Katawa Shoujo Forums

brythain wrote:

Guest Poster wrote:The country currently still ranks at an embarrassingly low 105th place on the gender equality scale.

In other words, we'd be embarrassed if we were ranked that low, but they aren't. It's like press freedom, education quality, etc etc. The US churns out more social science research than any other region per capita on the planet. It's also biased towards certain norms, sometimes… embarrassingly so.

It bothers me when people try to excuse away being okay with inequality by pointing to culture. Culture is just accepted norms, and if you've come to accept inequality as a norm, then people have every right to criticize it. In fact, they should criticize it.

SpunkySix wrote:

brythain wrote:

Guest Poster wrote:The country currently still ranks at an embarrassingly low 105th place on the gender equality scale.

In other words, we'd be embarrassed if we were ranked that low, but they aren't. It's like press freedom, education quality, etc etc. The US churns out more social science research than any other region per capita on the planet. It's also biased towards certain norms, sometimes… embarrassingly so.

It bothers me when people try to excuse away being okay with inequality by pointing to culture. Culture is just accepted norms, and if you've come to accept inequality as a norm, then people have every right to criticize it. In fact, they should criticize it.

I mean something a little more subtle—the definition of equality. In different cultures, we sacrifice perfect parity for various things, such as the value we place on arts vs science and so on. We don't campaign for artists to be paid as much as engineers per hour of work unless we feel very strongly about that. When we say 'gender equality', we forget that some cultures accept multiple genders, alternate genders, and even well-defined roles for genders. I grew up in a conservative family in which my grandfather would work all day, while grandma would go shopping and do the groceries. All his pay went to her, and she banked it or invested it as she saw fit, and then gave him an allowance from it. Legally, all their property and assets were shared. Is that equality?

Not to mention, of course that on a purely material physical level, equality is what happens when the second law of thermodynamics prevails and the heat death of the universe comes. Then no work is possible and entropy has won.

Equality is being able to do the same things at a fair level of quality. If your grandma and grandpa were both happy with that arrangement and doing it voluntarily, then that would be equality, since they both had the chance to do what they wanted and chose to do that. If not, and say, (and I know this isn't true) your grandma was forced or highly expected to do what she did because she was a woman, then that isn't equality because she didn't have the same opportunities to do what she wanted that a man would.

I think it's fairly likely that in Japan, gender roles are set so that women don't have equal rights and are often prevented from succeeding to their maximum potential because boobs, and culture doesn't excuse that.

Besides, maybe I consider the heat death of the universe a secret win condition. Then what?

SpunkySix wrote:Besides, maybe I consider the heat death of the universe a secret win condition. Then what?

*grin* then nothing, literally.

brythain wrote:

SpunkySix wrote:Besides, maybe I consider the heat death of the universe a secret win condition. Then what?

*grin* then nothing, literally.

oh you

I grew up in a conservative family in which my grandfather would work all day, while grandma would go shopping and do the groceries. All his pay went to her, and she banked it or invested it as she saw fit, and then gave him an allowance from it.

Actually, that's the way it's handled in many "traditional" Japanese families.
Women might not have equal opportunities in Jobs in Japan, but in the households the men still often defer to them for decisions.
Do they have exactly the same rights and options in every situation? No.
Can it be called equality? Ymmv.

Mirage_GSM wrote:

I grew up in a conservative family in which my grandfather would work all day, while grandma would go shopping and do the groceries. All his pay went to her, and she banked it or invested it as she saw fit, and then gave him an allowance from it.

Actually, that's the way it's handled in many "traditional" Japanese families.
Women might not have equal opportunities in Jobs in Japan, but in the households the men still often defer to them for decisions.
Do they have exactly the same rights and options in every situation? No.
Can it be called equality? Ymmv.

I don't see why that's YMMV. By definition, it isn't equality. Why should having boobs mean having less rights?

I suppose it's not so much equality by our standards as it is an equilibrium where the two sexes live in two different worlds and the "equality" is the fact that each sex is the alpha in one world and the beta in the other.

Traditionally, men maintain a job, make sure the boss remains satisfied (which often means very long hours and socializing with colleagues after worktime) so he can keep that job and a monthly salary to bring home and eventually gets promoted so his increased wages can put his kid(s) through university.

