it's all in the subtext (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sub_textual) wrote,@ 2009-04-26 23:13:00 |
|
| Entry tags: | analysis, feminism, gender, gender!fail, meta, naruto |
Gender, Feminism, and Naruto: A Closer Look
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the Naruto metacritical blogosphere as of late regarding gender and representation of women.
It all started when autoschismatic put up this discussion in which she decries Kishimoto's marginalization of women. Her main argument is that "The fact that women are put in medic roles- and medics are not valued- is problematic. You know what else is problematic? The idea that men have one kind of strength and women have another," and calls for fans to be aware of this issue and treat it as such. The conversation began in order to raise awareness of oppressive gender themes in Naruto, and to also consider whether or not certain characters are or are not anti-feminist.
And naturally, like all conversations about gender, sexuality, and feminism, she was promptly told that her issues with the canon is not relevant by hitokiridirk, because "It's a shounen manga. Shounen manga are pretty much rife with female-oriented stereotypes, because they're often written by men, for boys," a very problematic line of thought that nekokatsu, carnifex_atrox, and geekgirl62 immediately agree with. carnifex_atrox even argues that "It's not a political thing, or a feminist issue, it's just that shonen manga is marketed for boys, and boys don't really want heroines in their manga, they want the lads kickin' ass," while geekgirl62 tacks on, "I don't want my Kohoha men to be wimpified into a bunch of girlymen in order to make the women look tougher."
Now, hold on a second here. Just because shounen manga is "rife with female-oriented stereotypes," does that mean that such stereotypes are completely acceptable and we therefore should sit our asses down and buy into them? Should we justify the existence of oppressive themes or treatments of characters in texts as nothing that should be seriously considered just because they are stereotypes, and are "written by men for boys"? Or should we consider that these stereotypes exist and question why it is that they do? More problematically, why is it that boys "don't really want heroines in their manga"? Is it because they are boys, or is it because Japanese society is inherently patriarchal and androcentric? Are these things not subjects we should approach just because the writer happens to be male and the target audience is as well?
Since when was any form of literature exclusive to one gender? To say that one form of literature, even if it is written with a target audience and readership in mind, is exclusive only to that audience is absolutely ridiculous; literature is consumed by multiple audiences and multiple cultures, and each audience will have a different understanding and perspective of it. To say that we should not consider it because it is written by a man for an audience of boys is no different than saying that because writers such as Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain were white and writing for a privileged white and predominately male audience, that we, as readers, should not consider the racism in Gulliver's Travels and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It is no different than saying that because Thomas Hardy was white and male, his stereotypical construction of Tess in Tess of the d'Urbervilles as the epitome of the Victorian Woman whose only worth is her sexual purity is not problematic and something that female critics should consider because they are not the audience he is writing for because they are female.
That anyone -- especially a male commenter -- would argue that female stereotyping in Naruto is not something we should consider just because the writer is male and writing for an audience of boys is a feminist issue. The problematic social acceptance of female stereotypecasting is a feminist issue. And am I the only person who finds it incredibly problematic that a woman even buys into these ridiculous stereotypes and equates being female with being weak, and therefore "wimpy," assuming that the only way women can "look tougher" is by emasculating men and making them less "masculine" and more "feminine"?
How the fuck are these not feminist issues? These are all feminist issues, and anyone who says otherwise clearly knows nothing about feminism or its issues.
Let's talk about feminism a little. Feminism is not about burning bras. We are not trying to obliterate men. We are not all butch and wear Birkenstocks and think lipstick was created by the devil. We do not all think men are the worse gender and women are the elevated sex. Feminism is highly misunderstood by just about everyone who doesn't identify as feminist, and women frequently think it is wrong to associate with feminism because of the negative rap it has.
