Katawa Shoujo Forums

SpunkySix wrote:

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?

Because you don't see the whole picture; in Japan, China, Taiwan and Singapore (the traditional 'Oriental Confucianist' societies), in a divorce the woman gets half and has no liabilities thereafter. The man normally ends up paying the remaining tab — childcare and education, support and maintenance — even if the woman was working and earned more than they. In fact, there was a landmark case where the judge ruled that maintenance should be ZERO because the woman was earning 10x more than the man and it didn't seem right that the man should be paying maintenance. Things like that. There is legislation specifically designed to enforce women's rights but not men's rights—so in effect, the law protects women and the much less 'enforceable' social contract is supposed to say what men ought to get. So in a legal sense, 'boobs means having more legal rights'.

And again, if your definition of equality is 'equal rights to do whatever you want within the constraints of the law', then yeah, women have it better.

EDIT: complete parity+ (i.e. women's rights) enacted in Japan 1986 (better late than never), and in Singapore 1961 (historically not so bad, considering it became fully independent only in 1965).

Yes, but that's problematic too. It doesn't make sense that either gender gets more rights no matter what it comes down to, legally or otherwise. Two inequalities don't make a right.

Also, the "alpha and beta in different worlds" explanation sounds an awful lot like "separate gender spheres" which I thought was found a long time ago to be blatantly unfair, and also a way for men to take advantage of women while pretending to be fair.

I don't see how limiting any person based on their naughty parts has an upside. It's different, but it's different in a way that blocks off options. If both genders had the same rights, then they could both come to an agreement and choose what roles to take on as individuals and partners, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do so. Limiting that only creates a rigid, oppressive and unfair atmosphere for all involved in different aspects of life.

That's what I mean by equality. You don't have to have the exact same roles as your partner, just an equal role in deciding what those roles are that isn't arbitrarily limited because of some chromosomes that you have no control over that don't affect your skill set in any significant way for the vast, vast majority of situations. That just logically doesn't add up, and while I wouldn't call it retarded, (since that'd be an insult to mentally challenged people) it is pretty superficial and it doesn't make much sense, especially in a world where women can act "manlier" than men, and men can be more feminine than actual women.

[quote="SpunkySix"]I don't see how limiting any person based on their naughty parts has an upside. It's different, but it's different in a way that blocks off options. If both genders had the same rights, then they could both come to an agreement and choose what roles to take on as individuals and partners, and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do so. Limiting that only creates a rigid, oppressive and unfair atmosphere for all involved in different aspects of life.[/quote]
I don't think that's necessarily how it works. Biological gender allows women to control reproduction; it's as simple as that. Various social contracts (e.g. marriage) allow men to have some say. Women are intrinsically more effective, more efficient, more powerful in any purely sociobiological environment. Genders are different from the purely biological assignments: they can have as many rights or roles as we assign, allow, allocate, or otherwise make space for. But it's 'equality' that is the problematic construct—the only way it makes sense is 'equal access to general services (law, healthcare, education etc)'.

It doesn't make sense to say 'equal choice', since clearly some of our choices are limited by biological or other capacity. I can't choose to have babies, not having the required apparatus, and it would be monstrous for me to demand the medical interventions required to set me up for it. Similarly, I can't choose to do one of the few professions that my disabilities outright disqualify me from, and I understand why I'd be legally barred from doing so.

My main point is to discourage a nebulous concept of general equality. It's to argue for better definition in a social/legal context; something we might call 'common and equal rights for all, plus equivalent rights to protect or support those who would be significantly disadvantaged otherwise'. Having wheelchair-friendly access is not an 'equal right' but an equivalence—an extra right designed to provide the latter. It would be an essential in a civilised public space where such traffic is possible.

The Women's Charters and suchlike were designed to right an existing imbalance by providing extra equivalences. Should they be maintained? In Scandinavia and other states, men are allowed childcare and 'paternity' leave on par with women. This discourages employers from employing men instead of women just because women have more legal leave. But in the end, de facto spheres of influence appear, simply because a large proportion of men behave differently from a large proportion of women. It's hard to disentangle the psychosocial from the sociobiological.

In the end, should we use law to rectify self-imposed imbalances that societies decide to produce of their own free will? It's a question that should always be debated, I think. The answer depends on the kind of imbalance and what kind of ethicality we aspire towards. But it's never going to be just one answer.
Okay, sorry. This was about Kenji. Kenji's legally blind. There's just no equivalence that can give him the right to see, except to ensure that there are Braille markers all over the place, very large and high-contrast signs etc. He compensates with huge computer monitors, in fact, more than one I'm guessing.

Forever_ambivalent wrote:I don't understand why you think that it is best for women to stay home and for men to go out and work.

