I am afraid that I don't know why earl kinmoth views the discussion about gender equality as "sophomoric".

The argumentation and the advocates use of dubious data is "sophomoric" not the issue itself.

his gratuitous comments at the outset of the email do little to contribute to constructive debate.; rather they demean the seriousness of the persistent problem , which places Japan behind virtually all democratic nation ,except Korea, in a very backward position world wide.

It is precisely a statement like the above that I regard as "sophomoric." For example, take female labor force participation rates. True, Japan is at the low end, but the spread among advanced economies is not all that large. 2012 World Bank data put Japan at 48% vs 56% for the UK and 57% for the US. (Japan is going up; the US and UK are static or declining. Some recent sources put the Japanese rate at 60%.) If anything, I would think an American writer would be more concerned about how far the the US is behind the top European countries on this measure. The same World Bank data puts Iceland at 71%. And, while it is not a European country, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is even better at 72%. (It's even got "democratic" in the
name.) Rwanda at 87% does even better.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS
In case my point is being missed - people who write on this issue typically take an indicator such as female labor force participation rates, note that Japan is at the very low end when there is not actually not that much spread and assert that higher is better without noting (1) where their own country stands and (2) without noting that some of the countries that stand high on these indicator may not be all that great of a place for women (or men). I regard that as "sophomoric."

We have discussed this topic often on the forum.

When? Are you not thinking of the NBR Japan Forum?

There is no evidence of any manipulation on this sad record which is duly recorded annually by the Gender Equality Bureau in Japan and other indices., and the

The Gender Equality Bureau in Japan is an agency, not an index. With the exception of the World Economic Forum, I would probably not accuse agencies of manipulation, but I would accuse a number of writers of trivialization and manipulation. It's easy enough to do.

For example, it's not hard to make a case that the UK is rather backward in terms of gender equality, if you pick the right data. For example, there are only three women heading FTSE 100 companies. In other words, women head only three percent of the public UK blue chips. David Cameron's cabinet has only four women out of twenty-seven members or 15% not all that much better than Abe's cabinet. Then, again, maybe the UK is not all that advanced on gender equality issues. Within the last few days, it was reported that "Rashida Manjoo, a United Nations human rights expert, says Britain's sexist culture is more 'pervasive' and 'in your face' than any other country she has visited."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/107677
84/UN-Britains-sexism-more-pervasive-than-any-other-cou
ntry.html
Perhaps Americans can still take the high ground vis a vis Japan, but it looks like Brits have lost it. Then, again, perhaps Ms. Manjoo has not visited the US.

analogies to traffic or suicide only serve to muddy the already turgid waters further. Trivializing an issue of such seriousness does not speak well. joyce gelb

It is precisely "trivialization" that is the target of my "sophomoric" comment. I find that with very rare exceptions, English language writing on this subject trivializes the issue. (Some might well think that the UN reporter cited above was guilty of trivialization albeit not about Japan, but given that statements by UN reporters on Japan have been taken as 100% accurate, presumably this one about Britain must also be so
taken.)

It totally ignores what Japanese women think or want.
I cannot recall ever seeing an English language media article that was based on data or surveys that addressed what ordinary Japanese women want. The only Japanese women who are ever cited in English language articles are elite professional women. Even within this limitation, the writing is skewed. I have searched for English language coverage of powerful women in Japan.
They certainly exist. Women like the mayor of Yokohama or women like the founder of DeNA. As far as I can tell, they have been almost completely ignored. At most they get mentioned in passing whereas with no serious discussion of why they were able to achieve what they did. And, when someone like Hayashi (mayor of Yokohama) says that the only major problem she faced in becoming first a corporate executive and later popular politician was "lack of precedent," her statement is ignored while the writer plows on giving a litany of the barriers to the advancement of women in Japan.

Moreover, unlike most of those writing on this issue, I am in daily contact with young Japanese women about to enter the job market. I have these contacts at Japanese universities ranging from the very elite to the definitely not elite. For some years I have also been teaching a course on childcare systems and the work environment for women as seen in comparative perspective. (Comparative in this context is essentially northern Europe. The US has no national public childcare so there is nothing to compare. I teach the course in Japanese to Japanese students.) Although not a proper survey, my daily contacts to give me a sense of what a significant cohort of young Japanese women think about gender equality issues and on the basis I can say with some confidence that most English language writing on the subject is to varying degrees out of touch.

I am, moreover, aware that I am in contact only with young college educated women. Half of the college age cohort does not go to college. I have NEVER seen an English language article that addresses these women and what they want out of gender equality. The typical example in English language writing on gender equality issues in Japan is an elite university graduate with a top level qualification. Their personal issues are not necessarily those of women at large.

Finally, English language writing seems to forget that women in Japan have had the franchise since 1947.
Women have a higher electoral participation rate than men. If they are seriously unhappy with the present situation, they can vote for candidates who promise action. They can become candidates themselves.

While it may be heretical in terms of English language writing on Japan, I would assert that the Japanese in general and Japanese women in particular are fully capable of deciding what is best for them without the advice of foreign writers, particularly the foreign writers who play games with the numbers and the foreign writers who think of Japanese women only in terms of stock brokers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, and the like. From my perspective, the current emphasis on "Women of Japan! Listen up! It is you duty to give birth to more GDP!" is just as much an "objectification" of women as some LDP politician describing women as "baby making machines."

EHK