why do they look so artificial

Mami, it’s an incredibly common one and has to do with the way Japanese and English adjectives work. We all knew exactly what you meant. This is a fine article (yours tend to be better than the usual fare here, in fact!).

Wow, that is a LOT of text devoted to rationalizing and normalizing sexism. Based on some of your other comments, it’s obvious you know absolutely nothing about Japan, yet here you are giving long, long lectures on what is and isn’t sexism in Japan.

You ask “What’s so wrong with stereotypes?” Well, see, that’s the thing that you obviously don’t understand. Japan is a “high context” culture. This is an idea from Hall’s anthropology work – it basically means that Japanese communication is based on shared ideas – that is to say, Japanese people often rely on stereotypes to convey information as quickly as possible.

In a vacuum, that’s a fine system. Except, in reality, the world isn’t divided up into neat little stereotypes. As Japan has come to integrate more and more with the global community over the past century, you can see how Japanese culture is often unable to keep up with the complexities of reality – the overuse of stereotypes is Japan’s Achilles Heel. While any and all cultures engage in stereotyping, it is essential to Japan, and it is their special weakness.

Because, see, you talk about “adding information,” but stereotypes don’t add information. They actively REMOVE it so that things are easier to understand. You’re jamming square pegs into round holes to make sure they fit the stereotypes. You see it relatively often in Japanese culture where two dissimilar things are lumped together because they share one or two stereotypical criteria.

In other words, what this means is that stereotypes are often WRONG and a culture, a communication system BUILT on stereotypes (e.g., any high context culture, e.g., Japan) will be constantly communicating, sharing and believing WRONG information. Stereotypes are signal decay, they are data corruption, they are a LOSS of information as time goes on.

Again, though, anyone who had actually spent time in Japan and knew the first thing about life here would instinctively understand this.

Oh, and as for all your other nonsense rationalizing sexism – that’s all you’re doing. Rationalizing sexism. There’s no real reason to respond to that, because you obviously have no interest in honestly engaging and just want to make excuses.

Yes, but where I come from that is absolutely illegal. It’s hard to prosecute because it is hard to prove, but it is on the books.

>Wow, that is a LOT of text devoted to rationalizing and normalizing sexism.

That’s neither what rationalizing nor what normalizing means–no, more accurately, you haven’t explained how I am illogically justifying these actions. Also saying that I’m “normalizing sexism” in this sentence is a straw man, as I am arguing that this isn’t sexism in the first place. In reality I am simply arguing that these actions aren’t sexism.

>Based on some of your other comments, it’s obvious you know absolutely nothing about Japan, yet here you are giving long, long lectures on what is and isn’t sexism in Japan.

Nice ad hominem. Not only is my knowledge of Japan irrelevant to much of what I was saying, but that statement is patently false. Also it’s not a lecture, it called an argument, and not all of it was in disagreement, and very little was specific to Japan.

>You ask “What’s so wrong with stereotypes?” Well, see, that’s the thing that you obviously don’t understand. Japan is a “high context” culture. This is an idea from Hall’s anthropology work – it basically means that Japanese communication is based on shared ideas – everyone has heard about this. What a lot of people DON’T realize is that Japanese high context communication often relies on stereotypes to convey information as quickly as possible.

You don’t need a Ph.D to understand that _any_ population uses stereotypes to convey information. Also you seem to have completely missed the point to my rhetorical question, which I proceeded to explain why they aren’t that bad, in general. Stereotypes come from a task we perform every day called bayesian estimation. It’s fundamental to how learning works. Unfortunately, the world is not a game of perfect information, so often times inaccurate predictors are made. All I’m saying is, it’s the responsibility of the user, to not believe these things. It’s also absurd to think oversimplifications aren’t a useful analytic tool, because one could easily use them in conjunction with more reliable sources to make accurate predictions.

