OK, not exactly first thing in the morning, but, meh, close enough.

So wait...you're unhappy that they're showing something in order to critique it? Also part of the world building is critiquing that it has become normalized and that the MC thinks nothing of the armor, instead she simply thinks "it's female armor", without knowing and realizing things could be better. The narrative should make you happy if you dislike fanservice, and I fail to understand how they could critique this type of female armor and the extreme normalization of it in this world without showing it.

IF it's done right I don't personally I don't have a problem with fanservice in certain media, some people enjoy wearing clothing and gear that shows off more skin, both men and women. The classic male barbarian loincloth that shows off his muscles and chest, muscular legs and so fourth. I think the armor is often not practical, but if a person wants to wear an outfit that shows off their body it should be their choice.

I absolutely loathe the idea that everything to do with sexuality is some kind of evil thing, and that people who choose to wear more exposing outfits are being sexist against themselves. So my problem with this series is that it so far lacks any kind of nuance. It should be a normalized thing for both men and women to wear whatever the hell they want and whatever works for them. A man wants to run around in a rainbow banana hammock? More power to him. A woman wants to run around in full plate armor? More power to her.

Edit: Also I'm very aware that cartoonish sexism exists in real life, but the extreme and radical sexism that this entire world is built on feels beyond cartoonish. I would absolutely love more series that critique sexism, but I want them to have some kind of nuance as well.

Edit: If you still respond I hope you read this before doing so, maybe with this response I can help clear up some of my intent and thoughts before you formulate a response.

Misunderstandings happen, it's no big deal. A lot of what I was saying were just some additional thoughts about the manga and subjects in it, and not directly pointed at you notably. Also some thoughts on views I hear mostly on social media like Twitter. The first paraph was referring to what you were saying, and the rest from "IF" onwards were additional thoughts, sorry if I came off the wrong way myself.

Ultimately my views boil down to, men and women should be able to choose whatever armor/gear/clothing they want. Regardless of if it's a lot of skin showing, no skin showing, anything in between and so fourth. As long they're comfortable in their body and with what they're wearing. I think this manga so far lacks some nuance there is all, nothing super serious.

So, when I last night said "from what little I read from the first paragraph" I really meant "just the first and maybe part of the second sentence" (in my defense, it was well past midnight, and I had woken up early in the morning that day for uni), and as a result, I kinda expected to find myself in a position to defend myself of possibly my wording making me look kinda unsavory in a way that might lump me in the same or at least similar category as the likes the "gamers tm" as I like to refer to them.

Luckily I was wrong, but I still gotta apologize for such assumptions.

So, in essence, my position of fanservice in general is like mixed at best, as it kinda makes me feel like a perv when I don't wanna feel like one. Even though I recognize that, just like you said the fanservice in this chapter does have a purpose here - to be subject to or even a vehicle of critique - it still kinda carries that previously mentioned bit.

As for people being able to wear whatever they want... I honestly feel the same in general - people can and should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing in their everyday lives (home, work, outside, etc.). But when it comes to like armour and other combat-situation-stuff, it'd probably be more expected that soldiers and/or adventurers of the same "class" would generally have similar-ish armour with each-other. What I imagine to be a sabre (which I don't know much about fantasy world classes, so I'm kinda going off my own assumptions themselves based on some very limited knowledge gained from hanging out on Discord and watching a single r/DnDMemes video on YouTube) would probably be similar to like heavy or medium infantry, so you'd ideally have some kind of armour covering most of your body (largely metal armour, with some so-called soft armour for other areas for heavy, and a more balanced mix of chainmail and soft armour for medium), while light infantry can be more loose with how they'd dress themselves for combat.

As for the nuance thing, I don't really think I have anything to add.

Honestly, my concern with the armour and gear may be less about the looks of the person wearing those and more about the protection of that person.

In conlusion, I think the real misunderstanding on my part at least was that I expected an argument and instead it seems like we're saying similar-ish stuff.

DY4Y—

Previously, you argued some more, and then sought the last word by saying that there should be no more arguing because this wasn't the place for it. Now you return to the argument, after again saying that this isn't the place for it. Spare us, would you?