Jessica Valenti writes in Full Frontal Feminism:
For some reason, feminism is seen as super anti: anti-men, anti-sex, anti-sexism, anti-everything. And while some of those antis aren't bad things, it's not exactly exciting to get involved in something that's seen as so consistently negative... You can be a feminist without making it your life's works... It doesn't matter what you're doing, so long as you're doing something. Even if it's as simple as speaking up when someone tells a nasty-ass sexist joke. (2, 17; emphasis mine)Feminists who happen to enjoy Naruto may ask themselves if their enjoyment of this canon is somehow anti-feminist because of the problematic portrayals of gender in it. Some might want to question those depictions -- there is no reason why anyone should be told that their concern with the text is not legitimate and to shut the fuck up and sit down, you stupid woman, this isn't about you, but about MEN MEN MEN, don't you get it?! (Yeah, clearly we don't get it, so no, we are not going to sit down and shut up, thank you very much. That you would even tell us to do so is precisely why we do not. And this also is a feminist issue.)
Now that I have your attention and have thoroughly bashed in the fact that these are, indeed, feminist issues worth consideration, and that anyone who thinks otherwise clearly is not considering the implications of their arguments, let's get on with the actual analysis.
Gender, Sexuality, and the Body: How Gender is Constructed
Before we can begin a careful reading of gender and its performance in Naruto, it is important to understand what gender is and how it is constructed. If you are not interested in truly understanding how gender functions, I highly suggest you stop reading now, as the next passage is strictly going to be dealing with gender theory and discuss what is gender, and how it is performed and constructed.
Many like to argue that gender is something you are born with: you are either male or female at birth, and what determines your gender are the genitals you come into the world with and the chromosomes in your blood. There are only two types of gender, and you can only be one or the other; men have one set of very specific characteristics that they must be, while women have another. There is absolutely no contestation about it, or so people think.
It is precisely because people buy into this myth that it is such a problematic site of conflict.
The dominant discourse in society generally goes like this: women are weaker than men, more emotional, irrational, incapable of logic, do not have self-control, cry easily, are obsessed with love and romance, are vain, belong in the house and/or the kitchen, are genetically predisposed to being nurturing and caring, are incredibly empathetic, and are, in every way, shape, and form, second to men. Women must act a certain way (i.e. a more "feminine" way), must look and dress a certain way, must be a certain way, and if they do not act in the ways women are supposed to act, they are somehow not feminine, less womanly, and more masculine. Women in positions of power tend to be described as "men in women's bodies" or, like Hilary Clinton, are "nutcrackers," and are constantly criticized for their lack of "womanly" characteristics; but should a woman in a position of power ever show emotion, she is immediately criticized for the presence of "womanly" characteristics.
There is this incredible amount of attention society spends on judging a woman's worth based on the way she looks, the way she dresses, how she carries herself, and just about everything that has to do with her sexuality and its rendering; more problematically, women are constantly reduced to the sum of their body parts, breasts, in particular. The larger a woman's breasts, the more feminine she is! The smaller her breasts, the less of a woman she is.
Okay, what the fuck, really. The difference between an A cup and a D cup does not make you less of a woman, but that's not the point of this argument. The reason why I bring up the body in such a way is because I would like to draw to attention the discursive performance of the body.
Michel Foucault, in 1978, wrote one of the most seminal texts in postmodern critical theory, The History of Sexuality, in which he explores how discourse has the ability to codify certain power relations, ideas of reality, and most problematically: "truth" and "authenticity." Foucault's approach was namely one that focuses on how discourse produces an "authentic sexuality" as one that must be heterosexual and strictly for the purpose of conjugal reproduction; sexuality that occurs outside of this model is considered "deviant" and abnormal. In laymen's terms, Foucault illustrates how discourse can create a socially accepted norm or a social truth. He also proves in his demonstration how this "authentic sexuality" and the discourse surrounding it began with the desperation to oppress sexuality and how it is allowed to be spoken about and performed. Ultimately, the transformation of sex into discourse created an etiological obsession to "fix" anything that didn't fall within the realm of "authentic sexuality" (meaning, any kind of sexual practice that was not heterosexual and for the purpose of reproduction, including masturbation) was considered a sickness that medical science attempted to fix, resulting in a whole lot of very fucked up "medical practices" and even more problematic psychoanalytic bullshit Freud is known so well for.
Foucault's demonstration that discourse can construct some kind of authorized sexuality brings me to Judith Butler's discussion of gender, and how discourse can somehow create an authorized notion of gender.
