Jump to content
Banner by ~ Rikifive
  • entries
    24
  • comments
    61
  • views
    2,701

Looking at some logical inconsistencies in Steven Universe


Tilgoreth

2,046 views

Today I found out that the gems in Steven Universe are genderless. Which I'm glad because it addresses some logical inconsistencies in the show. It also creates its own. Before I get in to it I have to say something. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm merely being critical of a logical inconsistency in a tv show.

 

My biggest problems with gems has always been gender. Beings composed of light solely created for conquest have gender. That's illogical. Gender is only relevant to biology. When biology is removed it becomes meaningless. When beings who don't reproduce sexually have gender there is a logical inconsistency. If you create new members of your specis through artificial means gender is meaningless. Keep in mind things like bacteria reproduce asexualy(might not be correct term) and certain worms are asexual. Sometimes one will be male the other will be female. So not even all biological life has gender.

 

As far as I understand the explanation as to why the gems are female is because it's easier for them to interact with humans. That's stupid. The gems have been around long before humans. Long before they even discovered Earth. Why would they explicitly care to compensate one insignificant alien race? Who where so primitive compared to the gems. And why would they choose to make themselves appear as women? Why nit men? Aesthetics? But why. Aesthetics for a genderless race designed solely for conquest is meaningless. The most they would need is a number designation. No identifiable form. No aesthetics.

 

I don't know what Rebecca Sugar or the writers original intention was. Maybe they where always supplied to be female. Then the genderless thing came along later. Or maybe they where genderless from the beginning. I don't know. Regardless of original intention it was executed poorly.

 

Listen personally I think the idea of genderless beings is cool. Because there truly genderless beings. They have no anatomy. Therefore gender becomes irrelevant. I also understand why they have gender. Steven Universe is still a kids show. Having massive featureless blobs wouldn't be very appealing. Even though it might be more realistic.

 

The problem though is how it's portrayed. As far as the main gems are concerned I believe they are all female. Not in that they are biologically female but mentally they feel that way. And having watched the show I do not believe there as been any indication otherwise. This is a problem.

 

See it would be one thing if the gems where female to acomadate Steven. There not. All gems have always been female. We have seen no indication otherwise. And the main characters have never shown any indication that they don't feel like women. Keep in mind the athsteitcs. Sapphire, Lapis, and Rose all have dresses. Why? They wouldn't share the same fashion styles as humans.

 

Genderless now vs created for conquest do not need aesthetics. Aesthetics are a human concept. And widely varied by culture. I suppose the female figure is the one thing they have in common in terms of admiration. The animators applied aesthetics to genderless beings. So the point of them being genderless becomes moot.

 

Finally there's one more aspect I want to talk about. Shipping. I know there are some who hate Steven Universe ships. Because they believe there are no real lesbians sense they are genderless. Fine. I won't dispute that. But the show has still shown that romantic love is still possible for gems. So even if there nit real lesbians they can still fall in love.

 

I like Lapidot. Really only because she's the only one to ship Peridot with. I don't know why Steven Universe fans hate this ship. So if you know please tell me. And I just have to say something about Lapis. Why does she look like a teenage girl? It might just be me. But I think she looks like a teenager. That's a weird aesthetic to apply to an immortal being. But whatever. I'm probably wrong about Lapis.

 

Feel free to discuss with me. :)

30 Comments


Recommended Comments



I feel as if a major misunderstanding in your post comes from a lack of understand of what gender is.  Gender is an abstract construct that provides a basis for your psyche.  For example, a masculine person might be more aggressive, less emotive, more assertive, protective, etc.  A feminine person might be more inclined to be compassionate, intuitive, emotional, etc.

 

It is because of this link to psychology that gender is not exactly an issue of biology.  The word you were looking for was "sex" which does have a basis in biology as it is the type of sexual organs you were born with: male organisms are born with a penis and testes and female organisms are born with ovaries and an uterus.

 

In this case, yes, the gems are sexless beings and, as far as we know, have no concept as gender, despite the fact that all of them present as female archetypes.  In the canon, this is not explained.  Outside of the canon, however, at least one of the writers for the show (I can't remember his name) has expressed his contempt towards the idea of a masculine gem.  Jasper and Ruby are the closest the show will probably come to a "male" gem.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
I feel as if a major misunderstanding in your post comes from a lack of understand of what gender is.  Gender is an abstract construct that provides a basis for your psyche.  For example, a masculine person might be more aggressive, less emotive, more assertive, protective, etc.  A feminine person might be more inclined to be compassionate, intuitive, emotional, etc.

 

It is because of this link to psychology that gender is not exactly an issue of biology.  The word you were looking for was "sex" which does have a basis in biology as it is the type of sexual organs you were born with: male organisms are born with a penis and testes and female organisms are born with ovaries and an uterus.

