I mean, isn't it cliche at this point?
Only a person who watches a very narrow and limited range of movies and TV shows would feel the need to ask that.
shareSo it should have a male warrior lead instead, which is oh so refreshing and new?
shareIt's not about being "refreshing and new" it is about being believable.
shareSo only men are believe as warriors and/or leads, is that what you're saying?
shareAs leads? No, and no one said that.
As warriors able to take on multiple trained male fighters with ease? Yes.
Biology and history say hello.
Now your turn, tell me about viking shield maiden graves and Japanese onna bugeishi, make my day.
To quote Kameron Hurley, “Shaka Zulu had an all-female force of fighters. Women have been part of every resistance movement. Women dressed as men and went to war, went to sea, and participated actively in combat for as long as there have been people.”
If you're aware of the existence of female warriors, then I don't really understand what you're basing your opinion on. Biology doesn't dictate that all men are stronger and more skilled than all women. And history doesn't back that up either, as you already know. History aside, there are plenty of female boxers and martial artists today that could take on trained male fighters with ease, since not everyone is equal when it comes to skill and strength regardless of gender.
But even if that was the case, why would it mean a female warrior can't be shown in a film, and can't lead a film? What's the problem with her being there, win or lose? Should shows like Xena: Warrior Princess never have been made coz it's not realistic, when it's not meant to be? Should female superheroes not exist? Should no female scientists or athletes be shown because men are simply "biologically better" than women in those fields? I'm obviously exaggerating, but you probably see how that's a weird argument.
>If you're aware of the existence of female warriors, then I don't really understand what you're basing your opinion on. Biology doesn't dictate that all men are stronger and more skilled than all women. And history doesn't back that up either, as you already know. History aside, there are plenty of female boxers and martial artists today that could take on trained male fighters with ease, since not everyone is equal when it comes to skill and strength regardless of gender.
This actually really isn't true. Your average man is just genetically stronger than a woman. Are there instances where a woman, through training, can be pretty strong? Sure. Are there weedy men? Sure. Does that mean there weren't examples of female fighters in armies historically? Of course it doesn't.
But all men, on average are physically stronger than women. It's just how it is. Not more "skilled" obviously as that's a different measurement.
>> But all men, on average are physically stronger than women.
That is a silly statement.
Not ALL men. When you day on average you are not referring to ALL.
Oh boy...
"If you're aware of the existence of female warriors, then I don't really understand what you're basing your opinion on."
You fail to grasp the difference between female warriors existing and female warriors being less effective compared to male counter parts.
Them existing does not mean "they are just as good".
The fact that they have been exceedingly rare throughout history should tell you a thing or two.
"Biology doesn't dictate that all men are stronger and more skilled than all women."
Nobody said ALL women.
But in GENERAL, yes, absolutely.
Take 1000 random men and women out of the population and have them compete - what do you think is gonna happen?
Will Gina Carano an ex MMA fighter wipe the floor with me? Absolutely!
However, will I wipe the floor with literally every other women that isn't coincidentally a fucking ex-MMA fighter?
Yes, absolutely.
So yes, biology absolutely dictates this.
"And history doesn't back that up either, as you already know."
No, no, no, I won't let you pull such little tricks.
WHAT does history not back up?
That men are generally speaking stronger than women and thus more capable and effective fighters?
Are you seriously saying that?
"there are plenty of female boxers and martial artists today that could take on trained male fighters with ease, since not everyone is equal when it comes to skill and strength regardless of gender."
Misleading.
Again, take 100 male fighters and 100 female fighters and 99 times the men win, if not 100.
"But even if that was the case, why would it mean a female warrior can't be shown in a film, and can't lead a film?"
Where did I say female warriors can't be shown or lead in a film?
That's right, I did not.
"What's the problem with her being there, win or lose?"
I never said her being there is a problem.
What I criticized is modern show makers being unable to resist the urge and tick boxes for "modern audiences" solely for political reasons instead of just keeping it believable. They could have shown Mariko killing someone in a believable manner. But her hacking and slashing away against trained fighters was too much and it solely exists for the reasons I stated above. And we have yet to see the episode where she faces a dozen men with spears alone as seen in the trailer. She's written this way to please a certain audience, not because it makes sense.
That's what I have issues with.
"Should shows like Xena: Warrior Princess never have been made coz it's not realistic, when it's not meant to be?"
I never said that.
"Should female superheroes not exist?"
Never said that either.
"Should no female scientists or athletes be shown because men are simply "biologically better" than women in those fields?"
Nor this...
"I'm obviously exaggerating, but you probably see how that's a weird argument."
You're not exaggerating, you're pulling stuff out of your ass at this point.
How about you focus on what I actually said instead of making stuff up?
The only thing weird here is you doing this.
My points are perfectly reasonable and based on biology and history.
