I suspect many people who grow up on video games and anime have an idealized image of Japan, and I myself love the country and enjoyed all the years I spent there, but they have some serious issues with gender inequality and this story currently making headlines is a good example.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_new … 1406230042

It's pretty sad that something like this would happen in the city assembly for the capital of one of the largest developed countries in the world, and almost worse that it took five days for the ruling party to finally crack down and name one of the perpetrators (there are still others who haven't been revealed).  Here's hoping they can make progress on this front in these next several years.

This just appeared on cnn (with video):

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/world/asi … index.html

One of the few countries left where someone from an opposing party would bow to the person they disrespected. I don't consider telling a women to raise children in Japan as something deeply offensive ("go home and be a family man") -- What Mr. Suzuki did there was a bully move, and I'm sure he's leveled similar attacks at fellow colleagues of trying to make them out to be hypocrites (basically telling them to "practice what you preach"). The fertility comment does betray a social ineptness on the unnamed LDP member as having a fertility problem is a universally taboo topic. To mockingly insinuate a woman has an inability to do what is exclusively assigned to women is disgusting; you are really telling her that she is like a man, a sterile creature.

How peacefully do political assemblies usually carry out between rival groups?

Japan is a very traditional place. Japan is now dealing with a break in tradition: a rise of women in economics. Is a woman who is trying to compensate for the failures of men to be providers by providing for herself bad? No. Is wanting to be a provider for women and asserting that idea for men bad? No. A stay-at-home dad is not manly in any culture I could name off the top of my head. (If you paid attention to American politics you'd remember that even in the developed country of America similar taunts were leveled at Hillary Clinton when she ran for president.) Now the real question is is the ideal society one where everyone is working? No. The whole idea of making everyone work was a plan by the elite to completely enslave the human population.

Society is getting too weird with men becoming women and women becoming men. Soon we'll get to the point where people don't say "man up" (Mr. Suzuki was essentially telling her to "woman up"). We'll forget what it means to be a sex and then fluctuate back to it. We'll remove all words related to sex and then fluctuate back to them. Classes have sprung up telling men how to be men (i.e. being more manly or less manly-deficient to bring greater attraction from women). Japan seems to be getting more and more androgynous. And soon enough their providers and nurturers will just be called robots. These robots will start to tell men to "be human" -- STC will have another outrage thread on this topic carried on between robots and future man when we're all dead and this thread buried. By that point humans due to the constant fluctuations in balancing out an ever-increasing extreme society will live in permanent self-abnegation and disgust. After that...[vert1's anime ends here].

But that's just on women. How would Japan handle a rise of another race in their country? Probably much worse than the women.

The one thing that really bothers me about Japan since this is a thread to discuss such things is the high sale of pedophilia material there. How many other countries of Japan's stature tolerate this?

I'm not going to go into your entire bullshit rant, but wanted to comment on this (and also: his name is Suzuki, not Sazuki).
Pretty much everyone here agrees that the bow was pathetic and unsatisfactory.
You can tell that he's doing this basically because he was pressured into apologizing, not because he actually thinks he did anything wrong.

The guy's a grade A asshole, like most LDP members.

I'll admit that a lot of people do have a rather rosy and idealized image of Japan... perhaps myself included... but I wish I could say I was surprised by this story. Sad thing is I'm not.

Edit:

Thanks for the additional context Amazingu. That really helped a lot.

I perhaps was enchanted with Japan (or my perception of it) when I lived and breathed its media, but over time I think said media also shed some light on some of the culture's less admirable qualities. Elements of what was discussed in another thread come to mind, as does the recent news of Japan's new (new!) laws regarding child erotica. I've never been there, but a friend who's lived there for the better part of a decade has told stories illustrating that although many Japanese are welcoming and acceptant of people from other cultures and backgrounds, there are also shockingly blunt displays of prejudice toward gaijin.

This story doesn't surprise me either, though it does disappoint. "Shock" might be a better term--regardless of the content of their jeers, it's hard to believe that behavior most at home in a bad comedy club is unfolding in assembly. It's nice to see, through avatar's link, that the public doesn't necessarily agree with its officials, and that they're aware of how this reflects on them in the global arena. That suggests there's hope for progress.