The word “dialect” isn't magical. You can no more excuse poor word skills on the part of a thousand people by noting that they have a dialect than you can excuse poor word skills on the part of one person by treating her usage as an idiosyncratic dialect. I explained what made proper English in my earlier comment. There are indeed some dialects that are distinct yet equally proper, but none of them use “me” as a nominative, because that robs the case form of its utility.

why do you write like it's 1821? are you practising for an academic paper? are you the captain of a high school debate club?

I'm done conversing with DY4Y, who has shown their true colors of being pointlessly pedantic, but "Me And A Legendary Witch" is still wrong.

I guess "pointlessly pedantic" is true enough, but I do honestly think that understanding that grammar is subjective matters. Or more specifically, understanding that Standard English is no more correct than any other given dialect

last edited at Jul 1, 2021 7:58AM

"C'mon, Uraraka thigh suit has a reason, I mean, if it were not thigh, how could she use her powers? Same goes for Asui, Yaoyorozu, Ashido, Midnight, Mt. Lady, and pretty much every female character in MHA. Sexualized? Imposible, the ass and tits foreground it's necessary for, you know, world building"

Man, I hope Mineta dies soon or I won't be able to watch a single chapter more of MHA.

Comparing a single minor character in the background of a manga to a manga's entire cartoonishly over-the-top premise.

Sure that's valid.

Just saying, if you're gonna make a point, hammering your audience in the face with a sledge tends not to go over very well even at the best of times.

"Single minor character"? I don't know if you can read or maybe you're blind but I mentioned some other characters before Mineta.

And also, people who can't accept that kinda protest is just people who feels insulted by it. I don't care about what they think, I don't care about how the manga represents males, even though I'm a male and you know what? Cause I don't have that kinda reasoning, and I too complain when I see Bakugo and Todoroki badass pose and suit and 1 second later Ashido's tits.

Single minor character? I would rather call it revolting subtext

"Me and a legendary witch" isn't proper English.

There's no such thing as proper English

This statement is an oxymoron. If it's true, it can't possibly mean anything concrete, because without proper English, there's no proper way to interpret it. But then if that were the case, I wouldn't be able to reason that to begin with because I never interpreted it in the first place.

I interpreted it, so it's wrong, and thus my statement stands. "Me and a legendary witch" isn't proper English.

I'm willing to bet you're just trying to be funny by pointing out that English has a lot of inconsistencies, and you're correct on that, but that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't use it in the established way.

There are a bunch of dialects that use "me and [ ]" interchangeably with "[ ] and I" and thus "me and [ ]" is correct. There is no "proper" English, only a bunch of different dialects and all of them are equally correct.
Anyway, this isn't the place to argue prescriptive vs descriptive grammar so I'll just drop it

Fuck prescriptive grammar

All my homies use descriptive grammar

So, when I last night said "from what little I read from the first paragraph" I really meant "just the first and maybe part of the second sentence" (in my defense, it was well past midnight, and I had woken up early in the morning that day for uni), and as a result, I kinda expected to find myself in a position to defend myself of possibly my wording making me look kinda unsavory in a way that might lump me in the same or at least similar category as the likes the "gamers tm" as I like to refer to them.

Luckily I was wrong, but I still gotta apologize for such assumptions.

So, in essence, my position of fanservice in general is like mixed at best, as it kinda makes me feel like a perv when I don't wanna feel like one. Even though I recognize that, just like you said the fanservice in this chapter does have a purpose here - to be subject to or even a vehicle of critique - it still kinda carries that previously mentioned bit.

As for people being able to wear whatever they want... I honestly feel the same in general - people can and should wear whatever they feel comfortable wearing in their everyday lives (home, work, outside, etc.). But when it comes to like armour and other combat-situation-stuff, it'd probably be more expected that soldiers and/or adventurers of the same "class" would generally have similar-ish armour with each-other. What I imagine to be a sabre (which I don't know much about fantasy world classes, so I'm kinda going off my own assumptions themselves based on some very limited knowledge gained from hanging out on Discord and watching a single r/DnDMemes video on YouTube) would probably be similar to like heavy or medium infantry, so you'd ideally have some kind of armour covering most of your body (largely metal armour, with some so-called soft armour for other areas for heavy, and a more balanced mix of chainmail and soft armour for medium), while light infantry can be more loose with how they'd dress themselves for combat.

As for the nuance thing, I don't really think I have anything to add.