In 1990, Butler released Gender Trouble. Drawing from influences such as Simone de Beauvoir, who argues, "One is not born a woman; one becomes a woman" in The Second Sex, a text written about fifty years before Butler's exploration of gender, Butler proves that gender is actually not something you are born with, but a social performance. Because society believes that there must be two distinct genders, you must be either male or female, and these ideas of what an "authorized male" and "authorized female" identity are, are so deeply inscribed into society that at birth we are forced to take on the role that our body assigns us. From the moment we are born, we are indoctrinated in this social religion that is gender. Boys are dressed in blue and given toy trucks; girls are dressed in pinks and play with Barbie dolls. Boys must not cry. Girls should bake cakes. So on and so forth.
But as we all well know, gender is not concrete and there is an incredible amount of fluidity between genders. There are men who are weaker than women, more emotional, irrational, incapable of logic, and generally act more like women than women but identify as male; there are women who are born and are told they are men but grow up and realize they never were male to begin with and were always female.
Transgenderism is to Butler's issue with "authentic gender" what homosexuality and any other kind of sexuality is to Foucault's problem with "authorized sexuality." Many criticize transgenderism as something that is abnormal and deviant because transgendered individuals reject the gender they were assigned at birth and perform another gender. There is an incredible amount of resentment, anger, and disgust at transgendered individuals because they seem to be "confused" about their "biological sex." What they don't seem to realize is that gender is a performance, it is more about the way we act and how we act than it is about anything else. Moreover, it is also about how one views us based on how our bodies look. That someone can decide something is more "masculine" or "feminine" depending on someone's mode of dress or the shape of their bodies means that the body itself performs in a discursive way; people read bodies the way they read books -- they derive from bodies certain notions, ideas, and or misconceptions about an individual.
For example: A woman who is incredibly feminine and dresses in a sexy way can immediately and often is categorized as airheaded, vain, and a slut. (I should make a point right now that I happen to be incredibly feminine and dress in a sexy way quite often, but I am not airheaded, vain, or a slut.) A woman who refuses to dress in a feminine way is somehow less of a woman and probably has many "masculine tendencies." A woman like Susan Boyle walks out on stage and immediately the entire audience assumes that because she is not young, beautiful, and sexy, she can't possibly have any talent.
The body speaks. The body performs. The female body, in particular, is the most sexualized image in media in the world. In America, our media is hypersexualized and creates these incredibly sexual images of women that are so unrealistic insomuch that they are so ridiculously beautiful and sexual and thin; as a result, these images are very damaging to women because they create some kind of not-truth that women should look a certain way, dress a certain way, and that their bodies should be a certain shape. And anything that does that fit that model is considered ugly and fat and less womanly.
These images are ones that very young girls and boys see, and these are the types of "truths" about "women" that they understand as they grow up; these images are incredibly damaging and problematic, and there is no place in the world that objectifies and sexualizes women more in media and entertainment than Japan.
Women and Japan: A Cultural Construction
Japan is one of the most patriarchal, anti-feminist, misogynistic societies in developed, industrialized nations.
In Japan, women do not have more of a role than to act as the housewife, the mother, the school teacher, or the office lady who serves tea and other beverages to men, or the pretty young girl who gets all dolled up and laughs at every single joke a man ever makes, and then makes sure to always keep his glass filled during a party. Women are generally considered to be incapable of doing anything without the help of a man unless it's something that's related to cooking, and generally they are treated as second-class citizens.
Men are hired with the understanding of opportunities for management-track promotion; the majority of women are hired to serve tea, file documents, serve tea, make copies for the men, serve tea, answer the phones, serve tea, and wash up the dishes from serving tea. This is Japanese culture at its finest; sexual oppression in the workforce is rampant.
