Sandie, check the latest news. She's been tested and cleared.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Hi suspicions have been proved unfounded. He should have the good grace to apologise.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
It's hardly a private moment when you've invited the media and given them pictures toasting each other. Considering the civilian deaths this is distasteful. A private get together out of the eyes of the media would have been more appropriate.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )
The words "mac-and-cheese" and "new heights" don't belong in the same sentence.
Except if sandwiching the phrase "raise Americans' inability to control themselves to".
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It's not the number of ships you have it's what you have and how you use them. The Falklands war showed how just one submarine could effectively paralyse an opponent. I can't imagine many Argentinian admirals even today would fancy their chances against British submarines.
And presumably everyone saying the Falklands should be given to the Argentinians are equally vocal about Taiwan being given back to China?
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Pompey?! A club that are virtually bankrupt, same crappy old stadium they've had for the last 100 years, and one of the worst hooliganism problems in the league?
I wonder why he, or anyone, would even consider going to those skate twats.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Yep, France can piss off. I third that.
-4 ( +4 / -8 )
The guy tried to strangle his 1 year old baby son, and then threw him off a 10th floor balcony!!! You may want to send him on an adventure holiday to build his teamwork skills and help him manage his anger. Im with Yubaru. This was a helpless infant at the mercy of the one person who is supposed to nurture and protect him. I think people feeling a little anger and wanting to teach this guy a lesson is human and normal, not primitive.
There you go again, wilfully misrepresenting what other people have said and running away with your own wild speculations. You may want to take a baseball bat to this guy or hang him, and although I would agree that's a natural knee-jerk reaction it wouldn't solve a thing. Then you have an injured child, a dead father, and are still no closer to understanding what causes some people to do crazy things like this.
What you're suggesting is below even eye for an eye justice, the type of justice most advanced societies have rejected as primitive.
One thing I hope we can all agree on is that people who do this kind of thing are crazy. They're not in a state of mind where they can make reasonable decisions, so having a deterrent like the death penalty that they would need to reasonably see as a scary thing wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
when did I ever say anyone has no right to disagree? And when did I ever make it about gender?
When you said this:
I wish women would start admiring, respecting and supporting each other regardless of their differences in choice
Why only women? Why do you give men the choice still to disrespect your choices but say women should support them? Is it possible to criticize someone while admiring ad respecting them?
you obviously have some issues of your own that need sorting out
Kindly address your responses to what I say, not speculation about my mental state. That's how debate works.
Marie, I have to hold my hands up to ignorance about the differences in childcare availability in many areas of Tokyo. I absolutely agree that the infrastructure and legislative environment is woefully inadequate. Where I differ with Cleo and Nicky is that I think the norm should be for mothers and fathers to participate equally in childcare, an tr responsibility to pay for it. They seem to be saying the norm should be for one parent to raise the kids and one to work, and they're fighting for a woman's right to make that choice, and saying men have equal or greater choice than they do.
As for take your concerns about the paternity / maternity leave gap to the government - sure, that's the ideal and we need to foster a social environment where men feel less fear (social and career) about demanding equal work / life balance norms to women.
Getting that kind of environment is what I'm trying to do here.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I AM a woman! How exactly am I being sexist?!
You seriously think it's not possible for you to be sexist against women because you are a woman?! Trying to limit people's ability to criticise others based on their gender is sexism. Hope that's clear enough.
Rubbish. Men also get to choose and have far more freedom in their choices - as the growing number of male contact workers and freeters here suggest
Really? How do you explain the difference in the length of maternity leave and paternity leave? How do you explain the difference in numbers of sahm and sahd? Which do you think is more likely to find a spouse: a woman who tells her boyfriends she wants to be a sahm after childbirth or a man who tells his girlfriends he wants to be a sahd after childbirth? If men really have far more freedom of choice, why do we see so few sahf?
As for rising number of male contract workers / freeters - do you have any data to suggest that's because of choice? I've seen lots of articles saying it's because of companies not willing to take the economic risk of offering full-time positions.
Combining work and motherhood for most women is not an option? Why? You may not get the perfect career you dreamed of, and I'd certainly agree that more needs to be done to secure better career stability for women and men who want to take time out to care for children, but do you really think most men have their dream careers? Of course not, the majority make do and go to work to pay the bills.
Do you think it would be as acceptable for a man to say to society, "well, I can't get the exact job I want, so I'm not going to work, and my wife can get a job that isn't the exact one she wants either and support me while I enjoy the fulfillment of raising the kids full time"? I think not.
As for your picture of married life, characterising men as rich lotharios who expect their wives to be subservient maids at home while they're out enjoying orgies with their lovers...erm...do I really need to point out the sexism?
Scotch, I can agree with your views with men only have one option. I don't think it is fair either but please don't lump us all into the same category. More than happy for the men to stay home - though since they also get a tax break here... Grrrr.....
