jeffy comments

Speed Today 04:22 pm JST

If she helped him hang himself, then why did she scream for help while he was hanging?

Perhaps she needed more help? But the more serious and obvious answer is that she wanted to hide her own involvement.

stormcrow Today 08:38 am JST

How could anyone encourage a physically healthy person to take their own life?

It is an interesting question. Perhaps I can answer by beginning with another. How can an entire field, psychology, together with the full support of governments, actively encourage physically healthy people to remove functional body parts and take body altering drugs while simultaneously calling it “care”? Perhaps it is because the people involved perceive what they are doing as being compassionate, irrespective of how someone else might perceive it.

The man who committed suicide obviously had reasons that made sense to him to do so. Sugimoto likely perceived herself as acting compassionate in assisting him. I agree with you that he should have sought other help and not taken his life and that Sugimoto should not have aided in his suicide. Yet at the same time I recognize that suicide does not carry the same stigma in Japanese culture as it does in the West and so that our take on the situation may not be the most culturally sensitive. This may be why Sugimoto “helped” the man just as psychology and governments have “helped” many people. It comes down to perspective.

HopeSpringsEternal,

I find it interesting that you frame this “battle of sexes” in relation to “equality.” Just to make my own position clear, “equality” is about treating everyone the same regardless of their inherent characteristics, while “equity” is about giving certain groups social advantages based on perceived disadvantages in order to “level the playing field.” The distinction is rather important and should always be kept in mind.

Now according to the World Economic Forum’s 2023 Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) ( hhttps://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf ), Japan ranks 125th and South Korea ranks 105th out of 146 countries. The media consistently cites these rankings as proof that Japan and South Korea are abysmal when it comes to the equality of women relative to men.

However, it is critical to ask in what areas “equality” is being measured in this index. The GGGI thankfully tell us: “The Global Gender Gap Index was first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 to benchmark progress towards gender parity and compare countries’ gender gaps across four dimensions: economic opportunities, education, health and political leadership.” The GGGI also helpfully tells us, “The level of progress toward gender parity (the parity score) for each indicator is calculated as the ratio of the value of each indicator for women to the value for men. A parity score of 1 indicates full parity. The gender gap is the distance from full parity.”

Therefore the index is already biased seeing that its “four dimensions” are solely based on measuring gender parity with a lens on women's status and opportunities which do not cover many other dimensions that could be included for a fairer picture on “equality” such as

educational attainment (e.g. under-performance and underachievement of males),

health issues (e.g. health disparities that disproportionately affect men such as higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and violent deaths),

mental health (e.g. social stigma around vulnerability or emotional expression),

workplace inequality and unemployment (e.g. over-representation in low-paying, dangerous, or temporary jobs as well as workplace injury),

family and parental rights (e.g. disadvantages to men related to parental leave or child custody laws),

legal systems and family law (e.g. the legal necessity to pay child support even in cases where men are conclusively provable not to be the biological father),

incarceration and criminal justice (e.g. disparities in sentencing, over-representation of men in the criminal justice system),

And so on.

Thus if one wishes to seriously consider “equality,” it must be discussed in equal terms—the discussion must necessarily encompass both women and men’s issues. But I for one know that these discussions, while speaking of “equality,” are actually about “equity,” that is, how can women be given advantages to “level the playing field” in certain specific areas, while not seeking 1. to promote “parity” across the board or 2. address the disparities males also have in society. So yes, it all does get on my nerves because I would rather see more equal discussions about equality going on. It should not be a battle of the sexes, women vs. men, it should be women and men working together as equal partners for better societies.

From the article:

a country where births outside marriage are still seen as taboo

Yes, “still” seen because it has retained something of its (sexist?) traditional culture that seeks to ensure that men only have children within the confines of marriage. And so it is in this context he is shamed for acting against this societal standard.

One lawmaker from the opposition Democratic Party voiced support for accepting different family structures in South Korean society.

"The reality is that everyone is unique," said lawmaker Lee So-young, who added that her parents divorced when she was young.

"A society that respects these differences would surely be a better society, wouldn't it?"

The two adults who decided to marry, now having a child or several children, should understand the situation into which they placed themselves, recognize their responsibilities beyond themselves, and only resort to divorce as a last resort. There will of course times be times when divorce happens and members of society should understand the need for this due to extenuating circumstances, e.g. spousal abuse. But to use this to open the door to non-traditional family structures because “everyone is unique” and needs to “respects differences” is to lay the axe at the tree truck of society which is the family. Jung Woo-sung is unique. He apparently likes to throw his seed around at will. Why can’t society respect his uniqueness? (I say apparently because it could be that Moon Ga-bi sought to trap Jung Woo-sung into marriage with the child. Such things happen when only women have the right to decide to be parents).

