Are women human?
A friend and colleague of mine sent me the link to an article in the most recent issue of The Atlantic. It is a textbook example of “male normativity” — that is, equating those things male to all things human. In this case, the author takes a longitudinal study of 268 college-educated men and makes conclusions regarding the entire human race, despite the fact that those who make up half of the human race were not even represented in the study:
In response, I wrote the following message to the author, and will write a similar letter to the editors of the Atlantic (most of whom, not surprisingly, are men):
I would like to offer my comments regarding your recent article entitled, “What Makes Us Happy?” In this article, you examined a study of 268 men and claimed that it provided “profound insight into the human condition”. I would respectfully disagree. The study may indeed provide the general public with insight into a certain class of men, but it does not provide us with insight into the human condition, as it completely lacks an entire half of the human race — women.
I can’t help but wonder how your article would have been written had the study been of 268 women. Would you have made the same sweeping generalizations about the “human” desire for happiness? Would you have claimed that the lives and experiences of 268 women were representative of all human beings — both men and women?
With all due respect, drawing wide conclusions about the human condition based on a subset of college-educated men is illogical at best. At worst, it renders women invisible and equates the term “man” with “human”, something that I, as a member of the human race, find offensive and insulting.
I hope that you will consider these comments the next time you decide to write on “human” nature.
I will post a follow-up comment here if I receive a response.
On Susan Boyle and the theories of evolutionary psychology
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on April 26th, 2009
I have a number of issues with a recent article in the NYT on phenomenon of Susan Boyle ("Yes, Looks Do Matter", April 24).
First, the use of the word "spinster" to describe a single woman over a certain age is sexist and has no place in the New York Times. If anyone doubts this, then just think of the connotation of this word when paired up with the word "bachelor" to describe men.
Second, it makes the implicit suggestion — as do many of the evolutionary psychology theories — that society’s behaviors are primarily caused by biological factors rather than societal factors, and that there is little or nothing which can be done to mitigate that fact. It minimizes or ignores the very real impact that our society, and especially the mass media, have on our sense of what constitutes beauty and our formation of stereotypes. If the perception of beauty were so rooted in our biology, then how would it explain the wide variations of the perception of physical beauty between cultures — and between individuals of that culture? Or how perceptions of beauty change often change over time? If we look at American culture and how the perception of female beauty has changed significantly within just the last 50 years, we can see that this is primarily due to societal factors rather than biology.
The fact is that women receive much more pressure than men to fit a narrow standard of physical beauty. Susan Boyle was treated with disdain by the audience because she did not fit within that standard. It was only when she displayed her musical talent did she finally win acceptance and adulation. Now she has been "made over" with dyed hair, makeup, and a new wardrobe — as though the real Susan Boyle is no longer acceptable for the big time. It is a prime example of how toxic our society is and what it does to women. We would be remiss if we just dismissed this as an inevitable function of our genes rather than taking a good, hard look at our own expectations of women and challenge them — instead of simply taking the easy way out by blaming it on our DNA.
Slow Food
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on March 22nd, 2009
I watched an interview with Alice Waters on 60 Minutes, the so-called "Mother of Slow Food". First let me say that I am a big proponent of the Slow Food movement and I try to buy organic whenever I can. I live in Japan and I am fortunate to live close to an organic food store. I also have a very small bit of dirt outside my apartment where I plant some vegetables. I also have worked on organic farms through WWOOF Japan.
That being said, she came across as being extremely pretentious, especially when she said that she thought of herself of a revolutionary — show a little modesty, please… And roasting an egg over an open fire? Gimme a break. She wants to convince people she’s not elitist? It’s great that she has the time and the resources to do that, but in the real world, most people do not.
However, I do think that everyone should try to grow their own food. Even if it is just a tomato plant by the windowsill or planting some spinach in the backyard, as long as one tries. Growing food used to be a large part of human knowledge, and now it is unfortunately limited to just a few. I had no experience whatsoever in growing anything until a year ago, and now I am growing spinach, lettuce, cabbage, mizuna, daikon — and I plan to grow tomatoes when the weather gets warmer. It isn’t that hard and it doesn’t cost much. Even in a city apartment with no balcony one can grow a couple of plants and keep a small compost bin with very little money.
Yes, organic food costs more than "conventional" food, and for those on a limited budget it can be difficult if not impossible. But for people who aren’t living paycheck to paycheck, it comes down to priorities. Ms. Waters’ comment about buying organic food instead of Nike shoes was poorly articulated, but her point is valid — for those people who can afford it and live in an area where it is available, there is no reason not to buy organic.