 

In this case, yes, the gems are sexless beings and, as far as we know, have no concept as gender, despite the fact that all of them present as female archetypes.  In the canon, this is not explained.  Outside of the canon, however, at least one of the writers for the show (I can't remember his name) has expressed his contempt towards the idea of a masculine gem.  Jasper and Ruby are the closest the show will probably come to a "male" gem.

I understand the difference between gender and sex. But without sex gender is irrelevant. Gender is still important to humans because we have sex. We reproduce sexually. Yes socitally what specifically is expected of genders can change. But there are still natural roles that are a part of our biology. When we where still HUNTER gathers human beings where very muscular and lean. Nobody was over weight. Which is why we find the hour glass figure for women attractive. It's how we evolved.

 

Now for humans it makes sense why that aesthetic exists. It was a part of our ancestry. Gems? They have no ancestry. There completely artificial beings. There have no purpose for sex or gender. Also why do gems still have breasts? It all of them do obviously. But Amthyst does. Why would she ate her form that way? They serve no purpose. There there for aesthetic s.

 

More so because that's how they animated her. Not because it's logical for her to exist that way. Beings who are created artistically, and who's sole purpose is to serve there master do not require gender. Gender is only meaningful in reference to physical sex. Otherwise is meaningless.

Link to comment
I assume you included this because some feel that Steven Universe characters are transgender? This doesn't make sense. If they where transgender they could just change there form. When there poofed they could just come back in male bodies. They don't though. So I don't see w they are transgender. Unless them being transgender is just wishful thinking or speculation.
Link to comment

If you want to get really particular about lore or whatever, why do all the gems speak English? It isn't just Garnet and the main gems who do, it's every single one, even those who have never been to Earth at all.

 

Now, if you want to explain this away, you could hypothesize that gems have some sort of built-in feature that translates everything they say into the language that the listener understands. This would make sense for a race that operates on a galactic level, colonizing, conquering, etc. If this is the case, then the gems all using female pronouns could just be an artifact of how the English language works. People traditionally refer to themselves with pronouns, and out of all the options, that label most accurately describes /to humans/ what gems are. It's true that an alien warrior race might not really have any use for the concept of a gender within their own society, but when interacting with humans, who fixate on it and use it to determine how they interact with people? Very important.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
If you want to get really particular about lore or whatever, why do all the gems speak English? It isn't just Garnet and the main gems who do, it's every single one, even those who have never been to Earth at all.

Now, if you want to explain this away, you could hypothesize that gems have some sort of built-in feature that translates everything they say into the language that the listener understands. This would make sense for a race that operates on a galactic level, colonizing, conquering, etc. If this is the case, then the gems all using female pronouns could just be an artifact of how the English language works. People traditionally refer to themselves with pronouns, and out of all the options, that label most accurately describes /to humans/ what gems are. It's true that an alien warrior race might not really have any use for the concept of a gender within their own society, but when interacting with humans, who fixate on it and use it to determine how they interact with people? Very important.

Yes but the gems don't solely interact with humans. Even gems who have never been to Earth are female.
Link to comment

Yes but the gems don't solely interact with humans. Even gems who have never been to Earth are female.

 

I don't see why this would refute my idea. They're just behaving in ways that seem natural to them, and humans (including the audience) perceive those behaviors to be feminine. Aliens looking and behaving like women really isn't any more far-fetched than aliens looking and behaving like giant bugs, or whatever other concepts are more common in sci-fi.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
I don't see why this would refute my idea. They're just behaving in ways that seem natural to them, and humans (including the audience) perceive those behaviors to be feminine. Aliens looking and behaving like women really isn't any more far-fetched than aliens looking and behaving like giant bugs, or whatever other concepts are more common in sci-fi.
Yes but they look like human women. Which is illogical for a race that doesn't have sex.
Link to comment
What should they look like?
There designed to be slaves to there masters. Whose only goal is conquest. The only reason the gems should look like women is for aesthetics. Which would only make sense if organic life created the gems.
Link to comment

There designed to be slaves to there masters. Whose only goal is conquest. The only reason the gems should look like women is for aesthetics. Which would only make sense if organic life created the gems.

 

What's to say inorganic aliens can't have an appreciation for aesthetics?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment

Nothing I guess. But what would be the point?

 

For the heck of it, and because their culture seems to value strict attention to detail, which often goes hand in hand with caring about appearances and presentation. Isn't that a big plot point with Pearl, how she was designed to be pretty and a status symbol?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
For the heck of it, and because their culture seems to value strict attention to detail, which often goes hand in hand with caring about appearances and presentation. Isn't that a big plot point with Pearl, how she was designed to be pretty and a status symbol?
I suppose. But they where designed for conquest. Why would aesthetics matter?
Link to comment

I suppose. But they where designed for conquest. Why would aesthetics matter?

