On June 14, 2005, Upper House member Eriko Yamatani gave a lecture at Mitaka Marketing Plaza Assembly Hall. As well as being a member of the House of Councilors, Yamatani is also Vice-chairperson of the Gender Equality Promotion Council and a mother of 2 sons and a daughter. Her lecture, entitled "Redressing the Hidden Problems of 'Gender Equality'", was indeed a classic example of backlash in both content and form.
By the time I arrived at the hall, already over half of the 100 seats were filled. There was an equal ratio of men to women and the majority of the audience was middle aged or older, although there were several younger people as well. The hall appeared to be on tight guard with professional-looking staff members equipped with intercoms positioned in each corner of the room.
The lecture began with about half an hour of short introductions by honorary guests from the Municipal Assembly, the Metropolitan Assembly, and universities. Their speeches focused on how 'gender equality' has mistakenly pervaded the world as well as Yamatani's career achievements. This was followed by two films, showing Yamatani cross-examining Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and the Minister of Education, Culture, Science, and Technology, Nariaki Nakayama concerning 'overly explicit sexual education'. Yamatani's confident image on the widescreen projector made a powerful impression on the audience.
When the films were over, Yamatani finally appeared in person in front of the awaiting audience. She appealed directly to the audience's emotions and her speech was based on examples of 'specific incidents' in order to illuminate the fundamental problems of 'gender equality'. One such example was that of an elementary school that had girls and boys sleep in the same room when on a class trip. Many were shocked at this episode, and nodded in agreement to Yamatani's opinion that this was 'gender equality' taken to an extreme. However, there was no explanation as to when or where these 'specific incidents' took place or how they were investigated. No such details were included in the handouts either, so there was no way to verify the authenticity of the so-called specific examples.
Moreover, much of the speech did not directly relate to the issue of gender equality. These included political concerns dealing with religious education in Japan, Japan-China relations, and the Self-Defence Force dispatchment to Iraq, as well as Yamatani's personal anecdotes about her husband's death, and so forth.
Yamatani closed her speech and was given a bouquet for her participation. Without any time for question or comments, the lecture moved on to a vote through which the following 3 choices were made:
"Reject 'gender free' to stop the destruction of family ties and to protect our children fro misery!"
"Rebut 'explicit sexual education' to stop the spread of AIDS and teenage abortions!"
"Restore 'Fundamental Law' to create a world where we and our partners may live as who we are!"
The phrases "Reject", "Rebut", "Restore" were chanted throughout the hall.
As mentioned above, Yamatani lacked verifiable evidence of the "specific examples" given in her speech, but more so the structure of the lecture itself seemed problematic. The inviting of important guests and the screening of her admirable activities on film all contributed to emphasize her authority which served as a justification of her words. The speech following the films presented only one side of the issue and grasped the audience's hearts by the language used. Finally, the excitement and sense of unity in the hall was consolidated by the chanting of a slogan together. Instead of taking an objective stance, the lecture made full use of propaganda techniques.
Why did this lecture become such propaganda? Why is it that male and female, both young and old, were moved, and in the end, nodded in agreement, chanting the slogans all together?
For 'ordinary' people who have so far lived their lives prioritizing their children and family, the concept of 'gender' radically transforms the world in which they have comfortably lived. As 'gender' states that we are victims of society, does this not negate the way we have lived our lives so far? Yamatani's lecture plays on such emotional unrest and insecurity.
The concept of 'gender' does indeed destroy and revolutionize the sense of values we held until now. However, contrary to the claims of the backlash faction, the intention is not to "destroy family ties and subject children to misery", nor is it to promote overly-explicit sexual education to "rapidly increase AIDS and teenage abortions". The objective of 'gender' is to illuminate problems concerning concepts such as 'the family' or 'male and female', to re-examine the significance of such established frameworks, and to realize a society which respects and celebrates the uniqueness of each individual. Indeed, this model of a new society is what the government should look towards as well. As gender researchers today, we must all strive to resolve the misunderstanding that gender negates the way one has lived until now and to ease people's anxieties which are being fanned by the backlash faction.
CGS Editorial Committee