People for the Unethical Treatment of Women?
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on January 29th, 2009
Judging by their latest ad, it appears that PETA is more interested in the ethical treatment of animals than of women.
PETA has a history of producing these kinds of ads.
In response, I submitted the following to PETA’s blog:
"Nonprofit organization operating under the principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, perform experiments on, or use for entertainment."
I suppose that using women as objects for entertainment is acceptable?
Or does the ethical treatment of animals not include women? (Or "girls", as they are referred to above)?
Or is acceptable to treat women as meat as long as we don’t eat it?
I support PETA’s goals, but I do not support using ads which reduce women as sexual objects as a means to achieve those goals. For PETA to resort to pornographic ads as a means to promote is message is not only counterproductive, but it is degrading and demeaning — and unethical.
Women as well as animals deserve ethical treatment, and I will not support PETA as long as it continues to produce and promote these ads.
We’ll see if it gets approved. Meanwhile, I’d encourage readers to post their comments on the blog as well.
A Different Vision for Japan — A Response to Gregory Clark
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on January 22nd, 2009
The debate over the onsen cases continue to produce fierce arguments on the pages of the Japan Times as well as on various Internet blogs and forums – even though it has been several years since the case was adjudicated.
Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat, vice president of a Japanese university, and self-described “culturalist” (as well as a self-described fluent speaker in Chinese, Russian, and Japanese – which, it seems, he feels obliged to mention repeatedly), has written at least three pieces on the onsen case for the Japan Times as well as numerous other forums, with his latest piece (“Antiforeigner discrimination is a right for Japanese people”, January 15) coming several years after the lower court’s decision in favor of the plaintiffs was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The onsen case has been debated many times in the opinion pages as well as in countless other venues, and I’m not sure what good could come out of rehashing it yet again. It seems to generate more heat than light, and it unlikely that any new understanding would come from trudging through the arguments once again.
However, there are a few points of clarification that should be made with respect to this most recent piece and a few questions that readers may want to consider.
Mr. Clark writes: “The antidiscrimination people point to Japan’s acceptance of a U.N. edict banning discrimination on the basis of race. But that edict is broken every time any U.S. organization obeys the affirmative action law demanding preference for blacks and other minorities… Malaysia has also ignored it, with its Bumiputra policy of favoring Malays over Chinese and other minorities. There are dozens more examples of societies deciding to favor one group of people over others in order to preserve solidarity or prevent injustices.”
I’m afraid that Mr. Clark’s assertion is not accurate. The “edict”, known as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, was ratified by Japan in 1996. The Convention specifically excludes policies, such as affirmative action, that are intended to provide protection or ensure the progress of ethnic groups that have traditionally been the victims of discrimination. Article I, Section 4 of the Convention states the following:
“Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals’ equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”
While the issue of whether such objectives have been achieved or not can be debated, it is clear that the policies of the U.S. and Malaysian governments do indeed fall under the exception, and do not, as Mr. Clark claims, violate the terms of the Convention. Furthermore, racial discrimination violates Japan’s own constitution, something that Mr. Clark fails to mention. Is he arguing that the Japanese constitution should also be ignored?
Mr. Clark also writes the following:
“”Japan girai”— dislike of Japan — is an allergy that seems to afflict many Westerners here. If someone handing out Japanese-language flyers assumes they cannot read Japanese and ignores them, they cry racial discrimination… Normally these people do little harm. In their gaijin ghettoes they complain about everything from landlords reluctant to rent to foreigners (ignoring justified landlord fear of the damage foreigners can cause) to use of the word “gaijin” (forgetting the way some English speakers use the shorter and sometimes discriminatory word “foreigner” rather than “foreign national.”).”
The use of the word “gaijin” itself is indeed controversial and much debated. It is not completely analogous with the term “foreigner” in English, as the former is primarily used for white Westerners. The term can be used in a benign manner, and many of my Japanese students and friends have told me that it sounds less formal to them than the term “gaikokujin”. However, it can be used in much less benign circumstances, as the word “foreigner” is sometimes used in English. I have had several students of mixed ethnicity, and they have told me that they were often referred with derision as “gaijin” by other students (even though many of them were born in Japan and are Japanese citizens).