South Korea has been battling the world's lowest birth rates and plummeting marriage rates.

Experts say a contributing factor could be the country's narrow legal definition of what a family entails.

Perhaps another contributing factor could be the dissemination of feminist thinking into the culture which actively strives against traditional gender norms, most extremely evidenced by the 4B movement which is now seemingly pushing its way into Western countries, but who knows? Anyone have a chart comparing birthrates within the country to the promotion of feminist thought within the country?

My first thought when I see something like this is, "Is there a way to add additional games?" I would rather play a game from the Samurai Showdown/Spirits series.

Phraseology from the article, to repeated in others over and over:

radical agenda of mass deportations

This "radical agenda of mass deportations" is only necessitated by Biden's "radical agenda of mass importations"--a point we will never hear from the media. What we will hear when mass deportations begin is only dramatic human stories which will naturally occur, but no reflection at all on the fact that the individuals being deported have only themselves to blame for building their lives on the sand of illegal immigration or that those who allowed them to enter illegally created the sad situation in the first place. It will be like the "kids in cages" thing which was laid at Trump's feet, but was actually started by Obama:

Michelle Obama assailed President Donald Trump on Monday for ripping migrant children from their parents and throwing them into cages, picking up on a frequent and distorted point made widely by Democrats.

She’s right that Trump’s now-suspended policy at the U.S.-Mexico border separated thousands of children from their families in ways that had not been done before. But what she did not say is that the very same “cages” were built and used in her husband’s administration, for the same purpose of holding migrant kids temporarily.

-- AP FACT CHECK: Michelle Obama and the kids in ‘cages’ ( https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-democratic-national-convention-ap-fact-check-immigration-politics-2663c84832a13cdd7a8233becfc7a5f3 )

Mark my words. It will be all one-sided tear jerkers intended to appeal to reader's hearts rather than their mind from the media.

From the original article:

Horse-race coverage is back in full force, and the threat Trump poses to democracy is now an afterthought.

—James Risen ( https://theintercept.com/2024/08/28/trump-campaign-election-media-coverage-journalists/ )

Risen is kidding right? All the media did was say how Trump was a threat to democracy.

From the article:

The New York Times published a detailed enumeration of Trump’s proposed policies and explained with precision how they violated basic constitutional and democratic norms of governance.

This does not appear to be an accurate description of the article in question. The article, located at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/16/us/politics/trump-policy-list-2025.html, almost matter-of-factly enumerates Trump’s proposed policies without offering commentary as to why those policies are unconstitutional or undemocratic. For example, the article states,

His allies have developed a legal rationale to erase the Justice Department’s independence from the president.

So the article states there is a legal rationale. The article does not say whether this legal rationale is valid or invalid under the constitution.

Another example,

While it’s generally illegal to use the military for domestic law enforcement, the Insurrection Act creates an exception. The Trump team would invoke it to use soldiers as immigration agents.

So the article states there is an exception which Trump would invoke. It does not say that Trump will use the military contrary to the constitution.

Another example,

Several of his closest advisers are now vetting lawyers seen as more likely to embrace aggressive legal theories about the scope of his power.

So the article mentions “aggressive legal theories,” but says nothing as to the validity or invalidity of those theories.

This is why it is important to check sources rather than rely on other’s characterization of them. I find the inaccurate description of the article particularly amusing given the subject of the article.

TaiwanIsNotChina Today 07:08 am JST

There are certain words I refuse to use. There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria.

Now is that Samaria and Judea the Roman provinces? Is that Samaria and Judea the Greek provinces? Is that Samaria and Judea the Persian provinces? Is that Samaria and Judea the Babylonian provinces? Here’s a news flash. The northern kingdom of Israel was defeated by Assyria more than 2,700 years ago and the southern kingdom of Judah was defeated by the Babylonians more than 2,500 years ago. And here I thought the Chinese were odd for making territorial claims based on ancient history.

But I like this. As someone with Italian ancestry, I hereby declare in the interest of my own ethnicity that there is no Spain or Germany or England or Greece or Iran or Iraq or Syria or Egypt… There is just the Roman Empire. And that being the case, I am of course happy to have the provinces of Samaria and Judea as a part of it.

Sorry, but the only market for which these "200 built-in games" provide nostalgia to is the Chinese market who grew up with these games. My Raspberry PI with Recalbox gives me all the retro gaming I could ever need.

