Feminist scholar calls Japan's gender problem 'human disaster'

http://copyrightland.net/sexuality-now/are-gender-roles-innate.htm

Some complements :

I’d bet the blue/pink thing is an example.

You win.

About passage from neutral to non neutral : historic point of view :

https://www.livescience.com/22037-pink-girls-blue-boys.html

Development studies :

https://www.huffingtonpost.in/aradhana-pandey/pink-and-blue-the-myth-be_b_9191840.html

The evolution of the pink color over time :

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-history-pink

But other things are innate, like that women tend to be more interested in humanities, like nursing or psychology, while men tend to be more interested in analytical pursuits, like programming or construction.

I do not remember any study proving that is innate. (see the main article) There is studies showing that you can nurture behavior in children from young age, for example being helpful : https://www.appsychology.com/IB%20Psych/IBcontent/Studies/whiting_and_whiting.htm ; the historic view show that nurturing was not so natural for women in the past : https://thebookreviewindia.org/maternal-love-instinct-or-social-value/

But the idea that they don’t exist is simply ridiculous.

Who say they don't exist ? But if anybody want to use innate tendencies as a justification of discrimination or anything, they have to prove it (being innate, being a relevant justification, not being a problem to discriminate). As you say :

We are not slaves to our innate tendencies, and some people will not have the innate tendencies to the same degree as others with whom we share a gender.

And even sexual related behavior on which researchers agree in finding innate explanation can exist when the innate factor doesn't (see the article about testosterone). The article did not even pinpoint some other possible bias.

I think this study sums it up well:

Conclusion

*As attitudes change, so does the behaviour moulding that all forms of society impose. The nursing and clerical professions have seen a rise in the amount of men in their ranks, just as positions traditionally held by men are seeing an increase in women. As the gender lines blur so do the behaviours, which were seen as acceptable and 'normal' for each sex. And to answer the question, I could conclude that we have a basic innate behaviour stemming from the biological differences between the two sexes, and yet these basic behaviours can be shaped and changed as we interact and socialise throughout our lives, often changing ourselves consciously and unconsciously to meet the expectations of our culture and society.  ...read more.*

Link: http://www.markedbyteachers.com/university-degree/social-studies/is-gender-behaviour-learned-or-innate-1.html

Of course some gender biases are going to be learned. I’d bet the blue/pink thing is an example. But other things are innate, like that women tend to be more interested in humanities, like nursing or psychology, while men tend to be more interested in analytical pursuits, like programming or construction.

We are not slaves to our innate tendencies, and some people will not have the innate tendencies to the same degree as others with whom we share a gender. But the idea that they don’t exist is simply ridiculous.

The studies you posted a link for has nothing to do about biology, that is a gender study in the field of human science.

Biological differences between the sexes influences human behavior

Which behavior ?

Which studies are you basing your conclusion on ?

On which level was the biological difference studied ?

You don’t have to believe something that goes against your personal ideological predilections. But reality remains reality.

Ironic that seeing you say this.

Marxism and feminism are different things.

Modern feminism is neo-Marxist. Marxism was based in class and overthrowing the class system. Feminism is based on sex and is based on overthrowing the imaginary oppression of the patriarchy. This does exist in places like Iran and Afghanistan but it’s a made up evil fantasy in the West. Both ignore free choice and are authoritarian.

Flute: If you go saying there is biological difference which lead to preference difference which lead normal systemic discrimination, you have to prove it.

This is well known among social scientists but shunned by neo-Marxists because it disproves their wrongheaded and divisive contention that Western societies are dominated by patriarchy and oppression.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/%3famp=1

It’s flat out false and dangerous for social cohesion. It also puts a lie to the idea that there are no innate differences between males and females based in biology. Biological differences between the sexes influences human behavior but that doesn’t imply that no one is interested in occupations traditionally dominated by the opposite sex.

You don’t have to believe something that goes against your personal ideological predilections. But reality remains reality.

not sure about men having it harder after divorce, why on earth anyone would assume a man after divorce would need to move in with mother or eat conveni food?

Besides, its not like most Japanese women can cook anything beyond "curry" anyway...

the whole divorce settlement based on gender should be gone really.. it aint fair, same goes for child support.

Marxism and feminism are different things.

And they're both good and cool.

This small subset of differences are animated by neo-Marxist ideology and are used as political tools for political advantage.

It is more likely that they are related to reported case of systemic discrimination. I think you should stop your obsession about Marx. There is not so so many people around these day for which is was anything else that someone talking about class and that the capitalist system was not better than previous monarchical one since it was still based over pyramidal structure.

If you think some other group appartenance representation lead to systemic discrimination just step ahead.

Asking people victim of discrimination to stop asking for equality because you are yourself victim of discrimination but do not want to do anything about it, is just strange. If you are fine with being discriminated against, it is your choice but you can not exige that other people are discriminated upon and accept it because you do so. More over since you recognize that these discrimination are multi factorial and for people they can be quite heavy. If kind of give the feeling that you consider yourself discriminated but since other are more than you : it is fine.

Regarding the biological stuff, I made a mistake in between WillB and Bugle Boy of company B, but in the end what I say for one, is still valid for the other one. If you go saying there is biological difference which lead to preference difference which lead normal systemic discrimination, you have to prove it.

Which lead different preferences among males and females.

So that you have to pose the research you are referring to, so that we know what you are talking about when you say biological difference.

The fact that their are biological differences between males and females is self evident and irrefutable.

You assume that it is self evident, so I suppose you are talking about visibly obvious biological difference : so I guess a biological woman is definite by having breast and a biological man is definite by having penis and testicles. So you are basing the reasoning justify innate difference and discrimination by creating a group of people which have just share the same biological visible difference. That is strange.

Biological come from biology which is the study of life. That do not say anything about how you are going to specialize to carry on you research.

Japan is doing just fine without feminism.

From your perspective, fine for males

Now let's see what females say - this is the more significant answer

(and they make up more than half of the population)

@expat: Normally I disagree w/nearly everything you post, but on this issue, you are on the money. 

Well every once and a while I can stumble upon the truth.

It is more than a little counter-intuitive because we have been taught that women have been forced into traditional roles. In many cases that is no doubt true - but in modern nations can often be avoided if the woman is significantly motivated enough to do so. There are greater choices than for those living in poor nations.

It is likely the case that the reason a very large percentage of women in developed countries choose not to work and become homemakers is due to a more natural desire to raise their children and care for their families. In poor countries women (and men of course) have little choice but to work in whatever endeavor provides them the best opportunity to support themselves and their families. Women in Scandinavian nations don’t really need men for their survival because the state fills that role for them.

I've seen creepy Japanese male sexism up close in the Academic world. One bloody lie that made the rounds years back was that women were "housewives" who had no time for scholarly work. Of course capable women were seen as a threat. I have seen stupid, lazy, abusive men promoted and put in positions of power while intelligent and diligent women were kept down, their promotions criminally delayed for years and their work disregarded.

There is a way that mediocre men and women get ahead: they whore it. Thus, too frequently the women who do get ahead are no better than the stupid men who swam to the top through flattery alone.

I'm not sure how to get you to understand that you are redefining the concept and then attacking the flaws that you created by redefining it.

I understand your seemingly benign definitions for neo-Marxist concepts. You fail to recognize their pernicious effects on society. It’s like real estate companies preventing black families from moving into communities because it would depress housing prices. See it as “positive” discrimination. Defining red-lining in such a way sounded benign to these people at the time but the effects were pernicious. I don’t expect you to see that because you believe that discrimination today against a race/gender that was discriminated against in the past is legitimate. But when whites are no longer a majority in Western countries I doubt they will feel that 75 years of “positive” discrimination was a good thing.

@Flute: intersectionnal feminist do not limit itself to gender or race.

I understand that. My point is that there are literally thousands of ways that people can be differently from other people. Intersectionality focuses on a very limited number of them and predominantly things like race, sex, sexuality, and class. This small subset of differences are animated by neo-Marxist ideology and are used as political tools for political advantage. I believe this to be pernicious.

For example, lot complain about positive discrimination at work, that exist because there is still discrimination. 

There are several problems with the idea of positive discrimination. The biggest being that it is discriminatory. It also assumes that it’s okay to discriminate against a group of people of like characteristics because similar people did bad things in the past. People are no longer treated as individuals and are punished for a innate biological trait they have no control over - the same thinking that led to the problem in the first place. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Once you reach equality : meaning you will only be judged about your objective ability to do a work.

Except the people who feel they were discriminated against in order to obtain an undefined level of equality will be resentful and similarly blame people of another race for the discrimination they encountered. Stop waiting to treat be equally- do not now.

For now he did not. We are waiting for the references of the studies, the explanations of methodologies to avoid confounding variable without breaching ethical rules, the population, and so and so.

