>*Kasi-chan stated:
>May I please ask a stupid question?  I have noticed many times that anime
>fans often abbreviate some's name in the way that you have abbreviated mine.
>Why is this done?  I would be curious as to how this custom came about.

I can't say for sure, but my theory is that if we adopted entirely
authentic Japanese manners, we'd be bored. "Lunde-san" sounds distant,
rather than respectful, to American ears (because of the different usage of
family names here).

Meanwhile, a lot of the characters in anime series belong to some sort of
common in-group: a family, the same class of students, or whatever, so one
hears a lot of informal language among the characters that one wouldn't
learn in tourist-phrasebook Japanese. Plus, anime fans are not immune to
the Lure of the Cute.

(With a little experience, the differences in politeness levels in Japanese
are easier to hear than exactly _what_ is being said. So it's one of the
extra channels of information, I appreciate as a subbed anime fan.)

- - -
>I love that episode!  It's my second-favourite of all the ones I've seen so
>far!  I must say, I really do NOT understand why most people dislike
>Tsubasa-San.  He didn't exactly shoot the Emperor, did he?

Well, I'm guessing pushyness was part of it. That and being a one-shot
character. The characters who make a recurring appearance tend to go from
being joke/threat-of-the week, towards something more domestic and safe,
and they get to show off a more rounded personality.

>If I had a choice between ALL the Ranma characters (male, female and
>otherwise), I would choose Ukyou-Sama.  Why?  Well, I admire her strength
>of character.  She is as tough as nails, yet has a very gentle feminine
>side as well when she allows herself to show it.  I *like* the thought of
>being with someone like her, as she would become the dominant partner in
>the relationship. [...]

Well, that's why Ukyou/Konatsu has a lot of potential. (To say nothing of
larger groups.) ^-^

Personally, I'd have to say that her hair is also an excellent feature...

- - -
>I'm sure that these people haven't been denied insurance, voting rights, or
>any other sort of rights simply because of their birth defects.

In the USA, pre-Stonewall, social stigmas towards homosexuality,
transgender, BDSM were all mixed together under some general heading of
sexual deviance (really as much enforcement of sex roles as anything else).
It seems to me, that in the US, the movement for equal rights for
transsexuals is a lot closer, than the gay rights movement, to those days
(like, say, the early 60s): the forces for and against have a lower
profile, and there are fewer legal protections of any kind.

Early laws with respect to gay rights tended to focus on equal protection
with respect to the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation, and write out other
sexual minorities. There was some protection for bisexuals
semi-accidentally written into such laws, but trans and BDSM issues were
left in the cold. That is changing now, but pretty slowly.

For more on transgender issues I'd refer folks in the US to several books
each by Kate Bornstein and Leslie Feinberg, and to _Sex Changes: The
Politics of Transgender_ by Pat Califia, which is an interesting
comparitive reading of previous books on trans subjects, put side-by-side
with her reading of the politics of various sexual minority groups.

--
     Albert Lunde         Albert-Lunde@northwestern.edu (new address)
                          Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (old address)