Gender

[Minish]

I just don't think it's fair to judge other cultrues when our own backyard isnt exactly spotless. let's sort out own our pay gap this before we beat on the japanese.

[apologies for yankees, I cannt personally speak for the us pay gap]

... again, that's exactly my point!!

You were just saying how Japan sucks! Unless you're talking about how it's not fair to blame Game Freak or Nintendo or whatever when we should be blaming society? But in the end, that's all anyone is blaming!

 

[Cerberus87]

Eh, Pokémon is wayyy better than many other things sexism-wise. At least the "females have lower Attack IVs" thing was changed the moment they didn't need to restrict themselves to compatibility with the first games anymore, and rather than putting breasts and bows and eyelashes on the females when they made gender differences, they generally have actual animal gender differences where the male is usually more frilly if anything. I cannot tell you how proud I am of Game Freak for just going "Female Machamp? They look exactly like the males. They don't have bras or less muscle or a more 'feminine' build or face or whatever the hell. Fuck you for thinking that even makes any sense."

Mandiboss are exclusively female. They have skirts made of feathers, earrings and a bow made of bones. Can it get any more feminine?

In several species the male Pokémon is more aggressive, has sharper horns, but generally looks more attractive because in the animal world the male has to captivate the female.

About Machamp, they'd have to create a whole new species if they differentiated the female with the features of a human female and, to maintain compatibility with RBY, that wasn't possible.

 

[ultraviolet]

Mandiboss are exclusively female. They have skirts made of feathers, earrings and a bow made of bones. Can it get any more feminine?

But there's not anything wrong with a pokemon being feminine; it's when that is the only representation of women that it's harmful. Many pokemon don't have gender differences at all, and hey, mandibuzz is kind of badass - it's a vulture that eats other pokemon and wears their bones. Kangaskhan is another female-only pokemon that's kind of not frilly or even very feminine at all. It's a mother pokemon, but only really in the fact that it has a pouch with a baby in it - for all other intents and purposes, it's a dinosaur/kangaroo monster thing. Nidoqueen isn't really all that feminine either, just having round parts of the chest armor that look kinda like boobs.

In several species the male Pokémon is more aggressive, has sharper horns, but generally looks more attractive because in the animal world the male has to captivate the female.

... well yeah that's what Butterfree is saying. I don't get why you're repeating this but okay.

About Machamp, they'd have to create a whole new species if they differentiated the female with the features of a human female and, to maintain compatibility with RBY, that wasn't possible.

So? Gender differences only came about in DP and they still didn't change it then like they did with other pokemon, so I really think leaving female Machamp the way it is was deliberate. Anyway, why would they have to create a whole new species? o.o Male and female Unfezant look drastically different and they're the same species.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I'm just gonna say it. I always played as the guy in Pokémon games.

And I often play as the girl.

Many pokemon don't have gender differences at all, and hey, mandibuzz is kind of badass - it's a vulture that eats other pokemon and wears their bones. Kangaskhan is another female-only pokemon that's kind of not frilly or even very feminine at all. It's a mother pokemon, but only really in the fact that it has a pouch with a baby in it - for all other intents and purposes, it's a dinosaur/kangaroo monster thing. Nidoqueen isn't really all that feminine either, just having round parts of the chest armor that look kinda like boobs.

And to add to this, Wormadam is all-female, and Granbull is mostly female. Neither of them look stereotypically feminine - in fact, I'd say Granbull's quite the opposite.

 

[Dannichu]

I'm gonna throw this one out there: I do sort of hate them for Pikachu.

It's a double-whammy of stupidity: firstly, the girl Pikachus' tailtips look like a heart. It's nonsensical and patronising and the only gender difference more ridiculous is Wobbuffet's lipstick, but Wobbuffet isn't their mascot.

And secondly: this makes every Pikachu ever male. Search DA or googleimages or whererever for 'Pikachu' and I bet you that for every one picture with a female Pikachu there are 100 with a 'normal' Pikachu. If you think of a Pikachu, you think of a 'normal' Pikachu.

It's 'male = default' at its most basic and obvious, and it annoys me more than I can say that they did it to my favourite Pokemon.

 

[surskitty]

I wish for pikachu they did give it a sex difference but made it so females have spiky black bits on the ears or something 8| You know, something not stupid that has been done before with shown pikachu variations.

 

[Zhorken]

Or the hair scruff like Richie's Pikachu.

Also, I'd have to say Wobbuffet's been bumped to second place for most ridiculous gender differences:



Jellicent is my least favourite Pokémon ever for this. I actually kind of like the look of the male one (although I like the female one's cake-frill collar better than the male one's moustache) but I can't bring myself to train one anyway because it just makes me constantly cringe that they did this.

