Plummeting birth rates and an aging population further threaten the sustainability of its labor market. A 2023 study by independent thinktank the Recruit Works Institute points to a labor supply shortage of 3.41 million people by 2030, and over 11 million by 2040.
Let us just remember this premise, as it will be important.
Research shows that a gender-inclusive society and workforce leads to innovation and economic growth
Weasel-wording. Saying "research shows" without linking the research is an easy way to have an appeal to authority without actually researching whether there is research or not. Quick googling couldn't find any conclusive peer-reviewed research supporting such claims. If someone else can find a paper, please link it here.
Japan has tried this countless times, however, and largely failed. As my research shows, this is because gender norms are deeply embedded in Japanese society.
Too bad that this research appears to be neither a) publicly available nor b) peer reviewed, thus it is sadly irrelevant for the discussion at hand. Also, "hey, check out my [claim] based on [evidence by me] aka [just trust me bro]" is not really arguing in good faith, especially when we don't even have access to the arguments at hand.
Research shows that Japanese preschool teachers position children in various gender roles [...] Girls speak softly and act in a cute, non-threatening way. Boys, by contrast, use more dominant language and behavior. [...]
These beliefs and values influence hiring practices and organizational behavior within the Japanese workplace, which is still based on the male-based breadwinner/female-dependent model.
This attempt of correlation between speech and culture to organizational norms is odd, because business Japanese is almost exclusively soft-spoken and non-threatening. The Japanese culture revolves around being soft and non-threatening. So this comparison is invalid. And again, there is no factual evidence showing that "these beliefs and values" CAUSE this phenomenon. Correlation does not equal causality.
Japan was the only country to send a male delegate to the recent G7 delegation on gender equality and female empowerment.
And there is nothing inherently wrong to have men advocate for gender equality and female empowerment. Trying to connotate this in a bad light is ironically very sexist.
Gaining promotions to higher-paid positions relies on long hours and commitment to the company, regardless of gender. Gendered norms therefore result in a significant double burden on Japanese women.
Yes, because gaining promotions to higher-paid positions based on your gender or perceived gender would be sexist and illegal. It's not so much a double burden on Japanese women as it is the same burden on women that men carry. 1 in 5 women aren't married in Japan. There is no push for women to get married if they don't want to. There is no push for women with children to work. Either you are forced into both roles, or you're not. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
Despite having one of the most generous paternity-leave provisions in the world, only 14% of Japanese men took paternity leave in 2021
Yes, because ~60% of your + your wife's income oftentimes doesn't pay for the high standards of life that Japanese women are used to in marriage. Men work FOR their wives and supporting their family.
Japanese men also spend the lowest amount of time doing unpaid housework (41 minutes a day) among OECD countries
Hard to do housework when the husband is seldomly there, huh. The problem with OECD statistics is that they oftentimes don't (can't) take into account more variables which would skew their statistics in a more positive way. But granted.
Both the highly gendered workplace and unequal division of household labor mean that women are more likely than men to miss out on promotions, take on lower-paid irregular jobs, and/or only consider having one child.
Women miss out on promotions because they most often don't want the increased responsibility and work hours that come with said promotions. Women are generally more likely to say that they do not wish to have more responsibilities in the workforce. Here, we see another problem with people pushing gender equality in that they don't consider what the women want themselves. If left to their own devices and given complete equality of opportunity, women still generally take on lower-paying, less dangerous, less demanding jobs than men. This is a phenomenon that can be widely observed in Europe, where jobs are kept open because quotas are introduced, but women are simply not applying.
I'm going to stop here because the article ultimately failed to explain how gender inequality is hindering Japan's economic growth. If anything, the article is an ad for a book written by the author, a rant about how Japan's economy is getting in the way of gender equality while failing to explore what Japanese women culturally want. All in all, im disappointed by the article's lack of cultural awareness, ideologic rambling, and finally lack of realism. It's a shame, because Sarah's writing style is actually pretty fun to read and digest.
On the flip side, I think the Singapore take is a really nice one and should be implemented in some way or other.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing her next article.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Not so sure of that. Where is that evidence?
It's been years since he was arrested. And there was no trial date.
That is because there was no evidence.
Evidence is only presented to a select few during until trial. That is amongst the prosecutors, the defense, and the court itself. The fact that Kelly was convicted in 2022 for colluding with Ghosn would indicate that Ghosn would have eventually faced trial too. And that Ghosn would also have been convicted for at least the underreporting thing. Which means there was evidence.
6 ( +10 / -4 )
Did Ghosn turn Nissan around? Undoubtedly. Was he backstabbed or sold out by former colleagues? Most definitely. But does that mean that he was clean? Most likely not.
The reason Japan's prosecutors charged and arrested him in the first place is because they had enough evidence (for counts of 5 separate allegations) to support their claims and get him arrested. For me, the fact that he was backstabbed just proves the point that he had enough dirt, and enough people in on it that they were able to enter deals with prosecutors to backstab him. I doubt that people just forged evidence just to get rid of him, as forgeries would be easily caught by any auditor worth his money. Understating income, using Nissan funds for personal reasons, improperly transferring investment losses, corruption and money laundering aren't exactly things you can be charged with on a basis of hearsay.
