Forum - View topicINTEREST: Speak Out! Japan's LGBTQ+ Community Responds to Politician Sugita's Discriminatory Stateme
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lord Oink
Posts: 876 |
|
|||||
Immigration doesn't lead to more Japanese people, though, which is what they want. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AiddonValentine
Posts: 2203 |
|
|||||
And that's something they're going to have to reconcile with. What constitutes "Japanese" is going to have to change if they're going to reverse the birth rate decline. As we've seen difficult immigration, keeping women out of the work place, LGBT discrimination, etc don't work, if anything they contribute to the decline. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kaylee Smerbeck
Posts: 144 |
|
|||||
Fascists (no really this person was a holocaust denier) was upset since the immigrants to PA weren't white like no dogwhistle just not white. It's the same principal |
||||||
|
||||||
|
FenixFiesta
Posts: 2581 |
|
|||||
|
Isn't more to due to fundamental social issues where you have an impossible job climate where you are either over worked to literal death or you decline the risk and become a slow burning NEET that has "no social value".
The issue is of extremes that create a scenario that screws over the Family, society, and multiple generations of people and would take a significant paradigm shift that is going to take more than just "giving birth to another hundred thousand babies within the next year". |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lord Oink
Posts: 876 |
|
|||||
And yet America's birthrate has been declining for years and we're currently at the lowest it's ever been in over 30 years. I'd say the issue is a bit more complex than that. |
||||||
|
||||||
Agent355
 Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||||
I have not read the study, but this seems like a case of correlation being confused for causation. In agricultural economies, families have more children to help out on the farm. Countries industrialized, people moved to cities, child labor laws were passed, improvements in healthcare meant almost every baby would survive childhood (remember, before vaccinations a lot of children died before their 5th birthday) and better, more effective birth control was developed. All those changes contributed to a shift in thinking about the child's role in the family and how many children a family could afford to raise, as well as giving couples control over their fertility. |
||||||
|
||||||
NervClaX
 Posts: 42 Location: New Jersey |
|
|||||
|
I disagree with Shō Arai's comments. Censoring people's comments in public and online will only drives the conversation into other forums. "Hate speech" is free speech and the best way to counter it is with more speech.
Also, the prevalence of LGBTQ+ characters in manga, anime, and pop culture should lead to more accepting views in the future. Isn't that what we mean when we say, "representation matters"? |
||||||
|
||||||
Otakuboy T
 Posts: 59 Location: Morris, IL |
|
|||||
CIA https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/world/cia-spent-millions-to-support-japanese-right-in-50-s-and-60-s.html http://www.japansubculture.com/how-the-cia-helped-put-the-yakuza-and-the-ldp-in-power/ |
||||||
|
||||||
|
scrwbll19
Posts: 87 |
|
|||||
|
Not having heard or seen Sugita Mio's original statements in context, I will try to be careful what I say here. For better or for worse, the article here gives little context to the situation that Sugita spoke in and to what the exact issues she was addressing are. Furthermore, we only get people's reactions to her statements or whatever the interviewer asked for most of the article. Likewise, as many have pointed out, the issues in Japan are quite complex like in any country; gender issues, economics, education, etc. ultimately are all interlinked.
With that above in mind, I am not so quick to say that Sugita is "evil," "hateful," etc. like some have done. She seems to be addressing valid issues in Japan like the population decline issue. She has a point and a right to express that point or view, even if others find it distasteful or unlikable. Just because one finds it not in line with their views, that does not give them the right to malign someone else for expressing themselves. It is important to separate the person from their views or statements to a certain extent. That said, that does not mean someone is not responsible for what they say and do. Perhaps, Sugita just needs to say her message differently. Who knows? Ultimately though, the true issue at hand here is not one of discrimination, economics, politics, etc. There are only the symptoms or parts of the true issue, which is identity, a sociological construct. I bring this up because identity is essentially the backbone of what makes a society tick and what causes these kinds of conflicts. It is what shapes so many of the issues that people fight over (to the death even) or discuss around the table at meals. It is what makes a culture what it is. It is what forms a person's worldviews and who they associate with. It is the result of a person's assumptions about how the world works and what they value most to be able to deal with that world. It is about how a person wakes up in the morning and deals with the chaos and order in their life. Identity works in an odd sort of way though. There is the identity that a person and others like them claims. This is informed by those pesky assumptions and values about the world that can either bring others close to them or drive them mad. Then, there is the identity that other thrust upon an individual or group as a way of defining themselves in opposition or contrast to that individual or group. Again, the contrast is the result of a difference of assumptions and values about how the world is or should be. In terms of politics, the left and right worldwide tend to put a different (amount of) emphasis on different values. For those on the left, these tend to be more about equality, justice, etc. For those on the right, it is more about family values, tradition, etc. That does not mean that either side does not have the values of the other side; it just means that they