Of course, I can't claim we're necessarily more enlightened in America, just perhaps less brazen. There was a lot of buzz about Hilary Clinton's candidacy being called into question because... she's going to be a grandmother. Grandparentage (or parentage) has never been a compelling point against a male candidate, but suddenly it's relevant for Mrs. Clinton. That said, at least it wasn't her contemporaries spewing this nonsense, just television personalities.

Really? People are calling it into question because their daughter has a bun in the oven?

I don't really like Bill or Hillary... but I could really care less about that enough to make some dumb ass negative out of it.

Then there's no need to comment on its entirety.

Now edited. Thank you. I didn't know that stc auto-correction tool would have the correct spelling for Japanese names.

Source? The bow was a very low bow. What more can he do? Should he degrade himself for justice? He bowed and left. I think that's enough.

Would you care to write more on this? I've read it's very hard to fire someone in Japan. That your job takes you on like being a member of a family. If this didn't make international news would Japan have even put pressure on the LDP? He was elected by the people and if they don't like him he leaves or is moved from power, right? A history of the LDP's behavior would be good information for the thread. Is Japanese media as invasive in finding out every little bit of information on key players in a scandal as American media?

even their news media's microphone covers have anime hair

Source? All of my friends who live in Japan, both Japanese and expats.
I can look for some stuff online, but it's mostly going to be in Japanese.
Here's a quick google search of the terms "Akihiro Suzuki" and "apology"

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c … D%E7%BD%AA

Reading through some of those articles will tell you what people here really think.

By Japanese standards that is not a very low bow AT ALL. He can go much deeper, and there's always the "dogeza" where the person actually goes down on hands and knees, which certainly does not feel out of place here. Also, a lot of people are calling for him to be relieved from his duty, which apparently isn't happening.
I wonder what you think is "enough" about an extremely insincere apology from someone who obviously doesn't think he's wrong.

Also, the guy is just a bullshitter.
When he was first asked about this, he denied everything, and now that the cat's out of the bag, he said he meant it "sincerely" as in "I really hope you get married soon." Sorry, but F*CK OFF.

My guess, and I've heard a lot of similar opinions, is that without the international news thing, nothing would have happened. Japan is, in many ways, blissfully ignorant of the West (except when it comes to pop culture) and often they genuinely don't know/care that they're being racist/misogynist neanderthals if the rest of the world doesn't point it out.
I'm not sufficiently aware of how politics work here to comment on how easy it is to remove a politician from power, but we all know the country has seen, what, 6 different prime ministers in 8 years or something? And now we're back to the guy who resigned after suffering from low approval ratings in the first place.

Mind you, politics suck in all countries across the globe, and as infuriating as this whole debacle is, I do not perceive Japan to be notably more messed up than any other (first world) country. Need I remind you that, during the last US elections, we had conservatives claiming that women have self-defense mechanisms that prevent them from becoming pregnant when raped?
That shit is a whole lot more problematic than this, if you ask me.

Okay, he is unapologetic. But help me understand --  How can Mr. Suzuki bow to her as he did and maintain a higher standing?

I have a different idea on the symbolism of the bow. To me he cannot perform an action that both physically and symbolically represents apology or higher respect to mean something else. He physically submitted to her no matter what anyone speculates on his motivations: his head is further down and his eyes are staring at the ground. It's not like a handshake and tying the fingers with the other hand behind-the-back where there is no submission. Bowing is an appeasement gesture, a gesture of vulnerability -- it goes back to core animal behaviors [On Aggression] that predate man. Anyone who aims to devalue the purpose bowing serves is mad or deserves to be expelled from Japan.

The only way out would be for him to publicly make known he is an actor, not a politician, and he did not apply meaning to the bow because of so. That is something he will not do due to the even bigger loss of meaning that would strike him.

A "dogeza" would be a historic moment for politics.

In a country where people bow all the time, it's only natural for the bow to be devalued.
It's not hard to bow while being insincere, although, as I said, the depth of the bow is important, and the depth mr. Suzuki showed wasn't significant given the situation.

A "dogeza" would not be historic, because there is enough precedent, but at least it's something that people do not do lightly or insincerely.

Really now, you don't?  You think someone who has no personal relations with a certain woman, telling her that she should be getting pregnant and raising children (instead of raising legitimate social issues in a government assembly) is not offensive?

Why are you sure of this, have you followed his political career?  Has he made a habit of jeering male politicians with insulting outbursts while they are speaking on the floor?  Are you saying it's hypocritical for a working woman without children to suggest governmental measures to support working mothers?

