(no subject)
Gender battles don't have to be the result of a monstrosity. They happen, whether in major or minor forms, within many mediums. Your claim that "Nintendo hates women" lead the way in thinking you saw women, their roles and portrayals in Pokemon, as either wrongfully or under-represented, which could very well be the case for a kind of gender battle. My apologies if that wasn't your intent~
My comment did not in any way say that women were only valid when placed in those roles. All it said was the statement "WOMEN WHO CAN DO ANYTHING BUT COOK DON'T EXIST" in the context of the Pokemon games is very clearly incorrect. I provided examples to this testament.
The matter of Nintendo "accepting" the fact that a woman is capable of being a Champion was never an issue. Just because there wasn't one until D/P/PT doesn't mean they ever thought, or came off as thinking, that women were incapable of doing so.
The next three parts I'm going to break down, because I'm not completely sure where you're going with this.
"...I look at the impact of who and what a character actually is- from their job, I wouldn't be going so very terribly wrong."
I take this to mean that their job is a strong indicator of their importance, and that the more powerful the job means the bigger their impact on the game.
"I happen to think that Daisy, who holds no real significant job, is a very positive female influence in the games..."
I'm not entirely sure why this was brought up. She may be a positive female character, but could you call her influential to the game, or describe her as having a big impact on your gameplay or the storyline? If so, your previous statement seems to have fallen by the wayside. If not, it's irrelevant to your argument.
"But the simple fact that for a long time women have been excluded from the "top jobs" in the pokemon world- being Champion, running the main enemy team, running the big corporation, running the region's Pokemon Lab- is a telling barometer."
Here we go back to jobs, so I'm going to put it out there that you are very much stating that their job is completely linked to their relevance, importance, and influence as a character. As for the statement itself, it appears to be a narrow one. "Top jobs in the Pokemon World" are not limited to your list. From Gym Leaders, members of the Elite Four, Contest Coordinators, and Doctors (because Nurse Joy is only a title while her job is very much that of a Pokemon Doctor as there are no other characters who heal Pokemon professionally), the list of "top jobs" is quite varied and has definitely included females.
All that aside, there is no reason that isn't completely personal preference for these jobs to be run by either males or females. They have been males often, and in some cases exclusively. As certain jobs have been exclusive to females as well, this is neither here nor there. Also, even if that were not the case, females not being given these jobs is not evidence to them being kept in a Woman Box of irrelevance and obscurity.
Your Clair argument also seems odd and out of place. Clair is immature because that is the kind of person she is, not because she is a woman, unless you're stating that they went out of their way to make her immature because she's a woman. I would have to disagree entirely based on many examples of mature female characters and the almost overwhelmingly more present number of immature male characters.
The reason Blue is an iffy Champion is because there was no concept of "Champion" before he beat the Elite Four. We have no idea if there was a Champion before him that he had to beat (and since we have no idea, it could have been a female just as easily as a male), there is no mention of a Champion role; for all we know, he could be the very first Champion in existence. Because we know his Championship was very short lived, the entire title being placed on him, his existence as anything more than your rival, is shaky. Blue has no predecessor as Champion, Lance is a part of the Elite Four, not the Champion of the Elite Four.
As for the Team Leaders, I will again present the argument that there is no need or reason for either males or females to "step into these shoes" unless the creators feel it is fitting. Or unless there is some kind of personal agenda involved, which misses the point entirely.
Actually, you raised the issue of jobs and roles. I argued the point on jobs because I didn't agree with your claims. My initial mention of jobs, as I said before, was to make it clear that women did have very significant roles well beyond cooking. After that, your entire post was about who did and didn't have what job, which I followed up by arguing against those points made specifically about jobs.
It's not that there shouldn't be a female in any of the positions you have mentioned. But it is also not the case that there should be, either, which is more to the point I was trying to make. I would also like to know where the statistics are to prove that young females have always been a huge part of the Pokemon fanbase, because there is no reason for me to believe this is the case. While there a quite a few female Pokemon fans now, that does not mean that there has always been, and it certainly does not mean they have always been a strong force in the fandom. I want to make it clear, however, that I don't believe the games are for young men exclusively. I only ask because I have absolutely no information regarding young female involvement in the early days of Pokemon.
"My point was more to say that female characters - because this extends to random trainers, too, many more girls than boys use grass - are often pushed into using a type which the games themselves define as soft, gentle, inoffensive, sweet smelling, supportive and kind."
Here, I am going to do what I avoided in the first reply to your claim that grass types are "feminine", because I do not feel it's right to place Pokemon traits into any kind of gender role. But, to argue your point, I must.
Grass types. I don't know if you've actually looked at the National Dex list of this type recently, but a glance through this list has reaffirmed my thought that this type is not at all a depiction of femininity. Out of the 53 Grass Pokemon, only 15 have any of the traits you described, and one is debatable because I certainly do not think of Roserade this way but I threw it in just to be on the safe side of this issue. The only way this feminine image could be said to be a "presiding" representation of them is through the any of the more feminine grass trainers who only pick very specific Pokemon from this pool. That says something about the people of the Pokemon World, not the type.
