot of lower end jobs. It also has a lot more room for entrepreneurship (ie: contractors!).
Is it ok to think people shouldn't talk about their feelings for reasons that are unrelated to sexism? Because it's an incredibly dull and self-absorbed character trait.
Posts
every single thing listed there by @tbloxham, all the shit that "some feminists say" I cannot find anywhere.
What I can find is pages and pages of people saying things like this about a place called Sneak a Peek Cafe where the baristas wear bikinis: "The question is — does that make her anti-feminism? I would say no and would argue that perhaps it makes her pro-woman." I can find pages and pages and pages of people bringing up the question "what about stay-at-home moms?" and deciding yeah that's sort of interesting but obviously stay-at-home moms are perfectly kosher they're just another element of society to discuss.
I cannot find shit about all this definitely far-too-common angry haranguing of perfectly normal good people who would be feminists but not now because of all this abuse.
Feminists are insufferable harpies the same way Sandra Fluke is, which is to say they are not but Rush Limbaugh will happily yell about how they totally are.
And they redid the studies, controlling for all those variables. Yet a wage differential remained.
Well, yes, to be honest. Businesses will pay as low as they possibly can get away with, out of greed.
That they can get away with it does point to a larger societal issue, but for businesses, it is the bottom line yes. Oil companies don't fuck over the environment and spoil the ocean because they "hate nature".
They do it because its cheaper than the alternative and they can get away with it.
The free market has no conscience, it's a monster. So when we're trying to fix something that is market driven, the only way to approach it is to work at changing their bottom line so that they have to make the changes we actually want. They can't be shamed, unfortunately.
Or you can regulate them (which I am usually in favor of but sadly, I'm in a minority there).
It's probably a mix of all sorts of things. Part of the wage gap is career choices of the part of women, so that women become hygienists and men dentists, part of it is sexism from twenty to forty years ago leading to delayed promotions for the older workers who have the widest wage differences (if a woman didn't get a promotion decades ago, she's behind for life), some of it is lost promotions because all the male coworkers are distinguishing themselves and earning raises and promotions while women are on maternity leave, and some of it is employers deciding that you don't deserve special rewards when you decide to stop showing up for work and never go above the call by taking overtime during crisis periods. There's probably current sexism, but I think it's smaller than all those factors.
As for the problems with maternity leave, it basically comes down to people thinking that they shouldn't have to pay you when you aren't showing up for work. It's also fairly unfair for women who do work-for-hire jobs like cleaning and dogwalking.
The original creator actually didn't have much to do with the production of the TV series (that's what happens when you have a 15 year gap).
On the same note, the leggy outfit Kusanagi gets in the first season ultimately gets a pair of leather pants and a leather jacket--presumably Kusanagi channeling her inner Fonzie or something. The humorous thing is that it's just copying one particular panel in the original manga (in the manga). Technically, @Cambiata is wrong--she never wears it into "combat" situations, since it's her plainclothes outfit (basically what she wears when she gets into fights she expects to be extremely easy, and is right 90% of the time). The thermo-optics are the combat uniform. It's same for the whole cast--with the exception that you could easily argue that watching someone run around in a turtleneck is less "silly" than running around in a leather jacket, a one-piece, and/or leather pants. I guess it's about degrees, as @Bagginses mentioned.
Otherwise, she wears a military dress uniform (khaki). The optic camouflage suit (identical with the male cast, with the particular exception that she doesn't wear a crash vest, so she can take off the jacket) is more common, for obvious reasons. She has a long dark dress with a high collar that she wears Togusa's court case. In the second series, she gets a different "casual" outfit (actually, everyone does, with the exception of Aramaki and Pazu, who still looks like a gangster with shiny shoes), which is mostly just a futuristic fashion thing--white pants, a synthetic shirt that I can't really describe, and a mini-vest. I missed the leather jacket. Otherwise, same thing--uniform, camouflage. She also wears a MIB-style pantsuit when on secret service bodyguard duty, and a raincoat when London.