>In a vacuum, that’s a fine system. Except, in reality, the world isn’t divided up into neat little stereotypes. The overuse of stereotypes is Japan’s Achilles Heel. While any and all cultures engage in stereotyping, it is essential to Japan, and it is their special weakness.

And stereotypes aren’t a problem in America? This is a pretty global problem, therefore you wouldn’t need a lot of Japanese specific knowledge to understand the issue, as you have so implied.

>Because, see, you talk about “adding information,” but stereotypes don’t add information. They actively REMOVE it so that things are easier to understand. You’re jamming square pegs into round holes to make sure they fit the stereotypes. You see it relatively often in Japanese culture where two dissimilar things are lumped together because they share one or two stereotypical criteria.

That’s not how logarithms work, there’s no such thing as negative information, so spreading information based on a stereotype however inaccurate, cannot remove information. You don’t suddenly forget your accurate personal experiences with things, because someone tells you a stereotype.

>In other words, what this means is that stereotypes are often WRONG and a culture, a communication system BUILT on stereotypes (e.g., any high context culture, e.g., Japan) will be constantly communicating, sharing and believing WRONG information. Stereotypes are signal decay, they are data corruption, they are a LOSS of information as time goes on.

Stereotypes are information, they can’t be a “LOSS of information”. The phenomena of replacing accurate information with stereotypes is data corruption, or absorbing less knowledge upon hearing a stereotype is the loss of information. There is no reason why a rational person should engage in either of these practices.

>Again, though, anyone who had actually spent time in Japan and knew the first thing about life here would instinctively understand this. We’ve ALL had that conversation with the ossan at the bar about how “Japanese people” are just so different from foreigners because of a bunch of stereotyped nonsense about rice and four season.

You could replace Japan with *, and much of the stuff preceding this would be true, so already your argument is flawed. Also you’re implying that everyone who has spent time in Japan would agree with you, which is dubious at best, and therefore is an appeal to authority. Your bar conversations are almost entirely irrelevant to most of my argument. Also who is “we ALL”?

>That reveals one of the major flaws of stereotypes – within a high context culture, they work well for communicating. But the SECOND someone from that culture tries to communicate with an outsider, all his stereotypes are revealed to be the nonsense they are.

Not sure of the counterpoint you’re making here. The inaccuracy of stereotypes being revealed when expressed to a non-believer is true for any culture.

>Oh, and as for all your other nonsense rationalizing sexism – that’s all you’re doing. Rationalizing sexism. There’s no real reason to respond to that, because you obviously have no interest in honestly engaging and just want to make excuses.

Well that was fun. You went on a tangent, responded to none of my points, and stated a lot of irrelevant information. A fine post, but a bad reply. You failed to explain how I was rationalizing joshi-mane. That last bit is patently false, and I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. Whether you agree with me or not, I responded to the points of the poster, so obviously I wanted to engage in discussion. Your analysis is based on a straw man on tautology: you think I am trying to wrongly justify bad behavior, but the goodness of said behavior is what’s being argued in the first place. One might say that you’ve made an oversimplification of my reply.

You got me. I talked a lot and didn’t make much a point. So I deleted my comment.

“Also saying that I’m “normalizing sexism” in this sentence is a straw man, as I am arguing that this isn’t sexism in the first place.”

Actually, that’s begging the question. I assumed something was true without proving it true first. But it’s not a straw man, either – you ARE arguing to normalize sexism – that I didn’t define sexism was a logical problem, I admit The discussion of stereotypes = bad information was meant to explain to you that sexism, as a system of stereotypes, is bad – and Japanese culture often relies on stereotypes in a way that other cultures don’t. That you didn’t connect my ideas is the fault of my bad writing, but you, being the logical genius you are, should have seen my syllogism: sexism = stereotypes; stereotypes = bad; sexism = bad. Sorry that I was a bit too obtuse for your clever little noggin to decipher.

“Also you’re implying that everyone who has spent time in Japan would agree with you, which is dubious at best, and therefore is an appeal to authority.”

No, that would be an “ad populum.”

