Japan “Most Sexist” G8 Nation

09:45 False. Biological construct can be 'construed' as sociological concept, but that false interpretation in and of itself cannot neutralize the fact that physiological differences exist and are real influences upon how people behave. Even the most feminine-like 'men' are clearly distinguishable from females when certain situations come into play.

Also, if you really think women and men each don't have their own preferences and relatively separate needs, you are really just ignoring the differences, or trying to make them go away by wishing they are just 'social constructs' (the usual 'society made them that way, it's all SOCIETY's FAULT!!' Bullshit). The moment we are born to the moment we die, there are inherent biological and genetic differences that sets behaviors, needs, and other factors apart enough to the point that we need to classify men and women as separate and distinct entities. Trying to deny this by calling it 'discrimination' and 'unfair' is really just running from a problem.

But I am sure in today's age where if someone whines enough about 'discrimination' and 'unequal treatment' and gets everyone's ear, your ideas about trying to erase 'discrimination' by destroying difference itself flies easier. After all, it's much easier to blame society, traditions, 'social constructs' as you say, then maybe just maybe the problem lies not with facts but your own limited view of what it means to obtain equality and freedom, and faults that are reinforced by social culture which refuses to discipline self-centered view of the world.

As for the scientific papers and researches, do yourself a favor and go to sites with papers that have conclusions you don't want to hear about. People like you usually try to laugh at conclusions not to your liking because that only makes sense in your head. Listen to facts before you decide your opinions, because no matter how much you hate the fact that men and women are different, it won't change simply because you scream louder and get a few convincing nods from people with similarly limited visions of equality.

No, no. I WAS talking considering the "many" qualifier. As in, you were talking statistically, I believe.

The point was: there is no proof that women, as a biological group, have (preferentially) "different needs", "ways of reaction" and even "preferences" than men. The best we can do is saying that statistically some areas of the brain have different reactions, statistically, to the same events, between the sexes. I think you could stretch it out a little and talk about how men are PROBABLY more aroused by visuals than women for example, but that's already a stretch, I think. [notice anyway that this is totally unrelated to the fact that in Japan women are particulary salary-discriminated. Hell, it would be a shame even if you'd realy demonstrate being a NEE-an housewife is statiscally more desirable for the female part of the population]
In fact, I think that IF you could really work an experiment with those ideas (which are undefined and totally unfalsifiable as they're now, but I think you realize it)... I think that even in these hypotetical case you couldn't say that this is "biological reality" as much as it is a social construct. If (wo)men really do have some preferences more than the other group (football over clothes shopping, whatever), that's not gonna tell us they're born that way, not raised. (in fact, clothes shopping, frankly I can't see how the cromosome X would push some people over that more than others, but your guess is as good as mine)

Sure, you can believe that there are these differences (I'd like to have them just a little more precisely stated, those needs and shit, just to say "well, my guts tell me that COULD be right"). But we're in 2012, personal interpretation has its places and facts and scientific theories have theirs.

Or... well, if there is just a paper, essay, whatever on this subject, why not posting it here?

Qualifier on 'many'. You fail at basic reading comprehension.

Nice try attempting to portray absolutes in a statement that has none. Explain the 'fail' or STFU

Dunno when my other comment will be freed from that out-of-control spam filter, but in the meantime...

"There is nothing 'masculine' or 'feminine' about a job or a role so much as HOW they are carried out"

That is not what you said in your original comment. But you might like to re-read my post:
"[Their is nothing masculine about e.g. leading a business] Except the way men go about it. Women do aspects of it in a different, "feminine" way, but succeed just as well"

Well, yeah.

11:48 You misunderstand and misinterpreting my differentiating two different things as saying I believe they must be solely dedicated to that single gender. "Better fit" does not equate to "destined for a role ONLY fit for a specific gender".

Specific roles are not really set in stone, but the methodology and manner in which certain things are carried out are to a degree. Can a man be so nurturing and motherly that he could replace female role? Can a screw driver perform a role just as well as a hammer? Such very exceptional people are in the minority. In a world dominated by male-behavior-oriented behavior, as in that of pro-actively aggressive and dick-waving "I'm gonna fuck the others" attitude (not necessarily a bad thing, competition and fierce struggle can make impossible possible, which is where male aggression and power play excels and achieves better results with smaller time required), female way of conducting business or politics has more hurdle to overcome, more obstacles to defeat. It is not so much as there's something wrong with female gender, as much as world isn't so nice that it would wait around until you are fully ready to throw problems your way. Those roles demand results, and unless you as an individual can produce such results, regardless of gender you are not fit to play that role.