The fact that their are biological differences between males and females is self evident and irrefutable. Your argument requiring more proof of this fact is like saying you need more evidence to prove the existence of gravity. it’s

girl in tokyo:

This was meant as an example of your reasoning, and it is accurate.

It is not an example of my reasoning, and it is not accurate. I talked about different preferences, and you changed that into "ladybrains can't handle maths". I absolutely did not talk "not being able to". You completely made that up.

You are presenting a classic "strawman" argument.

Unfortunately the people who push the intersectionality ideology do not wish to extend its benefits beyond their own small tribes of beneficiaries. They believe demographic characteristics like race and sex say something about a person’s worth to society. People in the out groups ( whites, males, etc ) are considered inferior for no other reason than an accident of birth.

I do nnot know which group you tried to join to be so badly welcomed but intersectionnal feminist do not limit itself to gender or race. It is obvious that depending of the area problem will be different and people merging to solve them also. Try other location. You will find some were it will be more LGBTTQQIAAP oriented, or more physical disabilities oriented, or more body positive oriented, and so and so ... that doesn't mean that people doesn't want to help some people because they think they are inferior just that there is only 24 hours a day so you have to put priority. And, if you think about it, several of the trouble the group : whites males come across will be solved by fixing other stuff. For example, lot complain about positive discrimination at work, that exist because there is still discrimination. Once you reach equality : meaning you will only be judged about your objective ability to do a work.

When WilliB clearly explains that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women and that the differences in body/brain chemistry result in differences in the choices (in general) men and women make

For now he did not. We are waiting for the references of the studies, the explanations of methodologies to avoid confounding variable without breaching ethical rules, the population, and so and so.

I'm not sure how to get you to understand that you are redefining the concept and then attacking the flaws that you created by redefining it.

Oh my you are confused. Especially about biology.

Regarding social research - We are at the point where research that supports the political views of people are what most people tend to believe. Anything else is discarded because facts that don’t fit preconceived beliefs are simply discarded without consideration. But the fact that women when given a choice tend to gravitate to occupations that are not centered around things, as men tend to do, is as solid as it comes in the social sciences.

A balanced view would recognize that women dominate college enrollment by nearly 3:2 ratio. Girls are given tons of attention by Leftist teachers unions and by state and local governments in an attempt to encourage girls to go into STEM related studies. Unfortunately for social engineers the majority of females continue to gravitate to the humanities by the time they hit college age.

The unrelenting drive for absolute equality of outcomes in certain areas where women are not as proportionally represented has been and will continue to be a failure. Mostly due to sex based differences in interest but also in some part because there isn’t a proportional effort to reduce the areas in which girls and women are over represented. Women cannot maintain dominance in traditionally female occupations while simultaneously going 50/50 in the male dominated ones as well. It would require coercion to achieve such an end.

By listening to feminists and following their public policy wishes it’s clear that they could care less about men. To be male is to be an obstacle to overcome instead of a partner in society. No thanks.

WolfpackToday 08:52 am JST

What’s amusing is your nonsensical defense concepts of intersectionality and White guilt racism. You are the one who is defining ideas in the manner you insist is correct while ignoring the practical effects of these concepts as pointed out by others. In fact you don’t seek to refute this arguments in the merits you obfuscate and call others liars.

I'm not sure how to get you to understand that you are redefining the concept and then attacking the flaws that you created by redefining it.

When WilliB clearly explains that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women and that the differences in body/brain chemistry result in differences in the choices (in general) men and women make - you simply fall back on ideology.

I'm not a biologist and I did not create biology. If you guys have a beef with biology, then take it up with an actual biologist.

Ueno clearly falls into this category of narrow thinking. What should be most important is for men and women to be free to choose their own future. If only 25% of people in STEM are female there is nothing wrong with that - if that is the result of free choice. Research in Scandinavia has shown that as societies become more egalitarian the choices that men and women make become more pronounced.

We agree on one thing - that men and women should be free to chose their own occupation. However, when women are bullied and sexually harassed to the point where they drop out of male-dominated professions (e,g,. STEM) that is seriously impeding their ability to chose their own future.

As for the gender-gap paradox, he is misrepresenting the findings and he fails to mention the criticisms. Read it for yourself: http://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf

In addition, the findings of one study cannot be taken as sacrosanct and then used to draw blanket conclusions - the authors themselves concede this. As all good researchers do, they are openly critical of their own findings.

It is far, far more complicated than you seem to understand. If you have ever done any kind of research, such as for a master's degree, you would know that one cannot draw broad conclusions based on a single study, and that a basic understanding of the literature of that field is required to really understand all the issues and factors involved. You have to read far and wide to get a good grasp, and neither of you have done that.

A balanced view would be to say that yes, women are discriminated against, and yes, this discourages many women from STEM (and other) fields, and therefore is problematic. At the same time, however, the genders do have different strengths and weaknesses, due to a variety of social and biological factors. These differences often translate into typically gendered preferences for certain career paths. And no, there is nothing inherently wrong with people choosing a career that is typically considered gendered; but at the same time we need to interrogate ourselves and ensure we are not stereotyping men and women into little boxes that discourage them from pursing a field that doesn't align with the traditionally-held beliefs of that gender.

Clear? Good, because I feel pretty much done with this topic. I hope you learned something.

Why are feminists generally so full of hate? It's funny (and sad) to watch, but wow, so much hate!

Feminism is the cancer destroying West today. Ruining the normal relations between men and women. Well done Japan in rejecting it!

The inherited social system is that developed after the war, which assumed a sole male bread winner in each family and the entire system was designed based on that assumption. Economically that system has been unsustainable for a while since most jobs don't pay enough to support a family these days (which in turn feeds into Japan's demographic crisis).

I agree that this is an issue...but it is not clear the issue is a Q of gender...and it rather seems more of a Q of capital not providing returns to labor. A housewife could be supported just fine with today's GDP, the wages just need to rise.

If you derive a significant amount of your self worth or social positioning based on your ability to make other moms do menial and pointless PTA work, then women with successful careers are a threat because A) they don't have time for your BS and don't recognize your authority, and B) they are obviously doing better in life than you, which also undermines your position through the force of example.

This seems like something a sexist would write, looking at it. Just calling it as I see it.

And you know, I'm not even mad. I'm amused. If this is the best you can do, if evolutionary biology and redefining concepts are all that you two can come up with you to defend your point of view? LOL. :)

What’s amusing is your nonsensical defense concepts of intersectionality and White guilt racism. You are the one who is defining ideas in the manner you insist is correct while ignoring the practical effects of these concepts as pointed out by others. In fact you don’t seek to refute this arguments in the merits you obfuscate and call others liars.

When WilliB clearly explains that there are undeniable biological differences between men and women and that the differences in body/brain chemistry result in differences in the choices (in general) men and women make - you simply fall back on ideology. Ueno clearly falls into this category of narrow thinking. What should be most important is for men and women to be free to choose their own future. If only 25% of people in STEM are female there is nothing wrong with that - if that is the result of free choice. Research in Scandinavia has shown that as societies become more egalitarian the choices that men and women make become more pronounced.

WilliBJune 24 11:01 pm JST

And neither did I. And I don´t suggest either that lady brains are more prone to make up strawmen, as tempting as that thought is.

This was meant as an example of your reasoning, and it is accurate. I also note that you did not address anything else I said. You and Wolfpack have a lot in common - you both ignore the points that disprove your arguments, and redefine concepts so that they support your arguments.

And you know, I'm not even mad. I'm amused. If this is the best you can do, if evolutionary biology and redefining concepts are all that you two can come up with you to defend your point of view? LOL. :)

Flute: you should be happy to join feminism intersectionnalism group as according to Bugle Boy company B, that is just individualism.

Unfortunately the people who push the intersectionality ideology do not wish to extend its benefits beyond their own small tribes of beneficiaries. They believe demographic characteristics like race and sex say something about a person’s worth to society. People in the out groups ( whites, males, etc ) are considered inferior for no other reason than an accident of birth.

The research shows that racial discrimination is one cause of income inequality.

Since research shows that race is a relatively insignificant cause of income disparities what good is it be to divert attention from the real causes- that being the combination of children being raised in single parent families, failure to obtain a high school diploma, and out of marriage births? There are lots of exceptions but comparing blacks with all of these issues to those without and the differences in economic standing is quite significant.

White people do not face racial discrimination in white-majority countries. Not only are you redefining privilege, you're trying to redefine racism.

That is absurd. First off you would have to believe that no black people are racist. You would also have to ignore affirmative action laws that are specifically designed to disadvantage whites and particularly white males in favor of black citizens and other non-white people. Not only are you ignoring reality you are rewriting the text book definition of it. No one denies that there is a systematic racial spoils system - some simply argue that it is necessary because of previous discriminatory laws from a half century and more ago. The issue here is that no one ever seeks to make the moral argument that racism itself is wrong - it’s who is discriminated against.

