Issho ni Kurashite ii desu ka? - Vol. 2 Ch. 13 - Are You Trying to Live Like Yourself?

[danvolodar]

It's very obvious this manga is written by a feminist. Dropped

A young man flexing his OPINIONS on a female figure of authority only to have her accept all of his points and scurry away is feminism now? In protection of a female too weak to stand up for herself? Lol.
I mean, sarcasm aside, I guess it's """feminism""" if you consider self-evident statements like "all people are equal" or "if both spouses work the same hours, they should be doing equal amounts of housework" to be shocking feminist points, like they used to be a century ago.

i know that there isn't any evidence strict division of labor between sexes and genders

Other than the vast majority of stone age cultures in existence today, lol.
If examined outside the context of trying to one-up an elder at a dining table, the guy's argument really doesn't hold water - it's literally analogous to claiming it's not mothers who normally braid their little daughters' hair because there exists evidence of fathers doing that, particularly in single-parent households.

 

[MiguelH224]

Yeah, He's not dumb. Pretty intellectual as this chapter showed. This makes the character more relatable

Highly refreshing, I always root for mangas like this

 

[Outflanks10]

Thanks for the translation to everyone that worked on it

 

[Vergift]

Grandma didn't know the guy is technically jobless and, for some reason, become something like a househusband for 5 women in the house. 😂

 

[outinthegardener]

Other than the vast majority of stone age cultures in existence today, lol.
If examined outside the context of trying to one-up an elder at a dining table, the guy's argument really doesn't hold water - it's literally analogous to claiming it's not mothers who normally braid their little daughters' hair because there exists evidence of fathers doing that, particularly in single-parent households.

The key word is "strict." Divisions of labor occur in many ways, not just by gender. (Age, skill, caste, for example). They're influenced by subsistence methods, climate, economic system, culture, etc. Taking the example of Stone Age cultures, it's important not to frame them from the perspective of industrialized cultures. We might assume that if men are warriors and women process food, that means men sit atop their hierarchy. The reality is there is a lot of variety across tribes. Men might be warriors but women might be the chiefs or priests or artists. Or the tribe might assign more value to food processing than to war. Or the warriors might have to do domestic work when not at war.

Much of the critical discussion about divisions of labor is influenced by the hierarchies they exist under; the people with the most accumulated power steer the culture to preserve their power. It's why you get ideas like "The king is chosen by god" or "The richest people are the smartest" or "Black athletes can't quarterback." They tell myths that value themselves.

That said Sonoda makes several arguments. 1) That domestic work was not always "women's work." 2) Tsubasa is good at her job and it would be a waste to make her do domestic labor. 3) That if it makes her unhappy he wouldn't want to force his loved one to quit their job. I think your hair braiding example misunderstood the first argument. He's not claiming that women normally did men's work, he's claiming that it's not a universal rule. That claim only needs a few exceptions to prove, which he provided by referencing pre-war Japan and recent anthropology.

 

[outinthegardener]

Grandma didn't know the guy is technically jobless and, for some reason, become something like a househusband for 5 women in the house. 😂

It's wild that she decided he should be the CEO because he stood up for Tsubasa at dinner, but never checked his qualifications or work history. He'd be a terrible CEO. Grandma's on that dogma.

 

[beefclot]

Probably because by making such an observation, you're actively choosing to drop a series due to the misconception that since the author is a woman, they must be some alt-left feminist, which is not the case here. Having such a narrow mindset usually, but not always, means that you're either an incredibly stubborn individual, the dictionary definition of a bigot or, in your words, a dumbass who probably spends most of their time being an armchair activist in the toxic, barren wasteland known as X (formerly Twitter).

If you don't like a series and want to drop it, be my guest, but remember that this ain't no airport; your departure doesn't need announcing. Not by you, nor anyone else.

Good day to you, Sir/Madam.

Still putting words in my mouth? Your post reads as a holy motherload of projection and insecurity. Go touch grass and seethe, I still dropped the manga.

 

[abdullah17]

Idol arc LET'S GOOO

 

[Darkshade13]

Still putting words in my mouth? Your post reads as a holy motherload of projection and insecurity. Go touch grass and seethe, I still dropped the manga.

So then enlighten us. If you don't want words put in your mouth, what about this manga is so scandalously feminist that you had to drop it now and how does alleging you probably knew that this series was written by a woman and stars a cast of mostly women who mostly don't conform to traditional Japanese societal gender expectations and yet you were somehow blindsided by the fact that it would take a view that isn't dismissive of or patronizing to women to the extent that it took you 13 chapters to decide that its tone and content are what they've been the whole time  not make you look like a dumbass?