Not lumping, I work with many working mothers so it's a bit hard to understand why so many women here think combining work and parenting is not an option. One of them even has a sahf husband, and frankly that disappoints me as much as sahm.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Cleo, 'reactionary' doesn't mean what you think it means. It has nothing to do with expecting others to feel bad if their values are different, it means rejecting social or political change and favouring the status quo.
As for 'you want to impose your values', impose assumes the authority to change others' behaviour, which I clearly don't have and am not advocating. Did I not say legislation should only go so far as ensuring choice?
Don't hope for your Mum to want to look after you? Really?
Good heavens, again, not even implied by what I said. In future could you do me the courtesy of asking what I mean if it's not already clear.
But sloppy language choices and (continual) mistaken inferences aside, changing the social environment to make it socially unacceptable for mothers or fathers to monopolise family or work life at the expense of the other is a value I think worth fighting for, in a similar way to the way feminists raised society's consciousness in the 20th century to make the generic 'he' unacceptable. It's not illegal to write generic 'he's now, but society's consciousness has been raised to see how exclusive it is, and it's almost fallen out of practice now. Homophobia is still not illegal as a belief, but in decent societies it's unacceptable.
I'd like an environment where society sees the benefits of equal involvement in work and family, legislates to facilitate it, and criticises those who choose to reject it. If you disagree with the core value I'm talking about then put forward a counter argument.
But don't try and say such a fundamental social issue which touches everyone, is none of other people's business. That's reactionary.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
You're taking my previous reply to another poster who did say that education was wasted on mothers and taking it in a totally absurd direction.
Really? So you didn't write
Telling a girl she shouldn't go to university because she'll 'only waste it if she gets married', telling her she's not allowed to look after her own kids because she has a degree in sedimentary deposits in estuarine systems, praising a man for 'understandingly' staying at home while his wife goes out to work yet verbally birching the wife when the situation is reversed, are all examples of blatant sexism and the unnecessary poking of noses into other folks' business.
in a reply to me? If you didn't really write that then there's no need to apologise for taking mistaken inference one step too far and accusing me of sexism.
Can you really not see why you're open to accusations of reactionary thought when you say things like 'It's the way it is and the way it's going to be for some time to come'? If not I'll repeat the example I gave earlier; do you think women would have got the vote in the UK if Emilie Pankhurst had accepted that type of thinking? Should we really tell children that that's the way society is constructed so don't hope for anything different? Even if you actually don't subscribe to the gender assignments the psychology you display when you say that will only maintain the status quo.
I absolutely agree that realistically-enforcable legislation and supportive infrastructure should be provided to allow parents to decide themselves about the split of child-care and career. And that's as far as legislation should go, but I disagree that beyond that it's nobody's business about the choice they make. You've said yourself that parenting is way more rewarding than work, and although I really enjoy my job I agree. The vast majority of fathers I know agree and would love to spend more time with their children, but people saying 'that's not the way it is' sustains a social and business environment where it's just not possible. For that reason I think it shouldn't be socially acceptable to allow mothers to monopolise child-care, any more than it should be socially acceptable for fathers to prioritise their career and ignore their kids. I hope that more stay at home mums and workaholic fathers feel awkward about their choice because more balanced involvement by men and women in both family and work spheres can only be a benefit for society.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Cleo I haven't even implied, let alone said women should be denied education so kindly don't infer it. I'm just contensting your opinion that higher education makes parents better equipped to raise children than those that don't have it.
Also I haven't even implied, let alone said that men should be praised for staying at home while women work, so kindly don't infer it.
I strongly disagree that the kind of critical thinking, theory formulation and thought structuring are more valuable in raising small children than the kind of observational learning, pattern recognition, understanding of routines, following instructions etc. that working on manufacturing might give. (The sedimentary degree isn't personal, just the first thing I could think of as narrowly vocational. Don't ask...)
I'm fully aware that most women want to look after their own kids. Guess what! Loads of men do too but the working environment is too heavily tilted towards men at the moment so few women have the option to sustain careers to support husbands who want to raise the kids. Add to that the sort of reactionary "that's the way it is whether you like it or not" thinking you came out with earlier, and it's no surprise we have lots of dissatisfied fathers and mothers. I'm saying we should have equality of choice for both men and women to balance family and work responsibilities, and 'educating a man benefits the economy, and educating a woman benefits the family' only perpetuates these gender assignments.