I also don't know what you mean by these character being "pushed" into being Grass Trainers. We'll exclude the logical reasoning that you cannot "push" a character into one thing or another because they do not have wills to object to their placement or role and are solely what the creator makes of them- we'll go with your idea that these characters have wants and feelings. Why would it follow that, since there are apparently so many female grass trainers, many of them must have been pushed? Why couldn't it be a simple case of lots of young girls like "gentle, inoffensive, sweet smelling" things? To assume anyone is being "pushed" into these roles is taking an incredible leap where there is no need for even an argument to the contrary.
The argument that the depiction of the Trainers reflects the depiction of the Pokemon is overly generalized. Do we assume that Ghost types are especially feminine because Channelers are exclusively female, or that Water types are masculine because Fishermen are exclusively male? How about that Bugs must be young and naive because Bug Catchers are young boys? If a type was truly represented by the people who use them, the characters would not have as diverse teams of Pokemon as they do and would instead be more shut into a box of "Fire Trainer ONLY CARRIES Fire Pokemon", which we have seen is not the case.
"...these characters are presented as ABBERATIONS from the usual users of that type..."
How is Steven not brought into question? He's a small gentleman, not at all the usual depiction of a Steel Trainer the way you brought up Byron is. And how can we forget the males that are also in this situation? How is Roark a typical Rock Leader? Watson, the eccentric, "tough old coot" of an Electric Leader? (Which I'm sure furthers the very flashy electric type image.) I would bring up Wallace and Juan, but who can say what a normal Water Type Leader is, where we have such a vast difference between Misty and Crasher? As we can see, Gym Leaders not being your Charlie average "____ Type Trainer" is not a new, or female exclusive, situation. How this can even be brought up as an issue is baffling.
As for the Bill situation, I wasn't implying that they take over what Bill does, but who he is as the PC creator. We can't fault Bill for being more active in the game any more than we can fault Nurse Joy for being the only true healer. The point was that both times there were updates to the PC System, it has been females who take over, which- going in line with beliefs you have previously stated- means that Pokemon Creators certainly think women capable of this important, if not popular, role.
All you are saying with that last paragraph, then, is that you and many others have a very specific agenda that will color your judgment. When will it be enough? When there are, down to the last number, as many females as there are males? When a Gen is presided over by a majority of females? What option could there be that is fair and undriven by need to fill some kind of equal opportunity quota?
If you read through all of this, I thank you very much for your time and patience, because I really enjoyed responding and would hope someone else got something out of it other than myself. XD
My comment did not in any way say that women were only valid when placed in those roles. All it said was the statement "WOMEN WHO CAN DO ANYTHING BUT COOK DON'T EXIST" in the context of the Pokemon games is very clearly incorrect. I provided examples to this testament.
The matter of Nintendo "accepting" the fact that a woman is capable of being a Champion was never an issue. Just because there wasn't one until D/P/PT doesn't mean they ever thought, or came off as thinking, that women were incapable of doing so.
The next three parts I'm going to break down, because I'm not completely sure where you're going with this.
"...I look at the impact of who and what a character actually is- from their job, I wouldn't be going so very terribly wrong."
I take this to mean that their job is a strong indicator of their importance, and that the more powerful the job means the bigger their impact on the game.
"I happen to think that Daisy, who holds no real significant job, is a very positive female influence in the games..."
I'm not entirely sure why this was brought up. She may be a positive female character, but could you call her influential to the game, or describe her as having a big impact on your gameplay or the storyline? If so, your previous statement seems to have fallen by the wayside. If not, it's irrelevant to your argument.
"But the simple fact that for a long time women have been excluded from the "top jobs" in the pokemon world- being Champion, running the main enemy team, running the big corporation, running the region's Pokemon Lab- is a telling barometer."
Here we go back to jobs, so I'm going to put it out there that you are very much stating that their job is completely linked to their relevance, importance, and influence as a character. As for the statement itself, it appears to be a narrow one. "Top jobs in the Pokemon World" are not limited to your list. From Gym Leaders, members of the Elite Four, Contest Coordinators, and Doctors (because Nurse Joy is only a title while her job is very much that of a Pokemon Doctor as there are no other characters who heal Pokemon professionally), the list of "top jobs" is quite varied and has definitely included females.
All that aside, there is no reason that isn't completely personal preference for these jobs to be run by either males or females. They have been males often, and in some cases exclusively. As certain jobs have been exclusive to females as well, this is neither here nor there. Also, even if that were not the case, females not being given these jobs is not evidence to them being kept in a Woman Box of irrelevance and obscurity.
Your Clair argument also seems odd and out of place. Clair is immature because that is the kind of person she is, not because she is a woman, unless you're stating that they went out of their way to make her immature because she's a woman. I would have to disagree entirely based on many examples of mature female characters and the almost overwhelmingly more present number of immature male characters.