 

[Vergift]

It's wild that she decided he should be the CEO because he stood up for Tsubasa at dinner, but never checked his qualifications or work history. He'd be a terrible CEO. Grandma's on that dogma.

Tbf, the guy seems intelligent to me. It just that he didn't have a chance to add his work experience. With some training and some experiences in Tanzawa Corp., he may turn out to be a good CEO.

 

[danvolodar]

Taking the example of Stone Age cultures, it's important not to frame them from the perspective of industrialized cultures. We might assume that if men are warriors and women process food, that means men sit atop their hierarchy.

I don't really think that making a point that women cannot be in positions of authority (say, historically) would fly when arguing against an elderly woman who's clearly the supreme present authority, to begin with, hahaha.

He's not claiming that women normally did men's work, he's claiming that it's not a universal rule. That claim only needs a few exceptions to prove, which he provided by referencing pre-war Japan and recent anthropology.

That's precisely the analogy with hair-braiding: it's normal for mothers to do, but of course there are fathers who also do it, especially single dads. Similarly, in a stone age culture, it is normal for men to hunt, but that is not to mean that women never do, especially those not married or widowed.
That matters, because the grandma's whole argument is based on prescriptive normalcy (which, btw, women tend to value higher than men). Pointing out that exceptions to a norm exist does not contradict it, and even confirms the norm's existence to begin with ("exceptions confirm the rule").
Grandma argues, essentially, that her family members should stick to the norm as it is, not that exceptions to the norm do not exist.

 

[spectralSpices]

"I'm going to kill you at the fan meetup. Bring your cursed blood-sword, bitch."
"Ugh, I have way too many fated rivals...I need to put the protag through a shonen training arc to offload some of them onto him."

 

[BSPancake]

Nooo, just keep the story going with just Tsubasa. Nobody cares about miss pigtails.

 

[outinthegardener]

I don't really think that making a point that women cannot be in positions of authority (say, historically) would fly when arguing against an elderly woman who's clearly the supreme present authority, to begin with, hahaha.

Did I (or Sonoda) say women cannot be in positions of authority?

For sure Grandma is missing the irony. Her position is another cultural hierarchy of Japan that puts Elders above children, to tell her children's children they have to submit to a husband. It's dogmatic and silly.

That's precisely the analogy with hair-braiding: it's normal for mothers to do, but of course there are fathers who also do it, especially single dads. Similarly, in a stone age culture, it is normal for men to hunt, but that is not to mean that women never do, especially those not married or widowed.
That matters, because the grandma's whole argument is based on prescriptive normalcy (which, btw, women tend to value higher than men). Pointing out that exceptions to a norm exist does not contradict it, and even confirms the norm's existence to begin with ("exceptions confirm the rule").
Grandma argues, essentially, that her family members should stick to the norm as it is, not that exceptions to the norm do not exist.

I challenge the premise of "normative" because it's a judgment, not a rule. What makes a certain behavior "normal" is a complex series of decisions and external factors. And what is "normal" is constantly in flux depending on time and place. Why would it be abnormal for a father to braid hair, if he's skilled and able? Does it matter if we judge it normal or not? Will it still be normal in fifty years, or another culture? If 9/10 cultures delegate hair care to women and 1/10 doesn't care if women or men do hair care, from the perspective of the 1/10 the other 9 are the abnormal ones.

This is what the post-structuralist philosophers called "metanarratives." It's a narrative about the narrative. Rather than thinking in terms of a grand narrative that generalizes one perspective onto the subject, they argue it's better to consider the multitude of local narratives. It allows for nuance. Once you start doing that you see assumptions like "stone age men were hunters" is too simple a statement. Which stone age men were hunters? Where and when? What was the ecology like that made hunting the favored subsistence strategy? Did the men also gather berries when they weren't hunting? It's complex!

 

[danvolodar]

Did I (or Sonoda) say women cannot be in positions of authority?

If you pay really close attention to this line of reasoning, you pointed out that it's important not to frame stone age cultures from the perspective of industrialized societies, and not assume that if men are warriors and women process food, that means men sit atop their hierarchy.
To which I notice that this kind of argument from historic precedent wouldn't fly for Sonoda anyway, as a given.

For sure Grandma is missing the irony. Her position is another cultural hierarchy of Japan that puts Elders above children, to tell her children's children they have to submit to a husband. It's dogmatic and silly.

I don't think she's arguing for submitting to a husband per se, more like presenting a normative facade while working behind the scenes to get what you want - which is what she herself has been said to be doing for a while.
It is actually an extremely common strategy that has been proven to work on countless examples, while allowing not to antagonize the wider society - especially one as socially conservative as the Japanese one.