 

Not all of them, as Pearl proves. And military organizations pay a great deal of attention to cosmetic details, like how you wear your uniform, your posture, how you salute a commanding officer, all that stuff. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous for gems to do the same even down to the appearance of their troops, since that's a thing they can control.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Not all of them, as Pearl proves. And military organizations pay a great deal of attention to cosmetic details, like how you wear your uniform, your posture, how you salute a commanding officer, all that stuff. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous for gems to do the same even down to the appearance of their troops, since that's a thing they can control.
Yes but Pearls serve no combat purpose. They are slaves designed to serve elites. Why would there aesthetics matter?
Link to comment

Yes but Pearls serve no combat purpose. They are slaves designed to serve elites. Why would there aesthetics matter?

 

The elites have emotions and can appreciate aesthetically pleasing things, so they presumably prefer good-looking servants to less good-looking servants.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
The elites have emotions and can appreciate aesthetically pleasing things, so they presumably prefer good-looking servants to less good-looking servants.
But wouldn't they focus all there time on combat? Why design inorganic beings with emotions? Beings whose sole purpose is conquest.
Link to comment
But wouldn't they focus all there time on combat? Why design inorganic beings with emotions? Beings whose sole purpose is conquest.

 

Firstly, where did you get this "sole purpose is conquest" thing? We've seen plenty of gems who aren't designed to fight or conquer anything. And even though war is extremely important to gems, there are tons of jobs in any military that don't involve fighting.

 

As for the gems' emotions, I can only infer that they aren't capable of designing intelligent gems that don't have feelings.

 

Finally, even if every gem is designed for combat, I see no reason why it would be somehow illogical for gems to look like women.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Firstly, where did you get this "sole purpose is conquest" thing? We've seen plenty of gems who aren't designed to fight or conquer anything. And even though war is extremely important to gems, there are tons of jobs in any military that don't involve fighting.

 

As for the gems' emotions, I can only infer that they aren't capable of designing intelligent gems that don't have feelings.

 

Finally, even if every gem is designed for combat, I see no reason why it would be somehow illogical for gems to look like women.

But what functional purpose besides aesthetics would there be to make them all female. Unless the explanation is that the gems creators prefer the female form.
Link to comment

But what functional purpose besides aesthetics would there be to make them all female. Unless the explanation is that the gems creators prefer the female form.

 

Well, if the Gems' creators were the Diamonds (who all look female) then it doesn't seem unusual for them to make female followers. And really, you don't need a justification for them all looking female any more than you would need a justification for making them look like robots, or any other more generic sci-fi alien appearance. It doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs one way or another, and they have to look like /something/. So again, we return to the question, what should they look like?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Well, if the Gems' creators were the Diamonds (who all look female) then it doesn't seem unusual for them to make female followers. And really, you don't need a justification for them all looking female any more than you would need a justification for making them look like robots, or any other more generic sci-fi alien appearance. It doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs one way or another, and they have to look like /something/. So again, we return to the question, what should they look like?
Like There creators. But who created the diamonds. There inorganic life. They had to 've a creator. Unless they abandoned there physical forms long ago. Which would make them functionally the same as A.I. at east in the sense that they would be stored as data on there gems.
Link to comment

 

 

Like There creators. But who created the diamonds. There inorganic life. They had to have a creator. Unless they abandoned there physical forms long ago. Which would make them functionally the same as A.I. at east in the sense that they would be stored as data on there gems.

 

We can't really know for sure. But, if somebody else created the diamonds and the other gems, perhaps that person (or species) liked the idea of making them look the way they do. Still not seeing anything illogical here.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
We can't really know for sure. But, if somebody else created the diamonds and the other gems, perhaps that person (or species) liked the idea of making them look the way they do. Still not seeing anything illogical here.
I see what you mean. I guess they just liked female aesthetics better than male ones. Of course if the diamonds did have a creator it still doesn't explain why they have emotions. Emotions lead to mistakes and irrational thought. It would make more sense to have them act like robots. That way they could never inadvertently sympathise with there enemy.
Link to comment

I see what you mean. I guess they just liked female aesthetics better than male ones. Of course if the diamonds did have a creator it still doesn't explain why they have emotions. Emotions lead to mistakes and irrational thought. It would make more sense to have them act like robots. That way they could never inadvertently sympathise with there enemy.

 

We don't really know if they had a creator or not, but yeah. Still, fiction's full of examples of artificial intelligences developing emotions, so perhaps that happened with the gems too. Maybe we'll find out someday.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...