Megathread Archie Sonic Main Discussion

[Dr. Mechano]

But it's been much more noted Sally was taken from Ricky.

Okay, even if I'm going to accept that those squirrels were all one character named Ricky (Let's humor ourselves and say that each time he gets freed, Eggman quickly recaptures him and reinstalls him in a new Badnik. Such is Ricky's lot in life.), and even if I accept that Ricky inspired Sally's character, it does not make them the same character.

I mean, game Eggman was a goofy mad scientist, and SatAM turned him (regrettably in my opinion) into a generic overlord character who ruled the world with a literal iron fist. Game Tails was an adventurer on the same level as Sonic himself, and was demoted to a stay-at-home extra on the cartoon.

My point is that Ricky's utter helplessness in the games, in light of the liberties this show already took with other characters, seems less than relevant. All Sally has in common with Ricky is her species, even if he was her direct inspiration.

In the end, the SatAM versions of Sonic, Tails, and Eggman ended up with very little in common with their original game counterparts, save for their appearance and the same basic "theme" of their abilities. It is because of this that I really don't see why Sally in particular should be any more like her "game counterpart" than they were to theirs- Which they weren't. (As a side note, I'd have loved it if the main cast was portrayed through accurate representations of their game roles, but that's neither here nor there.)

Edited October 30, 2009 by Dr. Mechano

[Miko]

You are incredibly sexist if you honestly think that Sally is characterised as a 'man'. I'm sorry, but the only thing that would make her an actual man would be if she was genetically 'male'.

Sex=/= gender. Having a PINGAS doesn't mean your gender is male, it means your sex is male.

I wish people like you would grow out of these stupid gender ideals and learn that personality and character is a spectrum, not binary.

Yes I'm aware of that. But if you've been reading anything I've said at all, I've said gender assocation has more to do with which set of traits we encompass/identify with MORE in today's world. I've SAID more masculine individuals have feminine qualities, and vice versa, but gender is what we see ourselves as more. Sally obviously seeing her gender as something more masculine than feminine. We are no longer as restricted to think that sex=gender (as you have just demonstrated) OR that just because you identify more with a gender doesn't mean you have to encompass all the traits associated with that gender.

I mean, game Eggman was a goofy mad scientist, and SatAM turned him (regrettably in my opinion) into a generic overlord character who ruled the world with a literal iron fist.

We've been through this. In the games Robotnik took over refineries factores and cities and turned sentient animals into slaves. In SatAM it was NEVER stated that Robotnik ruled the entire world. It said at best he'd managed to accomplish conquering 90% of the realm. But it was clear that MANY locations on Mobius were not affected or conquered by Robotnik. He was, like his game counterpart in progress of trying to dominate the world, already making a foothold in the place that was Sonic's residence.

My point is that Ricky's utter helplessness in the games, in light of the liberties this show already took with other characters, seems less than relevant.

The only change mentioned that I find at all substantial was Tails' and that has plenty to do with the fact that guess who became Sonic's best friend and partner on missions instead of Tails.

In the end, the SatAM versions of Sonic, Tails, and Eggman ended up with very little in common with their original game counterparts, save for their appearance and the same basic "theme" of their abilities. It is because of this that I really don't see why Sally in particular should be any more like her "game counterpart" than they were to theirs- Which they weren't.

But here's the logic I'm following.

Someone JUST said Sally should behave as the "original." Despite what you think, following THAT line of logic not only was Tails and Sonic's treatment substantially modified (moreso Tails than Sonic) Sally should've had a similar role to Ricky. Not saying what SatAM ultimately chose to do was right or wrong. I'm saying what I'm saying to follow a line of logic presented to me to demonstrate it's inconsistency.