People and Ghosn himself say that he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial, but just because the steps leading up towards the trial were riddled with unfairness and deceit doesn't mean the trial would have been unfair. To me, the fact that Nissan execs were able to put him in this situation would mean that everyone played dirty, and that whoever came forward and informed the prosecutor first secured themselves a nice deal that would shield them from repercussions. And in any case, one could say that Ghosn should have done things differently to minimize his attack surface. In the end, we will never know what happened because Ghosn fled, Nissan can't publish every relevant record because they are in a lose/lose situation, and it's not like Japanese prosecutors are known for airing dirty laundry on an international stage.
So without the trial, all we can do is speculate. However, there is one lesson we can all take away from this. Nissan is the best negative example of corporate compliance that I have ever seen thus far and highlights just how important compliance is to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen. I think the one thing that everyone should agree on is that, no one in this scenario was an innocent white lamb. Be it Ghosn, Kelly, any Japanese execs, or other people who knew what was going on and participated. All of these people contributed to the lack of integrity and compliance at the honorless company we now know as Nissan.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
[...] children will be able to learn about gender equality through toys
This is the most pathetic woke-pandering nonsense I have heard this month, Fujii. Children do not care about gender-nonsense, they also will not "learn" about gender-nonsense from having unisex-designed toys. They either play with the toy or they won't. I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at the idea that we live in an age where we expect children to ponder about gender equality of all things upon playing with their toys.
What even is gender-equality in this context?
4 ( +6 / -2 )
The comfort women themselves already declared the agreement dead, null and void. It's not coming back regardless of what FM Park says.
Disregarding the old agreement coming back or not, since when do the comfort women get a say in whether a bilateral agreement between two nations is valid or not?
And Yoon gets impeached out of office. [...]
What would Yoon get impeached for? Last I checked, the President can only be impeached for violating the Constitution or other laws of official duty. And even if you have a majority, you need actually two thirds of the house to successfully impeach the president, which I don't see unless his own party votes against him. (even if all the other parties' seats sans his own party voted)
So, I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but how would this issue even constitute a valid reason for impeachment?
8 ( +9 / -1 )
I've never understood why you couldn't smile for your passport photo, driver's licence, ID card etc.
Because facial recognition software works (or used to work) most reliably with a neutral expression. As stated in my above posts, these documents are there for you to identify yourself to the government and other institutions if the need arises. Not to look pretty.
-2 ( +1 / -3 )
This isn't the only rule for drivers licenses, see here as an example for rules set for by Kanagawa:
Tell me, are those other rules ridiculous as well?
People who call this "ridiculous" or "only in Japan" have no idea what they're talking about - but that's to be expected, looking at where the posts originate from. Bashing Japan is always easier than just appreciating something, isn't it? Let's all keep in mind that this is a photo for an official document which can and will be used for personal identification. If you want to contort your face beyond recognition, go to a purikura for god's sake.
In Germany and other places of the world, rules for government-issued documents are even stricter to ensure biometric recognition. Recognition technology seems to have advanced and the government is essentially going out of its way to enable people to diversify their driver's licenses, but yet all I see is whining of why it wasn't possible in the first place. It's this sense of entitlement that makes me understand why some Japanese citizens harbor anti-foreigner sentiments.
0 ( +5 / -5 )
Fujii was left with his arms handcuffed behind his back for more than 14 hours on Dec 20, 2017, after he expressed dissatisfaction with his lunch and became violent.
So what did he expect would happen? A pat on the shoulder and his lunch brought to him on a silver plate? Let's see how far this case goes. In any case, it's safe to say he got his.... just desserts.
0 ( +33 / -33 )
Just if someone wants to look at the contract for the Olympics. Sadly, you can't CTRL+F it, so you'll need to read it yourselves.
IMO, it's absolutely disgusting.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Well done Japanese prosecutoes. And so-called judges. You have wrecked not only Nissan, but the integity of Japan.
Or, you know, well done the entirety of involved Nissan management and accounting for not showing enough compliance to prevent a blunder like this.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
It is the case of a transgender woman using the restroom of the gender she identifies with. She belongs in there just as much as any woman.
But I think you will find that it doesn't matter what the individual identifies him/herself as. The whole problem is that the person in question is identifying him/herself in such a way that is not conforming to reality and is making other people uncomfortable.
You see, I think the transgender community should not be able to dictate others to tolerate any behavior because he/she is uncomfortable with the gender assigned at birth. Nor should the transgender community be able to dictate speech, or anything for that matter. I will try to explain this point further
I have met and talked to a lot of transgender people up until now, and I have yet to see somebody who is truly satisfied or happy with who they are and/or what they have become when they started transitioning. According to my experiences, this is true for people who have completed reassignment surgery as well. People are suffering because they aren't what they feel they should be. So letting people live in a delusion and encouraging them for having said delusion can be very very harmful to the human mind. All it takes is a look between their own legs, or an ignorant person or a child (not even a malignant actor) to say "Here you go, sir." and their whole world is thrown into turmoil because they received disillusioning feedback for something that everybody assured them of.