The success of a particular woman of color does not prove that privilege does not exist. And if you had read Oprah's biography, you would note that she succeeded despite the discrimination she suffered. She talks at length about that, as do other successful women and people of color.

When you make a blanket statement that people are discriminated against because of their race and I can point to many, many examples in politics, business, sports, and through out society that illustrates otherwise you might want to reconsider your reasoning. Many people have succeeded despite any of the literally thousands of things that could have held them back is a testament to hard work and a nation that allows people to succeed on their merits regardless of their demographic makeup.

Words have meanings despite your personal desire to reject those meanings, and you don't get to change the meanings of words and concepts simply to win arguments.

Yes words have meaning. And you don’t get to define them for your own purposes.

I'm not arguing with you. You are really not worth the time it takes to even go this far.

Another close minded social justice warrior who cannot accept that people can think for themselves and not as the dominant culture expects them to.

Captain Dingleheim:

The more highly capable women who get stuck serving tea instead of working in the engineering, marketing, or sales departments

Who says they "get stuck", rather than they choose not to work their arses off, for... what? A lot of money to buy stuff, but no life and no family? During their reproductive years?

Note also that for a society, rearing children is more important than forcing everybody into the workforce. No children, no future. (As Japan, with a birthrate of 1,3, is finding out now).

So stuff like :

   Step 1: Do not tell people your gender. Now they can't hold it against you.

Do not work because you are not the one which decide of it. It is the people watching you which will decide for you.

So the individual human you are is see by other as individual but still as part of a lot of group. And with all of these group come a bunch of representation some positive some negative some neutral. So a black woman will wear the representation of being black, the representation of being of women and the representation of being a black woman + all the representations of the other group she is part of.

There is dominant representation which are commonly shared and taught. Some bring discrimination and other privilege. It is not well balanced and lot of pressure is put on people to fit the box their were put it.

If you take categorization in account and human lazyness, it is quite easy to understand why LGBT became LGBTTQQIAAP with time and will continue to evolve. As long as people stuck people in box, add representation to it and fight against deviance of these, forcing more boxes creation could be the best way to respect individuality.

So you can see feminist intersectionnalism as a global movment of destruction of discrimination and, at least, softening of the categories and representations. This way : being a woman will not mean : she will stop working to take care of child neither being a man will mean : he will not stop working to take care of child. People will be seen as individual. I really do not get why you complain about intersectional feminism with your mindset, you should be happy to join and explain the representation and discrimination which put pressure on you and should deserve to be fight against. Together you can have discussion about what should be the root of the problem and then how to fight it in the objective of everyone being treated fairly.

*I think they are not so well know worldwide so could serve as a good example

Wolfpack,

No it isn’t. Intersectionality is a neo-Marxist theory that reduces individuals to their demographic traits ignoring them as discrete human beings and denying their individual agency.

you should be happy to join feminism intersectionnalism group as according to Bugle Boy company B, that is just individualism.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, "intersectionalism" is nothing but "individualism" as no two people have the same factors determining "who they are" so there cannot be any "groups" of any kind of person. In other words"intersectionalism" is nonsense.

I think, you are misinterpreting something here : you don't live alone. Yes everybody is different to some degree but that do not change the fact that they are part of group. You can choose some of them but you are mostly put in a lot of group without being able to choose. Other people put you in these group. That is categorization. That is how human brain work (possibly some others species as well). That is brain economy. Is neither bad or good. The problem came after.

As the purpose is brain economy, they came with representation. Think about the use of a bottle : it should be easy now. Then how was your first contact with Ramune bottle ? For the people which never heard of it, they need to adjust. They don't when it is about opening a Calpis Soda bottle. That is what categorization do : you built in your head some representation of a bottle and how to use it. If something doesn't match you have to adjust. That is for a bottle. But it the same for everything even human.

Those with more testosterone generally are willing to take more risk, and want more high-paced high-stress work. Those with more estrogen generally move more towards empathetic and caring work like health, service or education. These are real, not social engineering.

According to who ?

What was the methodology ?

How did the confounding variable (as gender socialization for one) was removed ?

Sexism, in every country not just Japan, is a cultural barrier to more competitiveness in the global marketplace. The more highly capable women who get stuck serving tea instead of working in the engineering, marketing, or sales departments, the less of an edge that company and its host country has.

Ageism is probably just if not more of an issue in Japan, where the young brilliant people with innovative ideas for navigating the lightning speeds of the modern global economy play second fiddle to the old crusty company men further on up the totem pole.

girl-in-tokyo:

but you cannot make the argument that women don't chose STEM jobs because their ladybrains can't handle maths

And neither did I. And I don´t suggest either that lady brains are more prone to make up strawmen, as tempting as that thought is.

Words have meanings despite your personal desire to reject those meanings, and you don't get to change the meanings of words and concepts simply to win arguments.

Yes, girl_in_tokyo, that's exactly what people say about "cisgender" and "nonbinary". (gay "marriage" as well, but that's another topic)

Rainyday:

Ah, so females have a biological preference for being kept out of important, high paying jobs now? Interesting.

They have a biological preferrence not to sacrifice their whole lives for a super-competitive environment or do super-hard physical jobs yes. That is also the reason that you do not find 50% females amoung coal-miners and sewage pipe maintenance crews. Hint for you: It is not because of a secret conspiracy by the sewage pipe maintainers.

This has really been discussed ad nauseam. You might want to read Christina Hoff Sommers analysis of this particular junk science meme.

WolfpackToday 10:00 pm JST

Actually research shows that regardless of race or gender - or whatever one of the other limited number of intersectionality groups Progressives like to categorized people into - growing up in a stable two parent home, graduating from high school, and not having a baby before marriage makes it a near certainty that a person will avoid or escape poverty. That’s what the research says. Correlation between two variables such as race and income does not prove causation.

The research shows that racial discrimination is one cause of income inequality.

In the end who is worse off? And you completely ignore the racism that a white person faces in their attempts to enter the work force given the systemic use of affirmative action programs that are pervasive throughout society and endorsed by the government. Evidence proves that in the end a highly motivated person will succeed given the very low levels of racial, sex, etc. disinformation that exists today.

White people do not face racial discrimination in white-majority countries. Not only are you redefining privilege, you're trying to redefine racism.

That’s a blanket statement with a lot of built in assumptions. Despite what you may consider her many disadvantages I doubt Oprah has a hard time being heard at any meeting.

The success of a particular woman of color does not prove that privilege does not exist. And if you had read Oprah's biography, you would note that she succeeded despite the discrimination she suffered. She talks at length about that, as do other successful women and people of color.

Actually I did not redefine privilege. You are attempting to define it as being solely based on a limited set of differences between people. The number one difference being race - ie White privilege. I do not accept politicizing language to promote a partisan agenda.

Words have meanings despite your personal desire to reject those meanings, and you don't get to change the meanings of words and concepts simply to win arguments.

I'm not arguing with you. You are really not worth the time it takes to even go this far.

@girl in tokyo: Research into income inequality proves you wrong. Also, I did not only cite race. I also cited gender, economic class, disability, and sexuality, which you promptly ignored so that you would not have to address the glaring holes in your argument.

Actually research shows that regardless of race or gender - or whatever one of the other limited number of intersectionality groups Progressives like to categorized people into - growing up in a stable two parent home, graduating from high school, and not having a baby before marriage makes it a near certainty that a person will avoid or escape poverty. That’s what the research says. Correlation between two variables such as race and income does not prove causation.

While a wealthy educated black woman will have advantages over a homeless white women, that woman still faces racial and gender discrimination. 

In the end who is worse off? And you completely ignore the racism that a white person faces in their attempts to enter the work force given the systemic use of affirmative action programs that are pervasive throughout society and endorsed by the government. Evidence proves that in the end a highly motivated person will succeed given the very low levels of racial, sex, etc. disinformation that exists today.

That black woman would have to fight harder to be heard in a meeting than would that man. She may still succeed, yes; but she would have to put in far more effort than her male counterpart to do so. 

That’s a blanket statement with a lot of built in assumptions. Despite what you may consider her many disadvantages I doubt Oprah has a hard time being heard at any meeting.

Yes, you are. You redefined the entire concept of privilege, and now you are lying about doing it.

Actually I did not redefine privilege. You are attempting to define it as being solely based on a limited set of differences between people. The number one difference being race - ie White privilege. I do not accept politicizing language to promote a partisan agenda.

I also know enough about biology to know that biological differences have nothing at all to do with why people chose careers. Biology is about physical characteristics, not socially engineered preferences.