are expressed differently. It is because they are expressed differently that things get lost in translation when dialogue occurs between the two sides. The same words have different cultural baggage for the left and the right. Ultimately, neither side listens and interacts with what is being said on a fundamental level because they are talking past each other. In the case of Sugita Mio, this could mean that she is trying to address Japan's population decline issue and/or other issues. However, those in the LGBTQ+ community hear her as saying that they are worthless human beings. This results in public outcry and the article here. Yet, it would seem that something was lost in the mix. Nobody responds well to the feeling of being threatened or made into the negative other. So, until people can be on the same page, then nothing will change, or very little will change at most. This is not accomplished by demonizing the other side or trying to shut them down. Doing so is not only unhelpful, it is thuggish and immature and ironically shows that one is not confident in one's own identity. It does not matter if one is right or at least thinks they are; one can be very wrong in being very right. Given the above, I am not ignoring the serious issues at play. Rather, I am try to give some background to what makes these issues so important and divisive while suggesting how we can handle and grow from them in a world that is becoming increasingly polarized. I hope this helps. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Agent355
Posts: 5113 Location: Crackberry in hand, thumbs at the ready... |
|
|||||
|
Scrwball19, that is a very measured and reasonable take on this controversy. I'd like to break it up and explore how your ideas relate to this particular case:
1. Democratic societies have a responsibility to hold their politicians to a high standard of knowledge of social issues that they personally impact with their support of policies and legislation 2. Sugita's comments betrays a deep ignorance with its false correlation of social issues: A. She assumes that LGBT people do not want or are incapable of procreation or raising children B. She defines "worth to society" by a citizen's willingness to procreate and/or raise children C. She very likely equates physical procreation with raising children, when they are, in fact, two separate matters All these assumptions, over which she has political power to influence in her country, are false and harmful to her constituents, and as a politician she has the obligation to educate herself on these matters. 1. Not every person who contributes to procreation is involved in raising their biological children (sperm and egg donors are obvious examples, but there are plenty of people who have children and are incapable of raising them for a variety of reasons) 2. Just because LGBTQIA+, as well as other individuals who may not identify as such, may not be biologically capable of having children *within their desired relationships* does not mean they are physically incapable of having children or that do not want to *raise children.* Many people do want to biologically procreate (through sperm donors/surrogates/other means) and/or raise children, but find it a difficult prospect due to their countries' laws (especially adoption laws) preferring opposite sex/gender couples. It is up to politicians like her to enable/make it easier for them to raise children legally through laws like adoption reform. In order to do this, they may need to be educated that different family structures besides the ones they are used to can be healthy and happy. 3. Sugita's biggest, most insulting falsehood was implying that people who don't or are incapable of physically procreating are somehow less valuable to society as a whole. This is an extremely hurtful stigma, not just to LGBTQIA+ people who may be incapable of naturally procreating within their desired romantic partnerships, but to all individuals who are physically incapable of procreating or are unable or simply do not want to raise children for any reason. Again, as a politician she has more of an obligation to understand these issues in all their complexity and should strive to do more research into these issues before blurting out hurtful, false stereotypes on TV, or supporting ill-conceived (pun intended!) policies or legislation that will effect the lives of her constituents. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
scrwbll19
Posts: 87 |
|
|||||
1. Ideally, this is true. However, it is an ideal, one out of many. Also, because it is an ideal, it need not exist in reality. It should exist in reality, but that does not make it reality. 2. It would be good to be cautious here overall. One can assume what Sugita thinks or believes and how everything is constructed in her mind. Unfortunately, this is where one runs afoul of presuming they are her. With that out of the way, in general, those who tend to be more "conservative" on these issues also tend to take a more traditional attitude about how a family is structured. This includes a male father, a female mother, and any children that they have produced via procreation. As nature would have it, it takes the sperm of a male and the egg of a female to produce children. Traditionally, this would mean that the man/male would take a role as the "bread-winner;" and the woman/female would take a role as the "caretaker" of the children. The argument for them is not about equality between the genders; it is more about the roles of those genders. The genders are seen as equal, but they just are different in terms of roles. For those on the more "liberal" side of things, there is still a (perceived) imbalance in the equality of the genders and/or roles. (Note: I use "perceived" only in the interest of trying to be neutral politically here. Perception is reality after all.) Men/males have lorded their physical prowess over women for millennia, and it is unjust that women or those who have been historically marginalized to have to put up with this any longer. Men/males/those in power traditionally are overdue to pay back their victims. As such, there is more of a focus on giving social justice to those who choose to or are forced