And telling someone to "woman up" by staying home and having children instead of working in government is ok?

To be frank that is irrelevant in this case.  What matters is the Japanese idea of the symbolism of the bow, and as Amazingu pointed out, under Japanese social norms, the act and manner of this guy bowing (along with his ridiculous excuse for what he said) hardly proves a sincere apology.  Liken it to a Western politician issuing a token apology after making some political misstep when it's clear the person is not necessarily apologetic about what he's done.

It is offensive, and reading that the members mocked her crying makes me think Japanese politicians are perhaps even worse than American politicians. The overall message of having Japanese women have children and taking care of them instead of ultimately destroying the family structure by working is not. People ask me if I have kids or married all the time, and I am only 25. Different cultures have different expectations. For me having a child before 21 years old would be a big mistake that would greatly limit my future. For other cultures not having a child at my age would earn a negative stigma for an individual. She is indeed running out of time to have children. At 35 years old she probably is hearing from her family and friends all the time to have kids. Soon she will probably only get stared at.

Well, the guy is an asshole, so I can easily imagine him disrupting someone else's speech. I'm not writing it's hypocritical. Her personal life should not be brought up at all, but this is how politics works. If a politician can distract the public/assembly from the argument and demonize their opponent's character they will. You don't have to have children or infertility to advocate for it.

She needs to have children to keep Japan alive. What she wants to do with her life is her decision, but Japan is not an individualistic culture.

What is the Western equivalent of bowing? Do you think these racist republicans are going to physically bow down to Obama, who has been heckled much worse than this lady (Joe Wilson's "liar" outburst), after making a phony apology to him?

Winchester: A few extremists did indeed go there, though it blew over pretty quickly. Lots of people were asking the general question "what could this mean for Hilary's candidacy?" which, again, just isn't asked about male politicians. Mitt Romney got a grandson during his candidacy, and it was never so much as suggested that the baby boy--or any of the other 20-some grandchildren (Romney himself apparently lost count)--would affect his political focus.

vert1:A woman isn't required to have children: not for herself, her family, or her country. Some women don't want to have children. For them, there is no such thing as "running out of time." A population needs to sustain itself, but relegating that duty to one demographic is just as ridiculous as would be assigning it to any other. Speaking about women in that context suggests that you see them primarily as baby machines, which, it seems I have to tell you, is wrong.

The fact that you seem to be oblivious to your echoing the very same sentiments as Suzuki is almost as appalling as the sentiments themselves.

I have a decent understanding of Japanese politics...Basically, it's a 98% homogenous, conservative, nationalistic society that borrows freely from other cultures and exhibits a passive stench of racism from time to time. It's just something I've come to accept about them. I'm not going to say this is entirely justified, but the political arena is extremely cutthroat, with both subtle and non-subtle jabs continuously going back and forth. I'm wondering if there might have been more to the story between the people.

What is slightly odd is it was a liberal democrat that made the comment. The democrats have always been considered the more "pro-women" party in the US, so I wonder if that is the same in Japan.

Also vert, a lot of people supported Joe Wilson's Obama outburst (the issue was keeping illegals away from the health exchanges...a lot of people feel strongly on this issue because we don't want to be paying for the healthcare of non-citizens, especially when the issue of a more centralized healthcare is sticky to begin with). Wilson's funding went up substantially after the outburst, so it benefited him to get his point across. He apologized once and then the house Democrats "demanded" another apology, which was refused. That is one thing I greatly admire about Japan, their ability to keep their borders closed.

And Amazingu, sadly while I support the GOP, those type of comments about "legitimate rape" show how equally out of touch with society they can be. Then again, I remember how Mitt Romney's comment about "binders full of women" was taken to be a negative statement by many, so sometimes the public can be a wee bit oversensitive.

Also, in the case of Hillary, I think the issue is more her age. If she were to run in 2016, she would be 69 years old, which is pretty old for a presidential candidate. The same issue plagued Reagan and McCain during their election bids.

Helping you understand - I disagree with Mr. Suzuki's treatment of his colleague. I agree with the action Ms. Shiomura is calling for in assisting women. I do not agree with Japanese women becoming fully invested in work and neglecting their duty to look after their children. If "a population needs to sustain itself" as you wrote, then its members must agree to a pact to reproduce and the promotion of reproduction. With the population growth in sharp decline their zeal for life must not waver.