When I was doing business with Japan, just about every single man I met were shocked to discover that I was the Chief Operations Officer of a company with offices in Los Angeles, New York, and Singapore. I worked in entertainment in Japan, and it was pretty common to go to parties and socialize; I used these parties as places where I would be able to do some networking. Imagine my surprise, as a feminist, when I walked into a party and discovered the amount of women there who were pretty much allowing themselves to be treated as sexual playtoys for the men, simply because they are women and that is their role. Imagine more, a Japanese man's surprise, when he attempted to treat me the way all the other Japanese women allow themselves to be treated, only for me to tell him no, not interested. Imagine, also, when I was at a particular club in Shibuya, and a Japanese man refused to stop trying to touch me despite being told rather firmly to not do that, because he believed he had the right and the privilege and was entitled to my body because I am female and he is male, and as a Japanese male, he should be allowed to do with me what he wants. (Imagine his shock when I got all up in his face and raised a fist and screamed that if he touched me one more time, I would fuck him up, motherfucker.)
Imagine, also, the surprise of when a group of men started talking about how women were naturally unintelligent, and I raised my voice and told them to kindly shut the fuck up, seeing as I, too, was a business owner, and my business was just as successful as theirs, while the Japanese girl next to me giggled and agreed at just how dumb all women are, and oh my god, how can we possibly have any kind of intelligence? She also mentioned that her number one most important endeavor was to find a boyfriend who can "take care of her" because that's what you're supposed to do as a Japanese woman: find a nice man to take care of you, because, obviously women can't take care of themselves.
Surprisingly, there is a sickening amount of young Japanese women who believe that very fact, and much of their incredibly problematic belief system is indoctrinated via the images in the media that they see of how Japanese women are supposed to act, behave, and what their bodies are supposed to look like as well. These images are everywhere -- in advertisments, on television, in movies, in manga, in anime, everywhere.
And because Japan is culturally all about collectivism and harmony, it's not surprising that there is very little feminist activism that occurs in Japan. I could go into a discussion of great lengths about this very fact, about why it is that feminist activism is nearly nonexistent in Asia, and how that relates to social and cultural issues, but this is ultimately a discussion about gender and Naruto, and I am only bringing up Japan's construction of women here because not only is it relevant to my discussion of how Kishimoto constructs his women in Naruto, but it is also relevant to
hitokiridirk's sexist comments.The reason why sexism and Kishimoto's treatment of gender in Naruto is a legitimate feminist concern is because these images create and construct authorized notions of gender and are part of the body of discourses that indoctrinate their audiences. To talk about these issues is not pretentious or ethnocentric, but a serious consideration of feminist issues in a work of literature.
Gender, Sexism, and Oppression in Naruto
Kishimoto's construction of gender is incredibly sexist and stereotypical, and one of the biggest things about Naruto that I take issue with. As a feminist, in the beginning, it was very hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my interest in the canon, especially pre-timeskip.
"Girls are only interested in love at that age," Kakashi remarks with a sigh when he first meets Sakura and all she cares about is Sasuke, defines herself by her love for Sasuke, and essentially has no identity outside of her obsession with Sasuke. Her entire characterization is based on her romantic interest in Sasuke and she virtually has no identity whatsoever to call her own except for the closeted "Inner Sakura" whom we only ever see once in a blue moon. Ino's characterization is also just as problematic; she is Sakura's rival and is also just as obsessed with Sasuke as Sakura. Even more troubling is how Sakura seems to cry at just about everything and doesn't seem to be able to fight at all, instead, relying on her male teammates to take care of the big bad guys while she freaks out and really has no worth.
The fact that this is how Kishimoto chooses to introduce his main female character is certainly worth consideration: we are given the most stereotypical female possible. She's utterly useless in every way, slows the team down, does nothing but cry, and pretty much is the very definition of "female archetype." Her identity is also contingent on Sasuke's existence; without Sasuke for her to be obsessed with, Sakura would not have even existed. Sasuke is the means by which she is constituted, and by which she is defined. Meaning, the male character is what valorizes and constitutes the female. The male is glorified, and the female does all the glorification; in fact, it is her role, it is the reason why she exists. She exists to tell the male how incredible he is, and to be obsessed with him. This kind of discourse is exactly the kind of problematic fuckery that informs how men treat women in Japan, and why women believe they have a certain role in society and do not even attempt to contest that role -- because it is not just a role, it is the "truth" about women, and because it is the socially accepted "truth" it can't possibly be ever contested. Men are better than women, is the message. Worship us. (Yeah, no thanks.)