(Both seasons)
(Both seasons)
(first only)
(second only)
There are also various vacation/infiltration outfits. She wears a cocktail dress when they infiltrate a big corrupt socialite-type event, when her male cast wears tuxedos. I would not claim it has nothing to do with titillation. In the first ending, for example, one of the final scenes is the Major, in leather jeans, with her back bare, drawing from her back holster. Besides saying "HEY! LOOK AT THAT SEXY BACK!" etc., it also has a practical plot point: namely, its one of the only times you can see the seems in Kusanagi's artificial body. Of course, you could do that some other way that invoked less sexual imagery.
They do this pretty often--deliberate titillation, but it's (also) a convenient way to bring up plot points--in that case, something the original creator talked a little bit, and the TV series writers wanted to look into further. Kusanagi uses an older body that used to be popular, adapted for military use. As such, her body is literally a commercial commodity (amplified by the fact that she, like some of her comrades, doesn't actually own her body--it's property of the government). Her hair and eye color are products her childhood--she became a cyborg at around the age of ten, probably younger, and made the choice then she wanted violet hair and bright red eyes. Kids, eh? The series deals with these particular issues that weren't really covered in the original material. She also has a pair of girlfriends (also what the series calls full-body cyborgs) who very seldom appear in the series, and seem to live with her on occasion. The implication is they knew each other before knowing Kusanagi. The point of this? Well, besides the whole lesbian military veteran thing, it sets up a memorable occasion when the plot explains that Kusanagi, like almost everyone with an artificial body in the series, doesn't have genitals, male or female. They're pretty rare among artificial bodies in this time period. Kusanagi is attracted to them, in part, because they're the same age as she is, and have the same level of cyberization, as well as other issues.
That's basically a few of the dozens of tiny little side-issue the series drops on. They're actually quite minor compared to the huge philosophical and political questions posed--more philosophical in the first season and political in the second one--along with the complications of a constantly networked society. You could absolutely get away without having them. That being said, I, being obviously a big fan, would miss the side-issues, especially since I love detailed world settings. I would also miss the diversity of clothing, but that's probably the part of my head that loves complicated details as well as lots of different colors. The series would certainly still work without them, and probably wouldn't even be that effected since the philosophical narrative is so overwhelming at times. That tends to put people off way more, since the series basically demands a lot of focus and a more than basic knowledge of history and political economy for East Asia but also the rest of the world.
Personally, I don't think the creator's were too worried about alienating people more generally--mostly because the series is 1) extremely violent (exploding head violent) and 2) way more sexual (since it deals with commoditization of sex through high technology and and the underworld. In the original material, there's a scene when the Major, in full combat fatigues, rags on a former cabinet secretary because he's living in a bunker in the far north (Etorufu), has gotten fat, alone except for a pair of sex gynoids that cost more than a Ferrari. The series even pokes fun at itself at times, like when male cast can't believe the Major actually agreed to wear a dress to the socialite party sting or the whole "Fonzie" thing. There's also the implication that, while she would never admit it, Kusanagi is actually a little vain--given that she got to decide what she looks like (she lost her original body as a small child), and has to contend with her body being attacked by things like gunship helicopters and anti-material rifles. It's actually a big improvement from the movie, where time and Oshii's direction meant the issue wasn't addressed except that the Major had to strip in order to used thermo-optic camouflage. That was kind of an unusual choice, since the manga basically operates on the same rules as the TV series.
So, yeah, you could potentially strip out the cheesecake/sexual imagery (and some of the humor, by extension), and you'd be left with an overly-substantial, even overbearing philosophical and political intrigue type story. In other words, the point of the two seasons and the film that followed (not the original one). Certain things important to the characterization wouldn't be broken in the least: like Batou is huge, Kusanagi and Togusa are supposed to both be very attractive, and Pazu is supposed to be an incredibly charismatic scuzzball. That wouldn't have changed that much. But you would have to directly address, through dialog rather than visual moments, the rather important issues of the transformation of human sexuality with the rise of the cyberbody, and the stark isolation the Section 9 people experience as a matter of their profession. But the series already has a LOT of longwinded rants and speeches, so it wouldn't be that hard to work around.