I'm genuinely trying to understand your points, whatever they might be based on, but I'm just left more confused. I feel like you're saying that you don't find a female lead believable in this particular role, which is why you didn't enjoy it, but you've also conceded that it's possible for a character such as this to exist, even if it's rare. Unbelievable vs uncommon are two different things. So there's no reason not to believe the female lead here couldn't be the exception.
And all that aside, idk why it has to be believable to be enjoyed. There are plenty of films that hinge entirely upon an unbelievable premise, and are still fun films to watch. I don't think it's wrong that you have a preference for male leads in certain roles, but you don't need to hide behind logic to justify your taste, because it's not a logical reason. You can keep saying "but history and biology" while agreeing that some women can overpower or defeat some men, which allows for certain exceptions, but at the end of the day, you just like seeing guys fight other guys with swords. Just say that.
"...but you've also conceded that it's possible for a character such as this to exist, even if it's rare."
This is where your spotty knowledge of Japanese history becomes a problem.
Mariko is no onna musha. Mariko is a female member of the samurai class, yes, but that doesn't mean she's a "warrior by default". Having received some training with some weapons at some point in time does not change that.
Onna musha were the female equivalent of samurai you find on the battlefield. They had armor, were well trained with the usual weapons of the time and had expertise in using these.
But they were something completely different than Mariko.
Considering the above, Mariko's standing and responsibilities and also her history as we know it for now, make it difficult to believe that she'd grab some naginata and go kill not one but multiple trained fighters.
And the sole reason we have seen her do exactly that was the show runner's desire to tick the social political boxes required by "modern audiences" - ESPECIALLY in a show that attempts to portray something historical. THAT is the issue people like I have with this stuff.
"...but you don't need to hide behind logic to justify your taste, because it's not a logical reason."
Biological AND historical facts support and underline my opinion and arguments perfectly, what makes you say there's no "logical reason" behind it? That makes no sense whatsoever.
"but at the end of the day, you just like seeing guys fight other guys with swords. Just say that."
Yes - but no.
I do not mind seeing Mariko grab her dagger and stab someone in self defense, getting lucky.
I do mind seeing her channel her inner boss-girl and swing that naginata killing half a dozen guys.
Because one version is in line with biological and historical reality, while the other is social political pandering.
Just accept that some people won't look past such attempts.
It starts harmless like that and ends in "Cleopatra was black!", and I'm not having it.
Not really, you are talking about something being believable - to you. You have a prejudicial attitude.
How many complaint comments like this have you posted on MC?
Check out Poor Things. That features a retarded female nymphomaniac
shareIMO...to this very day...the ONLY reasonably legit female "warrior" lead in any film has been Sigourney Weaver in Alien.
shareDo you mean a woman like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A4fy4mbLXA
Look at almost any movie with Maggie Q who probably weighs in at about 100 +-20 lbs and how easily she can fight huge men.
The thing is, there are probably women like that, but what throws people is that we see them all over the movies, and that seems to bother a certain misogynistic segment of the audience - a segment of the audience who was never bothered by the male hero in movies always overcoming massive odds, like John Wick, or John Wayne for that matter.
As the years go by the exaggerations gets bigger and bigger. Sometimes they are fun, but to gather so much attention someone has to be watching these movies with a lot more seriousness than they deserve - it's crap for the most part. Same with with the super-hero movies. For people who want to fill their minds with nonsense.
Japan has a very long history with female warriors, something even the quickest of Google searches could have confirmed:
https://www.travelcontentcreators.com/female-samurai/
https://allabout-japan.com/en/article/10785/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/samurai-women-shogun-legends
There were female gladiators, female pirates, female warriors in several different cultures around the world. For so long, women were removed from depictions of careers that they did historically occupy that now that they're being added back people act as though it's an affront to storytelling.
In regards to the depiction of waifs who can beat up a horde of enemies singlehandedly - yeah, I'm not a fan of that either. But there's absolutely no reason that women shouldn't be depicted as inhabiting any of the spaces and roles that they did throughout history.
There is, when the key factor is RATIO.
How MANY women throughout history held such positions?
Nobody cares about the authentic historical portrayal of whatever, least of all me, but it gets absurd when "coincidentally" every new show and movie feels the need to squeeze some of that sweet sweet pandering in there.
It's obviously modern politics and not an actual interest in history.
See the whole "Cleopatra was black!" misery that's been going on.
So it isn't really about "removing them" from these depictions - it's that it just doesn't make much sense to pretend they've been all around. They weren't.
Go ahead, make your Onna musha TV show, let's see how popular it will be.
Make a show about female gladiators too... I am sure people cannot wait to see it, like female soccer, lol.
>See the whole "Cleopatra was black!" misery that's been going on.