I challenge the premise of "normative" because it's a judgment, not a rule.

Moral norm is as much a rule as any man-made rule not committed to legal paper can be.

What makes a certain behavior "normal" is a complex series of decisions and external factors.

Public consensus makes the norm, there is literally nothing complex about it. It's statistical.

Why would it be abnormal for a father to braid hair, if he's skilled and able? Does it matter if we judge it normal or not? Will it still be normal in fifty years, or another culture? If 9/10 cultures delegate hair care to women and 1/10 doesn't care if women or men do hair care, from the perspective of the 1/10 the other 9 are the abnormal ones.

Grandma's not living in fifty years, nor in another culture, nor in one in ten cultures.
She is living here and now, and she's arguing for sticking to the present norm (as grandmas in general are wont to do).

Once you start doing that you see assumptions like "stone age men were hunters" is too simple a statement. Which stone age men were hunters? Where and when? What was the ecology like that made hunting the favored subsistence strategy? Did the men also gather berries when they weren't hunting? It's complex!

It's not complex, or rather, the complexity is irrelevant. When faced with a general statement such as "the sky is blue", are you also going to counter with "well akshuly what if there are clouds, or what if it's sunset or dawn?!" You're rightly going to be laughed off the stage.
Grandma's position is of course a strawman, so it's only natural for oh-so-progressive banalities to be treated by the manga as revelations. But let's not pretend something like that would fly against someone grandma's presented as being - smart, but stubborn.

 

[beefclot]

So then enlighten us. If you don't want words put in your mouth, what about this manga is so scandalously feminist that you had to drop it now and how does alleging you probably knew that this series was written by a woman and stars a cast of mostly women who mostly don't conform to traditional Japanese societal gender expectations and yet you were somehow blindsided by the fact that it would take a view that isn't dismissive of or patronizing to women to the extent that it took you 13 chapters to decide that its tone and content are what they've been the whole time  not make you look like a dumbass?

You both sound deranged/insane. Take your meds and stop arguing with the voices in your head.

 

[Hexahedron_3BLD]

DomeKano mangaka writing a harem feels very much like pornhwa artists changing from korean sauce genre to harem. Going where the viewership and money is. Not complaining though

Seo Kouji did the same thing, from some of my favourite Drama/Romance mangas to harem. It's not bad per se, neither this manga nor Seo's newest manga, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't miss their previous style of work. I'll still read them both anyway lol

 

[silverpetricof]

Best whiplash ever. Like I'm serious I was laughing so good at the end 😆.

Thank you for the translation (I love this. I always get excited when a new chapter releases).

 

[outinthegardener]

If you pay really close attention to this line of reasoning, you pointed out that it's important not to frame stone age cultures from the perspective of industrialized societies, and not assume that if men are warriors and women process food, that means men sit atop their hierarchy.
To which I notice that this kind of argument from historic precedent wouldn't fly for Sonoda anyway, as a given.

It might not fly because Grandma is a stubborn old goat, not because his argument is wrong.

I don't think she's arguing for submitting to a husband per se, more like presenting a normative facade while working behind the scenes to get what you want - which is what she herself has been said to be doing for a while.
It is actually an extremely common strategy that has been proven to work on countless examples, while allowing not to antagonize the wider society - especially one as socially conservative as the Japanese one.

Commonality is not the same as a "strict rule." And it ignores the specific circumstances where it might not work. In grandmas example, the specific example is class/wealth. Japan had a thriving economy until the 90s, then the bubble burst. They went from a time when mimicking Western chauvinism and supporting a family with one paycheck worked, to a time when many workers could barely support themselves on their paycheck. For those workers, having two working paychecks and sharing chore responsibilities makes more sense.

Moral norm is as much a rule as any man-made rule not committed to legal paper can be.

Read Foucault: Punishment and Discipline- moral norms only exist within extant power structures, and people often violate them when the context allows or encourages it. Unlike like physical rules, moral rules do not exist without a hierarchy to enforce them.

Public consensus makes the norm, there is literally nothing complex about it. It's statistical.

But there are differences when you change the scope of "public." World consensus? Country consensus? Household consensus? You get different answers to what is normal if you don't force the generalized metanarrative.

Grandma's not living in fifty years, nor in another culture, nor in one in ten cultures.
She is living here and now, and she's arguing for sticking to the present norm (as grandmas in general are wont to do).

She has already lived for over fifty years, and her sense of norms has not kept up with the times. She is arguing for her specific worldview to be regarded as the norm, even though for many people it is not the norm. Her justification is her position of authority, not a meaningful description of society.