The free market reflects the collective conscience of the people participating in it. It's not this autonomous thing that exists without people.
Again, their are newer studies that control for all those variables, and show that there still is a wage gap.
Thankfully the anime series gets away from it's origins, but ...
Because, as mentioned, he was mostly an advisor for the TV series. 15 years separates the original material from the first season, that's kind of a long time. In the mean time, Masamune also did Dominion, Orion, New Dominion and expanded a little on Appleseed--which are quite popular, and well-written. But then he got bored and decided to do softcore porn. The whole while, he did (and still does) promotional art for magazines, games, art books, other people's characters, etc., so it's not that much of a jump to either.
Oshii, on the other hand, wasn't called again because the first GitS film (which he directed) only barely resembled the original popular stories.
I decided that people are required to think that GitS is profound, when really, it's actually very poorly written and vague.
YOUR PLOT DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THEME. DON'T NARRATE FOR 15 MINUTES. SHOW DON'T TELL. YOUR PACING SUCKS. WTF IS WITH THE RANDOM SYMBOLISM?
*eherm* Suffice it to say, I don't have very flattering opinions of Kusanagi being an upstanding female protagonist.
Collectives of people behave differently than individuals, and when money is at issue individuals don't even show the shiny conscience we'd hope for.
And...?
Nothing you've said runs counter to what I'm arguing.
You're entitled to your bad opinions and uniform fetish.
IIRC, the remaining wage gap (that either comes from variables we haven't yet identified or actual "fuck you, woman" sexism at the salary stage) is significantly less than the "system is stacked against people who have/raise children" gap. Not that we shouldn't fix both, but I'm not sure how to go about fixing the former.
Because they were considered to be less valuable and capable than men
-> because religion said they were
-> because they were needed to stay at home
-> because men were worried they would end up raising other guys kids
-> because they were especially worried about doing so alone
-> because women often died in childbirth and didn't live to become tribal elders and make the rules.
Nowadays women aren't considered less valuable and capable, but companies love saving money and women are currently in a class that they have managed to finangle into taking low pay.
It probably also wasn't limited to young people, which would be the best measure for current sexism and those without children. Of course, there probably are young people studies, but those probably show a small enough gap to be explained by a few outliers and the hygienist gap.
The best way to close the child gap is to have tax-funded maternity and paternity leave of the same length and government provided breast pumps (I'm of the opinion that the loss of mobility caused by pregnancy and nursing are what started male/female social dimorphism).
And we can be 100% sure that sexism or perceived sexism in media did not cause it.
Basically I guess what I'm saying is that if your one character's costume is that ridiculously out of place as compared to everyone else, that you have to make an elaborate background story for a bullet bra type situation, then yeaaaah that might be a little sexist.
The issue is whether or not it's part of sexism.
Ah. Indeed. Well have fun, I'll wait until it swings back into media
I'll help.
The wage gap in media is one of the reasons we don't see more stories from a female perspective.
Discuss.
I'd like to hear your theory as to why.
Here, let me help (your google-fu is weak btw):
http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/a-rant/
EDIT: her "all men are rapists" bit is pretty good too.
Anecdotally, no woman on the planet has ever left a chance to tell her story for a different career because of the wage gap.
I hate it when sexists consider themselves feminists. It's rather insulting to the movement. Especially when they're clearly emotionally disturbed.
You could have just linked Shakesville. Would have been the same basic idea, but not so outlandishly Tarantino in its subtlety.
