Genuine Gender Equality and Globalization
ONO Goro / Professor Emeritus at Saitama University
May 17, 2012
Female entrepreneurship is gaining greater recognition today for the way it creates new demand and job opportunities for women based on distinctively female perspectives and ideas. In fact, the lack of respect for the "female perspective" is the true reason that is preventing us from developing a new paradigm that could save mankind from the verge of extinction.
The Women's Liberation movement subsequently led to an elevation in women's social status around the world. Yet, Japan has been criticized as lagging the farthest behind among developed countries in the area of social advancement of women. Japan scores dismally lower on various indicators compared with other countries and gender discrimination remains widespread, requiring fundamental improvements both in its social systems as well as in individual awareness.
Yet, Japan need not follow the precedence of Western countries in all matters. The difference between "equal" and "same" require attention in our consideration of the proposition: "We must treat men and women equally." Gender difference is a biological reality that cannot be discarded, so thoughtless attempts at minimizing this difference may result in denying the very dignity that makes us human.
To begin with, when we speak of the "evidence of sexism" or the "desired direction," we should be aware that most of these ideas are premised on values and systems created by a male-dominated society, where “equal treatment” is synonymous with treating women as "honorary males"”
If genuine equality consists of treating male values and female values as being equal, dismissing the idea of distinctly female values as "antiquated" or "anachronistic" constitutes the most bigoted behavior illustrative of male chauvinism. And yet, the words and actions of "honorary men" who align themselves with male privileges have been treated as representative of all women, and their dominating voice has drowned out the true feelings of women in public.
In Japan and in some Asian countries, local communities have historically been run by women. And as if in payback to the prevailing social trend, retired persons who try to mingle into the community have been denied entry into the social fabric woven by women. The wall of rejection is particularly high against white-collar males with too much pride or women with the status of "honorary men," who are left battling a sense of dejection as a consequence.
In the past, when gender discrimination was widespread, providing women with an opportunity was already a major step forward. However, it may be that Japan has lagged behind because Japanese men have held women in relatively high regard, as seen in the way they have traditionally referred to their wives as "the god of the mountains". If that is the case, we realize that Western countries are not necessarily moving in the right direction in their attempts at resolving gender discrimination.
In Europe too, historically it was the women who braved the streets and successfully talked their men out of a foolish civil war that pitted brother against brother. From that perspective, resolving gender discrimination by sending women to the front line of a battlefield is tantamount to suicide bombing for mankind. The sound solution would be to reserve a certain amount of gender difference, as in sports.
Society operates on the dual ideas of rights and obligations, and freedom and responsibility. The transition to democracy expanded the rights and freedom of citizens. But they were merely recaptured by ending the monopolistic control by autocrats. Basically, citizens must fulfill obligations and responsibilities commensurate with their expanded rights and freedom. Then, in accordance with the Principle of Subsidiarity, where that balance cannot be achieved by an individual, it will be substituted by the family and community, and where it is still found lacking, by the social system as a whole.
This also applies when resolving gender differences. Any expansion in the rights and freedom of women should be balanced by an expansion in their obligations and responsibilities, as well as a reduction in the rights and freedom of men and an expansion in their obligations and responsibilities. Only where this leaves an imbalance should social systems play a substituting role.
Apart from the initial purpose of providing incentives, placing high expectations on social systems from the onset would destroy the overall duality, making it unsustainable. In other words, while the Western idea of giving priority to rights and freedom may be popular with the masses, it could lead to a loss of duality and consequently undermine the very foundations of democracy.
A similar situation has arisen in the area of globalization. Just as we aspire to treat each individual on equal terms regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, etc., we should treat each ethnic group or country along with their values on equal terms provided they bear commensurate obligations and responsibilities. However, as evident in the precedence set by multi-ethnic America, excessive emphasis has been placed on economic aspects where consensus comes easily, leaving behind the more difficult fundamental issues.
It is true that "the poor cannot afford manners" and "poverty breeds greed." However, we have also seen that "greed doesn't stop with satisfaction." In other words, applying economic criteria to countries where starvation has become history is nothing but evil.
