[TrisakAminawn]

Rambling a little, Flash. Well, that's not right, that a woman should prove herself instead of altering the standards. Come on, if the standards hadn't been altered since the eighteenth century no woman but the insanely priviledged or the comepletely genius would have a prayer of proving anything, the opportunities would be so unequal.

And why the hell should she have to prove herself equal? Why the hell? Does every man have to prove himself capable before being given a fair chance? Until people don't assume them inferior, women have to play a defensive game and assume that whatever position they're in, it might come under assault any time.

I have a little sister who doesn't want to have to be female because she can't stand the idea of spending her whole life having to fight to be paid the same amount of attention a similar man could have just by speaking. That isn't right. She hates feminism because it's associated with the hokey 'female superiority' idea that focuses on differences as positives and runs men down. I have a little brother who wears his hair long, at first because he liked it that way but now mostly because he refuses to cave to the pressure the other boys in his class put on him to cut it. (Squirt reminds me of me at that age.) But he's stopped having any friends who are girls, and he's learned that he absolutely can't like plastic ponies. And that isn't right, either.

Always nothing. 'A woman' will not always be outdone mentally before physically, or physically before mentally. There is no 'a woman' you can say 'always' about, unless you want to deal with physical definition absolutes, like a woman doesn't have a Y chromosome. There is every bit as much variety in women as in men, and while the model for 'woman' has less muscle-building capacity there's no reason to assume any given woman doesn't have the strength she claims she has. Minds are harder to be certain about, but until you've found a flourishing matriarchy and proved that the men in it aren't statistically mentally inferior to women, there's no case.

Women can be awful. Maternal instinct nothing, I defy you to deny women their right to be awful. Most murders committed by women are of either their children or their spouses, remember? Maternal instinct makes mother bears tear humans to shreds who under other circumstances were very likely to have been ignored. Maternal instinct has nothing to do wih most things not relating to offspring, and is not a catch-all for 'women are gentle,' although it may have something to do with the less widespread conviction that 'women endure.' For the sake of the children, you know. I mean, it certainly exists, but I hardly believe it delineates all of female thought and action, any more than everything any man does is informed by his desire to have sex, even though that's the comparable species-perpetuating drive.

[momicchi]

it's true that some of the girls didn't play really major roles in the story, but they did contribute quite a lot, and i think dn would be pretty different without them. aside from the fact that they made the guys look good [which isn't really a bad thing, in my opinion], they were in light and L's battle...misa, takada, and hal weren't just spectators; they were part of the fight, and they each chose a side. misa and takada were even kiras! as for hal...well, she survived...that's more than we could say for most of the male characters...

[WolvenLordSoulReaper]

I really need to start subscribing to threads, you guys really surprise me with these awesome discussions that i thought had perished in the abyss of the D.N. Forum.

That said, there's a lot to address here, and I'll try my best to keep it structured.

Rjinna, good to see you, and I'll address yours first. You see, I agree to some extent that women have the same mental capacity as men, except I believe that in most regards of mentality, women actually have a significant edge over men.

And, Ironically, it regards the one point that was contended as woman's greatest weakness, one which is tied to that motherly instinct you pointed out earlier. See, when women are regarded as being overly emotional, it's actually paying them a form of a compliment, as it may as well be akin to saying one's mentally overcompensated.

In today's society, emotions are both (quite paradoxically, I might add) both overly reviled and yet also overly embraced. Considered to be an elemental weakness in life, it is also one of the most admired qualities that people desire in each other.

Naturally, women have a more prominent trend towards the emotional side (though I despise using such broad-sweeping generalities, I doubt many will disagree with this one point).

The biggest failure for people today to realize, is that emotional externalization is little more than abstract rationalization. The ability to abstractly reason is one of the pinnacles on mankind's evolution. (Right T.A.?;-) This is a form of reasoning that many men (again, hating to class structure here), seem reluctant or unwilling to engage. It's not consider 'real' thought or mental clarity.

Yet in reality, I believe it's one of the most valuable assets humanity has. And I maintain that without being more emotionally in touch, you can't really reason abstractly. You can intellectually convince yourself you are, but that doesn't cut it. (Gotta go for now, will pick up later.)