I would absolutely criticize women who feel its their role solely to raise a family and the husbands role solely to work, in equal measure to the criticism I would give a man who thinks it's his role solely to work while his wife's role is solely child-raising. Both work and family can provide great fulfillment, and a psychology that makes it acceptable to bar women from fulfilling careers or fathers an equally active role in childcare (and vice versa, absolutely) should be criticized at every opportunity.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Sorry Cleo, still can't find anything in your post to justify your point of view. How exactly does being an undergraduate student for 3 years teach you more self discipline than working in a machine tools factory for example? And then how exactly does a degree in sedimentary deposits in estuarine systems advantage someone over a parent with no degree when it comes to raising children?
Also I'm not sure what you mean by " Assuming that it's a genuine academic course, not one of those 'Your parents pay up front and a degree comes out the other end' -type of three-year holiday", but if it is more than simple academic snobbery then could you clarify what type of degree you consider valid?
As for "it's about choice, not about everyone being obliged to follow the same path.", I'm sure most sensible people would be with you there, but frankly I don't know how you can say on one hand that the status quo is that women raise the kids and will do for a long time wether you like it or not on one hand, and claim to be advocating choice on the other. We're not likely to see the changes either in social or legislative practice if we all think 'oh well, that's the way it is'.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
scotchegg, 1) it doesn't matter what the degree is in. The experience of 3-4 years' self-regulated study instills an inner discipline that you don't get from just doing the homework that's handed to you at high school. And raising kids requires lots of self-discipline. Plus once the kids are off your hands it's surely easier to get back to work if you have some kind of skill or qualification?
You really think 3 years of university instills more self-discipline than 3 years in the workplace?! I think not. Never met any students who skipped lectures because of a hangover? I absolutely agree that having a qualification means it's easier to get back on-ramp after the kids are school age, but that is a)not related to your original point that higher education makes better-equipped child raisers, and b) something that we can and should apply to both sexes.
2) Not my statement, my Mum's. It was a long, long time ago and the world is a bit different now. Yet look around you and count how many women you see looking after kids, and how many men you see looking after kids. It's still overwhelmingly predominantly the mother who does the lion's share of child-raising. Whether you think that's the way it should be or not, whether that's the way it is in your family, is by the by. It's the way it is, and probably the way it's going to be for some time to come.
And presumably you didn't quote your Mum because you disagreed with her. That kind of "it's the way it is" is again, frankly disappointing to hear. It's a good job people like Emilie Pankhurst didn't share that attitude of social inertia or women wouldn't even have the vote. Just because it's the way it is doesn't mean it's the way it should be, and it surely shouldn't be beyond humanity to make work and family life more fulfilling for both men and women. Whether you like it or not.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Cleo could you kindly explain how 1) a degree in say, sedimentary deposits in estuarine systems, would advantage a parent in raising children over someone with only high-school qualificiations, and 2) how your statement "'Educate a boy, and you educate a worker; educate a girl, and you educate a family'" is NOT suggesing raising a family is a woman's job and fathers only have a marginal role?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
@Cleo "Raising a family is NOT a waste of a woman's time or education; it's the single most important job she will ever do."
It's disappointing to still see educated women parroting the idea that a woman's life task is to raise a family. You devalue the work and aspirations of millions of hard-working women as well as relegate fathers to a marginal role in family life.
Politicians should be legislating to create an environment that allows both fathers and mothers to enjoy career and family life, and society should start to embrace women in key business and political positions as well as a more active role for fathers with the family. And to help with this we need to start rejecting the idea more strongly that men should go to the office and women should stay at home.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
@George Palmer: Terrible if true. Could you provide a link / some source?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
This may of course be related to strengthening of the anti-yakuza laws happening later this year. Many companies are introducing clauses into their contracts specificly banning any connections with organised crime, punishable by immediate termination. I wouldn't be surprised if Yoshimoto's legal department had a hand in this decision.
Personally I'm happy to see him go. Not only is he a bully, misogynist and hypocrite, his particular brand of humour (pointing out how fat / stupid / ugly other people on his show are) is distasteful and dull.
12 ( +12 / -0 )
And unfortunately many Japanese seem to be blissfully unaware of how lazy and dull their TV is. There's more quality in a week's programming on the 5 terrestrial channels in the UK than a year's worth of the 8 channels in Japan.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Or you could have just asked And vice versa? and kept it at a simple request for information. :-)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Or is everything the woman's fault?
Of course not and you know full well the topic is husbands dissatisfied with their wives. Kindly don't ascribe implications where none exist.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
(Hint - just because it's written in a magazine or even on the Internet or the telly, don't mean it's the whole story.)
Really? Wow, thanks for telling me. Previously I had thought all media is an agendaless, highly ethical world of competent instructors. You've really opened my eyes to the way they might mislead, or spin an issue. (Hint - none of that is what I really think.)
I do agree that more men should just kick their wives out if they're not happy with it. Or not marry these lazy women in the first place.
But I can't agree, that even if they're the best housewife in the world, the marriage bargain that you think is reasonable, is reasonable. Seems to me the husbands are getting screwed (not in the way they would like, or expected to be when they got married.)
