Naruto/shounen pondering

[meganbmoore]

So,octopedingenueis kicking offreread_no_jutsu, a community whose description reads "It's like Fight Club, only more Book Group. Because the only thing better than reading ten years' and 400+ chapters' worth of babyninja punching each other is figuring out why we'd do it all over again."

I'm not participating because until I whittle down the backlog and catch up with various series, I'm not allowed to reread Basara Blade of the Immortal Fullmetal Alchemist Claymore Cantarella xxxHolic/Tsubasa Skip-Beat manga I really really like, much less a series that I dropped a good while back. I'll be following the discussions, though. That does create the threat of my being swallowed up in a deep dark hole of moral shame and guilt that I read about 15 volumes further in scanslations than what I bought of the licensed volumes, but I shall attempt to be strong.

As a frame of reference for how far I got/how long it's been, when I stopped it was somewhere around or just past Vol 30 in Japan, and Viz was about a month into "Let's spam the US market by releasing for volumes a month AND ALL FOUR VOLUMES THE SAME DAY!" (I have no idea if they're still doing that, or doing it again.) The last thing I remember happening was (assume this could be as far into the series as about Vol 35...and I could be thinking I read further than I did) Sakura, Naruto, Sai and their teacher had run into Sasuke. About a dozen or so chapters after that. Sai, IIRC, had played some sort of fanservice to slash fans.

 

Now, here's the thing. All shounen has some serious problems going on regarding gender. Even Claymore and Fullmetal Alchemist, the two series that seem to have largely ruined me for any shounen that I wasn't already attached to, have problems. But I am, in general, more lenient with shounen than I am shoujo. The target audience for most shounen is 13-15 year old boys. Their main interest in plopping down their allowance every week for Shounen Jump is reading about a couple guys going "And now...I will show you my TRUE power/SECRET move/etc!!" "Writing for the target audience" doesn't absolve a series of any problems it has, but it is an important consideration, and it's why I can get past things that would normally (and sometimes still do) irritate me in Samurai Deeper Kyo, Kekkaishi, Black Cat, Bleach (sometimes) and various other shounen I read/have read but aren't jumping to the front of my head at the moment. And though the line between them can be difficult to see, there is a difference between focusing on your main character and sidelining a character, and when you pick up a shounen action series, you're most likely getting a series where most of the attention will be on variations of certain, primarily male, character sets. It's pretty much an inherent part of the genre, and one that, if it doesn't work for you, largely guarantees that the series will just irritate you.


 

 

Naruto, though, always bugged me more than other series when it came to female characters, and I think it's because of this: Is there something in the DNA of every ninja tribe in that world that results EXACTLY one girl for every two boys born every year, stretching back at least 50-60 years? Is there some sort of law in every tribe that says each and every team (though there might have been teams introduced later, or that weren't around long enough for me to remember them that upset the formula) must have exactly 2 boys and 1 girl? Why are there no teams with 2 girls and 1 boy? All boy teams? All girl teams?

In theory, the numbers themselves should put Naruto a step ahead of other shounen simply because having 1/3 of your cast be female in the typical "cast of thousands" makes you female character outnumber those in other series about 5:1, proportionately. And yet, it's so exact, so deliberate, that "one girl for every two boys" can't be anything but a conscious decision. And when it's so conscious, it makes the treatment of gender stand out all the more. And then there's the fact that, in this world, almost every character the same age has near identical levels of training and experience. There's no variety. In personality and individual specialty, yes. But as presented, every character of the same age (with the exception of characters like Sasuke and Gaara) should be on equal footing, with some allowances made for personal strengths and weaknesses. In another shounen, you'll have a character with little or no training or powers, one who is new but who has enormous training, and two who are experienced fighters. That the only girl of the four is the one with no powers or training is a problem, and not one that should be dismissed, but it is a textual reason for the girl to not be in the middle of the fight with that arc Big Boss. With Naruto, however, that isn't there. The girl in question has as much training and experience as the three boys. Yet she's still the one sitting it out or fighting a lesser opponent while the boys are fighting the arc's Big Boss. So while I get grumpy that Yuya/Okuni/Mahiro/Orihime/Tatsuki/Tokine/etc. isn't on a par with the boys in terms of getting to fight and win fights, and can at least follow along with the why of it as presented by the manga. But with Sakura/Hinata/Ino/etc., I'm left with the feeling that Kishimoto is standing there going "look, I gave you exactly one girl for every two boys...do you really expect me to actually give them something to do in addition to existing?" (Plus, other shounen tends to at least let them have goals and motivations and backgrounds and lives separate from the guys, and the only female character I can think of in Naruto that that applies to is Tsunade.) 
 