In Naruto, the female is weak and stupid, the male is a genius. In fact, there are no female geniuses in Naruto. Kakashi, Itachi, Neji, and Sasuke are all geniuses, but female geniuses do not exist! There is not a single female kunoichi that is idolized the way men are! (Except for Tsunade, but do you see any male ninjas idolizing her?) Yes, this is because it's a shounen manga, but the lack of there being a balanced distribution between the genders creates a power hierarchy wherein the male is the dominant gender that outshines and outdoes the female gender in every way, shape and form except in the area of nurturing and medical ninjutsu.
autoschismatic argues, "The fact that women are put in medic roles- and medics are not valued- is problematic. You know what else is problematic? The idea that men have one kind of strength and women have another." That women are associated with the caregiver/nurturing role and the men are the ones kicking ass is something we should definitely consider. Why is it that the one ass kicking male who is also a medic ninja is cast as a villain? Kabuto is male, he is also a badass medic ninja who gives Tsunade a hell of a time -- but he's evil. It'd be too easy to argue that because he is a male who takes on the "girly" role of caregiving and nurturing that is meant for women only, Kabuto is thereby punished and turned into a villain. He must be ostracized for complicating the gender binary we see in Naruto where the males demonstrate brute strength and crazy skills, and the girls are all medical ninjas or the caregiver type, with the exception of Ten Ten.Now, if we consider the fact that Ten Ten is the least "feminine" of all the female ninja in Naruto, it might make sense as to why she is not a medic ninja or a caregiver type like all the other girls. Kishimoto draws her in a way that is not particularly "girly" in comparison with Ino, Sakura, or Hinata (who is not a medic ninja, but a caregiver; remember how she gives Naruto and Kiba balm during the Chuunin Exam to heal faster?), and somehow this lack of femininity makes it so she has no caregiving skills, and therefore, cannot be a medic ninja or a caregiver. Which means that Kishimoto is implying that her body and the shape of it is what makes it impossible for her to be a medic or caregiver because she is not enough of a woman to fill that role. Which means that there is some sort of preconceived idea of what a woman is, and what you must look like to be a "real woman."
Many people have argued that Tsunade is badass because she's a "real woman," has more strength than anyone on earth, and she is a hardcore medic kunoichi. In case people forgot, Tsunade also requires liberation from her fear of blood and a PTSD trigger that immediately reduces her to tears and incapacitates her ability to fight, and her source of liberation is a little boy. In fact, we are reminded just how emotionally weak she is because she loses her lover and her brother, and as a result leaves Konoha and goes into a life of gambling which she sucks at in every way, shape, and form. Her emotional weakness is punished by her affairs with gambling and drinking, and while she is one of the three Sannin, she is also reduced to less than Naruto because she is a woman and is so emotional that she can't even fight. That she has to rely on a male (a child, no less) to save her from her fear is yet another illustration of how women are, in some way, weaker than men. Even though Tsunade can punch a hole through an entire forest, she is emotionally weaker than Naruto because she is a woman.
Seriously, now.
Okay, so Kishimoto made her the Hokage, who is the strongest ninja in the village. But when Pein attacks the village, is Tsunade out there kicking ass the way Yondaime and Sandaime did when Kyuubi and Orochimaru attacked the village? No, she's sending her slugs out to go protect the villagers while everyone and their mom WAITS FOR NARUTO TO COME AND SAVE THE DAY. Um... hello? What happened to Tsunade being the strongest ninja in the village? Why isn't she doing anything? What exactly is her fucking role anyway? This is what I would like to know, really. Aside from her bitching about having to sign a bunch of paperwork, we never once see how she really is the strongest ninja, nor does she act like a Hokage should act, the way the previous Hokages have acted. Why? Oh, let me guess. She's a woman and her tits get in the way. Speaking of tits, it's even more problematic that Tsunade has this obsession with her image to the degree that she casts a genjutsu to always look like she's in her 20s when she's actually in her 50s. That kind of an image draws to light the kind of image-obsession Japanese women always must have: they must always look young and beautiful, but who are they making themselves look beautiful for?
