evilthecat said:
It happens, it happens all the time, much like Gaijin bashing, racism, ostracism and other forms of casual bullying in Japan. Now, what I will say is that compared to the US (and bear in mind, I don't live in the US) it is much less likely to be maliciously intentioned, i.e. people are less likely to do it because they actually hate gay people, just as they don't really hate foreigners, or black people, but they will still do it, and they'll still think it's funny because they cannot understand why anyone else would find it offensive or upsetting.
evilthecat said:
Deflecting criticism by trying to homophobically bully a critic, and by extension insulting every gay person in the world is beyond bad practice, it's crossing the line into stupidville. The hatemail and negative social media attention Kamitani is recieving now is completely deserved, and while an apology (even a vague and insincere apology which makes it clear you have no idea why people are angry with you) is a good start, the damage is largely done now.
Once again, you've demonstrated that you should have enough information available to you to interpret Kamitani's "joke" in the way he intended it, and yet, again, refuse to do so. I am under the impression that homophobia requires malicious intent -- otherwise, it's not homophobia. So for you to interpret Kamitani's intent as "trying to homophobically bully", while acknowledging that he probably doesn't have the mental constructs necessary to do so is confusing. Should a statement be taken how it was intended, or how the listener would intend it, were they to speak it themselves? In communication, both the speaker and the listener have an obligation to attempt to understand each other -- but since a speaker may communicate to multiple people with the same message, they may not be able to calibrate it for each listener individually, so the burden of understanding falls more heavily on the listener.
Anyone who was offended by Kamitani's post should have at least considered that perhaps it didn't mean what they thought it meant, and given him the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming their own culture's view on homosexuality is universal. The post was on a website -- they're already on the internet, a simple search for "Homosexuality in Japan" or the like could help them achieve understanding. But most people would rather get angry than attempt to understand another.
--
I don't think we're going to see more good female characters until more women start designing them. The problem at hand is that it's mostly men designing characters, male and female both, and they haven't been given much specific direction, just complaints.
Is there a difference between a good female character, and a good male character? What are masculine and feminine qualities? To the male worldview, those qualities are primarily physical -- a female character is just like a male character, except with breasts. In the male world, women are primarily defined as women by their sexual desirability, because that's all men know about women.
We're immersed in the male worldview. We're all familiar with it, male and female both. But to men, the female worldview is a mystery -- and it seems like women haven't made much effort to change that. It's simply accepted, as part of western culture, that men are simple and boorish, and women are complex, mysterious, and inherently incomprehensible to men. I think this is perpetuated because of how it relates to existing power structures, i.e., as Pat Hulse describes:
Pat Hulse said:
To put it simply, rippling muscles are associated with power because people who have them are generally capable of great physical prowess. However, the reason large breasts are associated with power is because the women who have them are perceived as desirable to other people. In other words, muscles = powerful on your own, breasts = powerful through someone else (probably a man).
In particular, what is problematic is that the traits we define as masculine are inherently empowering, because they enable you to accomplish things: being strong, being assertive, being direct, etc. Traits we define as feminine are inherently encumbering, limiting: large breasts, gentleness, fragility, etc.
Many women want large breasts, and are willing to do some drastic things to acquire them. But how much is that dependent on appealing to men, on taking advantage of a form of power that hasn't been denied to women? What would women want to be, if they weren't concerned with what men thought? They'll need to tell us, to show us, rather than complain about what they don't like, and hope we eventually get it.
But it's a self-perpetuating problem. Once again, women are discouraged by our culture from being assertive, and encouraged to manipulate. To reach that point, they're either going to have to act like men, or perhaps, act like real women, whatever that may be. It's something we haven't seen, because we, as a culture, have repressed it.