It's a bit of both. Some preferences are socially engineered, some are natural. The idea that all are socially engineered does not jive with reality. Estrogen and testosterone are different chemicals, and the balance of them in the body affects the type of things which interest people. Those with more testosterone generally are willing to take more risk, and want more high-paced high-stress work. Those with more estrogen generally move more towards empathetic and caring work like health, service or education. These are real, not social engineering. I can assure you that I never considered the more feminine professions because they didn't interest me, whereas more masculine things did. And I've never been one to choose my interests based n what society told me - I did plenty of feminine things growing up such as knitting, cats cradle, and even ballet lessons for a period of time. But things like machines, construction, guns and science/puzzles/math were more in line with what I was interested, and to think that's because society told me, and not because I'm a man, is well, silly.

but you cannot make the argument that women don't chose STEM jobs because their ladybrains can't handle maths

True. There does seem to be evidence that at the highest end, mathematical geniuses tend to be male but it’s also true that the worst mathematicians tend to be male. There is no reason why women shouldn’t be equally represented.

Does every biologist worth their salt dismiss evolutionary biology? Are you sure about this?

WilliBToday 03:56 pm JST

Yes, it may have also existed in hunter gatherer societies, but we don't live in one of those today either.

Yes, but the fundamental biological differences remain. Which lead different preferences among males and females. That is fundamental biology, not some sort of nefarious oppression, like some of these activists claim.

I wish there were an actual biologist here to set you straight. I mean, I'm not even a biologist but I also know enough about biology to know that biological differences have nothing at all to do with why people chose careers. Biology is about physical characteristics, not socially engineered preferences.

You can certainly make an argument that men are better suited for particular types of jobs, e.g., ones that require physical strength, but you cannot make the argument that women don't chose STEM jobs because their ladybrains can't handle maths, or that women chose to be nurses because they are better at taking care of people because they weren't able to hunt mammoths.

What you are describing is evolutionary biology and every single biologist worth their salt will be happy to explain to you exactly why it is junk science. Go ask one and learn some real science instead of pretending you know what you are talking about and spouting what is clearly a lot of nonsense.

WolfpackToday 11:34 am JST

Yes there are people that have advantages over other people in society. This is not based on race.

Research into income inequality proves you wrong. Also, I did not only cite race. I also cited gender, economic class, disability, and sexuality, which you promptly ignored so that you would not have to address the glaring holes in your argument.

Does a homeless white woman living on the streets of San Francisco have an advantage over a wealthy, well educated, attractive, highly motivated black woman? You can not seriously believe there is any truth to such an warped view of reality.

Again, you completely ignore the other factors I cited. While a wealthy educated black woman will have advantages over a homeless white women, that woman still faces racial and gender discrimination. Those are disadvantages that may effect her earning and social power when compared to, for example, a white cisgender straight man of the same economic class. That black woman would have to fight harder to be heard in a meeting than would that man. She may still succeed, yes; but she would have to put in far more effort than her male counterpart to do so. The fact that she has an advantage over the homeless white lady does not disprove racial inequality. It merely highlights the fact that there are many types of privilege, and that there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration.

I am not misrepresenting anything.

Yes, you are. You redefined the entire concept of privilege, and now you are lying about doing it.

Again, if you redefine a concept and then attack that instead you have already lost the debate. To get technical, that is a strawman fallacy and is commonly employed by people for whom the success of their arguments depend on ignoring aspects that would otherwise harm their position.

If you use the correct definition of privilege, as I have explained it here, then your arguments fall completely flat.

People confuse sameness for equality. There has always been more balance in gender roles than people usually realize. And sameness is not going to come full force because women even more than men will not allow it.

But anyway, Japan viewed from the western lens and spoon fed with sensationalist shallow essays on Japan passing for journalism will sure make people outside think Japan is a disaster. Japan needs fixing but I would not go that far.

intersectional feminism

Taken to it's logical conclusion, "intersectionalism" is nothing but "individualism" as no two people have the same factors determining "who they are" so there cannot be any "groups" of any kind of person. In other words, "intersectionalism" is nonsense.

I don't disagree with any of this. The question for Japan is why do women not fight harder against it. Women in other societies have more opportunities because they have fought against discrimination for them. Japan would have female politicians if Japanese women voted for them. The LDP of all people are up for ending spousal dependency, which discourages married women from working, but surveys always say most women oppose it. Likewise, no man at my kids' schools is dictating that the PTA must have lots of activities and hold meetings every month during office hours. That is women doing it to themselves. My school could stop the music festival, jumble sale, recyclables collection, and half the other things parents (mothers) do and I would be happy. By not fighting against discrimination, Japanese mothers (and fathers) ultimately condemn their daughters to the same treatment. It will simply continue in the name of tradition or "our culture".

This is true. Women who are already invested in the current system are the most incentivized to perpetuate it, way more than men (who are often oblivious to this stuff). If you derive a significant amount of your self worth or social positioning based on your ability to make other moms do menial and pointless PTA work, then women with successful careers are a threat because A) they don't have time for your BS and don't recognize your authority, and B) they are obviously doing better in life than you, which also undermines your position through the force of example.

My wife notes the massive difference between the mom societies between kindergartens and day cares. Kindergarten mom society is suffocating since it is mostly made up of stay at home moms and its the only social outlet many of them have, and the dominant ones can be ruthless. Day care mom society is way more relaxed since most of the moms have jobs and don't really care about it that much (and don't have time to even if they did).

My wife and I are of equal intelligence and skill, yet I make about double what she makes (or could make, she is a full time mom at the moment). In a perfect world this discrepancy would simply be the result of me being smarter or a harder worker or something, but in reality the difference is just explained by systemic choices outside either our control which kept certain doors open for me while closing them for her. This happens to everyone in this society and women who want a career are placed at a disadvantage at almost every step compared to men. This is a fact that anybody who works in Japan knows.

I don't disagree with any of this. The question for Japan is why do women not fight harder against it. Women in other societies have more opportunities because they have fought against discrimination for them. Japan would have female politicians if Japanese women voted for them. The LDP of all people are up for ending spousal dependency, which discourages married women from working, but surveys always say most women oppose it. Likewise, no man at my kids' schools is dictating that the PTA must have lots of activities and hold meetings every month during office hours. That is women doing it to themselves. My school could stop the music festival, jumble sale, recyclables collection, and half the other things parents (mothers) do and I would be happy. By not fighting against discrimination, Japanese mothers (and fathers) ultimately condemn their daughters to the same treatment. It will simply continue in the name of tradition or "our culture".

Yes, but the fundamental biological differences remain. Which lead different preferences among males and females. That is fundamental biology, not some sort of nefarious oppression, like some of these activists claim.

Ah, so females have a biological preference for being kept out of important, high paying jobs now? Interesting.

Physiological differences between males and females may explain different preferences in some contexts (when I was in the army, 90% of my colleagues were male not because females were formally excluded but probably because the nature of the job made it unattractive to a larger proportion of females for example) , but it doesn't explain why jobs where our physical differences are irrelevant (lawyer, doctor, architect, teacher, etc) still display high levels of gender inequality. It isn't necessarily "nefarious oppression" but rather the fact that the career paths and career evaluations in those areas are still based upon male life cycles and not female ones. There isn't really any need for this to be the case.

Rainyday:

Yes, it may have also existed in hunter gatherer societies, but we don't live in one of those today either.

Yes, but the fundamental biological differences remain. Which lead different preferences among males and females. That is fundamental biology, not some sort of nefarious oppression, like some of these activists claim.

It very much precedes that. You find the same division in hunter-gatherer societies and even primates. We are a bimorphic species with obvious biological differences relevant for society.

Yes, it may have also existed in hunter gatherer societies, but we don't live in one of those today either.

Rainyday:

The division of labor (men doing outside work, women domestic work) really just developed as a result of agricultural practices that made it more efficient to organize families (and society as a whole) along those lines.

It very much precedes that. You find the same division in hunter-gatherer societies and even primates. We are a bimorphic species with obvious biological differences relevant for society.

@Wolfpack

Does a homeless white woman living on the streets of San Francisco have an advantage over a wealthy, well educated, attractive, highly motivated black woman? You can not seriously believe there is any truth to such an warped view of reality. 

Referencing two extremes from two completely opposite sides of the spectrum only does more to hurt your argument.

Your argument is like asking. Who do you think would invest $1M more wisely. Warren Buffett or the guy at the cash register in McDonalds. This doesn’t mean the guy will lose but clearly one has a lot higher chance of success.

However, to argue the extremes you used, if you clean up the wealthy white woman and place both women in the exact same outfit and hide their background, see which one is given the better opportunity to succeed by society. That’s what inherent biases do.