Jimizo Nov. 8 11:59 pm JST

There were certainly some voters who did not vote for these candidates simply on the basis on that they were female just as there were certainly some voters who did vote for these candidates simply on the basis that they were female. But the question is whether each of these two camps, each displaying sexual discrimination in their choices as you intimate, were sufficiently large enough to ultimately affect the aggregate of voters. I would say no

No based on what?

Let’s see:

Clinton: Based on the information here ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ ), of those validated voters who voted for Clinton, 41% were men and 54% were women. Conversely, of those validated voters who voted for Trump, 52% were men and 39% were women. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.17% men (165,136,242/329,179,427) and 49.83% women (164,043,185/329,179,427). While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2016, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were more disposed to vote for Trump +1.83 percentage points higher than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Clinton +4.17 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Women therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Clinton than men were in their voting for Trump. Even so, Clinton lost the election. Therefore, even if one wishes to completely attribute the disproportionate +1.83 of men and the disproportionate +4.17 of women to gender preference, it had no effect on the outcome of the election.

Biden: Based on the information here ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/ ), of those validated voters who voted for Biden, 48% were men and 55% were women. Conversely, of those validated voters who voted for Trump, 50% were men and 44% were women. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.29% men (170,710,103/339,436,158) and 49.71% women (168,726,055/339,436,158). While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2020, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were less disposed to vote for Trump -0.29 percentage points lower than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Biden +5.29 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Women therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Biden than men were in their voting for Trump. Biden won the election. One may wish to view Trump’s loss here as due to a disproportionate loss of male voters and a disproportionate over representation of women voters for Biden, but since both Trump and Biden are men, these figures give no evidence for gender preference. Perhaps you can understand now why I intentionally left out Biden since, not being a woman seeking to be president, he is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is about whether voters are adverse to having a woman become president.

Harris: Based on the information in the present article, 53% of those who voted for Harris were women and 46% of those who voted for Trump were women. Therefore, the remaining 47% of Harris voters and 54% of Trump voters were men. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.24% men and 49.76% women. While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2024, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were more disposed to vote for Trump +3.76 percentage points higher than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Harris +3.24 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Men therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Trump by +0.52 percentage points than women were in their voting for Harris. If one wishes to completely attribute the disproportionate +3.76 of men and the disproportionate +3.24 of women to gender preference, I guess that is one interpretation. But it seems to me that even if this were the case, the close percentage points make it a wash and is therefore not significant to Harris’ loss.

So while it is true that men were disproportionate (-0.29) in voting against Trump when Biden was the opposition as opposed to when Clinton and Harris were the opposition, +1.83 and +3.76, I also note that women were more disproportionate in their voting for Biden (+5.29) than they were when the choice was Clinton (+4.17) or Harris (+3.24). It therefore seems that there was something other than gender preference at play in the 2020 election.

Jimizo Nov. 8 10:31 pm JST

I’m not saying that’s the main reason why they lost…

And neither am I. And so I said,

jeffy Nov. 8 10:53 pm JST

There were certainly some voters who did not vote for these candidates simply on the basis on that they were female just as there were certainly some voters who did vote for these candidates simply on the basis that they were female. But the question is whether each of these two camps, each displaying sexual discrimination in their choices as you intimate, were sufficiently large enough to ultimately affect the aggregate of voters. I would say no.

And I say no because gender preference is evidently not a significant factor affecting the outcomes of the elections discussed. Ya feel me?

Jimizo Today 10:31 pm JST

So while it is true that some may have found Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris to be worthy of the mantle of first female president, these two ultimately did not win their respective elections and were therefore evidently deemed unworthy. Sexual discrimination is not a factor here

Not necessarily. There may have been some who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Harris because they were women.

There were certainly some voters who did not vote for these candidates simply on the basis on that they were female just as there were certainly some voters who did vote for these candidates simply on the basis that they were female. But the question is whether each of these two camps, each displaying sexual discrimination in their choices as you intimate, were sufficiently large enough to ultimately affect the aggregate of voters. I would say no. Therefore in line with my claim that “Sexual discrimination is not a factor here” with respect to the loss of these two candidates in their respective elections, I still maintain that sexual discrimination was not what led to their defeats.

Were Clinton and Harris great candidates? No.

Yes. And this is why I maintain they ultimately lost, not sexual discrimination. This is my position.

…

I’m not saying that’s the main reason why they lost but I don’t know how you rule it out as a factor.

Basically, I think you want to.