EDIT: Also, official art and sprites tend to go for the male design, too. For example, in the Dream World, most Pokémon appear male: Pikachu have straight-edged tails and Jellicent are blue with moustaches, even the female ones. They've got female Dream World art for the three dimorphic B/W Pokémon, but they don't use it. There are a few exceptions—Combee, the Gible line, and Bibarel, off the top of my head, all use their female designs in the Dream World art, Sugimori art, and Conquest (aka Nobunaga's Ambition) portraits, while most Pokémon in all three sets of art don't. But none of those are nearly as noticeable, and they're exceptions.

 

[Cerberus87]

But there's not anything wrong with a pokemon being feminine; it's when that is the only representation of women that it's harmful. Many pokemon don't have gender differences at all, and hey, mandibuzz is kind of badass - it's a vulture that eats other pokemon and wears their bones. Kangaskhan is another female-only pokemon that's kind of not frilly or even very feminine at all. It's a mother pokemon, but only really in the fact that it has a pouch with a baby in it - for all other intents and purposes, it's a dinosaur/kangaroo monster thing. Nidoqueen isn't really all that feminine either, just having round parts of the chest armor that look kinda like boobs.

Chansey, Miltank, Nidoqueen, Froslass, Mandibuzz, all very feminine Pokés... Also, being badass doesn't have anything to do with gender...?

So? Gender differences only came about in DP and they still didn't change it then like they did with other pokemon, so I really think leaving female Machamp the way it is was deliberate. Anyway, why would they have to create a whole new species? o.o Male and female Unfezant look drastically different and they're the same species.

I think they were lazy with Machamp because they didn't have much to change. If they tried to add random, feminine traits to Machamp, it would look, well, not very attractive IMO. They could've been more subtle like, for example, adding a differently-coloured belt or spots on the female's skin... Wobbuffet could do with a lipstick because it's a blue blob.

On the other hand, Alakazam is also a fairly masculine Pokémon and they made the female Alakazam look more feminine by chopping its moustache.

And the male Unfezant is just a female one with a green chest and a pink mask... Hardly "drastically different".

 

[Butterfree]

"Oh, they'd have given Machamp a stupid gender difference if they were just creating it now but they made it like this to maintain compatibility with R/B/Y!" doesn't really make any sense; they gave Pikachu, Butterfree, etc. noticeable differences even though they "broke compatibility", so if they actually wanted to make female Machamp wear bras or have less muscle, there's no reason that should have stopped them. But even as they modified dozens of R/B/Y Pokémon to have gender differences, they pointedly left the Machop line completely alone. I think it's pretty clear that the genders of the Machop line are intentionally identical.

I'm not contesting that several male-only/female-only Pokémon have apparently humanoid tertiary sexual characteristics, but when the gender difference feature was first revealed, most fans were convinced female Machamp and male Gardevoir would be the first ones to go. The fact that didn't happen and instead most gender differences are based on gender differences in actual animals made me way happy. I'm not thrilled about Pikachu or Wobbuffet or Frillish/Jellicent, but the fact that an overwhelming majority of Pokémon gender differences are not based on human gender stereotypes in any way, shape or form rather weighs against it, I think - as ultraviolet pointed out, female Pokémon looking 'feminine' is mostly a problem if female Pokémon systematically look 'feminine', not if there's a few that do and then a whole bunch that don't.

 

[Ether's Bane]

I'm gonna throw this one out there: I do sort of hate them for Pikachu.

It's a double-whammy of stupidity: firstly, the girl Pikachus' tailtips look like a heart. It's nonsensical and patronising and the only gender difference more ridiculous is Wobbuffet's lipstick, but Wobbuffet isn't their mascot.

It is rather stupid, but honestly, I think the chip in the female Pikachu's tail is rather cute. *ducks*

And to bring this thread back to more serious ground:

I just don't think it's fair to judge other cultrues when our own backyard isnt exactly spotless. let's sort out own our pay gap this before we beat on the japanese.

[apologies for yankees, I cannt personally speak for the us pay gap]

[Efferconrant]

So I did some calculations with the numbers in that article, and it comes out that British women in management earn approximately 75.2% of what their male counterparts earn. As disappointing as that is, in my country, if you will scroll down to the chart at the bottom of this article, you will see that, if you do the calculations, Malaysian women in management earn approximately 58.7% of what their male counterparts earn. That is a far worse ratio, obviously.

Now, what really bugs me is the attitude which has people from countries doing far better off than this pointing at a problem that's far more minor than stuff here, and going "oh this is why my country/state/etc. sucks". Yes, it is disappointing when, for instance, same-sex marriage fails to become legalized somewhere, but to put things in perspective: I live in a country where homosexuality is actually illegal, and where if you aren't Muslim but wish to marry someone who is, you are forced to convert or the marriage is null (which is off-topic, but still fucking stupid).

My point here is, yes, the problems that come up for you guys may be pretty bad, but some have it a whole lot worse.

I apologise if I have offended any of you.

[/end Efferconrant]

 

[Music Dragon]

So I did some calculations with the numbers in that article, and it comes out that British women in management earn approximately 75.2% of what their male counterparts earn. As disappointing as that is, in my country, if you will scroll down to the chart at the bottom of this article, you will see that, if you do the calculations, Malaysian women in management earn approximately 58.7% of what their male counterparts earn. That is a far worse ratio, obviously.

