Not for everyone but at least for those who commute everyday by crowded trains.

Thank you for sharing your preference :D

When I get a permanent, it’s like the same as your situation. It’s wasting time and money because my hair goes back to straight very quickly. Yeah, we need a change sometimes, but not all the time. true.

I have just watched the movie ‘Patriot’ today. It’s totally different situation, but your sentence ‘Take a stand instead of moulding to something to suit a belief or you just won’t break it’ somewhat reminded me the movie. To make a change, you need to take an action.

Arigatou:D

Yeah, it’s very different I think. it’s depends on their occupation. In general, regular guys who work for regular companies are not allowed dye their hair except for from silver to black. You could get fired if you dye your hair. So, if regular men dyed their hair, it could give an impression of delinquent, as well.

maybe when I find a good fresh news related to it:)

Ah, right. Thanks.

:D

Why? What happens on crowded trains? Why not empty streets?

Molesting usually happens on crowded trains where girls even can’t turn around to gazed at the molester with anger because of so many people. Of course you should be careful empty streets at night, but I’d say empty streets are pretty safe in Japan.

I’m Western and female, so I guess what I have to say doesn’t count, bit I prefer the natural hair color.
I don’t mind when Japanese dye their hair as long as it looks good on them. Blonde or brown hair doesn’t suit everybody!
At my previous job all my female Japanese co-workers had LIGHTER hair colors than me! I just never dye my darkbrown hair. Why should I?

Oh, just one thing: The photo of the “high school class” is irritating. High school kids in Japan aren’t allowed to dye their hair.
At least not in any of the regions I’ve lived in thus far.

Completely anecdotally (and my experience is in the US, not Japan), I definitely notice a correlation between street harassment/groping/etc. and my appearance, but not necessarily in the expected ways. If I’m dressed sexily, I definitely get more of it, then it tends to taper off if I’m dressed shapelessly/nondescriptly, but then (weirdly) it upticks pretty strongly when I look actively bad/poor/unfeminine/really sloppily dressed. It’s like it makes dudes angry that I’m not trying to be pretty or something, IDK.

My gut feeling (from being a woman, and queer, and working with rape survivors and domestic violence shelters) is that physical attractiveness does play a part in initial victim selection (and I’m using attractiveness really broadly here–someone can be attracted to, say, children, without necessarily really caring what they look like, whereas someone else might have more specific preferences and be uninterested in raping or molesting, say, obese women or white women or whatever). But perceived vulnerability really narrows things down; most rapists/molesters are not going to go after someone they believe will turn them in or pose a serious risk to them, even if they are super hot. And some criminals will go after people who are extremely vulnerable (children, elderly people in nursing homes, disabled people, etc.) regardless of relative attractiveness, just because they are easy pickings and lack the resources to resist (and be believed).

And I do recall a study (I cannot find it now, may try to hunt it down later) that found that date rapists tended to rape repeatedly (not just a couple of times, but many) and that they test intended victims to see how receptive and vulnerable they are, and tend to use tools like alcohol very deliberately. I don’t recall the methodology, but I believe it involved both statistical analysis (how many rapes by how many rapists, etc.) and anonymous surveys of both survivors and rapists (self-reported? convicted? cannot remember), but I could be off. So it seems that date rapists, at least, are quite methodical and deliberately predatory, and that they refine their approach over time.

I believe there is quite a difference between the “lesser” forms of harassment/molestation such as groping/street harassment and rape/abuse, with the former being more closely related to spontaneous physical attraction and the latter focusing more on vulnerable and manipulable individuals and less on sheer physical attraction, due to the potential criminal consequences and the relatively large time commitment it requires from the perpetrator to select and groom the victim. And it is quite clear that perceived attractiveness is often a factor in stalking, if you want to throw that in the mix.

Long and silky black hair is still the best.

I see. But you may not be able to find the correct or move your elbow one on account of so many people in the train. Scream is a good idea though. Actually, my dad was pointed out by mistake one day. He was holding bags with one hand and one hand was holding a strap and someone witnessed it, so thank got that he was saved. Guys have to prevent themselves by holding something to prevent them from being arrested by mistake, too.

:)

We weren’t allowed in my high school either, but some definitely did. On the check-up day, they just sprayed their hair with temporary dyeing spray.

But I know that people in shingeki no kyojin are mostly supposed t to be German.

It certainly depends on the school. I heard from one father that they are extremely strict at his daughter’s high school. They even control the length of the skirts very strictly.

I find that quite horrible. I think everybody should be allowed to do with their own body what they want. It should NOT be the school or the teachers who tell you what you are allowed to do and what not. If you’re underaged it’s good if your parents / your family has a say in that, but NOT THE SCHOOL! That’s your private life and it’s YOUR body.

School uniforms are one thing, but not being allowed to have piercings or tatoos, wear make-up, dye your hair etc. is a different story. It should be up to the individual.

Sorry for this; but yay for using C-ute members as reference images for black hair! I love C-ute :3

:D

Ooh! Ooh! How about a rainbow mohawk?

Well I don’t mind everything not being sugar sweet it never is anywhere so the fans of this site ought to see a more realistic view.

(So, you think women don’t need feminism anymore? Continue reading then).

In the 1970s, Simone de Beauvoir (1984) noted ironically that in
France the media love to declare that feminism is dead and buried, useless because now women have got it all. Thirty years later, in the US, Robin Morgan makes the same observation: from 1969 to date, the Time magazine alone has declared the death of feminism at least 119 times (Morgan, 2003). According to this line of thought, violence occurs only in extreme or residual situations, and its existence did not bring into question the conviction that discrimination had been overcome. Leaving aside the right to live without violence, have women really got it all?