[redmenace]

It's here where I draw the line. In the way I was educated, there was no distinction between boys and girls all that much. Sure there are typical behaviours from boys and girls, but that's what kids learn when they're young and what they prefer, not what gender they are. Girls might like to play games as much as they like to play with dolls and vice-versa. One of the most "girly" girls I've met is an electric engineer, which is a man's option mostly. Like her, I've met many, some that like computer gaming, cars, race cars, even football. They're not tomboys, they're not men in a women's body. People can like pink and frills and still be inteligent and independent. It's not a gender thing, nor do girls need to think like a man to be these either. I know where Miko is coming from because calling them tomboys is an insult to people who haven't been exposed to this sloppy (and blatant) dual standards while growing up

Sally is someone who grew up in a harsh environment where she couldn't frolick around doing girly-girly things. Apart from an independent and inteligent woman what is Sally's traits? Nothing else (well nagging, but forget that). And that's insulting to girls, when it's specifically implied that independence and intelligence come from thinking like a boy. Why is it implied? Because there aren't any girly girls both independent and inteligent in this comic. It stands out harshly and although I'm sure that Miko is still blowing up a storm for nothing (it is a mediocre comic after all) this kind of shit bothers me as well and it has it's reasons.

I was talking to my girlfriend about this, and she said that she always loved Sally because she was a character she could identify with. A strong female character who wasn't a girly-girl.

Some people have been making the insinuation that tomboys are somehow an insult to girls. How insulting to tomboys! A tomboy is still a girl, and what's wrong with having a female lead who is one? Is it that awful that Sally is a character that non-girly girls can relate to? Or must all lead females be only role models for pretty pink princess girls? Ugh.

Sally came out of the 90's, a time of new and fresh empowerment for girls. She came from a time when it was finally becoming okay for girls to like things that weren't pink and frilly. The idea that Sally is somehow a sexist character is ludicrous! To think that way IS sexist, because it harks back to a time where boys and girls were segregated by gender-role confinement.

Besides, Sal wasn't retconned from girly-girl to tomboy. She was always a tomboy. The Archie comics wrote her more girly in the first place, most likely because they were used to the generic stereotypes used in their other productions (Betty/Veronica/etc anyone?). But in SatAM, she WAS a tomboy, and she's made a welcome return to that personality and appearance. Hurrah for Sally!

I'm sorry flyboy, but your girlfriend doesn't know many works of fiction I'm afraid. Strong tomboys is as common as fleas. It doesn't help that the majority of them are part of men's works (this case) or adolescent fantasies (fanfiction-net).

A tomboy is a derrogatory term. Sorry. Any girl properly educated with no major gender sterotypes will take this as an insult. I know I do and I know lots of my friends do. We are what we are, not an alternative female to a men's world.

I'm sorry but the majority of grown-up women I know (+20) don't think pink and frilly are all thst good, nor do they ever thought. If they do, they think blue and stripes is as good as well, or at least, they don't drop below the 100 IQ mark. Pink and frilly is not and should never be associated with being a lesser female. It's this kind of reasoning that made Miko blow up a storm and I understand. There are a handful of girls that I know that LIKE pink and play games, watch football and like car racing amongst other things of the sort. They're not tomboys.

A tomboy character is as much a sterotype as a girly girl. Tomboy princesses then... lol. They have a page over at tvtropes of you ask for examples.

Oh come on. Sally has PLENTY of flaws, which is why I love her! But a character like Sal obsessing over her appearance to the detriment of her role as leader of the Freedom Fighters? LOL. She's the LEADER. She wouldn't get to that position without sacrificing home comforts for a harsher lifestyle. Stop trying to twist Sally to fit your ideals of what a female lead should be.

You don't like Sally and part of that is because she's a tomboy. Fine. You don't like having a tomboy female lead. But that doesn't make her a BAD female lead - just one that you don't PERSONALLY like.

What flaws? Those flaws that she's never called on nor do they have any bad consequence? People ramble about jerk STC Sonic being such a Jerk Sue, but he was the direct responsible for one of his best friends becasue of his flaws. When was Sally in this kind (or close) position? Never.

Don't think I'm picking on you flyboy. You're the Tails fan I aspire to be if he gets better in the games.

----

Ricky is a complete different character from Sally. STC Sally is not the same as her Archie and SatAM counterparts either. They're all different Sallys and in consequence, different characters. Don't bring them up Miko.

Edited October 30, 2009 by redmenace

[Picchi]

Y'know Flyboy, comparatively speaking, the current Archie Sally is even less traditionally feminine than the SatAM counterpart you've been apraising. In SatAM, Sally did do 'girly' things like fluff up her appearance (primping her hair in the case of Blast to the Past), swoon over guys, have a frilly bedroom/nightgown and the like.