The treatment of the female body in Naruto is something that I have always had trouble with. The Hokage's breasts are nearly falling out of her shirt. Sakura's shorts are incredibly short. Hinata's bosom is very ample and we had a wonderful close-up shot of it in Chapter 442. Anko seems to only wear fishnet underneath a jacket and nothing else. Kurenai is just fancy, all around. Shizune seems to be the only self-respecting kunoichi who wears a Konoha uniform. All the other women either wear short shorts or have big breasts for us to focus on. Who exactly are they dressing up for? They're ninja. Is it really functional for ninja to be wearing dresses and shirts where breasts fall out and shorts where their asses hang out? The answer, of course, is no. But these characters are being drawn for a male audience, and therefore, it is perfectly fine to objectify and sexualize them because it satisfies the male reader. Or so Kishimoto would like us to believe.
Japanese women and characters in Japanese anime self-objectify because it is what is considered socially acceptable; but just because something is socially acceptable does not mean, we, as an audience, should simply say "because it is socially accepted in Japan, then we shouldn't contest it when we are considering it in America." In Saudi Arabia, fathers marry off 8-year-old girls to adult suitors; is this something we shouldn't contest just because we have no right to impose on Saudi Arabia our American privilege and sense of morality? Do we have no right to consider it? It is socially accepted there, so why are we being racist? Well, let's see, maybe it's because it deals with the oppression of women and the fact that we are talking about women as a whole. And anywhere where there is oppression of women whether it be something as clearly obvious as forcing an 8-year-old into a marriage with a grown man, where she will be repeatedly raped and abused, or oppression by means of sexual objectification, oppression is still oppression regardless of what form it comes in.
Some oppressions are definitely worse than others -- that goes without saying; but it is not illegitimate for us to consider how oppressive characterization is what informs the construction of female characters in Naruto, and the implications such characterizations carry. While
autoschismatic argue that women are marginalized in Naruto, I do not believe so much that the issue is their marginalization, but their oppression, objectification, and sexualization.While some seem to believe that Konan's lack of emotion and Nagato's overabundance of emotion is a subversion of the gender hierarchy, they are forgetting who really is the one in power -- Nagato is the one calling the shots, while Konan follows his orders; Konan's role is to nurture and protect him, but ultimately she is his "angel," while he is her god. The relationship we have is one where a female angel worships a male god; she belongs to him and is essentially his possession and tool by which he will achieve his goals of conquering the earth. The gender hierarchy is not subverted, nor is it collapsed. The power is still in male hands and the woman still answers to it, is enslaved by it, and belongs to him.
There is no empowerment of women in Naruto, but a constant oppression of them. And unfortunately, we most likely will never see a liberation of women or a change of how Kishimoto portrays them because the cultural discourse that shapes a Japanese understanding of gendered bodies and gender identity is so pervasive that Kishimoto is not going to wake up one day and suddenly realize how his portrayal of women is oppressive and anti-feminist.
But while we understand it is oppressive and anti-feminist, as feminists I do not believe we should feel guilty for our enjoyment of Naruto despite that fact. Just like we should not feel guilty when we read the likes of Thomas Hardy, Mark Twain, or Jonathan Swift -- or any other author who might have sexism, classism, and racism in their texts. When confronting any work of literature, what matters most isn't what the author intends, but what the reader understands; and if we, as readers, vocalize, critique, and raise awareness of the issues we have in a text, then we, as feminists, are doing our due dilligence as feminists in starting the dialogues and conversations that will help to create a more complicated and sensitive understanding of Naruto and awareness of the sexism in it.
Comment Policy: If I see any misogynistic trolling, I will delete the comments and will ban users from my journal without warning. This is your one and only notice. Also: stay on topic, guys.
Note: I am currently working on an essay in response to comments regarding my comments on Sakura, Tsunade, and Konan. I will also be offering a better explanation about what I mean when I say "authorial intent does not matter." This will most likely be posted tomorrow, at the earliest. (4/29, 11PM EST)