Honestly, my concern with the armour and gear may be less about the looks of the person wearing those and more about the protection of that person.

In conlusion, I think the real misunderstanding on my part at least was that I expected an argument and instead it seems like we're saying similar-ish stuff.

Yeah I'm definitely not looking for an argument, sometimes I share clashing views, but I genuinely don't want to argue with people. I've argued with people in the past, but the longer I live the more I realize life is far too short and there's already enough drama with trying to get by as it is, so I'm glad that you sound levelheaded.

I agree with protection and that what you're saying makes sense, but sometimes people just want to say "fuck it' and go for the fashion, express their sexuality with their warrior prowess. There's historical real life examples of minimal armor, but in terms of video games there's those Dark Souls runs with no armor and fists only haha :P

As for feeling like a perv, well whatever you're comfortable with and with the media you're consuming. Consume what works for you and there's no judgement from me here. For me I don't feel like a perv because sexuality is just part of being a living creature, so I don't feel embarrassed or pervy consuming media with sexual elements/a sexual focus.

That said there is definitely media that have in my opinion really bad portrayals of sexuality, and those can feel bad to consume. There's certain lines and nuances to everything, and there's of course things I'm not comfortable with myself. So it's hard to really get across exactly how I feel here I guess. Same thing with most anything though, take violence for example, I love a lot of really violent action media, but there's also violent action media that just feel excessive and gross in how it's handled. Same goes with sexuality, I love to embrace sexuality, but there's definitely times where I'm not comfortable with how it's handled in media as I said. So I think it's a case by case thing with any media I consume. Plus everyone's opinions will differ on these types of things and that's perfectly okay. Anyhow, it's been a fun discussion and thank you.

last edited at Jul 1, 2021 2:16PM

I was going to praise the funny switch-off double act these characters have going because it's kind of unusual but, as is amusingly usual on Dynasty, there's a king-sized shitstorm derail for no reason. (Yes, it's ungrammatical. No, it's not worth having a debate about. Hasn't this thread suffered enough?)

Yeah I'm definitely not looking for an argument, sometimes I share clashing views, but I genuinely don't want to argue with people. I've argued with people in the past, but the longer I live the more I realize life is far too short and there's already enough drama with trying to get by as it is, so I'm glad that you sound levelheaded.

I agree with protection and that what you're saying makes sense, but sometimes people just want to say "fuck it' and go for the fashion, express their sexuality with their warrior prowess. There's historical real life examples of minimal armor, but in terms of video games there's those Dark Souls runs with no armor and fists only haha :P

As for feeling like a perv, well whatever you're comfortable with and with the media you're consuming. Consume what works for you and there's no judgement from me here. For me I don't feel like a perv because sexuality is just part of being a living creature, so I don't feel embarrassed or pervy consuming media with sexual elements/a sexual focus.

That said there is definitely media that have in my opinion really bad portrayals of sexuality, and those can feel bad to consume. There's certain lines and nuances to everything, and there's of course things I'm not comfortable with myself. So it's hard to really get across exactly how I feel here I guess. Same thing with most anything though, take violence for example, I love a lot of really violent action media, but there's also violent action media that just feel excessive and gross in how it's handled. Same goes with sexuality, I love to embrace sexuality, but there's definitely times where I'm not comfortable with how it's handled in media as I said. So I think it's a case by case thing with any media I consume. Plus everyone's opinions will differ on these types of things and that's perfectly okay. Anyhow, it's been a fun discussion and thank you.

Some of the best historical examples of minimal armour were Celts, as certain individuals would show their bravery by going to battle with little to no clothing whatsoever - just a sword or spear and a shield.

And as for what I said about feeling pervy when I don't want to, maybe I should have emphasised the "when" part.

For the last paragraph, I don't really have much to say except that those are some rather good points.

Some of the best historical examples of minimal armour were Celts, as certain individuals would show their bravery by going to battle with little to no clothing whatsoever - just a sword or spear and a shield.

Fun fact, Celts were the people who (probably) invented mail (somewhere around the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE). The Romans were introduced to it during the Gallic wars which lead to the invention of lorica hamata which was used up to the 4th century CE
But yeah, most Celts had light or no armour when going to battle. Mail was not that common among them, possibly because of cost, and not much other armour has been found either.