I'll add onto whats been said by both redmenace and Miko. Do I feel there are sexist undertones in the comic? Yes. Any girl who gets reoccuring focus in the book are stereotypical tomboys, and I suppose it should go without saying since Ken Penders had admitted to favoring them several times, and has even gone as far as warping Sally's prior characterization. Not only that, but it gets even more obvious when you take a look at Antione, a guy who had a lot of traditionally feminine traits (especially during the earlier parts of the book). He was almost always treated negatively, and a lot of the times, his feminine traits would lead to him being the butt of most jokes.

Her position of princess is not relevant to the story. Her position as leader of the FFs? Yes, but what does her title as princess regularly have anything to do with this story, most especially THIS story?

Then they should just call her "Princess Sally: Leader of the Freedom Fighters". Quick, easy, and gets the point across without all the innecessities.

I mean, game Eggman was a goofy mad scientist, and SatAM turned him (regrettably in my opinion) into a generic overlord character who ruled the world with a literal iron fist.

How is a goofy mad scientist any less 'generic' than an evil overlord? And since when did classic Robotnik have an established personality?

They're all different Sallys and in consequence, different characters. Don't bring them up Miko.

She was going by Flyboy's (or was it Mechano's..?) statement that said "Because SatAM Sally was the original she should act like that since it came first". Technically, Ricky IS the blueprint for all the Sally's so by the other person's logic she should be what was established about Ricky in the games. Of course no one's going to agree to that, and again, Miko even stated that this 'arguement' doesn't reflect her opinion (and I can personally attest too that it isn't).

However, even if we did discard Ricky and wanted to use the "_____ came first" arguement, Archie Sally came before SatAM anyway.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Picchi

[Dr. Mechano]

How is a goofy mad scientist any less 'generic' than an evil overlord?

There was more to his character than the fact that he was a villain. I see SatAM Robotnik as a "Character as device." He exists to be the villain, and does that well enough, but beyond that has no characterization as a unique individual.

Game Eggman has this- He has a more fleshed-out personality and backstory, with various quirks and foibles that make him more of a character, however you see his status as a villain.

And since when did classic Robotnik have an established personality?

They're subtle, but they're there. In the age of silent pantomime, one must pick up a character's personality from their style and actions.

The Death Egg is a pretty big indicator of Eggman's incredible goofiness. I can't think of a dark, unamusing stoic like SatAM's Julian creating a huge campy parody of the Death Star with his face proudly emblazoned on it for all the world to see. It fits the style of classic Eggman.

Eggman's ego also manifests itself with giant golden statues in his own image found in Stardust Speedway and Wacky Workbench in Sonic CD. The man is a textbook narcissist, no doubt.

Plus the official art went out of its way to depict him as a lovable and "cutesy" character. I present Eggman doing a cutesy pose with a little love heart above his head as my evidence.

I think Game Eggman, silent though he was, had an air of humor and cutesiness about him that was simply not carried over to his SatAM portrayal. AoStH, design changes aside, did faithfully adapt Robotnik as an egocentric, flamboyant, and self-loving funny villain- He had the demeanor (albeit exaggerated) of his game counterpart, though his distorted appearance was decidedly less cute and decidedly more bizarrely surreal.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Dr. Mechano

[Way Past Cool]

To be honest, tomboy female characters (like Sally) from the 90s were my favorites growing up. I felt I could relate to them better than the pink Barbie type characters... they made me feel like it was okay to not be a girly girl and that there didn't have to be a separation between guys and girls-- that we're all equals. You don't get a whole lot of that these days.

It's cool to not like Sally, she's not everyone's cup of tea... but I always felt like Sally was one of those really good examples of a girl character that wasn't just thrown in there to be a token girl among a cast of guys. That's the impression she left me with as a kid, anyway. Me. Personally. My own opinion as a little girl growing up in the 90s.

We don't all have to believe the same thing about Sally, and it kind of seems like some people are making it their mission to have us all see Sally the same way. It's not gonna happen...

[Dr. Mechano]

We don't all have to believe the same thing about Sally, and it kind of seems like some people are making it their mission to have us all see Sally the same way. It's not gonna happen...

Exactly.