Question is practicality and aggression, and ability to dominate versus nurture. In the same vein, question is not about whether one role is more subservient or dominant, but personal biases and inherently unfair nature of human impulse to MAKE one subservient to another. You are not doing anyone favors by insinuating 'masculine' roles are better than 'feminine' roles and thus females should strive for greater inclusion in 'masculinity'.

'Masculinity' as it is currently falsely defined is about domination, rule, and aggression. This is fundamentally childish and one sided view of what it means to be a man. Feminine role does not have to be subservient or passive, and can also possess same strength and do-not-fuck-with attitude as that of 'masculine' culture. The only difference is that men are more of 'go-getters' versus 'nurture and refine' of females. The fact that one is deemed less than another is the product of human bias, not the problem of difference itself which once again, is a false comparison between two non-comparable aspects of human genders.

Where the hell did you reach specific professions from what I was saying? For that matter, when did I ever say 'traditional female role' was or is anything like how confused modern driftwoods like yourself understand them as?

There is nothing 'masculine' or 'feminine' about a job or a role so much as HOW they are carried out. When I speak of 'traditional roles', I speak of the approach itself as the main point, not the job. However, you have once again demonstrated you are too busy making groundless assumptions that fit your own ideas in your head about other people rather than actually take time to read the context and meaning behind the said words.

11:48 I don't think we have anything to argue about anymore. My other comments are still sitting in the filter, but from that point on it'll be down to arguing semantics mostly. Semantics you got most definitely wrong though. My insistence on professions and the classical sociological use of the term "roles" stems from the way your original comment was formulated, and the context it appeared in.

Speaking of context, all the professions that came up and that seem to favor typical male behavior patterns have very successful women pursuing them in whatever style in a manner efficient enough to come on top of men who went for the same position. Leaving aside whether they are some kind of exception or not, they still suffer the pay gap to varying degrees, especially in Japan. This is what the article was mostly about, this is what modern feminist lobbying is about, and no modern feminist has a view on gender "roles" different from yours. Actually it's common sense among most people. So who or what was that original rant even directed at? It just had to end up being misinterpreted like that.

Your characterization of what exactly constitutes the masculine and feminine role needs some refinement, but this I won't be pursuing any further.

@23:29 I don't know how I can be 'dumb' or 'ignorant' for my opinion. For me liking what he had to say. All I can say is I liked it you didn't and that your way of thinking calling me dumb for my opinion is ignorant. So let's keep the name calling to ourselves here because we're all adults.

@07:02 Wow, you're rather defensive about this. I didn't expect that. Okay, sorry for the name calling.

Let's settle for this then: a text that uses the term logical fallacy in completely wrong way and, what's worse, tries to make an argument out of it (among many other purely objective shortcomings), might not be that wise a target for such euphoric levels of praise.

23:29 Rather than throwing names, why not ask if the feminists themselves are deluding they are any different than being 'ignorant' and 'shallow'? How is one supposed to accurately describe something other than tell it like how it is?

Or has telling it as it is become taboo when it offends your soft, delicate sensibilities based on nothing but personal feelings?

People are never as sophisticated or well-thought out as they like to believe themselves as. What matters the most is whether they can face the facts and act accordingly, or react like you and throw names instead of owning up to their shortcomings.

Women's role is just as respectable as that of men, but if feminists reject such because they cannot bear the taunts and derision of people who by the nature of gender difference cannot fully appreciate the importance of female gender role, then at least don't denigrate yourself and your gender just to get even with the male society.

I like treating people like people. Or at least I aspire to I don't do that great all the time, but I'm the sort of person who goes out of their way to open doors for people, collect shopping carts that people leave in the middle of parking spaces, things like that.

On another note, are people sure womens rights are all that fantastic in Japan? I mean yea, they have a lot of things going for them, but between the gropers, police not being prosecuted for doing things to women like groping, actually all I can think of is groping. You certainly hear a lot about that sort of thing. Iunno I really know very little about that here. But I will totally admit as much.

God I have no idea what my point was now >.> I've been awake too long lol. Bet I see this tomorrow and wonder what caused this.

Sorry, but no. Feminists try to claim the egalitarian high road, but they're deluding themselves.

Males in feminist circles are mistrusted second-class citizens.

American feminism is primarily an upper middle class white women's movement that doesn't address the issues of minorities. Black women call their movement "womanist" to distinguish themselves from feminists.

No feminism is *NOT* egalitarian.

I'm sure you realize that fact since, in your second statement, you distinguish "radical feminism" from "radical egalitarianism".

If the guano fits....