Western countries that act as leaders of democracy and market economics have not been able to attain a complete state of democracy or market economy themselves. Even so, under the dogma of Western supremacy, "globalization" has been interpreted as "Westernization," Western values, systems and vested interests have been retained, and the rising class of "non-white," "non-Western" countries has been treated as "honorary Western countries", to their own satisfaction. In this way, alien influences are entirely discarded and their creative potential lost. It is no wonder that, as the entire world remains sapped of vitality and mired in stagnation, only endless conflicts between nations, ethnic groups and social classes, etc. have remained.
This being the state of the world, Japan has a crucial historic role to play as the first non-Western country to become a major developed power. We must part with rootless "pseudo-non-Westerners" and "non-Japanese" who dominate only in their vociferousness. At the same time, we must be wary of convention and narrow-minded, fanatic nationalism. We must develop and transmit to the world a new paradigm that can overcome the polarizing differences in values that is also acceptable to Western standards of objectivity.
The writer is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
The Women's Liberation movement subsequently led to an elevation in women's social status around the world. Yet, Japan has been criticized as lagging the farthest behind among developed countries in the area of social advancement of women. Japan scores dismally lower on various indicators compared with other countries and gender discrimination remains widespread, requiring fundamental improvements both in its social systems as well as in individual awareness.
Yet, Japan need not follow the precedence of Western countries in all matters. The difference between "equal" and "same" require attention in our consideration of the proposition: "We must treat men and women equally." Gender difference is a biological reality that cannot be discarded, so thoughtless attempts at minimizing this difference may result in denying the very dignity that makes us human.
To begin with, when we speak of the "evidence of sexism" or the "desired direction," we should be aware that most of these ideas are premised on values and systems created by a male-dominated society, where “equal treatment” is synonymous with treating women as "honorary males"”
If genuine equality consists of treating male values and female values as being equal, dismissing the idea of distinctly female values as "antiquated" or "anachronistic" constitutes the most bigoted behavior illustrative of male chauvinism. And yet, the words and actions of "honorary men" who align themselves with male privileges have been treated as representative of all women, and their dominating voice has drowned out the true feelings of women in public.
In Japan and in some Asian countries, local communities have historically been run by women. And as if in payback to the prevailing social trend, retired persons who try to mingle into the community have been denied entry into the social fabric woven by women. The wall of rejection is particularly high against white-collar males with too much pride or women with the status of "honorary men," who are left battling a sense of dejection as a consequence.
In the past, when gender discrimination was widespread, providing women with an opportunity was already a major step forward. However, it may be that Japan has lagged behind because Japanese men have held women in relatively high regard, as seen in the way they have traditionally referred to their wives as "the god of the mountains". If that is the case, we realize that Western countries are not necessarily moving in the right direction in their attempts at resolving gender discrimination.
In Europe too, historically it was the women who braved the streets and successfully talked their men out of a foolish civil war that pitted brother against brother. From that perspective, resolving gender discrimination by sending women to the front line of a battlefield is tantamount to suicide bombing for mankind. The sound solution would be to reserve a certain amount of gender difference, as in sports.
Society operates on the dual ideas of rights and obligations, and freedom and responsibility. The transition to democracy expanded the rights and freedom of citizens. But they were merely recaptured by ending the monopolistic control by autocrats. Basically, citizens must fulfill obligations and responsibilities commensurate with their expanded rights and freedom. Then, in accordance with the Principle of Subsidiarity, where that balance cannot be achieved by an individual, it will be substituted by the family and community, and where it is still found lacking, by the social system as a whole.
This also applies when resolving gender differences. Any expansion in the rights and freedom of women should be balanced by an expansion in their obligations and responsibilities, as well as a reduction in the rights and freedom of men and an expansion in their obligations and responsibilities. Only where this leaves an imbalance should social systems play a substituting role.