In my eyes, the trans community is doing more harm than good. Forcing others to accept someone's delusion as reality because it would shatter them otherwise as opposed to helping them embrace what they were born as seems counterproductive to me. But, in the end, it's their life and they can choose to live it however they like.
I make an effort to treat everyone equally. I don't care whether they identify themselves as male, female, a plant, an animal or a Pokemon. As long as they don't harass me with their delusions, we're cool.
But as soon as somebody is trying to dictate my speech or what I have to tolerate and accept, then please understand that this makes equal treatment of the person or group impossible by default, since this would constitute preferential treatment by virtue of sexual identity. In other words, it's reverse sexual discrimination.
So if a transsexual woman is allowed to use the womens' restroom and I'm not, that would make it reverse discriminatory towards me by virtue of gender identity (not even sex). Not being able to go to the women's bathroom just because I have something dangling between my legs and identify as cis sounds pretty cisphobic, not gonna lie.
So, do you agree that I should also be able to come in to use the women's restroom at the same time as you and wash my hands next to you and watch you adjust your makeup afterwards at the sink? Maybe I could put on some aftershave or brush my teeth next to you.
Would you be comfortable with this thought? Would the majority of women be comfortable with this thought? Would it be OK if I looked no different but wasn't cis?
Not that I'd be interested in using the ladies' bathroom, but you should get my point. It's not about what I think should be the best for me, but what the majority is comfortable with. Why should we use any other standards for trans people than for normal people?
In light of this, allowing the use of a women's restroom on another floor should be considered generous enough.
2 ( +7 / -5 )
I'm actually amazed at the lack of official information I can find about this while googling in Japanese. The last valid entry I have is from middle January, so I guess JapanToday has some alternative sources. I've even googled the Akita Prosecutors office, with no results on the case.
Chances are that the woman was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial and any further information falls into the "personal information" category and is thus not published. (as you do with children and mentally sick people)
So, we don't know whether she's actually free or not or what became of her after this. JT not reporting further probably means they don't know either.
She was found to be mentally not fit for trial and hospitalized not set free.
This is actually the most likely scenario and ties perfectly into my theory of why there's no info floating around except for this article at this point in time.
In the comment section, we already got someone going ballistic.
Working hard at looking like their working hard. Protecting that beautiful 99 and Japan's other safety county statistics.
Here, I present the ignorant people with Article 39 paragraph 1 of the Japanese penal code. Educate yourselves instead of making fools out of yourselves and attributing laziness/malice to Akita prosecutors despite them having done nothing wrong here.
Actions due to insanity is not subject to punishment.
People are mad when prosecutors prosecute, people are mad when they don't prosecute. How can one make it right for you?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Probably. It is possible to detect keyboard language in various programming languages. Although, the article may be wrong, and the hackers may have used the OS language.
It is actually very possible and used by several legitimate programs as well. The check can be called by either CMD, PowerShell or another Windows API .
HR hires based on the budgets they are given. When they are not given enough of a budget, they cannot hire the elites, and bugs (that lead to security holes) suffer.
Yes, but it still makes it the company's fault. Moreover, not being an elite makes it OK to do a half-baked job that could endanger the business? Why should I, as a user, care about whether my data was leaked because of malice or because "they didn't know any better" or maybe because of some other arbitrary reason? The reality is that the circumstances don't matter. To not invest into security enough was the management's choice.
Moreover, you don't have to have a high budget to implement basic security policies that are proven to work by design. It just requires the people to actually do their job. Nothing more. It doesn't require a Harvard or Todai graduate to follow basic established procedure.
How would you like it if all the tires on your car fell off during a highway drive and you have a major accident with you barely surviving, just for the company to say "Sorry, mistakes happen. Nobody's perfect. ☆"
The leak of private data can also affect people, to the point of ruin and even death.
I've never met a programmer ever who didn't make a huge mistake at one point or another in their career. No one is perfect. No one. The lucky ones had their mistakes caught [...]
We're not talking about programmers or just about programmers letting 0days happen. We are talking about managers, administrators and network engineers who should have known how to better manage their systems. And even then, processes should be in place to circumvent these mistakes. I mean, I make mistakes, but not in a Prod environment. And much less in a way that jeopardizes data I am bound to protect by regulations and compliance standards. Attributing this to someone getting "lucky" is a slap in the face of every competent manager and everyone else who does it right.
[...] before they brought down a system [...]
Systems go down sometimes. For scenarios like this, you create test environments or redundancy of resources. In this day and age, providing and ensuring good availability is not really a challenge anymore.
exposed significant customer data, or accidentally did something illegal*
So, I have to wish on a star to get lucky to not have my (maybe sensitive) data leaked or have the company not "accidentally" doing something illegal? Have you ever heard of the word "compliance" in regards to business practice? Anybody not being perfect or not knowing better doesn't exempt them from having to get good at their job.