To believe that Big Business is screwing over one group in particular is to believe that it isn't screwing everyone as hard as it possibly can at all times. To believe that it is selectively cruel based on demographic factors is to believe that it is also selectively lenient based on those same factors. I do not have such faith in the kindly nature, selective or otherwise, of large corporations.
They pay women less because they can. If they could pay women zero, they would. If they could pay men zero, they would. If shooting you in the head would make them a nickle's profit and they knew they could get away with it, they would.
I was being facetious, Frankie.
If the wage gap were only in media, then I think we could start to make that case, but as far as I know it's across the board. Out of curiosity I just did brief search and came across this interesting chart:
I never would have guessed that the construction industry was championing women's rights...
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Unions.
Construction has a lot of unions, and often very good ones.
Good unions are beautiful.
I can understand what you're saying, though it in this particular case, I wouldn't make the same connection.
I can understand the notion that a paramilitary commando/hacker being dressed like that is awkward or ridiculous, but in the end of the day, Kusanagi, like everyone else, is deliberately created as an amalgamation. That's why Pazu, a high-ranking police/counterterrorism operative, dressing like a gangster is pretty ridiculous, but it's a deliberate choice for the setting. More ridiculous than Kusanagi, who just dresses as a eccentric weirdo following the fashions of her world, I'd say.
Don't get me wrong--I wouldn't say that it's the only way they could do it. But I do think that particular analogy as some problems. Granted, you don't need it to be dissatisfied with an aspect of the show--that's just an explanation, and I think you have better complaints than that particular one. Yes, they do dress weird--and they could certainly get away for not dressing weird. But it's at the same time, we'd have to address the DEA from the first second, whose members dress from everything from hobos to military commandos to a ridiculous, intentionally unconvincing "sexy doctor". Dressing weird serves a purpose--not necessarily a good one, but it's there. And at the same time, not everyone is Jack McCoy, and not everyone is held to the same standard. Turning it around, I think suits look very nice--and while I'd like a game where I could play a character in suit, and I get to in some golf games, I understand why it's not considered fitting style. McCoy attorney is not fitting to Kusanagi paramilitary.
(I mostly just want to say I don't agree with that particular analogy, though I'm happy to acknowledge the show could do with less sexual imagery. Then again, I wouldn't mind if it there was more either, probably. But if it turns you off, it turns you off--that's just your own preferences, and a perfectly reasonable one at that. The exploding heads kind and people having their bones broken backwards with accompanying sound effects becomes the focus of "Wow, really?" to me, for example.)
I thought anyone who cared about the rights of women was a feminist.
I don't think anyone implied they were a good part of the movement, but instead that people have assosciated the whole movement together into one group rather than listening to the message from the center. Mainly because the message from the crazy side is so much crazier and being shouted in their face.
I'm not going to go into "no true Scottsman" mode, but at least in my experience, modern feminism is about equality, options, and opportunity, and the rights of women being a focus is primarily because women and traits dubbed feminine are what lack support. Misandrists go against what many consider to be the feminist ideal.
Wait a minute so feminism is actually the thing where stereotypically female characteristics and methods are better than what we have going on right now with all the violence and macho whatever?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The best part is that she went through and cleaned up all the comments to make it look like everyone responding to the piece is on the same insane page as her.
What?
No.
The idea is that stereotypically female characteristics and methods are ALSO VALID.
Feminism of the sort I advocate allows for men to be stay-at-home dads and to crochet and to talk about their feelings without getting crap for it.
Yeah. The article is clearly the work of someone who is in need of therapy. Once you start talking about luring people into alleys you need some serious couch time.
It's partly that, but also the fact that jobs in that segment don't have the higher end positions where you actually see a wage gap.
Like, do you really think Walmart pays female cashiers less? Of course not, they all get the same shitty wage. The disparity doesn't come into play until you start looking at who gets promoted to an actual managerial position.
Well, construction is a whole lot of lower end jobs. It also has a lot more room for entrepreneurship (ie: contractors!).