Apart from the initial purpose of providing incentives, placing high expectations on social systems from the onset would destroy the overall duality, making it unsustainable. In other words, while the Western idea of giving priority to rights and freedom may be popular with the masses, it could lead to a loss of duality and consequently undermine the very foundations of democracy.
A similar situation has arisen in the area of globalization. Just as we aspire to treat each individual on equal terms regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, etc., we should treat each ethnic group or country along with their values on equal terms provided they bear commensurate obligations and responsibilities. However, as evident in the precedence set by multi-ethnic America, excessive emphasis has been placed on economic aspects where consensus comes easily, leaving behind the more difficult fundamental issues.
It is true that "the poor cannot afford manners" and "poverty breeds greed." However, we have also seen that "greed doesn't stop with satisfaction." In other words, applying economic criteria to countries where starvation has become history is nothing but evil.
Western countries that act as leaders of democracy and market economics have not been able to attain a complete state of democracy or market economy themselves. Even so, under the dogma of Western supremacy, "globalization" has been interpreted as "Westernization," Western values, systems and vested interests have been retained, and the rising class of "non-white," "non-Western" countries has been treated as "honorary Western countries", to their own satisfaction. In this way, alien influences are entirely discarded and their creative potential lost. It is no wonder that, as the entire world remains sapped of vitality and mired in stagnation, only endless conflicts between nations, ethnic groups and social classes, etc. have remained.
This being the state of the world, Japan has a crucial historic role to play as the first non-Western country to become a major developed power. We must part with rootless "pseudo-non-Westerners" and "non-Japanese" who dominate only in their vociferousness. At the same time, we must be wary of convention and narrow-minded, fanatic nationalism. We must develop and transmit to the world a new paradigm that can overcome the polarizing differences in values that is also acceptable to Western standards of objectivity.