As programmers ****(Furan note: why always programmers though?) are human, and humans are fallible, proper security means NOT just relying on your IT department, but also including 3rd party penetration testing to look for holes exactly like this.
And again, a statement that reeks of your opening accusation applying to yourself instead of me. Securing your company network and telling your programming department to implement DevOps security and do code review are two entirely different things. Sure, you may hire pentesters, but good luck finding pentesters who will guarantee your company won't get absolutely mauled in the future or be accountable for it. Whether it's the IT department or if you have a separate security department for this, security is first and foremost the company's responsibility.
Building the system is the responsibility of IT departments. Third party testing is a business decision that can only be recommended by IT departments that have staff with enough knowledge to know this, which requires a budget that doesn't only allow for hiring inadequate staff.
It may be that the company was staffed and budgeted inadequately. But wouldn't that make it even worse for the user who placed its trust into the company to maintain the core tenets of trust in the first place?
Let me just reiterate that a widespread ransomware infection happens more because of carelessness than any other reason. It mostly all starts with one person who opened a file carelessly. The next steps are because of negligence of the IT infrastructure by the administrators, no matter how you try to spin it.
From an specialist's point of view, your stance is the dangerous one, especially if you are a person in a position of power in any business. I implore you to learn more about IT security and compliance, maybe watch some videos on both topics or read a book on security fundamentals. You will see that it's not that hard and expensive and literally anybody can do it.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
If the situation was a Japanese in custody of another developed country the same people now trying to shift the blame on to this woman, would be up in arms complaining about the Japanese being a victim and the government of that country was responsible, we no that because it is what has always happens, it would be front page news with warnings about the dangers of that country!
People die in custody of immigration offices around the globe every year. And even if it was a Japanese national - if their actions had landed them in there and there were delays in getting medical care that they could have gotten in their home country or outside of detainment, then that would also (not solely, mind you) be their responsibility for getting detained in the first place.
But, that's a nice strawman argument you have there.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
It's always amazing when people take an extreme stance, while the very text of that stance shows they clearly lack the knowledge to be able to actually know what they are talking about.
IT security is an EXTREMELY complex system [...]
Au contraire, I do work in IT security and I take my job very seriously.
I'm going to be direct with you here, so please excuse my frankness.
It's funny how you call me out on a "lack of knowledge" while demonstrating the very same. When you have 3TB of sensitive data floating around your networks, you have no excuse if even a Kilobyte of it gets leaked.
You don't have to run 24/7 packet inspection surveillance package or expensive security solutions or hire a whitehat to be secure.
It starts with pretty easy steps that companies in most cases choose to ignore in favor of comfortability.
Taking inventory of your systems and the respective versions of the OS and software is neither complex nor hard. Updating your system in a timely manner is neither complex nor hard. (yes, even when you have to do testing on VMs beforehand so you don't break stuff) Segmenting your networks properly is neither complex nor hard. Restricting unneeded access and privileges is neither complex nor hard. Setting up guidelines on the use of removable media is neither complex nor hard. Schooling people on not executing malware can be hard, I admit. But the AVP on the client system should be the very last line of defense, especially for business-critical systems. Even if a client gets infected, it should not result in what we have here. There are many many other guidelines which are just as simple to implement.
When you get hacked because you use old software without further securing the network transitions around it, that's your fault. When your whole network gets compromised because of one client, that's your fault. When you use unencrypted protocols because "that's intranet" and then get important creds stolen because of it, that's your fault. How about 3TB of data being exfiltrated out of your network or people having access to your system for that long while going unnoticed? Or not employing any safety measures because "An AntiVirus is enough"? Can you tell me whose fault that would be?
Spoiler: It would be you and everybody else who was involved in the decision-making process.
People who try to relativize this blunder with "But it's not their fault because IT security is complex and nobody wants to invest into it anyways" should probably get into IT security for a few months to learn that this is nothing but a convenient excuse. A security suite doesn't make you secure. AVPs do not make you secure (in fact, they can even broaden the attack surface). And the cost point is completely moot, as getting hacked is much more expensive than getting security. Not to mention the loss of trust and integrity.
Nothing personally against you, but I do think that your way of thinking is part of the problem and should be amended.
Have a good day.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Total lock down must be taken seriously.
There is no total lockdown in Japan. Never was. There's only a SoE, which still doesn't really affect the standard Taro except that he can't drink alcohol at restaurants etc. right now.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Every time I hear about companies being hit by ransomware, I immediately cringe. Even more so when there's critical infrastructure affected by this.
The IT(-Security) departments should never find a job in IT again after allowing this to happen to make an example out of anyone who dares downplay the importance of updates while thinking that "installing an Anti-Virus" is enough.
People always underestimate security and the people responsible rarely take their job seriously, this is why RaaS is such a successful business model.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
Irrelevant. If she died in custody due to inadequate medical care, then it was 100% J-gov's fault.