Pros: You won't be pressured to quit your job after you got married/had kids. On the contrary, you'll be expected to be more dedicated to your job than ever because there's a wife and kids now relying on you to financially support.
Cons: You don't get to make calls involving how the household is ran in general and you hand your monthly salary over to your wife to use, usually getting an allowance. Since you only spend a few hours a day at home and most of those hours are spent sleeping, there's no point in trying to control the household since you don't know much about its everyday going-ons. Same for decisions involving the kids...your wife knows them better since she's raised them, so the smart thing to do is let her call the shots.

Traditionally, women maintain the family finances, run the household and raise the children, which includes picking the best possible schools for them.

Pros: You get to spend the family finances and call the shots regarding the household and the kids, since you spend the entire day involved in all of this.
Cons: Daycare and part-time jobs aren't a big thing, so expect to face pressure to quit after getting married and even more pressure after you've had your first kid.

So...mathematically speaking, it's not so much 0 = 0, but (-1 +1) = (-1 + 1). In a way, it's equality, but only if you consider the pros and cons to have equal value so they balance each other out.

Guest Poster wrote:I suppose it's not so much equality by our standards as it is an equilibrium where the two sexes live in two different worlds and the "equality" is the fact that each sex is the alpha in one world and the beta in the other.

Traditionally, men maintain a job, make sure the boss remains satisfied (which often means very long hours and socializing with colleagues after worktime) so he can keep that job and a monthly salary to bring home and eventually gets promoted so his increased wages can put his kid(s) through university.

Pros: You won't be pressured to quit your job after you got married/had kids. On the contrary, you'll be expected to be more dedicated to your job than ever because there's a wife and kids now relying on you to financially support.
Cons: You don't get to make calls involving how the household is ran in general and you hand your monthly salary over to your wife to use, usually getting an allowance. Since you only spend a few hours a day at home and most of those hours are spent sleeping, there's no point in trying to control the household since you don't know much about its everyday going-ons. Same for decisions involving the kids...your wife knows them better since she's raised them, so the smart thing to do is let her call the shots.

Traditionally, women maintain the family finances, run the household and raise the children, which includes picking the best possible schools for them.

Pros: You get to spend the family finances and call the shots regarding the household and the kids, since you spend the entire day involved in all of this.
Cons: Daycare and part-time jobs aren't a big thing, so expect to face pressure to quit after getting married and even more pressure after you've had your first kid.

So...mathematically speaking, it's not so much 0 = 0, but (-1 +1) = (-1 + 1). In a way, it's equality, but only if you consider the pros and cons to have equal value so they balance each other out.

The problem arises when you limit those roles to Men and Women. It makes absolutely no sense and limiting the sexes to these roles is utterly moronic and retarded.
Women can be as good as working men can be and men can be as good as taking care of children as women can be. There may be slight neurological differences but they hardly matter.
Also there is always a problem when you aren't a self sufficient individual. That is ALWAYS a problem.

It is neither moronic nor retarded. (Really, look up those words before you use them.)

It's just a different way of doing things. And it's only a bad way, if you personally don't like to do it that way.
Like most things in life it has its pros and cons.

Men don't get to be with their families a whole lot, because they spend most of their waking hours working, and women have a hard time making a career, but on the plus side you never have to worry what to do when you can't send your kid to daycare because they are sick (many of my colleagues struggle with that), and your kids actually get to spend some time with their parents during the week.

I have nothing against women on the job, but it comes with its own set of problems, and calling people retarded because they do things differently is much closer to the definition of that word...

Mirage_GSM wrote:It is neither moronic nor retarded. (Really, look up those words before you use them.)

It's just a different way of doing things. And it's only a bad way, if you personally don't like to do it that way.
Like most things in life it has its pros and cons.

Men don't get to be with their families a whole lot, because they spend most of their waking hours working, and women have a hard time making a career, but on the plus side you never have to worry what to do when you can't send your kid to daycare because they are sick (many of my colleagues struggle with that), and your kids actually get to spend some time with their parents during the week.

I have nothing against women on the job, but it comes with its own set of problems, and calling people retarded because they do things differently is much closer to the definition of that word...