“Your analysis is based on a straw man on tautology”

A tautology is when the definition is the same as the thing being defined. I didn’t use a tautology. Again, though, I suppose I begged the question.

I explained why stereotypes are bad in a Japanese context. I never once said that it was unique to Japan. This is a logical error that MANY people make when talking about Japan. (That’s called a “tu quoque”). Did I ever say that America was free from this problem? And I like how you argue that wrong information is still information – but it’s wrong. Do I need to write out a syllogism that proves “wrong information = bad,” or…?

As for my “bar conversations” being irrelevant, it’s called “experience.” In academia, anecdotal evidence is not usually accepted – guess what: Tofugu is not an academic journal.

But, ok, let’s start here:

“That’s not what sexism means. Nobody is being unjustly discriminated against.”
You don’t understand what sexism is. It’s more than “discrimination.” This is what I meant by “your argument is nonsense.” You are starting from a flawed premise – that sexism = discrimination. From the beginning you are wrong.

“Discrimination is when you treat people differently based on preconceived notions, not when you hire a girl you think people will think is cute.”
Technically, both are discrimination.

” And once they have their job, having them do things based on that property is still not sexism. It’s justified because that’s there job. It would be sexism if they hired these women under the guise of being HR, and then made them hand out bento.”
In other words, you’re saying something like, “These are the social roles that they are assigned and they accept, therefore it is ok.” THIS is an argument to authority. You’re saying “That’s the way society works, so it’s ok.”

Oh, it’s their JOB to hand out bentos! It’s the RULES. And they signed up for it! Oh, well, then it’s not sexism AT ALL, then.

Very good point, since they’re not doing anything wrong by coming in late, firing would not be allowed, so motivation is the only way. There is no doubt about it, girls are one of man’s biggest carrots. (carrot vs stick) And I am sure there are other forms of motivation but how well they would work is questionable. Pay-rise for early birds?

Uwaa, Mami I didn’t know you took up kendo too! Yay, kendo buddies~ /high-five

“As long as there’s no unwritten rule…”
…are you serious? Japan is a high context culture, with strong business culture traditions. MOST of the rules ARE unwritten. There are a slew of unwritten rules that are understood by most/all Japanese people, and workplace customs are strict. There is also a cultural (i.e., noncontractual) power structure that permeates society that will come into play in any workplace. They even have a word for it: pawahara.

“And there’s nothing stopping women from picking engineering as a career…”
Do you have the first idea of how college and college admissions work in Japan? Are you 100% sure there’s “nothing stopping women” from becoming engineers? Are you absolutely sure of that? Because you might need to check your privilege on that one.

“Even Ayn Rand…”
Oh, so you ARE in high school.

1. Probably not, no.
2. Short answer: no. Longer answer is: are we talking a hypothetical world where the gender roles are reversed, or are we talking real life? Because, what makes this sexist is the underlying power structure in which it exists.

In other words, “women serving men in an office with a male-dominated culture wherein men have power over women” is sexist. “Men serving women in an office with a male-dominated culture wherein men have power over women” would not be sexist. Why? Because in a male-dominated culture, the men still hold the power and authority, even when they are serving women.

This is something that people tend to miss about sexism – it’s not a simple “man vs. woman” thing. It’s about pervasive and systemic power structures.

3. Systemic and pervasive power structures, powerful gender role stereotypes, lack of other opportunities, you name it, there is a long list. This is another argument people tend to make – “If it’s so sexist, why do women volunteer for it?” Tons of reasons.

Um…true…pay-rise for early birds may work….

Oh…i c:P

oh were you taking hiragana lessons? from textfugu??:D

Of course, they could just accept the fact that some people function better from noon to 8 than 7 to 3 and get over it.

I will only see this as not being sexist when they have an equivalent number of female engineers and think it’s ok to have cute guys serve them bento.

(I’m being facetious, btw. I thought I’d better clarify that. Hiring young women as HR props is sexist, and still would be if it were men being objectified.)