Looks more like she was a victim of abuse, neglect, incompetence, etc... By the people at immigration.
I see the xenophobic are out late again!
I see people trying to shift the blame solely unto one party here, when it was a whole chain of events that led her into this situation. This being the actions of the deceased herself, the man she lived with, and lastly the detainment.
What do my fellow foreigners gain when trying to blame solely the government for what happened?
Was it the government that made her invalidate the grounds on the visa granted to her? Did it force her to overstay her visa? Or did it force her to move to Shizuoka to move in with a dubious man? Did it force her to get physically abused by the man (which ultimately resulted in her detention)? Did it force her to undermine her own credibility and integrity or was it maybe her own actions that kickstarted this whole mess? What about the man that pushed her into the executives hands? Or the family who didn't have the money to get her back to Sr Lanka, only to later fly to Japan to make an international scene? Where was the embassy?
If you read the released Japanese report and are able to do more with a Japanese text than run it through Google translate, you'd notice that there was never any stated explicit need to get her hospitalized.
The given procedures seem to have been followed.
She did not deserve to die, but this situation could have been avoided first and foremost by herself as her questionable decisions were the driving force that put her into detainment in the first place. And even if she hadn't been detained, there could be a chance she still would have died of the same exact causes, as she didn't seem to have any money to begin with. Humor my strawman question, but would you then have demanded that the government gives out free healthcare to people without a visa because of human rights?
To now blame it solely on the government is so ignorant of the facts and so irresponsible that it almost borders on sick humor. Of course, the officials had their part in the matter, but not to the big part people are making it out to be.
But after living here for many years and seeing how foreigners are treated,I no longer sing the songs of praise and no longer invite my family and friends.
Infact my family and friends have noticed that and they've been asking me to pack up. I have a business here but I'm seriously planning an exit and relocate.
All the respect for having a business and all, but If you get this lost over sympathizing with people who have demonstratively broken rules and refuse to integrate themselves to a level where they can be detained by the executive, then I think it would be for the best that you go back to your country. as you'd probably end up enabling rule-defying behavior in fellow foreigners with that stance, which in turn has the potential to cast a shadow of doubt and xenophobia over foreigners who do follow the rules. Please do me a favor and take the likeminded people with you, while you're at it. You absolutely don't have to force yourself to be here if you don't want to. お疲れ様 & 行ってらっしゃい。Please excuse me for being so direct.
This is literally all I have left to say on this topic. Thanks for reading until here and have a nice day.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
The family also visited the single-person cell where Wishma was held, describing it as "small and as if for an animal."
Were they expecting her to live in a hotel or something? All the condolences to them for their loss, but what do you expect from a DETAINMENT CELL?
It seems that her death was ultimately caused by her not receiving the care she needed. Whether her death was actively caused by malpractice or inactively caused by negligence has to be judged by a court of law, if applicable.
However, one may ask questions about how this all unfolded.
[...] Wishma entered Japan in June 2017 on a student visa planning to teach English to children in Japan, according to her family, the ministry's interim reports, and supporters.
Wouldn't she need a work visa to accomplish this? Why would she go "on a student visa" to teach English to children in Japan?
Wishma attended a Japanese-language school in Chiba Prefecture near Tokyo but her attendance started flagging from early 2018
Why did she stop going, though? Is this the initial reason why the family stopped paying?
moved in with a Sri Lankan man in the central Japan prefecture of Shizuoka [...] while finding work making bento meals.
Was moving in with the guy in a different prefecture after expiration of her visa status an attempt to flee the authorities? Also, what happened to her teaching English? Is it even possible to pay taxes when you don't have a visa status?
But in August 2020, she sought police protection after accusing the man of domestic violence [...] Her illegal immigration status was discovered at this time, and she received a deportation order.
What became of the man? And more importantly, what was his visa status? Was she so desperate in her situation that she opted to talk to the executive - which then ended up executing the law? Has she spoken with her family about this? Has she contacted her embassy?
She received a threatening letter from him and feared he might kill her even if she returned home to Sri Lanka
I cannot find any information about the Sri Lankan man. Does somebody have more info on him? Did her family know this? What does he have to say about her?
She initially thought that the immigration agency was a shelter and would protect her,
Seeing how she was pretty smart, was she under so much stress that she didn't mind being detained anymore?
Did she deserve to die? Nobody really deserves to die.
Should the officials have acted quicker? Undoubtedly so.
Was the officials' slow response understandable? Also yes. Wishma has demonstratively shown to have had low integrity on at least two to three separate occasions, which of course impacts your credibility in the long run. Of course, one shouldn't speak badly of the deceased, but acquitting her of any responsibility or agency in this matter is just as lazy and backwards as saying that it's entirely her fault.
In this case, everyone contributed to the outcome in a humanely fashion.