And so I have made my yearly or so post on Naruto. (You know, when I was reading the series, I knew about 3 people who read it. Now I see at least 1 post a day on it, usually more. And that was before the idea of the community started to be tossed around.)

Please use the spoiler code for any spoilers. I know at least one person on the f-list is currently reading Naruto for the first time, and others are are playing catchup forreread_no_jutsu . Spoiler code:

<span style="color: #333333;background-color: #333333">Spoilers here.</span>

P.S.: You almost got a huge rant because LJ ate this!  But then LJ gave it back, so it's ok.

P.P.S.:  I swear I used to have a Naruto tag, but it seems to be gone.  *makes new one*

 

Comments

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

Oh, whatever, I'll just reply late.

While it's certainly not canon, I've theorized for quite a while that the Narutoverse does and is, to a degree, meant to show institutionalized sexism. Partly because the two to one ratio is so exact, and partly because the female students are actually trained differently. While it's not explored deeply, the flashbacks with Ino and Sakura show pretty explicitly that kunoichi are held to a different standard than their male peers, and the fact that Ino is the top kunoichi in their class implies a great deal about what the female students are valued for, since she's not a fighter and excels mostly (we're told) in techniques that aren't useful in direct combat. In her fight with Sakura, her big gambit was manipulative and relied on misdirection.

I also think that, again, while there's not a lot to work from, what we've seen could be read as implying that the system as it stands serves to make succeeding as a female ninja with less traditionally feminine skills more difficult. Otherwise, why would Ino rank above Sakura, who clearly knew the information they studied in the academy better, and who's praised for her control of chakra being at such an advanced level?

In that case, the reason why all of the teams have one, and only one girl, is because they need someone to be the kunoichi; presuming institutionalized sexism, it explains why teams with more than one female member are so rare (since they'd be considered redundant if they specialized in traditionally "masculine" skills), and also why female characters are often pushed toward support positions.

I, uh, plan on talking about that a little more when we get to Ino and Sakura's fight and flashback in the reread.

In any event, I don't know that it actually makes things better. It does, to a degree, for me. But that's a very personal reaction sort of thing, and YMMV. What's more, there's a lot of inferring going on here from relatively little canon. The biggest weakness in Naruto when it comes to gender is certainly the amount of representation the female characters get; while they are there, they tend to get less page time that the rest of the characters on their teams, and the manga itself remains firmly about boys, which means that one way or the other, there's very, very little information to draw on when it comes to them.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Based on my memories and what I hear from people who still read the series, if there is a deliberate commentary on institutionalized sexism going on, it supports it, at least in that situation. Even if it's "it sucks, but that's the way it is," then the reason it's that way is because Kishimoto made it tha way. His story isn't set in a world where he has to follow established rulles, but in a world where the only rules are the ones he created.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

I would disagree with the idea that if it exists, Kishimoto is supporting it. I don't necessarily like the idea that it's included as a characterizing detail; however, if the commentary is deliberate, then the institutionalized sexism is part of an explicitly flawed system.

That aside, and ignoring authorial intent, it does open the door to some actually very feminist readings, I think. Whether or not he could have left the sexism out (and yes, since the author is god, he could have) or it's meant to be endorsed or accepted, it's still a pretty good (read: realistic, if simplified, not positive) representation of institutionalized sexism, how that marginalizes and discourages girls, how that funnels them into acceptable areas, how it makes their inclusion formulaic and gendered, etc.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of something John Abercrombie said in response to sexism in his fantasy novels: that of course his world was sexist, because it was based on a sexist template (Tolkien) that was based on a sexist time period. What he didn't consider, however, was that it was his choice to include the sexism in his work, and so the sexism of the world was of his own making, especially since he didn't do anything in the work to portray it as a problem, he just treated it as being natural.