The reason Blue is an iffy Champion is because there was no concept of "Champion" before he beat the Elite Four. We have no idea if there was a Champion before him that he had to beat (and since we have no idea, it could have been a female just as easily as a male), there is no mention of a Champion role; for all we know, he could be the very first Champion in existence. Because we know his Championship was very short lived, the entire title being placed on him, his existence as anything more than your rival, is shaky. Blue has no predecessor as Champion, Lance is a part of the Elite Four, not the Champion of the Elite Four.
As for the Team Leaders, I will again present the argument that there is no need or reason for either males or females to "step into these shoes" unless the creators feel it is fitting. Or unless there is some kind of personal agenda involved, which misses the point entirely.
Actually, you raised the issue of jobs and roles. I argued the point on jobs because I didn't agree with your claims. My initial mention of jobs, as I said before, was to make it clear that women did have very significant roles well beyond cooking. After that, your entire post was about who did and didn't have what job, which I followed up by arguing against those points made specifically about jobs.
It's not that there shouldn't be a female in any of the positions you have mentioned. But it is also not the case that there should be, either, which is more to the point I was trying to make. I would also like to know where the statistics are to prove that young females have always been a huge part of the Pokemon fanbase, because there is no reason for me to believe this is the case. While there a quite a few female Pokemon fans now, that does not mean that there has always been, and it certainly does not mean they have always been a strong force in the fandom. I want to make it clear, however, that I don't believe the games are for young men exclusively. I only ask because I have absolutely no information regarding young female involvement in the early days of Pokemon.
"My point was more to say that female characters - because this extends to random trainers, too, many more girls than boys use grass - are often pushed into using a type which the games themselves define as soft, gentle, inoffensive, sweet smelling, supportive and kind."
Here, I am going to do what I avoided in the first reply to your claim that grass types are "feminine", because I do not feel it's right to place Pokemon traits into any kind of gender role. But, to argue your point, I must.
Grass types. I don't know if you've actually looked at the National Dex list of this type recently, but a glance through this list has reaffirmed my thought that this type is not at all a depiction of femininity. Out of the 53 Grass Pokemon, only 15 have any of the traits you described, and one is debatable because I certainly do not think of Roserade this way but I threw it in just to be on the safe side of this issue. The only way this feminine image could be said to be a "presiding" representation of them is through the any of the more feminine grass trainers who only pick very specific Pokemon from this pool. That says something about the people of the Pokemon World, not the type.
I also don't know what you mean by these character being "pushed" into being Grass Trainers. We'll exclude the logical reasoning that you cannot "push" a character into one thing or another because they do not have wills to object to their placement or role and are solely what the creator makes of them- we'll go with your idea that these characters have wants and feelings. Why would it follow that, since there are apparently so many female grass trainers, many of them must have been pushed? Why couldn't it be a simple case of lots of young girls like "gentle, inoffensive, sweet smelling" things? To assume anyone is being "pushed" into these roles is taking an incredible leap where there is no need for even an argument to the contrary.
The argument that the depiction of the Trainers reflects the depiction of the Pokemon is overly generalized. Do we assume that Ghost types are especially feminine because Channelers are exclusively female, or that Water types are masculine because Fishermen are exclusively male? How about that Bugs must be young and naive because Bug Catchers are young boys? If a type was truly represented by the people who use them, the characters would not have as diverse teams of Pokemon as they do and would instead be more shut into a box of "Fire Trainer ONLY CARRIES Fire Pokemon", which we have seen is not the case.
"...these characters are presented as ABBERATIONS from the usual users of that type..."
How is Steven not brought into question? He's a small gentleman, not at all the usual depiction of a Steel Trainer the way you brought up Byron is. And how can we forget the males that are also in this situation? How is Roark a typical Rock Leader? Watson, the eccentric, "tough old coot" of an Electric Leader? (Which I'm sure furthers the very flashy electric type image.) I would bring up Wallace and Juan, but who can say what a normal Water Type Leader is, where we have such a vast difference between Misty and Crasher? As we can see, Gym Leaders not being your Charlie average "____ Type Trainer" is not a new, or female exclusive, situation. How this can even be brought up as an issue is baffling.
As for the Bill situation, I wasn't implying that they take over what Bill does, but who he is as the PC creator. We can't fault Bill for being more active in the game any more than we can fault Nurse Joy for being the only true healer. The point was that both times there were updates to the PC System, it has been females who take over, which- going in line with beliefs you have previously stated- means that Pokemon Creators certainly think women capable of this important, if not popular, role.
All you are saying with that last paragraph, then, is that you and many others have a very specific agenda that will color your judgment. When will it be enough? When there are, down to the last number, as many females as there are males? When a Gen is presided over by a majority of females? What option could there be that is fair and undriven by need to fill some kind of equal opportunity quota?
If you read through all of this, I thank you very much for your time and patience, because I really enjoyed responding and would hope someone else got something out of it other than myself. XD