That said, I have my own beefs with Sally; But none of them are about her characterization. I think she's a fine character, and generally a well-written one at that. My problem with her is simply that, like Chris Thorndyke (Yes, I went there), Sally's status as an expanded universe character was taken above and beyond that of a supporting role. In a series based on a videogame, I expect the original game characters to be the primary cast; New characters are okay (See my essay on the OVA's supporting cast and how much I love them), but once they start overshadowing the characters from the series on which the new series was based, I honestly feel rather irked by them.

Sally as a character does not bother me. Sally's overuse does. I realize that it's far too late to "downplay" her role, because Archie's always given her this status of stardom, but I'm nonetheless irked by the comic's skewed focus on her over a fair chunk of the game cast. So even then, I don't have a problem with her as much as I do with how she's handled in the overall plot.

[Blazey Firekitty]

I feel that the only reason Sally seems more "masculine" now is that she's been redesigned to look more like Ricky the Squirrel. That doesn't necessarily mean she is Ricky, but it is a sign of how, in the past three years or so, every character in the comic has been redesigned to look more "Sega Sonic."

[redmenace]

And whatever for Blazey? It's onvious they are very different characters and the hair pretty much spoils any relation the two characters could have. This isn't an attack at you, rather at Archie. Why did they went to the lenghts of trying to assimilate some of the game stuff like appearance (mostly) and Eggman's personality and then make everything else different? It makes no sense whatsover.

To be honest, tomboy female characters (like Sally) from the 90s were my favorites growing up. I felt I could relate to them better than the pink Barbie type characters... they made me feel like it was okay to not be a girly girl and that there didn't have to be a separation between guys and girls-- that we're all equals. You don't get a whole lot of that these days.

It's cool to not like Sally, she's not everyone's cup of tea... but I always felt like Sally was one of those really good examples of a girl character that wasn't just thrown in there to be a token girl among a cast of guys. That's the impression she left me with as a kid, anyway. Me. Personally. My own opinion as a little girl growing up in the 90s.

We don't all have to believe the same thing about Sally, and it kind of seems like some people are making it their mission to have us all see Sally the same way. It's not gonna happen...

In the 90's there were tomboys, there were girly-girls and other type of girls. There weren't just the two of them, nor today.

Disliking her has nothing to do with being cool or uncool. If you have reasons to dislike the character than it's valid. I hate this kind of reasoning. And you mostly admit that she's not everyone's cup of tea. Then why the major focus on such a character, an original one at that? People have problems with Chris because of that just like Mechano said, but with her, it's allowed because they like her. This is not acceptable. It is Sonic the Hedgehog, not Sonic and Sally. If they want to shove her down the reader's throat then change the comic's name.

That said I hate the character and the overuse. I respect everyone's opinions, but fans shouldn't try to pass her up as the most original character ever when that is wrong on so many levels.

Dr. Mechano never disappoints with his Eggman's insights.

Edited October 30, 2009 by redmenace

[Blazey Firekitty]

And whatever for Blazey? It's onvious they are very different characters and the hair pretty much spoils any relation the two characters could have. This isn't an attack at you, rather at Archie. Why did they went to the lenghts of trying to assimilate some of the game stuff like appearance (mostly) and Eggman's personality and then make everything else different? It makes no sense whatsover.

I can see where you're coming from. The comic does feel very inconsistent. I hear that the physical designs were at the demand of Sega, but the changes to make personalities more game accurate seem to be a quirk of Ian.

[Picchi]

There was more to his character than the fact that he was a villain. I see SatAM Robotnik as a "Character as device." He exists to be the villain, and does that well enough, but beyond that has no characterization as a unique individual.

I'm not about to open that can of worms just yet by debating this. Instead, let me simplify this argument a bit. During Robotnik's conception, there was almost nothing established about him. Taking the route of a 'goofy mad scientist' on the east's part is no more original than the west's idea of an evil overlord. Now perhaps you may have disagreements about the comparitive execution of both potrayls, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Neither idea/trope the Robotniks fit under was anymore innovative than the other.

The Death Egg is a pretty big indicator of Eggman's incredible goofiness. I can't think of a dark, unamusing stoic like SatAM's Julian creating a huge campy parody of the Death Star with his face proudly emblazoned on it for all the world to see.

...*points to Archie Sonic's Death Egg Saga miniseries*

Archie might not be SatAM but they did prove that someone like Julian could be written to create such an invention. And even in SatAM, Robotnik did make things with his shape or face on it.