I never said that. In fact my point was that neither way is inherently better than the other...

It is truly retarded and moronic if you think that each role can only be done by one specific sex.

...and that you should be less liberal when flinging insults.

Also, Dewelar did a good job of summarizing what I meant.

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.

An interesting point, but is there no need for a housewife because couples don't have as many kids, or do people have less kids, because women [have to?] go to work and don't have time to have them? Not saying either is true - I never studied this enough to say for sure - just food for thought...

Bry, that's a good point then, I'll give you that. I stand by what I said for the most part in terms of general message, but perhaps "equality" is the wrong word for it, as it implies something that is not particularly practical.

And this is a super broad topic, so discussing gender issues under the banner of Kenji seems appropriate. Except there'd be a massive slant on all this if it was him.

"We need equality, and the feminists are so sneaky that the only way to level the playing field is to put them all on leashes."

I'm pointing at the topic title here, yeah.

TS did you even read the story and dialogue?

Best actor in KS i will vote for Kenji.
Although his talk damn nonsense and annoying sometimes, however he was the most interesting COOOOL mysterious funny guy for me. I really don't mind to have this guy as my brother in real life actually.

Hope there will be a happy ending for Kenji route .

Popcorn513 wrote:Hope there will be a happy ending for Kenji route .

Yes, there is!

Popcorn513 wrote:TS did you even read the story and dialogue?

Best actor in KS i will vote for Kenji.
Although his talk damn nonsense and annoying sometimes, however he was the most interesting COOOOL mysterious funny guy for me. I really don't mind to have this guy as my brother in real life actually.

Hope there will be a happy ending for Kenji route .

be his brother? im pretty sure he would kill you in your sleep if you didn''t agree with his ideals thus becoming his enemy ) and im sure you wouldn't agree with them hence "damn nonsense and annoying sometimes", but i can't argue that he has some funny dialogues;)

brythain wrote:

Popcorn513 wrote:Hope there will be a happy ending for Kenji route .

Yes, there is!

you joke? Didn't see any walkthrough except death ending

Kibaro wrote:

Popcorn513 wrote:TS did you even read the story and dialogue?

Best actor in KS i will vote for Kenji.
Although his talk damn nonsense and annoying sometimes, however he was the most interesting COOOOL mysterious funny guy for me. I really don't mind to have this guy as my brother in real life actually.

Hope there will be a happy ending for Kenji route .

be his brother? im pretty sure he would kill you in your sleep if you didn''t agree with his ideals thus becoming his enemy ) and im sure you wouldn't agree with them hence "damn nonsense and annoying sometimes", but i can't argue that he has some funny dialogues;)

I believe those feminist nonsense thing was just a joke between brothers, maybe a bit upset after his breakup with ex

There is one scene where Lilly got overly angry and shoutted"DAMNIT" after being accidentally tripped by Kenji, however Kenji didn't mad but still gentlemanly helping or care for Lily, so i think those feminist conspiracy is pure joke with Hisao

Kenji is a good guy(at times) he however struggles with many things(as do we all). Being overly paranoid, not understanding the physical labors of sex, and being left alone for months on end. Well, that would tend to drive most of us rather stir-crazy.

YutoTheOrc wrote:Kenji is a good guy(at times) he however struggles with many things(as do we all). Being overly paranoid, not understanding the physical labors of sex, and being left alone for months on end. Well, that would tend to drive most of us rather stir-crazy.

Now hand him an axe, grab a film camera and install a blood-proof splash guard.

I expect The Kenji-ing to be in movie theatres tommorow.

SpunkySix wrote:
Not entirely sure, but I will say my opinion on feminists varies greatly depending on which form of feminism you're talking about. If you're referring to actual feminists, as in the ones who are basically just egalitarian, then they're cool. If you're talking about the ones that want revenge and privileges just because they happen to have vaginas, then they aren't so cool.

Most feminists are okay/cool, it's the .05% that go overboard that make the others look bad.

Disposition wrote:

SpunkySix wrote:
Not entirely sure, but I will say my opinion on feminists varies greatly depending on which form of feminism you're talking about. If you're referring to actual feminists, as in the ones who are basically just egalitarian, then they're cool. If you're talking about the ones that want revenge and privileges just because they happen to have vaginas, then they aren't so cool.

Most feminists are okay/cool, it's the .05% that go overboard that make the others look bad.

I have to agree, although I'm finding more and more "radical" feminists are being unleashed upon the world! Just the other day I was hanging out with a few of my friends ( a few were girls), one of them called me a girl and I said I took offense to that. Eventually we got into a heated debate and she dropped the S-bomb, calling me sexist; because apparently I thought being a girl was horrible...I just don't like being called a girl when I'm clearly(I hope) a guy.