And to his credit, he seemed to listen to his critics and learn from it.

I know it isn't popular in fandom, but I'm not a fan of disregarding authorial intent, and that's the mindset it's created in. For the most recent example (for e) it's like spending years thinking Indiana Jones and Marion Ravenwood were relative equals in the first Indiana Jones movie, and then learning that we were supposed to think she was 15 at best in their first relationship, and that she was supposed to be promiscuous because she hit on a man she idolized.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

For me, the important question (I haven't read his fantasy, so I can't say) is whether or not Abercrombie actually wrote sexism as a natural order. Tolkien's novels, for instance, are written from the POV of someone who thought that violence is unnatural to women, and therefore ping me badly sometimes. (As does the fact that evil people seem to have darker skin or slanted eyes, hmmm.) On the other hand, I don't have a problem with authors who write sexist worlds as long as it's written as a social construct. In Naruto specifically, I've never seen anything that made me think that Kishimoto believes the kunoichi role is natural to women. Quite the contrary, what we do see of it implies that they have to be trained for it, and at least some of them don't find it a comfortable fit for them. As a result, while I wouldn't call his writing anti-sexist, I also don't think it endorses institutionalized sexism. I do think Kishimoto has problems with gender, yes; I just don't think that's it.

What's more, I'm not really a fan of the habit of erasing sexism in fantasy worlds. To a very real degree, it makes me feel like the author is diminishing the actual challenges sexism presented to women (and gender nonconforming men) in the past. It's like saying, well, if you girls had just been badass enough, if you'd just thought like we modern women, you never would have been oppressed in the first place. TO BE CLEAR: I'm not saying that all fantasy or fiction should include realistic sexism, but I think a lot of artists erase sexism without erasing the tropes related to it, and so you either get the impression I mentioned before, or (as in Bleach) the impression that sexist gender stereotypes actually result from essential differences.

Obviously, we just have different approaches to examining texts.

I'm kind of surprised that you'd say that abandoning authorial intent is popular in fandom, though. In my experience, it's popular in college level lit. classes. In fandom, I constantly seem to find authorial intent used to defend sexism or racism in fandom. The author didn't mean for it to be X, so it isn't! Etc. I actually find having it turned around like this pretty ironic.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I regularly see "the author is dead" and that authorial intent isn't important in fandom discussions.

Regarding working to be a kunoichi, it isn't working to be a kunoichi, but working to be a ninja. And, in 30~ volumes, a girl who worked hard wouldn't get anywhere near as far as a boy would, and her efforts wouldn't be praised nearly as much.

I'm...not sure what you're saying regarding fantasy worlds and sexism. It almost comes across as not including sexism insults feminism. If sexism is going to be included in a world created by the author (as opposed to an actual historical period) then it should be dealt with. "It's sexist because the original is sexist" and then not saying "and that's wrong" only encourages sexism. Michelle West's Sun Sword series, for example, seems to exist primarily to say what bull most epic fantasy's approach to women's roles is, and to show both "traditional" and "warrior" women as important. I'm the first one to lash out against the idea that women should be badass to be good, but at the same time, if a text has the opportunity to have women take on more active roles, even when based on a tradition that has them in passive roles, I expect it to actually do something with them, and treat the genders as equal. (Keeping in mind that, no, focusing on a male lead isn't being sexist, it's focusing on the lead, something a lot of people seem to miss.)

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't think I've ever come across that before in fandom. Different experiences, I guess.

And... I think we're just not communicating very well, because that's not what I'm saying about fantasy worlds and sexism at all. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think that not writing sexists worlds is necessarily feminist, because many authors do it wrong. If you just get rid of most of the things you perceive as sexism, but otherwise make it exactly like sixteenth century England, then it can create the strange impression that sixteenth century women couldn't really be badass within the frame that they lived in. It certainly can be done right. I've read it done right, at times. But I don't like how many writers seem to think they can just wave their hands and say, "I have powerful women! I have warrior women! Pay no attention to the fact that I'm still using some very skeevy sexist tropes." Robert Jordan and David Eddings come to mind.