Plus the official art went out of its way to depict him as a lovable and "cutesy" character.

This is the Japanese art style of the character. Its a stylistic prefference, because there is a Japanese aesthetic for it. It doesn't change the fact that Robotnik was written to do the same kinds of things to Sonic's environment that his SatAM counterpart did.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Picchi

[Blazey Firekitty]

At Miko/Picchi/Viuely: I'm still curious...Is it possible to define "mental gender" without using stereotypes?

To reiterate:

"

But how does one define mental gender without using stereotypes?

I mean...I'm transgendered, myself. I am physically male, but feel like a woman inside.

The thing is, I have no idea what makes me female in the mental sense. I just feel that way. I can't describe it.

I can't think of a way to describe it without using stereotypes. I wind up sounding like I'm being sexist against myself.

If I can't define my own femininity, how can I define Sally's?"

Edited October 30, 2009 by BlazeyBakeneko

[Dr. Mechano]

Archie might not be SatAM but they did prove that someone like Julian could be written to create such an invention.

Archie's Julian was refreshingly more lighthearted than SatAM's, you forget.

In one of his earliest appearances, he complains about not appearing enough in the comic. He invented robots based on Batman and Steve Urkel, for crying out loud. He even exclaims "You've failed me, Crabmeat! Both in the limited series and ongoing comic!"

Archie Robotnik is like AoStH Robotnik trapped in SatAM Robotnik's body, with a slightly more sadistic streak, as compared to AoStH Ivo he did do more genuinely malicious things; However, he was still a loony and comical character. Either way, he's not the same unmoving wall of pure evil that the SatAM portrayal was.

[Miko]

At Miko/Picchi/Viuely: I'm still curious...Is it possible to define "mental gender" without using stereotypes?

What's wrong with using generalities though? Stereotypes are exaggerations, oversimplifications and are offensive. Unless you associate things considered feminine as offensive, and don't consider any feminine traits with exaggerations there's nothing stereotypical about anything you cite. However good and bad, associating with a gender doesn't mean you encompass EVERYTHING in that gender pool. It just means there are things associated with that gender that you associate with more than you do with the things that are in the other. That and as someone else here said (I think it was kiljoy) there are differences in hormone levels and in brain make up that account for biological differences in the way men and women think. So yes you can say there are socially created to an extent but assuming that's all there is to it ignores a much deeper question.

The thing is, I have no idea what makes me female in the mental sense.

Consciously, anyway. Female isn't an emotion like happiness or sadness.

anyway research to discuss biological, neurological differences between males and females, hetero and homosexual is ongoing. But I'd think most researchers would be willing to acknowledge there's at least SOME differences between the average male and female.

females, on average, have a larger deep limbic system than males. This gives females several advantages and disadvantages. Due to the larger deep limbic brain women are more in touch with their feelings, they are generally better able to express their feelings than men. They have an increased ability to bond and be connected to others . Females have a more acute sense of smell, which is likely to have developed from an evolutionary need for the mother to recognize her young. Having a larger deep limbic system leaves a female somewhat more susceptible to depression, especially at times of significant hormonal changes such as the onset of puberty, before menses, after the birth of a child and at menopause. Women attempt suicide three times more than men. Yet, men kill themselves three times more than women, in part, because they use more violent means of killing themselves (women tend to use overdoses with pills while men tend to either shoot or hang themselves) and men are generally less connected to others than are women. Disconnection from others increases the risk of completed suicides.

In one project, they measured the size of the orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in regulating emotions, and compared it with the size of the amygdala, implicated more in producing emotional reactions. The investigators found that women possess a significantly larger orbitofrontal-to-amygdala ratio (OAR) than men do. One can speculate from these findings that women might on average prove more capable of controlling their emotional reactions

http://www.medicaleducationonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=69

It's really difficult to say what's social roles are stemmed in biology. But a good deal of traits masculine and feminine have pros and cons with the exception of those that demand for the subordination of others. So many people don't see a reason to be ashamed. While I admit Sally does do things like negotiate while Sonic would much sooner fight and organizes on the subject of team work this is more or less something more associated with her "oh so burdensome responsibilities and duties handed down to her because she's a princess." And that's actually another thing I dislike. Rather than just finding a girly-girl who'd feel more than happy to negotatiate, emphasize to more masculine characters the value of team work and cooperation, Sally portays these things poorly as some sort of burdensome responsibilities. Not something that's a very good plus about being girly. It's known that Sally's learned those things by people like Julayla to become a leader and by leader I mean ruler (although she's applied such diplomatic, qualities to being leader of the FFs). It makes it very difficult to present another female who could do these things naturally because the Sally fans will whine about how said girl "steals Sally's thunder" which means we're stuck having this beat-down of how girly girls are more likely like to contribute and help out.