[xXxShojo-HimexXx]

All the girls served thier perpose. I love death note, and all the charecters *points down to signature*......

[Kugayo Rokudo]

I think it is sensless to mention that I generally adore female characters from nearly any manga. They're often so cute, beautiful and deep in mind, who does not so? Be honest with yourselfs... That's why I always take a second thought on women, because they somehow carry a message across. They are not likely to just address the men out there functioning as an attraction, but more to come over with ideas of people that support the story. Death Note is another fine example of subtile message carrying.

[Judychan_im_mangaka]

The women in Death Note are so weak >.> They're willing to be used....

[Flash Master]

Sorry T.A. I am behind. I just wanted to let you know that I meant no offense to you or your sister in any way in regards to my post. I suppose I am harder on my sex because of the fact that I DO believe a women can do anything a man can and having said that, I am very critical of those women who do represent our kind as inferior. In a way, I guess you could say I am as bad as those who judge women so harshly. I expect that of myself as well to either play the game or get off the field.
In reference to standards, my family has had military ties as well as law enforcement and fire fighting. On this area I will not waver. A women can and must be able to equal a man in these critical duties. If a women cannot pull a fallen comrade out of the line of fire, they do not not belong there. Same for a guy.
Perhaps this is a fault I should work on with much consideration to others.
T.A- as long as your sister(s) And brother(s)? know that they can be anything they set theirmind to, that is what is important.
My nature is arrogant and presumptuous and so I might always be, but I cannot tolerate emotional weakness in any person male or female. This I will try to work on.
So, in concluding this post, I say to all genders, my opinions, though not always agreeable,are in no way meant to offend. If they do so, I apologize and will tend my posts more closely so as not to offend.
P.S- The reason I say that women must prove themselves is because the a fore set
standards such as military basic training, are designed for men. It goes without saying that if they cannot do the work, then they are ejected from the programs. But if you alter these standards by making them easier for women, it defeats the point and purpose of equality.
Secondly, man or woman, defeat is usually mental before it is physical in the aspect
of mind over matter. If you do not get it the first time, it does not mean you are defeated. It means you work harder. You mentally tell yourself you are capable of the task and you will prevail. MInd Over Matter.

[WolvenLordSoulReaper]

Originally Posted by TrisakAminawn

Rambling a little, Flash. Well, that's not right, that a woman should prove herself instead of altering the standards. Come on, if the standards hadn't been altered since the eighteenth century no woman but the insanely priviledged or the comepletely genius would have a prayer of proving anything, the opportunities would be so unequal.

And why the hell should she have to prove herself equal? Why the hell? Does every man have to prove himself capable before being given a fair chance? Until people don't assume them inferior, women have to play a defensive game and assume that whatever position they're in, it might come under assault any time.

I have a little sister who doesn't want to have to be female because she can't stand the idea of spending her whole life having to fight to be paid the same amount of attention a similar man could have just by speaking. That isn't right. She hates feminism because it's associated with the hokey 'female superiority' idea that focuses on differences as positives and runs men down. I have a little brother who wears his hair long, at first because he liked it that way but now mostly because he refuses to cave to the pressure the other boys in his class put on him to cut it. (Squirt reminds me of me at that age.) But he's stopped having any friends who are girls, and he's learned that he absolutely can't like plastic ponies. And that isn't right, either.

Always nothing. 'A woman' will not always be outdone mentally before physically, or physically before mentally. There is no 'a woman' you can say 'always' about, unless you want to deal with physical definition absolutes, like a woman doesn't have a Y chromosome. There is every bit as much variety in women as in men, and while the model for 'woman' has less muscle-building capacity there's no reason to assume any given woman doesn't have the strength she claims she has. Minds are harder to be certain about, but until you've found a flourishing matriarchy and proved that the men in it aren't statistically mentally inferior to women, there's no case.

Women can be awful. Maternal instinct nothing, I defy you to deny women their right to be awful. Most murders committed by women are of either their children or their spouses, remember? Maternal instinct makes mother bears tear humans to shreds who under other circumstances were very likely to have been ignored. Maternal instinct has nothing to do wih most things not relating to offspring, and is not a catch-all for 'women are gentle,' although it may have something to do with the less widespread conviction that 'women endure.' For the sake of the children, you know. I mean, it certainly exists, but I hardly believe it delineates all of female thought and action, any more than everything any man does is informed by his desire to have sex, even though that's the comparable species-perpetuating drive.