I was going to praise the funny switch-off double act these characters have going because it's kind of unusual but, as is amusingly usual on Dynasty, there's a king-sized shitstorm derail for no reason. (Yes, it's ungrammatical. No, it's not worth having a debate about. Hasn't this thread suffered enough?)

I never meant for it to be a debate, but I guess Dynasty just can't handle anyone calling attention to errors, even blatant ones in titles.

Some of the best historical examples of minimal armour were Celts, as certain individuals would show their bravery by going to battle with little to no clothing whatsoever - just a sword or spear and a shield.

And as for what I said about feeling pervy when I don't want to, maybe I should have emphasised the "when" part.

For the last paragraph, I don't really have much to say except that those are some rather good points.

Oh okay, apologies I misunderstood. The way I read and interpreted the "when" was different than what you actually intended, I thought you meant that fanservice usually makes you feel like a pervert and/when you don't want to feel like one. Sorry if I'm not explaining myself super well, basically I'm saying language and interpreting it is often pretty tricky haha

Also yeah the Celts are a very interesting part of history. From what I know nudity and war paint went hand in hand with them.

last edited at Jul 1, 2021 4:24PM

A bit on the nose... But seems engaging, looking forward to next chapters.

Heck yea chapter 2!

why do you write like it's 1821? are you practising for an academic paper? are you the captain of a high school debate club?

I don't, nope, and no. I have to choose:

If I write casually, then a shit-pie will exploit the ambiguities of casual discourse.

If I write carefully, but still with just the terms that people use when writing casually, then it gets long, and a shit-pie will attack it for the length.

And, if I write formally to keep it from getting long, then a shit-pie will attack it for the formality.

So I just use my ordinary way of writing and of speaking.

The thing is, sometimes you need to be on the nose so your point will get through to people. Being subtle is fine and all, but not only it can go over some people's head, but others will make a point to ignore the subtlety if the message carried goes against what they want/value.

Just take yuri. When writing such a story in a subtle way, a lot of people will ignore all the hints to assure you that "nope, they're obviously just friends". While an actual kiss will makes it harder to argue against (and yet, some might still find ways to rationalize it to fit their conceptions).

Yes, this is a caricature, overly exagerated, but the underlying point is valid. Women, especially in japan, are still often considered as just there to get married, have kids, then take care of them while the husband go earn money to provide for the whole family. Carrierist women in Japan are too often frowned upon. It's slightly better in western countries, but frankly, there are still ways to go. And the more women tries to fend for themselves, the more they tend to be pushed back.

In all time, satire has been a way to bring to light painful truth that a lot of people would rather see kept to the shadow. To me, it feels that this manga is kinda the same. You have to take it with a grain of salt, as it's exagerated, which is what caricature is, but that doesn't mean the underlying point is moot.

Yea, I don't think people grasp the damn satire of both Shonen Manga (seeing as the main target is definitely fairy tale lol) and Japan's horrifically sexist work culture

Yeah, I kinda thought that was the case, but still.

Just think of it more like this. The visual joke got the point across. Especially since half of them seem like they were taken verbatim off of stuff like Fairy Tale

"Single minor character"? I don't know if you can read or maybe you're blind but I mentioned some other characters before Mineta.

And also, people who can't accept that kinda protest is just people who feels insulted by it. I don't care about what they think, I don't care about how the manga represents males, even though I'm a male and you know what? Cause I don't have that kinda reasoning, and I too complain when I see Bakugo and Todoroki badass pose and suit and 1 second later Ashido's tits.

Single minor character? I would rather call it revolting subtext

Only Mineta is actually a sexual caricature you tit.
The female characters are no more sexualized than the males, you just don't notice it because you're not the audience.

How many shirtless scenes have the ripped, peak-human male characters had by now?
How often have male characters suffered clothing damage that exposes them in attractive ways?
How many male characters have started out weird-looking just to transform into bishounen-gorgeous pretty-boys?

I suppose you're not gonna complain about how Lemillion has had to fight butt-naked multiple times because "oh that's just because his quirk works like that" but of course Yaoyorozu having to wear a skimpy outfit because it helps her quirk is "disgustingly sexist and exploitative" or something along those lines.