The writer is Professor Emeritus at Saitama University.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
真の男女共同参画そしてグローバリゼーション
小野 五郎 / 埼玉大学名誉教授
2012年 5月 17日
真の男女共同参画そしてグローバリゼーション
小野 五郎 埼玉大学名誉教授
昨今「女性起業」が女性としての視点・発想から新需要や女性就業機会を掘り起こすとされはじめたが、この「女性の視点」軽視こそ存亡の危機に直面した人類に求められる新パラダイム形成を不可能にしている真因なのだ。
「ウーマンリブ」以降全世界的に女性の社会的地位が向上した中、「先進国で最も女性の社会進出が後れている」と批判される日本は、他国より各種指標で著しく劣り多くの性差別も残存するから、制度面さらに個々人の意識面で抜本的改善が求められる。だが、何事も欧米先進例に合わせればいい訳ではないし、「男女を対等に扱うべき」との命題も「対等」と「同じ」とは違うことに注意を要する。科学的実在たる「性差」の除去は不可能だから、闇雲な「性差の縮小」は「人類としての尊厳そのものの否定」となりかねない。そもそも「性差別の証左」とか「目指すべき方向」の大半は、過去に男性社会が作った価値観や制度が前提だから、そこでの「対等に扱う」は「女性を名誉男性として扱う」を意味する。
真の対等とは男性の価値観も女性の価値観も同等に扱うことだとすれば、女性固有の価値観の存在を「古い」「遅れている」と否定すること自体が男性側の保守性を表す最も頑迷な性差別である。しかるに男性側既得権に与した「名誉男性」の言動がさも全女性の弁として扱われ、その声ばかり大なるがゆえに公的な場で女性の本音はかき消されてしまった。そんな社会風潮への強烈なしっぺ返しとして、昔から女性が地域社会を切り盛りしてきた日本ほか一部アジア諸国では、老後職を離れた人が地域社会を訪ねても、女性たちが築き上げた地域組織には入り込めない。特に、プライドの高いホワイトカラー男性や名誉男性的女性にとり、この壁は相当高く、結果孤独をかこつことになる。たしかに性差別が大きかった過去には女性に機会を与えるだけでも性差別解消に向けた第一歩だったが、日本が後れた原因が昔から妻のことを「山の神」と呼び女性の相対的地位がさほど低くなかったがゆえだと解すると、欧米流性差別解消方向が正しくないと分かる。
かつては欧州でも、内乱の際親兄弟の「骨肉相食む」愚かさを説き戦闘を終結させたのは危険を顧みず街に出た女性たちだった。とすれば、女性を戦場の最前線に送り込む形での「性差解消」は人類にとって「自爆行為」であり、スポーツのように一定の性差を残すことこそ健全だと言える。
ところで、社会は権利と義務、自由と責任とが双対して成立する。民主制移行に伴い拡大した市民の権利・自由は、あくまで専制主が専横していたものの奪還したにすぎないから、基本的に市民は拡大した権利・自由に見合った義務・責任を負う。その上で「補完性原理」により、個々人で均衡しえぬものは家族間、地域内で、その足らざるところを社会全体が制度的に補完することになる。性差別解消でも、女性の権利・自由の拡大はまず本人の義務・責任の拡大、男性の権利・自由の縮小または義務・責任の拡大により補完され、その足らざるところをはじめて社会的制度が補完すべきなのであって、初期のインセンティヴ目的は別として、はなから制度的補完に期待すれば全体双対性が破壊され持続性を喪失する。すなわち、大衆受けする欧米主導の権利・自由優先が、双対性喪失を通じて民主主義そのものの根幹を揺るがすことになる。
これと似たようなことがグローバリゼーションの世界でも起きている。「性差・年齢・種族等に関係なく個々人を対等に扱うべき」と同様、相応の義務・責任を負う前提で、民族・国家それに付帯する価値観も対等に扱うべきところ、多民族国家米国で先行したように合意が得やすい経済面ばかりが取り上げられ、本質的な問題は後回しにされてきた。なるほど、「衣食足って礼節を知る」「貧すれば貪する」だが、「足りて後まだ貪る」、すなわち飢餓が過去となった国々までが経済尺度で測ろうとすることは害悪そのものである。民主主義・市場経済を主導する欧米自身、未だ完全な民主主義・市場経済ではないのに、「欧米至上主義」ドグマの下、「グローバリゼーション」を「欧米化」と取り違え、欧米人の創出した価値観・制度・既得権を墨守し、台頭する非白人・非欧米国を「名誉白人」「名誉欧米国」として扱って済ませ、それで扱われる側も満足する。こうして異質なものが専ら排除されれば期待される創造力も失われてしまうから、世界全体が新たな活力源を失い停滞する一方で、国家・民族・階級間等の抗争ばかりが残ったのも当然である。