On the other hand, I don't think that writing a sexist culture without overtly attacking it isn't necessarily sexist itself. I think that if you write a sexist culture, but your female characters are realistically human, and realistically limited or hurt by that culture, it can be feminist. I don't think Naruto is feminist, personally. I don't think that Kishimoto ever set out to make a statement about gender imbalances. I do think it's pretty likely that he lives in a sexist world, and he internalized sexist norms, and he's rather faithfully recreating them within his own world. I think what's interesting is that his recreation is faithful enough that it included how that sexism undermines girls who experienced it, and self-aware enough that it's not presented as a natural order. Which is where the idea that a feminist reading is possible comes from.

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this clearly for you, but I'm not sure I can think of another way to break it down right now. I'm also already fairly aware that my feminist lens isn't always in line with other people's, so I don't expect you to agree. I'm just putting forth an alternate reading.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I don't think lack of active sexism makes something feminist. For that matter, I don't think treating women as equal makes something feminist, it just means you're doing something right.

That sixteenth century England and a world based on sixteenth century England aren't the same thing, is the main thing thing here, though, and not having women in the same roles-unless you're doing so specifically to say something about those roles-is going to say a lot more then leaving them in the same roles because that's the way things were.

As far as looking at the roles go, you can look at something as a feminist, and examine it from a feminist perspective, without there being something feminist about it to start with. Most things aren't feminist or anti-feminist, they're neutral. They can be read in a feminist way-deliberately or otherwise-but that won't necessarily have anything to do with the actual makeup. I think there's an overall habit (fando in general, not you specifically) to assume that if you're feminist and you like something, then there has to be a feminist reason for it, and there doesn't. I don't think there has to be any feminist reason to like or dislike Naruto or Bleach or any other shounen. You can be alienated from it because of its approach to gender, like me, and you can look at it as a chance to look at how it shapes and influences the women who live in the society, like you, even if the actual text doesn't. Neither is a right or wrong way to read it as a feminist, and neither has anything to do with any feminism in the text itself. It's similar to how a lot of slash fans defend slash as feminist. I couldn't care less about slash myself, and could apply a lot of the arguments for it to romance novels and be laughed out of the internet, but that doesn't mean a person who sees slash as feminist is a bad feminist, or "doing feminism wrong."

BTW, I barely remember Eddings from my early teens (it's dwarfed by my inability to break up with Terry Brooks until recent years, due to Elf Queen of Shannara being my first "real" fantasy novel) and never made it very far into Jordan, despite multiple attempts. I've always tended to bounce off-sometimes without realizing why-most things that seriously irritate me in this regard, though.

ETA: Regarding different fando experiences, I think it really is easy to forget that the internet is a big place, and it's easy for people to only encounter parts of fandom that are polar opposites. For example, a friend recently asked about older fandom experiences, specifically regarding the acceptance of slash. Several of us had the Magnificent 7 TV show from the late 90s as our first fandom. A couple people talked about how it wasn't very slash friendly, or big on shipping in general. I wanted to know where their M7 fandom was 10 years ago, because the fandom I hung around the edges of rabidly hated the female lead to the point where there were a couple places you couldn't mention her, and it wasn't considered unusual for people to tell you not to talk about her if you brought her up else where, and most of what shipping there was was slash. I think fandom is more centralized now than it was then, but we were still having completely different experiences in the same fandom. Really, it's part of why I've kept most of my fandom life confined to LJ the last several years, where it's easier to control what parts of fandom you encounter. (Not that I exercise my right to not put up with annoyances a lot-and trust me, I'm not referring to you at all-but it's much easier.)

I'm sorry. When I go over the word limit, I should really take the hint.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

I don't think lack of active sexism makes something feminist.

And this is why I'm sure I'm not making my point clearly. I never said that. I never meant to imply that.