MHA has plenty of non-sexualized female characters, as well as sexualized male characters and vice versa.
Get your head out of your ass. Comparing this manga's "Literally all male characters are horrible sexual caricatures while the women are sensible but victims controlled by the patriarchy(tm)" to MHA's well balanced and infinitely much more realistic fanservice moments is utterly laughable, and only serves to show off the feminism goggles you're wearing.

The thing is, sometimes you need to be on the nose so your point will get through to people. Being subtle is fine and all, but not only it can go over some people's head, but others will make a point to ignore the subtlety if the message carried goes against what they want/value.

Just take yuri. When writing such a story in a subtle way, a lot of people will ignore all the hints to assure you that "nope, they're obviously just friends". While an actual kiss will makes it harder to argue against (and yet, some might still find ways to rationalize it to fit their conceptions).

Yes, this is a caricature, overly exagerated, but the underlying point is valid. Women, especially in japan, are still often considered as just there to get married, have kids, then take care of them while the husband go earn money to provide for the whole family. Carrierist women in Japan are too often frowned upon. It's slightly better in western countries, but frankly, there are still ways to go. And the more women tries to fend for themselves, the more they tend to be pushed back.

In all time, satire has been a way to bring to light painful truth that a lot of people would rather see kept to the shadow. To me, it feels that this manga is kinda the same. You have to take it with a grain of salt, as it's exagerated, which is what caricature is, but that doesn't mean the underlying point is moot.

This is a very good post. Plenty of satire is about as subtle as a brick to the head because the point isn't to be subtle the point is to point at a shitty aspect of society and yell "This fucking sucks!" And yeah I'm sure that's annoying if the thing they're yelling about doesn't hurt you personally and you were perfectly happy ignoring it but it's also cathartic for a lot of the people that it does to have that problem recognized and denounced and maybe even get some escapist fiction where someone fights against it and wins that isn't cloaked in plausible deniability to make it more marketable.

last edited at Jul 3, 2021 7:31AM

In all time, satire has been a way to bring to light painful truth that a lot of people would rather see kept to the shadow. To me, it feels that this manga is kinda the same. You have to take it with a grain of salt, as it's exagerated, which is what caricature is, but that doesn't mean the underlying point is moot.

This is a very good post. Plenty of satire is about as subtle as a brick to the head because the point isn't to be subtle the point is to point at a shitty aspect of society and yell "This fucking sucks!"

Horace and Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux couldn't agree more.

Horace's 2nd satire talks about the pretty boys in Roman society who amuse themselves by seducing married women, just for sport. He gives some examples of misadventures that happened in the past to certain well-known personalities who tried this fun game. One of them, after being discovered by the lady's husband, had to jump through the window and run naked through the dark alleys of the slums to lose his pursuers. Then he ran into a group of Numidian slaves (large black men) who took a liking to this cute, slim, naked Roman boy and gang-banged his ass. Yeah, satire isn't meant to be subtle, that's the ticket.

Me waiting for the butthurt ppl that claim it’s a bad story bc it’s “misandry” just like in the original novel forums lol

Rather a sexist society like in RL.
Strange how ppl act like it's over the top while RL has been so sexist in the past and still is, just not at that level anymore (well in some countries still)

People complaining about every men being depicted cartoonishly evil should go and read the LNs again. There is also a reason why its a fantasy setting and the reason for so much of sexism in it is revealed in the novel. And also try living in some of the countries around where I live and then tell if these cartoonishly evil men don't exist. I am not 100% sure but sexism in Japan is very prevalent and an author trying to up it to get a point across is nothing bad.

Ps. Read the novel again up till second volume

Also I hope they don't come complaining about it again and again in every other chapter. If you don't like the subject and the way it is being potrayed in this story complaining one is enough. Thank you.

^

It's pretty funny that every season there are garbage isekai stuff glorifying and justifying sexual slavery of women "because it's hot" getting by just fine, but a story specifically made to point out such sexism is bad 'cause "muh misandry!!11!" lol.

At least this one has something to talk about even if a bit shallow in gender politics. Most other isekai can't even get past the tutorial of writing nuanced, thoughtful social commentary.

I like trains

I like trains

Deeply underappreciated form of transportation especially in the US. Not much slower than airplanes but a much more comfortable ride. What thus country did to rail expansion the minute they ran out of Chinese immigrants to exploit is frankly unconscionable