I do not “want” to. In light of the consideration expressed above as well as the support for female candidates from those who opposed these two candidates on the right evidences for me no a priori rejection of the idea of a female president from the majority of voters on the right. This is why I rule it out as significant to the loss of these two candidates.

From the title of the article:

Will U.S. ever see a female president?

Sure, if the voters find her to have the best platform for the country vis-a-vis her rival. Where’s the problem in that? Others have expressed in the comments that they would have no problem with Tulsi Gabbard or Nikki Haley. It therefore appears that the question is not about sex, but political orientation. So while it is true that some may have found Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris to be worthy of the mantle of first female president, these two ultimately did not win their respective elections and were therefore evidently deemed unworthy. Sexual discrimination is not a factor here. So the “some women” asking the question of the title would do better to focus on finding a better female candidate who can present a platform that the voters will find to be the most compelling if their aim is to see a female president. It would be my hope, however, that the parties would focus on finding the best candidates for their parties regardless of their sex.

From ChatGPT:

Iran's historical pursuit of democracy has been significantly hindered by foreign intervention, particularly by Western powers. The 1953 coup is a pivotal event that exemplifies this interference, leading to long-lasting consequences for Iran's political landscape. The current tensions with the U.S. and Israel are part of a broader narrative of historical grievances and ongoing geopolitical conflicts.

The 1953 Coup?

The most significant example of foreign interference in Iran's democratic aspirations occurred in 1953 when the CIA, in collaboration with British intelligence, orchestrated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized the Iranian oil industry and sought to reduce foreign influence in Iran. The coup reinstated the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who ruled autocratically, leading to widespread discontent.

And why the objection to these moves by Mossadegh?

The West objected to Mossadegh's nationalization of the Iranian oil industry and his reduction of foreign influence due to a combination of economic interests, geopolitical strategy, fear of communism, and a desire to maintain control over a region that was vital to their strategic and economic objectives.

So as an American, I am of course unhappy that my country, which presents itself as a force for promoting democracy in the world, at times actively works against other nation’s pursuit of democracy for its own self interests. So while I can in no way agree with their “death to America” chants, their anger is not at all uncomprehensible. My own ancestors fought in the revolutionary war to establish the form of government that the American people desired. Let other people chose as they wish and, should they seek to tangle with America, then we can engage in some unsavory business. But as it stands, it is as Savio says,

For sure we cannot blame Iran for not liking America.

Ninety percent of the world, and I am being generous here, has the same opinion.

If we as Americans actually support the right of peoples to their own self determination, then we need to acknowledge it when other peoples democratically chose a government that may not act in line with our own objectives. It is just the same as with freedom of speech where, although I may disagree with someone 180 degrees, I fully acknowledge their fundamental right to speak. Until America can be what it says, it will of course bred animosity around the world. Show me the sermon, don't just say it. And America these days is far from a healthy example of democracy for others to emulate.

Subscription is just part of the non-ownership that those above what for everyone. No thanks. There is a reason why before you got an "owner's manual," but now you get a "user's manual."

Ricky Kaminski13 Today 10:23 pm JST

an establishment that has lost its way and has flipped on its poles

Exactly.

Wasn’t a fan at the start

I am still not a fan, but he does seem to be the only one on the table speaking something recognizably American. While I will not be going so far as to wear the MAGA cap, I certainly will not be a "white guys for Harris."

As it relates to Japan, I agree with those who say that whether Trump or Harris, the relationship between America and Japan will remain the same due to Japan's strategic importance for America. So it is the issues of my home country that are most pressing in my mind.

Nota bene: In my previous comment, “what I remember from those years is an emphasis on diversity and tolerance” should read “what I remember from those years is an emphasis on equality and tolerance.”

TaiwanIsNotChina Today 03:56 am JST

What is wrong with equity and acceptance?

With equality, members of society are treated equally.

With equity, some members of society are given special treatment to address perceived disadvantages.

With tolerance, members of society are permissive of others whom they might find disagreeable.

With acceptance, members of society embrace everyone else even at the expense of their own view.

With equality and tolerance I am a student in a classroom who acknowledges that other students have have a right to be in the class and ask their questions even if I personally find their questions wearisome. In the end, my own grade is not affected as I am only responsible for my own work.

With equity and acceptance I am a student in a classroom who is forced to work in group projects with other students who do not put the same effort into the assignment and look to me to do the work. In the end, my own grade will be affected should I express my displeasure and not cooperate.

Hopefully this clarifies why I find a problem with the new goal of equity and acceptance and prefer the 90s goal of equality and tolerance.

fluffy_canyons

Oct. 27 12:03 pm JST

Fat [sic!] left means like, a normal person from the 1990s in 2024.