Hmm. I’m pretty sure this is actually a simpler option.

If you were going down the punitive route you’d first have to keep track of who comes in late and when. That would actually take somebody’s time to achieve and divert them from what might otherwise be revenue generating activity. For your effort you might get an decrease in tardiness but you’d also get a massive decrease in morale, potentially damage recruitment and for every engineer you actually fire you’d have to go to the trouble of hiring a new one and getting them up to speed with the company.

This incentive approach possibly saves the company money compared to firing people and may have other beneficial effects like increasing morale, ensuring that employees eat a healthy meal and do some exercise, integrating them further into the corporate culture and generating publicity that may aid future recruitment.

where do you come from, if I may ask?

it sounds to me like exactly the same thing, they get a costume and they’re nice to guys

The States. I didn’t like living in America, and the culture there does nasty things to my brain, my emotional stability. So I’m not even going to begin to pretend like my own country is somehow “better” at this on a day-to-day basis.

For whatever flaws America has, we have put massive, conscious, collective effort into facing our prejudices and striving for equality. I know Japan can’t walk the same path we did, but I don’t see why they can’t try. I don’t know if crap like this is technically illegal in Japan, but I know for damn sure this is highly illegal in America.

I know that, but there can be considerable differences in the way the different sexes treat each other based on cultural norms. What might be unacceptable in Western societies may not be so in Eastern societies.

However, with the passage of the Equal Opportunity Employment Law in 1986, we now have a schism of Japanese adults over this very culture. Older Japanese people may accept this, but younger Japanese will probably not accept it. As such, that’s why this has generated a lot of debate here on Tofugu (and definitely in Japan).

I think I wanna be a 男子マネ rather than a host

I have good looks by the way :P

One of the reasons for the flex-time system is to lessen the crush on the public transit system. If everyone arrives at the same time, even those white-gloved Metro employees won’t be able to pack all the commuters onto the train.

Personally I really appreciate the ability to be able to come half an hour late and avoid the worst of the busy time at my home station (and not stand for the 40 minute commute) and stay 30 minutes late to avoid the rush hour on the other side as well.

Great Japan. One step forward, two steps back toward the equality of women.

If you want to argue that this isn’t a sexist practice (I would have to disagree), then go ahead. But remember, this country still is in the practice of making the women serve tea to other coworkers in their office, *just because she is a woman*. And she will continue to do that even when someone younger than her joins the workforce.

Anyway, this gives the message to Japanese girls once again that their mind isn’t important, it’s the fact that they are pretty girls that’s important. And the cycle continues.

No wonder women leave the workforce as soon as they get married. There really isn’t anything for them in the workplace.

I mean, hey, I love Japan as much as the next girl, but… I feel sad when girls are treated as eye candy for the “real worders” instead of part of the workplace.

Interesting take on getting them in on time. I find it annoying that dangling a carrot on a stick (a woman) is the method used to motivate the male engineers, while simultaneously overlooking the female engineers that may be there, but I’m convinced that the men in the situation are (mostly) totally oblivious and haven’t really thought of the impact on female employees. I work at a male-dominated company in a male dominated industry, and while it is by far the best I have worked for, you still see boys club behavior and feel unwelcome/afraid to interject, because you don’t want to be *that girl*.

I think it mostly can’t be helped right away, there is lots of societal re-wiring that needs to take place in order for the atmosphere to be more welcoming to women. That said, the company I work for is incredibly awesome, and I think it has been doing a great job to motivate workers of all genders to enjoy their workday as much as possible.

They hire a barista twice a week to hang out and make drinks all day, they cater breakfast occasionally, team meetings are all catered and have a keynote speech atmosphere, dinner is provided with OT, and they give us random swag and gifts on a regular basis. It’s mostly nice to just feel appreciated and valued as a worker, and I think that that is very key to making the employees want to continue to return the favor and do their best.

In that meaning, this system is very smart. I agree:)