EDIT:

Archie's Julian was refreshingly more lighthearted than SatAM's, you forget.

She also said however:

And even in SatAM, Robotnik did make things with his shape or face on it.

So SatAM Robotnik could've just as easily done that too.

In one of his earliest appearances, he complains about not appearing enough in the comic. He invented robots based on Batman and Steve Urkel, for crying out loud. He even exclaims "You've failed me, Crabmeat! Both in the limited series and ongoing comic!"

It's well known that the earlier series was more light hearted but by the actual death egg saga, he has his quirks but is still quite the evil overlord. And in any case SatAM Julian also had his funny moments despite being an evil overlord.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Miko

[Blazey Firekitty]

What's wrong with using generalities though? Stereotypes are exaggerations, oversimplifications and are offensive. Unless you associate things considered feminine as offensive, and don't consider any feminine traits with exaggerations there's nothing stereotypical about anything you cite. However good and bad, associating with a gender doesn't mean you encompass EVERYTHING in that gender pool. It just means there are things associated with that gender that you associate with more than you do with the things that are in the other. That and as someone else here said (I think it was kiljoy) there are differences in hormone levels and in brain make up that account for biological differences in the way men and women think. So yes you can say there are socially created

So, if I understand you correctly, there is a line between stereotypes and generalities, that it's okay to use generalities to define gender, and hormones/brain chemicals can influence people to act in certain ways regardless of what their physical sex.

I guess I just have a really hard time distinguishing stereotypes from generalities. When I try to describe my gender, all I can think of is stuff like "I feel female when I feel nuturing," and I feel terrible for implying that men can't feel sensitive and caring. Likewise, if I say "I feel male when I feel passionate," it feels like I'm implying that all women are meek and passive.

It's just all so confusing to me.

Consciously, anyway. Female isn't an emotion like happiness or sadness.

anyway research to discuss biological, neurological differences between males and females, hetero and homosexual is ongoing. But I'd think most researchers would be willing to acknowledge there's at least SOME differences between the average male and female.

So, gender is more a subtle, unconscious function of the brain?

Edited October 30, 2009 by BlazeyBakeneko

[Miko]

So, if I understand you correctly, there is a line between stereotypes and generalities, that it's okay to use generalities to define gender, and hormones/brain chemicals can influence people to act in certain ways regardless of what their physical sex.

Actually even in sociology a culture trait is something used to describe at minimum a large minority (at least 30%) of a certain group. So yes, a generality that many women acknowledge sharing is fine. Just keep in mind that men and women don't have to encompass everything associated with the gender.

I guess I just have a really hard time distinguishing stereotypes from generalities. When I try to describe my gender, all I can think of is stuff like "I feel female when I feel nuturing," and I feel terrible for implying that men can't feel sensitive and caring.

Well your not. While it's seems socially influential (and there are chemicals women produce like oxytocin that help the bonding process between mother and child A guy can have this feminine quality. All guys can have this feminine quality and still associate themselves with being predominantly masculine. I think in reality it's more rare to find someone who is totally polarized when it comes gender sharing absolutely no masculine and no feminine qualities. Just like with women who associate with a lot of male qualities, men can associate with a good number of female qualities and still be...male, lol.

Likewise, if I say "I feel male when I feel passionate," it feels like I'm implying that all women are meek and passive.

Depends on what your passionate about ;p

So, gender is more a subtle, unconscious function of the brain?

It's something that we don't tend to really think about. We just feel it unless we research and think a lot deeply about the issue. But that goes for just about all forms of things that are psychological. A person who is depressed may have no conscious basis for why they are depressed but it can be biological. A person may not be consciously aware of the affect the media played in their buying a bunch of crappy merchandise but it happens. Especially in media. Media is a great example of how notions subtle and almost unconsciously drilled in until you start to think deeply about it.