The roles that men have taken on in societies have evolved over many thousands of years in a similar fashion in most cultures across the globe. They were based on numerous factors but primarily biological and environmental. Until about 125 years ago, before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of all human beings lived in what would be considered today to be abject poverty. In other words men and women were not “forced” into a social role by society. They were forced by nature to use their abilities to their utmost for the purposes of survival of their family, kin, and community. It isn’t a social construct - it’s the result of biology and the environment. The Darwinian survival of the fittest. Given the changes brought about by the alleviation of poverty and the fact that people are no longer in constant fear of sudden death, men and women’s roles in society have changed tremendously and for the better.

The division of labor (men doing outside work, women domestic work) really just developed as a result of agricultural practices that made it more efficient to organize families (and society as a whole) along those lines. We don't live in agrarian societies anymore, so maintaining the social roles that might have made sense in previous centuries today is pretty nonsensical (and in fact inefficient since that division makes little sense in modern labor markets).

> A lot of women in Japan want to break out of the roles they inherited from their ancestors. Many have and hopefully many more will - if that’s what they choose for themselves. I know of many women in Japan who are very satisfied with their lives as they are. The experience of Scandinavia, where women have had more freedom than any other societies in human history, has shown that when given the freedom to choose women have chosen more traditionally female occupations and societal roles. Just food for thought.

The problem is that women really do face huge barriers to breaking out of those roles even if they want to (some don't but many do) which they aren't in a position to overturn individually. The inherited social system is that developed after the war, which assumed a sole male bread winner in each family and the entire system was designed based on that assumption. Economically that system has been unsustainable for a while since most jobs don't pay enough to support a family these days (which in turn feeds into Japan's demographic crisis). So women are entering the workforce, in some cases because they want to, in other cases out of necessity. Yet the company or government hierarchies they enter are still largely based on the old assumptions about the roles of men and women in the workforce, and the social obligations traditionally placed on women (which assumed they had the spare time to fulfill them since they weren't working) haven't been altered to reflect the reality that they need to work either. Even the stupid tax system is working to relegate them to low paid, menial jobs.

My wife and I are of equal intelligence and skill, yet I make about double what she makes (or could make, she is a full time mom at the moment). In a perfect world this discrepancy would simply be the result of me being smarter or a harder worker or something, but in reality the difference is just explained by systemic choices outside either our control which kept certain doors open for me while closing them for her. This happens to everyone in this society and women who want a career are placed at a disadvantage at almost every step compared to men. This is a fact that anybody who works in Japan knows.

@girl in tokyo:

​***the fact that some people have advantages in society that other people do not have.*

Yes, some people always have advantages over other people, that is just a fact of life. But how do you get from there to the simplistic narrative of always oppressed women? Case in point: the old rule "women and children first" in case of disaster still applies today. And there are good societal reasons for that. So you want to abandon that in the name of equality? All the lifeboats from the Titanic filled with young, muscular men, and let the rest drown? Really?

My wife never got groped, as so many of her friends. So my point is, stop saying women are under pain while men are all in paradise without any effortand no threat.

There are only two forms of gender discrimination that I can see in Japan.

Women get their own train, men don't and female staff can enter the men's area but not vice versa.

I honestly can't think of any other.

Oh wait, some apartments are "no men allowed" but I haven't seen any "no women allowed" apartments.

White guy who has never experienced discrimination in his life thinks the only form of gender discrimination in country where women get groped so often they need train cars of their own is against men because they aren’t allowed on the train cars women are forced into so they can avoid being groped by men.

Got it.

I have two grown sons and two grown daughters. The latter make significantly more money than the former. My elder son was very cleverly exploited by a mentally unbalanced, alcoholic, adulterous woman, following in the footsteps of her equally mad mother. Thanks to Japan's corrupt family court system, she was able to walk off with their daughter, whom he is now unable to see...He suffers from depression and is on leave from his elite company. His aged parents lend him money.

Unamused and Wolfpack hit the nail on the head!

How often do we read articles in the "liberal" media presenting the other side on these issues? Almost never...Formulaic "stories" such as this might as well be produced by Google Left-wing Translate.

@girl in tokyo: ​**the fact that some people have advantages in society that other people do not have.

Yes there are people that have advantages over other people in society. This is not based on race. Wealth, talent, education, interpersonal skills, culture, motivation, and attractiveness are much greater factors. How social justice warriors can argue against these self-evident facts is delusional. That isn’t to say that black people and people of all other races do not face discrimination. Widespread affirmative action laws are systematically applied in both the private and public sectors. Until half a century ago the Progressive idea that blacks were inferior and their numbers should be limited through abortion and eugenics was the dominant way of thinking in America and Western Europe ( see Margaret Sanger). Today there are just too many successful people of all races and both sexes to be able to make a serious argument that White privilege adds anything meaningful to a discussion about social ills.

In other words, white women have an advantage over women of color in that they do not suffer from racial discrimination on top of gender discrimination and all of the inherent difficulties that causes in their lives. 

Does a homeless white woman living on the streets of San Francisco have an advantage over a wealthy, well educated, attractive, highly motivated black woman? You can not seriously believe there is any truth to such an warped view of reality.

And by the way? If you have to misrepresent a concept in order to argue against it, you have already lost the debate.

I am not misrepresenting anything. I simply have a different perspective to your Leftist ideologically driven world view. In order to understand the world many people choose to apply a framework that is built around simplistic ideological ideas. This is what modern neo-Marxist Progressives have done. They have chosen to believe that people have no control over their own lives. That societies are structured in favor of some over others ( oppressors and the oppressed ). In a society that evolves towards greater individual freedom such ideas should be dissipated. Progressives are more aptly described as Regressive in this respect.

But with neo-liberalism pushing "self-determinism and self- responsibility" as a principle, the most socially vulnerable were made to believe that they are at fault for efforts that fail to pay off, while the people with the most advantages believe they owe their success solely to their own abilities, Ueno explained.

The usual, factually incorrect, Marxist wordsalad of the ideologically failed Zengakuren generation. It's good to see in recent years the Japanese government has been 'cleaning house' at the universities in Japan, eliminating a lot of the bogus degrees and subjects in 'woke studies' that lead to useless academics with a zero intellectual output such as Ueno, in addition to their efforts to purge the humanities departments of

This so-called scholar might want to direct her attention to countries where there is real discrimination against women, not Japan. So stupid and insular.

I have to agree with Chizuko Ueno. The issues women face is shameful. If only we could switch the roles and let men stay at home while women go work 40+ hours a week to provide for the family, then men could understand. Let women have the pocket money and make the man handle all the rest of the money. Then maybe men will understand. Let men walk home late at night having to watch over their shoulder for women following them. How about women grabbing on men in the trains, maybe then men would understand the struggles women have to face on a daily basis.

Well said! I'm assuming it is irony but yes, there are struggles for both sexes in Japan. Forcing people into what are viewed as traditional roles means that many on both sides can lose out.

If a woman is ambitious, she will face many barriers in Japan. If she is not though, there is a good chance that any man she marries will not pressurize her into working to help support the family. She will be allowed to do that in the form of household chores. Having been a home husband for two years in Japan, once with a two-year-old, I can tell you that it is not that bad a life. I'd imagine working at a black company is much worse.

@Jpn8

Let's not act like all men are deadbeat fathers. I've been a full-time father. Especially when I first came to Japan. Because my wife owns her own business she is able to work from anywhere. To be honest, I would rather stay home every day with my two daughters than go to work. Especially since living in Japan. My daughters keep me laughing and smiling all day. When any of my daugthers are sick, I am the one that takes time off from work and stays home with them. If they are not feeling well at night, I am the one that stays up all night.

Women face a lot of things everyday. I completely agree with you on that. But when it comes to parenting and the roles of what a parent should be, that tends to work certain ways because of a lack of communication. When my wife was pregnant, we sat down and spoke openly about everything and the expectations for each of us and what the other one wanted from their partner.

If I had the money, I would stay home every single day with both of my children and never go back to work. Spending all day with my kids help me stay in shape and helps me become creative. It makes me feel incredibly productive. Going to work in Japan seems like deadend work that doesn't allow you to become productive.

I have to agree with Chizuko Ueno. The issues women face is shameful. If only we could switch the roles and let men stay at home while women go work 40+ hours a week to provide for the family, then men could understand. Let women have the pocket money and make the man handle all the rest of the money. Then maybe men will understand. Let men walk home late at night having to watch over their shoulder for women following them. How about women grabbing on men in the trains, maybe then men would understand the struggles women have to face on a daily basis.