As a normal person who lived in the 90s and is a native of the most liberal state in America, California, and as someone who viewed themselves on the left for many years, what I remember from those years is an emphasis on diversity and tolerance. This is not what the left is about today with it's ideas of equity and acceptance. The fact of the matter is that the left has shifted so far left that it no longer is American in it's orientation. When I hear Elon Musk or Tulsi Gabbard talk about how the left shifted to where they no longer find themselves welcome on the left, I completely understand. I have not changed. I am the same as I was all those years ago. It is the politics that has changed. The further the left goes, the more people will magically find themselves on the right like me and many others.

From the article:

But the Bakers' business couldn't survive without an agricultural guest worker program that brings in Mexican immigrants for about nine months a year to help harvest crops in fields…

These migrant guest workers are in the country legally. Where's the problem?

Nowhere are the stakes higher than in Nevada, where 19% of residents are foreign-born and around 9% of the total workforce doesn't have U.S. legal status.

I see what you did there. Might I suggest that those 9% return to their home countries and sign up for an agricultural guest worker program like the Mexican immigrants above did so that they do can be in the country legally without worry?

ZaphodToday 10:14 am JST

The media insist on confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant".

Yes.

AttilathehungryToday 01:53 pm JST

As usual, legal and illegal are conflated.

Yes.

collegepark30349Today 10:44 am JST

This is where the US wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want the low prices and low wages immigrants bring, but don't want the immigrants - legal or otherwise.

No. America wants to have the cake (low prices) as well as the frosting (legal migration).

Addendum:

From the article:

Plaintiff Ueda, who has not registered her marriage to avoid having to choose a single surname, said her family has faced many difficulties subsequently, among them her husband's lack of parental rights for their 5-year-old son.

"I worry that my child could face disadvantages as he grows older," Ueda told Kyodo News.

So does Ueda’s desire for legal change stem from these many difficulties?

I was a junior high school student in the early 1990s, when optional separate surnames for married couples became a hot topic and momentum for legal reform was building. I sympathized with the idea that only women have to change their surnames when they get married, and began to think, "I don't want to change my surname either." I believed that the law would have changed by the time I became an adult, but more than 30 years have passed. I became a party to this when I got married in 2013.

In 2015, on the day of the Supreme Court's ruling on the first lawsuit, I was on a business trip to Africa and saw the news of the constitutional ruling online. I was so shocked that I suffered from ringing in my ears and dizziness that continued for about six months.

"I can't wait any longer, I have to take action," I thought, and in the second lawsuit, I took charge of the secretariat for the Association for Supporting the Separate Surname Lawsuit. However, the second lawsuit also failed to be found unconstitutional, so I stepped up with the desire to "change history this time." I will fight, carrying the hopes of the many people both at home and abroad who are in trouble because they cannot choose their own surname.

—https://www.call4.jp/info.php?type=items&id=I0000131

From the article:

I just want to live under my name because it's my name. That's all there is to it.

Indeed. That is all there is to it—since junior high school. Why then even bring up a 5-year-old son and a common law husband?

From the article,

A survey of voters last weekend by Kyodo News showed that 67 percent of respondents supported the right to choose separate surnames, while 21.7 percent were opposed.

Given that today is the publication date, the phrase “last weekend” indicates that this survey was conducted Oct. 19/20. Strangely, a Google search did not yield results which could help me locate this survey. This is not to doubt the results, an apparently similar poll by NHK in April revealed similar results (62% vs. 27%). I am just curious if there is a divide between what people feel should be a legal right and the number of people who will actually avail themselves to that right.

I mean, if two homosexual adults want to be legally recognized as a couple, what is that to me? So I don’t think they should be prevented from their relationship being legally recognized. But will I personally avail myself to that legal right? No. Do I think such unions should be held out as the ideal for society? No.