[Kiljoy]

So, if I understand you correctly, there is a line between stereotypes and generalities, that it's okay to use generalities to define gender, and hormones/brain chemicals can influence people to act in certain ways regardless of what their physical sex.

I guess I just have a really hard time distinguishing stereotypes from generalities. When I try to describe my gender, all I can think of is stuff like "I feel female when I feel nuturing," and I feel terrible for implying that men can't feel sensitive and caring. Likewise, if I say "I feel male when I feel passionate," it feels like I'm implying that all women are meek and passive.

It's just all so confusing to me.

So, gender is more a subtle, unconscious function of the brain?

I wouldn't call it a function, you could call it a... by product. Your hormones and brain work in a certain way, it's made in a certain way. So I suppose that our view of gender is a result of how that is made up. Don't take my word for law thoguh, still working on my degree

[Blazey Firekitty]

I wouldn't call it a function, you could call it a... by product. Your hormones and brain work in a certain way, it's made in a certain way. So I suppose that our view of gender is a result of how that is made up. Don't take my word for law thoguh, still working on my degree

That seems to make sense, even though, as you noted, I shouldn't take it as concrete fact. Thank you, at any rate.

@Miko: If I understand correctly, you are saying that there are masculine traits, and feminine traits, that no one's personality is composed solely of one or the other, and that whether one is a man, woman, or somewhere in-between depends on which traits are dominant, or if neither are dominant.

If this is true, which traits, are, in your opinion, masculine, and which are feminine?

[Miko]

We could honestly go forever trying to list everything o__o

It's like asking "please tell me everything about American/Japanese/Egyptian/Korean/Italian culture.

[Sean]

Whoa, back on topic, please. Not that this is a bad discussion, but it'd be more suited as its own topic, so feel free to make one and continue conversation there, if you like.

[Miko]

Wait what was the topic then?

[Blazey Firekitty]

Wait what was the topic then?

Oh, Jake was referring to our little gender derail, since it stopped being about Sally after a while.^^;;

[Viuely]

Meh, back on topic.

Exactly! It doesn't just call her a tomboy... "Tomboy princess" is the best of both worlds! Despite the fact that her royal status is barely even relevant most of the time, the description is still a very feminine, even girly, one.

Do you have any idea how contradictory that sounds? The tomboy part is a disclaimer so that people understand that despite the fact she's a princess she's not "girly" otherwise they wouldn't have to put the tomboy part there.

I have to agree with Red, you're blowing this out of proportion here. Also it does say princess, and that IS her connection to the book.

Thats like saying Iron Queen. Tomboy Queen. Queen of what exactly? This sounds silly to us, but we're fans, and people who have some knowledge of the book or watched SatAM. Fresh readers won't. And if the book didn't care about fresh readers it needs to stop wasting our time refreshing who these characters are. It doesn't really tell new people what she does, it just tells us some fancy title she has. Thats like me, a new reader seeing Princess Tiara Boobowski clobbering heads of a few bots with Sonic. I have no idea who she is on the virtue of just the title. Now, Princess of the city would help a little, although more vague to her connection with the Sonic as the FF's leader. Again, the whole aim is just to sell Sally by making her a tomboy that is actually rebelling against the girly girl model hence the disclaimer that she's a tomboy. Which wouldn't be annoying if the assumption was that being anti-girly is favorable and thus rebelling against it is more sellable. All I'm saying is that they should've just left this whole damn issue alone and never started picking sides.

EDIT: And Blazey...your signature would be the poster image for "surprise buttsecks" macros everywhere ~

Edited October 31, 2009 by Viuely

[Genesis]

It's here where I draw the line. In the way I was educated, there was no distinction between boys and girls all that much. Sure there are typical behaviours from boys and girls, but that's what kids learn when they're young and what they prefer, not what gender they are. Girls might like to play games as much as they like to play with dolls and vice-versa. One of the most "girly" girls I've met is an electric engineer, which is a man's option mostly. Like her, I've met many, some that like computer gaming, cars, race cars, even football. They're not tomboys, they're not men in a women's body. People can like pink and frills and still be inteligent and independent. It's not a gender thing, nor do girls need to think like a man to be these either. I know where Miko is coming from because calling them tomboys is an insult to people who haven't been exposed to this sloppy (and blatant) dual standards while growing up

Sally is someone who grew up in a harsh environment where she couldn't frolick around doing girly-girly things. Apart from an independent and inteligent woman what is Sally's traits? Nothing else (well nagging, but forget that). And that's insulting to girls, when it's specifically implied that independence and intelligence come from thinking like a boy. Why is it implied? Because there aren't any girly girls both independent and inteligent in this comic. It stands out harshly and although I'm sure that Miko is still blowing up a storm for nothing (it is a mediocre comic after all) this kind of shit bothers me as well and it has it's reasons.