WolfpackToday 12:11 pm JST

The concept of ‘white privilege’ is a stereotype of white people that is fundamentally racist. It is also, in reality, false. The concept was derived by Leftist academics in the United States - a nation that has had explicitly discriminatory laws against whites and white males in employment and education admissions for half a century. Ask a homeless man in San Francisco or an unemployed welder in a some small Appalachian town if they are a beneficiary of white privilege.

I have noticed that when people deny the concept of privilege they always mis-define it. White privilege doesn't mean that all white people are rich, educated, and have good jobs due to being white. It means:

privilege

noun [ U ]

uk ​ /prɪv.əl.ɪdʒ/ us ​ /ˈprɪv.əl.ɪdʒ/

*​*the fact that some people have advantages in society that other people do not have.

E..g., The concept of white privilege explains why white people have greater access to society's legal and political institutions.

In other words, white women have an advantage over women of color in that they do not suffer from racial discrimination on top of gender discrimination and all of the inherent difficulties that causes in their lives. For example, white women don't get pulled over by the police and murdered, like Sandra Bland.

But the concept of privilege is not only about race. It's also about class, gender, sexuality, disabilities, and so on. Every person has some sort of privilege over another person, and it's important to recognize the advantages that come from that.

And by the way? If you have to misrepresent a concept in order to argue against it, you have already lost the debate.

Intersectional feminism ignores all of the other numerous attributes that differentiate people from on another.

No, it doesn't. It recognizes that able-bodied, educated, white, straight, cisgendered women don't have to deal with homophobia, transphobia, classim, ablism, racism, etc. on top of gender discrimination.

Maybe some day intersectionality advocates will take in more factors than the neo-Marxist fixation on race, sex, and sexuality allows for. When they do they may eventually come to realize that human lives cannot be reduced to stereotypes - we are all unique with unique life experiences. Go to Harvard and ask one of the privileged Obama girls - they should be able to tell you.

I believe I have already covered this.

I'd say that Obama's girls and the lives of black girls in poor neighborhoods are radically different, because it's not only about ethnicity and gender - and I never said it was.

Then we agree that intersectionality is bunk.

In other words, men are being forced into gender roles in the same way that women are. I'm curious as to why someone would want to uphold such a toxic system that oppresses the individual.

The roles that men have taken on in societies have evolved over many thousands of years in a similar fashion in most cultures across the globe. They were based on numerous factors but primarily biological and environmental. Until about 125 years ago, before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of all human beings lived in what would be considered today to be abject poverty. In other words men and women were not “forced” into a social role by society. They were forced by nature to use their abilities to their utmost for the purposes of survival of their family, kin, and community. It isn’t a social construct - it’s the result of biology and the environment. The Darwinian survival of the fittest. Given the changes brought about by the alleviation of poverty and the fact that people are no longer in constant fear of sudden death, men and women’s roles in society have changed tremendously and for the better.

A lot of women in Japan want to break out of the roles they inherited from their ancestors. Many have and hopefully many more will - if that’s what they choose for themselves. I know of many women in Japan who are very satisfied with their lives as they are. The experience of Scandinavia, where women have had more freedom than any other societies in human history, has shown that when given the freedom to choose women have chosen more traditionally female occupations and societal roles. Just food for thought.

Your arguments are a non sequitur. I never stated that a person could “perfectly understand” what someone else has gone through in their life. Ultimately every life experience is unique no matter how much one might share in common with others.

I'm glad you agree with me.

And to assume that people of different races, sexes, ethnicities, etc have had radically different life expectancies is unthinking and simplistic. Do you seriously believe that former president Obama’s children have more in common with young black girls in poor neighborhoods in South Central LA rather than the rich white girls they went to school with at the elite Sidwell Friends prep school?

I'd say that Obama's girls and the lives of black girls in poor neighborhoods are radically different, because it's not only about ethnicity and gender - and I never said it was.

*In other words, intersectional feminism recognizes white privilege and attempts to bring attention to issues of gender inequality that particularly affect women of color.**

The concept of ‘white privilege’ is a stereotype of white people that is fundamentally racist. It is also, in reality, false. The concept was derived by Leftist academics in the United States - a nation that has had explicitly discriminatory laws against whites and white males in employment and education admissions for half a century. Ask a homeless man in San Francisco or an unemployed welder in a some small Appalachian town if they are a beneficiary of white privilege.

Intersectional feminism ignores all of the other numerous attributes that differentiate people from on another. Maybe some day intersectionality advocates will take in more factors than the neo-Marxist fixation on race, sex, and sexuality allows for. When they do they may eventually come to realize that human lives cannot be reduced to stereotypes - we are all unique with unique life experiences. Go to Harvard and ask one of the privileged Obama girls - they should be able to tell you.

@girl: It is unthinking and simplistic to believe that when you have had radically different life experiences from someone, that you can nevertheless perfectly understand what that person has gone though in their life.

Your arguments are a non sequitur. I never stated that a person could “perfectly understand” what someone else has gone through in their life. Ultimately every life experience is unique no matter how much one might share in common with others. And to assume that people of different races, sexes, ethnicities, etc have had radically different life expectancies is unthinking and simplistic. Do you seriously believe that former president Obama’s children have more in common with young black girls in poor neighborhoods in South Central LA rather than the rich white girls they went to school with at the elite Sidwell Friends prep school?

Ganbare Japan: " I really can't see any discrimination in Japan. "

Hard to see with your eyes closed, bud. The woman is bang on.

WolfpackToday 07:29 am JST

It is unthinking and simplistic to believe that people of different demographic backgrounds are incapable of understanding the circumstances of others. If this is true then it would be impossible for Ueno and other feminists to declare that women are more victims of society than men? The view of radicalized feminists tend to be skewed towards their own desires for power over others.

It is unthinking and simplistic to believe that when you have had radically different life experiences from someone, that you can nevertheless perfectly understand what that person has gone though in their life.

The fact that you think that aim of feminists like Ueno is to get power over others demonstrates your utter ignorance of how women live and are treated in Japan.

Or perhaps you aren't actually ignorant, but are simply denying it. Either one is entirely plausible.

> No it isn’t. Intersectionality is a neo-Marxist theory that reduces individuals to their demographic traits ignoring them as discrete human beings and denying their individual agency. It does not help anyone least of all women. Believers in Intersectionality exacerbate and inflame divisions in society. Blanket stereotypes such as ‘toxic masculinity’ demean men’s essential nature reducing it to a negative. It’s beyond me how anyone could believe such thinking could ever result in greater unity and compassion for others.

Wow. It looks like you are in dire need of a dictionary:

*intersectional feminism

[ in-ter-sek-shuh-nl fem-uh-niz-uhm ]

noun

a movement recognizing that barriers to gender equality vary according to other aspects of a woman’s identity, including age, race, ethnicity, class, and religion, and striving to address a diverse spectrum of women’s issues.

In other words, intersectional feminism recognizes white privilege and attempts to bring attention to issues of gender inequality that particularly affect women of color.*

The idea of toxic masculinity is not related, and you additionally got that definition wrong:

*Toxic masculinity is defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger.*

In other words, men are being forced into gender roles in the same way that women are. I'm curious as to why someone would want to uphold such a toxic system that oppresses the individual.

One night, my wife (before she was my wife) got a call and said she had to go home. I was puzzled and ask if something was wrong. She said it was her brother calling and he told her the rubbish needed organising and preparing for collection the next morning. I was quite surprised and told her to just call him back and tell him he can do it himself. But she went home and did it. About a week later her family went on a trip back to their hometown. My wife was happy because she didn't need to drive so she could drink at the family reunion while the brother couldn't because he had to drive. That was his job. I think you'll actually find many Japanese women are quite happy with the way things work in Japan. Obviously not the ones in relationships involving DV or abuse, but many aren't looking to be Company presidents or the like. The problem is for the ones who do want to do that there definitely needs to be some fairness in the pathways.

Flute: Without being in the shoes of other people, it is difficult to say they doesn't struggle much more than you.

It is unthinking and simplistic to believe that people of different demographic backgrounds are incapable of understanding the circumstances of others. If this is true then it would be impossible for Ueno and other feminists to declare that women are more victims of society than men? The view of radicalized feminists tend to be skewed towards their own desires for power over others.

That is what intersectional feminism is about.

No it isn’t. Intersectionality is a neo-Marxist theory that reduces individuals to their demographic traits ignoring them as discrete human beings and denying their individual agency. It does not help anyone least of all women. Believers in Intersectionality exacerbate and inflame divisions in society. Blanket stereotypes such as ‘toxic masculinity’ demean men’s essential nature reducing it to a negative. It’s beyond me how anyone could believe such thinking could ever result in greater unity and compassion for others.

many/most housewives are supported for life without ever having worked a day

When my aunt passed away a decade ago my uncle took on full responsibility for her role in the cooking and all domestic chores. After some months he expressed his deep shock at how hard she had worked and how much she had contributed to the wonderful atmosphere of their home life over their time together. "I had no idea," he said. Indeed. As is obvious by the sentiments expressed above, he is not alone in this Bochan-like attitude toward women. Unaware. Unappreciative.