First we have the deceased, who ended up undermining her own chances and later credibility by taking the choices she did. Then we have her ex-boyfriend, who seemed to have pushed her into the arms of the police and put mental pressure on her to "not return home, or else". Lastly, we have the officials who failed to believe the deceased and only acted when it was too late. (Depending on how much they knew, the family could also be responsible. Moreover, couldn't the Sri Lankan embassy have jumped in here, too?)
All of this combined led to her timely demise. If only one of these few things went different, she would most likely be alive now. There are just too many factors to only blame one party.
But of course, I forgot that we live in an age where emotions reign supreme and heterogenous opinions and actual facts are discarded just to be offended at something.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
For everyone interested, here's the actual report where Japan ranks 120th. CTRL+F "Japan" http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2021.pdf
However, Japan has slightly closed its overall gap this year, moving up two positions since last year’s edition of the index
That's not much, but it is making progress.
The hardship women are facing during the pandemic is not because of the "gender gap". It's because of the public sector, which happens to be hit harder by the pandemic and people not taking advantage of the DV protection laws enough. Also, people who notice DV don't speak up or step in most of the time.
Civil courage is something that needs to be taught to Japan. You have to make it mandatory by law to step in rather than encouraging everyone to just look away.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
OK, so I don't want to be this guy, athletes or the government right now.
On one hand, you've already spent $12.6 billion in preparing for the Olympics. Then, you have to extend because of Corona and take further countermeasures and the tally rises to $15.4 billion. Realizing that Corona is still a thing, there will be not much revenue (I estimate sub $1 billion) to be made, so you're writing mostly red numbers anyways. Then you have the costs of the individual athletes to stay in Olympic shape during all of this time that will go to waste if you cancel.
The other reality is that cancelling won't do anything for the people or athletes at this point because
a) Cancelling/postponing again will not make the costs go away.
b) The athletes are not in any greater risk of infection than they were if they were training at home. They are training at home anyways, so in the case of contact sports it really doesn't make a difference. You're still training with others. When not in the stadium, they will literally only have to watch out for things that they watch out for at home already.
c) International spectators are not allowed for the games anyways. And you can bet that the ones who do come will be separated from the majority of people who come from the inside. (a lot of people are not aware of this)
d) We do not even have a published limit on how many spectators there can be during the games at a time.
Not saying I support the Olympics, but IMO you might as well go through with it at this point. Surely, a cancellation seems logical, but does it serve any actual purpose in a country where lockdowns aren't a thing and the same potentially infectious people will just find another event and/or stroll around crowded places anyways? I say this is a perfect opportunity to test anyone with a ticket beforehand and deny them entry if they are not tested.
The medical system opposes the Olympics because opposing any mass-event during a pandemic is the only logical answer. What else could they say as physicians and decent human beings with a working brain?
It's really on the people whether they go or not. If they go, that's their responsibility. The people of the public who would attend a mass event like this despite the pandemic are the ones who are to blame for the outbreak in the first place. But of course, the people who protest the "elites" and/or government are the ones who gather in a flock during a worldwide pandemic - rather ironic, isn't it?
Again, I do not support the Olympics, but I think that regarding how stupid people are, it really won't matter as people will just be infecting people somewhere else during the Olympic renkyuu or other days - just like the same people obviously didn't care about the risks while protesting the Olympics. In a crowd. During a pandemic.
Would be funny if it wasn't so absolutely disgusting and sad.
-7 ( +2 / -9 )
You "donate" something to your local Cat Rescue Group.
You "donate" something to Doctors Without Borders.
You "donate" something to the homeless man who's chilling at Yokohama Station.
You "donate" something to people who have a need for something but lack other ways to get the said donated things themselves.
Giving something to people who are already better off than the rest is not called "donating" or "charitable", it's called pampering and is a very hard slap in the face of those who actually need donations.
You can see that the government seems to be confused about its priorities.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Of course they will. TEPCO confessed it themselves in 2018.
I do agree that Japan winging this is more than counterproductive. However, I do not agree with political fearmongering.
The impact of the water release from Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc.'s plant on South Korea would be negligible based on the data disclosed by Japan, the Korean Nuclear Society said.
It is. This is why both US and UK invited Korea in G7 meetings hosted by them.
I think what you're talking about is Johnson's proposal to turn G7 into D10 - a proposal that, while it exists, is still not agreed on and facing pushback from the EU. And it's not only South Korea who Johnson invited to join.
So, this is a vision by Johnson - nothing that is "high priority" by a long shot. ATM it's just an idea.
Let's wait until June before jumping to conclusions.
Germany was opposed to Russian inclusion. Germany has absolutely no problem with inclusion of Korea.
The first sentence is correct.
Never said Germany had a problem with Korea specifically, but it doesn't change the fact that Germany (Maas) was initially against Trump's idea of expanding the G7 altogether (that includes Korea), and AFAIK he still is. He only voiced his support for Korea to participate in the summit as a guest for the 47th summit, not to join G7 as a member.
Thus, Germany AND Japan both were opposed to Korea becoming members of G7, albeit for different reasons. And this is why your point is false.
"The G7 and G20 are two sensibly coordinated formats,” “We don't need a G11 or G12."