That's not the point. Interruptions from audience members are not to be done during a state of the union address. You are an audience member and are to be be quiet, only applauding when appropriate. What he did by interrupting the president with a challenge was extremely disrespectful. The president was not in a debate forum for outside persons to enter into. Power cannot allow such insubordination.

It is interesting that the sexual harassment story is now being censored by the website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnF4rQQktfs

The problem with that is that he used the address to talk about a very cutthroat, partisan issue that nearly every Republican opposed and was very much sparking a debate in a forum where no debate was possible (Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote). Poor taste, yes, but I feel the ends justified the means and reflected a lot of minority sentiment towards the issue...if he were just acting rogue, then it would be another story.

You're helping me to understand that you're not oblivious to sharing this sentiment, at least. Why is it a woman's duty to look after children? Why is it acceptable for men to fully invest themselves in their work, but unacceptable for women? Do men have no obligation to look after children?

And if I think it's arrogant of you to have an opinion on what Japanese women's roles should be in Japanese society, I can only imagine how that'd come off to actual Japanese.

We'll start to veer off-topic, but I must repeat: The president can do whatever he wants. It's his address. Joe Wilson was not in such position. We can even agree what he was saying was right, but that still wouldn't matter. What you see as poor taste is really extreme disrespect due to Joe Wilson being a racist.

"Anything we are capable of"
"You are prepared to give your lives?"
"Yes."
"You are prepared to commit murder?"
"Yes."
"To commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?"
"Yes."
"To betray your country to foreign powers?"
"Yes."
"You are prepared to cheat, to forge, to blackmail, to corrupt the minds of children, to distribute habit-forming drugs, to encourage prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases--to do anything which is likely to cause demoralization and weaken the power of the Party?"
"Yes."
"If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulphuric acid in a child's face--are you prepared to do that?"
"Yes."
"You are prepared to lose your identity and live out the rest of your life as a waiter or a dock worker?"
"Yes."
"You are prepared to commit suicide, if and when we order you to do so?"
"Yes."

Women can do what they want. I am not trying to stop them. I cannot stop them, nor can anyone else due to the progression of Westernization. Now my opinion on how to run the world is much different than the supposed utopia Westerners think they're creating. (I'm not sure how much freedom of speech persons here are really allowed, so I'll avoid writing it). All I will write: 'the micro level' - when you raise a family you will want to pass on certain things to the child (new generation). If the parents marry and have different religions there can be a serious conflict on what religion to teach the child. Everyone has different views and sometimes those views cannot be compromised for someone else.

Ultimately, it's arrogant to have an opinion that disagrees with yours.

So your non-answer to the question is "I'm entitled to my opinion." Not very compelling, but fair enough. That said, I think refraining from articulating your personal vision for an ideal society was probably a wise move.

I typed it out and erased it for reasons I posted above. Since your response is more positive (but response to an opposite opinion very negative) and acceptable to post: I wouldn't mind reading your explanations to the core values you uphold when you post the opposite lines for me to explain.

1)Why is it a woman's duty to look after children? Why is it a man's duty to look after children? Who should look after children? Why is it anyone's duty to look after children?

2)Why is it acceptable for men to fully invest themselves in their work, but unacceptable for women? Why is it acceptable for women to fully invest themselves in their work, but unacceptable for men? Why is it acceptable for someone to fully invest themselves in their work, but unacceptable for someone else?

3)Do men have no obligation to look after children? Do women have no obligation to look after children? Do people have no obligation to look after children?

After doing all that I wouldn't mind reading the big question:
4) In what ways are men and women not equal to one another?

It's kinda ballsy to refuse questions and then expect others to answer yours--especially when they're the same questions--but I'll bite.

1. It is not a woman's duty, nor is it a man's. It's a parent or guardian's duty, regardless of gender. Parents/guardians who share children should have the freedom to negotiate the responsibilities between themselves.

2. I never asserted these, so I can't defend them.

3. No.

4. Physical differences aside, both genders have history and societal constructs working both for and against them.

Hahahah, I couldn't have said it better myself.

So it all falls down to organization of family units case by case as opposed to a universal approach? What would a good family structure look like to you?

Is it fully acceptable for women to fully invest themselves in work to you? Are there no conditions to that?

To what? What do you think should be done with children?

So both sexes are equally advantaged to whatever tasks placed on them despite the physical differences?