I mean, I wish they would have known another style of their lives, i.e., have kids and families.

You must be an LDP voter. Or a Tokyo assemblyman. Remember when Ayaka Shiomura was giving a speech on government help for pregnant women and mothers and the Liberal Democratic Party’s Akihiro Suzuki shouted, “Why don’t you get married?” I do. Dinosaurs.

Bu ha ha I am not sure if posters here know about her problematic statements in the past which I cannot even post here, which make me think she is just like another Tajima Yoko. I mean, I wish they would have known another style of their lives, i.e., have kids and families.

@WolfpackJune 22 11:33 pm JST

If daughters feel that their parents discriminated against them they will make different decisions in their marriages and for their children. Blaming “tradition” is a cop out. Women have choices but clearly Ueno wants a government role in making them.

Or, maybe instead of delaying things while deciding whether it is tradition or not, we can just remove this discretion from the parents if statistically so many of them are using it improperly.

There are two types of feminism in the world: 

The original feminism. That seeks full equality in rights and obligations between men and women. 

And supremacist feminism. That wants to impose laws that are above men within the social and institutional hierarchy. In short, that women are above men in rights, but not in obligations.

I apologize for these harsh words. It is not intended to belittle anyone.

Unfortunately in Spain the supremacist feminism has managed to create un constitutional laws of positive discrimination in favour of women. It's more. With the current law a woman can falsely denounce a man. There is no need for proof. A woman's word alone is enough legal proof to arrest a man for gender-based violence. This procedure is frequently used in unfriendly divorce proceedings. With a false report, the woman automatically acquires custody of the children. Exclusive use of the family home. And above all, to grant a state subsidy to women ranging from 400 to 800 Euros depending on the case. Not counting the pension that the future ex-husband will have to pay to help feed his child.

The worst thing is the children. Where the judges impose a restraining order on the father towards his children. And he will be forced to go to a supervised family meeting point. In the best of cases because it is normal for the mother to violate the visitation order.

All this continued prevarication into a law that should theoretically protect abused women. But that actually. It is only a law that finances a lobby of associations of left and neo-communist character. As the current vice-president of the Spanish government Carmen Calvo said: Women have to be believed yes or yes. She said that in the parliamentary commission on gender violence.

All this is happening right now in Spain. I don't want these unequal laws to be implemented in Japan. Because they use pro-equality proclamations. But in reality they only create more inequality.

Actually. What is being done is for women to have a higher power than men. And that is not equality.

I'm living it.

 first make sure when there is a word such as Divorce, they should agree about not getting a penny on the settlement.

why....so men can have financial power over women and make it difficult for them to leave even if theyre in a relationship theyre not happy with or their husbands are having affairs etc.

Women sacrifice their careers and independance to become housewives, raise their partners children while theyre at work as they cant raise look after them by themselves. It takes income and caring to bring up children which is why most democratic countries allow women to take some of that financial gain by the husband if they get divorced. relationships are 50/50 if you cant share or sacrifice certain things to be in a relationship...dont start one.

A REAL man accepts a woman as an equal not a subordinate

Everyone struggles and in general women no more so than men.

I do not think you are Ranma, so on which basis do you calculate ? Without being in the shoes of other people, it is difficult to say they doesn't struggle much more than you. And according with my small experience of Japan, I would say, there is notable gap in struggle (not only in regard of gender).

Sure let’s continue to make things better for everyone without being divisive.

That is what intersectionnal feminism is about. Taking in account multi factor of discrimination to fight against it. So well, if you want things better for everyone, you know which kind of group to join.

Feminism is a reaction to gender inequalities. Abolish inequalities and feminism will disappear.

Actually feminism is no different from the concept of ‘separate but equal’. This concept is based on government control over the choices available to individuals based on their demographic groupings. Included is the idea that the favored group has government benefits unavailable to the out group. For example- preference for entrance into schools or professions that are not statistically balanced.

Did she mention the gender equality paradox in Finland? The more equal the society; the more people gravitate towards traditional jobs.

What? Mention evidence that disproves her claims? Why would she do that?

Did she mention the gender equality paradox in Finland? The more equal the society; the more people gravitate towards traditional jobs.

This is one of the reasons , why Japan never improved. But more importantly, women should admire each others success and not let the jealousy snake keep all woman apart.

Strident feminists like Ueno marinate in Marxist ideology and the idea that she is leading a great cause. That’s not actually true. Life is difficult for everyone but has never been better than it is today for women. Everyone struggles and in general women no more so than men. The hardships are only of a different nature. Sure let’s continue to make things better for everyone without being divisive.

Ueno’s future is not of strict equality between men and women but of limited choices and oppression by government.

Ueno said one reason for the discrepancy is the gender discrimination that is inherent in the education investment decisions made by Japanese parents.

If daughters feel that their parents discriminated against them they will make different decisions in their marriages and for their children. Blaming “tradition” is a cop out. Women have choices but clearly Ueno wants a government role in making them.

Sorry, I disagree to all the above.

"Feminists", by their modus operandi - are biased. To them , everything is against Women. And as such, should deserve no place in mainstream Politics, likewise anyone else who is biased one way or the other.

I think, they (these Feminist organisations) should start to look inward and look how what they are doing, and how their stance is harming the prospects of normal women.

"Equalists" are on the other hand, are completely different, and for whom I totally support - as towards Race, Gender, and Religion bias, is totally out of place in modern day times.

Equalism I totally support, as this has no bias, but simply states we should all be treated as Equal.

For the ones who do not like feminism.

Feminism is a reaction to gender inequalities. Abolish inequalities and feminism will disappear.

Easy to get rid of feminism, isn't it?

Feminism is a reaction to supposed inequalities.

"Abolishing inequalities" sounds rather socialist.

"How many men do you see cleaning toilets and trains?"

Very few. Men know how to say "no." Women are more agreeable and thus tend to get jobs they don't like.

Good speech.

Before these women want equal opportunities on everything,

Who in hell are you to dare telling half of humanity what to do "before" asking their rights ?

Change "women" with "black" and see what your sentence looks like. You totally demonstrate her point. :

 "what has happened is that gender has become something functionally equivalent to race or class in other societies."

And bias brings nothing good.

first make sure when there is a word such as Divorce, they should agree about not getting a penny on the settlement.

Huge majorities of males MPs wrote all existing laws. Divorce rules is women don't get one yen more than the men. Settlements are considering the wealth/income of each. Richer ex-wives pay as much as richer ex-husbands. When both have equivalent means, there is nothing to pay at separation. The more inequalities in couples in a country, the more and larger settlements.

In France or other parts of Europe now, men are starting to understand life because in recent years, in half to 2/3 of separations, custody of children is no longer given to women, it's fully shared. So roughly only half of the separated dudes are still required to pay alimony for their sprogs (and often fail to do so). The other half are required to raise the kids at 100% every other week. They realize that they are getting more tired than when they could get the wife/GF doing most of the chores after/before her work hours, and also that their expenses are more than what the custody amount would have been. So yes, in companies, we can see really more men men begging that big projects are not overlapping school holidays or asking that the meeting is scheduled earlier because they pick up the baby at 5 for medical appointment at 5:30. Not long ago, there were so many old arrogant male bosses that were saying "Mrs X, you have ever seen me -your male boss and role model- leaving so early ? You are lucky that our company makes the effort to promote women, do not bother us with your private life, otherwise change of job... blah blah...". But now, it's Mr X with his boring sick baby issues... Now they say there is a need to arrange a schedule for everybody.

In other nations, women cannot do most of these things.

I am puzzled..

What "other nations" in OECD ? I'm puzzled. Japan has one token minister, each corporation has one token woman that got promotion (while all the male coworkers get up in the ladder automatically)... And yes, that token fighter pilot in their non-fighting army, she is balancing the millions of uni graduated women that get only office flower jobs for fear they leave to marry, then 'housewife' baito deals (and are told they have chosen that).

 if she worked hard. 

And a man , he can with average effort ? That women fill only 1% of the high positions that means they are lazy ?

Ueno is correct. There is far too much leniency toward male on female sexual crime and huge barriers faced by ambitious women. Those scores that place Japan outside the top hundred in gender equality actually rate Japanese women highly for health and education. It is politics and economics where Japanese women are denied the chance to shine.

I must also say that Japan fetishizes helicopter parenting by the mother, almost in the manner of a cult. In the worst cases, working mothers are seen as selfish for putting a career ahead of their children. This worldview is great for unambitious women, who don't want to work anyway, but a real obstacle to women's advancement in society.