I actually don't think most material is neutral. I think that most material we deal with is the product of our culture, which is still sexist in many respects. And, for the record, I think there are many reasons not to like Bleach, or not to like Naruto--and I think some of the reasons can be feminist. I don't think that Naruto is perfect by any means, and if someone can't read it for gender reasons, I can understand that. What I mostly meant to respond to (and then managed to get myself off on a tangent over, which is pretty normal for me), is that I think the most reasonable way to explain the fact that there seems to be systematic sexism in the canon is that there is, in fact, systematic sexism in the canon, which I think Kishimoto is somewhat self-aware of. Because the story doesn't focus on girls much (a problem), I don't think that self-awareness ever takes a level to become a statement. If Naruto were a girl it would be awesome mostly likely evolve into a statement because then Naruto wouldn't have his male privilege. Because the main character enjoys the male privilege of not facing that sexism, the reader/writer also enjoys the privilege of ever having to confront a direct confrontation with it.

And yeah, I think there are problems with that. But I don't see the problem as being that institutionalized sexism was (potentially) included in the world. Especially not when the whole shinobi system is explicitly not endorsed by the text.

And now, since I can't seem to address these things in order...

Re: I'm sorry. When I go over the word limit, I should really take the hint.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Because the main character enjoys the male privilege of not facing that sexism, the reader/writer also enjoys the privilege of ever having to confront a direct confrontation with it.

Which, really, is where my interest withers up and dies. Because Naruto does just have male privilege, it wallows in it more than anything else I've seen in recent years except maybe for Stargate: Atlantis. If you look back at the original post, I think Kishimoto is very much self-aware of the sexism-institutionalized and otherwise-and that self-awareness makes it more obvious. That he knows about the sexism and does nothing about it, and instead chooses to focus on the boys-and it is a choice to consistently do so, and since it's a world he created, it is sexism he created and included, and enforces-and constantly rubs our faces in the fact that the girls will never be as good only makes it worse, because he's not only choosing not to do anything about it, but the way he does it says it's ok and even natural.

Re: I'm sorry. When I go over the word limit, I should really take the hint.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

Then we'll just have to disagree on what the self-awareness does. I don't think it makes it worse. While I don't think it necessarily makes it right, I like that it doesn't ignore the fact that it exists. I always feel like the biggest part of male privilege is being able to deny it exists, and I don't feel like Naruto does that.

On the other hand, I don't feel that he rubs our faces in it, says it's okay, or says it's natural. So our readings clearly differ there.

Re: I'm sorry. When I go over the word limit, I should really take the hint.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

There's definitely ATD here, but I think the thing about self-awarenes is that, unless you're doing something about it, it only makes problems more obvious.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

That sixteenth century England and a world based on sixteenth century England aren't the same thing, is the main thing thing here, though, and not having women in the same roles-unless you're doing so specifically to say something about those roles-is going to say a lot more then leaving them in the same roles because that's the way things were.

I think just putting well developed female characters in those roles is, all on it's own, doing something with them. It's not necessary that authors write it that way--I like warrior women as well as the next person, and if you want to have a lady viking raider, well. I can see the appeal. However, if you create a world that's obviously modeled on a patriarchal culture, still has most of the trappings of a patriarchal culture, still relies on the tropes associated with a patriarchal culture, but you just made it so women somehow... for no apparent reason, get full participation in a world that still implicitly values "masculinity" over femininity.

If your symbols of power are still physical strength, size, aggressiveness, assertiveness, and all the marks that have long been associated with power in male dominated societies, but women are still smaller, less likely to be physically able to dominate others, and subject to the danger of unplanned parenthood, then an equal society doesn't make sense without a fair amount of explanation and work. A lot of authors don't explain how it works. I want a society that's egalitarian (or matriarchal) to look like a society that's egalitarian. Not like the same old patriarchal narrative with the scripts scrambled (and usually scrambled poorly, so that when the time comes that someone needs to be rescued to drive the plot, it's still a woman).

Without thinking of that, and addressing why women have gotten full inclusion into a world that is implicitly still embracing traditionally western male ideals, it can really read to me like past sexism wasn't hardwired into the system. It goes from being a real systematic, cultural problem, to... oh, well, it's only something that happens when people are mean and don't know better. >(

So by doing it wrong, it's both from a feminist perspective (by my feminist lens--obviously not everyone else's), and from world building perspective (again, for me).

