The Japan Association of Gender Law (JAGL) hosted an academic conference in snowy Sendai on December 3 and 4, 2005. This is the third year for the association, which was founded in 2003 with the aim of providing a bridge between practicing members and researchers in the law community. This year, people from diverse fields - law researchers, lawyers, judicial scriveners, researchers of social science or judicial social science, and NGO workers - who share a common interest in issues of gender and law, gathered together in Tohoku (northern Japan) to engage in various sessions of heated discussion. I have participated in this conference from the start as a member of The Gender Law Network, a national network of students of gender and law. This year, I was particularly interested in individual reports on the second day by two young researchers whose approaches were exciting both in theory and in practice. Yet I also felt that the two days of the conference raised a number of issues to be addressed in terms of bridging the gap between practitioners and researchers in the academic sphere.
02. From Japan: March 2006 Archives
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.
More than fifteen years after the publication of Gender Trouble, Professor Judith Butler finally landed in Japan. While the Japanese audience was interested to find out how Professor Butler, as the author of the book, was going to talk about the world today and about her latest field of interests, it was our task as the audience to figure out what we, living in our time and place, could learn from her.
Maison de Himiko is the second film created through the collaboration of the director Isshin Inudo and the scriptwriter Aya Watanabe. Following the success of their first film, Josee, the Tiger and the Fish, which focused on the sexuality of the handicapped, Maison de Himiko revolves around the theme of ‘homosexuals and family’.
"Gender free" has become a target term for bashing in political and educational fields in Japanese society. The term is a Japanese coined one for the idea of "setting oneself free of socially imposed gender structure". The term attracted controversy in sex education discourse. In classroom activities, "gender free" is widely used, but the opposition group has raised the argument that education based on the discourse of "gender free" is too radical and destructive of traditional values. In 2005, senior political figures such as Ms Eriko Yamatani, LDP Upper House Member, and Mr Hosoda, the then chief Cabinet secretary and the Minister for gender equality made comments: Mr Hosoda stated that "the government does not use" nor "term its social significance" of "gender free" in the context of "reforming" the social implementation of gendered views, and the use of "gender free" is "undesirable in this context". Interestingly, the limited nature of Mr Hosoda's disapproval is ignored by the opposition group. This is the general context for the present pressure on the use of "gender free" and its retrospective influence on the argument surrounding the Basic Act for Gender Equality.
n recent years there have been many voices raised in opposition to gender-free education. In this paper I discuss some of my own concerns regarding the claims of gender-free education which have been criticized by the backlash groups.
The gender-free argument that certain traditional rites such as Girls Day and Boys Day impose standards of femininity and masculinity have conversely been criticized for introducing a new standard of "correctness." Although I agree with this criticism, I also think that there is a fundamental problem with the actual structure of the argument itself and the idea that arguments must begin with a "reason" or "rationale".
Firstly, if one must always begin with a rationale, does this lower the value of statements without a rationale? Secondly, beginning with a rationale can often shift or narrow the scope of the argument. If the persuasive power of the rationale is suspect, is it not only the rationale which loses effect but also statements which are made without a rationale? If so, will I be unable to speak out? Finally, can one stir people's hearts by simply lining up rationales?
ICU Graduate School : Naomi SUZUKI