Now, what really bugs me is the attitude which has people from countries doing far better off than this pointing at a problem that's far more minor than stuff here, and going "oh this is why my country/state/etc. sucks". Yes, it is disappointing when, for instance, same-sex marriage fails to become legalized somewhere, but to put things in perspective: I live in a country where homosexuality is actually illegal, and where if you aren't Muslim but wish to marry someone who is, you are forced to convert or the marriage is null (which is off-topic, but still fucking stupid).

My point here is, yes, the problems that come up for you guys may be pretty bad, but some have it a whole lot worse.

So what? I think we're all aware that things could be much worse, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore our problems. I don't understand what you're trying to prove.

 

[Ether's Bane]

So what? I think we're all aware that things could be much worse, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore our problems. I don't understand what you're trying to prove.

I agree entirely with the first part.

I guess what I'm trying to say is when people go "oh we have it so bad here"... it just irks me to a degree because they don't, not in comparison. I'm just sick and tired of that when I actually see worse on a frequent basis.

But yeah, wherever in the world this is, problems like these need to be solved - I just hope you can understand where I'm coming from on this.

 

[Music Dragon]

I agree entirely with the first part.

I guess what I'm trying to say is when people go "oh we have it so bad here"... it just irks me to a degree because they don't, not in comparison. I'm just sick and tired of that when I actually see worse on a frequent basis.

But yeah, wherever in the world this is, problems like these need to be solved - I just hope you can understand where I'm coming from on this.

What, you think you have it bad because you can't be openly gay and get married? You're not dying from a disease that slowly immobilizes you until you can no longer breathe! What right do you have to complain when you can actually move?

 

[Ether's Bane]

What, you think you have it bad because you can't be openly gay and get married? You're not dying from a disease that slowly immobilizes you until you can no longer breathe! What right do you have to complain when you can actually move?

I'm actually not sure how I'm supposed to interpret/respond to this, but:

If you meant it straight: That's partially my point, in a much more graphic manner, although I wouldn't have been anywhere near that harsh.

If you meant it ironically: I understand what you mean entirely, and I already said earlier that such problems, no matter their magnitude, need to be solved - I just really, really wanted to get this off my chest, and I again apologise if you were offended by it.

 

[Music Dragon]

My point is that you shouldn't be annoyed by other people's issues not being bad enough. There's always someone who has it worse - well, almost always - so, you know, don't be irked?

 

[Ether's Bane]

I understand. Sorry for the confusion.

*re-rails thread*

 

[Minish]

No, it's okay. I think it's perfectly fair to point out that people should stay mindful of the different gravity of different situations, because all too easily you can be really, really insensitive. I mean, complaining about your situation to someone who has it a fair bit worse is... generally just a pretty unpleasant think to do, don't you think?

That said, what is 'worse' or what is more important or whatever isn't so clear cut, but still, I think Effercon gets this. It's no fair to act like it's not rational enough! all problems are equally important and valid why don't you get it! because I feel like these are pretty understandable things to feel frustrated about once in a while. :/

I have one friend who constantly complains about being far from home and how it's so inconvenient, and sure! Everyone's moved away from home and it's hard! But I live like eight hours away minimum and it starts to feel really irritating to hear about. And that's not something that's even so important!

 

[Music Dragon]

It may be understandable, but this kind of thinking is used all the time to invalidate people's problems. It's just not a good way of looking at things. Maybe it bothers you when people complain about homophobia in Sweden and you're from Jamaica, but in the end, there's bound to be someone out there who'd feel the exact same way about you, and yet your issues are very real. Sure, I understand where the frustration comes from, but your goal should be to get rid of it.

 

[Jason-Kun]

I actually find it more offensive that people would find it sexist to portray females as being feminine as if that is a bad thing.

 

[Butterfree]

I actually find it more offensive that people would find it sexist to portray females as being feminine as if that is a bad thing.

The problem isn't that traditional femininity is bad, but the disproportionate association of being female with traditional femininity. Nobody should complain about individual characters liking makeup and wearing dresses, for instance, but when you've got a huge lineup of female characters and they all like makeup and wearing dresses, that's reinforcing the view that that's just what women are supposed to be like. And in the case of animals, which just have no reason to ever conform to human gender standards at all, making the females look traditionally feminine and the males traditionally masculine is painfully suggestive of the idea that human gender stereotypes are simply intrinsic to what it means to be male or female.

Like I said, this is why although there isn't any good reason for any Pokémon to resemble human stereotypes, I think the fact most Pokémon's gender differences have nothing to do with human gender roles counteracts the few that do - plenty of traditionally feminine-looking Pokémon can be male, plenty of traditionally masculine-looking Pokémon can be female, and the overwhelming majority of gender differences do not try to make them conform better to the stereotypes, so on the whole Pokémon does not give off the impression that being male means being like this and being female means being like that.