Let us start with political rights.

Today women have the right to vote everywhere, even in Kuwait (in 2006). Still, even where they have had this right for some time, political representation of women is poor. In 2004, throughout the world, men solidly occupied 84% of the seats in national Parliaments, with limited differences between more or less developed countries (80% and 86% respectively). Sweden stands out with only 55% of Members of Parliament who are men; in the UK 82% are men, in Italy 88%. In the first few years of 2000, 89% of ministers or deputy ministers in the world are men: 86% in more developed countries and 91% in less developed countries (Ashford and Clifton, 2005).

Unlike the vote, women have not gained reproductive rights at all. In 2004, abortion was illegal or difficult to obtain in most countries in the world. In Latin America and Africa it is illegal almost everywhere and subject to severe restrictions. In Europe it is illegal in Ireland and Malta, and subject to severe restrictions in Poland. Even where abortion is legal, the possibility of having an abortion without risk may be severely limited by the cost of the operation (as in the US) or the conscientious objection made by health staff for religious reasons or pretexts (as in Italy). In the US, in the last five years, various states have issued more than 300 measures restricting abortion. From the Reagan administration onwards, including the Clinton administration, the funds of agencies making contraception and abortion possible in developing countries have been progressively cut (Wattleton, 2003). Every year in the world about 20 million women are forced to have an abortion illegally, often under precarious health conditions with dreadful suffering. At least half a million women, almost all in less developed countries, die every year for reasons connected with
reproduction, partly in an attempt to have an abortion via illegal or unsafe means. For every woman who dies, at least 30 suffer permanent damage to their health (Seager, 2003). In general, almost everywhere the situation regarding abortion has got worse in the last few years. On the other hand, millions of non-voluntary sterilisations have been carried out on poor women and women from black and minority ethnic communities. This happened in various countries, including Canada, Australia, Sweden and the US, until the 1960s, and in Peru, was still happening between 1996 and 2000 (Brady et al, 2001; Warin, 2005).

Let us consider access to education and paid work. In developed
countries, young women now tend to have a higher level of education than men, but in less developed countries, among adults, 24% of men and 38% of women are illiterate. In Central Africa less than half the girls go to primary school. In most of the world, the percentage of people unemployed is higher among women than among men; the great majority of those who work part time, on low salaries without the possibility of a career, are also women. In the 1990s, women continued to earn less than men, even with the same education and type of work: in industry, the salary of women represents 79% of that of men in France, 71% in Mexico and 54% in Brazil. In a sample of 32 developed countries, the percentage of women managers reaches its maximum at around 40% (Canada, Latvia, Russia and the Ukraine) (Seager, 2003).

Even in the US, perhaps the country where the feminist movement has struggled most and with greatest success for equality, official statistics for the 1990s show how the situation of women and men remains profoundly unequal. Men are more than 95% of managers in industry, 90% of newspaper editors, 90% of television executives and 80% of members of Congress. Men are 80% of the richest people in the country, and women are more than two thirds of the poor. Women earn 75% of what a man earns, even with the same level of education, professional experience and hours worked. ‘Typical women’s’ work is still lower paid than men’s: those looking after children in a nursery earn less than those looking after cars in a car park (Rhode, 1997). In Italy also, women are more often unemployed: three years after their degree, in any discipline, there are many more unemployed women than men. They are also heavily underrepresented in management jobs. At university, women are 40% of researchers (the lowest level), 26% of associate professors, 11% of full professors, 7% of deans and 3% of rectors. In the national health system women are 70% of employees, but only 7% of full-time health executives (Ingrao and Scoppa, 2001).

In the meantime, women continue to take on the overwhelming
majority of unpaid work, domestic work and care. In Sweden, the
US and Japan, women do approximately 30 hours of domestic work per week, men do 24, 16 and 4 hours respectively. In Italy, women workers dedicate twice as much time as men to unpaid family work (20 hours a week as opposed to 12). Adding together the time for paid work, the time for transport and for unpaid work, the total time for women exceeds that for men by about 11 hours (65 hours per week as opposed to 56). In conclusion, Italian women work two months a year more than men, earning less and accruing fewer pension rights (Saraceno, 2004).

Faced with this data, there is the temptation to interpret it in a
psychological and individualistic sense: it is women who, for various reasons, prefer to avoid professions that are too demanding and competitive or roles of responsibility. This is a partial interpretation that enables us to avoid confronting the brutal reality of discrimination.

Many studies show how sexual harassment at work serves to exclude women from prestigious jobs or even simply jobs that are better paid than typical women’s work (Faludi, 1991). In Italy, a study (La Mendola, 1995) of the criteria for employment and career paths of new graduates in large companies shows that men are almost six times more likely than women to become managers. In spite of being aware that there is a law on equality, about 40% of selectors acknowledge that they take the sex of the candidate into account during selection, and 25% explicitly state that they favour men (1% favour women). Selection in the scientific world seems to work according to similar criteria, even in more advanced countries when it comes to equality between men and women. In Sweden, a candidate of the female sex must have 2.5 times more scientific merits and publications to receive the same score as a man (Wenneras and Wold, 1997).

—

Romito, Patricia. “A Deafening Silence: Hidden Violence Against Women.” The Policy Press; University of Bristol, 2008. (p. 28 – 31)

Women don’t usually understand what men find attractive. Just ask any man to pick an attractive woman from a lineup, and ask any woman to pick what she thinks the man will have picked. They’ll never pick the same. It’s weird really. Advice? Just be yourself is the best bet.