And Japan was actively opposing Trump's idea for Korea to join G7 as a member state for valid reasons Japan has not voiced any opinion about the invitation issued by Johnson for the coming 47th G7 summit, which is why I wonder why you make this point at a point in time where Japan isn't opposing anything.
7 ( +9 / -2 )
So if Korea finds traceable amount of plutonium, strontium, and cesium from released contaminated water pipe during periodic sampling, will Japan immediately stop the release of contaminated water?
Are you giving us subtle spoilers, Samit? Taking into account the post you are quoting, it almost reads like only Korea will magically find contaminated water. But, if Korea finds contamination, chances are the IAEA and other participants will find the same.
But if it turns out that only Korea finds contamination, it will say more about Korea than Japan.
Highest priority G7 business is inclusion of Korea, which Japan alone opposes.
What? The inclusion of SK into G7 was never a high priority.
Also, Japan is not opposing it currently as they are not even any talks about it right now - this is a matter from last year. And even then, this statement is false because Germany was also opposed to the idea Trump lightly proposed during the time. Two other states were also proposed.
Setting aside that the matter you're stating is from June/July 2020, there were other reasons like Korea's pro-China politics and the pursuit of deeper relationships with their counterparts to the north. So one may argue that the reasons to oppose the inclusion were perfectly rational. And yet, you're deliberately painting it as if Japan did this out of pure spite. Not to mention that the statement doesn't even hold true when examined.
Really makes you think, huh...
6 ( +11 / -5 )
I think the real dilemma is that we're in a situation where the government needs to enforce a lockdown like in western countries, but can't due to lacking legislation and the immense difficulty the government faces in enforcing such a cut to human rights
Seeing how many people and companies are just simply ignoring the SoE, I would say that the way society acts actually justifies draconian measures like they did in China. A part of society will suffer even more than they do now, but it's a necessary evil imo because people can simply not be trusted. So, in this regard, we simply need to make the government more like China's government, which is a government that governs more. (props for those who get it)
Japan was never ready to quickly act or react in regards to this (or any other) pandemic. She wasn't back then, isn't now and won't be for a while, maybe even forever. All we can do is wait for the vaccine and hope things get better. Or, if you are a foreigner, you could go back to your respective countries where the situation is hopefully not so dire, I guess.
I wouldn't want to be a government official right now, seeing how they must be wanting to do something, but lack the necessary tools to do so. I'm starting to get "Japan's government has collapsed..."-vibes from this.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
[...] big gender gap in earnings.[...]
According to the World Economic Forum report, the average Japanese woman's income was 43.7 percent lower than that of a Japanese man's.
Said this before and will say it again. This has a reason. Men are in the workplace longer, put in more work hours, and seek more positions of responsibility compared to women (thus they get more promotions). So this is a really lazy and invalid point due to this being mainly due to womens' choices.
The central government last month decided to set aside funds to support women who cannot afford to purchase sanitary items such as pads or tampons, while some municipalities have launched programs to distribute the goods for free.
[...] cuts in jobs and wages due to the economic downturn spurred by the pandemic have shed light on the difficulties many women face affording such products
What's really dangerous about this is that this article correctly points out that this is a phenomenon caused by the pandemic. It's good that women are looking out for other women and that they get the support they need, but I think that this may leave male people in the dust....
the survey of a total of 671 women in high schools, vocational schools, and universities conducted online between February and March, 27.1 percent reported using something in place of sanitary items as they could not afford pads or tampons
This is the really dangerous part. The age groups interviewed are, by majority, still living with their parents and normally covering any expenses of their own. So, this really implies that EVERYONE (including men who by majority generally provide for these age groups) is making less money - not only women. And I suspect that this has implications for the male counterparts of society as well, which - if not examined and addressed properly and equally - could lead to a problem which transcends the boundaries of the sexes.
woman menstruates from the age of 12 to 50 for five days a month and spends 1,000 yen per month for sanitary products, the lifetime bill will reach 500,000 yen including tax
This statement is false and/or misleading for two reasons.
1.) 1000JPY1238 = 456,000JPY, subtract the years that the girl is financially dependent on her parents (1000JPY1212 = 144,000JPY), = 312,000JPY on average for a woman.
2) Considering that a majority of women who leave home have married or are living with their boyfriends, you would have to divide the average expenses for sanitary goods by the percentages that are carried by their (mostly) male counterparts in society. In Japan, a majority of households have the woman managing the finances.
(of course there are cases that differ from "the majority" in that there are some minorities where this isn't the case, but even then you can't base social standards on minorities. Thus, I argue that the calculation of sanitary goods was made lazily, since I don't want to assume it was made in bad faith.)
So, good for the women who get to save a few bucks but sad to see that this golden opportunity wasn't equally used for the entirety of society. For example, medicine and health-care (where you could easily have included the sanitary goods and MORE) and other sectors where people suffer from currently living on the bare minimum. Of course, you would actually have to make a gigantic effort - but it would have been one EVERYONE benefits from regardless what they have between their legs.