That was really just one weirdo director. Everyone thought that Cleopatra show was garbage.
But Shogun, for whatever you think about it, has been pretty successful
> That was really just one weirdo director.
Snow White (2025)
Hamilton (2020)
Queen Cleopatra (2023)
Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story (2023)
Bridgerton (2020– )
The Woman King (2022)
Troy: Fall of a City (2018– )
Vikings: Valhalla (2022– )
(to be continued...)
> But Shogun, for whatever you think about it, has been pretty successful
And?
>Hamilton (2020)
This is a musical.
>Snow White (2025)
This is a fantasy film.
>The Woman King (2022)
This is set in Africa.
>Queen Cleopatra (2023)
Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story (2023)
These aren't supposed to be accurate. It's historical fiction.
>And?
The implication from your rhetoric was that Shogun was failing due to its emphasis on its female characters as compared to the original. It isn't.
> These aren't supposed to be accurate. It's historical fiction.
I never said or implied otherwise.
> The implication from your rhetoric was that Shogun was failing due to its emphasis on its female characters as compared to the original. It isn't.
Where did I say Shogun was failing? I didn't and I wouldn't, since it being successful is a simple fact.
That's never been my argument. But it is also not the first time you're missing the point.
>I never said or implied otherwise.
So what's the problem specifically with those shows? I can understand objecting to TV shows and films that purport historical accuracy and then clearly aren't. But Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte aren't that.
>Where did I say Shogun was failing? I didn't and I wouldn't, since it being successful is a simple fact.
Implied. That's how i read it anyway.
Ratio? - Well, that would depend on the region and time period. Archaeological studies of skeletons and DNA evidence at known battle sites in modern-day Shizuoka Prefecture found that almost 30% were women during the 16th century. In other regions during the same period, women were estimated to comprise 1-5% of the samurai class. In the time period this series (1603-1616) is set, samurai made up approximately 6% (1, 080, 000) of the total population (18 million). That means that even as a minority, there were approximately 10,800-54,000 female samurai in Japan during this time period, and that's if we disregard outliers like the Shizuoka region.
There's no conspiracy; they were there. If you argue with that, you're arguing with the evidence. You could have just looked this up, but you probably don't want to do that, as most historians and archaeological evidence support my observation. Do you want me to ruin Vikings for you too?
> There's no conspiracy
Nobody said there is a conspiracy.
There certainly is an agenda, however, and your facts-twisting post only proves that.
> If you argue with that, you're arguing with the evidence.
What evidence? You provided no evidence.
You cherry picked specific data while you ignore the rest of it.
You speak about one province and one specific time frame, ignoring hundreds of years of history in the rest of the country. On top, you quickly glance over the term "female Samurai" as if that is equivalent to a kick ass girl-boss warrior in armor and weapons, as capable as their male counter parts.
Nobody denies they existed.
But to focus so hard on such extreme minorities is exactly what people like I mean when we speak of an agenda.
It is not shown because "history",
it is shown because "the message".
And I'm not having it.
You can literally look up everything I said. But again, you don't want to do that because you'd be proven incorrect. I gave you data, you can choose to remain ignorant if that's your choice, but its very obvious that you grievance is illegitimate.
shareNo, you gave me cherry picked and out of context data to create a false narrative.
It is because I am not ignorant that I am aware of this and thus, wanted YOU to back up your claims.
But sure "just google it" was always the argument of a scholar.
> what people like I mean
It's me not I, people is the subject like is the preposition, .
> Do you want me to ruin Vikings for you too?
YES! PLEASE! Make my fucking day and bring up the Birka grave!
>> That means that even as a minority, there were approximately 10,800-54,000 female samurai in Japan
That's very interesting. BUT in the case of "Shogun",
1) Did those women get embedded in for their whole lives in their opponents household, forgoing any chance to practice or extent their skills, and were they what we would deem super-model or geisha candidates?
2) Just because they were samurai, does that imply an exact analog to a male samurai?
I read the book and I don't recall if there was this female assassin or not - it's been a long time. Seems like the idea of a assassin is to use the agents assets and skills to maximum advantage, like the element of surprise which would be more easy for a woman, especially one who was accepted as a household member, but that might not exactly call for what we would think of as a full samurai.
That said, Asia, China and their gymnasts and performing women certainly seem to have the strength and skill to be exceptional fighters. I don't think it is unreasonable to accept this as part of the story. Even to play that part would require a female with exceptional physical strength. I don't know why any time there is a woman is a movie some anti-woke wanker has to make a big deal about it?
> How MANY women throughout history held such positions?
Who care how many. If there were a few, where would they most likely turn up and be deployed? Obviously in the case of an assassination that would be very difficult. I do think that anyone of such skill would not want to give their life to play some part as a throwaway weapon in political intrigue without massive motivation.
yes
share