Likewise, should women be permitted to legally use their maiden names if they so desire? Sure. Do I think that women should use their maiden names if they marry? No. Because such women thereby signal that they are not interested in becoming a full-fledged member of the house (家, ie) and are most likely ardent feminists. Like the university professor I had for my class on Japanese culture who had us read articles about how Japan’s koseki-system was sexist because children born within 300 days of a divorce are still presumed to be the former husband’s children and are thus registered to his koseki, but commented “I didn’t know that” when I explained to her in a footnote,

This law is part of the still operable 1896 Civil Code (Part IV, Chapter III, Section 1, Article 772(2)) and reads “A child born after 200 days from the formation of marriage or within 300 days of the day of the dissolution or rescission of marriage shall be presumed to have been conceived during marriage.” (婚姻の成立の日から二百日を経過した後又は婚姻の解消若しくは取消しの日から三百日以内に生まれた子は、婚姻中に懐胎したものと推定する。) In the absence of any method for paternal testing in 1896, this law might have had a logical rational for establishing a legal “presumption of paternity” at that time since 300 days represents an extreme terminus of 10 months for gestation from the time of a divorce. However, in light of DNA testing which has been available since the 1980s and can empirically establish paternity with 99.99% confidence, this law has become antiquated as its rational no longer holds. Similar laws and problems related to these laws are found in the United States as well. For example, the Family Code of California 7611.a reads:

“A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if … He and the child’s natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within 300 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity, or divorce, or after a judgment of separation is entered by a court.”

In many other states as well the “presumption of paternity” is that children conceived or born during the marriage are the children of the husband or ex-husband. As such, they are registered as the father on birth certificates and obligated to provide child support. However, even in instances where the presumed father suspects or can conclusively demonstrate that he is not the biological father due to an affair by the mother during the marriage, the courts in many of these states will still not allow for the perusal or admittance of DNA evidence in light of the legal presumption so that the legal father remains responsible for child support even if he is not in fact the biological father.

—Me

The same professor who had us read an article about how the Japanese practice of “obligation chocolates” (義理チョコ, giri-choco) is sexist, dismissing the three-fold reciprocal practice of “white day” (ホワイトデー) as irrelevant to the discussion, but was surprised to learn from my reading response that the practice originated with women themselves from high school culture, which explains why it serves as a means to leverage power over men by shaming them in the workplace through their withholding of chocolates from certain men as the article argued.

Men should not marry such women who are evidently so narrowly focused on the societal disadvantageous to women that they are completely oblivious to the societal disadvantageous to men. Who would even like such a woman to have his name? It would be worse than how Ray Kroc took the name of McDonald brothers. And so here we can all find agreement. Peace in our time.

From the article:

A name change could result in a sense of loss of identity…

…or a gain in identity. But it's always a half empty glass for some.

From the article:

While surveys show societal attitudes towards women in Japan are a barrier…

Translation: The majority of society subscribes to traditional gender roles.

some also say the ruling LDP … is not serious about shrinking the gender gap in lawmakers, citing its failure to implement bolder measures.

And why should the LDP “implement bolder measures”? The desired “bolder measures” run counter to the society at large which majorly subscribes to traditional gender roles.

[Japan] ranked 118 out of 146 countries in this year's World Economic Forum gender gap report.

Is the argument of the article then that the LDP should “implement bolder measures” contrary to the sensibilities of the society at large because Japan is ranked low by some globalist organization?

I image so considering how one of its members, Larry Fink ( https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/larry-fink/ ), is on record saying with respect to management at his company BlackRock “You have to force behaviors. If you don’t force behaviors, whether it’s gender or race or just any way you want to say the composition of your team, you're going to be impacted… We’re gonna have to force change” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTDdDgr-xYo ). Perhaps this is the ideal type of global governance which the WEF would like to see more of, but those who care about democracy would rather not see anything close to such measures from the government as it amounts to social engineering of the population to be good globalists.

Jennie Today 02:06 pm JST

I upvoted you for your direct and honest opinion and it’s appreciated.

Thank you for your positivity. I have responded in kind to your comment.

I must say that my view of bass4funk has changed somewhat based on the comments he has made to this article. I have already known that apart from anything related to Israel and the can’t do no wrong view of Trump, I have found myself usually agreeing with bass4funk and laughing at the automatic downvotes he receives even when he says something as innocuous as “It would be nice if everyone had a good day today.” It is as if some have a compulsive need to disagree with him no matter what he says. But I must apply standards equally and so it is with a heavy heart that I must break with bass over comments such as,

Look, what the girl did was wrong, but to make this a serious news scandal out of this is just over the top

Just as America is America and the rules are thus, so too Japan is Japan and the rules are thus. To excuse the poor behavior of foreigners in Japan while railing against the poor behavior of foreigners in America would be disingenuous in my part. If you want to be in Japan, respect the culture and don’t swing from the torii. If you want to be in America, respect the culture and don’t eat the cats, dogs and geese. You may remember that the later too was a serious news scandal with little substance to it.

bass4funk says, “anti-foreigner and xenophobia trust has been and always will be with us in Japan.” Yet a similar claim is made by those on the left who say America is a bigoted, racist country that only serves the interest of white heterosexual males and works against everyone else. But bass, you know as well as I do that the real issue is illegal immigration and not foreigners as such nor any particular race. And so it has been my experience in Japan for many years. To the extent that I do not go with the flow, members of society here view me negativity. To the extent I do go with the flow, members of society praise me to the point of embarrassment and claim that I am “Japanese.” Of course I myself am not so deluded as to really think so, but it does show the degree those around me in Japan try to make me feel included in the society.