It's not that I'm personally affected by this either way, since I'm a well-earning man - but the short-sightedness of this leaves me feeling sympathy with those that are not so well off - be they man or woman.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Is this satire/bait? Because it reads just like:
"Young people doing dumb stuff in matters they don't fully understand" - By Hyun Young Yi and Daewoung Kim
Young people do dumb stuff - as did many when they were young. How the Korean media immediately jumps on this (look at the amount of cameras) and tries to make it a big story when it's actually just young folly makes them kind of desperate to blow this totally normal and transparent process out of proportion. The article even shortly discredits the youths' worries at the very end by indirectly quoting Kerry.
A reason why this article is so short is that if it were any longer, you would be forced to actually do investigative journalism where it actually would explain that what the kids are protesting against is actually a non-problem that they try to make into one.
The Korean government is of course rebuking the decision because they "have to fight against evil Japan" to keep their nationalist voters on board.
Not wanting to trash the authors, but this article is low effort considering that 2 people wrote it.
Also love how Hyun Yi actually reposted this story on Reuters a few hours later without crediting Kim.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Imagine the loss of face that the Korean government must be experiencing right now.
All efforts to paint Japan as the one responsible have ended in this - and it is far from over. As the offended will escalate this further and further, we will see how utterly baseless and petty the Korean government has been acting.
Soon it will be time for the South Korean government to apologize to its citizens.
Watch Korean "journalists" and other paid actors try damage control on this one by pulling something.
18 ( +24 / -6 )
raise the minimum wage to 2000 yen an hour
Raising minimum wages over 60% is never a feasible or good idea. Overall employment will go down. Try raising the wages at your company for EVERYONE to 2000円/h for 3 years and see exactly how many people you can employ. Also, who will the minimum salary apply to? Full-time? Part-time? Contractors and Free-lancers? I'm sorry, but it's not this easy. You should know this if you run a company.
no one working for more then 6 months in the same job should be on a temporary contract with protection against arbitrary dismissal after 6 months by shady employers
Arbitrary dismissal is already very difficult, even for temporary contractors (契約社員). Moreover, if the average Taro doesn't stand up for his rights and doesn't sue for wrongful dismissal and continues to let the company trample on him, of course they will continue. People and companies won't stop bullying you if you're agreeable - which Japanese people are to a fault.
BUT employees should in some sectors, be willing to work harder for better pay.
[...]in bars or restaurants in Japan the numbers of waiters is triple from my country and waiting times for service still longer
This highly differs from my experience at almost every restaurant I've been to in Japan. Upon calling for a waitress, I get served immediately - within 2 minutes at the latest. If my glass is empty, 90% of the time, a waitress/waiter will fly to me offering me to fill it up again I guess this would also depend on the restaurants you're frequenting, but I have to disagree with the point of slow-service.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
I already see the thumbs-downs coming, but someone has to point this out.
“Equal sharing of housework between men and women should be promoted.”
I think this is not something the government can do something about. Moreover, studies find that men provide 1.6 times as much overtime as women in the workforce.
One working mother who shared her schedule with a Japanese magazine had to get up at four in the morning every day to get everything done, and that’s without any time for herself at all.
One working father, who happens to be me, has to get up at 5 and studies after work because his family expects him to climb ranks at his company and/or make more money on the side. And that's without any time for himself at all. This woman's example speaks in no way for every woman, just like my example doesn't speak for every man.
Or am I supposed to take this as a "Women just want free time for themselves"?
69 percent of women said that balancing work and their personal life was hindering their opportunities within their organizations
“societal expectations of housework and child-rearing”
“The government needs to do more to address the gender gap”.
Just like for men, who are expected to - and do - work more than women on average. Maybe this is why men are never home.
43 percent said, “There should be more guidance for women to take on traditionally male jobs and government positions, and more efforts to increase the number of women working in those positions,” and 38 percent said, “We should raise the percentage of women in the Diet.”
And here I ask, do a majority of women actually want to do these jobs? If not, should we force them into these positions?
Only 47 percent of the respondents said they currently work
Way to show that the full-time working mother is in no way, shape or form a majority in this debate. Like so often.
most said that within their organization, most of the women were low-level workers
Many women who are employed tend to be part-timers as for tax and fuyo-reasons. Also, this can be based on perception as part-timers are usually surrounded by other part-timers which tend to be low-level workers.
However, the interesting thing is that when asked about their own career aspirations, most of the respondents did not want upper level positions. 42 percent wished to maintain their current positions, and 25 percent said they would like some kind of advancement, but not in the form of managerial positions
And here we have the real reason for the "gender gap". If you have an applicant ratio of women 1:3 men, which seems to be caused mostly from women deliberately choosing not to apply for said position according to this article, then this should be hardly an inequality. The "gender gap" is caused by womens' decisions in Japan just like it is in the western world.
It's amusing to see an article that promotes a narrative - only to dismantle it later itself.
8 ( +11 / -3 )
Posted in: British School in Tokyo's new campus