An interesting post which I never really responded to in full. I shall address here thusly. I think the main point everyone commonly misses in the great battle of the sexes is that it is NOT Us Vs. Them. Everyone chooses to make it such in externalized vocalization whenever the topic is broached because we are far too ignorant to adhere to a larger picture. We make it about individuality when it's really an issue about humanity as a whole.

Think about it... when we look at animals in the wild, do we judge their qualities on whether or not they are male or female? To some degree, yes, but overall it is a non-factor. The female lioness is regarded as superior to the male in hunting proficiency and attributes... the tigress', skills are as equally vaunted and feared as the male tiger's own abilities... we don't say that the male dolphin is somehow a superior swimmer to the female.

We don't individualize the skills or merits of a breed of animal based solely on their gender yet so often that appears to be EXACTLY what we do with the Battle of the Sexes. This is a crime committed by those on BOTH sides of the debate.

The key words in your remarks TA are: Does every man have to prove himself? Naturally, the answer is no. But in reality... neither has every woman. Think about it... of all the powerful and influential women we know, all are remembered widely because they stepped up to the plate and swung one for the home team.

And of every man we know who is famous or memorable... the SAME conditions applied!! Mind you, not the same conditions regarding social views or cultural standing. I'll not deny, women have long been blackballed in this one regard. But in the standing of being presented an obstacle of enormous size and scope and acquiring the means to overcome that obstacle, they are one and the same.

We have a bad habit of placing added emphasis on the nature of the obstacle itself. No woman facing the hardships of social out casting have face any greater hardship than any man seeking to win a critical battle in his country's struggle for freedom, etc. And that's an example, not an omission, as even in the Civil War I'm aware that there were woman fighting to save our freedom as well, and few come to mind more obviously than the famous Molly Pitcher. as sited following: On 06-28-1778, while "attending the (artillery) piece " with her husband at the battle of Monmouth, N.J., a cannon shot passed between the legs of Mary Hays (Molly Pitcher) tearing off the lower part of her skirt - and she kept on loading her cannon.
When her husband was wounded, she either fired the cannon once alone or several times, depending on witnesses."

It's basically the same scenario for either sex... HOW BAD DO YOU WANT IT?! It's not a matter of Us Vs. Them, it's more a matter of Us and Them Vs. The World. In other words, my take on it is YES, women SHOULD have to prove themselves... JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. EQUALITY FOR ALL!!

[Flash Master]

Well, Wolven, you make a good point. I do agree with much of what you you say but the question is not in whether or not the women CAN DO THE TASK, but will she attain the same recognition for her efforts? The primary problem is that since the beginning of civilization, the standards for achievement were based on what a MAN can do. Therefore, factoring in that there are physiological and emotional differences, woman did have to work harder than men not so much to do the actual task but rather to establish that they too could accomplish the same task when given the opportunity. The animal kingdom does what it needs to in order to survive without bias or distinction of gender. An ideal world, but not an accurate depiction of the human one.
A good example of this was namely in WWII when women were called upon to carry out many of the tasks which men had previously possessed. The W.A.S.P.S ( women pilots in WWII) were not truly recognized as anything other than "doing their duties" even though they often flew into enemy lines to deliver valuable supplies and even deliver many of the bombers. It was not until the late 90"s that W.A.S.P.S were given awards and allowed to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery .
The Manhatten project called for college women to monitor the levels of uranium. A task
in which they PROVED they could actually do better than the scientist's themselves. No
joke.
Even after WWII, women still served as test pilots for Boeing, McDonell Douglas and the U.S
Navy but were overlooked for the space program even though some of them were MORE
qualified than many of the men.
The wives of Ancient Samurai actually had more to accomplish than their husbands in
the fact that they had to raise the children, do the chores, farm the land AND still protect the homesteads from invading clans with sword skills that may have been an Parr with that of their husbands.
The problem is not the gender but the perception of it. I would not wish that the current
standards be altered, merely that the acknowledgment of any accomplishment be fairly
given regardless of race, gender or religion.
Because of the perceptions, women do have to work harder to Prove they are equals.