Mr. Clark asks: “How many Western universities would employ, even as simple language teachers, foreigners who could not speak, write and read the national language?” Actually, quite a few. The French and Spanish instructors I had in my undergraduate classes spoke very little English, but they were good teachers. My Chinese physics professor was not completely proficient in the language, and while he may have been a bit difficult to understand at times, he was also a good teacher who tried to make the class interesting for non-science majors. I don’t think my experience is that uncommon. Furthermore, there are many foreign language and content area instructors who are indeed proficient in Japanese yet are unable to obtain long-term contracts at most universities due solely to the fact that they are not Japanese nationals. How does the arbitrary termination of well-qualified teachers good for the students? Mr. Clark fails to address this.
(I would also point out that a Japanese colleague of mine, who is a full professor at the university where I teach, said to me recently that he believes this arbitrary termination of foreign teachers is discriminatory. I wonder if that also makes him part of the “Japan girai” club?)
Mr. Clark places the refusal to hand out Japanese-language flyers to foreign-looking individuals on equal scale with refusing to rent to those of a certain nationality or ethnicity. However, the consequences of not receiving an advertisement are much less serious than being denied housing due to one’s nationality or ethnicity. The “gaijin ghettos” perhaps exist because many of those “gaijin” were denied housing elsewhere.
What I find most troubling about the above statement, however, is the blanket generalization Mr. Clark makes of all “Westerners” who complain about discrimination in this country bearing a hatred of Japan. First of all, the definition of “Westerner” as it is being used here is not exactly clear. Are we talking about individuals born in Western countries? Would these be only white individuals, or would they include those of other ethnicities as well? Would it include those who have naturalized as Japanese citizens? Would it include those who were born and raised in Japan? Or those of Japanese ethnicity who were born and raised in a Western country, many of whom are the subject of prejudice and discrimination upon returning to Japan?
More importantly, however, is the arbitrary dichotomy that this creates. In this premise, there are those Westerners who hate Japan and those who don’t. Those that complain about discrimination fall into the former category, and those accept discrimination comprise the latter. The “Japan girai” would include those who complain about being denied housing; those who complain that their foreign-looking child was bullied and humiliated at school; and those who are complain about being refused a job because of their eyes being too round or their skin being too dark. If they accept the discrimination without complaint, then they do not bear any hatred of Japan; but if they resist such discrimination and voice their disagreement or protest, then they must harbor animosity towards Japan and its people. The argument is not only illogical, but also unfair and insulting.
I find it ironic how Mr. Clark positions himself as an opponent and even a victim of right-wing extremists in Japan, yet his rhetoric sounds frighteningly similar to that which is blasted from the loudspeakers of their black trucks on the streets.
Mr. Clark ends with the following statement:
“It is time we admitted that at times the Japanese have the right to discriminate against some foreigners. If they do not, and Japan ends up like our padlocked, mutually suspicious Western societies, we will all be the losers.”
This again sets up a false dichotomy. Either racial discrimination must be tolerated in Japan or the society is doomed to a transformation into a distrustful, chaotic, crime-fearing state. The not-so-implicit premise of this statement is that racial discrimination is necessary for a society in order for it to be safe and to prosper. That argument is simply illogical, and dangerous.
If racial discrimination were tolerated, as Mr. Clark advocates, then when would it stop? If one property owner refuses to rent to foreign residents or foreign-looking Japanese citizens, what is to prevent a whole neighborhood association or ward from adopting exclusionary policies? If one shop owner bars individual customers based on their ethnic or national origin, what is to stop a entire street or even an entire town from doing the same? Is there a point for Mr. Clark where racial discrimination becomes unacceptable? If so, what is that point, and how should it be codified under the law?
Mr. Clark’s vision of Japan is of a closed, inward-looking society that is suspicious of foreigners and foreign influences. I have been a member of international friendship associations here in Japan for several years, and I can tell you that the Japanese and foreign residents who are part of these groups share a much different vision – a vision where all residents, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social class, enjoy the rights afforded to them by Japan’s own constitution as well as international law.
Should there be in inquiry?
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on January 19th, 2009
Recently Paul Krugman wrote a piece which argues that there should be an inquiry into the actions of the Bush administration. I almost always agree with what Krugman writes, but I’m not sure I do in this case.
Obama has said in interviews that if someone has broken the law, then they should be held accountable. In addition, he said that he will give his Attorney General free rein to go to wherever the evidence takes him. However, he has also said that his instinct is to look towards the future, not the past.