When in Rome, do as the Romans is the wise old saying. When in America, respect America. When in Japan, respect Japan. I may be naive, but it really is that simple. It is precisely because I, as a foreigner living in another country and respecting its laws and customs even though I might not always agree or find them strange, can say with respect to my own country that I absolutely abhor those foreigners in my country who enter it illegally and intentionally act in such a manner that does not respect its laws and customs. If Japan does not suit someone, go somewhere else. If America does not suit someone, go somewhere else. It is the same the world over. As you are aware, the West allows foreigners to literally run amok within the country and ignore it in the interest of “cultural understanding” and not wanting to appear racist. Let such never be case in Japan! If some want to call that racism, let them. To such persons everything they disagree with is no doubt racist. The word has no real meaning out of their mouths.

I find this poll particularly interesting in light of the exchange I had here with another commentator on another article ( https://japantoday.com/category/national/'denying-my-potential'-women-at-japan's-top-university-call-out-gender-imbalance ). There I maintained that “women want all the benefits of increased opportunities without decreasing their elevated status among the sexes” and cited a number of examples of societal expectations on men in relation to women which evidence this elevated status. But I was told that I “should get out more” since my “characterisation of male-female relations” was unrecognizable to the commentator. In a comment that was unfortunately deleted, I responded to this saying I do in fact go out and suggested that perhaps the unrecognizableness of my examples was due to the commentator’s own social circle which consists mainly of individuals who actively echew gender norms.

And now from the comments and figures I see here that the majority of commentators also presumably "do not get out much." To the question if the preferential treatment of women in society is outmoded, TaiwanIsNotChina says “Absolutely” for which they have received at the time of this writing 8 likes and 31 dislikes, a disapproval rating of 79%! Patricia Yarrow says that “gentlemanly behaviour” is “never out of date” and has received at the time of this writing 30 likes and 5 dislikes, an approval rating of 86%! R B Quinn says that “courtesy and respect for others, especially girls and women, is and will always be in” and has received at the time of this writing 16 likes and 2 dislikes, an approval rating of 89%! These percentages support my position that there is indeed overwhelming societal support for the maintenance of the preferential treatment of women, i.e., female privilege.

And so to answer the question, if the goal is "equity" as the promoters of DEI have set out, then yes, the preferential treatment of women is necessarily outmoded in such a society. But if the goal is "equality," the goal that was set out before the introduction of “equity,” then no, because although men and women are equal in such a society, they are not the same and will naturally have certain advantages/disadvantages relative to each other. But as society stands we are somewhere in the middle with women’s disadvantages always taking the spotlight and discussions of men’s disadvantages written off as the mere complaints of crybaby misogynists who are scared of losing their “male privilege.” So for me treating a woman like a lady, if she indeed acts like a lady, is not outmoded. I am for equality and would very much like to see a society full of ladies and gentlemen.

Mike_Oxlong Today 09:32 pm JST

[Lengthy and amazingly astute comment]

This is exactly to what I was alluding to in a recent comment made in response to a commentator's mention of mental and emotional abuse faced by women in addition to physical abuse here ( https://japantoday.com/category/world/one-in-eight-girls-and-women-raped-or-sexually-assaulted-before-age-18-unicef-says#comments ). The point I sought to make there is that while men often deal with conflicts in a physical manner, women resort to more subtle means. What this means in terms of abuse is that while men may be more apt to be physically abusive, women are more apt to be mentally or emotionally abusive. But then again,

When I first tried to open the refuge, the police, the charities, the social service agencies, the newspapers, all said it would stand empty. They said it wasn’t a significant problem, that it happened only rarely, and when it did it was already being handled effectively by the existing agencies.

Domestic violence against women was only a minor problem, and very few women were getting seriously hurt anyway. Of course, when we finally did open, and got a little support at last to make women aware of our existence, we were filled to overflowing and the phone was ringing off the hook.

It’s the same exact thing now with attempts to have domestic violence resources for men. The same attitude exists. However, it’s even more difficult now to open something for men, or raise awareness, than it was when I opened the first shelter for women.