I don't understand why you think that it is best for women to stay home and for men to go out and work. You haven't even addressed my main point ( rather you changed it entirely). I think that it is wrong to have only men doing the work and women doing the housework. Why can't it be the other way round.
Why is it so problematic for you if women do the working and the man does the caring?
It is truly retarded and moronic if you think that each role can only be done by one specific sex.
That was my point. I don't understand why you are so against it ( you didn't explain very well)

I think we all need to take a few deep breaths here.

Honestly, I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that the traditional Japanese system is better, just that it's different, and that it comes with its own set of positives and negatives, and that every system has its own tradeoffs that it makes. In 21st century America, we have made large advances in granting opportunities to women, and this is undeniably positive. Among the negatives that have come along with that is that quite often, men don't take over the traditional women's roles, and therefore children often spend little time with either parent. While this means rising income levels, it also means that when inflation rose dramatically in the 1970s (when many women entered the workforce) it meant that in many, if not, most, families one income became no longer enough to survive, a situation that continues to this day. Thus, even if either parent wanted to assume the role of main child-rearer, they don't have the opportunity.

That's the funny thing about social dynamics. When you try to maximize the number of people who have the opportunity to do what they want, it means that somewhere, there are going to be a lot of people who lose the chance to fulfill those opportunities, because the number of available opportunities isn't necessarily going to grow at the same pace. Often those who slip through those cracks wind up worse off in the new system than in the old.

Obviously, this is an over-simplification, and I have a feeling this thread is going to get Cooked sooner than later, but let's try and understand what each other is saying rather than getting reactionary.

KENJI! LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE! NNNGGGHH! but yeah, we should let go of this debate because everyone has their own opinion and trying to change that would just cause more debate, just accept that every person has their own point of view until proven wrong by actual experience rather then someone just telling them they're wrong. i mean yeah eventually, maybe, probably you can convince someone with just words over the internet (or not) but the overall debating and eventually even insulting is not worth it...

dewelar wrote:I think we all need to take a few deep breaths here.

Honestly, I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that the traditional Japanese system is better, just that it's different, and that it comes with its own set of positives and negatives, and that every system has its own tradeoffs that it makes. In 21st century America, we have made large advances in granting opportunities to women, and this is undeniably positive. Among the negatives that have come along with that is that quite often, men don't take over the traditional women's roles, and therefore children often spend little time with either parent. While this means rising income levels, it also means that when inflation rose dramatically in the 1970s (when many women entered the workforce) it meant that in many, if not, most, families one income became no longer enough to survive, a situation that continues to this day. Thus, even if either parent wanted to assume the role of main child-rearer, they don't have the opportunity.

That's the funny thing about social dynamics. When you try to maximize the number of people who have the opportunity to do what they want, it means that somewhere, there are going to be a lot of people who lose the chance to fulfill those opportunities, because the number of available opportunities isn't necessarily going to grow at the same pace. Often those who slip through those cracks wind up worse off in the new system than in the old.

Obviously, this is an over-simplification, and I have a feeling this thread is going to get Cooked sooner than later, but let's try and understand what each other is saying rather than getting reactionary.

Thank you. This is the kind of debating I like. Thank you for moving this debate into a more positive direction.

These are very good points however there are other points you should also take into consideration.
In general this problem only really arises in more developed countries ( not 100% sure). These are the countries which give women equal opportunities. In these countries child birth rates are dropping and less new couples want children. I can already see the changes in London in my generatiin. A lot less people want to have children than you would expect ( including me). There isn't much of a need for this housewife role because there is no child and technology is just fantastic. Convenience stores are also great.
Jobs are pretty flexible nowadays as well so having a child isn't too hard with some coordinated work. Not to mention kids are becoming pretty self sustainable these days.

But in all honesty, I think the best method is the traditional househusband/housewife and working partner. Society is changing against that though and its becoming very hard to sustain a life like that.
Also the househusband/wife has to be self-sufficient. Otherwise something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

Forever_ambivalent wrote:kids are becoming pretty self sustainable these days.

*sarcastic glance at many fucked up kids who were left largely to their own devices*

It's not that hard to sustain a life like that. People might just look at you funny nowadays.