When Ford pardoned Nixon, he was roundly criticized, and it was a big factor in causing him to lose to Carter. Years later, however, his decision was looked upon quite favorably by historians, and even some legislators who criticized him at the time have said that Ford did indeed make the right decision. No one has suggested that Obama should give Bush, Cheney, or any other Bush administration officials a pardon (but I suppose there are still a few days left for Bush to issue some last minute pardons), and no one has suggested that he attempt to stifle any investigations into any wrongdoing. But at the same time, he is not going to make it a priority. The American people voted for him because they want him to help put people back to work, help provide them affordable and accessible health care, and ensure a high quality education for every child — not to lead large-scale investigations into the previous administration.
Bush’s and Cheney’s speeches attempting to whitewash their administration have infuriated me as much as they have others, but I doubt if much could be gained by conducting investigations and dragging Bush administration officials through Congressional committees for months on end. Moreover, it would detract from pressing business at hand which requires the work of both parties. Certainly if evidence is there, it should be followed by the proper law enforcement authorities, and people should be held accountable if laws were broken. However, Obama pledged that he would work with both parties and would bring an end to divisive partisanship, and pushing through large-scale hearings in Congress certainly would not help fulfill that pledge.
“Empowerment”?
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on January 6th, 2009
A friend of mine sent me a link to the following article:
which contains this nugget:
"The feminist movement at large is not really ready to admit that women who like to be hit, choked, tied up and humiliated are empowered."
Wow. Yeah.
The author certainly knows how to write, I will give her that. Her piece, however, is so full of logical inconsistencies and fallacies that I really don’t know where to begin.
This line popped out at me, though:
"At the end of almost every authentic BDSM photo set, you’ll see a single appended photo of the participants, smiling and happy, assuring us that what we’ve seen is theater acted out by consenting adults, proving that fetish porn often exists as a careful, aware construct that constantly references itself as such."
So merely smiling on camera is the basis for determining consent. Fascinating.
It just makes me terribly sad that there are women who take pleasure in being raped and men who take pleasure in doing it — whether it is "consensual" (which I suppose in her view means that everyone is smiling) or not.
I wonder if as a Jew I like to be shoved into ovens or gas chambers by people dressed in Nazi uniforms — and then pose smiling for pictures afterward — would that make me "empowered" as a Jew?
White anti-feminist men in Japan — Part 2
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on November 24th, 2008
I wrote several weeks ago about white anti-feminist men in Japan and some of my experiences in interacting with them. One such man is a professor in Tokyo who often makes anti-feminist statements on an online forum I belong to. One example is this recent post on the forum in response to my observation that some husbands feel entitled to have their wife perform the role of domestic servant:
class British males, and in most of the Japanese cases I’ve observed, the
pattern struck me more as a manipulative strategy on the part of the wife
than as something demanded by the husband.
In other words, according to this argument, those men who treat their wives as servants are actually the victims of manipulation at the hands of their wives.
Another post by this same professor was in response to a female professor on the forum regarding Japanese men traveling on “sex tours”:
advertised in European countries as well as Australia and the US.
And, as a development that I am sure any feminist would evaluate highly,
British women are known to go to Africa on “sex tours.”
Presumably, this is yet another area in which Japanese women are well
behind their more liberated “Western” counterparts and yet another reasons
why Japan ranks so low in the league tables ranking the empowerment of women.
Here we have an example of a derisive sarcasm that is both dismissive of the fact that sex tours are indeed popular among Japanese men (an issue the late reporter Yayoi Matsui often wrote about) as well as making light of the fact that Japan ranks well below most other industrialized countries on several gender empowerment indices — not to mention the not-so-thinly veiled contempt towards feminists.
I’m curious whether there is something about Japan that draws many white men who hold such beliefs. A female friend and colleague of mine has made similar observations. A different female friend of mine wrote me the following, commenting on a previous message by the white male professor discussed previously:
confounded and hurt by too many of them. I have a few theories too. It has
had a dramatic effect on US-Japan relations and contributes to its odd
dysfunction. But if you point it out, you are some sort of nut feminist.
They are, as you have pointed out, generally abusive men with low
self-esteem. They are dysfunctional in the West, but survive in Japan
because they are given a pass for being foreign. If not physically abusive,
as you have seen online, they are very verbally abusive.
It is a line of research that I would be interested in exploring in the future. I’d like to open this up to those reading this post, particularly to those who have lived in Japan. What are your thoughts and observations? Have you noticed similar trends or have had similar experiences?