On the other hand, I think I do tend to look at fantasy worlds similar to historical fiction, in that the world/time period being sexist doesn't necessarily mean it's a problem. Yes, the author chose that period, but that doesn't mean there aren't interesting things to do with it, or that those interesting things will ever actually lead to an explicit rejection of the sexist system. I can understand if that pings you, and that's fair. For me, if the women are written as more than just their stereotypical roles, that's a kind of rejection, even if it isn't necessarily spelled out plainly, or a big underlined plot point.

I'm still not sure that I make sense, and I think I've probably spewed out a high enough word count trying to explain it in someone else's journal.

AND--I actually had a rather similar experience in Inuyasha fandom, only the reverse. It was the first fandom I was in, about six or seven years ago now, and when I've talked to people about it now, I hear about how much slash there was in that fandom. And, my god, I barely ever saw it. I think I was reading fic for months before I first stumbled over it. The communities and people I knew were all about the het, and normally in the form of sprawling multiparters. The idea there were so many yaoi PWPs there was totally different from what I'd seen. I'm sure it was true for them, but it still boggles me that I could have missed it.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

(note: I've got a migraine right now, so I may come across as more lecturing/bitchy than I intended; I can't tell at the moment. Apologies in advance)

Picking a more-or-less random comment in this thread to say this:

As I was reading through this and the consistent mentions of Kishimoto made me want to stress that we should remember the editorial policies are institutionalized, and dictated by the publishers and editors. We can't actually discuss authorial intent in Shonen Jump properties without keeping in mind the influence of Kishimoto's editor, and the magazine's editorial policies. Naruto, Bleach, One Piece, etc. don't stand alone - the editors and publishers have a very heavy hand in shaping the characters and stories to fit the Shonen Jump brand.

OTOH, I don't know enough about the stories SJ runs to be able to suggest some common threads other than "a boy or young man is usually the main character" - all I know are the ones that make it over here, and I don't even read all of those. Naruto, Bleach, Death Note, Ral Grad, Hikaru no Go, and Yu Yu Hakusho are about the ones I'm familiar with, and they're only a small part of the properties SJ publishes.

I've got some problems with the gender roles in Naruto and Bleach, but I would hand them to any girl I know in a heartbeat compared to the awful, awful, awful, gender politics in Ral Grad, my Manga of Deep Feminist Shame, which I read because I love the artist and there are a few elements in it that hit my narrative trigger points.

[sarolynne.livejournal.com]

This is a very good point. While it doesn't necessarily make the text itself more friendly, it does affect how much you can count toward the author.

Hell, Sasuke was a last minute addition because the editors thought Naruto needed a rival. (Though Kishimoto seems to have kind of jumped into that one feet first, huh?)

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

I've got some problems with the gender roles in Naruto and Bleach, but I would hand them to any girl I know in a heartbeat compared to the awful, awful, awful, gender politics in Ral Grad, my Manga of Deep Feminist Shame, which I read because I love the artist and there are a few elements in it that hit my narrative trigger points.

I'd just hand them Claymore, Fullmetal Alchemist, Black Cat,

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<em<kekkaishi</em>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<em>I've got some problems with the gender roles in Naruto and Bleach, but I would hand them to any girl I know in a heartbeat compared to the awful, awful, awful, gender politics in Ral Grad, my Manga of Deep Feminist Shame, which I read because I love the artist and there are a few elements in it that hit my narrative trigger points.</em>

I'd just hand them <em>Claymore</em>, <em>Fullmetal Alchemist</em>, <em>Black Cat</em>, <em<Kekkaishi</em>, or even <em> Samurai Deeper Kyo</em> before encouraging them to even touch either.

[telophase.livejournal.com]

I gotta say, there are way too many fanservice shots in SDK for me to hand it to a young girl before Naruto and Bleach. :)

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

That's why I said "or even." Though they do (thankfully) largely peter out bythe mid teens. (I started SDK, Remote-don't touch...despite mutual cool bits, it ends up mostly infuriating-and Love Hina all just a few months into my manga reading.)