There is now an established domestic violence industry which fears any acknowledgment of the well established scientific fact (through my own research and many many others) that women can be as violent as men with their intimate partners and are not always the victim or acting only in self-defense. This fear is based on a false premise, that acknowledging this fact or speaking publicly about it, or offering services, will take away funding and hurt the established resources for women.

—Erin Phizzy, An Open Letter to Women in the Domestic Violence Movement, March 12, 2010 ( https://menz.org.nz/2010/erin-pizzey-an-open-letter-to-women/ )

So if one is going to talk about abuse as a societal problem, one should acknowledge the differing ways in which both sexes engage in abuse. So long as society hyper-focuses on the problems of women to the exclusion of men, there will be no real headway towards improving social relations as disenfranchised men will just drop out of society as we indeed now see is the case presently. I think it justified to ask at this point whether the improvement of social relations between men and women is really even the goal. But as I said to another commentator in the same article, "you're going to have to learn sooner better than later the suffering of men will always take second place to women in this 'man's world.'"

justasking Today 03:35 pm JST

Women are generally smarter than men.

Proof is that no matter how large the urinal is in men’s toilet, there will still be a lot of men who cannot aim.

The whole world is my urinal, so my aim is always on target.

NB Today 01:57 pm JST

The global warming will lead to the loss of our planet, and this will happen pretty soon.

Understood.

Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro

—Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

“within the decade,” i.e. before the end of 2010. Got it.

Snow on Kilimanjaro. Photo report for the year 2021

—https://altezzatravel.com/articles/snow-of-kilimanjaro

Understood.

I am all for individuals of both sexes, whether male or female, having the opportunity to pursue whatever career in life they wish. Yet I also recognize, as evidently do many others, that individuals exist within a society and that society as a whole places expectations variously on men and women. I find that having equality of opportunity enshrined into law is essential. I also find social pressure to conform to gender norms entirely acceptable.

Moonraker Today 07:57 am JST

In my experience, women are smarter than men.

In my experience, women want all the benefits of increased opportunities without decreasing their elevated status among the sexes. In this world of supposed ever increasing equality, why are men still shamed if they cry, but everyone rushes to console the crying woman? Why are men still expected to pay for dates and viewed negatively if they don’t? Why is it viewed as a positive if a man opens the car door for woman, but not if a woman opens the door for the man? Why will everyone frown on the man who stays home while his wife works, but have no problems with the woman who stays home while her husband works? You speak of men “holding on to their former privileges,” but perhaps you do not recognize the privileges that women currently have even while they seek for greater rights. Every man should be a gentleman, but a woman may or may not be a lady as the mood strikes them.

You say, “We need all the talent we can muster to get us through the hard times.” What society needs more than anything is functional families who can raise functional children to become functional members of society. The view that men and women are, apart from some superficial visible bits, the same is one that has worked to bring down society far more than “inept men.” Men and women are equal, true, but they are not the same—each has a vital role to play in society which deserves equal respect. But just as those above want the erosion of nation states and the destruction of our cultural differences to become an undifferentiated mass of humanity without history or legacy, so the same want to erode the family and see men and women, not in familial relations, but as interchangeable cogs in a machine—mere numbers on a ledger for record keeping. Sorry, I am not going to “man up” and fight for that. They may call me No. 6, but I know who I am.

Moonraker Oct. 10 03:27 pm JST:

And, sadly, this is but one trauma we [=presumably, women] may have suffered in addition to physical, mental and emotional abuse.

Understanding that men expressing themselves in an abusive manner more physically than mentally or emotionally, I am curious to know what the statistics are for women mentally or emotionally abusing their men apart from physical abuse. Could someone point me to the statistics which show the percentage of men who are mentally or emotionally abuse by women? I will wait...

From the article:

More than 370 million girls and women alive today, or one in every eight worldwide, experienced rape or sexual assault before the age of 18... The report said that while girls and women were worst affected, 240 to 310 million boys and men, or around 1 in 11, have experienced rape or sexual assault during childhood.

I am glad to hear that we have a more balanced reporting about abuse that doesn't only consider the suffering of females.

owzer Oct. 10 10:07 pm JST

So why doesn't the title of the article reflect this?

Because, although the contents of the article addresses both male and female victims of sexual assault, to some, the suffering of females victims should always be the focus. But fret not, even though it is supposedly "a man's world," such is how it will always be. No matter the society, women will always have more importance than men because they are the only ones who can give birth (apologies to all the trans-"men" who can also give birth). So you're going to have to learn sooner better than later the suffering of men will always take second place to women in this "man's world."