to opt out of the more traditional family model. The above is an example of how the two sides have different assumptions on the issues, which inform their values and identity. It is also an illustration of how one might be able to see how they would clash. Both would see the other trying to cause society to crumble somehow. Building upon this, it is vital to understand that one must separate the speaker/author's intended meaning from that of their intended audience and that of someone removed from that audience but still able to have access to the message. To clarify, think of a book or TV show or something in media form. That book, TV show, or whatever was written for a specific target audience. The words and medium used convey a certain intended meaning for the culture from which it was produced. That is the speaker/author's intent. Yet, the original audience can derive other meanings from that that may or may not be there. Now, imagine that an audience has access to that somehow, but they are removed by culture, place, and/or time from the original speaker/author. The kinds of meanings derived from this sort of thing can be wild and various, especially if they are ignorant of the context which motivated the media to be produced in the first place. Applying this to our present situation, Sugita was speaking and writing to a set group of people, most likely those who voted for her in the first place. Both settings mentioned in the article appeared to be toward that audience. So, she is appealing to people who already have similar beliefs as her. The problem is that anyone can watch or read something where she appeared or wrote. In this case, this would mean that those who oppose her or who she was talking about have access as well. Seeing that their values, beliefs, and identity are already opposed to who she is and what she says, they will have an adverse reaction to what she said or wrote. She very well may not have been speaking to them in the first place, but it raises walls because she said something considered anathema by her opponents. Taking this a step further, non-Japanese people get a hold of a snippet of what she supposedly said or wrote, and they add their two cents to the argument. Again, it is easily forgotten that issues at stake are intrinsic to a specific situation in Japan that she is attempting to address. Thus, this audience (unintentionally) adds their cultural baggage into the mix. By this point, no one is really engaging with Sugita; they are only engaging with what they think or feel Sugita says, means, represents, etc. Sometimes, people contrive meaning from things that just do not exist. All of that to say, not just Agent355, but all of might just be thinking a little too much without taking into consideration a lot of what is really happening. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
nekobako
Posts: 3 |
|
|||||
So are you trying to say that there is a context in which dismissing/laughing about the extremely high suicide rate of LGBT persons in Japan is acceptable and not malicious? When even Japanese people who are very familiar with this politician's track records are speaking out--which is what this entire article is about--can you really say that the outrage is uncalled for and we're misunderstanding something? Did you actually watch her interview? You're right that both sides need to be able to talk in a civil manner, but laughing about suicide statistics is already way beyond civil. It feels a little disingenuous when you come in talking about missing context when this article is about people who live in that context to begin with. Also I get what you're saying with "people are engaging w/assumptions about Sugita rather than Sugita herself", but all people are only putting projections of themselves forward in what they say and do, and that is what other people engage with. This is what you have to keep in mind when you interact with anybody. The conversation between us right now is the same. Nobody is in anybody else's head, so everyone is only engaging with their understanding of another person. That kind of philosophical argument is a straw man. The fact is that people are hurt by the dissemination of ideas like this, and that is the problem. Whether or not what's in her head and what came out of her mouth are in alignment, her words still have impact. You also didn't actually respond to any of Agent355's specific points:
Instead of talking about our cultural baggage as Westerners (which I do not disagree with and try to keep in mind when engaging in such topics), I would like to hear your thoughts about this woman's actual words. |
||||||
|
||||||
v1cious
 Posts: 6202 Location: Houston, TX |
|
|||||
|
The Dragon Quest overture is literally my current ringtone. Disappointing to say the least.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Tempest
 I Run this place.ANN Publisher  Posts: 10420 Location: Do not message me for support. |
|
|||||
Sure it does. Depending on how you define "Japanese." Regardless of their family history. A child born (to immigrants) and raised in Japan will be more Japanese than a child born and raised to Japanese parents abroad. Many immigrants will also strike up relationships with Japanese citizens, marry and have "halfu" children. Again, born and raised in Japan, with one Japanese parent, these kids might as well be Japanese. Again, certainly more Japanese than an 100% ethnic Japanese child born and raised abroad. To me, culture is vastly more important than genetics. Unfortunately nationalists usually don't see it that way. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Kaylee Smerbeck
Posts: 144 |
|
|||||
Note Japan (ask the 4th generation Koreans) does not have natural born citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli So one issue is say Indonesian immigrants (can someone tell me how well Japan respects Islam) if given the choice between Japan and say US or Australia well which would you rather go to? |
||||||
|
||||||
But it is well established in the economics academic literature that social security has been one of the main factors behind the decrease in fertility rates across the world.
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group