White anti-feminist men in Japan
There was a study done a few years ago which examined attitudes towards women among American men who were in college fraternities compared with American men in general. It found, not surprisingly, that those men in fraternities were more likely to have anti-feminist and misogynistic attitudes when compared with men in the general population. What I think would also be interesting is if a study were conducted that looked at the attitudes of white men in Japan compared with white men in the general population of their home countries. My feeling is that a similar trend would be found with regard to their attitudes about women.
Many foreign women living in Japan have told me that the white men they encounter in Japan very much fit within this description. One said that there is a common acronym that is used to describe them: “LBH” (Losers Back Home), which refers to a foreign man who is socially inept or socially unacceptable in his own country but thrives in Japan. How common are these men in Japan, and what affect do they have?
I have written from time to time on this journal about Gregory Clark, vice-president of Akita University and former Australian diplomat who has a regular opinion column in the Japan Times. Mr. Clark is a frequent contributor to the National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) Japan-U.S. discussion forum (to which I also contribute), a moderated online forum of academics, businesspeople, policymakers, and others with an interest in Japan-related issues. I have written before about Mr. Clark’s controversial and inaccurate statements regarding his support for merchants who engage in racial/ethnic discrimination. He recently has been opining about the announced resignation of Japan’s prime minister and the race to succeed him, specifically focusing on the chances of Ms. Koike, a former minister of defense, who he referred to as a “still-unmarried lady” who has “coquettish appeal”. He concludes by stating that “the ease with which females come to the top in political scrums worldwide is something the political scientists, and the feminists, should be looking at”.
One professor rightly took exception to these statements, particulary that which referred to the apparent “ease” in which women rise to the top — despite the fact that only 4% of heads of state worldwide are women. Not to mention the use of term “coquettish”, a highly gendered term which does not have a masculine equivalent.
Mr. Clark then shot back: “Feminists should lighten up sometimes. If they did, women could begin rise to many other top positions and put an end to the dreadful male macho belligerence that does so much harm to this world.”
I see. So in other words, Mr. Clark believes that these uppity feminists are actually working against equal rights and equal opportunity, and that everything would be fine if they just shut up. Amazing. If we substituted “black civil rights activists” for “feminists” and “blacks” for “women”, I wonder what kind of reaction it would receive (if it even were approved by the moderator to begin with, as the above post was). Needless to say, I wrote a strong rebuke of Mr. Clark’s comments, and I wondered how the faculty and students at his university would react if they were to read such rhetoric coming from their vice-president.
This is not the first time that such anti-feminist rhetoric has been posted on the forum. Another frequent contributor to the forum, a professor at Taisho University, has also made anti-feminist statements on this forum. Earlier this year he wrote that “feminists have something of a track record of making assertions and demands that are not always well grounded and not necessarily in accord with the constituency they allegedly represent.” Again, substitute “feminists” with “black activists” and I doubt that any white professor would get away with making such a statement publicly, let alone getting it approved on such a forum.
Based on my professional and personal experiences, I have found this kind of anti-feminist rhetoric — along with much, much worse — to be unfortunately quite common among foreign white men living in Japan. One has to wonder why so many of these men come to Japan. Is there something about Japan which attracts men with such anti-feminist views? How do their views affect their personal and professional relationships with Japanese? Given that some are in senior positions within business and academia, how much of an impact does it have on policy and international relations?
An “estrogenfest” and a “girlie show”
Posted by sgsilver in Uncategorized on July 15th, 2008
From Media Matters:
In a July 14 Washington Times article, staff writer Andrea Billups characterized the tone of a Michigan campaign event featuring Sen. Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama, as “as much estrogenfest as it was campaign rally” and later wrote: “Even Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm got in on the girlie show as they campaigned together.” Describing the event with Obama and Granholm, Billups wrote: “[T]he economic bantering did not begin until after the two-term Democratic governor offered a gal-pal fashion compliment, telling the cheering crowd of mainly black women that while she and Mrs. Obama had something in common as Harvard Law School graduates, she would not bare her arms in public.”
So when two women get on stage together, all of the sudden it’s an “estrogenfest” and a “girly show”? If two men got on stage together, would this Washington Times reporter refer to it as a “testosterone fest” and a “boy show”? Not to mention that “girly show” conjures up images of strip clubs and peep shows… so that is the way this reporter chose to portray a governor and a potential First Lady?
Fascinating just how blatant some of the sexism is in the media. What is it about powerful women that threatens so much of the media establishment?
Recent Comments