A. Yes.
[note - The question was different when I answered it, though my answer remains]

B. I don't understand the question.
Edit: I understand the question now, I didn't parse it correctly the first time around. New answer: Yes, no.

C. Unless the tasks rely solely on sex-specific anatomical features, it depends on the individual.

So how are you so sure he's a racist? And Obama has a tendency to gloat during his addresses, whether he realizes it or not, and a lot of it stems from him having to fight tooth and nail to get what he wants because he's horrible at compromising and working with Congress. I'm sure Joe Wilson was not the only one that wanted to say something, much less throw something at him. This isn't an issue of race, it's an issue of extreme partisanship. It's not unlike how the Civil War came about.

When you quote something out of context, you're essentially talking to yourself.

Posting questions for other people to answer isn't meaningful contribution or conversation.

I can't believe you cannot comprehend the concept of people being allowed to decide what they do with their own lives.
You show the signs of a dictator. Have you read 1984?

Yes it is and no there aren't. Who are you to decide what a woman does with her life?
Women aren't obliged to keep a country/the world population running by giving birth. It's that exact line of thinking that's the problem here.

I go to work for nine hours and I come back to this.... Holy hell did this topic explode.

Can I ask a few questions?

From the context of this and other conversations on the board I take it Amazingu and Adam live (or have lived) in Japan. But vert1?

If you don't have extensive knowledge of the culture and its people like those two seem to have any argument you make versus theirs in regards to the political discussion really isn't going to hold water with me. However, if you do live (or have lived) in Japan I take back that comment.

As for the woman issue, I'm sorry but... really? I'll freely admit that women drive me NUTS with all the kid talk (I'm not a kid person) but to even think you (or ANY male for that matter) can begin to understand the inner machinations of what it is to biologically, mentally or emotionally be a female or what females NEED to do blows my freaking mind. I think you fail to realize that humans have grown beyond some of the more basic tenants of the animal kingdom (i.e. given the population numbers and advances in medical science there is no need for EVERY couple to reproduce like bunnies).

Jim Gaffigan said it best: "Large families are like waterbed stores. They use to be everywhere but now they are just weird."

Adam and I both live there, yes. I'm in my 10th year or so now, and I think Adam has been here even longer.
I'm pretty sure vert1 doesn't live here though.

I used to think just like you. Here is a question for you: How many competitive activities in the world at the highest level are women ranked higher than men? 

I certainly can comprehend it. I never wrote people cannot do whatever they want to do with their lives or that I am going to go to Japan and control their women. What is offensive to others is that I am writing that people should do certain things with their lives. These certain things correspond with my own value system. The irony is that people here are telling me what I should do with my life; keep my opinion to myself. Then the jeering starts and we see the same behavior among the good as we do in the bad.

Have you read 1984? Did you not realize that I posted a passage from 1984 in a response to GoldFishX.

They should want to. Most women who don't get married and have kids feel empty about themselves. They feel shamed. Why is that? Is something wrong with their line of thinking?

Making people reflect on what they are writing through questions is meaningful. Have you not heard of sages? Socrates? Questions lead to deeper truths.

I posted something from 1984 which shows exactly where that logic leads.

I don't have first-hand information from Japan. But that logic leads to "if you are not Japanese who are you to judge?" which would lead the board to silence. I mean isn't this thread on discussing different opinions on the status quo (read: culture)? Most of the time we deem all cultures equal (or is Japan's status quo inferior to America's?) and leave it at that.

You're not a philosopher, you're a delusional wack job who lacks any firm base in reality. You've managed to completely dehumanize and generalize women in a thread. Congratulations. No one is on your side. Just stop.

This conversation is very political. Look how most people are starting to react: the amount of you's being thrown around. It won't do any good. -

It certainly is. 1) It gets people to open up more, which leads to better understanding on what knowledge or opinions they possess 2) It allows people to think about deeper unresolved issues in their ideology they would have otherwise ignored in a circle-jerk

Haha. Wow.
You must not know a lot of women, or you're, as jb said, just a complete wack job.
Seriously, get out there and talk to people in real life (and no, not just white cis men like yourself), you might learn something.

You don't have to be Japanese. I'm not Japanese, but I still have enough knowledge on the subject because I've lived there.
You haven't. It's not about "being Japanese," it's about knowing what the f--- you're talking about, which is difficult if you don't have first-hand information.