For the ones who do not like feminism.

Feminism is a reaction to gender inequalities. Abolish inequalities and feminism will disappear.

Easy to get rid of feminism, isn't it?

I don’t agree with all the Japan bashing. But this is a Japan centered news site. This means that most of the things here are about Japan so the good and bad comments will be about Japan.

@alwaysspeakingwisdom

There is a huge difference between offered and mandated to offer.

The government may not force companies to offer leave but you would be hard pressed to find companies, other than small corporations, that don’t offer maternity and paternity leave.

Also, Japanese companies don’t offer paid maternity or paternity leave. They simply have to hold your position for your return. The government pays for the leave.

As for the pay gap. Women in Ireland earn more than men do.

There is zero correlation between men and women in Japan and blacks in America cleaning toilets.

Perhaps "needs reform" should be used rather than "disaster" - in the interest of change.

Fight fire with fire.

Dude, seriously?

Time to re-evaluate your priorities.

The biggest problem is that Ueno-sensei is a woman, and therefore anything she says, however rational and well presented, will be completely ignored by the oyaji's who are the ones who REALLY need to listen.

It's not surprising that the women were more approving of the speech than the men. When men begin to realize the extent of sexual discrimination, it upsets them and their first reaction is denial. It's hard to hear that you are complicit in making a situation worse for someone else.

But the good news is, plenty of men are good and don't just turn off their ears. Instead they work to better themselves and lift women up. For every post here that denigrates women or attempts to deny or downplay the problem there are two men who are supportive. To those men, I say thank you. You are appreciated.

RecklessToday 08:30 pm JST

If women in Japan have it so bad, then why is my wife going to live at least 8 years longer than me and enjoy my pension after I pass? Talk about entitled, many/most housewives are supported for life without ever having worked a day. No man I know, except a bum, has that option.

You think that running an household is not work? See my comments above.

Ganbare Japan!Today  05:45 pm JST

I am puzzled.

That much is obvious.

“What’s wrong with being sexy?”

Keep up trying to support the status quo for women until a situation happens to you bud. There's no need for change yet, especially women are getting much more "privileged", though they really are, although men really need to change their aggressiveness towards one another.

“Countries with a male breadwinner model have the lowest fertility rate, with Japan at 1.42 as of 2018 -- well below the 2.07 necessary to sustain the population.”

OK and the countries with highest fertility rates are:

Niger 6.49

Angola 6.16

Mali  6.01

Burundi 6.00

I am sure the above countries are feminist paradises. I wonder if a Japanese woman would want to trade places with her counterpart in Niger?  

Feminist scholar is an oxymoron

Ganbare Japan! - I am not convinced by this academics views. I really can't see any discrimination in Japan

I love this guy! He should be an entertainer! How many women are in the Japanese Diet? How recently were women allowed to be one police officers? How many men do you see cleaning toilets and trains? Why is a woman’s salary 10-15% less for doing he save job? All modern countries offer extensive maternity leave for both the mother and father and have done for decades. At your workplace, who goes in early and cleans the office? Japanese culture is so prejudiced against women it reminds me of the ‘50’s in other countries. Burn your bras girls and stop putting up with this make dominated society crap.

The surest defense against feminist nonsense is to ask if they are assuming your gender, then proceed to change how you identify to dodge anything you view as a problem. (This includes responsibilities.)

Fight fire with fire.

It’s not a human disaster at all. It’s a Japan disaster that has been going on for centuries. So, let’s see some mass protests like the ‘burn the bra’ protests of the 70’s that happened in the modern world. Japanese women have sat on their butts for decades taking this crap and it’s only now a few are starting to stand up for it? Once again, Japan is 50 years behind the rest of the world. Get your crap together Japanese women! You are the scholars, sports hero’s and geniuses of the country. Stop letting letting all these oyaji cronies push you around. They will never change unless you make them change.

Jonorth

Please get your information straight. They are not that monstrous.

So I'm guessing you haven't followed the reason scandals about universities doctoring results to let fewer women in?

They are trying to let more men in. Not keep women out.

She can enter any national university if she worked hard. 

So I'm guessing you haven't followed the reason scandals about universities doctoring results to let fewer women in?

Apparently they’re allowed to ride bicycles in “progressive” Northern Europe....

Whenever there is a topic about women and the difficulties they face, there are always posts from men claiming a) these difficulties don't exist and b) men suffer more discrimination, actually.

Laughable.

I really can't see any discrimination in Japan.

Try opening your eyes.

I am not convinced by this academics views. I really can't see any discrimination in Japan. Women can do anything they want. She can enter any national university if she worked hard. She can rise to be a Cabinet Minister. She can join the Military or be Police women. She can be a pilot or Shinkansen driver. She can get promotions, management jobs etc. She can take 1 year off work on Maternity Leave.

In other nations, women cannot do most of these things.

I am puzzled.

Janitorial Studies Feminist Studies

This is a human disaster? Do not misunderstand. I do not want to downplay the struggles of women or others anywhere; 

'human disaster' may be a big term when compared to some other countries, but let's not get overly focused on a phrase, but rather the the underlying issue. When it comes to sexual equality, Japan in decades behind other advanced countries and even many developing countries.

There are only two forms of gender discrimination that I can see in Japan.

Women get their own train, men don't and female staff can enter the men's area but not vice versa.

You seem to have forgotten the discrimination whereby women are excluded from universities in the grounds of their sex, or passed over for management positions.

This is the discrimination that sees Japan near the bottom of the table for sexual equality. It is not some minor cases where women are given separate spaces to protect them from physical assualt.

Arguments designed to obfuscate and deflect will not wash with me. Address the real issue.

@burningbush Why do you think women's only carriages and apartments are necessary? You are either hilariously uninformed or being facetious.

Funny, I meet a lot of young ladies with very sexist views on themselves.

Having lived here for over 30 years I can sure see her point and what she is driving at. A lot of local men seem to think they are kings that ought to be served by their women and the violence by some men here against women is terrible. It would be great to see these problems eliminated.

At the same time I don't want to see western type modern feminism seep into Japan either. This has driven a wedge between the sexes that leaves a sour taste. And I've also met some very selfish local women that would drive any man up the wall. So I would say that there is something for both sexes to learn, me included.

The solution seems to be deeper recognition of each gender's inherent strengths and weaknesses, more mutual respect between the sexes and a greater will to love and serve each other sacrificially. Easy to say, hard to do.

Great speech, and probably about time. but I wonder how much has been absorbed and understood by the men at the top, probably very little, I would like to see how much of her speech gets implemented at work or in the government, who feels that her actions will be swept underneath the carpet and forgotten about by next week? and its back to work as normal.

a human disaster

This is a human disaster? Do not misunderstand. I do not want to downplay the struggles of women or others anywhere; however, the situation in Japan would be considered a dream come true for women in many other countries. The words human disaster doesn't qualify here. In some countries, domestic violence and discrimination against women are still 100% legal (U.A.E.). In Saudi Arabia, women are always considered minors either by their fathers or their husbands once they get married. These are things permitted by the actual laws of these countries.

I wrote my thesis on this back in 1997. Where's my award? Or do I not get one because I'm a man who wrote on the problem of discrimination in the workplace?

Brilliant woman and good on Kyodo for amplifying her voice. While I agree with everything she says, I particularly liked this part:

But with neo-liberalism pushing "self-determinism and self- responsibility" as a principle, the most socially vulnerable were made to believe that they are at fault for efforts that fail to pay off, while the people with the most advantages believe they owe their success solely to their own abilities, Ueno explained.

LDP, Trump, Obama, the EU, Tony Blair, Merkel, Macron, the entire Davos jet-set, Mayor Pete--this is the consensus world view on the part of elites everywhere. Until the left gains actual leverage over both right-wing and centrist parties, we'll be stuck in this horrid framework. Neither is offering solutions to what ails us.

Japan is doing just fine without feminism, compared to the West where third wave feminism has done everything to destroy families, turned working between the sexes similar to walking across a "minefield", not to mention a woman can make a claim against a man without proof and destroy his life - Japan is doing just fine without feminism.

Congratulations of the Finnish Han Honours!

The article seems more about the speech she gave back in April, though...

they should agree about not getting a penny on the settlement

If the man and wife had equal employment opportunities, a "settlement" wouldn't be necessary.

As a matter of fact, the woman would do just fine on her own as compared to the divorced husband that would have to either move back with his mother or live off of "combini" food.

Great speech, and Ueno is completely correct.

Women has made men coward with this feminism. Men have to walk and work very carefully these days. With one touch between a man and a woman, you never know what will happen to a man.

Before these women want equal opportunities on everything, first make sure when there is a word such as Divorce, they should agree about not getting a penny on the settlement.