Every culture is one out of many cultures. And within every culture are many subcultures.

It's not complex, or rather, the complexity is irrelevant. When faced with a general statement such as "the sky is blue", are you also going to counter with "well akshuly what if there are clouds, or what if it's sunset or dawn?!" You're rightly going to be laughed off the stage.
Grandma's position is of course a strawman, so it's only natural for oh-so-progressive banalities to be treated by the manga as revelations. But let's not pretend something like that would fly against someone grandma's presented as being - smart, but stubborn.

Complexity is not irrelevant. Even your "sky is blue" example has real-world implications, because sometimes the sky IS dark or cloudy and it changes our behavior. When the sky is blue and it is sunny you might wear sunglasses, when it's cloudy and raining or nighttime you probably don't wear sunglasses. You would be silly if you told someone to wear sunglasses at night "because the sky is blue."

The point is that even when exceptions imply the norm, the norm also implies the exception. It's Derrida's concept of linguistic heirarchal pairs; "Life" is understood in opposition to "death," and any mention of one contains the other. In your example if when someone responds to "the sky is blue" by pointing out "sometimes it's not" it's only silly because the exceptions are already understood.

 

[danvolodar]

It might not fly because Grandma is a stubborn old goat, not because his argument is wrong.

That's a mighty powerful counterargument to any points she could make, hahaha.

Commonality is not the same as a "strict rule."

And no one has claimed that it is. Still, a strategy being frequently employed attests to it being capable of producing results desirable to its users, or at least to it being the optimal one out of the options on the table for them.

Japan had a thriving economy until the 90s, then the bubble burst. They went from a time when mimicking Western chauvinism and supporting a family with one paycheck worked, to a time when many workers could barely support themselves on their paycheck.

Japan is still a high-income industrially developed society with a high HDI, and thus a target for as much labour migration as they allow (and then some). Birth rates are still high within marriage, which means married households typically make enough to support not only the spouses, but their children as well.

moral norms only exist within extant power structures, and people often violate them when the context allows or encourages it. Unlike like physical rules, moral rules do not exist without a hierarchy to enforce them.

Peer pressure needs no hierarchy or power structures to enforce moral norms, and there are plenty examples in Japanese storytelling of the very extreme forms such pressure can take.

But there are differences when you change the scope of "public." World consensus? Country consensus? Household consensus? You get different answers to what is normal if you don't force the generalized metanarrative.

Moral norms are culture-specific, oy-vey. Grandma's also not arguing norms as narrowly applied within their household, for some reason or other, as if she wants Tsubasa to successfully operate outside it.

She has already lived for over fifty years, and her sense of norms has not kept up with the times. She is arguing for her specific worldview to be regarded as the norm, even though for many people it is not the norm. Her justification is her position of authority, not a meaningful description of society. [...]

She has spent decades being extremely successful within a particular social strata, and it only makes sense for her to know the norms there well. Unlike, needless to say, either Sonoda or, to a lesser degree, Tsubasa.
If you presume she is arguing in good faith - and there is no reason to think she doesn't, given that it's all for her granddaughter's benefit, in the end - what she is doing is sharing her experience of these norms with these less acquainted with them.

Every culture is one out of many cultures. And within every culture are many subcultures.

No, every culture is a thing in itself, so it's absolutely irrelevant for these within it whether its moral norms coincide with those of 90% others, 10% or 0.01%.
As for subcultures - sure, yet see above - if anything, Grandma's much more knowledgeable on how things are done in the circles she wants to bring Tsubasa into.

Complexity is not irrelevant. Even your "sky is blue" example has real-world implications, because sometimes the sky IS dark or cloudy and it changes our behavior. When the sky is blue and it is sunny you might wear sunglasses, when it's cloudy and raining or nighttime you probably don't wear sunglasses. You would be silly if you told someone to wear sunglasses at night "because the sky is blue."

Well, as promised: "Get off the stage, boo".
Not only is this "akshuly"-argument nitpicking (and thus serves as a demonstration of the faults of the original argumentation, trying to disprove a large-scale generalization with singular exceptions), it is also based on a faulty assumption ("sunglasses are worn or not worn because the sky is blue or not" - were the sky coloured green, purple or plaid, you'd just as well wear sunglasses wherever the sun was shining brightly on it).

It's Derrida's concept of linguistic heirarchal pairs; "Life" is understood in opposition to "death," and any mention of one contains the other.

Typical humanities pseudointellectualism, made up of unverifiable and unfalsifiable fantasies. No further comment on this.