And even if the people in the marriage are happy, their decision IS having an increasingly negative impact on the economy and others.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
What are their husbands going to do? Fire them? I wish Japan would change the custody laws as this really would be a wake-up call to these women. Not keeping your end of the marriage bargain? Out you go! Now go get a job!
Absolutely, although I would go further and say the whole marriage "bargain" needs to be re-evaluated. Men should fight harder for custody law change, and start doing more parenting, and stop financing and making it acceptable for their wives to be NEETs.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Then why oh why didn't they marry career women in the first place? I'll tell you why. Because at one point they reasoned it would be nice to have a live-in, unpaid maid. Now they're complaining because they don't like what they chose.
Perhaps you're right, although it's interesting that you continually place the blame for this issue on the husbands rather than the wives who you acknowledge are feckless. But if you're saying men do not have the right to change their minds, and society's message to the husbands should be 'you made your bed, now lie in it' then I guess they'll just have to simmer quietly and the housewives can continue milking them. But I hope we don't have to live in that kind of society.
Dunno about driving a bus, but a lot of the women I know, when I mention something they can do with a computer, like check train times or keep track of the family finances, get the blank, blinky look and start to mutter about getting their husband to show them how to do it.....Not all, some are pretty savvy
The "blank, blinky look"?! "some are pretty savvy"?! Not exactly fighting the corner of the sisters there are you. Just because they haven't used an internet route finder before I hope you understand that doesn't mean they can't learn how to. And sure, society can offer back to work training schemes to help with this.
your average I-wanna-be-a-housewife lady isn't going to pull her weight in any office environment.
yeeesss, and as I keep saying that's because they know they don't have to. Expose them to the same risk their husbands face and they'll soon start pulling their weight.
I thought one of the complaints was that these women were consuming too much already....?
But they're just spending their husband's money. If they have a job they create extra wealth and consumption.
Three men is not a lot of husbands.
Riiiight, but you don't think the writers asked all the men in Japan and could only find three with complaints do you?
then that's their decision.
And if everyone had the same right to decide that the economy would collapse overnight. And if their decision is having wider social and economic effects then it is not simply their decision.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The article is about women who don't keep their side of the marriage bargain and do the housework their husbands expected them to do, and refuse to do out to work.
Nice try but no it isn't. The article gives three examples. Only one of them talks about the wife not preparing menus well or keeping the sink clear. The other two don't mention if she does housework well / enough at all, and absolutely none of the men's complaints are about the wives' performance. Their complaints are that housework ain't that hard so the wives can get jobs. Look at the last sentence of the article.
Well, according to the article, they've shown they're incompetent/feckless when it comes to basic housework; why would they be any different with a 'proper' job?
As above, they haven't shown they're not good at housework, the article suggest that the husbands see housework isn't taxing and feel their wives are enjoying an easy life with the cash they earn.
As for why would they be any different with a proper job, that should be obvious. As housewives they know they don't have to pull their fingers out because a) housework ain't that hard and b) they are at no risk of losing their position. The husbands are hardly going to divorce them. If society started treating these women as NEETS and made it unacceptable for women to transfer the risk of not working to their husbands, they'd have to put in as much effort as working people. Frankly I'm surprised you feel nearly half of women in Japan are actually incompetent to use a computer / drive a bus.
And how does it help having people who don't really want a job, whether basic clerical work or driving a bus, queuing up in front of the 5% of the population who desperately do want and need a job, to support their families?
It's not in front of others, it's in addition. Having jobs creates earnings which creates consumption which creates economic growth. Even a quick search on the word NEET will give you plenty of information on how they're a drag on the economy and why we need to get them into work.
You mentioned the marriage bargain and clearly see it as a kind of "deal" between two people. The article is showing that many husbands feel they get a bad deal, and hopefully society is waking up to this and making it more acceptable to tell NEETS of any kind, married or not, to get off their arses like the rest of us have to.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
And feckless housewives with no job skills queuing up at Hello Work will help the 5% (and set to grow, after the triple-whammy) unemployment rate ... how?
Feckless? Why do you assume that these women are incompetent? Are you suggesting 42% of women in their 30s in Japan lack the skills to do basic clerical work / drive a bus?
I agree with tmarie that housewives who aren't actually doing the housework they agreed to do aren't keeping their side of the bargain - but doesn't it seem that the thread has unravelled from being about those women to being about any woman who has the bald-faced temerity to stay at home and let her husband support her financially?
The thread has always been about women who stay at home and let their husband support them financially. In what way do you think it has unravelled?
And yes, the article is about money-wasting, basic housework-shirking wastes of space
Oh, that seems to have changed from the "what business is it of yours if they decide to stay at home" idea to a more scornful one.
0 ( +0 / -0 )