となると非欧米にして初の先進大国となった日本の史的使命は大であり、声ばかり大きい似非欧米人・非日本人の根なし草たちとは決別し、さりとて因習や視野狭窄の狂信的愛国主義からではなく、欧米流客観から見ても受入れ可能なレベルで、彼我の価値観の相違を克服した新パラダイムを構築し世界に向け発信していかねばなるまい。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授。）
小野 五郎 埼玉大学名誉教授
昨今「女性起業」が女性としての視点・発想から新需要や女性就業機会を掘り起こすとされはじめたが、この「女性の視点」軽視こそ存亡の危機に直面した人類に求められる新パラダイム形成を不可能にしている真因なのだ。
「ウーマンリブ」以降全世界的に女性の社会的地位が向上した中、「先進国で最も女性の社会進出が後れている」と批判される日本は、他国より各種指標で著しく劣り多くの性差別も残存するから、制度面さらに個々人の意識面で抜本的改善が求められる。だが、何事も欧米先進例に合わせればいい訳ではないし、「男女を対等に扱うべき」との命題も「対等」と「同じ」とは違うことに注意を要する。科学的実在たる「性差」の除去は不可能だから、闇雲な「性差の縮小」は「人類としての尊厳そのものの否定」となりかねない。そもそも「性差別の証左」とか「目指すべき方向」の大半は、過去に男性社会が作った価値観や制度が前提だから、そこでの「対等に扱う」は「女性を名誉男性として扱う」を意味する。
真の対等とは男性の価値観も女性の価値観も同等に扱うことだとすれば、女性固有の価値観の存在を「古い」「遅れている」と否定すること自体が男性側の保守性を表す最も頑迷な性差別である。しかるに男性側既得権に与した「名誉男性」の言動がさも全女性の弁として扱われ、その声ばかり大なるがゆえに公的な場で女性の本音はかき消されてしまった。そんな社会風潮への強烈なしっぺ返しとして、昔から女性が地域社会を切り盛りしてきた日本ほか一部アジア諸国では、老後職を離れた人が地域社会を訪ねても、女性たちが築き上げた地域組織には入り込めない。特に、プライドの高いホワイトカラー男性や名誉男性的女性にとり、この壁は相当高く、結果孤独をかこつことになる。たしかに性差別が大きかった過去には女性に機会を与えるだけでも性差別解消に向けた第一歩だったが、日本が後れた原因が昔から妻のことを「山の神」と呼び女性の相対的地位がさほど低くなかったがゆえだと解すると、欧米流性差別解消方向が正しくないと分かる。
かつては欧州でも、内乱の際親兄弟の「骨肉相食む」愚かさを説き戦闘を終結させたのは危険を顧みず街に出た女性たちだった。とすれば、女性を戦場の最前線に送り込む形での「性差解消」は人類にとって「自爆行為」であり、スポーツのように一定の性差を残すことこそ健全だと言える。
ところで、社会は権利と義務、自由と責任とが双対して成立する。民主制移行に伴い拡大した市民の権利・自由は、あくまで専制主が専横していたものの奪還したにすぎないから、基本的に市民は拡大した権利・自由に見合った義務・責任を負う。その上で「補完性原理」により、個々人で均衡しえぬものは家族間、地域内で、その足らざるところを社会全体が制度的に補完することになる。性差別解消でも、女性の権利・自由の拡大はまず本人の義務・責任の拡大、男性の権利・自由の縮小または義務・責任の拡大により補完され、その足らざるところをはじめて社会的制度が補完すべきなのであって、初期のインセンティヴ目的は別として、はなから制度的補完に期待すれば全体双対性が破壊され持続性を喪失する。すなわち、大衆受けする欧米主導の権利・自由優先が、双対性喪失を通じて民主主義そのものの根幹を揺るがすことになる。
これと似たようなことがグローバリゼーションの世界でも起きている。「性差・年齢・種族等に関係なく個々人を対等に扱うべき」と同様、相応の義務・責任を負う前提で、民族・国家それに付帯する価値観も対等に扱うべきところ、多民族国家米国で先行したように合意が得やすい経済面ばかりが取り上げられ、本質的な問題は後回しにされてきた。なるほど、「衣食足って礼節を知る」「貧すれば貪する」だが、「足りて後まだ貪る」、すなわち飢餓が過去となった国々までが経済尺度で測ろうとすることは害悪そのものである。民主主義・市場経済を主導する欧米自身、未だ完全な民主主義・市場経済ではないのに、「欧米至上主義」ドグマの下、「グローバリゼーション」を「欧米化」と取り違え、欧米人の創出した価値観・制度・既得権を墨守し、台頭する非白人・非欧米国を「名誉白人」「名誉欧米国」として扱って済ませ、それで扱われる側も満足する。こうして異質なものが専ら排除されれば期待される創造力も失われてしまうから、世界全体が新たな活力源を失い停滞する一方で、国家・民族・階級間等の抗争ばかりが残ったのも当然である。
となると非欧米にして初の先進大国となった日本の史的使命は大であり、声ばかり大きい似非欧米人・非日本人の根なし草たちとは決別し、さりとて因習や視野狭窄の狂信的愛国主義からではなく、欧米流客観から見ても受入れ可能なレベルで、彼我の価値観の相違を克服した新パラダイムを構築し世界に向け発信していかねばなるまい。
（筆者は埼玉大学名誉教授。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