Damnit Redmenace. Why do you always beat me to these things

You toke the words right out of my mouth because thats exactly how I feel. In all honesty I never even considered Sally a tomboy character until I noticed Ian trying to pass her off as such. She actually doesn't fit the description of a tomboy in my opinion as well as the actual definition of the word.

Courtesy of Dictionary.com

"an energetic, sometimes boisterous girl whose behavior and pursuits, esp. in games and sports, are considered more typical of boys than of girls."

While Sally may look boyish none of her traits are really considered "boy" like traits. She also isn't into what could be considered boyish activities. She's into computers somewhat but even so she's not into them like Tails and Rotor are.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Genesis

[Miko]

While Sally may look boyish none of her traits are really considered "boy" like traits. She also isn't into what could be considered boyish activities. She's into computers somewhat but even so she's not into them like Tails and Rotor are.

Most people aren't into them like Tails or Rotor, guys or girls. But its also about behavior and the things in life you persue. Like I said though, most traits many people would feel accustomed to associating with what makes a woman that are also in Sally fail to make the connections with the character due to her upbringing and background. Sally was taught things like patience, ccoperation, diplomacy, and the like because she was taught it meant to be a ruler not because it's what it meant to be a woman. A position she has worse yet, associated with a duty she's invested in like a long-time boyfriend that was decided at birth. A duty that while fulfilling in it's help, is a very frustrating and often burdensome to deal with. So it's very difficult to associate what Sally's doing as an celebration and expression of her trying to be a girl, rather with her job as has it's been done so often. She's also been known to feel very distressed when not in the loop or lacking control of a situation.

Another issue is that Sally doesn't tackle a lot in the way of women's issues. Yes, she may be concerned about love but I doubt Sally is going to base her sense of gender on something like her love life. Sally isn't regularly consumed with her relationships to the other characters. A normal girl would've been freaked out that her best friend kissed her ex and Bunnie over Sally's lack of involvement in spite of how hurt she was over her split up with Ant (Buns didn't help Sal either tho). Even if they both reconciled realizing the other was being selfish, the conflict was never put in motion. Sally doesn't really worry herself much over the relationships between her friends beyond feeling left out from the action (under Ian's writing of course).

But that's not the same as feeling as being distressed over the notion you're emotionally disconnected and lack insight on things like their feelings and fitting in, with that regard in mind. And perhaps the biggest social issue for girls to date? Body image. Body image isn't necessarily simply just about being sexually attractive. For women, good girls are associated with being physically beautiful while less attractive girls are associated with being wicked and cruel people. And ironically the girl given the most respect, the most adoration by the most guys and the most screentime is all the same person. So she actually perpetuates the problem, and the basis for WHY girls worry so much about their appearance. In today's society to be a good girl often means being a pretty girl. And Sally looks down on people who primp and preen calling them shallow (Knuckles 29 for those who go "nuh-uuh" ). That's like saying people mindful of their complexion are being shallow. Uh, no honey. It's called being worried about how OTHERS will judge you based on that appearance. Which reflects again how Sally doesn't really care that much about interpersonal relationships to the extent it'd even create an emotional conflict to overcome. She's very ignorant.

It's not "strong" really. Because to be strong, you have to feel pressure. Even in a physical sense. Just because you can lift a 5 pound weight with ease while the second person is struggling to lift 100 pounds doesn't make you the strongest. You may look more graceful, but that's really about it. Since issue 18 she was written by a guy who had no respect for the conflicts women go through and the struggles they endure and has admitted to have little connection with traditional women. Nor did he feel a girl with a more traditionally "girly" features could be as strong. The only break we really got in the slightest was when Karl took over and ironically Sally's fans bawwed about how "it just wasn't Sally!"

Edited November 1, 2009 by Miko